|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A Short History on the Value of Divine Gadflies
I confess that I am not familiar with much of Bishop Schneider’s work and do not follow him in media. I too often read the monuments of the dead so that I miss the scaffolding being erected by the living. Nonetheless, OnePeterFive sought a review of Bishop Schneider’s recent piece, entitled above and worth a read. His Excellency and I think differently: So far as my limited sampling has understood him: He is a pastor and missionary seeking to bind up the wounds of the faithful, with a conviction that revealed truth is not only sufficient but superabundantly able to sooth and save. This is likely something like the Good Shepherd approach. That is why it might be worthwhile for me to make a short review of his article: My analysis is categorical, my writing is biting, and my proposals (few as they are) are synthetic along plausible, probable, or certain conclusions drawn from theology proper, unless otherwise stated.
I start by stating: The official playing field has changed; somewhat radically for a Roman bureaucracy and probably more performatively for a secular bureaucracy. I illustrate by presenting a collage manufactured from citations of recent magisterial and curial documents on synodality and from Magnifica Humanitas (I intend not to manipulate their literal and contextual meanings, so far as possible, all the while conceding that I am not the competent ecclesiastical authority).
“The communion of local Churches [is] within the one Church, manifesting its Catholicity while respecting legitimate diversity.” “Creativity […] inspires new ways of practicing synodality and enhances the fruitfulness of mission [that] springs from these differences.” “The fruits of the experiences gained in different contexts need to be shared, nourishing dialogue between the Churches.” “The Final Document of the Synod identifies a culture of transparency, accountability and evaluation as key practices for missionary transformation.” “Regular assessments of the exercise of ministerial responsibilities should be encouraged, not as judgments on individuals, but as tools for learning and correction oriented toward mission.”
Bishop Schneider’s first concern that registered with me was as follows:
…Failure stems from a fundamental methodological error and a lack of fact-based justification concerning the objective doctrinal and liturgical ambiguities that lie at the heart of the controversy. At its core, the conflict revolves around the question of truth.
I am reminded of the Gospel:
[Jesus:] “For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice.” Pilate saith to him: “What is truth?” (John 18:37-38)
This dialogue in John is styled philosophically, for this reason the Greek tradition calls the author of the Gospel: “St. John the Theologian.” Truth, about which Bishop Schneider speaks, is for Jesus revealed from heaven and taught in the language of men. The medium chosen was the philosophically apt language of Greek in the first century. Pilate is aware that the notion of “truth” was a disputed question, unaware of revealed truth uniquely held by Judeo-Christians: unchanging God-taught propositions. In addition to the Greek Scriptures, the Church provided an enduring virtual interpretation or commentary thereto by Jerome’s Vulgate as edited for the Tridentine Mass and liturgical books. Additionally and correctly, Bishop Schneider understands Christ’s truth as exclusively extending to extraordinary propositions (e.g., Immaculate Conception and Assumption) and Universal Ordinary Magisterium (e.g., teaching against artificial contraception). These truths, derived from Scriptural propositions of Jesus’s revealed truths from heaven put down in Scripture, are irreformable and act as a straitjacket to limit the legitimate movement of the ordinary teaching emanating today from Rome at two places: (i.) The papal office, and (ii.) the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (= DDF). Today, these two offices are alone papally invested with the authority of magisterium, in the Holy See’s official day to day teaching.[1] This day to day teaching (not part of nos. i-ii above) has been admitted by the DDF twice[2] and Leo’s XIV once to have had deficiencies,[3] inappropriate theological propositions and defective statements. As Schneider underlines it:
Among the non-definitive teachings of Vatican II there are several—particularly those concerning religious liberty, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, and collegiality—whose formulations are ambiguous and difficult to reconcile with doctrines taught consistently by the Magisterium from the era of the Church Fathers through the period immediately preceding the Council.
