Rueing the Spirit of Amoris Laetitia

Preface:

This piece was originally written in October 2016 after participating in an Igantian retreat aimed at rolling out this Apostolic Encyclical to the faithful. The resulting article seemed too lengthy for publication and impossible to edit down to a "typical Readers Digest"  version. However, I have passionately argued specifics from the analysis when discussing Amoris Laetitia and some have expressed interest in reading the piece. 

Perhaps the capstone of Pope Francis’ Jubilee Year of Mercy is the promulgation of the Apostolic Exhortation-- Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love, 2016).  Amoris Laetitia is Pope Francis’ reflections on the 2014 and 2015 Extraordinary Synods of the Family.

Pope Francis’ persistently reaches out to minister to those in the peripheries, especially those in irregular family situations. However  Amoris Laetitia has created sparks from critics who wonder about how the document ought to be interpreted and ramifications from its proposed New Mercy implementation.

While Amoris Laetitia purports to reflect the Extraordinary Synods on the Family’s final report, it goes beyond chronicling the Synod Fathers conclusions.  As is Pope Francis’ style, the Holy Father wrote a long work (356 paragraph 264 page English document) piece that mixes in pastoral suggestions along poetic, collegial (citing various Conferences of Bishops) and scriptural allusions as well as quoting the preceding pontiffs’ teachings.

Pope Francis’ charismatic communication style is not always exact in nature and his spontaneous utterances can seem contradictory.

Much of the material in Amoris Laetitia mirrored the Magisterium and the final report of the Synod of the Family Fathers.

• Marriage is a gift from the Lord between a man and a woman for life (para. 62) . 
• Same Sex unions can not be equated with marriage (para. 52). 
• Gender theory which denies sexual differences between men and women is rejected (para. 56) 
• Blessed Pope Paul VI’s teaching from the encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968) which prohibited  artificial contraception is reaffirmed  (para. 68).  
• Abortion is explicitly condemned and the right of health care workers conscience to respect the sanctity of life in their profession is stressed. (para. 83). 
• The education of children is the “primary right” of parents (para. 84).

Despite this ample echoing of the Church teaching and tradition, there is some ambiguity on how the faithful ought to interpret Amoris Laetitia.  Unlike other Apostolic Exhortations, Pope Francis proffered pastoral perspectives which are certainly sagacious but are obviously not ex cathedra, such as suggesting couples take quality time to listen to each other (para 137). Such rhetoric seems reminiscent of documents from Vatican II which sought to persuade rather than inculcate.

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) generated an alluvia of documents which exhorted “aggiornamento” (opening the windows of the Church to the world).  The gist of Vatican II documents intimated change couched in consensus committee style.  The volume of Vatican documents generated along with sometimes disjointed conclusions inspired some who implemented reforms to invoke “the Spirit of Vatican II” to actuate changes which the Vatican II Synod Fathers did not advocate (e.g. changing the altar from ad orientam to versus populem).

The considerable length of Amoris Laetitia, along with a couple of ambiguous paragraphs make it more more than conceivable that a similar phenomenon of “the Spirit of Amoris Laetitia” could overshadow  the many positive points of this Apostolic Exhortation. Those steeped in Jesuit education may recognize Ignatian elements from the Spiritual Exercises such as accompaniment, discernment and integrating weakness, but they seem insufficiently contexualized and may be unfamiliar to the Church Universal.

The uncertainty on how to understand Amoris Laetitia is amplified by a predicate for Pope Francis’ reflections:

Since ‘time is greater than space’, I would to make it clear that not all of the discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the Magisterium. Unity of teaching or practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. (para. 3).

That seems to suggest that there may be back door mechanisms which circumvent customary Church procedures while also affirming the need for a unity of Church practice.  Hence,  it crucial to discern the hermaneutic for assessing Amoris Laetitia.

Employing  Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI’s dialectic for Vatican II Golden Anniversary observances, should Amoris Laetitia understand through a be a hermaneutic of continuity or a hermaneutic of rupture? Put another way, does the New Mercy restate and  contemporize traditional teachings or does Amoris Laetitia manifest a new way to address irregular family challenges?

As befitting the Jubilee Year of Mercy, Pope Francis reaches out to the peripheries to reach faithful who might feel estranged from Mother Church.  While that is laudable to bring souls back into the fold of the Church, it seems extraordinary for Pope Francis to assert:

It is important divorced who entered into a new union should be made to feel part of the Church. “They are not excommunicated” and they should not be treated as such, since they remain part of the ecclesial community.(para. 243).

This intimates an innovation, as the Magisterium holds that a sacramental marriage is indissoluble hence a civil remarriage without obtaining an annulment (technically a certificate of nullity), then those in the irregular marriage are committing adultery.

Many people mistake Excommunication (barring reception of the sacraments) as a punishment. Some think that it is kicking someone out of the Church.  So Pope Francis is quite right to note that they remain part of the Church. But traditionally they would be prohibited from unworthily receiving sacraments, especially the Body and Blood of Christ in a state of grave sin as it imperils their souls.

Pope Francis, however, considers the simple application of Canon Law is characteried as bureaucratic.   Pastors are extolled not to throw moral stones and be done with irregular situations. In fact, a footnote states: “I want to remind priest that the confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy (para 305 footnote 351).

