Memo to Synod: If you don’t want focus on married priests, give us something else
Poor John Allen, an excellent, slightly, ever so slightly, left leaning orthodox progressive, is frustrated with the Synod on the Amazon and Cardinal O'Malley's critique of the Catholic press over its coverage.
Here are some money bytes:
Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston, who speaks both fluent Spanish and Portuguese and has long experience of Latin America, is a papal appointee among the 184 voting members of the Oct. 6-27 Synod of Bishops on the Amazon. As he generally does, O’Malley is using his blog to share impressions, and on Friday he issued a mild rebuke to reporters that could be a sign of things to come.
“Despite the impression that is being given in the media,” O’Malley wrote, “the synod is not some sort of a referendum on priestly celibacy.”
“A speech proposed launching local experiences of temporary ministries for married men, provided they’re recognized and approved by the local ordinary and by the ecclesial community,” the bulletin reported.
One might think today’s canonization of John Henry Newman might provide a respite from such debates, but honestly, it’s just as likely to contribute to them, with various people jousting during the days to come over what Newman might say about the Amazon synod if he were around today.
(In the Apologia, Newman said that Catholicism’s defense of an unmarried priesthood at a time when it was unraveling in the Church of England was an early part of the journey that led to his conversion: “Her zealous maintenance of the doctrine and the rule of celibacy, which I recognized as Apostolic, and her faithful agreement with Antiquity in so many other points which were dear to me, was an argument as well as a plea in favor of the great Church of Rome.”)
However, voices such as O’Malley do have a point that the discussion in the current synod is far broader than a “yes” or “no” to married priests, touching on disparate themes such as ecology, the impact of extractive industries, the rights and dignity of indigenous persons, the importance of education, the inequities of globalized capitalism, and lots else besides.
Perhaps one difficulty in getting those of us in the media to focus on those subjects is that while they’re undeniably important, it’s hard to know what the Catholic Church can really do about them. In concrete terms, the pope could permit married priests tomorrow; he cannot, at least by himself, reverse climate change or solve income inequalities.
READ THE REST THERE
My comments: Exactly, John Allen, when synods get bogged down on political, governmental issues in which most bishops and observers have no real expertise, like the pope telling Galileo that the sun revolves around the earth not the earth around the sun, we get into a mess, because Catholics only need to agree with the pope and bishops on issues of faith and morals as revealed through Scripture and Tradition, not political or scientific editorials from them, which they are free to give especially if they wish to continue to alienate Catholics around the world and others as well.
Just how is Pope Francis going to end climate change and what dogmas and doctrines, new ones, can he enact that will bring it about?
But he can change the rule of celibacy for certain circumstances as Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict did, like it or not.
He cannot, though, change a dogma into something else because His Holiness thinks that the Holy Spirit creates chaos, messes and enables people to make mistakes as though the Holy Spirit is responsible for Original and actual sins.
An no, one cannot say that what was believed as a part of the Deposit of Faith up until Pope Benedict can now be changed because the Holy Spirit is leading the Church to new paths, such as recognition of the LGBTQ ideologies, women ordained to be deacons priests and bishops. This is GNOSTICISM because belief in these things is ideologically produced and not a part of the Deposit of Faith, which gnostics decry. As well, Gnostics they have a direct line to the Holy Spirit who is telling them that it is okay to take new paths in this new outpouring of the Holy Spirit who not only opens the shut windows of dogma, but knocks down the walls and doors of the Deposit of Faith. When elitists in the Church, be they popes, bishops, priests, deacons, religious or laity claim this, they are Gnostic since no where can these things be honored as Catholic when an ordinary Catholic looks at all the teachings that are out in the open for all to find and believe in the Deposit of Faith. The truths of Catholicism are out in the open for all, not just in the domain of those who think they have a direct line to God that no one else has.
The only way Gnostics can get their way is to denigrate orthodox Catholicism and Catholics, just like it was done in the 1960's and 70's when they would label Catholics who disagreed with them as so pre-Vatican II, then the equivalent of the "N" word. The denigration of orthodox Catholics by the pope and others is but another attempt at this spirit of Vatican II "N" word use.
