Sunday, October 15, 2017

On Filial Submission to the Roman Pontiff

Contra: The Charge of Ultramontansim

Why is it that papal critics rashly jump to the accusation of ultramontanism if you defend the pope against their criticism?

How many times have I been told, "you know, the Pope is not infallible in _everything_ he says?" I'm like, "duh. Yes, I know that. Say hello to my little friend, Mr. Straw Man. You two seem to know each other already."

Saying that we should receive papal teaching, whether infallible or not, from a standpoint of filial submission is not, I believe, ultramontane. Saying that we should presume the most generous interpretation that is in accord with Tradition is not, I think, ultramontane.

Can you believe Pope Francis wrote this?? "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: 'He who heareth you, heareth me' ... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians [or random laity on the internet]."

Oh wait, he didn't. That was Pope Piux XII in Humani Generis, 20.

Baltimore Catechism
148. Did Christ intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone?

Christ did not intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire Church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone, but intended that this power should be passed down to his successor, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Church.

Code of Canon Law
Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it. (my emphasis)

One could go on. Our Tradition is firmly in the camp of preferring filial submission to the Pope. The fact that the Pope, when not speaking ex cathedra, _can_ be wrong does not change this basic posture or give one license to unrestrainedly level public criticisms and suggestions or outright claims of promoting heresy.

Our response, when the Pope teaches something that challenges our own understanding of faith and morals, should be to question our own understanding rather than the Holy Father's. It should be to generously try to interpret what the Holy Father is teaching within the context of Tradition.

It should not be to rattle off an anxious and accusatory article or blog post, start blabbing about our concerns and criticisms all over the internet, start demanding "clarification," creating "open letters" and collecting signatories, and so on. Posting "public theses" on the "door" of the internet is a distinctly Protestant act, not Catholic.

And so I think those who are inclined to do such need to be much more reticent: more reticent in their criticisms of the hierarchy--especially the pope; more reticent in how they choose to criticize (i.e., using proper ecclesiastical channels if there is real concern, rather than the internet), and more reticent in their completely unjustifiable accusations of ultramontanism when they are challenged for such behavior.

Sunday, September 17, 2017

Wherein Fr. Martin Does Actually Go Too Far

I usually find myself needing to explain/defend Fr. Martin from his many rash and ungenerous detractors. But there are times where I do think he crosses the line of letting his good intentions lead him astray. And I do firmly believe he has the best intentions, including a desire for the salvation of souls. I have little doubt that God has, does, and will use him to draw people to himself who might not otherwise be able to hear His calling.

But as all of us do, sometimes we make missteps, and for someone who lives as publicly as Fr. Martin, those may be more noticeable and noticed than your average person. I think Fr. Martin's recent interview with Brandon Ambrosino is one of those cases.

Brandon, a professional journalist, is a public gay Catholic (as in, he writes about it as a journalist) who is engaged to be married to another gay man. I say this to ward of the usual accusations that I am making his private bedroom business my own. No, he makes it our own by making himself a public figure with regards to this aspect of his life. So, fair game..

In discussing his public gayness with Fr. Martin, he relates how he wants to kiss his partner in Church during the kiss of peace but doesn't feel he can/should. Fr. Martin reacts, saying, "You have internalized rejection already. You don’t even need to be told that you’re rejected in the Church, you’ve internalized it and that’s very sad. A lot of the people that Jesus came into contact with did the same thing." Such a sense of rejection is sad, to be sure, but Fr. Martin goes on to say, "So I hope in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or soon to be your husband. Why not? What’s the terrible thing?"

I understand this is part of Fr. Martin's larger impetus (which he rehashes in the interview) to call out Christians for singling out this sin, and calling us to "build a bridge" to persons who identify as LGTBQ. But, instead of saying that the Church should equally call out these other sins that Father mentions, he seems to say that we should rather be as laissez faire about homosexual behavior as we are about other sins.

What's "terrible" in all of this is the sin itself. It's terrible not because anyone has a personal revulsion/fear of it but because sin, in principle and reality, damages one's relationship with God and others. What's terrible is the suggestion that the Church should turn a blind eye to sin. Fr. Martin is right that we have often unfairly singled out homosexual sin in the Church, especially in recent years since it's been a hot topic in our society, but he seems to have the wrong solution--to not only acknowledge that we are all sinful but also to further normalize that sinfulness, in a public way. To say, it seems, that "it's okay," that we ought not to care or feel a need to repent.

