Google+
 
Pagina precedente | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » | Pagina successiva

BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

Ultimo Aggiornamento: 23/08/2021 11:16
Autore
Stampa | Notifica email    
27/07/2017 03:25
OFFLINE
Post: 31.457
Post: 13.545
Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009
Administratore
Utente Gold
Is Cardinal Schoenborn improbably trying to position himself as the successor to Bergoglio on Peter's Chair? I can think of no other reason for his apparent abandonment of all reason – and his reason, to begin with - in order to defend and buttress the indefensibly anti-Catholic positions of Bergoglio in AL. Apparently he does not think that being European will not be a handicap for him against an Asian or African papabile in the next Conclave. If so, his self-delusion is complete... Christopher Ferrara slams Schoenborn as hard as anyone can for his astonishingly anti-Christian defense of AL in Ireland recently.

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn:
Sophist in Chief

by Christopher A. Ferrara
FATIMA NETWORK PERSPECTIVES
July 25, 2017

Sophistry is the use of subtly deceptive reasoning or argumentation to mislead the hearer. Perhaps sophistry is too generous a description of Cardinal Christoph Schönborn’s defense of the idea, introduced into the Church via Chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia (AL), that people living in “second marriages” condemned by Our Lord Himself as adultery can receive absolution and Holy Communion while continuing to live as if they were married and indulging in the marital act.

Schönborn’s arguments are not particularly subtle and could be refuted by any well-catechized child. But let us give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he is a sophist as opposed to someone who simply makes patently ridiculous arguments.

During the same speech in western Ireland in which he revealed that he had (ludicrously) assured Pope Francis that AL is perfectly orthodox after it had already been published, Schönborn proposed one sophism after another in defense of Holy Communion for persistent public adulterers.

While maintaining that AL upholds the Church’s infallible teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, Schönborn argued that “giving this answer is not an answer to all the single situations and cases that in everyday life we have to deal with.”

NONSENSE. Our Lord Himself has given the “answer to all the single situations and cases” involving divorce and purported “remarriage”¬ — they all constitute adultery: “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12) Adultery is an intrinsic evil, always and everywhere wrong. There are no “single situations and cases” in which adultery can be treated as if it were not adultery for purposes of admission to the Sacraments.

“Much more difficult is discernment,” Schönborn continued, “because you have to look closely, yes, in the light of the principles, but also at reality, where people stand, what is the drama of how did they come to a separation, to a new union, and so on.”

NONSENSE. There is no gap between the moral law laid down by God and “reality” or “where people stand.” The moral precept is reality — a reality inscribed in human nature itself as a precept of the natural law that binds all men, no matter where they claim to “stand” or what “drama” they recite. Schönborn here proposes nothing other than the evil of situation ethics, which would destroy the entire moral edifice of the Church by reducing morality to a mere set of “general rules” that may or may not apply in a given situation.

And that is exactly what AL purports to do:
- “Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases.” AL 302)
- “It is true that general rules set forth a good which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for all particular situations.” AL 304)

Need it be demonstrated that the appearance of such statements in a papal document is a catastrophe — indeed, a stage in the “final battle” over marriage and family of which Sister Lucia warned Cardinal Caffarra?
“Moral theology stands on two feet,” said Schönborn. “Principles, and then the prudential steps to apply them to reality…. The question of discernment is the key question for the right handling of right relation between principles and concrete application.”

NONSENSE. The negative precepts of the natural law, including “Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery” — which is what Schönborn is here addressing — apply in the same way to all people regardless of their situation. There are no “prudential steps to apply to reality” nor any problem of “concrete application” of the divine and natural law forbidding adultery. People engaged in adulterous relations are obliged to cease those relations if they wish to be admitted to the Sacraments, no less than the Mafiosi that Pope Francis threatens to excommunicate must cease their lives of crime against the natural law.

“The bonum possibile in moral theology is an important concept that has been so often neglected. What is the possible good that a person or a couple can achieve in difficult circumstances?”

