Edward Pentin, of the National Catholic Register, quoted an antipasto of an article in De Standaard (and HERE) about an interview with a Belgian publication, Tertio, given by Pope Francis’ head of the Synod of Bishops, Lorenzo Card. Balidissieri.
Reportage gives the impression that St. John Paul’s Magisterium, particularly in Familiaris consortio, is outdated.
What did Baldissieri say?
“Familiaris consortio van paus Johannes Paulus II van 1981 vormt het laatste grote document van de afgelopen dertig jaar over deze thematiek. De kerk is niet tijdloos; ze leeft te midden van de wederwaardigheden van de geschiedenis en het evangelie moet gekend en beleefd worden door mensen van vandaag.” ….
Familiaris Consortio by Pope John Paul II in 1981 is the last major document of the past thirty years on this topic. The church is not timeless; she lives amidst the vicissitudes of history and the gospel must be known and experienced by people today.
Baldissieri doesn’t exactly say directly that St. JPII’s Magisterium on the family is outdated. But he does, as I read it carefully, insinuate it. It is, after all, 33 whole years old!
I am not sure what Card. Baldissieri, is up to. He plays a key role in the selection of experts and theologians who will be allowed to address the bishops during the synod. From that position, Card. Baldissieri could, for example, arrange the slate of experts and theologians so that one side of the debate is greatly favored and the other is, effectively, suppressed.
That said, no one in their right mind would so bluntly call into question St. John Paul II’s Magisterium.
Loading ...
Sorry again Fr. Z. There is a plan B? What are we going to do if the sinod change the “praxis”?
On the contrary, the Church is nothing if not “timeless”. Men are men women are women as it has been from the beginning. All the modern technologies of man have not altered the nature and substance of the sin of adultery one iota. End of story.
Elsewhere, someone suggested that maybe Francis called for the Synod in order to flush out the heretics. C’mon. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it’s much more likely that it’s a duck than a cunningly-disguised lion, and the same goes for popes. I agree with Father that Baldissieri’s role puts him in a place to slant the debate, an would simply ask why is this Cardinal in that position? Why was Card. Kasper permitted to give that speech? They hold their positions because Francis wills it, and again, if it walks like a duck…
I’ve read through the original interview in ‘Tertio’.
In the sentence before the one that begins ‘Familiaris Consortio’ Baldissieri said (in response to the question about sexual morality and remarried divorcees)
“The questionnaire had many themes. Among them the theme of sexual morality, but also the situation of the divorced and the civilly married. (…) Pope John Paul II’s ‘Familiaris consortio’ was the last great document…” etc
So he seems to be suggesting that 1) the synod is timely [OK so far] and 2) F C can be ‘superseded’. [Hmmm.Not so sure about that!]
We seem to be approaching a concept of a magisterium of Church moral teaching that can be revised at will every few decades.
(Btw, why can the Pope and his Cardinals not use words more precisely? The questioner got it right: ‘divorced and remarried’ – but Card. B fluffed the cue (the ‘divorced’ are not – at least not necessarily – excluded from Holy Communion. People read these things and take what the Church’s leaders say seriously.)
What worries me rather more is what Card. B said then:
De synodaliteit zou een decentralisatie moeten garanderen en een grotere aandacht voor de lokale kerken, alsook een grotere betrokkenheid van alle bisschoppen in de wereld bij de evangelisatie.
So ‘synodality’ [huh!] would need to guarantee decentralisation and greater focus (or ‘attention’) on the local churches, eh? ‘Local’ clearly means ‘National’ in this context. Would that mean having one rule for the whole of Africa and another for, just to take a random example, Germany? So every country could choose which model and which side to follow – just as we did during the papal schism of the fourteenth century…
The teaching of the Church may not be ‘timeless’ – but if it’s going to change every 30 years, we may as well just follow the Gospel. Last time I looked at it, I found Our Lord to be crystal clear about divorce and remarriage.
