Father Thomas Reese formerly the editor of America Magazine has an analysis of Pope Francis and the three temptations of the Church in the National Chismatic Reporter (NCR)for August 13, today. You can read it there by pressing these sentences.
The first temptation is Making the Gospel message an ideology and the second and third temptations are, functionalism and clericalism. I will print the first temptation, because it says it all and there is more that condemns the progressive gnostics than that ultra traditionalists' Pelagians as Pope Francis understands these two heresies in the modern context:
Making the Gospel message an ideology
FIRST FIVE PARAGRAPHS HIGHLIGHTING THE ULTRA PROGRESSIVE'S DEMOLITION OF THE CHURCH:
This temptation, the pope argues, has been present in the church from the beginning. It attempts to interpret the Gospel apart from the church or the Gospel itself. Francis says you must look at the Gospel with the eyes of a disciple. There is no such thing as "antiseptic" hermeneutics.
Other forms of the ideological temptation include sociological reductionism and psychologizing. The first interprets the Gospel message through the lens of social science, whether from a Marxist or libertarian perspective. Here, the Gospel is manipulated for political reasons. It is a temptation of both the right and the left to use the Gospel to serve political goals. Fear of this temptation probably led Francis to be cautious toward liberation theology while at the same time very negative toward libertarian capitalism.
The temptation to psychologize the faith, on the other hand, is individualistic. "Here we have to do with elitist hermeneutics which ultimately reduces the 'encounter with Jesus Christ' and its development to a process of growing self-awareness." This is a self-centered spirituality that "has nothing to do with transcendence and consequently, with missionary spirit."
Although he does not mention it, another danger of this temptation is that it fosters a passive, "feel-good" spirituality rather than an active spirituality that works to make the world a better place. He believes this kind of self-centered spirituality can be found even in spirituality courses and spiritual retreats.
Related to this self-centered spirituality is the temptation to the Gnostic solution. "It is ordinarily found in elite groups offering a higher spirituality, generally disembodied," he says. Gnosticism first appeared among early Christians, and it reappears throughout the church's history in new and revised versions. "Generally its adherents are known as 'enlightened Catholics' (since they are in fact rooted in the culture of the Enlightenment)."
The reference to the Enlightenment makes it clear he believes this is the temptation of liberal Catholics. They end up "in a preoccupation with certain pastoral quaestiones disputatae" (disputed questions), which he does not list. Would these disputed questions include things like women priests and birth control?
LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS ABOUT THE MILD CHALLENGE OF THE ULTRA TRADITIONALISTS!
The final ideological temptation is the Pelagian solution. The Pelagians believed sanctity was the result of human effort without God's aid. This is the temptation of conservative Catholics to "a form of restorationism." They seek a "purely disciplinary solution" to the church's problems "through the restoration of outdated manners and forms which, even on the cultural level, are no longer meaningful." One can see why Francis rejected the grandiose papal apparel.
In Latin America, he says this restorationism is found "in tendencies to doctrinal or disciplinary 'safety' " in small groups and even some new religious communities. But he sees this approach a "static" and regressive process that "seeks to 'recover' the lost past." As archbishop of Buenos Aires, Argentina, Jorge Bergoglio was no fan of the Tridentine Mass and did not allow it until it was mandated by Pope Benedict for the entire church.
MY COMMENTS: If you notice, even Fr. Reese has much to say about the progressives in the Church as most of it relates to them as it concerns Pope Francis and his critiques. Only the last two paragraphs above can be interpreted as referring to ultra-traditionalist restorationists. And what these semi-heretical group wants to do is far from the real heresies of the left, of the progressives which Fr. Reese devotes far more space, for there is far more that is wrong with them and far more that affects the Church globally from this group rather than the "Pelagians."
Now if you want to read more about the influence of today's Gnosticism amongst the ultra progressives in religious life of the LCWR, then the National Chismatic Reporter (NCR) has an editorial that just confirms Pope Francis' greatest fears and the analysis of Father Reese.
Keep in mind too, that clericalism is not just the domain of Catholic priests, progressive sisters are perhaps some of the most clerical in the Church along with many Catholics in academic institutions who label themselves scholars. They believe they are above the rest of the human Church and the Pope and Bishops in union with him, not to mention Almighty God!
