PITY THE POOR PRIESTS

Posted on October 8, 2017 by abyssum

Thursday, September 28, 2017

To Sign or Not to Sign

I have been asked to sign the Filial Correction, I signed the letter of the 45 academics and pastors last year, and almost immediately found Cardinal Nichols’ tanks parked on my lawn to inform me of his displeasure, which was quite mild unlike other lay signatories, who were sacked from their jobs in Catholic institutions for their pains, Dr. Josef Seifertis being the most high profile. I admit it, I am afraid to sign and I know other priests who share my fear. Many of those who might have signed have in the last four years have a certain fear about their place in the Church.

Rome and those surrounding the Pontiff have certainly become more vicious in defending him, never ever engaging in intellectual arguments, merely attacking like ravenous wolves or child bullies those who pose questions. The climate is bad throughout the Church, in Rome it is positively toxic. Under Francis the Vatican has become a place of fear and arbitrary oppression, there was a public glimpse of that in the sacking of Cdl Mueller by the Pope, and earlier in the dismissal of a couple of priests from the CDF and amongst laymen of Libero Milone, former Auditor General and many others. It is not just in theology that 2+2=5, or whatever number the Pope chooses that day, it extends to morality and ordinary human decency, ultimately it is a serious attack on the rationality of the Catholic faith and intellectual rigour.

The abusive attacks on any one who asks legitimate filial questions or even of people like Cardinal Burke and the other “Dubia Cardinas” or even Cdls Sarah or Mueller by the likes Austen Ivereigh, Rosica or Spadaro merely echo the statements of the notoriously immoderate Cardinal Madriaga the senior member of the Pope’s Council of Nine or the shocking insults always aimed at faithful Catholics by the Pope himself. Let us not even go to the shenanigans and manipulation surrounding the Synod on the Family

The men who rule the Church are not even in the worldly sense good, as the former Prefect of the CDF has said “power has become more important than truth”. It would be easy to dwell on the gay chem-sex parties hosted in the Vatican City itself and the advancement of those with a gay agenda, which produces apparently no reaction, not even a dismissal. In the matter of financial mismanagement and corruption, there appears to be window dressing masking inaction, John Allen seems to think this is the big issue above others. In fact, maybe because Francis centralises and 2+2 = whatever he decides, many of those in Rome suggest things have never been worse, a ‘kingdom of brigands’ as one former Nuncio described it.

Dioceses are not Rome but they do reflect Rome, Cardinals and bishops intimidate clergy and others who are faithful, if Francis has done anything it is to highlight a deep rift in the Church, marked by the quite extraordinary rise of an Ultramontane/Liberal faction against those who are faithful. Many bishops, who are often chosen for not for fidelity to Christ nor depth of learning nor moral fibre, not even their pastoral abilities but for their admin skills are quite happy to side with that faction which has power at the moment, moving Vicar of Bray-like from convinced Wojtyłaians to Ratzingeriansw to Bergoglianians..

Therefore one of the chief reasons for my reticence in signing is my fear and cowardice.

Another reason is that I like any other Catholic have a deep reverence for the person of the Sovereign Pontiff, it is not Ultramontane and unquestioning but I have a problem in directly accusing him of heresy or of promoting it, or even of tolerating it. Some might say the evidence is overwhelming, I can’t dispute that but there is a bit of me that hopes against hope, because frankly having a Pope who is heretical, promoting or tolerating heresy is so horrific for the Church I would prefer to put off admitting it. I feel more comfortable with that idea that the Pope is weak, ill, manipulated by his ministers. Certainly, the days of John Paul inadvertently misspeaking and ordering the destruction of whole editions of L’Osservatore are long gone with the coming of the internet.

I admire those who have signed, a friend who has signed said the question is WWSJFSTMD, What Would St John Fisher and St Thomas More Do?

At the moment I am like the majority of the priests I know, who remain silent and praying that the question is not put to them,

I know it is not worthy of Christ, conscience says one thing, fear and self-serving, what some might call prudence, says something else.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

IF YOU WANT TO SURVIVE THE BERGOLIAN EARTHQUAKE CLAW YOUR WAY OUT OF THE RUBBLE

Posted on October 7, 2017 by abyssum

Coming Out From Under the Asphyxiating Rubble

Maike Hickson

October 6, 2017

Since the publication of the Correctio Filialis, the public Filial Correction of Pope Francis, some things seem to be accelerating in the Catholic Church. As I dared to say on the night of the first breaking of the news – on the eve of the 24^th of September – there was before our eyes a perceptible and great moment of Grace. Fully unexpected, this document, which then had been signed by 62 signatories (the number of signatures has now reached 233), was at once reported on a worldwide scale, at least within hours of time, for the whole world to read and to savor.

It is as if some of the asphyxiating rubble – under which we for too long now have had to live – is cracking, and ventilating, and breaking loose.

And this perceived loosening does not constrict itself only to the papacy of Pope Francis. On 5 October 2017, Professor Josef Seifert – who had published his second 2017 critique of Amoris Laetitia after having been punished for his first 2016 critique, demonstrating thereby his willingness to suffer for the truth – published an excellent article at First Things. In this article, Professor Seifert deals primarily with the fundamental problems of Amoris Laetitia with regard to Catholic moral teaching as well as the growing persecution of orthodoxy in the Church. He also makes, in passing, a noteworthy comment:

Moreover, the pope [Pope Francis] himself told the SSPX [Society of St. Pius X] that they did not—and Pope Francis acted quite rightly in this—have to subscribe to all non-dogmatic documents of the Second Vatican Council in order to be fully reintegrated in the Church. [emphasis added]

While Professor Seifert makes a reference to the SSPX in order to point out that he himself is also thus permitted to make criticisms about a non-infallible document (i.e., Amoris Laetitia), his remark has an even greater meaning. With one stroke of a pen, he defends the SSPX from the denunciations and suspicions which have lain upon them for decades. And with it, he has also pointed to the freedom that should exist in Catholic discourse about many important matters of doctrine and morals with regard to the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath.

Josef Seifert is not the first in the recent past to have made this claim about being able to criticize certain documents of the Second Vatican Council. We remind our readers here of the important statements of Archbishop Guido Pozzo – Secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei – and of Bishop Athanasius Schneider, as well as of Professor Roberto de Mattei, all three of whom have articulated the same principled guidance.

For example, Archbishop Pozzo said, in August of 2016, the following with regard to these Vatican documents: Nostra Aetate about interreligious dialogue; the decree Unitatis Redintegratio on ecumenism; and the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty:

They are not about doctrines or definitive statements, but, rather, about instructions and orienting guides for pastoral practice. One can continue to discuss these pastoral aspectsafter the canonical approval [of the SSPX], in order to lead us to further clarifications. [emphasis added]

And in December of that same year, Bishop Schneider made similar comments about the SSPX and their reasoned objections against some of the documents of the Second Vatican Council:

If the Society [of St. Pius X] has difficulties in accepting certain documents of Vatican II, one has to place that into the context of the pastoral objective of the Council. The Dogma has not changed. We have the same Faith. Thus, there is no problem to integrate canonically the Society of St. Pius X. [emphasis added]

Bishop Schneider also said that an agreement with the SSPX “would only be an act of rendering justice – quite belatedly – to the unjust suppression of the Society in 1975 on the part of the Holy See.” What Bishop Schneider shows here is that the SSPX has not objected to elements of the Church’s teaching that are infallible and binding upon the faithful, but only those that are parts of pastoral considerations that very well may be publicly criticized. The parallel to our current resistance against certain statements of Amoris Laetitia is based upon the same logical foundation. We, too, are not objecting to any infallible doctrines of the Church.

In February of 2017, Bishop Schneider further explained his position with regard to the Second Vatican Council. As we then reported, Bishop Schneider said the following:

When asked about the Second Vatican Council, Schneider showed that “the Council was primarily – as repeatedly stated even by Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI – a pastoral council; not a doctrinal or dogmatic council;” and he added “so it was the intention of the Church notto give with its documents a definitive teaching.” Schneider continues: “And so when there is no definitive teaching, there can be some development of these issues still, or even some corrections. And this is normal.” [my emphasis]

With his repeated comments, Bishop Schneider also invites a freer discourse about matters of moment for the Church which will have lasting effects on the very life of the Church. He continues, saying: “And so we should create an atmosphere of discussions even on the issues of Vatican II. It is not against the authority of the Magisterium [to do so].” [emphasis added] In Schneider’s eyes, we have had, in the last 50 or 60 years, “a very unhealthy, extreme attitude to accept or to interpret and look at Vatican II and its documents almost as infallible, ex cathedra. And this is not true.” [my emphasis]

Last but not least, Professor Roberto de Mattei wrote in August of 2017 the following trenchant words about the Second Vatican Council, also in light of the message of Our Lady of Fatima:

On the historical level, however, Vatican II constitutes a non-decomposable block: It has its own unity, its essence, its nature. Considered in its origins, its implementation and consequences, it can be described as a Revolution in mentality and language, which has profoundly changed the life of the Church, initiating a moral and religious crisis without precedent. If the theological judgment may be vague and comprehensive, the judgment of history is merciless and without appeal. The Second Vatican Council was not only unsuccessful or a failure: it was a catastrophe for the Church. [emphasis added]

So now that we have four eminent and loyal Catholics – two clergymen and two lay professors – speaking thus to us, let us open up a full and free debate about what in the recent teaching of the Catholic Church has brought good fruit and what has rendered the Catholic Faith hampered and more lifeless. Here we can even refer to Pope Benedict XVI, who, after his very controversial retirement, himself pointed to the consequences of some of the new teachings when he said, in March of 2016:

The missionaries of the 16th century were convinced that the unbaptized person is lost forever. After the [Second Vatican] Council, this conviction was definitely abandoned. The result was a two-sided, deep crisis. Without this attentiveness to the salvation, the Faith loses its foundation. [emphasis added]

Pope Benedict – who had eight years’ time in his papal office to correct all these deviations with authoritative force, but who also seems, at the same time, to have been himself a major figure during the conduct of that that consequential Vatican Council – adds that this “evolution of Dogma” (an impermissible thing in itself) has now manifestly led to a “loss of the missionary zeal” in the Catholic Church. And he then asked the piercing question: “Why should you try to convince the people to accept the Christian faith when they can be saved even without it?” [emphasis added] But the pope does not stop after posing that question, and he even goes one step further, saying that when there are those people who are able to save their souls without the Christian belief, “why should the Christian be bound to the necessity of the Christian Faith and its morality?” [emphasis added]

Here Pope Benedict, unfortunately, does not continue his candid path of speaking the truth, but he, rather, keeps this challenging discussion somewhat abstractly open to further reflection and dialogue, instead of forcefully calling and requiring the Church to return to her infallible doctrines, among them being that there is no salvation outside the Church. At the same time, he points to the moral consequences of an “ecumenism” of “openness” and “plurality” which have had adverse effects, not only with regard to the missionary zeal of the Church, but also with regard to the specific conduct of the Catholic faithful themselves. When a Protestant can save his soul even while his own denomination teaches him that one may break one’s marriage, why, then, should a Catholic hold himself to a higher standard? Thus, the doctrinal, historical, and cultural relativism with regard to ecumenism and ecclesiology has also had an effect upon the moral teaching of the Church.

As I wrote recently:

Here, I would like to add one last question. How is it that, in 2000, the Vatican would declarethat the Protestant and Orthodox churches are still, somehow, members of the Catholic Church, while these same churches do not abide by Our Lord’s specific teaching on marriage? Neither its indissolubility nor its sacramentality, for instance?

Brother Andre Marie, M.I.C.M., recently made a similar point, putting it in much better words, in view of his own theological learning:

The attack on marriage and the family is a mystical unfolding of the attack on the exclusive relationship of fidelity between Jesus Christ and His Spouse, the Catholic Church.

Terrestrial marriage — even as a Christian Sacrament — is an image of this greater relationship between the Divine Bridegroom and his mystical Bride, as Saint Paul shows us (Eph. 5:22-33; cf. Also, Cant. 6:8 and the way this passage is employed by Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam).

