Thursday, 26 November

22:33

Belief in God seen in respect, unity, service, pope says in Nairobi [CNS Top Stories]

IMAGE: CNS/Paul Haring

By Cindy Wooden

NAIROBI, Kenya (CNS) -- Respect, unity and service are the foundations of a strong family, a solid democracy and a healthy response to the gift of faith -- any faith, Pope Francis told the people of Kenya.

Meeting ecumenical and interreligious leaders, celebrating a large outdoor Mass and greeting priests, religious and seminarians in Nairobi Nov. 26, Pope Francis insisted faith means serving one's fellow human beings.

The pope's day began early on the rainy morning with an intimate meeting with 40 representatives of Kenya's Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Sikh and Buddhist communities, as well as with a Masai elder and other leaders of communities that have maintained their traditional African beliefs.

During the meeting in the Vatican nunciature, Pope Francis remembered the terrorist attacks on Kenya's Westgate Mall in 2013, Garissa University College in April and Mandera in July, and urged a common recognition that "the God who we seek to serve is a God of peace." The Somali-based militant group al-Shabab claimed responsibility for all three attacks the pope mentioned.

"All too often, young people are being radicalized in the name of religion to sow discord and fear, and to tear at the very fabric of our societies," the pope said. "How important it is that we be seen as prophets of peace, peacemakers who invite others to live in peace, harmony and mutual respect."

Abdulghafur El-Busaidy, chairman of the Supreme Council of Kenya Muslims, greeted the pope as "a revolutionary-minded man of God" on behalf of the country's Muslims, who, he said, make up about 30 percent of the population.

"As people of one God and of this world," he told the pope, "we must stand up and in unison clasp hands together in all the things that are essential for our collective progress as one humanity, one world irrespective of location, culture, language, race, ethnicity, status, politics ... for we are citizens of the same world."

Peace in the world is not possible without peace among religions, he said, citing the work of "the German philosopher Hans Kung," a Swiss priest whose authority to teach as a Catholic professor in Germany was withdrawn by the Vatican.

The Muslim leader told Pope Francis and the other religious authorities, "There is so much to talk about," but the pope's schedule allotted only 45 minutes for the gathering. Still, El-Busaidy told Pope Francis and the others, "I wish you success in achieving the vision of a better world you have accepted for yourselves and for future generations.

Anglican Archbishop Eliud Wabukala thanked the pope for the Catholic Church's efforts to preserve "the apostolic faith" and its commitment to defending marriage and family life "at a time when some of these principles are being called into question."

The centrality of the family and the obligation to be missionaries in word and deed were at the heart of Pope Francis' homily during a Mass celebrated with more than 200,000 people on the grounds of the University of Nairobi. Strong rains overnight and throughout the morning turned the campus lawns into a muddy mess, but that did little to dampen the people's spirits as they sang, swayed, danced and ululated.

The health of a society depends on the health of its families, the pope said in his homily, which he read in Italian. Msgr. Mark Miles, an official of the Vatican Secretariat of State, alternated with Pope Francis, giving an English translation.

Welcoming children as a blessing and respecting the dignity of each human being should be the marks of Christian families, the pope said. "In obedience to God's word, we are also called to resist practices which foster arrogance in men, hurt or demean women and threaten the life of innocent children."

"We are called to respect and encourage one another, and to reach out to all those in need," Pope Francis said.

The sacraments, he said, not only strengthen people's faith, they are meant to change people's hearts, making them more faithful disciples as seen in the care they show others.

As followers of Christ, the pope said, Christians are called to be "missionary disciples, men and women who radiate the truth, beauty and life-changing power of the Gospel. Men and women who are channels of God's grace, who enable his mercy, kindness and truth to become the building blocks of a house that stands firm," a home where people live in harmony as brothers and sisters.

In the afternoon, Pope Francis met with the priests, religious and seminarians of Kenya, a group that included dozens of missionaries, "even from Argentina," said Missionary of Africa Father Felix J. Phiri, chairperson of the Religious Superiors' Conference of Kenya.

The country, which has more than 13.8 million Catholics, is served by more than 5,300 religious women, close to 800 religious brothers, some 2,700 diocesan priests, just over 900 religious-order priests and four permanent deacons.

Welcomed with cheers and the ululations of hundreds of Kenyan sisters, Pope Francis set aside his prepared text and instead reflected on the importance of priests and religious recognizing that the Lord called them to serve and that serving is what their lives must be about.

Ambition, riches and prestige have no place in the life of a priest or religious, Pope Francis said. Anyone who does not think he or she can live a life of poverty, chastity and obedience should leave and start a family, he added.

"When we were called, we were not canonized," the pope said. Each priest and religious continues to be a person in need of God's mercy and forgiveness, a person who must devote time to prayer. Without prayer, he said, a person becomes as ugly as "a dried fig."

Pope Francis said he could imagine that some of the priests and religious were thinking, "'What a rude pope. He told us what to do, he told us off and did not even say thank you.' So the last thing I want to say to you, the cherry on the cake, is to thank you for following Jesus, for every time you realize you are a sinner, for every caress you give someone in need."

- - -

Copyright © 2015 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. www.catholicnews.com. All rights reserved. Republishing or redistributing of CNS content, including by framing or similar means without prior permission, is prohibited. You may link to stories on our public site. This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To request permission for republishing or redistributing of CNS content, please contact permissions at cns@catholicnews.com.

21:25

On Thanksgiving Day. [The City and the World]



Today is American Thanksgiving; it's a regular business day here in Canada, but I'll be celebrating the holiday in a quietly festive manner tonight with other American expats. The content of this Thanksgiving post is admittedly recycled from items I've shared in previous years, but it strikes me that the best things are worth repeating. Given the climate of unpredictable violence and increasing uncertainty which many face today, holidays like Thanksgiving can provide a needed if temporary respite.

One of the essential features of Thanksgiving for me is Aaron Copland's 1944 ballet score Appalachian Spring, which I listen to every year on this day whether I'm home or abroad. As I've noted before, this is a distinctively American piece of music even though it may be difficult to explain exactly what makes it so beyond Copland's inclusion of a series of variations based on the nineteenth-century Shaker tune Simple Gifts. Given this work's status as an icon of musical Americana, it may seem odd that I have chosen to share an interpretation by an Australian ensemble, the Sydney Camerata, but great music belongs to the world.

To provide one more bit of Americana to mark the holiday, I invite you to again join me in reading Robert Frost's poem "The Gift Outright":

The land was ours before we were the land’s
She was our land more than a hundred years
Before we were her people. She was ours
In Massachusetts, in Virginia,
But we were England’s, still colonials,
Possessing what we still were unpossessed by,
Possessed by what we now no more possessed.
Something we were withholding made us weak
Until we found out that it was ourselves
We were withholding from our land of living,
And forthwith found salvation in surrender.
Such as we were we gave ourselves outright
(The deed of gift was many deeds of war)
To the land vaguely realizing westward,
But still unstoried, artless, unenhanced,
Such as she was, such as she will become.
To all readers celebrating this holiday, I wish a very happy and blessed Thanksgiving. AMDG.

20:33

Verification [ignatius his conclave]

Some of the sharper wits who read this blog have concluded that the post Frank Advice 10 is a mere spoof. There cannot, they think,  be a clergyman called ‘Father Sings-the-Mass’ who derives the principles of the Protestant Reformation from the book of the prophet Haggai. It must be a joke!

Alas, they are wrong. Raniero Cantalamessa really exists, and this is a picture of him:

Raniero


19:29

New Reflections on the Contemplative Life [A Foretaste of Wisdom]

St. Francis in the Wilderness
 
Having emerged from a period of quietude on this blog, I thought it might be a good idea to share some of my recent thoughts. Lately, my considerations of theology, philosophy, liturgy, spirituality, art, music, education, and life in general have in many ways coalesced and united. They are still in the process of merging into a larger system of thought. My readings of late have been various but not unrelated, ranging from the reflections on the monastic life by Dom Columba Marmion and Hubert Zeller, to the philosophical reflections on life, liturgy, and art, by the Thomist thinker Josef Pieper. And several more authors to go along with them. A common theme in my recent thought, motivated by all of these writers, has been the expansion of the spirituality of the liturgy to the whole arena of human life in general. This manner of thinking is one that is deeply contemplative, one which sees the world through a lens that is informed by the liturgical or sacramental mindset of the Church, as exemplified especially in her monastic tradition and that of the Fathers.

All of this has been especially pertinent to me as someone who has been professionally and classically trained as a musician. From childhood my parents helped to instill in me a love of classical music, and I have played the piano from a very young age, performing and experiencing firsthand the riches of the classical tradition. Moreover I have very often been involved in the liturgical choirs of my communities, and am generally familiar with the repertoire of Gregorian Chant and sacred polyphony. Liturgy and music have proven to be two of the most central aspects of my life, layman though I am. But recent studies have led me to see all of my musical experience in light of the liturgy itself, so that, even outside the context of the directly liturgical celebration, music has become to me something eminently liturgical.

A chapter on Music and Liturgy in Cardinal Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy was especially instrumental in adapting my mind to this manner of thinking. Ratzinger has a way of uniting music and liturgy to life in general, opening up to an awareness of the whole of creation as a grand, cosmic liturgy, in which all creatures participate in the great song of praise. This vision of the world is deeply Biblical, echoing the words of the Psalms, and the song of the three youth in the furnace, which constantly attribute the praise of God to the works of creation: “Let the heavens proclaim the Lord…etc.” But this vision is also found in a philosophical form in the pagan thought of the ancient Greeks, such as Pythagoras and Plato, who saw the story of the cosmos as a divine musical composition. Music, like liturgy, bears a real relation to the work of God – indeed, “the work of God,” Opus Dei, is the name which is applied to the liturgy itself by St. Benedict.

Indeed, music is more than an arbitrary human convention: it is an art that springs from the depths of the nature of man – man who is the crown and pinnacle of the cosmos, the essential component that gives meaning to the whole. As such, music expresses the meaning of all creation, inasmuch as it is bound up in man himself. All of human desire, the inner straining after the true, good, and beautiful, is expressed in music. To the philosopher, music offers an opportunity to approach closer to the possession of the good, true, and beautiful; for the man informed by faith, music answers to the straining further after the triune God Himself. All of creation pertains to this condition of straining: no irrational or inanimate creature would be worth anything if it were not bound up somehow in the dynamism of human life. Music, therefore, by expressing the “weal and woe” of humanity (to use a phrase of Schopenhauer, quoted by Pieper), is also an expression of the meaning of the cosmos as a whole, the work of God.

This likeness of music to the liturgy itself is no accident. The book of Psalms – perhaps the single most important text in the liturgy – is notable for its employment of the whole range of human emotions in the service of divine worship. These are no mere animal passions. These are the passions transformed by the graces of supernatural knowledge and love, drawn up into and absorbed by the spiritual pursuit of God, the offering or gift of self. They are the very expression of that pursuit and that offering. Historically, the Psalms were not only the prayer book of the ancient Jews, but also the hymn book; indeed, to pray and to sing were practically the same thing for the Jews. Song is an expression of human emotion in its deepest essence, a complex reproduction of the spiritual life of humanity as such: whence its distinct and inexpressible power over the human spirit. It is only natural, therefore, that prayer be sung. Prayer: the expression of human selfhood in complete service to the almighty, and the direction of all passions and affections to worship and adoration – what better aid could prayer have but music, which intensifies and directs those very same affections in the very expression of them? Whence Augustine famously wrote that “He who sings prays twice,” and “Only the lover sings.” Liturgy, because it is so largely concerned with prayer and the offering of the self, with all its emotions and desires, must therefore be an eminently musical thing.


Something similar to what I have said of music may be said also of the other arts, and of course, the cosmos itself, in relation to the liturgy. All of the arts – practiced well (that is, of course, an indispensable condition) – can serve as a way of opening the human mind to the contemplation of the Truth. The arts, like music, play a sacramental role: they manifest the work of God, and thereby God Himself, to the one who sees with the eyes of faith. Hence, they afford an opportunity for the soul to offer itself to God in humble submission – to begin to be absorbed into the divine Beauty which peaks from underneath visible reality. The cosmos likewise is an opportunity for this experience. Indeed, in the words of the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins, “The world is charged with the grandeur of God.” Viewed thus, all of life is transformed into an extension of the liturgy, a proclamation of God, an occasion for worship.

The saints were supernaturally alive with this contemplative, experiential vision of reality. They saw things through the eyes of faith, and thus were keenly aware of the divine Beauty which lies beneath the surface. Yea, more than this, they were aware of the divine Persons who exist all things by the presence of immensity (omnipresence) and who became present substantially in the souls of the saints themselves by a divine indwelling. The saints were absorbed into God, transformed, deified, lost in the “transluminous obscurity” of the divine which they were allowed to know in all things. In the words of the Pseduo-Areopagite, they were “patient of the divine things” by a certain “connaturality” or “sympathy” with them. Moreover, this mystical experience sometimes produced marvelous works of writing, poetry, and even music. The Confessions of Augustine are the work of a soul in tune with the universe and so in touch with God, a soul who breathed the life depicted by the book of Psalms, a soul who knew the depths of emotion conveyed in the music of contemplation: “How I wept, deeply moved by your hymns, songs, and the voices that echoed through your Church! What emotion I experienced in them! Those sounds flowed into my ears distilling the truth in my heart. A feeling of devotion surged within me, and tears streamed down my face - tears that did me good.” Likewise, the Eucharistic hymns of Thomas Aquinas express the intimate contact with God which he attained through that great sacrament. The sublime music of St. Hildegard von Bingen cannot be described but as the very sound of a soul overwhelmed in divine ecstasy, attuned by the divine harmony.

Cancion de Angeles, by Bouguereau
These were men and women of faith: their experiences were of a supernatural level. By analogy, and at a natural level, there are also the poets and ancient philosophers who penetrated deeply into the meaning of things, saw and tasted the beauty and sweetness which lie at the root of every human longing. These were the men who found their way out of Plato’s cave, who reached beyond the boundaries of mundane existence and aspired to the true greatness that is man’s destiny (a greatness which is, paradoxically, man’s death to himself and renunciation of his present greatness, and an absorption into the greatness of Another). I am thinking of Plato himself, his student Aristotle, the poets and artists of human history, the Shakespeares and Keats’ and Shelleys, the Bachs and Mozarts and Chopins, the Boticellis and Da Vincis and Bouguereaus, and so many more – mystics in a natural but profound sense. These souls knew the ritual of life, they fulfilled to the best of their abilities the liturgical dimensions of human nature, so far as they were permitted within the bounds of nature. The example of these men demonstrates to us the inherent dynamism in man towards the fulfillment offered by the Christian life, which is first and foremost liturgical: the contact of the divine mystery, the experience and contemplation of the transcendent God, as it manifests itself in the opus Dei. Man, even in his natural state, is deeply aware of his calling to something greater than Himself, something which He must possess. And so he desires to possess it. His life is marked by a constant straining for this possession.

Of course, men seek for this possession in various places, oftentimes the wrong places. Modern culture is marked by a disdain for the contemplative life just described: the vocations of the poet, the musician, and the cloistered monk all appear vain to modern man, who no longer appreciates the value of leisure. Our culture seeks human fulfillment in work and industry, in the active life divorced from contemplation. But as Josef Pieper shows in Leisure the Basis of Culture, this pursuit itself turns out to be vain in the end. Human life acquires its worth not from that which is useful or practical, but from that which is good on its own merits, for its own sake, per se; in other words, that which is the object of contemplation. In fact it is the most useless things that turn out to be the best and the most beautiful, the things of true value; whereas what is only useful turns out to be completely worthless.

Narcisuss, by John William Waterhouse
Another example is the modern tendency to exalt human selfhood as its stands. We live in a culture of narcissism. But as we have seen, the contemplative worldview which we have explored involves precisely the opposite of self-assertion or self-exaltation: it is the complete absorptionof the self into the being of another. The ecstasy of the poets was the abandonment of themselves to the beauty which so captured their wonder and attention. Likewise, and even more so, the mark of the saints was the complete forgetfulness – nay, even renunciation – of themselves, to be completely united to God Himself. The story of these contemplative souls is a love story – not the love of self, but always the love of Another, whose Goodness is from and of Itself. Religion is indeed a kind of self-expression, but an expression of self-renunciation in submission to Another, not an expression of self-assertion. This is an especially important truth, the denial of which is extremely dangerous to the religious health of any human society. Any exaltation of the mundane, the ego, or the merely human risks neglecting the true value of any created thing, which comes not from itself but from God. All the contemplatives whom I have mentioned, whether artists, poets, or saints, recognized this truth in some manner. Either they implicitly experienced the bittersweet nostalgia for the divine perfection which is beyond all created goodness, or they directly experienced the divine sweetness itself by the gifts of grace and faith.
 
These are some of the thoughts which I have concluded, after considering the extension of the liturgical and contemplative mindset to the other areas of life. In brief, the liturgy transforms the vision of man so that he proceeds through all of life seeing the signs of God, and straining all the more after the sight of God Himself. By this account, man has a way of accessing God through all things, either in the distant manner of nature, or in the direct and experiential manner of grace. These thoughts may serve, moreover, to inform our understanding of education, which is the formation of the whole human person according to wisdom. Wisdom, as I have written on this blog before, comes in many forms, but all ordered towards the vision of God. The primary act of wisdom is contemplation, which is perfected by vision. Education will thus have vision as its end. The educated and cultured man therefore shares somehow in the character of the saints themselves, inasmuch as he is marked by the desire of this vision, “as a dear longs for fountains of water”; and for this reason he will live his life centered around and nourished by the sacred liturgy, and moreover always in accordance the spirit of its inner essence, which extends to all of human existence.

19:28

Für die Zeit zwischen den Jahren [Denzinger-Katholik]

Nun mal Hand aufs Herz. Wenn wir Alte-Messe-Molche ehrlich sind, dann wissen wir: die überlieferte Liturgie wird nicht von heute auf morgen in allen römisch-katholischen Gemeinden, Klöstern, öffentlichen und halböffentlichen Oratorien usw. wiedereingeführt werden. Nein, bevor es soweit ist, und damit der Kulturschock nicht ganz so groß wird ... kommt natürlich erstmal ein paar kurze Jährchen ein Interimsmissale mit lateinisch-deutschem Mischmasch, wie schon bei der letzten großen Umstellung anno dazumal.
Der Denzinger-Katholik hat schon vorgesorgt und ist für den Ernstfall gerüstet, die zweisprachigen Messbücher nach 1965er Ritus liegen bereit. (Ja, schon damals hat die wundersame Büchervermehrung eingesetzt, weswegen manch einer glaubt, die Liturgiereform sei nichts anderes als ein Komplott des katholischen Verlagswesens gewesen - wenn dem tatsächlich so ist, haben sie sich aber am Ende aber doch ins eigene Bein geschossen).

Mit dem Meßkanon wurde auch schon mal pfleglicher umgegangen. Den hl. Joseph trug man  - gar nicht lang vorher - gewöhnlich noch fein säuberlich mit dem Füllfederhalter ein und fuhrwerkte nicht mit dem Edding im Allerheiligsten rum.
Wie die ersten Seiten erzählen, wurden die "Übersetzungen der Gesänge zum Einzug, zur Gabenbereitung und zum Kommuniongang sowie der Zwischengesänge mit Zustimmung der Erzabtei Beuron dem gemeinsamen Meßantiphonar der deutschen Meßbücher von Schott und Bomm entnommen", während die Übersetzungen der Orationen "für dieses Altarmeßbuch" neu erarbeitet wurden. Wie gut oder schlecht diese neuen Orationen sind, damit werde ich mich demnächst beschäftigen. Vielleicht aber ist besonders interessant, dass Schott und Bomm damit gewissermaßen kanonische Autorität bekamen.
Gedruckt wurden die abgebildeten Messbücher übrigens für die SBZ: Im Auftrag der Bischöflichen Ordinariate und Kommissariate der Katholischen Kirche der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik. Da schüttelt's einen gleich ein wenig beim Lesen. Eine etwas kuriose Kombination der Wörter, finde ich auch, diese Sache mit den kirchlich-katholischen Kommissariaten in bolsche kommunistischen Terrain. (Obwohl, so für einen Job also commissaire théologique könnte ich mich auch begeistern).

Dem Meßbuchspender auch nochmal an dieser Stelle ein herzliches Vergelt's Gott!

18:46

Lesson from Pius IX on Pastoral Duty [Theological Flint]

This is from Theological Flint

From his marvelous Qui pluribus: 25. When ministers are ignorant or neglectful of their duty, then the morals of the people also immediately decline, Christian discipline grows slack, the practice of religion is dislodged and cast aside, and every vice and corruption is easily introduced into the Church. The word of God, which was uttered for […]

The post Lesson from Pius IX on Pastoral Duty appeared first on Theological Flint.

18:39

Christ Before Family [Unam Sanctam Catholicam]

The Roman Martyrlogy is always read in anticipation for the next day at Prime in the 1962 divine office. For today there is a section that I think will find enlightening to those who are going to be encountering people who may have apostatized from the faith, or perhaps have deliberately excluded them from their thanksgiving celebrations and wrestle in their minds if they have made the right decision. 

"In Persia, the holy martyr James, styled the Dismembered, a famous martyr. In the time of the Emperor Theodosius the younger, to please King Isdegerd, he denied Christ, wherefore his mother and his wife held aloof from him. Then he bethought himself, and went to the King and confessed Christ, and the King in wrath commanded him to be cut limb from limb, and his head to be cut off. At that time countless other martyrs suffered there also." The Roman Martyrlogy

I have not heard to many orators whether clerical or lay teaching on the importance of that part of the Gospel found in Matthew 18, that after multiple admonishments that we should treat a person as a gentile or a tax collector. That of course does not mean we treat them with cruelty, or that we continue to admonish them (which will only harden their hearts: "Rebuke not a scorner lest he hate thee." Proverbs 9:8), but that they be treated as both someone who is not one of us, as Christ referenced to the gentile, and as someone we keep at distance, as the tax collector. For a more in depth look at this, please look at my brother Bonifaces article on Christian Shunning.

Let us not also forget that to deliberately choose the company of those who scoff at the Catholic religion was viewed as an occasion of sin and an injury to faith.    It certainly can be a test of faith, because we cannot be silent in the name of peace while Our Lord who is everywhere present is cruelly treated at the table we eat at. 

Our Lord warned us that our enemies would be that of our own household (Matthew 10:36), and that we must love Him more to the point of our love for our families appearing to be hatred when compared to the love of Christ (Luke 14:26). Family get togethers should not seek some type of false unity where everyone gets a long.  What of a family where one relative is a satanist, another is living in sin, and another devout, while all started Catholic.  How would it be possible for such a gathering to dwell in peace?

This excerpt from the Martyrlogy shows that holding a person in aloof who has denied the faith can both serve as a means of admonishment, and that it was effective to the point of making a man both returning to the faith and suffering a horrible, but glorious death.  It also shows that when we put Christ first before our family ties, as St. James the dismembered's wife and mother did it is true love and charity, if we truly love others we can do no less. 

Strength and courage my friends, do not hesitate to defend Christ, to be aloof from those who have abandoned the faith, or to exclude scoffers. May thanksgiving to our Lord Jesus Christ, who is to be put first always at all of our tables.  Christ before family, Christ before friends, Christ before country, Christ before everything.  May we never prefer anything to the Love of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Happy Thanksgiving. 

18:23

The Traditional Mass is Changing the Face of the French Clergy [The Eponymous Flower]

Old Mass a Breeding Ground for Vocations
(Paris) The face of the French clergy is changing at a fast pace, and that in two respects. The number of priestly vocations is at the lowest level. Simultaneously, a change from the new to the old rite is taking place.

Decline in Diocesan Priestly Vocations by 84 Percent

In 1966, the year after the end of the Second Vatican Council, there were 4,536 diocesan seminarians in France.  Within ten years the number fell, under the influence of Pope Paul VI.and in the Post-Conciliar period to 1297 in 1975. A  decline of almost three-quarters could be described as a fast collapse.  Under Pope John Paul II,  the slump was halted 20 years later, in 1996, the number was still 1,103 seminarians at approximately the same level.
The last part of his pontificate was followed by a new nosedive: In 2005, the number of seminarians was 784. That was only 17 percent when compared to 1966, or in other words, a decrease of 83 percent.
2011 has reached the lowest point since the French Revolution. Only 710 seminarians were preparing for the secular priesthood. Parallel to this decline, the proportion of seminarians of the tradition is growing.

Proportion of Priests of Tradition Climbs

An assessment of the priestly ordinations in the last five years illustrates this development. It consists of the numbers of those  ordained  in the Ordinary form compared to those  consecrated in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. The list refers only to secular priests. Keeping in mind the priests of the Ecclesia Dei  communities and the Society of St. Pius X.
2010: 86 percent of the ordinations in the Ordinary, 14 percent in the Extraordinary
Form, 2011: 86 percent of the ordinations in the Ordinary, 14 percent in the Extraordinary Form
2012: 83 percent of the ordinations in the Ordinary, 17 percent in the Extraordinary Form
2013: 88 percent of ordinations in the Ordinary, 12 percent in the Extraordinary Form
2014: 82 percent of the ordinations in the Ordinary, 18 percent in the Extraordinary Form
2015: 77 percent of the ordinations in the Ordinary, 23 percent in the extraordinary form

The Drama of the Decline and the Hope for a New future

The juxtaposition of consecration years in absolute terms shows the development and the drama:
2010: 96 ordinations in the Ordinary form, 16 in the Extraordinary
Form, 2011: 109 ordinations in the ordinary form, 18 in the Extraordinary Form
2012: 97 ordinations in the ordinary form, 20 in the Extraordinary Form
2013: 92 ordinations in the ordinary form , 12 in the Extraordinary Form
2014: 88 ordinations in the ordinary form, 18 in the Extraordinary Form
2015: 68 ordinations in the ordinary form, 20 in the extraordinary form
Over the past six years, 545 diocesan priests were ordained for the new rite in France and 107 for the Traditional Rite.  Not included in the list are religious priests. It also doesn't include those ordained in the traditional rite, like the Benedictines of Le Barroux or the Frenchmen who were ordained for the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. Also not considered is the phenomenon spreading in France of biritually trained priests, or the phenomenon of young diocesan priests of the new rite, who are also interested in the traditional rite and tradition.

Communities and Parishes of the Traditional Rite are a Breeding Ground for Vocations

The personal parishes and communities of tradition have proven to be the most fertile ground for priestly vocations.Compared to their small number and size,  their share of vocations is enormous. The traditional  blogger Cordialiter published a conversation with a young Italian who encountered the traditional form of the Roman Rite in Austria and now lives with his family in France. The traditional community to which he belongs in France is 25 years old.  During this time 17 priestly vocations have emerged from it. "The majority have joined French orders of the tradition, the Benedictines of Le Barroux, Fontgombault, the Canons Regular of Lagrasse, the Servi Jesu et Mariae etc."
Text: Giuseppe Nardi
Image: Mil
Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com
AMDG

18:08

EGMR-Urteil: Großer Sieg für mutigen Lebensrechtler [Mathias von Gersdorff]

Foto: Mathias v. Gersdorff Obwohl die deutsche Gesetzgebung hinsichtlich der Abtreibung für manche skurril erscheint, ist sie relativ klar: Der Mensch hat von der Zeugung an ein Recht auf Leben und deshalb darf er nicht getötet werden. Wenn das aber trotzdem bis zum dritten Monat der Schwangerschaft geschieht, so ist die Abtreibung straffrei, falls man der Mutter zuvor einen sog.

18:06

Sermon for the End of the Church's Year: "Jesus left the Temple" (Mt. 24:1) [RORATE CÆLI]

Rorate is pleased to offer to our readers a marvelous homily preached by a traditional Catholic priest last Sunday.

Destruction of the Temple by Francesco Hayez

Last Sunday after Pentecost
22 November 2015

This Sunday, indeed throughout the season of Advent  (which begins next Sunday), the Church would have us ponder the Coming of the Lord Jesus in Judgment.  In the past couple of weeks, the liturgy has already touched upon this Coming of Christ.  Recall the parable of the wheat and the tares from two weeks ago: these will grow together, but only “until the harvest”.  At that time, the reapers will be told to “gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned”, and then to gather the wheat into the barn of their master.  When the disciples of the Lord ask Him the meaning of this parable, He tells them: “Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age.  The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father.” 

Last week we heard about the Thessalonians, whom St. Paul praises for their great faith, which prompted them to turn “to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for His Son from heaven (Whom He raised up from the dead), Jesus, Who hath delivered us from the wrath to come.”  This Sunday, the Coming of Christ takes center stage.

