Here’s some interesting news from my neck of the woods (should I say desert) in Phoenix, Arizona.
The Catholic Sun, the official source of news for the Diocese of Phoenix, reports on its website that Pope Francis has appointed the Most Reverend Thomas J. Olmsted as the Apostolic Administrator Sede Plena of the Holy Protection of Mary Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix.
Bishop Olmsted continues in his current Office as Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix.
The announcement was made in Washington on August 1, 2018 by Archbishop Christophe Pierre, Apostolic Nuncio to the United States.
Bishop Olmsted has served as the fourth Bishop of the Diocese of Phoenix since December 20, 2003.
Prior to his arrival in Phoenix, Bishop Olmsted served as Bishop of Wichita, Kansas from 2001-2003, after being ordained Coadjutor Bishop on April 20, 1999. Before serving in Wichita, he served as the Rector and President of the Pontifical College Josephinum, a Catholic Seminary in Columbus, Ohio. Since 1974, Bishop Olmsted has been a member of the Jesus Caritas ¬fraternity of priests. He was ordained a priest for the Diocese of Lincoln, Neb., July 2, 1973.
For 16 years, Bishop Olmsted lived in Rome, where he obtained a master’s degree in theology and a doctorate in Canon Law from the Pontifical Gregorian University (1981) and worked more than nine years as an official in the Vatican Secretariat of State from 1979 to 1988. During his time in Rome, he was also an assistant spiritual director at the Pontifical North American College.
Bishop Olmsted is currently a member of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Pro-Life Activities.
In responding to the appointment, Bishop Olmstead stated:
“The Holy Father has named me as the Apostolic Administrator for the Eparchy of Phoenix, also known more formally as the Holy Protection of Mary Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix. (An eparchy is the same as a diocese in the Roman / Latin Church.)
Let me first state that this appointment has not come about because of any personal misconduct of any kind on the part of Bishop Pazak. Indeed, Bishop Pazak remains as the Bishop of this Eparchy.
However, over the past year there have been some disagreements about administrative matters within the Byzantine Ruthenian Church here in North America, of which the Eparchy of Phoenix is a part. Because of some unfortunate legal developments in these matters, their resolution has been unnecessarily complicated, which have unintentionally endangered the peace, unity and communion within the Eastern Catholic Church.
The Holy Father has determined that it is necessary to appoint an Apostolic Administrator for the time being in order to facilitate the task of resolving these legal matters, and to support the efforts on everyone’s part to build up the communion within among the other eparchies of the Eastern Catholic Church.
There is no fixed term to my appointment, and I am happy to serve in any way that will support my brothers and sisters in this Eparchy.”
The Holy Protection of Mary Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Phoenix (formerly known as the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Van Nuys) is the Catholic eparchy (diocese) governing most Byzantine Ruthenian Catholics in the Western United States. The Eparchy’s territorial jurisdiction consists of thirteen Western States. Currently, Holy Protection Eparchy of Phoenix has 19 parishes and one mission under its canonical jurisdiction.
Wednesday, August 8, 2018
MY APOLOGIES FOR PUBLISHING A "DRAFT" OF AN ARTICLE INSTEAD OF A FINISHED COPY
In my zeal to post an article daily, I mistakenly published a "draft" version instead the finished and edited copy.
The draft was replete with typos and grammatical errors which I usually correct before publishing.
I apologize if reading the post "MY THOUGHTS ABOUT THE REVISION OF THE CATECHISM: WHAT THINKEST YOU?" was so difficult a read.
The adages we learned in youth remain true, "haste makes waste"...it sure was in this case.
Apologies again to all.
The draft was replete with typos and grammatical errors which I usually correct before publishing.
I apologize if reading the post "MY THOUGHTS ABOUT THE REVISION OF THE CATECHISM: WHAT THINKEST YOU?" was so difficult a read.
The adages we learned in youth remain true, "haste makes waste"...it sure was in this case.
Apologies again to all.
MY THOUGHTS ABOUT THE REVISION OF THE CATECHISM: WHAT THINKEST YOU?
I will say this about Pope Francis: he makes me go back to the basics of my study regarding the moral theology of the Church.
He has done it again in the revision which he recently made to the Catechism regarding what he has called the “inadmissability” of the death penalty.
In my previous post, I observed that Cardinal Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has referred to this revision not as a “contradiction” of traditional Magisterium but an “evolution” of that teaching in light of “the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat the crime.”
Now that is one mouthful and I remember from my seminary days that my moral theology Professor always told us the more complicated the reasoning, the less reasonable the argument.
So, I thought I would consider the Pope’s revision and Cardinal Ladaria’s explanation in light of the basic theological method I and my classmates were taught.
I do this in the hope of restating the basic principles from which fundamental or moral theology must proceed if they are to produce any reliable insights into the truths of the Catholic Faith.
The method itself is critical because a failure to observe the principles of theological inquiry not only is a failure to apply the proper method to the science of theology but also because the outcome for failing to observe the proper method in theology would be the same for that of the physical sciences: incorrect results.
So, going back to the basics I learned at the Pontifical Gregorian University where I initiated my theological formation in preparation for the Priesthood, I will state briefly the principles to be observed in the proper study and advancement of our understanding of the truths of the Catholic Faith.
The First Principle: the Necessity of Revelation. Without the Divine Revelation inherent in the Sacred Scriptures, humanity is limited to an inductive reasoning about God from the evidence in creation alone. This “natural theology”, often an extension of human wisdom or philosophy, allows humanity the most narrow of understanding about the Nature and Person of the Eternal Godhead.
