Jesuit general: all doctrine is subject to discernment [CWN]

[codefro]

I don’t think what Father is saying is technically wrong, but I fear the tone.

He doesn’t say that the Magisterium of the Church should use discernment , he seems to be implying that individual Catholics should use discernment.

The Jesuits have a tendency to think that everyone is able to correctly handle Ignatian Spirituality, which I would argue that not everyone is ready for that. Ignatian Spirituality can lead to bad places if one isn’t firmly rooted in Catholic teaching.

God Bless.

Amen. We need to understand discernment from the Ignatian perspective as a communal effort, not a singular. Which is also how Pope Francis acknowledges it. In Amoris Laetitia, he is for discernment alongside the pastor. He is saying that we still need to speak with the Church and to listen to the Church as well. It is not that now we are our own magisterium. So if we read the Superior speaking of discernment in light of St. Ignatius and Pope Francis, then we need not react so heavily. The Church is being given a stronger voice in this.

 

[Stat_Crux]

Amen. We need to understand discernment from the Ignatian perspective as a communal effort, not a singular. Which is also how Pope Francis acknowledges it. In Amoris Laetitia, he is for discernment alongside the pastor. He is saying that we still need to speak with the Church and to listen to the Church as well. It is not that now we are our own magisterium. So if we read the Superior speaking of discernment in light of St. Ignatius and Pope Francis, then we need not react so heavily. The Church is being given a stronger voice in this.

How anyone intends it is irrelevant if the concrete outcome leads to willfully/knowingly acting in a manner which is against Church teaching or moral doctrine. It was the error of the pharisees to find legal arguments (and, apparently, sufficiently rationale enough to satisfy the human minds of time) to gain comfort that they were obeying God’s commandments, whilst actually totally violating their substance and intent.

I see you mean it sincerely, so please don’t take it personally, but when he says…

Q: But it can reach conclusions different from doctrine.

A: That is so, because doctrine does not replace discernment, nor does it the Holy Spirit.

…one has to wonder how much more obvious a contrast with traditional Catholic ecclesiology and theology needs to be. He is suggesting that Doctrine takes second place to discernment and “the Holy Spirit”. Our poor, fallible human discernment does not have sovereignty over the revealed objective truths taught by God himself, and may not contradict them. To then suggest that 'the Holy Spirit" is involved is given without qualification or explanation, as an apparent justification that “whatever outcome is reached must be in accord with the intentions of the Holy Spirit”. There are any number of heretics, schismatics and false prophets from history who one could pick who have claimed that their actions in attacking the Church were “guided by the Holy Spirit”.

If indeed there is in fact a reasonable, orthodox “Ignatian” explanation behind what he is saying, as opposed to the literal meaning of what he said, where is the carefully explained caveat? Or the limitation or qualification placed so that people do not take his words too far? No, he knows exactly what he is saying, and he is saying it directly to your face.

This is yet another facet to the ongoing theological debate about the proper position of private conscience in the Church, exactly as it was when the debates surrounding private conscience. The following article is a useful primer on the position:

thecatholicthing.org/2017/02/22/a-brief-primer-on-catholic-faith-and-conscience/

It appears as though, for now, the confusion in the Church about who she actually is continues.

 

[Ormond]

Ignatian Spirituality can lead to bad places if one isn’t firmly rooted in Catholic teaching.

I think you guys are far too worried about ideas, doctrines, beliefs etc. That’s a mess that will NEVER be sorted out. There’s always going to be division and conflict no matter what anybody says or does. The conflict been going on for 2,000 years just within Christianity alone, don’t flatter yourself in to believing something you do or don’t think or say is going to touch it.

Division is built in to thought itself, that’s why every ideology ever invented inevitably sub-divides in to competing factions. As example, Christianity is a philosophy explicitly about love and still it subdivided in to factions which have waged murderous war upon each other. This should be ample evidence that no matter what philosophy we adopt division and conflict will be our fate.

As the history of Christianity and every other ideology clearly demonstrates, the pattern of conflict can not be solved within the realm of ideas, because all ideas are made of thought, and thought is inherently divisive in nature.

All we need to know is…

**1) Thought divides.

1. Love unites.
   **
   You can see this for yourself in your daily life, you don’t need to study books for centuries to get it.