Whenever we think of the Second Coming of Christ – its definitiveness, the finality of the judgment that accompanies it, the punishment meted out to evildoers – it is understandable that we should feel some trepidation – just as the disciples of the Lord would have been struck with fear at the thought of the destruction of the Temple.  But Our Lord does associate His coming in glory with the destruction of the Temple.  And so even if the approaching season of Advent, following the exhortation of St. Paul, would have us rejoice because the Lord is nigh, we need not apologize to anyone for feeling at least a little bit fearful about the Coming of the Lord, that great and terrible day of wrath.

Today’s gospel is taken from the 24th chapter of St. Matthew’s Gospel, verses 13-25.  But I want to focus your attention on something that happens at the very beginning of this chapter; namely Our Lord’s departure from the Temple.  Our Lord has been teaching in the temple.  More precisely, He has been excoriating the impenitent Pharisees and Scribes.  They have refused to accept Him as the Messiah, and so He denounces them with seven “woes” (curses indicative of judgment).  He concludes with the following lament (ch. 23:37-39): "Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!  How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!  Behold, your house is forsaken and desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again, until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.’”  And then, Matthew tells us (and this is what I want you to really pay attention to), (ch. 24) “Jesus left the temple and was going away…”

Okay, so what?  What’s so important about that?  To be sure, the disciples themselves probably thought nothing of it at the time.  For as the Lord was going away, Matthew makes it clear that the disciples (including himself) were noticing, not Our Lord’s departure from the Temple, but the Temple itself, together with the surrounding buildings.  In fact, they tried to get Our Lord to admire them: “his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple.”  Doubtless, the Temple was an impressive structure, a dazzling sight to behold, even an eighth wonder of the world.

But upon further reflection, St. Matthew would surely have seen a deeper, prophetic significance in the Lord’s departure, and wants us to understand this prophetic meaning as well.  Our first hint that Our Lord’s departure is more than just a simple exit from the Temple precincts is the way in which Our Lord responds to His disciples’ “oo-ing and ah-ing” about the Temple.  Here is what He says: “You see all these, do you not?  Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.”  As stunningly and distractingly beautiful as the Temple surely was, such foreboding words would have served well to direct the disciples’ attention to what Our Lord was saying and where he was going.  This is the second hint Matthew gives to us, reporting that “[Christ] sat on the Mount of Olives”.  How, then, does Our Lord’s departure from the Temple and His going to the Mount of Olives shed light upon the significance of His departure from the Temple?  Well, in doing these things He creates an echo with what happened before the Temple of Solomon was destroyed back in 586 BC, as witnessed and described by the prophet Ezekiel.  In chapters 10 & 11 of his book, Ezekiel relates for us the departure of the glory of God from the Temple: “And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the city, and stood over the mount that is on the east side of the city” (Ez. 11:23).  What is this mount on the east side of Jerusalem?  The Mount of Olives.  One could say, then, that at this moment, when the glory of God departed from Solomon’s Temple, it suffered a kind of “abomination of desolation” or desecrating sacrilege; a kind of prelude to the destruction of the Temple.  For the Jews were incorrigibly steeped in idolatry.  The judgment of God would soon fall upon them.

But isn’t the Lord Jesus the glory of the Father?  Does He not manifest the goodness of God?  Indeed, He does.  And we are reminded of this truth at the end of almost every Mass: that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”  Therefore, when Jesus leaves the Temple, the glory of the only-begotten of the Father has departed from the Temple.  And given the context, the abomination of desolation about which Our Lord speaks, if not fully accomplished, has already begun in the prophetic sign of Our Lord’s departure.  And the desolation or desecration of the Temple about which Daniel had prophesied, and which took place in 167 BC.  In that year, the Gentile ruler Antiochus Epiphanes IV burned Jerusalem, plundered the Temple of its sacred articles, and erected an idol to the Greek god Zeus within its precincts (1 Mac 1:31, 37, 54).  Obviously, idolatry and divine worship are incompatible, and so this action desecrated the Temple; that is, it rendered it profane. For idolatry is incompatible with divine worship.  This time, no idol has been placed within the Holy of Holies or courts of the Temple.  Nevertheless, the leaders of the Jews have rejected their Messiah and seek to destroy Him.  And Christ, the glory of  God, departs from the Temple.  Some forty years later, in A.D. 70, the desolate Temple was reduced to rubble.  God visited His people in judgment.

Why should this matter to us?  The Temple of the Jews is long gone.  Besides, it was never ours.  It matters because God’s ultimate goal was never to dwell in a building, but to dwell in us.  We are His temples, even as we are living stones of the temple of His Body, which is the Church.

Our Lord Himself assures us, “If any one love me, he will keep my word.  And my Father will love him and we will come to him and will make our abode with him” (Jn. 14:23).

And St. Paul reminds the decadent Corinthian Christians several times that they are, each and every one of them, temples of God:

1 Cor. 3:16-17:  “Know you not that you are the temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?  But if any man violate the temple of God, him shall God destroy.  For the temple of God is holy, which you are.

1 Cor. 6:19-20: "Or know you not that your members are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God: and you are not your own?  For you are bought with a great price.  Glorify and bear God in your body.”

2 Cor. 6:16: “And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?  For you are the temple of the living God: as God saith: I will dwell in them and walk among them.  And I will be their God: and they shall be my people.”

Even the office of offering sacrifice, which takes place in a temple, St. Paul manages to relate to the temple of our bodies, when he exhorts the Christians in Rome: “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good and the acceptable and the perfect will of God”  (Rom. 12:1-2)  We cannot do whatever we want with our bodies, as if God dwells only in our souls and is indifferent to what we do with our bodies.

If, then, we are all temples of the living God, it is God who should dwell in us, not idols or the devils who stand behind them.  Depending on how we choose to live our lives, God will either dwell within us or He will depart from us.  If we strive to love self even to the contempt of God; if we exchange the living God for an idol, making it the lord of our lives; if we conform ourselves to this world rather than conform ourselves to Christ, let us not be surprised to discover that God will have departed from us.  For why should the God who made us for Himself co-exist with the idols we have chosen for our gods?  He doesn’t.  God, who is Goodness and Holiness itself, cannot co-exist with deliberate, freely and knowingly chosen mortal sin.  He will depart and leave that defiled temple desolate.  To be sure, as long as we live, repentance and conversion are always possible.  His mercy always remains available.  He will never refuse to return to the temple of a contrite heart.  But if we should die unrepentant, our desolate temple shall likewise suffer God’s judgment.  Unlike the Temple, our bodies and souls shall not cease to exist.  Instead, after the resurrection of the body, the damned  shall suffer the pain of loss (loss of the presence of God), as well as varying degrees of pain of sense (in accordance with the magnitude of their sins) for all eternity.  Like the tares that the enemy sowed in the field of wheat, such souls  shall be “cast into the furnace of fire, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”  Instead of eternal life, the damned shall suffer eternal death: a kind of destruction, to be sure, but not an annihilation of their very existence.

On the other hand, if we strive to love God even to the contempt of self; if we refuse to be led astray by false messiahs; if we refuse to regard money, pleasure, wealth, honor, or power as our idols, if we persevere in the midst of persecution; if we remain steadfast even as others abandon the faith and fall into apostasy, God will always be with us.  Even if, in the midst of suffering, we should feel as though God has abandoned us, nevertheless, He will still be with us.

As I mentioned, the apostles were struck by the outward splendor and beauty of the Temple, and would certainly have been disturbed by the very thought of its destruction.  How much more, then, ought we to appreciate the splendor and beauty of our bodies and souls clothed in the grace of divine sonship!  How much more ought we to be disturbed by the mere thought of committing a single mortal sin!

Let us also consider that Christ is the Life and Light of the world.  As long as we are faithful to Him, He will dwell within us.  And as long as He dwells within us, we will be able to bring light and life to the world.  We will be agents of the kingdom of heaven and cultivators of the culture of life.  But if we are unfaithful to Christ, if we reject the Lord of life and light for this or that idol, then in one way or another we will find ourselves in the service of the kingdom of Satan, the forces of darkness, and the culture of death.  We will find ourselves following false Christs, false prophets, who will leave us morally confused, even blind. 

Pope St. John Paul II said as much 20 years ago in his important encyclical, Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life).  In a passage which I am about to quote, he refers specifically to the crime of abortion, but you can replace abortion with many other crimes against life, and against human nature.  Indeed, and unfortunately, the thoughts revealed at the recent synod of bishops make this passage all the more relevant:

“The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behavior and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake.  Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception.  In this regard the reproach of the Prophet [Isaiah] is extremely straightforward: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness” (Is 5:20).” 

Given the incompatibility between God and sin, those in the Church who would try to convince us that those living in sin can worthily receive the Lord under their roofs in holy communion will have much to answer for.

Finally, let us remember this basic truth of faith: This world is finite; it is passing away.  But we were made to enjoy that eternal, unchanging, infinite happiness that only God can provide by abiding in us and we in Him.  Therefore, our happiness cannot be found in the goods of this world.  That is why, as St. Peter tells us (2 Pt. 13-18): “We look for new heavens and a new earth according to [the] promises [of Christ], in which justice dwells.  Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace.… Take heed, lest being led aside by the error of lawless men, you fall from your own steadfastness.  But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.  To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity, Amen.”

17:59

Vatileaks e gli "strani" silenzi della stampa su Nuzzi e Fittipaldi. E se il Papa fosse ancora Benedetto? [Il Blog di Raffaella. I Papi, il Vaticano e la Chiesa Cattolica]

Clicca qui per leggere il commento di Socci. Non ho altro da aggiungere soprattutto dopo aver letto certe parole su povertà e terrorismo... R.

17:18

¿Qué es la epiqueya? Reconducción de la ley humana a la ley natural [Ley Natural]

Jacques-Louis David (1748-1825): “La muerte de Sócrates”. Con un fuerte dramatismo representa el momento en que el filósofo se dispone a beber la cicuta o veneno, después de ser culpado de corruptor de jóvenes. Es notoria la iluminación que se centra en el personaje principal. Sócrates expresa la necesidad de remontar la letra de la ley para alcanzar su más auténtico sentido humano y natural.

1. Para entender lo que se enuncia en este capítulo es preciso leer con aten­ción una duda que Vitoria propone, tomándola de Tomás de Aquino, acerca de si alguien puede obrar sin ajustarse a la letra de la ley[1]. Lo que desencadena esa duda se reduce a una sola cosa: a la “excepcionalidad del caso”, ya advertida por Aristóteles. Excepcionalidad que puede provocar un conflicto entre una ley inferior y otra superior, o entre la particularidad del caso concreto y la generali­dad de la ley[2]. En primer lugar, dicho conflicto puede darse entre dos leyes je­rar­­quizadas: y así, en una situación particular, las prescripciones de la ley positiva pueden entrar en conflicto con una ley superior que ordena la salva­guar­da de intereses más capitales o importantes: porque objetivamente la ley po­sitiva se convertiría en injusta si se aplicara. En segundo lugar, también puede darse conflicto debido a circunstancias excepcionales imprevistas, de ma­nera que la aplicación de la ley sería subjetivamente más dura y penosa de lo que debería ser según la intención del legislador: la sumisión a la ley positiva sería por tanto injusta.

Ante esta problemática, Vitoria reflexiona dentro de un contexto aristotélico en el que resaltan tres rasgos precisos.

2. En primer lugar, entiende que toda ley se ordena al bien común de los hom­­bres, y de esta finalidad recibe su poder y condición de ley, por lo que pierde su fuerza vinculante en la medida en que se aparta del bien común. Por­que una cosa se hace justa de dos modos[3]: bien por su misma naturaleza –lo que se llama derecho natural–, o bien por cierta convención entre los hombres, –lo cual se denomina derecho positivo–. La ley escrita ha de incluir el derecho natu­ral, mas no lo instituye, ya que éste no toma su fuerza de la ley, sino de la natura­leza; pero la escritura de la ley contiene e instituye el derecho positivo, dándole la fuerza de autoridad. Ahora bien, así como la ley escrita no da fuerza al derecho natural, tampoco puede disminuírsela o quitársela, puesto que la voluntad del hombre no puede cambiar la naturaleza: en principio hay que some­terse a la ley escrita. Sólo si la ley escrita contiene algo contra el derecho natural, es injusta y no tiene fuerza para obligar, pues el derecho positivo sólo es aplicable cuando, ante el derecho natural, es indiferente que una cosa sea hecha de un modo o de otro[4].

3. En segundo lugar, supone que el legislador humano no puede atender a to­dos los casos singulares, por dos motivos: por la necesidad que tiene de abs­traer, y por la necesidad que tiene de razonar. Por lo primero, es víctima del carácter general y abstracto de las leyes, por las cuales él quiere gobernar un obrar concreto, variable según las diversas condiciones temporales y personales, por lo que su formulación de la ley debe plegarse a lo que acontece de ordinario [in pluribus accidunt], poniendo su intención en lo que es mejor para la utilidad común. Por su naturaleza misma, el derecho exige una cierta generalidad, la cual genera, en cambio, cierta flexibilidad de aplicación concreta. Por eso debe haber sitio para las excepciones. Por lo segundo, si el legislador quiere recorrer con su razón todos los casos, se obligaría a multiplicar las disposiciones legales a tal velocidad que su ley acabaría siendo oscura y quedaría sin eficacia alguna. Siempre la ley positiva está hecha por un legislador limitado, y por eso, sola­mente puede tener valor en la mayoría de los casos [ut in pluribus, in maiori parte]. Al legislador humano le es imposible establecer una ley perfecta, válida en todos los casos. Y si se refugia en la serena región de los grandes principios, su ley será vaga e inútil: pues la utilidad de hablar moralmente en universal queda mermada por el hecho de que las acciones existen en lo particular y con­creto[5]. Dicho de otro modo: de un lado, es claro que las leyes inicuas por sí mismas contrarían al derecho natural, o siempre o en el mayor número de casos; pero, de otro lado, las leyes que son rectamente establecidas son deficientes en algunos casos, en los cuales, si se observasen, se iría contra el derecho natural.

4. En tercer lugar, y basado en lo anterior, admite que cuando en un caso par­ti­cular es sumamente nocivo para el bien común cumplir una norma, cuya observancia es con frecuencia provechosa en la generalidad de los casos [ut in pluribus], entonces, como había enseñado antes Santo Tomás, no debe juzgarse según la literalidad de la ley y hay que “reconducir prácticamente” [ferens inten­tionem]la ley positiva a su principio originario, orientado al bien común [ad communem utilitatem], al que tiende también el legislador.

 *

2. Reconducción práctica, dispensa e interpretación de la ley

1. Si hay que “reconducir prácticamente” la ley positiva a su principio ori­gina­rio, orientado al bien común, eso no ha de ser una desacreditación o descalificación del legislador, ni un enjuiciamiento de la ley misma.

La reconducción práctica de la ley no implica una descalificación del legis­la­dor. Visto el asunto superficialmente, podría parecer que si los que tienen com­petencia intelectual son los que han instituido las leyes, habrían de ser ellos los que siempre pueden explicar bien con palabras sus intenciones.

Sin embargo, nadie tiene tanta competencia intelectual que pueda prever to­dos los casos particulares, ni, por lo tanto, expresar suficientemente con pala­bras todo lo conducente al fin propuesto. Es más, aun suponiendo que el legisla­dor tuviese esa competencia intelectual y pudiera examinar todos los casos, convendría que, para evitar la confusión, la ley no hiciera referencia a todos, sino sólo a lo que sucede en la mayoría de ellos.

El ejemplo que casi siempre aparece es el siguiente: durante un asedio esta­blece la ley que las puertas de la ciudad permanezcan cerradas, y esto resulta provechoso para la salvación común en la generalidad de los casos. Pero si acontece que los enemigos vienen persiguiendo a algunos ciudadanos de los que depende la defensa de la ciudad, sería sumamente perjudicial para ésta que no se les abrieran las puertas. Por lo tanto, en este caso, aun contra la letra de la ley, habría que abrir las puertas para salvar la utilidad común intentada por la ley[6].

Tampoco es la reconducción práctica un enjuiciamiento de la ley, algo así co­mo un proceso contra ella. Podría parecer que cuando surge un caso en que esta ley es dañosa para el bien común y no se debe cumplir, el súbdito se estaría permitiendo la licencia de juzgar negativamente la bondad de la ley para aban­do­nar su letra.

Ya había puntualizado Santo Tomás que quien en caso de necesidad obra sin atenerse a las palabras de la ley no ha de enjuiciar la ley misma, sino un caso particular en el que ve que las palabras de la ley no pueden guardarse. “Se juzga sobre una ley cuando se dice que está mal redactada. Pero quien dice que la letra de la ley no debe ser aplicada en tal circunstancia, no juzga de la ley, sino de un caso muy concreto que se presenta”[7].

2. Pues bien, si la reconducción práctica no es una desacreditación ni un enjui­ciamiento de la ley, tampoco es una dispensa. La dispensa se hace por vía de autoridad: es un acto del legislador que, en un caso particular, suspende o atempera la obligación impuesta por él[8]. Pero en la reconducción práctica es la conciencia individual la que juzga que la ley no se aplica en tal caso particular.

Mas fuera del caso en que la observancia literal de la ley ocasiona un peligro inmediato, no compete a un súbdito valorar qué es lo útil o lo perjudicial para la república, porque esto corresponde exclusivamente al gobernante, el único que tiene autoridad para dispensar de las leyes[9]. Si el peligro es inmediato y no da tiempo para recurrir al superior, la necesidad misma –y no el súbdito– lleva aneja la dispensa, pues la necesidad no se sujeta a la ley[10].

3. En fin, la reconducción práctica tampoco es una interpretación de la ley. Pues una ley tiene necesidad de ser interpretada cuando hay en ella palabras oscuras o disposiciones ambiguas. La interpretación busca la claridad, haciendo ver que el texto así interpretado o explicado es el que mejor expresa la voluntad del legislador: pone claridad en la formulación de la ley, sin cambiarla. De ahí que el ejercicio de la interpretación sea muchas veces la clave de la jurispruden­cia, la cual no se aparta de la ley, sino que la aplica. “La interpretación –dice Santo Tomás– se da en los casos dudosos, en los que no es lícito apartarse de la letra de la ley sin la determinación del gobernante. Pero en los casos evidentes no se precisa la interpretación de la ley, sino su cumplimiento”[11]. Dicho de otra manera: una buena reconducción práctica rebasa la letra de la ley, justo para cumplir en profundidad la ley misma.

Si, a pesar de todo, quisiéramos decir que la reconducción práctica es una in­terpretación de la ley, Vitoria matizaría que quien se remite a la intención del legislador no ha de hacer en sentido absoluto una interpretación de la ley, sino sólo en sentido relativo, en cuanto a un caso en que se hace patente, por la evi­dencia del daño, que no era esa la intención del legislador. Creo que cabría aquí determinar esa “interpretación relativa” con el concepto moderno de “compren­sión” [Verstehen], distante de la “explicación” [Erklärung][12]. La reconducción práctica no es, en sentido absoluto, una interpretación aclaratoria o explicativa; ni quiere conseguir un texto corregido; porque no se dedica a interpretar un texto oscuro o corregir directamente una ley que se muestre palmariamente defectuosa. Pero si el daño es sólo dudoso, debe o bien atenerse a la letra, o bien consultar al legislador.

Y sin embargo, es en este punto donde puede asaltar el individualismo o el in­terés particular que busque una interpretación benigna, olvidando que la esencia misma de la reconducción práctica no consiste en liberarse de la letra de la ley, sino en cumplirla mejor de lo que la letra indica.

 *

3. La reconducción práctica como virtud

1. Se acaba de ver que para conseguir el fin de la ley –el bien común– la recon­ducción práctica no es una dispensa, ni una descalificación, ni un enjuicia­miento, ni una interpretación. Entonces ¿qué es? Una actitud de la voluntad, una virtud, una actitud firme y constante de realizar la justicia.

La reconducción práctica es una reposición del orden de la ley, cuando ésta es deficiente a causa de su universalidad; y va más allá de la mente del legisla­dor –el poder o el querer del legislador–, precisamente para remontarse a los principios superiores del derecho natural, para encontrar ahí la explicación última de la legitimidad de la aplicación de la reconducción práctica.

2. Cuando objetivamente hay colisión de deberes, el súbdito puede trascen­der la letra de la ley en nombre de las exigencias superiores de la ley natural. Porque, de un lado, la voluntad del legislador no es soberana y se encuentra limitada por los contenidos de la ley natural; y, de otro lado, el súbdito se siente urgido también por la ley natural a no provocar una falta moral, por ejemplo, dejar morir a un enfermo por atender otras obligaciones exigidas por ley. No hay violación de la ley positiva, cuando las exigencias de esta contradicen las de una ley superior; y se obraría mal si se sigue la letra de la ley.

La reconducción práctica sería insuficiente si se limitara a expresar negativa­mente que en tal o cual caso la ley no obliga; pero tiene suficiencia psicológica y moral cuando –siendo incapaz la ley positiva de abarcar completamente una situación concreta–, se eleva positivamente a un derecho superior en nombre del bien común. El supuesto básico de la reconducción práctica es que tanto el legis­lador como el súbdito están sometidos a las directrices de la ley natural. Si ambos se reconocieran fuera de estas directrices, entonces la reconducción prác­tica sería o capricho del súbdito o arbitrariedad del legislador.

3. Cuando subjetivamente hay carencia de fuerzas, porque la ley positiva exija más energías de las naturalmente disponibles, el legislador obraría injusta­mente exigiendo obediencia a la ley, precisamente porque la ley natural –a la que está ligado– le impide exigir de sus sujetos un heroísmo injustificado.

En ambos casos, el objetivo y el subjetivo, un súbdito juzga preferible sepa­rarse de la letra de la ley, mas no interpretando meramente la benevolencia del legislador, sino observando mejor el espíritu de esta ley, o sea, cumpliendo la verdadera justicia con los principios superiores de la ley natural.

Sólo la primacía de la ley natural, que está por encima del legislador y del súb­dito, justifica el uso de esa reconducción práctica que abandona la letra de la ley para pasar a un nivel superior.

La reconducción práctica, como virtud de la justicia, se llama epiqueya, una pieza fundamental de la división de la justicia[13]: su asiento psicológico no es la inteligencia, sino la voluntad, por ser actividad de la justicia. “Lo bueno es, dejando a un lado la letra de la ley, seguir lo que pide la justicia y el bien co­mún. Y a esto se ordena la epiqueya, que entre nosotros se llama «equidad». Por tanto, es evidente que la epiqueya es virtud”.

4. Como se puede observar, la dispensa, la interpretación y la epiqueya de la ley humana, aunque en sí son actos diversos, tienen un origen similar, a saber: el hecho de que la ley humana puede ser deficiente en casos especiales que le ha sido imposible al legislador comprenderlos, prevenirlos, o precaverse de ellos.

Si la ley es deficiente en un caso singular, porque precisamente en ese caso sería inútil o no conveniente al bien común, entonces la ley es materia de dis­pensa, que es verdadera atenuación y relajación de la ley, eliminando en una parte la obligación, a saber, eliminando la obligación de la persona con la que se hace la dispensa[14].

Si la ley es deficiente por su sentido oscuro e incierto, es materia de interpreta­ción, que ni en su totalidad ni en parte quebranta la ley o relaja su obligación, sino que sólo explica su verdadero sentido, el pretendido por el legis­lador[15].

Si la ley es deficiente a causa de evidente injusticia o desorden, entonces la ley es materia de epiqueya, que es una corrección de la ley, para que ésta no se torne injusta si obliga en general[16].

Como puede verse, la interpretación de la ley pertenece esencial y directa­mente al propio legislador;en cambio, la epiqueya pertenece al legislador y al súbdito[17]. Porque en rigor la epiqueya no es una interpretación de la ley, la cual sólo tiene lugar en casos dudosos, y sólo el legislador tiene potestad de garanti­zar la interpretación cuando la duda es sobre la ley misma o sobre su capacidad de obligar. Por lo tanto, la interpretación pertenece a la inteligencia, a su con­sejo juicioso y deliberativo, acerca de lo que se deberá hacer según las reglas comunes. En cambio, el acto de la epiqueya tiene lugar en los casos manifiestos, donde no hay necesidad de interpretación, sino de excusa o justificación, y perte­nece a la voluntad, en la que reside toda la virtud de la justicia, cuya parte subjetiva es la epiqueya[18]. Ésta exige a su vez una regulación que venga de la inteligencia, de un acto de discernimiento (gnome, lo veremos más adelante) que se produce según unas reglas superiores, cuando faltan las reglas comunes. Luego la epiqueya es completamente distinta de la interpretación del gober­nante o del legislador; además es distinta de la dispensa, que corresponde al gobernante solo.

Recapitulemos. Primero, los actos humanos, sobre los que recaen las leyes, son singulares y contingentes, pudiendo ofrecer ilimitadas formas, no siendo posible establecer una ley que no falle en un caso concreto. Segundo, en conse­cuencia, los legisladores han de dar leyes según lo que sucede en la mayoría de los casos [ut in pluribus], porque observar punto por punto la ley en todos los casos va contra la justicia y contra el bien común intentado por la ley. He aquí un ejemplo, aducido también por Vitoria, que compendia ambos puntos: La ley ordena que se devuelvan los depósitos, porque esto es normalmente lo justo; pero puede a veces ser nocivo: pensemos en un loco que depositó su espada y la reclama en su estado de demencia, o si uno exige lo que depositó para atacar a la patria. Por tanto, en éstas y similares circunstancias sería pernicioso cumplir la ley.

Pero toda esta doctrina de la epiqueya, transmitida a lo largo de la Edad Me­dia hasta la Escuela de Salamanca, tiene su origen en Aristóteles. Conviene recordarlo brevemente.

 *

4. La epiqueya en Aristóteles

El objeto de la epiqueya, dice Aristóteles, es lo equitativo, algo justo [δίκαιον], “aunque no según la ley [νόμον], sino como rectificación de lo justo legal [ἐπανόρθωμα nομίνοu δικαίοu]”[19]. Aunque lo equitativo no es lo justo legal, sin embargo, “es directivo de lo justo legal que se contiene bajo lo justo natural, del cual se origina lo justo legal”[20].

El Estagirita reconoce claramente el hiato que puede existir entre la “univer­salidad” de toda ley y la “corrección” o ajuste del juicio que la aplica. En efecto, “la ley, cualquiera que sea, habla universalmente [νόμος καθόλου], mas de las cosas particulares no se puede hablar correctamente [ὀρθῶς] de un modo uni­versal. Así, pues, donde por necesidad se ha de hablar de modo universal, no pudiéndolo decir así correctamente, la ley considera lo que acaece más ordi­nariamente, aunque no ignore ese desajuste [ἀμαρτανόν]”[21].

Como se puede apreciar, Aristóteles exige que lo justo legal tenga siempre dirección o regulación. Esta necesidad comprende varios planos. Primero, acontece que, de un lado, la ley se da universalmente y, de otro lado, los casos particulares son infinitos. Segundo, ni el intelecto humano puede abarcar todos los casos, ni la ley puede aplicarse a cada caso en particular. Tercero, por eso es preciso que la ley se dicte en universal, por ejemplo, que todo el que cometa un homicidio sufra pena de cadena perpetua. Cuarto, el intelecto humano puede decir algo verdadero sobre algunos casos en universal, como sucede con lo necesario en lo cual no puede ocurrir defecto, pero de otros no es posible decir algo verdadero en universal, como sucede con lo contingente, en lo cual aunque algo sea verdadero en la mayoría de los casos, en unos pocos no obstante falla: tales son los hechos humanos sobre los cuales se dan las leyes. Quinto, en estos hechos es también necesario que el legislador hable universalmente, aunque sepa que es imposible abarcar los casos particulares. Sexto, tampoco es posible que lo que dice la ley se refiera a todos los casos rectamente, porque en unos pocos falla, y por eso “el legislador toma lo que ocurre en la mayoría de los casos, sin ignorar que en ciertos casos sucede que hay un fallo”[22].

