From the Remnant by Christopher Ferrara<\/p>\n
DISCLAIMER: This and all articles posted on the LLA Site do not necessarily reflect the view of the LLA or any of its members. Articles are posted for informational purposes only.<\/p>\n
The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres… churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. <\/p>\n
Our Lady of Akita, October 13, 1973 <\/p>\n
Introduction<\/p>\n
On March 9, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, America\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s foremost Catholic prelate, appeared on NBC\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Meet the Press\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and commented as follows on the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153coming out\u00e2\u20ac\u009d of a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153gay\u00e2\u20ac\u009d college football star:<\/p>\n
Good for him\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 I would have no sense of judgment on him\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6. God bless ya. I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t think, look, the same Bible that tells us, that teaches us well about the virtues of chastity and the virtue of fidelity and marriage also tells us not to judge people. So I would say, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Bravo.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153No sense of judgment\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6. Bravo.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d That is how a Prince of Church in the Year of Our Lord 2014 reacts to a celebrity\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s announcement that he engages in unspeakable acts\u00e2\u20ac\u201d\u00e2\u20ac\u0153men with men, working that which is filthy (Romans 1:26)\u00e2\u20ac\u009d\u00e2\u20ac\u201dacts that cry out to heaven for vengeance, as Churchmen used to teach before the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153opening to the world\u00e2\u20ac\u009d at Vatican II. Here we see the vast ripple effect of the \u00e2\u20ac\u0153who am I to judge?\u00e2\u20ac\u009d mantra that Pope Francis launched into the collective consciousness of humanity by going out of his way to speak to reporters about homosexuals in the hierarchy at \u00e2\u20ac\u0153a surprise news conference\u00e2\u20ac\u009d they had not even requested. The \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Francis effect\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is disarming prelates and priests alike. It threatens to disarm us as well, unless we take a stand against what is happening.<\/p>\n
As Pope Leo XIII, citing his predecessor Felix III, teaches: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (Inimica Vis [1892]). That is why this article has been written. For the bad news concerning this pontificate shows no signs of abating. On the contrary, it seems to worsen by the day. This lengthy piece will consider troubling developments that occurred in rapid succession during a span of less than three weeks: from February 14 to March 5. I felt compelled in conscience to write it because I must agree with what the prominent moral theologian German Grisez wrote about this pontificate: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Pope Francis has failed to consider carefully enough the likely consequences of letting loose with his thoughts in a world that will applaud being provided with such help in subverting the truth it is his job to guard as inviolable and proclaim with fidelity.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n
My purpose is two-fold: First, to attempt to give an overview of how serious our situation has become. Second, to clarify what is at stake for the Church in the controversies now swirling about Francis, lest the true teaching of the Magisterium be lost in all the confusion. The controversies to be discussed here\u00e2\u20ac\u201dall erupting during the three-week period in view\u00e2\u20ac\u201dinclude:<\/p>\n
– Francis\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s apparent endorsement of the neo-Modernist drive to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion via \u00e2\u20ac\u0153pastoral solution;\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n
– His intimations of a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153pastoral\u00e2\u20ac\u009d relaxation of the teaching of Humane Vitae;<\/p>\n
– His apparent opening to \u00e2\u20ac\u0153gay marriage\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in the form of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153civil unions;\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n
– His personal endorsement of the multi-denominational, doctrinally indifferent Protestant \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Pentecostal\u00e2\u20ac\u009d movement, which Francis gave in a video created for the benefit of a breakaway Anglican \u00e2\u20ac\u0153bishop\u00e2\u20ac\u009d in that movement;<\/p>\n
– His continuing disparagement of the traditional liturgy and the growing numbers of the faithful devoted to it, including young people.<\/p>\n
I hope in this way to render a service to the readers of this newspaper. Before I present the details, however, I will address a threshold question: Does a Catholic even have a right to publish an article of this sort?<\/p>\n
On Public Criticism of Popes<\/p>\n
Some Catholics hold that we must never engage in public criticism of the Pope\u00c2\u00ad\u00c2\u00ad\u00e2\u20ac\u201dno matter what he says, no matter what he does. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153We must not incite indignation concerning the Holy Father\u00e2\u20ac\u009d say these people, even as they themselves\u00e2\u20ac\u201dquite rightly\u00e2\u20ac\u201dcall for indignation concerning wayward prelates such as Cardinal Dolan, publicly criticizing them without reserve for doing nothing other than what the Pope has done, authorized, encouraged or tolerated himself.<\/p>\n
