Sammons and Lawler: why we pretend nothing went wrong after Vatican II

Three articles were published recently revisiting the confusion following Vatican II and suggesting how to make sense of it:

• Martin Mosebach, "Pope Benedict's Red Thread," First Things (August 10, 2017)
• Eric Sammons, "Evangelization, Vatican II, and Censorship," Crisis (August 15, 2017)
• Phil Lawler, "Let's stop pretending: something DID go wrong after Vatican II," CatholicCulture.org (August 23, 2017)

The last article by Lawler draws the three together by summarizing points made by Mosebach and Sammons. Mosebach's and Sammons' articles, however, should not be neglected, because they make excellent points in their own right that do not make it into Lawler's summary -- particularly some of the details about "soft censorship" of bad news by the Church and Catholic media, and their promotion, almost exclusively, of good news (the "Everything is Awesome" view). A good example of the latter is George Weigel's recent article, "Motown and the Turbocharged Church," First Things (August 16, 2017), which speaks to the positive aspirations of key Church leaders in Detroit, but ignores the long-entrenched aberrations of others.

Sammons identifies three reasons why inconvenient truths are often suppressed by Catholic media. Bad theology ("Many believe that since Ecumenical Councils are guided by the Holy Spirit, nothing erroneous or even harmful can come from them"); institutional bias ("The Church and its supporting institutions have heavily invested themselves on the idea that Vatican II was beneficial to the Church"); and financial support ("If an orthodox organization questioned Vatican II, its speaking engagements and invitations from parishes and dioceses would disappear"). It is safe to assume that George Weigel's speaking engagements and invitations will not disappear any time soon.

But Lawler offers the most convenient summary. He writes:

Something went wrong—seriously wrong—in the Catholic Church in the years after Vatican II. Can we all agree on that much? Leave aside, for now, the familiar debate about the causes of the problem; let’s begin with the agreement that there is, or at least certainly was, a problem.

Eric Sammons makes the point in a provocative essay that appeared in Crisis last week:

If an entirely objective social scientist were to study the Catholic Church in the second half of the twentieth century, he would see one fact staring him straight in the face: the Church experienced a precipitous decline in the Western world during that time.

The problem (whatever it is) is compounded, Sammons remarks, by a general refusal to acknowledge the reality of our post-conciliar difficulties: what he terms a “soft censorship” of unpleasant news. Bishops and pastors, diocesan newspapers and parish bulletins have bombarded us for years with reports that the Church is “vibrant,” that programs are booming, that the liturgy is beautiful, that religious education is robust. Never is heard a discouraging word. Yet we know better. We know about the shortage of priests; we see the news of parish closing; we notice the empty pews on Sundays. Something is wrong; we know that.

Sammons argues persuasively that this “soft censorship,” this see-no-evil approach, is now an impediment to evangelization [my emphasis], because it thwarts serious discussions about the current state of the Church. Evangelization means bringing people to the truth, he reasons, and that process “cannot thrive in a censored environment.” ...

... Did the problems that arose after Vatican II come solely because the Council’s teachings were ignored, or improperly applied? Or were there difficulties with the documents themselves? Were there enough ambiguities in the Council’s teaching to create confusion? If so, were the ambiguities intentional—the result of compromises by the Council fathers?

Suggesting that there could be difficulties with some Vatican II documents does not mean denying the authority of the Council’s teaching. No document drafted by human hands will ever be perfect. There may be a need for clarification, elucidation, explanation, even correction.

More to the point, while it is certainly true that the “spirit of Vatican II” that is often cited in support of radical changes cannot be reconciled with the actual teachings of the Council, it is also true that the proponents of change can cite specific passages from Council documents in support of their plans. So are those passages being misinterpreted. Are they taken out of context? Or are there troublesome elements of the Council’s teaching, with which we should now grapple honestly? One thing is certain: we will not solve the problem by pretending that it does not exist.

Related: John T. Elson, "The Catholic Church Battles Its Old Guard," LIFE Magazine (October 18, 1963), pp. 114ff.

[Hat tip to E.P. and J.M.]

Catholic Doomsday clock set to "Magisterial"

[Disclaimer: see Rules ##7-9]

Eccles (!!), "Catholic Doomsday clock set to 'Magisterial'" (Eccles is saved, August 25, 2017):

The Catholic Doomsday clock was initiated in 2013, as a way of warning against the inevitable meltdown that would follow should Pope Francis attempt to say anything "infallibly".

