The blog header depicts an important and yet mis-understood New Testament scene, Jesus flogging the money-changers out of the temple. I selected it because the faith that gives us consolation can also make us very uncomfortable. Both Divine Mercy and Divine Justice meet in Jesus. Priests are ministers of reconciliation, but never at the cost of truth. In or out of season, we must be courageous in preaching and living out the Gospel of Life. The title of my blog is a play on words, not Flogger Priest but Blogger Priest.
Many of us feel that while Vatican II is correct about the inviolability of conscience, the “Decree on Religious Freedom” needs to be fleshed out further in regard to the necessity of obedience to what is promulgated by the Church. We should remember that even the devil was true to his conscience but that ultimately it led to his eternal exile. A person might regard abortion as only one issue among many but if God should judge it as “pre-eminent” or most constitutive of the Gospel then to shuffle it away in the deck might signify an orientation away from the kingdom and toward perdition. The issue here is bigger than for whom one might vote.
A vital question must be asked: how much of our selves might be posited in the decision to support persons and/or policies that undermine the sanctity of life and demean the dignity of persons? Fidelity to an errant conscience will not save lives, build up a virtuous society or necessarily save our souls from corruption.
It has been said that advocates for removing the emphasis upon the moral evil of abortion as the “pre-eminent” issue for voters in the USCCB document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” are likely even more partisan than those who want to keep the current language. We should not be fooled. We may be experiencing a return of the loosely threaded “seamless garment” argument promulgated by the late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin and heralded by the disgraced and defrocked Cardinal, Theodore McCarrick. Instead of focusing upon immutable truths, the revisionists would place the gravity on consensus with dissenters. The cost paid is a watering down of Catholic social teaching. At the heart of much of the current debate is the definition of a well-formed conscience. A recent article in AMERICA seeks support from Aquinas and Vatican II for the contention that conscience is king. However, I believe there is a misreading in both cases.
While all the bishops would teach that abortion is wrong, there is a presumption on the part of a few that it cannot be made the “make or break” issue. The bishops dictate to priests upon the matter of giving or not giving the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians and to other public dissenters. This places many of the lower clergy into situations of heartrending pain and soul-searching. They take their pledge of obedience seriously and in many cases are being compelled to violate their own rightly formed consciences to placate those with poorly formed consciences. Photographs and videos of their actions are then published with the inference that they are either bad priests or that a pro-abortion position is inconsequential. What might have been an instructional moment is lost.
Is it presumptuous to regard the emphasis upon abortion as errant? Indeed, given confirmation by tradition and the larger Magisterium, must assent be given to this immutable teaching about this great evil? The article presumes that there can be a shift upon such a major element of the Gospel of Life. This is impossible. It would nullify the faith and any argument for the Church’s teaching role over faith and morals.
This is the home of the AWALT PAPERS, the posting of various pieces of wisdom salvaged from the writings, teachings and sermons of the late Msgr. William J. Awalt.
Blogger Priest 