The Catholic Church should end the celibacy vow, a group of senior Priests in Germany has said.
In an open letter, the group of 11 high ranking Clerics said every man should have the right to choose to take the vow or not.
The retired Clerics were ordained in Cologne in 1967, and wrote the letter as part of a review of their 50 years in the Catholic church.
“We think, every Catholic should be allowed to choose if they would rather be celibate or not, regardless of whether they want to work as Priests or not - just like in the Protestant Church or the Orthodox church, really, every church but the Catholic Church.”
The group argues that celibacy causes many modern Priests to suffer from seclusion and believe the men have little to gain from church-imposed solitude.
"What moves us is the experience of loneliness - as elderly people who are unmarried because our office required this from us, we feel it vividly on some days after 50 years on the job… We agreed to this clerical life because of our jobs, but we didn't choose it," the group wrote.
The canonical discipline, believed to have been introduced in the fourth century and codified into Church law centuries later, requires men to be unmarried in order to be ordained, and to practice sexual abstinence.
Proponents of clerical celibacy see it as “a special gift of God” where they can devote themselves to their Bishops more freely.
However, according to theologian Wunibald Müller, many Priests struggle with the vow. He says some overcompensate for their loneliness by over-eating, drinking to excess or worse. "Even if you decide to live celibate, your sexuality is still there," he said. "If someone suppresses their desires, for warmth, for intimacy, this can backfire - they are more likely to cross a line, to abuse their position of trust to get intimacy."
For his part, the Holy Father seems more and more clear in favoring the possibility of married Priests, at least under certain circumstances. One thing is for certain: he believes it is a decision the Bishops (in their local conferences) should make, not just he and his collaborators in Rome.
A key development along this path came in mid-June at the latest round of talks on Vatican reform that Francis held with his advisory Council of Cardinals (C9).
It was announced that the C9 proposed the possibility of allowing National Bishops’ Conferences the authority, now held by the Congregation for the Clergy, to decide whether or not to ordain an unmarried or widowed permanent deacon to the priesthood or to allow a widowed deacon to remarry.
The proposal may be the first step towards recognizing the discretion which Bishops of a nation or region rightfully enjoy to decide, without the need for Vatican approval, regarding the dispensation of certain current restrictions on Priestly ordination. It will take time, but it is a beginning that could lead to further development.
The principle is clearly being enunciated now and Pope Francis appears to have no fear in giving voice to such a proposal.
But the Holy Father and the Church itself need to understand that this is only the first step toward the eventual and universal acceptance of married Priests.
To think that one part of the Church will decide to revive the most ancient tradition of a married Priesthood and that other parts will be denied that same privilege is disingenuous at best.
Of course, we should prepare ourselves for the onslaught of negative criticism that will accompany any serious discussion of clerical celibacy. There will be those Bishops, some in positions of influence, who will decry any reform which pertains to Clerical celibacy as the "final nail in the coffin of the Church."
These Bishops believe that they, and they alone, can best defend against the Church’s demise by holding to a strict and rigid adherence to norms and rubrics, an obsession to control and rule Christ’s faithful and decide the ordering of ecclesial life.
I have suggested before that the upcoming Synod on Youth and Vocations will be the forum in which the issue of optional celibacy with the Latin Church will be discussed and resolved.
To those who say that Amoris Laetitae created a firestorm of controversy and division within Church ranks, I say "just wait!"
As Al Jolson used to tell his audiences at the beginning of his act: “You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”
Monday, July 31, 2017
BAMBINO GESU HOSPITAL FUNDS EMBEZZLED IN KICKBACK SCHEME INVOLVING CARDINAL BERTONE
The Holy See has formally charged two former officers of Bambino Gesu Hospital, the Vatican’s pediatric medical center, on charges of illegally using funds to help finance the remodeling of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone’s apartment within Vatican City.
Giuseppe Profiti, former President of the hospital until 2015, and Massimo Spina, the former Treasurer, will be called to appear before Vatican judges beginning July 18.
Since the Holy See has no jurisdiction outside its territorial and extra-territorial properties, the indicted former officials cannot be arrested by Vatican authorities. However, if the two men do not present themselves to the court on the opening trial date, they will be charged with contempt by the Vatican court.
Profiti, 55, and Spina, 57, are charged with illicit use of funds belonging to the Bambino Gesu Foundation to pay Gianantonio Bandera, an Italian contractor, to refurbish an apartment belonging to Vatican City State and used as the residence of Cardinal Bertone, former Vatican Secretary of State.
The indictment charges that Profiti and Spina “were paid” more than 420,000 Euros for “completely non-institutional ends” by using the money to refurbish Vatican property in order “to benefit Gianantonio Bandera’s company.”
It said the alleged crime committed in Vatican City State spanned from November 2013 to May 28, 2014 — the time period that the contractor’s seven invoices were dated and paid for, according to news reports.
Profiti, who had been President of the hospital since 2008, resigned in January 2015, less than a year into a renewed three-year term, amid rumors of the alleged kickback scheme. The revelations emerged after Emiliano Fittipaldi, a journalist acquitted in a Vatican trial in 2016 for publishing allegedly stolen Vatican documents, published his findings in early 2016.
According to documents published by L’Espresso magazine, Profiti wrote Cardinal Bertone in late 2013, allegedly offering to pay for the remodeling using hospital foundation money in exchange for being able to use the top floor of the Cardinal’s residence for work-related gatherings.
Profiti had been sentenced with six months’ house arrest while he was still hospital President after being found guilty in 2008 of bribes and kickbacks when assigning or promising contracts to companies bidding for providing food services to public schools and hospitals in the cities of Genoa and Savona. At least four others were found guilty in the same investigation. Amazingly, Profiti was named President of Bambino Gesu Hospital that very same year he was convicted.
For his part in this scandal, Cardinal Bertone is alleged to have accepted the Profiti’s proposal, adding that he would make sure the costs were taken care of by a “third party” so that the foundation would not have to pay.
Mariella Enoc, current hospital President, told reporters in late 2015, “Cardinal Bertone never directly received money (from the hospital’s foundation), but recognized that we suffered a loss and, therefore, assisted us with a donation of 150,000 Euros.”
Cardinal Bertone repeatedly and falsely disputed news reports about the size of the apartment and its cost. He has steadfastly insisted that he personally paid the Vatican, which owns the apartment, for the work done. Until this moment, Cardinal Berton has never made mention of a "third party" contribution to cover the cost of remodeling his apartment.
Cardinal Bertone is not under investigation.
Why not?
The fact that the Cardinal continues to reside in Vatican City in a settings that rival the monarchs of Medieval Europe and in such contrast to the humble residence of the Holy Father himself is certainly a cause of wonderment to many.
The Holy Father would be well served by inviting His Eminence to take up residence elsewhere and perhaps assist him in that change of address by adding his name to the list of those indicted in this latest Vatican scandal.
Giuseppe Profiti, former President of the hospital until 2015, and Massimo Spina, the former Treasurer, will be called to appear before Vatican judges beginning July 18.
Since the Holy See has no jurisdiction outside its territorial and extra-territorial properties, the indicted former officials cannot be arrested by Vatican authorities. However, if the two men do not present themselves to the court on the opening trial date, they will be charged with contempt by the Vatican court.
Profiti, 55, and Spina, 57, are charged with illicit use of funds belonging to the Bambino Gesu Foundation to pay Gianantonio Bandera, an Italian contractor, to refurbish an apartment belonging to Vatican City State and used as the residence of Cardinal Bertone, former Vatican Secretary of State.
The indictment charges that Profiti and Spina “were paid” more than 420,000 Euros for “completely non-institutional ends” by using the money to refurbish Vatican property in order “to benefit Gianantonio Bandera’s company.”
It said the alleged crime committed in Vatican City State spanned from November 2013 to May 28, 2014 — the time period that the contractor’s seven invoices were dated and paid for, according to news reports.
Profiti, who had been President of the hospital since 2008, resigned in January 2015, less than a year into a renewed three-year term, amid rumors of the alleged kickback scheme. The revelations emerged after Emiliano Fittipaldi, a journalist acquitted in a Vatican trial in 2016 for publishing allegedly stolen Vatican documents, published his findings in early 2016.
According to documents published by L’Espresso magazine, Profiti wrote Cardinal Bertone in late 2013, allegedly offering to pay for the remodeling using hospital foundation money in exchange for being able to use the top floor of the Cardinal’s residence for work-related gatherings.
Profiti had been sentenced with six months’ house arrest while he was still hospital President after being found guilty in 2008 of bribes and kickbacks when assigning or promising contracts to companies bidding for providing food services to public schools and hospitals in the cities of Genoa and Savona. At least four others were found guilty in the same investigation. Amazingly, Profiti was named President of Bambino Gesu Hospital that very same year he was convicted.
For his part in this scandal, Cardinal Bertone is alleged to have accepted the Profiti’s proposal, adding that he would make sure the costs were taken care of by a “third party” so that the foundation would not have to pay.
Mariella Enoc, current hospital President, told reporters in late 2015, “Cardinal Bertone never directly received money (from the hospital’s foundation), but recognized that we suffered a loss and, therefore, assisted us with a donation of 150,000 Euros.”
Cardinal Bertone repeatedly and falsely disputed news reports about the size of the apartment and its cost. He has steadfastly insisted that he personally paid the Vatican, which owns the apartment, for the work done. Until this moment, Cardinal Berton has never made mention of a "third party" contribution to cover the cost of remodeling his apartment.
Cardinal Bertone is not under investigation.
Why not?
The fact that the Cardinal continues to reside in Vatican City in a settings that rival the monarchs of Medieval Europe and in such contrast to the humble residence of the Holy Father himself is certainly a cause of wonderment to many.
The Holy Father would be well served by inviting His Eminence to take up residence elsewhere and perhaps assist him in that change of address by adding his name to the list of those indicted in this latest Vatican scandal.
Sunday, July 30, 2017
CARDINAL COCCOPALMERIO: AN EXEMPLARY INCREMENTALIST
Recently, the National Catholic Register published a rather long and intriguing interview of Cardinal Coccopalmerio by Ed Pentin.
The interview forcused upon the Cardinal’s publication of a book entitled, The Eighth Chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
One of Pentin’s questions and the Cardinal’s responses caught my attention:
PENTIN: One last topic: At a recent plenary meeting with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, you reportedly encouraged the members to push for a less rigid understanding of the Priesthood, essentially telling them to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of Priesthood. Your notion was that as we have an understanding of different levels of communion with the Church among the baptized, we should have different degrees of the fullness of priesthood, so as to permit Protestants to minister without being fully ordained. What exactly did you say, and why did you say it?
CARD. COCCOPALMERIO: I was saying we have to reflect on questions. We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis.
I would simply ask His Eminence what need have we of hypothesizing over matters the Church definitively has resolved by way of its Magisterial authority.
The fact is (or at least used to be) that truths of the Faith revealed by Our Lord in Scripture and Tradition are not always easy to accept, especially in a world that seeks to make all truth subjective. Truth, by its very nature, is objective and unalterable.
And with that, we arrive at the crossroads of the dilemma facing the Church today.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio suggests that those who accept the traditional teachings of the Church believe that they can attain certainty in the uncertain world of their making.
His Eminence (and perhaps the Holy Father himself) would have us begin to think about Church teaching (and discipline) in terms of probabilities, that is, suggesting that certain teachings are true without ruling out the possibility that their opposites may also be true.
The new moral compass of the Church appears reticent about teachings which have been declared to be true “by Magisterial definition” or “by logical deduction” proceeding from either Sacred Scripture or Tradition.
The new moral compass of the Church might be summed up as follows: In the hypothetical world of logic and rational analysis, if A>B and B>C, then it is necessarily true that A>C.
But, in the real world of personal experience and the exigencies of life, such logic does not apply.
And so, every choice open to human beings rests not upon the clear judgment of truth supplied by reason and conscience, but upon the possible choices confronting an individual in the overall context of that person’s situation or circumstance.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio's call to to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of Priesthood and instead to rethink the question of Priesthood not on the basis rational notions of validity or invalidity but rather on notions concerning an indefinable communion of Christian Faith is a perfect example of what can been described as “incrementalism”.
In his haste to defend Amoris Laetitia, the Cardinal (intentionally or not) introduces a wedge between moral certainty and moral opinion, seeming quite comfortable in preferring the latter over the former. Not that he denies the truth of Church teachings, but is open to the possibility that they apply only partially in most, if not all, situations.
Thus, a person can accept the Church’s opposition to abortion as an act of murder and support a ban against its legality in all cases, except those involving rape or incest.
One can accept the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of Holy Matrimony, except in those cases in which one feels that the obligations imposed by the free acceptance of the marital bond demand an heroic observation of which they are incapable.
One can define Priesthood not as a Sacrament which ontologically transforms a man in persona Christi, but rather a ministry which serves the community of Christian believer no matter the content or quality of their faith.
