A few days ago I pointed out a striking Media Fail regarding what Cardinal Schonborn said in a meeting with members of the Austrian press.
Fr. Joseph Fessio of Ignatius Press offers some helpful perspective on the story, which only illustrates the 285th Rule of Acquisition (CHT to those who sent links).
First, Fr. Fessio provides some clarity regarding the nature of the event (which the press had given conflicting accounts of):
Cardinal Schönborn, who like his mentor Pope Benedict is a model of openness and transparency, invited the editors of Austria’s dozen or so major newspapers to a meeting at his residence in Vienna. How many bishops can you name who have extended such an invitation to the press?
The journalists agreed that this would be an “off the record” meeting so that everyone could take part freely and frankly. Was this to impose silence on the press? To cover up once again the misdeeds of clerics? No, it was an attempt by Cardinal Schönborn to be as open as possible and to make himself available to answer any question that was asked. It was an attempt to help educate the press on matters that the press often finds difficult to grasp—such as the essential foundations of the hierarchical and sacramental structure of the Church, and the intricacies of moral theology.
That’s certainly a noble effort. As is so often lamented, the press just doesn’t “get” religion and their stories suffer as a result. It would be nice if editors had enough background to catch some of their reporters’ mistakes.
But unfortunately it seems that someone in the private meeting betrayed the Cardinal’s trust and published a garbled account of what happened. So what perspective does Fr. Fessio add regarding the specific claims concerning what Cardinal Schonborn said?
Let’s take them one by one.
1) What about the claim that we should move away from a morality based on duty and toward one based on happiness?
In my own prior piece, I took up this claim first—though it is not first in the article—because the solution to this one is easy to discern. Fr. Fessio offers the same basic interpretation, adding the technical terms for the philosophical positions in question:
First, he [the Cardinal] explained that it is important to avoid the errors of a Kantian moral philosophy, that is, one based on the categorical imperative of duty alone. Thomas Aquinas, inspired by Aristotle, elaborated what scholars would call a eudaimonistic rather than a deontological moral philosophy. That is, a moral philosophy not based on mere duty, but based on the natural desire of all men for happiness.
The Tablet, apparently drawing on other published sources, wrote: “Instead of a morality based on duty, we should work towards a morality based on happiness, [the cardinal] continued.” This is in itself accurate. But in the context of the Tablet article, it implied that the Church should change her teaching on homosexual relationships and divorced and re-married Catholics. (Both were mentioned immediately preceding the above quote.)
But what did Cardinal Schönborn mean by the reference to eudaimonism? He tried to explain it to the journalists. The Church attempts to lead men to their ultimate happiness, which is the vision of God in his essence. Moral norms are meant to do that; they have that as their end or purpose.
2) What about the claim that the Church ought to view long-term homosexual relationships as less bad than promiscuous ones?
Here Fr. Fessio introduces another concept from Catholic moral and pastoral theology, the difference between the law of gradualism and gradualism of law:
The [moral] norms themselves are unchanging. However, our approach to obeying them is gradual and our efforts are a mixture of success and failure. This means that while certain moral norms are absolute, that is, they hold in all circumstances without exception, our approach to obeying them may be halting and imperfect.
This is commonly referred to as “the law of gradualism” and is opposed to “the gradualism of the law,” as if the law itself were somehow variable.
This is the context for the cardinal’s saying: “We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships,” adding: “A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous.” This does not at all mean that the cardinal was advocating or even suggesting that the Church might change her teaching that homosexuality is a disorder and homosexual activity is always a grave evil. It is always grave, but there can be gradations of gravity—or, to call it by its true name, objective depravity.
Fr. Fessio may well be right that this is the context in which Cardinal Schonborn was speaking. He may have talked to the Cardinal and found that out first hand. From The Tablet’s piece, it’s not as easy as with the first point to discern that, but this may be due simply to the poor quality of The Tablet’s reporting of the incident.
If the Cardinal were thinking of the law of gradualism in this connection, I still don’t know that I’d think a stable homosexual relationship is better than homosexual promiscuity. As I mentioned in my previous post, few stable homosexual relationships seem to be exclusive—“fidelity” to one’s partner is given a different meaning in homosexual subculture—and even if such a relationship is both stable and exclusive, I don’t see why serial homosexual acts with one person are less objectively disordered than serial homosexual acts with multiple partners. Indeed, I can see an argument for it being worse in that the parties may be reinforced in the idea that what they are doing is okay because it more closely imitates marriage, while intrinsically failing to possess the reality of marriage.
However that may be, it seems to be a point that is arguable.
3) What about the claim that the Church should rethink the situation of divorced and remarried couples?
Here Fr. Fessio also invokes the law of gradualism, saying:
This is also the context of the Tablet’s statement: “The cardinal also said the Church needed to reconsider its view of re-married divorcees ‘as many people don’t even marry at all any longer’.” This “reconsideration” does not mean a change in the Church’s teaching that a valid marriage is indissoluble, and that someone who is validly married cannot remarry validly. It means that perhaps—but only perhaps, because this is an opinion that does not have the authority of a magisterial pronouncement—the Church should find new ways of leading the weak and confused to the difficult but liberating challenge of Christ’s demands.
Fr. Fessio again may well be right that this is the context in which Cardinal Schonborn was speaking, though it is hard from the lousy reporting of The Tablet to tell.
If all the Cardinal was suggesting is that the Church should try to find ways to help couples more perfectly conform their lives to Christ’s teachings regarding marriage then that would be entirely uncontroversial. Such a claim would make sense of The Tablet’s assertion that he referenced the fact many people don’t even marry any more. In that kind of world, the Church definitely needs to think about how better to help people understand and embrace the truth about marriage.
It still would be unclear how that explains the claim that the Church “need[s] to reconsider its view of re-married divorcees,” but this again may simply be shoddy reporting by The Tablet. It’s hard to tell.
4) What about the claim that the Roman Curia needs to be reformed?
Here Fr. Fessio says:
In the course of this “off the record” meeting, the cardinal also frankly expressed his belief that a “reform of the Roman Curia” was needed. It’s not as if nothing had been done. In fact, the cardinal recognizes that the transfer of all sexual abuse allegations against priests to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) in 2001 was already a major reform. He was referring to an attitude of secrecy and defensiveness, as well as an inability to comprehend the gravity of the scandal.
And that’s certainly a reasonable view to take!
Indeed, any organization composed of fallen human beings is prone to need reform, just as the fallen human beings themselves are prone to need ongoing conversion. The trick is making sure that efforts at reform and conversion achieve the intended goods. But the claim that the Roman Curia—or any other institution—could be improved is scarcely the stuff of scandal.
5) What about Cardinal Schonborn’s “attack” on Cardinal Sodano?
I just love what Fr. Fessio says regarding this:
Cardinal Schönborn did not “launch an attack,” as the Tablet states; he made a criticism. And to characterize the substance of the meeting with such a false and misleading headline is typical of the treatment the pope, Cardinal Schönborn and the Church have been receiving at the hands of a sensationalist press.
This is so true.
Criticisms and disagreements are not the same thing as attacks. Attacks may take the form of criticisms, and disagreements may lead to attacks, but they are not the same things. One can make criticisms and have disagreements without the metaphorical violence implied by “attack.”
Yet the mainstream media invariably phrases things in terms of Drama Verbs: launched, attacked, assailed, blasted, etc.
In fact, just today the Drudge Report carried the headline, “Pope blasts gay marriage as ‘insidious and dangerous’...”.
Here is the full text of the pontiff’s “blast”:
Initiatives aimed at protecting the essential and primary values of life, beginning at conception, and of the family based on the indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman, help to respond to some of today’s most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good. Such initiatives represent, alongside numerous other forms of commitment, essential elements in the building of the civilization of love.
Wow. Harsh, man! “Civilization of love.” Lots of blasting going on here!
