Comments on the "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church"

The past week has been full of discussion on the "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church", a remarkable document put forward by a group of nineteen Catholic theologians and academics which—to use a phrase that has become all too familiar—makes "credible accusations" of heresy against Pope Francis and calls upon the bishops of the world to take some sort of action in rectifying the situation. If you have not yet read the "Open Letter", you can do so here.

1. The letter makes a very comprehensive case, drawing not only on particular statements of Pope Francis, but also his responses to the heretical statements of others (for example, the heretical interpretation of Amoris laetitia  published by the bishops of Buenos Aires in 2016, to which Pope Francis replied with a letter saying their document "completely explains the meaning" of Amoris laetitia and that "There are no other interpretations", a statement which he then had published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis, the official compendium of his acta). The Open Letter also deals with Pope Francis's very troubling clerical appointments. Some Catholic apologists have been quick to point out that things like episcopal appointments or how the pope responds to news are not evidence of heresy, just like remaining passive or silent in response to requests for clear teaching is not heretical either. But I think these critiques miss the point; the Open Letter does not attempt to provide a single "gotcha" piece of evidence that presents and open and shut case for the pope's heresy. Rather, it attempts to show a general trend or broad disposition towards heresy on the part of the pope with several of the most striking examples highlighted as evidence. It is what Joseph Shaw referred to as a "promulgation [of heresy] by drift." And understood in this sense, it is brutally effective. Although I also tend to think that the examples are convincing taken individually as well.

2. Predictably, the Open Letter provoked responses from some who retreated to the tired old neo-Catholic canard that the signatories of the letter "should have gone to the pope directly" before airing their grievances publicly, or "going to their bishops in private first." Dr. Maike Hickson of LifeSite has written a remarkable piece chronicling around 30 times Catholics have reached out to Pope Francis—directly or indirectly—to clarify his teachings prior to the publication of the Open Letter. Her article ("Before Pope Francis was accused of heresy, Catholics reached out to him numerous times", May 9, 2019) is a must-read in order to understand the Open Letter in its historical context as the final recourse after the Dubia, Filial Correction, and many other attempts at communicating with Francis directly bore no fruit. Indeed, the publication of the Open Letter was not some rash screed hastily pumped out by a cadre of die-hard anti-Francis fanatics chomping at the bit for any excuse to attack the pope; rather, it represents the culmination of a long, exhausting series of attempts to reach out to Francis through the proper channels and is really a document of great restraint and patience. I commend the authors for taking this bold step. No Catholic rejoices or feels good about having to call out the pope; their actions must have been born out of deep concern for the Church and the good of souls and they should not be vilified for doing what was withing their canonical right and what their conscience dictated.

3. Christian charity demands that, when assessing the faults of others, we presume the best about them rather than the worst; in other words, we give them "the benefit of the doubt." But to give some one the benefit of the doubt presumes that there is room for doubt—it presumes that there is a certain ambiguity in how we interpret words and actions. And if there is ambiguity, we assume the best. But there is a huge difference between offering the benefit of the doubt and always being able to fabricate a benefit of the doubt. I have written about this before ("Benefit of the Doubt Presumes Doubt", Jan. 2017); in the case of Pope Francis, his litany of troubling statements and actions is so consistent that it is no longer realistic for a reasonable person to doubt the meaning of Francis's words or the intentions behind his initiatives; whether we look at the humorous Pope Francis Little Book of Insults or the more scholarly Denzinger-Bergoglio, the pontiff's thought is clear: he believes traditional Catholicism is a stuffy, hypocritical affair that keeps people from Christ and promotes "triumphalism" and "elitism." Heck, he even thinks standard Novus Ordo Catholicism is too stuffy; to that end, he intends to irreversibly reform global Catholic identity in the likeness of the most derelict Latin American banana-republics. It has gotten to the point where people who deny there is an issue are quite simply burying their heads in the sand.

4. Some bloggers are contending that the evidence is not sufficient to charge the pope with formal heresy, and therefore everything is alright. This is an incredibly simplistic and ridiculous argument. What these people fail to realize is that there is more than one way a teaching can be heretical—and I am not referring to the mere distinction between formal and material heresy. Traditionally, the Church used a gradation of judgments called theological censures. The division between heresy and orthodoxy is not necessarily black and white. There are "grades" of theological error; a statement can be not outright heretical but be simply ambiguous, for example. Or a statement may not be heretical in that it denies a de fide doctrine, but rather that its conclusions could lead to thinking that would be heretical.

Traditionally, heretical propositions are divided into three groups according as they bear principally upon (1) the import (what is said) (2) the expression (how it is said) (3) the consequences (what they lead to). Of import, we have hæretica (heretical), erronea (erroneous), hæresi proxima (next to heresy), errori proxima (next to error), temeratia (rash), etc. A "heretical" proposition is one that immediately and directly denies a de fide teaching. It is "erroneous" when it denies an article of faith that is certain (certa) but not de fide. "Next to heresy" and "next to error" means its opposition to a revealed and defined dogma is not certain, or chiefly when the truth it contradicts, though commonly accepted as revealed, has yet never been the object of a definition (proxima fidei). Something "next to heresy" could be defined as sapiens haeresim (smacking of heresy) or suspecta de hearesi, errorem (suspected of heresy or error). These are propositions which, though true textually, may due to modern currents of thought, be interpreted in a heretical way. I would say a lot of Pope Francis's most questionable statements fall into this latter category.

Next we come to the question of expression, or how the proposition is expressed. Here we can define four censures: ambigua (ambiguous), captiosa (captious), male sonans (evil-sounding), piarum aurium offensiva (offensive to pious ears), etc. A proposition is ambiguous when it is worded so as to present two or more senses, one of which is objectionable; captious when acceptable words are made to express objectionable thoughts; evil-sounding when improper words are used to express otherwise acceptable truths; offensive when verbal expression is such as rightly to shock the Catholic sense and delicacy of faith. Note that, while many pop-Catholic apologists will harp on that it is not heretical to speak ambiguously, the Church traditional theological censures to allow for a statement to be judged heretical based on its ambiguity alone.

Finally, we come to the question of consequences. Here we are dealing with what state of affairs the condemned propositions may lead to: subsannativa religionis (derisive of religion), decolorativa canodris ecclesiæ (defacing the beauty of the Church), subversiva hierarchiæ (subversive of the hierarchy), eversiva regnorum (destructive of governments), scandelosa, perniciosa, periculosa in moribus (scandalous, pernicious, dangerous to morals), blasphema, idolatra, superstisiosa, magica (blasphemous, leading to idolatry, superstition, sorcery), arrogans, acerba (arrogant, harsh), etc. This is not even an exhaustive list of the third group. Pope Francis' teachings relating to Amoris laetitia could be considered periculosa in moribus because, whether or not he has specifically stated as much himself, the fact that others are inferring heretical or immoral consequences from his words is sufficient to cast a heretical judgment upon his statements.

Let's be clear: YES, something can be heretical just based on how it is expressed. YES something merely ambiguous can be heretical. YES a statement can be heretical based on the immoral conclusions other people draw from it, even if the author does not express such intent; YES a statement can not contradict any truth of the faith itself but be considered heretical if following its implications leads to other heresy; YES something can be heretical if it is shocking to the ears of pious Catholics. YES a statement can be condemned because it is merely suspected of heresy. All of these condemnations fall short of a formal charge of heresy (explicitly and contumaciously denying a revealed dogma of the faith) but they are all gradations of heresy.

In other words, even if we were to grant a "benefit of the doubt" that Pope Francis has not promulgated a formal heresy, there are so many other ways his dubious comments could be construed as heretical or approximating to heresy that a censure would still be warranted and the pope's statements could still be considered heretical in ways that are less than formal. But nobody cares about theological censures anymore so this is just over the heads of many people.

5. The Open Letter, while accusing the pope of heresy, does not go so far as to assert that the pope ipso facto loses his office because of it. Rather, it calls upon the bishops of the Church to take action "to remedy the situation" by abjuring Pope Francis to make a public repudiation of these heresies and insist he suffer the canonical penalties proper to heresy if he does not. Although the Open Letter does not say it explicitly, it is evident that this means the loss of the papal office. I have never believed the proposition that the pope loses his office ipso facto for heresy. But I also deny that the Church (either the laity or the episcopate) has any remedy for removing a pope who does not wish to be removed. Though theologians have speculated on the ways and means for removing a heretical pope, I don't see how any of them can be affirmed without ultimately leading to some form of Conciliarism. When it comes to the theology of a papal deposition, all we have is theory—and that's not an argument against papal deposition, mind you; it's just pointing out it's never been done.

However, I think writers who stress theological opinions regarding papal deposition have ignored the fact that there is actually a large body of canonical legislation on the question; and more importantly, that this legislation is not merely hypothetical.

