I might try explaining it by pointing out that it doesn't alter Church teaching (that you can bless sinners, but not the sin itself), but rather, Church discipline which is intended to provide for the blessing of sinners without causing confusion and scandal regarding whether sin is being blessed. It is possible to err in both directions, e.g., the Pharisees erred when they objected to Jesus allowing the penitent woman to touch him, much less anoint his feet and wash them with tears. As far as discipline is concerned, the Church is providing virtually nonexistant guidance on how to act upon Church teaching, rather than the clear guidance that existed before. She is not telling priests they must be willing to say "I bless this same-sex union in the name of the Father...". So this isn't a matter of the Church teaching priests to do something wrong, as much as the Church is failing to teach clearly on a matter of discipline. Then you can flip to the part in St. Paul's letter where St. Peter was behaving in a matter contrary to his own teaching, and his example was leading others astray. Pope Damasus included those passages in the canon of Scripture, and St. Thomas Aquinas used those passages in his discussion of when one may disobey or oppose a superior. The Catholic Church is not in the habit of pretending the Pope is impeccable or universally inerrant or a perfect disciplinarian. Obviously the higher the office, the more harm is caused when you fail in any way.
There's no reason to defend the scandal and confusion that the ambiguity and laxity of this document are causing, any more than there is any reason to defend the scandal and confusion that the contradiction of St. Peter's behavior caused. There is no reason to minimize the damage that will result, just as there is no reason to minimize the damage that St. Peter's behavior caused. There is also no reason to leave the Church over it, just as there was no reason to leave the Church over St. Peter's behavior.
There is need to forgive, and to pray for the conversion of those involved and the correction of the discipline.
Yeah, I think that's a common problem. We ought to be able to count on the Pope to clarify teachings, not to make evangelization harder. The only thing I have, is to forgive and offer it up, maybe in reparation for all the ignoring of clear teaching that Catholics are doing and have done.
Humanae Vitae was perfectly clear, and widely rejected. So it's poetic mercy.
This situation is probably common to a lot of us here, and it makes for an awful lot of anxiety around family gatherings. I don’t have a whole lot of encouragement to offer; I’ve personally damaged some family relationships because of my “strict” views on the Church’s teaching on marriage. It didn’t involve a same-sex relationship but rather not taking my kids or participating in a wedding that was manifestly leading to an invalid marriage. I know opinions differ on that; I have to live with my choice and do my best to explain the reasons in a loving way.
In a way such mortifying situations can be a spur to improve our own moral and spiritual lives. I try to ask myself if I am living an authentically, fully Catholic life, so that when I’m at family gatherings I can be the best possible spokesman for the Catholic faith. Behind the Church discipline on marriage, hard for many people to accept, there are fundamental and very beautiful truths about divine and human nature. God is speaking to your relatives who don’t follow that discipline through you. You never know what kind of effect these conversations can have, although it may take a lifetime for the seeds to bear fruit. It can be an awful situation, only made worse by this ridiculous document (fairly predictable ever since the new prefect’s appointment, to be honest) and other scandalous actions and sayings of the clergy. But don’t lose hope!
There was the classic comedy sketch about the 1970s scandal when a British government department lost £200 million of the Nigerian Government's money. As all the senior civil servants frantically denied responsibility, one guy solemnly declared: "There's only one way we will find the real culprit......draw up a list of dead civil servants."
What is the Pope's culpability? What is Jorge Bergoglio's personal responsibility for the chaos and scandal? The First See is judged offically by none but God, but what blame does he have?
Here is an answer. God alone according to current belief, can judge the holder of the First See, no recourse for humans.
The First See is judged by no one.
But what is the history and theology of this canon? Paul rebuked Peter to his face.
The Council of Constance acted in a conciliar way to end the Great Western Schism. One of three popes had to be the "true" pope, yet all were coerced or asked to resign and they did. The Council elected a new pope.
How did this doctrine of papal absolute papal "supremacy" "develop?"
There is a passage in Pastor aeternus that reads similarly to "The First See is judged by no one", PA 3.8. "The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]." The citation is to Nicholas I, Ep. ad Michaelem imp. (Letter to the emperor Michael) (PL 119, 954). Link to PA: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/vatican-is-dogmatic-constitution-pastor-aeternus-on-the-church-of-christ-243
I also don't think this started a crisis. But it made clear a crisis that exists that a lot of people have done their best to dance around talking about. Now the music stopped.
I agree that this didn’t start a crisis. It has probably been true for a long time that I am not in agreement with Fr. Martin with regard to basic aspects of the moral life. As you say, this has brought it all into the open. I strive, as an imperfect sinner who has muddled through much of my life like everyone else, to be docile to Rome, but my docility comes with the expectation of the perennial tradition of the Church, which might be dismissed in the present order of things as naive “religious certitude.” Attempts to read FS as orthodox or “changing nothing” seem fruitless. Reading the document only gives me a vague sense of unease, which I’ve been trying to articulate and come to terms with in the days since. I have yet to read a positive assessment of the document that I find credible. I have abundant faith in the Church of Rome, but in what sense am I being “taught” by the present teaching, which seems so beset by sophistry (e.g. blessing “couples” but not “unions”)?
