Showing posts with label jubilee year of mercy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jubilee year of mercy. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

The Pope Misleads on Abortion and Absolution


This is a revised and updated version of a post I wrote last year at the commencement of the Jubilee Year of Mercy.

One of the headlines yesterday was that in his Apostolic Letter, Misericordia et Misera, Pope Francis had indefinitely extended the temporary authority of every priest to absolve the sin of abortion the temporary authority that he had granted to them for his Jubilee Year of Mercy. This implies that priests did not have this authority before.

From the Letter:
I henceforth grant to all priests, in virtue of their ministry, the faculty to absolve those who have committed the sin of procured abortion. The provision I had made in this regard, limited to the duration of the Extraordinary Holy Year, is hereby extended, notwithstanding anything to the contrary.
And here is one headline (from the BBC):
Pope Francis allows priests to forgive abortion
But while the original declaration and its extension have been hailed in many quarters as a sort of stunning development - an example of the Pope's new Church of Mercy in action - its actual effect in terms of the practical ability to obtain absolution for abortion was and still is . . . wait for it . . . zero.

As with many things surrounding this Pope, the reality is different from the hype.

Let's first be absolutely clear: before the Pope stepped in, all priests had the authority to pardon any sin, including abortion. This Pope did not grant them that authority. They already had it.*

The confusion is that there are certain sins that incur the canonical penalty of excommunication or excommunication later sentential - the excommunication is automatic or takes place by reason of the offense. Abortion has long been one of these sins, along with apostasy, heresy and five others, including physically attacking the Pope. Thus, while a priest could technically pardon an abortion or any other sin in the process of engaging in the sacrament, the potential penitent might not be able to receive the sacrament, as excommunication implies that the excommunicate cannot receive any sacraments including absolution.

It should be noted, however, that while excommunication is "automatic" it would only actually occur in a subset of cases meeting the requirements of canon law. A Catholic party to abortion - pregnant woman, doctor, husband or boyfriend - only incurs excommunication if, among other things, the party is sixteen or over, was not subject to physical force and knew (or was negligent in not knowing) that excommunication would result. It is arguable that the last clause would exempt many.

How might a penitent get the censure lifted in order to then receive absolution? Technically, he or she would have to go to a bishop, or to a priest who had been given the proper authority by a bishop. Here's the crucial point, however: in the United States, virtually all priests had previously been given such authority by their bishops.

In other words, in the United States, even before Pope Francis issued his two Letters, virtually every priest already had the authority to absolve the sin of abortion.

It is a matter of some debate how far this had been extended to other countries, and it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer on the question, as statistical lists on these sorts of things are not compiled. But I believe that the "tradition" of bishops designating this authority to their priests was widespread in English-speaking countries and may have been common in most of continental Europe as well. One source I spoke to claimed that it was pretty much the norm everywhere.

But even assuming there were places where it was not the norm - places where technically one still had to go to a bishop to get the censure lifted, canon law offered a "way out". According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, any priest may provisionally remove the censure if he judges that it would be "hard" for the penitent to remain in such a state until the censure was removed. Here, "hard" is usually interpreted as waiting more than 24 hours. In that sort of a case, one of the two - the penitent or priest - would then have thirty days to confirm this with a bishop or someone designated by him. And it should be noted that in the case of a priest contacting a bishop, the full anonymity of the penitent was allowed and expected.

To put it a different way, if you sought absolution on abortion from a priest who did not have the authority to lift the censure (in one of those possible places where he didn't), if the priest could not get you to a bishop or priest who had such authority within 24 hours, you would still be able to receive absolution.


I should say that as a matter of canon law, it still isn't clear whether the pope means to lift the automatic excommunication on abortion or merely grant all priests the ability to lift it. Nor is it clear whether either answer will apply only to abortion or to the other sins automatic excommunication is incurred, such as, say, striking the Pope.

After all this the reader may stop and ask, isn't this all too complicated? Shouldn't the Pope be commended for making it simple and transparent? The answer to this is that while the rules might have been somewhat complicated - it's taken me 1,000+ words to explain them - the practice was not complicated. If one had been a party to abortion, absolution had been readily or "easily" available - at least since 1983 and in many cases earlier.

The truth of the matter of course is that the real impediment to obtaining absolution for abortion has been the state of mind of the potential penitent - not desiring to obtain absolution from a priest, being afraid of it, ignorant as to its importance or whatever.

The Pope's involvement with the issue is in practice nothing more than a PR move.


One might claim that a PR move would itself not be a bad thing if it helped get more people to confession, especially for a grave sin such as abortion. But this Pope has never spent much time stressing the importance of actual confession, even in the context of discussing "mercy." Rather, we get general statements like this:
We will entrust the life of the Church, all humanity, and the entire cosmos to the Lordship of Christ, asking him to pour out his mercy upon us like the morning dew, so that everyone may work together to build a brighter future. Misericordiae Vultus.
Confession has virtually disappeared as a regular or even occasional practice for most Catholics. One suspects that the Pope's quasi-New Age effusions are not helpful in getting anyone to confide their worst secrets to some old man in a priest's collar.

