Tuesday, August 11, 2015

CHRISTOPH CARDINAL SCHONBORN MAKES A GOOD CASE FOR THE CONTINUITY BETWEEN POPES FRANCIS AND BENEDICT BUT ACKNOWLEDGES THE DISCONTINUITY IN THE LATIN AMERICAN TEMPERAMENT AND JESUIT SPIRITUALITY

My comment first:  The National Catholic Register has a good article by  Cardinal Schönborn. I like what he says and backs up in terms of the continuity between Popes Francis and Benedict and the rupture, basically due to Pope Francis Latin America cultural heritage (compounded by the Italian heritage) and Jesuit religious life based upon vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. 

Cardinal Schönborn on the Synod: 'I Am Confident There Will Be No Change in Doctrine'

On July 31, during a public appearance at the Napa Institute, he responded to questions about whether the synod might approve proposals to change Catholic doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage and Church discipline that bars divorced-and-remarried Catholics from receiving the Eucharist. Cardinal Schönborn said, “I am confident there will be no change in doctrine.” 


You have spoken of the trauma you experienced as a child when your parents divorced, and you expressed your hope that the ordinary synod not only will call for mercy for divorced-and-remarried Catholics, but also for the children who have suffered from family breakups.

It is so obvious that the first victims of divorce are always the children, because the parents are their parents. They have not only a father, but also a mother. They have a mother, but also a father. If they separate, something is always broken in the life of the child.

Therefore, I fully agree we have to speak about mercy and be merciful to the divorced and remarried, who often experience many sufferings and troubles. But before speaking about the suffering of the parents, we must speak about the suffering of the children.

I recommend catecheses that Pope Francis recently gave on the subject. On May 20, he told separated parents: “The children should not be the ones to carry the weight of this separation; they should not be used as hostages against the other spouse.”

And if we speak about mercy for those who are remarried, we must also speak about those who are left alone. Pope St. John Paul II, in Familiaris Consortio (The Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World), has a very moving passage about abandoned spouses, who suffer from that situation, existentially and economically.

I always insist on the pastoral accompaniment of people who have divorced and remarried, but also those who remain alone after a divorce, very often homeless, in great economic troubles and in solitude. They need the Church’s attention.

There is a third point, which the Catechism mentions, and this is almost absent in all our discussions: the tremendous harm that divorce inflicts on our society.

Even children who don’t have divorced parents are affected by divorce. They fear their parents’ marriage could break up or that their own marriage will not last.

The Catechism mentions the negative example divorce gives: “It has a contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society” (2385).

How many family businesses have collapsed through the divorce of the parents? What enormous economic damage comes from divorce. Therefore, I hope the synod will have very encouraging words to help Catholics overcome the temptation of divorce.

You have said that your own parents’ divorce was very painful for you. How did you recover, spiritually and emotionally?

First, I have a large family network, and that is a great benefit in a family crisis. My parents were not left alone by their families, and we, the children, were not left alone by our aunts, uncles and cousins.

The effect of divorce on an isolated, small family of father, mother and child is more dramatic.
Second, I had been called by Jesus very early, at age 11. When my parents’ divorce happened, I already had an intense, personal religious life, which helped me overcome the pain.

In the process, I discovered something that is extremely important. I remember, saying to my mother, in the difficult days of the divorce of my parents: “The parish is my home.” Of course that wasn’t very kind to my mother. But looking back, it shows that the parish — the Church as family — is a reality, and it can be of enormous help in overcoming the pain and separation of divorce.

As the editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you played a critical role in the drafting process. The Catechism’s strong language opposing the death penalty, in almost every case, has led a growing number of U.S. Catholics to reject this practice. Would you speak about the discussions on this issue that took place before the publication of the Catechism?

In the drafting of the Catechism, we came to the Fifth Commandment, and there were burning issues: euthanasia, suicide, war and peace, the whole question of just war. But perhaps the most intense discussions were about the death penalty.

There were two lines [of discussion] on this issue. One said the Church has always maintained that there is a fundamental right of society to defend itself against serious threats of crime and violence, and that the punishment is not so much to be seen as vengeance, but the legitimate defense of society.
The second line said the death penalty has to be definitively banned, just as slavery had been banned, and as other traditional forms of violence have clearly been banned by the Church.

The position of Pope John Paul II belonged to that second line. He never expressed it publicly, but as we worked on this chapter, we knew that he wanted to limit the death penalty to the maximum.
The first edition of the Catechism was not so explicit in saying that the death penalty was no longer necessary.