This essay of J.D. (the podcast makes me feel like we are on a first-name basis) is very good, as we now start to see some clarity on the positions that Catholics who genuinely seek the good and the teaching of the Church might take. The coverage here at the Pillar has been excellent. Thank you for that.
Excellent comment. Especially the sentence about the sophistry surrounding "couple". Kennedy Hall in Crisis mag has merciless fun with that kind of quibbling. Especially when he points out that the word "couple" is closely related to "copulating"....and, of course, the verb "couple" means exactly that.
"Even while this issue has fundamentally split the Anglican Church over the course of a decade, has the Catholic Church jumped out ahead of it in the course of one week?"
In a word, yes. As a former Catholic, this is no longer my circus nor my monkeys. Yet as this issue has irreparably divided Anglicans around the world, it will do the same for Catholics. Conservative Global South bishops will refuse to sanction such blessings by their clergy; German and Northern European bishops will push farther, for open support of same-sex marriage. With whom will Rome side? My money is on the Germans.
I think the only hope for the Church in Germany is for that tax which funds the liberal German hierarchy to go away, their national church (& local dioceses) to go into severe financial distress, and eventually to start over with a very small faithful flock that can evangelize Germany again and slowly grow by sticking to the message of the Gospel & 2,000 years of Catholic tradition.
I don't think it's the only hope, but I suspect it is the most likely one.
An alternative would be to replace the bishops (and probably merge many of the dioceses) and priests with faithful ones that pay more attention to Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium than to the zeitgeist, and who are careful to evangelize well. This would also involve a lot of suffering, but I think far fewer lost souls.
Sadly & somewhat puzzling to me, a German conservative like Benedict didn't fill the German hierarchy with orthodox prelates....he was either fooled as to who some of these men really were, or he naively didn't think they'd ever go this far....his judgment on bishop selections (and even more so the poor judgment on bishops and cardinals made by JPII) haunt the Church to this day.
From what I understand, the Pope doesn't do the bishop selection. The nuncio and nearby bishops sort through possible candidates, select them, and tell the Pope about them. I don't think the Pope even interviews them, much less goes through their record with a fine-toothed comb.
The Anglicans tried this with their "flying bishops" who were "extra diocesan" and appointed to care for orthodox Anglicans.
They were appointed to care for those parishes that would not accept the ministry of woman bishops who had charge of the dioceses where the orthodox parishes were located.
This lasted a time and still continues on a small scale. But the General Synod of the Church of England now wants to "phase" these accommodations out.
It is the typical "Anglican" solution to problems; always compromise. Compromise everything including the Gospel, as the founder of the Church of England did.
Yet what kind of cohesiveness is there with isolated parishes trying to live as orthodox Anglicans and bishops who come in for pastoral care when needed.
Anglican polity is allegedly episcopal, yet the "flying bishops" and their parishes are really "congregationalists" in their polity.
It happens in the US, one or two parishes in a ECUSA dioceses, want to be orthodox according to their interpretation of that word. The attitude in these parishes is as long as the national church and local bishop leaves them be why leave the ECUSA?
Oh, by the way, 3 of those "flying bishops" have become Roman Catholics, either through the Ordinariate in England or through a RC diocese.
The solution you seem to suggest above is even more prone to failure in the RCC.
Can you imagine canning most of a national hierarchy, I can't.
Even a future pope would be hard pressed to try that.
If the 28 or so dioceses in Germany were combined into 7 or 8, those dioceses would be about the size of the archdiocese of Chicago, thanks to how few Germans are still Catholic. So the replacement dioceses would still have German bishops, even if more than two thirds of the bishops got canned/asked to resign and couldn't be replaced. There's no need to have flying bishops, or foreign bishops.
Mergers are very stressful, but I think they're much preferable to shrinking down to a remnant. Particularly for the souls lost in the course of shrinking. I agree that it's not likely to be done. I believe Pope Benedict removed a bishop for heresy, but removing a half-dozen or two from the same country would certainly take some fortitude.
One problem is that the Church is one of the biggest employers in Germany. Politicians won't want to imperil the jobs of their voters. But this starvation therapy might be one way of killing the apostate elements of the Church.
Justin, right on...your solution is the only solution if one wants to be an orthodox Catholic in the German Church. Abolish the church tax and see how quickly the schismatics lose their footing.
Without calling themselves that yet the proponents of the GSW will become something like the "Reformed Catholic Church of Germany."
They could align themselves with the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht which had valid Orders but now has ordained women to their Episcopal and priesthood, gay marriage is in their books too.
Some time ago I noted this massive problem with the German gold flow. If only a small percentage of Germans actually go to church (Catholic or Lutheran), how can they expect the non-practising majority to meekly keep paying the Church Tax? The Church Tax works wonders for the maintenance of beautiful churches, even if they are 80% empty. And some diocesan museums, like the one in Friesing, are eye popping. Maybe some German politicians are reluctant to put all the time and work needed to transfer personnel and conservation money and some social benefits into other channels.
