St Thomas More: a question

[JReducation]

No, I don’t expect perfection. But **I don’t like the idea of being asked to venerate **people who have done things that I have never done and that I hope that I would never do.

That’s all.

Bold is mine. Catholics do not have a choice in the matter. Once the pope declares a person a saint, the world is commanded to venerate him or her. You’re not obliged to have a devotion to him. But you must celebrate his feast day at mass. If your parish is named after that saint you must venerate him by mentioning at every mass just before you consecrate the host. His picture, statue, relic or other reference to him must be treated with reverence and always put in a place of honor. If you pray the Liturgy of the Hours you musty pray his LOTH on the assigned day, you cannot circumvent that. If he’s named as the patron of where you are, you must accept him as such and venerate him as the patron.

About the only thing that you are not obliged to do is to pray to him/her in private prayer. But you are obliged to pray to him in public prayer when the Church prays to him.

In all gentleness, remember what I have said several times. Each of us is a product of our times. We do things that would have horrified these men and women. Pius XII once said that he who judges the actions of a saint judges the Holy Spirit. I thought this was an interesting statement. He was not making a law, but driving home a point. The saints are gifts from the Holy Spirit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

In all gentleness, remember what I have said several times. Each of us is a product of our times. We do things that would have horrified these men and women. Pius XII once said that he who judges the actions of a saint judges the Holy Spirit. I thought this was an interesting statement. He was not making a law, but driving home a point. The saints are gifts from the Holy Spirit.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Nicely done, sir.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The greatest evil that we have contributed to the world is spelled out by John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae and he spells it out calling on his Apostolic Authority. We have made democracy and end rather than a means. Therefore, we promote, tolerate and ignore all kinds of evils to protect our democratic system. For example, we want to allow politicians to vote according to the mind of their constituents, even when the constituents want something immoral. That’s protecting democracy, not the soul of the country.

An excellent point. I wholeheartedly agree.

Pius was describing an error in modern thinking. Vatican II does not deny this error. What Vatican II says is that no one has the moral right to force another person to be a Catholic. There is a big difference between knowing that the best course of action for any state is to follow the Catholic faith and forcing people to become Catholic. The state can follow the moral law as it has been revealed through the Church, without forcing its citizens to convert to the Catholic faith. Conversion is not the duty of the state. That comes through the gift of faith, not through legislation.

Thanks, that makes sense to me. I can see now that the Church has not changed its position at all on the rightful union of Church and State.

Just to clarify my position, I haven’t been saying we should force anyone to become Catholic. From my reading of Church history, it has been clear that the Church has never supported forcing non-Catholics to convert, though she has at times supported the state in penalizing (and sometimes executing) heretics.

Does the Church now believe that it is always wrong for any state to penalize heretics or apostates (I mean obstinate heretics, not merely material heretics, for material heretics are not culpable for the sin of their errors), even if those heretics or apostates are criticizing Catholicism and trying to convert Catholics to their new beliefs? You said before, “It was never their idea to allow others to attack the Catholic faith,” but rather, they wanted to permit non-Catholics to live in peace.

His belief was that those of other faiths, who entered a Catholic country, posed some kind of threat to Catholics. There is some truth to this, but not the kind of threat that would justify penalizing them for practicing their faith. There is always a threat of contamination. But the Church has the same concern regarding the contact between the laity and the monks and mendicants. She has always discouraged us from having friends who are lay people. But we have never been encouraged to be unkind or hostile toward the laity, just to be cautious. The point here is that Pius statement lends itself to be misinterpreted. All who knew him knew that he was a very kind man and would never have approved any kind of hostility toward people of other faiths.

Would you say that those that enforce laws penalizing drug consumption are being “hostile” toward druggists? Pius IX was a great and kind man, but kindness and a belief that law can be legitimately used to defend populations from dangerous errors are not mutually exclusive. Thomas More was also a great and kind man, yet he was willing to execute heretical evangelists in order to protect Catholics from dangerous errors.

How can one misinterpret Pius’ condemnation of the statement that, “it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship”? It seems pretty clear that he is trying to defend the Catholic faithful from threats to their faith, and when one looks at the Church’s history, it appears he was doing so in union with the Church’s historical position on the legitimacy of using law to protect the truth. I really want to know if Vatican II changed this position or not, and if it did change this, then on what grounds did it do so? On grounds of principle? If so, this would suggest officially declared Church teaching can change, so I dislike this option.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I believe that this why John XXIII removed this statement from circulation. John XXIII had lived through Naziism and Communism. He had seen religious discrimination and its horrors. The popes who followed him were also products of that era in history. Remember what I said, saints are products of their time and place in history. Pius had not yet seen what the future popes would see.

Yes, but Church teaching is not the product of a time or place in history . . . it is timeless. That’s why I’m taking it on faith that Vatican II did not change the Church’s teaching, while seeking greater understanding.

Some of the things you said stood out to me as possibly particularly helpful in forming a bridge between the historic Church teaching and the present.

You wrote,
“It was never their idea to allow others to attack the Catholic faith. The idea of religious freedom was to allow others to practice their faith in peace so that they could discover the truths that could be found in their faith.”

My question in response to the first statement is, are you saying that Vatican II permits people to worship according to their religions in peace, but leaves room for the validity of using civil law to prevent non-Catholics or heretics evangelizing Catholics, or performing other religious acts (such as public celebrations, which I believe at times the Church has supported the state in forbidding) which could lead Catholics to convert to a partially false religion?

You also wrote,
“Religion is not a threat to the true faith. The real threat is ideologies. When religious is not free of ideologies it becomes dangerous. Relious beliefs, of all faiths, must exist and be practiced free of ideologies.”

I’m curious, how do you distinguish between a false religious belief and an ideology?

All beliefs that divide people from the Church are harmful. For instance, if someone hears the Church’s teaching that we live one life and then immediately are judged and go to our eternal destiny, but rejects this belief because he believes in reincarnation, then if he knows enough about the truth on this matter, he can do his soul deep spiritual harm through this false belief and through the errors of his fathers. His false religious belief could very well destroy him, because he prefers a lie to the truth. His error did not harm him until he knew the truth, but after he knew it, he was culpable for rejecting it. The error was wrong either way, but he did not sin by believing it until confronted with the truth.

