When Silence becomes Scandal
_________________________
LESSONS NOT
LEARNED
It
happened right here! Remember? Boston 2002!
Silence
on the part of the cardinal, the bishops, the seminary
rectors, the Religious orders — followed by
Scandal.
Horrible scandal. scandal of the most hateful, despicable,
vicious perversion that swept away — but not too thoroughly
— miters, defrocked priests, caused the closing of hundreds
of parishes and the selling off of quite nearly everything Catholic
to pay off the lawsuits against predatory priests and silent
superiors. Millions upon millions to pay victims and their lawyers,
and most sadly to psychologically treat and medicate its victims
... who are now adults. It continues to this day!
Most of what you
put in the basket at church almost certainly goes to pay for
the crimes of predatory homosexual priests who molested young
boys — committed the most depraved sexual predation on the most
trusting of youth … our children.
Under the
euphemism
of “consolidating parishes” countless church buildings and facilities
were sold off to become condominiums and even mosques.
$35 million
on counseling, psychiatric medications, and other services for
survivors. Since 2003, it has paid about $215 million to settle
legal claims, church officials say. (Boston
Globe January 2017)
Here in Boston
we are STILL paying for a disgraceful and unutterably shameful
SILENCE that not simply “rocked” the Church, but literally
caused much of it to be torn down to its foundations.
The Dubia:
Five Vital Questions that Encounter Obstinate
Silence
The following five questions were respectfully
submitted to Pope Francis following the ambiguity inherent in
his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia:
-
“It is
asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris
Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to
grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus
to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound
by a valid marital bond, lives together with a
different person more uxorio [as husband
and wife] without fulfilling the conditions provided
for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently
reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34,
and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression
“in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation
Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons
who are in a new union and who continue to live more
uxorio?”
SIMPLIFIED:
Can
adulterers go to Confession and receive Holy Communion?
Can a man or woman who are living together as though
married to each other having been civilly divorced,
but who nonetheless still remain married to their original
spouses in the eyes of the Church and according to clear
and unequivocal Holy Scripture, be considered as
not living in adultery: that is to say, as
not living with another man’s wife and another woman’s
husband?”
“After
the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris
Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as
valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical
Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture
and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence
of absolute moral norms that prohibit
intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without
exceptions?”
SIMPLIFIED:
Are there acts so evil that under every possible condition
or circumstance they must be, without exception, considered
intrinsically evil?
“After
Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to
affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction
to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the
one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds
him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual
sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,”
June 24, 2000)?
SIMPLIFIED:
In
light of what is stated in Amoris Laetitia, is
there any longer any objective situation of grave habitual
sin?
“After
the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on
“circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,”
does one still need to regard as valid the teaching
of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor,
81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of
the Church, according to which “circumstances or
intentions can never transform an act intrinsically
evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’
good or defensible as a choice”?”
SIMPLIFIED:
Given
that "circumstances or intentions can never transform
an act intrinsically evil into one that is subjectively
good", how can it be affirmed, as it is in Amoris
Laetitia, that there are "circumstances which mitigate
moral responsibility"? Can, then, circumstances or intentions
transform an act intrinsically [objectively] evil into
one that is subjectively good?
“After
Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to
regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical
Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture
and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a
creative interpretation of the role of conscience and
that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized
to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral
norms that prohibit intrinsically evil
acts by virtue of their object?”
SIMPLIFIED:
Can the (subjective) conscience be appealed to in order
to abrogate or cancel intrinsically evil acts?
To date, Pope Francis
has obstinately, if not arrogantly refused to deign to answer
these vital questions necessary to the integrity of our
Holy Catholic Faith. This certainly does not accord with his
widely publicized “humility” ... Indeed, in a recent interview,
he went so far as to characterize those who so much as questioned
his questionable theology as “fanatici” — fanatics.
Enigmatic?
So often silence is hiding, concealing, refusing
to disclose.
If confusion arises,
it calls for clarity — especially as it pertains to matters
of the Faith; if apparent equivocation threatens sound doctrine
it must be clarified for the sake of the faithful.
If answering five questions that involve both — equivocation
and confusion — promotes unity through a clearly articulated
understanding, why refuse? Why obstinate silence, which only
underscores the likelihood of an inability to answer in conformity
with sound Catholic doctrine and Sacred Scripture? In a word
what is to be gained through silence? It is hardly a
mark of humility to hold oneself above questioning. Should the
word enigmatic even be predicated of a pope?
