Posted on 10/14/2016 7:51:28 PM PDT by ebb tide
The Catholic prelate Pope Francis recently appointed both as a cardinal and the head of the Vatican's new centralized office for laypeople says he considers the pontiff's apostolic exhortation on family life inspired by the Holy Spirit and plans to make it his department's guiding document.
Speaking in an NCR interview Thursday, Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell said he has a hard time understanding why some bishops have reacted negatively to Amoris Laetitia ("The Joy of Love.")
"I honestly don't see what and why some bishops seem to think that they have to interpret this document," said Farrell, the head of the new Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life and who last Sunday was announced as one of 17 prelates selected by Francis to join the church's elite College of Cardinals.
"I believe that the pope has spoken," said the cardinal-designate, referring to news last month that Francis wrote a letter praising a group of Argentine bishops who had drafted concrete guidelines about circumstances in which divorced and civilly remarried couples might eventually be allowed to receive Communion.
The issue of the church's ministry to divorced and remarried people is addressed in the exhortation, which calls for pastoral accompaniment of such persons and a recognition that priests can no longer make blanket moral determinations about so-called "irregular" situations.
The exhortation, issued in April, was the pope's response to two Synods of Bishops he held at the Vatican in 2014 and 2015 focused on issues of family life.
Farrell, an Irish native who had previously served as bishop of Dallas, said he understood that the U.S. bishops' conference will be discussing Amoris Laetitia at its annual meeting in November.
"I think that's very important that they have discussion," said the cardinal-designate. "But at the same time I think it's very important that we all understand that this is the Holy Spirit speaking."
"I think that the document Amoris Laetitia is faithful to the doctrine and to the teaching of the church," said Farrell, referring next to a 1981 exhortation on family life written by one of Francis' predecessors: "It is carrying on the doctrine of Familiaris Consortio of John Paul II. I believe that passionately.
"Basically this is the Holy Spirit speaking to us," the cardinal-designate continued.
"Do we believe that the Holy Spirit wasn't there in the first synod?" he asked. "Do we believe he wasn't in the second synod? Do we believe that he didn't inspire our Holy Father Pope Francis in writing this document?"
"We need to be consequential here," said Farrell. "I firmly believe this is the teaching of the church. This is a pastoral document telling us how we should proceed. I believe we should take it as it is."
The cardinal-designate said divorced and remarried people should be included "in all the ministries of the church."
"That doesn't mean that I'm telling you that they should receive Communion," said Farrell. "That's a process of discernment and of conscience."
"It is a journey," he said. "Not something that's to be taken lightly but something that we need to accompany people in difficult circumstances -- the priest, the pastor needs to accompany people in difficult situations."
"I believe that that's what we need to do," he continued. "But it has to be taken seriously. It's not just walking in and sitting down with a priest and talking with him. It's a journey. It's discernment."
The cardinal-designate also said he expects the exhortation will be the basis of his work at the new dicastery.
"That will be the guiding document without a doubt for the years to come," said Farrell.
"I think that we all need to read that document many, many times," he said. "I have read it probably seven or eight times and I find every time I'm reading it as if I'm reading it for the first time. There's something new."
Giving laypeople a voice
Farrell spoke about the pope's exhortation as part of a half-hour interview at his new office in Rome's Trastevere neighborhood. He also spoke about his expectations for his new role, and focused on how he sought to give authority to laypeople during his time in Dallas.
Noting that he had only arrived in Rome to take up his role last Friday, Farrell said he was spending most of his time now listening to his staff members to learn about their work.
"I'm just trying to listen to people," said the cardinal-designate. "It's not like I come with all brilliant ideas. I have to come, I have to learn, I have to listen for several months."
"I am the type of person that likes to hear other people's opinions," he said. "I like to listen a lot. I like to consult a lot and see where we go from here."
Farrell said he thought the pope had created his new office -- combining the former pontifical councils for the laity and the family and the Pontifical Academy for Life -- as a way of expressing concern for and to give voice to laypeople.
"I think the pope is duly concerned about the laity and the role of the laity in the church ... especially when you think of the fact that 99 percent of the people that go to church on Sunday are laity," said the cardinal-designate.
"They're not associated with religious orders or movements of spiritual groups," he said. "They are just ordinary, everyday Catholics. I think the pope is deeply concerned about that and wants the Catholic people to feel supported and understood, and to have a voice."
"They are the greatest part of the Catholic church and certainly they have to have a voice in the church," said Farrell of laypeople. "I think the pope is going back to the Second Vatican Council. That's what it was all about."
"Now, as Pope Francis says, it's time to put it into practice," he said. "I guess they are my marching orders. I'm glad to do it."
In Dallas, where he had served since 2007, Farrell created a 16-member lay pastoral advisory committee to give him advice in administering the diocese. Remembering the experience, he said the group would often expand to 25-30 people and he would meet with them alone, without any of his chancery staff.
The priests of the different regions of the diocese appointed the members of the group, he said.
"I would consult with them about any pastoral decisions that I was faced with," said the cardinal-designate. "We would have some wonderful conversations about parishes, about what was happening in different parts of the diocese, what they felt I should be doing about some social issues. It was very informative."
