MAIKE HICKSON

• S

BLOGSCATHOLIC CHURCH Mon May 6, 2019 – 12:55 pm EST

Vatican’s former doctrine chief sounds alarm on Francis’ plans to reorder curia

  Catholic, Catholic Doctrine, Evangelization, Gerhard Müller, Holy See, Pope Francis, Praedicate Evangelium, Roman Curia

May 6, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The Vatican’s former Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine has strongly criticized a draft document containing Pope Francis’ plans for an overhaul of the curia — where “doctrine” is expected to take a backseat to “evangelization” —  stating that the plans do not contain a “convincing concept of the origin, essence, and mission of the Church,” and, pointing out that one passage of the document even contains “shocking theological cluelessness.” 

Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, made his comments about the draft document of the curia reform plan, set to be promulgated at the end of June on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, in a new interview with German regional newspaper Passauer Neue Presse. The draft has been prepared by the members of Pope Francis’ Council of Nine Cardinals, and it is titled “The Roman Curia and her service to the Church in the world today.”

One of the German cardinal’s objections to the current draft is that the Roman Curia “finds itself in a state of suspension [“ortlosen Schwebezustand”], because it is not anymore clearly oriented toward serving the Pope for the Universal Church.” For him, this “future ‘Apostolic Constitution’ is a conglomeration of subjective individual ideas, pious wishes, and moral pleas along with individual quotations from Council texts and statements of the current Pope.” 

Most importantly, explains Müller, there is a lack of clear distinction “between the secular institutions of the Vatican as a sovereign state, the Holy See as a subject of International Law, and the ecclesiologically founded primacy of the Pope” who is, “as bishop of Rome, in the succession of the Apostle Peter, the visible principle and foundation of the unity.”

Here, Cardinal Müller sees that the “fatal mistake” Pope Paul VI’s own earlier curial reform – which made the “Secretary of State the center of the Curia” – is now being worsened. According to Müller, the Secretary of State serves the Pope in the “fulfillment of his mission,” however, “the highest mission is his [the Pope’s] Magisterium as a member and head of the College of Bishops.” “The secular duties,” the cardinal adds, “are only secondary and not at all fundamentally linked to the papacy.” On the contrary, sometimes the Secretary of State has even “darkened” the Pope’s “essential mission.”

“To now give today priority to the secular tasks over the spiritual mission is a mistake that urgently needs to be avoided,” Cardinal Müller states. Thus, he warns against a “secularization of the concept of the Church,” as if she is “to be run like an international company” and as if “it is about a balance of power” between a mother company and subsidiaries.

Further commenting on the new organization of the different organs of the Roman Curia as described in the draft of the curial reform, Cardinal Müller tells the Passauer Neue Presse that “there is no Suprema [the supreme office – originally the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] anymore, because all dicasteries are to be on the same level.” He sees here a “planless listing of 16 ministries who somehow are to serve the Pope, the individual bishops, and the bishops’ conferences.” 

As an example, the Pope’s alms office is now listed prior to the liturgy and the Sacraments, the prelate points out. Additionally, “evangelization comes on first place, even though it is a task of the Universal Church and not a specific task of the Pope.” 

Here, Cardinal Müller asks the crucial question: “What, then, is the difference between the Dicastery for Evangelization and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which, too, is tasked to serve ‘the Pope and the bishops in the proclamation of the Gospels in the whole world’ [a quote from the draft itself]? Is there on the one side an evangelization without content and on the other side the proclamation of the ‘Faith in Christ, the Son of the Living God’”?

“Even though,” Cardinal Müller explains, “the Magisterium of the Universal Church is the very reason for the existence of the papal primacy, the teaching of the Faith is being mentioned in the draft merely as one random task of the Pope among many others, and most importantly, now to be subordinate to his secular duties.”

Müller also points to one passage in the draft document, describing the duties of the new Dicastery for Doctrine, that contains “shocking theological cluelessness.” 

The Cardinal also notices a “wrong and deviant use of fundamental notions of Catholic theology,” as well as a “secularized way of thinking” of those who demean the Congregation for Doctrine as a sort of “schoolmaster.” He also criticizes the notion of strengthening the “periphery” to the detriment of the “center,” Rome. This might sound “populistically plausible,” Müller explains, but “it sounds shrill and out of tune to a theologically formed ear.”

