https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/02/the-new-jansenism The New Jansenism | Jessica M. Murdoch Articles by Jessica M. Murdoch One of my students, in a paper concerning the Church’s doctrine on the four last things, made the curious comment that God had not “incentivized” salvation appropriately, and thus human beings could not be at fault for their sins. Had God, the student argued, developed an appropriate system of (earthly) reward, salvation would be much easier to achieve. I confess I chuckled at this very utilitarian assessment of the divine plan. And yet, my young student’s remark is emblematic of a deep suspicion of the sufficiency of grace pervasive in our present moment. Underlying this student’s assessment is a way of thinking that plagues many and is particularly germane to the debate surrounding Amoris Laetitia: namely, that God is somehow at fault when we sin. Within weeks of the public presentation of the dubia concerning Amoris Laetitia by four Catholic cardinals, Michael Sean Winters charged the cardinals with “Jansenism” in an article in the National Catholic Reporter. Across the pond, Piers Paul Read of the Catholic Herald criticized the cardinals in an article titled “The Return of Jansenism.” It is curious, even ironic, to see this old heresy resurrected in modern debates. For it seems that many who have criticized those seeking clarification of Amoris Laetitia are themselves guilty of a new kind of Jansenism—a Jansenism emerging from the twenty-first-century experience, one rooted in presumption rather than despair, but sharing the same pessimism concerning the human condition and the efficacy of God’s love... Read the rest at the link
The lovely story about St Bernadette doing her job reminds me of a similar story about the Indian Little Flower, St Alphonsa (for whom I have a great love). She was frequently so much in pain that she would get up in the night and walk about the convent, silently, praying. One of her fellow sisters once found her thus and asked 'what are you doing?' to which Alphonsa replied 'I am loving'. Like St Therese, she was a victim soul.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/reinstated-knights-of-malta-condom-promoter-cardinal-burke-de-facto-suspend Cardinal Burke is ‘de facto’ suspended, claims Knights of Malta condom promoter Cardinal Raymond Burke offers a Pontifical High Mass on December 10, 2016, at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe, La Crosse, Wisconsin. Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews Claire Chretien Follow Claire February 21, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The Knights of Malta official at the center of controversy over the Order's Catholic identity and sovereignty says its patron, Cardinal Raymond Burke, has been "de facto" suspended. Albrecht von Boeselager, a German aristocrat, was removed from his post as Grand Chancellor on the grounds that he violated his promise of obedience. He hadn't submitted to his superiors' request that he resign after it was revealed he had overseen the distribution of contraception in the developing world. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil. After Boeslager's removal caused a kerfuffle, Pope Francis personally stepped in, reinstating Boeselager to his former position. The pope also asked Grand Master Matthew Festing, the order's highest-ranking official who had removed Boeselager, to resign. This was unusual because the order of Malta is a sovereign state. The pontiff then appointed a "papal delegate" to run the order. In comments translated by The Tablet, Von Boeselager told the Archdiocese of Cologne's website, domradio.de, that delegate Archbishop Angelo Becciu is now fulfilling Cardinal Burke's role. Becciu "has the full confidence of the Pope and is his spokesman," von Boeselager said. "That means that Cardinal Burke as Cardinal Patron of the Order is now de facto suspended." Von Boeselager said it's a "completely unfounded accusation" that Pope Francis undermined the Order's sovereignty by demanding Festing's resignation. "The Pope acted at the Order’s wish and he took great care that the Order’s sovereignty was in no way violated or impaired," he said. "He asked the Grand Master to step down, his resignation was carried out according to the Order’s regulations and was accepted. The appointment of the Holy Father’s delegate is expressly limited to the spiritual side of the Order and has nothing to do with its activities as a sovereign power." Von Boeselager said the reason the pontiff became involved is because of the "false allegation" that Pope Francis had wanted von Boeselager to "step down." "He had to correct it," he said. "And then many members of the Order appealed to the Holy Father to act and put things right" by reinstating the official who oversaw contraception distribution. Burke is one of the four cardinals who submitted a dubia to Pope Francis asking for moral clarity on Amoris Laetitia. He is an outspoken defender of Catholic orthodoxy and the pro-life cause. Burke recently said the acting head of the Knights of Malta's account of the controversial events were "inaccurate" and "calumny."