Fr. Fessio concludes:
In sum, Cardinal Schönborn is not calling for any change in the Church’s teaching or discipline. He is calling for a deeper understanding of the struggle to live the high demands of the moral law. He is critical of an attitude of defensiveness and dismissiveness still present in the Roman Curia (not to mention many episcopal curias—but the meeting was not about that). And he is trying to be transparent and responsive to the press.
Here again, though, the adage is confirmed: No good deed goes unpunished.
Indeed.
What are your thoughts on this mainstream media mess?
Comments
Post a Comment
I’m not buying it, the clarification of Father Fessio raises almost as many questions as the original interview text. It all sounds very strange to think that anyone would present such nuanced points to the European secular press and that it would be understood and reported accurately.
I have read diametrically opposed views of this man in various publications to I am not sure what to believe.
Why not also report what he had to say about Medjugorje?
It does not surprise me in the least. President Obama came out a few days ago, at a commencement for a black college, saying there was so much media, and so many were doing it for entertainment that it is hard to tell what is the truth. Of course that is parphrasing and whe he said was much worse than that, but the meida is king, because our president loves to use it to further his means, and the main stream media love him, but he does not like any contray things said about him or his agenda, and beleive me, he has an agend. What we would like to see is the Cardinal himself set things staight, since a leak did occur and so many, who respect him very much, were taken aback by what some were saying. I did not beleive it myself, but it was widely published, and will be fuel for many fires. Christ’s peace.
Having recently heard Cardinal Schönborn give a well received lecture at my university, I was quite shocked by the things he reportedly said. Now, however, I believe that the scandal arose purely from bad reporting. I think all of these explanations are quite plausible. In fact, they are much more plausible than believing that His Eminence is a dissenter! Thanks for this, Jimmy.
I for one believe that Cardinal Schoeborn is not to be trusted. Wonder why he criticized Sodano and the Marciel affair so strongly??? He just wanted to deflect from the problems in his own arena. I also have reason to believe he is a Freemason. Whoever believes the Cardinal to be transparent needs to clean his/her spiritual glasses.
A Freemason? [snark]The year is 2010, not 1910.[/snark]
I’m not buying it. I am aware of the bias and the ignorance of the mainstream press, but even if the Cardinal is trying to be “nuanced” and even if he is trying to explain gradualism, I do not agree that a “stable” homosexual relationship is better in any way than homosexual promiscuity. It is worse. Such relationships, especially as they are portrayed in the press, are likened to heterosexual marriage, in which Mom and Mom, or Dad and Dad, are just trying to work and make a home and get by, just like your own family. Right? Wrong. We need to be loving and kind and merciful in our statements about such relationships because we are talking about real human beings who are loved by our merciful God, but we need to stand firm in saying that homosexual acts are gravely morally disordered, no matter what the context. I remember something about the truth being the same in season and out of season. Well, opposition to homosexual relationships is out of season, and those who stand publicly against it will bring the vicious wrath of homosexual activists and their friends in the press upon themselves for speaking the truth. Perhaps I am jaded by American politics, but if the Cardinal said anything that even remotely resembles the words as reported, then I am catching the faint whiff of a politician trying to please all of the people some of the time. I pray that I am wrong.
To anyone who trusts anything from the media OR from some sedevacantist viewpoint, you will reap what you have sown in your faith in those systems of this world. Schonborn shouldn’t have done this because it has proven to be fuel to the fires already blazing. As Akin mentioned, media doesn’t ‘get religion’ and it’s an effort in futility to ever think it will. Being open and transparent is needed….but do it in a different posture. Instead of appearing forevermore as the Church Suffering, dig deep, have faith, and don the Church Militant costume. Go into a sort of ‘tough love’ mode with the world. The Church has been behaving like the parent who for so long enabled and unwittingly assisted the addicted child to kill itself - all out of ‘love’. Under Pope Benedict XVI, I see things changing like this. The Church will be ‘smaller but more faithful’ but in that faithfulness, it will be a brighter light to the world who so needs it. Always remember that it’s the Church, not the world, who holds the fullness of the Truth. When the images and likenesses of God tire of perishing at the altars of the world, the flesh, and the devil - it will seek the Church who is anchored to the Two Pillars of the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin Mary. This is spiritual warfare folks - and if you don’t put those night vision goggles on, you’ll continue to be in the dark.
Ave Maria,
Luke1_28
I like Cardinal Schoeborn very much and would be surprised if he desired any fundmental change in Church teaching. However, I have no doubt that he would like to see any number of changes in the curia and various aspects of Church governance. As Mr. Akin wrote, in any group of human beings there will be need of reform because of our frailty. The infallibility goven to the Church extends only to her teaching that she might be “The living Gospel for all people to hear.” The free will given by God to all rational creatures, is not taken away from men because they are bishops and cardinals.
This is not the first time Cardinal Schonborn said something that sounded less than orthodox. I don’t recall the last incident, but I do recall thinking, “Wow, and he edited the Catechism of the Catholic Church?”
Giving both Fr Fessio and Cardinal Schonborn the benefit of the doubt on 1-3, I cannot accept number 4.
Regardless of what one thinks of Cardinal Sodano, I had a very bad taste in my mouth that a manner of the College of Cardinals would offer even criticism in an “off the record” as in, behind Sodano’s back over a matter he had opportunities to confront in a more virtuous manner. Discussing reform of the Curia is one thing. Pointing fingers at a brother bishop to the press, behind his back is just plain slimey.
Fr. Fessio is parsing the words “attack” and criticise” if he thinks Cardinal Sodano is worthy of any defense. Cardinal Sodano protected and defended bishops who allowed greater numbers of children to be raped by sinning priests. Sodomy in the Old Testament brought on the wrath of God.
Fr. Fessio is defending the “sin” within the church as our Holy Father recently spoke of the abuse of children and the cover up. Child molesters are criminals and sinners. We forgive sinners but we must demand punishment for crimes. Our Holy Father is understanding the filth that hurts our church; Fr. Fessio and Cardinal Sodano seem to be in opposition.
I should have said I could not accept #5. Regrets for the errant word or two. Autocorrect on iPhone can be a problem in comboxes if not watching carefully. I suspect people will understand what I was trying to point out.
I forgot the final part of my thought that adds clarity:
Our Holy Father is understanding the filth that hurts our church; Fr. Fessio and Cardinal Sodano seem to be in opposition TO OUR HOLY FATHER.
I think that it shows a lack of prudence to instruct the media about the subtleties of doctrine, if that what was done. Clearly the ideas of pearls and swine come to mind. Indeed, they did trample here.
But I am unconvinced that the Cardinal did not want to encourage these noises from the media. I think he is neither stupid nor naive as Fr. Fessio’s defense requires one to think. It may have been imprudent, but given his intelligence and political acumen, I wonder if it was calculated imprudence to mold discussion. He DID have the Tablet there. Did he really think this wouldn’t happen?
If I had to choose between Cardinal Schonborn and Cardinal Sodano, I’d take Schonborn in a heartbeat!
Someone here (Mary) has falsley accused Cardinal Shonborn of being a freemason. This violtaes the 8th commandment. Go and confess this serious sin Mary.
I would love to see the Austrian Cardinal elected Pope…
Joseph,
A Cardinal does not increase his chances of being elected Pope by speaking about a brother bishop behind his back, no matter what Sodano may or may not have done. It is a breach if trust. Animber of bishops have already indicated that this press conference was not the place for such criticism.
OK, so if it was suppose to be an “off the record” meeting, instead of reports saying that Cardinal Schonborn was critical of Cardinal Sodano it would have read that an unnamed high ranking member of the College of Cardinals criticized him.
Take note: the matter for which Sodano was criticized happened long enough ago that we have to wonder, why now?
In situations such as these, I should give the cardinals or bishops the benefit of the doubt, but, to be frank, it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to do so.
We definitely have an “internal” problem.
Honestly, it sounds as a lot of spin on the part of the Tablet’s, Fr. Fessio’s and Jimmy’s.
