The Five Non-Negotiables Concept Is Not Catholic Doctrine

 

For at least the last two election cycles, maybe more, a concept has popped up that has gained popularity amongst those of a conservative Catholic political bent. They call these the "five non-negotiables" (5NN). Several priests who are popular amongst some Catholics have promoted them, along with some similarly popular lay Web sites/orgs. That is the context for this post, and particularly because today two good friends of mine shared a priest's homily that leverages them. 

Where I Am Coming From

Let me start by making clear my own commitments, because too often people assume all sorts of things and are quick to be dismissive of those with whom they disagree. They want to label them, put them in a box, and tuck them neatly on a high shelf in their figurative closets, or they want to toss the box out in the trash. 

I am a Catholic convert from Protestantism. I came to the Church through a deep study of Christian history and, correspondingly, Christian thought from the Apostles on down to the present. I by no means claim to be an expert on all of Christian thought. That would be, quite frankly, impossible for any one human in this life. But I have studied a lot, and it was my study and ever growing love of the fullness of truth as expressed in Catholic doctrine that led me to the Church. (That and the Holy Spirit, I like to think!)

My study has not stopped. I joined the Dominican Order in 2007 as a lay Dominican and made life promises on 6 August 2011. Study is one of the four pillars of Dominican spirituality, and "veritas" (truth) is one of our mottos. (Hey, after 800 years, you pick up a few..) None of that gives me special authority or gives me any guarantee to be free from error, but I hope it at least illustrates my commitment to the Truth, not just intellectually but also spiritually. I live by a daily rule that includes the Divine Office and the rosary, among other things such as daily reading of Scripture and study that pertains to our Dominican vocation oriented towards the salvation of souls.

I was married in 1999, and as of writing, I have seven lovely children, ranging in age of two to nineteen. My wife and I (my wife mostly!) have almost exclusively homeschooled our children and made every effort to raise them in the Catholic faith. We also, for what it is worth, have attended an FSSP parish for a year when we lived in Tulsa, and (later) a parish in NJ with a flourishing Latin mass community for some years that we were an active part of. I personally have great fondness for the Extraordinary Form, particularly high solemn masses. 

Politically, I am an independent, although I have pretty consistently voted for GOP candidates, and that was informed not a little bit by my concern over abortion. My bias, such as it is, is center leaning right, if I had to put a label on it like that. It really depends on the issue in question though, because my actual political party affiliation is none. If anything, it would be closest to the American Solidarity Party because they, like I, at least try to take an orthodox Catholic stance on all the issues. In matters of society and politics, I try to follow the whole social doctrine of the Church, and I have read many encyclicals pertaining to this, the bishops' guides to faithful citizenship, and (perhaps most importantly) the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, cover to cover. I have the highlights to prove it.  😇

I hope this illustrates I am anything but the stereotypical "flaming liberal." And I hope it at least earns a thoughtful reading, in a cultural environment in which we are far too quick to dismiss anyone who even has the slightest disagreements with us. I am ever committed to seeking the Truth, and living in accord with it as best I am able. 

What is Wrong with the 5NN - #1 Political Motivation

And so, that gets us to the point at hand. While I do appreciate the intent behind the 5NN, I find it to be too much of a reduction of the full, beautiful teaching of the Church. More than that, I fear that its popularity has been, unconsciously I am willing to grant, driven more by political commitments than by an honest appreciation and presentation of the social doctrine of the Church. That every person who promotes it uses it either to directly criticize the Democratic Party and/or to directly promote voting for the GOP appears, to me, evidence of that. 

And I fear that far too many Americans who are members of both major parties are too uncritical of the problems with their own party platforms/candidates, while being overly critical of the other. This feeds nicely into our baser tribal instincts and also the very tempting but ultimately false binary thinking that is so prevalent. "If you are not for [my party], you must be for the [other party]." "A vote for a third party is a vote for the [other party]." These and many others like them are asserted against those of us who will not comply and fully throw our weight behind either major party. It is a cross we bear. (shrug)

But I do not want to get too focused on politics as such. My focus here is in no way to say we should or should not vote for this or that party. I believe everyone reading this is adult enough to form their own judgment on whom to vote for. It is not, I assure you, that I do not have significant criticisms of the major parties, and it is not, even, that I think they are both equally problematic. I simply do not see the good in adding to the "you should vote for my party" noise. 

And to be honest, this is a big reason I am not a fan of the 5NN. It is not because they are not part--even a "pre-eminent" part--of Catholic social teaching. It is that they are hijacked to uncritically support the GOP.

You may scoff at my suggestion that there is a lack of criticism, but in the circles that promote the 5NN, I have yet to see a single criticism of the GOP (or, rarely if at all, Trump). A good example of this is the video I mentioned of a homily from a certain FSSP priest in Maryland. In it, while disclaiming that he was telling anyone whom to vote for, he spoke at length about the many problems of Biden/Harris with nary a criticism of Trump or the GOP. And this is, as I say, par for the course. This good priest is, naturally, relying on the aforesaid binary mentality in our country that, if I clearly cannot choose Biden/Harris, my only choice is to vote Trump/Pence.

If you make this observation (as I have) to a Trump supporter/GOP party member, that person will inevitably fall back on the claim that all of the problems with the GOP are simply matters of prudential judgment (i.e., the "negotiables" in the 5NN concept). But as I hope to show, this is not at all the whole picture. (And I hope everyone will keep in mind that the point here is NOT to tell you not to vote GOP. I promise.)

What is Wrong with the 5NN - #2 Too Much Reduction

Unfortunately for us Catholics, the choice ain't so simple. We are called to learn, value, and uphold the whole of Catholic doctrine. Not only that, we are guided to weigh not only the underlying issue and principles at hand but also how those principles come to bear practically for any given action.

By action, I am including voting, but we should remember these are meant to guide our daily lives, not just how we vote! Judging by the amount of fervor that is expended on elections, particularly the quadrennial presidential election, one would not fault someone for thinking that many Christians only think that their duties with regards to the social doctrine of the Church extend so far as casting a ballot. But I digress..

The Compendium is hundreds of pages long. And it is a compendium, that is, it is meant to be a concise collection of our teachings. It isn't even, in a sense, the full teaching of the Church that is meant to be our guide. But it is most assuredly a good guide. It puts a lot of important meat on the bones, and it also teaches us, very clearly, that many of the political ideas we have been inculcated with from birth, even some cherished American sacred cows, are not as sacred as we might have been led to believe. As true children of the Church, we ought to be teachable and to amend our political opinions accordingly, rather than insist on our own way, clinging stubbornly to political ideals over the truths of the Faith.

Even the bishops' guide is 45 pages long, and you can think of it as a compendium of the Compendium, perhaps, with some extra guidance as applies for our situation in the US today. Given the complexities of life and, especially, how those are encountered at the national or international levels, there are no silver bullets, there are no "perfectly clear" choices. Even if the American Solidarity Party were one of the major parties--and it sets out to explicitly conform its platform to Catholic social doctrine--it is not a given that voting ASP would be a slam dunk for Catholics. 

No party, I repeat, no party has any kind of special guarantee from Christ that they best represent Catholic social doctrine. And so we must, as mature, adult Catholics, do our best to consider all the many important issues and how each party does more or less to promote the common good, as understood through the guidance of the Church's Magisterium--which does actually have the special guarantee from Christ not to lead us into error! This, I have to point out, very much includes the teaching of our Holy Father Francis, as I elaborate on in a recent article.

As Catholics, we should be mature enough to live with the ambiguity inherent in all this. Some principles are crystal clear, but how they are realized and applied in the complexities of life and through national and global systems are anything but simple. Saying this in no way denies the fundamental clarity of the principles themselves. By the way, has anyone looked at the length of the Summa Theologica? It is 3011 pages in the five volume set I have, and it is "only" dealing with faith and morals. It is supposed to have been an "introduction" to theology.

It seems to me that we have to accept that 1) we cannot fully comprehend the complexities of the systems at play in large scale politics and governance, 2) we cannot ever fully predict how a given policy will definitely play out and what repercussions it will have, and 3) few if any of us is able to balance the full social doctrine of the Church against all of these with anything approaching perfection. We need to accept and appreciate these with humility, and that humility ought to guide us and make us less certain and sure that our political choices (and parties) are right. 

That should, as well, give us all a sense of bonhomie with all our fellow citizens. We are all in this boat together! None of us gets it perfectly right, even when we have certain fundamental principles to start from. We all, yes even our political "enemies," are seeking some conception of the good, however imperfectly. We are all fallible humans in need of redemption. Political differences should not be held so strongly for these reasons. There is an almost certain likelihood that any policy, especially at higher levels of government, will not pan out as planned and have very many unintended consequences, many of which are not good. 

