More Big Ego Blocking

'Sickho'! What an appropriate name for a perversion enabling heretic!

From One Mad Mom

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you all! Oh, and “Happy Holidays” to the dissenters. I’m back from “vacation” (doing that family thing) and ready to take on dissent! Woot! Rah-rah-rah! I may be just a little inspired by bowl games but here goes!
 
Fr. Jim Sickho apparently isn’t really new, but he is new to me after running across my laptop in the last few weeks. I debated his lame, ignorant, political tweet (below), but then, after looking at his Twitter page, I started wondering if maybe I was debating a parody account. I have since done some research and, nope, he’s real. Sigh. I think we’re suddenly hearing about him only because he’s just jumped the shark. Some people will do anything for ratings.
This was my first exposure to the latest “Fr. Jim.” (Poor St. James. His namesakes are not being kind to him.)

So many errors in one little tweet. I guess one out of three ain’t bad. Just a quick clean up of his ideological take. The Holy Family was Jewish. Yay! He got one. However, they weren’t immigrants, nor were they unmarried. Fortunately, many of the 608 comments pointed out that glaring stupidity .

While I was enjoying my break, I saw his next attempt to woo the liberals. I can’t show it all to you because the original tweet has been deleted, but Fr. Longenecker paraphrased it nicely here. (By the way, since Fr. Longenecker has dared to challenge Fr. Sichko, he’s been banned.) It said something very close to this if not dead on:

Let us all remember during this time of the Holy Family that all families are holy. Some are heterosexual and some are homosexual. Some are single mothers and some are poor, divorced or widowed.

And Fr. Sichko had a follow up tweet:

Oh, yeah, the Holy Family’s situation is the same as “man-made” family tragedies like divorce and abandonment. Um, really??? Of course, there was a wee bit of a backlash for these posts.

Like I pointed out, interestingly enough, the tweet we’re all about to be accused of leaping to judgment about has been removed. Why? Because Fr. Sichko knows it was wrong. They were his words and he can’t defend them. But, yeah, let’s ban Fr. Longenecker instead of actually dealing with his arguments. So merciful.

Here’s today’s litany of “You’re a bunch of mean judging, judgy people!” ranting tweets. All I can say, if you decide you’re going to play the game, you better be ready for the defense or you might want to stay on the bench. But, noooooo! He’s gonna go with the “Hey, I’m a quarterback!  I’m special! Not my fault I can’t complete a pass to save my life! It’s the mean, old, judgmental receivers!” (Told you the bowl games are on! Go Bears! They won by the way.)

First, I’m pretty sure that you being a “Papal Missionary of Mercy” doesn’t make you infallible. (Actually, I’m quite positive, since your tweets show the opposite.) Next you either volunteered or were appointed by your bishop, and the Vatican probably gave you a nice little certificate to show for it, but ALL priests are missionaries of mercy. All your title does, essentially, is put you at the bishop’s beck and call for any special Year of Mercy activities. The rest is plain old priestly duties, so please don’t make it sound like it’s some higher education appointment.

Next, let’s be clear. We’re not judging those in tough situations. We’re judging YOUR actions, or, in your case, repeated uneducated comments that are very misleading and wrong. We are ALL called to holiness. To say that everyone is holy simply by virtue of being in a family is ridiculous and doesn’t call people to avail themselves of God’s mercy. (Maybe somebody should revoke that Missionary of Mercy certificate). That is what priests are supposed to do. You are supposed to call us to repent and avail ourselves of God’s mercy. What you originally typed was not that, so, yeah, we can judge that it was a stupid statement. What’s worse, giving people a pass like that victimizes CHILDREN who are OWED parents who help lead them to salvation. Does that happen for all children? Woefully, no.  We all fall short, but that doesn’t mean we simply champion parents who don’t. We don’t need priests who tell us we’re grand (and this goes for all of us) when we are scandalizing our children.

Here’s more of the same liberal canard we’re regularly subjected to.  So, for the newbies, we CAN judge ACTIONS, we CANNOT judge SOULS. Fr. Sichko, the Pope, and every other person on this earth judge actions on a daily basis. In fact, calling people judgmental is making a judgment. Or how about saying someone has a log in their eye? Sounds a little judgy, Father. Duh! At least you’re exemplifying the meaning of the passage well. So, I’m all for removing the logs in from our eyes.  But please, let’s help others do the same because that’s what we’re supposed to do as the Body of Christ.

Finally, I’m not sure that Fr. Sichko understands what the “essence of his vocation” is. It’s to lead souls to heaven. It’s to be Christlike and tell people to “Go and sin no more!”, just as he did with the adulteress. That’s kind of hard to do when we can’t even talk about objective sin. Moral relativism isn’t going to save a soul. Telling people their holy when they’re not won’t help either. Truth will. That is where true mercy is found.

The Catechism of the Summa - SECOND SECTION - A DETAILED SURVEY OF MAN'S RETURN TO GOD - XXII. OF THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY, AND OF THE DUTIES IT ENTAILS -- OF THE VIOLATION OF THIS RIGHT, VIZ., OF THEFT AND ROBBERY (A)

(A)  
Besides the sins that attack the person of our neighbour, what is the greatest sin that can be committed against him by deed?

It is the sin which touches what belongs to him (LXVI.).
 
Has man the right to possess anything?

Yes, and to use it as he wills, without the interference of anyone else (LXVI. 2).
 
Whence comes this right?

It comes from the very nature of man himself; for since he is a rational being and made to live in society, his own good, the good of his family, and the good of society absolutely demand that the right of property be safeguarded (LXVI. 1, 2).
 
But why do these divers goods demand the safeguarding of the right of property?

