
When Silence becomes Scandal
_________________________
LESSONS NOT
LEARNED
It happened
right here! Remember?
Boston 2002!
Silence
on the part of the cardinal, the bishops, the seminary
rectors, the Religious orders — followed by
Scandal.
Horrible scandal. Scandal of the most hateful, despicable,
vicious perversion that swept away — but not too thoroughly
— miters, defrocked priests, caused the closing of hundreds
of parishes and the selling off of quite nearly everything Catholic
to pay off the lawsuits against predatory priests and silent
superiors. Millions upon millions to pay victims and their lawyers,
and most sadly to psychologically treat and medicate its victims
... who are now adults. It continues to this day!
Most of what you put
in the basket at church almost certainly goes to pay for the
crimes of predatory homosexual priests who molested young boys
— committed the most depraved sexual predation on the most trusting
of youth … our children.
Under the
euphemism
of “consolidating parishes” countless church buildings and facilities
were sold off to become condominiums and even mosques.
$35 million
on counseling, psychiatric medications, and other services for
survivors. Since 2003, it has paid about $215 million to settle
legal claims, church officials say. (Boston
Globe January 2017)
Here in Boston we
are STILL paying for a disgraceful and unutterably shameful
SILENCE that not simply “rocked” the Church, but literally
caused much of it to be torn down to its foundations.
The
Dubia:
Five
Vital Questions that Encounter Obstinate Silence
The
following five questions were respectfully submitted
to Pope Francis following the ambiguity inherent in his Apostolic
Exhortation Amoris Laetitia:
-
“It is asked
whether, following the affirmations of Amoris
Laetitia (300-305),
it has now become
possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance
and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who,
while bound by a valid marital bond, lives
together with a different person more
uxorio [as husband and wife] without fulfilling
the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio,
84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio
et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis,
29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note
351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia
be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union
and who continue to live more uxorio?”
SIMPLIFIED:
Can adulterers go to Confession and receive Holy Communion?
Can a man or woman who are living together as though
married to each other having been civilly divorced,
but who nonetheless still remain married to their original
spouses in the eyes of the Church and according to clear
and unequivocal Holy Scripture, be considered as
not living in adultery: that is to say, as
not living with another man’s wife and another woman’s
husband?”
“After the
publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris
Laetitia (304),
does one still
need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John
Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79,
based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the
Church, on the
existence of absolute moral norms
that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding
without exceptions?”
SIMPLIFIED:
Are there acts so evil that under every possible condition
or circumstance they must be, without exception, considered
intrinsically evil?
“After
Amoris Laetitia (301)
is it still
possible to affirm that a person who habitually
lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law,
as for instance the one that prohibits adultery
(Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself
in an objective
situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council
for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24,
2000)?
SIMPLIFIED:
In
light of what is stated in Amoris Laetitia, is
there any longer any objective situation of grave habitual
sin?
“After the
affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302)
on “circumstances
which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one
still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John
Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81,
based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the
Church, according to which
“circumstances
or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically
evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’
good or defensible as a choice”?”
SIMPLIFIED:
Given that "circumstances or intentions can never transform
an act intrinsically evil into one that is subjectively
good", how can it be affirmed, as it is in Amoris
Laetitia, that there are "circumstances which mitigate
moral responsibility"? Can, then, circumstances or intentions
transform an act intrinsically [objectively] evil into
one that is subjectively good?
“After
Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard
as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical
Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture
and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a
creative interpretation of the role of conscience and
that emphasizes
that conscience
can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions
to absolute moral norms that prohibit
intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?”
SIMPLIFIED:
Can the (subjective) conscience be appealed to in order
to abrogate or cancel intrinsically evil acts?
To date, Pope Francis
has obstinately, if not arrogantly refused to deign to answer
these vital questions necessary to the integrity of our
Holy Catholic Faith. This certainly does not accord with his
widely publicized “humility” ... Indeed, in a recent interview,
he went so far as to characterize those who so much as questioned
his questionable theology as “fanatici” — fanatics.
Enigmatic?
So often silence is hiding, concealing,
refusing to disclose.
If confusion arises,
it calls for clarity — especially as it pertains
to matters of the Faith; if apparent equivocation threatens
sound doctrine it must be clarified for the sake
of the faithful. If answering five questions that involve both
— equivocation and confusion — promotes unity through a clearly
articulated understanding, why refuse? Why obstinate silence,
which only underscores the likelihood of an inability to answer
in conformity with sound Catholic doctrine and Sacred Scripture?
