Private judgement?

28 Monday Nov 2016

Posted by John Charmley in Catholic Tradition, Faith, Synod 14, Synod15

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Faith, Obedience, Papacy

images

A great deal of fuss has been made about the ‘Dubia’ from the four cardinals to the Pope and his refusal to answer them. Readers of the Catholic press will be familiar with the divisions over Amoris Laetitia. They concern the moral law, the nature of the sacraments and the authority of previous teaching. But it comes down to the question: can remarried Catholics receive Communion if they aren’t living as brother and sister? The Church has always been clear that the answer to this is ‘no’, but it is equally clear that pastoral practice has varied, not least in the sorts of circumstances people find themselves in in a society where late conversions are common and civil divorce very easy. These are new circumstances and for the representatives of the Church simply to insist on a binary answer which would fit all cases, might lead to injustice; but for the Pope not to reply might risk another sort of injustice, in which the faithful look up and are fed stones.

Whatever answer to Pope gave, it would seem unlikely to change the reality at parish level. We are told that the use of contraception among Catholics is common, and yet, if one looks at the lines for Communion and one took them at face value, you’d not suppose that at all – quite the opposite. In the end the individual knows their situation, as does their confessor, and to pronounce in the abstract would simply to be to assert what no one has challenged – which is that the recent Synods did not change the teaching of the Church with regard to communion for the divorced, however much some would like to to have done so, and however much those who would have liked this claim it has. This is a matter on which the teaching of the Church is clear, and where pastoral practice clearly varies. It is not the only such issue.

No doubt those calling on the Pope to say something more have their reasons for so doing, and no doubt the Holy Father has his reasons for not responding. For the individual Catholic, it is hard to see what is unclear. Those who wish for clarity have already found it in pastoral practice, which varies according to what the confessor knows of his flock; this is right and proper. The Church is not a penal colony, it is a field hospital in a world where Sin is injuring and has injured many Faithful. Those who want clarity have it in the age-old teaching of the Church; if they wish to apply it to every individual regardless of circumstances then, to use a word much beloved of the Pope, that would seem a trifle ‘rigid’. So the Holy Father may be showing much wisdom in letting things lie where they are, because in practice, it is the individual conscience which knows where truth lies, and if that conscience is formed well by the confessor, then we can be sure that what is done is what ought to be done.

The Joy of Love: first reflections

08 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by John Charmley in Faith, Pope, Synod 14, Synod15

≈ 137 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, Faith, Papacy, The Joy of love

c1ce561a275df7b52929d4427c08876b

The long-awaited Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia – The Joy of Love -is now available on line. For those of us who have had sight of it only now, it will take time to digest – 264 pages are not to be understood on a skim read. The Catholic Herald has a good summary here. What is already clear is that this is not going to stop the entirely predictable reactions. On the liberal side, we are already hearing the false dichotomy – ‘less dogma, more love’. Quite what any Catholic who believes dogma and love are opposites is thinking with is unclear; one can see why an uncomprehending secularist might leap to such a conclusion – it fits, presumably, with their view that the Church is a hypocritical organisation more concerned with rules than with reality; but why a believing Catholic would join them is not clear. It might, perhaps, be something to do with the other entirely predictable reaction from self-styled traditionalists, who deplore what they see as a watering down of dogma and and gut reaction against any call for ‘greater acceptance of non-traditional families’. One thing alone is clear – neither extreme in this discussion is going to like this document – it not only does not give them what they want, it exhorts them to think again; people often dislike that most of all. We have, they tend to think, clear cut views and here they are – why is this man asking us to rethink things we have already decided are settled? The document explains why.

