A short reflection on the critics of the four cardinals

Bishop Papamanolis, President of the Greek Bishops’ Conference, says they are guilty of apostasy, sacrilege and heresy and their actions will lead to schism. Msgr. Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota, suggested that the Pope should take their titles away. What have the targets of such strong accusations done, and who are they?

They are the four cardinals who, earlier this month, published a letter to Pope Francis, asking for clarification on several points from his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, which I wrote about two weeks ago. Apparently, sincere and honest questions deserve such mindless reactions.

Cardinal Brandmüller, Burke, Caffarra and Meisner went out of their way to prevent contributions like this to the debate. They acknowledged not just their own duty as cardinals, but also the authority and respect due to the Holy Father, and hoped “to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect”. Well, Bishop Papamanolis, Msgr. Pinto, and more than a few others, your contributions are about as far removed from calmness and respect as possible.

Any scandal in this affair does not come from the four cardinals. Their letter flows from their duty as cardinals and reflects Pope Francis’ clear and frequent request for an open and honest debate. That other prelates (and not only prelates) resort to namecalling and unfounded claims of heresy and threats of punishment is a scandalous denial of their own pastoral and fraternal obligations, and can only detract from what the Church needs and the Pope so clearly desires.

Advertisements

Three years of Pope Francis – years of continuity of rupture?

Pope-Francis

^Three years ago tomorrow, the world’s first look at Pope Francis

Tomorrow marks the third anniversary of the election of Pope Francis. Time flies. And of course, countless commentators are picking their high and low points from these past years.  And it amazes me how much opposition the Holy Father still faces, especially in online Catholic media. And I know, that can’t be taken as an accurate reflection of the Catholic world as a whole, but this is communication, and there volume sometimes matters as much as accuracy and perhaps more than representation. It’s not nice, but there you have it.

In these comments, and not just those that specifically aim to give an overview of this pontificate, an artificial opposition between Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis is strikingly noticable. Pope Benedict said, this, taught that, and now Pope Francis says something else and teaches another thing, so the commentary goes. The implication being that what Pope Francis is saying, doing and emphasising is somehow contrary to the things Pope Benedict focussed on, and some even go so far as to call the current pontiff a heretic because of this preceived discrepancy. A careful reader of what Pope Francis says (and yes, I admit, a careful reading of his remarks, especially the off-the-cuff ones, can be a challenge), knows that this is not the case. Not only are the two pontiffs in agreement with each other when it comes to the content of the faith, the differences in their focus is also not as large as some would have us think.

A fair few number of people lament the fact that Pope Francis emphasises mercy, care for the poor and creation and the economic inequality that seems an innate element of western capitalist societies. These are not really Catholic topics, they say, and the Pope should devote more time and focus on catechesis, liturgy, prayer, truth as revealed to us in the Gospels. But do these things suddenly no longer matter or exist, just because this Pope speaks about them less or in another way than his predecessor? Of course not. The Catholic Church consists of more than just the Pope, and we all share the same responsibility as he does: to proclaim the faith and defend it, to teach it, celebrate it properly and let it shine through in every part of our being and lives. Maybe we should talk less about what the Pope should say and say and do some things ourselves.

Sure, one may prefer one Pope over the other, but just because ‘your Pope’ has passed away or retired, his teachings have not. St. John Paul II’s teachings about the family and Pope Benedict XVI’s words about liturgy and truth remain as valid and valuable as Pope Francis’ attention to mercy and the environment. The different topics and emphases should not automatically be considered as contrary, but as in continuity. Pope Francis does not suddenly disregared his predecessors’ teachings simply because he speaks about something else. Neither should we.

The Synod – time for some personal thoughts

There is so much talk about the Synod that it’s hard to decide what to blog about it when available blogging hours per day are limited. Should I focus on what I thought about all the interventions, the rumours, the hopes and fears? Or would it be a good idea to make available the translated texts from some of the Synod fathers that have been making headlines in the runup to the Synod? Just some of the questions I asked myself. Obviously I decided to focus on the latter, and it has proven to be a good decision, judging from the interest it has been getting.

