FROM CRUX:
After critical letter to pope, theologian resigns as consultant to U.S. bishops
- Crux StaffNovember 1, 2017
Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy
After making public a letter he wrote to Pope Francis accusing the pontiff of sowing “chronic confusion” and teaching in an “intentionally ambiguous” manner, a former chief of staff for the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Doctrine has resigned as a consultant to the same committee.
The conference announced the resignation in a statement on Tuesday, the same day the letter by Capuchin Father Thomas Weinandy was published by Crux and other media outlets.
“After speaking with the General Secretary of the Conference today, Father Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap., has resigned, effective immediately, from his position as consultant to the USCCB Committee on Doctrine,” the bishops’ statement said.
“The work of the committee is done in support of, and in affective collegiality with, the Holy Father and the Church in the United States. Our prayers go with Father Weinandy as his service to the committee comes to a close,” it said.
At the same time, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Galveston-Houston, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, released a separate statement saying Weinandy’s resignation illustrates the nature of constructive discussion in the Church.
“Throughout the history of the Church, ministers, theologians and the laity all have debated and have held personal opinions on a variety of theological and pastoral issues. In more recent times, these debates have made their way into the popular press. That is to be expected, and is often good,” DiNardo said.
“However, these reports are often expressed in terms of opposition, as political - conservative vs. liberal, left vs. right, pre-Vatican II vs Vatican II. These distinctions are not always very helpful,” he said.
“Christian charity needs to be exercised by all involved. In saying this, we all must acknowledge that legitimate differences exist, and that it is the work of the Church, the entire body of Christ, to work towards an ever-growing understanding of God’s truth,” DiNardo said.
DiNardo appeared to suggest that Weinandy’s letter failed to afford a necessary benefit of the doubt to the pope’s positions.
“As bishops, we recognize the need for honest and humble discussions around theological and pastoral issues,” he said. “We must always keep in mind St. Ignatius of Loyola’s ‘presupposition’ to his Spiritual Exercises: …that it should be presumed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor’s statement than to condemn it.’
“This presupposition,” DiNardo said, “should be afforded all the more to the teaching of Our Holy Father.”
DiNardo emphasized the loyalty of the American bishops to the pope.
“As pastors and teachers of the faith, let me assert that we always stand in strong unity with and loyalty to the Holy Father, Pope Francis, who ‘is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful’,” DiNardo said, quoting a document from the Second Vatican Council titled Lumen Gentium.
21 comments:
Pointing out and trying to prevent the spread of error isn’t exactly the same as what Martin Luther did.
"Christian charity needs to be exercised by all involved" + a quote from Lumen Gentium, a Vatican II document... Right, and the USCCB joyfully commemorates on its website Martin Luther who considered the pope the demonic anti-Christ. One need not wonder why people have been leaving the Catholic Church everywhere in USA.
“Christian charity needs to be exercised by all involved. In saying this, we all must acknowledge that legitimate differences exist, and that it is the work of the Church, the entire body of Christ, to work towards an ever-growing understanding of God’s truth,” DiNardo said.
DiNardo appeared to suggest that Weinandy’s letter failed to afford a necessary benefit of the doubt to the pope’s positions.
“As bishops, we recognize the need for honest and humble discussions around theological and pastoral issues,” he said. “We must always keep in mind St. Ignatius of Loyola’s ‘presupposition’ to his Spiritual Exercises: …that it should be presumed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor’s statement than to condemn it.’
“This presupposition,” DiNardo said, “should be afforded all the more to the teaching of Our Holy Father.”
====================================================================
That is the other side to the story in question.
Father Weinandy's directed certain uncharitable comments at His Holiness Pope Francis. Father Weinandy's letter has been promoted by right-wing bloggers as a welcomed attack against the Vicar of Christ.
Contrary to that which Father Weinandy suggested, Pope Francis, in humble spirit, has accepted reprimands from his critics. Therefore, despite Father Weinandy's caustic tone, His Holiness Pope Francis, a man of humility, may accept as valid certain reprimands advanced by Father Weinandy.
However, the overall tone of Father Weinandy's letter is caustic.
Father Weinandy also advanced certain absurd claims against Pope Francis.
One thing is certain: As has been the case throughout Church history, those who have denounced a Pope believe that they are right beyond question as God inspired their denunciation in question.
In that regard, Father Weinandy declared his letter was inspired by Jesus Christ. A sign from above was granted unto Father Weinandy, who, in turn, labeled his denunciation of Pope Francis as "an apostolic mandate."
Yep...it is always the Pope who is grave error.
From Martin Luther to date, it is always the Vicar of Christ who is in error...always the Vicar of Christ.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
From EWTN News:
http://www.ewtnnews.com/catholic-news/US.php?id=16510
Chad Pecknold, professor of theology at the Catholic University of America, agreed. Weinandy “is arguably the most distinguished Franciscan theologian working in the English language today,” Pecknold told EWTN News. “He is a theologian centered in the Church, and not at all at her outermost fringe. So his letter carries the weight of the center.”