When the faithful are lied to and assured that Jesus Christ can have “multiple wives” in all the heretical Christian sects (some of whose anniversary is wickedly being celebrated by Catholics now), and that even the unbaptized are “God’s children,” then it is logical and reasonable that Christian marriage cannot be long protected. [emphasis added]

Brother Andre Marie points out here that the doctrinal crisis precedes the current moral crisis (the latter of which, as Josef Seifert highlights in his First Things article, also goes back now for some decades).

It is my experience in many conversations with well-meaning, courteous and generous high-ranking Catholics with influence over Catholic discourse – clergymen and laymen alike – that when one starts asking such questions to them as were put here above, they often softly agree or at least do not really know how to respond amply and honestly. It is a sign for me that they, too, have been caught in this sort of skewed or attenuated teaching that is not fully based on Catholic truth and reality. As with every ideology, however, it will not abide and persevere for long – as our friends and acquaintances from former communist countries can confirm – because an ideology is contradicted by reality and because Grace is not attached to it. (I for myself have experienced in my own lifetime the point where ideologies fell off my soul, as it were, as soon as I came in touch with grace-filled truth. That has occurred in many areas!)

I am thus encouraged also by OnePeterFive‘s 5 October 2017 article written by Aaron Seng about the parallels between Lumen Gentium and Amoris Laetitia. So many Catholics, from so many directions, are starting to ask clear questions, to express criticism and thus to contribute to an honest, loyal and well-reasoned discourse within the Faith. We may not fear that such discourse would undermine the Catholic Church’s authority. On the contrary, only if we return to the fullness of her teaching – as taught infallibly by many popes over the centuries (also in the form of the ordinary universal magisterium, as Father John Hardon, S.J., used to highlight*) – will we gratefully gain the fitting fruits and the fullness of the Faith and help increase the radiant life of the Faith.

This form of free and disciplined discourse should not shun someone’s speaking out about the recent popes and about some of their own confusing or erroneous statements. While I well understand that some conservative Catholics have considered it wrong in any way to criticize their popes publicly at a time of cultural upheaval, I do think that the same principle is to be applied to them as it is to be applied to Pope Francis: the truth, as well as our loyalty toward Christ’s teaching, comes first. The basis for unity is truth. It is, for example, in this context, to be discussed why certain progressivists who are now taking the lead under Pope Francis were ever made cardinals in the first place. Why did Walter Kasper and Karl Lehmann, for example, receive the “red hat” from Pope John Paul II in spite of their known and public heterodoxies?

There are so many aspects that could still be discussed. There are, indeed, so many elements to be re-discovered. I remember one priest – from a diocesan parish – who had finally turned to the traditional Latin Mass. He once gave my family and me a blessing, saying that ever since he discovered how highly the stigmatist Therese Neumann of Konnersreuth valued the blessing of a priest, he is much more inclined generously to give out those blessings. The Catholic Church has so many ways to extend blessings and Grace to mankind. May she soon more fully find her way back to her own old and enduring convictions that stem from Christ Himself (“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by Me.”) and may she soon give us back all the devotions, liturgies, blessings, prayers, words and silences that the world so direly needs.

Let us thus come out from under the stifling rubble and, on the way, also clear our minds of cant, often asphyxiating cant!

* I would now like to quote here, ten years before he died in late 2000, Father John A. Hardon’s own 1990 criticism of the final draft of the proposed Catechism of the Catholic Church, which he once also shared with my husband, Dr. Robert Hickson. In that commentary the Jesuit priest and teacher of dogmatic and moral theology said the following:

As already noted, the authors of the “Revised Draft” [of the Catechism of the Catholic Church] do indeed speak of “the infallibility of the apostolic magisterium.” But this minuscule statement not only fails to explain the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. It ignores such infallibility with devastating consequences to a large part of the Church’s irreversible teaching, especially in the vast area of personal and social morality.

Most of the dissenters from the Church’s teachings in the twentieth century have rejected the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. Every single moral law governing the fifth, sixth and ninth commandments has been called into question. Contraception and abortion, fornication and adultery, masturbation and homosexuality are being defended by nominally Catholic writers and educators. Why? Because it is claimed that the Church has never spoken infallibly on these matters.

The “Revised Draft” of the proposed Universal Catechism supports this view by its silence on the infallibility of the ordinary universal magisterium. [Even] The Second Vatican Council’s teaching on this crucial matter [in Lumen Gentium 25] is by-passed as though it did not exist.

(25-26) [Moreover,] The Church has the divine right to defend the unchangeable natural [moral] law, as Pope Paul VI declared in Humanae Vitae. It is irrelevant that so much of this doctrine has never been taught by the Church’s extraordinary magisterium. It has been taught infallibly by the Church’s ordinary universal magisterium. Yet the “Revised Draft” has chosen to ignore this indispensable truth of the Catholic faith. One plausible reason for this omission is to avoid taking a definite stand on such allegedly controversial matters as contraception and extramarital sexual relations. [emphasis added]

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

LIBERAL PROTESTANTISM WROTE THE BOOK ON HOW TO DESTROY A CHURCH, NOW SOME BISHOPS ARE PROMOTING IT

Posted on October 7, 2017 by abyssum

Cardinal Joseph Tobin speaks to the ‘LGBT Pilgrimage’ at his cathedral in Newark. Fr. James Martin / Facebook

OPINION CATHOLIC CHURCHFri Oct 6, 2017 – 7:13 pm EST

How to Destroy Catholicism in America

By David Carlin

Anti-Christianity , Catholic Church , Liberal Protestantism

October 6, 2017 (The Catholic Thing) – May I respectfully recommend a study of the history of liberal Protestantism in the USA? You will soon see that today’s liberal Catholics are traveling down the same road that liberal Protestants traveled down earlier – that is, a road to destruction.

It’s hard to blame the old Protestants for what they did, for they didn’t know where this road led. They were pioneers, they were cutting a path in the religious wilderness. They feared that traditional Christianity was becoming unbelievable; that if they didn’t modernize their religion by dropping certain old-fashioned doctrines, modern men and women would no longer be able to accept Christianity.

As it turned out, to modernize Christianity, at least if you carry this modernization process beyond a certain limited point, is to destroy it. Look at the liberal Protestant denominations today. All of them are shrinking rapidly in numbers. All of them have lost much of their once-great social influence.

But liberal Catholics don’t have this excuse. They can’t very well say, “We didn’t know where our liberalism was taking the Church.” For they have the precedent of liberal Protestantism in front of them. Their ignorance is vincible – and culpable.

Liberal Christians, beginning with the Boston Unitarians of the late 1700s and early 1800s, always “improve” Christianity according to the same pattern. The pattern is this: You attempt to blend what seems to you to be the essentials of Christianity with the best in whatever happens to be the fashionable anti-Christianity of the day. This synthesis, partly Christian and partly anti-Christian, will, of course, be incoherent; but at the moment you’re creating it, it looks pretty good.

In the generation after the American Revolution, the fashionable form of anti-Christianity was Deism. And so the Boston Unitarians said in effect, “While Deism is very wrong in its rejection of Christianity, the Deists, it must be admitted, make a few good points. So let’s toss out the Trinity and the Divinity of Christ and Original Sin. We’ll then have a purified Christianity.”

In the post-Civil War era, the fashionable form of anti-Christianity was a triple-headed threat: (1) agnosticism; (2) evolutionary theory; plus (3) a skeptical higher criticism of the Bible. Liberal Protestants responded by becoming near-agnostics while arguing that Christianity is far more about morality than knowledge: doctrine is of little real importance.

They became evolutionists, holding not just that biological species have evolved (under God’s guidance) but that religion itself has evolved, Christianity being but its latest result, and we should expect more evolution in the future. As for the Bible . . . oh, well. It abounds in errors, but it’s still a very good book.

In the 1960s and 1970s the fashionable form of anti-Christianity was the sexual revolution – a total rejection of traditional Christian sexual morality and, by implication, a rejection of virtually all the rest of Christian teaching; for if Christianity had been wrong for all these centuries about sex, wasn’t it likely that it was wrong about almost everything else?

As usual, liberal Protestants responded by blending Christianity (what was left of it) with this form of anti-Christianity, announcing that Christianity, correctly understood, was perfectly compatible with fornication, homosexuality, and abortion.

Liberal Protestant thinkers remind me of certain U.S. Supreme Court justices. The latter “find” things in the Constitution that aren’t there (e.g., rights to abortion and same-sex marriage). The former “find” things in the Bible that aren’t there. They claim that the Bible, rightly understood, mandates the watering down of Biblical religion and morality.

It’s as if the most important teaching of the Bible is, “Don’t take the Bible too seriously.” In reality, of course, they find these new “truths” not in the Bible but in the anti-Christianity that happens to be flourishing at the moment, much as some German Protestants in the 1930s “found” – mirabile dictu – that the Bible justified Nazism.

Anybody familiar with the history of modernizing Protestantism cannot help but see this same thing going on today among many Catholics. Catholics, it is true, are moving in this direction only gradually, and this for a few reasons.

For one, they got into the game much later than Protestants did. Second, the RC Church still has bishops in places of authority, even though many bishops are reluctant, or unable, to wield their authority. Third, the Nicene or Apostles Creed is still recited at Mass, which serves as an obstacle to kicking orthodoxy completely out the door.

Orthodox Catholic morality, however, especially sexual morality, is not included in the Creeds. And so it’s easier to get rid of. You get rid of it in three steps.

Step one: silence. You don’t talk about it, or you very rarely talk about it. Most Catholic leaders today are shy about teaching Catholic sexual doctrine. In some cases, this is because they don’t really believe in it, but in most cases it is probably because they don’t want to offend folks in the pews. When it comes to the sexual behavior of gays and lesbians, our leaders know that public opinion increasingly views it as shockingly un-American or un-Christian to disapprove of homosexual sodomy.

Step two: you modify that old saying about “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Instead, you love the sinner so much that don’t bother mentioning the sin, for that would hurt the feelings of the well-loved sinner, and that would be a sin against Christian charity, wouldn’t it? The most conspicuous example of this today is the small book by Fr. James Martin, S.J., Building a Bridge. Fr. Martin tells us he is fully orthodox. I don’t doubt his sincerity, but I know, having studied the history of liberal Protestantism, where Fr. Martin, whatever his intentions may be, is leading us.

Step three: you declare that the Church will eventually, maybe 50 or 100 years from now, come around to your opinion. You argue that your apparent heresy is really nothing but premature orthodoxy.

That’s the sure-fire, historically proven way to destroy the Catholic religion in America.

David Carlin is professor of sociology and philosophy at the Community College of Rhode Island, and the author of The Decline and Fall of the Catholic Church in America.

This article was originally published on The Catholic Thing and is re-published with permission

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

BABY KILLING CONTINUES EVEN AS THE NATION’S BIRTHRATE FALLS BELOW THE REPLACEMENT LEVEL.

Posted on October 7, 2017 by abyssum

unnamed-27

{ Emphasis and {commentary} in red type by Abyssum }

Pro-abortion writer Robin Marty is distressed that both liberal and conservative media sources are routinely using the phrase “late-term abortion.” Writing in Cosmopolitan Magazine this week, in response to the U.S. House vote to ban most abortions after 20 weeks, she laments that, “There is no specific medical definition for a ‘late-term abortion,’ and because of that abortion opponents are using it to mean anything they want.”

Marty argues that the use of the term “late” is medically “inaccurate” because some medical textbooks only refer to “late-term” pregnancies as those that have reached “41 weeks to 41 weeks, 6 days.” Presumably Marty dislikes the term “late” because it invokes emotionally fraught images of fully-formed babies being aborted – the sort of thing that tends to turn the public’s stomachs (and opinions) against abortion.

Now, medical professionals may well have their own reasons for only referring to a pregnancy as “late” at around 41 weeks. But polls show that the average person instinctively understands that when an abortion happens after, say, around 18 weeks, this is very, very late indeed. “Early” and “late” are entirely relative terms: but it’s the rare person who thinks any abortion that involves tearing limbs off a living baby with all his organs and features fully developed is anything but “late.”

