Irish Bishop Calls for Married
Priesthood
One of President
Barack Obama's former advisors, Rahm Emmanuel, may achieve lasting renown
of a sort from an unguarded comment that continues to resonate among
political pundits: “Never let a crisis go to waste.”
The import of the
statement is that one can implement radical policy changes with relative
ease under the cover of an emergency measure to “fix” a problem whose
solution will brook no delay. Such was the rationale for the “stimulus”
package, an unprecedented intrusion of government — and taxpayer money —
into the private sector to “save” the economy.
The Catholic Church
is facing various crises involving the clergy, and there are some who see
in the present turmoil an opportunity to advance an agenda that might
otherwise be regarded as unacceptable by both the hierarchy and the laity.
The call for
allowing priests to marry is not a new one. Since the 1960s — that is,
since the deluge of “reforms” following Vatican II — voices have been raised
in its favor. But the continuing scandal of sexual abuse of young people by
priests has given an impetus to the cause that makes it appear less radical
and more plausible.
We are watching a
confrontation unfold in Austria
now that involves a significant number of its priests who have joined what
is termed “A Call for Disobedience.” (See: “Diabolical Disorientation Update: The Summer of Discontent”.)
Cardinal Christoph Schonborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, after some strong
rhetoric at the outset, has adopted a conciliatory tone and agreed to
meetings (negotiations?) with the dissidents who call for, among other
things, the approval of married clergy.
Bishop Edward Daly,
former bishop of Derry in Northern
Ireland, is a high profile figure in
that nation's Church and political landscape. A staunch advocate for peace
and an opponent of the IRA's policy of violence, Daly has been a force in
the formation of public opinion ever since, as a priest, he stood in front
of British paratroopers waving a blood-stained white handkerchief on the
day in 1972 when 13 civilians were killed. He is a symbol of courage and
hope.
At 77, he is pitting
himself against the Vatican
in proposing what he claims may be a solution to the problems of priest
shortages and sexual abuse. His so-called solution, however, may ignore the
root causes of both problems. (See: “Change We Can
Believe In”.)
But the laity are
weary of hearing about yet another incidence of a teen or young man
sexually abused by a priest in whom he trusted. And the Church has tried
with little success to fill its mostly empty seminaries. The one point of
consensus is that something must be done. But a false solution will only
compound the problems.
A married priesthood
would radically change the entire sociological structure of the Church. One
cause for fewer vocations may be the uncertainty about just what a priest's
role is in the current ecclesiastical confusion. This would not appear to
be an appropriate juncture for introducing yet another radical change into
the basic fabric of Catholic life.
And the trust that
Catholics repose in their priests has more than a little to do with
priestly celibacy. A priest who is allowed to marry is necessarily allowed
to date. A priest who may be looking for a wife is not a man who can be
confided in without reserve. The field of temptation and the scope for
possible corruption widens.
And the laity know there
is a world of difference in the outlook of a man who is married to the
Church and one who is married to a wife. Few secrets are kept in marriage,
and anything one tells to Father is likely to become known to “Mrs.
Father.”
And a priest with a
family is also a man who needs money. The laity may resent the lifestyle of
a priest's family if it exceeds in ease and affluence that which they
enjoy. Another potential conflict arises.
Common sense across
the board would seem to counsel against a married priesthood, but we are
facing crises involving the clergy that must be resolved. Of course, they
can only be resolved by fidelity to doctrine and tradition. And a return to
tradition can only be accomplished at this juncture by resorting to the
help offered by Heaven.
SSPX Asked to Sign 'Doctrinal
Preamble'
On Sept. 14, the
Holy See Press Office issued a statement explaining, in partial terms, what
took place that morning in discussions between the Society of St. Pius X
and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (See: “Vatican gives SSPX doctrinal statement to sign”.)
The long-awaited
meeting's principal players were Cardinal William Levada, head of the CDF,
and Bishop Bernard Fellay, head of the SSPX. Eight doctrinal talks in the
course of two years preceded the summit, although the specific content of
these talks has not been given in any detail. A two-page document, approved
by the Pope, is said to summarize the contents of these talks, and it is
this document that the SSPX is being asked to sign to enable it to achieve
“full communion” with the Church. (See: “Judgement day has
come for Lefebvrians and the Vatican”.)
The document is
referred to as a “doctrinal preamble.” Preamble to what? A discussion of a
canonical structure under which the SSPX would be enabled to operate
without the interference of local bishops, presumably. The content of the
preamble has not been disclosed, and Bishop Fellay, in an interview
following the meeting, said he would need to study the document and consult
with other members of the SSPX before making any decision regarding it.
(See: “Interview with
Bishop Bernard Fellay after his meeting with Cardinal William Levada”.)