Whereas previous popes have refused to "go nuclear" since infallibility was defined in the 19th century [well, that's not quite true: Pius XII's Munificentissimus Deus was declared infallibly in 1950], there has been an increasing risk that Pope Francis would say something mindlessly stupid ex cathedra.

Provocative article. But there's also a cryptic banner at the top that reads: "This is the spiritual journey of me, Eccles, my big brother Bosco, and my Grate-Anti Moly. Eccles is saved, not sure about Bosco, and we've got real problems with Anti." What does it mean? I'm not sure. "Eccles" could refer to the Church (from the Greek: 'Ecclesia'). Not sure though. Any thoughts?

'Eccles' continues:

Is the Vatican about to go nuclear?

The Pope has so far used a variety of weapons in an attempt to impose a new version of Catholicism: probably the least aggressive are tweets (produced by a teenage intern), which are indistinguishable from the platitudes of the Dalai Lama; more striking are his "air attacks" consisting of new off-the-cuff doctrines expressed on aeroplane journeys, and usually "explained" and "interpreted" afterwards; he is also a dab hand at deploying sockpuppets (Spadaro, Ivereigh, Faggioli, Marx, Daneels, oh there's too many to name...) to say the unthinkable, usually with a healthy dose of abuse thrown in.

Then we come to Amoris Laetitia, ghost-written, not based on anything agreed at the synods it followed, not even properly read by the Pope. A ticking bombshell, which brave bomb-disposers have attempted to defuse with DUBIA^TM technology. Still it continues to tick, tick, tick...

We may ignore Laudato Si', an attempt at building a "green" bomb which would destroy minds but not doctrine. Well, everyone else does.

Now, however, the threat level has reached "Magisterial". All the changes due to Vatican II, even the ones which are nothing at all to do with Vatican II, have been declared "irreversible".

Like his Popemobile, Pope Francis has no brakes, and no reverse gear.

Yes, the Spirit of Vatican II has won, and the threat level is now Magisterial. Pope Francis can repeal decisions made by his predecessors, such as Benedict XVI, John-Paul II, Pius X, Pius V, Peter, ... and even Jesus. BUT NOBODY ELSE HAS THE NUCLEAR CODES.

"Excuse me," writes Eccles, "while I head for my bunker."

[Hat tip to J.M.]

Fr. Hunwicke on why Pope Francis is not a heretic

Some interesting reasoning here. [Advisory: Rules ##7-9]

Essentially, Fr. John Hunwicke seems to be suggesting that, whatever the material content of the Holy Father's locutions, they lack sufficient theological sobriety and propositional restraint to rise to the level of formal heresy. Here's the first of four posts he has on the topic: "Is the Pope a heretic? (1)" (Fr. Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment, May 18, 2017):

To this question there can only be one answer: NO. And NO means, as Mrs Brexiteer May might put it, NO. Pope Bergoglio has NEVER, to my knowledge, formally enunciated doctrines which are unambiguously heretical. The claim one sometimes hears, to the effect that he has formally, as if from his chair, made doctrinal assertions which the Church has formally defined as heretical, is NONSENSE. When such assertions tip over further, into the idea that he has ceased to be pope because of his alleged errors, the mistake is even more grievously EVIL because it runs the risk of detaching souls for whom Christ died from the Ark of Salvation, from the One Fold of the Redeemer.

One easy reason for being confident that the Sovereign Pontiff has not formally taught heresy is the simple fact, confirmed pretty well every time he opens his mouth, that he despises theology and holds doctrine in not-even-barely-concealed contempt. To be a heretic, or, more precisely, to be a formal heretic, it is in practical terms necessary to operate within the respectable constraints of propositional discourse. The fact that Bergoglio does not do this is proved by the fact, written large over this whole pontificate, that nobody ever quite seems to be sure what he means. The DUBIA which the four Cardinals put forward provide a good example of this. Four men of erudition (not to mention seniority) thought they needed to ask the Bishop of Rome what he meant. His tardiness, so far, in exercising the Petrine Ministry of Confirming his Brethren demonstrates his resolute determination not to be tied down by propositions. I do not believe that it is possible to convict such a man, operating such a policy, of being a formal heretic. Those who wish to do this are walking up quite the wrong garden path. And I will argue that they are guilty of a genre-error.