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/c...curate-description-of-events-in-knights-of-ma Cardinal Burke criticizes acting Knights of Malta head for ‘calumny’ against him Lisa Bourne / LifeSiteNews Jan Bentz Follow Jan February 20, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — Cardinal Raymond Burke has disputed the account by the acting head of the Knights of Malta involving Grand Chancellor Albrecht von Boeselager and called them “inaccurate” and “calumny.” Fra’ Ludwig Hoffmann von Rumerstein told Austria's News Der Standart that he participated in a December 6 meeting with Cardinal Burke, then-Grand Master Fra’ Matthew Festing, and von Boeselager in which von Boeselager was asked to resign. Von Rumerstein characterized the meeting as “a talk between Cardinal Burke and Boeselager." “The discussion took place in a civilized manner. Boeselager had said no to the request of Cardinal Burke for him to step down. And I walked the Cardinal to his car afterwards,” Rumerstein explained. “I don't remember [what Burke said], but he shook his head. He was upset that you can say. He had expected for Boeselager to resign.” Cardinal Burke responded in an interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register that he was “stunned” by von Rumerstein’s description of the events. “The account given by Fra’ Ludwig Hoffmann von Rumerstein is not accurate,” Cardinal Burke said. “I had no authority to ask the Grand Chancellor to resign.” The implication of Cardinal Burke in the resignation of von Boeselager by Pope Francis came about when the Pope asked Festing to implicate Burke in the former’s resignation letter. Von Rumerstein’s account is in accordance with this narrative. Cardinal Burke replied, “I simply stated that the person who knowingly permitted the distribution of contraceptives in the Order’s works should take responsibility, and then the Grand Master once again asked the Grand Chancellor to resign, which he refused to do. Then the Grand Master proceeded to his dismissal without my involvement at all. The account of the Grand Master and myself stands.” Burke views the recent remarks by von Rumerstein as aggressive. “To be frank, I am stunned by what Hoffmann von Rumerstein states in the article. I consider it a calumny.” Cardinal Burke is currently in Guam, where he has been acting as the presiding judge over a clerical sex abuse case from the 1970s. In an interview, Burke explained that this trip was in no way a “punishment” – as some articles suggested – but a task given to him by superiors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which is the usual procedure in such cases. He went on to say the Pope “entrusted the case to the Congregation, and the Congregation had proceeded according to the standard procedure for training the members of the Court.” Cardinal Burke has been replaced as the Pope’s envoy to the Knights of Malta by Archbishop Angelo Becciu, who is leading a reform of the Order.
David, I know that Tanker and myself have read the article. My response is found in post # 86. Do you think my suggestion that both Benedict's canonization of subjectivity and the position of the Maltese bishops, intersect, is reasonable? You can answer me in a pm if you like. Safe in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary!
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/the-city-gates.cfm?ID=1416 View attachment 6159 The circus comes to town By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | Feb 22, 2017 There was a circus performance at the Pope’s audience today. No, really. It’s true. There was a juggler so skillful that he could balance six different interpretations of Amoris Laetitia. And a contortionist who could reconcile the German bishops’ interpretation with constant Church teaching. Okay, that last part isn’t true.