So, it's a PR move, but a PR move to stress the goodness and mercy not of God, but of this Pope, and to implicitly condemn the "old" or "traditional" Church (in other words the eternal Catholic Church).

"The old Church wouldn't forgive abortions. But now, under my leadership, things are different."

That's a lie.



*It was not always this way. Though priests have always had the general ability to pardon even the gravest of sins - i.e. murder - there used to be a subset of grave sins where absolution was remitted exclusively to the Pope or bishops. In other words, to get it you had to go to a higher up. The sin of striking the Pope, for example, was in this category. In the old days, you couldn't just walk into a confession booth and obtain absolution for that, though you could obtain absolution for "common" violence or murder. However, according to current canon law there are no sins in this category. Any priest may technically pardon any sin, including abortion.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Why Does Cardinal X Check His Cell Phone While Hearing Confessions?




This is a repost of a piece I wrote last year. The occasion was Bishop X's installation as Archbishop X. I'm now reposting it in honor of Archbishop X's elevation to Cardinal X. The only change I've made it so change "Bishop" to "Cardinal."   

From the comments section on one of the most perceptive pieces on Cardinal X:
Oh, and one piece of advice for any of you who ever happen to go to him for confession: ask him to turn off his phone BEFORE the sacrament begins. He is on his phone CONSTANTLY, (which is not news to residents of his former city), but I was STUNNED to hear text beeps occurring while he was listening to my confession. To this day, I regret not asking him why he would leave his phone on during this holy sacrament.
Now, this has never happened to me. Once in a while I have snuck a peak at priests in-between confessions at our church. In every single case, they've either been praying the Rosary, saying other prayers or reading what looked like a Bible or a Missal.

They're probably guilty of crypto-Lefebvrist tendencies.

But back to Cardinal X. Now, I've heard other negative things about his personal behavior, some of them directly from "insiders" that I personally know, not from comments on the internet. That I've heard them is one of the reasons I'm using the above public bit of "hearsay" in this blog post. But for a couple of obvious reasons, I'm not going to talk about the other things here.

Whoa! How unfair of me. How uncharitable. How gossipy. Accusing the man without allowing him to defend himself.

Well, give me a break. Anyone that has followed his career knows what he is. And from a number of other personal accounts, the man is a stewing bundle of bias, uncharity, selfishness and hypocrisy. Sure, I hope he goes to Heaven. But at the moment he's greatly harming the Church and endangering souls. I hope he has a change of heart.

And he can defend himself whenever and however he wants. For example, this blog is entirely open to him.

Why does Cardinal X check his cell phone while hearing confessions?
Q: You seem to also embrace this idea that we've heard-- from Cardinal Kasper and also from Pope Francis the idea of mercy. Not ideas, but the mission of mercy. Why mercy?
A: Well, as Cardinal Kasper said in his very important book on mercy-- there really has not been a fully developed theology of the mercy of God, and so that's why he wrote about it. And yet, it's at the heart of the Scriptures. That if you read throughout the Psalms, also through the Prophets and then how Jesus conducted himself, mercy is at the heart of what God does for us. And it's because the condition that we're in of sinfulness....And so the only remedy for that is God's mercy. It's not something that we can do. So we are thrown at the feet of God's mercy, because we're enslaved by sin. All of us are.
So then, in the confessional, the primary and most physically obvious and consistent mechanism for mercy in the Catholic Church,

Why does Cardinal X check his cell phone while hearing confessions?
Q: So it's about listening? 
A: It is. It's about listening.... 
Q: And so to win a convert, what you have to do is? 
A: Listen, talk, be respectful of people—and make sure that you really have an openness to where people are coming from...
If it's about listening,

Why does Cardinal X check his cell phone while hearing confessions?
A: ...And I just think that more and more you're going to see that kind of appointment (the Pope appointing me--Bishop X--and other likeminded clerics) happening... 
Q: When you say “that kind of appointment?” 
A: The kind of appointment that you're talking about of somebody who looks at people the way the pope does and wants. The pope has said this and the nuncio has said this. The nuncio told us last year the pope told him, I want more pastoral bishops...the Holy Father wants bishops who know “the smell of the sheep.” The pope has been very direct about that. 
Q: What do you hope to accomplish as Bishop? 
A: I'm going to be attentive to the needs of the people that are there and get to know them...
So, why does Cardinal X check his cell phone while hearing confessions?

Because he's a fake.

Monday, June 20, 2016

Vatican Ramadan Letter Praises Mecca Pilgrimage, Says Christians and Muslims Should Unite to End Unemployment, Wishes "Happy Feast!"


The full text is at the bottom.

But first, let me make a serious comment. The Vatican letter claims:
We know that Christianity and Islam both believe in a merciful God, who shows his mercy and compassion towards all his creatures...
It is true that the Koran - which Muslims believe was literally dictated by Allah - mentions the words "mercy" or "merciful" many times. Indeed, I would wager that it mentions them far more frequently than, say, the Old or New Testaments. Here is a typical line:
Then after that you turned back; and had it not been for the grace of Allah and His mercy on you, you had certainly been among the losers (2:64). 
That's from the second chapter or surah of the Koran - commonly called "The Cow." On one translation, there are ten other uses of "mercy" or "merciful" in "The Cow," alone. I've always liked the above verse, by the way, because it mixes the antique - "you had certainly been" - with the modern - "losers."

