_________________________
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 abrogate or cancel
intrinsically evil acts?
To date, Pope Francis has obstinately,
if not arrogantly refused to deign to answer these
vital questions necessary 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 their 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 any of
the three … let alone abrogate them.
The Dialogue
in place of 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 the
Excluded Middle (or 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 — to do with as He wills
These are
real and ultimately vital questions. To simply reply with
Canon Law that
“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 chooses — or
permits — Whom He will. 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 will — if only to teach us that there is a
better ... but only at a cost we have proven ourselves
unwilling to pay.
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
August 24, 2017
Printable
PDF Version
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
|
