WOULD A US PREEMPTIVE STRIKE AGAINST NORTH KOREA BE MORALLY JUSTIFIABLE?

As I write this post, it appears that armed conflict between the US, its allies and North Korea is inevitable.

The threat of a nuclear missile attack from North Korea is accelerating, U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis said during his most recent visit to Seoul.  In remarks alongside South Korean Defense Minister Song Young-mool, Mattis accused the North of illegal and unnecessary missile and nuclear programs — and vowed to defeat any attack.

The Defense Secretary stated that North Korea continues to engage in "outlaw" behavior.  “North Korea has accelerated the threat that it poses to its neighbors and the world through its illegal and unnecessary missile and nuclear weapons programs," he said, adding that U.S.-South Korean military and diplomatic collaboration thus has taken on "a new urgency."

"I cannot imagine a condition under which the United States would accept North Korea as a nuclear power," the Defense Secretary said.

Many people assume that only a war kills innocent people. However, “false peace” or a peace that solves no problems can be just as dangerous. 

The so-called “Peace Movement” of the 1960s destabilized and disrupted the Vietnam war to ensure a victory for the Communists.  As a result of this “false peace,” the Communists slaughtered nearly three million innocent Cambodians and Vietnamese when they gained power.

In contrast to false “peace” movements, the “Just War Theory,” espoused by St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas, refers to situations in which the use of military force is justifiable. 

The conditions under which a just war may be executed include the following.

1) The war must be a response to an action of direct aggression.

2) The war must be in the protection of the innocent.

3) The war must be declared by a legitimate authority.

4) The war must be fought with the right intent.

5) The peaceful conclusion of the war must be non-vindictive.

In addition, both Augustine and Thomas argued that war justly may be resorted to in order to preserve or achieve  a just peace that leaves the world better off than it was prior to the resort of force.

But what about a preemptive war?  Whether or not it is justified has become a complex and contradicting subject for moral theologians. 

Would not a preemptive military strike against a threatening aggressor justify a state responding to an imminent attack once the targeted state had seen it coming but before it had felt its impact?

The problem, of course, lies in the possibility that states can misjudge the “threat”. 

What really constitutes an imminent threat? 

It is this confusion and blurred definition which could lead to states acting out of aggression and uncertainty rather than a solid justified move which can constitute a pre-emptive war. 

In the nuclear age, just the threat of unleashing a nuclear attack must be regarded as an act of aggression in and of itself.  

In a nuclear war, waiting for a first strike before engaging in combat is untenable.  The potential loss of life and restoration of civil order for the foreseeable future render such a strategic policy unacceptable.

So what are the ethical, the moral conditions which would justify a preemptive strike and the war which would follow?

One ethicist, Michael Walzer, has put forward some conditions that he thinks must be satisfied to justify a pre-emptive strike.

1) There must be an obvious intention to do injury.

2) There must be active preparations that turn that intention into a positive danger.

3) There must be a situation in which the risk of defeat will be greatly increased if the strike is delayed.

I put it to the readers of this blogsite, what thinkest you?

Given North Korea’s past, present and expected actions and threats, would a preemptive strike against that country be justified or not?

It may perhaps be the most weighty question confronting our future way of life for decades to come.

May the Lord God above grant us the wisdom and prudence of arriving at a solution which is right and  reasonable and will ensure a lasting and just peace.  

Lord hear our prayer and grant us Your blessings in these frightening and dangerous times.

POPE FRANCIS JUST DOESN'T GET IT

In an earlier post, I commented on Pope Francis’ plan to address European political and church leaders at a  forum on Europe organized by the Commission of the Bishops' Conferences of the European Community.

Without question, the European Union finds itself in a state of crisis at the present moment.

Well, the Pope’s remarks did come a day after the regional parliament in Catalonia made a unilateral declaration of independence from Spain, and as Britain negotiates its exit from the European Union after four decades.

The Holy Father said politics, rather than promoting dialogue as it should, "is becoming instead a forum for clashes between opposing forces. The voice of dialogue is replaced by shouted claims and demands."

"Extremist and populist groups are finding fertile ground in many countries; they make protest the heart of their political message, without offering the alternative of a constructive political project," the Pope said.

Respectfully, while the Holy Father’s words enjoy a clear and certain authenticity when it comes to matters of Faith and Morals, his political opinions are just that:  opinions which should enjoy reverential attention but enjoy no authority over other contrary opinions.

As expected, the Pope admonished political leaders to welcome and help integrate migrants, strive for solidarity especially with younger people and help create economic opportunities.  

He stated, “Political leaders must promote Europe as an inclusive community, where differences are valued and viewed as a shared source of enrichment. Seen in this way, migrants are more a resource than a burden."

It is rather astounding how misguided the Pope’s political inclinations are.

It is remarkable that the Holy Father does not understand the intimate connection between the rise of the populist movements in Europe which he constantly refers to as “extremist” and the disaster which the mass immigration of Muslims has brought to the Continent.

The Pope consistently criticizes European citizens for their reluctance to integrate the Muslim migrant populations.  He avoids the inconvenient truth, however, that these same migrants do not wish to assimilate into the culture of the nations who have allowed them entry to their sovereign borders.

Naively, Pope Francis returns to his plaintive reprise that religion (understand that to be Catholicism) ought to play a positive role by promoting dialogue.  In that vein, the Holy father called upon political leaders to listen to the voice of the Church and  "to restore dignity to politics and to view politics as a lofty service to the common good, not a platform for power."

Just two points need to be made in response.

First, dialogue truly can occur only when both sides of a conflict are willing to honestly engage and resolve issues of contention.  That has been and apparently will never be the intention of Muslim immigrants.

Second, in free societies, citizens determine “the common good” for themselves, not a vision of what purports to be the common good that is imposed by those who are unaccountable to their constituents.  

Pope Francis, having lived under repressive regimes most of his adult life, doesn’t get it.  

When the citizens of Europe express their political will and aspirations by demanding that their nations be protected and preserved, that is not “extremism”, it is freedom expressing itself and demanding that elected officials acknowledge and respond accordingly.

Certainly, the Holy Father’s desire for harmony and solidarity among and within European nations is to be commended.  The insights of the Gospel which he brings to the political conversation are welcome.  

But whatever authority he enjoys as a moral leader stops at the door when he enters and begins to suggest political solutions and agendas.

In the decades following World War II, the Catholic Church sought to influence political life in Europe through the thinly-disguised Christian Democratic Parties it propped up throughout the Continent. 

European citizens rejected Church leaders meddling in national affairs.  Their discontent with the Church contributed greatly to Europe’s secularization and distancing itself from its Christian (understand that to mean Catholic) heritage and tradition.

For whatever curious and strange reason, Pope Francis is oblivious to these realities.  He does the Church and Continent itself no favor by intervening in the politics of the European Union, an experiment which clearly seems destined to failure because of its arrogance and unaccountability towards its citizens.

What a shame that Pope Francis just doesn’t get it!