Pero lo que no puede ocurrir es que esa ley misma deje de ser recta. ¿Cómo lo es? Aristóteles indica que “la falta no está en la ley ni el legislador [νο­μοθέτῃ], sino en la naturaleza de las obras humanas [φύσει τοῦ πράγματός]. Porque claramente es de esta manera la materia de las obras humanas [πρα­κτῶν ὕλη]”[23]. También Santo Tomás muestra que dicho defecto no quita la rec­titud de la ley o de lo justo legal. Pues “aunque en algunos casos haya un de­fecto proveniente de la observancia de la ley, sin embargo la ley es recta. En realidad ese defecto no proviene de la ley que fue razonablemente dada, ni proviene del legislador que habló según la condición de la materia, sino es un defecto oriundo de la naturaleza de las cosas. Pues es tal la materia de las acciones humanas, que no se da universalmente del mismo modo, sino que en algunos pocos casos se diversifica; como devolver un depósito es justo en sí y en la mayoría de los casos es un bien, no obstante, en algún caso puede ser un mal; como devolver su espada a un loco furioso”[24].

Aristóteles exigía que cuando la ley habla de modo universal, siendo así que en las obras no se expresa lo universal, entonces, para que exista corrección [ὀρθῶς], ha de enmendarse aquella parte en que el legislador abrió un hiato hablando de modo universal, porque si en un caso concreto “el legislador hubiera estado presente lo habría dicho de aquella misma manera, y si lo hubiera sabido lo habría establecido de aquella manera”[25]. Queda, pues, claro que ese hiato entre lo universal y lo particular, que es un defecto consustancial o natural a lo humano, no debe quitar la rectitud de la ley o de lo justo legal.

La inevitable rectificación del fallo provocado por ese hiato le lleva al Estagirita a decir que lo equitativo, objeto de la epiqueya, “es justo, y mejor que algún tipo de justicia, pero no mejor que la absoluta [ἀπλῶς], sino mejor que aquel defecto producido al hablar de modo universal. Así pues, la naturaleza de lo equitativo [objeto de la epiqueya] consiste en ser rectificación de la ley en cuanto al fallo producido por hablar de modo universal. Y esto es la causa de que no todo se pueda regular por ley, pues no es posible establecer una ley sobre ciertas cosas, y así hay necesidad de sentencias particulares. Porque la cosa indeterminada tiene también regla indeterminada [ἀορίστου ἀόρισ­τος]”[26]. Comenta a este propósito Santo Tomás que el objeto de la epiqueya es lo justo equitativo, que “siendo mejor que cierta clase de lo justo, no es mejor que lo justo natural, que debe ser observado en absoluto o universalmente, sino mejor que lo justo legal, al que cabe fallar por aquello que se propone en ab­soluto o en universal. De lo cual se desprende que la naturaleza de lo equitativo es ser regulador de la ley allí donde ésta falla por algún caso particular. Pues que la ley falle en casos particulares es la causa de que no todo pueda ser determinado por la ley, ya que es imposible que la ley contemple los casos que raramente suceden, pues no puede el hombre preverlos a todos. Por eso una vez dada la ley es necesaria la sentencia judicial por la cual lo dicho por la ley en universal sea aplicado a un asunto particular. Como la materia de las acciones humanas es indeterminada, por eso corresponde que la regla de esas acciones, o sea, la ley, sea indeterminada, como no estimándose siempre del mismo mo­do”[27].

En conclusión, para la tradición aristotélica que llega a la Escuela de Salamanca, lo equitativo es algo justo y mejor aun que lo justo legal. Dicho de otro modo, la epiqueya pertenece a la justicia legal, pero en cierto modo está contenida en ella y en cierto modo la supera[28]. Porque si se entiende por justicia legal la que se ajusta a la ley tanto a su letra como a la intención del legislador, que es lo principal, entonces la epiqueya es la parte principal de la justicia legal. Pero si se toma la justicia legal sólo en cuanto se ajusta a la letra de la ley, entonces la epiqueya no es parte de esa justicia legal, sino de la justicia común, y se distingue de la legal porque la supera.

Ésta es la doctrina básica sobre la que se levantan las observaciones pun­tua­les, pero iluminadoras, que hace Vitoria.

 *

5. La justicia referida a fines próximos y a fines últimos

Se acaba de recordar que Aristóteles, en Ethica (V, c10), enumera dos partes distintas de la justicia particular que trata de administrar justicia a las personas privadas: son la justicia legal y la epiqueya, cuya diferencia la explica Vitoria diciendo: la justicia legal es la que se acomoda a las leyes según las palabras de las propias leyes; en cambio, la epiqueya se acomoda a las leyes según la mente e intención del legislador, más allá de las palabras, cuando el seguirlas al pie de la letra diera lugar a una cosa injusta o nociva.

Reconoce Vitoria que “epiqueya” es nombre griego y en latín significa lo mis­mo que “aequitas” (equidad); etimológicamente significa “supra iustitiam” (sobre la justicia), por la preposición griega epi [supra] y eikaion [iustum]. Como si el acto de la epiqueya consistiera en no observar la ley en un caso particular que se aparta de las reglas comunes de las que trata la ley general; y, por consiguiente, la epiqueya es una virtud perteneciente a la justicia y una parte de ella –como antes se explicó–, no potencial, ni integral, sino subjetiva.

Para explicar esta tesis, Báñez hace observar –siguiendo las huellas de Vi­toria– que la ley, por la que recibe su nombre la justicia legal, tiene un doble fin: uno intrínseco e inmediato que el legislador contempla inmediatamente; otro extrínseco y mediato, pero más importante, que es el contemplado princi­palmente. El ejemplo que pone es recurrente en casi todos los maestros –y antes aludido–: la ley de no abrir las puertas de la ciudad en tiempo de guerra para que los enemigos no la ocupen. Báñez indica que el fin inmediato e intrínseco de esta ley es aquel que las palabras manifiestan: que los enemigos no invadan la ciudad. En cambio, el fin remoto, pero más principal, es la salvaguarda y firme estabilidad de la república[29].

Por tanto, de acuerdo con el planteamiento de Vitoria, Báñez toma la justicia legal como género que se divide en dos especies: la epiqueya y la justicia legal estricta. Esta justicia legal estricta contempla sólo el fin próximo de la ley; en cambio, la epiqueya contempla como objeto propio el fin remoto, que es el intentado principalmente por el legislador. De esto se sigue que la justicia legal presta atención a las palabras legales según han sido escritas; la epiqueya, en cambio, más allá de las palabras de la ley, sigue a veces la ley según la exigencia de la idea de justicia y de la utilidad común. De modo que el nombre de justicia legal se acomodaría mejor a la justicia que contempla las palabras de la ley; y el nombre de epiqueya, al fin último.

Por tanto, el derecho –que es el arte de lo bueno y justo– al que se remite la epi­que­ya no es el derecho escrito, sino el natural: si la epiqueya obra en contra de las palabras del derecho escrito es para conservar sano su sentido, man­teniendo intacto el derecho natural.

Esa reconducción práctica que se llama epiqueya encierra dos tipos de principios: unos de dirección, otros de realización.

 *

6. El principio directivo de la epiqueya: el discernimiento

a) La sensatez en la justicia legal estricta

El principio directivo de la justicia legal estricta es la sensatez, llamada por Aristóteles synesis: es el buen juicio, pero no en el orden especulativo, sino en el práctico[30], o sea, en el plano de las acciones. Pero una cosa es el buen consejo y otra el juicio sensato, ya que hay muchos que aconsejan bien y no son sen­satos, es decir, no juzgan con acierto[31]. Lo mismo sucede en el orden espe­culativo: algunos son aptos para investigar, porque su intelecto es hábil para discurrir de unas cosas a otras, pero a veces esos mismos no saben juzgar bien por defecto de su intelecto[32].

La sensatez o buen juicio consiste en que el intelecto comprenda una cosa co­mo es en sí misma. Esto se produce por la recta disposición de la facultad apre­hensiva, de la misma manera que un espejo en buenas condiciones re­produce las formas de los cuerpos como son, mientras que, si está en malas condiciones, los reproduce deformados. Pues bien, la buena disposición del intelecto para captar las cosas como son proviene radicalmente de la naturaleza, pero en cuanto a su perfección depende del ejercicio. “Esto puede acontecer de dos maneras –explica Santo Tomás–. Primera, directamente o por parte del mismo intelecto; por ejemplo, que no está imbuido por concepciones depra­vadas, sino verdaderas y rectas. Esto atañe a la sensatez en cuanto virtud especial. Segunda: indirectamente, por la buena disposición de la voluntad, de la cual se sigue el juicio recto sobre los bienes deseables. De esta manera, los hábitos de las virtudes morales influyen sobre un juicio recto virtuoso en torno a los fines, mientras que la sensatez se ocupa más de los medios”[33].

*

b) El discernimiento en la epiqueya

El principio directivo de la epiqueya es el discernimiento, llamado gnome por Aristóteles. Es la virtud de los casos excepcionales –de la situaciones insó­litas– que escapan a los principios comunes y remiten a los principios supe­riores del derecho natural[34]: enseña cómo recurrir con acierto a las normas supe­riores del derecho natural que escapan a toda codificación, y permite evitar equi­vocaciones en el uso de la reconducción práctica. Ella es la que sirve de guía en la aplicación de esta reconducción, preservándola de todo abuso y permitiendo al mismo tiempo asegurar todas las ventajas. “A veces –dice Santo Tomás– se presenta la necesidad de hacer alguna cosa al margen de las reglas comunes de acción, como, por ejemplo, denegar el depósito al traidor a la patria, o cosas semejantes. De ahí que es necesario juzgar esas cosas en función de unos principios superiores a las reglas comunes por las que juzga la sensatez. Pues bien, hay una virtud superior que juzga según esos principios superiores. Es la virtud llamada discernimiento, que entraña cierta perspicacia de juicio”[35].

Si bien la sensatez [synesis] juzga de todo cuanto sucede conforme a las re­glas comunes, lo cierto es que “hay cosas que se deben juzgar fuera de esas reglas comunes”[36]. Lo que ocurre es que únicamente el ser divino podría juzgar con solvencia todo lo que puede acontecer fuera del curso normal de la natu­raleza; y sólo los hombres con más lucidez pueden juzgar con su intelecto mu­chas de esas cosas. Ésta es la función de la virtud llamada discernimiento, “que entraña cierta perspicacia de juicio”[37].

La sensatez y el discernimiento son partes de la prudencia distintas debido a los diversos principios sobre los que juzgan; pues la primera juzga según las reglas comunes, en cambio el discernimiento juzga sobre lo que se ha de hacer, según la razón natural, en aquellas cosas en las que falla la ley común.

De aquí se sigue que la reconducción práctica no se ejerce a favor del interés personal o de la libertad individual y en contra la letra de la ley; y sólo se aplica cuando, en el fondo, hay un conflicto entre la ley positiva y la ley natural: bási­camente porque la ley impone una norma insuficiente –lo cual podría incluso obligar a trascender la letra de la ley–. En este caso, la reconducción práctica, en vez de liberar de las leyes escritas e imponer el interés personal puede establecer otros deberes más acordes con la justicia natural.

Es claro, por tanto, que aquí se cumple el principio gnoseológico y ontoló­gico de que el acto regulado se distingue del acto regulante: el acto de la epi­que­ya es regulado por un juicio prudencial (el discernimiento) con el que el prudente juzga que la ley falla en este caso concreto, a la vez que juzga que el le­gislador no ha querido obligar en dicho caso: efectivamente, partiendo de este juicio, la voluntad del súbdito es movida a obrar contra las palabras de la ley. Luego, dado que ese juicio es producido por la virtud intelectual llamada discernimiento [gnome], la consecuencia es que se trata de un acto distinto del acto volitivo de la epiqueya.

 *

7. El principio de realización en la epiqueya: la justicia

1. Los principios de realización de la epiqueya están en la justicia. O sea, la epiqueya es parte de la justicia. Pero parte subjetiva, no integral ni potencial. Como antes se ha dicho, partes subjetivas –también llamadas especies de una totalidad– son aquéllas de las que se predica esencialmente el todo, como “ani­mal” se dice del caballo y del buey. “Así pues, la epiqueya es parte subjetiva de la justicia entendida en sentido general; es como una cierta especie de justicia, según dice el Filósofo en Ethica (V). Y de esta justicia se dice que es parte con más propiedad que de la justicia legal, pues la justicia legal está sometida a la epiqueya. Por tanto, la epiqueya es como una norma superior de los actos humanos”[38].

Como se puede comprender, la epiqueya misma no es el discernimiento [gnome]. La epiqueya pertenece a la voluntad, como parte de la justicia que reside en la voluntad; en cambio, el discernimiento pertenece al intelecto, como una parte de la prudencia que reside en la inteligencia práctica. Por lo que no era infrecuente en el Siglo de Oro llamar causalmente epiqueya al discernimien­to o incluso a la prudencia directiva, pues de manera connotativa, y como presupuesto, el juicio directivo del discernimiento –que juzga lo que deberá ha­cerse al margen de las reglas comunes– acompaña siempre a la epiqueya. Aun­que formalmente la epiqueya es la justiciaque en la ejecución se acomoda o ajusta a la ley según la intención contra las palabras de la propia ley.

Dado que tanto el discernimiento (en sentido causal) como la epiqueya (en sentido formal) van al margen de las reglas comunes, y ambos son una correc­ción y enmienda de la ley, solían designarse con el nombre de equidad, precisa­mente porque en ambas se salva la equidad o justicia, que modera el rigor y la severidad de las palabras de la ley: pero el juicio de discernimiento [gnome] es el dirigente y regulante; el acto de epiqueya es el ejecutante.

Y como la principal función de la virtud es realizar, de modo constante y fir­me, el fin de la ley natural, la reconducción práctica que cumple todos los re­quisitos indicados ha de llamarse virtud. Es, en este caso, la virtud que Aris­tóteles llamó “epiqueya”. Esa reconducción práctica que es la epiqueya permite que el sujeto, al esquivar la letra de la ley, no debilite la ley misma, sino que la eleve.

En la medida en que propiamente la epiqueya pertenece a la justicia legal, en cierto modo está contenida en ella y en cierto modo la supera, como antes ha que­dado dicho. “Porque si se entiende por justicia legal la que se ajusta a la ley tanto a su letra como a la intención del legislador, que es lo principal, entonces la epiqueya es la parte principal de la justicia legal. Pero si se toma la justicia legal sólo en cuanto se ajusta a la letra de la ley, entonces la epiqueya no es parte de la justicia legal, sino de la justicia común, y se distingue de la legal porque la supera”[39].

2. Báñez, por su parte, subraya que como se distinguen formalmente el objeto de la justicia legal estricta y el objeto de la epiqueya, resulta que esas virtudes son distintas específicamente. Es más, el objeto de la epiqueya es “razón y medida” del objeto de la justicia legal designada de modo particular. Por eso, en la repetida “ley de no abrir las puertas de la ciudad en tiempo de guerra” es manifiesto que la salvación de la ciudad y la tranquilidad y esta­bilidad de la república es regla y medida con la que se debe evaluar si en ese momento los enemigos deben ser repelidos, o deben ser introducidos en la ciudad en el caso en que se espere la victoria con su entrada en la ciudad[40].

*   *   *

En resumen, de lo dicho por Vitoria se destacan siete puntos, también pre­sen­tes en la Escuela de Salamanca recogidos por Araújo[41].

Primero, que de la epiqueya se predica la noción de justicia esencialmente, al igual que de lo inferior se predica la superior; y, dado que no observa propiamente las palabras de la ley, sino la mente e intención del legislador de acuerdo con el bien común, por este motivo podría llamarse justicia legal de manera eminente.

Segundo, la epiqueya por su eminencia dirige y modera la justicia puramente legal, la cual contempla sólo las palabras de la ley; y se acomoda a esta justicia legal de manera más abarcadora o comprensiva.

Tercero, como la epiqueya es superior a la justicia legal, puede decirse que la justicia es legal analógicamente, predicándose tanto de la epiqueya como de la justicia legal, aunque el término “legal” se le aplique con preferencia a ésta y no a aquélla. Por otra parte, la justicia como término genérico comprende a todas sus partes subjetivas.

Cuarto, esta superioridad de la epiqueya se entiende a partir de la doctrina aris­totélica de que las virtudes se distinguen por los distintos principios que las originan y las dirigen; de la misma manera que en el campo especulativo se distinguen las virtudes de la sabiduría y de la ciencia –y la primera es más sublime que la segunda, puesto que juzga según unos principios más altos–, también, en el ámbito práctico el discernimiento [gnome] juzga sobre lo que se debe hacer según unos principios más altos que las reglas comunes según las cuales emite su juicio la sensatez [synesis]. El discernimiento y la sensatez, actividades intelectuales directivas, se distinguen específicamente, y aquél es más elevado que ésta, o está por encima de ella. De modo que cuando la epiqueya opera en contra de las palabras de la ley, o fuera de ellas, lo hace de acuerdo con unos principios más elevados (discernimiento) que las reglas comunes (sensatez) según las cuales opera la justicia legal. De ahí que, en cuan­to hábito, la epiqueya es más perfecta que la justicia legal.

Quinto, la justicia legal es corregida y enmendada por la epiqueya, a la vez que es regulada y dirigida por ella, pues le prohíbe acomodarse a la ley general según las palabras de la ley en un caso singular en el que falla la regla común a la que atiende la ley general.

Por eso decía Aristóteles que la epiqueya está por encima de lo justo legal, o por encima de lo justo pura y simplemente dicho. Eso lo dice porque la perfec­ción de la virtud se toma del motivo, pero no del motivo intrínseco subjetivo del operante, sino del motivo intrínseco objetivo de la obra y del fin realizable; ahora bien, el aunque los motivos del operante sean múltiples, el motivo intrín­seco objetivo y el fin realizable [qui] de la epiqueya es solamente uno y más elevado que el motivo de la justicia legal. En efecto, el motivo de la justicia legal es acomodarse a las leyes según las reglas comunes y según las palabras de las leyes. En cambio, el motivo de la epiqueya es acomodarse o ajustarse a las leyes según la mente del legislador, cuando al ajustarse a las solas palabras hay una oposición al bien común o al bien privado de otro; sin duda este motivo es abiertamente más sublime. Luego también la virtud que lo considera debe ser más sublime que la justicia legal; aunque la justicia legal, comparada con las otras partes de la justicia particular, se la califique como la más excelente de todas.

Sexto, la materia de la virtud de la epiqueya está en el foco de atención de cualquier persona (súbdito o gobernante) que tenga el discernimiento suficien­te, esto es, el juicio prudente sobre lo que debe hacerse según las reglas su­periores, en caso de que fallen las reglas comunes a las que considera la ley general. Es patente que la materia de la virtud de la epiqueya se encuentra en los casos singulares en los que, si se observaran las palabras de la ley, se violaría la ley natural y se perjudicaría el derecho común, o, incluso, el derecho de una persona privada. El legislador, al no poder abarcar y examinar todos o cada uno de los casos, establece las leyes de acuerdo con los acontecimientos que ocurren la mayor parte de las veces [ut in pluribus], ofreciendo y pre­sentando su intención de servir al bien común. Por lo tanto, si surge un caso en el que la observancia de la ley es dañina para el bien común, no se deberá respetar. No es infeliz el ejemplo recurrente de la “ley que establece que permanezcan cerradas las puertas en una ciudad cercada”; este ejemplo explica suficientemente que si se presenta el caso en el que algunos ciudadanos –con los que la ciudad se conservaría sana y salva– están fuera de la ciudad, y llaman para que se les abran las puertas, se les han de abrir éstas en contra de las palabras de la ley, con el fin de que se conserve la utilidad común que pretendió el legislador.

Es obvio que el peligro por el que el súbdito puede apartarse de la letra de la ley, conducido por su propio juicio sin recurrir al superior, debe ser un peligro evidente y súbito, a la vez que nocivo para una comunidad o una persona: lo que en la mayoría de los casos es un precepto orientado al beneficio de la comuni­dad, no es conveniente en relación un caso concreto o a una persona concreta, puesto que con él se impediría una cosa mejor o se introduciría algún mal. Ahora bien, sólo cuando amenaza un peligro evidente y súbito sería aplicable la epiqueya.

Séptimo, la materia de la epiqueya, que no sólo se opone al bien común, sino también al bien de una persona privada–, esa oposición sebe ser evidente –como se ha dicho–, pero también sería suficiente una oposición probable, que sea moralmente evidente. La suficiente materia de la epiqueya es, pues, una oposición evidente al bien común, o al bien de una persona privada, y además, es materia suficiente de la epiqueya la oposición probable. Así, en los ejemplos ya nombrados, si se devuelve el depósito el daño es probable; si se entrega al violento la espada depositada para matar a un inocente o para destruir la patria, el daño es evidente.

En resumen, la materia de la epiqueya se opone de manera evidente o probable al bien común o al bien de una persona privada. Pero cada súbdito está obligado según su capacidad a evitar el daño de la comunidad o del prójimo y a conservar ileso el derecho de ambos, y a no cooperar a la injusticia en contra del derecho natural. Y también cada uno puede y debe (como en el caso citado sobre el depósito) ejercer el acto de la epiqueya que se aleja de las palabras de la ley, pero siempre con el fin de observar la ley natural y evitar la injusticia de otro.

*

 8. La unidad de la virtud de la justicia

 

Pero, ¿por qué la sensatez y el discernimiento son dos virtudes distintas, mien­tras que la justicia legal estricta y la epiqueya son modos de una misma virtud, siendo así que ambos dinamismos corren paralelos? “En la mayoría de las ocasiones –explica Báñez reiterando la doctrina del Aquinate– las virtudes se multiplican más fácilmente en la voluntad que en el intelecto, porque el intelecto es potencia más simple y más perfecta que la voluntad: las cosas que en las facultades inferiores están dispersas, suelen unirse en las facultades superiores. Pero a veces, acaece lo opuesto, a saber, que se multiplican las luces en el intelecto por las que las realidades se aclaran y se perfeccionan y, por parte de la voluntad, no se multiplica la inclinación y la propensión a las realidades”.

A este propósito, Báñez recuerda la doctrina de los hábitos especulativos y de los hábitos prácticos, poniéndolos en relación. Por ejemplo, en el intelecto hay dos hábitos acerca de los primeros principios, uno llamado “intelecto especulativo” acerca de los principios especulativos, y otro llamado “intelecto práctico” (o sindéresis) sobre los principios prácticos y morales. En cambio, por parte de la voluntad, no hay dos hábitos –ni siquiera uno especial respecto al bien connatural, mostrado por la luz del intelecto–, sino que la voluntad sola, sin hábito sobreañadido, es propensa e inclinada a un bien de ese género; aún más, la propia voluntad es la misma propensión e inclinación. Otro ejemplo: en el ám­bito especulativo, el intelecto posee un hábito acerca de los primeros prin­cipios (el intelecto) y otro acerca de las conclusiones (la razón); y, sin embargo, en la voluntad es uno solo e idéntico el hábito de virtud acerca de los medios elegibles y acerca del fin de la virtud. Volviendo con estos ejemplos a la pre­gunta planteada sobre la unidad de la virtud de la justicia, aplica a esta virtud la misma doctrina que vige, por ejemplo, para la templanza: “Así, un solo hábito de templanza forma la buena intención acerca de una materia y la buena elección de los medios al fin pretendido, aunque, sin embargo, en el intelecto, tam­bién en el ámbito práctico, hay cuatro hábitos o virtudes para la operación de la templanza o de cualquier otra virtud, a saber, el consejo [eubulía], la sensatez [sínesis], el discernimiento [gnome] y la prudencia”[42]. Y lo mismo se diga de la justicia.

 *

 9. Las deformaciones de la reconducción práctica: formalismo y laxismo

1. Es preciso advertir que esta explicación de la reconducción práctica de la ley humana a la ley natural está basada en dos grandes principios metafísicos: de un lado, el principio gnoseológico de la cognoscibilidad interna y objetiva del orden natural mismo; de otro lado, el principio antropológico de la autono­mía finita del hombre. Como es sabido, aquel principio gnoseológico, que otorgaba una confianza al proceder de la inteligencia, sería cuestionado por el voluntarismo nominalista de Ockham. El principio antropológico, que otorgaba al sujeto humano cierta independencia en el ser y en el obrar, quedaría roto por Lutero[43], unido en este caso también al nominalismo. Sin sujeto responsable y sin inteligencia cognoscitiva sobraba la precisa explicación aristotélica de la epiqueya.

Por el impulso del voluntarismo quedó, de un lado, marginado el intelecto que podía penetrar la realidad y dictar, bajo las exigencias de ésta, la ley o el derecho; y de otro lado, el legislador establecía la ley solamente en virtud de su autoridad. La reconducción práctica de la ley acontecía entonces verticalmente: primero, trasformándose, por arriba, en dispensa que el legislador otorgaba por su clemencia a un ser subordinado a la ley; segundo, convirtiéndose, por abajo, en liberación de los preceptos que al sujeto se le habían impuesto sin justificación racional. La epiqueya dejó de ser la regla superior de los actos del hombre como ser autónomo (actitud ética), para convertirse en una función de la ley (actitud legal): lo importante era entonces determinar a qué leyes podría ser aplicable la epiqueya, mera técnica de mitigación del derecho [mitigatio iuris] y no ya expresión de la autonomía y racionalidad del hombre [superior regula humanorum actuum][44].

2. Además si la reconducción práctica carece de discernimiento no podrá evitar una desproporción por defecto: someterse a la esclavitud de la letra, caer en el legalismo, vicio de literalismo: querrá regular con principios ordinarios situaciones extraordinarias, sin intentar pasar por encima de los términos de la ley para reencontrar su espíritu. El uso insuficiente de la reconducción práctica queda ligado a la letra de la ley, cuando sería necesario rebasar el texto legal y juzgar su acción conforme a principios más elevados. “La epiqueya –dice Santo Tomás– no descuida la justicia sin más, sino lo justo establecido por una ley particular. Tampoco se opone a la severidad, que es inflexible cuando es nece­sario cumplir la ley; pero es vicioso ser esclavo de la ley cuando no es necesario”[45].

Cuando otro maestro de la Escuela de Salamanca, Báñez, enfoca este asunto recuerda que el objeto de la epiqueya tiene una especial dificultad, por encima del objeto de la justicia legal estricta o especial. Es lo que le mostraba la expe­riencia: “pues vemos a hombres, por otra parte sabios y entendidos en derecho y celosos de la ley, que, sin embargo, se ajustan a las palabras y literalidad de la ley tan escrupulosamente que no prestan atención a la intención del legislador”. Esos caen en el legalismo o literalismo. Pues cuando se intenta ajustar el derecho a la literalidad y a las palabras, aplicándolo con extremo rigor, habría que decir que no se ha de hacer caso a los jurisperitos. De ahí tuvo su origen el famoso proverbio: summum ius, summa inniuria: el derecho, aplicado al pie de la letra, es la mayor injusticia[46]. Y aclara Báñez: “Evidentemente, en este pro­verbio, las palabras summum ius no significan el rigor y la severidad del dere­cho, pues la dureza del derecho nunca es injusticia, sino que summum ius es lo mismo que la sumaridad y la superficie del derecho, que es lo que da a entender la literalidad del derecho”[47].

En realidad, la actitud más opuesta a la epiqueya es la del legalismo de la letra, el adherirse en exceso o inorportunamente a las palabras de la ley.

Los maestros de la Escuela de Salamanca solían explicar que la ley humana cons­ta de palabras –como materia o cuerpo– y de la intención del legislador
–co­mo alma–; el juicio de la epiqueya va, sobre las palabras o cuerpo, a la intención o alma de la ley. Es posible que las palabras se extiendan a una cosa a la que no se extiende la intención, lo que es el fundamento de la epiqueya.

Aquellos maestros reconocían que en el fondo de una interpretación literal se esconde con frecuencia “la mayor de las injusticias”. El juez, sobre todo, se aparta del verdadero derecho y comete grandísima injusticia, cuando se hace esclavo de la literalidad de la ley y no se fija en sus fundamentos o principios, que rigen también para el legislador. Por eso fue traducida la epiqueya también por equidad, “la cual es evidentemente un nombre genérico a toda justicia, o sea, es el nombre por antonomasia y por una cierta excelencia precisamente por­que la llamada justicia legal en sentido estricto, si se compara con la equidad, es, como separada, opuesta a ella, o sea, es injusticia. Toda la equidad, pues, que se encuentra en la justicia legal en sentido estricto, debe ser subordinada a la virtud de la equidad, la cual, así, es llamada equidad por excelencia”[48].

