Posted on 07/16/2014 4:18:13 AM PDT by NYer
I begin with a piece, spotted by Fr Tim Finigan and reported in his indispensable blog The Hermeneutic of Continuity, which had been published in Sandro Magister’s blog—not his English one, Chiesa, but his Italian language blog for L’Espresso, Settimo Cielo.
A few days ago, Magister told the story of a parish priest in the Italian diocese of Novara, Fr Tarcisio Vicario, who recently discussed the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried. This is how he explained the Church’s teaching on the matter: “For the Church, which acts in the name of the Son of God, marriage between the baptised is alone and always a sacrament. Civil marriage and cohabitation are not a sacrament. Therefore those who place themselves outside of the Sacrament by contracting civil marriage are living a continuing infidelity. One is not treating of sin committed on one occasion (for example a murder), nor an infidelity through carelessness or habit, where conscience in any case calls us back to the duty of reforming ourselves by means of sincere repentance and a true and firm purpose of distancing ourselves from sin and from the occasions which lead to it.”
Pretty unexceptionable, one would have thought.
His bishop, the Bishop of Novara, however, slapped down Fr Tarcisio’s “unacceptable equation, even though introduced as an example, between irregular cohabitation and murder. The use of the example, even if written in brackets, proves to be inappropriate and misleading, and therefore wrong.”
Fr Tim comments that “Fr Vicario did not ‘equate’ irregular cohabitation and murder. His whole point was that they are different—one is a permanent state where the person does not intend to change their situation, the other is a sin committed on a particular occasion where a properly formed conscience would call the person to repent and not commit the sin again.”
It was bad enough that Fr Tarcisio should be publicly attacked by his own bishop simply for propagating the teachings of the Church. Much more seriously, Fr Tarcisio was then slapped down from Rome itself, by no less a person than the curial Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, who said that the words of Fr Tarcisio were “crazy [‘una pazzia’], a strictly personal opinion of a parish priest who does not represent anyone, not even himself.” Cardinal Baldisseri, it may be remembered, is the Secretary General of the Synod of Bishops, and therefore of the forthcoming global extravaganza on the family. This does not exactly calm one’s fears about the forthcoming Synod: for, of course, it is absurd and theologically illiterate to say that Fr Tarcisio’s words were “a strictly personal opinion of a parish priest who does not represent anyone, not even himself” (whatever that means): for, on the contrary, they quite simply accurately represent the teaching of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church.
Sandro Magister tellingly at this point quotes the words of Thomas, Cardinal Collins, Archbishop of Toronto, who was appointed in January this year as one of the five members of the Commission of Cardinals Overseeing the Institute for the Works of Religion, and who at about the same time as Fr Tarcisio was being slapped down from the beating heart of curial Rome, was saying almost exactly the same thing as he had:
Many people who are divorced, and who are not free to marry, do enter into a second marriage. … The point is not that they have committed a sin; the mercy of God is abundantly granted to all sinners. Murder, adultery, and any other sins, no matter how serious, are forgiven by Jesus, especially through the Sacrament of Reconciliation, and the forgiven sinner receives communion. The issue in the matter of divorce and remarriage is one’s conscious decision (for whatever reason) to persist in a continuing situation of disconnection from the command of Jesus … it would not be right for them to receive the sacraments….
What exactly is going on, when Bishops and parish priests can so radically differ about the most elementary issues of faith and morals—about teachings which are quite clearly explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church—and when simultaneously one Cardinal describes such teachings as “crazy” and another simply expounds them as the immemorial teachings of the Church? Does nobody know what the Church believes any more?
The question brought me back powerfully, once more, to one of the most haunting blogs I have read for some time, one to which I have been returning repeatedly since I read it last Friday. It is very short, so here it is in full; I am tempted to call it Fr Blake’s last post (one can almost hear his bugle sounding over sad shires):
It is four months since Protect the Pope went into “a period of prayer and reflection” at the direction of Bishop Campbell, someone recently asked me why I tend not to post so often as I did, and I must say I have been asking the same question about other bloggers.The reign of Benedict produced a real flourish of ‘citizen journalists’, the net was alive with discussion on what the Pope was saying or doing and how it affected the life of our own local Church. Looking at some of my old posts they invariably began with quote or picture followed by a comment, Benedict stimulated thought, reflection and dialogue, an open and free intellectual environment. There was a solidity and certainty in Benedict’s teaching which made discussion possible and stimulated intellectual honesty, one knew where the Church and the Pope stood. Today we are in less certain times, the intellectual life of the Church is thwart with uncertainty.
Most Catholics but especially clergy want to be loyal to the Pope in order to maintain the unity of the Church, today that loyalty is perhaps best expressed through silence.
I look at my own blogging, and see that I perfectly exemplify this. More and more, my heart just isn’t in it; and I blog less than I did. Now, increasingly, I feel that silence is all. Under Benedict, there was vigorously under way a glorious battle, an ongoing struggle, focused on and motivated by the pope himself, to get back to the Church the Council intended, a battle for the hermeneutic of continuity. It was a battle we felt we were winning. Then came the thunderbolt of Benedict’s resignation.
