I am always thankful to the indefatigable Maike Hickson for promptly keeping the Anglophone Catholic online world abreast of the latest
developments in the German media that have to do with the life of the Church, but I did sit a few days on her most recent post in 1P5:
http://www.onepeterfive.com/surprising-german-editorial-de-facto-schism-church/ because I decided to go to the primary German link she provided.
https://www.die-tagespost.de/politik/Leitartikel-Faktisches-Schisma;art315,175459
Ms. Hickson translates as a native-born German speaker and as an academic, whereas my translation (as one who only learned the language
and not as well as I learned English which is the language I always automatically think in about anything serious, personal or otherwise)
is not always literal but tries to be contextual without betraying the writer's thought.
Moreover, I do object strongly to the loose usage of the word 'schism' to refer to the undeniable split in the Church today between those
who are fully and unquestioningly behind anything the current pope says and does - even when he arguably violates what Jesus actually said -
and those who object to those statements, actions and gestures which violate, in one way or other, the deposit of Catholic faith (Revelation,
Tradition and Magisterium together).
Ms. Hickson also rightly points out that this editorial by Horst is most surprising since only a few days earlier, he had written another one
in which he affirms, among other things - "...It is clear that, in the foreseeable future, there will be no further attempt coming
from the College of Cardinals or the world’s episcopacy to correct the pope formally, as Cardinal Raymond Burke once proposed ...
Also the debate in public concerning the DUBIA - as it has gone on in the recent past - is closed. It may continue among
the experts, but it is no longer a cause for irritation.”
A de facto schism
Editorial
by Guido Horst
Translated by
January 16, 2017
Anyone who makes the rounds in the Vatican these days to ask individual clergy what they think about the prolonged debate on "Amoris laetitia" is bound to encounter a sort of speechlessness,
['Sprachlosigkeit' in German - but is it really 'speechlessness', perhaps more idiomatically ‘at a loss for words’, or choosing to say nothing in order not to commit oneself irrevocably, in a formal technical way, to an unequivocal position – exactly as the pope has chosen to do about the Four Cardinals’ DUBIA]. A ‘speechlessness’ which, depending on the individual's theological competence and appreciation of doctrine, betrays bewilderment.
With his declaration on Italian TV recently that
certain ambiguities in the Chapter 8 of Amoris laetitia represent no "danger to faith" and that therefore, a correction of the pope is not necessary nor even possible, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has made a possibly far-reaching decision.
There will be no answer from Francis to the DUBIA expressed by the Four Cardinals. Otherwise, Mueller would not have said what he did. But 'answers' are now coming from bishops who interpret those ambiguities in the way the pope intended them to be [i.e., allowing sacramental leniencies].
The Church of Malta is a tiny local church on the outskirts of Europe, but Malta's Archbishop Charles Scicluna is a respectable man who had a decisive role as a leading member of the Congregation of the Faith at the height of the sex abuse scandals.
[Obviously, his competence as a canonical prosecutor is not matched by any appreciation of the doctrine of the faith as one might expect from someone who worked at the CDF for more than a decade.]
If he now, together with the Bishop of Gozo, instructs the faithful of the small island state, that
every remarried divorcee can decide by himself whether he can go to communion or not if he feels 'at peace with God', it clearly means that each local church can now do what she wants. [Worse than that: It would mean that every Catholic can now do as he wants, independent of Catholic teaching.]
The moat
[dividing local churches among themselves] becomes deeper. Florence against Rome, Poland against Argentina, Malta against Milan.
This is called an actual schism. [NO, IT IS NOT! What we have is a serious split in the church - exacerbated greatly under this pope, since the original split that was evident after Vatican II. Schism does not occur until one side formally breaks off, and in this impasse, neither side will, if only because the 'bad' side happens to be led by the pope himself.
The analogy to the Arian crisis is more relevant than ever. The Arians, even if they were the more influential - and perhaps also, the more numerous at the time - never formally broke off from the Church even if they were considered heretic, materially and formally, and even if at least one pope took their side. And that is why no historian ever refers to the Arian crisis as 'the Arian schism'.]
