Chairman's Blog
A challenge for Fastiggi and Goldstein
You know you've had an influence when the Vatican Insider addresses you by name.
Roberto Fastiggi and Dawn Eden Goldstein write:
It seems that the case for the Amoris laetitia critics’ self-proclaimed “Filial Correction” (1) of Pope Francis is weakening. Dr. Joseph Shaw, one of the signers of the Correctio filialis, recently wrote: “It is not that we’re saying that the text of Amoris cannot be bent into some kind of orthodoxy. What we are saying is that it has become clear that orthodoxy is not what Pope Francis wants us to find there.” (2)
Shaw’s claim that Pope Francis doesn’t want orthodoxy, however, is based on subjective impressions derived from mostly non-authoritative statements of the Pope. This does not seem to be a very strong foundation for accusing the Roman Pontiff of promoting false teachings and heresies.
What interests me about this is less the attempt to suggest that the Correction's signatories are shifting their position--we haven't in the least, although we are getting used to our critics using calling us names and being economical with the truth--but the second paragraph I quote. For the information of Fastiggi and Goldstein, 'impressions' are always subjective, but they are our window onto the world. What we can determine about what what is going on, based--obviously--on what we can see and hear ('impressions'), is indeed that 'Pope Francis doesn’t want orthodoxy'.
And I would go further than what F & G say: our impression is not based 'mostly' on non-authoritative statements, but entirely upon non-authoritative statements by Pope Francis, plus his failures to speak. It should be obvious that it is impossible for the Supreme Pontiff to guide the Church away from the Deposit of Faith authoritatively, since his authority is given him to confirm the brethren in the Faith. What we find, indeed, is that Pope Francis has singled out modes of communication which cannot possibly be mistaken for authoritative statements, when he indicates the kind of interpretation he wishes people to have of Amoris laetitia. These include his remark in a press conference that Amoris makes a 'change'; a private letter to the Bishops of Buenos Aires; the printing of the guidlines drawn up by the Bishops of Malta in L'Ossovatore Romano; and most eloquent of all, his refusal to answer the Four Cardinals' Dubia.
It is not our impression only: it is the impression gained by many theologians and bishops who regard themselves as loyal to the Pope, who are taking the hints, the nods, and the winks, and are writing, and promulgating guidlines for their flocks, which are impossible to square with the constant practice and teaching of the Church, or indeed with Canon law as it currently exists.
My challenge to Fastiggi and Goldstein is a simple one. What would they do if they thought that the pope of the day were doing this: indicating non-authoritatively that bishops and ordinary Catholics should act and believe in ways contrary to the teaching of the Church? What would they regard as the correct response to the situation we believe we are actually facing?
This is clearly not an impossible situation. Even those with an exaggerated view of the authority of the Pope must surely admit, unless they have left common sense entirely behind, that it is theoretically possible for a Pope, who can after all teach non-infallibly, to say things about faith and morals, when not teaching, say things about faith and morals which are not correct. What should the Faithful, and particularly academics and pastors, do in this situation?
The answer which comes to mind, inspired by Canon 212, is that those who think that this is happening should make their concerns known to the proper authorities, without ruling out that they should make them known to their fellow Catholics. In light of Matthew 18:15, it makes sense to go public when private communications have had no effect.
What Fastiggi and Goldstein point to instead, is the passage in Donum veritatis which tells dissident theologians to talk to their superiors rather than to appeal to the mass media. F & G appear to imagine that this imposes silence on all educated Catholics whatever the situation might be. But Donum veritatis cannot be read in this way.
First, it speaks of theologians who reject the Ordinary Magisterium, not to those who wish to uphold it. Secondly, it speaks of theologians who have (or easily could have) dialogue with their superiors. It would be a very different matter for Donum veritatis to say that theologians should not publicly support the Magisterium, or for it to contradict Canon 212 by saying that lay Catholics in general should not make clear 'concerns' to their fellow Catholics, or indeed to contradict Matthew 18:15-17 about making problems public when private admonitions have failed. For DV to have said any of those things would, obviously, have been insane.
It is not the signatories of the Correction who are ignoring the Ordinary Magisterium: if it were not enough to cite Canon Law and Familiaris Consortio, we could cite canons and magisterial documents going back centuries, all the way, in fact, back to St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:27, and beyond. It is this teaching, the teaching of the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium, which Fastiggi and Goldstein do not want us to reiterate in this moment of crisis.
Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
'Do not correct your father in public': a response to Mgr Fazio of Opus Dei on the Correctio Filialis
 |
| The prophet Daniel, as a child, having saved the innocent Susanna from the accusations of the wicked Elders, condemns them to death. Dan 13 |
Today Diane Montagna publishes a fairly long interview with me on LifeSiteNews; here are some highlights. Read the whole thing there.
The “filial correction” has drawn considerable attention in both Catholic and secular media. Why did the authors and organizers of the correction go public with it? And why is it not a “display of disunity,” as the Argentinian Vicar General of Opus Dei suggests?
Those Catholics concerned about the direction of the debate about remarriage and Communion, and related issues, have made repeated attempts to express these concerns in ways which would not create a public impression of opposition to the person of the Pope. The ‘Filial Appeal’, signed by 800,000 people, was part of a debate called for by Pope Francis before he had composed Amoris. The letter of the ‘13 Cardinals’ and the ‘45 academics and pastors’ appeal to Cardinals’ were, alike, not intended to be public documents. Obviously, in this way these initiatives observed both the letter and the spirit of Matthew 18:15-17 on speaking first to one’s brother in private.
Can you point to a passage in Scripture, a Doctor or Father of the Church, or perhaps even a famous piece of Literature, that illustrates your point?
Both Testaments of Scripture are replete with examples of subordinates criticising superiors in public. The criticism of the leaders of Israel by prophets and priests, from the public humiliation of King Saul by Samuel, the denunciation of King Ahab by Elijah, and the attack on Herod the Tetrarch by St John the Baptist, are in general the criticism of official, and usually divinely sanctioned, authority, by persons who may have been inspired by God, but who lacked institutional standing. This pattern is taken to its logical extreme by the condemnation of the Elders by the prophet Daniel when only a child (Dan 13:45ff). Our Lord made the situation clear when, while eviscerating the Chief Priests, Scribes, and Pharisees, he acknowledged nonetheless that they held ‘the seat of Moses’, a position which meant that people should listen to them as speaking with authority, despite all their shortcomings (Matthew 23:2-3).
...
Is there anything else you would like to add?
Something profoundly worrying about criticisms on the signatories of the Correction specifically for speaking out about problems which every informed Catholic already knows about, is the mindset it reveals, one focused not on the truth, but on appearances. It is strongly reminiscent of the mindset at work in abusive families, where children are taught to pretend things are all right, when they are not: certain topics are not to be broached, certain facts are not to be referred to. This attitude can be enforced not by the abusive parent directly, but by other family members who are trying to keep up appearances and hold the family together. It is nevertheless profoundly unhealthy, and indeed is linked to psychological disorders in the children.
We should fear any such attitude, however well-intentioned, invading the Church. If there are problems, we should talk about them, and not pretend they do not exist.
Read the whole thing there.
Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
Successful Mass in Romney Marsh Church
From the LMS
History was made in Kent when the Catholic Mass returned to a medieval church on Romney Marsh for only the third time since the Reformation.
On 23rd September the beautiful sound of Gregorian Chant could be heard across the Kent marshes as St Augustine’s in Snave hosted a Traditional Latin Mass.
Organised by the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, this historic event attracted people from far and wide. Not for so many years has this little country church seen its pews packed full of Catholic worshippers.
Local Kent resident Marygold Turner from the Latin Mass Society who organised this popular event said “We are so very grateful to the Marshes Trust for allowing us to hold this wonderful Mass. It was very moving and the music was exceptional.”
Snave is one of a group of medieval churches built to serve very small communities on Romney Marsh in Kent. St Augustine’s, now redundant, is in the care of the Romney Marsh Historic Churches Trust.
Peter Anwyl-Harris, Chairman of the Trust, speaking after the Mass, thanked those involved with organising the event and extended an invitation to the Latin Mass Society to return to Snave next year.
The Latin Mass was celebrated by Mgr Anthony Conlon and the superb music which included Missa Trahe Me Post Te by the Renaissance composer Tomas Luis de Victoria was sung by local professional group The Victoria Consort.
The Latin Mass Society return to Kent on Saturday 7th October with a Pilgrimage to the ancient Carmelite priory at Aylesford.
Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
News on the Extraordinary Form in Bedford
Cross-posted from the LMS Bedford blog, about developments concerning the regular Sunday 8:30am Traditional Mass in the Church of Christ the King, Harrowden Road, Bedford MK42 0SP
Deo Gratias! Please do come to the Masses if you are within range of Bedford and if you aren’t please pray for us and consider supporting the FSSP’s apostolate in the UK.Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
A few fallacies of the opponents of the Correctio
The other day I had a long exchange on Twitter with Stephen Walford, which was a frustrating experience, so I thought I'd set out in more detail a few of the things he and others don't get about the Correctio Filialis.