Contrary to Marty’s concerns, the most depressing thing about the debate over “late-term” abortion is that it is even happening in the 21st Century, when medical advances have revealed the unborn child to public view through the power of the ultrasound, {and live video showing the child in utero from shortly after conception to moments before natural birth} and when children born as early as 22 weeks gestation routinely survive.

Calling Things by Their Proper Names

Unfortunately, part of the reason that we are still having this debate is that abortion supporters have a history of being devilishly clever at controlling the debate by controlling the language we use. If language is power (and it is), then abortion supporters have at times held the trump card. St. Pope John Paul II eloquently identified this phenomenon in Evangelium Vitae, writing:

[W]e need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as “interruption of pregnancy”, which tends to hide abortion’s true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence… (Evangelium Vitae, 58)

Just consider the following stock pro-abortion phrases: blob of tissue, products of pregnancy, terminate a pregnancy, interrupt a pregnancy, evacuate the contents of the uterus, reproductive freedom, reproductive health care, reproductive choice, potential life, incompatible with life, my body my choice, a woman’s right to choose, I’m ‘personally’ against abortion but…, anti-choice.

Death Peddlers Hope You Will Ignore the Truth

Every one of these phrases is nothing more than a clever euphemism designed for one purpose: to divert the attention of the listener from the real thing [act] behind the words. The purpose of language is to convey meaning. But rather than transmitting meaning, these phrases are veils, smoke screens. Their sole purpose is to bypass the critical faculties of the listener, and instead to appeal to emotion or ideology.

Consider, for instance, “products of pregnancy.” Abortion supporters insist that this is the “correct” term for what the abortionist removes from the womb of the woman on whom he is performing an abortion. In one sense, the term is accurate. The abortionist does indeed remove the “products of pregnancy.” But the natural follow-up question is, “What are the products of pregnancy?”

The answer – “a baby”! Which is highly inconvenient for the pro-abortion cause and why abortion supporters are careful to ensure that nobody ever asks that question.

We’ve heard an exact replica of Marty’s argument before. In 2003, Katha Pollitt, writing in The Nation in 2003, complained about the widespread use of the term “partial-birth abortion,” saying that it “has no precise medical meaning and cannot be found in any medical text.”

Maybe you won’t find it in any medical textbook, but if the purpose of language is to convey meaning, then the term “partial-birth abortion” is far more precise. Certainly it is preferable to Pollitt’s preferred alternative – “dilation and extraction (D&E)” – which means almost nothing to the average person.

In fact, if Pollitt really wanted “accuracy,” it would have been far better simply to describe the procedure itself. Perhaps something like this: a baby’s mother is induced; the baby is half delivered such that his torso is outside of his mother’s birth canal but the head still in, at which point the abortionist punctures the skull of the living baby, and vacuums out his brain, then delivers the corpse to be disposed of in the trash.

If the media had used this description every time they used the term “partial-birth abortion,” I suspect the debate over partial-birth abortion would have been much shorter than it was.

Woe to Them That Call Evil Good and Good Evil

Language matters. Christ is described by St. John as “the Word.” The Word had the power to radically change the course of human history, to have a profound effect upon our own salvation. The Word is Truth. And insofar as our words are true, they participate in the Word.

When we speak of abortion, then, let us take care to speak the truth, to – as St. Pope John Paul II said – “call things by their proper names.” The products of pregnancy are a “baby.” To “evacuate the contents of the uterus” is to kill a living human child. To perform a “late” abortion is to kill a baby with all of his organs perfectly developed, and, in many cases, so developed that he could live outside the womb, and kick, and cry, and suck his thumb: a baby that science shows will likely feel the excruciating pain of being ripped apart, limb from limb, by the abortionist.

Truth be told, every single abortion that takes place after the moment of conception is a “late” abortion. That is because, when it comes to the intrinsic value of a human being, there is no “early” or “late.” A ninety-year-old has no more innate human dignity or right to life than a one-year-old, or an unborn baby at 10 weeks gestation, or a baby just conceived. To kill any one of these is to destroy a universe unto itself: an autonomous, individual, utterly unique human person with an immortal soul created by God.

Fortunately, during this recent debate in the U.S. House, there were those who were unafraid to speak truth, like Rep. Sean Duffy, who castigated pro-abortion Democrats for speaking endlessly about “compassion,” whilst ignoring the plight of the unborn.

“Can’t we come together and say we are going to stand with little babies that feel pain, that survive outside the womb?” he told Congress. “Ones that don’t have lobbyists and money? Don’t we stand with those little babies?”

He added: “If you stand with the defenseless, with the voiceless, you have to stand with little babies. Don’t talk to me about cruelty in our bill – when you look at little babies being dismembered, feeling excruciating pain, if we can’t stand to defend these children, what do we stand for in this institution?”

Amen.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST, WHY NOT SHOOT 250 PEOPLE, KILLING OVER 50?

Posted on October 6, 2017 by abyssum

Patrick J. Buchanan by Paul Buck/AFP/Getty Images

The Dead Soul of Stephen Paddock

Friday – October 6, 2017

By Patrick J. Buchanan

[ Emphasis and {commentary} in red type by Abyssum ]

{There is a lot to like and admire about Patrick J. Buchanan. There is also some aspects of his personality that one cannot help but dislike. I discovered this some years ago when I was seated next to him at the head table of the Rose Dinner following the March For Life in Washington, D.C. Our conversation was enjoyable until the subject of immigration came up. Then I was shocked to discover that he was a passionate xenophobe. As a Catholic Bishop I was shocked to hear a Catholic express such hostility toward immigrants, legal and illegal, to the United States. Perhaps the fact that I was, at that time, Chairman of the National Conference of Bishops Committee on Migration and Refugees added to my discomfort. I tried to reason with him, but there was no way I could cause him to modify his hostility so I changed the subject. There was a little tension between us for the rest of the meal.

That being said, I am printing this article by Patrick Buchanan which appeared on his website today because I agree with what he wrote.}

……

What was his motive? Why did he do it?

Why did Stephen Paddock, 64, rent rooms at the Mandalay Bay hotel, sneak in an arsenal of guns, a dozen of them converted to fully automatic, and rain down death on a country music concert?

“We will never know,” writes columnist Eugene Robinson.

“There can be no rational argument for mass murder … nothing can really explain the decision to spray thousands of concert-goers with automatic weapons fire, killing at least 59 and injuring hundreds more.”

But while there can be no justification for mass murder, there is an explanation. And like Edgar Allan Poe’s “Purloined Letter,” it is right there in front of us, in plain sight.

Having chosen to end his life, Paddock resolved to go out in a blaze of publicity. This nobody would leave this life as somebody we would have to remember. He would immortalize himself, as did Lee Harvey Oswald.

Reportedly, Paddock even filmed himself during his massacre.

Ex-Marine sniper Charles Whitman, who murdered his wife and mother, and then climbed up into the Texas University Tower in Austin, 50 years ago, to shoot down 46 people and kill 15, is the prototype.

Whitman’s slaughter ended after 96 minutes when a cop climbed up in that tower and shot him. Yet, half a century on, Whitman remains famous. Many of us can yet recall his name and face.

Like Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold before Columbine, and Dylan Roof before his sickening atrocity at the black church in Charleston, Paddock wanted to live on as one of the great mass murderers in U.S. history. And he has succeeded. We are today paying him in the currency he craved. He is famous, and we have made him so.

Monday, the president spoke at the White House on the “act of pure evil” Paddock perpetrated Sunday night. Network and cable TV anchors and correspondents stampeded to Las Vegas to dig into his background and motivation.

Commentators discoursed on the meaning of it all. Congress is aflame with demands for gun laws against “bump stocks” that turn semiautomatic AR-15s and AK-47s to fully automatic. Paddock’s deeds pushed Puerto Rico and North Korea out of the headlines. By Wednesday, Trump himself was in Vegas. Five days later, police and FBI are still searching for the “motive.”

Whatever caused Paddock to conclude that ending his life was preferable to living it is not the crucial question. Suicides are not uncommon in America. About 3 of every 4 are carried out by white males; 121 are committed daily, with gunshot a common method.

The real question is what turned Paddock into a psychopath without conscience or a moral code that would scream to him that what he was planning was pure evil.

Unlike ISIS terrorists who believe they are soldiers of Islam doing the will of Allah, and will achieve paradise for slaughtering infidels, Stephen Paddock did not believe anything like this.

He coolly and patiently plotted mass murder almost for sport. He rented a hotel suite with windows overlooking a coming country music concert, his fighting fort. He ferried in, over five days, half his home arsenal of 40-some guns, with the semi-automatic assault rifles modified to fire fully automatic. He installed cameras to alert him to when police were about to break in and kill him. Then he smashed the windows on his 32nd floor suite, and began firing for 12 minutes.

Paddock murdered 59 people he did not know and against whom he had no grievance. How did he come to be a man who treated fellow humans as vermin? And does this say something about our civilization?

In “The Brothers Karamazov,” novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky has his character Ivan say, “If God is dead, all things are permissible.”

What Ivan meant is that if God does not exist, the idea of God’s law, of heaven or hell as reward or punishment, is nonsense. And if it is, there is no man-made law that can deter men who have decided to “end it all.”

Consider. Nevada has a death penalty for the mass murder Paddock was preparing to commit. But as he had already decided to end his life after shooting scores of innocent people, no death penalty or any other threatened state punishment could deter him.

Why not carry out his atrocity and end his life knowing that, within days, all of America would know who Stephen Paddock was?

In Shakespeare, Hamlet declares, “Conscience doth make cowards of us all.” And so, fearing damnation, Hamlet recoils from ending his life or exacting revenge on the king he believes seduced his mother into complicity in the murder of his father.

In Stephen Paddock, the conscience was dead. He was a dead soul, a moral nihilist, a post-Christian man in a post-Christian age, a monster.

Yet, we are going to see more such men, for we no longer have a convincing answer to that oldest of questions, “Why not?”

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

BRIDGE BUILDING IS A SCIENCE NOT AN ART

Posted on October 6, 2017 by abyssum

Fr. James Martin on Marriage, Sexual Morality, and the Church’s Teachings: A Solution to the Puzzle

by Robert P. George
within Marriage, Religion and the Public Square, Sexuality
Oct 05, 2017 09:00 pm http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/10/20211/

Does Fr. James Martin in fact reject the Church’s teachings on sex and marriage? If so, why does he insist that he does not?

Share this article:

For quite some time, Fr. James Martin, SJ, puzzled me, as he puzzles many Catholics still. He insists that he does not reject any of the teachings of the Catholic Church, yet when it comes to the question of marriage and same-sex sexual partnerships, he talks as if he does.

Now the Church’s teaching on these matters could not be clearer, or longer standing, or more firmly established by the Church’s magisterium, which follows the Scriptures: Marriage is the one-flesh (“conjugal”) union of husband and wife, and non-marital sexual acts—be they heterosexual or homosexual—are inherently immoral. Yet those who reject the Church’s sexual ethic and want it to change think Fr. Martin supports their view. And those who affirm the Church’s sexual ethic think Fr. Martin opposes their view. People on both sides hear in Fr. Martin’s words approval of homosexual sexual relationships—relationships that the Church teaches cannot be approved.

So the questions are: Does Fr. Martin in fact reject the Church’s teachings on sex and marriage? And if so, why does he insist that he “do[es] not reject the teachings of the Church”?

It’s a puzzle. But I think it has a solution.

A Great Communicator

Fr. Martin is an immensely gifted writer and speaker. He obviously loves being a priest and spreading the Gospel. Audiences find him engaging, funny, and winning. I met him once and found him exceptionally personable, even charming. I like him.

I also like a great deal of what he says, even in the general area in which I have found him puzzling. He fervently preaches Christ’s message of loving acceptance of everyone, and above all Christ’s particular solicitude and affection for the despised and the marginalized. To that end, Fr. Martin has made it a special mission to proclaim the need to imitate Christ’s love of our brothers and sisters who experience or act on same-sex desires. (I stand firmly with Fr. Martin in affirming this teaching and against anyone who rejects it.) He is also critical of those he regards as having failed to treat them as a follower of Christ should. When Fr. Martin wants to be unambiguous in upholding the Church’s teachings, he can be extremely clear and forceful. When he wants to condemn evildoers and evildoing, he can thunder like an Old Testament prophet.

