My Hope for Francis and The Synod -short update

The hard-hitting, down-the-line blogger Mundabor has a piece on Pope Francis in which he says we should remind Pope Francis of his words:

“There has been, throughout history of the people, this temptation: to chop a piece off the Faith”, the temptation to be a bit “like everyone else does”, the temptation “not to be so very rigid”. “But when we start to cut down the Faith, to negotiate Faith, a little like selling it to the highest bidder”, he stressed, “we take the path of apostasy, of disloyalty to the Lord.”

Those words of Francis are sound and give one hope for the outcome of the Synod, but in light of recent statements by Francis on civil unions which do not provide absolute clarity, and in light of the clarifications by Fr Roscia which clarify nothing for me, Mundabors advice would be well taken those who advise Francis. Personally, my hope is that Francis will repeat these words at the Synod in order to prevent it drifting from pastoral care of the immortal soul to the devil-inspired focus on the emotional life; the kind of ‘pastoral care’ that says “We don’t want to see people in pain, so let’s find a way around their problem”, rather than “We don’t want to see people in pain, but we must keep them from eternal pains by solving their problem in line with the Truth”. The former attitude puts souls into lived conflict with the Christ (Who is Truth); the latter attitude seeks to help souls live in union with Christ through whatever cross we must carry. Conflict with Christ will not save souls; carrying the cross will.

The Abuse of Pope Francis

In a recent interview with Corriere della Sera as translated by Zenit, Pope Francis was asked, “Half a century after Paul VI’s encyclical ‘Humanae Vitae,’ can the Church take up again the topic of birth control?...” Francis’ reply is given as,

“It all depends on how the text of Humanae Vitae is interpreted. Paul VI himself, towards the end, recommended to confessors much mercy and attention to concrete situations. But his genius was prophetic, as he had the courage to go against the majority, to defend moral discipline, to apply a cultural brake, to oppose present and future neo-Malthusianism. The object is not to change the doctrine, but it is a matter of going into the issue in depth and to ensure that the pastoral ministry takes into account the situations of each person and what that person can do. This will also be discussed on the path to the Synod”.

This response will, I fear, be abused by those who profess they are orthodox but whose deeds do not match their words. In their liberal, culture-of-death ideology, they will interpret Francis as basically saying (as italicised in the parenthesis):

“The object is not to change the doctrine [since doctrine cannot change], but it is a matter of going into the issue in depth and to ensure that the pastoral ministry takes into account the situations of each person and what that person can do [and what they can’t; where they can be let off the hook]. This will also be discussed on the path to the Synod [so that we can give people a pass from living according to our moral doctrine].  

I suggest we read Francis as saying

“The object is not to change the doctrine [since doctrine cannot change], but it is a matter of going into the issue in depth and to ensure that the pastoral ministry takes into account the situations of each person and what that person can do [to remain faithful to moral doctrine in their deeds, and avoid living in violation of Truth]. This will also be discussed on the path to the Synod so that we can hold both together [Truth believed and Truth lived].

I suggest this because to allow persons to live contrary to the Truth would be to allow them to live at odds with Christ Who is Truth itself. Liberals who cite ‘pastoral considerations’ as the door to Holy Communion for those in objectively wrong moral situations only nullify every moral doctrine in practice; all such doctrine being left without any meaning other than “ideals we can minimise for you”. What liberals are in fact advocating is pseudo-pastoral care; care that is divided from the whole Christ: united to His Mercy certainly, but divided from His Truth and His Justice. As a result of such pseudo-pastoral care serial marriage, cohabitation, contraception, IVF, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic research, homosexual acts et al, will flourish, and Holy Mother Church will be left in a state of hypocrisy, like a physician who at the behest of her patients allows the taking of illegal drugs which make one feel good but are ultimately harmful.

Let us be honest: pastoral care in Christ does not -because it cannot- equate with putting people in permanent, practical conflict to Christ. Certainly pseudo-pastoral care will help us feel good, but will objectively leave us in lived-opposition to Truth who said, “Go, and sin no more”.

As a means of supporting those in irregular situations we can encourage them to value their personal self-offering at Mass, their  life of prayer, their readings of scripture, their works of charity, their consultation of a spiritual director, and their participation in the life of the parish as bookkeepers, secretaries, events committees, singers, gardeners, cleaners etc (ministry at the altar and Catechesis being incongruent with their situation). As Cardinal Nichols said, reception of Holy Communion “is the high point” –or it ought to be.