Conservatives cannot remain so. They will either take the red pill and go Trad, or take the blue pill and go Anglican. The JP2 consensus is dead and buried, and good riddance.
Why good riddance? I would rather that trads, conservatives, and liberals could continue to coexist theologically while everyone focused on their specialties, than have three utterly conflicting theologies vying for supremacy in mortal combat.
Hotter take, Vatican 2 is a squishy blob of strange and conflicting legislation deliberately (mostly) devoid of dogmatic interest (though I seem to recall that it made a legitimate contribution to our understanding of which of the major orders were indeed sacraments, which is cool). I would much rather that that squishy blob be treated as part of Tradition and emphasized/ignored accordingly than that it be reshaped into an golem that attacks the Tradition of which it should be a (possibly very small) part.
It brings me no joy to see friends leaving the Catholic Church because the loss of the consensus and the resurgence of heresy makes them think the Church is falling apart.
Because the JP2 consensus (as described by Douthat) was always a papering over lie, as he has described. There is only orthodoxy, or not orthodoxy. Such it will always be.
I think FS was written for the German Bishops. But personally, I don't think the issue here is the text. The issue here is the lack of discipline. If people knew that heads will roll should they play fast and loose with a Declaration by the Pope and provoking scandal in the faithful, I imagine people would be far more cautious in trying to put their wild and baseless interpretations into practice (at least publicly, of course).
I do not doubt that proverbial heads will roll over FS. Unfortunately, it will be the predates in Africa and others calling out the wisdom of releasing this document rather than those flagrantly disobeying what it actually says. Like I said before in this combox, the Pontiff sees traditionalists and orthodox priests/bishops as Whipping Boys so he doesn't have to punish those pushing the line of heterodoxy.
Why on earth would one write a document with a distinct lack of discipline for a group of undisciplined bishops with a history of playing fast and loose with dogma and provoking scandal? Last-ditch effort to avoid schism by asserting an absence of requirements to remain in the fold?
This document reminds me of war stories where the guys on the front lines get marching orders that are absolutely absurd based on the situation on the ground; but make sense based on the situation in the war room, where the generals are sipping brandy without any real knowledge of what's happening on the front.
It's exactly like that. At its core, it's a generational crisis. The Curia still sees the world through the lens of the 1960s, where a conservative social fabric is the norm, and it's okay to grant some concessions and 'be merciful.' It seems to me that they are not grasping the depth of how 'un-Christian' modern society is, and that by 'being merciful,' they are doing nothing but 'NGO-izing' the Church.
I do think it’s fair to say the secular media have exacerbated the situation and likely would not have brought the same fever tilt in this direction to the same exact document had it been issued in a prior pontificate (also, as others have commented, it wouldn’t have been issued by a prior pontificate). I also think it’s hard to understand how anyone at the Vatican is legitimately surprised that there is a priest willing to flout the letter of the document in public when a good part of an entire nation’s bishops have been very publicly bent on flouting doctrine in the same vein for a very long time, unchecked.
The thing that has been most disorienting to me—so far, because I have no right to expect smooth sailing in any area of life including and especially the always messy business of God’s church—is that the document seems to undermine the entire concept of development of doctrine and therefore the entire claim to legitimacy of the church as *The Church* and not just some pretty good option among a lot of options. It has felt like everything I thought I knew has been turned on its head.
I still believe the Holy Spirit will prevail and the church is in fact *The Church* but my goodness the waiting feels so large. I haven’t seen any bishops yet issue serious reassurance that the house isn’t collapsing, and I understand that it’s far better for them to deliberate and respond to the actual issue once it is actually understood instead of issuing platitudes. Yet so many of us want the security of knowing the house stands. Jesus, I trust in you.
Yes, exactly. This waiting does seem large. It does seem like the house is crashing and Pillar articles, these thoughtful comments and opinions, and a good response from my own bishop are what is helping me get to sleep at night. Jesus, I trust in you.
Infallibility is far narrower in scope than we are usually led to believe. No conditions apply for this document to be infallible, as far as I can tell.
1. Papal infallibility. This is not a papal document.
2. Episcopal infallibility. Basically only applies to ecumenical councils, as far as I can tell. Does not apply here.
Scandal? Yes. Chink in the dogma of infallibility? No. The house stands.
People who reach the summit of power are unlikely to feel bound by legalities. A president, prime minister, or pope can do a lot of damage before his reign ends.
I understand the infallibility piece and haven’t been as concerned about that precisely. However, I have always been under the impression even though something might not be issued ex cathedra (which is a rare level of pronouncement), the legitimacy of The Church still requires development of doctrine to trace its seed to the infallible Scriptures and demonstrate its flowering over time through at least some of the preceding doctrines of the ages.
FS doesn’t seem at all to do that in any solid way. There is much attempt at needle threading and I would say loose association, but there is, to my mind, no solid connection between the doctrine proposed and the Deposit of Faith. That is what is so deeply worrisome to me.