What caused the change in the official definitive version was that John Paul had published Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life). It includes passages where he explicitly congratulates modern societies for banning the death penalty. So in the drafting of the definitive text, the passage from Evangelium Vitae was introduced into the Catechism.

What was not introduced, to my regret, was another passage from Evangelium Vitae, which said that among the signs of a new civilization of love and a new culture of life was the worldwide tendency to definitively ban the death penalty. This passage was not included, but the central message of Evangelium Vitae is in the Catechism.

Pope St. John Paul II lived under totalitarian rule both under the Nazis and then under the Soviet Union. Did that experience influence his view of the death penalty?

Definitely. He had seen the arbitrary application of the death penalty in the Nazi and communist regimes. His life experience helped to form his view that the death penalty can be so easily abused and that it must be banned.

The Catechism has helped to clarify Church teaching for the faithful, especially after a period of weak and confusing religious instruction. However, people are often confused when the media selects a passage from Pope Francis’ informal comments, like “Who am I to judge?”, and then claims that the Pope has discarded an element of Catholic teaching on sexual ethics. What’s your reaction to this?

Isn’t what Pope Francis said in an interview on the plane coming back from World Youth Day, in fact, what Jesus said in the Gospel? Jesus said to the woman: “I do not judge you.” And during the Sermon on the Mount, he said, “Do not judge.” He did not say, call good evil and evil good. Abstaining from judgment never means declaring good evil and evil good.

The evidence is that [Pope Francis’ statement] was an evangelical reaction that came directly from the Gospel. He only said, “Who am I to judge?” God is the judge. But in all Pope Francis’ teachings he has been very clear about the same-sex partnership question.

I don’t see the problem. I see rather the problem for those who see it as a problem.

Has the Pope’s pastoral approach introduced something different?

I think there is a deep continuity, especially with Pope Benedict XVI.

I always say, “Read Pope Benedict’s address in Freiburg im Breisgau, during his 2011 trip to Germany where he said the Church should be unworldly.” The program he outlined for a missionary Church in a secular society reads like the program of Pope Francis.

I also say, “Read the homilies of Benedict, who says that friendship with Jesus is the essence of Christianity.”

Of course Pope Francis has brought his Latin American experience, and his Jesuit and Ignatian spirituality [into his pontificate]. My impression is that with his daily homilies and catechesis he is conducting a kind of Ignatian retreat with the whole Church.

In Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), which is a tremendous text, he is helping us to be missionary Christians in a secular society.

From the very first pages of Evangelii Gaudium, he extends a tremendous invitation: “The joy of the gospel fills the hearts and lives of all who encounter Jesus. Those who accept his offer of salvation are set free from sin, sorrow, inner emptiness and loneliness. With Christ joy is constantly born anew.”

In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis tells the faithful that they must go to the fringes, and be prepared to get “dirty” and “bruised.” Has he stirred us out of our complacency?
Very often Pope Francis says, “I prefer a Church that goes out than one that is self-centered and insulated.”

Certainly the recent immigration crisis in Europe poses a great challenge to the political leadership and to the Church. But you have also said that the Catholic Church in Vienna has benefited from immigration. 

We have greatly benefited from the Catholic immigrants who bring a fresh dynamism, a new élan to the Church in Austria. We have Polish, Filipino, Indian and African immigrants, and we are very grateful for their presence. The non-Catholic immigrants from Orthodox Churches have also renewed our Christian culture.

There is also Muslim immigration: Thousands of Turks came to Austria in the ’60s and ’70s. Now, there is a second generation of Muslim immigrants living in Austria, and many of them are in the middle of an Islamic revival. We have a growing problem of Islamic integration — or non-integration — in the country.

Finally, there is a new phenomenon that is totally unexpected: a huge wave, like a tsunami, coming into Europe from the Middle East and Africa. This year, our little country of Austria expects 80,000 refugees coming from Africa, the Middle East, Syria and Ukraine. This is the consequence of conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, a quasi-civil war in Sudan and Somalia, the Eritrean conflict, and the climate disaster in the Sahel Zone in Africa.

There has been a lot of discussion about how to respond to this challenge. The politicians say the Church must do more. They say that because they want to distract from their own helplessness.
The Church does a lot. About five thousand refugees are in all kinds of ecclesial institutions; these are about 10% of all refugees in Austria. But if this crisis continues, we don’t know how we will be able to address it.