Also, are you saying that people who hold to bad ideologies (however differentiated from “religion”) can be validly penalized by law? You said all religions “must” be practiced free of ideology – by that, do you mean that a Catholic state can validly penalize people for holding to bad ideologies?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I can say that St. Rose of Lima’s penances were over the top.

No offense intended, but what authority says this?

One of the reasons I revere her so much is because of the extreme severity of her penances.

 

[JReducation]

You have some good questions and I’ll try to answer the best I can given the space alloted and the limit of my own knowledge.

Does the Church now believe that it is always wrong for any state to penalize heretics or apostates (I mean obstinate heretics, not merely material heretics, for material heretics are not culpable for the sin of their errors), even if those heretics or apostates are criticizing Catholicism and trying to convert Catholics to their new beliefs? You said before, “It was never their idea to allow others to attack the Catholic faith,” but rather, they wanted to permit non-Catholics to live in peace.

The Church does not believe that it is legitimate to prosecute heretics or apostates in civil courts. The truth is that the Church never believed this. Allow me to explain something here. There is what the Church believes, as in what is part of her deposit of faith. And there is what the Church believes as in what is the teaching of a particular pope or beliefs that people hold at any particular time in history.

The belief in bringing criminal charges against heretics has never been part of the deposit of faith. Therefore, it cannot be invoked as a Catholic Belief with upper case B. This is a belief with lower case B. Today we would probably say it a little differently. We would probabl say that Catholics at one time subscribed to this notion. Whatever we subscribe to at any given time in history is binding onlly on those who are alive at that time. It is never binding once the circumstances have changed or once legitimate authority drops the “belief”.

Would you say that those that enforce laws penalizing drug consumption are being “hostile” toward druggists?

This is an excellent question. In Evangelium Vitae, which does carry the stamp of infallibility, there is a statement on the dignity of the person. John Paul clearly states that any kind of legal action that violates human dignity is a grave sin. It’s in the second section of the introduction. He’s not opposed to legal action. But he is stating that moral law does not allow the law to violate human dignity. If a person implementing the law is hostile, then the person is commiting a serious sin, even though he may be enforcing a law.

How can one misinterpret Pius’ condemnation of the statement that, “it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship”? It seems pretty clear that he is trying to defend the Catholic faithful from threats to their faith, and when one looks at the Church’s history, it appears he was doing so in union with the Church’s historical position on the legitimacy of using law to protect the truth.

The argument of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI is that you cannot take action against someone who has not done you harm. The position of Pius X also included the same idea, but it was not implemented or interpreted that way. Many people saw it as a license to use any deterrent available, including violence.

Given this abuse of the principal it was replaced with clearer wording in the document on religious freedom.

 

[JReducation]

I really want to know if Vatican II changed this position or not, and if it did change this, then on what grounds did it do so? On grounds of principle? If so, this would suggest officially declared Church teaching can change, so I dislike this option.

Everyone wants to blame everything that came out on the Vatican II documents on the Council. We have to be very careful here. It’s easy to do this, because the Council is an abstract. But the documents were written to reflect the mind of the Church. The Church’s position is that you cannot penalize any person for heresy, apostasy or for practicing another faith, even in a Catholic country.

How is this legitimate? It becomes legitimate law because the former rule was never part of the deposit of faith, as I explained above. It was a practice or a law. The Church has the power and authority to change laws and practices, even on principle. Usually she changes them for very practical reasons. In this case there were several practical reasons.

1. The law lent itself to abuses against human rights and this was not the intent. Pius X would not have approved of such abuses. He was trying to protect Catholics from abuses agaisnt their rights as Catholics, not turn the victim into the abuser.
2. The law or practice had no moral force, because it is not grounded in doctrine or revelation. It was grounded on the Church’s effort to protect her people. The Church found that it did not work. If it does not work, why keep it. You have to find something else that works. (In my opinion, this is always a challenge.)
3. This was not an official Church teaching. It was a teaching of an individual pope. For a teaching to qualify as an official Church teaching it must meet one of the following criteria:

a. It must be binding on future popes. This was not binding and was never declared to be binding. This was a papal bull, not an infallible decree.

b. It must be built into canon law. Canon law can be changed by any pope. Though this was never part of canon law.

c. It must be an infallible truth that has been revealed. This is not an infallible truth that was revealed. The infallible truth here is the truth about the Church. The how and when to deal with heresy is not a revealed truth. The Church must keep the truths about the Catholic Church, but it can change the means and systems on dealing with heresy.

d. The statement must be consistent with Church law, sacred scripture, or sacred tradition. Pius X’s statement was not part of sacred scripture, other than the part about the Church. That part has not been touched. The part about the Church is also consistent with sacred tradition. As we said, that has not been touched. What was changed? What was changed was the manner of dealing with error. The way that this was changed was by changing Church law. Church law does not bind popes or non Catholics. Non Catholics are not morally culpable for not following it. Pope are always above the law. There is no such thing as a pope who is subject to any law, civil or ecclesial. When a pope dies, whatever laws he made are not binding on his successors. They must be reaffirmed by the successor. The last person to invoke the Syllabus of Error was Pius XI. Pius XII never did, nor has any pope after that.

This does not mean that these are not errors. What it means is that the Church does not deal with them the same way that Pius X did. The reason is that the method no longer works. It stopped working in the 1940s. There was a void and then Father Ratzinger wrote the current statement of Religious Freedom that he presented to the committee on human rights and that Paul VI signed into law and has never been retracted or edited to this day.