It is as if A is the Deposit of Faith and FS, which should be B in the rational progression of how I understood development of doctrine to work, is actually X and in a foreign language to boot. There is a lot of restating of A, but the bridge between A and X seems to be no bridge at all but just a puff cloud. And I can’t understand how that is supposed to square with who the Church claims to be.
Fiducia Supplicans is a binding document from an ordinary organ of the Magisterium. It doesn't need to be infallible (which is a characteristic appplied to persons, not documents) nor does it need to be inerrant (the proper term to use) - even the documents of the Council of Chalcedon and Vatican II are not held as inerrant.
"Infallibility" is just as much a buzzword today as "heresy" and "schism" - people don't know the specifics of such terms and how to apply them.
The scary part is that Fiducia Supplicans is an official product of the Magisterium that holds significant magisterial weight ("Declarations" are a big deal), which is deeply disturbing if a product of the Magisterium is causing major scandal like this.
At least Humanae Vitae's controversy (not really scandal, controversy is more apt) was that it was so strong and clear and unequivical in upholding Church teaching. This seems ludicrously reckless in comparison.
FS is a binding document? It doesn't seem to be binding anyone inside or outside this combox. Least of all the African bishops and Father James Martin.
Yes, the Vatican News itself opted to use a very 'catchy' headline to report on the document: 'Doctrinal declaration opens possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations,' before the secular media or anyone had the chance to read the actual text. So the scandal starts here, from the Vatican itself.
This exactly describes my feeling. That if a document can be so ambiguous and be claimed to be consistent with orthodoxy if you try hard enough, what are the implications for other teachings? Other declarations?
This - "the document seems to undermine the entire concept of development of doctrine and therefore the entire claim to legitimacy of the church as *The Church* and not just some pretty good option among a lot of options. It has felt like everything I thought I knew has been turned on its head."
"All of that is shaping up into a global ecclesial conflict, lit off by a document that either changed nothing, or changes everything — depending on who you ask. "
Truly, truly the Pandora's Document has been unleashed on the Church. I pray that hope remains.
Yes. The evils of the world could not be put back into Pandora's box, but this is Christ's church on earth and it will prevail. It is just painful to see this happen in such a way that seems unnecessary. The best way to walk with people is with the Truth. It isn't hard. Anyone can ask for and get a blessing. But it should come with guidance towards repentance, not tolerant approval. Is that really that hard? Pope Francis could line people up
and give blessings from his window to anyone who stands there as long as his message is to repent and believe, to focus on the treasures of heaven and not conform to the pleasures of the world. Is that so hard?
Ambiguous documents that can be read as any number of things from one end of the spectrum to another is the specialty of this pontificate.
And no matter who are chosen as the next few popes in the rest of my lifetime, I highly doubt any of them will be the least bit critical of Francis or that they will forcefully and unambiguously reject some of his teachings and documents (unless somehow an ultra-conservative is elected pope, which seems hard to fathom unless there is somehow a cardinal out there who seems to be middle of the road or just slightly conservative, but who is hiding the fact that deep down he is an arch-traditionalist).
Popes and high ranking prelates in the Church seem to see it as a betrayal of their office or believe it will hurt the credibility of the Church to be outwardly critical of past popes or dicastery heads (even when those past leaders may have said and done things which are clearly contrary to the faith & have hurt the Church & the faithful in the process).
They go out of their way to seek to harmonize the mistakes of the past with the eternal Truths of the faith. I expect we'll see the same in the coming decades. Hopefully they don't also feel the need to seek Francis' beatification and canonization 25 years from now too in an effort to whitewash the past....oh the horror!
The only credible witness to the Way, the Truth, and the Life is one that says what He says about sin, righteousness, and judgment--because that is what He sends His Spirit (not those other, more popular, spirits) to convince the world about.
It seems the failure to anticipate the global (not just US) furor was one Muller briefly noted - who was consulted or was this just Cardinal Fernandez and Pope Francis pretty much alone ? Wished they had checked in with the African church for example
Yes indeed. As I have said in several places, FS is hopelessly Western-centric. If it had been better worded, it might conceivably have worked in the fashionable areas of San Francisco or New York or London. But in Africa or parts of the Middle East or Pakistan?
Focussing on the text is completely pointless, it's just chum in the water to create an event. I doubt that Francis has even read it, the point is to change the orthopraxy so that Jesuits can do whatever they want.
I wouldn't defend the document.
I might try explaining it by pointing out that it doesn't alter Church teaching (that you can bless sinners, but not the sin itself), but rather, Church discipline which is intended to provide for the blessing of sinners without causing confusion and scandal regarding whether sin is being blessed. It is possible to err in both directions, e.g., the Pharisees erred when they objected to Jesus allowing the penitent woman to touch him, much less anoint his feet and wash them with tears. As far as discipline is concerned, the Church is providing virtually nonexistant guidance on how to act upon Church teaching, rather than the clear guidance that existed before. She is not telling priests they must be willing to say "I bless this same-sex union in the name of the Father...". So this isn't a matter of the Church teaching priests to do something wrong, as much as the Church is failing to teach clearly on a matter of discipline. Then you can flip to the part in St. Paul's letter where St. Peter was behaving in a matter contrary to his own teaching, and his example was leading others astray. Pope Damasus included those passages in the canon of Scripture, and St. Thomas Aquinas used those passages in his discussion of when one may disobey or oppose a superior. The Catholic Church is not in the habit of pretending the Pope is impeccable or universally inerrant or a perfect disciplinarian. Obviously the higher the office, the more harm is caused when you fail in any way.
