Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Return to Amoris Laetitia:The Vain Attempt to Accommodate Christianity to the Modern World and Its Distorted Values**.
At the presentation of Amoris Laetitia (AL)*, Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn famously said: “For me Amoris Laetitia is, first and foremost, a “linguistic event”, as was Evangelii gaudium. Something has changed in ecclesial discourse.” (emphasis mine)
A linguistic event? Boy howdy. Progressives love to manipulate (or is butcher the right word?) language for their cause:
- support for abortion becomes known as being “pro-choice”
- supporting banning guns and ammunition becomes known as “sensible gun control”
- supporting increased taxation becomes known as “investing”
- tolerance becomes known as “acceptance”
- you get the idea
It is becoming so in the Church as well.
- adulterous relationships become known as “irregular unions”
- orthodox Catholics become known as “rigid and Pharisaical”
- not holding to doctrine and Tradition becomes known as “pastoral care and personal discernment”
- emphasis on mercy and attention to concrete situations becomes known as “if you follow your conscience you can do whatever you like”
- a Church without orthodox leadership based on Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium becomes
Protestant“an inclusive and decentralized Church”
These are the fruits of AL. And they are rotten.
Dioceses around the world are split on what was once settled practice following from the constant teaching of the Church: those not in a state of grace (i.e., in a state of mortal sin) are not to present themselves for Communion. But that has cratered under AL. The dioceses of Rome, Malta, and some in Argentina and Germany have now broken from what the universal Church holds to be the Truth. Doctrinal anarchy is resulting from this mess.
Building on Pope Francis’s celebrated maxim that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak,” Cardinal archbishop Joseph Tobin of Newark, NJ held a “pilgrimage” for so-called LGBT Catholics at his Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart and had no qualms about his priests offering Holy Communion to those living outside of the Church’s call to chastity. When asked whether he might talk about sin during this pilgrimage he said that “That sounds a little backhanded to me.”
Not to be outdone, Jesuit Fr. James Martin, who has become a progressive media darling and a vocal advocate for LGBT Catholics said that “Pretty much everyone’s lifestyle is sinful.” Umm, no. Phil Lawler sets him straight:
That statement is outrageous. In a sane world, Father Martin’s Jesuit superiors would order him to apologize. We are all sinners; we are all sinful. But we are not all engaged in sinful ways of life.
Not to be outdone by his brother Jesuit, Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, (the man known as the Black Pope as the head of the Jesuit order) has said that all Church doctrine must be open to discernment, even the words of Christ; and that the devil is just a social construct to help us understand evil.
But of course, these men have learned from Pope Francis who famously plays fast and loose with words. For instance:
No one can be condemned for ever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel! AL297.
And now, there are rumors circulating for a “reinterpretation” of Humanae Vitae. Buckle up.
As with all of the “linguistic events” of this papacy, the AL secret decoder ring will be required. We will certainly hear that “the object is not to change the doctrine” because, as with communion for the adulterous, “we don’t need to change the doctrine when we can do an end-run around it.”
The jargon and gibberish of these linguistic events of the Pope Francis era certainly do seem to be a vain attempt to accommodate Christianity to the modern world and its distorted values. And they remind me of something I recently read (modified to fit this essay):
There is a lesson (here). Perhaps the dumbest man in the room is not the man who cannot understand gibberish, but the man who cannot see gibberish for what it is. And perhaps the most dangerous people (in the Church) are those who understand this human weakness and take full, cynical advantage of it. Our (spiritual) problems have deep educational roots. Until the matters of jargon and gibberish are addressed, I suspect that things are unlikely to improve.
*Amoris laetitia (The Joy of Love, also known as AL) is the post-synodal apostolic exhortation written by Pope Francis. Dated 19 March 2016, it was released on 8 April 2016. It followed the Synods on the Family held in 2014 and 2015. One can go to my blog to find critique of this document (here, here, here, here, and here)
**I stole the second part of the title from Peter Kwasniewski, at NLM. He writes on liturgy.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
No, it wasn’t over that. He was a convert to Catholicism after marrying my Mother and I believe there was some manner of unpleasantness. But this is merely an example of the fact that the Church finds ways to alienate even earnest seekers like my Father.