When, in paragraph 3, the Pope says that “not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium”, and indeed, that for some questions, “each country or region … can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs. For ‘cultures are in fact quite diverse and every general principle… needs to be inculturated, if it is to be respected and applied’” (AL 3), that will dismay some who want a simple and clear theoretical line which can be applied in all cases; such people should go back and read why the Pope says this:

Unity of teaching and practice is certainly necessary in the Church, but this does not preclude various ways of interpreting some aspects of that teaching or drawing certain consequences from it. This will always be the case as the Spirit guides us towards the entire truth (cf. Jn 16:13), until he leads us fully into the mystery of Christ and enables us to see all things as he does

This is a document grounded in the difficult and practical business of trying to apply God’s love to the mess that so many of us make of our lives in this area. In recognising that one size does not fit all, the Pope is trying to avoid to avoid a sterile contest between demands for change and the general application of abstract norms. He writes:

“The debates carried on in the media, in certain publications and even among the Church’s ministers, range from an immoderate desire for total change without sufficient reflection or grounding, to an attitude that would solve everything by applying general rules or deriving undue conclusions from particular theological considerations” (AL 2)

In real life in these areas, things are messy and seldom, if ever, reducible to black and white (AL305), and the church cannot apply moral laws as if they were “stones to throw at people’s lives” (AL305). The Holy Father calls, instead, for a pastoral approach marked by understanding, compassion and accompaniment. This last word, which will, I suspect be met with snorts of incredulity from some, refers back to an approach made familiar by St John Paul II, who reminded us that Christ himself had accompanied us into the most extreme of the situations we can encounter – a cruel and unjust death by torture, and that as the alter Christus it is the job of the priest to accompany us on our journeys so we can be better guided and come to understand what it is God wants of us.

There is, it seems to me on a first reading, much wisdom here, but it will, as is the case in such matters, satisfy neither those who insist black and white is black and white, or those who want to turn the Catholic Church into the Anglican Church. The words of the final paragraph need to be heeded:

no family drops down from heaven perfectly formed; families need constantly to grow and mature in the ability to love. This is a never ending vocation born of the full communion of the Trinity, the profound unity between Christ and his Church, the loving community which is the Holy Family of Nazareth, and the pure fraternity existing among the saints of heaven. Our contemplation of the fulfilment which we have yet to attain also allows us to see in proper perspective the historical journey which we make as families, and in this way to stop demanding of our interpersonal relationships a perfection, a purity of intentions and a consistency which we will only encounter in the Kingdom to come. It also keeps us from judging harshly those who live in situations of frailty. (AL325)

Those who insist dialogue is a tool to wear down the faithful (a direct quotation from something posted recently) should hesitate before taking on themselves sole responsibility for being ‘the faithful’, and they might also ask at what point we sinners stop talking to each other, and Holy Mother Church stops talking to us. Yes, for sure, it is easier if a Father simply says here are the rules, obey them or go, but that looks terribly like a form of child abuse, and seems far from the way of Jesus with sinners. The religious authorities of his day were, from their own point of view, right to condemn him for keeping fellowship with whores and tax collectors and other sinners, but Jesus knew where he was needed most – as does his Church. I daresay, on closer inspection, there will be much to be mulled over and discussed – and from a constructive dialogue, much good can come. From a dialogue of the deaf, from those determined to reduce this rich document to a few bullet points to ‘prove’ either that the Pope is not a Catholic, or that he is not really a liberal, little that is good will come.

This is a rich, stimulating and illuminating document, which we should read with prayer for better understanding, both of it, and of how the Church can accompany all of us on our journeys. Am I going to agree with all of it? Am I going to find some of it ‘too vague’? I suspect the answers are ‘no’ to the first, and ‘yes’ to the second. But I am not going to fail to do what the Pope wants, which is to read it carefully and reflect on it and to learn from it too. As the Pope says:

“I understand those who prefer a more rigorous pastoral care which leaves no room for confusion. But I sincerely believe that Jesus wants a church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness.”

If that is what the Spirit is leading the Holy Father to believe, we should, I think, reflect prayerfully before we reject that approach for the certainties we think we have.

There is a good summary here by Dr Stephen Bullivant of St Mary’s, Twickenham.

The end of the dinosaurs?

26 Monday Oct 2015

Posted by John Charmley in Faith, Pope, Synod 14, Synod15

≈ 48 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, controversy, orthodoxy, Synod 15

So,the Synod is over, and there we have it – the final statement which is, we are told a great improvement on the working drafts. Already liberal Catholics are ‘virtue signalling’ by tweeting and writing about ‘mercy’ as though they have just discovered it and think they own it. The spin machine of the German bishops is in overdrive, with claims that they got what they wanted. But one wonders? The Pope chose to make some sour comments about ‘closed hearts’, following the modernist view that an open heart is synonymous with an empty head, which hardly suggest he feels that the liberal agenda is now approved. It is clear what the Pope would like, but a Pope is a Pope, and they come, and they go, and this one has done what one suspects his backers wanted – and their throw of the dice has failed – although they will loudly proclaim otherwise.