It is because the right to possess is a condition of man's liberty, it is, moreover, for the family, the way par excellence whereby it is upheld in all its rights and is the guarantee of its existence in the society; further, this right of property effects that in the society itself more care is taken of things to the exclusion in a great measure of disagreements and litigations (LXVI. 2).

Next - The Catechism of the Summa - SECOND SECTION - A DETAILED SURVEY OF MAN'S RETURN TO GOD - XXII. OF THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY, AND OF THE DUTIES IT ENTAILS -- OF THE VIOLATION OF THIS RIGHT, VIZ., OF THEFT AND ROBBERY (B)

Requiescat in Pace: Notable Departures of 2019

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord, and let the perpetual light shine upon them.

May their souls and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Amen.

Memory Eternal!

From the National Catholic Register

Jan. 3 — Msgr. William Stetson, Opus Dei priest
Jan. 9 — Bishop Joseph Howze, 95, of Biloxi, Mississippi (1977-2001)
Jan. 17 — Father Anthony Watsham, 94, Zimbabwean entomologist
Jan. 22 — Bishop John Smith, 83, of Pensacola-Tallahassee, Florida (1991-1995), and Trenton, New Jersey (1997-2010)
Jan. 24 — Cardinal Fernando Sebastián Aguilar, 89, of Spain
Feb. 2 — Auxiliary Bishop Walter Edyvean, 80, of Boston (2001-2014)
Feb. 6 — Father Edwin Barnes, 84, British Catholic priest and former Anglican bishop
Feb. 11 — Msgr. Eulade Rudahunga, 97, Rwandan priest and genocide survivor
Feb. 15 — Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Costello, 89, of Syracuse, New York (1978-2004)
Feb. 24 — Father Lothar Zenetti, 93, German theologian and hymnist (Segne dieses Kind)
Feb. 28 — Bishop Elliot Thomas, 92, of St. Thomas in the Virgin Islands (1993-1999)
March 10 — Auxiliary Bishop René Arnold Valero, 88, of Brooklyn (1980-2005)
March 14 — Cardinal Godfried Danneels, 85, of Belgium
March 20 — Bishop Joseph Adamec, 83, of Altoona-Johnstown, Pennsylvania (1987-2011)
March 21 — Bishop Francis Quinn, 97, of Sacramento, California (1980-1993)
April 6 — Auxiliary Bishop George Rueger, 89, of Worcester, Massachusetts (1987-2005)
April 12 — Bishop Ronald Herzog, 76, of Alexandria, Virginia (2005-2017)
April 17 — Jesuit Father James Schall, 91, U.S. priest, teacher and writer
May 7 — Jean Vanier, 90, Canadian philosopher, theologian and humanitarian, founder of L’Arche
May 9 — Auxiliary Bishop David Arias Pérez, 89, of Newark, New Jersey (1983-2004)
May 12 — Cardinal Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, 98, patriarch of Antioch (1986-2011)
May 25 — Bishop Joseph Galante, 80, of Camden, New Jersey (2004-2013)
June 5 — Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, 90, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life (2005-2008)
June 13 — Bishop Pierre DuMaine, 87, of San Jose, California (1981-1999)
June 17 — Father Michał Łos, 31, Polish priest for 25 days who was ordained in his hospital bed
June 18 — Bishop Stephen Blaire, 77, of Stockton, California (1999-2018)
July 11 — Auxiliary Bishop Robert Christian, 70, of San Francisco (since 2018)
July 11 — Vincent Lambert, 42, who was at the center of a medical court battle in France
July 13 — Cardinal Paolo Sardi, 84, of Italy
July 14 — Bishop Paul Zipfel, 83, of Bismarck, North Dakota (1996-2011)
July 19 — Bishop John Elya, 90, Melkite bishop of the Newton Eparchy (1993-2004)
July 21 — Cardinal José Estepa Llaurens, 93, of Spain
July 25 — Father M. Owen Lee, 89, music scholar
July 26 — Cardinal Jaime Lucas Ortega y Alamino, 82, of Cuba
Aug. 11 — Cardinal Sergio Obeso Rivera, 87, of Mexico
Aug. 29 — Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, 95, prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches (1991-2000)
Sept. 3 — Cardinal José de Jesús Pimiento Rodríguez, 100, of Colombia
Sept. 4 — Cardinal Roger Etchegaray, 96, of France
Sept. 22 — Archbishop Harry Flynn, 86, of St. Paul and Minneapolis (1995-2008)
Sept. 26 — Cardinal William Levada, 83, archbishop of Portland, Oregon (1986-1995), and San Francisco (1995-2005) and CDF prefect
Sept. 27 — Bishop John Snyder, 93, of St. Augustine, Florida (1979-2000)
Sept. 27 — Bishop John Kinney, 82, of Bismarck, North Dakota (1982-1995), and St. Cloud, Minnesota (1995-2013)
Oct. 8 — Cardinal Serafim Fernandes de Araújo, 95, of Brazil
Oct. 9 — Bishop Thomas Flanagan, 88, of San Antonio, Texas (1998-2005)
Oct. 29 — Bishop Richard Lennon, 72, of Cleveland (2006-2016)
Oct. 30 — Auxiliary Bishop Francis Irwin, 85, of Boston (1996-2009)
Oct. 31 — Bishop Roger Morin, 78, of Biloxi, Mississippi (2009-2016)
Dec. 1 — Bishop Paul Sirba, 59, of Duluth, Minnesota (since 2009)
Dec. 2 — Father Richard Rieman, 94, first Opus Dei priest from the U.S.
Dec. 30 — Cardinal Prospero Grech, 94, theologian

Liturgical Hangovers

Fr H on Octaves, their loss, and Synaxes in the Eastern Rites.

From Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment

For those of us who live the Church's calendar - by saying the Divine Office, by attending Mass through the week - the joy of a great celebration can seem a little flattened by the ordinariness of the days after: back to the 'ordinary'; back to green vestments. This is why liturgical traditions have tended to give us a gentle let-down. In the Eastern traditions, very often the 'day after' is an associated celebration; a rendering of the same theme in a different key. Thus the Byzantines and the East and West Syrians keep December 26 as the commemoration of Mary, the Mother of God. Byzantine Calendars also note days as 'the leave-taking of such-and-such'. In our Western traditions, the Octave has performed a similar role. For a week after the Great Day the festival continues to colour our worship. Then, on the eighth day, which will be the same day of the week, we say farewell to the festival by celebrating it again ... even if at a reduced level.

It was unfortunate that the 'reforms' of the 1960s almost entirely eliminated the concept of the Octave. Out of the window went the practice of keeping a Sunday as the 'Sunday within the octave of-such-and-such'. We now have only the octaves of Christmass and Easter, except that in the Ordinariates we have the Pentecost Octave restored to us! Although: the discerning eye can see one or two shadows of the old Octave Days; the eighth day after the Assumption, August 22 is a Feast of our Lady; and in the Ordinariates November 8 is the Feast of All Saints of England and Wales. The old Octave Day of our Lady's Birthday, September 15 - also the day after Holy Cross Day - is, very neatly, the memorial of our Lady at the Cross.

The Octave of Christmass, January 1, has long been marked in the West by texts which take the Divine Maternity of Mary as their theme. As the Council of Ephesus insisted, she is celebrated as Theotokos: Mother of God. This is a safeguard of the Divinity of our Lord; He is God and so His mother is Mother of God. But the title alarms post-Christian folk-Protestants (who are mostly in fact left-wing Arians). Sometimes Anglicans have suggested that Godbirthgiver would be a better translation, as if birthgiver is a more natural word than mother. Byzantines appear unaware of any problem here: at the top of every ikon of our Lady among so many millions, are the words Meter Theou: 'Mother of God'.

Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day, and so, with the increasing growth of Biblicism, January 1 came to be called in the Middle Ages the Feast of the Circumcision, although the Lord's Circumcision was barely mentioned in texts, other than the Gospel. This changed when Cranmer got to work. The Novus Ordo did not behave foolishly in renaming the day 'Mary Mother of God' because that is what the ancient texts are in fact mostly about. 

I know that some faithful Traddies number among their (many justified) criticisms of the Novus Ordo its abolition of the Feast of the Circumcision; but, well, if you don't entirely trust me (and why should you?) read Dom Gueranger's article for January 1.
 
Possibly because of  squeamishness about the Ephesian Dogma, combined with a Victorian shyness about concentrating too explicitly on processes involving the virile generative organ,  modern Anglicanism often restyles the day 'Name [or Naming] of Jesus'.
 
Ah! The season of Snowflakes!!

Amalric of Jerusalem and William of Tyre

Real Crusades History #44

A classic Real Crusades History video modified and re-uploaded. Features a discussion of the intellectual climate that prevailed at the court of King Amalric of Jerusalem, as recorded by William of Tyre. A conversation with the King is recalled by William in his writing.

Baltimore Catechism #2 - LESSON SEVENTH ON THE INCARNATION AND REDEMPTION

LESSON SEVENTH ON THE INCARNATION AND REDEMPTION

60. Q. Did God abandon man after he fell into sin? A. God did not abandon man after he fell into sin, but promised him a Redeemer, who was to satisfy for man's sin and reopen to him the gates of heaven.

61. Q. Who is the Redeemer? A. Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of mankind.

62. Q. What do you believe of Jesus Christ? A. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, true God and true man.

63. Q. Why is Jesus Christ true God? A. Jesus Christ is true God because He is the true and only Son of God the Father.

64. Q. Why is Jesus Christ true man? A. Jesus Christ is true man because He is the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary and has a body and soul like ours.

65. Q. How many natures are there in Jesus Christ? A. In Jesus Christ there are two natures, the nature of God and the nature of man.

66. Q. Is Jesus Christ more than one person? A. No, Jesus Christ is but one Divine Person.

67. Q. Was Jesus Christ always God? A. Jesus Christ was always God, as He is the second Person of the Blessed Trinity, equal to His Father from all eternity.

68. Q. Was Jesus Christ always man? A. Jesus Christ was not always man, but became man at the time of His Incarnation.

69. Q. What do you mean by the Incarnation? A. By the Incarnation I mean that the Son of God was made man.

70. Q. How was the Son of God made man? A. The Son of God was conceived and made man by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

71. Q. Is the Blessed Virgin Mary truly the Mother of God? A. The Blessed Virgin Mary is truly the Mother of God, because the same Divine Person who is the Son of God is also the Son of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

72. Q. Did the Son of God become man immediately after the sin of our first parents? A. The Son of God did not become man immediately after the sin of our first parents, but was promised to them as a Redeemer.

73. Q. How could they be saved who lived before the Son of God became man? A. They who lived before the Son of God became man could be saved by believing in a Redeemer to come, and by keeping the commandments.

74. Q. On what day was the Son of God conceived and made man? A. The Son of God was conceived and made man on Annunciation day—the day on which the Angel Gabriel announced to the Blessed Virgin Mary that she was to be the Mother of God.

75. Q. On what day was Christ born? A. Christ was born on Christmas day in a stable at Bethlehem, over nineteen hundred years ago.

76. Q. How long did Christ live on earth? A. Christ lived on earth about thirty-three years, and led a most holy life in poverty and suffering.

