ISSUES WITH THE NEW PAPAL TEACHING ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY BEING INADMISABLE

I was listening to XM's Catholic channel's Gus Lloyd's Seize the Day program. He had a live interview with a theologian Monica Migliorino Miller, who I would consider open minded, academic and sincere as well as respectful toward our Holy Father Francis.

Lloyd remarked that she had written a piece for Crisis Magazine and so I looked at the article and much of the interview centers on what she wrote for Crisis.

Here is the title of the article with a excerpt of the article below it. Press the title for the complete article at Crisis:

August 6, 2018

Francis Uses Junk Theology to End the Death Penalty

Monica Migliorino Miller
The New Pastoral Effects

The pope has created a situation with far-reaching pastoral implications. If the death penalty “attacks” the “inviolability of the person,” then it is a sin. Yet in 2004 Joseph Ratzinger, then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, clarified: “There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia” and should a Catholic support the death penalty “he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.”
But if according to Bergoglio’s Art. 2267, the execution of criminals “attacks the inviolability of the person” then it must be sin, when before it was not sin. What then becomes of the clarification of Ratzinger in light of the new teaching? Should for instance Gov. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska go to confession as he supports and will oversee the August 14th execution of convicted murderer Carey Dean Moore? These are the nearly unprecedented questions now facing the Church.

Whose Lives Are Inviolable?

Also unprecedented is the use of the term “inviolable” in reference to the lives of those who have committed grave crimes. It is true that all human life is sacred—even the lives of those who commit murder—sacred in the sense that such persons continue their inherent worth as they are made in the image of God. In the doctrinal tradition of the Church that specific term “inviolable” is used to characterize the status of the innocent. For instance John Paul II taught in EV, Art. 57:

If such great care must be taken to respect every life, even that of criminals and unjust aggressors, the commandment “You shall not kill” has absolute value when it refers to the innocent person… In effect, the absolute inviolability of innocent human life is a moral truth … constantly upheld in the Church’s Tradition and consistently proposed by her Magisterium.

The saint then declared as infallible teaching that any direct assault on innocent persons is gravely immoral.

In order for Pope Francis to declare the death penalty “inadmissible” he applied the term “inviolable” to the lives of those guilty of heinous crimes. The Church has not traditionally used this term to designate the moral status of such criminals. Their crimes cause them to forfeit this “inviolability” as is the case with unjust aggressors, thus rendering capital punishment not inherently evil as the new Art. 2267 suggests it is.

ISN'T IT WAY PAST TIME TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD TO DETERMINE IN A PROFESSIONAL, SCIENTIFIC WAY WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SINCE VATICAN II

Time is running out. I only have childhood experiences of the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II. But there are older Catholics out there, especially former nuns and priests who have first hand experience as adults of what the pre-Vatican II Church was like, both the good things and not so good things and they need to be interviewed. So do lay Catholics of this age.

Then we need to know how the rapid, overnight, changes in the Church (which, yes I know reflect the rapid  major sociological changes in the secular world concerning institutions and political leaders and human sexuality) affected the Church in both positive and negative ways.

I have my own anecdotal reflections as a child, teenager and then as an adult in a very liberal 1970's seminary and I have friends who have had similar experiences as I in different parts of the country and in different seminaries.

My perceptions and then actual first hand experiences as an adult:

1. As a child, I saw the Church as a child, strict, uncompromising and disciplined. Clergy and religious were placed on pedestals because from the layperson's point of view they lived completely different lives that entailed so much discipline, sacrifice and prayer. I also know, that as a child, religious life very strict and different from the lay person's life but in our actual interactions with nuns (my experience as I did not know brothers) there were nice nuns, mean nuns and indifferent nuns. There were happy nuns, depressed nuns and sick nuns (physically and mentally). But there was discipline to keep order in religious life despite the good, bad and ugly.

2. After Vatican II, the discipline disappeared overnight and recklessly and so did the visible signs of sacrifice, meaning the nuns I knew removed their habit and wore secular clothes, some left relgious life to marry priests and other men in the transition, and others moved into apartments, wore make-up and drove nicer cars than my father owned. And they seem to make a complete flip flop not only in their way of life but what they believed and political issues seem to be more important that Church teaching and an other-worldly lifestyle.

3. There was liturgical chaos and silliness in my parish and other parishes and a lot of discontent and polarization in the laity about the changes, some hating it, some indifferent and others loving it and wanting the Church to go beyond the strictness of the pre-Vatican II Church in all things.

Yes, pre-Vatican II Catholics who accepted its asceticism, strictness and discipline with a uniform Latin Liturgy, nuns and brothers in habits, priests in cassocks or clerical clothes, believed they had to accept it because the Church simply did not change, now realized after Vatican II everything and everything could change and one could live one's life with reckless abandon and not feel guilty about it but find support for immorality from the clergy and laity, a heavy yoke or burden had been cast off by Vatican II and individualism and make it up as you go reigned and all based on self-fulfillment and actualization.

Yes, the yoke of discipline, strictness, sacrifice and an otherworldly lifestyle collapsed over night and those who did not have personal freedoms in the pre-VAtican II CHurch but joined that lifestyle nonetheless and sometimes as young as 13, knew what they were joining because that was the way it was. But after Vatican II these same people now saw they could have their cake and eat it too and live like anyone else in the world in that period of time but use the respect, love and support that lay Catholics had of them prior to their new found freedoms and reckless abandon.

4. I do know as an adult in the 1970's seminary that my particular seminary was completely different in 1976 than what it was in 1968. 1968 was the last year of strict discipline, sacrifice and obedience demanded by the rector and faculty, a long tradition for that seminary going back to the 1700's so much so that the Navel Academy in Annapolis modeled its discipline on my seminary's discipline.

5. Bishops lowered their standards for seminary candidates by 1976 and those priests formed in the strict seminary prior to 1968 did not know how to cope with new freedoms as supposed celibates and when rules were relaxed they lived an adolescent lifestyle.  So yes, a strict seminary or religious order creates problems when their discipline and sacrifice are thrown out the window for ill-prepared priests and nuns.

