THE CATHOLIC THREAD

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 22591
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: THE CATHOLIC THREAD

Post by wosbald » Thu Sep 17, 2020 4:22 pm

+JMJ+

Subject Header: Consistent Life Ethic/Seamless Garment/Social Magisterium
Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 150 / pg 150



Diocese of Amarillo Issues Statement Regarding Father Frank Pavone
Image

September 16, 2020

Image

Statement: Diocese of Amarillo in regard to Father Frank Pavone.

Recently Father Frank Pavone has posted a variety of messages and statements in regard to the General Elections in November, 2020. These postings on Social Media as videos concern the serious sinfulness of voting for candidates of a particular political party (with refusal of absolution if confessed) and the use of scandalous words not becoming of a Catholic priest. These postings are not consistent with Catholic Church Teachings. Neither the Catholic Church nor the Diocese of Amarillo condone any of these messages. Please disregard them and pray for Father Pavone.

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 22591
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: THE CATHOLIC THREAD

Post by wosbald » Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:57 am

+JMJ+

SF Archbishop: Catholics’ right to worship ‘unjustly repressed’ by government [In-Depth]
Image
Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco is seen with other bishops in the crypt of St. Peter's Basilica Jan. 27, 2020, during their "ad limina" visit to the Vatican. (Credit: Stefano Dal Pozzolo/CNS)

SAN FRANCISCO — In imposing severe restrictions on indoor worship services because of COVID-19 protocols, the city of San Francisco “is turning a great many faithful away from their houses of prayer,” said San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone.

“I never expected that the most basic religious freedom, the right to worship — protected so robustly in our Constitution’s First Amendment — would be unjustly repressed by an American government,” he said in an op-ed for The Washington Post. It was posted the evening of Sept. 16 on the daily newspaper’s website.

“But that is exactly what is happening in San Francisco. For months now, the city has limited worship services to just 12 people outdoors. Worship inside our own churches is banned,” he continued.

“The city recently announced it will now allow 50 for outdoor worship, with a goal of permitting indoor services up to a maximum of 25 people by Oct. 1 — less than 1% of the capacity of San Francisco’s St. Mary’s Cathedral.”

“This is not nearly enough to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of Catholics in San Francisco,” he added.

The archbishop’s op-ed came a few days after he issued a memo to all priests of the San Francisco Archdiocese calling on each parish to each gather parishioners to participate in eucharistic processions to U.N. Plaza next to City Hall Sept. 20 “to witness to the city that faith matters.”

Three parishes are each organizing a procession that he said he hopes all parishes will join.

[…]

In the op-ed, he said: “We Catholics are not indifferent to the very real dangers posed by COVID-19. This is one of the reasons Catholic churches have developed rigorous protocols to protect public health in our facilities.”

“We submitted our safety plans to the city in May along with other faith communities, and while indoor retailers had their plans approved and went into operation, we are still waiting to hear back,” he added.

At the same time, “the scientific evidence from other jurisdictions is clear: These safeguards are working,” he said, adding that out of 1 million Masses celebrated in the U.S. in the past several months, there have been no documented outbreaks of COVID-19 linked to church attendance in churches that follow the protocols.

He noted that as San Francisco churches remain closed, “people can freely go to parks here, as long as they stay six feet apart. If they follow proper social distancing and wear masks, people can eat on an outdoor patio with no hard numerical limit. Indoor shopping malls are already open at 25% capacity.”

“Catholics in San Francisco are increasingly noticing the simple unfairness,” he said. “As one of my parishioners asked recently, ‘Why can I spend three hours indoors shopping for shoes at Nordstrom’s but can’t go to Mass?”

[…]

Catholics bear no “hostility toward government” and “respect legitimate authority,” the archbishop said.

“We recognize that the government has a right to impose reasonable public health rules, just as we recognize its right to issue safety codes for our church buildings,” he said. “But when government asserts authority over the church’s very right to worship, it crosses a line.