But \u00e2\u20ac\u0153incitement\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is not my intention here. I write because the Pope\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s own words and deeds have already aroused indignation among the faithful. Indignation is not a sin when it is warranted. On the contrary, it is a Catholic\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s natural reaction to conduct that threatens the good of the Church and the welfare of souls. The Bishop of Rome is no more exempt than any other member of the hierarchy from the indignation of his subjects when he wounds them or the Church of which he is head. Indignation over a prelate\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s behavior\u00e2\u20ac\u201deven if that prelate were a Pope\u00e2\u20ac\u201dis not to be confused with hatred or rancor toward the one who holds the office; it is, rather, an appropriate reaction to a wrong and a natural impetus for seeking its redress. Nor is seeking redress to be confused with a lack of \u00e2\u20ac\u0153charity,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d as it so often is in this age of emotivism. One is of course obliged in charity to forgive a wrong, but there is nonetheless a duty to repair it, especially when it harms the common good of the Church.<\/p>\n
The origin of the pious prescription \u00e2\u20ac\u0153no public criticism of the Pope\u00e2\u20ac\u009d is mysterious, as it is certainly not to be found in the official teaching of the Church or the common opinion of theologians. Nor is there any sign of a theology of abject silence in the face of papal wrongs throughout the long history of public opposition\u00e2\u20ac\u201doften fierce\u00e2\u20ac\u201dto wayward Popes, beginning with Paul\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s public rebuke of Peter for his scandalous refusal to eat with Gentiles: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed (Gal. 2:11).\u00e2\u20ac\u009d To the facile objection that saints may criticize erring Popes, one might offer the facile reply that we ought to imitate the example of the saints. Nowhere, however, does the Church impose any \u00e2\u20ac\u0153saints only\u00e2\u20ac\u009d limitation on objecting publicly to what a Pope has said or done in public.<\/p>\n
There were no known saints involved, for example, in the public opposition to John XXII (r. 1316-1334) when he insisted in a series of Sunday sermons that the blessed departed do not see God until after the General Judgment\u00c2\u00ad\u00e2\u20ac\u201dthus, among other dire consequences, nullifying the traditional teaching on the efficacy of prayers for the souls in Purgatory. Theologians at the University Paris concurred that, while the matter had never been defined as dogma, the Pope was in error, and they petitioned him to recant his opinion. The Pope ultimately did so, noting that he had never imposed his view upon the Church and that everyone had been free to disagree with him. John XXII\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s more energetic opponents, including Cardinal Orsini and King Louis of Bavaria, called upon the cardinals to convoke a council to condemn him as a heretic. None of the papal critics in this affair stands condemned by the judgment of the Church.<\/p>\n
To address another facile objection, some Catholics maintain that even if it may be permissible to express criticism of a Pope in given circumstances, one must never do so on the Internet or in the press. But it is precisely on the Internet and in the press that Pope Francis has insisted on making his opinions and gestures known to all of humanity. The Pope has the whole planet buzzing about the latest thing he has said or done\u00e2\u20ac\u201dall of it broadcast worldwide nearly every day with the assistance of a public relations team headed by PR \u00e2\u20ac\u0153wizard\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Greg Burke, a former Fox News and Time magazine correspondent and a member of Opus Dei.<\/p>\n
One must dismiss as simply ludicrous the idea that in an age of mass communications the only Catholic way to express an objection to what a Pope has deliberately broadcast to the world is some sort of private entreaty. Reflecting the reality of modern social communications, the 1983 Code of Canon Law provides that the faithful, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153according to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6 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\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (CCC \u00c2\u00a7 212(3)). The canon does not provide \u00e2\u20ac\u0153except when it comes to the Pope.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n
Recognizing the right and duty of the faithful in this regard, Pope Francis personally telephoned the late traditionalist writer Mario Palmaro after he and his co-author had published a newspaper article leveling a scathing assessment of the publicity-seeking aspect of this pontificate under the bold title \u00e2\u20ac\u0153We Do Not Like This Pope.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d During the conversation, after expressing concern for Dr. Palmaro\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s health (he would soon succumb to liver cancer at the age of 45), the Pope thanked him for his criticisms, assuring him that he \u00e2\u20ac\u0153understood that those criticisms had been made with love, and how important it had been for him to receive them.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Further exercising his right and duty, Palmaro later told the press \u00e2\u20ac\u0153he cannot \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcstate objectively that Pope Francis met our criticisms.\u00e2\u20ac\u2122\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Palmaro added the caveat that must guide any Catholic who raises a public objection to a Pope\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s actions: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153we did not want to judge the Pope as a human person. We distinguish the action from the person.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n