What the ordinary magisterium now officially affirms repeatedly by both its principal office (papal encyclical) and subordinate organ (DDF) is entirely in accord with Bishop Schneider: ‘The ordinary Magisterium teaches on occasion “deficiently,” “inappropriately,” and “compromisingly” faulty propositions’ (see footnote 2 for these magisterial words used against the very same magisterium). Bishop Schneider simply admits that the facts, whether propositions of pre-Vatican II magisterium, whether studied by analytic philosophy, Scholastic theology, or AI analysis (to use an MH concern) will come to the same conclusion: There are powerful reasons for concluding that a contradiction may obtain after comparing pre-Vatican II to post-Vatican II magisterium. This paralyzes the intellect’s ability to act according to principles. This paralyzes living the Gospel, for which Jesus came into the world “to bear witness to the truth.” Bishop Schneider concedes that SSPX has identified four cases: (i.) Religious liberty, (ii.) ecumenism, (iii.) interreligious dialogue, and (iv.) the relation of the episcopacy to the exercise of the papal charisms. To illustrate both how reasonable Bishop Schneider is, and how strong the objections of SSPX are, on these disputed questions, the eponymous John Paul the Great wrote:
There are people who […] consider that the first ecumenical endeavors have brought negative results […] Some even express the opinion that these efforts are harmful to the cause of the Gospel, are leading to a further rupture in the Church, are causing confusion of ideas in questions of faith and morals and are ending up with a specific indifferentism. It is perhaps a good thing that the spokesmen for these opinions should express their fears (Redemptor Hominis, no. 6, emphasis added).[4]
There is reason I do not include the above quote with Donum Veritatis’s admission of magisterial deficiencies, Maria Populi Fidelis‘s imputation of inappropriateness to the magisterium, and MH‘s indictment of immoral compromise in the magisterium. John Paul II’s Redemptor Hominis hedges with “perhaps.” This was the first post-Vatican II opening to admitting that the ordinary magisterium errs, brought to fruition later in John Paul’s pontificate. In this same vein, Bishop Schneider adroitly links his above statement to the following:
The Holy See is also requiring the SSPX to formally recognize the declarations and teachings of the post-conciliar Popes that belong to the so-called authentic and daily magisterium. These include, for example, certain statements in Amoris Laetitia that seriously undermine and even contradict Divine Revelation; Pope Francis’ formal permission for divorced and remarried people to receive Holy Communion; and the Declaration on blessings for same-sex couples, Fiducia Supplicans.
Added to potential errors of the lowest magisterium (i.e., not-divinely-protected magisterium of the Church), Bishop Schneider also adds Amoris Laetitia (= AL)and Fiducia Supplicans (= FS). Let us recall that cardinals remain in contention with the Holy See presently and are nonetheless in communion, free of sanctions. I mean that in 2016 Amoris Laetitia Dubia (questions needing clarification) were submitted to Pope Francis in September 2016 by Cardinals Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Leo Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner. The clear contestation of the cardinals can be reduced to this trap for the Francis-Leo papacy: Are AL[5]and FS[6] interpreted as a continuation of the post-Vatican II ordinary magisterium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (= CCC)? This is an embarrassment: The Post-Vatican II ordinary magisterium of CCC reaffirms adultery as biblically evil and dogmatically condemned; the CCC reaffirms unnatural acts against the sixth and ninth commandments as always sinful by their very nature and unjustifiable. Does the ordinary magisterium in AL and FS also confirm or veer from this simple affirmations?
Bishop Schneider underlines how the alleged extremists (SSPX) actually sound like the rational actors here, while the Holy See (in order not to resolve what seems to be a moral compromise on questions of intrinsic evil and natural law) appears willing – just like slavery – to remain silent in the face of a universal moral crisis. There is a difference between the Dubia and MH, no., 176: Pope Leo supposes that “the moral criteria that matured over time” were not discoverable easily in the 1400s within that time and place of Western Europe. The pope notes that partial concessions to slavery would have been morally vitiating, if objective moral criteria: “had always been available.” The irony is thick: The moral criteria and crisis context of a modern promotion of unnatural acts and sexual libertinism regarding marriage should greatly inculpate the papacy of Pope Francis, for whom none of the mitigating factors of slavery-condemnation by Pope Eugenius IV apply. Thus, why aren’t Catholics generally – like the aforementioned cardinals – able to ignore the unclear meaning of AL and FS, as another culpable compromise akin to Eugenius IV in the face of slavery, and prefer courageously to reaffirm post-Vatican II ordinary magisterium (viz., CCC) in harmony with Scripture and the Universal Ordinary Magisterium? Why is the SSPX, as a condition for unity, being held to a higher standard of ambiguity than the divine gadflies who authored the Dubia? This looks like exclusion and marginalization, not dialogue. If Christ came to bear witness to the truth, then will Pope Leo XIV, like Pope Eugenius IV, compromise the Gospel due to political factors, but without the exculpating conditions that Pope Eugenius enjoyed? Might Pope Leo XIV not one day be singled out for culpable mention by his future successor for having answered Jesus, like Pope Francis: “What is truth?”
Finally, I was struck by a very unusual interpretation of the history of salvation by His Excellency:
Then the existence and activity of the SSPX may be viewed, from a long-term perspective and in the light of the Church’s two-thousand-year history, as a work of divine providence and as a source of assistance to the Church during a crisis of unprecedented magnitude.
