The Church is obliged to teach the truth of Christ and the principles of morality which spring from human nature and natural law. Conscience is obliged to accept and recognize these teachings and apply them in judging the rightness or wrongness of a particular choice to be made.
This has been and remains the consistent moral teaching of the Church that has been affirmed repeatedly by what the Church has taught about conscience at the highest level of magisterial authority.
As regards Amoris Laetitia, it is my belief that the Exhortation fails to adequately elucidate the role of conscience in the pastoral practice it encourages to allow sexually active divorced and remarried Catholics to receive the Sacraments. Those who oppose the Exhortation almost completely ignore the respect which must be paid to a judgment of conscience once made.
The Exhortation speaks, much too vaguely in my opinion, of a process of “pastoral accompaniment” which Pastors of souls must undertake in assisting Catholic couples in irregular marriages in the desire to be readmitted to sacramental practice.
The vagueness of this process is one of the greatest weaknesses of Amoris Laetitia. For the Exhortation needs to make very clear that such an accompaniment can rightly take place only when the Pastor assists in providing the couple with the true teachings of the Church regarding the indissoluble bond which is establish by valid sacramental marriage.
The Pastor is only permitted to provide the couple with what may be lacking in their understanding of what the Church teaches about the sacrament of marriage as well any questions they may have regarding what constitutes the essence of a valid sacramental bond.
In the process of accompaniment, it can never be the role of the Pastor to decide for the couple. Neither must the Pastor affirm or reject the decision which the couple make based upon the judgment of conscience they come to as a result of that accompaniment.
Should the Pastor make a decision or affirm or reject the couple's decision, he would violate the first principle regarding the Church’s teaching about conscience, that is, that conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary, where he or she is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.
The Exhortation, I believe, fails to adequately elucidate this critical distinction: the Pastor assists the couple, but the couple decides. In this way, neither the Pastor nor the Church which he represents violates the cathedral of the conscience whose decisions belong to the very essence of one's relationship with God.
I believe that, if the Exhortation is understood and explained in light of this most crucial distinction, the document and pastoral policies flowing from it would stand the test of any critical theological analysis.
On the other hand, those who oppose the Exhortation fail completely to even consider the most fundamental and consistent teaching of the Church regarding the sacrosanct and inviolable role which conscience plays as one makes judgments in the sight of the God.
The authors of the dubia and those who join with them seek to place the Church between God and the individual human conscience and play both judge and jury, pronouncing sentences of guilt and administering sacramental punishment for those who judgments of conscience do not rigidly conform to the teachings of the Church.
Not only do they take upon themselves a competence which rightfully belongs only to God Himself, but they do so with a hardheartedness which completely obscures Christ’s message of compassion and forgiveness so beautifully manifested and wondrously bestowed upon all humanity in His Sacrifice of the Cross for all sinners.
One noted canonist among the group of dissenters who have penned the dubia speaks repeatedly of denying the Blessed Sacrament to those who publicly persist in matters of grave sinfulness, often quoting Canon 915 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
Yet he never explains how the Church can be assured, in a real and practical way, that any recipient of the Blessed Sacrament is properly disposed and not in a situation which would preclude an efficacious reception of Holy Communion.
I ask this question of him and his associates: how can he, they, you or I ever know if a another human being person is publicly persisting in a matter of grave sinfulness? In other words, who gives us the ability or authority to judge that another person is in or out of the state of grace?
As far as the administration of the Holy Communion is concerned, how can the Church's minister know whether or not a person may have repented? How can the minister know whether or not a person has renounced a former sinful way of life? How can the minister know whether the divorced and remarried Catholic in the Communion Line hasn't committed to a life of continence, sought and received sacramental absolution?
Again, how is the Church's minister of Communion to know if any recipient of the Blessed Sacrament is properly disposed?
Must the minister publicly ask each person the last time he or she received sacramental absolution before offering that person the Host? Is the minister to publicly ask a recipient (in the Communion line) whether he or she is subject to any law or circumstance which would preclude him or her from efficaciously receiving the Lord's Body and Blood?
So what do the dissenters mean, in a real and practical way, when they insist that the Church deny the Sacraments to those who obstinately remain in sin?
The opponents of Amoris Laetitia not only take upon themselves judgments reserved to God alone; but, for all their bravado, have offer no real and practical solutions to the objections they raise.
Like the stiff-necked lawyers of the Old Covenant, theirs is an exercise of the self-justification, affirming their opinions and judgments over the real flesh and blood needs of their fellowmen and women.
Ironically, the Law itself, which the dissenters would use to support their claims, dismisses their arguments from the very outset.
Canon Law is established and based upon certain fundamental presumptions which make the ordering of society and relationships within society possible.
Like all law civil or ecclesiastical, Canon Law fundamentally presumes that a person's internal disposition is in conformity with his or her external words, signs or gestures.
Without this presumption, society itself, whether ecclesiastical or civil, would cease to function.
As an example, criminal law presumes that, if a person violates a particular precept or ordinance, the person intended to do so and can therefore be legally charged. Whether or not the person is guilty of the infraction must be proven and the charge of crime be vindicated or discharged by due process of the law itself.
As regards civil matters, the law presumes that parties to contracts signed or otherwise agreed to intend to bind themselves to the terms of the contract, unless contrary evidence is brought forward to overturn that presumption. If so, the contract becomes void but, until such time, the presumption binds both parties.
Canon law makes the same presumption. Canon 1101, 1 is a perfect example. The precept states the presumption almost verbatim: "The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage."
Every society operates on the basis of this fundamental presumption: our external actions conform to our internal intentions. People are presumed to mean what they say or promise or agree to do.
Is not, then, the Church's minister bound to observe this same presumption in the case of Holy Communion?
The answer is, of course, that the Church's minister must presume that those who come forward to receive the Blessed Sacrament do so properly disposed and in a state of good conscience.
Whether or not the person who receives the Sacred Host does so worthily and efficaciously is a judgment made and, I dare say, reserved to God alone.
Unfortunately, the dissenters of Amoris Laetitia either have forgotten or purposely chosen to ignore this most important principle of law. They condemn themselves in not acknowledging that no one is free to violate one law in defense of another law.
And I sincerely remind those, who oppose Amoris Laetitia by appealing to the dictates of moral law, are not free to violate the most fundamental of all moral laws which proclaims that the conscience of a person is inviolate to the scrutiny and judgment of any other than God Himself.
The Church may judge the act but never one's interior state of soul, an axiom which the detractors of Amoris Laetitia have much too conveniently forgotten or ignored.
Some concluding personal thoughts in Part Six tomorrow.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Monday, January 30, 2017
AMORIS LAETITIA: SOME PERSONAL REFLECTIONS: PART FOUR
In the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), the Council Fathers of Vatican II define conscience "as man's most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths. By conscience, in a wonderful way, that law is made known which is fulfilled in the love of God and one's neighbor" (16).
The Council adds, "Through loyalty to conscience, Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems that arise both in the life of individuals and from social relationships. Hence, the more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by the objective standards of moral conduct". (16)
In yet another document, the Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), the Vatican Council II teaches that "It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity, so that he may come to God, who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters" (3).
The document states further: ". . . (I)n forming their consciences, the faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of truth. It is her duty to proclaim and teach with authority the truth which is Christ and, at the same time, to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature" (14).
And so, any discussion of moral principles and the assignment of culpability must always reference the Church’s obligation to assist in the formation of conscience all the while understanding its proper role and always mindful of the respect which must be paid to the judgments it makes.
The Church is obliged to teach the truth of Christ and the principles of morality which spring from human nature and natural law. Conscience is obliged to accept and recognize these teachings and apply them in judging the rightness or wrongness of a particular choice to be made.
This has been and remains the consistent moral teaching of the Church that has been affirmed repeatedly by what the Church has taught about conscience at the highest level of magisterial authority.
I suggest that Reader pause to read and re-read this post as it is essential to the considerations and reflections which will follow. For that reason, I have made this particular post so very brief.
We shall consider the implications of these principles in Part Five tomorrow.
The Council adds, "Through loyalty to conscience, Christians are joined to other men in the search for truth and for the right solution to so many moral problems that arise both in the life of individuals and from social relationships. Hence, the more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by the objective standards of moral conduct". (16)
In yet another document, the Declaration on Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), the Vatican Council II teaches that "It is through his conscience that man sees and recognizes the demands of the divine law. He is bound to follow this conscience faithfully in all his activity, so that he may come to God, who is his last end. Therefore he must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters" (3).
The document states further: ". . . (I)n forming their consciences, the faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of truth. It is her duty to proclaim and teach with authority the truth which is Christ and, at the same time, to declare and confirm by her authority the principles of the moral order which spring from human nature" (14).
And so, any discussion of moral principles and the assignment of culpability must always reference the Church’s obligation to assist in the formation of conscience all the while understanding its proper role and always mindful of the respect which must be paid to the judgments it makes.
The Church is obliged to teach the truth of Christ and the principles of morality which spring from human nature and natural law. Conscience is obliged to accept and recognize these teachings and apply them in judging the rightness or wrongness of a particular choice to be made.
This has been and remains the consistent moral teaching of the Church that has been affirmed repeatedly by what the Church has taught about conscience at the highest level of magisterial authority.
I suggest that Reader pause to read and re-read this post as it is essential to the considerations and reflections which will follow. For that reason, I have made this particular post so very brief.
We shall consider the implications of these principles in Part Five tomorrow.
Saturday, January 28, 2017
AMORIS LAETITIA: SOME PERSONAL REFLECTIONS -- PART THREE
Pope Francis and the authors of AL, I believe, sincerely wish to re-affirm the Church’s traditional teaching regarding the sacramental indissolubility of marriage, while providing a way of assisting those whose marriages have failed to find a welcome place at the Lord’s Banquet.
On the other hand, there are those who say that readmitting sexually active divorced and remarried Catholics to the Sacraments somehow contradicts the Church’s orthodoxy regarding that dogma of the permanence and indissolubility of the marital bond which they sincerely believe they must uphold and defend.
The crux of the dispute is this: how does one affirm the truth of Church teaching regarding the indissoluble bond of sacramental marriage yet judge that that it does not apply in his or her particular situation.
And so, at the very heart of Amoris Laetitia, we find the role of conscience, that judgment of reason which applies moral truths to particular circumstances.
It appears that AL is advancing a pastoral practice (readmittance to the Sacraments) based on a judgment of conscience that, in this particular marital situation, the universal moral norms of the Church do not apply. In essence, it appears that Pope Francis has advanced an argument of moral relativism which permits conscience to justify a subjective morality.
On the other hand, the authors of the dubia have asked whether or not such Papal teaching is a contradiction of Church teaching which has held that “conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts”. If so, then AL’s affirmation of subjective morality applies to the entirety of Catholic moral teaching, not just to marriage alone.
Defenders of AL argue that the Exhortation adopts a “new attitude” on the part of the Church toward those who sexually active in irregular second marriages, an attitude which focuses on the needs of the couple rather than upholding moral norms which protect the institutional Church’s teaching and practice from error.
Yet, the question put forth in the dubia remains: does this “new atttitude" apply to Catholic moral teaching beyond situations involving marriage?
For the moment (at the time of the writing of this post at least), the question remain unresolved: how can conscience apply in one area of moral life (marriage) differently than it applies in other areas of moral life?
Permit me (with an arrogance which I am sure tests the Charity of Christ Himself) to suggest that there is a way out of this impasse. That way is found in a re-examination of Church teaching regarding the faculty of the human conscience itself.
Let us, then, consider what the Church has taught about conscience at the highest level of magisterial authority, that is, in the pronouncements of the Ecumenical Council of Vatican II.
More in Part Four tomorrow.
On the other hand, there are those who say that readmitting sexually active divorced and remarried Catholics to the Sacraments somehow contradicts the Church’s orthodoxy regarding that dogma of the permanence and indissolubility of the marital bond which they sincerely believe they must uphold and defend.