As Christians, though, we ought not to despair. We can live with the ambiguity and uncertainty and still make the best decisions we can based on what we know and understand at any given time. We can, and we should. But any time we start getting certain that our party or candidate absolutely 100% has it right or, especially, that any particular candidate is going to realize our principles with any meaningful degree of certainty, we need to step back. That kind of thinking is what leads to all of the sinful polarization and mutual demonization that is so common today. Let's let humility be the key principle we start from and cling to.

What is Wrong with the 5NN - #3 Confusing/Misleading Language

The Church does not really use the language of "negotiable" or "non-negotiable." The problem with using this language is that it is readily converted into, on the one hand, an overly restrictive understanding of the implications of the non-negotiables and, on the other hand, an overly permissive understanding of, well, pretty much any other issue! 

Let me be clear. If you say, "these five are non-negotiable," then you are saying that if a given party does not align with the Catholic teaching on them, then that party must not be supported--it is non negotiable. So let's take abortion for example. The Catholic teaching is that it is only permissible when the abortion is not the end or means in view, but that it may be allowed when the death of the child is a consequence (even a known consequence) of a procedure intended to protect the life of the mother.

Now, if we are truly saying that the Church's teaching on this is literally non-negotiable, then we may not vote for any party based on this alone. (Maybe the ASP, but that's it.) The GOP does not have such an "extreme" view against abortion. They as a rule allow it in cases of rape, incest, or to protect the life of the mother. So again, if we are to use the proposed language of "non-negotiable," then we cannot negotiate with the GOP and say "well, it's okay because you mostly support our view." No, we are not allowed to negotiate!

And while we are here, it is worth noting that the Holy Father has now made capital punishment into one of these "non-negotiables." The Catechism uses the language "inadmissible." So, again, if we were going to be literalists and absolute on such matters, we obviously could not vote for the GOP, which openly supports capital punishment, nor especially Trump, who has reinstated it with actual killings to date at the federal level. 

Clearly, then, we must either be consistent, and not vote for either major party, or we must allow ourselves room to "negotiate." And this "negotiation" is precisely what our bishops actually teach us we must do (#32):

Sometimes morally flawed laws already exist. In this situation, the process of framing legislation to protect life is subject to prudential judgment and "the art of the possible." At times this process may restore justice only partially or gradually. For example, St. John Paul II taught that when a government official who fully opposes abortion cannot succeed in completely overturning a pro-abortion law, he or she may work to improve protection for unborn human life, "limiting the harm done by such a law" and lessening its negative impact as much as possible (Evangelium Vitae, no. 73). Such incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. However, Catholics must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.

We have an obligation to always oppose, but to wrongly translate that into "never negotiate" would, in effect, make achieving the goal impossible. Our bishops have a whole section on prudence and how to reason about applying these principles to our concrete realities. That is what we informed, faithful citizens must do.

So that is the problem with "non-negotiable." The problem with "negotiable" is, as I said, the inverse. It leads into a certain too-easy flexibility on the supposedly negotiable items, to the point of their not actually factoring in at all in our choice of how we vote. We feel free to effectively ignore them. This is contrary to what the Church teaches, as our bishops note (#34 of the same):

A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who favors a policy promoting an intrinsically evil act, such as abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, deliberately subjecting workers or the poor to subhuman living conditions, redefining marriage in ways that violate its essential meaning, or racist behavior, if the voter's intent is to support that position. In such cases, a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. (emphases mine)

This section clearly contradicts the whole concept of "negotiable" and "non-negotiable." Not only are "non-negotiables" paralyzing in the political sphere we live in, if we take them truly to be such, but the Church through the CDF and our bishops clearly teaches that it is possible to vote for a candidate who favors policy promoting an intrinsically evil act so long as we in no way intend to support that position. This strikes down any notion that, for example, a candidate's admittedly repugnant stance on abortion is completely non-negotiable. They continue, to be even more explicit (#35):

There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position even on policies promoting an intrinsically evil act may reasonably decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

And (#36):

When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

Speaking of intrinsically evil acts, "The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable." (see here) What GOP candidate promotes this teaching? Do they not rather, as a rule, follow and promote the "standard" American view that contraception is just fine and normal? And, can we for a moment pretend that the GOP upholds what the Church teaches on the indissolubility of marriage? Or sex outside of marriage, even? Masturbation? And yet, these all involve intrinsically evil acts, and all parties and nearly all candidates fall short on this measure. Exactly zero of them are campaigning to bring back true "traditional marriage," stopping far, far short of the Church's teaching and implicitly or explicitly promoting such intrinsic evils. 

The purpose here, again, is not in any way to minimize the necessity of our opposition to intrinsically evil acts. Quite the contrary--the Church is very clear on that duty. It is simply to highlight that, contrary to the 5NN concept, when it comes to working for the common good, no single issue or issues always and everywhere invalidate voting for or working with a particular party or candidate to find what seems to us the best way to achieve the common good and to fight against all the very many grave injustices in the world today.

Again, if we were to take an absolute, non-negotiable stance on abortion, we could not even vote for most GOP candidates due to their support of abortion exceptions that are not allowed in Catholic teaching. And so, we may rightly determine to vote for them despite their support for that intrinsically grave evil. Indeed, not every Democrat supports fully unrestricted abortion. So while we can say that the GOP is certainly much preferable in their far more restrictive stance, they all still allow it to some degree.

I am not just being clever with words here nor trying to make some rarified academic point. They really, truly all have serious problems and to varying degrees support policies and law that promote intrinsic evils. We should never pretend that a vote for either of our major parties is free of such problems. We have to determine which has the greatest good that offsets those problems, and that applies when considering both major parties and any other party or candidate. 

Similarly, the admonition that "a voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity" clearly rules out any possibility for single issue voting for a faithful Catholic (or five issue voting). 

What is Wrong with the 5NN - #4 Devaluing Other Gravely Important Matters

I touched on this above, but it needs to be highlighted further. As a rule, we Republican-leaning Catholics are far too quick to dismiss, wave hands, and claim "prudential judgment" on those things that are not in the 5NN. I can only imagine the ready defensiveness on this is for fear we be seen to lean towards positions more closely associated with the Democratic party. We see this in the massive overreactions to Fratelli Tutti, for example. Pope Francis criticizes unbridled capitalism (in lock step with Catholic social doctrine for over 120 years) and people lose their minds! He's a communist! (That is sarcasm.)

War is a grave evil. Pope Francis teaches compellingly and authoritatively in his role as supreme pastor (Fratelli Tutti, 258): 

We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war!

Even admitting the possibility of just war, as Catholics we are called, as a rule and basic stance, to oppose it as invariably leading to grave evils. This is in stark contrast to the hawkish, nationalist stance that the GOP has taken, especially under Trump. He makes no beans about his readiness to use our military might to advance his America First policy. This should be a serious problem for Catholics.

The America First policy itself is hugely problematic from a Catholic principles point of view. It is fundamentally a selfish policy that prioritizes our collective national good over the good of every other nation in the world. We would not tolerate such selfishness on a personal level, nor should we tolerate it on a national level.

Climate change is another area where the GOP, as a rule, is way out of sync with Catholic social doctrine. Pope Francis has repeatedly highlighted for us (from his global vantage point that none of us has) the grave injustices done throughout the world to human beings as a result of our carelessness towards the environment. This is no matter of being a tree hugger or exalting some kind of mother-earth animism. It is about protecting and caring for the most vulnerable among us. 

The destructive effects of how we have been living are observable already even today. I am not talking about abstract concerns about rising temperatures, although those increases do endanger very, very many vulnerable poor people. The impacts on human beings and God's creatures are undeniable. And the GOP's denial, deregulation, pulling out of environmental accords, and the like promote an irresponsible laissez faire attitude, contrary to the careful stewardship we are called to, and the concern for the poor around the globe who suffer as a result of our lackadaisical attitude. 

Treatment of immigrants is another grave area for concern. We must not pretend that there is a dichotomy--completely closed borders or completely open. But not having followed current regulations for immigration does not strip a person of their human dignity. Being an "illegal immigrant" does not make a person subhuman and therefore beyond the scope of our care. 

