While many in the hierarchy are patting themselves on the back for putting Cardinal McCarrick through the same procedure that any accused cleric experiences today, they have thus far not noticed the homosexual in the room who in his position of authority homosexually abused adult seminarians and priests or at least harassed them.
There is documented corroboration from two dioceses where he was bishop and yet he was promoted to Washington, DC and named a Cardinal by Saint Pope John Paul II, who His Holiness himself elevated the person of the pope to the level of the cult of the personality not seen before him but entirely consistent with the ethos of Vatican II which Pope Francis continues.
How many popes in my living memory or in my lifetime are now or will be canonized? ALL OF THEM except these: Popes Pius XII, Benedict and Francis.
What if after canonization, accusations of child abuse come forward now or secret archives reveal what Cardinal McCarrick did to adult seminarians and priests and God knows who else?
STOP SANTI SUBITO NOW! Wait a century and investigate, investigate, investigate!
There is documented corroboration from two dioceses where he was bishop and yet he was promoted to Washington, DC and named a Cardinal by Saint Pope John Paul II, who His Holiness himself elevated the person of the pope to the level of the cult of the personality not seen before him but entirely consistent with the ethos of Vatican II which Pope Francis continues.
How many popes in my living memory or in my lifetime are now or will be canonized? ALL OF THEM except these: Popes Pius XII, Benedict and Francis.
What if after canonization, accusations of child abuse come forward now or secret archives reveal what Cardinal McCarrick did to adult seminarians and priests and God knows who else?
STOP SANTI SUBITO NOW! Wait a century and investigate, investigate, investigate!
13 comments:
While I had great admiration for Pope John Paul II, I was one of the people who thought that they rushed too quickly in the canonization process.
I would not question the personal holiness of JPII at all. However, even the man known as "the great" had his shortcomings. For me, that greatest of shortcomings was his failure to govern the Church.
Karol Wojtyla inherited a mess from Pope Paul, who, from all appearances had little temperament for putting his foot down and was also sick and injured during his last years. Vocations were in a free-fall, the Magisterium was increasingly ignored and the Church was misinterpreting Vatican II to the point that we had become indistinguishable from the Protestants. This doesn't even begin to touch on the poor quality of many of the Cardinals and the divisions in the Curia.
When he began, the pope showed signs of trying to straighten out the mess, especially appointing Ratzinger to the helm of the CDF, but at some point, it seems as though he almost walked away from it all. Everyone talked about how wonderful the pope was, and HE WAS--in the PR department. He was a vibrant speaker and a stunning presence. His role in transforming (I won't say bringing down) the iron curtain countries cannot be overestimated. BUT YOU CANNOT GOVERN WHEN YOU ARE FLYING FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER ALL OF THE TIME.
The Church needed (and still needs) an unshakeable leader to stand up to the corruption and folly within and John Paul simply did not do that. Instead, he gave us the traveling Vatican road show. I am not putting the road show down either, as he obviously touched a lot of people, but what is a convert or revert to do when the Church they join or return to is so screwed up that it nearly drives them away again or tells them that there are no sins?
I cannot judge John Paul II and again, I do not question his personal holiness. But he inherited a stinking mess when he was a young Cardinal made Pope and, from what we are dealing with today, it appears that he didn't do enough to fix it. Maybe no one could have? Still, I think he spent too much time traveling and promoting and not enough time doing his job at home. That is not my condemnation of him, just my opinion.
Regarding Cardinal McCarrick,
It has been written about Pope John Paul that his experience in dealing with communists influenced many of his decisions, including the appointment of bishops. Specifically, when candidates for a see were presented to him, he would often be told, "Your Holiness, there are concerns that this man might be a homosexual."
In his experiences in Poland, Wojtyla found that accusing good people of homosexuality was one of the unfair measures communists used to discredit their enemies. He would often automatically select the suspected homosexual candidate, believing that the same tactics were being used to discredit the bishop--when, as we can see from experiences, many of these candidates WERE homosexuals and did horrible damage to their individual dioceses as well as the Church.
So, if the story about his distrust of the communists is true, John Paul II was not entirely to blame for this error.
Well it’s going to happen again when he makes Paul VI a Saint. And I heard accusations for years about him and immoral actions. I don’t know if they are true but if I heard them others had to have heard them and they should addressed but they won’t. Francis is going to continue to do whatever he wants regardless of the scandal. How much does anyone want to bet that he appoints Cardinal Daneells to that synod that is coming up.
Cletus Ordo:
The Pope also goes on recommendations from Church authorities and prelates in the country the candidate for bishop and Cardinal is from. Lacking sufficient information, we don't know why someone who turned out to be a bad choice was chosen.
Anonymous:
You are exactly right--which is why it is sometimes quite discouraging. If you live in a diocese that has a lot of questionable priests and a weak bishop about to retire, it is horrifying to think of the recommendations they will make for their successor. If you don't believe me just look at...no, I'm not going there.
However, canonization is protected under the infallibility of the papacy...so I am not sure what the worry is...?
Blogger Carter said...
However, canonization is protected under the infallibility of the papacy.
Under Vatican I's definition, infallibility is that of the Church, not of the pope personally. Some theologians suggest that if a pope acts out of hip pocket rather than reflecting the Church as a whole with all its agencies of protection, he may fall outside its umbrella of infallibility.
One only has to look at the archdiocese of Atlanta and the diocese of Savannah for proof of Cletus Ordo's post at 12:32 pm today.
Dear Ven Fulton J Sheen is My Hero said...,
That's EXACTLY where I decided not to got, but looks like you took us there anyway.