77. Q. Why did Christ live so long on earth? A. Christ lived so long on earth to show us the way to heaven by His teachings and example.

Next - Baltimore Catechism #2 - LESSON EIGHTH ON OUR LORD'S PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION, AND ASCENSION

Please note that there are gaps in the numbering, and some questions are out of order, because the questions are numbered to agree with the 'Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism' (Baltimore Catechism #4)

Word of Day: Solemnity

SOLEMNITY. The highest liturgical rank of a feast in the ecclesiastical calendar. Besides the movable feasts such as Easter and Pentecost, fourteen solemnities are celebrated in the universal Church, namely: Motherhood of God (January 1), Epiphany (January 6), St. Joseph (March 19), Annunciation (March 25), Trinity Sunday (first after Pentecost), Corpus Christi (Thursday after Trinity Sunday), Sacred Heart (Friday after the second Sunday after Pentecost), St. John the Baptist (June 24), Sts. Peter and Paul (June 29), Assumption of the Blessed Virgin (August 15), All Saints (November 1), Christ the King (Last Sunday of the ecclesiastical year), Immaculate Conception (December 8), and Christmas (December 25). (Etym. Latin sollemnis, stated, established, appointed.)

Are American Monarchists Dreamers?

My good friend, Mr Coulombe, puts paid to the lie that American monarchists are merely LARPERs.

From Crisis

By Charles Coulombe

One of the commentators on a recent Crisis article of mine declared that “Charles Coulombe is a weird person who desires the destruction of democracy and its replacement with monarchy again. There is a bizarre thread in Crisis now that desires such stupid stuff.” I suppose I am a weird person, so I can’t disagree with him there. But I certainly cannot desire the destruction of what does not exist: wanting to destroy democracy is like wanting to sink Atlantis. I do favor ending the charade that allows small minorities to make infanticide, perversion, and murder of the elderly and infirm sacred things protected by law.

As for Crisis having a bizarre thread—well, bizarre is in the eyes of the beholder, as is the stupidity of any given stuff. In any case, if democracy is indeed majority rule, we have not had it in these United States in my time, if ever we did. What we have, to repeat, is rule by a collection of ever stranger minorities of varying kinds, who via some sort of strange symbiosis with what passes for our elites are seemingly able to bend reality to their will. This is why we have infanticide. This is why we have same-sex “marriage.” This is why we have unisex facilities. And this is why statues of such anodyne figures as Kate Smith and Lewis and Clark are being torn down. Call it what you will, but it is not democracy.

Now, as to my monarchism, I must certainly plead guilty to the charge; but to be fair to myself as I stand in the dock, I must be precise about the nature of that monarchy which I feel to be the best form of government. It has five hallmarks: a) altar, that is, a system under which the Church (the Catholic Church, to be specific) gives legitimacy to the regime via a coronation rite and other ceremonies, and is the animating philosophy of society; b) throne, that is, a sovereign whose authority is grounded in the Church and national tradition, and who has sufficient power to protect his people from their politicians; c) local liberties, or what is today called subsidiarity, wherein as much power as possible would devolve to the lowest possible levels of governance; d) class cooperation, or what is generally called solidarity today and was once called “social monarchy”; and e) consciousness of the nation being part of a greater and loose whole.

Call it Christendom, the West, or what you will. Despite having played with applying such ideas to this country in my book Star-Spangled Crown, I highly doubt anything remotely like this would or could come to pass in America—at least so long as she remains as she is.

But is not entertaining such ideas that simply cannot be enacted as things stand a sort of intellectual LARPing? In a sense. But so, too, is any alternative to what we have now. Whether you call yourself a constitutionalist, a libertarian, a distributist, a capitalist, or even just pro-life, you are attempting to remake a resistant current reality against the will of your (and my) betters. This is a highly unlikely prospect. All of this is to say that it’s just too bad for you if you do not think the regime we enjoy—with its sacred cows of infanticide and perversion—is perfect. In that case, you are the “weird person who desires the destruction of democracy.” It is your views that are the “bizarre thread … that desires such stupid stuff.”

The Founding Fathers agreed with Aristotle that the best form of government would be “mixed”, bringing together elements of what he considered the three “good” forms of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and “polity” (i.e., rule by the stakeholders— landowners, artisans, and the like). Against these Aristotle had ranged what he considered to be their evil imitations: tyranny, oligarchy, and democracy (in the sense of mob rule). What neither he nor the Founders could have conceived is that one day we would have a mixed government all right—of the three worst forms!

As Orestes Brownson predicted in the 19^th century, the sad truth is that unless our United States are converted to the Catholic faith, they will fall because of errors implicit in the foundation of our government and in the national ideology which has been dying since the 1960s. To believe otherwise is true LARPing.

When Popes Can Be Wrong: Breaking Down the Degrees of Papal Authority

The following is part of an in-depth essay on ''papal fallibility'' by Dr Edward Feser. The first part, "Papal Errors of the Past Show the Ridiculousness of ‘Spin-Doctoring’ the Pope," was shared at 01.00 Monday, and the second part, "Can the Pope change doctrine? It’s time for some clarity on papal infallibility," at the same time on Tuesday.

