CATHOLIC LEAGUE FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS Phony Georgetown Slavery Debate February 15, 2019
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on Georgetown’s latest debacle over slavery:
The idea that Georgetown University should pay reparations for slavery has been kicking around for a few years on the Jesuit campus. In 1838, Georgetown sold 272 slaves to help pay off its debts. Now there is a proposal that would require students to pay for it: a student fee would be assessed.
The referendum is a joke. Why are students dishing up cash for something they had nothing to do with? Why aren’t members of the board of directors (many of whom are millionaires), administrators, the faculty, and alumni paying for it? They represent the university more than the students, and they have the kind of money the students don’t have. Why are they allowing this exercise in regressive taxation—the kind the professors rail about all the time in the classroom—to take place?
It’s even more absurd than this. All of these parties to this grand display of white guilt are phonies. Georgetown employs a professor, Jonathan Brown, who justifies slavery.
In 2017, the convert to Islam told the crowd at the Institute for Islamic Thought, where he teaches, that “there is no such thing as slavery.” Indeed, he said, “I don’t think you can talk about slavery in Islam until you realize that there is no such thing as slavery.”
Some student should ask this wizard why there is slavery in Mauritania and Somalia today. The masters are Muslims. They may also want to ask him to explain why he says, “Slavery cannot be treated as a moral evil in and of itself.” It would be enlightening to learn why.
If the Georgetown ruling class is okay with having a tenured professor teaching that slavery is not necessarily a moral evil—in the 21st century—why are they so exercised about slavery in the 19th century? Finally, if the students have to pony up, shouldn’t Brown be hit with a surcharge?
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on QUESTION: WILL HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF, AFTER FRANCIS THE MERCIFUL IS NO LONGER THE OCCUPANT OF THE CHAIR OF PETER, AND THE NEXT POPE SUPPRESSES THE JESUITS AGAIN?
ROME, February 14, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) — Archbishop Georg Gänswein has reaffirmed the validity of Benedict’s resignation, insisting that he did resign the Petrine office.
“There is only one legitimately elected and incumbent [gewählten und amtierenden] Pope, and that is Francis,” Benedict’s longtime private secretary said, adding simply: “Amen.”
His definitive affirmation, communicated to LifeSiteNews on Feb. 11, 2019 — the six-year anniversary of Pope Benedict’s abdication — comes at a time when increasing numbers of bishops, canonists, theologians and lay faithful are questioning its juridical validity.
Clergy and laity alike are concerned that Benedict’s remarks about the “forever” of the papacy — and those of Archbishop Gänswein about an “expanded petrine ministry” — indicate that Benedict intended to bifurcate the papacy, as if he intended only to resign the ministerium (active ministry) of the papacy and not the munus (office) itself. If this were the case, the argument goes, his resignation would be invalid, for Christ intended for there to be only one successor to Peter, one Vicar of Christ on earth.
Presenting these concerns to Archbishop Gänswein, we asked him: “Did Pope Benedict intend to resign the Petrine munus as named in canon law (canon 332.2), or just the public actions that pertain to that munus?”
“I have already cleared up the ‘misunderstanding’ several times,” he responded. “It makes no sense at all, no, even more, it is counterproductive to insist on this ‘misunderstanding’ and to quote me again and again. This is absurd and leads to self-harm [Selbstzerfleischung]. I have clearly said that there is only one Pope, one legitimately elected and incumbent Pope, and that is Francis. Amen.”
LifeSite investigated the arguments and claims surrounding this aspect of the debate over the validity of Benedict’s resignation. We then sat down with Cardinals Burke and Brandmüller to hear their views.
Questioning the juridical validity of Benedict’s resignation
Concern over the juridical validity of Benedict’s resignation has exercised many theologians and has increased in recent months and years.
Last October, Monsignor Nicola Bux, a respected theologian and former consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during Benedict XVI’s pontificate, called for an investigation into this resignation.
In a forceful interview with Italian Vaticanist Aldo Maria Valli on the doctrinal and moral crisis in the Church, Msgr. Bux, now a theological consultor for the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, said it would be “easier” to examine the question of the “juridical validity of Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation” than to face head-on the “practical, theological and juridical difficulties to the question of judging a heretical pope.”
“The idea of a sort of collegial papacy seems to me decidedly against the Gospel dictate,” he said. “Jesus did not say, in fact, ‘tibi dabo claves…’ addressing Peter and Andrew but only said it to Peter!”
Msgr. Bux’s reference to a “collegial” papacy was an allusion to a concern over the background to Benedict’s resignation that has been circulating in curial and theological circles for some time.
The scruple was triggered by a discourse Archbishop Gänswein delivered on May 20, 2016, during a book launch at the Pontifical Gregorian University. Benedict’s personal secretary said of him: “He has left the papal throne and yet, with the step made on February 11, 2013, he has not at all abandoned this ministry. Instead, he has complemented the personal office with a collegial and synodal dimension, as a quasi-shared ministry (als einen quasi gemeinsamen Dienst).”
Archbishop Gänswein continued:
Since the election of his successor Francis, on March 13, 2013, there are not therefore two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member. This is why Benedict XVI has not given up either his name, or the white cassock. This is why the correct name by which to address him even today is “Your Holiness. […]
“He has not abandoned the Office of Peter — something which would have been entirely impossible for him after his irrevocable acceptance of the office in April 2005,” he said.
Archbishop Gänswein’s “expanded papacy” speech provoked deep concern, and appeared to shed new light on Pope Benedict’s own remarks during his last Wednesday general audience on Feb. 27, 2013, one day before leaving the Vatican by helicopter for Castel Gandolfo.
Reflecting on his acceptance of the papacy on April 19, 2005, Pope Benedict said: “The real gravity of the decision [to resign] was also due to the fact that from that moment on I was engaged always and forever by the Lord. Always – anyone who accepts the Petrine ministry no longer has any privacy.”
Pope Benedict continued: “The ‘always’ is also a ‘forever’ – there can no longer be a return to the private sphere. My decision to resign the active exercise of the ministry does not revoke this,” he said [emphasis added]. “I am not abandoning the cross but remaining in a new way at the side of the crucified Lord. I no longer bear the power of office for the governance of the Church, but in the service of prayer I remain, so to say, in the enclosure of Saint Peter.”
Then, some four years later, reflecting on his abdication in a book-interview with Peter Seewald titled Last Testament, Benedict XVI said: “My step was not one of taking flight but was precisely another way of remaining faithful to my ministry.”
The nature of the doubt
The concern to which Monsignor Bux alluded in his Oct. 13 interview arises from the fact that the papacy is by divine law monarchical and cannot be held by more than one person at any time.
An error popular among Protestants and liberal Catholic theologians after Vatican II held that there was no monarchical papacy in the first or early second century but that monarchical episcopacy was introduced there some time after St Ignatius of Antioch (d.108) and before St Irenaeus of Lyons (fl.180).
Moderately liberal Catholics who hold to the above error but still feel the need to uphold the divine origin of the papacy try to claim its monarchical character has been and could be changed from aristocratic to monarchical and vice versa. That is, they imagine a council of presbyters ruled the Roman Church rather than a bishop after the death of St. Peter until sometime in the second century, when this council was replaced by a Bishop of Rome, or Pope. As this happened in the past (they imagine), they see no reason why it could not happen in the future and two or three or a dozen or more collectively might exercise the papal primacy.
It is alleged that in some writings in the 1970s onward Joseph Ratzinger at least gave consideration to these ideas without clearly rejecting them.
When he resigned the papacy, Benedict XVI spoke (in the Latin text) of the burden of the papal munus and of abdicating the papal ministerium. Given that in his final Wednesday audience, Benedict XVI spoke of somehow “always” and “forever” being the Pope, and Archbishop Georg Gänswein spoke of the new situation having arisen since the abdication, whereby there are now not “two popes, but de facto an expanded ministry — with an active member and a contemplative member,” whispers have spread that Pope Benedict attempted partial resignation on the basis of a false understanding of his own office and therefore, perhaps, he resigned invalidly.
Benedict XVI has, since his resignation, increased these doubts by retaining his papal name and dress and form of address.
Some have inferred from this that Benedict XVI distinguished between a papal munus of divine origin and a papal ministerium of human origin which may be split or bifurcated and otherwise altered by ecclesiastical authority — and intended in his abdication to retain the munus while sharing it with his successor to whom the bulk or all of the ministerium would have passed.
This is not possible as the monarchical nature of the papacy is of divine law. But if it was the basis of Benedict XVI’s abdication then he acted out of substantial error, and thus Benedict XVI remains the Pope. According to Can. 188 of the Code of Canon Law: “A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.” That is, Benedict XVI attempted to resign an aspect of the papacy he falsely supposed to be separable from the office itself and did not intend to resign the office as such (but asked the cardinals to give him a colleague in the office) and thus his resignation is invalid.
This, the argument goes, accounts for the many errors taught by Pope Francis. Not actually being the Pope (it is said), he does not enjoy the graces of state of a Pope.
Doubting the doubts
While the thesis has aroused interest in many quarters, even theologians who find the arguments worthy of consideration are often unconvinced.
A theologian who spoke to LifeSite on condition of anonymity argued that supporters of this opinion need to show that Pope Benedict understood the munus and the ministerium as referring to two different realities. “If you think that ministerium means only acts of teaching and governance, then it would indeed seem to be different from the munus, which normally designates an office, that is, a kind of state,” he said.
“But ‘ministerium’ doesn’t have to mean acts,” he explained. “The first meaning given to it in the Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short) is ‘office.’ I would say that its basic meaning is ‘an office by reason of which one must perform acts to help others.’”