We need to know what happened in the post-Vatican II CHurch compared to the pre-Vatican II Church. That is the root of the current crisis in the Church, a complete disregard for the discipline, structure, sacrifice, asceticism of one era for the mirror opposite of the post Vatican II era. 

ANOTHER CLUE IN THE CURRENT CATASTROPHE IN THE CHURCH BREEING SINCE THE TIME OF BLESSEDPAUL VI

READ ENTIRE VATICAN NEWS ARTICLE HERE

Man, At the center

The priest noted that 40 years after his death the Church continues to take a different path as indicated by the  Second Vatican Council and taught by Paul VI, which consists is putting man at the center, not so much in his anthropological aspect  as an end in itself but rather as an image of God - man as willed by God in his likeness, a man who has value and dignity".    

THINGS ARE MOVING FAST

Press for NCR's exclusive:

Exclusive: Cardinal Wuerl proposes national panel to investigate allegations against bishops

But the above article should be read through an older post this morning at NCR by a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington:

With McCarrick scandal, #MeToo arrives for the church

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE COMMENT ON CONTENT AND CEASE NAME CALLING

Over the years I have contemplated disabling the comments on my blog because of spam comments, vile content and vulgar language. Name calling is particularly juvenile and one would hope that Catholics here would not follow the ways of the world in this regard as modeled by the current president, but would follow Jesus' teachings.

I do moderate comments but in a rush I sometimes make poor judgement calls on posting or I quickly scan and post things that a more thorough reading would not be posted.

Please follow my guidelines about appropriate content for comments and comment on what is said and avoid inflammatory rhetoric about the person writing the comment. If your comment is not posted or deleted it has to do with accusations towards others or name calling or outright inappropriate content.

HOW DID THE CHURCH AND BY CHURCH, THE CLERGY AND LAITY, KEEP THE SEX ABUSE SCANDAL QUIET WHICH THEN ALLOWED IT TO VICTIMIZE SO MANY IN THE CHURCH IN THE MOST VILE WAY?

I just read this which was published in 2002:

(A) priest in the diocese of Arlington, Virginia, has been permanently suspended by Bishop Paul Loverde for testifying in a legal deposition about the immoral practices of his fellow diocesan clergy. In a formal notice to (the priest), given on October 28, 2002, Bishop Loverde stated that (the priest) was guilty of violating an order for him not to publicize priestly wrongdoing in order "to avoid scandal, to maintain ecclesiastical discipline and to protect the reputation and privacy of both the faithful and priests of this diocese." [As quoted in The Washington Times, November 13, 2002.]

I think you have to be about my age and older to know that in our culture that lasted up until about the Oprah Winfrey age, that people did not air their dirty laundry for all to see and hear. It was a kind of unwritten law. In fact law enforcement often aided this unwritten law by helping institutions avoid
scandal when police officers, teachers, priests, ministers,rabbis doctors and lawyers committed crimes both major and minor to include sexual crimes of whatever kind.

It was important to keep family problems secret as to avoid scandal. My father was very well schooled in this way of thinking. We as his children couldn't do anything that would bring shame to the family and if we did do something, it was not to be broadcasted but kept secret.

Bishops of the Catholic Church as well as lower clergy and the laity were very much schooled in this way of thinking. Most laity did not want to bring scandal to the Church when there were actual scandals of priests abusing minors or homosexual or heterosexual conduct.

It was the typical reaction of the three monkeys, "hear no evil, see no evil and tell no evil."

Confess it in Confession and keep it secret. You get forgiveness and no one but you and your confessor know.

It is hard for younger generations brought up on Oprah Winfrey, Phil Donahue and the really horrible other talk shows most of which glorify bad behavior and make it into a reality show for entertainment to understand what our culture in and outside of the Church was like prior to the advent of these kind of tell all shows.

But that's the way it was and in some places still is. 

WHEN GODLESS SECULARISM BECOMES THE AUTHORITARIAN NEW MAGISTERIUM AND PROMOTES ITS VERSION OF HOW TO BE SEXUAL

Whisper in the Loggia has this headline:

"Our Church Is Suffering From A Crisis of Sexual Morality" – Amid "A Grievous Moral Failure" 

It isn't just Catholics, to include both clergy and laity, it is every human being in the world who has as his or her teachers the architects of the sexual revolution which reached an apex in the 1960's and has been on steroids ever sense. 

Where do human beings find their guide as to how to be sexual? From the media, the old media, the new media and any other type of media. Soap Operas, internet pornography, the movers and shakers in "Hollywood" and their power to manipulate, manipulate, manipulate, and teach, teach, teach.

They are the new Magisterium promulgating amorality in almost every aspect of life and doing so in the most powerful way possible and they manipulate politics too. 

How did same sex marriage find approval among so many people, a majority in fact, regardless of religion, in such a short time, maybe 10 years at the most--the media manipulation. 

But the question remains. How in the name of God and all that is holy have rank and file Catholics not to mention leaders of the Church vowed obedience to the media Magisterium and not the Church's authentic Magisterium (Scripture, Tradition, natural law) in the post-Vatican II, spirit of Vatican II Church?

Can it be traced to Vatican II's documents about openness to the world and this is how at least in the Catholic Church has led to what Whispers in the Loggia says: 

"Our Church Is Suffering From A Crisis of Sexual Morality" – Amid "A Grievous Moral Failure," 

I don't have much hope that Pope Francis or the current Magisterium has the ability to make the right diagnosis about what has, is and will happen in the Catholic Church until there is an honest effort to examine what Vatican II's documents have done to the Church since Vatican II. I think if Pope Benedict had been younger when elected pope, His Holiness could have done it. Pope Francis is still stuck in the 70's thinking that Blessed Pope Paul VI's initial enthusiasm for the Council and the agenda he promoted is the way forward. It is if we want more of the same, which we are getting. 

HOW WELL HAS WHAT THE POPE OF MODERNITY INITIATED IN THE CATHOLC CHURCH, FULL OF RESPECT AND VIGOR AT THE TIME OF VATICAN II BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, WORKED OUT AS WE APPROACH THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 2019?

