In a recent private meeting with Jesuits and laity associated with Jesuit-run institutions in Colombia, Pope Francis took the opportunity to address many comments which have been made concerning the post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia, which continues to be a document of continuing, if not increasing, controversy and debate.
The Holy Father made a number of very interesting comments.
He stated, “To those who maintain that the morality underlying the document is not “a Catholic morality” or a morality that can be certain or sure, “I want to repeat clearly that the morality of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ is Thomist,” that is, built on the moral philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas."
“St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure affirm that the general principle holds for all but — they say it explicitly — as one moves to the particular, the question becomes diversified and many nuances arise without changing the principle,” he had said. It is a method that was used for the Catechism of the Catholic Church and “Amoris Laetitia,” the Pope added.
Well, with due respect for the Petrine Office, I must confess that I am perplexed by the Holy Father’s suggestion that his interpretation of the basis of his Apostolic Exhortation is Thomistic.
I believe students of Aquinas and Bonaventure would agree with me.
It must be remembered that both Thomas and Bonaventure proceed from an
a-priori metaphysical assertion that morality is absolute, that is, the determination of the rightness or wrongness of an action is dependent upon the act's conformity to truths which are either Divinely Revealed or which are apparent from a studious consideration of the Laws of Nature.
Thus, certain actions are morally right or wrong in and of themselves and apply universally to all rational agents who act in freedom.
The is no question of nuance or diversity in the application of moral truths to human acts or behavior. For example, adultery is absolutely and objectively prohibited by both Divine and Natural Law. There is no situation or circumstance which would allow or justify such behavior. Those who engage in adulterous actions or relationships are engaged in actions which are morally reprehensible always and everywhere.
On the other hand, certain actions are morally neutral. Their moral rightness or wrongness is determined not by their relationship to Divine or Natural Law, but rather by the intention of those who carry them out. For example, the act of killing is in and of itself morally neutral. It can be justified and permitted in certain circumstances (self-defense). It can constitute a grave moral evil in other situations (murder).
For Thomas and Bonaventure, actions which are innately immoral always apply and they bind all equally and universally.
But whether a person incurs personal responsibility for his or her actions is wholly determined by any number of diverse factors: correct conscience, a full and free exercise of will, age, mental capacity as well as a host of circumstances which either eliminate or mitigate the consequences which flow from one’s actions or behavior.
For example, two persons engage in adultery.
One is fully and correctly formed in conscience that his or her adulterous actions constitute a grave moral evil and freely chooses to engage in these actions. Such a person is culpable for the actions and incurs the moral (and ecclesiastical) consequences of the act.
Another person who lacks sufficient mental capacity (an imbecile) engages in the same adulterous act, but his or her diminished mental capacity may either eliminate or mitigate personal responsibility and its attendant consequences.
So, for Thomas and Bonaventure, morality is absolute, culpability is situational or circumstantial.
Thomistic moral theology does not move from the general to the particular in a way which determines an action's goodness or evil. Rather, the movement from the general to the particular applies only when considering the ability of the agent to act with rational competence and freedom of will, thus determining culpability.
There is serious reason to question the Holy Father’s interpretation of Aquinas’ and Bonaventure’s metaphysical analysis of reality as well as their fundamental moral theologies.
And so, many Catholics of good will take exception to such an interpretation which serves as the basis for many of the pastoral initiatives which are encouraged in Amoris Laetitia. And for good reason.
I contend that the fundamental flaw of Amoris Laetitia is to be found in its lack of clarity regarding the objective and absolute nature of certain moral actions versus the determination of one’s personal responsibility for engaging in those actions.
Rightly understood, Amoris Laetitia is calling upon the Church to move away from the casuistic application of moral principles without sufficient consideration for the circumstances which may or may not eliminate or mitigate culpability. The Church has much too quickly and easily imputed responsibility without sufficient consideration or discernment of the circumstances in which people act.
A valid Sacramental Marriage is indissoluble. Anyone who engages in adulterous actions or behaviors engages in an objectively and absolute moral evil. This is universally true and applies to all spouses in every age and place.
Whether or not persons actually engaged in adulterous actions are personally culpable of sin and necessarily incur the moral and ecclesiastical penalties attached to such acts can only rightfully be determined by engaging in “a process of accompaniment and discernment” assisted by their Sacred Pastors.
Simply ascribing guilt and punishment on the basis of the action itself without consideration of the culpability of the agent is what Amoris Laetitia deplores and is seeking to correct.
And so, while I take issue with Pope Francis’ interpretation of Thomistic moral theology, I find that we arrive at the same place, saying basically the same thing.
For too long, the Church has been arrogant and insensitive to the real life situations of flesh and blood people who often know what is right but are so wounded or weakened that they may not be fully responsible for the situations in which they have placed themselves.
The Church needs to enrich its moral teaching with the virtues of charity and mercy. That requires not just an analytical examination of morality, but a blending of the scientific rigor of theology with a love for the Church and for a suffering humanity broken by sin.
As the Holy Father has rightfully observed:
“ There are certain points of morality on which only in prayer can one have sufficient light to continue reflecting theologically. And on this, allow me to repeat it, one must do ‘theology on one’s knees.’ You cannot do theology without prayer. This is a key point and it must be done this way.”
If only the Pope would be clearer and those hearing him would less defensive, perhaps the real truth of the Church’s moral theology could be proclaimed and the People of God be truly enlightened.
Saturday, September 30, 2017
Thursday, September 28, 2017
ON THE THRESHOLD OF VATICAN COUNCIL III
Let me suggest something that, when you first read it, may appear utterly ridiculous. But think about it for a while and you may find yourself agreeing.
I believe that the Pontificate of Pope Francis will serve to usher in the next Ecumenical Council, Vatican III.
Why do I say this?
Because the various Curial reforms, the liturgical initiatives and, most especially, the pastoral directives which Pope Francis has encouraged have introduced divisions within the unity and integrity of the Catholic Faith which will require both clarity and resolution.
Only a gathering of the Bishops, joined together in Ecumenical Council (the supreme expression of the teaching authority of the Church), will be able to resolve the various controversies which have arisen as a result of Pope Francis’ Pontificate.
In my graduate studies at the Angelicum (University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome) decades ago, the professor who taught Church History offered us the benefit of his wisdom and insight. He insisted that Vatican I was all about the Supreme Authority of the Pope in matters of Faith, Morals, and Governance. He declared that Vatican II was all about the Office of the Bishop as the Successor of the Apostles and One with the Pope in the threefold mission of the Church to teach, to govern and to sanctify.
He went on to predict that Vatican III would be convened in our lifetimes and would address the Sacred Order of Priesthood, its ministry of pastoral service and its manifold expression in the modern world.
Lastly, he shared his belief that Vatican IV would be about the Laity and their role in the service to the Gospel and its continued proclamation to generations yet to come.
I believe that we are standing at the threshold of Vatican III. And only the Pontificate of Francis (or someone like him) could have brought us to this moment in time.
Certainly, many of the pastoral initiatives which Pope Francis has introduced (most notably his Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia), his enthusiastic encouragement and support for the discretionary role conferences of Bishops should exercise in matters related to the reception of the Sacraments and the Sacred Liturgy, as well as the openness he has shown toward the various churches of the Reformation as well as non-Christian faiths has been a source of controversy and division.
Some have accused the Pope not of bringing reform to the Curia but of introducing revolutionary (possibly even heretical) teachings regarding matters of faith and morals.
Thus far, the squabbles over these initiatives have been limited to a meager minority of conservative dissidents who have tried to bully Pope Francis by publicly disputing his words and criticizing his actions.
Thus far, the Holy Father has easily chosen to ignore the mad chatter against him, even as it has grown louder in recent days.
There are whispers of deep fractures within the Clergy itelf.
Still, Pope Francis enjoys considerable popularity among the Catholic faithful who quite like the fact that the circumstances of their complicated lives at least seem to be more easily accepted by the Catholic Church under his direction.
But the shock wave which the Church will experience as a result of this Pontificate has yet to be felt. That’s because the explosive event which will create it has yet to take place.
It is coming, however.
It will focus upon the mission and ministry of the Sacred Priesthood and the discretion which the Pope will give to conferences of Bishops to allow optional celibacy for future Priests in the Latin Rite.
The upcoming Synod in the Fall of 2018 will be the venue in which this revolution regarding the Sacrament of Holy Orders will trigger reactions so profoundly diverse and divisive that only an Ecumenical Council will be able to provide the necessary guidance and resolution such an initiative will require.
It is very clear that the Holy Father has already expressed his willingness to entertain a Priesthood which allows for optional celibacy in those instances where local conferences of Bishops determine that the People of God are suffering from a critical shortage of Priests to provide for Sacramental and spiritual needs of those entrusted to their pastoral care.
Out of reverential respect for the time-honored custom and tradition of the Latin Church, those already Ordained would not be permitted to marry. But, married men would be admitted to Sacred Orders, a practice which constituted the norm within the Church during the first 1200 years of its existence.
One thing is certain. No one could imagine the subject of a married Clergy ever being given any serious thought whatsoever by the two previous, staunchly conservative Pontificates.
Pope Francis has changed the landscape of Church teaching and practice in ways the Cardinals who elected him could never have imagined.
He has employed his now familiar metaphor that the Church should be a “field hospital” and not a “fortress”, open and accepting of the wounded who come for care and attention. He is intent that the "field hospital" have enough "doctors" (Priests) to treat the spiritually wounded.
The Holy Father has likewise shown that he is more than willing to tolerate the squabbles that have arisen over his pastoral initiatives.
The more conservative Bishops and faithful have not reacted well. Almost daily, their voices of dissent threaten schism or worse.
There have been public protests in the form of “fraternal corrections” by a handful of Cardinals to “filial corrections” by self-appointed defenders of the faith among little known scholars and theologians.
Pope Francis has chosen to ignore the complaints and entreaties and acted even more aggressively in establishing policies and procedures which empower local conferences of Bishops to exercise their mission and ministry according to their own discretion.
As a result, the Church finds itself caught in the middle of these tensions which will come to a head at the next Synod.
In October, 2018, Pope Francis will convene the Synod of Bishops to discuss the role of Youth in the Church.
However, just as the Synod on the Family took a drastic but much telegraphed turn and was the forum in which the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried became the central issue, I believe the Synod on the Youth will be the moment when Priesthood in the Latin Rite will revert to its original paradigm allowing married men to be admitted to Sacred Orders.
Communion for the divorced and remarried was addressed in a footnote attached to the post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Perhaps, a footnote attached to the Apostolic Exhortation which will follow the future Synod will contain the Papal approbation allowing local conferences of Bishops to decide whether or not to allow for the admission of married men to the Priesthood.
Who knows?
But should and when that happens, to borrow a phrase, "all hell will break loose".
That will set the stage for the only recourse the Church has to address and resolve the inevitable disputes which will arise by convening Ecumenical Council Vatican III.
Lord knows, I have been wrong so many times in my life. But....
We shall see what we shall see and not have to wait all that long to see it.
I believe that the Pontificate of Pope Francis will serve to usher in the next Ecumenical Council, Vatican III.
Why do I say this?
Because the various Curial reforms, the liturgical initiatives and, most especially, the pastoral directives which Pope Francis has encouraged have introduced divisions within the unity and integrity of the Catholic Faith which will require both clarity and resolution.