“Our fundamental rights do not come from the state. As the authors of our Declaration of Independence put it, they are ‘self-evident,’ that is, they come from God,” he added.

“We want to be partners in protecting the public health, but we cannot accept profoundly harmful and unequal treatment without resisting,” Cordileone said.

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 22591
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: THE CATHOLIC THREAD

Post by wosbald » Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:58 pm

+JMJ+

California’s St. Peter’s Chaldean Catholic Cathedral Vandalized by Confusing Mix of Graffiti [Video]
Image

Image

Parishioners with power washers and paint rollers worked all afternoon on Sept. 26 at Saint Peter’s Chaldean Cathedral in El Cajon, CA — covering and cleaning a confusing mix of graffiti.

Father Daniel Shaba shared video of swastikas, white power slogans, pentagrams, Black Lives Matter and Biden 2020 — all mixed together on the walls and ground.

‘It was very confusing when I saw the graffiti because it had things that didn’t have to do much with each other,” said Father Shaba.

[…]

“It’s very devastating. We’re a very small minority, Chaldean community. We fled persecution in Iraq and here we are facing it again, in a place where we thought we wouldn’t,” he said.

Word spread fast, and the response from the community came faster.

“I’m very proud of them, because we had an enormous amount of parishioners come and want to help out, see how they could help us in any way shape of form. But to also hold tight to Jesus,” Father Shabba told Currents News.

Father Shaba says the church has surveillance footage of the crime which they’ve shared with law enforcement.

They will seek justice. But they also have a message for the vandals.

“I would say to the people who did this, we will pray for you. We will pray for your conversion and repent,” said Father Shaba.

Image

Image

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 22591
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: THE CATHOLIC THREAD

Post by wosbald » Wed Oct 07, 2020 12:40 pm

+JMJ+

Subject Header: Consistent Life Ethic/Seamless Garment/Social Magisterium
Inter-Thread Trackbacks: pg 150 / pg 150 / pg 151

Inter-Thread Trackbacks:
"The Statement on Social Justice": pg 6



Catholic Social Teaching called Church's 'best kept secret' in new book [In-Depth, Interview]
Image
A Catholic Charities' worker places a sandwich in a bin at the St. Ann's Center for Children, Youth and Families facility in Avondale, Md., July 14, 2020, to be packaged in boxed meals for needy residents of the greater Washington area. (Credit: Chaz Muth/CNS)

============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

[Mark P. Shea is a popular Catholic writer and speaker. His works include Mary, Mother of the Son (Amazon), Salt and Light: The Commandments, the Beatitudes, and a Joyful Life (Servant), The Heart of Catholic Prayer: Rediscovering the Our Father and the Hail Mary (Our Sunday Visitor) and The Work of Mercy: Being the Hands and Heart of Christ (Servant). He is also the author of Making Senses Out of Scripture: Reading the Bible as the First Christians Did (Basilica), By What Authority? An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition (Ignatius), and This is My Body: An Evangelical Discovers the Real Presence (Christendom). An award-winning columnist, he has contributed numerous articles to many magazines. Mark is known nationally for his one minute “Words of Encouragement” on Catholic radio. He also maintains the popular blog Stumbling Toward Heaven. He spoke to Charles Camosy about his new book, The Church’s Best-Kept Secret: A Primer on Catholic Social Teaching (New City).]

============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Image
(Credit: New City Press)

Camosy: What does it mean to say, as your new book’s title does, that Catholic Social Teaching is the Church’s best-kept secret?

Shea: Sometimes we cannot see things because we are not looking at them, or they are hidden, or our eyes do not function. Other times, we cannot see things because of the way that we have been taught to see. You are taught to the black and white cubes all facing one way, and then suddenly one day you see them all facing the other way. The cubes didn’t change. The way you saw them did.

Catholic Social Teaching is the Church’s best-kept secret not because the Church hides it, but because the way we have been taught to see keeps us from seeing what is, in fact, in plain view. It is all there, summed up on the Church’s four pillars of the dignity of the human person, the common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity.