The crux of the dispute is this: how does one affirm the truth of Church teaching regarding the indissoluble bond of sacramental marriage yet judge that that it does not apply in his or her particular situation.
And so, at the very heart of Amoris Laetitia, we find the role of conscience, that judgment of reason which applies moral truths to particular circumstances.
It appears that AL is advancing a pastoral practice (readmittance to the Sacraments) based on a judgment of conscience that, in this particular marital situation, the universal moral norms of the Church do not apply. In essence, it appears that Pope Francis has advanced an argument of moral relativism which permits conscience to justify a subjective morality.
On the other hand, the authors of the dubia have asked whether or not such Papal teaching is a contradiction of Church teaching which has held that “conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts”. If so, then AL’s affirmation of subjective morality applies to the entirety of Catholic moral teaching, not just to marriage alone.
Defenders of AL argue that the Exhortation adopts a “new attitude” on the part of the Church toward those who sexually active in irregular second marriages, an attitude which focuses on the needs of the couple rather than upholding moral norms which protect the institutional Church’s teaching and practice from error.
Yet, the question put forth in the dubia remains: does this “new atttitude" apply to Catholic moral teaching beyond situations involving marriage?
For the moment (at the time of the writing of this post at least), the question remain unresolved: how can conscience apply in one area of moral life (marriage) differently than it applies in other areas of moral life?
Permit me (with an arrogance which I am sure tests the Charity of Christ Himself) to suggest that there is a way out of this impasse. That way is found in a re-examination of Church teaching regarding the faculty of the human conscience itself.
Let us, then, consider what the Church has taught about conscience at the highest level of magisterial authority, that is, in the pronouncements of the Ecumenical Council of Vatican II.
More in Part Four tomorrow.
AMORIS LAETITIA: SOME PERSONAL REFLECTIONS -- PART TWO
The Church, unlike other secular societies, has been divinely instituted by Christ to assist the human family in the journey from this life to the next.
It is the mission of the Church to enlighten the minds of the faithful followers of Christ with the wisdom which is found in His Living Word, the Sacred Scriptures, and the consequences of those divine truths which the Church illuminates by way of its magisterial authority.
The Sacraments have been bestowed upon the Church to provide the faithful with nourishment, comfort and encouragement as they traverse “this veil of tears” to the blessings of Eternal Life.
In fulfillment of its mission, the Church exercises authority over the internal and moral lives of its members. In service to its supernatural responsibilities, the Church declares that there are certain objective truths which are absolute and which bind, by the authority of Christ Himself, both the mind and wills of mankind.
And so, among the primary functions of Church authority is the duty to teach and govern those who entrust themselves to its spiritual care. Ecclesiastical authority exists to serve as teacher and guide.
But the Church has no authority to act as judge of the interior state of the souls of the faithful committed to it.
This is a fundamental truth which seemingly has been overlooked both by Pope Francis and the authors of Amoris Laetitia as well as by those who have so irresponsibly and scandalously attacked it.
Indeed, the Church has the divine mandate to teach those truths which have been divinely revealed and those which have been adduced from the dictates of the natural law and those pronounced by the magisterial authority of the Church itself. Likewise, the Church has the responsibility of developing norms and disciplines which support the truth it espouses. This task is no easy matter.
The doctrinal and moral beliefs of the Church must always be the foundation of her discipline. Beliefs not expressed in law would be powerless. But laws not based upon belief would be meaningless.
And because this most fundamental relationship between the teaching authority and the governing authority of the Church has been overlooked, the detractors of AL have failed in fulfillment of their duty as pastors of souls.
The authority of the Church to govern does not authorize pronouncements on matters of Church doctrine. This is a critical point which the authors of the five dubia clearly forgotten. Those in positions of authority must be vigilant lest they forget themselves and, in the process, abuse that authority.
Those disciplines and precepts promulgated by the Church are right and proper only when they are directed to the service of God’s People, not when they are used to coerce or inflict undue harm or punishment upon them.
Now, in any society of persons, conflicts will arise which put people in conflict with each other or with society itself. This happens within the Church as well as the secular state. In such cases, the disciplinary authority of the Church can advise (yet never decide for) the parties about their respective rights and obligations.
The teaching and governing authority of the Church must always be understood to be defined in accord with the nature of the Church, as mandated by Christ, to be His continuing and redemptive Presence in the world, to be His Heart and His Hands outstretched to embrace a wounded and suffering humanity, to light the darkness of life’s path with the Light of His Word, to be the Forgiving Father of so many prodigal sons and daughters.
I am willing to give both sides of the present dispute regarding Amoris Laetitia the benefit of the doubt.
Pope Francis and the authors of AL, I believe, sincerely wish to re-affirm the Church’s traditional teaching regarding the sacramentality and indissolubility of marriage, while providing a way of assisting those whose marriages have failed to find a welcome place at the Lord’s Banquet.
On the other hand, there are those who say that readmitting sexually active divorced and remarried Catholics to the Sacraments somehow contradicts the Church’s orthodoxy regarding that dogma of the permanence and indissolubility of the marital bond which they sincerely believe they must uphold and defend.
Who is right? Who’s wrong? Are Pope Francis and the authors of AL all heretical? Are the authors of the dubia and more conservative Catholics all schismatics?
Is there a fundamental principle missing on both sides that could resolve the impasse? I believe there very well may be.
More in Part Three tomorrow.
It is the mission of the Church to enlighten the minds of the faithful followers of Christ with the wisdom which is found in His Living Word, the Sacred Scriptures, and the consequences of those divine truths which the Church illuminates by way of its magisterial authority.
The Sacraments have been bestowed upon the Church to provide the faithful with nourishment, comfort and encouragement as they traverse “this veil of tears” to the blessings of Eternal Life.
In fulfillment of its mission, the Church exercises authority over the internal and moral lives of its members. In service to its supernatural responsibilities, the Church declares that there are certain objective truths which are absolute and which bind, by the authority of Christ Himself, both the mind and wills of mankind.
And so, among the primary functions of Church authority is the duty to teach and govern those who entrust themselves to its spiritual care. Ecclesiastical authority exists to serve as teacher and guide.
But the Church has no authority to act as judge of the interior state of the souls of the faithful committed to it.
This is a fundamental truth which seemingly has been overlooked both by Pope Francis and the authors of Amoris Laetitia as well as by those who have so irresponsibly and scandalously attacked it.
Indeed, the Church has the divine mandate to teach those truths which have been divinely revealed and those which have been adduced from the dictates of the natural law and those pronounced by the magisterial authority of the Church itself. Likewise, the Church has the responsibility of developing norms and disciplines which support the truth it espouses. This task is no easy matter.
The doctrinal and moral beliefs of the Church must always be the foundation of her discipline. Beliefs not expressed in law would be powerless. But laws not based upon belief would be meaningless.
And because this most fundamental relationship between the teaching authority and the governing authority of the Church has been overlooked, the detractors of AL have failed in fulfillment of their duty as pastors of souls.
The authority of the Church to govern does not authorize pronouncements on matters of Church doctrine. This is a critical point which the authors of the five dubia clearly forgotten. Those in positions of authority must be vigilant lest they forget themselves and, in the process, abuse that authority.
Those disciplines and precepts promulgated by the Church are right and proper only when they are directed to the service of God’s People, not when they are used to coerce or inflict undue harm or punishment upon them.
Now, in any society of persons, conflicts will arise which put people in conflict with each other or with society itself. This happens within the Church as well as the secular state. In such cases, the disciplinary authority of the Church can advise (yet never decide for) the parties about their respective rights and obligations.
The teaching and governing authority of the Church must always be understood to be defined in accord with the nature of the Church, as mandated by Christ, to be His continuing and redemptive Presence in the world, to be His Heart and His Hands outstretched to embrace a wounded and suffering humanity, to light the darkness of life’s path with the Light of His Word, to be the Forgiving Father of so many prodigal sons and daughters.
I am willing to give both sides of the present dispute regarding Amoris Laetitia the benefit of the doubt.
Pope Francis and the authors of AL, I believe, sincerely wish to re-affirm the Church’s traditional teaching regarding the sacramentality and indissolubility of marriage, while providing a way of assisting those whose marriages have failed to find a welcome place at the Lord’s Banquet.
On the other hand, there are those who say that readmitting sexually active divorced and remarried Catholics to the Sacraments somehow contradicts the Church’s orthodoxy regarding that dogma of the permanence and indissolubility of the marital bond which they sincerely believe they must uphold and defend.
Who is right? Who’s wrong? Are Pope Francis and the authors of AL all heretical? Are the authors of the dubia and more conservative Catholics all schismatics?
Is there a fundamental principle missing on both sides that could resolve the impasse? I believe there very well may be.
More in Part Three tomorrow.
Friday, January 27, 2017
AMORIS LAETITIA: SOME PERSONAL REFLECTIONS -- PART ONE
Among the memorabilia that I have collected and treasured over the years is a simple plaque which hangs on the wall in my office and proclaims: “If you can’t convince them, confuse them”.
How often I have witnessed this strategy employed in conferences and meetings at which I have been forced to listen endlessly to some self-espoused expert spouting gibberish under the guise of sharing the wisdom of the ages.
The plain fact is that, most of the time, what should be a simple communication of facts and conclusions is obfuscated in a mountain of verbiage (either oral or written) that no one understands.
I have further discovered that there is a direct proportion between the amount of pretentious vocabulary and the vagueness or meaninglessness of what is being said. The longer the talk, the more pages of presentation, the more nonsense it contains.
On an opposite wall in my office is an equally unpretentious plague which reads: “Be brief. Be concise. Be seated.” In other words, make your point simply and clearly and then be quiet so your listener or audience can reflect upon what you have said.
I say this as a preamble to the following personal thoughts after extensive reading and study of the recent post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love).
Dated 19 March 2016, it was released on 8 April 2016. It follows the two Synods on the Family held in 2014 and 2015.
The text of Amoris Laetitia (AL) runs about 250 pages with nearly 400 footnotes. Its Introduction and 9 Chapters comprise 325 numbered paragraphs. Quotations are drawn from the writings of earlier Popes, documents of the Second Vatican Council and regional episcopal conferences, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
It includes what is thought to be the first reference to a film in a Papal document, namely Babette's Feast. There are also references to works by Jorge Luis Borges, Octavio Paz, Antonin Sertillanges, Gabriel Marcel, and Mario Benedetti.
On this evidence alone, it is probably safe to presume that the document contains a lot of gibberish. A careful reading of its contents proves that this is indeed the case.
This is not to say that AL is not without merit or significance. I only wish Pope Francis and the Synod Fathers could have reduced the teaching into several easily understood paragraphs which would have captivated the imagination of Catholics about the beauty and wonder of marital love as well as the joys and challenges of family life.
The average Catholic in the pew will never read AL precisely because it is too long and too complicated. And so, the very object of the Synod, that is, to offer an inspiring message about regarding marriage and the family is thwarted by the document the Synod produced. What a shame!
I would have preferred that those who wished for the Church to say something inspiring about marriage and family would have done just that, simply and clearly.
Instead, tucked between the pages and footnotes of esoteric theological blathering and psychological jargon, one finds some vague footnote or two purporting to provide a pastoral solution for the readmission of sexually active divorced and remarried Catholics to the Sacraments.
And so, a few footnotes have become the major story surrounding the Exhortation. A few footnotes which have set off a firestorm of controversy and criticism. What a pity!
Nor are the reams of raucous negative reactions to AL without their share of confusing and contentious language. Late last year, in a shocking display of insubordination toward Papal authority, a handful of Cardinals published a scathing attack against AL in the form of five narrowly constructed questions or dubia.
Prepared by four Cardinals who make the Pharisees’ questioning of Jesus look meek and tame, the dubia are little else than a trap laid by ultra-conservative factions within the Curia to embarrass and ensnare Francis in a panoply of contradictions and errors.