There's no reason to defend the scandal and confusion that the ambiguity and laxity of this document are causing, any more than there is any reason to defend the scandal and confusion that the contradiction of St. Peter's behavior caused. There is no reason to minimize the damage that will result, just as there is no reason to minimize the damage that St. Peter's behavior caused. There is also no reason to leave the Church over it, just as there was no reason to leave the Church over St. Peter's behavior.
There is need to forgive, and to pray for the conversion of those involved and the correction of the discipline.
Yeah, I think that's a common problem. We ought to be able to count on the Pope to clarify teachings, not to make evangelization harder. The only thing I have, is to forgive and offer it up, maybe in reparation for all the ignoring of clear teaching that Catholics are doing and have done.
Humanae Vitae was perfectly clear, and widely rejected. So it's poetic mercy.
This situation is probably common to a lot of us here, and it makes for an awful lot of anxiety around family gatherings. I don’t have a whole lot of encouragement to offer; I’ve personally damaged some family relationships because of my “strict” views on the Church’s teaching on marriage. It didn’t involve a same-sex relationship but rather not taking my kids or participating in a wedding that was manifestly leading to an invalid marriage. I know opinions differ on that; I have to live with my choice and do my best to explain the reasons in a loving way.
In a way such mortifying situations can be a spur to improve our own moral and spiritual lives. I try to ask myself if I am living an authentically, fully Catholic life, so that when I’m at family gatherings I can be the best possible spokesman for the Catholic faith. Behind the Church discipline on marriage, hard for many people to accept, there are fundamental and very beautiful truths about divine and human nature. God is speaking to your relatives who don’t follow that discipline through you. You never know what kind of effect these conversations can have, although it may take a lifetime for the seeds to bear fruit. It can be an awful situation, only made worse by this ridiculous document (fairly predictable ever since the new prefect’s appointment, to be honest) and other scandalous actions and sayings of the clergy. But don’t lose hope!
Same to you! I have found the comments here at the Pillar the past few days to be a real source of solace.
Little said is easy mended. My Dad introduced me to that phrase. Wisdom
"we're all trying to find the guy who did this!"
There was the classic comedy sketch about the 1970s scandal when a British government department lost £200 million of the Nigerian Government's money. As all the senior civil servants frantically denied responsibility, one guy solemnly declared: "There's only one way we will find the real culprit......draw up a list of dead civil servants."
A harder question than Tucho's capability:
What is the Pope's culpability? What is Jorge Bergoglio's personal responsibility for the chaos and scandal? The First See is judged offically by none but God, but what blame does he have?
I ask not knowing that answer.
Here is an answer. God alone according to current belief, can judge the holder of the First See, no recourse for humans.
The First See is judged by no one.
But what is the history and theology of this canon? Paul rebuked Peter to his face.
The Council of Constance acted in a conciliar way to end the Great Western Schism. One of three popes had to be the "true" pope, yet all were coerced or asked to resign and they did. The Council elected a new pope.
How did this doctrine of papal absolute papal "supremacy" "develop?"
There is a passage in Pastor aeternus that reads similarly to "The First See is judged by no one", PA 3.8. "The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]." The citation is to Nicholas I, Ep. ad Michaelem imp. (Letter to the emperor Michael) (PL 119, 954). Link to PA: https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/teachings/vatican-is-dogmatic-constitution-pastor-aeternus-on-the-church-of-christ-243
I also don't think this started a crisis. But it made clear a crisis that exists that a lot of people have done their best to dance around talking about. Now the music stopped.
I agree that this didn’t start a crisis. It has probably been true for a long time that I am not in agreement with Fr. Martin with regard to basic aspects of the moral life. As you say, this has brought it all into the open. I strive, as an imperfect sinner who has muddled through much of my life like everyone else, to be docile to Rome, but my docility comes with the expectation of the perennial tradition of the Church, which might be dismissed in the present order of things as naive “religious certitude.” Attempts to read FS as orthodox or “changing nothing” seem fruitless. Reading the document only gives me a vague sense of unease, which I’ve been trying to articulate and come to terms with in the days since. I have yet to read a positive assessment of the document that I find credible. I have abundant faith in the Church of Rome, but in what sense am I being “taught” by the present teaching, which seems so beset by sophistry (e.g. blessing “couples” but not “unions”)?
This essay of J.D. (the podcast makes me feel like we are on a first-name basis) is very good, as we now start to see some clarity on the positions that Catholics who genuinely seek the good and the teaching of the Church might take. The coverage here at the Pillar has been excellent. Thank you for that.
I have nothing to add; just want to say that your observation is excellent.
