On Veritatis Splendor, Gaudium et Spes, and Intrinsic Evil:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

Though I have written on this subject before at length, to avoid providing fodder for potential distractions, I am going to write this exposition as a stand alone piece. On the subject of intrinsic evils of certain sorts, I see frequent references to Veritatis Splendor §80 and its citation of Gaudium et Spes §27. Since the primary text involved here is from the former but cites the latter, let us look at the underlying context starting with some considerations about the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes from the Second Vatican Council.

Like all magisterial texts, Gaudium et Spes (GS) is supposed to be interpreted according to general norms of interpretation. The diverse elements contained within that particular document make this obligation even more important than is normally the case -so much so that Gaudium et Spes itself in its first footnote specifically says this. To wit:

The Pastoral Constitution "De Ecclesia in Mundo Huius Temporis" is made up of two parts; yet it constitutes an organic unity. By way of explanation: the constitution is called "pastoral" because, while resting on doctrinal principles, it seeks to express the relation of the Church to the world and modern mankind. The result is that, on the one hand, a pastoral slant is present in the first part, and, on the other hand, a doctrinal slant is present in the second part. In the first part, the Church develops her teaching on man, on the world which is the enveloping context of man's existence, and on man's relations to his fellow men. In part two, the Church gives closer consideration to various aspects of modern life and human society; special consideration is given to those questions and problems which, in this general area, seem to have a greater urgency in our day. As a result in part two the subject matter which is viewed in the light of doctrinal principles is made up of diverse elements. Some elements have a permanent value; others, only a transitory one. Consequently, the constitution must be interpreted according to the general norms of theological interpretation. Interpreters must bear in mind-especially in part two-the changeable circumstances which the subject matter, by its very nature, involves.{1}

If the Constitution in its prefatory footnote{2} says that the first part of the text is presenting a pastoral slant in the first part of the text, then it is what it is.  No pundits, agenda provocateurs, or apologists can change that unless we seek to ascribe to words meanings they do not have. There is no small problem with those who approach magisterial texts with the same lack of discernment as fundamentalists do with the Bible. And with that in mind, let us consider now for a moment Veritatis Splendor §80 and its citation of Gaudium et Spes §27:

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".{3}

This quote from Veritatis Splendor (VS) certainly appears to support the reading of this text as certain pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists claim. But one of the general norms of proper theological interpretation is to consider the words in their original context and meaning. A reference to GS in VS cannot make the former statements more authoritative than they already were if there is no manifested intention in the text to actually do so. So that brings us to an important question not even considered by the aforementioned   pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists; namely, what was the intention of the Pope in issuing Veritatis Splendor §80 and what was the intention of the Pope in citing Gaudium et Spes §27 in the text? Let us turn to the encyclical itself for the requisite evidence to be had -all emphasis is mine and all footnotes not relevant to the question removed:

Today, however, it seems necessary to reflect on the whole of the Church's moral teaching, with the precise goal of recalling certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied. In fact, a new situation has come about within the Christian community itself, which has experienced the spread of numerous doubts and objections of a human and psychological, social and cultural, religious and even properly theological nature, with regard to the Church's moral teachings. It is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical presuppositions.

...

Given these circumstances, which still exist, I came to the decision — as I announced in my Apostolic Letter Spiritus Domini, issued on 1 August 1987 on the second centenary of the death of Saint Alphonsus Maria de' Liguori — to write an Encyclical with the aim of treating "more fully and more deeply the issues regarding the very foundations of moral theology", foundations which are being undermined by certain present day tendencies.{4}

Notice the pope making reference to the lack of harmony between the traditional response of the Church and certain theological positions"? This makes it clear that the intention of the encyclical is to be in continuity with the past and show proper harmony. There is no such harmony of Veritatis Splendor §80 with prior teaching when attempting to take such a theologically flawed interpretation of the text. Plus, such a fundamentalist reading of the text as not a few theologically challenged pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists do has its own share of problems. Let us consider one such example right now: the claim of slavery as being intrinsically evil according to a fundamentally flawed reading of Veritatis Splendor §80. This is a problem noted back in 2005 by the late Cardinal Avery Dulles in the following fashion:

In 1863 John Henry Newman penned some fascinating reflections on slavery. A fellow Catholic, William T. Allies, asked him to comment on a lecture he was planning to give, asserting that slavery was intrinsically evil. Newman replied that, although he would like to see slavery eliminated, he could not go so far as to condemn it as intrinsically evil. For if it were, St. Paul would have had to order Philemon, “liberate all your slaves at once.” Newman, as I see it, stood with the whole Catholic tradition. In 1866 the Holy Office, in response to an inquiry from Africa, ruled that although slavery (servitus) was undesirable, it was not per se opposed to natural or divine law.{5}

The reason I cite the above source will hopefully be evident when considering some of what I have written in years past on these and other related themes. To wit: 

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

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

The condemnations of Vatican II of slavery do not contradict this at all but is nothing more than a reaffirmation of the papal condemnations of chattel slavery issued by Pope Gregory XVI in 1839, Pope Pius VII in 1815, Pope Benedict XIV in 1741, Pope Innocent XI in 1686, Pope Urban VIII in 1639, Pope Gregory XIV in 1591, Pope Paul III in 1537, and Pope Eugene IV in 1435. Vatican II did not proclaim any dogmas[...] or give any indication of condemning slavery except in passing so we cannot under general norms of theological interpretation take such a condemnation any further than was previously the case.{6}

By the very general norms of theological interpretation specifically invoked in Gaudium et Spes itself, it is not credible to read the reference in Gaudium et Spes §27 to slavery in the sort of all encompassing universal fashion that most pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists would attempt to do. In just the slavery example alone, it is easy to demonstrate that a fundamentalist reading of Gaudium et Spes §27 as cited in Veritatis Splendor §80 is highly problematical theologically. Why? Because slavery is hardly the only subject that at first glance would be given a blanket condemnation of "intrinsically evil" in VS §80. Furthermore, there is far more documented evidence on the subject of slavery than on virtually any other example cited in the paragraph and despite that factor, the text itself if not read carefully would appear to involve itself in a blatant contradiction of settled church teaching on that matter which would discredit the very veracity of the Church itself. This is why general norms of theological interpretation are so damn important and why the pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who flatly ignore them in their reams of various and sundry online virtue signalling bloviations frankly do not deserve to be taken seriously.

This is also why rather than go off into the sort of games to which not a few  pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists like to play, I want to at this time propose some questions for the aforementioned folks who would read the subjects touched on in Veritatis Splendor §80 in a fundamentalist fashion to buttress particular pet issues of theirs without concern for accuracy or honesty. Namely:

• Do you believe substandard housing conditions are intrinsically evil?

• Do you believe deportations are intrinsically evil?