“The Silent Card” — Amoris
Laetitia — a Case in Point
Much like Cardinal Law and countless superiors in Boston, Pope
Francis is playing the “Silent Card”. But it is a far more perilous
gambling. Much as in the famous Emperor's New Clothes,
the Church has, figuratively speaking, no vestments and is shockingly
unaware that the crowds perceive this. Sanctimony proved too
costly and where the ecclesiastical authorities had yawned,
the doggedly vicious secular prosecutors and courts were not
nearly so lenient or forgiving to just let these atrocities
pass. Lives needed mending (some never) and yes, there was money
to be made. Lots of it. Sanctimony, ecclesiastics came to realize,
was not only meretricious but quite costly.
In a humiliating denouement, it took Caesar
to correct what the Church refused to. We still sting from that
justice, even as we finally savor it.
Once again, however, a gambit of a similar
sort is being played by Francis as he tampers with not only
the Sacred Deposit of Faith of 2000 years, but Holy
Scripture itself!
“Thou shalt not commit
adultery.” (Exodus 20:14, Saint Matthew 5:27-28)
“Whoever unworthily
partakes of the Body and Blood of Christ is guilty of it”
(1 Corinthians 11.27)
Pretty clear, yes? And for over 2000 years.
The Straw
Man:
“The Prize
for the Perfect”
Not so for Francis, who casts
more than a shadow of doubt upon it by approving sexually active
cohabitation — adultery — and even holding it to be sacramental
in a way equal to … well, sacramental marriages
— which of course brings up the question of why bother to marry
sacramentally at all if the grace is given as it were, a
priori? In the infamous “Footnote 351”, Francis magnanimously
proclaims that:
“In certain cases,
this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence,
I want to remind priests that the confessional must
not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter
with the Lord’s mercy … I would also point out that
the Eucharist is not a prize for the perfect,
but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the
weak.”
Indeed, whoever approached Holy
Communion with a sense of entitlement as receiving in all
justice a “prize” for attaining to spiritual perfection?
Who ever experienced the Sacrament
of Penance — Confession — as a
“Torture Chamber”
with a priest as a Grand Inquisitor?
This is a Straw Man, and we
know it. And what is more, Francis knows it, too. It is
offensive to even suggest this. On the other hand it may be
a rare insight into the thought processes of one who would utter
this, especially to justify sacrilege. Does forgiveness precede
sorrow, or is it necessary to forgiveness (in realms
human and divine)? Is it really an act of “Mercy” to
justify adultery and sacrilege? Indeed, are they then sins at
all if they are to be repeated ad mortem under the aegis
of “Mercy”? Indeed how is sorrow possible as long as the
intent to continue in sin remains?
Francis:
“I’ve seen
a lot of fidelity in these cohabitations,
and I am sure that this is a real marriage,
they have the grace of a real marriage because
of their fidelity … It’s provisional, and
because of this the great majority of
our sacramental marriages are null ...
Because they say “yes, for the rest of my
life!” but they don’t know what they are
saying. Because they have a different culture.
They say it, they have good will, but they
don’t know ... They prefer to cohabitate,
and this is a challenge, a task. Not to
ask “why don’t you marry?” No, to accompany,
to wait, and to help them to mature, help
fidelity to mature.’ ”
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, on
the other hand states:
“Some today
claim a “right to a trial marriage” where
there is an intention of getting married
later. However firm the purpose of those
who engage in premature sexual relations
may be, “the fact is that such liaisons
can scarcely ensure mutual sincerity and
fidelity in a relationship between a man
and a woman, nor, especially, can they protect
it from inconstancy of desires or whim.”
Carnal union is morally legitimate only
when a definitive community of life between
a man and woman has been established. Human
love does not tolerate “trial marriages.”
It demands a total and definitive gift of
persons to one another.” (CCC 2391)
Sacramental Adultery?
Of course,
if sacramental adultery is not a sacrilegious concept, then
neither are other Sacraments protected from sacrilege.
Sacred Scripture, Tradition,
and the Sacred Deposit of Faith — neither Pope Francis or any
other pope has the authority to violate or in any measure to
attenuate any of the three … let alone abrogate
them.