And, of course, the usual voices of self-proclaimed defenders of the Faith likewise have found it advantageous and opportune to come forward, joined in a lockstep effort to protect the Church from the pitfalls and errors being perpetrated against it by a Modernist Pope and his cronies.
Cleverly, the Pope has decided to imitate the example of Christ when challenged by the Scribes and Pharisees of His time: Francis has simply ignored them.
Unfortunately, however, the Church finds itself immersed in a mess of moral chaos and pastoral confusion.
It certainly seems that clarity and simplicity of teaching was not the foremost motive or virtue to have inspired the work of the Synod.
But what can we expect when those entrusted with the sacred teaching authority of the Church in matters of Faith and Morals resort to the likes of Marcel and Benedetti, or search for wisdom within the cinematic frames of Babette’s Feast? Has this gibberish replaced the consistent truth contained and derived from the Church's Deposit of Faith: the Scriptures and constant teaching of the Magisterium on matters of Faith and Morals?
Likewise, those who have attacked the document and publicly challenged the dignity of Papal teaching authority are not without their share of fault as well.
They would have us believe that the Gospel of Christ is reducible to a list of moral and canonical absolutes with vile consequences if violated. They place burden upon burden on the shoulders of God's People without lifting a finger to help them....something Biblical about that for sure!
Is there anything redeemable about AL or even in the questions raised about the document?
More about this in Part Two tomorrow.
How often I have witnessed this strategy employed in conferences and meetings at which I have been forced to listen endlessly to some self-espoused expert spouting gibberish under the guise of sharing the wisdom of the ages.
The plain fact is that, most of the time, what should be a simple communication of facts and conclusions is obfuscated in a mountain of verbiage (either oral or written) that no one understands.
I have further discovered that there is a direct proportion between the amount of pretentious vocabulary and the vagueness or meaninglessness of what is being said. The longer the talk, the more pages of presentation, the more nonsense it contains.
On an opposite wall in my office is an equally unpretentious plague which reads: “Be brief. Be concise. Be seated.” In other words, make your point simply and clearly and then be quiet so your listener or audience can reflect upon what you have said.
I say this as a preamble to the following personal thoughts after extensive reading and study of the recent post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love).
Dated 19 March 2016, it was released on 8 April 2016. It follows the two Synods on the Family held in 2014 and 2015.
The text of Amoris Laetitia (AL) runs about 250 pages with nearly 400 footnotes. Its Introduction and 9 Chapters comprise 325 numbered paragraphs. Quotations are drawn from the writings of earlier Popes, documents of the Second Vatican Council and regional episcopal conferences, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther King, Jr.
It includes what is thought to be the first reference to a film in a Papal document, namely Babette's Feast. There are also references to works by Jorge Luis Borges, Octavio Paz, Antonin Sertillanges, Gabriel Marcel, and Mario Benedetti.
On this evidence alone, it is probably safe to presume that the document contains a lot of gibberish. A careful reading of its contents proves that this is indeed the case.
This is not to say that AL is not without merit or significance. I only wish Pope Francis and the Synod Fathers could have reduced the teaching into several easily understood paragraphs which would have captivated the imagination of Catholics about the beauty and wonder of marital love as well as the joys and challenges of family life.
The average Catholic in the pew will never read AL precisely because it is too long and too complicated. And so, the very object of the Synod, that is, to offer an inspiring message about regarding marriage and the family is thwarted by the document the Synod produced. What a shame!
I would have preferred that those who wished for the Church to say something inspiring about marriage and family would have done just that, simply and clearly.
Instead, tucked between the pages and footnotes of esoteric theological blathering and psychological jargon, one finds some vague footnote or two purporting to provide a pastoral solution for the readmission of sexually active divorced and remarried Catholics to the Sacraments.
And so, a few footnotes have become the major story surrounding the Exhortation. A few footnotes which have set off a firestorm of controversy and criticism. What a pity!
Nor are the reams of raucous negative reactions to AL without their share of confusing and contentious language. Late last year, in a shocking display of insubordination toward Papal authority, a handful of Cardinals published a scathing attack against AL in the form of five narrowly constructed questions or dubia.
Prepared by four Cardinals who make the Pharisees’ questioning of Jesus look meek and tame, the dubia are little else than a trap laid by ultra-conservative factions within the Curia to embarrass and ensnare Francis in a panoply of contradictions and errors.
And, of course, the usual voices of self-proclaimed defenders of the Faith likewise have found it advantageous and opportune to come forward, joined in a lockstep effort to protect the Church from the pitfalls and errors being perpetrated against it by a Modernist Pope and his cronies.
Cleverly, the Pope has decided to imitate the example of Christ when challenged by the Scribes and Pharisees of His time: Francis has simply ignored them.
Unfortunately, however, the Church finds itself immersed in a mess of moral chaos and pastoral confusion.
It certainly seems that clarity and simplicity of teaching was not the foremost motive or virtue to have inspired the work of the Synod.
But what can we expect when those entrusted with the sacred teaching authority of the Church in matters of Faith and Morals resort to the likes of Marcel and Benedetti, or search for wisdom within the cinematic frames of Babette’s Feast? Has this gibberish replaced the consistent truth contained and derived from the Church's Deposit of Faith: the Scriptures and constant teaching of the Magisterium on matters of Faith and Morals?
Likewise, those who have attacked the document and publicly challenged the dignity of Papal teaching authority are not without their share of fault as well.
They would have us believe that the Gospel of Christ is reducible to a list of moral and canonical absolutes with vile consequences if violated. They place burden upon burden on the shoulders of God's People without lifting a finger to help them....something Biblical about that for sure!
Is there anything redeemable about AL or even in the questions raised about the document?
More about this in Part Two tomorrow.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
FEELING GREAT ABOUT CANCELLING HBO
Well, I just today canceled my subscription to HBO and its affiliate channels that I originally purchased in a bundled package of cable television, home phone and internet services.
Why?
HBO’s latest Catholic-bashing series.
The Young Pope, presents the first American Pope as an amoral, power-hungry, straight-up jerk. Actor Jude Laws stars as the 47-year-old Lenny Belardo, who becomes Pope Pius XIII as a result of a corrupt Cardinal.
I confess I haven’t watched the series, nor will I. I don’t need to put my hand into the fire to know that I would be burned. I don’t need to sully my eyes and ears with this HBO trash to know how despicable a piece of anti-Catholic bigotry it is.
Yet, I understand why HBO and Hollywood continually denigrate the Catholic Church.
Two reasons, really.
First, we let them. I have yet to hear any outrage over this blatant attack upon the dignity of the Church from anyone at all, let alone anyone in a position of leadership or influence.
Second, HBO and Hollywood are populated by elitist liberal cowards. They love to attack “soft targets”, especially Catholic and Christian values and institutions because they know they won’t suffer for it. But they stay away from Islam. They would never parody the Jewish Faith. Never a negative bit or parody about race or sexual orientation.
I should have dumped HBO long ago. Bill Maher is an anti-Catholic bigot. The comedy specials are prurient and offensive. The programming increasingly amateurish and just plain silly. Even the sports specials are hyped to the point of the ridiculous.
So, I called my cable company and axed HBO this morning.
It’s amazing what a dose of fresh air can do, isn’t it!
Why?
HBO’s latest Catholic-bashing series.
The Young Pope, presents the first American Pope as an amoral, power-hungry, straight-up jerk. Actor Jude Laws stars as the 47-year-old Lenny Belardo, who becomes Pope Pius XIII as a result of a corrupt Cardinal.
I confess I haven’t watched the series, nor will I. I don’t need to put my hand into the fire to know that I would be burned. I don’t need to sully my eyes and ears with this HBO trash to know how despicable a piece of anti-Catholic bigotry it is.
Yet, I understand why HBO and Hollywood continually denigrate the Catholic Church.
Two reasons, really.
First, we let them. I have yet to hear any outrage over this blatant attack upon the dignity of the Church from anyone at all, let alone anyone in a position of leadership or influence.
Second, HBO and Hollywood are populated by elitist liberal cowards. They love to attack “soft targets”, especially Catholic and Christian values and institutions because they know they won’t suffer for it. But they stay away from Islam. They would never parody the Jewish Faith. Never a negative bit or parody about race or sexual orientation.
I should have dumped HBO long ago. Bill Maher is an anti-Catholic bigot. The comedy specials are prurient and offensive. The programming increasingly amateurish and just plain silly. Even the sports specials are hyped to the point of the ridiculous.
So, I called my cable company and axed HBO this morning.
It’s amazing what a dose of fresh air can do, isn’t it!
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
THE DEADLY VIRUS OF COMPLACENCY
With great interest and enthusiasm, I read a posting on the Catholic News Agency. The article referenced an Archbhishop in Nigeria who spoke of a clear and certain sense of complacency on the part of his Pastors and Priests which “end up damaging the Church”.
Archbishop Matthew Man’ Oso Ndagoso of Kaduna, during his homily delivered at the episicopal consecration of Philip Davou Dung as Bishop of Shendam, said: “I have observed among us Priests and Religious a lack of proper sense of mission, a lack of serious missionary commitment and a lack of missionary creativity.”
The Archbishop further observed that he has witnessed an attitude which takes for granted the pews of the Church being filled because of what he refers to as “an established Catholic identity”. This, the Archbishop commented, results in a presumptive and lethargic attitude, a “deadly virus of complacency”.
“We like to bask in the euphoria of our being the first and well established Roman Catholic Church founded on Peter the Rock with no sense of urgency to proclaim the gospel,” said Archbishop Ndagoso, adding that parishioners are being devoured by wolves “without any serious concern except that of assuring and reassuring ourselves that when some leave, others will come in on their own”
Archbishop Ndagoso emphasized that the time for waiting on people to fill the pews is an outdated practice, and now is the time in which the gospel must be lived outwardly: “Ours is the era of the shepherd leaving the 99 sheep and going out in search of the lost one.”
“We must therefore avoid the temptation of feeling secure in our well established church and rest content with our huge attendance at Masses.”
The living out the gospel needs a watchfulness and an extension into society, and cannot be lived out in a complacent or indifferent way, he reflected.
I agree with the Archbishop’s observations and comments which I believe explain much of the recent experience of such great loss of membership within the Church in the United States. Catholics have been thrown to the wolves in the assault against them by an increasingly secular society and mass media. Bishops and Pastors have been silent against these attacks, choosing instead to take assurance in the fact that the Church will perdure. Some Bishops have even pubicly stated that a “smaller Church might be a better Church.”
When the Bishops and our Pastors finally realize the power and influence of Grace that derives from a submissive reading and study of the Scriptures, the Wisdom of the Lord that is available through a love of His Holy Word, and when they invite God’s People to humble prayer asking His Divine Protection over the Body of Christ, then and only then may the Church experience a true rebirth and revitalization, and the world know the hope of redemption.
Archbishop Matthew Man’ Oso Ndagoso of Kaduna, during his homily delivered at the episicopal consecration of Philip Davou Dung as Bishop of Shendam, said: “I have observed among us Priests and Religious a lack of proper sense of mission, a lack of serious missionary commitment and a lack of missionary creativity.”
The Archbishop further observed that he has witnessed an attitude which takes for granted the pews of the Church being filled because of what he refers to as “an established Catholic identity”. This, the Archbishop commented, results in a presumptive and lethargic attitude, a “deadly virus of complacency”.
“We like to bask in the euphoria of our being the first and well established Roman Catholic Church founded on Peter the Rock with no sense of urgency to proclaim the gospel,” said Archbishop Ndagoso, adding that parishioners are being devoured by wolves “without any serious concern except that of assuring and reassuring ourselves that when some leave, others will come in on their own”
Archbishop Ndagoso emphasized that the time for waiting on people to fill the pews is an outdated practice, and now is the time in which the gospel must be lived outwardly: “Ours is the era of the shepherd leaving the 99 sheep and going out in search of the lost one.”