As Catholics, we know better. The example of the good Samaritan that Pope Francis draws so heavily on in Fratelli Tutti applies, along with all the many corporal works of mercy that are the ancient and enduring tradition of the Church. A nation may have a right to protect its borders, but there are just and unjust ways to do that. The GOP under Trump have moved in the wrong direction and, in general, promote a careless and even hostile and fearful attitude towards those extremely vulnerable persons--the immigrants and refugees--who need our love and care.

Another area of grave concern is how we collectively care for the poorest among us in our own country. The free market does not give a damn about the poor. The increasing disparities in the world and our country between the very rich and the poor should be alarming to us. Policies that disproportionately favor corporations and the wealthy can only go so far towards the good. Again, this is not a binary thing. It is not communism or unbridled capitalism. It is not no taxes for social welfare or complete redistribution of wealth. Too often we reach for reactionary words and a mindset that resists reasonable compromises that would enable us to better serve the poor through our pooled resources.

Yes, prudential judgment does apply, but it applies to all of the concerns that bear on our action in the world and especially to politics and how we vote and the policies we craft. We are not any more free to deny our duty to help the poor than we are free to deny our duty to protect the unborn. Indeed, the two are not unrelated, given the poor disproportionately seek abortions. We are not free to turn a blind eye towards systems of injustice any more than we are free to turn a blind eye towards promoting chastity and the sanctity of marriage. How we achieve all these just and good goals is the matter of prudential judgment and working it out in our political sphere. 

Is There Anything Better Than the 5NN?

The reality and problem with the 5NN concept is that it is not, in point of fact, what the Church teaches us about our duties in the social and political spheres. It is too reductive, too selective, and serves more as a tool of the Republican party than of forming consciences according to the fullness of Catholic social doctrine. It reinforces the already prevalent misconception that as long as we vote pro life (or pro marriage), we're good, and it wrongly releases us from other very grave concerns and obligations. 

We need to realize we are not free at all to be cozy with and uncritically supportive of either major party. I have focused on the GOP here because criticisms of the Democratic party (in such circles as I often find myself in) are aplenty. I see this post as a necessary corrective to urge us all to start thinking more holistically with the Church. We can, despite protestations to the contrary, vote for either major party, given that both support intrinsic evils but both also promote the common good in their respective ways. I do not say that I think they are both equally good, all things considered, but it is by no means an easy choice, depending on what serious issue you consider at a given moment. If we are not struggling with this, we are not doing it right--we are not giving all the serious matters due consideration. Certainly if we think that the 5NN are sufficient to choose, I say we are just being lazy.

We Catholics have to accept our adult responsibility. This means no meme or handy five-point program is sufficient to form our consciences with regards to our social responsibilities, which are in fact the particulars of our duty to love our neighbors as ourselves. If there is any valid reduction of Catholic teaching, it is what Christ gave us in the two greatest commandments. But all of us need to expend more time and energy to form ourselves in the Faith. 

Our bishops' guide is only 45 pages. That is not too much to read and seriously ponder for such matters of import. I'll warrant most of us spend more time watching a Netflix show in one night than it would take to read that. Get started. Go read it, or read it again. I know I will.

And when you are done, consider carving out 10 minutes a day to read through the Compendium. That is, actually, how I managed it. One little bit at a time. You can do it, and you will be better formed for doing so, I guarantee it. Just sincerely pray for the Spirit to help you to keep an open mind and to allow yourself to be formed by the Church rather than our political parties and/or what we may have previously held. If we read it only looking for that things that confirm our thinking, we are wasting our time.

After (or even before) that, go read our Holy Father's Laudato Si and Fratelli Tutti. They both speak to important considerations to keep in mind, are part and parcel of the tradition of the social doctrine of the Church, and they are as pertinent for our times as Rerum Novarum was in its time.

Any and all of these are better than the 5NN to more effectively form our consciences in the Faith for action in the world. I urge us all to dive deep in them!

Peace, my brothers and sisters! Remember the key of humility!

Creation Matters

'All the trees of the field will clap their hands.' Is 55:12

St. Thomas Aquinas instructs us that religion is our duty in justice towards God. Part of that duty, which is also squarely in line with Scripture, is stewardship of God's creation.

How can it not be offensive to God when you treat His creation with flippancy and disrespect? We are part of His creation, and by the very fact of being His creation, creation implicitly has value and is, as He said, "good." That our value as rational beings endowed with eternal souls is greater does not in any way mean that the rest of creation Has little to no value.

How do we worship God? We worship Him in and with His creation. The bread and wine that we offer are fruits of creation. Our bodies and, yes, even our spiritual nature, are His creation. The church buildings we erect, the altars upon which the Supreme Sacrifice is made present to us, the liturgical vestments and sacred vessels, our icons, statues, and flowers, even the human bodily nature of Christ that we participate in, is all God's creation.

We also offer sacrifices of the things we produce, whether distilled in the form of money or not. These are good things that God has created and given to us that we offer back to Him. Sometimes our sacrifice is to abstain from partaking in what is otherwise a good part of His creation, and what makes it a sacrifice is precisely that we are freely offering that which is good to God, rather than partaking of it for our own good. These are all forms of worship, doing what little we are able to do in our duty towards God.

We can also worship God through acts of charity, and that charity can be towards non-rational nature or towards being endowed with rational nature--or both. Because we are in nature, because we are created beings and part of creation, we are not freely distinct from it. If you firebomb the countryside in which you live, you will not be able to live there long (to provide an extreme but simple example). And so when we care for nature, we are caring both for God's non-rational creation and for other human beings as well.

I have heard folks be dismissive of Church leaders--including our Holy Father--who are vocally concerned with the environment. Most of these, I'll wager, either haven't read Laudato Si, or only read it cursorily with much prejudice--looking for excuses to dismiss, downplay, and ignore it. But a faithful Catholic ought to be receptive to the teaching of the Holy Father. I'll say that again: a faithful Catholic ought to be receptive to the teaching of the Holy Father.

One of the things that Pope Francis illumines greatly is the connection between how our abuse of the environment directly and negatively impacts many human beings, particularly the most poor and vulnerable in the world. Few U.S. Americans are faced the the horrors of abject poverty that come about through how we have not been good stewards of creation. So it's easy for us to dismiss such concerns, but they are real. You can learn about them easily if you look.

This isn't about raising the temperature of the globe a degree or two. This is real, directly observable badness that you can see comes about from abusive consumption and disregard for both nature and human life in and around areas whence we source our raw materials. Only willful ignorance can make one blind to it.

When Christ speaks of separating the sheep from the goats, He doesn't talk of who has this or that theological point perfectly in their minds, or whether or not we use incense or Latin in mass or any such thing. He speaks, rather, of how persons have treated the poor and needy among them. This is hand in hand with His statement that the second-greatest command is like the first--to love your neighbor as yourself.

It is like the first in that our love of neighbor and of creation is an extension and expression of our love for God in Himself. Our willing the good of God's creation is precisely love for God. It is how we pay duty and honor and respect to Him, in justice. That is why St. James can say that your faith is dead if it has not such works. Our charity towards God's created nature and our neighbor are the manifest stuff of our love of God and, ergo, proof of our faith in Him.

A focus on contemporary environmental concern is nothing more than this--a faithful response to Christ's instruction that we care for the poor and needy and a proper and good response to God's entrusting his creation to us, to be good and wise stewards. It cannot be rightly separated from sharing the Gospel in the sense of bringing people to faith in Christ.

As if to prove the importance of created, physical nature, God took that nature upon himself and divinized it. Further, he promises us a resurrection of the body and a New Jerusalem. We are not rarified spiritual beings or consciousnesses just loosely associated with our bodies, trapped by them and waiting to be freed. That is a gnostic error condemned since the earliest days of the Church. We are not beings of pure intellect either. We are, always have been, and always shall be beings intertwined with physical nature.

As Christians, we are not free to ignore or downplay the importance of stewardship and of loving God and our neighbors through it. The Gospel is not purely intellectual content, nor is living it purely a simple response of intellectual faith. We must live that faith out in the real world, and that includes caring for the rest of God's creation and our neighbor. This is by no means a "Modernist heresy," nor is it any less important than other aspects of the faith.

Where folks on both sides of the spectrum go wrong is when they create a false dichotomy between love of truth and love of creation and our neighbor. Language and human intellect are important and part of God's creation. So are our bodies, the things that our bodies need, and all of non-rational creation. We can give disproportional concern to both.

There's an old adage that every heresy is just taking some aspect of the faith to an extreme, and so far as I can tell, it seems to be true. It's an ancient tool of the Devil to trick us into becoming obsessed with one particular good to the exclusion of others and the balance of moderation.

