It's not an unusual phrase, at least from a quick google search it appears from time to time even before Pope Francis.
Pope St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body wasn't "new" in the sense that it changed what the Church taught, but it was new in that he taught the same truth with different words and from a new point of view.
nooooo the Church can't teach recently!! there is only the eternal unchanging formulas! how dare he say that the Church might have taught recently nooooo
I think he means the teachings of Francis, to which, in the words of Lumen gentium, are due reverence, submission and adherence according to his manifest mind and will.
One needs to put the old ideas into words that make sense in new situations. For instance, how and how often one receives the sacraments has been adapted many times by the Church in response to local conditions. And at the Council of Trent the council fathers decided that each locality should decide whether or not the Scriptures should be translated into the vernacular or not. (1/4 thought it should be required, 1/4 thought it should be forbidden, and the rest thought there were enough disputes in the Christian world at the time without creating new ones.)
I don't know. In almost every non-candid picture, he's got the same slumped over posture and frown on his face. Yet, for instance, there is a recent picture of him getting up to greet Bill Clinton and his face is animated and he's got a smile on his face. It's not a matter of sitting versus standing, because he wasn't sitting in the Clinton picture.
I think he does it on purpose. Why? I couldn't say. But there are so many recent pictures where he knows he's being photographed that look like that....
Funny you mention that picture, because of all the things I found concerning in this piece (not least of which is Fernandez somehow blaming Veritatis Splendor for the mediocre theologians the Catholic church has had lately--give me a break), what I found most concerning is the vacancy in the Pope's eyes. He's no longer with us and is being used.
“Today perhaps a text will be needed that, collecting everything valuable from Veritatis splendor, has another style, another tone, which at the same time allows for encouraging the growth of Catholic theology, as Pope Francis asks of me.“
I don’t understand the thrill of growing Catholic theology when the bulk of Catholics today aren’t even well-catechised in the faith we already have. Was there really no point to the “controls” that guided development thus far? Does he imagine it will be more attractive if it’s different than the current deposit of faith?
the same is true of any era. for most of history, most Christians were semi-Pelagians- theology has never trickled down especially well. the lack of education among the uneducated should not be a reason to be opposed to new developments in theology.
One could say the same of any academic discipline -- why study advanced particle physics when the average high schooler will never understand it? In my opinion, it's because the beneficial discoveries made in any field -- whether physics or theology -- do eventually trickle down to the average person and benefit them. Look at the theological advancements leading up to Pius X lowering the age for Holy Communion, or the thinking that lead to the concept of the Universal Call to Holiness.
Interesting that before the “universal call to holiness,” attendance at Holy Mass was far greater than now, as was seriousness about reception of the sacraments (confession before receiving Communion, Extreme Unction, and proper Christian burial). Perhaps we shortchange the average layman’s understanding of “holiness” in previous centuries. Perhaps what “trickles down” isn’t always helpful.
What does holiness mean to you, in the context of "universal call to holiness"? (I would rather ask directly than try to deduce from context since it is central to your comment.)
Scott Hahn wrote a whole book on it, admitting that it's not as simple to define as we assume. In the Catechism, we read: "The holiness of God is the inaccessible center of his eternal mystery" (2809), and yet we are called to be holy as well, drawing us into his mysterious goodness. It's more than just good deeds, of living virtue (though they are necessary). It's putting on Christ, the exemplar, the holy one of God. This is done through grace, and the Church has made the holiness of her members her prime mission for the entire time of her existence. That is why remaining close to the sacraments (the channels of grace) has been an essential tool.
Or perhaps the secular world has so many new avenues of entrance into people's lives that it's much harder to focus on being holy. For instance, one used to have to hunt out pornography, and now it's at most people's fingertips whether they want it to be or not. So it's much harder to be holy than it used to be.
> How would you like Catholics to pray for you? What can they pray for?
I like this question. His answer is not bad either, but maybe I will pray that God makes him into a great saint. The Holy Spirit would love to have a really free hand in His title as Sanctifier and most of us just do not let Him (myself included so perhaps if the archbishop is a Pillar reader in any way he will pray for me too.)
