Yesterday there was a story headlined The statement [of the U.S. bishops] is very much in harmony with the general principles “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” sent as a fraternal service-to clarify the doctrine of the Church on this specific issue-in order to assist the American Bishops in their related discussion and determinations.
This was hailed as a sign that the bishops’ and Ratzinger were in harmony on this issue, though there are manifest differences between the two documents.
What some may have overlooked was that Ratzinger stated that the U.S. document was in harmony with “the general principles” of “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” suggesting that–although the fundamental spirit of the two documents are in harmony (e.g., they both are pro-life, they both seek to promote a pro-life ethic in the political sphere, etc.) there are nevertheless specific points of difference between them. Ratzinger’s letter also contained this statement:
It is hoped that this dialogue [with the CDF] can continue as the [U.S. bishops’] Task Force carries on its important work.
And Cardinal McCarrick added:
I am grateful for his support of our statement and I look forward to continuing dialogue between our task force and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”
The existence of a “dialogue” between two parties seems to indicate that they do not yet perceive themselves to be in full agreement on the matter which is the subject of dialogue. While this dialogue seems to be being conducted in a most gentlemanly, diplomatic manner, the two parties nonetheless recognize that a dialogue is taking place.
PUT THE UNITED STATE OF AMERICAS ON INTERDICT AND BE DONE WITH IT!!
POPE INNOCENT III PRAY FOR this cause!!!
Boo…hiss.
Thank you for putting this in perspective. I appreciate the insight as I truly wondered who was spinning what.
Christ sent his Apostles to preach and baptize, to bind and to loose, to forgive sins or retain them. He never told them to “dialogue.”
John Paul II makes me sick, as does his lackey Ratzinger, and pretty much every other idiot we call “bishop.” I mean, do these men realize the enormity and gravity of their responsibilities towards God and his Church?!?! WHY ARE THEY BISHOPS? Because they like wearing the pretty clothes? As far as I’m concerned, most of them are nothing but spiritual drag-queens.
Saint Thomas tells us that part of the reward of the just is viewing the torments of the damned. I’m going to really, REALLY enjoy seeing these guys rot . . .
(N. B. Assuming that God gives me the grace of perserverence. Also, keep in mind that it’s not the suffering itself that would please me, but the beautiful manifestation of God’s justice.)
Hi Jimmy,
I used to examine things until I came up with an excuse too. I would always manage to come up with one.
An enabler from the womb, I too saw what you saw. I chewed on it for a while, but I simply can’t swallow it.
There is no basis – none – for saying that Bishop McCarrick’s spin is in the same spirit as Canon Law and the Deposit of Faith.
I agree that the dialogin’ indicates that they have not come to a full conclusion, but most certainly what Cardinal Ratzinger said was there is protocol which reaches a conclusion at the end of the rainbow.
Cardinal McCarrick’s twist, says that the Bishops may use authority to reject the protocol in perpetuity, and let’s it prudence.
You know what the problem is?
There used to be a day when the Vatican would try to smooth over the wrinkles in the schism to keep us on the ill fated voyage.
While spinning the web, on the parish and diocese levels, we are acutely aware that anyone remotely loyal to the teachings of the Church is bullied & slandered. Proaborts, homosexuals, lesbians, prostitution advocates are appointed to committees where the supreme authority is themselves. The rest of us are ridiculed in front of our children and labeled as fringe.
We know that they know.
From henceforth, if they approve of the lies, then they are against us. It is not even remotely possible to unite us under the leadership heading towards their destination, lined with their own skulls.
It is over…the farces, the charades, the disorder, the dysfunction and the spin…and most of all the enabling.
It is what it is.
Cardinal Ratzinger chose to smooth over the de facto schism and give it legitimacy…in harmony with the Vatican.
He bailed.