And so, the Deposit of Faith is destined to suffer a "death of a thousand cuts". Little by little, slowly and painfully, truth will be so undercut and muddles as to be irrelevant and ineffectual in mankind's eternal hope of salvation.
In the end, what I find most surprising these days is not the fact that there are Catholics, even in elevated positions of influence, who espouse positions such as these.
Rather, what I find most intriguing and not a little disturbing is the number of such individuals who are eager and anxious to accept their opinions.
Whether they should be envied or pitied will be the judgment of history and the Lord.
For myself, I remain most comfortable in maintaining that truth, by its very nature, is objective and unalterable, no matter how difficult to accept.
The interview forcused upon the Cardinal’s publication of a book entitled, The Eighth Chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.
One of Pentin’s questions and the Cardinal’s responses caught my attention:
PENTIN: One last topic: At a recent plenary meeting with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, you reportedly encouraged the members to push for a less rigid understanding of the Priesthood, essentially telling them to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of Priesthood. Your notion was that as we have an understanding of different levels of communion with the Church among the baptized, we should have different degrees of the fullness of priesthood, so as to permit Protestants to minister without being fully ordained. What exactly did you say, and why did you say it?
CARD. COCCOPALMERIO: I was saying we have to reflect on questions. We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis.
I would simply ask His Eminence what need have we of hypothesizing over matters the Church definitively has resolved by way of its Magisterial authority.
The fact is (or at least used to be) that truths of the Faith revealed by Our Lord in Scripture and Tradition are not always easy to accept, especially in a world that seeks to make all truth subjective. Truth, by its very nature, is objective and unalterable.
And with that, we arrive at the crossroads of the dilemma facing the Church today.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio suggests that those who accept the traditional teachings of the Church believe that they can attain certainty in the uncertain world of their making.
His Eminence (and perhaps the Holy Father himself) would have us begin to think about Church teaching (and discipline) in terms of probabilities, that is, suggesting that certain teachings are true without ruling out the possibility that their opposites may also be true.
The new moral compass of the Church appears reticent about teachings which have been declared to be true “by Magisterial definition” or “by logical deduction” proceeding from either Sacred Scripture or Tradition.
The new moral compass of the Church might be summed up as follows: In the hypothetical world of logic and rational analysis, if A>B and B>C, then it is necessarily true that A>C.
But, in the real world of personal experience and the exigencies of life, such logic does not apply.
And so, every choice open to human beings rests not upon the clear judgment of truth supplied by reason and conscience, but upon the possible choices confronting an individual in the overall context of that person’s situation or circumstance.
Cardinal Coccopalmerio's call to to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of Priesthood and instead to rethink the question of Priesthood not on the basis rational notions of validity or invalidity but rather on notions concerning an indefinable communion of Christian Faith is a perfect example of what can been described as “incrementalism”.
In his haste to defend Amoris Laetitia, the Cardinal (intentionally or not) introduces a wedge between moral certainty and moral opinion, seeming quite comfortable in preferring the latter over the former. Not that he denies the truth of Church teachings, but is open to the possibility that they apply only partially in most, if not all, situations.
Thus, a person can accept the Church’s opposition to abortion as an act of murder and support a ban against its legality in all cases, except those involving rape or incest.
One can accept the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of Holy Matrimony, except in those cases in which one feels that the obligations imposed by the free acceptance of the marital bond demand an heroic observation of which they are incapable.
One can define Priesthood not as a Sacrament which ontologically transforms a man in persona Christi, but rather a ministry which serves the community of Christian believer no matter the content or quality of their faith.
And so, the Deposit of Faith is destined to suffer a "death of a thousand cuts". Little by little, slowly and painfully, truth will be so undercut and muddles as to be irrelevant and ineffectual in mankind's eternal hope of salvation.
In the end, what I find most surprising these days is not the fact that there are Catholics, even in elevated positions of influence, who espouse positions such as these.
Rather, what I find most intriguing and not a little disturbing is the number of such individuals who are eager and anxious to accept their opinions.
Whether they should be envied or pitied will be the judgment of history and the Lord.
For myself, I remain most comfortable in maintaining that truth, by its very nature, is objective and unalterable, no matter how difficult to accept.
Saturday, July 29, 2017
STOPPING THE MEDIA'S SPIN REGARDING POPE EMERITUS BENEDICT XVI LETTER READ AT CARDINAL MEISNER'S FUNERAL
Pope Benedict XVI sent a sobering message at the funeral of Cardinal Meisner, saying he was moved at the Cardinal's ability to "live out of a deep conviction that the Lord does not abandon His Church, even when the boat has taken on so much water as to be on the verge of capsizing."
The Church "stands in particularly pressing need of convincing shepherds who can resist the dictatorship of the spirit of the age and who live and think the faith with determination," Pope Benedict said in a message read by Archbishop Georg Gänswein, his personal secretary and head of the Papal household. Because of this "pressing need," Cardinal Meisner "found it difficult to leave his post,” the retired Pope stated.
The secular media was quick in interpreting the statement to be unconcealed disdain from one Pope to his successor, delivered in front of the world.
Cardinal Meisner, 83, who was one of four cardinals who had been in direct conflict with Francis over his controversial apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love), which has softened church rules on divorce and Holy Communion.
Archbishop Gänswein denounced suggestions that the retired Pontiff had intended to criticize Pope Francis with a statement issued for the death of Cardinal Meisner.
Archbishop Gänswein charged that those who gave such a dramatic interpretation of the former Pope’s words had “deliberately exploited” him. He said that Benedict “wasn’t alluding to anything specific” with his reference to a storm-tossed ship.
In fact, Benedict XVI had used similar language frequently during his own pontificate.
Archbishop Gänswein told Il Giornale that “stupid” people were “trying to use the Pope-emeritus in an anti-Francis tone.”
We regret the Archbishop's use of insults in defending the Pope Emeritus.
We are grateful to the Archbishop, however, for clearing up any confusion that may have arisen as a result of the retired Pope’s letter. The clarification needed to be made and the secular media’s spin stopped in its tracks.
Still, perhaps the Church and the Papal Office itself would be best served by the Pope Emeritus's public silence henceforth.
Certainly, any sentiments he may wish to express on any topic can be directly and discreetly communicated so that no public misinterpretation or spin is possible.
The Church "stands in particularly pressing need of convincing shepherds who can resist the dictatorship of the spirit of the age and who live and think the faith with determination," Pope Benedict said in a message read by Archbishop Georg Gänswein, his personal secretary and head of the Papal household. Because of this "pressing need," Cardinal Meisner "found it difficult to leave his post,” the retired Pope stated.
The secular media was quick in interpreting the statement to be unconcealed disdain from one Pope to his successor, delivered in front of the world.
Cardinal Meisner, 83, who was one of four cardinals who had been in direct conflict with Francis over his controversial apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love), which has softened church rules on divorce and Holy Communion.
Archbishop Gänswein denounced suggestions that the retired Pontiff had intended to criticize Pope Francis with a statement issued for the death of Cardinal Meisner.
Archbishop Gänswein charged that those who gave such a dramatic interpretation of the former Pope’s words had “deliberately exploited” him. He said that Benedict “wasn’t alluding to anything specific” with his reference to a storm-tossed ship.
In fact, Benedict XVI had used similar language frequently during his own pontificate.
Archbishop Gänswein told Il Giornale that “stupid” people were “trying to use the Pope-emeritus in an anti-Francis tone.”
We regret the Archbishop's use of insults in defending the Pope Emeritus.
We are grateful to the Archbishop, however, for clearing up any confusion that may have arisen as a result of the retired Pope’s letter. The clarification needed to be made and the secular media’s spin stopped in its tracks.
Still, perhaps the Church and the Papal Office itself would be best served by the Pope Emeritus's public silence henceforth.
Certainly, any sentiments he may wish to express on any topic can be directly and discreetly communicated so that no public misinterpretation or spin is possible.
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
POPE FRANCIS ADDS NEW EXAMPLE OF VIRTUE TO THE CONSIDERATION OF CANONIZATION
Until most recently, a declaration of Sainthood (canonization) in the Catholic Church required either martyrdom, living a life of heroic values or having a clear saintly reputation.
Now, Pope Francis has decreed that people who have lived a good Catholic life and who freely accepted a certain and premature death for the good of others may be canonized as well.
Under the new category, a miracle must be attributed to the candidate's intercession prior to beatification, the first step toward canonization as a Saint. Martyrdom, which stipulates being killed out of hatred for the faith, does not require a miracle.
All of which leads to a question of the role the veneration of Saints plays in the life of the Church.
According to classical Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology, veneration is a type of honor distinct from the adoration due to God alone.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains. Adoration, which is known as latria in classical theology, is the worship and homage that is rightly offered to God alone. It is the manifestation of submission, and acknowledgment of dependence, appropriately shown towards the excellence of an uncreated divine person and to his absolute Lordship. It is the worship of the Creator that God alone deserves.
Veneration, on the other hand, known as dulia in classical theology, is the honor and reverence appropriately due to the excellence of a created person. Excellence exhibited by created beings deserves recognition and honor.
In secular life, a general example would be the veneration in events like the awarding of academic awards for excellence in school, or the awarding of Olympic medals for excellence in sports. There is nothing contrary to the proper adoration of God when we offer the appropriate honor and recognition that created persons deserve based on achievement in excellence.
And so, Church theologians have long adopted the terms latria for the type of worship due to God alone, and dulia for the veneration given to angels, saints, relics and icons. Catholic and Orthodox theologies also include the term hyperdulia for the type of veneration specifically paid to Mary, mother of Jesus.
The new category of excellence of life which Pope Francis has prescribed for consideration of Sainthood is very broad and open to all sorts of interpretations and applications.
Under this new consideration, I wonder, will soldiers who die in battle be considered for Sainthood on account of their acts of valor which resulted in their deaths? Police officers? Firefighters? Emergency personnel of all kinds?
Future petitions for consideration of Sainthood for such individuals will make Pope Francis' new classification clearer.
The Pope personally has great regard for the Saints. It seems that hardly a month goes by that the Holy Father has not canonized yet another Servant of God.
Just how the Francis' personal admiration of the Saints filters down to the folks in the pews is another consideration altogether.
In a world that has become so materialistic and anxious for immediate gratification of any and all appetites and desires, it would seem that the veneration of the Saints is low on the list of personal pursuits among the vast majority of the laity.
During the Revolutionary War, General George Washington often wrote to the First Continental Congress besieging them for additional personnel, arms and resources to fight the battles. His dispatches were often unanswered, which led him to write: "Is anybody there? Does anybody care?"
Do ordinary Catholic folks really pay all that much attention to what Saint's feast day is being celebrating at any given moment? Does the veneration of Saints really have any significant place in the life of Catholics today?
I seriously doubt it.
It's clear that the Holy Father believes so, however.
There is an adage which may apply here: we all need heroes!
The Saints are the heroes of our Faith. We should honor them for their example and be inspired by their love of God and neighbor to live our lives with integrity and generosity.
The reward of that kind of life is the blessing of Eternity in the Divine Presence.
And that reward, whether publicly acknowledged and venerated or not, should be sufficient for us all.
Now, Pope Francis has decreed that people who have lived a good Catholic life and who freely accepted a certain and premature death for the good of others may be canonized as well.
Under the new category, a miracle must be attributed to the candidate's intercession prior to beatification, the first step toward canonization as a Saint. Martyrdom, which stipulates being killed out of hatred for the faith, does not require a miracle.
All of which leads to a question of the role the veneration of Saints plays in the life of the Church.
According to classical Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology, veneration is a type of honor distinct from the adoration due to God alone.
St. Thomas Aquinas explains. Adoration, which is known as latria in classical theology, is the worship and homage that is rightly offered to God alone. It is the manifestation of submission, and acknowledgment of dependence, appropriately shown towards the excellence of an uncreated divine person and to his absolute Lordship. It is the worship of the Creator that God alone deserves.
Veneration, on the other hand, known as dulia in classical theology, is the honor and reverence appropriately due to the excellence of a created person. Excellence exhibited by created beings deserves recognition and honor.
In secular life, a general example would be the veneration in events like the awarding of academic awards for excellence in school, or the awarding of Olympic medals for excellence in sports. There is nothing contrary to the proper adoration of God when we offer the appropriate honor and recognition that created persons deserve based on achievement in excellence.
And so, Church theologians have long adopted the terms latria for the type of worship due to God alone, and dulia for the veneration given to angels, saints, relics and icons. Catholic and Orthodox theologies also include the term hyperdulia for the type of veneration specifically paid to Mary, mother of Jesus.
The new category of excellence of life which Pope Francis has prescribed for consideration of Sainthood is very broad and open to all sorts of interpretations and applications.
Under this new consideration, I wonder, will soldiers who die in battle be considered for Sainthood on account of their acts of valor which resulted in their deaths? Police officers? Firefighters? Emergency personnel of all kinds?
Future petitions for consideration of Sainthood for such individuals will make Pope Francis' new classification clearer.