Disregarding the naivete of a Cardinal really believing that a Cardinal can speak off the record, while speculating outlandishly about such subjects, such remarks from someone who contributed so much to the Catechism are quite disappointing. It makes me wonder how much work Fr. Corapi had reviewing and correcting it…
Everybody take notice: Cardinal Schonborn is scheduled to be the next Pope and more power to him. He is not afraid or intimidated by human respect or the press. He is a true leader, does and says what he thinks is right and follows through. I would say the same for Father Fessio outside of the prediction that he will be the next pope. These two pillars of the Catholic Church are to be admired and trusted.
These are just some humble opinions when reading the article and some of the comments:
@ Mary: Why did he criticize the Maciel affair so strongly? Because it is a despicable stain on the Roman Catholic Church. As much as I love Pope John Paul II, it should have been handled more effectively the first time around.
@ Diane: It may have been a breach of trust, but I am WAY more concerned about the breach of trust on the part of the Bishops and priests that engaged in sexually abusing and covering up the abuse of members of their flock when they were charged with the opposite. Cardinal Schonborn appears (to me) to be more interested in actually doing something about that, whereas Cardinal Sodano appears to be more interested in continued deflection and blaming.
@ Augustine: I don’t know who will or will not become the next Pope and I’m not worried about it right now. But I take comfort in a Cardinal who is willing to speak openly and transparently even if it results in some controversy. The sexual abuse scandal is about power and secrecy. The antidote is humility, transparency, and love. I know little about Cardinal Schonborn other than that he is one of the few who is speaking with those qualities at the present time. Opposite of your reaction, it makes me proud that someone of such courage worked on the Catechism.
Just my thoughts. Take them for what their worth (not much, in the big picture).
To quote Sandro Magister in his June 2009 article entitled: Austria and China. The Bishops with the Lowest Grades
“Another glaring contrast concerns the highest ranking Austrian bishop, Cardinal Schoenborn. He passes for one of pope Ratzinger’s trusted friends, but at home he gives the anti-Roman forces free rein. Between February and March, at the height of the controversy over the revocation of the excommunication of the Lefebvrist bishops, the Austrian bishops were among those who made the least effort to defend the pope.”
Hey joseph, I bet you still believe Marciel is innocent.
Schornborn is a Freemason. I know this on good information. He has also participated in a blasphemous rock music mass you can see on gloria.tv This man is very bad and is a careerist. Schonborn is a disgrace.
This is good (for all those who want to see the church continue to fester). Don’t actually adress the real problem, just pile it on the guy who is courageous enough to say something about it.
Ricardo writes: <<<@ Diane: It may have been a breach of trust, but I am WAY more concerned about the breach of trust on the part of the Bishops and priests that engaged in sexually abusing and covering up the abuse of members of their flock when they were charged with the opposite. Cardinal Schonborn appears (to me) to be more interested in actually doing something about that, whereas Cardinal Sodano appears to be more interested in continued deflection and blaming.>>>
Ricardo,
Cardinal Schonborn’s backbone should have been used to take his concern to the Holy Father about Sodano, not the media.
Let me make a few things clear:
1) I am in agreement that a house cleaning has been in order.
2) I believe that the justice (not just forgiveness) the Holy Father spoke of in Fatima, needs to include members of hierarchy who are found to be guilty of wrong doing (preventing, hindering, etc.).
3) By “found guilty” I do not mean in the cyber-court, but in a thorough checking of facts by competent persons, and review by those who can make decisions to decide whether anything criminal took place, or whether it was imprudence and bad judgment (the latter should result in a resignation; the former according to civil law).
4) Because young people were horribly abused - sins that cry out to heaven - does not give us the license to engage in rash judgment, detraction, or calumny against individual members of the hierarchy. If we are only privvy to reports and rumors, but do not have all of the facts before us, we risk crossing those lines.
5) My desire to see public unity and harmony at the level of College of Cardinals, does not in any way make me dismissive of the seriousness of the sins committed by sinful priests who preyed on children, and bishops who did not act.
6) You can’t pick and choose who among the JPII administration you will make into a whipping. If you are going to do one, you will have to do them all. I would rather prelates who have evidence to get some backbone and take it into the Pope, than to see them take it to the media. To me, it shows a lack of trust in Pope Benedict when the media is chosen over the Holy Father.
7) I believe we have the right to voice our concerns to the Sacred Pastors, and a duty. But there is a difference between opinion based on second hand and third hand information, inuendo, etc, and hard facts. The CCC reminds us that all persons are entitled to their good name and sets boundaries which we should not cross. We cannot engage, for example, in detraction, even for a good cause. That would be consequentialism. We can take information to the proper authorities if we have it, but the media is not a proper authority.
Few understand the many dimensions of calumny and detraction. Perhaps rumors have made their way through the Sacred Palace and into the news rooms, and it may sound compelling. However, we should not only expect justice for abuse victims, but also practice justice toward’s those we believe are guilty, by not assuming guilt we cannot prove without a proper review of facts by a competent authority.
I was thinking that Cardinal S may be among the few members of the clergy that thinks like a normal Christian person, but from Fr. Fessio’s comments, Cardinal S is as convoluted as the rest of them. Reading this summary takes away my hope. Why can’t the clergy speak regular language? Why do they have to be so philosophical and flowery? I just scanned this article and the comments to it, so maybe I misread it. But please, Cardinal S - if you are reading this, just talk simply!!!! Jesus and the Apostles talked simply.
ann downey writes: “Cardinal Schonborn ... does and says what he thinks is right and follows through”
...
Ann, isn’t that what Adam and Eve did?
“The sexual abuse scandal is about power and secrecy. The antidote is humility, transparency, and love.”
Sounds right to me.
“...eudaimonistic rather than a deontological moral philosophy.”
Everybody knows what that means, don’t they?
Unfortunately, most of the episcopate in German-speaking countries is heterodox to say the least, and that includes Cardinal Schönborn. He has said and did quite a lot of negative things, most of which never made its way into English-language media. It should be noted, for example, that Schönborn is a staunch supporter of a Catholic-bashing, atheist Marxist from whom he has commissioned several works of “art”. In addition, Schönborn has resolutely supported the preacher at the cathedral in Vienna. This priest has not only been arrested for drunk driving, he also held scandalous “beer-hall” masses in which the eucharist was treated with something close to contempt.
Here is the story on the pornographic art in the Vienna cathedral:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vienna_cardinal_expresses_regrets_about_controversial_artwork_display/
In explaining that he didn’t know in advance the details of the “art” and that, anyway, the artist’s OTHER work is not pornographic, would Cardinal Schonborn allow Hitler to display his art?
Here is a good summary of Cardinal Schonborn’s recent controversies:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051004.html
“Posted by Chrysologus on Friday, May 14, 2010 9:03 AM (EST):A Freemason? [snark]The year is 2010, not 1910.[/snark]”
With all due Charity, please watch this video:
http://www.fatimachallenge.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=63:masonry-unmasked&catid=21&Itemid=15
It is 2010, but evil does not have a shelflife!
Readers should note that Fatima Challenge is at the site of Fatima Network - a site rated as red by Catholic Culture, and for good reason.
In addition to the problems listed at Catholic Culture, there is a link to “The Devil’s Final Battle” by Fr. Paul Kramer, who “accuses”, among others, Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Bertone, of “crimes”. Among those “crimes” are the “murder of the Fatima message”, and collaborating with Pope Paul VI in the “auto-demolition” of the Church and Fatima.
The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, made an appeal to pray, to do penance, to convert, and to exercise the virtues - the core message of Fatima upon which all of us should act.
These conspiracy theories found on such websites are nothing more than a distraction.
I refuse to publish comments at my blog which contain links to Fatima Network or those advancing this kind of material.
Fr Fessio’s defense of Cardinal Schönborn’s “non-attack” leaves me perplexed.
Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, the former head of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, does not share Fr Fessio’s interpretation. Bruno Volpe [Pontifex.Roma, 2010-05] interviewed Cardinal Schönborn’s colleague : “My confrère should have and could have used another method than throwing accusations in such a violent way through a newspaper”. Cardinal Saraiva Martins encouraged “fraternal correction” before publicly denouncing a colleague “sinner”. Has the Archbishop of Vienna done that with Cardinal Sodano between 1995—- the year he replaced the infamous Cardinal Groër—- and today?
That behaviour does not seem isolated. As witness the scene making in Medjugorje at the end of 2009. The Archbishop of Vienna spent days celebrating in Medjugorje, without even informing the Ordinary of Mostar or asking for his permission, and said, wrote and preached, even in televised interviews, that these visions must be of supernatural origin, because they last since almost 30 years without being “condemned” by the Church.
He knew about the “non constat de supernaturalitate” verdict of the second enlarged diocesan Commission (1986) confirmed by the third national Commission (1991). What peculiar sensus cardinalis! It was Bishop Peric’s fault to have misinterpreted his “pilgrimage” in the diocese of his colleague… [http://www.cbismo.com/index.php?mod=vijest&vijest=491] Doesn’t it look like a provocation, a coup de force?
What was really the intention of that intelligent prelate with that public confrontation? What kind of discernment was concealed under that behaviour? Did that depreciation of the “non constat” enlighten the faithful?
Is “scene making” becoming a pattern in progress by the Cardinal with “good intentions” trying to achieve holy ends by unholy means? His accusation against Cardinal Sodano seems suspect. Not that I minimize the gravity of silence, if proven, on horrible aggressions against the physical, emotional and spiritual integrity of children and teenagers without defense.
But I am asking myself why the untruthful silence is, to the eyes of Cardinal Schönborn, legitimately intolerable in Rome and acceptable for Medjugorje? Is not the untruthful silence concerning dissimulations, artifices, manipulations linked to Medjugorje detrimental to the psychological and spiritual integrity of sincere pilgrims who have been deceived? Why, since 24 years, the “non constat”—- the Lady of Medjugorje is not considered to be the Virgin Mary—- has not yet made its place at the Vatican, in all truthfulness with its logical consequences—- constat de non supernaturalitate?
Beyond the apparent personal ambiguous action of one protagonist, a real lesson is at stake here. What is needed is an enlightened, collegial, loyal and constant authority that will put an end, ubi et orbi, to all the untruthful silences that obscure the spirit.
“From now on, no more lying; that each one speak the truth to his neighbor; aren’t we members of one another?” [Ephesians, 4, 25]
Ever since I read reports about the blasphemous “art work” in Vienna showing the Last Supper I’ve wondered how it could be displayed on Catholic premises. The atheist perpetrator is supposed to have said even he didn’t think the rot ran that deep.
The link above doesn’t work for me. Has anyone a helpful quote?
The Church cannot and will not change matters of faith and doctrine. We obey the commandments because God is God and we are not…period! It is true that God is kind and merciful and certainly treats us as a father, but as such He has every right to demand certain things, and those He demands he gives with grace, even if it takes us a gradual time to respond. When Cardinals and bishops attack each other, or priests attack other priests, then reform is certainly needed….compassion is quickly exiting the Church, and when that exits, what Jesus died for is cast aside.
WRT “the law of gradualism” about which Fr. Fessio speaks, it should be pointed out that this is a moral/pastoral principle, i.e., one to which laymen normally have no access. It’s chief applicatability is between a confessor and a pentitent in spiritual direction. It entails the penitent’s accessing the priest for spiritual counseling, and the priest’s determination of whether or not he can grant absolution. Thus I can see its applicability to the circumstances of homosexuals as well as divorced and remarried couples.
I also can see therein the rationale behind considering promiscuous gay activity, and long-term homosexual partners, as potentially different. In the first case, the gays are committed to “doing their thing” period. In the second case, there may be a willingness to focus more on the mutual-support aspects of long-term relationships, and less on the sexual activity. This is not a general rule, and as Fr. Fessio mentions, it is not magisterial doctrine, but can be in the mind of a confessor, or spiritual director, in a particular case. It is only relevant to a confessor, since only a confessor can even contemplate granting absolution. The doctrinal point is that It is NOT a matter of comparing the intrinsic depravity of a) gay sex and b) committed gay sex; but rather the judgement that this person, here and now, is willing to struggle not to engage in sex, while simultaneously remaining with a same-sex partner for other (licit) purposes.
Whether journalists have the discipline or attention span to comprehend such a consideration or not, is a whole other question.
Go to FIRST THINGS to read a clear article on Cardinal Sodano…
Have we not have had enough “reform”-has not the tragedy of Vatican II and the floodgates it has opened caused enough harm? Once you sow the seeds of doubt as this council has done and the flock of clergy it has produced, the souls that will be damned because of this will be countless
I and my family worship as if these “reforms” never took place, the Baltimore Catechism, the Dhoey Rheims Bible, 1917 Code of Canon law (no annulments in my family), and virtue
God bless our Pope, he should defrock those who sow doubt in this church, the church is NOT a democracy
“the souls that will be damned because of this will be countless”
Neither you nor I nor anyone else is competent to state who is or is not in hell. I hope nobody.
Our Lord made it very clear that at the end of time the saved shall be few. Before Vatican II, or I should say before the changes that started under Pope Pius XII, If a Bishop or priest teaches contrary to the Magisterium, that Bishop is asked to reconsider his beliefs which are outside of the Catholic community; then clergy is disciplined and, if necessary, then sanctioned. God creates all of us human beings free, with free will. That applies also to the clergy to whom He chooses to entrust His Catholic Church. When Our Lord asks if he will find the Faith when he comes back on earth (Lk XVIII, 8), it is clear that for certain that by man’s fault, the Catholic Church will be very small at the Second Coming.
So the Catholic Church to the end of time will never cease, on however small a scale, to make heard amongst men the doctrine of salvation, the Deposit of the Faith. From eternity this doctrine proceeds from God the Father to God the Son, it was faithfully entrusted by the Incarnate God to His Apostles, and it has been handed down as unchanging Tradition through the successors of the Apostles ever since. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away”, says Our Lord (Lk. XXI, 33).
Tradition is the criterion of the Church’s infallible ordinary magisterium. It is simple to know what is false in what is being taught by todays clergy by measure what is being said against what the Church has said down all the centuries. If it corresponds to Tradition, the teaching is infallible, and if it does not, it is not infallible.
I always remember my Catechism as the church must always be ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC and APOSTOLIC for her not to defect, and with ecumenism and the teachings and customs so different from one parish to the next, sometimes even one church to the next, the proof is right there.
“Our Lord made it very clear that at the end of time the saved shall be few.”
You have a list of names? Are there are only a few people in heaven?
“A Dialogue between two Infants in the womb concerning the state of this world, might handsomely illustrate our ignorance of the next, whereof methinks we yet discourse in Plato’s Den, and are but Embryon Philosophers.”
—Thomas Browne
INWARD TO THE CENTER
They don’t believe in God but in the devil,
The Earth will not regain virginity,
Plunder will achieve a higher level
Equal to the depth of poverty,
Everything resumes a steady state
When violence and regulation mate
And yet within the sunny cloister heard
Where once a hundred friars bent in thought
The tidy whistle of the mockingbird
The cleanliness of which may not be bought;
And still a few unpurchased friars strolled
The day before the flesh of God was sold
Stone and flesh and money made this not
Nor inward to the center runs the rot
Pavel
May 16, 2010
Yes Pavel, all will go to heaven, why even go to church or follow our Lord?