Further parts will follow. No comments will be enabled until they are all finished.

Here are the subsequent posts: Part 2; Part 3; Part 4. In Part 4 he concludes: "Is this a dangerous pontificate? Not nearly as much as panicky people fearfully imagine. Come off it! And cheer up! The ease with which Pope Francis and his associated ideologues, while studiously "not changing doctrine", in fact over-ride and ignore the Magisterium of his predecessors, will make it pitifully easy for his successors to dump his 'teaching' with only the most perfunctory of formalities, and then to restore the simple lucidities of the Tradition handed down through the Apostles, the Deposit of Faith.... Just hold tight whenever the roller-coaster seems to be going dangerously fast, and remember that her Immaculate Heart will prevail. This is Fatima Year!"

[Hat tip to L.S.]

Sandro Magister: "After Four Cardinals, Six Laymen Speak. Who Knows If the Pope May At Least Listen To Them"

Sandro Magister, "After Four Cardinals, Six Laymen Speak. Who Knows If the Pope May At Least Listen To Them" (L'Espresso, April 22, 2017):

The four cardinals have never been alone with their “dubia.” Proof of this comes from what happened in Rome on April 22 in an auditorium of the Hotel Columbus, a short walk from Saint Peter’s Square, where six renowned lay scholars came together from as many countries of the world to give voice to an appeal that is being raised from a large part of the “people of God” so that clarity may be brought to the confusion raised by “Amoris Laetitia.”

Anna M. Silvas came from Australia, Claudio Pierantoni from Chile, Jürgen Liminski from Germany, Douglas Farrow from Canada, Jean Paul Messina from Cameroon, Thibaud Collin from France. And one after the other, over the span of one day took stock of the crisis that the document of Pope Francis has produced in the Church, one year after its publication.

Settimo Cielo offers its readers the complete texts of the six presentations, in the languages in which they were delivered. But it calls special attention to the one by Claudio Pierantoni, a scholar of patristics and professor of medieval philosophy at the Universidad de Chile, in Santiago, an abridgment of which is provided below.

Pierantoni brings up again the cases of two popes who fell into error during the first Christian centuries, the one condemned “post mortem” by an ecumenical council and the other induced to correct himself during his lifetime.

But also today - he argues - there is a pope who is “victim,” although “hardly aware of it,” of a widespread tendency to error that undermines the foundations of the Church’s faith. And he too is in need of a charitable correction that may bring splendor back to the truth.

Pierantoni is not the only one among the six to have recalled the lessons of the past, ancient and recent.

Thibaud Collin, a professor of moral philosophy and politics at the Collège Stanislas in Paris, recalled for example the opposition of numerous theologians and entire episcopates to the encyclical of Paul VI “Humanae Vitae,” which was downgraded to purely “ideal” and thereby made inoperative. And he showed how this deleterious “pastoral” logic has come back into vogue with “Amoris Laetitia,” concerning indissoluble marriage and soon also concerning homosexual amours.

Anna M. Silvas, an Australian of the Eastern rite, a scholar of the Fathers of the Church, and a professor at the University of New England, instead emphasized the danger that the Catholic Church might also go down the road already traveled centuries ago by the Protestants and Orthodox toward divorce and remarriage: just when - she surprisingly added - the Coptic Church is returning to the indissolubility of Christian marriage, without exception.

On a response from Pope Francis to the “dubia,” as also on the possibility of a “correction” from him, Anna M. Silvas expressed skepticism. She instead proposes a “Benedict option” for the current post-Christian era, inspired by the monasticism at the collapse of the ancient era, a humble and communal “dwelling” with Jesus and the Father “Jn 14:23) in the faithful expectation, made up of prayer and work, that the tempest shaking the world and the Church today may cease.

Six voices, six different interpretations. All profound and nourished by “caritas in veritate.” Who knows if Pope Francis may at least listen to them.

• Claudio Pierantoni, "La necessaria coerenza del magistero con la Tradizione. Gli esempi della storia" - translation provided under the title of "THE NECESSARY CONSISTENCY OF THE MAGISTERIUM WITH TRADITION. THE EXAMPLES OF HISTORY" [scroll down]
• Anna M. Silvas, "A Year After Amoris Laetitia: A Timely Word"
• Douglas Farrow, "The Roots of the Present Crisis"
• Thibaud Collin, "Discerner en conscience?"
• Jürgen Liminski, "'Co-créé avec l’Homme.' Pourquoi l'indissolubilité du mariage est une bonne chose pour la société"
• Jean Paul Messina, "Lecture d’Amoris Laetitia pour l’Afrique et les Églises d’Afrique"

Fr. Perrone: can Pope Francis change immutable truths?

