Ending 2023 - thank God!
Dear and gentle reader, a very Happy Christmas and coming New Year to you and yours! We've made it - almost - through yet another year together. No, I've not posted as often as I should, but then, I was lazy and just didn't feel like it, so deal with it.
What a year it has been, and personally, I'm glad to see the back of it. On a personal note, I'm about the same as I was last year, only older, grumpier, and fatter, and I don't give a fig if I am. My diocese is still in limbo concerning the bishop's restructuring plan. I have no idea if I will be transferred this coming June. My two parishes have been proposed to be split, one being merged with a parish to its northwest to form a new parish, and the one where I currently reside, to be merged with a parish to its northeast. So, if the proposals go through, which most likely they will, I will be without a parish, thus, no longer a pastor. God forbid that I be demoted to a lowly assistant! I've been there, done that, and glad to never do it again. I hope and pray to have a parish of my own, without being burdened with living with another priest. So, we shall see.
In wider Church news, my, oh my! Pope Francis has been busy with bishops. Bp. Strickland has been removed from shepherding the diocese of Tyler, Texas, ostensibly for poor administration and more or less a "vote of no-confidence" by the majority of the clergy and many of the laity. Strickland is also known to be one of the most vocal critics of the Holy Father, even implying that Pope Francis wasn't validly elected. Strickland is still a bishop, there is no suspension of his episcopal ministry, but now, without a diocese. That means he can continue to blather on at conferences and social media, sadly.
And then there's Cardinal Burke, former archbishop of St. Louis, Missouri, and head of the Roman Rota. Burke has no function in Rome any longer, aside from that of all cardinals - to assist the Pontiff with prayer, support, and information. Like Strickland, he has been a vocal critic of Pope Francis. He has not been as rash as Strickland, since he's more intelligent, but his criticisms have been strident, and persistent. Pope Francis decided to end the annual stipend given to Burke, along with taking the Roman "apartment" given to him by the Holy See. By the by, it's not an apartment like we commoners would think; it was over four thousand square feet of space, along with servants to tend to the cardinal's needs. All of this was taken from him, according to the Vatican sources, due to his being an agent of division within the Church.
With the disciplinary measures against Strickland and Burke, some have cried foul, since they see it merely as arbitrary retribution by the Pope against his critics. I however, think it is merited. Strickland was removed from his former diocese because of poor administration and maltreatment of his clergy. If a bishop cannot work with his priests, and cannot manage a diocesan staff at headquarters, then his mission of service to the diocese entrusted to his care is seriously hampered. That was certainly the case in Tyler, Texas. In the case of Burke, it was more of an issue of taking the oath of fidelity he made when he was created cardinal. The text of the oath is below, taking from the Holy See's website:
I think it was due to this oath that Burke's perks were removed. I highlighted in bold, what I think are the key elements of the oath which Cardinal Burke failed to fulfill. Now, Burke is not living in poverty. He has many wealthy supporters, and as a former archbishop of St. Louis, might receive some kind of stipend from the archdiocese. He lives primarily at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, which he had constructed. The cardinal travels regularly, giving lectures and talks at various functions, and for these, he is generously compensated. So no, he is not homeless, nor unemployed.
Look at it this way. If I were to continually criticise my bishop publicly, by name, insinuating that some things he has done or said might just smack of heresy, or that he had ignored the precepts of Canon Law, just how long do you think it would take for him to discipline me? Most likely, it would be rather immediate. I think in the cases of Strickland and Burke, the Holy Father has been extremely patient and willing to forgive, hoping they'd see what they've done, and stop it. But, they didn't. In my view, their deprivations are just and not arbitrary.