Only a gathering of the Bishops, joined together in Ecumenical Council (the supreme expression of the teaching authority of the Church), will be able to resolve the various controversies which have arisen as a result of Pope Francis’ Pontificate.
In my graduate studies at the Angelicum (University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome) decades ago, the professor who taught Church History offered us the benefit of his wisdom and insight. He insisted that Vatican I was all about the Supreme Authority of the Pope in matters of Faith, Morals, and Governance. He declared that Vatican II was all about the Office of the Bishop as the Successor of the Apostles and One with the Pope in the threefold mission of the Church to teach, to govern and to sanctify.
He went on to predict that Vatican III would be convened in our lifetimes and would address the Sacred Order of Priesthood, its ministry of pastoral service and its manifold expression in the modern world.
Lastly, he shared his belief that Vatican IV would be about the Laity and their role in the service to the Gospel and its continued proclamation to generations yet to come.
I believe that we are standing at the threshold of Vatican III. And only the Pontificate of Francis (or someone like him) could have brought us to this moment in time.
Certainly, many of the pastoral initiatives which Pope Francis has introduced (most notably his Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia), his enthusiastic encouragement and support for the discretionary role conferences of Bishops should exercise in matters related to the reception of the Sacraments and the Sacred Liturgy, as well as the openness he has shown toward the various churches of the Reformation as well as non-Christian faiths has been a source of controversy and division.
Some have accused the Pope not of bringing reform to the Curia but of introducing revolutionary (possibly even heretical) teachings regarding matters of faith and morals.
Thus far, the squabbles over these initiatives have been limited to a meager minority of conservative dissidents who have tried to bully Pope Francis by publicly disputing his words and criticizing his actions.
Thus far, the Holy Father has easily chosen to ignore the mad chatter against him, even as it has grown louder in recent days.
There are whispers of deep fractures within the Clergy itelf.
Still, Pope Francis enjoys considerable popularity among the Catholic faithful who quite like the fact that the circumstances of their complicated lives at least seem to be more easily accepted by the Catholic Church under his direction.
But the shock wave which the Church will experience as a result of this Pontificate has yet to be felt. That’s because the explosive event which will create it has yet to take place.
It is coming, however.
It will focus upon the mission and ministry of the Sacred Priesthood and the discretion which the Pope will give to conferences of Bishops to allow optional celibacy for future Priests in the Latin Rite.
The upcoming Synod in the Fall of 2018 will be the venue in which this revolution regarding the Sacrament of Holy Orders will trigger reactions so profoundly diverse and divisive that only an Ecumenical Council will be able to provide the necessary guidance and resolution such an initiative will require.
It is very clear that the Holy Father has already expressed his willingness to entertain a Priesthood which allows for optional celibacy in those instances where local conferences of Bishops determine that the People of God are suffering from a critical shortage of Priests to provide for Sacramental and spiritual needs of those entrusted to their pastoral care.
Out of reverential respect for the time-honored custom and tradition of the Latin Church, those already Ordained would not be permitted to marry. But, married men would be admitted to Sacred Orders, a practice which constituted the norm within the Church during the first 1200 years of its existence.
One thing is certain. No one could imagine the subject of a married Clergy ever being given any serious thought whatsoever by the two previous, staunchly conservative Pontificates.
Pope Francis has changed the landscape of Church teaching and practice in ways the Cardinals who elected him could never have imagined.
He has employed his now familiar metaphor that the Church should be a “field hospital” and not a “fortress”, open and accepting of the wounded who come for care and attention. He is intent that the "field hospital" have enough "doctors" (Priests) to treat the spiritually wounded.
The Holy Father has likewise shown that he is more than willing to tolerate the squabbles that have arisen over his pastoral initiatives.
The more conservative Bishops and faithful have not reacted well. Almost daily, their voices of dissent threaten schism or worse.
There have been public protests in the form of “fraternal corrections” by a handful of Cardinals to “filial corrections” by self-appointed defenders of the faith among little known scholars and theologians.
Pope Francis has chosen to ignore the complaints and entreaties and acted even more aggressively in establishing policies and procedures which empower local conferences of Bishops to exercise their mission and ministry according to their own discretion.
As a result, the Church finds itself caught in the middle of these tensions which will come to a head at the next Synod.
In October, 2018, Pope Francis will convene the Synod of Bishops to discuss the role of Youth in the Church.
However, just as the Synod on the Family took a drastic but much telegraphed turn and was the forum in which the pastoral care of the divorced and remarried became the central issue, I believe the Synod on the Youth will be the moment when Priesthood in the Latin Rite will revert to its original paradigm allowing married men to be admitted to Sacred Orders.
Communion for the divorced and remarried was addressed in a footnote attached to the post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Perhaps, a footnote attached to the Apostolic Exhortation which will follow the future Synod will contain the Papal approbation allowing local conferences of Bishops to decide whether or not to allow for the admission of married men to the Priesthood.
Who knows?
But should and when that happens, to borrow a phrase, "all hell will break loose".
That will set the stage for the only recourse the Church has to address and resolve the inevitable disputes which will arise by convening Ecumenical Council Vatican III.
Lord knows, I have been wrong so many times in my life. But....
We shall see what we shall see and not have to wait all that long to see it.
AMORIS LAETITIA AND THE BLISSFUL IGNORANCE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITHFUL
Last year, four members of the College of Cardinals publicly threatened to enact a formal correction of Pope Francis for the doctrinal and moral errors they allege he has proliferated in the Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (AL).
Just recently, a group of so-called scholars and theologians, representing conservative reactionary sentiments within the Church, publicly deliver what they term a “filial correction” accusing Pope Francis of disseminating heresies by way of AL as well as by words, actions and omissions which are detrimental to the unity of the Catholic Faith.
Bishops in Germany, Belgium, Malta and Argentina (as well as a handful within the United States) declare that they fully embrace the pastoral initiatives which the Pope has encouraged in the Exhortation.
Other Bishops have objected to those same initiatives.
But the vast majority of Bishops have remained largely silent on where they stand and, more importantly, what they intend to do concerning the pastoral openness to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics which AL advances.
One would think the Church would be in a total state of turmoil and mass confusion among the faithful.
Yet, most Catholics are contently unaware that any disunity exists or any disparity of teaching or practice is occurring.
Why?
Because most Bishops and Priests are not speaking to the faithful about these matters.
Not one word regarding these controversies will be uttered, not one mention of Pope Francis’ Exhortation, not one syllable will be sounded from pulpits this coming weekend.
Rather, Priests will remain as silent as they have been since AL was promulgated following the Synod on the Family at which its themes were first addressed.
There is no uproar or contention, because Catholics have never heard their Pastors breathe a solitary word about AL.
Priests do not discuss the implications of the Exhortation among themselves and certainly do not engage their local Bishops seeking direction and guidance regarding whether or not the initiatives of the document are going to be implemented within their respective dioceses.
There has been no attempt to formulate an effective catechesis by which the principles and ideals of the Exhortation can be communicated to the faithful. Bishops themselves have been mute witnesses rather than engaged Pastors of souls.
Why?
I believe Bishops and Pastors largely fear reprisal should they speak in favor of or resist the initiatives of AL.
Let me explain further.
There are a number of Bishops who are not convinced that the initiatives introduced under the Pontificate of Pope Francis will long endure after it comes to an end. There are others who are convinced that the conservative reactionaries among the Bishops will quickly regain influence when Francis’ Pontificate ends.
The Bishops fear reprisal.
If they come out in favor of Amoris, they will make enemies among conservative Prelates they fear will come to power again. If they come out against the Exhortation, they mark themselves should Francis be succeeded by an equally progressive and pastorally pro-active Pontiff.
And so, they play it safe and remain quite, hiding in the background to see what is yet to unfold in the maybe not too distant future.
Pastors fear reprisal as well. Should they be vocal in support of the Exhortation, they might incur the ire of their Bishops who may be quite opposed to what they see as much too novel or radical pastoral agendas. Should they express reservations or resistance, they might show up on the radar of Bishops who are very much in the spirit of the Holy Father. And as always, they fear being caught between members of their congregations who embrace this Pope and those who find his ways and teachings troublesome.
And so, Pastors (like their Bishops) lay low and remain silent, seeking refuge by taking the opportunities to preach and teach to engage matters of lesser import or controversy.
Oh, there may be a few (very few) who feel it best not to disturb what they feel may be the good faith of Catholics with matters as potentially divisive as what is contained in AL. But, I think they do those entrusted to their care little pastoral service indeed.
And so, the faithful remain largely ignorant and complacent, never challenged or engaged, their spiritual discomforts blissfully tranquilized by platitudes of little meaning or import.
So, anyone looking for a donnybrook of controversy within the ranks of the Catholic faithful will be sorely disappointed.
You can’t disagree over something you absolutely are not aware is happening right under your very nose!
Just recently, a group of so-called scholars and theologians, representing conservative reactionary sentiments within the Church, publicly deliver what they term a “filial correction” accusing Pope Francis of disseminating heresies by way of AL as well as by words, actions and omissions which are detrimental to the unity of the Catholic Faith.
Bishops in Germany, Belgium, Malta and Argentina (as well as a handful within the United States) declare that they fully embrace the pastoral initiatives which the Pope has encouraged in the Exhortation.
Other Bishops have objected to those same initiatives.
But the vast majority of Bishops have remained largely silent on where they stand and, more importantly, what they intend to do concerning the pastoral openness to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics which AL advances.
One would think the Church would be in a total state of turmoil and mass confusion among the faithful.
Yet, most Catholics are contently unaware that any disunity exists or any disparity of teaching or practice is occurring.
Why?
Because most Bishops and Priests are not speaking to the faithful about these matters.
Not one word regarding these controversies will be uttered, not one mention of Pope Francis’ Exhortation, not one syllable will be sounded from pulpits this coming weekend.
Rather, Priests will remain as silent as they have been since AL was promulgated following the Synod on the Family at which its themes were first addressed.
There is no uproar or contention, because Catholics have never heard their Pastors breathe a solitary word about AL.
Priests do not discuss the implications of the Exhortation among themselves and certainly do not engage their local Bishops seeking direction and guidance regarding whether or not the initiatives of the document are going to be implemented within their respective dioceses.
There has been no attempt to formulate an effective catechesis by which the principles and ideals of the Exhortation can be communicated to the faithful. Bishops themselves have been mute witnesses rather than engaged Pastors of souls.
Why?
I believe Bishops and Pastors largely fear reprisal should they speak in favor of or resist the initiatives of AL.
Let me explain further.
There are a number of Bishops who are not convinced that the initiatives introduced under the Pontificate of Pope Francis will long endure after it comes to an end. There are others who are convinced that the conservative reactionaries among the Bishops will quickly regain influence when Francis’ Pontificate ends.
The Bishops fear reprisal.
If they come out in favor of Amoris, they will make enemies among conservative Prelates they fear will come to power again. If they come out against the Exhortation, they mark themselves should Francis be succeeded by an equally progressive and pastorally pro-active Pontiff.
And so, they play it safe and remain quite, hiding in the background to see what is yet to unfold in the maybe not too distant future.
Pastors fear reprisal as well. Should they be vocal in support of the Exhortation, they might incur the ire of their Bishops who may be quite opposed to what they see as much too novel or radical pastoral agendas. Should they express reservations or resistance, they might show up on the radar of Bishops who are very much in the spirit of the Holy Father. And as always, they fear being caught between members of their congregations who embrace this Pope and those who find his ways and teachings troublesome.
