back when the Irish monks copied everything they could get their hands on as they fanned out across Europe with the Gospel ... to (2) the loss of Catholic civilization in 40 years. Get the background here.
back when the Irish monks copied everything they could get their hands on as they fanned out across Europe with the Gospel ... to (2) the loss of Catholic civilization in 40 years. Get the background here.
13 comments:
"Irish Stew" is an interesting video but he treats his subject far too simplistically. He's wrong to scapegoat Fr Ledwith. The problems at Maynooth go back to the 60s and were exposed by Mgr Patrick Francis Cremin (a peritus to Abp. McQuaid at Vatican II) in a series of articles in the Irish Independent in the late 70s.
http://markshea.blogspot.com/2011/06/oh-that-naughty-kevin-obrien.html
Vortex cuts no ice with those charming young Dubliners, and many of them are more honest and spiritual than he is.
If Popes saw their main job as administration every single day rather than as authors and hosts of world figures and as blessers of visitors etc., they would know of odd hierarchical figures and eliminate them. The sentences or decrees of Popes cannot be appealed. But....Catholic media will never hold Popes responsible for anything in the real world like such Cardinals or seminary leaders or erring hospitals or lavender graduations etc etc etc. As long as we define Popes as per se....responsible for nothing thanks to subsidiarity, we will have chaos. Catholic media beginning with the Wanderer decades ago is always reporting the chaos and always blaming it on everything but our dysfunctional concept of Pope as part time ruler when he suddenly wants to be.....and thus he suddenly replaces Jesuit leadership once in decades....or removes the head of a magazine like America once in decades.
Since we won't blame part time headship and the Pope, we blame odd things like priests not facing East, a gay seminary head as though that explains millions dropping off from Mass, wacky Cardinals whom John Paul likely appointed ( but we never fault his non vetting).
Headship is never mentioned of fathers anymore nor is the key headship of the Pope mentioned anymore....he is an author who noted in his interview book how little power the Pope has. Well yes....if you can only fire people if they
are downright notorious like Macial Maciel Delgollado and are bisexual and a vow breaker but the Cardinal who protected him and Groer is still the president of the college of Cardinals.
Simple. We need a Pope who can fire people each month for years because he has what the Stoics called....severitas....like Elijah when he cut 450 throats.
And Elijah.....not Francis of Assissi....was picked by God to return just before the Second Coming. In fact each leader of the People of God....Moses and Peter....were ex violent men as was Elijah....because their violence in each case contained a protective quality in the incidents involved.
In short the rage for the pastoral soft touch is giving us very part time severitas in the positon which alone can speedily get rid of wacky pivotal people.
Some of you guys seem to expect a 5-8 minute video to do what an hour-long interview would, if not a book-length treatment. You seriously think Voris believes the Irish problems started only 40 years ago? While it may be true that the last 40 years have seen the massive shift in public perception of things religious, Voris also has hour-long investigations into the beginnings of problems well before Vatican II that surfaced only later.
And, say what??? "... those charming young Dubliners ... many of them more honest and spiritual than [Voris] is"? Did Voris claim to be more honest or spiritual than those he interviewed? I didn't hear that. I should think he accepted every statement offered in his interviews as perfectly sincerely intended and honest, however stupid and ignorant it may have been.
More spiritual? I missed that one too. Doesn't the matter simply turn on the published facts of the matter? For example, Voris asked one guy: "Aren't you aware that it's a mortal sin to knowingly skip Sunday Mass?" and the guy replied: "Not anymore."
Well, the guy either has his facts right or wrong. It's an objective matter. You can examine what the Church teaches. It is most definitely NOT a matter that turns on sincerity or perceived "spirituality."
If you want to be a New Ager, be a New Ager. But don't call yourself a Catholic. If you want to be an honest, sincerely, virtuous, spiritual person, go ahead. I will salute you. But don't go and say that THIS is what defines Catholic faith and morals.
I wonder if Voris believes it is really a mortal sin to miss sunday mass. As far as I know, most catholics no longer think so, and the church does not say so any more. It's about 50 years out of date. So what is Voris doing trying to make the people of Dublin feel guilty?