The Church's canonical tradition affirms a the principle prima sedes a nemine iudicatur ("The first See is judged by none"). The principle is universal; it refers to the clergy, secular rulers, as well as the laity. It is an absolute principle of papal independence against any attempt by any outside power whatsoever—even the episcopacy—to forcibly depose or judge a sitting pope. The principle prima sedes a nemine iudicatur first appears in the quasi-apocryphal Synod of Sinuessa (c. 314) relating to the problem of Pope St. Marcellinus, a pope who had apostasized under the Diocletian persecution (while, it should be noted, retaining the papal office and eventually becoming a saint). However, because many consider the acta of the Synod of Sinuessa forgeries, it is better to forgo Sinuessa and point to the historical Synod of Parma of 501-502 as the place when the principle enters the Church's canonical tradition. The pope at the time, Symmachus, was engaged in a schism with a rival papal claimant supported by the Byzantine Emperor. When called upon to pass judgment upon Pope Symmachus, the bishops at Parma declared prima sedes a nemine iudicatur ("The first See is judged by none"). And thus the concept of the immunity of the Roman pontiff from episcopal judgment passed into Canon Law.

It was reaffirmed many times. We see Pope St. Nicholas I (858-867) stating to the Byzantine Emperor that "Neither by Augustus, nor by all the clergy, nor by religious, nor by the people will the judge be judged...The first seat will not be judged by anyone" (Pope St. Nicholas I, Proposueramus quidem, Denz. 330).

 Pope Leo IX wrote in 1053 to the Patriarch of Constantinople that "By passing a preceding judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of all the venerable Councils..." (Pope St. Leo IX, "In terra pax hominibus" to Michael Cerularius and to Leo of Achrida, September 2, 1053, Denz. 352).

The principle was again enunciated by Pope St. Gregory VII in his famous bull Dictatus Papae, which was a collection of precedents regarding papal authority from the popes of the first millennium. There Gregory affirms that "That he [the pope] himself may be judged by no one" (Pope St. Gregory VII, Dictatus Papae, 19). The inclusion of  prima sedes a nemine iudicatur in Dictatus Papae is particularly important because Pope St. Gregory VII intended this document to be a kind of summation or syllabus of the most important, central teachings and canonical principles relating to the papacy. This principle was consistently reaffirmed in the Middle Ages and passed into the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which stipulates that no pope can be subjected to any kind of a trial. This is because he is beyond judgement (CIC 1556).

Canonically, there is no mechanism for removing a pope; not only this, but there is particular, perennial canonical legislation which specifically denies that a pope can be deposed. Even if the bishops of the world were to gather together to condemn Pope Francis of heresy, the most they could do would be to take a kind of vote of "no confidence" and plead with the Holy Father to voluntarily step down for the good of the Church. They could summon a synod, they could even declare his statements to be heretical to varying degrees; they could even declare he was "unworthy" of the papal office, as the famous Cadaver Synod did of Pope Formosus. But they could not declare he had forfeited his office—this was the exact situation the fathers at the Synod of Parma dealt with where prima sedes a nemine iudicatur was first elucdiated. They were not being asked to depose Pope Symmachus, but to declare that he was not truly pope or had forfeited his office. When called upon by the emperor to make such a proclamation, they deferred, saying no one could pass judgment on the first See. Similarly today, the bishops could not take any role in actively getting the pope out of office. They could deem him unworthy and his teachings heretical, express a statement of "no confidence", and then ask for the pope's resignation. But if he did not resign, the would not cease to be pope by the fact, and the bishops would have no power to make him step down.

Interestingly enough, when an opposing curial party wanted to get rid of Pope Stephen VI (897), they didn't depose him; they murdered him, because having the pope dead was so much simpler than dealing with the question of papal deposition against his will. I am not in any way remotely suggesting such a course be taken with Pope Francis; I cite the story as evidence that there exists no canonical way for getting rid of a pope, which is why they resorted to simply killing him.

Such are my thoughts for the time being, meager as they are. Bless you all, my brethren

October 2017 Current Events Round Up

There are basically two types of articles I post on this blog: articles where I talk about how I don't feel the need to keep a running commentary on everything going on in the Church, and then articles where I offer just such a commentary.

And if such commentary is needed, it is today. My, there is a lot going on, isn't there? Let's review some of the wild events that have occurred in the past few weeks.

Pope Francis Reboots the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family

On September 19th, Pope Francis signed a motu proprio which effectively retooled the John Paul II Institute For Marriage and Family; well technically he abolished it. The text of the motu proprio Summa familiae cura states that the new entity, the John Paul II Theological Institute for the Sciences of Marriage and Family, will effectively "substitute" for the prior entity, annulling St. John Paul II's 1981 motu proprio.

The new institute for studying the "sciences" of marriage and family will have a broader mission than the old institute. Whereas the old institute was largely grounded in theology and philosophy, the new institute will incorporate the social sciences—in fact, elevating them to be the primary focus of the new institute. Philosophy and theology are not even mentioned in Pope Francis' motu proprio. Thus, we can assume the work of the new body will be more influenced by secular sociology. Francis has stated he wishes the new institute's focus to be primarily scientific, “expanding the field of interest, both in terms of the new dimensions of the pastoral task and the ecclesial mission, as well as in the development of human sciences and the anthropological culture in such a crucial field for the culture of life" (source). The reason for this is "to fertilize the vast field of engagement...effectively contributing to make it fully correspond to the modern needs of the pastoral mission of the Church” (ibid).

The purpose appears to be to institutionalize the teachings of Amoris Laetitia. St. John Paul II essentially did the same thing when he created the institute in 1982 for the purpose of promoting the teaching of Familiaris Consortio, a much worthier document. He hopes the new institute will work towards making Amoris Laetitia a more permanent fixture of Magisterial teaching. At the September 19th press briefing at which the change was announced, Archbishop Paglia called Amoris Laetitia the "Magna Carta" of the new institute.

Two interesting things here: First, Pope Francis said the purpose of the change was so that the teachings of St. John Paul II on marriage and family could be “better known and appreciated in its fruitfulness and relevance” (ibid); Familiaris Consortio "finds its realization" in Amoris Laetitia (source).

Of course, there is reason to fear that some of the implications of Amoris Laetitia are in fundamental conflict with the teachings of John Paul II. We are left with the irony that the teaching of St. John Paul II is being potentially undermined in the name of making his teaching more widely known! It's like a retirement party that is ostensibly to honor an employee's service but whose real purpose is to simply shove them out the door.

Second, if you are one of those people who believes Amoris Laetitia and Familiaris Consortio are in agreement with one another, then why is a new institute needed? If Amoris Laetitia is not a break in continuity with tradition, why dissolve an institution empowered to carry out that tradition? It gives leverage to those who suggest Amoris Laetitia is a document of rupture.

The Filial Correction

On August 11th, the document now known as the "Filial Correction" was delivered to Pope Francis at his residence in Domus Sanctae Marthae. This document was made public on September 24th. Originally signed by 62 scholars, that number has now ballooned to around 100 at the time of this post.

It would take too long to summarize all of the nonsense surrounding this document, both by those for and against it. Those who are ridiculously enthusiastic about it as well as those who are writing it off as insignificant are missing it, I think.

The document itself is very beautiful. I read it in its entirety the day it was released, along with the addenda. It is a splendid explanation of the Catholic tradition on marriage, reception of the sacraments, and the moral nature of our actions. I personally thought the tone of correction was very charitable and humble. It extended to Francis the benefit of the doubt, taking the "Sire, evil counselors are doing bad things in your name" sort of approach, and it made clear that the signatories did not claim any sort of jurisdiction to formally accuse the pope of anything. The title "Filial Correction" is somewhat of a misnomer; it is more a deep, impassioned plea for clear, decisive action.

The mainstream Catholic media is shrugging this off and saying none of these people have the authority to issue any sort of correction (despite the precedent of Europe's theological faculty correcting John XXII in 1333). I saw one apologist whose response to this was to impugn the signatories by trying to dredge up snippets of other comments they'd made over the years which he found objectionable, as if that somehow was relevant to the arguments put forward in the text of the Filial Correction itself.

Others are viewing this in terms of a political power struggle. "The Correction won't amount to anything because the signatories are not really clerical heavyweights." Ultimately, the Church is not a political movement; its fortunes are not measured in terms of the "power" wielded by different factions. And the fact is, to the degree that the Filial Correction speaks God's honest truth, it will bear some sort of fruit. "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (Isa. 55:10-11). God will bring some good out of this, even if it is nothing else than to edify the authors and signatories.

But...(and this is a major "but"), it may not be the good traditionalists are expecting. While I think the content of the Filial Correction needs to be considered in and of itself apart from the signatories—and while I have faith that God will use this for good and that it may be part of a larger puzzle—we are kidding ourselves if anyone thinks this is actually going to do anything. The Filial Correction's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness, the same weakness conservative Catholics have been making for fifty years: it offers a beautiful and honest exposition of the faith, but ultimately, in this struggle, words do not matter. Yes, God will not let them go unrewarded who speak His truth, as I said above.

But for fifty years conservatives have been deluded into thinking that if they just clearly, patiently, and charitably explain the truth that their efforts will prevail. That is simply not true. It's why honest, orthodox scholars who see Vatican II only as a series of documents are fundamentally missing the point. The progressives don't care what you write or how eloquently you explain it. As long as they can keep you shut out of diocesan leadership and out of important positions, you can say whatever you want. Conservatives view this in terms of speaking the truth; the liberals view it as a movement or progression of action. Conservatives have seen Vatican II as sixteen documents. Liberals have seen it as a moment in history with that moves the Church on a new historical trajectory. Whether one is right and the other wrong is sort of irrelevant because the liberal view is more dynamic. Merely saying what the truth is - especially in the face of a pontificate like Francis - is not really going to have any substantial effect in the temporal order.