Excellent comment. Especially the sentence about the sophistry surrounding "couple". Kennedy Hall in Crisis mag has merciless fun with that kind of quibbling. Especially when he points out that the word "couple" is closely related to "copulating"....and, of course, the verb "couple" means exactly that.
https://crisismagazine.com/opinion/what-is-a-couple
I’ve often taken the view that when others’ conduct could be interpreted as either malicious or incompetent, usually the latter is more likely.
But when it comes to theology and basic Catholic doctrine, especially among senior prelates. aren’t they probably fellow travelers?
"Even while this issue has fundamentally split the Anglican Church over the course of a decade, has the Catholic Church jumped out ahead of it in the course of one week?"
In a word, yes. As a former Catholic, this is no longer my circus nor my monkeys. Yet as this issue has irreparably divided Anglicans around the world, it will do the same for Catholics. Conservative Global South bishops will refuse to sanction such blessings by their clergy; German and Northern European bishops will push farther, for open support of same-sex marriage. With whom will Rome side? My money is on the Germans.
German money agrees with you as well.
Unless the 2/3 of Germans who want the church tax abolished get their way.
I think the only hope for the Church in Germany is for that tax which funds the liberal German hierarchy to go away, their national church (& local dioceses) to go into severe financial distress, and eventually to start over with a very small faithful flock that can evangelize Germany again and slowly grow by sticking to the message of the Gospel & 2,000 years of Catholic tradition.
I don't think it's the only hope, but I suspect it is the most likely one.
An alternative would be to replace the bishops (and probably merge many of the dioceses) and priests with faithful ones that pay more attention to Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium than to the zeitgeist, and who are careful to evangelize well. This would also involve a lot of suffering, but I think far fewer lost souls.
Sadly & somewhat puzzling to me, a German conservative like Benedict didn't fill the German hierarchy with orthodox prelates....he was either fooled as to who some of these men really were, or he naively didn't think they'd ever go this far....his judgment on bishop selections (and even more so the poor judgment on bishops and cardinals made by JPII) haunt the Church to this day.
From what I understand, the Pope doesn't do the bishop selection. The nuncio and nearby bishops sort through possible candidates, select them, and tell the Pope about them. I don't think the Pope even interviews them, much less goes through their record with a fine-toothed comb.
I could be wrong, but it would explain a lot.
Please remember, as much as some might love B16, he precipitated this mess by his abdication.
Fooled, probably...never could have imagined what has happened.
The Anglicans tried this with their "flying bishops" who were "extra diocesan" and appointed to care for orthodox Anglicans.
They were appointed to care for those parishes that would not accept the ministry of woman bishops who had charge of the dioceses where the orthodox parishes were located.
This lasted a time and still continues on a small scale. But the General Synod of the Church of England now wants to "phase" these accommodations out.
It is the typical "Anglican" solution to problems; always compromise. Compromise everything including the Gospel, as the founder of the Church of England did.
Yet what kind of cohesiveness is there with isolated parishes trying to live as orthodox Anglicans and bishops who come in for pastoral care when needed.
Anglican polity is allegedly episcopal, yet the "flying bishops" and their parishes are really "congregationalists" in their polity.
It happens in the US, one or two parishes in a ECUSA dioceses, want to be orthodox according to their interpretation of that word. The attitude in these parishes is as long as the national church and local bishop leaves them be why leave the ECUSA?
Oh, by the way, 3 of those "flying bishops" have become Roman Catholics, either through the Ordinariate in England or through a RC diocese.
The solution you seem to suggest above is even more prone to failure in the RCC.
Can you imagine canning most of a national hierarchy, I can't.
Even a future pope would be hard pressed to try that.
If the 28 or so dioceses in Germany were combined into 7 or 8, those dioceses would be about the size of the archdiocese of Chicago, thanks to how few Germans are still Catholic. So the replacement dioceses would still have German bishops, even if more than two thirds of the bishops got canned/asked to resign and couldn't be replaced. There's no need to have flying bishops, or foreign bishops.
Mergers are very stressful, but I think they're much preferable to shrinking down to a remnant. Particularly for the souls lost in the course of shrinking. I agree that it's not likely to be done. I believe Pope Benedict removed a bishop for heresy, but removing a half-dozen or two from the same country would certainly take some fortitude.
One problem is that the Church is one of the biggest employers in Germany. Politicians won't want to imperil the jobs of their voters. But this starvation therapy might be one way of killing the apostate elements of the Church.
Justin, right on...your solution is the only solution if one wants to be an orthodox Catholic in the German Church. Abolish the church tax and see how quickly the schismatics lose their footing.
Without calling themselves that yet the proponents of the GSW will become something like the "Reformed Catholic Church of Germany."
They could align themselves with the Old Catholic Union of Utrecht which had valid Orders but now has ordained women to their Episcopal and priesthood, gay marriage is in their books too.