And tied into Gnosticism is Dualism, like the pope decrying those who love doctrines and dogmas (the truth) instead of God. Thus the pope implies that you can separate the truth from God and God is good and the truth you can take or leave or change. In other words, you can make your own truth, which is the ideology of the current day. It's just another form of saying the spiritual is good and the material bad.
What say you?
37 comments:
O'Malley is not to be trusted. After all, he presided over a show funeral for Abortion King, Teddy "Senator Oldsmobile" Kennedy. Now if Archbishop Vigano said it, I would find the statement credible
Fr McDonald
You realize, of course, that if the Pope actually held to the views which you credit him with, he would be open to a charge of material heresy.
I incline to the opinion that like Honorius I, PF deserves condemnation not for heresy, but for allowing heresy to flourish due to inaction.
He has, since the beginning of his pontificate, steadfastly refused to use his authority to 'confirm the brethren'.
John Nolan,
Now you've done it. Expect a myriad of non sequiturs from Mark Thomas in defense of his Golden Calf!!!
John is obviously correct concerning PF act omission. What is amazing for such a political animal is that he has lost control of his message such that he must now answer these sorts of questions because his own thoughts and beliefs are not certain.
I for one am not quite sure what more Francis has to do in order to be a material heretic besides signing and promoting a document undermining the Kingship of Christ & Christianity itself, or promoting obedience to a world organization that promotes birth control, and bowing and appearing to 'pray' to idols. (Sure many say this was a naked Mary, but what about the tiny male figures and rattles?)
If I may be allowed a bit more 'pontificating.'
Do not kid yourselves that Francis really meant 'permissive' will in the document he signed-thus making it okay.
Could anyone imagine him signing a document saying the holocaust or slavery was willed by God?
C'mon there would have been 'permissive' disclaimers all over the place.
What Francis did was completely undercut any need for Christ, or the Apostles, or Paul, because paganism was willed by God too.
So tell me, were the Apostles and Paul, and hey let's throw in Christ, going against the will of God? Or maybe God is so godly He can will contradiction? Yeah, that's it..
Just like the Catholic Church has always taught.
Apparently this post did not make it through yesterday, so I am sending it again:
“[W]hen synods get bogged down on political, governmental issues in which most bishops and observers have no real expertise, like the pope telling Galileo that the sun revolves around the earth not the earth around the sun, we get into a mess, because Catholics only need to agree with the pope and bishops on issues of faith and morals as revealed through Scripture and Tradition, not political or scientific editorials from them . . .”
To be sure, the revolution of celestial bodies is a scientific question, like the question of cosmic evolution, on which the Church pontificates only at the risk of getting egg all over her face. But isn’t the distinction between “morals” and “politics” a false one, especially in a democracy where citizens have the power of the vote, as the very expression “political morality” (aka political ethics or public ethics) indicates?
The Church rightly provides guidance to the Faithful regarding voting on candidates based on their positions regarding abortion because even though the Church cannot unilaterally change the law of the State regarding abortion, she can have an influence through the votes of Catholics. But is that it? Is there no other issue on which it is appropriate for the Church to provide moral guidance regarding voting or other political action? Don’t we know the answer to this question already? But where is the line to be drawn? The USCCB document on “Faithful Citizenship” tries to provide guidance on such questions, but should the lines be drawn somewhere else? If, so, where?
Dan,
Let me suggest a possible alternative interpretation of the joint Declaration. As such a joint Declaration, the document contains language that is capacious enough to cover the differing positions of both parties. Such an approach is quite common in “international” agreements and this joint Declaration is analogous to such agreements.
A2, I agree, however this does nothing to ease my horror at Peter undermining Christ for some type of political ends.
Anonymous 2,
If your Mom aborts you, you can't vote. Pretty fundamental that you have a human right to be born, not murdered in the womb.
Reading Anonymous 2's quite reasonable defense of the action of the very Holy Pope Francis, truly warms my heart. (Which happens to be very, very warm)
A little compromise of the faith never hurt anyone. Especially for the sake of unity. And you know what? That pesky idea about the 'real' presence does present quite the problem with unity with our Protestant brethren, doesn't it.
Yours,
Lucifer
What really warms Lucifer’s heart, of course, is to stoke such division and hatred among God’s children that they kill one another in God’s name, as Christians and Muslims have done throughout their history and as extreme and fanatical Muslims continue to do today.
