Ed Condon of the Pillar has his own take on the "damage control" that Pope Francis seems to be undertaking at the moment.
Have progressive voices in the Church finally warned Pope Francis that if he keeps up His Holiness' opinion of what "doctrinal development" means, apart from making moral, doctrinal and dogmatic teachings more comprehensible rather than changing them outright, that a major schism will be unleashed in the Church. I think too, that the African continent to include Egypt has given the Holy Father a couple of ultimatums recently as it concerns FS.
Perhaps too, Pope Francis is having second thoughts on his version of Synodality which only less than 1% of Catholics have any desire to pursue and could care less about it and hope it dies a quick death.
At any rate, here is Ed Condon's take on it. It it very good, I think:
Tide watch
Two things happened this week which I think merit consideration together.
The first was Pope Francis’ response when asked about the possibility of sacramental ordination for women as deacons on the infotainment show 60 Minutes.
“I’m curious, for a little girl growing up Catholic today,” Norah O’Donnell asked with the kind of oleaginous pomposity only American TV types can manage with a straight face, “will she ever have the opportunity to be a deacon and participate as a clergy member in the Church?”
“No,” said the pope.
This was broadcast just as several national reports for the global synodal were calling for exactly that — as we have previously reported — and it triggered an immediate, if somewhat predictable, backlash from the usual suspects.
The second thing that happened was that DDF prefect Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández met with Pope Tawadros II, the head of the Coptic Orthodox Church and offered a kind of apology-by-way-of-explanation over the fallout of Fiducia supplicans, the DDF’s pre-Christmas declaration on the blessing of gay people who present themselves as a couple.
In March, the Coptic Orthodox issued a statement in response to Fiducia supplicans, saying they had “decided to suspend theological dialogue with the Catholic Church, re-evaluate the results achieved by this dialogue from its beginning 20 years ago, and establish new standards and mechanisms for the dialogue to proceed in future.”
It was a major setback to what had previously been one of the biggest ecumenical advances of the Francis era.
According to Vatican News, Fernández affirmed to Tawadros that “these blessings are not given to the union between individuals” and do not impart “‘sanctifying grace’ but those aids of the Holy Spirit that Catholics call ‘actual graces,’ which push the sinner towards conversion and maturation.”
Cardinal Fernández looking to mend fences and repeating, as he has done several times now in the months since Fiducia was issued, that such blessings are for individuals not couples qua couples, is all so much to be expected.
What I thought was especially notable, though, was to see him, via the official Vatican media portal, using the language of sinners and conversion when speaking about gay Catholics.
Whatever the rival agendas in regards the Church’s approach to same-sex relationships in the current synodal process, this is exactly the vocabulary many expected would be the first thing to change when it concluded, including a redrafting of the language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on this point.
What we have seen in the last week is Pope Francis and his top doctrinal deputy express what many would consider (in the worst possible to way) to be deeply conservative views on the hottest topics going in the synodal process, and they did so with no discernable wink or nod to those on the other side of the issue — at least that I could see.
If I am sure these events are significant, I am unsure what to make of them.
Is it a calculated, thinly coded rebuke by Francis of the Cardinal Hollerich school of synodality, who seem to have taken it as read that the synod is, indeed, a doctrinal free-for-all and decided to start saying so out loud?
Is the pope laying down some clear markers on what is absolutely not going to pass papal muster in any post synodal document in a bid to focus minds ahead of October?
Maybe there’s increased concern that radical progressive calls for reform have been given so much space and air time that more conservative leaders (like in Africa, say) will simply refuse to buy in to the process and boycott proceedings.
Or have Francis and Fernández come to some new understanding or concern that some of the more radical proposals going around, with some loud voices behind them, pose an actual threat to Church unity and doctrinal coherence?
I genuinely do not know. Maybe it is some combination of all these, maybe it is something else entirely.
But this I do know: Francis knows the rhetorical volume of a flat “no.” And Vatican News doesn’t get the editorial green light for saying Fernández called people “sinners” on a whim.
A tide is shifting here. I am just not sure in what direction it’s being pulled. Yet.
27 comments:
Let's pray that PF will see the beauty, fervor, and youth that was on display at the Chartres pilgrimage; maybe he'll retract some of his vilifications.
Forgot to check follow-ups!
White man speak with forked tongue
Ed Condon's comments in question serve as space-filler material. But I do not mean that in a harsh way.
