Certain unhinged heterodox left Catholics still living in the past’s alternate universe would do well to learn from Pope Leo. I think I will rename Southern Orders “Where Pope Leo is!”
Dr. Gavin Ashenden has a great critique of Pope Leo and what His Holiness has wrought. Press the title for the long commentary. I print some money bytes below the title:
Pope Leo’s Moment
By Dr. Gavin Ashenden
But strategically, theologically, politically, and pastorally, I knew that it could not happen, because Pope Leo had a problem. Even in the humblest of parishes you never denigrate your predecessor. And more especially at the top of the Church, one of the prime responsibilities of the holder of the papal office is to ensure that the see of Saint Peter is held in respect and affection.
Pope Leo inherited a particularly intense aspect of this problem. Unlike the Borgias and other notoriously bad popes, Francis was unusual in that his failings were not moral, certainly not sexual, and instead they were ideological or theological.
The most serious problem Pope Francis left his predecessor was how to manage the damage done to the integrity of the Magisterium. How does Catholic theology cope with a pope who writes an encyclical that is then challenged (as is their right) by a number of his Cardinals, who ask him respectfully and properly to respond to their Dubia, precisely so the integrity of the Magisterium can be protected, but then ignores them?
It is dangerous for a pope, even after a “bad” papacy, to repudiate his predecessor. The moment a pope engages in that process, he runs the risk of being repudiated himself by his successor. Suddenly instead of a developing Magisterium, organically coherent and integrated, affirmed by a succession of the papacies in slow but steady development, there arises the prospect of the Magisterium becoming something more like a political football. Instead of a process in which the Church of God is molded and shepherded by the Holy Spirit, it becomes a political institution with different factions and parties vying for power and prominence.
(As it concerns the TLM) He talked about the way in which “some people” saw the issue as one of mystery and prayer, while others saw it as a “political issue.” He clearly showed his sympathy for those whose motivation was mystery and prayer.
So by “synodal listening” the real mind of the Church will emerge, which undoubtedly will repudiate the vendetta launched against the Church through Traditiones Custodes. In this strategy, it will not be Francis’ successor who will repudiate this papal initiative that did so much damage and divided the Church. It will be the Church itself, in listening mode, which will do it. And we can be confident the Church will do it because of the leaked responses of the bishops to Pope Francis’ survey about how the norms were working under Summorum Pontificum (the majority of which reported things as better under the less restrictive norms).
Pope Leo will listen to the mind of the Church, fully consistent with the Magisterium, and in so doing allow Traditiones Custodes to be judged an aberration. By this process the Mass of the Ages will be restored. And this will be achieved without one pope repudiating his predecessor. There will be the minimum of the kind of stress that would otherwise subvert the integrity of the papal office.
Pope Leo took the same approach to Fiducia Supplicans. In a rather elegant and caring way he expressed great surprise that some people have misunderstood the scope of asking a priest for a blessing. He confirmed that it was quite impossible to bless same-sex relationships and that this was obviously a misinterpretation of the document, since such an act went against Church teaching.
He did not need to say that Pope Francis was mistaken. He did not need to say that he repudiated the document. He simply needed to express the orthodox mind of the Church. He reiterated the teaching of the Church and said that those who mistakenly misinterpreted Fiducia Supplicans had done so because they failed to understand what is Church teaching and what it is not. And categorically, Pope Leo insisted that blessing homosexual relationships was against Church teaching. He lamented that any Catholic would choose an identity based on sexual preferences, when their real identity was that of a human being made in the image of God.
Suddenly the “todos, todos, todos” welcome of Pope Francis, that appeared to place such an emphasis on everyone coming as they are, on the terms they choose, was replaced by Pope Leo. Francis’ welcome implied the Church would change its teaching, exchanging a Catholic moral framework for a more progressive one. In each welcome the Church welcomes everyone; but the welcome that Pope Leo offered is one with a more Catholic dynamic—one that promised the miracle of transformation into the likeness of God. You come not on your own terms but those of Jesus. Patristic theology has always seen the image and likeness of God as a two-stage process. The “image” speaks to our created status. The “likeness” speaks to what we become in the hand of the transforming Spirit. Once again Pope Leo replaced the expectations of a politicized therapeutic process with the expectation and promise of the journey towards salvation.
Pope Leo is a dignified, serious, thoughtful inheritor of the Petrine office committed (as he has reiterated) to the teaching of the Church. What we need now is for his advisers to persuade him to show himself at his best and avoid situations like press ambushes, which expose him to unnecessary spontaneous reflections that help no one.
Nonetheless, what Pope Leo has achieved without either criticizing, repudiating, or denigrating either his predecessor or the papal office is noteworthy. The Holy Spirit has answered our prayers in giving us a father in God who combines astute theological judgment with a pastoral heart. Augustinian indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment