Punditry

The late Fr. Jaki who was a physicist/priest/science historian said that the Church was the mid-wife for the scientific method. He persuasively makes this case in his book “Science & Creation, from eternal cycles to an oscillating universe” where he goes through the different cultures and compares them. Quite fascinating reading how belief in eternal cycles frustrated the scientific method from developing.

So is it cultural appropriation for non-Western countries to use the scientific method?

The answer is of course no since cultural appropriation should be mocked, mocked and then mocked. Not surprised that multiculturalism has developed to this sad state. Mainly instead of “E pluribus unum” it was always more like a centrifuge separating elements from each other. So this is really the projected outcome. I much prefer the model of cultural cross-pollination where ideas and more transient aspects of culture see wider adoption. Sure this results in adaptations that stray rather far from their sources. Some of these adaptations are much more consequential than others. Culinary ones less so as there is always room for the revival of the more “authentic” and are often advertised as such. Not that there aren’t problematic adaptations. Some can be either intentionally mocking of their source or easily inferred as such.

The problem we are seeing now on College campuses is that any adaptation or even straight importation is seen as inherently evil. This is such a total fundamental understanding of the ways cultures develop and it is not based on a “clean room” environment developing totally on its own. No doubt they have zero understanding of exactly what setting the university developed in and all the other debts to Western Civilization (which of course also had cross-pollination from other cultures).

I consider it of paramount importance to try to understand the arguments of others. I can only to a very small degree understand the arguments regarding cultural appropriation. Still what annoys me most about this argument is that there are serious problems, injustices, and disparities in the world. Although I guess this is nothing new as Jesus charged the Pharisees “You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!” (Mt 23:24)

Two weeks ago I had noticed the headline in my news aggregator The Plot to Change Catholicism from Ross Douthat. I didn’t read it since by that time I had pretty much had my fill my Synod related commentary. Although usually I do read his columns and find them worthwhile, even in disagreement at times.

Then the whole kerfuffle broke out this week with what columnist Rod Dreyer called The tempest-in-a-theological-faculty-teapot over the pissy letter an (ever-growing) list of Catholic theologians are.

To the editor of the New York Times

On Sunday, October 18, the Times published Ross Douthat’s piece “The Plot to Change Catholicism.” Aside from the fact that Mr. Douthat has no professional qualifications for writing on the subject, the problem with his article and other recent statements is his view of Catholicism as unapologetically subject to a politically partisan narrative that has very little to do with what Catholicism really is. Moreover, accusing other members of the Catholic church of heresy, sometimes subtly, sometimes openly, is serious business that can have serious consequences for those so accused. This is not what we expect of the New York Times.

So I read the article to see what the big deal was about. I was not surprised to find that the article had little to do with the characterization of it. No fire or brimstone or charges of heresy. Douthat proposes that Pope Francis is at least favorable to the Kasper proposal and that Synod appointments reflect this. That his actions were crafted towards that end. I think it is a reasonable explanation of the facts. Others who I respect and who are not spittle-flecked Francis haters have suggested the same explanation based on available facts. I don’t happen to think that this is the only possible interpretation of the tea-leave readings of Synodal appointments, just that it seems to fit.

So as far as Ross Douthat’s column goes it wasn’t especially intemperate or over-the-top. You can either agree or disagree with his analysis. What is over-the-top is the reaction. On the left “Credentialism” is something that is often resorted to. Only some people are allowed to comment. If you are a man you can’t have an opinion regarding abortion. If you are not a left-leaning theologian or a columnist of the right type again you are not allowed an opinion. Maureen Dowd and a plethora of NYT columnists can promote abortion and other evils and this list of theologians wouldn’t bat an eye.

This is not what we expect of the New York Times.

This might be the finest compliment Mr. Douthat has ever received.

So where does the idea that Ross Douthat was calling people heretics come from? Again referring to Rod Dreyer column Thin-Skinned Theologians he lists an exchange on Twitter between Ross Douthat and Massimo Faggioli where at one point Douthat replies “Own your Heresy.” So a Twitter subtweet seems to be where much of the ire comes from. I guess these theologians haven’t been on Twitter much.

In reaction to this I have seen a couple find columns in reaction to the letter.

