St. Mother Teresa of Calcutta on Christmas

Ir is so apropos to remember Mother Teresa's pearl of wisdom as the Eastern lung of Christendom celebrates the birth of our Savior in Orthodox Christmas.

St. John Damascene on Mary the Mother of God

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.

Archpriest Victor Patapov on Same Sex Marriage

H/T: WND

Laudato Si (Praised Be)... Popey-cock (sic) or a Hot Mess?

The laity have been anxiously awaiting the release of Pope Francis’ first solo encyclical Laudato Si,(2015) which was presumably about Climate Change.  Community Organizers  polled attendees at a DC Green Festival if they were optimistic about the upcoming bull.  Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) was chary about Pope Francis commenting on Climate Change.   Former Senator and 2016 GOP Presidential candidate  Rick Santorum (R-PA) questioned if the Holy See should use the Church's moral authority on Climate Change as there are more pressing issues facing the world.



After  La Repubblica leaked an advance copy of the Vatican document, the mainstream media was quick to report that the New World’s Holy Father unquestionably embraced man-made Climate Change and frowned upon fossil fuels. Some skeptics have quipped that Pope Francis’ pronouncement as Al Gore wearing white robe  and miter.  It also seemed to copy from Hillary Clinton’s speeches that humanity need to change to allow new beliefs, attitudes and lifestyles (para. 202).  Yet such secular caricatures ignores the several anti abortion allusions in the encyclical

Climate Change this was only a small part of Laudato Si, encompassing only several paragraphs of the encyclical, including the unreferenced preamble. The main natural ecological section was paragraphs 165-175 which urged abandoning fossil fuels, imposing renewable energy and the urgent need to establish a true world political authority to stop pollution, manage Sustainable Development and eradicate poverty (para 175).  When reading a rough translation from the Italian of the leaked  187 page, 245 paragraph papal document, this writer took 23 pages of typed notes. The phrase "global warming" (riscaldamento globale) only appeared twice and variations of riscaldamento only appeared 10 times in the entire encyclical.




Pundits have been quick to presume that the faithful must accede to this encyclical.  However, Laudato  Si was not a Thomistic scholastic pronouncement like the Baltimore Catechist but akin to a Vatican II document which is meant to convince and spur dialog. Moreover, if it is not centered on faith and morals, an encyclical is at best an advisory document.



A leitmotif of this encyclical is the linkage between perceived environmental crisis and poverty. Laudato Sii highlights the intimate relationship between the poor and the fragility of planet.  Pope Francis postulates that there should be sustainable development in an ecological manner in tandem with a preferential option for the poor.

Many prior interpretations of the Creation story take it that God put man in charge to dominate the Earth while being fruitful and multiplying. Pope Francis understands the lesson from the Genesis creation story is that humanity was created in God’s image and entrusted to grow and keep the garden of the Earth. This Jesuit Pontiff channeled his inner Franciscan through the title of Laudato Si from the Canticle of St. Francis of Assisi which poetically alludes to  Sister Earth.  To wit, being human recognizes the relation to being created in the image and likeness of God and our relation to the Earth.

Had the encyclical applied this theological take on Creation and correlated it with environmental problems like global warming and pollution it would have been understandable.  However, Pope Francis included brief critiques of technology, labor, bioethics, economics, finance, ecology, GMOs,  anthropology, art, architecture, transportation, infrastructure, culture, trade, polity, animal testing, human trafficking, selling endangered species pelts and man’s raison d’etre as part of an integral examination of the environment.

Laudato Si tried to treat both natural and human social degradation.  In Pope Francis’ estimation:

They are two separate crisis, an environmental and other social, but a single and complex socio-environmental crisis. The guidelines for the solution require an integrated approach to fight poverty, to restore dignity to the excluded and in the same time to take care of nature. 

At times, it was a strain to discern the relation some subjects had to an encyclical supposedly about the environment. Such an collection of short treatments on diffuse issues did not read like a compendium but more like a hot mess of Popey-cock.

It seemed like more an encyclical on Social Justice than it did a treatment on the environment. Ironically, that may be the point. Pope Francis seemed intent on a North-South transfer of wealth as a part of environmental remediation (para. 51).  Furthermore, Pope Francis lamented that we did not use the 2008 Financial Crisis (para 189) as a time to reset the economy to a new ethical principle. Achieving progressive social justice through environmental issues.  The sections which tried to relate the sacraments to nature (para. 235-237 ) along with including the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph (para. 241-242) to the natural tableau seemed tacked on and tenuous.