While I feel for couples whose situations are such that they see their choices as not only good but necessary, what enables support for Humanae Vitae is not simply the constant teaching of the Church but the witness of couples who practice natural family planning; couples who state that their use of NFP has brought them together more profoundly, enhancing both their communication and their mutual respect. Low divorce rates among those who practice NFP might be cited as objective evidence of their subjective experience –and of the Church’s perennial wisdom.

While we will always have sinners in the Church, if we are going to have a Church without actual hypocrites it is not those who follow the rules that we need to watch but those who publicly affirm doctrine yet seek by stealth to erode that doctrine by establishing contrary practice; practice from which they can build a ‘new theology’; a new ‘doctrine’ –a new Gospel.  It is worth pointing out that so-called ‘rule-bound folk’ are not lacking in pastoral awareness. They know for example, that while the 3^rd Commandment to “keep holy the Sabbath” can be waived in order to be caregiver to sick person, allowing someone to violate the 6^th Commandment by giving them life-long permission to abandon the permanency, fidelity or life-giving elements of marriage, is not the same. In the former case we have a passing, unwilled event; in the latter we have a chosen, life-long violation.

We pray for Pope Francis and the Synod, that they are not derailed from orthodoxy for the sake of ‘pastoral considerations’ which play false to the Truth. In the end it is treachery, not mercy, which allows souls to live in ways opposed to Truth (Christ). 

The Nuts & Bolts of Marriage Today

I truly believe there ought to have been a law protecting persons in same-sex situations from having their Last Will & Testament over-ridden by family if they objected to the named beneficiary; it is appalling that someone’s dying wishes be over-ruled (though one must ask why a will, legally signed, not sufficient in law). It should have legally possible to protect those dying wishes without resorting to calling the living arrangement of the deceased and the beneficiary ‘marriage’. This only made marriage the recognition of a mere romantic attachment and not the establishing of a family for the building up of society. Now, it seems, we are seeing the idea of romantic attachment extended to other situations just as incongruent with nature: marriage to the dead.

A number of blogs have reported that a lady has been given the right to marry her dead fiancé (see here). It is beyond my comprehension that a person can be given the right to marry a dead person, since there is absolutely no possibility of the deceased giving their consent. The promise made in engagement is insufficient to supply that consent, because the promise of a possible future cannot at the same time be the concrete realisation of that future; it is either a promise or the event made concrete, it cannot be both.

I suspect many will see the illogicality of marrying the dead, but how many people who find the idea illogical yet give their support to same-sex ‘marriage’, which is also out of synch with nature? It is no less odd to ‘marry’ a man to a man or a woman to a woman because, even though consent can be given, it is consent to a union that cannot exist. Excuse this rather crude analogy, but attempting to unite two men or two women in a unity is like trying to achieve the union of two bolts or two nuts: no such union can be achieved.

Today’s world is simply using the word ‘marriage’ to mean any relationship in which there is emotional import, to give the word another meaning entirely, as was done with the word ‘gay’ (which I refuse to use since it seems this was coined in order to label homosexuality in an asexual, non-offensive, even joyful manner). Perhaps what we will see next, if emotional import is all that is needed for marriage, will be someone ‘marrying’ their cat so that the cat has a right of inheritance, or ‘marrying’ their childhood home because of the romantic associations it has for them (would this mean that if the house was sold or repossessed there would also have to be divorce proceedings?)

The world is showing the idiocy of atheistic thinking by registering as true the impossible union of the living and the dead, of male to male and female to female. It is idiocy because it is out of synch with our biological nature. As such, society cannot be relied upon as an authority for right living; cannot be relied upon for sound teaching or legislation on any moral issue, be that marriage, contraception, abortion, embryonic research, euthanasia et al.  Though we might construct some theory or other in order to justify diverse ‘marriages’, this is merely a use of the intellect to justify submission to our passions rather than use of reason for the control of our passions. Is there no end to this abuse of intellect and the abandoning of natural law?

Commentators: please, no saucy jokes about nuts or comments derogatory to the human person.

A Readers Experience of PCT/NDC

I have chosen (with the writers permission -thank you!) to use as a post, a comment I received on my previous posting in which I spoke of Person-Centred Therapy/Non-Directive Counselling. The comment received illustrates what I have been trying to say. I don't believe the writer or myself are saying nothing good is to be found in PCT/NDC, only that many in the Church are not seeing its dangers.

