On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia:(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Though this is the second part of a three series; at the same time, it can mostly stand apart from the others. Nonetheless, part one in this series is accessible HERE.

So there is no confusion at the outset, I need to be very clear on a principle which will be presupposed throughout this examination. To wit:

Pope Francis possesses the authority to make decisions pertaining to Church discipline as "the pope, whom Christ placed over the entire Church to judge concerning the necessity of change for various reasons of circumstance" (Pope Gregory XVI: Enc. Let. Quo Gravior §6). So as "the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right...to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification" (Pope Pius XII: Enc. Let. Mediator Dei §58), Pope Francis is well within his right on these matters having "received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See” (Vatican I: Dogm. Const. Pastor Aeternus §2).

As possessing that divinely conferred prerogative, Pope Francis can at his discretion allow persons who are guilty of objective mortal sin to receive holy Communion as long as judging by their own conscience and with the guidance of their confessor or pastor they are not in a state of unrepentant actual mortal sin. The minimum requirement for reception of Communion is baptism and to not be conscious of unrepentant actual mortal sin. What we are about to delve into will presume the first point and from there address elements pertaining to the second point because that seems to be the sticking point for so many critics on these matters.

So having restated some basic principles pertaining to the prerogatives of the Supreme Pontiff as well as the minimum requirements for valid reception of communion, let us begin this examination, in looking at how some episcopal conferences have claimed they will approach implementing the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL). I will do this by looking at one such set of guidelines; namely, the Guidelines for the Dioceses of Malta. Of all the guidelines I have heard thrown around by those who take issue with Amoris Laetitia and its implementation by various dioceses, this one is apparently among the most extreme with regards to what a lot of these folks consider to be (to put it nicely), unacceptable.{1} There are fourteen such guideline points, so let us look at them in order.

It bears noting at the outset of this examination that what we are dealing with here is a set of implementation guidelines issued by the Malta bishops to their brother priests. Nonetheless, as I highly doubt anyone of good will could find anything to gripe about in the introductory letter portion of said guidelines{2}, let us pass over that for the sake of brevity and touch now on each point of implementation from the Guidelines for the Dioceses of Malta as briefly as it seems suitable to do.


1. Above all, we must always keep in mind that our pastoral ministry towards persons who live in complex family situations, is the same ministry of the Church who is Mother and Teacher. As priests, we have the duty to enlighten consciences by proclaiming Christ and the full ideal of the Gospel. At the same time, in the footsteps of Christ himself, we have the duty to exercise the “art of accompaniment” and to become a source of trust, hope, and inclusion for those who request to see Jesus (see Jn 12, 21), especially for those persons who are most vulnerable (see AL, 291, 296, 308; EG 169). In the case of couples with children, this inclusion is necessary not only for the couple but also for “the care and Christian upbringing of their children, who ought to be considered most important” (AL 299; see also AL, 245-246).

I have not heard thus far of any complaints about this guideline.{3} In a nutshell, priests have the duty to help enlighten consciences with the fullness of the Gospel but also to accompany and guide those who seek the Lord who are vulnerable. This is particularly the case for those couples with children.


2. When we meet or come to know of persons who find themselves in so called “irregular” situations, we need to commit ourselves to enter in dialogue with them and to come to know them in a spirit of authentic charity. If, subsequently, they show a genuine desire or accept to engage in a serious process of personal discernment about their situation, we should accompany them willingly on this journey, with true respect, care and attention. They “should be made to feel part of the Church. ‘They are not excommunicated’ and they should not be treated as such, since they remain part of the ecclesial community’” (AL 243). Throughout this process, our role is not simply that of granting permission for these people to receive the sacraments, or to offer “easy recipes” (see AL 298), or to substitute their conscience. Our role is patiently to help them to form and enlighten their own conscience, in order that they themselves may be able to make an honest decision before God and act according to the greatest good possible (see AL 37).

In a nutshell: Priests who come across or know those who find themselves in situations that are not regular need to approach such folks charitably and if said folks show a desire to accept or engage in serious discernment on their situation, the priests should guide them with care and attention. Such folks are not excommunicated{4} and need to know they are part of the Church. The role of the priest is not to merely grant permission to receive the sacraments or offer easy solutions but “to help them form and enlighten their consciences so they make an honest decision before God” (AL 37).

As I anticipate the subject of conscience is at the heart of so much of what the critics of AL and certain forms of its implementation take issue with, let us briefly touch on this matter before resuming a look at the various guideline notes. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) on the issue of conscience -all footnotes interspersed where applicable:

1777 Moral conscience,[Cf. Rom 2:14-16.] present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil.[Cf. Rom 1:32.] It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law:

Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; I mean that it was not a dictate, nor conveyed the notion of responsibility, of duty, of a threat and a promise. . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.[John Henry Cardinal Newman, "Letter to the Duke of Norfolk," V, in Certain Difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teaching II (London: Longmans Green, 1885), 248.]

1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. This requirement of interiority is all the more necessary as life often distracts us from any reflection, self-examination or introspection: Return to your conscience, question it. . . . Turn inward, brethren, and in everything you do, see God as your witness.[St. Augustine, In ep Jo. 8,9:PL 35,2041.]

1780 The dignity of the human person implies and requires uprightness of moral conscience. Conscience includes the perception of the principles of morality (synderesis); their application in the given circumstances by practical discernment of reasons and goods; and finally judgment about concrete acts yet to be performed or already performed. The truth about the moral good, stated in the law of reason, is recognized practically and concretely by the prudent judgment of conscience. We call that man prudent who chooses in conformity with this judgment.{5}

There is more to say on the subject of conscience which is of no small importance. However, we will get to that in due time; meanwhile, onto the next guideline note.


3. Before dealing with the pastoral care of those disciples of the Lord that have gone through the experience of failure in their marriage and are now living in a new relationship, we would like to address the situation of those who cohabit or who have only married civilly. These situations call for “pastoral care that is merciful and helpful” (AL 293) and “require a constructive response seeking to transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel” (AL 294). In pastoral discernment it is important to distinguish between one situation and another. In some cases, “the choice of a civil marriage or, in many cases, of simple cohabitation, is often not motivated by prejudice or resistance to a sacramental union, but by cultural or contingent situations” (AL 294) and, therefore, the degree of moral responsibility is not the same for all cases. “Let us remember that a small step, in the midst of great human limitations, can be more pleasing to God than a life which appears outwardly in order, but moves through the day without confronting great difficulties” (AL 305, EG 45).

So prior to dealing with the pastoral care of those in irregular situations due to marriage failure, etc., the guidelines touch on how to approach “those who cohabit or have only married civilly.” The focus here is on seeking to understand each particular situation so that the proper degree of moral responsibility in each case is better grasped so that an applicable remedy can be offered; namely to try and “transform them into opportunities that can lead to the full reality of marriage and family in conformity with the Gospel” (AL 294). In other words: to regularize their situation with the Church. The greater the number of “cultural or contingent situations” (AL 294) or other factors involved, the tougher the knot to untie. However, to be able to prescribe a viable course of action, the individual situation needs to be one the priest is thoroughly acquainted with.


4. We now address our ministry with persons who are either separated and divorced, who have entered a new union. If during the discernment process with these people, a reasonable doubt arises concerning the validity or consummation of their canonical marriage, we should propose that these people make a request for a declaration of the nullity or dissolution of their marriage bond.

I highly doubt once again{6} that this area is one that the critics would have a problem with so let us move on to the next one.


5. Throughout this discernment, an adequate distinction should be made between one situation and another, because not all cases are the same. “One thing is a second union consolidated over time, with new children, proven fidelity, generous selfgiving, Christian commitment, a consciousness of its irregularity and of the great difficulty of going back without feeling in conscience that one would fall into new sins. The Church acknowledges situations ‘where, for serious reasons, such as the children’s upbringing, a man and woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate.’ There are also the cases of those who made every effort to save their first marriage and were unjustly abandoned, or of ‘those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably broken marriage had never been valid.’ Another thing is a new union arising from a recent divorce, with all the suffering and confusion which this entails for children and entire families, or the case of someone who has consistently failed in his obligations to the family. It must remain clear that this is not the ideal which the Gospel proposes for marriage and the family” (AL 298).

In other words, while recognizing that the ideal proposed for the Gospel is not present in many of these situations, adequate distinctions need to be made on a case by case basis rather than treating every case exactly the same. I doubt this is all that controversial either{7} so let us move to the next point now.


6. It would be appropriate that throughout this process of discernment, we accompany these people to make “an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and repentance”, in which they “should ask themselves: how did they act towards their children when the conjugal union entered into crisis; whether or not they made attempts at reconciliation; what has become of the abandoned party; what consequences the new relationship has on the rest of the family and the community of the faithful; and what example is being set for young people who are preparing for marriage” (AL 300). This applies in a special way for those cases in which a person acknowledges his or her own responsibility for the failure of the marriage.

Briefly: priests throughout the discernment process are to encourage and aid these people to make examinations of conscience on various points pertaining to their situation as well as considering by their actions “what example is being set for young people who are preparing for marriage” (AL 300). Again, I doubt this is all that controversial{8} so let us move onto the next point.


7. Throughout the discernment process, we need to weigh the moral responsibility in particular situations, with due consideration to the conditioning restraints and attenuating circumstances. Indeed, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision,” (AL 301) or even diminish imputability or responsibility for an action. These include ignorance, inadvertence, violence, fear, affective immaturity, the persistence of certain habits, the state of anxiety, inordinate attachments, and other psychological and social factors (see AL 302; CCC 1735, 2352). As a result of these conditioning restraints and attenuating circumstances, the Pope teaches that “it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace” (AL 301). “It is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end” (AL 305). This discernment acquires significant importance since, as the Pope teaches, in some cases this help can include the help of the sacraments (see AL, note 351).


This point covers a key lynch pin to everything in a certain sense. The focus on potential attenuating circumstances in given situations can at times limit culpability or responsibility for particular actions. This is a matter to be discerned in the aforementioned situations by priests in confessionals with the parties in question. Or as I noted elsewhere on this subject:

The bottom line is this: the principle that every objectively grave act or situation is not automatically mortally sinful is not new. St. Alphonsus Ligouri wrote on this in the seventeenth century, heck St. Thomas Aquinas wrote on it in the thirteenth century. St. John Paul II noted in 1984 that "[c]learly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner's subjective culpability" (Ap. Ex Reconciliato et Paenitentia). All Pope Francis has done is take that principle and apply it to the subject of divorce and remarriage. The argument is not that the latter is not wrong or seriously sinful of course but instead that "[i]t can no longer simply be said that all those living in any ‘irregular situation’ are living in a state of mortal sin" (Ap. Ex. Amoris Laetitia). Discernment of individual cases is needed and that is for penitents and their confessors to do, not those outside the specific situation, be they folks on Facebook, folks who write for periodicals, or even Cardinals of the Church. This is really not all that difficult for those who are not determined to be obtuse about it.{9}

It seems that what really gets to a lot of the critics of Amoris Laetitia is that by putting so much focus on the imputability factors in the mortal sin calculus that Pope Francis is taking from them a prior apologetical/argumentation club that they liked to beat others with.{10} The idea that “[t]he Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations” (AL 301) is not new.{11} A consistent application of that data to all situations where grave matter is present however has long been lacking where the subject of marriage is concerned.{12} Pope Francis is putting an end to the double standard where this issue is concerned and saying it will henceforth be discerned in the same manner as any other is. And as his authority for making such a decision is one I trust should not have to be mentioned again to those making the complaints{13}, let us move onto the next guideline point now.