Bishop Athanasius’s eponymous antecessor, St. Athanasius the Great, along with his party, was deposed and excommunicated, where even Pope Liberius morally caved to pressures stemming from episcopal collegiality in league with imperial violence. Later, the saint needed official restoration by his constant ally Pope Julius.
Next, we turn to the dissatisfaction and resignation of Archbishop St. Gregory of Nazianzen from the See of Constantinople after the convocation of the Second Ecumenical Council for its unjust reneging on the negotiated solution to the Meletian schism, seconded by great saints like St. Ambrose of Milan, tarnishing the reputation of Ecumenical Councils. St. Gregory – to say nothing of St. Ambrose – resigned as president over the Ecumenical Council and wrote his mellowed reflection on it, after he went into retirement in disgust. He continued his mature opposition to the ordinary magisterium of an Ecumenical Council, concerning matters alien to the Extraordinary or Universal Ordinary Magisterium:
For my part, if I am to write the truth, my inclination is to avoid all assemblies of bishops, because I have never seen any Council come to a good end, nor turn out to be a solution of evils. On the contrary, it usually increases them. You always find there love of contention and love of power (I hope you will not think me a bore, for writing like this), which beggar description; and, while sitting in judgment on others, a man might well be convicted of ill-doing himself long before he should put down the ill-doings of his opponents. So I retired into myself; and came to the conclusion that the only security for one’s soul lies in keeping quiet. (Epistle 130 to Procopius)
Despite this, St. Gregory’s reputation in the East led to his works being the most copied in Greek besides the Bible. He, after St. John the Theologian (whence “what is truth?”), is among the few in the Eastern martyrology (Synaxarion) called “the Theologian.” From this perspective, Bishop Lefebvre’s more modest opposition to the ordinary magisterium of Vatican II may indeed prove yet to be the case of a divine gadfly whose interior voice urged him to stand before the Areopagus and say: “Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey the god rather than you…” (Apology 29d-30b). On the question of truth heard from Jesus, St. Luke noticed the pestiferous paradigm of “the council of the malignant” (Psalm 22:16) dishing out Athenian justice, that is, the Sadducees and Pharisees who spoke thus:
And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest asked them, Saying: Commanding, we commanded you, that you should not teach in this name; and behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and you have a mind to bring the blood of this man upon us. But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.
St. Justin the Martyr (around AD 150) understood that Socrates’ ethics was informed first by human reason: “Socrates, by true reason (logos) and examination, endeavored to bring these things to light and free men from the demons…” (see Apology, chapter 5). And, reflecting St. Luke’s Socratic reference, Justin clearly followed up by associating Socrates’ unnamed divinity who provided him with revealed wisdom with the pre-incarnate Christ:
We have been taught that Christ is the First-Begotten of God, and we have declared above that He is the Logos of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived according to the Logos are Christians, even though they were thought atheists, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates… (see Apology, chapter 46)
The General Secretariat of the Synod, having just published its document Pathways for the Implementation of the Synod (quoted at the opening of this article), as well as the citations from MH together supposedly welcome divine gadflies, embrace criticism, and invite diversity. Bishop Schneider is perhaps identifying something to be taken quite seriously: SSPX, and by extension traditionalism as a persecuted movement within the city limits of the City of God, finds itself standing before the High Priest and General Secretariat of the Synod proclaiming: “I am that gadfly which God has attached to the city…” (Apology 30e-31a)
[1] Last century, for example, the Pontifical Biblical Commission was officially invested with authority to bind consciences in the name of St. Peter from Praestantia Sacrae Scripturae (18 November 1907) and it was demoted by Paul VI by the motu proprio Sedula Cura (27 June 1971).
[2] See Donum Veritatis, no. 24: “When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies.” See also: Maria Populi Fidelis, nos. 18 and 22:
Some Popes have used the title “Co-redemptrix” without elaborating much on its meaning. Generally, they have presented the title in two specific ways: in reference to Mary’s divine motherhood (insofar as she, as Mother, made possible the Redemption that Christ accomplished) or in reference to her union with Christ at the redemptive Cross. […]
Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it is always inappropriate to use the title “Co-redemptrix” to define Mary’s cooperation.
[3] Magnifica Humanitas, no. 176, footnote 174: “Political and, at times, even economic needs overcame the demands of the Gospel. The need for evangelization was frequently compromised or at least misunderstood with regard to the needs of worldly powers, thus relativizing the problematic incompatibility of slavery with the Christian conscience.”
[4] I should gratefully note that it was Christopher Ferrara, JD, in The Great Facade,who first brought this to my attention.
[5] AL, no. 305: “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin… a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity…”; footnote no. 351: “In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments.”
[6] FS, no. 31: “it is possible to bless couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples.”