There is a generation, which for the sake of convenience, one might call the ’68ers’ – it makes better sense in French where they refer to the ‘soixante huitards‘ – who thought that the tide of liberalism of 1968 marked a decisive change in the direction of history; they thought they were riding that tide. Those who did so in the secular world were right, but their religious counterparts were not so fortunate from the point of view of their careers. It is true that being so many, some of them have reached senior positions in the Church, but John Paul II and Benedict XVI proved stout defenders of orthodoxy, and with a younger generation of Western priests coming through in that mould, and with African and Asian priests of impeccable orthodoxy, the 68ers were running out of time. Benedict XVI’s unexpected abdication led to their being able to get their man in. The two Synods were their throw of the dice – and they have lost. The tide of history was not moving in their direction – they are dinosaurs stranded on sandbanks as the tide goes out.

They will, as is their wont, try to use words to mean what they want the words to mean, and those who agree with them will do the same; but that is hardly a new development – they have been doing it for fifty years – and longer – there is a reason the English use the word ‘Jesuitical’ as a synonym for casuistry. However, the speed of modern social media has meant that attempts to rig the Synod have not only been spotted, but called out and combatted. Those who were worried about a liberal triumph will continue to be, but many of these seem uncomfortable with the very existence of a liberal Catholicism; what is notable here is that even with a rigged Synod, the liberal agenda did not prevail. Given the age profile of the liberals and the fact that the rising generation is the John Paul II one, with heavy reinforcement from Africa and Asia, the demographics are against the German Cardinals. A group who can call for mercy towards those who reject established Catholic teaching, but show none to people who don’t pay their Church tax, and who are presiding over emptying pews in a Continent where the faith is ebbing fast, are in no position to claim to control the future.

Back when these men in their 70s were young, the culture they were in was one in which many were Catholics without thinking about it, and some such went into seminaries in much the same way. Some left in the sixties and early seventies, some stayed on thinking that things would change and that they could help. The passive-aggressive bitterness which marks so many of their utterances is the produce of hope deferred, and it feels almost cruel to tell them that they are a dying breed – but they are. As I commented in a recent piece in the Catholic Herald (not alas on line) the liberal option in religion leads to the Dignitas euthanasia clinic. The Faith, and the Church, will march on, and the soixante huitards will become yet another interesting sociological phenomenon to be studies by those with a taste for such things. Men attached to once-fashionable nostrums have their opinions, God has his Law, and we should be in no doubt about who will prevail.

Local churches?

19 Monday Oct 2015

Posted by Geoffrey RS Sales in Faith, Pope, Synod 14

≈ 53 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Christianity, controversy, Papacy, Synod 15

Now I may be wrong (it’s been known), but what I’m reading suggests that the infamous Synod is likely to result in what I’d call the ‘Orthodox option’ – by which I mean power being delegated to local churches to make what the Pope would call ‘pastoral decisions’. On the surface that’s sensible enough – except, as the Anglicans found out, if you have one local church saying you can have a gay bishop marrying his chum, and another one saying that is heresy, you have a bust up, not two brother churches getting along in amity. Perhaps no one at the Vatican knows this?

If this is where it’s heading, the results will be the same as in Anglicanism. The Africans and Asian will stick with what the Church has always taught, the Europeans and the Americans (some of them) will look for ingenious ways of doing what their society demands. The Africans and Asians will continue to see their churches grow, the Americans and Europeans will see a shrinkage, and in the end the latter will, as C commented to me in an email, end up sending missionaries to re-evangelise us.

But what, in all this, of the Pope? Seems to me that there won’t be much need for him. If each local church can do as its bishops decide, then they don’t need an umpire – especially one who has a problem judging – after all, that’s what an umpire is for, and if he can’t, or won’t judge, then there’s no need for the fellow.

