• Our Blogger

    Fr. Joseph Jenkins

  • 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.

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Heather Bell on Ask a Priest
    Jeff Lawson on The Buck Stops with the P…
    Noah on Ask a Priest
    Al Tritt on Ask a Priest
    maya on Ask a Priest

The Buck Stops with the Pope!

While there has long been an invisible schism in the Church caused by the many loud liberal or progressive voices in the years since Vatican II, today matters have intensified with resistance from a growing arrogant traditionalism. Critics observe that the catalyst for the reaction on the right has been a papacy that represses the historical Latin Mass, sometimes pampers the Church’s enemies, glosses over what seem to be serious errors, and opts for diplomatic ambiguity when there is a pressing need for clarity and truth from the teaching office.  Admittedly, the pastoral accommodation that belongs to the pastors on the ground cannot be appropriated by the highest shepherds or by the one who sits in the chair of Peter without doing insufferable harm to the transmission and interpretation of the deposit of faith.  

Like the proverbial snowball rolling down a hill, many religious pundits who have made accurate assessments about what falls short of complete fidelity are now lashing out against anything and everything that comes down from Rome or the bishops in union with him.  They make themselves into mini popes who presume to tell the Holy Father what he is doing and saying wrong. They are hesitant to admit agreeing with the pope when he says or does anything wholly Catholic.

The First Vatican Council of 1870 expounded upon its definition of papal infallibility:

“Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church.”

If schism is a failure to submit to the Holy See or to be in full communion with the Church he leads, then we are indeed entering such dark days. However, the current situation is so chaotic that many pay lip service even as they dissent in practice.  The mockery in social media, inclusive of those who flaunt their orthodoxy, is a clear denial of the Pope’s command authority. The left’s liturgical abuse and the right’s impugning of the Novus Ordo signifies both a refusal to embrace the Church’s current understanding of herself and her divine worship.  Left unsaid is when the line might be crossed into excommunication.        

When teaching upon faith and morals for the whole Church and doing so from the chair and in union with the world’s bishops, St. Peter and his successors are guaranteed the grace of infallibility from the Holy Spirit. Of course, they can interpret and explain but cannot invent anything entirely new or contrary to revealed truths. Popes are not always accurate in private opinions and the fact that they go to confession is proof that they are not impeccable. Just as St. Paul corrected and changed the mind of St. Peter at the council of Jerusalem, they can be admonished, particularly by other apostles or bishops.  But ultimately, much like the cat dropped from a height, the papacy lands on its feet. Those who would deliberately trip a pope up and then expose and laugh at his tumble, are not faithful sons of the Church. Instead of a true dialogue and shared creativity leading to a satisfactory consensus regarding matters like liturgy and morality; there is instead, a combative “us and them” attitude that is tearing the Church apart.  Traditionalists fight for anachronisms and progressives enshrine the trite and untried.     

Those who propose a rigid interpretation of “No Salvation Outside the Church” would often cite the 1302 papal bull of Boniface VIII: “. . . we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Catholicism takes seriously its divine institution by Christ and how its foundation is inseparable from the Petrine office:

“And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:18-19).

We pray that we will have saintly popes, but the charism is given to the good and the bad alike, not for their own sake but for the overriding good of the Church.  Historically they rule as absolute monarchs and for all practical purposes the popes constitute the Roman rite, with an emphasis upon living men over the dead. The latter point is essential to the so-called liturgical wars.

Article 12 of the Declaration on Human Dignity

Article 12 of the declaration speaks of the dignity to be found in Christ’s solidarity with humanity by being “born and raised in humble conditions.” Next, we are told that his public ministry “affirms the value and dignity of all who bear the image of God, regardless of their social status and external circumstances.” It should be clear that the Cardinal Fernández is not referring to the elevated supernatural dignity given by grace to persons regenerated through faith and baptism. Several religious pundits have attacked the him and the Holy Father on this front without conceding a dignity that is inherent firstly, as a rational creation of almighty God, and secondly, as one who shares a kinship with Christ due to the incarnation.  The whole point about the change of economy regarding images in the Decalogue is that God has now revealed himself through a human face.  While there is a discrepancy in how the terms are used, one might argue that we are all created in the image of God but that through the sacraments we are reborn into the likeness of Christ.  This natural dignity is very much a part of Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body.  Note that when it comes to the Gospel of Life, the unborn child (although lacking baptism) possesses a right to life and dignity that should not be assailed. 

