YOUR URGENT PRAYER REQUESTS

Posted on 10 April 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Please use the sharing buttons! Thanks!

Registered or not, will you in your charity please take a moment look at the requests and to pray for the people about whom you read?

Continued from THESE.

I get many requests by email asking for prayers. Many requests are heart-achingly grave and urgent.

As long as my blog reaches so many readers in so many places, let’s give each other a hand. We should support each other in works of mercy.

If you have some prayer requests, feel free to post them below.

You have to be registered here to be able to post.

I still have a pressing personal petition.  Really.

Posted in SESSIUNCULA |
9 Comments

The Infamous #Footnote351 read through the lens of the Prodigal Son and his prostitutes

Posted on 10 April 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

In the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, there is a footnote, an infamous footnote in par. 305 .

Context:

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.

Then the footnote … for sake of Tweets #Footnote351 :

16_04_10_AL_FN351

I am getting good comments on this troubling footnote.  I am not sure which sacraments unrepentent public sinners should or may receive.  Dr. Peters comments about 351 in the light on can. 915, which prohibit from Communion those who are manifestly grave sinners (such as public adulterers, which is what one is if one remarries civilly without a declaration of nullity).  HERE.  

This evening I was talking with a priest friend, Fr. Richard Heilman (whom I’ve mentioned in these electronic pages, most recently yesterday because he lead me to that great text by Fulton Sheen).  He wrote…

“The Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak…

… for the weak who have chosen to come home, as did the prodigal son, to live in God’s presence, under God’s “house rules.” Might they make mistakes while home? Yes! And they will be offered forgiveness when they do. What they are not allowed to do is to “come home” and dictate their own “house rules.” Which is akin to the prodigal son coming home, and bringing the prostitutes with him.“

Rem acu.

What Fr. Heilman understands, and what the Church has always understood, and what Christ Himself taught when he forgave the woman caught in adultery, is that we have to amend our lives after sinning.

Fr. Z kudos.

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Fr. Z KUDOS, Hard-Identity Catholicism, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
28 Comments

DOUTHAT: “a distinctive late-Marxist odor”

Posted on 10 April 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

At the NYT (aka Hell’s Bible) Ross Douthat has a reaction to Pope Francis at the new Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia.

In the first part, Douthat sets up that while in most world religions there has been a split between orthodox and progressive, in the Catholic Church the factions have remained officially together in a kind of truce: conservatives have their orthodoxy but liberals have a soft heterodoxy.

Then comes Francis.

Douthat thinks that what Francis has done is come down in favor of the truce, rather than tolerate the heterodoxy and heteropraxis.  My emphases:

[…]

But there is also now a new papal teaching: A teaching in favor of the truce itself. That is, the post-1960s separation between doctrine and pastoral practice now has a papal imprimatur, rather than being a state of affairs that popes were merely tolerating for the sake of unity. Indeed, for Pope Francis that separation is clearly a hoped-for source of renewal, [!] revival and revitalization, rather than something that renewal or revival might enable the church to gradually transcend.

Again, this is not the clear change of doctrine, the proof of concept for other changes, that many liberal bishops and cardinals sought. But it is an encouragement for innovation on the ground, for the de facto changes that more sophisticated liberal Catholics believe will eventually render certain uncomfortable doctrines as dead letters without the need for a formal repudiation from the top. [It is hard to deny.]

This means that the new truce may be even shakier than the old one. [Surely it will be.  There will be far more division among priests and among priests and bishops.] In effectively licensing innovation rather than merely tolerating it, and in transforming the papacy’s keenest defenders into wary critics, it promises to heighten the church’s contradictions rather than contain them.  [Divison.]

And while it does not undercut the pope’s authority as directly as a starker change might have, it still carries a distinctive late-Marxist odor — a sense that the church’s leadership is a little like the Soviet nomenklatura, bound to ideological precepts that they’re no longer confident can really, truly work. [Ouch.]

A slippage that follows from this lack of confidence is one of the most striking aspects of the pope’s letter. What the church considers serious sin becomes mere “irregularity.” What the church considers a commandment becomes a mere “ideal.” What the church once stated authoritatively it now proffers tentatively, in tones laced with self-effacement, self-critique. [Indeed.  When I first got the text of the Letter (before its release), one of my corespondent (who also had it) wrote: “It reeks of ‘effeminacy’.”  I suspect that this move might have a strongly negative, dampening effect on priestly vocations.  Not that that will bother liberals, of course: they have been trying to destroy the priesthood for decades.]

Francis doubtless intends this language as a bridge between the church’s factions, [doubtless!] just dogmatic enough for conservatives but perpetually open to more liberal interpretations. And such deliberate ambiguity does offer a center, of sorts, for a deeply divided church.

But not one, I fear, that’s likely to permanently hold.  [Ditto.]

This will make the libs (especially Jesuits) have a spittle-flecked nutty.   The last time Douthat commented on issues of the Synod, a passel of libs signed a letter asking Hell’s Bible to fire him… in that spirit of “liberty” for which liberals are so famous.

Posted in The Drill | Tagged
27 Comments

Canonist Ed Peters notes on some juridical issues in #AmorisLaetitia

Posted on 10 April 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The great canonist Ed Peters has some first thoughts about the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia.  HERE

He doesn’t have a combox, so let’s him borrow this one.

First thoughts on the English version of Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia.

There are as one might expect in a document of this length and written with access to the kinds of resources a pope commands, [I assume he means ghost writers]many good things said about marriage in Amoris. Whether those things speak with any special profundity or clarity is better left, I think, for each reader to decide individually. [A kind way to express that.]