His use of the word “timeless” is unfortunate. I hope it is a sign of sloppiness rather than being an adherent to the modernism of Alfred Loisy. Giving the benefit of the doubt, if he was being sloppy then his comments on Familiaris Consortio have merit. Not in the fact the there is anything wrong with Familiaris Consortio in itself, but in it’s ability to address our problems today in the same way it did in 1981. The world has changed a lot since then, not least in it’s understanding of marriage and family. The Church definitely needs to address this issue today in a more authoritative manner, building on what has already been laid down, especially Humanae Vitae and Familiaris Consortio.
THE broad-backed hippopotamus
Rests on his belly in the mud;
Although he seems so firm to us
He is merely flesh and blood.
Flesh-and-blood is weak and frail,
Susceptible to nervous shock;
While the True Church can never fail
For it is based upon a rock.
The hippo’s feeble steps may err
In compassing material ends,
While the True Church need never stir
To gather in its dividends.
The ‘potamus can never reach
The mango on the mango-tree;
But fruits of pomegranate and peach
Refresh the Church from over sea.
At mating time the hippo’s voice
Betrays inflexions hoarse and odd,
But every week we hear rejoice
The Church, at being one with God.
The hippopotamus’s day
Is passed in sleep; at night he hunts;
God works in a mysterious way–
The Church can sleep and feed at once.
I saw the ‘potamus take wing
Ascending from the damp savannas,
And quiring angels round him sing
The praise of God, in loud hosannas.
Blood of the Lamb shall wash him clean
And him shall heavenly arms enfold,
Among the saints he shall be seen
Performing on a harp of gold.
He shall be washed as white as snow,
By all the martyr’d virgins kist,
While the True Church remains below
Wrapt in the old miasmal mist.
“The Hippopotamus” by T.S. Eliot
Familiaris Consortio is 33 years old. The Cardinal is – more than double – 73 years old.
I’m interested in the Plan B as well. Do we all just move to Madison, WI?
I read about this yesterday and I hope something was lost in the translation. Implying the Church is not timeless would be a concern for me. Add these comments to those “Kasper the friendly Cardinal” made in NYC the other day and it’s safe to say this hasn’t been the best week ever for traditionalists.
Plan B? Benedict, Pope Emeritus.
I believe, Fr. Z and some of our co-commenters are reading to mucho into this. I see nowhere that Card. Baldisseri implies that something taught in FC should or could be “changed” (either formally or “oikonomikally” a la Card. Kasper).
But it is true that FC is the “last major document of the past thirty years on this topic” and deals, precisely with “The family in the modern world” and, specifically “with the many profound and rapid changes that have affected society and culture”.
Since 1981, that is 33 years, many new profound and rapid changes have occurred. Think about artificial insemination, “surrogate” mothers, homosexual couples that pretend to be a family, adoption of children by such “families”, etc., etc. These things need to be addressed and the doctrin of the Church needs to be applied coherently to them.
That is what I believe he is referring to.
I would not want to indulge in any artificial panic, Plan B (¿?¡!) or whatnot. People, we are Catholic. It is Christ who is in charge.
Best regards,
Before people freak out too much let me also throw into the mix what Pope Francis said to the South African bishops on Easter Friday (April 25 – not even quite two weeks ago) – noting especially the last sentence which I have made into a separate paragraph.
“The holiness and indissolubility of Christian matrimony, often disintegrating under tremendous pressure from the secular world, must be deepened by clear doctrine (!) and supported by the witness of committed married couples. Christian matrimony is a lifelong covenant of love between one man and one woman; it entails real sacrifices in order to turn away from illusory notions of sexual freedom and in order to foster conjugal fidelity.
Your programmes of preparation for the sacrament of matrimony, enriched by Pope John Paul’s teaching on marriage and the family, are proving to be promising and indeed indispensable means of communicating the liberating truth about Christian marriage and are inspiring young people with new hope for themselves and for their future as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers.”
I am amazed that this is not getting the play it should in the conservative Catholic blogosphere!
“Implying the Church is not timeless would be a concern for me.”
And for many of the rest of us, particularly those of us whose return to the Faith was buttressed by what we thought was the defeat of the infernal “Spirit of Vatican II” by the spirit of Ecclesia Dei and of Summorum Pontificum.