The Pope personally has great regard for the Saints. It seems that hardly a month goes by that the Holy Father has not canonized yet another Servant of God.
Just how the Francis' personal admiration of the Saints filters down to the folks in the pews is another consideration altogether.
In a world that has become so materialistic and anxious for immediate gratification of any and all appetites and desires, it would seem that the veneration of the Saints is low on the list of personal pursuits among the vast majority of the laity.
During the Revolutionary War, General George Washington often wrote to the First Continental Congress besieging them for additional personnel, arms and resources to fight the battles. His dispatches were often unanswered, which led him to write: "Is anybody there? Does anybody care?"
Do ordinary Catholic folks really pay all that much attention to what Saint's feast day is being celebrating at any given moment? Does the veneration of Saints really have any significant place in the life of Catholics today?
I seriously doubt it.
It's clear that the Holy Father believes so, however.
There is an adage which may apply here: we all need heroes!
The Saints are the heroes of our Faith. We should honor them for their example and be inspired by their love of God and neighbor to live our lives with integrity and generosity.
The reward of that kind of life is the blessing of Eternity in the Divine Presence.
And that reward, whether publicly acknowledged and venerated or not, should be sufficient for us all.
SISTERS OF CHARITY WITHDRAW FROM IRISH NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL
The Sisters of Charity whose Religious Community ran institutions in Ireland where women were enslaved and children abused for decades have given up any involvement in running the country’s new national maternity hospital.
After weeks of pressure and public outrage, the Sisters announced there were ending their participation in St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG), the trust set up to manage the new maternity facilities in Dublin. The Sisters of Charity said they would not be involved in the ownership or management of the new hospital.
Two Sisters of Charity presently on the Board have resigned, effective immediately.
Last month, one of Ireland’s most respected obstetricians, Dr Peter Boylan, resigned from the Board after he learned that the Sisters of Charity, responsible for running the notorious Magdalene Laundries, would exercise influence over the new hospital.
His resignation was the latest controversy in the debate about Church-State relations and the influence of Catholic institutions in provision of public services in Ireland.
Two large demonstrations were held over the last few weeks protesting against the Sisters of Charity’s proposed role in running the hospital. More than 100,000 signed an online petition opposing the move.
The Sisters of Charity was one of the Orders that ran the Magdalene Laundries, institutions that were controlled by Catholic orders from the late 18th century and well into the 20th. Many of those incarcerated were young, unmarried women who became pregnant and had their babies taken from them – in some cases sold to wealthy Catholic couples without children in the US.
In 2013, an apology was issued on behalf of the Irish State to the women held in the institutions.
A financial redress scheme was set up in Ireland after an inquiry published in 2009 detailed abuse against children in residential institutions. The Sisters of Charity offered to pay 5 million Euros towards the 1.5 billion Euros redress bill and inquiry costs incurred by the state, but has so far contributed only 2 million Euros.
Other Irish Catholic orders have agreed to pay almost a quarter of the bill, but an audit report published in December 2016 found they had still contributed only 13% to the overall compensation costs for victims.
The toll which such horror stories have taken upon the spirit and enthusiasm of Irish Catholicism is beyond measure.
May the Holy Spirit bring healing to those who have suffered at the hands of Church-run institutions.
May the Church make good on its promises to compensate for past egregious acts of abuse. May the Lord come to the aid of His Church so wounded by the weaknesses and sins of so many of Her members.
After weeks of pressure and public outrage, the Sisters announced there were ending their participation in St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG), the trust set up to manage the new maternity facilities in Dublin. The Sisters of Charity said they would not be involved in the ownership or management of the new hospital.
Two Sisters of Charity presently on the Board have resigned, effective immediately.
Last month, one of Ireland’s most respected obstetricians, Dr Peter Boylan, resigned from the Board after he learned that the Sisters of Charity, responsible for running the notorious Magdalene Laundries, would exercise influence over the new hospital.
His resignation was the latest controversy in the debate about Church-State relations and the influence of Catholic institutions in provision of public services in Ireland.
Two large demonstrations were held over the last few weeks protesting against the Sisters of Charity’s proposed role in running the hospital. More than 100,000 signed an online petition opposing the move.
The Sisters of Charity was one of the Orders that ran the Magdalene Laundries, institutions that were controlled by Catholic orders from the late 18th century and well into the 20th. Many of those incarcerated were young, unmarried women who became pregnant and had their babies taken from them – in some cases sold to wealthy Catholic couples without children in the US.
In 2013, an apology was issued on behalf of the Irish State to the women held in the institutions.
A financial redress scheme was set up in Ireland after an inquiry published in 2009 detailed abuse against children in residential institutions. The Sisters of Charity offered to pay 5 million Euros towards the 1.5 billion Euros redress bill and inquiry costs incurred by the state, but has so far contributed only 2 million Euros.
Other Irish Catholic orders have agreed to pay almost a quarter of the bill, but an audit report published in December 2016 found they had still contributed only 13% to the overall compensation costs for victims.
The toll which such horror stories have taken upon the spirit and enthusiasm of Irish Catholicism is beyond measure.
May the Holy Spirit bring healing to those who have suffered at the hands of Church-run institutions.
May the Church make good on its promises to compensate for past egregious acts of abuse. May the Lord come to the aid of His Church so wounded by the weaknesses and sins of so many of Her members.
Monday, July 24, 2017
IN DEFENSE OF MY BROTHER PRIESTS AND CLERGY
Father Giulio Cirignano, a native of Florence and a longtime Scripture scholar at the Theological Faculty of Central Italy, penned an article which appeared in the weekend edition of L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper, under the headline of “The Conversion Asked by Pope Francis: Habit is not Fidelity.”
Father Cirignano claims that the “main obstacle” to implementing Pope Francis’s vision is “closure, if not hostility” from “a good part of the clergy, at levels both high and low.”
By the terms “high and low,” one assumes Father Cirigano is referring to Clergy ranging from Cardinals to ordinary Parish Priests.
“The Clergy is holding the people back, who should instead be accompanied (that word again!) in this extraordinary moment,” the article states.
“Most of the faithful have understood, despite everything, the favorable moment, the Kairos, which the Lord is giving to his community,” Father Cirignano said. “For the most part, they’re celebrating.”
Father Cirignano offered several factors to explain what he sees as “closure” and “hostility” from the Clergy towards Pope Francis.
The “modest cultural level on the part of Clergy, both at high and low levels,” he said, saying that both theological and Biblical preparation is often “scarce.”
An antiquated image of the Priesthood, which, according to Cirignano, sees the Priest as “the boss and patron of the community,” who, because of his celibate condition, is compensated with “totally individual responsibility,” a sort of “solitary protagonist.”
An old theology, associated with the Counter-Reformation, “lacking the resources of the Word, without a soul, that transformed the impassioned and mysterious adventure of believing into religion,” arguing that “the God of religion … is, for the most part, a projection of man, while “faith” is not in the first place “Man reaching for God, but the opposite.”
“When the Priest is too marked by a religious mentality, and too little by a limpid faith, then everything becomes more complicated,” Cirignano wrote. “He risks remaining the victim of many things invented by man about God and his will.” “God”, according to Cirignano, “doesn’t tolerate being enclosed in rigid schemes typical of the human mind.God is love, and that’s all, love as gift of itself.”
This article does not appear in a vacuum.
And the fact that it appears in the Vatican’s official news organ, L’Osservatore Romano, is no surprise either.
For, we note that Pope Francis himself has frequently taken the Clergy to task during the course of his papacy.
Why this penchant, so prevalent in this Pontificate, to cannibalize the Clergy in its zeal to advance what must be admitted is a theology of pastoral care and a morality of tolerance toward moral failing the likes of which the Church has never before witnessed?
It’s an old ploy: don’t blame the message, blame the messenger! If the message doesn't play, it's because the messenger has not done his job well.
The one virtue, both expressly encouraged and subliminally communicated, throughout the course of seminary formation has been and remains: obedientiam et reverentiam (obedience and respect) to one’s superiors in office.
While Priests may exhibit a host of talents, the one trait that will single them out for advancement or recognition is unquestioning loyalty to their Bishops and, through them, to the Church’s teachings and authority of governance reflected in the Papacy.
At every level of advancement toward Sacred Orders, Priests must take a loyalty oath, swearing before Almighty God and the Church itself that they will faithfully accept and proclaim its teachings and execute its moral disciplines, all the while rejecting the influences and errors prevalent in the modern world.
The overwhelming majority of Clergy take that oath most seriously and spend the rest of their lives giving life to its expectations, sometimes at great personal sacrifice and cost.
For the Priest, this loyalty to the Bishop and the hierarchical structure of the Church, to its teachings and praxis is the essence of Clerical virtue.
Now comes a Pontificate eager to suggest that such virtue is, in reality, a vice.
Now comes a Pontificate which labels the theology in which the Clergy were formed as “scarce and modest”, ill-suited for the demands of pastoral service the modern world demands.
Now comes a Pontificate which evaluates the model of Priesthood in which the Clergy have been formed as “antiquated and inept”.
Now comes a Pontificate which scolds the Clergy for having a “rigidity” of religiosity marked by a “limpid faith”.
Now comes a Pontificate which castigates the Clergy for the very loyalty which was demanded and expected of the them, all the while expecting that same acceptance and loyalty to the unprecedented teachings and practices which it so eagerly espouses.
Father Cirignano is certainly free to express his disdain for Clergy who are out in the field, working day and night tirelessly serving those entrusted to their care.
Father is certainly free to criticize the Clergy for not having attained his credentials and recognition in academic circles where an actual and practical experience of shepherding souls is little appreciated or respected.
Father Cirignano is certainly free to reveal his own narrow-mindedness and biases.
But, in providing Father Cirignano with the forum of the official newspaper of the Vatican to disseminate these warped images of the Clergy, the Holy See has contributed significantly in demeaning Priestly life and service, and the dedication of so many who have served the Church well, if not heroically, especially at a time when the Priesthood has been plagued by terrible scandals and ridiculed by the secular world in general.
This Pontificate needs to understand that, if it wishes to convert the world, it must first convert its Priests. That takes time and requires charity, not condemnation.
The Pope demands that the laity be treated with compassion, understanding, respect and an accompaniment of acceptance (whatever that means!).
So be it.
By why is he and those around him so ready to deny to Priests what they expect Priests to provide to others?
I suggest that the Holy Father, Father Cirignano and L’Osservatore Romano’s editors should offer an apology to the Clergy for this article and for other unjust and unwarranted remarks.
I suggest a word of commendation and gratitude to the Clergy is much in order by this Pope and his proxies in the Holy See.
Father Cirignano claims that the “main obstacle” to implementing Pope Francis’s vision is “closure, if not hostility” from “a good part of the clergy, at levels both high and low.”
By the terms “high and low,” one assumes Father Cirigano is referring to Clergy ranging from Cardinals to ordinary Parish Priests.
“The Clergy is holding the people back, who should instead be accompanied (that word again!) in this extraordinary moment,” the article states.
“Most of the faithful have understood, despite everything, the favorable moment, the Kairos, which the Lord is giving to his community,” Father Cirignano said. “For the most part, they’re celebrating.”
Father Cirignano offered several factors to explain what he sees as “closure” and “hostility” from the Clergy towards Pope Francis.
The “modest cultural level on the part of Clergy, both at high and low levels,” he said, saying that both theological and Biblical preparation is often “scarce.”
An antiquated image of the Priesthood, which, according to Cirignano, sees the Priest as “the boss and patron of the community,” who, because of his celibate condition, is compensated with “totally individual responsibility,” a sort of “solitary protagonist.”
An old theology, associated with the Counter-Reformation, “lacking the resources of the Word, without a soul, that transformed the impassioned and mysterious adventure of believing into religion,” arguing that “the God of religion … is, for the most part, a projection of man, while “faith” is not in the first place “Man reaching for God, but the opposite.”
“When the Priest is too marked by a religious mentality, and too little by a limpid faith, then everything becomes more complicated,” Cirignano wrote. “He risks remaining the victim of many things invented by man about God and his will.” “God”, according to Cirignano, “doesn’t tolerate being enclosed in rigid schemes typical of the human mind.God is love, and that’s all, love as gift of itself.”
This article does not appear in a vacuum.
And the fact that it appears in the Vatican’s official news organ, L’Osservatore Romano, is no surprise either.
For, we note that Pope Francis himself has frequently taken the Clergy to task during the course of his papacy.
Why this penchant, so prevalent in this Pontificate, to cannibalize the Clergy in its zeal to advance what must be admitted is a theology of pastoral care and a morality of tolerance toward moral failing the likes of which the Church has never before witnessed?
It’s an old ploy: don’t blame the message, blame the messenger! If the message doesn't play, it's because the messenger has not done his job well.
The one virtue, both expressly encouraged and subliminally communicated, throughout the course of seminary formation has been and remains: obedientiam et reverentiam (obedience and respect) to one’s superiors in office.