Dear Father,
About 10 years ago I was working as a PR/Education Officer for a pro-life charity and my wife and I were asked to go through the counselling training. We were disturbed to learn that they were using the Rogerian Non-Directive approach based on the ideas of Carl Rogers.The Rogerian model allowed no space for Catholic understandings of Original Sin, Concupiscence, Redemption, Grace, or the Thomistic principles for giving good guidance and wise counsel.As such the non-directive approach aimed only to give 'information' to make an 'informed choice' through so-called 'self-actualization.' We realized that such an approach could actually facilitate a woman towards having an abortion! Also, the Catholic counsellors were required to leave their Faith at the door when it came to helping people in such a serious situation. Another amazing thing that we noticed, was that those most committed to the non-directive approach became remarkably directive when we questioned their approach. They preferred it to the Catholic teaching.
This led us to do further research. We learned that Rogerian group therapy sessions had been used on the IHM nuns in Southern California in the 1960's. When Rogers and his team arrived there were 615 religious in the community. One year later, 300 of them petitioned Rome to be released from their vows. The nuns ran 60 schools at the outset and ended up with just 1 school. So we researched further and came across William Coulson. He had been a 'disciple' of Rogers in the early days, but had been converted and spent years warning people of the corrosive effects of the Rogerian approach. Coulson explained that Rogers had influenced the New Age Esalen Centre in California and that his principles had migrated into education and have taken root in much of the 'Values-Clarification' education which has evolved into the educational systems around today. These are, of course, explicitly warned against in the 1993 document The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality from the Pontifical Congregation for the Family. As an Education Officer, I was horrified to realize that the very relativistic forces we were fighting against in education had been influenced by the man behind the charity's counselling system. These techniques are at times used in schools today - in the Orwellian-sounding Citizenship Education for example.
In the end we had to leave that charity because they would not listen to us, but we were glad to have learned so much about our present cultural milieu from the experience. Hopefully the Trinitarian-Christocentric approach can replace this selfism. Paul VI wrote a helpful book about all this called Psychology as Religion- The Cult of Self-Worship. He has a lot of helpful material in there.
In Christ
A

Cracks by which the Smoke of Satan entered the Church

I was shocked when I first came across the words of Pope Paul VI that “through some crack the smoke of Satan has entered the Church” (1972, Feast of Sts. Peter & Paul). He had already stated, five years earlier, that

“we looked forward to a flowering, a serene expansion of conceptions which matured in the great sessions of the Council. But one must notice above all the sorrowful aspect. It is as if the Church were destroying herself.” (Address to the Lombard Seminary at Rome, December 1968)

These were prophetic statements in the sense of seeing the signs of the times. Unfortunately nothing was done for far too long. It took until the 1990’s to get a post-Vatican II Catechism -though this is ignored by many folk who call themselves Catholic yet call for a democratic Church, women priests and the toleration of contraception, serial marriage, homosexual relationships etc. We can understand that Bishops refrain from correcting such doctrinal irregularity for fear of scandal and division, but not to make the correction is also scandalous and divisive. They prefer, it seems an approach which favours “dialogue seeking retraction” rather than correction. This approach is, I suggest,  one of the cracks through which the smoke of Satan has entered the Church, since it allows error and confusion to grow; it allows weeds to choke the word of God.  

A second crack by which the smoke of Satan entered the Church is mishandling of the liturgy. Sadly, Divine worship has been allowed to become a battleground of disagreement between those who prefer the Traditional Form and those who prefer the ‘Reformed Form’. Sadly, those with authority in the Church have tried to force those who have difficulty receiving the Novus Ordo to make exclusive use of it. This use of force waned somewhat after John Paul II’s Ecclessia Dei (1988), and was put to rest (we thought) by Summorum pontificum (2007). But the division remains, as does an occasional misuse of force. Such hostility towards our Liturgical Tradition and patrimony only encourages division within the Church. Yet this division need not exist. As I once wrote in a letter to a Catholic Newspaper (which they chose not to publish),  

“we must have the courage to let both forms of Mass be celebrated without any restriction of law or any interference from Bishops or Popes (or their appointed commissioners). Only then will we be able to see which Form of Mass the Holy Spirit wishes to foster and which He allows to die out naturally, since if either form is restricted by law or obstructed by local ‘prudential judgement’, those making the laws or providing the obstruction will be forcing His hand. It is worth remembering the counsel of scripture: “if the undertaking is from God, you will not only be unable to stop it, but you may find yourselves fighting against God”. (Acts 5v38,39).

I continue to contend that both forms of Mass be celebrated freely, without obstruction by universal law or local ‘prudential judgement’. By this we will avoid hardening our hearts against the Holy Spirit. After all, the authority given to Popes and Bishops in their rightful measure, is “unto edification, and not unto destruction” (2 Cor. 13v10): they have all authority to denounce false doctrine and halt liturgical abuses, but no authority to forbid what is holy. Simply put, the Church cannot forbid what is holy without opposing God, since He is Holiness Itself.