But if you actually read the Koran from beginning to end, it is impossible to come away from it without thinking that the mercy thing is merely a sort of ongoing deadpan bait and switch.

The basic format goes something like this:
  1. Allah is all merciful.
  2. And he will disembowel the unbelievers and fry them in Hell forever. 
I'm not kidding. Read, say, the twenty-first surah - "The Prophets" - where "mercy" appears five times, ending with
And We have not sent thee but as a mercy to the nations...My Lord, judge Thou with truth. And our Lord is the Beneficent...(21:107, 112).
And then continue on to surah twenty-two, innocently called "The Pilgrimage":
...But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, 
Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; 
And for them are hooked rods of iron. 
...Taste the doom of burning (22:19-22).
That's Allah talking, by the way. And you could multiply that sort of thing by about infinity.

Claiming that Muslims worship a merciful god is pretty dim.

We might sum up the modern Christian-Muslim dialogue this way:
Happy Feast! 
Allah will melt your skin!
Here's the text of that letter:
Christians and Muslims: 
Beneficiaries and Instruments of Divine Mercy 
Dear Muslim brothers and sisters, 
1. The month of Ramadan and ‘Id al-Fitr is an important religious event for Muslims around the world, focused on fasting, prayer and good deeds, and is esteemed by Christians, your friends and neighbours. On behalf of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and Christians all over the world, we extend best wishes for a spiritually rewarding fast, supported by good deeds, and for a joyful feast. 
As is our cherished custom, we wish to share with you on this occasion some reflections in the hope of strengthening the spiritual bonds we share. 
2. A theme that is close to the hearts of Muslims and Christians alike is mercy. 
We know that Christianity and Islam both believe in a merciful God, who shows his mercy and compassion towards all his creatures, in particular the human family. He created us out of an immense love. He is merciful in caring for each of us, bestowing upon us the gifts we need for our daily life, such as food, shelter and security. God’s mercy is manifested in a particular way, however, through the pardon of our faults; hence he is the one who pardons (al-Ghâfir), but the one who pardons much and always (al-Ghafour). 
3. To underscore the importance of mercy, His Holiness Pope Francis declared a Jubilee Year of Mercy to be celebrated from 8 December 2015 to 20 November 2016. In this regard he said: “Here… is the reason for the Jubilee: because this is the time for mercy. It is the favorable time to heal wounds, a time not to be weary of meeting all those who are waiting to see and to touch with their hands the signs of the closeness of God, a time to offer everyone, everyone, the way of forgiveness and reconciliation” (“Homily”, 11 April 2015). 
Your pilgrimage (hajj) to the Holy places, mainly Mecca and Medina, is surely a special time for you to experience God’s mercy. In fact, among the well-known aspirations addressed to Muslim pilgrims is: “I wish you a blessed pilgrimage, praiseworthy efforts and the pardon of your sins”. Making a pilgrimage to obtain God’s pardon for sins, both for the living and dead, is truly a salient custom practice among believers. 
4. We, Christians and Muslims, are called to do our best to imitate God. He, the Merciful, asks us to be merciful and compassionate towards others, especially those who are in any kind of need. So too he calls us to be forgiving of one another. 
When we gaze upon humanity today, we are saddened to see so many victims of conflicts and violence – here we think in particular of the elderly, and children and women, especially those who fall prey to human trafficking and the many people who suffer from poverty, illness, natural disasters and unemployment. 
5. We cannot close our eyes to these realities, or turn away from these sufferings. It is true that situation are often very complex and that their solution exceeds our capacities. It is vital, therefore, that all work together in assisting those in need. It is a source of great hope when we experience or hear of Muslims and Christians joining hands to help the needy. When we do join hands, we heed an important command in our respective religions and show forth God’s mercy, thus offering a more credible witness, individually and communally, to our beliefs. 
May the Merciful and Almighty God help us to walk always along the path of goodness and compassion! 
6. We join our prayerful good wishes to those of Pope Francis for abundant blessings during Ramadan and for a lasting joy of ‘Id al-Fitr. 
Happy Feast to you all! 
From the Vatican, 10 June 2016 
Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran 
President 
Bishop Miguel Ángel Ayuso Guixot, M.C.C.I. 
Secretary

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Papa Francis is Watching You

"Unmerciful! Unmerciful! Unmerciful!"

This could be from some young-adult dystopian future. There's "Papa" leading the Two Minutes Hate against ex-Cardinal Goldstein and his nefarious band of neo-pelagianists.

Interestingly, it was posted by Vatican Media advisor Thomas Rosica. It is creepy to discover that Rosica made it his Facebook cover photo.

Update: As some of you may have noticed, I changed the title on the post to link it more clearly with the picture. I would be remiss if I didn't also include a meme that appeared on my own Facebook page shortly after I linked to this post.


This Yahoo News story gives the context--a "surprise" video message from Pope Francis at a Stadium rock concert celebrating the Jubilee Year of Mercy. 