The Vatican, which in the past, after long consideration, would come to a decision eventually - for example, after the debate over the right of local churches in Germany to provide abortion counselling - now seems unable to clarify a matter of Catholic witness. [At that time, it was over the right to life, this time, it is over the validity of other equally fundamental moral truths the Church has always taught.]
The Pope chooses not to answer the Cardinals'DUBIA, nor will he make a clear statement that the controversial paragraphs of "Amoris laetitia" must be read in the light of his predecessors' teachings. This refusal is in itself an answer. Even as the CDF Prefect says that effectively, the debate over AL is ended.
Rome has stopped being the voice of clarity but a silent observer as the unity of pastoral practice in the Church is breaking up. At the expense of 'the little people'. Priests have to explain to the faithful exactly what has changed: morality? The sacraments? pastoral practice only?
The pope's great concern that weak and sinful persons [such as RCDs] should not consider themselves excommunicated but know that there is a place for them in the Church is threatened by the uncertainty among bishops and priests and the
increasingly poisonous exchanges between theologians and bishops on opposite sides of the conflict.
Horst betrays his bias.
1) No pope before this pope ever said that RCDs are not welcome in the Church - only that they must live with divine law as the Church enforces it, which means not to insist on sacrilegious communion unless they are prepared to make the necessary penance to be absolved of adultery. This pope wants to comfort them at the expense of Jesus's own exhortation to "Go and sin no more".
2) Horst reports on 'increasingly poisonous exchanges' when the poison has been entirely on the part of those who side with the pope who have no arguments to present, against those who are protesting the casuistries of AL by citing solid Catholic theology and morality.
Cardinal Caffara was right when he said that this has become a burden for the priest who is uncertain what to do - and priests have largely been left to fend for themselves. [colore… [i.e., the Vatican does not seem interested in lightening that burden with a clear Yes or No. It is obvious that the pope does not think he is imposing any burden at all on the Church by his studied ambiguities.]
Ms. Hickson, in her 1/18/17 post, goes on to comment as follows:
In light of these forthright and stirring comments written by Guido Horst and Carl Olson [from whose CWR commentary on the'Maltese fiasco' she also made one citation], it might be noteworthy to make reference also to an article published today on the official website of the German bishops, Katholisch.de [entitled 'The divisiveness of the conservatives']
http://www.katholisch.de/aktuelles/standpunkt/die-zerrissenheit-der-konservativen
The article is written by Björn Odendahl and rebukes the conservative Catholics for their perceived moral resistance toward Amoris Laetitia, saying quite assuredly that their words “are becoming more and more absurd.” He even sees “hatred” coming from that direction.... The importance of this polemical article, however, lies in its last paragraph: "In one aspect, the conservatives are right: the words of the pope are not always clear enough. He should speak out once and for all to put an end to these goings-on which damage the Church." [Q.E.D. Odendahl himself demolishes his own preceding arguments in 'poisonous language' against those who object to the equivocation of AL.]
While Odendahl himself not long ago had made a stir because of his demeaning remarks concerning the African Church’s opposition to any permissive laxening of the Church’s moral teaching... we do agree with him on at least one essential aspect: It is up to the Vicar of Christ on earth once more to raise his authoritative voice and to clarify Amoris Laetitia. Here Odendahl even effectively agrees with the three bishops of Kazhakstan who have just made an eloquent public appeal for exactly that same intention.
On January 20, Marco Tosatti commented on the German articles cited in Maike Hickson's 1P5 post, but added most pertinent observations as well:
The Germans admit that AL has
'provoked a de facto schism' -
and the pope should make things clear
Translated from
January 20, 2017
[Tosatti quotes from the Horst editorial, then comments as follows]:
... The problem, Horst says, is that "The pope is silent about the letter of the Four Cardinals and thus indirectly refuses to make a clear declaration that on the controversial paragraphs [or statements, in general] in AL mst be read in the light of the magisterium of previous popes".
And, we must add, in the light of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. [Tosatti then cites the concluding paragraphs of the Horst editorial.]