There are some details in it that some people, such as the SSPX, question. But that’s not a matter of retracting the entire document. That’s a matter of clarifying and probably editing some of the wording so as to answer the questions. The last thing that the Church wants to do is to deny freedom of religion to anyone. You cannot do that and at the same time state that you believe that Jesus can and does use other faiths to save souls. You cannot say that there are shadows of truth found in other faiths and them try to stamp them out. You have to bring them into the fulness of truth, not extinguish them. It’s like killing something that is very weak, but still has some life. You try to give it more life, not take the little it has.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[anode]

Carried to its logical conclusion, you could not venerate/honor anyone, then. Not your parents, not your pastor, no one.

I honor and respect my parents and those I’ve admired who are now dead. I don’t pray to them. I think that one should evaluate people’s lives with dispassion and objectivity. I think that the cult of saints is potentially quite dangerous because it glosses over obvious serious faults in many personalities. The saints of one era are schizophrenics in another. I think that the cult of miracles is also quite unreliable. There are so many unpredictable exceptions in medicine that it is virtually impossible to declare anything a miracle. Cancers and incurable diseases go into remission all the time, without prayer.

 

[JReducation]

Yes, but Church teaching is not the product of a time or place in history . . . it is timeless. That’s why I’m taking it on faith that Vatican II did not change the Church’s teaching, while seeking greater understanding.

Some of the things you said stood out to me as possibly particularly helpful in forming a bridge between the historic Church teaching and the present.

You wrote,
“It was never their idea to allow others to attack the Catholic faith. The idea of religious freedom was to allow others to practice their faith in peace so that they could discover the truths that could be found in their faith.”

My question in response to the first statement is, are you saying that Vatican II permits people to worship according to their religions in peace, but leaves room for the validity of using civil law to prevent non-Catholics or heretics evangelizing Catholics, or performing other religious acts (such as public celebrations, which I believe at times the Church has supported the state in forbidding) which could lead Catholics to convert to a partially false religion?

You also wrote,
“Religion is not a threat to the true faith. The real threat is ideologies. When religious is not free of ideologies it becomes dangerous. Relious beliefs, of all faiths, must exist and be practiced free of ideologies.”

I’m curious, how do you distinguish between a false religious belief and an ideology?

All beliefs that divide people from the Church are harmful. For instance, if someone hears the Church’s teaching that we live one life and then immediately are judged and go to our eternal destiny, but rejects this belief because he believes in reincarnation, then if he knows enough about the truth on this matter, he can do his soul deep spiritual harm through this false belief and through the errors of his fathers. His false religious belief could very well destroy him, because he prefers a lie to the truth. His error did not harm him until he knew the truth, but after he knew it, he was culpable for rejecting it. The error was wrong either way, but he did not sin by believing it until confronted with the truth.

Also, are you saying that people who hold to bad ideologies (however differentiated from “religion”) can be validly penalized by law? You said all religions “must” be practiced free of ideology – by that, do you mean that a Catholic state can validly penalize people for holding to bad ideologies?

Ideology means politics. Faith is belief. Even if a person’s beliefs are mistaken, the Church says that it is wrong to interfere. Evangelization must never take the form of legal action against someone for their religious beliefs. I understand that this was not always the position held by the Church. But it is today’s position. That is the authority by which we must guide ourselves on matters of law. These positions were never de fide. In other words, they were meant to defend the faith, but they themselves were not statements of faith. Therefore, the Church can change how she goes about defending the faith. She does not authorize the state to take action against those who are not of our faith.

The Church does say that the sate may never authorize sin. But she makes a very clear distinction between a belief that is wrong and a sin. She has gone out of her way in the last 50 years of so to distinguish for us what is sin and what is error. There are times when they overlap, but not always. Sin is always error, but error is not always sin. Error has many etiologies. I hope that helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

No offense intended, but what authority says this?

One of the reasons I revere her so much is because of the extreme severity of her penances.

Ascetical theology tells us this. There is no teaching in ascetical theology that promotes the ascetical practices that Rose of Lima imposed on herself. That being said, we must put Rose into her historical context. Rose did not know ascetical theology. In fact, most Catholics don’t know ascetical theology. It is a branch of theology that is reserved only for those who are doctoral students in theology. It’s not even taught to deacons, priests or bishops. Outside of doctoral studies, the only other Catholics who study it are mendicants and monks.

The reason why it is not commonly studied is twofold. One: it is a very difficult branch of theology that requires much time. I can tell you from personal experience. After a four-year Masters’ of Divinity, I had to spend an additional three years studying Ascetical Theology. Even after a three-year doctoral program, I feel that I had just enough to get started. The rest came with years of reading and teaching it.

The second reason why it’s not a popular branch of theology is because there was always a preference for apologetics. Students of theology were more attracted to the understanding and defense of doctrine than to the study of sanctity, which is what you study in Mystical and Ascetical Theologies. This was practical, if you stop and think about it.

Going back to Rose of Lima and other ascetics, they did not know the full teachings of ascetical theology, so they went with their gut. God certainly recognizes their love and their desire for holiness, even if they overdo the asceticism. There is a wonderful example in Franciscan history.

Francis was very much an ascetic and certainly put his body through much hardship. Just before his death the Superior General tells him that there is one sin for which he must ask for forgiveness. Francis stopped and tought about it. He smiled and said, “Yes, I must ask for forgiveness from my brother body for having tortured it and mistreated it.” What is really interesting in this story is that he forbade ascetical practices among his brothers. He was very specific that the only ascetical practices that his brothers could do were fasting and abstinence. For any other ascetical practices, they had to ask the superior’s permission. This is still the case today. It was one of those rules that he insisted could never be violated under pain of very grave sin. No one was to wear a hair shirt, use the discipline, sleep on the floor, or use any form of asceticism that disturbed the body without the blessing of obedience. He and Benedict both taught that the greatest form of asceticism is submissioin of one’s will to that of a master.

We have to remember that Rose did not have the benefit of a strong theological background that Benedict and Francis had. We have to take her where she is. It was over the top, but had she known she would not have gone in that direction. That’s what make her a saint, her desire to do God’s will. When people know that something is over the top and they truly want to be saints, they don’t go there. They first check it out with the porper authority.