The theologian noted further that ‘munus’ doesn’t only mean a state. “According to the Latin dictionary, it can also refer to the performance of a duty,” he said. “It was used in this sense by Cicero and there is no more authoritative writer of Latin prose than him.”
He said the main difference between the words appears to be simply that ‘munus’ connotes more “the burden which the office puts on its bearer,” and ‘ministerium’ connotes more “the reference to other people which the office establishes.”
“But that doesn’t prevent them from referring to one and the same office or state,” he added.
Why then did Pope Benedict say munus at the start of his Latin declaration and ministerium at the end, if he understood them to refer to the same reality? The theologian suggested two possibilities.
“One is simply that people who want to write elegant prose often avoid frequent repetitions of the same word,” he said. “Another is that the word ‘ministerium’ has perhaps a more humble sound to it, since it refers more directly to the papacy in its relation to other people, than as a charge placed on oneself. So having begun by using the official word, ‘munus,’ Benedict moved on to the more humble sounding word.”
The theologian went on to note that while Benedict was aware of theological writings from the 1970’s onward that proposed the Petrine munus could be divided, he is “not aware of any place where Joseph Ratzinger endorses this thesis.”
He said the lack of clarity about Ratzinger’s position is aggravated by the fact that translators have mistranslated Ratzinger and presented him as endorsing heterodox ideas when in fact he was reporting someone else’s thought rather than expressing his own.
The theologian acknowledged that it is possible that Pope Benedict thought there might be a real distinction between munus and ministerium but was unsure. In that case, he said, Benedict’s abdication would be invalid only if he had in his mind the thought: “I only want to resign the ministerium if it is in fact distinct from the munus.”
But he said it would be equally possible that, being unsure whether there was a distinction, Benedict could have had in mind the thought: “I want to resign the ministerium whether or not it is distinct from the munus.” In that case, the theologian said he believes the resignation would have been valid.
“In any case,” he said, “I don’t think there is convincing evidence that Benedict thought there was a real distinction between the two things.”
“Again,” the theologian continued, “since according to Canon 15.2, error is not presumed about a law, the presumption must be that he validly renounced the papacy.”
He said that people who insist Benedict’s resignation was invalid “therefore seem to be in a position similar to that of a Catholic spouse who is personally convinced that his or her Church marriage was invalid.”
“However convinced the person is of this, he or she is not free to marry again until an ecclesiastical court has declared that there was never a marriage,” he said. “So even if someone is convinced that Benedict XVI is still Pope, he or she should wait for the judgement of the Church before acting on this belief, e.g. a priest in that position should continue to mention Francis in the canon of the Mass.”
As for the argument that Pope Francis can’t be Pope because he clearly has no graces of state, the theologian said this forgets that “grace is normally offered in such a way that it can be refused.”
“You might as well say that a man who beats his wife obviously can’t be validly married to her,” he said.
Other theologians see Benedict’s use of the title “Pope emeritus” as a point in favor of the resignation.
Can. 185 of the Code of Canon Law (on the loss of ecclesiastical office) says: “The title of emeritus can be conferred upon a person who loses an office by reason of age or of resignation which has been accepted.”
As one theologian explained, every bishop when he retires becomes bishop emeritus. He is the emeritus bishop of the last diocese of which he presided. By creating the “pope emeritus” title (it is argued), Benedict is saying “what every bishop does, I’m doing too.”
LifeSite also asked noted Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei for his thoughts on arguments invoking “substantial error.” Seconding the first theologian’s line of thought, Professor de Mattei noted that: “The Church is a visible society, and canon law does not evaluate intentions, but concerns the external behavior of the baptized. Canon 124, §2 of the Code states that: ‘A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.’”
“Did Benedict XVI intend to resign only partially, by renouncing the ministerium, but keeping the munus for himself? It’s possible,” he said, “but no evidence, at least to date, makes it evident.”
“We are in the realm of intentions,” he added. “Canon 1526, § 1 states: “Onus probandi incumbit ei qui asserit” (The burden of proof rests upon the person who makes the allegation.) To prove means to demonstrate the certainty of a fact or the truth of the statement. Moreover, the papacy is in itself indivisible.”
Bringing Msgr. Bux’s argument in favor of examining the juridical validity of the abdication full circle, de Mattei said: “If it were proven that Benedict XVI had the intention of dividing it, of modifying the constitution of the Church willed by Our Lord, he would have fallen into heresy, with all the problems that would ensue. Isn’t the current situation of the Church already serious enough without complicating it further?”
Certainty from Cardinal Brandmüller
In comments to LifeSite, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, former president the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences, insisted: “The resignation was valid, and the election was valid.”
“Enough,” he added.
A respected Church historian, Brandmüller was one of the four cardinals who signed five dubia which sought clarification from Pope Francis on the moral teachings contained in the Pope’s 2016 apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.
In our conversation with the German Cardinal, he cited two Roman legal dictums which he said are important to keep in mind: de internis non iudicat praetor (a judge does not judge internal things) and quod non est in actis, non est in mundo (what is not in the acts [of the process], is not in the world).
In judging the validity of any juridical act, Cardinal Brandmüller said we need to consider the “facts and documents” and “not what the people in question might have been thinking.”
“You always have to keep in mind that the law speaks of verifiable facts, not of thoughts,” he said.
What sort of substantial error could invalidate a papal resignation, we asked Cardinal Brandmüller?
“If a Pope decided to resign because he thought Islamic troops were invading the Vatican, the resignation would be invalid if the Islamic troops weren’t in fact invading,” he said in a modern-day version of Venerable Pope Pius XII’s contingency plan to step down in 1944 to avoid being arrested by the Nazis.
Cardinal Brandmüller has been a critic of Benedict’s resignation, as well as his decision to keep the white cassock and his papal name.
In 2016, he wrote an article calling for a law to define the status of the ex-pope and concluding that the resignation of the Pope “is possible, and it has been done, but it is to be hoped that it may never happen again.” (An extended version of the article appeared in the periodical, The Jurist.)
Then, in a 2017 interview critical of Benedict’s resignation, the German Cardinal told Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that the “Pope Emeritus” title never existed “in all of Church history” and that Benedict’s resignation had “knocked us cardinals sideways, and not only us.”
Soon after, the German newspaper Bild published two letters from the Pope Emeritus to Cardinal Brandmüller, in which the Pope Emeritus defended his decision to resign but also revealed his awareness of the pain it had caused.
In the first letter, dated Nov. 9, 2017, Benedict writes: “With ‘Pope Emeritus,’ I tried to create a situation in which I am absolutely not accessible to the media and in which it is completely clear that there is only one Pope. If you know of a better way and believe that you can judge the one I chose, please tell me.”
Despite his criticism of Benedict’s abdication, his creation of the title “pope emeritus,” and his keeping the white cassock and papal name, Cardinal Brandmüller unwaveringly maintains the validity of the resignation.
“There’s no doubt that Francis is the legitimate Pope,” he said.
Cardinal Burke weighs in
LifeSite also sat down with US Cardinal Raymond Burke, former Prefect of the Holy See’s Apostolic Signatura (the Vatican equivalent of the Supreme Court), to discuss his views on the juridical validity of Pope Benedict’s resignation in light of the aforementioned concerns and Cardinal Brandmüller’s remarks.
Having considered various aspects of the issue, including the relevant canons, the Latin text of Benedict’s resignation and his final general audience, Cardinal Burke said: “I believe it would be difficult to say it’s not valid.”
Regarding Benedict’s Latin declaration, Cardinal Burke said “it seems clear he uses interchangeably ‘munus’ and ‘ministerium.’ It doesn’t seem that he’s making a distinction between the two.”
Concerning Benedict’s final Wednesday general audience, he said while he finds it “disturbing,” he doesn’t believe Benedict’s “always and forever” comments constitute substantial error (according to can. 188 and can. 126) with regard to his abdication “because it’s clear from the declaration that he was renouncing the munus.”
“We can say that these are mistaken notions,” he said, “but I don’t think you can say that they redound to a non-abdication of the Petrine office.”
“That’s where the dictum ‘de internis non iudicat praetor’ comes in,” he explained, echoing Cardinal Brandmüller. “The Church would become completely destabilized if we couldn’t depend upon certain juridical acts which carry effects.”
“Whatever he may have theoretically thought about the papacy, the reality is what is expressed in the Church’s discipline. He withdrew his will to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, and therefore he ceased to be the Vicar of Christ on earth,” the former head of the Vatican’s highest court explained.
“He abdicated all the responsibilities that define the papacy (cf. Pastor Aeternus) and therefore he abdicated the papacy.”
Cardinal Burke called the notion that the papacy could be bifurcated or expanded “fantasy.”
“The office has to inhere in one physical person,” he said.
“The munus and the ministerium are inseparable,” he also explained. “The munus is a grace that’s conferred, and only in virtue of that grace can one carry out the ministry.” Therefore, “if one no longer has that grace because he has withdrawn his will to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, then he can’t be exercising the Petrine ministry.”
The Cardinal went on to note that “the papacy is not a sacrament in the sense that there’s an indelible character.”
“If you said you can no longer carry out the ministry of the priesthood, you could still be a priest offering your life in a priestly way. With the episcopal consecration, there is also an indelible mark imprinted upon the soul by which a man becomes the true shepherd of the flock, exercising the priesthood in its fullness.”
“The inauguration ceremony of the Petrine ministry is a symbolic rite but it does not confer anything new upon the person,” he explained. And so “with the papacy, when you renounce the office, you simply cease to be Pope.”
Cardinal Burke is convinced that the use of papal titles and of papal dress after a Pope has resigned is juridically and theologically problematic and does not help the faithful to understand the true sense what has happened — something he raised in the General Congregations just before the last Conclave. “Once you renounce the will to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, then you return to what you were before,” he said.
