Posted on 07/12/2024 4:31:48 PM PDT by ebb tide
A few weeks after the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith promulgated Fiducia supplicans,[1] it published a "[p]ress release concerning the reception" of the document.[2] The issue in the dicastery’s view was thus the document’s reception, which had not been universally favorable.[3] The dicastery urged a "full and calm reading of the Declaration so as to better understand its meaning and purpose," thereby suggesting its critics lacked reading comprehension and emotional control. But the issue with the document is not extrinsic. The issue is intrinsic, specifically an apparent reliance on process theology.
Process theology holds God is defined by becoming, not being. He is therefore interconnected with the changeable world. As Alfred North Whitehead put it:
"It is as true to say that God is permanent and the world fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent.
It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many.
It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently.
It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.
It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God.
It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God."[4]
Granted, this sort of thinking is well-hidden in Fiducia supplicans. The presence of process theology is best deciphered from the reaction of people with a different metaphysic. Among these are Catholics who believe in the God of Revelation.
Catholics who accept Revelation define God as Being, not becoming. "I am who am," God revealed to Moses, and He directed further: "This is what you shall tell the Israelites: I AM sent me to you." Ex. 3:14. Jesus claimed the same absolute and transcendent objectivity for Himself: "Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am." Jn. 8:58.
The key here is to perceive the alleged equivalence between human feelings and the presumed feelings of God.
For such Catholics, the identity of God as Being naturally controls the moral order. If God is Being, disobedience to God can only induce non-being, namely the privation of what should be, which is the Catholic notion of evil.[5] It follows that non-being cannot gain entrance before Being or otherwise receive a blessing. As Jesus taught with respect to God’s judgment:
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Father in heaven shall enter the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and work many miracles in thy name?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you workers of iniquity!'" Mt. 7:21-23
And as St. Paul taught with respect to human relations:
"Do not bear the yoke with unbelievers. For what has justice in common with iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? Or what part has the believer and the unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols?" 2 Cor. 6:14-16.
When Catholics who believe this Revelation consider the dicastery’s approval of "blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex," the conflict between the perfect Being of God and the privation exhibited by such couples produces strong consternation. Simply as a matter of logic, God "does not and cannot bless sin," as the same dicastery (then a congregation) said just a few years ago.[6]
The dicastery now asserts, however:
"In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit."
The slippery reasoning here and elsewhere in Fiducia supplicans has been amply destroyed by many commentators, including for example Fr. Gerald E. Murray.[7] In addition to such analyses, the belief system behind the slippery reasoning should be exposed. People smart enough to hide what they are doing are smart enough to know what they are doing.
This is more than emotivism. The feeling of being blessed remains distinct from sanctity, i.e., distinct from ontological perfection.
If "blessing" is to retain any meaning at all, it could descend from God to couples whose relationships are founded on privation only if God shared in the privation. Since this is the sole logical predicate for Fiducia supplicans, claims of misunderstanding and overreaction aside, the document must be based on process theology. God can bless sinful unions to their improvement because God similarly improves. The sin in a couple’s life is not a fundamental barrier to grace but a (hopefully transitory) feature of their relationship, which defines in turn the couple’s relationship with an imperfect (but perfecting) God.
Notice in this respect the document’s emphasis on feelings, an obvious exemplar of becoming as opposed to being. When summarizing its reflections on Scriptural blessings, the dicastery asserts:
"The blessing expresses God’s merciful embrace and the Church’s motherhood, which invites the faithful to have the same feelings as God toward their brothers and sisters." The dicastery then quotes Pope Francis: "'It is a powerful experience to read these biblical texts of blessing in a prison or in a rehabilitation group. To make those people feel that they are still blessed, notwithstanding their serious mistakes, that their heavenly Father continues to will their good and to hope that they will ultimately open themselves to the good.'" Quoting the pope again, the dicastery states in the document’s concluding paragraph, "'the root of Christian meekness' is 'the ability to feel blessed and the ability to bless [...]. This world needs blessings, and we can give blessings and receive blessings.'" Then, in the concluding sentence, the dicastery states its goal: "In this way, every brother and every sister will be able to feel that, in the Church, they are always pilgrims, always beggars, always loved, and, despite everything, always blessed."
The key here is to perceive the alleged equivalence between human feelings and the presumed feelings of God. It is not just that feelings are anthropomorphically ascribed to God—this way of speaking appears in Scripture. The dicastery goes further by linking the feelings of humans and God in a way characteristic of process theology. We should have, the dicastery directly states, "the same feelings as God." And we should "'feel [we] are still blessed'" despite even "'serious mistakes'"; indeed, this "'ability to feel blessed'" is itself a virtue, "'the root of Christian meekness.'" Ideally, "every brother and sister will be able to feel" that "despite everything," they are "always blessed."
This is more than emotivism. The feeling of being blessed remains distinct from sanctity, i.e., distinct from ontological perfection. Logically, then, neither the God who blesses nor the couple blessed are united in ontological perfection. They are instead united in partial corruption, which thanks to religion is on the mend. To mimic Whitehead, it is as true to say that God feels love for the sinner, as that the sinner feels love for God.
Ping
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.