“We must therefore avoid the temptation of feeling secure in our well established church and rest content with our huge attendance at Masses.”
The living out the gospel needs a watchfulness and an extension into society, and cannot be lived out in a complacent or indifferent way, he reflected.
I agree with the Archbishop’s observations and comments which I believe explain much of the recent experience of such great loss of membership within the Church in the United States. Catholics have been thrown to the wolves in the assault against them by an increasingly secular society and mass media. Bishops and Pastors have been silent against these attacks, choosing instead to take assurance in the fact that the Church will perdure. Some Bishops have even pubicly stated that a “smaller Church might be a better Church.”
When the Bishops and our Pastors finally realize the power and influence of Grace that derives from a submissive reading and study of the Scriptures, the Wisdom of the Lord that is available through a love of His Holy Word, and when they invite God’s People to humble prayer asking His Divine Protection over the Body of Christ, then and only then may the Church experience a true rebirth and revitalization, and the world know the hope of redemption.
Monday, January 23, 2017
KEEPING FAITHFUL TO THE LORD AND HIS CHURCH IN TROUBLING TIMES
Between the years of 2008 and 2014, 3 million Catholics left the practice of the Catholic Faith in the United States.
In the year 2000, 18 million Americans identified themselves as former Catholics — those who had left the Church, not by a formal act but simply by way of a quiet exodus from the pews. One generation later, as of 2016, that number had swelled to 30 million.
11 million more Catholics have left the Faith since the turn of the century. There are more Catholics over 50 than under 50. And there are more Catholics over 65 than under 30. The percentage of young people — those under 30 — in the Church is a smaller percentage compared to almost any other church in the country. Only Jehovah's Witnesses and mainline Protestants have a smaller percentage of young people comprising their ranks than Catholics. Even so, even there, Catholi youth are just a hair's breadth away from being the smallest number.
Over the next 15 years, the number of Catholics will begin to drop off more dramatically. One of out every five Catholics right now, today, is over 65. As they die, their numbers will not be sufficiently replaced.
The critical moment will come where there will be more Catholics who have actually left the Church then there are those who claim affiliation with and actually practice their Catholic Faith.
There are roughly 73 million Catholics in the United States. At this moment, 30 million Catholics no longer maintain affiliation with the Church. If 6 or 7 million leave, there will be more former Catholics than those who still identify as Catholics.
If the current trend continues, that moment will come in about three years — right around 2020. We already know from surveys during the recent Presidential campaign that the percentage of Catholics relative to the overall U.S. population has slipped from the historically stable number of 25 percent to roughly 20 percent, and the percentage of Catholic voters dropped from 26 percent to approximately 21 percent.
In 2016, there were 11 percent fewer parishes since 2000; 18 percent fewer priests. Only two-thirds of all the Priests are in active ministry. The other third are retired or have been released from active ministry for health reasons. Moreover, the slight increase in the numbers of priestly ordinations is nowhere near enough the number needed to replace those dying..
Infant baptisms have declined by a third. Adult conversions down by 40 percent. First Holy Communion and Confirmation numbers are also both down. And marriages — perhaps the most significant barometer for the future life of the Church — down almost 50 percent since the year 2000. Even the number of Catholic funerals since the year 2000 has dropped by 16 percent.
Against the backdrop of these disturbing numbers is the assurance that the Lord has given that He is with the Church always and the Church will always prevail against the powers of darkness and the forces of evil.
We need to remind ourselves of Christ’s promise because the future of the Church looks pretty bleak at this moment in time.
Western civilization, born in the light of the Judeo-Christain Faith and culture, is itself in danger of dissolution as the very foundation and fabric of society is being challenged by the forces of secularism and radical Islamic terrorism.
The political left which has been subsumed into the Democratic Party which has become increasingly hostile toward Judeo-Christian values. The very idea that churches have anything of value to offer to American society is anathema in certain circles.
The secular mass media has waged an unrelenting attack upon Christianity, labeling as intolerant idealogues or bigots those who espouse the Christian Gospel, all the while remaining silent in their judgments about the horrors perpetrated by Islamic savages around the world.
The “gates of hell” of which Jesus spoke are clearly evident and have perceptible features nowadays. More and more, it will require heroic virtue to remain faithful to the Church.
When I was still in seminary, I was blessed to have been mentored by a wise and gracious teacher. Father John Taugher, a Vincentian Priest, beloved by generations of Saint Louis Priets who taught for over a half-century, often told me that my generation of the Church would be called upon to be as faithful to the Church as were the First Century Martyrs. I listened to him, but really didn’t believe what he was saying. I could not have been more mistaken. His words have proven to be truly prophetic.
What sustained the First Century Martyrs? The same realities that will sustain us: confidence in the truthfulness of Jesus Himself and the strength that only comes from unifying ourselves with the Lord in prayer and the reception of the Sacraments which provide nourishment and courage.
I think the Church is going through a process of purification. The wheat is being separated from the chaff. Who are the wheat? Who are the chaff? I leave that to God’s judgment. For myself, I choose not to take sides as to whose idea of this doctrine or that practice is right or wrong. I simply choose to pray for the forgiveness of my personal sins (which are many I confess), to pray for those most in need of God’s help, to pray for the Church and all those of good will who continue to struggle to hold fast to their Catholic Faith in the face of such terrible attacks against it.
The Lord has promised that He will be with the Church. We have a claim on that promise. Dear Jesus, bless your Church. If it be Your Will that the Church undergo these difficult times, help us emerge purified and renewed. Along the way, bless our children and the future generations who are growing up in these troubled times, many without the guidance of the Gospel and the assurance of Your Presence in their lives.
Let us not lose hope. But with confidence and tranquility, pray to the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit to sustain our Faith, to help us be faithful in our Sacramental practice, and to give witness to the Love of God in what we say and do each day.
In the year 2000, 18 million Americans identified themselves as former Catholics — those who had left the Church, not by a formal act but simply by way of a quiet exodus from the pews. One generation later, as of 2016, that number had swelled to 30 million.
11 million more Catholics have left the Faith since the turn of the century. There are more Catholics over 50 than under 50. And there are more Catholics over 65 than under 30. The percentage of young people — those under 30 — in the Church is a smaller percentage compared to almost any other church in the country. Only Jehovah's Witnesses and mainline Protestants have a smaller percentage of young people comprising their ranks than Catholics. Even so, even there, Catholi youth are just a hair's breadth away from being the smallest number.
Over the next 15 years, the number of Catholics will begin to drop off more dramatically. One of out every five Catholics right now, today, is over 65. As they die, their numbers will not be sufficiently replaced.
The critical moment will come where there will be more Catholics who have actually left the Church then there are those who claim affiliation with and actually practice their Catholic Faith.
There are roughly 73 million Catholics in the United States. At this moment, 30 million Catholics no longer maintain affiliation with the Church. If 6 or 7 million leave, there will be more former Catholics than those who still identify as Catholics.
If the current trend continues, that moment will come in about three years — right around 2020. We already know from surveys during the recent Presidential campaign that the percentage of Catholics relative to the overall U.S. population has slipped from the historically stable number of 25 percent to roughly 20 percent, and the percentage of Catholic voters dropped from 26 percent to approximately 21 percent.
In 2016, there were 11 percent fewer parishes since 2000; 18 percent fewer priests. Only two-thirds of all the Priests are in active ministry. The other third are retired or have been released from active ministry for health reasons. Moreover, the slight increase in the numbers of priestly ordinations is nowhere near enough the number needed to replace those dying..
Infant baptisms have declined by a third. Adult conversions down by 40 percent. First Holy Communion and Confirmation numbers are also both down. And marriages — perhaps the most significant barometer for the future life of the Church — down almost 50 percent since the year 2000. Even the number of Catholic funerals since the year 2000 has dropped by 16 percent.
Against the backdrop of these disturbing numbers is the assurance that the Lord has given that He is with the Church always and the Church will always prevail against the powers of darkness and the forces of evil.
We need to remind ourselves of Christ’s promise because the future of the Church looks pretty bleak at this moment in time.
Western civilization, born in the light of the Judeo-Christain Faith and culture, is itself in danger of dissolution as the very foundation and fabric of society is being challenged by the forces of secularism and radical Islamic terrorism.
The political left which has been subsumed into the Democratic Party which has become increasingly hostile toward Judeo-Christian values. The very idea that churches have anything of value to offer to American society is anathema in certain circles.
The secular mass media has waged an unrelenting attack upon Christianity, labeling as intolerant idealogues or bigots those who espouse the Christian Gospel, all the while remaining silent in their judgments about the horrors perpetrated by Islamic savages around the world.
The “gates of hell” of which Jesus spoke are clearly evident and have perceptible features nowadays. More and more, it will require heroic virtue to remain faithful to the Church.
When I was still in seminary, I was blessed to have been mentored by a wise and gracious teacher. Father John Taugher, a Vincentian Priest, beloved by generations of Saint Louis Priets who taught for over a half-century, often told me that my generation of the Church would be called upon to be as faithful to the Church as were the First Century Martyrs. I listened to him, but really didn’t believe what he was saying. I could not have been more mistaken. His words have proven to be truly prophetic.
What sustained the First Century Martyrs? The same realities that will sustain us: confidence in the truthfulness of Jesus Himself and the strength that only comes from unifying ourselves with the Lord in prayer and the reception of the Sacraments which provide nourishment and courage.
I think the Church is going through a process of purification. The wheat is being separated from the chaff. Who are the wheat? Who are the chaff? I leave that to God’s judgment. For myself, I choose not to take sides as to whose idea of this doctrine or that practice is right or wrong. I simply choose to pray for the forgiveness of my personal sins (which are many I confess), to pray for those most in need of God’s help, to pray for the Church and all those of good will who continue to struggle to hold fast to their Catholic Faith in the face of such terrible attacks against it.
The Lord has promised that He will be with the Church. We have a claim on that promise. Dear Jesus, bless your Church. If it be Your Will that the Church undergo these difficult times, help us emerge purified and renewed. Along the way, bless our children and the future generations who are growing up in these troubled times, many without the guidance of the Gospel and the assurance of Your Presence in their lives.
Let us not lose hope. But with confidence and tranquility, pray to the Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit to sustain our Faith, to help us be faithful in our Sacramental practice, and to give witness to the Love of God in what we say and do each day.
MORE DECEPTIVE RESEARCH FROM UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN FRANCISCO
A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association says that women who get abortions show no signs of increased mental health problems after having an abortion – and that in fact, it's women who are denied an abortion that suffer more greatly.
The study, called the “Turnaway Study” was conducted by researchers from University of California – San Francisco (UCSF) and tracked 956 women from 21 states for more than five years. The women – all of whom had sought abortion – were interviewed once a week after seeking out an abortion, and then every six months for that five year period.
Antonia Biggs and Diana Greene Foster, two of the researchers who wrote the study, told CNA in a statement that in their study, women who were denied abortions had more mental health repercussions – like anxiety, lower self-esteem and less life satisfaction, in the short-term than women who had abortions. The study also found that by six months these rates of mental health consequences were similar. Both groups of women had “ similar levels of depressive symptoms over the entire five year period,” of the study the researchers commented.
“We found no evidence of increases in mental health problems after having an abortion,” they added.
Now, is it possible, just possible that the results of this study might be questionable on the basis that it was conducted by so-called researchers affiliated with perhaps the most liberal and aggressively feminist universities in the country?
Major news outlets touted the newsworthiness of this story. But, real news would have been made if two female researchers from UCSF would have found that women who had abortions suffered severe psychological repercussions in later life.
The fact is that the findings of the study had most likely been determined before any research interview had been conducted.
Anyone with the slightest bit of intelligence can see through the lies and distortions of this study. Under the guise of scientific research, these two pro-abortion self-described “researchers" have attempted to perpetrate another scam as they push their political agenda in support of the culture of death forward.