But regarding the abdication itself, His Eminence said: “It seems clear to me that Benedict had his full mind and that he intended to resign the Petrine office.”
It has become a subject of heated debate: did Pope Benedict XVI validly resign from the papacy? An article we published late last year on the topic of so-called “Benevacantism” had over 900 comments. Across the Catholic sectors of social media, one sees this question discussed, often heatedly, on a regular basis.
Today, three top prelates offer their opinion about the matter in an extensive piece at LifeSiteNews. The first and most significant of them is prefect of the papal household and personal secretary to Pope Benedict, Archbishop Georg Gänswein, who says in a new interview that “[t]here is only one legitimately elected and incumbent Pope, and that is Francis.”
Of course, it was Gänswein who arguably did the most to create the confusion about Benedict’s resignation when he said the following in a talk in 2016:
From the election of his successor, Pope Francis — on 13 March 2013 — there are not then two Popes, but de facto an enlarged ministry with an active and a contemplative member. For this reason, Benedict has not renounced either his name or his white cassock. For this reason, the correct title with which we must refer to him is still “Holiness.” Furthermore, he has not retired to an isolated monastery, but [has retired] within the Vatican, as if he had simply stepped aside to make space for his Successor, and for a new stage in the history of the Papacy, which he, with that step, has enriched with the centrality of payer and of compassion placed in the Vatican Gardens.
A week later, the German Catholic journalist Paul Badde conducted an interview with Gänswein. Asked about his comments on an “enlarged ministry” of the papacy, he responded:
It is clear — to say it clearly, because I have seen in some of the reactions how people insinuated things that I never said. Of course: Pope Francis is the lawfully elected and lawful pope. That is to say, there are not two popes — the one lawful, the other unlawful, that is simply not correct. And I simply said — that is also what Pope Benedict said — that he, after all, is still present with his prayers, with his sacrifices, in the “Recinto” of Saint Peter [within the walls and precincts of the Vatican], and that, through these prayers, through these sacrifices, there shall come forth spiritual fruit for his successors and for the Church. That is what I meant to say, and now we have had for three years two popes and I have the impression that the reality that I perceive is covered by what I have said.
[…]
… it is very clear, the Plena Potestas, the Plenitudo Potestatis [full power, incarnate authority] is in the hands of Pope Francis. He is the man who has right now the succession of Peter. And then there are no difficulties left, as I also have said it. These two are also not in a competitive relationship. That is where one has to make use of common sense, as well as the Faith and a little bit of theology. Then one does not have at all difficulties to understand properly [sic] what I have said. [emphasis added]
His attempts at clarification notwithstanding, Gänswein nevertheless admitted that he saw the papacy as having an active and contemplative role, which left a great many people confused about what such an idea might possibly mean.
In today’s comments, Gänswein protests that he has “already cleared up the ‘misunderstanding’ several times.” He goes on to complain that “It makes no sense at all, no, even more, it is counterproductive to insist on this ‘misunderstanding’ and to quote me again and again. This is absurd and leads to self-harm [Selbstzerfleischung]. I have clearly said that there is only one Pope, one legitimately elected and incumbent Pope, and that is Francis. Amen.”
This adamant denial of any belief in a “bifurcated papacy” repeats sentiments OnePeterFive learned through circles close to Gänswein months ago, after the archbishop was made aware of the intensifying debate over the matter in online Catholic media. At the time, the prefect of the papal household, apparently under advisement from some members of the Vatican’s communications apparatus, declined to make a public statement about his comments. It is impossible to say for certain if recent high-level staffing changes to that dicastery, which took place in January, led to his decision to go on the record now.
The LifeSite piece examines some of the arguments against the assertion that the papal abdication was valid — such as the dispute over a resignation of the ministry of the papacy but not the munus, or office.
A theologian who spoke to LifeSite on condition of anonymity argued that supporters of this opinion need to show that Pope Benedict understood the munus and the ministerium as referring to two different realities. “If you think that ministerium means only acts of teaching and governance, then it would indeed seem to be different from the munus, which normally designates an office, that is, a kind of state,” he said.
“But ‘ministerium’ doesn’t have to mean acts,” he explained. “The first meaning given to it in the Latin dictionary (Lewis and Short) is ‘office.’ I would say that its basic meaning is ‘an office by reason of which one must perform acts to help others.’”
The theologian noted further that ‘munus’ doesn’t only mean a state. “According to the Latin dictionary, it can also refer to the performance of a duty,” he said. “It was used in this sense by Cicero and there is no more authoritative writer of Latin prose than him.”
Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, who formerly led the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences and is most recently known as one of the four dubia cardinals, also weighed in. Brandmüller — who wrote a letter to Benedict about the nature of his resignation and received a rather snippy response from the former pontiff — does not beat around the bush. “The resignation was valid, and the election was valid,” he told LifeSiteNews. “Enough.”
He also offered the reminder that when dealing with juridical acts, “[y]ou always have to keep in mind that the law speaks of verifiable facts, not of thoughts.”
Some of the most common objections to the validity of Benedict’s abdication are drawn from readings of canon law. This approach is questionable, insofar as popes are not bound by canon law and have the power to abrogate it, but it makes it all the more interesting to hear the thoughts of Cardinal Raymond Burke, former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura — the Church’s supreme canonical court v and considered by many to be among the world’s foremost experts on the topic. In comments to LifeSite, Burke sounded initially cautious, saying of Benedict’s abdication that he believes “it would be difficult to say it’s not valid.” But addressing one of the main points of contention, he also said that “it seems clear he [Benedict] uses interchangeably ‘munus’ and ‘ministerium.’ It doesn’t seem that he’s making a distinction between the two.” Further:
Concerning Benedict’s final Wednesday general audience, he said while he finds it “disturbing,” he doesn’t believe Benedict’s “always and forever” comments constitute substantial error (according to can. 188 and can. 126) with regard to his abdication “because it’s clear from the declaration that he was renouncing the munus.”
“We can say that these are mistaken notions,” he said, “but I don’t think you can say that they redound to a non-abdication of the Petrine office.”
“That’s where the dictum ‘de internis non iudicat praetor’ comes in,” he explained, echoing Cardinal Brandmüller. “The Church would become completely destabilized if we couldn’t depend upon certain juridical acts which carry effects.”
“Whatever he may have theoretically thought about the papacy, the reality is what is expressed in the Church’s discipline. He withdrew his will to be the Vicar of Christ on earth, and therefore he ceased to be the Vicar of Christ on earth,” the former head of the Vatican’s highest court explained.
“He abdicated all the responsibilities that define the papacy (cf. Pastor Aeternus) and therefore he abdicated the papacy.”
Cardinal Burke called the notion that the papacy could be bifurcated or expanded “fantasy.”
“The office has to inhere in one physical person,” he said.
Though debate on this topic is certain to continue, it is important to recall again the words of the pope emeritus himself on the question:
There is absolutely no doubt regarding the validity of my resignation from the Petrine ministry. The only condition for the validity of my resignation is the complete freedom of my decision. Speculations regarding its validity are simply absurd.
It is quite the commentary on the current state of the Church that it has become so difficult for so many to take him at his word. We strongly recommend that you read the entire piece from LifeSite right here.
Court Positioned to Take Children and Property from Husband who is a Fit Parent. By Bai Macfarlane — On February 27, a Pennsylvania husband and father of two is schedule to appear in front of divorce Judge Michele Varricchio in Allentown to discuss his challenge to the constitutionality of unilateral no-fault divorce. Ryan Pankoe and his wife were married in 2009 and have two sons. In Lehigh County Court, in Allentown PA, his wife filed no-fault divorce asking the Judge to “equitably divide all marital property” and give her “sole legal custody and primary physical custody of their two sons.” On January 18, Ryan filed his Motion for Summary Judgement wherein he argues that it is unconstitutional for his state’s legislators to enacted statutes that give all plaintiffs automatic victory in every divorce case. See Motion for Summary Judgement here. His motion says Pennsylvania case law shows that whenever plaintiffs’ “testimony unequivocally indicates that [they] no longer desire to be married,” the court favors every plaintiff and there is no defense against a divorce complaint. Another case quoted shows that if a plaintiff has an “attitude that reconciliation is not possible,” the plaintiff wins every time. The Constitution of Pennsylvania cannot be undermined by the legislators, and Ryan argues in his Motion for Summary Judgement that the no-fault divorce statues, on their face, are unconstitutional because the Constitution requires divorce actions to be judicial proceedings. The problem is that no-fault divorce statues result in divorce cases NOT being judicial proceedings. Certain elements are required for a proceeding to actually be judicial and when those elements are missing, proceedings run afoul. For example, due process rights require that no Defendant is allowed to be summoned to court unless the Defendant is accused of injuring the Plaintiff by failing to uphold some law-based obligation based in behavior (not subjective emotions). However, there is no such thing as an obligation to make one’s spouse feel like the marriage is reconcilable (whatever that means). Ryan is a Bible-believing Christian and he told Mary’s Advocates, his marriage is reconcilable, of course. He says his wife is choosing to abandon the marriage, which gravely harms their children, and he finds it unjust that the Judge, through unilateral no-fault divorce legislation, is rewarding his wife for breaking up their family. Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Constitution forbids private/special laws in which the legislators set the court to rule on an individual’s private opinion or desire. In unilateral no-fault divorce, Ryan shows that the court always decides cases based on the private opinion of the Plaintiff. No-fault divorce actions don’t meet the requirement for plaintiffs to bring facts proving anything injurious about the behavior of defendants in the preliminary complaint for divorce. On Ryan’s wife’s claim for custody of their children, she signed a statement under penalty of misdemeanor if false: “Mr. Pankoe currently lives in an RV camper that is not hooked up to running water. The children must go outside to get to the bathroom, even in snow/rain/cold.” Mary’s Advocates was told by Ryan, “Those are lies. It was never true. Over the summer, we were at a campground and I taught them to swim, etc. at the pool. We were in a very large 36’, basically mobile home with full-size household appliances/shower, etc. We were never in there after it got cooler and have always had bathrooms/plumbing. When we went from the campground, then we moved into a relative’s 2600 square foot 4-bedroom house, which we almost always have to ourselves.” Ryan’s wife accused him of not caring about their children in her signed statement to the court, by saying, “I feel his decisions are based on his own wants/needs, not the best interest of the children.” Ryan says, however, his decisions are based on his desire for his children to be protected from all the difficulties of a broken home. He believes having Mom and Dad together is better for his children than divorce and he has no intention of voluntarily forfeiting to the divorce court his right to exercise his parental rights. Divorce defendants are often coerced into believing that the civil courts have automatic power over all parenting decisions and over all the property when one spouse files for divorce. On Tuesday, February 11, Ryan attended a court-ordered office conference in which the conference officer is basically trying to get Mom and Dad to agree to split their children between two homes. Ryan told Mary’s Advocates, “I actually got a dissertation from the conference officer about how terrible it would be if people couldn’t divorce at-will and how nobody should be trapped in a marriage.” Ryan also presented on February 11 a walk-in-motion for the delay of any custody determinations until after his constitutional challenge is addressed. The request for delay was denied by Judge Varricchio and Ryan says the judge told him, “she’s there to just move cases through and it does families no good to have cases bouncing around in the court and that it’s better to put an end to things quickly” and “You’re just one more family and one more custody case.” http://marysadvocates.org/pennsylvania-dad-makes-constitutional-challenge-against-no-fault-divorce/
This foreword was written after I wrote the rest, as forewords usually are. This is one of the hardest posts I’ve ever written. It was physically uncomfortable to hack this out, and I had to stop several times and walk around before taking up the sword again. I suppose I will hesitate a few times and pray a bit before I hit that PUBLISH button.
