On Traditionis Custodes and the Circumstances That Motivated Its Promulgation:

(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

You will find that many of these persons are very insistent with their spiritual masters to be granted that which they desire, extracting it from them almost by force; if they be refused it they become as peevish as children and go about in great displeasure,  thinking that they are not serving God when they are not allowed to do that which they would.

For they go about clinging to their own will and pleasure, which they treat as though it came from God; and immediately their directors take it from them, and try to subject them to the will of God, they become peevish, grow faint-hearted and fall away. These persons think that their own satisfaction and pleasure are the satisfaction and service of God. 

This is to judge God very unworthily; they have not realized that the least of the benefits which come from this Most Holy Sacrament is that which concerns the senses; and that the invisible part of the grace that it bestows is much greater; for, in order that they may look at it with the eyes of faith, God oftentimes withholds from them these other consolations and sweetnesses of sense. [St. John of the Cross: From The Dark Night of the Soul, Book I (circa ante-1582)]

I have a few thoughts on the July 16, 2021 motu proprio Traditonis Custodes and the stated reasons for it in the accompanying letter to the bishops to follow on the brief ones mentioned some time ago. Some of what I say in this thread could very well anger many people including a few longtime friends. I am also aware that not everything I say here will apply to everyone who in some form or another identifies with the movement that calls themselves traditionalist. 

There are reasons it took some time to finish drafting a response. Life in general has its ways of imposing on our available time for one. But I also have mixed emotions about this. It really bothers me that some very good people are going to be hurt by this. But unfortunately, for reasons I will detail in this text, this action was in a certain sense inevitable based on how things had been going for quite some time, particularly in recent years.

To begin our exposition on the aforementioned apostolic letter, it was made clear in an accompanying letter that a major reason for Traditionis Custodes was that the generosity of Pope St. John Paul II and particularly of Pope Benedict XVI was badly abused:

Regrettably, the pastoral objective of my Predecessors, who had intended "to do everything possible to ensure that all those who truly possessed the desire for unity would find it possible to remain in this unity or to rediscover it anew," has often been seriously disregarded. An opportunity offered by St. John Paul II and, with even greater magnanimity, by Benedict XVI, intended to recover the unity of an ecclesial body with diverse liturgical sensibilities, was exploited to widen the gaps, reinforce the divergences, and encourage disagreements that injure the Church, block her path, and expose her to the peril of division.

This is unfortunately quite on point. For those observing these matters over the years, a cottage industry developed around Summorum Pontificum which rather than being useful for promoting ecclesial unity was instead regularly showing "neglect of and even contempt for the Teaching Authority of the Church itself"{1} instead of "due reverence and submission."{2} Its contributors trafficked in doctrinally defective idiocy that ran the gauntlet from questioning the integrity of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and the recent pontificates to a kind of yellow journalism that took relish in painting in the worst possible way various papal teachings and directives. 

With the pontificate of Pope Francis, these folks were particularly similar to "sounding brass or tinkling cymbals" (cf. 1 Cor xiii,1). In fact, the entirety of that biblical chapter is quite germane to this matter because it highlights the core flaw of so many in the traditionalist cottage industry: the absolute and fundamental lack of charity. This can be seen in particular over the past seven plus years where these folks have treated the Successor of Peter with contempt at every turn. You can see this not only in the numerous articles cranked out by the Traditionalist Outrage Porn contingent but also from those who both comment on said pieces in comments boxes as well as circulate them to others.

These sorts of people were described in a rather prophetic way in an allocation of Pope St. Pius X over one hundred years ago: 

Do not allow yourselves to be deceived by the cunning statements of those who persistently claim to wish to be with the Church, to love the Church, to fight so that people do not leave Her...But judge them by their works. If they despise the shepherds of the Church and even the Pope, if they attempt all means of evading their authority in order to elude their directives and judgments..., then about which Church do these men mean to speak? Certainly not about that established on the foundations of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20)." [Pope St. Pius X: Allocution (circa May 10, 1909)]

This quote precisely encapsulates the attitudes of the lions share of vocal traditionalists and conservatives over the current pontificate. And these once problematic (but somewhat containable) matters have unfortunately gotten much worse since Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio was promulgated. What was intended to be a healing action and a magnanimous gesture was instead horribly abused. And as of July 16, 2021 these graceless brats used up the last of the papal goodwill:

In defense of the unity of the Body of Christ, I am constrained to revoke the faculty granted by my Predecessors. The distorted use that has been made of this faculty is contrary to the intentions that led to granting the freedom to celebrate the Mass with the Missale Romanum of 1962. Because "liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity," they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church — the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion — affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only "with the body" but also "with the heart" is a condition for salvation.