http://magister.blogautore.espresso...-the-jesuits-jesus-too-must-be-reinterpreted/ Marriage and Divorce. The General of the Jesuits: "Jesus Too Must Be Reinterpreted" 22 feb > Italiano > English > Español > All the articles of Settimo Cielo in English * Incredible but true. In the eighth chapter of "Amoris Laetitia,” the most heated and controversial, the one in which Pope Francis seems to “open up” to remarriage while the previous spouse is still alive, there is no citation at all of the words of Jesus on marriage and divorce, presented primarily in chapter 19 of the Gospel according to Matthew: «Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”» It is an astonishing omission. Also striking are two other moments of silence from Francis, on the same question. The first took place on October 4, 2015. It was the Sunday of the beginning of the second and final session of the synod on the family. And on that very day, in all the Catholic churches of the Latin rite, at Mass, the Gospel passage read was from Mark (10:2-9), parallel to the one in Matthew 19:2-12. At the Angelus, the pope avoided any reference to that passage of the Gospel, in spite of its extraordinary pertinence to the questions discussed at the synod. And the same thing happened last February 12, with another similar passage from the Gospel of Matthew (5:11-12) read at Mass in all the churches. This time as well, at the Angelus, Francis avoided citing and commenting on it. Why such adamant silence from the pope on words of Jesus that are so unequivocal? One clue toward a response is in the interview that the new superior general of the Society of Jesus, the Venezuelan Arturo Sosa Abascal, very close to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has given to the Swiss vaticanista Giuseppe Rusconi for the blog Rossoporpora and for the "Giornale del Popolo" of Lugano. Here are the passages most relevant to the case. Any commentary would be superfluous. * Q: Cardinal Gerhard L. Műller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, has said with regard to marriage that the words of Jesus are very clear and "no power in heaven and on earth, neither an angel nor the pope, neither a council nor a law of the bishops has the faculty to modify them." A: So then, there would have to be a lot of reflection on what Jesus really said. At that time, no one had a recorder to take down his words. What is known is that the words of Jesus must be contextualized, they are expressed in a language, in a specific setting, they are addressed to someone in particular. Q: But if all the worlds of Jesus must be examined and brought back to their historical context, they do not have an absolute value. A: Over the last century in the Church there has been a great blossoming of studies that seek to understand exactly what Jesus meant to say… That is not relativism, but attests that the word is relative, the Gospel is written by human beings, it is accepted by the Church which is made up of human persons… So it is true that no one can change the word of Jesus, but one must know what it was! Q: Is it also possible to question the statement in Matthew 19:3-6: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”? A: I go along with what Pope Francis says. One does not bring into doubt, one brings into discernment. . . Q: But discernment is evaluation, it is choosing among different options. There is no longer an obligation to follow just one interpretation. . . A: No, the obligation is still there, but to follow the result of discernment. Q: However, the final decision is based on a judgment relative to different hypotheses. So it also takes into consideration the hypothesis that the phrase “let man not put asunder…” is not exactly as it appears. In short, it brings the word of Jesus into doubt. A: Not the word of Jesus, but the word of Jesus as we have interpreted it. Discernment does not select among different hypotheses but listens to the Holy Spirit, who - as Jesus has promised - helps us to understand the signs of God’s presence in human history. Q: But discern how? A: Pope Francis does discernment following St. Ignatius, like the whole Society of Jesus: one has to seek and find, St. Ignatius said, the will of God. It is not a frivolous search. Discernment leads to a decision: one must not only evaluate, but decide. Q: And who must decide? A: The Church has always reiterated the priority of personal conscience. Q: So if conscience, after discernment, tells me that I can receive communion even if the norm does not provide for it… A: The Church has developed over the centuries, it is not a piece of reinforced concrete. It was born, it has learned, it has changed. This is why the ecumenical councils are held, to try to bring developments of doctrine into focus. Doctrine is a word that I don't like very much, it brings with it the image of the hardness of stone. Instead the human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development. Q: I seem to understand that for you there is a priority for the practice of the discernment of doctrine. A: Yes, but doctrine is part of discernment. True discernment cannot dispense with doctrine. Q: But it can reach conclusions different from doctrine. A: That is so, because doctrine does not replace discernment, nor does it the Holy Spirit. * Properly speaking, there are Catholic exegetes who give the words of Jesus on marriage and divorce an interpretation that admits repudiation and remarriage. This is the case of the Camaldolese monk Guido Innocenzo Gargano, a famous biblicist and patrologist, professor at the pontifical universities Gregoriana and Urbaniana. His exegesis was presented in its entirety by www.chiesa on January 16, 2015: > For the “Hard of Heart” the Law of Moses Still Applies It is an exegesis that naturally cannot be shared and has in fact been contested at its core. But it has the virtue of transparency and of “parresìa,” which instead are missing in those who change the words of Jesus without doing so openly and without giving a reason. (English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.) Sent from my iPhone
You know, sometimes I miss the "good ole days" of old communism. They didn´t mince words. They said they wanted to make a bloody revolution, kill the rich, destroy the middle class and establish the dictatorship of the proletariat - well, with them at the helm, of course. So you knew what you were up against. Lenin, for example, said: A lie told often enough becomes the truth. There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel. Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted. Destroy the family, you destroy the country. The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed. We do not have time to play at “oppositions” at “conferences.” We will keep our political opponents… whether open or disguised as “nonparty,” in prison. One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers and the disarming of the bourgeoisie (the middle class). One man with a gun can control 100 without one. A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie. The goal of socialism is communism. The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them. -- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin But with the "new communism" it´s never clear. It´s all obfuscation and smoke and mirrors. It´s all subtle, so that few notice what´s going on. Truth has taken a completely different meaning. It´s a whole new orwellian world. And this "new communism" has infiltrated society practically everywhere. It´s certainly thriving in the Vatican these days. How prescient were our Holy Mother´s words at Fatima: "Russia will spread her errors"...