It is reasonable to
assume that both sides are still hopeful that a resolution of the SSPX's
difficulties with the Vatican
can be resolved; otherwise, the Sept. 14 meeting would not have taken
place. The Vatican
issued a six-paragraph press release following the meeting.
The substance of the
press release is the acknowledgment that Church teachings can be separated
into two basic categories: those that require unreserved assent and those
which are susceptible of discussion (and disagreement?)
What is highly
significant is wording in the Vatican
press release that acknowledges there may be legitimate discussion about
“individual expressions or formulations present in the documents of the
Second Vatican Council and the successive magisterium.”
If the documents
themselves contain formulations that admit of such discussion, how can they
be given the weight of magisterial teaching? And on this point, one is
reminded of the proclaimed “pastoral” as opposed to doctrinal nature of
Vatican II.
The Pope has
insisted that the SSPX acknowledge the authority of the magisterium as well
as the authority of Vatican II. But at the heart of the SSPX's dispute with
Rome is the
exact nature of the authority of Vatican II and how conciliar documents are
to be evaluated in light of the constant magisterium.
The Holy Father has
implicitly admitted that the magisterial weight of the Council's teaching
is not always clear and that its documents have to be evaluated using a
“hermeneutic of continuity.”
It is the contention
of the SSPX that it has been using such a hermeneutic all along. The areas
of disagreement with the Vatican
have centered principally on the reform of the Mass and ecumenism. The SSPX
argues that post-conciliar reforms and some phraseology in the conciliar
documents themselves contradict traditional magisterial teaching.
So the crux of the
matter appears to lie in how one interprets the Holy Father's “hermeneutic
of continuity.” If one may be permitted a speculative reading between the
lines of the Vatican press release, Rome
seems to placing its hopes in an agreement to disagree about specific
post-conciliar policies, which would include precisely those areas of
conflict between the Vatican
and the SSPX: the New Mass and ecumenism.
It would seem that
in its standoff with the SSPX, the Vatican has blinked. The
question is, will the SSPX soften its insistence that specific
post-conciliar reforms contradict defined doctrine and so must be
jettisoned?
Neither side would
call the preceding talks “negotiations.” The Vatican insisted that the SSPX
submit to its authority — and the as yet undefined authority of Vatican II
— and the SSPX said that its purpose was to point out the heterodoxy of
Vatican II documents and post-conciliar reforms and insist upon a return to
Tradition.
The Vatican now
appears ready to move to a structural solution in the form of personal
prelature that would remove the SSPX from the jurisdiction of local
bishops. But the need for such a prelature only underscores the fact that
doctrinal problems have not been resolved.
No deadline has been
set for the SSPX to sign the preamble, nor has any consequence for failing
to sign been specified. As much as it appears desirable that the SSPX be
granted full recognition as a priestly fraternity in good standing with the
Church, it is imperative that orthodoxy continue to be championed, no
matter what the personal cost — even at the cost of a personal prelature.
The Fatima Crusader On-line
In Issue #99 of The
Fatima Crusader, read excerpts of the addresses given by three
bishops at the “Consecration Now?”
conference (Rome, May 2011) in which they plead and counseled for rejection
of the false solutions to peace of a one-world government (ruled by money
and power-hungry men) and a one-world false religion and to embrace instead
Heaven's plan, given to us by Our Lady of Fatima. At this same conference,
Father Gruner showed that the Fatima apparitions were a direct response to
an appeal by Pope Benedict XV, asking that Our Lady show the world the way
to peace — which She did — and that there
is no genuine obstacle to excuse for not obeying Our Lady. Also read a
brief excerpt from Father Kramer's new book in which he shows that the
Consecration of Russia is the one and only way that mankind can be
delivered from the terrible chastisements about to befall the world; and an
analysis of a book that supports the false argument that the Fatima
prophecies are fulfilled, the Third Secret entirely revealed, Russia
consecrated, and the Message of Fatima remains only a general call to
prayer and penance.
Latest Fatima
Perspectives
An Unholy Alliance:
Newspapers and the Government — The obituary for print
journalism will have to be published on the Internet, that is, if a
significant number of people are to read it. Few, I think, will shed a tear
at the demise of this not-so-venerable institution. Newspapers, like
universal literacy, are of relatively recent vintage, and the generation
for whom the daily reading of broadsheet and tabloid became a habit have
already, or will fairly soon, meet their own deadline, so to speak.
HELP KEEP OUR LADY OF
FATIMA ONLINE
Keeping
Our Lady's websites online and updated costs many thousands of dollars each
year. We rely totally on the prayers and freewill offerings of people of
faith like you. Won't you please help us send Our Lady's Fatima Message to
millions of souls through the power of the Internet? Click
here to
help keep Our Lady online. Please do it now!
You can also make your
donation by calling us toll-free at
1-800-263-8160
Please forward this
newsletter to all your family and friends!
The Fatima Network
|
No comments:
Post a Comment