The paragraph I include from Bishop John Stowe’s commentary in La Croix which you might be able to access by pressing the title below (there may be a paywall, but they allow some free reading) says it all about today’s listening Church and publishing half truths.
1. Is there any listening to those concerned that the current papal regime has polarized the Church not seen even in the early days after Vatican II?
2. Is there no listening to those who believe the papacy includes St. John Paul II and his magisterial teachings and Pope Benedict’s XVI and his magisterial teachings and that eliminating them as being anti-Vatican II does more harm than good to the Church, opens the door to this pope and future popes being canceled and the politicization of doctrine, dogma and morality according to political parties, parliamentary proceedings and dictatorships?
3. Is there no shame in stereotyping Catholics who prefer the traditional Roman Mass as did Christians for about 1,600 years as being backwards about non-dogmatic teachings of the Church, such as preferring the pre-Vatican II liturgy which happens to be post-Vatican II too, cautious about ecumenism and Inter-religious dialogue when it leads to a universalism already condemned by the Church, and a desire for moral clarity in a world of sinners looking for deliverance from their sins, not confirmation in them?
Bishop Stowe castigates a significant number of Catholics who reject non-magisterial teachings about how to carry out ecumenism, interfaith dialogue and dialogue with the world, but is perfectly comfortable with progressive Catholics and their blatant heterodoxy toward revealed doctrines! This is the Twilight Zone to say the least!
4. Is there a psychological problem with social activist warriors who place social ethics above personal morality, be it sexual or otherwise?
5. Why is there not only a fear but a phobia of the growing traditionalist movement, but also Catholics who prefer the modern Mass traditionally celebrated or even progressively so, as a corrective to the post-Vatican II progressive agenda which has killed many relgious orders, weakened the number who might consider the priesthood or religious life and desire clarity from the Church not ambiguity and resent being treated as second class sinners while those who reject the Church’s anthropology on gender, sexual morality and obedience to Scripture and Tradition are canonized? Talk about a Church only for saints will you.
Have fun reading the good Bishop Stowe’s desire to go backwards to 1962 and skip forward to 2013:
In the past few months, there have been many assessments of the Bergoglio papacy—some lauding its fruitfulness, others bemoaning the lack thereof. If one's primary concern about the Church today is access to the pre-conciliar liturgy, or pre-conciliar attitudes about ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, or a rigid interpretation of the Church's moral tradition when it comes to sexual ethics but not to social ethics; if one fears a Church in dialogue with the world or fears a hierarchy that listens to its own flock; if one wants to be certain that the sacraments be exclusively offered to the saintly or fears any greater inclusion of laity, especially women, in co-responsible roles in the Church—then the Francis pontificate has been an outright disaster. That is supposedly how a cardinal, once a close collaborator of Francis, described this decade in a posthumously released commentary.
MY FINAL COMMENT: BISHOP STOWE AND OTHERS OF THE “WOKE” CHURCH NEED TO LISTEN, AND LISTEN CLEARLY AND CAREFULLY TO THE GOOD CARDINAL COLLABORATOR OF FRANCIS WHO IN LIFE AND IN DEATH DESCRIBED THE PAST DECADE OF THE BEROGOLIAN PAPACY, “AN OUTRIGHT DISASTER!”
17 comments:
I am well aware of this Bishop. He is bad news for the church and is the poster child for all that is wrong here and abroad. I feel sorry for the faithful in his Diocese. He is a disaster.
The complete article is here...for free:
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/aggiornamento-synodality-bishop-stowe-francis-pope-church
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I think I can see why some would read this article the way Father McDonald reads it. But I am not convinced it must be read that way. Moreover, the article seems very well written, providing a good explanation of Pope Francis’s general approach to his papacy. The only thing that gave me pause was the author’s reference to “the imposition of Tridentine rubrics and pre-conciliar liturgical fashion by young clerics.” Perhaps unlike some others here, I am unable to form a judgment about the accuracy of this claim and any “imposition” that might be involved (presumably without other options also being offered in the parish(es) concerned).
Regarding Father McDonald’s point 4, and the discussion by the author of the relative place of social ethics and sexual ethics, we might do well to reread the relevant chapters in C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity,” i.e., chapters 3 and 5 of Book III respectively. At the end of chapter 5 Lewis states:
“Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the center of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and backbiting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me competing with the human self I must try to become. They are the Animal self and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.” [see pp. 94-95]
I believe that Dante took a somewhat similar view in his Inferno.
