--------------------
Reverend Fathers,
ladies and gentlemen.
The Roman
historian Ammianus Marcellinus, in his history of the lamentable 4th
century AD, observed that, as it became overwhelmed by barbarian invaders, the
Empire behaved like an inexperienced boxer, moving to protect that part which
had just been struck, instead of countering the blow to come. Those charged
with the defence of the Catholic Faith, whether as Pastors, theologians, or
simple members of the laity with the graces and the obligations which the
sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation imply, have in recent years had a very
similar experience. One day we find the indissolubility of sacramental marriage
is under attack, an attack apparently supported by prominent Cardinals. A
serious defence of this doctrine requires serious work. One looks up from one’s
books six months or even six weeks later and the talk is no longer of the
indissolubility of marriage: that topic has almost been forgotten. No, the
internet is now alive with the question of whether homosexual unions can be a
means of grace. However outrageous the proposal may seem, we may be sure that
its proponents will be taking it for granted as a stepping-stone to something
yet more shocking a year from now. What will that be? The mind boggles. How
could one possibly prepare for the blow next to come?
It is tempting, in
this situation, to respond to each issue in a superficial, polemical, way. And
indeed many of the challenges thrown at the Faith in this age of social media
deserve no more. However, the danger is that in the end the arguments in favour
of our august Faith, revealed by God and entrusted to the safekeeping of the
Apostles and their successors, begin to look as flippant and shallow as the
arguments they oppose. It may appear to onlookers that they are observing
merely two groups of people scoring debating-points off each other, a spectacle
which is neither enlightening nor edifying.
There is, however,
an alternative. There is a way of counting the blow just struck and the blow to
come, because they both, in fact, derive ultimately from the same root. This
entire debate, this entire dogmatic crisis, is driven by a set of closely
related fundamental issues. Roughly speaking, these are the issues of the
objectivity of the sacraments, the nature of sanctifying grace, the place of
tradition and authority in theology, and the nature of truth itself, in faith
and in morals. These issues have come to prominence in the historical context
of the Modernist movement, of the Nouvelle
Theologie, of Neo-Modernism, and of the liturgical reform.
This shifting of
the focus from the specific to the general and the fundamental has been the
approach of the Appeal to the Cardinals of 2016, and of the Correctio Filialis
of 2017, of both of which I had the privilege of being the Spokesman. It was
the approach of the Four Cardinals’ Dubia, also in 2016, and it is the approach
of the present Study Day. My experience of the debate arising out of the earlier
initiatives has confirmed to me that this approach is the correct one.
It was clear to the
signatories of the Appeal and of the Correctio Filialis alike that only in the
context of dissent from, or serious misunderstanding of, the Church’s teaching
on the fundamental issues just noted can the specific, startling pastoral
proposals we encounter each morning in the news make sense, let alone be found
attractive. And yet it is also seems to be true that few of those who disturb
the tranquillity of the Faithful with these proposals recognise that they are
connected with such fundamental and problematic issues. If you point out the
fundamental issues, many of these individuals are genuinely baffled, as though
they had never given them a moment’s thought.
In the course of
the intense debates following, particularly, the Correctio Filialis, I was not aware
of anyone coming forward, for example, with a theology of marriage which would
allow divorce and remarriage; a theology of the Eucharist that rejected the
Real Presence; or a theology of Grace which rejected the distinction between
mortal and venial sin. It would not be difficult to do so: such theologies are
two-a-penny in Protestant circles. But the new pastoral orientation of Pope
Francis, or whatever its defenders wish to call it, is not to have fundamental
theological foundations of any kind.
We may think that it calls for this or that theological presupposition, but the
official line of its supporters is that it is compatible with all the
fundamentals of the Catholic Faith, but that this compatibility should not be
clarified or discussed, on pain of disloyalty to the Holy Father. There is
simply a zone of compelled silence where one would expect a theological
argument to be.
The benefit of pressing
the fundamental issues, then, should be apparent. By doing so we were able to
force our critics to come to a decision. Either they care about the teaching of
the Church, or they do not. Still without setting out a coherent alternative
theological structure, we found at this point in the discussion that a number
of our more committed critics began to ridicule the idea that Divine
Revelation, Tradition, or the historic Papal Magisterium could bind the Church
or the Holy Father today. One of the high points of this process was a Tweet,
which became famous, despite its subsequent deletion, by the theologian Massimo
Faggioli:
Problem is the theological view conveyed by some of
the most active promoters of the Old Mass—theological views that are not
Catholic any more.[1]
A similar
sentiment was expressed by Austen Ivereigh, Papal biographer and co-founder
of Catholic Voices, only a few days ago;
it is still being ridiculed on Twitter.