That said, however, one must recall that Francis is not a systematic thinker. [By way of contrast, I just review Pope Benedict’s 2005 Christmas Address to the Roman Curia.] While that fact neither explains nor excuses the various writing flaws in Amoris, it does help to contextualize them. Readers who are put off by more-than-occasional resort to platitudes, caricatures of competing points of view, and self-quotation simply have to accept that this is how Francis communicates.  [That’s fair.]

[And since Peters is a canonist…] Some juridic issues that were widely anticipated include:

Holy Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics. Francis does not approve this central assault tactic against the permanence of marriage, [the Kasperite “tolerated but not accepted” Proposal] but [but] neither does he clearly reiterate constant Church teaching and practice against administering the Eucharist to Catholics in irregular marriage situations. And, speaking of ‘irregular marriage’, [marriage!  Some couplings are not any kind of marriage, but there are times in the Letter when that isn’t entirely clear.] nearly every time Francis uses that traditional phrase to describe what could more correctly be termed pseudo-marriage, he puts the word “irregular” in scare quotes, as if to imply that the designation is inappropriate and that he is using it only reluctantly.

Internal forum. Francis makes almost no commentary on the so-called “internal forum” solution. What little comment he does make on the internal forum in AL 300 is not controversial.  [For example: “Conversation with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and on what steps can foster it and make it grow. Given that gradualness is not in the law itself (cf. Familiaris Consortio, 34), this discernment can never prescind from the Gospel demands of truth and charity, as proposed by the Church.”]

Canon law in general. Francis makes almost no use of canon law in Amoris. What few canonical comments he does make are not controversial.

‘Same-sex marriage’. Francis leaves no opening whatsoever that ‘same-sex marriage’ can ever be regarded as marriage. AL 251.  [Clear as a bell.]

Some problematic points (in no special order) include:

1. Speaking of divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics, Francis writes: “In such situations, many people, knowing and accepting the possibility of living ‘as brothers and sisters’ which the Church offers them, point out that if certain expressions of intimacy [i.e., sexual intercourse] are lacking ‘it often happens that faithfulness is endangered and the good of the children suffers’ (Gaudium et spes, 51).” AL fn. 329. I fear this is a serious misuse of a conciliar teaching. Gaudium et spes 51 was speaking about married couples observing periodic abstinence. Francis seems to compare that chaste sacrifice with the angst public adulterers experience when they cease engaging in illicit sexual intercourse.  [An example of what I have mentioned before… the Letter glides from one group of people to another without distinctions.  Also, it is useful to review Gaudium et spes 51, which liberals normally ignore because of it’s reference to abortion as an “unspeakable crime”.  For liberals, V2 documents only contain non-condemnatory lollipops, hugs and fuzzy bunnies.  GS 51:  This council realizes that certain modern conditions often keep couples from arranging their married [married] lives harmoniously, and that they find themselves in circumstances where at least temporarily the size of their families should not be increased. As a result, the faithful exercise of love and the full intimacy of their lives is hard to maintain. But where the intimacy of married [married] life is broken off, its faithfulness can sometimes be imperiled and its quality of fruitfulness ruined, for then the upbringing of the children and the courage to accept new ones are both endangered. To these problems there are those who presume to offer dishonorable solutions indeed; they do not recoil even from the taking of life. [read=abortion] But the Church issues the reminder that a true contradiction cannot exist between the divine laws pertaining to the transmission of life and those pertaining to authentic conjugal love. For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord with genuine human dignity must be honored with great reverence. Hence when there is question of harmonizing conjugal [married] love with the responsible transmission of life, the moral aspects of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards. These, based on the nature of the human person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved unless the virtue of conjugal [married] chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. [artificial contraception].  Peters nailed it.]

2. Speaking of “Christian marriage, as a reflection of the union between Christ and his Church”, Francis writes “Some forms of union radically contradict this ideal, while others realize it in at least a partial and analogous way.” AL 292. This simple phrasing requires significant elaboration: forms of union that most radically contradict the union of Christ and his Church are [1]objectively adulterous post-divorce pseudo-marriages; forms of union that reflect this union in a partial, but good, way are [2] all natural marriages. These two forms of union are not variations on a theme; they differ in kind, not just in degree.

3. Speaking of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2384 describes as “public and permanent adultery”, Francis writes that some post-divorce marriages can exhibit “proven fidelity, generous self-giving, [and] Christian commitment”. AL 298. Many will wonder [I’m one of them…] how terms such as “proven fidelity” can apply to chronically adulterous relationships or how “Christian commitment” is shown by the public and permanent abandonment of a previous spouse.

4. In AL 297, Francis writes: “No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” To the contrary, it is precisely the logic of the Gospel that one can be condemned forever. CCC 1034-1035. [1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost. Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,” and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!” 1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.” The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.] If one meant, say, that no one can be ‘condemned for ever’ by earthlyauthority, one should have said so. [NOTA BENE] But, of course, withholding holy Communion from those in “public and permanent adultery” is not a “condemnation”[NOT] at all, so the point being made is not clear.

5. In AL 280-286, directly discussing sex education for youth, I did not see any acknowledgement, indeed not even a mention, that parents have rights in this important area. Perhaps that is to be gleaned from comments about parents made elsewhere in AL.

UPDATE:

Okay… that was one Peters Post.  And there is another, as long as we are at it.