In a word what is to be gained through silence? It is
hardly a mark of humility to hold oneself above questioning.
Should the word enigmatic even be predicated of a pope?
“The Silent Card” — AMORIS LAETITIA
— a Case in Point
Much like
Cardinal Law and countless superiors in Boston, Pope Francis
is playing the “Silent Card”. But it is a far more perilous
gambling. Much as in the famous Emperor's New Clothes,
the Church has, figuratively speaking, no vestments and is shockingly
unaware that the crowds perceive this. Sanctimony proved too
costly and where the ecclesiastical authorities had yawned,
the doggedly vicious secular prosecutors and courts were not
nearly so lenient or forgiving to just let these atrocities
pass. Lives needed mending (some never) and yes, there was money
to be made. Lots of it. Sanctimony, ecclesiastics came to realize,
was not only meretricious but quite costly.
In a humiliating denouement, it took Caesar
to correct what the Church refused to. We still sting from that
justice, even as we finally savor it.
Once again, however, a gambit of a similar sort
is being played by Francis as he tampers with not only the
Sacred Deposit of Faith of 2000 years, but Holy Scripture
itself!
“Thou shalt not commit
adultery.” (Exodus 20:14, Saint
Matthew 5:27-28)
“Whoever unworthily
partakes of the Body and Blood of Christ is guilty of it”
(1 Corinthians 11.27)
Pretty clear, yes? And for over 2000 years.
The
Straw Man:
“The Prize for the Perfect”
Not so for Francis who casts more than a shadow of doubt
upon it by approving sexually active cohabitation — adultery
— and even holding it to be sacramental in a way equal to
… well, sacramental marriages — which of course brings
up the question of why bother to marry sacramentally at all
if the grace is given as it were, a priori? In the
infamous “Footnote 351”, Francis magnanimously proclaims
that:
“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 … I would also point out that the Eucharist
is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful
medicine and nourishment for the weak.”
Indeed,
whoever approached
Holy Communion with a sense of entitlement as receiving in
all justice a “prize” for attaining to spiritual perfection?
Who ever experienced the Sacrament of Penance — Confession —
as a
“Torture
Chamber”
with a priest as a Grand Inquisitor?
This is a Straw Man, and we know it. And what
is more, Francis knows it, too. It is offensive to even
suggest this. On the other hand it may be a rare insight into
the thought processes of one who would utter this, especially
to justify sacrilege. Does forgiveness precede sorrow, or is
it necessary to forgiveness (in realms human and divine)?
Is it really an act of “Mercy” to justify adultery and
sacrilege? Indeed, are they then sins at all if they are to
be repeated ad mortem under the aegis of “Mercy”? Indeed
how is sorrow possible as long as the intent to continue
in sin remains?
Francis:
“I’ve seen a lot of fidelity
in these cohabitations, and I am sure that
this is a real marriage,
they have the grace of a real marriage because
of their fidelity … It’s provisional, and
because of this the great majority of our
sacramental marriages are null ... Because
they say “yes, for the rest of my life!”
but they don’t know what they are saying.
Because they have a different culture. They
say it, they have good will, but they don’t
know ... They prefer to cohabitate, and
this is a challenge, a task. Not to ask
“why don’t you marry?” No, to accompany,
to wait, and to help them to mature, help
fidelity to mature.’ ”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church,
on the other hand states:
“Some today claim a “right
to a trial marriage” where there is an intention
of getting married later. However firm the
purpose of those who engage in premature
sexual relations may be, “the fact is that
such liaisons can scarcely ensure mutual
sincerity and fidelity in a relationship
between a man and a woman, nor, especially,
can they protect it from inconstancy of
desires or whim.”
Carnal union is morally legitimate only
when a definitive community of life between
a man and woman has been established.
Human love does not tolerate “trial marriages.”
It demands a total and definitive gift of
persons to one another.” (CCC 2391)
Sacramental
Adultery?
Of course, if sacramental adultery
is not a sacrilegious concept, then neither are other Sacraments
protected from sacrilege.
Sacred Scripture, Tradition,
and the Sacred Deposit of Faith — neither Pope Francis or any
other pope has the authority to violate or in any measure to
attenuate any of the three … let alone abrogate
them.