And so, Pastors (like their Bishops) lay low and remain silent, seeking refuge by taking the opportunities to preach and teach to engage matters of lesser import or controversy.
Oh, there may be a few (very few) who feel it best not to disturb what they feel may be the good faith of Catholics with matters as potentially divisive as what is contained in AL. But, I think they do those entrusted to their care little pastoral service indeed.
And so, the faithful remain largely ignorant and complacent, never challenged or engaged, their spiritual discomforts blissfully tranquilized by platitudes of little meaning or import.
So, anyone looking for a donnybrook of controversy within the ranks of the Catholic faithful will be sorely disappointed.
You can’t disagree over something you absolutely are not aware is happening right under your very nose!
Wednesday, September 27, 2017
ONE MORE POINT ABOUT THE RECENT "FILIAL CORRECTION"
For most Catholics, the accusations against Pope Francis in the recent "filial correction" are unlikely to garner much attention because the faithful lack a fundamental knowledge of their faith nowadays.
Many Catholics especially in Europe and America don’t have the slightest knowledge or understanding of the basics of the Faith.
Most Catholics are poorly educated in the Scriptures as well as the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Church.
The Church has a huge catechetical task ahead, one that will find itself at times in conflict with a contemporary evangelization which focuses almost exclusively on mercy and non-judgmental dialogue alone.
“For most people, any dust of controversy raised by this filial correction will be ignored because the arguments fly over their heads. In the end, most Catholics will confirm their impression that there is nothing particularly binding upon their conscience in Catholic teaching anyway.
Let's be honest, this generation of Catholics are perhaps the most uninformed and uneducated in generations.
Their moral compass is directed not by the light of the Gospels and the teachings of the Church but rather by the whim and winds of the popular culture.
People nowadays care more about the well-being of whales than they do about the welfare of their fellowmen, Catholics among them. There is more outrage over the abuse of animals than over the abuse of people.
The Church has lost its ability to compete with the pressure which pop-culture exerts upon their thinking and behavior.
Whether or not the Church is able to discover a method of catechesis or evangelization to recapture the attention and concern of the faithful will determine the Church's history for generations yet to come.
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
DIVISIONS WOUND THE BODY OF CHRIST
And so, it has come to this.
A number of scholars and Clerics have taken it upon themselves to issue “filial correction” of the Holy Father, saying that his words and actions risk leading Catholics into false doctrines.
These self-appointed defenders of the faith do not accuse the Vicar of Christ of committing either the personal sin of heresy or the canonical crime.
Rather, they claim that the publication of Amoris Laetitia (AL), and the Pope’s subsequent words and actions and omissions, have led to the spread of “heresies and other errors”.
Frankly, I think it's a cowardly distinction they make and one which reveals their lack of integrity.
The document, which was delivered a month ago, states: “With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.”
Furthermore, the signers claim that they are permitted to address the Pope because of Natural Law – which allows a subject to correct a superior (an argument put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas) – and by Canon Law, which permits the faithful to make known their views to their pastors -- a false argument, since nowhere do the Canons allow for any "correction" of Sacred Pastors who maintain discretionary and deliberative authority in all matters subject to their jurisdiction.
In addition, they refer to the example of St Paul rebuking St Peter, found in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, Chapter 2 -- again a distortion of the facts, since Paul criticized Peter for contradicting his own teachings and acquiescing under the fear of public reaction to his openness to Gentiles.
Amoris Laetitia, issued in April last year, has provoked diverse interpretations. Several Bishops have said that it is compatible with the Church’s perennial teaching, reaffirmed several times in recent years, that the divorced and remarried cannot receive Communion, except possibly when they resolve to love “as brother and sister”.
However, other Bishops have contradicted this teaching. The Bishops of Malta said that, since avoiding sex outside marriage might be “impossible”, Communion should not be withheld from those who felt “at peace with God”.
The signatories say the Pope is exposing Catholics to a dual spiritual danger. They will either be led to affirm false doctrines, or they will be led to deny the Pope’s unique prerogatives as Supreme Pontiff.
While affirming that the Vicar of Christ possesses the charism of infallibility, and the right of universal jurisdiction over Christ’s faithful, the signers observe that Vatican I and Vatican II “noted that the powers of the Roman pontiff are limited in many ways”, so that some statements – for instance, the most controversial passages in Amoris Laetitia – are not infallible. Once again, this is a specious argument since non-infallible Papal teachings still bind upon the conscience of the faithful who must receive them with obedience and respect.
Specifically, the correction notes seven errors which Amoris Laetitia and other Papal actions have permitted. These include: that those who have divorced and remarried can receive the Eucharist without making a firm resolution to avoid sexual relations; that God might permit or even ask someone to have sexual relations outside a valid marriage; and other connected propositions related to the Church’s teaching on marriage, grave sin and the Eucharist.
It appears that a “movement" of sorts seeking to challenge the Supreme Authority of Pope Francis has been mounting ever since a small group of Cardinals expressed their intention to issue a “formal correction" of the errors and doctrinal inconsistencies contained in Amoris Laetitia.
In addition to this latest “filial" correction, other scholars have individually asked the Pope to condemn some interpretations of Amoris Laetitia.
Last month, a leading European theologian suggested that a Papal correction might be needed because of the Pope’s actions.
And, of course, Cardinal Burke and other Prelates have threatened to issue a formal correction before year’s end.
I have often wondered what the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation looked like when they were actually occurring.
How soon before the many, small contentious factions within the Church finally coalesced to bring about that fracture within the Body of Christ, the wound which continues to be the scandal of division within Christendom?
I think, in its infancy, the Great Schism and the Reformation looked like what we are seeing at this moment.
I have found myself personally and spiritually challenged by Pope Francis’ teachings as well as the moral and doctrinal implications they contain.
Still, in conscience, I cannot separate myself from Peter whose ministry perdures in this and every Pontificate.
Where this will eventually lead me and others in relation to the Church’s ministry and history, I do not know.
The fact is that there are serious divisions within the Church.
Whether that will result in the Catholic faithful choosing sides or simply walking away in frustration or disgust remains to be seen.
I still think that the conservatives are a small minority of disaffected reactionaries. I believe the vast majority of Catholics have stopped listening to the Pope and the Bishops ever since the debacle of Humanae Vitae when Paul VI's teaching authority was so brutally attacked by very public outcries from theologians and the counsel which Confessors offered to penitents.
We need to pray for the Church, for the Holy Father and for all who believe in Christ Jesus who entrusted His Redemptive Ministry to mortal men, imperfect and sinful as we all are.
Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle with us the fire of Your Love!
A number of scholars and Clerics have taken it upon themselves to issue “filial correction” of the Holy Father, saying that his words and actions risk leading Catholics into false doctrines.
These self-appointed defenders of the faith do not accuse the Vicar of Christ of committing either the personal sin of heresy or the canonical crime.
Rather, they claim that the publication of Amoris Laetitia (AL), and the Pope’s subsequent words and actions and omissions, have led to the spread of “heresies and other errors”.
Frankly, I think it's a cowardly distinction they make and one which reveals their lack of integrity.
The document, which was delivered a month ago, states: “With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness.”
Furthermore, the signers claim that they are permitted to address the Pope because of Natural Law – which allows a subject to correct a superior (an argument put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas) – and by Canon Law, which permits the faithful to make known their views to their pastors -- a false argument, since nowhere do the Canons allow for any "correction" of Sacred Pastors who maintain discretionary and deliberative authority in all matters subject to their jurisdiction.
In addition, they refer to the example of St Paul rebuking St Peter, found in Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, Chapter 2 -- again a distortion of the facts, since Paul criticized Peter for contradicting his own teachings and acquiescing under the fear of public reaction to his openness to Gentiles.
Amoris Laetitia, issued in April last year, has provoked diverse interpretations. Several Bishops have said that it is compatible with the Church’s perennial teaching, reaffirmed several times in recent years, that the divorced and remarried cannot receive Communion, except possibly when they resolve to love “as brother and sister”.
However, other Bishops have contradicted this teaching. The Bishops of Malta said that, since avoiding sex outside marriage might be “impossible”, Communion should not be withheld from those who felt “at peace with God”.
The signatories say the Pope is exposing Catholics to a dual spiritual danger. They will either be led to affirm false doctrines, or they will be led to deny the Pope’s unique prerogatives as Supreme Pontiff.
While affirming that the Vicar of Christ possesses the charism of infallibility, and the right of universal jurisdiction over Christ’s faithful, the signers observe that Vatican I and Vatican II “noted that the powers of the Roman pontiff are limited in many ways”, so that some statements – for instance, the most controversial passages in Amoris Laetitia – are not infallible. Once again, this is a specious argument since non-infallible Papal teachings still bind upon the conscience of the faithful who must receive them with obedience and respect.
Specifically, the correction notes seven errors which Amoris Laetitia and other Papal actions have permitted. These include: that those who have divorced and remarried can receive the Eucharist without making a firm resolution to avoid sexual relations; that God might permit or even ask someone to have sexual relations outside a valid marriage; and other connected propositions related to the Church’s teaching on marriage, grave sin and the Eucharist.
It appears that a “movement" of sorts seeking to challenge the Supreme Authority of Pope Francis has been mounting ever since a small group of Cardinals expressed their intention to issue a “formal correction" of the errors and doctrinal inconsistencies contained in Amoris Laetitia.
In addition to this latest “filial" correction, other scholars have individually asked the Pope to condemn some interpretations of Amoris Laetitia.
Last month, a leading European theologian suggested that a Papal correction might be needed because of the Pope’s actions.
And, of course, Cardinal Burke and other Prelates have threatened to issue a formal correction before year’s end.
I have often wondered what the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation looked like when they were actually occurring.
How soon before the many, small contentious factions within the Church finally coalesced to bring about that fracture within the Body of Christ, the wound which continues to be the scandal of division within Christendom?
I think, in its infancy, the Great Schism and the Reformation looked like what we are seeing at this moment.
I have found myself personally and spiritually challenged by Pope Francis’ teachings as well as the moral and doctrinal implications they contain.
Still, in conscience, I cannot separate myself from Peter whose ministry perdures in this and every Pontificate.
Where this will eventually lead me and others in relation to the Church’s ministry and history, I do not know.
The fact is that there are serious divisions within the Church.
Whether that will result in the Catholic faithful choosing sides or simply walking away in frustration or disgust remains to be seen.
I still think that the conservatives are a small minority of disaffected reactionaries. I believe the vast majority of Catholics have stopped listening to the Pope and the Bishops ever since the debacle of Humanae Vitae when Paul VI's teaching authority was so brutally attacked by very public outcries from theologians and the counsel which Confessors offered to penitents.
We need to pray for the Church, for the Holy Father and for all who believe in Christ Jesus who entrusted His Redemptive Ministry to mortal men, imperfect and sinful as we all are.
Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle with us the fire of Your Love!
Monday, September 25, 2017
SPEAK CHRIST'S WORDS AND WISDOM ALWAYS IN ALL THINGS
Just yesterday, I posted an article about the Pope's meeting with the Papal Commission charged with establishing policies involving sexual abuse of minors by Clerics and laity representing the Church.
I suggested strongly that the Pope’s off-the-cuff remarks to the Commission were confusing. I also stated that he continues to advance a distortion of the fundamental reality regarding the sexual abuse of minors, that is, the cases do not involve paedophilia but rather homosexuality.