One of our comments, under another post, mentions the website of a priest, Fr. Edwin Palka, who explains why some priests have not blown the whistle on homosexual priests and homosexual priest predators. Frankly, his post put some steel into my fingers.
Priests can set discouraging examples for their brethren. They can also set good example for encouragement.
What he wrote is grisly. It is also true. He opens the Ugly Box to let a little purifying sunshine in. I will do the same, and in the same vein.
Folks, I know that you are really angry. The depth of ugly you see in the news is often not nearly as deep as the ugly that some priests see. You are surely and rightly angry. Do you think that we priests are not?
I have to remind myself that when Our Lord cursed the fig tree before His Passion, that wasn’t the model that we priests should employ when it comes to homosexual predator priests.
And let’s be clear. This scandal is about HOMOSEXUALITY.
Some of these homosexual predators are, I think, possessed. Think about it. If you know anything about demonic activity, and this is something that lay people should not get too involved with, then you know that certain demons specialize in certain kinds of sins. They will attach themselves like spiritual lampreys to the souls of people who commit them and also to the places where the sins were committed. Once a demon gets hold, they claim the right to be there, until the layers of their connection are broken one by one. That’s what exorcism rites do: they break the legalistic claims of the Enemy to be there.
Homosexual sins are particularly grave and their demonic force is concomitantly vile. And these sins also involve the young or those who are subject to the authority or power of the predator. Millstones are not enough. If you wonder about the Lord and capital punishment, HE spoke of the millstone before the Church did.
That’s the supernatural side. There is also the natural side. It seems to me that men with these strong disordered inclinations don’t… how to put this… act like other men. They think differently, they work out differences differently. I know, I know. But that’s my sense of things. It’s hard to articulate.
To explain another issue, I have a couple of anecdotes.
First, way back when, as a seminarian, I remember the pastor of my parish telling us young guys not to write our name in our breviaries or prayer books. He explained that were we to lose the book, someone could claim that it was found in a “house of assignation”. Some of the guys thought that was funny. I didn’t. My folks were cops. I grew up hearing about and seeing photos of the ugliest human circumstances imaginable. I figured out “blackmail” and “compromise” waaaaay back. Also, if you talk to cops who have been on the job for a while, they will confirm that male on male “violence” is among the worst that they see. Ask cops if you know any pretty well. Ask ER docs and nurses what they see come in and how it was inflicted. Here’s a not so little factoid for you: In Italian, a derogatory term for a homosexual male is “froccio”, which etymologically comes from Latin ferox, “savage”. Are all that way? No. Of course not. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t those who are.
Next, still as a seminarian, over breakfast a then-auxiliary bishop told me that when he reported on something to the archbishop, he was shut down: “If I know about it, I might have to do something about it!” Then the auxiliary said, “Remember, John, there are old women of both sexes.” That would be confirmed countless times in the next years. When I went to the seminary rector to complain about the things I was hearing through the walls, their treatment of me only worsened and I got thrown out the second time. That’s how I got to Rome.
In Rome, because I was in the unusual position of curial work and seminary, because of my youth, etc., I was subtly warned of certain well-placed people who would offer this or that, to open this door, to invite into that circle, to climb more quickly, to gain some favors, etc. I was being warned, mainly, about two groups, the Mafia and homosexuals. Both groups – along with Masons, but I think they were in both these other tribes – wanted insiders, and I was perceived at the time as having the potential to be advanced. Sure enough, every once in a while I would get an invitation, a gift out of the blue, a strong suggestion that X might be a good choice to get ahead. Years later I read of one of them, a gentiluomo di Sua Santità, found tied up with his head bashed in and homosexual porno video in the VCR. I had met him at the Lateran University, where he for some reason was taking courses along with the seminarians. My “gaydar” is strong, so this guy didn’t get far with me. But some of my classmates….
As a priest, I quickly figured out that, if you were on the wrong side of things, you would be subtly and not so subtly targeted for persecution, of course, but also for compromise, be it homosexual, heterosexual, money, drugs, ambition, whatever your weakness might be. They would set honey traps for you.
If you think about it, if you try to think like the Enemy, doesn’t that make sense? If you can’t get someone to join you in your slime, but you suspect he has your number, you try to get something on him. Many years ago now, a woman told me about a meeting she went to of some pro-choice feminist organization or other. She said that one of the things they talked about, after the more public meeting was over, was figuring out which one of them could target for seduction certain priests in the diocese who were overtly preaching against contraception and abortion. One of them would do it or they could hire hookers and set honey traps.
It’s classic spycraft, really. Compromise the guy to shut him up.
The problem is, most priests are compassionate guys who, when faced with a woman in distress, might let their guard down. Face facts. Women, who are wired in certain ways, think differently than men. They can wrap guys around their lipstick case if they aren’t wary, and men often are not wary enough. Some tears and a little GBH can work wonders on the naive. That technique goes for the “gay” predators as well. This is one reason why I think that homosexual predators of young men think differently, apart from the help of the demons in their heads.
Also, as a priest, there are the truly sacrilegious ways that some of these agents of Hell will work to shut up priests who don’t and won’t putt from the ruff. They use the Seal of the confessional against the solid non-queer priest confessor. They go to confession to a good confessor to bind him by the Seal. Of course that is pretty underhanded, satanic even. It is a horrible sacrilege. A lot of good priests know that if they hear something in the confessional they must never ever talk about it. They don’t know what to do, and, in prudence, they clam up about their brethren. This is one reason why the Church’s law discourages a superior of hearing the confessions of those under his authority.
I know guys who simply couldn’t take it anymore and quit. There have been moments when I’ve thought about it myself. But then my cold Prussian fury and stubbornness flares and, I’m sure, the grace to stick it out for whatever I am destined to do or endure.
Dear readers… this is all out war. It is war on every level, human and supernatural. The Enemy of the soul is a really good general, a relentless and malevolent tactician of destruction of souls and long view strategist The Enemy preys on human weakness. War is horrible, vicious and seriously ugly. Spiritual war is worse than material.
Even now, I was texting with a friend about this new wave of dreck. He wrote:
These bastards have not only violated countless innocents and stained the Catholic name. They have set in motion the process that will lead good men to suffer greatly to defend celibacy and the seal of confession. It would be so easy to feed a few certified perverts to the secular justice and gain time to ascertain the facts on all others. Because, make no mistake, innocents will be accused and it will be IMPOSSIBLE to talk about burden of the proof without accusations of cover up. Innocents will have again to pay the price of reform the hard way.
They will show good will by targeting the good guys. They’ll find a degenerate in an otherwise sound group and, there, fixed!
The media, and of course bishops, are downplaying the distinctive tract of all these stories, the vice of most offenders. CNN even presents it with a pic of a woman crying.
It will be again a case of white heterosexual Christian men raping women and even when boys are involved it will be only because of a) power b) celibacy 3) culture of secrecy protecting power via seal of confession.
Which is in fact what happened, only it’s the sodomite modus operandi to protect themselves and strengthen their grip over power positions within the Church.
As I have written before, I do not buy the claims that a high number of priests are homosexual. But I do indeed buy that that percentage is higher among those who have power. The Boys Club perpetuated itself by grooming with preferential treatment of certain likely fellows. They made sure that they went to Rome, which could help a future career, or they got the chance at higher studies, the key role in the chancery, the roles that would be good on the CV when it was time to submit a terna. Mind you, that wasn’t all bishops or seminarians or priests. Don’t look cross-eyed at a guy sent to Rome. These days, I am sure that in the vast majority of cases, its because the guy has potential to serve the Church well and that’s the best place to realize the potential.
Do not.. do NOT.. slip into the trap that I see in news stories and fuming posts with sloppy language about how, “These bishops and priests! They all failed us!” No. They did not all fail you. Some did. They’re failures were galactic and all priests are suffering the fallout. But don’t turn your wrath and blame on every priest and bishop. That would surely make the Devil grin. That’s the objective, after all. Through some attack them all.