Our concern does not stop
here: Francis’s despotic and autocratic mania appears to be
uninhibited by God or man. What, we are compelled to ask, will
next fall under his whimsical interpretations, and become scandalously
ensconced in his “personal magisterium” — to the detriment of
the sanctity and salvation of souls?
WILL
“Dialogue”
Replace the Decalogue?
What of the other Commandments?
What of the other 5 Sacraments?
What
is evident to all but the most myopic is the prospect that if,
indeed, Francis can equivocate about long established and clearly
articulated concepts of marriage, adultery, cohabitation, the
efficacy of grace, the notion of validity as it is predicated
of each — what else, we ask, is up for grabs? What else
has been misunderstood for 2000 years? What else has God
hidden from the faithful until the accession of Francis
to the Seat of Peter and subsequent to that accession subjected
dogma and doctrine to his penetrating gaze that dispels
all the myths of pre-enlightened (pre-Bergoglian, pre-Vatican
II — you choose) Catholicism?
 |
The Ten
Commandments “Suggestions”
|
The proscription
against adultery dates to the 12th century — BC.
To preclude any misunderstanding, it was inscribed in
stone! Little can be more definitive than that. In fact
it is an adage: “It is written in stone”, that is to
say, absolutely clear and unalterable. That was one- thousand-two-hundred
years before Christ. But now — 3000 years later — we
are suddenly unclear about what constitutes adultery?
Of course Pope Francis has an affinity
for Luther to whom, after 1400 years of deceit and duplicity
on the part of God in failing to reveal the “real
truth” to the Church, finally revealed it to Luther in
the fullness of time. It would appear that Francis has that
singular privilege as well. Not only had God Himself had it
wrong (or had misspoken), but the Apostles, the Church Fathers,
the 21 Church Councils, the Saints, the Martyrs, and of course
the “less educated” as well had it wrong. The Ten Commandments
are not Commandments after all, or at least binding in any remotely
coherent way. They are actually The Ten Suggestions that
require “accompaniment” by Team Bergoglio who will parse them
psycho-theologically in order to be reveal their “real
meaning” to the unenlightened masses — so that sin will no longer
be an impediment to union with God.
The Last
and Most Frightening
“S”

If Francis
persists in effectively amending Scripture to accord with his
clearly progressive and dangerously liberal agenda, or in disregard
of Tradition, and prescinding from the Sacred Deposit of the
Faith, the only apparent logical sequitur is also an “S”
word, for it would likely provoke a monumental schism within
the Church: not a “breaking away from” by Catholics
faithful to Holy Mother Church, but a “having
already broken away from” Holy Mother Church by
disaffected Catholics who put liberal ideology
in place of theology, man before God, their ambitions before
their obligations, and their temporal gains before their eternal
losses.
But — we protest — this must not happen!
As
Cardinal Raymond Burke emphatically noted:
“There
can be no place in our thinking or acting for schism
which is always and everywhere wrong,” he said.
“Schism is the fruit of a worldly way of thinking,
of thinking that the Church is in our hands, instead
of in the hands of Christ. The Church in our time
has great need of the purification of any kind of worldly
thinking,” he added. The Cardinal warned Catholics in
anguish over the current situation within the Church
against even thinking about schism, that is, separating
themselves from the Catholic Church headed by the Pope
in the hope of creating a better Church.
Code of Canon Law
Article 1 §3
Of course, there are others issues
at stake, especially pertaining to the office of the Petrine
Ministry in the Code of Canon Law for which no such apparently
facile remedy is immediately available, especially as it pertains
to CCL Art 1 §3.
“No appeal or recourse
is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”
The clarity
and concision of this law is deliberately rigorous and for good
reason — especially in light of the past 50 years which have
witnessed widespread and regular dissent and disobedience vis-à-vis
the papacy on the part of cardinals, ordinaries, national “Catholic
Conferences”, seminary rectors, priests, theologians, and Religious.
Widespread as these have been, much-needed correction
on the part of the pontiffs preceding Francis has been rare,
tempered, and even rescinded. Francis’s shocking authoritarian
and peremptory character has no precedent in modern times. The
question confronting thoughtful Catholics is why?