Jimmy:
I see you are getting flack from the Freak Out and Despair Crowd for treating a typically nuanced statement from Cdl. Ratzinger like a typically nuanced statement. Increasing numbers of Faithful Conservative Catholic[TM] seem to think that it is their business to judge as hastily and harshly as possible based on whatever fragment of a news story they just read, and then to call on God to deliver the goods on a gospel of Salvation by Law, Judgment, Kicking Ass, and Taking Names. Charity? Mercy? Patience? Trying to have a sense of what’s going on before making huge and despairing snap judgments and heaping contempt on the Holy Father and Cdl. Ratzinger? Nope. That’s for wussy “enablers” like you, Jimmy. Mercy and charity are for wimps. We want the good new of Law and Insta-Condemnation–for others, of course. Not for us. We’re special.
I’m going to really, REALLY enjoy seeing these guys rot . . .
(N. B. Assuming that God gives me the grace of perserverence. Also, keep in mind that it’s not the suffering itself that would please me, but the beautiful manifestation of God’s justice.)
Suuuuuuure. You’re not filled with bitterness, lust for vengeance, and a judgmental spirit or anything.
And a guy who really REALLY enjoys reading Playboy isn’t filled with lust for fornication either. It’s just those great interviews that fill his beautiful saintly soul with the light of Truth!
So we have alot of dialogue going on… well either right is right and wrong is wrong or we have relativism! Sorry as a convert I can’t put up with the cafeteria religion. We either follow the Roman Cathoilc Church or we leave! As always I will pray for the Church and every ones soul.
Mark,
I wouldn’t worry about these grumpy types. Their numbers are too few to pay much attention to them, and there is often an overreactiion which makes everyone defensive.
Mr. Giunta’s rant does not advance the discussion, but it should not be used to prevent a rational examination of these documents. Sure there are people always looking for the worst. But that does not force us to slay our reason and be mindless positivists.
And to be fair, you should be able to understand the frustration people have at the lack of leadership we have today. Every error has some truth. Let’s keep the conversation civil.
On second thought, I reverse my judgment. I think a little incivility is warranted for such a hellish post.
As for Mr. Giunta’s post, the only truth I can salvage out of its cruel, uncharitable, and vicious bitterness, is the confusion at the lack of strong leadership we have today. After all, who gave us all these bishops, most of whom have been appointed by the Holy See? Have national bishop’s conferences produced a new springtime, or is the current state of the episcopacy courting disaster?
The situation is certainly nuanced, and diplomacy may yield more than a harsh condemnation; but things do seem pretty dire when the Holy See has to “dialogue” with the cardinals it creates.
In any event, the rage of Mr. Biunta might be best directed to an examination of conscience, and a recollection of reason. There is little good in a pharisaical venting of one’s spleen.
Kudos to Mr. Shea for calling it out.
Breier,
I happen to be very poitive, but you said every error has some truth. That is relativism, I came from that, I now have the truth. We can not pick and choose what we believe in. Our religion needs to be taken in “faith”. When I found the truth of the Roman Cathoilc Chuch… my life has never been the same.
Remember we need to be Holy our selves and not just the clergy, it can start from thr bottom!
Robin,
I think people agree that the call to holiness is incumbant on us. But that doesn’t preclude a call for genuine reformation. The “keep quiet, you should be holy first” argument strikes me as a pure ad hominem.
When I said every error had truth, I didn’t mean that truth is relative. What I meant was that every error, heresy, etc., has some kernel of truth, which it has distorted or blown out of proportion. Chesterton says the same thing. For instance, the truth in Calvinism would be the omnipotence of God, the truth in Pelagianism that man has free will, etc. This parallels the nature of the world itself. There is no such thing as pure evil, but evil exists as a private of the good. That means that any evil thing must have some good. Likewise with an intellectual error.
Other than the fact that you may not like seeing the Holy Father criticized for anything by a layperson, what about my post above can possibly seen as objectionable, or untrue?
Please, do give me some leave to enjoy some artistic license on what is otherwise consistent with the truths of our faith (i.e. “I can’t wait to see them rot”).