Farrell also said he worked to limit the number of priests working full-time at the Dallas chancery office, having priests serve only as the vicar for clergy, the judicial vicar, and the vocation director. He also said he was one of the first U.S. bishops to appoint a chief of operations to oversee the diocesan administration.
"I prefer to have laypeople running the different offices," he said. "I gave a lot of credence and authority to the pastoral council and to ... [the] finance council to take care of all the business of the diocese."
"I've always tried to promote laypeople in the church, and for selfish reasons: we didn't have enough priests to run our parishes," said Farrell.
"I would hope that the priests would be what they're supposed to be: sacramental, and teaching the faith," he said. "And leave the administration to people who were more competent than they were, laypeople. That's what I tried to do."
While Farrell said he is not sure yet how the departments of his new dicastery will be organized, he said at this point he expects all of his undersecretaries will be laypeople.
"I work in laity, family -- I would expect to have married people talking to me and family members talking to me about family life, talking to me about marriage," said the cardinal-designate. "They're the ones who live the reality of that. I'm a priest. I've never been married."
"Laypeople ... are 99 percent of the church and they need to have a voice and a say," said Farrell. "I believe the same thing about women: they need to have a voice and a say."
"I believe laypeople should be involved in the administration of the church, and by administration I don't mean finances," he said. "I mean every aspect of the life of the church."
"Women bring a unique perspective to many issues," said Farrell. "That was one thing I learned very early on from meeting with pastoral councils. I would see things one way from a chancery office, but they would see it a completely different way from living the reality of everyday.
"I think that many times in dioceses, diocesan officials can come up with wonderful plans and wonderful pastoral plans for different things but is that the reality?" he continued. "And is that what -- to use a business term -- sells in the community?"
Farrell also called for better opportunities for training for adult laypeople in the faith, beyond basic catechetical instruction.
"I would put a lot of emphasis on the formation of laity at every level," said the cardinal-designate. "I think conferences of bishops need to be more involved in promoting the education of laity."
"You think about parishes in the United States," he continued. "We have programs of religious education for kids, for young adults but we don't necessarily focus on everybody in our parishes."
"That can be clearly seen as one great flaw in the United States, where I come from," he said. "Now, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It does in many dioceses but I would say we pay more attention to young children's education in the faith and then once they get to a certain age they're left on their own."
'I still have to pinch myself'
Farrell said his appointment to lead the office in Rome came as a complete surprise, as did his more recent appointment as a cardinal.
"I was totally shocked and humbled by the whole thing," said the cardinal-designate. "I still have to pinch myself. This cannot be true. It's not me. It's not Kevin Farrell."
Related: "Tobin speaks of a church that is sacrament of mercy to the world" (Oct. 12, 2016)
Asked if he knew why the pope had chosen him to come to Rome, Farrell responded: "I have no idea. I would love to know."
"I said to the Holy Father, 'Look, why did you pick me?'" he said, speaking of a recent audience with Francis. "He just smiled."
"I had met the Holy Father at audiences, but you know how those audiences are: the pope meets 20, 30 bishops and shakes their hands," the cardinal-designate explained. "Outside of that, I had never met the man before."
"I was just blown away," said Farrell, explaining he got a phone call telling him of his new job: "The fact that he called me up on the telephone, I just couldn't believe that. And I still don't believe that but it happened. And here I am. I just couldn't say no."
Asked what he thought the pope needs most from his cardinals, Farrell responded: "To be very honest, I've never given it any thought."
"I would hope to serve the people and to serve the pope as much as I can," said the cardinal-designate, mentioning that while serving in Washington he had witnessed the work of Cardinals James Hickey, Theodore McCarrick and Donald Wuerl.
"I think it is an awesome responsibility and I think a cardinal has to live up to that responsibility," he said. "But I think first of all they have to be teachers and servants at the service of the People of God. I've always thought that about the bishop. I think that about a cardinal, too."
With the Arian crisis, the pope did not teach heresy to the universal church. Not comparable.
The block of text in italics is an opinion. One that I do not share. The Church—specifically at Vatican I—has defined the limits within which the Pope is infallible, and it does not extend as far as the author you quoted claims.
The eminent pre-VII Catholic theologian is speaking of infallible security not doctrinal infallibility. He even makes the distinction in the quote. Read it closely. Even the non-infallible teachings of the Roman Pontiff CAN NOT pose a danger to the universal church. So you are of the opinion that the Vicar of Christ can pose a danger to the souls of the His entire Church?
I get it. That's exactly the statement I don't agree with. But the author is talking about "non-infallible" statements. Heretical statements are not "non-infallible"! They are heresies, falsehoods.
I understand that you are setting up a syllogism whose conclusion is that Bergoglio is not the Pope.
Your argument is that Bergoglio's heresies ARE a danger to the Church, and to souls, which could not be true if Bergoglio were Pope. Therefore Bergoglio is not Pope.
I agree with you that Bergoglio is a heretic, and is a danger to the Church and to souls.
