Google+
 
Pagina precedente | 1 2 3 | Pagina successiva

PEOPLE AROUND THE POPE

Ultimo Aggiornamento: 16/11/2010 23:12
Autore
Stampa | Notifica email    
13/06/2009 02:22
OFFLINE
Post: 17.699
Post: 373
Registrato il: 28/08/2005
Registrato il: 20/01/2009
Administratore
Utente Senior


Here is a most interesting follow-up to one of those cases that have gone cold when they shouldn't be - involving Mons. Rino Fisichella, one of the few Roman prelates often mentioned as particularly close to the Holy Father.

BTW, the only reason perhaps that Fisichella's faux pas did not have greater repercussion in the media - outside of France where it was a cause celebre alongside the condoms issue - is that it came shortly after the Pope's statement on condoms and AIDS.




Distinguished philosophy prof
accuses Mons. Fisichella
of 'total relativism'

By Hilary White




ROME, June 11, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Michel Schooyans, a professor emeritus of philosophy at the Université Catholique de Louvain, in Belgium has issued a stinging assessment of the situation between Brazil’s Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho and the head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life (PAV). Schooyans wrote that what he has called the “Recife Affair” is one of “utmost gravity” for the Church.

Mgr. Schooyans bluntly says that Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella, the head of the PAV, justified the abortion of twins of the nine year-old girl in Brazil “on the grounds of compassion towards the little girl and compassion towards the doctors.”

The morality expounded in the article, he said, “is a situational morality. According to him, moral principles ought to be taken into consideration in so far as they respect freedom of choice in concrete circumstances. Here we have total relativism.”

What Fisichella failed to do in his March 15th article in L’Osservatore Romano, was to “recommend compassion towards the aborted twins.” “Let it simply be established,” Schooyans wrote, “that [Fisichella] is here admitting direct abortion.”

Schooyans, a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences who has written twenty books on political philosophy, contemporary ideologies and international population policies, wrote, “In objective terms, ... [the] article provides formidable backing to all who, in Latin America (Brazil, Santo Domingo, etc.) and elsewhere, are waging a campaign to legalise abortion, with the support of President Obama, the European Union, the IPPF and other NGOs.”

After the announcement by Archbishop Cardoso in March that those who had procured the abortion of twins on a nine-year-old rape victim in Recife, Brazil, were under the penalty of automatic excommunication, the world’s press attacked the archbishop, and by extension the Catholic Church, for “insensitivity” and lack of compassion.

On March 15th, the pro-life world was shocked to read an article by Archbishop Fisichella that supported not his fellow bishop, but the conclusion of the pro-abortion media that the action had been “hasty” and lacking in compassion. In his article, published by the Vatican’s newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, Fisichella blasted Cardoso for having failed to provide all possible pastoral care for the girl and her family.

Since then, despite the case gaining international attention, Archbishop Cardoso has said that L’Osservatore Romano has bluntly refused to publish his rebuttal and correction, in which, he says, many factual errors by Archbishop Fisichella are revealed. A refutation of Fisichella’s attack, published on the website of the archdiocese, revealed that neither Archbishop Cardoso nor any other official of the archdiocese of Olinda and Recife had been contacted prior to its publication.

Moreover, Fisichella’s article was highly praised by the secularist media and by abortion campaigners as a signal that the Vatican is “softening” its stand on the total inadmissibility of procured abortion.

Schooyans wrote that “crucial questions” remain unanswered about the affair, including whether the article was vetted before publication by the Vatican’s doctrinal watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

“[Fisichella] has himself stated that ‘the article was written on request’. At the request of whom? It is being insinuated in some quarters that it was written at the request of the office of the Secretary of State. This is the crucial question.”



***************************************************************************************


I am really surprised and very disappointed that Mons. Rino Fisichella has done nothing so far - not in public anyway where he needs to explain himself, to begin with - to straighten out the mess he left behind, after what I can only describe aas an ill-advised and rash editorial commentary in L'Osservatore Romano last March.

It's bad enough that the OR has refused to publlish the side of the Brazilian bishops wronged in Fisichella's article, but I should think the Rector of the Pontifical Lateran University and recently-named President of the Pontifical Academy for Life would have the intellectual honesty to face up to his misstep.

It is very painful to watch someone like Mons. Fisichella - who otherwise has such sterling credentials [most notably, he is credited to have worked with Cardinal Raztinger on drafting John Paul II's encyclical Fides et ratio, to the point where the document was jestingly referred to in the Curia as 'Fisi et Ratzi'] - commit such a lapse of judgment in public and not bother to account for it.

There are three notable personages reputed to be among Pope Benedict XVI's most loyal friends who have erred inexplicably in this regard in recent months - led by the Archbishop of Vienna, for what I still consider a terrible act of treason for his weak-kneed acquiescence with dissident Austrian prelates in the question over Mons. Wagner's appointment and the Williamson case; Fisichella for the Brazilian contretemps; and lately, Regensburg Bishop Gerhard Mueller who has been making a federal case about new FSSPX ordinations.

Mueller is a respected theologian in his own right, and is in fact one of the bishops who is currently a member of the CDF, and according to Italian media reports, he has been pressing the Vatican to come out in the open and support him on the matter. All he has to do is ask a canon law expert to answer his objections which have nothing to do with theology, merely a right understanding of canon law!

Since his previous requests to the Vatican for a public statement of sorts went unanswered [DUH! Perhaps the conspicuous silence is the answer!], he is said to have brought up the question at last week's meeting of the CDF hierarchy, which did make known later that it was moving towards the anticipated doctrinal talks with the FSSPX but pointedly did not say a word about the ordinations.

How is it possible that these three men - whose combined intellectual wattage could probably light up a small city - can miss the very core of Benedict XVI's - and indeed of Christ's - message, charity? Why on earth are they engaging in such very open uncharitable actions towards their fellow priests, of all people?

As for Bishop Mueller, I wonder how many seminarians he has in Regensburg compared to what the FSSPX has in Zaitkofen. I would pose the same challenge to Archbishop Zollitsch in Freiburg.

They only have to remember that at a time when the FSSPX continues to attract record numbers of young Catholics who want to become traditinal priests, the dioceses of Germany which have been bending over backwards to pander to their liberal constituencies in the mistaken notion that that is the way to strengthen the faith - or improve numbers in ther local Churches - have empty churches and empty seminaries.



THE MONSTROUS MONSTRANCE OF LINZ


P.S. Since I mentioned Cardinal Schoenborn in the above comment, look at the monstrosity that a parish in Linz - the diocese where poor Mons. Wagner labors to keep orthodoxy and tradition alive - put on display yesterday to represent the Blessed Sacrament for a Corpus Domini procession!

A brief videoclip can be seen on GloriaTV at
en.gloria.tv/?media=27931

How can anyone in his right mind possibly think that a round bread loaf held aloift in a giant wooden clip is an appropriate way to venerate the Lord?

But alas, Cardinal Schoenborn himself has participated in a Mass that used similar 'props', as though the solemn liturgy of the Church were a stage production that a creative director could choose to depict from whatever perspective strikes his fancy.

Excuse the language, but what the hell is wrong with this people?


[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 13/06/2009 03:52]
Amministra Discussione: | Chiudi | Sposta | Cancella | Modifica | Notifica email Pagina precedente | 1 2 3 | 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 00:38. Versione: Stampabile | Mobile
Copyright © 2000-2024 FFZ srl - www.freeforumzone.com