Keeping to his Ignation roots, Pope Francis encourages pastors ministering to such irregular marriages to accompany the couple and consider mitigating factors (para. 301). Supposedly, in certain situations, an irregularly married couple may grow in grace while receiving the Church’s help, which may include the sacraments.  This is a law of gradualism, which Pope Francis oddly attributes to Pope St. John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (1981), but more closely tracks with Cardinal Walter Kasper’s theological take on gradualism.

This is the crux of the sparks regarding Amoris Laetitia.  This footnote seems like a pastoral end around of Church law, done for the sake of mercy, to a couple which has not resolved impediments.  This goes beyond pastoral provisions and calls into question adherence to the traditional teachings of the Church and the meaning of the sacraments.

Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia postulates that there may be some situations which divorced and civilly remarried Catholics can still access the sacraments despite not having an annulment.  During the 2015 Synod on the Family, Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Gerhard Mueller stated: "The valid and sacramental marriage is either indissoluble or dissoluble. There is no third option."  of  So if an irregular couple can still receive sacraments, in the name of mercy, then what is the validity of the rule?

One of the hard teachings in the Gospel of Matthew is the reinstatement of natural marriage.

Jesus replied, "Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because your hearts are unyielding. It it wasn't that way from the beginning.  I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."  (M 9: 8-9)

That states things pretty clearly from a scriptural standpoint.  Amoris Laetitia points to other examples in which Jesus has mercy on people in irregular situations, like the woman who was about to be stoned for adultery or the woman at the well.

But certain statements by Pope Francis and the theology concealed in pastoral provisions have cast doubts on the Catholic concept of sacramental marriage, as well as the precepts for other sacraments. In June 2016, Pope Francis posited that: the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null" because they do not have a proper understanding of permanence and commitment (official transcripts modified this quip to "a portion"). 

The gradualist approach, as articulated by Cardinal Kasper, moots the Messiah's invocation of natural law of marriage.  It can be liked to how Orthodox Christianity handles divorce and remarriage for economia (the Orthodox Church’s concern for the salvation of people) giving an irregular couple a tentative blessing after a period of penance.  Since Amoris Laetitia sought to avoid doctrinal interventions of the Magisterium, this comparative theological perspective on second marriages was not spelled out.

Kasperian gradualism looks to expand the playground between dogmatic principle and pastoral consequence which he attributes to Pope St. John Paul II's concession in Familaris Consortio   Kasper exaults  the good which can spring forth from the second (non-sacramental) civil marriage of love, commitment and exclusivity. This assertion is troubling since there is still a valid sacramental marriage hence ecclesially there is neither commitment nor exclusivity to the sacramental spouse.

Pope Francis gives latitude to pastoral counseling and may recommend that the counseled couple resume church life in another parish so as not to create scandal. For Cardinal Kasper, the scandal is not irregular Catholic couples unworthily receiving the sacraments but denying the sacraments

In this pastoral process, the couple is to be helped in discernment which “guides the faithful to an awareness of their situation before God” (para. 300).  Essentially, this is an appeal to Thomistic sense of conscience, which if sincerely held may countermand established customary procedures. This pastoral process is supposed to be limited to certain situations which:

 [I]n an objective situation of sin–which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such– a person can be living in God’s grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end. (para 300)

That passage seemed rather muddied, but practical examples would illuminate how the Church is impeded from offering mercy to people in irregular situations.

So during a Christian Life Community retreat which contemplated Amoris Laetitia, I asked for two concrete examples in which this exception would apply. One hypothetical was a divorced man who was civilly remarried but living a devout Catholic life without an annulment but who was informed that he only had a few months to live.  It was contended that it would not be merciful for this poor soul to be excluded from the sacraments in his dying days.

Another abstract example would be the case of a woman who was divorced and civilly remarried who was chary to go through with an open and shut annulment process because she did not want to think about much less interact with her abusive spouse.

In both instances, those in an irregular situation chose to violate their vows and circumvented the Church rules to be publicly united with another spouse, but because of exigencies, the law should not apply. In law school, one is taught that difficult cases makes for bad law. Thus the suspicion that it is likely that these exceptions become the rule.

In America, this pastoral provision may not matter, but there are pecuniary interests in other regions to lessen the stigma of irregular relationships.  In Germany, the Church tax is 8% of one’s income (which is 70% of church revenues). German bishops have denied sacraments to those who do not pay.   Many in irregular marriages are hesitant to pay as they were not eligible for to receive the Eucharist.  Amoris Laetitia offers a way around that impediment.

There are systematic challenges  with this pastoral modus vivendi for irregular couples. Firstly, why does not Amoris Laetitia point divorced and remarried couples into the annulment process?

 Pope Francis declared that sacraments should be free of charge, thus removing any cost barrier from seeking an annulment.  Moreover, there is a 97% success rate for finding a nullity of marriage.  By suggesting this pastoral provision of accompaniment, discernment and integrating weakness,  there seems to be little need to do the formal scrutinizing by a Roman Rota when "Fr. Friendly" can just  counsel the irregular couple and skirt the formalities by changing to another parish.