A case in point: He harshly faults what he calls the “institutional Church” for what he regards as its history of marginalizing people who experience same-sex desires or form same-sex sexual partnerships. He has attributed most people’s opposition to redefining marriage to bigotry, compared those who won’t attend same-sex weddings to racists, and even declared that a great many critics of his approach are motivated by an anger fueled by repressed same-sex desire. And in an op-ed proving just how clear (and memorable) a communicator he can be, Fr. Martin branded some such conjugal-marriage supporters as “vicious” and “hysterical” members of “a kind of Catholic alt-right.”

Still he insists, “I do not reject the teachings of the Church.” He said exactly that when I recently described him as rejecting the Church’s moral teaching—which I did in the course of publicly supporting an invitation to him to speak at the seminary at Catholic University of America, against many Catholics’ vigorous opposition. He replied in a tweet saying that I was wrong about his views and telling me, with some measure of indignation, “Stop.” Some of his supporters took things a step further, accusing me of “lying” and calumny.

But Fr. Martin gave just the opposite impression moments later when I tweetedin reply, “Thank you, Father. May I take this, then, as an affirmation of the Church’s teaching that marriage is the conjugal union of husband and wife, and that sexual acts of any type outside the marital bond are immoral? If so, I am happy to correct what I said.” In response, I did not get a “yes.” Or a “no.” Fr. Martin fell silent, though we had just been exchanging tweets. It turns out that he always refuses to answer such questions or engage those who ask them. He simply refuses to say what the Church in fact says, namely, that though we must love those who experience and even act on same-sex desires, homosexual acts are wrong and sinful—morally and spiritually harmful to those engaging in them. And his supporters then jump in to say that those asking him to clarify his view are “attacking” him, even conducting an “inquisition.”

Again, puzzling.

What Father Refuses to Say

Now as Fr. Martin knows, I am not his enemy. Far from it: I have defended him when critics have treated him unjustly—and some have indeed been abusive toward him, as Archbishop Charles Chaput has pointed out. And I have publicly thanked Fr. Martin for upholding the Church’s teaching on the sanctity of human life, including the life of the child in the womb. I thought his open support for that teaching would alienate many of his most ardent followers—fervently devout social liberals. And indeed he took heat from them for that clear and forceful pro-life witness (as I took heat from his Catholic critics for praising and defending him).

So Fr. Martin knows I am not out to get him. On the contrary, I think he is an extraordinary talent whose witness is an enormous asset. But that witness is weakened when he gives critics fodder for easy charges of duplicity: barely veiled dissent from the Church’s teaching combined with indignant insistence that he “does not reject” it. That is why I have respectfully put this question to him.

If I am wrong, as I would love to be, about Fr. Martin’s fidelity to the Church’s teachings on marriage and sexual ethics, he could establish that instantly by saying what he so far refuses to say. Since he is willing to say abstractly, “I do not reject the teachings of the Church,” it is puzzling that he is not willing to affirm concretely (or even say that he “does not reject”) the Church’s teachings that marriage is the conjugal union of husband and wife and that non-marital sexual acts are morally wrong. It’s especially puzzling since these are issues he has made central to his work and witness—issues on which the Church’s teaching is today reviled by so many, especially among our secular cultural elite.

Preaching the Fullness of Truth

I’m glad that Fr. Martin preaches love and acceptance of fellow children of God who experience same-sex attraction, regardless of whether they act on those desires. Amen. Bravo! That’s authentic—and indispensable—Catholic teaching. Let’s shout it from the rooftops. I lament only his choice to omit another key part of the Church’s teaching. He sometimes explains his unwillingness to proclaim its teachings on marriage and sexuality by saying that everybody already knows what the Church says on those issues. But this is a poor excuse. For one thing, everyone already knows that the Church says we should love people unconditionally, yet Fr. Martin (rightly!) exhorts us time and again to live by that message. The case for preaching the Church’s good news on sex and marriage is no weaker.

Indeed, loving people fully requires us to proclaim moral truths, since living virtuously, even in the face of strong temptation, is always ennobling and liberating, and yielding to sin is always enslaving. That, too, is essential Catholic teaching. No one would be more effective at communicating that teaching than Fr. Martin. No one would be better at modeling what he himself says the “institutional Church” desperately needs to learn how to do: proclaim the Church’s teaching without alienating those with same-sex attractions or in same-sex relationships. No one possesses in greater abundance the talents needed to explain how the Church’s teachings on marriage and unconditional love are harmonious—indeed, inseparable—parts of Jesus’s Gospel of love. And explaining that link is just as essential to Fr. Martin’s chosen mission—his critical mission—of making same-sex-attracted people feel loved by Christ and at home in His Church.

So why won’t Fr. Martin do it? Some of his conservative Catholic critics think they know. Fr. Martin, they say, is a liar—a “perfidious priest.” He is simply lying, they insist, when he professes full support for the Church’s teachings. They point, for example, to his expression of “reverence” for same-sex sexual partnerships; to his comparison of conjugal-marriage supporters to racists; to his professed hope that one audience member would be free to kiss his “soon-to-be husband” at Mass; and to his proposal that the Church replace its teaching that same-sex desires are “objectively disordered” with the idea that they are “differently ordered.”

Now Fr. Martin’s critics are right that these statements are difficult to square with his insistence that he does not reject the Church’s teaching. For example, calling same-sex sexual desires or relations “differently ordered” would change the substance of the Church’s teaching and not simply its tone, as Fr. Martin supposes. “Wrongly ordered” or “not properly ordered” might be fair substitutes for “disordered,” but “differently ordered” clearly is not. If Fr. Martin thinks same-sex desires are ordered to something simply different from (and no less appropriate than) conjugal marriage, then he does reject the Church’s teaching. There’s no way around that. End of story.

Still, I think a case can be made that, whatever Fr. Martin is doing, he is not exactly lying. And where such a case can be made, I believe charity requires us to make it. (To state what should be obvious, gratuitously impugning Fr. Martin’s integrity would be deeply unjust.) If I’m right, Fr. Martin can say that he supports the Church’s teaching without saying anything he considers technically false—even if he does in fact reject the Church’s teaching on sexuality and marriage.

The Solution to the Puzzle

In other words, I think the puzzle presented by Fr. Martin’s public statements has a solution—indeed, that it has been solved. Greg Brown, a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Chicago and former assistant editor of Public Discourse, has suggested that Fr. Martin sincerely denies that the Church really does teach the immorality of homosexual conduct.

What (I hear you exclaim)? Everybody knows the Church teaches just that! As I’ve already noted, Fr. Martin himself has said everyone knows the Church teaches it. How can I (or Greg Brown) say that Fr. Martin doesn’t believe what he says everyone knows?

The answer proposed by Greg Brown appeals to Fr. Martin’s theory of what really counts as “the Church’s teaching”—what it has authoritatively taught. Indeed, Fr. Martin’s recent comments all but prove this hypothesis, thus solving the puzzle (listen to this, starting at 2:53). Here is what he says:

One of the things that I’ve, um, I’ve thought about a lot is the notion—and, you know, we’re in a theology department—the notion of, of uh, teachings being “received.” So, and uh, it’s a tradition that I think most people don’t know about, because it hasn’t been really talked about for the last 30, 40 years, nor has conscience, really, uh, but, you know, for a—briefly put, and I’m not a theologian, but, you know, for a teaching to be really, um, authoritative, it is expected that it will be received by the People of God, by the faithful.

So you look at something like, say, the Assumption. So the Assumption is declared, and people accept that. People, they go to the Feast of the Assumption, they believe in the Assumption, it’s received. From what I can tell, um, in the LGBT community, the teaching that, um, LGBT people must be celibate their entire lives—not just, you know, before marriage, as it is for most people, but their entire lives—has not been received.

Now, I say this and people go crazy. And this is simply based on LGBT people I speak to. Now there are some that believe—I would say it’s a very small percentage of people—but that’s a very simple fact. You can say that they don’t agree with it; I would say that the teaching has not been received by the community to which it was largely directed.

And so the question is, you know, what do we do with that? Now . . . that reflection, you know, what do we do with a teaching that has seemingly not been received by the community to which it was directed, is a theological question that bishops and LGBT people need to think about.

Well, there you have it! When Fr. Martin says he supports the Church’s teaching, he isn’t saying that he supports what most people mean by “the Church’s teaching,” including what the popes and bishops (or “institutional Church”) have for centuries taught on marriage and sexuality in what they themselves see as exercises of their apostolic authority. He means that he accepts the Church’s truly authoritative teaching, which he thinks does not include the propositions that homosexual conduct is immoral or even, perhaps, that marriage is exclusively the union of man and woman. Why not? Because, he says, “the community to which it was largely directed” has not “received” this teaching—at least if you discount the voice of the “small percentage” who do accept it. Or in plain English, the Church’s teaching on sexuality isn’t authenticteaching because those who’ve rejected that teaching have, well, rejected it.

So when Fr. Martin professes full support for the Church’s teaching, I believe he is making a genuine effort to avoid lying by relying—implicitly—on what some call “mental reservation” (an often dubious distinction—see 6.c here). He doesn’t reject what he sincerely regards as the Church’s real teachings—teachings “received” by more than a “small percentage” of those to whom they are “largely directed.” No, he only rejects statements that he honestly thinks aren’t fully Church teachings, even though they’re presumed to be just that, by foes and friends alike of the Church and its moral vision.

Greg Brown has ably set forth just some of the damning flaws in Fr. Martin’s understanding of what counts as an authoritative teaching of the Church. Brown’s analysis seems to me utterly decisive. My point here is merely to show that it is Fr. Martin’s understanding—his misunderstanding—of what counts as the Church’s teaching that solves the puzzle his own teaching presents.

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University and a Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

IT IS SAFER TO ASK THAN TO ASSERT WHEN WRITING ABOUT CANON LAW

Posted on October 6, 2017 by abyssum

A corrective to some of Prof. Buttiglione’s recent assertions about canon law

October 6, 2017

It is simply not possible for me to re-explain, every time I address the latest canonical misstatements proffered by some writer or another, the whole canon law on the reception of holy Communion and the administration of that Sacrament by ministers. Further information on those crucial topics is available elsewhere. Here I comment only to caution others that some of Prof. Rocco Buttiglione’s recent comments on the administration and reception of holy Communion are not canonically sound.

Readers might recall that a year or so ago Buttiglione authored an essay alleging that divorced-and-remarried Catholics had been excommunicated until John Paul II courageously eliminated that supposed sanction from the 1983 Code. I showed that no such excommunication existed in universal law (searching back more than 100 years) and suggested then that Buttiglione was not a reliable historian of canon law. To my knowledge he did not modify his claims. Oh well.

Now Buttiglione has authored another essay, this time against the Correctio Filialis. As stated earlier I have no position on the Correctio itself but I pause to suggest that, once again, Buttiglione has misunderstood and/or misrepresented some important, if this time more subtle, canonical points. Our discussion is hampered by Buttiglione’s failure to specify exactly which disciplinary norms he has in mind at various stages of his essay. Sorry, we’ll proceed as best we can.

For example, Buttiglione writes:

There is an absolute impossibility of giving Eucharist to those who are in mortal sin (and this rule is of Divine law and therefore imperative) but if, due to the lack of full knowledge and full consent, there is no mortal sin, communion can be given, from the point of view of moral theology, also to a remarried-and-divorced. There is also another prohibition, not moral but legal. Extra-marital coexistence clearly contradicts the law of God and generates scandal. In order to protect the faith of the people and strengthen the conscience of the indissolubility of marriage, legitimate authority may decide not to give communion to remarried-and-divorced even if they are not in mortal sin. However, this rule is a human law and the legitimate authority can allow exceptions for good reason.

There are many canonical mistakes in the above passage though I will deal with only three at present. Also I will rephrase some of Buttiglione’s words because I think bad translations might have interfered with his message.

(1) There is an absolute impermissibility of giving the Eucharist to those who are in mortal sin.