But of course I do have thoughts on the Synod, and as this is a blog, I will be sharing some of them.

First of all, we are looking at glimpses of the Synod from the outside, which limits the amount of reliable information we are getting. Of course, some reports and interpretations are more reliable than others, and personally I find myself gravitating towards the more level-headed reports. The Synod is not over yet, so I find myslef annoyed at the fear and panic in some quarters of the web. As if they already know what the result is going to be: a disaster for Church and faith. I somehow doubt that. We should be glad if this Synod even has a lasting effect.

I have been translating the interventions of the Belgian and German Synod fathers (it’s a shame that the sole Dutch Synod father, Cardinal Eijk, has chosen not to disclose his text). Does that mean I agree with them? No, not automatically. I also don’t subscribe to the notion that just because it’s written by a Belgian or a German it’s automatically heresy. They have good things to say. They also say some things which I find worrisome. An example. I’m not a theologian, but I don’t see a reason for divorced and remarried Catholics to be allowed to receive Communion. If we take the indissolubility of marriage seriously, as well as the words of Jesus in Matthew 9, we can’t say that divorce and remarrying is no big deal. Certainly, this makes things difficult for the people involved, no doubt about that. But what is the basis of our faith? The person, words and actions of Jesus or the emotions and feelings of people? The latter, which does not mean we should not take the latter seriously. And that is what I believe this Synod is, or should be, about.

As the German bishops especially have emphasised, we must go to the people where they are. Jesus did. But He didn’t tell them to stay there. He told them to change their circumstances. “Go and sin no more” (John 8:11). Jesus does not condemn us, but does urge us to change our ways. That is what we as Church should always keep in mind and try to emulate. Not condemning people, but urging them to leave their wrongs behind them.

The fruitful path for the Synod is, in my opinion, not to be found in changing doctrine, but in pastoral practice. There is much to win there in term of efficiency.

How to deal with all the rumours about the Synod? Ignore them. There is one reliable source to learn about the atmosphere, the factions or lack thereof, on the Synod floor, and that is the Synod fathers themselves. They’re categorically denying the existence of factions, of fighting and anger. It’s a good and fruitful effort, they say, with room for debate, discussion, disagreement even. That’s the hallmark of any proper debate. We shouldn’t make the mistake of assuming to know what certain cardinals, bishops or even the Pope wants or tries to do. If we learn about a letter to the Pope, that is no reason to scream “rebellion!”, but a perfectly normal way of communicating. The Pope is not above debate and can deal with questions and even different opinions.

We are Catholics, which means we have a living faith of hope and beauty. We are not unfamiliar with some optimism and trust in the Holy Spirit. Let Him do His work. Do not presume to always know better .

francis synod

^Even the Pope has reason to smile going into the Synod, so let us not be too grumpy

Germanicus – a look at the German position

It’s safe to say that the German Synod fathers are scrutinised more heavily by Catholic media than others, and not always fairly, in my opinion. I already mentioned my own misgivings about what Archbishop Koch said in his intervention, but that’s not even remotely the same as accusing him of apostasy and heresy, as some have done. He has a clear understanding about the reality of Catholic life in Germany (which does not differ too much from that in other Protestant/secular parts of Northwestern Europe, and the picture he paints is one we should take seriously.

synod german circle

^A glimpse of the small windowless room where the German circle, the smallest of all thirteen groups, was to meet initially. Cardinal Müller soon invited the group to relocate to the roomier and less stuffy offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Today, the reports from the Circoli minori, the smaller language groups in which the Synod fathers discussed the first part of the Instrumentum laboris, were published. Because of the aforementioned interest in what the German circle thinks and wants emphasised, I will focus on their report here.