Our concern does not stop
here: Francis’s despotic and autocratic mania appears to be
uninhibited by God or man. What, we are compelled to ask, will
next fall under his whimsical interpretations, and become scandalously
ensconced in his “personal magisterium” — to the detriment
of the sanctity and salvation of souls?
“Dialogue”
Replace the Decalogue?
What
of the other Commandments?
What of the
other 5 Sacraments?
What is evident to all but the
most myopic is the prospect that if, indeed, Francis can equivocate
about long established and clearly articulated concepts of marriage,
adultery, cohabitation, the efficacy of grace, the notion of
validity as it is predicated of each — what else, we ask, is
up for grabs? What else has been misunderstood
for 2000 years? What else has God hidden from the faithful
until the accession of Francis to the Seat of Peter and subsequent
to that accession subjected dogma and doctrine to his
penetrating gaze that dispels all the myths of pre-enlightened
(pre-Bergoglian, pre-Vatican II — you choose) Catholicism?
|
The Ten
Commandments “Suggestions”
|
The
proscription against adultery dates to the 12th century
— BC. To preclude any misunderstanding, it was inscribed
in stone! Little can be more definitive than that.
In fact it is an adage: “It is written in stone”, that
is to say, absolutely clear and unalterable. That was one- thousand-two-hundred
years before Christ. But now — 3000 years later — we
are suddenly unclear about what constitutes adultery?
Of course
Pope Francis has an affinity for Luther to whom, after 1400
years of deceit and duplicity on the part of God in failing
to reveal the “real truth” to the Church, finally
revealed it to Luther in the fullness of time. It would appear
that Francis has that singular privilege as well. Not only had
God Himself had it wrong (or had misspoken), but the Apostles,
the Church Fathers, the 21 Church Councils, the Saints, the
Martyrs, and of course the “less educated” as well had it wrong.
The Ten Commandments are not Commandments after all, or at least
binding in any remotely coherent way. They are actually The
Ten Suggestions that require “accompaniment” by Team Bergoglio
who will parse them psycho-theologically in order to
be reveal their “real meaning” to the unenlightened masses
— so that sin will no longer be an impediment to union with
God.
The Last
and Most Frightening
“S”
If Francis persists in effectively
amending Scripture to accord with his clearly progressive and
dangerously liberal agenda, or in disregard of Tradition, and
prescinding from the Sacred Deposit of the Faith, the only apparent
logical sequitur is also an “S” word, for it would likely
provoke a monumental schism within the Church: not a “breaking
away from” by Catholics faithful to Holy Mother
Church, but a “having already broken away from”
Holy Mother Church by disaffected Catholics who put liberal
ideology in place of theology, man before God, their ambitions
before their obligations, and their temporal gains before their
eternal losses.
But — we protest — this
must not happen!
As Cardinal Raymond Burke emphatically
noted:
“There
can be no place in our thinking or acting for schism
which is always and everywhere wrong,” he said.
“Schism is the fruit of a worldly way of thinking,
of thinking that the Church is in our hands, instead
of in the hands of Christ. The Church in our time
has great need of the purification of any kind of worldly
thinking,” he added. The Cardinal warned Catholics in
anguish over the current situation within the Church
against even thinking about schism, that is, separating
themselves from the Catholic Church headed by the Pope
in the hope of creating a better Church.
Code of Canon Law Article 1 §3
Of course, there are others issues
at stake, especially pertaining to the office of the Petrine
Ministry in the Code of Canon Law for which no such apparently
facile remedy is immediately available, especially as it pertains
to CCL Art 1 §3.
“No appeal or recourse
is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”
The clarity and concision of this law is deliberately rigorous
and for good reason — especially in light of the past 50 years
which have witnessed widespread and regular dissent and disobedience
vis-à-vis the papacy on the part of cardinals, ordinaries, national
“Catholic Conferences”, seminary rectors, priests, theologians,
and Religious. Widespread as these have been, much-needed
correction on the part of the pontiffs preceding Francis
has been rare, tempered, and even rescinded. Francis’s shocking
authoritarian and peremptory character has no precedent in modern
times. The question confronting thoughtful Catholics is why?
Why is the full canonical weight of the papacy being
exercised so vigorously by Pope Francis and “Team Bergoglio”
— and if it is divinely ordained why are the consequences
so deleterious to the Church and the faithful? Why such confusion
and apparent subterfuge (St. Gallen Group)? Why such a pervasive
atmosphere of fear permeating the Vatican as never before —
and as is routinely reported?