From LifeSiteNews

By Dr Edward Feser

December 7, 2015 (EdwardFeser) – When must a Catholic assent to some non-infallible papal statement? When might a Catholic disagree with such a statement? This is a subject greatly clarified by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (the future Pope Benedict XVI) during his time as Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. Perhaps the most important document in this connection is the 1990 instruction Donum Veritatis: On the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, though there are also other relevant statements. Cardinal Avery Dulles has suggested that one can identify four general categories of magisterial statement in Donum Veritatis. (See Dulles’s essay “The Magisterium and Theological Dissent” in The Craft of Theology. Cf. also chapter 7 of Dulles’s book Magisterium.) However, as other statements from Ratzinger indicate, Dulles’s fourth category appears to lump together statements with two different degrees of authority. When these are distinguished, it is clear that there are really five general categories of magisterial statement. They are as follows:

1. Statements which definitively put forward divinely revealed truths, or dogmas in the strict sense. Examples would be the Christological dogmas, the doctrine of original sin, the grave immorality of directly and voluntarily killing an innocent human being, and so forth. As Dulles notes, according to Catholic teaching, statements in this category must be affirmed by every Catholic with “divine and Catholic faith.” No legitimate disagreement is possible.

2. Statements which definitively put forward truths which are not revealed, but closely connected with revealed truths. Examples would be moral teachings such as the immorality of euthanasia, and the teaching that priestly ordination is reserved only to men. According to Donum Veritatis, statements in this category must be “firmly accepted and held” by all Catholics. Here too, legitimate disagreement is not possible.

3. Statements which in a non-definitive but obligatory way clarify revealed truths. Dulles suggests that “the teaching of Vatican II, which abstained from new doctrinal definitions, falls predominantly into this category” (The Craft of Theology, p. 110). According to Donum Veritatis, statements in this category must be accepted by Catholics with “religious submission of will and intellect.” Given their non-definitive character, however, the assent due to such statements is not of the absolute kind owed to statements of categories 1 and 2. The default position is to assent to them, but it is in principle possible that the very strong presumption in their favor can be overridden. Donum Veritatis says:

The willingness to submit loyally to the teaching of the Magisterium on matters per se not irreformable must be the rule. It can happen, however, that a theologian may, according to the case, raise questions regarding the timeliness, the form, or even the contents of magisterial interventions.

For this reason, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium… If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue…

[A theologian’s] objections could then contribute to real progress and provide a stimulus to the Magisterium to propose the teaching of the Church in greater depth and with a clearer presentation of the arguments.

However, Donum Veritatis also makes it clear that in the normal case even a justifiably doubtful theologian’s further investigations into the matter will eventually result in assent. The burden of proof is on the doubting theologian to justify his non-assent, and

Such a disagreement could not be justified if it were based solely upon the fact that the validity of the given teaching is not evident or upon the opinion that the opposite position would be the more probable. Nor, furthermore, would the judgment of the subjective conscience of the theologian justify it because conscience does not constitute an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine.

Nor, as Donum Veritatis makes clear, could theologians legitimately express their disagreement in these cases with a polemical spirit, or apply political pressure tactics in order to influence the Magisterium, or set themselves up as a counter-Magisterium.

As William May has pointed out, the most plausible scenario in which “theologians [might] raise questions of this kind [would be] when they can appeal to other magisterial teachings that are more certainly and definitively taught with which they think the teaching questioned is incompatible” (An Introduction to Moral Theology, p. 242).

4. Statements of a prudential sort which require external obedience but not interior assent. As Dulles notes (Magisterium, p. 94), Cardinal Ratzinger gave as an example of this sort of statement the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in the early 20th century. Dulles suggests that the Church’s caution about accepting heliocentrism in the 17th century would be another example. These sorts of statements are “prudential” insofar as they are attempts prudently to apply general principles of faith and morals to contingent concrete circumstances, such as the state of scientific knowledge at a particular point in history. And there is no guarantee that churchmen, including popes, will make correct judgments about these circumstances or how best to apply general principles to them. Hence, while Donum Veritatis says that it would be a mistake “to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments,” nevertheless:

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question.

As the examples given indicate, statements of category 4 generally concern what sorts of positions theologians might in their public writing or teaching put forward as consistent with Catholic doctrine. The concern is that theologians not too rashly publicly endorse some idea which may or may not turn out to be true, but whose relationship to matters of faith and morals is complicated, and where mistakes may damage the faith of non-experts. Here what is called for is external obedience to the Church’s decisions, but not necessarily assent. A “reverent silence” might be the most that is called for, though since Donum Veritatis allows that a theologian might in principle legitimately raise questions about category 3 statements, such questions could obviously be legitimate in the case of category 4 statements as well. Presumably (for example) a theologian could in principle legitimately say: “I will in my scholarship and teaching abide by such-and-such a decision of the Pontifical Biblical Commission. However, I respectfully request that the Commission reconsider that decision in light of such-and-such considerations.”

The examples of “prudential” judgments which Donum Veritatis addresses and which Dulles discusses in his comments on that document are all judgments which are very closely connected to matters of principle vis-à-vis faith and morals, even if the statements are of a lesser authority than statements of categories 1-3. For example, the prudential decisions regarding heliocentrism and modern historical-critical methods of biblical scholarship were intended to preclude any rash judgments about the proper interpretation of scripture.