Pope Francis is reported to have said that he would “never forgive” those who abused children.
Those words, coming from the Vicar of Christ, to whom is entrusted the authority to bind and loose men’s souls, are chilling.
To deny anyone, for any reason, the very possibility of personal redemption and forgiveness of their sins seems to contradict the very ministry of the Church itself.
Confusing? Upsetting? Yes, indeed. Here’s why.
The very next day, Pope Francis spoke about the limitless love of God, and how it leads Him to forgive us time and time again; something we must strive to do for others, no matter how many times they have sinned against us.
"The forgiveness of God is a sign of his overwhelming love for each of us; it is the love that leaves us free to move away, like the Prodigal Son, but that awaits our return every day; it is the enterprising love of the shepherd for the lost sheep; it is the tenderness that welcomes every sinner who knocks at his door," the Pope said.
The Holy Father pointed out how Jesus teaches us this in the Our Father, when he directly links the forgiveness we ask of God with the forgiveness we give to our brothers and sisters in the words: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
Pope Francis reflected on the Gospel reading from Matthew, where St. Peter asks Christ: “Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive? As many as seven times?”
To Peter, seven already seems like the maximum amount of times we should forgive the same person, Francis said. And maybe to us it seems like twice is already a lot.
But Christ’s response is that we must forgive seven times seventy times, “that is to say always. You always have to forgive,” he said.
Christ confirms this by telling a parable, the Pope continued, a parable which shows “the inconsistency of the one who was forgiven before and then refuses to forgive.”
“The incoherent attitude of this servant is also ours when we refuse forgiveness to our brothers,” the Pope said.
“While the king of the parable is the image of God who loves us with a love so abundant of mercy from embracing us, loving us and forgiving us continually. When we are tempted to behave as the servant did toward his fellow servant, closing off our hearts to those who have offended us and come to apologize, we must remember the words of the Heavenly Father.”
Apparently, the Holy Father himself forgot those words when he spoke to the Papal Commission members.
Pope Francis need always to remember that his words and his attitudes are seen by the faithful to mirror those of Christ Himself. One who holds the Office of Peter must never forget this.
During the time of Imperial Rome, it is said that generals, returning from their victorious campaigns, were lauded publicly by parades, their chariots proceeded by carts laden with the spoils of war and pulled by slaves taken in battle. Standing next to the general was a slave who sole task was to whisper these words in his ear: “Sic transit gloria mundi” (all glory is fleeting).
Knowing the Pope’s penchant for making impromptu but very public remarks, perhaps he needs to have someone stand next to him whispering these words: “Don’t forget you are Christ’s Vicar. Speak His words and wisdom and not your own. Ever!”
I suggested strongly that the Pope’s off-the-cuff remarks to the Commission were confusing. I also stated that he continues to advance a distortion of the fundamental reality regarding the sexual abuse of minors, that is, the cases do not involve paedophilia but rather homosexuality.
Pope Francis is reported to have said that he would “never forgive” those who abused children.
Those words, coming from the Vicar of Christ, to whom is entrusted the authority to bind and loose men’s souls, are chilling.
To deny anyone, for any reason, the very possibility of personal redemption and forgiveness of their sins seems to contradict the very ministry of the Church itself.
Confusing? Upsetting? Yes, indeed. Here’s why.
The very next day, Pope Francis spoke about the limitless love of God, and how it leads Him to forgive us time and time again; something we must strive to do for others, no matter how many times they have sinned against us.
"The forgiveness of God is a sign of his overwhelming love for each of us; it is the love that leaves us free to move away, like the Prodigal Son, but that awaits our return every day; it is the enterprising love of the shepherd for the lost sheep; it is the tenderness that welcomes every sinner who knocks at his door," the Pope said.
The Holy Father pointed out how Jesus teaches us this in the Our Father, when he directly links the forgiveness we ask of God with the forgiveness we give to our brothers and sisters in the words: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
Pope Francis reflected on the Gospel reading from Matthew, where St. Peter asks Christ: “Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive? As many as seven times?”
To Peter, seven already seems like the maximum amount of times we should forgive the same person, Francis said. And maybe to us it seems like twice is already a lot.
But Christ’s response is that we must forgive seven times seventy times, “that is to say always. You always have to forgive,” he said.
Christ confirms this by telling a parable, the Pope continued, a parable which shows “the inconsistency of the one who was forgiven before and then refuses to forgive.”
“The incoherent attitude of this servant is also ours when we refuse forgiveness to our brothers,” the Pope said.
“While the king of the parable is the image of God who loves us with a love so abundant of mercy from embracing us, loving us and forgiving us continually. When we are tempted to behave as the servant did toward his fellow servant, closing off our hearts to those who have offended us and come to apologize, we must remember the words of the Heavenly Father.”
Apparently, the Holy Father himself forgot those words when he spoke to the Papal Commission members.
Pope Francis need always to remember that his words and his attitudes are seen by the faithful to mirror those of Christ Himself. One who holds the Office of Peter must never forget this.
During the time of Imperial Rome, it is said that generals, returning from their victorious campaigns, were lauded publicly by parades, their chariots proceeded by carts laden with the spoils of war and pulled by slaves taken in battle. Standing next to the general was a slave who sole task was to whisper these words in his ear: “Sic transit gloria mundi” (all glory is fleeting).
Knowing the Pope’s penchant for making impromptu but very public remarks, perhaps he needs to have someone stand next to him whispering these words: “Don’t forget you are Christ’s Vicar. Speak His words and wisdom and not your own. Ever!”
Sunday, September 24, 2017
POPE FRANCIS IMPROMPTU REMARKS TO THE PAPAL COMMISSION: CONFUSION AND DISTORTION OF THE TRUTH
In an article appearing The Tablet, Pope Francis is quoted as admitting he had made a mistake with softening the sentence of an abusive Priest and said he had learned from this.
In addition, Francis is reported to have said that he will never pardon Priests convicted of sexual abuse and admitted the Church waited too long before taking the matter seriously.
The Holy Father met with the Papal Commission for the Protection of Minors charged with establishing and overseeing policies related to the sexual abuse of children by Clerics.
However, during the hour long meeting, rather than speaking from a prepared speech, Pope Francis offered 20 minutes of off-the-cuff remarks.
One of the 14 members of the Commission present at the meeting was Baroness Hollins, a Professor of psychiatry and member of the House of Lords.
“He said if paedophilia is proven then he will never pardon an ordained Priest and that the Church has come late to an understanding of how serous this matter is,” she told The Tablet.
So much for the “pastoral accompaniment” and "sensitivity" which the Holy Father insists be shown by Priests to others who commit serious sins or engage in lifestyles contrary to the moral precepts of the Scriptures and ages-old moral teachings of the Church!
If the Baroness Hollins is accurate in quoting Pope Francis having said that “he will never pardon an ordained Priest”, I find it most difficult to reconcile a Papal attitude that appears to be so whimsical in its determination of who is to be forgiven and who is not.
The Church and the Holy Father himself insist that those who engage in the sexual abuse of minors are suffering from an “illness.”
And so, it becomes even more confusing that the Pope does not admit that the pathology of such individuals might somehow mitigate their personal responsibility for their actions.
Shouldn't those who act out their pathological disorders be treated with some modicum of understanding and mercy?
I am not suggesting that these disordered individuals be returned to active ministry, but I am asking that they be shown some measure of compassion and concern.
There appears to be a fundamental inequity in the Pope's eagerness to mete out justice to the Ordained versus the judgments he imposes upon others who act out their psychological or moral disorders.
Furthermore, I am disappointed that the Pope and other Prelates continue to deny that the real scandal involving the sexual abuse of minors is homosexuality and not pedophilia.
Evidence is overwhelming that the majority of abuse cases involve the sexual abuse of adolescent boys by homosexual Clerics and lay men who represent the Church.
I find this misrepresentation of the facts most disturbing in a way that suggests the Pope’s remarks conform to a certain political correctness than constitute an honest appraisal of the situation and desire to apply a serious remedy to it.
I appreciate the fact that the Pope wants to address the matter and is embarrassed by the Church’s reluctance to address it for so long.
But redemption from this scandal will never be achieved so long as the real truth is ignored or denied.
In addition, Francis is reported to have said that he will never pardon Priests convicted of sexual abuse and admitted the Church waited too long before taking the matter seriously.
The Holy Father met with the Papal Commission for the Protection of Minors charged with establishing and overseeing policies related to the sexual abuse of children by Clerics.
However, during the hour long meeting, rather than speaking from a prepared speech, Pope Francis offered 20 minutes of off-the-cuff remarks.
One of the 14 members of the Commission present at the meeting was Baroness Hollins, a Professor of psychiatry and member of the House of Lords.
“He said if paedophilia is proven then he will never pardon an ordained Priest and that the Church has come late to an understanding of how serous this matter is,” she told The Tablet.
So much for the “pastoral accompaniment” and "sensitivity" which the Holy Father insists be shown by Priests to others who commit serious sins or engage in lifestyles contrary to the moral precepts of the Scriptures and ages-old moral teachings of the Church!
If the Baroness Hollins is accurate in quoting Pope Francis having said that “he will never pardon an ordained Priest”, I find it most difficult to reconcile a Papal attitude that appears to be so whimsical in its determination of who is to be forgiven and who is not.
The Church and the Holy Father himself insist that those who engage in the sexual abuse of minors are suffering from an “illness.”
And so, it becomes even more confusing that the Pope does not admit that the pathology of such individuals might somehow mitigate their personal responsibility for their actions.
Shouldn't those who act out their pathological disorders be treated with some modicum of understanding and mercy?
I am not suggesting that these disordered individuals be returned to active ministry, but I am asking that they be shown some measure of compassion and concern.
There appears to be a fundamental inequity in the Pope's eagerness to mete out justice to the Ordained versus the judgments he imposes upon others who act out their psychological or moral disorders.
Furthermore, I am disappointed that the Pope and other Prelates continue to deny that the real scandal involving the sexual abuse of minors is homosexuality and not pedophilia.
Evidence is overwhelming that the majority of abuse cases involve the sexual abuse of adolescent boys by homosexual Clerics and lay men who represent the Church.
I find this misrepresentation of the facts most disturbing in a way that suggests the Pope’s remarks conform to a certain political correctness than constitute an honest appraisal of the situation and desire to apply a serious remedy to it.
I appreciate the fact that the Pope wants to address the matter and is embarrassed by the Church’s reluctance to address it for so long.
But redemption from this scandal will never be achieved so long as the real truth is ignored or denied.
Saturday, September 23, 2017
CARDINAL MULLER: AN EMBARRASSMENT TO HIMSELF AND THE CHURCH
Cardinal Gerhard Muller. A legend in his own mind. The arrogance of this man!
Every time His Eminence decides to speak, I am convinced even more that the Holy Father made a wise and prudent decision in dismissing him as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In a recent interview during a presentation of his latest book, the Cardinal criticized Pope Francis for lacking “theological rigor”.
Since that is not familiar to me as a technically theological term, I am not quite sure what he means in applying it to the Holy Father.
Personally, I find the Pope’s impromptu statements and the sound bites quoted from his homilies at morning Mass in the chapel of Santa Marta more than a bit bothersome at times. However, to openly criticize the Pope by implying that his official writings are theologically sloppy is not only unfair but publicly disrespectful.
But that’s not what is upsetting me really about the Cardinal’s recent remarks.