This claim is wrong. Setting aside the impossibility of one human being knowing for sure whether any other human being is “in mortal sin”—why do so many people think that reading souls is part of a canon lawyer’s stock-in-trade?—it is quite possible, indeed, canonically required, to administer holy Communion publicly to members of the Christian faithful whom a minister suspects (perhaps on excellent evidence) to be “in mortal sin” unless all five elements of Canon 915 (obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin) are simultaneously satisfied. This is standard sacramental law, yet Buttiglione seems unaware of this norm and unaware that Canon 18 requires its strict interpretation such that, doubtless and sadly, sacrilegious Communions can be made in accord with Church law—something hardly possible if divine law absolutely prohibited it. This botching of a crucial point in his argument does not instill confidence that Buttiglione will handle other points reliably.

(2) Extra-marital cohabitation clearly contradicts the law of God and generates scandal.

Sometimes false. I am aware of no divine law that prohibits “extra-marital cohabitation” per se (let one alone “clearly” prohibiting it) and can imagine situations wherein such “cohabitation” (not extra-marital sex, but cohabitation), strictly speaking, could be prudently countenanced, at least for a time (complex discussion omitted). Rather I suspect that Buttiglione is, wittingly or not, confusing “cohabitation” with “divorce-and-remarriage” and thereby substituting what the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2384 describes as “a situation of public and permanent adultery” for something that mightbe morally acceptable. Again, such an assertion hardly exhibits the level of precision that discussion of these points requires.

(3) To protect the faith of the people and to strengthen the respect for the indissolubility of marriage, legitimate authority may decide not to give communion to remarried-and-divorced even if they are not in mortal sin. However, this rule is a human law and the legitimate authority can allow exceptions for good reason.

Again Buttiglione assumes that ministers and canonists know who is “in mortal sin” and who isn’t. For the last time, that’s balderdash. But more to the point, Buttiglione’s earlier erroneous assertion that divine law always prohibits ministers from giving holy Communion to persons “in mortal sin” (assuming we even know who they are), returns now to create new confusion between canons resting on divine law (as some do) and canons supposedly resting on mere human law (such as, one surmises, Buttiglione believes Canon 915 does when it prohibits administration of holy Communion to divorced-and-remarried Catholics) which law, because it is ‘just a law’, and not ‘morals’, can supposedly be changed.

But, as has been explained numerous times, Canon 915, operating in the face of obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin (here, the sin of contradicting the permanence of marriage by purporting to marry again while a prior spouse is yet alive), prohibits ministers from giving holy Communion to certain persons when such administration causes scandal to others, scandal being defined by the Catechism as “a grave offense” which is worsened “when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others”. CCC 2284-2287. In other words, Canon 915 rests at least in part on divine law, the divine law that prohibits, among other things, anyone (especially ministers of the Church!) from giving scandal to others. Buttiglione seems unaware of this aspect of Canon 915.

Canon 915 is not about withholding holy Communion from a couple that one thinks is illicitly “doing it”; it is about withholding holy Communion when its administration would lead the community to, here, doubt the gravity of the contradiction that civil divorce-and-remarriage gives to marriage as proclaimed by Christ and his Church. Even the much-invoked and usually misunderstood “brother-sister” accommodation is to be considered only if the couple’s status as divorced-and-remarried outside the Church is not known in the community (and if the couple promises continence which, obviously, ministers cannot monitor). But at this point, I must repeat that these wider matters are explained elsewhere, and my focus now is on Buttiglione’s latest essay, which essay, I think I have shown, is not a reliable guide to the canonistics in question here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

SAINT THOMAS SAYS “GO AHEAD AND REBUKE!”

Posted on October 5, 2017 by abyssum

On the Moral Liceity of Publicly Correcting the Pope

Michael Sirilla

October 5, 2017

OnePeterFive

St. Thomas Aquinas, drawing from the rich tradition of the Church’s history, specifically from St. Paul’s account of rebuking St. Peter in Galatians 2 as commented upon by St. Augustine, shows quite clearly that not only is it permissible for a subordinate to correct fraternally his prelate, but that it is also necessary for him to do so publicly in certain circumstances. And this, notwithstanding the alleged prohibition in “Donum Veritatis” (hereafter DV) a. 30 of theologians expressing their concerns in the mass media; below, it will be made clear that DV was not firmly prohibiting every instance of making concerns public. In his treatise on the theological virtue of charity, an act of which is “fraternal correction,” a spiritual work of mercy, Aquinas argues that correcting the sinner is an act of love, helping to save one’s brother from sin and for virtue. One may even be bound to correct one’s superior in the Church because he is bound to him by charity; though he must do so “not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect” (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 4, corp.). Under very specific conditions, this correction may have to be given to a prelate publicly. Aquinas argues:

It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, “Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects.”

– Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 33, a. 4, ad 2

The basis in divine revelation for the proper exercise of the duty of fraternal correction is found in St. Paul’s narrative in Galatians 2:11 (“But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed”) and more generally in Christ’s words in Matthew 18:16-17 where He instructs the disciples to make known to the Church (i.e., publicly) the fraternal correction they gave to an errant brother, failing the first two attempts at private remonstration (“And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican”). While Christ’s words form the basis for the Dominical directive of proper fraternal correction, St. Paul’s narrative constitutes the basis for the divinely-inspired directive of appropriate correction of superiors by subordinates.

The current Code of Canon Law recognizes that at certain times it is a duty, not just a right, for competent persons to make known to the faithful (again, that would be publicly) their opinion on matters pertaining to the good of the Church:

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.

– CIC, can. 212, § 3 (emphasis added)

Whether one agrees with the assessment found in any of the corrections or concerns made public so far (the “filial correction,” Prof. Seifert’s letters, etc.), a fair reading and plain interpretation of those texts – one that avoids groundless conspiracy theories – shows that they meet the criteria mentioned so far: 1) competent, knowledgeable persons; 2) matters pertaining to the good of the Church; 3) maintaining reverence towards their pastors and especially the Holy Father; 4) attentive to the common good and the dignity of persons. Along these same lines, it should be noted that canonist Dr. Edward Peters recently published an essay on his blog, “On arguments that may be, and sometimes must be, made,” arguing that the filial correction seems to fall within the boundaries of Canon 212, wherein it is stated that “in regard to persons with special knowledge, competence, and prestige in regard to ecclesiastical matters, that they ‘have the right and even at times the duty‘ to express their views on matters impacting the well-being of the Church”.

One canonical argument that has surfaced recently in the Catholic press against the filial correction is that it serves to incite animosity or malice among the faithful against the Pope. Canon 1373 has been cited to this effect:

A person who publicly incites among subjects animosities or hatred against the Apostolic See or an ordinary because of some act of power or ecclesiastical ministry or provokes subjects to disobey them is to be punished by an interdict or other just penalties.

The public corrections in question do not incite such odium, unless by “odium” here one means that it would be hateful to say, contrary to some alleged claims in Amoris Laetitia, that it is not permissible for divorced-and-remarried Catholic living in more uxorio (i.e., as if they were husband and wife) to receive Communion. In other words, it would be hateful to say that the Pope is wrong to propose such a solution for those persons and that doing so would incite others to disregard the Pope’s teaching. (What would that say about Paul correcting Peter?)

On the contrary, the authors of all the documents mentioned do not incite hatred but explicitly affirm that they are moved by love of Christ, the Holy Father, and the good of souls in expressing their corrections because, in their estimation, proposing Communion for those living in more uxorio, some of them “knowing full well” that their situation is a problem (as AL rightly says), is a danger to the faith. The authors take great pains to demonstrate their love for the doctrine of Christ and the Church, for the current Holy Father himself, and for the good of souls. The souls of persons who are not instructed of the gravity of their actions, who are told to receive Communion without repentance are imperiled and the souls of pastors who fail in their regard are more gravely imperiled by committing scandal in the strict sense (i.e., proposing that someone commit a sin; see Matthew 18:6). The attempt to correct these errors is an act of charity to lead others, including our prelates, to divine truth and to a life of holiness in Christ.

Some intelligent and faithful Catholics think that AL and the Holy Father do not propose this pastoral approach. But others in the Church do, such as those bishops and episcopal conferences (such as Malta and Germany) who propose precisely this and who have the public support of the Pope. The diocese of Rome itself has adopted this policy. But if those who have publicly corrected the Pope are right, then the danger to the faith that this proposal presents is real and grave and thus their public correction is warranted. On the other hand, if the writers and signers misunderstood the Holy Father, it should not be impossible to clear this up and the Holy Father, whose principal duty as holder of the petrine office is to secure the unity of the Church, ought to do so or explain why doing so is not necessary. He is not bound to do so by any earthly authority since he holds supreme jurisdiction in the Church on earth. Rather, the Lord Himself binds Peter and his successors to instruct the errant in matters of faith and morals as a matter of charity (Jn 21:15ff., “Do you love me?…Feed my sheep”). It is hard to imagine a graver situation: to very many faithful Catholics it seems that we must choose to disregard either the Pope’s apparent directives in AL or those of Christ and St. Paul, consistently upheld by the Church’s magisterium up to the present. Christ teaches that divorce and remarriage is adultery (Mt 5:32) and St. Paul teaches that receiving Communion unworthily is condemnable (1 Cor 11:29). It is a matter of whether our Lord’s teaching and that of St. Paul and the Church in this regard is being respected or spurned. The Holy Father seems to affirm Christ’s teaching on divorce in AL; but the apparent pastoral proposal seems to fall afoul of St. Paul’s teaching on worthy reception of Communion. And this is not a matter of private judgment regarding Mt 5 and 1 Cor 11 since the Church has publicly and definitively affirmed the interpretation that divorce and unworthy reception of Communion is gravely sinful (e.g., Trent, Vatican II, Familiaris Consortio, etc.).

Still, serious confusion persists among faithful Catholics about whether or not theologians and other competent persons in the Church are permitted publicly to express their grave concerns about a non-definitive magisterial teaching. In light of this dilemma and the one precipitated by various interpretations of AL (and whether or not one agrees with the assessment of the “correctors”) there is a way to judge between licit and illicit ways of going to the mass media, and the Church herself has given us at least some guidance on this.

A passage from the 1990 CDF document “Donum Veritatis” has been cited recently and mistakenly in the Catholic press in order to condemn the actions of the signatories of the filial correction. Speaking of situations in which faithful theologians find non-definitive magisterial teachings problematic or erroneous, “Donum Veritatis,” a. 30 states:

In cases like these, the theologian should avoid turning to the ‘mass media’, but have recourse to the responsible authority, for it is not by seeking to exert the pressure of public opinion that one contributes to the clarification of doctrinal issues and renders service to the truth.

Going back a few articles to number 27 we read:

The theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33). For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them.

These two articles make it clear that going public is not licit when the intention is to exert public pressure on the Church to change her teaching (especially teaching that cannot be changed) and when the theologian has not made known his concerns to the “responsible authority” first. It is also clear in this article that theologians must avoid “untimely” public expression of their concerns. Does this mean that there may be “timely” public expressions of concerns? The document does not give many explicit criteria for determining timeliness, but “exerting public pressure” (DV, a. 30) is certainly one criterion. As it stands, DV is arguably too vague to resolve this. However, in 1990, during the official press conference on the release of DV, then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself (the co-author of DV) publicly affirmed that there may be licit public expression of grave concerns made by theologians regarding problems in magisterial statements. When questioned about theologians going public with a criticism of non-definitive magisterial teaching, Ratzinger replied: “We have not excluded all kinds of publication, nor have we closed him up in suffering. The Vatican insists, however, that theologians must choose the proper place to expound their ideas.” His comments are published in the July 5, 1990 edition of the journal “Origins” (page 119), a publication of the USCCB documenting official acts of the Church’s prelates and related articles. The issue here is not solely which venue is used to express public concerns since whether one shares them in a scholarly journal or a conference presentation or in a widely-read publication such as an op-ed section of a newspaper the net result is similar: the concerns are made public. The issues are also how one expresses the concerns (e.g., with respect, cogency, and humility) and to whom one expresses them. On the latter point, different circumstances will dictate different approaches. For instance, while it could be scandalous to air concerns to non-experts on a matter understood mainly by theologians (such as the metaphysical status of Christ’s Body in the Eucharist), it could be scandalous not to air concerns to non-experts on a fundamental matter easily understood (such as the sin of active divorce or the need to receive Communion in a state of grace).