If the person is a secular, he would not have a superior. In that case, he must go to a spiritual director or confessor who is knowledgeable of asceticism. Most are not. Therefore, most do not grant these permissions. The Church does not want people to hurt themselves. She wants people to be saints. There have been many people who have exercised great indiscretion in this matter. We try to protect people from that kind of indiscretion.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

I honor and respect my parents and those I’ve admired who are now dead. I don’t pray to them. I think that one should evaluate people’s lives with dispassion and objectivity. I think that the cult of saints is potentially quite dangerous because it glosses over obvious serious faults in many personalities. The saints of one era are schizophrenics in another. I think that the cult of miracles is also quite unreliable. There are so many unpredictable exceptions in medicine that it is virtually impossible to declare anything a miracle. Cancers and incurable diseases go into remission all the time, without prayer.

Obviously you are not a Catholic. I can understand this line of reasoning from someone who is not Catholic. If you were a Catholic you would know that a decree of canonization is an infallible decree. There is no error in it. The miracle is true and the saint is truly the intercessor.

Even when there are all of the exceptions that you mention, which do exist. These cases are not one of those. These are cases that the Holy Spirit has revealed to be real miracles performed by God through the prayers of real people who are not in heaven.

By the way, for those who are reading this, part of the process is to study the person’s life for signs of mental illness. That has to be ruled out. One of the best writers on this subject was a psychiatrist who was an atheist, William James. He wrote that there is a definite way of discriminating between a saint and a sick person. Others have agreed with him and many methods have been developed and all are employed in the study of a person’s life. Half of the people involved in the study are non-believers who come to the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with the person.

Someone like Teresa of Avila who had many locutions and visions, could easily be labeled as mentally ill. But there are two problems. Her life reveals that she was more stable than those who callt themselves stable. This is just the first part of the study. This is just to declare that someone has lived a heroic Christian life. The study of the alleged miracles follows the decree of Venerable.

There have also been canonizations without any study. There are three in my own order: Francis of Assisi, Clare of Assisi and Anthony of Padua. They were never venerable or blessed. There was no formal study, even though the system was already in place when they died. The pope canonizaed as an Ex Cathedra decree. He unilaterally stated that they are saints and must be venerated by all Catholics. This law is to be binding for all time.

To deny canonization, one would have to posess the gift of infalliblity.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The second reason why it’s not a popular branch of theology is because there was always a preference for apologetics. Students of theology were more attracted to the understanding and defense of doctrine than to the study of sanctity, which is what you study in Mystical and Ascetical Theologies. This was practical, if you stop and think about it.

Yes, I’m personally glad that that’s the normal emphasis, as it’s so important in our present age when so many attacks are made against the Church’s doctrines.

Going back to Rose of Lima and other ascetics, they did not know the full teachings of ascetical theology, so they went with their gut. God certainly recognizes their love and their desire for holiness, even if they overdo the asceticism. There is a wonderful example in Franciscan history.

Francis was very much an ascetic and certainly put his body through much hardship. Just before his death the Superior General tells him that there is one sin for which he must ask for forgiveness. Francis stopped and tought about it. He smiled and said, “Yes, I must ask for forgiveness from my brother body for having tortured it and mistreated it.” What is really interesting in this story is that he forbade ascetical practices among his brothers. He was very specific that the only ascetical practices that his brothers could do were fasting and abstinence. For any other ascetical practices, they had to ask the superior’s permission. This is still the case today. It was one of those rules that he insisted could never be violated under pain of very grave sin. No one was to wear a hair shirt, use the discipline, sleep on the floor, or use any form of asceticism that disturbed the body without the blessing of obedience. He and Benedict both taught that the greatest form of asceticism is submissioin of one’s will to that of a master.

I certainly can see that. But I do wonder about why St. Rose’s mortifications are considered too much, and where one draws the line. St. Rose wore a crown of spikes; many stigmatists experienced the crowning of thorns through the will of God Himself. St. Rose endured a bed of sharp glass and metal; stigmatists often endure such horrible flogging that they can’t lie down. St. Peter of Alcantara slept no more than an hour and a half a night for decades. St. Padre Pio and St. Christina were mystically burned in fire. St. Christina endured anguish in flames that did not break her skin and St. Pio was tormented with invisible flames that caused a thermometer with which he was tested to go over 130 degrees and then break. God led Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres to endure years of the pains of Hell, and He allowed St. Teresa of Avila to endure the pains of Hell and Purgatory.

In view of all this, it just feels a little bit artificial to draw the line on St. Rose and say she put herself through too much. How does one draw the line?

I know one should always act in union with one’s spiritual director. But if St. Rose had a spiritual director who gave her the go ahead, wouldn’t that be valid? In the example you drew from, from Franciscan history, St. Francis did not ban the use of the discipline or hairshirt, but he only permitted them under the guidance of spiritual direction. That has been a longstanding part of Catholic wisdom, that souls should only put themselves through great mortifications with the permission of their spiritual directors.

We have to remember that Rose did not have the benefit of a strong theological background that Benedict and Francis had. We have to take her where she is. It was over the top, but had she known she would not have gone in that direction. That’s what make her a saint, her desire to do God’s will. When people know that something is over the top and they truly want to be saints, they don’t go there. They first check it out with the porper authority.

If the person is a secular, he would not have a superior. In that case, he must go to a spiritual director or confessor who is knowledgeable of asceticism. Most are not. Therefore, most do not grant these permissions. The Church does not want people to hurt themselves. She wants people to be saints. There have been many people who have exercised great indiscretion in this matter. We try to protect people from that kind of indiscretion.

I’m very glad of that! We don’t need indiscretion or pursuit of mortifications that are too much for a soul. These can have a very negative affect.

I also see the need in modern society, though, for penitents, victim souls and martyrs who offer up great sufferings for the sake of the Kingdom. We badly need these, for through the union of their sufferings with the sufferings of Christ, the Body of Christ can be healed and united. Mortification practiced through love and with humility is both a great path toward personal holiness and a great path toward the salvation of sinners. The sufferings that the saints went through often amazes me, and through their sufferings, many souls were saved and they reached heights of grace and holiness most of us cannot imagine.