US BISHOPS WRONG ON IMMIGRATION REFORM

American Bishops, the overwhelming majority of whom are the left of the Democratic Party on immigration reform, need to finally come clean.

The USCCB has  revealed how baldly political and self-serving their agenda is:  a desire to have mostly Catholic Hispanic immigrants come bolster demographics in America’s flagging dioceses.

Clearly, the USCCB seems not concerned about our Canadian border or about European, African, or Asian immigrants entering the U.S. through Immigration and Customs Enforcement stations at our air and sea terminals. 

Why?

If a European needs a visa and a green card on his way to citizenship, then why not the Mexican, Honduran, or any other immigrant from predominantly (for the moment at least) Catholic Mexico or Central America?

The USCCB also seems untroubled by certain so-called “sanctuary cities" refusals to enforce immigration laws already on the books.  

Rather, they are silent regarding certain local and state laws which will almost surely not secure the border or establish a chronological red line after which restrictive laws such as govern our northern, eastern, and western borders will actually be enforced at the Rio Grande, at the Baja border, or along the Gulf coast.

Actually, I am opposed to the USCCB having any stated policy on immigration reform or any other policy issue on the subject. 

As I have written in previous posts on this blogsite, national sovereignty used to be upheld by the Church:  the first principle of civil governance being respect for the law.  The USCCB has been all too eager to forget this “inconvenient truth”.

Sadly, in their pandering to the Hispanic community, the Bishops seem blind to a fundamental reality:  for all their “outreach” to immigrants who have entered the U.S. illegally, the Bishops will get the same sort of thanks the Church has been receiving from Catholics in those Central and South American nations that are the wellspring of immigration: Gracias y adiós.

American Bishops will never admit that the census of Hispanic Catholics in America is a charade. 

Most have left the Church, spiritually if not physically, but in Latin America it has been a veritable exodus into Evangelical and Pentecostal versions of Protestantism.

In 1980, 90% of Hispanics in the United States were Catholic, but according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, today just 60% practice the Faith.  In less than two decades, it could be closer to half that number.

American Catholics generally see through the thin veneer of the USCCB’s pandering to the Hispanic illegals in this country.  

The Bishops are making no friends among Americans who are bewildered both by the Bishops' rejection of the moral imperative of respecting just laws which protect and serve the country’s citizens as well as by their distinctively leftist, socialist political agendas.

And so, permit me to offer the following suggestion to the Bishops of the USCCB.  Either support the rule of law as the Church has throughout its history, or get out of the political arena altogether.  

If not, America itself will be permanently wounded and weakened at a time when the clear moral voice of the Catholic Faith is needed more than ever.

THE DEVIL BETTER BUY A PARKA

It used to tickle my funny bone when I'd ask folks if what they had just told me was really true and they'd respond:  "Is the Pope Catholic?"

That joking question was intended to be the final word on the subject.

Well, ever since Pope Francis was elected to the Papacy, I have not been hearing those words as frequently.

And, in the face of the many challenges to his teachings, even accusations that the Holy Father has made statements that border on the heretical, the humor of "Is the Pope Catholic?" has evaporated!

For example, I shudder to think what Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Sarah would reply should the question be put to them. Or the reaction of the self-proclaimed "defenders of the faith" who signed and invited others to sign a petition exerting that the Pope has proclaimed erroneous teachings and must retract his heretical pronouncements.

There are any number of websites which daily accuse the Holy Father of apostacy which will lead to a worldwide schism within the Church.

So, I guess folks are going to have to find another quip to assure their audiences of their truthfulness or the accuracy of their words.

Never thought I'd see the day!

Come to think of it, the Devil better buy himself a parka.

Who knows?  

With all the confusion about the Pope's Catholicity, maybe there will be "a cold day in hell" someday soon!

BISHOPS NEED TO BE HONEST WITH THE LGBT COMMUNITY

Recently, the Bishop of Lexington, Kentucky, Bishop John Stowe, O.F.M.Conv., addressed hundreds of L.G.B.T. Catholics and their supporters who were meeting in Chicago at a New Ways Ministry national symposium, telling them, “Your presence and your persistence in the Church is an inspiration for me and for many.”

Bishop Stowe accepted the group’s invitation because of a desire to engage in dialogue with Catholics who do not always feel welcome in the church.  Bishop Stowe is certainly not the first Bishop to address a gathering of gay and lesbian Catholics.

Surely, for far too long, the Church turned a blind eye to the hateful rhetoric of many Catholics about homosexuals.  A change of attitude among Catholics is long overdue.

Certainly, in recent times, there has been a clear shift in the relationship between the Church and the L.G.B.T. community. Support for pro-L.G.B.T. causes, including same-sex marriage, has risen sharply among Catholics in recent years.

Support for same-sex marriage among U.S. Catholics closely tracks support among the country at large.  Part of that support appears to be the result of  the increased visibility of gay and lesbian Americans. More people know a family member or friend who identifies as gay or lesbian and are thus more sympathetic to causes they support.

Still, polls that show Catholics who attend Mass weekly support same-sex marriage at lower rates than Catholics who attend Mass less frequently.

But, the past few decades have seen a sharp increase in the number of Americans who personally know L.G.B.T. people.  And American Bishops have emphasized different aspects Church teaching in their outreach to L.G.B.T. Catholics and their families. 

Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Newark told an L.G.B.T. Catholic group that they would be “very welcome” to organize a pilgrimage to the cathedral in his city. Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago, a delegate to the pope’s global meeting of bishops discussing family issues, said in 2015 that he meets with gay Catholics to understand their perspective and that gay Catholics in relationships could rely on their consciences when it comes to the question of receiving Communion. 

Despite these shifting views, advocates for L.G.B.T. people say the Church can still feel “unwelcoming”. 

By "unwelcoming",  I assume they mean that Church teaching that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” has not changed, and the Vatican reaffirmed its ban on Priests with “deeply-seated homosexual tendencies” as recently as last December. Some also point to policies that prohibit gays and lesbians from holding leadership positions in parishes and to the termination of openly gay and lesbian employees from Catholic schools and other institutions.

For quite some time, it has seemed very clear to me that the LGBT is not looking for a “welcoming” attitude by the Church.  

Rather, the LGBT community will not be satisfied until the Church affirms that homosexuality is not disordered, that its practice in whatever form is not a violation of Natural Law and that same-sex unions are morally equivalent to Sacramental Marriages.

For all their words and gestures of acceptance or tolerance of the gay community, the Bishops know that there remain both Biblical and doctrinal prohibitions regarding homosexuality that can never be compromised without abandoning true allegiance to the Christian Faith.  Yet, these same Bishops never engage the gay community in communicating that the Church can never and will never be able to provide homosexuals with the approbation of their lifestyles they are demanding.

So I ask myself:  what is the end game of the Bishops’ dalliance with the gay community?  Are they simply being patronizing?  Manipulative?  Pandering?  What?