The trouble is that we do not get our ideas on how to order our common life from the Church. We get them from our parents, our peers, Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, Rush Limbaugh, a host of mini-popes on social media, Netflix, that mouthy guy at the water cooler at work, that thing we read once in a book whose title we can’t recall, our gut, a favorite priest, our brother-in-law, a YouTube conspiracy theory, or a vivid dream we once had.

Image
Mark Shea. (Courtesy to Crux)

That’s not really surprising. Most people don’t curl up with the Catechism or the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church on a rainy Saturday afternoon. Nor do average Catholics pore over the social encyclicals of the Church. We tend to listen to trusted tribal elders, not to research tomes. Consequently, our approach to the Church’s teaching tends be backward from the way the Church intends. Whereas the Church wants us to start with the gospel and build out from that to forming a way of life, we tend to start with what we want to believe and then we loot and pillage the Catholic tradition for philosophical baubles with which to accessorize our worldview. So we never really see the Tradition in its fullness. We just see just the bits we like. The rest we throw away as “too liberal” or “too reactionary”, “too modern” or “too medieval.” My book aims to start the process of learning the Church’s social teaching as the Church actually teaches it.

[…]

This may sound like too simple of a question, but what is, in fact, Catholic Social Teaching? Obviously, some encyclicals — like Rerum Novarum — “count.” But others are ambiguous. Is Evangelium Vitae part of Catholic Social Teaching? What about Humane Vitae?

Yes, all of these, and the following as well:

Quadragesimo Anno (After Forty Years) — On Reconstruction of the Social Order

Mater et Magistra (On Christianity and Social Progress)

Pacem in Terris (Peace on Earth)

Populorum Progressio (On the Development of Peoples)

Laborem Exercens (On Human Work)

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (20th Anniversary of Populorum Progressio)

Centesimus Annus (The Hundredth Year)

Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason)

Deus Caritas Est (God Is Love)

Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth)

Laudato Si’ (On our Common Home)

Catholic social teaching as an organized body of doctrine is barely 130 years old. But its roots, like all developments of doctrine, go right back to apostolic tradition and, indeed, to the Old Testament as well. Its core, like that of all Catholic moral teaching, is the two greatest commandments: Love God and Love Your Neighbor as Yourself. But it is unique in that it is specifically a response of the Church to modernity and post-modernity. It was, if you will, invented by Leo XIII in the extremely late 19th century in response to crisis of industrial civilization and the strain it was placing on the human community.

Then as the 20th century revved up into war, famine, and crisis after crisis, the Church was spurred to delve into its tradition again and again to confront the rapidly developing situation. Consequently, Catholic social teaching always has one foot in eternity and the other foot in very swiftly changing history. No more perfect illustration of this can be found than in the fact that The Church’s Best-Kept Secret, published on Sept. 21, will already be slightly outdated on October 3, when Pope Francis signs a new social encyclical called Fratelli Tutti. On to the revised third printing!

[…]

What implications does this authority have, in your view, for faithful Catholics thinking about the 2020 US elections?

I want to stress that this book is not intended as a political manifesto of any kind, nor as being addressed to current event in American politics. My goal, in fact, was to write a book that will be just as useful for understanding the Church’s social teaching in a century as it is now. So while The Church’s Best-Kept Secret, if it does its work properly, will definitely impact the way you think about this election (and every other election from here on in) it will also impact the way you think about how you shop, and how you view your neighbor, and what you do with your money, and the way you worship, and what you think about your responsibility for the earth, and how you view human reproduction, and what you do about buying chocolate, and a host of other things.

That said, I definitely think that viewing our politics through the lens to Catholic social teaching will have a revolutionary effect on it. Much of Catholic politics has been whittle down to a few slogans and shibboleths that involve scarcely a movement of the gray matter. The use of the unborn as human shields for a host of grave evils is a serious problem. So is the fear of the first, rather than the second, death.