Fr. Eduard Perrone, "A Pastor's Descant" (Assumption Grotto News, March 26, 2017):

The greatest intellectual deception is to subvert the natural gravitation of the mind towards truth to admit falsehood. There are many ways to swindle people's thinking -- and -- with their consent. Bad philosophy is replete with errors of such kind. That's the "high end" of this strange but not uncommon phenomenon. The willful succumbing to untruth is more ubiquitous in the area of morals. Many want to believe that what is not true would be true. A sinner may wish to justify himself in his own eyes, to convince himself that he acts well, that his conscience is giving him leave to commit his sins.

Pope Francis has raised quite a ruckus in the Church with his proposals that some couples in invalid marriages (or even in none at all, as cohabitors) be permitted while in such states to receive the sacraments of Confession and Holy Communion. I have refrained from writing on this because the matter is such an embarrassment. I decided however to reverse this blithe turning aside from the subject simply because the issue is, regrettably, public news, and because there is as yet no official resolution to the dilemmas it poses for the Church or for the minds and manners of of our people. So here come I, foolish and consciously incompetent, who dare to make commentary. I do so only for the care I have for what I believe to be troubled minds beset by confusion and for concern that scandal may lead you to sin.

All the years of my rational life I have believed that truth is immutable, unchangeable. As a Christian I have believed that the word of God contained in the Church's teaching authority and in the Holy Scriptures contains that truth so that it can be known and accepted by mankind. Moreover, I find therein such phrases: "thou shalt not commit adultery"; "whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery"; "what partnership have righteousness and iniquity?" "neither the immoral nor adulterers will inherit the kingdom of God"; "whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup unworthily will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." Those words (others might be brought forth as well) are to me crystal clear. When however I hear the Pope's suggestions I am put into confusion. It's not only that what is proffered there is in conflict with what I read in the scriptures and the magisterium but that the same issues from a pope. Do we Catholics not believe that, besides being infallible in matters of faith and morals when he teaches in a solemn and public manner, the pope may also be infallible in his ordinary teaching under certain conditions (such being the doctrine enunciated by Pope Pius XII)? Even more, is not every Catholic obliged to show deference to papal teaching even in non-infallible matters since he is the Church's universal teacher and guardian of the deposit of faith which Christ bequeathed to the Church through His apostles? Can the pope be in error not merely as a private individual but in his public teaching. I am conflicted. Perhaps you are as well.

Self doubt ensues. Have I been wrong all my life to believe that what was taught me as truth and what my reason readily asserts to as being truth has been wrong all along? Or, perhaps was it right in the time past but that God now, without changing truth, is accommodating Himself to these evil times -- lowering the bar, so to speak -- to allow a more generous salvation for unrepentant sinners? Further, would this new leniency, if it be admitted, not dispense from moral laws more widely, permitting transgressors full access to the Communion? I'm thinking of murderers, abortionists, torturers, sodomites, self-abusers, prostitutes and pornographers among others who could Confess without an intention of amendment, be absolved, and Communicate? Can there in fact be any limits to a newfound exemption from the moral law? Will then all be saved, without moral obligations, even against their wills?

Such are my thoughts until I'm reminded of a wily voice once heard in the garden. "Did God really say not to eat of the forbidden fruit?" No. I can't submit the judgment of conscience in what is certainly the truth to anything contrary to it no matter who may propose it. Of course, I can be in error on many things, and if I do err, either in principles or in the logic of my thought, I need to be corrected for the amendment of my life and for the salvation of my soul. Yet, if I'm right ...

Kindly understand. I do not think I'm the Pope's judge. God is. The change in pastoral practice being suggested by Pope Francis and others needs to be worked out in the great areana of theological debate by those competent by dint of their position in the Church and their erudition. It's unfortunate, in my view, that these matters were made public and not brought to resolution behind closed doors. Since the media have spared neither you nor me the anguish of airing (and erring) of them we must wait patiently for the truth to surface. In the meantime, I write to you out of care for this little flock entrusted to me to remind you of the inflexibility of God's word -- of the word of Him who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

My parting word. Love the Pope and pray for him. Even if he be in error (as once was the first pope Saint Peter when he made pretense in refusing to take meals with Gentiles) Pope Francis is yet the holy father, the lawfully elected head of the Church. He intends good, not evil. We owe him respect. Pray also for the good of the Church and the triumph of the truth. Our Lord promised to be with us all days, even unto the consummation of the world.