It is very sad that a liturgical form that used to be a source of unity now is the domain of those who regularly foster division. It could not have been Pope Benedict XVI's intent to facilitate the growth of groups that to varying degrees are schismatic, heretical, and refuse obedience at every turn. The very same More Moral Than Thou sorts who with Pope Francis' recent decision "when they heard this, they were cut to the quick" (cf. Acts vii,54) are in the end generally not going to act differently than they have in the past seven plus years. That is why it is perfectly justifiable with Traditionis Custodes for the Supreme Pontiff to "cut them in pieces and assign them a place with the other hypocrites where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" (cf. Matthew xxiv,51).

My personal view on this as I said earlier is complicated. There are folks who will be hurt by this who are legitimately innocent bystanders. But the smug, self righteous, phylactery-widening, tassel-lengthening Pharisees who brought this on themselves{3} are another story altogether.

For those who are hurt and angry about this, if they are of goodwill, they will seek in this difficulty consolation in the writings of the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition. And I believe all of goodwill should be both sensitive to these folks' difficulties as well as seek to help them in navigating the waters that lay ahead.

However, of those other folks who have without shame or repentance trafficked in detraction, slander, calumny, sacrilege, idolatry, and written scandalous manifestos against the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and the popes who have confirmed said synod, they deserve only contempt. Most of them are not going to stop now that they have squandered Summorum Pontificum. But hopefully, their influence can be effectively exorcised from the Church and a genuine renewal can take place.

[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. [Pope Leo XIII: Apostolic Letter Epistola Tua (circa June 17, 1885)]

 

Notes:

{1} Pope Pius XII: Excerpt from his Encyclical Letter Humani Generis §18 (circa August 12, 1950)

{2} Cf. Humani Generis §42.

{3} In the event that some of The Usual Suspects doubt my veracity, it bears noting that is at least one priest within the traditionalist movement (with whom I have had past disagreements) has to his credit outlined these problems in pretty good detail for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Points to Ponder:

It is very helpful to confess with a certain regularity. It is true our sins are always the same; but we clean our homes, our rooms, at least once a week even if the dirt is always the same, in order to live in cleanliness, in order to start again. Otherwise, the dirt might not be seen, but it builds up. [Pope Benedict XVI]

On Dogmatic Facts and Pope Francis' Election as Pope:

This is in response to the following poll which was sent to me from social media.

A few musings come to mind when reading the above; namely:

1) Those people saying Benedict XVI are still Pope are schmucks.  

2) Dogmatic facts are "any fact connected with a dogma and on which the application of a dogma to a particular case depends." [Catholic Encyclopedia: Article on Dogmatic Facts (circa 1913)]  

3) The Church is infallible in dogmatic facts:

"According to Catholic doctrine, the  infallibility of the Church's Magisterium extends not only to the deposit of faith but also to those matters without which that deposit cannot be rightly preserved and expounded." [CDF: Instruction Mysterium Ecclesiae 3 (circa 1973) referencing Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium 25 (circa 1964)]

"With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts)." [CDF: Doctrinal Commentary on the Profession of Faith (circa 1998)]

4) Pope Benedict XVI abdicated the papacy by his own free choice in February of 2013.

5) The College of Cardinals elected Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina as Pope in March of 2013. He chose the name of Francis.

6) Pope Francis is the lawfully elected Pope of the Catholic Church.

7) As the Church could not err in a matter of dogmatic facts and the selection of Pope involves dogmatic facts, upon the man selected accepting the election, he becomes at that moment Pope.