Yet I would certainly not encourage anyone I have ever met to practice great sufferings and would not practice them myself without the guidance of a spiritual director. I understand the necessity of spiritual direction and I fully agree with you about the vital importance of obedience. Obedience and love. Without love, the greatest sacrifices are worthless.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

The Church does not believe that it is legitimate to prosecute heretics or apostates in civil courts. The truth is that the Church never believed this. Allow me to explain something here. There is what the Church believes, as in what is part of her deposit of faith. And there is what the Church believes as in what is the teaching of a particular pope or beliefs that people hold at any particular time in history.

The belief in bringing criminal charges against heretics has never been part of the deposit of faith. Therefore, it cannot be invoked as a Catholic Belief with upper case B. This is a belief with lower case B. Today we would probably say it a little differently. We would probabl say that Catholics at one time subscribed to this notion. Whatever we subscribe to at any given time in history is binding onlly on those who are alive at that time. It is never binding once the circumstances have changed or once legitimate authority drops the “belief”.

The Vatican’s current position on religious freedom is also a Catholic Belief with a lower case B, and just as subject to change as the popes’ historical position, then, correct?

This is an excellent question. In Evangelium Vitae, which does carry the stamp of infallibility, there is a statement on the dignity of the person. John Paul clearly states that any kind of legal action that violates human dignity is a grave sin. It’s in the second section of the introduction. He’s not opposed to legal action. But he is stating that moral law does not allow the law to violate human dignity. If a person implementing the law is hostile, then the person is commiting a serious sin, even though he may be enforcing a law.

That definitely makes sense to me, for there is evil in the person’s heart.

This doesn’t rebut my point that Pius IX could easily be kind and good while simultaneously urging the suppression of celebrations of religions other than Catholicism. The suppression of some expressions of false religions (public celebrations or evangelism) is not an inherently hostile act. Some Catholics that have done this certainly have been hostile, but others, like St. Thomas More or Pius IX, were not. This act can be loving when it is done to protect fellow Catholics from danger rather than to vindictively hurt non-Catholics.

The argument of John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI is that you cannot take action against someone who has not done you harm.

While that is true, it is also true that people trying to evangelize Catholics often are doing harm by convincing them that their faith is false and that some less true religion is the most accurate. Pius IX said, “Our Predecessors, have, with Apostolic fortitude, constantly resisted the nefarious enterprises of wicked men, who, like raging waves of the sea foaming out their own confusion, and promising liberty whereas they are the slaves of corruption, have striven by their deceptive opinions and most pernicious writings to raze the foundations of the Catholic religion and of civil society, to remove from among men all virtue and justice, to deprave persons, and especially inexperienced youth, to lead it into the snares of error, and at length to tear it from the bosom of the Catholic Church.”

Pius IX is scathing of many people that seek to draw people away from the Catholic Church. That kind of behavior is in no way acceptable, as you said earlier. Jesus said it is better for a man to be cast into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than to cause someone to stray. Drawing someone away from the Catholic faith is doing that person terrible harm.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Ideology means politics. Faith is belief. Even if a person’s beliefs are mistaken, the Church says that it is wrong to interfere. Evangelization must never take the form of legal action against someone for their religious beliefs. I understand that this was not always the position held by the Church. But it is today’s position. That is the authority by which we must guide ourselves on matters of law. These positions were never de fide. In other words, they were meant to defend the faith, but they themselves were not statements of faith. Therefore, the Church can change how she goes about defending the faith. She does not authorize the state to take action against those who are not of our faith.

First of all, I completely agree with you about the Church’s authority. I would never do anything contrary to the Church’s will. The chief question for me is whether or not I should believe that legally punishing heretics or apostates through civil law is always wrong, has always been wrong and will always be wrong. The decisions of past councils and popes make the answer to that question sound like a very strong “no.” But Vatican II (though I know I could easily be misunderstanding its Declaration) sounded to me as though it was saying, “yes, using civil law to punish heretics or apostates, even when they’re spreading error to the faithful, is always wrong, and this is a matter of faith” (it seemed that way to me because of all the theological arguments they used to buttress their statement).

It sounds from what you just said as though you’re saying that the Church’s Declaration on Religious Freedom is not a statement of faith but a statement of how the faith is to be practiced in the present time. Which means the Declaration is not saying it always has been and will be wrong to punish heretics with law when they try to evangelize Catholics; rather, it is saying that it would be wrong right now in the present environment. That isn’t how I understood the Declaration as I read it, though I know some people who have read it understand it that way. You’re the theologian though, not me . . . is that how it was intended to be read?

JReducation:

But the documents were written to reflect the mind of the Church.

Weren’t the documents of the Fourth Lateran Council, the Council of Toulouse and the Council of Florence also written to reflect the mind of the Church? They also defended the laws they supported on the grounds of Biblical evidence and the beliefs of some of the Early Fathers.

JReducation:

c. It must be an infallible truth that has been revealed. This is not an infallible truth that was revealed. The infallible truth here is the truth about the Church. The how and when to deal with heresy is not a revealed truth. The Church must keep the truths about the Catholic Church, but it can change the means and systems on dealing with heresy.

Perhaps one of the things that has been causing me difficulty is an inability to fully make this distinction where it pertains to the Declaration on Religious Freedom. It appeared to me that the Declaration was making a timeless statement of faith which condemned the actions of all the past councils and popes who used law to penalize heretics and apostates, and which set the course for the future in a way that differed from them. But what you’re saying about it is that the belief that using law against heretics violates human rights is a belief of the current popes and bishops that is subject to change, because it doesn’t come from infallible revelation. It is a theologically supported belief, similar to the belief in Limbo, I guess one might say, which is subject to change depending on what Pope we have. It is a method of dealing with a problem, not a doctrine, though this particular method was rejected partly on reasons of faith which differ from some historical popes and can be changed again.