While Priests may exhibit a host of talents, the one trait that will single them out for advancement or recognition is unquestioning loyalty to their Bishops and, through them, to the Church’s teachings and authority of governance reflected in the Papacy.
At every level of advancement toward Sacred Orders, Priests must take a loyalty oath, swearing before Almighty God and the Church itself that they will faithfully accept and proclaim its teachings and execute its moral disciplines, all the while rejecting the influences and errors prevalent in the modern world.
The overwhelming majority of Clergy take that oath most seriously and spend the rest of their lives giving life to its expectations, sometimes at great personal sacrifice and cost.
For the Priest, this loyalty to the Bishop and the hierarchical structure of the Church, to its teachings and praxis is the essence of Clerical virtue.
Now comes a Pontificate eager to suggest that such virtue is, in reality, a vice.
Now comes a Pontificate which labels the theology in which the Clergy were formed as “scarce and modest”, ill-suited for the demands of pastoral service the modern world demands.
Now comes a Pontificate which evaluates the model of Priesthood in which the Clergy have been formed as “antiquated and inept”.
Now comes a Pontificate which scolds the Clergy for having a “rigidity” of religiosity marked by a “limpid faith”.
Now comes a Pontificate which castigates the Clergy for the very loyalty which was demanded and expected of the them, all the while expecting that same acceptance and loyalty to the unprecedented teachings and practices which it so eagerly espouses.
Father Cirignano is certainly free to express his disdain for Clergy who are out in the field, working day and night tirelessly serving those entrusted to their care.
Father is certainly free to criticize the Clergy for not having attained his credentials and recognition in academic circles where an actual and practical experience of shepherding souls is little appreciated or respected.
Father Cirignano is certainly free to reveal his own narrow-mindedness and biases.
But, in providing Father Cirignano with the forum of the official newspaper of the Vatican to disseminate these warped images of the Clergy, the Holy See has contributed significantly in demeaning Priestly life and service, and the dedication of so many who have served the Church well, if not heroically, especially at a time when the Priesthood has been plagued by terrible scandals and ridiculed by the secular world in general.
This Pontificate needs to understand that, if it wishes to convert the world, it must first convert its Priests. That takes time and requires charity, not condemnation.
The Pope demands that the laity be treated with compassion, understanding, respect and an accompaniment of acceptance (whatever that means!).
So be it.
By why is he and those around him so ready to deny to Priests what they expect Priests to provide to others?
I suggest that the Holy Father, Father Cirignano and L’Osservatore Romano’s editors should offer an apology to the Clergy for this article and for other unjust and unwarranted remarks.
I suggest a word of commendation and gratitude to the Clergy is much in order by this Pope and his proxies in the Holy See.
IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME IN IRELAND
In early March of this year, thousands of women went on strike in towns and cities across Northern Ireland and the Republic to protest the countries' abortion bans, as part of a day of action organized to coincide with International Women's Day.
Women wore all black and were encouraged to take the day off work as well as refraining from performing emotional labor, unpaid gendered expectations placed on women.
The largest march was held in Dublin, where protesters blocked off O'Connell Bridge, bearing banners urging legal reform and chanting. Coalitions representing Irish artists, midwives, trade unions and students unions were among those who marched in the strike.
Outside Leinster house, anti-abortion protesters confronted them.
Ruth Coppinger, a member of the Irish parliament for the Anti-Austerity Alliance, addressed the crowds to call for urgent reform of the laws. She later said: "It's been a hugely important day. It was very important and necessary that young people in particular turned out.
"This is a new generation, they're not going to be told to wait and the whole concept of bodily autonomy for young people is very different even from my generation. The Church doesn't have power."
Danielle Roberts, from the Belfast Feminist Network which also marched in the rally to represent Northern Ireland, stated: "Reproductive rights are human rights and without bodily autonomy nobody can really be free.
On the heels of this protest (at the end of March), Nils Muiznieks, Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner, stated that Ireland must loosen its strict abortion laws and replace them with a regime more respectful to women's rights.
Laws against abortion in once stridently Catholic Ireland are among the world's most protective, but a referendum on widening access to abortion could be held if a citizens' assembly set up by government recommends it in a decision expected next month.
At present, abortions are allowed only if a mother's life is in danger, after a total ban was lifted in 2013, a provision Muiznieks said still has a "chilling" effect on doctors who must decide who meets restrictive requirements.
"Culturally, politically, socially, Ireland has changed significantly and I think that is not reflected in the current regime," he said.
Mr. Muiznieks joined the United Nations Human Rights Committee in recommending that at a very minimum, the Irish government should decriminalize abortion and widen the law to allow for abortion in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape or incest.
Of course, it is only a matter of time before abortion on demand becomes the law of the land in Ireland as it has in most of the civilized nations of the world.
The reason?
Because, as Ms. Coppinger has rightly noted, “the Church doesn't have power” any longer. The Church has no practical influence over the attitudes and culture of the Irish people.
Irish Bishops have been relentless in their condemnation of abortion, yet to no apparent avail as the movement to legitimize this murderous procedure continues to spread throughout the country.
And so, in short order I predict, Ireland will join those nations of the world where the right to life is no longer considered an inalienable right stemming from the laws of Nature and its Creator, but rather a privilege granted by the State.
Pope Paul VI, of happy memory, warned about the "culture of death" which would spread throughout the world as abortion was legalized and became an acceptable form of population control.
How prophetic the Holy Father truly was!
How sad, and remarkable. that we continue to fail to heed his wise counsel!
Women wore all black and were encouraged to take the day off work as well as refraining from performing emotional labor, unpaid gendered expectations placed on women.
The largest march was held in Dublin, where protesters blocked off O'Connell Bridge, bearing banners urging legal reform and chanting. Coalitions representing Irish artists, midwives, trade unions and students unions were among those who marched in the strike.
Outside Leinster house, anti-abortion protesters confronted them.
Ruth Coppinger, a member of the Irish parliament for the Anti-Austerity Alliance, addressed the crowds to call for urgent reform of the laws. She later said: "It's been a hugely important day. It was very important and necessary that young people in particular turned out.
"This is a new generation, they're not going to be told to wait and the whole concept of bodily autonomy for young people is very different even from my generation. The Church doesn't have power."
Danielle Roberts, from the Belfast Feminist Network which also marched in the rally to represent Northern Ireland, stated: "Reproductive rights are human rights and without bodily autonomy nobody can really be free.
On the heels of this protest (at the end of March), Nils Muiznieks, Council of Europe's Human Rights Commissioner, stated that Ireland must loosen its strict abortion laws and replace them with a regime more respectful to women's rights.
Laws against abortion in once stridently Catholic Ireland are among the world's most protective, but a referendum on widening access to abortion could be held if a citizens' assembly set up by government recommends it in a decision expected next month.
At present, abortions are allowed only if a mother's life is in danger, after a total ban was lifted in 2013, a provision Muiznieks said still has a "chilling" effect on doctors who must decide who meets restrictive requirements.
"Culturally, politically, socially, Ireland has changed significantly and I think that is not reflected in the current regime," he said.
Mr. Muiznieks joined the United Nations Human Rights Committee in recommending that at a very minimum, the Irish government should decriminalize abortion and widen the law to allow for abortion in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape or incest.
Of course, it is only a matter of time before abortion on demand becomes the law of the land in Ireland as it has in most of the civilized nations of the world.
The reason?
Because, as Ms. Coppinger has rightly noted, “the Church doesn't have power” any longer. The Church has no practical influence over the attitudes and culture of the Irish people.
Irish Bishops have been relentless in their condemnation of abortion, yet to no apparent avail as the movement to legitimize this murderous procedure continues to spread throughout the country.
And so, in short order I predict, Ireland will join those nations of the world where the right to life is no longer considered an inalienable right stemming from the laws of Nature and its Creator, but rather a privilege granted by the State.
Pope Paul VI, of happy memory, warned about the "culture of death" which would spread throughout the world as abortion was legalized and became an acceptable form of population control.
How prophetic the Holy Father truly was!
How sad, and remarkable. that we continue to fail to heed his wise counsel!
Sunday, July 23, 2017
RELIGIOUS INSTITUTES OF CONSECRATED LIFE AND SOCIETIES OF APOSTOLIC LIFE IN CRISIS
Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life (the Church’s Religious communities) face three possible outcomes as they consider their respective futures: extinction, minimal survival or redefinition.
Some congregations have come and gone, having served their purpose in the Church. Others continue but with a significantly reduced membership and ability to sustain themselves. Still other communities have sought to consolidate their efforts and their income by redefining the different understandings that presently exist about their common life and mission.
Some communities, especially those among Women Religious, have sought to augment their numbers by expanding the presence of lay partners within their ranks.
These lay partners can play an essential role in assisting in the Institute’s particular charism. They may even have a great influence upon the constitution and makeup of the Institutes themselves for the foreseeable future.
Today many lay partners are bound to a particular Congregation through the group’s works. Serving alongside men and women Religious, they work to identify those characteristic features that distinguish their efforts from those of other communities.
Over time, lay partners, along with the members of the founding Congregation, may become a living endowment for the institutions in which they minister, ensuring that the Congregation’s identity remains clear and the founding values respected.
Yet, this comingling of Religious and lay persons in the fulfillment of the community’s charismatic work is not without its own challenges.
It is critical that there be a willingness on the part of all those involved to adapt to new ways of living and acting. Both the Consecrated members of the community and the lay partners must be capable of accepting the needs of the community over and above their individual needs and agendas.
Religious Institutes need to accept the fact that many of the ministries which once defined their mission and purposes no longer require their presence. Other groups (either public or private) may be capable of providing these services, in some cases with greater efficiency.
Pope Paul VI defined the charism of religious life as the fruit of the Holy Spirit, who is always at work within the Church. He identified these signs of its presence: bold initiatives, constancy in the giving of oneself, humility in bearing with adversities, fidelity to the Lord, a courageous response to the pressing needs of the day and willingness to be part of the Church.
If Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life are to continue to exist and provide meaningful service to the Church, they must be firm in the belief that the Spirit of God who was so active and alive in their founder longs to live and breathe in each of them today.
Reclaiming that faith and enthusiasm does not come cheaply. It demands a habit of prayer that will develop a greater intimacy with Jesus, Who He is and how He acts. So, too, contemplation of Jesus in the Gospels will be the essential discipline that makes this type of decision-making possible.
Forming members in a spirituality of discernment of God’s Will and submission to that Divine Will must be a priority.
The Church has been the beneficiary of the blood, sweat, toil and tears of Men and Woman Religious throughout its history. To lose their sacred presence and commitment to the Gospel would be a terrible wound to the Body of Christ.
May the Holy Spirit allow Religious communities to work together in developing a vision of Religious Life that is well suited to the needs of the modern Church and world.
God bless our Women and Men Religious and their lay partners always!
Some congregations have come and gone, having served their purpose in the Church. Others continue but with a significantly reduced membership and ability to sustain themselves. Still other communities have sought to consolidate their efforts and their income by redefining the different understandings that presently exist about their common life and mission.
Some communities, especially those among Women Religious, have sought to augment their numbers by expanding the presence of lay partners within their ranks.
These lay partners can play an essential role in assisting in the Institute’s particular charism. They may even have a great influence upon the constitution and makeup of the Institutes themselves for the foreseeable future.
Today many lay partners are bound to a particular Congregation through the group’s works. Serving alongside men and women Religious, they work to identify those characteristic features that distinguish their efforts from those of other communities.
Over time, lay partners, along with the members of the founding Congregation, may become a living endowment for the institutions in which they minister, ensuring that the Congregation’s identity remains clear and the founding values respected.
Yet, this comingling of Religious and lay persons in the fulfillment of the community’s charismatic work is not without its own challenges.
It is critical that there be a willingness on the part of all those involved to adapt to new ways of living and acting. Both the Consecrated members of the community and the lay partners must be capable of accepting the needs of the community over and above their individual needs and agendas.
Religious Institutes need to accept the fact that many of the ministries which once defined their mission and purposes no longer require their presence. Other groups (either public or private) may be capable of providing these services, in some cases with greater efficiency.
Pope Paul VI defined the charism of religious life as the fruit of the Holy Spirit, who is always at work within the Church. He identified these signs of its presence: bold initiatives, constancy in the giving of oneself, humility in bearing with adversities, fidelity to the Lord, a courageous response to the pressing needs of the day and willingness to be part of the Church.
If Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life are to continue to exist and provide meaningful service to the Church, they must be firm in the belief that the Spirit of God who was so active and alive in their founder longs to live and breathe in each of them today.
Reclaiming that faith and enthusiasm does not come cheaply. It demands a habit of prayer that will develop a greater intimacy with Jesus, Who He is and how He acts. So, too, contemplation of Jesus in the Gospels will be the essential discipline that makes this type of decision-making possible.
Forming members in a spirituality of discernment of God’s Will and submission to that Divine Will must be a priority.
The Church has been the beneficiary of the blood, sweat, toil and tears of Men and Woman Religious throughout its history. To lose their sacred presence and commitment to the Gospel would be a terrible wound to the Body of Christ.