And significantly, in chapter 3 Lewis writes:
“[T]he real snag in all this drawing up of blueprints for a Christian society [is that] [m]ost of us are not really approaching the subject in order to find out what Christianity says: we are approaching it in the hope of finding support from Christianity for the views of our own party. We are looking for an ally where we are offered either a Master or—a Judge. I am just the same. There are bits in this section that I wanted to leave out.” [see page 82]
Lewis might be a bit dated in some respects, but he remains a very challenging writer who provides a very bracing and demanding account of Christianity. I know that he never made the move over to Rome, perhaps because of biases he was unable to overcome, but is he wrong in what he says about Christian morality?
Is not WOKE applied to Church dogma heretical? And if so, are they who promote it and tolarate it heretics?
Mark, thank you for your thoughtful comments. As it concerns sexuality, in terms of breaking the 6th Commandment, which the Catechism of the Catholic Church has many levels on how it can be broken, based on Jesus’ teaching about doing the most rather than the least, concupiscence that leads to venial and mortal sins, especially the idolatry of sex, infidelity to spouse and to God, are very serious and I would say are just as serious as the other things you indicate are more sinful. At the root of all sin is pride and doing things my way as I am the god of who I am. Think Adam and Eve in this regard. The original root of all sin is Pride which is the disobedience to God and infidelity towards Him and what He commands.
But most of us in one way or another break the 6th Commandment and need to repent and try over again. But that isn’t my point, what is going on in the progressive movement in the Church which Pope Francis dances with and seems to encourage, is a complete break with our Catholic anthropology of sex and gender and what can be blessed in the realm of sin, be it venial or mortal. Here I am not speaking of the blessing of sinful people, since we all are and need all the blessings we can get but the blessing of sin, like the illicit sexual union of people of whatever gender or no gender they claim. That is quite different from blessing the sinner. If you are a masturbater, to ask the Church to bless your sexual practice is absurd and obscene. But that is what many want in the Church. But I am not as concerned about that as I am about changing the Church’s sexual anthropology to open the door to the Sacraments of Matrimony and Holy Orders for those who claim there are no real sexual sins, since social sins are greater anyway and that anyone should be allowed to enter into Holy Matrimony and Holy Orders no matter their sexual or gender proclivities.
Father McDonald:
Thank you for your response. I don’t think Lewis is claiming there are no sexual sins. That is very clear from his chapter 5 in Book III.
What I suspect might be troubling him, as it certainly troubles me, is that an undue emphasis on sexual sins blinds us to all the many other ways in which we might be sinning, both by commission and omission. In his chapter 3 in Part III Lewis describes several features “of what a fully Christian society would look like” based on “a pretty clear hint” from the New Testament, and observes that its economic life would look “Leftist” and “very socialistic” (it is very important to know that he also describes features many would call “conservative” or “traditional”). But, of course, we don’t want to hear that, do we? It is so much easier to focus on sexual sins instead. As Lewis says:
“Each of us would like some bits of it, but I am afraid very few of us would like the whole thing. That is just what one would expect if Christianity is the total plan for the human machine. We have all departed from that total plan in different ways and each of us wants to make out that his own modification of the original plan is the plan itself. You will find this again and again about anything that is really Christian: every one is attracted by bits of it and wants to pick out those bits and leave the rest.” [see page 80]
Catholic teaching offers the total plan. But on this Blog I have noticed a strong tendency among some to reject much of the social teaching of the Church as “optional.” I suspect that this tendency is tied up with politics. There is no party in the United States that truly represents us as Catholics. Tish Harrison Warren, an Anglican priest, wrote something similar recently in her New York Times column:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/18/opinion/whole-life-movement-polarization.html
I commend the entire article, but here is a sense:
“We, as a nation, are seemingly at an impasse, split on abortion, immigration, guns and many other issues, with no clear way forward. Maybe the only way out of this stalemate is a remix. Maybe there needs to be a new moral vision that offers consistency in ways that might pull from both progressive and conservative camps. To embrace and articulate a consistent ethic of life, even while inhabiting the existing political parties, helps create the space necessary to expand the moral imagination of both parties. . . . Those of us who feel morally alienated from both parties must speak up and offer hope for a different sort of politics in America.
P.S. Perhaps I should have made it clear that when I said “But, of course, we don’t want to hear that, do we? It is so much easier to focus on sexual sins instead,” I am very much including myself as well. Being as privileged as I am, I too am challenged by Lewis's economic prescriptions and it is hard to remember that it is all gift and everything belongs to God!