Granted, one (not even the Church itself) can never judge whether a person is morally culpable or responsible for personal sinfulness.  That belongs to the individual in his or her encounter with the Lord within the cathedral of human conscience.  If the LGBT were honest about their desire for dialogue with the Church, they would accept this as the final milestone on the road of encounter with the Catholic Faith.

But the gay community is looking for something more:  approval of the gay lifestyle as morally equivalent to heterosexuality.

That can and will never happen.  

And until the Bishops are clear and unequivocal on this point, all their words and gestures, all the hugs and smiles, are empty and shallow.  In the end, the dialogue will be forever frustrated by the truth, that annoying virtue which cuts cleanly between what is good and evil, what is right and wrong.

A NON-CHRISTIAN EUROPEAN UNION: THREAT TO THE CHURCH'S SURVIVAL ON THE CONTINENT

Though not a member of the European Union, the Vatican today and tomorrow will launch itself into one of the bigger political questions of the year: the future of Europe.

The French President, Emmanuel Macron, and Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Union Commission, earlier this year offered detailed contributions to the debate over the future of Europe. 

Representatives of the Church will engage with European leaders from across the political spectrum in a so-called high-level dialogue at the Vatican under the broad rubric of Rethinking Europe.

The Vatican must engage in the politics of the European Union for one simple reason:  the Church’s survival on the Continent depends upon it.

The fact is the Europe has been in an unprecedented civilization crisis for the last two centuries.  The Continent has become completely secularized.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, when many nations regained their freedom and democracy, it seemed that a new, positive period had begun for Europe.  That was the specific hope of Pope St. John Paul II whose dream for a Catholic Europe dissolved before his very eyes as he witnessed his beloved Poland’s rapid acceptance of a more secularized, particularly non-Catholic approach to self-governance.

The European Union chose not to revert to the Continent’s Christian roots, but instead began to build its institutions on abstractions such as the free market, equality of individuals, and individualist human rights.

The Church sees this growing separation between Christianity and the European Union as a threat to both its influence and financial security.  It must be remembered that the Church is very much dependent upon friendly European states collecting so-called “church taxes” from citizens and distributing those monies to the various denominations with which those citizens identify.

Should the European Union disallow or discontinue such practices, the Church would be thrown into a state of financial collapse.

But even more profoundly, a European Continent devoid of its historic relationship with the Church would find itself morally adrift, having forgotten that all laws should serve the dignity of the human individual, a dignity not conferred by the State by which only comes from God Himself.

The European Union wishes to cut itself away from the Continent's Christian (understand that to be principally Catholic) roots.

The crisis could not be greater for the Church and the Vatican is not so quietly taking very opportunity to remain “in the political game”.

Given the dramatic decline in religious practice and admitted church affiliation that has been witnessed throughout European in the past half-century, the Church has an uphill battle ahead.

YET ANOTHER PRAYER FOR THE CHURCH

The latter half of the 20th Century witnessed an unprecedented decline in religious affirmation and practice among the nations of the Western world.

The reasons for this are many and varied.  However, accompanying (if not the cause of) the downward spiral of religious fervor, were the many of the technological and mass media revolutions inspired and driven principally by the Internet.

These changes profoundly impacted the way people think and act, perhaps forever.  And nowhere are these changes accepted nor have they been assimilated than in the lives of young people, the future generations of secular society and the Church.

Scientific research has proven how critical the formative years of childhood and young adulthood are for establishing a person’s adult religiosity.  And sadly, the scientific community is late in coming to the realization of the fundamental role the family plays in the formation of cultural and societal values.  Sadder still, the Church seemingly forgot the same truth as it appropriated to itself(by way of the Catholic school primarily) the role of “first teacher” of children in the ways of Faith by allowing parents to abdicate their rightful duty and obligation to form their children by their own Christian example and practice.

The unfortunate result is that the decline in religious practice is almost certain to continue for many years to come, as the more practising older generations gradually die off and the resolutely non-practising generations “behind them” will not be replacing them.

There is no doubt about it:  Western cultures have lost their once established Christianity.  As a result, the Church is facing a situation in which a culture is in the process of lapsing back into a position where, for the most part, Christ is unknown. And this, of course, describes Western Europe and America today.

The Church has been aware of this ominous trend for decades.  It was one of the motivating reasons why Pope St. John XXIII convened Vatican Council II, attempting to “breathe fresh air” into the Church, reading the “signs of the times” and updating (aggiornamento) the Church’s conversation with the modern world.

In the more than six decades than have transpired since Vatican II, the Church has struggled to formulate what the terms of that conversation should be.  Even now, the Church is not entirely sure what it is that needs addressing.

Pope St. John Paul II spoke of a “new evangelization”.  Yet, the concept remains an elusive one.  Of what does or will this consist?  Catechesis? Sacramental preparation? Youth ministry? Parish community life? Liturgical music? Some, all or none of the above?

These are questions that Church leaders have scarcely begun to formulate, let alone seriously attempted to answer. 

But time is running out as succeeding generations are assuming positions of responsibility without a Christian underpinning to the judgments they make or the values they espouse.

The future is not a bright one for the Church.  

The truth is that the path toward that future will be slow and gradual, sometimes painful, and marked by long periods of (real or imagined) failure or futility. 

Furthermore, while in no way diminishing the importance of what this present generation can achieve, the likelihood of our seeing much to show for it is not hopeful.

Lest we become overly discouraged, however, let us remind ourselves that the Church is, first and foremost, the Bride of Christ Himself.  We have every reason to believe that the Lord loves His Bride and will protect and sustain her, that He will be faithful to her “in the good times and the bad”, in spells of “sickness and health”.

Fortified by that conviction, let us pray for the Church, the world’s singular hope!  Even as we observe the trials and tribulations, the disappointments and divisions, let us contribute what is admittedly the most powerful assistance within our power to offer:  let us pray for the Church each and everyday, asking the Holy Spirit to guide and protect her.

The existence of the Church lies in the power of the Divine Will.  We can either resist that Will or encourage its fulfillment by our obedient and prayerful submission.

And so, allow me once again, to conclude yet another post with this constant prayer:  Come, Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of Your Faithful and kindle in us the power of Your Love!

POPE FRANCIS RE-AWAKENS THE SPIRIT OF VATICAN COUNCIL II

To put it simply, Vatican Council II was all about Bishops.

Vatican Council II attempted to decentralize church governance both to make it more effective and to return to more traditional models of preaching the Good News.

The re-introduction of Episcopal shared authority, called "collegiality," was one of the crowning achievements of the Council. In this context, the local church is primary, the Bishops join together, as the Apostles once did, to share authority. 

The Pope, the Bishop of Rome remains as the sign of unity among them, not the supreme and absolute monarch of recent centuries past.

Collegiality was an attempt by the Council's Bishops to unleash the firm hold the Roman Curia had on Church governance for decades, if not centuries. Such governance might have worked once, but no longer as the church had grown into a global institution.

At the heart of Vatican II debates was the central schema on the Church itself. 

