|
|
 |
|
|
|
Shahbaz Bhatti
|
Modern Day Martyrs?
Fifth Sunday of
May 2011:
Fifth Sunday after Easter
|
Pakistani bishops have asked the Holy See to declare
an assassinated layman a martyr.1 Bhatti,
who served as the Federal Minister of Minorities, was
assassinated on March 2 for his opposition to the
nation’s “blasphemy” law written by Muslims. The
Catholic Bishops Conference of Pakistan has decided to
formally request the Holy See to proclaim murdered
Catholic Minister Shahbaz Bhatti a “martyr and
patron of religious freedom”. They recalled his
authentic testimony of faith, down to giving his life
for his mission. In the second week of April, the
bishops and Catholic faithful will gather in Islamabad
to commemorate Bhatti, 40 days after his death. (Agenzia
Fides, 3-26-2011)
|
|
|
We
may ask whether a martyr dying for religious freedom
belongs in the same category as the pre-Vatican II
martyr? If we pursue our enquiry, we shall examine some
texts of Pope John Paul II, which give a peculiar twist
to the traditional term of martyr, as in the
following homily:
Besides the three Martyrs of Kosice, many other
people, also belonging to Christian confessions, were
subjected to torture and suffered heavy punishment;
some were even put to death.
How can we fail to acknowledge for example, the
spiritual greatness of the 24 members of the
Evangelical Churches who were killed at Presov?
To them and to all who accepted suffering and death
out of fidelity to the dictates of their conscience
the Church gives praise and expresses admiration.2
Such use of the term martyr is equivocal. The
traditional notion meant that someone was voluntarily
accepting to die at the hand of persecutors for hatred
of the Catholic faith or moral principles. Martyrdom was
death of one as a witness to the True Faith, which
presupposes an eminent degree of charity. However, one
cannot speak of martyrs in a false religion because of
the interdependence of truth and charity; thus someone
who bears witness to a false religion cannot be,
objectively, a martyr. This is particularly true of
heresiarchs like John Huss dying on the scaffold in
defiance of the Catholic Church. As for those living in
good faith outside the true Church, their personal
merits are certainly not taken away. They might even be
real martyrs if they died defending a point of the
Catholic Faith. Yet, the Church cannot declare them
martyrs as She cannot be judge on the internal forum
which is left to God’s mercy.
The concept of martyrdom has shifted to the witness
of religious liberty because the concept of holiness
has shifted to mean the fullness of human dignity.
St. Thomas explains that holiness is best expressed in
the worship by which man renders to God His due. To the
new concept of holiness there logically
corresponds a new worship, the worship of man and his
liberty (Pope Paul VI’s closing discourse of Vatican
II). The new “holy” man is one who is tolerant.
Tolerance, and not true charity, becomes the
basis of the new holiness, according to Vatican II and
Dignitatis Humanae. So now, the door is open to
all churches in a gesture of fraternal ecumenism and
union which is “enriching” the new “Church of
Christ”. A few other citations illustrate the
ubiquity of the ecumenical theme mixed with that of
holiness:
The witness to Christ borne even to the shedding of
blood has become a common inheritance of Catholics,
Orthodox, Anglicans and Protestants, as Pope Paul VI
pointed out in his Homily for the Canonization of the
Ugandan Martyrs.3
In the memorandum already cited, on the theme of
preparation for the great Jubilee [of 2000—Ed.],
I underlined the opportunity it presents to constitute
a contemporary martyrology that takes into account all
the local Churches, this also in an ecumenical
dimension and perspective. There are so many martyrs
in the non-Catholic Churches: the Orthodox in the
East, but also the Protestants.4
Perhaps the most convincing form of ecumenism is the
ecumenism of the saints and of the martyrs. The
communio sanctorum speaks louder than the things
which divide us.5
In the radiance of the “heritage of the saints”
belonging to all Communities, the “dialogue of
conversion” towards full and visible unity thus
appears as a source of hope.
This universal presence of the Saints is in fact a
proof of the transcendent power of the Spirit.