As recently reported, Cardinal Gerhard Müller told LifeSiteNews that Pope Francis did not send to all his cardinals a draft of his curial reform. In light of the piercing critique by Cardinal Müller as presented here, this would be direly needed, for the good of the Church.

Several media outlets had reported that the role of the Roman Curia as a whole will be revised. As Crux writes: “Once the text is approved – which will be on a 25-year “trial period” – the Vatican dicasteries will no longer be instruments for the pope to supervise local churches, but will actually be there to serve bishops from around the world. They will no longer be a ‘body’ in between the pontiff and the college of bishops, but an institution that serves both.” The largest change will be that a sort of  “super dicastery” for evangelization is planned, which is to be more important than the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

Fr. Thomas Weinandy, a member of the International Theological Commission who was removed from his position as an adviser to the US Conference of Catholic bishops in 2017 following his criticisms of Pope Francis, told LifeSiteNews in a recent interview that there’s “no problem” with making Evangelization as the “primary pastoral work of the Church,” but “if it means that within that Evangelization, the role of doctrine is going to take second place, or placed on a lower level, then that would undercut the whole purpose of evangelization.”

“The good news that is offered is precisely the Mysteries of the Faith — the Church’s doctrinal and moral tradition,” Weinandy said. “How can one preach the Gospel without telling others of the marvelous mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the saving death and resurrection of Jesus, or the great gift of the Sacraments, etc? Doctrine and the Church’s moral teaching is what evangelization is all about.  It is the Good News!”

Without doctrine and moral teaching, “there is no evangelization,” he continued. “What may be proclaimed would simply be empty words that do not bring life — here on earth and forever in heaven.  It would be contrary to the Church’s whole evangelistic tradition — beginning with the Apostles themselves,” he said. 

MAIKE HICKSON

• S

BLOGSCATHOLIC CHURCH Mon May 6, 2019 – 12:55 pm EST

Vatican’s former doctrine chief sounds alarm on Francis’ plans to reorder curia

  Catholic, Catholic Doctrine, Evangelization, Gerhard Müller, Holy See, Pope Francis, Praedicate Evangelium, Roman Curia

May 6, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – The Vatican’s former Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine has strongly criticized a draft document containing Pope Francis’ plans for an overhaul of the curia — where “doctrine” is expected to take a backseat to “evangelization” —  stating that the plans do not contain a “convincing concept of the origin, essence, and mission of the Church,” and, pointing out that one passage of the document even contains “shocking theological cluelessness.” 

Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, made his comments about the draft document of the curia reform plan, set to be promulgated at the end of June on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, in a new interview with German regional newspaper Passauer Neue Presse. The draft has been prepared by the members of Pope Francis’ Council of Nine Cardinals, and it is titled “The Roman Curia and her service to the Church in the world today.”

One of the German cardinal’s objections to the current draft is that the Roman Curia “finds itself in a state of suspension [“ortlosen Schwebezustand”], because it is not anymore clearly oriented toward serving the Pope for the Universal Church.” For him, this “future ‘Apostolic Constitution’ is a conglomeration of subjective individual ideas, pious wishes, and moral pleas along with individual quotations from Council texts and statements of the current Pope.” 

Most importantly, explains Müller, there is a lack of clear distinction “between the secular institutions of the Vatican as a sovereign state, the Holy See as a subject of International Law, and the ecclesiologically founded primacy of the Pope” who is, “as bishop of Rome, in the succession of the Apostle Peter, the visible principle and foundation of the unity.”

Here, Cardinal Müller sees that the “fatal mistake” Pope Paul VI’s own earlier curial reform – which made the “Secretary of State the center of the Curia” – is now being worsened. According to Müller, the Secretary of State serves the Pope in the “fulfillment of his mission,” however, “the highest mission is his [the Pope’s] Magisterium as a member and head of the College of Bishops.” “The secular duties,” the cardinal adds, “are only secondary and not at all fundamentally linked to the papacy.” On the contrary, sometimes the Secretary of State has even “darkened” the Pope’s “essential mission.”

“To now give today priority to the secular tasks over the spiritual mission is a mistake that urgently needs to be avoided,” Cardinal Müller states. Thus, he warns against a “secularization of the concept of the Church,” as if she is “to be run like an international company” and as if “it is about a balance of power” between a mother company and subsidiaries.

Further commenting on the new organization of the different organs of the Roman Curia as described in the draft of the curial reform, Cardinal Müller tells the Passauer Neue Presse that “there is no Suprema [the supreme office – originally the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] anymore, because all dicasteries are to be on the same level.” He sees here a “planless listing of 16 ministries who somehow are to serve the Pope, the individual bishops, and the bishops’ conferences.” 