How odd it is that neo-Catholic proponents of the opinion that the Pope may never be criticized in public, who generally tend to be au courant with \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the modern world,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d blithely ignore the modern reality of instantaneous worldwide communications, exploited by the Pope himself, and insist upon a way of proceeding that was not even morally obligatory in the days of quill pens, parchment paper, and letters delivered by horseback and ship. With all the world agog at Pope Francis, and with damage to the Church\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s image mounting in proportion to the praise he garners from her worst enemies, the proponents of this novel ban on public criticism of Popes now find themselves constrained to remain silent about matters uppermost in the public consciousness of virtually the entire human race! Their pious notion, utterly without foundation in Church teaching, confines them\u00c2\u00ad\u00e2\u20ac\u201dand them alone\u00e2\u20ac\u201dto a kind of deep sea diving bell, submerged beneath tempestuous waters, wherein the storms whipped up by Francis cannot reach them, while every other happening in the Church is received loud and clear and is fair game for comment and the harshest of criticism from inside the diving bell, especially the doings of those dastardly bishops, who are to blame for everything. This is the absurdity they imagine is enjoined upon the faithful by a duty that turns out to be nothing more than their view of how things should be.<\/p>\n
Paradoxically enough, this notion of papal immunity from public criticism has arisen precisely during an unparalleled epoch\u00c2\u00ad\u00e2\u20ac\u201dour own\u00c2\u00ad\u00c2\u00ad\u00e2\u20ac\u201din which a series of Popes has said or done things that have caused public scandal. The idea, I suppose, is that objecting to these scandals publicly might threaten the faith of Catholics who are not equipped to handle such commentary, so that the better approach is to say nothing at all. On the contrary, the better approach is not to ignore papal scandals but to educate Catholics to the historical reality that the history of the papacy is riddled with the scandalous acts and omissions of errant Popes and that this reality does not undermine, but rather demonstrates, the indefectibility of the Church, for not even the worst of Popes has been able to destroy her or to negate any part of the deposit of the Faith. Those who take upon themselves the task of commenting on Church affairs do not serve the Church by hiding historical reality from the faithful, who will learn of the current scandals anyway from the mass media and may suffer a loss of faith precisely because they do not understand that Popes can and do err in matters not within the limited scope of papal infallibility.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the work of the Holy Ghost can be seen in the First Vatican Council\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s narrow dogmatic definition of the Pope\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s infallible teaching authority. The Pope is infallible only when he: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6\u00e2\u20ac\u009d (First Vatican Ecumenical Council, Sess. 3, cap. 4). Of course, the Pope has no power to define doctrines as he pleases, for as Vatican I also teaches: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d A Pope, or a Council approved by a Pope, can define as dogma only what the Church has always believed as doctrine, albeit without a formal definition. Accordingly, even in defining the dogma of papal infallibility itself the Fathers of Vatican I were at pains to demonstrate that they were \u00e2\u20ac\u0153faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith\u00e2\u20ac\u00a6\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n
Therefore, when a Pope is not defining dogma or simply repeating doctrine the Church has always taught, he is susceptible to errors of judgment, false opinions, and prudential blunders, as the long history of the papacy demonstrates. (Cfr. Dr. John Rao\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s definitive historical study Black Legends and the Light of the World). Which brings me to the merits of this discussion.<\/p>\n
To Be Continued Tomorrow Morning and Every Day This Week<\/p>\n
Tomorrow:A Warning Come True (Props to Rorate Caeli) & the Alarming Adulation by a Hostile World<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
From the Remnant by Christopher Ferrara DISCLAIMER: This and all articles posted on the LLA Site do not necessarily reflect the view of the LLA or any of its members. Articles are posted for informational purposes only. The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/539","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=539"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/539\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.latinliturgy.org\/phila\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}