That would open up interesting vistas in terms of Christian unity. One might expect to see the dwindling local churches of Europe finding some syncretistic formula that would allow them to unite to service their vanishing congregations – which would probably vanish even more quickly. That would allow those churches where there are orthodox believers who take the historic creeds seriously, to evangelise, with the help of the African and Asian churches, which, let’s face it, have vocations to spare. Within a generation or so, the United Church of tolerance of everything, would be down to a basement in Ecclestone Square, and the others would be expanding by evangelisation.

So, who can tell, for all the doom-mongering, perhaps rambling Pope Frank is following a path which will allow the progressives to expire slowly in their unholy huddle, and leave the way clear for orthodoxy to triumph. It’s all very well to have clever plans, but the Holy Ghost will lead, and he may well lead Pope Frank to a place where, all appearances to the contrary, he ends up doing something necessary. It would allow the Vatican II ‘spirit’ to die slowly whilst inoculating the rest of the Catholic Church against it.

Just a thought to cheer my Catholic friends here!

The modern Gutenberg

15 Thursday Oct 2015

Posted by Geoffrey RS Sales in Faith, Synod 14

≈ 88 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, controversy, Synod 15

Respecting Chalcedon’s steering clear of the Catholic Synod until we actually hear what it is going to say, I want, nonetheless, to comment on one aspect of what is happening. I can recall the Second Vatican Council, and if you wanted any idea of what was occurring during it, you got a copy of the Catholic Herald or The Tablet, or even the Church Times and you’d get some news, and then, for those interested, you could read the documents when they were published. Now communication is instant, and the spectacle of Fr Rosica blocking twitter accounts which dissented from his ‘spin’ was both amusing and instructive: the former because it showed he had no idea how modern social media works; the second because it showed the impulse to clericalism still runs strong. If the fellow could ban people, he would – but in the modern world it isn’t so easy.

One thing striking me about all this is that fellows my age and a bit younger, simply fail to grasp the nature of the communications revolution that has hit us all. Back in Luther’s day the Church discovered it no longer had a monopoly over communications – Gutenberg’s invention made reading matter more easily available, and folk could print pamphlets and get their message out there whilst a conclave of Cardinals was taking its leisurely time in the old way of things. Likewise, those who are engaged in political intrigue can no longer do so under conditions of privacy which mean that it will only be years later that anyone will learn what they’ve been up to; things get out, and when they do, Twitter gives it a world-wide audience within moments. The idea of a press officer thinking he can stop this by blocking people is actually quite funny – but a bit sad, as it suggests the poor old chap hasn’t a clue – and as another poor old chap without much of a one, I sympathise – but then I’m not supposed to be running a media operation for a global church!

We can see how all of this explodes the ‘usual ways of doing things’ if we see what happened to Cardinal Kasper last year. He was quoted saying disobliging things about Africans by a reporter and denied doing so. Unfortunately for Kasper he’d been recorded. Still, the fellow didn’t apologise for telling lies – he’s a prince of the church and so criticised the journalist for recording him – and then wondered why many folk thought him a bit of a wide boy – that, of course, would have been on the basis of ample evidence. It’s clear that without the tape recorded Kasper would have simply kept on denying that he had said what he said (technically we call this lying, but perhaps for a Cardinal there is a Latin term which means he was telling a white lie with his fingers crossed?) – but he couldn’t. Equally, those who are trying to fix things can’t move without someone spotting them. Of course, some folk spot conspiracies where there are none, but that’s the price we pay for freedom – everyone has an opinion.

The Roman Catholic Church has always been big on authority and uneasy with it being questioned. For all his rambling ways, Pope Frank is no exception, he clearly doesn’t like being criticised, not least by his own side. Well, welcome to the modern world old chap, deference is dead, and all you’re going to get by trying to impose clericalism is criticism. Of course, he could always try sticking to what the Church has always taught – but that would upset Kasper and the Germans might take their money away. Quite what they are using their money for as the pews empty is another question.

My one piece of advice would be hand the thing over to the Africans, they believe in Jesus and in what the Church has always taught.