As an example, the Pope’s alms office is now listed prior to the liturgy and the Sacraments, the prelate points out. Additionally, “evangelization comes on first place, even though it is a task of the Universal Church and not a specific task of the Pope.” 

Here, Cardinal Müller asks the crucial question: “What, then, is the difference between the Dicastery for Evangelization and the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, which, too, is tasked to serve ‘the Pope and the bishops in the proclamation of the Gospels in the whole world’ [a quote from the draft itself]? Is there on the one side an evangelization without content and on the other side the proclamation of the ‘Faith in Christ, the Son of the Living God’”?

“Even though,” Cardinal Müller explains, “the Magisterium of the Universal Church is the very reason for the existence of the papal primacy, the teaching of the Faith is being mentioned in the draft merely as one random task of the Pope among many others, and most importantly, now to be subordinate to his secular duties.”

Müller also points to one passage in the draft document, describing the duties of the new Dicastery for Doctrine, that contains “shocking theological cluelessness.” 

The Cardinal also notices a “wrong and deviant use of fundamental notions of Catholic theology,” as well as a “secularized way of thinking” of those who demean the Congregation for Doctrine as a sort of “schoolmaster.” He also criticizes the notion of strengthening the “periphery” to the detriment of the “center,” Rome. This might sound “populistically plausible,” Müller explains, but “it sounds shrill and out of tune to a theologically formed ear.”

As recently reported, Cardinal Gerhard Müller told LifeSiteNews that Pope Francis did not send to all his cardinals a draft of his curial reform. In light of the piercing critique by Cardinal Müller as presented here, this would be direly needed, for the good of the Church.

Several media outlets had reported that the role of the Roman Curia as a whole will be revised. As Crux writes: “Once the text is approved – which will be on a 25-year “trial period” – the Vatican dicasteries will no longer be instruments for the pope to supervise local churches, but will actually be there to serve bishops from around the world. They will no longer be a ‘body’ in between the pontiff and the college of bishops, but an institution that serves both.” The largest change will be that a sort of  “super dicastery” for evangelization is planned, which is to be more important than the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

Fr. Thomas Weinandy, a member of the International Theological Commission who was removed from his position as an adviser to the US Conference of Catholic bishops in 2017 following his criticisms of Pope Francis, told LifeSiteNews in a recent interview that there’s “no problem” with making Evangelization as the “primary pastoral work of the Church,” but “if it means that within that Evangelization, the role of doctrine is going to take second place, or placed on a lower level, then that would undercut the whole purpose of evangelization.”

“The good news that is offered is precisely the Mysteries of the Faith — the Church’s doctrinal and moral tradition,” Weinandy said. “How can one preach the Gospel without telling others of the marvelous mysteries of the Trinity, the Incarnation, the saving death and resurrection of Jesus, or the great gift of the Sacraments, etc? Doctrine and the Church’s moral teaching is what evangelization is all about.  It is the Good News!”

Without doctrine and moral teaching, “there is no evangelization,” he continued. “What may be proclaimed would simply be empty words that do not bring life — here on earth and forever in heaven.  It would be contrary to the Church’s whole evangelistic tradition — beginning with the Apostles themselves,” he said. 

‘Unplanned’ tells an essential truth about abortion: It is violent

by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
May 5, 2019

http://www.jeffjacoby.com/22650/unplanned-tells-an-essential-truth-about-abortion

IN A JANUARY profile of Leana Wen, Planned Parenthood’s new president, BuzzFeed News reported that she intended to start shifting the organization’s focus away from abortions. Wen repudiated the story at once, saying BuzzFeed had “completely misconstrue[d]” Planned Parenthood’s intentions. “Our core mission is providing, protecting and expanding access to abortion and reproductive health care,” she tweeted. “We will never back down from that fight.”

It was a clarifying moment for Planned Parenthood, which on other occasions has gone out of its way to downplay the importance of abortion to its mission. Wen’s tweet was spot-on: Planned Parenthood exists above all to abort pregnancies. According to its latest annual report, Planned Parenthood performed 332,757 abortions in 2017-18, an increase of more than 11,000 from the year before. Of the approximately 926,000 abortions performed annually in the United States, Planned Parenthood accounts for 35 percent. It is by far the nation’s largest abortion provider.