It's all part of the gradual erosion of the faith... Ever so slowly removing tradition. So, it's all part of the diabolical plan to ruin the Catholic Church.
De Mattei: When public correction of a pope is urgent and necessary May a Pope be publicly corrected for his reprehensible behaviour? Or should the attitude of the faithful be that of unconditional obedience, until the point of justifying anything the Pope’s says and does, even if openly scandalous? According to some, like the Vatican journalist Andrea Tornielli, it is possible to express “tète a tète” one’s dissent to the Pope, without, however, manifesting it publicly. This thesis nonetheless, contains an important admission. The Pope is not infallible, unless he speaks ex cathedra. Otherwise it would not be licit to dissent even privately and the path to follow would only be that of religious silence. On the other hand, the Pope, who is not Christ, but only his representative on earth, can sin and make mistakes. Yet, is it true that he may only be corrected privately and never publicly? To respond it is important to recall the historical example par excellence which offers us the golden rule to follow; the so-called “incident at Antioch”. St. Paul records it in these terms in his Epistle to the Galatians, probably written between 54 AD and 57 AD. “[...] when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision. (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles.) And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do. But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that some came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision. And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all: If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” Peter, for fear of hurting the feelings of the Jews, with his behaviour, favoured the “Judaizer’s” position, who believed that circumcision should apply to all converted Christians along with other dispositions from the Mosaic law. St. Paul says that St. Peter had been clearly wrong and therefore “he had withstood him to his face”, that is publically, so that Peter would not be a scandal to the Church over which he exercised supreme authority. Peter accepted Paul’s correction, acknowledging his error with humility. St. Thomas Aquinas deals with this episode in many of his works. First of all, he notes that “The Apostle opposes Peter in his exercise of authority and not in his authority of government” (Super Epistolam ad Galatas lectura, n. 77, tr. it. ESD, Bologna 2006). Paul recognized that Peter was the Head of the Church, but he judged it legitimate to resist him, given the gravity of the problem, which concerned the salvation of souls. “The manner of the reprimand was appropriate as it was public and manifest” (Super Epistolam ad Galatas, n. 84). This episode, again notes the Angelic Doctor, contains as many teachings for prelates as for their subjects: “To prelates (an example was given) of humility, so they would not refuse to accept complaints on the part of their inferiors and subjects; and to the subjects (was given) examples of zeal and freedom so that they would not fear to correct their prelates, most of all when the fault was public and abounded in danger for many” ( Super Epistulam ad Galatas, n. 77). At Antioch, St. Peter showed profound humility, St. Paul ardent charity. The Apostle to the Gentiles showed that he was not only just but [also] merciful. Among the works of spiritual mercy there is the correction of sinners, called by moralists “fraternal correction”. It is private if the sin is private and public if the sin is public. Jesus Himself established the manner: “But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. 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. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. (Mat. 18, 15-18).” We can imagine [then] that after having tried to convince St. Peter privately, Paul did not hesitate in admonishing him publically, but – says St. Thomas – “since St. Peter had sinned in front of everyone, he had to be reproached in front of everyone” (In 4 Sententiarum, Dist. 19, q. 2, a. 3, tr. it., ESD, Bologna 1999). Fraternal correction, as the theologians teach, is a non-optional precept; it is obligatory, above all for those who have offices of responsibility in the Church, since it derives from the natural law and positive Divine law (Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, vol. III, col. 1908). The admonishment can also come from inferiors directed to their superiors, and from the laity towards prelates. To the question as to whether it is important to correct a superior publically, St. Thomas in his Comment on the Sentences of Pietro Lombardo, responds in the affirmative, making note however of the need to act always with extreme respect. Therefore “prelates should not be corrected by their subjects in front of everyone, but humbly, in private, unless there is impending danger to the faith; then in fact the prelate would become the lesser, if he had slipped into infidelity, and the subject would become the greater” ( In 4 Sententiarum, Dist. 19, q. 2, a. 2). The Angelic Doctor expresses himself in the same terms in the Summa Theologiae: “[...]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-IIae, 33, 4, 2). Cornelius a Lapide, summing up the thought of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, writes: “[...] Superiors may be corrected, with humility and charity by their inferiors, so that the faith is defended; this is what is declared, on the basis of this passage [Gal. 2,11], by St. Augustine (Epist. 