I’m friends with a Catholic whose parents are in this situation. The parents, who both consider themselves “still really Catholic” at heart, found a Lutheran church they could stand going to, where they’re eligible for communion (I think it’s ELCA Lutheran – at any rate, not a Lutheran church that still rails against the evils of Catholicism). They raised their children in that church, since that’s the church they themselves attended, but encouraged their kids to attend Catholic outreach and rejoin the Catholic church. I know receiving the Eucharist outside the Catholic church, much less in the state of sin of being divorced, then remarried with children, is apparently considered even more wicked than just not receiving any kind of communion at all for Catholics, but it seems to me that under the circumstances, the family as a whole has done the best it could.
If you could find a Lutheran or Episcopal church whose politics you could stand (not necessarily whose politics you agree with, but that you could stand, given the other benefits you received from going), would your family consider attending?
I think some conservatives worry that going to a mainline protestant church might be even worse than not going to church at all. In my experience, though, it isn’t, especially churches devoted to continuing traditional church music (the sung word then provides the instruction the spoken word lacks).
I read that this morning … great minds think alike, I guess … or visit the same websites.
I enjoyed the part where Carron said that the “disease” is a world that has basically lost its motivation to get up in the morning.
I emphatically agree. My own take is that too many people interpret “freedom” as individual choice in a world where the consumer (i.e., each individual) is always right. How could any church function when man – and not God – is the measure of all things? The church’s ace in the hole is that such a concept of freedom will never bring meaning, just an endless repetition of arbitrary choices. Only a church that lives out its sense of meaning can attract the people who find no meaning in their own lives.
Again, I don’t know the details, but the church is still very much dependent on human beings to carry out its mission. And we all know how efficient that could be. I know many a priest who should be imprisoned for pastoral malpractice.
I think that’s why I became such a Francis supporter. Yeah, I’m biased because we were both Jesuits, but my enthusiasm for him comes from when I saw him urging clerics to get off their dead ass and go out and meet the flock. Being a priest shouldn’t be like being a moral critic, judging people from high above in the balcony. (That, and reforming the money and corruption.) Instead, when you observe sin, what do you do? Do you label it and point it out, or do you go the extra step and actually reach out to the sinner? How do you get those people back in flock?
Sorry – I get enthusiastic over this stuff.
The ELCA and Catholic Church reconciled their schism, with the Church of Rome conceding many of the Theological issues Luther raised.
No. In our specific case there are larger ideological issues that my Wife and I have involving the fundamental credibility of religion in general. I was merely talking about a large class of people in a demographic category similar to my own who are essentially beyond the reach of the Church. Perhaps this is what they want.
I was confirmed in the ELCA but that was a mistake I would undo if I could. Honesty is important at a fundamental level, and being coerced into doing something you object to by your parents is no good reason for doing anything.
I’m late to this thread so just now reading, but first off Nazi anything had nothing to do with Christianity ever- and I keep wondering why our friend Majestyk who is an outspoken atheist, is always drawn to church posts? Just asking, because the discussion diverts into finger pointing, rather than discussing the post topic?
Yes, they joined an ELCA branch and I was raised in it.
I would disagree. Surely, the larger Nazi aim was ultimately to displace Christianity with Aryan Blood Myths and other Pagan Gibberish, but the Concordat that the Church reached with the Nazis was a strategic stroke for the Nazis which lent credibility to their project from its earliest days in power. It remains in force to this day.
When you say “outspoken” I read merely “spoken” because there only ever seems to be a single voice, and I pick the spots where I choose to speak out. I could just shut up entirely, but what good would that do?
We could always discuss why Trump is incompetent, but that never gets any comments either. ;)
This is a good point. Those present when he was chosen Pope behind closed doors said that there were supernatural occurrences during the conclave that led them to that decision. But he is still just a man, and a very big target for the devil. In fact, the New Testament describes these days, the time of testing when men’s hearts would grow cold and good would be perceived as evil and visa versa.
I want to address the anti-Semitism issue.
I agree with Maj that there is a long and tragic history of anti-Semitism in Christianity in general, and in the Catholic Church in particular.
There are understandable historic reasons for this. The Jewish leadership persecuted Christ, were instrumental in His death, and then persecuted the early Christians. Christ said some extraordinary harsh things to the Jewish leadership. It was easy for Christians to read these parts of the Gospels, throughout the centuries, as a basis for hatred against the Jews.
I find this tragic. It loses sight of the fact that, for example, Christ Himself was a Jew. So were Peter, and Paul, and John, and all of the other Apostles. Other than Luke, Acts, and possibly (but probably not) Hebrews, the entire New Testament was written by Jews.