Mister Condon does his share to fill The Pillar publication with news and opinions/speculations. That is what he has done in regard to that which Father McDonald has posted to this thread.
Toward the end of his column/commentary in question, Mister Condon made it clear that he has engaged in pure speculation.
========
Mister Condon said: "Is the pope laying down some clear markers on what is absolutely not going to pass papal muster in any post synodal document in a bid to focus minds ahead of October?"
"Maybe there’s increased concern that radical progressive calls for reform have been given so much space and air time that more conservative leaders (like in Africa, say) will simply refuse to buy in to the process and boycott proceedings."
"Or have Francis and Fernández come to some new understanding or concern that some of the more radical proposals going around, with some loud voices behind them, pose an actual threat to Church unity and doctrinal coherence?"
Mister Condon concluded: "I genuinely do not know."
========
Wow! That constitutes firm conviction on his part!
:-)
Actually, I credit Mister Condon with his having, in effect, acknowledged that he had filled space with pure speculation.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
As I have said quite a few times, this papacy, which delights in being unpredictable to friends and foes as a power move, has steadily advanced expectations for change, while reigning in only the fastest change, while crippling the most orthodox of movements and their leaders.
Meanwhile, the expectations remain, disappointment grows at every reigning in, the seeds planted, fertilized and sprouting, nothing done to root them out, and firmly setting the stage for real change in the future.
It will take two or three orthodox papacies in a row to begin to undo the damage of this one, and doubtful we'll see those consecutive (or maybe even one) orthodox papacies.
They are playing a long game, and only hope that younger clergy tired of the sophistry outlast and outnumber the current crop of quick change artists and their proteges.
Mark, thanks for clearing up that there is something inherently wrong with speculation. That much of it has turned out to be correct does not change that inherent wrongness, does it? What would we do without your out of context quotes, which surely are not speculative when taken out of context to bolster own vague points that the Francis papacy can do no wrong, and only Francis quotes have meaning.
In regard to Fiducia Supplicans and the Coptic Church:
That has reminded me of the tremendous verbal beating within, and without the Church, that Pope Saint John Paul II, as well as then-Cardinal Ratzinger, had sustained in 2000 A.D.
Pope Saint John Paul II approved the then-CDF/Cardinal Ratzinger document entitled "Dominus Iesus." Tremendous controversy had greeted said document.
The following news report captured the tremendous controversy in question:
-- Dominus Iesus a 'Public Relations Disaster' for Ecumenism Say Critics
"A week after publishing a document which casts doubt on the validity of Protestant Christianity and asserts Roman Catholic superiority over all other churches, the Vatican continues to draw criticism both from other churches and from within its own ranks."
"The general secretaries of two organizations representing major wings of Protestantism have publicly lamented the harm done to ecumenism by Dominus Iesus..."
=========
Prominent Eastern Orthodox Olivier Clement termed Dominus Iesus as an "act of blasphemy against the church to say that the Eucharist celebrated by Anglicans and Protestants is empty."
=======
In particular, umbrage had been take at the document's insistence that the Catholic Church is the True Church.
=======
My point is that Holy Mother Church has for decades kept Ecumenical/Interreligious sensitivities in mind as She has presented the Faith.
Nevertheless, the Church has also insisted that Her commitment to the Ecumenical Movement, as well as interreligious dialogue, will not prevent Her from the proclamation of Her teachings.
Even in the face of horrific feedback, within, and without the Church, Rome had held fast to Dominus Iesus. Rome will also hold fast to Fiducia Supplicans.
I pray that the Coptic Church will, with respect and understanding, embrace that.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, more false equivalency between what Francis signed off and what JPII signed off...the Francis document boderline heresy saved only by details, while the JPII document as orthodox as possible...
and no comparison of who has been outraged, with Francis lighting up orthodox Catholics who believe what the Church has always taught, while the JPII document only outraged those who don't believe in the Church and what it has taught.
You, sir, are a professional excuse-maker, and a poor one, at that. Always obfuscating with false equivalency, same as Francis and his (other) sycophants.
The 2000 A.D. document was met with fierce criticism within, and without, the Church. There were Catholics who found the document horrifying. Outraged Eastern Orthodox Churchmen labeled Dominus Iesus "blasphemous."
Pope Saint John Paul II, as well as Cardinal Ratzinger, experienced fierce feedback in regard to said document.