As a convert I know that when people mean when they say change or reformation, we cease to be Ctholic and become Protestant(take the word apart). There are certain truths that stay the same. I did not say keep quiet or I would not have posted, I just think that there are alot of mixed up Catholics that were not catechized properly and people just want to pick and choose what they want to believe in. As I said before I will pray for the Church and the souls of the people of our Church as our Mother Mary asked us to. Remember she can intercede!
For a lot of years, I saw many people in Boston soothing Cardinal Law being enabled and it didn’t work out so hot.
I am not one to throw in the towel early, having been a defender of Cardinal Law’s and of many innocent priests here who are falsely accused, and I certainly do not want to association myself with commentary that demonstrates individuals who are ‘sick’ of the Holy Father and characterized Cardinal Ratzinger as ‘his lackey’ – but Cardinal McCarrick’s Statement rejected withholding the Blessed Sacrament after exhausting protocol.
Putting Cardinal Ratzinger’s and Cardinal McCaricks side-by-side, there is no basis for harmony.
Seeing how it works on the level of the parishes and the diocese here in Boston, is what I am drawing my conclusions from.
Based upon what is happening in the trenches here in Boston and at the Kathleen McChesney school of how to sexually assault your kindergatten classmates, while bringing in the bosses of their own bodies to demonstrate it with puppetts, and the execution of pulling a committee together with offensive pro-abortion and pro sexual freedom reputations to give the Archbishop a recommendation on whether to overrule the Pope on matters of doctrine, morality and common sense, at what point would you suggest drawing a conclusion?
Be patient while the children and Blessed Sacrament are abused?
Count me out.
Robin,
It is not true that “change” and “reformation” only have a heretical meaning. You keep assuming that those words have to mean some alteration of the deposit of faith. They do not.
There is nothing “Protestant” about seeking a reform in the morality of the clergy, or better leadership from them. In fact, Canon Law recognizes that the People of God can petition to make their spiritual needs known. This implies a request for a change in policy to fulfill those spiritual needs. Is Canon Law Protestant? Clearly not.
You need to distinguish between the faith of the Church and the discipline of the Church. You also need to recognize that the actions of members of the Church (say trasferring a serial homosexual predator from parish to parish) are not above criticism.
One can be a perfectly Orthodox Catholic, fully submitting to the teaching of the Magisterium, and still push hard for a reform of morals and change of prudential policy. Ever heard of Catherine of Siena? St. Peter Damian? The Council of Trent?
Breier
Please, do give me some leave to enjoy some artistic license yah yah blah blah blah
Eric, I hate you with all the passion my soul can muster. I can hardly wait to see you suffering all the pains of the most tormented victims of Auschwitz…forever and ever and ever and ever.
Oh, but when I say that, I’m just exercising artistic license. And I mean it in a *holy* way.
What a load of crap.
Oh dear.
Note for the analogy impaired. I don’t hate Eric. I don’t hardly know Eric. I’m simply saying that to fervently wish for somebody’s eternal damnation and then to paper over that grossly evil wish with a load of bushwah about “artistic license” and your saintly love for the beautiful manifestation of God’s justice is utterly contemptible, not to mention profoundly dangerous to your soul.
I will pipe up and say that I for one recognize that.
(Aside from being an enabler, I am the East Coast queen an analogy and sarcasm.)
I don’t think I ever got to the level of frustration with the lack of leadership and discipline that I was ever disrespectful of the Pope, but I guess what I read underneath his post is the pain we all share, inappropriately vented, but pain none the less.
Cardinal Ratzinger’s fidelity is not debatable. I *have* heard him make statements about how ‘nice’ people don’t rise against the dissidents – which is a question of pastoral style.
We have had enough nice guys around these parts of town. As Fr. Groechel says…nice schmice and nice = stupid (nicere in Latin).
I don’t think my own Bishop is too happy with how I expose what I expose with my own sarcasm and analogy – but in the end–I want to love him enough to not care about how mad he gets at me.