Catholics who are convinced they are forever on the precipice of persecution in the United States are often blind to the fact that they are siding with those who inflict mass hysterectomies on women at the border, or destroy water supplies for refugees in the desert, or kidnap children into ICE rape camps, or send them home unaccompanied by adults to wander alone in gang-infested streets. None of this is “pro-life.” And yet by a weird sleight of hand, many who fancy themselves “pro-life” wind up defending all this, not the unborn, because it becomes their real priority to defend the current administration, not the unborn.

A fully Catholic worldview cannot endure weaponizing the unborn into the opposite of all other forms of human life. In the Catholic picture, the unborn are related to, not the opposite of, all human beings, made in the image and likeness of God. That is Solidarity, the fourth of the pillars of Catholic social teaching. God grant that we overcome our divisions and embrace it.

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 22591
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: THE CATHOLIC THREAD

Post by wosbald » Tue Oct 20, 2020 10:07 am

+JMJ+

Subject Header: Economic Magisterium/Integral Ecology/Fratelli Tutti
Intra-Thread Trackbacks: pg 119 / pg 119 / pg 119 / pg 119

Inter-Thread Trackbacks:
"I'm Starting to Like This Pope": pg 65 / pg 121 / pg 121 / pg 122 / pg 127 / pg 128 / pg 129 / pg 129 / pg 129 / pg 129 / pg 129 / pg 129 / pg 129 / pg 129



Bishop McElroy: Abortion is a pre-eminent issue for Catholics. But not the only one. [Podcast, Interview]
Image
Young people take part in a climate change rally in Washington Sept. 20, 2019, one of several taking place across the country and in England and Australia. (CNS photo/Erin Scott, Reuters)

================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Bishop Robert W. McElroy is the bishop of the Diocese of San Diego and a longtime contributor to America. Recently, Bishop McElroy spoke with Sebastian Gomes of “Voting Catholic,” a podcast from America Media that helps U.S. Catholics discern their vote in the upcoming presidential election. The bishop tackles the issue of abortion, the political polarization of Catholics and how to vote with a well-formed conscience. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Image


================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================

Sebastian Gomes: I want to start with a meeting that took place among the bishops last November. In that meeting, a new introductory letter to “Faithful Citizenship” was presented to the bishops for their approval. The letter included the following statement: “The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself.” Can you take us back to that moment and tell us what your concern was about that statement?

Bishop McElroy: In my own view, abortion is a pre-eminent issue for Catholics—one of several.

My concern was that when you say abortion is the pre-eminent issue we face as a nation, you are setting up an election choice. The church’s teaching is that evaluating candidates and deciding who you should choose has to do with certain qualities about the candidates, but it also has to do with their positions on a series of key issues in Catholic moral teaching. The concept that brings them all together is called the common good. The common good is, in Catholic theology, the advancement of the whole series of issues in society, which allow the fullest expression and enhancement and achievement of human life and dignity for all people in our society and in the world.

To say that abortion is the pre-eminent issue in a particular political season is to reduce the common good, in effect, to one issue. And that’s a distortion of Catholic teaching. In fact, the assertion that abortion is “the” pre-eminent issue in this political campaign for Catholics is itself a political statement, not a doctrinal one.

[…]

I’m wondering how a Catholic should engage with the statements from Pope Francis, as well as the statements that they hear from their bishops and read about here in the United States.

I think Pope Francis is pointing to us that broader notion of the common good, that all of those elements need to be taken into account and that it is a mistake to reduce Catholic moral teaching to one issue. That is not faithful to our tradition.

There was an interesting analogy that came out 30 years ago in these discussions, arguing that abortion is the primary moral issue. The analogy is because the issue of life is the foundation of the house of the common good. The common good is built on top of it, but the foundation is life, and thus, among the issues of life, the defense of the unborn [is] so important.

But I would say this: The house itself and the foundation rest on the earth, and the earth is at stake in climate change and in the care for creation. And so you don’t have a house and you don’t have a foundation if you don’t have the earth [or] a habitable place for our humanity.

Could you comment on the politicization of issues and how Catholics can wade through that?