3. Precisamente el peligro de laxismo reside ya en el delicado acto esencial de la epiqueya, a saber, el de ajustarse a la ley, no según las palabras escritas, sino según la mente del legislador. La desproporción por exceso, en detrimento del derecho verdadero o de la sumisión a la autoridad, empuja hacia el laxismo, vicio de inconsideración: juzgará que incluso son excepcionales las situaciones que cuadran de hecho con las reglas corrientes de la actividad moral o legal. El sujeto tenderá, conscientemente o no, a favorecerse a sí mismo en detrimento de la ley positiva, estando pronto a concluir que su caso escapa a las normas ordi­narias y a la ley que le es molesta. Y no olvidemos que cualquier persona, sea súbdito o superior, puede ejercer el acto de la epiqueya, pero obrando en contra o fuera de las palabras escritas, sin salvar la intención de la ley.

El laxismo estriba en hacer caso omiso de las palabras sin seguir la intención del legislador, sino ateniéndose a una intención propia o personal.

Ya se dijo que la epiqueya no interpreta pura y simplemente la ley, sino que la interpreta en un caso en el que es manifiesto, mediante la evidencia de un da­ño, que el legislador ha pretendido una cosa distinta; pero si hubiera duda, debe o actuar de acuerdo con las palabras de la ley, o consultar al legislador. La epi­queya puede ejercerla cualquier persona a la que le corresponde observar la ley. Todo súbdito puede obrar al margen de las palabras de la ley, guardando la intención de la misma, cuando surge un caso en el que observar la ley al pie de la letra fuera dañino para el bien común. Pues quien en caso de necesidad actúa al margen de las palabras de la ley, no ha de enjuiciar la ley, sino solamente el ca­so particular en el que observa que las palabras de la ley no deben ser respetadas.

4. Dado que en nombre del carácter excepcional de una situación concreta la reconducción práctica exige o permite rebasar los términos de una ley conce­bida y formulada precisamente para servir de norma, ¿no daría esto lugar inclu­so a una moral de situación?

No. Porque si la reconducción práctica se constituye como virtud, o sea, como epiqueya, difiere totalmente de la moral de situación, pues siempre se subordinará a la ley[49]. Cuando se sustrae legítimamente a la letra de la ley positiva (y no a la ley natural), no lo hace para escapar de toda norma objetiva y lograr una solución puramente subjetiva, pues se limita a respetar la jerarquía de valores y pasar a un nivel superior de obligación. La situación no encuentra su norma objetiva en la letra de la ley positiva, sino en una ley objetiva más alta, de portada más universal, en la ley natural misma.

Cuando la ley no falla contrariamente, sino sólo negativamente, no tiene lu­gar la epiqueya: entonces el súbdito debe observar la ley según sus palabras en las cosas manifiestas. Porque la ley general puede fallar en algo singular de dos modos[50]: o contrariamente, esto es, cuando no puede ser observada en dicho caso sin cometer un acto inmoral, puesto que de su observancia se sigue un daño a la comunidad o a una persona, cosa que está obligado a evitar el súbdito; y en estos casos tiene lugar la epiqueya, y por este motivo le está permitido al súbdito obrar al margen de la ley, o en contra de las palabras de la ley. O la ley general puede fallar de un segundo modo: negativamente, esto es, cuando en un caso singular o en una persona concreta cesa la utilidad de la ley, pero no se sigue una injusticia o un daño injusto. En estas circunstancias, la ley puede ser observada sin cometer un acto inmoral, y entonces no le es lícito al súbdito actuar en contra de las palabras de la ley, sino que está obligado a someterse a ella, porque no es materia de epiqueya o de justicia.

Y esto es patente por dos razones. Primera, porque la epiqueya tiene lugar cuando la observancia de la ley es nociva al bien común: la única y adecuada materia de la justicia o equidad se da cuando es un mal seguir las palabras de la ley y cuando la justicia exige lo opuesto a la ley. Segunda, porque al ser la ley regla de los actos humanos, intentando también el bien común, si de su obser­vancia se sigue una cosa desordenada contra las buenas costumbres o nociva al bien común, es preciso que entonces pierda su capacidad y fuerza de obligar, que, no obstante, retiene cuantas veces esos males no se siguen, aunque no se siga utilidad alguna de la ley o no se consiga su fin. En efecto, cuantas veces la ley puede ser observada sin cometer un acto inmoral, conviene que sea observada por todos los súbditos debido a la conformidad y equidad que todos los súbditos están obligados a guardar; obrar de otra manera es laxismo, que abriría la puerta a muchas transgresiones de las leyes.

5. En fin, la obediencia a la ley positiva no puede, sin más, anularse. Ya se ha señalado antes que Vitoria, siguiendo al Estagirita y al Aquinate, había ense­ñado que hay dos especies de lo justo, una natural –que nace de la naturaleza de las cosas absolutamente consideradas–, y otra positiva –puesta por la voluntad y acuerdo de los hombres–. Pues bien, la doctrina común de los autores de la Escuela de Salamanca, inspirados en Santo Tomás, es la siguiente: aunque las leyes temporales –escritas– dependan de la institución y jurisdicción de los hombres, sin embargo, una vez que han sido instituídas y aprobadas, no pueden los jueces someterlas a su arbitrio. Soto contempla en este punto dos casos: que la ley escrita contenga lo justo natural, o que contenga sólo lo justo legal. “Cuando la ley escrita contiene lo que es justo naturalmente, ni el gobernante, ni los súbditos pueden obrar en contra de ella, sino que a ella han de acomodarse en todos sus juicios. Y la razón es que dichas leyes no son consti­tutivas de eso justo, sino sólo declarativas. Y así, eso justo recibe su fuerza no de la ley, sino de la misma manera de ser de las cosas”[51].

Claro es que si tanto el legislador como el súbdito están bajo la ley natural, no es lícito dudar que ha de juzgarse siempre según las leyes naturales. La cues­tión está particularmente acerca de las leyes escritas, entre las cuales se encuen­tra la ley humana. Sobre ella dice Soto: “Cuando la ley escrita es humana, lo mismo el gobernante que los súbditos están obligados a atenerse en sus juicios a ella, mientras no se oponga al derecho natural. Y seprueba porque, si bien tales leyes no son declarativas del derecho natural, son, sin embargo, cons­titutivas del derecho que los hombres juzgaron conveniente establecer, teniendo en cuenta las condiciones de los tiempos y de los países”[52].

Evidentemente sólo el legislador puede dispensar, interpretar y enjuiciar la ley que desde su autoridad ha sido establecida. Pero aún así Báñez puntualiza: “En las causas civiles el jefe de la república o el supremo senado rarísimamente puede dispensar en la ley, o juzgar de un modo distinto de lo que la ley enseña. Esto es así porque va contra el derecho natural que, después de haber sido uno constituído en dueño de una finca o de otro bien mediante un contrato legítimo, sea despojado contra su voluntad de aquel bien. Aún más, se dirá más bien que esta expoliación es un hurto o depredación. Ahora bien, el jefe de la república no puede dispensar ni en el hurto ni en nada que sea contra el derecho natural; luego, al publicar las sentencias, debe observar las prescripciones de la ley”[53]. También la dispensa, por parte del legislador, tiene el límite del derecho natural.

En conclusión: la epiqueya está dispuesta a corresponder lo más perfec­tamente posible a la realidad concreta, cuando excepcionalmente el caso singular escapa a la letra de la ley, manteniendo una actitud justa ante la auto­ridad. Guiada por el discernimiento, la reconducción práctica no es una mera interpretación de la ley, sino una virtud: la epiqueya, la cual no permite zafarse de las exigencias de la ley.

[1]     Francisco de Vitoria, De iustitia, q60, a5, n1; también: Comentario al tratado de la ley, q96 a6.

[2]     “Leges dantur in universali, et ideo in aliquibus casibus particularibus esset iniustum servare verba legis”; Francisco de Vitoria, De iustitia, q60, a5, n5.

[3]     Francisco de Vitoria, De iustitia, q57, a2, n2.

[4]     Francisco de Vitoria, De iustitia q57, a2, n2.

[5]     “Sermones enim morales universales sunt minus utiles, eo quod actiones in particularibus sunt”;Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Prol.

[6]     Francisco de Vitoria, Francisco de Vitoria, Comentario al tratado de la ley, q96, a6.

[7]     Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q120, a1, ad2.

[8]     Francisco de Vitoria, Comentario al tratado de la ley, q97, a4. El nombre de dispensa, en cuanto a su significación etimológica, significa la distribución de cosas comunes o dinero a muchos, hecha con cierta medida y proporción: y así tanto el administrador como el ecónomo se llamaban “dispensatores”. Metafóricamente el nombre de “dispensatio” se ha llevado a significar la gestión y la administración de un bien, sea material o espiritual. En este último caso, la dispen­sa es cierta distribución de benignidad que debe haber en el gobernante, cuando a unos los deja so­metidos bajo el yugo de la ley, en tanto que a otros los exime de él, por una causa justa y razonable. Pero pasando de la significación etimológica a la significación real, la dispensa es la licencia o facultad de obrar contra la ley, concedida a una persona particular por el gobernante, con una causa justa: la persona singular queda liberada de cumplir la ley con la autorización del gobernante. La dispensa exime a uno de una ley general en un caso en el que estaba obligado por vínculo de la ley, y, para hacerlo, exige una causa justa. Pertenece dispensar en la ley solamente al gobernante que la ha aprobado.

[9]     Según la fórmula de los juristas romanos, transmitida a lo largo de la Edad Media: “Dispensatio est communis iuris relaxatio”; Tomás de Aquino, In IV Sententiarum, d44, q1, a3, qcla4, ad1.

[10]    Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q96, a6.

[11]    Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q120, a1, ad3.

[12]    Baste señalar, aunque muy someramente, que para ciertas corrientes modernas que aceptan al­gu­nos supuestos de Dilthey –como es el caso de Heidegger, Gadamer, Ricoeur, entre otros–, ex­pli­car [Erklären] hace referencia a lo abstracto, a lo universal, a lo repetible; en cambio, com­prender [Verstehen] se refiere a lo concreto, a lo particular, a lo irrepetible. La teoría de la “com­pren­sión” es un punto nuclear de la hermenéutica. Cfr. E. Betti, Teoria generale della interpre­ta­zione, Giuffrè, Milano, 1955; H. G. Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philo­so­phischen Hermeneutik, Gesammelte Werke, Band 1, Mohr, Tübingen, 61990; M. Jung, Hermeneutik zur Einführung, Junius Verlag, Hamburg, 2002; P. Ricoeur, Le conflit des inter­prétations, Seuil, Paris, 1969; G. H. von Wrigth, Erklären und Verstehen, Philo Verlagge­sellschaft, Berlín, 42000; F. M. Wimmer, Beschreiben, Erklären. Zur Pro­blematik geschichtlicher Ereignisse (Simposion 57), Alber, Freiburg-München, 1978.

[13]    Francisco de Vitoria, De iustitia, q120, a1. Para una visión histórica de la epiqueya, en su sentido moral, pueden con­sultarse las siguientes monografías: F. D’Agostino, Epieikeia. Il tema dell’equità nell’antiquità greca, Giuffrè, Milano, 1973; La tradizione dell’epieikeia nel Medioevo latino. Un contributo alla storia dell’idea di equità, Giuffrè, Milano, 1976. L. J. Ryley, The History, Nature and Use of Epikeia in Moral Theology, Dissertatione, Washington, 1948.

Hago asimismo mención de los siguientes artículos: F. D’Agostino, “Equità e remissione dei peccati in Martin Lutero”, Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia del Diritto, 1975 (52), pp. 217-244; “Il tema dell’epieikeia nella Sacra Scrittura”, Rivista de teologia morale, 1973 (19), pp. 385-406; E. Elorduy, “La epiqueya en la sociedad cambiante. Teoría de Suárez”, Anuario de Filosofía del Derecho, 1967-68 (13), pp. 229-253; J. Giers, “Die Gerechtigkeitslehre des jungen Suárez”, Edition und Untersuchung seiner römischer Vorlesungen De Iustitia et Iure, Herder, Freiburg i.B., 1958, pp. 186-193; E. Hamel, “Fontes graeci doctrinae de epikeia”, Periodica de re morali, canonica, liturgica, 1964 (53), pp. 169-185; G. Kisch, “Das Epieikeiaproblem bei Aegidius Romanus”, en Erasmus und die Jurisprudenz seiner Zeit, Helbing und Lichtenhahn, Basel, 1960, pp. 407-433; “Die Aequitaslehre des Marsilius von Padua”, en Festschrift für Hermann Rennfahrt, Berlin, 1958, pp. 413-422; M. Müller, “Der heilige Albertus Magnus und die Lehre von der Epikie”, Divus Thomas (Frib.), 1934 (12), pp. 165-182; E. Pérez, “Valor normativo de los principios universales del derecho natural según san Alberto”, Angelicum, 1971 (48), pp. 378-447; O. Robleda, “La aequitas en Aristóteles, Cicerón, Santo Tomás y Suárez. Estudio comparativo”, Miscelanea Comillas, 1951 (15), pp. 241-279. Son de gran interés, desde el punto de vista histórico, las páginas dedicadas a la epiqueya por H. G. Gadamer en Wahrheit und Methode.

[14]    A veces es conveniente que se produzca la dispensa de algunas leyes por causas justas. Existe clara defectibilidad de las leyes humanas en casos singulares, puesto que las leyes se preocupan de lo que es conveniente en la mayor parte de los casos. Ahora bien, esta conveniencia podría faltar en muy pocos casos, o en un caso singular o en una persona concreta; en esas circunstancias el legislador dispensa otorgando la licencia de no observar el precepto de la ley porque falla la razón que motiva la ley.

Las causas justas de la dispensa se solían reducir a cuatro: la mutación o cambio de los tiempos, la necesidad, la utilidad común y la condición de una persona. A su vez, la dispensa se desintegra por las mismas vías que la originan. Y como la ley humana nace de la sola voluntad y potestad del gobernante –superior que vela por el bien común–, solamente puede desintegrarse y perder su vigencia mediante su voluntad y potestad, cosa que se produce con la dispensa.

Ahora bien, si la dispensa se hace sin una causa razonable es ilícita tanto por parte de quien la otorga (porque abusa de la potestad dispensadora, que le ha sido dada para edificar, no para destruir), como por parte de quien la pide (porque al pedir la dispensa sin causa, induce al legislador a excederse). Cfr. Francisco de Vitoria, De potestate Papae et Concilii, prop. 14 y 15.

[15]    La interpretación de la ley pertenece esencial y directamente al propio legislador. Pues la interpretación es la explicación del verdadero y legítimo sentido de la ley cuando ésta contiene alguna duda u oscuridad. Pero nadie puede explicar más convenientemente el sentido legítimo de la ley que el propio gobernante o legislador. A su vez, la interpretación del gobernante y del legislador supremo, cuando aclara la ley en un caso concreto y explica su sentido, tiene fuerza de ley universal que se extiende a todos los demás casos semejantes. La ley es en sí misma una sentencia muerta y no puede explicarse a sí misma; en cambio, el gobernante o legislador es ley viva, dado que habla y explica su mente propia.

[16]    “Sed est dubium de qua lege intelligitur quod liceat uti epicheia; an liceat contra legem naturalem, vel solum contra positivam. Respondetur quod contra omnem legem licet uti illa. Sed tamen de naturali et divina intelligatis quod est lex aliqua ita necessaria, quod in nullo casu potest deficere, et in illis non possumus uti epicheia; sed in illis quae possunt deficere, bene licet uti epicheia”; Francisco de Vitoria, De iustitia, q120, a1, n4.

[17]    “Dubitatur secundo, an interpretare legem sit epicheia quando est dubium quomodo intelliga­tur lex. Respondetur quod non. Est manifestissima differentia, nam interpretatio legis est an lex teneat in isto casu cum dubio. Sed ad epicheiam requiritur quod nullo modo sit sub dubio, sed quod sit notum, quia opus est mera exequutione. Unde sequitur corollarium: quod virtus epicheia pertinet ad subditos, et non solum ad principes […]. Tamen quod epicheia pertineat ad subditum sine superiore, intelligitur cum duabus limitationibus. Primo, quando res est aperta. Secundo, quando est periculum in mora, quia alias esset contemptus; denique tunc peninet ad subditum quando est in extrema necessitate. Tertio, quando est evidens quod nocet; nam si est aliquale dubium, non exspectat ad illud, sed sufficit quod sit notum secundum evidentiam moralem, sed non conjecturam. Sed quomodo oportet esse manifestum, an quomodocumque noceat lex? Respondetur quod non. Dato sit notum quod noceat, si non sit notum quod notabiliter noceat, non oportet uti epicheia”; Francisco de Vitoria, De iustitia, q120, a1, n4.

[18]    “Sed dubilatur an sit virtus quae semper obliget, ita quod omissio illius esset peccatum mor­tale. Respondetur quod sic semper obligat, et hoc est quod sonat dicere, quod est pars subjectiva justitiae, et non integralis, sicut sunt aliae virtutes”; Francisco de Vitoria, De iustitia, q120, a1, n4.

Los clásicos distinguían tres tipos de partes: las integrales, las subjetivas y las potenciales. He aquí un texto del Aquinate sobre el particular: “Las integrales son como las partes de una casa: la pared, el techo, el cimiento; subjetivas, como la vaca y el león en el género animal; potenciales, como la virtud nutritiva y la sensitiva en el alma. Así, pues, son tres los modos de poder asignar partes a una virtud. El primero, por semejanza con las partes integrales. En este caso se dice que son partes de una virtud determinada aquellos elementos que necesariamente deben concurrir para el acto perfecto de la misma […]. Las partes subjetivas de una virtud las llamamos especies de la misma […]. Se consideran asimismo partes potenciales de una virtud las virtudes anexas ordenadas a otros actos o materias secundarias porque no poseen la potencialidad total de la virtud principal: en este sentido se consideran partes de la prudencia el consejo recto [eubulia]; la sensatez (synesis), para juzgar lo que sucede ordinariamente; y el discernimiento [gnome], para juzgar aquellas circunstancias en las que es conveniente, a veces, apartarse de las leyes comunes. La prudencia, por su parte, se ocupa del acto principal, que es el precepto o imperio”; Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q48, a1.

Muy pocos autores del Siglo de Oro afirmaron que la epiqueya es sólo parte potencial, o anexa, de la justicia y, por tanto, no sujeta a ésta, de modo que la epiqueya no sería una especie de justicia. Aristóteles (Ethica, V, c10) había dicho claramente que la epiqueya es una parte de la justicia legal; por tanto también Vitoria indica quela justicia legal, considerada en general, se divide primeramente en epiqueya y en justicia legal estricta, como partes subjetivas suyas.

[19]    Aristóteles, Ethica Nicomachea, V, c10, 1137 b 15-18..

[20]    Tomás de Aquino, In Ethicam, V, c10, lect16, n774.

[21]    Aristóteles, Ethica Nicomachea, V, c10, 1137 b 18-20.

[22]    Tomás de Aquino, In Ethicam, V, c10, lect16, n776.

[23]    Aristóteles, Ethica Nicomachea, V, c10, 1137 b 22-24.

[24]    Tomás de Aquino, Sententia libri Ethicorum, libro V, cap. 10, lect. XVI, n. 776.

[25]    Aristóteles, Ethica Nicomachea, V, 10, 1137 b 22-24.

[26]    Aristóteles, Ethica Nicomachea, V, 10, 1137 b 25-29.

[27]    Tomás de Aquino, In Ethicam, V, c10, lect16, n778. Entre los trabajos más específicamente dedicados a Santo Tomás sobre la epiqueya, pueden con­sul­tarse: J. Arntz, “Lo sviluppo del pen­siero giusnaturalistico all’in­terno del to­mismo”, en AA.VV., Dibattito sul diritto naturale, Bres­cia, 1970, pp. 115-147; A. Creve, “De epikeia volgens S. Thomas en Suárez”, Miscellanea Jan­ssen, I, Lou­vain, 1949, pp. 255 ss.; F. E. Crowe, “Universal Norms and te con­crete operabile in St. Thomas Aquinas”, Sciences Ecclésiastiques, 1955 (7), pp. 283-284; A. Di Marino, “L’epikeia christiana”, Divus Thomas, 1952 (29), pp. 396-424; R. Egenter, “Über die Bedeutung der Epikie im sittlichen Leben”, Phi­losophisches Jahrbuch, 1940 (53), pp. 115-127; J. Giers, “Epikie und Sittlichkeit. Gestalt und Gestaltwander einer Tugend”, Der Mensch unter Gottes Anruf und Ordnung (ed. Hauser/Scholz), Düsseldorf, 1958, pp. 51-67; E. Hamel, “La vertu d’épikie”, Sciences Ecclésiastiques, 1961 (13), pp. 35-55; “L’usage de l’épikie”, Studia Mo­ralia dell’Acca­demia Alfonsiana, 1965 (3), pp. 49-60; P. E. Hugon, “De epikeia et aequitate”, Angelicum, 1928 (5), pp. 359-367; W. Schöllgen, “Die Lehrpunkte von der Epikie und vom klei­neren Übel auf dem Hintergrund der Klugheit als einer Sittlichen Tugend”, Anima, 1960 (15), pp. 42-51.

[28]    “Sed dubitatur ad quam justitiam exspectat. Respondetur quod ad justitiam legalem. Sed an idem sit quod justitia legalis? De hoc notate quod sanctus Thomas diversimode loquitur, quia in I-II q96 videtur dicere quod idem sit justitia legalis et epicheia; hic vero melius respondet cum distinctione. Justitia legalis potest accipi dupliciter: uno modo, pro illo quod est expressum in lege; alio modo accipitur latius ad illa quae ratio naturalis dictat. Et tunc in solutione ad primum ponit sanctus Thomas duas conclusiones. Prima est: si accipiatur primo modo epicheia, distin­guitur a justitia legali. Secunda conclusio: si accipiatur secundo modo, tunc epicheia est quaedam species justitiae. Si tamen exacte vultis loqui, dicatis quod distinguitur a justitia legali, nam justitia legalis proprie capiendo, accipitur pro verbis scriptis in lege, et sic melius est dicere quod sit specialis virtus justitiae generaliter accipiendo”; Francisco de Vitoria, De iustitia, q120, a1, n4.

El concepto de “justicia legal” surge del mismo sentido de la “justicia” como virtud que or­dena al hombre al bien común. Pues la ordenación que hace la justicia puede ser de dos maneras: “Primera, a otro considerado individualmente; segunda, a otro en común, es decir, en cuanto que el que sirve a una comunidad sirve a todos los hombres que en ella se contienen. A ambos modos puede referirse la justicia, según su propia naturaleza. Sin embargo, es evidente que todos los que integran alguna comunidad se relacionan con ella del mismo modo que las partes con el todo; y como la parte, en cuanto tal, es del todo, de ahí se sigue también que cualquier bien de la parte es ordenable al bien del todo. Según esto, pues, el bien de cada virtud, ora ordene al hombre hacia sí mismo, ora lo ordene hacia otras personas singulares, es susceptible de ser referido al bien común, al que ordena la justicia. Y así el acto de cualquier virtud puede pertenecer a la justicia, en cuanto que ésta ordena al hombre al bien común. Y en este sentido se llama esta virtud justicia general. Y puesto que a la ley pertenece ordenar al bien común, de ahí que tal justicia, denominada general en el sentido expresado, se llame justicia legal, es decir, porque por medio de ella el hombre concuerda con la ley que ordena los actos de todas las virtudes al bien”; Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q58, a5.

[29]    Domingo Báñez, De iure et iustitia, q58, a7.

[30]    “In tertio articulo videtur dubium, scilicet quod synesis non distinguatur a judicio de agendis. Quia capiamus rationem Aristotelis, nam ubi est aliqua difficultas vel mora, ibi oportet novam virtutem habere. Videtur quod non sit aliqua difficultas ad bene judicandum et bene consulendum; et sic videtur quod si quis assentiat majori et minori, necessario assentiet conclusioni. Responde­tur quod revera ita est sicut Aristoteles dicit, et ita differunt sicut homo ingeniosus et homo qui est judicaturus; nam multi sunt ingeniosi, et tamen non sunt docti, qui sciunt omnes opiniones et rationes omnium doctorum, et postea tenent pejorem partem; et hujusmodi ego habui Parisius praeceptorem, et sic non sciunt judicare. Et propterea requiritur alia virtus, synesis, quae est ad bene judicandum. In primo argumento Doctor probat quod synesis non sit virtus, quia aliquando inest nobis a natura. Respondet quod inest nobis virtus a natura initiative, et oportet quod perficiatur arte et docilitate. Unde dicit quod dupliciter aliquis est dispositus ad bene judicandum: uno modo, quia habet initium a natura initiative; alio modo, ex parte appetitus quia est bene dispositus circa appetitum. Aristoteles in 6 Ethicorum dicit quod judicium de fine exspectat ad virtutes morales (Ethica, VI, c13, n7, Didot, Z, 76). Et ita videtur dicere sanctus Thomas hic; sed declarat qualiter est”; Francisco de Vitoria, Comentarios a la Secunda secundae de Santo Tomás, V. Beltrán de Heredia (ed.), De prudentia, q51, a2, n4.

[31]    Dice el refrán español: Consejos vendo y para mí no tengo. “Gnomie est virtus ad judicandum. Sed differunt gnomia et synesis, quia ad synesim oportet judicare per communes regulas; gnomin aportet judicare praeter regulas communes, sed tamen de eadem re”; Francisco de Vitoria, De prudentia, q51, a2, n1.

[32]    Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q51, a3.

[33]    Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q51, a3, ad1.

[34]    “Respondetur quod gnomin est virtus. Et ad argumentum primum, dico quod licet virtus sit ex frequentatione actuum, non tamen debet esse frequentia similis in omni materia, nam non exerceri potest talis actus, ut patet de magnificentia; non enim semper potest exerceri nisi prout expedit, quia ut dicit Aristoteles, non expedit quod talis semper sit magnificus, quia alias esset prodigus; modo totum consumeret, et postea nihil haberet ad consumendum. Sed ad hoc quod sit virtus, dico quod sufficit quod exerceatur quando debet et prout debet el uti debet. Sic est de gnomin. Ad secundum, quia ista virtus non reperitur in multis, respondetur dupliciter. Dico quod ista virtus reperitur in bonis, quia omnis bonus est prudens, omnes scient consultare in causis particularibus. Bene quidem, sed scient, quia abiit doctos, et faciet prout sapiens determinavit. Et sic ista virtus reperitur in bonis, vel sat est quod ubicumque sunt aliae virtutes, est etiam haec virtus. Vel secundo dico, quod quando doctores dicunt quod virtutes sunt connexae, non opus est quod habeat omnes, sed intelligitur quod sunt virtutes connexae circa res quas versatur vita ejus et actus ejus humanus”; Francisco de Vitoria, De prudentia, q51, a2, n6.

[35]    Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q51, a4.

[36]    Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q51, a4, ad1.

[37]    Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q51, a4, ad3.

[38]    Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q120, a2.

[39]    Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II, q120, a2, ad1.

[40]    Domingo Báñez, De iure et iustitia, q58, a7.

[41]   Francisco de Araújo, De legibus, I-II, q97, sec7.

[42]    Domingo Báñez, De iure et iustitia, q58, a7.

[43]    F. D’Agostino, La tradizione dell’epieikeia nel medioevo latino, pp. 123-129.

[44]    Domingo de Soto, De iustitia et iure, III, q1, a1. En cuanto al sentido de la epiqueya en la ju­ris­pru­dencia, véanse las siguientes monografías: P. G. Caron, Aequitas romana, misericordia patristica ed epicheia aristotelica nella dottrina dell’aequitas canonica. Dalle origine al Rinas­cimento, Giuffrè, Milano, 1971; J. Esser (ed.), Ermessensfreiheit und Billigkeitsspielraum des Zivilrichters, A. Metzner, Frankfurt a.M./Berlin, 1964; V. Frosini (ed.), L’Equità, Giuffrè, Mila­no, 1975; J. Gernhuber (ed.), Summum jus, summa iniuria. Individualgerechtigkeit und der Schutz allge­meiner Werte im Rechtsleben, Tübingen, 1963; C. J. Hering, Die Billigkeit im philoso­phischen Rechtsdenken, Inaugural-Dissertation, Bottrop, 1938; Aequitas und Toleranz, Gesam­melte Schriften, Bouvier Verlag II. Grundmann, Bonn, 1971; R. A. Newman (ed.), Equity in the World’s Legal Systems. A comparative Study, California Western School of Law, U.S.I.U. Studies in Jurisprudence I, Brussels, 1973; M. Rümelin, Die Billigkeit im Recht, J. C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen, 1921; V. Scialoja, Del diritto positivo e l’equità, Camerino, 1880; E. Wohl­haup­ter, Aequitas canonica. Eine Studie aus dem kanonischen Recht, F. Schöningh, Paderbon, 1931.