8. “By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth, and discourage paths of sanctification which give glory to God” (AL 305). This calls for more prudent instruction in the law of gradualness, (see AL 295) in order to discern the presence, the grace and the working of God in all situations, and help people approach closer to God, even when “not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law” (AL 295).

To touch briefly on the subject of the law of gradualness before moving on with the next guideline point:

Saint John Paul II proposed the so called “law of gradualness” in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”.[Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (22 November 1981), 34: AAS 74 (1982), 123.] This is not a “gradualness of law” but rather a gradualness in the prudential exercise of free acts on the part of subjects who are not in a position to understand, appreciate, or fully carry out the objective demands of the law. For the law is itself a gift of God which points out the way, a gift for everyone without exception; it can be followed with the help of grace, even though each human being “advances gradually with the progressive integration of the gifts of God and the demands of God’s definitive and absolute love in his or her entire personal and social life”[Ibid., 9: AAS 74 (1982), 90.]{14}

This is in essence a more systematic formulation of a fundamental principle enunciated long ago by Pope Gregory the Great when he advised his brother bishops on how to prudently go about laying the groundwork for evangelizing of a pagan culture and how to acculturate their symbols.{15} While that factor may puzzle the more historically obtuse among the papal critics{16}, let us move onto the next point anyway at this time.


9. Throughout the discernment process, we should also examine the possibility of conjugal continence. Despite the fact that this ideal is not at all easy, there may be couples who, with the help of grace, practice this virtue without putting at risk other aspects of their life together. On the other hand, there are complex situations where the choice of living “as brothers and sisters” becomes humanly impossible and give rise to greater harm (see AL, note 329).


In other words, not all situations in this area are black and white and thus should not be treated as such. This is why there is importance in working with a confessor to help someone diagnose their particular situation rather than try and cram someone into a one size fits all template as was unfortunately not uncommon in years past.{17}


10. If, as a result of the process of discernment, undertaken with “humility, discretion and love for the Church and her teaching, in a sincere search for God’s will and a desire to make a more perfect response to it” (AL 300), a separated or divorced person who is living in a new relationship manages, with an informed and enlightened conscience, to acknowledge and believe that he or she are at peace with God, he or she cannot be precluded from participating in the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (see AL, notes 336 and 351).

Here is the issue in a nutshell: it deals with those who have gone through a humble and discreet process of discernment with a confessor who has sought to inculcate in them with great care the fullness of Church teaching. If after this has happened the person is nonetheless serene in conscience with their situation, then they could receive the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist. Why would this be at all possible? Because one of the most fundamental principles in Catholic doctrine and understanding is the importance of following one’s conscience even if the latter is in error: a principle with a long and distinguished pedigree I might add:

For Aquinas, every conscience binds, even an erring one. This means that if there is something that you believe you cannot do (after having taken care to form your conscience as well as you can), even if the Church commands it, then you cannot do it without committing a sin. Likewise, if there is something you believe you must do, even if the Church forbids it, then you must do it or else commit a sin.{18}

This understanding of conscience was enunciated as well by the Second Vatican Council in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae:

On his part, man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious.{19}

In other words, those who have gone through a humble and discreet process of discernment with a confessor even if their conscience is still not free from all objective errors, they are still bound to follow it. And the thickets of endeavouring to rightly form a conscience or repair a poorly formed one contain no small number of potential roadblocks along the way: something Pope John Paul II himself recognized in general:

It is important to note therefore that a world which is divided into blocs, sustained by rigid ideologies, and in which instead of interdependence and solidarity different forms of imperialism hold sway, can only be a world subject to structures of sin. The sum total of the negative factors working against a true awareness of the universal common good, and the need to further it, gives the impression of creating, in persons and institutions, an obstacle which is difficult to overcome.

If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of "structures of sin," which, as I stated in my Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, are rooted in personal sin, and thus always linked to the concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make them difficult to remove. And thus they grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence people's behavior.

"Sin" and "structures of sin" are categories which are seldom applied to the situation of the contemporary world. However, one cannot easily gain a profound understanding of the reality that confronts us unless we give a name to the root of the evils which afflict us.{20}

We reached quite some time ago more or less a societal meltdown where a proper understanding of marriage is concerned. Among the various “structures of sin” is a society that has become shorn of all the supports for marriage that were common in past eras. The once rare bird of divorce has become so common that there is no small degree of general blindness to just how damaging it is to society in general. What used to be taken for granted as what marriage is and constitutes has been literally bastardized in every conceivable respect -even to the point to where there are folks who now believe that people of the same sex can marry. The potential degree of impediments to valid marriages is literally off the charts now compared to in the days when divorce was both rare as well as societally stigmatized.

Recognizing these realities as well as the principles pertaining to conscience as traditionally understood above, it has been judged as appropriate in some circumstances by Pope Francis to try and draw folks who have been shattered by the circumstances surrounding marriage in modern society and to try and re-graft into the vine branches that for various reasons had been broken off{21} recognizing the principles of gradualness in the apprehension of objective truths. The Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia points this out when referencing part of the a text from the Pontifical International Theological Commission titled In Search of a Universal Ethic: A New Look at the Natural Law which reads in fuller form{22} here:

This is an approach which, within a pluralist society like our own, takes on an importance that cannot be underestimated without considerable harm. Indeed, it takes account of the fact that moral science cannot furnish an acting subject with a norm to be applied adequately and almost automatically to concrete situations; only the conscience of the subject, the judgment of his practical reason, can formulate the immediate norm of action. But at the same time, this approach does not abandon conscience to mere subjectivity: it aims at having the subject acquire the intellectual and affective dispositions which allow him to be open to moral truth, so that his judgment may be adequate. Natural law could not, therefore, be presented as an already established set of rules that impose themselves a priori on the moral subject; rather, it is a source of objective inspiration for the deeply personal process of making a decision.{23}

Appropriating the above principle in its recommendation for pastoral action, Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia had this to say:

Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.{24}

How is such a situation to be ascertained in individual cases? Well, by the very thing that the Usual Suspects whine about but which in virtually any other circumstance they would complain does not happen enough: in the confessional with a confessor! It is one thing to long recognize that “[c]onscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity” (Gaudium et Spes 16) and another to apply it with consistency.{25} But as this point has been dealt with at enough length, let us move on now.


11. During this discernment process, we should examine with these people, how “their participation can be expressed in different ecclesial services”, particularly within “the liturgical, pastoral, educational and institutional frameworks” (AL 299). One should not exclude that these people be considered suitable to be godparents. On the other hand, “if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others”. It is our duty to preach anew “the proclamation of the Gospel message and its call to conversion”. Moreover, there could also be ways in which the person participates in the life of the community, such as in the social field, in prayer meetings, or as suggested by his or her personal initiative, together with our discernment (see AL 297).


Part of the discernment process is helping folks find ways to participate in different ecclesial services. Obviously, the degree and areas of possible participation{26} would vary on a case by case basis. And as those “flaunt[ing] an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or want[ing] to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others” (cf. AL 297), they should be treated differently from those who have gone through a humble and discreet process of discernment with a confessor even if their conscience is still not free from all objective errors.


12. In this journey of accompaniment, we must listen to and give value to the suffering of the persons who are innocent victims to separation, divorce or abandonment. Conditions of poverty make this pain even more traumatic. Forgiving an injustice suffered and endured is far from easy, but grace makes this journey possible (see AL 242).

The above guideline is a truncation of the following passage from Amoris Laetitia:

The Synod Fathers noted that “special discernment is indispensable for the pastoral care of those who are separated, divorced or abandoned. Respect needs to be shown especially for the sufferings of those who have unjustly endured separation, divorce or abandonment, or those who have been forced by maltreatment from a husband or a wife to interrupt their life together. To forgive such an injustice that has been suffered is not easy, but grace makes this journey possible. Pastoral care must necessarily include efforts at reconciliation and mediation, through the establishment of specialized counselling centres in dioceses”.[Relatio Synodi 2014, 47] At the same time, “divorced people who have not remarried, and often bear witness to marital fidelity, ought to be encouraged to find in the Eucharist the nourishment they need to sustain them in their present state of life. The local community and pastors should accompany these people with solicitude, particularly when children are involved or when they are in serious financial difficulty”.[Ibid., 50.] Family breakdown becomes even more traumatic and painful in the case of the poor, since they have far fewer resources at hand for starting a new life. A poor person, once removed from a secure family environment, is doubly vulnerable to abandonment and possible harm.{27}

Since I cannot imagine the above guideline could be a problem even for the Usual Suspects{28}, I am moving on to the next point now.


13. While exercising our ministry, we must be careful to avoid falling into extremes: into extreme rigour on the one hand, and laxity on the other. This process should be an invitation to harness certain attitudes, such as pastoral charity, honesty, discretion, an ongoing conversion, and love for the Church and her teaching (see AL 267, 300); attention to what God made “from the beginning” (see AL 61-66); humility in order to shed our sandals in front of the sacred ground of the other (see Ex 3, 5; EG 169); the wish sincerely to seek God’s will, and to be able to present the fragrance of Christ’s presence and his personal gaze (see EG 169).

Again, as I cannot imagine the above guideline could be a problem even for the Usual Suspects{29}, I am moving on to the next point now.


14. In order to avoid any cause for scandal or confusion among the faithful (see AL 299), we must do our utmost in order to inform ourselves and our communities by studying and promoting the teachings of Amoris Lætitia. This teaching requires us to undergo a “pastoral conversion” (EG 25). Together with the Pope, we do understand those who would prefer a “more rigorous pastoral care”, but together with him, we believe that “Jesus wants a Church attentive to the goodness which the Holy Spirit sows in the midst of human weakness, a Mother who, while clearly expressing her objective teaching, ‘always does what good she can, even if in the process, her shoes get soiled by the mud of the street’” (AL 308).


The final footnote involves of course the priests of the dioceses thoroughly studying and promoting the teachings of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. They recognize that in doing this it will undergo a “pastoral conversion” and cite as their reference point here a portion of Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium:

I am aware that nowadays documents do not arouse the same interest as in the past and that they are quickly forgotten. Nevertheless, I want to emphasize that what I am trying to express here has a programmatic significance and important consequences. I hope that all communities will devote the necessary effort to advancing along the path of a pastoral and missionary conversion which cannot leave things as they presently are. “Mere administration” can no longer be enough.[Fifth General Conference of the Latin American and Caribbean Bishops, Aparecida Document, 29 June 2007, 201.] Throughout the world, let us be “permanently in a state of mission” [Ibid., 551.]{30}

In substance, what the Guidelines for the Dioceses of Malta do is providing guidelines to the priests of their dioceses to better aid those of good will who are suffering due to irregularities in their marriage/life situations “through ‘a responsible personal and pastoral discernment” (AL 300). As far as those who would further kvetch about this despite everything noted above, they should recall how the Catholic spiritual tradition exhorts people to follow those who would give spiritual direction of the sort these guidelines seek to help facilitate:

Do not fear that your director may be mistaken in what he prescribes for your guidance, or that he does not fully understand the state of your conscience because you did not explain it clearly enough to him. Such doubts cause obedience to be eluded or postponed and thus frustrate the designs of God in placing you under the direction of a prudent guide. It was the priest's duty to have questioned you further had he not understood you, and that he did not is positive proof that he knew enough to enable him to pronounce a safe judgment. God has promised his special help to those that represent Him in the direction of souls. Is not this assurance enough to induce you to obey with promptness and simplicity as the Holy Scripture commands? 