The worst NONSENSE of all, as it reduces universally binding, exceptionless moral precepts to mere guidelines or benchmarks toward which people need only do the best they can under the circumstances, or what they deem “possible” for themselves. The Sixth Commandment thus becomes “Thou Shalt Do Thy Best Not to Commit Adultery.”

This sophist is the moral voice of the current pontificate. If this situation is not apocalyptic, then words have lost their meaning. We can only await, with fear and trembling, God’s dramatic resolution of a crisis unlike any the Church has seen before, in which even the foundations of the moral law are now under attack at the very summits of the Church.


The other very vivid reaction to Schoenborn's Bergoglideological descant in Ireland comes from Fr Vaverek, who has been a priest of the Diocese of Austin since 1985 and is currently pastor of parishes in Gatesville and Hamilton. His doctoral studies were in Dogmatics with a focus on Ecclesiology, Apostolic Ministry, Newman, and Ecumenism.

A diptych for Cardinal Schönborn
By Fr. Timothy V. Vaverek
THE CATHOLIC THING
July 25, 2017

During a talk in Ireland, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn revealed that he had suggested to Benedict XVI that St. John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio (FC) and Francis's Amoris Laetitia (AL) can be viewed as a sort of “diptych,” a pairing of artistic works that illuminates and transcends the meaning of each element. Benedict – he says – concurred, but did not accept the further assertion that FC is Platonic and AL is Aristotelean.

[Dear Lord, I had not realized that the 'Sophist in Chief' had made such an outrageous claim which, of course, he knows Benedict XVI has no way of denying or refuting! It is terribly unfair of the Sophist to 'instrumentalize' Benedict XVI in this way. And of course, all the traditionalist-conservative voices who already have consigned Benedict XVI to the same infernal niche where they have consigned Bergoglio will jump at this 'testimonial' to prove their point…

Diptych schmiptych! To even think of pairing the two documents is sacrilege in itself. In what way can a document that purveys falsehoods contradicting Jesus's own words be paired with a document that upholds in every way possible the splendor of Truth which is Christ himself – much less illuminate and transcend any Christian teaching at all? What shameless chutzpah for Schoenborn to even suggest that Benedict XVI would have concurred with his pairing!!!]


The Cardinal’s anecdote and subsequent discussion of morality suggest it might be good to consider his remarks in light of another diptych: Raphael’s Vatican frescos of The School of Athens and Disputation of the Holy Sacrament.

The Cardinal’s claim implies that John Paul’s theology of marriage and the family expresses idealistic principles, whereas Francis’s realism allows us to apply those principles to the nitty-gritty of daily life. Raphael famously depicted these contrasting philosophical approaches in the two central figures of the School of Athens: Plato, the idealist, whose raised hand points to the heavens, and Aristotle, the realist, whose outstretched hand is turned to the earth.


Raphael, The School of Athens, 1509.

That the Cardinal wants to read AL as a realist interpretation of the alleged idealism of FC is evident from his description of the moral life. He maintains that “Moral Theology stands on two feet: Principles, and then the prudential steps to apply them to reality.” For him, this is carried out through a discernment of conscience, which interprets the ideals within the context of human limitations. This produces a “right relation between principles and concrete application.”

The Cardinal praises AL for encouraging “a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of all particular [marriage] cases.” Once complete, this discernment can then address the question of reception of Holy Communion.


The difficulty with approaches like this is that they are founded on an inadequate premise.
Christian morality does not stand on two feet; it stands on the person of Jesus who is the principle – the source – of our moral life. Morality is nothing other than living united to Christ. In turn, Moral Theology is fundamentally the study of Jesus and our life in Him, not of abstract principles and their application

The teachings and commands of the Gospel are not philosophical expressions needing rational analysis to be validated and, then, implemented in daily life. They are the words and deeds of Jesus, the Word of God made flesh, which reveal to us in a humanly understandable way who God is and who we are. Jesus expresses the truth, which, as such, is already attuned to the realities of life.