“Rather than presume to correct, Father Weinandy describes the current situation, and informs the Holy Father that what seems to many like ‘intentionally ambiguous’ teaching has led to confusion, leading some of his own advisors to publicly advance error….There is something admirable about the impassioned plea of a son of St. Francis writing to Pope Francis, in truth and love, as a son to a father. His love for the pope is evident throughout his appeal.”
Mark Thomas, I appreciate your defense of the pope. However, many are raising concerns about the confusion that Pope Francis has fomented in the Church since day one. His Holiness is the one responsible for this and I pray that His Holiness will listen to the voices that are raising serious concerns, not only high ranking cardinals, some now deceased, but many others to include Fr. Weinandy.
I don't see his letter as anti-Pope Francis, but actually telling the truth. The pope denigrates those who believe in the Catholic Faith and its Canon law as doctors of the law who are Pharisees, corrupt ones at that. This is time constrained as Jesus sets the stage for His arrest and suffering and death and resurrection. It does not refer to cardinals of the Church who are faithful to Catholic teachings, laws and the Deposit of Faith. The pope should know better than to link good Catholics to the pharisees who will conspire with the state to crucify Jesus.
But this is what I was taught in the 1970's by theologians who wanted to get even with conservative popes, bishops and priests who upheld the faith and morals of the church including canon law. It is all so very unfortunate and it is the pope who is undermining His high office.
Woes of the Pharisees:
1.They taught about God but did not love God — they did not enter the kingdom of heaven themselves, nor did they let others enter.(Matt 23:14)
2.They preached God but converted people to dead religion, thus making those converts twice as much sons of hell as they themselves were. (Matt 23:15)
3.They taught that an oath sworn by the temple or altar was not binding, but that if sworn by the gold ornamentation of the temple, or by a sacrificial gift on the altar, it was binding. The gold and gifts, however, were not sacred in themselves as the temple and altar were, but derived a measure of lesser sacredness by being connected to the temple or altar. The teachers and Pharisees worshiped at the temple and offered sacrifices at the altar because they knew that the temple and altar were sacred. How then could they deny oath-binding value to what was truly sacred and accord it to objects of trivial and derived sacredness? (Matt 23:16-22)
4.They taught the law but did not practice some of the most important parts of the law — justice, mercy, faithfulness to God. They obeyed the minutiae of the law such as tithing spices but not the weightier matters of the law. (Matt 23:23-24)
5.They presented an appearance of being 'clean' (self-restrained, not involved in carnal matters), yet they were dirty inside: they seethed with hidden worldly desires, carnality. They were full of greed and self-indulgence. (Matt 23:25-26)
6.They exhibited themselves as righteous on account of being scrupulous keepers of the law, but were in fact not righteous: their mask of righteousness hid a secret inner world of ungodly thoughts and feelings. They were full of wickedness. They were like whitewashed tombs, beautiful on the outside, but full of dead men's bones. (Matt 23:27-28)
7.They professed a high regard for the dead prophets of old, and claimed that they would never have persecuted and murdered prophets, when in fact they were cut from the same cloth as the persecutors and murderers: they too had murderous blood in their veins (This "woe" foreshadows the Pharisees' eventual condemnation of Jesus himself, as well.) (Matt 23:29-36)
Fr. Hunwicke on the USCCB's dismissal of Fr. Weinandy:
"This cheap and vulgar ritual humiliation exemplifies the extent to which [Pope Francis] is presiding over a bully-boy Church in which midget bishops and minicardinals compete to defeat each other in the sycophancy stakes."
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2017/11/fr-weinandy.html
Stakes in which--as we here well know--even little fellows clacking away in their mother's basement fancy themselves to be competing.
Fr M:
"But this is what I was taught in the 1970's by theologians..."
What is happening now, such as the USCCB's dismissal of Father Weinandy, is very reminiscent of the late 1960's and 1970's, and includes the same hypocrisy that just turns everyone off then and now. Once the philosophical Modernists get in power, it is the same response that they give to their critics: "If you don't like it, you can leave..." And millions left, likely with their souls in peril. For the Modernists, like those that surround the pope, and they do not surround him by accident, it is their ideology that matters above all costs.
Catholics in those days did not have the Internet, but now they do, and things can get nastier and nastier before the Great Schism comes. Perhaps authentic orthodox Catholics can organise, and have demonstrations in front of USCCB and chancery offices to show their displeasure and concerns to show that things are not all right with the Church, so that something can be done before it is too late. After all, it is the True Faith that is at stake.
THere is no one more illiberal than a liberal and the USCCB confirmed that in spades. How can the sentient take this hypocritical band seriously? Father Weinandy is St. Thoms More and the USCCB the English parliament of mental and spiritual midgets
Fr. Hunwicke opines, "This cheap and vulgar ritual humiliation..."
I suspect Fr. Weinandy is 1) a big boy, 2) that he knew his letter would cost him his position, 3) that such public criticism is counterproductive on many levels.
So the notion that Weinandy was "humiliated" is a tad overstated, but in a typically British sort of way. He knew what he was getting into when he put the first jot on the page.
God Bless This Dear Little, if overly dramatic, Fr. Hunwicke...
I do not believe that Cardinal DiNardo wrote this. Some one in the bureaucracy did for the President. Cardinal Di Nardo now should resign as President of the conference.