If this is the case, one can still believe that the Fourth Lateran Council was right to punish heretics and can believe that our recent popes are making a mistake in rejecting this right of Catholic States, though one is still obliged to submit to the Church’s authority regardless of whether an error of methods (or in the reasoning supporting that shift of methods) is taking place or not. Because all of this controversy is a discussion of methods and use of theological reasoning to support different methods, it is “open territory” for difference of opinion, though any command from the Church must obviously always be obeyed by all parties discussing the issue.

I guess I was looking at the Declaration as delivering a binding, timeless statement rather than as giving a pastoral opinion that is subject to change.

Something I find interesting about your post 47 is that all the reasons you gave for the Church changing her position were reasons of practicality, not reasons of principle. This makes sense to me instinctively, as it shows consistency between the present Church and the past Church, but when I read the Declaration, I saw it lightly touch on the reasons of practicality, but focus much more on theologically arguing that it’s wrong to ever impinge on anyone’s religious freedom. Which seemed to me to condemn the actions of the Fourth Lateran Council and other past councils and popes who have taken a different position in their own time periods and circumstances. Was I wrong in that impression?

Thanks again for all the time you’ve taken in responding to these questions .

 

[JReducation]

I certainly can see that. But I do wonder about why St. Rose’s mortifications are considered too much, and where one draws the line. St. Rose wore a crown of spikes; many stigmatists experienced the crowning of thorns through the will of God Himself. St. Rose endured a bed of sharp glass and metal; stigmatists often endure such horrible flogging that they can’t lie down. St. Peter of Alcantara slept no more than an hour and a half a night for decades. St. Padre Pio and St. Christina were mystically burned in fire. St. Christina endured anguish in flames that did not break her skin and St. Pio was tormented with invisible flames that caused a thermometer with which he was tested to go over 130 degrees and then break. God led Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres to endure years of the pains of Hell, and He allowed St. Teresa of Avila to endure the pains of Hell and Purgatory.

In view of all this, it just feels a little bit artificial to draw the line on St. Rose and say she put herself through too much. How does one draw the line?

We must first draw the line between what has been given as a gift through the grace of God and what has been self-imposed. In the cases of other saints: i.e. Stigmatists, these events were meant to make a statement about God, not about the individual. For example, it is the belief of the Church that the stigmata of St. Francis speaks to us of how Christ draws all men to himself and makes them participants in his life, death and resurrection. It’s a statement about God’s mercy and love for humanity, not just for Francis. Francis stands in the place of humanity. But the grace and favor is for all.

We are not drawing an artificial line at St. Rose. Mystical Theology is saying that such acts of asceticism are not necessary in order to achieve holiness. The greatest and most difficult act of asceticism is to surrender one’s will, one’s opinion, one’s desires and one’s beliefs into the hands of one’s superior, as St. Francis put it, to become like a corpse in the hands of the superior. This is not a condemnation of Rose. She did not know this. Had she known it, she would have done so. All she wanted to do was to be holy and she did the best that she could with the little knowledge that she had. It does not change the fact that she over did it. However, it is not a moral judgment. We are making a statement about her prudence, not her holiness. Obviously, had she had a spiritual director who was well formed on the spiritual life and she followed his guidance. The moral responsibility would fall on his shoulders, not her own.

I also see the need in modern society, though, for penitents, victim souls and martyrs who offer up great sufferings for the sake of the Kingdom. We badly need these, for through the union of their sufferings with the sufferings of Christ, the Body of Christ can be healed and united.

This takes us back to the core issue. The greatest ascetical act is to surrender one’s will. Even the desire to perform great acts of physical penance has no virtue when it is done because it pleases me or because I BELIEVE it is good. What we believe is good is irrelevant. The ascetical life is about achieving holiness, not achieving what we perceive to be good. Therefore, we must balance our understanding with a clear understanding of ascetical theology and mystical theology. The one without the other is an unbalanced approach. Mystical theology tells us who God is and who we are. Ascetical theology tells us how to reach this God in spite of who we are. Even the salvation of souls is insignificant compared to this great truth. Only when we surrender to this truth will any soul be saved. The greatest need that we have in modern society is not physical mortification. As Pope John Paul so clearly stated it, the greatest need in modern society is the protection of the unborn. Ascetical practices change with the priorities of the Church. At this point, we need to let go of our positions and beliefs on this all important issue and embrace the teaching of the Church. Doing this is a much greater and more difficult act of asceticism than all the abstinence, fasting and flagellation in the world.

 

[JReducation]

Moving on to your questions on religious freedom.

The Vatican’s current position on religious freedom is also a Catholic Belief with a lower case B, and just as subject to change as the

Yes, the methods of how we protect religious freedom can and will change according to new situations. The belief in religious freedom for all men will never change again. Pope John Paul II made sure of this by binding all future popes to his position. He included it as part of his infallible teachings under the area of moral teaching. When a pope includes something as a moral teaching, then the rest of the Church is bound to it. This was the difference between Pius X and John Paul II. Pius never included his syllabus of errors nor did Pius IX include his teaching on the heretics under the moral teachings of the Church. They issued these are commands under the ordinary Magisterium. Pope John Paul II, under the advice of Cardinal Ratzinger, not wanting this to be touched, codified this teaching as a part of the Church’s doctrinal teachings on moral issues. Once you make this a part of the Church’s moral teachings, no pope has the power to change it. It’s no longer the pope speaking, but the Magisterium speaking. Some will argue that popes cannot create new dogma. John Paul and Benedict argue that this is not new dogma, but an old moral principle that has been clarified once and for all, just as abortion was clarified once and for all. And it is further argued that no pope can err on matters of morals. If the pope says that it is immoral to prosecute someone because of his or her religious beliefs, then it is immoral and the discussion is closed. This is not a license to the other person to persecute Christians. What is immoral for one side is also immoral for the other side.

This doesn’t rebut my point that Pius IX could easily be kind and good while simultaneously urging the suppression of celebrations of religions other than Catholicism. The suppression of some expressions of false religions (public celebrations or evangelism) is not an inherently hostile act. Some Catholics that have done this certainly have been hostile, but others, like St. Thomas More or Pius IX, were not. This act can be loving when it is done to protect fellow Catholics from danger rather than to vindictively hurt non-Catholics.