The Second Principle: the Affirmation of Revelation. The theological method presupposes authentic Revelation which is affirmed only if it is public and authenticated by Divine Intervention itself.
The Third Principle: Submission to Divine Revelation, that is, trusting in faith that God can never deceive or be deceived and accepting what is Divinely revealed to be factual and credible. As Augustine would paraphrase, theology is “belief seeking understanding" (credo ut intellego). Theology requires faith.
The Fourth Principle: Acceptance of Authority. For theological doctrine to be definitive, an authority which can resolve disputes involving Divine Revelation is an absolute necessity.
Even Divine Revelation, as any truths or facts entrusted to the human community, can gradually change over time due to different circumstances or cultural influences. Only a recognized authority is able to judge whether such changes are either legitimate developments or corruptions of Divinely revealed truths. The Church finds this authority in the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Office of Peter and the Successors of the Apostles, the Bishops.
It is precisely the Magisterium which safeguards the objective meaning of Revelation for all times and protects the truths of the Faith from historical or cultural influences that might corrupt them. If not for this authority, the truths of the Church would be vulnerable by whatever any so-called and self-identified authority one would find convenient at any given time.
Finally, and most pertinent to the matters of the recent revision of the Catechism, the Fifth Principle: the Analogy of the Faith. Theological advancement finds that data of Revelation in three places: Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial pronouncements.
By the principle of the Analogy of Faith, we understand that because God Himself neither deceives nor can be deceived, all three sources must be true and there can be no contradiction among them.
Thus, what the Scripture say is morally right are to be in harmony with what has been communicated to the Church through Tradition. Similarly, what the Magisterium teaches must be in harmony with both Scripture and Tradition.
In applying this theological method to the recent revision of the Catechism regarding the legitimacy of the death penalty, I would observe that both Pope Francis and Cardinal Ladaria have some further explaining.
For, even after what I consider to be a fair and honest reading of that revision, I have this nagging feeling that what is being touted as “enlightenment” may be nothing more than what the present dominant culture is eager to advance.
I respectfully suggest that, until such an explanation is forthcoming, the revision will continue to be, for me at least, unconvincing and a just a bit suspicious of appearing to be an attempt to cater to the more liberal-leaning and shrill voices within the Church.
My thoughts at least.
What thinkest you?
He has done it again in the revision which he recently made to the Catechism regarding what he has called the “inadmissability” of the death penalty.
In my previous post, I observed that Cardinal Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has referred to this revision not as a “contradiction” of traditional Magisterium but an “evolution” of that teaching in light of “the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat the crime.”
Now that is one mouthful and I remember from my seminary days that my moral theology Professor always told us the more complicated the reasoning, the less reasonable the argument.
So, I thought I would consider the Pope’s revision and Cardinal Ladaria’s explanation in light of the basic theological method I and my classmates were taught.
I do this in the hope of restating the basic principles from which fundamental or moral theology must proceed if they are to produce any reliable insights into the truths of the Catholic Faith.
The method itself is critical because a failure to observe the principles of theological inquiry not only is a failure to apply the proper method to the science of theology but also because the outcome for failing to observe the proper method in theology would be the same for that of the physical sciences: incorrect results.
So, going back to the basics I learned at the Pontifical Gregorian University where I initiated my theological formation in preparation for the Priesthood, I will state briefly the principles to be observed in the proper study and advancement of our understanding of the truths of the Catholic Faith.
The First Principle: the Necessity of Revelation. Without the Divine Revelation inherent in the Sacred Scriptures, humanity is limited to an inductive reasoning about God from the evidence in creation alone. This “natural theology”, often an extension of human wisdom or philosophy, allows humanity the most narrow of understanding about the Nature and Person of the Eternal Godhead.
The Second Principle: the Affirmation of Revelation. The theological method presupposes authentic Revelation which is affirmed only if it is public and authenticated by Divine Intervention itself.
The Third Principle: Submission to Divine Revelation, that is, trusting in faith that God can never deceive or be deceived and accepting what is Divinely revealed to be factual and credible. As Augustine would paraphrase, theology is “belief seeking understanding" (credo ut intellego). Theology requires faith.
The Fourth Principle: Acceptance of Authority. For theological doctrine to be definitive, an authority which can resolve disputes involving Divine Revelation is an absolute necessity.
Even Divine Revelation, as any truths or facts entrusted to the human community, can gradually change over time due to different circumstances or cultural influences. Only a recognized authority is able to judge whether such changes are either legitimate developments or corruptions of Divinely revealed truths. The Church finds this authority in the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Office of Peter and the Successors of the Apostles, the Bishops.
It is precisely the Magisterium which safeguards the objective meaning of Revelation for all times and protects the truths of the Faith from historical or cultural influences that might corrupt them. If not for this authority, the truths of the Church would be vulnerable by whatever any so-called and self-identified authority one would find convenient at any given time.
Finally, and most pertinent to the matters of the recent revision of the Catechism, the Fifth Principle: the Analogy of the Faith. Theological advancement finds that data of Revelation in three places: Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial pronouncements.
By the principle of the Analogy of Faith, we understand that because God Himself neither deceives nor can be deceived, all three sources must be true and there can be no contradiction among them.