As I've noted before, Walford and others like say that Pope Francis has not changed doctrine, only practice. But with the same breath Walford appeals to Pope Francis' magisterial authority, and Catholics' obligations to believe, assent to, what he teaches, as applying to the new practice.
This suggests an incapacity to distinguish correctly between dogmatic and disciplinary acts. When I pointed out that 'assent' is something which only has relevance in relation to propositions, as opposed to commands (or questions, etc.), he still failed to see what difference it made.
It makes this difference: while Popes have the grace of office ('divine assistance') to help them make good disciplinary decisions (Walford gave the example of Pope St Pius X moving the age for First Communion), these are in a completely different category from dogmatic statements. They are assessed in relation to prudence; we don't ask if they are contained in the Deposit of Faith. That is why practice, including liturgy, can vary a fair amount from place to place and from time to time, whereas the Faith cannot. This is so even though what I mean by 'prudence' will take account of tradition and dogma, where these are relevant.
Walford needs the distinction, because he wants to say that giving Communion to public sinners is a 'practice', not a dogma. But having climbed up by it he kicks it away, claiming for a practice what is only available for a dogma: an obligation to assent. New practices may oblige us in some ways, obviously: we are now obliged to abstain from meat on Fridays in England and Wales, and weren't before 2009. Other disciplinary changes may apply to us without bringing in any obligations, such as Pius X's ruling on the earliest date for First Holy Communion. But while we should have respect for the bishops, councils, and Popes who make disciplinary decisions, and abide by them where applicable, there is absolutely no reason for us not to criticise them, or campaign for them to be changed. The present discipline on the Eucharistic Fast, for example, is ludicrous, and I and others have urged a change to it - while, obviously, observing it in the meantime. There is nothing disobedient about that.
If what is going on with Communion for the divorced and remarried were a matter of disciplinary change, we would expect a clear, legally effective statement to that effect from the Holy See, since the present discipline is a matter of law. We have seen nothing of the kind, and the Code of Canon Law still strictly prohibits the practice which, as far as it is possible to see, the Bishops of Buenos Aires and Malta want to apply. (I've just checked: yep, Canon 915 is still there.)
Another thing -- I'd say 'trick' but I think Walford is confused, not deceitful -- is the treatment of the Ordinary Magisterium. Walford points out that the Ordinary Magisterium is binding on Catholics, and can teach infallibly. These claims are true. Since Pope Francis has not issued the kind of formal document that would count as an act of the Extraordinary Magisterium, Walford suggests that he is teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium. Walford appears to think that the Ordinary Magisterium is anything the Pope says to change whatever the Pope wants to change, but this is not so.
First, if Walford is correct that the change at issue is disciplinary not dogmatic, the Pope does not need the Ordinary Magisterium. The Magisterium does not come into it. Disciplinary matters are laid out by reference to disciplinary / legislative authority, not teaching / magisterial authority. The Pope's authority to make disciplinary changes are in fact limited by law: though he can change the law, he must make the changes he wants to make through the law. If he refuses to change Canon 915, for example, priests are still bound by it however much he may, non-legislativly, tell them to act contrary to it. To obey the Supreme Legislator, the Pope, they must obey Canon 915.
Secondly, the Ordinary Magisterium, like the Extraordinary Magisterium, does not exist to change doctrine. Walford points out that it happens that Catholics become obliged to believe certain things, such as the Assumption, only when they are dogmatically defined. This is true, but they already believed things which implied the apparantly new doctrine. Christ gave the Church the Deposit of Faith, and everything binding about the Faith is contained in that.
Since we don't (indeed, can't) articulate to ourselves and then believe all the things which are implied by our existing beliefs, we can discover new things to believe which aren't exactly new, but implicit in our existing beliefs. I might not realise, for example, that 317 is a prime number, but its being a prime number is a logical consequence of other things I do believe. In the case of doctrine, it becomes an obligation to believe those implications of the Deposit of Faith which are drawn out authoritatively, from the Deposit of Faith, by the Church, by the Ordinary or Extraordinary Magisterium.
The Ordinary Magisterium can draw these things out without a General Council or an Ex Cathedra statement by the Pope. But for it to make sense to say that something has been taught by the Ordinary Magisterium, it has to be part of the Deposit of Faith. As Cardinal Pell said, you can't have 'doctrinal backflips'. That would suggest that the Deposit of Faith had changed. Or that the Truth was a liar.