Sexual sins, like abortion on demand? Democratic cities, where law enforcement is a dead letter such that minorities not living in swanky neighborhoods like their White, liberal betters, are paying the steepest price? Media ignoring stories that good guys with a gun stop unspeakable crimes when seconds count and the police are minutes away? Illegal aliens burdening the working classes with additional taxes so Democratic pols can retain power? Law students needing safe spaces because the Supreme Court rules in accordance with the US Constitution which hurts liberals "feelings?" Moral equivalence between the Parties when there is no moral equivalence?
Mark – “Mere Christianity” is a great book that played an important role in my younger days when I had fallen away. I’ll need to find time to reread. My recollection is that C.S. Lewis warns about the harmful effects of the sin of pride on the soul, which Fr. Allan echoes in his post on this thread.
Yes, Dave, that is my point, the original sin is the sin of pride and wanting to be in control of things as though we are God. Adam and Eve found out the hard way what a folly that was/is. I was once castigated on my own blog when I stated that there are more serious and less serious mortal sins just as there are more serious and less serious venial sins. Someone said a mortal sin is a mortal sin because sin, no matter the kind, is repugnant to the Supreme Holiness of God. There are no sinners nor sin in heaven.
But I don’t dismiss that “good works” especially charity and social justice and “fighting” for peace and justice are important and to disdain these would be a sin. But social justice warriors in the Church prefer to lay guilt trips on those who don’t see and do things their way whereas when it comes to sexual sins where there is more culpability for the sinner, they want no sexual guilt.
There’s nothing particularly unique about Catholic social justice compared to what an atheist would strive to accomplish. Each person has his own charisms in what they are able to do. Mark would know Sister Elizabeth who was suburb at proclaiming social justice and doing the hard work to accomplish it. I did not and don’t have her charism, but I made sure to stay out of her way and let her do what God called her to do, but also to provide funding for what she wanted to do. Macon, I would say, had more “good work” charities than any other deanery in our diocese thanks to her and the Daughters of Charity and committed lay people there.
Father McDonald said: “social justice warriors in the Church prefer to lay guilt trips on those who don’t see and do things their way.” Perhaps he is correct in this assessment. I really don’t know. What I do know is that, at least here on this Blog, any guilt trips are laid on those of us who defend the position that a Catholic voter may in good conscience vote for either of the two major parties in the United States provided he or she tries to follow the guidelines set out by the USCCB in “Faithful Citizenship.” Notice that there is no insistence that one MUST vote Democrat; only that one MAY. The insistence on this Blog is all in the opposite direction, i.e., that one MUST vote Republican and MAY NOT vote Democrat, and some very unkind and uncharitable things are often said in support of this latter position.
Father McDonald also said: “There’s nothing particularly unique about Catholic social justice compared to what an atheist would strive to accomplish.” If one is just focused on the goals and intended results, this might be correct. But if one is focused instead on conscious motivations, surely it is not correct. Moreover, a Catholic engaged in social justice efforts, perhaps even working together with atheists, might well view the efforts of those atheists as being unconsciously motivated ultimately by God even though the atheists do not realize this fact because they do not acknowledge that God is the ultimate source of any act of genuine love (as distinct from ego gratification). In short, the Catholic knows that any genuine good he or she may do is really from God, but the atheist does not know this. At least, this is how I understand the matter. Please correct me if I am wrong.
TJM wrote: “Media ignoring stories that good guys with a gun stop unspeakable crimes when seconds count and the police are minutes away?”
Whether or not the media are ignoring these stories, where were the good guys on Independence Day? The latest bulletin from Lunatic Asylum News:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/4th-july-mass-shootings-us-kill-13-injure-80/story?id=100702853
Does such a country deserve independence? Why can’t we fix this problem? Ensuring safety and protecting life is the primary duty of government. And please, no distractions about abortion or blaming the Democrats or the Republicans. They both need their heads banging together. Just fix it already!
Mark – Let’s have a conversation on the guidelines set out by the USCCB in “Faithful Citizenship.” My understanding is a voter is obliged to first look at a candidate’s position on abortion given its “preeminent priority” and reject a pro-abortion candidate unless there are “truly grave moral reasons” for voting for the opposing pro-life candidate that are proportionate to the evil of abortion. Here are the paragraphs that I am primarily drawing from:
“The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed” (Introductory Letter)
“We are a society built on the strength of the family.” (2)
“A legal system that violates the right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed” (22)
The exercise of “conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection.” (31)
“There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons…” (35)
Dave,
Thank you for engaging on this question. Over the years I have had several conversations on this topic here on the blog.