Thus, what the Scripture say is morally right are to be in harmony with what has been communicated to the Church through Tradition. Similarly, what the Magisterium teaches must be in harmony with both Scripture and Tradition.
In applying this theological method to the recent revision of the Catechism regarding the legitimacy of the death penalty, I would observe that both Pope Francis and Cardinal Ladaria have some further explaining.
For, even after what I consider to be a fair and honest reading of that revision, I have this nagging feeling that what is being touted as “enlightenment” may be nothing more than what the present dominant culture is eager to advance.
I respectfully suggest that, until such an explanation is forthcoming, the revision will continue to be, for me at least, unconvincing and a just a bit suspicious of appearing to be an attempt to cater to the more liberal-leaning and shrill voices within the Church.
My thoughts at least.
What thinkest you?
Tuesday, August 7, 2018
BOMBSHELL PENNSYLVANIA GRAND JURY REPORT CLEARED FOR RELEASE BY STATE SUPREME COURT
In a ruling a week ago, the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ordered the release of a grand jury report investigating Clergy child sexual abuse in six Roman Catholic dioceses.
The grand jury was convened in April 2016 to review the incidents of Clergy abuse in the Dioceses of Allentown, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh and Scranton since 1948.
The State Attorney General wanted to release the results in June, but was blocked by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as it heard objections from some Priests and others who claim their constitutional rights to a good reputation and the due process of law would be violated.
On July 26, the Supreme Court ordered a “redacted” version of the report to be issued sometime between today and Aug. 14, with the names of those challenging the report deleted. In the meantime, a court-appointed Master is reviewing petitioners’ requests for redactions.
The report, then, whenever it is released, will not be complete.
Under the Supreme Court order, portions will be blacked out until the justices hear arguments from petitioners on what information they want to be excluded. Those arguments have been scheduled for a hearing in September.
All the Bishops of the Dioceses investigated by the grand jury have received unredacted copies of the report in advance. They are bound by grand jury secrecy until release of the report.
Those who read the report, said Bishop Persico, the only bishop to testify before the grand jury, "will see that the report is very sobering, that the report contains a lot of explicit details — some of it they may actually find shocking in the details."
It is noteworthy that Bishop Persico presided over a sweeping internal investigation of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Diocese of Erie. And in a move unprecedented nationwide, he released more than 60 names of clergy and laypeople accused of abuse or other misconduct in the 13-county diocese.
He was likewise the first of the six Bishops in the affected Dioceses to state that he would not try to block the release of the grand jury report. The Bishop also stated that the Diocese of Erie would not fund any effort to force a redaction of the report or to block the report.
"The position of the Diocese is that we want the grand jury report to be released," Bishop Persico said.
Before being named Bishop of the Erie diocese, Persico was Vicar General and acting-Chancellor for the Diocese of Greensburg, which is also part of the grand jury investigation.
In addition to releasing the names, Bishop Persico has been unique in another respect — as the only Bishop in the six Dioceses who testified in person before the grand jury during its two-year investigation.
Bishop Persico initially submitted the grand jury a written statement, as did the other five Bishops, all separately. The Bishop said he then accepted Attorney General Josh Shapiro's invitation to testify before the panel of 23 grand jurors.
Shapiro made the invitation after Bishop Persico released the names of accused priests and laypeople on April 6.
The Bishop testified in May.
Commenting on the redacted report which will be issued between now and August 14 or thereabouts, Bishop Persico said: It's not an easy read.”
As I have reported in an earlier post, the grand jury report will be devastating to the Church in the graphic details about the horrific (sadly, I have been using this word much too often lately) abuse which children and youngsters suffered not only at the hands of predator-Clergy but also by those Bishops and others in authority who engaged in a systematic cover up within their respective Dioceses.
What the State Attorney General has done in Pennsylvania will, I predict, serve to inspire the same kind of statewide investigation of Clergy abuse in other parts of the country.
I fear that Pennsylvania’s shocking findings will be repeated, if not surpassed, in other Dioceses nationwide.
The clock is ticking on a time-bomb for the American Church and the Bishops in this country.
Let’s be honest.
Pope Francis has been terribly ineffective and remarkably callous in his silence in the face of the scandals involving former-Cardinal McCarrick as well as the Bishops who likely knew of his abuse and said and did nothing.
The Pennsylvania grand jury report will shake the foundation of the Church in America to its core.
Pope Francis must act now.
He is about to get a taste of the anger and disgust of the people of Ireland for the years of scandal and cover up which took place in that once-staunchly Catholic country. Strangely, Pope Francis has been absent as Irish Catholics have suffered the tales of abuse and secrecy which infected the Church for decades upon decades.
There was a glimmer of hope when the Pope moved to hold the entire Conference of Bishops in Chile accountable for their misdeeds in not acting to protect those entrusted to their care.
In response, all the Bishops in Chile offered their resignations to the Holy Father.
Why haven’t the Bishops in Ireland, why haven’t the Bishops in the United States been called by the Holy Father to the same accountability as the Chilean Bishops?
The Pope’s recent excursion into the inadmissability of the death penalty notwithstanding, the "800 pound gorilla" of Bishops’ complicity in the sexual abuse scandals remains in the room.
Thus far (to paraphrase Bishop Persico), the Pope’s actions have not “been an easy read”.
Things at the Vatican need to change.
They must.
They better.
The grand jury was convened in April 2016 to review the incidents of Clergy abuse in the Dioceses of Allentown, Erie, Greensburg, Harrisburg, Pittsburgh and Scranton since 1948.