And of course this document will change all that, and could not have just been worded in way indicating that the signing parties eschew violence period.
"What really warms Lucifer’s heart, of course, is to stoke such division and hatred among God’s children that they kill one another in God’s name, as Christians and Muslims have done throughout their history and as extreme and fanatical Muslims continue to do today."
I believe one could say it is God's will.
Yours,
Lucifer
With respect, Dan, now you are just being silly.
And TJM’s point is . . . ? Oh yes, not responsive to my post, as so often is the case.
Humble Francis says all religions willed by God. Lucifer says this means violence and slaughter and strife is willed by God, if we are to believe Francis.
Islam is willed by God per Francis.
This from Islam:
"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter."
I guess besides signing the document which will surely lead to peaceful coexistence, Francis could also consider asking all Catholics to begin paying the jizya tax. Since jizya is part of this God willed religion.
It is unsurprising that Lucifer would try to equate the existence of different ways of worshiping God with killing one another in God’s name, especially in the current Era of False Equivalence.
And here is some nice reading (and introductory video) for Lucifer:
http://rabbisacks.org/not-in-gods-name/
Anonymous 2,
But it is responsive to anyone with a brain aka a non-academic. Keep voting for evil, you will earn your ticket to hell
Yes, Dan, just like all the killings by Christians were willed by God. Please tell us: Among things permitted by God, which is worse—religious worship in ways that do not have the fullness of the Catholic Faith, or adherents of a particular religion distorting their religion, be it Christianity or Islam, to kill in God’s name?
Readers will notice that, yet again, TJM is either unable, or unwilling, to provide an adult answer to an adult question but, like his master, resorts to playground taunts.
I would not care if Bergoglio signed a thousand documents saying killing in God's name is wrong. However, given that Christianity has always pointed to Christ as being WILLED from the very beginning to be THE way and fulfillment of God's plan for man, I do find it illogical for a pope to undercut the very foundation of the religion he leads.
If all religions are willed by God and can lead to God, all that suffering on the cross and redemption stuff seems a bit redundant and very unnecessary.
Like I said, He would never have had the guts to replace the word "religion" with "holocaust" or "slavery."
Offending people - bad. Offending God - meh.
Dan,
Are you honestly telling us that you cannot distinguish between a joint statement between leaders of two Abrahamic Faiths about their quest for peace and other important related matters, on the one hand, and a statement about the Holocaust and slavery, on the other? Perhaps this will help you understand the distinction:
https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/02/05/pope-signs-declaration-saying-god-wills-religions-pluralism-what-does-this-mean/
And perhaps the following words will help you show a bit more respect to the Holy Father:
“The danger that "traditionalists" have brought to the table and they should not have been the ones doing it as it undermines otherwise good intentions, is all the horrible things they say about ‘Pope Bergolio’ which in this country is an insult to the person of the Pope. How in the name of God and all that is holy could anyone call themselves a traditional Catholic and insult the person of the pope? Pre-Vatican II Catholics would be mortified.”
-- Father Allan McDonald, Southern Orders, Wednesday, October 9, 2019
It was the statement about God willing a multitude of incompatible Faith's. All of which, except Christianity, have a different view of Christ.
My perhaps awkward attempt at explaining my horror, used holocaust and slavery to make a point.
These "holocaust" and "slavery" should not confuse the issue of the undermining of the Christian theology of Who Christ is, and His purpose in relation to salvation.
I hope this clears things up.
If anyone wants to demonstrate how the document does NOT present a new and 'surprising' way of looking at Christ, let me know.
Until then, don't get stuck on the holocaust and slavery analogy. (But you KNOW he would not have ever signed anything saying that these were in ANY way willed by God)
Imagine Christ telling his disciples to go out and convert the people of other faiths which also happen to be willed by the Father. Or "I am one of the ways, and part of the Truth....."
Yep Christianity would sure have been different.
btw Mark Thomas would say he who hears Francis, hears Christ...
So yes, I think what Francis signed is horrific.
My final comment: Francis could have signed a nice little secular document against violence in the name of religion. He did not. The Vatican officials brought theology into the document.