Among other things, Francis said that living without God was like not getting a signal on your iPhone.

Maybe we should call him iPope.

I liked, if that is the right word, the bit about the teenager gushing that when she got right up to him she found that the Pope was just an ordinary guy.

But note her claim that she was not given a penance during confession (and she also gushes over this). While this does not negate the forgiveness of her sins, it is technically a violation of the confessor's role in the sacrament.

No doubt the sacraments were made for Francis, not Francis for the sacraments.
Vatican City (AFP) - Happiness is not an app you can download on your mobile phone, Pope Francis told thousands of teenagers on Sunday at a mass to mark a weekend dedicated to youth. 
"Freedom is not always about doing what you want. In fact it is the gift of being able to choose the right way," he said in a homily punctuated by regular bursts of applause from the crowd on a packed St Peter's Square. 
"Your happiness has no price. It cannot be bought and sold: it is not an application you download on a mobile phone. Even the latest version cannot help you to grow and become free in love." 
An estimated 70,000 teenagers were in Rome for a weekend of events to celebrate Francis's Jubilee year dedicated to the theme of mercy. 
In a surprise move on Saturday, the 79-year-old pontiff heard confessions from 16 of them and a video message from him was broadcast at a rock and rap concert in the Stadio Olimpico. 
One of the teenagers chosen to confess to the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Catholics said she had been trembling as she approached the chair on which the pope was sitting in St Peter's Square. 
"But as soon as I sat down I had the feeling of being next to a normal person rather than the pope. Francis is really one of us," Anna Taibi, 15, told La Repubblica newspaper. 
The Sicilian teenager said she had been touched by Francis's tenderness as he listened to her confession. 
"I expected him to give me a penance ... instead he absolved me and let me go." 
The importance of mobile phones to contemporary teenagers was also reflected in Francis's message to the concert. 
Clutching an iPhone, he told his audience that living without Jesus was like not having any signal. "Always be sure to go where there is a network: family, parish, school," he said.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

This is Demonic

Rome, Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 2015.







Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves. -Benedict XVI

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

The Pope, Abortion and Forgiveness


One of the headlines yesterday was that in honor of the upcoming Jubilee Year of Mercy, Pope Francis has granted to every priest the authority to absolve the sin of abortion, at least for the Jubilee year. The implicit subtext is that priests did not have this authority before. The relevant text is reprinted at the end of this post.*

While this declaration has been hailed in many quarters as a sort of stunning development--an example of the Pope's new Church of Mercy in action--its actual effect in terms of the practical ability to obtain absolution for abortion is . . . wait for it . . . almost zero.

Why do I say that?

Because priests could do it anyway.

Or to put it differently, as with many things surrounding this Pope, the reality is different from the hype.

Let me start to explain what I mean by going back a step. Technically, all priests today have the authority to pardon any sin including abortion. It wasn't always this way. Though priests have always had the general ability to pardon even the gravest of sins--i.e. murder--there used to be a subset of grave sins where absolution was remitted exclusively to the Pope or bishops. In other words, to get it you had to go to a higher up. The sin of striking the Pope, for example, was in this category. In the old days, you couldn't just walk into a confession booth and obtain absolution for that, though you could obtain absolution for "common" violence or murder. (Laugh away, non-Catholics, I find it a bit funny too.)

However, according to current Canon Law there are no sins in this category. Any priest may technically pardon any sin, including abortion.

But there is a catch. Currently there are certain sins that incur the canonical penalty of excommunication or excommunication latae sententiae--the excommunication is automatic or takes place by reason of the offense. Abortion is one of these sins, along with apostasy, heresy and five others, including physically attacking the Pope (once again, "common" murder is not included but striking the Pope is--laugh again, non-Catholics). Thus, while a priest could technically pardon an abortion, in practice that would be impossible in the case of the potential penitent being an excommunicate, as excommunication implies that the person cannot receive any sacraments including absolution.

It should be noted, however, that while excommunication is "automatic" it would only actually occur in a subset of cases meeting the requirements of Canon Law. A Catholic party to abortion--pregnant woman, doctor, husband or boyfriend--only incurs excommunication if, among other things, the party is sixteen or over, was not subject to physical force and knew (or was negligent in not knowing) that excommunication would result. It is arguable that the last clause would exempt many.

How would the penitent get the censure lifted in order to then receive absolution? He or she would have to go to a bishop, or to a priest who had been given the proper authority by a bishop. Here's the crucial point, however: in the United States, virtually all priests have been given such authority by their bishops.

In other words, in the United States, virtually every priest already has the authority to absolve the sin of abortion.

It is a matter of some debate how far this has extended to other countries, and it's difficult to come up with a definitive answer on the question, as statistical lists on these sorts of things are presumably not compiled. My tentative conclusion is that the "tradition" of bishops designating this authority to their priests is widespread in English-speaking countries and may be common in most of continental Europe as well. One source has claimed that it is pretty much the norm everywhere.