Perhaps, real research regarding the psychological-emotional consequences upon women who had aborted their unborn children would have included those closest to them in their relationships: husbands, parents, extended family members, friends and acquaintances.
Perhaps, some honest research on the subject would have included pastors and counselors who have assisted women as they cope with the grief and remorse at having aborted their unborn children.
Having served as a Priest and Pastor of souls for over 40 years, I can attest to the fact that women who had abortions suffer a terrible sense of self-recrimination and guilt as grow older. Post-menopausal women show even greater signs of spiritual and psychological disorientation.
Especially when death seems imminent, women who have chosen to abort their unborn children feel a sense of fear and foreboding that oftentimes reaches to the point of despair, fearing as they do the eternal punishment at having taken innocent human life.
It is a pity that we life at a time when political coercion and deception trumps honest research and study. What is re-assuring is that hacks like these two pro-abortion feminists are so bad at their lying that the majority of intelligent and reasonable persons are able to easily see through the veil of deception and see the lies for what they are.
I, for one of many, won’t be holding my breath for the publication of future studies of any kind published under the auspices of the University of California at San Francisco.
Saturday, January 21, 2017
NEW ADDITIONS TO THE CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
Pope Francis has extended his controversial overhaul of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of Sacraments. On January 14th, the Pope announced the addition of a host of new advisers after an initial shake-up removed some leading conservative Cardinals.
In October 2016, Pope Francis replaced a significant number of the members of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
The dicastery is headed by Cardinal Robert Sarah.
Many commentators viewed the move as the Pope’s response to Cardinal Sarah’s recent attempts to encourage priests to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ad orientem, that is, facing toward the altar and away from the people.
It is clear that the majority of the Pope’s new choices have a distinctly preferential approach to Blessed Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae, the “ordinary form” of the liturgy most widely used in the Latin Church today.
The 17 new advisers named Saturday include priests, laymen and two women. These experts in liturgy and theology join 27 cardinals and bishops named as full members last October. That reshuffling removed tradition-minded Cardinals Raymond Burke and George Pell from the roster, although other conservatives were kept on.
Now, let us hope that the new members of the Congregation will recommend the return of a more sensible and colloquial English translation of the Roman Missal (formerly the Sacramentary). Most will agree the present translation is appalling and not conducive to public prayer.
Perhaps the prayers of many Priests are finally being answered in this long overdue restructuring of the Congregation.
In October 2016, Pope Francis replaced a significant number of the members of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
The dicastery is headed by Cardinal Robert Sarah.
Many commentators viewed the move as the Pope’s response to Cardinal Sarah’s recent attempts to encourage priests to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass ad orientem, that is, facing toward the altar and away from the people.
It is clear that the majority of the Pope’s new choices have a distinctly preferential approach to Blessed Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae, the “ordinary form” of the liturgy most widely used in the Latin Church today.
The 17 new advisers named Saturday include priests, laymen and two women. These experts in liturgy and theology join 27 cardinals and bishops named as full members last October. That reshuffling removed tradition-minded Cardinals Raymond Burke and George Pell from the roster, although other conservatives were kept on.
Now, let us hope that the new members of the Congregation will recommend the return of a more sensible and colloquial English translation of the Roman Missal (formerly the Sacramentary). Most will agree the present translation is appalling and not conducive to public prayer.
Perhaps the prayers of many Priests are finally being answered in this long overdue restructuring of the Congregation.
Friday, January 20, 2017
THE REAL CRISIS OF AMORIS LAETITIA: UNDERMINING THE TEACHING AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH ITSELF
Three Eastern European bishops are urging the world’s faithful Catholics to join them in a "spiritual crusade" to pray for the Pope every day until he rescinds in an “unequivocal manner” pastoral guidelines created by erring bishops that allow Catholics living in the mortal sin of adultery to receive Holy Communion.
“As successors of the Apostles, we are also moved by the obligation of raising our voices when the most sacred things of the Church and the matter of eternal salvation of souls are in question,” the three bishops state in their “Appeal to prayer” released January 18.
The three Bishops, all from Kazakhstan, are Tomash Peta, Metropolitan Archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda, and Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana.
In their 3,000 word letter, the bishops lay out the abuses that have arisen in various dioceses around the world after the publication of the pope’s controversial Exhortation on marriage and the family Amoris Laetitia in April last year.
The Exhortation has been criticized by Cardinals, Bishops, lay-theologians, and Catholic faithful for its ambiguity on the indissolubility of marriage, on the proper disposition to receive Communion, and on the role of conscience in making legitimate moral decisions. These ambiguities have provided liberal prelates with enough wiggle-room to allow civilly-divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Communion, as in the cases of San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy and the bishops of Malta.
But the three Kazakhstan Bishops make it clear in their letter that the Sixth Commandment given by God forbidding adultery cannot be lifted under any circumstances. Pastors who approve of an adulterous union and allow such a couple to receive Communion are complicit in a “continual offense against the sacramental bond of marriage, the nuptial bond between Christ and the Church and the nuptial bond between Christ and the individual soul who receives his Eucharistic Body,” they write.
“The previously mentioned pastoral guidelines contradict the universal tradition of the Catholic Church, which by means of an uninterrupted Petrine Ministry of the Sovereign Pontiffs has always been faithfully kept, without any shadow of doubt or of ambiguity, either in its doctrine or its praxis, in that which concerns the indissolubility of marriage,” they state.
There is no case where the commands of God regarding marriage can be dispensed, they write, adding that each Catholic is bound to follow the will of God, as expressed by his commandments, including his commandment against adultery which safeguards the indissolubility of marriage.
Failure to follow God’s will as expressed by his commands carries the penalty of hell, the bishops write.
“It is rather the case of an obligation which God himself has unequivocally commanded [regarding fidelity within marriage, even a damaged one], the non-observance of which, in accordance with his Word, carries the penalty of eternal damnation. To say to the faithful the contrary would seem to signify misleading them or encouraging them to disobey the will of God, and in such [a] way endangering their eternal salvation.”
Combatting the idea arising from some Prelates that adultery can somehow be overlooked through the lens of “mercy” or through a process of “pastoral accompaniment,” the Bishops state clearly that the “sexual act outside of a valid marriage, and in particular adultery, is always objectively gravely sinful and no circumstance and no reason can render it admissible or pleasing in the sight of God.”
“A practice which permits to those who have a civil divorce, the so called ‘remarried,’ to receive the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, notwithstanding their intention to continue to violate the Sixth Commandment and their sacramental bond of matrimony in the future, would be contrary to Divine truth and alien to the perennial sense of the Catholic Church,” they write.
Such a practice “would be for every rational and sensible person an evident rupture with the perennial and Apostolic practice of the Church and would therefore not represent a development in continuity,” they add.
The Bishops do not leave the violators of God’s laws out in the cold, but put forward a vision of “mercy” and “accompaniment” which involves a change of heart and conversion of the sinner.
They write that an “authentic accompaniment” of those in grave sin “cannot fail to announce to such people, in all charity, the complete will of God, in such a way that they repent wholeheartedly of their sinful actions.”
The plea of the three Bishops comes two months after four Cardinals went public with their five yes-or-no questions (Dubia) asking Pope Francis if his Exhortation conforms to Catholic moral teaching on marriage, the sacraments, and conscience. The Cardinals have indicated a possible “formal correction” of the document sometime this year if the Pope continues to ignore their questions.
The Exhortation has been criticized by Cardinals, Bishops, lay-theologians, and Catholic faithful for its ambiguity on the indissolubility of marriage, on the proper disposition to receive Communion, and on the role of conscience in making legitimate moral decisions.
The Eastern Prelates call for this spiritual crusade follows closely upon the guidelines recently published by the Bishops of Malta.
The Maltese Bishops have come out with a new set of pastoral guidelines allowing divorced-and-remarried persons in certain cases, after “honest discernment”, to receive Communion.
Through a process of “accompaniment and honest discernment,” God is able to open new paths to these people, “even if their previous journey may have been one of darkness, marked with past mistakes or sad experiences of betrayal and abandonment.”
Signed by Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta and Bishop Mario Grech of Gozo, the guidelines were read aloud at Masses in both dioceses on the Solemnity of the Epiphany and consist of 14 bullet points Priests are to use when accompanying couples in irregular situations.
They cover only Chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis' 2016 Apostolic Exhortation, which deals, among other things, with the pastoral care of the divorced-and-remarried, who have not commited to living with their partner “as brother and sister,” and thus not forgoing the acts proper to married couples.
Some Bishops have maintained certain interpretations of the Exhortation are incompatible with Church teaching, and other Bishops have asserted that that it has not changed the Church's discipline.
In their guidelines, the Maltese bishops placed a strong emphasis on discernment and close pastoral accompaniment in the formation of the conscience of divorced couples in second unions, particularly when children are involved.
They encourage Pastors to help couples in these situations to make “an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and repentance,” asking themselves how they reacted when their first marriage spun into crisis, whether or not they tried to reconcile, what has become of their spouse, and what consequences the separation has had on the rest of their family and community.
“This applies in a special way for those cases in which a person acknowledges his or her own responsibility for the failure of the marriage,” they said, encouraging Priests to carefully weigh the “moral responsibility” of particular situations. In this process, special attention ought to be given “to the conditioning restraints and attenuating circumstances,” since certain factors might exist which either limit the ability to make a decision or “diminish the imputability or responsibility for an action,” such as fear, violence, immaturity, anxiety, or various psychological or social factors, the bishops wrote.
Quoting Amoris Laetitia, they said that as a result of these “conditioning restraints and attenuating circumstances,” it can no longer “simply be said that all those in any irregular situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.” It’s possible that even in “an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” The Bishops stated that discernment in this area is especially important “since, as the Pope teaches, in some cases this help can include the help of the sacraments.”
Malta's Bishops have asserted that “if, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with 'humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it', a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.”
The Bishops concluded their guidelines stressing that “in order to avoid any cause for scandal or confusion among the faithful, we must do our utmost in order to inform ourselves and our communities by studying and promoting the teachings of Amoris Laetitia. This teaching requires us to undergo a 'pastoral conversion'. Together with the Pope, we do understand those who would prefer a 'more rigorous pastoral care', but together with him, we believe that 'Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, 'always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street''.”
The Maltese bishops issued their guidelines days after Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said in an interview with an Italian TV station that while Chapter 8 of the document has met with fierce criticism, Amoris laetitia is “very clear” in its doctrine. Cardinal Müller has consistently maintained that Pope Francis' 2016 apostolic exhortation on love in the family has not changed the Church's discipline on admission of the divorced-and-remarried to Communion, and that it must be read in continuity with the preceding Magisterium.
Whether or not there is ambiguity in the Apostolic Exhortation, one thing is clear and certain. The document already has been the source of disquiet among certain members of the hierarchy and threatens to bring even greater confusion to the average Catholic in the pew.
Four members of the College of Cardinals issued a letter threatening a “formal act of correction” to the Pope asserting that the Exhortation threatens the teachings of Scripture and Tradition regarding the indissolubility of marriage. They have been joined by 23 prominent theologians similarly opposed to the Exhortation.
Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia decreed that those who do not commit to continence in their second marriages will not be permitted to receive the Sacraments of Reconciliation or Holy Communion under any circumstances in the Archdiocese. Bishop McElroy of San Diego has published guidelines directing his Priests of his diocese to assist couples in second marriages in a process of discernment which could allow their admission to the Sacraments without a commitment to continence in the second union.
What is the average Catholic to think of these discrepancies in teaching and practice?
I contend that the fruit of such divisions among the members of the hierarchy will result in a lessening of their authority in general among faithful members of the Church. Frankly, I believe the damage to episcopal authority has already been done. I don’t see how the Church will recover even at this early stage of division regarding the teachings and the various pastoral solutions proposed in the Exhortation.