Anonymous,
While there is no doubt in my mind that Voris believes it is a mortal sin to miss Mass on Sunday, it is not relevant to the question whether he or most Catholics (or anyone) believes it. It is not even ultimately a question of whether priests are teaching this to their congregations, although neglecting to do is a culpable sin on their part.
What matters, simply, is whether it is true.
First, it is one of the five Precepts of the Church.
Second, it remains unchanged Church teaching. Even the pedestrian website, About.com seems aware of this, which raises the question why you seem not to.
As the chaplain of the Newman Center at GWU says, "If it involves full knowledge and full consent, then it is a mortal sin."
The problem is not that the true facts are unavailable to those genuinely interested in finding them. The problem is that the true facts are found inconvenient by those who would rather feather their beds with bits of fluff while they turn a blind eye to their coming judgment.
Back in the day, we were told by our priests that missing Mass through our own fault was a mortal sin, period. It was then up to the conscience of the individual, for better or worse. Most of the people I knew then made the effort, and missed Mass rarely.
Nowadays, we have priests (not all to be sure, but many) telling us that it is ok to miss Mass if there are snow flurries on the ground (and so people do not attend from November through April). They say it is ok to miss Mass if you have a cold or a sore throat, for we all have the grave responsibility not to spread germs. They say it is ok to miss Mass if you are bothered by the heat and the church has no air conditioning.
Do you see the difference?
Instead of allowing one's conscience to function as God intended, as an engine powered by actual grace, today's priests too often act as sugar in the gas tank (so to stretch the metaphor).
I have a 91 year old diabetic mother who often feels under the weather. But on the Sundays when she feels capable of doing it, she grabs the four-prong cane and books, and no bs about it. That was the attitude before the council that sought to replace excessive spirituality in its priests with greater worldly activity, and excessive prayerfulness in its priests with . . . . well, greater worldly activity.
Custom is the interpreter of law in Catholic thinking. The precepts of the Church are not principles of moral law that are not subject to custom, but are practical disciplines. Very many of these lose binding force or acquire less binding force in the process of time, without this being formally declared by the Church. In the absence of renewed formal declarations of the Church authorities that to miss Mass on Sunday without grave reason is mortally sinful, the faithful are entitled to take it that the obligation has become less grave.
The Catechism lists five precepts of the Church (there used to be six). It significantly refrains from suggesting that these are binding under pain of mortal sin. This is the kind of authoritative support that Voris's interlocutors are aware of and that Voris is not.
Canon 1348 of the Canon Law says that a "grave cause" is needed to excuse one from the Sunday or Holy Day obligation. It gives as an example the "lack of a sacred minister." This clearly implies that it is a grave sin to miss Mass.
I agree with Ralph that there has been a distinctive shift towards laxity on the part of the Church's enforcement of such matters. This is nothing new, but affects everything from diocesan annulments to preaching about sin.
But let's not cavil over the lack of the word 'mortal' here. It remains Church teaching that the faithful are bound to assist at Mass under penalty of grave disobedience.
As a sociological description of the last four decades, there has been too much of the tail wagging the dog. But this is not normative Church teaching or discipline. Get real.
I don't think Canon Law talks about moral sin. If Voris said, you have a serious obligation under Canon Law to go to Mass every Sunday he would be on safer ground.
"The Catechism lists five precepts of the Church (there used to be six). It significantly refrains from suggesting that these are binding under pain of mortal sin. This is the kind of authoritative support that Voris's interlocutors are aware of and that Voris is not."
Voris's interlocutors are aware of no such thing - that is the point. They are wholely ignorant and are doing what is convenient or "feels right" through no fault of their own. A beautifully reverent Mass is practically irresistable; I'm guessing most of those people have simply never experienced one.
Mary2
Attendance at Sunday Mass cannot be written off as a mere “precept”, since it derives from the moral obligations of the Ten Commandments. As such, “custom” cannot be taken as the ”by default” arbiter. If that were the case, one might more honestly write that, in such instances, “acedia is the interpreter of law in Catholic thinking.”
Post a Comment