Both areas of concern are areas calling out for attention. They always have been. We have always had spiritual darkness and error and heresy and a need for reformation and better instruction in the truths of the faith. And we have always had an insufficient care of the poor (and for most of us, our own bodies) and poor stewardship of God's creation.

To say that we ought to neglect one in favor of the other is an improper response to the challenges facing us. It may be true that, individually, we can't respond equally well to all areas of need, but as a group, we surely can do much, much better.

God gives different people different gifts, and our faithful response to use these in service of him would no doubt, if we all fulfilled our God-given potential, leave us in a starkly better place than we are in now. St. Paul cautions us against presuming that "our gift" is better or more important than the others. We would do well to keep that caution in mind.

Because God may be calling you or me, personally, to focus more on living the faith through communicating the intellectual content of the faith does not mean that others (even most others) ought not to focus on living the faith through care of God's creation and the corporal needs of other human beings. Nor does it mean we cannot do both to various degrees in our lives. It may be (and seems to be so) that the Holy Spirit is instructing us, as a Church, to do just that through the teaching of the current Vicar of Christ.

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.

Ambrose's Corollary to Godwin's Law (Arian Appeals)

Oh my, the persecution complex is in full swing. It couldn't possibly be that it is these few men who are acting improperly against the rest of the Magisterium. Nope. Clearly we are all Arians, and these few are the orthodox. And really?!? "Attacks" and "violence"? Until I see a modern day St. Nicholas slapping one of these guys, crying "violence" is a bit much, to say the least. 

This useful quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson couldn't apply more than in this case: "Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." Sorry, but having the majority of Christendom respond critically to a handful of cardinals who publicly threaten to "correct" the Pope is not persecution. 

I propose a corollary to Godwin's law, only for Catholics: As an online discussion between Catholics grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Arius approaches 1," ​​that is, if an Catholic debate (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will claim that his interlocutor is the equivalent of an Arian and that all those who disagree with him are like the Arians in the Arian controversy--especially if the vast majority of the Church disagrees with him. It happens all the time (another immediately current example).

But let's take a closer look at the history around the Arian controversy (and here and here). At the ecumenical council of Nicaea, all but a tiny handful of voting participants ultimately decided in favor of what we now think of as orthodoxy. This means the overwhelming majority, a full 95% (301 of 318), were in favor of orthodoxy. Orthodoxy won, big time. It was not a small minority, some remnant fighting against the majority, but a majority soundly overcoming the minority.

So those who try to represent their minority views in parallel with the orthodox in the Arian controversy find little support in the history. Granted, for some decades following the Council of Nicaea, numerous flavors of Arian and semi-Arian views gained ascendancy in eastern parts of the Roman Empire, which did lead to a persecution of the orthodox in those areas, largely thanks to certain influential/powerful people in the eastern empire's political elite, but it still did not amount to anything like the Church as a whole--and the valid bishops of Rome at the time along with most of the western empire remained orthodox, often sheltering and defending the chief defender of orthodoxy in the East, St. Athanasius.

There was never an ecumenical council that overturned the orthodoxy established at Nicaea (and that would not be possible anyways, in Catholic ecclesiology). And frankly, it's a common pattern for the heterodox whose positions are excluded from orthodoxy as a result of an ecumenical council to not just go "oh well, I guess we were wrong." Such reactions are par for the course; it just so happens that the heretics in this case got the support of influential imperial officials and temporarily gained ascendancy. Thank God for Emperor Theodosius who eventually corrected this problem in the east and made orthodoxy the official imperial view for the whole Empire, after which Arianism largely died out except among some of the Germanic tribes outside the Empire.

Contrast this to the folks in our time who summon the specter of the Arian controversy when their views are challenged. Their positions are always a small minority in the Church. The say or imply that the vast majority of the Church has apostatized--including virtually all bishops and priests (and usually the pope). Thus they are usually opposed to the living Magisterium. There is now no major political power, like the late Roman Empire, that has immense influence over the Church hierarchy and property and uses that power to enforce the views of that political elite. In short, beyond the vague association with the persecuted minority in some regions of the Church 1600+ years ago, there is no real parallel. 

And beyond that, playing the Arian card is no real argument at all. It is completely fallacious, not just from an historical point of view, but also from a logical point of view. Even if you could establish a thorough parallel, the argument is nothing but an emotional salve for its proponents. It does nothing to address the issues at play. It simply appropriates a feigned mantle of orthodoxy and rightness. It is exactly like the "you're on the wrong side of history" arguments made by progressives in other areas of contemporary debate. 

So to all those who espouse this, as in the article linked at the top, please do us all a favor and stop crying foul and stick to pertinent arguments. If Cardinal Burke and those of similar minds truly believe that they are sticking up for orthodoxy in the face of heterodoxy, they need to be prepared for the ensuing conflict and opposition. They should not be shocked. This is not persecution. It is contradiction. (For the record, I have not seen Cardinal Burke appealing to this himself.)

The mere fact that some are being opposed by an overwhelming majority is no indicator that they are right, nor should anyone take comfort in that fact. It is far more likely that they are wrong for this reason. As in the case of all of the ecumenical councils--including Nicaea--it is the majority that decides, in union with the pope, what is orthodox, not the dissenting minority, especially not the minority against the pope. 

Amoris Laetitia is a post-synodal exhortation. It comes as the culmination of two universal synods involving not only bishops from all over the world, including those of different rites, but also many lay people. The bishops debated and discussed and made resolutions. The Pope issued his exhortation with all of that in mind. It is, as such, reflective of the universal Church in union with the pope. While the pope has the authority to issue a letter such as this on his own, that is not what happened here. He is not, as I've heard said, smacking down those who disagree with him and not allowing for open and honest debate--we had a multi-year synod on the subject for goodness' sake.

As I see it, the pope has wisely refused to issue simplistic, rigorist affirmations of current rules. He has affirmed the unchangeable doctrine and basic Catholic moral framework, so suggestions and accusations of heresy are just plain wrong. He has wisely chosen (so far) to not respond to the answers for "clarification," because doing so would work against what he has chosen to do, which is defer to his fellow bishops to issue guidelines and encourage priests to use their judgment and discern the appropriate course of action after considering individual circumstances in light of our doctrine and current laws. All of this was affirmed in his letter to the Argentine bishops, which some find unaccountably disturbing. 

As others have noted, clarifications abound already, and what the heck, I wrote one attempt myself. And Pope Francis has in fact already responded to the request for clarification on Amoris:

Frank Rocca (Wall Street Journal): ... For a Catholic who wants to know: are there new, concrete possibilities that didn’t exist before the publication of the exhortation or not? 

Pope Francis: I can say yes, period. But it would be an answer that is too small. I recommend that you read the presentation of Cardinal Schönborn, who is a great theologian. He was the secretary for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, and he knows the doctrine of the faith well. In that presentation, your question will find an answer.

Those who don't like Francis, this is not an Arian moment. There is no Arian card to play here. 

Responses to Cardinal Burke et al's Dubia

I figured I'd take a whack at responding to doubts proposed by Cardinal Burke and his three cardinal colleagues. This is how I imagine Pope Francis might answer, though I would not presume to actually speak for him or anyone but myself. My intent is to balance objective moral truth against the messy reality that is life, and I think that's really what Pope Francis is urging that pastors do. I think he's said as much on numerous occasions.

I will grant that I am no theologian or canon lawyer, and that my understanding of Catholic moral tradition is less than others'. Despite that, I think my answers are orthodox, even if not a wholly traditional Catholic approach. It's good to keep in mind that the discipline and application of definitive truth can change without necessarily doing damage to the truth. It tends to be a matter of personal judgment on whether a specific change incurs actual damage to the truth. They are not independent of each other, but they are not so bound up that it is impossible to change practice/discipline/law (as is manifestly evident from Church history).

Traditionalists/conservatives tend to err on the avoid changing things to be safe side of things; progressives/liberals tend to err on the side of being more concerned with contemporary adaptation in the hope of addressing new challenges (perceived or real). Where one falls on this tends to be a spectrum and not a binary, and I am certainly somewhere in between.

The proposers of these doubts suggest that they can be answered in a simple yes or no; however, they take pains to preface and then elaborate on each of them. While theoretically such questions can be answered yes or no, I do not think it is reasonable to expect a simple yes or no, nor have I bound myself to that stricture. In fact, I would say that simply answering yes or no, especially given the way the questions are asked, can easily lead to faulty interpretations and actions, based on such a simple answer. I suggest that expecting a simple yes or no puts the power in the hands of the question framers, and so it would not really be appropriate for the CDF or Pope Francis to answer with a simple yes or no.