19) St. Cyprian, St. Gregory, St. Thomas and others cited above. They teach clearly that St. Peter, despite being superior, was corrected by St. Paul [...]. With good reason, therefore, St. Gregory said (Homil. 18 in Ezech.): “Peter was silent, so that, being the first in the apostolic hierarchy, he was also the first in humility.” And St. Augustine affirmed (Epis. 19 ad Hienonymum): “by teaching that superiors must not refuse permission to their inferiors to correct them, St. Peter gave to posterity a most exceptional and the holiest example in that of St. Paul, teaching that, in defence of the truth, and in charity, to the lesser is given the boldness of withstanding without fear against their greaters” (Ad Gal. 2, II, in Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, Vivès, Parigi 1876, tomo XVII). Fraternal correction is an act of charity. One of the gravest sins against charity is schism, which is separation from the authority of the Church, Her laws, uses and customs. Even a Pope can fall into schism, if he divides the Church, as the theologian Suarez explains (De schismate in Opera omnia, vol. 12, pp. 733-734 e 736-737) and Cardinal Journet confirms (L’Eglise du Verbe Incarné, Desclée, Bruges 1962, vol. I, p. 596). Confusion reigns in the Church today. Some courageous cardinals have announced an eventual public correction of Pope Bergoglio, whose initiatives are becoming more disturbing and divisive each day that passes. The fact that he has neglected to respond to the cardinals’ “dubia” on Chapter 8 of the Exhortation Amoris laetitia, accredits and encourages heretical or near heretical interpretations on the matter of Holy Communion to the divorced and remarried. Confusion, thus favoured, produces tensions and internal fights, or rather a situation of religious contraposition which foreshadows schism. An act of public correction is [thus] rendered urgent and necessary. http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/02/de-mattei-when-public-correction-of.html
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2017/02/en-attendant-godot-tagle-to-replace.html Tagle to replace Müller as CDF Prefect? Tagle singing at a concert, 2012. To the recent reports from other sources that Cardinal Müller has already offered his resignation from CDF, Rorate can now add, from its own very well-placed sources, that there is a plan at the highest levels to replace Müller as Prefect of CDF with no less than the Asian "Pope Francis", the man seen by many as Francis' dauphin, Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle. Müller, appointed Prefect in July 2012, has been effectively marginalized in the past years over the Family Synods and most importantly over Amoris Laetitia. Questions about his future in the Roman Curia have been persistent through the years. It remains to be seen whether he will eventually be sent back to Germany to take the still-vacant see of Mainz (traditionally a red-hat see), or be tossed to a ceremonial position, or whether, like Stanisław Cardinal Ryłko last year, he will simply be retired long before turning 75. Tagle's own theological oeuvre is very thin and his academic reputation rests mainly on the essays he wrote as part of the Bologna School's History of Vatican II. It is his slick promotion by the mainstream Catholic media, his reliably progressivist views (couched in "moderate" language) coupled with his stint at the International Theological Commission and the patronage he received from Joseph Ratzinger, first as CDF Prefect then as Pope, that have combined to give him an aura of learning far beyond what is supported by his real output. His election as President of both the Catholic Biblical Federation (in 2014) and Caritas International (in 2015) and his designation as one of three Delegate Presidents of the Extraordinary Synod of 2014 further guaranteed his prominence in the universal Church. Should this latest plan come to pass, Cardinal Tagle, who will turn 60 in June, will have an enviable "CV" for a conclave frontrunner: a long stint (more than 15 years and counting) as diocesan bishop then archbishop, followed by a stint as head of a Curial dicastery. In the two previous Februaries Don Pio Pace wrote for Rorate long articles on the growing Tagle candidacy for the next conclave, articles worth reading now more than ever: "THE SUCCESSOR" - Rome in Pre-Conclave mood: What will come after the Bergoglio Papacy? (February 2015) Exclusive Op-Ed: Pio Pace: "Conclave Preparations: Watch Out - Great Editorial Manoeuvres Signal Cardinal Tagle" (Feb. 2016)