Also, the historical precedent for this is a little over argued. The scholars who corrected Pope John XXII in 1333 were the most eminent theologians of Christendom, the heads of theological faculty at Europe's premiere universities. Many of them were eminent clerics. There is a marked contrast between the credentials of the men of 1333 and those of 2017. Save for a few notable names, most of the signatories of the 2017 document are obscure men, at least in the big picture. And in many cases their objection to Pope Francis' behavior comes as no surprise. Roberto de Mattei disagrees with Pope Francis! Bishop Fellay thinks the Franciscan pontificate is confusing! Call out the press! Are we supposed to be surprised by this?

Am I writing off the signatories like I just complained others were doing? No. I am not. What they are doing matters. But honestly, it would matter more if the signatories were cardinals and bishops who were not already known opponents of Pope Francis. It's true; the document would matter more if the signatories were more eminent—just like it would matter less if the signatories were merely a bunch of bloggers. A smattering of parish priests, religious brethren, and isolated professors and authors is not tremendously impressive, even less so given that Bishop Fellay is the sole representative of the episcopate on the list. They couldn't even get Athanasius Schneider to sign.

Am I belittling the effort? No. It was a worthwhile effort, the document is very well put together, and the objective ambiguities swirling around the subject made such an effort necessary. Maybe—hopefully?—it will encourage other, more eminent men to do the same. But at the same time I would like to see this in perspective, for what it really is. It's not some groundbreaking beginning; much less does it merit any sort of "So now it begins!" revolutionary gravitas. A bunch of the pope's critics got together and put together a very cogent, well-argued piece calmly explaining the truth of the faith. Effort applauded. Next.

The Reappointment of Cardinal Burke to the Apostolic Signatura

Earlier this month Cardinal Burke was reappointed to the Apostolic Signatura, although not to his previous post as prefect. From a personnel standpoint, this makes very little sense. Personnel is policy, and a leader's appointment or dismissal of personnel is a strong indicator of the leader's policy. When I was in political office, I appointed many people. And I refused to reappoint people as well. One thing I never did was dismiss somebody and then reappoint them. That just...never happened. I understand that the Church doesn't operate along the same guidelines a political body would, but the principle "personnel is policy" is true across the board for any organization, political, business or ecclesiastic. I can't understand why the pope would have reappointed Burke to the Signatura save as some sort of compromise he felt compelled to grant, probably against his own preference. It seems it was a kind of bone tossed to some faction in the Church to rehabilitate Burke, but without restoring him to his previous level of influence.

Of course, some are calling to mind the famous line of line of Vito Corleone; however, I do not think this is why Francis has reappointed Burke. I doubt its a secret plot to undermine him. I suspect it was more about making a compromise with some other faction or individual. I think, if Francis had his way, he would not have reappointed Cardinal Burke whatsoever. But who knows.

Pope Francis and the Death Penalty

In remarks commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church - a book which specifically says "the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty" (CCC 2267) - Pope Francis announced that the death penalty is "in itself contrary to the Gospel." The pope went on to explain that previous historical applications of the death penalty only "seemed" logical, but weren't really - this was followed by an apology for the use of the death penalty within the Papal States.

Francis did not offer any explanation as to how something that is "in itself contrary to the Gospel" can be affirmed by the Catechism as "the traditional teaching of the Church." It apparently did not strike him that this would need to be explained. I am not certain what is more troubling, that Francis says something taught in the Catechism is contrary to the Gospel, or that he feels that no explanation is needed to explain how this is possible.

Of course, the pope's homily does not supersede the Church's official teaching. But it does muddle things.

And by the way, before the situation changes, can we all go back and find articles from mainstream Catholic apologists defending the use of the death penalty and screen shot them before they try to pull them down and pretend like they never happened? After all, we are no longer at war with Eurasia. We are at war with East Asia. We have always been at war with East Asia.

Some are reporting that the pope is "changing" the CCC. This is not true. The Vatican, however, is releasing a new "commented" edition of the book in which will feature a running commentary on certain sections drawn from the preaching of Pope Francis.

Football Players Kneeling

Does anyone actually care what these football players actually think about anything? Are they not solely valued in terms of how well they throw, run, and catch? I'm serious here - does anybody actually give a damn what their opinions are about anything whatsoever? I think celebrities get this weird sense of self-importance where they think that people care them outside of their area of professional expertise. We don't. Or at least we shouldn't. Someone doesn't get a platform just because they are well known.


By the way, in case you are interested in following the things I spout off from my platform, follow Unam Sanctam Catholicam on Facebook. 

Müller and Ladaria

The bombshell news this week is that Pope Francis is not renewing the five-year appointment of Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Müller is being replaced by Spanish Jesuit Archbishop Luis Ladaria Ferrer, who was Secretary of the CDF.

* * * *

I confess I'm no expert on Archbishop Ladaria, but given the fact that many had assumed the prefecture would be filled by Cardinal Schönborn, Ladaria seems to be not a terrible choice. His work with Ecclesia Dei is commendable, as was his role in reaching out to the SSPX during the doomed talks of 2009. Still, he seems to be a middle-of-the-road sort of "mutual enrichment" theologian, who views the way forward as a kind of Hegelian synthesis between traditional elements and modern interpretations - Ladaria does not view reform in terms of a strict return ad fontes, but rather a kind of ressourcement approach typical of Danielou, de Lubac and the Nouvelle Theologie. But...whatever. Let's see how he does. Given the fact that we could have wound up with Cardinal Schönborn, I'll take Ladaria. 

* * * *

I also want to say that I am proud of the job Cardinal Müller did. When Müller was first appointed in 2012, many Traditionalists were skeptical. He had made some comments about Protestantism and other subjects that had ruffled some trad feathers. I don't know about his personal views, but honestly, Müller has done what a CDF Prefect is supposed to do—state the faith plainly and consistently in the face of challenges from within and without the Church. Forget being a theologically conservative prelate; just being a prelate with any sort of theological consistency whatsoever during the Francis papacy must be extraordinarily frustrating. Müller showed considerable fidelity and bravery in the face of what must have been enormous social and institutional pressure during the 2014-2015 synod and especially in its aftermath with Amoris Laetitia. Whatever rifts he may have had with traditionalists in the past, I for one will always remember him as speaking the truth in a dark moment. "Well done, thou good and faithful servant" (Matt. 25:21).

* * * *

In case anyone has not read it, you really ought to check out the interview with Father Julian Carron, head of Communion and Liberation ("If you don't think Francis is the cure, you don't grasp the disease", John Allen, Crux, June 21, 2017). Carron is the successor of the renowned Father Luigi Giussani and talks frankly about the crisis in the Church, Francis, and what it means to have faith in the contemporary world.

The interview is very unsettling; Carron essentially says the reason conservatives struggle with understanding Pope Francis is because they blind themselves to the truly revolutionary import of the pope's sayings and gestures—that the revolution Francis wants is much bigger than most conservative Catholics are ready to accept. I would actually grant Carron this point, but that is where my agreement ends, as he goes on to suggest that conservatives need to embrace the Francis revolution—and that if we do not, it's because we don't "really understand" what Francis is trying to do and what the problems in the Church are. He also talks a lot about faith essentially being an "encounter" or "experience", which is really at the heart of what Fr. Giussani has been traditionally criticized for. 

I have often promoted the works of James Larson on this blog—not because I necessarily agree with everything Larson says, but because he absolutely gets to the heart of all the problems in the modern Church when he identifies them as a deficient view of faith. I highly recommend reading Mr. Larson's extensive essays at War Against Being.

* * * *

At Mr. Larson's site, you will see Mr. Larson proposing a theory that I believe is absolutely accurate but that traditionalists have been very slow to latch on to: Benedict XVI, far from being a theologically conservative counterweight to the progressive movement in the Church, is actually himself an extraordinarily progressive figure. Whether we are discussing Ratzinger's view of the Trinity, of faith, of creation-evolution, of the love, or liturgy or whatever, Ratzinger is a thoroughly progressive, liberal theologian from the school of Teilhard de Chardin. Many traditionalists want to deny this; they want to see Benedict as a kind of solidly traditional counterbalance to Francis. This is not born out by reading Benedict's actual writings. He is not a traditionalist; he is a progressive who has a sort of nostalgic appreciation for some of the forms and symbols of tradition. 

In the article from Fr. Carron linked above, Carron will make the same argument. Carron, speaking of comparisons between John Paul II, Benedict, and Francis, said:

After Benedict, it once again seemed there would never be anyone else like him. Instead, a pope arrived who, for me, is a radicalization of Benedict. He says the same thing, but in a way that it gets across to everyone in a simple way through gestures, without in any sense reducing the density of what Benedict said. 

Francis is nothing other than a "radicalization" of Pope Benedict XVI. This is true. Everything done by Francis can be found in seed form in Benedict and even John Paul II. Pope Francis' agenda is what happens when we follow the trajectories set by JPII and Benedict to their logical conclusions.

* * * *

So, Pope Francis has said he wants the change he is creating to be irreversible. It remains to be seen whether Archbishop Ladaria will stand up to Francis' novelties in the same manner as Cardinal Müller. I have to believe that Francis would not have chosen him were this the case. And it should also not be forgotten that Ladaria is a Jesuit like Francis. I don't know what import that has, but I have to believe it's not irrelevant.