Tables are turning on Satan’s plans. However, when you wonder about all this stuff going on, remember that the Enemy plays the long game.
Your calls for short term retribution or for instant action etc. will have their own repercussions down the road. For example, even as many people call for the resignation and removal of this or that bishop, cardinal, etc., keep in mind that there is only one guy, in the human sphere, who signs off on the new bishops and cardinals. Try to picture the results over time if you get what you ask for.
Finally, please take this to heart.
This is a primarily a supernatural battle that is being fought right now. The bloody trenches and killing alleys are directly through the ranks of the Church’s priests, and they directly involve matters intimately tied into the very center of the Church’s core, priesthood and sacraments like Penance.
No priest, no Eucharist, no Church.
This war involves human weakness, identity perversion, and also demonic possession. Hence, our response has to involve all of these dimensions.
Priests and bishops….
Please start saying Masses and having devotions for reparation and for deliverance from the assaults of the Enemy. We have tried and true spiritual weapons, if only we would dust them off, polish them up, and use them. Enough of this mealy-mouthed excuse making and temporizing. Enough of this rubbish about all the really important things that fill the clerical day, like committees and meetings. If you are going to have a meeting, meet about how we have to do reparation, who will be unlocking the church for Exposition and Rosaries and Novena and CONFESSIONS.
Priests and bishops, for the love of all that is Holy, use your mighty spiritual weapons given by Orders and Holy Church’s own authoritative, tried and true Tradition.
And, I’ll say it again and again and again… the Devil HATES LATIN. Let’s stop fooling around. Put the .22 long rifle away and start with the .50 cal already. The time for the MaDeuce of our sacred liturgical worship is NOW. Extraordinary Form, brothers. Stop fooling around. If you Latins out there don’t know and can’t use your whole Latin Rite, then.. who the hell are you, anyway? C’mon guys!
Meanwhile, I am implementing the personal plan I’ve been cobbling together from my convictions, experiences, resolves. I have to be willing to stay on the Cross. Please pray for me that I will stay up there. In spite of my weakness, as a sinner among sinners, I will do my best to adapt, improvise and overcome the obstacles that I am sure will now hammer on me for this post.
You can send me email about this and I might post some of it. But the combox is CLOSED.
Mary, Queen of the Clergy, protect me and my brethren. If the hour of the Chalice is upon us, ask your Son the High Priest to make our wristbones strong for the nail, our footbones strong for the spike. As crowned Queen of Angels, bid for us mighty helpers from the celestial choirs, who know God’s will for us even as they contemplate God’s face. As Virgin Theotokos, tell Joseph your most chaste spouse which priests need his most urgent aid. How can he refuse your request to show himself, their Terror, to those demons who beset your sons, your priests and bishops? New Eve Queen, place your foot over the feet of your priests that they will trample the nahash in the vineyard and in their lonely oilpress gardens. Put your maternal hand on their shoulder as they unworthily stumble along, sinners, in their daily calvaries. Mary, Queen of the Clergy, protect me and my brethren.
Back in August 2018 I posted one of the hardest things I’ve ever written for this blog. HERE
This just came from a reader. I’ve anonymized it a little.
Dear Fr. Z.,
I hope these days find you better in body and soul. Years ago you saw my blog comments under the moniker___. These days I live in ___ and, having just read your powerful post, wanted to respond to you personally.
When the Pennsylvania report broke for reasons only He knows, God willed that several “whistleblower” priests from across the country cross my path in their moments of extreme need and vulnerability. Persecuted, frightened, alone, cutoff by the episcopacy from their brethren, their natural families, the people of God they served… some literally with no place to stay, no money, no transportation, not even food.
And rumors that a certain prelate threatens his orthodox priests with institutionalization or laicization are not rumors… they are truth. I was called to the assistance of two priests facing this threat that has become the M.O. of this prelate. That’s the thuggery of how the Church under the influence of lawless men has treated its faithful, orthodox priests.
I have listened to faithful priests cry in fear and isolation. And I have tried to get them better help than me through godly priests. But when I sought help for them from religious orders or other orthodox parish priests, every last one refused. Some said they refused for fear of losing their ministries, but worse, some refused for fear of eternal damnation for not keeping quiet and staying out of it in some twisted notion that to aid their brothers is disobedience to the Pope and therefore disobedient to – or even wounding – Christ. I was told my assisting whistleblowers was grievously adding to Christ’s wounds. Spiritual extortion. How unbearably painful to see good priests struggle against it, and other good priests succumb to being compromised by it.
In fact the only men of God who were willing to come to the aid of priests immediately, without hesitation and without agenda were Protestant ministers. Let that sink in for a moment. Only those free from the perverted imposition of “obedience” were free to serve their Catholic brothers in the Name of Jesus.
For myself, Fr. Z., my aid to these good men has come at a price. I left my ___, ___ and the ___ with which I was associated not to bring down the heat of scandal upon them, to be a stumbling block to their “obedience,” or to be myself compromised by the heat of a villainous cadre within the episcopacy. Anyone who walks this path, priest or laity, is likely to walk it alone.
“Remember, they killed the prophets,” one Evangelical pastor told me. So they did. But, sir, I would see Jesus, just as the prophets longed to do.
Please pray for the whistleblowers. I pray for you. You are welcome to use any part of my email but I ask not to be named so I may continue to help these good men.
A week ago yesterday, a New Yorker from Queens, Anthony Hobson, beat and dragged his girlfriend, Jennifer Irigoyen, down a flight of stairs and then stabbed her in the neck, abdomen and torso. He stabbed her in the stomach because he wanted to kill the baby he fathered (some news stories say she was 14 weeks pregnant and others put the figure at 20 weeks). The pregnant woman shouted, “He’s got a knife. He’s going to kill the baby!”
Hobson killed both the woman and her baby. He was immediately charged with two crimes, but the charge for killing her baby was subsequently dropped: it was noted that Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s new abortion law provides no penalties for the killing of unborn children; abortion was removed from the criminal code and inserted into the public health law. Cuomo has not commented on what he has wrought.
The Albany lawmaker who sponsored the bill that Cuomo lobbied for, State Sen. Liz Krueger, and her colleague in the senate, Anna Kaplan, authored an article in the Times Union that disagrees with the Queens prosecutor’s interpretation of the law. They say there is nothing in the law that prevents any prosecutor from charging someone like Hobson for a crime. They say Hobson could be prosecuted for first-degree assault, a sentence that is harsher than the previous sentence for “unlawful abortion.”
Who’s got the better of the argument? The only way to settle this is to have clarity, and that means a new statute needs to be written that addresses this issue. We are calling on Sen. Krueger to work with other lawmakers, in both chambers, to draft legislation that makes it a crime to murder the baby of a pregnant woman.