Some time ago I noted this massive problem with the German gold flow. If only a small percentage of Germans actually go to church (Catholic or Lutheran), how can they expect the non-practising majority to meekly keep paying the Church Tax? The Church Tax works wonders for the maintenance of beautiful churches, even if they are 80% empty. And some diocesan museums, like the one in Friesing, are eye popping. Maybe some German politicians are reluctant to put all the time and work needed to transfer personnel and conservation money and some social benefits into other channels.
Conservatives cannot remain so. They will either take the red pill and go Trad, or take the blue pill and go Anglican. The JP2 consensus is dead and buried, and good riddance.
Why good riddance? I would rather that trads, conservatives, and liberals could continue to coexist theologically while everyone focused on their specialties, than have three utterly conflicting theologies vying for supremacy in mortal combat.
Hotter take, Vatican 2 is a squishy blob of strange and conflicting legislation deliberately (mostly) devoid of dogmatic interest (though I seem to recall that it made a legitimate contribution to our understanding of which of the major orders were indeed sacraments, which is cool). I would much rather that that squishy blob be treated as part of Tradition and emphasized/ignored accordingly than that it be reshaped into an golem that attacks the Tradition of which it should be a (possibly very small) part.
It brings me no joy to see friends leaving the Catholic Church because the loss of the consensus and the resurgence of heresy makes them think the Church is falling apart.
Because the JP2 consensus (as described by Douthat) was always a papering over lie, as he has described. There is only orthodoxy, or not orthodoxy. Such it will always be.
This is disingenuous. Either/Or. You at least imply a third way. You should follow such a statement with whatever it is you are actually calling for.
I'm calling for 100% orthodoxy.
I think FS was written for the German Bishops. But personally, I don't think the issue here is the text. The issue here is the lack of discipline. If people knew that heads will roll should they play fast and loose with a Declaration by the Pope and provoking scandal in the faithful, I imagine people would be far more cautious in trying to put their wild and baseless interpretations into practice (at least publicly, of course).
I do not doubt that proverbial heads will roll over FS. Unfortunately, it will be the predates in Africa and others calling out the wisdom of releasing this document rather than those flagrantly disobeying what it actually says. Like I said before in this combox, the Pontiff sees traditionalists and orthodox priests/bishops as Whipping Boys so he doesn't have to punish those pushing the line of heterodoxy.
Why on earth would one write a document with a distinct lack of discipline for a group of undisciplined bishops with a history of playing fast and loose with dogma and provoking scandal? Last-ditch effort to avoid schism by asserting an absence of requirements to remain in the fold?
If so, I think it's going to backfire horribly.
This document reminds me of war stories where the guys on the front lines get marching orders that are absolutely absurd based on the situation on the ground; but make sense based on the situation in the war room, where the generals are sipping brandy without any real knowledge of what's happening on the front.
Excellent analogy !
It's exactly like that. At its core, it's a generational crisis. The Curia still sees the world through the lens of the 1960s, where a conservative social fabric is the norm, and it's okay to grant some concessions and 'be merciful.' It seems to me that they are not grasping the depth of how 'un-Christian' modern society is, and that by 'being merciful,' they are doing nothing but 'NGO-izing' the Church.
I do think it’s fair to say the secular media have exacerbated the situation and likely would not have brought the same fever tilt in this direction to the same exact document had it been issued in a prior pontificate (also, as others have commented, it wouldn’t have been issued by a prior pontificate). I also think it’s hard to understand how anyone at the Vatican is legitimately surprised that there is a priest willing to flout the letter of the document in public when a good part of an entire nation’s bishops have been very publicly bent on flouting doctrine in the same vein for a very long time, unchecked.
The thing that has been most disorienting to me—so far, because I have no right to expect smooth sailing in any area of life including and especially the always messy business of God’s church—is that the document seems to undermine the entire concept of development of doctrine and therefore the entire claim to legitimacy of the church as *The Church* and not just some pretty good option among a lot of options. It has felt like everything I thought I knew has been turned on its head.
I still believe the Holy Spirit will prevail and the church is in fact *The Church* but my goodness the waiting feels so large. I haven’t seen any bishops yet issue serious reassurance that the house isn’t collapsing, and I understand that it’s far better for them to deliberate and respond to the actual issue once it is actually understood instead of issuing platitudes. Yet so many of us want the security of knowing the house stands. Jesus, I trust in you.
Yes, exactly. This waiting does seem large. It does seem like the house is crashing and Pillar articles, these thoughtful comments and opinions, and a good response from my own bishop are what is helping me get to sleep at night. Jesus, I trust in you.
Peace to you, friend.
And to you.
Infallibility is far narrower in scope than we are usually led to believe. No conditions apply for this document to be infallible, as far as I can tell.
1. Papal infallibility. This is not a papal document.
2. Episcopal infallibility. Basically only applies to ecumenical councils, as far as I can tell. Does not apply here.
Scandal? Yes. Chink in the dogma of infallibility? No. The house stands.
People who reach the summit of power are unlikely to feel bound by legalities. A president, prime minister, or pope can do a lot of damage before his reign ends.
I understand the infallibility piece and haven’t been as concerned about that precisely. However, I have always been under the impression even though something might not be issued ex cathedra (which is a rare level of pronouncement), the legitimacy of The Church still requires development of doctrine to trace its seed to the infallible Scriptures and demonstrate its flowering over time through at least some of the preceding doctrines of the ages.