At the risk of nit-picking, I want to address the very first of Fernandez' four responses to the "three or four central moral questions facing the Church at this moment in history." Sometimes, it is what is NOT said that is the problem. Now, I realize this was probably an interview on the fly and maybe later translated from Spanish to English, but I would appreciate a bit more precision from the new DDF head, especially as he later comments in the interview that "'Veritatis Splendor' is a great document, powerfully solid." The main point of VS is that we must guard against moral relativism and promote objective and revealed truth. "The Magisterium carries out an important work of vigilance, warning the faithful of the presence of possible errors, even merely implicit ones, when their consciences fail to acknowledge the correctness and the truth of the moral norms which the Magisterium teaches." VS, 110.
Fernandes states as his first answer: "The absolute primacy of grace and charity in moral theology." Grace and charity are certainly a critical component of proper moral theology, but the absolute primacy must remain with the TRUTH as this is revealed. How this moral truth is presented certainly will involve charity and grace. Had Fernandez just stated, "The absolute primacy of truth, grace, and charity in moral theology", this would be sufficient. But he does not. Again, maybe I am being too critical, but nowhere in any of his responses does he mention the actual root problem of today's world: a rejection of the Christian faith and with it, the revealed truth of Christian principles.
You aren't "nit-picking" at all, CUAJWL. Your points are excellent.
Now here's "nit-picking" for you. I'd have asked him how his and Francis's views on what they call "the growth of theology" square with Newman's "development of doctrine." Want to hazard a guess as to how he'd answer?
not sure why anyone's views on the growth of theology would have to "square" with Newman's theory of development. his ideas aren't our doctrine, and other conceptions of tradition like that of Maurice Blondel are far more coherent and congruent with history.
Newman himself has a lovely section (in the appendix to the Apologia where he finallybaddresses Kingsley's slander head-on) on how canonization with the associated nihil obstat on the saint's theological writing is merely PERMISSION, not MANDATE, to incorporate their theology. He uses that to justify why he doesn't hold to St. Alphonsus' views/doctrines on mental reservation and lying. As long as we hold to the dogmas of the Church there is plenty of room for individual differences in focus.
My main fear is that Fernandez thinks this job will be primarily serving as a sort of theological teacher of the pastoral arts on charity and almsgiving. His comments make me think he is primarily concerned with making sure the poor and outcast are duly recognized and might be perfectly suited to serving as the prefect for Promoting Human Development...a noble and truly wonderful aspiration, indeed! However, this particular role is a fearful one, and it is not speculative. The task is very demanding and clear: The prefect of the DDF is the working head of all things that pertain to our fundamental Roman Catholic beliefs, both in matters of faith and morals, and it includes the figurative lopping off of heads as necessary. For example, across his desk will flow priest and bishop cases of "delicta reservata" with all sorts of criminal and canonical misdeeds. Fernandez will also head up a disciplinary section for wayward theologians, and he will be the de facto head of the International Theological Commission and the Biblical Commission. He book on kissing does not fill me with great hope that we have the right man for the job. I really do hope I am wrong.
Does Veritatis Splendor not count as part of the "recent magisterium"? It's 30 years old. What's the problem with it?
Frankly, I don't find this interview to be particularly edifying. But I do look forward to seeing how the Archbishop enriches and expands upon the Francis-approved statement (in relation to homosexual unions) that "God does not bless sin."
The whole point of Tucho as DDF chief is analogous to that of the Soros-backed "progressive" district attorneys, i.e., install a strident opponent of law enforcement as chief of law enforcement.
Good thing we have the direct promise of Christ that the gates of hell will not prevail, which certainly includes having a trustworthy dogmatic foundation. No matter who seems to be in charge, we have to keep faith that God maintains control and will keep the Church supplied with what it needs. (Not necessarily what it wants, or what would be best but we don't want, but what it needs.) I've seen that quiet providence plenty in my own life. I'm sure everyone here has received it as well.
A priest recently explained to me the different levels of magisterium. For instance, beyond blatant ex cathedra statements (and how many of those has Pope Francis--or Pope Benedict, requiescat in pace--made?), an encyclical where the pope is speaking in his own person carries more weight than a post-synodal apostolic exhortation which is largely a summary of the synod (which, not being an ecumenical council, is advisory and cannot be authoritative), and an exhortation carries more weight than an airplane or an unrecorded interview with a known atheist. You have a similar gradation among the writings of the various organs of the Vatican. Something signed by the pope carries more weight than something merely commissioned or approved by him. Our trust in Peter and his successors as the safeguards of unity and truth in the Church Christ founded do not extend to impeccability or Scriptural levels of total and uniform inerrancy (and even in Scripture, we know that different verses carry different weight according to the context).