También son interesantes los siguientes artículos: F. D’Agostino, “L’equità como limite tras­cendentale del diritto”, Rivista Internazionale di Filosofia del Diritto, 1974 (51), pp. 119-128; A. Giannini, “L’equità”, Archivio Giuridico, 1931 (21), pp. 177-213; Ch. Lefebvre, “Le rôle de l’équi­té en droit canonique”, Ephemerides Juris Canonici, 1951, pp. 137-153; “La notion d’équité chez Pierre Lombard”, Ephemerides Juris Canonici, 1953 (9), pp. 301-302; A. Ollero, “Equidad, derecho, ley”, Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez, 1973, pp. 163-178.

[45]    Tomás de Aquino, Summa Theologiae, II-II q120 a1 ad1.

[46]    El axioma sumo derecho, suma injuria se remite también a la definición del derecho como el arte de lo bueno y de lo justo; lo cual significa que, como arte, el derecho es la “epiqueya” y su­pone que si, en un caso excepcional, el legislador se hallara presente, obviamente no querría que se observara la ley en todo el rigor de la letra. Por eso dijo Soto que el derecho que es el arte de lo bueno y justo, no es el derecho escrito, sino el natural, “por cuanto la epiqueya, obrando en con­tra de las palabras del derecho escrito, conserva sano su sentido, con que se mantiene intacto el de­re­cho natural. Por lo cual arte de lo bueno y de lo justo quiere decir, arte de velar por el de­recho natural, cuando el escrito es injusto”; Domingo de Soto, De iustitia et iure, III, q1, a1, p. 193.

[47]    Domingo Báñez, De iure et iustitia, q58, a7.

[48]    Domingo Báñez, De iure et iustitia, q58, a7.

[49]    E. Hamel, “La vertu d’épikie”, p. 55.

[50]    “Lex potest dupliciter deficere. Uno modo, positive et contrarie, quod est quod noceat servare legem; et in tali casu epicheia est virtus et pertinet ad subditum. Alio modo, negative, quod deficiat illic intentio legislatoris, sed non nocet”; Francisco de Vitoria, De iustitia, q120, a1, n5; cfr. Tomás de Vio Cayetano, In Summam Theologiae, I-II, q96, a6; II-II, q120, a1.

[51]    Domingo de Soto, De iustitia et iure, III, q4, a5, p. 236.

[52]    Domingo de Soto, De iustitia et iure, III, q4, a5, p. 237.

[53]    Domingo Báñez, De iure et iustitia, q58, a7.

La entrada ¿Qué es la epiqueya? Reconducción de la ley humana a la ley natural aparece primero en Ley Natural.

17:01

"The Bride, Bedecked" – Pope's Thanksgiving, African Style [Whispers in the Loggia]

Before anything else, a blessed and Happy Thanksgiving to everyone in the States, and to those you love and serve so well day in and day out... and as gratitude and blessings go on this end, for the grace of getting away with doing this work lo these many years, to those of you who've made it possible and been part of the ride, no words could ever say thanks enough.

Back to the news, it's 8pm in East Africa, and the Pope's wrapping up the first full day of his first-ever trek to the continent – a weeklong, three-country mission set to intensify toward its final stop in the violence-ridden Central African Republic, the first papal visit in recent memory into an active war zone.

In the meantime, Francis' first major event of the tour came this morning in Nairobi, long one of the de facto capitals of a burgeoning African church, today home to some 3 million Catholics who comprise the majority of the population in Kenya's capital. (For context, the continent's largest diocese – Kinshasa, capital of a Democratic Republic of the Congo long worked by the colonial era's Belgian missionaries – now boasts some 6 million faithful: a nearly six-fold increase... since 1980.)

Lest anyone forgot, Eucharist means "thanksgiving," so especially in the spirit of this holiday, here's fullvid of this morning's mud-soaked yet exuberant Mass (homily text) on the grounds of Kenya's national university, which – as with the opening liturgies of Francis' recent visits to Latin America and the US in September – was focused on the evangelization of peoples and affirming the church's "missionary impulse" in the vein of Evangelii gaudium, Papa Bergoglio's governing manifesto which marks its second anniversary of release this week:



And tonight, on a soccer field, the Pope's meeting with the country's clergy and religious, at which the Pope (again) ditched his prepared text to speak off-the-cuff, with English translation:



Already well in evidence above, given the linchpin role of dance and chant that isn't Gregorian in African worship – and the epileptic fits they're bound to cause in at least some quarters over these days – what's arguably the most consequential piece of Evangelii again bears fresh recalling:
The People of God is incarnate in the peoples of the earth, each of which has its own culture. The concept of culture is valuable for grasping the various expressions of the Christian life present in God’s people. It has to do with the lifestyle of a given society, the specific way in which its members relate to one another, to other creatures and to God. Understood in this way, culture embraces the totality of a people’s life. Each people in the course of its history develops its culture with legitimate autonomy. This is due to the fact that the human person, “by nature stands completely in need of life in society” and always exists in reference to society, finding there a concrete way of relating to reality. The human person is always situated in a culture: “nature and culture are intimately linked”. Grace supposes culture, and God’s gift becomes flesh in the culture of those who receive it.

 In these first two Christian millennia, countless peoples have received the grace of faith, brought it to flower in their daily lives and handed it on in the language of their own culture. Whenever a community receives the message of salvation, the Holy Spirit enriches its culture with the transforming power of the Gospel. The history of the Church shows that Christianity does not have simply one cultural expression, but rather, “remaining completely true to itself, with unswerving fidelity to the proclamation of the Gospel and the tradition of the Church, it will also reflect the different faces of the cultures and peoples in which it is received and takes root”. In the diversity of peoples who experience the gift of God, each in accordance with its own culture, the Church expresses her genuine catholicity and shows forth the “beauty of her varied face”. In the Christian customs of an evangelized people, the Holy Spirit adorns the Church, showing her new aspects of revelation and giving her a new face. Through inculturation, the Church “introduces peoples, together with their cultures, into her own community”, for “every culture offers positive values and forms which can enrich the way the Gospel is preached, understood and lived”. In this way, the Church takes up the values of different cultures and becomes sponsa ornata monilibus suis, “the bride bedecked with her jewels” (cf. Is 61:10)”.

 When properly understood, cultural diversity is not a threat to Church unity. The Holy Spirit, sent by the Father and the Son, transforms our hearts and enables us to enter into the perfect communion of the blessed Trinity, where all things find their unity. He builds up the communion and harmony of the people of God. The same Spirit is that harmony, just as he is the bond of love between the Father and the Son. It is he who brings forth a rich variety of gifts, while at the same time creating a unity which is never uniformity but a multifaceted and inviting harmony. Evangelization joyfully acknowledges these varied treasures which the Holy Spirit pours out upon the Church. We would not do justice to the logic of the incarnation if we thought of Christianity as monocultural and monotonous. While it is true that some cultures have been closely associated with the preaching of the Gospel and the development of Christian thought, the revealed message is not identified with any of them; its content is transcultural. Hence in the evangelization of new cultures, or cultures which have not received the Christian message, it is not essential to impose a specific cultural form, no matter how beautiful or ancient it may be, together with the Gospel. The message that we proclaim always has a certain cultural dress, but we in the Church can sometimes fall into a needless hallowing of our own culture, and thus show more fanaticism than true evangelizing zeal.

 The Bishops of Oceania asked that the Church “develop an understanding and a presentation of the truth of Christ working from the traditions and cultures of the region” and invited “all missionaries to work in harmony with indigenous Christians so as to ensure that the faith and the life of the Church be expressed in legitimate forms appropriate for each culture”. We cannot demand that peoples of every continent, in expressing their Christian faith, imitate modes of expression which European nations developed at a particular moment of their history, because the faith cannot be constricted to the limits of understanding and expression of any one culture. It is an indisputable fact that no single culture can exhaust the mystery of our redemption in Christ.
With tomorrow's schedule starting on a visit to a Nairobi slum, more as the weekend ensues. For now, again, a beautiful Thanksgiving to one and all.

-30-

16:09

Against Thanksgiving [Opus Publicum]

wounded-knww

Some people won’t like this, but I find no reason to celebrate Thanksgiving. Yes, yes, I know, according to Dale Ahlquist over at Catholic World Report, today is allegedly a “Catholic holiday” because the Patuxet Indian Squanto, who converted to Catholicism after being sold as a slave in Spain, arranged a harvest feast with the Plymouth invaders. From there Thanksgiving was born (or so they say). I imagine more than a few Catholics stormed the Bastille, too, but I see no reason why any should celebrate its commemoration. (I do think Catholics should celebrate Guy Fawkes Day, but I’ll save that matter for another time.) Thanksgiving has also become a day when Catholics (and other Christians) celebrate America’s “proud legacy” of religious freedom despite the fact that no such legacy actually exists. It took Catholics centuries to find pockets of toleration in America and once they thought they found it, what happened? Secularization set in and now bishops, priests, and laity alike gladly surrender to the Zeitgeist in order to prove they are “good citizens.”

An Antiochian Orthodox priest I was once acquainted with was told he had to celebrate the Divine Liturgy on Thanksgiving. Vexed at the idea that he would be inadvertently celebrating a bunch of heretics killing indigenous people and stealing their land, he flipped his parish to the Julian Calendar for one day only so the Thanksgiving Thursday would align with the feast of St. Gregory Palamas. This year’s Julian Calendar feast is of another great saint, John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople. St. John pulled no punches during his lifetime, which in no small part explains why he reposed in exile. He admonished the wealthy of his day to first donate to the poor before buying a golden chalice or other ecclesial ornaments for the church. What, I wonder, would the Golden Mouth have to say to contemporary Christians who gorge themselves on sumptuous meals before passing out drunk in front a football game when thousands upon thousands of Native Americans wallow in squalor on barren reservations “furnished” to them by the Government of the United States?

As for religious freedom, is it not time for us to cease genuflecting before that stripped altar? What toleration is left in this country for authentic Christianity is quickly fading. In a generation or less it won’t exist at all. And then what shall we have to be thankful for? What celebrating will occur then? Hopefully the only celebrations that truly matter: the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or the Divine Liturgy. Instead of being thankful that we live in a country which legally slaughters babies, denies workers their just wages, and refuses to pay true reparations to the original inhabitants of this land, we can instead give thanks to God for Christ’s salvific death on the Cross and the hope of Eternal Life. Perhaps then we can take what meager material wealth we have left and spend it on bread for the homeless instead of beer for ourselves. Or maybe in lieu of griping about our “loved ones” and rolling our eyes at our in-laws, we can spend that time in prayer, asking our Lord to spare this country the wrath it deserves for its innumerable offenses against its only true head, Christ our King and Redeemer.


Filed under: Church, Politics, World

16:05

Time to move on… [AKA Catholic]

All things have their season, and in their times all things pass under heaven. (Ec. 3:1) It has been more than a decade since I first began “harvesting the fruit of Vatican II,” but with darkness now descending at an unprecedented pace, it’s time to move on. It’s been one helluva ride. Harvesting the fruit of Vatican II: The name of the apostolate said it all… Having once placed my trust in the men who speak from the highest places in Rome, I spent many years scouring the conciliar text in search of good food. It was there for the more »

15:59

Thanksgiving for "bleeding charity" [Καθολικός διάκονος]

I am currently reading C.S. Lewis' The Great Divorce. This morning I read the fourth chapter, which takes place after the narrator has left "grey town," a purgatorial kind of place, the sort of place I imagine when I consider John Lennon's nihilistic anthem "Imagine," and the bus on which he and the other ghostly passengers traveled arrives at their destination. Once they disembark from the bus the passengers encounter people who are more whole, more substantial, those Lewis' narrator describes as "the bright people." Rather than walk towards the encounter of the just-bused-in arrivals with the more substantial crowd coming to the meet them, the narrator veers off into the woods. He is followed by perhaps the most memorable character from the bus, "the Big Man - to speak more accurately, the Big Ghost."

The Big Man is himself "followed by one of the bright people." After shouting to the Big Man, the the brighter, more solid, soul is recognized by him. It turns out that the more substantial spirit, is named Len. The reader learns in short order that Len murdered a man named Jack, which apparently accounts for the Big Man's surprise upon encountering Len in this place. Len reassures the Big Man that Jack is present there too and the Big Man will meet up with him shortly.

An artistic depiction of the bus stop in "grey town"


Replying to the Big Man's blunt statement, "But you murdered him," Len says, "Of course I did. It is all right now." "All right, is it?," the Big Man retorts, "All right for you, you mean. But what about the poor chap himself, laying cold and dead?" But Jack, as Len has already noted, is not lying dead, he is there, where the two are now. This is where things start to grow interesting.

The Big Man admits that he was not a religious man, or without fault ("far from it")- though his tune on this changes a later on. He claims he did his best in life, never asking for or taking anything more, or anything less, than he deserved, asking only for what he deemed was his by right. And so what he wants now are what he deems to be his just desserts. Using this logic, he wonders out loud why Len, a self-confessed murderer, has been in this glorious place while he, the Big Man, has "been walking the streets down there [in grey town] and living in a place like a pigstye all these years."

Cutting to the chase, the Big Man has no clue about or apparent use for grace, for mercy, for forgiveness. You see, he is too taken up with the idea that you get what you deserve and nothing more, but perhaps something less. It is receiving less than he deserves, extended purgatory, while Len, who, by the Big Man's reckoning, is receiving far more than he deserves, that really irks him. Len would be the last one to argue with the Big Man that he (Len) is receiving far more than he deserves.

A bit later in the exchange Len states, "I haven't got my rights, or I should not be here." He tells the Big Man, who still shows no signs of getting over what he perceives to be the gross injustice of it all, "You will not get yours either. You'll get something far better. Never fear." To which the Big Man, feeling emboldened, but still failing to comprehend what he is being told asserts [here comes the change of tune that often happens when we make righteousness a comparative endeavor]:
That's just what I say. I haven't got my rights. I always done my best and I never done anything wrong. And what I don't see is why I should be put below a bloody murderer like you
When Len effectively tells the Big Man to just get over it, to get over himself, the Big Man asks Len, "Aren't you ashamed of yourself?" To which Len replies, "No. Not as you mean. I do not look at myself. I have given up myself. I had to, you know, after the murder. That was what did it for me. And that was how everything began."

Christ Crucified, by Carnegriff, 2010


The Big Man continues to press for what he see as his by right, which is certainly better than what a murderer, like Len, deserves: "I only want my rights. I'm not asking for anybody's bleeding charity." Ah, the words "bleeding charity"! Len bids the Big Man, "Then do. At once. Ask for the Bleeding Charity. Everything is here for the asking and nothing can be bought."

In the attitude of the Big Man I hear a modern and secularized echo of the voice of the Pharisee who thanked God he was not like the tax collector. Unlike the Pharisee, the tax collector was acutely aware of his great need for God's mercy (Luke 18:9-14). I hear a similar echo in the voices of those who wonder aloud why someone guilty of murder can be re-admitted to communion when people who are divorced and re-married cannot, at least not while insisting upon the conjugal rights of marriage. The difference can be explained in one word: repentance.

On the homepage, to which my web browser opens, the main this morning headline read, "Do You Carve Turkey Totally Wrong?" I am sure I do it totally wrong. Right underneath it was another headline: "Food You Can Make in a Toaster Oven." This made realize how I grateful I am for my lovely wife and beautiful children. At times in my young life I felt a pull to remain single. I have no doubt God called me to the vocation of marriage. He did so precisely because it is, at least for me, the more difficult path, the path to selflessness and self-forgetting (though I still have a long way to go), which is the only path to Love. This is a difficult thing for me to grasp. In other words, I empathize with the Big Man.

A friend posted this on on Facebook this morning: "Give thanks? Of course. But I find myself thinking of the Pete Townshend lyric: 'GIVE BLOOD.' (And of course, for us Catholics, these things are related . . . )" With that I am off to serve at the altar of the Lord, to accept His Bleeding Charity, and give thanks. I'll take grace over karma every time.



It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation,
always and everywhere to give you thanks,
Lord, holy Father, almighty and eternal God.

15:56

Trump Mocks Reporter for Disability [Creative Minority Report]

Mocking the weak is not a desirable trait in someone seeking the most powerful office in the world.

Donald Trump would be in hot water if he were any other candidate but he's apparently immune to such things mainly because so many love the way he confronts the media. His candidacy, while built on his immigration stance, has persevered because many refuse to let the media take him down. It's not just appreciation for Trump, it's anger at the media.

But Trump's latest is, I think, revealing of his character. And it's not pretty. He apparently did not just mock someone with a disability but he may very well have mocked him specifically for his disability.

Please continue reading at the National Catholic Register>>>


*subhead*Weakness.*subhead*

15:36

Does the synod report reject Catholic understanding of mortal sin? [Voice of the Family]

FacebookTwitterShare

ConfessionThis is Part II of our series on the ambiguities and ideological distortions present in paragraphs 84,85 and 86 of the Final Report of the Ordinary Synod on the Family. Part I, which discusses the problematic use of sociological terms in place of the traditional language of the Church,  can be read here.

PART II: WHO ARE “LIVING MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH”?

Paragraph 84 of the Final Report, speaking of the “divorced and civilly remarried”, states that:

“they should live and mature as living members of the Church.”

This short sentence, which at first glance may seem uncontroversial, does in fact obscure, and even contradict Catholic teaching on the effects of mortal sin. It is our contention that this risks confirming the “divorced and civilly remarried” in their objectively sinful way of life and provides an opening for their admission to Holy Communion without seeking forgiveness through the sacrament of penance (confession) and amending their lives.

1. Are the “divorced and civilly remarried” also “living members of the Church”?

The Catholic Church, with reference to the life of grace, draws a clear distinction between “living members” and “dead members” of the Church. The Catechism approved by Pope St Pius X in 1908 gives clear definitions of these terms:

25 Q. Who are the living members of the Church?
A. The living members of the Church are the just, and the just alone, that is, those who are actually in the grace of God.

26 Q. And who are the dead members?
A. The dead members of the Church are the faithful in mortal sin.

St Thomas Aquinas explained the nature of the spiritual death wrought by mortal sin:

“For sin, being a sickness of the soul, as stated above, is said to be mortal by comparison with a disease, which is said to be mortal, through causing an irreparable defect consisting in the corruption of a principle… Now the principle of the spiritual life, which is a life in accord with virtue, is the order to the last end… and if this order be corrupted, it cannot be repaired by any intrinsic principle, but by the power of God alone…” (II-I q.88 a.2)

In other words mortal sin leads to the destruction of the life of grace in the soul. It causes the termination of “a life in accord with virtue” and, as Thomas says elsewhere, the sinner “forfeits the lustre of grace through the deformity of sin” (II-I q.9 a.7). An individual in the state of mortal sin cannot “rise by his own powers” (II-I q.9 a.7) but only by cooperating with the unmerited gift of divine grace which leads him to repentance and reconciliation with God and the Church, ordinarily through the sacrament of penance. God’s mercy is freely available in this sacrament to all who seek it with true repentance and with the intention to amend their lives.

The temptation to avoid speaking the truth with clarity out of a concern not to upset or offend must be resisted. It is neither charitable nor merciful to hide from people the truth about their spiritual state and thus deprive them of a profound motivation for amendment of life and, ultimately, finding true and eternal happiness in God.

Married Catholics who separate from their spouses and enter into a civil marriage with another party are committing the sin of adultery. Adultery is an objectively grave sin. If this sin is committed with full knowledge of its gravity and full consent of the will it will be mortal, that is, it will kill the supernatural life of grace in the soul. We cannot, of course, make the judgement that every married person who has entered into a civil marriage is subjectively guilty of mortal sin but we can expect an ecclesiastical document to reflect the objective nature of the sin under discussion. Such a document should clearly affirm that, except in individual cases where the subjective imputability of the sin has been lessened, the “divorced and civilly remarried” are not “living members of the Church”. This is the truly pastoral and merciful approach because it opens up the opportunity for people to truly transform their lives with the assistance of divine grace.

2. Why is it scandalous to refer to the “divorced and civilly remarried” as “living members” of the Church?

First and foremost it is scandalous because it is untrue, except in those cases where the sin is, for some reason, not subjectively imputable. It deceives the “divorced and civilly remarried” about the real state of their souls and refuses to provide the guidance and instruction that might lead to genuine repentance and thus to eternal life. The consequences of mortal sin are devastating for the soul. Among other consequences it:

(1) deprives the soul of sanctifying grace and of friendship with God

(2) leads to loss of the beatific vision in Heaven and to eternal damnation in Hell

(3) deprives the soul of merits already acquired, and renders it incapable of acquiring new merits for as long as the state of mortal sin persists

To effectively hide this reality from any man or woman, by assuring them that they are “living members” of the Church, is seriously harmful and misguided.

Secondly, it is scandalous because it can easily be used to provide an opening for the reception of Holy Communion by the “divorced and civilly remarried” without true repentance and amendment of life.

3. How does it provide an opening to the reception of Holy Communion by the “divorced and civilly remarried”?

The Catholic Church draws a clear distinction between the “sacraments of the living” and the “sacraments of the dead”. The Catechism of Pope St Pius X once again gives us the necessary clear distinctions. It teaches us that “the sacraments which confer first sanctifying grace, and render us friends of God, are two: Baptism and Penance”  and these sacraments “are on that account called sacraments of the dead, because they are instituted chiefly to restore to the life of grace the soul dead by sin.”

The sacraments “which increase grace in those who already possess it are the other five: Confirmation, Eucharist, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders and Matrimony, all of which confer second grace.” These sacraments “are on that account called sacraments of the living, because those who receive them must be free from mortal sin, that is, already alive through sanctifying grace.”

We can see from this that the appropriate sacraments for “living members of the Church” are: Confirmation, Eucharist, Extreme Unction, Holy Orders and Matrimony.

The appropriate sacrament for “dead members” of the Church is Penance (Confession). (Baptism, which is also a sacrament of the dead can, by its very nature, only be received by those who are not yet members of the Church.)

By referring to the “divorced and civilly remarried” as “living members of the Church” the synod report implies that it is appropriate for the them to be admitted to Holy Communion.

The authentic return to the “sacraments of the living” for the “divorced and remarried” remains via “the sacraments of the dead”, which restore life to those who receive them. As Pope John Paul II taught in his Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio:

“…the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

“Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage” (no. 84).

 

The post Does the synod report reject Catholic understanding of mortal sin? appeared first on Voice of the Family.

15:26

The Good Friday Prayer and the conversion of the Jews [LMS Chairman]

IMG_0290
The Crucifixion: for the Rosary Walk at Aylesford Priory
We've heard from the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales that they would like to get rid of the Prayer for the Jews used in the Extraordinary Form Good Friday Liturgy. Archbishop Kevin McDonald (former Archbishop of Southwark), who is in charge of Catholic-Jewish relations, says this about it:

“The 1970 prayer which is now used throughout the Church is basically a prayer that the Jewish people would continue to grow in the love of God’s name and in faithfulness of his Covenant, a Covenant which – as St John Paul II made clear in 1980 – has not been revoked. By contrast the prayer produced in 2008 for use in the Extraordinary Form of the liturgy reverted to being a prayer for the conversion of Jews to Christianity.”

The 2008 prayer replaced one expressed in rather strong language, language used by St Paul in 2 Corinthians 3 and 4. Pope Benedict thought it best to express its central idea, and even its central image - of light overcoming darkness - in a slightly different way.


Pope Benedict's prayer reads as follows:
Let us also pray for the Jews: that our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Saviour of all men.

The Novus Ordo Prayer is this:
Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant.

So what, exactly, is the suggestion? That people of Jewish extraction (or is it just Jews who practice their religion?) are saved by something other than Christ? But that can't be right, at least according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

846 Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

It should be noted that these passages come immediately after the Catechism's treatment of the Jews, and of Muslims, so they'd not been forgotten. Everyone who is going to be saved, is going to be saved, whether through Baptism or through a 'way known only to God', by reference to Christ's blood which was shed for the whole of mankind.

This is made explicit by Vatican II's Declaration on Non-Christian Religions, Nostra aetate, whose anniversary was the occasion for this discussion by the Bishops' Conference (section 4):

Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

The idea that Christ did not die for the Jewish people is evidently absurd. (How about Matthew 15:24? 'I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel'.) The idea that the Jews, before or after the Passion, received the grace of God in any other way than through the 'cross of Christ' would be a fundamental mistake.

Archbishop McDonald refers us to something Pope St John Paul II said in 1980. He must mean a very short speech (a speech- not a very heavyweight exercise of magisterial authority) to the Jewish community of Berlin on 17th November that year. It is not available in English on the Vatican website, but you can read it here. The relevant passage is this:

The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God [cf. Rom. 11:29], and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her Bible.

What does this reference to the Old Covenant mean? Pope St John Paul refers us to Romans 11:29. (These kinds of references are part of the official text, notwithstanding the square brackets; the same passage of St Paul is cited by Nostra aetate to the same effect.) St Paul tells us this:

For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.

The context of this verse is all about how the Jews have (mostly) rejected Christ, and have therefore been 'disobedient', but remain 'dear' to God for the sake of the Patriarchs, and St Paul looks forward to their salvation. It is one of the passages which has led to the tradition that the Last Judegement won't happen until 'the conversion of the Jews': that is, it is something which will happen at the end of history.

So, to put all this together, St John Paul II, following Nostra aetate, makes reference to the fact that the Old Covenant still retains its importance, in the sense that God's promise to Israel (of the coming of the Redeemer) has not been taken back, as St Paul expressed it. Archbishop McDonald appears to suggest that there is a tension between this and the aspiration expressed in Pope Benedict's prayer that Jews come to believe in Christ. This is very puzzling, since St Paul himself spent a great deal of time proclaiming the Gospel to Jews, and experienced a great deal of anguish about those who did not accept his message.

In a nutshell: saying, with St Paul, that God does not revoke His promises, cannot contradict praying and working, like St Paul, for the Jews to accept Christ.

Of course this does not mean proselytism (which has become established as meaning encouraging conversions in a bad way, for example by coercion or bribery); it may not mean anything active at all. The Church's evangelisation (the good kind of encouraging conversion) is often carried out simply by the witness of a life of faith- as the old hymn says, By kindly words and virtuous life. The very fact that this kind of evangelisation does not target anyone in particular, means that Jews cannot be excluded from it. From time to time Jewish people do, in fact, come to the Faith: we can't tell them to go away.

The continuing relevance of the Old Covenant for Jews today, from a Catholic point of view, has become a very hot topic, and Pope Benedict himself had a good deal to say about this as a private theologian. That did not stop him, however, from praying that Jews might receive the grace of Christ. It is not as if the grace of Christ is something bad.

We need to be very careful with these old prayers. The original prayer was of great antiquity, and represented a theological perspective from the age of the Fathers of the Church, which has been accepted and honoured by the saints and doctors of every age of the Church since then. Furthermore, the liturgy is a 'theological source': it doesn't have the same authority as Scripture, but like Scripture it does have authority. These old prayers can't simply be brushed aside. The theological content, if not all the language, of the old prayer is preserved in Pope Benedict's version. Its correspondence with documents like the Catechism of the Catholic Church is hardly a coincidence. The prayer's theological content is part of the Faith of the Church.

Incidentally, Nostra aetate is extremely short; I recommend anyone wanting to know what the fuss is about to read the text. All the versions of the Prayer for the Jews from Good Friday are handily given by the Wikipedia article.

Support the work of the LMS by becoming an 'Anniversary Supporter'.

15:12

Nostra aetate [Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment]

I have just carefully reread, for the umpteenth time, Nostra aetate. Some points, which I make in the Bergoglian spirit of Parrhesia. (1) I am sorry if the following upsets some 'traditionalist' readers; but: the Conciliar document Nostra aetate seems to me thoroughly well-judged. (2) Anyone who asserts that: its text in any way implies that the Prayer for the Jews which the Holy Father Pope

15:08

Pope off-the-cuff to priests, religious: indifference makes God vomit [CNA Daily News - Vatican]

Nairobi, Kenya, Nov 26, 2015 / 08:08 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Francis tossed his prepared remarks aside for a meeting with Kenyan priests, religious and seminarians, telling them that if anything disgusts God, it’s the attitude of indifference.

He also gave some practical advice, such as keeping the Lord at the center of their lives through prayer and the sacraments, and stressed that the Church is not a business, but rather a mystery intended to serve others.

“Remember Jesus Christ crucified. When a priest or religious forgets Christ crucified, poor person. He has fallen in an ugly sin, a sin which God detests, which makes the Lord vomit,” the Pope said Nov. 26.

“He has fallen into the sin of indifference, of luke-warmness. Dear priests and religious men and women, be careful not to fall into the sin of indifference.”