Juristically, there is still a sacramental marriage which has been super-ceded in practice by a second civil marriage that Amoris Laetitia seeks to accommodate. This calls into question whether sacramental marriage is dissoluble or if under Amoris Laetitia that we say that it is, much like Americans pretend the Tenth Amendment is good law but jurists pay it no mind.

There is also a conundrum of different applications of the pastoral approach towards irregular couples.  Germany would be quick to regularize divorced and remarried Catholics so that they could receive the sacraments (and the Church receive its government payments). But the Polish Conference of Bishops is adamant against applying this modus vivendi. Germany and Poland share a common border, so on one side cheap grace is permitted and the other side deprives irregular couples the sacraments. So much for one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Granted, we are all sinners and in need of God’s mercy.  Grave sin is typically confessed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But a Catholic who is divorced and then civilly remarried made a public commitment which contradicts his or her sacramental marriage. The question remains, as posed by Fr. Tom Reese, S.J. whether those in irregular relations committed one sin in the civil marriage or if it is a continuing sin each time the couple engages in the marital act.

It is liturgical legerdemain to claim that gradualism need not involve the Magisterium.  Confession is to make manifest times which a penitent acts contrary to the way of God. The Sacrament of Reconciliation seeks contrite hearts who vow to sin no more. But if the sacramental marriage is not annulled yet the civil marriage is regularized in the eyes of the Church, then it seems to make the Magisterium teaching that the marriage covenant is indissoluble to be mere words.

Furthermore, if the irregularly married couple is counseled to resume the sacramental life without clarifying their vocational status or radically changing marital behavior (i.e. no sex) then does this not circumvent the precept that the faithful should not be in grave sin to receive the Eucharist?



In the 1930 Lambeth Council, the Anglican Communion tried to address vexing family issues The Lambeth Council approved  the use of artificial birth control by married couples in exceptional circumstances, but was not specific on her prescriptions. The exception became the rule.

There is the danger that a similar situation could happen by applying the merciful pastoral provisions of Amoris Laetitia..  In many parts of the world, the Latin Church faces a shortage of priests.  Amoris Laetitia requires a considerable amount of study, prayer and then expending time to put into pastoral practice.  Amoris Laetitia requires discerning one’s conscience.  It is questionable how much honing must go into forming consciences in this day and age with the dominance of secular values which contravene being right with God.

It will be much easier for a time pressed priest to do some pro forma meeting and take the attitude “Who am I to judge?" (which takes Pope Francis' excited expression from a 2014 press conference aboard Shepherd One out of context)  while superficially counseling living and brother and sister and advising to attend a parish where their appearance will not create scandal. This would be in keeping with the “Spirit of Amoris Laetita” which embraces the conceit of the Church as a field hospital for those spiritually sick and the impulse to apply the salve of God’s mercy, without requiring metanoia and a contrite heart’s change in living.

The interpretation of Amoris Laetitia is key. It is reasonable to consider Amoris Laetitia as wrapping innovation within external affirmations of the Magisterium via pastoral provisions. Pope Francis imploring that there is no ex-communication is laudable but does that really reflect the traditions and teaching of the Roman Catholic Church?

The Apostolic Exhortation goes far beyond what the Synod Fathers agreed upon, but that has been the course of these Family Synod histories.

The Synod Fathers did not contemplate a pastoral provision which bypassed current procedures for irregular marriage, yet it was promulgated in a footnote.  The authenticity of interpreting the footnote was affirmed by Pope Francis  in a secular newspaper and a letter to the Argentine Conference of Bishops.

There is a credible perception that the Synod of the Family was rigged to encourage certain outcomes.

• The 2014 relatio (working document) introduced ideas on appreciating homosexuals gifts to the Church that were never discussed as parts of the first weeks’ discussions. Moreover, this interim report was released to the press before it was given to the Synod Fathers.
• Archbishop of Durban Winfried Cardinal Napier was told by a Synod official in 2014 Synod "This thing is  being manipulated. This thing is being engineered. They want a certain result." 
• During the 2014 Synod, Cardinal Kasper expressed exasperation that the African bishops  were holding  the Synod back on same-sex marriage.
• In the 2014 Synod, the fathers voted on what should be included. Several controversial sections, like cohabitation, same sex marriage and Communion for irregular couples, which failed yet Pope Francis included them on the 2015 Synod agenda and they were addressed within Amoris Laetitia. 
• There were some slights in naming Synod Fathers who were not invited back to participate who held a more traditional line (such as Cardinal Raymond Burke) whereas an influential emeritus Bishops over the voting age who aligned with the New Mercy (namely Cardinal Kasper) participated.
• Synod 2015 Father Australian Cardinal George Pell was absolutely certain that the final report of the Synod on the Family made no reference to communion to divorced and remarried Catholics. Yet at the same time, German Conference of Bishops President Cardinal Reinhard Marx praised the Synod for being a "real step forward" in pastoral care for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.  Judging from Amoris Laetitia and the emphasis on  Pope Francis' footnote 351 as being  the authentic key for interpretation, it seems that the Synod Fathers' deliberations were moot.
• Pope Francis named Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia and Monsignor Pierangelo Sequeri to lead the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family. Paglia has expressed opinions which endorse Kasperian Gradualism and is eager to implement Amoris Laetitia.   This is significant because if the is just a pastoral option, then implementing it sounds more systematic.