If I had to guess why no answer has been given so far, it is because the Holy Father well knows that no matter what answer he gives, even with clarifications, it will only engender more debate, debate which I'm sure he feels has been given due space in the synods leading up to Amoris Laetitia. The contemporary Church is not given to expressions of anathema sit, and even/until an actual ecumenical council were called (and warranted) to address these concerns, no matter what the Pope teaches, there will be dissenters and differing interpretations and applications of laws. When Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were in office, we had plenty of "confusion" and dissent in the Church; those who pretend that Pope Francis is new in this way, only think so because it is now their positions which are challenged.  The Church always has had and will always have its share of dissenters and divergences of opinions and interpretations.

And as we have seen with even ecumenical councils, there remain dissenters even after those definitive gatherings. So the fantasy that a clarification by Pope Francis on these items would end differing opinions, create unified pastoral guidance, etc. is just that--a fantasy. Suggesting that his not doing so is somehow indicative of his intention to signal approval of heresy is simply outrageous and is bitterly ungenerous, presumptuous, and potentially sinful in itself.

I welcome thoughtful dialogue on the answers below. But if you start out by telling me I'm a heretic, or if you simply assert that my answers are heretical or unorthodox or not Catholic or anything along those lines, be prepared to be ignored. If, however, you want to argue for alternative positions or point me to some definitive teachings that seem to call my answers into question, I will gladly consider those. My desire is always to remain faithful to God and his Church.

Know that I do not consider canons or prior legislative texts or this or that Vatican congregation or this or that bishop, cardinal, or pope weighing in on something as de facto infallible or irreformable (again, in keeping with Catholic Tradition). Not even everything in our current Catechism is infallible or irreformable or not subject to further discussion and development. That is to say, if you use a text to support your position, be prepared to surround it with argumentation as to why you think it is authoritative in the context and how it supports your view. Proof texting, even from Scripture, is an impoverished practice in such dialogue.

Now onto the dubia...

DOUBT 1) It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?

I ANSWER THAT given sure knowledge of the specific conditions enumerated here, particularly definite knowledge of the validity of a prior union and no intention of living in continence in the new union that is acknowledged to be adulterous, it would not be appropriate to absolve such a penitent. It is a given that Divine law requires a repentant heart for forgiveness.

It is possible to absolve, however, if the validity of prior unions is uncertain (or even doubtful). This is particularly true if the new union appears more likely to be valid than prior unions, even if if has yet to be adjudicated as such.

It may also be possible to absolve if the penitent clearly expresses a firm intention to amend his life, even if it seems unlikely he will be able to do so (and even if he has a history of not being able to do so), particularly in situations where, as Pope St. John Paul II wrote in Familiaris Consortio, 84, taking the objective actions necessary to prevent future sin would involve committing new injustices or would otherwise be impracticable. The pastor should be generous and supportive of the intention, whatever doubts he may have.

In certain cases, it may be that the penitent cannot honestly apprehend that his new situation is sinful, perhaps due to serious personal doubts of the validity of the prior union (even having tried to adjudicate nullity without success) or failure to apprehend the true nature of marriage even now (which should cast doubt on validity of either union). These could be a defect of knowledge and, consequently, of full consent. Pastors should endeavor to determine if such is willful ignorance or a defect in intellect or some other mitigating factor, always with a preference for generosity if the penitent displays honest intention to live a holy life and grow in sanctification, accompanying and guiding the penitent toward that life.

In all cases, the pastor should counsel according to the teaching of the Church to help the penitent correctly discern his situation, encourage and help the penitent to seek a decree of nullity if possible, and offer practical advice to help the penitent avoid sin.

DOUBT 2) After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?

I ANSWER THAT, yes, there are indeed absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts (and as such objectively, intrinsically evil acts do definitely exist). Murder. Adultery. Blasphemy. Idolatry. And so on.

It is not, however, an objective fact that someone who has been married was definitely validly, sacramentally married. The fact of an ecclesiastical legal system and tribunals that adjudicate the validity (or nullity) of marriages is sufficient evidence of this, as is Church teaching on what is necessary for a valid marriage to occur in the first place.

Given this, it is possible for someone to objectively be in a second union without, by virtue of that objective fact, committing adultery. And given the known terrible state of catechesis today coupled with secular cultural norms that directly contradict a Catholic understanding of marriage and sexuality, not to mention a growing understanding of human physiology and psychology, it is reasonable to be more uncertain in contemporary times that all, or even most, marriages--even those celebrated in Catholic churches--are valid. In short, it is not a safe assumption that someone who is remarried is, by the simple fact of being remarried, committing adultery, and more than that, it is arguable that this is more doubtful today than at any point in Christian history.

On the other hand, there are still objective actions that can be assumed to be adultery, such as sleeping with someone who is married without being in any form of marriage with that person. The distinction here is between a married couple where one of the individuals is divorced and remarried, versus two people having sex outside of marriage, with one or both being in a marriage (confirmed to be valid or not). It is beyond a doubt in the latter case that such is extramarital sexual relations, without regard to determining the validity of the prior or current marriage. So cohabiting unmarried people who engage in sex, those having sexual affairs, keeping a mistress, etc. would fall under the objective adultery category.

DOUBT 3) After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?

I ANSWER THAT it is still possible to affirm this when the sin in question is public and indisputable, for example, in the case of a politician repeatedly, obstinately pursuing governmental policies that promote an intrinsic evil. However, in the case of adultery (and sex in general), which is by nature private, we cannot assume, even by the nature of a public commitment such as marriage, that adultery is habitually occurring by the simple fact of persons living together (married or not). This is as true for a minister of Communion discerning the application of Canon 915 as it is for any lay person observing another.

However, if adultery is determined publicly and an individual publicly manifests an intent to continue in that sin, a minister of Communion could infer an objective situation of grave habitual sin and act accordingly by applying Canon 915. This seems like it would be rare. Most people do not affirm adultery publicly. It is arguable that if a person, say, prominently were to keep a mistress, then Canon 915 could apply, even if the person did not explicitly affirm that adultery because the nature of keeping a mistress is that it is an actively sexual relationship, as would typically be an affair. In such cases, there are no other reasons for two unmarried people to be together.

On the other hand, a remarried (or even cohabiting) couple may have other practical reasons to to remain together, and assuming the relationship is adulterous is less of a reliable assumption than in these others. This is not to say that it is not reasonable to think that such a relationship is sexual, only that it should not be assumed that it is with regards to the application of Canon 915 or a general perception of an objectively adulterous situation. In short, unless they express in private to a minister or in public that they are living as man and wife, one should be willing to extend the benefit of the doubt.

What should be obvious is that pastoral discernment is still required even when one may suspect grave sin and that in general both clergy and laity should not presume sexual sin simply based on external circumstances alone. And the public act of refusing Communion should be based in a commensurately public grave sin. It is better, in most cases, to counsel such persons privately to discern whether or not to approach the sacrament, as is the clear intent of St. Paul in 1 Cor 11.

DOUBT 4) After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?

I ANSWER THAT yes, one ought to regard that teaching as still valid. No matter the mitigations of personal circumstance that diminish culpability, an objectively evil act can never be transformed into a morally acceptable choice much less a good, considered in itself. It's worth noting that this does not mean that other goods cannot accidentally accompany or follow as a result of objectively immoral actions, but such goods do not change the nature of the evil act in itself.

Amoris Laetitia 302 does not seek to countermand this teaching. Rather, it calls to mind the well-established distinction in Church teaching between objective grave sin and subjective mortal sin.

DOUBT 5) After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

I ANSWER THAT it is not the role of conscience to make an act moral or immoral. It is the role of the conscience to discern the path of good from the path of evil. Amoris Laetitia 303 suggests that it further can discern the best that a specific person can do in a specific situation. This is no commentary on the objective nature of the acts in question. It is, rather, a recognition of the limitations of the person in question to choose the good, i.e., to maximize the good and avoid the evil in as much as a person can. It, in itself, does not determine whether or not such an action is actually good or evil; it can only determine what is in its best judgment the best path.