I agree with you that the conscientious Catholic voter must begin with the candidate’s position on abortion and that there is a presumption in favor of the candidate who opposes abortion that can be rebutted only by “truly grave moral reasons.”
What are such reasons? Some light is shed by the Statement’s explanation of what they are not. Thus, the Statement goes on to contrast voting for such reasons with voting “to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.” [35]
Moreover, in the previous section the Statement identifies several “intrinsic evils” and the required attitude regarding them: “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” [34] Notice, too, that this is a non-exhaustive list (“such as”). Although not all would agree, I would include lying as an intrinsic evil.
And two sections further on the Statement identifies some other factors that the voter may consider in forming his or her conscience when voting: “These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.” [37]
Mark – I like how you summarize the key point that there is presumption in favor of the candidate who opposes abortion that can be rebutted only by “truly grave moral reasons.” Good to see that we agree on that point.
I consider the factors mentioned in paragraph [37] (candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue) mostly during the primary season when trying to decide among various prolife candidates, but I have yet to see any of these rising to the level that would compel me to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Additionally, I consider a candidate’s pro-abortion position as a significant negative on his/her character.
As an aside with regard to judging character, C. S. Lewis in “Mere Christianity” (Book 3, Ch. 10) discusses our inability to really know another’s soul.
Lying has its own set of issues in my opinion, especially given that many politicians have serious deficits in this area.
The bottom line for me is that I do not see pro-life candidates promoting policies that are “intrinsically evil” (let alone on par with that of abortion) or there ever being a “truly grave moral reason” to vote for the pro-abortion candidate.
Dave,
Thank you for your response. I absolutely respect your “bottom line” even though another Catholic’s “bottom line” (including my own) might look different.
Let me begin by saying that I am pretty sure my own opposition to, say, voting for Donald Trump is not rooted in “narrow interests” or “partisan preferences” or “to ignore a fundamental moral evil.” Instead, they are rooted in serious moral concerns.
It is true that the Statement identifies as the preeminent moral concern “[opposing] the direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death” [28] Well, if this concern is so preeminent, how can any other concern possibly outweigh it? That is an important question. But it is answered by what the Statement does NOT say. If this concern outweighed all other concerns, one would expect the Statement to say so, but it doesn’t. Similarly, one would expect the Statement to say one can never vote for a candidate supporting abortion, but it doesn’t. Instead, the Statement says that “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support. Yet if a candidate’s position on a single issue promotes an intrinsically evil act, such as legal abortion, redefining marriage in a way that denies its essential meaning, or racist behavior, a voter may legitimately disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” [42] [Note the use of “may” not “must”]. And it also says that “The Church cannot champion any candidate or party.” [58]
So, we must proceed further in determining whether there might be other, “truly grave moral reasons.” In addition to the non-exhaustive list of intrinsic evils, the Statement does two other important things First, it cautions against misusing the preeminent concern “as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity.” Second, it identifies several such threats or “serious moral issues,” including “[the] current and projected extent of environmental degradation[,] . . . [r]acism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture, war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, pornography, redefining civil marriage, compromising religious liberty, [and] an unjust immigration policy.”
Regarding the “character” point, the USCCB Statement specifically asks us to take a candidate’s character into account as a factor. [37; see also 41 asking us to “consider candidates’ integrity, philosophy, and performance.”] I don’t think the Lewis point is in Part III chapter 10, which addresses the theological virtue of Hope. Are you thinking of Part III Chapter 4 on Morality and Psychoanalysis? It is true that Lewis says that as Christians we cannot judge, and like you I understand him to be talking about the soul. But I see the state of a person’s soul as distinct from the state of his or her character, and I assume the Statement does too. See also Lewis’s Part III Chapter 2 on the “Cardinal Virtues.”
Mark – I think this discussion has been helpful for us to understand each other’s perspective and for setting the framework for future discussions on this topic. How we each weigh different statements in the USCCB seems to lead us to different conclusions when applying it to voting. Other concerns mentioned in the USCCB are important, but I do believe the document intended to put these on the same level as abortion. I go back to the statement in the Introductory Letter.
“The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed”
I misspoke when it came to “Mere Christianity” – I meant to refer to Chapter 10 of Book 4 not Book 3. I agree that we make judgments on character as a consideration in choosing who to vote for, but I still think C.S. Lewis’ cautions are relevant as well.
Post a Comment