The tragedy for Catholic voters who are believers and take their faith seriously is that, at the present time, the partisan structure of American politics absolutely bifurcates Catholic teaching. There are certain issues where, in general, Republicans far better represent the teaching of the church: abortion being one, euthanasia, many issues of religious liberty. And then there are certain issues where the Democratic Party [represents church teaching]: climate change, issues of poverty and racism.

The problem that voters face is the believer is literally homeless in the party structure of the United States. There is no partisan platform that even begins to approximate what Catholic teaching is.

Some people say that if you vote for one candidate or another, that you’re not a “real” Catholic. What do you make of those statements?

It is a terrible assault on our faith. Catholic faith and identity are not reducible to one’s political stances. Catholic faith is believing in God, having a relationship with God, understanding the life of the church, loving the church, walking in the pilgrimage of [a] life of faith on this earth. That’s what Catholic faith is.

But for people to say that because on a particular political issue you diverge from what the church teaches you are not a Catholic anymore reduces our faith to simply a political creed. Our faith is much more than that.

[…]

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 22591
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: THE CATHOLIC THREAD

Post by wosbald » Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:45 pm

+JMJ+

The New Integralists [Book Review, In-Depth, Opinion]
Image
Bernard Picart, the banner of the Goa Inquisition by the Portuguese, 1722 (Wellcome/Wikimedia Commons)

What they get wrong, and why we can’t ignore them.

Just three years after the closing of the Second Vatican Council, in 1968, the prominent French theologian Fr. Louis Bouyer published a searing analysis of the battles already raging over its legacy. Bouyer did not write as an enemy of the council: he had played a key role in its deliberations and remained one of its staunch defenders. But he hoped that The Decomposition of Catholicism would serve as a warning, and in it he disclosed the greatest threat he saw facing the Church: a violent conservative reaction to the sometimes chaotic, flawed implementation of the council’s reforms. Bouyer admonished fellow advocates of those reforms that unless they found more persuasive ways of situating them within the sweep of Catholic history, then well-meaning believers, unable to recognize their Church, would turn to dangerous forms of traditionalism. He labeled this threat “integralism,” highlighting its “absolutization of authority,” “petrifying of tradition,” and nostalgic longing for the Church to wield political power as it did in the Christendom of old.

Image
Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy
Thomas Crean and Alan Fimister
Editiones Scholasticae
$32 | 290 pp.


It’s now undeniable that Bouyer’s warning was prophetic. The most recent confirmation of this came in March with the publication of Integralism: A Manual of Political Philosophy by Fr. Thomas Crean, an English Dominican, and Alan Fimister, who teaches theology and Church history at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Colorado. The manual gives systematic, book-length expression to a set of reactionary political and theological ideas that have been promoted by right-wing Catholic intellectuals with growing frequency in recent years — ideas nearly identical, down to the very name “integralism,” to those Bouyer predicted would take hold in the Church.

The book should alert a complacent Catholic theological establishment that ideas once thought dead and buried are resurgent. Integralism clearly breaks with Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty and expresses a commitment to the political disenfranchisement (or worse) of women, sexual minorities, and non-Catholics. That might tempt some to dismiss the book as hopelessly “illiberal” or “outdated,” confident that others will react with the same justified horror — a response that Bouyer anticipated. “Such a reaction is no threat to us,” he imagined these skeptics saying about integralism. “It has become impossible.” But he insisted that this attitude only plays into the hands of reactionaries. It leaves their claims to represent Catholic tradition unchallenged, and it ignores the appeal integralism has to younger Catholics searching for meaning amid the shallowness of modern life. Instead, integralism can only be defeated on theological grounds — by offering a deeper, more expansive narrative of Catholic political thought to counter integralism’s bold but unjustified claims to authenticity.