God does not show the state of our souls as clearly to us as He does to him who is to guide us in His place. You should be quite satisfied then, if your director tells you that the course you follow is the right one and that the mercy and grace of your Heavenly Father are guiding you in it. You should believe and obey him in this as in all else, for as St. John of the Cross tells us "it betrays pride and lack of faith not to put entire confidence in what our confessor says"... 

We should allow obedience to regulate not only our external actions, but likewise our mind and will. Hence do not be satisfied with performing the works it prescribes, but let your thoughts and desires also be moulded according to its direction. In fact, it is in the interior submission that the merit of spiritual obedience essentially consists.{31}

It is a standard canon among the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition to exhort people to place full confidence in their confessor on matters of sin. For those who would resist these principles, they would place themselves outside the wellspring of the Catholic spiritual tradition for as St. John of the Cross noted "it betrays pride and lack of faith not to put entire confidence in what our confessor says" (cf. Light and Peace). Furthermore, it manifests itself in a rebellious, disobedient, and frankly schismatic mindset to presume that someone knows better about the state of their soul than would a confessor whom they had unburdened themselves to. And for those who would stand outside of this situation and make rash judgments on the state of the soul of another?

No surer sign of an unprofitable life than when people give way to censoriousness and inquisitiveness into the lives of other men. Of course exception must be made as to those who are responsible for others, whether in family or public life;--to all such it becomes a matter of conscience to watch over the conduct of their fellows. Let them fulfil their duty lovingly, and let them also give heed to restrain themselves within the bounds of that duty... 

Most people permit themselves absolute latitude in criticizing and censuring rulers, and in calumniating nationalities, according to their own opinions and likings. But do you avoid this fault; it is displeasing to God, and is liable to lead you into disputes and quarrels...

Do your best kindly to check the scandal-bearer, and if you know anything favourable to the person criticized, take pains to mention it.{32}

To ensure that this final point on disobedience by these arrogant and presumptuous sorts who would presume to correct others of which they know so little is established “by the testimony of two or three witnesses” (cf. Matt. xvi,18; Deut. xix,15), here are a couple other indictments on these folks from the spiritual tradition:

Saint Bernard says there is no need for the devil to tempt those who ignore obedience and permit themselves to be guided by their own light and deterred by their fears, for they act the devil's part towards themselves.{33}

And one more:

[W]ho abased Himself more than [Jesus] did! He was sated with insults, jibes, and mockings. He caused pain to Himself in His bodily life, in order to please Me. And who was more patient than He? for His cry was never heard in murmuring, but He patiently embraced His injuries like one enamored, fulfilling the obedience imposed on Him by Me, His Eternal Father. Wherefore in Him you will find obedience perfectly accomplished. He left you this rule and this doctrine, which gives you life, for it is the straight way, having first observed them Himself. He is the way, wherefore He said, 'He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.' For he who travels by that way, travels in the light, and being enlightened cannot stumble, or be caused to fall, without perceiving it. For he has cast from himself the darkness of self-love, by which he fell into disobedience; for as I spoke to you of a companion virtue proceeding from obedience and humility, so I tell you that disobedience comes from pride, which issues from self-love depriving the soul of humility. 

The sister given by self-love to disobedience is impatience, and pride, her foster-mother, feeds her with the darkness of infidelity, so she hastens along the way of darkness, which leads her to eternal death.{34}

To be clear, I am not taking issue with those who have humble but legitimate difficulties with the principles underlying these guidelines. In many respects, they are imprisoned by a prior approach to these matters which may have had its merit in prior ages when circumstances were dramatically different. However, when the Roman Pontiff sees fit to make modifications to the application of church discipline, the failure to approach these matters in a humble spirit and shorn of arrogant presumption is a different matter altogether. It is in this area that I take issue with the public critics of not only the Guidelines for the Dioceses of Malta but a whole host of issues that spring from the same font; namely that of pride and disobedience.

As I see it, they have two options with this:

Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever...

Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”

As a result of this, many [of] his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life".{35}

Many of these same folks would (or have!) written long apologias on John 6 and exhorted those who do not believe in the Real Presence that they should set aside their difficulties and have faith. Yet despite paying lip service to Church doctrines on papal primacy and jurisdiction as well as indefectibility, they show by their pompously arrogant approach to these matters to not really believe what they claim to believe when the rubber of abstraction meets the road of reality. They would seem to prefer to follow the disciples who turned their backs on Jesus rather than the Apostles who as Simon Peter made clear stuck with him even though they did not understand at that moment what He was saying.

Hopefully those who have legitimate difficulties with the Guidelines of the Dioceses of Malta, other guidelines like them, and the general direction that Pope Francis evidently wants to go with the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia can prayerfully consider what I have written above and come to a different way of seeing these matters. If that is still not possible for them, then hopefully they will at least be a lot more humble in how they approach these matters in the future and consider practicing a form of “reverent silence.” After all, “[e]ven a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent” (Proverbs xvii,28).

I follow my conscience, and when reason persuades me I make little account of moralists. [St Alphonsus Ligouri (circa 1764)]

Notes:

{1} "On January 17th, 2017, the Osservatore Romano, the official journal of the Holy See, published the guidelines issued by the archbishop of Malta and the bishop of Gozo for the reception of the Eucharist by persons living in an adulterous relationship. These guidelines permitted the sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist by some persons in this situation, and stated that in some cases it is impossible for such persons to practise chastity and harmful for them to attempt to practise chastity. No criticism of these guidelines was made by the Osservatore Romano, which presented them as legitimate exercises of episcopal teaching and authority. This publication was an official act of the Holy See that went uncorrected by yourself." [Excerpt from Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis, Page 8 (circa July 16, 2017)]

{2} At least I hope I am not wrong in this presumption!

{3} See footnote two.

{4} Well, not anymore anyway. (It used to be different and there is some controversy over when exactly this was changed.)

{5} Catechism of the Catholic Church: From Part III, Article 6, Section I on The Judgment of Conscience (circa October 11, 1992)

{6} See footnote two.

{7} Unless I find out later on it is. (At which time, it could be addressed in a separate piece if necessary.)

{8} See footnotes two and seven.

{9} Excerpt from the Note Very Briefly On the Dubia (circa March 13, 2017)

{10} By putting so much focus on the imputability factors in the mortal sin calculus, Pope Francis from all appearances is rejecting as no longer a viable theological position the idea that in the cases of those who are in irregular situations that the objectively grave situation itself ipso facto constituted a state of actual mortal sin and thus a defacto presumption of a loss of sacramental grace.

{11} Particularly where marriage and sexual matters are involved.

{12} See footnote nine.

{13} In the event I have underestimated the obstinence of certain folks, review again the second and third paragraphs of this note.

{14} Pope Francis: Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia §295 (circa March 19, 2016)

{15} "[S]urely it is impossible to efface all at once everything from their strong minds, just as, when one wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds." [Pope Gregory the Great: Letter to Abbot Mellitus, Epsitola 76, PL 77: 1215-1216 (circa 601)]

{16} Since when has ignorance prevented papal critics from boldly proclaiming their own defacto infallibility when criticizing the pope in areas where he governs by divine right?

{17} For reasons I have already touched on in this note and shall not reiterate at this time.

{18} Joseph M. Magee, Ph.D.: Aquinas Online’s Thomistic Philosophy Page Article On Conscience

{19} Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Declaration Dignitatis Humanae §3 (circa December 7, 1965)

{20} Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis §36 (circa December 30, 1987)

{21} To use for illustration purposes some imagery from St. Paul in Romans 11.

{22} As one complaint I have seen from the Usual Suspects is that Amoris Laetita does not quote some sources in greater length (apparently 264 pages was not long enough for them!), I quote the passage referenced in footnote 22 at greater length.

{23} Pontifical International Theological Commission: Expanded Excerpt from In Search of a Universal Ethic: A New Look at the Natural Law Section 59 (circa 2009) truncatedly referenced in Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia §305 (circa March 19, 2016)

{24} Pope Francis: Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia §305 (circa March 19, 2016)

{25} "One might speak of an interaction between a function of control and a function of decision. Thomas sees this sequence according to the Aristotelian model of deductive reasoning. But he is careful to emphasize what is peculiar to this knowledge of moral actions whose conclusions do not come from mere knowing or thinking. Whether something is recognized or not, depends too on the will which can block the way to recognition or lead to it. It is dependent, that is to say, on an already formed moral character which can either continue to deform or be further purified. On this level, the level of judgment (conscientia in the narrower sense), it can be said that even the erroneous conscience binds. This statement is completely intelligible from the rational tradition of scholasticism. No one may act against his convictions, as Saint Paul had already said (Rom 14:23)." [Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger: Excerpt from Conscience and Truth Presented at the 10th Workshop for Bishops (circa February 1991)]

{26} Particularly sacramental participation.

{27} Pope Francis: Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia §242 (circa March 19, 2016)

{28} See footnote two.

{29} See footnote two.

{30} Pope Francis: Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium §25 (circa November 24, 2013)

{31} Fr. R. P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Ally Their Fears (circa 1795) From the Section on Spiritual Direction

{32} St. Francis de Sales: Introduction to the Devout Life Chapter XXVIII (circa 1619)

{33} Fr. R. P. Quadrupani: Light and Peace - Instructions for Devout Souls to Dispel Their Doubts and Ally Their Fears (circa 1795) From the Section on Spiritual Direction

{34} St. Catherine of Siena OP: Treatise on Obedience from her Dialogues (circa 1370)

{35} John vi,53-67

To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

I wrote some draft texts eighteen months ago that constituted a preliminary response to the signatories of a then recent so-called "correctio filialis" (filial correction) of Pope Francis. A variety of circumstances prevented me from publishing them at the time or in subsequent months. However, as we are about to enter into Holy Week 2019, it seems appropriate to address this matter but not in precisely the same way I originally planned.

The material below is close to seventy percent different than that original first draft with a different approach taken for the most part compared to my earlier intentions. The words from the so-called "correctio filialis" will be in bolded green font throughout. Without further ado...

With profound grief, but moved by fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ, by love for the Church and for the papacy, and by filial devotion toward yourself, we are compelled to address a correction to Your Holiness on account of the propagation of heresies effected by the apostolic exhortation Amoris laetitia and by other words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness. 