Those pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who would approach Veritatis Splendor §80 in a fundamentalist fashion without concern for general norms of theological interpretation are asked to give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to each question above. I am not interested in any commentary from them. I am not interested in qualifications of any kind from them. Why? Because something that is intrinsically evil does not admit of objective qualifications: that is what the word "intrinsic" means. Ergo, a simple yes or no answer to these questions is in itself sufficient to reply. And its important for the Veritatis Splendor §80 fundamentalists to answer these questions because VS §80 also says this (all emphasis is mine):

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".{7}

I trust those who pay particular attention to the bolded parts of the excised paragraph above from Veritatis Splendor §80 can see what problems their fundamentalist hermeneutic leads to interpretation wise. So again, I ask:

• Do you believe substandard housing conditions are intrinsically evil?

• Do you believe deportations are intrinsically evil?

Please give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to each question above. For the record, my answer is no. It is very evident that Veritatis Splendor §80 enunciated a general principle and then sought to give some examples; however, rather than parse the source cited to be theologically exact, it cited the entire passage without qualification. This would appear to be a defect in the text itself as is not irregular where lengthy magisterial texts are concerned and the Vatican has itself admitted this can happen from time to time. Observe:

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.{8}

From a straightforward reading of Veritatis Splendor §80, it is evident that in that paragraph there is a deficiency. Namely, the failure to parse the text of Gaudium et Spes §27 to delineate between intrinsic evils and more generally abhorrent or disgraceful actions. While making no attempt at completion, if I was to attempt such a separation myself, I would classify the following items from the lengthy Gaudium et Spes §27 citation in Veritatis Splendor §80 as intrinsic evils: homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, voluntary suicide. The rest while admitting of varying degrees of disgrace{9} do not meet the criteria for being considered intrinsically evil; ergo, a more precise delineation in Veritatis Splendor §80 would have been preferable from a more precise doctrinal or theological point of view. Of course Veritatis Splendor by its own admission{10} did not manifestly intend to do this. This is why it is a theologically flawed reading of the text to attempt to interpret it in this kind of fashion.

I realize this sort of claim will likely enrage certain pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists who seemingly spend much of their waking online lives doing this sort of thing but that is their problem, not those who are interested in what the Church actually teaches and who utilize tools the Church herself has put forward for correctly ascertaining these matters.

So having given my answer to the questions above, I will ask one final time of all pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists to answer these two questions with a simple yes or no answer with no commentary whatsoever:

• Do you believe substandard housing conditions are intrinsically evil?

• Do you believe deportations are intrinsically evil?

For until these questions are answered in the manner requested above, there is no reason to take any pundits, agenda provocateurs, or apologists seriously whenever they regularly virtue signal their presumptive all piousness by kvetching and generally act like a pompous blowhard on discussing these subjects. (Or any that pertain directly or indirectly to them.)


Notes:

{1} Second Vatican Ecumenical Council: Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes Preface Footnote (circa December 7, 1965)

{2} Which must be considered when seeking to interpret the proper sense of the council text.

{3} Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor §80 (circa August 6, 1993)

{4} Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor §4, §5 (circa August 6, 1993)

{5} Cardinal Avery Dulles: From the First Things Article Development or Reversal (circa October 2005)

{6} Excerpt from a Rerum Novarum Post (circa August 21, 2018)

{7} Pope John Paul II: Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendour §80 (circa August 6, 1993)

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

{9} I note this for those who will in the absence of an explicit statement from me on this matter rashly presume that I am somehow claiming that there is nothing ever problematical (actually or at least potentially) in the other areas so listed.

{10} See footnote four.

Federal Judge Dismisses Nick Sandmann’s Lawsuit Against The Washington Post

It is sure nice to know that at this stage of the process, major newspapers can libel minor children and incite mobs against them for being politically incorrect and not face repercussions financial or otherwise. 

Anyone who cannot set aside their political biases and see the problems here are themselves part of the problem.

Briefly...

I have long thought that the impeach President Donald Trump movement was on life support. It sounds as if yesterday Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller himself inadvertently pulled the plug.

Bernie Sanders Campaign Responds To Staffers’ Demand For $15 Minimum Wage By … Cutting Back Hours

Prediction: Bernie and his bots will learn exactly zero about this whole situation in terms of economics!

On Waterboarding:

In over 3300 published posts to this site since its inception nearly seventeen years ago, the post you are reading is the only one ever devoted solely to the subject of waterboarding.{1} Why? Because in my experience, no one wants to discuss this subject without the grossest of oversimplifications to push their particular agenda on it either for or against. It is therefore not a subject I have expended an ounce of energy on for a long time. In fact, I doubt I have said more than a few sentences on the subject in the past ten years including the comments I am typing right now.{2}

One problem that I have noticed over the years is that those who prattle on about it regularly are often unethical in their manner of discussing the subject.{3} I also have no patience for those who play the "waterboarding is a baptism of freedom" crap either and see similar problems in their approach.

And since there are literally no honest brokers on this issue that I have seen thus far; therefore, until there actually is, I will not lift a finger to discuss the matter again in any public context whatsoever and this will be my last statement on the matter for the indefinite future.

Notes:

{1} And only the second posting that even has waterboarding as anything but a remotely ancillary at best subject matter of discussion.

{2} A quick perusal of the archives of this website while writing this post reminded me that it was last discussed in any context back in early 2009 and I cannot recall prior to this current posting saying anything else about it in any written or spoken format (publicly or privately) in the intervening ten plus years.

{3} Despite said folks frequent public posturings on the matter as if they are More Ethical Than Thou.

Is Somalian-born far-left 'squad' member Ilhan Omar 'married to her brother'? Trump makes extraordinary suggestion about one of his Democrat tormentors

In the words of that great western philosopher Edmund Blackadder:

"I smell something fishy, and I’m not talking about the contents of Baldrick’s apple crumble."

Secret Files Tell Romanovs' Final Terror

A Message for "The Squad":

In light of recent controversial Twitter messages from President Trump, revisiting these lyrics seems appropriate...

I hear people talkin' bad,
About the way they have to live here in this country
Harpin' on the wars we fight
And gripin' 'bout the way things oughta be
And I don't mind 'em switchin' sides
And standin' up for things they believe in
But when they're runnin' down our country, man
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me

They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me
Runnin' down a way of life
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep
If you don't love it, leave it
Let this song that I'm singin' be a warnin'
When you're runnin' down our country, hoss
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me

I read about some squirrelly guy
Who claims that he just don't believe in fightin'
And I wonder just how long
The rest of us can count on bein' free
They love our milk and honey
But they preach about some other way of livin'
But when they're runnin' down our country, man
They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me

They're walkin' on the fightin' side of me
Runnin' down the way of life
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep
If you don't love it, leave it
Let this song that I'm singin' be a warnin'
When you're runnin' down our country, man
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me

You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me
Runnin' down the way of life
Our fightin' men have fought and died to keep
If you don't love it, leave it
Let this song that I'm singin' be a warnin'
When you're runnin' down our country, hoss
You're walkin' on the fightin' side of me
[Merle Haggard (circa December 1969)]

"One From the Vault" Dept.