As long as the Bishops continue to squabble among themselves and question the sovereign teaching authority of the Pope, average Catholics will be left to make up their own minds regarding the issue. And why not if contradictory positions on the Exhortation have been supported by Bishops themselves. If those charged with the authority to faithfully proclaim the truths of the Faith can hold differing, if not contradictory positions, why can’t faithful Catholics pick and choose which teaching to embrace?
Ultimately, chaos and disunity triumphs.
Of course, the real impact will be felt, if and when a definitive resolution to these dispute is forthcoming in the form of an official and unified teaching and practice which either clearly disallows a return to the Sacraments for the divorced under any circumstance or which allows such sacramental practice in some instances.
Sadly, however, that by the time the hierarchy decides to come together on this issue, I believe the average Catholic in the pew will be indifferent to whatever they have to say on the issue. And in support of this contention, I merely make reference to the impact which Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI's teaching regarding the sanctity of human life and the immorality of artificial contraception) had upon the teaching authority of the Vicar of Christ in matters of faith and morals.
But this crisis engendered by Amoris Laetitia and the controversies is has sparked already will be manifested in the form of the laity's sublime indifference to any teaching the Bishops and the Pope choose to utter regarding this or any other moral or doctrinal matter regarding the Catholic Faith now or in the future.
For all her grandeur, for all the pomp and circumstance of her liturgy and rituals, for the richness of her history and the impact she has had upon the advancement of civilization and the dignity of the individual human person, the Church is a house of cards.
The foundation of that house has been the unwavering confidence the Catholic faithful have entrusted the unquestioned authority of the Pope along with the Bishops to teach, govern and sanctify in the name of Christ.
Undermine that authority and the house of cards comes crumbling down.
Amoris Laetitia is a critical moment in the Church, not so much for what it says about doctrine versus practice, or even what it teaches about truth versus mercy.
Amoris Laetitia will be crucial to the future of the Church in the way the Holy Father and the Bishops decide to respond to its pastoral challenges.
Let no one be mistaken, just as Humanae Vitae was received with mixed acceptance and dissent by Clergy and laity alike, Amoris Laetitia is fast becoming a focal point of division among the Pope, the Bishops and their Pastors.
Thus far, the average Catholic is largely unaware of these tensions. However, when the secular media, when NBC and CNN and the New York Times start set their yellow-journalism newshounds on this story, the Church's teaching and moral authority will be sorely wounded, perhaps irremediably so.
I join in the call of the Eastern Bishops that we ask the intervention of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Holy Father and the entire College of Bishops in speaking to the doctrinal and pastoral concerns for the divorced and remarried in a way which strengthens the bond of unity among the Shepherds and upholds their singular and divine authority to speak the truth of the Gospel in the name of Christ Jesus Himself.
“As successors of the Apostles, we are also moved by the obligation of raising our voices when the most sacred things of the Church and the matter of eternal salvation of souls are in question,” the three bishops state in their “Appeal to prayer” released January 18.
The three Bishops, all from Kazakhstan, are Tomash Peta, Metropolitan Archbishop of the archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana, Jan Pawel Lenga, Archbishop-Bishop emeritus of Karaganda, and Athanasius Schneider, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Saint Mary in Astana.
In their 3,000 word letter, the bishops lay out the abuses that have arisen in various dioceses around the world after the publication of the pope’s controversial Exhortation on marriage and the family Amoris Laetitia in April last year.
The Exhortation has been criticized by Cardinals, Bishops, lay-theologians, and Catholic faithful for its ambiguity on the indissolubility of marriage, on the proper disposition to receive Communion, and on the role of conscience in making legitimate moral decisions. These ambiguities have provided liberal prelates with enough wiggle-room to allow civilly-divorced-and-remarried Catholics to receive Communion, as in the cases of San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy and the bishops of Malta.
But the three Kazakhstan Bishops make it clear in their letter that the Sixth Commandment given by God forbidding adultery cannot be lifted under any circumstances. Pastors who approve of an adulterous union and allow such a couple to receive Communion are complicit in a “continual offense against the sacramental bond of marriage, the nuptial bond between Christ and the Church and the nuptial bond between Christ and the individual soul who receives his Eucharistic Body,” they write.
“The previously mentioned pastoral guidelines contradict the universal tradition of the Catholic Church, which by means of an uninterrupted Petrine Ministry of the Sovereign Pontiffs has always been faithfully kept, without any shadow of doubt or of ambiguity, either in its doctrine or its praxis, in that which concerns the indissolubility of marriage,” they state.
There is no case where the commands of God regarding marriage can be dispensed, they write, adding that each Catholic is bound to follow the will of God, as expressed by his commandments, including his commandment against adultery which safeguards the indissolubility of marriage.
Failure to follow God’s will as expressed by his commands carries the penalty of hell, the bishops write.
“It is rather the case of an obligation which God himself has unequivocally commanded [regarding fidelity within marriage, even a damaged one], the non-observance of which, in accordance with his Word, carries the penalty of eternal damnation. To say to the faithful the contrary would seem to signify misleading them or encouraging them to disobey the will of God, and in such [a] way endangering their eternal salvation.”
Combatting the idea arising from some Prelates that adultery can somehow be overlooked through the lens of “mercy” or through a process of “pastoral accompaniment,” the Bishops state clearly that the “sexual act outside of a valid marriage, and in particular adultery, is always objectively gravely sinful and no circumstance and no reason can render it admissible or pleasing in the sight of God.”
“A practice which permits to those who have a civil divorce, the so called ‘remarried,’ to receive the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, notwithstanding their intention to continue to violate the Sixth Commandment and their sacramental bond of matrimony in the future, would be contrary to Divine truth and alien to the perennial sense of the Catholic Church,” they write.
Such a practice “would be for every rational and sensible person an evident rupture with the perennial and Apostolic practice of the Church and would therefore not represent a development in continuity,” they add.
The Bishops do not leave the violators of God’s laws out in the cold, but put forward a vision of “mercy” and “accompaniment” which involves a change of heart and conversion of the sinner.
They write that an “authentic accompaniment” of those in grave sin “cannot fail to announce to such people, in all charity, the complete will of God, in such a way that they repent wholeheartedly of their sinful actions.”
The plea of the three Bishops comes two months after four Cardinals went public with their five yes-or-no questions (Dubia) asking Pope Francis if his Exhortation conforms to Catholic moral teaching on marriage, the sacraments, and conscience. The Cardinals have indicated a possible “formal correction” of the document sometime this year if the Pope continues to ignore their questions.
The Exhortation has been criticized by Cardinals, Bishops, lay-theologians, and Catholic faithful for its ambiguity on the indissolubility of marriage, on the proper disposition to receive Communion, and on the role of conscience in making legitimate moral decisions.
The Eastern Prelates call for this spiritual crusade follows closely upon the guidelines recently published by the Bishops of Malta.
The Maltese Bishops have come out with a new set of pastoral guidelines allowing divorced-and-remarried persons in certain cases, after “honest discernment”, to receive Communion.
Through a process of “accompaniment and honest discernment,” God is able to open new paths to these people, “even if their previous journey may have been one of darkness, marked with past mistakes or sad experiences of betrayal and abandonment.”
Signed by Archbishop Charles Scicluna of Malta and Bishop Mario Grech of Gozo, the guidelines were read aloud at Masses in both dioceses on the Solemnity of the Epiphany and consist of 14 bullet points Priests are to use when accompanying couples in irregular situations.
They cover only Chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia, Pope Francis' 2016 Apostolic Exhortation, which deals, among other things, with the pastoral care of the divorced-and-remarried, who have not commited to living with their partner “as brother and sister,” and thus not forgoing the acts proper to married couples.
Some Bishops have maintained certain interpretations of the Exhortation are incompatible with Church teaching, and other Bishops have asserted that that it has not changed the Church's discipline.
In their guidelines, the Maltese bishops placed a strong emphasis on discernment and close pastoral accompaniment in the formation of the conscience of divorced couples in second unions, particularly when children are involved.
They encourage Pastors to help couples in these situations to make “an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and repentance,” asking themselves how they reacted when their first marriage spun into crisis, whether or not they tried to reconcile, what has become of their spouse, and what consequences the separation has had on the rest of their family and community.
“This applies in a special way for those cases in which a person acknowledges his or her own responsibility for the failure of the marriage,” they said, encouraging Priests to carefully weigh the “moral responsibility” of particular situations. In this process, special attention ought to be given “to the conditioning restraints and attenuating circumstances,” since certain factors might exist which either limit the ability to make a decision or “diminish the imputability or responsibility for an action,” such as fear, violence, immaturity, anxiety, or various psychological or social factors, the bishops wrote.
Quoting Amoris Laetitia, they said that as a result of these “conditioning restraints and attenuating circumstances,” it can no longer “simply be said that all those in any irregular situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.” It’s possible that even in “an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” The Bishops stated that discernment in this area is especially important “since, as the Pope teaches, in some cases this help can include the help of the sacraments.”
Malta's Bishops have asserted that “if, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with 'humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it', a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.”
The Bishops concluded their guidelines stressing that “in order to avoid any cause for scandal or confusion among the faithful, we must do our utmost in order to inform ourselves and our communities by studying and promoting the teachings of Amoris Laetitia. This teaching requires us to undergo a 'pastoral conversion'. Together with the Pope, we do understand those who would prefer a 'more rigorous pastoral care', but together with him, we believe that 'Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, 'always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street''.”
The Maltese bishops issued their guidelines days after Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said in an interview with an Italian TV station that while Chapter 8 of the document has met with fierce criticism, Amoris laetitia is “very clear” in its doctrine. Cardinal Müller has consistently maintained that Pope Francis' 2016 apostolic exhortation on love in the family has not changed the Church's discipline on admission of the divorced-and-remarried to Communion, and that it must be read in continuity with the preceding Magisterium.
Whether or not there is ambiguity in the Apostolic Exhortation, one thing is clear and certain. The document already has been the source of disquiet among certain members of the hierarchy and threatens to bring even greater confusion to the average Catholic in the pew.
Four members of the College of Cardinals issued a letter threatening a “formal act of correction” to the Pope asserting that the Exhortation threatens the teachings of Scripture and Tradition regarding the indissolubility of marriage. They have been joined by 23 prominent theologians similarly opposed to the Exhortation.
Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia decreed that those who do not commit to continence in their second marriages will not be permitted to receive the Sacraments of Reconciliation or Holy Communion under any circumstances in the Archdiocese. Bishop McElroy of San Diego has published guidelines directing his Priests of his diocese to assist couples in second marriages in a process of discernment which could allow their admission to the Sacraments without a commitment to continence in the second union.
What is the average Catholic to think of these discrepancies in teaching and practice?
I contend that the fruit of such divisions among the members of the hierarchy will result in a lessening of their authority in general among faithful members of the Church. Frankly, I believe the damage to episcopal authority has already been done. I don’t see how the Church will recover even at this early stage of division regarding the teachings and the various pastoral solutions proposed in the Exhortation.
As long as the Bishops continue to squabble among themselves and question the sovereign teaching authority of the Pope, average Catholics will be left to make up their own minds regarding the issue. And why not if contradictory positions on the Exhortation have been supported by Bishops themselves. If those charged with the authority to faithfully proclaim the truths of the Faith can hold differing, if not contradictory positions, why can’t faithful Catholics pick and choose which teaching to embrace?
Ultimately, chaos and disunity triumphs.
Of course, the real impact will be felt, if and when a definitive resolution to these dispute is forthcoming in the form of an official and unified teaching and practice which either clearly disallows a return to the Sacraments for the divorced under any circumstance or which allows such sacramental practice in some instances.