However, statements by popes and other churchmen which lack any such momentous doctrinal implications, but instead concern issues of politics, economics, and the like, are also often referred to as “prudential judgments,” because they too involve the attempt prudently to apply general principles of faith and morals to contingent concrete circumstances. Donum Veritatis does not address this sort of judgment and neither does Dulles in his discussion of the document, but it is clear from other statements by Cardinal Ratzinger that it constitutes a fifth category of magisterial teaching:

5. Statements of a prudential sort on matters about which there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics. Examples would be many of the statements made by popes and other churchmen on matters of political controversy, such as war and capital punishment. Cardinal Ratzinger gave these as specific examples in a 2004 memorandum on the topic “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles,” wherein he stated:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia. (Emphasis added)

End quote. Note that Cardinal Ratzinger goes so far as to say that a Catholic may be “at odds with” the pope on the application of capital punishment and the decision to wage war and still be worthy to receive communion -- something he could not have said if it were mortally sinful to disagree with the pope on those issues. It follows that there is no grave duty to assent to the pope’s statements on those issues. The cardinal also says that “there may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty,” despite the fact that Pope John Paul II, under whom the Cardinal was serving at the time, made very strong statements against capital punishment and the Iraq war. It follows that the pope’s statements on those issues were not binding on Catholics even on pain of venial sin, for diversity of opinion could not be “legitimate” if it were even venially sinful to disagree with the pope on these matters. In the memorandum, Cardinal Ratzinger also explicitly says that Catholic voters and politicians must oppose laws permitting abortion and euthanasia, as well as abstain from Holy Communion if they formally cooperate with these evils. By contrast, he makes no requirement on the behavior (such as voting) of Catholics who disagree with the pope about capital punishment or the decision to wage war. So, papal statements on those subjects, unlike category 4 statements, evidently do not require any sort of external obedience much less assent. Catholics thus owe such statements serious and respectful consideration, but nothing more.

Contemporary works of theology written by theologians loyal to the Magisterium often recognize this category of prudential statements to which Catholics need not assent. For example, in his book The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development, and Mission of the Papacy, J. Michael Miller (currently the Archbishop of Vancouver) writes:

John Paul II’s support for financial compensation equal to other kinds of work for mothers who stay at home to take care of their children, or his plea to cancel the debt of Third World nations as a way to alleviate massive poverty, fall into this category. Catholics are free to disagree with these papal guidelines as ways in which to secure justice. They can submit to debate alternative practical solutions, provided that they accept the moral principles which the pope propounds in his teaching. (p. 175)

Germain Grisez suggests that there are five sorts of cases in which assent is not required (The Way of the Lord Jesus, Vol. 2, p. 49). The first would be cases in which popes and other churchmen are not addressing matters of faith and morals. The second are cases where they are addressing matters of faith and morals, but speaking merely as individual believers or private theologians rather than in an official capacity. The third sort of case would be when they are teaching in an official capacity, but in a tentative way. The fourth are cases where popes or other churchmen put forward non-binding arguments for a teaching which is itself binding on Catholics. The fifth sort of case is when they are putting forward merely disciplinary directives with which a Catholic might legitimately disagree even if he has to follow them.

It is perhaps worth noting that the works just cited are works bearing the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. The reason this is worth noting, and the reason it is also worth emphasizing the significance of Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum, is that certain Catholic writers have a tendency to accuse fellow Catholics who disagree with papal statements on matters of political controversy of being “dissenters.” For example, it is sometimes claimed that any Catholic who is consistently “pro-life” will not only agree with papal statements condemning abortion and euthanasia, but will also agree with papal statements criticizing capital punishment or the war in Iraq, or endorsing certain economic policies. The suggestion is that Catholics who reject the Church’s teaching on abortion and euthanasia are “left-wing dissenters” and Catholics who disagree with recent papal statements on capital punishment, the war in Iraq, or specific economic policies are “right-wing dissenters” -- as if both sides are engaged in disobedience to the Church, and disobedience of the same sort.

At best this reflects serious theological ignorance. At worst it is intellectually dishonest and demagogic. A Catholic who disagrees with the Church’s teaching on abortion or euthanasia is rejecting a category 1 or category 2 magisterial statement -- something that is never permitted. But a Catholic who disagrees with what recent popes have said about capital punishment, the war in Iraq, or specific economic policies is disagreeing with category 5 statements -- something that the Church herself holds to be permissible. Hence, Catholics who condemn their fellow Catholics for disagreeing with category 5 statements are themselves the ones who are out of sync with what the Church teaches -- not to mention exhibiting a lack of justice and charity.

Since the Church allows that Catholics can under certain circumstances legitimately disagree with statements of category 3, not to mention statements of categories 4 and 5, Catholic teaching thereby implies that it is possible for popes to be mistaken when making statements falling under any of these categories. It is even possible for a pope to be mistaken in a more radical way if, outside the context of his extraordinary Magisterium, he says something inconsistent with a statement of category 1 or category 2. And it is possible for a pope to fall into error in other ways, such as by carrying out unwise policies or exhibiting immorality in his personal life.

Reprinted with permission from Dr. Edward Feser’s blog

Monarch Profile: King Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden

A great enemy of the Faith, but one of the Great Captains of History!

From The Mad Monarchist (6 November 2011)

It is appropriate today to take a look at the late, great Swedish monarch Gustavus Adolphus (officially King Gustav II Adolf). In Sweden, he is a giant historical figure, a dynamic warrior king who presided over a Kingdom of Sweden that became the regional super-power of Scandinavia. In European terms he was a pivotal historical figure as the Protestant champion of the Thirty Years War without whom the Catholic Holy Roman Empire might have been resurgent as the dominant power on the continent. Even in world history Gustavus Adolphus is known across the globe by military historians as one of the great captains of all time. He built and led the most advanced and formidable army of his time and has since been dubbed by many the “Father of Modern Warfare” because of his innovative organization of military logistics and his revolutionary integration of infantry, cavalry and artillery as a mutually supportive combined force on the battlefield. All of the great military geniuses of modern times, particularly Marlborough and through him Napoleon, continuing down to the present owe a reverent salute to King Gustavus Adolphus.