Bishop Daly’s Letter Bars Pro-Abortion Catholic Politicians From Receiving Communion Dear Friends,Each January as the nation commemorates the sad anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, marches are held, and vigils are prayed. Those committed to the cause of human rights of the unborn make their voices heard. This year, pro-abortion politicians fearing increased restrictions on abortion have advocated for and passed laws expanding access to abortion in the state of New York. Similar attempts have been made in Virginia.Efforts to expand access to abortion, allowing murder of children up to the moment of birth is evil. Children are a gift from God, no matter the circumstances of their conception. They not only have a right to life, but we as a society have a moral obligation to protect them from harm.The champion of this abortion legislation is Andrew Cuomo, a Catholic and governor of New York. Governor Cuomo frequently cites his Catholic faith in support of legislation he favors. His public witness as a Catholic politician, coupled with his stalwart support of abortion, is unacceptable.Politicians who reside in the Catholic Diocese of Spokane, and who obstinately persevere in their public support for abortion, should not receive Communion without first being reconciled to Christ and the Church (cf. Canon 915; “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles.” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2004).The Church’s commitment to the life of every human person from conception until death is firm. God alone is the author of life and for the civil government to sanction the willful murder of children is unacceptable. For a Catholic political leader to do so is scandalous.I encourage the faithful to turn to our Lord in prayer for our political leaders, entrusting them especially to the intercession of St. Thomas More, a public servant who preferred to die at the hands of civil authorities rather than abandon Christ and the Church. Let us also keep the unborn, as well as all pregnant mothers, in our prayers.Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us. Live, Jesus, in our hearts forever.In Christ,Most Reverend Thomas A. Daly Bishop of Spokane
To soak the rich, keep tax rates low by Jeff Jacoby The Boston Globe February 10, 2019
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/22340/to-soak-the-rich-keep-tax-rates-lowLeft-wing Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Bernie Sanders, are clamoring for steep tax hikes on the wealthy.SOAK-THE-RICH tax schemes are in vogue on the left these days.Democratic Party heartthrob Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made a splash last month when she went on “60 Minutes” and proposed a 70 percent marginal tax rate on incomes over $10 million. “People are going to have to start paying their fair share in taxes,” she said.From Senator Elizabeth Warren comes a proposal to levy an annual wealth tax on the net worth of American households with more than $50 million in assets. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has drafted a proposal to sharply increase the federal estate tax, imposing a top rate of 77 percent on estates worth more than $1 billion.The details of these plans differ. But all of them are premised on the belief that wealthy Americans don’t pay an equitable share of the tax burden, and that a more progressive tax code will not only be fairer but also raise more revenue.For some politicians, taxing the wealthy more harshly seems as much a matter of retribution as of fiscal policy. “The rich & powerful run Washington,” tweeted Warren as she released her tax plan. “It’s a system that’s rigged for the top if I ever saw one.” Sanders routinely inveighs against “the greed of Wall Street, the power of gigantic multinational corporations, and the influence of the global billionaire class.”Americans have traditionally been cool to such overt class-war rhetoric, but maybe that’s changing. Recent polls show broad support for raising tax rates on the very wealthy. A Hill-HarrisX survey in January found that nearly 6 in 10 registered voters favored raising the top income-tax rate to 70 percent. Strong majorities of Democrats (71 percent) and Independents (60 percent) backed the idea, and even 45 percent of Republicans expressed support. Other surveys have yielded comparable results, as Politico reported in a story headlined “Soak the rich? Americans say go for it.”Yet however popular it may be to claim that millionaires and billionaires don’t shoulder their share of the tax burden, it isn’t true. The federal income tax is highly progressive. The ultra-wealthy not only pay far more than their fair share in taxes, but the portion of the tax burden they shoulder has grown significantly in recent decades.Each year the Internal Revenue Service releases voluminous data on American taxpayers, sorting scores of millions of tax filers by adjusted gross income and share of income taxes paid. Each year the data confirm that while those at the top of the hill reap an outsize portion of the nation’s income, they pay an even more outsize portion of the nation’s taxes.Thus, in 2016, the top 1 percent of taxpayers earned 19.7 percent of all the income — more than $10 trillion — reported to the IRS. To put that in raw numbers, 1.4 million taxpayers (out of 141 million) reported $2 trillion in income (out of a $10.2 trillion total). But the top 1 percent didn’t pay 19.7 percent of federal income taxes. They paid 37.3 percent. In other words, while they earned somewhat less than one-fifth of all reported income, those in the 1 percent contributed somewhat more than one-third of all income taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, the top 1 percent paid roughly $538 billion in income taxes, considerably more than the $440 billion in income taxes paid by the bottom 90 percent.For the “tippy top” — the wealthiest one-10th of 1 percent — the disproportion is comparable. In 2016, the uppermost 0.1 percent of taxpayers earned 9.5 percent of all income, yet they paid more than 18 percent of all income taxes.By any definition, America has a progressive tax system.Could it be made more progressive? On paper, sure. Hiking the top marginal tax rate from the current 37 percent to the 70 percent urged by Ocasio-Cortez would represent a dramatic increase in progressivity. Even more dramatic would be to push the highest rate above 90 percent, where it used to be when Dwight Eisenhower was in the White House.However counterintuitive it might seem, there is an inverse relationship between marginal tax rates and the tax burden on the rich. As a rule, the lower the rates, the more the wealthy pay. (Chart: Carpe Diem blog)Liberals are fond of pointing out how much higher tax rates used to be. Unfortunately for AOC, Warren, et al., dramatically higher tax rates at the top didn’t result in dramatically higher tax revenues flowing to the Treasury. Throughout the 1950s, the effective tax rate paid by the “tippy top” was about 21 percent, barely more than the 19.7 percent paid in 2016. Wealthy taxpayers have many wholly lawful ways to avoid exorbitant tax rates, and routinely control the timing and content of their income to avoid them.More to the point, there is an inverse relationship between marginal tax rates and the tax burden on the rich. As a rule, the lower the rates, the more the wealthy pay. It may seem counterintuitive, but experience has shown again and again that the best way to “soak the rich” is to keep marginal rates low. When Ike was president, tax rates were indeed sky-high. Tax revenues weren’t. It was only after Reagan came along and chopped the top tax rate to 28 percent, however, that dollars came gushing in to the IRS. Class-war strategists may chafe at that, but it’s the way the world works.(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).– ## —Follow Jeff Jacoby on Twitter.
If there is a forerunner of this “Manifesto of faith” from Cardinal Gerhard Müller. released today all over the world, it is the “Credo of the People of God” proclaimed in 1968 by Paul VI.
Then as now, the Church was in a tempest and its very faith was wavering. Paul VI felt it his duty to reaffirm the pillars of Church doctrine. Today, giving this public testimony of faith is the cardinal who was prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith from 2012 to 2017.
Müller decided to take this step at the impetus of requests from “many bishops, priests, religious and laity of the Catholic Church,” concerned over the “ever more widespread confusion in the teaching of the faith.”
As an outline for the “Credo of the People of God” Paul VI adopted the “Credo” of the council of Nicaea. Cardinal Müller has instead taken as the guideline for this “Manifesto of faith” the Catechism of the Catholic Church, to which the numbers in parentheses in the text refer.
From the beginning the Church has found itself put to the test in the foundations of the faith, as the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy (2 Tm 4:3-5):
“There shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry.”
With the following “Manifesto” Cardinal Müller intended to fulfill today this mandate of the apostle to his disciple.
*
MANIFESTO OF FAITH
“Let not your heart be troubled!” (John 14:1)
In the face of growing confusion about the doctrine of the Faith, many bishops, priests, religious and lay people of the Catholic Church have requested that I make a public testimony about the truth of revelation. It is the shepherds’ very own task to guide those entrusted to them on the path of salvation. This can only succeed if they know this way and follow it themselves. The words of the Apostle here apply: “For above all I have delivered unto you what I have received” (1 Cor. 15:3). Today, many Christians are no longer even aware of the basic teachings of the Faith, so there is a growing danger of missing the path to eternal life. However, it remains the very purpose of the Church to lead humanity to Jesus Christ, the light of the peoples (see LG 1). In this situation, the question of orientation arises. According to John Paul II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a “safe standard for the doctrine of the faith” (Fidei Depositum IV). It was written with the aim of strengthening the Faith of the brothers and sisters whose belief has been massively questioned by the “dictatorship of relativism.”
1. The one and triune God revealed in Jesus Christ
The epitome of the Faith of all Christians is found in the confession of the Most Holy Trinity. We have become disciples of Jesus, children and friends of God by being baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The distinction of the three persons in the divine unity (CCC 254) marks a fundamental difference in the belief in God and the image of man from that of other religions. Religions disagree precisely over this belief in Jesus the Christ. He is true God and true Man, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. The Word made flesh, the Son of God, is the only Savior of the world (CCC 679) and the only Mediator between God and men (CCC 846). Therefore, the first letter of John refers to one who denies His divinity as an antichrist (1 John 2:22), since Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is from eternity one in being with God, His Father (CCC 663). We are to resist the relapse into ancient heresies with clear resolve, which saw in Jesus Christ only a good person, brother and friend, prophet and moralist. He is first and foremost the Word that was with God and is God, the Son of the Father, Who assumed our human nature to redeem us and Who will come to judge the living and the dead. Him alone, we worship in unity with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Only and True God (CCC 691).
2. The Church
Jesus Christ founded the Church as a visible sign and tool of salvation realized in the Catholic Church (816). He gave His Church, which “emerged from the side of the Christ who died on the Cross” (766), a sacramental constitution that will remain until the Kingdom is fully achieved (CCC 765). Christ, the Head, and the faithful as members of the body, are a mystical person (CCC 795), which is why the Church is sacred, for the one Mediator has designed and sustained its visible structure (CCC 771). Through it the redemptive work of Christ becomes present in time and space via the celebration of the Holy Sacraments, especially in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, the Holy Mass (CCC 1330). The Church conveys with the authority of Christ the divine revelation, which extends to all the elements of doctrine, “including the moral teaching, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, and observed” (CCC 2035).
3. Sacramental Order
The Church is the universal sacrament of salvation in Jesus Christ (CCC 776). She does not reflect herself, but the light of Christ, which shines on her face. But this happens only when the truth revealed in Jesus Christ becomes the point of reference, rather than the views of a majority or the spirit of the times; for Christ Himself has entrusted the fullness of grace and truth to the Catholic Church (CCC 819), and He Himself is present in the sacraments of the Church.
The Church is not a man-made association whose structure its members voted into being at their will. It is of divine origin. “Christ himself is the author of ministry in the Church. He set her up, gave her authority and mission, orientation and goal (CCC 874). The admonition of the Apostle is still valid today, that cursed is anyone who proclaims another gospel, “even if we ourselves were to give it or an angel from heaven” (Gal 1:8). The mediation of faith is inextricably bound up with the human credibility of its messengers, who in some cases have abandoned the people entrusted to them, unsettling them and severely damaging their faith. Here the Word of Scripture describes those who do not listen to the truth and who follow their own wishes, who flatter their ears because they cannot endure sound doctrine (cf. 2 Tim 4:3-4).
The task of the Magisterium of the Church is to “preserve God’s people from deviations and defections” in order to “guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (890). This is especially true with regard to all seven sacraments. The Holy Eucharist is “source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324). The Eucharistic Sacrifice, in which Christ includes us in His Sacrifice of the Cross, is aimed at the most intimate union with Him (CCC 1382). Therefore, the Holy Scripture admonishes with regard to the reception of the Holy Communion: “Whoever eats unworthily of the bread and drinks from the Lord’s cup makes himself guilty of profaning the body and of the blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion” (CCC 1385). From the internal logic of the sacrament, it is understood that divorced and civilly remarried persons, whose sacramental marriage exists before God, as well as those Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Faith and the Church, just as all those who are not disposed to receive the Holy Eucharist fruitfully (CCC 1457), because it does not bring them to salvation. To point this out corresponds to the spiritual works of mercy.
The confession of sins in Holy Confession at least once a year is one of the Church’s commandments (CCC 2042). When the believers no longer confess their sins and no longer experience the absolution of their sins, salvation becomes impossible; after all, Jesus Christ became Man to redeem us from our sins. The power of forgiveness that the Risen Lord has given to the Apostles and their successors in the ministry of bishops and priests applies also for mortal and venial sins which we commit after Baptism. The current popular practice of confession makes it clear that the conscience of the faithful is not sufficiently formed. God’s mercy is given to us, that we might fulfil His Commandments to become one with His Holy Will, and not so as to avoid the call to repentance (CCC 1458).