The Circulus Germanicus consists of the following persons, mainly from the German-speaking countries, but also some from central Europe, Scandinavia and even the Middle East:

  • Moderator: Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna
  • Relator: Archbishop Heiner Koch, archbishop of Berlin
  • Walter Cardinal Kasper, President emeritus of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
  • Kurt Cardinal Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
  • Reinhard Cardinal Marx, archbishop of München und Freising
  • Gerhard Ludwig Cardinal Müller, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith
  • Patriarch Gregorios III Laham, patriarch of Antioch of the Greek-Melkites
  • Archbishop Stanislav Zvolenský, archbishop of Bratislava
  • Bishop Franz-Josef Bode, bishop of Osnabrück
  • Bishop Benno Elbs, bishop of Feldkirch
  • Bishop Ladislav Német, bishop of Zrenjanín
  • Bishop Teemu Sippo, bishop of Helsinki
  • Bishop Antun Škvorcevic, bishop of Pozega
  • Bishop András Veres, bishop of Szombathely
  • Father Michael Sievernich, professor emeritus of Pastoral Theology at the University of Mainz and the Hichschule Sankt Georgen in Frankfurt
  • Dr. Aloys Johann Buch, professor of Moral Theology at the Interdiocesan Major Seminary of St. Lambert and Permanent Deacon in Aachen
  • Mrs,. Petra Buch, diocesan family pastoral worker
  • His Eminence Andrej, Metropolitan of Austria-Switzerland of the Serbian Patriarchate
  • Very Rev. Thomas Schirrmacher, President of the Theological Commission of the World Evangelical Alliance

The report, which was composed by Archbishop Koch in his function as relator, in my translation:

In the German circle, led by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn O.P., we have considered and edited the first part of the Instrumentum laboris in an open and good atmosphere. The various views of the participants were enriching and were also perceived as such. In my opinion the work in this group once again shows: diversity enriches.

The general style of the text was met with approval. We also agree very much with the given order of the Instrumentum laboris, and with the arrangement in three chapters. It takes up the structure of papers from earlier Synod and conferences, which lead from seeing to judging, culminating ultimately in action.

We have, however, also added elements which we think are important. We suggest and ask that a section is added at the beginning of the first chapter, which describes the beauty of marriage and the mission of couples and families, drawing on the concerns and considerations of Pope Francis. Gratefully and with wonderment we notice that marriage is called to take part in the Creation of God and in His work of salvation. Marriage is not just a topic of Catholic faith, but proves to be in the profoundest sense a fundamental desire of man. It shows itself to be remarkably constant across cultural and religious boundaries and beyond all social changes in time. Man desires to love and be loved. Love is the comprehensive and unconditional Yes to another human being – for his own sake, without ulterior motives or reservations. It is also a basic trait of humanity, that love always wants to give itself again. So marriage unfolds in the love of the children and others in the family. So grows the family out of marriage, which radiates in society and Church. Christian marriage is in this way a slice of living Church.

We also suggest to say thanks, in these introductory thoughts, to the married couples and families for their great service to each other, to our society and to our Church. We also want to especially thank those who stayed together in difficult times and so became a visible sign of the faithfulness of God.

In these introductory words we also want to mention why we as bishops take a stand for marriage and family: We come from families, live like families and take part in the life of the family. In ouir responsibility as shepherds we bishops care for the lives of married couples and families. But we also want to hear about their situations and their challenges and accompany and strenghten them with the loving gaze of the Gospel.

In their respective cultural backgrounds family relationships beyond the nuclear family especially offer many kinds of possibilities of support in the raising of children and in family life. They are especially important where the life of the nuclear family is made more difficult, impaired or even destroyed because of migration, disasters or flight, but also because of the effects of job mobility or broken human relationships, In these situations especially the wide net of kinship proves itself as a valuable aid.

Both of these examples should indicate that we have accepted the text presented to us in a positive way, but have also wanted to develop and add to it.