Aside from the impulse to especially emphasize the linkage and adverse effect of environmental degradation on the poor, other marks of Pope Francis’ pontificate was collegiality and ecumenism. The Bishop of Rome was careful to cite passages from a half dozen national conferences of Catholic Bishops which were woven into the encyclical.  Moreover, Pope Francis devoted three paragraphs to the Orthodox First Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew (para. 7-9) on environmental damage. In addition, Pope Francis offers a paeon to the elemental  beauty in the within Eastern rite mysteries or what we in Western Christianity call sacraments   demonstrating that the Vatican is serious about aligning more with other lung of Apostolic Christendom, the Eastern Orthodox Churches which are not in communion with Rome.

Pope Francis predicated his commentary of the ecology by citing encyclicals of his predecessors over the last 65 years.  The inclusion of Pope St. John XXIII had little to do with the environment but the cri-de-coeur against nuclear arms tangentially showed concern for man made pollution and commenting on contemporary political topics.  Laudato Si quoted Pope St. John Paul II 21 times as well as Pope (now Emeritus) Benedict XVI a similar amount of citations.  It reminds the faithful that Pope Francis was preceded by two theological scholarly giants from whom we will be benefitting for years to come.

Despite invoking the modern tradition, Laudato Si lacked many references to early Church fathers.  Of course, the title of the encyclical came from St.  Francis of Assisi. There were brief quotations from St. Thomas Aquinas (para. 88), St. Benedict (para. 126), and the Little Flower St. Therese of Lisieux (para. 221) et ali but nothing from those who practiced “The Way”or the early Patriarchs of the Church .  Moreover, the New Testament scriptural backbone seemed weak.  The claim that Jesus was in harmony in nature (para. 98) sounded spurious. The fact that Jesus taught using agricultural and  natural parables (para. 97) was an odd justification for environmentalism. Noting that Jesus was the model for might not making right (para. 82 cf Mt 20.25 to 26) only relates to environmentalism in so far as there is a nexus between the meek and environmental degradation.

While the curia certainly helped draw up this draft, the language seemed slanted to reflect Pope Francis’ animus against Capitalism with a prejudice against profit and privatization.  When listing misusing technology causing environmental degradation, leading the list was America's use of atomic bombs, followed by communism's exploits and then fascism (para. 104). Much to the chagrin on many Western Progressives, Pope Francis repeated condemns the culture of consumerism and technology which depletes precious resources.  So Climate Change enthusiasts should be willing to sacrifice their i-Phones (para. 47), their own cars (para. 153) as well as their A/C (para. 55).

Although there are several references to differences in opinion and approach to the environment, Pope Francis’ peroration refers to Christians committed to prayer who make a mockery of environmental concerns with the pretense of being realistic or pragmatic (para. 217),  This embodies progressive intolerance of dissent.  One wonders if mollifying mockery about man made climate change goes both ways, as Vice President Joe Biden just jibed that: “As hard as it is to believe, many of these same people continue to deny the reality of climate change. They also deny gravity."

 This prima facia critique of Laudoto Si will not dwell in details about competing data disputing anthropogenic global warming, but the so called consensus is in dispute and scandal from the East Anglia hockey stick model show how data was manipulated for the profit of further investment in climate change studies.

Despite spending hours reading the rough translation from Italian, it is prudent to withhold final judgment on the piece until the official translation into English is released. Aside from ensuring that the leak genuinely reflected the substance of the encyclical, a better translation might ameliorate some of the rough edges of the purported Vatican document.

Upon an initial reading, some of Laudato Si’s segments seem rather long-winded and obtuse.  For instance, paragraph 106 on technology leading to a homogeneous one dimensional paradigm is 267 words long and initially reads like word salad.  Some passages like the opening of paragraph 228 sound like a bromide in rough translation: “Caring for nature is part of a style of life that involves the ability to live together and communion”. Such a lengthy encyclical may yield later blossoming fruit, particularly if meaning is lost in translation.

This leads to how the faithful ought to eventually consider Laudato Si. A non-Catholic friend inquired if Catholics needed to intellectually march lock step when the Pope says something. Explanations about the rare ex cathedra statements on faith and morals are difficult for non Catholics to grasp, and many believers will blindly follow their faith leader’s pensee.
 