LCWR: The coming assembly
Maureen Fiedler | Aug. 13, 2013 NCR Today
The website of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR) offers this headline: "We welcome new members and new ideas for living religious life into the future." And this year, some of those new ideas might come from the keynote speaker at the annual LCWR assembly in Orlando, Fla.: Franciscan Sr. Ilia Delio, who directs the Catholic Studies Program at Georgetown University. She is one of the emerging thinkers emphasizing the "new cosmos story" and, in this case, its relevance for contemporary religious life.
But hanging over the entire assembly is the Vatican "mandate" that made headlines last year. LCWR leaders and many others offered stinging critiques of the mandate's thrust and inaccuracies. Thousands of Catholics took to the streets and cathedral steps to voice their protest.
Now, Sr. Patricia McDermott, president of the Sisters of Mercy of the Americas, a large community in LCWR, said in an interview that "the points of direction for the future, I think are unacceptable -- that the bishops would be looking at our materials, our publications, giving direction to the assembly. ... That's not a conference that most leaders want to belong to." I'm sure she speaks for far more LCWR members than just herself.
Archbishop J. Peter Sartain of Seattle, head of the three-bishop committee that is supposed to carry out the mandate, will speak at the assembly and reportedly will take questions from the assembled sisters. It will be interesting to see if he has heard any of those messages and if he understands the thrust of religious life today.
In fact, Sartain should be familiar with Catholics who operate out of conscience. According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on Aug. 5: "He has found that Catholics, and parishes, in Western Washington are an independent-minded, conscience-driven lot. Several parishes in Seattle and Tacoma refused to serve as gathering points for the signature campaign to roll back marriage equality in Washington. A big demonstration of pro-gay marriage Catholics took place outside St. James Cathedral a week before election day."
It will also be interesting to try to decipher whether Pope Francis has any influence on this process. Early reports said he approved the mandate, but those reports came from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which inaugurated the mandate, not the pope himself.
One of the accusations against LCWR in the mandate was its emphasis on social justice rather than issues of sexuality or abortion. Funny thing: One might say the same thing about Pope Francis.
My Final Comment: The LCWR and its supporters are truly a caricature for the Gnosticism that Pope Francis so deplores!
12 comments:
Wow! And this from a former head of America.
Within the limits of my own experience, I would say that the more traditional folks tend to spend more time and energy learning their faith, while the more progressive give little concern to that. And please note, everyone, that I did offer a disclaimer. I am not making a universal declaration.
Nonetheless, this has been my observation, in two parishes.
It has also been my observation that the more progressive are firmly disinclined to entertain any disagreement with their views. And distinctly unlikely to consult a copy of the Catechism.
Numerous of them, in their roles as catechists, however, have been quite at ease giving voice to heretical notions.
Again, this is true in the realm of my own experience, NE of Atlanta.
The progressives do much more danger to the Church,as they want to make doctrine speak to the world, which is compromise and foolishness. Sadly, many leaders, as in bishops and even cardinals, have fallen into the trap of wanting to dialogue with the world to the point of not converting those in the world. Pelagianism, Neo-Pelagianism and Gnosticism make the Church weak from within, and all of these heresies are rife in Great Britain. The TLM groups are the only ones interested in the real teaching of the Catholic Church, and most of the trads are not afraid of the hard Gospel, that is the Gospel which is counter-cultural. I fear the damage done by the progressiveness is so widespread and runs so deep that even isolated, small trad groups cannot change the slide into the protestantization of the Church, and the emphasis on relativism and individualism. I see and hear hear heresy daily because of the abdication of leadership.
Progressives like Anonymous and Ignotus will cite the Catechism as a way of throwing it in our faces in order to accuse us of hypocrisy or some other such things. They will denounce "legalism" but are perfectly happy to use it to their purposes. It is all sort of like the snotty child on the sidewalk, hollering across the street, Nanananabooboo. They do not give a damn about the Catechism except as a weapon. This is right out of the pages of Saul Alinsky et al. A long used Leftist tactic.
As has been pointed out previously in this blog, the term "pelagianism" is bring tossed around without regard to its real meaning. And it's ironic that those doing the tossing apparently believe that it's gotta be done the NO and social justice way, which is just as "pelagian" as the approach they decry.