When in doubt

12 Monday Oct 2015

Posted by Geoffrey RS Sales in Blogging, Faith, Synod 14

≈ 48 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, controversy, orthodoxy, Prayers

It is impossible to have feelings and for them not to be engaged on the part of members of this blog who are Catholics. As far as I am aware, there is only one ‘cradle Catholic’ here, David Monier-Williams, who celebrated his 84th birthday last week – and to whom many happy returns. I am struck by the fact that he, alone, of the Catholics here, seems to accept things as they come and refuses to get himself worked up by Synods – my guess would be that after 84 years as a Catholic he’s seen a good deal and learned to accept the rough with the smooth in a way you can if you’re born to something. As a lifelong Nonconformist, I refuse to get worked up by whatever this year’s fashionable cause of angst might be; I have seen it come, I have seen it go, and have lived long enough to see it come back and go again; there is nothing new under the sun. As long as there have been Christians there have been disputes about what needed to be believed, and Christians have turned on each other in a manner which suggests to outsiders that they are deaf to the Gospel command to love one another. As an acquaintance of mine at school once said: “Who would want to be loved by a pack of hounds who snarl at each other as easily as they breathe?” She had a point.

The other Catholics on this blog all came to the Church by a process during which they must have tested what they believe in a way that only those who feel the need to be elsewhere can – that is a serious process of discernment and to be respected. I have known a few such, and even though I have disagreed with their conclusion, I have respect for the manner and the scrupulosity by which they reached it.

I don’t know how much of the inwardness of a church converts can grasp on the journey. The ones I have known have approached their new church with the enthusiasm of a man who had found, at last, the pearl of great price, and several of them went there with what I thought we starry-eyed views of what they would find there. During the reigns of the previous two Popes, the Catholic Church was an obvious refuge for those of orthodox doctrinal positions and conservative views; indeed, it was during that period and perhaps for that reason that my own native anti-Catholic prejudices largely melted away. But I bore in mind the words of a very dear colleague – another cradle Catholic – “the real test will come, Geoffrey, when we get a ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ Pope – and we shall, we shall.” And we have, with rambling Pope Frank. And, as my old friend predicted, it has made many converts uneasy – they did not cross the Tiber through storms only to find on the other bank the issues they thought they had left behind; now they find it so, it is difficult – and one sympathises.

Our commentator, quiavideruntoculi writes amusing ditties in the style of Flanders and Swann and Tom Lehrer – and rather witty they are too; our old friend, Dave Smith, like others, worries that the modernists are packing the Synod to get the result they want – a view shared by some of our commentators; I worry for them if their fears are right. Our host, Chalcedon451, is adopting, if I read him aright, the old Oxford model of using history to comment on matters which too current and hot to comment on directly; that is the old Oxford Movement model and creates some distance between writer and subject, whilst still allowing useful things to be said. David Monier-Williams alone here is content to let things flow on.

They say when in doubt … don’t. It is hard, I think, to convert to what you thought to be the security of the rock and find yourself on a sandy beach after all. I hope and pray for my friends here that there is rock under the sand, and that, to use a phrase I know Jessica and Neo are fond of, that ‘all will be well, and all manner of things shall be well.’

The world and the Pope

02 Friday Oct 2015

Posted by John Charmley in Faith, Pope, Synod 14

≈ 22 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, controversy, Papacy

The temptation to remind us that Jesus said the world would hate his disciples, and then comment on the disjunction between that and the Pope’s reception in America, has not always been resisted, and, with the Synod on the Family almost upon us, one can almost touch the tension; whatever the Pope’s achievements, making his flock feel as though they were safe from wolves appears not to be one of them. We should, I think, beware of seeing things in terms of the American ‘culture wars’ however tempting that is. To say that a man opposed to abortion and same-sex marriage is a ‘liberal’ is a strange definition of that word. It would be a brave person who said they knew precisely what the Pope wants on the issue of marriage, but in so far as I can work it out, it looks rather as though he’d like to make it less difficult for people to get a decision on whether their failed marriage was valid or not, whilst tightening up on marriage preparation; that might not pleases everyone, but it seems an over-reaction ot see it as Catholic approval of divorce; but then over-reaction is something Pope Francis attracts in the way wild flowers do honey bees.