I believe it is unlikely that the pope will ever do it [answer the DUBIA or clarify the doubts over AL], and in not doing so, thereby allowing a split in the Church on such a central matter as the Eucharist and Jesus's own words on matrimony and adultery in a way that is unprecedented in modern times.
And I think he will not do it in the light of what [one of the pope's men] Archbishop Bruno Forte said in April 2016 [shortly after the publication of AL], saying that during the 2015 'family synod', the pope had confided to him:
If we speak explicitly about allowing communion for remarried divorcees, you don't know what a mess they [opponents of sacrilegious communion] can create for us! So let us not speak in a direct way, but set up the premises for me, and let me draw the conclusions.
[Thank you, Mr. Tosatti, for bringing that up. I have often remarked that in the continuing barrage of outrages coming from the mouth of this pope and his surrogates, the public - and even most commentators - tend to forget substantial and egregious earlier outrages which ought to be emblazoned like permanent markers annotating the shortcomings and errors of this pontificate.]
Mons. Forte was named by the pope to be the special secretary of the two family synods, and was the author of the controversial 'intermediate report' of the 2014 synod that was rejected by the synod president, Cardinal Erdo of Hungary, and by majority of the synodal fathers. [Principally, it contained two substantial paragraphs supportive of homosexual practice even if this subject was hardly ever even discussed in the synod.]
Mons. Forte then commented of the pope's remark: "Typical of a Jesuit", adding that AL "does not represent a new doctrine but the merciful application of the doctrine as it has always been". But if the anecdote Forte recounted is true - and there is no reason to doubt him [nor has the Vatican ever belied it] - then one can better understand the degree of confusion and ambiguity, as well as the diversity of interpretations, raised by AL.
In short, a deliberate lack of clarity which brings to mind the polemics and secular accusations that have been levelled for centuries against the Society of Jesus [the Jesuit order]. It is also the fruit of a [papal] strategy that was decided upon even before the first 'family synod' began. [Which indicates that, in his heart of hearts, even Bergoglio doubted that he could carry off extending his 'communion for everyone' policy to the universal Church, i.e. that he would encounter substantial opposition by the bishops' synods, even after packing the assembly each time with 45 personal appointees constituting a substantial block that could have swung the vote too the two-thirds majority required for any consensus.
Having failed to do that in both synods, he simply took the option which he knew he always has as pope - to say anything he wants to say in his post-synodal exhortation, regardless of what the synodal fathers actually voted for and presented to him as recommendations. He already did that very significantly in his post-synodal exhortation on the New Evangelization (a synod convoked by and held under Benedict XVI), in which he virtually ignored the specific meaning of 'New Evangelization' in the language of John Paul II and Benedict XVI to proclaim the manifesto for his pontificate in Evangelii gaudium -'the joy of the gospel', yes, but the gospel according to Bergoglio.]
The geography of a fragmented Church
From the English service of
For Pope Francis 2017 got off to a bitter start. His popularity remains high, but without a corresponding rise in religious practice. Latin America is even witnessing declines.
The glaring case is Brazil, where those who say they belong to the Catholic Church have plunged over the last two years from 60 to 50 percent of the population, according to a brand-new grassroots survey by Datafolha.
Just half a century ago in Brazil, almost the whole population identified as Catholic. By 2000 the share had gone down to 62 percent and had stabilized there. But now it is again taking a nosedive, precisely during the first reign of a Latin American pope.
The only continent where the numbers of Catholics continue to grow at a sustained pace is sub-Saharan Africa. But the African Church, with its bishops and cardinals, is also the most determined opponent against the changes that Pope Francis has set in motion.
Paradoxically, the pope 'called from the ends of the earth' for the purpose of renewing the Church [That's not what his electors said before and immediately after the 2013 Conclave - they said he was elected 'to reform the curia', as if that was the biggest problem the Church is facing - and not the obvious decline of the faith worldwide - at the start of its third millennium. has to rely on the worn out and depleted national Churches of the Old Continent, in primis that of Germany, in order to put his plan into practice, coming up against the tenacious resistance of none other than the young and fervent African Churches.