The following is a flashback to the archives of this website from 2005...

[W]ith the marxists it is not actual results which are important but instead it is the intentions of the advocates.... I have no patience whatsoever for pseudo-"peacemakers" anymore when it comes to the subject of the current military involvement in the Middle East. These pseudo-"peacemakers" have no proactive plan behind US withdrawal from Iraq and they would not be willing to face up to what would happen in that scenario: because they would claim that their intentions were good.

Remember, there was no shortage of marxists who were masquerading under the masks of "peacemakers" and "social justice advocacy" who celebrated the US withdrawal from Vietnam. However, these very same seditionists never took responsibility for the aftermath. The very same people who (i) protested the war, (ii) tried to paint our soldiers in the worst light possible, and (iii) often were vocal about wanting to see a communist victory in SE Asia managed to get their way...

The United States scaled down military operations in 1972 shortly before the elections. After the elections, there was some continued bombing -particularly over Christmas of 1972 to bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. The war ended in 1973 and the US military presence was absent the country after April of 1973. That is not to say that we were completely gone but the presence that remained there until 1975 was very minimal. It was not until 1975 that it could be said (albeit rather disingenuously) that the US was forced out of the country and that "force" was a result of the curtailing of funding by the congress -certainly not by the North Vietnamese themselves.

Lest there be any misunderstandings, from 1975-1978, there were more people massacred by the communist Vietnamese and Cambodian regimes than killed in any fashion during the period of US involvement from the earliest date we sent in so-called "military advisors" in 1957 to the final vestiges leaving Saigon in 1975. But the more activist of the hippie scumbags who sought to undermine our efforts in Vietnam refuse to face up to the results of what their seditious (if not downright treasonous) actions brought about. Again, results do not matter to marxists much as facts do not matter. All that matters is their intentions - a point which raises another interesting theme to consider.

The marxists --and every promoter of socialism is a defacto marxist in some form or another[...]-- have a notorious double standard from which they operate. Essentially, they judge their own policies not by the uniform and undeniable[...] failure of their policies every time they have been tried. No, with the marxists it is on the intentions behind their policies that they focus on. But they then judge their political enemies -and America is probably first on that list- by the results of their policies. And since America --despite its overall success as a bastion of freedom unlike any nation in history-- is imperfect, then there are always points that can be focused on to America's discredit. But the marxist intentions of a "paradise on earth" are far more idyllic than the even the significant results that America has achieved. For that reason, the results of marxist policies are ignored while the intentions of the marxists are their point of focus.

Now granted, the marxists fabricated a lot of stuff to make things appear even worse than they actually were but that point aside, there is enough in the historical record without fabrications to enable America to always look bad next to the ideal that marxists claim to repine for. And that is the secret essentially to why marxists can lie, cheat, steal, murder, and commit any atrocity and still be held up as icons for the marxist cause ala the near-veneration of predators like Castro, Guevera, Ortega, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Lenin, etc. by not a few who disingenuously claim the mantles of "progressivist" or "peacemakers."

Remember, there was no shortage of marxists who were masquerading under the masks of "peacemakers" and "social justice advocacy" who celebrated the US withdrawal from Vietnam. However, these very same seditionists never took responsibility for the aftermath. The very same people who (i) protested the war, (ii) tried to paint our soldiers in the worst light possible, and (iii) often were vocal about wanting to see a communist victory in SE Asia managed to get their way. They then lie and make stupid statements like the violence ended when the US was forced out of the country and then they wonder why no one familiar with history{2} takes them seriously for a second. Let us clarify what actually happened.

The United States scaled down military operations in 1972 shortly before the elections. After the elections, there was some continued bombing -particularly over Christmas of 1972 to bring the North Vietnamese to the negotiating table. The war ended in 1973 and the US military presence was absent the country after April of 1973. That is not to say that we were completely gone but the presence that remained there until 1975 was very minimal. It was not until 1975 that it could be said (albeit rather disingenuously) that the US was forced out of the country and that "force" was a result of the curtailing of funding by the congress -certainly not by the North Vietnamese themselves. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa July 17, 2005)]

Believe all women’ makes the ‘Pence rule’ just common sense

Briefly...

I chuckle at those who actually believe Justin Amash is some paragon of principle rather than the obvious opportunistic grandstanding charlatan he is. Take for instance his big announcement of "leaving the Republican Party" on America's Independence Day. Yeah he was not making this all about himself on America's birthday!

And the choice of hill to die on as the Mueller Report which cleared the president of collusion and would not recommend prosecution for obstruction? Again, strong choice there as a "prophet of freedom" where folks like Carter Page actually had their constitutional rights rolled over by the tank of Leviathan government while Amash stood by the whole time as silent as a whore in church. Yeah, big defender of "personal liberty" there!

Then of course there is the tiny matter of Amash trailing badly in primary polls in 2020. I suppose the thought of being embarrassed in a Republican primary had no part in his "Profiles in Courage" decision to suddenly become a supposed "Independent voter." More like he is a Losertarian and always has been a Losertarian but did not have the guts to run as a Losertarian even in an uprising election year like 2010 because he knew even in that kind of favourable electoral climate he would have lost if he did because that is what Losertarians do when running for office under their stupid banner at all times and places lo these past 47 years: they lose and lose badly.

And finally, let us be blunt: yes Amash pulled his stunt because he is mad about Trump. But why is he really so mad? Is it really some "principled stand" or is it that the Amash family took a heap big hit in the pocketbook in their Chinese tool business because of the Trump tariffs? If you think it is the former as opposed to the latter, then in the words of that great western philosopher Roger Waters "ha ha, charade you are!" Just like Justin Amash.

Authorities investigate reports of migrants trying to buy children to enter the U.S.

This throws a monkey wrench into the whole "they are separating children from their parents" public kvetching by those who were as silent as a whore in church when this sort of thing occurred in the previous administration. As a result, I frankly find it impossible to take such folks seriously.

Nonetheless, there is a possible solution for this potential problem: mandatory DNA screening of any child and purported parent. If the DNA match falls within the acceptable range of familial relations to ascertain probable parentage, then no problem. If however there is no such match, that would be a different matter altogether and the party in question could be taken into firmer custody, fingerprinted, deported, and ultimately lose any future right to legally be in the United States.

Briefly...

Pope gives relics of St. Peter to Orthodox patriarch

St. Peter's bones are still buried in his tomb under the high altar of the basilica. Pope Francis giving a few fragments to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was an unexpected gesture. Beyond that, I have not had long to ponder this to know what I think about it.

If readers were expecting a knee-jerk reaction of defacto anger and public blustering, I am afraid I will have to disappoint.

Hopefully this gesture will help in the growing ties between the Pope and Ecumenical Patriarch and through the prayers of St. Peter will aid in the restoration of full communion between the Churches.

'Mini AOC' Parody Accounts Are Gone Thanks To Lefties Doxxing And Threatening An 8-Year-Old

This could be enough to push a reasonable person who does not like Donald Trump to vote for him just to spite the sort of pieces of shit who would do this!