Recent media coverage of the upcoming Ordinary Synod of Bishops on Marriage and the Family has given the impression that some bishops from northern Europe may challenge Church teaching on marriage and provoke conflicts with other bishops who want Catholic doctrine and pastoral practice on marriage to remain as it is. Is this a fair characterization, or would you like to correct the record? 

The European Churches are not a bloc. There are very different situations in each European country. Many Polish bishops may not have exactly the same view as many German bishops. But, generally, I have the impression that we are victims of the typical media necessity of putting everything in black and white. There are no nuances.

I think it is necessary and healthy that all these questions on marriage and family are discussed openly and honestly. We should not be afraid of this.

But I am also convinced that the positions present in the Synod are not so wide apart as the media suggests.

You are hopeful?

I am very hopeful.

First, I believe the Lord is present, as he promised, when two or three are gathered in his name. I don’t believe the Holy Spirit is on holiday leave during the Synod. Finally, I believe the role of the Holy Father is to be the focus of unity. He is the expression of the Church’s unity.

Therefore, cum Petro et sub Petro — with Peter and under Peter — the Synod will take a good path.
Remember that the disputes of the first synod in the history of the Church that took place in Jerusalem — the so-called Council of the Apostles — involved a tremendous and very harsh debate.

But it ended with a great unity. The life of the Church today is still inspired by the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem.

Joan Frawley Desmond is the Register’s senior editor

7 comments:

Lefebvrian said...

Articles like this one are incredibly rude to the Pope. They assume that he cannot possibly mean what he says or that he hasn't put thought into what he says. Those who write these articles simply refuse to take the pope at his word. Instead, they would rather reinterpret what he says to fit within their preconceived notion of what he ought to be saying.

The fact that so many words must be spilled to show a continuity between popes who reigned sequentially is telling in itself. Let's see the Cardinal demonstrate the continuity between Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIII or Benedict XV, Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII.

If Pope Francis intended what he says to be in continuity with his predecessors, then he would say the same things they said. It should not require a scholarly article to fit his sayings into the Magisterial mold. To presume to do so is just that: presumptuous disregard for the person and intellect of the pope.

Jusadbellum said...

I'm baffled by the push to focus on the hurt children suffer at the hands of the Church on account of some deficit of 'mercy'. What is this about? When did the Church impose some cruel punishment on children of divorce? Where have I missed all the scarlet "D"s branded on the divorced? When did it occur that children of divorced parents were singled out for abuse by the Church such that we need to entertain doctrinal or pastoral changes to "make them feel better"??

The second bafflement comes from focus on divorce and remarriage and sodomy vs. all the other challenges facing the 300 million families in the Catholic Church.

Who thinks divorce and remarriage and sodomy is a crisis in the persecuted Church in China? India? Oceania? Granted, adultery is always a threat but given the wider challenge of contraception, porn, poverty, persecution that affects 90% of all Catholic families, why is the fireworks not directed to addressing the vast majority of the actual world problems and instead is focused on the relatively minority issues?

Granting de-facto equal status to divorced and remarried adulterers and sodomites isn't going to do a think to improve the situation of poverty, persecution, pornography, and de-personalization that comes with the contraceptive ideology. It's not going to improve the general health of the family. It won't even reach the majority of adulterers and sodomites since the vast majority of them aren't even practicing Catholics!

The whole exercise strikes me as another case of blowing a perfect opportunity to get substantive improvements so as to chase after a predictably harmful trifle that ultimately serves only to dispirit, and disintegrate the fragile "communio" that is the Church.

Mark Thomas said...

Lefebvrian..."Let's see the Cardinal demonstrate the continuity between...Pius XI, and Pius XII."

If today's adult Traditional Catholics, along with the Internet, had lived from 1939-1958 A.D., the Traditional Catholic Blogosphere would have lambasted Pope Venerable Pius XII.

Pope Venerable Pius XII had opened the door to Catholic participation in the Ecumenical Movement, launched radical liturgical reforms, threw in with the United Nations Organization, "modernized" Biblical studies, tinkered with the Eucharistic Fast, opened the door to questioning the ancient Good Friday Prayer for the Jews...that's just for starters.

Just the fact that Pope Venerable Pius XII placed Monsignor Bugnini in power to "reform" the Roman Liturgy would have spurred Traditionalists to have labeled the Pope a "liberal."

But Traditionalists would have promoted Pope Venerable Pius XII to a "modernist" when we add the fact that he had launched the Church into the Ecumenical Movement.

There were major differences between the Pontificates of Pius XI and Venerable Pius XII.

Mark Thomas

Charles G said...