Everything we see of the Pope is through the media, and the media always has its own agenda; that he speaks in Spanish and that the media in pretty illiterate when it comes to Catholic teching, all combine to make the problem of public perception even more difficult. It seems unfair to criticise Francis for talking about the need for ‘love’ and ‘mercy’ by saying the Church has always preached that, when nothing he has said implies the opposite. It would be equally unbalanced to say that the Church has always practised what it preached; much as those of us here who are Catholics dislike the tone of much that Bosco says about the Church, it is a reminder that some of the things it has done has made such smears easier to believe.

Would it be better for the Church if the Pope were hated and despised? It would, I suppose, depend on what he was being hated for? Those committed to a totalitarian view of same-sex marriage will continue to hate the Pope because he upholds Catholic teachin; the same will be true of those hoping for women priests (not, one would have thought, a hugely popular cause outside Catholics of a certain age?) or for Catholic approval of divorce. Whatever alarmists claim, these things are not going to happen; they cannot as they run counter to the teaching of the Church.

Is it possible, as in the area of declarations of nulluty, to make changes which might be helpful from a pastoral point of view? Yes, it is, and if there are other areas, then the Church has a duty to explore them and to see what can be done. The world has changed, and the pressures it puts on ordinary Catholics are greater in some ways than ever before. Divorce is at an all-time high, family life more complex, and the temptations to which people are exposed likewise. For the Church to react by adapting to these things by accepting them, would be wrong; but it would be wrong for it not to consider how to react to the places in which so many Catholics find themselves. If it is mindful of its own failures in catechesis, that will help.

So yes, it is easy and tempting to imagine that if the world seems to love the Pope, the Pope must be wrong, but we should resist temptation.

To be obedient?

25 Friday Sep 2015

Posted by John Charmley in Catholic Tradition, Faith, Pope, Synod 14

≈ 28 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, controversy, Obedience

Obedience is a word we are often fonder of pronouncing than practising. We value our autonomy, and if we have come to a view, we are often reuctant to give it up. The days when those ‘in authority’ could force us to do so have left a mark, and our self-will often feeds on that; it is, we say. our ‘right’ to think such and such in religion, and no man can command us otherwise. Yet it is there is the prayer of prayers – ‘thy will be done’ we pray. St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his commentary on Luke writes:

‘Why then did he command the saints to say … “Your will be done …?” This petition is worthy of the saints and full of praise … We request that power may be given to those on earth to do the will of God and imitate the conduct practiced in heaven by the holy angels … The will of God over all is that those on earth should live in holiness, piously, without blame, being washed from all impurity, and diligent in imitating the spiritual beauty of the spirits above in heaven.

As fallen beings, we go astray; in the words of the old general confession in the BCP: ‘there is no health in us’. That is precisely why we pray to do God’s will, and for the Grace to do it. St. Paul spoke for us all when he wrote: ‘For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.’ Left to ourselves, we find ourselves where Paul was. Why then do we value our own will so much? Satan speaks to us as he did the Eve: we have eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge and we are like God. At the very moment we think that, we fall into the same trap as our first parents.

If the Spirit is in us, then obedience is no dry, unwilling service wrung from slaves, it is our ‘faith working through love’. This type of obedience is a living reality that can’t be reduced to a list of things we should and should not do, or to a typology of sins. We need, as the roots of the English word imply, to listen well. In the words of Our Lord as recorded by St. Mark, we need to ‘Repent, and believe in the gospel’. If we could see the perils ahead, we should probably not have the courage to begin, but in loving obedience to the Spirit, we go onward.

For Catholics, this is an especially troubling time in matters of obedience. For decades now, under John Paul II and Benedict XVI, those of even a moderatel traditionalist point of view have been able to cite obedience to the Pope to ‘cafeteria catholics’, confident (most of the time) that they were taking the line the Pope would take. But with this Pope, they are challenged. Those who were once on the receiving end of mini-sermons on obedience, now (perhaps even to their surprise) find themselves quoting the Pope at those who until recently used to do so at them. To say, as we might, that the Pope is not a Catholic is a poor form of obedience, and we may justify it to ourselves by thinking we are truer to the Catholic tradition than the Pope. But that, too, is a poor form of obedience.

It is best to trust in the Church, which is, after all, in the hands of the Spirit. Let us pray for all those at the Synod – and that ‘His’ will is done.

Straining the quality of mercy?