Fr. Perrone

P.S. Laetare Sunday reminds us to be joyful, even in the midst of Lent.

De Mattei: When public correction of a pope is urgent and necessary

"De Mattei: When public correction of a pope is urgent and necessary" (Rorate Caeli, February 22, 2017). Excerpt:

At Antioch, St. Peter showed profound humility, St. Paul ardent charity. The Apostle to the Gentiles showed that he was not only just but [also] merciful. Among the works of spiritual mercy there is the correction of sinners, called by moralists “fraternal correction”. It is private if the sin is private and public if the sin is public. Jesus Himself established the manner: “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. (Mat. 18, 15-18).”

We can imagine [then] that after having tried to convince St. Peter privately, Paul did not hesitate in admonishing him publically, but – says St. Thomas – “since St. Peter had sinned in front of everyone, he had to be reproached in front of everyone” (In 4 Sententiarum, Dist. 19, q. 2, a. 3, tr. it., ESD, Bologna 1999).

[Hat tip to E. Echeverria]

Related:

• Phil Lawler, "This Diastrous Papacy" (CatholicCulture.org, March 1, 2017)
  
  
• Philip Willan, "Anti-Reform Cardinals 'Want the Pope to Quit'" (Times of London, March 2, 2017).

Bishop Athanasius Schneider on the Social Kingship of Christ

By all accounts, this is one of the best recent presentations on the subject to be found. The first video is the presentation. The second is the Q & A. Enjoy.



[Hat tip to Sir A.S.]

Is Cardinal Müller censuring himself?

 Christopher A. Ferrara, "Cardinal Müller Covers His Eyes" (CFN, January 9, 2017): 

According to Stanze Vaticane, the blog for the Italian TV channel TGCom24, Card. Gerhard Ludwig Müller has rejected any correction of Pope Francis concerning those explosive sections of Amoris Laetitia (especially Chapter 8, ¶¶ 302-305) which prompted the four cardinals to present their dubia to Pope Francis. Those passages of Amoris clearly open the door to Holy Communion for the divorced and “remarried” in “certain cases” — as bishop after bishop is now declaring — while appearing to reduce exceptionless negative precepts of the natural law (including “Thou shalt not commit adultery”) to “general rules” and mere “objective ideals” rather than divine commands from which no one can claim an exemption.

But Müller’s choice of words is very curious.  As reported by Stanze Vaticane, during an interview with TGCom 24 (translations mine), Müller stated:

“Everyone, above all the cardinals of the Roman Church [sic], have the right to write a letter to the Pope. I was astonished, however, that this became public, almost constraining the Pope to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. I do not like this. Also, a possible fraternal correction of the Pope seems to me very far off. It is not possible at this moment because it does not involve a danger to the faith as Saint Thomas has said. We are very far from a correction and I say that it harms the Church to discuss these things publicly.

“Amoris Laetitia is very clear in its doctrine, and we can make out the whole doctrine of the Church on matrimony, all the doctrine of the Church in 2000 years of history. Pope Francis asks for discernment of the situation of those persons who live in an irregular union, that is, not according to the doctrine of the Church on matrimony, and he asks for aid of these persons to find a path for a new integration in the Church according to the conditions of the Sacraments, of the Christian message on matrimony. But I do not see any contraposition: on the one hand we have the clear doctrine on matrimony, and on the other the obligation of the Church to concern herself with these persons in difficulty.”

First of all, why is Müller “astonished” that the dubia became public?  The four cardinals state clearly in their accompanying letter that while their dubia were first submitted privately to Francis, “The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect. And so we are informing the entire people of God about our initiative, offering all of the documentation.”