Gustavus Adolphus was born in Stockholm on December 9, 1594, eldest son and heir of Duke Charles of the Swedish Royal House of Vasa and Christina of Holstein-Gottorp during the reign of his cousin King Sigismund III. Europe was in the grip of religious upheaval and King Sigismund III, a Catholic, was deposed in 1599 by Duke Charles who became regent and finally King Charles IX in 1604, making Prince Gustavus Adolphus heir to the Swedish throne. He was only seventeen when his father died in 1611 and Gustavus Adolphus was thrust upon the throne of Sweden with his cousin Sigismund III still trying to regain his crown (who was also King of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). In 1626, in response to this and to recover Baltic territories Sigismund had transferred from Sweden to Poland, the young King Gustavus Adolphus launched a war against Poland for control of the Baltic. It was a long and frustrating conflict, but Gustavus Adolphus was victorious, his throne secure and while he did not quite make the Baltic a Swedish lake as he had hoped, he had certainly made Sweden the dominant power in the Baltic Sea.

King Charles IX had trained his son almost from birth to be the best king possible. Part of this was political training but a large part was also military training and Gustavus Adolphus excelled at it. Even as a teenager he led Swedish troops in repelling a Danish attack in East Gotland. As King of Sweden he proved to be a man of great courage, creative thinking, grand ambitions and disciplined determination. If he was better at war than government he at least had the self-awareness to realize it and, as any good King should do, appointed an eminently qualified statesman to oversee administration while he focused on the military. This man was Axel Oxenstierna who the King made his chancellor and together they proved a winning team in the political arena and on the battlefield. By the time the Thirty Years War broke out in Central Europe, Gustavus Adolphus was already known as the “Lion of the North” for his great victories in Latvia and around the Baltic. He was impressive enough to catch the attention of the French Cardinal Richelieu, the power-behind-the-throne in the Kingdom of France. Cardinal Richelieu considered the Swedish warrior king his great “find” and helped fund his entry into the Thirty Years War.

Although classified as a religious war (and one of the worst), the Thirty Years War was obviously not strictly so. The “Protestant side” included many Catholic soldiers and there were many Protestant forces fighting on the “Catholic side”. Although Cardinal Richelieu and the rest of France were devoutly Catholic, they supported the Protestant Kingdom of Sweden as a way to prevent their Catholic rival, the House of Hapsburg which ruled the Holy Roman Empire, from becoming too powerful. As far as Gustavus Adolphus was concerned, he had defeated the Danes, the Poles and even the Russians in battle so the mercenary armies of the Holy Roman Empire held no terror for him. He was a staunch Lutheran of course and he was also concerned for the safety of his country. So far, the Protestant forces had, frankly, been getting their clocks cleaned by some extremely capable Catholic Imperial commanders. If the Catholics continued to drive northward the Holy Roman Empire might decide to conquer Scandinavia as well. The decision to intervene was made.

With a formidable reputation and self-confidence born out of experience, King Gustavus Adolphus marched into Germany at the head of what was almost certainly, man for man, the best army of the early 17th Century. Although small, they were better organized than any other force in Europe. King Gustavus Adolphus was the first commander since practically Imperial Rome to organize his men into permanent military units and he established a permanent chain of command, with special officers in charge of special jobs. He also integrated his armed forces and no one else had done. Instead of leading a mob of hired men, the King of Sweden led an army based on teamwork. Infantry, cavalry and artillery would all work in conjunction in a way no one at the time had ever seen before. He also, very critically, established a modern and organized system of logistics with a chain of supply bases to keep his troops fed and equipped consistently while on campaign. Under his command the Swedish army was truly an elite force and King Gustavus Adolphus demanded discipline and good character from his men. They could not loot, fornicate, get drunk, utter blasphemy or swear under pain of severe punishment. Being morally upright was just as important to him as being brave and obedient and was part of his overall vision of building the best army possible and that he certainly did.

It all paid off. As soon as he landed his forces he won a quick victory on the edge of the Baltic before moving inland where he confronted and defeated the Imperial commander Johann Tserclaes Graf von Tilly, one of the two most capable and victorious Catholic generals of the war. Gustavus Adolphus used innovative tactics no one at the time was prepared for, spreading his men out rather than packing them together in tight formations, having smaller units that could deploy and maneuver faster than anyone else and highly mobile artillery that could be re-positioned as circumstances required. He was everywhere victorious and the tide of war turned in favor of the Protestants and the Swedish army pushed farther and farther south. They spent the winter in the Rhineland and the following spring, in 1632, met Graf von Tilly in battle again in Bavaria. Once again the “Lion of the North” was victorious and in that battle the great Graf von Tilly was killed, a terrible blow to the Imperial forces. Desperate to stop the Swedish juggernaut the Emperor called upon a man he did not entirely trust but the only military commander of such reputation as to be capable of defeating Gustavus Adolphus; Albrecht Wenzel von Wallenstein, the conqueror of Silesia and the man whose victories against the Danes had been partly responsible for bringing an alarmed Sweden into the war in the first place.

The result was the battle of Lützen on November 6, 1632 (by the Protestant calendar), an epic showdown between the best Catholic and Protestant commanders in Europe. At first it seemed that in Wallenstein, Gustavus Adolphus had met his match. He got the jump on the Swedes as they moved to attack him, yet, in the initial assault on his lines, the Swedish forces made serious headway before the timely arrival of reinforcements set them back a bit. Rallying his men, the ever bold Gustavus Adolphus led a cavalry charge himself against the imperial lines, in a thick fog, in which the courageous monarch was shot down, still fairly early in the course of battle. At almost any other time, with any other army, this would have been the end of the Swedes. Any other army would have been disheartened, demoralized and their final defeat a forgone conclusion. This was not, however, the case with the Swedish army and it was thanks to all of the care the late King had taken to ensure a disciplined, devoted and determined army. They were not demoralized by the death of their monarch, they were enraged. The redoubled their efforts, steeled themselves for the fight and threw themselves back into the battle with a fury to avenge their fallen sovereign. The tide turned again and the Imperial army was soundly defeated. The King was dead but the great Wallenstein had been beaten.