Even within the Roman Curia this fracture is visible to the naked eye. The cardinal favored by Jorge Mario Bergoglio is the octogenarian Walter Kasper, a German, [who, however, is no longer a member of the Curia, although he represents the members of the Bergoglian Curia who are 1000% behind anything this pope says and does, including Cardinal Marx, who remains Archbishop of Munich-Freising while being Chairman of the Vatican's Economic Council and a member of the pope's Crown council of nine advisers)] while the one most antithetical to him is the Guinean Robert Sarah, a hero and beacon for a large portion of the Catholic Church, and not only in Africa.
In the two synods convened in 2014 and 2015, Pope Francis experienced firsthand the resistance to the innovations that he wanted to introduce into that minefield representing pastoral care of the family. [But this was never a 'minefield' when papal magisterium on marriage and the sacraments was clear and unconditional, but Bergoglio has made it a minefield by unnesssarily elevating to central importance the concern of an insignificant fraction of the world's Catholics - i.e., Communion-unqualified remarried divorcees in the West who are supposed to be substantially concerned that they cannot receive communion when that was a canonical penalty they knew full well they would incur by getting divorced and then entering into a civilian marriage without annulment of their Church marriage. And in the process, also seeking to exonerate even common-law Catholic couples from sin. All in the name of false suprious mercy.]
He used a crafty trick to deal the opposition, as one of his proteges, Archbishop Bruno Forte, candidly revealed after the fact when he related these actual words that the pope had said to him during the synod: “If we talk explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried, you have no idea what a mess these guys will make for us. So let’s not talk about it directly, you get the premises in place and then I will draw the conclusions.”
In effect, that is just how it went. Bergoglio has never stated clearly that he wants to allow communion for the divorced and remarried, an act never before permitted by the Catholic Church. But he gave slack to the champions of innovation, the Germans foremost. And once the double synod was on the books without winners or losers, he himself saw to adding it all up in the apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” where he slipped the innovations so dear to him into a couple of sibylline footnotes, between the said and the unsaid.
But that’s just it: The “mess,” in his words, that he had been able to ward off at the synod, erupted for Francis afterward, because the ambiguities he intentionally introduced into “Amoris Laetitia” have released an unmanageable explosion of contrasting theoretical interpretations and practical applications.
With the result, for example, that in the diocese of Rome, communion for the divorced and remarried who live more uxorio is allowed, while in the diocese of Florence, not yet [Magister had an earlier post about how in that archdiocese, Archbishop Giuseppe Betori had initially asked his predecessor as Archbishop, Cardinal Ennio Antonelli, president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, to write the guidelines on AL, which Antonelli did in the light of preceding Magiserium, but Betori subsequently asked a group of theologians to interpret AL chapter by chapter, and the man to whom he assigned Chapter 8, has a Bergoglian interpretation soon to be published, resulting in what AL critic Aldo Maria Valli has called this pontificate's 'Yes, but also no'/'No, but also yes' doctrinal abdication]; in San Diego yes, and in Philadelphia no.
And this is the way it is all over the Catholic world, where from diocese to diocese and from parish to parish, the most varied and opposing practices now hold sway, and all of them reflecting their respective interpretations of “Amoris Laetitia.”
What is at stake is not only the yes or no to communion, but the end of the indissolubility of marriage and the routine acceptance of divorce in the Catholic Church too, as it is among Protestants and Orthodox. [Bergoglio never refers to this practical and most unfortunate application of his 'ecumenism', whenever he waxes rapturous over 'ecumenism of blood' or 'ecumenism of common cause' with other Christian confessions - a false 'ecumenism' that, for now, appears to be equivalent in his case to outright Lutheranism.]
Four cardinals, Caffarra of Italy, Burke of the United States, and the Germans Meisner and Brandmüller, these last two going against some of their countrymen, have publicly asked the pope to dispel once and for all with a clear statement the doctrinal and practical “doubts” put into circulation by “Amoris Laetitia.”
Francis has not responded. Nor could he, without contradicting himself [if he answered the DUBIA in the only right way, because otherwise, unless he himself corrected AL accordingly, he would be admitting to heretical statements at odds with the Catholic deposit of faith.]
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 22/01/2017 22:15]