I still think the quoted statement takes an extravagant view of the divine protection promised to the Church by Christ, and that it isn't about heretical statements at all, but "non-infallible" statements that are consonant with the teaching of the Church.
I just do not believe myself authorized to make the judgment that Bergoglio is not Pope. I do not deny that he daily provides evidence that undermines my current position.
I tend to think your post is just a theological version of Clinton’s “it depends on what the meaning of “is” is”. It appears you still believe that Christ would permit His Vicar to teach ....”heresies” ....to the universal church.
Looks to me like Monsignor Fenton is not someone we should ignore/poo-poo:
http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/396964e5a9e1567e528cd3906bff6564-238.html
John XXII taught a heresy—for years—and to my knowledge no one ever suggested he was an anti-Pope.
John XXII taught a heresy—for years—and to my knowledge no one ever suggested he was an anti-Pope.
To the universal church?
In the last years of John's pontificate there arose a dogmatic conflict about the Beatific Vision, which was brought on by himself, and which his enemies made use of to discredit him. Before his elevation to the Holy See, he had written a work on this question, in which he stated that the souls of the blessed departed do not see God until after the Last Judgment. After becoming pope, he advanced the same teaching in his sermons. In this he met with strong opposition, many theologians, who adhered to the usual opinion that the blessed departed did see God before the Resurrection of the Body and the Last Judgment, even calling his view heretical. A great commotion was aroused in the University of Paris when the General of the Minorites and a Dominican tried to disseminate there the pope's view. Pope John wrote to King Philip IV on the matter (November, 1333), and emphasized the fact that, as long as the Holy See had not given a decision, the theologians enjoyed perfect freedom in this matter. In December, 1333, the theologians at Paris, after a consultation on the question, decided in favour of the doctrine that the souls of the blessed departed saw God immediately after death or after their complete purification; at the same time they pointed out that the pope had given no decision on this question but only advanced his personal opinion, and now petitioned the pope to confirm their decision. John appointed a commission at Avignon to study the writings of the Fathers, and to discuss further the disputed question. In a consistory held on 3 January, 1334, the pope explicitly declared that he had never meant to teach aught contrary to Holy Scripture or the rule of faith and in fact had not intended to give any decision whatever. Before his death he withdrew his former opinion, and declared his belief that souls separated from their bodies enjoyed in heaven the Beatific Vision.
I think Dr. Mirus summarizes the promise of Christ accurately. I think that Fr Fenton’s description is extravagant. Because it is extravagant, it causes scandal—because it tempts people to, for example, to accuse a bad Pope of being an anti-Pope.
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=690
I never said he wasn’t heretical. I said that, to my knowledge, those who called him heretical didn’t accuse him of being an anti-Pope.
The problem with Fr. Fenton’s extravagant rhetoric is similar to the problem with those who believe in Papal Impeccability. It goes beyond what Christ promised, and thus it causes scandal among those who see the Pope failing to conform to what they THINK Christ promised.
Fr. Fenton was writing in the midst of a long series of extraordinarily good Popes.
Define “security,” and “danger.”
Actually I think it can be considered comparable regardless of whether you believe Francis is an antipope or not. (I do not say that he is or is not myself). For those that say he is Pope, then the argument is that while teaching or advocating heresy, he has not taught heresy formally to the entire Church (an arguable point even though I suspect you believe it to be an obvious fact).
For those who believe that Francis is an antipope ; (I’m assuming you do, though you haven’t stated it- if not then disregard) remember that during the Arian heresy there was an antipope Felix who did promote heresy.
Either way the situations are comparable. I do grant that the reaction of the laity against the heresy was stronger then. Also, that Felix was probably not accepted as the Pope as thoroughly as Francis is today.
Dr Mirus is merely a post-Vatican II lay apologist. Monsignor Fenton is a pre-Vatican II, anti-Modernist Catholic theologian with papal honors.
It is beyond me why a Catholic would look to the former over the latter for anything Catholic.
That's probably because they understood the difference between having a heretical opinion vs teaching heresy to the Church.
But there was a true pope and an anti-pope. The true pope (Liberius) did not teach heresy to the Universal Church. In order to compare the two periods one would have to compare Liberius to Francis, given Francis is supposed to be the true pope (with no anti-pope in the picture).
I still argue, not the same. Today we have a purported true pope teaching the Universal Church heresy.
I hope he dies soon. I will rejoice when he dies. That’s probably the moral equivalent of considering him an anti-Pope. I just don’t believe the facts compel me to be a sedevacantist. When he is dead, I will gladly declare myself a sedevacantist.
Credentials are irrelevant.
Mirus agrees with Vatican I. Fenton extrapolates way beyond Vatican I.
Fr. Fenton lived in the midst of the series of extraordinary post-Vatican I Popes referenced by Dr Rao.
Some questions:
Read Fr. Fenton’s statement again.
Can you reconcile Fr. Fenton’s position with the imposition of the Novus Ordo on the whole Church. I.e., did any Pope ever do anything that harmed the Church as much?
Are you required by your interpretation of Fr. Fenton’s position to say that Paul VI was an anti-Pope, because he did harm the Church?
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.