Let's assume however, that there are places where it's not the norm--places where technically you still have to go to a bishop to get the censure lifted. Even here, however, current Canon Law offers a "way out". According to the 1983 Code of Canon Law, any priest may provisionally remove the censure if he judges that it would be "hard" for the penitent to remain in such a state until the censure was removed. Here, "hard" is usually interpreted as waiting more than 24 hours. In that sort of a case, one of the two--the penitent or priest--would then have thirty days to confirm this with a bishop or someone designated by him. And it should be noted that in the case of a priest contacting a bishop, the full anonymity of the penitent is allowed and expected.

To put it a different way, if you sought absolution on abortion from a priest who did not have the authority to lift the censure (in one of those possible places where he didn't), if the priest could not get you to a bishop or priest who had such authority within 24 hours, you would still be able to receive absolution.

The 24 hours requirement is why towards the top of this post I wrote almost zero instead of zero.

Here the reader may stop and ask, isn't this all too complicated? Shouldn't the Pope be commended for making it simple and transparent? (Though, we should note that the Pope has done this only for the Jubilee Year. After that we go back to the regular rules.) The answer to this is that while the rules might be somewhat complicated--it's taken me 1,000+ words to explain them--the practice is not. If one has been a party to abortion, absolution has always been readily or "easily" available, or, more accurately, has been available at least since 1983 and in many cases earlier.

The truth of the matter of course is that the real impediment is not some 24 hour waiting period that would apply in only a small minority of cases anyway, but the state of mind of the potential penitent--not desiring to obtain absolution from a priest, being afraid of it, ignorant as to its importance or whatever.

The Pope's announcement was, to put it simply, a PR move.

Do not misunderstand. I do not mean to imply that that's necessarily a bad thing. Clearly, it would be a good thing--a hugely good thing--if it succeeded in persuading more people to seek absolution from the sin of abortion than otherwise would have. I admit to being skeptical here, however. Confession--or what is now called "reconciliation"--is regularly practiced by only a small minority of Catholics. That those who do not regularly practice it sort of "hold it out as a last resort" for grave sins such as abortion, is doubtful, I think.

This is not to blame laypeople. Most churches minimize the importance of confession and minimize the time allotted to it--"5:45-5:50 on Saturday evenings or by appointment". And in most cases these days you're not going into a booth and whispering anonymously to a priest behind a screen, you're expected to sit face to face with Father X--the nice fellow who shakes your hand at the end of Mass every week and knows your family--or perhaps walk together with Father X to a booth where you will then go through the motions of anonymity. To put the effect of this sort of thing in perspective, the Church officially defines masturbation as a mortal sin. Technically, you can go to hell for it, even if you do it once. According to the Church, you must obtain absolution for it. But how many people want to sit in an armchair across from Father X and tell him about that at 5:45 on a Saturday evening?

Some have argued that the Pope has been loud and clear in stressing the importance of confession. I do not think that is the case. While he does on occasion mention the importance of the sacrament, the context of it is such that its mention will go right past those who most need to be convinced of its importance.

Even if the Pope's announcement was a PR move in the cause of, say, stressing God's goodness or mercy in general, that too might be good. And there is precedent for it.

But those who are wise as serpents in these matters might look on it in another way: It's a PR move to stress the goodness and mercy not of God, but of this Pope, and to implicitly condemn the "old" or "traditional" Church (in other words the eternal Catholic Church) of being, well, mean.

(I should note that the sub-headline to many stories on the Pope's announcement plays exactly into that--"traditionalists" were "dismayed" at the Pope offering an "easy out" to such a grave sin. Given the stress by traditionalists on confession, that's almost a complete inversion of the truth.)

If the Pope were truly interested in saving those who were prisoners of mortal sin, he would call all non-Catholics to convert (you need to be a Catholic, obviously, to receive the sacrament of absolution) instead of implying that it doesn't matter and condemning those who think it does--"proselytism is solemn nonsense...the most important thing is to journey together towards the good."

If the Pope were truly interested in reminding his flock of the necessity of confession, he would ask all Catholics to go and go regularly, and require that his bishops and priests make it more readily available. Announce it from the pulpit often, allot more time to it, put the confession booths back or stop storing hymnals in them and so on.

If the Pope were truly interested in offering absolution to those who were a party to abortion, he would implore them to see a priest today, not wait until the start of his own Jubilee Year on December 8.

What was that about a waiting period?

And if the Pope truly wants those who were parties to abortion to take their need for absolution seriously, he wouldn't have so obviously bent over backwards to qualify or minimize their culpability as he did in his letter (see below).

Mercy requires first recognizing the sin, not giving excuses for it. That's the point of mercy, after all. If you didn't do anything wrong (or anything really wrong), you don't need it.