8) The identity of Pope Francis as Pope as a dogmatic fact falls under the secondary realm of truths connected to revelation by logical necessity. Ergo, the fact that Pope Francis is Pope is considered infallible.

9) Those voting for Benedict XVI as the current Pope in that poll are in dogmatic error which if willfully doubted or denied means they should not present themselves for communion and priests or deacons aware of said willful doubt or denial by said persons should refuse to give them communion.

10) Benedict recognizes Francis as the lawful Pope along with the rest of the Catholic faithful.

Vatican report tracks McCarrick’s rise despite allegations of abuse and misconduct

I may have more to say on this subject after familiarizing myself more with the contents of the report. 

Full text of Benedict XVI: 'The Church and the scandal of sexual abuse'

On Pope Francis, the Catechism, and the Death Penalty:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I made a point last year to revisit in October in a lengthy expository musing the subject of the death penalty for a couple of reasons. First of all, I had last done so more than a decade prior at that point and considering the long period of time this website was mothballed, it seemed appropriate to do so because it was again in the news. The second reason was the talk by Pope Francis of possibly revising the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) to take an even more stringent position than the one outlined in the revised text of the CCC from 1997.

Pope John Paul II made the aforementioned change when he revised the original text of the CCC from 1992 with the aid of then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) Prefect Cardinal Ratzinger to take a position that presumably was also held by Cardinal Ratzinger when the latter became Pope Benedict XVI. That is where things stood for a good twenty plus years until just a few days ago over a couple of weeks ago. And it would not be an exaggeration to say that my position on the death penalty has evolved a lot from the time when I thought if anything we did not use it nearly enough: a position that I have not held for probably close to twenty years as of this writing. Certainly the archives of this site attest to a fairly consistent overall position of mine with regards to this subject much as with virtually all others that I can think of{1} and on the subject of the death penalty, if I was to condense my view of it to a single sentence it would read as follows:

The death penalty should be safe, legal, and rare.{2}

Obviously however one fit that under the rubric of the prior formulation in the CCC, that changed on August 2, 2018 when Pope Francis had his CDF Prefect Cardinal Luis Ladaria present a new formulation to replace #2267 in the CCC on the issue of the death penalty. What brought about this writing was a discussion on a Facebook thread of a friend of mine where someone tried to compare what Pope Francis just did to the church's supposed "changed position" on slavery. Or to quote their precise words with the balance of this note comprising my response to them coupled with further points of consideration. To wit:

If the Catholic world and the integrity of doctrine didn’t implode over the evolution of teaching on slavery, then I don’t think it will over the death penalty.

The church's position on slavery is often misunderstood. The prohibition was on chattel slavery, not all forms of slavery indiscriminately. This is why the Holy Office in 1866 proclaimed the following:

"Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons. It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given. The purchaser should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave." [Holy Office: Instruction (circa June 20, 1866)]

The condemnations of Vatican II of slavery do not contradict this at all but is nothing more than a reaffirmation of the papal condemnations of chattel slavery issued by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839, Pope Pius VII in 1815, Pope Benedict XIV in 1741, Pope Innocent XI in 1686, Pope Urban VIII in 1639, Pope Gregory XIV in 1591, Pope Paul III in 1537, and Pope Eugene IV in 1435. Vatican II did not proclaim any dogmas{3} or give any indication of condemning slavery except in passing so we cannot under general norms of theological interpretation take such a condemnation any further than was previously the case.

As far as capital punishment goes, there have been some developments sure but there has also been agenda driven attempts to force the issue in ways that are both historically untenable as well as theologically problematical and that does not even get beyond a couple of weak and unsupported claims made by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae on the matter.{4} But Pope Francis has gone further and his CDF's arguments are even more forced and weak{5} than those from his predecessor because at least Pope John Paul II recognized the long-established principle of recourse to the death penalty even if he argued{6} for minimizing its use dramatically.

But the latest ploy is setting a very bad precedent and makes a mockery of the notion of development of doctrine. In fact, I predict that the same folks who have long argued for life imprisonment of the most serious of offenders (like serial killers) will next #MoveTheGoalposts to claim that life imprisonment is also "contrary to human dignity" and claim this too is because of "development of doctrine" on "human dignity."