It is the sign and proof of God's victory over the
forces of evil which divide humanity.6
Needless to say, there are quite a few hoops to go
through before one can receive the wished for title of
“sainthood” or “martyrdom”, the main hoop is that of
tolerance and “ecumenism” as set by the Secretariat of
Christian Unity. This has barred, among others, Isabella
of Spain, found too zealous—and jealous—of God’s honor
and His Church. But this has proved quite generous to
many unexpected people as John Paul II expanded
martyrdom to ecumenical dimensions. Today in Argentina
the process of “martyrdom” is open to Marxist bishops
and guerilleros. If such titles to sanctity might
turn out bogus on Judgment day, it certainly opens a few
doors—and newspaper acclaims—here on earth!
Footnotes
1.Excerpted from
catholicculture.org (March 23, 2011).
2 Homely given at Kosice (Slovakia) in 1995.
3 Tertio Millennio Adveniente, §37.
4 Allocution to the Extraordinary Consistory of June 13,
1994.
5 Tertio Millennio Adveniente, §37.
6 Ut Unum Sint, §84. |
|
|
|
|
|
Pope
Benedict XVI
and Cardinal Kurt Koch |
What Reconciliation?
Fourth Sunday of
May 2011:
Fourth Sunday after Easter
"...at
least it is a recognition that, in the minds of the
faithful, there is a real problem with the Novus Ordo.
This is what we have said all along! The problem of
the new liturgy is a doctrinal rupture." |
| |
|
Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council
for Promoting Christian Unity, in an address given to a
congress held on Summorum Pontificum on May 15,
2011, admitted that “the post-conciliar liturgical
reform is considered in large circles of the Catholic
Church as a rupture with tradition and as a new creation”
and that, in the Novus Ordo, “that sacredness
that attracts many to the old use must manifest itself
more forcefully.” (ZENIT, 5-17-2011)
This is an understatement, but at least it is a
recognition that, in the minds of the faithful, there is
a real problem with the Novus Ordo. This is what
we have said all along! The problem of the new liturgy
is a doctrinal rupture.
Cardinal Koch explained that it is the Pope’s wish for
the traditional Mass to be an “ecumenical bridge”,
for, by it, the Pope “wished to contribute to the
resolution of this dispute and to reconciliation within
the Church: the Motu Proprio promotes, so to speak,
intra-Catholic ecumenism... if the intra-Catholic
ecumenism fails, the Catholic controversy over the
liturgy will also extend to ecumenism, and the old
liturgy will not be able to carry out its ecumenical
function of bridge-building.” (Op. Cit.) The
purpose of the Instruction on the Motu Proprio,
Summorum Pontificum would be consequently to force
all Catholics to accept one another’s liturgy, so as to
end all disputes. Surprising as it may seem, it is the
same ecumenical spirit emanating from Vatican II that
has produced the reform of the liturgy and that pretends
to grant the use of a rite which has never been
abrogated.
Cardinal Koch was even more explicit in his analysis of
the ultimate goal of this initiative, namely that the
traditional and new Masses will eventually evolve
together into a common rite, namely, that both are to
disappear: “Benedict XVI knows well that in the long
term we cannot remain with a coexistence between the
ordinary and extraordinary forms in the Roman rite, but
that the Church will again need in the future a common
rite... However, given that a new liturgical form cannot
be decided in an office, as it requires a process of
growth and purification, for the time being the Pope
stresses above all that the two forms of use of the
Roman rite can and must enrich one another mutually.”
(Ibid.) According to Cardinal Koch, Rome’s
permission of a Mass that needs no permission would be
that it might ultimately disappear!
Neither diplomacy nor ecumenism can solve a doctrinal
problem. Affirming that there is
doctrinal continuity between the Tridentine Mass and the
Novus Ordo Missae
does not make this continuity a reality. The study of
both rites, as well as the fruits they have produced,
prove that they have contradictory principles and
effects. Reconciliation needs to be based on doctrinal
discussions for the triumph of the truth. It is not so
much a reconciliation between Catholics which is at
stake today, but more a reconciliation of the pastors
with their own mission of defending and teaching the
Faith. It is all about reconciling Catholics with the
Catholic Faith. Indeed the “divergence is not so much
between the Society of St. Pius X and the Holy See, as
between the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo Missae”1;
as between the conciliar spirit and the Faith of all
time.