May the Holy Spirit allow Religious communities to work together in developing a vision of Religious Life that is well suited to the needs of the modern Church and world.
God bless our Women and Men Religious and their lay partners always!
Friday, July 21, 2017
CATHOLIC CHARITIES USA & CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICE: A MINISTRY OR A RACKET? -- Part Two
One wonders: Is the USCCB objecting to the President’s budget solely on the basis of “moral criteria” or are other agendas at work?
Robert Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has stated: “The Church is gravely mistaken as to the nature of the real crisis if she thinks that her essential mission is to offer solutions to all the political problems relating to justice, peace, poverty, the reception of migrants, etc., while neglecting evangelization.”
And, while I have clear reservations about Cardinal Sarah’s priorities and policies with regard to the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, in this particular instance, His Eminence is spot on.
Because, when it comes to evangelization, the CRS admits that it cannot “proselytize,” but is still proud that it is a “Catholic agency.”
While CRS hires many non-Catholics, all employees are “required to uphold Catholic teaching in their work.” Yet, such an expectation is fantasy.
Bearing in mind that AID has always been one of the most anti-Catholic government bureaucracies, can CRS maintain good relations with its benefactors there and still be proudly Catholic?
Let’s remember the Rick Estridge incicdent. He was the CRS’s Vice-president for Overseas Finance, and was for years a key player in the CRS-AID funding relationship.
In 2013, when the Lepanto Institute reported that Estridge was “married” to his male partner, it caused a crisis. Washington’s radical homosexual groups raged at the “hurtful” revelation, and CRS removed Estridge’s name from its website but kept him on while the agency tried to play damage control.
When Estridge finally “stepped down” six weeks later, CRS plaintively blamed the fiasco on the hiring policy of the USCCB — the same Bishops who supposedly govern the agency. Ever since, the agency has been roiled by questions about how genuinely “Catholic” it really is.
Catholic Charities USA faces the same identity crisis.
In April 2009, three months after Obama was sworn in, Catholic Charities USA hired Washington’s leading homosexual PR firm to lobby for increased federal funding from the new pro-LGBT administration and Congress. Catholic Charities paid the Sheridan Group $476,750 for its services.
Federal Law prohibits the use of federal funding for lobbying, even by nonprofits. Lobbying funds must be raised from the private sector.
About two-thirds of Catholic Charities USA’s budget comes from the federal government. But all funds for the pro-homosexual lobbyist, the Sheridan Group, must come from private donations, including the annual Catholic Charities “national collection” taken up in every parish in the country, sponsored by the USCCB
So, voluntary donations from Catholics in the pews paid the premier homosexual PR firm in Washington almost half a million dollars. The federal government did not.
Did Catholic Charities USA, or the Bishops on its Board of Directors, or the USCCB itself, or local Pastors (who themselves are willfully unaware) tell the faithful about the Sheridan Group contract?
No.
In fact, it was not until the Washington Blade, a LGBT newspaper, boasted about it two years later.
According to the Blade’s report, “Sister Jeannine Gramick, a Catholic nun and one of the founders of New Ways Ministry, which ‘provides support’ for LGBT Catholics, said Catholic Charities USA and some local Catholic Charities agencies have provided behind-the-scenes support for the LGBT Catholic community.”
“ Catholic Charities in general have been the most progressive wing of the Church other than the Nuns," she said. "In some cases, Catholic Charities USA has supported our events. I feel they personally are pro-gay but they can’t admit this publicly.”
According to its 2016 IRS Form 990, CCUSA’s voluntary contributions and grants dropped 40% from their 2015 total.
No wonder the USCCB finds Trump’s budget “profoundly troubling.”
Personally, I am “profoundly troubled” by the USCCB’s all too cozy arrangement with the government for the radical social agendas it advocates. I am sure that the majority of Catholic faithful would be equally troubled, if they were provided with the facts.
Catholics, who make generous and sacrificial offerings to Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Relief Services, should keep in mind the admonition of the “longshoreman philosopher,” Eric Hoffer: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
In the recent letter the USCCB sent to Congress, we must ask: just what is it that the Bishops are trying to preserve — a Catholic ministry? A business? Or a racket?
Robert Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has stated: “The Church is gravely mistaken as to the nature of the real crisis if she thinks that her essential mission is to offer solutions to all the political problems relating to justice, peace, poverty, the reception of migrants, etc., while neglecting evangelization.”
And, while I have clear reservations about Cardinal Sarah’s priorities and policies with regard to the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy, in this particular instance, His Eminence is spot on.
Because, when it comes to evangelization, the CRS admits that it cannot “proselytize,” but is still proud that it is a “Catholic agency.”
While CRS hires many non-Catholics, all employees are “required to uphold Catholic teaching in their work.” Yet, such an expectation is fantasy.
Bearing in mind that AID has always been one of the most anti-Catholic government bureaucracies, can CRS maintain good relations with its benefactors there and still be proudly Catholic?
Let’s remember the Rick Estridge incicdent. He was the CRS’s Vice-president for Overseas Finance, and was for years a key player in the CRS-AID funding relationship.
In 2013, when the Lepanto Institute reported that Estridge was “married” to his male partner, it caused a crisis. Washington’s radical homosexual groups raged at the “hurtful” revelation, and CRS removed Estridge’s name from its website but kept him on while the agency tried to play damage control.
When Estridge finally “stepped down” six weeks later, CRS plaintively blamed the fiasco on the hiring policy of the USCCB — the same Bishops who supposedly govern the agency. Ever since, the agency has been roiled by questions about how genuinely “Catholic” it really is.
Catholic Charities USA faces the same identity crisis.
In April 2009, three months after Obama was sworn in, Catholic Charities USA hired Washington’s leading homosexual PR firm to lobby for increased federal funding from the new pro-LGBT administration and Congress. Catholic Charities paid the Sheridan Group $476,750 for its services.
Federal Law prohibits the use of federal funding for lobbying, even by nonprofits. Lobbying funds must be raised from the private sector.
About two-thirds of Catholic Charities USA’s budget comes from the federal government. But all funds for the pro-homosexual lobbyist, the Sheridan Group, must come from private donations, including the annual Catholic Charities “national collection” taken up in every parish in the country, sponsored by the USCCB
So, voluntary donations from Catholics in the pews paid the premier homosexual PR firm in Washington almost half a million dollars. The federal government did not.
Did Catholic Charities USA, or the Bishops on its Board of Directors, or the USCCB itself, or local Pastors (who themselves are willfully unaware) tell the faithful about the Sheridan Group contract?
No.
In fact, it was not until the Washington Blade, a LGBT newspaper, boasted about it two years later.
According to the Blade’s report, “Sister Jeannine Gramick, a Catholic nun and one of the founders of New Ways Ministry, which ‘provides support’ for LGBT Catholics, said Catholic Charities USA and some local Catholic Charities agencies have provided behind-the-scenes support for the LGBT Catholic community.”
“ Catholic Charities in general have been the most progressive wing of the Church other than the Nuns," she said. "In some cases, Catholic Charities USA has supported our events. I feel they personally are pro-gay but they can’t admit this publicly.”
According to its 2016 IRS Form 990, CCUSA’s voluntary contributions and grants dropped 40% from their 2015 total.
No wonder the USCCB finds Trump’s budget “profoundly troubling.”
Personally, I am “profoundly troubled” by the USCCB’s all too cozy arrangement with the government for the radical social agendas it advocates. I am sure that the majority of Catholic faithful would be equally troubled, if they were provided with the facts.
Catholics, who make generous and sacrificial offerings to Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Relief Services, should keep in mind the admonition of the “longshoreman philosopher,” Eric Hoffer: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.”
In the recent letter the USCCB sent to Congress, we must ask: just what is it that the Bishops are trying to preserve — a Catholic ministry? A business? Or a racket?
CATHOLIC CHARITIES USA & CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICE: A MINISTRY OR A RACKET? -- Part One
In May, five of the USCCB’s leading Bishops sent a letter to every Senator and Representative, denouncing President Trump’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2018 as “profoundly troubling.”
Invoking “moral criteria” and the “common good,” the Bishops insist that Congress abandon Trump’s cuts in federal welfare programs. In a cynical bow to fiscal responsibility, however, they endorse cuts in defense spending instead.
The Bishops are calling on Congress to preserve the spending priorities that prevailed during the Obama administration.
So, what is really going on here.
The truth is that Bishops have relied increasingly on federal dollars to fund their various welfare agencies.
The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) reports that 30 million Catholics have left the Church, a figure confirmed by Timothy Cardinal Dolan when he was President of the USCCB.
As a result, voluntary donations from the Catholic faithful who remain have plummeted.
This perhaps explains why the USCCB’s call to preserve the Obama spending priorities do not mention or express any difficulty with Congress fully funding Planned Parenthood. The letter makes no reference to President Trump’s unprecedented move to protect unborn life by expanding the Mexico City Policy, which will reduce to zero the billions of taxpayer dollars that Obama has sent every year to fund abortion worldwide.
No, for the USCCB the letter is all about money.
By now, Catholics have become are resigned to hearing the Bishops proclaim personal political agendas as the Gospel. Yet, their silence about the moral implications and consequences of the budget priorities they are advocating is stunning. So much so that it warrants closer investigation.
The Bishops’ financial dependence upon public funding of their social agendas was fully revealed under the Obama administration.
The Obama administration attacked the Catholic Church in countless ways, from the HHS Mandate to mandatory LGBT hiring policies enforced on schools and “other institutions” receiving federal funding.
In the mix of those “other institutions" one finds CATHOLIC CHARITIES USA (CCUSA) and CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES (CRS), both of which receive the majority of their funding -- not from voluntary donations -- but from tax payer dollars.
Both the CCUSA and CRS are essentially subsidiaries of the government with a Catholic label. They must act — and hire — accordingly. After all, they have to observe federal regulations in order to be eligible for the federal funding.
The USCCB letter does not mention this salient fact.
One must bear this in mind in reading the USCCB’s letter to Congress. It clearly expresses the Bishops sudden fear that President Trump’s budget will slash CCUSA and CRS programs drastically, if not completely
The President’s proposed budget folds the Agency for International Development (AID) into the State Department. Consequently, it will “slash aid to developing countries by over one-third, re-channeling funding from development assistance into a program that is tied closely to national security objectives.”
And that means “slashing aid” to CRS, which relies on AID for the majority of its funding (about half a billion taxpayer dollars a year).
Invoking “moral criteria” and the “common good,” the Bishops insist that Congress abandon Trump’s cuts in federal welfare programs. In a cynical bow to fiscal responsibility, however, they endorse cuts in defense spending instead.
The Bishops are calling on Congress to preserve the spending priorities that prevailed during the Obama administration.
So, what is really going on here.
The truth is that Bishops have relied increasingly on federal dollars to fund their various welfare agencies.
The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) reports that 30 million Catholics have left the Church, a figure confirmed by Timothy Cardinal Dolan when he was President of the USCCB.
As a result, voluntary donations from the Catholic faithful who remain have plummeted.
This perhaps explains why the USCCB’s call to preserve the Obama spending priorities do not mention or express any difficulty with Congress fully funding Planned Parenthood. The letter makes no reference to President Trump’s unprecedented move to protect unborn life by expanding the Mexico City Policy, which will reduce to zero the billions of taxpayer dollars that Obama has sent every year to fund abortion worldwide.
No, for the USCCB the letter is all about money.
By now, Catholics have become are resigned to hearing the Bishops proclaim personal political agendas as the Gospel. Yet, their silence about the moral implications and consequences of the budget priorities they are advocating is stunning. So much so that it warrants closer investigation.
The Bishops’ financial dependence upon public funding of their social agendas was fully revealed under the Obama administration.
The Obama administration attacked the Catholic Church in countless ways, from the HHS Mandate to mandatory LGBT hiring policies enforced on schools and “other institutions” receiving federal funding.
In the mix of those “other institutions" one finds CATHOLIC CHARITIES USA (CCUSA) and CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES (CRS), both of which receive the majority of their funding -- not from voluntary donations -- but from tax payer dollars.
Both the CCUSA and CRS are essentially subsidiaries of the government with a Catholic label. They must act — and hire — accordingly. After all, they have to observe federal regulations in order to be eligible for the federal funding.
The USCCB letter does not mention this salient fact.
One must bear this in mind in reading the USCCB’s letter to Congress. It clearly expresses the Bishops sudden fear that President Trump’s budget will slash CCUSA and CRS programs drastically, if not completely
The President’s proposed budget folds the Agency for International Development (AID) into the State Department. Consequently, it will “slash aid to developing countries by over one-third, re-channeling funding from development assistance into a program that is tied closely to national security objectives.”
And that means “slashing aid” to CRS, which relies on AID for the majority of its funding (about half a billion taxpayer dollars a year).
Thursday, July 20, 2017
CARDINAL SARAH NEEDS TO RESIGN OR BE FIRED IMMEDIATELY
Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has embarrassed himself and the Church and written another book.