And now it is the subject of a controversial new movie.

Between 2001 and 2009, the Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, performed roughly 22,000 abortions. That estimate comes from Abby Johnson, who worked at the Bryan facility throughout those eight years. Starting as a volunteer escort, she rose to become the clinic’s director, one of the youngest in America. In 2008, Planned Parenthood honored her as an “Employee of the Year” for her ardent pro-choice effectiveness.

By then, of course, Johnson was thoroughly familiar with the procedures that precede and follow abortions at her clinic — everything from personally escorting pregnant clients from the parking lot, to reconstructing the aborted fetus to confirm that no parts were left inside the uterus. Having had two abortions herself, Johnson was likewise familiar with the process from the perspective of the women going through it.

But it wasn’t until September 2009 that Johnson actually saw for the first time what happens in the womb during an abortion. The experience radically changed her life. She quit Planned Parenthood and became a pro-life activist. Her extraordinary metamorphosis is portrayed in Unplanned, a compelling new movie starring Ashley Bratcher and produced by Pure Flix, a Christian studio.

The film opens with the harrowing episode that turned Johnson’s perspective inside-out. She had been unexpectedly asked to fill in for an absent employee at an ultrasound-assisted abortion. As she watched the sonogram, the reality of what she was doing — of what she had defended so passionately for so long — stunned her.

“The fetus was 13 weeks old and I could easily see its head, arms, and legs,” she later wrote. “The abortion instrument – a suction tube – was on the screen as well. The baby jumped away from it but it was all for naught. The abortionist turned on the suction and I saw that baby get sucked apart right in front of me on the screen…. In mere seconds, that fetus’s life ended and the screen only showed a black, empty uterus. The life that was there just a couple minutes ago was gone.”

Unplanned is an unabashed work of pro-life advocacy, but it doesn’t make the mistake of depicting all foes of abortion rights as virtuous. An early scene focuses on obnoxious anti-abortion protesters outside the Bryan facility. One is dressed as the Grim Reaper. Another yells that a young woman is “a baby killer” who “couldn’t keep [her] legs closed.” Later, the film refers to the brutal 2009 murder of abortion doctor George Tiller, shot in the head by an anti-abortion zealot while at church.

Nor does Unplanned demonize everyone who is pro-choice. Most of the Planned Parenthood employees come across as likable, kind, and sincere, even if the organization itself comes across as manipulative and coldblooded. “There is right and wrong on both sides of this debate,” Johnson has said, “and that’s really a story that I wanted to tell.”

There is nothing in Unplanned about Roe v. Wade or politics. This isn’t a film about government policy, but about the reality of abortion — abortion minus the euphemisms of “freedom” and “choice,” abortion as it appears on an ultrasound monitor. Before it is anything else, the destruction of life in the womb is an act of violence against a helpless creature. Planned Parenthood and the pro-choice lobby go to great pains to disguise that reality, and for good reason. As Johnson proves, even a Planned Parenthood professional can turn 180 degrees upon witnessing the brutality at the heart of every abortion.

Unplanned was rated R, a decision that came as a blow to the movie’s producers. But because the film is honest about its subject, the Motion Picture Association of America made the only choice it could. The MPAA’s ratings are based on five components: nudity, sexual content, language, substance abuse, and violence. None of the first four is an issue in Unplanned. But there is violence aplenty — in this case, violence against unborn human beings. The best response to that violence, Unplanned argues, is love, prayer, patience, and compassion. But there must be truth as well. The violent truth of abortion isn’t easy to look upon. But it was learning that truth that set Abby Johnson free. Its R rating notwithstanding, Unplanned may have the same effect on others.

(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).

— ## —

Sunday, May 05, 2019

http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2019/05/in-this-time-of-cowardice-when-so-many.html?m=1

The Catholic Resistance in this Time of Cowardice must follow the Hero: St. Athanasius

In this time of cowardice when so many false friends of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, of His Church and the Ten Commandments have been revealed.

They have disclosed themselves by all their attacks on the 19 scholar heroes’ Open Letter.

In this time of cowardice it is good to look for a hero to guides us on how to respond to those promoting the destruction of the Church.

That hero is St. Athanasius.

I found comfort in a old 1919 book by F. A. Forbes titled “St. Athanasius.” We in the rag-tag Catholic resistance have only one member of the successors of the Apostoles that is the embodiment of Athanasius: Bishop René Gracida, but he is enough.