To put it bluntly and I take no joy in saying this: I cannot remember ever being profoundly disappointed in Pope Francis before as I am right now. I suppose there is a first for everything.{7}

I do not see at this point what more I can say than what I concluded last year's note with so I will reiterate it here in concluding the present posting:

I have some serious questions on whether or not Pope Francis or any of his recent predecessors has/had "taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of [this] question" (cf. Donum Veritatis 24) and with all due respect, until that is squarely faced and dealt with, their absolutist position on the matter is internally contradictory and I cannot pretend it is otherwise.

In accordance with magisterial teaching[...], I do not present my own "opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions" (cf. Donum Veritatis 27). Nor do I go about "giving untimely public expression to them" (cf. Donum Veritatis 27). I strive indeed to be both respectful as well as discreet when publicly saying anything about these matters at all -that is part of the reason why I waited a few weeks for this issue to move out of the headlines before posting this material.

I cannot speak for others but I can say that the tensions between my view and that of Pope Francis "do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings" (cf. Donum Veritatis 27) and I am conscious of a right "to make known to the Magisterial authorities the problems raised by the teaching in itself, in the arguments proposed to justify it, or even in the manner in which it is presented" (Donum Veritatis 30). As my prior writings on this matter spanning fifteen odd years should more than adequately demonstrate, I have sought on these as with all pertinent matters "serious study, undertaken with the desire to heed the Magisterium's teaching without hesitation" (Donum Veritatis 31). However, for reasons outlined above, on the issue of the practical stance of recent popes on the death penalty, "[my] difficulty remains because the arguments to the contrary seem more persuasive" (cf. Donum Veritatis 31).

I await such time as Pope Francis or anyone else in the church hierarchy, church theologians, church apologists, etc are willing to deal with the actual sociological and scientific realities on this subject and take them seriously. Until they do, their absolutist position is one which I cannot in conscience give my intellectual assent. I recognize however "the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question" (cf. Donum Veritatis 31) and ask of those who espouse the more absolutist position to likewise engage in an "intense and patient reflection on [their] part and a readiness, if need be, to revise [their] own opinions and examine the objections which [their] colleagues might offer [them]" (cf. Donum Veritatis 29). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 27, 2017)]

Considering what happened the other day a few weeks back, the above material is particularly relevant now.


Notes:

{1} The number of exceptions to this general rule is very small. I can however offhand think of one such example which I will post here as an exception to the rule:

On the Changing of One's Positions (circa January 31, 2018)

{2} To appropriate the phrase used by not a few pro-abortion advocates.

{3} Though truthfully, the way some folks treat the Second Vatican Council on some matters where it barely said anything at all, you would not know this.

{4} To put it quite bluntly.

{5} They are heavily conjecturally based and therein lies the rub. And before anyone takes issue with my claim, they would do well to consider what the Vatican itself has said about these sorts of interventions:

[I]n order to serve the People of God as well as possible, in particular, by warning them of dangerous opinions which could lead to error, the Magisterium can intervene in questions under discussion which involve, in addition to solid principles, certain contingent and conjectural elements. It often only becomes possible with the passage of time to distinguish between what is necessary and what is contingent [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction Donum Veritatis on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, Section 24 (circa May 24, 1990)]


The degree of conjecture on this matter is quite high and therefore of dubious objective validity. Furthermore:

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question...

Even when collaboration takes place under the best conditions, the possibility cannot be excluded that tensions may arise between the theologian and the Magisterium. The meaning attributed to such tensions and the spirit with which they are faced are not matters of indifference. If tensions do not spring from hostile and contrary feelings, they can become a dynamic factor, a stimulus to both the Magisterium and theologians to fulfill their respective roles while practicing dialogue.

In the dialogue, a two-fold rule should prevail. When there is a question of the communion of faith, the principle of the "unity of truth" (unitas veritatis) applies. When it is a question of differences which do not jeopardize this communion, the "unity of charity" (unitas caritatis) should be safeguarded.