"...he responded to questions about whether the synod might approve proposals to change Catholic doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage and Church discipline that bars divorced-and-remarried Catholics from receiving the Eucharist. Cardinal Schönborn said, “I am confident there will be no change in doctrine."

I don't know the specific wording of the question asked, but this suggests that admission of divorced and remarried to communion is merely a "disciplinary" matter, and thus the Cardinal's response does not provide any comfort that the "discipline" won't be changed. The problem is, the discipline directly impacts matters of doctrine, i.e., the indissolubility of marriage and the necessity not to partake of the Lord's body unworthily.

Anonymous said...

"Pope Venerable Pius XII had opened the door to Catholic participation in the Ecumenical Movement, launched radical liturgical reforms, threw in with the United Nations Organization, "modernized" Biblical studies, tinkered with the Eucharistic Fast, opened the door to questioning the ancient Good Friday Prayer for the Jews...that's just for starters."

Let's not forget that all of the things mentioned above took place towards the end of Pope Pius' reign. When, to be honest, one has to question if he was in complete control of his faculties. Just look at some of the footage of Pius during the mid to late 1950's there are times when he doesn't even seem to realize what is going on. This is in no way a slander against a truly brilliant, holy, charitable towering figure like Pope Pius, but a realistic one. One has only to read his magnificent encyclical on the liturgy from the 1940's and then look at what happened in the 1950's and it's obvious that there is a huge difference. The truth is that Pius was used and betrayed by those around him.

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous said..."Let's not forget that all of the things mentioned above took place towards the end of Pope Pius' reign. When, to be honest, one has to question if he was in complete control of his faculties."

Pope Venerable Pius XII reigned from 1939-1958 A.D.

-- Modernized Biblical studies...1943 A.D.

-- Supported United Nations...1945 A.D. (and had called for a United Nations organization earlier than that).

-- Organized the liturgical "reform" in 1947 A.D.

-- Opened the door to Catholic participation in the Ecumenical Movement...1947 A.D.

-- Placed Monsignor Bugnini in power to reform the Roman Liturgy...1948 A.D.

-- In his words, first "eased the rigor on the law of the Eucharistic Fast...1953 A.D.

-- Tinkered with the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews...1955 A.D.

Other than his having tinkered with the Good Friday Prayer for the Jews (1955 A.D.), Pope Venerable Pius XII had launched his programs of major reforms many years prior to the end of his reign.

By the late 1940s, (even many years prior to that by then-Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII) man holy and wise Catholics, such as Father Leonard Feeney, had predicted and warned that the Church was headed full-speed into major liturgical and ecumenical revolutions.

I believe that Pope Venerable Pius XII was akin to Popes Blessed Paul VI, Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis.

That is, he was a holy man/Pope...not a modernist...but a Pope who believed that his policies and reforms would launch the Church into a new springtime.

Unfortunately, history has demonstrated that such has not been the case.

From Pope Venerable Pius XII to date, Rome's liturgical and Ecumenical Movement revolutions have wrecked the Church. Holy men...whose polices and reforms have often failed badly.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

George said...


Mark Thomas:

In 1948, Pope Pius XII would have been 72. A person can have problems with cognitive function well before that age.
I'm not taking the position that he did, only refuting the implication of your anwer to Anonymous@7:44 AM.

What specifically do you disagree with of the below actions?

---Modernized Biblical studies...1943 A.D. And?

-- Supported United Nations...1945 A.D. (and had called for a United Nations organization earlier than that). So? It was not a bad concept. Remember,Pope Venerable Pius XII had experienced two horrific wars.

-- Organized the liturgical "reform" in 1947 A.D. What did he do that you have a problem with?

-- Opened the door to Catholic participation in the Ecumenical Movement...1947 A.D. So?

As far as the below:

-- Placed Monsignor Bugnini in power to reform the Roman Liturgy...1948 A.D.

That statement in itself does not convey to me the Pope's mindset or intention in this regard.

-In his words, first "eased the rigor on the law of the Eucharistic Fast...1953 A.D.

Mark that is a discipline well within the purview of the Petrine ministry. No one is prevented for fasting
for a longer period of time if one wishes to do so.

"From Pope Venerable Pius XII to date, Rome's liturgical and Ecumenical Movement revolutions have wrecked the Church. Holy men...whose polices and reforms have often failed badly."

Did they fail because the policies and reforms were bad, or because they were implemented wrongly, as some have conjectured? If the latter, then it doesn't mean the policies and reforms were bad.