Bishop Robert Barron’s Ross Douthat and the Catholic Academy makes some excellent points regarding credentialism and finishes with this:

So in the spirit of Howard Sudberry, I would say to those who signed the letter against Ross Douthat, “Make an argument against him; prove him wrong; marshal your evidence; have a debate with him; take him on. But don’t attempt to censor him.” I understand that the signatories disagree with him, but he’s playing by the rules.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker weighs in with From the Fury of Liberal Theologians, Good Lord Deliver Us.

Heresy is not a charge to be bantered about casually.

Can. 751: Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.

The whole debate regarding those divorced and remarried being allowed Communion has always seemed a nonsensical debate to me. Really it does tend towards heresy regarding the truth Jesus gave us regarding the indissolubility of marriage. Either someone is in a objectively grave state of sin or they are not. Either one is fully in communion with the Church or they are not.

The whole proposal makes adultery a favored sin given special treatment. That someone doesn’t have to repent of a sin and still to be able to say they are in communion with the Church and the will of Christ. I do wonder how I can get my own long list of sins given special treatment. The idea that you can go through a “period of penance” while not actually repenting is just bad theology.

In part I can certainly understand why this proposal has come about. In most every case where we sin we can repent of the sin, confess it, with a firm purpose of amendment regarding that sin. For those who have “remarried” there can be no full repentance until the situation is rectified. This is an exceptionally difficult situation and I have certainly empathized with the anguish of those who find themselves in this situation. Countless hours of Catholic radio have exposed me to these personal stories. I have also seen the difficulties regarding evangelism for people in this situation. Those that might be attracted towards the Church find the Catholic teaching on marriage cruel and judgmental.

So I can totally understand what leads to a misplaced sense of mercy where the truth regarding marriage is invalidated. One of the things I have noticed in the whole debate regarding the family relates to the aftermath of divorce and very little to keeping families intact in the first place. Rampant divorce is a modern phenomenon. Much more effort should be expended regarding this along with helping those in irregular marriage situations. No one is helped when you confirm them in their sin. When something is uncomfortable it is amazing the reasons we can come up with to avoid those situations (speaking from my own experience here). I think some of this false mercy is driven by that.

It is rather odd when you deny the possibility of divorce that you are denounced as Pharisees when the Pharisees permitted divorce. Jesus called them hard-hearted for not defending the truth of marriage.

With the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family now in session and everything that has led up to it, I have seen lots of reactions. There is the “finally” crowd who think the Synod will be changing Catholic teaching and are happy about it and there are the doom and gloomers who think the Synod will change Church teaching and are not happy about it.

So I was all set to write a “Don’t Panic” post and relate the current situation in the Church to Church history. I even had it set as a reminder to write something on that subject.

Then I saw Thomas L. McDonald’s post today The Catholic Church Will Survive: Putting Crises in Perspective. If I was much smarter and was an excellent writer this was the post I would have written.

So just read his post instead. Still I will go ahead and meander on the subject myself since the subject must seek release from my brain and that’s what my blog is for.

I am no Church historian, yet the subject does interest me as a amateur and what I have read has intrigued me and helped me try to put things into perspective. It seems to me the Church is always in crisis. We are always coming to some decision point and when we come to a decision there are still waves of effects from even a moment of clarity. This of course is followed up by the next crisis.

The Book of Judges shows that ebb and flow of repentance and falling back into sin. Over and over we see pattern in the Old Testament. The false idea of progress where just the passage of time leads to moral progress is one of those things that can only be believed if you conveniently ignore all of human history and the evidence of your eyes. Still even with that caveat, many seem capable of doing just that. The prophets were never called to affirm the current moral climate, but to denounce it. No surprise that prophets were unpopular. Oddly we have people today claiming a prophetic message who affirm negative moral trends. No surprise that they’re popular and don’t contain martyrs among them.

All of the rest of Church history follows the same template of rise and fall. This is certainly unsettling in every age. Still much of the New Testament is written in response to some problem or other. The pastoral letters are not about how everyone has converted to Christ and are spreading the Gospel to others. Sure this is one aspect, but mostly there are the day-to-day problems dealing with discipline and just plain heresy. Without all this drama no doubt the New Testament would be much shorter.