Yet again, His Eminence makes the case for his removal from that Dicastery.
In The Force of Silence, the Cardinal voices an urgent concern as he decries Masses which are celebrating for and with large crowds, sometimes numbering in the thousands.
The Cardinal writes: “Men and women in adultery and unbaptized tourists who participate in Eucharistic celebrations of anonymous crowds can receive without distinction the Body and Blood of Christ.”
The Cardinal voices an urgent need for the Church to study “the ecclesial and pastoral opportunity of these multitudinous Eucharistic celebrations with thousands of attendees.”
According to Cardinal Sarah, there is an immense danger of converting the Eucharist “into a vulgar verbena” and of desecrating the Body and Blood of Christ.
By the way, I had to look up a definition of “verbena” and found that it is a species of plant which is very showy but can cause sickness, sometimes fatal illness.
If for no other reason than the arrogance of the Cardinal so plainly displayed in these tirades, he needs to be removed from office and immediately so.
But, the Cardinal continues: “The Priests who distribute the Sacred Species without knowing anyone and give the body of Jesus to anyone, without distinguishing Christians from non-Christians, participate in the profanation of the Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice.”
This denunciation coming from a person who travels the world on the dollar of every conservative fringe group within the Church which invites him, and celebrates Mass with people not only whom he does not know but whom he will likely never again see in his lifetime!
What hypocrisy! Shocking and shameful!
Still, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship warns that “with some voluntary complicity,” those who exercise authority in the Church are guilty of permitting the sacrilege and desecration of the Body of Christ “in those gigantic and ridiculous self-celebrations, where there are very few who realize that the death of the Lord is announced until he comes. ”
"Self-celebrations"? I think the Cardinal is telling us more about his attitude in offering Mass than about Mass being offered for the multitudes.
Sarah also regrets that some “unfaithful Priests in the memory of Jesus” insist more on the festive aspect of the Mass than on the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. “The importance of the interior dispositions and the necessity to reconcile with God accepting to allow us to be purified by the sacrament of the confession are no longer in fashion.”
So, according to Cardinal Sarah (Prefect of the Dicastery which oversees and instructs the Church regarding the dispensation of the Sacraments and the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy), before one is to be permitted to receive Holy Communion it should be necessary that he or she be personally known by the Priest or the Extraordinary Minister.
If not, the communicant should provide proof (I presume by way of his or her Baptismal Certificate that they are Catholics and that they are not divorced and living in an adulterous union.
Further, communicants must provide some evidence (I can’t think how) that they are rightfully disposed and present themselves for Holy Communion intending to receive the Body and Blood of Christ with the full understanding of the Sacrament according to the Catholic Faith.
Excuse me, but does not Canon Law (which is really the only ruling authority in such matters) stipulate that the mind and will of the recipient ARE PRESUMED to be in union with the external words and actions of that person?
If Cardinal Sarah does not understand or accept that fundamental principle of law and the rights of the faithful, then he should not be allowed to continue in his office.
Ever since the self-inflicted wound which Cardinal Burke (and his co-conspirators) suffered for the arrogant and very public attack upon Pope Francis regarding Amoris Laetitia, conservative zealots within the Church have turned their collective attention upon Cardinal Sarah in the hope that he will emerge from the next Conclave as the Vicar of Christ who will nullify any legacy which Pope Francis might have wished to establish for the future of the Church.
Cardinal Sarah has lapped up that attention with the fervor of a thirsty dog lapping water from a bowl.
If Sarah is the future hope of the Church, the Church has no hope!
Yet again, His Eminence makes the case for his removal from that Dicastery.
In The Force of Silence, the Cardinal voices an urgent concern as he decries Masses which are celebrating for and with large crowds, sometimes numbering in the thousands.
The Cardinal writes: “Men and women in adultery and unbaptized tourists who participate in Eucharistic celebrations of anonymous crowds can receive without distinction the Body and Blood of Christ.”
The Cardinal voices an urgent need for the Church to study “the ecclesial and pastoral opportunity of these multitudinous Eucharistic celebrations with thousands of attendees.”
According to Cardinal Sarah, there is an immense danger of converting the Eucharist “into a vulgar verbena” and of desecrating the Body and Blood of Christ.
By the way, I had to look up a definition of “verbena” and found that it is a species of plant which is very showy but can cause sickness, sometimes fatal illness.
If for no other reason than the arrogance of the Cardinal so plainly displayed in these tirades, he needs to be removed from office and immediately so.
But, the Cardinal continues: “The Priests who distribute the Sacred Species without knowing anyone and give the body of Jesus to anyone, without distinguishing Christians from non-Christians, participate in the profanation of the Holy Eucharistic Sacrifice.”
This denunciation coming from a person who travels the world on the dollar of every conservative fringe group within the Church which invites him, and celebrates Mass with people not only whom he does not know but whom he will likely never again see in his lifetime!
What hypocrisy! Shocking and shameful!
Still, the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship warns that “with some voluntary complicity,” those who exercise authority in the Church are guilty of permitting the sacrilege and desecration of the Body of Christ “in those gigantic and ridiculous self-celebrations, where there are very few who realize that the death of the Lord is announced until he comes. ”
"Self-celebrations"? I think the Cardinal is telling us more about his attitude in offering Mass than about Mass being offered for the multitudes.
Sarah also regrets that some “unfaithful Priests in the memory of Jesus” insist more on the festive aspect of the Mass than on the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. “The importance of the interior dispositions and the necessity to reconcile with God accepting to allow us to be purified by the sacrament of the confession are no longer in fashion.”
So, according to Cardinal Sarah (Prefect of the Dicastery which oversees and instructs the Church regarding the dispensation of the Sacraments and the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy), before one is to be permitted to receive Holy Communion it should be necessary that he or she be personally known by the Priest or the Extraordinary Minister.
If not, the communicant should provide proof (I presume by way of his or her Baptismal Certificate that they are Catholics and that they are not divorced and living in an adulterous union.
Further, communicants must provide some evidence (I can’t think how) that they are rightfully disposed and present themselves for Holy Communion intending to receive the Body and Blood of Christ with the full understanding of the Sacrament according to the Catholic Faith.
Excuse me, but does not Canon Law (which is really the only ruling authority in such matters) stipulate that the mind and will of the recipient ARE PRESUMED to be in union with the external words and actions of that person?
If Cardinal Sarah does not understand or accept that fundamental principle of law and the rights of the faithful, then he should not be allowed to continue in his office.
Ever since the self-inflicted wound which Cardinal Burke (and his co-conspirators) suffered for the arrogant and very public attack upon Pope Francis regarding Amoris Laetitia, conservative zealots within the Church have turned their collective attention upon Cardinal Sarah in the hope that he will emerge from the next Conclave as the Vicar of Christ who will nullify any legacy which Pope Francis might have wished to establish for the future of the Church.
Cardinal Sarah has lapped up that attention with the fervor of a thirsty dog lapping water from a bowl.
If Sarah is the future hope of the Church, the Church has no hope!
REASONS WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE SO NEGATIVE TOWARD POPE FRANCIS
Tom Hoopes, writer in residence at Benedictine College, Kansas, recently published a book of reflections on the message of Pope Francis, What Pope Francis Really Said: Words of Comfort and Challenge.
MercatorNet asked him about the controversy surrounding the Pope.
The interviewer posed this question:
In some circles, there is an air of suspicion over everything the Pope does -- his appointments, his documents, his interviews, his guests at the Vatican... Why are some people so relentlessly negative?
Mr. Hoopes answered:
I’ll give three reasons that are his fault and three reasons that are our fault.
Three ways Pope Francis makes us not like him: First, he provokes us. He uses “fundamentalist,” “Manichean,” “rigorist” and other words that seem designed to condemn rather than correct.
Second, Pope Francis is imprecise and that gets him into trouble and makes life difficult for Catholics who have to address misunderstandings.
Third, because he seems clearly to be following a strategy that balances “doctrine-focused” appointments with “social justice-focused” appointments. That frightens many Catholics who have seen poisonous dissent in the Church all our lives.
Three fails on our part:
First, we are too thin-skinned to take Francis’s advice seriously. OK, some of what he says sounds like name-calling. But anyone who reads Catholic com-boxes knows that harsh, fundamentalist, “rigorist” Catholics absolutely exist. I remember the vitriol we received continually at the National Catholic Register. The harshness of Catholics startled a nice Catholic woman who came to work for us. She had never seen anything like it in the secular world, where she went back to work.
Second, his critique of American conservativism is true, and that bothers us. It’s true that economic opportunity has come at a gigantic moral cost that we decry but don’t correct – pornography streamed to our children, abortion exported worldwide, the destruction of Third-World families (and lakes and streams), and an entertainment-centred technocratic generation.
Our personal-comfort-focused consumerist lifestyle would destroy the world if it were adopted worldwide, Francis points out. He’s right. It would. And he’s right. That hasn’t made us correct course.
Third, there’s just something about him that sets our radar off. As I said before, our radar is hypersensitive but absolutely understandable.
While I do not totally agree with Mr. Hoopes, I must say that his observations are among the most insightful I have read about the Holy Father.
I am sure there are a host of other reasons which are agenda-driven and which account for either the opposition the Pope encounters or, even more disconcerting, the uncomfortable silence from so many in the hierarchy.
No doubt about it, this Pope surely has hit a nerve among Catholics, be they conservative, liberal, progressive or whatever label one wishes conveniently to attribute to them.
For my part, I pray that the Holy Spirit is inspiring the Holy Father with the Counsel he requires to speak prophetically to the pressing issues of the moment and with the Fortitude to persevere in his Papal ministry.
Come, Holy Spirit. Fill the hearts of Your faithful and kindle in us the fire of Your love!
MercatorNet asked him about the controversy surrounding the Pope.
The interviewer posed this question:
In some circles, there is an air of suspicion over everything the Pope does -- his appointments, his documents, his interviews, his guests at the Vatican... Why are some people so relentlessly negative?
Mr. Hoopes answered:
I’ll give three reasons that are his fault and three reasons that are our fault.
Three ways Pope Francis makes us not like him: First, he provokes us. He uses “fundamentalist,” “Manichean,” “rigorist” and other words that seem designed to condemn rather than correct.
Second, Pope Francis is imprecise and that gets him into trouble and makes life difficult for Catholics who have to address misunderstandings.
Third, because he seems clearly to be following a strategy that balances “doctrine-focused” appointments with “social justice-focused” appointments. That frightens many Catholics who have seen poisonous dissent in the Church all our lives.
Three fails on our part:
First, we are too thin-skinned to take Francis’s advice seriously. OK, some of what he says sounds like name-calling. But anyone who reads Catholic com-boxes knows that harsh, fundamentalist, “rigorist” Catholics absolutely exist. I remember the vitriol we received continually at the National Catholic Register. The harshness of Catholics startled a nice Catholic woman who came to work for us. She had never seen anything like it in the secular world, where she went back to work.
Second, his critique of American conservativism is true, and that bothers us. It’s true that economic opportunity has come at a gigantic moral cost that we decry but don’t correct – pornography streamed to our children, abortion exported worldwide, the destruction of Third-World families (and lakes and streams), and an entertainment-centred technocratic generation.
Our personal-comfort-focused consumerist lifestyle would destroy the world if it were adopted worldwide, Francis points out. He’s right. It would. And he’s right. That hasn’t made us correct course.
Third, there’s just something about him that sets our radar off. As I said before, our radar is hypersensitive but absolutely understandable.
While I do not totally agree with Mr. Hoopes, I must say that his observations are among the most insightful I have read about the Holy Father.
I am sure there are a host of other reasons which are agenda-driven and which account for either the opposition the Pope encounters or, even more disconcerting, the uncomfortable silence from so many in the hierarchy.
No doubt about it, this Pope surely has hit a nerve among Catholics, be they conservative, liberal, progressive or whatever label one wishes conveniently to attribute to them.
For my part, I pray that the Holy Spirit is inspiring the Holy Father with the Counsel he requires to speak prophetically to the pressing issues of the moment and with the Fortitude to persevere in his Papal ministry.
Come, Holy Spirit. Fill the hearts of Your faithful and kindle in us the fire of Your love!
Wednesday, July 19, 2017
WHILE THE CHURCH BURNS, ORLANDO CONVOCATION ATTENDEES LISTEN TO FIDDLING AND NONSENSE
The term “jargon” refers to language, especially the vocabulary peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group. The word is synonymous with unintelligible or meaningless talk or writing, gibberish, or any any talk or writing that one does not understand.
Jargon is often is characterized by uncommon or pretentious vocabulary and convoluted syntax intended to be vague or meaningless.
An example of such gibberish was evidenced when more than 3,500 attendees from parishes and Catholic organizations around the country gathered to attend the "Convocation of Catholic Leaders: The Joy of the Gospel in America" event which took place in Orlando, Florida in early July.
Here are some examples of what attendees heard during this much anticipated gathering.