 

Pope Francis celebrates Paul VI: ‘the Pope of modernity’

Pope Francis on Sunday remembered Pope Paul VI forty years from his death which took place on 6 August 1978. 

Paul VI, who led the Catholic Church from 1963 to 1978, through the closing of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) is often referred to as the ‘Pope of modernity’ as he oversaw transitions in liturgy, seminary formation, theological study, and many other areas of ecclesiastical life. 

My questions/comments today:

1. What has happened to the Liturgy and thus the Church that in 2018, in Europe, maybe 5% to 10% of Catholics actually "attend" the Liturgy?

2. What has happened to seminary formation that has led to a cabal of active homosexual seminarians and priests hating celibacy and creating "rings" of seminarians and priests who prey on each other, those under their care and minors, to include bishops and cardinals of high rank?

3. What has happened to other areas of ecclesiastical life which has led to the sex abuse scandal that today is mushrooming from abuse of minors to a complete disregard for traditional Catholic sexual morality that has been a "CATASTROPHE" for the Church as described by Sean Cardinal O'Mally of Boston? The Church is irrelevant on the institutional level and ignored by Catholics and others in the world, no longer respected, admired or appreciated for its "moral" voice. 

4. What has happened to the priesthood and religious life today and the number of vocations? Where is the new springtime in all of this?

SOME SOBER (OR MAYBE NOT SO SOBER) THOUGHTS FROM FATHER JOHN HUNWICKE'S "MUTUAL ENRICHMENT" BLOG ON THE DEPRESSING DEATH PENALTY CRISIS

More on Deathgate from John Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment Blog

The Latin text has now been published; and there is indeed no suggestion that the death penalty is intrinsece malum. That would have been overt heresy.

On the contrary: the accompanying letter to bishops makes clear that the death penalty is not intrinsece malum. "The new formulation ... desire to give energy to a movement towards a decisive commitment to favour a mentality  ... in respectful dialogue with civil authorities ...  encourage the creation of conditions ..."

Suppose this were a matter of abortion or trafficking women for sex or paedophilia or genocide. The Magisterium would demand that the practice at once stop, not rabbit on about Favouring Mentalities and Encouraging Conditions. This is not how the Catholic Church talks about grave moral offences.


In the prudential sphere, I think, as I explained yesterday, that aspects of this move are profoundly unfortunate. Not least, the impression given through manipulation of the media that doctrine has been changed. This morning, the BBC account explicitly situated the item in these terms. As in the case of Amoris laetitia, heresy is being promulgated but carefully packaged so that it is not formally expressed. It is this mind-set and methodology which led some of us, last year, to issue the Filial Correction. I fear that PF remains every bit as badly in need of being filially corrected!

And I am as uneasy as I was yesterday about the confection of a new, undefined moral category of "inadmissible". The fact that the French version expresses things quite differently ("inhumaine") suggests that the authors were simply groping helplessly around for terms which sound incredibly stern but have no discernible meaning. People such as head masters, poor poppets, do that sort of thing when they are losing their grip, as they so often are. But have a heart. Don't be too sententious. It can't be all fun working for someone like PF, can it?


If you're feeling anxious, remember that, if doctrine' could be "developed" so easily and so soon as the result of changes in anthropological fads, it could be as easily "developed" again, or even "developed" back again.

If that were to happen ... in a few decades, under Pope Francis IV, we might once again (of course, with papal encouragement) be back to hanging difficult members of our underclass on multiple gallows for stealing thruppence. Or perhaps we shall be employing the picturesque Argentine practice of hurling them into the sea out of aeroplanes. Must move with the times.

Come on, chaps, don't get too het-up. Life's too short.

Just think: the Holy Father's initiative will mean that it will now be dear Cardinal Parolin's happy duty to explain to Mr Netanyahu that he and his political associates have got to drop their naughty campaign to reintroduce the infliction of the death pealty in Israel for terrorist-related murders. Just wait for the accusations of 'Anti-semitism' to start flying around the Eminent head. And next on his list there will be the Chinamen ... It couldn't all happen to a nicer chap.

Instead of panicking, toddle off and have a drink and a laugh. You know you deserve it. And there would be no harm in saying a decade or two ...

FOR THOSE WHO ONLY KNOW THE POST VATICAN II CHURCH, ARE THERE ANY COLLECTIVE EXPERIENCES OF THE CHURCH THAT BRINGS HUMOR AND LAUGHTER ABOUT THEIR COMMON EXPERIENCES--THEIR CATHOLIC CULTURE?

In the 1980’s when I attended Catholic conventions, usually a keynote speaker at a banquet dinner would remind us Catholics in the most humorous way about the way we were as Catholics. Everyone would be laughing so hard, there would be tears in our eyes. There was a common Catholic culture.

The trip down memory lane was nostalgic because the shared memories fondly remembered were common to everyone who knew the pre-Vatican II Church.

For those adult Catholics born in the mid to late ‘80’s to early 90’s, could such a keynote speaker do the same walk down memory lane and have the same fond, nostalgic laughter with tears like my generation of Catholics have/had?

My generation of Catholics can laugh at the humor of “Nunsence” because we all remember our Catholic schools with fully habited and plenty of nuns and what we experienced from them, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

We can remember fondly with a common memory that transcended parishes and dioceses what growing up Catholic was like at home and in our parishes and warmly remember it.

Is there anything similar for Catholics born in the period I suggest? Are there shared Catholic experiences from their past which brings tears of laughter? Do they share a common Catholic culture?

BLESSED POPE PAUL VI HAD HAD ENOUGH OF THE DENIGRATION OF POPULAR PIETY, PRIVATE RELGIOUS AND INDIVIDUALS' PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH JESUS, MARY AND JOSEPH BY 1969

Blessed Pope Paul said this in 1969 and I know full well why he did as I remember this period of time in the Church quite well. This is why I cut Pope Paul  VI so much slack because he really didn't anticipate what Vatican II's spirit would bring and the smoke of Satan seeping into the edifice of the Church. I am sure he thought all Catholics would receive Vatican II and subsequent reforms as docile and politely as possible and not go beyond what was promulgated. His Holiness had a rude awakening on this account and became what I called then, the pope of laments. He lamented this, that and the other. He became very dour, depressed and conflicted. In his later papacy he was a sad figure of a man.