Sadly, however, that by the time the hierarchy decides to come together on this issue, I believe the average Catholic in the pew will be indifferent to whatever they have to say on the issue. And in support of this contention, I merely make reference to the impact which Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI's teaching regarding the sanctity of human life and the immorality of artificial contraception) had upon the teaching authority of the Vicar of Christ in matters of faith and morals.
But this crisis engendered by Amoris Laetitia and the controversies is has sparked already will be manifested in the form of the laity's sublime indifference to any teaching the Bishops and the Pope choose to utter regarding this or any other moral or doctrinal matter regarding the Catholic Faith now or in the future.
For all her grandeur, for all the pomp and circumstance of her liturgy and rituals, for the richness of her history and the impact she has had upon the advancement of civilization and the dignity of the individual human person, the Church is a house of cards.
The foundation of that house has been the unwavering confidence the Catholic faithful have entrusted the unquestioned authority of the Pope along with the Bishops to teach, govern and sanctify in the name of Christ.
Undermine that authority and the house of cards comes crumbling down.
Amoris Laetitia is a critical moment in the Church, not so much for what it says about doctrine versus practice, or even what it teaches about truth versus mercy.
Amoris Laetitia will be crucial to the future of the Church in the way the Holy Father and the Bishops decide to respond to its pastoral challenges.
Let no one be mistaken, just as Humanae Vitae was received with mixed acceptance and dissent by Clergy and laity alike, Amoris Laetitia is fast becoming a focal point of division among the Pope, the Bishops and their Pastors.
Thus far, the average Catholic is largely unaware of these tensions. However, when the secular media, when NBC and CNN and the New York Times start set their yellow-journalism newshounds on this story, the Church's teaching and moral authority will be sorely wounded, perhaps irremediably so.
I join in the call of the Eastern Bishops that we ask the intervention of the Holy Spirit in guiding the Holy Father and the entire College of Bishops in speaking to the doctrinal and pastoral concerns for the divorced and remarried in a way which strengthens the bond of unity among the Shepherds and upholds their singular and divine authority to speak the truth of the Gospel in the name of Christ Jesus Himself.
God Bless America, Her New Leadership and Her People Always
Today, the 45th President of the United States, Donald John Trump, took the Oath of Office along with Vice-President Michael Pence.
Let us pray that the Lord will bless and protect them and all those elected to public service. May the Wisdom of the Lord be with them and inspire them to be righteous, just and noble statesmen.
We thank Almighty God for the blessings of our country. We recognize our duty and responsibility to preserve what we have received, enrich those blessings and hand them onto to generations yet unborn.
God bless our new leadership. God bless America always.
Let us pray that the Lord will bless and protect them and all those elected to public service. May the Wisdom of the Lord be with them and inspire them to be righteous, just and noble statesmen.
We thank Almighty God for the blessings of our country. We recognize our duty and responsibility to preserve what we have received, enrich those blessings and hand them onto to generations yet unborn.
God bless our new leadership. God bless America always.
A MUSLIM EUROPE IN 10 YEARS
The Archbishop Emeritus of Pompeii, Monsignor Carlo Liberati, recently stated that the growing number of Muslim migrants in Europe and increasing secularism will lead to Islam becoming the continent's foremost religion.
The Bishop Emeritus of Pompeii said: “In 10 years we will all be Muslims because of our stupidity. Italy and Europe live in a pagan and atheist way, they make laws that go against God and they have traditions that are proper of paganism. All of this moral and religious decadence favours Islam."
The retired Archbishop added: “We have a weak Christian faith. The Church nowadays does not work well and seminaries are empty. Parishes are the only thing still standing. We need a true Christian life. All this paves the way to Islam. In addition to this, they have children and we do not. We are in full decline."
In fact, Italy has become a prime destination for Muslim migrants with some 330,000 people from Africa, the Middle East and Asia arriving by sea over the past two years. Many are fleeing war and cross the Mediterranean sea from North Africa via a dangerous boat ride.
The number of Muslims residing in Italy has skyrocketed from 2,000, during the 1970s, to over 2 million at the end of 2015, according to official Italian statistics. Figures also show the country has 5,014,437 foreign nationals residents as of January 1, 2015, an increase of 92,352 on the previous year.
Archbishop Liberati claims the increasing number of new arrivals, including Eastern Europeans and Romanians migrating to the country since the expansion of the European Union, have impinged on the quality of life for native Italians.
He stated: 'We help without delay those coming from outside and we forget many poor and old Italians who are eating from the trash. We need policies that take care of Italians first: our young people and the unemployed. I am a protester. If I were not a priest, I'd be out there demonstrating in the squares. What is the point of so many migrants that instead of thanking for the food we give them, they just throw it, spend hours with their cell phones and even organise riots?"
The Archbishop denounced the fact the Catholic Church donates money to the recent migrants.
He said: 'Giving money to migrants wandering around town is not only wrong, but morally harmful because we encourage their behavior and they get used to that, not mentioning the fact that we already feed them. I think sometimes this creates a beggars' network. I remember that my father went to work very hard as a migrant in Australia so I could go to the seminar. So he has experienced in his own skin the discomfort of poverty and the noble virtue of gratitude.”
The candor of Archbishop Liberati is certainly refreshing in an age of political correctness which is blind to the impact which such large numbers of Muslims are having upon once-Christian Europe.
Even Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, recently has admitted that he is rethinking his stance on the migrant crisis. The Cardinal stated that an “unbelievable number” of migrants are causing a “feeling of overcrowding” in Austrian society. He pointed to the rise of the anti-immigrant Austrian Freedom Party as a sign that the “country is worried” and said he’s no longer convinced that Austria should accept all refugees.
Cardinal Schönborn highlighted the need for a united European response to deal with the problem of radical Islamic terrorism before it can solve the migrant crisis in a way that will allow the continent to maintain a working relationship with pro-European Arabic and Turkish regimes across the Middle East.
Europe is in a state of political and social crisis precisely because it has decidedly and forcefully shed its Christian heritage and given in to the liberal political philosophies of globalist who insist upon the creation of a new world order.
In the vacuum which the abandonment of Christianity has left in its wake, European culture and society are falling prey to Islamists who have overwhelmed the native populations and have refused to assimilate the values and customs of the very countries who have opened their doors to receive them.
Clearly, the ill-conceived immigration policies of such failed leaders as Andrea Merkel in Germany (perhaps the leading proponent of unrestrained Muslim immigration) have left the European Continent in chaos.
Archbishop Liberati is correct: Europe will become Muslim because of the "stupidity" of its leadership and its citizens in willingly failing to understand the fundamental tenets of Islam which allow no compromise in the religious beliefs and customs which govern all aspects of their social and political lives.
It’s about time that leaders, both religious and civil, begin to speak out against the misguided immigration policies regarding Muslim refugees and develop a strategy to repatriate them to their native countries.
The Bishop Emeritus of Pompeii said: “In 10 years we will all be Muslims because of our stupidity. Italy and Europe live in a pagan and atheist way, they make laws that go against God and they have traditions that are proper of paganism. All of this moral and religious decadence favours Islam."
The retired Archbishop added: “We have a weak Christian faith. The Church nowadays does not work well and seminaries are empty. Parishes are the only thing still standing. We need a true Christian life. All this paves the way to Islam. In addition to this, they have children and we do not. We are in full decline."
In fact, Italy has become a prime destination for Muslim migrants with some 330,000 people from Africa, the Middle East and Asia arriving by sea over the past two years. Many are fleeing war and cross the Mediterranean sea from North Africa via a dangerous boat ride.
The number of Muslims residing in Italy has skyrocketed from 2,000, during the 1970s, to over 2 million at the end of 2015, according to official Italian statistics. Figures also show the country has 5,014,437 foreign nationals residents as of January 1, 2015, an increase of 92,352 on the previous year.
Archbishop Liberati claims the increasing number of new arrivals, including Eastern Europeans and Romanians migrating to the country since the expansion of the European Union, have impinged on the quality of life for native Italians.
He stated: 'We help without delay those coming from outside and we forget many poor and old Italians who are eating from the trash. We need policies that take care of Italians first: our young people and the unemployed. I am a protester. If I were not a priest, I'd be out there demonstrating in the squares. What is the point of so many migrants that instead of thanking for the food we give them, they just throw it, spend hours with their cell phones and even organise riots?"
The Archbishop denounced the fact the Catholic Church donates money to the recent migrants.
He said: 'Giving money to migrants wandering around town is not only wrong, but morally harmful because we encourage their behavior and they get used to that, not mentioning the fact that we already feed them. I think sometimes this creates a beggars' network. I remember that my father went to work very hard as a migrant in Australia so I could go to the seminar. So he has experienced in his own skin the discomfort of poverty and the noble virtue of gratitude.”
The candor of Archbishop Liberati is certainly refreshing in an age of political correctness which is blind to the impact which such large numbers of Muslims are having upon once-Christian Europe.
Even Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, recently has admitted that he is rethinking his stance on the migrant crisis. The Cardinal stated that an “unbelievable number” of migrants are causing a “feeling of overcrowding” in Austrian society. He pointed to the rise of the anti-immigrant Austrian Freedom Party as a sign that the “country is worried” and said he’s no longer convinced that Austria should accept all refugees.
Cardinal Schönborn highlighted the need for a united European response to deal with the problem of radical Islamic terrorism before it can solve the migrant crisis in a way that will allow the continent to maintain a working relationship with pro-European Arabic and Turkish regimes across the Middle East.
Europe is in a state of political and social crisis precisely because it has decidedly and forcefully shed its Christian heritage and given in to the liberal political philosophies of globalist who insist upon the creation of a new world order.
In the vacuum which the abandonment of Christianity has left in its wake, European culture and society are falling prey to Islamists who have overwhelmed the native populations and have refused to assimilate the values and customs of the very countries who have opened their doors to receive them.
Clearly, the ill-conceived immigration policies of such failed leaders as Andrea Merkel in Germany (perhaps the leading proponent of unrestrained Muslim immigration) have left the European Continent in chaos.
Archbishop Liberati is correct: Europe will become Muslim because of the "stupidity" of its leadership and its citizens in willingly failing to understand the fundamental tenets of Islam which allow no compromise in the religious beliefs and customs which govern all aspects of their social and political lives.
It’s about time that leaders, both religious and civil, begin to speak out against the misguided immigration policies regarding Muslim refugees and develop a strategy to repatriate them to their native countries.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
ACLU FILES CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT AGAINST CATHOLIC MEDICAL CENTER IN MICHIGAN
In September 2015, a woman named Jessica Mann gave birth to her third child at a Michigan medical center. She had sought an exemption to its policy to for a post-partum tubal ligation. Her doctors recommended the procedure due to a potentially life-threatening brain tumor.
The medical center refused the request.
Its parent company, Ascension Health, requires its hospitals to follow the ethical and religious directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which consider intentional direct sterilization as unethical and contrary to Catholic teaching.
Mann had the procedure at a different hospital. In a statement Mann said the hospital’s policy distracted her from preparations for the arrival of the baby and meant she had to search for a new doctor. “I don’t want other women to be turned away from hospitals that let their religious views trump their patients’ serious medical needs,” she said.
The ACLU filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights violations charging that the decision to not perform a sterilization violated anti-discrimination laws and “caused her significant harm.”
In response to the complaint, Ken Connelly, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, stated: “No one should be forced to perform or participate in a procedure when doing so would violate their conscience. This is especially true of medical workers and health care systems who are in the profession largely because of – and as an extension of – their faith.”
“Furthermore, no law requires religious hospitals and medical personnel to sterilize women, and, in fact, federal law specifically prohibits the government from engaging in any such coercion,” Connelly continued.
The legal group said federal officials should disregard a complaint filed against Genesys Regional Medical Center in the Flint suburb of Grand Blanc, Michigan. Further, any federal action would be barred under the federal Church Amendment and the reiteration of conscience protections in the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Brigitte Amiri, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, defended the complaint. “Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, but those beliefs do not give anyone the right to discriminate against another person,” she said.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys countered in their letter: “It is not an act of discrimination to decline, for conscience reasons, to perform a medical procedure – indeed, if that were the case conscience protections would not exist.”