After an agonizing interregnum, a new pope was elected, a good and holy man with a pastoral heart. All seemed to be well, though he was not dogmatically inclined as Benedict had been: all that was left to the CDF. I found myself explaining that Francis was hermeneutically absolutely Benedictine, entirely orthodox, everything a pope should be, just with a different way of operating. I still believe all that. But here is increasingly a sense of uncertainty in the air, which cannot be ignored. “One knew where the Church and the Pope stood” says Fr Blake. Now, we have a Pope who can be adored by such enemies of the Catholic Church as the arch abortion supporter Jane Fonda, who tweeted last year “Gotta love new Pope. He cares about poor, hates dogma.”
In other words, for Fonda and her like, the Church is no longer a dogmatic entity, no longer a threat. That’s what the world now supposes: everything is in a state of flux. The remarried will soon, they think, be told they can receive Holy Communion as unthinkingly as everyone else: that’s what Cardinal Kasper implied at the consistory in February. Did the pope agree with him? There appears to be some uncertainty, despite the fact that the Holy Father had already backed Cardinal Mueller’s insistence that nothing has changed.
We shall see what we shall see at the Synod, which I increasingly dread. Once that is out of the way, we will be able to assess where we all stand. But whatever happens now, it seems, the glad confident morning of Benedict’s pontificate has gone, never again to return; and I (and it seems many others) have less we feel we can say.
Not according to the Nancy Pelosis and other famous "catholic leaders" of our time.
Their teachings on matters of Catholic doctrine are widely distributed throughout pop culture and fairly well known these days.
That was why the Eastern Orthodox practice in regards to marriage was looked at early this year.
It does not seem that he is used to dealing with parishioners and ordinary people.
Here, I disagree. He spent a great deal of time riding the bus and visiting with the poor in Argentina. For a while, I kept a list of "francisisms", such as:
To newly appointed bishops: "Don't be airport bishops" (bishops who spend too much time away from their dioceses)
To pastors: The Confessional is not a 'torture chamber'
The Sacrament of the Eucharist is not a 'magic rite'
On the need to be politically active: “Don’t respond to the crisis with a Pontius Pilate-like attitude”
To Vatican Police on spiritual war: “Napoleon is not coming anymore”
Pope Francis speaks out against "Christians at half-speed" (one who professes to be a christian but lives like a pagan).
Pope Francis says Confession is not like going to see a psychiatrist
Pope Francis: A bishop is to serve, not dominate
On wanting physical proof: Our Lady doesn't work in a post office, She doesn't mail out letters every day
Pope Francis: our faith is 'not an ornament'
On what it means to be a christian: Do you want to live your life like a burning lamp, or an extinguished one?
The Cross is not an ornament but the mystery of God's love.
Don't live the faith as if it were a non-stop funeral.
Pope Francis: Pray with your heart, not like a parrot
Pope: The Church isn't a rental unit... it's a home
These reflect his approach of expressing church teaching in common terms. Like you, I loved the example of living a truly christian life set by St. JPII and hold Benedict XVI's gift for drawing us deeper into theology. Francis is a conundrum.
There are plenty of copies of the Catechisms out there. I have even both the American bishops copy and one called “ This is Our Faith”.
Which is a decent place to start, though I will admit ignorance over the conformity in the Orthodox churches over this.
Sadly certain anti-Catholic bigots like to ask: "Who interprets the CCC?, it's turtles all the way down." That is a direct quote.
Being Catholic is great! It's also a contact sport and it sure ain't easy a lot of times
Amen brother testify
I love the Catechism. We read from it every morning; today we got to Paragraph 1,121.
If my family members don’t know their Faith, it won’t be through a lack of effort on my part!
It is a conundrum, this immigration/invasion. As A Catholic my heart hurts for these people. What can we do, what should we do? As an American I am upset because I know this is being orchestrated by the other side. They are using these people to create a crisis. This crisis could eventually lead to civil war, martial law, who knows? In the meantime, here on Free Republic it's bash the Catholics number 1 Billion and 2.
I stated before, I will give up politics before I give up my faith. But should we have to? Should those of us who are Catholic just drop out? Most especially those of us on the right who face derision at Church and on here. It's so exhausting sometimes. But then there is the cross and what right do I have to complain? John Paul the Great, Pray for Us!
The answers in the Baltimore Catechism are still correct, too. They’re just not as in-depth as the CCC.
The other are always worried about who interprets the CCC, but they are same people who want me to believe their interpretation of scripture. Funny I should quit the Catholic church and join, which of the 51,000 different Protestant denominations?
Bah! I'll keep the hot mess I belong to! Love you all! Keep fighting the fight!
Just my opinion but when it comes to religion it seems liberals and protestants sound a lot alike. Maybe it's just me.
I know that to be true! If there were more like you. They have one for kids, have you tired that one?
Only if the electors are open to the Holy Spirit. I don't believe the majority of Cardinals today are open to anything but church politics.
My captive audience each day at 6:30 a.m. ranges in age from 2-1/2 to 52. I know the CCC is over the heads of some of them, but I’m really aiming at the 14-and-up group, the ones who have questions and need to be reminded that there are good answers available.
I know you can bring it down for the little people. I tried teaching the little ones. I prefer Junior High and up.
I do other things to teach the little children. It’s important to work on the older ones now.
Virtual High Fives.
It is from Christopher Cardinal Schoenborn so you know it is a faithful rendition.
My favorite thing was after I stepped aside from Youth Ministry was that we started the Lifeteen! (I was getting to long in the tooth). :) Anyway, the kid that took over is now a priest.
Anyway I think that the fastest way to turn kids off is to me to dry. So anything like this is just so much the better.
Back at you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.