Some are saying that with the departure of Müller, the last bastion of faithful opposition to the Franciscan agenda within the hierarchy has fallen. The Müller CDF was very isolated within the Curia. The opposition of the four cardinals—which is already drawing opposition from other parts of the hierarchy—now seems even more marginalized. I would not be surprised if the remaining years of the Franciscan pontificate witness an even more alarming increase in the scope and speed of novelties being introduced.

One more thing—Francis has suggested in the past that he does not want to have a very long pontificate and that he is open to resigning after he has made his mark on the Church. I predict that he does not resign. Francis reigns in an autocratic style. He is in love with power and adulation. He has completed the task begun long ago by John Paul II of turning the papacy into a cult of personality with himself as the Leader. Given his personality and mode of leadership, there's just no way he will ever step down. No way. He's going to cling to the power he has amassed until death rips it from his fingers.

The Phantasm of Fiat Continuity

Back at the Second Vatican Council, the Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae made a very interesting statement. The opening paragraph of the declaration states that the document "leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ" - and immediately after stating that traditional Catholic doctrine remains "untouched", goes on over fifteen chapters to propose things that had never before been expressed in any official organ of Catholic teaching. Theologians have been muddled ever since trying to figure out how such a novel document can be reconciled with tradition - how such a document can leave Catholic doctrine "untouched" while seemingly overturning it in every paragraph.

Not everybody is bothered by this. Many people will simply take the Declaration's statement that traditional doctrine is "untouched" as establishing the fact, as if there mere statement of continuity is all that matters. 

One recent example is Pope Francis' off the cuff statements on intercommunion between Lutherans and Catholics. After seemingly suggesting that Lutherans could receive Communion in the Catholic Church if their conscience was clear about it, Cardinal Gerhard Müller stepped in to do damage control. But rather than explain how the pope's comments could be reconciled with Catholic doctrine, he merely declared that they were in line with Catholic doctrine and said other inferences were "misunderstandings" - all the while never addressing the pope's actual comments. Please see our article here for a more thorough review of this problem. 

But who cares? Müller declared continuity so continuity is established.

A more recent example is the hubbub over Amoris Laetitia. Full disclosure: I did not read Amoris Laetitia. Maybe I will someday. I have better things to do with my time, honestly. But I have taken a look at some of the questionable passages, including the controversial footnote 351. And I have read a lot of commentary on it. From what I can see, my raw opinions on the document's controversial passages are fairly in line with what Ed Peters wrote on his blog a month ago. Peters is certainly no traditionalist, but he points out real, substantial problems with the document in terms of some of its assumptions and inherent confusions. Other critics have made further assumptions about the implications of the document (that it allows wiggle room for communion for adulterers, that it implicitly adopts a moral theology of gradualism, that downgrades the obligations of Christian marriage to the level of an ideal, etc).

I am not asserting any of these things, especially as I have not read the document. But others have, such as Athanasius Schneider, who said the document was vulnerable to misinterpretation and needed clarification. 

Now, not every statement of the Magisterium needs a full apologetic for every sentence. But I would also add that they do need them occasionally, especially in eras of great confusion. If there is considerable confusion of how a document is in continuity with tradition, the Magisterium ought to explain how it is in continuity.

But the party line so often is to simply state the document is in continuity without bothering to give us the details - without explaining how. Following the precedent set by Dignitatis Humanae, it's like they think that merely asserting continuity establishes the fact. Sometime over the years they stopped identifying the elements of continuity and restricted themselves to merely proclaiming it. Never mind how. Never mind that educated theologians, canonists and bishops still can't understand in what sense the documents have continuity. Continuity has been declared, ergo it exists by Magisterial fiat.

Thus with Amoris Laetitia. Cardinal Müller comes out and states that Amoris Laetitia is in perfect continuity with tradition. He states that Francis did not mean to call the teaching of his predecessors into question. Fine. But what about those passages that do seem to contradict Familiaris Consortio and Sacramentum Caritatis, like, you know, footnote 351? The cardinal says footnore 351 is only making some very general observations and that's about all we should take away from it, “Without going into detail." Without going into detail? Detail is what we need at this point, sir.

He then simply restates the traditional teaching and says that Amoris Laetitia "does not touch on the former discipline.” His only other comment on the footnote is that if the pope thought it was so important, he wouldn't have included it as merely a footnote.

None of this actually parses what the pope said or explains how it is in continuity; after all, Müller wanted to discuss it "without going into detail." But who cares? Continuity has been declared. The fact is established.

Cardinal Raymond Burke is another example. His essay on the Amoris Laetitia states that "the task of pastors and other teachers of the faith is to present it within the context of the Church’s teaching and discipline." I agree wholeheartedly. But when we don't understand how to reconcile certain statements with the Church's teaching and discipline, you need to tell us how, sir. 

While he admirably addressed the false assertion that Christian marriage is merely an ideal, Burke likewise fails to offer us any way to reconcile the Pope's meanings with tradition. He states: 

"The Church’s official doctrine, in fact, provides the irreplaceable interpretative key to the post-synodal apostolic exhortation, so that it may truly serve the good of all the faithful, uniting them ever more closely to Christ, who alone is our salvation. There can be no opposition or contradiction between the Church’s doctrine and her pastoral practice."

Yes! There can be no opposition between doctrine and practice. Now please explain how the document does not create such an opposition. Merely stating there isn't one does not establish anything.

You can't create continuity just by saying it exists. You can't tell us the traditional teaching is untouched when the context of the words seems to suggest otherwise - and if we are wrong, then please explain how. Please explain how things are not in discontinuity. You cannot create continuity by fiat decree. You cannot substitute a phantasm for substance.

Mercy, Annulments & Matrimony

Some reflections on the current state of things vis-a-vis matrimony, annulments, and mercy.

1. There has been a lot of talk about making sure the annulment process is merciful and compassionate. When people use this sort of language, they demonstrate that they do not understand what the annulment process is all about. The annulment process is primarily investigative; its purpose is to determine whether or not a putative marriage bond is valid or not. It has to do with research and investigation into the historical facts in a particular case. "Mercy" and "compassion" by their nature have nothing to do with such an investigative process. To say such a process should be "merciful" or "compassionate" is like suggesting an archaeologist needs to be more merciful when he is trying to figure out if there are ancient skeletons buried beneath a parking lot, or that a coroner doing an autopsy needs to incorporate compassion into his findings. If we told the archaeologist or the coroner this, they would rightfully look askance and wonder in what sense mercy was even relevant to their investigation. Investigation is about simply uncovering facts, and just as mercy and compassion are irrelevant to the facts of a scientific investigation, so they are irrelevant to the annulment process.

2. The annulment process is a legal process. Legal procedures can be just or unjust, but they cannot be merciful or unmerciful. It could be argued - because of the above point about the nature of investigative enterprises - that mercy has no place in legal proceedings. Mercy does have some place in legal proceedings when it comes to the prudence of a judge or magistrate in handing down a particular sentence. We may implore a judge to be merciful; there is a saying, to "throw oneself on the mercy of the court." But (and this is an important distinction) one is appealing for mercy regarding a sentence, not a procedural process. It is the sentence which elicits pleas for mercy, not the process of uncovering facts. A judge may be moved to mercy in issuing a sentence, but no judge would take seriously a plea that searching to uncover the facts of a case was unmerciful. So appeals to mercy are directed towards a sentence, not a process.

Furthermore, we appeal to mercy from persons, not procedures. A procedure can be more or less just, granted; but we do not make judgments about whether a system of procedures is merciful. Mercy is a moral act and can only be granted by a person, never a procedure. The talk about our annulment procedures being made more "merciful" is absurd.

3. It could be argued, of course, that an annulment is exactly that - a sentence. After all, the Tribunal issues a sentence at the end of the annulment process, and upon that sentence depends whether or not a previously contracted marriage is declared null. But the sentence is merely a sentence of fact, not a punitive sentence. The sentence is a statement that such-and-such are the facts of the case. One cannot appeal to mercy in such a judgment; it would make as little sense as saying that the judge's finding of fact that John Doe was spotted at the nightclub on the evening of July 25th is unmerciful. Facts are not merciful or unmerciful. They're just facts. And the annulment decree is a sentence of fact finding, not a punitive sentence. A person can argue that a fact is irrelevant, or needs to be understood in context, or that it is being understood errantly, but he cannot argue that a fact is unmerciful.

4. Finally, it is fascinating to me that there seems to be an eclipse of the concept of the sanctity of the marriage bond itself. For example, despite the great moral shift in the West, if you took a survey, most Americans would still say adultery or "cheating" is wrong. However, if you were to reword the survey and say, "Is it acceptable to have extramarital sex if your partner agrees to it?" we would see widespread agreement. If adultery is wrong, how could it be acceptable because a partner agrees to it? In other words, while many in the West still think adultery is wrong, they no longer understand why it is wrong. For most, adultery is wrong because it violates the trust of a spouse. This explains why so many will say it is acceptable in an "open marriage" situation or when the spouse assents to it. It is only wrong when the spouse has not consented. The betrayal of the spouse's trust is the real evil. Thus, the issue becomes whether mutual consent is violated - the Lockean libertarian principle applied to matrimony.