Walford also claimed that you can't use the content of purportively authoritative doctrinal statements as part of the process of working out whether Catholics are obliged to believe them. Presumably, he imagines that only the outward form of pronouncements is important. It is strange indeed that we are having this discussion, because the present issue has arisen in the form is has precisely because Pope Francis has declined to use recognised, authoritative forms to make the assertions which he apparantly wants us to accept, if his endorsement of the Maltese and Buenos Aires guidlines, for example, is to be believed. Walford should postpone his championing of the outward form of dogamatic pronouncements until the time when he has some to show us.
Rather than go on about that, therefore, I will simply repeat that the Ordinary Magisterium is what the Church has always taught. An infallible use of the Ordinary Magisterium takes place when a Pope or Council reiterates what the Church has always taught, when, for example, it has been contradicted. It is not a tool to remake doctrine, and it cannot contradict itself. Popes cannot bind their successors in terms of discipline and law, but popes are certainly bound by their predecessors, and by the Doctors and Fathers, in terms of interpreting the Deposit of Faith. These are all, clearly, matters of the content of dogmatic statements.
Another issue is raised by Austen Ivereigh. Ivereigh likes to point out that not all the divorced and remarried are necessarily in a state of mortal sin, and that for this reason Pope St John Paul II allowed such as are living as 'brother and sister' to receive Communion. This is true, and opponents of the kind of practice advocated by the bishops of Malta and Buenos Aires should avoid saying either that all divorced and remarried Catholics are barred from Communion, or that priests should refuse Communion to those the priest judges to be in a state of mortal sin.
The discipline of the Church is different. Canon 915 says that those
'obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.'
Those not known to be obstinately persevering in grave sin - i.e. those not doing so 'manifestly' - are not to be refused Communion. The discipline is helpful to public - manifest - grave sinners, and is fitting in terms of the nature of the Blessed Sacrament, becuase it prevents a sacrilege. But the reason they are refused and others are not is because of scandal to the congregation.
Ivereigh's suggestion is that what has changed a little in how divorced and remarried couples are treated (e.g. not insisting they live separately) could change some more. But although the argument of scandal may seem weak to modern eyes, it goes back to the discipline of the early Church and the words of St Paul. Here is the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, in the year 2000.
1. The prohibition found in the cited canon [915], by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: "This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself."
Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
Timothy Fawcett, RIP
Tim Fawcett, sometime Latin Mass Society Local Representative and Committee member, died on 28th September. Please spare a prayer for him, and his family.
 |
| Tim Fawcett on the Chartres Pilgrimage in 2014 |
This isn't a terribly good photo of him, but he was an indefatigable supporter of the Chartres Pilgrimage; in particular he did a lot of carrying the banner of the British Chapter, of Our Lady of Walsingham. He was a gentleman, a Catholic, and a true pilgrim.
His funeral will take place on 7th October. Not all the details are confirmed as I write; please email the LMS Office if you would like to attend and don't know how to find out more: info@lms.org.uk
Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
Me on EWTN
I appear at the beginning of this programme presented by Raymond Arroyo; having said my piece, they let me go and Arroyo discusses the issues raised, with his 'Papal Posse', Fr Gerald Murray (a canonist) and Robert Royal.
It was pre-recorded; I was in a BBC studio in Edinburgh. The reason for some of the awkwardness of the questions and answers between me and Arroyo was the five-second time lag down the line between Edinburgh and Washington DC. I couldn't hear him trying to interrupt me until five seconds after he did it. (When you appear like this you can't see the presenter.) They tried to edit out the resulting pauses but there are limits.
Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
Correctio Filialis: a response to some critics
Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
The mainstream media on the Correctio Filialis
I agreed to be spokesman or media contact for the Correctio Filialis I didn't realise quite was I was letting myself in for. I've now lost count of the number of telephone and email mini-interviews I've done, and I don't have time to keep track on the number of reports online which have resulted from these.
This could have been a nightmare, but it's not at all. The journalists have been polite and professional. (Associated Press was a teeny bit naughty breaking the media embargo, but it was only by an hour or two.) And all things considered, we are getting amazingly favourable coverage in Catholic and non-Catholic sources.