[…]

Before getting to Integralism’s startlingly reactionary content, however, the problem of its form needs to be addressed. The book is modeled after the “manual,” the genre favored by authors of nineteenth-century theology textbooks. While this form of organization has its advantages — the summaries in the form of short “theses” at the end of each chapter are quite helpful — it is first and foremost a symbolic act. By adopting the genre, Crean and Fimister reject the style of theology associated with the Second Vatican Council, which famously began as a reaction against the often dry, ahistorical, and rationalist theology of the manuals. But more fundamentally, the archaic language and the return to this older genre is an attempt to channel authority. Neoscholastic manuals are structured around a claim to present a rigorous, deductive “system” that should compel assent. A manual does not set forth the personal views of its authors; it is a synthesis of authoritative magisterial and theological sources. Thus, while Crean and Fimister eschew any claim to originality in the book’s acknowledgements, this ostensible gesture of humility is a subtle power play. It implies that the manual “merely” relays ecclesial authority, which cannot ultimately be questioned.

The choice of genre, then, performs the book’s thesis: that the Catholic Church’s teachings on politics form an organized system — integralism — rooted in principles that are authoritatively promulgated by the magisterium and have remained unchanged through the ages.

This attempt to cut through the messiness of Catholic tradition with the sword of authority conveys a unanimity that never really existed. It can only be sustained by removing the figures Crean and Fimister cite as authorities from the vigorous disputes in which they participated, disputes that sometimes pitted these authorities against one another. For example, Crean and Fimister scarcely acknowledge how the theories of Pope Gregory VII or Robert Bellarmine were shaped by their polemical context, or that the fierce debates among scholastics on political questions were precisely that: debates. They downplay the distinction between patristic and medieval political thought, and minimize the differences between the views of the great Jesuit theorists and the reactionary political statements of nineteenth-century popes.

Crean and Fimister fail to grasp that demonstrating the coherence of the Catholic tradition cannot take the form of a “mere” manual. Accounting for historical context and genuine differences across time is always a creative act, requiring an interpretation of what is essential and what can change. The attempt to find a lowest common denominator shared across the whole Catholic tradition, like Crean and Fimister’s (not so) minimal “integralism,” is itself a private judgment that can be disputed. Moreover, the unity of Catholic history may not lie on the level of explicit theory. The Jesuit John Courtney Murray, who knew Thomas Aquinas and Bellarmine far better than Crean and Fimister, argued that the continuity of Catholic political thought could be found not in some unchanging master theory but in a golden thread running through what can seem like quite different theories: the defense of the libertas ecclesiae (the liberty of the Church). Seemingly opposed proposals, such as the direct power of the papacy over emperors and modern notions of religious liberty, when situated in a larger story, can be read as motivated by a common purpose — the attempt to protect the Church from totalizing temporal powers, using the conceptual tools available at the time.

The deep irony of what Crean and Fimister have attempted is that the manual, like the idea that scholasticism is a “system,” is a thoroughly modern notion. Aquinas did not write manuals; in his greatest works, his preference was for the disputatio, which does not present a timeless, completed system, but rather proceeds by genuinely responding to objections and frankly grappling with conflicting authorities. Nothing could be further from the distinctly modern anxiety found in Integralism about the dialectical nature of tradition, with its conflicts, developments, and even reversals.



Crean and Fimister’s book is best read, then, not as the authoritative channel of tradition that it pretends to be, but as a narrative—one possible story of Catholic political history. Following Augustine, they identify the heart of this drama as the struggle between the City of God and the City of Man. However, whereas Augustine thought this struggle ran through every human heart and every social order, Crean and Fimister largely narrate it as the establishment, and then eclipse, of Christendom. They interpret the “social kingship of Christ” to mean that a just social order cannot exist unless political regimes acknowledge Christ’s authority, place their temporal power at the disposal of the spiritual power, and become provinces of a united Christendom. Christendom is “the temporal aspect” of the Church, given flesh with Constantine’s conversion, a permanently valid norm rather than a contingent set of arrangements. For them, the modern Church, without Christendom and its temporal sword, is like “a soul separated from the body.”