My comment first on the paragraph below: By this point parish priests following trendy theologians were telling us poor laity that popular devotions inside or outside of Mass should go away. The cult of the saints should go away. The Holy Rosary was archaic and repetitious. The Mass is communal, friendly and other oriented towards each other and not a private experience of God, Jesus and me and so on and so on!)

The liturgy has a primacy and fullness, an effectiveness of itself, that we should recognize and promote. But the liturgy, by its nature public and official in the Church, should not come to replace or impoverish personal spirituality The liturgy is not ritual alone; it is mystery and by that fact calls for all who share in it to be consciously, fervently wrapped up in it. The liturgy demands faith, hope, charity, and so many other virtues and sentiments, acts and conditions – like humility, repentance, pardoning offenses, intention, attention, inward and vocal expression – disposing the believer for immersion into the divine reality that liturgical celebration makes present and active. Personal religion, because it is within the reach of everyone, is the indispensable condition for a genuine and aware liturgical participation. But that is not all: personal religion is also the result, the consequence of such participation, which is meant precisely to sanctify souls and to strengthen in them the sense of union with God, with Christ, with the Church, with all humanity.

(Address to a general audience at Castelgandolfo, August 13, 1969.)

THE WORLD STILL HATES POPE BENEDICT WHICH SHOULD TELL ALL BELIEVING CATHOLICS SOMETHING: HIS HOLINESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH AND THE WORLD HATES HIM FOR IT

Retired Pope Benedict accused of anti-Semitism after article on Christians and Jews

Tom Heneghan, Religion News Service Published 3:53 p.m. ET Aug. 3, 2018 

 

(Photo: Filippo Monteforte, AFP/Getty Images)

CONNECTTWEETLINKEDIN 1 COMMENTEMAILMORE

 

PARIS – Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, head of the Roman Catholic Church from 2005 to 2013, is being accused of fostering anti-Semitism after publishing a controversial essay in a German-language theological journal.

Both Jewish and Catholic leaders say that the retired pontiff’s essay on Jewish-Catholic relations suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views despite his visits to synagogues and cordial relations with Jews during his papacy. Articles both criticizing and defending the essay have appeared in German, Austrian and Swiss media in recent weeks.

The central point of debate is Benedict’s denial the Catholic Church ever adopted “supersessionism,” the theological belief that God’s covenant through Christ replaced the covenant God made with the Jewish people, and his insistence at the same time that the Christian lens for reading the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) is the only valid one.

“Whoever describes the role of Judaism like this is building the foundation for a new anti-Semitism on a Christian basis,” said Rabbi Walter Homolka, executive director of the School of Jewish Theology at Potsdam University in Germany.

“Benedict’s suggestion that Christians should teach Jews how to read selected parts of the Hebrew Bible in a Christological way is very problematic,” said the Rev. Christian Rutishauser, head of the Jesuit order in Switzerland and an expert on Jewish-Christian relations.

Benedict pledged at his surprise 2013 resignation that he would remain “hidden from the world” and not get involved in church debates. He wrote his essay as a private text last fall and passed it on to Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Pontifical Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, who read it and convinced him to publish it.

 Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI attends a Mass prior to the opening of the Holy Door of St. Peter's Basilica, formally starting the Jubilee of Mercy, at the Vatican on Dec. 8, 2015. (Photo: Gregorio Borgia, AP)

Critics say the recent essay seems to walk back efforts in the past half-century to undo the Catholic Church’s long history of anti-Semitism. After nearly two millennia of hostility, the Catholic Church’s Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) acknowledged Christianity’s close historical ties with Judaism and absolved Jews of the stereotype of being “Christ killers.”

Benedict’s essay in Communio, an international theological quarterly he helped found in 1972, seemed to walk some of that back to almost pre-Vatican II views. It has not yet been translated into English.

In the essay, Benedict notes that the term supersessionism – a sensitive issue for Jews who reject this view as Christian arrogance – was not listed in leading Christian theological lexicons. Building on this point, he argues that Christianity had never seen itself as completely overtaking Judaism, but just as replacing some Jewish rituals such as animal sacrifice with the Eucharist.

An association of Christian-Jewish dialogue groups said Benedict’s essay undermines Vatican teaching since the 1960s and even contradicts declarations he had made as pope.

“The future of Christian-Jewish dialogue could falter in the face of this thoroughly critical questioning of its theological foundations,” the German Coordinating Council of Societies for Christian-Jewish Cooperation said in a statement.

Some Catholic theologians have come to Benedict’s defense. Bochum University theologian Thomas Söding said the essay was “not an irritation, but an inspiration for Jewish-Christian dialogue.”

 In this Sept. 28, 2014, file photo, Pope Francis, right, hugs Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI before a meeting with elderly faithful in St. Peter's Square at the Vatican. (Photo: Gregorio Borgia, AP)

Likewise, Vienna University theologian Jan-Heiner Tück said the essay aimed not to roll back some Catholic positions but to further dialogue between the two religious traditions. Tück said that Benedict’s essay left open the difficult question of what role in salvation Catholicism saw for Judaism since it viewed the Jewish covenant with God as unbroken but the Christian covenant as the true bond. A Vatican document in 2015 said both covenants were paths to salvation, but how this worked was “an unfathomable divine mystery.”

“That should have been made clearer,” Tück said. Benedict was not trying to roll back progress in Christian-Jewish dialogue, he said, “but maybe there’s a certain gap in the description of the positive meaning of Judaism for salvation.”

Critics said Benedict’s essay could help explain why he rewrote the Latin text of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews in 2008. Until the late 1950s, the prayer had worshippers praying that the “perfidious Jews” would open their hearts and accept Jesus as their Lord. The revised 1970 prayer was softened, simply saying the Jews should grow in their love for God.