It is humbling, and needful, to be reminded that just as defeatism is alien to our Faith, so is triumphalism absent Calvary and the empty tomb, whether practiced by modernists or traditionalists. That said, the members of the Body of Christ may need to prepare (again) to hunker down.
Didn’t Francis, just a couple of days ago, site Familaris Consortio and JPII as the guides for the Synod?
As Father Z said, no one in their right mind would say a Pope or doctrine from just 30 years ago is somehow outdated. So I think he has to be referring to updating the details of administrative proceedures (which although I dont like it, is at least a more reasonable thought), and checking in on the state of the world so we have a better idea of how to deal with it, etc.
False dichotomy. The Church, as the Mystical Body of Christ, is both human and divine. In Her divine nature, She is timeless. In Her human nature, she lives amidst the vicissitudes of history. But Her teaching must be timeless if it is the teaching that comes from God.
Denying the timelessness of the Church seems tantamount to denying Her divinity.
It could also mean “When St. JPII wrote FC, nobody was stupid enough to believe in all this perpetual shacking up and crazy definitions of matrimony, and kids growing up not knowing anybody whose parents were married. So now we have to start at the freakin’ beginning and proclaim what Jesus said marriage was. Again. Because of the hardness of their hearts and our lack of teaching people the basics.”
Yeah, I know, that’s probably way too hopeful.
Plan B? Here’s a wild and crazy idea: Why don’t you use some of your time and energy to pray to our newly canonized saint who might, just maybe, perhaps be interested in this particular topic, seeing as he was the last one to issue a major document.
If you believe in that sort of thing, that is.
I guess the Rhine will continue to flow into the Tiber!
“That said, no one in their right mind would so bluntly call into question St. John Paul II’s Magisterium.” Are we to think that Card. Baldissieri is a little off his rocker?
@iPadre:
“I guess the Rhine will continue to flow into the Tiber!”
I certainly hope so!
Vecchio di Londra: I haven’t read the full interview yet, but am I correct in assuming that there is indeed a bit cut out of the cardinal’s answer, as indicate by the “(…)”? I had assumed that was cut to offer a snappy sound bite for Tertio’s website, and that the interview would contain a fuller explanation. And maybe Cardinal Baldisseri did say more, but the editor decided to compress his answer for some reason?
I tend to agree with what Ignatius said above. The times have changed since 1981 (and when it comes to the family, rarely for the better). Familiaris consortio should certainly not be tossed aside, but it can be expanded upon with an eye on the times, and when it comes to pastoral practice and renewed teaching of the faith of all time: that must once again be known and experienced by the people of today.
At least, that’s what I hope. But, in all honesty, I can’t say I am eagerly awaiting the Synod…
It’s the same thing that was done before Humanae vitae: talk about ‘updating’ some old dusty Church doctrine (which is working fine if only people would understand (or were taught it)), set the boundaries way beyond what you think would be acceptable, knowing full well that doctrine can’t change, and a less radical step will be tolerated, and spin, spin, spin to the usual useful idiots that you can count on to carry your water for you.
Not surprised, considering +Cdl Kasper’s comments at Fordham (why am I so ashamed that I took a degree from them…?) and the drumbeats. If you haven’t read Fr. Z’s rant regarding this topic either here or on his FB page…read it…and if you have, read it again. I’d go farther and say is is HV all over again.
@incaelo,
So far this is the entirety of what has been released of the interview:
In the West many expect more openness on sexual morality, including the attitude towards remarried divorcees. Do you expect there to be any changes?
“The questionnaire covered many topics. Among them the topic of sexual morality, but also the situation of divorcees and people who have remarried civilly. […] Pope John Paul II’s Familiaris consortio from 1981 was the last major document in the past thirty years about this topic. The Church is not timeless; she exists amid the vicissitudes of history and the Gospel must be known and experienced by the people of today. The message must be delivered in the present, with all respect for the integrity of whoever receives it. We now face two Synods to discuss this complex topic of the family, and I believe that this dynamic in two movements will allow us to give a more appropriate response to the expectations of the people.”
How can a greater balance be reached in the management of the Church, between the Curia and the world Church, between centralisation and local autonomy?