In short, the head of the Inquisition or Holy Office or CDF or DDF or whatever can't destroy the Faith even if he tries. Render it obscure? Sure, but as Joseph observes, we've either been there before, or even always been there. So that's nothing new, really.
Am I happy with the recent theological "developments" of the Church? No. But the above has helped me reach some level of peace with it, so that my concern doesn't destroy my faith, and so that when I do reach different conclusions than I see on the web or from the Vatican, I can evaluate the differences reasonably, without panicking over danger of heresy or schism or trying to ignore my own intelligence and reason.
Daniel: I think the issue is that some of us are raising (in charity) is that Cardinal-elect Fernandez simply does not have a history of exemplary clarity in any his written or verbal statements thus far, and many fear this lack of clarity will become more pronounced when documents with his signature start rolling out the DDF. My hope and prayer is that we jaundiced ecclesial observers and theologians are proven wrong, and so I will pray for Cardinal Fernandez, that he may remain faithful to the truth of our holy faith.
I share your fears, but find that the specific hope that animates your prayer is not available to me. I'm very glad you retain the hope to pray for a short-term change. I hope that a reflection on the longer term may be complementary to that.
My frustration with a lot of the hiearchy these days is that when I heard them talk or read their comments I am left thoroughly confused and, though it should not, it throws my faith of kilter.
Is it too much too ask to get direct answers from these people?
At the end of the day I will just keep doing my best and if that means ignoring most of what comes out of Rome so be it.
// Is it too much too ask to get direct answers from these people? //
Apparently. They seem to see themselves as politicians who are required by their calling to *prevent* clear understanding by keeping the waters muddied. Living as they do in the modern world, they are likely to be seduced by the temptation always to point out by implication that everything is relative, that clarity must be avoided in order not to encourage misunderstanding. I find it discouraging, to put it mildly.
He speaks like a Washington politician not a moral theologian. All that fascicle rhetoric means a Church bending to cultural demands. The landscape ahead for the Roman Church looks very much like the Anglican/Episcopal experience.
Fernandez sounds very much (not just here) like a modern academic theologian: that is, every statement is couched in so many levels of nuance, hypothetical and micro-characterization that there is a real risk that at the end of the day he will not end up saying anything on any topic.
I find his four central moral questions facing the Church today puzzling, especially "The absolute primacy of grace and charity in moral theology." I would like to know what he means by that, as it could be interpreted many different ways. Number four is, I think, spot on. But the other three? I'd really need to hear explanations to understand what he's getting at.
An important interview - thanks to Edgar Beltran and the Pillar. The Archbishop understandably speaks very cautiously, but there are some disturbing signs. Which parts of Veritatis Splendor does he accept and which not (need I ask?). Am I justified in feeling uncomfortable about his insistence that errors will still be corrected? 'Errors' that question his proportionalist approach? I fear that disturbing times lie ahead. Of course God will ensure that his loving truth prevails, but the path may not be easy.
Some people seem inclined to change the questions they're asked before answering them.
What is this “recent magisterium”? The very phrase makes me shudder.
It's not an unusual phrase, at least from a quick google search it appears from time to time even before Pope Francis.
Pope St. John Paul II's Theology of the Body wasn't "new" in the sense that it changed what the Church taught, but it was new in that he taught the same truth with different words and from a new point of view.
nooooo the Church can't teach recently!! there is only the eternal unchanging formulas! how dare he say that the Church might have taught recently nooooo
I think he means the teachings of Francis, to which, in the words of Lumen gentium, are due reverence, submission and adherence according to his manifest mind and will.
what do you think it means? Amoris laetitia? the Abu Dhabi declaration? some interview with the pope? I don't understand what is so scary.
They are all bad teachings and will be vomited out of the Church.
One needs to put the old ideas into words that make sense in new situations. For instance, how and how often one receives the sacraments has been adapted many times by the Church in response to local conditions. And at the Council of Trent the council fathers decided that each locality should decide whether or not the Scriptures should be translated into the vernacular or not. (1/4 thought it should be required, 1/4 thought it should be forbidden, and the rest thought there were enough disputes in the Christian world at the time without creating new ones.)