“The priest continues the work of redemption on earth” (CCC 1589). The ordination of the priest “gives him a sacred power” (CCC 1592), which is irreplaceable, because through it Jesus becomes sacramentally present in His saving action. Therefore, priests voluntarily opt for celibacy as “a sign of new life” (CCC 1579). It is about the self-giving in the service of Christ and His coming kingdom. With a view to receiving the ordination in the three stages of this ministry, the Church is “bound by the choice made by the Lord Himself. That is why it is not possible to ordain women”(CCC 1577). To imply that this impossibility is somehow a form of discrimination against women shows only the lack of understanding for this sacrament, which is not about earthly power but the representation of Christ, the Bridegroom of the Church.
4. Moral Law
Faith and life are inseparable, for Faith apart from works is dead (CCC 1815). The moral law is the work of divine wisdom and leads man to the promised blessedness (CCC 1950). Consequently, the “knowledge of the divine and natural law is necessary” to do good and reach this goal (CCC 1955). Accepting this truth is essential for all people of good will. For he who dies in mortal sin without repentance will be forever separated from God (CCC 1033). This leads to practical consequences in the lives of Christians, which are often ignored today (cf 2270-2283; 2350-2381). The moral law is not a burden, but part of that liberating truth (cf Jn 8:32) through which the Christian walks on the path of salvation and which may not be relativized.
5. Eternal Life
Many wonder today what purpose the Church still has in its existence, when even bishops prefer to be politicians rather than to proclaim the Gospel as teachers of the Faith. The role of the Church must not be watered down by trivialities, but its proper place must be addressed. Every human being has an immortal soul, which in death is separated from the body, hoping for the resurrection of the dead (CCC 366). Death makes man’s decision for or against God definite. Everyone has to face the particular judgement immediately after death (CCC 1021). Either a purification is necessary, or man goes directly into heavenly bliss and is allowed to see God face to face. There is also the dreadful possibility that a person will remain opposed to God to the very end, and by definitely refusing His Love, “condemns himself immediately and forever” (CCC 1022). “God created us without us, but He did not want to save us without us” (CCC 1847). The eternity of the punishment of hell is a terrible reality, which – according to the testimony of Holy Scripture – attracts all who “die in the state of mortal sin” (CCC 1035). The Christian goes through the narrow gate, for “the gate is wide, and the way that leads to ruin is wide, and many are upon it” (Mt 7:13).
To keep silent about these and the other truths of the Faith and to teach people accordingly is the greatest deception against which the Catechism vigorously warns. It represents the last trial of the Church and leads man to a religious delusion, “the price of their apostasy” (CCC 675); it is the fraud of Antichrist. “He will deceive those who are lost by all means of injustice; for they have closed themselves to the love of the truth by which they should be saved” (2 Thess 2:10).
Call
As workers in the vineyard of the Lord, we all have a responsibility to recall these fundamental truths by clinging to what we ourselves have received. We want to give courage to go the way of Jesus Christ with determination, in order to obtain eternal life by following His commandments (CCC 2075).
Let us ask the Lord to let us know how great the gift of the Catholic Faith is, through which opens the door to eternal life. “For he that shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation: The Son of Man also will be ashamed of him, when He shall come in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:38). Therefore, we are committed to strengthening the Faith by confessing the truth which is Jesus Christ Himself.
We too, and especially we bishops and priests, are addressed when Paul, the Apostle of Jesus Christ, gives this admonition to his companion and successor, Timothy: “I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, Who shall judge the living and the dead, by His coming, and His kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. But be thou vigilant, labour in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil thy ministry. Be sober.” (2 Tim 4:1-5).
May Mary, the Mother of God, implore for us the grace to remain faithful without wavering to the confession of the truth about Jesus Christ.
United in faith and prayer.
Gerhard Cardinal Müller Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 2012-2017Condividi:
Egalitarianism is the radical error of our time. If we do not attack it at the root, we will find we have nothing of cultural or spiritual value left to conserve.
The position of the conservative, whether liberal in his politics or otherwise, presumes inequality. A man ought to love his homeland more than he loves another, so he defends against its demise. Certain works of culture are better than others and command our special care.
When we love with a grateful heart, the image of God in us shines most clearly. By gratitude the creature resembles the Creator, who gives freely across an infinite abyss of being, who needs nothing, and who asks for nothing but love. Gratitude acknowledges the goodness of the giver and the gift, and delights in the excellence of both.
“Equality,” says C. S. Lewis in The Weight of Glory, “is a quantitative term and therefore love often knows nothing of it. Authority exercised with humility and obedience accepted with delight are the very lines along which our spirits live.” Equality “is medicine, not food.”
Political equality may be necessary because men are fallen, and there is also a sense, says Lewis, in which we are equal in the sight of God, whose love does not depend upon our social rank or intellectual acuity. Apart from Him, and by comparison with Him, our value is the same: nothing. In the Church, says Lewis, “we recover our real inequalities and are thereby refreshed and quickened.”
Where could Lewis have gotten such an idea? From all of Christian thought and art, and from a sane view of what all peoples have thought to be good and better and best. From Dante, for instance.
When Dante is in the lowest sphere of Paradise, that of the inconstant moon (allegory for those who did not fulfill their sacred vows), he asks his sister-in-law Piccarda whether she desires a higher place, to love more and see more and be held more dear. He is thinking in emulous terms: envy, not love, demands equality. Piccarda smiles, “like a girl in the gleaming of first love,” and replies:
“Brother, the virtue of charity brings quiet to our wills, so we desire but what we have, and thirst for nothing else. If we should feel a yearning to be higher, such a desire would strike disharmony against His will who knows, and wills us here. That cannot catch these wheels, as you shall see: recall love’s nature, recall that Heaven is to live in loving, necessarily. For it is of the essence of this bliss to hold one’s dwelling in the divine Will, who makes our single wills the same, and His, So that, although we dwell from sill to sill throughout this kingdom, that is as we please, as it delights the King in whose desire We find our own. In His will is our peace.”
*
Why would you want it otherwise? I look upon the heavens and do not see a gridwork of stars, equidistant and of one magnitude. Such a thing every night would drive us mad. I see instead what Hopkins saw and loved when he looked upon God’s creation:
All things counter, original, spare, strange, Whatever is fickle, freckled, who knows how? With swift, slow, sweet, sour, adazzle, dim; He fathers-forth whose beauty is without change: Praise Him.
It is like the carnival of distinct persons in the Body of Christ. So Hopkins praises the lowly Jesuit saint Alphonso Rodriguez, whose mighty struggles against evil were interior and unseen:
Yet God (that hews mountain and continent, Earth, all, out; who, with trickling increment, Veins violets and tall trees makes more and more) Could crowd career with conquest while there went Those years and years by of world without event, That in Majorca Alphonso kept the door.
The variety of offices within the Church implies inequality, as does the variety of members of the body. It is impossible to be a member without inequality and hierarchy; a body is only a body by virtue of the mutual love that binds the members, a love expressed by the virtues of selfless leadership and obedience. “I too am a man under authority,” says the centurion to Jesus, and so he knows both what it is to command and to obey.
He is like the Boatswain in The Tempest, who shows his prompt obedience to the commands of the ship’s Master by relaying them to the mariners and cheering them in their work. He is like Milton’s stripling cherubs, Ithuriel and Zephon, who obey their commander Gabriel and so are granted the privilege of discovering Satan, squat like a toad at the ear of the sleeping Eve.
Satan, playing the card of Pride, belittles them for not recognizing him right away. They must be low in the ranks of the angels. Ithuriel does not defend his rank. He replies that Satan, disobedient, no longer shines with his former glory. A man grows taller when he bows to one more honorable than he. Pride and envy shrivel. Satan knows it, despite himself:
So spake the cherub, and his grave rebuke, Severe in youthful beauty, added grace Invincible; abashed the devil stood And felt how awful goodness was, and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely, saw, and pined His loss.
I suppose none of this would be controversial, except for the feminism peculiar to our time. It is peculiar; it has brought no health to the family or the Church; it has made our politics no more humane and no less bitter; it now makes Sodom equal to Jerusalem.
No body without hierarchy. Are all teachers? Are all prophets? No hierarchy without obedience: the virtue of heeding what your superior wishes, and taking it into yourself, making it a principle of your action. If I am admitted into the kingdom of God, far be it from me to demand equality with Peter and Paul. So would I lose half of my joy!
*Image:Satan Starts from the Touch of Ithuriel’s Spear by Henry Fusseli, 1776 [Cleveland Museum of Art]
Posted inUncategorized|Comments Off on LIBERTE, FRATERNITE ET EGALITE. THE CRY OF THE REVOLUTIONARIES OF THE French Revolution CONTINUE TO RESONATE THROUGHOUT ALL TIME, INCLUDING OUR OWN
The name of the step-brother of William the Conqueror was a palindrome, and the ladies who made the Bayeux Tapestry must have enjoyed embroidering it and the caption under the scene of Odo at the Battle of Hastings. A year after the Norman Conquest, he became Duke of Kent, assuming vast lands and power, but William had already seen to it that he became a bishop about the age of nineteen. He was serious about his episcopal office, even at Hastings where a servant carried his crozier into the fray. Careful of the canonical prohibition against clerics wielding a sword, he used a heavy club, and with it he threatened his own troops who were reluctant to run headlong into a hail of crossbow arrows. The inscription on the tapestry, which he probably intended for his own cathedral, reads in abbreviated Latin: “Hic Odo Eps [Episcopus] Baculu[m] Tenens Confortat Pueros” which is to say, “Here, Bishop Odo, holding his club, comforts his boys.” In our vernacular, that is not the sort of comfort one wants, but the word originally and essentially means to strengthen. Derived from it are words like fortress and fortitude, the latter being one of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit. This is the other Comforter that Christ promised, in order to “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (John 14:16; Ephesians 6:11).
