Francis the Merciful and his whisperer, Cardinal Walter Kasper, promoted “cunning” rather than the much-cited “distinction.” There is cunning in Amoris laetitia and the mind behind it. The state of confusion is obvious. It is claimed that the confusion is only supposed, and only the result of a new style of government. But can the confusion and disagreement between bishops on tricky points of faith be fruits of the Holy Spirit? Not in the opinion of many solid theologians.

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

Benedictine Professor: Why Are Almost All of the Cardinals and Bishops Silent?

Current issue of “Catholica“. Why are almost all cardinals and bishops silent about the end of Catholicism that Pope Francis brings about? The “other understanding of the Church” behind Amoris laetitia.

(Paris) The international magazine for culture, politics and religion, Catholica, which has been published in France for 30 years, counts “well-known authors such as Émile Poulat, Robert Spaemann, Ernst Wolfgang Böckenförde, Vladimir Bukowski, Stanislaw Grygiel, Thierry Wolton and Jacques Ellul and Pietro De Marco,” says Vatican writer Sandro Magister. The editor-in-chief is Bernard Dumont.

Bernard Dumont

In its latest issue, Dumont, whose editorial is also freely available on the Internet, deals with the “unbelievable” silence of almost all cardinals and bishops – with the exception of the four signatories of Dubia – “the dissolution of the traditional form of catholicity by the pontificate of Jorge Mario Bergoglio has been set in motion.”Bernard Dumont discusses the apparently desired end of “Roman Catholicism” without, however, raising an outcry, as the historian Roberto Pertici once complained. The end is proclaimed by Rome or those who invoke Rome, and all are silent and seem to submit to the inevitable fate. See the analysis of Prof. Pertici: The reform of Pope Francis was already written by Martin Luther .

Why is this?

 

The belief reduced to ethics

 

Dumont also published in the new edition the text of a Benedictine monk and theologian who analyzes and criticizes “perhaps the most radical upheaval in Catholicism of our time.”No longer does the sacrament have primacy in the Church, of which the Second Vatican Council said it was the “culmen et fons” of the life of the Church, but ethics.
 
This subversion is also reflected in the question of remarried divorced as well as the inter-communion with the Protestants.
 
The Benedictine theologian is Fr. Giulio Meiattini, who this year already published the monograph  “Amoris laetitia? The Sacraments Reduced to Morality” (publisher La Fontana di Siloe, Turin 2018). He is a monk of the Benedictine Abbey of Madonna della Scala in Noci and Professor of Fundamental Theology at the Theological Faculty of Apulia and at the Pontifical Athenaeum Sant’Anselmo in Rome.
 
Meiattini accuses Pope Francis and his whisperer, Cardinal Walter Kasper, of promoting “cunning” rather than the much-cited “distinction.” There is cunning in Amoris laetitia and the mind behind it.

“The state of confusion is obvious”.

With these words the theologian and monk begins his essay. It is claimed that the confusion is only supposed, and only the result of a new style of government. Such a picture of the current situation is not something Fr. Meiattini takes pleasure in.

“Can the confusion and disagreement between bishops on tricky points of faith be fruits of the Holy Spirit? Not in my opinion.”

Several small steps mean a large one in sum

P. Giulio Meiattini OSB

Then Meiattini indicates that in the matter of remarried divorced people a ready-made plan was pursued from the beginning. With the opportunity of being able to deliver the only speech in February 2014 to the Cardinals’ Consistory procured by Pope Francis, Cardinal Kasper “laid the groundwork”. Nevertheless, two bishops’ synods failed to produce a common line to the problem being discussed. Anyone reading the reports of the “circuli minores” of the 2015 Synod can easily see that there was no common position.
 
The pope would have had to examine and understand, which would have been the first task of “distinction”, “which processes” would be initiated and pursued, and which not. However, such a distinction did not take place. The path taken was not changed.
 
The fact is that a large majority of the Synod Fathers wanted “no change in the traditional order”. The editorial committee of Relatio finalis therefore took care not to include any innovations in the text.
For this reason, a “small step,” according to Meiattini, was undertaken instead of a big one: The editorial committee formulated some undefined positions, which meant a “change of atmosphere”.
 
The non-rejection of these ponderous formulations, which received the necessary two-thirds majority only with extreme difficulty, sufficed that the next “small step,” with some ambiguous footnotes in Amoris laetitia, were sufficient to indicate a new direction.
 
These small steps, which, strictly speaking, did not reinforce the traditional position, were enough to split the episcopate. The next step was papal confirmation of the guidelines of the ecclesiastical Province of Buenos Aires on the Eighth Chapter of Amoris laetitia.
 
In reality, these guidelines are not mere interpretations, because they contain statements and instructions that were neither found in Amoris laetitia nor adopted by the synods, and never found a majority there.
 
Through a series of “small steps”, a “big step” was finally taken within three years, with a profound intervention. But this has nothing to do with “synodality,” according to Meiattini.
Faith would be reduced to ethics in Amoris laetitia , that is the total thrust.

“Ethics has neither the first nor the last word.”

“I do not understand how the Bishop of Rome can write such a thing”

And Meiattini continues:

“To be honest, I can not understand how a bishop, especially that of Rome, can write such sentences: ‘One should not burden two limited people with the tremendous burden of perfectly recreating the union that exists between Christ and his Church ‘(AS, 122).”

This formulation is an expression of a very different way of thinking: A gospel ethic, freed from the sacrament, becomes a “mighty burden” rather than a “sweet yoke” and a “light burden.”
 
Such a statement can only be reached if one understands Christianity – perhaps unconsciously – only as ethics. In this way we arrive at results that correspond to the Lutheran concept of simul iustus et peccator, condemned by the Council of Trent.


Intercommunion with the Protestants follows the same logic.What is only decisive is the presumed, inner feeling. For the objective criteria, all conceivable attenuating circumstances are taken into account, and the subjective decision of conscience is decisive. Why, then, according to this pattern, should not even a Buddhist or a Hindu be able to receive the Catholic Eucharist, according to P. Meiattani?

“Damaging the relationship between morality and sacraments can ultimately lead to a non-Catholic understanding of the Church.”

Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Catholica / Vida inteligente / Cooperatores veritatis (Screenshots)
 Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG 

You might also like:
“Revolution” Amoris Laetitia: the — “Pastoral …
Cardinal Müller: “Francis and I? I am Loyal to the …
Ban on Criticizing the Pope is a Structural …

About abyssum

I am a retired Roman Catholic Bishop, Bishop Emeritus of Corpus Christi, Texas
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s