Rising from the persecution stage of the early Church we again run into the same series of problems facing the Church. Most notable in this early period is the Arian heresy which gained many adherents including many of the Easter Bishops. Not to mention other concurrent heresies in those times and the ones that followed them. I could easily imagine being a Catholic blogger during those times generating link-bait papyrus despairing at Arian episcopal appointments and the banishment of Athanasius once again. To have the Council of Nicea overwhelmingly reject Arianism and yet Arianism was strengthened in regards to power and influence in the Church. Plenty of factions and double-dealing behind the scenes. Agendas and people using theology for a power grab. Yeah nothing has changed.

The time of the Council of Nicea is no real exception. Heresy and corruption are mainstays of Church history along with the saints God raised up in those times. There has never been some idyllic golden age in the Church and there won’t ever be for the Church Militant.

When I first heard the reports regarding the Secret Synod from Edward Pentin I was not surprised. There have always been factions and those plotting to change theology. In fact I would have been more suspicious if such groups did not come to light. The advocates for itching ears always have some new enlightened view to proclaim from their elitist heights. Bad theology always gains adherents as it tends to excavate the narrow way and reduce the need for repentance.

I am no Pollyanna just invoking the truth that the “Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.” True as that is there is a lot of damage that can be done that is just short of “prevail.” Still I am not worried that Church teaching is going to be changed. Time and time again at these points of response to crisis, documents produced do not support the current error. Sure there are ambiguities and certainly no guarantee that the orthodox views are stated perfectly. These documents are not inspired and often not even inspired in the other sense.

No the documents that will come out of the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops on the Family do not give me premonitory indigestion. It is almost always the pastoral response that concerns me. Regardless how clear a document is and orthodox it is. It is always the pastoral practice that subverts it. Humanae Vitae did not end discussion regarding the moral licitness of contraception. It was ignored by Bishop conferences, priests in the confessional, down to the practice of the laity. Contraception was a good case in point regarding how so many thought the Church as going to change her teaching. Lots of drama then also regarding the The Pontifical Commission on Birth Control which overwhelming supported contraception in saying it was not intrinsically evil.

Usually what happens is that dissenters find the easiest way to undermine Church teaching is not to teach it or have it taught. Make everything a matter of conscience, an individualist unformed conscience. Since this time around the issues regard divorce and remarriage regarding Communion and to some extent homosexual acts, dissent will take different paths. It is not as if dissenters will be able to publicly “remarry” people or conduct same-sex weddings. Such public dissent would take the same disciplinary path as attempting to ordain women.

As a pessimistic-optimist I will be able to deal with both the clarifying and maddening aspects of the results of the Synod. Don’t Panic, but pray instead.

Photo credit: Good Advice via photopin (license)

Being Catholic without having a funny bone would be a great cross. How else could we read media coverage of the Church if we couldn’t laugh at how bad it is. It really is funny to read the coverage by people who have no clue to what they are talking about.

I found this story that ran on NPR typically bad Pope Francis Announces Window To Forgive Women Who Had Abortions.

The article mentions that the procurement of abortion “triggers” automatic excommunication. But provides no other context to what the Pope is doing and why. No background that some canonical penalties are reserved to the local ordinary as in this case. No mention that at least in the United States that most American bishops have given permissions to priests to remit the abortion excommunication in confession. I have not heard of any diocese that has not done this in America. Not sure worldwide how widespread this permission is given.

Still it is very important context to this story that what NPR calls a “window” is actually long term practice in many places. The Pope has extended this permission worldwide.

Another important aspect is that incurring the latae sententiae excommunication is not something that happens under every circumstance regarding procurement of abortion. Jimmy Akin has an excellent post regarding this along with other information Holy Year Gestures on Abortion and the SSPX: 12 Things to Know and Share.

Now, the Pope’s letter does not mention people who perform abortions, so we don’t know what their status is.

Because it would be so hard for NPR to reach out to someone within the Church for any fact checking at all. To find out that the Canon law regarding this that those immediately involved with the abortion all have the same status regarding this.

MARTIN: So what does this mean for Pope Francis’s larger mandates, Sylvia? Is this, in some way, a gesture to the church’s more liberal wing?

As if the “church’s more liberal wing” thought abortion was a sin at all. They deny it is a sin and that it would require repentance.

Here is the section of the Pope’s letter that pertains:

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 they 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.

Still NPR’s poorly written coverage is a gem compared to MSNBC’s “Pope says priests can allow this catholic sin”. See GetReligon’s coverage of this.