The law before ‘Amoris’ is the law after

Holy Communion is to be withheld from divorced-and-remarried Catholics in virtue of Canon 915 which, as has been explained countless times, [NB] does not require Catholic ministers to read the souls of would-be communicants, but rather, directs ministers to withhold holy Communion from those who, as an external and observable matter, “obstinately persevere in manifest grave sin”. [VP Biden… Rep. Pelosi…] The Catechism of the Catholic Church 2384 describes civil remarriage after divorce as “public and permanent adultery” (something obviously gravely sinful), so, if Francis had wanted to authorize the administration of holy Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics (and he did not want to repudiate CCC 2384, 1650, etc.) he would have had to have wrought a change in the law contained in Canon 915. [BUT… Francis didn’t change can. 915, did he?  And so the P-SAE Amoris laetitia is also a challenge to those who have ignored can. 915 to be more faithful to the Church’s discipline.]

[This is interesting…] To legislate for the Church popes usually employ certain types of documents (e.g., apostolic constitutions, motu proprios, ‘authentic interpretations’ …[Bulls] ) or they use certain kinds of language (e.g., ‘I direct’ or ‘I approve in forma specifica’). Amorislaetitiae, an “apostolic exhortation”, is not a legislative document, it contains no legislative or authentic interpretative language, and it does not discuss Canon 915. The conclusion follows: whatever Canon 915 directed before Amoris, it directs after, including that holy Communion may not generally be administered to Catholics living in irregular marriages.  [Get that? Amoris laetitia DIDN’T CHANGE LAW or DOCTRINE. Of course that’s not what will be claimed by those who haven’t been inclined to obedience or sound teaching.]

To this conclusion, however—and recalling that the burden of proving that the law changed is on those who claimed that it changed, not on others to prove that it hasn’t—I can anticipate at least three rejoinders.  [This guy’s posts are worth their weight in gold.  More, actually since posts don’t weigh anything… but you get my drift.]

The first is easily dismissed.

1. Pope Francis wrote that “Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs.” AL 3, and 199, 207. But of course developing local approaches to proclaiming universal truths is a hallmark of “pastoral theology” (when that concept is properly understood and not offered as cover for avoiding the demands of Christian doctrine). [This, friends, was one of the things I feared the most in anticipation of this Letter – and, frankly, in everything else this Pope does – namely, devolution of the role of, for example, the mandate of the CDF to local conferences.  That would be disaster of the highest order.  Also, I once fell afoul of a prof of “pastoral theology” from a Roman university just exactly what “pastoral theology” is: he couldn’t tell me. He got mad at me, of course.] Church documents often encourage local initiatives, but they never authorize dilution, let alone betrayal, of the universal teachings of Christ and his Church. Amoris might well have left itself open to regional manipulation (as Robert Royal has explained) but Catholics committed to thinking with the Church will not develop particular approaches to ministry among the divorced that betray the common truth about the permanence of marriage.  [As I wrote yesterday.  The orthodox and faithful can find in this Letter a challenge to even greater compassion and zeal in pastoral ministry.  Those who have abandoned fidelity and obedience, and who have violated the promises and oaths they made a ordination, will continue on their course of deceiving souls, but with greater energy, hiding behind this new Letter.]

A second rejoinder is, however, more complex.

2. In AL 301 Francis writes: “Hence it is can [sic] [yep… sic… but remember that an English version will (eventually) have no real authority once (if) the Latin comes out… yes, I am an optimist.  I am also an unreconstructed ossified manualist.] no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace.” [I’ve received questions about that already.  I suppose that there are some people who are so poorly formed they haven’t the slightest clue about what they are into.  Also, there are others who really have undertaken the “brother sister” solution.  Remember: living together is in itself not the sin of adultery or fornication.  One might be putting oneself in an occasion of temptation and sin, which could be sinfully irresponsible, but it’s the sexual contact that is gravely sinful. This applies to two men or two women who live together.  Sexual contact makes that sinful.] This presents a more substantial objection to my conclusion above for, at first glance, Francis seems to attack the very idea that the irregular situation usually produced by a post-divorce civil remarriage is gravely sinful. [Yes, that is what that statement seems to be.  It is at least poorly written.] We need to consider this possibility carefully.

Setting aside whether any Church document ever ‘simply said’ what Francis implies above, one can agree that it would be wrong to assert that “all” people living in “any” irregular situation are necessarily “living in a state of mortal sin”. If even one person living in an irregular marriage situation does so with no suggestion of sin—and I can think of many*—Francis’ point, narrowly and literally read, stands.

But Francis’ assertion here could mean something more contentious, namely: that we can no longer assert that any individual living in an irregular union could be “living in a state of mortal sin”—an assertion that would, I suggest, place Francis in opposition to Church tradition. [This is what libs are going to say. But they will be happy about it!] Let’s consider this possibility more closely:

A) The phrase “living in a state of mortal sin” could be understood as a short-hand way to describe many morally wrong living situations, one that summarizes Church teaching that all Catholics must, on pain of committing grave sin, abide by certain laws and teachings regarding marriage and sexual activity. That is how all of the canonists, moral theologians, and clergy whom I know, and most of the lay Catholics in my circle, use the term. I think it consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But,

B) The phrase “living in a state of mortal sin” could also be taken as judging the state of another’s soul based on their living arrangement. Whether speaking from ill-will or from inaccurate catechesis, Catholics who describe others (let alone all others) living in irregular marriage situations as “living in a state of mortal sin”—meaning by that phrase that such persons have necessarily incurred the guilt of grave sin—should indeed cease thinking and speaking that way. [See what I wrote, above.]

So, if the pope was thinking about those who use the phrase “living in a state of mortal sin” to imply an ability to read souls, then his admonition that one must not speak this way is quite sound, it does nothing to detract from the Church’s view that post-divorce civil marriage is an aggravated form of adultery, and it impacts not one jot or tittle of Canon 915. But to construe the pope’s words here as denying that freely living in an irregular marriage situation can be, as the Catechism holds, gravely sinful, and that therefore Canon 915 is not applicable to such cases, would be to attribute to the pope a conclusion at odds with Church moral and sacramental teaching. That accusation should not be casually made.  [And yet we see that there are some – at some web sites – who are making that claim.]