On the contrary, Catholic Tradition has always held that an extramarital affair is always immoral - even if the spouse consents to it - because it is an offense against the marriage bond. Of course violating trust is a bad thing, but it is not the only thing. The Catholic Tradition recognizes the marriage bond as something that exists objectively; it can be violated and sinned against by certain acts, even if both parties consent to them. But our culture no longer has any concept of an objective marriage bond; marriage is nothing other than consent - with consent, anything becomes permissible; without consent - a continuing consent - the marriage ceases to exist. Whereas Tradition sees the marriage bond as arising out of  a one-time act of consent, for the moderns the bond is nothing other than the consent itself. Thus, they do not understand why anything that is consented to can possibly be objectionable.

5. Finally, even if we could disregard all of the above and suggest that "mercy" should be applied in annulment cases, we ought to note that if "mercy" contradicts objective fact - that is, if in the name of mercy a declaration of nullity is issued that is not warranted by the objective facts of a case - well, this is not mercy; it is simply lying, which is an injustice.


We need to recognize as Christians that not only will our teachings be increasingly rejected, but they will not even be understood. When society cannot even understand that an objective marriage bond exists, the difference between a procedure and a sentence, an investigation of fact vs. a judgment, then the time has probably come to return to the deserts and lonely places and beat our breasts in prayer until renewal comes or the comes and smites the earth in flame.

Synod II Wrap Up

The Synod on the Family is finally over.

Good. Lord.

Ugh...what a terrible month for the Church. I had to intentionally moderate my attention to this event because of how distressing it was. It will take some time to digest what really happened here and what it portents for the Church in the years to come, but here are some initial observations. I want to thank my friend Joseph for several of these insights.

(1) In all the discussion of the Pope and the Kasperites leading up to the Synod, I noticed a particular usage of the word "reality." There are many examples we could cite, but let us look at two statements from the relatio document of Circulus Anglicus C group at the Synod, moderated by Msgr, Eamon Martin, Archbishop of Armagh. For example:

"We were equally insistent that we address this issue as pastors, seeking to understand the reality of people's lives rather than issues in some more abstract sense."

Elsewhere, the same relatio makes this observation in regard to the Church's teaching on contraception:

"On the question of responsible parenthood, the discussion focused on the need for a pastoral approach which both promotes the teaching of Humanae Vitae and deals with the reality of people’s lives, providing ongoing formation of conscience which looks to a harmony between Church doctrine and personal decision."

We have only cited two passages from a single document, but examples of this concept of "reality" have been legion since the advance of the Kasperites began in February of 2014. According to this parlance, "reality" is something that is opposed to abstract doctrine. When we focus too exclusively on doctrine, we lose sight of "reality" and no longer comprehend the "reality" of people's lives. I do not deny that there can be an opposition between doctrine and charity, in the sense that a person can maintain the virtue of faith after the virtue of charity has been extinguished. But doctrine, strictly speaking, cannot be opposed to "reality." Doctrines (Latin: "teachings") correspond to reality. There is no way pure Christian doctrine can lead one away from reality. The beatific vision of God is an intellectual vision, the vivifying fulfillment of knowledge and all our other faculties. Our doctrine gives us our way of life which leads us to the ultimate reality. But the Kasperites hold that doctrine qua doctrine can actually be an obstacle to reality. Pope Francis has employed this false dichotomy, as well. When the annals of this sorry era are written, this should be noted as another aspect of the Kasperite heresy, along with their major thesis that one can receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin.

(2) Speaking of the Kasperites, this Synod was not a complete victory for those who wished a restatement of doctrine. Some doctrines were restated, but the key ones that are in the Kasper proposal regarding penance, the Eucharist, and the sinfulness of adultery were not restated. This is obviously why some secular outlets are trumpeting this as a conservative "victory."

(3) But if the Kasperite proposal was not affirmed, neither was it rejected. This despite several news articles published saying that it was. It also was not finally endorsed, and there was not language included asking the Pope to investigate the possibility. After a year of turmoil and divisiveness, it was like a big collective "nevermind." It was simply ignored in the final document. 

(4) Or mostly ignored. In fact, the language of accompaniment and the distinctions of culpability that were included in the final document were language that the Kasperites wanted to move forward their proposal. If pastors must "accompany" adulterers on their "journey" towards "an authentic conjugal project" (Final Relatio, #71), then this pastoral accompaniment makes it much more difficult to speak unambiguously about the fundamental sinfulness of adultery and cohabitation. If grades of culpability are introduced, it will obviously fall to pastors to determine which grade a particular couple falls into - and it is not too much of a stretch to imagine lax pastors basically absolving everybody from all culpability in a marriage that has "failed."

(5) Speaking of "failed marriages", let us remember that marriage is a sacrament. Sacraments do not fail. Are there "failed" baptisms, "failed" ordinations, "failed" confirmations? One is either baptized or one is not. One is either confirmed or one is not. One was either ordained or one wasn't. Similarly, one is either married or one isn't. You cannot have a valid, sacramental marriage which has "failed" in the sense that the problems of one marriage can render it null and permit a person or persons to be subjectively convinced that they are now free to remarry. Sacraments do  not fail. A marriage is a marriage. It is not an ideal that only the perfect arrive at. It is not "an authentic conjugal project." It is a sacrament - a sacrament which more or less grace may be available depending on the disposition of the spouses, but a sacrament nonetheless - and it is brought into being in its fullness and immediacy by the consent of the parties before the Church's minister. We must all be on guard against the subtle transformation of marriage from a fact to a mere ideal, and an excessive focus on its natural aspects versus its sacramental character.

(6) The Pope seemed disgusted with those who fought for doctrinal clarity and for practice to agree with doctrine. In his daily homilies, he continued to preach against the doctors of the law and those who would stifle mercy. In his final address, he spoke against "those who would 'indoctrinate' it in dead stones to be hurled at others... in order to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superiority and superficiality, difficult cases and wounded families" and insisted that some of the interventions were not well-intentioned.

(7) The Pope critiqued "a language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible". It is not clear what language he had in mind. Kasper had earlier critiqued the language of "perpetual adultery" as incomprehensible. This language, unfortunately, does not seem to have made it into the final document. I suspect that it is precisely clear language like this which is incomprehensible to the modern mind which the Pope had in mind with this critique. The real question is whether this clear, unambiguous language is actually incomprehensible to the pope himself.

(8) The Kasperite Thesis is based on the theory that two people can be sleeping with each other whenever they want to without any intention to stop and not be responsible for doing so. This is what is mean by invoking "limitations on culpability." The idea of the bishops who promote it is that people are oftentimes trapped in a situation where they do not wish to sleep with each other but find they have no choice--a kind of lack of consent. That's rather demeaning to the couple, isn't it? "Well, honey, we're not really married, and, as a Catholic in the State of Grace, I love God above all things, but I am slave to our circumstances, unable to make a free choice, and so I am going to sleep with you, not as a free agent engaging in a personal act, but as an animal coerced by the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in." Very romantic, huh? No. Actually, it's pretty much rape. It is the old liberal talking point that sin is inevitable. 

(9) The Pope may be moving towards permitting the question of absolution for those living in an adulterous second union to eventually be answered by episcopal conferences. He said: 

"[W]e have also seen that what seems normal for a bishop on one continent, is considered strange and almost scandalous for a bishop from another; what is considered a violation of a right in one society is an evident and inviolable rule in another; what for some is freedom of conscience is for others simply confusion" (Papal Homily, 10/24/15)

This may in part be a reference to the fact that the African Bishops (and others, such as the American Bishops, for the most part) rejected the Kasperite thesis vociferously. 

(10) The response of the pope to resistance to the "path of mercy" and "openness to the Newness of the Gospel" that he saw among "jealous older brothers" seems to be to "decentralize" the Church. He seems to be calling for a solution similar to the Anglican or Orthodox manner of doing things where practice can vary tremendously from place to place. How that will help Catholic unity is beyond me.

(11) Though Synod I was a conservative "victory" and though Synod II did  not incorporate the worst of the Kasperite heresy in its final document, we should not in any sense these Synods as successes. This 2014-2015 Synod on the Family was probably the most disastrous thing that has happened to the Church since Vatican II. It will take centuries for the damage to be undone - and the damage is already done, regardless of what the final document says, because it has given the impression that fundamental moral doctrines are up for debate. And either way, we should remember that in Synod I, the majority of bishops voted for the pro-homosexual passages; they were not included because the vote did not reach the requisite 2/3, but it did reach a simple majority. This should appall us. Similarly, the fact that one conservative commentator estimated that at Synod II not more than 35% of the episcopate would vote for the Kasper thesis should horrify us. for these numbers mean that between 1/3 and 1/2 of our global episcopate lacks the most basic understanding of Catholic moral theology. Our pastors.

(12) Once again, the heroes of the Synod were the Africans, although we should also note the heroic stance of the Polish Episcopal conference, who were inflamed by the memory of John Paul II and fidelity to Familiaris Consortio. God bless Bishop Stanisław Gądecki.