I would like to suggest one comment for the perception and evaluation of different cultural realities. A Synodal document must take the current cultural realities and differences properly into account. Especially when it deals with ambivalent or in the eyes of the Church problematic elements of modern cultural reality. Here a differentiated analysis and assessment is indispensable, to contribute to a proper and nuanced ecclesiastical-intercultural exchange. I would like to explain this with an example: the first chapter talks much about individualism. As a selfish trait it is undoubtedly a great danger to the lives of people. It should however not be confused with the individuality of people. Every single human being is uniquely and wonderfully made God and deserves esteem and protection of the dignity of his person. Our text speaks frequently about individualism, but the positive signs of the times, arising from respect for the individuality of people, are little appreciated. If we do not perceive here in a differentiatied way, we also come to different assessments of our society and subsequently different pastoral recommendations. Our circle asks not to succumb to an overvaluation of the rather pessimistic perception of our society.

Lastly: There is a double problem regarding the translation, that of the literal translation of the Italian text and that of the cultural translation of the content.

The German translation is relatively true to the Italian text, but this often makes the German text difficult to understand. The reason for this may be found in the overly long sentences, where the German prefers shorter sentences. The nested style is also bothersome. Here too, shorter sentences and a better structure of the contents is to be preferred. The translation of the final text should ensure a good style, pleasant readability and clear structure. The translation should not be interlinear, but mutatis mutandis.

In creating the text, it should be ensured that the ecclesiastical and theological position are not only understood internally, but are accessible also in a secular environment. This calls for a “cultural translation”, as well as an inculturation. From this follows the question if, in editing the joint document, a negatively confining and normatively judgemental language prevails (forensic style) or a postivie language which unfolds the Christian position, which then implicitly addresses what position are incompatible with Christianity. That also presupposes the willingness (cf. Gaudium et spes) to pick up positive developments in society.  Perhaps we need a sort of “hermeneutic of evangelisation” for the overall general style, which considers the topic “in the light of the Gospel”.

We are looking forward to further fraternal labour together and thank all for the many efforts to achieve a unanimous course and conclusion to the Synod.

In short, positive language, emphasis on the beauty and value of marriage and family life, and a nuanced relation with modern society. I am very much in favour of the first two points, while the third point requires a solid basis in the faith and the doctrine of the Church. Only if the Church is true to herself can she relate properly to society.

As a final comment, many have noticed the criticism against the Instrumentum laboris, but as Cardinal Luis Antonio Tagle said in today’s press conference, that document is intended to be sacrificed for the final document that is to be drafted out of the suggestions made by the smaller groups.

The benefit of the doubt

I am, quite frankly, surprised and a bit dismayed at the bad press that Archbishop Müller, the Pope and the entire Vatican apparatus have been getting today, following the former’s appointment as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Father Z, here, makes the following observation:

“Müller has made some statements about clerical celibacy and Mariology that have a few people scratching their heads. That said, his job is to make [things] run smoothly at the Congregation, not to shape the Church’s doctrine.”

Archbishop Müller may have made some theological statements which, at first glance and out of context, seem to be at odds with Catholic dogma. But we are all aware of how easily things can be taken out of context, and also – let’s be honest – how clumsy prelates can sometimes be when explaining things to the media. Pope Benedict XVI has had to learn that, and Archbishop Müller will have to as well, if he hasn’t already.

Before rushing to keyboard or microphone to denounce someone as a heretic (yes, I am looking at Bishop De Galaretta of the SSPX, for one), we should support a new prelate in whatever small way we can, and give him the time to prove or – if necessary – correct himself. No one is perfect, but we all have the possibility to excel. That goes for curia prelates as well as for us.

Stats for June 2012

Over the past months, more than 7,000 page views per month have become standard, and so it was in June, when the total reached 7,690. As ever, thank you, dear readers, for your time and attention.

Without any further ado, on to the top 10 most read blog posts! No real standouts this time.