Regarding the demographic changes the Church in the United States is experiencing (especially in the Hispanic communities of the South and West), attendees served up this heap of drivel when it was suggested that “Catholics reimagine their relationship with the public square.”
What in the world does that mean?
In another instance, Jesuit Father Thomas P. Gaunt, SJ, executive director of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University, explained that according to CARA's research, nearly a third of U.S. Catholics are not connected to a local church.
While this disparity is a sign for needed improvement, Father Gaunt suggested that “this gap can also be seen as a resource.”
The loss of the next and future generations of practicing Catholics should be considered a “resource"?
And the gibberish continued.
Helen Alvare, professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, pointed to the great strides the Church has made both in promoting its view of the human person in the public square.
What the Professor failed to note, however, is the fact that, in almost every instance, the Church has failed to influence or sway public opinion and policy regarding many of the issues confronting society today.
At the same time, however, the Professor encouraged Convocation attendees to “articulate the fullness and meaning of the faith, and not rely purely on constitutional and legal arguments. We have to tell them what we're going to use our religious liberty for.”
Huh?
But perhaps the most remarkable nonsense the attendees were served up was by Franciscan Father Agustino Torres, CFR, who works extensively with Latino youth in New York City,told conferees that “Latino youth don't want just a program, but an example of the Church's message”. He pointed to the Church's teaching on love and sexuality as a concrete example of doctrine that youth are hungry to apply to their lives.
Is it really possible that this Priest is honestly suggesting that today’s youth (Latino or not) are “hungry” for the moral implications and consequences of Catholic teaching regarding human sexuality?
Talk about living in a world of your own making? Talk about being irrelevant to young people.
Father Torres, “Wake up!”
Daniel Owens, who spoke with his wife Melanie, told Convocation attendees of the powerful “encounter” of love provided in the Church's message of chastity, echoed Fr. Torres' insights.
Saying that they see a "real opportunity" in sharing the message of the Gospel, the couple added that Pope Saint John Paul II’s Theology of the Body has the “unique ability to speak to the questions many youth face today.”
Really! Young people are looking for answers regarding their sexual awakenings and awareness based upon the former saintly Pope’s Encyclical?
Is there any evidence anywhere in this Creation to even suggest that is true?
And, of course, Father Torres, along with Owens and his wife, stressed the importance of
“encounter” (whatever in the world that word has come to mean), particularly when reaching out to young people.
Over the course of two millenia, the Church has confronted and responded to a humanity wounded by sin, to a humanity unable to order the passions and appetites of the will to the moral demands of a conscience formed in the clarity of the Evangelical Counsels of faith, hope and charity as well as the sound and consistent moral teachings of the Church.
Those clear counsels and that sound moral teachings have been obscured by the jargon and gibberish which is so commonly heard in Church circles today.
Perhaps, the attendees at the Convocation could have been better served and prepared to go back to their respective dioceses with something concrete and practical to offer in their effort to evangelize the world and former Catholics.
Even if they just had been given copies of the Baltimore Catechism and the Bible instead of being fed the nonsense they were being asked to digest at the convention, they would have been better served.
Jargon is often is characterized by uncommon or pretentious vocabulary and convoluted syntax intended to be vague or meaningless.
An example of such gibberish was evidenced when more than 3,500 attendees from parishes and Catholic organizations around the country gathered to attend the "Convocation of Catholic Leaders: The Joy of the Gospel in America" event which took place in Orlando, Florida in early July.
Here are some examples of what attendees heard during this much anticipated gathering.
Regarding the demographic changes the Church in the United States is experiencing (especially in the Hispanic communities of the South and West), attendees served up this heap of drivel when it was suggested that “Catholics reimagine their relationship with the public square.”
What in the world does that mean?
In another instance, Jesuit Father Thomas P. Gaunt, SJ, executive director of the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA) at Georgetown University, explained that according to CARA's research, nearly a third of U.S. Catholics are not connected to a local church.
While this disparity is a sign for needed improvement, Father Gaunt suggested that “this gap can also be seen as a resource.”
The loss of the next and future generations of practicing Catholics should be considered a “resource"?
And the gibberish continued.
Helen Alvare, professor of law at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University, pointed to the great strides the Church has made both in promoting its view of the human person in the public square.
What the Professor failed to note, however, is the fact that, in almost every instance, the Church has failed to influence or sway public opinion and policy regarding many of the issues confronting society today.
At the same time, however, the Professor encouraged Convocation attendees to “articulate the fullness and meaning of the faith, and not rely purely on constitutional and legal arguments. We have to tell them what we're going to use our religious liberty for.”
Huh?
But perhaps the most remarkable nonsense the attendees were served up was by Franciscan Father Agustino Torres, CFR, who works extensively with Latino youth in New York City,told conferees that “Latino youth don't want just a program, but an example of the Church's message”. He pointed to the Church's teaching on love and sexuality as a concrete example of doctrine that youth are hungry to apply to their lives.
Is it really possible that this Priest is honestly suggesting that today’s youth (Latino or not) are “hungry” for the moral implications and consequences of Catholic teaching regarding human sexuality?
Talk about living in a world of your own making? Talk about being irrelevant to young people.
Father Torres, “Wake up!”
Daniel Owens, who spoke with his wife Melanie, told Convocation attendees of the powerful “encounter” of love provided in the Church's message of chastity, echoed Fr. Torres' insights.
Saying that they see a "real opportunity" in sharing the message of the Gospel, the couple added that Pope Saint John Paul II’s Theology of the Body has the “unique ability to speak to the questions many youth face today.”
Really! Young people are looking for answers regarding their sexual awakenings and awareness based upon the former saintly Pope’s Encyclical?
Is there any evidence anywhere in this Creation to even suggest that is true?
And, of course, Father Torres, along with Owens and his wife, stressed the importance of
“encounter” (whatever in the world that word has come to mean), particularly when reaching out to young people.
Over the course of two millenia, the Church has confronted and responded to a humanity wounded by sin, to a humanity unable to order the passions and appetites of the will to the moral demands of a conscience formed in the clarity of the Evangelical Counsels of faith, hope and charity as well as the sound and consistent moral teachings of the Church.
Those clear counsels and that sound moral teachings have been obscured by the jargon and gibberish which is so commonly heard in Church circles today.
Perhaps, the attendees at the Convocation could have been better served and prepared to go back to their respective dioceses with something concrete and practical to offer in their effort to evangelize the world and former Catholics.
Even if they just had been given copies of the Baltimore Catechism and the Bible instead of being fed the nonsense they were being asked to digest at the convention, they would have been better served.
Tuesday, July 18, 2017
WHAT IN THE WORLD IS CARDINAL SCHONBORN SAYING?
The family is “the survival network of the future and will remain forever the basis of every society,” Cardinal Schönborn of Vienna told journalists ahead of addressing a conference, “Let’s Talk Family: Let’s Be Family.”
“The Catholic Church is doing whatever it can to strengthen the family, including families often considered non-traditional”, the Cardinal said.
“Favoring the family does not mean disfavoring other forms of life – even those living in a same-sex partnership need their families,” the Cardinal said during his visit to Ireland, which next year hosts the World Meeting of Families.
The Cardinal told the Conference at Mary Immaculate College that people should not be discouraged about the future of the family, despite the many social and economic threats and policies that disregard it.
“Today, everybody can get married,” he said, but acknowledged “so many choose not to get married.”
He suggested that the number of so-called irregular situations had increased enormously because the “framework of society has changed so much.”
“But let us not forget that marriage, as we have it today, is a privilege that was fairly rare in previous centuries, when only a third of the population were able to get married.”
He said his great-grandmother, a wealthy widow who lived in what today is the Czech Republic but then was part of the Austrian empire, had six servants who remained unmarried because of laws against marriage for people of their status. “Marriage was a privilege,” he said.
The Cardinal, a former student of Benedict XVI, also noted that the Pope’s grandmother was the “illegitimate daughter of a maiden, who was not permitted to marry.”
Frankly, having read the Cardinal’s statements a number of times, I still do not have the slightest understanding of or insight into what he is saying.
Why is it that a notable number of Bishops seem to have forgotten or abandoned the Church’s teaching regarding Marriage that for centuries has been based upon the classical understanding of the objective order of the Natural Law?
How can one define the essence of Marriage as the exclusive relationship of one man and one woman ordered to both the salvation of the couple and the procreation of children and, at the same moment, not only recognize but “favor” other forms of marriage which conflict with or contradict that definition?
In proclaiming what Marriage truly is, the Church is also proclaiming what Marriage is not.
This is not the result favoring one relationship over another but simply speaking to the truth of the matter.
Same-sex relationships are not and can never be likened to marriage. Families artificially constituted by convoluted personalist arguments or political policies can never rise to the essence of families whose nature and sanctity flow from the order of the laws of nature and its Creator.
In the desire so prevalent nowadays not to offend anyone’s sensibilities on any topic whatsoever, Cardinal Schonborn and others do the Church and the Christian faithful a disservice by not enunciating the truth of what Marriage and Family truly is.
If the Church abrogates its mission to proclaim the truths of nature and the Will of God expressed in both Scripture and Tradition, the world is deprived of the one resource it requires to discern what life’s meaning and purpose is.
The double-speak of Cardinal Schonborn and so many within the Church today serves no one and certainly neither the Gospel nor the Catholic Faith that offers humanity the one sure hope of redemption.
“The Catholic Church is doing whatever it can to strengthen the family, including families often considered non-traditional”, the Cardinal said.
“Favoring the family does not mean disfavoring other forms of life – even those living in a same-sex partnership need their families,” the Cardinal said during his visit to Ireland, which next year hosts the World Meeting of Families.
The Cardinal told the Conference at Mary Immaculate College that people should not be discouraged about the future of the family, despite the many social and economic threats and policies that disregard it.
“Today, everybody can get married,” he said, but acknowledged “so many choose not to get married.”
He suggested that the number of so-called irregular situations had increased enormously because the “framework of society has changed so much.”
“But let us not forget that marriage, as we have it today, is a privilege that was fairly rare in previous centuries, when only a third of the population were able to get married.”
He said his great-grandmother, a wealthy widow who lived in what today is the Czech Republic but then was part of the Austrian empire, had six servants who remained unmarried because of laws against marriage for people of their status. “Marriage was a privilege,” he said.
The Cardinal, a former student of Benedict XVI, also noted that the Pope’s grandmother was the “illegitimate daughter of a maiden, who was not permitted to marry.”
Frankly, having read the Cardinal’s statements a number of times, I still do not have the slightest understanding of or insight into what he is saying.
Why is it that a notable number of Bishops seem to have forgotten or abandoned the Church’s teaching regarding Marriage that for centuries has been based upon the classical understanding of the objective order of the Natural Law?
How can one define the essence of Marriage as the exclusive relationship of one man and one woman ordered to both the salvation of the couple and the procreation of children and, at the same moment, not only recognize but “favor” other forms of marriage which conflict with or contradict that definition?
In proclaiming what Marriage truly is, the Church is also proclaiming what Marriage is not.
This is not the result favoring one relationship over another but simply speaking to the truth of the matter.
Same-sex relationships are not and can never be likened to marriage. Families artificially constituted by convoluted personalist arguments or political policies can never rise to the essence of families whose nature and sanctity flow from the order of the laws of nature and its Creator.
In the desire so prevalent nowadays not to offend anyone’s sensibilities on any topic whatsoever, Cardinal Schonborn and others do the Church and the Christian faithful a disservice by not enunciating the truth of what Marriage and Family truly is.
If the Church abrogates its mission to proclaim the truths of nature and the Will of God expressed in both Scripture and Tradition, the world is deprived of the one resource it requires to discern what life’s meaning and purpose is.
The double-speak of Cardinal Schonborn and so many within the Church today serves no one and certainly neither the Gospel nor the Catholic Faith that offers humanity the one sure hope of redemption.
Monday, July 17, 2017
STAR CHAMBER TACTICS AT THE CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH (CDF)
The Star Chamber (in Latin, Camera stellata) was an English court of law which sat at the royal Palace of Westminster, from the late 15th century to the mid-17th century (c. 1641), and was composed of Privy Councillors and common-law judges, to supplement the judicial activities of the common-law and equity courts in civil and criminal matters.
The Star Chamber was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes.
In the course of time, however, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.
The term today is generally used pejoratively and is and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of a court's actions and judgments.
Now comes an international group of Bishops, Religious, Priests and lay people, all investigated by Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF), who have written to Pope Francis calling for a reform of its investigation process and specifically an end to its anonymous denunciations.
The 15 who signed the letter include Bishops Patrick Power and William Morris of Australia, Father Charles Curran, Father Brian Darcy as well as Father Roy Bourgeois.
In their letter to the Pope, which was also sent to the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the group accuse the CDF of acting as "investigator, accuser, judge and jury". The process, they contend, cannot offer justice.
"The CDFis outdated and follows the "absolutism of sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe" as a model," the signatories said.