The primary crack by which the smoke of Satan has entered the Church and from which the cracks in doctrine and liturgy arise is, I suggest, the adherence to non-directive, Person-centred Theory (PCT) in pastoral care, since this theory abandons the Lord’s command to His Church to actively direct souls: “Go teach all nations...teach them to observe all the commands I have given you...”(Matth. 28v19.20). PCT is a theory which sees the individual as good at the core; as directed toward the good, and therefore able to determine their own way forward. This facilitates subjective, relativist decision-making, from which flow all the sexual irregularities of our time: sex outside of marriage; serial marriage; contraception; homosexual activity, etc., as well as such ins as abortion. Non-directive therapy has been given erroneous credibility by hanging it on the hook of “Do not judge”, fooling many a sincere Christian into accepting it as a sound pastoral tool when in fact it is a supreme danger to souls, replicating in itself the pattern seen in the commission of original sin (original sin being a turning from God’s law to one’s own law) in that each person is self-directed. The acceptance of non-directive theory into pastoral care is, I suggest, the primary crack by which the smoke of Satan entered the Church -and the reason why dogma is discarded and liturgy anthropocentric. The fight against relativism must therefore be central to the work of the up-coming Synod on the family. 

The Synod on the Family -A Humanae Vitae Moment for Pope Francis

As preparation for the Synod on the family continues we must pray hard for Pope Francis. While he has devoted supporters, he also has determined detractors; while some claim he is one of the most humble men on earth, others see him as one of the most self-promoting. It is not possible to know for certain which of these impressions is correct, but Francis himself may give us the answer when the Synod is completed and his Apostolic Exhortation released. I say this because one side or the other will be proved right: his supporters or his detractors.

This is so because, being as popular as he is, Francis has the possibility of using his popularity to bring Christ’s injunction against irregular ‘marriages’ to the world with a voice they are (currently) willing to hear. In other words, he can use his popularity for the spread of the Gospel.  On the other hand, if he attempts to disregard the injunction of Christ in the Gospel and change the Tradition of the Church, it could be claimed that he is seeking his own popularity at the expense of the Gospel.

The Synod can only advise Francis to take one of two paths: it can advise a continuance of the Traditional practice or it can advise a change. It cannot do both. Nor can it advise a third path of upholding Traditional Teaching while advising him to allow even a restricted access to Holy Communion for pastoral reasons (what pastoral reason can be given to deceive a soul into thinking all is well when in fact they are at odds with the Lord’s own injunction?) No, the Synod cannot uphold Traditional teaching on the indissolubility of marriage while advocating a practice totally inconsistent with that practice; that would akin to a physician telling his patient that smoking is harmful but allowing it because it because makes the patient feel less stressed.  

Francis must stay in line with the Traditional teaching if he is not to call down upon himself two criticisms: first, that he is courting his own popularity at the expense of the Gospel; two, that he has unsafe hands for the holding of the Church (solid Catholics are reminding us that the election of a Pope is not an act of God; that God does not chose the Pope with whom the Cardinals must work, but that the Cardinals choose a Pope with whom the Lord must work).

Pope Francis needs our prayers and our sacrifices if he is not to fall prey to the flattering voices of the world and doctrine-distorting voices within the Church. He must find the courage of Paul VI to stay faithful to what has gone before; this is his Humanae Vitae moment, and this is a dangerous time for him: all men are prone to the need to feel affirmed and loved, and the majority of voices today are for the abandoning of Christ’s injunction, which means a majority of voices waiting to applaud Francis. All men are in need of prayer, too. Our Holy Father is deserving of our prayers as he seeks to guide the Church according to the mind of Christ. Let us not abandon him.

An Important Lenten Programme

Important Lenten Programme

I am proposing to the parish that during this Lent we offer a daily Rosary for the Synod on the Family, and that our penances and extra prayers be offered for the same intention. It is imperative that this Synod be supported by our prayers since it is dealing with the fundamental foundation of society; a foundation under heavy attack from secular forces (forces which have influenced too many in the Church and threaten to destroy the Faith).

I hope to be proved wrong, but I see danger ahead. If the Synod takes the orientation that Cardinal Kasper appears to offer, which seems to be that we can tolerate second marriages but not accept them, then the faith as we know it will die in the West.