But anti-Semitism is not specifically Christian or Catholic. Anti-Semitism is (or was) common among Muslims, pagan Nazis, and modern Leftists. It seems to be universal, at least everywhere where there were enough Jews around to create an issue, with three exceptions.
The exceptions are modern American Evangelical Christians, neoconservatives, and libertarians (like Maj).
I don’t know enough about current American Catholic attitudes to determine whether there is significant lingering anti-Semitism. I certainly think that there is not among American Catholics here at Ricochet, but I don’t know if they are representative.
Maj, I wish that you were “persuadable” by Evangelicals. It is unfortunate that Osteen and Warren seem to have turned you off to American Evangelicalism.
I’ve regularly attended three baptist churches in Tucson since my conversion in 2004, and I think that you would find all three of them to be extremely welcoming to you and your family. I don’t know whether the same would be true in Louisiana.
I’m not sure why you found Warren to be bizarre, but I haven’t followed him much. I did go to his church once, on a business trip to SoCal, for a very uplifting Holy Week service.
There was also a historical Roman basis for anti-Semitism – the Romans themselves were particularly hard on Jews after the diaspora. Unlike other peoples the Romans conquered, the Jews had not only beaten but driven out. As a homeless people with a religion at odds with paganism and hostile to Caesarism, the Jews were easily and particularly singled out, and that animosity predated (and likely influenced) early Christian anti-Semitism. It is an old problem.
http://babylonbee.com/news/joel-osteens-bible-makes-daring-escape-abusive-owner/
http://babylonbee.com/news/the-power-of-positive-declarations-osteen-takes-flight/
http://babylonbee.com/news/joel-osteen-ordered-acquire-butchers-license-due-exegetical-methods/
I’m coming to the party a bit late but let me start with the Concordat reached with the Nazi government of Germany. The Church was well aware of the fact that the German government was going to violate the agreement before the ink was dry, and they did. It was entered into to give the Church the means to try and protect Catholic’s and Catholic properties and a means to at least have Church grievances heard. No more and no less. How the Nazi’s perceived the agreement was beyond the control of the Church.
The major resistance movements in Germany were inspired by German Catholics, for example the White Rose movement, and this includes the most famous assassination attempt, Claus von Stauffenberg’s attempt to kill Hitler with a bomb. The resistance movement was centered in Catholic Bavaria. Nazi Party officials who claimed to be Catholic were not allowed a Catholic funeral Mass if they were to be buried in their uniforms, nor were party officials allowed to attend Mass in Nazi uniforms.
The Vatican although aware of numerous plots to kill Hitler did not plan those attempts on Hitler’s life, nor did they forbid them. Dietrich Boenhoffer a Lutheran theologian had moral reservations about assassinating Hitler, but he changed his mind after Catholic priests explained the Catholic Just War Doctrine to him.
Most of the garbage concerning Catholic cooperation with the Nazi’s comes from disaffected Catholics, Protestant anti-Catholic bigots, and Soviet misinformation.
The truth of the matter is that the Church , according to some Jewish historians saved about 840,000 Jews. Far more than all the Allied Power’s combined saved.
I found the article interesting but puzzling when it was stated:
What is he talking about? Is his epochal change and depths of the crisis the same this post is about?
And I don’t buy his argument that speaking of truth is simply telling people what to do:
Concern for humanity must point to the truth, eternity, and salvation. This is what is missing from this article. It is all about life in this world.
I don’t know. Have you contacted a diocesan marriage tribunal to help you know if you were validly married the first time in the eyes of the Church? (And no, a decree of nullity is not a “Catholic divorce” – we’ve been through that before).
I have written on the gutlessness of the bishops before. You will get no argument from me that this is a scandal.
The Church first and foremost wants to know if what you have is a marriage. This is not Pharisaical, it is a search for truth.
It is better to use the descriptor “orthodox” rather than “conservative”. Christ has assured us that the Church will not fail.
Ultimately, this is about salvation. Does one disregard objective truth to seek pleasure in this life, or is ones eternal destiny more important. Jesus Christ, who came that we might have life more abundantly, offers us both.
Yet you feel confident to state that the Catholic Church is historically anti-Semitic. The Church has never had any anti-Semitic dogmas. Please take your arguments elsewhere – this post is dealing with other issues. Write your own post.
I would encourage you to spend more time with the Libertarian Party and listening in specific to discussion of neo-conservatives before coming out too strongly in favor of the belief that libertarianism is a bulwark against anti-semitism. There are, of course, many libertarians who are not anti-semitic, but this is true of people of all political (and theological) stripes.