**ACTION PLAN: ** Here’s an action plan that will convert this forum in to real Catholicism. Let’s dump all the threads about ideology, and turn the entire forum in to fund raising machine for Catholic Charities. You’re using the endless discussion of doctrine to hide from the real work of being Christian, and I am too.

Don’t be mediocre, that is not following the example of Jesus. Don’t follow blindly and safely in the path of the group consensus like meek little sheep, that’s not what Jesus did. Don’t worship the authority of clerics, just as Jesus didn’t.

Be a revolutionary like Jesus. Kick over the status quo, and bring a new breath of fresh air to Judeo-Christian culture, just like Jesus did.

Let’s do it here, do it now. Let’s stop all this self indulgent talking of the talk, start raising money for poor people, and get on with the walking of the walk.

Or let’s be honest with ourselves and each other, and call the whole thing a fraud.

Jesus said inconvenient true things like this that annoyed so many people they finally killed him. We could shoot for that if you want.

 

[codefro]

How anyone intends it is irrelevant if the concrete outcome leads to willfully/knowingly acting in a manner which is against Church teaching or moral doctrine. It was the error of the pharisees to find legal arguments (and, apparently, sufficiently rationale enough to satisfy the human minds of time) to gain comfort that they were obeying God’s commandments, whilst actually totally violating their substance and intent.

I see you mean it sincerely, so please don’t take it personally, but when he says…

…one has to wonder how much more obvious a contrast with traditional Catholic ecclesiology and theology needs to be. He is suggesting that Doctrine takes second place to discernment and “the Holy Spirit”. Our poor, fallible human discernment does not have sovereignty over the revealed objective truths taught by God himself, and may not contradict them. To then suggest that 'the Holy Spirit" is involved is given without qualification or explanation, as an apparent justification that “whatever outcome is reached must be in accord with the intentions of the Holy Spirit”. There are any number of heretics, schismatics and false prophets from history who one could pick who have claimed that their actions in attacking the Church were “guided by the Holy Spirit”.

If indeed there is in fact a reasonable, orthodox “Ignatian” explanation behind what he is saying, as opposed to the literal meaning of what he said, where is the carefully explained caveat? Or the limitation or qualification placed so that people do not take his words too far? No, he knows exactly what he is saying, and he is saying it directly to your face.

This is yet another facet to the ongoing theological debate about the proper position of private conscience in the Church, exactly as it was when the debates surrounding private conscience. The following article is a useful primer on the position:

thecatholicthing.org/2017/02/22/a-brief-primer-on-catholic-faith-and-conscience/

It appears as though, for now, the confusion in the Church about who she actually is continues.

To your first point, that isn’t authentic discernment then. That is called mortal sin. Calling such a thing discernment is kidding yourself. So no arguments there. I am talking though about actual Catholic discernment, particularly in an Ignatian light.

To the General’s remark you quoted, there is a tension there that indeed has truth to it. We are answerable primarily to our conscience first over all things. That isn’t a Jesuit notion, Cardinal Newman is the Godfather of that teaching in the Catholic Church. Now, that is where the conversation detours into “well-formed conscience”, which I 100% agree with. Yet, what he is saying is that IF you AUTHENTICALLY discern (in line with Church teaching involving a pastor/ SD) and over the course of time you feel that you are right with God in light of all of those things and pastor, conscience, and perceived state with God is clear- then that is what you have to go off of. The Church is the arbiter of truth, but the Church cannot dictate every individual circumstance, we have to go through the proper channels for that. So, in light of all that, you may be doing something that seems to all outside viewers as something contrary to church teaching, but then you really aren’t. You have been following the proper channels and are in line with the Church on the subject. You properly discerned that are in a state of grace and you are following God to the best of your ability. A case that may be a good example for this is when Pope Francis (as Cardinal Bergoglio in Argentina) told a spiritual directee to go to another parish to recieve communion because everyone at her parish knew everything she had been through.

So does any of this mean throwing out doctine? Not at all! We need it. We also need to make sure it reflects Christ as accurately as possible, which is why the talk of reform always comes up. Sometimes when the Church has veered for some time, it needs true reform to steer the ship back on course. Also, it is important to note that Francis hasn’t actually touched a doctrine in the Church. Everything involved is designed to work alongside the Church’s teaching, he has no interest in changing that teaching. I would say the Superior General is of the same mind. Not 100% of course, but in a general solidarity fashion.

