UPDATE 7 Jan:
Catch Fr. Hunwicke’s comments. HERE
___ Originally Published on: Jan 6, 2017
Sometimes libs try to pull one over on us by shaking and rattling the shiny object so that you don’t see what they are doing with their other hand.
Such is the case today at Jesuit-run America Magazine. There the unwitting reader will surely not be able to avoid a piece by a priest from Chicago, Fr. Louis J. Cameli, who takes on the Four Cardinals and the Five Dubia.
First, Cameli denies the obvious and claims that there really isn’t anything unclear about Amoris laetitia Chapter 8. This is nonsense. AL 8 has content which is objectively unclear.
Next, Cameli accuses the Four Cardinals of being dishonest. According to Cameli, the Five Dubia are not genuine doubts or questions, but rather assertions. However, even if assertions are within the Dubia, they remain honest questions about the magisterial status of Veritatis Splendor, etc., which can easily be answered by a “yes” or a “no”.
Then, Fr. Cameli begins his own defense of Amoris laetitia 8. There are several points which we might look at over the next couple days, but let’s start with how he handles one of his most important proof texts.
Cameli pits St. John XXIII and his opening speech, “Gaudet Mater Ecclesia” at the Second Vatican Council against the Four Cardinals, whom he has already accused of being disingenuous.
I don’t think we should allow St. John XXIII’s words and the Second Vatican Council to be so abused.
Watch how the meaning of Gaudet Mater Ecclesia is completely changed by the cuts Cameli makes. Read these side by side, taking note of the ellipses (those are the little dots…):
|GME 6 used by Cameli||GME 6 more accurately translated||GME 6 Original Latin|
|The salient point of this Council is not…a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.||The salient point of this Council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.
|Neque opus nostrum, quasi ad finem primarium, eo spectat, ut de quibusdam capitibus praecipuis doctrinae ecclesiasticae disceptetur, atque adeo fusius repetantur ea, quae Patres ac theologi veteres et recentiores tradiderunt, et quae a vobis non ignorari sed in mentibus vestris inhaerere merito putamus.|
|For this a Council was not necessary…
[HERE HE LEAVES A BUNCH OF STUFF OUT]
the Christian, Catholic, and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciousness in faith and perfect conformity to authentic doctrine….
[HERE HE LEAVES MORE STUFF OUT]
|For this a council was not necessary. But from the renewed, serene and tranquil adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness, as it still shines forth in the acts of the Council of Trent and the First Vatican Council, the Christian, Catholic and apostolic spirit of the whole world expects a step forward toward a doctrinal penetration and a formation of consciences in faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought.||Etenim ad huiusmodi tantum disputationes habendas non opus erat, ut Concilium Oecumenicum indiceretur. Verumtamen in praesenti oportet ut universa doctrina christiana, nulla parte inde detracta, hic temporibus nostris ab omnibus accipiatur novo studio, mentibus serenis atque pacatis, tradita accurata illa ratione verba concipiendi et in formam redigendi, quae ex actis Concilii Tridentini et Vaticani Primi praesertim elucet; oportet ut, quemadmodum cuncti sinceri rei christianae, catholicae, apostolicae fautores vehementer exoptant, eadem doctrina amplius et altius cognoscatur eaque plenius animi imbuantur atque formentur; oportet ut haec doctrina certa et immutabilis, cui fidele obsequium est praestandum, ea ratione pervestigetur et exponatur, quam tempora postulant nostra.|
|The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another.
[HE LEAVES CRITICALLY IMPORTANT STUFF OUT THIS TIME, AND WITHOUT THE ELLIPSES]
|The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith or the truths which are contained in our time-honored teaching is one thing, the manner in which these truths are set forth – in the same meaning and understanding – is another.||Est enim aliud ipsum depositum Fidei, seu veritates, quae veneranda doctrina nostra continentur, aliud modus, quo eaedem enuntiantur, eodem tamen sensu eademque sententia.|
|And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character [emphases added].||And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration, with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.”||Huic quippe modo plurimum tribuendum erit et patienter, si opus fuerit, in eo elaborandum; scilicet eae inducendae erunt rationes res exponendi, quae cum magisterio, cuius indoles praesertim pastoralis est, magis congruant.|
Cameli made these cuts not simply because he had a word limitation on his article. He wanted to diminish the stress that St. John XXIII placed on continuity between the Second Vatican Council and earlier Catholic teaching, including Trent and Vatican I.
We shall have to look at more of this piece in the days to come.