Is Cardinal Pell's red hat on the chopping block? If so, it is a sign of a courageous Catholic and a form of white martyrdom!
I wonder if Pope Francis ever wonders about those deplorable, rigid Catholics who are rigid because of the gift of God's grace that assists them in their various moral weaknesses and temptations to remain faithful to Christ and His Church and orthodox in Faith and practice?
This article makes me wonder if Cardinal Pell is a 5th Cardinal? His Eminence certainly makes the explicit diagnosis and implicitly lays the blame on the Vicar of Christ:
Some Catholics are ‘unnerved’ by current events in the Church, says Cardinal Pell
Cardinal George Pell at his office in the Vatican in 2014 (PA)
The cardinal said that conscience must refer to revealed truth and the moral law
Cardinal George Pell has said that “a number of regularly worshiping Catholics” are “unnerved by the turn of events” in the Church.
In a talk at St Patrick’s Church, London, Cardinal Pell said one cause for concern was false theories of conscience and the moral law.
Cardinal Pell was giving a talk on St Damien of Molokai as part of St Patrick’s series of talks for the Year of Mercy. But he also reflected on Catholicism today. He said that while Pope Francis has “a prestige and popularity outside the Church” greater than perhaps any previous Pope, some Catholics are currently uneasy.
Later in his talk, the Australian cardinal, who has been asked to lead Pope Francis’s financial reforms and is a member of the Pope’s “C9” group of advisors, criticized some of the ideas about conscience which are now current in the Church.
Cardinal Pell said that emphasizing the “primacy of conscience” could have disastrous effects, if conscience did not always submit to revealed teaching and the moral law. For instance, “when a priest and penitent are trying to discern the best way forward in what is known as the internal forum”, they must refer to the moral law. Conscience is “not the last word in a number of ways”, the cardinal said. He added that it was always necessary to follow the Church’s moral teaching.
The cardinal told the story of a man who was sleeping with his girlfriend, and had asked his priest whether he was able to receive Communion. It was “misleading”, the cardinal said, to tell the man simply to follow his conscience.
He added that those emphasising “the primacy of conscience” only seemed to apply it to sexual morality and questions around the sanctity of life. People were rarely advised to follow their conscience if it told them to be racist, or slow in helping the poor and vulnerable, the cardinal said.
His comments come after three years of debate on the Church’s teaching regarding Communion for the divorced and remarried. Cardinal Pell was among the senior figures who have publicly upheld the traditional doctrine repeated in Pope John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio – that the remarried should not receive Communion unless they are living “as brother and sister”.
But some prominent Catholics have suggested a different approach. For instance, Cardinal Blase Cupich has argued that someone’s conscience might tell them to receive Communion, and that “conscience is inviolable”.
Cardinal Pell quoted Blessed John Henry Newman’s writings on conscience, in which Newman rejected a “miserable counterfeit” of conscience which defines it as “the right of self-will”. He noted that Newman was defending Popes Pius IX and Gregory XVI, who in Cardinal Pell’s words, “condemned a conscience which rejected God and rejected natural law.”
The cardinal also paid tribute to St John Paul II’s “two great encyclicals”, Veritatis Splendor and Evangelium Vitae, which present the moral law as something binding in all cases.
Asked whether some Catholics’ unease about the state of the Church was related to false theories of conscience, Cardinal Pell said: “Yes, that’s correct.”
He added: “The idea that you can somehow discern that moral truths should not be followed or should not be recognised [is] absurd”.
“We all stand under the truth,” the cardinal said, pointing out that objective truth may be “different from our understanding of the truth”.
He also said that while doctrine develops, there are “no backflips”.
Cardinal Pell was asked about the letter to Pope Francis from four cardinals asking for clarification of the Pope’s recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The cardinals have asked the Pope to confirm that five points of Catholic teaching are still valid. These include the teaching that the remarried cannot receive Communion unless living as brother and sister, and the teaching that some moral absolutes have no exceptions.
The Pope has not replied to the four cardinals’ request, which was sent two months ago. The cardinals have taken this as an invitation to publish their questions and continue the discussion. The head of the Greek bishops has said that the four cardinals were guilty of “very serious sins” and could provoke a schism.
Asked whether he agreed with the cardinals’ questions, Cardinal Pell replied: “How can you disagree with a question?” He said that the asking of five questions was “significant”.