Within it, rests the council's support for the notion of collegiality: "Just as Peter belonged to the community of the Twelve, so the pope belongs to the college of bishops, regardless of the special role he fills, not outside but within the college."

In September 1964, during the third Council session, a two-thirds majority passed the schema.

The council viewed the local Bishop and the local faith community as primary. (The Council's document on the Office of the Bishop, Christus Dominus, would call the Bishop "the vicar of Christ" in his own diocese.)

The Council also established a mechanism for carrying out what the Bishops felt was a much needed decentralized model of church authority. In this light they created National (Regional in some cases) Conferences of Bishops. They were to administer Church matters, especially those dealing with matters effecting local communities.

The Pontificates of Pope St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were nothing short of a concerted effort to dismantle the very notion of collegiality.  

In 1998, John Paul II issued the apostolic letter, Apostolos suos, which gutted the authority of all National Bishops' Conferences. From then on local Bishops surrendered any claim to local authority. From then on a National Conference opinion could only be offered if every single one of its members agreed with it. 

Pope Benedict XVI likewise turned against the Council's breakthrough. He came to interpret collegiality as an attempt by the Council's Bishops to unleash the firm hold the Roman Curia had on church governance for decades, if not centuries. 

Now comes Pope Francis who has made collegiality a key theme of his Pontificate. 

He sees this as a return to the vision articulated, and experienced, at Vatican Council II. 

Granting Bishops' Conferences throughout the world a determinative role in liturgical translations is the first salvo of the barrage upon the method and manner of Church governance that the Holy Father is committed to establishing for the future.

The Pope has his share of dissenters and detractors in this campaign to revamp the structure of Church governance.

But what these neo-conservative reactions are loathe to admit is that the concentration of decision-making in the Vatican is a recent phenomenon, a response both to the anti-religious fervor of the 19th century and to the improved means of communication available to us today. 

Pope Francis vision of Church governance is that of Vatican Council II.  

Make no mistake, the attempts of the Pontificates of Pope St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI to stifle or destroy Episcopal collegiality are (with respect but truthfully) as dead and moribund as they are.  

In the Pontificate of Pope Francis, the collegial initiatives of Vatican Council II have been re-awakened and will serve as the road map for the present and future Church for generations to come.

Now, if only the Bishops themselves would be worthy and capable of the authority which is truly theirs to exercise

CARDINAL SARAH MUST RESIGN HIS CURIAL OFFICE

Last month, Pope Francis issued the motu proprio, Magnum Principium, which changes the rules for liturgical translation into vernacular languages in the Roman Rite. This document transfers the power of initiative in making such translations from the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome to Episcopal Conferences but leaves ambiguous how extensive Rome’s power of review may remain.

Over the last month Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the  Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has sought to prevent the Pope’s new rules delegating translation to Bishops’ Conferences from taking effect.

Sarah has referred to 2001 document Liturgiam authenticam which required that vernacular translations of the liturgy actually be exact translations of the Latin text without regard for idiomatic nuances and syntax of the vernacular texts.

Cardinal Sarah has insisted that Liturgiam authenticam remain the basis for new translations proposed by Bishops’ Conferences.

Most recently, Pope Francis corrected the Cardinal for his misinterpretation of the new instruction.

The public correction of Cardinal Sarah comes after Cardinal Reinhard Marx, President of the German Bishops’ Conference, welcomed Magnum Principium, and implied that it was a clear break with the 2001 document Liturgiam authenticam, which he called a “dead end.”

The Pope’s public rebuke of the Cardinal comes after Sarah issued a commentary note in the French Catholic journal L’Homme Nouveau, stating that Pope Francis’ new motu proprio does not substantially alter the authority of the Holy See over liturgical translations.

Pope Francis instead makes clear to Sarah that key provisions of John Paul II’s Liturgiam authenticam have been “abrogated” establishing the new instruction that translations no longer must conform on all points to the norms of Liturgiam authenticam as was done in the past.

The Pope also plainly states he is shifting responsibility for judging a translation’s fidelity to the Latin away from Rome to the local Bishops’ Conferences. “Judgement of the fidelity to the Latin and any needed corrections was the task of the Dicastery,” he writes, “while now the norm grants to the Episcopal Conferences the faculty of judging the quality and consistency of each in the translations from the original, although in dialogue with the Holy See.”

Cardinal Sarah has reveled in cloaking himself in the mantle of “defender of the liturgy” which the neo-conservative reactionaries within the Church have been eager to drape upon his shoulders. 

Sarah has been very public in his defensive reactions to many of Pope Francis’ pastoral initiatives and reforms.

With this rare and public Papal rebuke of Sarah’s attitudes and tactics, it is time for His Eminence to offer the right and ethical response to the Holy Father and resign the Office of Prefect of the Congregation.

Cardinal Sarah and other high-ranking neo-conservative Prelates have embarrassed themselves and dishonored the Sacred Petrine Office by their constant laments and criticisms.

It’s time for Sarah to go.  May he have the personal dignity and honesty to do so quickly and quietly.

POPE FRANCIS CELEBRATES 50TH YEAR OF DIALOGUE WITH METHODIST CHURCH

 Pope Francis met with leaders of the World Methodist Council recently, celebrating fifty years of dialogue between the two Churches.

Noting that in the Old Testament, a golden jubilee was a moment to set slaves free, the pope said “we too have been freed from the slavery of estrangement and mutual suspicion”.

After fifty years of patient dialogue, he said, “we are no longer strangers” but rather, through our shared Baptism, “members of the  household of God”.

True dialogue, the pope continued, gives us courage to encounter one another in humility and sincerity” as we seek to learn from each other.

Speaking about the 18th century preacher John Wesley, who, with his brother Charles founded the Methodist movement, Pope Francis said his words and his example of holiness brought many people to Christ. When we recognize the working of the Holy Spirit in other Christian confessions, he said, “we cannot fail to rejoice”, as they can “also help us grow closer to the Lord”.

We cannot grow in holiness without growing in communion, Pope Francis concluded. As you begin a new phase of dialogue devoted to reconciliation, may your discussions be a gift for Christians everywhere to become ministers of reconciliation. Let us prepare ourselves with humble hope and concrete efforts, he said, for that full recognition which will enable us to join one another in the breaking of bread together.

The words of Pope Francis reveal an undeniable and very marked change of direction—indeed, practically a U-turn in the Church’s understanding and advancement of ecumenism. 

Pope Pius XI flatly forbade any Catholic participation in interchurch or inter-religious meetings and activities motivated by the desire for restoring Christian unity. 

Vatican II, on the other hand, not only authorized but positively encouraged Catholic participation in such activities (within certain limits). 

The modern Church has thus made a prudential judgment that the risks and dangers of indifferentism and confusion about the faith occasioned by such activities—perils strongly emphasized by Pius XI—are outweighed by the great good to be hoped for as the long-term result of ecumenism: gradual, better mutual understanding, leading to that unity which Christ willed for all who profess to be his disciples.