There are many areas where these folks go astray but the one undergirding their entire enterprise is a fundamental one: they claim directly or otherwise that a pope can teach heresy. As I noted earlier in this year when addressing this issue:

The Church does teach and has always taught that a pope cannot teach heresy. However, to be clear, she has 'always taught' this the same way she has 'always taught' things like papal primacy, the immaculate conception, and papal infallibility. This is not hard to demonstrate but because of the variegations of Church history, it can be tedious to do so.{1}

I realize that this claim will be shocking to not a few of those who support such enterprises as the so-called "correctio filialis" but as with traditional spiritual instruction, there is a lacuna of knowledge by self-identified "conservatives" and supposed "traditionalists" on these matters as they pertain to doctrine as well. A good degree of the misunderstanding is a plethora of works written by theologians of the Church setting forth various hypotheses on popes being heretics. The reason for this seeming difficulty was explained by the present writer as follows:

The aftermath of the Protestant circumstance shook the church's foundations in ways that were unprecedented. Unlike the schism between west and east which was centuries in the making[...], the breaks by the Protestants were sharper and more sudden in nature. This shook the Catholic Church to its core and in the process of looking for answers, the question began to be floated about what if this movement were to seat one of its own in the Chair of Peter, what would happen then? That is when the theological titans of that age began to posit various hypotheses to try and explain this.

In this environment, theologians like Tommaso Cajetan, Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, John of St. Thomas, Melchior Cano, Albert Pighus, and others floated various hypotheses of what one would do in the event of a heretical pope. However, the floating of a hypothesis does not mean you per se concur with it. The Church all along witnessed to the converse hypotheses by the fact that she never proclaimed anyone who professed the idea that a pope actually could teach heresy as a Doctor of the Church or elevated such persons to the altars via canonization. Furthermore, most of the proponents of heretical pope hypotheses attempting to explain what would happen if a pope was to teach heresy personally abhorred the very notion and did not believe it themselves. Suarez did not believe a pope could teach heresy, thought the very idea was inconceivable, and that the position that he could not do so was pious and probable, to be held[...], but not certain in his time. Because he did not view it as certain, he attempted to set forth some hypotheses on the matter. Pighus believed it was impossible period either to teach heresy or even for a pope to be a private heretic. Alphonsus Ligouri adhered to the Bellarmine position.{2}

And what became subsequently of these various hypotheses propounded by learned theologians like Suarez and Cajetan?

Suarez's attempted hypothesis was condemned in 1692 by Pope Alexander VIII when he proscribed the 4 Gallican Articles one of which was a variation of Suarez's pro-offered hypothesis. Similarly the hypothesis of Cajetan was no longer defendable formally after that time though Bellarmine claimed it could not be defended in his view prior to that.[...] Bellarmine went further than most and believed not only that a pope could not teach heresy but that it was pious and probable to believe that he could not even be a secret or internal heretic. The first of his beliefs (that a pope could not teach heresy) is what was known in his treatise on the subject of the Roman Pontiff as the fourth opinion. Bishop Gasser explained it in his Relatio as follows:

"As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: 'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion."[...] 

To be clear, what Gasser was saying was not merely that it was pious and probable to hold that a Pontiff could not err in matters of faith but that one could go further and believe piously and probably the pope could not even be heretical as a particular person or in his person whatsoever. Bishop Gasser made it clear that Pastor Aeternus was correctly interpreted as teaching what Bellarmine outlined in his fourth opinion or the one Bellarmine himself called the most common and certain opinion. And from the moment the First Vatican Council made Bellarmine's fourth opinion their own, the issue of whether a pope could or could not be a heretic or teach heresy was dogmatically settled as a matter of doctrine in the negative by an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.{3}

Because of the above facts, the core argument made by the so-called "correctio filialis" is itself doctrinally flawed and in need of correction. It is not possible for a pope to teach heresy, period. Yet what do the signatories by affixing their names to the aforementioned document claim? Well, from all objective appearances, the signatories have run afoul of Catholic doctrine. This is evident not only in the title of their manifesto{4} as well as what I have seen of the content of said manifesto. It also makes rational sense as well because to accuse the Roman Pontiff of propagating heresy is no different from accusing him of teaching material heresy. Furthermore, the claim that [t]he signatories do not venture to judge the degree of awareness with which Pope Francis has propagated the 7 heresies which they list. But they respectfully insist that he condemn these heresies, which he has directly or indirectly upheld is a subtle attempt to infer that Pope Francis may have taught formal heresy as well.

This is a position that no matter which way you go with it flatly rejects the fourth opinion of Bellarmine which was dogmatized by the First Vatican Council. And as to teach and to propagate are synonymous with one another; ergo, these signatories have objectively proclaimed with their words and actions a position that is proximate to heresy. What goes hand in hand with such a censure?

Theological Note: Proximate to faith. 

Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God... 

Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error. 

Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith.{5}

To put it bluntly: each of these signatories have by affixing their names to this so-called "filial correction" objectively committed a mortal sin indirectly against faith. They should therefore refrain from receiving Communion until they have repented of this sin, abjured their signature to this so-called "filial correction" and received absolution. Until they do these things, they are in the very definition of a state of mortal sin and would commit sacrilege if they were to partake of the Eucharist.

Frankly, no more needs to be said on their little charade than that.{6}

We are permitted to issue this correction by natural law, by the law of Christ, and by the law of the Church, which three things Your Holiness has been appointed by divine providence to guard. By natural law: for as subjects have by nature a duty to obey their superiors in all lawful things, so they have a right to be governed according to law, and therefore to insist, where need be, that their superiors so govern. By the law of Christ: for His Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to rebuke Peter in public when the latter did not act according to the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2).

St Paul never accused St Peter of propagating heresy so their analogy falls flat.{7} Furthermore, as these folks are themselves objectively in a state of mortal sin by asserting a claim proximate to heresy, they are unfit to present themselves at communion lest they profane the Sacrament. Now I realize there will be some vociferous objections to my claim here so I will conclude with the rationale behind it.

According to biblical principles, as judgment is without mercy to him that hath showed no mercy (James ii,13), it only makes sense that with the judgment one pronounces they will likewise be judged (cf. Matt vii,2). In light of their rigourous approach to how all of those who are in irregular marital situations should be treated, the Gospel is clear that what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you (Mark iv,24). Therefore, we cannot presume any subjective inculpability for these folks but must presume their objectively grave mortal sin is automatically a subjective (or actual) mortal sin as well.

It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith. [St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine As Cited By Bishop Vincent Gasser in His Vatican Relatio on Pastor Aeternus (circa July 1870)]

Notes:

{1} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 11, 2019)

{2} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 11, 2019)

{3} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 11, 2019)

{4} Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis which translates as Filial Correction on the Propagation of Heresies.

{5} Sixtus Cartechini, S.J: Excerpt From De Valore Notarum Theologicarum (circa 1951)

{6} For those wondering about the Dubia, I dealt in early 2017 with the theological problems in the missive of the four cardinals. That subject can be revisited in a 2019 Lenten Reflections thread HERE.

{7} St. Paul in his correction did not accuse St. Peter of heresy. Basically, St. Paul said his piece and that was that. There was no persistence in arrogantly opposing St. Peter until the latter accepted the presumptive correction. And while St. Thomas taught that subordinates could correct a superior, the so-called "filial correction" is not a correction of the type that St. Thomas proposed or that St. Paul utilized.

Not Impossible: 5 Ways Japan Could Have Won World War II (And Changed History)

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

The Several-Storied Thomas Merton

Points to Ponder:

[P]ut away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. [1 Peter ii,2]

On Burying Hatchets, Building Bridges, Facilitating Authentic Dialogue, Etc. in 2019 and Beyond:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This is a continuation of sorts to a brief musing I posted at the start of Lent this year.

To pick up and expand on that thread, I have made it a point in recent years to seek to repair bridges where I had at least a hand in their falling into disrepair if not been destroyed altogether. With that in mind, it seems appropriate to revisit a template of sorts I set down in years past for dealing with these matters. To wit:

The present writer wants to take this moment to call attention to three topics in particular which were composed as a direct result of both public as well as private correspondence on key issues which affect proper dialogue.

As one who has seen certain disturbing patterns over and over again in many dialogues on a variety of subjects, it is only natural that eventually attention would be called to them by us in proportion to how little they were recognized by the parties utilizing them. That pattern started in late 2003, picked up steam in 2004, and then really came to fruition in 2005 and 2006 publicly in a number of postings as well as privately at times with certain individuals. We had presumed (naively in retrospect) that not a few people who should have known better would realize upon having those matters pointed out to them but some of them quite evidently did not.[...]

When considering that some of the persons in mind who were running afoul in key areas were not unintelligent, it struck us that the subjects in question would do well to be fleshed out individually in a series of postings dealing directly with certain approaches to argument in general rather than merely addressing them in the sequence of longer posts on other subject matters which was previously our wont. For one thing, in the latter form, they may not be as evident to a casual reader of those threads due to how many other interconnected issues were dealt with. But without further digression, here are four examples of exposition on often overlooked key factors that can impede authentic dialogue on a whole variety of subjects in order from oldest to newest:

On the Difference Between Objective Meaning and Subjective Intention (circa February 27, 2007)

On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof (circa March 8, 2007)

More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof -Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean (circa March 24, 2007)

On Ad Hominem, Revisiting Argumentum Ad Vericundiam, and Considering the Core Principle That Is Behind Any Argumentation/Logical Fallacy (circa June 1, 2007)

Included in the above threads is a discussion thread from an astute friend who provided us with both some appreciated criticisms as well as the opportunity to clarify a couple of additional key elements in the overall matrix of the oft-misused "appeal to authority" (Lat. argumentum ad vericundiam) in argumentation.

While those threads are hardly the only ones which could be noted, they were nonetheless significant in that the subjects they covered are almost never discussed directly. As a result of that informational lacuna, the problems the posts outline are rarely realized by those who fall prey to them: a failure that results inexorably in said problems being perpetuated across a broad continuum of subjects discussed. (To the detriment of authentic and potentially productive dialogue on subjects where passionate diversity of opinions can often persist.) [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 11, 2008)]

From nearly the beginning of this website once we found our footing here{1}, it has been my intention to facilitate dialogue across a sphere of subjects. While our understanding of these matters was less formed than it would later become, the study of and writing on these matters from an ecclesial perspective was only the start of the principles involved being applied across the entire spectrum of personal interactions. As warranted, guidelines for authentic dialogue would be further delineated in the cauldron of contemporary controversies until finally a more permanent template was set down in 2008 which explicitly embodied the principles we had written on in the five year period preceding it. I revisited that material in 2018 for what was intended to be a column in the abortive WherePeterIs project{2} and when the latter fell through, it was published to this website instead.

It is my hope that these principles of authentic dialogue can not only serve to help in building bridges and burying hatchets not only where the present writer is concerned but also that in some small way they will benefit others as well in their dialogual journeys.


Notes:

{1} Or as noted before in years past:

[Y]our host has refused to purge his archives of stuff which in retrospect he regrets posting. Part of the reason for this is principles as we have been critical of others for trying to airbrush the historical record at their own sites to avoid telling the truth about their past actions or statements in a given point of time. But another reason is that life itself is a process of growth and development across a broad continuum. This includes weblog writing and interests.

We have no problem admitting that it took a bit of time before this weblog really started to take a discernible shape and some of the features and/or principles which have become standard or typical over time were in the "finding their feet" stage early on. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa May 15, 2007)]

{2} For the background on that situation, see these links if interested:

Lighting Candles Instead of Cursing the Darkness (originally published on June 16, 2018)

On My Resignation From Where Peter Is, General Concerns For The State Of Public Discourse There and Elsewhere, Etc. (circa August 6, 2018)

Points to Ponder:
(From Yours Truly)

Unless I am at a place like a cigar lounge, I always smoke cigars outside. Its one of my rules if you will.