Footnote
Commentary on
the Instruction, DICI 235 |
| |
|
Related articles on the
topic
A Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae
Commonly referred to as the
Ottaviani Intervention, this excellent and well-known study on
the Novus Ordo Missae was chaired by Archbishop Lefebvre
The Theology
and Spirituality of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass
Summarizes what the battle
over the Mass is about: the purity of the Catholic
doctrine
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Catholic Contraception?
Third Sunday of
May 2011:
Third Sunday after Easter
YouCat,
a version of the
New Catechism designed for the youth, was
intended as a major tool in the Church’s approach to the
secular world. It was touted on Vatican Radio recently as a
“young and user-friendly” way for young people to
learn how to answer common secular objections to unpopular
Catholic teaching on topics such as contraception, abortion,
and euthanasia.
|
| |
|
The
problem is that YouCat, originally written in
German, has been poorly translated. The Italian version
contains errors on the Church’s teachings about
euthanasia and contraception, and the French edition has
other errors. On the specific matter of contraception,
the Italian edition answers “yes” to the question: "Can
a Christian couple have recourse to contraceptive
methods?"
The
Italian publisher will be recalling the book and
correcting the error. But are we dealing only with a
mere translation error or are we pursuing a slippery
road which the Roman authorities started long ago? A
Roman document, in 1997, directed to confessors on
matters of conjugal morality, shows a weakening of
positions since Humanae Vitae in practical advice
given to penitents who use contraception. Not only does
it favor personal conscience and “good faith” over the
Church's teaching, but it advises giving absolution to
those who contracept without repentance.
Then,
the papal book
Light of the World sent different
vibes from what has always understood on the same
subject of contraception. It maintains the prohibitions
of
Humanae Vitae, “but finding
ways allowing to live by them today is another story…
expressing all this on the pastoral, theological and
intellectual context of the present research on
sexuality and anthropology, in such a way that it will
become more comprehensible.” Here we simply
understand nothing, except that the Church seems afraid
to tell the truth!
Returning to YouCat, the English language version says
that Catholic couples are entitled to plan the size of
their families by “regulating conception” and
that the Church “recommends”
Natural Family Planning. With this
seemingly innocent question, we find raised the spectrum
of the modern ideal “Catholic” family: two kids,
two cars, two houses, two dogs! Sounds like the good old
life of the Protestant couple of 40 years ago! So what
has happened since then?
It is
no mystery that the modern Catholic pastoral approach to
couples is to force Natural Family Planning literature
on them as soon as possible. The couples are told that
they have to be responsible in raising a family and
consider the size, etc. We are told that this is quite
legitimate in God’s eyes and that there is absolutely
nothing wrong about a couple using their marital rights
“responsibly.” Is this not in line with the inversion of
the marriage ends, between procreation and mutual help,
which was made official with the new Code of Canon Law
in 1983?
Yet
things are not so simple. In fact, the marriage act is
licit only if, in the couple's intention, it is open to
new life.
The practice of NFP can beget a mentality which is
foreign to the Catholic outlook on life and the spirit
of sacrifice.
The Church has universally and constantly encouraged the
growth of large families, which are the gardens of many
vocations. Indeed, the crisis in vocations is due in
great part to the dwindling of the Catholic family
spirit. There may certainly be hard times in a couple’s
life, which tempts one to limit the burden of mouths to
feed, but there is also the alternative of abstinence,
always the surest and best way, which one must acquire
by a proper education even from puberty.
The
main magisterial document to be used as a reference here
is the Address to Midwives, given by Pope Pius
XII on October 29, 1951. Here are a few principles he
establishes:
1.
