Sandro Magister, "In Japan As on the Banks of the Rhine. The Church's Surrender" (www.chiesa, June 6, 2014): "The responses of the Japanese and central Europeans to the questionnaire for the synod on the family register the yielding of Catholics to the dominant “uniform thought.” But also the pastors' inability to lead."
[Hat tip to JM]
2 comments:
Humanae Vitae was introduced at its press conference as non infallible by Msgr. Lambrushini, a moral theologian from a Rome university. Pope Paul VI did not correct him in any sense. He could have went to the press himself in a second conference and elaborated that the issue is settled infallibly in the universal ordinary magisterium if he agreed with Germain Grisez and Fr. Ford in that idea. He did not do so. Subsequently Fr. Karl Rahner and Fr. Bernard Haring, both periti at Vatican II and of higher stature than Grisez...implied that it was not uom and Rahner edited the En chiridion Symbolorum for years.
Did St. John Paul II correct this situation by taking the months out of his schedule to clarify the issue by writing an ex cathedra encyclical on it? No. He did a series of lectures which venue he knew was subordinate even to the Humanae Vitae venue. And we're blaming the Japanese for the trumpet giving forth an uncertain blast? In Evangelium Vitae in 1995, John Paul moved three moral issues to the clarity of the extraordinary magisterium by polling the world's bishops by mail etc.....abortion, euthanasia, and killing the innocent...and then he did nothing to communicate that new status to anyone.
did he poll the same Bishops on birth control which is also mentioned in EV? I'm sure he did but did not get unanimity worldwide. Cardinal Turkson of Africa e.g. believes married couples where one has HIV should use condoms probably because the Josephite marriage is ruled out for some by I Cor. 7:5 as Fr. Bernard Haring pointed out long ago. It is applicable only for those later in I Cor. 7 who can take or leave marriage unlike those who are told to marry to avoid fornication in the early verses.
It is apparent non of the modern popes believe themselves to have the charism of infallibility, since not a one of them has taken it upon themselves to issue any ex cathedra decree in times where several doctrines are longstandingly and shrilly dissented from. Any one them could easily settle these issues -- women's ordination, birth control, etc -- with a clear decree. And yet the opt to allow dissent to grow. I simply do not get it, and have to assume either they remain unconvinced themselves of the certainty of these teachings, or simply do not themselves feel convinced of their power to issue ex cathedra statements. The idea the teachings are a;ready settled and require no decree is rather absurd given the depth of dissent. Rhetorically speaking, what good is an infallible magisterium if it is never exercised infallibly to clear up matters of intense debate? And if we have "obsessed" over these issues, than why is there such widespread confusion over their necessity? From Vatican II forward, Rome switched decisively from expressions of brevity and clarity to expressions of ambiguity. I don't think this piece :blames" the Japanese as much as it marshals them as an example of the blight.
Post a Comment