The problem here is that John Paul II also locked this possibility out. In Evangelium Vitae he clearly denounces, under the authority of Peter, any act that offends human dignity, not matter how noble the ends. On this one, he actually invoked the Petrine privilege. To get around this, one would have to prove that such an action is not a violation of human dignity and does not cause the non-believer any suffering. We may not impose suffering on the non-believer for the sake of protecting our faith. The end never justifies the means. You can see how John Paul was on safe ground here. This principle has been in effect since the time of the Apostles. No end, ever justifies the means. Even in martyrdom, there are conditions that must be met for it to have spiritual value.

While that is true, it is also true that people trying to evangelize Catholics often are doing harm by convincing them that their faith is false

This is not the fault of the non-believer. The non-believer is preaching what he believes. I’m assuming that you’re referring to people of other faiths. The morally responsible person here is the Catholic. It is the duty of the Catholic to find out what his Church teaches and it is also his duty to assent to the Church. No one takes that duty and that freedom away from a human being.

What Popes John XXIII through Pope Benedict XVI are trying to drive home to Catholics is that we need more conversion that non-believers do. Often times, we are worse Christians than they are. They were born into their situation. This is what they know. God will judge them on their fidelity to what they know to be truth. We were born into the fullness of Truth and we question it. We cannot blame anyone but us for questioning. No one questions for us. We question. It is one thing to question because we want to understand, as you are doing here. It is another thing to question because we want to challenge and to see things according to our beliefs. That’s spiritual pride.

I’m not so sure that apologetics are as important today as spiritual theology is. I do appreciate the value of apologetics. I certain appreciated it when I studied it at seminary. But after studying the spiritual life and dealing with Catholics for more than 30 years, I’m convince that they need spiritual theology more. Too many Catholics have no idea who God is, the nature of God, and the attributes of God. Many have no idea how to live a life of constant conversion toward holiness. They do not understand the anatomy of their own souls, much less how their consciences should work. Too often, they confuse conscience with belief. Belief is very personal. Conscience is the voice of God. Unless you can tell them apart, you run the risk of following your personal convictions instead of the voice of God. What good is it to be able to argue the Immaculate Conception and not know how to do penance or how to stop abortion? The Immaculate Conception does not suffer if people do not believe. She does suffer if the unborn are slaughtered.

Thanks again for all the time you’ve taken in responding to these questions

You’re very welcome. I don’t mind answering questions. I don’t debate. Right now I’m recovering in the hospital. So I have time between the doctors’ and nurses’ visits to answer questions.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KShaft]

Exuse me! Please say that this is a bad joke or even a good one that I’m not getting. As I am a Franciscan, I take this very personally.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well it was kind of a joke, thing is, I came to that conclusion from your own comments.

It sounds like the leadership are very liberal, and If I were not Catholic, Id probably shoot myself having to deal with guys who constantly undermine the word of the Lord and tradition; turning the church into a protestant one, one slow step and banjo band at a time.
Im hoping its not like that all over, though it would explain stuff like Vatican II. I already knew that, in itself the council though not great, the liberal abuses of council have led to a degradation of the church.

I guess you could see it if you had ever served in the armed forces, especially the army, the enlisted leadership being horrible, while the troops being not so bad, but compared to the Marine Corps, I honestly didnt like either.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Yes, the methods of how we protect religious freedom can and will change according to new situations. The belief in religious freedom for all men will never change again. Pope John Paul II made sure of this by binding all future popes to his position. He included it as part of his infallible teachings under the area of moral teaching. When a pope includes something as a moral teaching, then the rest of the Church is bound to it. This was the difference between Pius X and John Paul II. Pius never included his syllabus of errors nor did Pius IX include his teaching on the heretics under the moral teachings of the Church. They issued these are commands under the ordinary Magisterium. Pope John Paul II, under the advice of Cardinal Ratzinger, not wanting this to be touched, codified this teaching as a part of the Church’s doctrinal teachings on moral issues. Once you make this a part of the Church’s moral teachings, no pope has the power to change it. It’s no longer the pope speaking, but the Magisterium speaking.

When did this happen? I had no idea it was possible to render teachings infallible in this way. I always thought that they are made plainly infallible through dogmatic definitions, but other than these, all other papal statements and decrees are fallible.

I had no idea that Evangelium Vitae was infallible. Are there many papal statements from the Medieval Ages that were made under the authority of Peter and consequently were infallible, even without being defined dogmas? Also, do you know if there’s a section of Lumen Gentium or some other Church document where I can learn more about this aspect of infallibility?

Some will argue that popes cannot create new dogma. John Paul and Benedict argue that this is not new dogma, but an old moral principle that has been clarified once and for all, just as abortion was clarified once and for all. And it is further argued that no pope can err on matters of morals. If the pope says that it is immoral to prosecute someone because of his or her religious beliefs, then it is immoral and the discussion is closed. This is not a license to the other person to persecute Christians. What is immoral for one side is also immoral for the other side.

Is there a list somewhere of moral teachings that have been codified into infallibility but which aren’t dogmatic?

The problem here is that John Paul II also locked this possibility out. In Evangelium Vitae he clearly denounces, under the authority of Peter, any act that offends human dignity, not matter how noble the ends. On this one, he actually invoked the Petrine privilege. To get around this, one would have to prove that such an action is not a violation of human dignity and does not cause the non-believer any suffering.

I agree that you would have to show it’s not a violation of human dignity, but some things that cause people suffering do not consequently violate their human dignity. For instance, a parent can spank a child without violating the child’s human dignity, or a police officer shooting in self-defense might injure or kill a thug without violating the man’s human dignity. Similarly, it is arguable that using force of law to stop evangelists from leading people into spiritually destructive errors can cause the evangelists suffering without violating their human dignity.

I fully agree that nothing that offends human dignity is permissible.