 Pope Francis made clear, however,  that “The Church does not claim to define the issues scientific, nor to replace politics, but invitation an honest and transparent debate”. (para. 188).   So Catholics need not bow down to the beliefs in Laudato Si but prayerfully consider the message and participate in the debate.  The manifold political prescriptions which the pontiff proffered were interesting and from the heart but not within his proper sphere of influence.  It is novel to stress a linkage between the poor and environmental degradation, but some of Pope Francis’ solutions of relying on renewable power will cause energy prices to skyrocket, directly hurting the poor.

While Pope Francis’ asceticism is admirable, his proscription of “Less is more” (para. 222)  is questionable for the masses, especially as a response to an asserted ecological crisis. It also leads to the prickly particular of who decides how much is enough. In Laudato Si, Pope Francis encouraged people to do little things, like use covers instead of turning up the heat, not because it will solve problems but for a conversion of heart (para. 212).  There may be a special place in heaven for such symbolic sacrifice, but it runs counter to policy condemnation of fossil fuels and excoriating buying green credits.

This philippic against pollution, environmental and social, is certainly well intended.  The unfocused nature of the encyclical makes it challenging to catachetize among the faithful, much less the world at large. It would seem that Laudato Si fuses Sustainable Development with Social Justice. By progressively engaging in political subjects outside of the Holy See’s spiritual authority, Pope Francis may have alienated good will among non-progressive faithful. Furthermore, the policy prescriptions in Laudato Si seem founded on third way intellectualism, which has few real world successes and is rife for polemic exploitation. What was proposed as an invitation for honest and transparent dialog on the environment is also presented as a rush to consensus due to exigency, which stifles the discernment of unpopular opinions to “Do something now”.

There have been other Catholic teaching documents which have broached on public policy pronouncements, like the USCCB pastoral letter  “The Challenge of Peace” (1983) on nuclear weapons (around the deployment of the Pershing Missiles in Europe) which was not universally well received among the faithful.

Pope Benedict’s encyclical Caritas in Veritas (2009), which the New York Times characterized as “ a puzzling cross between an anti-globalization tract and a government white paper.”  University of Dayton theologian Vincent J. Miller noted that Caritas in Veritas intentionally juxtaposed “paragraphs that sound like Ayn Rand, next to paragraphs that sound like ‘The Grapes of Wrath”.  Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI’s call for one world government based on European Social Democracy did not have the resonance to stay in the public mind for long, yet Pope Francis cited it for the urgent New World Order. Considering that much of Laudato Si sounds like the Holy Father is singing from the Progressives’ hymnal, this encyclical may be used to enviro-shame opponents of radical green solutions, as the left conveniently forgets about the condemnation of consumerist culture and not valuing unborn life.

It is regrettable that Laudato Si was not more tersely cogent to challenge the faithful on natural problems.  It was awkward to have a religious document from a spiritual leader proscribe public policy solutions (get rid of fossil fuels and opt for renewable energy) with a pastiche of spiritual anchors.

Justifying Georgemas

British Great War Recruiting Poster 

According to the Gregorian calendar, April 23rd is the Feast of St. George (or Georgemas).  The Orthodox also admire the attributes of St. George but follow the Julian calendar which marks the feast on May 6th.  St. George born in Syria Palestrinia in the late Third Century who served as an officer in the Roman army that guarded the Emporer Diocletian, but who was martyred for not renouncing his Christian faith.  The emperor tried to bribe George to renounce his faith and tortured him, but to no avail. Before he was decapitated, St. George gave all of his wealth to the poor.

St. George is one of the most venerated saints in the Catholic Church, among Anglicans, Orthodox, East Syrian churches. Even Muslims revere this honorable military man. In the Twelfth Century a legend was attached to St. George about slaying a dragon.  The standard Orthodox icon of St. George depicts him slaying a dragon with a woman in the background.

The dragon is generally understood as being both Satan and the monster from his own life (Diocletian). The woman in the background is Alexandra, the wife of Emperor Diocletian. Crusaders credit an appearance of St. George. This was probably legend which traveled back with the Crusaders from the Holy Land and was embellished in courtly Romance retellings.


Legend has it that a plague bearing dragon came down from the mountains and terrorized the countryside.  The dragon could not be appeased with ransom of livestock.  This  dragon would not stop his rampage unless the King tied a young maiden to an oak tree in the center of the village.