Some longstanding virtues of the Catholic faith is to have surety of authority in Scripture, Holy Tradition and the Magisterium. Likewise, in the Roman Church, there has been a uniformity in implementation. Sacraments are not mere signs but efficacious means of grace for those spiritually disposed to receive them. Amoris Laetitia, the conduit  for the New Mercy,  may break that mold and many of the faithful many find themselves ruing the Spirit of Amoris Laetitia. 

It is a pity that there is concerted effort by leaders in the Church to take an ultramontainist approach to implementing Amoris Laetitia, when the interpretation via a footnote goes far beyond what the Synod of the Family's final report held, and also seem to contravene a hard teaching of Jesus Christ.

Cardinal Burke Challenges Contemporary Religious Relativism

During a press availability to promote Hope for the World: Unite All Things in Christ (2016),  his new book length interview with French journalist Guillaume d'Alancon, Cardinal Raymond Burke opined that it was highly questionable if Christians and Muslims worship the same God and that Islam is a religion of peace.

Cardinal Burke is an American bishop whose pedigree carries a tremendous amount of credibility. Burke was the Archbishop of St. Louis who was called to be the prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (the Vatican's highest court) and is now the Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

It is Cardinal Burke's view that  Nostra Aetate (1965)  Vatican II's declaration on the Catholic Church's relationship with other religions, was not a dogmatic document. Many Catholics have found that the document was vague and were troubled as it seemed at odds with the precept that Catholicism is the one true faith.

Cardinal Burke believes that contemporary reactions to Islam are colored by a religious relativism that "we worship one God" and "God is love". If this is true, Burke wondered how Islam instructs to slaughter infidels and establish their rule by violence, where as people of the book (Christians and Jews) have a much different weltanschauung. 

Keeping true to his current role as Patron of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, Burke noted that nothing has changed in the Islamic agenda from prior times in which our ancestors had to defend Christendom from Muslim attacks as Islam was threatening sacred truth.

h/t: LifeNews

On Re-Orienting Vatican II Catholics' Divine Worship

Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship Cardinal Robert Sarah's strong defense of ad orientem worship is no surprise.  However, Cardinal Sarah suggestion at the Sacra Liturgia Conference in London to push to re-orient Vatican II Catholics posture away from versus populum positioning during the Liturgy of the Eucharist by the beginning of Advent 2016 was shocking. The announcement was greeted by prolonged applause at the Conference, indicating that the mostly clerical audience was behind the move.

It took over a decade for ICEL and the USCCB to implement the Third Translation of the Roman Missal (which supplanted a dynamic translation of the Mass with a fixed translation), but this major change was accompanied with a year's worth of educating the People of God.  While the symbolism of reorienting most Novus Ordo Masses to the traditional ad orientem orientation may be praiseworthy, this may be a hard teaching, particularly for more progressive parishes that have taught that the Mass is a celebration of a sacred family meal. 

If Cardinal Sarah's modest proposal does come into fruition, it may challenge many casual "spirit of Vatican II" Catholics approach to Divine Worship.  It would be ironic that such contemporary Catholics, who have reveled in this progressive tact of Pope Francis' reign, may feel desolation with what may be considered a traditionalist retrenchment by Pope Francis' choice for Prefect of the CDW.

Before an Ad Orientem rubric is implemented, it is crucial for Catholics to understand why this has been the traditional posture of Divine Worship and to disabuse the faithful of any misconceptions about the change in optional practice of  versus populum worship.

Post Scriptus 07/11/16:

It seems that CDW Prefect Cardinal Sarah's "Modest Proposal" on Mass orientation has been countermanded by the Vatican

Scary Spiritual Costumes for All Hallow's Eve

The wag wearing the Spirit of Vatican II costume clearly is not a fan of the St. Louis Jesuits repertoire.  But the outfit does bring up a larger question in Catholic culture.  

Many of the changes to the Catholic Church post 1965 were not necessarily mandated by the Second Vatican Council but were enacted under the shaky assumptions of "The Spirit of Vatican II".   This is why during the 2012 "Year of Faith", then Pope Benedict XVI wanted people to contemplate the 50th anniversary of the start of Vatican II through a hermaneutic of continuity rather than a hermaneutic of rupture. 

Those who are not fond of some changes, like guitar masses, communion in the hand, and moving some feast days to Sundays rail through ridicule. 


Ironically, the musician who satirized Vatican II chose to make his point through a repetitious folk music setting which droned on the mundane rather than uplifting motifs. 

On Reconsidering Liturgy

America, the Jesuit magazine, published an interview with Cardinal Francis George as he prepares to cede pastoral responsibilities for the Archdiocese of Chicago to current Spokane Archbishop Blaise Cupich. The  wide ranging interview touched upon secular hot button political issues, sacerdotal celibacy, clerical sexual abuse and the recent Synod of the Family.  

But Cardinal George's comments about Liturgy have particular as the third anniversary of the implementation of the New (Third) Translation of the Roman Missal approaches. Some priests formed "in the spirit of Vatican II" persist in improvising during the Liturgy or revert to favorite older translations.  

As one of the prominent people in the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), Cardinal Francis George's comments deserve consideration.  Cardinal George does concede that some things can sound "clunky" but can be facilitated by preparation to understand the grammar and intention of the prayers.