All Dogs May or May Not Go to Heaven

Update 13 Dec 2014: Turns out I was right to seriously question the veracity of the story and its lack of credible sources: http://www.religionnews.com/2014/12/12/sorry-fido-pope-francis-not-say-pets-going-heaven/. Still, the points made below are valid. :)

----

There has recently been circulating that Pope Francis "broke from Catholic teaching" on whether animals will go to heaven. I have yet to be able to find a reliable reference that has the quotes in context. The closest I've found is this America Magazine article, but it cites the NYT article on the subject. I still can't find anything close to an official published text, but let's assume Pope Francis' words are being reporting in good faith. What does it mean? Does it really somehow definitively change Church teaching?

As the NYT and America article allude to, the short answer is no. The Pope made an off-the-cuff remark to comfort a child. He did not "declare" anything, much less define it infallibly (ex cathedra). I am typically not one to go around trying to reinterpret the Pope's words, but the brouhaha ensuing from so little substance here is just too much. (And also, a friend of mine asked me to share my thoughts on this blog.) So here you go. ;)

Doctrinal authority/certainty is a very nuanced topic in Catholic theology. There are degrees of certainty with regards to Church teaching. I try to summarize them in a prior post on this blog about theological grades of certainty. I really do recommend reading it, not because I think my writing is awesome but because I have used reliable Catholic sources to help summarize the subject. I won't restate it all here. If you read it, it will definitely help you understand where the Pope's remarks fall in our view of things.

Now back to the subject at hand.. Certainly we can hope and wish that we will somehow be reunited with our loved animals, but that is a far cry from making any kind of authoritative definition on the matter. Personally, I could see such a position being more plausible with regards to the General Resurrection than to heaven--because that is bodily resurrection, and it would fit better that some animals we love could be bodily resurrected (without implying that they have immortal spirits/souls, which I think is pretty indefensible from a Catholic point of view).

Many people get pretty sentimental on this topic, but sentiment is not a good way to discover and understand truth. Many say, "if my [pet] isn't in heaven, then it isn't really heaven, and I don't want to go there" or some such. I would suggest that these people ought to be more concerned that they themselves make it to heaven rather than worry about their pets. It is not a little presumptive to treat the question as if it were just a matter of what we would like our own personal heaven to be like. St. Paul cautions us to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." We are not even assured of our own presence in heaven, so to make definitive pronouncements about the presence of our personal pets seems a bit off, to say the least.

Let me put it this way. Traditional Catholic teaching--which is founded in centuries of solid Scriptural, theological, and pastoral reflection and shouldn't be easily dismissed based on personal whims or desires--is such that 1) animals are different from us; they do not have immortal souls like we do, and 2) neither do animals have moral faculties (and so neither can sin nor need redemption, in the sense of from personal/original sin). 3) There is, to my knowledge, very little foundation in our Tradition to claim that individual animals (e.g., my pet cat Aelfric) will be part of the Resurrection, much less in heaven prior to that as some sort of spiritual being.

So anyone, the Pope included, who wishes to offer a theological opinion to the contrary, has a lot of work to do to provide support for such an opinion. And for it to be taken seriously, it has to be more than "because I want my pet" or "because it wouldn't seem fair" or "because it would make little Johnny sad" or anything like that. It has to be more than some vague belief in God's goodness or broad extrapolations from a phrase or two in Scripture. It should square and be reconciled with what we do know as definitively revealed (see theological grades of certainty) and ideally fit well even with less definitive teachings.

IN ANY CASE, characterizing the pope's off the cuff consoling remarks to a child as some dramatic change in Catholic teaching is nothing but absurd sensationalism.

As I said, while many would classify me as a conservative (though I see myself as a firm centrist), I am not one of those purported reactionary conservatives who feels threatened by Pope Francis. I love Pope Francis. I love his pastoral style. I love how he challenges my preconceptions and makes me reconsider them. I love how he leads by example. I love how he emphasizes Gospel witness.

I also love Father Benedict, and Pope St. John Paul's writings (especially Evangelium Vitae) were instrumental in my joining the Church. Despite ignorant characterizations to the contrary, the traditional Catholic position on this question of animals going to heaven or not (and related considerations) has absolutely zero to do with some kind of animosity towards creation, nor is it some weird desire to feel special/different/superior to the rest of creation. It is simply a matter of thinking through the consequences of what we know of Divine Revelation and nature itself.

A Benedict Lover Defends Francis

A Post Wherein You Will Find Much Boring Centrism and Multi-Pope-Loving

Yesterday I read this post entitled "The Pope of our Punishment strikes." There are many ways to take a title like that. One of them is positive, in that I have seen others commenting on how "challenging" the new pope is to our comfort zones. One of them is negative, which is as a lament of how the new pope really is in some way a punishment (from God?) for us. And a third is a kind of satire--skewering the people who tend to do the latter by exaggerating the kinds of things that they say/complain about.

For a good portion of the post, I honestly thought it was the last one. Because the criticisms seem so insignificant--it's like the author is trying to find something to criticize and be offended. Alas, as I shared with my Catholic peeps on Google+ (where I came across this piece--sorry if ya can't see it), it is not satire; it is the second way above--true complaining and lamentation, which is odd given that the author's first post using that term was more of the first; I have no beef with that--I agree.

Unsurprisingly, the author took me to task for my über brief criticism on G+, and I fully intended to elaborate anyways. (At the time I was on my phone, which has a way of encouraging you to be brief.  Now I sit before my full keyboard, so prepare yourself for my trademark verbosity! :) )

Let's analyze the post a bit. But before we do, by way of caveat, let me say to my non-Catholic readers that this post is probably going to seem somewhat bizarre, but then specialized concerns often do seem that way to outsiders. 

Also, for my Catholic readers, this blog post outlines the reason for my general distate for the whole "Pope Francis is better than Benedict" theme that is still prevalent--I'm hardly one of those who fits into that crowd. Above in the pic you see (taken by my eight-year-old this morning) what is on two of our cabinets in our kitchen. The one is a thanksgiving note to Pope Benedict (BTW, I am the person behind thankyoupopebenedict.com); the other is of our new pope, celebrating his election--we celebrate and pray for them both as a family regularly. We also attend the nearby EF mass, and our oldest boy is a junior server there. And lastly, I am/have been a huge fan of Pope Benedict; I have read a lot of his stuff and followed most of what he said/did in office. In many ways, I felt like we were kin, intellectually and spiritually speaking. So this is where I am coming from--I'm not a flaming liberal. Ironically, for those who see Benedict and Francis as one being better than the other, here you'll find a long-time fanboi of Benedict defending Francis.

So without further ado, back to the concerns raised in the "punishment" post, which is couched in a criticism of Francis' purported "refusal to submit to the nature of the papal office," which the author seems to equate with, essentially, living large as pope.

Criticism #1) Pope Francis won't live in the papal apartments. The author speculates about how this must be costly/problematic for the exercise of the office. Maybe so, maybe not. It's just speculation. He goes on to impute falseness of character to the Pope--that Cardinal Bergoglio really must have been making plans for world domination as pope, even though he said multiple times that he didn't desire it or expect it. The irony here is that Francis has shown quite a tendency for off-the-cuff behavior (which the author also criticizes later), so why should it be hard to believe that he decided off the cuff to not live in the apartments? 

On the contrary, this choice of living is not in line not with some disingenuous false humility but rather right in line with his way of life previously on record in Argentina, as archbishop and cardinal. If he's feigning humility, he's been doing it for a long time, and if he's been planning to be a falsely humble pope, he sure has been preparing for a long time.  Talk about playing the long game!  

Or we could just take him at his word, which seems more likely given his prior behavior (not to mention, it is more charitable to do so). And it's not just about some political need to "feel freer of curial bureaucracy" but the stated closeness and connection with those who are visiting. 

2) I don't like how Pope Francis does mass. "But a papal Mass served by, say, gardeners in their gardening kit – is that humble or just inappropriate?" 

Maybe it's not about being "humble"? Maybe it's about being close to average Catholics? It's hard to take seriously the criticism of a faithful Catholic gardener at daily mass being dressed in his work clothes while serving. Crap. Now I'm feeling guilty for all the times I served at daily mass while dressed in my work clothes. ;) Oh wait, no, I'm not..

This whole objection is exactly what the same author mentioned in his prior article: "those who have over-valued the trappings and ephemera of liturgy rather than directing their zeal more completely to the proper celebration of what is the Church’s liturgy." (Emphasis the authors.. and mine..)  I have to admit a certain amount of sympathy here. I am personally a fan of smells and bells and high ceremony at mass, but I am not confused that my personal preferences should be the universal, unbreakable, only way to celebrate mass properly. 