The State Attorney General wanted to release the results in June, but was blocked by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court as it heard objections from some Priests and others who claim their constitutional rights to a good reputation and the due process of law would be violated.
On July 26, the Supreme Court ordered a “redacted” version of the report to be issued sometime between today and Aug. 14, with the names of those challenging the report deleted. In the meantime, a court-appointed Master is reviewing petitioners’ requests for redactions.
The report, then, whenever it is released, will not be complete.
Under the Supreme Court order, portions will be blacked out until the justices hear arguments from petitioners on what information they want to be excluded. Those arguments have been scheduled for a hearing in September.
All the Bishops of the Dioceses investigated by the grand jury have received unredacted copies of the report in advance. They are bound by grand jury secrecy until release of the report.
Those who read the report, said Bishop Persico, the only bishop to testify before the grand jury, "will see that the report is very sobering, that the report contains a lot of explicit details — some of it they may actually find shocking in the details."
It is noteworthy that Bishop Persico presided over a sweeping internal investigation of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Diocese of Erie. And in a move unprecedented nationwide, he released more than 60 names of clergy and laypeople accused of abuse or other misconduct in the 13-county diocese.
He was likewise the first of the six Bishops in the affected Dioceses to state that he would not try to block the release of the grand jury report. The Bishop also stated that the Diocese of Erie would not fund any effort to force a redaction of the report or to block the report.
"The position of the Diocese is that we want the grand jury report to be released," Bishop Persico said.
Before being named Bishop of the Erie diocese, Persico was Vicar General and acting-Chancellor for the Diocese of Greensburg, which is also part of the grand jury investigation.
In addition to releasing the names, Bishop Persico has been unique in another respect — as the only Bishop in the six Dioceses who testified in person before the grand jury during its two-year investigation.
Bishop Persico initially submitted the grand jury a written statement, as did the other five Bishops, all separately. The Bishop said he then accepted Attorney General Josh Shapiro's invitation to testify before the panel of 23 grand jurors.
Shapiro made the invitation after Bishop Persico released the names of accused priests and laypeople on April 6.
The Bishop testified in May.
Commenting on the redacted report which will be issued between now and August 14 or thereabouts, Bishop Persico said: It's not an easy read.”
As I have reported in an earlier post, the grand jury report will be devastating to the Church in the graphic details about the horrific (sadly, I have been using this word much too often lately) abuse which children and youngsters suffered not only at the hands of predator-Clergy but also by those Bishops and others in authority who engaged in a systematic cover up within their respective Dioceses.
What the State Attorney General has done in Pennsylvania will, I predict, serve to inspire the same kind of statewide investigation of Clergy abuse in other parts of the country.
I fear that Pennsylvania’s shocking findings will be repeated, if not surpassed, in other Dioceses nationwide.
The clock is ticking on a time-bomb for the American Church and the Bishops in this country.
Let’s be honest.
Pope Francis has been terribly ineffective and remarkably callous in his silence in the face of the scandals involving former-Cardinal McCarrick as well as the Bishops who likely knew of his abuse and said and did nothing.
The Pennsylvania grand jury report will shake the foundation of the Church in America to its core.
Pope Francis must act now.
He is about to get a taste of the anger and disgust of the people of Ireland for the years of scandal and cover up which took place in that once-staunchly Catholic country. Strangely, Pope Francis has been absent as Irish Catholics have suffered the tales of abuse and secrecy which infected the Church for decades upon decades.
There was a glimmer of hope when the Pope moved to hold the entire Conference of Bishops in Chile accountable for their misdeeds in not acting to protect those entrusted to their care.
In response, all the Bishops in Chile offered their resignations to the Holy Father.
Why haven’t the Bishops in Ireland, why haven’t the Bishops in the United States been called by the Holy Father to the same accountability as the Chilean Bishops?
The Pope’s recent excursion into the inadmissability of the death penalty notwithstanding, the "800 pound gorilla" of Bishops’ complicity in the sexual abuse scandals remains in the room.
Thus far (to paraphrase Bishop Persico), the Pope’s actions have not “been an easy read”.
Things at the Vatican need to change.
They must.
They better.
Monday, August 6, 2018
CONFUSED? ME TOO!
When I was still active in Priestly ministry, I recall a dear colleague remarking: “A good day in the parish is when there are no letters from the chancery office.”
Well, paraphrasing my friend: “A good day for the Church is when we don’t hear of news coming from Rome.”
Recently, the Vatican announced that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would be changed to declare the death penalty “inadmissible” given the “inviolability and dignity of the person” as understood “in the light of the Gospel.”
That announcement was shocking in and of itself, to be sure.
But then came news that Cardinal Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had written to explain that the revision of Paragraph 2267 of the Catechism “expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium".
The Cardinal went on to state that “these teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat the crime".
Both the revision to the Catechism and the commentary of Cardinal Ladaria leave me more than a bit puzzled.
You too?
And so, I thought I would do some research and then offer some commentary.
The key part of the new formulation in the Catechism is this: “The death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”
The obvious reading of the words can mean nothing other than the death penalty is wrong in and of itself (intrinsically) because it offends human dignity.
To suggest, as Cardinal Ladaria pitifully attempts to do, that such a statement is in harmony with the centuries old Magisterium is nothing short of theological and historical fraud, isn’t it!
Why do I say this?