Points to Ponder:

They can’t win an argument. They can’t win the votes, not in Europe or Asia or South America or here. The liberal elite has failed to provide prosperity for anyone but themselves. The liberal elite has failed to provide peace for anyone but themselves – you don’t see a lot of them in uniform in Whocaresistan fighting the wars Bill Kristol advocated and Joe Biden voted for. The liberal elite provides only a system of interlocking and self-reinforcing grievances in which you, the Normals, are perpetually the oppressors, yet you’re the only ones being oppressed. No one wants that, except the SJWs who find meaning in fussy social media hate-mobs, so they try to jam their garbage ideology down your throat by threatening to kick you off Twitter, or by making it so you lose your job, or by preventing you from going out and eating tacos in peace, or by calling you all sorts of names ending with -ist and -phobe.

These are not the actions of winners. These are the actions of losers who see their power slipping away and will do anything to keep it.

Anything.

Yes, including violence. [Kurt Schlichter]

Al Yankovic
@alyankovic

I am profoundly sad to hear that after 67 years, MAD Magazine is ceasing publication. I can’t begin to describe the impact it had on me as a young kid – it’s pretty much the reason I turned out weird. Goodbye to one of the all-time greatest American institutions. #ThanksMAD

12:20 AM · Jul 4, 2019

For those who did not know, the occasional Dept post titles I used to use regularly on Rerum Novarum and elsewhere over the years{1} was a shameless ripoff from Mad Magazine. I read it occasionally over the years but was never a subscriber. Nonetheless, I am one of those who were influenced by them and will be sad to see them go.

Note:

{1} And still from time to time do.

The Liberal War On You

It seems safe to project that Seahawks LB Mychal Kendricks will be on the field in 2019

Hoo Boy: Bernie Slides To Single Digits In Iowa, Behind Biden, Harris, And Warren

No Debate: 'America Last' Dems Will Lose to Trump

Some Never Trump Figures Suddenly Discover What Other Republicans Did Years Ago

I am between the positions enunciated above but I shade more away from the morons who think throwing elections to the Democrats is a good idea because #OrangeManBad.

BREAKING: Pelosi Caves, Will Pass Senate Border Bill As AOC Fumes

#CocaineMitch wins again!

AOC: I’m Outraged That Mitch McConnell Killed The House Border Bill I Voted Against!

Briefly...

The previously mentioned planned addition to an old archival weblog{1} was made
yesterday and that weblog was then returned to its prior indefinite suspension in perpetuity.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

Note:

{1} Briefly (circa June 24, 2019)

Grading the Seattle Seahawks offseason

IS GOP PULLING EVEN IN MONEY RACE?

Briefly...

In the interest of fairness, I briefly unsuspended an old archival weblog to make a few updates. I have in mind making one more posting to that old site before returning it to indefinite suspension in perpetuity.

Briefly...

When your position on concentration camps is so screwy that you are corrected by the Auschwitz Memorial Museum on Twitter, you might want to sit down and shut the fuck up for a while.

#JustSaying

7-2: SCOTUS Rules “Peace Cross” Can Remain On Public Land

This was an unsurprising 7-2 ruling but nice to see nonetheless!

Reclaiming History From Howard Zinn

Sadly a lot of morons buy this garbage.

Points to Ponder:

So many letters to the editor and comments on the Internet have this…tone of thrilled vindication: these are people who have been vigilantly on the lookout for something to be offended by, and found it…Obviously, some part of us loves feeling 1) right and 2) wronged. But outrage is like a lot of other things that feel good but, over time, devour us from the inside out. Except it’s even more insidious than most vices because we don’t even consciously acknowledge that it’s a pleasure.

We prefer to think of it as a disagreeable but fundamentally healthy reaction to negative stimuli, like pain or nausea, rather than admit that it’s a shameful kick we eagerly indulge again and again…(It is) outrage porn, selected specifically to pander to our impulse to judge and punish, to get us off on righteous indignation. [Tim Kreider]

Moxley’s indie run now includes (checks notes) beating up nZo and CazXL

Buttigieg's Money Quest Shadowed by Donor's Saudi Ties

Alfred E. Neumann was not going to be nominated anyway (let alone elected!) but the chutzpah he shows here should be chum for the waters of the upcoming Democratic candidates debate.

CNN Focuses on Trump's Health, But Says Biden's Is Off-Limits

Points to Ponder:

Many of the things we hold to be self-evident truths will look silly or obnoxious a hundred years from now. No doubt some of those being chased out of public life in our time will be regarded by our grandchildren as heros and martyrs. So it has always been in past times, at any rate. Let's use some historical imagination. Our own age is not the summit and end point of all human understanding. In many respects it is a stupid and frivolous age. [John Derbyshire]

Gas prices could fall below $2 for many Americans

Today is the 18th anniversary of the passing of my father Richard Dunn McElhinney. If readers could offer some prayers for the eternal repose of his soul, I would appreciate it.



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...

In doing an archive search for something from 2004{1}, I stumbled across a brief miscellaneous musing from that time that expressed an opinion I no longer recognized as my own. Here is that thread:

Briefly on the Unconstitutionality of Brown vs. Board of Education, Etc.

An inevitability that one runs across when they muse and write on subjects over a span of time is that from time to time, they will discover that they have changed their view on some issues. I noted last year this phenomenon when trying to pinpoint exactly when my view changed on another particular political issue{2} after a similar archival discovery. On the above issue however, it is not to my knowledge a subject I have explicitly discussed at any other time. For that reason, a similar pinpointing of when my position changed would be very difficult to do.{3}

If I was to summarize the substance of my current view on the matter; it would essentially be in a macro sense{4} the fundamentals of Judge John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v Ferguson: a ruling which indirectly informed the majority decision of Brown v Board of Education.

I note these things at the present time in the interest of both accuracy and fairness. And though I have no intention of delving into this matter in the foreseeable future; if I do, it will be from a different application of the foundational presuppositions that I have operated from throughout the lions share of my adult life.

But enough on that for now.

Notes:

{1} On a matter totally unrelated to the content of this posting.

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

{3} And quite likely impossible to do based only on perusing this site's archives.

{4} I say in a macro sense because there are some particulars to Justice Harlan's dissent which I do not concur with.

Points to Ponder:

The world runs on individuals pursuing their separate interests. The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system. [Milton Friedman]

Points to Ponder:

[W]hat I observed [with other people] was abject conformity and the desperate desire for the safety of will-less passivity. Not passivity of the body, but passivity of the mind…They were either unwilling or unable to think beyond the confines established by the pack…They lead blighted lives, bereft of any interest in science, philosophy, morality or art… They were merely passing through existence, as cultural ballast, individuals that never looked up, held nothing sacred; while I and others seeking to achieve the ideal were righteously doing what truly, in logic and reality, was of fundamental importance. [Mike Mentzer]

Axios: Pelosi Believes Impeachment Is A “Fool’s Errand”

Cackling Mitch McConnell Reveals To Stunned Democrats He’s Been Working Undercover For Republican Party This Whole Time

Briefly...