As I read this book it showed me that we have not come close to the persecution that the Catholic heros of the Arian crisis endured. Through it all Athanasius had “peace” and “joy… for Christ.”

So remember to always have peace and joy in Christ.

Now please read the following excerpts of our hero from “St. Athanasius”:

“It was indeed the hour of darkness, and it seemed as if the powers of evil were let loose upon the world. The Arians, with the Emperor on their side, were carrying everything before them. Nearly all the Bishops who had upheld the Nicene faith were in exile or in prison.”

“St. Anthony, over a hundred years old, was on his death-bed.”

“… Fear not,” replied the old man, “for this power is of the earth and cannot last. As for the sufferings of the Church, was it not so from the beginning, and will it not be so until the end?”

“… [A] new reign of terror began, in which all who refused to accept the Arian creed were treated as criminals. Men and women were seized and scourged; some were slain. Athanasius was denounced as a ‘run-away, an evil-doers, a cheat and an impostor, deserving of death.”

“… In the meantime, where was Athanasius? No one knew – or, at least, so it seemed. He had vanished into the darkness of the night. He was invisible, but his voice could not be silenced, and it was a voice that moved the world. Treatise after treatise in defence of the true faith; letter after letter… to the faithful, were carried far and wide by the hands of trusty messengers. The Arians had the Roman Emperor on their side, but the pen of Athanasius was more powerful than the armies.”

“… Rumour said that Athanasius was in hiding in the Thebaid amongst the monk. The Arians searched the desert… The monks [of St. Anthony] themselves might of thrown some light on the matter, but they were silent men… even when questioned with a dagger at their throats.”

“Silent, but faithful, their sentinels were everywhere, watching for the enemy’s approach. Athanasius was always warned in time, and led by trusty guides to another and safer place. Sometimes it was only by a hair’s breadth that he escaped, but for six years he eluded his enemies.”

“… Tide and wind were against them; the monks had to land and tow the boat; progress was slow and the soldiers of Julian were not far off. Athanasius was absorbed in prayer, preparing for the martyr’s death that, this time at least, seemed very near.”

“… ‘I have no fear,’ answered Athanasius; ‘for many long years I have suffered persecution, and never has it disturbed the peace of my soul, It is a joy to suffer, and the greatest of all joys is to give one’s life for Christ.'”

“There was a silence, during which all gave themselves to prayer. As the Abbott Theodore besought God to save their Patriarch, it was suddenly made known to him by divine revelation that at that moment the Emperor Julian had met his end in battle… and that he had been succeeded by Jovian, a Christian and a Catholic. At once he told the good news to Athanasius, advising him to go without delay to see the new Emperor and ask to be restored to his see.”

“…. [After meeting  Emperor Jovian] Athanasius was back once more in the midst of his people.”

“He had grown old, and his strength was failing, but his soul, still young and vigorous, was undaunted and heroic as ever…”

“His pen was still busy. One of his first acts on return to Alexandria was to write the life of St. Anthony, a last tribute of love and gratitude to the memory of his dear old friend.”

“… In 366 Pope Liberius [who had excommunicated Athanasius] died, and was succeeded by Pope St. Damasus, a man of strong character and holy life. Two years later in a Council of the Church, it was decreed that no Bishop should be consecrated unless he held the creed of Nicaea. Athanasius was overwhelmed with joy on hearing this decision. The triumph of the cause for which he had fought so valiantly was now assured. His life was drawing to an end.”

“… Scarcely was he dead when he was honoured as a Saint. Six year after his death, St. Nazianzen speaks of him in one breath with the patriarchs, prophets, and martyrs who had fought for the Faith and won the crown of glory.

St. Athanasius pray for the resistance for Faith in this present time and the restoration of the Church.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Fred Martinez at 4:51 PM

How do I become the narcissist’s nightmare?

QUORA DIGEST

Ellen Wolf, 148 years combined experience with NPDs

Answered Aug 26, 2017

Ignore them, but do it cleverly. From the day my narc dumped me (after being together nearly 30 years) I never again mentioned his name, particularly not on FB. I made no comments about him, what he had done, how he did it, what a horrible person he is, nothing.

I posted (and continue to post) nothing he could possibly suggest that was in reference to him.NPDs want an audience – they crave attention more than anything. I’m not giving him any, and by not talking about him or the things he’s doing (even when I’d love to call him out for the shit he’s tried to pull), I’ve essentially made him disappear. Poof!React to nothing.