Well, let’ just look at several of the dozens of extent sources which indicate clearly that the Magisterium consistently has upheld the right to impose the death penalty upon those found guilty of certain capital offenses.
First, let’s examine the clear teaching of the Scriptures.
Saint Paul (Romans 13), in keeping with the unanimous teaching of the Early Fathers of the Church, gives testimony to the moral righteousness of the death penalty as just punishment for certain crimes.
Saint Augustine (The City of God, Book One) echoes that apostolic teaching.
A further examination of the topic reveals that the Catechism of the Council of Trent, promulgated by Pope Pius V, and compiled and edited by Saint Charles Borromeo, affirms and decrees that the death penalty is not only permissable but is, in certain cases, mandated by the seriousness of the crime committed.
The Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that the death penalty can, in some cases, carry with it the remission of the temporal punishment the criminal has incurred for the moral heinousness of his crime.
Then, we find the remarkable document which would give every indication that the Church’s teaching regarding the death penalty appears to be infallible teaching.
I refer, of course, to the Pope Leo X’s condemnation of the errors proffered by Martin Luther. Among those errors, the Pope in Exsurge Domine, n. 33, rebukes Luther’s claim that the burning of heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit.
The Pope goes on to offer perhaps the clearest and most convincing argument justifying the death penalty as a right of not only of the state, but that of the Church as well, for the protection of society and the integrity of the Faith.
I (and others more astute) suggest that Pope Leo X’s condemnation of Luther’s error bears all the criteria which later would be cited by Vatican Council I as the form which an infallible proclamation must exhibit: “By the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected.”
“...condemned, reprobated and rejected....” Seems to be little wriggle room for disagreement or contradiction, does it not?
Is Cardinal Ladaria unaware of the massive testimony of the Scriptures and the Magisterium regarding not only the legitmacy but the moral imperative to impose the death penalty in certain cases?
How in the world then can either Pope Francis or the Prefect of the Roman dicastery charged with overseeing and protecting the Deposit of the Faith possibly suggest that the latest revision of the Catechism contains teaching which is in harmony with past Magisterial pronouncements?
Even the weak-kneed reference which Cardinal Ladaria makes to Pope Saint John Paul II’s pleading that the death penalty be imposed in the most rare of circumstances is not convincing.
Clearly, Pope Saint John Paul II did not condemn the death penalty as an intrinsic evil but offered a cogent argument and gave very reluctant consent to it only “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.”
Cardinal Ladaria suggests traditional Church teaching, including the nuanced position of Pope Saint John Paul II, and Pope Francis on the death penalty are in accord.
But to honestly affirm that requires an admission that previous Church teaching allowed the death penalty in historical circumstances in which all criminals executed were continuing threats to society because of inadequate prison security.
Such a position is patently absurd.
And so, I am confused.
There has always been disagreement among Catholics about whether capital punishment is, in practice, the morally best way to uphold justice and social order.
However, the Church has always taught, clearly and consistently, that the death penalty is in principle consistent with both natural law and the Gospel.
That was until just the other day!
Well, paraphrasing my friend: “A good day for the Church is when we don’t hear of news coming from Rome.”
Recently, the Vatican announced that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would be changed to declare the death penalty “inadmissible” given the “inviolability and dignity of the person” as understood “in the light of the Gospel.”
That announcement was shocking in and of itself, to be sure.
But then came news that Cardinal Ladaria, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, had written to explain that the revision of Paragraph 2267 of the Catechism “expresses an authentic development of doctrine that is not in contradiction with the prior teachings of the Magisterium".
The Cardinal went on to state that “these teachings, in fact, can be explained in the light of the primary responsibility of the public authority to protect the common good in a social context in which the penal sanctions were understood differently, and had developed in an environment in which it was more difficult to guarantee that the criminal could not repeat the crime".
Both the revision to the Catechism and the commentary of Cardinal Ladaria leave me more than a bit puzzled.
You too?
And so, I thought I would do some research and then offer some commentary.
The key part of the new formulation in the Catechism is this: “The death penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the inviolability and the dignity of the person.”
The obvious reading of the words can mean nothing other than the death penalty is wrong in and of itself (intrinsically) because it offends human dignity.
To suggest, as Cardinal Ladaria pitifully attempts to do, that such a statement is in harmony with the centuries old Magisterium is nothing short of theological and historical fraud, isn’t it!
Why do I say this?
Well, let’ just look at several of the dozens of extent sources which indicate clearly that the Magisterium consistently has upheld the right to impose the death penalty upon those found guilty of certain capital offenses.
First, let’s examine the clear teaching of the Scriptures.
Saint Paul (Romans 13), in keeping with the unanimous teaching of the Early Fathers of the Church, gives testimony to the moral righteousness of the death penalty as just punishment for certain crimes.
Saint Augustine (The City of God, Book One) echoes that apostolic teaching.
A further examination of the topic reveals that the Catechism of the Council of Trent, promulgated by Pope Pius V, and compiled and edited by Saint Charles Borromeo, affirms and decrees that the death penalty is not only permissable but is, in certain cases, mandated by the seriousness of the crime committed.
The Angelic Doctor, Saint Thomas Aquinas teaches that the death penalty can, in some cases, carry with it the remission of the temporal punishment the criminal has incurred for the moral heinousness of his crime.
Then, we find the remarkable document which would give every indication that the Church’s teaching regarding the death penalty appears to be infallible teaching.