Lacking further official guidelines for communicating problems with non-definitive magisterial teachings, the current state of the Church’s directives is summarized as follows: going to the media to put pressure on the Church to change or correct her unchangeable doctrine is clearly illicit. Going public with a concern about an error in non-infallible doctrine or praxis put forth by persons in the magisterium may be done licitly as long as charity and prudence are followed. Due to the constraints of space, it is not possible to cite all the other relevant portions of DV that ground this summary; the reader should consult the entire document, but especially aa. 24 through 31 (especially note the section that begins with the words, “When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies”).

But, it is argued, aren’t the “correctors” illicitly expressing merely their “opinion” or “divergent hypotheses” as “non-arguable conclusions” (as prohibited by DV, a. 27, cited above)? On the contrary, they are reiterating what the Church has publicly, definitively, and consistently taught. It is not their private opinion that Christ says that divorce is gravely sinful (Mt 5), the Church publicly and consistently has taught this (Trent, Gaudium et Spes, Familiaris Consortio, the CCC, etc.). It is not their private opinion that Paul teaches that unworthy reception of Communion is gravely sinful (1 Cor 11), but the Church again has publicly and consistently taught this. It is also not merely their private opinion that the Holy Father has publicly supported those bishops and episcopal conferences who permit reception of Communion by those divorced and remarried Catholics living in more uxorio. He has done so publicly. Where they may “diverge” at all is when they “diverge” from the implicit liceity of such permission arguably granted in AL and clearly granted by some episcopal conferences (Germany, Malta).

Neither do they fall afoul of the concluding formula of the “Professio Fidei” nor of the last part of the “Oath of Fidelity” since in this matter they are, in fact, assenting to a definitive public teaching of the Church (on divorce and Communion) and at most refusing to assent to the recent but ambiguous pastoral directives to the contrary. It is a well-known principle of theological hermeneutics that ambiguous claims are to be interpreted in light of the unambiguous; and that non-definitive teaching in light of definitive teaching on the same matters of faith or morals. Of course, if AL is not giving that pastoral directive, then they are not even refusing to assent to AL.

Surely, the “correctors” have privately discussed and debated their concerns with each other and they first approached the Holy Father privately with their letter before releasing it publicly. They consistently maintain a position of respect and reverence for the Pope. And the matter is timely, as discussed above. Great damage is already occurring in the Church with particular churches and national episcopal conferences suffering a balkanization such that “what is permissible in Germany is gravely sinful in Poland.” Thus, regardless of whether one concurs with their assessment, it should be easy to recognize that they acted morally licitly, if not heroically.

A final point of clarification: the filial correction does not accuse Pope Francis of heresy. Rather, it claims that Pope Francis has propagated heresy in his public approval and support of those bishops and episcopal conferences who are now permitting divorced and remarried persons living in more uxorio to receive Communion. More precisely, the “correctors” are pointing out that they consider the Pope to be failing in his duty to preserve, defend, and explain divinely-revealed truth in the area of marriage and the Eucharist by supporting those bishops who are granting such permissions. There are ways to propagate heresy other than by teaching heresy; for instance, promoting and approving others who do so. This is not an act of heresy but of negligence. Pope Honorius was posthumously condemned by Constantinople III (680-681AD) for allowing heretical teaching. This is truly distinct from actually teaching heresy.

This is a rather painful issue about which the brightest lights and authorities in the Church disagree. Many faithful Catholics hope and pray that the Holy Father, as our loving spiritual Father, would kindly reach out to these individuals and help them and all of us understand better and more clearly the deposit of faith and morals regarding marriage, divorce, and the proper dispositions for fruitful reception of the Eucharist. They implore him to secure the supernatural unity of the Church in faith, hope, and charity which is the principal duty of the petrine office. Those who have made public their concerns and corrections with these precise intentions have acted uprightly for the good of the Church and the honor of Christ.

Dr. Michael Sirilla is a professor of dogmatic and systematic theology at the Franciscan University of Steubenville. He is the author of “The Ideal Bishop: Aquinas’s Commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles“, published by The Catholic University of America Press (2017). The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

HYPOCRISY ILL BECOMES THE VATICAN

Posted on October 5, 2017 by abyssum

Lisa Bourne

NEWS CATHOLIC CHURCHThu Oct 5, 2017 – 1:40 pm EST

Vatican hosts conference on child abuse while shielding priest wanted for child porn

Catholic , Child Pornography , Pietro Parolin , Pornography , Robert Moynihan , Vatican Corruption

VATICAN CITY, Italy, October 5, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A veteran Vatican watcher noted a “day of irony in Rome” this week as the Holy See conducted a conference on protecting children from internet-based sexual abuse while simultaneously harboring inside its walls a Vatican diplomat wanted by police for possessing child porn.

“This is not to pre-judge the guilt or innocence of anyone,” Dr. Robert Moynihan wrote in an October 3 letter to his subscribers. “It is merely to note the irony of Church sponsorship for a conference on global child pornography while charges of breaking child pornography laws are outstanding against a monsignor who works for the Vatican and who is enjoying immunity due to his diplomatic status and living in the Vatican.”

Moynihan, founder and editor-in-chief of Inside the Vatican magazine, began his newsletter quoting part of the opening address from Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Vatican Secretary of State, Tuesday at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome for the conference, “Child Dignity in the Digital World.”

The event is being held October 3-6 and was organized by the Gregorian University’s Center for Child Protection.

The cardinal cautioned against humans allowing themselves to be dominated by technical, economic, and political forces. He said the power of sexual desire is a positive thing when it advances human life, but it must be elevated and directed to avoid corruption and abuse.

Moynihan then detailed some conference specifics, including that upon its conclusion, participating experts, academics, executives, civilian leaders, politicians and religious representatives from across the world would present a final statement on the conference to Pope Francis.

“At the same time, a Vatican diplomat, accused by Canadian authorities of downloading child pornography in Canada, is being housed inside Vatican City, protected by the Vatican’s sovereign diplomatic immunity from arrest by Canadian police, reportedly receiving friends and strolling in the same Vatican Gardens where Emeritus Pope Benedict takes his daily walk,” Moynihan wrote.

The Vatican recalled a high-ranking priest working as a diplomat for the Holy See’s embassy in Washington D.C. in mid-September after the State Department sought to lift his immunity and potentially indict him with possession of child pornography.

The Vatican has said the priest will undergo internal investigation and possible trial in Vatican City.

Critics have reportedly charged the Vatican with protecting its diplomat by calling him back to Vatican City – a sovereign state – before he could be charged in the U.S.

“By the irony of the fate, while today at the Gregorian University, in the presence of Cardinal Pietro Parolin, an international summit was opened to discuss how to protect children from the predators who every day exchange millions of images of abused minors, the Pope in Santa Martha for several days has been faced with a case as embarrassing as it is troubling: an Italian monsignor sought by the authorities in Canada for the exchange of pedo-pornographic material but at the moment safe in the Vatican thanks to diplomatic immunity,” wrote Franca Giansoldati in the Roman daily newspaper, Il Messaggero.

“Needless to say, nobody wants to talk about this case,” said Giansoldati, adding: “This is a very embarrassing situation for the Pope, who now has to decide what to do.”

Moynihan said that the bible has stark words for those who abuse children.

“Scripture recalls only two occasions when Jesus became filled with righteous anger,” he said. “One was when he picked up a whip to cast the moneychangers from the Temple area. The other was when he warned all who might harm or abuse children of the terrible evil of such acts, of the terrible evil that is abuse of children.”

The irony created by the Vatican conducting a conference on protecting children from sexual abuse on the internet while it deals with charges against one of its diplomats for of child pornography possession echoes the uproar last year after the Vatican released a controversial sex ed program for young people during World Youth Day in Poland.

The Pontifical Council for the Family unveiled “The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People” last July to pilgrims at World Youth Day.

Pro-life and family advocates sounded the alarm on the program for its use of sexually explicit images and immoral videos. They also said it ignored the 6th and 9th commandments, neglected any mention of sexual sins, and conflicted with previous Church teaching.

Some called the program “thoroughly immoral,” “entirely inappropriate,” and “quite tragic,” while one expert said it was “the most dangerous threat to Catholic youth” in 40 years.

Moynihan concluded by encouraging Catholics to by and large turn the Internet off and invest more in human interaction to combat exploitation of children and ideas that debase human passions.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

CARDINAL GERHARD MUELLER’S FAR-RANGING IMPORTANT INTERVIEW

Posted on October 5, 2017 by abyssum

Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller speaks at the presentation of the document Iuvenescit Ecclesia in the Vatican Press Office June 14, 2016. (Daniel Ibáñez/CNA)

VATICAN | OCT. 5, 2017

Cardinal Müller Speaks Out on ‘Amoris Laetitia,’ the Dubia and the Vatican

The former prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith gives an extensive interview to the National Catholic Register.

by Edward Pentin

Over the course of Pope Francis’ pontificate, reports from Rome have frequently mentioned the fact that when it comes to drafting documents, the Holy Father has preferred to consult his own advisers rather than depend on the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), leading to the dicastery’s isolation. Added to this have been reports that since Francis’ election, the congregation has been less stringent in taking action against dissident theologians.

How important is the CDF — until the 1960s, the most important Vatican department — in the life of the Church today? To find out, the Register sat down Sept. 13 with Cardinal Gerhard Müller, who had served five years as the congregation’s prefect until Pope Francis decided not to renew his term in July for reasons the cardinal has said were never explained to him.

In this extensive interview, Cardinal Müller criticizes what he describes as careerists and opportunists who he says are sowing discord in the Roman Curia and besmirched his name. He also discusses the dangers of the CDF being ignored, particularly in the drafting process of pontifical documents such as the Pope’s apostolic exhortation on the family, Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love), and how a pervading sense of fear is preventing more people, particularly priests, seminarians and professors, from daring to openly criticize aspects of this pontificate.

He also shares his opinion on the dubia (five questions posed to the Pope by four cardinals aimed at clarifying passages of Amoris Laetitia), the extent of authority held by the Pope’s closest advisers, and the dangers some of them present by invoking the Holy Spirit to justify their positions considered by some scholars as propagating heresy.

Your Eminence, last month it was reported that, since 2013, no action has been taken against dissident theologians. Is this true?

This observation is not correct. The approach of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith since the changes of the Second Vatican Council is first to promote the faith — and the second is to defend the faith. In some cases we act as a tribunal for delicts against the faith and morals. But in my time there were cases in which we had first to dialogue with some theologians to resolve problems in a brotherly way. But I think there has been no absolute change in the role of the congregation. It must continue to defend the faith against heresies, schisms and other delicts against unity of the Church and the holiness of the sacraments, all according the apostolic constitution Pastor Bonus (1988).

So there haven’t been, at least publicly, cases of dissident theologians being disciplined in any way over the past four or so years?

There were often reproaches against us over the past year, which belong to an anachronistic view of the CDF, which carries no resemblance to the role and the work of the congregation in modern times. There was a group of so-called progressive activists, who issued propaganda against us, saying the existence of the congregation is a throwback to the days of the Inquisition. These are old obsessions dating back to ’68. Now the same people say they’ve been successful in intervening with “their” Pope, that the congregation isn’t doing its work, but this is not true. We addressed some cases involving problematic views and theologians. For example, we couldn’t give the nihil obstat in some — few — cases.

Do you have examples of theologians who have been disciplined over the past few years, perhaps who we haven’t heard of?

No, I cannot give the names because they’re under the pontifical secret, but my impression of the situation over the past five years is that there hasn’t been any change in the role of the congregation.

There has been a lot of talk about the congregation being downgraded, even isolated, during this pontificate. Instead, the Holy Father prefers to consult his advisers, such as his close confidant Archbishop Victor Fernandez, rector of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina in Buenos Aires. Are such people directing doctrine, and is the CDF being sidelined?

I heard that the Pope is close to certain theologians, but they cannot claim to be authoritative interpreters of the Pope. If Archbishop Fernandez makes a declaration, for instance, that’s only private. It has no more weight than the statements of other bishops — and certainly for the whole Church, he has no magisterial authority — and so it holds no more authority for me than any other theological voice.