Recently, I participated in an challenging colloquy with a cleric who was contemptuous that the 1998 ICEL translation was rejected and who still feels liberated to say: "The Lord IS with you" in antiphons.  I noted that the loosey goosey improv impulse which was allowed under the 1969  Comme le prévoit  was illicit under the new translation. His retort was the aspiration to make liturgy accessible to the youthful masses. That seemed like a jesuitical argument as all Christian denominations have bled worshipers and vocations.  Yet diocese which have more traditional inclinations (e.g. Peoria IL, Lincoln NB, Steubensville OH) seem to be the most vocation rich.  Might there be a correlation? 

One of the pities about the implementation of Vatican II is that the works of the Council were overtaken by "the spirit of Vatican II" which fundamentally misunderstands the Council Fathers work.  Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963), the Constitution on Sacred Liturgy, had the expectation that priests would educate the faithful. However, according to Fr. Gabriel O'Donnell, O.P. who co-authored “Spiritual Traditions for the Contemporary Church”, priests were not properly formed in the new liturgy before it was implemented to the laity.  The logic of  Comme le prévoit  gave great latitude to presiding liturgists.  Thus US Catholics misunderstood Sacrosanctum Concilium as a capitulation to modernity instead of the  "aggorionmento" ("bringing up to date) which Pope St. John XXIII intended when he called for the Council  in 1959.

It would behoove Catholics to become more educated about first things --not just what we do, but why we do them in the Liturgy.  The Liturgy along with Sacred Scripture are the primary means of how we experience Christ.  Our lack of learning on liturgy loses lackluster Catholics and makes mass or mechanical or risks relegation to religious entertainment.

Faithful Can’t Relatio With Synod Working Document (sic)

The Extraordinary Synod on the Family is a two week gathering at the  Vatican of over 250  Bishops to grapple with “pastoral challenges of the family in the context of evangelization.”  Each day was dedicated to contemplating a different issue. This Extraordinary Synod will produce a working document which will lay a foundation for an ordinary synod in 2015 which would implement any formal changes to church guidelines touching about difficult family matters as well as a prospective Apostolic Exhortation.

The Synod Fathers heard from selected lay Catholics from across the globe to illuminate some of the challenging issues facing the modern family.  “Synod 2014"  touched upon hot button issues such as: cohabitation; divorced Catholics who civilly remarry, contraception, homosexuality; and the current elite cause celebre same sex so called marriage. Considering the subject matter the secular media keenly monitored the Synod and promoted any signals of progressive politics.

Unfortunately for the faithful not participating in the proceedings, there are conflicting signals coming from the Extraordinary Synod on the Family.  For example, Pope Francis encouraged participants to “speak fearlessly and listen humbly.”  Pope Francis spoke out against bishops afraid to disagree with the Pope when he said: “This is no good.  This is not synodality.”  Archbishop of Durbin, South Africa Winfrid Cardinal Napier certainly followed this exhortation.

This sounds like there would be a robust exchange of views and not a pre-ordained set of conclusions.  But Pope Francis took the unusual step of appointing six prelates to draft the final report from the Synod fathers.  Conservative Catholics lamented that many of the committee, including Washington Archbishop Donald Cardinal Wuerl, are reputed to have liberal tendencies.  However, the Synod participants elected relegators to report on the small working groups.  These relegators include Cardinal Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura Raymond Burke (formerly Archbishop of St. Louis), President of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum Robert Cardinal Sarah (of Guinea) and Arbishop of Brussels-Melechen Andre-Joseph Leonard, all of whom have conservative leanings.

Despite assurances from the Vatican Press Office at the start of the Synod that there would be no doctrinal changes only better strategies for communicating the truths of the family, the secular and liberal Catholic media reports  as demonstrated by Jesuit Fr. James Martin report of “stunning changes” on how the Catholic Church approaches the LBGTQQ? persons. This characterizes the Synod of the Media, which capitalizes on the media blackout to interject their Synod spin.

Since Synods are messy, General Secretary of the Synod Lorenzo Cardinal Badissiri (of Pisa, Italy) imposed a media blackout on the “interventions” (speeches made during the Synod) but with a daily press briefing from three participating prelates.  Chary  observers like Fr. John Zuhlsdorf think this media gag could be to coordinate leaks to control the agenda.

Mid way through the Synod, a relatio post disceptationem was released which summarized the large group session discussion for the small working groups.  Progressives praised the relatio, implying that it marked monumental changes rather than discussion points.  Conservatives are concerned that final pastoral positions may be preordained.

In an interview with Vatican Radio, Archbishop of Poznan Stanislaw Gadecki, the President of the Polish Episcopal Conference seemingly rejected the relatio as being unacceptable.  Archbishop Gadecki postulated: 

"Is the purpose of this Synod pastoral support to families in difficulty, or is its goal the study of special cases? Our main task is to support the family pastorally, not to hit her, exposing these difficult situations that exist, but which do not constitute the nucleus of the same family; they [the special cases] do not void the need for support, which should be given to good, normal, ordinary families, who are struggling not so much for survival as for fidelity.”

The Polish Prelate expressed concern Pope St. John Paul II's teachings on the Family seemed to be ignored.  Gadecki urged preaching the truth and not give the impression that the Church has not teaching mercifully in the past.