They suggest a new set of procedures that would require greater transparency and accountability while imposing a strict time limit on any investigation and direct personal face-to-face communication between the accused and the CDF.
One of the signatories, Australian historian and author Paul Collins, said that the current process makes no presumption of innocence and those accused are never told who has accused them nor who is judging them.
"They don't even know who their defense counsel is. They are usually never given a chance to defend themselves verbally and in person. Letters go unanswered for months or are 'lost'," he criticized.
The signatories highlight that those investigated by the CDF find the process completely draining, isolating and exhausting and this is often linked to CDF imposed exclusion from ministry.
The letter to the former Prefect of the CDF was sent in late February 2016 but so far no acknowledgement or response has been received by the group.
In addition to reforms within the CDF, the group propose an open process conducted by a committee of experts entirely separate from the CDF. This committee would be set up by the Secretariat of the World Synod of Bishops in full consultation with the person being investigated. The committee would make a final recommendation to the next meeting of the Synod and to the Pope.
The aim of these proposed reforms is to avoid some of “the worst aspects” of the present investigation procedures as experienced by those who have dealt with the CDF over the last decades.
Anonymous denunciations would be done away with and instead those accusers would be named. Secret CDF-appointed advocates would no longer remain anonymous but would also be named and their qualifications could then be scrutinized for biases.
Under these proposals, the CDF would be required to deal directly and personally with the person being investigated and there would also be an end to the enforced secrecy which often contributes to the “crippling isolation” of the accused, who are often dealt with third and fourth hand via a network of Bishops and Superiors – who might even have been the primary accuser of the person being investigated in the first place.
The new process would involve the person under investigation and their counsel from the beginning of the process in order to circumvent their work being inaccurately or unfairly interpreted by CDF consulters, or sentences or opinions are taken out of context.
Direct personal face-to-face communication could also help to deal with the “sheer rudeness” and lack of basic politeness and Christian charity on the part of CDF personnel. Strict time limits would prevent processes being dragged out “in an attempt to wear down the resistance of those being investigated”.
The group claim that under the current process “extremely sick or dying people have been investigated and forced to respond to often silly accusations”.
The process, the group warns, must prevent the same people acting as investigators, prosecutors and judges by referring ongoing cases to the Synod of Bishops, thus removing the decision-making from the CDF. Instead the wider community of theologians and the faithful people of God would be involved so that the CDF and its Rome-based advisers would not be the “sole arbiters of correct doctrine and belief”.
While I am no fan of many of those who penned this letter, it appears their concerns (based upon their personal experience with the CDF) are well intentioned and certainly not without merit.
The days of the CDF conducting itself as a “star chamber” should come to an end and those accused of misdeeds or unorthodox teaching be given a fair hearing and judgment in a process that respects their right to defend themselves and their reputations.
Why the CDF and its former Prefect has yet to respond to the letter and the concerns it voices is a puzzlement indeed!
The Star Chamber was originally established to ensure the fair enforcement of laws against socially and politically prominent people so powerful that ordinary courts would probably hesitate to convict them of their crimes.
In the course of time, however, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded.
The term today is generally used pejoratively and is and intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of a court's actions and judgments.
Now comes an international group of Bishops, Religious, Priests and lay people, all investigated by Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (CDF), who have written to Pope Francis calling for a reform of its investigation process and specifically an end to its anonymous denunciations.
The 15 who signed the letter include Bishops Patrick Power and William Morris of Australia, Father Charles Curran, Father Brian Darcy as well as Father Roy Bourgeois.
In their letter to the Pope, which was also sent to the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, the group accuse the CDF of acting as "investigator, accuser, judge and jury". The process, they contend, cannot offer justice.
"The CDFis outdated and follows the "absolutism of sixteenth and seventeenth century Europe" as a model," the signatories said.
They suggest a new set of procedures that would require greater transparency and accountability while imposing a strict time limit on any investigation and direct personal face-to-face communication between the accused and the CDF.
One of the signatories, Australian historian and author Paul Collins, said that the current process makes no presumption of innocence and those accused are never told who has accused them nor who is judging them.
"They don't even know who their defense counsel is. They are usually never given a chance to defend themselves verbally and in person. Letters go unanswered for months or are 'lost'," he criticized.
The signatories highlight that those investigated by the CDF find the process completely draining, isolating and exhausting and this is often linked to CDF imposed exclusion from ministry.
The letter to the former Prefect of the CDF was sent in late February 2016 but so far no acknowledgement or response has been received by the group.
In addition to reforms within the CDF, the group propose an open process conducted by a committee of experts entirely separate from the CDF. This committee would be set up by the Secretariat of the World Synod of Bishops in full consultation with the person being investigated. The committee would make a final recommendation to the next meeting of the Synod and to the Pope.
The aim of these proposed reforms is to avoid some of “the worst aspects” of the present investigation procedures as experienced by those who have dealt with the CDF over the last decades.
Anonymous denunciations would be done away with and instead those accusers would be named. Secret CDF-appointed advocates would no longer remain anonymous but would also be named and their qualifications could then be scrutinized for biases.
Under these proposals, the CDF would be required to deal directly and personally with the person being investigated and there would also be an end to the enforced secrecy which often contributes to the “crippling isolation” of the accused, who are often dealt with third and fourth hand via a network of Bishops and Superiors – who might even have been the primary accuser of the person being investigated in the first place.
The new process would involve the person under investigation and their counsel from the beginning of the process in order to circumvent their work being inaccurately or unfairly interpreted by CDF consulters, or sentences or opinions are taken out of context.
Direct personal face-to-face communication could also help to deal with the “sheer rudeness” and lack of basic politeness and Christian charity on the part of CDF personnel. Strict time limits would prevent processes being dragged out “in an attempt to wear down the resistance of those being investigated”.
The group claim that under the current process “extremely sick or dying people have been investigated and forced to respond to often silly accusations”.
The process, the group warns, must prevent the same people acting as investigators, prosecutors and judges by referring ongoing cases to the Synod of Bishops, thus removing the decision-making from the CDF. Instead the wider community of theologians and the faithful people of God would be involved so that the CDF and its Rome-based advisers would not be the “sole arbiters of correct doctrine and belief”.
While I am no fan of many of those who penned this letter, it appears their concerns (based upon their personal experience with the CDF) are well intentioned and certainly not without merit.
The days of the CDF conducting itself as a “star chamber” should come to an end and those accused of misdeeds or unorthodox teaching be given a fair hearing and judgment in a process that respects their right to defend themselves and their reputations.
Why the CDF and its former Prefect has yet to respond to the letter and the concerns it voices is a puzzlement indeed!
MALTA LEGALIZES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Lawmakers in predominantly Roman Catholic Malta legalized same-sex marriage recently, joining much of Western Europe by replacing the traditional "you are now husband and wife" declaration in civil ceremonies with "you are now spouses."
Only one lawmaker out of 67 in the Maltese Parliament voted against the legislation, signaling its broad support on the island nation despite opposition from the Catholic Church.
Nationalist lawmaker Edwin Vassallo cited his Catholic faith and its incompatibility with what he called a "morally unacceptable" law. "A Christian politician cannot leave his conscience outside the door when he enters parliament", Vassallo said.
The Labor government had promised to introduce the bill as its first law after winning a second term last month. Both opposition parties supported it, ensuring its passage. The aim of the law, piloted by Malta Equality Minister Helena Dalli, was to "modernize the institution of marriage" to extend it to all consenting adult couples.
Its passage marked the latest evidence of the transformation of the once-conservative nation of about 440,000 people, where divorce was illegal until 2011.
While abortion remains banned in Malta, adoption by same-sex couples has been legal since civil unions were introduced in 2014. Last year, the number of exclusively civil marriages eclipsed the number of Church weddings for the first time.
Archbishop Charles Scicluna had opposed the same-sex marriage law, reflecting the Church's longstanding view that marriage can only be between a man and woman.
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat had said it would be "discriminatory" to have separate laws for mixed and same-sex couples. So the amendments to existing laws included eliminating any reference to "husband and wife." In its place is now the gender-neutral term "spouse" to cover all situations.
The law also calls for the removal of the terms "father" and "mother," to be substituted by "parents." Lesbian couples who have children via medical interventions are distinguished by the terms "the person who gave birth" and "the other parent."
Other changes concern heterosexual marriages. Any reference to "maiden name" is replaced with "surname at birth," while couples can now choose what surname to take after marriage. A man, for example, can take his wife's surname.
More than a dozen European countries have legalized same-sex marriage, all in the western part of the Continent. Almost a dozen others, including Italy, have some sort of same-sex unions or civil partnerships, according to the Pew Research Center.
Is there any doubt that the secular Europe of today appears to be very much like the Roman Empire on the eve of its collapse.
The unrelenting assault by the homosexual community upon the culture and values of a once Christian Europe is spawning the collapse of Western Civilization itself.
Where once statesmen were found are now those who would sell their souls for political expediency.
The Gospel and the Christian Faith which were the underpinnings of a free and prosperous Europe have been abandoned. The Church, once the most convincing voice in advancing the nobility and dignity of human freedom as an inalienable right bestowed by God and not the State, has lost its credibility amidst the scandals and turmoil within its ranks.
The Pope and liberal elites of the political class within Europe these days preach a gospel of immigration and multiculturalism. It is a prescription for the death of Western Civilization.
One day soon, Europe will awaken to find itself enslaved by Islam, which will have replaced Christianity. Those who advocate homosexual unions, the liberal elites, the worst critics and enemies of the traditional culture and moral values of Europe will be the first to be executed.
Europe will once again come under the shadow, not of an Iron Boot, but of a barbarism by Islam that will make Nazism look tame by comparison.
Only this time, the America which is quickly following in Europe's footsteps, won't be there to rescue the Continent.
And, with the irony that only the willfully ignorant can muster, Europeans will raise their eyes to Heaven and cry out: "How can this be happening to us?"
O tempore, o mores!
Only one lawmaker out of 67 in the Maltese Parliament voted against the legislation, signaling its broad support on the island nation despite opposition from the Catholic Church.
Nationalist lawmaker Edwin Vassallo cited his Catholic faith and its incompatibility with what he called a "morally unacceptable" law. "A Christian politician cannot leave his conscience outside the door when he enters parliament", Vassallo said.
The Labor government had promised to introduce the bill as its first law after winning a second term last month. Both opposition parties supported it, ensuring its passage. The aim of the law, piloted by Malta Equality Minister Helena Dalli, was to "modernize the institution of marriage" to extend it to all consenting adult couples.
Its passage marked the latest evidence of the transformation of the once-conservative nation of about 440,000 people, where divorce was illegal until 2011.
While abortion remains banned in Malta, adoption by same-sex couples has been legal since civil unions were introduced in 2014. Last year, the number of exclusively civil marriages eclipsed the number of Church weddings for the first time.
Archbishop Charles Scicluna had opposed the same-sex marriage law, reflecting the Church's longstanding view that marriage can only be between a man and woman.
Prime Minister Joseph Muscat had said it would be "discriminatory" to have separate laws for mixed and same-sex couples. So the amendments to existing laws included eliminating any reference to "husband and wife." In its place is now the gender-neutral term "spouse" to cover all situations.
The law also calls for the removal of the terms "father" and "mother," to be substituted by "parents." Lesbian couples who have children via medical interventions are distinguished by the terms "the person who gave birth" and "the other parent."
Other changes concern heterosexual marriages. Any reference to "maiden name" is replaced with "surname at birth," while couples can now choose what surname to take after marriage. A man, for example, can take his wife's surname.
More than a dozen European countries have legalized same-sex marriage, all in the western part of the Continent. Almost a dozen others, including Italy, have some sort of same-sex unions or civil partnerships, according to the Pew Research Center.
Is there any doubt that the secular Europe of today appears to be very much like the Roman Empire on the eve of its collapse.
The unrelenting assault by the homosexual community upon the culture and values of a once Christian Europe is spawning the collapse of Western Civilization itself.
Where once statesmen were found are now those who would sell their souls for political expediency.
The Gospel and the Christian Faith which were the underpinnings of a free and prosperous Europe have been abandoned. The Church, once the most convincing voice in advancing the nobility and dignity of human freedom as an inalienable right bestowed by God and not the State, has lost its credibility amidst the scandals and turmoil within its ranks.
The Pope and liberal elites of the political class within Europe these days preach a gospel of immigration and multiculturalism. It is a prescription for the death of Western Civilization.
One day soon, Europe will awaken to find itself enslaved by Islam, which will have replaced Christianity. Those who advocate homosexual unions, the liberal elites, the worst critics and enemies of the traditional culture and moral values of Europe will be the first to be executed.
Europe will once again come under the shadow, not of an Iron Boot, but of a barbarism by Islam that will make Nazism look tame by comparison.
Only this time, the America which is quickly following in Europe's footsteps, won't be there to rescue the Continent.
And, with the irony that only the willfully ignorant can muster, Europeans will raise their eyes to Heaven and cry out: "How can this be happening to us?"
O tempore, o mores!