Pope Benedict himself spoke of "mutual enrichment" of the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms. It's not a one way street, despite the way traditionalists want to paint it--both forms enrich each other, i.e., "mutual." Whereas Benedict emphasized the EF, apparently it's time that Francis emphasize the OF. Those of us who are humble will try to learn from both and see the good in both--they are after all both part of the Church's liturgy.

"same simple (fast becoming monotonous) style" - So now the Pope has to change his "style" regularly in order to entertain (i.e., eliminate monotony)? What is the OF criticized for if not for over-innovation to entertain? Irony, anyone?

"humility or willfulness? Certainly the Pope has a right to set the tone of his papacy, but it is emerging very much a papacy the theme song of which could be Sinatra’s I did it my way. Strong – yes; humble – not so certain? Perhaps if this hermeneutic of humility were to be laid aside I would find his style not quite so disturbing."

Now we see a return to the accusation that the Pope is feigning humility, that he is using it as a show. See above. Not only is this uncharitable, it is hardly supportable. Did it occur to anyone that maybe he is just being himself? If I take anything from Francis, it is that he is authentic. It's not like he dramatically changed from who he was as Bergoglio. This is just who he is. Sometimes it comes across as showy, but it is hard not to come across that way when you are the Pope. People watch everything you do, so being humble by its very nature is at odds with the office, and it will inevitably seem showy.

And on that point, much could be said about Benedict. I hear it in my head now--the traditionalists trumping how Pope Benedict was doing something to "teach by example" in regards to the liturgy. "See? He wore this or that? So all the priests should! See? He put candles up--so all the priests should." Now that the new Pope is teaching something different by example--something that makes them feel uncomfortable, there are accusations of falseness flying around. The irony again, and this time more so because his teaching by example is truly, for him, just a way of life--probably far less premeditated than Benedict's examples in liturgy.

3) He really needs to get a clue what it means to be Pope. "He is successor to St Peter, holds the highest teaching authority in the Church, and needs to remember that his words now have a significance they never had when he was a priest or a diocesan bishop."

Does that statement not reek of condescension? Do we really believe that Pope Francis is some simpleton that does not, despite having lived his whole life as a Catholic, a priest, a bishop, an archbishop, and a cardinal, understand the impact of the papal office? It's not as if he was elevated from some rural parish; he was an archbishop and cardinal. One would think he understands the impact of the office.

"It does not serve his role as supreme teacher that the Vatican is having constantly to catch up with his unscripted words and try to record them and make them available."

Here we are again, speculating about how difficult it must be for Vatican staff as a justification for criticism. It smells of reaching. It's their job--boo hoo if it's a little harder on them. Not to mention, we have no idea how they feel about it; maybe they love it--new, exciting, challenging. How about comparing the relative brevity of Francis to Benedict? So let's speculate that what effort Francis adds by not always using prepared remarks, he relieves by being brief. I'm just engaging the point, but I really think it's not very weighty in any case. 

4) His impromptu style causes PR gaffes. "Already we have seen more than one gaffe from his papal impromptus." 

This is where I really got suspicious that it was satire. Are we really going to pretend that having papal gaffes is conditioned by whether or not remarks are prepared?  Regensburg, anyone? Condoms? SSPX? Without wanting to encourage Benedict bashers, there is a whole litany of PR gaffes he made, and he was nothing if not prepared and very considered in what he said. 

And as the author just pointed out, the Pope's words have a lot of significance. People watch what he says. Most of these people lack a lot of context and background and will misunderstand him. It's not a question of if but when, and prepared or not, it's going to happen. 

As vicar of Christ, I suspect Peter didn't often speak from prepared remarks. Indeed, Christ told him, "do not worry about what you will say--the Holy Spirit will give you what to say when you need it." Obviously, this kind of thing only goes so far, and I wouldn't suggest everything the pope says is directly from the Spirit; however, if we're going to talk about appropriate styles, I think there is oodles of precedent for speaking from the heart rather than from whitewashed, PR-appropriate remarks.

"In fact it is so theologically muddy, and has been so misinterpreted by the media, that his words had to be clarified and explained."  

Because yeah, that has never happened before in the history of papal communications. Oh hang on.. touches earpiece I'm being told this has happened a lot...

"Part of the problem is the Pope’s emphasis on doing good works, even outside the context of faith (ie by atheists). His words lend themselves to the easy imputation of Pelagianism."

This is called the slippery slope fallacy. And as we see below, it's not even a sustainable objection.

5) The Pope was mean to some people who told him how many prayers they said for him. Plus, he doesn't even know what Pelagianism is. Now we move on to the question of the Pope's own anti-Pelagian remarks. Quoting His Holiness:

I share with you two concerns. One is the Pelagian current that there is in the Church at this moment. There are some restorationist groups. I know some, it fell upon me to receive them in Buenos Aires. And one feels as if one goes back 60 years! Before the Council… One feels in 1940… An anecdote, just to illustrate this, it is not to laugh at it, I took it with respect, but it concerns me; when I was elected, I received a letter from one of these groups, and they said: “Your Holiness, we offer you this spiritual treasure: 3,525 rosaries.” Why don’t they say, ‘we pray for you, we ask…’, but this thing of counting… And these groups return to practices and to disciplines that I lived through – not you, because you are not old – to disciplines, to things that in that moment took place, but not now, they do not exist today…

The author of the article continues, "There are so many problems with this passage. There is the tone, which appears patronising and condescending as he looks down on (and resists the temptation to laugh at) those who might offer a spiritual bouquet of rosaries for his ministry."

Really? Because if you read what he actually said, you don't get that: "it is not to laugh at it, I took it with respect." Hardly condescending, but again, if you are looking to be offended...

"now-ridiculed faithful" - The Pope did no such thing. He said explicitly he received their gift with respect, not something to be laughed at. The problem here is that defensiveness is causing a hermeneutic of ridicule that is not there.

"Any pope before him would have been delighted." There is no way we can know this. Would Peter have been delighted? Who can say? I speculate that Bl. John Paul II might have also shared the concern, though maybe he would not have said so. 

"Far worse is his equation of this spiritual bouquet with Pelagianism." He did no such thing. First of all,  he is specifically concerned about the counting aspect, not the prayers that were offered for him. Secondly, he says "Pelagian current"--there is no "equation" with the heresy but saying that it smacks of it. Equating "Pelagian current" with formal "Pelagianism" is the same as equating the actual intent and documents/teaching of Vatican II with the "spirit of Vatican II." 

What could he mean by Pelagian current, then? He hints at it--"this thing of counting." I know what he is talking about because I encountered that mentality when I attended an FSSP parish for over a year, and I have seen it to more or less degrees in the traditionalist circles I have ranged in both in person and online since then. 

There is this mentality--it is one that says, "do this many things" for some good end, or that this prayer or this object is a sure guard against this or that evil or is a promotion of this or that good. We're not talking about the sacraments here but, at best, sacramentals (which have no divine guarantees). It's the same mentality that tries to put numbers of years on indulgences. It engenders superstition; it is questionable theologically, and it puts the focus on the means instead of the end.

The mentality that wearing this or that amulet will protect you from harm causes one to put his trust in the thing rather than God. Similarly, saying "do this many things" has the effect of focusing the trust in the number of things done, rather than in God. This kind of superstition is problematic in the "mode" of the religious act. St. Thomas illumines this principle a bit in discussing the question of wearing "divine words" about the neck. He says, "if hope be placed in the manner of writing or fastening" then it is superstitious. Also, we hear in Scripture Christ himself warning us about the heathen who pray, "hoping that they will be heard for their many words."

In all these cases, when the hope attaches more to a thing done (be it the wearing of a special object, the repetition of special words, the number of prayers said, and so on), it is superstitious, or at least tending towards superstition. 

And we can easily see the connection with a Pelagian mentality here--one that puts one's trust in things we do or make rather than in God, one that detracts from or obscures the importance and value of God's grace. It is a mentality that stresses our doings rather than God's doings, our works rather than God's grace. It is not black and white. Again, the Pope doesn't equate the specific errors of Pelagianism with what is going on here; he says they share a current, i.e., a mode of thinking about spiritual things.

Francis spoke of "restorationist" (that's a polite way of putting it) groups that do really want to turn the clock back to pre-Vatican council days. They really do provide an environment for this kind of superstitious/Pelagian mentality to grow. The reform of this mentality was a positive outcome of Vatican II, and I believe this is what Pope Francis is talking about here.

Perhaps it was insensitive of him to choose the example he did, but the concern is real, and it is pastoral. It's great to pray for the Pope--his first act was to ask us to do so. But that doesn't preclude him from guiding people away from ways of praying that can be problematic. In any case, he was hardly ridiculing them.