[…]

Later chapters begin to sketch out the contours of a just regime, covering topics ranging from the distribution of power between ecclesial and temporal authorities to the best constitutional configuration to international law and economic theory. Crean and Fimister’s ideal is a hereditary monarch who has declared his kingdom officially Catholic and sworn fealty to the pope, submitting to the Church on spiritual matters while punishing those who violate natural law or disrespect the true religion. Once again, however, the manual often borrows from sources that are far from traditional. For example, Crean and Fimister explicitly disagree with Aquinas and Bellarmine by favoring hereditary over elective monarchy as the best regime, and their idea that the right to private property is “proportionate to” human nature owes more to John Locke than to Aquinas.

This approach to property rights reflects the manual’s odd libertarian streak, smuggled in from modern Anglo-American conservatism. In addition to jarringly positive citations of Ronald Reagan, Roger Scruton, and Robert Nozick, Crean and Fimister show a surprising interest in conservative preoccupations like corporate personhood and immigration restrictions. But those aren’t the only cases of their deference to magisterial authority proving to be mere lip service. They also deny Pope Francis’s authority to declare capital punishment “inadmissable,” and they can only manage to ignore the Second Vatican Council’s teaching on religious liberty through a hermeneutical sleight of hand. In short, Crean and Fimister have produced a deeply personal synthesis, one which often follows Protestant thinkers or early modern political theory rather than mainstream Catholic sources, and one that plays fast and loose with magisterial authority when convenient.

The most disturbing aspect of the story Integralism tells involves the fate of those who are essentially written out of its narrative: non-Catholics, women, and all those who don’t fit the patriarchal family model. Crean and Fimister openly state that Jews, atheists, and all non-Catholics will be denied citizenship and voting rights. They will be forbidden to proselytize, while polytheistic religions will be banned (along with, the manual insinuates, Islam). Protestant ministers will not be tolerated, and heretics can be put to death. Women, unless they are heads of households, will not be allowed to vote and may work outside the home only with the permission of their husbands, by whom they are governed and to whom they must offer sex whenever requested. Sexual minorities fare no better. Cohabiting couples and those born out of wedlock can be disenfranchised, and a footnote implies (with a reference to an obscure Latin text) that the execution of some LGBTQ people may promote the salvation of souls. It should not be totally surprising, then, that the manual also insists that permanent and even hereditary slavery can be “a potentially valid legal relationship” in certain circumstances.



If these conclusions are rightly offensive to our “modern” and “liberal” sensibilities, they are most fundamentally a theological error, a distortion of the Gospel. Integralists have forgotten “the one thing necessary” (Luke 10:42); they ultimately misrepresent the Catholic tradition because they misrepresent Christ, the crucified victim. Abstracting away Christ’s body and his concrete history, they forget that his Lordship is manifest in service, and that his victory is accomplished in the powerlessness of the Cross. Christ is undoubtedly a king, and the Church he founded inevitably manifests as a political presence that challenges all other lords. But Christ’s “form” — the shape of his life, death, and resurrection — must be allowed to reshape our notions of kingship and the political. Integralists, like Christ’s disciples before the Resurrection, think they already know what his reign will and must look like, and this presumption means they fail to truly recognize him, turning him into nothing other than the capstone of another hierarchy, the authorization for one more Inquisition.

The distortions that follow from their failure to recognize Christ’s form are exemplified by their treatment of the Eucharist. Citing a French law that made the desecration of the Eucharist a capital offense, they turn the very embodiment of Christ’s self-giving love into an occasion for coercive power. Similarly, their tendentious interpretation of Luke 22 turns Christ’s final meal with his disciples into a discourse on integralism. Ignoring Christ’s insistence that leadership should take the form of service, not mastery (Luke 22:25–26), and his rebuke of a disciple for wielding a sword (Luke 22:51), they conclude that the Lord “instructed the disciples to obtain the means of temporal coercion.” To buttress this claim, they twist the very temptation in which Christ refused the Devil’s offer of the kingdoms of the world into an argument for confessional states.