 

[Origen52]

It seems interesting to recall that Jesus had the choice to be a loyal traditionalist within the religious community in which he was raised. Jesus could have chosen to be faithful and obedient to the doctrines of the Jewish clergy which had preceded his birth by a thousand years. Jesus could have followed the rules set out for him by his elders, colored within the lines of the group consensus of his time, and not rocked the boat in any way. Jesus could have been a “nice guy”, someone who didn’t say things that got people upset.

Instead Jesus choose to chart his own course, kick over the apple cart, be a revolutionary, and say and do things that so outraged many of his neighbors that they wound up putting him to death.

Members above are selling tradition,conformity, obedience, authority worship, niceness, modesty, ceremony and adherence to the group consensus status quo.

Ok, your call, but um, doesn’t have much to do with Jesus folks.

I guess you either don’t read the gospel, or edit it to your own interpretation. Jesus lived and died a devout Jew.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 5

 

[Ginny89]

The Pope is not capitulating to the world. He is leading the Church, for those that want to follow. It is not about being “impressed.” It is about doing what is right.

You called the present move away from the “hard teachings” of Christ in the footsteps of the world and all other churches a “miracle”. That certainly indicates that someone is super impressed.

If it ever turns out that “right” is going against Jesus, then Christianity is false.

 

[Dolores49]

Reminds me of a modernist Jesuit’s discernment on marriage. “The Meaning of Marriage: Of Two Minds” which was published in Commonweal around 2004. Fr. Edward Collins Vacek. web.archive.org/web/20040813234735/http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php?id_article=794

Father Vacek writes, “When, after Vatican II, Catholics began to connect sexual activity more strongly with expressing love than with making babies, it became harder to see how homosexual acts are completely different from heterosexual acts.”

Contrary to Vatican II’s modernist view, the 1983 revised Code of Canon Law avoided any type of “hierarchical” language:

1055 §1. The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.   [thecatholicthing.org/2015/10/17/the-ends-of-marriage-since-vatican-ii/](https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2015/10/17/the-ends-of-marriage-since-vatican-ii/)

“The expectation among dissenters now seems to be that eventually the magisterium of the Church will catch up with the modern world, rescinding restrictions that Christians from Apostolic times have taken for granted.” thecatholicthing.org/2012/02/04/vatican-ii-and-the-two-ends-of-marriage/

 

[M-Dent]

I need to revisit the book on biblical discernment I read a decade ago by Fr. Dubay, Authenticity. It gave me a very different sense of understanding discernment.

 

[TMC]

You called the present move away from the “hard teachings” of Christ in the footsteps of the world and all other churches a “miracle”. That certainly indicates that someone is super impressed.

If it ever turns out that “right” is going against Jesus, then Christianity is false.

You might want to re-read my posts. I never referred to “hard” teachings. You called for someone to lead the Church toward the truth, perhaps in a miraculous way. I take that as a suggestion that the Pope is leading the Church in the wrong way. I said that the Pope is leading the Church in the right way, and that is the miraculous change in the Church. Isn’t that a fair summary of our conversation?

The Pope is leading the Church toward truth, and towards Christ. I find that miraculous enough for me. If you think the Pope is wrong and teaching a false Christianity, I suppose that is your prerogative, but I certainly disagree with you.

 

[codefro]

I need to revisit the book on biblical discernment I read a decade ago by Fr. Dubay, Authenticity. It gave me a very different sense of understanding discernment.

His book might not reflect Ignatian discernment. Dubay is a Dominican.

 

[Ginny89]

You might want to re-read my posts. I never referred to “hard” teachings. You called for someone to lead the Church toward the truth, perhaps in a miraculous way. I take that as a suggestion that the Pope is leading the Church in the wrong way. I said that the Pope is leading the Church in the right way, and that is the miraculous change in the Church. Isn’t that a fair summary of our conversation?

The Pope is leading the Church toward truth, and towards Christ. I find that miraculous enough for me. If you think the Pope is wrong and teaching a false Christianity, I suppose that is your prerogative, but I certainly disagree with you.

O please. I specifically spoke of the present crisis and said I expected that only a miracle could resolve the scandal caused. You then claimed this was the miracle I was witnessing. .