You have bought into ecumania hook line and sinker
I for one will take the safe road, if it was right for 1962 years before the modernization of the church, I will follow and profess such now
If it is wrong now, then it was wrong then, cant be
The more I know about the inner workings of the Roman Catholic Church, the more grateful I am that I have read the Bible from cover to cover, I study it daily and believe every single Word of it is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and if its contents were not written TO us, it was written FOR our benefit. What Jesus taught and commanded we follow is fairly easy to understand, but it is difficult to DO because we are all human and tend to be self-willed. That said, the institutional church is filled with power-hungry, self-willed people that only admit it, when their hands are found in the proverbial cookie jar. Up until that time, they would like us to believe they are all ‘holy’ and being led by the Holy Spirit. We will know them by their FRUIT. I think we need to give Cardinal Schoenbern a break and understand that when one DISAGREES with someone else, it is not an “attack”. As for trying to disagree with a fellow cleric privately - good luck. I think he did fine with trying to reach out to the press. The press is known for being a bit back-handed and since the Tablet is Catholic. Shame on THEM for making this a story. Let’s be charitable to the cardinals and work WITH them.
“Yes Pavel, all will go to heaven, why even go to church or follow our Lord?”
Argue against something I didn’t say, and you argue alone.
To Diane at Te Deum:
Well-worded response, and I very much agree. Perhaps my first post did engage in some unnecessary splitting. I, too, would like Cardinal collegiality. And that media is not a final authority. And that a house-cleaning is in order. And that there is much that goes on behind the scenes that the average lay person (of which I am one) doesn’t know/understand. On the other hand, my response reflected more of a gutteral reaction to the events that have unfolded recently. My intuition reacted strongly against hearing he Hierarchy (which we agree needs a good house cleaning, right?) defended, as Cardinal Sodano did. Whereas, it reacted positively to the news that Cardinal Schonborn is speaking openly and transparently. I get that some people believe that this is unnecessary on Cardinal Schonborn’s part. I simply don’t see it as that big of a deal, or even as an attack. In fact, if there is so much going on behind the scenes, isn’t it possible that they are doing just fine and neither one of them really understod it as an attack? PEace to all of them, and to us.
The latest news now has Cardinal Schönborn openly questioning celibacy:
http://austrianindependent.com/news/General_News/2010-05-17/2663/Schönborn_shares_Iby’s_concern_about_celibacy
I realise celibacy is, technically, a discipline and not a doctrine, but it would be nice to read news, now and then, of Cardinal Schonborn SUPPORTING something the Church holds dear.
Jon-
The subject is celibacy and the reasons why it must be addressed. Cardinal Schonborn’s whole life would be an example of him SUPPORTING much of what the institutional Church holds dear. I took a class in Conflict Resolution and the BEST things I learned were 1) stay on message and 2) keep the discussion to the ISSUE and not making it personal.
I applaud Cardinal Schoneborn for bringing up the need for celibacy to be discussed - we have known it for hundreds of years, and still living experts (Sipe, Tom Doyle) have been telling the cardinals for years about the need.
Further, 7 years ago, 1/3 of the clergy in Milwaukee asked the US bishops to discuss celibacy for diocesan priests. It’s time to LISTEN and to have healthy change.
“Wow. Harsh, man! “Civilization of love.” Lots of blasting going on here!”
I come from a Huguenot family and just have this to observe. Just like Communism, Catholicism promises to deliver paradise for all, if we only submit to its authority and hierarchy. Just like Communism, Catholicism has utterly failed to deliver on its promises. My ancestors rejected Catholicism and the Pope as corrupt and illegitimate, and nothing that has happened in the intervening centuries has changed that. If you want Christianity to unify and win, Catholicism needs to change fundamentally.
Rona-
The subject is Cardinal Schonborn and his seeming recent penchant for appeasing agitators.
My link to the article in which he openly questions the Church’s discipline of celibacy (a discipline recently affirmed by Popes) is “on message” (your protestation to the contrary notwithstanding).
I once again direct you to a good review of some of the Cardinal’s recent activities:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/may/10051004.html
P.S. It is not a wonder that “1/3 of the clergy in Milwaukee asked the US bishops to discuss celibacy for diocesan priests”; the wonder is that after Bishop Rembert Weakland, 2/3 did not.
Jon-
Thank you for the link and I will look it up - there is no way to link from this page, but I’ll check it out now. Regarding celibacy - it’s not just me that protests it for a flimsy reason, or just because I think a married priesthood would be a good idea. (For instance, there is NO valid reason to call for women priests. It’s clearly against Scripture and there is no Tradition for it.) But for a married MALE clergy - there is 1Corinthians 9:5, 1st Timothy 3:1-5 and Titus Chapter One, plus 1139 years of Tradition for it. Please forgive me if what I am about to say offends you or anyone else, but allow me to point out that no one is perfect, and that includes John Paul II, a man that occupied the Seat of Peter for upwards of 26 years, and it was he that reaffirmed celibacy over and over. It was also he that refused to allow his friend, Fr. Marciel Macial to be investigated and last week on EWTN, papal biographer had some descriptive words to use about Fr. Maciel who abused many, many people. So much for relying on one person’s rulings. We must look to what God wrote in Scripture about celibacy, and the Word in CONTEXT. Not taken out of context, as in Matthew 19. Please give that some thought and pray about the verses when you read them. I’ll look up the link now. Thank you—
Jon-
I read the link you provided and also the original Tablet article. If the Tablet is indeed a left-wing publication, then Cardinal Schonborn would have been wiser to not have invited them. It’s not news that there are publications out there that do not REPORT news, they CREATE news to sell more papers. They are all over the United States and we just can’t believe what we read anymore.
If it IS true that the Cardinal spoke about relaxing the Catholic policies on homosexual behavior, it is troubling. He isn’t going against just the institutional Church or the Magesteriam, he’s going against Scripture. Just check out Romans Chapter One.
As for divorce and remarriage - the Church makes it almost easy already, with annulments (if one can afford them, ala the Kennedy family. Jesus weighed in on that topic. God “hates” divorce, and although He allows it, divorce is only under special circumstances and it’s to be taken seriously.
Having read the link and the Tablet, I understand where you’re coming from, Joh. There IS cause for concern. So far, I haven’t heard the Cardinal say he was misquoted. Only Fr. Fessio has spoken out - and it’s not really up to him to speculate about what the Cardinal meant. It’s up to the Cardinal to set things right, if he was misquoted.
One thing is certain - it was not an “attack” on Sodano. I agree with Fr. Fessio that it was a criticism, and appropriate. In an ideal world, cardinals would speak candidly amongst themselves - not publicly. But the Vatican is well, dysfunctional. It’s not ideal.
Many of these even elderly men appear to be emotionally about 10 years old, and it’s not easy to speak with them rationally. Cardinal Schonborn did what he had to do about that - shined light on a bad situation. For that, I thank him.
Not only is Cardinal Schonborn openly questioning the Church’s discipline of celibacy - http://tinyurl.com/3af8cxo - but the Austrian Bishop whose “concerns” on celibacy he shares, Paul Iby, has himself called for opening up the question of the ordination of women - http://tinyurl.com/2vnn6qp Does anyone in Austria defend the faith?
Jon- There is nothing wrong with questioning the PRACTICE of celibacy. It is only a practice that could be changed tomorrow, with the stroke of Pope Benedict’s pen. It should be changed tomorrow - in order for our church to heal. Keeping our heads in the sand about celibacy when it has clearly proven to be an issue is negligent on the part of ALL of us Catholics. It should be discussed. BUT—as for women’s ordination, there is NO WAY that should happen because the ROLE for women in the Catholic Church (and in ANY Christian denomination, according to the Bible and according to universal Church Tradition, for that matter) is as a priest’s wife only. No woman should be in charge of any church. The church structure is VERY clear in Scripture and women are NOT to have leadership roles over any men. It’s all about the ROLE men and women play in the whole Body of Christ. It isn’t discrimination. St. Paul worked very well with women but they were not in leadership roles.