The Romans felt that the Jews had betrayed them because they had exempted the Jews from military service, the only people that had been conquered by Rome that had been given that exemption. Therefore the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD during the last revolt of the Zealots against Roman rule.
There is no doubt that there have been anti-Semitic Catholic clerics, but it was not sanctioned in the Papal States in Italy. When Jews were persecuted in parts of Europe many fled to the Papal States. The Church did not have complete control over the behavior of some monarchs, or princes. Most of the persecution came from secular sources.
Luther was very anti-Semitic, and became more so after he established his authority after the Reformation.
God does not break his promises, and Christians should understand that although we believe Christ is the Messiah, and the fulfillment of Old Testament Judaism that does not mean God loves the Jewish people any less, and his promises to the Jewish people have not been broken.
My apologies. I may have been unclear, and I didn’t mean to give offense.
My comment was that “there is a long and tragic history of anti-Semitism in Christianity in general, and in the Catholic Church in particular.” With respect to the Catholic Church, I was referring to persecutions in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, when the population was almost universally Catholic, at least nominally.
As far as I know, you are correct that the Catholic Church never had any anti-Semitic dogmas, but I think that it is also true that many Catholics, including some clergy, participated in anti-Semitic activities (and even atrocities) in the Middle Ages. As I understand it, there were slaughters of Jews during the First Crusade. There were mass burnings of Jews during the Black Death. (To their credit, bishops and popes sought to suppress such anti-Semitic violence, both in the Crusades and the Black Death.) There were expulsions from Catholic countries, ordered by Catholic monarchs. There were significant disabilities placed on Jews at the Fourth Lateran Council (Pope Innocent III, 1213), which was an official action of the Church (among other things, it required Jews to wear special clothing and barred Jews from holding public office).
There are sinners in the Church???! Who knew?
I don’t want to give the impression that I’m picking on Catholics on the anti-Semitism issue. My impression is that, until the last 70 years or so, almost everybody was anti-Semitic. Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, and Muslims. Nazis and Communists. (I know, there were a number of Jewish leaders in the Communist movement, but I think that they were generally unbelievers of Jewish birth, not believing Jews.)
I have little or no first-hand experience with non-Americans, but my impression is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims and Europeans are anti-Semitic, as are American Leftists. Andrew Klavan’s memoir reports this with respect to the English.
The Catholic Church has many doctrines and expectations. Can the Church do any more than the Holy Spirit, other than knocking at the doors of hearts, suggesting, guiding its members, and the surrounding community, to do what is right?
Fair enough, thank you.
I mentioned in comment #26 that the Church had, has, and will have anti-Semites (as well as every other top of sinner) but we need to distinguish between what the Church teaches and how her members act. Not always a pretty sight.
I mentioned them merely as highly visible examples of retail evangelicals. My issue isn’t with them per se, although Osteen is a particularly egregious offender. The issue is more elemental than that.
My wife and I are engineers. We’re skeptical. We don’t find the supernatural claims of Christianity or any other religion to be credible.
My quarrel is not with people writ large. I mean, there are some obnoxious or sinister characters in every organization, but most people are kind and welcoming. That is generally not the issue.
The issue is that I cannot in good conscience profess faith that I don’t possess. That is lying, and would be unethical.
I find the sort who are mega-church pastors to be excellent entrepreneurs. In Warren’s particular case his family situation is… Sad… Given his Son’s suicide.
I myself really appreciate and felt as if my life was changed for the better by Dave Ramsey, but I have no truck with his theological claims.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 596-597.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 598.
Yes they cite the Second Vatican Council. They also cite the Roman Catechism of 1566. The last line is from St. Francis of Assisi (died 1226).
I agree. A relationship with Christ is better than no religion at all.
I am incredibly sympathetic to you on this Majestyc. A remarried Catholic winds up being a sinner that cannot be absolved of the sin without great turmoil to the family he/she now has, even if he regrets the path he took. It is a near impossible situation. I would urge going through the annulment process. Some consider it hokey and just a form of Catholic divorce, but it does make sense. I would say 90% of Catholic married couples go into their marriage without understanding the Catholic nature of marriage. That is usually enough to justify an annulment.
But you also have to understand why the Catholic refusal to accept divorce. Yes, it’s in the Catechism but it’s there because Christ spoke directly against divorce:
I’ve never understood how Protestants, who take almost everything literally in the Bible, completely ignore that.