But when he ghostwrites a document such as Amoris Laetitia, as evidence has shown, then his views become authoritative?

I don’t know if he was the ghostwriter of the eighth chapter of Amoris Laetitia [the highly disputed chapter on, among other things, allowing Holy Communion for remarried divorcees in a small number of special cases]. It is a text of the Pope, not of Victor Fernandez or of any other ghostwriter. Magisterial documents are the product of a process of theological preparation; and in former times we were given the names of theologians who had made a draft or had added any points or reflections to it. But in the end, what is decisive is the authority of the Pope. An apostolic exhortation of Pope Francis, and all that he says concerning doctrine, has a magisterial authority. It’s binding according to the range of that particular declaration. It does not contain any “new dogma,” but is, rather, an exposition of dogma always held and taught by the Church.

In Amoris Laetitia there’s no new doctrine or explication of some juridical points of the doctrine, but an acceptance of the doctrine of the Church and the sacraments. The only question is their pastoral application in extraordinary situations. The Pope will not and cannot change either the doctrine or the sacraments. What he wants is to help couples in very difficult circumstances as a good shepherd, but in accord with the word of God.

You say you don’t know the reasons for the Pope not renewing your term as prefect, but might it be because there’s a wave of heterodoxy at the highest levels, and you didn’t fit into that because you’re considered orthodox? Then you have Amoris Laetitia and your interpretation of it that diverges from those held by the Pope’s closest advisers and, in view of his comments on the issue, very possibly the Pope himself. Could this be the reason for ending your term?

I don’t know because no explanation was offered to me. The Pope only saw me at a routine private audience, at the end of my term, to discuss the work of the congregation, and said, “That is all.” All other explanations in the mass media are speculations. It is true that some time ago the Pope told me that some of his “friends” had been saying that “Müller is an enemy of the Pope.” I suppose these were anonymous accusations, and the anonymity of the accusers suggests that they were not prepared to have their arguments exposed to the light of honest and open discussion. The use of such underhanded tactics is always detrimental to the life of the Church and to the functioning of the Curia. Looking at history, we see that courts are often blighted by such intrigues, and this is something that the Pope himself has condemned very strongly as a longstanding evil in the Roman Curia. He assured me that no credence should be given to such gossip.

For the good of the Curia and the Church, there should be open dialogue. I must refute any calumnies that have originated in certain parts of the press, or from certain ultramontanist circles and Vaticanisti, and this anonymous group of false “friends” around the Holy Father who have questioned my loyalty. All my life as a priest, theologian and bishop, I’ve worked for the Kingdom of God and his Holy Church. And to present me as an enemy of the Successor of St. Peter is completely crazy and unjust.

Throughout the pontificates of St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI, as a theologian and bishop, I was accused by people with an anti-Roman attitude of being too close to the Pope and of not having maintained a critical distance to Rome. It is surely ironic that these same people should accuse me now of being an enemy of the Pope. This is obviously opportunistic behavior we’re seeing. The biggest danger to the Pope these days are these opportunists, careerists and false friends who are concerned not for the good of the Church, but for their own financial interests and self-advancement.

Do you think the Pope is advised poorly by these people around him, or is your removal a manifestation of his own will?

I don’t know. As I said, I received no explanation for my dismissal, and it would be wrong to speculate. But I firmly maintain my fidelity to Pope Francis, to whom I devoted myself as a loyal cooperator. In this year of the commemoration of the Protestant revolution against the primacy of the Holy Roman Church, I published a historical and theological study on the mission of the Pope as Successor of St. Peter, and so it is not as if I am unaware of the importance of the papacy in the Church of Jesus Christ. The important thing is that we have to love the Church because she is the Bride of Christ. Loving her means that we sometimes have to suffer with her, because in her members she is not perfect, and so we remain loyal despite the disappointments. In the end, it is how we appear in the eyes of God that matters, rather than how we are regarded by men.

While you were head of the CDF, there were reports that the congregation made corrections to various drafts of papal documents, particularly Amoris Laetitia, but also the Pope’s apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (The Joy of the Gospel), but they were ignored.

We don’t have the right in the congregation to correct the Holy Father, that’s very clear, but it’s always been usual that the first drafts need to have an official comment by the congregation. Regarding Amoris Laetitia, I don’t know who made the ultimate redaction (final edition), the last corrections or editing.

Does it disturb you that your corrections to these documents were ignored?

Not all were ignored — the Holy Father isn’t obliged to accept our corrections, but I don’t know who made the synthesis of all texts and brought them to the Holy Father. If it were so, that the same people who made the first draft also made the ultimate redaction and that they decided whether or not how to accept the suggestions or not, then that would not be in order. The Holy Father cannot personally do all of the elaboration of different suggestions from this and other congregations, of other theologians. He’s free to ask anybody. If you are a theologian of the congregation and are asked by the Holy Father to make a draft, you must distinguish between your own personal theology and what will be coming out, so that it is a document of the papal magisterium. One must be very humble in preparing a text, always cautious not to take the opportunity to introduce your own personal point of view and to praise yourself or let yourself be celebrated as the famous adviser of the Pope. The more responsible you are the more discreet you have to be.

Given the diminishment of the congregation, why does it continue to be important? If it’s being stripped of its main role, why is it necessary?

In the current atmosphere in the Catholic Church, there are many prejudices against the congregation, based on misconceptions and myths. To some people, mention of the CDF conjures up images of Hollywood films about the Inquisition, burnings at the stake, etc. What did or did not happen centuries ago is a question for historians, but bears no relation to the work of the congregation today, when its job is to support the Holy Father in his mission in 2017. But some people don’t understand what the consistory of all the cardinals is, and they do not understand the theological teaching that underpins the role of the Roman Curia. It is not merely a functional apparatus or a bureaucracy.

The cardinals represent the Holy Roman Church. The Pope is the head of the Roman Church, which is ecclesia principalis (the principal Church) in the communion of all the dioceses, bishops and Churches around the world.

Over time, there developed this group of Roman clerics to serve not only the Diocese of Rome, but in service to the Holy Father for the whole Church. As this body of the major clerics of the Roman Church evolved, the cardinals formed a college; and now they have the important role of electing the Pope and of being his primary advisers and collaborators.

In the 16th century, there was a division of responsibilities, so that one group was given the oversight of doctrine, another of the nomination of future bishops, another of the liturgy. But when we consider the mission of the Church, it’s clear that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the most important because the mission of the Church is preaching the Gospel of the truth of revelation.

The Holy Father, as Successor of St. Peter, has to unite the Church. His mission and task is to proclaim, “You are Christ, Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16). All the other truths are included in this Christological reality, in relation to the Triune God and in Christ’s revelation to us as the Redeemer of all mankind. Therefore, the congregation is so important for the Holy Father. He does right to fulfill his mission with the help of the Holy Roman Church in this form of the congregation of 25 cardinals, some bishops, the working staff and plenty of consulters.

Has that been lost, do you think?

It’s not lost, but I’m afraid that there is no clear idea of the ecclesiological status of the Roman Church in the form of the congregation of the cardinals and the Roman Curia. Some think that a pope personally can do whatever he wants because he is absolute sovereign, but that’s not true.

He’s the “Servant of the Servants of God.”

He is, and the role of the Pope as the head of the Vatican state has nothing to do with the Pope as the visible head of the Church, the principal of the unity of the Church in the revealed truth. The Pope’s independence of worldly powers is necessary for his mission, but he is not independent of the moral law. He is, in fact, the first interpreter of the natural moral law.

As the first and the last, the highest, most important interpreter of that revelation of God in Jesus Christ, he is not an isolated person, but head of the Roman Church — and, therefore, he is reliant on the qualified and engaged cooperation of the Roman Church in the form of the cardinals and the dicasteries of the Roman Curia.

Do you think the fruits of this diminishment of the CDF and the papacy is why we’re seeing this chaos and confusion, bishops having different and, some theologians argue, heretical interpretations of Amoris Laetitia, for example? Is it because of this ignorance, or lack of respect, if you like, for what the Church is?

I think the Pope should not be blamed for this confusion, but he is authorized by Jesus Christ to overcome it. The pope, as bishop of the first apostolic Church in the worldwide communion of Catholic Churches is the permanent principle and foundation of the unity of the Church in the faith and the communion in love (Lumen Gentium 18).

He’s known to pay close attention to the media, and so must know what is going on. Is it not, therefore, incumbent on him to put this right, in the interests of unity of the Church, and that this responsibility rests with him, and him only?

I don’t want to criticize him, publicly or privately. But I am free to say what I think is for the good of the Church. I’ve made some interventions in my office as prefect of the congregation, in which I explained that the only true and correct interpretation of Amoris Laetitia — which on the whole is very good and in favor of matrimony — is the orthodox interpretation, by which we mean to say: It is in the line of holy Scripture, apostolic Tradition and the definite decisions of the papal and episcopal magisterium, which is continuous up to now. Nowhere in Amoris Laetitia is it demanded by the faithful to believe anything that is against the dogma because the indissolubility of marriage is very clear. The only question is whether, in some cases, true matrimony exists in today’s context, in a culture where the definition of matrimony is very different from what the Church is teaching.

Is it problematic that the Pope is giving his own interpretations that appear to be at odds with the orthodox interpretation you espouse, for example his letter to the Argentine bishops and his praise for the Maltese bishops?

In the case of the letter to the Argentine bishops, if the Pope is writing a personal and private letter, it’s not an official doctrinal document.

It has been posted on the Vatican website.

The website of the Vatican has some weight, but it’s not a magisterial authority, and if you look at what the Argentine bishops wrote in their directive, you can interpret this in an orthodox way.

To go back to the CDF, how would you like to see it be brought back to its stated purpose? How would you like it to do this under its new prefect, Archbishop Luis Ladaria?

Theologically, Archbishop Ladaria and I have absolutely the same understanding of the Catholic faith and theology, because he refers to the great Church Fathers and theologians and has an orientation to the foundation of the verses of Holy Scripture, the word of God, the apostolic Tradition — the same framework. But I hope that the secretary and undersecretary will have, also, this understanding: to serve the orthodox faith, to serve the Holy Father in his very important role for the unity of the Church and the revealed truth. Competence is more important than friendships, and sincerity serves more than ambitions. I said it personally to the Holy Father that it’s especially important that the congregation’s members, superiors, our collaborators and our consulters are, firstly, orthodox, have theological competence and must have a good moral life, and a deep spirituality as priests.

Does such opportunism disturb you?

The Holy Father, in his second Christmas speech to the Roman Curia, to the cardinals, spoke of the 15 illnesses of the Curia very general. Many of the participants felt offended because the press spoke about Vatican officials as if they were all careerists and opportunists, looking around only for money and big apartments, etc. But one should not speak generally about present persons as if they were guilty or stupid.

Careerists and opportunists should not be promoted, and other people who are competent collaborators not excluded without any reason or expelled from the Curia. It’s not good. I heard it from some houses here, that people working in the Curia are living in great fear: If they say one small or harmless critical word, some spies will pass the comments directly to the Holy Father, and the falsely accused people don’t have any chance to defend themselves. These people, who are speaking bad words and lies against other persons, are disturbing and disrupting the good faith, the good name of others whom they are calling their brothers.

The Gospel and the words of Jesus are very strong against those who denounce their brothers and who are creating this bad atmosphere of suspicion. I’ve heard that nobody speaks; everyone is a little afraid because they can be snitched on. It’s not the behavior of adult people, but that of a boarding school.

One senior Church figure, speaking to me on condition of anonymity, called it a “reign of terror.”

It’s the same in some theological faculties — if anybody has any remarks or questions about Amoris Laetitia, they will be expelled, and so on. That is not maturity. A certain interpretation of the document’s Footnote 351 cannot be criteria for becoming a bishop. A future bishop must be a witness to the Gospel, a successor of the apostles, and not only someone who repeats some words of a single pastoral document of the Pope without a mature theological understanding.