Jesus also defended a moral dignity of persons, especially toward the oppressed and marginalized.  The Church must similarly be the voice for the voiceless.  Citing Scripture, the document takes note of his outreach to the tax collectors, women, children, lepers, the sick, strangers, and widows. The Cardinal writes that Jesus “heals, feeds, defends, liberates, and saves.”  The love of neighbor flows from our love of God and must be dynamic in the life of charity.

The one problematical element of this article is the following:

For Jesus, the good done to every human being, regardless of the ties of blood or religion, is the single criterion of judgment. The apostle Paul affirms that every Christian must live according to the requirements of dignity and respect for the rights of all people (cf. Rom. 13:8-10) according to the new commandment of love (cf. 1 Cor. 13:1-13).

Critics contend that the Cardinal Fernández and the Pope undermine religion as a basic factor in our judgment and salvation. However, we should remember that the document is written for believers, and it is taken for granted that the good being done is by Catholics in right standing with God. I doubt the Holy Father would undermine basic soteriology. There is no salvation apart from Christ and his holy Church. Further, any merit for good acts also requires that the agent be in a state of grace.  A person in mortal sin remains under God’s negative judgment until the remission of sin through heartfelt contrition and the sacrament of penance.  However, for the justified believer, grace builds upon grace.  Our good work is not limited to our own.  A disciple of Christ is compelled by love and truth to preserve human dignity and in justice to defend human rights.     

As a Christian I am required to be compassionate and just to all, even those who are not of my family or ethnicity or religion.  I can know the catechism backwards and forwards, but without charity I have nothing.  Again, on the level of creation, there is a duty to preserve basic human rights and dignity. I believe this is what the document is saying.  It connects to the teaching about the corporal works of mercy in Matthew 25:41-45:

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.’ Then they will answer and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?’ He will answer them, ‘Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.’”

I suspect that what Cardinal Fernández and Pope Francis are wanting to say is made clearer in 1 Corinthians 13:1-8: 

If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal. And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing. Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, love is not pompous, it is not inflated, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.

Christianity is NOT a Book Religion

When I first began apologetics online in the mid-1990’s, the internet was brand new and while there was little to no Catholic presence, there was no shortage of bigots who spouted the anti-Catholicism that was popular a century or more earlier.  The “Bible alone” proponents were fundamentalist to the core and reduced Christianity to a “book religion.”  If a Catholic tried to employ Scripture, because we are the true bible Christians, they would lament that our translations could not be trusted and that we had added books.  Some would point to the missals used at Mass or the Breviary said by priests and religious, arguing that these papist books were what we substituted for the real Bible.  I remember having the most heated arguments with a Protestant apologist who argued that the only true Bible was the old King James Version without revision— “if it were good enough for Jesus,” he argued, “it is good enough for me!”  When it was explained that the Bible was originally in Greek and Hebrew, he would just delete the Catholic objections on his message board (there were no blogs in those days) as just so much spell casting and sorcery.  The “Bible alone” champions would use isolated proof texts to answer any challenge, no matter what the actual context was about.  They believed they had an immediate understanding of the biblical texts from God and that no commentaries, catechisms, and definitely no Catholic pope were necessary.  Debate was hard because they were slippery and far from honest or rational. 

What was the truth? The Christians inherited the Old Testament from the Greek speaking Jews of the diaspora.  Gospels were composed, letters written, and an oral tradition spoken, that became the nucleus for the New Testament.  A living sacred tradition has remained the backdrop for understanding the inspired Word of God.  There was no complete Bible and agreed upon New Testament for the first three centuries of the Church’s life.  The bishops gathering at Hippo (393 AD) would agree upon the canon. It would only be with the Vulgate Bible composed by St. Jerome that all 73 writings of the Bible were available in a single book, written in the vernacular Latin of the West. (English did not exist as a language.) Up until the invention of the printing press, there were few Bibles and they were very expensive.  That would coincide with the reformation and the general availability of bibles (for the past 500 years).  Given poor literacy rates, the main way that people absorbed Scriptural truths was from preaching, liturgy, and art.  The latter should not be forgotten because both statuary and stained-glass windows often brought to mind the saints and the stories in salvation history. This the fundamentalist condemned as idolatry! 

As the years passed, the winds have changed direction and I find myself in arguments with Catholics and Protestants alike who make a claim of the Bible but then ignore what it has to say. Essential salvation truth subsists in the Bible.  But the Church comes first in time, not the book.  The command to preach the Gospel is what gives birth to the Scriptures.