You really gotta hand it to Pope Francis: the man has clearly seen too many cameras and he doesn't care one bit how your photo turns out.
I don't know. In almost every non-candid picture, he's got the same slumped over posture and frown on his face. Yet, for instance, there is a recent picture of him getting up to greet Bill Clinton and his face is animated and he's got a smile on his face. It's not a matter of sitting versus standing, because he wasn't sitting in the Clinton picture.
I think he does it on purpose. Why? I couldn't say. But there are so many recent pictures where he knows he's being photographed that look like that....
I think it's worth remembering that Francis is in chronic pain from a host of ailments and surgeries -- especially hard on a person of his age.
He looks uncannily like Yevgeny Prigozin.
Funny you mention that picture, because of all the things I found concerning in this piece (not least of which is Fernandez somehow blaming Veritatis Splendor for the mediocre theologians the Catholic church has had lately--give me a break), what I found most concerning is the vacancy in the Pope's eyes. He's no longer with us and is being used.
“Today perhaps a text will be needed that, collecting everything valuable from Veritatis splendor, has another style, another tone, which at the same time allows for encouraging the growth of Catholic theology, as Pope Francis asks of me.“
I don’t understand the thrill of growing Catholic theology when the bulk of Catholics today aren’t even well-catechised in the faith we already have. Was there really no point to the “controls” that guided development thus far? Does he imagine it will be more attractive if it’s different than the current deposit of faith?
the same is true of any era. for most of history, most Christians were semi-Pelagians- theology has never trickled down especially well. the lack of education among the uneducated should not be a reason to be opposed to new developments in theology.
How can the flock be well catechized if the theology is constantly being changed to adapt to the surrounding culture?
we are changing not necessarily to adapt to culture but to more fully conform our theology to Christ.
One could say the same of any academic discipline -- why study advanced particle physics when the average high schooler will never understand it? In my opinion, it's because the beneficial discoveries made in any field -- whether physics or theology -- do eventually trickle down to the average person and benefit them. Look at the theological advancements leading up to Pius X lowering the age for Holy Communion, or the thinking that lead to the concept of the Universal Call to Holiness.
Great point, Ray.
Interesting that before the “universal call to holiness,” attendance at Holy Mass was far greater than now, as was seriousness about reception of the sacraments (confession before receiving Communion, Extreme Unction, and proper Christian burial). Perhaps we shortchange the average layman’s understanding of “holiness” in previous centuries. Perhaps what “trickles down” isn’t always helpful.
What does holiness mean to you, in the context of "universal call to holiness"? (I would rather ask directly than try to deduce from context since it is central to your comment.)
Scott Hahn wrote a whole book on it, admitting that it's not as simple to define as we assume. In the Catechism, we read: "The holiness of God is the inaccessible center of his eternal mystery" (2809), and yet we are called to be holy as well, drawing us into his mysterious goodness. It's more than just good deeds, of living virtue (though they are necessary). It's putting on Christ, the exemplar, the holy one of God. This is done through grace, and the Church has made the holiness of her members her prime mission for the entire time of her existence. That is why remaining close to the sacraments (the channels of grace) has been an essential tool.
Or perhaps the secular world has so many new avenues of entrance into people's lives that it's much harder to focus on being holy. For instance, one used to have to hunt out pornography, and now it's at most people's fingertips whether they want it to be or not. So it's much harder to be holy than it used to be.
Lukewarm implementation of a concept doesn't mean the concept ought to be thrown out wholesale.
>"Perhaps we shortchange the average layman’s understanding of “holiness” in previous centuries."
I said nothing of this topic in my comment, so "we" is not an accurate word to say. I certainly don't.
>"Perhaps what “trickles down” isn’t always helpful."
Only time will tell, I suppose.
> How would you like Catholics to pray for you? What can they pray for?
I like this question. His answer is not bad either, but maybe I will pray that God makes him into a great saint. The Holy Spirit would love to have a really free hand in His title as Sanctifier and most of us just do not let Him (myself included so perhaps if the archbishop is a Pillar reader in any way he will pray for me too.)
I really enjoyed this bit too!