Cardinal Burke's reaction to the relatio has be likened to aftershocks to the pastoral earthquake of the synod summary.  In an interview with Catholic World Report, Cardinal Burke blasted:

“While the document in question (Relatio post disceptationem) purports to report only the discussion which took place among the Synod Fathers, it, in fact, advances positions which many Synod Fathers do not accept and, I would say, as faithful shepherds of the flock cannot accept. Clearly, the response to the document in the discussion which immediately followed its presentation manifested that a great number of the Synod Fathers found it objectionable.”

After the relatio was released and not universally welcomed, the Synod  avoid a media briefing which included the regular question and answer session.  Catholic media sources like the Archdiocese of New York's Catholic Channel on Sirus XM satellite radio went wall-to-wall to correct impressions of the relatio.

The groundswell of dissent coming from within the Synod demonstrates that those pulling the strings did  not appreciate how the interim report would be proclaimed as the gospel truth in the so called Synod of the Media which has its hot button issues on sexuality. In addition, the relatio did not reflect a balanced view of the discussion points.  Moreover, this relatio concentrated pastoral approaches without clearly reaffirming Church teachings.

As the Synod on the Family proceeds, it will be curious how the groundswell of concerns about the interim relatio are corrected.  Furthermore, how these disputes in the final relatio are addressed may make a difference.  During the Second Vatican Council, Pope Blessed Paul VI wanted there to be unity coming from the Council.  Thus language in the final documents required 90% approval, which practically meant that there was ambiguity which allowed for various interpretations.  Hence a liberal "spirit of Vatican II" which led to innovations and consequence not anticipated by Vatican II council fathers.  Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI would disparagingly label this  as a  "hermaneutic of rupture".

Fr. Robert Barron on Vatican II

Celebrating the Golden Anniversary of Vatican II

Pope John XXIII at Vatican II

Fifty years ago today, Pope John XXIII opened the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).  It surprised many that this “caretaker” papacy would launch such a sweeping endeavor as Vatican II.  In fact, Pope Blessed John XIII died on third of the way into the conclave, but he believed that the Roman Catholic Church required aggiornamento or “updating”.

Having been born towards the conclusion on Vatican II, I have no personal recollections of the way the Church was prior to Vatican II.  My cursory knowledge as a child caused me to conclude that Vatican II translated the mass into the local languages (vernacular) and stopped the use of High Altars with the priest's back to the congregation. I was aware of people who were put off by the Novus Ordo liturgy and longed for the Tridentine  rituals, but that just seemed like an old translation.  It was only when I started to study Vatican II that I had a better appreciation for the fruits of the council and how strongly disappointment remains from the right and the left today.

Bishops meeting in Plenary Session of Vatican II

Over three years, some 2800 bishops from 116 countries met, debated (in Latin) and produced 16 documents.  Instead of automatically taking the preparation work from a cautious curia, the Council regrouped in geographical zones and requested a thorough re-thinking of the Council’s agenda.  But regional politics was serendipitously curtailed by seating, which was by seniority rather than delegations.

Unlike other councils, Vatican II did not define any dogma or pronounce anything anathematic.  The documents used word of persuasion and inclusion, like People of God or “brothers and sisters” rather than top down neo-scholastic theological statements.

 While keeping true to the essence of the Church in scripture, holy tradition and the Magisterium, Vatican II renewed the vision of what it means to be Church.

 Lumen Gentium calls the church to be the light of the world and source of salvation.  Lumen Gentium recognized the importance off family as the “domestic church” which provides the strong foundation of faith for sharing with the world.

Sacrosantum Concilium recognized the Eucharist as being the foundation of the Church, for in Holy Communion Catholics encounter the person of Christ and it is the main source of God’s grace.  

The Second Vatican Council spurred liturgical reforms which had been brewing in the church for years. This involved more than just worshiping in the vernacular.  It involved a whole new calendar and lectionary which refocused Sundays as “little Easters” telling salvific history through scriptural readings throughout the year rather than focusing on myriad Saintly feast days.  The scriptural readings read significantly more scripture over three year cycles.  Moreover, Vatican II desired the active participation of the People of God.

In fact, the entire emphasize shifted from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (re-creating Calvary) to re-creating the Last Supper (convivium).  While Vatican II did not espouse new theological doctrine per se, this reflects the “spirit of Vatican II” which shifted in focus in faith from the Messiah’s suffering on the cross and dying for our sins to understanding Eucharist as the perfect sacrifice of free will to our Father’s plan  which is made perpetual through the wonder of Jesus’ resurrection as embodied in Communion.

While the sung Tridentine High Mass has its beauty when it has an inspired choir and a priest who does liturgy well. I recently was blessed to worship in an Extraordinary Form  Requiem Mass for March For Life founder Nellie Gray. It sounded heavenly but  I experienced how it was a challenge for  much of the congregation to follow along in Latin, and there were few, if any, moments of participation from the Congregation.   But the Novus Ordo liturgy involved the faithful in their common tongue with expanded hymnals and wider selections of readings. The People of God are now lectors as well as communion ministers and the dialogue within the mass encourages eager and active  worship in communion, thereby being another manifestation of Christ.