I rarely likes to comment on ecclesial administrative issues but:

--I think there needs to be an easier way to hold cardinals accountable for negligence than has traditionally been the case.

Also...

--Some level of lay involvement needs to be required and not merely optional.

Points to Ponder:

Life's too short to drink bad wine or smoke poor cigars. [Don Johnson]

Potassium Rich Foods

Who is Boris Johnson, the man poised to be the next British leader?

Remembering Chris (circa December 11, 2006)

Robert Mueller Laughs At Jerry Nadler’s Demands, Won’t Testify Anytime Soon

Points to Ponder:

"The Catholic Church is like a thick steak, a glass of red wine, and a good cigar." [Attributed to G K Chesterton]

Points to Ponder:

Finish each day and be done with it. You have done what you could. Some blunders and absurdities no doubt crept in; forget them as soon as you can. Tomorrow is a new day. You shall begin it serenely and with too high a spirit to be encumbered with your old nonsense. [Ralph Waldo Emerson]

The Titanic's Forgotten Sister

On Correcting the Pretentious "Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church", Addressing its Accusations, Etc.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

The question was also raised by a Cardinal, 'What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?' It was answered that there has never been such a case. [Rev. James J. McGovern Quoting Abp. John B. Purcell at the First Vatican Council in His Book Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII, pg. 241 (circa 1903)]

Throughout the months leading up to and throughout Lent of 2019, a series of postings were made to this site. They each had value on their own merits of course but they were building towards what was eventually posted during Holy Week of 2019: a three part series written in October of 2017{1} responding to a so-called "correctio filialis" published in September of that year. For those who are interested, the aforementioned threads in order from oldest to most recent can be viewed HERE.

Getting back to the recently published material{2}, I could not for more than a year find both the time as well as the motivation to delve into those matters anew. Nonetheless, through a gradual process as well as using the Lenten season as a kind of cudgel,{3} it was possible to get to the point to where those writings were finally published. It now is manifestly evident that my motivation for finally getting around to doing that was truly prescient.

For on Holy Week of 2019, a sequel letter of sorts was put out there by more or less the same pretentious sorts that were behind the original so-called "correctio filalis" and it takes a fair amount of material from the same letter that was addressed in the series I recently published. Only rather than hedge somewhat on the accusation as was the case in the "correctio filialis", this time they have gone further and rather than merely insinuate that Pope Francis is a heretic, they have actually shown the temerity to actually call him one!

As I have already pointed out in reasonable detail why it is not possible for a pope to be an actual heretic{4} as well as how this position was one affirmed by the First Vatican Ecumenical Council{5}, I am therefore not going to retread that ground. Nor am I going to reiterate anew the points already more than adequately refuted in that series except to note that in perusing the new text, I see that there are seven explicit claims of heresy leveled at Pope Francis. Of the seven, five were already addressed in the prior series{6} along with the deficient spiritual formation that permeates the diseased mindset of these folks. (Also dealt in detail with previously and not to be repeated at length here.) However, let us at least touch briefly on one of the problems inherent with these sorts of folks with a very brief reprisal of some material from the earlier series:

It is a fundamental principle of the Catholic spiritual tradition to not rashly presume the worst in others. Before touching on their seven accusations of heresy, let us consider this factor of no small importance. What do the spiritual masters of the Catholic tradition have to say about those who are quick to presume the worst possible interpretation of the words and statements of another? Time and space constraints will only allow us to touch quickly on a few so without further ado: 

Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable one will just as certainly choose the worst.[...]

St. Francis de Sales also said that we are not "[to] weigh so carefully the sayings and doings of others, but let your thought of them be simple and good, kindly and affectionate."[...] Does any of this resemble the actions and statements of the folks who authored or signed onto the so-called “fraternal correction”? Hardly!{7}

The same principles outlined in that note apply in spades to the folks involved in the most recent letter. What will be addressed here is the two new points which were not previously dealt with. It bears noting that the format of this Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church is more convoluted than that of the Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis which despite its many problems was at least more straightforward in its presentation. Without further ado, onto addressing the two new accusations.

It is false that the only sexual acts that are good of their kind and morally licit are acts between husband and wife.

What is common to virtually all the areas in the new text that supposedly buttress this claim is they revolve around the subjects of conscience as well as jumping into areas where Pope Francis himself admits are difficult to pastorally navigate. If there was greater humility by these folks, it would be easier to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, that is unfortunately not the case as these folks objectively manifest operative presumptions that are rash and sinful in themselves.

We could say if we were being charitable{8} that at least they seem to have zeal for the salvation of souls. But even granting them that premise, we must still consider many of the pitfalls that can befall such persons quite often without them having any recognition of such. To wit:

1. Zeal for the salvation of souls is a sublime virtue, and yet how many errors and sins are committed daily in its name! Evil is never done more effectually and with greater security, says St. Francis de Sales, than when one does it believing he is working for the glory of God. 

2. The saints themselves can be mistaken in this delicate matter. We see a proof of this in the incident related to the Apostles Saint James and Saint John; for Our Lord reprimanded them for asking Him to cause fire from heaven to fall upon the Samaritans. (Luke, IX., 54.) 

3. Acts of zeal are like coins the stamp upon which is necessary to examine attentively, as there are more counterfeits than good ones. Zeal to be pure should be accompanied by great humility, for it is of all virtues the one which self-love most easily glides. When it does so, zeal is apt to become imprudent, presumptuous, unjust, bitter. Let us consider these characteristics in detail, viewing them, for the sake of greater clearness, in their practical bearings. 

4. In every home there grows some thorn, something, in other words, that needs correction; for the best soil is seldom without its noxious weed. Imprudent zeal, by seeking awkwardly to pluck out the thorn, often succeeds only in plunging it farther in, thus rendering the wound deeper and more painful. In such a case it is essential to act with reflection and great prudence. There is a time to speak and a time to be silent, says the Holy Spirit. (Ecclesiastes III., 7.) Prudent zeal is silent when it realizes that to be so is less hurtful than to speak.

5. Some persons are even presumptuous enough in their mistaken zeal to meddle in the domestic affairs of strange families, blaming, counselling, attempting to reform without measure and discretion, thus causing an evil much greater than the one they wish to correct. Let us employ the activity of our zeal in our own reformation, says Saint Bernard, and pray humbly for that of others. It is great presumption on our part thus to assume the role of apostles when we are not as yet faithful disciples. Not that you should be be by any means indifferent to the salvation to souls: on the contrary you must wish it most ardently, but do not undertake to effect it except with great prudence, humility, and diffidence in self.{9}

Once again, if the persons doing these things at least had some manifested semblance of humility, it would be easier to take them somewhat seriously. But that is not what we have here. Or as I have noted elsewhere:

[A]mong the biggest bellyachers on [Amoris Laetitia] 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.{10}

As for the rest, there is a section in the second installment of the recent three part series{11} which goes over in detail the subject of conscience and more than adequately highlights the ethical and theological shortcomings of these sorts of folks with their accusations along these lines. I therefore need not reinvent the wheel here.