When Jesus says, “you shall not commit adultery” or “whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery,” He is not presenting an ideal or something that cannot be adequately put into words. He is announcing the concrete truth about Himself and is assuring us that, as the faithful God who has become the Bridegroom, He will never abandon us. He is also describing in unequivocal terms the reality of marriage, fidelity, and indissolubility.


Were these divine prohibitions merely abstract principles, then conscience would doubtless still find reasons for permitting remarriage after divorce. This would happen, not because such reasons are realistic or legitimate, but because without grace, fallen human judgment and concupiscence have rarely led to the discernment that marriage is, by nature, indissoluble. Jesus revealed this truth as a remedy for our weakness and to foster our well-being. Consciences that erroneously “discern” otherwise, therefore, cause suffering and need healing.


Raphael, The Disputation of the Holy Sacrament, 1508

This brings us to Raphael’s diptych. The philosophers of Athens discuss wisdom in an entirely earthly setting surrounded by statues of mythical gods; the participants in the Disputation are united to each other and to the saints in heaven in giving worship to the living God who, in the person of the Word, has taken flesh as Jesus, who is in glory, and is present as the Eucharistic Host on the altar.

The earthly “disputants” are not engaged in partisan disagreement about who is adored in the Sacrament, but are instead discussing the wonder of that reality as members of the body of Christ, the Church.


Raphael’s frescos remind us that fallen human reason can discern much, but does not entirely free itself from error (note the idols) or reach agreement regarding ultimate truths (Plato and Aristotle point in contrary directions), while God’s self-revelation in Christ gathers us in the Church to know, love, and praise him even as we seek to penetrate more deeply the mysterious reality of God and His works.

Christ’s nuptial union with the Church is, like the Eucharist, a reality rather than an ideal. And it reveals the reality of human marriage. (Eph. 5:31-32) The Gospel teaching appears “idealistic” only because the Fall has clouded reason and weakened the will as regards the reality of marriage in the face of life’s difficulties. Through Faith, the reality of marriage – and the impossibility of a second union after divorce – stands out as clearly as the Eucharist.

Contrary beliefs and practices do not help anyone but keep them from knowing Christ more deeply and leave them suffering needlessly from the unrealities of their lives. Methods of discernment like the one proposed by the Cardinal cannot assist those in need or their priests. [How can Bergoglio and his theoretician/theologians fail to see that what they call 'discernment', which in their usage is equivalent to that 'primacy of individual conscience' which is a mantra of New Age, post-1968 modern man, really means that the individual sets himself up as the sole and best judge of what is good, without regard for objective goodness embodied by Christ himself, and that to do so is ultimately, self-deification? Bergoglio and company are, in effect, justifying and encouraging modern man's rejection of God.]

Without precise Christological criteria, fallen human reason and concupiscence cannot be expected to arrive at an accurate assessment of a first marriage, a second union, or the reception of Communion. All the more so when our Lord’s explicit prohibitions are treated as mere ideals. Such approaches are manifestly inadequate and unrealistic.

As long as Christian morality and doctrine are viewed as idealistic principles, their concrete meaning in life will be held hostage to the endless debates of diverse schools of philosophy and theology. Only when they are viewed within the Church as realities rooted in Christ and embraced in daily life will we be able to discover in them the true meaning of marriage, family, and all our joys and sorrows.

BTW, if you did not barf enough at Schoenborn's elaborate calisthenics with the truth, you probably will effect an unscheduled and most unpleasant purgation with this slavering article by John Allen.
https://cruxnow.com/analysis/2017/07/23/can-anything-burst-popes-media-bubble-nah-probably-not/?platform=hootsuite

P.S. This piece really belongs here...

As the pope persists in refusing
to answer the DUBIA himself,
Schönborn et al speak for him

A Roman prelate answers the Viennese cardinal's latest defense of AL

Adapted from the English service of
SETTIMO CIELO
Sandro Magister's blog
July 25, 2017

I have received this from an authoritative churchman and have agreed to publish it without revealing his name.