1: Adoro te devote, two versions and a translation: 91
2: New priests (and one to offer one of his first Masses in the Extraordinary Form): 82
3: Euro 2012 is gearing up, and Father Vlaar is at it again: 78
4: Letter to the German Bishops’ Conference: 77
5: Why am I Catholic?: 71
6: Nothing new under the sun – old heresies resurface: 66
7: Het probleem Medjugorje: 58
8: Ordination days coming up: 57
9: Council survivors: 56
10: Youth and new evangelisation as Augsburg gains an auxiliary: 47

Some have already found their way to the Paypal button in the sidebar. Once again, thanks so very much for your gracious donations!

Nothing new under the sun – old heresies resurface

They may conjure up images of medieval witch trials and whatnot, but heresies are really nothing to get into a fuzz about. Well, the specific heresies may be, but the fact that the Church calls certain beliefs and opinion heretical should not. A heresy is nothing more complicated than a teaching that undermines the faith in a grave enough manner that supporting, promoting or following it has a serious penalty as a consequence. And that because such a heresy endangers the souls of the faithful.

One such heresy that I came across today* has several names, but most people who know it, will know it as modalism or Sabellianism. A short definition would be that modalism holds that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are merely three ways, or modes, in which God has revealed Himself to people.

Why is this a heresy? Why can’t the Father, Son and Holy Spirit not be three forms in which God interacts with us? Well, for starters, it would make His own existence, as we have come to know it, a fake. Countless times do we read in the Gospels how Jesus prays to His Father. If both were just roles played by the one God, why would He do that? In the Prologue of the Gospel of John we read that the Word was God and was with God. The Word of God is Jesus, the Son, but why, if the Son and the Father are the same, would John tell us that the one was with the other? In Genesis, we read about the spirit of God hovering over the deep. Not God, but His Spirit. Why would God play a role before an empty deep?

There is one God in three Persons. These three Persons are not the same. They are separate and unique, but they are all equally God. This is a mystery of our faith, which means that it is something that goes beyond our understanding. It is good that some things are beyond our ken, because God is not limited to the understanding of his creatures. If He were, He would be limited. A two-dimensional creature has no way of understanding three or even four dimensions. We have no way of understanding or even imagining the five, six or more dimension that scientists say exist. And we have no way of grasping the Trinity, but that has no bearing on its reality.

Is the Trinity unlikely? Perhaps. But it is what God has taught us, through Jesus’ prayers, and through the work of the Holy Spirit.

In articles 253 to 255, the Catechism of the Catholic Church delves into the Trinity. It has this to say [emphasis mine, notes removed for ease of reading]:

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”. The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: “The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God.” In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), “Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature.”

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” “Father”, “Son”, “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.” They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: “It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds.” The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: “In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance.” Indeed “everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.” “Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son.”

But who’s to say that what the Church teaches through the Catechism is right? That belief, that trust in the dogmatic teachings of the Church flows directly from th words of Jesus and the belief in the Holy Spirit who guides us. If we express faith in His words to St. Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19), and in the Holy Spirit of Pentecost, we must als have faith in the Church that Christ established upon Peter, and the faith that she safeguards and communicates.

God is Triune: one Being in three Persons. This we know through Scripture, the Word of God, and the teachings of the Church of Christ. To say otherwise is a denial of God as He is. God does not pretend. He is who He says He is.  He is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are all true Persons, not phantasms or roles He plays before us. Because He takes us seriously, He reveals Himself to us as He is.

*The source linked to above is a Dutch text, a reflection given by lay Dominican Leo de Jong on Trinity Sunday, at the nominally Catholic church ‘Het Steiger’ in Rotterdam. In this reflection, Mr. de Jong denounces our understanding of the Trinity as three separate divine Persons as nonsense. Instead, he says, these persons are three forms in which Gods allows Himself to be known. This misleading teaching, presented as profound knowledge, is in reality a centuries-old heresy.

For a further Biblical explanation of the Trinity, go here.

Art credit: [1] Pope St. Clement Adoring the Trinity, by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, 1737-1738.