Finally, however, let’s assume that, however he expressed himself, [admittedly ineptly] the pope somehow really believes that few Catholics, perhaps none, living in irregular marriages are subjectively culpable for their state. Even that conclusion on his part would [NB] have no bearing whatsoever on the operation of Canon 915 [!] because, as noted above, Canon 915 does not (and cannot!) operate at the level of interior, subjective responsibility, but rather, it responds to externally cognizable facts concerning observable conduct.

Yet a third possible rejoinder relies another eisegetical reading of Francis’ words.  [“eisegesis” means to “read into” a text when interpreting it one’s own presuppositions and agendas, etc.]

3. Some think that AL fn. 351[the Infamous Footnote reads, about priests helping people to discern the truth of their “irregular” situations: “351 In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy” (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013], 1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).”] and its accompanying text authorize holy Communion for Catholics in irregular marriages. I would ask, recalling that a matter of law is at issue, where does Francis do this? The pope says that Catholics in irregular unions need the help of the sacraments (which of course they do), but he does not say ALL of the sacraments, and especially, not sacraments for which they are ineligible. [Which probably means Holy Communion.  But also remember that, without purpose of amendment, they cannot be absolved in the Sacrament of Penance.  Also, if they are compos sui and in danger of death they don’t manifest sorrow for manifest sins they cannot be confirmed or anointed.] He says that the confessional is not a ‘torture chamber’ (a trite remark but not an erroneous one). And he observes that the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect (thank God), but a powerful spiritual medicine, which it is—unless it is taken unworthily or in violation of law, a caveat one may assume all Catholics, and certainly popes, know without having to say it.  [Dear Dr. Peters… I think that, today, we have to remind people of this, even prelates.]

Bottom line: sacramental rules are made of words, not surmises. Those who think Amoris has cleared a path to the Communion rail for Catholics in irregular marriages are hearing words that the pope (whatever might be his personal inclinations) simply did not say.

* Example: One who was baptized Catholic but raised without knowledge of that fact, is (incredibly) bound by canonical form and thus, if married outside of form, he or she would be, by definition, living in an irregular union. It would be ludicrous to refer to such a person as “living in sin”. I can offer a dozen more fact patterns that would duplicate this point.

I love the smell of clarity in the morning.

Be sure to visit In The Light Of The Law for more large doses of refreshing clarity.

Posted in 1983 CIC can. 915, Emanations from Penumbras, The Drill | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
22 Comments

True Humility

Posted on 9 April 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Sent by a priest friend…

True Humility

Bishop: “I’m afraid you’ve got a bad egg, Mr Jones”.

Curate: “Oh, no, my Lord, I assure you that parts of it are excellent!”

Thus, the origin of the phrase “The Curate’s Egg“, describing something mostly or partly bad, but also partly good.

This is from Punch of 9 November 1895 by George du Maurier.

Posted in Lighter fare | Tagged ,
7 Comments

PODCAzT 143: Fulton J. Sheen – “In the face of this false broadmindedness, what the world needs is intolerance.”

Posted on 9 April 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Click

With a biretta tip to my friend Fr. Heilman at Roman Catholic Man, this PODCAzT welcomes today’s guest Ven. Fulton J. Sheen.  We will hear his

Plea for Intolerance

… yes, you read that right.

It seems appropriate to read this in the wake of Amoris laetitia.

Sheen’s text is in a book given its imprimatur in 1931!  They had a lot of the same problems we have, because the Devil is always at work, but that was a different time, I’ll tell ya’.  Pius XI was gloriously reigning….

You can immediately tell that what Sheen is addressing was already a problem in 1931, at least 85 years ago.  I would submit that, though Sheen concerns himself with “America”, his comments reach far beyond America now.

In the PODCAzT I have bits and pieces of popular hits from 1931 as well as a clip from Stravinsky’s Violin Concerto which came to us in … guess which year.  Also, to get you into the mood and the era, salted through are clips of voices and moments from 1931 (except for the brief intro to Sheen’s radio show The Catholic Hour which is actually from 1943).

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: RSS

(There is a super bit – among many – starting about 15:00!)

Below is a taste of a deeply edited version of Sheen’s original piece with my emphases and comments.  I, on the other hand, read the whole thing in the PODCAzT unedited, so it has some references that folks in 1931 would have found current but which some of you might not grasp.  Here’s the edited version…

America, it is said, is suffering from intolerance. It is not. It is suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos. Our country is not nearly so much overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broad-minded. The man who can make up his mind in an orderly way, as a man might make up his bed, is called a bigot; [Sound familiar?  Watch the nightly news!] but a man who cannot make up his mind, any more than he can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broad-minded. [Indeed… “nuanced… thoughtful…”.]

A bigoted man is one who refuses to accept a reason for anything; a broad-minded man is one who will accept anything for a reason—providing it is not a good reason. It is true that there is a demand for precision, exactness, and definiteness, but it is only for precision in scientific measurement, not in logic. The breakdown that has produced this natural broad-mindedness is mental, not moral.  [That’s 1931.  Today, I think it’s both mental and moral.  We are in serious trouble now, after decades of the dumbed-down education at least two generations have received. On top of that habitual sin, especially of the carnal variety, makes you stupid.  Add dumb to stupid and we wind up with a real problem.] The evidence for this statement is threefold: the tendency to settle issues not by arguments but by words, the unqualified willingness to accept the authority of anyone on the subject of religion, and lastly the love of novelty. [Fulton J. Sheen… prophet.]