God not only permits but positively wills, the pluralism and diversity of religions, both Christian and non-Christian.

The source of this claim is the Joint Declaration on Fraternity of Pope Francis and Grand Imam Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb of Egypt. It should go without saying that joint declarations are fundamentally not doctrinal instruments but intended for the formation of common ground among at times widely divergent entities. In diplomatically sensitive circumstances, there are therefore at times uses of terminology that while true are nonetheless incomplete from the standpoints of the various parties in question. In terms of how Pope Francis intends the statement he signed to be understood, there is no better source to ascertain this than his own general audience on the very subject:

Some might ask themselves: but why is the Pope going to the Muslims and not just to Catholics? Because there are many religions, and why are there many religions? Along with the Muslims, we are the descendants of the same Father, Abraham: why does God allow many religions? God wanted to allow this: Scolastica theologians used to refer to God’s voluntas permissiva. He wanted to allow this reality: there are many religions. Some are born from culture, but they always look to heaven; they look to God. But what God wants is fraternity among us and in a special way, this was the reason for the trip, with our brothers, Abraham’s children like us, the Muslims. We must not fear differences. God allowed this. We should be afraid were we to fail to work fraternally to walk together in life.{12}

In short, we have another nothing burger from the Usual Suspects on this matter and this claim of heresy as with their other pathetic offerings{13} laughably falls well short of the mark. I note for a third time that it would be easier to feel some sympathy for these folks if they showed even a scintilla of humility. However, they do not. As I explained in a Lenten reflections thread on folks of this mindset:

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.{14}

For some reason, I doubt most of these folks will repent of their calumny and slander (to put it mildly) no matter what anyone says. Therefore, they are deserving of no respect whatsoever and only contempt until such time as they start acting like mature Catholics instead of pompous bellyaching brats.

[I]t is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them... 

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

Notes:

{1} "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." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{2} To list them in sequence:

To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)

On the Malta Dioceses Application of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (circa April 16, 2019)

On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. (circa April 18, 2019)

{3} "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[...], 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." [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 5, 2019)]

{4} "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." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{5} "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." [Excerpt from the Note To Address the So-Called "Fraternal Correction" and its Signatories (circa April 14, 2019)]

{6} The five in question are indicated in the Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church by the Roman numerals I, II, III, IV, and VI which correspond to five of the seven heresies insinuated to various degrees in the document Correctio Filialis de Haeresibus Propagatis and which were numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6 from that text respectively.

{7} Excerpt from the Note On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. (circa April 18, 2019)

{8} If we are being more charitable to them than they are to others.

{9} 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 Zeal

{10} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 21, 2019)

{11} See the Note On Correcting the So-Called "Correctio Filialis", Addressing Its Accusations, Etc. for details.

{12} Pope Francis: From the General Audience Catechesis on the Apostolic Visitation to Morocco (circa April 3, 2019)

{13} Among the doctrinally specious claims made by many of these folks is a denial of the infallibility of papal canonizations.

{14} Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2019)

BREAKING. Attorney General Barr Launches Investigation To Determine How The Russia Investigation Started And More

TWITTER DELENDA EST

Doug Baldwin Represented an Era of Seahawks Football

Points to Ponder:

Nine out of ten of what we call new ideas are simply old mistakes. [GK Chesterton]

On the Infallibility of Papal Canonizations of Saints:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

This material was mostly compiled in late 2018 and early 2019 and finally completed yesterday. Having noted that, I cannot believe I have to do this with Catholics who should know better. However, if I learned anything in twenty odd years of involvement in these matters, it is that those who claim to be so Catholic so often are ignorant of the basics of theology and other matters. This is certainly the case for those who claim to be More Faithful Than Thou who try to parse out or separate papal canonizations into different eras or seek to find ways to downplay or dismiss modern canonizations. The purpose of this note is to look at the subject of papal canonizations and why logically in Catholic theology they have to be infallible, period. Let us start with the standard formula used in a canonization ceremony:

In honor of the Holy Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of Our Own, after long reflection, having invoked divine assistance many times and listened to the opinion of many of our Brothers in the Episcopate, We declare and define as Saint Blessed N. and inscribe his/her name in the list of the saints and establish that throughout the Church they be devoutly honored among the saints.{1}

I realize that formularies are not the be-all and end-all on these things but it is made manifest by the Pope in canonizing someone that they are defining their presence in heaven and placing an obligation on the faithful to reverence the canonized person as such henceforth in perpetuity. None of this is consistent with the claims of those who would rashly assert that such proclamations are not definitive. As canonizations of saints became centralized in the papacy in the second millennium{2}, along with the developing notion of church and papal infallibility, the understanding that papal canonizations would be infallible over time came about. The earliest explicit exponent of this belief that I am aware of is St. Thomas Aquinas who had this to say on the matter (all emphasis is mine):

Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err.{3} 

As the process of canonization became more centralized over time, "bishops were designated as the primary ecclesiastical authorities to determine the historical veracity of martyrs and confessors"{4} and the bishops were "licensed to confer a kind of beatification on a meritorious individual within their dioceses."{5} From there, "[c]ults of an officially recognized martyr or confessor could transfer (translatio) the saint's body to a designated shrine location and select a festival date on which liturgical rites could be performed annually. The act of translating a saint's body to an altar or shrine came to be interpreted as the act of canonization."{6} Over time, cults spread across various dioceses as a result of both veneration by believers as well as promotion by church authorities. As the cults of saints grew, profiteers decided to get in on the act and it became so pervasive that church councils begin to address the matter. The Council of Mainz in 813 "decreed that a body could be moved only by permission of the relevant bishop and provincial synod and after informing the secular authority."{7}

While the first papal canonization on record is from 993 AD, "the first universal canonization occurred in 1041, with a papal bull addressing all nations and languages, not just clergy and selected ethno-cultural groups."{8} The reasons for increasing appeals to the papacy to validate canonizations was "initially done to introduce Church oversight and doctrinal rigor into beatification, a process that continued to be controlled by the bishops at the local level."{9} It was a status symbol basically to seek the pope's approval because then the act carried the greater spiritual weight and stature of the Roman Church. And of course "the demand for papal canonization corresponded to the rise in power and prestige of the papacy in Rome."{10}

Prior to the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), there were only a few decrees of importance pertaining to the canonization of saints. The first was from the Fifth Council of Carthage (401) concerning the verification of shrines by the local bishop to ensure that they had a connexion with a true martyr and to insist that no one be venerated as a martyr without a reasonable basis of historical evidence. The second is the aforementioned Council of Mainz (813). The papacy of Pope Alexander III (1159-1181) saw the further crystallization of basic principles including the reservation of canonization to the papacy{11} with the formulation of customs that would later be set forth in formal decrees. In the aftermath of the Council of Trent, the following was included in a Profession of Faith by Pope Paul IV:

I steadfastly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honored and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated.{12}

If you read the words carefully, you will see that the Tridentine Profession of Faith, it is mandated that the saints are to be honoured and invoked as well as their relics venerated. If it is a matter of faith that the saints are to be honored and invoked, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be venerated, then that means the determination of saints is logically a matter with a connection to dogma. What does this mean if the Church could err in canonizing saints?