18 Friday Sep 2015

Posted by Geoffrey RS Sales in Faith, Synod 14

≈ 151 Comments

Tags

Christianity, Divorce, Faith, Jesus, love

To hear some folk talk about it, you’d suppose mercy was the greatest threat to us rather than our greatest boon. I can understand it – we’ve all got something of the older son in us, and like him, we can get pretty irritated when some wastrel gets, as we see it, ‘let off’ the consequences which ought to follow his or her sins; we’d all think of throwing the first stone – it’s the way we are. ‘Rules is rules’, and without them things fall apart. So there’s some justification in our feeling a bit of outrage about those who break the rules, not least if we’ve been pretty scrupulous about it ourselves. If you’re English, it’s like watching someone barge into a queue ahead of you when you’ve been waiting patiently.

But even in that context I was taken aback by the tone of some towards C’s post yesterday; the fellow’s a saint. I am not, so here’s my contribution. For all those standing and insisting Jesus said there is no divorce, I agree, but ask where in Scripture they find warrant for the ingenious device of annulment? Jesus didn’t say ‘well, you can’t divorce, but if the Sanhedrin says there was no marriage, then it isn’t a divorce, so you can marry.’ No, he didn’t. His words are clear. So where did the annulment stuff come from? You first find it when Emperors and other important folk like Kings wanted shot of their wives. The Church was clear, no divorce. So, when Louis VII of France, having married the richest heiress in Europe, Eleanor of Aquitaine, decided to get rid of her as she seemed to produce nothing but girls, suddenly it was discovered that their marriage was not ‘valid’ as they were within four degress of consanguinuity. That the Pope at the time had said that was no bar (it was not exactly a secret that they were related), was now discovered not to be right, and so there was no marriage. Bingo, Louis could go marry another woman, as his previous marriage, despite the daughters, was no marriage, and, ironically, Eleanor could go off and sire a brood of Angevin sons with Henry II of England. The Church, being full of intelligent men, found an intelligent answer to a problem. It did not do the obvious literal thing and say “Jesus said no divorce, so, no divorce”, it said “Jesus didn’t say anything about valid and invalid marriages, but we can, and therefore we are not breaching his teaching”. Ingenious, but was that really what Jesus meant? Well, the Church said it was. Now it may be saying that its own rules can be changed a bit to extend mercy to others, and some folk have the nerve to quote Jesus’ words as though the world were so stupid that it cannot see the obvious – that annulment is the Catholic Church’s way of allowing people to get out of a marriage which was usually legally and contractually OK at the time. Pull the other one, it has bells attached.

I wonder about C. sometimes, as he knows. He’s the one convert I’ve met who seems not to suffer from ‘convertitis’, which I define as a state of mind where, having made up your mind that the Catholic Church is THE Church, you don’t want it to change as it has provided you with a secure anchorage. This is particularly so now, when so many converts came in under two pretty authoritarian Popes, creating an atmosphere where those who wanted refuge from the modern world could find it. It’s no accident that most of this group find rambling Pope Frank a problem. Changes are coming, and they are either going to have to accept them, on the authority of the Pope, or reason like Protestants that a Pope who changes what they think the Church is, is no Pope and does not need to be obeyed. I noted that the one cradle Catholic we have here, David Monier-Williams, who, let’s face it, has seen it all in his Church, is more sanguine and accepting; I note that as a sign of a good Catholic formation. That’s why I wonder about C, he’s more like David than his fellow converts.

He sees what most folk see, which is that his Church has long used annulment as an exercise of mercy where reasonable cause exists to exercise it. There are few cases in the past where a monarch did not get his annulment. The famous one, Henry VIII, was because his wife’s uncle, Charles V, was occupying Rome with his troops and put pressure on the Pope of the day. That was why fat Henry threw a hissy fit and stormed off, any other time and he’d have got what he wanted. Latterly, the Church has extended this privilege to others, but the system is creaking under the demands made on it. To listen to ginny and Dave Smith, some of their Princes of the Church are dreadful heretics who want to usher in divorce, well, I’ve bad news, that happened when the clever fellow invented something Christ said nowt about – annulment. The reason their system is creaking is that their defence of marriage has utterly failed. That does not make the Church wrong, but it does mean that pastorally it needs to do something for the millions of Catholics who have failed marriages on their hands. That, as I read it, is what old Wally Kasper wants – but heck, he’s their Prince of the Church, and if they want to accuse him of heresy, then so be it.