Everyone is responding to the DUBIA
except the pope. This time, Schönborn again…

by ***

On July 13, 2017, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, archbishop of Vienna, spoke for four hours in two conferences and a question-and-answer session at Mary Immaculate College in Limerick, Ireland.

The Austrian cardinal spoke in the context of the event "Let's Talk Family: Let's Be Family,” which is part of a series of assemblies organized in preparation for the World Meeting of Families (1), under the direction of the new Vatican super-dicastery for the laity, family, and life, which will be held in Dublin from August 21-28, 2018.

After reading the reporting on the event offered by the main specialized media outlets (2), I cannot help but note that when it comes to the DUBIA submitted to the pope by four cardinals, everyone is answering them except he himself; and that in this way, the chaotic chorus of most disparate comments and interpretations of “Amoris Laetitia” - which do anything but clarify for the faithful and confessors the problems raised by the document – has been further obscured by a new fog.

This is because the arguments offered by the archbishop of Vienna - at least as they have been reported by the most reliable media - are anything but convincing. Let’s take a look at the main ones.

1. An inopportune reprimand
In the first place, Schönborn reprimands the cardinals for even bringing up the DUBIA. Because they asked respectfully for an audience, he accuses them of having pressured the pope, i.e., they could have asked for an audience, but without saying so publicly. Here are the exact words of the Austrian archbishop:

That cardinals, who should be the closest collaborators of the pope, try to force him, to put pressure on him to give a public response to their publicized, personal letter to the pope - this is absolutely inconvenient behavior, I’m sorry to say. If they want to have an audience with the pope, they ask for an audience; but they do not publish that they asked for an audience.


I wonder if Cardinal Schönborn has read and/or believes in the following words this pope has said about the discussions that had already arisen over the course of the two 'family synods' he convoked in 2014 and 2015, which has then continued [and intensified] after the publication of his AL. I present just a few passages:

“One general and basic condition is this: speaking honestly. Let no one say: ‘I cannot say this, they will think this or this of me….’ It is necessary to say with parrhesia all that one feels. After the last Consistory (February 2014), in which the family was discussed, a Cardinal wrote to me, saying: what a shame that several Cardinals did not have the courage to say certain things out of respect for the Pope, perhaps believing that the Pope might think something else. This is not good, this is not synodality, because it is necessary to say all that, in the Lord, one feels the need to say: without polite deference, without hesitation. And, at the same time, one must listen with humility and welcome, with an open heart, what your brothers say. Synodality is exercised with these two approaches.”… (3)

“Personally I would be very worried and saddened if it were not for these temptations and these animated discussions; this movement of the spirits, as St Ignatius called it if all were in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace.” …(4)

“The complexity of the issues that arose revealed the need for continued open discussion of a number of doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and pastoral questions.”… (5)

“Have the courage to teach us that it is easier to build bridges than to raise walls!” …(6)


Pope Francis does nothing other than speak of parrhesia, of synodality, of making not walls but bridges.
- He has said that he would have been concerned and saddened if there had not been animated discussions during the synod.
- He has written in the very document that is the object of these animated discussions, meaning in “Amoris Laetitia,” that there is a “need for continued open discussion of a number of doctrinal, moral, spiritual, and pastoral questions.”

And now this same pontiff, in spite of the aforementioned words, decides not to receive four cardinals who have humbly and legitimately asked for an audience. . . And they were supposed to have said nothing about this refusal? Cardinal Schönborn really has a strange concept of parrhesia!

But after this baseless complaint on the part of the archbishop of Vienna, we come to the more doctrinal questions.
- “Moral theology stands on two feet: Principles and then the prudential steps to apply them to reality.”
- In ‘Amoris Laetitia’ Francis “often comes back to what he said in 'Evangelii Gaudium', that a little step towards the good done under difficult circumstances can be more valuable than a moral solid life under comfortable circumstances.”
- “The bonum possibil’ in moral theology is an important concept that has been so often neglected. […] What is the possible good that a person or a couple can achieve in difficult circumstances?”