Despite the fierce attacks in question, there is one vital thing that Dominus Iesus and Fiducia Supplicans have in common: God empowered the Papal Magisterium, rather than critics, to determine each document's orthodoxy.
The Church of Rome had/has pronounced in favor of Dominus Iesus' orthodoxy.
Today, that same Church of Rome has spoken in favor of Fiducia Supplicans' orthodoxy.
That is all that matters in regard to the question of each document's orthodoxy.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I have long thought that many of PF's more unusual "reforms" would die with him (quietly). Now we see that some are being scaled back before the biological solution takes place. Bravo.
MT, you are being silly and illogical again. Pope Francis and the men and women he has placed in charge of various Vatican commissions, to include the synod on synodality, have indeed followed Francis vision of doctrinal development meaning changing doctrine and morals. Pope John Paul II’s enclylical “Splendor of Truth” has been undermined at worst, ignored at best. Pope Benedict’s “Dominus Deus” was called out by heterodox prelates now in control and completely ignored at best, rejected at worst by those in power. Pope Francis has almost single-handedly canceled Pope Benedict's brilliant magisterium on these issues but completely canceled his genius liturgical magisterium including Summorum Pontificum. The thing that is different with Pope Francis is that his synodal way allows the heterodox to gain their way with changing doctrine and dogmas even after this pope’s death if synodality as they understand it continues. Hollerich, one of the leaders of the synodal way, assigned that position by the Pope undermines all previous papal magisteriums. You can blame the modern Mass for their radical heterodoxy.
Mark, who cares what Orthodox members think of Catholic teachings, and what Catholics care about Orthodox teachings? You?
As for horror inside the Church, you mean the "catholics" who do not believe what the Church has always taught in the first place, and who cares about them? You, certainly.
Just more false equivalency and dishonesty, giving equal weight to unequal things. Totally modern in that the opinion of experts and the ignorant are all equal in your mind, which is not what the Church or even American politics are about...both demand INFORMED conscience and voting...
and same with reception of teachings, where docile reception only required for those teachings in continuity with prior teaching, no paradox or contradiction allowed, all internally logical, and you can't know that if you are ignorant.
Several points and questions:
- To those who are most critical of Pope Francis: I think what we are witnessing is the operation of infallibility, which is misunderstood. It is not a positive power imbued into the pope, but rather a restraining work of God; guardrails if you will. If -- as the pope's worst critics maintain -- Francis really wants to go off the deep end, note well that on the question of matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders, he did not; and no hedging. How powerful a word is "no."
- To Mark and anyone else trying mightily to defend everything associated with this papacy: what is the point of Fiducia Supplicans? What does it "do" that wasn't doable before it was issued? What problem did it fix, and tell me precisely how it fixed it?
- To all: if you are going to use the initials "A.D.," let's be clear what it means and how it is properly used. It stands for the Latin phrase, Anno Domini, that is, Year of our Lord. As such it belongs before the date; it makes no sense after.
Yes, I know, the world around us uses it otherwise, but this is our term, as Christians; it's up to us to know what our own ideas mean and to defend them. If you are going to adopt the world's way of thinking on this, then know what it is: many people think "A.D." means, "after death" -- that is, of Christ!
Several points and questions:
- To those who are most critical of Pope Francis: I think what we are witnessing is the operation of infallibility, which is misunderstood. It is not a positive power imbued into the pope, but rather a restraining work of God; guardrails if you will. If -- as the pope's worst critics maintain -- Francis really wants to go off the deep end, note well that on the question of matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders, he did not; and no hedging. How powerful a word is "no."
- To Mark and anyone else trying mightily to defend everything associated with this papacy: what is the point of Fiducia Supplicans? What does it "do" that wasn't doable before it was issued? What problem did it fix, and tell me precisely how it fixed it?
- To all: if you are going to use the initials "A.D.," let's be clear what it means and how it is properly used. It stands for the Latin phrase, Anno Domini, that is, Year of our Lord. As such it belongs before the date; it makes no sense after.
Yes, I know, the world around us uses it otherwise, but this is our term, as Christians; it's up to us to know what our own ideas mean and to defend them. If you are going to adopt the world's way of thinking on this, then know what it is: many people think "A.D." means, "after death" -- that is, of Christ!