On Friday, a new Presidential Administration will be sworn into office.
Let us pray that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office will be revamped and the Obama anti-life and pro-abortion bureaucrats will be removed from their positions of authority and influence. Only then will the rule of law be re-established and such nonsense suits against religious institutions be discouraged and put at bay.
The medical center refused the request.
Its parent company, Ascension Health, requires its hospitals to follow the ethical and religious directives of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which consider intentional direct sterilization as unethical and contrary to Catholic teaching.
Mann had the procedure at a different hospital. In a statement Mann said the hospital’s policy distracted her from preparations for the arrival of the baby and meant she had to search for a new doctor. “I don’t want other women to be turned away from hospitals that let their religious views trump their patients’ serious medical needs,” she said.
The ACLU filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights violations charging that the decision to not perform a sterilization violated anti-discrimination laws and “caused her significant harm.”
In response to the complaint, Ken Connelly, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, stated: “No one should be forced to perform or participate in a procedure when doing so would violate their conscience. This is especially true of medical workers and health care systems who are in the profession largely because of – and as an extension of – their faith.”
“Furthermore, no law requires religious hospitals and medical personnel to sterilize women, and, in fact, federal law specifically prohibits the government from engaging in any such coercion,” Connelly continued.
The legal group said federal officials should disregard a complaint filed against Genesys Regional Medical Center in the Flint suburb of Grand Blanc, Michigan. Further, any federal action would be barred under the federal Church Amendment and the reiteration of conscience protections in the Affordable Care Act of 2010.
Brigitte Amiri, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, defended the complaint. “Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, but those beliefs do not give anyone the right to discriminate against another person,” she said.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys countered in their letter: “It is not an act of discrimination to decline, for conscience reasons, to perform a medical procedure – indeed, if that were the case conscience protections would not exist.”
On Friday, a new Presidential Administration will be sworn into office.
Let us pray that U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office will be revamped and the Obama anti-life and pro-abortion bureaucrats will be removed from their positions of authority and influence. Only then will the rule of law be re-established and such nonsense suits against religious institutions be discouraged and put at bay.
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
ONE DAY SOON GAY MEN COULD HAVE CHILDREN WITH NO NEED FOR FEMALE DONOR EGG
New research has opened the door to the possibility that gay men could one day soon have children using just sperm with no need for a female donor egg. In a stunning breakthrough, scientists have created embryos from non-egg cells in mice, and believe they could recreate the process one day in other species.
The researchers explain that there are two types of cell: “meiotic” reproductive cells (eggs and sperm), and “mitotic” cells which include most of the tissues and organs in our bodies.
Mammal reproduction requires a sperm and egg to fuse, creating an embryo. But instead of using a meiotic egg cell to produce their mouse pups, the researchers used a type of mitotic cell called a parthenogenote. These are very early-stage, single-celled embryos that form without fertilisation — in this case by chemically activating a mouse egg.
Just before the parthenogenotes divided into two cells, they were injected with sperm nuclei to fertilise them. The resulting pups’ survival rate was a quarter that of other mice. Though these are early days, the feat suggested that other types of mitotic cell, such as skin cells, may one day be used to create offspring.
This could open up the possibility for gay men to have children with both men’s DNA.
In 1934, Cole Porter, renowned American tunesmith, wrote the following as part of the lyrics of one of his biggest hit songs, Anything Goes:
The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today...
Could Mister Porter possibly have imagined how prophetic those words would be! Genetic engineering has turned the biological world upside down. Modern research is constantly redefining the phsysiological boundaries and markers of human life. Asexual reproduction is decidedly in the forefront of contemporary genetic experimentation.
The ethical consequences and repercussions of such scientific investigation have yet to be fully understood or addressed.
Yet, I continue to ask those who delve into the complex mysteries of life this fundamental question: just because we can manipulate almost every aspect of human reproduction, should we do so? Should science pursue and traverse into every avenue which technological advancements make available to them? Should research establish ethical and moral boundaries beyond which exploration and experimentation ought not to proceed?
In 1818, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley penned the novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a grotesque but sapient creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment. It is a moral tale of man’s vanity and arrogance before the creative majesty and power of Almighty God.
In the end, the human creation, a monster, destroys its human creator.
In its own way, modern science seeks to deny and usurp the power of the Divine Creator. In many ways, technological achievements may just create the monsters of today, monsters which may, just may, one day destroy not just the moral and ethical standards of humanity, but humanity itself.
The researchers explain that there are two types of cell: “meiotic” reproductive cells (eggs and sperm), and “mitotic” cells which include most of the tissues and organs in our bodies.
Mammal reproduction requires a sperm and egg to fuse, creating an embryo. But instead of using a meiotic egg cell to produce their mouse pups, the researchers used a type of mitotic cell called a parthenogenote. These are very early-stage, single-celled embryos that form without fertilisation — in this case by chemically activating a mouse egg.
Just before the parthenogenotes divided into two cells, they were injected with sperm nuclei to fertilise them. The resulting pups’ survival rate was a quarter that of other mice. Though these are early days, the feat suggested that other types of mitotic cell, such as skin cells, may one day be used to create offspring.
This could open up the possibility for gay men to have children with both men’s DNA.
In 1934, Cole Porter, renowned American tunesmith, wrote the following as part of the lyrics of one of his biggest hit songs, Anything Goes:
The world has gone mad today
And good's bad today,
And black's white today,
And day's night today...
Could Mister Porter possibly have imagined how prophetic those words would be! Genetic engineering has turned the biological world upside down. Modern research is constantly redefining the phsysiological boundaries and markers of human life. Asexual reproduction is decidedly in the forefront of contemporary genetic experimentation.
The ethical consequences and repercussions of such scientific investigation have yet to be fully understood or addressed.
Yet, I continue to ask those who delve into the complex mysteries of life this fundamental question: just because we can manipulate almost every aspect of human reproduction, should we do so? Should science pursue and traverse into every avenue which technological advancements make available to them? Should research establish ethical and moral boundaries beyond which exploration and experimentation ought not to proceed?
In 1818, Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley penned the novel Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who creates a grotesque but sapient creature in an unorthodox scientific experiment. It is a moral tale of man’s vanity and arrogance before the creative majesty and power of Almighty God.
In the end, the human creation, a monster, destroys its human creator.
In its own way, modern science seeks to deny and usurp the power of the Divine Creator. In many ways, technological achievements may just create the monsters of today, monsters which may, just may, one day destroy not just the moral and ethical standards of humanity, but humanity itself.
Monday, January 16, 2017
IF YOU CAN'T CONVINCE THEM, PUNISH THEM: A MISTAKEN USE OF EPISCOPAL AUTHORITY
The Catholic Archbishop of Accra in Ghana, the Most Reverend Charles Gabriel Palmer-Buckle, has stated that he will issue a new diocesan directive which will make it mandatory for Catholic funerals in Accra to be held within 40 days after a Catholic has died. Families who do not follow it will not have the privilege of a Catholic funeral or requiem Mass.
The Archbishop, who was speaking at a joint funeral Mass for two staunch members of the Church recently, said many Ghanaians do not take good care of the aged and sick but are prepared to spend huge sums of money on funeral arrangements when these family members pass on.
He said in most cases, families kept the bodies of their dead relatives in morgues for several months, thus incurring more cost and also extending the grieving period.
The Archbishop explained that having early funerals would cut down cost and put the minds of the bereaved at rest to enable them go about their normal duties.
In the past, funerals were held in a more simple way but these days, funerals have become social events where families show off their wealth and status.
Huge sums are invested into printing banners, funeral programs and food and drinks for guests.
Funeral homes and coffin makers are also cashing in on the trend, providing a variety of “classy” coffins and state-of-the art morgues were the dead are preserved. There are even private cemeteries charging huge sums of money to bury people whose families do not prefer the public cemeteries. The one week celebration, which in the past was marked solemnly by a few family members, has even evolved into a big event similar to the main funeral.
The Catholic Rite of Funerals is celebrated in three parts.
First is the vigil where the body is received in the church with loved ones and relatives gathering to pay their last respect to the deceased and pray for his or her soul. It is also the time to eulogies the deceased, pay tributes and console the bereaved family.
The second is the Funeral Mass which is led by one or more Priests who wear white, black or violet vestments.
The last is committal or burial stage when prayers are held and coffin and grave sprinkled with the holy water. The rite of committal is an expression of the communion that exists between the church on earth and the church in heaven.
While we commend the Archbishop for his zeal in wanting to modify certain excesses in the celebration of funerals within his diocese, we lament his decision to punish those who do not comply with the penalty of having deceased loved ones denied the Catholic Funeral Liturgy.
The Sacraments should never be employed as a means of spiritual extortion.
Nothing could be more sacrilegious!
The Archbishop has indicated that he is awaiting approval of his new directive, presumably from the Holy See. We can only hope that Rome disapproves and calls upon the Archbishop to modify his excessive use of authority which risks alienating his flock from the very Sacramental consolation the Funeral Liturgy can afford them in their moment of grief, even if that moment lasts 40 days or more.
This is precisely the misguided use of episcopal authority which alienates Catholics. Such alienation is even more keenly felt at times of great emotional stress such as those occasioned by the loss of a loved one.
The Archbishop needs to temper his zeal for reform with compassion and sympathy for those who are grieving in whatever way they feel is appropriate to the memory of their beloved dead.
The Archbishop, who was speaking at a joint funeral Mass for two staunch members of the Church recently, said many Ghanaians do not take good care of the aged and sick but are prepared to spend huge sums of money on funeral arrangements when these family members pass on.
He said in most cases, families kept the bodies of their dead relatives in morgues for several months, thus incurring more cost and also extending the grieving period.
The Archbishop explained that having early funerals would cut down cost and put the minds of the bereaved at rest to enable them go about their normal duties.
In the past, funerals were held in a more simple way but these days, funerals have become social events where families show off their wealth and status.
Huge sums are invested into printing banners, funeral programs and food and drinks for guests.
Funeral homes and coffin makers are also cashing in on the trend, providing a variety of “classy” coffins and state-of-the art morgues were the dead are preserved. There are even private cemeteries charging huge sums of money to bury people whose families do not prefer the public cemeteries. The one week celebration, which in the past was marked solemnly by a few family members, has even evolved into a big event similar to the main funeral.
The Catholic Rite of Funerals is celebrated in three parts.
First is the vigil where the body is received in the church with loved ones and relatives gathering to pay their last respect to the deceased and pray for his or her soul. It is also the time to eulogies the deceased, pay tributes and console the bereaved family.
The second is the Funeral Mass which is led by one or more Priests who wear white, black or violet vestments.
The last is committal or burial stage when prayers are held and coffin and grave sprinkled with the holy water. The rite of committal is an expression of the communion that exists between the church on earth and the church in heaven.
While we commend the Archbishop for his zeal in wanting to modify certain excesses in the celebration of funerals within his diocese, we lament his decision to punish those who do not comply with the penalty of having deceased loved ones denied the Catholic Funeral Liturgy.
The Sacraments should never be employed as a means of spiritual extortion.
Nothing could be more sacrilegious!
The Archbishop has indicated that he is awaiting approval of his new directive, presumably from the Holy See. We can only hope that Rome disapproves and calls upon the Archbishop to modify his excessive use of authority which risks alienating his flock from the very Sacramental consolation the Funeral Liturgy can afford them in their moment of grief, even if that moment lasts 40 days or more.
This is precisely the misguided use of episcopal authority which alienates Catholics. Such alienation is even more keenly felt at times of great emotional stress such as those occasioned by the loss of a loved one.
The Archbishop needs to temper his zeal for reform with compassion and sympathy for those who are grieving in whatever way they feel is appropriate to the memory of their beloved dead.