Let’s begin to analyze the first statement. What are the prudential steps for applying the principles of morality to reality?
Prudence, recta ratio agibilium [Aristotle’s definition of prudence as ‘right reason applied to practice'] selects the means in view of the end; it does not select them arbitrarily, but is bound to the truth. As a result, prudence, in order to be such, cannot choose evil means, or intrinsically evil acts, that are necessarily always imprudent. In fact, a prudent act must be good in itself; if it is not good, it is not prudent. And to make an act good - and therefore potentially also prudent - intentions or circumstances are not always sufficient.

This is what the Church infallibly proposes for belief. Saint John Paul II taught this in the encyclical Veritatis Splendor:

“Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the universality and immutability of the moral commandments, particularly those which prohibit always and without exception intrinsically evil acts.” (7)


The end never justifies the means, therefore the end never makes an evil action prudent or proportionate to the ultimate end. So if it is true that “moral theology stands on two feet: Principles, and then the prudential steps to apply them to reality,” the cohabitation more uxorio of two persons who are not man and wife will never be a prudent application of the principles to the objective reality.
(8)

The second statement praises small steps toward the good, above all those that are taken in a state of difficulty. But those actions which are always evil, regardless of the circumstances, are never a small step toward the good, but a step - more or less grave - toward the bad.

Many small steps toward the good can be taken by persons living in a state of sin (charity, prayer, participation in the life of the Church, etc.), but what brings them closer to the good are certainly not the acts that constitute their state of sin: these are inevitably opposed to the journey toward the good, to the movement of the rational creature toward God, as Saint Thomas Aquinas would say.(9)

The third statement affirms the category of the possible good. This is a wonderful category if it is interpreted correctly (we think of the saying “Be good if you can” of Saint Philip Neri).
- But it is misguided if one forgets the words of Saint Paul: “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (10).
- It is misguided if one goes against what has been infallibly defined by the Council of Trent: “But no one, however much justified, should consider himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one should use that rash statement, once forbidden by the Fathers under anathema, that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified.” (11)
- It is misguided if, against the Catholic doctrine of justification, the doors should be opened - albeit in other terms - for invincible concupiscence of a Jansenist flavor, or to making social factors more influential than grace, or even than free will itself.

3. “Amoris Laetitia” is Catholic: Schönborn guarantees it
The website Crux also reports one episode that the cardinal himself recounted:

“Schönborn revealed that when he met the Pope shortly after the presentation of Amoris, Francis thanked him, and asked him if the document was orthodox. ‘I said, Holy Father, it is fully orthodox,’ Schönborn told us he told the pope, adding that a few days later he received from Francis a little note that said: ‘Thank you for that word. That gave me comfort’.”

[Of course, others have pointed out right away that if Bergoglio himself had to ask Schönborn if AL was ‘orthodox’, it means he himself realized or knew it may have crossed the line into heterodoxy, or worse. Maybe he should have consulted theologians from the other side of the ‘ideological’ divide in the Church – not a sycophant like Schoenborn or a fence-straddler like Mueller - before he even published the exhortation.]

This account – even if it indicates the humility of Francis in asking for a judgment from his trusted theologians, does not change the fact that it should be the pope who gives responses to the theologians, to the bishops, to the cardinals - who with the required parrhesia and the encouragement of the pontiff himself express to him their grave preoccupations over the state of the Church. This, in fact, is truly divided and wounded by the contrasting interpretations with which “Amoris Laetitia” has been proposed by various episcopates.

4. Conclusion
Cardinal Carlo Caffarra, in a speech before the scholastic committee of the Veritatis Splendor Institute of Bologna (12), identified some of the current challenges to which Christians have to respond: relativism, amoralism, and individualism.

About amoralism, the then-archbishop of Bologna said:“I have spoken of amorality in a precise sense. In the sense that the statement according to which ‘there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong’ (Ap. ex. 'Reconciliatio et Penitentia' 17; EV 9/1123], has no foundation, [according to the present-day mentality].”