The Pope warns married people who are able to
have children against the habitual practice of sensual
self-gratification with the intention of excluding
offspring. Marriage grants rights to spouses to satisfy
natural inclinations but also imposes the function of
providing for the conservation of the human race. Hence,
young people who are unwilling to have children should
not marry.
2.
There
are four conditions which must be met before one
may consider the moral possibility of periodic
continence, or Natural Family Planning:
a.
It
must be done for serious reasons;
b.
Both
parties need to mutually and freely agree to use it;
c.
The
danger of sin must be avoided for both parties;
d.
It
can only be practiced for the duration of these serious
reasons.
3.
These serious
reasons given by the Pope are medical (e.g., the
mother’s health is at risk), eugenic (e.g., the
health of the child), economical (e.g., if the
family can't afford to feed another child, as may be the
case in third world countries) or social (e.g.,
the prolonged absence of one parent).
One
should remember that Pope Pius XII warned the medical
world and priests of the danger of falling into an “unjust
and inappropriate” propaganda in favor of these
so-called “methods.” Perhaps the Pope said this
because the prolonged regulating of private life by the
calendar engenders a sort of contraceptive mentality,
where children are not really welcomed and where parents
can do away with their natural responsibilities and turn
to pleasure. Christian couples would gain tranquility of
conscience by seeking the advice of a prudent confessor
in doubtful cases or hard circumstances since nemo
judex in causa sua; no man is the judge of his own
case. A priest can provide an objective perspective
about the reality of one's circumstances. Also, in all
medical questions, which frequently involve the
psychological fragility of the parents, the advice of a
competent medical professional seems both mandatory and
wise.
In
any event, one must remember that the rule is a large
family, and exceptions are only that. Of course, the
modern world has made certain things more difficult than
they were in previous times, but let us remember the
advice of Pius XII:
This teaching of Ours has nothing to do with Manichaeism
and Jansenism, as some would have people believe in
order to justify themselves. It is only a defense of the
honor of Christian matrimony and of the personal dignity
of the married couple. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Restoring
or
opening up?
Second Sunday of
May 2011:
Second Sunday after Easter
In
the panegyrics of his predecessor, Benedict XVI
claims: “society,
culture, political and economic systems he opened up
to Christ, turning back with the strength of a titan—a
strength which came to him from God—a
tide which appeared irreversible.”
|
|
|
|
The inversion he is speaking of here is that of a
relation of strength between Christianity on the one
hand, and Marxism and the ideology of progress on the
other. Indeed, for Benedict XVI, “he (John Paul II) rightly
reclaimed for Christianity that impulse of hope which
had in some sense faltered before Marxism and the
ideology of progress.” In other words, the hope
that had been laicized in favor of a political
messianism, was once again turned to the service of
Christianity by John Paul II, who gave it back its
authentic physiognomy. Is this really the theological
virtue of hope? Fr. Patrick de La Rocque, in his
recently published study, John Paul II, Doubts on a
Beatification (Clovis Editions),1
shows that the Polish Pope's hope is centered on what
he has himself “called
the human element of the Redemption, this hope that
has for object the edification of the civilization of
love; for means, prayer considered as religious
sentiment—and
consequently religions taken in all their plurality
and religious liberty—;
and for motif, hope in man.”
On
this point, it is particularly instructive to refer to the first encyclical of
the last canonized Pope. In E supremi apostolatus, St. Pius X explained
his motto “Instaurare omnia in Christo,
to restore all things in Christ” (Ep. 1:10): “It
is a question of bringing human societies, that have strayed far from the
wisdom of Christ, back to obedience to the Church; the Church in turn will
submit them to Christ, and Christ to God”, for “to
restore things in Christ and to bring men back to divine obedience are one and
the same thing.”
Whereas
St. Pius X wanted to restore all things in Jesus Christ (according to
the original in Greek: to recapitulate, to place Christ at the head),
John Paul II only wanted to open things up to Christ, by simply
proposing Him to society, to culture, to political and economical systems,—and
that in the name of a religious liberty paradoxically conceived as a dogma by
an officially pastoral council.