Anon-1
Father McDonald said..."I don't see his letter as anti-Pope Francis, but actually telling the truth."
Father, thank you for having allowed me to participate on your blog. Thank you for your service and loyalty to God as you are His holy priest.
Father Weinandy told the truth as he perceives the truth in regard to His Holiness Pope Francis. But even more than that, Father Weinandy claimed that his letter to Pope Francis was inspired by Jesus Christ.
As the result of a divine sign that he received supposedly from God, Father Weinandy declared that the letter to Pope Francis is to be considered an "apostolic mandate" that he (Father Weinandy) received from God.
Hmmm...I don't know that.
But if Father Weinandy told the truth about Pope Francis, then we must conclude that God is very upset with His Holiness.
Okay.
Father Weinandy also informed Pope Francis that His Holiness "risks sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth."
Wow!
In light of letter to Pope Francis having been written via the benefit of Divine inspiration, then Pope Francis, who "risks sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth," is on thin ice with God.
Okay.
But I have contemplated Father Weinandy's letter, as well as his claim in regard to the supposed Divine inspiration that produced his letter to Pope Francis. I question much about Father Weinandy's letter to Pope Francis. I question as to whether the letter in question is of Divine inspiration.
I question as to whether Father Weinandy received an "apostolic mandate" to confront Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald said..."I don't see his letter as anti-Pope Francis, but actually telling the truth."
Father, Cardinal Sarah declared:
"In his post-synodal Exhortation on the Family, Amoris Lætitia (“The Joy of Love”), Pope Francis states clearly: “In no way must the Church desist from proposing the full ideal of marriage, God’s plan in all its grandeur … proposing less than what Jesus offers to the human being.”
"This is why the Holy Father openly and vigorously defends Church teaching on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, reproductive technologies, the education of children and much more."
=========================================================
Father McDonald, the "truth" that Father Weinandy told in regard to His Holiness Pope differs dramatically from the "truth" that Cardinal Sarah told in regard to Pope Francis.
There are Catholics who view Pope Francis in different ways. People cling to different "truths" in regard to the manner in which they perceive Pope Francis.
In that case, all we can do is, in charitable fashion, to agree to disagree with each other.
We must treat each other with Christian love.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Lesson to be learned, be careful of the type of mess you make???
Mark Thomas,
Here's something we can agree to disagree on. Like many, I'm weary of this papacy. It's a tiresome distraction. We struggle to discuss spirituality as something that HH has said or done is constantly preventing that discussion. I'm tired of Francis' politics, belittling, inconsistencies, confusion, vagueness etc. If you cannot see the Fr's points as being reasonable, there really isn't a point continuing to have dialogue we shouldn't be burdened having to have.
I have never been so ashamed of my Church: a "Pope" who disrespects Faithful Catholics, supports heretics, and a majority of the hierarachy with no morals.
ByzRC said..."If you cannot see the Fr's points as being reasonable, there really isn't a point continuing to have dialogue we shouldn't be burdened having to have."
Translation: I must march in lockstep with Father Weinandy and those who support him. Otherwise, I am "unreasonable".
After all, Father Weinandy, as well as those who support him, offer "reasonable" points. Conversely, those who reject Father Weinandy's claims in question are "unreasonable" folks.
That is what I am required by you to accept.
Okay. Sure.
=================================================
Well...here is what I accept.
I accept that I, in charitable fashion, am free to disagree with Father Weinandy, as well as those who support him, in regard to Father Weinandy's letter to Pope Francis.
I don't denounce anybody who disagrees with my opinions in regard to Father Weinandy's letter to Pope Francis.
Conversely, ByzRC, you have denounced as unreasonable anybody who doesn't march in lockstep with "Fr's points."
ByzRC...here is the absolute bottom line in regard to your comment in question: You desire each person to march in lockstep with your unfavorable opinion of His Holiness Pope Francis.
Anybody who doesn't march in lockstep with you is an "unreasonable" person. That is real meaning in regard to your comment in question.
Conversely, I don't label as "unreasonable" a person opposed to my opinions. I am open to charitable discussion.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas -
Grow up already and cut the drama. No where did I require, denounce, desire or, label anything. I challenged you to be reasonable and to find the middle ground. You honestly cannot see ANY validity whatsoever in the points found within the letter? It exasperates me that I don't have memory of you ever budging an inch on these comment pages even over something as simple as AD 2017 - you don't even want to hear that you are wrong and improve when a priest tells you. My sense is that you live in a world of absolutes - it's either one way or, the other. Nothing more. Unfortunately, life isn't that simple and "safe spaces" aren't always realistic during discussion and analysis.
And Mark,
Please don't ever assume how I want people to think and "march" again. For starters, you don't know me to even attempt to draw such a conclusion and second, I desire no such thing and to suggest thus us just childush.
ByzRC, to be fair to Mark Thomas, he seems to think that Francis and God are synonymous. So you're essentially asking him to commit blasphemy when you ask him to agree Francis might be incorrect.
Apologies for the typos. On mobile, the disclaimer cuts off the bottom of the com box so, I end up typing blindly.
Post a Comment