(13) However, while appealing to the memory of John Paul II and Familiaris Consortio may have helped save the day, traditionalist Catholics should not fall into the practice of opposing John Paul II or even Benedict XVI to Francis. Some Catholic blogs still like to paint Benedict as a traditionalist and compare the Benedictine "restoration" to Francis' lio. But who appointed these Kasperite bishops? Who put these heretics in office? Blaise Cupich was appointed by John Paul II. Kasper was made a bishop by John Paul as well, years after his heretical views were known. Maradiaga was also a John Paul II appointment. Nunzio Galatino, the Secretary of the Italian Episcopal Conference - you know, the one who told the Italian newspaper La Nazione that “My wish for the Italian Church is that it is able to listen without any taboo to the arguments in favour of married priests, the Eucharist for the divorced, and homosexuality" - he was an appointment of Benedict XVI. Reinhard "Kirchensteuer" Marx, the arch-heresiarch of Germany, was appointed by John Paul II and elevated to the cardinalate by Benedict XVI. This nonsense about affirming the good things in homosexual relationships was started by Benedict XVI himself. If you are appalled at the apostasy of these liberals, blame John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They appointed or elevated them. The entire global episcopate - at least at its senior levels - is the creation of John Paul II. I know John Paul II and Benedict XVI look pretty good now compared to Frankie Uno, but John Paul II and Benedict XVI were innovators, too. Taking refuge from the chaos of Francis in the example of John Paul II will get us nowhere.

(14) But more terrifying than any of the discussions about homosexuality or divorce and remarried was the pope's homily where he laid out his theology of the Church as an "inverted pyramid" and promised more decentralization, and assuring us that "new paths" the Lord will open up for the Church. This homily, more than anything else the pope has said, seems to indicate that he really has no clue. I mean none. It is like if your own local goofy, quirky, liberal parish priest became pope. I pray for Francis as often as I can, but it is increasingly evident that the man is utterly clueless about what is really wrong in the Church and how to best restore her. 

"Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye on the ways, and see and ask for the ancient paths which is the good way, and walk ye in it: and you shall find refreshment for your souls." - Jer. 6:16

Synod & Council: The Conservatives' Failed Strategy

I have not offered much thought or commentary on the 2015 Synod thus far; my reasons are fairly the same as those offered by Ryan Grant in his recent article "Why no synod coverage?" (Athanasius Contra Mundum, Oct. 7, 2015); at any rate, by now there is ample evidence to prove that Synod 2014 was rigged, and nobody should be surprised that the 2015 Synod will be pushed towards a predetermined outcome as well. Rorate just had an excellent piece suggesting that the Synod is turning into Vatican III. Radicals will always hijack these sorts of deliberatory bodies, taking advantage of procedure to relentlessly drive their progressive agenda.

Is anyone really surprised by this? Anyone who has been paying attention should not be. What is surprising is not that the liberals are trying to turn this into Vatican III, but that the conservatives are making the same fundamental errors they made at Vatican II.

Say what you want about the liberals, but they know how to set an agenda and ram it through. They position themselves to get the right press at the right time. They appeal to the emotions. If they want something done, they get their people in the right places, dominate committee discussions, relentlessly use the parliamentary processes to drive their agenda, and shut down opposition. They find pretexts to eject orthodox candidates from seminary. They orchestrate the firing of faithful Catholic journalists. In short, they fight.

I have been in government before, and I tell you, those who win are not necessarily those who have the best or "right" ideas, but those who know how to use the existing authority structure to facilitate the implementation of their ideas. They fight and they use the system and its structures to fight for them.

Conservatives do not fight, at least not in this manner. Sure, they think they do; we talk about fighting the good fight and all that, but by and large conservatives do not try to drive their agenda.

Conservatives tend to take the misguided position that merely speaking the truth is sufficient. That, in the face of the liberal onslaught, it is enough to calmly reaffirm the Church's constant teaching, perhaps in the naive confidence that the truth will always win out in the free marketplace of ideas. Are the liberals ramming through a heterodox praxis? Publish an article on the Church's real teaching. Are they dominating the procedures of a meeting to get their people on the right committees and drive their agenda? Give a talk. Just speak the truth. Hand out copies of a book.

The liberals recognize that the Synod - or, in another historical context, the Second Vatican Council - presents an opportunity to get something done. They understand it as an event, a moment in history at which a turn can be taken. By and large the conservatives didn't (and don't) take this approach. They viewed it more reductively in terms of the language used in some documents - as if the momentous importance of an Ecumenical Council or this horrid Synod could be reduced to some vocabulary!

This was the approach the conservatives took at Vatican II. God bless them for what they did do, but as Dr. Mattei has pointed out in his excellent book The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story, the conservatives fundamentally failed to understand what was happening at Vatican II (see here for our review of Dr. Mattei's book). By a narrow focus on what sorts of wording was creeping into the documents, the conservative fathers failed to understand that the Council was being used as an event from which to institute massive change in the Church in a manner that went far beyond the problems of the documents. Neo-Catholic apologists continue to make this error to this day whenever they choose to narrowly focus on the documents of Vatican II, as if the import of the Council was exhausted by the documents.

The same mistake is being made again with the Synod, although this time the conservatives are in a much weaker position. Why? Precisely because they have continued to make the same error for fifty years, a consequence of which is that liberalism has made such astonishing gains since Vatican II that a conservative reaction has much more against it than it did in the 1960's.

How could conservatives have conceivably "fought back" more than they did? It is interesting to read Pope St. Pius X's Pascendi with this in mind. Pascendi, of course, was the famous encyclical which exposed and condemned Modernism. But Pius X was not content to simply speak the truth; he put his convictions into practice by taking positive action against Modernism. Pascendi decrees that Modernists be deposed from teaching positions. If they are clerics, their bishops are to place them in the most obscure of offices where they can cause little trouble. Their books are to be censured. The Oath Against Modernism is instituted. Anti-Modernists are promoted while it is made known that no Modernist has any future possibility of promotion (if only that had remained true!). SO vigorous was his assault that the Modernists and progressives complained about his heavy hand.

In short, Pius X never thought merely stating the truth was sufficient; he needed to use the power at his disposal to see it pushed through.

What could conservative bishops do, or have done, that they have not?

• Vigorously punish heresy in their own dioceses. Keep strict watch on the activities of certain priests and suspend, dismiss or defrock those who clearly dissent from Church teaching.
  
• Preach the truth boldly, including explicit condemnations of particular groups or ideologies, even condemning heterodox teachers or priests by name when necessary. Go beyond the typical non-offensive, wishy-washy bishop-speak.
  
• Use the resources of a diocese to publish actual informative and instructional materials, not the sort of nonsense most dioceses put out.
  
• Actually issue liturgical directives to promote tradition. The contemporary Church documents offer considerable leeway in how liturgy can be done; the upside of this is that the bishop is given the final call on all of these options. A bishop could easily say, "No guitars and drums at any diocesan Mass", or mandate sacred chant, or compel every parish to offer at least a monthly Traditional Latin Mass. Novus Ordo Masses must at least incorporate Latin and be said ad orientem.
  
• Dismiss lay persons or members of subversive religious orders from their diocesan committees.
  
• Actually use the tool of excommunication against dissident theologians and dissenting Catholic politicians.
  
• Use resources of the diocese for meaningful ( I stress meaningful) social activism. Example: One priest told me there used to be a scummy motel near his parish that was frequented by prostitutes. He raised some money, bought the motel, and had it torn down. What if the millions raised by our diocesan appeals were used for such uses?
  
• Organize at the regional level and use their weight to push through appointments within the USCCB or elsewhere that were favorable to them while simultaneously using their influence to keep out liberal appointments.
  
• Host guest-speakers friendly to tradition and forbid those who are not.
  
• Forbid Catholic schools and hospitals from engaging in activities harmful to the Catholic faith and actually back up these directives with the appropriate force.
  
• Fire all Catholic school teachers who are in immoral relationships.
  
• Actually celebrate the Traditional Latin Mass and require all seminarians to know it and be comfortable with Latin.
  
• Publicly censure books and films hostile or dangerous to the Catholic faith.
  
• Mandate traditional arrangements in the architecture of sanctuaries and churches; stipulate that no parish has the right to undertake any renovations unless personally approved by him.
  
• Promote priests who cooperate with this agenda and punish those who don't.
  
• In short, never, never miss an opportunity to promote tradition and actively punish and repress liberalism. Speak the truth boldly but also use the weight of the office to silence, retard, dismiss or dispirit the liberal opposition.

The thing is, though, because of fifty years of not doing these sorts of things, there is much fewer truly conservative bishops than there were in 1963 - and the likelihood that any one of them will take up such an aggressive program of orthodoxy. And, if they did, there is a good chance they might not find themselves in their See for very long.

But this position of weakness only comes from being weak for too long. The point is that speaking the truth alone is not enough. One must have an agenda and one must drive it relentlessly. That is what the liberals have done successfully for over 200 years. It's what faithful Catholics used to do. Perhaps the modern Church lost the stomach for that sort of thing when John XXIII advocated using the "medicine of mercy" instead of the Church's traditional arsenal of weapons. Who knows. But the fact is, episcopal defenders of tradition had better be prepared to not only speak the truth but to use the powers of their apostolic office to actually enforce it.

Otherwise, they (and we) will be like a man on a sinking ship, sitting calmly on a deck chair proclaiming that the ship is sinking while doing little else to stop it. Certainly, as the ship disappears beneath the icy, black waters, we may have the consolation of saying, "See, I was right! I told you the ship was sinking"; but then again, if the ship goes under and the passengers all die, this consolation is quite empty indeed.