I saw someone cite to C the words of Jesus ‘go sin no more’. I offer this invitation, those here who have sincerely and truly gone and sinned no more, chuck those stones at will. For the rest of us, we will err on the side of mercy. That is not to condone adultery, it is to say that where there is reasonable doubt about the validity of a marriage, things should be moved along a bit quicker, and those screaming blue murder might get a grip on the reality for many of their fellow Catholics and get out more.

Of course, if their Church, and other Churches, did more by way of preparing folk for marriage, that might be best of all. But it would provide far fewer opportunities for folk to get on their high horses and call others heretics and condoners of adultery – which might take all the fun of converting to Catholicism away for some folk! Dear old C, he takes it on the chin – well, colour me bad – when someone smites both cheeks, I smite back. Go show me where Jesus said ‘there will be something called an annulment which means that what everyone said was a marriage at the time wasn’t really – and that fulfils my teaching about no divorce’. if you can’t do that, reflect on what mercy means, and reflect on the gap between what you deserve and what God offers you – and get on your knees and thank him – and stop judging others and leave it to your church. There’s the challenge to all these JPII and B16 converts – can you be obedient to authority when it dares disagree with you? I shall be watching with care over the next month or so.

The quality of mercy

17 Thursday Sep 2015

Posted by John Charmley in Faith, Pope, Synod 14

≈ 305 Comments

Tags

Catholic Church, Catholicism, Christianity, Jesus, love, sin

It will suprise no one that I am strongly in favour of what the Pope has recently had to say on the subject of the pastoral care of divorced Catholics. I am one myself, and the current system took a very long time to come to the conclusion which was obvious four years earlier. The idea that it is up to the Bishop, as the successor of the Apostles, to decide such matters in accordance with the laws of the Church, seems wise, sensible and a welcome reinforcement that it is the indvidual bishop, not some conference of them, who exercises the authority to bind and loose. Those whose vivid imaginations had imagined a liberal Pope capitualting to the demands of cardinal Kasper in such matters can calm down. If the repentant sinner cannot find redemption in Christ, whence can he or she find it? For anyone who appreciates the real presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist, the denial of it is torture; indeed, the more so as it denies him, or her, access to the healing which comes from communion with the Lord’s body and blood. It is an unspeakable mercy, it is a blessed balm for what ails us. To be denied it because one is unrepentant is one thing, to be denied it when one is repentant, is another. To be told that true repentance might include ending a marriage concluded outside the Church – with all the personal damage that will impose on others, would be monstrous. This is what mercy is for, and it is mercy that the Church shows here.

It is easy enough for those in a country where the existing tribunals work fairly promptly and efficiently – or at least exist and ought to – to forget about the vast swathes of the Catholic world where none of these things is true – where there are no tribunals and no access to their services. The Holy Father has not forgotten his children in such places. It is clear from the language he, himself, has employed, that he is very mindful of the need not to diminish the significance of the sacrament of marriage, but in acting as he is, he is not doing that; he is exercising the prerogative of mercy. There is no blanket pardon or exemption. it will still be necessary to present a case to the bishop, and he will always have the opinion of not accepting it; repentance and amendment of life are necessary still – as they are always to all of us. We are not rigorists – it is not the case that if we fall away we cannot get up; neither is it the case, as some seem to want, that one can only get up with huge mortification of the flesh and spirit; it is not given to us all to be the stuff of martyrs, and the Church has never demanded that of her children.

As the Pope recently reminded us – ‘if you cannot forgive, you are not a Christian.’ Some seem to think that it is easy to ask for forgiveness, or that the receiving of it should be made hard. But that was not Christ’s way – he asked only for repentance and the attempt to amend life. He did not insist on prolonged and painful penance. As anyone who has sincerely repented of their sins knows, one’s conscience can exact that any way. No, the Church offers what Christ offered to us all. We are, all of us, sinners, we are, none of us, worthy of the sacrifice Christ made for us – but, and what a marvel it is – we are offered forgiveness if we repent. That is the Church, that is Christ, that is the miracle of faith.