We must distinguish between what is official doctrine of the Church, the role of the Pope, and what he is saying in private conversations. Those private opinions of the Pope need to be respected because they are opinions and words of the Holy Father, but nobody is obliged to accept uncritically everything that he’s saying, for example, about political or scientific questions. That’s his personal opinion, but nothing to do with our Catholic faith, by which we are justified in the grace of God.

Regarding Amoris Laetitia and the fear of criticizing it, and the lack of response to the dubia, isn’t the irony that it goes against the Pope’s wish for parrhesia (to speak boldly and frankly) and dialogue?

Everyone who becomes bishop, cardinal or pope must learn to distinguish between the critics who are against the person and critics against the mission you have. The Holy Father, Francis, must know that it is important one accepts his intention: to help those people who are distant from the Church, from the belief of the Church, from Jesus Christ, who wanted to help them. … This discussion is not against him, it is not against his intentions, but there is need of more clarification. Also, in the past, we had discussions about the faith and the pastoral application of it. It’s not the first time this has happened in the Church, and so why not learn from our long experiences as Church, to have a good, profound discussion in promoting the faith, the life of the Church and not to personalize and polarize? It’s not a personal criticism of him, and everybody must learn it and respect his high responsibility. It is a very big danger for the Church that some ideological groups present themselves as the exclusive guardians of the only true interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. They feel they have the right to condemn all people of another standpoint as stupid, rigid, old-fashioned, medieval, etc.

Nobody can, for example, say Cardinal Caffarra didn’t understand anything of moral theology. Sometimes the un-Christian behavior is printed in L’Osservatore Romano, the semi-official Vatican newspaper, or given in official organs of the media, to make polemics and rhetoric. This cannot help us in this situation — only a profound theological discussion will.

Do you think this unwillingness to discuss, and this tendency to make things personal, is because those making these accusations don’t really have the strength of their own convictions, that they know their arguments won’t stand up to rigorous examination?

All my life, after the Second Vatican Council, I’ve noticed that those who support so-called progressivism never have theological arguments. The only method they have is to discredit other persons, calling them “conservative” — and this changes the real point, which is the reality of the faith, and not in your personal subjective, psychological disposition. By “conservative,” what do they mean? Someone loves the ways of the 1950s, or old Hollywood films of the 1930s? Was the bloody persecution of Catholics during the French Revolution by the Jacobins progressive or conservative? Or is the denial of the divinity of Christ by the Arians of the fourth century liberal or traditional? Theologically it’s not possible to be conservative or progressive. These are absurd categories: Neither conservatism nor progressivism is anything to do with the Catholic faith. They’re political, polemical, rhetorical forms. The only sense of these categories is discrediting other persons.

We have Holy Scripture, we have eschatological revelation in Jesus Christ, the irreversibility of Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, the salvation of the cross, the Resurrection, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ for the end of the world. … The responsibility of the Pope and the bishops is to overcome the polarization. Therefore, it’s very dangerous for the Church to divide bishops into friends and enemies of the Pope regarding a footnote in an apostolic exhortation. I am sure that anybody will denounce me also for this interview, but I hope that the Holy Father will read my complete interview here and not only some headlines, which cannot give a complete impression of what I said.

Would you say we have never had a Pope like this, who has this disputed approach to doctrine, distinguishing between teaching and pastoral practice, and so allowing false interpretations to grow? In such a context, would you, therefore, say that the CDF is needed more than ever?

He has another approach: John Paul II and former Popes Paul VI and Benedict XVI — they met all the modern questions and genesis of the modern world; they gave good explanations. He [Francis] thinks his contribution is not in this way, because what is clear is to have pastoral approach from the so-called Third World. The poor are the key for the New Evangelization, and he wants that, it is true, and a very good intention to try to overcome this contraposition in the Church. The Holy Father wants to say not only this or that is not allowed, but to give more importance to good intentions, positivity, to say that the Gospel is in favor of life, not only against abortion, for example.

We have the inseparable relation between faith and life, grace and love, and not the dualism between theory and practice. It is a Marxist approach to distinguish the two. We are not speaking from theory because belief isn’t a theory; belief is the unity with God in our conscience. Our categories are not theory and praxis, but truth and life, both gifts of grace, forms of the communication with God in the Church as the Body of Christ. Therefore, pastoral practice means coming to a true understanding of what Christ as pastor and good shepherd is doing for us, leading us to the eternal life.

What other concerns would you like to see addressed, in the CDF and further afield, perhaps?

The role of the CDF is very important: The prefect and all the collaborators give interviews and talks that promote the faith. That was a new identity shaped by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in his long time as prefect, and we cannot go back to the old pre-conciliar approach when the CDF, or Holy Office, was only a bureaucratic defender behind the walls of the Vatican, and everyone was afraid to get a letter of the congregation. That is an old form, and I hope there’s no way back to that. The congregation has to offer the Church, especially bishops and theologians, impulses and orientations for the teachers of the faith. The best help for the Holy Father today is a high-profiled congregation for the doctrine of faith and morals.

And yet many people would like to see the CDF being more of a defender of the faith, especially today. It’s almost as if there’s an absence of authority of defending the faith coming from the Vatican. What do you say to that?

I always tried to avoid this impression. I gave many talks around the world. What I offered was this promotion of the faith and all the teaching, defending the faith, new questions of dogma and moral [questions], and especially the challenges of bioethics and all these big efforts, such as gender ideology, which will absolutely destroy the fundament of human existence, family and future.

But what about the problem of secularist thinking and heterodoxy within the Church and defending orthodoxy?

What I could do, I did. I understood the role of the prefect in this new vision manifested by Cardinal Ratzinger and then by his successor, Cardinal William Levada, and therefore Pope Benedict XVI appointed me. I hope that the CDF will now continue with this line promoting the faith. What we need is a great effort for the truth of the faith and not a battle for more power in the whole Church and especially in the Roman Curia.

The question of today is not about more power for Church officials, but the truth of God for the lives of all men. Paul VI made a certain mistake when he changed the congregation’s role, and it became one among the other congregations. The truth is that the CDF is more important than the others, not because its members consider themselves better and more powerful than the others, but because the foundation of the Church is not politics, but the faith. The secretary of state has the job of organizing the apostolic nuncios, working for peace and freedom among the states, for social justice and so on. It’s a very important role, but, nevertheless, the Church is not a political organization; it is not a social organization; it’s not a NGO [nongovernmental organization]. The Holy Father underlines all the time that we are the sacrament of the complete unity between God and man on the basis of real faith, hope and love, and nobody can change it.

Would you like the Pope to answer the dubia? Is that vital for the well-being of doctrine?

The best thing would have been for the Holy Father to have had an audience before their publication. Now we have the spectacle of a trial of strength. It’s better to speak before and to deepen the questions and give good answers.

What is your opinion on the correction? Given the depth of concern among many priests and faithful on the issues raised there, how important is it that the Pope gives a response?
What the Church needs in this serious situation is not more polarization and polemics, but more dialogue and reciprocal confidence. The Holy Father and all good shepherds are wishing the full integration of couples in irregular situations. But this must happen according to the general conditions of the worthy and valid reception of the holy sacraments. We must avoid new schisms and separations from the one Catholic Church, whose permanent principle and foundation of its unity and communion in Jesus Christ is the actual Pope Francis and all bishops in full communion with him. The Successor of St. Peter deserves full respect for his person and divine mandate, and, on the other hand, his honest critics deserve a convincing answer. A possibility of the solution could be a group of cardinals engaged by the Holy Father to begin a theological disputation with some prominent representatives of the dubia and the “corrections” about the different and sometimes controversial interpretation of some statements in Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia.

There are rumors that the CDF had a file on Archbishop Fernandez because his theology was problematic. Do you know about this?

I don’t; it was before my time. Once, in an interview in Corriere della Sera (2015), he criticized me publicly, saying the prefect of the congregation has nothing to say, that the Pope is his friend, he is the true interpreter, that the Holy Father is enlightened directly by the Holy Spirit. But never have I read that the Holy Father is enlightened by the Holy Spirit in the understanding of a new revelation. The Pope is only assisted by the Holy Spirit for the authentic interpretation of the revelation of God in Christ. He and the bishops are human cooperators in transmitting Revelation, which is completely given in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God, but they don’t get any other revelation.

The Gospels are human words inspired by the Holy Spirit, but that didn’t exclude the true human cooperation of the Evangelists. Catholic theology doesn’t speak about the “enlightenment of the magisterium of the Pope and the bishops.” The apostles listened to the words of Jesus — it was a human mediation by human nature, and so the cooperation of the Church is absolutely needed. Surely the faith is given by the Holy Spirit, but by the mediation of evangelization. Nobody can believe unless heard by human ears the word of God.

When some of the Pope’s advisers often invoke the Holy Spirit to justify their positions, implying that if someone doesn’t understand it, he doesn’t understand the workings of the Holy Spirit, is this a dangerous trend?

I am afraid that there is a certain Pentecostal misunderstanding of the role of the Holy Spirit. In the Incarnate Word of God, in the Son of God, Jesus Christ, to us is given all the grace and truth. The Holy Spirit actualizes the full revelation in the doctrine, the sacraments of the Church. The Holy Father plays here a very important role in the apostolic Tradition, but not the only one. His teaching is regulated by the word of God in the Bible and the dogmatic Tradition of the Church. The magisterium and all the believers are supported by the Holy Spirit in the actualization of the full and complete revelation, but they do not receive any new public revelation as a part of the depositum fidei, as it confirmed the Second Vatican Council (Lumen Gentium, 25).

Nobody can demand of a Catholic to believe a doctrine which is in an obvious contradiction to the Holy Scripture, apostolic Tradition and the dogmatic definitions of the Popes and ecumenical councils in the matter of faith and morals. What is needed is a religious obedience, but not a blind faith, to the Pope and the bishops, and nothing at all to private friends and advisers.

These people must come out with their arguments, and they are not allowed to demand any respect for their presumed magisterial authority. We do not just believe things because a Pope teaches them, but because these truths are included in Revelation (cf. II.Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, 10).

Edward Pentin is the Register’s Rome correspondent.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off

ABYSSUS ABYSSUM INVOCAT / DEEP CALLS TO DEEP

PITY THE POOR PRIESTS

Fr Ray Blake’s Blog

Thursday, September 28, 2017

To Sign or Not to Sign

IF YOU WANT TO SURVIVE THE BERGOLIAN EARTHQUAKE CLAW YOUR WAY OUT OF THE RUBBLE

Coming Out From Under the Asphyxiating Rubble

LIBERAL PROTESTANTISM WROTE THE BOOK ON HOW TO DESTROY A CHURCH, NOW SOME BISHOPS ARE PROMOTING IT

How to Destroy Catholicism in America

BABY KILLING CONTINUES EVEN AS THE NATION’S BIRTHRATE FALLS BELOW THE REPLACEMENT LEVEL.

IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST, WHY NOT SHOOT 250 PEOPLE, KILLING OVER 50?

The Dead Soul of Stephen Paddock

BRIDGE BUILDING IS A SCIENCE NOT AN ART

IT IS SAFER TO ASK THAN TO ASSERT WHEN WRITING ABOUT CANON LAW

A corrective to some of Prof. Buttiglione’s recent assertions about canon law

SAINT THOMAS SAYS “GO AHEAD AND REBUKE!”

On the Moral Liceity of Publicly Correcting the Pope

HYPOCRISY ILL BECOMES THE VATICAN

Vatican hosts conference on child abuse while shielding priest wanted for child porn

CARDINAL GERHARD MUELLER’S FAR-RANGING IMPORTANT INTERVIEW

Follow Blog via Email

Archives

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Top Clicks

Follow Blog via Email

Archives

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Top Clicks

Thursday, September 28, 2017

To Sign or Not to Sign

How to Destroy Catholicism in America

Calling Things by Their Proper Names

Death Peddlers Hope You Will Ignore the Truth

Woe to Them That Call Evil Good and Good Evil

Post navigation

The Dead Soul of Stephen Paddock

A corrective to some of Prof. Buttiglione’s recent assertions about canon law

Vatican hosts conference on child abuse while shielding priest wanted for child porn

Follow Blog via Email

Archives

Recent Posts

Top Posts & Pages

Top Clicks