The King's nobles used a pigeon to decide what to do.  If the bird flew to the east then, they must take the King's own daughter Sabra and tie her to a tree, as the dragon demanded.  The pigeon flew off to the east. As the knight rode back in triumph with the princess

But as fate would have it, the pigeon managed  to attract the attention of a knight called  George and guided him back to the princess. Just as the dragon was about to devour the princess, the good knight clad in armor fortified himself with a sign of the cross and then brought the fight to the dragon.  George cunningly slowed down the dragon by driving a ball of pitch down his throat, and then speared the dragon with a grievous wound with his lance.

The Wedding of St. George and Princess Sabra by Dante Gabriel Rossetti (1857)

According to Eastern versions, the knight rode back to the city along with the princess and the dragon in tow.  As George approached the city, he promised to slay the dragon if the town would become baptized Christians.  Fifteen thousand men took to the baptismal waters and George slayed the dragon with his trusty sword Ascalon (recalling the city Ashkelon in Israel).  The king was so grateful that he bestowed nobility (some say Sainthood) to George and gave his daughter Sabra's hand in marriage and promised to build a church were the dragon was slain.

St. George is the patron saint of England yet it is not a public holiday in England. The reasons why celebration of Georgemas is muted are cultural, historical and now tinged with political correctness.



St. George was neither English nor roundly associated with England, even though King Edward III formed the Order of the Garder under the patronage of St. George in 1348.  The Reformation played a part as Protestants did not care much for saints' days. In addition, celebration of St. George's day has been in decline since the Act of Union between England in Scotland completed in 1707.  In today's world,  the Daily Telegraph reports that many English people are concerned that national symbols like St. George can be considered racists,


Aside from the fact that many pubs in England are named after George and the dragon, it makes one wonder why this legend matters. Modern man is quick to dismiss myths (unless it is anthropogenic global warming), but this is short sighted. Myths convey essential truths although the romantic story elements may not be exact.  For instance, the story of George Washington chopping down the cherry tree may have been apocryphal but it does "I can not tell a lie" does illustrate some of the virtues of Washington's transcription of "The Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior", which molded the first President's life and were put into practice at the founding of the American Republic.

The reason that St. George matters so much to the English is that the legend reinforces characteristics which the English admire and seek to emulate.  St. George is a knight who exemplified chivalry. St. George and the dragon also champions the little guy as well as the triumph of good over evil.  The versions which depict him making the sign of the cross depict deep dedication to principles (if we dare not declare faith).  These romanticized virtues along with the more verifiable versions of his hagiography make St. George a man worthy (bank holiday or not) for Englishmen to emulate.

St. John Chrysostom on Easter

St. Isaac the Syrian on Beatitudes

St. Ephrem the Syrian on Prayer

Syrian Orthodox Archbishop Dares to Decry Dhimmitude

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch noted that it is unusual for Christians in the Middle East to detail the indigities of dhimmitude living under aspects of sharia law. 

However, considering ISIS application of forced conversions, expropriation along with extermination of ancient Christian communities in Mosul (previously known as Ninevah), the Syriac Orthodox Archbishop Saliba may have calculated that there was little to lose by speaking out and exposing cruel practices by jihadists from the so-called Religion of Peace. 

h/t: The Daily Star (Lebanon)

Should the World Cup Be an Orthodox Anathema?

Alexander Shumsky, a Russian Orthodox priest who is also a member of the Russian Writers Union, gave the foot fashion on World Cup players the boot.   

Shumsky's critique is centered on the bright colors of the Puma Trick shoes, which were designed for the 2014 World Cup being held in Brazil.

Puma's reasoning for the exotic color palate for the football boots was because Brazil is all about vibrant colors. The context for Shumsky condemning the World Cup as anathema has not been widely circulated outside of Russia.  However, the thrust of the critique does mirror the homosexual tolerance controversy which shrouded the 2014 Winter Olympics. 

Shumsky's perspective on FIFA had better lighten up, considering that Vladimir Putin has secured the 2018 World Cup in Russia, with the finals being held in Sochi.  Maybe by then the hotels in Sochi will be finished.

polls

St. John Chrysostom on Faith

Patriarch of Moscow Kirill I Blesses Russophone Athletes at Sochi Winter Olympics

>