-----------------------------


*Here is the relevant passage from the Pope's letter, released yesterday:

One of the serious problems of our time is clearly the changed relationship with respect to life. A widespread and insensitive mentality has led to the loss of the proper personal and social sensitivity to welcome new life. The tragedy of abortion is experienced by some with a superficial awareness, as if not realizing the extreme harm that such an act entails. Many others, on the other hand, although experiencing this moment as a defeat, believe that they have no other option. I think in particular of all the women who have resorted to abortion. I am well aware of the pressure that has led them to this decision. I know that it is an existential and moral ordeal. I have met so many women who bear in their heart the scar of this agonizing and painful decision. What has happened is profoundly unjust; yet only understanding the truth of it can enable one not to lose hope. The forgiveness of God cannot be denied to one who has repented, especially when that person approaches the Sacrament of Confession with a sincere heart in order to obtain reconciliation with the Father. For this reason too, I have decided, notwithstanding anything to the contrary, to concede to all priests for the Jubilee Year the discretion to absolve of the sin of abortion those who have procured it and who, with contrite heart, seek forgiveness for it. May priests fulfil this great task by expressing words of genuine welcome combined with a reflection that explains the gravity of the sin committed, besides indicating a path of authentic conversion by which to obtain the true and generous forgiveness of the Father who renews all with his presence.

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Lord Have Mercy: The Appalling Art of Marko Rupnik


No, it's not a 1970's postage stamp.


The Jubilee of Mercy has just unveiled its official "logo". It was designed by the Slovenian Jesuit artist Marko Rupnik.

Why do two figures--Jesus and the anonymous man slung over his shoulder--only have three eyes? Because, according to the "Description of the Logo" on the Jubilee of Mercy website,
while the Good Shepherd, in his great mercy, takes humanity upon himself, his eyes are merged with those of man. Christ sees with the eyes of Adam, and Adam with the eyes of Christ.
And what of that different colored background?
The three concentric ovals, with colors progressively lighter as we move outward, suggest the movement of Christ who carries humanity out of the night of sin and death. Conversely, the depth of the darker color suggests the impenetrability of the love of the Father who forgives all.
I was just about to point that out.

A recent Patheos critic was more critical:

My first thought was: Why does Jesus have two heads? Is it theological statement on his two natures? Is the other head supposed to be Rosy Grier? 
Then I realized that the mustard colored thing draped across his shoulders isn’t a stole or something, but a man, and Jesus appears ready to body slam the dude into the mat. I think I saw King Kong Bundy do this to Doink the Clown once. 
Why does he have no bones? And the merging eyeball is seriously disturbing...
It's appropriate that for the follow-up to the Synod on the Family--a frontal sly attack on Christian theology--they would adopt a logo that is a sly frontal attack on Christian art.

In the past Rupnik has collaborated in desecrating Lourdes, Fatima and the tomb of Padre Pio. They can't get away with banning people from visiting these sites (yet), so they try to make the aesthetic experience of the visitors as unpleasant as possible.

Lourdes: Stone massage therapy is offered after Mass

Fatima: The aisle doubles as a runway for the papal plane

Tomb of Padre Pio: He wouldn't have been surprised.

I would have instead nominated this modernist piece to symbolize the state of the current Church. It's by Edvard Munch. You all know its name:


Thursday, April 30, 2015

Uncharitable Thursday: Why Does Bishop X Check His Cell Phone While Taking Confessions?


From the comments section on one of the most perceptive pieces on Bishop X:
Oh, and one piece of advice for any of you who ever happen to go to him for confession: ask him to turn off his phone BEFORE the sacrament begins. He is on his phone CONSTANTLY, (which is not news to residents of his former city), but I was STUNNED to hear text beeps occurring while he was listening to my confession. To this day, I regret not asking him why he would leave his phone on during this holy sacrament.
Now, this has never happened to me. Once in a while I have snuck a peak at priests in-between confessions at our church. In every single case, they've either been praying the Rosary, saying other prayers or reading what looked like a Bible or a Missal.

They're probably guilty of crypto-Lefebvrist tendencies.

But back to Bishop X. Now, I've heard other negative things about his personal behavior, some of them directly from "insiders" that I personally know, not from comments on the internet. That I've heard them is one of the reasons I'm using the above public bit of "hearsay" in this blog post. But for a couple of obvious reasons, I'm not going to talk about the other things here.

Whoa! How unfair of me. How uncharitable. How gossipy. Accusing the man without allowing him to defend himself.

Well, give me a break. Anyone that has followed his career knows what he is. And from a number of other personal accounts, the man is a stewing bundle of bias, uncharity, selfishness and hypocrisy. Sure, I hope he goes to Heaven. But at the moment he's greatly harming the Church and endangering souls. I hope he has a change of heart.

And he can defend himself whenever and however he wants. For example, this blog is entirely open to him.

Why does Bishop X check his cell phone while taking confessions?
Q: You seem to also embrace this idea that we've heard-- from Cardinal Kasper and also from Pope Francis the idea of mercy. Not ideas, but the mission of mercy. Why mercy?
A: Well, as Cardinal Kasper said in his very important book on mercy-- there really has not been a fully developed theology of the mercy of God, and so that's why he wrote about it. And yet, it's at the heart of the Scriptures. That if you read throughout the Psalms, also through the Prophets and then how Jesus conducted himself, mercy is at the heart of what God does for us. And it's because the condition that we're in of sinfulness....And so the only remedy for that is God's mercy. It's not something that we can do. So we are thrown at the feet of God's mercy, because we're enslaved by sin. All of us are.
So then, in the confessional, the primary and most physically obvious and consistent mechanism for mercy in the Catholic Church,