I refer, of course, to the Pope Leo X’s condemnation of the errors proffered by Martin Luther. Among those errors, the Pope in Exsurge Domine, n. 33, rebukes Luther’s claim that the burning of heretics is against the will of the Holy Spirit.
The Pope goes on to offer perhaps the clearest and most convincing argument justifying the death penalty as a right of not only of the state, but that of the Church as well, for the protection of society and the integrity of the Faith.
I (and others more astute) suggest that Pope Leo X’s condemnation of Luther’s error bears all the criteria which later would be cited by Vatican Council I as the form which an infallible proclamation must exhibit: “By the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected.”
“...condemned, reprobated and rejected....” Seems to be little wriggle room for disagreement or contradiction, does it not?
Is Cardinal Ladaria unaware of the massive testimony of the Scriptures and the Magisterium regarding not only the legitmacy but the moral imperative to impose the death penalty in certain cases?
How in the world then can either Pope Francis or the Prefect of the Roman dicastery charged with overseeing and protecting the Deposit of the Faith possibly suggest that the latest revision of the Catechism contains teaching which is in harmony with past Magisterial pronouncements?
Even the weak-kneed reference which Cardinal Ladaria makes to Pope Saint John Paul II’s pleading that the death penalty be imposed in the most rare of circumstances is not convincing.
Clearly, Pope Saint John Paul II did not condemn the death penalty as an intrinsic evil but offered a cogent argument and gave very reluctant consent to it only “when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society.”
Cardinal Ladaria suggests traditional Church teaching, including the nuanced position of Pope Saint John Paul II, and Pope Francis on the death penalty are in accord.
But to honestly affirm that requires an admission that previous Church teaching allowed the death penalty in historical circumstances in which all criminals executed were continuing threats to society because of inadequate prison security.
Such a position is patently absurd.
And so, I am confused.
There has always been disagreement among Catholics about whether capital punishment is, in practice, the morally best way to uphold justice and social order.
However, the Church has always taught, clearly and consistently, that the death penalty is in principle consistent with both natural law and the Gospel.
That was until just the other day!
Sunday, August 5, 2018
MY PERSONAL PROFESSION OF FAITH
Begging the indulgence of Scripture scholars, I would like to begin this post referencing the famous Sixth Chapter of the Gospel of St. John in which Jesus teaches that He is the Bread of Life, that whoever eats the flesh of the Son of Man and drinks His Blood will live forever, and unless one eats His Flesh and drinks His Blood, that person has no life in him.
When the His disciples heard these words and the grumbling of the Jews in response, they said to Jesus: “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
And many disciple left the Lord. But the Twelve remained, prompting Jesus to ask whether they wished to stay.
And Peter answered: ““Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
That response from impetuous, angry, distraught and often confused Peter sums it up for me when it comes to the Church.
Certainly, the Church these days has not shown its angelic face to the world. While Divinely instituted, the Body of Christ is composed of frail, fickle and sinful members, not the least of whom actually man the helm of the Barque of Peter.
No, scandal and embarrassment have ruled the day in the stories of Prelates of presumed virtue living lives far removed from the counsels of the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church.
The once-virginal and serene face of Holy Mother the Church now is seen with all her blemishes. The Church now seems more human in its failings than Divine in her mission.
Many have left and many are tempted to leave in frustration, or anger or disappointment and disillusionment.
It is difficult to profess fidelity to the Church these days, to wear the Roman Collar and still speak the truths of the Gospel and the age-old wisdom of Church Fathers.
It is tempting to given in to the pessimism which introduces doubt in the validity and value of the Church as the point of contact between Heaven and earth.
But, I always return to the place where Peter found Himself when many of the Lord’s disciples left Him in disillusionment and disappointment.
“Lord, where shall we go? Your Church has the Word of Life and I believe and I trust that Your Spirit guides the Church and will never abandon the Body of Christ.”
That Profession of Faith I have made at earlier times in my life. It seems that when I spoke the sentiments of those words, it was easier because the Church still seemed inviolable and removed from the corruption of this world.
That Profession of Faith seems to cost more these days, more of my personal pride, more of my personal convictions, more of my preconceived and immature notions that the Church is somehow immune to the foibles of the broken and wounded human souls who are its followers.
Still, I love the Church even as I confess that she is much in need of absolution and renewal.
Like the couple who have been committed in Marriage most of their lives, as infirmity or sickness robs them of the vitality of the love they shared in their youth, when their bodies are no longer lithe and limber, when it is a feat to stand up or walk without pain, yet their love remains unaffected by the challenges, perhaps even more profound because of them.
So is my love of the Church and, I pray, so may yours be.
I do not speak of the Church’s failure’s to demean our faith.
I speak of them to challenge our faith: if we are not committed and faithful to the Body of Christ in these times of wickedness and shame, then our commitment in the good times may be shallow indeed.
Let us never be afraid to admit our failings as a Church, awful and terrible as they may be. Let us confess them, own them, express our sorrow and regret, apologize and seek to restore what we have damaged. That is the right and blessed thing to do.
And let us never be afraid to continue to profess that the Church is and always will be the continuing presence of the Lord Jesus on this earth, offering the Words and the means to Eternal Life.
God bless our Church. Come, Holy Spirit, renew the face of Your Church and kindle within us the fire of Your Love.
When the His disciples heard these words and the grumbling of the Jews in response, they said to Jesus: “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
And many disciple left the Lord. But the Twelve remained, prompting Jesus to ask whether they wished to stay.
