Dear brothers and sisters, happy Sunday!
The word of God proclaimed in this Sunday’s liturgy offers us some fundamental criteria for thought and action. In the Letter to the Romans, we read that every commandment is “summed up in this word, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself’” (Rom 13:9). Saint Paul insists on this point with a very powerful image, one that also appears in the Lord’s Prayer. He writes: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another” (v. 8).
Jesus taught us to ask for and to practice the forgiveness of debts. Yet there is one debt we owe to one another that does not enslave us: the debt of mutual love. All the attention, care and goodness we have received make us freer and more capable of responsibility.
In this Sunday’s Gospel, Jesus suggests at least two ways for every Christian community to practice mutual love. The first is to become capable of fraternal correction. This is a delicate art, too often forgotten, that calls for frankness and a gradual approach. Speaking honestly with one another — first face to face, then, if necessary, with two or three others, and finally, when required, with the whole community — means facing reality and transforming problems and conflicts into opportunities for growth. Complaining and speaking ill of others are easier, but they accomplish nothing and leave many situations paralyzed. The Gospel, instead, teaches us the freedom that comes through charity.
There is also a second way of loving one another as brothers and sisters, which, for Jesus, transforms even our prayer: coming to an agreement. Not only when there is a conflict, but also when asking God for some gift. The Lord says: “If two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven” (Mt 18:19). This promise suggests that we can have shared desires, shared sorrows and shared hopes, and that through prayer we can grow in unity. Without faith, each person might feel alone and become suspicious of others, seeing them as strangers and enemies. By grace, however, we are brothers and sisters who can live in harmony: meeting one another, forgiving one another and listening to one another in the Lord.
Let us ask Mary, who, after the angel’s announcement, went in haste to her cousin Elizabeth to share the joy and the hardship of pregnancy, to teach us, too, the joyful debt of fraternal love.
8 comments:
Over at Rorate Caeli, there is a story about a monk being censored for being an "integralist." The money quote leaves me puzzled because this was considered a good thing when we had something called "Christendom."
Waldstein is regarded by many observers as a central figure in the emergence of Catholic neo-integralism. According to experts, he is said to be part of a right-wing conservative and reactionary network with close ties to the uppermost circles of American politics. Integralism is a political ideology that aims to subject the totality of public and private life to the moral and dogmatic directives of the Catholic Church.
When we had "Christendom" we did not have "Dignitatis humanae (Of the Dignity of the Human Person)" which is the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom. In the context of the council's stated intention "to develop the doctrine of recent popes on the inviolable rights of the human person and the constitutional order of society", Dignitatis humanae spells out the church's support for the protection of religious liberty. It set the ground rules by which the church would relate to secular states."
Too many "Catholic" integralists today are heavily influenced by the anti-American notion of Christian Nationalism, such as that espoused by the Secty of Defense, Pete Hegseth and his pastor Doug Wilson of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. Recall that Wilson has stated that public parades or street processions carrying the Eucharist or images of the Virgin Mary down Main Street would not be allowed.
We did have, and still have, Quas Primas. It has never been revoked and is still part of the Church's Magisterium.
Anthony - We did not have Quas Primas (December 11, 1925) during the period when "Christendom" was considered to be a reality. A better and more respectful understanding of rights of individuals has dawned upon us. "Cuius regio, eius religio" was never really respectful, either of religion or the individual.
Do not pit Dignitatis Humanae against Quas Primas. They need to be understood together. This is a major fault of much of the commentary after Vatican II, it places the council in opposition to everything that came before, something the council itself denied. Vatican II and the Council of Trent need to be understood together. The former did not negate the latter. Likewise, Dignitatis Humanae and Quas Primas need to be understood together.
"Cuius regio, eius religio" was a political settlement of the secular world. It was never a doctrine of the Church. Quas Primas is the guiding doctrine, holding the truth of the faith as supreme and binding on all. Dignitatis Humanae merely nuances how that is to be applied without negating Quas Primas.
Anthony - Yes, let us understand QP and DH together. As you say, there is no opposition, and I have suggested none, but with DH there is significant development and evolution of the Church's understanding of the rights of individuals to choose the way they will serve the Lord. That development and evolution moves away from the "demands" of QP to recognition of the dignity of each individual. DH is far more than a nuanced understanding of QP. It is a re-ordering of our understanding of the role of every Christian in building up the kingdom of God.
In the days of "Christendom" armies were often the means used to convert those who were hesitant. More recently, the British used the weapon of soup in a starving Ireland to "encourage" conversion to Anglicanism. These actions are directly repugnant to human dignity and have been eschewed as means of "evangelization.
Another case - A Quo Primum, the encyclical on Judaism in Poland from Pope Benedict XIV, states, "The Jews are cruel taskmasters..." ... "It is now even commonplace for Christians and Jews to intermingle anywhere..." "But if it is asked what matters the Apostolic See forbids to Jews living in the same cities as Christians..." and "Innocent IV, also, in writing toSt. Louis, King of France, who intended to drive the Jews beyond the boundaries of his kingdom, approves of this plan since the Jews gave very little heed to the regulations made by the Apostolic See in their regard: "Since We strive with all Our heart for the salvation of souls, We grant you full power by the authority of this letter to expel the Jews, particularly since We have learned that they do not obey the said statutes issued by this See against them"
Are we to read Nostrae Aetate and judge it to be a "nuancing" or A Quo Primum or many other vile comments made by Popes and Saints in the preceding centuries? Or do we understand NA to be a new appreciation for the Jews that seems to have been impossible for Catholic forerunners to grasp?
Fr. Kavanaugh, you did imply that Quas Primas was no longer applicable with the end of Christendom, that it has been superseded by Dignitatis Humanae. The two documents address two different questions: the obligations of the state and the rights of the individual. In fact, Dignitatis Humanae actually confirms that what was taught in Quas Primas is still operative:
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.
Vatican II called for respect and tolerance of non-Catholic individuals. It did not call for a rejection of a Catholic confessional state or the end of the concept of Christendom. The latter remains the ideal that should be strived for even if at present the political realities do not allow for its implementation. Contrary to what some might want to believe, Vatican II did not call for the separation of church and state or for the establishment of a purely secular state. Recent history shows that the latter often turns hostile to the faith.
You're saying their statements are vile, but you aren't saying how they're wrong.
Post a Comment