At the more fundamental level of doctrine, however, what Pius XI condemned is by no means the same thing that Vatican II affirms. 

What, exactly, did Pope Pius condemn as false doctrine? Basically, the liberal Protestant theology that dominated ecumenical initiatives in the early 20th Century and more specifically, the theology embodied—explicitly or at least implicitly— in several specific theses censured by Pius XI.

First among the erroneous so-called ecumenical doctrines condemned by Pius XI is that which envisions a worldwide religious "unity" in which all agree on a few basic beliefs while "agreeing to differ" on others.   Pius XI The pope observed that this hypothetical "unity" in one "world religion" would of course include non-Christians of all types. 

Second, Pius XI insisted that the above error involves another at a deeper level, that is, a denial of the very principle of Revealed Truth, which requires assent to God’s Word on His own authority. In some contemporary circles, ecumenism today presuppose the erroneous view that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, inasmuch as all give expression, under various forms, to that innate sense which leads men to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of his rule. 

Pius insisted that those who hold such a view are not only in error; they distort the true idea of religion, and thus reject it, falling gradually into naturalism and atheism. To favor this opinion, therefore, and to encourage such undertakings, is tantamount to abandoning the religion revealed by God. 

Pius XI condemned a false ecclesiology that is often inherent in ecumenical initiatives, that is, a striving for a visibly united "Christian church" which would be "nothing more than a federation of the various Christian communities, even though these may hold different and mutually exclusive doctrines". 

Finally, Pope Pius condemned the idea that the unity which Christ prayed for -- ut unum sint (that they be one) -- must be regarded as a mere ideal".

Vatican Council II defined the kinds of "activities and initiatives" which embody a correct and faithful ecumenical strategy: (a) avoiding all misrepresentations of separated Christians’ beliefs and practices; (b) dialogue between scholars of different denominations for the purpose of better mutual understanding; (c) a more extensive collaboration in carrying out duties toward the common good recognized by "every Christian conscience"; (d) meeting for common prayer, where this is permitted; and (e) renewing and reforming the Church herself in faithfulness to Christ’s will. 

It is against this historical backdrop of Church teaching regarding ecumenism that one must consider the recent remarks of Pope Francis to the World Methodist Council.  I will leave it to those much more knowledgeable and qualified to study and reflect upon the implications of the Holy Father’s statements.

Still, to the ordinary observer who may think that Pope’s comments appear to have come very close to mirroring the doctrinal aberrations condemned by Pius XI in 1928, I suggest that Francis’ words be heard in the spirit of fraternal charity and benevolence with which they were offered to Christian brothers and sisters who continue to be wounded by the scandal of division and separation. 

Let us pray that the day will indeed come when there will be One Shepherd and One Flock!

THANKS, HOLY SPIRIT! I NEEDED THAT!

Just yesterday, I posted an article regarding a kind of ironic Divine parody that has played out in my life as a Priest and Canon Lawyer.

I confessed how many times I have felt challenged by Pope Francis' teachings and observations about the Church and its mission.  Many times I have wondered how similar my reactions may have been to the priests and lawyers of the Old Covenant who were challenged by the teachings of Jesus.

Today, in what I can only consider to be an affirmation of those thoughts by the Holy Spirit, I read an article penned by Carol Glatz of Catholic News Service.

Reflecting upon  St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans (3:21-30), in which the apostle explains only God is righteous and people are justified freely by his grace through Christ, Pope Francis insisted that people are justified by faith, not by works of the law.

The Pharisees and doctors of the Old Covenant claimed salvation came only from fulfilling God’s laws.  

And the Pope warned that the Pharisees and Lawyers are not just Biblical figures of the past.

“There are many of them today, too. That is why praying for us Priests is necessary,” so that today’s ministers will not close the door like the Pharisees did to people seeking God’s mercy and forgiveness," the Pope said.

Pope Francis likewise pointed out that Jesus admonished scholars of the Old Covenant for willfully forgetting that God is more than the source of the law.

“This happens today. The Pharisees, the doctors of the law are not things from the olden days, there are many of them today, too,” the Holy Father said.

As I write the posts which appear on this blogsite, I ask the Holy Spirit's guidance so that I may be an instrument of His Grace.  Sometimes, I ask same Spirit to affirm the thoughts I share.

It seems as though the Holy Spirit has answered that request.

I just wish the affirmation would have been about something other than the ways in which I have been inclined to mirror the Pharisees and Lawyers of the Old Covenant.

In any case, thanks Holy Spirit.  

I needed that!

PHARISEE OF THE NEW COVENANT?

My Catholic upbringing taught me that the Pharisees and the Saducees were the “bad guys” who persecuted Jesus unmercifully because they feared a loss of power and prestige among the People of God if they accepted the New Covenant Jesus was proclaiming.

Anas and Caiaphas.  The Sanhedrin.  These were the leaders of the Jews whose motives were corrupted by pride and avarice and a desire to maintain their crushing grip of control over the lives of the Chosen People.

In almost every instance, the priests and teachers of the Old Covenant were presented to me in a negative light, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.  This was (and sadly still tends to be) the Church’s portrayal of the many sufferings the Lord endured in His lifetime at the hands of these evil men.

They say that with age comes wisdom.  I do not necessarily agree.  I will complete my 70th year on this planet come this December.  I don’t feel wiser.  In fact, many times I find that I have to overcome my predisposed viewpoint on many issues in order to confront the complexities of modern life.  It’s not easy to let go of ideas so deeply ingrained over the course of a lifetime.

It was my fortune (or misfortune depending upon your particular perspective) to have been called to serve the Church as a Priest and as a Canon Lawyer.  During the course of my active ministry, I was appointed to serve as a judge in the Marriage Tribunal and to assist members of the curia within my diocese.

As a Priest and Canon Lawyer, it was my duty to proclaim and defend the truths of the Gospel and the teachings of the Church.   

What I could not understand at the time was that a kind of Divine parody was playing out in my life.

By the Lord’s Will, I found myself very much in line with the priests and lawyers of the Old Covenant.  I wasn’t called upon to serve as a High Priest as the Bishops are.  But I could definitely see the similarities between my ministry and that of the members of the Sanhedrin.

There were many times I saw the parallels between what the Church expected of me as a Priest and Canonist and the role which the members of the Sanhedrin were asked to fulfill in their ministerial obligations.  

There were (and still are) many times when I have found myself obligated to defend the teachings and practices of the Church, very much in the custom of the Sanhedrin having had to defend the teachings and practices of Judaism.

Now comes Pope Francis whose Pontificate brings with it serious questions regarding teachings and customs which the Church has long cherished and revered.  

Many times I have reacted defensively to what I have concluded were troubling inconsistencies in Pope Francis’ words.  I still struggle with the vague (often self-contradictory) remarks he makes during public appearances and in interviews with the press.

This Pope challenges me to rethink my experience of Priestly service and re-envision much of what the Church’s ministry needs to be about.