The science of religion has a right to be heard scientifically through its qualified spokesmen, [God, save us.] just as the science of physics or astronomy has a right to be heard through its qualified spokesmen. Religion is a science despite the fact the some would make it only a sentiment. Religion has its principles, natural and revealed, which are more exacting in their logic than mathematics. [!] But the false notion of tolerance has obscured this fact from the eyes of many who are as intolerant about the smallest details of life as they are tolerant about their relations to God.  [Sound familiar?]

Another evidence of the breakdown of reason that has produced this weird fungus of broad-mindedness is the passion of novelty, as opposed to the love of truth. Truth is sacrificed for an epigram, the Divinity of Christ for a headline in the Monday morning newspaper. Many a modern preacher is far less concerned with preaching Christ and Him crucified than he is with his popularity with his congregation. A want of intellectual backbone makes him straddle the ox of truth and the ass of nonsense, paying compliments to Catholics because of “their great organization” and to sexologists because of “their honest challenge to the youth of this generation.” Bending the knee to the mob rather than God would probably make them scruple at ever playing the role of John the Baptist before a modern Herod. [Get this…] No accusing finger would be leveled at a divorce or one living in adultery; no voice would be thundered in the ears of the rich, saying with something of the intolerance of Divinity: “It is not lawful for thee to live with thy brother’s wife.” Rather would we hear: “Friends, times are changing!” The acids of modernity are eating away the fossils of orthodoxy.

Belief in the existence of God, in the Divinity of Christ, in the moral law, is considered passing fashions. [In a way, this is the Kasperite approach: truth and how we interpret even Christ’s words in Scripture depends on the needs of the time, changing needs.  Philosophy is displaced by politics.] The latest thing in this new tolerance is considered the true thing, as if truth were a fashion, like a hat, instead of an institution like a head.

The final argument for modern broad-mindedness is that truth is novelty and hence “truth” changes with the passing fancies of the moment. [As I was saying…] Like the chameleon that changes his colors to suit the vesture on which he is placed, so truth is supposed to change to fit the foibles and obliquities of the age. The nature of certain things is fixed, and none more so than the nature of truth. Truth may be contradicted a thousand times, but that only proves that it is strong enough to survive a thousand assaults. But for any one to say, “Some say this, some say that, therefore, there is no truth,” is about as logical as it would have been for Columbus who heard some say, “The earth is round”, and others say “The earth is flat” to conclude: “Therefore, there is no earth.” Like a carpenter who might throw away his rule and use each beam as a measuring rod, so, too, those who have thrown away the standard of objective truth have nothing left with which to measure but the mental fashion of the moment.

The giggling giddiness of novelty, the sentimental restlessness of a mind unhinged, and the unnatural fear of a good dose of hard thinking, all conjoin to produce a group of sophomoric latitudinarians[Wow!] who think there is no difference between God as Cause and God as a “mental projection”; who equate Christ and Buddha, and then enlarge their broad-mindedness into a sweeping synthesis that says not only that one Christian sect is as good as another, but even that one world-religion is just as good as another. The great god “Progress” is then enthroned on the altars of fashion, and as the hectic worshippers are asked, “Progress toward what?” the tolerant comes back with “More progress.” All the while sane men are wondering how there can be progress without direction and how there can be direction without a fixed point. And because they speak of a “fixed point”, they are said to be behind the times, when really they are beyond the times mentally and spiritually.

In the face of this false broadmindedness, what the world needs is intolerance. The world seems to have lost entirely the faculty of distinguishing between good and bad, the right and the wrong. There are some minds that believe that intolerance is always wrong, because they make “intolerance” mean hate, narrow-mindedness, and bigotry. These same minds believe that tolerance is always right because, for them, it means charity, broadmindedness, and American good nature. [Remember, that was 1931 and this applies beyond America.]

[NB] What is tolerance? [What is “real” tolerance.] Tolerance is an attitude of reasoned patience toward evil and a forbearance that restrains us from showing anger or inflicting punishment. But what is more important than the definition is the field of its application. The important point here is this: Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons. Tolerance applies to the erring; intolerance to the error.  [Get that?  Do you hear an “Amen!”?]

America is suffering not so much from intolerance, which is bigotry, as it is from tolerance, which is indifference to truth and error, and a philosophical nonchalance that has been interpreted as broad-mindedness. Greater tolerance, of course, is desirable, for there can never be too much charity shown to persons who differ with us. [Or to persons who have gotten themselves in to serious problems in life, with the marriages and moral lives and rapport with the Church and sacraments.] Our Blessed Lord Himself asked that we “love those who calumniate us, for they are always persons,” but He never told us to love the calumny.

In keeping with the Spirit of Christ, the Church encourages prayers for all those who are outside the pale of the Church and asks that the greatest charity be shown towards them. Charity, then, must be shown to persons and particularly those outside the fold, who by charity must be led back, that there may be one fold and one Shepherd. Shall God, Who refuses to look with an equally tolerant eye on all religions, be denied the name of “Wisdom” and be called an “Intolerant” God?  [Let’s talk about fallen away Catholics and people in “irregular” situations.]

The Church is identified with Christ in both time and principle; She began thinking on His first principles and the harder She thought, the more dogmas She developed. [Beautifully put.] She never forgot those dogmas; [… sigh…] She remembered them and Her memory is Tradition. The dogmas of the Church are like bricks, solid things with which a man can build, not like straw, which is “religious experience” [That, friends, is the Kasperite approach.] fit only for burning. The Church has been and will always be intolerant so far as the rights of God are concerned, for heresy, error, and untruth affect not personal matters on which She may yield, but a Divine Right in which there is no yielding. The truth is divine; the heretic is human. [NOTA BENE…]Due reparation made, the Church will admit the heretic back into the treasury of Her souls, but never the heresy into the treasure of Her Wisdom. Right is right even if nobody is right; and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong.