Vatican II also revolutionized how the Catholic Church interacted with others in the world. Gaudium et Spes dealing with the Church and the modern world, recognizes that the Church shares the same joys and the same suffering with the world.

Pope Paul VI & Orthodox Metropolitan Meliton of Heliopolis (1965)

 Voices from other faiths were heard and heeded during the Second Vatican Council, particularly on the Lectionary.  It was a wonderful fruit of ecumenism that many mainline Protestant faiths revised their lectionary to roughly parallel the Roman liturgical calendar so the divided brothers and sisters in Christ  were nearly worshiping off the same page.



It is inconceivable to a Vatican II baby that prior to the aggiornamento, but per John O'Malley, S.J. Catholics were not only forbidden to pray with those of other faiths but were also inculcated with contempt. Vatican II fostered friendly relations with our divided brothers and sisters from Orthodox and Protestant Christianity.  Moreover, Vatican II condemned all forms of anti-Semitism and demanded respect for all from Abrahamic faiths, like Islam as well as Judaism.

So why is there still controversy a half century after Vatican II?  One can reasonably understand why traditionalist would bristle at all of the change. While sedevacantists may not be pleased unless we all travel back in time to January 1959 when Pope Blessed John XXIII announced his intention to hold the Second Vatican Council.  But Pope Saint Pius V did not bind his successors to never change the 1570 Tridentine Rite liturgy, as Popes have supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary powers.  While Pope Paul VI did promulgate the Missa Romanum in 1969, several other Popes had modified the Tridentine Rite before without controversy. Aside from the changes in language and  emphasis in worship, the changes in the Lectionary took away from the tried and true rhythm of the Tridentine worship year and deemphasized Saints day in general Sunday worship.

Scott Hahn’s scholarship on Episcopal Attitudes to Liturgical Change on the Eve of Vatican II indicates that the impetus to change was not the majority opinion immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council.  Hahn suggest that only 29% of the bishops wanted extensive change to the liturgy.  Most of those advocates for change came from Protestant dominanted regions, or as Father Ralph Wiltgen, S.V.D titled his book on Vatican II “The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber”.  It should be noted that Pope Benedict XVI (nee Joseph Ratzinger) was a theological consultant (peritus) who was a proponent of the Nouvelle Théologie.

But it is puzzling to discover discordant voices from the left at the notion of Vatican II.  A parish study group considering Vatican II documents that leaned left sounded more like Catholic version of Anger Management.  Nearly all of the two score of participants could vividly remember the innovations of Vatican II, but this group felt that the Church had not changed enough.  In addition, they were worried about retrenchment from current Pope Benedict XVI.  What was more surprising were some vitriolic voices against the legacy of Pope Blessed John Paul II.

Part of this can be attributed to the governance of Second Vatican Council. The published documents were the work of many hands and the resulting consensus language rarely sounds poetic.  While the rules governing Vatican II required 2/3rds super-majority for passage.  But Pope Blessed John XXIII’s successor Pope Paul VI wanted Vatican II documents to have an appearance of near unanimity, so the published documents are full of concessions and sometimes contradictions in short proximity to each other.

Although the Second Vatican Council did not strictly espouse a new theology, the Nouvelle Théologie hermaneutic which opened the church was embued throughout the documents, but not a systematic theology.  Consequently, when liturgical changes to Vatican II were introduced, there was some ambiguity in its implementation. This is certainly seen in the English translation of the Novus Ordo Mass (1969).  The translation methodology of Comme le prévoit (1969) uses the principle of dynamic equivalence  to convey the overall sense and meaning of the text in idiomatic English.  A sense of casual colloquialness can be associated with the “And also with you” response to the invocation of the Holy Spirit five times within the liturgy.  But the 1973 approved ICEL English translation allowed for many equivalents at the discretion of the Presider.  This flexibility bothered even a staunch liberal liturgical innovator like former Milwaukee Archbishop Rembrand Cardinal Weakland who decried injecting so many ideosyncratic mannerisms into the liturgy that becomes so colloquial that it is unbefitting of the liturgical movement.

The English Speaking Liturgical translators (ICEL) had prepared a new translation in 1998 which sought to redress shortcomings in the 1973 translation, but was a marriage of both dynamic and static translation.  The new missal required the blessing from Rome, but the Vatican sat on approving the text for four years before rejecting it in favor of the more static translation embraced in Liturgicum Authenticum (2001).   Aside from the unfamiliar language as part of the new translation (e.g. consubstantial, incarnate), the 2011 missal does not allow for Presiders to improvise.  So traditionalists, who take umbrage at the Novus Ordo and any translation continue to be upset, but Pope John Paul II’s requirements for a new Lectionary displeased liturgical liberals too.  After nearly a year has passed, the People of God seem to have made peace with the new translation, though fewer people can recite by rote memory and some get stuck on the new words. Although the new missal is an internal church conflict a half century after the council, it has its roots in “the spirit of Vatican II”.

Another challenge for the faithful with appreciating the legacy of Vatican II is understanding the theology which purportedly underlies the documents.  It is said that the importance of salvation history is the resurrection instead of the bloody sacrifice of Calvary.  That much I appreciate although I wonder if it minimizes the sacrificial hermanuetic, particularly of the bloodless lamb sacrifice for the salvation for God’s people.  But former Georgetown University Theology Chair Anthony Tambasco goes further in asserting that is was Christ’s perfect submission to God’s will which redeemed humanity, not the replacement expiation of sin.  In fact, Tambasco recently asserted that had Jesus died a married man in bed, he still would have redeemed humanity by his perfect submission to His Father’s plan.