Ah, and then there's the icing on this annual cake ecclesial - the hubbub over the declaration from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, "Fiducia Supplicans". This document has been misunderstood by not only the secular media, but by many "Catholic" media outlets and their talking heads, as well as the social media blatherskites as permitting the blessing of couples in irregular unions - civil marriages, and gay marriages. Most of the doom and gloom commentary on the document focus on gay unions, while forgetting to mention the heterosexual irregular unions - Catholics in a second union without an annulment, Catholic married by a non-Catholic minister without episcopal dispensation, or Catholics married in a civil ceremony. You can read it for yourself here: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20231218_fiducia-supplicans_en.html
Firstly, the document clearly states that any blessing given to couples in irregular unions, is not a blessing of their union; it is a blessing of persons, given to them to help them draw closer to God and to better live the Gospel. Secondly, it is clearly stated that these are not to be performed in the context of the liturgy, and that they are to be spontaneous and informal - in other words, no vestments worn by the clergy, no holy water, no set ritual. Thirdly, it clearly states that the blessings in no way change the continual teaching of the Church on the sacrament of marriage - that a proper marriage is between one man and one woman, that it is a permanent and faithful bond ending only with the death of one of the spouses, and that it is open to the gift of children. I'd say that's fairly simple, and pretty clear.
No so for its critics. It is confusing, they say. It will lead to abuses, they claim. It will cause divisions in the Church, they moan. As for confusing; I honestly can't see it. It may be confusing for those who never read the declaration, which is short and in plain language with no technical jargon. The ones who won't read it are lazy, preferring to get a short sound-bite from their biased talking head. Can we blame their confusion on Pope Francis or the DDF? No. I blame the lazy consumer. In this day and age, there is no excuse for anyone to not go directly to the actual documents, thanks to the internet. Will it cause confusion for some that a blessing would be seen as a sacrament? Maybe, but those confused are either poorly catechised, or never taught that blessings are sacramentals, not sacraments. Sacraments come directly from Christ and impart grace which makes us holy - sharers in divine life. Sacramentals come from the Church, and do not make us holy, but dispose us to be open to seeking holiness. In other words, I won't get into heaven simply by wearing a blessed cross or medal. That is superstition, and an abuse of a sacramental. Will some couples, and clergy, abuse the blessing? Maybe. The clergy should know better than to do such - if they've had any decent seminary training - which most of them have. The couples should know better too, and if they don't then the clergy should patiently and gently explain to them that no, there is no blessing and exchange of rings, no formal wedding wear, no processions or music. Can we blame the Pope or the DDF for that? No. Will the blessings cause a division, nay, even a schism in the Church? I hope not. Schism over a mere blessing would be the poorest of the poor reasons to separate from the legitimate authority of the Church. If there were to be a schism, I think it would come from not the progressives or liberals, in this case, but from the traditionalists and the conservatives. God forbid such happen.
At the heart of the criticisms, is, I think, not only a conflation of sacramentals with sacraments, but our understanding of blessings. The Church has always taught that one does not have to be in the state of grace to be blessed. If that were not so, imagine how messy the end of Mass would be! The priest or bishop about to impart the blessing would have to announce that all who are in the state of mortal sin should now exit the church before the blessing is given! Talk about public shaming! Talk about confusion and division! Oh my! Along with that misunderstanding, there is the deep-seated animus against homosexual persons. This is what I have seen in the criticisms. It is one thing for us to say that homosexual acts and any sexual acts outside of a valid marriage are sinful. It's entirely different to say that homosexual persons and irregularly married persons do not deserve a blessing. If they are baptised, they are members of the Church, whether in the state of grace or not. As members of the Church, they deserve our respect and our love, and above ours, they have God's eternal love. They too are the beloved children of the Father, brothers and sisters of the Son, and temples of the Holy Spirit. Can we then honestly say that they cannot be blessed?
No, the Church cannot bless irregular unions, but she can bless the persons in them. As for the criticism of calling them "couples", the word used in the document, the critics say we can't call them that. Perhaps they've failed to look at the definition of the word. The Oxford English Dictionary, pretty much the most authoritative dictionary of the English language, defines couple as this: "two people who are married, engaged, or otherwise closely associated romantically or sexually.". So no, not all couples are validly married couples, whether we like it or not.
Comments
Post a Comment