Of course, there are others issues
at stake, especially pertaining to the office of the Petrine
Ministry in the Code of Canon Law for which no such apparently
facile remedy is immediately available, especially as it pertains
to CCL Art 1 §3.
“No appeal or recourse
is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.”
According to the 1917
Code of Canon Law: “Prima Sedes a nemine iudicatur”
(Canon 1556)
— “The First See [the pope] is judged by no one.”
The clarity and concision of this law is deliberately rigorous
and for good reason — especially in light of the past 50 years
which have witnessed widespread and regular dissent and disobedience
vis-à-vis the papacy on the part of cardinals, ordinaries, national
“Catholic Conferences”, seminary rectors, priests, theologians,
and Religious. Widespread as these have been, much-needed
correction on the part of the pontiffs preceding Francis
has been rare, tempered, and even rescinded. Francis’s shocking
authoritarian and peremptory character has no precedent in modern
times. The question confronting thoughtful Catholics is why?
Why is the full canonical weight of the papacy being
exercised so vigorously by Pope Francis and “Team Bergoglio”
— and if it is divinely ordained why are the consequences
so deleterious to the Church and the faithful? Why such confusion
and apparent subterfuge (St. Gallen Group)? Why such
a pervasive atmosphere of fear permeating the Vatican as never
before — and as is routinely reported?
No implied “judgment”
in the Dubia or Questions requiring Clarification
Much more to the point, there
is no implied
“judgment” of Pope Francis in what is simply, correctly, and
canonically termed “The Dubia”, or the questions
placed before the pope for clarification are simply that:
questions — not judgments of the pope. Issues are involved
that stand in dire need of clarification and consensus. Indeed,
far from presuming to judge the pope in any way, they are questions
requiring his judgment since no universal interpretive
consensus is agreed upon — for which reason the dubia
were presented to him!
Bishops
and priests in different countries are in diametric opposition
to one another in their understanding of the questions involved.
This is a scandalous state of affairs. Definitively answering
the questions — which is the prerogative and responsibility
of the pope alone — is the only way to settle these divisions,
misunderstandings, and misinterpretations not only among the
clergy, but the faithful. What is permitted in Poland is not
permitted in Canada. Even within one country — America — what
is permitted in Los Angeles is not permitted in Philadelphia.
In a word, what is sinful in one place is not sinful
in another.
That — if nothing else — is the scandal. No casuistry will ever
overcome the Law of Non-Contradiction): x cannot, at one and
the same time, both be x and not-x. It
is inconsistent with reason and irreconcilable with logic. It
is also a terrible chaos in a universe of immortal souls and
Divine pronouncements.
The Church
is God’s
These are real and ultimately
vital questions! To reply with the simple legality
of a Canon Law that states
“No appeal or recourse
is permitted against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff”
is sufficient — ultimately is not.
We must remember — with a faith
straitened as perhaps never before — that ultimately the Church
is God’s
to do with as He wills. He either chooses —
or permits — whom He wills, and to ends that are
now utterly opaque to us. Who are we to question God? In the
end His ways are not our ways.
And perhaps — just perhaps — He has given or permitted
us to have what and whom
we
find congenial to us
in our sinful trajectory to Hell— if only to teach us that ultimately
His way is better.
Geoffrey K. Mondello
Editor
Boston Catholic Journal
Printable PDF Version
Comments? Write us:
editor@boston-catholic-journal.com
______________________________________________________
Further Reading on the Papacy of Francis:
Totally
Faithful to the Sacred Deposit of Faith entrusted
to the Holy See in Rome
“Scio
opera tua ... quia modicum habes virtutem, et servasti verbum
Meum, nec non negasti Nomen Meum”
“I
know your works ... that you have but little power, and
yet you have kept My word, and have not denied My Name.”
(Apocalypse 3.8)
Copyright © 2004 - 2024 Boston
Catholic Journal. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise
stated, permission is granted by the Boston Catholic Journal
for the copying and distribution of the articles and audio
files under the following conditions: No additions,
deletions, or changes are to be made to the text or audio
files in any way, and the copies may not be sold for a profit.
In the reproduction, in any format of any image, graphic,
text, or audio file, attribution must be given to the Boston
Catholic Journal.
|
|