Father Fox, good points, but AD makes as much sense as prefix or suffix...and the year thing as such a relatively new thing, as years prior were noted in relations to Olympiads, founding of cities, reigns of assorted rulers, etc etc...AD adopted as a copycat move, so to speak, and only quite a bit later after the fact.
As for Francis firm NO, as far as I know, it all off the cuff and subject to revision, unless he snuck in an official document confirming ancient teachings. He is great at unofficial teachings, not so great at laying down the law unless it concerns perceived enemies.
Bob:
I can think of no reason for him to blurt out "no" as he did, other than either that's simply what he believes, and/or that is how the Holy Spirit intervened. If he wanted, as your comments suggest, to keep his options open, it was obviously not the right answer. Such an answer gives no advantage. There were so many ways to dodge a direct answer that would not have changed anything. Had he said "yes," it would have been bad. Saying "no" creates problems for him he might have avoided. I can't see why he would say "no" other than the reasons I cited in the paragraph before this one.
Father Fox, with a normal person, I would agree, but Francis delights in catching friend and foe off guard, and not as if contradicting himself later would cause him to not be reelected at the next election. He is quite famous for saying one thing and doing another, and even changing a decision when original decision was leaked, simply as he revels in being unpredictable.
For 10yrs I have watched churchmen try to cast what he says in an orthodox light, watched other churchmen try to cast what he says in heterodox light and both frequently disappointed as they fail to see Francis is not a normal person...
the heterodox allowed to run rampant with no repercussions (past the unfortunate Chicago priest who went a bit too far and too close on the heels of the Feducia uproar, where if he had waited a few more months, he likely would not even have been ordered to offer an apology, and that apology the only "discipline" heard of to date), so, no, I don't buy Francis interview quotes whatsoever, as indicating what he would do or not do...
My only relief is he won't last much longer, and am not anticipating any magisterial documents reaffirming ancient teachings when he and his crowd are hoping for a successor who will be able take advantage of the groundwork laid by Francis and follow in his agenda...he is just being canny in not trying to go too fast after watching an entire continent defect.
All the bishops and priests can continue to behave as if Francis is normal and rational, just as they have for over 10yrs, and we see the results of that...ever more door opening, sometimes 2 steps fwd and 1 back, but heterodox expectations and general public expectations continue to rise, and unless firmly slapped down, bishops will continue to sway with the popular winds. This is a long game, not an isolated papacy.
Mark Thomas,
Surely you have never filled up any Internet space with filler and unsolicited blocks of text. What is the saying about pointing one finger and four pointing back at yourself?
Nick
Bob, the Church teaches that She values impute from the Eastern Orthodox.
The Church is unwavering in regard to Her commitment to the Ecumenical Movement. Our holy Popes, for example, have, for decades, insisted upon the need to promote good relations with Eastern Orthodox Churches.
Pope Saint John Paul II had gone as far to request that the Eastern Orthodox "find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation."
Bob, read the Ecumenical Movement-related declarations issued by our Vatican II Era Popes. That will inform you as to "...who cares what Orthodox members think of Catholic teachings..."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, ecumenical is fine, but the Orthodox are not about to change their ancient doctrines and creed to play huggy with Rome, and neither should Rome consider changing ancient doctrines and creed to play huggy with the Orthodox.
And no document you cite ever suggested that.
And all Dominus Iesu did was reaffirm ancient teaching. The Orthodox can howl all they want over JPII pointing out ancient teachings and his continuity with them, but true Roman Catholics do not care who howls, including the Orthodox churches. Truth is Truth.
Bob, you had asked/stated "...who cares what Orthodox members think of Catholic teachings..."
Our Vatican II Era Popes have expressed that impute from the Eastern Orthodox is of importance to Holy Mother Church.
You replied that "the Orthodox are not about to change their ancient doctrines and creed to play huggy with Rome, and neither should Rome consider changing ancient doctrines and creed to play huggy with the Orthodox."
That does not have anything to do with the following: I noted correctly that the Church values impute from the Eastern Orthodox. Again, in regard to your comment "...who cares what Orthodox members think of Catholic teachings...": The Catholic Church cares.
=======
Bob, you declared without hesitation that Dominus Iesus is orthodox. I agree with you. Nevertheless, at least in 2000 A.D., there were folks within, and without the Church, who insisted otherwise.
However, then, as now, there was/is one sure, unfailing way to determine said document's orthodoxy: That is, the Church of Rome has guaranteed Dominus Iesus' orthodoxy.