Brandon and Fr. Martin offer a few other examples, like ignoring a homeless person or abusing power. Should people who do that not be allowed to kiss in Church? This to me seems to miss a key distinction, which is that--by his own admission--part of Brandon's motivation is to normalize homosexual relationships in Church, in the context of the mass. Brandon openly argues that homosexual unions should be blessed and be considered to be sacramental and indicates that his kiss is not simply one of, say, Christian brotherly love, but is meant to be a public display of affection within the context of his sexual relationship with his partner.

There are two things wrong with that.

1) It misunderstands the whole purpose of the "kiss of peace." This is not an opportunity for us to share our personal affection towards our brothers and sisters in Christ. It is an opportunity for us to share Christ's peace with each other. The purpose is for us to share the love of Christ, his peace, and be reconciled to one another, which unites us all in Christian community. It's not at all necessary (or even relevant) that we have any sense of personal affection. In Brandon's defense, this is a common misconception about the Peace in the Church.

2) A kiss between two people that is meant to be a public display of affection of an immoral sexual relationship (such as two gay men in a sexual relationship, two lesbian women in a sexual relationship, an unmarried, cohabiting sexually active straight couple, a man and his mistress, and so on) is at least sinful in itself, and it is compounded by its being public and in the context of mass and in the context of the kiss of peace (which again is not supposed to be PDA but an expression of Christ's peace). All of that adds up to it being completely wrongheaded and (I don't use this term lightly or often) scandalous, not in some prudish sense but in the formal Christian meaning of the term.

A Christian who is trying to live a converted life to Christ should feel that such a display is inappropriate, and our response should not be "let's hope people are cool with it in 10 years." It is scandalous because the intent behind it is to convince others that such relationships are not sinful, which not only confirms the ones doing it in their sin but also contributes to the decay of the Christian community's moral sense in these matters--leading to a deadening of conscience and the likelihood that others, too, will fall into similar sins. That is the scandal.

This situation is decidedly different for those who have sinned in other ways that do not pertain to the expression of the kiss. So it is apples and oranges and incorrect to suggest that we are unfairly discriminating between those in immoral sexual relationships and those who, for instance, have stolen from the poor. Both are sinful, but in the one case, the kiss is a public expression of the sin, while in the other it is entirely unrelated.

And I am serious that this is not just about homosexual relationships--it applies to any immoral sexual relationship. We should feel the same lack of comfort with a straight couple who are living in an immoral sexual relationship. That feeling is appropriate to a properly formed Christian conscience.

Now, what we do with that feeling is important, too. We don't tackle them and pull them apart. We don't "tsk tsk" at them audibly or wait until they look in our direction and glare. We don't withhold the Peace from them. We don't otherwise make a scene. At a very minimum, we ought to say a prayer for them. Each situation is different, but I'd say it'd be potentially appropriate to counsel the couple privately about it, if you have an existing relationship with them that allows for that to happen in a way that they might actually listen. To be clear, I am not advocating for public shaming or anything like that; I am only saying that our reaction, as a community, should not be that "there's nothing wrong with it," which seems to be what Fr. Martin is hoping for.

Fr. Martin also hems and haws about not being a theologian and how that some other teachings--he names Humanae Vitae--have not been accepted, much like the purported majority of Catholics approve of gay marriage. He suggests--if I understood right--that for a teaching to be authentic Christian teaching, it must be accepted by the Christian faithful. I can only assume he is alluding to the sensus fidelium.

I have to be honest and say that this, more than anything I've seen from him, gives me pause, because it seems to suggest that he does actually believe that these teachings are wrong and that we should (and eventually will) change them. Up to now, my take has been that he's just overly focused on being tactful and welcoming, but this makes me question if that's the case...

I also am not any kind of official theologian, but my understanding is that this inverts the function of the sensus fidelium. It is primarily meant to be an expression, to quote the famous phrase by Vincent of Lerins, "that which has been believed everywhere always by all" [of the faithful]. So if we are to apply this here, it would be clear that the traditional belief of the Catholic faithful is that such things are immoral, not the other way around. Further, the idea that the laity can be right in opposition to the hierarchy is officially excluded as a valid interpretation.