Spring Training for the Fall Classic

I don't know about you, but, frankly, I am simply sick of the Catholic news regarding SynodGate 2014/2015.

The Synod was given the title "Pastoral Challenges to the Family in the Context of Evangelization", and perhaps this is the beginning of the disaster. Were one to propose a thesis dissertation with such a title, the advisor would immediately tell the advisee to limit their focus. It would be not unlike calling a synod on the topic of "the Church", or "Sin" - great, but what are you going to talk about?

The subject seems pretty clear - it's about the Family. Now, if we stop here and ask a simple question, and that is "what does the Church understand a family to be?", then I think that, based upon the answer, this would narrow the focus of the Synod, at least a bit.

Okay, next, we see that there is a modifier - it is not just the family in general, we are presupposing a definition of "family" to some extent, and now we are going to see that there are Pastoral Challenges. So far so good - had they stopped here, I am sure that topics such as the universal call to holiness, or sacramental life in the Catholic family, or remaining a Catholic in modern times as a family, etc.

Instead, some genius decides, "oh, we need to be all about Evangelization, so let's make that the 'context' for talking about the family." Now, this is really the kicker because "evangelization" used to mean something. It used to mean going out to the un-churched; however, ever since Paul VI and JPII, there is a "new" evangelization and that means looking inward at ourselves and asking whether or not we are in fact the unchurched.

So, what do the Synod Fathers envision? Perhaps, building off of the word "evangelization", the Synod would have considered looking at renewal in the life of the Church as starting with the family (an excellent topic!), or looking at the un-churched's version of what a family is and trying to evangelize to it. I should say that the latter is also, potentially, an excellent topic, though it is much more limited as to what could be said by the Church about it, and so therefore perhaps not requiring a synod to discuss. (Indeed, calling for a synod on such a subject would seem to invite chaos)

Instead, what we got was some sort of confused version of both. The focus has been, on the one hand how to expand our understanding as a Church to encompass notions of family which are manifestly disordered and sinful, and on the other, how to go as far out of our way not use the word "sin" to describe the state which faithful Catholics have fallen into by adopting "the world's" notion of family.

What a farce this whole thing has become.

The problem, now, is this - the liberals were able to win the day by directing the initial conversations with their own distractions. Now, if the Synod takes up their silly ideas, they win. If the Synod spends  serious time on these fruitless discussions, then the liberals still win, because nothing true, good, or beautiful comes from the Synod in support of the Family.

Thus, I would propose a re-direction of the entire strategy regarding the Synod. All discussion of these more contentious subjects should be dealt with off-line - there is this little-known congregation called the CDF for dealing with heresy.

Instead, I think the conservative team should go in with a unified strategy on how to get the Synod back on track. This is a hard thing because the conservatives are not unified within themselves. It's easy for the liberals because they all want one thing: the destruction of the Church. The conservatives, however, are divided between those who on the one hand want the benefits of the world and so have a tendency toward compromising the perennial teachings of the Church, and those who on the other hand reject the world as being too easily under the manipulation of Satan, and so regard legitimately good things as suspicious. The liberals have abandoned the notion of truth entirely, and so there is room for everyone in their camp, so long as they don't hold on to a truth, absolutely. The conservatives, on the other hand, are utterly convinced that there is a truth, and, due to their disagreement about the relation of the world (and, perhaps disagreement on the difference between progress and development),  spend all of their efforts trying to convince everyone else that the SSPX are in schism (when they aren't), or that capitalism is of the devil (which it isn't).

Perhaps, then, let's look at some subjects we are (mostly) in agreement on, and begin by re-affirming their truth and goodness:

• The relation between marriage in nature and sacramental marriage, and the Public Discourse
• Procreation as the primary good of marriage
• Holiness as being attainable through the married state of life
• Vocations fostered in the context of the Catholic family life

Then, perhaps, let's look at the challenges and threats to this in the modern world. Perhaps even offer up some real, practical solutions for overcoming those challenges and combating those threats. We could look at such subjects as:

• That thing which is repugnantly called "sexual education"
• Contemplation in a world which despises the word.
• Maintaining the primacy of the married relationship in a culture that is focused on kids

There are some other things, such as the prevalence of mixed marriages, etc, but haven't these all been done before? Why open the can of worms on a subject the liberals will run away with?

So, conservative team. It's the spring time, and that means spring training. If we hope to make it to October and win the Big One, then we have to work on our fundamentals. Let's not get too creative with our plays, so leave the phenomenology in the locker room. While we're at it, let's stick with what's in our wheelhouse - leave the psychology and sociology to the secularists. We have a sound theology, rooted in a philosophical and theological anthropology, so let's tease that out a bit and see if we can come up with an application to the problems in the Church and the World today. If we can keep from getting caught out on errors, then we just might be able to learn from last year's mistakes and get the big W this Fall.

Children's Crusade and the Age of Mercy

Our Holy Father Pope Francis has declared the jubilee Year of Mercy, which will begin on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception this year and run through the Feast of Christ the King in 2016. I praise God for His mercy, which is one of His greatest attributes. "Mercy triumphs over judgment", the Epistle of James tells us (cf. Jas. 2:13), and the chorus of Psalm 136 contains the response "His mercy endures forever" twenty-five times, lest the devout reader ever doubt God's great mercy. God has shown me great mercy in my life, and I will always rejoice in His loving-kindness and long-suffering.

*   *   *   *   *

Still, we live in an age of grayness, an age of ambiguity, of ignorance and shadows - an hour of darkness where the power of evil moves most freely and audaciously (cf. Luke 22:53). Words are as fluid and ethereal as mist. One striking characteristic of our time is the degree to which words have been redefined away from their classical connotations; concepts such as the state, nature, grace, judgment, punishment, love have all been redefined in the image of post-Christian man. Since the announcement of the Synod of the Family early in 2014 and the ascent of the Kasper party, we have seen a similar attempt to redefine "mercy."

Aquinas defines mercy as the virtue by which one experiences grief for another's distress (STh II-II, Q. 30, Art. 3). The causes or "motives" of mercy are "corruptive or distressing evils, the contrary of which man desires naturally, wherefore the Philosopher says that "pity is sorrow for a visible evil, whether corruptive or distressing" (ibid., Art 1). 

Thomas is speaking here of natural evils, not moral evils, for St. Thomas says that evils are most worthy of pity when they are contrary to a deliberate choice. Since the very essence of a moral act is its voluntary nature, we more easily extend mercy to people to whom "something happens" rather than those who merely suffer the consequences of their deliberate choices (ibid).

He goes on to say that the greatest motive of mercy occurs when the evil occurs not only without deliberate choice but absolutely contrary to a person's will, such as when something bad happens to a man who only desires to do good. Quoting Aristotle, he notes that "we pity most the distress of one who suffers undeservedly" (ibid).

Then how can a sinner ever obtain mercy, since people sin voluntarily? St. Thomas notes that though sinners suffer deservedly, the punishments of their faults are not willed; a repentant sinner acknowledges their fault and the justice of punishment but simultaneously wishes to escape punishment, as the punishment due to sin is contrary to their will. In this sense we are able to feel pity for sinners: "It is essential to fault that it be voluntary; and in this respect it deserves punishment rather than mercy. Since, however, fault may be, in a way, a punishment, through having something connected with it that is against the sinner's will, it may, in this respect, call for mercy" (ibid).

The Thomistic doctrine of mercy, therefore, is that the motive or cause of mercy is evils experienced by another, especially when these evils are undeserved and contrary to the will of the one experiencing them. Therefore, it is an essential aspect of mercy that the one experiencing the evil not will the evil he is experiencing. It is this repugnance to the evil endured that becomes the bridge linking the suffering of the individual with the mercy of another.

This means, from Thomas' point of view, those persons who do not oppose the evil they endure cannot be the objects of mercy, properly speaking - much less those who don't even admit that they have committed any evil. A sinner who does not fear the punishment for his sin but rather abides in his sin and even demands it be praised and accommodated does not elicit mercy. The accommodation of people in this scenario is not an act of mercy, but rather an act of complicity in the sin of another. Or, to put it more plainly, only those who repent can be the recipients of the mercy; an unrepentant person is incapable of receiving mercy.

Repentance, of course, means not only admitting an action to be morally wrong, but taking active steps to remove oneself from the state of sin with the resolution to avoid committing that sin again in the future.

*   *   *   *   *

What aspects of mercy will be stressed in the upcoming Year of Mercy? No doubt this jubilee year is connected with the 2015 Synod on the Family, where the debate of the Kasperite doctrine of mercy will be front and center. The Holy Father is trying to push a coup de force in preparation for the synod by focusing the attention of the public on "mercy." The Year of Mercy will begin shortly after the close of the Synod; presumably there will be a post-synodal exhortation of some sort. The Year of Mercy is a propaganda tool to shape public opinion in such a way that bishops who dissent from the Kasperite heresy are under intense pressure to comply; they will be made to look "unmerciful." It is an attempt to create a false dichotomy between the "merciful" progressive and the Pharisaical conservative. This is the simple "politics" behind the Year of Mercy - to make the triumph of the Baldisseri-Forte-Kasper axis a fait accompli, which the smiling Holy Father will proclaim to be a movement of the Holy Spirit, with the accolades of the press.