To suppose that the Church can err in canonizing, is a sin, or is heresy, according to St. Bonaventure, Bellarmine, and others; or at least next door to heresy, according to Suarez, Azorius, Gotti, etc.; because the Sovereign Pontiff, according to St. Thomas, is guided by the infallible influence of the Holy Ghost in an especial way when canonizing saints.{13} 

This was the standard view by all reputable theologians and doctors throughout the post-Tridentine period. At the First Vatican Council, one of the factors involved in addressing the subject of papal infallibility was the extent of that infallibility. On the issue of truths necessary for guarding the faith even though not themselves formally revealed, the Relator Bishop Vincent Gasser said the following:

'All Catholic theologians completely agree that the Church, in her authentic proposal and definition of truths of this sort, is infallible,' such that to deny this infallibility would be a very grave error. A diversity of opinion turns only on the degree of certitude, i.e., on whether the infallibility in proposing these truths--and therefore in proscribing errors through censures inferior to the note of heresy--should be considered a dogma of faith, so that to deny this infallibility to the Church would be heretical, or whether it is a truth not revealed in itself but one deduced from revealed dogma and as such is only theologically certain.{14}

In other words, there was a consensus amongst Catholic theologians that the Church is infallible in more than matters of faith and the only diversity of opinion was whether denying this infallibility would be heretical or whether it was merely deduced from revealed dogma and as such is only theologically certain. What was the decision of the Deputation on how to handle this matter?

[I]t has seemed to members of the Deputation, by unanimous agreement, that this question should not be defined, at least not now, but should be left in the state in which it presently is.{15}

If you read carefully, you will see that Bishop Gasser was not saying that the proposed dogmatic formula intended to leave in a state of indecision the question of whether the Pope is infallible in defining both secondary truths as well as formal revealed truths. What was intended to be left in the state in which it presently is is only the question of the specific theological qualification of the teaching; namely, if it is de fide or just theologically certain. Irrespective of the theological qualification however, it is clear that there is certainty and the requirement for all Catholics to hold firmly that the Pope is infallible in defining secondary doctrines necessary for guarding and expounding the deposit of faith. Among these secondary truths is the canonization of saints.

So by 1870 and prior to the promulgation of Pastor Aeternus by the Fathers of the First Vatican Council, this matter was already one that was not subject to theological speculation. The aforementioned factor was also noted as follows in the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s.v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: 'Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error.' These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Francisco Suárez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church.{16} 

And in the words of pre-Vatican II dogmatic theologian Gerardus van Noort:

Canonization (formal) is the final and definitive decree by which the sovereign pontiff declares that someone has been admitted to heaven and is to be venerated by everyone, at least in the sense that all the faithful are held to consider the person a saint worthy of public veneration... Infallibility is claimed for canonization only; a decree of beatification, which in the eyes of the Church is not definitive but may still be rescinded, is to be considered morally certain indeed, but not infallible.{17}

In other words, there was prior to the Second Vatican Council a theological consensus that secondary objects of infallibility were infallible. And on the scope of infallibility, the Second Vatican Council had the following to say in one of its dogmatic constitutions:

[T]his infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded.{18}

Up to this point, the teaching was long proposed over the course of centuries as at least theologically certain. By including this teaching in a Dogmatic Constitution of an Ecumenical Council, this simply underscored that the aforementioned teaching was definitive by virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium and faithful Catholics were bound to accept it with what is called ecclesiastical faith (Lat. fides ecclesiastica). This understanding was one explicitly delineated in a declaration by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in the years following the Second Vatican Council:

According to Catholic doctrine, the infallibility of the Church's Magisterium extends not only to the deposit of faith but also to those matters without which that deposit cannot be rightly preserved and expounded. (Cf. Vatican Council II: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, 25; Const. Decr. Decl., p. 139.){19}

And finally, the CDF has explicitly stated that among the truths connected to revelation to be held definitively but which cannot be declared matters of dogma include the following:

[T]he legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.{20}

In summary, the overwhelming evidence over the centuries from the time that canonizations of saints became centralized in the papacy is that the infallibility of the church extends not only to matters properly considered de fide but also matters which pertain to the deposit of faith by logical extension. Among these areas required for the preservation and expounding of the deposit of faith is the canonizations of saints. And as the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council settled this matter doctrinally, the only response of faithful Catholics is the assent of ecclesiastical faith: something not present in the schismatics who by denying this fundamental principle of the Catholic faith are themselves proximate to heresy.

If anyone dared to assert that the pontiff had erred in this or that canonization, we shall say that he is, if not a heretic, at least temerarious, a giver of scandal to the whole Church, an insulter of the saints, a favorer of those heretics who deny the Church's authority in canonizing saints, savoring of heresy by giving unbelievers an occasion to mock the faithful, the assertor of an erroneous opinion and liable to very grave penalties. [Pope Benedict XIV: Excerpt from De Canonisione Sanctorum 1.I c.43 n.3; c.45 n.28. (circa ante-1758)]

Notes:

{1} The Concluding Canonization Formulary Used By Popes When Canonizing Saints

{2} The first papal canonization was of Ulrich, bishop of Augsburg by Pope John XV in 993 AD at the Lateran Council held that year.

{3} St. Thomas Aquinas: Quodl. 9:8:16 (circa ante 1274)

{4} Eric W. Kemp: From Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (circa 1948) as cited in The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 193 (circa 2011).

{5} From The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 193 (circa 2011)

{6} Eric W. Kemp: From Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (circa 1948) as cited in The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 193 (circa 2011).

{7} Eric W. Kemp: From Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (circa 1948) as cited in The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 194 (circa 2011).

{8} Eric W. Kemp: From Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (circa 1948) as cited in The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 194 (circa 2011).

{9} Eric W. Kemp: From Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (circa 1948) as cited in The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 194 (circa 2011).

{10} Eric W. Kemp: From Canonization and Authority in the Western Church (circa 1948) as cited in The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Religion edited by Rachel M. McCleary, pg 194 (circa 2011).

{11} While Pope Alexander III did not formally decree this, the last canonization performed by a local bishop preceded his pontificate and he did establish the principles that resulted in his successor Pope Gregory IX decreeing that all canonizations were reserved to the Apostolic See.