The Catholic Church's teachings that are most notably at odds with current Western/American culture tend to be those having to do with sexuality and related issues (such as abortion). The fact that they are resisted and not accepted by all of us has no bearing on their veracity or standing as part of true Catholic doctrine. It is, rather, more of a reflection on our current cultural separation from our Christian roots.

It is not at all surprising that, especially, cradle Catholics--who have typically not been well-catechized and who are inescapably immersed in a culture that is on some points at odds with Catholic doctrine--should not be accepting of those points of doctrine, especially when there are equally influential aspects of our culture, such as self-determination/actualization, unfettered "freedom," democratic governance, and relativism, that incline us to believe that we, as individual persons, are the ultimate arbiter of truth as it applies to us. All of this is a kind of perfect storm to create a condition where large swaths of baptized Catholics reject teachings, often based on cultural and political affiliations, but also based on a lack of personal fortitude--some teaching are just hard. I should know!

So contrary to what Fr. Martin seems to be suggesting here, the laity do not--in contradiction to the hierarchy--determine what is true Catholic doctrine. On these points--artificial contraception and other various forms of sexual behavior--our collective inability to accept them is no indicator that they are wrong or false or subject to revision. It is simply that we are flawed human beings who face an immense challenge to overcome both our carnal passions as well as our cultural predispositions.

Believe me, I am sympathetic. Catholicism, indeed pretty much any form of traditional Christianity, is not an easy way of life. It requires sacrifice. It requires a life-long endeavor (and even after this life if need be) to conform ourselves to God. The way of the Cross is hard, but the grace of God is there to help us if only we will avail ourselves of it. And with it comes immeasurable peace and joy in this life and the next.

Tuesday, August 15, 2017

Polarization and the Golden Rule

I’m sure people who think Trump can do no right are gonna see this as after-the-fact justification. Maybe so. OTOH, I agree with the principle of waiting until you have good enough info to speak and act. Too bad he doesn’t apply that standard evenly as is amply evidenced on his Twitter feed.

As I recall, Trump made his “equivocal” statement before the news broke about the car homicide, and at the time, having watched some of the video feeds myself, it seemed that both sides were indeed acting out and inciting each other, which is pretty much par for the course for so-called “peaceful demonstrations” these days.

There have also been many violent and ugly protests (and riots) incited by folks on the left side of the political spectrum, many against Trump himself. This is not tu quoque. I am not excusing what happened. I am indicting both the left and the right for our ongoing extreme polarization and the violence that this leads to.

As I said on Saturday, have said before, and will probably say again, racism is a great evil and a great sin. There is no excuse for it. I am personally disgusted by the behavior and talk of white supremacists, and I abhor and denounce that ideology in all its various pernicious forms.

What I am addressing here is not the particular ideology of the particular latest demonstration-turned-riot. I am addressing the larger issue that we, as Americans, so very many of us, are increasingly becoming incapable of viewing each other as fellow human beings and fellow citizens with whom we may happen to hold significant disagreements.

Instead, we vilify, demonize, and shout down. We refuse to listen and refuse to discuss as rational beings. We imagine we know each others’ hearts, and we rarely question our own. This can only lead us to one end: hate and violence. And that, in itself, only breeds more of the same as recriminations escalate.

We see this in the workplace. We see this in the public square. We see this among friends, and yes even among family. This is a dark, dark path we are going down, far more deleterious than any saber rattling by governmental powers.

But it’s not too late to reverse it. Each one of us can make the effort, no matter how personally offensive someone’s ideas are, to remember that this is indeed another human being we are dealing with and to treat them like we would want to be treated.

There is no doubt that if we stand for anything, someone will take offense and objection to our positions, no matter how right we think we are, no matter how much we think we are ‘on the right side of history’. So it behooves us to engage in the Golden Rule, especially when we disagree and are inclined to see the Other as our enemy.

Those with political power (even in a democracy) will always be tempted to use it to unjustly oppress and suppress others. We have never been immune to this, even in a country founded on liberal ideals, and we are anything but immune to it today. We should not forget our own history, and we must ever be on guard against the temptation to use power—even in the service of arguably good ideals—to treat others as less than human. This includes the power of government and the power of the mob, in whatever form that takes.

We are all, witting or not, members of the government or the mob or both, that is, some society of individual persons who by banding together wield collective power, and so it is on each of us—individually—to resolve to use what power we have to respect the Other and to treat the Other as we would want to be treated.