Even if the doctrine of the faith is not in question, the theologian will not present his own opinions or divergent hypotheses as though they were non-arguable conclusions. Respect for the truth as well as for the People of God requires this discretion (cf. Rom 14:1-15; 1 Cor 8; 10: 23-33 ) . For the same reasons, the theologian will refrain from giving untimely public expression to them. [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction Donum Veritatis on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, Sections 24-27 (circa May 24, 1990)]

{6} See footnote five.

{7} The material in this note with the exception of the seventh footnote was written and otherwise assembled in the days following the new of the change in the CCC and shortly before the post outlining my public resignation from WherePeterIs. It therefore did not take into account the news involving former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick or the just-released grand jury report from Pennsylvania outlining in lurid detail the pedophilia and systematic coverups that occurred in that dioceses over a seventy-odd year period. Suffice to say, I am even madder at Pope Francis and all church leaders who either engaged in or facilitated by their silence or downright systematical coverups right now than I was when the rest of this note was written.

Bluntly on Lay Ecclesial Hypocrisy...

One positive about the pontificate of Pope Francis is he is exposing many conservatives as Pharisees. One problem is Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI inadvertently gave not a few conservatives the false idea that conservatism is the Catholic Faith and that is not true at all.

We also saw from so many of these same folks a papal worship in the prior two pontificates that treated every word from the pope as some all-hallowed requirement of belief which the same folks do the exact opposite in denigrating and ignoring Pope Francis in areas not only of faith and morals but church discipline and government. Too many hypocrites about on the conservative side. It was long time to trim the boat a bit but lest I forget, those liberals who denigrated and ignored Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI but worship and exalt Pope Francis' every hiccup are just as big a hypocrites.

Folks need to remember that the Faith is not one and the same with conservatism or liberalism.

Briefly on the Problem With An Emeritus Pope Benedict Statement on "Torture":

[Disclaimer: This is something that was prepped in draft form back on September 9, 2009 but for reasons I cannot recall at the moment was never published. While I do not remember at the moment what the statement made was, the basic criticism made on this subject remains intact and extends to Pope Francis as well. For that reason, I am dusting off this prior blurb from the drafts folder, tweaking it slightly (including revising the title), and publishing it at this time. -SM]

This is a small bit posted in a combox thread a couple weeks some time ago. I will likely may follow it with a more detailed exposition on the problem so noted below at some point in the coming days or weeks.

We are in need of a definition here. Not a definition as in dogma but instead in the meaning of the term and how it is to be applied. I have gone over these matters before and at times at length{1} but that is the bottom line really: definitions are the tools of thought and it bothers me that this pope and his predecessor{2} on some subjects do not bother clarifying their use of words.

As far as whom I am with, I do not make the mistake of confusing the role of the church with that of the state. I am with whomever stands up for the three fundamental rights of man and one of those rights is life and thus survival. And I will not align myself with any pundit, politician, philosopher, pope, president, or anyone else whose positions by logical extension endanger my survival or that of my loved ones. And that is the bottom line really.

Notes:

{1} On Torture and General Norms of Interpretation--Parts I-III (circa October 13, 2006)

{2} Who were/are not lacking in the intelligence department.

Pope warns Catholic theologians against arrogance

It would be nice to see him issue a similar warning to self-styled "apologist" sorts who can be every bit as dogmatic in their opinions as any Catholic theologian but who have a lot less to be humble about (to put it nicely).

Points to Ponder:
(On God's Existence and Reason)

[E]ither God exists or he doesn’t. There are only two options. Either one recognizes the priority of reason, of the creative Reason that stands at the beginning of everything and is the origin of everything – the priority of reason is also the priority of freedom – or one upholds the priority of the irrational, according to which everything in our world and in our lives is only an accident, marginal, an irrational product, and even reason would be a product of irrationality. In the end, one cannot “prove” either of these views, but Christianity’s great choice is the choice of reason and the priority of reason. This seems like an excellent choice to me, demonstrating how a great Intelligence, to which we can entrust ourselves, stands behind everything. [Pope Benedict XVI]

Points to Ponder:
(On the Pope from the Pope)

The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law...On the contrary: the Pope’s ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God’s Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism." [Pope Benedict XVI: From a Sermon at St. John Lateran (as quoted in L’Osservatore Romano May 11, 2005]