The equivalent for Comforter is Paraclete, or Advocate, which means “a strengthener who stands by the side of another” to plead on his behalf in a court of justice (cf. John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7; 1 John 2:1). This teaching comes from the Beloved Disciple, the object and bestower of singular tenderness. But he was not sentimental, for sentimentalism is sham love without sacrifice. Saint John was strong enough to stand with Our Lady and comfort her when the older apostles had fled the crucifixion. The Beloved Apostle says in his second letter, and reiterates in his third, that those who are not faithful to the truth should be separated from those who are. “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him, for whoever greets him shares in his evil works (2 John 1:10-11).” By so saying, he does not slip into sentimentalism, and he prefigures the dictum of Saint John Paul II in a general audience of November 8, 1978, that “there is no love without justice.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen phrased it earlier: “Justice without love could become tyranny, and love without justice could become toleration of evil.” That pastiche of love claims to feel your pain while inflicting it, and comforts you while destroying you.
Few verses in all literature match Saint Paul’s hymn to love (1 Cor. 13). But to cherry pick the apostle’s words in order to show God’s mercy, to the exclusion of what he says earlier is to emasculate his exaltation of sacrificial love: “What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked person from among you” (1 Cor. 5:12). Had Paul demurred from telling truth to Caesar in hope of bringing him to a better frame of mind and parading with him on festive days through the Forum, he could have kept his head, at least for a while.
These thoughts came to mind when the governor of Virginia was attacked from all sides for allegations of racism, an offense against human dignity, while his publicly avowed permission to kill babies born as well as unborn, has been neuralgicly downplayed. Grounds for demanding his resignation were not based on infanticide, but on his sophomoric prancing about in blackface. The media overwhelmingly demurred from commenting on the governor’s justification of infanticide, saying one way or another that they did not have enough facts. Such lack did not prevent them from ranting against some racially demeaning yearbook photographs with another figure dressed as a Klansman. The media have given that more publicity in a few days than it ever gave a photograph of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger addressing the Ku Klux Klan. That image is said to have been “Photoshopped” but Sanger did address a women’s branch of the Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, albeit uncomfortably; and she minced no words about her eugenics.
As a pediatric neurologist, Governor Northam spoke with clinical detachment about “comforting” babies that survived abortion: “The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensure between the physician and the mother.” He did not explain what the discussion would include but, in contemporary America, it certainly would echo the moral desolation and self-inflicted punishment of depraved Babylon: “…they will have no mercy on infants, nor will they look with compassion on children” (Isaiah 13:18). As for medical qualifications, and prescinding from imputations of absolute equivalence, it is sobering to recall that Joseph Mengele had degrees in anthropology and medicine (cum laude) from the universities of Munich and Frankfurt, and worked as an abortionist in Brazil after the war, just as Vilis Kruze, an SS officer and physician, did in Ohio and Hawaii. Abortionists seem to have an international and ageless fraternity of their own.
Governor Northam’s kind of comfort was not that of Bishop Odo prodding his troops, for it was rather in the line of sedation before annihilation, and a nursery version of Otto von Bismarck’s protocol: “Every courtesy as far as the gallows.”
Justin Fairfax, Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, is a former Planned Parenthood official and is even more aggressively pro-infanticide than Northam. For all of their ilk, when it comes to “comfort,” they are like scornful Humpty Dumpty: “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” There are those of intractable moral confusion who would vote for those whose mastery of words removes the adverb “not” from the commandments of God.
Confounding attempts to pigeonhole the abortion scandal as a moral tumult only in the minds of Catholics, there are other voices from different platforms, including John Calvin who was anything but a friend of Catholicism: “…the unborn, though enclosed in the womb of his mother, is already a human being, and it is an almost monstrous crime to rob it of life which it has not yet begun to enjoy. If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his most secure place of refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy the unborn in the womb before it has come to light” (Commentary on Exodus 21:22). The moral probity of killing an infant after birth was beneath consideration.
At the ordination of a bishop, a Book of the Gospels is placed on the head of the Bishop-Elect, for he is to be subservient to the Word of God in order to serve the People of God. There have been admirable bishops who edify by the simple clarity of their discipline. Among them, Bishop Thomas Daly wrote in a pastoral letter of February 1, 2019: “Politicians who reside in the Catholic Diocese of Spokane, and who obstinately persevere in their public support for abortion, should not receive Communion without first being reconciled to Christ and the Church.”
Vacuous comforters may cajole their flocks with congenial platitudes, but there is no strength in that. (Risus infundat in ora stultorum / “Fools are full of laughter.”) There is a long line of those who confuse sycophancy with prophecy, whose operative ambition is their own comfort and the solace of approval by those who are as superficial as they are. “…I saw the oppressions that are done under the sun, and the tears of the innocent, and they had no comforter; and they were not able to resist their violence, being destitute of help from any” (Ecclesiastes 4:1).
Fr. George W. Rutler is pastor of St. Michael’s church in New York City. He is the author of many books including Principalities and Powers: Spiritual Combat 1942-1943 (South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press) and Hints of Heaven (Sophia Institute Press). His latest books are He Spoke To Us (Ignatius, 2016); The Stories of Hymns (EWTN Publishing, 2017); and Calm in Chaos (Ignatius, 2018).
Cuomo Distorts Truth About Abortion Bill February 7, 2019Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on an op-ed in today’s New York Timesby New York Governor Andrew Cuomo:
No public official in America is more pro-abortion than New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. He proved that again today when he penned a rousing op-ed in the New York Times defending abortion at any time and for virtually any reason. He also distorted the truth about the bill he championed.
Cuomo says that bills like the one he signed “merely codify existing federal law and firmly established practices.” Nonsense.
Cuomo’s bill goes beyond Roe v. Wade by allowing babies born alive as a result of a botched abortion to die without medical intervention. It also allows persons who never went to medical school to perform abortions: The 1973 decision does not authorize non-physicians to perform abortions.
Cuomo says his bill permits abortion after 24 weeks “only when a woman’s life or health is threatened or at risk.” He knows exactly what that means. It means that any abortionist can “decide” that the woman’s mental health may be at risk—she may suffer depression—if she has to take care of the baby she doesn’t want.
Amherst professor and Catholic League advisory board member Hadley Arkes has a piece today in The Catholic Thing that recalls what happened in the 1970s when a child survived an abortion for twenty days. Did the attending doctor have an obligation to save the baby?
Arkes notes that Circuit Court Judge Clement Haynsworth ruled that once the woman decides she wants her child aborted, “the fetus in this case was not a person whose life state law could protect.” Arkes rightly explains that “In other words, the right to an abortion was the right to an ‘effective abortion’ or a dead child.”
Cuomo obviously sides with Haynsworth, which is why his bill would allow for infanticide. He should admit it and stop pretending otherwise.
Would anyone in his right mind allow a dental assistant to do a root canal? Why, then, is it morally acceptable to allow non-physicians to perform abortions? If, as often happens, there are complications—the woman is bleeding badly and needs a doctor to attend to her—how will the staff explain to her family that they did not have the training to help her?
If Cuomo’s defense of this bill isn’t objectionable enough, his history of trotting out his Catholic credentials—which are now in tatters—is obnoxious. He tells us again about being an altar boy, as if that gives him a pass to publicly flout the Church’s teaching on abortion.
“My Roman Catholic values are my personal values,” Cuomo says. Not true. Roman Catholic values, as noted in the Catechism, do not support acts which are “intrinsically evil.” Abortion is at the top of that list.
Cuomo digs himself in even deeper when he contends that he makes decisions “based on my personal moral and religious beliefs.” But those religious beliefs are not in any way Catholic, at least not when it comes to issues like abortion and marriage.
Echoing his father, Mario, he says, “I do not believe that religious values should drive political positions.” But abortion is about biology, not religion. Is Cuomo allowing his religion to drive his objections to the death penalty? Both he and the Catholic Church are opposed to it.
Worse still is Cuomo’s contrived victim status.
Citing his allegiance to separation of church and state, he says “the country cannot function if religious officials are dictating policy to elected officials.” Who is dictating policy to him? He mentions New York Archbishop Timothy Cardinal Dolan in his article. If he has evidence that Dolan is dictating to him, he should hold a press conference and share it with us. Otherwise, he needs to stop with the drama.
Telling the truth about this subject is a real challenge for Cuomo. He writes that most Catholics, like most Americans, support Roe v. Wade. Wrong. That decision allows abortion for virtually any reason through term, and that is not what most Americans want.
In 2013, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that seven in ten Americans believe Roe should stand (this is the kind of survey Cuomo leans on). But when asked whether there should be exceptions, 67 percent said there should be, thus disagreeing with what Roe allows.
In 2015, I commissioned a survey of Catholics on a range of issues. The survey found that 17% said abortion should be prohibited in all circumstances; 17% said it should be legal only to save the life of the mother; and 27% said it should be legal only in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. That’s 61% who are mostly pro-life and who disagree with Roe.
In 2018, Gallup found that a majority of Americans, 53%, said that abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances (35%) or in no circumstances (18%). This means that most Americans reject abortion-on-demand, thus rejecting the sweeping scope of Roe.
For reasons that only he can explain, Cuomo has laid anchor on abortion, promoting it with a vigor that is unnerving even to those who are “pro-choice.” He needs to talk to someone. A priest would help.Contact Melissa DeRosa, secretary to the governor: melissa.derosa@exec.ny.gov Phone: 212-371-3191 E-mail: pr@catholicleague.org
ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP 
You must be logged in to post a comment.