I would rather go right back to Cardinal Ratzinger and tell him the truth. It was about Bishops doing nothing. It was about exhausting local protocol and having nowhere to get accountability when your Bishop does nothing. It was about fooling themselves into believing that if we were only nice enough, Hitler wouldn’t have killed the Jews and Kerry will become prolife.
How does the prodigal son return to Christ if when he comes up over the hill with the whores and booze with him, you let him in and patronize him?
If we keep Kerry, he will return to McCarrick.
If we cut him loose, he may return to Christ.
I was hoping to argue the merits of whether McCarricks give Kerry the Blessed Sacrament in perpetuity is harmonious to the salvation of his soul.
I never said I hated the Holy Father or Ratzinger, much less that I desired their damnation.
It just wouldn’t surprise me if they did lose their souls, what for all their negligence in acting like Catholic bishops are supposed to.
Face it guys, the current Pontiff will never me known as “John Paul the Great.”
John Paul II makes me sick, as does his lackey Ratzinger, and pretty much every other idiot we call “bishop.”
Saint Thomas tells us that part of the reward of the just is viewing the torments of the damned. I’m going to really, REALLY enjoy seeing these guys rot . . .
Eric:
You seem to have a very difficult time taking responsibility for your words. Call me crazy, but if you said about me what you said in your original post, I’d have the strange notion you hated me. And if you then claimed that such expression of extreme malice and bitterness were really just your celebrations of God’s beautiful justice, artistic license and deep Christian love that had nothing whatever to do with desiring my damnation, I’d say you were in need of either a confessor or a tutor in elementary English (or perhaps both).
Why not just admit that what you wrote was ugly and sinful, repent of it, and be done with it? There are ways of expressing frustration with the Situation which do not involve committing sin. Why not try them?
“Face it guys, the current Pontiff will never me known as “John Paul the Great.”
With the Deposit of Faith and the legacy Pope John Paul has left us – I don’t know anyone who has contributed to saving so many of us from ourselves. His fidelity is historically recorded.
I am not up for patronizing…which was the conflict of origin re: Cardinal Ratzinger.
Quite frankly, even Cardinal Ratzinger’s fidelity is not debatable, it was all that stuff about pastoral prudence..
Breier,
Sorry, but you are like the disidents who always take things out of context. I did not say we should say what’s wrong but let’s look at the numbers the good Preists 98%, now we need to do something about the bad without taking the Church apart. Oh by the way, I have heard of the Saints I study and will continue. I will also pray for you!
Robin,
This is becoming irksome, but for your sake, you’re fighting a straw man. I’m an orthodox practicing Catholic, so be careful about looking for boogeyman in the future. It’s better to ask people what they think, than imputing views to them they don’t hold. Just a thought.
Breier
I’ll stick with my gut feelings, I don’t believe you, sorry! I am praying for the TRUE Church!
Breier wrote:
Ever heard of Catherine of Siena? St. Peter Damian? The Council of Trent?
The question is, how did they push for reform? By publicly lambasting our shepherds and self-righteously condemning them for their waywardness? Or through private letters, longsuffering, prayer, and sacrifice? Remember that St. Catherine offered her very life as an oblation to God for the sins of the Church–and God accepted, and she died at the blessed age of 33. How many of us today have the same self-sacrificial love for the Church and her leaders that we are willing to give up our very lives for her sake? Yes, for the sake of sinful clergy? Based on many of the comments I see around St. Blog’s, not many.
As far as I’m concerned, St. Catherine had a right to criticize the bishops, because there was no doubt she did it from a standpoint of selfless love, love proven in her very life and her death. The rest of us? Not even close.
By the way, Mr. Shea–thank you for your first post on this thread. I second it.
Pax.
Christine,
By your logic, only a saint could could protest the serial transfer of priestly sex offenders. Nor could a priest preach against sin, he himself being a sinner.
Too bad your rigoristic view contradicts Canon Law, which allows people to petition the church for their spiritual needs, even if they are spirtually needy.