http://magister.blogautore.espresso...o-bergoglio-did-not-have-the-doubts-of-today/ Revisitations. Twelve Years Ago Bergoglio Did Not Have the Doubts of Today 23 feb > Italiano > English > Español > All the articles of Settimo Cielo in English * Of the five “dubia” submitted to Pope Francis and made public by four cardinals concerning the correct interpretation of "Amoris Laetitia,” three make reference to a previous papal document, the 1993 encyclical of John Paul II “Veritatis Splendor.” And they ask if three truths of faith forcefully reaffirmed by that encyclical still apply. In doubt number two this is the truth for which the cardinals ask confirmation: - the existence of absolute moral norms, valid without exception, that prohibit intrinsically evil acts (Veritatis Splendor, 79). In doubt number four it is this other truth for which they ask clarification: - the impossibility that “circumstances or intentions” may transform "an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act subjectively good or defensible as a choice" (Veritatis Splendor, 81). And finally, in doubt number five it is this other truth for which they are awaiting illumination: - the certainty that conscience is never authorized to legitimize exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit acts that are intrinsically evil by virtue of their object (Veritatis Splendor, 56). None of these “dubia” has received a response from Jorge Mario Bergoglio so far. But if one goes back in time, to when he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, he would give the answers. Sure and reassuring. In October of 2004 in Buenos Aires, on the occasion of the inauguration of the Cátedra Juan Pablo II at the Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina, an international theological conference was held on none other than "Veritatis Splendor.” Attention. “Veritatis Splendor” is not a minor encyclical. In March of 2014, in one of his rare and deeply pondered writings as pope emeritus, indicating the encyclicals out of the fourteen published by John Paul II that in his judgment are “most important for the Church,” Joseph Ratzinger cited four of these, with a few lines for each, but then he added a fifth, which was precisely “Veritatis Splendor,” to which he dedicated an entire page, calling it “of unchanged relevance” and concluding that “studying and assimilating this encyclical remains a great and important duty.” In “Veritatis Splendor” the pope emeritus saw the restoration to Catholic morality of its metaphysical and Christological foundation, the only one capable of overcoming the pragmatic drift of current morality, “in which there no longer exists that which is truly evil and that which is truly good, but only that which, from the point of view of efficacy, is better or worse.” In other words, the target of “Veritatis Splendor” was “situational” ethics, the permissive movement in favor among the Jesuits in the 17th century that never went away, but instead is even more widespread in the Church today. So then, among the speakers at that conference the first was Bergoglio. And his talk can be reread in the proceedings published in 2005 by Ediciones Paulinas of Buenos Aires, in a volume entitled: “La verdad los hará libres.” A talk, that of Bergoglio, of powerful, unquestionable adherence to the truths reaffirmed by “Veritatis Splendor” and in particular to the three mentioned above, or precisely the ones that seem to be wobbling today, after the publication of “Amoris Laetitia.” For example, on page 34 of the book, the then-archbishop of Buenos Aires writes that “only a moral theology that recognizes norms that are valid always and for everyone, without any exception, can guarantee the ethical foundation of social coexistence, both national and international,” in defense of the equal rights both of the powerful and of the least of the earth, while the relativism of a democracy without values leads to totalitarianism. And this would be a response to the second doubt of the four cardinals. On page 32 Bergoglio writes that the understanding of human weakness “can never mean a compromise and falsification of the criterion of good and evil, with the intention of adapting it to the existential circumstances of human persons and groups.” And this would be a response to doubt number four. On page 30, finally, he rejects it as a “grave temptation” to maintain that it is impossible for sinful man to observe the holy law of God, and therefore to want to “decide for himself what is good and what is evil” instead of invoking the grace that God always grants. And this would be a response to the fifth doubt. But then what happened, after that 2004 conference in Buenos Aires? What happened, among other things, is that in reaction to the conference an Argentine theologian named Víctor Manuel Fernández in 2005 and 2006 wrote a pair of articles in defense of situational ethics. Fernández was the pupil of Bergoglio, who wanted him as rector of the Universidad Católica Argentina and in effect was able to secure his appointment in 2009, overcoming the understandable resistance from the Vatican congregation for Catholic education. Not only that. When in 2013 Bergoglio became pope, he immediately promoted Fernández as archbishop and wanted him to be part of the composition of the agenda-setting document of his pontificate, the exhortation “Evangelii Gaudium,” as also of other prominent speeches and documents of his. With the effect that has been seen in “Amoris Laetitia,” thoroughly imbued with permissive moral theology and even with some paragraphs copied from previous writings by Fernández. Copied in particular from his two articles of 2005 and 2006 cited above: > "Amoris Laetitia" Has a Ghostwriter. His Name Is Víctor Manuel Fernández As also from other articles of his of 1995 and 2001: > Ethicist says ghostwriter’s role in "Amoris" is troubling And “Veritatis Splendor,” which Bergoglio extolled so vigorously in 2004? Forgotten. In the two hundred pages of “Amoris Laetitia” it is not cited even once. (English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.)