In case you are inclined to disbelieve the connection I am positing between the "Year of Mercy" and communion for adulterers, only four days after announcing the Year of Mercy, Francis made the following comments in a homily:

"A man - a woman – who feels sick in the soul, sad, who made many mistakes in life, at a certain time feels that the waters are moving - the Holy Spirit is moving something - or they hear a word or ... 'Ah, I want to go!' ... And they gather up their courage and go. And how many times in Christian communities today will they find closed doors! 'But you cannot, no, you cannot [come in]. You have sinned and you cannot [come in]. If you want to come, come to Mass on Sunday, but that’s it – that’s all you can do.’ So, what the Holy Spirit creates in the hearts of people, those Christians with their ‘doctors of the law’ mentality, destroy. This pains me...It’s Jesus’ home and Jesus welcomes [all]. But not only does He welcome, He goes out to see people just as He went out to find this man. And if people are hurt, what does Jesus do? Scold them because they are hurt? No, He comes and He carries them on His shoulders. And this is called mercy. And when God rebukes his people - 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice!' – He’s talking about this " (source).

There is much one could say about this passage, but it suffices to note that the phrase "If you want to come, come to Mass on Sunday, but that's it - that's all you can do" clearly indicates that Pope Francis disapproves of the non-admission of adulterers to communion. It is not sufficiently welcoming; to disagree is to be a Pharisaical "doctor of the law." To admit them is "mercy." Make no mistake about it, the Year of Mercy is yoked to the Synod with the purpose of pushing through Kasper's designs.

*   *   *   *   *

The constant assignment of a particular theme to each year by the Holy Father is a modern phenomenon begun, I believe, under John Paul II. It has grown extremely tiresome. Does anything positive truly come out of these annual assignments? Are Catholics any more knowledgeable about St. Paul after the 2008-2009 "Year of St. Paul"? I seriously doubt it. Like World Youth Day, this "Year of" phenomenon seems to be more about feeling good than accomplishing anything enduring.

At the beginning of the crisis in the Ukraine, Pope Francis had two Ukrainian children release doves as a prayer for peace in the Ukraine. The doves were immediately set upon and killed by a crow and a seagull; the whole episode was caught on film (see pictures at the top of this post).

A similar phenomenon happens with these "Year of" designations. Whatever topic the Holy Father assigns for a year, the Church ends up suffering severe attacks and setbacks in that area. The Year of the Priest saw global assaults on the priesthood; the Year of Faith saw an unprecedented advance of militant atheism; and the Year of the Consecrated Life has witnessed, among other things, the destruction of the FFI.

If you think I exaggerate or am drawing connections where none exist, let us consider this a little deeper:

The Year of the Priest (2009-2010) saw the Archdiocese of Milwaukee go bankrupt due to its financial obligations to sex abuse victims. The Irish clerical abuse scandal broke in 2010, the depths of which were so horrid and despicable that it prompted an unprecedented personal letter from Pope Benedict XVI to the Catholics in Ireland. As the Year of the Priest wore on, further clerical abuse scandals broke in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Brazil, and many other countries. CNN ran a headline titled "Catholic Church Sex Abuse Scandal Goes Global." Only months after the Year of the Priest ended, 300 priests in Austria signed a document called the "Call to Disobedience", pledging resistance to Rome until ultra-liberal reforms of the clerical class were implemented, including women's ordination. The Year of the Priest thus closed with a mockery of the priesthood throughout the world.

The Year of Faith (2012-2013) witnessed an unprecedented attack on the very notion of faith as the proponents of the 'New Atheism' launched broadsides against revealed religion. Lawrence's Krauss's A Universe From Nothing made big headlines in 2012, but a whole slew of other atheist books made their appearance during the Year of Faith, including The Manual for Creating Atheists, Drunk With Blood, Hope After Faith, Atheism for Dummies, The Skeptics Annotated Bible, and Beyond Belief, all of which appeared during the Year of Faith. Meanwhile, the Year of Faith saw atheist Richard Dawkins humiliate Cardinal Pell on Australian television over the question of Original Sin while 2012 saw the first ever Global Atheist Convention. While atheists were trashing religion all over the world, the Vatican held a scientific exhibit in which the Chief Astronomer of the Vatican, Fr. Gabriel Jose Funes, declared triumphantly that evolution was perfectly compatible with Catholicism. Thus the Year of Faith saw the very notion of faith ravaged by unprecedented atheist propaganda and faith undermined within the Church by a continued enthronement of the principle of evolution within the Church (cf. "Solemn Enthronement of Evolution").

The Year of Consecrated Life (2014-2015), still ongoing at the time of this article, has seen perhaps the greatest undermining of consecrated life in modern times with the unwarranted persecution of the FFI, one of the most faithful exemplars of consecrated life in the Church. Simultaneously, the apostolic visitation to the women's religious orders in the United States ended with a feeble report gushing with praise for American nuns and lacking any disciplinary measures whatsoever. The Year of Consecrated Life saw a faithful order destroyed and the neo-pagan dissenting American nuns praised. In both instances, consecrated life was mocked, not upheld.

Just as the doves released by Pope Francis were destroyed before they could take flight, the themes proposed by Benedict XVI and Francis have similarly been the subject of distortion and destruction.

*   *   *   *   *

Therefore, we have good reason to suppose that the 2015-2016 "Year of Mercy" will result in an unprecedented attack on the Catholic concept of mercy, both from within the Church and without. The Church's traditional understanding of mercy will be ridiculed and distorted to be more palatable to the perversions of modern man, who desires to be told that he need not renounce his concubine in order to receive Holy Communion. We should mentally and spiritually prepare ourselves for a very fierce onslaught on the Church's praxis in the next year and a half, such that will make 2014 seem like a mere rehearsal.

Still, God is in control. God either wills all things positively or else permits all things for a greater good. We have documented how the Year of the Priest, Year of Faith and Year of Consecrated Life were all failures - setbacks for the very objects they were supposed to promote. Why is God allowing this? Why has God so orchestrated things that, in His Providence, the themes proposed by the popes are being thwarted?

I believe the answer lies in the Scriptures. Let us begin with the Book of Isaiah. The prophet begins in chapter 1 by recounting the sinfulness of Israel and the poor state of the Israelite kingdom:

"Woe to the sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a wicked seed, ungracious children: they have forsaken the Lord, they have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, they are gone away backwards. For what shall I strike you any more, you that increase transgression? the whole head is sick, and the whole heart is sad. From the sole of the foot unto the top of the head, there is no soundness therein: wounds and bruises and swelling sores: they are not bound up, nor dressed, nor fomented with oil.Your land is desolate, your cities are burnt with fire: your country strangers devour before your face, and it shall be desolate as when wasted by enemies" (Isa. 1:4-7).

Despite that Israel is "laden with iniquity", they continue to participate in the feasts and sacrifices without repenting and changing their ways. Because they refuse to acknowledge their corruption, their participation in the festivals, the new moons, and the sabbaths become especially displeasing to God, such that He even compares them to Sodom and Gomorrah:

Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom! Give ear to the teaching of our God, you people of Gomorrah!“What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of he-goats.“When you come to appear before me, who requires of you this trampling of my courts? Bring no more vain offerings; incense is an abomination to me. New moon and sabbath and the calling of assemblies—I cannot endure iniquity and solemn assembly. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates; they have become a burden to me, I am weary of bearing them. When you spread forth your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; defend the fatherless, plead for the widow (Isa. 1:10-17).

Because Israel has "forsaken the Lord" and "blasphemed the Holy One of Israel" and refuse to repent, God is so angry that He says He "hates" their festivals, that he "cannot endure" them because of their iniquity. Thus, though the people may pray and stretch out their hands - though they may call for Years of Faith, Years or the Priest, etc. - God says "I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen."

The prophet Amos gives a similar admonition. God says:

"I hate, I despise your feasts, and I take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Even though you offer me your burnt offerings and cereal offerings, I will not accept them, and the peace offerings of your fatted beasts I will not look upon. Take away from me the noise of your songs; to the melody of your harps I will not listen. But let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an everflowing stream" (Amos 5:21-24).

How can God bless the Year of Consecrated Life when the Church allows consecrated life to be mocked? How can He bless the Year of the Priest when corruption is not rooted out from the priesthood? How can He bless the Year of Faith when prelates and theologians continue to worship before the idol of evolution and reductive scientism? And how can He bless a Year of Mercy when most in the Church are only interested in promoting a worldly, false mercy? These endeavors will continue to fail until we recognize the depth of our sickness and return to God in spirit and truth.

Brethren, what shall we do?

God's word helps us identify the problem, but it also gives us grounds for hope:

"Thus saith the Lord to you: Fear ye not, and be not dismayed at this multitude: for the battle is not yours, but God's"  (2 Chronicles 20:15).

"And all this assembly shall know, that the Lord saves not with sword and spear: for the battle belongs to the Lord..." (1 Sam. 17:47).

May the Lord bless and keep our Holy Father, and may His will be done at the 2015 Synod on the Family. May sinners, in the great mercy of God, be brought to repentance, turn from their evil deeds, and embrace the fullness of the Gospel. May this repentance begin with myself and all who read these words. Amen and amen.

Contact: uscatholicam [at] gmail.com