Wallenstein retreated from Saxony to Bohemia while the Swedes carried their King home, his death ending the hopes of a total Protestant conquest of Germany. In Sweden the date of the King’s death became a holiday, still commemorated to this day (even after the change in calendars). His young daughter was placed on the throne as Queen Christina (or King as she had been raised as a boy) and the widowed Queen, Maria Eleanor of Brandenburg who the King had married in 1620, went mad with grief after the death of her husband. His death was a tragedy and helped ensure the Thirty Years War would end in stalemate rather than outright victory for one side or the other. Yet, he left a larger and more powerful kingdom than he had inherited. He laid the foundation for the “Swedish Empire” and had made Sweden the dominant power of Northern Europe. Gustavus Adolphus had united his people, instilled in them a righteous national pride and he had revolutionized the art of war for all time since. He was, by every measure, one of the great men of history.

1 January, Antonio Cardinal Bacci: Meditations For Each Day

The New Year

1. This is a new gift which God in His infinite goodness gives to us. But every gift of God demands on our part a generous expression of gratitude, which should result in positive acts of virtue. Gratitude is an empty and short-lived sentiment unless it is accompanied by a sincere intention of performing good works.

Time is the price of eternity, because with time we can purchase an eternity of happiness or misery.

Consider this great truth. Every year is like a ladder in our lives. Now, it is necessary that this ladder should lead us, not perilously downwards towards evil, but upwards towards Heaven, even if with faltering footsteps.

The New Year opens today as a blank page in the diary of our lives. What do we intend to write there? The usual inanities and sins, perhaps? Let us reflect before God and in the light of the eternity which awaits us. This is the time for great decisions. It is necessary that we should offer our resolutions to God along with a humble and fervent prayer that He will strengthen us to comply faithfully with His grace.

2. During these days it is customary to exchange, verbally or in writing, good wishes for the New Year. But these poor greetings are often nothing more than conventional phrases. Men lack the power to transmute such good wishes into reality. God alone is the source of every material and spiritual good; therefore He alone can ensure that these benevolent expressions are translated into deeds of Christian renovation. Since today is the beginning of the New Year, it is especially important for us to ask God more fervently and insistently to bless the resolutions which we are making for ourselves and the good wishes which we are showering on our friends.

These wishes have no meaning, and these resolutions have no force, if they are not accompanied by fervent and persevering prayer.

3. It is suggested in “The Imitation of Christ” that if we were to get rid of at least one habit of sin every year, we should soon be holy. If we have not tried to do this in the past, let us propose to do it in the future. This year let us select the principal defect which we possess, the sin into which we are most accustomed to fall. Let us seek to eradicate it with all the strength of our soul, assisted by the grace of God which will certainly not be denied us. Let us request for this purpose the most powerful patronage of Mary Most Holy. Let us pass this day in close union with God and under the maternal mantle of our Heavenly Mother. Finally, let us promise earnestly that all the days of the New Year will follow the same pattern.

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 1 JANUARY – THE CIRCUMCISION OF OUR LORD

IN LUMINE FIDEI: 1 JANUARY – THE CIRCUMCISION OF OUR LORD: Dom Prosper Guéranger: Our new-born King and Saviour is eight days old today. The star that guides the Magi is advancing towards Be...

IN LUMINE FIDEI: JANUARY – THE MONTH OF THE HOLY NAME

IN LUMINE FIDEI: JANUARY – THE MONTH OF THE HOLY NAME: There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. (Acts iv. 12) In the name of Jesus every knee should b...

1 January, A Chesterton Calendar

January

Mere light sophistry is the thing that I happen to despise most of all things, and it is perhaps a wholesome fact that this is the thing of which I am generally accused.

'Orthodoxy.'

NEW YEAR'S DAY

The object of a New Year is not that we should have a new year. It is that we should have a new soul and a new nose; new feet, a new backbone, new ears, and new eyes. Unless a particular man made New Year resolutions, he would make no resolutions. Unless a man starts afresh about things, he will certainly do nothing effective. Unless a man starts on the strange assumption that he has never existed before, it is quite certain that he will never exist afterwards. Unless a man be born again, he shall by no means enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

'Daily News.'

2 January, The Roman Martyrology

Quarto Nonas Ianuárii Luna septima Anno Domini 2020
 
The morrow is the Octave of holy Stephen the Proto-Martyr. At Rome are commemorated upon the same day many holy martyrs who defied the edict of the Emperor Diocletian whereby it was commanded to give up the holy books, they being willing rather to give over their own bodies to the executioners than to give unto dogs that which was holy.
January 2nd 2020, the 7th day of the Moon, were born into the better life:

At Antioch, blessed Isidore, Bishop (in the year 420).
At Tomi, in Pontus, under Emperor Licinius, the three holy brethren, Argeus, Narcissus, and Marcellinus.
Argeus and Narcissus were slain with the sword. Marcellinus was a boy, he was taken among the recruits, and for as much as he would not be a soldier he was grievously flogged, and after suffering long in prison was drowned in the sea (in the year 320.)
At Milan (after the year 431), holy Martinian (17th) bishop of that see.
At Nitria, in Egypt, the blessed confessor Isidore (Bishop of Hermopolis in the fourth century).
Upon the same day the holy Bishop Siridion.
In the Thebaid the holy Abbot Macarius of Alexandria (about the year 395.)
V. And elsewhere many other holy martyrs, confessors, and holy virgins.
R. Thanks be to God.

Memes of the Day