Jesus Was A Socialist (Hippie Heretic)

I was asked in private correspondence to respond to the link above so below is substantially what my initial musings on it were...

The writer of the piece attempts an anachronistic projection of later hypotheses and concepts into earlier biblical times and is a classic apples and oranges ploy. As a result, their essay comes off basically as an attempt to cut and paste verses to support a preconceived point of view. In the case of socialism, the guy is a socialist by his own admission but then refuses to define what that term means and he looks for similarities to some interpretations of socialism in the Gospels and treats those as if they are socialist. But as he has not bothered to define his terms in advance, he can basically make them say whatever he wants them to say. (Apologists of all sorts play these same kinds of games.)

Are there similarities in some socialist points and some Gospel passages? Sure there are. There are also similarities in some capitalist or market based points and some Gospel passages. (For example, the parable of the talents.) Similarity is not the same as identity however. I made the point in a recent Lenten reflection that the Gospel is not right wing or left wing but these terms are inadequate to explain the phenomenon involved. And a key point the socialist does not seem to point out is that socialism involves not voluntary sharing of ones goods and possessions with the less fortunate (that is charity after all) but involves some governing entity arbitrarily seizing ones goods and possessions and giving them to someone else without any concern as to whether the owner of said goods and possessions actually wants to do this or not. The key to the various Gospel passages he cites (as well as the Acts passage) from what I can tell is the importance of detachment from goods and possessions.

A phrase that can be said to apply here is this: "we can possess wealth, we should not however let wealth possess us" and that is they key. But wealth is more than money and property. In a certain sense, it can be said to be anything which stands between us and God. To the extent that anything stands between, it is a problem even if the good or principle is itself neutral or even good (i.e. spouses, children, particular liturgical preferences, particular religious devotions, favourite sports teams, particular political or social viewpoints, etc). That is the key that the writer of the piece above in attempting to promote a "Jesus was a socialist" hypothesis fails to grasp.

On Rash Judgments:
(A Lenten Reflection)

We must proceed to rectify rash judgments, according to their cause. Some hearts there are so bitter and harsh by nature, that everything turns bitter under their touch; men who, in the Prophet's words, "turn judgment to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth." (Amos v, 7) Such as these greatly need to be dealt with by some wise spiritual physician, for this bitterness being natural to them, it is hard to conquer; and although it be rather an imperfection than a sin, still it is very dangerous, because it gives rise to and fosters rash judgments and slander within the heart.

Others there are who are guilty of rash judgments less out of a bitter spirit than from pride, supposing to exalt their own credit by disparaging that of others. These are self-sufficient, presumptuous people, who stand so high in their own conceit that they despise all else as mean and worthless. It was the foolish Pharisee who said, "I am not as other men are." (Luke xxviii, 11)

Others, again, have not quite such overt pride, but rather a lurking little satisfaction in beholding what is wrong in others, in order to appreciate more fully what they believe to be their own superiority. This satisfaction is so well concealed, so nearly imperceptible, that it requires a clear sight to discover it, and those who experience it need that it be pointed out to them. [St Francis de Sales: From Introduction to the Devout Life Ch. XXVIII (circa 1619)]

POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION CHRISTUS VIVIT

Points to Ponder:

With a cigar like in life, you got to have some length, and some girth. [D.L. Hughley]

Will It Stick? Examining the Hot Start of the Mariners Offense

The Seattle Mariners did a complete fire sale in the off-season and were preparing to take a step back this year to jump forward in the 2020-2024 years. So far, they are profoundly performing above expectations -honestly, I never saw this coming. And since I came into this season for them with literally zero expectations, this has been a most pleasant surprise up to now.

Points to Ponder:

We should not have an 'open mind' because that means we grant plausibility to anything, however, we should have a discerning mind. [Mike Mentzer]

Points to Ponder:

It's an art to enjoy living. Cigars enable you to enjoy living. [C.G.B. Bernard]

On the Subject of Conscience and Sacramental Reception:
(A Lenten Reflection)

It helps in the Lenten season for folks to reflect more on themselves and their particular tendencies to better get a grasp of where improvement is needed spiritually as well as otherwise. With those who at sundry times and in in divers manners have concerned themselves with the subject of conscience and sacramental reception, one area that I have never quite understood in the entire debate surrounding chapter eight of Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) is the problem not a few critics of it have with the idea of some folks who are divorced and remarried who have undergone a process of discernment with a priest who nonetheless in conscience feel they are "at peace with God" over their situation and who therefore receive communion.

Indeed, among the biggest bellyachers on AL are Catholics who in a number of other areas frequently slander, libel, denigrate, ridicule, and express contempt and/or profound disrespect for the Roman Pontiff and the last Ecumenical Council. There is no shortage of folks who do these things often (read: multiple times per day!) yet they still judge themselves as "at peace with God" and thus as fit to receive communion. The odds are pretty good that they do not accuse themselves of these sins in the confessional which means they receive unworthily themselves. They are therefore in no position morally or spiritually to judge anyone else yet they do it all the time.

Furthermore, unlike sex between divorced and remarried couples which while certainly sinful is nonetheless infrequent as a rule overall, these folks slander, libel, denigrate, ridicule, etc with far greater frequently. There is a true example of "look[ing] at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but not notic[ing] the log that is in your own eye" (cf. Matt vii,3) and yet those doing this are generally too proud to see or in any way acknowledge it. And even if they do, they inexorably make excuses for why what they did was somehow not making them unworthy of receiving communion unlike those heathen adulterers when in actuality their situation is even worse than that which they presume to pompously array themselves against.

It would seem appropriate for folks this Lent who spend their time obsessing on the matter above to honestly examine themselves and see if their attitudes really do match that of historical heretics and schismatics who also considered themselves more orthodox than thou and if they find themselves in need of repentance and conversion to do so.

THE UNKNOWNS: The Untold Story of America’s Unknown Soldier And WWI’s Most Decorated Heroes Who Brought Him Home

Points to Ponder:

There is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father. [Pope Francis]

Mending Wall

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.

I let my neighbour know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
"Stay where you are until our backs are turned!"

We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, "Good fences make good neighbours."

Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
"Why do they make good neighbours? Isn't it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down." I could say "Elves" to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.

He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbours."

[Robert Frost]

Points to Ponder:

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise commends knowledge, but the mouths of fools pour out folly. [Proverbs xv,1-2]

Points to Ponder:

[O]nce you decide to respond to a conspiracy theory, you have a very basic problem: the people who believe in this theory didn't reason their way into it, so it's extremely difficult to use reason to convince them that there's nothing to it. [John Hawkins (as posted to Facebook March 28, 2010)]

Points to Ponder:

A jealous ear hears all things, and the sound of grumbling does not go unheard. Beware then of useless grumbling, and keep your tongue from slander; because no secret word is without result, and a lying mouth destroys the soul. [Wisdom 1:10-11]

On Certain Pharisee Parallels Amongst the "More Faithful Than Thou" Crowd:
(A Lenten Reflection)

It helps in the Lenten season for folks to reflect more on themselves and their particular tendencies to better get a grasp of where improvement is needed spiritually as well as otherwise. With those who at sundry times and in in divers manners label themselves various ways and have a certain more faithful than thou disposition, they not infrequently get angry when others refer to such people as Pharisee-like in their behaviour. The initial reaction is understandable. However, is this claim really one without merit?

Consider this: who spends much of their time "thanking God they are not like other men" (cf. Luke xviii,11), extolling their perceived "orthodoxy" and "faithfulness", who is so concerned with "tithing the mint and ignoring weightier matters of law" (cf. Matthew xxiii,23), "straining gnats and swallowing camels" (cf. Matthew xxiii,24), etc? On Amoris Laetitia, who are like the folks who ask Pope Francis what should be done with the "people caught in adultery" (cf. John viii,3)? When it comes to the liturgy, who likes to "widen their phylactyries and lengthen their tassels" (cf. Matthew xxiii,25) so as to ensure everyone sees how "devoted" they are?

Who acts indignant as the son whose father said "Quick! Bring the best robe and put it on him. Put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Bring the fatted calf and kill it, let us feast and celebrate" (cf. Luke xv,11-32) in reference to the prodigal son? Or who acts as the day labourers who grumbled to the landowner that "These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat" (cf. Matthew xx,11)? In short, who kvetch frequently about the priority of the present pope in his attempts to reach out to the lost sheep? The mentality of the Pharisees who saw in everything Jesus did somehow something wrong or undesirable because it did not conform to their own puffed up self-righteous way of looking at things is shared by these folks who do the exact same thing to Francis who similarly does not act as they think a pope should act: namely, to ego stroke people like them. It is almost as if Jesus deliberately sought to poke the Pharisees in the eye to make a point to them. Should it surprise that his Vicar might from time to time do the same thing?

Now to be clear, I am not broad brushing here. There are folks who consider themselves faithful who do not act like Pharisees. But it seems right now they are in the minority. I do not even have a problem with someone having issues with a position or two taken by a pope -indeed it would be odd to find someone who did not. But there is respectful disagreement and there is acting like a pompous blowhard braying ass about such things. There is a difference between legitimate difficulties respectfully expressed and brazenly acting as if they are the determiners of orthodoxy or that they are the ones to "formally correct" the pope or whatever rather than actually being willing to be taught by the Vicar of Christ. It is true that not every statement is of equal weight and there is room for divergent views in different areas to certain extents. But the seeming attitude of many is that if the pope has not spoken infallibly on dogma that it means something is up for grabs. I guess that means at Nicaea only the divinity of Christ was required belief and everything for the first 325 years was optional. That is not how it works and the so-called "paragons of faithful orthodoxy" should know that if they are what they claim.

I admittedly have my own issues with Pope Francis. However, I am more and more seeing his election as a needed church corrective. The idea that only some traditional or conservative outlook is orthodoxy is wrong but for two prior pontificates this is what many of these folks deluded themselves into thinking. Now we have another pope but he is a bit more liberal. And rather than presume the orthodoxy of the pope and consider that maybe God wanted him to teach them some things, they presume if the pope does not fit their preconceived mould that the problem is him instead of perhaps them and certain deficiencies in their outlook. There are those who literally engage in the idolatry of worshipping a liturgical form much the way liberals often make an idol out of uninformed and overly autonomous notions of conscience. In the political realm, folks of these temperaments too often make an idol out of their particular preferences and wrongly equate them with the faith. The faith is conservative but its also liberal: these labels really do not do it justice and attempting to look at it this way is to too thoroughly confuse the City of Man with the City of God as St. Augustine might put it.

It would seem appropriate for folks this Lent who consider themselves of a a more faithful than thou disposition (i.e. traditionalist, conservative) to honestly examine themselves and see if their attitudes really do match that of the biblical Pharisees or other figures in Jesus' parables who also considered themselves more devout than thou. 