But in 2008, Benedict changed the wording so that Catholics would pray “that our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.”

MUTUAL ENRICHMENT’S FATHER HUNWICKE’S COMMENTARY ON THE “NEW DOCTRINE” ON THE DEATH PENALTY

💀 

4 August 2018

Deathgate

I can't see much point in making substantive comments on the "changes made to the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) on the death penalty" until the new text is published. All I can so far find on the Internet are some vernacular versions. .

This, in itself, I object to. The world has been given the impression that the Catholic Church has changed its teaching when nobody has the wherewithal to judge whether or not this is true. I can only call this sort of behaviour in  matters of faith and morals disgracefully frivolous. Can it be that PF wants to make an immediate impression on world opinion without giving theological professionals the prior opportunity to weaken by their analyses that impact?

More importantly: the English version says that the death penalty is "inadmissible". I have not the faintest idea what this curious term means theologically or canonically. If the actual text, when published, turns out to contain the phrase "intrinsece malum" then, frankly, we do have quite a problem on our hands. But Cardinal Ladaria is no fool. I shall be very surprised if those words are used. I'd put money on this!

Personally, like PF, I view the death penalty with considerable personal abhorrence ... anywhere, for any reason, at any time. I applaud attempts to discourage its use. I am less certain that the pages of a theological compendium such as the CCC are the right place to wage such a (very worthy) political campaign.

Furthermore, this move appears to take no account of  'advances' in Moral theology since and consequent upon Amoris laetitia. That document appeared to leave it to local hierarchies to make decisions for their own countries. But in the case of Deathgate, it appears that PF's wishes are of peremptory universal application. Perhaps the genial Graf von Schoenborn, or the sinister and brooding Fr Rosica, could explain to us, carefully and precisely, what the difference is. At the same time, it would be good to have an answer to the following: Adultery, while (yes?) generally wrong, may apparently, according to Amoris Laetitia, be Fair Enough in some circumstances. But PF's initiative concerning the death penalty apparently admits no exceptions. Why? And if it does tacitly admit exceptions, are we not left in the same poition as we were in with the earlier formula S John Paul had put into the CCC?

Then there is the problem of the Marx which did not bark during the night. Two or three years ago, with regard to Communion for divorcees, Cardinal Marx asserted the autonomy of the 'German Church' with the fearless and ringing words "We are not subsidiaries of Rome". I have not yet seen a similarly brave assertion that, also in this matter of the death penalty, Germany is Not a Subsidiary of Rome.

DEVELOPMENT OF MORAL TEACHING ON THE ENSOULMENT OF A FETUS: THANK GOD THAT THIS DOOR WAS CLOSED BY POPE PIUS IX IN 1869 BECAUSE FOR HIM TO HAVE KEPT IT OPEN COULD HAVE PROVEN DISASTEROUS FOR THE CHURCH IN THE 20TH AND 21ST CENTURIES. I THANK GOD POPE FRANCIS HAS CLOSED THE DOOR TO CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BECUASE TO KEEP IT OPEN WOULD BE DISASTEROUS IN OUR CURRENT DAY REGARDING OTHER ASPECTS OF THE SANCTITY OF LIFE

In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially removed the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus from the penal legislation of the Church

The scholar John A. Hardon, S.J. can write:

The exact time when the fetus becomes 'animated' has no practical significance as far as the morality of abortion is concerned. By any theory of 'animation,' abortion is gravely wrong. Why so? Because every direct abortion is a sin of murder by intent. It is, to say the least, probable that every developing fetus is a human being. To deliberately kill what is probably human is murder.⁴

John Connery, S. J., who spent several years carefully researching the Roman Catholic Church's treatment of abortion in history, comes to the same conclusion:

Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked upon as a moral dividing line between permissible and immoral abortion.⁵

 The distinction between the formed and unformed fetus (animated and unanimated), though recognized and accepted by many jurists, philosophers, and theologians, was used only for purposes of classification and distinguishing penalties. The first person in the Christian tradition to suggest that the distinction might be used as a basis to justify abortion in special cases is a Dominican, John of Naples (c. 1450). In an unpublished work, the Quodlibeta, John argues that a doctor may and should give the mother an abortifacient medicine if it is necessary to save her life, provided he is certain that the fetus is not animated. This opinion was brought to light by another Dominican, Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence.¹⁷ Discussion of this exception occupied the attention of theologians for the next three or four centuries, until theories of delayed animation—on which it was based—became obsolete.

The exception introduced for discussion by John of Naples met with considerable opposition, although it did claim some followers, particularly, the Jesuit theologian Thomas Sanchez. Sanchez' argumentation to justify abortion in certain instances (and when it was determined that ensoulment had not yet taken place) was eventually condemned in 1679 by Pope Innocent XI. A French Jesuit, Theophile Raynaud (1582-1663) was the first author to argue in favor of aborting an animated fetus to save the mother's life. Raynaud's position was unique for his time and had no adherents for the next two centuries.

In the seventeenth century, two scientists—Thomas Fienus and Paolo Zacchia —who rejected the Aristotelian theory of delayed animation, made important historical contributions that led ultimately to the Church's abandoning the speculation that there is such a thing as unanimated (or non-human) fetus.

Fienus, a professor of medicine at Louvain, published a biomedical treatise in 1620 on the formation of the fetus (De formatrice fetus liber). He concluded that the soul is infused on the third day. The Aristotelian notion of a succession of souls or "functions" of one soul (first vegetative, then sentient, and finally rational) made no sense to him. He developed nine lines of argumentation to support his thesis. In general, Fienus argues that the soul must be present at the beginning in order to organize the body. Moreover, in order to avoid an unnecessary multiplicity of explanatory factors, there must be one soul from the beginning that establishes the specific unity and individual continuity of the developing embryo.¹⁸

In 1869, Pope Pius IX officially removed the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus from the penal legislation of the Church. This was, of course, disciplinary and in no way involved Church teaching on abortion.²⁰ Henceforward, every direct killing of human life after conception would be treated in the same way, that is, the penalty of excommunication applied to all abortions.