FS doesn’t seem at all to do that in any solid way. There is much attempt at needle threading and I would say loose association, but there is, to my mind, no solid connection between the doctrine proposed and the Deposit of Faith. That is what is so deeply worrisome to me.
It is as if A is the Deposit of Faith and FS, which should be B in the rational progression of how I understood development of doctrine to work, is actually X and in a foreign language to boot. There is a lot of restating of A, but the bridge between A and X seems to be no bridge at all but just a puff cloud. And I can’t understand how that is supposed to square with who the Church claims to be.
Fiducia Supplicans is a binding document from an ordinary organ of the Magisterium. It doesn't need to be infallible (which is a characteristic appplied to persons, not documents) nor does it need to be inerrant (the proper term to use) - even the documents of the Council of Chalcedon and Vatican II are not held as inerrant.
"Infallibility" is just as much a buzzword today as "heresy" and "schism" - people don't know the specifics of such terms and how to apply them.
The scary part is that Fiducia Supplicans is an official product of the Magisterium that holds significant magisterial weight ("Declarations" are a big deal), which is deeply disturbing if a product of the Magisterium is causing major scandal like this.
At least Humanae Vitae's controversy (not really scandal, controversy is more apt) was that it was so strong and clear and unequivical in upholding Church teaching. This seems ludicrously reckless in comparison.
FS is a binding document? It doesn't seem to be binding anyone inside or outside this combox. Least of all the African bishops and Father James Martin.
Yes, the Vatican News itself opted to use a very 'catchy' headline to report on the document: 'Doctrinal declaration opens possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations,' before the secular media or anyone had the chance to read the actual text. So the scandal starts here, from the Vatican itself.
This exactly describes my feeling. That if a document can be so ambiguous and be claimed to be consistent with orthodoxy if you try hard enough, what are the implications for other teachings? Other declarations?
This - "the document seems to undermine the entire concept of development of doctrine and therefore the entire claim to legitimacy of the church as *The Church* and not just some pretty good option among a lot of options. It has felt like everything I thought I knew has been turned on its head."
"All of that is shaping up into a global ecclesial conflict, lit off by a document that either changed nothing, or changes everything — depending on who you ask. "
Truly, truly the Pandora's Document has been unleashed on the Church. I pray that hope remains.
Yes. The evils of the world could not be put back into Pandora's box, but this is Christ's church on earth and it will prevail. It is just painful to see this happen in such a way that seems unnecessary. The best way to walk with people is with the Truth. It isn't hard. Anyone can ask for and get a blessing. But it should come with guidance towards repentance, not tolerant approval. Is that really that hard? Pope Francis could line people up
and give blessings from his window to anyone who stands there as long as his message is to repent and believe, to focus on the treasures of heaven and not conform to the pleasures of the world. Is that so hard?
Ambiguous documents that can be read as any number of things from one end of the spectrum to another is the specialty of this pontificate.
And no matter who are chosen as the next few popes in the rest of my lifetime, I highly doubt any of them will be the least bit critical of Francis or that they will forcefully and unambiguously reject some of his teachings and documents (unless somehow an ultra-conservative is elected pope, which seems hard to fathom unless there is somehow a cardinal out there who seems to be middle of the road or just slightly conservative, but who is hiding the fact that deep down he is an arch-traditionalist).
Popes and high ranking prelates in the Church seem to see it as a betrayal of their office or believe it will hurt the credibility of the Church to be outwardly critical of past popes or dicastery heads (even when those past leaders may have said and done things which are clearly contrary to the faith & have hurt the Church & the faithful in the process).
They go out of their way to seek to harmonize the mistakes of the past with the eternal Truths of the faith. I expect we'll see the same in the coming decades. Hopefully they don't also feel the need to seek Francis' beatification and canonization 25 years from now too in an effort to whitewash the past....oh the horror!
The only credible witness to the Way, the Truth, and the Life is one that says what He says about sin, righteousness, and judgment--because that is what He sends His Spirit (not those other, more popular, spirits) to convince the world about.
https://biblia.com/bible/rsvce/john/16/7-15
It seems the failure to anticipate the global (not just US) furor was one Muller briefly noted - who was consulted or was this just Cardinal Fernandez and Pope Francis pretty much alone ? Wished they had checked in with the African church for example
Yes indeed. As I have said in several places, FS is hopelessly Western-centric. If it had been better worded, it might conceivably have worked in the fashionable areas of San Francisco or New York or London. But in Africa or parts of the Middle East or Pakistan?
Focussing on the text is completely pointless, it's just chum in the water to create an event. I doubt that Francis has even read it, the point is to change the orthopraxy so that Jesuits can do whatever they want.
“ show their heads above the parapet”? Me thinks perhaps you’ve been spending too much time with Ed Condon.
"Catholics in same-sex unions. "
Again, I find you use the word "union" quite liberally without actually defining it. What does it mean to you, JD, in the above quote?