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.
Well, my second marriage has outlasted my first, and we have five children.
As far as the adultery goes? Ain't nothin like the real thing, baby.
That has nothing to do with divorce. In the early church, people were coming to the dinners merely trying to get fed and get drunk.
Not even going to acknowledge reception of the information I compiled for you?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Also worth pondering is the question as to why the Vatican has reposted that reporter's first interview article in English (containing some confusing, controversial quotes) on the Vatican web site, after it had been taken down for a while (as already pointed out by several other FReepers on various other recent threads) --- see the following link:
In this article you posted here, the author's emphasis on the unusual silence these days among many folks within "the Bride of Christ" reminds me a bit of an old song from the 1960's:
bumpus ad summum
I would liken it to trying to take Chemistry without learning to read first. You might know math but if you can't read you will be lost.
Catholicism starts for most people at birth. I remember how most of my Catholic friends would say the Rosary while nursing the baby. Using the fingers and toes instead of beads. Singing the hymns to the baby.
My first gift to new parents is usually a glow in the dark crucifix for the baby's crib. Babies go to Mass until what 3ish then we have that brief Sunday school period until they start school.
For Catholics the Church is not just a place to go on Sunday. The Parish is our home, we are family. The parish walks through everything with us from birth to death. When people criticize priests, they truly don't understand why we defend them so. He's not a symbol or a caricature. He's our spiritual father. He's there if you are hurt in the hospital, a family member is dying. He Baptizes us, he shares in our sorrows and joys and the face may change over the years, but the vocation PRIEST, means something. There are men who have undertaken the vocation unworthily just as people enter marriages that should not have.
Father rejoices with you as your children triumph and cries with you when they fail. He lifts you up or kicks your butt, depending on what you need that day. He's a shoulder to cry on or a friend to laugh with. Father is the one who comes and sits with you as you die and comforts your family and leads them through the dark days to the other side. On the one hand a priest is no greater then any other man, but he sacrifices his will to do God's will and some will just never understand it. Some will never understand the difference in the priest as man and the priest as in persona Christi, during sacraments. I guess they like going it alone. I'll tell you what thought when you are at rock bottom and the last person who will talk to you may very well be a priest. If you are not Catholic maybe it's impossible to see it. I don't know. But when the chips are down, Father always come through.
Normally, as a courtesy, the poster of the thread is notified. Why was the caucus label removed?
Well now I know you did not ask for the label to be pulled. Very Interesting.
I’m guessing because there were posts about Protestants.
And it has been removed again.
No, I don’t think so. No posts have been removed from this thread. So I doubt that is it. We shall await the Moderator. Thanks.
The Caucus label was in the title; apparently, the RM has removed it without any notification or justification. The label is still listed and active in post #3. Thank you for observing it.
Without justification?
You mean like posts 10, 26, and 43 where non-Catholics are mentioned and disparaged?
It’s my understanding that the caucus label is not protection or license to use to attack others while leaving them no recourse to defend themselves.
The label may still be listed in post 3 but I seriously doubt it's active if the RM removed it from the title.
Then it just becomes opinion or a wish.
I was told I was being judgmental. OK....
The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Honestly, your situation is what the issue is.
Your second marriage is (forgive me for assuming) stable and you have five children. For you to leave that second marriage for your first wife would be (again forgive me for assuming) rather horrific at this point. Not just for you and your wife, but the children involved.
So how does a church and/or pastor handle that? In the Catholic church they typically do the annulment thing, in most non Catholic churches they ignore it.
This strikes me as another example of what first disillusioned me when I returned to the Church.
I had a fantasy (and it is a fantasy) in my mind that everyone believed the exact same thing and not only that, but also behaved and thought the exact same way.
To the consternation of myself at the time (and still a point of scandal for many today, Protestant and Catholic alike) I discovered through examples like this, it is not so: surprise surprise different people behave and think, well, differently.
I assert here briefly that this has always been how the Church was and is. There are different opinions, fights squabbles, and the like all throughout Church history. It’s not a monolithic lock-step organization. It’s human. Not based on human effort or idea, but colored and influenced by humanity. Big difference.
Here is no different. Had Father Tarcisio left out the portion in the parentheses, there would have been no issue. The only issue his bishop had was with his example.
So it’s a personal preference thing. I don’t see his bishop disagreeing with the teaching per se rather his example. If he had used an example of say, pornography or lying, maybe his bishop wouldn’t have objected. Myself I was a bit shocked to even be discussing “murder” in relation to co-habitation at all, even to demonstrate a difference.
We are Catholics, and I know both are mortal sins, but really, co-habitation is just as serious a sin as murder?
Whether or not one agrees with this impression of the analogy or not is irrelevant. We must try to see what the other is saying (the bishop didn’t do this). Just because he didn’t though, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to see what he (the bishop) is saying either.
This is how it is. This is what must be done. This is both our problem as humans and what we are called to do. We must try to see the other in as charitable a light as possible.
Is there a history of this bishop rejecting Church teaching? If not, this is probably another example of what can be disillusioning but isn’t. It isn’t, if we just see it as a different person preferring a different way of saying (or doing) things. A different way that ultimately has no difference. Just personal preference.
That is a very clear explanation. Well done. I know it’s hard. Being Catholic ain’t for sissies! We put that on a shirt once for our Confirmation retreat.
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.