Your posting history on the subject is no secret and there is no need to play word games and run away from your position now. The bottom line is that you want the church to ignore Jesus’ hard teaching on marriage. Worse, you think this is “the right thing”. I’m just saying I’ll stake my moral views on the words of the Christ who shed his blood and the witnesses who also shed their blood and those who have remained faithful to them in their teaching for 2000 years. You are free to call a movement towards their betrayal a miracle. I just find it funny that someone would think taking the easy route is miraculous. That really is being super easy to impress.

 

[M-Dent]

His book might not reflect Ignatian discernment. Dubay is a Dominican.

Father Thomas Dubay penned more than 20 books on topics such as religious life, interior renewal, prayer, Carmelite mysticism, Ignatian spirituality, spiritual discernment, religious authority and, as already mentioned, science and theology.

Father Thomas Edward Dubay, S.M.

He was a remarkable spiritual thinker and writer.

 

[codefro]

He was a remarkable spiritual thinker and writer.

Ah good to know!

 

[_Abyssinia]

From Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith:

Sorry, Fr Sosa, but we must take Jesus literally on marriage
catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2017/02/24/sorry-fr-sosa-but-we-must-take-jesus-literally-on-marriage/

 

[TMC]

O please. I specifically spoke of the present crisis and said I expected that only a miracle could resolve the scandal caused. You then claimed this was the miracle I was witnessing. .

Your posting history on the subject is no secret and there is no need to play word games and run away from your position now. The bottom line is that you want the church to ignore Jesus’ hard teaching on marriage. Worse, you think this is “the right thing”. I’m just saying I’ll stake my moral views on the words of the Christ who shed his blood and the witnesses who also shed their blood and those who have remained faithful to them in their teaching for 2000 years. You are free to call a movement towards their betrayal a miracle. I just find it funny that someone would think taking the easy route is miraculous. That really is being super easy to impress.

The “movement” that you claim is leading the Church away from Christ is being lead by the Pope. I am not running away from anything. I am simply denying the ridiculous assertion that the Pope is leading away from “hard teachings.” This is not about whether you think a particular teaching is “hard” or not. It is about getting the teaching right, and moving the Church in the right direction. I say that the Pope is doing that. You say that he is doing the opposite, and in fact that he is somehow betraying the Church. That is our point of disagreement, which I agree is no secret.

 

[RCinMT]

The “movement” that you claim is leading the Church away from Christ is being lead by the Pope. I am not running away from anything. I am simply denying the ridiculous assertion that the Pope is leading away from “hard teachings.” This is not about whether you think a particular teaching is “hard” or not. It is about getting the teaching right, and moving the Church in the right direction. I say that the Pope is doing that. You say that he is doing the opposite, and in fact that he is somehow betraying the Church. That is our point of disagreement, which I agree is no secret.

You mean in 2000 years with ample pronouncements that those were not getting it right?

Is there such a thing as de-canonizing a saint? If so somebody should start the process for St. Thomas More who, it turns out, was guilty of clericalism, was overly dogmatic and is surely burning in hell for not assenting to Henry’s marriages. Perhaps concurrently the process of canonization can be initiated for Cromwell.

 

[codefro]

The “movement” that you claim is leading the Church away from Christ is being lead by the Pope. I am not running away from anything. I am simply denying the ridiculous assertion that the Pope is leading away from “hard teachings.” This is not about whether you think a particular teaching is “hard” or not. It is about getting the teaching right, and moving the Church in the right direction. I say that the Pope is doing that. You say that he is doing the opposite, and in fact that he is somehow betraying the Church. That is our point of disagreement, which I agree is no secret.

To interject a bit. TMC has a point. Pope Francis is the one leading these reforms. So they shouldn’t so heatedly attacked as they are. YET, that being said, as we have seen from Church history, Popes try to impliment reform and while it appears to be spreading during the designated pontificate, it’s fruit is truly tested in following pontificates. So Catholics need not act like the Church is about to be killed by any of this. If God does not want this in his Church, he will kill it off. Personally though, I think what Pope Francis has implimented will not be abolished, but amended to put safety rails up because of the number of clergy who are using these reforms for abusive purposes to Church teaching. Yet, we shall see. Catholics should be joyful, pray for God’s sovereignty to take charge in the Church. Keep calm and pray.

 

[Stat_Crux]

The Pope is leading the Church toward truth, and towards Christ.