The attitude of the Church in relation to the modern world on this important question may be brought home by the story of the two women in the courtroom of Solomon. Both of them claimed a child. The lawful mother insisted on having the whole child or nothing, for a child is like truth—it cannot be divided without ruin. The unlawful mother, on the contrary, agreed to compromise. She was willing to divide the babe, and the babe would have died of broad-mindedness.  [So, too, immortal souls?]

There’s a lot more, folks.  Enjoy the PODCAzT.

 

 

Posted in Classic Posts, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Our Catholic Identity, PODCAzT, The Drill | Tagged , , , ,
10 Comments

More Musings on #AmorisLaetitiae and a ‘Statement” from great #confccb priests

Posted on 9 April 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Now that the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation (P-SAE) Amoris Laetitia is settling in, I have few more observations.

First, “left” and “right” have reacted predictably.   We are challenged by the P-SAE in different ways.   The P-SAE doesn’t change Catholic doctrine, though some will claim that it does.  If the RIGHT, conservatives and traditionalists are now challenged to an even more compassionate approach to all who need pastoral care (I’m not saying thereby that they aren’t already compassionate – that’s just a canard), the LEFT, liberals, are now challenged by Pope Francis actually to embrace Catholic teaching and conform their pastoral approaches to it (and I am saying that they often don’t – and that’s just a fact).  Among other things, Amoris Laetitia is at least a call to liberals to fidelity to the Church’s teachings and to abandon dissent!  On this point Amoris Laetitia could cause some division in the catholic Left.  Some are more honest than others, after all. Those pastors of souls who aren’t, who dissent from clear Catholic doctrine both in the pulpit and in pastoral practice after this Exhortation will probably wind up in the deep cinders of Hell.  There.  I said it.

Second, the P-SAE Amoris Laetitia doesn’t change doctrine.  I don’t think, pace Jesuits, it develops doctrine either.  However, despite the fact that it doesn’t change Catholic teaching, most people – including the divorced and civilly remarried – reading garbage MSM will see headlines like “Pope Francis, Urging Less Judgment, Signals Path for Divorced on Communion” and “Pope to church: Be more accepting of divorced Catholics, gays and lesbians” and then perhaps hear loopy rubbish on Sunday (if they still go to Mass more than four times a year).  They will be left with the conclusion that the Church has changed its teaching on homosexuality and will think that it is okay to go to Communion.  There isn’t much that we can do about that.  What to do? We have to be clear in our own little spheres of influence about what Amoris Laetitia says and doesn’t say.

Third, I am contemplating the nature of the P-SAE itself.  I wrestled with this after Evangelii gaudium.  It is not an Encyclical Letter, which is a pretty weighty type of papal teaching instrument about faith and morals.   It is not an Apostolic Letter, which, either Motu Proprio or not, can either be doctrinal in nature or juridical.  It is not just an Apostolic Exhortation out of the blue, but rather it is a Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation.  As such, it is closely attached to the acta of the Synods that took place on the announced topic, the family.  An exhortatio is “an encouragement”.  If it is true to its nature as a P-SAE, then Amoris Laetitia “exhorts” more than anything.  I now consider myself duly “exhorted”… “encouraged”.  Pope Francis is pushing, exhorting, encouraging me to go in a particular direction.  When Popes exhort, we listen.  We Catholics must give assent to the Ordinary Magisterium. There are, however, levels of teaching and levels of teaching instruments.  There levels of documents but any level of document can be the instrument of a definitive or even infallible teaching, so long as the language is clear.  That said, a P-SAE isn’t all that weighty in itself.  It’s a fairly low level document intended to “exhort” and it is closely aligned to the Synod it remarks on.  The quality of the arguments and teachings are another matter and they must be given due consideration.

Meanwhile, the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy in the UK issued a good statement about Amoris Laetitia.  I know some of the organizers of the CCC/UK  They are fine men, good priests, and friends.  My emphaes.

Statement of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy in response to the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia

The priests and deacons of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy in England and Wales affirm with the Holy Father, in his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the unchanging teaching of Christ and His Church regarding marriage, the family, and human sexuality.  They renew their pledge to continue to follow the teaching and example of Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, who acts with great clemency towards sinners, but also with pastoral clarity: ‘Go and sin no more’. (John 8:11)

Our members are heartened that the Exhortation calls for a return to the wisdom of Humanae Vitae (82), defence of the ‘inalienable rights’ of the unborn child (83), re-affirmation of the role of parents as the primary educators of their children (84), and warning of an encroaching ‘gender ideology’ (56).  In response to the Holy Father’s call, the Confraternity’s members particularly pledge themselves to work for better and more profound marriage preparation and accompaniment, and clearer, unashamed and more positive articulation of the good news of the joy of human love.

At a time when moral relativism has caused such confusion, the Confraternity recognises the need to work with pastoral sensitivity, guided by the consistent principles of Scripture and Tradition, and will help its members to discern wisely how to help individuals hurt by the crisis in marriage and family life of which the Holy Father speaks.  Those in irregular unions are a particular focus of pastoral concern, and need to be brought closer to Christ and his Church.  Confraternity clergy will continue to encourage those in problematic marital circumstances to move forward, by personal discernment in the light of the Gospel, and to deepen their involvement in the life of the Church, without losing sight of the fact that certain situations constitute objective and public states of sin.  The Church’s pastors must never neglect the call to repentance, and the need to avoid scandal which would cause the weak to fall, while accompanying their people with kindness and understanding.