“That is the great question that Pope Francis knows himself to be confronted with, in the face of renewal and reform. According to him the bishops at the Conclave gave him that task. Synodality would have to guarantee decentralisation and more attention for the local churches, and also greater involvement of all bishops in the world with evangelisation. As head of the college of bishops the Pope must lead that process. The Council of eight cardinals is working towards a reform of the Curia and the central services of the Church.”
Pingback: 14 Things Catholic Moms Want to Say about Themselves - BigPulpit.com
Mamajen, what in heaven’s name makes you think we aren’t already doing that?
I second what Mamajen said. Let us earnestly pray, asking for Saint John Paul’s intercession on this matter. If we could take all of the energy that we are now devoting to worrying and put it into prayer . . . As Pope Francis said:
“In his own service to the People of God, John Paul II was the pope of the family. He himself once said that he wanted to be remembered as the pope of the family. I am particularly happy to point this out as we are in the process of journeying with families towards the Synod on the family. It is surely a journey which, from his place in heaven, he guides and sustains.”
Frank Gibbons–thank you for that hippo poem–I’ve got a lovely image of a smiling hippo with wings and a harp ascending into heaven! O Lord, lift us up from the muck. :)
“Familiaris Consortio is 33 years old. The Cardinal is – more than double – 73 years old.”
Good point, Andrew. That makes Card.B. more obsolete than FC.
“The Church is not timeless, she lives amidst the vicissitudes of history and the Gospel must be known and experienced by people today,” Cardinal Baldisseri says.
Robbie says:
8 May 2014 at 9:00 am
I read about this yesterday and I hope something was lost in the translation. Implying the Church is not timeless would be a concern for me.
Robbie: that’s a great concern for me, too.
That a Cardinal would think that “The Church is not timeless” would make him (and those who listen to him) believe that the Teachings of the Church are, also, not timeless and subject to change.
Feminist rebellion from the git-go.
Eve persuaded to rebel against God’s Commandment.
Eve persuading Adam to rebel against God’s teachings.
Wives rebelling against husbands (which is the majority of cases in divorces).
Nuns (LCWR) rebelling against Church Teachings and teaching their own thing.
The Church (The Bride of Christ in the persons of Cardinals/Hierarchy ) now being persuaded to rebel against God’s/Church’s Teachings.
And to follow up: Will the Church be persuading the laity to rebel against Church Teachings and receive Communion unworthily while in the state of sin in re-marriage outside the Church?
It’s Eve all over again.
For God there is no Time.
His Teachings will ever be Timeless.
Time does not determine changes in teachings.
It is the Teachings (that we are supposed to be following) that determine the Times (that we live in).
What is obvious is that since this Pontificate began the faithful in a very short period of time have been subjected to too much yak-yak-yak that has thrown them into an unnecessary, heart rending, swoon. But until official decisions, documents are forthcoming, expect more of the same. Until then who knows what is going on, but surely His Holiness must know the effect this has on the faithful?
Thank you for the advise mamajen. I prayed for the cardinals in order they choose a good pope. I we got Jorge Mario Bergoglio. My bishop for fourteen years. Then I prayed the mother of God, mother of the Church and a shield against heresy, in order She protect Francis, truly devote to Her, of make any mess with the dogma. Now I look at:
Kasper document to the cardinals.
Pope Francis saying that liked that document.
Kasper, Maradiaga, and Baldissieri and …. declarations.
Evangeli Gaudium 47, where the Church is called a sacraments customm.
The not denied phone call with the divorced woman.
What the priest of Buenos Aires says about this issue.
And I have to conclude God allows all of this. I have to pray for what? I know God is not going against the free will of this guys. I have to pray for a thunder hitting Francis with a pen in his hand one instant before he signs the mottu propio allowing the communion for divorce? I do not think that is catholic. My plan B at this moment is pray God to shorten this time in order less people get lost. There is another? Can we do other thing?
Actually Cardinal, the Church IS timeless. Maybe not in her outward form or in the particular way she expresses a certain teaching BUT the Teaching itself is timeless and if one deviates from that one will be in peril. Decentralization is a tool of the devil; it destroys the unity of the Church to give local churches too much latitude. We need to ditch these recurring synods of bishops and the Holy Father needs to call an Ecumenical Council that will firmly define the Faith (and express its eternal Truth in contemporary language if such is needed) in this confused and crooked age. The bishops must not be allowed any longer to snake around behind the scenes but all the bishops of the world must now be required to speak openly and in public in answer to a small number of very specific questions and then we will know who wants to be in and who wants to be out. Veni Sancte Spiritus!