That is their right as cardinals, and indeed it is the right of any member of the faithful:

“According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.”  (Canon 212, § 3)

Secondly, why is a “possible fraternal correction” deemed “very far off” — meaning that there is a potential for one — when Müller says at one and the same time that Amoris presents the Catholic doctrine on matrimony and that there is no opposition to that doctrine in the call for “discernment” of the situation of people in “irregular unions”? If Amoris were really so clear, and there were really no contradiction between Catholic doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage and Francis’ call for “discernment,” Müller would say simply that a correction of Francis is unnecessary. He would not say a correction is “not possible at this moment…”

I am afraid Müller’s statement falls into the category of so much of what has come out of the Vatican over the past fifty years: artfully worded doubletalk that tries to have it both ways.

"To Hell with Accompaniment"

Douglas Farrow, "To Hell with Accompaniment" (First Things, March 2017, via Abyssus Abyssum Invocat, February 9, 2017):

Is the pope Catholic?” used to be an answer, not a question. Alas, it has become a question; or rather it has become five questions, in the form of the dubia put to Pope Francis by four of his cardinals. In good Jesuit fashion, Francis seems to be making his reply by other means—since responding directly to dubia is apparently distasteful, as even the Prefect of the Holy Office Gerhard Cardinal Müller has now said. Thus far, the replies (comments about pharisaical doctors of the law, and that sort of thing) are not very reassuring. Actually, very little one hears from the Vatican these days reassures.

This leaves those of us who are struggling with “discernment of situations” (to use the phrase from Familiaris Consortio that was taken up by Amoris Laetitia) in some perplexity, not so much in the matter of marriage and family life as in the life of the Church herself. Reckoning with a pope whose own remarks seem somewhat erratic is one thing. But how are we to reckon with a situation in which the administration of the sacraments, and the theology behind their administration, is succumbing, with his blessing, to regionalism? In other words, how are we to reckon with a situation, nicely timed to the quincentenary of the Reformation, in which being Catholic begins to look quite a lot like being Protestant?

The trauma of the two synods on the family, which led to Amoris and to the dubia, is a trauma for which Francis himself is largely responsible. The ongoing rebellion against Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor is something that he has permitted, if not encouraged. And the flaws in Amoris are of his making. His unwillingness to respond directly to the dubia is not, then, a matter of taste only. In any event, the very fact that the dubia have been put—and they have been well put, whether or not they should have been put publicly—has carried the whole difficulty beyond matters of taste. Cardinal Müller’s denial that there is a doctrinal problem here is unconvincing.

Read more >>

Diaster upon diaster, and now Malta!

Ed Peters, "The Maltese Disaster" (In the Light of the Law, January 13, 2017):

The bishops of Malta, in a document that can only be called disastrous, repeatedly invoking Pope Francis’ Amoris laetitia, have directly approved divorced and remarried Catholics taking holy Communion provided they feel “at peace with God”. Unlike, say, the Argentine document on Amoris which, one could argue, left just enough room for an orthodox reading, however widely it also left the doors open for abuse by others, the Maltese bishops in their document come straight out and say it: holy Communion is for any Catholic who feels “at peace with God” and the Church’s ministers may not say No to such requests. In my view the Maltese bishops have effectively invited the Catholics entrusted to them (lay faithful and clergy alike!) to commit a number of objectively gravely evil acts. That their document was, moreover, published in L’Osservatore Romano, exacerbates matters for it deprives Vatican representatives of the ‘plausible deniability’ that they could have claimed (and might soon enough wish they could claim), as it becomes known that the Maltese bishops went beyond what even Amoris, if interpreted narrowly, seemed to permit. Read more >>

The bottom line on Amoris

This was published last Sunday, but if you haven't seen it yet, I think it's probably the clearest illustration I've seen of problems posed by efforts to square the circle by those the author calls "Amoris Supporters":

Eduard Peters, "Conscience can't be the final arbiter on who gets Communion" (Crux, January 8 2017).

A fundamental, as he points out, is this:

Typical pastors reading 'Amoris' are likely to stumble into accepting its central flaw, namely, assuming that an individual Catholic’s assessment of his or her own conscience is the sole criterion that governs a minister’s decision to give holy Communion to a member of the faithful.

Read more >>

Ivereigh sees Holy Spirit's hand in October Synod and Amoris Leititia, and faithless dissent in the dubia of the four cardinals

In an article that would leave spinning the head of even Cardinal Newman, the exponent of doctrinal development, Austen Ivereigh, "As anti-Amoris critics cross into dissent, the Church must move on" (Crux, December 11, 2016), launches a diatribe against critics of the Kasper doctrine that assumes a view of doctrinal development that looks like a recipe for synthesizing Styrofoam from Silly Putty and Play Dough.