Never mention him – ever – particularly not on any social media. He will try to provoke you to anger or tears whenever he posts about you. He wants the drama, he wants you upset, he wants to control the narrative.

DO NOT LET HIM HAVE WHAT HE WANTS.I enjoy knowing that he keeps waiting for me to trip up, to create the kind of drama he could point to and say “See! I told you she was a __________!” He’s doomed to be disappointed. Awwww!

Saturday, May 04, 2019

Does Fr. Harrison Think Francis’s “Authentic Magisterium” Teaching of Communion for those Committing Adultery isn’t Heresy?

The Wanderer’s Fr. Brian Harrison issued a attack on the 19 scholar heroes by first presenting a straw man then showing his argument:

“Pope Francis has indeed said some things I believe to be heretical… the heretical doctrine of annihilation… [but] Francis is notorious for frequently speaking ‘off the cuff’… [was] he/she accurately reported… [but] supposing… [It’s] really heretical opinion… Only if he/she remains stubborn and obstinate can the Church declare him/her to be a formal heretic.”
(The Wanderer, “Why I didn’t Sign the Open Letter Accusing the Pope of Heresy,” May 3, 2019)

It is strange that Harrison says Francis has only “said” some things that may be heretical when he knows the pontiff wrote the Argentine letter that teaches that those committing adultery can receive Communion which was called “authentic magisterium” by the Pope’s Vatican and placed in the Holy See’s Official Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS).

This means the unorthodox interpretation of Communion for those committing adultery is the official teaching of Francis.

How might Francis and Harrison have known for a long time this teaching is heretical?

First, they just have to read the Ten Commandments. One happens to say that God commands that: “Thou shall not commit adultery.”

But, just in case they never heard of the Ten Commandments, way back on December 23, 2016, Dubia Cardinal Walter Brandmuller said:

“Whoever thinks that persistent adultery and reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.”
(LifeSiteNews, “Dubia Cardinal: Anyone who Opens Communion to Adulterers is a Heretic and Promotes Schism,” December 23, 2016)

In 2017, Francis made it the official teaching of his papacy that those committing adultery can receive Communion by placing the Argentine letter in the Holy See’s AAS.

He did this despite the fact that in 2016 Cardinal Brandmuller said Communion for adulterers is heretical and in that same year three other cardinals joined him to issue the Dubia against Communion for adulterers as well as other issues.

It has now been 957 day since the Dubia was issued.

Many people say Francis never answered the Dubia.

They are wrong.

He answered the Dubia in 2017 when he made the heretical teaching Communion for adulterers his official teaching by placing the Argentine letter in the Holy See’s AAS.

Could he have been anymore “obstinate” in heresy than that Fr. Harrison?

You Fr. Harrison say the Open Letter is “disrespectful to the Supreme Pontiff.”

Like Paul was disrespectful to the first pope, Peter, when he rebuked him.

Like the disrespectful Catholics of the Middle Ages:

“[T]he Sorbonne’s Chancellor, Jean Gerson [even] reached the point of threatening [Pope] John XXII with the stake if he didn’t make a retraction” of his heretical teaching on the Beatific Vision.
(Rotate Caeli, “Popes who fell into Heresy,” January 28, 2015)

They would not be like you Fr. Harrison in thinking is “disrespectful” to call on the world’s bishops to admonish Francis.

Do you believe that Communion for adulterers it is heretical?

Do you believe that the Ten Commandments are infallible teachings?

If you do believe then start acting like St. Paul or the Medieval Chancellor Jean Gerson.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church.

Fred Martinez at 10:05 PM

An Urgent Letter from the Future JPII

David G Bonagura, Jr.

SUNDAY, MAY 5, 2019

The fiftieth anniversary of Humanae Vitae last year brought the first publication of then-Cardinal Karol Wojtyła’s private letter to Paul VI, in which the Polish archbishop thanks the pope for the encyclical.  He then offers concrete proposals for an “absolutely necessary” pastoral instruction from the Vatican to overcome “existing doubts” about the prohibition of birth control, the nature of the conjugal life, and the teaching authority of the pope.

Beyond its fascinating and forthright explanation of the key controversies surrounding the encyclical, this letter – actually an essay in length and style – offers a provocative glimpse into what would become the future magisterial teachings of Pope St. John Paul II.