In his talk, Cardinal Pell portrayed St Damien of Molokai as a sometimes difficult but very holy priest. He noted that St Damien’s ministry was partly motivated by his fear for the souls of the lepers in his care. The cardinal said that a priest’s pastoral strategy is heavily determined by how many people he thinks will be saved.
He said that Jesus’s words, such as “Many are called, but few are chosen,” suggest a lot of people will go to hell. The cardinal said that while he did not relish this idea, “Jesus knew more about this than we did,” and that “our proper tolerance of diversity can degenerate” so that we believe “eternal happiness is a universal human right”.
Cardinal Pell said that the truth about eternal punishment had been downplayed, just as a mistaken idea of conscience had become widespread. A sinful life made it hard to perceive truth, he said, including moral truths – and so not understanding the moral law might itself be a result of sin. “The idea, now, of culpable moral blindness is discussed as infrequently as the pains of hell,” the cardinal said.
12 comments:
"He also said that while doctrine develops, there are “no backflips”." Says Cardinal Pell.
This is the points liberals, even a frequent commenter on this blog, tend to ignore. Why? I suspect they are what one may call them: conditional Catholics. Unless the Trinity develops doctrine to their liking they simply dismiss the Trinity as "old school" thinker.
The old (original?) sin: I want to do what I want to do and do not want to be punished for it. And of yeah, change the doctrine (develop it) while you are at it!
Anon-1
I would call Pope Francis a pontiff, but he seems to be determined to burn bridges rather than to strengthen them. It is pretty clear that he has accepted the liberal Protestant idea of situation ethics that originated in the 1960's at the expense of the traditional Catholic understanding of eternal God-given moral law. It is also pretty clear that a large segment of the Church has succumbed to this apostasy and that we are heading for schism. A council needs to be called very soon to deal with these unresolved issues precipitated by Vatican II that are increasingly splitting the Church.
My attitude....well, let's just say that in a sort of Don Bosco-esque fashion, I "see" possible futures where almost everyone falls into de facto or de juris apostasy out of fear or cupidity, desire for some worldly advantage. Where those who hold on to the basic faith, the Baltimore Catechism, simple faith of our fathers are pooh poohed, scorned and persecuted for merely begging to differ with the ruling classes' newest fads and fancy.
I see this because having read the Old Testament we learn that similar things happened in Israel repeatedly. I see this because in the New Testament and throughout Church history there have been many times in LOCAL churches where the faith was eclipsed for all but a few holdouts. The Japanese Catholics are one such heroic story but so are the English Catholics under Elizabeth and the following rulers.
From time to time and place to place, there have been laity - mere laity - who held to the faith while the local bishops, priests, orders, etc all capitulated to the local principalities and powers.
So that it might happen in the West or in the USA or in my little diocese is no longer a theoretical impossibility for me. I'm almost expecting it to happen.
It's sort of the Russian Roulette version of our recent Presidential election where most of us who voted Trump did so as a last ditch "hail mary" pass, as the last roll of the dice for a peaceful resolution to our current national crisis. If Trump turns out to be fools gold, then our future looks absolutely bleak and full of war.
If Pope Francis turns out to be an anti-pope or worse, just a 'bad' Pope, then the Catholic Church in the 1st world can very well experience an Elizabethan type persecution by the time the post-Christian neo-pagan Millennial generation comes to power (around 2030 when our global financial situation also comes to a head).
There's a thousand scenarios where things "end poorly" and only a few that thread the needle. It's always only by God's merciful grace that anything truly good can come of politics or Church development anyway.
So paraphrasing King Théoden on the eve of the Battle before Minas Tirith, we go to battle not because we have any hope at all of victory, but because it's the right thing to do. Even if the very Pope of Rome should deny Christ for the sake of mollifying the secular powers that be, I cannot deny my Lord. That's just how it is.
I also don't see myself making any grand heroic last stand but dying in some ditch by the side of the road at the hand of some desperate brigand just trying to make ends meet.
It's sort of the Jesuit Spiritual exercise meditation on death. I don't see myself being particularly brave or capable of enduring suffering. Indeed given all my sins, foibles and weaknesses, I'm more likely than not to be caught in some 11th hour flight towards safety than making some sort of grand gesture before the secret police.
I've gamed out a thousand times the ways in which I could be broken, my faith shattered, my virtue dissolved. How the enemy could easily cow me into a puddle of self-doubt and despair. But through it all, the one thing remains - the enemy is still the enemy and the Lord Jesus is still the Lord Jesus, whether I'm a worthy disciple or not.
The worst thing we can suffer is not sin (so long as we repent!) It's loss of faith and then final despair.