Why does Bishop X check his cell phone while taking confessions?
Q: So it's about listening? 
A: It is. It's about listening.... 
Q: And so to win a convert, what you have to do is? 
A: Listen, talk, be respectful of people—and make sure that you really have an openness to where people are coming from...
If it's about listening,

Why does Bishop X check his cell phone while taking confessions?
A: ...And I just think that more and more you're going to see that kind of appointment (the Pope appointing me--Bishop X--and other likeminded clerics) happening... 
Q: When you say “that kind of appointment?” 
A: The kind of appointment that you're talking about of somebody who looks at people the way the pope does and wants. The pope has said this and the nuncio has said this. The nuncio told us last year the pope told him, I want more pastoral bishops...the Holy Father wants bishops who know “the smell of the sheep.” The pope has been very direct about that. 
Q: What do you hope to accomplish as Bishop? 
A: I'm going to be attentive to the needs of the people that are there and get to know them...
So, why does Bishop X check his cell phone while taking confessions?

Because he's a fake.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

The Mercy Quotient: Did Pope Francis Just Implicitly Condemn Vatican II and the New Mass?

"That's right, children. It's all in the Baltimore Catechism."

Papal Bull on Mercy, Part 2

In his recent Bull of Indiction on the Extraordinary Jubilee of Mercy, Pope Francis writes,
Mercy is the very foundation of the Church’s life...[But] Perhaps we have long since forgotten how to show and live the way of mercy. The temptation, on the one hand, to focus exclusively on justice made us forget that this is only the first, albeit necessary and indispensable step. But the Church needs to go beyond and strive for a higher and more important goal...The time has come for the Church to take up the joyful call to mercy once more. It is time to return to the basics...
Now, this sort of thing is red meat for critics of the Pope, who see it as a sort of backhanded attack on traditional Church teachings. Not that they would dispute that mercy and justice don't go hand in hand or that God's mercy doesn't in the end have the potential to at least in some sense win out. Rather, the idea is that the Pope has set up a sort of straw man here and is using his idea of "mercy" to tar virtually any Church teachings that he disagrees with or wants to "change".

But for the sake of argument, let's assume this is not what the Pope is doing. Let's take him at his word. We--the Catholic Church or Catholics in general--had a "temptation" to "focus exclusively on justice", and this made us "forget" about mercy.

The obvious question is when?

When did we focus exclusively on justice, or when did we allow our temptation to do so make us downgrade or minimize the importance of mercy?

Is he talking about his earlier papal self? Pope Benedict? The pre-Vatican II popes? The renaissance popes onwards? The medieval popes onwards? Or perhaps even all popes since the era of the Church Fathers? I think it's fair to say that one of the most infuriating things about this sort of claim is that what's being alleged is never precisely defined. But of course if it were precisely explained, then it would either seem mean--a snarky attack on his predecessor or whatever--or would have a likelier chance of being exposed as obviously false. By leaving it vague it is much more useful as a sort of mantra, to argue (without really arguing) for "change" or more accurately for the Pope's own agenda, whatever it actually is.

But again, let's be charitable about his intentions. There is nothing disrespectful or wrong about simply asking the question. In terms of the proper "balance" between justice and mercy, when did things, so to speak, go wrong?

I propose to answer it by putting forward the idea of the Mercy Quotient. Let's look at some of the relevant texts and simply count the words. Looking exclusively at occurrences of "justice" and "mercy", what is the proportion of the total taken up by "mercy"?

Is this scientific? Sure, or at least it is at first pass or as an initial approximation. And theologians and Church historians often do this sort of thing to make a particular point: Jesus talked about the Old Testament more than any other topic. Jesus mentioned Hell more than Heaven, but He also mentioned "love" more than "law". Vatican II mentions "Hell" 2 times and "social justice" 347 times. I made the last one up, but you get the idea. If we're talking about emphasis (which is exactly what the Pope is getting it) then surely the number of times a word occurs has some meaning. Is it crude? Of course. But it's a start.

So here we go. Justice vs. Mercy. We're looking for these words only. Thus, for example, "just" or "merciful" do not count. The Mercy Quotient is "mercy"/("justice" + "mercy"). In each case the link is to the precise sources used.

First, the Bible (the Old and New Testaments). In the New Revised Standard Version--the "Catholic Bible"--"justice" appears 157 times and "mercy" appears 200 times.

Justice: 157
Mercy: 200
Mercy Quotient: 56%

Who can dispute that this "gets it right"? Justice is important. That word is in the top ten nouns used, or something like that. But Mercy is even more important. And thus, in a certain sense, it wins. Presumably Pope Francis would approve. (Of course, all Christians should approve. It's the Bible.)

Justice: 8
Mercy: 10
Mercy Quotient: 56%

This is actually quite remarkable if you think about it. Trent was one of the most important councils ever, and of course it's a council as opposed to the amalgamation of things the Bible is, but nevertheless the Mercy Quotient is identical. I'm not proposing anything supernatural (so to speak) here, but it's still remarkable.

Justice: 0
Mercy: 1
Mercy Quotient: 100%

Okay, we'll throw this out due to small sample size. But still, based on this, no one could say that in Vatican I, justice trumped mercy (if anyone wanted to say that).