My point was that he all too easily made claims about God's will that seem to totally contradict any theology/Chistology built on the Old and New Testaments AND the Fathers of the Church.
Be not troubled about it if YOU can, but I am.
Anonymous 2,
It is a plain answer but "sophisticated" academics (who cannot not function outside of academia) prefer to obfuscate and obscure the obvious to cover the evil they are doing by voting for evil. Joseph Goebbels would be proud of you
Dan,
“If anyone wants to demonstrate how the document does NOT present a new and 'surprising' way of looking at Christ, let me know.”
The Catholic Herald article I linked provides the demonstration you seek. Did you read it?
TJM:
No, it was a non-answer. So let me ask the question again in case it was too “sophisticated” for you to understand (by the way, I think readers can readily see who is more like Socrates and who is more like Thrasymachus in our exchange(s)):
So, it is your position that the ONLY issue on which the Catholic Church should provide voting guidance to the Faithful is abortion? If not, on what other issues should the Church provide such guidance?
A2, thank you. I have read the article and am almost certain that no mental gymnastics were performed in order to make this document fit in with Catholic teaching and Christology.
Now that my anxiety has been eliminated, I plan on buying a case of rainbow colored MAGA hats. One I will keep, and the rest I will sell at the nearest conference of bishops.
Once I explain that MAGA stands for "Make ALL Gods Acceptable," I am sure they will sell out.
The rainbow color needs no explanation and is already totally acceptable.
Dan,
It is perfectly possible to read the joint Document consistently with the teaching of the Magisterium, including the Declaration Dominus Jesus. It is also perfectly possible to rip the joint Document out of the context this teaching provides and to read it inconsistently with that teaching. I choose to read the Document in the former sense. Why do you and like-minded others choose to read it in the latter sense? Why, in other words, do you employ a hermeneutic of suspicion and disruption as opposed a hermeneutic of trust and continuity? Which approach is more Catholic?
Ok A2. Good question as to why I interpret with suspicion. I think that it is because Francis, from about day 3 of his reign, began to denigrate and insult what I would consider normal Catholic people and practices. Remember him saying things about the counting of rosaries being so old-fashioned?
He himself seems to treat with suspicion all things Catholic. How many times must we hear how young priests wearing a certain garb must be hiding some issues, before Catholics like me become a bit superstitious of HIS agenda?
Dan,
Thank you for responding to my question. I can understand your position and attitude, although I do not share it. I do think, too, that where more than one interpretation is possible, it is incumbent on all of us to choose the interpretation that is consistent with Magisterial teaching (including teaching that leaves open the possibility for legitimate development in continuity with Tradition). To choose, instead, an interpretation that would involve a fundamental break with this Tradition seems unwarranted, especially when such an interpretation is promoted by those who seek to foment discord and opposition to Pope Francis and who manipulate, and are themselves often manipulated by, others for “political” reasons on various social media.
To believe that Pope Francis has rejected the consistent “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” teaching of the Church in one ambiguous sentence in this joint Document strains credulity beyond breaking point, especially, once again, when this sentence, read in proper context, is perfectly consistent with the Tradition.
P.S. This proper context includes, among other factors:
The consistent teaching of the Church
The nature of the Document as a joint Document that each party is able to agree to
The resultant need to use language that is consistent with the beliefs of each party
Language in the Qur’an addressing diversity and pluralism
The goals of the parties in seeking to address and combat serious problems of religious extremism, violence, and persecution (especially but not only of Christians), as well as growing unbelief and secularism
The extraordinary courage of the Grand Imam in signing such a Document (imagine what ISIS thinks about it).
Anonymoua 2,
To borrow Pope Francis' color phrase, assassinating your baby in the womb is always wrong. It seems that bishops are correct to point this out. There is nothing even remotely proportionate morally to the imperative not to murder your children. Politicians who push laws and even demand we fund such abominations should never be elected to office because they are evil. People who vote for them are participating in that evil. If you can't be born, you can't vote.
TJM,
Thank you for your response but I still don’t have an answer to my question. Assume we need to choose between two candidates, both opposed to abortion but differing on various other issues. Are you saying that the Church should not give any guidance to voters regarding these other issues? If you are not saying this, where do you draw the line regarding what other issues are appropriately addressed by such guidance?
Post a Comment