It's not for nothing that we pray that Mary be with us at the hour of our death! I expect to be a pretty sad and sorry, miserable person at the hour of my death and so will need every grace and aid from Her hand.
Still, and back to the point, when rubber hits the road, do we believe Heaven or this world is "more real"? Do we hold that the Heavenly community or THIS community is more important? Whose 'elite' company would we rather spend eternity, in whose tents would we want to find shelter - the mere mortals or mere creatures here below or the sublime creatures and Creator above?
I think the Spiritual Exercises and meditations therein should be prayed by everyone especially in times of tumult and chaos.
Poor Mark Thomas will be having difficulty keeping up with all the red hats pointing to the unorthodoxy of AL.
I came across this article where an Argentine Prosecutor Jack Tollers was interviewed about what he knew about Bishop Bergoglio. He says that an article written by Magister was entirely factual. That article claims that, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Bergoglio actively promoted the reception of communion by those who were not living in accord with Church rules. The interview raises some other interesting aspects of Francis' style and demeanor.
https://fromrome.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/an-argentine-prosecutor-speaks-about-bergoglio/
Jan, I won't experience any such difficulty. My bishops pronounced AL orthodox. Cardinal Sarah, Cardinal Mueller, Cardinal DiNardo, the bishops of Poland, Archbishop Chaput...well, you know the lengthy list in question.
Nope...I don't have any such difficulty.
By the way, does Bishop Schneider stand by his in-depth analysis of AL? He insisted that AL is orthodox, filled with beautiful teachings, and cannot be employed to permit unrepentant divorced Catholics in new unions to receive Holy Communion.
My question is sincere.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jan's choice of the word "unorthodox" is unfortunate, as the problem is really ambiguity. I hope Mark will agree that bishops other than the ones he lists have read AL in a way that is (arguably) unorthodox, and are incorporating that reading into their diocesan pastoral practices. The dubia are designed to clarify AL once and for all, so that doctrine on marriage isn't subject to change just because one moves to a different diocese.
I can't for the life of me come up with a convincing, rational reason why the Pope can't just clarify the issues in the questions.
No, Mike, my choice of the word "unorthodox" is correct because nothing that is orthodox in the Church needs clarification. "Unorthodox: contrary to what is usual, traditional, or accepted". AL is not usual. It is not traditional and it is not accepted. The points discussed in it are already settled Church teaching. Therefore, what is the point of this document? What is it clarifying? The answer is: the point of this document is to obfuscate the teaching of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage, to muddy the waters and to allow couples in irregular situations to receive communion.
Francis has now gone a step further by writing to the bishops of Argentina and telling them that their interpretation of AL is correct. This has caused the four Cardinals to write requesting clarification of the document.
In fact Cardinal Burke has gone further and has "repeated his point that Pope Francis' apostolic exhortation is not part of the infallible magisterium "because it contains serious ambiguities that confuse people and can lead them into error and grave sin."
"A document with these defects cannot be part of the Church's perennial teaching," he continued." http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/cdl.-burke-repeats-amoris-laetitia-not-magisterial
There was never any need for Francis to call a synod on the family, to survey ordinary Catholics - as has never been done before. All of this has just had the objective of changing the Church's teaching on marriage and it is time everyone stopped the denial. We are in a serious situation that only Francis can rectify by acknowledging plainly that he is upholding the Church's moral teachings. Nothing less will do.
Cardinal Pell, like St. John Paul II, is a man's man. Too bad he wasn't elected to replace Pope Benedict. The Church would be in a far better place today.
Since there are bishops with both orthodox and heterodox interpretations of Amoris Latitia, is it not pointless to argue which the document is? Perhaps the more interesting question is what its framers intended. Can the fact that it admits heterodox interpretations be unintentional?
In any event, AL brings to mind the comment in Martin Mosebach’s The Heresy of Formlessness that “the weakness of the OF is revealed by the claim that, with sufficient effort, be celebrated with beauty and reverence”. Similarly, the weakness of AL is that, with sufficient effort, be interpreted in an orthodox way.
Henry,
Precisely. Frankly, I doubt many bishops or priests have even read Amoris Laetitia, or if they did, they didn't understand it
TJM and Henry, I think the best answer to AL is from Cardinal Burke who, after all, was the highest canon lawyer in the Church. He says it is not part of the Magisterial teaching of the Church. Those who were already giving communion to those in irregular marriages, etc, of course, will continue to do so but then they didn't need AL to do that.
Post a Comment