The article has to be read to be believed. "Cardinal Burke, it is worth remembering," says Ivereigh, "was removed as head of the Vatican’s highest court because he rejected any reform to the annulment process - a reform sanctioned by the synod - on the grounds that it would undermine marriage." Unbelievable. 'Reform' is one thing. Baptizing the practice of serialized polygamy is another.

Again, he writes: "By rejecting the process of the synod and its fruits, the critics of Amoris Laetitia, led by four protesting cardinals, have crossed a line, and look increasingly like the dissenting lobbies under John Paul II who accused him of betraying Vatican II. Meanwhile, the Church is moving on."

"Moving on ..." where? Quo vadis? Twisting the Magisterium into a pretzel?

In addition to further confusing the faithful, such statements will have the added effect of confirming the opinions of those like the respected Bishop Athanasius Schneider that a bizarre schism, an 'anti-Gospel,' already exists within the Church. -- See Michael Chapman, "Catholic Bishop: 'We Are Witnessing Today a Bizarre Form of Schism' in the Church, an 'Anti-Gospel'" (CNS, December 8, 2016).

In fact, if those like Ivereigh continue to assert that their novelties represent a "hermeneutic of continuity" with Vatican II, this may have the unwanted effect of (1) increasingly undermining the confidence of conservative Catholics in many of the formulations of Vatican II particularly charished by the likes of Walter Kasper and their fellow champions of revisionism, as well as (2) emboldening Pelosi/Biden-type liberals to think that they have no vested interest whatsoever in keeping faith with foundational doctrinal traditions of the Church.

Lamont: "Considerations on the dubia of the four cardinals"

For the record, John R. T. Lamont, "Considerations on the dubia of the four cardinals" (Rorate Caeli, December 5, 2016).

Four cardinals and a pope

[Disclaimer: Rules ##7-9] "Cardinal Sins: Resisting Pope Francis" (The Remnant Newspaper, December 2, 2016).

"Reform of reform" is "an error," says Francis; "True love is not rigid"

"IMPORTANT: In interview, Pope Francis questions Traditional Catholics and their motives; Ends 'Reform of the Reform' for good" (Rorate Caeli, November 11, 2016):

The excerpt is translated by Rorate from the interview published in the past few days in Italy -- the interview was conducted by the editor of the official journal of the Holy See (Civiltà Cattolica), Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SI, as part of a book containing homilies of the Pope when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires:

***
The simplicity of children makes me also think of adults, with a rite that is direct, participated intensely [translator's note: reference to notion of 'actuosa participatio'], of parish masses experienced with so much piety. What comes to mind are proposals that encourage priests to turn their backs to the faithful, to rethink Vatican II, to use Latin. I ask the Pope what he thinks of this. The Pope answers:

[Pope:] "Pope Benedict accomplished a just and magnanimous gesture [translator's note: the motu proprio 'Summorum Pontificum'] to reach out to a certain mindset of some groups and persons who felt nostalgia and were distancing themselves. But it is an exception. That is why one speaks of an 'extraordinary' rite. The ordinary in the Church is not this. It is necessary to approach with magnanimity those attached to a certain form of prayer. But the ordinary is not this. Vatican II and Sacrosanctum Concilium must go on as they are. To speak of a 'reform of the reform' is an error."

I ask him: "Other than those who are sincere and ask for this possibility out of habit or devotion, can this desire express something else? Are there dangers?"

[Pope:] "I ask myself about this. For example, I always try to understand what is behind those individuals who are too young to have lived the pre-Conciliar liturgy, and who want it nonetheless. I have at times found myself in front of people who are too rigid, an attitude of rigidity. And I ask myself: how come so much rigidity? You dig, you dig, this rigidity always hides something: insecurity, at times perhaps something else... [sic] The rigidity is defensive. True love is not rigid."

I insist: what about tradition? Some understand it in a rigid way.

[Pope:] "But no: tradition blooms!" he responds. "There is a Traditionalism that is a rigid fundamentalism: it is not good. Faithfulness instead implies a growth. Tradition, in the transmission from one age to the next of the deposit of the faith, grows and consolidates with the passage of time, as Saint Vincent of Lérins said in his Commonitorium Primum. I read it always in my breviary: 'Ita etiam christianae religionis dogma sequatur has decet profectuum leges, ut annis scilicet consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate' (Also the dogma of the Christian religion must follow these laws. It progresses, consolidating with the years, developing with time, deepening with the age.)"