At the risk of nit-picking, I want to address the very first of Fernandez' four responses to the "three or four central moral questions facing the Church at this moment in history." Sometimes, it is what is NOT said that is the problem. Now, I realize this was probably an interview on the fly and maybe later translated from Spanish to English, but I would appreciate a bit more precision from the new DDF head, especially as he later comments in the interview that "'Veritatis Splendor' is a great document, powerfully solid." The main point of VS is that we must guard against moral relativism and promote objective and revealed truth. "The Magisterium carries out an important work of vigilance, warning the faithful of the presence of possible errors, even merely implicit ones, when their consciences fail to acknowledge the correctness and the truth of the moral norms which the Magisterium teaches." VS, 110.
Fernandes states as his first answer: "The absolute primacy of grace and charity in moral theology." Grace and charity are certainly a critical component of proper moral theology, but the absolute primacy must remain with the TRUTH as this is revealed. How this moral truth is presented certainly will involve charity and grace. Had Fernandez just stated, "The absolute primacy of truth, grace, and charity in moral theology", this would be sufficient. But he does not. Again, maybe I am being too critical, but nowhere in any of his responses does he mention the actual root problem of today's world: a rejection of the Christian faith and with it, the revealed truth of Christian principles.
You aren't "nit-picking" at all, CUAJWL. Your points are excellent.
Now here's "nit-picking" for you. I'd have asked him how his and Francis's views on what they call "the growth of theology" square with Newman's "development of doctrine." Want to hazard a guess as to how he'd answer?
not sure why anyone's views on the growth of theology would have to "square" with Newman's theory of development. his ideas aren't our doctrine, and other conceptions of tradition like that of Maurice Blondel are far more coherent and congruent with history.
Newman himself has a lovely section (in the appendix to the Apologia where he finallybaddresses Kingsley's slander head-on) on how canonization with the associated nihil obstat on the saint's theological writing is merely PERMISSION, not MANDATE, to incorporate their theology. He uses that to justify why he doesn't hold to St. Alphonsus' views/doctrines on mental reservation and lying. As long as we hold to the dogmas of the Church there is plenty of room for individual differences in focus.
Maurice Blondel was a Modernist heretic.
better a "modernist heretic" than an ignorant traditionalist.
Er, no.
yes, it is. the actual modernists are infinitely better than the ideology of traditionalism. not that Blondel was a modernist
My main fear is that Fernandez thinks this job will be primarily serving as a sort of theological teacher of the pastoral arts on charity and almsgiving. His comments make me think he is primarily concerned with making sure the poor and outcast are duly recognized and might be perfectly suited to serving as the prefect for Promoting Human Development...a noble and truly wonderful aspiration, indeed! However, this particular role is a fearful one, and it is not speculative. The task is very demanding and clear: The prefect of the DDF is the working head of all things that pertain to our fundamental Roman Catholic beliefs, both in matters of faith and morals, and it includes the figurative lopping off of heads as necessary. For example, across his desk will flow priest and bishop cases of "delicta reservata" with all sorts of criminal and canonical misdeeds. Fernandez will also head up a disciplinary section for wayward theologians, and he will be the de facto head of the International Theological Commission and the Biblical Commission. He book on kissing does not fill me with great hope that we have the right man for the job. I really do hope I am wrong.
Does Veritatis Splendor not count as part of the "recent magisterium"? It's 30 years old. What's the problem with it?
Frankly, I don't find this interview to be particularly edifying. But I do look forward to seeing how the Archbishop enriches and expands upon the Francis-approved statement (in relation to homosexual unions) that "God does not bless sin."
The whole point of Tucho as DDF chief is analogous to that of the Soros-backed "progressive" district attorneys, i.e., install a strident opponent of law enforcement as chief of law enforcement.
Good thing we have the direct promise of Christ that the gates of hell will not prevail, which certainly includes having a trustworthy dogmatic foundation. No matter who seems to be in charge, we have to keep faith that God maintains control and will keep the Church supplied with what it needs. (Not necessarily what it wants, or what would be best but we don't want, but what it needs.) I've seen that quiet providence plenty in my own life. I'm sure everyone here has received it as well.