I forgot to mention that St. Peter Damian had a LOT to say about the very issue we face today - clergy abuse - and he warned his Pope at the time about it and he was ignored. St. Peter Damian’s comments were no different than the priest that wrote the letter so long ago, warning the Vatican that this crisis was going to happen, and all the warnings of priests such as Fr. Tom Doyle, Fr. Donald Cozzens and the well-respected former Benedictine, A. W. Richard Sipe, all men who warned our Church leaders YEARS ago that this crisis we face was going to happen. And I recently heard a conservative lay Catholic on EWTN say all of us had better prepare ourselves because the next wave of scandals was going to be about abuse on the mission field - also, Doyle, Cozzens and Sipe have all said that statistics of CHILD abuse by clergy will pale compared to the numbers we will face regarding ADULT abuse (of women and men). Celibacy does not work. Let priests marry. Women should be priests wives. We should allow God to run His own Church. Let’s all re-read Mark Chapter 7.
If allowing priests to marry would solve all these problems, why do Protestant clergy have at least as high a rate of abuse as priests? Aren’t most Protestant clergy married? We have a problem, for sure, but celibacy has absolutely nothing to do with it. It has to do with the fact that people have absolutely no idea what sexuality is about and use their sexuality primarily for power or entertainment.
Lauretta - I agree with you about the reasons why our society is sick, in that sexuality is greatly used for power and entertainment. I don’t call for an end to mandatory celibacy for diocesan priests to solve the issue of clergy abuse. I call for an end to mandatory celibacy because Scripture calls for a married MALE priesthood. It’s all over the Bible, when the verses are read in context. Matthew 19 is taken OUT of context. It may have been fine for an uneducated Roman Catholic populace of the 12th century to accept Matthew 19 as a reason. But with the printing press and ALL the Bibles we now have (I often refer to the USCCB - United States Conference of Catholic Bishops - online Bible, a terrific resource), it’s impossible to pass off Matthew 19 to Catholics as being THE verse to justify celibacy. That’s why even the Vatican calls it only a PRACTICE that could end tomorrow. There will always be problems as long as there are people, and we are all flawed. But we MUST have a Church structure the way God intended it to be. And He did not intend for priests to be celibate. He intended for priests to be married men.
Ronna,
Yes, most of the priest in the beginning were married because marriage was what almost everyone did in those days. However, Paul did state that he wished all priests were as he was, that is celibate. Also, John the Apostle was not married, so there are ample examples of non-married clergy
We also believe that priests act in persona Christi, that is in the person of Christ. Christ is said to be a Bridegroom—to His Bride, the Church. That is more clearly represented by a man who is not married to someone else. Yes, a married man can do the job of being a priest but the sign of Christ as Bridegroom is muddied.
There are also practical reasons why a priest should be celibate. He is able to pour himself out in sacrifice for his flock much more completely if he does not have the responsibilities of a wife and family. Often, the kids that caused the most trouble in school were the pastor’s kids. Why would that be? Maybe because it was difficult for the father to fulfill all that was required of him as both pastor and husband and father.
The Church has done both and has decided that the role of priest is best fulfilled by celibate man and assure them that they will have the grace of state to accomplish that task. Yes, some of them fail but so do those who are married. Most sexual abuse occurs in the home—by married men.
Lautetta,
The reason I speak out for a married MALE clergy is to obey God’s Word. St. Paul made an off-hand comment. God is clear about qualifications for men in the ordained ministry. As for the pastor’s kids causing problems, Franklin Graham took over his father Billy’s crusade, and he is a man of great respect. Billy Grahams is known as being “America’s Pastor”. Everyone knows him. As for Franklin - he caused problems until he was 22 years old. Many kids have to find themselves and draw closer to God on their own. But it is not how we START it is how we FINISH. Also we are known for who our ‘enemies’ are as well as who our friends are. Franklin Grahman drew the ire of many in the Obama Administration, who did not want him to be at the helm of the National Day of Prayer last month, because Franklin spoke out about the bad treatment of women by extremist Muslims, and right after Sept. 11. He took heat for speaking out for the teachings of Jesus, who welcomed women. As for priests being like Jesus, a Bridegroom for the Church. I never understood how that premice could be made because to identify a priest with being “married” to the Church automatically excludes them from being IN the Church. Jesus is the One Bridegroom who is married to the One Church, of which priests are a part. Most of all, we must obey GOD, not an off-hand statement made by St. Paul or anyone else. Our church structure must square with Scripture verses that apply to the qualifications of the ordained priesthood, and with mandatory celibacy, they simply do not. The Roman Church is feeling the brunt of not listening to God on this issue. God does not reward people that pay Him no heed. So Pope Benedict will either realize that (and I think he will, he is a smart man and so far, I have liked the way he’s handled sensitive issues inside and outside of the Church, plus he’s a church historian)... OR he will blow his chance, and the Roman church will continue to see little, if any, trust. I hope Benedict is the one to resolve this and make the healthy change re: celibacy, because the alternative scares me. I do not want to see us go the way of the left-wing liberal Anglicans, being in the hands of those cardinals that call for women priests and the ACCEPTANCE of homosexual behavior - both of which are an affront to God.
Ronna, it is clear you are well-read and are very familiar with the Bible. I am sympathetic to your appeal to Scripture. However, I find myself wondering who gets to decide which remarks Paul made are “off-hand.” I’m not sure I can make that distinction myself.
Loretta, where did Paul say that? I hate to admit my lack of Bibilical scholarship, but I do not recall that statement and can’t seem to find it. Could you lead me to it? Thanks, and peace to both of you.
Thank you, Ricardo. The verse can be found in St. Paul’s letter in First Corinthians Chapter 7 verse 8. But it must be taken in context. A reader must first see who is being addressed, and that whole Chapter 7 is to the Corinthian believers. It is not to the ordained ministers. St. Paul wrote letters to Timothy and to Titus, when each was setting up their respective churches. Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete. By the way, I am Roman Catholic since I was baptized as an infant, and to a family of Roman Catholics on both sides, my mothers and my fathers. I have 12 years of Catholic education, and I never left the Church to wander to any other denomination or to become fallen away. I know that may be unusal but my faith (Catholic-Christian) is very important to me and I love the Mass. I also love reading the Bible. The reason I mention this is that all that sets me apart from so many other fellow Catholics is that I read Scripture. God wants us to love Him with our MINDS as well as our hearts. To know Him, we can read His Word. His Word must be read in context. While not everything in Scripture was written TO us, it is all FOR our benefit. Sometimes, my feelings are hurt because every once in a while, a fellow Catholic will say, “You sound Protestant” - and some have even told me to leave the Roman Church. All because I read the Bible and understand it in CONTEXT, trying to obey God, not men. I refuse to be forced out of my Church, just because I am Bible-literate. Intstead, I pray more fellow Catholics will read the Bible too. It is a HUGE GIFT from God and even the Roman Church teaches that it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. For the record, I am also 100% Pro-Life too, even against the death penalty. Instead we need prison reform. I have the appropriate ‘battle scars’ from speaking out publicly on Pro-Life issues. Paid my dues and will continue to do so, in His Holy Name. God bless both you and Lauretta too. Till later…
Ronna,
Thanks for explaining where you are coming from. That is helpful and will save me some unnecessary explanation. I am a Catholic as well, a convert as a young adult. I have spent many years learning about the faith since I knew nothing when I came into the Church. Not even about basic Christianity. One thing I have learned is that the Bible is not a stand alone resource. What I mean is that if we try to learn everything about our faith from the Bible without also using the Tradition that accompanies it, we are going to get off track. Just as the men on the road to Emmaus, the Scriptures come alive when we have the Magisterium and Tradition to flesh out the meaning of the texts in the Bible.
Celibacy for priests is something that has always been part of our tradition, starting with Jesus himself. As far as I know Scripture doesn’t tell us if all of the apostles were married. The only one I know for sure is Peter. We don’t read of them interacting with family members—the father and mother of James and John are mentioned but no spouses or children. The Church has been in on-going dialogue about this for many years and believes that celibacy is the best way for priests to live out their vocation. Even in a very dissident diocese a few years ago, only a third of the priests signed a petition for married priests. Most priests don’t want to be married. They see the value of the gift of celibacy for themselves.