[Pages provided by Mr. Andrew Guernsey]

*****

Rorate's comment (in the form of a Tweet):

St Paul: "The sure foundation of God stands firm"
Pope Francis: "These firm, rigid, Catholics are insecure, and are hiding something!"

Is the CDF's former Cardinal Ratzinger raining on Papa Francis's Assisi party?

Sandro Magister seems to think so. He writes: "With Bergoglio the 'Spirit of Assisi' Triumphs. But Ratzinger is Ruining the Party" (www.chiesa, September 18, 2016): "Francis reruns teh encounter with men of all religions inaugurated by John Paul II thirty years ago. But the objections of the cardinal prefect of doctrine back then are still alive. And even more radical."

[Hat tip to JM]

The Binding force of Tradition ~ Fr Ripperger

Advisory: This is a substantial lecture with considerable philosophical & theological detail:


[Hat tip to J.E.]

Argument of the Month Club debates Amoris Laetitia

Well, 'debated' would be more accurate: this happened back on May 10th. But the video is still worth a watch:

Fr. John Eckert vs. Dr. David Pence, "Amoris Laetitia (Joy of Love): 'Ambiguous and Scandalous' or 'Clear and Inspiring'?" (AOTM, May 10, 2016) [VIDEO]

[Hat tip to Sir A.S.]

Papal letter approving sacraments for the re-married

• "Discernimento e carità pastorale: ​Papa Francesco sulla lettera di vescovi argentini dedicata all’«Amoris laetitia»" (L'Osservatore Romano, September 12, 2016).
• John-Henry Westen, "Vatican Radio confirms Pope's leaked letter on Amoris Laetitia as authentic" (LifeSiteNews, September 12, 2016).
• "For the record. Pope Frances confirms Amoris Laetitia allows communion for adulterers" (Rorate Caeli, September 10, 2016)
• "Pope: 'No other interpretation' of Amoris Laetitia than allowing communion for divorced and remarried 'in some cases'" (LifeSiteNews, September 9, 2016)
• Spanish original of the letter from the Pope [PDF]
• Spanish original of the bishops' directives [PDF]
• LifeSiteNews' translation of the Pope's letter [PDF]
• LifeSiteNews' translation of the bishops' directive
• Steve Skojec, "Papal Signature, Crest, on Original Letter Approving Sacraments for REmarried" (1P5, September 12, 2016).
• "Francisco aprecia el documento de los obispos argentinos sobre Amoris Laetitia" (ZENIT, September 13, 2016).
• "Los obispos de Buenos Aires están elaborando unos «Criterios básicos para la aplicación del capítulo VIII de Amoris laetitia»" (infoCatolica, September 8, 2016).

Related: Lianne Laurence, "Another plea to Pope to correct 'heretical' statements in 'Amoris Laetitia'" (LifeSiteNews, August 10, 2016) - Professor Josef Seifert.

Superlatively thorough analysis of Laudato Si

This [also available here] is an analysis of Laudato Si, the Pope's "environmental encyclical," by 'Boniface', the moniker by which the author of Unam Sanctam Catholicsm is known. It is the most thoroughgoing analysis of Laudato Si that I have seen with penetrating evaluations and criticisms of those parts of the work that are bound to confuse and possibly mislead the faithful, yet not without appreciation for all that is positive.

This is one of those treatments that reminded me of how simply reading an ecclesiastical document, such as an Apostolic Exhortation, Encyclical, or Vatican II document, doesn't necessarily mean one has understood it. It takes a great deal of insight and background to analyze ecclesiastical documents; and reading this analysis, I thought to myself: I didn't realize half of what was in there. Good heavens! This is illuminating.

For example, the author points out how most conservative commentators objected to Pope Francis's critiques of western-style capitalism, whereas ironically he found these parts far from problematic: "they are," he writes, "some of its strongest parts."

By contrast, the parts that the author does find problematic may surprise some, especially in terms of the detailed analysis.

I wish I had time to do a justice to this analysis of Laudato Si that even approached something comparable to that which the author does to the Holy Father's work. Alas, the tyrannical business of the beginning of a semester prevents me.

But check out the work for yourself. It's an eBook and can be purchased here or here. It's entitled: Laudato Si: The 40 Concerns of an Exhausted Layman.