Why is the full canonical weight of the papacy
being exercised so vigorously by Pope Francis and “Team Bergoglio”
— and if it is divinely ordained why are the consequences
so deleterious to the Church and the faithful? Why such confusion
and apparent subterfuge (St. Gallen Group)? Why such a pervasive
atmosphere of fear permeating the Vatican as never before —
and as is routinely reported?
Of
course, there are others issues at stake, especially pertaining
to the office of the Petrine Ministry in the Code of Canon
Law for which no such apparently facile remedy is immediately
available, especially as it pertains to CCL Art 1 §3.
“No
appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree
of the Roman Pontiff.”
According to the 1917 Code of
Canon Law: “Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur” (Canon 1556)
— “The First See [the pope] is judged by no one.”
The clarity
and concision of this law is deliberately rigorous and for good
reason — especially in light of the past 50 years which have
witnessed widespread and regular dissent and disobedience vis-à-vis
the papacy on the part of cardinals, ordinaries, national “Catholic
Conferences”, seminary rectors, priests, theologians, and Religious.
Widespread as these have been, much-needed correction
on the part of the pontiffs preceding Francis has been rare,
tempered, and even rescinded. Francis’s shocking authoritarian
and peremptory character has no precedent in modern times. The
question confronting thoughtful Catholics is why?
Why is the full canonical weight of the papacy
being exercised so vigorously by Pope Francis and “Team Bergoglio”
— and if it is divinely ordained why are the consequences
so deleterious to the Church and the faithful? Why such confusion
and apparent subterfuge (St. Gallen Group)? Why such a pervasive
atmosphere of fear permeating the Vatican as never before —
and as is routinely reported?
No implied “judgment”
in the Dubia or Questions requiring
Clarification
Much
more to the point, there is no implied
“judgment”
of Pope Francis in what is simply, correctly, and canonically
termed “The Dubia”, or the questions
placed before the pope for clarification are simply
that: questions — not judgments of the pope. Issues
are involved that stand in dire need of clarification and consensus.
Indeed, far from presuming to judge the pope in any way, they
are questions requiring his judgment since no
universal interpretive consensus is agreed upon — for which
reason the dubia were presented to him! Bishops and
priests in different countries are in diametric opposition to
one another in their understanding of the questions involved.
This is a scandalous state of affairs. Definitively
answering the questions — which is the prerogative and
responsibility of the pope alone — is the only way to
settle these divisions, misunderstandings, and misinterpretations
not only among the clergy, but the faithful. What is permitted
in Poland is not permitted in Canada. Even within one country
— America — what is permitted in Los Angeles is not permitted
in Philadelphia. In a word, what is sinful in one
place is not sinful in another.
That —
if nothing else — is the scandal. No casuistry will ever overcome
the Law of Non-Contradiction): X cannot, at one
and the same time, both be X and
not-X. It is inconsistent with reason and irreconcilable
with logic. It is also a terrible chaos in a universe of immortal
souls and Divine pronouncements.
The
Church is God’s
These
are real and ultimately vital questions! To reply with the simple
legality of a Canon Law that states
“No
appeal or recourse is permitted against a sentence or decree
of the Roman Pontiff”
is sufficient — ultimately is not.
We
must remember — with a faith straitened as perhaps never before
— that ultimately the Church is God’s
to do with as He wills. He either chooses
— or permits — whom He wills, and to ends
that are now utterly opaque to us. Who are we to question God?
In the end His ways are not our ways.
And perhaps
— just perhaps — He has given or permitted us to have
what and whom
WE find congenial to us
in our sinful trajectory to Hell— if only to teach us that ultimately
His way is better.
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
Printable PDF Version
Comments?
Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
Further Reading on the Papacy of Francis:

Totally Faithful to the
Sacred Deposit of Faith entrusted to
the Holy See in Rome
“Scio
opera tua ... quia modicum habes virtutem, et servasti
verbum Meum, nec non negasti Nomen Meum”
“I
know your works ... that you have but little power,
and yet you have kept My word, and have not denied
My Name.”
(Apocalypse 3.8)
Copyright © 2004 - 2022 Boston Catholic Journal. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise stated,
permission is granted by the Boston Catholic Journal
for the copying and distribution of the articles
and audio files under the following conditions:
No additions, deletions, or changes are to be made
to the text or audio files in any way, and the copies
may not be sold for a profit. In the reproduction,
in any format of any image, graphic, text, or audio
file, attribution must be given to the Boston Catholic
Journal.
|
|