Writing in 1969, just months after Humanae Vitae’s publication, Cardinal Wojtyła saw clearly that criticisms of the encyclical’s substance and style cut right to the heart of the Church’s mission: “Challenging the moral doctrine of the Church in a field as important as that dealt with by the encyclical can be an occasion that gives rise to a much broader process of challenging other elements of Christian faith and practice.”

As we know decades later, that proved only too true.

First, concerning general Christian faith and practice, Wojtyła addressed the Church’s ability to teach authoritatively on morality. Immediately after Humanae Vitae’s release, dissident theologians took to the airwaves and op-ed pages to undermine the authority of the Church to issue binding teachings on moral matters.

Twenty-five years later, as pope, John Paul approved the publication of Donum Veritatis: On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, which sought to reorient theology as a vocation in service of the Church and not of worldly ideologies.

Specifically, Wojtyła was not shy in his 1969 letter of affirming Humanae Vitae as an authoritative expression of the Church’s teaching office: “The encyclical Humanae Vitae is not a solemn document of ex cathedra teaching; therefore it does not contain any dogmatic definition. However, since it is a document of the ordinary teaching of the Pope, it has an infallible and irrevocable character. . . .[I]t is impossible to think that the conjugal morality contained in the encyclical Humanae Vitae could be revoked, i.e. considered fallible.”

This emphasis on the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium – the consistent and universal teachings of the pope and bishops in union with him through the ages – would become Pope John Paul’s preferred tack in handling the most sensitive doctrinal issues of his pontificate.

Rather than issue solemn definitions, John Paul appealed to the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church to teach infallibly the immorality of abortion in Evangelium Vitae in 1995, and the reservation of the priesthood to men only in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis in 1994. By using this means to teach authoritatively, John Paul showed that these were not just his teachings, but those of the universal Church – held always, everywhere, and by all.

A second major concern stressed in Wojtyła’s letter is “conscience and its relationship to the moral law.” In the wake of Humanae Vitae, many couples were told by theologians and pastors that they could use artificial birth control if their consciences judged it acceptable.

Wojtyła vigorously condemned this misuse of conscience, which is not “a norm superior to the moral law.” He continued, “Attributing to conscience an autonomy that would give it not only a normative but also a legislative role, would be contrary to the foundations of both natural and revealed ethics. Such autonomy would be tantamount to accepting subjectivism and relativism in morality.”

This misunderstanding of conscience has remained widespread since. As pope, John Paul himself took up the charge that he issued to Paul VI: he published in 1993 his encyclical on moral theology Veritatis Splendor, arguably his most important writing as pontiff.

In it, he makes an identical critique of falsely giving conscience “the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly.” He then developed, in the heart of the encyclical, the proper understanding of conscience as grounded in freedom, truth, and the natural law, all subjects mentioned more briefly in his 1969 letter.

Third, Wojtyła’s letter pressed Paul VI to “set out the doctrine on marriage . . . in order to present a correct and clear perspective on the theme of marital love.” In particular, he added the necessity “to insist on the fact that marriage is a vocation.”

He then outlined the roles of fecundity, continence, and suffering in marriage. He was under no illusions that such essential matters could be glossed over or deemed inappropriate: “It is therefore up to the master of morals and teacher, who is the Church, to grasp and highlight the boundaries that, in the sphere of sexual values, make one pass from the act worthily lived, to use and abuse.”

As pope, John Paul wasted no time taking up this mantle: within a year of his election, he began a series of talks now well-known as the “Theology of the Body” in which he articulated the meaning of human sexuality in light of our dignity as human persons made in God’s image. Further, he offered his vision for how the vocation to marriage is to be lived in Familiaris Consortio in 1981.

Wojtyła’s letter is excellent in its own right, and still very relevant for us fifty years later. It stresses the urgent need to act on these issues – a need still pressing today. As pope, he did not get to them all right away, but he did eventually, and supremely well. The letter makes clear a crucial fact: the key teachings of St. John Paul’s pontificate were forged in response to the crisis of truth that found its most acute expression in the Sexual Revolution.

• F

© 2019 The Catholic Thing. All rights reserved. For reprint rights, write to: info@frinstitute.orgThe Catholic Thing is a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary. Opinions expressed by writers are solely their own.A

David G Bonagura, Jr.

David G. Bonagura Jr. teaches at St. Joseph’s Seminary, New York. He is the author of Steadfast in Faith: Catholicism and the Challenges of Secularism (Cluny Media).

kassiblog.com