And Christians, especially, are called to an even higher standard—to LOVE the Other, to seek the good of the Other, even when it doesn’t personally benefit us. We ought to be examplars of how to live at peace with each other, not ever backing down from confronting evil but also never conflating the evil with the person. “Love your enemies...” May God give us the grace to love perfectly.

Saturday, July 22, 2017

Tenders of Signs

When I first read of Bp. Paprocki's decree on those in homosexual unions, I thought it was unfortunate in terms of timing and narrow focus on this particular area of morals, because people are so sensitive about this right now in our society. Harping on it seems to set the wrong tone in calling people to repentance. As an approach, it seems to more lend towards hardening people's hearts and resistance to the Gospel than helping.

Others I know think the timing is exactly right because of the mass cultural delusion of acceptance of immoral sexual behavior (and I don't just mean homosexual behavior). They are of the mind that we must repeatedly and simply restate that such behavior is immoral because they believe that without doing this, people will remain and/or become more confused about sexual morals.

They seem to believe that the call to repentance, that is, evangelization, consists in simply telling people what is sinful. Or at least this seems to be the main feature of such an approach to sharing the Gospel. They often excoriate those, especially our pastors, who do not follow this approach, while lauding those who do. "Finally, someone is speaking the truth clearly!" they exclaim.

Bp. Paprocki is both well within his rights and duties as bishop to issue his decree. He is right that he is simply and objectively applying long-standing Church teaching to a new societal situation. Within the context of an internal memo to his priests, there would be little to criticize because it's not intended as an exposition of Catholic sexual ethics but merely clarifying his diocese's treatment of a new social situation.

He explains the timing of his decree has to do with the recent acceptance of civil homosexual marriage, and our society's shifting attitudes with regards to homosexual behavior (as being a morally acceptable alternative to heterosexual sex within marriage). That is understandable.

Of course it would be naive to think that such a decree would not become public when concerning such a controversial matter, and I am sure the bishop is not that naive. I imagine he is of the persuasion I outline above, that is that more or less simply restating Catholic doctrine as applied to this new situation is our most appropriate response to the new situation. His video here seems to support this inference.

For my part, I am inclined to think that it takes all types. Some people are at the place in their journey that benefits from simple statement of truth, kind of like a shock to the system, a jostling out of one's comfort zone. Others more likely need a gentler approach. They need time and more indirect means of warming to the necessity of turning away from this or that sin that is dear to them. They need a kind hand on the shoulder, an assurance they can do it.

I think that God works through all kinds of different approaches in drawing people to himself, and the Holy Spirit can use even our human blunders to reach people's hearts.
For my part, however, I tend to think at the social, public level, it's time to err on the side of gentility. It's too easy for people to harden their hearts and simply tune out of the truth. On this matter, especially, our zeitgeist sends a reinforcing message that this tuning out is exactly the right response. "These people are just homophobic bigots," it whispers. "They're just hateful. You don't need to listen."

And so they will become or remain lost--precisely because we have reinforced this notion, that being a faithful Christian means you have to be a bigot. Who would be attracted to that? Who would want to leave behind something that they feel brings them some amount of happiness in order to become like that? No one. That's who.

Jesus almost always erred on the side of gentleness and compassion with sinners. He saved the majority of his anger and direct confrontation for the religious leaders of his day, particularly those who were very good at articulating every detail of the Law, following it to the letter, and all-too-ready to condemn those who didn't. He wasn't ever unclear about the need to repent, but his approach tended to be more indirect and aspirational--stirring desire towards God rather than scaring people away from sin. That's the approach I would rather try to emulate.

It's just not enough to simply tell people what sin is and that they are sinning. That's not even the message of the Gospel. The Gospel is the grace of God acting in our lives, ever renewing us and strengthening us. The Gospel is that God's mercy is greater than our many sins--sexual or otherwise--and that no matter how many times we screw up and fall back into them, God is always there, ready and waiting to pull us up out of the ditch, tend to our wounds, and strengthen us to continue our journey towards eternal life with Him.

Yes, we need signs telling us which road to follow, we need warnings about the dangers and drop offs, but those are just means to our One, True End. I think we need to be less worried about sign maintenance and more worried about being the helping hand that God uses to pull people out of ditches and being the person God sends to accompany them on the way. Having someone who knows the way travel with you is immeasurably more valuable, appreciated, and effective than any number of signs.