And Peter answered: ““Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God.”
That response from impetuous, angry, distraught and often confused Peter sums it up for me when it comes to the Church.
Certainly, the Church these days has not shown its angelic face to the world. While Divinely instituted, the Body of Christ is composed of frail, fickle and sinful members, not the least of whom actually man the helm of the Barque of Peter.
No, scandal and embarrassment have ruled the day in the stories of Prelates of presumed virtue living lives far removed from the counsels of the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church.
The once-virginal and serene face of Holy Mother the Church now is seen with all her blemishes. The Church now seems more human in its failings than Divine in her mission.
Many have left and many are tempted to leave in frustration, or anger or disappointment and disillusionment.
It is difficult to profess fidelity to the Church these days, to wear the Roman Collar and still speak the truths of the Gospel and the age-old wisdom of Church Fathers.
It is tempting to given in to the pessimism which introduces doubt in the validity and value of the Church as the point of contact between Heaven and earth.
But, I always return to the place where Peter found Himself when many of the Lord’s disciples left Him in disillusionment and disappointment.
“Lord, where shall we go? Your Church has the Word of Life and I believe and I trust that Your Spirit guides the Church and will never abandon the Body of Christ.”
That Profession of Faith I have made at earlier times in my life. It seems that when I spoke the sentiments of those words, it was easier because the Church still seemed inviolable and removed from the corruption of this world.
That Profession of Faith seems to cost more these days, more of my personal pride, more of my personal convictions, more of my preconceived and immature notions that the Church is somehow immune to the foibles of the broken and wounded human souls who are its followers.
Still, I love the Church even as I confess that she is much in need of absolution and renewal.
Like the couple who have been committed in Marriage most of their lives, as infirmity or sickness robs them of the vitality of the love they shared in their youth, when their bodies are no longer lithe and limber, when it is a feat to stand up or walk without pain, yet their love remains unaffected by the challenges, perhaps even more profound because of them.
So is my love of the Church and, I pray, so may yours be.
I do not speak of the Church’s failure’s to demean our faith.
I speak of them to challenge our faith: if we are not committed and faithful to the Body of Christ in these times of wickedness and shame, then our commitment in the good times may be shallow indeed.
Let us never be afraid to admit our failings as a Church, awful and terrible as they may be. Let us confess them, own them, express our sorrow and regret, apologize and seek to restore what we have damaged. That is the right and blessed thing to do.
And let us never be afraid to continue to profess that the Church is and always will be the continuing presence of the Lord Jesus on this earth, offering the Words and the means to Eternal Life.
God bless our Church. Come, Holy Spirit, renew the face of Your Church and kindle within us the fire of Your Love.
A DEAR FRIEND OBSERVES: THE CHURCH IS BEREFT OF DISCIPLES
The Church is bereft of disciples!
That conclusion, recently communicated to me by a dear friend by way of a series of emails, is perhaps the most astute observation regarding contemporary Catholicism that I have heard in quite some time.
A faithful Catholic all of his life whose daily spiritual exercises include Mass and the recitation of the Rosary, he told me how few Catholics he knows who concern themselves with what the Pope or the Bishops have to say or even about the latest scurrilous stories about sexual abuse or cover up by the hierarchy. They simply attend Mass and don’t want to know or hear anything else about the Church.
I believe my friend succinctly summarizes what I have suspected but have been unable to successfully articulate.
The overwhelming majority of those attending Mass with any frequency fall into two groups.
Those with elementary-school aged children (not necessarily in parochial school) and seniors.
This makes sense to me. There is a logic to it.
Younger Catholic families whose parents want to at least try to pass on an affective, if not intellectual, appreciation for their religious heritage and older folks for whom the passing of life from this world is beginning to take on perceptible features against which they seek reassurance and hope.
As Catholic families mature and children pass from grade school to high school and higher levels of education, their presence in Church wanes if not disappears completely.
Teenagers are invisible as are the so-called “Millenials”.
A goodly number of Catholics in their 40s and 50s are divorced or civilly remarried. They feel that they have betrayed their Catholic upbringing and justify their abandonment of the Church because they have been made to feel unworthy of Mass and the Sacraments.
Then there are those Catholics who constantly lament that the Church has never allowed the promises of Vatican Council II to be realized.
These are the “70s Catholics” who never grew up, who still revel in the “me” generation, free love, and self-absolution from any personal responsibility or accountability for their choices.
For all their fervor for renewal within the Church, they seldom practice their faith nor do they encourage others to do so.
Theirs was and remains a resistance movement to the rightful mandate of the Church to discern what is good and urge its observance and to judge what is an evil to be avoided. They abhor any semblance, word or suggestion that sin is real, needs confessing and penance. God is love so everything’s forgiven, whether that forgiveness is sought or ignored.
Young parents, old people, the disgruntled and the invisible don’t make for effective disciples. One group is overwhelmed, another is infirm, and the remaining two are completely self-absorbed.
Does this speak of all Catholics? Of course not, my friend insists, that would be patently absurd.
And what about the Clergy?
I am happy to say that my friend is caring enough not to hold back what he perceives to be the truth.
The Clergy, he observes, are the ones who perhaps have failed most miserably to create disciples.
We, Bishops and Priests, became complacent, eager to be accepted and self-indulgent. Spiritual exercises were abandoned. A continual study of the Scriptures, Church history as well as fundamental and moral theology were largely ignored.