Marriage of man and woman is founded upon the biological reality of the human person as either male or female and the psychological differences between them. Marriage of one man and one woman is the building block of the family which is that of father and mother together with their off-spring. The union of father and mother jointly caring for their offspring is the building block of a stable society, family life being the situation in which equality of dignity within the diversity of biology and psychology is demonstrated in the role of mother and father, and where the stability, fairness and mutual support necessary for a stable, fair and peaceful world are seen and learned. From the spiritual standpoint, marriage is fundamental to the holiness of the vast majority of those in the lay state in that marriage is the sacrament by which a man and a woman make one another holy, and together form holy children.

If we tolerate second marriages (in contradiction to the Gospel and the entire Tradition of the Church), we tolerate that which is objectively wrong and thereby destroy the notion of marriage as a “holy estate” in which husband and wife build one another up in grace. We have spent decades promoting the fact that marriage is a holy vocation in which man and woman minister sanctifying grace to one another, yet some in the hierarchy are on the verge of trying to accommodate irregularities that which God has forbidden. Marriage is either a holy vocation or it is not; if it is holy, it cannot be allowed to be tainted by that which the Lord has forbidden.

If we tolerate second marriages (in contradiction to the Gospel and the entire Tradition of the Church) we also destroy the role of Confession, since reconciliation to God and re-direction of self towards the good by a firm purpose of amendment and reparation will no longer makes sense if situations which are objectively wrong are tolerated, for in toleration of irregularity there is no need for Reconciliation.

If we tolerate second marriages (in contradiction to the Gospel and the entire Tradition of the Church) we make the Eucharist party to adultery; party to an objectively sinful situation, which is sacrilegious guardianship of the Blessed Sacrament.

If we tolerate second marriages (in contradiction to the Gospel and the entire Tradition of the Church) then we destroy the Church’s role as teacher, for what she teaches can be put aside for ‘pastoral reasons’. All doctrine would go out of the window, since if one doctrine can be put aside, any and all doctrine can be put aside.

I don’t always find myself quoting Archbishop (now Cardinal) Nichols; his tolerant words on ‘civil unions’ for homosexuals dismayed many Catholics, but he is right when he says there must be ways in which people can live a very fruitful ecclesial life even if they don’t have access to the Eucharist. Can we not have formal guidance from Rome on how to keep those in irregular situations supported without abandoning Truth? After all, Our Lord does abandon truth to be compassionate. The divorced/remarried could be formally encouraged to keep up their life of prayer and charity, undertake pilgrimages, attend prayer meetings and seek counselling from their pastor etc, and encouragingly reminded that to come to Mass is to stand at the foot of the Cross that the Blood which flowed from Christ’s wounds may wash away our sins that we might be filled with the grace that flowed from His pierced side. They could be reminded too that although they have chosen to remove themselves from the reception of Holy Communion by their attempt to enter a civil marriage, they have not removed themselves from the obligation of attending Mass.

Unfortunately we have become rather casual in regard to the Blessed Sacrament. So much so that people receive by habit and no longer prepare for Holy Communion by frequent Confession; many are just as happy with a “Communion Service” as they are with Mass because they are able to receive Holy Communion, which many see as the whole point of coming to Mass (I have been told by some folk that they stay away from Mass if they have broken the fast because they cannot come to Holy Communion). We seem to have forgotten that we are not obliged to receive Holy Communion every Sunday: we are obliged to attend Mass, but not to receive. An affirmation of this reality would go a long way to helping those in irregular situations. I fully support Cardinal Nichols when he says

“When I was growing up, there was a more reserved approach to the Eucharist. It made demands on us. To receive the Eucharist was the high point. There must be ways in which people can live a very fruitful life in the church even if for the public reasons we all understand they might not have access to the Eucharist.”

It is essential that the Synod uphold the indissolubility of marriage between one man and one woman for the raising of children; it is also essential that Pastoral Care be about “doing the truth in charity”, not putting the truth aside to be ‘charitable’ by which we avoid the practical consequences of Truth. One of the devil’s master strokes in the 20^th century was introducing the idea of Pastoral Care as Person-centred charity; he distorted our perception of Truth by turning “do not judge” from “do not judge your neighbour [in himself]” to “do not judge your neighbour[’s acts]”.  Satan has distorted our perception of the Truth ever since the fall when he convinced Adam that if God had made Adam to His image and likeness that Adam should be like God in knowing good from evil. He perverted a truth then, and he is perverting the truth of “do not judge” now. We must never forget that we cannot be genuinely charitable to our neighbour by allowing him to live outside of Truth. It is as basic as this: Christ is The Truth, and we cannot encourage souls to live outside of Christ, where no life can be found. After all, Christ is The Truth and The Life; He cannot be divided. We must not imply that He can.