{12} Pope Pius IV: Profession of Faith (circa November 13, 1564)

{13} St. Alphonsus Liguori: Excerpt from The Great Means of Salvation and Perfection, pg 23 (circa 1759)

{14} Bishop Vincent Gasser: From His Relatio to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council (circa July 11, 1870)

{15} Bishop Vincent Gasser: From His Relatio to the Fathers of the First Vatican Council (circa July 11, 1870)

{16} Catholic Encyclopedia: Excerpt from the Article Beatification and Canonization (circa 1913)

{17} Mgr. G. Van Noort: Excerpt from Dogmatic Theology 2: Christ’s Church, Westminster, MD: Newman Press, pg 117 (circa 1957)

{18} Second Vatican Council: Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium §25 (circa November 21, 1964)

{19} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae §3 (circa June 24, 1973)

{20} Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: From the Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei (circa July 29, 1998)

The Last Days of Father Schall

Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine
Et lux perpetua luceat eis:
Fidelium animae, per misericordiam Dei,
Requiescant in pace.
Amen.

Points to Ponder:
(From a Facebook Entry circa April 17, 2010)

"We begin to see, therefore, the importance of selecting our environment with the greatest of care, because environment is the mental feeding ground out of which the food that goes into our minds is extracted." [Napoleon Hill]

'Game of Thrones' Is Porn. Change My Mind

A Series of Website Threads Foreshadowing A Recently Completed Series:
(A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread)

In light of what I am about to post, it seems appropriate to summarize up to this point in one spot all of the threads that worked together in sequence to foreshadow the recently published website series posted during Holy Week of 2019. Without further ado...

Revisiting the Subject of the SSPX and Their Status (circa December 4, 2018)

"None Dare Call It Conspiracy" Dept. (circa December 6, 2018)

Points to Ponder on Obedience from St. Catherine of Siena (circa December 6, 2018)

"One From the Vault" on Dialogue (circa December 6, 2018)

Briefly (circa December 30, 2018)

Remembering John and Bill (circa January 7, 2019)

On Papal Dissent, Argumentation Fallacies, Etc (circa February 9, 2019)

More on Popes, Heresy, Theology, Church History, Etc (circa February 11, 2019)

Briefly on Lent (circa March 5, 2019)

Briefly on Burying the Hatchet in 2019 (circa March 6, 2019)

Points to Ponder from Church Father Rufinus (circa March 13, 2019)

Revisiting the Controversial Dubia -A Lenten Reflection (circa March 21, 2019)

On Certain Pharisee Parallels Amongst the "More Faithful Than Thou" Crowd -A Lenten Reflection (circa March 24, 2019)

Points to Ponder From the Book of Wisdom (circa March 26, 2019)

Points to Ponder from the Book of Proverbs (circa March 30, 2019)

On the Subject of Conscience and Sacramental Reception -A Lenten Reflection (circa April 4, 2019)

On Rash Judgment - A Lenten Reflection From St. Francis de Sales (circa April 6, 2019)

On Burying Hatchets, Building Bridges, Facilitating Authentic Dialogue, Etc. in 2019 and Beyond (circa April 9, 2019)

Points to Ponder from the First Epistle of Peter (circa April 9, 2019)

The reason for this recapitulation thread will become quite evident very soon...

Points to Ponder:
(In Light of a Recent Posting)

The Church is the Church of the New Covenant, but it lives in a world in which the “hardness of heart” (Mat 19:8) of the Old Covenant remains unchanged. It cannot stop preaching the faith of the New Covenant, but it must often enough begin its concrete life a bit below the threshold of the scriptural word. Thus it can in clear emergency situations allow limited exceptions in order to avoid worse things. Criteria of such action must be: an act “against what is written,” is limited in that it may not call into question the fundamental form, the form from which the Church lives. It is therefore bound to the character of exemption and of help in urgent need - as the transitional missionary situation was, but also the real emergency situation of the Church union.

Thereby arises, however, the practical question, whether we can name such an emergency situation in the present-day church and describe an exception that satisfies these criteria. I would like to try, with all necessary caution, to formulate a concrete proposal that seems to me to lie within this scope. Where a first marriage broke up a long time ago and in a mutually irreparable way, and where, conversely, a marriage consequently entered into has proven itself over a longer period as a moral reality and has been filled with the spirit of the faith, especially in the education of the children (so that the destruction of this second marriage would destroy a moral greatness and cause moral harm), the possibility should be granted, in a non-judicial way, based on the testimony of the pastor and church members, for the admission to Communion of those in live in such a second marriage. Such an arrangement seems to me to be for two reasons in accord with the tradition:

a) We must emphatically recall the room for discretion that is built into every annulment process. This discretion and the inequities that inevitably come from the educational situation of the affected parties and from their financial possibilities should warn against the idea that justice can in this way be flawlessly satisfied. Moreover, many things are simply not subject to legal judgment and are nonetheless real. The procedural affair must necessarily limit itself to the legally provable, but can for that very reason pass over crucial facts. Above all, formal criteria (formal errors or conscious omission of ecclesiastical form) thereby receive a preponderance that leads to injustices. Overall, the transferal of the question to the act establishing the marriage is indeed legally unavoidable, but still a narrowing of the problem that cannot fully do justice to the nature of human action. The annulment process provides a concrete set of criteria to determine that the standards of marriage among believers are not applicable to a particular marriage. But it does not exhaust the problem and therefore cannot claim that strict exclusivity that had to be attributed to it under the reign of a certain form of thought.

b) The requirement that a second marriage have proven itself over a long time as a moral greatness and have been lived in the spirit of faith in fact corresponds to that type of forbearance that is palpable in Basil, where after a long penance Communion is granted to the “Digamus” (= the one living in a second marriage) without terminating the second marriage: in trust in in the mercy of God, who does not leave the penance unanswered. If in the second marriage moral obligations to the children, to the family, and so also to the woman have arisen, and no similar commitments from the first marriage exist, and if thus for moral reasons the abandonment of the second marriage is inadmissible, and on the other hand practically speaking abstinence presents no real possibility (magnorum est, says Gregory II), the opening up of community in Communion after a period of probation appears to be no less than just and to be fully in line with the Church's tradition: The granting of communio cannot here depend on an act that is either immoral or practically speaking impossible.

The distinction attempted with the mutual relatedness of thesis 1 and 2 seems to be in accordance with the caution of Trent, although as a practical rule it goes beyond it: the anathema against a teaching that wants to make the Church's fundamental form an error or at least a custom that should be overcome, remains in full vigor. Marriage is a sacramentum, it stands in the irrevocable fundamental form of the decisive decision. But this does not mean that the Communion community of the church does not also encompass those people who accept this teaching and this life principle, but are in a special predicament, in which they especially need the full communion with the Body of Christ. The Church's faith will also thus remain a sign of contradiction: That is essential to it, and precisely by this fact it knows that it is following the Lord, who foretold to his disciples that they should not expect to be above the master, who was rejected by the pious and by the liberals, by Jews and by Gentiles. [Joseph Ratzinger: From Zur Frage nach der Unauflöslichkeit der Ehe: Bemerkungen zum dogmengeschichtlichen Befund und zu seiner gegenwärtigen Bedeutung in Ehe und Ehescheidung: Diskussion unter Christen, Kösel-Verlag, München, pp. 35-56 (circa 1972)]