In these challenging moments, I have had to ask myself this profoundly uncomfortable question:  when I am inclined to react defensively to Pope Francis’ words or decisions, will I be judged to have been a “pharisee or saducee” of the New Covenant?

I wonder how many of the members of the Sanhedrin during Jesus’ lifetime felt the same way about themselves.  Were they as conflicted with Jesus as I find myself to be at times when listening to the new order faith and morality to which I and the People of God are being called by the present Vicar of Christ?

Were the priests and lawyers of the Old Covenant just “bad guys” acting out of self-interest?  Am I just a priest and lawyer of the New Covenant doing the same?

It’s spooky at times, believe me, to see the parallels.  The Sanhedrin of the Old Covenant versus the Curia of the New Covenant.  High Priests versus Bishops.  Pharisees versus Canon Lawyers.

Just some thoughts about things which cross my mind from time to time as I continue to try to deepen my understanding of the Church I love so much and what the Lord is asking of me in its service.

FRANCIS: THE POET- PONTIFF

In a preface to a new book of interviews, Pope Francis outlined his approach to speaking with journalists, explaining that he thinks interviews should be like a conversation, which is why he does not accept questions in advance nor prepare answers ahead of time.

“For me, interviews are a dialogue, not a lesson,” the Pope wrote.

While admitting that his answers might be misunderstood or misinterpreted, the Holy Father stated that it is a risk that he is willing to take.

“Everything that I do has pastoral value, in one way or in another,” the Pope said. “If I did not trust this, I would not allow interviews: For me, it is clear. It’s a manner of communicating my ministry.”

In this attitude, Pope Francis is so different from those who preceded him in the exercise of the Petrine Office. 

The metaphor I often use is this.  While past Popes have chosen to minister to the Church as teachers and defenders of the Faith, Pope Francis does so as a pastor and a poet.

In fact, that is the best description I have found which comes closets to revealing the true personality of this Pontiff.  He is a poet.

Unlike his two predecessors, Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, who used studied language and precise prose to give insight and meaning to the mysteries of the Church of Rome, Pope Francis speaks of the Catholic Faith from an affective and emotional perspective.

The difference can be unsettling at times because the “poetry” of Francis is oftentimes inexact and inconsistent, but such are the ways of the heart.

Pope Francis shies away from metaphysical or ontological explanations of the Sacraments, of morality, and chooses instead to talk about the emotional intimacy that arises from the encounter of the human person with his and her Divine Father, a relationship of filial trust and paternal affection.

It is the poetry of love, God for humanity and humanity’s longing for the Divine, which imbues the answers Pope Francis offers in the many interviews he accepts with journalists and scholars.

In this, Pope Francis is very much like Christ Himself who often responded to very pointed questions put to him regarding the teachings and practices of the Old Covenant not in keeping with the traditional formulas with which the Pharisees and Saducees were familiar.  

Instead, Jesus would often respond to questions (often attacks) in the language of metaphor or by way of parable.  “The Kingdom of Heaven is like....”

The poetry of Jesus confused, irritated and (very often) infuriated those who considered themselves to be the Divinely chosen defenders of the Jewish faith.  Pope Francis appears to be doing the same thing with his poetic, rather than didactic, style of ministry.  In many cases, the reaction to Francis is very similar to the reaction to Jesus.

Attempting to apply the standard of circumspection and clarity which marked the teaching style of past Popes to this Pope is a mistake and often proves quite frustrating to anyone looking for a logical, precise theological response to questions or issues regarding Church teaching.

So, one should not be looking for catechism-like definitions of Pope Francis’ ideas about “discernment” or “accompaniment”.  Such precise definitions do not exist for Pope Francis.  They can only be understood within the context of the love affair between God and mankind revealed in the Scriptures and annals of Church history.

And so, when tempted to shake your head or to spend hours trying to decipher the exact theological implications of what Pope Francis said to a group of journalists or scholars, just hear everything the Pope says within the framework of the bountiful mercy and love which the Heavenly Father has for humanity wounded and broken by sin.

I have and it has made me much more comfortable and receptive of the Holy Father’s remarks.

DIOCESES PRESENTLY AWAITING THE APPOINTMENT OF NEW BISHOPS

According to the prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law, when Diocesan and Auxiliary Bishops  complete the age of75 years, they are required to submit a letter of resignation to the Pope, which he may accept immediately or at any time thereafter.

Over the course of numerous Pontificates, such resignations (unless for reasons of poor health) were generally accepted within three to five years of their submission.  

Thus, it is not unusual for Bishops past the “retirement age” to continue in their pastoral assignments well after celebrating their 75th birthday.

At present, there are seven key dioceses in the world waiting for a new bishop to be appointed.  Given the historical prestige and importance of these dioceses, rumors abound and speculation regarding those who will be appointed to govern them is growing.
  
Among those who recently submitted a letter of resignation to Pope Francis include Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC; Cardinal Laurent Mosengwo of Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of Congo); Cardinal Wilfrid Fox Napier of Durban (South Africa); Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa (Honduras); Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera of Mexico City; Cardinal André Vingt-Trois of Paris; and Archbishop Peter Okada of Tokyo.

The Archdiocese in Washington, D.C. is a key post, as it involves both pastoral care and institutional relations with the U.S. political establishment and diplomatic establishments.

Many are speculating that  Bishop Robert W. McElroy of San Diego might be at the top of the list.  What the reaction of many US Bishops might be to such an appointment certainly is of great interest to many observers of American Catholicism.  

A brother-Priest and dear friend commented on the hysteria among the ranks of the USCCB such an appointment would rouse.

Bishop McElroy recently commented on Father James Martin’s book, “Building a Bridge”, calling for a greater welcoming and dialogue with lesbian, gay and transgender communities by the Church.   Bishop McElroy has defended the book as well as Father Martin, in the face of criticisms of his work.  

Bishop McElroy also took part in the recent  Boston College conference on Amoris Laetitia, hosted by Cardinal Blase Cupich and Father James Keenan, SJ. 

During the conference, Bishop McElroy reported on the diocesan synod he launched on Amoris Laetitia, and said that Catholic teaching must take seriously the complexity of adult moral life.

Of course, his appointment is simply a rumor and should be taken for what it is worth.  A recent rumor in Rome suggested that the Pope would call Cardinal Cupich of Chicago to lead an important Vatican office in Rome.  The Cardinal has steadfastly and repeated denied the truth of such speculation.

It should be noted that sometimes gossip is just a way to test possible reactions to an appointment. 

Nevertheless, among the most lasting aspects of a Pope’s leadership is his appointment of Bishops. 

In the weeks and months ahead, in the appointment of Bishops to these influential dioceses, Francis will have a remarkable opportunity to solidify the reforms in both more liberal attitude and pastoral practice which have been the hallmark of his Pontificate.

MUSLIM INVITED TO CHRISTIAN CHURCH DENIES JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD

I found this story just recently.  It regards an incident which took place earlier this year, but one which I find quite astounding.