During the same interview, His Eminence hinted that he is ready and able to return to the ranks of the Roman Curia!
As though the Pope would have him! Imagine!
And just listen to how this arrogant cleric envisions himself. In his remarks, he recalled how the Jesuit Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine told Pope Clement VIII that he did not understand anything about theology.
He goes on to recount the fact that Saint Robert was fired from the Curia three times.
Well, I will never make any association between the likes of Saint Robert Bellarmine and Gerhard Muller, but I might agree that Muller could easily be fired from the Curia more than once, if any Pope would be foolish enough to hire him again.
Muller goes even further in his effort to insult not only the Holy Father but all theological reflections which are non-European and especially non-German.
The Cardinal took occasion to criticize what he refers to as the “Latin American approach to theology”.
“In Europe, theologians immediately have to have the exact Council text ready when words like ‘faith’ or ‘mercy’ are used. This kind of theology with which we are familiar doesn’t exist in Latin America. They are more intuitive there,” Cardinal Muller said.
“They look at a text without considering it as part of a whole. We must somehow respect and accept this style. But I nevertheless wish that as far as teaching documents are concerned clear theological preparation must take place.”
Müller also stressed that theology itself is suffering under the Pontificate of Pope Francis.
In a thinly-veiled attack upon Cardinal Parolin, Muller alleged that the Holy See’s Secretariat of State has become the most important authority in the Vatican.
In the past, it was his former dicastery, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had a more authoritative role.
“Diplomacy and power issues have priority today and that is a wrong strategic move which must be corrected”, the Cardinal said. “Something has always gone wrong when the Church seeks power.”
Sour grapes from a disgruntled cleric!
Muller said he will remain based in Rome focussing on pastoral care and scholarly work, and is also reportedly planning to make regular visits back to Germany.
He certainly is free to do so, particularly in view of the fact that the Holy Father has given him no assignment whatsoever.
Simply put, Cardinal Muller is an embarrassment to himself and the Church.
The quieter he remains, the better for all.
Every time His Eminence decides to speak, I am convinced even more that the Holy Father made a wise and prudent decision in dismissing him as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In a recent interview during a presentation of his latest book, the Cardinal criticized Pope Francis for lacking “theological rigor”.
Since that is not familiar to me as a technically theological term, I am not quite sure what he means in applying it to the Holy Father.
Personally, I find the Pope’s impromptu statements and the sound bites quoted from his homilies at morning Mass in the chapel of Santa Marta more than a bit bothersome at times. However, to openly criticize the Pope by implying that his official writings are theologically sloppy is not only unfair but publicly disrespectful.
But that’s not what is upsetting me really about the Cardinal’s recent remarks.
During the same interview, His Eminence hinted that he is ready and able to return to the ranks of the Roman Curia!
As though the Pope would have him! Imagine!
And just listen to how this arrogant cleric envisions himself. In his remarks, he recalled how the Jesuit Cardinal Saint Robert Bellarmine told Pope Clement VIII that he did not understand anything about theology.
He goes on to recount the fact that Saint Robert was fired from the Curia three times.
Well, I will never make any association between the likes of Saint Robert Bellarmine and Gerhard Muller, but I might agree that Muller could easily be fired from the Curia more than once, if any Pope would be foolish enough to hire him again.
Muller goes even further in his effort to insult not only the Holy Father but all theological reflections which are non-European and especially non-German.
The Cardinal took occasion to criticize what he refers to as the “Latin American approach to theology”.
“In Europe, theologians immediately have to have the exact Council text ready when words like ‘faith’ or ‘mercy’ are used. This kind of theology with which we are familiar doesn’t exist in Latin America. They are more intuitive there,” Cardinal Muller said.
“They look at a text without considering it as part of a whole. We must somehow respect and accept this style. But I nevertheless wish that as far as teaching documents are concerned clear theological preparation must take place.”
Müller also stressed that theology itself is suffering under the Pontificate of Pope Francis.
In a thinly-veiled attack upon Cardinal Parolin, Muller alleged that the Holy See’s Secretariat of State has become the most important authority in the Vatican.
In the past, it was his former dicastery, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had a more authoritative role.
“Diplomacy and power issues have priority today and that is a wrong strategic move which must be corrected”, the Cardinal said. “Something has always gone wrong when the Church seeks power.”
Sour grapes from a disgruntled cleric!
Muller said he will remain based in Rome focussing on pastoral care and scholarly work, and is also reportedly planning to make regular visits back to Germany.
He certainly is free to do so, particularly in view of the fact that the Holy Father has given him no assignment whatsoever.
Simply put, Cardinal Muller is an embarrassment to himself and the Church.
The quieter he remains, the better for all.
Friday, September 22, 2017
WHEN THE GOSPELS BECOME REAL: Part Two (Conclusion)
In the course of a conversation with a Priest- friend, he asked me if the day is not coming when we might be forced to choose between fidelity to the Church and fidelity to the Pope, a question which decades ago would have been inconceivable.
What my friend didn’t realize is the fact that his question has forced the Gospel to become real to me in a way it never was before.
How many times during my Priesthood have I read the Gospel stories about Jesus passing His authority to bind and release men’s souls to Peter and his successors?
How many times, as a seminarian and later as a Priest, did I pray and worship within the sanctuary of St. Peter Basilica, under its magnificent dome bearing an inscription which quotes that Gospel incident: “Tu es Petrus... (You are Peter...).
How often have I proclaimed the Gospel (and preached of its implications and its merits) which tells how Jesus reprimanded Peter for wanting to defend and protect Him from fulfilling His Mission of self-sacrifice for the salvation of mankind: “Get behind me, satan....”
Since speaking with my friend, these two Gospel passages have come to mind often and have become more real to me than they have ever been.
This is their challenge at this moment in my life.
Jesus entrusted His Divine authority to Peter and his successors. He didn’t entrust it to me, or my brother-Priests. He didn’t entrust it to conferences of Bishops, or to diocesan agencies or parish councils.
“Tu es Petrus...” remains the hallmark of the salvific efficacy of the Church. In the leadership of the Vicar of Christ, God’s People are promised and will find personal redemption and the sanctification of their souls.
Additionally, as I find myself inclined not just to question but perhaps even resist the new moral initiatives introduced by Pope Francis, I must ask myself if I am not a “satan” of sorts, judging the actions of Christ’s Vicar not according to God’s way but according to my own.
In answer to my friend's question, I am left only to pose an further question: “If Peter (in the person of Pope Francis) is challenging me to accept an evolution (perhaps even a revolution) in moral teaching, how can I choose against him? Can there ever be a dichotomy between the Church and the Office of Peter?
And were I to oppose him, would I not be questioning the ways of Christ and fall into the failings of Peter himself?
In a very poignant way, a way I never expected, the Gospel stories have become very real to me.
I begin to understand and appreciate even more the great faith of the Apostles and the Early Church which accepted Christ’s teachings without question, teachings so foreign and opposed to what they had known and embraced for generations.
For the Apostles, it was enough that Jesus said what he said and insisted that they accept and teach the same, no matter how challenging or unfamiliar to their accustomed way of thinking and acting.
That was the heroism of their faith which gave birth to the Church itself.
Is this not the exact same challenge I and my friend and so many others in the Church are facing today?
How shall we respond and what shall the legacy of our actions be for generations yet to be born?
Yes, this is what happens when the Gospels stop being just nice stories and take on a reality I have never experienced previously.
Dear Holy Spirit, guide me and guide Your Church. Help us to accept Your Will and Your Wisdom in all things....and help us, please, today!
What my friend didn’t realize is the fact that his question has forced the Gospel to become real to me in a way it never was before.
How many times during my Priesthood have I read the Gospel stories about Jesus passing His authority to bind and release men’s souls to Peter and his successors?
How many times, as a seminarian and later as a Priest, did I pray and worship within the sanctuary of St. Peter Basilica, under its magnificent dome bearing an inscription which quotes that Gospel incident: “Tu es Petrus... (You are Peter...).
How often have I proclaimed the Gospel (and preached of its implications and its merits) which tells how Jesus reprimanded Peter for wanting to defend and protect Him from fulfilling His Mission of self-sacrifice for the salvation of mankind: “Get behind me, satan....”
Since speaking with my friend, these two Gospel passages have come to mind often and have become more real to me than they have ever been.
This is their challenge at this moment in my life.
Jesus entrusted His Divine authority to Peter and his successors. He didn’t entrust it to me, or my brother-Priests. He didn’t entrust it to conferences of Bishops, or to diocesan agencies or parish councils.
“Tu es Petrus...” remains the hallmark of the salvific efficacy of the Church. In the leadership of the Vicar of Christ, God’s People are promised and will find personal redemption and the sanctification of their souls.
Additionally, as I find myself inclined not just to question but perhaps even resist the new moral initiatives introduced by Pope Francis, I must ask myself if I am not a “satan” of sorts, judging the actions of Christ’s Vicar not according to God’s way but according to my own.
In answer to my friend's question, I am left only to pose an further question: “If Peter (in the person of Pope Francis) is challenging me to accept an evolution (perhaps even a revolution) in moral teaching, how can I choose against him? Can there ever be a dichotomy between the Church and the Office of Peter?
And were I to oppose him, would I not be questioning the ways of Christ and fall into the failings of Peter himself?
In a very poignant way, a way I never expected, the Gospel stories have become very real to me.
I begin to understand and appreciate even more the great faith of the Apostles and the Early Church which accepted Christ’s teachings without question, teachings so foreign and opposed to what they had known and embraced for generations.
For the Apostles, it was enough that Jesus said what he said and insisted that they accept and teach the same, no matter how challenging or unfamiliar to their accustomed way of thinking and acting.
That was the heroism of their faith which gave birth to the Church itself.
Is this not the exact same challenge I and my friend and so many others in the Church are facing today?
How shall we respond and what shall the legacy of our actions be for generations yet to be born?
Yes, this is what happens when the Gospels stop being just nice stories and take on a reality I have never experienced previously.
Dear Holy Spirit, guide me and guide Your Church. Help us to accept Your Will and Your Wisdom in all things....and help us, please, today!
Thursday, September 21, 2017
WHEN THE GOSPELS BECOME REAL: Part One
The other evening, I was conversing with a Priest-friend whom I have known and with whom I have collaborated in Tribunal ministry for over two decades.
We were discussing, as we find ourselves doing more and more, how faith and the ministry of the Church has changed over the course of the past forty and more years since our respective Ordinations.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the moral theology of the Church has undergone a radical transformation both in regard to its fundamental principles as well as the way in which the teachings are applied to the choices and behaviors which human beings make and exemplify.
Both of us were schooled and formed in the traditional moral theology of the Church which proceeded from what were perceived to be the truths and precepts derived from the Sacred Scriptures (Divine Revelation) and the consistent teachings of the Church’s magisterium exercised through the ministry of the Papacy and the College of Bishops and based upon the laws of Nature itself (Tradition).
The Church insisted that, in the exercise of our Priestly ministry, we were to refer to these moral absolutes in assisting those entrusted to our care as they sought to inform their consciences and determine whether their actions and choices were morally permissable or sinful.
At the risk of sounding self-serving, I believe we (and the overwhelming number of our Priest-brothers) dutifully observed what the Church demanded of us and applied these moral teachings in the pastoral service of those seeking enlightenment and guidance from the Church.