Cardinal Caffarra then warned against some pseudo-solutions to the aforementioned problems:

“One first pseudo-solution is the evasion of the true and serious confrontation with these challenges. An evasion that generically assumes the face of fideism, of the rejection of the truthful dimension of the Christian faith. It is a real and proper lack of engagement, not necessarily intentional, in the serious and rigorous confrontation on the properly cultural level. It is evasion in a faith that is solely articulated and not examined, solely affirmed and not considered.”

Evasion “in a faith that is solely articulated and not examined!” How many times do we hear the articulation of the words mercy, conscience, maturity, responsibility, etc., but with the rejection of a true search for the intellectus fidei, of the profound understanding of the reasons for faith. [Yeah, well, we really cannot expect this pope to give us - nor even lead us to - a profound understanding of anything, because he has nothing but boilerplate platitudes that sound meaningless or even absurd, pseudo-erudite phrases that amount to balderdash, and shallow ideas that are usually quite fallacious!]

Schönborn’s argumentations have been situated ante litteram precisely by these considerations of Cardinal Caffarra concerning the substantial rejection (not necessarily intentional) of the “truthful dimension of the Christian faith”:
-"etsi veritas non daretur,” as if the immutable truth about man and the sacraments did not exist;
- “etsi bonum non daretur,” as if there there were not an objective good to be done and an equally objective evil to be avoided, both of which are not determined but are discovered and chosen freely by man in conscience;
- “etsi gratia non daretur,” as if man were forgotten by God in a situation-trap, where there is no other choice but to sin.

FOOTNOTES
(1) For more information see: www.worldmeeting2018.ie
(2) Because Cardinal Schönborn’s statements have not been published in their entirety, I refer to what was reported on the website “Crux”, which among the websites consulted was the one that seemed most complete to us. The editors themselves define Crux as "an independent Catholic news site, operated in partnership with the Knights of Columbus.” All of the texts English are taken from this site. Another fairly exhaustive report can be found on "Catholic Ireland."
(3) First general congregation of the 3rd Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, words of the Holy Father Francis to the Synod Fathers, October 6, 2014
(4) Speech of the Holy Father Francis for the conclusion of the 3rd Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, October 18, 2014.
(5) Exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” 2.
(6) In the course of the prayer vigil with young people at the Campus Misericordiae, during the 31st World Youth Day in Krakow.
(7) Encyclical letter “Veritatis Splendor” 115, August 6, 1993, emphasis added.
(8) It is enough to present, by way of example, what is stated in the Declaration from the congregation for the doctrine of the faith on certain questions concerning sexual ethics “Persona Humana” of December 29, 1975: “According to Christian tradition and the Church's teaching, and as right reason also recognizes, the moral order of sexuality involves such high values of human life that every direct violation of this order is objectively serious.”
(9) "De motu rationalis creaturae in Deum": Summa theologiae, Iª q. 2 pr.
(10) 1 Cor 10:13.
(11) Decree on justification of January 13, 1547, Sessio VI, cap. 11 (DS/36 1536).
(12) "Il cristiano e le sfide attuali", Meeting of the Scholarly Committe of the "Veritatis Splendor" Institute, June 3 2005.
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 28/07/2017 05:19]
Amministra Discussione: | Chiudi | Sposta | Cancella | Modifica | Notifica email Pagina precedente | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » | Pagina successiva
Nuova Discussione
 | 
Rispondi
Cerca nel forum

Feed | Forum | Bacheca | Album | Utenti | Cerca | Login | Registrati | Amministra
Crea forum gratis, gestisci la tua comunità! Iscriviti a FreeForumZone
FreeForumZone [v.6.1] - Leggendo la pagina si accettano regolamento e privacy
Tutti gli orari sono GMT+01:00. Adesso sono le 13:32. Versione: Stampabile | Mobile
Copyright © 2000-2024 FFZ srl - www.freeforumzone.com