Several years ago, a priest that I would not call orthodox, said in a talk that celibacy was not the problem in the lack of priests. He said that people are afraid to make a commitment to anything and cited the lowering marriage rate as an example. We have problems in the Church and in the priesthood but celibacy is not one of them.
Many of us married Catholics, therefore men and women who have made a vow to God to be faithful to their spouse, receiving sacramental graces to fulfill this vow, commit adultery. By the logic of some in this thread, this failure to be faithful should be a reason for the Church to reconsider monogamist marriages and instead accept “open” marriages.
No, the failure of sinful people to live up to their promises not only does not mean that their promises are void, but also it does not mean that the promises are wrong teaching.
Celibacy has no relation whatsoever to the unacceptable incidence of pederasty among Catholic clergy. Why young ones are abused adds injury to insult, because the abusers know that they can manipulate their victims more easily into keeping their dirty deeds.
May St. Bernardine of Sienna pray for us.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Lauretta. One of the attributes of God is that He is unchanging. Would you agree with that? If so, how can it be justified that in 1Timothy 3:1-5 and Titus Chapter One, where St. Paul gave Holy Spirit-inspired instructions to the young men about how to set up their churches in respectively, Ephesus and Crete, he told them to ordain married men, “for if a man cannot manage his own little family with dignity, how can he take care of the Church of God?” If God is not changing, how can God’s instructions about something as important as what MEN are ordained to lead His Church on earth change so drastically from His Word to practice through Tradition?
Augustine- Celibacy has NOTHING to do with pedophile-priests. Statistics I heard are that only between 4-6% of priests have molested children. In most every society, sexual abuse of children is frowned upon. That said, 30-45% of the clergy are homosexual. Celibacy DOES have something to do with that. It is much higher than the national averages. And A.W. Richard Sipe, respected former Benedictine with 35 years of experience dealing with clergy and their sex lives reports in “Celibacy in Crisis” (published 2003) that 50% of priests AND BISHOPS are having sex regularly at any one time, and 40% try to be faithful to the promise of celibacy and fail regularly. It has a name = they call it a ‘lapse’. Only 2% of them acheive celibacy and another 10% force themselves to remain celibate. It’s not just children that are affected. Priests put on pedastals weild power, and the human need to be loved has consequences.
Hey Ronna, check your facts. The book is by a former Benedictine and now married former priest - and the “study” is his observations - not a “study” in the scientific sense of the word. To top it off the introduction is by Fr. Richard McBrien. You have got to be kidding that you want us to take his word as “well respected.” Looking at his website (you can do the search yourself), shows Sipe to be extremely biased against the Church’s leadership.
Ronna,
You just proved what I said earlier. The Bible is not a stand alone resource. The same man, Paul, told one group that he wished all could remain as he was, that is celibate, and then told others to ordain married man. How do you reconcile those two? YOUR(I’m not shouting, only emphasizing :) opinion is that the first comment was off-handed, but that is only your opinion. My opinion is different than that. So, you see, we need that intermediary—Tradition and the Magisterium—to solve our disagreement. Even though the Bible is infallible, your opinion and mine are not. We have to have another infallible source to correctly interpret the infallible Bible.
The statistics you quote, if accurate, which I doubt, prove nothing about celibacy since married Protestant clergy have similar statistics. Their rate of adultery and sex abuse is quite high so marriage has done nothing for them. All those numbers prove is that men are weak and they do not understand their sexuality at all.
Lauretta, the Holy Spirit is not the author of confusion but rather, He unifies. When there is a disagreement between the Bible and Tradition, the Bible, God’s Holy Spirit-inspired Word must be the Gold Standard of Measure. As for how to justify the two comments by Paul. Those in Timothy and Titus were specifically about qualifications for men in the ministry. The comment about wishing people did not get married was because Paul thought Jesus was going to come back soon, and his passion was to spread the Good News about the coming of the Messiah and the forgiveness of sins. As for Jesus’ comment in Matthew 19 - He was referring to divorce, and how God hates it. He was not giving the qualifications for men in the ministry. The Bible does not contradict itself, anywhere. Further, when there is repetition, it is for emphasis. One cannot take an isolated comment and turn it into a practice. For that matter, Jesus said unless we “hate” other people and ourselves, we have no part with Him. Yet He told us to love God and to love each other as ourselves. No contradiction. Or is it.
Rob Kaiser - I identified Sipe as a former Benedictine. When I wrote he was well-respected, it was because bishops have called upon him for many years to help them with priests that have sexual problems. The book is the result of 35 years of his research. Further, Richard Sipe, Fr. Tom Doyle and others have warned bishops that problems such as we face now would be coming. Each were ignored. Respectfully, Rob, if you have a problem with Sipe’s qualifications, you would be questioning the abilities of the bishops that lead our church. While Sipe is respected in the secular world, he is also very respected by the bishops for his studies. As for Fr. McBrien, I’m less familiar with his work - but anyone can write a forward. I think it’s dangerous to discount someone’s thoughts because they do not agree with 100% of everything. I’m trying to think of something St. Augustine once wrote and the timing on this computer is going to run out. Will think of it later -
Rob - About disagreements on matters of faith, I think St. Augustine wrote, “In the essentials, unity. In non-esentials, diversity; and in all things, charity.”
Rob- I forgot to mention why I brought Augustine’s quote up. St. Paul disagreed with St. Peter about the qualifications for Gentiles being Christian. Paul met with Peter and the other apostles in the Council of Jerusalem, and they worked it out in an amicable and satisfactory manner. So even disagreements within the Church are shown in the Bible and how to resolve them. Discounting people’s thoughts are not the way to go - rather, engaging people in dialog is the way to understanding. God wants us to love Him with our minds as well as our hearts. I like to be like the Bereans, that searched the Scriptures, after Paul tried to teach them. It shows a heart for God to be interested in His Word and in pleasing Him.
Lauretta - I just learned something that may help you. There is a difference between the exegesis of Scripture and eisegesis (pronouned I-segisis). In the first, we ask what the Scripture verse says. Then we ask what it means. Then we see how it relates to the rest of the Bible as a whole and then, we apply it to our daily lives. In Eisegesis, it is more personal in interpretation, and it is basically to look for a verse that would fit our own preconceived agendas or notions. For instance, I can cite Dueteronomy 2:33-35 where God called for all men, women and children to be killed, and use it for a personal preference to be Pro-Choice, saying if God wanted all children to be killed, it’s better to do it before they are born, rather than later. (NOTE: I am Pro-Life, I am only using this as an example.) We have to look at the Bible as a WHOLE and see what else God said about the subject before drawing a ridiculous conclusion. But many people do take Scripture our of context and then say, “the Bible says this and that” that it really does not say. That’s why I ask what specifically does God say about qualifications for men in the miinistry. It’s very important to EXEGITE and not to Eisegite. (Spelling may be wrong)
While the media gets things wrong often, we should always remember Pope Pius X’s warning about Modernists in the Church in his encyclical letter, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, On the Doctrine of the Modernists, “In their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist.” Modernists are often very clever, disguising themselves as traditionally minded and lovers of the truth. Sometimes it takes digging a bit deeper to find out what they are really all about and sometimes they have the audacity to just reveal who they really are!
Carol- I agree with you 100%. It makes me wonder when people so often say their beliefs are guided by the Holy Spirit, when what they want to happen is NOT in Scripture, and even Catholics are taught that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It’s impossible for there to be contradictions. I once had a woman that was pro-same sex marriage tell me that we are “not to judge” and to allow homosexuals to live as they want, even though I pointed out Romans chapter one to her. She just stood there, looking at the verse as I read it, as if she just didn’t want to believe that was in the Bible, and that Jesus and God the Father were marshmallows that allow any kind of behavior. All of us Christians (and most importantly, Catholics, as so many Catholics are our lawmakers) need to get on the same page. Did all of you know that a young 13 year old boy was just suspended from school for wearing a rosary around his neck? He did so in honor of his dear great uncle that just died and to remember his dead brother whose rosary it belonged. Jay Seculo is defendding him - go to www.aclj.org for info and pray for the boy.