Almost overnight, it seems, we have awakened to the Papacy of Pope Francis which appears to have introduced a new paradigm of moral judgment that proceeds not from the former absolute imperatives upon which the Church traditionally depended but rather places emphasis upon the situations and circumstances which now are seen to determine whether or not an act (once considered good or evil by its nature) is morally acceptable or not.
This new moral paradigm appears to allow or even justify actions or behavior once considered innately evil and contradictory to both the faith and morals of the Church.
So it was that, in the course of our conversation, my friend asked me if the day is not coming when we might be forced to choose between fidelity to the Church and fidelity to the Pope, a question which decades ago would have been inconceivable.
What my friend didn’t realize (nor did I in that moment) is the fact that his question forces the Gospel to become real to me in a way it never was before.
Permit me to make the point clearer in Part Two of this article which follows.
We were discussing, as we find ourselves doing more and more, how faith and the ministry of the Church has changed over the course of the past forty and more years since our respective Ordinations.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that the moral theology of the Church has undergone a radical transformation both in regard to its fundamental principles as well as the way in which the teachings are applied to the choices and behaviors which human beings make and exemplify.
Both of us were schooled and formed in the traditional moral theology of the Church which proceeded from what were perceived to be the truths and precepts derived from the Sacred Scriptures (Divine Revelation) and the consistent teachings of the Church’s magisterium exercised through the ministry of the Papacy and the College of Bishops and based upon the laws of Nature itself (Tradition).
The Church insisted that, in the exercise of our Priestly ministry, we were to refer to these moral absolutes in assisting those entrusted to our care as they sought to inform their consciences and determine whether their actions and choices were morally permissable or sinful.
At the risk of sounding self-serving, I believe we (and the overwhelming number of our Priest-brothers) dutifully observed what the Church demanded of us and applied these moral teachings in the pastoral service of those seeking enlightenment and guidance from the Church.
Almost overnight, it seems, we have awakened to the Papacy of Pope Francis which appears to have introduced a new paradigm of moral judgment that proceeds not from the former absolute imperatives upon which the Church traditionally depended but rather places emphasis upon the situations and circumstances which now are seen to determine whether or not an act (once considered good or evil by its nature) is morally acceptable or not.
This new moral paradigm appears to allow or even justify actions or behavior once considered innately evil and contradictory to both the faith and morals of the Church.
So it was that, in the course of our conversation, my friend asked me if the day is not coming when we might be forced to choose between fidelity to the Church and fidelity to the Pope, a question which decades ago would have been inconceivable.
What my friend didn’t realize (nor did I in that moment) is the fact that his question forces the Gospel to become real to me in a way it never was before.
Permit me to make the point clearer in Part Two of this article which follows.
Wednesday, September 20, 2017
POPE REFORMS THE JOHN PAUL II INSTITUTE ON MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
In 1981, Pope St. John Paul II established the Institute for Marriage and the Family.
The late, very recently deceased, Cardinal Caffara was named its first President and adminstered it until 1995.
The Institute was established in order to be a center for study in the fields of anthropology and Christocentric thought in addressing the modern day crisis of Marriage and the family within the Church.
One of its many publications, Marriage: Theological and Pastoral Considerations, served as the principal introduction to the previous Synods on the Family.
The Apostolic Constitution, Magnum Matrimonii Sacramentum, which founded the Institute canonically, charged the it with the task of discovering the truth about Marriage and the Family, on the basis of an adequate anthropology, in order to help husbands and wives experience the fullness of their conjugal vocation.
Pope Francis, in his Motu Proprio announced just yesterday has reformed the John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences.
In effect, this new Institute (which keeps the name of that established by St. John Paul II) will now serve to implement the teachings contained in Amoris Laetitia (whose teachings many consider to be a complete rejection of those promulgated by the former saintly Pontiff).
Pope Francis stated that contemporary anthropological and cultural changes require “a diversified and analytical approach” which cannot be “limited to pastoral and missionary practices” of the past.
Some have asked whether it is simply a coincidence that Pope Francis abolished the former John Paul II Institute precisely on the one year anniversary of the on which four Cardinals presented him the with the now famous (or infamous depending on your point of view) dubia?
For that reason, there are some who are suggesting that Pope Francis’ reformation of the Institute is his answer to the dubia!
If so, in style at least, it would be a return to some of the former and truly more “Roman” ways of doing things, full of intrigue and curiosity. B
But, since I have never quite considered Pope Francis to be particularly astute in the
Roman” way of doing so, I conclude it is just a clever, if not witty, bit of timing and nothing more.
Those who still insist that Pope Francis give an clearer indication of whether or not Amoris Laetitia is to be considered authentic magisterial teaching simply refuse to live in the real world of the contemporary Church.
Not only has Pope Francis promulgated the teachings contained in Amoris Laetitia, but has enthusiastically encouraged the Bishops, collectively and individually, to implement its pastoral initiatives as quickly as possible for the good of souls.
Needless to say, the conservative reactionaries within the Church will find this latest action of Pope Francis both inflammatory and disorienting.
We shall be hearing their shrill voices about all this in the very near future, I am sure.
The late, very recently deceased, Cardinal Caffara was named its first President and adminstered it until 1995.
The Institute was established in order to be a center for study in the fields of anthropology and Christocentric thought in addressing the modern day crisis of Marriage and the family within the Church.
One of its many publications, Marriage: Theological and Pastoral Considerations, served as the principal introduction to the previous Synods on the Family.
The Apostolic Constitution, Magnum Matrimonii Sacramentum, which founded the Institute canonically, charged the it with the task of discovering the truth about Marriage and the Family, on the basis of an adequate anthropology, in order to help husbands and wives experience the fullness of their conjugal vocation.
Pope Francis, in his Motu Proprio announced just yesterday has reformed the John Paul II Pontifical Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences.
In effect, this new Institute (which keeps the name of that established by St. John Paul II) will now serve to implement the teachings contained in Amoris Laetitia (whose teachings many consider to be a complete rejection of those promulgated by the former saintly Pontiff).
Pope Francis stated that contemporary anthropological and cultural changes require “a diversified and analytical approach” which cannot be “limited to pastoral and missionary practices” of the past.
Some have asked whether it is simply a coincidence that Pope Francis abolished the former John Paul II Institute precisely on the one year anniversary of the on which four Cardinals presented him the with the now famous (or infamous depending on your point of view) dubia?
For that reason, there are some who are suggesting that Pope Francis’ reformation of the Institute is his answer to the dubia!
If so, in style at least, it would be a return to some of the former and truly more “Roman” ways of doing things, full of intrigue and curiosity. B
But, since I have never quite considered Pope Francis to be particularly astute in the
Roman” way of doing so, I conclude it is just a clever, if not witty, bit of timing and nothing more.
Those who still insist that Pope Francis give an clearer indication of whether or not Amoris Laetitia is to be considered authentic magisterial teaching simply refuse to live in the real world of the contemporary Church.
Not only has Pope Francis promulgated the teachings contained in Amoris Laetitia, but has enthusiastically encouraged the Bishops, collectively and individually, to implement its pastoral initiatives as quickly as possible for the good of souls.
Needless to say, the conservative reactionaries within the Church will find this latest action of Pope Francis both inflammatory and disorienting.
We shall be hearing their shrill voices about all this in the very near future, I am sure.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
BONES OF SAINT PETER FOUND?
The church of Santa Maria Church in Cappella is located in the neighborhood of Trastevere, Rome, near the Tiber River.
It was erected and consecrated in 1090 by Pope Urban II.
The church building has been home to many historical and artistic treasures, including ceramics and murals which date to the 4th Century. Included among these antiquities is a fragment of the cathedra (the Episcopal Chair), which was once a temporary seat of the Papal Consistory – a formal gathering of the College of Cardinals summoned by the Pope.
It is believed that these relics were secreted within the walls of this church by Pope Urban II, whose Papal Office was challenged Clement III, an anti-pope backed by Emperor Henry IV.
Because its structural integrity is no longer secure, the church has been closed for public worship and veneration since 1982. For safety reasons, routine maintenance has continued.
Recently, during such routine maintenance, a worker discovered bone fragments in clay pots.
The pots may contain relics belong to St. Peter, three other popes, and four early Church martyrs. They were discovered under a marble slab behind the altar.
“There were two clay pots which were inscribed with the names of early popes – Peter, Felix, Callixtus and Cornelius,” the worker told Italian television channel Rai Uno.
The existence of these bone fragments has been known for centuries. However, they had never been found.
Inside the church of Santa Maria in Cappella, a stone inscription recorded the remains, indicating that the relics where kept alongside a piece of fabric taken from the dress of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The worker notified Deacon Massimiliano Floridi, who handed the remains over to the Vatican. Church officials have not yet commented on the bones' authenticity.
“We're waiting for a detailed study to be undertaken. A DNA comparison between these bones and those kept by the Vatican would shed light on the issue,” the deacon said.
What a tremendous discovery and gift to future generations of the Church if these fragments are found to be the actual relics of Saint Peter and other Papal martyrs of the Early Church.
We shall await, with great anticipation, the findings of the DNA tests.
It was erected and consecrated in 1090 by Pope Urban II.
The church building has been home to many historical and artistic treasures, including ceramics and murals which date to the 4th Century. Included among these antiquities is a fragment of the cathedra (the Episcopal Chair), which was once a temporary seat of the Papal Consistory – a formal gathering of the College of Cardinals summoned by the Pope.
It is believed that these relics were secreted within the walls of this church by Pope Urban II, whose Papal Office was challenged Clement III, an anti-pope backed by Emperor Henry IV.
Because its structural integrity is no longer secure, the church has been closed for public worship and veneration since 1982. For safety reasons, routine maintenance has continued.
Recently, during such routine maintenance, a worker discovered bone fragments in clay pots.
The pots may contain relics belong to St. Peter, three other popes, and four early Church martyrs. They were discovered under a marble slab behind the altar.
“There were two clay pots which were inscribed with the names of early popes – Peter, Felix, Callixtus and Cornelius,” the worker told Italian television channel Rai Uno.
The existence of these bone fragments has been known for centuries. However, they had never been found.
Inside the church of Santa Maria in Cappella, a stone inscription recorded the remains, indicating that the relics where kept alongside a piece of fabric taken from the dress of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
The worker notified Deacon Massimiliano Floridi, who handed the remains over to the Vatican. Church officials have not yet commented on the bones' authenticity.
“We're waiting for a detailed study to be undertaken. A DNA comparison between these bones and those kept by the Vatican would shed light on the issue,” the deacon said.
What a tremendous discovery and gift to future generations of the Church if these fragments are found to be the actual relics of Saint Peter and other Papal martyrs of the Early Church.
We shall await, with great anticipation, the findings of the DNA tests.
TOSSED BY THE WAVES OF THE NEW CATHOLIC MORALITY
Just yesterday, I posted a blog regarding Pope Francis’ encouragement (if not insistence) that the Church’s moral teachings continue to evolve based upon what he and others have termed “a theology of discernment”.
On September 14, Pope Francis urged Bishops to cultivate what he called an “attitude of listening” and to avoid being “imprisoned by nostalgia.” He was addressing Catholic Bishops from across the globe who were appointed during the past year. The Pope stressed that they must focus their Episcopal ministry on the the need for “discernment”.
The Bishops had just completed an annual training program organized by the Congregation for Bishops.
I have read the Pope’s address to the Bishops and quote extensively from his remarks as I take the opportunity of asking questions which arise from them.