Justice: 25
Mercy: 33
Mercy Quotient: 57%

Now, the Baltimore Catechism sort of defines late nineteenth-century Catholicism. And there's that 56% (well, 57%) figure again. Guys, I'm not making these numbers up. This is NOT a parody or anything like that. Please check the numbers if you don't believe me.

Justice: 32
Mercy: 27
Mercy Quotient: 46%

Another "defining" text. Mercy takes a dip. But this is the eve of America's entry into World War I. Hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers have already died fighting the Hun. This taints things.

Justice: 25
Mercy: 33
Mercy Quotient: 57%

Back up to the trend line.

Now, get ready for the real stunner:

Justice: 61
Mercy: 11
Mercy Quotient: 15%

I know, Vatican II apologists are going to say all sorts of things about this, and I wouldn't be unsympathetic to some of them. But still, I defined the rules before I did the calculations. And the numbers are what they are.

Justice: 112
Mercy: 81
Mercy Quotient: 42%

One explanation: The Church is less merciful now than it was in the mid-twentieth century (or than it was in the late-nineteenth century or mid-sixteenth century). Alternate explanation: The Church is heading back to the trend line after the black-hole (in terms of mercy) of Vatican II.

I want to look at things now from a different angle--comparing the Old Mass with the New Mass. Let me say first, though, that we can't precisely use the Mercy Quotient here, for one simple and perhaps surprising reason: In the ordinaries of both Masses, the word "justice" never appears.

But "mercy" appears multiple times in each Mass.

So let's use a new concept--the Mercy Frequency. How many times does the word "mercy" appear in the ordinary of each Mass, as a proportion of the total number of words? To avoid annoying fractions and to make things simpler, we'll multiply each result by 1,000. Point of clarification, the "total number of words" includes instructions (though these only make up a fraction of the total) and alternate choices. One of the ways the New Mass differs from the Old Mass is that there are alternate sets of words or phrases in a number of places--"the Presider may pick A, B or C" and so on. But this shouldn't change things. Alternate choices will simply "average" the occurrences in a way that shouldn't affect the results.

Total Words: 3,951
Mercy: 21
Mercy Frequency: 5.3

Total Words: 2,632
Mercy: 6
Mercy Frequency: 2.3

So, there it is. The use of "mercy" is almost two-and-a-half times more common (dividing through by the number of words) in the Old Mass as in the New Mass.

Indeed, the difference is even more pronounced if one subtracts the occurrences of "mercy" in or around the Kyrie--"Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy", etc.

Old Mass
Total Words: 7,910
Mercy: 12
Mercy Frequency: 3.0

New Mass
Total Words: 5,263
Mercy: 2
Mercy Frequency: 0.8

Let's summarize our conclusions:

Mercy Quotient
Bible: 56%
Trent: 56%
Vatican I: 100% (Okay, I cheated and left it in. It's a small sample, but still)
Baltimore Catechism: 57%
Faith of our Fathers: 46%
Baltimore Catechism (rev.): 57%
Vatican II: 15%
Catechism: 42%

Mercy Frequency
Old Mass: 5.3
New Mass: 2.3
Old Mass (without Kyrie): 3.0
New Mass (without Kyrie): 0.8

Okay, I do not wish to be misunderstood here. I'm not holding up these silly mathematical calculations as the be-all and end-all of theological and historical analysis. Thus, for example, whatever it's other faults, I don't really think Vatican II was a "black-hole" in terms of mercy.

But the above does have an important purpose. Obviously the Pope is implicitly condemning the pre-Vatican II Church for putting justice over mercy in some un-Christian or un-Catholic way, and in consequence condemning those contemporary Traditionalists and others who don't want to go along with the current program, or whatever.

This is a straw man. Or more accurately and strongly, it's a lie. And it's a lie on the Pope's very own terms.

Indeed, on the Pope's own terms, the truth is almost precisely the opposite. For the first 1,932 years of the Church's history, there has been an almost uncanny consistency on the balance between justice and mercy . But then Vatican II suddenly tipped things against mercy.

It all went south with Vatican II. And the New Mass continued the trend.

On the Pope's own terms he is in fact implicitly condemning Vatican II and the New Mass.

Do I really believe that? Of course not. I'm just trying to show how ridiculous the whole thing is.

Now, the Pope or his allies could counter this. They could say something like, "yeah, but even though the Baltimore Catechism mentions mercy many times, the Church or Catholics of the time didn't really take that seriously. They said it, but they didn't live it. Or feel it." Or whatever.

Fine.

But then, what is the evidence for that?

Clearly the Pope isn't interested in providing any. As I said, his claim isn't really about actual theology or history or anything like that. In his mouth the mercy thing isn't even a claim. Rather, it's a mantra.

Say it over and over again. Say it louder and louder. Condemn those who question the project. Then shout it again until your opponents are lulled into silence by the inanity of it all or switch to an SSPX church or whatever.

Or until they lose their faith.

We're all responsible for others. The Pope no less than anyone.

Stay by the cross. Pray for the Church. Pray for Pope Francis.

And teach your kids how to do math.

NEXT: God's Mercy: Do You Really Have to Ask?