Blogger Henry says,
"Under Vatican I's definition, infallibility is that of the Church, not of the pope personally. Some theologians suggest that if a pope acts out of hip pocket rather than reflecting the Church as a whole with all its agencies of protection, he may fall outside its umbrella of infallibility."
Looking back at Vatican I....I am not sure that is how it is actually defined...so I will present it in a little more in detail, and maybe we can all work out the proper understanding.
The primacy and infallibility of Peter and his successors is laid down in Session 4 in the constitution on the Church. In the first chapter, the Sacred Council begins by establishing the absolute primacy of Peter and his relationship to the Church. In chapter 1, his primacy of jurisdiction is the main focus. In this chapter the council appears to condemn the notion that the Church has this primacy and Peter receives it as her minister.
" And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying:
Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44] .
4. To this absolutely manifest teaching of the Sacred Scriptures, as it has always been understood by the Catholic Church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his Church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.
5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.
6. Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema."
Chapter 2 of the constitution on the Church focuses primarily that the primacy given directly to Peter by Christ is permanent and passes on to his successors.
Chapter 3 of this sacred constitution is focused on the power of Peter's primacy, and that he alone has full and supreme authority and judgment over all the particular churches.
" To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to tend, rule and govern the universal Church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.
2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world."
And again in the same chapter....
"8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] . And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.
Part 2
9. So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema."
While chapter 3 has as certain focus on the power of Peter's primacy....it seems that the council is including his teaching authority in that power and primacy.
Chapter 4 of the same sacred constitution focuses on the infallibility of Peter and his successors. It is in fact titled "Chapter 4. On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff", a direct reference to a power and charism of Peter.
In the very first paragraph the Sacred Council explicitly states that Peter's teaching authority is in fact a charism of Peter's primacy, "1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching."
The sacred constitution continues in the second paragraph to provide examples from times previous wherein even the eastern churches acknowledged this charism of Peter's primacy,
" What is more, with the approval of the second Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following profession:
"The Holy Roman Church possesses the supreme and full primacy and principality over the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly acknowledges that she received this from the Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and chief of the apostles, whose successor the Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of power. And since before all others she has the duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by her judgment that they must be settled." "
Here, the second council of Lyons with the profession of the Greeks explicitly stated that the Holy Roman Church has this primacy and headship, but that the Holy Roman Church receives such authority from Peter and his successors, and with out them, she would not possess such a charism!
Then there is the definition of the Council of Florence:
"The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole Church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole Church."
The sacred constitution repaeats again this charism of primacy...of which his teaching authority is derived, was directly given to Peter he gives that charism to the Church as Christ's vicar...not the Church bestowing it upon Peter.
The sacred constitution continues in the same line of explanation,
"6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."
Again, the protection of the Holy Spirit is explicitly said to be given to Peter and not the "church", and it rather through Peter's headship and primacy that this protection is given to the Church.
And in the final two paragraphs before the formal definition the sacred constitution again makes evident that this is a charism of Peter!
Part 3
"7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and his successors in this See so that they might discharge their exalted office for the salvation of all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism is removed and the whole Church is preserved in unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand firm against the gates of hell.
8. But since in this very age when the salutary effectiveness of the apostolic office is most especially needed, not a few are to be found who disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased to attach to the supreme pastoral office."
Up to this point, the Sacred Counil in its fourth session on the constitution of the Church has been explicitly examining the primacy of Peter. The sacred council has examined this primacy namely in how it is received by Peter, the permanence of his primacy in his successors, the power of this primacy as full and supreme, and lastly its authority as regards infallibly teaching and guarding the truths of Christ our savior. At the end of chapter 1, the sacred council explicitly condemns the notion that this something belonging the church and that Peter receives such a charism from the church as her minister,
"5. The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister."
All though out the sacred constitution on the church, the Council fathers make it explicit and clear that this primacy was given to Peter and his successors and in virtue of this primacy, the Church receives the same primacy and charism...and without Peter she would not possess this primacy....as is obvious from the profession made by the Greeks at the second council of Lyons. This brings us to the formal definition of infallibility as laid down by the Holy and Ecumenical Vatican Council,
"9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable."
Part 4
The definition is rather clear, that an infallible teaching is "in virtue of his apostolic authority(namely the primacy of Peter)" and that the infallibility is "the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter." The next portion of the definition, "that infalliblitly which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith and morals" is something the Church enjoys in virtue of the primacy of Peter and not the other way around. The Church is infallible because Peter is infallible...as was laid down by Christ Himself in Mathew 16:18-19 "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and uponthis rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."
The Church is built upon an immovable rock, and that rock is Peter and his successors! Christ wills infallibility and supremacy to His church through its foundation, namely Peter! The first holy and ecumenical Vatican Council in defining papal infallibility in fact condemns the very concept Henry mentions, " infallibility is that of the Church, not of the pope personally." However, the sacred council explains that infallibility is in fact a charism of Peter's Primacy, which he receives from Christ Himself. Christ gives this infallibility to the Church through His vicar as the second council of Lyons explicitly states and as quoted by the first Vatican Council. Thus, the first Vatican council is consistent to condemn " those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister."
Lastly, since the canonization of a person as a saint is to be held and believed by the whole church, and pertains to the universal Church as someone to be venerated, then the Roman pontiff is exercising "his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority" and therefore would be under the protection promised to him and the Church by her divine founder! Therefore, for the faithful of the Holy Catholic Church, there should be nothing to worry about when it comes to the canonization of saints!
Post a Comment