Revisiting the Controversial Dubia:

(A Lenten Reflection)

It helps in the Lenten season for folks to reflect more on themselves and their particular tendencies to better get a grasp of where improvement is needed spiritually as well as otherwise. The purpose of this reflection is to consider those who have repeatedly in social media and elsewhere agitated about the Dubia of the four cardinals and the explicit lack of an answer to it by Pope Francis. Though I addressed this matter years ago, it seems appropriate this Lent to revisit the subject anew. The core flaw of the Dubia can be summarized thusly:

• The presupposition from which the Dubia cardinals operate is that all objectively grave acts are automatically actual mortal sins. This error is reflected in the structure of the Dubia's various questions. Such an approach to moral theology is flatly contrary to centuries of Catholic understanding of what does and does not constitute an actual mortal sin. 

There are three factors that constitute an actual mortal sin. The first is the involvement of what is called objectively grave matter. However, there are two subjective factors as well. One does not by recognizing the variables which can subjectively affect an individual's culpability for a particular act ipso facto affirm that "divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio" (cf. Dubia Q1) are automatically in all cases guilty of actual mortal sin. Nor does such recognition of the aforementioned mitigating variables potentially affecting an individual's subjective culpability for a particular act ipso facto deny "the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts" (cf. Dubia Q2), the idea that there can be "objective situations of grave habitual sin" (cf. Dubia Q3), or consequently affirm that the aforementioned mitigations "transform[s] an objectively grave act into a subjectively good or defensible choice" (cf. Dubia Q4). And of course one who recognizes the variables which can subjectively affect an individual's culpability for a particular act does not necessarily affirm some "interpretation of the role of conscience...that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms" (cf. Dubia Q5). It is not an issue of legitimizing exceptions but instead one of not painting all objectively grave situations with the same level of subjective gravity.

If an objectively grave act is not automatically a subjective actual mortal sin, then the one who committed the act does not necessarily in all cases need to avoid taking communion. As for which situations this could be applicable, that sort of discernment is for individual penitents and their confessors, not those outside the specific situation no matter whom they are.

For those who want to read more on these matters, they can see my notes located here and here. It is actually not hard to answer these questions; however, there is also the factor of expending time on them when those asking the questions will not like or accept the answers given. As Pope Francis is likely aware that most of those who push the Dubia fall into this category and therefore his direct refusal to acknowledge it is actually something that arguably is the correct approach to take.

If You Are Afraid of Public Speaking

Points to Ponder:

In winter, I plot and plan. In spring, I move. [Henry Rollins]

In the ground. I put into it
The winter’s accumulation of paper,
Pages I do not want to read
Again, useless words, fragments,
errors. And I put into it
the contents of the outhouse:
light of the suns, growth of the ground,
Finished with one of their journeys.
To the sky, to the wind, then,
and to the faithful trees, I confess
my sins: that I have not been happy
enough, considering my good luck;
have listened to too much noise,
have been inattentive to wonders,
have lusted after praise.
And then upon the gathered refuse,
of mind and body, I close the trench
folding shut again the dark,
the deathless earth. Beneath that seal
the old escapes into the new. [Wendell Berry]

Dachau: An Overview

History of the Plague

Prosperity Gospel vs Living Within One’s Means

Excerpts From Literature/Writings:

One summer Aksionov was going to the Nizhny Fair, and as he bade good-bye to his family, his wife said to him, "Ivan Dmitrich, do not start to-day; I have had a bad dream about you."

Aksionov laughed, and said, "You are afraid that when I get to the fair I shall go on a spree."

His wife replied: "I do not know what I am afraid of; all I know is that I had a bad dream. I dreamt you returned from the town, and when you took off your cap I saw that your hair was quite grey."

Aksionov laughed. "That's a lucky sign," said he. "See if I don't sell out all my goods, and bring you some presents from the fair."

So he said good-bye to his family, and drove away.

When he had travelled half-way, he met a merchant whom he knew, and they put up at the same inn for the night. They had some tea together, and then went to bed in adjoining rooms.

It was not Aksionov's habit to sleep late, and, wishing to travel while it was still cool, he aroused his driver before dawn, and told him to put in the horses.

Then he made his way across to the landlord of the inn (who lived in a cottage at the back), paid his bill, and continued his journey.

When he had gone about twenty-five miles, he stopped for the horses to be fed. Aksionov rested awhile in the passage of the inn, then he stepped out into the porch, and, ordering a samovar to be heated, got out his guitar and began to play.

Suddenly a troika drove up with tinkling bells and an official alighted, followed by two soldiers. He came to Aksionov and began to question him, asking him who he was and whence he came. Aksionov answered him fully, and said, "Won't you have some tea with me?" But the official went on cross-questioning him and asking him. "Where did you spend last night? Were you alone, or with a fellow-merchant? Did you see the other merchant this morning? Why did you leave the inn before dawn?"

Aksionov wondered why he was asked all these questions, but he described all that had happened, and then added, "Why do you cross-question me as if I were a thief or a robber? I am travelling on business of my own, and there is no need to question me."

Then the official, calling the soldiers, said, "I am the police-officer of this district, and I question you because the merchant with whom you spent last night has been found with his throat cut. We must search your things."

They entered the house. The soldiers and the police-officer unstrapped Aksionov's luggage and searched it. Suddenly the officer drew a knife out of a bag, crying, "Whose knife is this?"

Aksionov looked, and seeing a blood-stained knife taken from his bag, he was frightened.

"How is it there is blood on this knife?"

Aksionov tried to answer, but could hardly utter a word, and only stammered: "I--don't know--not mine." Then the police-officer said: "This morning the merchant was found in bed with his throat cut. You are the only person who could have done it. The house was locked from inside, and no one else was there. Here is this blood-stained knife in your bag and your face and manner betray you! Tell me how you killed him, and how much money you stole?"

Aksionov swore he had not done it; that he had not seen the merchant after they had had tea together; that he had no money except eight thousand rubles of his own, and that the knife was not his. But his voice was broken, his face pale, and he trembled with fear as though he went guilty.

The police-officer ordered the soldiers to bind Aksionov and to put him in the cart. As they tied his feet together and flung him into the cart, Aksionov crossed himself and wept. His money and goods were taken from him, and he was sent to the nearest town and imprisoned there. Enquiries as to his character were made in Vladimir. The merchants and other inhabitants of that town said that in former days he used to drink and waste his time, but that he was a good man. Then the trial came on: he was charged with murdering a merchant from Ryazan, and robbing him of twenty thousand rubles.

His wife was in despair, and did not know what to believe. Her children were all quite small; one was a baby at her breast. Taking them all with her, she went to the town where her husband was in jail. At first she was not allowed to see him; but after much begging, she obtained permission from the officials, and was taken to him. When she saw her husband in prison-dress and in chains, shut up with thieves and criminals, she fell down, and did not come to her senses for a long time. Then she drew her children to her, and sat down near him. She told him of things at home, and asked about what had happened to him. He told her all, and she asked, "What can we do now?"

"We must petition the Czar not to let an innocent man perish."

His wife told him that she had sent a petition to the Czar, but it had not been accepted.

Aksionov did not reply, but only looked downcast.

Then his wife said, "It was not for nothing I dreamt your hair had turned grey. You remember? You should not have started that day." And passing her fingers through his hair, she said: "Vanya dearest, tell your wife the truth; was it not you who did it?"

"So you, too, suspect me!" said Aksionov, and, hiding his face in his hands, he began to weep. Then a soldier came to say that the wife and children must go away; and Aksionov said good-bye to his family for the last time.

When they were gone, Aksionov recalled what had been said, and when he remembered that his wife also had suspected him, he said to himself, "It seems that only God can know the truth; it is to Him alone we must appeal, and from Him alone expect mercy."

And Aksionov wrote no more petitions; gave up all hope, and only prayed to God.

Aksionov was condemned to be flogged and sent to the mines. So he was flogged with a knot, and when the wounds made by the knot were healed, he was driven to Siberia with other convicts. [Leo Tolstoy: From God Sees The Truth But Waits (circa 1872)].

Along With Youth

A porcupine skin,
Stiff with bad tanning,
It must have ended somewhere.
Stuffed horned owl
Pompous
Yellow eyed;
Chuck-wills-widow on a biassed twig
Sooted with dust.
Piles of old magazines,
Drawers of boy’s letters
And the line of love
They must have ended somewhere.
Yesterday’s Tribune is gone
Along with youth
And the canoe that went to pieces on the beach
The year of the big storm
When the hotel burned down
At Seney, Michigan. [Ernest Hemingway]

Points to Ponder:

Men prefer to remain in ignorance and to pronounce rash judgments on things which are difficult and obscure rather than to gain an understanding of them by diligent study. [Rufinus]

Briefly on Burying the Hatchet in 2019...

As I have grown older, I have been more conscious of the need in many spheres of life to be a bridge builder not a bridge destroyer. I have always prided myself on being generally pretty good in this area but on those cases when I have gone astray, it is usually not by a small amount. Sin and weakness have played a part in this but I believe through properly conducted dialogue that obstacles can be overcome for those who are of good will.

During Lent, I will make more than the normal degree of effort in this area as befitting the season in question.

Briefly...

Lent is upon us and while there are issues of far greater importance than what I am about to say, I will simply note very briefly that it is profoundly shameful before we start the Lenten season for certain serial provocateurs to try and rekindle old animosities instead of focusing on their own spiritual improvement. But enough on that distasteful stuff.

As far as my preparation for the season goes, among the things I am giving up and the things I will be taking up for this season{1}, one of the latter is that I am actually considering doing some apologetics during Lent. Why? Because I have for so long had a low opinion of most of what passes for apologetics on the web over the years. While ignoring it most of the time has long been what I have done, this Lent I will don a proverbial digital hairshirt and wade into this matter from time to time during the Lenten season as a form of penance.

Note:

{1} As there is more to Lent than just giving stuff up of course.

Points to Ponder:

There is a sacredness in tears. They are not the mark of weakness, but of power. They speak more eloquently than ten thousand tongues. They are messengers of overwhelming grief…and unspeakable love. [Washington Irving]

Today would have been the 78th birthday of my father Richard Dunn McElhinney. If readers could offer some prayers for the eternal repose of his soul, I would appreciate it. For those who do not believe in this ancient custom, then prayers for my mother (who still has difficulties on anniversaries such as this) and the rest of the family would be appreciated.



Eternal rest grant unto his soul oh Lord and may thy perpetual light shine upon him...May his soul and all the souls of the faithfully departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

Briefly on the Emerging New Site Formatting:

In the fiddling around with the template, I have decided to include as labels almost all the primary tags for the various archive postings. As I have explained before, all posts to this site have been tagged with primary and secondary tags, the primary is the main classification tag of sorts. There are some primary tags which either are not used anymore or which because of their nature, I simply do not want to include but out of the ones so included you can readily access 3221 of the 3284 published postings in one form or another. Make that 3222 of the 3285 if we include this posting.

Points to Ponder:

Smoking cigars is like falling in love. First, you are attracted by its shape; you stay for its flavor, and you must always remember never, never to let the flame go out!  [Winston Churchill]

Let Children Get Bored Again

Roberts again sides with liberal Supreme Court justices in disagreeing with lower court interpretations

To summarize this situation in sequence courtesy of SCOTUS Blog:

• The Supreme Court had previously ruled 5-4 that the Texas state court needed to revisit the death sentence of an inmate who had been argued had intellectual disabilities which they claimed was not in line with the most recent medical guide on these matters.

• The Texas state court retried the case and again sentenced him to death even after the local district attorney agreed the man was intellectually disabled.