“Authentic discernment,” the Pope said, “although definitive at every step, is always an open and necessary process, and can be completed and enriched”.
But doesn’t this fly in the face of a traditional (arguably infallible Church teaching) that Catholic moral doctrine is founded upon principles which are immutably true by virtue of Divine Revelation or the Natural Law?
Insisting that discernment “can’t be reduced to repeating formulas” Francis pointed out that it is, in fact, an “antidote against rigidity, because the same solutions aren’t valid everywhere.”
But isn't what the Holy Father conveniently refers to as “formulas” really what traditional Catholic doctrine has for centuries referred to as “moral absolutes”?
“You must have the courage to ask yourself whether yesterday’s proposals are still Evangelically valid,” the Pope said to the new Bishops, highlighting the importance for all pastors to not be stuck in the margins but to have the capacity of “evaluating God’s times.”
Again, the Pope uses the phrase “yesterdays proposals”.
Yet when, if ever, has the the moral theology of the Church been considered a "proposal" rather than an imperative based upon the truth of the Gospels and Will of the Creator known to man by both Divine Revelation and the natural order of Creation itselt?
Saying that the gift of discernment cannot be taken for granted, Pope Francis describes it as the primary condition upon which to draw as the Bishops strive to “discern the paths of God” for the salvation of those entrusted to them.
And so, if I understand the Pope’s remarks to the new Bishops, is Catholic moral doctrine no longer to be considered as absolute and universally binding human conscience?
Is morality now somehow now “conditional”, based not on absolute truths but to be determined by the situations and circumstances in which people find themselves at any given moment?
So, is what is morally accept in this place at this time perhaps equally unacceptable in another place at this same time? Or in the same place at another time?
Is truth itself, if it can be still considered to exist, no longer universal? Is morality reduced to the exigencies of time and place?
Am I alone in thinking this is sheer madness?
The Pope proclaims that the achievement of any kind of balance in personal and ecclesiastical behavior is dependent on profound and regular prayer.
This is true for the spiritual ordering of every human life.
But shouldn't we expect that the answer to this prayerful discernment be one and the same for everyone everywhere, since the response to those prayers comes from One God, Who is the Father of all of us?
Is God no longer just?
Or should we now envision God as whimsical in the exercise of His Will, binding some and releasing others for no reason other than His personal amusement?
Pope Francis told the Bishops that discernment is not a private exercise by an individual, but an activity that unfolds within the context of the community. And so, the Bishops are to consult that community in their attempt to reach right decisions.
Certainly, consultation with the community can be helpful in the process of teaching and governance.
But is the Holy Father suggesting that the moral law is no longer to be found in the precepts of the Sacred Scriptures (now referred to as “yesterday’s proposals" which may or may no longer be pastorally valid)? Rather, is morality now dependent upon the observations and judgments of a contemporary community's predominant cultural values?
Real people in concrete situations, he explained, wish to “draw from the treasure of the Church what’s most useful for the ‘today’ of their salvation”.
Does that mean that the moral theology of the Church is now no longer ordered to what is salvific but to what is “practical” and popular?
Listen yourself to the Holy Father’s remarks.
Insisting on the need for all Clergy to always keep contact with ordinary people, Pope Francis warns that without such an exchange “the faith of the most cultivated can degenerate into indifference, and that of the humblest into superstition.”
Pope Francis also calls on Bishops to be attentive to the “the culture of religiosity of the people” noting that popular piety is often the “foundation of a people’s self-understanding,” and that discernment has to enter into dialogue with it.
“Remember that God was already present in your diocese before you got there” he told the new Bishops, “and he’ll still be there when you leave”.
So much for the value of the individual Servant of God, the gift an individual life in service to Christ and the Church!
Oh well, my earlier post suggested that the Catholic faithful (Priests and Bishops especially) have always had to contend with the storms which arise on the seas of moral discernment.
In the past, however, they relied on the ability of the Vicar of Christ to steer the Barque of Peter to safe harbor.
Lately, however, I feel that I am sailing the waters of those seas not in a sturdy ship, but rather a life boat!
On September 14, Pope Francis urged Bishops to cultivate what he called an “attitude of listening” and to avoid being “imprisoned by nostalgia.” He was addressing Catholic Bishops from across the globe who were appointed during the past year. The Pope stressed that they must focus their Episcopal ministry on the the need for “discernment”.
The Bishops had just completed an annual training program organized by the Congregation for Bishops.
I have read the Pope’s address to the Bishops and quote extensively from his remarks as I take the opportunity of asking questions which arise from them.
“Authentic discernment,” the Pope said, “although definitive at every step, is always an open and necessary process, and can be completed and enriched”.
But doesn’t this fly in the face of a traditional (arguably infallible Church teaching) that Catholic moral doctrine is founded upon principles which are immutably true by virtue of Divine Revelation or the Natural Law?
Insisting that discernment “can’t be reduced to repeating formulas” Francis pointed out that it is, in fact, an “antidote against rigidity, because the same solutions aren’t valid everywhere.”
But isn't what the Holy Father conveniently refers to as “formulas” really what traditional Catholic doctrine has for centuries referred to as “moral absolutes”?
“You must have the courage to ask yourself whether yesterday’s proposals are still Evangelically valid,” the Pope said to the new Bishops, highlighting the importance for all pastors to not be stuck in the margins but to have the capacity of “evaluating God’s times.”
Again, the Pope uses the phrase “yesterdays proposals”.
Yet when, if ever, has the the moral theology of the Church been considered a "proposal" rather than an imperative based upon the truth of the Gospels and Will of the Creator known to man by both Divine Revelation and the natural order of Creation itselt?
Saying that the gift of discernment cannot be taken for granted, Pope Francis describes it as the primary condition upon which to draw as the Bishops strive to “discern the paths of God” for the salvation of those entrusted to them.
And so, if I understand the Pope’s remarks to the new Bishops, is Catholic moral doctrine no longer to be considered as absolute and universally binding human conscience?
Is morality now somehow now “conditional”, based not on absolute truths but to be determined by the situations and circumstances in which people find themselves at any given moment?
So, is what is morally accept in this place at this time perhaps equally unacceptable in another place at this same time? Or in the same place at another time?
Is truth itself, if it can be still considered to exist, no longer universal? Is morality reduced to the exigencies of time and place?
Am I alone in thinking this is sheer madness?
The Pope proclaims that the achievement of any kind of balance in personal and ecclesiastical behavior is dependent on profound and regular prayer.
This is true for the spiritual ordering of every human life.
But shouldn't we expect that the answer to this prayerful discernment be one and the same for everyone everywhere, since the response to those prayers comes from One God, Who is the Father of all of us?
Is God no longer just?
Or should we now envision God as whimsical in the exercise of His Will, binding some and releasing others for no reason other than His personal amusement?
Pope Francis told the Bishops that discernment is not a private exercise by an individual, but an activity that unfolds within the context of the community. And so, the Bishops are to consult that community in their attempt to reach right decisions.
Certainly, consultation with the community can be helpful in the process of teaching and governance.
But is the Holy Father suggesting that the moral law is no longer to be found in the precepts of the Sacred Scriptures (now referred to as “yesterday’s proposals" which may or may no longer be pastorally valid)? Rather, is morality now dependent upon the observations and judgments of a contemporary community's predominant cultural values?
Real people in concrete situations, he explained, wish to “draw from the treasure of the Church what’s most useful for the ‘today’ of their salvation”.
Does that mean that the moral theology of the Church is now no longer ordered to what is salvific but to what is “practical” and popular?
Listen yourself to the Holy Father’s remarks.
Insisting on the need for all Clergy to always keep contact with ordinary people, Pope Francis warns that without such an exchange “the faith of the most cultivated can degenerate into indifference, and that of the humblest into superstition.”
Pope Francis also calls on Bishops to be attentive to the “the culture of religiosity of the people” noting that popular piety is often the “foundation of a people’s self-understanding,” and that discernment has to enter into dialogue with it.
“Remember that God was already present in your diocese before you got there” he told the new Bishops, “and he’ll still be there when you leave”.
So much for the value of the individual Servant of God, the gift an individual life in service to Christ and the Church!
Oh well, my earlier post suggested that the Catholic faithful (Priests and Bishops especially) have always had to contend with the storms which arise on the seas of moral discernment.
In the past, however, they relied on the ability of the Vicar of Christ to steer the Barque of Peter to safe harbor.
Lately, however, I feel that I am sailing the waters of those seas not in a sturdy ship, but rather a life boat!
Sunday, September 17, 2017
ADRIFT IN THE SEA OF MORAL DISCERNMENT
The battle, begun during Vatican II, concerning the Church’s moral teachings continues to be waged in our day and age.
During the Council, German and Northern European Bishops introduced the revolutionary principle of “the evolution of dogma” and applied it to moral theology. At the heart of this effort was a morality which denied the existence of an absolute and immutable Natural Law.
In Europe, the leading advocate of this evolution in moral theology was Bernard Haring. In America, it was Charles Curran. Both of these men aggressively and very publicly attacked traditional Catholic moral teaching on matters such as abortion, contraception and homosexuality.
This novel approach to determining the morality of a particular action or behavior is based upon what is referred to as “discernment".
Pope Francis has stated repeated that it is an “important task” of the Society of Jesus that they “form seminarians and priests in the morality of ‘discernment.’”
It was using the method of “discernment” in response to the Zika virus scare earlier this year that Pope Francis appeared to condone the use of contraception for married couples living in affected areas as the “lesser of two evils.”
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi confirmed the pope’s words the following day, stating: “The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of ‘discernment’ in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said.”
Critics have charged that the Pope’s statements contradict previous Catholic teaching.
Pope Francis also spoke about the morality of “discernment” in his April exhortation Amoris Laetitia more than thirty times, using the term as a key to opening the door to Holy Communion for Catholics living in adulterous situations.
Immediately following the “smoking footnote” 351, in which critics say the pope allowed the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion, the Pope writes that “discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits.”
What is involved in the process of “discernment” and how it assists in the moral formation of the the individual conscience has yet to be fully explained.
But there is no question that this new moral doctrine of “discernment” has introduced serious confusion into traditional Catholic moral theology.
The Pope, in his ongoing dialogue with his brother-Jesuits, has noted that significant progress has been made in moral theology since the days of “you can, you cannot”, based upon a totally impersonal and rational construct known as the Natural Law.
“Obviously, in our day, moral theology has made much progress in its reflections and in its maturity,” Pope Francis has said.
Those, like myself and my contemporaries in the Priesthood, schooled and formed in a systematic moral theology based upon the Natural Law, find this new evolution in the Church’s moral teaching replete with contradictions and conundrums.
In our formation, the morality of an action or behavior was determined according to its adherence to or divergence from the principles of the Natural Law.
Actions and choices were morally right or moral wrong, good or evil, depending upon whether or not they conformed to the nature of the act itself, independent of intentions or circumstances. An act was objectively good or sinful depending upon its relationship to the Natural Law.
Circumstances or intentions affected, not the morality of the act itself, but whether or not the person performing the action was to be held morally accountable.
Now, in the twilight of our Priestly ministry, we are told that Catholic moral doctrine has moved beyond such a limited perspective.
We are likewise told (and often castigated by Pope Francis) that reluctance or hesitance on our part to accept and apply the theology of “discernment” reveals a pastoral immaturity and rigidity on our part.
What is particularly confounding to me is that, every time I was assigned to a different ministerial responsibility, the Church insisted that I take an Oath against Modernism, one of the fundamental tenets of which was the concept that there were no moral absolutes.