Scottish Christians expressed upset after sections of the Quran were read out during a service at St Mary’s Cathedral in Glasgow. 

The unrest in the Scottish Church began after a decision was made to include passages from the Quran to be read in Arabic by a local Muslim student during a service at the cathedral church.

Nineteen-year-old student, Madinah Javed, read the story of Jesus’ birth from the book of Maryam. The reading included the Islamic doctrine that Jesus was not the son of God.

The intention of the service was to build interfaith relations, but instead has sparked widespread anger among Christians throughout the country.

The Most Rev David Chillingworth, Bishop of St Andrews, Dunkeld & Dunblane and Primus of the Scottish Episcopal Church said the Scottish Episcopal Church had had a long commitment to the development of interfaith work.  He stated: “Over many years, we have sought to develop friendship, understanding and mutual respect between our Christian faith and the other great world religions.”

He added, however: “The decisions which have led to the situation in St Mary’s Cathedral are a matter for the Provost and the Cathedral community.  But the Scottish Episcopal Church is deeply distressed at the widespread offense which has been caused. We also deeply regret the widespread abuse which has been received by the Cathedral community.”

Scottish police were brought in after members of the church received online abuse, according to local press reports. A police spokesman stated: “We can confirm we are investigating reports of offensive comments made towards St Mary’s Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow and inquiries are ongoing.”

The ignorance of those who deceive themselves into thinking that any kind of dialogue can be effectively entertained between Christianity and Islam is staggering.  

It is remarkable how the Vatican has shown how naive it is regarding this obvious fact.

So many delude themselves in the false narrative that the tenets of Islam are compatible with Christianity when nothing of the sort is true or verifiable.  

The merchants of political correctness do violence to their Christian faith when they invite and allow such attacks upon the most fundamental doctrines regarding the divinity of Jesus Christ are ridiculed and denied within the walls of the Church itself.

The  Cathedral community of the Scottish Episcopal Church should rightfully be ashamed of itself for permitting such a scandal to take place within the sanctuary of their parish church.  

The Christian community of Scotland is right to express its outrage and anger at such an affront to the dignity of the Christian Gospel.

We can only hope and pray that such affronts to the Christian faith are not permitted to take place in the future anywhere at any time.

BISHOPS: THE CHURCH'S CHILDREN OF HELICOPTER PARENTING

Helicopter parenting.

It is a style of parenting characterized by a tendency to hover over children and swoop in to rescue them at the first sign of trouble.

The idea exploded into mainstream consciousness in the early 2000s, just as the oldest Millennials were entering young adulthood. 

Given its recent manifestations, there is scant research but the studies which do exist reveal that it is widespread in the US and growing in frequency each year. 

In one national survey of college students, 38 % of freshmen and 29% of seniors said their parents intervened on their behalf to solve problems either “very often” or “sometimes.” 

Even more telling, a 2013 Pew Research Survey found that 73% of adults in their 40s and 50s had given adult children financial help in the past year, and not all of it was for college tuition. 

One story reported that parents of a 35 year old child, living at home, were still giving him a weekly allowance!

It appears that there is one common trait among helicopter parents: they’re often from the highly educated middle class or wealthier, with social and financial resources to share with adult children.

While most parents start scaling back their involvement when children head to college, helicopter parents ramp up support. 

Among some of the worst examples of helicopter parenting include parents attending their adult children’s job interviews, or even calling college professors to argue over a grade.

The result:  their children emerge from childhood without basic survival skills of personal responsibility or accountability.  Most can't even fend for themselves.  Few know how to cook, clean or even do their own laundry. 

I often wonder how similar Bishops are to the children of helicopter parents.  For the past 500 years, Bishops have been formed in the helicopter-style governance of the Vatican and the Roman Curia.  

Little wonder then that Bishops have been stunted by Rome’s over-protectiveness or even the Holy See’s adamant refusal to let them minister on their own. 

Along comes Pope Francis and challenges these Bishops:  you don’t have to wait for the Church to change, before you yourselves do. 

In fact, laying all the blame on the Roman Curia, without accepting some personal responsibility, has robbed the Bishops of the authority and ability to provide for the souls entrusted to their pastoral care.

It is time to break this destructive pattern and to wake up with insight into how terribly dysfunctional and misguided the failed strategies of Church governance of the past have been.

Pope Francis is calling upon the Bishops to cut the umbilical cord with Rome which for far too long has prevented them from fulfilling their Apostolic ministries.

Whether or not the Holy Father will be successful remains to be seen!

THE MORALLY NEUTRAL GEOPOLITICAL WORLD OF POPE FRANCIS

Father Antonio Spadaro, Jesuit editor of La Civiltà Cattolica,  gave a talk at the University of Notre Dame titled "The Diplomacy and Geopolitics of Mercy: The World of Pope Francis." 

We tend to think of mercy as a personal quality, and it is, but Spadaro sees it as a theme that also runs through the Pope's vision of politics and society.

Spadaro explained:  “The  Pope's position consists not in saying who is right and who is wrong, for at the root of all conflict is a fight for power or regional dominance, or what the Pope calls a "vain pretext." There is no need to take sides for moral reasons. The Pope rejects the mixing of politics, morals and religion that leads to the use of a language that divides reality between the absolute good and the absolute evil, between an axis of evil and an axis of good, between goodies and baddies.   It is that mercy is not our action in history, but God's action in history, and it does explode our human categories and, especially, our desire to claim that God is on our side in the various political battles in which we engage.”

In his talk at Notre Dame, Father Spadaro spelled out the Holy Father’s mercy-drenched vision of a world in which no one and nothing is ever considered beyond hope or love, and not as some abstract ideal, but as the lived reality to which we Christians are called by our Baptism.

So, according to Father Spadaro, in Pope Francis’ vision of world history, totalitarianism is morally equivalent to democracy.  So when millions died defending the world from Nazi fascism or Japanese imperialism, free societies were simply engaged in what Father Spadaro tells us Pope Francis sees as “a vain pretext” rather than a conflict between “an axis of evil and an axis of good”.

So, according to Father Spadaro, in Pope Francis’ world, there is nothing noble, nothing sacred, nothing worth defending or promoting since there are no absolutes, no absolute good and no absolute evil.  And to think in terms of moral absolutes or (God forbid) speak of such will give rise to divisive, manipulative language in an attempt to claim moral superiority.

So, the fields in Flanders host the graves of fools not defending hearth and home, but duped into a “vain prext” for Western civilization to maintain and expand its dominance over the world.  The carnage on the beaches of Normandy, the crushing defeat at Dunkirk, the brutality of Bataan, in Pope Francis' world, stand as stark monuments of petty squabbles over ideals or values which are wholly equivalent.

Sorry, Father Spadaro.  Sorry, Your Holiness.  I don’t agree.  Weak and sinful as I confess myself to be, I still think there are truths worth defending. 