 Combox moderation is ON.

Posted in Mail from priests, Priests and Priesthood, The Drill | Tagged , , ,
24 Comments

#AmorisLaetitia Twitter Bingo! Get your card HERE!

Posted on 8 April 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Gosh!  I get an honorable mention!

I am reminded of the hymn written many years ago by the official blog’s Parodohymnodist whose work we have enjoyed and Zuhlio has recorded.  You will recall such hits as “O Come O Come Liturgical Blue”.

Here is just the first verse.

To the tune “The Church’s one foundation”.

The Church’s one foundation is B-I-N-G-O.
It is the one salvation from all the debt we owe.
And when foreclosure threatens we’ll play it every night,
for BINGO pays the mortgage but also heat and light!

I hope I remembered that correctly.

From BadgerCatholic:

 

 

Posted in Lighter fare, Parody Songs | Tagged , , ,
11 Comments

Gathering the MSM’s headlines about #AmorisLaetitia

Posted on 8 April 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

So… there is the Letter itself and there is the MSM (“main stream media” for those of you in Columbia Heights) spin, especially through headlines.

Headlines are often composed not by the writers of the articles, but by backroom editors who often a) don’t have clue about the subject matter and b) have an axe to grind.

So, let’s gather headlines… just headlines and links… of the first articles about Amoris laetitia.

Some samples:

CNN:

Pope to church: Be more accepting of divorced Catholics, gays and lesbians

Right. That really gets to the heart of it.

WaPo:

Pope Francis offers hope to divorced Catholics, says no to gay marriage

NYT:

Pope Francis, Urging Less Judgment, Signals Path for Divorced on Communion

Reuters:

Pope calls for compassionate Church open to ‘imperfect’ Catholics

AP:

Pope insists conscience, not rules, must lead faithful

THAT was predictable.

PennLive:

‘No one must feel condemned,’ says pope while affirming church doctrine

National Catholic Register:

Pope’s Family Document ‘Amoris Laetitia’ Tackles Complex Pastoral Challenges

Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter):

Francis’ exhortation a radical shift to see grace in imperfection, without fearing moral confusion

‘Amoris Laetitia’: Francis challenges the church

Jesuit-run Amerika:

Pope Francis’ Exhortation on the Family an ‘Organic Development of Doctrine’

In their dreams!

Catholic Herald (UK):

Papal exhortation avoids clear statement on Communion

The Bitter Pill (aka The Tablet, aka RU-486):

AMORIS LAETITIA OPENS THE WAY TO HOLY COMMUNION FOR DIVORCED AND REMARRIEDS

Again, predictable.

Posted in Biased Media Coverage | Tagged ,
26 Comments

More analysis: “There will be those who will try and contort #AmorisLaetitia into the Kaspser proposal”

Posted on 8 April 2016 by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

The newly released Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia in English is HERE.

From the UK’s best Catholic weekly, The Catholic Herald, some analysis of Amoris laetitia. My emphases and comments.

Francis has left Church teaching on Communion for the divorced and remarried absolutely intact [Yes… but is that enough?]

Amoris Laetitia offers a compressive and eloquent, to the point of being lyrical at times, defence of the Catholic vision of marriage, Humanae Vitae and all.

While doctrinally packed, the pastoral concern of the document is no less intense. [“intense”…] At times, the tone is so personal as to read like a letter from one individual to another, [vintage Francis] and the concern of the Pope for married couples and families is palpable and most especially for young people being denied a formation in the true Christian understanding of marriage.  [There’s a key point.  Are people being formed in the Faith?  If people are to exercise their consciences, are they doing so according to the mind of the Church (and not by prevailing worldly mores or a fantasy, deluded “mind” of the Church?]

But, as good as it is, the real expectation surrounding this exhortation was not[not] about what it would say about married couples but rather divorced and remarried couples, discussion of whom dominated the media coverage of both sessions of the Synod on the Family.  [And other “irregular” couples, mind you.]

What we all wanted to know, really, was where the Pope would come down on the so-called Kasper proposal of allowing those in second, sacramentally invalid, marriages [adulterers] to receive Communion, even though their second unions are technically adulterous. [technically and in fact adulterous]

It was suggested that a “penitential path” could be found, whereby couples in this situation would, through personal reflection and internal forum conversations with their priest, progress towards the reception of Communion. [The Tolerate But Not Accepted Kasperian Approach.]

In fact, Amoris Laetitia shamelessly adopts the Kasper methodology of intimate and intense pastoral guidance but[BUT] the goal is no longer their eventual reception of Communion, but instead a deeper and more mature understanding by the couple of their situation in the light of the Church’s teaching.  [Yes… this is sort of fair.  However, then human nature kicks in and liberals toss out the teaching part in favor of a mercy emptied of content.]

In the eighth chapter, [sigh] entitled Accompanying, Discerning, and Integrating Weakness, Pope Francis revisits the important distinction between the “law of gradualness” and “gradualness of the law” and, like St John Paul II before him, makes clear that while individual circumstances, understanding, and intentions can mitigate the culpability of a person, it cannot detract from the objective seriousness of a situation of sin, still less render it good.

The key to Amoris Laetitia’s treatment of the divorced and civilly remarried is the recognition that every marriage, and certainly every broken marriage, is unique. In line with his own image of the Church as a hospital, the intimate process of pastoral discernment outlined by the document represents a profound period of diagnosis, where the individual’s reality, and pastoral needs, can become clear.  [Diagnosis is a first step.  And we all acknowledge that the one seeking the proper diagnosis not be a cold-hearted, clinical machine.]