And I will join my voice to that chorus who say we need to pray: we need to beg of God to shorten these days of confusion, of doubt, and of despair for we have drunk a wine that has dazed us, drunk it to the dregs. God of Hosts bring us back! God of Hosts bring us back! God of Hosts bring us back, for the glory of your Name.
Blas and all worried people,
With all due respect, I have followed this carefully and nowhere have I seen that Pope Francis, before or after the papacy, has ever said that he thought people in an adulterous union should receive communion. In fact he has said the opposite numerous times in public:
1) in the 2007 Aparecida Document of the Latin American Bishops of which he was the chief author (#437j).
2) in the 2009 book about him while he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, “El Jesuita.”
3) in the interview on the plane back from World Youth Day in July 2013.
4) through his doctrinal representative, Cardinal Mueller in his October 2013 letter. (This could not have been published without Pope Francis’ permission.)
Also, though some might dismiss it as hearsay:
5) Cardinal Meisner, in a December 2013 radio interview, said that Pope Francis reiterated that remarried divorces may not receive communion. This would have been in their last meeting – so in November or December of 2013.
Certainly not hearsay, and while not touching directly on the subject of communion,
6) Pope Francis clearly said to the bishops of South Africa on April 25, 2014 (barely two weeks ago) that “the holiness and indissolubility of Christian matrimony, often disintegrating under tremendous pressure from the secular world, must be deepened by clear doctrine (!) and supported by the witness of committed married couples.” He went on to praise Pope John Paul’s teaching on marriage and the family as “an indispensable means of communicating the liberating truth about Christian marriage”
Again, I see strong evidence that Pope Francis will uphold the doctrine of the indissolubility of Christian marriage (he just did so two weeks ago) AND the moral principal that a person in a state of mortal sin (an adulterous second union) may not receive communion (as he has always stated in public). The question in his mind seems to be: Is there a quicker, easier way to adjudicate the (in his opinion) many invalid marriages than the current system of marriage tribunals as it stands?
That is the real question.
And I find myself in the unusual position of defending Card. Kaspar, because the notion that 50% of all marriages are invalid goes back to the Pope’s interview on the plane back from Rio. Pope Francis quoted his predecessor in the See of Buenos Aires, seemingly approvingly on this matter. (Although, I think he said his predecessor thought that half of all ‘young people’ getting married enter into invalid unions.) I am not saying that this is unimportant. But I want to stress that this is not a matter of doctrine but of prudential judgement.
Does he still hold to this view? Possibly. Can he persuaded otherwise? Maybe. But note that Pope Francis still thinks within the traditional categories: valid or invalid sacramental union, no communion in a state of mortal sin, etc. I really don’t think we have to worry about him on this.
And remember, in Card. Kaspar’s long address only the last 1/5 of it dealt with remarried divorcees and communion – and even this contained a suggestion that was not heterodox (i.e. that a priest appointed by the bishop adjudicate such marriage questions and not a tribunal). OK, maybe it was UNREALISTIC and potential dangerous, but it was not heretical. It could be adopted while still respecting the Church’s doctrine on the matter.
I think that Pope Francis anxiously wants solutions, and that is why he was eager to hear Card. Kaspar – and the other cardinals who spoke, as well as the Synod of Bishops. However, I see rock solid evidence that the doctrine and the principles will stand in place. The solutions that he wants, he wants to coordinate within the confines of Catholic doctrine.
And I am talking about written first person evidence. Not hearsay, or rumor, or what someone else opines about Pope Francis.
I still think that even this is VERY serious business. And I tend to be with the canonists. I just think it important not to get hysterical by worrying about things that we needn’t worry about. And I do not think that we need seriously worry that Pope Francis will fail to uphold the indissolubility of Christian marriage or that people who are truly judged to be in an adulterous union cannot receive communion. That would go against the very concept of “Eucharistic Coherence” which he wrote about so beautiful in the Aparecida Document and reiterated last year as Pope. (Folks, grown men don’t radically change principled positions overnight!)