Now, after years of being faithful to those Oaths, I am told that I am morally immature and pastorally rigid.
What’s a Priest to do these days?
Having been relieved of my pastoral obligations for reasons of health, the question is pretty much esoteric. However, for the majority of my Priest-brothers still in pastoral service, the challenge is both immediate and direct indeed.
Many Priests, and Bishops with them, have chosen to seek safe haven in silence, choosing not to address these issues in their preaching and teaching.
That may do for the present.
But, as time passes, the People of God will demand clear and convincing moral teaching and doctrine from their leaders.
How will the Priests and Bishops respond to future generations of Catholics seeking moral enlightenment?
That time is coming soon.
I pray that the Holy Spirit will come to the Church’s rescue and provide the guidance it will require for the sake of the Gospel and the salvation of souls.
During the Council, German and Northern European Bishops introduced the revolutionary principle of “the evolution of dogma” and applied it to moral theology. At the heart of this effort was a morality which denied the existence of an absolute and immutable Natural Law.
In Europe, the leading advocate of this evolution in moral theology was Bernard Haring. In America, it was Charles Curran. Both of these men aggressively and very publicly attacked traditional Catholic moral teaching on matters such as abortion, contraception and homosexuality.
This novel approach to determining the morality of a particular action or behavior is based upon what is referred to as “discernment".
Pope Francis has stated repeated that it is an “important task” of the Society of Jesus that they “form seminarians and priests in the morality of ‘discernment.’”
It was using the method of “discernment” in response to the Zika virus scare earlier this year that Pope Francis appeared to condone the use of contraception for married couples living in affected areas as the “lesser of two evils.”
Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi confirmed the pope’s words the following day, stating: “The contraceptive or condom, in particular cases of emergency or gravity, could be the object of ‘discernment’ in a serious case of conscience. This is what the Pope said.”
Critics have charged that the Pope’s statements contradict previous Catholic teaching.
Pope Francis also spoke about the morality of “discernment” in his April exhortation Amoris Laetitia more than thirty times, using the term as a key to opening the door to Holy Communion for Catholics living in adulterous situations.
Immediately following the “smoking footnote” 351, in which critics say the pope allowed the divorced and remarried to receive Holy Communion, the Pope writes that “discernment must help to find possible ways of responding to God and growing in the midst of limits.”
What is involved in the process of “discernment” and how it assists in the moral formation of the the individual conscience has yet to be fully explained.
But there is no question that this new moral doctrine of “discernment” has introduced serious confusion into traditional Catholic moral theology.
The Pope, in his ongoing dialogue with his brother-Jesuits, has noted that significant progress has been made in moral theology since the days of “you can, you cannot”, based upon a totally impersonal and rational construct known as the Natural Law.
“Obviously, in our day, moral theology has made much progress in its reflections and in its maturity,” Pope Francis has said.
Those, like myself and my contemporaries in the Priesthood, schooled and formed in a systematic moral theology based upon the Natural Law, find this new evolution in the Church’s moral teaching replete with contradictions and conundrums.
In our formation, the morality of an action or behavior was determined according to its adherence to or divergence from the principles of the Natural Law.
Actions and choices were morally right or moral wrong, good or evil, depending upon whether or not they conformed to the nature of the act itself, independent of intentions or circumstances. An act was objectively good or sinful depending upon its relationship to the Natural Law.
Circumstances or intentions affected, not the morality of the act itself, but whether or not the person performing the action was to be held morally accountable.
Now, in the twilight of our Priestly ministry, we are told that Catholic moral doctrine has moved beyond such a limited perspective.
We are likewise told (and often castigated by Pope Francis) that reluctance or hesitance on our part to accept and apply the theology of “discernment” reveals a pastoral immaturity and rigidity on our part.
What is particularly confounding to me is that, every time I was assigned to a different ministerial responsibility, the Church insisted that I take an Oath against Modernism, one of the fundamental tenets of which was the concept that there were no moral absolutes.
Now, after years of being faithful to those Oaths, I am told that I am morally immature and pastorally rigid.
What’s a Priest to do these days?
Having been relieved of my pastoral obligations for reasons of health, the question is pretty much esoteric. However, for the majority of my Priest-brothers still in pastoral service, the challenge is both immediate and direct indeed.
Many Priests, and Bishops with them, have chosen to seek safe haven in silence, choosing not to address these issues in their preaching and teaching.
That may do for the present.
But, as time passes, the People of God will demand clear and convincing moral teaching and doctrine from their leaders.
How will the Priests and Bishops respond to future generations of Catholics seeking moral enlightenment?
That time is coming soon.
I pray that the Holy Spirit will come to the Church’s rescue and provide the guidance it will require for the sake of the Gospel and the salvation of souls.
BELGIAN BROTHERS OF CHARITY GROUP SUPPORT OF EUTHANASIA FOLLOW UP
Following up on an article I posted earlier, the Belgian Brothers of Charity are insisting they will keep allowing euthanasia at their hospitals despite the Vatican’s order to reverse their policy.
The Brothers of Charity Group “continues to stand by its vision statement on euthanasia for mental suffering in a non-terminal situation,” its statement said.
The Group now faces possible canonical action, including potential excommunication from the Church, unless it complies.
The Board of Trustees for the Catholic charity said in April it would permit euthanasia to non-terminally-ill psychiatric patients who request it in the 15 psychiatric hospitals that it operates serving some 5,000 patients in its Belgian region.
The Board’s September 12 statement defending the policy allowing euthanasia for non-terminally ill psychiatric patients also said the Brothers of Charity “emphatically believe” the practice is compatible with Catholic teaching.
Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002. It is already being committed on psychiatric patients there, and nursing homes and hospitals resisting euthanasia have been under pressure since a court fined a Catholic nursing home €6,000 last year for preventing a resident from accessing euthanasia.
After the Board of Trustees April announcement allowing euthanasia in its facilities, the Superior General of the Brothers of Charity, Brother René Stockman, informed the entire Congregation that the Board’s decision violated the Order’s charism and was unacceptable.
The Board is made up mostly of lay people and is connected to the Brothers of Charity religious congregation though it is still separate.
Brother Stockman also notified the Belgian Bishops Conference, Belgium’s Papal Nuncio and the Vatican regarding the Board’s contravening Church teaching on euthanasia.
Pope Francis gave the Brothers of Charity until the end of August to stop making euthanasia available to psychiatric patients.
Brothers who serve on the Board of the Brothers of Charity Group were to each sign a joint letter to their superior general affirming they "fully support the vision of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, which has always confirmed that human life must be respected and protected in absolute terms, from the moment of conception till its natural end."
Brothers refusing to sign the letter are supposed to face canonical sanctions, according to the decree approved by Pope Francis, and the Brothers of Charity Group could face legal action up to and including being expelled from the Church if it fails to change the policy.
Now, we shall see what the Holy Father’s response to this latest intransigence will be.
We pray that it will be swift and proportionate to the evil the Belgian Brothers of Charity is perpetuating by their hard-heartedness.
The Brothers of Charity Group “continues to stand by its vision statement on euthanasia for mental suffering in a non-terminal situation,” its statement said.
The Group now faces possible canonical action, including potential excommunication from the Church, unless it complies.
The Board of Trustees for the Catholic charity said in April it would permit euthanasia to non-terminally-ill psychiatric patients who request it in the 15 psychiatric hospitals that it operates serving some 5,000 patients in its Belgian region.
The Board’s September 12 statement defending the policy allowing euthanasia for non-terminally ill psychiatric patients also said the Brothers of Charity “emphatically believe” the practice is compatible with Catholic teaching.
Euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since 2002. It is already being committed on psychiatric patients there, and nursing homes and hospitals resisting euthanasia have been under pressure since a court fined a Catholic nursing home €6,000 last year for preventing a resident from accessing euthanasia.
After the Board of Trustees April announcement allowing euthanasia in its facilities, the Superior General of the Brothers of Charity, Brother René Stockman, informed the entire Congregation that the Board’s decision violated the Order’s charism and was unacceptable.
The Board is made up mostly of lay people and is connected to the Brothers of Charity religious congregation though it is still separate.
Brother Stockman also notified the Belgian Bishops Conference, Belgium’s Papal Nuncio and the Vatican regarding the Board’s contravening Church teaching on euthanasia.
Pope Francis gave the Brothers of Charity until the end of August to stop making euthanasia available to psychiatric patients.
Brothers who serve on the Board of the Brothers of Charity Group were to each sign a joint letter to their superior general affirming they "fully support the vision of the magisterium of the Catholic Church, which has always confirmed that human life must be respected and protected in absolute terms, from the moment of conception till its natural end."
Brothers refusing to sign the letter are supposed to face canonical sanctions, according to the decree approved by Pope Francis, and the Brothers of Charity Group could face legal action up to and including being expelled from the Church if it fails to change the policy.
Now, we shall see what the Holy Father’s response to this latest intransigence will be.
We pray that it will be swift and proportionate to the evil the Belgian Brothers of Charity is perpetuating by their hard-heartedness.
Saturday, September 16, 2017
POPE FRANCIS TAUTS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES....AGAIN
In 2015, in his Encyclical Laudato Si, Pope Francis echoed several themes of his Papacy.
Included among them is his profound suspicion and distrust of capitalism and its role in harming the environment, saying: "Our propensity to interrupt the world’s delicate and balanced ecosystems, our insatiable desire to manipulate and control the planet’s limited resources, and our greed for limitless profit in markets — all these have alienated us from the original purpose of creation. We no longer respect nature as a shared gift; instead, we regard it as a private possession. We no longer associate with nature in order to sustain it; instead, we lord over it to support our own constructs."
The Encyclical garnered a great deal of media attention.
However, its actual effect on average Catholics is debatable.
An Annenberg Public Policy Center Survey found that the Pope’s attention to the issue did little to change Catholics’ minds. In fact, only 24 percent of Catholics believe in climate change.
What the Pope does not quite seem to understand is that the Catholic public is not convinced of any real science or fact regarding such environmental claims. In reality, there is no hard science to support such claims.
In the end, Francis undermines his own credibility and authority by introducing the politics of environmentalism into the moral arena.
As a result, he does violence to the moral voice of the Church itself.
The question is: why?
I’d love to hear a cogent response.
Wouldn’t you?
Included among them is his profound suspicion and distrust of capitalism and its role in harming the environment, saying: "Our propensity to interrupt the world’s delicate and balanced ecosystems, our insatiable desire to manipulate and control the planet’s limited resources, and our greed for limitless profit in markets — all these have alienated us from the original purpose of creation. We no longer respect nature as a shared gift; instead, we regard it as a private possession. We no longer associate with nature in order to sustain it; instead, we lord over it to support our own constructs."
The Encyclical garnered a great deal of media attention.
However, its actual effect on average Catholics is debatable.
An Annenberg Public Policy Center Survey found that the Pope’s attention to the issue did little to change Catholics’ minds. In fact, only 24 percent of Catholics believe in climate change.
What the Pope does not quite seem to understand is that the Catholic public is not convinced of any real science or fact regarding such environmental claims. In reality, there is no hard science to support such claims.
In the end, Francis undermines his own credibility and authority by introducing the politics of environmentalism into the moral arena.
As a result, he does violence to the moral voice of the Church itself.
The question is: why?
I’d love to hear a cogent response.
Wouldn’t you?