And this is really quite obvious. To prevent someone from speaking the truth by questioning their character is nothing other than an ad hominem attack. The truthfulness of someone’s statement does not depend upon their personal state of soul. To claim that it does is an egregious fallacy.
I mean really, do you think that to wish for stronger leadership is a bad thing? That we have to be St. Catherine of Siena to wish that the Church would deny communion to pro-abortion politicians? Clearly not. The licity of their actions was not dependent upon their sanctity. It probably is true though, that a saint is better at giving advice.
As for publicly lambasting people, I again ask you to look at the sex-abuse crisis. Attitudes like yours allowed this situation to perpetuate itself.
It doesn’t require a saint to recognize very basic spiritual needs, or to see that many of our leaders are not saints. Talking about sanctity is a big red herring.
Is it true that we are all obliged to pursue sancity? Yes.
Is it true that some people are excessively critical and would better spend their time persuing their own sancity? Also yes.
Does this mean that we can dismiss statements desiring an improvement of the hiarchy or a change in prudential policy? Emphatically not. We have a right, given in canon law, to express the wishes for our spirtual needs, even if we were the blackest of sinners.
I don’t think any of the comments on this board, Eric’s accepted, have crossed the line at all.
Breier
Christine,
Thank you Christine for your lovely post, you said it much better than I ever could! By sacrificing and praying we can offer it up for the souls of our Clergy and confused people of the Church!
The idea that heroic sanctity is a prerequisite for speaking one’s mind about current events, or having an opinion about something, is manifestly absurd.
Consider this fawning attitude to episcopal authority. The argument seems to be that only a person of heroic sanctity is worthy to say anything at all regarding such figures, other than empty praise.
But given this logic, that we must all be sycophants, unless we’re saints, we can’t stop with bishops.
Indeed, you have an authority to love and obey your political rulers just as much as you do your bishops.
So for all of you who are so reluctant to say anything which may reflect poorly of any ecclesiastical policy or personage, how dare you criticize political leaders! How dare you attack John Kerry! How dare you critize the Democrats! How dare you discuss politics! You have no right to do such things, unless you’re a saint, and we all fall short of that.
The fact is, reasoning and having an opinion is part of a balanced human existence, and also a means of growth in holiness and sanctity. How can you love and pray for your clergyman, if you know nothing about them?
Furthermore, we’ll recall this thread got started by the mere mention that someone might be frustrated at the situation currently. Is frustration wrong too? My goodness, this is so silly.
Furthermore, of all people, saints think themselves the worst of all. It’s absurd to say you have know you’re a saint to voice your mind; because no saint knows that he’s a saint. The people who think they’re saints are probably the least worthy.
I fear that noone is really understanding each other here. No one is denying the great worth and power of prayer, or that prayer and contemplation, and growth in holiness, can be more powerful than another action.
But that doesn’t mean that lesser things, like speaking one’s mind and moving politically, are wrong.
And it flat uncharitable, not to mention irrational, to ignore an argument for truth, by attacking the truth-teller. The response “we should be holy” is true in itself, but irrelvant to weighing the merits of a rational argument.
Do you attack pro-life activists, because they’re concerned about abortion? Do you tell them to shut up, and just pray instead? Of course not.
Then don’t tell people they can’t be concerned about the current situation in the church, or that they can’t do anything to help protect children. Every person has the right to offer their input. If you feel that rational discourse is wrong, and that only saints can talk rationally or opine on affairs of the world, you have gone far astray.
However, I feel my words may well be wasted, so this is my final post.
I never said people should not be concerned but… you can not just think of the negative. Also no one said they were a saint, we need to see what is wrong but we also need to see what is right. For heavens sake, if all we did is moan and groan we would get not a thing done. I have seen so many negative people on bloggs, this is awful for new converts and people thinking of converting it could very easily turn them away from the Church. This also my last post. Remember think in balance, not all is bad, lets stand by the good and pray for the rest… love our enemies! God Bless!