• The case returned to the Supreme Court where the justices were asked to take up the case once again. The claim made was that despite the court's prior rebuke of the Texas lower court that the state basically carbon copied their prior analysis and rubberstamped the same verdict. 

• The local district attorney refused to defend the court decision so the Texas AG office sought to do so.

• The Supreme Court reversed the state court with a second rebuke.

• The Court in reversing the Texas lower court argued that the state court basically ignored their prior rebuke and sent the case back for further proceedings consistent with the opinion rendered by SCOTUS.

• Though he had voted with the minority in 2017, Roberts recognized the scam the state court attempted to pull and wrote a separate opinion concurring with those who voted in the majority last time (sans Kennedy who is retired now) to throw out the death sentence in this case because though he had problems with the prior ruling, it was evident that the lower court here misapplied the prior court ruling from 2017. In short, he was recognizing what is flatly obvious in this case no matter what one thinks of the prior ruling.

• Alito along with Thomas and Gorsuch dissented from the ruling mainly to bitch that the 2017 ruling was not clear enough the first time and to uphold the death penalty sentence. In short, it was a sour grapes dissent from them for not winning on the first go around not an fair accounting of how the Texas lower court thumbed their nose at the Supreme Court's prior ruling in their retrying of the case. In short, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch were engaging in judicial activism here whereas Roberts (who agreed with their position in principle) was not.

• Kavanaugh did not join either ruling on this one. 

In short, Roberts was right on this where the particulars of this case go after what the Texas lower court did in response to the prior SCOTUS ruling and Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch were wrong.

9-0: SCOTUS Rules That Eighth Amendment’s “Excessive Fines” Clause Applies To The State

I have written on civil asset forfeiture before{1} and it is a major issue with me. I am pleased to see the above unanimous decision of the Supreme Court which will serve as a good foundation for being able to go after civil asset forfeiture abuse at the state level.

Note:

{1} Here is one example from recent years:

Briefly on Civil Asset Forfeiture (circa June 3, 2017)

Points to Ponder:

“We should not have an 'open mind' because that means we grant plausibility to anything, however, we should have a discerning mind." [Mike Mentzer]

Tim Eyman has sponsored a number of good initiatives in Washington state over the years. However, what he did here sullies his reputation as far as I am concerned. The chair stealing is bad enough but lying about it when you are so plainly caught on camera? You are not fooling anyone Timmy boy and your credibility is now shot!

There is a place where the sidewalk ends
And before the street begins,
And there the grass grows soft and white,
And there the sun burns crimson bright,
And there the moon-bird rests from his flight
To cool in the peppermint wind.

Let us leave this place where the smoke blows black
And the dark street winds and bends.
Past the pits where the asphalt flowers grow
We shall walk with a walk that is measured and slow,
And watch where the chalk-white arrows go
To the place where the sidewalk ends.

Yes we'll walk with a walk that is measured and slow,
And we'll go where the chalk-white arrows go,
For the children, they mark, and the children, they know
The place where the sidewalk ends. [Shel Silverstein]

Points to Ponder:

"Ninety five percent of what is published on all subjects is hogwash." [Arthur Jones]

Alabama newspaper editor calls for KKK 'to night ride again'

Some parts of Alabama struggle to come into 1970...in 2019!

Points to Ponder:

"Not everything is fit to print. There is to be regard for at least probable factual accuracy, for danger to innocent lives, for human decencies, and even, if cautiously, for nonpartisan considerations of the national interest." [Alexander Bickel]

In perusing some ways to update this website in terms of general theme and other factors, the site may look odd from time to time over the next two weeks. The reason is because I am going to be making changes to this website. There have been site template additions, revisions, etc. throughout the history of this website{1} of course since I settled on a basic outline which I spent no small amount of time on getting the way I wanted it to look.{2} Even then there would be updates from time to time as needed or desired{3} but they were usually additions or omissions to existing structure.{4} In terms of substantial updates, there has been only one since the massive archive tagging project of 2007{5} and one aborted revision attempt in 2008{6} that was ultimately (if memory serves) abandoned and that took place last year. However, even that one did not affect the structure of the website.

The purpose of what is being worked on now will retain some of the more useful elements of the past updates but dramatically alter the appearance of the website. This is being done for at least two reasons:

I have long wanted to change the existing structure appearance as what is there is to my eyes far too dated. However, I have had neither the time nor the requisite knowledge to do it.

The growth of social media since my early Rerum Novarum days has resulted in changes which were not being accounted for in the current structure and a new structure would be needed to better handle that. While I have no intention of starting a new website{7}; at the same time, these realities eventually needed to be faced squarely and I have decided at the present time to do that.

I could probably think of more reasons if I bothered to sit down and do so but what is noted there is sufficient.

So with these notes in mind, this place may become a bit messier before the launch of the new look which I expect will be finalized on or before March 4, 2019.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.


Notes:

{1} For a recent example, see here.

{2} If memory serves, once I finally got it set up, it took a couple of weeks to get some semblance of a template that I liked.

{3} Though Rerum Novarum has gone through many permutations in its twenty months of existence, major structural adjustments have been rare.[...] Indeed, it is usually only when the previous format no longer succeeds in coping with the expansion of this weblog into various kinds of subject matter that adjustments of this kind are undertaken...

To note a few examples in recent months:
---The disclaimer was revised in April of 2003 in its first paragraph making what was once an ironclad policy into a more general one admitting of exceptions. (And of course the current disclaimer is applicable retroactively in case anyone wondered.) 

...

---At various times searching the archives for particular subject matter (usually to link to a post being written), this writer will find a post in the past where the paragraphs are cluttered or too long. In cases like that, the post will be spread out a bit by making more paragraphs of the original material. (Sometimes moving original material from the body of the text to footnotes.)

---Back in early February of this year, the author of this weblog sought to make the footnoting procedures in the post archives more uniform. This was done by going backwards through the archives and checking for inconsistencies in this area which were corrected...

---A major paradigm shift took place roughly around March of last year when the weblog writer moved to numbers in footnoting and away from astrisk markings. In uniformizing the weblog, this meant changing those notations to the number format that had evolved over the course of time and working backward until everything but roughly the first month or so was altered. (Time constraints preventing that from being tended to at the time.)

---The occasional misspelling being corrected or the occasional phrasing where either (i) a word was found missing or (ii) which read a bit convoluted -usually due to being typed in haste- have of course been corrected as they have been discovered either by this writer or by others. Unlike some weblog personages, this writer never sees a reason to revise previous texts from the archives viz. the arguments advanced. [Excerpts from Rerum Novarum (circa April 12, 2004)]

{4} For example, see footnote one as well as the update from 2017 and and the
four updates from 2018.

{5} See the links located here and here for details.

{6} See the links located here and here for details.

{7} I already did that in 2017 with the Jaded project material. However, for the moment that project is on a defacto haitus.

AOC wants to return to FDR roots of the Democratic Party and WHOA NELLY, this goes badly

I made several deletions from the side margin today including the graph outlining deaths since 9/11, various syndication buttons that were either no longer in existence or obsolete, and removed the St Blogs Webring since that webring is nothing but a ghost town now and has apparently been so for a long time.

More will be forthcoming in soon but I do not have time to go into it right now. 

Revisiting the Subject of Private Revelations:

Though I have written more completely on the subject in years past, the following was occasioned by the words in dark green below. Without further ado...

One often hears it said today that, "Fatima is [merely] a private revelation."  While many subjects who make such statements are well-meaning, and while the assertion is even true in a limited sense, often they are made with the purpose of minimizing the revelations at Fatima to the point of insignificance, by way of suggesting they may be ignored by any Catholic who wishes to do so.

Actually, no one is obligated to believe in any apparition, period. You would be wise to not take this beyond what the Catholic Church teaches on private revelation.

Someone is not more or less Catholic for accepting or rejecting any apparition. If anything, apparitions (even approved ones) can be a pathway to schism or worse when those who are devoted to them in any way place said devotions above their required assent to the Church's Magisterium. (Which is nor optional.)

Apparitions are not to be used as deciding questions of history, natural philosophy, philosophy, or theology and those that do engage in no small amount of abuse of them. (For example, the person on your thread criticizing Pius [XI] and Pius XII for not avoiding WWII and its aftermath because of not "obeying Fatima" or some nonsense like that.) Apparitions can actually do more harm than good unless those that follow them use them correctly. If they are used in any way for more than helping the person renew their own faith through repentance then they are being abused. If they are used as requirements of the Faith by anyone, they are being abused.

Yes, Fatima is merely a private revelation. If you personally find the arguments for it convincing, then you can give it the assent of human faith but that is all. This is what the Church since the time of Benedict XIV has taught on private revelations. It would be advisable not to go beyond that.

Briefly on the Christian Faith:

The words that occasioned this were ones directed at Rod Dreher who was accused of being an apostate. I responded originally as follows:

Apostasy is the repudiation of the Christian faith. Dreher did not do that by swimming the Bosphorus.

As for the rest, my words are in regular font.

Do the "orthodox" churches retain the Christian faith despite their numerous heresies? :)

A better question is, do the so-called "traditionalists"? :o

The answer to your question is yes because the Catholic Church has always recognized the Christian faith in the Orthodox Churches. There is 95+% concurrence in faith albeit often explained differently (as western and eastern theological approaches differ) and the differences boil down oftentimes to interpretations.

For example, the Orthodox believe usually in papal primacy but not in the manner that the west conceives of it, they believe by theological default in the immaculate conception as doctrine not dogma (long story here), they believe in prayers for the dead but not many of the medieval western accredations that are often attached to the dogma of purgatory, etc.

They retain the Christian faith albeit imperfectly. That also applies to the Protestants who though varying from group to group all are far more deficient in the Christian faith than the Orthodox. But the Church recognizes those of good will who profess a belief in the basic Trinitarian doctrines as Christians with varying degrees of deficiencies of course. Heck, she even recognizes the "traditionists" as Christians despite their varying degrees of deficiency too :)

More on Popes, Heresy, Theology, Church History, Etc.
(Aka "Dogmatic Theology Five Cents, the Doctor is In" Dept.)

This is a response to a response to a thread posted on Saturday. My words will be in regular font while words of sources either block quoted or in light blue font.

I can refute all of what you wrote in response with just one observation: It's simply not true that the Church teaches, or has ever taught, that a pope cannot teach heresy

Actually, that is no refutation because you are flat out wrong. The Church does teach and has always taught that a pope cannot teach heresy. However, to be clear, she has "always taught" this the same way she has "always taught" things like papal primacy, the immaculate conception, and papal infallibility. This is not hard to demonstrate but because of the variegations of Church history, it can be tedious to do so. But since anyone can make sweeping observation claims without backing them up, I will take a few moments and touch lightly on this stuff.

As for your words:

And as to that allocution from Saint Pius which you cited: There's truth in it, but the ultramontanism of it is not authentically Catholic. It's hyperbolic pious piffle that is not grounded in the Scriptures or in the tradition of the Church, and any bishop of Rome who talked that way in prior centuries would have been laughed at and ignored as a pretentious crank, and rightly so. 