TWO MAJOR SCANDAL PLAGUED “NEW MOVEMENTS” THAT WERE CONSERVATIVE WERE/ARE CHARISMATIC

I had wondered about the two major figures in South America enveloped in the sex abuse scandal in Chile if they were progressive or conservative. In fact this morning I learned from Crux that they are conservative but charismatic. Charismatics are Catholics Pentecostals, extremely ecumenical, but orthodox in their teachings except liturgically and spiritually, they syncretize Catholic worship with Pentecostal expression. They are not rigid in their liturgical expression. They are politically conservative (not leftists to use a phrase Pope Francis used to describe those who were denigrating a bishop now fired by Pope Fraincis in Chile associated with Karadima).

Pope Francis had a flip flop on charismatics opposing them at first and then embracing them when he was in Argentina. Why? I suspect because of their evangelizing fervor, ecumenical outlook and less rigid Pentecostal piety and vocations these communities provide.

Each time charismatics come to Rome, Pope Francis exuberantly embraces them, prays with them and is prayed over by them. He doesn't meet traditionalists though. This may explain why Francis did not believe reports about abuse in these communities by priests and laity as it would challenge the style of the pope’s agenda which he sees being fulfilled in charismatic communities. Charismatics believe God is always doing something new and the Spirit blows where it wills, sentiments shared by Pope Francis--the God of surprises.

This is from this morning’s Crux and press here for full article:

Similar to now suspended Fr. Fernando Karadima, Peruvian layman Luis Fernando Figari’s community was charismatic and attracted swaths of vocations, with the main appeal being an emphasis on a life of strict asceticism, intellectual formation and spiritual combat, believing their call was to fight as elite soldiers in God’s army.

Cardinal Francisco Errázuriz Ossa, who served as archbishop of the national capital from 1998-2010 and was the dominant figure on the country’s Catholic scene, has increasingly been in the spotlight as the Chilean abuse crisis unfolds. He faces mounting accusations of cover-up, most notably for notorious abuser priest, Fernando Karadima, and many victims have called for him to stand trial.

However, the record shows that not only does Errázuriz have ties to Karadima, he also has a relationship with Figari that goes back at least two decades.

Sources with knowledge of the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, the movement founded by Figari, emphasize that Errázuriz was not its biggest backer in the Latin American hierarchy, nor was he responsible for the movement’s early growth. That occurred, they say, under the patronage of two other Latin American heavyweights, both now deceased - Cardinals Alfonso Lopez Trujillo of Colombia and Eugênio de Araújo Sales of Brazil.

Even then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina, the future Pope Francis, those sources say, in some ways was more enthusiastic than Errázuriz. At one stage, Bergoglio donated a piece of property outside Buenos Aires to the community for five years to use as a base of operations in the country.

I AM OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY BUT NOT AS MUCH AS THE REVISION OF THE CATECHISM ON THIS SUBJECT IS

Inadmissible?

There are a few problems I have with the following Vatican statement on the catechism's revision on the death penalty. Let me post the revision from the Vatican with its brief commentary:

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

 My comments and questions:

Who is depriving the guilty of the possibility of redemption? In fact, a Catholic about to go to the gallows can be assured of redemption if he has repented, gone to confession, and accomplished his penance. If he has received a "plenary indulgence" worthily, he can also be confident of no time in purgatory. The death penalty may well be the catalyst to his redemption which he might not otherwise consider.  Also, doesn't our all powerful God know the future, what might have happened if one's life wasn't "unjustly" cut short?

Just a bit of anecdotal evidence, when I was pastor in Augusta, I offered a Requiem for a parishioner who had been condemned 13 years earlier to the electric chair in South Carolina. After exhausting all possible avenues to have the penalty removed to life in prison, he was executed. The man executed was not the same man who committed a triple homicide 13 years earlier.  I believe he should have had the death penalty sentence commuted to life without parole. But even here the pope seems to be opposed in life without parole.

Secondly, how in the name of God and all that is holy can the pope or any member of the clergy be secure in saying the following: more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens (from convicted criminals, i.e life in prison)?

With today's technology, who is to say that it can't be smuggled into the most secure prison for a serial murderer, the mafia or a terrorist the likes of Ben Laden who can then orchestrate more horrors  from behind the bars??????????????????????????????????

I think in the case of mafia crime bosses, heads of terror groups and murderous dictators, the danger of manipulation of their supporters from behind the bars is a greater threat today than in medieval times.

This brings up the concern of many faithful Catholics today, that the hierarchy is more concerned with those who harm people than those who are harmed. If from behind the bars, a mafia boss orders his henchmen who are free to execute me, then what about the victim or potential victims????????

I fear, with all the horrible scandals of sexual abuse by bishops and priests that once again a message is sent that there is more concern for victimizers than for victims and potential future victims.  

THE ITALIAN VATICANISTO CONNECTING THE DOTS OF THE AMERICAN SCANDAL OF MCCARRICK IN ROMA

This is important because it comes from Rome and published in a Roman newspaper. It is the intrepid Sandro Magister's article printed today in that paper in Rome. What I post is an excerpt but you can read the entire article by pressing the title below:

McCarrick and His Proteges. The Miraculous Career of Cardinal Farrell

 

In the final phase of the pontificate of John Paul II and during the pontificate of Benedict XV, (before he was a Cardinal Kevin) Farrell never stood out among the American cardinals and bishops of progressive stamp. McCarrick did. For example, he was among the critics of the directive given by Joseph Ratzinger to the bishops of the United States to withhold communion from Catholic politicians in favor of the legalization of abortion. And he was an open supporter of one of these “pro-choice” politicians, John Kerry, in the presidential election campaign of 2004.