The first goal of this period of pastoral discernment is, according to Pope Francis, to provide a solid mechanism for welcoming those in irregular situations into the Church; a welcome that needs to be as individual as the person and their situation and which reflects that, whatever their circumstances, the parish is the proper home of every Christian.  [So far so good!  Who will object to that?  And I’ll be most parishes are that way.  Can they perhaps improve?  Probably.  But I don’t know of places where parishes and priests are as insensitive as this Letter perhaps (or some people behind the Letter) assume.]

Pope Francis repeats, again and again, that couples in irregular unions are not excommunicated, they are not, in the language of the old code of canon law, the vitandi – those to be shunned. On the contrary, their presence and participation in the life of the parish is essential, how else are they to be helped?

The second purpose of the period of pastoral discernment is to allow for the person to be met exactly where they are and genuinely accompanied along a period of discernment, formation of conscience, and growth in the faith.  [I am reminded of a priest friends references to young people and “psycho-geography”.  “I just want you to know that I’m there for you!”, they assure.  “I know where you’re coming from!”, they reassure.  “Are you in a bad place today?”, they sympathize.  That said… okay… we’ll meet them where they are and then go with them where they are going!]

Where Amoris Laetitia parts company with the Kasper proposal is the stated goal of this process. Kasper and his supporters were clear that the goal is always full sacramental participation in the life of the Church, most especially through Communion.  [The disaster scenario if there isn’t not true conversion and amendment of life.  Alas, I think that the soon-to-be infamous Footnote 351 is going to be taken by some as carte blanche to pass over that amendment step into an affirmation of “where they are” and “being there for them” before they go all the way to “the end” of the penitential process of discernment.]

Pope Francis is clear that the goal of this pastoral accompaniment is as individual as the person’s situation – and he does state that, in some cases, this can include access to the sacraments. [The infamous Footnote 351.  But NB!…] This will be held out by many as Kasper’s vindication, but, in fact, it couldn’t be further from the case.

When Francis refers to the sacraments his is referring, and this is explicit in the text, first of all to Confession, [CONFESSION!] which is our primary means of encountering the mercy of God. It is within this context that he insists that pastors consider the full complexity of a person’s situation and never think that “it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives.”

The period of pastoral accompaniment and discernment described in Amoris Laetitia is, effectively, an extended guided examination of conscience leading to Confession.  [The writer is right.  And the Letter is great on this point.  So… what could go wrong?  Right?   We all remember what quite a few bishops and lots of priests did after Humanae vitae.  They basically told people that they could – in good conscience – do whatever they wanted to do about contraception.  “But Father! But Father!”, some of you wide-eyed progressives are bleating, “That can’t happen now!  This is Pope Francis we’re talking about!  He’s the first Pope who ever kissed a baby or smiled! He’s … ummm… leading us out of the darkness of rigid doctrine into the ineffable light of freedom and joy!  Priests won’t tell homosexual couples or the divorced and remarried or the cohabitating they can do anything they want because they are going to be faithful to the the Church’s… ummm… you see, they’ll be… like, it’ll be Communion and… but… they won’t… ahhhh…. YOU HATE VATICAN II!”]

It is in the light of this period of discernment that the person or couple can find their place in the life of the parish of which Francis says “necessarily requires discerning which of the various forms of exclusion currently practised in the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional framework, can be surmounted.”  [At some point during the period of the two Synods that led to this, I recall mentioning that the Germans were determined that they couldn’t come home empty-handed.  They have their Church Tax to think about, after all, and keeping people in the rolls!  So, it seemed to me at the time that if they couldn’t get admission to Communion outright for the divorced and remarried and other “irregulars”, then perhaps they could get law changed to open up things such as being lectors at Mass, or Ministers of Communion (though they couldn’t receive – and how long would that last until people thought it was absurd and just did it anyway) or membership on the boards and committees of Church entities.  Is that what that is all about?  QUAERITUR.]

And for some this will mean being able to take Communion. But, crucially, when discussing these situations and the huge scope for different circumstances, the Pope refers to two documents in particular, St. John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio, and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts’ Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who are Divorced and Remarried.

These documents both articulate the significance which individual circumstances can have, but also make it clear that only couples in irregular marriages who live a life of marital abstinence can receive Communion, and this is left absolutely intact by Francis.  [As I keep saying, theologically this is okay.  I am wondering about the application down the line.]

Without question, there will be those who will try and contort Amoris Laetitia into the Kaspser proposal, [into the full monty Kasper Proposal, mind you] but they will do so against the obvious and clear intentions of Pope Francis. [The people who would do such a thing have not been overly obedient to Popes and Canon Law and the Magisterium in the past.  What make you think that they will be now?] In fact, what the Pope has produced is something much more personal, pastoral, coherent, and enduring. If it can be successfully brought, in its fullness, into parish life, its potential is enormous.  [As I said in a previous post.]

Good analysis and food for thought.

But I repeat…

The people who would twist Francis’ Letter in such as way as to bring their own practices into a full-monty Kasperite scenario, are not the sort of people who in the past have been firmly obedient to Popes, Canon Law and the Magisterium.  What make you think that they will be now suddenly be obedient to the full-picture in Francis’ Letter rather than pick and choose the bits they like?

More later.

And, yes, the moderation queue is ON.  

NB: If I have the sense that you are simply reacting without have read and thought a bit, I won’t let your comment through.  Also, I won’t let through mere Francis bashing.  Take it elsewhere.  I’m sure there are places where you can do that.

I may release comments slowly so this doesn’t produce more heat than light.

Posted in "But Father! But Father!", Francis, GO TO CONFESSION, Hard-Identity Catholicism, Liberals, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices | Tagged , , , , ,
30 Comments