But the Church started with the objective truth since the beginning, as revealed to us by Christ himself. The Church was instituted by Christ to guard, teach and propagate that truth and make disciples of all nations through the acceptance of that truth. Now, suddenly, we have been hearing a lot about a change of direction which casts into doubt the Church’s moral authority by questioning the correctness of what has gone before. Has the Church been wrong all these years in its teaching on the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage and the Sacraments of Marriage, Eucharist and Confession?

If we’re being “lead” towards a position where what has been explicitly condemned for the last 2,000 years suddenly because not only “possible”, but also “the right choice” so that a sexual union between two unmarried persons can continue in contradiction of explicit divine law, how is that anything but a contradiction to what always came from the Magisterium before? When the Holy Spirit inspired the Church, Saints and Martyrs to defend the scriptural teachings on divorce and the indissolubility of marriage for the past 2,000 years, has the Holy Spirit now changed its mind? Has no become yes? Or evil become good?

The questions drawing attention to the incompatibility of these new proposals are entirely reasonable, but indeed must be carried out with an appropriate sense of respect and charity. But it would be inappropriate to suggest that those who now defend what they were catechised to defend (the Church’s teachings) are somehow not in good standing, as some on this forum have been doing of late

(That last bit isn’t aimed at TMC personally.)

 

[Ginny89]

The “movement” that you claim is leading the Church away from Christ is being lead by the Pope. I am not running away from anything. I am simply denying the ridiculous assertion that the Pope is leading away from “hard teachings.” This is not about whether you think a particular teaching is “hard” or not. It is about getting the teaching right, and moving the Church in the right direction. I say that the Pope is doing that. You say that he is doing the opposite, and in fact that he is somehow betraying the Church. That is our point of disagreement, which I agree is no secret.

I’m glad to give you the good news then, that the teaching has been “got right” for 2,000, years now.

Do you think John Paul II was leading the church away from the truth when he taught that communion for sexually active remarried divorces was IMPOSSIBLE? NO? Didn’t think so. I’m glad to tell you that we agree! I’m very glad we agree about how ridiculous it is to accuse the Holy Father of leading God’s flock away from the Truth. Unless of course you think John Paul II wasnt the Holy Father…

 

[TMC]

But the Church started with the objective truth since the beginning, as revealed to us by Christ himself. The Church was instituted by Christ to guard, teach and propagate that truth and make disciples of all nations through the acceptance of that truth. Now, suddenly, we have been hearing a lot about a change of direction which casts into doubt the Church’s moral authority by questioning the correctness of what has gone before. Has the Church been wrong all these years in its teaching on the sinfulness of sex outside of marriage and the Sacraments of Marriage, Eucharist and Confession?

If we’re being “lead” towards a position where what has been explicitly condemned for the last 2,000 years suddenly because not only “possible”, but also “the right choice” so that a sexual union between two unmarried persons can continue in contradiction of explicit divine law, how is that anything but a contradiction to what always came from the Magisterium before? When the Holy Spirit inspired the Church, Saints and Martyrs to defend the scriptural teachings on divorce and the indissolubility of marriage for the past 2,000 years, has the Holy Spirit now changed its mind? Has no become yes? Or evil become good?

The questions drawing attention to the incompatibility of these new proposals are entirely reasonable, but indeed must be carried out with an appropriate sense of respect and charity. But it would be inappropriate to suggest that those who now defend what they were catechised to defend (the Church’s teachings) are somehow not in good standing, as some on this forum have been doing of late

(That last bit isn’t aimed at TMC personally.)

With respect, the idea that the Church has not changed in 2,000 years and that anything that the Pope may do today to change anything about the Church is somehow abandoning tradition or denying the Spirit is simply inaccurate, and a misunderstanding of how the Church works, as well as a misunderstanding of what the Pope is teaching now.

The Church has been growing and changing for 2,000 years. The Church of today is different in many ways from the Church of ancient times, and the Church’s teachings have evolved and grown right along with the Church. The changes happening today are nothing compared with many of the changes of the past. The insistence that the Church must be static and stale to be true is part of the “rigidity” that the Pope is denouncing, at least in my humble opinion.

I have no problem with those who want to discuss changes in the Church and talk through them. But much of what is said in this forum is not discussion - it is condemning and accusing the leaders of the Church of abandoning Christ and leading Catholics astray. If my defense of the Pope has at times been a bit strident, it is because the voices raised so avidly against him have also been strident, and far from charitable.