Today, the Church of Rome has guaranteed Fiducia Supplicans' orthodoxy.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
No, Mark....orthodoxy/continuity is guaranteed by it being orthodox/continuous, and whether it is guaranteed or isn't stands or falls on that alone. The Church can only guarantee that which stays within the bounds of fitting with all prior teaching, no paradox or conflict allowed.
If an insane pope demands devil worship, or maybe brings pagan idols within Saint Peter's basilica or places offerings to that idol on the altar, such acts are not guaranteed, and neither are demands to bless unrepentant and publically manifest sinners living in opposition to Church teachings.
By your lights, the pope can tell me what point spread on which to bet for a game, and no pope has that authority or ability, nor can he change core doctrine and it be considered valid.
As for guaranteed, you also neglect to mention that such teaching's guaranteed validity require agreement by the whole Church, and you also neglect to mention the rejection of Fiducia Supplicans by the Orthodox, Catholic Orthodox, Coptic Church etc etc (making mincemeat of your primacy of ecumenism argument), the entire continent of Africa, not to mention numerous Cardinals and Bishops worldwide.
You KNOW this, OMIT this, and are being DISHONEST in doing so, where supporting Francis and his agenda is all which matters to you and honesty be damned.
And, Mark, your saying that my comments have nothing to do with your prior comments are facetious and misleading....another habitual attempt on your part to ignore them, is what it is, likely accompanied by loud humming.
It was you who cited Orthodox outrage over a restatement of classic Catholic doctrine, as somehow (falsely) equivalent to CATHOLIC outrage over a new Francis teaching leading to utter rejection by much of CATHOLIC world....where since you have no coherent reply, nor any defense of that exercise in false equivalency, you spin off into the topic of ecumenical movements...
while I was saying when it comes to CATHOLIC doctrine, nobody should care what NON-Catholics think, nor does Catholic outrage have much input or influence, nor should it, over what the various Orothdox churches teach.
A very good example is the time/effort and anger generating push to consolidate Easter dating slanting to the Roman view....quite apart from the more ancient Julian calendar still in use by the Orthodox...both western/Roman churches and Eastern churches have differing dates based on Peter saying one thing and John saying another....BOTH are valid true Apostolic teachings, and misplaced Roman ecumenical efforts have no business trying to change things of such authority and antiquity.
Bob, Pope Francis, as well as bishops who teach in communion with him, are the guarantors of orthodoxy. To begin, God has authorized Pope Francis to teach, govern, and sanctify us.
Pope Francis, is blessed with never-failing faith. Via the following from Pope Venerable Pius XII: Francis is blessed also with "supernatural gifts of knowledge, understanding and wisdom."
In addition, Jesus Christ has guaranteed that He speaks through Pope Francis. In turn, speaking in his capacity as our teacher, governor, and sanctifier, Pope Francis has assured that Fiducia Supplicans is orthodox.
In line with the role that is proper to the laity, I accept and proclaim Pope Francis' (as well as my bishop's) teachings related Fiducia Supplicans.
I pray that each of us embraces Pope Benedict XVI's holy example related to the "unconditional reverence and obedience" that rendered unto Pope Francis.
God commands us, as holy Pope Benedict XVI had made clear, to obey His Magisterium. That is Catholicism 101.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, please turn off the holy, holy blather, as you consistantly are dishonest and misleading in your posts while seeking only to defend the Francis agenda, pretty much the same as Francis and crew.
When you cannot defend your misrepresentations, you consistantly drop the subject and fall back on holy Francis/holy church mention as if that erases your dishonestly in your posts merely through osmosis at their mention.
You can turn on the holy, pax charm all you want but still are crooked and selling snake oil for blog reader consumption and I despise dishonesty and misrepresentation, if I was not clear, it having no place in the true Holy Church, and why I also loath Francis and his cronies, much past what they and you say being insulting to anyone of even moderate intelligence and knowledge of the Church.
Mark, put another way, if right were on your's and Francis' side, neither of you would need resort to dishonest practices in false equivalencies and word games/parsing.....the truth would be apparent.
I wish to re-ask my question, on the off-chance that Mr. Thomas did not see it, or will decide to respond:
What is the point of Fiducia Supplicans? What does it "do" that wasn't doable before it was issued? What problem did it fix, and tell me precisely how it fixed it?
Post a Comment