One time, the fringe at big Catholic events was made
up of LGBT groups, women’s ordination & ‘Church of the poor’ advocates,
complete with their friendly bishops. Now the fringe is occupied by
traditionalists (incl bishops) pushing a 1930 encyclical as a way out of
‘confusion’.
The 1930
encyclical referred to is Pope Pius XI’s Casti
conubii.
Such responses
brings serious discussion to an end. One can only argue with a person with whom
one has something in common, such as a shared commitment to the principle of
non-contradiction. But this exchange revealed to faithful Catholics and to
non-Catholics alike that there is a real difference between the parties in the
current debate. It is not simply two groups of people scoring debating points
off each other, to re-use my own image. It is, rather, the difference between a
serious and sincere attempt to engage with theological issues and something
essentially frivolous: an attitude which says, in the end, ‘I don’t care what
past Popes said—what Vatican II said—what Our Lord and Saviour said. That was
then and this is now.’ On the one hand, it is impossible to argue with this,
but on the other, it is unnecessary to argue with it. By saying that, one’s
opponent has revealed his empty hand.
I believe that
Faggioli’s tweet did more benefit to the supporters of the Correctio than many
thousands of words written by the Correctio’s often academically distinguished
supporters. But he would not have been provoked into making that admission had
it not been for the spotlight being forcibly shone onto the fundamental issues.
Two other
responses from critics of the Correctio are also worth noting. I found myself
in direct dialogue with Robert Fastiggi and Dawn Eden Goldstein, who
encapsulate the Ultramontanist response. The discrepancies between, for
example, the guidelines for the implementation of Amoris laetitia by the Bishops of Buenos Aires, and Pope John Paul
II’s Familaris consortio, simply
didn’t matter, on their view, and need not be examined: Pope Francis’s
authority is enough.
Again, I think it
is useful to take a step back from our attempts to persuade each other, and ask
how this looks to others, viewing the debate online. What they see, as with the
earlier examples, is one side presenting substantive theological and
philosophical arguments, and the other side trying to close down the debate by
appealing to the authority of the living Pope. We needn’t wait to see how they
will react to a new Pope with different ideas to those of Pope Francis: we have
already seen how they reacted to the transition from John Paul II and Pope
Benedict to Francis himself. This is not an intellectually serious position.
Finally, the most
theologically intricate response came from Rocco Buttiglione, building on an
article he wrote defending Amoris
laetitia in L’Osservatore Romano.[2] To
the extent that Buttiglione engages in a serious way with the arguments his
contribution is to be welcomed, as part of a theological discussion which many
of Pope Francis’ self-appointed partisans would prefer not to have. His
position makes clear the disadvantages, for them, of this approach, however,
since his conclusions do not permit the concrete pastoral proposals which are
put forward under the cover of Amoris:
notably, he wrote that sinners should receive sacramental Absolution before
receiving Holy Communion.
On the other hand,
his argument hinges on the claim that Amoris
proposes disciplinary rather than doctrinal changes, and to establish this he
found it necessary to insist repeatedly that public sinners, such as those
living in irregular unions, were ‘excommunicated’ until the time of the 1983
Code of Canon Law. This of course is
a historical nonsense which is, moreover, a simple matter for historians to
establish. It represents a more subtle example of the denigration of the past
than those offered by Faggioli and Ivereigh, but it serves the same purpose. We
should not seek guidance from any documents more than a few years old because
they belong to a time of darkness.
And so, today, we
gather to study and discuss some of these fundamental issues. Far from this
being a distraction from the current crisis taking place at the messy, pastoral
level, in dioceses and parishes around the world, I believe it is the approach
which can address our practical problems in a uniquely productive way, and
lends significance and weight to the sensible things being said on the less
fundamental, specific issues, issues which shift from day to day like
sand-dunes in the desert.
The matters we
address today are large ones, and our purpose today is to open, or progress, a
debate on them, rather than to close the debate on them. We do not have a
pre-conceived set of conclusions, we are not aiming to produce a joint
statement, and we have not limited our speakers to those of one, narrow,
viewpoint. We wish to investigate, to debate, to shed light, in such a way that
will ultimately help provide an intellectual and cultural basis upon which a
coherent and attractive defence of the Faith may be built, one which will be
proof against the full range of fashionable errors. We do so in all humility,
as theologians, philosophers, and historians, not simply willing, as the
conventional phrase has it, to submit our judgement to the judgement of the
Church, but aiming above all to bring to light, to clarify, and to recommend to
all men of good will not our own speculations, but that very judgement of the
Church. In the words of St Vincent of Lerins:
Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest
care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all... . We
shall hold to the rule if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall
follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole
Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from
the interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers
proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions
of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike... .
[1] Tweet
dated 2nd October 2017
[2] July 19th
2016
[3] Commonitorium, II: 3 - III: 4
Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.
No comments:
Post a Comment