These exegetical perversities should serve as a warning: those whose imaginations have not been remolded by Christ’s crucified body will inevitably abuse Scripture and disfigure his ecclesial body, putting them in service of the libido dominandi, the lust for domination that animates the powers of this world.

Not all integralists would go as far as Crean and Fimister and embrace such brutal punishments for non-Catholics and sexual minorities — although it’s disturbing that even those proposals will find a ready audience. But despite potential disagreements about particular claims in the manual, there is still a very real danger that too many young Catholics, genuinely seeking a sense of identity and belonging, will follow a similar trajectory if they are convinced doing so is the price of orthodoxy. For them, integralism fills a void left by homilies and catechesis that are ignorant of Catholic history, or that do little more than put a religious gloss on trendy causes.

This is why Bouyer was right that it’s not enough to merely wave away integralism as retrograde: its appeal lies precisely in the ownership it takes of a centuries-long story of emperors and popes, mystics and saints. The integralists’ claim to be the authentic voice of “tradition” is unwittingly affirmed when the alternatives seem to suggest, as William Cavanaugh has wryly put it, that by “some terrible mistake of the Holy Spirit” Catholic political history took “a long detour in the fourth century,” a dark age that lifted only with the dawn of Vatican II. That kind of story concedes integralism’s monopoly on the past, allowing its selective and ahistorical pastiche of authorities to substitute for real engagement with Catholic tradition in its full depth, breadth, and complexity.

A better approach is to make clear that the integralists’ problem is not too much tradition, but not enough — that they are depriving their followers of the richness and depth of Catholic political thought, not least in their superficial treatments of the Second Vatican Council. To take only one example, there are several theological accounts of recent teaching on religious liberty that are more robust than anything offered by integralists: looking to the patristic period, Joseph Ratzinger sees Dignitatis humanae as a “recovery of the deepest patrimony of the Church”; John Courtney Murray points to precursors in the thought of medieval figures like Aquinas and narrates the council’s teaching as the latest act in the ongoing drama of the libertas ecclesiae; and Cavanaugh sees in Christendom an important reminder of the significance of the Church as a political body, while simultaneously welcoming Vatican II’s clarification that it does not take the same coercive form as worldly powers.

[…]

ImageImage

"[T]he emergency of irregular migration has to be met with justice, solidarity and mercy. Forms of collective expulsion, which do not allow for the suitable treatment of individual cases, are unacceptable."
— Pope Francis, Morocco

User avatar
DepartedLight
Archfairy of Carolinia
Archfairy of Carolinia
Posts: 31000
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Tobacco Fairy HQ, North Carolina

Re: THE CATHOLIC THREAD

Post by DepartedLight » Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:40 pm

Is 2002 the latest rev for the Roman MIssale?

Sometimes the USCCB is slack in updating their page.
DL Jake

It’s a little smooshed, but seems to be intact. - Gabriel

User avatar
hugodrax
Doctor Buttcrack
Doctor Buttcrack
Posts: 23392
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:00 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: THE CATHOLIC THREAD

Post by hugodrax » Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:41 am

DepartedLight wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:40 pm
Is 2002 the latest rev for the Roman MIssale?

Sometimes the USCCB is slack in updating their page.
I believe it is.

Seems weird to post Catholic stuff in Wosbald's shittin' thread.
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth
—Marcus Aurelius

non nobis, Domine, non nobis, sed nomini tuo da gloriam

User avatar
DepartedLight
Archfairy of Carolinia
Archfairy of Carolinia
Posts: 31000
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:00 pm
Location: Tobacco Fairy HQ, North Carolina

Re: THE CATHOLIC THREAD

Post by DepartedLight » Fri Oct 30, 2020 7:06 am

hugodrax wrote:
Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:41 am
DepartedLight wrote:
Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:40 pm
Is 2002 the latest rev for the Roman MIssale?

Sometimes the USCCB is slack in updating their page.
I believe it is.

Seems weird to post Catholic stuff in Wosbald's shittin' thread.
:lol: :lol:
DL Jake

It’s a little smooshed, but seems to be intact. - Gabriel

Post Reply