But after Benedict XVI was replaced by Pope Francis, Farrell also rapidly aligned himself with the new course. In the United States, he immediately teamed up with the new progressive leaders - they too with McCarrick as their patron - Blaise Cupich and Joseph Tobin, promoted by Jorge Mario Bergoglio to Chicago and Newark respectively, both of them also promptly made cardinals. He enthusiastically hailed “Amoris Laetitia” in its interpretation in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried. Above all, having become in the meantime the cardinal prefect of the new Vatican dicastery for laity, family and life, he signed the preface to and recommendation of one of the books most representative of the new Bergoglian climate:

> James Martin S.J., "Building a Bridge. How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity", HarperCollins US, 2018.

The author, one of the best-known Jesuits in the United States and a leading writer for the magazine “America,” wants this book to open the way to a substantial revision, by the “pastoral” path, of the doctrine of the Catholic Church on homosexuality.

But Cardinal Farrell’s preface to the book is not the only authoritative form of support he has given to this coveted paradigm shift. Farrell, because of the role he now occupies in the curia, is also the official director of the upcoming world meeting of families in Dublin, at the end of August, where Martin will be among the guest speakers, together with homosexual couples from all over the world.
Not to mention Pope Francis’s personal move in this same direction, with the appointment of Martin as an adviser for the new Vatican dicastery for communication, a clear sign of appreciation for this Jesuit’s activity.

Of course, it is easy to charge John Paul II and the Vatican officials of the time with having lacked prudence in promoting to the highest levels a churchman with a notoriously unexemplary life like McCarrick, ignoring all the alarm signals that came to them.

But what seems even more rash is the decision of Pope Francis to call to Rome as head of the dicastery for the family a character like Farrell, who had one after another as his villainous mentors the serial predators Maciel and McCarrick, and moreover presents himself today as a proponent of the legitimization of homosexual amours.

And this is by no means a matter of an isolated case. On the council of 9 cardinals called by Francis to assist him in the “governance of the universal Church,” no fewer than three have been hamstrung on account of sexual abuse:

- the Australian George Pell, on trial in his country;

- the Chilean Francisco Javier Errázuriz Ossa, accused of having defended to the extreme, against all evidence, the serial abuser priest Antonio Karadima and his disciple bishop Juan de la Cruz Barros Madrid, on whose innocence even Pope Francis himself expended all of his authority until the beginning of this year, only to acknowledge his guilt afterward and remove him;

- the Honduran Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, still the coordinator of the “C9” but whose auxiliary bishop and protoge Juan José Pineda was removed last July 20 on account of continuous sexual abuse verified by an apostolic visitation.

But to these must be added not a few churchmen of nonchalant homosexual behavior who populate Bergoglio’s retinue, whom he has wanted close to him on an individual basis: “in primis” that Monsignor Battista Ricca who manages Casa Santa Marta and acts as the official go-between for the pope and the Institute for Works of Religion, the gossip-ridden Vatican “bank.” Having distinguished himself for scandalous conduct when he was a nunciature official in Algiers, in Bern, and even more so in Montevideo, and having been called back to Rome for this reason Ricca saw his personal dossier in the curia rewritten “ex novo” with this record of his expunged, rebuilt his career from the ground up and entered into the good graces of the current pope, who referred to none other than him, at the beginning of his pontificate, with that famous phrase: “Who am I to judge?” which has become a universal byword.

(English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)

THANK YOU JENIFER FITZ FOR THIS NATIONAL CATHOLIC REGISTER’S COMMENTARY

How to Be Catholic When Your Bishops Are Not

Now is not the time for simpering fecklessly. Now is the time to follow Jesus Christ and be more Catholic than ever.

Jennifer Fitz

The McCarrick scandals are proving to be a breaking point for many Catholics. Here we have not a man engaged in a struggle against temptation – who of us isn’t? – but a man whose shamelessly predatory behavior was tacitly condoned by countless church leaders at the highest levels, and whose depraved behavior was normal in many clerical circles. How many loving Catholic parents have sent their sons off to seminary never imagining the ordeal of sexual harassment, molestation and lifelong moral compromise that awaited?

It is no wonder that many who were lately warming up to the Church are now disgusted at the thought of conversion. It is no wonder that many lifelong Catholics are considering whether their faith can withstand such hypocrisy and corruption. Trite admonishments that “no one’s perfect” or “there is no perfect church” ring hollow when you consider that the man laying hands on your teens at Confirmation would not scruple
to let a brother bishop go to bed with those same teens.

How does an honest Catholic hold on to the faith in such putrid circumstances?

Catholicism Not Clericalism

In a conversation recently, several friends shared childhood stories of molestation and sexual harassment openly tolerated in their parishes. I remarked what a blessing it was to be raised in a home where groping someone was never for an instant considered acceptable behavior.

When we set aside basic standards of moral decency out of so-called “respect for authority,” we are worshipping a false god. We are making the person in leadership higher than God’s law. We put God on a lower rung, and raise our parish priest, bishop, or cardinal to something higher than God. Is it any wonder in God’s providence the rotten fruits of that idolatry are being revealed as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of Humanae Vitae? (My comment: Jennifer gives a great example of idolatry which the first Commandment forbids. Yesterday Pope Francis started his Wednesday catechesis on the Commandments. His example of idolatry? Tarot cards and palm reading! How sad given the magnitude of the type of idolatry Jenifer uses. )

The first step in holding onto your Catholic faith is making the decision that you will worship God alone. Our readings over the past few weeks have made it clear what God thinks of bad pastors.

Why Stay Catholic?

There are many reasons people are attracted to the Catholic faith. It could be the family heritage; it could be the beauty of Catholic traditions; it could be the exact right convergence of time and place and spiritual experiences. People become Catholic a billion different ways for a billion different reasons.

We stay Catholic for a single reason: Because it is true.
If you have never tested the evidence for the truth of your Catholic faith, may I suggest now is the opportune moment? Your logical reasoning won’t be swayed by any sentimental attachments, you can be sure of that.


There are historical and rational proofs for the truth of Catholicism. If you make the effort, you can know that Catholicism consists of a reasonable, evidence-based set of beliefs. You deserve this gift. Don’t settle for anything less.

Evangelizing not Enabling

But here’s a challenge for you: Do you actually live as if the Catholic faith is true?
We now know that many of our bishops do not. We can look around the pews and see that many ordinary Catholics do not either. We go through the motions, but our lives are basically the same as everyone else’s.