When challenged to show chapter and verse from the Second Vatican Council documents, the answer was that it is all throughout them, without pointing to anything in particular. This kind of reminds a political junkie about campaigning on "Hope" and "Change" and people insert whatever they want into those broad bromides. Such an airy fairy answer was not pleasing to those schooled in neo-scholastic theology ala the Baltimore Catechism.  Nor did this take jibe with my reading of excerpts of Vatican II documents.

Perhaps this is why Pope Benedict XVI has encouraged Catholics during this Year of Faith to review reading Vatican II documents. For the faithful who take up this challenge, the Church offers a plenary indulgence for those who do so in a prayerful manner.


   

 We should appreciate the Golden Anniversary of Vatican II for breathing new life in updating the Catholic Church. But we should not ignore traditions which have sustained the faithful, like the Extraordinary Form (Tridentine) Mass as well as Anglican patrimony.  The Second Vatican Council shaped by the passionate pleas of Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV, who urged reconciliation with our Orthodox brothers while retaining the Eastern lung of Christianity’s culture, language and traditions.  Furthermore, we should continue to embrace the call for all Catholics to be priests, prophets and king by actively participating in the liturgy and spreading God’s transforming love into the world via the New Evangelization.

Catholic Tertium Quid is a Dead End

A radio advertisement piqued my interest about a Renewing Christendom Conference. Quickly glancing over their itinerary, I did not recognize any of the speakers but got the impression that their religiosity was on the right end of the spectrum. I discerned that the gathering was a policy platform to advance the agenda for IHS Press, a small Catholic publisher in Virginia.

Tertium Quids is Latin for a “Third Way”. The wonk in me is familiar with the expression “Tertium Quids” from a weekly radio show by a Virginia advocacy organization the eschews traditional right/left dialectics to expand free market opportunity for individuals while reducing the size of government.

While this Renewing Christendom conference could be construed as a third way from the “Nuns on a Bus” social teaching and what is generally considered conservative Catholicism rooted within the spirit of Vatican II. However, the Catholic social teachings that will be highlighted at the Renewing Christendom conference could be likened to paleo-conservative politics (e.g. Pat Buchanan has gone so far right that he seems aligned with the left on trade issues).

The Renewing Christendom Conference seeks to recover the buried treasure of Catholic social doctrine from the early Twentieth Century. IHS Press publications are rooted in Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum (“On the New Things”) which deals with labor. This bull rejected communism and unrestricted capitalism while affirming the right to private property and workers forming labor unions. The spiritually inspired political philosophies of Distributism, Sodalism, and Paleo-Corporatism by such luminaries as G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Heinrich Pesch, S.J. et ali. Since many of these economic and Catholic Social Doctrine books are out of print, the Renewing Christendom Conference seems like an event to popularize the fin de siècle European Catholic intellectuals to contemporary audiences current social and political conversations.

 Briefly, this Catholic Tertium Quid is a reaction to modernism and the stark choices between communism and capitalism. In its stead, these theories harken back to small communities knit together by faith, “three acres and a cow” and guilds determining fair wages. While the concept of subsidiarity can be instructive on the ordering of society, unless there is an EMP which takes the world back into a pre-Industrial age driven by agriculture, it is hard to envisage how guilds of craftsmen does not “evolve” into the overgrown unionism which antagonizes against the top echelon. The Sodalism or distributism seems like an aspirational alternative which has some intellectual appeal, yet the cooperation between groups setting prices for goods seems more inspired by the irrational exuberance of the European Enlightenment from the 1789 paradigm instead of the cautious approach to ceding the people’s sovereign power enshrined in the Miracle in Philadelphia that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787.

 Alas, the anachronistic elements do not seem limited to just the Catholic social doctrine. The keynote speaker is both associated with anti-Semitic views and the still schismatic Society of (Pope) St. Pius X. While I agree with the observation of his successor, Pope Pius XI, that morality can not be disassociated from the affairs of practical life, I am not sanguine about secular governments operating under the Social Kingship of Christ. Another speaker is the editor of the Catholic Family News, which is a traditionalist Catholic publication which is sympathetic to the SSPX  but is not sedevacantist and recognizes the Novus Ordo liturgy  from Vatican II hence it is not heretical.

It is important to remember that the word Catholic means “universal” so it can include diversity of perspectives, even within the Latin rite that can include Dorothy Day Catholic Worker types, the secularized Social Justic oriented “Nuns on the Bus”, conservative Catholics and even traditionalist Catholics who respect papal authority. Yet we are all united in Christ through the Eucharist and the sacraments, but only the Lord fully understands the Divine Plan.

 Although some of these approaches are personally repugnant, such as the anti-Semitism which Pope Blessed John Paul II was instrumental in routing out from the faith, or demanding distributionism, by opening the cover on the Renewing Christendom Conference that  I better clarified and strengthened my personal pilgrimage of faith. As I approach forks in the faith, may I follow the orthodox (right way) path.