The New York Times and the Daily Mail, which both picked up the AP material, took the fairly obvious (to them) line that the Pope was being nice to people and that we want to take the sweeties away from the children - or something like that. (A Guardian comment piece says the same thing.) They paid us the incomparable compliment, however, of reporting us, and indeed of doing so at some length and with a degree of prominence, and the articles are hardly hatchet-jobs. The story of the 'Pope vs. conservative critics' has become part of the media narrative about Pope Francis, so it goes down without obstruction. But critical distance between the liberal media and what we might call the 'reforming agenda' in the Church seems to have opened up nevertheless, thanks no doubt to stories such as about Professor Seifert losing his job over criticisms Amoris laetitia. The liberals in the Church are less and less recognisable as such; the conservatives are clearly now the underdogs.
So now we have a story from CNN which is really very balanced, even favourable to us.
In the meantime, Catholic outlets seem to be divided between those who want to report the story in an objective or favourable way, who find themselves doing multiple stories as the news develops (Catholic Herald here and here, Lifesite here, here, here, etc.), and those who wish to play it down or ignore it completely. The problem for the latter is that it is too late: the mainstream media have already picked it up.
It's no fun ignoring something on one's own. And it doesn't have the desired effect, either.
Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
Reactions to the Filial Correction
Please note that academics and pastors who wish to are invited to apply to join the official list of signatories through a button on the website here (scroll down).
Everyone can sign the petition of support here.
I've been watching the reaction to the Filial Correction on the media - though I've certainly not read all of it - and the Catholic reaction in favour and against are both very interesting.
The reaction in favour has been overwhelming. At the time of writing the petition in support of the document has over 4,000 names, despite being very much an afterthought and not being integrated into the publicity.
But more important has been the tone of responses, and the range of people who have responded positively. Over the last forty years and more the 'conservative' end of the theological debate has been riven by disagreement about how bad things really are, and how strongly criticisms should be expressed. It sometimes seemed that every initiative by a conservative group would be denounced, simultaneously but by different people, as being excessively aggressive and as making too many concessions to liberalism: as being too strong and too weak. Differences of opinion on exactly how to protest about problems are inevitable, but these disagreements have at times become so violent as to cripple conservatives' ability to act at all.
This is not happening at all with the Correctio Filialis. Not everyone thinks that the wording and the general approach is perfect - of course not - but we are not being attacked by fellow-conservatives and traditionalists. I think this is extremely significant. A consensus has formed among those serious about the Faith that things have reached a point where such action is at least reasonable, and derives from sincere love of the Church and reasonably well-informed thinking about the theological issues. For a vast number of conservative Catholics, the response has been relief: someone at last has said it.
So who is opposing us? I think the long-established 'liberal' side of the argument on theological issues would be content to ignore us. There is no reference to the Catholic story of the day, on prominent display in the Daily Mail, the New York Times, The Times, and various other places, on the PrayTell blog at the time of writing. A journalist from The Tablet spoke to me today, but I fancy the result will simply be a short news item.
No, it is the strange new phenomenon of hyper-ultramontanist Francis-partizans who have taken up the fight. They are helpfully gathered together in a National Catholic Reporter article. They seem very worked up, and have developed a sort of all-purpose invective, which can be applied to any topic: the people they don't like are 'hypocrites', aren't very grand and well-connected, and are few in number. As we philosophers say, an argument that can prove too much, ends up proving nothing at all.
Search that article from end to end and you won't find a single objection to the content of the document. And here's something else. The writer of the article, Joshua J. McElwee, not only has no reaction to these spluttering accusations, in his article, from a supporter of the Correctio Filialis, but in preparing it he never took the first step in trying to get one. I know this because that step would be writing to me, at the email address included in the press release as the media contact. I have spent all of today and much of yesterday on the phone to or writing emails to journalists: the Associated Press, LifeSite, radio journalists from Poland, journalists in Rome, CNN, The Tablet, you name it. But from Joshua J. McElwee I have not heard a peep. He didn't want to hear the other side of the story. He just wanted to put together a few quotes from a tiny clique of chums. This isn't journalism, this is the Party Line.
On the one hand, they are desperate to make little of us: they don't want to quote us, they think we are insignificant, it's just a few people, move along there, there's nothing to see. On the other hand, they can't actually bear to look away. They can't stop tweeting and writing about it. We represent a totally insignificant threat that is absolutely terrifying and must be crushed at all costs.
To be fair to them, I think they may have an insight into the affair which the conventional liberals lack. I rather think we really are more significant than our numbers and our academic standing might suggest. So much so, in fact, that the Vatican itself has gone to the trouble of blocking access to the Correction Filialis website from Vatican computers, which appears rather symbolic, if not ludicrous.
| In that enormous silence, tiny and unafraid, | |
| Comes up along a winding road the noise of the Crusade... |
Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.