Jesus Christ is the one most important thing to every man, woman and child alive today, and yet we content ourselves with a vague hope that everyone will be fine, and that we ourselves have no particular responsibility in the grand scheme of things.

That’s not what Jesus Christ said. Jesus Christ gave every Christian a mission to go and make disciples. Are you doing that? Are you actively praying, sacrificing, and working to bring others into a deeper, fuller relationship with God?

We have seen that our Church is infected with nasty, self-serving, slothful men who would rather protect their neat little lives than take the courageous steps needed to carry out the mission God has given them. Are you one of them?

God Gave You a Brain

When my dad was aggravated at us kids for some stupid foible, he’d mutter, “Use your head for something other than a decoration!”

It’s good advice. What are some ways you can use your head to confront the crisis in the Church today?

1. If you find yourself wanting to protect abusers, learn about boundary-setting and healthy relationships. Chances are if you grew up thinking “discretion” and “respect” meant covering up for Father Groper, then other relationships in your life aren’t that healthy either. Now’s a good time to start changing that.

2. Support good ministries. Not everyone in the Church is corrupt. Put your money and time into the good work being done by people you know. This might be official parish or diocesan programs, it might be formally-organized apostolates, or it might be just you and some friends carrying out the works of mercy on your own.

3. Demand accountability. What is the state of the Church’s leadership today? It is like a group of teenagers caught in the act and then crying, “Why don’t you trust me?” Is your parish or diocese transparent with the management of your money? Great. Be involved in maintaining that transparency. If not, when Father or Bishop comes to you asking for funds to cover a genuinely-needed expense, let him know the contractor can send you a bill directly and you’ll pay it. Men who behave childishly get treated like children.

4. Be more Catholic than ever. Now is not the time for simpering fecklessly. Now is the time to put on your grown-up clothes. God is Truth, God is Love, God is Justice, God is Mercy. There is no love without truth. There is no mercy without justice. Give yourself completely to God and you will not be able to help but carry out your part in reforming the Church.

MANY POST VATICAN CLERGY AND LAITY HAVE NO FEAR OF GOD AND NO FEAR OF HELL

A part of the spirit of Vatican II heretical thinking is that we should be good and moral, according to our own particular discernment as to what this means, not because we fear hell but because we should do what is right according to our subjective situational ethics and doing the right thing based upon our own understanding of love.

Thus, we in our 70’s seminary speculated that we should be moral according to the new Catholic moral theology even if there wasn’t a heaven or hell.  Sounds agnostics or atheistic, no?

I have suggested the Church needs to recover the pre-Vatican II (1950’s) ethos, discipline, and style of priestly and religious life with its formal protocols.

Crux has an article about a historian who suggested in 2004, in the midst of the first major wave of the clergy sex abuse scandal, that the Church should recover the Medieval approach to sexual immorality!  Wow! I like this man and praise Crux for this story with the complete article at Crux by pressing the title::

Medieval reform proposals can help current abuse crisis, historian says

• 
  Carol Glatz
  Aug 1, 2018
  CATHOLIC NEWS SERVICE

C. Colt Anderson, a theologian and expert on reformers in the Catholic Church, is pictured July 20. (Credit: C. Colt Anderson/CNS.)

ROME - A radical program of reform addressing the widespread problem of abusive clergy and negligent superiors in the 11th century holds some essential insights and lessons for the Church today, a Church historian has said.

St. Peter Damian - honored by Pope Leo XII in 1828 as a doctor of the Church for his reform efforts - came up with an effective strategy that emphasized the need for public accountability, strict penalties for offenders and their superiors, and the obligation of laypeople to step in when Church leaders fail to reform themselves, said C. Colt Anderson, a theologian and expert in Church reformers.

The saint realized that sexually abusive clerics and those who failed to stop them were “more afraid to be despised by men than to be judged by God,” Anderson wrote in an in-depth article on Damian.

This loss of a proper fear of the Lord and his final judgment is linked to a lack of accountability, and it “seems to be one of the root causes behind the current crisis,” he wrote in the article titled, “When Magisterium Becomes Imperium: Peter Damian on the Accountability of Bishops for Scandal.”

THE ROMAN RITUAL OF 1952 ON WHO SHOULD BE DENIED A CATHOLIC FUNERAL

1. A pastor ought to know precisely who are to be excluded from Christian burial according to Church law, lest any such ever be admitted thereto contrary to the decrees of the sacred canons.

2. Persons who depart this life without baptism are not be be allowed Christian burial. Yet catechumens who die without baptism through no fault of their own are to be treated the same as the baptized.

3. The following are to be denied Christian burial, unless before death they manifested some sign of repentance:

a. Persons reckoned as notorious apostates from the Christian faith and person who are notorious for belonging to a heretical or schismatical sect, or to the Masonic sect, or to other societies of the same kind.

b. Persons excommunicated or interdicted after a declaratory or condemnatory sentence

c. Thos who committed suicide with full deliberation

d. those who died in a duel or from aa wound received in a duel

e. those who order their body to be cremated

f. Other public and over sinners

4. Those who are deprived of ecclesiastical burial must also be denied the funeral Mass and even the Mass of anniversary, as well as other public obsequies.

AND NOW FOR THE MARRIED CLERY/BISHOPS THAT IF WE HAD THEM WOULD SAVE THE CHURCH! YAH, RIGHT!

From the Church of England:

Church of England bishops turn on each other over Lord Carey abuse scandal

•  Harry Farley 

29 JULY 2018 

Church of England bishops are turning on each other after the lead figure on safeguarding was locked out of discussions about a former archbishop accused of covering up child sexual abuse.

Lord Carey stepped down as an honourary assistant bishop in Oxford last year at the request of the current archbishop, Justin Welby, after a damning report last year accused the Church of colluding with disgraced paedophile bishop Peter Ball in the 1990s. 

Read the rest:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/07/29/church-england-bishops-turn-lord-carey-abuse-scandal/