So, practically speaking, THIS is what to pray about: That wisdom prevail at the Synod (and with the Pope) and that any reforms to the system of adjudicating the validity of marriages not end up making things worse.
Has anyone read the whole article?
Is it translated from the Italian?
And who has a sense of Tertio?
The clause “with all respect for the integrity of whoever receives it” looks at least possibly disquieting.
For, what if the content of “integrity” here should prove to resemble the thinking of the Church of England’s House of Bishops? – as expressed (15 February) in these excerpts: “In Issues in Human Sexuality the House affirmed that, while the same standards of conduct applied to all, the Church of England should not exclude from its fellowship those lay people of gay or lesbian orientation who, in conscience, were unable to accept that a life of sexual abstinence was required of them and who, instead, chose to enter into a faithful, committed sexually active relationship.” And “Those same sex couples who choose to marry should be welcomed into the life of the worshipping community and not be subjected to questioning about their lifestyle. Neither they nor any children they care for should be denied access to the sacraments.”
What is he up to? Why, naturally he is up to the business and purposes of his boss, the Holy Father, Pope Francis. He is not a lone operator, nor an idealogue (to use Pope’s fav word).
All these PP’s (Pope’s Pets) who have charged to the forefront of Church rule (some officially, some not) in a year or less are all unified in their philosophies, their efforts, their incessant babbling, and their goals.
I suppose Fr. Z will not print this opinion that is critical of big whigs in the Church? Yet I hope we can be honest. These fellows are extreme, perhaps even unorthodox, in their views. Together the power they wield is subtle yet almost unstoppable.
I refer to, among others: Cardinals Baldessieri, O’Malley, Kaspar, Parolin, de Aviz, Wuerl, Dolan, Ossa, Marx, Nichols, Gomez (both of them)… and most insidious of all, Oscar Rodriquez-Maradiaga. Carlos is one of the Pope’s closest personal friends, and has great influence over him. Those who have studied him can recognize in the Pope’s talks which phrases came from Carlos.
If you want to understand the real Pope and his intentions, despite his smiles and cute gestures, read Maradiaga’s Treatise on the New Evangelization presented last October (or thereabouts). Maybe about 5000 words. Almost every sentence is a shock or a horror. The Church is redefined, and drastically. It is Catholicism deconstructed.
It also is not the ramblings of a loony leftist socialist Cardinal who wants to make the Church “a democracy” and redefine the priesthood, all on his own. This is what they all ascribe to. This is the “Bible” of Francis. This is the end of orthodoxy. If they have their way.
Pingback: Of Humanæ vitæ and the approaching Synod on the Family < MOTU PROPRIO
Thanks to kpoterack for a thoughtful and informative comment.
Others have expressed doubts about the validity of many marriages. Some years ago Fr. Benedict Groeschel spoke at Christendom College and said that he had doubts about the validity of some of the marriages at which he officiated because of his doubt about the ability of many young people today to understand and make the required commitment. He said this because so many of them had never really seen it lived and were so influenced by the prevailing culture. Remember that Fr. Groeschel is a professor of spiritual psychology. He said that he had even gone so far as to place a note in some matrimonial files expressing his observations and doubts so as to assist any future examination for nullity.
He also said that he preferred officiating at funerals to weddings because he knows the dead will stay dead.
I’d also like to say thank you to kpoterack, excellent post.
As long as the doctrine itself remains intact, at this point I think I would be happy to settle for pretty much any method of adjudicating invalid marriages, even if it is a poor, or harmful, one. An ill-advised administrative policy is world’s better than changing doctrine.
In Washington, referring to the government, we say “Personnel is policy.” MustangSally understands that. For the Church, I am afraid it is also true that policy becomes doctrine. A sloppy process for claims of nullity will become a sloppy, or nonexistent, doctrine.
@MustangSally: I found the talk by Card. Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, but who is Carlos?
Thank you.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….
Can him.
Pingback: A Cardinal backtracks | Fr. Z's Blog