Supertradmum:
I want to be sure I understand you properly. Presumably we cannot convert those in the world unless we dialogue with it. So I assume you have in mind those who may be more interested in dialogue without the ultimate goal of conversion. Have I understood you correctly? Thanks.
Also, are you in Great Britain like John Nolan? I am from there originally myself.
Anon 2, You may be pleased to note that my new grandson, 7 mos. old, has a small but very clear birthmark on his thigh that everyone agrees looks remarkably like a map of Great Britain. I am hoping this means that there is possibly royalty in my ancestral line somewhere. My wife doubts it very seriously...the only times she has used the term "royal" in our conversations it has not been complimentary. LOL!
Back in the 1970s there was a certain amount of hand-wringing over the actions of the progressives, although the Tabletistas saw little wrong with a Jesuit celebrating "Mass" at a coffee-table, wearing a lounge suit, and with the Scripture readings replaced by extracts from the writings of Teilhard de Chardin. Liturgical abuses were tolerated, indeed allowed to flourish; those who perpetrated them were "with the programme", their hearts were in the right place even if they sometimes showed an excess of zeal. It was also recognized that any dicasterial document on the subject would be cheerfully ignored - Inaestimabile Donum of 1980 listed widespresd abuses, and ordered their correction, to no effect; and the same thing happened to Redemptionis Sacramentum twenty-four years later.
Despite their relatively small numbers those attached to the Old Mass were seen as a greater threat, as they were essentially counter-revolutionary. Sacrosanctum Concilium was the first major Council document to be signed off; it was essentially the Bugnini draft and was the only one of the original schemata to make it through. The arguments of Michael Davies and others were unanswerable because they were palpably true. However, they contradicted the Party line, which (ironically in view of Pope Francis's remarks) always claimed to be restoring something from the lost past. In some cases it did indeed do this, but this was a cover for a revolutionary programme. This programme was aborted by Paul VI when he belatedly came to his senses, but still lies "on file", and the advent of a Pope who as Archbishop was openly opposed to the Old Mass and only grudgingly allowed it after SP, and moreover has never celebrated it, gives the progressives hope that it might be restarted.
I don't think it will be, but Traditionalists (who are now in a much stronger position) might well have to emulate Admiral Nelson, who at the Battle of Copenhagen put the telescope to his blind eye and said "I really do not see the signal".
RE: Nelson...who then proceeded to destroy the Dutch (interestingly enough) navy. LOL! Perhaps the progressives are the modern "Dutch navy...one can always hope. Pope Nelson has not yet arrived on the scene, however...
Gene: I am indeed pleased to know that. I don’t know if it means that there is royalty in your ancestral line. But it could certainly be a sign – that 1776 was a mistake perhaps? We will know if more and more babies are born with the same map on them. Congratulations on being a grandfather BTW.
RE Nelson: One assumes the outcome may have been different if he had used binoculars instead.
Gene, it was a Danish-Norwegian fleet that was defeated at Copenhagen. The Dutch had been defeated four years earlier (1797) by Admiral Duncan at the Battle of Camperdown.
The royal connection might not be that far-fetched. It is estimated that thousands of people can claim direct descent from William the Conqueror, and many of those must live in the United States.
Regarding 1776, what would have happened had London been less obdurate and granted the colonies self-government under the Crown, as moderates on both sides of the Atlantic, including Adam Smith, suggested? Since slavery was abolished in all British overseas territories in 1833 you might have avoided the Civil War. And you wouldn't have a Head of State like Obama who is loathed and despised by getting on for half the country.
John, I apologize...I got my Camperdowns and Copenhagens mixed up. Thanks for the correction.
Your observations regarding 1776 are interesting and I have read other speculation about that. On the other hand, what if the Brits and not been so caught up with the European scene and really committed their navy and vastly larger, better trained military to keeping the colonies? I don't know that Britain would have been able to hold the colonies, the country being so vast and there being so many potential allies for America. But, it would have been much uglier and longer.
Had the Royal Navy not been run down by a parsimonious Treasury after the Seven Years' War, had other European powers not become involved, and had luck favoured the British rather than the Americans, the revolt would have been crushed. Then parliament would have rapidly conceded most of the Americans' demands. Not all British statesmen were as pig-headed as Lord North.
Post a Comment