Our preaching was lackluster, offering little in the way of Scriptural truths or the encouragement of virtue.
We failed to create disciples because we forgot what discipleship entails: self-sacrifice and courage.
So when Catholics began to adapt to and adopt secular attitudes regarding divorce, remarriage, cohabitation, abortion, homosexuality, end-of-life issues, we Clergy remained silent waiting for the Vatican or the local Chancery Office to speak out against these assaults on Christian virtues, while we delighted parishioners at Mass with jokes and personal anecdotes, with magic tricks and puppets!
And while the secularists we busy sowing weeds in the garden of the Church, we Clergy were oblivious to the damage being done and, in some cases, perpetrated serious and scandalous harm to those entrusted to our pastoral care.
Do these failings speak to all Clergy? Again, my friend remarks that such a judgement would be ridiculous!
Still, my friend paints a fairly accurate picture of where the Church finds herself these days, I think.
In her zeal to be “in the world”, the Church has become “of the world”.
We are a Church which has forgotten its fundamental and Divinely-instituted mission: “...to go forth and make disciples of all nations.”
I thank my friend for his insights and ask him and all of us to join daily in prayer to the Holy Spirit for a true renewal of the Church, the Clergy and the faithful that we may be fit and worthy disciples of Our Lord Jesus and the salvation He offers to those who confess Him as Lord and Savior.
Come, Holy Spirit, renew the face of the earth and kindle within us the fire of Your Love!
That conclusion, recently communicated to me by a dear friend by way of a series of emails, is perhaps the most astute observation regarding contemporary Catholicism that I have heard in quite some time.
A faithful Catholic all of his life whose daily spiritual exercises include Mass and the recitation of the Rosary, he told me how few Catholics he knows who concern themselves with what the Pope or the Bishops have to say or even about the latest scurrilous stories about sexual abuse or cover up by the hierarchy. They simply attend Mass and don’t want to know or hear anything else about the Church.
I believe my friend succinctly summarizes what I have suspected but have been unable to successfully articulate.
The overwhelming majority of those attending Mass with any frequency fall into two groups.
Those with elementary-school aged children (not necessarily in parochial school) and seniors.
This makes sense to me. There is a logic to it.
Younger Catholic families whose parents want to at least try to pass on an affective, if not intellectual, appreciation for their religious heritage and older folks for whom the passing of life from this world is beginning to take on perceptible features against which they seek reassurance and hope.
As Catholic families mature and children pass from grade school to high school and higher levels of education, their presence in Church wanes if not disappears completely.
Teenagers are invisible as are the so-called “Millenials”.
A goodly number of Catholics in their 40s and 50s are divorced or civilly remarried. They feel that they have betrayed their Catholic upbringing and justify their abandonment of the Church because they have been made to feel unworthy of Mass and the Sacraments.
Then there are those Catholics who constantly lament that the Church has never allowed the promises of Vatican Council II to be realized.
These are the “70s Catholics” who never grew up, who still revel in the “me” generation, free love, and self-absolution from any personal responsibility or accountability for their choices.
For all their fervor for renewal within the Church, they seldom practice their faith nor do they encourage others to do so.
Theirs was and remains a resistance movement to the rightful mandate of the Church to discern what is good and urge its observance and to judge what is an evil to be avoided. They abhor any semblance, word or suggestion that sin is real, needs confessing and penance. God is love so everything’s forgiven, whether that forgiveness is sought or ignored.
Young parents, old people, the disgruntled and the invisible don’t make for effective disciples. One group is overwhelmed, another is infirm, and the remaining two are completely self-absorbed.
Does this speak of all Catholics? Of course not, my friend insists, that would be patently absurd.
And what about the Clergy?
I am happy to say that my friend is caring enough not to hold back what he perceives to be the truth.
The Clergy, he observes, are the ones who perhaps have failed most miserably to create disciples.
We, Bishops and Priests, became complacent, eager to be accepted and self-indulgent. Spiritual exercises were abandoned. A continual study of the Scriptures, Church history as well as fundamental and moral theology were largely ignored.
Our preaching was lackluster, offering little in the way of Scriptural truths or the encouragement of virtue.
We failed to create disciples because we forgot what discipleship entails: self-sacrifice and courage.
So when Catholics began to adapt to and adopt secular attitudes regarding divorce, remarriage, cohabitation, abortion, homosexuality, end-of-life issues, we Clergy remained silent waiting for the Vatican or the local Chancery Office to speak out against these assaults on Christian virtues, while we delighted parishioners at Mass with jokes and personal anecdotes, with magic tricks and puppets!
And while the secularists we busy sowing weeds in the garden of the Church, we Clergy were oblivious to the damage being done and, in some cases, perpetrated serious and scandalous harm to those entrusted to our pastoral care.
Do these failings speak to all Clergy? Again, my friend remarks that such a judgement would be ridiculous!
Still, my friend paints a fairly accurate picture of where the Church finds herself these days, I think.
In her zeal to be “in the world”, the Church has become “of the world”.
We are a Church which has forgotten its fundamental and Divinely-instituted mission: “...to go forth and make disciples of all nations.”
I thank my friend for his insights and ask him and all of us to join daily in prayer to the Holy Spirit for a true renewal of the Church, the Clergy and the faithful that we may be fit and worthy disciples of Our Lord Jesus and the salvation He offers to those who confess Him as Lord and Savior.
Come, Holy Spirit, renew the face of the earth and kindle within us the fire of Your Love!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)