"we might ask how else could they convey the scale of their corporate act? The number reveals that goodly number of people prayed a goodly number of roasries – for the Pope!"

I might ask, was it necessary to convey the precise number? Was it an opportunity of pride for them? As the Pope said, why not just say "we pray for you"? Or even, "many of us have been praying for you," or even "thousands of us have been praying for you"? The important thing was that they were praying for him, whether or not he actually knew about it, much less how many people, much less how many rosaries. 

I have participated in a significant "spiritual bouquet" before, and I can attest that there was a certain amount of pride in the group from just how many things we had done, maybe even a bit of back-patting. That doesn't make the prayers bad, but maybe not counting could have removed the occasion for both pride and engendering a mentality that our "many words" would make us more heard. 

Sure, it is nice to let people know you are praying for them. It is a good comfort for them. But maybe we can all do better by not trying to keep track of just how much.

"Moreover, how does one reconcile these remarks with his advocating atheists to do good works in the context of Christ’s blood having redeemed all humanity, even atheists?"

In short, his remarks about atheists have nothing to do with Pelagianism, and the connection attempted here just doesn't work other than as a way to, dare I say, cause confusion about what the Pope said. He wasn't suggesting that atheists are saved by their good works. He said that their good works are a way to a cultural meeting. IOW, it is a way to have something in common, a common ground, a path towards peace. 

More than that, though, is that "these acts of love are in fact evidence of God’s activity in the person." This part of the "clarification" gives some insight into how the words on good works fit within the context of speaking of universal redemption. This ties in well with the Scripture that prompted the homily.

I would elaborate on this and suggest that such acts of goodness can be preparatory towards actual individual salvation. God gives the grace to do good, and that practice of goodness can incline one towards the Good, i.e., God. In our understanding of sin and virtue, such a concept is commonplace. Sin, even venial sin, develops a habit of sin that leads us away from God; similarly, doing good creates a habit of virtue that leads us towards God. It is a "beautiful path" one might say. ;)

6) "It is all very confusing, and a pope should not be in the business of confusion. He should not need help in making his remarks susceptible of orthodox interpretation."

So he's not batting 1000 on clarity in simplicity? I think we should, rather, judge by the vast majority of what he's said. He has an amazing knack for making difficult theology accessible. He treads the line between being comprehensible by the world and hardline orthodoxy very well. He challenges us regularly in our complacency and, I would say, in our navel gazing.

About navel-gazing... 

On G+, another priest-friend challenged me in my being critical of this article. He said I was not being equally critical of another problematic piece I shared that was written by an evangelical Protestant. Even though, when I replied to him, I clarified I was not endorsing the article as a whole but the one quote I offered as a good observation, I would further say simply that I expect more of Catholics, especially of priests, especially of religious priests.  Maybe I shouldn't, but I do. 

More to the point, though, the other article was praising Francis' evangelical witness, something I strongly appreciate in Francis. This article I'm responding to here, though, is criticizing stuff that is anything but evangelical. It's all about us--the purported cost to the Vatican of the pope's humble and impromptu way of life, our being bored by the monotony of his liturgical choices and lack of ritual pizzazz, his not complete delight in and approbation of a spiritual bouquet he received from us, that we can argue with him on the appropriateness of likening that to a Pelagian current. It's all us, us, us. Navel, navel, navel.  An evangelical outlook is, on the other hand, just that, an "out" look. It is concerned with the salvation of souls.

This is a point that I see Pope Francis challenging us on directly. Catholics need to be more evangelical. The New Evangelization needs to be more than just another Church program. It needs to change the way we think about the Church (some of us more than others). We need to open our eyes to the world around us--yes, to the poor and needy but also to the middle class atheists. We need to meet them where they are, find common ground and good we can share together.

To further illustrate this, consider the comments on his article and the ensuing article that was, shockingly, a clarification. Wait! I thought those weren't allowed?? ;)

"He has few languages (very limiting for a modern pope) and not much more theological grounding."

Really? I mean. Really?!?  You can't be serious...  First of all, number of languages is nigh on irrelevant. He has access to translators. Secondly, the guy is a Jesuit. We may not like their liberal approach to theology, but to suggest the Pope lacks theological grounding is 1) uncharitable, 2) untrue, and 3) the epitome of pride--as if we are the judges of that. Personally, since we're all offering our assessments of his theology, I've seen an amazing amount of it--it takes a lot more understanding to say things succinctly like he does than to elaborate in tomes.

"Quite honestly anyone who fundamentally disagrees with your original post cannot truly call themselves orthodox or faithful Catholics (perhaps that is a point they may revel in, who can say)." 

And it goes on to even more shocking claims. Granted, this is not the author of the blog, but the author does respond:

"Thanks for your post, FC. You get where I am coming from. And quite frankly, what I wrote does not even make the scale when compared to some things the saints have written to and about particular popes."  

Go see for yourself.

What utter pride and narrowmindedness, to blanket deny the orthodoxy and faithfulness of anyone who disagrees with the original post. Wow. Not only is it just a dumb, insupportable thing to say, it is again pride--as if they are the judges of quality theology, orthodoxy, and faithfulness. 

7) "You are a blind pope-lover."

Okay, not in so many words, but that's the stereotypical defense when you come to the defense of the Pope with Catholics. What he did say was, " There are some also who see popes are little short of God re-incarnate."

This line is the last line of defense for the sedevacantist. They, of course, are the orthodox faithful. We who support the Pope are the Arians. 

This reasoning is so pernicious. I have yet to find a way to break through it. It's the same reasoning used by Protestants and every other sect who considers themselves to be "the true believers." The reason you can't challenge it is that, naturally, their interpretation of reality is the only right one. Point out that the Church Magisterium exists to externalize judgment and provide us with the objective pillar and ground of truth, and they will claim that they are that pillar and ground.

Now, I will give Fr. Hugh some credit on this score. He reiterates his fidelity to the "office" of the Pope, and he is anything but a sedevacantist. I am not suggesting he is anything but a faithful Catholic priest. I only point out a path where the "but Arianism" line of thinking leads, especially for folks who think that they are the ultimate arbiters of orthodoxy. If you challenge such folks and defend the papacy, you de facto become part of their problem.

In this situation, I agree--we are talking about matters of prudence, and that is fair game. It is fair game to criticize and it is fair game for people to defend. In criticizing, Fr. Hugh is no more of a heretic than I am one for defending the Pope. I hope we can all agree on that.

What would St. Catherine do?

That said, as a Dominican, I'll bring up one of the pope-excoriating saints that Fr. Hugh probably had in mind--St. Catherine of Siena. A fellow lay Dominican, she railed against the pope at the time to return to Rome. Keep in mind, though, that in their defense, the Avignon popes had plenty of reasons to be in Avignon. They were none of them evangelical reasons, though. Plenty of worldly, practical considerations kept them there, not a care for the salvation of souls. St. Catherine called them out on that. Rightly so.

Can we even begin to suggest a similar case for Pope Francis? I hardly think so. Both St. Dominic and St. Francis were evangelical at heart, just as Christ and the Apostles were. These saints lived in a fully Christianized Europe--at the height of medieval Christendom. And yet they saw the need for a New Evangelization in their time and acted on it. Our Orders are evangelical at heart.

I think it is not for nothing that Pope Francis took on St. Francis namesake. He has said it on multiple occasions--his closeness to the poor and needy is not simply a humanitarian concern. Apostolic poverty is about the salvation of souls. It is evangelical. It's what animates Pope Francis. What he does needs to be interpreted in light of that. 

His is not a feigned, showy "hermeneutic of humility"; it is a lively care for the salvation of souls. And that includes souls within the Church who are in danger--at all levels, from the curia who are tempted to careerism and worldliness down to the average Jane who can be tempted to superstition and the snare of private judgment. I think it also includes those who have become so enamored of their idea of "the Church" and "the liturgy" and what they think is or is not appropriate for hierarchical "offices" that they lose sight of what we're all about, what the Church is for.

The Pope needs our prayers. He needs our support. He needs our defense even. What he doesn't need is public criticism that will almost certainly never reach his ears. That is more akin to gossip than fraternal correction. St. Catherine of Siena didn't hang out in a tavern and badmouth the pope. She made sure he could hear her. If we honestly feel the Pope needs fraternal correction, then we need to take it up with him, not spout off about it on our little corners of the internets.

HAPPY FATHERS DAY TO OUR HOLY FATHER AND ALL OUR SPIRITUAL FATHERS!