Francis met with Kenyan priests, religious men and women, and seminarians from every diocese in Kenya on the sports field of St. Mary’s School in Nairobi Nov. 26, his first full day in the country.

His Nov. 25-27 visit to Kenya is part of a larger African tour that will also take him to Uganda and the Central African Republic.

Before giving his speech, Pope Francis heard from Bishop Anthony Ireri Mukobo, I.M.C., Apostolic Vicar of Isiolo and Chairman for the Commission for Clergy and Religious of the Kenyan bishops conference, as well as Sr. Michael Marie Rottinghaus from the Association of Sisterhoods of Kenya (AOSK).

Both Bishop Mukobo and Sr. Rottinghaus thanked Pope Francis for the Year for Consecrated Life, which opened Nov. 30, 2014, and closes Feb. 2, 2016.

After setting his prepared remarks aside, Francis spoke freely in Spanish, with his official translator Msgr. Mark Miles giving simultaneous translation into English.

The Pope began his reflections by noting how “the Lord has chosen all of you, he has chosen all of us," and that he began his work "the day he saw us in baptism.”

He noted how in the Gospel there were some who wanted to follow Jesus, but Jesus said no. Following the Lord on the path of priesthood or consecrated life means “you have to go through the door, and the door is Christ,” he said, adding that Jesus is the one who calls and does the work.

When people try to go “through the window” like those in the Gospel, this “isn’t useful,” Francis continued, and asked that if anyone sees someone who's trying to live a consecrated vocation but doesn't have one, “embrace him and explain that it’s better for them to go.”

“It’s better for them to go because that work that didn’t begin with the Lord Jesus through the doorway will not end well." Doing this, he said, helps us to understand what it means to be called and chosen by God.

Pope Francis then noted that there are some who don’t know why God calls them, but feel it in their heart. These people, he said, “should be at peace because the Lord will make them understand why.”

He cautioned against those who have a true call, but are influenced by the desire for power. He pointed to the mother of James and John as an example, when she asked for them to have positions at his right and left hand.

“There is the temptation to follow the Lord out of ambition, ambition of money, ambition for power,” he said, noting that each person can probably say this thought has crossed their minds.

For others, however, “it took seed in the heart as a weed,” he said, adding that in following Jesus, “there is no place for ambition or richness or to be a really important person in the world.”

“I tell you this seriously, because in the Church we know it’s not a business, it’s not an NGO. The Church is a mystery, the mystery of Christ’s gaze upon each one of us, who says follow,” he said.

The Pope then noted that Jesus calls, “he doesn’t canonize us,” but asks us to serve as the sinners we are.

Pointing to the apostles, Francis observed how the Gospel only tells us of one that cried: Peter, who realized he was a sinner who had betrayed the Lord.

“But then Jesus made him a pope. Who understands Jesus?! He’s a mystery. Never stop weeping,” he said, adding that when the tears of a priest or religious run dry “then something is wrong.”

Francis then turned to the importance of prayer in the life of a priest or religious, explaining that when a consecrated person stops praying, their “soul becomes shriveled and dry like those dried figs. They’re ugly. They’re not attractive.”

“The soul of a priest or religious who doesn’t pray is an ugly soul. I ask forgiveness but that’s how it is.”

He also stressed the importance of having an attitude of service, particularly toward the poor, children and the elderly, as well as “those who are not even aware of their own pride in themselves.”

Pope Francis said he’s impressed whenever he meets a priest or consecrated person who has spent their life working in a hospital or mission. These people, he said, “serve others and don’t allow themselves to be served by others.”

He closed by thanking those present “for following Jesus, for every time you feel sinners, for every caress of tenderness you show others who need it.”

“Thanks for all the times you helped a person to die in peace. Thank you for giving hope in life. Thanks for letting yourselves be forgiven, to be helped and corrected,” he said, and asked for their prayers.

15:07

Pro French Revolution? Nonsense [Theological Flint]

This is from Theological Flint

Many a well-intended person thinks the French Revolution was good for the Church. This is not what sober minds at the time thought. Of course, God always brings good out of evil. So, from that horror, he brought forth fruit. But the defection of nations from the Church is not in itself a good thing. […]

The post Pro French Revolution? Nonsense appeared first on Theological Flint.

14:43

Dignitatis Humanae - the Pink vs Rhonheimer debate [Musings of a Pertinacious Papist]


Longtime readers may remember that we addressed Fr. Martin Rhonheimer's views on religious freedom several years in our post, "Who's Betraying Tradition: The Grand Dispute" (Musings, June 2, 1011). We also discussed Rhonheimer's views substantially in "George Weigel vs. pre-V2 teaching on Social Kingship of Christ" (Musings, June 16, 2011). See also "Dr. Thomas Pink responds to Fr. Rhonheimer" (Musings, August 5, 2011). Dr. Pink's written response to Rhonheimer is reproduced in full in "On the coercive authority of the Church: a response to Fr. Martin Rhonheimer by Thomas Pink" (Rorate Caeli, August 5, 2015).

Here, once again, we have Rorate Caeli to thank for calling our attention to the most recent exchange between Pink and Rhonheimer in Sacerdos Romanus, "Pink-Rhonheimer Debate" (Rorate Caeli, November 23, 2015), in which Romanus writes:
Prof. Thomas Pink, who has contributed to Rorate Caeli in the past, recently held a public debate on the important problem of the interpretation of Dignitatis Humanae with Fr. Martin Rhonheimer of the Opus Dei. The full debate is embedded above. Pink argues for the continuity of Dignitatis Humanae with the teachings of the 19th century popes, while Fr. Rhonheimer argues for discontinuity.
The debate in the VIDEO above doesn't actually begin until roughly 12 minutes and 30 seconds [12:30] into the recording.

[Hat tip to Sir A.S.]

12:25

American Thanksgiving Dinner Survival Game [Edinburgh Housewife]

Thanksgiving in Canada (October) is important but not as important as Thanksgiving in the USA
seems to be. To the best of my knowledge, we don't have films showing Canadians jetting from one side of the country to the other just to partake of turkey and pumpkin pie.

No doubt the internet is full today of Americans anticipating the horrors of having to eat with their own extended family. One might argue that this is an example of pop culture attacking the family so as to break it up into individuals who are more easily exploited by Madison Avenue and the government.

That said, not all families are delightful, and sometimes the agony of family life is prolonged by a woman who wants people to say at her funeral that it was she who managed to keep the [self-devouring] family together. My perennial advice is that if you have been miserable at every family Thanksgiving dinner for the past ten years, you will almost certainly be miserable at this one too, so you shouldn't go. Either have a wonderful pot-luck Thanksgiving dinner with friends or volunteer to serve Thanksgiving supper to the homeless.

Your no-show may make your mother cry, but this might be the "hit bottom" moment she needs to finally admit that not all is well in Dodge.  On the other hand, if the problem for the past ten years was you, your absence will be the removal of a cloud for everyone else. Let us humbly consider the possibility.

If you have a pretty-good family, with a bearable level of grumbling and carping and throwing things across the table, then naturally I hope my American readers go to their traditional family Thanksgiving Dinner. Of course, if relations come from afar, there may be a fair bit of catching-up and questions about how everyone is and, as people enjoy relationship gossip, if you are in one.

If you are Single, this puts Thanksgiving in the same category as Mother's Day, when your parish tortures you for being Single-and-Childless, and Valentine's Day, when you torture you for being Single-and-Childless. This time it's your family's turn--and it's a sit-down dinner so you can't escape!

The only thing to do is to turn the dross of remarks about your Single status into the gold of POINTS for the annual Seraphic Singles/Edinburgh Housewife American Thanksgiving Dinner Survival Game. Please pay strict attention to whatever your relations say concerning your Single status, including queries as to when you're going to marry your boyfriend, and give yourself a point for each remark. (Nota Bene: If you are actually engaged you are not eligible for this game. You can give your sisters a point each by shoving your ring in their faces in and saying "LA!" in an exaggerated Lucy-Steele voice.)

"LA!"

Please report your score in the combox below, regaling us with the comments you remember. Naturally I myself am in Britain and so will be in bed before the west coast sits down to eat. However, I will hang out with the computer when I get back from Polish class this evening, so if you need to vent, I will be here until 4 PM San Francisco time, which is 7 PM in Buffalo, is it not?

Have the happiest Thanksgiving you can manage, and be as kindly as possible to your relations, especially the ones in the kitchen who might need you.  Above all, remember that you are not alone, and that from sea to sea your fellow Singles are being asked if they've found a fella yet and when are they getting married.

And a point from Cousin John....


***
Update: The M.Div. is now IN for anyone who might need to vent.

Update 2: All quiet on the western front this year. The M.Div. is going to bed!

11:30

Three Sonnets for Thanksgiving [Dominicana]

The chill in autumn with damp, dreary weather, The harvest all gathered before the storm. The November feast brings family together, With great delights of fall the soul to warm. Preparations first on the football field, The kitchen next with oven hot blazing, The smells, the spices, the potatoes all peeled, Sautéing, seasoning, sour-dough raising. […]

11:30

Our First Act of Thanksgiving Must Be to God! [LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH]

I hope the first thing you do today is go to Mass. Eucharist means "thanksgiving." What better way to celebrate Thanksgiving Day than to offer thanksgiving to God for His many blessings through the Sacrament of the altar He left us.  And to help you reflect on that I offer some thoughts from the saints. May Jesus Christ be praised!

"Would that I could exhaust myself in acts of thanksgiving and gratitude towards this Divine Heart, for the great favor He shows us, in deigning to accept our help to make Him known, loved and honored; He reserves infinite blessings for all those who devote themselves to this work."                      St. Margaret Mary Alacoque
"The secret of happiness is to live moment by moment and to thank God for what he is sending us every day in his goodness."                             St. Gianna Beretta Molla
"In all created things discern the providence and wisdom of God, and in all things give Him thanks. "                                                                     St. Teresa of Avila
No duty is more urgent than that of returning thanks.      St. Ambrose
In everything give thanks: for this is the will of God.      St. Paul
Traditional Grace after Meals:

We give you thanks, Almighty God, for all your benefits, who lives and reigns forever. And may the souls of all the faithful departed through the mercy of God rest in peace. Amen.

Happy Thanksgiving!

10:41

DUSTING DOWN THE ARCHIVES: Beware of Mines [Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment]

This piece is from October last year.  Writing in the aftermath of "the [2014] Synod", Professor Roberto de Mattei, perhaps the greatest Church historian of our time, wrote "Judgement, with its resulting definition of truths and condemnation of errors, is the jurisdiction par excellence of the Vicar of Christ, supreme guardian and judge of faith and morality". These wise observations instantly

10:10

The Search for Truth [Laudator Temporis Acti]

Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799), ‎Waste Books, L 419 (tr. R.J. Hollingdale):

Motto: to desire to discover the truth is meritorious, even if we go astray on the way.

Motto: die Wahrheit finden wollen ist Verdienst, wenn man auch auf dem Wege irrt.

09:58

Frank Advice 10 [ignatius his conclave]

article-2230787-15EFE482000005DC-637_306x423

Dear Frank,

We were all terribly pleased with  Fr Raniero. He’s a chap who can press all the buttons – though I am not sure that some of our Anglo-Catholics share his enthusiasm for the Reformation. The important thing was that he was upbeat. Who would have thought you could get so much out of Haggai? I was impressed.

It is good to know that you have grasped how important ecumenism is for us Anglicans. Being a via media is what defines us. It is a paradox: a continual striving after something we do not really want. An ‘ecumenical death wish’, you might call it. But for us, of course, it’s just a way of life.

So the idea that women bishops and gay sex have not put an end to the Anglican-Catholic dialogue, but allowed it to continue at a higher level, was just the thing we needed to hear. (Though I am not sure the image about canals and sluice-gates really worked!).

Cantalamessa, I can see, is a real asset. Perhaps we could return the compliment by sending one of our chaps to preach at your next Synod. I have a few names in mind.

Thanks for the much needed support,

Your colleague and friend,

Justin.


09:44

A Good Observation [Laudator Temporis Acti]

"LSJ and Aeolica," Farrago (26 October 2015):

[A]n instance of a phenomenon in an Aeolic text does not make that phenomenon Aeolic, any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.

09:16

Holiday Festivities [Laudator Temporis Acti]

Homer, Odyssey 9.5-11 (tr. Richmond Lattimore):

For I think there is no occasion accomplished that is more pleasant        5
than when festivity holds sway among all the populace,
and the feasters up and down the houses are sitting in order
and listening to the singer, and beside them the tables are loaded
with bread and meats, and from the mixing bowl the wine steward
draws the wine and carries it about and fills the cups. This        10
seems to my own mind to be the best of occasions.

οὐ γὰρ ἐγώ γέ τί φημι τέλος χαριέστερον εἶναι        5
ἢ ὅτ᾽ ἐυφροσύνη μὲν ἔχῃ κάτα δῆμον ἅπαντα,
δαιτυμόνες δ᾽ ἀνὰ δώματ᾽ ἀκουάζωνται ἀοιδοῦ
ἥμενοι ἑξείης, παρὰ δὲ πλήθωσι τράπεζαι
σίτου καὶ κρειῶν, μέθυ δ᾽ ἐκ κρητῆρος ἀφύσσων
οἰνοχόος φορέῃσι καὶ ἐγχείῃ δεπάεσσι·        10
τοῦτό τί μοι κάλλιστον ἐνὶ φρεσὶν εἴδεται εἶναι.
Alfred Heubeck ad loc.:
'There is no fulfilment (τέλος; cf. P. Ambrose, Glotta, xliii (1965), 38-62, esp. 59-61), which brings greater joy (J. Latacz, Zum Wortfeld "Freude" in der Sprache Homers (Heidelberg, 1966), 100-1) than when ...' Odysseus praises as ideal the situation of a people filled (ἔχῃ κάτα = κατέχῃ) with joy as they listen to a bard while feasting and drinking (μέθυ = οἶνος) to their hearts' content: the joyful, lavish banquet is an outward and visible sign of a stable and peacefully ordered community as exemplified by the Phaeacian utopia.
Plato, party-pooper and spoil-sport, throws a turd into the punch-bowl (κρατήρ) when he quotes Odyssey 9.8-10 and asks (Republic 3.4 = 390 b, tr. Paul Shorey):
Do you think the hearing of that sort of thing will conduce to a young man's temperance or self-control?

δοκεῖ σοι ἐπιτήδειον εἶναι πρὸς ἐγκράτειαν ἑαυτοῦ ἀκούειν νέῳ;

09:15

Pope in Kenya: Interreligious dialogue not an option, but a necessity [CNA Daily News - Vatican]

Nairobi, Kenya, Nov 26, 2015 / 02:15 am (CNA/EWTN News).- In light of recent terror attacks in Kenya and abroad, Pope Francis began the second day of his trip to Africa stressing the need for interreligious leaders to work together for peace. 

In a morning meeting on Nov. 26 with interreligious and ecumenical leaders at the apostolic nunciature in Nairobi, Kenya, Pope Francis said while ecumenical relationships can be demanding, they are not optional.

“…ecumenical and interreligious dialogue is not a luxury. It is not something extra or optional, but essential, something which our world, wounded by conflict and division, increasingly needs,” the Pope said.

Not only is it essential for peace, he added, but interreligious dialogue can be a rich source of enlightenment and becomes an “important service to the common good.”

His comments come just two weeks after six coordinated attacks in Paris, perpetrated by ISIS, left at least 128 people dead.

The Pope’s address also falls seven months after terrorists killed 147 students at Garissa University College in Garissa, Kenya, and four months after gunmen killed 14 quarry workers in Mandera. In 2013, 67 people were killed when terrorists attacked shoppers at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi.Each of these attacks were carried out by al-Shabaab, an al-Qaeda affiliate operating out of the neighboring country of Somalia.

“I know that the barbarous attacks on Westgate Mall, Garissa University College and Mandera are fresh in your minds,” he said. “All too often, young people are being radicalized in the name of religion to sow discord and fear, and to tear at the very fabric of our societies.”

“How important it is that we be seen as prophets of peace, peacemakers who invite others to live in peace, harmony and mutual respect!”

The Holy Father also stressed the importance of never committing violence in the name of God, and prayed for the conversion of heart of all those who perpetrated violence in the name of religion.

He closed his address recalling the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second Vatican Council, saying that he hoped the Church continued her commitment to ecumenical dialogue and friendship.

“As we look to the future, let us pray that all men and women will see themselves as brothers and sisters, peacefully united in and through our differences. Let us pray for peace!”

This story is according to Pope Francis’ prepared remarks to interreligious leaders. 

08:00

How To Be Happy [iBenedictines]

If you want to be happy, be grateful; if you want to make others happy, tell them you are grateful for their existence. It is as simple as that. Giving thanks is something human beings are created for, and we (…)

Read the rest of this entry »

07:00

Thanksgiving [RSS]

"For how should he ask for future things, who is not thankful for the past?  Wherefore we ought to give thanks for all things, even for those which seem to be grievous, for this is the part of the truly thankful man.  In the other case the nature of the things demands it; but this springs from a grateful soul, and one earnestly affected toward God.  God acknowledges these prayers, but others He knows not."

-- John Chrysostom, Homily 14 on Philippians

 

Thanksgiving Facts [Tea at Trianon]

From Dr. Talyor Marshall:
The first American Thanksgiving was actually celebrated on September 8 (feast of the birth of the Blessed Virgin) in 1565 in St. Augustine, Florida. The Native Americans and Spanish settlers held a feast and the Holy Mass was offered. This was 56 years before the Puritan pilgrims of Massachusetts. Don Pedro Menendez came ashore amid the sounding of trumpets, artillery salutes and the firing of cannons to claim the land for King Philip II and Spain. The ship chaplain Fr. Francisco Lopez de Mendoza Grajales chanted the Te Deum and presented a crucifix that Menendez ceremoniously kissed. Then the 500 soldiers, 200 sailors and 100 families and artisans, along with the Timucuan Indians celebrated the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in gratitude to God. (Read more.)
Via Spirit Daily.

05:00

Ad aeterna tabernacula festinare [Vultus Christi]

comunione.jpgThe Cross, the Passion, and the Most Holy Eucharist
Today’s Saint Silvester Guzzolini (1177-1267), founder of the so-called Blue Benedictines (from the colour of their habit) or Silvestrines, exemplifies the monastic spirituality of the thirteenth century. Nourished by the Word of God, Silvester filled the gaze of his soul with the mysteries of the Passion of Our Lord, contemplating His wounds and desiring nothing so much as to follow Him along the way of the Cross. So strong was this desire of his that on one occasion he was mystically transported to the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. As one might expect, Silvester’s devotion to the Passion of Jesus found its highest expression in the ardent love he had for the Most Holy Eucharist. This is reflected in the beautiful Secret for his feast:

With all reverence, O Lord, do we offer these gifts to Thy divine Majesty: praying that by the devout preparation of our minds and purity of heart, we may be made imitators of the blessed Silvester, and so deserve to receive in a holy manner the Body and Blood of Thy Son.

The Mother of God
Silvester nurtured a tender devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, Queen of Mercy, to whom he entrusted himself entirely. Our Lady responded by demonstrating her maternal love for him with singular graces. On one occasion, he fell in the staircase while descending to the Night Office. The Blessed Virgin came to help him and, in the twinkling of an eye, Silvester found himself safe and sound back in his cell. One hears of similar episodes in the lives of modern saints such as Saint Padre Pio, Blessed Maria Pierina, Marthe Robin, and Mother Yvonne-Aimée of Malestroit.

Communion from the Hands of Our Lady
The most famous Marian prodigy in his life took place when, of a night, the Blessed Virgin appeared to him in a dream and said, “Silvester, dost thou desire to receive the Body of my Son?” With trepidation he answered, “My heart is ready, O Lady; let it be done unto me according to thy word.” What I find most extraordinary is that Saint Silvester, being a monk already steeped in the Word of God through the familiar repetition of it in the Sacred Liturgy, answered Our Blessed Lady in two phrases already held and pondered within her Immaculate Heart.  The first phrase, taken from Psalm 107:2 —Paratum cor meum Deus paratum cor meum— “My heart is ready, O God, my heart is ready” is the perfect act of preparation for Holy Communion. The second phrase is Our Blessed Lady’s own acquiescence to the mystery of the Incarnation as recorded in Luke 1:30 —Fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum— “Be it done to me according to thy word”. Receiving her very own words from the lips of her servant Silvester, the Mother of God gave him Holy Communion. Claudio Ridolfi painted the episode in 1632.

The Collects
There are two Collects for today’s feast. The first alludes to the horrifying experience that caused Silvester to change his way of life and embrace the monastic state. In 1227, as a fifty year old canon of the cathedral of Osimo, he saw the decomposing body of a man who, in life, had been comely and strong. Silvester then said to himself: “What he was thou art, and what he is, thou shalt be.” With that, he decided to withdraw into solitude.

O most clement God, Who, when the holy abbot Silvester, by the side of an open grave, stood meditating on the emptiness of the things of this world, didst vouchsafe to call him into the wilderness and to ennoble him with the merit of a singularly holy life; most humbly we beg of Thee, that like him, we may despise earthly things, and enjoy fellowship with Thee for evermore.

The second prayer, found in the new Antiphonale Monasticum, reflects the two principle graces of his life: solitude and community. The Latin text has this magnificent conclusion: et in humili caritate ad aeterna tabernacula festinare!

O God who bestowed upon Saint Silvester zeal for the sweetness of solitude and for the labours of the cenobitical life, grant us, we beseech Thee, to seek Thee always with a sincere mind and in humble charity hasten toward the eternal tabernacles.

03:07

Bishop Barron and the Evolution of Christ's Consciousness [Unam Sanctam Catholicam]

I don't wade into wars in the blogosphere very often; I find them stupid and unedifying. But the little rift over One Peter Five's recent article "The Incredible Shrinking Bishop Barron" by Maureen Mullarkey caught my attention. Mullarkey found fault with Barron's lackluster approach towards Islamic terror. This prompted an indignant response from blogger Brandon Vogt, who called Mullarkey's post "exaggerated polemics" and "misleading", devolving into "baseless speculation." If you wonder why Vogt got so huffy over Mullarkey's post, I would imagine it is because he is "Content Director for Bishop Robert Barron's Word on Fire Catholic Ministries", so he has a vested interest in defending Barron. This is unfortunate because, as we will see, Robert Barron adheres to a Modernist view of Jesus Christ's identity.

There are many things Bishop Robert Barron can be criticized for. I have raised concerns before about his promotion of Hans Urs Von Balthasar's theory that hell might be empty. But I honestly had no idea until recently what a thorough-going Balthasarian Bishop Barron actually is. He not only promotes the empty hell thesis, but has also adopted Von Balthasar's extremely unorthodox Christology.

For years we have attempted to demonstrate that Hans Urs Von Balthasar is not an orthodox theologian, not only due to his controversial theory of a potentially empty hell, but just in terms of his basic Christology. Catholics need to understand that it is not just one theory that makes Balthasar questionable, but a whole slew of bizarre novelties. We recommend reviewing our previous articles "Balthasar's Denial of the Beatific Vision in Christ" and "Balthasar and the 'Faith' of Christ" on the Unam Sanctam Catholicam website,  which both deal with Balthsar's unorthodox Christology, as well as "The Heresies of Balthasar" on this blog, which reveals Balthasar's absurd position that sin has its own ontological reality.

One staple of Balthasarian Christology is his teaching that Christ only gradually came to understand His messianic identity, and that this did not happen by any infused knowledge by virtue of the Incarnation (Balthasar strongly rejected the idea that Christ had any knowledge given directly from God about His mission). Instead, Christ had to "learn" that He was the Messiah, basically through regular human intuition. It kind of slowly dawned on his consciousness as He grew.

The Catholic Tradition is that Christ had infused knowledge of His own identity and mission. The 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia sums up this teaching when it states that "the knowledge in Christ's Divine nature is co-extensive with God's Omniscience" and that "since the time of the Nestorian controversies, Catholic tradition has been practically unanimous as to the doctrine concerning the knowledge of Christ" (source). Christ had infused knowledge of everything that pertained to His mission - and clearly who He was pertained quite centrally to that mission! The article says that

"It is almost universally admitted that God infused into Christ's human intellect a knowledge similar in kind to that of the angels. This is knowledge which is not acquired gradually by experience, but is poured into the soul in one flood. This doctrine rests on theological grounds: the Man-God must have possessed all perfections except such as would be incompatible with His beatific vision, as faith or hope; or with His sinlessness, as penance; or again, with His office of Redeemer, which would be incompatible with the consummation of His glory" (ibid).

This is the view of traditional Christology. But Bishop Barron chooses instead to promote the heretical novelty of Balthasar that Christ had to learn about His identity through a gradual enlightening of His consciousness. For example, in his Lenten Meditations, then-Father Barron offers this commentary on the Baptism of the Lord:

"Jesus has just been baptized. He has just learned his deepest identity and mission and now he confronts—as we all must—the great temptations. What does God want him to do? Who does God want him to be? How is he to live his life?"

Jesus has "just learned his deepest identity and mission" at His baptism, implying that He was in positive ignorance of his identity and mission before this moment?

It gets worse. If anybody doubts what a devoted Balthasarian Bishop Barron is, you really need to read his book The Priority of Christ (with an introduction by Cardinal George). You will be astounded by the outpouring of novelty and just plain weirdness that comes out of Barron. In this passage, Barron is speaking about the Blessed Virgin:

“She is this the symbolic embodiment of faithful and patient Israel, longing for deliverance. In John’s Gospel, she is, above all, mother – the physical mother of Jesus and, through him, the mother of all who would come to new life in him. As mother of the Lord, she is, once again, Israel, the entire series of events and system of ideas form which Jesus emerged and in terms of which he alone becomes intelligible. Hans Urs von Balthasar comments in the same vein that Mary effectively awakened the messianic consciousness of Jesus through her recounting of the story of Israel to her son. So in the Cana narrative, Mary will speak the pain and the hope of the chosen people, scattered and longing for union” (Robert Barrion, The Priority of Christ, p. 73).

Notice, he links up his own idea that through Mary Christ “becomes intelligible” with the Balthasarian heresy of Christ not knowing who He was until sometime later. Christ learns who He is by listening to stories about Israel! Barron does not dispute Balthasar - rather, he uses him to bolster his point.

Here is another gem that is key to understanding Barron's position. Barron disagrees with the likes of the modernists Kung and Schillebeeckx on many things, yet he says this:
“Like the ‘Jesus as symbol” approach, the ‘historical Jesus’ Christology is rooted in elements and intuitions of the classical tradition. Kung and Schillebeeckx are quite right in the insisting that Christianity must never devolve into a generic philosophy of life or symbolic system, that it must, on the contrary, maintain its clear and unambiguous connection to the very particular first-century Jew, Jesus of Nazareth, The Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, the first kerygmatic proclamations, the sermons of the earliest missionaries, the creeds and dogmatic statements of the patristic church all depend upon and circle around this Jesus. Therefore, in brushing away certain encrustations and obfuscations in the Christological tradition and focusing our attention on the irreplaceable character of Jesus, Kung and Schillebeeckx and their historical-critical colleagues have done the church a great service. Furthermore, in insisting that the high dogmatic claims of Christology should be consistently informed by a biblical sensibility, the historical critics have compelled Christology to abandon mere flights of speculation and to remain, thereby, truer to its proper origins and ground. The ‘Jesus of history’ can indeed function as a sort of check on unwarranted theological exploration” (p. 42).

"Kung and Schillebeeckx and their historical-critical colleagues have done the church a great service." This phrase should send up red flags (Kung was stripped of his license to teach Catholic theology because of his heterodoxy and has also been praised by Freemasons for "lifetime service to the Craft"); also alarming is Barron's promotion of "the 'Jesus of history' as a "sort of check" on certain aspects of Christology. But, what are these “encrustations and obfuscations” in the Christological tradition? Where is there a problem with “high Christological claims" today or in the 20th century? What exactly are these claims? He does not say, but if he is following the school of Balthasar, then he is probably referring to the Christological teachings of the 5th century during the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies, developments in theology which Balthasar (and by implication, Barron) implicitly reject.

Barron goes on with a reflection on how tradition and the development of doctrine fit into his rejection of "encrustations and obfuscations in the Christological tradition" and a focus on the "Jesus of history." This will be Barron's attempt to square the circle:

“John Henry Newman felt that the fully grown plant is far more revealing of the nature of the organism than is its seed, and that the mouth of a river is far more interesting and deep than its source. In a similar way, the literarily, spiritually, and theologically evolved portrait of Jesus is more instructive than any historical core, however carefully recovered. The Catholic instinct is not so much to assess the development by the origin as to appreciate the development as the full flowering of the origin. (pg. 43).