Ronna,
Ronna, I know about the different types of scripture interpretations. I also know that when I have tried to get the sense of Scripture on my own, I have many times been wrong. I have learned the hard way how important it is to use Tradition, Magisterial teaching, history and many other things in addition to the words in the Bible to truly understand my faith. We are not a Bible only faith, we have a richness of sources to reveal God to us. If the Bible were sufficient for a correct understanding of Christianity then we would not have all of the different and contradictory teachings in the 20,000 Protestand denominations that exist in the US today. They have tried the Bible only approach and look at what has resulted. It is chaos.
Some people get paid too well to do this religion schtick.
Cardinal S has more than once amply demonstrated not only his failure to protect his flock from pernicious influences, but has departed from Catholic teaching on more than one occasion.
He has already said these things that he’s being accused of saying before on other occasions, and the fact that people continue to regard him fondly while he himself attacks the orthodoxy they hold dear is a testimony to the gullibility of the American Bourgeoisie.
Keep buying those books from Ignatius Press and sending money, folks.
Charles- Christianity is not a ‘religion’. All others are religions. But Christianity is RELATIONSHIP and with the Holy Trinity, as revealed to us as God the Father, His Son and by our adoption, our Brother, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It has nothing to do with denomination. 13 year old Raymond, who is now fighting his school administration in New York for his wish to wear a rosary to school, in honor of his brother that died 5 years ago - whose rosary it belonged - is not even Catholic. The family is non-Catholic, but Christian. Christianity UNITES people - it is belief in Jesus, in His perfect sacrifice on the cross for our sins, and through it, a RELATIONSHIP with our Father, God. It’s not religion and most certainly, those that teach the faith and watch over it are not involving themselves with schtick.
Lauretta - Satan and his demons are alive and well, and roaming the earth for a likely candidate to fool. The devil is a counterfeit - he deceives and lies and creates doubt in people’s minds. If you do not know the Truth (Jesus and His Gospel) and from His Word (the Bible) you are a candidate to be fooled. Too many bishops (and popes) have been apologizing for far toooooo much for me to trust them for everything, carte blanche. We are instructed in Scripture to “test the spirits”. Not all of what they say is from the Holy Spirit. Why do you think so many of these men disagree about Vatican II? When I face God, on the Day of Judgement, I want to be sure that I have done my best to do what He wills for me and everyone - to ‘know’ Him and to love Him and to glorify Him forever in Heaven. The only way to KNOW God personally is to read His Word. When you ask the Holy Spirit to reveal Truth to you, He will. That is a promise from Jesus.
Wow Ronna, it’s all so clear now… until I read your comments, I thought the Protestant Revolt was just an anarchic appeal to people’s lesser selves and a mephistopholean desire to self-expression in Theology.
I guess you’re giving me permission to create my own religion. Thanks.
Charles - What I think, or what anyone else thinks, for that matter, is of no importance. What is important is what GOD thinks, and we can know what He thinks by reading Scripture and following Tradition that does not conflict with Scripture. As for starting your own ‘religion’, I’m sure you will have many mindless people all too willing to follow what you say because they do not know the Truth. The Truth (Jesus) will set you and them free. It is only belief in the Truth that, in the long run, is of eternal value. That is, if you believe in eternal life, and that all of us are going to spend that eternal lives somewhere, with God or, by our own choice, without God. By the way, 13 year old Raymond was able to attend school this morning, wearing his rosary around his neck, thanks to help from Christian attorneys at the American Center for Law and Justice that will take his case to court, pro-bono. A victory for all of us that believe in freedom of speech, expression and the practice of religion.
Ronna,
i have been reading your myriad postings, and have just one comment and one assertion to make, as well.
First, by your tone, and very individualistic scripture interpretations,
coupled with your lack of consonance with the mind of the last many popes, i’d say you need to pray for humility.
second, the infallible teaching of the church is as follows: as the one Word of God, contained in BOTH scripture and tradition, one does not contradict, nor EVER trump the other, hence the magisterium, which authority Christ JESUS our LORD left us to authentically interpret both so as to arrive at the TRUTH. in other words, scripture has as much, but no more authority than tradition.
+God bless, Matt
Matthew- what about my posts makes me sound as if I am not humble? I am interested in knowing because I often use CAPS for emphasis, and a friend told me it read as if I was shouting, when I am not. He suggested I use *astericks* instead. But I don’t like it as much. What specifically did you read that made you make that comment? I’d really like to know.
Also - Re: Scripture and Tradition, is it possible for there to be a 180 degree difference between something as important as the *qualifications* for the priesthood? Why didn’t Jesus choose 12 single men? Why did Jesus choose Peter, in particular? He could have at least chosen someone that was not married. What *specific* refernces apply to the qualifications for people in the priesthood?
Matthew, did you read the news story in 2001 with this headline: “Vatican confirms reports of sexual abuse of nuns by priests” it was based on the documentation of Sr. Maura O’Donohue and no one denies that they know it has happened for over 20 years. Among the worst miscarriages of justice were the 29 African nuns empregnated in one community by priests, and in another case, a nun was forced by the priest that empregnated her to get an abortion, she died during the procedure and he presided at her funeral. None of this is secret. Do a simple Google search and you can re-read this news from 2001. John Paul II knew all about it, and he didn’t do anything to correct it. I find it unacceptable. Do you find this acceptable, Matthew? If you were in the Vatican then, or now, would you do nothing at all to stop it? I think it’s good to be like the Bereans, and study the Word. Also marriage was in Tradition until 1139. Was the church wrong to have married male priests from the year 0 to the year 1139? Was Jesus wrong to choose Peter, a married man? Looking forward to your reply. Thanks in advance. God bless you too.
Ronna,
Priestly celibacy is not a dogma or doctrine of the Church. It is a *discipline* which the Church has chosen to have for many hundreds of years.
Disciplines can legitimately change in the Church. Priestly celibacy could end, or be modified (as it has been for married Eastern Orthodox and Anglican priests who become Catholic), as a discpline, and this would not contradict Catholic teaching at all. The Church is well aware that its first Pope was married.
As for whether it would be *prudent* for the Church to abolish the discpline of celibacy for priests, across the board, I can say that, as a recently returned Catholic with years of experience in the evangelical Protestant world, it can be very, very hard on a wife and children when their husband/father is a pastor. It is extremely difficult to love and take care of a wife and children well, with proper attention, when one also oversees a congregation.
To Christopher Lake - What specifically are the qualifications for people in the role of the ordained ministry, in your opinion? By what authority did you form your opinion? Did referenced in the Bible that are specific to those in the ordained ministry factor into your opinion? Yes or no? You can’t believe how many people I’ve asked those three questions and all I get back is silence. Nothing. It’s as if the Bible means nothing. Jesus means nothing. His Word means nothing. And yet Catholics worldwide hold the Bible high at Mass each Sunday, singing Allelujia!! with altar servers holding candles by it, and we stand out of respect when the Gospels are read - but we totally ignore teaching that is specific to the ordained ministry. Why?
I think the cardinal is losing his head! He encourages active homosexual actions with freedom to fornicate, just as another person who would incourage a man and a woman simply to remain together not in brother-sister relationship but togeher as as fornicators. Surely active homosexual actions are only for fornicators. That cardinal seems not to take fornication seriously and so he thinks he did not have to intervene when fornicators seem to think that they are free to take leadership roles in the catholic church. For him it would not not matter if catholic priests have partner to fornicate with! These and all others are the issues that come from cardinal schonborn’s event with the active homosextuals
James
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.