A priest recently explained to me the different levels of magisterium. For instance, beyond blatant ex cathedra statements (and how many of those has Pope Francis--or Pope Benedict, requiescat in pace--made?), an encyclical where the pope is speaking in his own person carries more weight than a post-synodal apostolic exhortation which is largely a summary of the synod (which, not being an ecumenical council, is advisory and cannot be authoritative), and an exhortation carries more weight than an airplane or an unrecorded interview with a known atheist. You have a similar gradation among the writings of the various organs of the Vatican. Something signed by the pope carries more weight than something merely commissioned or approved by him. Our trust in Peter and his successors as the safeguards of unity and truth in the Church Christ founded do not extend to impeccability or Scriptural levels of total and uniform inerrancy (and even in Scripture, we know that different verses carry different weight according to the context).
In short, the head of the Inquisition or Holy Office or CDF or DDF or whatever can't destroy the Faith even if he tries. Render it obscure? Sure, but as Joseph observes, we've either been there before, or even always been there. So that's nothing new, really.
Am I happy with the recent theological "developments" of the Church? No. But the above has helped me reach some level of peace with it, so that my concern doesn't destroy my faith, and so that when I do reach different conclusions than I see on the web or from the Vatican, I can evaluate the differences reasonably, without panicking over danger of heresy or schism or trying to ignore my own intelligence and reason.
Thank you for your reply.
// No matter who seems to be in charge, we have to keep faith that God maintains control and will keep the Church supplied with what it needs. //
In the long run, yes? Error, discord, and confusion happen in the here and now. And we live our short lives in the here and now.
Daniel: I think the issue is that some of us are raising (in charity) is that Cardinal-elect Fernandez simply does not have a history of exemplary clarity in any his written or verbal statements thus far, and many fear this lack of clarity will become more pronounced when documents with his signature start rolling out the DDF. My hope and prayer is that we jaundiced ecclesial observers and theologians are proven wrong, and so I will pray for Cardinal Fernandez, that he may remain faithful to the truth of our holy faith.
I share your fears, but find that the specific hope that animates your prayer is not available to me. I'm very glad you retain the hope to pray for a short-term change. I hope that a reflection on the longer term may be complementary to that.
Kudos to The Pillar for this interview, and kudos to Abp. Fernandez for participating.
Thanks for doing this interview.
My frustration with a lot of the hiearchy these days is that when I heard them talk or read their comments I am left thoroughly confused and, though it should not, it throws my faith of kilter.
Is it too much too ask to get direct answers from these people?
At the end of the day I will just keep doing my best and if that means ignoring most of what comes out of Rome so be it.
// Is it too much too ask to get direct answers from these people? //
Apparently. They seem to see themselves as politicians who are required by their calling to *prevent* clear understanding by keeping the waters muddied. Living as they do in the modern world, they are likely to be seduced by the temptation always to point out by implication that everything is relative, that clarity must be avoided in order not to encourage misunderstanding. I find it discouraging, to put it mildly.
Woof.
He speaks like a Washington politician not a moral theologian. All that fascicle rhetoric means a Church bending to cultural demands. The landscape ahead for the Roman Church looks very much like the Anglican/Episcopal experience.
Interesting interview.
Fernandez sounds very much (not just here) like a modern academic theologian: that is, every statement is couched in so many levels of nuance, hypothetical and micro-characterization that there is a real risk that at the end of the day he will not end up saying anything on any topic.
I find his four central moral questions facing the Church today puzzling, especially "The absolute primacy of grace and charity in moral theology." I would like to know what he means by that, as it could be interpreted many different ways. Number four is, I think, spot on. But the other three? I'd really need to hear explanations to understand what he's getting at.
// I would like to know what he means by that, as it could be interpreted many different ways. //
I am afraid that some people use language to waffle, evade, and deflect rather than to clarify. It is as though they find clarity distasteful.
Yes, indeed.
An important interview - thanks to Edgar Beltran and the Pillar. The Archbishop understandably speaks very cautiously, but there are some disturbing signs. Which parts of Veritatis Splendor does he accept and which not (need I ask?). Am I justified in feeling uncomfortable about his insistence that errors will still be corrected? 'Errors' that question his proportionalist approach? I fear that disturbing times lie ahead. Of course God will ensure that his loving truth prevails, but the path may not be easy.
Publishing a letter from the abuser priest defaming victims is not a mistake but simply "acting insufficiently?"
We'll see if the Pillar investigates this more or leaves such work to Church Militant and Ann Barret Doyle of Bishop Accountability.