Of course, Barron's major point here is correct; the full grown, developed organism is more revealing than the seed. Otherwise, we would fall to the error of Archaeologism-Antiquarianism. But the language Barron uses to make the point is curious; the portrait of Jesus "evolved", in distinction to some "historical core"? So the Gospels are an evolution beyond the “historical core?” What is the relation of the core to the evolved portrait?
It is somewhat ambiguous, but is seems to suggest that the spiritual and theological portraits of Jesus are inconsistent with the historical core. Almost as if he is saying that “Yeah, the real history is sometimes different than what we find in the Gospels and subsequent spirituality and doctrine, but that’s okay because the evolving Church illuminates Christ. Even if X isn’t in the historical core it is still helpful for us.” If so, he is taking a middle position between the Catholic and the Modernist view of the Gospels.

It could be that he is simply saying that the Church's understanding of who Christ is is radically greater than anything that could be revealed by some futile search for the "historical Jesus." That would be a more orthodox interpretation of his words - however, given his paean to Kung and the historical-critical method and his rejection of tradition Christology as full of "obfuscations" and "encrustations", we are not remiss or hasty in positing the former interpretation as possible.

This is exemplified in the earlier passage about Christ’s consciousness; here is another which casts suspicion on Barron's comments about the "evolved" portrait of Jesus:

“The author of John’s Gospel stresses this dimension when he puts in the mouth of Caiaphas the words ‘You do not understand it is better for you to have one man die for the people than to have the whole nation destroyed’” (p. 105).

The author of John? Puts into his mouth? If this is any indication, Barron appears to buy into some of the errors of the historical critical method (e.g., that the Gospel of John was not written by John) while not going as far as say, Kung – that is to say, he is definitely a Balthasarian.

 So, these words that "the author of John's Gospel" had "put" in the mouth of Caiaphas are an example of a "literarily" evolution, since he claims it didn't happen historically.

 If we use that as a reference, then it appears he is claiming that there are indeed theological evolutions, not contained or even implied in the "historical core." What would these be?

 Given Barron's earlier statements about Christ having His "messianic consciousness awakened" and having "learned his deepest identity and mission" only at His baptism, we can only conclude that the Catholic doctrine of Christ knowing his Messianic duty is one of these "encrustations" not found in the "historical core." It is, seemingly, a denial of a doctrine and at the same time and affirmation of some level of the Modernist's principle of the evolution of doctrine. There is certainly something bizarre going on here and that it he denies Christ's knowledge, which affects the doctrine of His Beatific Vision.

 Bishop Barron's book appears to oscillate form orthodoxy to heterodoxy to error, back and forth; it makes one’s head hurt. There is much more in this book, much more, that is either erroneous or just bizarre. Barron's words, like those of his master Balthasar, are easily manipulated, and a demonstration that the New Theology is inept at communicating theology, always intentionally or unintentionally laying traps so that orthodoxy is restrained and error and heresy goes free.

Bishop Barron is not a bastion of orthodoxy. Like Balthasar, he says some things that sound good when compared to progressive liberalism. But taken on their own merits, Barron's teaching is very troubling. One Peter Five - and all Catholics who love our heritage - are right to be suspicious of him. And those who defend Bishop Barron (like Vogt) need to address these glaring errors in Barron's work.

Special thanks to reader Alexander for drawing my attention to these abnornmalities in Barron's work.

Follow this blog and website on Facebook!

02:44

Sic et Non on evidence [Just Thomism]

A: … What, like we don’t have video of him?

B: Well yeah, I suppose so.

A: But no one I know thinks he’s the sort of thing you can videotape. Maybe you could expect to have this sort of evidence for Olympians – though even then I’m not sure.

B: That’s not the way the Bible talks about it. The heavens are opening all the time, lepers are being healed, fire is coming down out of heaven, smoke is covering Mt. Sion. That seems easy enough to videotape.

A: “All the time” seems too strong. About half the Old Testament miracles are during the exodus to the Holy Land, which is a relatively short period in salvation history. After that, the miracles are mostly for Elijah, with a few famous ones in Daniel. The videotaping standard won’t even work on that many of them: sure, it would be impressive to see fire come down on Elijah’s altar, but would it be that impressive to see Daniel all night in the lion’s den? If you saw the widow’s son rise from the dead, wouldn’t you just assume he revived?

B: Ah ha! You don’t even find the evidence impressive! Maybe Daniel just got lucky (The Romans couldn’t always make lions eat criminals) Maybe Elijah just got lucky – there are all sorts of stories about people with no vital signs reviving.

A: I took it another way. Big, videotapable miracles seem to happen at phase transitions in Salvation History: the shift from Israel being a group of landless slaves to being a nation; the shift from this nation ruled by kings to being ruled by prophets; the shift from their being a nation to being a wandering people, etc. The first shift is the most significant and accounts for half the miracles, most of the rest occur at the second phase, and a few happen at the last, along with some outlier miracles on the fringes. A Christian would expect the greatest concentration of miracles to occur with Christ, and then for the great public miracles to cease.

B: So we’re in an inter-miracle period.

A: Like the vast majority of history. Scripture records two thousand years of narrative history, and not a hundred years of it are great times of miracle. Even that overstates the case since we certainly don’t mean that we find a hundred years of continuous miracles when we add them all up.

B: But then there really isn’t evidence.

A: I was only trying to speak to your claim that Scripture makes us expect that miracles happen all the time.

B: Okay, but that just leaves you proving a small point but losing the main one. When we look closer at Biblical evidence, we see that it’s either unconvincing (a lucky man in a lion’s den) or that it only happens in rare, transition moments of history. But we need evidence do get us to believe now!

A: But if miracles happen primarily at transition points in Salvation History, then they’re not meant to get unbelievers to believe but to get believers to change their beliefs.  If anything, Scripture doesn’t hold out much hope for the power of miracles to cause unbelievers to believe. Consider Pharaoh. Consider that the plot to kill Christ was a response to the raising of Lazarus. Consider the final moral of Lazarus and Dives.

B: You can’t deny that a world with more signs and evidence is one where more people would believe. You can’t doubt that if everyone saw the heavens open up that belief would be far more reasonable.

A: I think that’s exactly what we’re disagreeing about. Your idea of God is a counterfactual opposed to both what we know about God by reason (which gives us no reason to expect videotape-style evidence or great theophanies) and what we know by revelation (since Scripture sees miracles as for believers) Just where are you getting this view of God that tells you he should open up the skies for everyone? What source of evidence can you appeal to prove this is the sort of thing that a God would do?

 

 

 


02:00

Some Thoughts to Help Deepen Gratitude [Community in Mission]

Thanksgiving_11-25True gratitude is a grace, or gift, from God. It proceeds from a humble and transformed heart. In such a case we do not render thanks merely because it is polite or expected, or because God commands it, but because it naturally flows from a profound experience of gratitude. The “command” of Scripture to give thanks is not a moralism, but a truth and a description of what flows from a transformed heart.

Thus, an anointing to seek from God is the powerful transformation of our intellect and our heart so that we become deeply aware of the remarkable gift that is everything we have. As this awareness deepens so does our gratitude and joy at the “magnificent munificence” of our God. Everything—literally everything—is a gift from God.

Permit me a few thoughts on the basis for a deepening awareness of gratitude. Ultimately, gratitude is a grace, but having a deeper awareness of its intellectual basis can help to open us more fully to this gift.

  1. We are contingent beings who depend on God for our very existence. He holds together every fiber of our being: every cell and every part of every cell, every molecule and every part of every molecule, every atom and every part of every atom. God facilitates every function of our body: every beat of our heart, the functioning of every organ, and the movement of our body. God sustains every intricate detail of the world in which we live: the perfectly designed orbit of our planet so that we neither boil nor freeze; the magnetic shield that protects Earth from harmful aspects of solar radiation; and every intricate process of our planet, solar system, galaxy, and universe. All of this, including us, is sustained by God and provided for by Him. The depth, height, length, and width of what God does is simply astonishing. And He does it all free of charge. As we ponder such goodness and providence we are helped to be more grateful. All is gift.
  2. Every good thing you or I do is a gift from God. St. Paul says, What have you that you have not received? And if you have received, why do you glory as though you had achieved? (1 Cor 4:7). Elsewhere he writes, For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do (Eph 2:8-10). Hence even our good works are not our gift to God; they are His gift to us. On Judgment Day we cannot say to God, “Look what I’ve done, you owe me Heaven.” All we can say is “Thank you! All is gift!”
  3. Gifts sometimes come in strange packages. There are some gifts of God that don’t seem like gifts at all. There are sudden losses, tragedies, and natural disasters. In such moments it is easy to feel forsaken by God, and gratitude is probably the last thing on our mind. But here, too, Scripture bids us to look more closely: And we know that all things work together for the good of those who love God and who have been called according to his purpose (Romans 8:28). We don’t always know how, but even in difficult moments God is making a way unto something good. He is paving a path unto glory, perhaps through the cross, but unto glory. Jesus has said to us, But I will see you again and you will rejoice, and no one will take away your joy. On that day you will have no more questions to ask me (Jn 16:22-23). Yes, even in our difficulties we are more than conquerors (Rm 8:37) because the Lord can write straight with crooked lines and make a way out of no way. All is gift!
  4. Yes, all is gift. Absolutely everything is a gift. If we are in Christ, then even our failures are a gift, for we can learn from them and they can teach us humility. For what shall we give thanks? For everything! All is gift!
  5. There is an old saying, Justice is when you get what you deserve. Mercy is when you don’t get what you deserve. Grace is when you get what you don’t deserve. Like you, I get asked a dozen times a day, “How are you?” I have trained myself to answer, “More blessed than I deserve.” Yes, all is gift.
  6. Finally, the word “thanks” in English is unfortunately abstract. In Latin and the romance languages, the word for “thanks” is far more closely tied to the notions of grace and gifts. In Latin one says, “Thank you” by saying, “Gratias ago tibi,” or simply, “Gratias.” Although gratias is translated as “thanks,” it is really the same word that is translated as “grace” or “gift” (gratia). Hence when one receives a gift one exclaims, “Grace!” or “Gift!” It is the similar with the Spanish Gracias and Italian Grazie. Thank you in French is Merci, which comes from the Latin merces, meaning something that has been paid for or given freely. All these languages display the giftedness underlying everything for which we are grateful. The English word “thanks” does not quite make the connection. About the closest we get are the related words gratitude and grateful. All of these words (gratias, gracias, grazie, merci, and gratitude) teach us that everything is a gift!

Ultimately, gratitude is a gift to be received from God. We ought to ask for it humbly. We can dispose ourselves to it by reflecting on things such as those discussed above, but ultimately gratitude comes from a humble, contrite, and transformed heart. Saying “thank you” is not a moralism. True gratitude is a grace, a gift that comes from a heart deeply moved, astonished, and aware of the fact that all is gift.

The post Some Thoughts to Help Deepen Gratitude appeared first on Community in Mission.

01:37

Further thoughts on the socialist seduction [Semiduplex]

When we originally commented on Gabriel Sanchez’s piece regarding the “socialist seduction,” we focused on what we identified as two currents in the Church’s thinking about subsidiarity. We did not focus on the broader question. In following up a Twitter conversation on our issue, we noted that Paul VI, in his little-loved 1971 letter Octogesima adveniens, addressed the “socialist seduction” himself. It is worth noting that Paul never quite addressed socialism by name in Populorum progressio, and he made some ambiguous comments in that encyclical that seemed to point toward more aggressive regimes of redistribution that would be entirely consistent with a socialist or Marxist framework. Octogesima adveniens, coming only four years after Populorum progressio, can be seen, then, as an attempt to clarify some of the infelicities and ambiguities in the earlier document.

Addressing the question of socialism broadly (and Marxism specifically), Paul wrote,

Some Christians are today attracted by socialist currents and their various developments. They try to recognize therein a certain number of aspirations which they carry within themselves in the name of their faith. They feel that they are part of that historical current and wish to play a part within it. Now this historical current takes on, under the same name, different forms according to different continents and cultures, even if it drew its inspiration, and still does in many cases, from ideologies incompatible with faith. Careful judgment is called for. Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated. Distinctions must be made to guide concrete choices between the various levels of expression of socialism: a generous aspiration and a seeking for a more just society, historical movements with a political organization and aim, and an ideology which claims to give a complete and self-sufficient picture of man. Nevertheless, these distinctions must not lead one to consider such levels as completely separate and independent. The concrete link which, according to circumstances, exists between them must be clearly marked out. This insight will enable Christians to see the degree of commitment possible along these lines, while safeguarding the values, especially those of liberty, responsibility and openness to the spiritual, which guarantee the integral development of man.

Other Christians even ask whether an historical development of Marxism might not authorize certain concrete rapprochements. They note in fact a certain splintering of Marxism, which until now showed itself to be a unitary ideology which explained in atheistic terms the whole of man and the world since it did not go outside their development process. Apart from the ideological confrontation officially separating the various champions of Marxism-Leninism in their individual interpretations of the thought of its founders, and apart from the open opposition between the political systems which make use of its name today, some people lay down distinctions between Marxism’s various levels of expression.

For some, Marxism remains essentially the active practice of class struggle. Experiencing the ever present and continually renewed force of the relationships of domination and exploitation among men, they reduce Marxism to no more than a struggle – at times with no other purpose – to be pursued and even stirred up in permanent fashion. For others, it is first and foremost the collective exercise of political and economic power under the direction of a single party, which would be the sole expression and guarantee of the welfare of all, and would deprive individuals and other groups of any possibility of initiative and choice. At a third level, Marxism’ whether in power or not, is viewed as a socialist ideology based on historical materialism and the denial of everything transcendent. At other times, finally, it presents itself in a more attenuated form, one also more attractive to the modern mind: as a scientific activity, as a rigorous method of examining social and political reality, and as the rational link, tested by history, between theoretical knowledge and the practice of revolutionary transformation. Although this type of analysis gives a privileged position to certain aspects of reality to the detriment of the rest, and interprets them in the light of its ideology, it nevertheless furnishes some people not only with a working tool but also a certitude preliminary to action: the claim to decipher in a scientific manner the mainsprings of the evolution of society.

While, through the concrete existing form of Marxism, one can distinguish these various aspects and the questions they pose for the reflection and activity of Christians, it would be illusory and dangerous to reach a point of forgetting the intimate link which radically binds them together, to accept the elements of Marxist analysis without recognizing their relationships with ideology, and to enter into the practice of class struggle and its Marxist interpretations, while failing to note the kind of totalitarian and violent society to which this process leads.

(Emphasis supplied.) There is a lot to unpack here, to be sure. But the crucial insight, as far as we are concerned, is this:

Too often Christians attracted by socialism tend to idealize it in terms which, apart from anything else, are very general: a will for justice, solidarity and equality. They refuse to recognize the limitations of the historical socialist movements, which remain conditioned by the ideologies from which they originated.

In other words, Christians tend to think of socialism, the Pope tells us, in vague terms. However, the general will toward social justice associated with socialism is inseparable from socialism’s political and ideological aspects. Only when socialism is considered integrally, Pope Paul teaches us, can the Catholic determine whether and to what extent it is possible to follow socialist paths toward the broader goals of social justice. While the Pope does not come out and say so, one gets the sense that he is suspicious of what he calls socialist currents. He is even more acutely suspicious of the Marxist hermeneutic. Marxist analysis, Pope Paul argues, carries the bacillus of Marxism, and the bacillus of Marxism always results in grave, if not fatal, disease.

But—but!—Pope Paul does not exclude absolutely participation in socialist currents. The question is one of proper understanding of what Paul sees as essentially a sequential path: the broad social-justice aims of socialism lead to the political structures of socialism, which in turn lead to the ideological tenets of socialism. At a certain point, that becomes unacceptable in Paul’s view, given the broadly materialistic and totalitarian aspects of socialist ideology. But there is some distance between that point and sympathy, though for different reasons, with broader objectives of social justice. One imagines, therefore, that Paul sees the process of insight and engagement as (1) knowing the general course of development from social-justice goals to socialist ideology and (2) knowing when to stop and say “no farther.” And that is the tricky thing.


01:00

Todestag des heiligen Leonhard von Porto Maurizio, Franziskaner (*20.12.1676, für den Himmel geboren am 26. November 1751) [et nunc]

Normal 0 21 false false false DE X-NONE X-NONE Unter den Predigern, die die Aufgabe der Heilsverkündigung an alle ernst genommen haben, ragt der heilige Leonhard von Porto Maurizio besonders hervor.

Am 20. Dezember 1676 kam in Porto Maurizio an der ligurischen Küste in Norditalien ein kleiner Junge auf die Welt, der auf den Namen Paolo-Girolamo getauft und somit dem Schutz des hl. Paulus und des hl. Hieronymus anvertraut wurde. Wie er später selbst berichtete, hatte er sehr gute Eltern. Seine Jugend war vorbildlich: Er konnte seine Freunde mühelos für das Beten und für karitative Werke begeistern. Zu seinen Lieblingsautoren zählte der hl. Franz von Sales, dessen Anleitung zum frommen Leben er stets bei sich trug. Moralischen und geistlichen Beistand fand er in den von Jesuiten und Oratorianern betreuten Jugendkonventen, die seine Begeisterung für ein tugendhaftes Leben sowie seine Bußfertigkeit anfachten.

Paolo-Girolamo fühlte sich zum Ordensstand berufen.  Sein Beichtvater riet ihm, seine Gebete und Bußübungen zu intensivieren, so werde er mit Hilfe der Gnade den Willen Gottes erkennen. Als Paolo-Girolamo eines Tages zwei arm gekleideten, bescheiden auftretenden Ordensbrüdern aus dem Reformzweig des Franziskanerordens begegnete, verspürte er sogleich den Wunsch, sich ihnen anzuschließen. Er betrat die Klosterkirche in dem Augenblick, in dem die Brüder gerade die Komplet anstimmten: „Herr, unser Gott, bekehre uns!“ Die Worte gingen ihm so zu Herzen, dass er beschloss, um Aufnahme in den Konvent zu bitten. Er wurde Novize und empfing am 2. Oktober 1697 die Ordenstracht sowie den Namen „Bruder Leonhard“. Ein Jahr später legte er seine Gelübde ab. Der junge Ordensmann diente allen zur Erbauung, vor allem, weil er selbst die unbedeutendsten Regeln getreu befolgte. Er pflegte zu sagen: „Wenn wir, solange wir jung sind, die kleinen Dingen geringachten und bewusst gegen sie verstoßen, dann werden wir uns, wenn wir älter sind und über mehr Freiheit verfügen, auch Verstöße gegen die wichtigsten Punkte erlauben.“

Nach seiner Priesterweihe wurde Leonhard zum Philosophielehrerernannt. Bald darauf erkrankte er schwer und wurde von seinen Vorgesetzten zur Luftveränderung nach Porto Maurizio in seine Heimat zurückgeschickt. Als sich keine Besserung zeigte, betete der Pater zur Jungfrau Maria, sie möge von ihrem göttlichen Sohn eine robuste Gesundheit für ihn erbitten; er werde sie dazu nutzen, Seelen für den Himmel zu gewinnen. Seine Bitte wurde erhört; die Krankheit verschwand.

1708 hielt Pater Leonhard in der Nähe von Porto Maurizio seine erste „Volksmission“. Darunter versteht man eine Predigtreihe, die über mehrere Tage bzw. Wochen hinweg von einem auswärtigen Geistlichen in einer Pfarrgemeinde gehalten wird. Solche Missionen waren damals überaus beliebt und fruchtbar. Traditionell wurde dabei die Notwendigkeit thematisiert, sich zum Herrn zu bekehren, um ein wahrhaft christliches Leben zu führen und seine Seele zu retten.

Heutzutage spricht man nicht mehr so gern vom Seelenheil. Unser kulturelles Umfeld und die herrschenden Ideologien machen die Menschen zunehmend an der irdischen Wirklichkeit fest: Viele leben nur für diese Welt und denken nicht daran, was nach dem Tode kommt. Für andere gibt es sehr wohl „eine Ewigkeit“ nach dem Tode, doch das Heil spielt dabei keine Rolle: Man geht davon aus, dass alle ohne Unterschied ins Paradies kommen. In beiden Fällen ist das Ergebnis gleich: Um sein Seelenheil braucht man sich nicht zu sorgen.

Doch „Gott hat uns ins Dasein gerufen, damit wir ihn  erkennen, ihm dienen, ihn lieben und so ins Paradies gelangen... Die verheißene Seligkeit stellt uns vor wichtige sittliche Entscheidungen. Sie lädt uns ein, unser Herz von bösen Trieben zu läutern und danach zu streben, Gott über alles zu lieben. Sie lehrt uns: Das wahre Glück liegt ... in keinem Geschöpf, sondern einzig in Gott, dem Quell alles Guten und aller Liebe... Der Dekalog, die Bergpredigt und die Lehre der Apostel weisen uns den Weg, der zum Reich des Himmels führt“ (Katechismus der Katholischen Kirche, 1721-1724).

Unser Herr Jesus ist zu den Menschen gekommen, um ihnen die unendliche Liebe des Vaters zu offenbaren, der will, dass alle gerettet werden und an seinem göttlichen Leben im Himmel teilhaben; doch Jesus betont zugleich, dass die Menschen an ihren Werken gemessen werden und dass denjenigen, die nicht in Frieden mit Gott sterben, kein ewiges Leben zuteil wird. „Jesus spricht öfters von der Gehenna des unauslöschlichen Feuers [Vgl. Mt 5,22. 29; 13, 42. 50; Mk 9,43-48], die für jene bestimmt ist, die bis zum Ende ihres Lebens sich weigern, zu glauben und sich zu bekehren, und wohin zugleich Seele und Leib ins Verderben geraten können [Vgl. Mt 10,28]. Jesus kündigt in ernsten Worten an, dass er seine Engel aussenden wird, die alle zusammenholen, die andere verführt und Gottes Gesetz übertreten haben, und ... in den Ofen werfen, in dem das Feuer brennt“ (Mt 13,41-42), und dass er das Verdammungsurteil sprechen wird: Weg von mir, ihr Verfluchten, in das ewige Feuer! (Mt 25,41). Die Lehre der Kirche sagt, dass es eine Hölle gibt und dass sie ewig dauert. Die Seelen derer, die im Stand der Todsünde sterben, kommen sogleich nach dem Tod in die Unterwelt, wo sie die Qualen der Hölle erleiden, das ewige Feuer. Die schlimmste Pein der Hölle besteht in der ewigen Trennung von Gott, in dem allein der Mensch das Leben und das Glück finden kann, für die er erschaffen worden ist und nach denen er sich sehnt“ (Katechismus 1034-1035).

Die Betrachtung der letzten Dinge stand im Mittelpunkt von Pater Leonhards Lehre.
Er schrieb: „Bedenkt, wie wichtig es für euch ist, euer letztes Ziel zu erreichen. Es geht dabei um alles: Erreicht ihr es, so seid ihr gerettet, ewig glückselig und im Besitz aller Wohltaten für Leib und Seele. Verfehlt ihr es aber, so seid ihr verloren mit Leib und Seele, ihr verliert Gott und das Paradies, ihr seid auf ewig unglücklich, für immer verdammt. Solltet ihr einen Teil eures Vermögens verlieren, bleibt euch immer noch etwas; solltet ihr einen Prozess verlieren, könnt ihr Berufung einlegen; solltet ihr einen zeitlichen Irrtum begehen, er lässt sich korrigieren. Und selbst wenn ihr alles verliert, was soll's? Ob ihr es wollt oder nicht, einmal wird ohnehin der Tag kommen, an dem ihr alles zurücklassen müsst.
Wenn ihr aber euer letztes Ziel verfehlt, dann verliert ihr alles Gute und zieht euch für alle Ewigkeit irreparables Leid zu. Denn was wird es einem Menschen nützen, wenn er die ganze Welt gewinnt, an seinem Leben aber Schaden leidet? (Mt 16,26). Unser ewiges Heil! Das ist unsere große, unsere einzige Aufgabe. Wenn es um weltliche Dinge geht und ihr vergesst etwas, mag vielleicht ein anderer für euch daran denken; wenn ihr aber die große Aufgabe eures ewigen Heils vergesst, wer wird für euch daran denken? Wenn ihr euch nicht sorgfältig darum bemüht, wer wird sich für euch bemühen? Wenn ihr euch nicht selbst zu eurer Rettung verhelft, wer soll euch retten? Gott, der euch ohne euer Zutun erschaffen hat, will euch nicht ohne euer Zutun retten. Wenn ihr euch aber retten wollt, so müsst ihr daran denken“ (Betrachtung über die Bestimmung des Menschen).

Bevor man ein Werk beginnt, müssen die Hindernisse  beseitigt werden, die seiner Verwirklichung im Wege stehen. Dem ewigen Heil steht die Todsünde im Wege: der bewusste Verstoß gegen Gottes Gesetz in einem schwerwiegenden Punkt. „Die Todsünde ist wie auch die Liebe eine radikale Möglichkeit, die der Mensch in Freiheit wählen kann. Sie zieht den Verlust der göttlichen Tugend der Liebe und der heiligmachenden Gnade, das heißt des Standes der Gnade, nach sich. Wenn sie nicht durch Reue und göttliche Vergebung wieder gutgemacht wird, verursacht sie den Ausschluss aus dem Reiche Christi und den ewigen Tod in der Hölle, da es in der Macht unseres Willens steht, endgültige und unwiderrufliche Entscheidungen zu treffen“ (Katechismus 1861).

Pater Leonhard formulierte das so:
„Ah! Wie recht hatte doch der heilige Augustinus, als er gegen die seltsame Verblendung, das Gute für böse und das Böse für gut zu erklären, mit einem Wort Jesajas (5,20) protestierte: Wehe jenen, die das Böse als gut, das Gute als böse bezeichnen! Er wusste gar nicht, wie er jene Verblendung nennen sollte, die darin besteht, dass in der Welt kein Übel weniger geächtet wird als die Sünde, obwohl sie doch das abscheulichste Übel der ganzen Welt ist ... Genau das ist der Grund für so viele Sündenfälle und dafür, dass so viele Menschen Fehltritte begehen und sich in einen Abgrund von Unrecht stürzen: Man denkt nicht nach, nein, man überlegt nicht, was man anrichtet, wenn man eine Todsünde begeht“. (Predigt über Tücke der Todsünde).

Manche glauben, eine Todsünde werde nur in Ausnahmefällen oder aus willentlicher Missachtung Gottes begangen.
Doch Johannes-Paul II. warnt in seiner Enzyklika Veritatis splendor (6. August 1993): „Die einmal empfangene Gnade der Rechtfertigung kann nicht nur durch die Untreue, die den Menschen um seinen Glauben bringt, sondern auch durch jede andere Todsünde verloren gehen ... Jene Sünde ist eine Todsünde, die eine schwerwiegende Materie zum Gegenstand hat und die dazu mit vollem Bewusstsein und bedachter Zustimmung begangen wird.... Es handelt sich nämlich auch um eine Todsünde, wenn sich der Mensch bewusst und frei aus irgendeinem Grunde für etwas entscheidet, was in schwerwiegender Weise sittlich ungeordnet ist. Tatsächlich ist ja in einer solchen Entscheidung bereits eine Missachtung des göttlichen Gebotes enthalten“ (Nr. 68; 70).

Der Katechismus (1858) erklärt hierzu: „Was eine schwerwiegende Materie ist, wird durch die zehn Gebote erläutert, entsprechend der Antwort Jesu an den reichen Jüngling: Du sollst nicht töten, du sollst nicht die Ehe brechen, du sollst nicht stehlen, du sollst nicht falsch aussagen ... ehre deinen Vater und deine Mutter (Mk 10,19).“
Zu den häufigsten schwerwiegenden Sünden zählen die Sünden gegen das sechste und das neunte Gebot:
„Sünden, die entsprechend der jeweiligen Natur des Gegenstandes schwer gegen die Keuschheit verstoßen, sind: Ehebruch, Selbstbefriedigung, Unzucht, Pornographie, Prostitution, Vergewaltigung, homosexuelle Handlungen. Diese Sünden sind Ausdruck des Lasters der Unkeuschheit“ (Kompendium des Katechismus, 492), das, ohne selbst zum Schwerwiegendsten zu zählen, eine völlige Verblendung des Geistes bewirkt.