 I do believe there are values so fundamentally correct and rightful, so profoundly uplifting to the human person that they need to be protected and defended when challenged or threatened.

Sorry, Father Spadaro.  Sorry, Your Holiness.  I still believe that those who shed their blood, those martyred on the altars of liberty gave their lives defending virtues which provide freedom and thwart oppression.

Sorry, Father Spadaro.  Sorry, Your Holiness.  I still believe that America is morally superior to North Korea, or Russia, or the hundreds of petty dictatorships around the world.  I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God and Mohammed, a misguided misogynistic self-appointed prophet.  I still bow my head and shed at tear over the graves at Arlington and Normandy.  

The grey, morally neutral, totally subjective world of Father Spadaro and Pope Francis (if Spadaro is right) is not one I would care to know or experience.  

In my world, Father Spadaro and Your Holiness, there is still right and wrong, good and evil, virtue and sinfulness.  Surely, none of us is perfect.  All of us stand in need of God’s mercy and forgiveness.  We all need to be forgiving of each other.  And we all are called to be witnesses to truths not of our making, but truths which embody the Divine Mind and Will upon Whom our existence depends and for Whose Mercy we plead.

In Father Spadaro’s world, in Pope Francis’ world, my way of thinking is but a “vain pretext” for division or prejudice.  

In my world, goodness and righteousness, honor and virtue, bravery and cowardice still mean something, still make life worth living.  

And, even as I routinely fail to live an unblemished moral life, I still treasure the Gospel which calls me and all of us to something and Someone greater than ourselves.

STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE: The Papacy of Pope Francis?

Let’s face it:  there are two diametrically opposing forces within the Church, always have been and, perhaps, always will be.

The Pontificate of Pope Francis has intensified this dynamic tension and put it in sharp relief.

At the center of the conflict is authority (moral, spiritual and temporal) and its expression in the governance of the Church.

The Catholic faithful are caught in the middle of a Church divided over the issue of centralized versus decentralized authority.

One side claims to be upholding “sacred tradition” which they define narrowly in terms of the monolithic construct of Church teaching and practice during the past 500 years of the 2000 year history of Christianity.  

The other side argues that such narrow-mindedness betrays a fundamental spiritual immaturity and is responsible for much of the irresponsible and negligent exercise of ecclesiastical authority over the centuries.

Following the neo-conservative Pontificates of Pope St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of Bishops they appointed are of the traditonal mindset and, thus, are reluctant to accept or engage in a style of governance which requires discernment rather than a simple obsequious obedience to the edicts and pronouncements of the Roman See.

It is so obvious.  

Pope Francis is eager to return to the Bishops the Apostolic authority they exercised prior to its usurpation by the Bishops of Rome following  both the Great Schism and the Protestant Reformation.

By now, it should be evident that Pope Francis is eager and impatient to implement a synodal structure of governance which returns to the paradigm of episcopal authority familiar to the Church for the first 1200 years of its history.

The difficulties which the Holy Father has encountered highlight the fact that most Bishops today are simply not ready or willing to accept the responsibilities which comes with their Apostolic Office.

No more clearly was this witnessed than during the two recent Synods of Bishops which the Holy Father convened.  

One can only imagine the Pope’s chagrin and disappointment when he discovered that such a surprisingly high number of Bishops (mostly Presidents of the world's Episcopal Conferences in 2014 and mainly the elected representatives of those Conferences in 2015) were incapable of any sort of creative theological or pastoral thinking that strayed from the letter of Canon Law as well as past pronouncements of the Holy See.

The Pope has a serious problem on his hands.  

If synodal governance is to be effective, it will require Bishops who are intelligent, courageous and capable of making decisions without having to constantly look to Rome for solutions.

Pope Francis has given numerous signals that he would like to make Synods a more regular and essential component of Universal Church governance.  Likewise, the Pope has shown his preference for the authoritative exercise of episcopal authority on the level of local and regional Conferences of Bishops.

The effect of all this constitutes a reform of the Papacy itself.

The problem is that, to date, Pope Francis has not provided either of these synodal exercises of authority any juridical status or structure.

If the Synod and if local and regional Episcopal Conferences are to become the manner in which authority is exercised in the future, then the days of the Roman Curia are numbered indeed.   

But the history of the Church confirms again and again that the Curia has survived any attempt to consign it to the grave.


If Pope Francis succeeds in accomplishing this, it could represent the most important reform in the last thousand years of the Church's history. 

But, unless he institutionalizes his idealist reforms, they will lack the substrata of structure and legal status so necessary to insure their continuance well after his Pontificate.

What a shame it would be if history records that the Papacy of Pope Francis was, in the end, simply a matter of style over substance!

SWISS CATHOLICISM IN NEED OF RE-VITALIZATION

I thought I would take a look at how the Church is faring in Switzerland in today's post.

I have stated on numerous occasions that the Church in Europe is dead and the Bishops there are its pall bearers.  

It's a shocking statement, I admit.  But as I survey the landscape of dwindling Catholic Mass attendance and growing secularization throughout the Continent, I believe my observation stands the test of scrutiny and study.

In Switzerland, membership in Christian churches has declined over the past quarter century.  Today, polls indicate that only 16% of the Swiss report affiliation with any Christian denomination.

Among Swiss Catholics, an internal Church census reported that approximately 39% of Catholic households do not practice the Faith.  The requests for Baptism, Matrimony and funeral rites has fallen sharply. 

The 2000 census showed that the Roman Catholic and the mainstream Protestant Churches (the Reformed-Evangelical) had lost in both absolute terms (the number of members) and in relative terms (their share of the total population.)

Recent immigration has brought members of other faiths to Switzerland, in particular Islam and Orthodox Christianity.

Catholicism tends to be associated with conservatism and the preservation of traditional values, including regional autonomy and commitment to the local community. 

The strongly Roman Catholic Swiss cantons include Uri (more than 90 percent), Schwyz and both Nidwalden and Obwalden (the Alpine cantons which took the 1291 Oath of Confederation, regarded as the foundation of modern Switzerland). They joined together at that time to assert their rights to rule themselves in the face of outside powers. Today these are the areas which vote most strongly against any moves they believe could bring Switzerland closer to its neighbors and threaten its neutrality.

The Roman Catholic Church in Switzerland is unusual in that secular authorities in ten Catholic cantons have an important say in the nomination of Bishops. 

This is the result of an agreement between the Pope and the participating cantons in 1828.  Perhaps this explains why, after many years in which Protestants were the majority in Switzerland, Catholicism became the largest religious group around the middle of the 20th Century.

Still, the Church in Switzerland is not without it challenges especially in the need to re-invigorate a devotion to the Liturgy and Sacraments.  

The fact that only 60% of the Catholic population attend Mass, and even then sporadically, is problematic and bodes ill for future generations.

It seems that nothing is capable of reviving the Catholic Faith in Europe.  

Ironically, European Cardinals and Bishops still speak with an arrogance which belies their misguided thinking that the world is looking to and listening to them for guidance or insight.