In
an attempt to justify this mutation—which
is a rupture—,
one might present a pastoral objection, saying that with the heirs of the
revolutions of these last two centuries, it is illusory to pretend to restore
a hierarchical relation between Christ and society, and that consequently it
is more efficacious to content oneself with exercising a certain influence.
St. Pius X, who was not unaware of the difficulties of apostolate today, did
not for all that diminish the exigencies of the faith, but he explained in the
same encyclical: “in order for this zeal for teaching to produce the fruits that we hope
from it and to serve to form
Christ in all, nothing is more efficacious than charity (…). In
vain would one hope to draw souls to God by a zeal borrowed from bitterness;
reproaching errors harshly and correcting vices with bitterness very often
causes more harm than profit.” In other words, pastoral care in the
service of the dogmas of the faith, and not the other way around.
DICI
#234, May
7, 2011: Commentary
of Benedict XVI's Homily for the Beatification of John Paul
II
Footnote
1
Fr. Patrick de La Rocque, John Paul II:
Doubts About a Beatification, Angelus Press. The book will be available in
English in June. See www.angeluspress.org.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our Lady
of Walsingham |
|
Shadows behind the Sunny Reconciliation of Anglicans
First
Sunday of May 2011:
Low Sunday (Dominica in Albis)
Pope Benedict XVI issued in November 2009 a document,
Anglicanorum coetibus which creates a juridical
ordinariate for Anglicans converting to the Catholic Church.
This means that these Anglican parishes are turning Catholic
as a whole, and these specific parishes are de facto
constituting an ordinariate (centralized government
equivalent in rank to a local diocese) as an integral part
of the Catholic institution.
|
|
| |
|
This situation has been propelled by the ultra liberalism
of the official Anglican Church which opened the way to
accepting women as priests and bishops, its blatant
permissiveness of homosexuality, divorce and abortion,
and the abandonment of the Book of Common Prayer
(compiled by Cranmer in the 16th century).
This document is a follow-up on a 1980 Pastoral Provision
which had already made approaches in the sense of
facilitating their wholesale introduction into the
Catholic Church. They were already allowed to preserve
what Anglican traditions were compatible with the
Catholic Church’s liturgy; they could use their former
Anglican parish assets and structures; they were given
in 1984 a new book of worship, a hybrid derived from the
New Mass and the Book of Common Prayer; whoever
converted had to make a personal profession of the
faith; finally, married Anglican priests could, after
conversion, be ordained Catholic priests and retain
their married status, although the episcopacy was closed
to them.
The document issued by Benedict XVI assumes these changes
but becomes more daring even for the purpose of easing
the conversion of whole Anglican parishes into the
Catholic fold.
-
The
main aspect is that they are given a singular
status. They are converted into a state within a
state as this ordinariate (created within the
English Episcopal Conference), enjoys a
semi-independent situation, unlike any other in the
Latin Catholic hierarchy. This is so much the more
dangerous as the subjects are former Anglicans who
always took the Church of Christ to be an invisible
reality.
-
It
is a whole parish which becomes Catholic
together with its Anglican pastor and even if
individual profession of the faith is required,
everyone needs to submit to a text, and not to a
living authority who interprets the text, promoting
the erroneous sola scriptura mentality.
-
The
law of celibacy is softened as we may soon see
a multiplication of legitimately married priests in
the Western rite. But also, the papal document leaves
the door open to raise married laymen to the
priesthood.
There is little doubt that the return to the fold of High
Church Anglicans will be proclaimed as an ecumenical
victory and a sign of great hope for bewildered
Anglicans, but, at the same time, the Latin Church is
venturing into new avenues, potentially creating
separatist groups which could be detrimental to the
unity she formerly enjoyed.
Related article:
Good News: 900
Anglicans become Catholic at Easter
While celebrating the Paschal season’s glad tidings of joy, it
is appropriate that we relay the good news of 900 Anglicans
converting to Catholicism on Easter
5-3-2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