Brian, I'm curious about the Michael Pakaluk article in Crux Ethicist says ghostwriter’s role in "Amoris" is troubling Some of the quotes attributed to Archbishop Fernandez are shocking. It's hard to tell which is worse: his belief in pre-destination or the following which he wrote in 2006 about a Pope Benedict encyclical: "There can be no doubt that the Catholic magisterium has taken the position with clarity that an act which is objectively wrong, such as a premarital relationship, or the use of a condom in sexual relations, does not necessarily lead to the loss of the life of sanctifying grace, from which the dynamism of charity springs.” Rather, in such couples who have diminished culpability (including same-sex couples, he says), it is precisely their sexual relationship which can realize subjective values which have “a theological and Trinitarian richness.” Sex for them becomes “an expression of the ecstatic dynamism of the love which imprints sanctifying grace.” It involves “a sincere and genuine search (búsqueda) for the happiness of the other,” which is the essence of charity. To propose, then, that such couples should continue this search while refraining from sexual relations, “to exclude completely bodily desire and pleasure,” Fernandez says, would be to place eros and agape in opposition, which Pope Benedict in his encyclical “has rejected with overwhelming force.” The Archbishop's response to the Pakaluk is that if people want to know what he really believes they should read his article published in 2011. Presumably that article is closer to Church teaching than his earlier writings but it could well have been written to make him appear to hold more orthodox beliefs than he had expressed in the past - perhaps to enhance his CV. Nevertheless, I would be interested in reading it. I clicked on the link to his 2011 article but it is in Spanish and in PDF format which rules out the Google translate option. Do you know whether there is an English translation available online? http://bibliotecadigital.uca.edu.ar.../vida-trinitaria-normas-eticas-fragilidad.pdf No matter if his 2011 article is more orthodox than the Epistles, I'm shocked that the main who wrote what I quoted above has been let loose in a Catholic university, never mind promoted to Archbishop. It boggles the mind that he is writing Apostolic Exhortations for the Pope.
I am going to make ONE statement and that is all on this quote , Elisa, UNLESS I am provided the actual persons name who she supposedly said this to. Other than that I consider it unsubstantiated hearsay. I spoke to Conchita today and SHE said , she never made any statement in public or private about the pope. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- March 2013 Glenn’s conversation with Conchita ( the only statement made,as far as I know of about all these topics) ) I said to her with all of the arguing over which of the different visionary’s is right, predicting dates, the future of our new Pope, the direction of the church, I've learned one thing, its all distracting, and detracting from our spiritual goals. The best advice I ever got was from Conchita ( when I asked her about the direction of all these things) ,she talked about maintaining your spiritual life (Confession, penance ,mass, communion, the rosary, etc. ) and she said " I surround my self with good people, pray and don't worry " .
Dear Glenn, you write "UNLESS I am provided the actual persons name who she supposedly said this to". Does this mean that you allow me to reveal which person this is, although you know this person ???
This is a PDF file of a scanned image of the Spanish text, but not the Spanish text itself, so it can't easily be translated online. Maybe for a reason? More info here: http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351303bdc4.html?eng=y http://www.onepeterfive.com/amoris-laetitia-secret-fernandez-decoder-ring/
TO ALL : I will clarify what was actually said ,and how ,Elisa misinterpreted it. I wrote to her awhile back "When I spoke to Conchita about the Pope, she quote her friend Saint Pio "Pray, hope, and don't worry". ( MUCH later on in that sentence,I wrote) I pray for this Pope, and will not speak ill of him, on the advice of Conchita . MY WORDS were I will not speak ill of him, not hers. Her words were in quotation marks on purpose. My opinion was formed after a discussion,i was not repeating her exact words.