You sound like the Orthodox who say the same things about papal primacy. They point to the numerous and weighty examples of the popes over the centuries exhorting and commanding obedience to them in matters of faith as "hyperbolic", "exaggerations", "misunderstanding the ancient primacy of honour", and a whole host of similar claims. To apply your claim about Pope St. Pius X's words seriously, you should swim the Bosophorus because at least then you would be honest with what you evidently believe. Pius' words are in substance no different than Clement of Rome telling the Corinthians "[y]e therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue." Geez, what a pretentious crank he was! And do not even get me started on the more forceful claims of his successors in subsequent centuries.{1}

Actual Catholic doctrine, as dogmatized by ecumenical councils and actually taught and exemplified by the broader tradition, is much more modest. 

You are wrong. If you actually knew what you were talking about, you would know about the Deputation De Fide of the First Vatican Council where the schema that would later be promulgated as Pastor Aeternus would be explained in detail by Bishop Vincent Gasser of Brixen in his authoritative Relatio.{2} One of the subjects discussed there was the question of whether or not a pope could teach heresy. I will get back to this in responding to your later posting further down. Spoiler alert: it does not countenance your interpretation!

My observation from above still stands: Accusing us of resisting Pope Francis and his agenda simply because we do not "like" it is not an argument: It's a conclusory accusation that does not bother to engage the substance of our criticisms. It's intellectually and spiritually lazy.

Actually, you are merely regurgitating claims already dispatched in the earlier response which is a variation of the argumentation fallacy of argumentation ad nauseum and that is quite the definition of laziness{3} on your part to be blunt.

As to claims by the Catholic Church, there are no claims of the pope being able to teach heresy in the early church. The reason is of course because he did not. Originally, there was not the sort of full understanding of what was involved in the papal primacy as we have now but there are pointers and examples both of what was said as well as what was not said. Again, there is no evidence of record of the early church popes teaching heresy. And this was attested to by witnesses at the early ecumenical councils as well as in the Formula of Hormisdas which was a profession of faith prescribed by Pope Hormisdas as the requirement of his communion by the Acadians to end their longstanding schism in the early sixth century -part of which read as follows:

The first means of safety is to guard the rule of strict faith and to deviate in no way from those things that have been laid down by the Fathers. And indeed the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ: "Thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church" cannot be disregarded; these things which were spoken are demonstrated by the results, for the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See.{4}

This formulary was signed onto by the churches in the west and the bulk of the churches in the east as well. The words are clear and unequivocal: the Catholic religion has been preserved ever immaculate in the Apostolic See. This would be an impossible claim to make if the Popes of Rome had ever taught heresy, could ever go into schism, or could ever go into apostasy. And as a Profession of Faith, it would fit the criteria of a dogmatic judgment by Pope Hormisdas or what would later be called an infallible pronouncement.

This was the standard understanding in the Church where the pope was concerned for a good thousand odd years. Pope Agatho re-affirmed this understanding after the sixth ecumenical council when he declared the following to Emperor Constantine IV after he dogmatically settled the chief controversy of his time:

And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred.{5}

Can you believe that St. Agatho: river of tears, prostrated mind, fully embraced and followed in all things, etc? Gee, what a pretentious crank he was huh?

For a third witness, a subsequent ecumenical council of the Church in dispute with the estranged Eastern Churches reiterated the aforementioned Formula of Hormisdas in its profession of faith 350 years after it was first promulgated. I could cite a lot more examples but the three above are adequate to make the point that not only did the early Fathers and Doctors did not believe the Roman Church could err but the very idea that a Pope could be a heretic was both foreign and repugnant to them as it should be to any genuinely faithful Catholic.

The mere fact that there exists an entire corpus of traditional literature debating and discussing what recourse the Church has against a manifest and unrepentantly heretical pope goes to show that the mind of the Church has always envisaged the possibility of a pope being such.

Actually, this is also false. The mind of the Church did not always [envisage] the possibility of a pope being such as the examples from above well demonstrate. However, there did come to be some literature on this matter which requires explanation and here goes:

The literature you speak of had its origins chiefly in the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation.{6}

The aftermath of the Protestant circumstance shook the church's foundations in ways that were unprecedented. Unlike the schism between west and east which was centuries in the making{7}, the breaks by the Protestants were sharper and more sudden in nature. This shook the Catholic Church to its core and in the process of looking for answers, the question began to be floated about what if this movement were to seat one of its own in the Chair of Peter, what would happen then? That is when the theological titans of that age began to posit various hypotheses to try and explain this.

In this environment, theologians like Tommaso Cajetan, Robert Bellarmine, Francisco Suarez, John of St. Thomas, Melchior Cano, Albert Pighus, and others floated various hypotheses of what one would do in the event of a heretical pope. However, the floating of a hypothesis does not mean you per se concur with it. The Church all along witnessed to the converse hypotheses by the fact that she never proclaimed anyone who professed the idea that a pope actually could teach heresy as a Doctor of the Church or elevated such persons to the altars via canonization. Furthermore, most of the proponents of heretical pope hypotheses attempting to explain what would happen if a pope was to teach heresy personally abhorred the very notion and did not believe it themselves. Suarez did not believe a pope could teach heresy, thought the very idea was inconceivable, and that the position that he could not do so was pious and probable, to be held{8}, but not certain in his time. Because he did not view it as certain, he attempted to set forth some hypotheses on the matter. Pighus believed it was impossible period either to teach heresy or even for a pope to be a private heretic. Alphonsus Ligouri adhered to the Bellarmine position.

Suarez's attempted hypothesis was condemned in 1692 by Pope Alexander VIII when he proscribed the 4 Gallican Articles one of which was a variation of Suarez's pro-offered hypothesis. Similarly the hypothesis of Cajetan was no longer defendable formally after that time though Bellarmine claimed it could not be defended in his view prior to that.{9} Bellarmine went further than most and believed not only that a pope could not teach heresy but that it was pious and probable to believe that he could not even be a secret or internal heretic. The first of his beliefs (that a pope could not teach heresy) is what was known in his treatise on the subject of the Roman Pontiff as the fourth opinion. Bishop Gasser explained it in his Relatio as follows:

"As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft goes, the Deputation is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma. For the opinion of Albert Pighius, which Bellarmine indeed calls pious and probable, was that the Pope, as an individual person or a private teacher, was able to err from a type of ignorance but was never able to fall into heresy or teach heresy. To say nothing of the other points, let me say that this is clear from the very words of Bellarmine, both in the citation made by the reverend speaker and also from Bellarmine himself who, in book 4, chapter VI, pronounces on the opinion of Pighius in the following words: 'It can be believed probably and piously that the supreme Pontiff is not only not able to err as Pontiff but that even as a particular person he is not able to be heretical, by pertinaciously believing something contrary to the faith.' From this, it appears that the doctrine in the proposed chapter is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school, but rather that it is one and the same which Bellarmine teaches in the place cited by the reverend speaker and which Bellarmine adduces in the fourth place and calls most certain and assured, or rather, correcting himself, the most common and certain opinion."{10}

To be clear, what Gasser was saying was not merely that it was pious and probable to hold that a Pontiff could not err in matters of faith but that one could go further and believe piously and probably the pope could not even be heretical as a particular person or in his person whatsoever. Bishop Gasser made it clear that Pastor Aeternus was correctly interpreted as teaching what Bellarmine outlined in his fourth opinion or the one Bellarmine himself called the most common and certain opinion. And from the moment the First Vatican Council made Bellarmine's fourth opinion their own, the issue of whether a pope could or could not be a heretic or teach heresy was dogmatically settled as a matter of doctrine in the negative by an Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church.

In actuality, the principle had already had been settled prior to the sixteenth century but the chaos of the Protestant Reformation resulted in greater probing of this issue than had previously been the case{10} but the end result was the same as before except it is much better understood now. And while one can piously and probably hold that even in the recesses of his inner person a pope cannot be a heretic or believe anything heretical, Church teaching from what I can tell{12} only extends to the formal acts as pope: he cannot teach heresy period. By logical extension, he cannot be in schism from the Church either. Nor can he apostasize. Claims to the contrary{13} put those who make them in the company of the Acacian schismatics and others to whom as Pope St. Agatho put it are the heretics [who] have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. 

I thought about concluding this piece with Pope Agatho's words but in the interest of providing you with some comfort, will point you to an area where it is much safer to opine on these matters; namely that of lesser errors{14} and matters of the prudential order. The Church has stated the following in a very important Instruction that I recommend that you read when you can: Donum Veritatis from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published back in 1990. To wit:

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. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church's Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments, or that it does not enjoy divine assistance in the integral exercise of its mission.{15}

The admission of some particular cases means that the Church's Magisterium takes a more nuanced approach to these matters in the prudential realm than prior statements might appear to say, dealing as they all did with fundamental matters of faith and church communion. While one should not rashly cast a wide net in this area of course, it nonetheless is permissible from time to time for someone properly informed and of the proper spiritual disposition to wade into those water. I would particularly recommend reading carefully if time constraints prevent you from reading the entire document focusing on sections 21-31.

Nevertheless, the views you have expressed up to this point in time are not orthodox ones. Hopefully you will consider the above material very carefully and revise your statements to be within the boundaries of acceptable Catholic orthodoxy.

Notes:

{1} I will not even go over how the Protestants reject Catholic doctrinal claims in the same fashion on a whole host of issues!

{2} There is no more authoritative exposition on the correct interpretation of the contents of the Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus than Bishop Gasser's Relatio.

{3} Intellectually as well as spiritually.

{4} From the Formula of Hormisdas (circa 519 AD)

{5} From the Tome of Agatho (circa 681)

{6} I am unaware of any place where St. Thomas Aquinas even discusses the possibility of a heretical pope and there were a number of controversial matters of his day where the subject itself would have been apropos. For that reason, the Angelic Doctor's silence on this matter speaks volumes. (My more limited understanding of Aquinas' work is reinforced by the claim of Dominican scholar Ulrich Horst, OP who has made the same observation.)

{7} The 1054 date is really more a fiction than a reality insofar as the schism of the Churches really only crystallized into permanence with either the Sack of Constantinople or the Fall of Constantinople (depending on how you interpret the evidences).

{8} Read: most likely.

{9} Cardinal Bellarmine died more than seventy years prior to Pope Alexander VIII's condemnation of the 4 Articles.

{10} Bishop Vincent Gasser of Brixen: From the Relatio of Vincent Gasser delivered to the Deputation De Fide (circa July 1870)

{11} The same thing happened with other apostolic beliefs which were settled early on and were later challenged in the cauldron of controversies. For example, the status of the Deuterocanonical Books of the Bible was definitively settled by the Council of Carthage in 418 AD but challenged anew by the Protestant Reformers only to be re-addressed by the Council of Trent. Likewise, the idea that the supreme authority in the Church was the Pope was challenged by the conciliar movement that arose in the aftermath of the Western Schism (even hijacking the Council of Constance in the process) only to be put down again at the Council of Florence.

{12} Though one could I suppose piously and probably believe things extend further, my only interest is in what the Church teaches as required on this matter and that does not go beyond formal teaching.

{13} Read: the sort of claims you have up to now been making.

{14} This does not preclude from the possibility that there could be lesser papal errors in doctrine than heresy, schism, or apostasy of course. And by logical extension, there could thus also be errors in prudence viz church discipline and general administration of course.

{15} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian Donum Veritatis, Section 24 (circa May 24, 1990)