So mahnte Pater Leonhard zu Recht:
„Sünder, woran denkst du? Bist du härter als Stein? Hast du jemals die besondere Gnade bedacht, die Gott dir erweist, indem er dir Zeit zur Buße gibt? Was tust du, um dich in Sicherheit zu bringen? Wären ein paar Kasteiungen schon zu viel?... Wäre die Vorbereitung einer guten Generalbeichte zu viel, um dem gewohnten lasterhaften Leben ein Ende zu setzen?“ (Einladung zur Buße).

Doch Pater Leonhard begnügte sich nicht damit, das  Übel zu geißeln, er nannte auch das Gegenrezept:
Man soll sich vom Herrn gewinnen lassen, der seine Barmherzigkeit allen anbietet.
„Bedenkt, dass die Gerechtigkeit Gottes für die verstockten Sünder ebenso unendlich ist wie seine Barmherzigkeit für die reuigen Sünder. Gott hasst die Sünde unendlich; aber ebenso unendlich liebt Er seine Geschöpfe: Sobald man seine Sünde bereut, findet man die Liebe Gottes wieder; würden sich alle Sünder zerknirschten und demütigen Herzens Gott zuwenden, wären alle gerettet. Seine unendliche Güte will, dass alle Menschen ins Paradies gelangen ... Keine Mutter kann ihrem ins Feuer gefallen Kind so schnell zu Hilfe eilen, wie Gott sich beeilt, den reuigen Sünder in die Arme zu schließen. Je größer eure Sünden sind, umso größer ist auch der Triumph der Güte, der Liebe und der Nachsicht unseres unendlich barmherzigen Gottes“ (Betrachtung über die Barmherzigkeit Gottes).

Jesus fordert die Sünder „zur Bekehrung auf, ohne die man nicht in das Reich eintreten kann. Er zeigt ihnen aber in Wort und Tat das grenzenlose Erbarmen des Vaters [Vgl. Lk 15, 11-32] und die gewaltige Freude, die im Himmel ... herrschen [wird] über einen einzigen Sünder, der umkehrt (Lk 15,7). Der größte Beweis seiner Liebe ist die Hingabe seines Lebens zur Vergebung der Sünden (Mt 26,28)“ (Katechismus 545).

Pater Leonhard war ein Meister der Seelenführung und hatte oft die Erfahrung gemacht, dass bestimmte religiöse Übungen einem helfen konnten, sich zu bekehren bzw. im wiedergefundenen Stand der Gnade zu verbleiben.
Dazu zählt erstens die Übung der drei Ave Maria. Sie geht auf die heilige Mechtildis († 1258), eine deutsche Benediktinerin, zurück, die Unsere Liebe Frau einmal bat, ein Gebet zu nennen, das ihr gefalle. Da erschien ihr die Gottesmutter mit dem Ave Maria in goldenen Lettern auf der Brust und sprach: „Nichts wird höher gelangen als dieser Gruß, und man kann mich nicht liebevoller grüßen als mit dem respektvollen Sprechen dieser Worte.“ Ein andermal fragte die Heilige die himmlische Königin, wie man die Gnade der letzten Standhaftigkeit und eines guten Todes sicher erlangen könne. Wieder erschien ihr die Gottesmutter und sprach: „Wenn du diese große Gnade erlangen willst, musst du jeden Tag drei Ave Maria zu Ehren meiner Privilegien sprechen, und ich werde sie dir gewähren.“ Der heilige Leonhard warb nachdrücklich für diese Andacht: „Jeden Morgen beim Aufwachen und jeden Abend vor dem Schlafengehen soll der Verehrer Mariens drei Ave Maria zu Ehren ihrer unbefleckten Reinheit beten, ihr seine Sinne und alle Gaben seiner Seele darbringen, damit sie sie als einen ihr geweihten Besitz behüte, und sie um die Gnade bitten, an diesem Tag (bzw. in dieser Nacht) nicht der Sünde zu verfallen.“

Daneben empfahl der Heilige das Stoßgebet „Mein  Jesus, Erbarmen!“ und zitierte dazu die Worte eines Missionars: „Wenn ich an einen Ort zurückkehre, den ich bereits missioniert habe, passiert mir oft, dass Leute zu mir kommen und ihre Beichte folgendermaßen beginnen: ‚Mein Vater, ich bin jener Unmensch, der vor Jahren zu Ihnen gekommen ist, um sich zu erleichtern, und einen Sack voller Missetaten vor Ihre Füße gekippt hat; ich weiß nicht, ob sie mich wiedererkennen, aber mit Gottes Hilfe habe ich seit damals nichts Unanständiges und keine Todsünde begangen.' – ‚Wie haben Sie das gemacht?' – ‚Ach, Vater, ich habe den Rat, den Sie uns so eingeschärft hatten, befolgt und mich oft durch das fromme Stoßgebet Gott empfohlen. Ich habe das jeden Tag gemacht, morgens und abends, und vor allem bei Versuchungen bat ich häufig um den Beistand Gottes mit den Worten: Mein Jesus, Erbarmen! Was soll ich sagen, Vater? Ich fühlte in meiner Seele neue Kräfte wachsen, und bin nie mehr gestrauchelt.'“ Pater Leonhard fuhr fort: „Meine lieben Brüder, hätte ich eine donnernde Stimme oder vielmehr eine jener Posaunen, die am Tag des Jüngsten Gerichts erschallen werden, so würde ich mich, von heiligem Eifer erfüllt, auf den Gipfel der höchsten Berge stellen und von dort aus Leibeskräften rufen: ‚Ihr fehlgeleiteten Völker! Erwachet endlich; wollt ihr euch das ewige Leben sichern, so empfehlt euch Gott und sprecht zu Ihm: ‚Mein Jesus, Erbarmen!' Und ich gebe euch mein Wort darauf, wie Jesus Christus vor mir sein Wort darauf gegeben hat in seinem Evangelium: Bittet, und es wird euch gegeben werden (Mt 7,7), bittet um seinen Beistand, und ihr werdet ihn haben, und mit seinem Beistand werdet ihr nicht mehr sündigen. Ich wiederhole, ich gebe euch mein Wort darauf: Wenn ihr euch oft Gott empfehlt, indem ihr aus tiefstem Herzen sagt: ‚Mein Jesus, Erbarmen!', so werdet ihr nicht mehr sündigen, und ihr werdet gerettet!“

Die Übung des Kreuzweges - das Nachvollziehen des Leidensweges Jesu - existierte bereits damals; sie war jedoch außerhalb des Franziskanerordens kaum bekannt und erfuhr erst durch Pater Leonhard allgemeine Verbreitung. Er nannte den Kreuzweg liebevoll „die Mutter aller religiösen Übungen, da sie ja die älteste ist, die heiligste, frommste, göttlichste, erhabenste und verdienstvollste, die deswegen zu Recht den Vorrang vor allen anderen hat.“ Seine Passionsverehrung stützte sich auf eine lange, bereits vom heiligen Bonaventura gepflegte franziskanische Tradition und ließ ihn 572 Kreuzwege errichten.

Der Himmel segnete die Arbeit des Paters, und die Zahl seiner Volksmissionen in Italien und auf Korsika wuchs stetig. 1715 wurde Pater Leonhard zum Guardian des Klosters San Francesco al Monte in Florenz ernannt, wo er für eine strenge Einhaltung der Regel sorgte. Doch die Einsamkeit eines normalen Klosters genügte ihm nicht; er suchte, wie der hl. Franziskus vor ihm, nach einem abgelegenen Ort, an dem er von Zeit zu Zeit mit Gott allein sein konnte. So gründete er auf einem Berg eine Einsiedelei namens Santa Maria dell'Incontro. Man lebte dort in strengster Armut und widmete sich der Handarbeit. Bald baten Franziskaner und sogar Laien von auswärts darum, an geistlichen Exerzitien in der Einsiedelei teilnehmen zu dürfen. Pater Leonhard liebte diesen Ort so sehr, dass nur sein brennender apostolischer Eifer ihn von dort loszureißen vermochte.

Nach dem Heiligen Jahr 1750 brach Pater Leonhard  zu einer neuen Missionsrundreise auf, wurde jedoch bald vom Papst nach Rom zurückgerufen; er machte sich gehorsam auf den Weg. Das Reisen kurz vor Winterbeginn fiel ihm schwer. Er fühlte sich bereits beim Aufbruch aus Tolentino unwohl und hatte noch die Berge vor sich. In Foligno angekommen, wollte er die Messe feiern; als ein Bruder ihn bat, wegen seiner Ermüdung darauf zu verzichten, antwortete er: „Bruder, eine Messe wiegt mehr als alle Schätze der Welt“.

In einem Büchlein Pater Leonhards steht:
„Die heilige Messe ist nicht weniger als die Sonne des Christentums, die Seele des Glaubens, das Herz der Religion Jesu Christi; alle Riten, alle Zeremonien, alle Sakramente beziehen sich auf sie. Sie vereint mit einem Wort alles Schöne und Gute in der Kirche Gottes in sich... Ohne die heilige Messe befände sich die Welt bereits gewiss in einem Abgrund, hinabgerissen von der schrecklichen Last so vieler Missetaten. Die Messe ist der siegreiche Hebel, der sie hochhält. Da seht ihr also, wie unverzichtbar das heilige Messopfer für uns ist“ (Die heilige Messe, der unerkannte Schatz).

Pater Leonhard kam mit dem Te Deum auf den Lippen im November 1751 im Kloster des hl. Bonaventura an und musste mühsam aus der Kutsche gehoben werden: Er war so schwach, dass sein Puls kaum zu fühlen war. Im Krankenzimmer beichtete er und empfing die letzten Sakramente, nachdem er mit erstaunlicher Energie das Glaubensbekenntnis gesprochen hatte. Er nahm etwas von einem angebotenen Getränk zu sich und sagte dann: „Ich kann Gott gar nicht genug für die Gnade danken, dass ich im Kreise meiner Mitbrüder sterben darf.“ Am 26. November 1751 entschlief er gleich nach dem Empfang der Letzten Ölungfriedlich im Herrn.
Er wurde vom seligen Pius IX. heiliggesprochen und später von Pius XI. zum himmlischen Patron der Volksmissionare ernannt.

Heiliger Leonhard, bitte für uns um die Gnade eines eifrigen Einsatzes für das Heil der Seelen!

Rundbriefe von Abt Antoine Marie OSB
Abtei St.-Joseph de Clairval, Frankreich
Die Abduckerlaubnis, für die ich sehr dankbar bin, wurde erteilt.

http://www.clairval.com/



Geheimnisse der wahren Heiligkeit [BRUNONIS]

IL208-Z.21.5


Der Heilige, der bei dieser höchsten Schlussfolgerung aller Heiligkeit angelangt ist, ist der einzige wahrhaft und gänzlich vernünftige Mensch. Er allein zieht all die Schlussfolgerungen, all die Konsequenzen des großen leitenden Grundsatzes für jedes menschliche Leben; er allein kommt im vollkommenen Maße zu dem Ziele, zu dem er geschaffen ist. Er allein hat die Vollendung jedes Zieles gesehen, und das Ziel jeglicher Vollendung; er allein erfasst die unendliche Weite des großen Gebotes, in allem Gott zu sehen, zu lieben und zu suchen (Ps (118) 119,96).

Und wenn er durch zahllose Entbehrungen und Zusammenbrüche hat hindurchgehen müssen, fühlt er, dass er nichts von seinem Wesen in diesen Martern verloren hat; dass nichts von dem, was leben muss, verloren ist. Im Gegenteil, sein Leben, sein wahres Leben ist entlastet, befindet sich in seiner Reinheit und seiner Freiheit. Es ist ein Bad, in dem der Leib seinen Schmutz zurückgelassen, es ist ein Schmelztiegel, in dem das Gold seine Schlacken abgestreift hat.

Das hier ist wieder eines von den Geheimnissen der wahren Heiligkeit. Ihre Buße versteht selbst das Notwendige zu opfern, doch ohne etwas, was zum Leben gehört, zu schädigen. Wie gesund sind die Abtötungen der Heiligen vor allem für die Seele und auch für den Leib! 

Die diabolischen Übertreibungen führen immer zur Vernichtung dessen, was erhalten bleiben sollte, und zur Erhaltung dessen, was vernichtet werden sollte. Der Heilige trifft von Gott geführt immer das Rechte, er zerstört zur rechten Zeit, und baut weise auf. Er ist auf vorzügliche und in vollkommener Weise der vernünftige Mensch.

(Dom François de Sales Polien, IL, 20151126)
Normal 0 21 false false false DE X-NONE X-NONE


00:03

Preparing to prepare [Καθολικός διάκονος]

Unless the Word becomes flesh it remains only a word, not imperceptible or even totally incomprehensible, but certainly not concrete.

Recently I wrote elsewhere something like: "The saints are those who show us, not tell us, what it means to be holy." Someone objected to this observation, stating he was tired of folks insisting that obedience did not matter. Frankly, I have no idea how someone could construe what I wrote to imply any such thing. Nonetheless, I responded: "The saints show us how to be obedient to the Church and the joy that results from obedience. They show us that when done in love, obedience, far from being an imposition, is liberating." Obedience to Christ, which is obedience to His Church, is the path of liberation.

In the person of Jesus Christ, to quote Michael Card's song "The Final Word," "eternity stepped into time so we could understand." But as those called by Jesus we must also seek to give the Word, who dwells in us and among us by the power of the Holy Spirit, flesh. When the Lord gives Himself to us wholly in the Blessed Sacrament, He asks that we, in turn, give ourselves wholly to Him, in an exchange that is modeled on the mutual self-giving of the Most Holy Trinity. God is a communion of Persons and the Church is called to be a communion of persons.

Advent draws neigh. It begins at sundown this coming Saturday with First Vespers. It is a season we are in danger of forgetting amidst all the excitement that is whipped up about Christmas, which these days begins in earnest immediately following All Hallows. So, this post is perhaps best described as begin the begin, or preparing for the season of preparation; preparing for the Word to take flesh in you and me.



In 2010 my then-bishop, John Wester, who now serves as Archbishop of Santa Fe, New Mexico, promulgated the only pastoral letter he wrote while serving the Diocese of Salt Lake City. The subject of this letter, "Waiting in Joyful Hope," was Advent. Bishops issue pastoral letters to address pastoral concerns. Clearly, virtually skipping Advent in our rush towards Christmas is a genuine pastoral concern.

In his 2010 pastoral letter, now-Archbishop Wester provided some questions that are perennially relevant for us to reflect upon each and every Advent, that is, at the beginning of each new year of grace:
Is our hope really in Christ? Have we really allowed ourselves to wait in silence and ponder the great mystery of salvation? Have we been changed by our reflection on this mystery so that we live differently as our relationship with Christ deepens? In the darkness, we watch for the coming Lord. We must not let our busyness distract us from that, lest we be caught unawares like the foolish virgins in the Matthew's Gospel. The season calls us to be attentive to our preparations for the final day and attentive to the quality of our life in union with Christ
I am hard-pressed to remember a year darker than the one now ending. Here is our hope: "the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:5)

00:00

Cantalamessa Makes a Mess [Vox Cantoris]

I awoke this morning aghast at a promotion by Vatican English Radio of a most scandalous and heretical speech to Anglicans by Raniero Cantalmessa, the Preacher to the Papal Household. I was not able to write it up. Our good friend Barona was justifiably apoplectic after reading it and devoted a good amount of time to develop a solid post on this scandalous speech. 

Therefore, I highly recommend a visit to Toronto Catholic Witness for Barona's argument against this preacher of heresies who has the temerity to say that "we must never allow a moral issue like that of sexuality to divide us."

Raniero Cantalamessa; are you a sodomite or just a homosexualist?

If that is not bad enough, this heretic then has the temerity to state the "Christian world is preparing to celebrate the fifth centenary of the Protestant reformation." Is this man insane? Celebrate the loss of complete countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and most of Germany along with Switzerland and England to heresy and the loss of millions upon millions of souls? I ask again, is Cantalamessa insane? This is religious indifferentism which is heretical.

Yes, 2017 is the 500th anniversary of that heretical devil Luther's tearing of the fabric of Christ. It is also the 100th anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima. Perhaps the Bishop of Rome might point out to him which is Catholic.

To show more about the danger of this betrayer of Christ and His Church, below are my comments and his homily from Good Friday 2013 which I wrote that day; the first as Jorge Bergoglio in the Chair of Peter.

He revealed then similar thoughts as to his comments before the Anglicans referred to above.

The preacher of the papal household.

A disgraceful Capuchin if every there were one.


The following is from a blog post which I wrote on Good Friday 2013 in response to this heretic's outrageous homily in St. Peter's Basilica.

Cantalamessa's Mess 1

As outlined in the post below, on the holiest day of the Church year, when Christians commemorate the brutal torture and death of Christ our Saviour; our God who came to earth to sacrifice himself for our salvation and by whose blood we are redeemed; the Preacher to the Papal Household, Father Raniero Cantalamessa, OFM, gave the Homily on Good Friday in St. Peter's Basilica in the presence of Holy Father Francis. Father Cantalamessa, whose name ironically means "to sing the Mass,” wore again his Franciscan habit without surplice or preaching stole. Rather than devote his homily to the blood atonement of Christ and our salvation he chose instead an esoteric essay of the existentialist Franz Kafka. It's Good Friday in St. Peter's Baslica; in the presence of the Pope and with the Catholic world watching and he chooses to quote a Jewish existential writer? Someone who shares the same philosophy of Nietzsche and his death of God philosophy! He uses this obscure essay to justify his agenda -- to tear down the Church. Yes, that is what he wants. While St. Francis undertook God's direction to "rebuild my Church" this Franciscan in the presence of a Pope who took the name of the Seraphic Father wants to tear it down!
  

"There is a short story by Franz Kafka that is a powerful religious symbol and takes on a new meaning, almost prophetic, when heard on Good Friday. It's titled "An Imperial Message". It speaks of a king who, on his deathbed, calls to his side a subject and whispers a message into his ear. So important is that message that he makes the subject repeat it, in turn, into his hear. Then, with a nod, he sends off the messenger, who sets out on his way. But let us hear directly from the author the continuation of this story, characterized by the dreamlike and almost nightmarish tone typical of this writer: "Now pushing with his right arm, now with his left, he cleaves a way for himself through the throng; if he encounters resistance he points to his breast, where the symbol of the sun glitters. But the multitudes are so vast; their numbers have no end.  If he could reach the open fields how fast he would fly, and soon doubtless you would hear the welcome hammering of his fists on your door.  But instead how vainly does he wear out his strength; still he is only making his way through the chambers of the innermost palace; never will he get to the end of them; and if he succeeded in that nothing would be gained; he must next fight his way down the stair; and if he succeeded in that nothing would be gained; the courts would still have to be crossed; and after the courts the second outer palace; and so on for thousands of years; and if at last he should burst through the outermost gate—but never, never can that happen—the imperial capital would lie before him, the center of the world, crammed to bursting with its own sediment.  Nobody could fight his way through here even with a message from a dead man.  But you sit at your window when evening falls and dream it to yourself”…We must do everything possible so that the Church may never look like that complicated and cluttered castle described by Kafka, and the message may come out of it as free and joyous as when the messenger began his run. We know what the impediments are that can restrain the messenger: dividing walls, starting with those that separate the various Christian churches from one another, the excess of bureaucracy, the residue of past ceremonials, laws and disputes, now only debris. In Revelation, Jesus says that He stands at the door and knocks (Rev 3:20). Sometimes, as noted by our Pope Francis, he does not knock to enter, but knocks from within to go out. To reach out to the "existential suburbs of sin, suffering, injustice, religious ignorance and indifference, and of all forms of misery."As happens with certain old buildings. Over the centuries, to adapt to the needs of the moment, they become filled with partitions, staircases, rooms and closets. The time comes when we realize that all these adjustments no longer meet the current needs, but rather are an obstacle, so we must have the courage to knock them down and return the building to the simplicity and linearity of its origins. This was the mission that was received one day by a man who prayed before the Crucifix of San Damiano: "Go, Francis, and repair my Church". "Who could ever be up to this task?" wondered aghast the Apostle before the superhuman task of being in the world "the fragrance of Christ"; and here is his reply, that still applies today: "We're not ourselves able to think something as if it came from us; our ability comes from God. He has made us to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; because the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life"(2 Cor 2:16; 3:5-6). May the Holy Spirit, in this moment in which a new time is opening for the Church, full of hope, reawaken in men who are at the window the expectancy of the message, and in the messengers the will to make it reach them, even at the cost of their life."

Is Father Cantalamessa trying to influence the Pope or is he trying to tell us of decisions already made? 

What part of the building does he wish to “knock down” and return to what “simplicity?” Do we need more "antiquarianism" in the liturgy so condemned by Pope Pius XII in Mediator Dei?

Did we not go through this already with a hermeneutic of rupture due to a false interpretation of the Second Vatican Council or have we already forgotten? 

When he says that we need to discard the “residue of past ceremonials” to what is he referring?

Did the Church not rid those of the Papal Court after Vatican II or is he referring to something else? 

Will the Church further debase Her liturgy after eight years of attempted restoration? Is the Preacher to the Papal Household calling for an end to Summorum Pontificum?

Do they think that we are going to stand-by while the Church of Christ enters another period of “auto-demolition?”

Feeds

FeedRSSLast fetchedNext fetched after
XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Καθολικός διάκονος XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
A Clerk of Oxford XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
A Foretaste of Wisdom XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Abbey Roads XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Adelante la Fe XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
AKA Catholic XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Aleteia.org XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Andrew Cusack XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Arimathea Atom Feed XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Athanasius Contra Mundum XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Australia Incognita XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Barnhardt XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Beiboot Petri XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
BRUNONIS XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Called to Communion XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Cardinal Newman Society All Posts XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Catholic Answers XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Catholic Faith and Reason - Our Blog XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Catholic Sacristan XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
CatholicCulture.org - Commentary on Catholic News and World Affairs XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
CatholicCulture.org - In Depth Analysis of Catholic Issues XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
CatholicHerald.co.uk » CatholicHerald.co.uk XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Charlotte was Both XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Chiesa - XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
CNA - Daily Readings XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
CNA - Saint of the Day XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
CNA Daily News XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
CNA Daily News - Vatican XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
CNS Movie Reviews XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
CNS Top Stories XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
CNS Vatican News XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Commentary - thomistica XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Community in Mission XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Comunión Tradicionalista « Comunión Tradicionalista XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Conjectures of a Guilty Bystander XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Corpus Christi Watershed news XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Creative Minority Report XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
CRISTIANDAD XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Cum Lazaro XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
David Scott Writings XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Denzinger-Katholik XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Diligite iustitiam XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Dom Donald's Blog XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Dominicana XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Dominus mihi adjutor XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Dyspeptic Mutterings XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Eastern Christian Books XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Edinburgh Housewife XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Edward Feser XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
et nunc XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Ethika Politika XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
EUCist News XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Faithful Answers XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
For the Queen XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Fr Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Fr Ray Blake's Blog XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Fr. Z's Blog XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Galileo Was Wrong XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Gratia Super Naturam XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
History of Interpretation XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
https://creamcitycatholic.com/feed/ XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
I Have to Sit Down XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
iBenedictines XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
IDLE SPECULATIONS XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
ignatius his conclave XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Il Blog di Raffaella. I Papi, il Vaticano e la Chiesa Cattolica XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
In the Light of the Law XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Incarnation and Modernity XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Infallible Catholic XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Instaurare Omnia in Christo - The Blog XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Jimmy Akin XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
John G. Brungardt, Ph.L. XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
John V. Gerardi XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Just Thomism XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
katholon XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Korrektiv XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Laodicea XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Laudator Temporis Acti XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Le blog d'Yves Daoudal XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Lectio Divina Notes XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
LES FEMMES - THE TRUTH XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Lex Christianorum XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Ley Natural XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Little Flower Farm XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
LMS Chairman XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Loved As If XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
marcpuck XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Mary Victrix XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Mathias von Gersdorff XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Musings of a Pertinacious Papist XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
New Liturgical Movement XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
New Sherwood XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
New Song XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
News - thomistica XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Novus Ordo Wire | Blog, News Archive at NOVUS ORDO WATCH XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
One Mad Mom XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
OnePeterFive XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Opus Publicum XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Over the Rhine and Into the Tiber XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Oz Conservative XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Paths of Love XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Psallam Domino XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
RORATE CÆLI XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
RSS XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Sancrucensis XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Scholastiker XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Semiduplex XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Siris XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Spirit of Teuchtar II XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
St. Conleth's Catholic Heritage Association XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
St. Peter's List XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Steeple and State XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Symposium XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Tęsknota XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Taylor Marshall XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Tea at Trianon XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The American Catholic XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Badger Catholic XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Catholic Dormitory XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Catholic Thing XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The City and the World XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Daily Register XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Deacon's Bench XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Divine Lamp XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Eponymous Flower XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The hermeneutic of continuity XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Jesuit Post XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Josias XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Lepanto Institute XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Low Churchman's Guide to the Solemn High Mass XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Paraphasic XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Prosblogion XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Rad Trad XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Remnant Newspaper - The Remnant Newspaper - Remnant Articles XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Sacred Page XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The Sensible Bond XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
The TOF Spot XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Theological Flint XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
totaliter aliter XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Traditional Catholic Priest XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Transalpine Redemptorists at home XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Unam Sanctam Catholicam XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Unequally Yoked XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Voice of the Family XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Vox Cantoris XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Vultus Christi XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Whispers in the Loggia XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
ZENIT - The World Seen From Rome XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Zippy Catholic XML 13:00, Friday, 04 December 14:00, Friday, 04 December
Archives...
December 2015
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
30010203040506
07080910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031010203
November 2015
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
26272829303101
02030405060708
09101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30010203040506
October 2015
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
28293001020304
05060708091011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829303101
September 2015
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
31010203040506
07080910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293001020304
August 2015
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
27282930310102
03040506070809
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31010203040506
July 2015
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
29300102030405
06070809101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930310102
June 2015
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
01020304050607
08091011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29300102030405
May 2015
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
27282930010203
04050607080910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
April 2015
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
30310102030405
06070809101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930010203
March 2015
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
23242526272801
02030405060708
09101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30310102030405
February 2015
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
26272829303101
02030405060708
09101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272801
January 2015
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
29303101020304
05060708091011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829303101
December 2014
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
01020304050607
08091011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29303101020304
November 2014
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
27282930310102
03040506070809
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
October 2014
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
29300102030405
06070809101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930310102
September 2014
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
01020304050607
08091011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29300102030405
August 2014
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
28293031010203
04050607080910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
July 2014
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
30010203040506
07080910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031010203
June 2014
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
26272829303101
02030405060708
09101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30010203040506
May 2014
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
28293001020304
05060708091011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829303101
April 2014
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
31010203040506
07080910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293001020304
March 2014
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
24252627280102
03040506070809
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31010203040506
February 2014
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
27282930310102
03040506070809
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627280102
January 2014
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
30310102030405
06070809101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930310102
December 2013
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
25262728293001
02030405060708
09101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30310102030405
November 2013
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
28293031010203
04050607080910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293001
October 2013
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
30010203040506
07080910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031010203
August 2013
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
29303101020304
05060708091011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829303101
July 2013
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
01020304050607
08091011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29303101020304
June 2013
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
27282930310102
03040506070809
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
May 2013
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
29300102030405
06070809101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930310102
April 2013
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
01020304050607
08091011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29300102030405
March 2013
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
25262728010203
04050607080910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
February 2013
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
28293031010203
04050607080910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728010203
January 2013
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
31010203040506
07080910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031010203
December 2012
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
26272829300102
03040506070809
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31010203040506
November 2012
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
29303101020304
05060708091011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829300102
October 2012
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
01020304050607
08091011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29303101020304
September 2012
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
27282930310102
03040506070809
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
June 2012
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
28293031010203
04050607080910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293001
May 2012
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
30010203040506
07080910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031010203
March 2012
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
27282901020304
05060708091011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829303101
February 2012
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
30310102030405
06070809101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282901020304
December 2011
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
28293001020304
05060708091011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829303101
November 2011
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
31010203040506
07080910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293001020304
July 2011
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
27282930010203
04050607080910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
April 2011
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
28293031010203
04050607080910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293001
March 2011
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
28010203040506
07080910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031010203
November 2010
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
01020304050607
08091011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
29300102030405
August 2010
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
26272829303101
02030405060708
09101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30310102030405
June 2010
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
31010203040506
07080910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293001020304
January 2010
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
28293031010203
04050607080910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
December 2009
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
30010203040506
07080910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031010203
November 2009
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
26272829303101
02030405060708
09101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30010203040506