JReducation:

This is not the fault of the non-believer. The non-believer is preaching what he believes.

It is very debatable that there is no fault here . . . sometimes there is invincible ignorance, other times not. If a person has sufficient understanding of the truth yet continues to hold to his error, this can be a deadly sin. Romans 1 very clearly condemns people for believing a lie when the truth has been made known.

Even when the unbelieving evangelist is protected by invincible ignorance, I would say there still can be circumstances where the government should defend its people against him by banishing or otherwise penalizing him. Though not in modern society, obviously – the Church has forbidden it in current society for good reason and we must always obey the Church. This is not about punishing the evangelist for his beliefs but rather is about defending people from his errors. False prophets or false teachers can destroy many through their errors, whether they are well-meaning and good, kind people or not. Do you agree about this?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

JReducation:

I’m assuming that you’re referring to people of other faiths. The morally responsible person here is the Catholic.

Both men are responsible for what they have received from God and for what they do in His Name, to the extent that they have the knowledge of God.

JReducation:

What Popes John XXIII through Pope Benedict XVI are trying to drive home to Catholics is that we need more conversion that non-believers do. Often times, we are worse Christians than they are. They were born into their situation. This is what they know. God will judge them on their fidelity to what they know to be truth. We were born into the fullness of Truth and we question it. We cannot blame anyone but us for questioning. No one questions for us. We question. It is one thing to question because we want to understand, as you are doing here. It is another thing to question because we want to challenge and to see things according to our beliefs. That’s spiritual pride.

I definitely agree. I think it was Pope Pius X who said rebellious Catholics are the worst threat to the Church that existed in his time. For they provide a bad witness to the truth. A number of saints in private revelations have seen particular punishments in Hell for those Catholics that rebelled against the Church, also.

JReducation:

I’m not so sure that apologetics are as important today as spiritual theology is. I do appreciate the value of apologetics. I certain appreciated it when I studied it at seminary. But after studying the spiritual life and dealing with Catholics for more than 30 years, I’m convince that they need spiritual theology more. Too many Catholics have no idea who God is, the nature of God, and the attributes of God. Many have no idea how to live a life of constant conversion toward holiness. They do not understand the anatomy of their own souls, much less how their consciences should work. Too often, they confuse conscience with belief. Belief is very personal. Conscience is the voice of God. Unless you can tell them apart, you run the risk of following your personal convictions instead of the voice of God. What good is it to be able to argue the Immaculate Conception and not know how to do penance or how to stop abortion? The Immaculate Conception does not suffer if people do not believe. She does suffer if the unborn are slaughtered.

I think she suffers in both cases, if the unbelief is willful and sufficiently knowledgeable to be a sin, rather than being simply an inheritance. Mary introduced the Five Saturdays devotion to Sister Lucia of Fatima in reparation for sins committed against her directly, and one of the sins mentioned as wounding her Immaculate Heart was denial of her Immaculate Conception. Another was denial of her Perpetual Virginity. These kinds of spiritual evils are still evil, even though they are spiritual darkness without any obvious physical consequences like those present in abortion.

You may well be right though about people needing spiritual theology more than apologetics. I was just throwing my first thought out there; I’m probably wrong.

JReducation:

You’re very welcome. I don’t mind answering questions. I don’t debate. Right now I’m recovering in the hospital. So I have time between the doctors’ and nurses’ visits to answer questions.

I appreciate your taking the time. I’ll pray for you.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

We must first draw the line between what has been given as a gift through the grace of God and what has been self-imposed.

All right . . . though in both cases, there is enormous suffering with a redemptive purpose.

We are not drawing an artificial line at St. Rose. Mystical Theology is saying that such acts of asceticism are not necessary in order to achieve holiness. The greatest and most difficult act of asceticism is to surrender one’s will, one’s opinion, one’s desires and one’s beliefs into the hands of one’s superior, as St. Francis put it, to become like a corpse in the hands of the superior.

I don’t understand how either of these statements contradicts what St. Rose did, though. Great self-imposed mortification may not be necessary to achieve holiness, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be a way to gain holiness. And the greatest act of asceticism may (I certainly don’t deny this) be to sacrifice your will, opinion, desires and beliefs to your superior, but that doesn’t mean that great self-imposed corporal mortifications can’t also be highly valuable for both oneself and for other people’s souls.

This is not a condemnation of Rose.

I understand that. I just want to understand how one can be sure that she overdid it.

This takes us back to the core issue. The greatest ascetical act is to surrender one’s will. Even the desire to perform great acts of physical penance has no virtue when it is done because it pleases me or because I BELIEVE it is good. What we believe is good is irrelevant. The ascetical life is about achieving holiness, not achieving what we perceive to be good.

Agreed. As St. Paul said in 1 Cor. 13, “if I surrender my body to the flames but have not love, I gain nothing.” One’s motivation is very important. St. Gemma’s motivation for desiring great mortifications was the love of God and the salvation of souls. These have been the normal motivations of the saints.

Therefore, we must balance our understanding with a clear understanding of ascetical theology and mystical theology. The one without the other is an unbalanced approach. Mystical theology tells us who God is and who we are. Ascetical theology tells us how to reach this God in spite of who we are. Even the salvation of souls is insignificant compared to this great truth. Only when we surrender to this truth will any soul be saved. The greatest need that we have in modern society is not physical mortification. As Pope John Paul so clearly stated it, the greatest need in modern society is the protection of the unborn.

I’m not saying that souls willing to suffer are our greatest need today. However, I believe more souls willing to suffer penances for the unborn would result in more of the unborn being saved. I think we are softer than many past generations of Catholics, such as in the Early Church or the Medieval Ages, because of the luxuries we are so accustomed to today. Victim souls like St. Therese of Lisieux or penitents who offer their sacrifices or mortifications for the salvation of souls are rarer today than in the past. They did so much good, through their union with Christ’s Passion and love, in bringing souls into the Church through their prayers and sufferings.

Ascetical practices change with the priorities of the Church. At this point, we need to let go of our positions and beliefs on this all important issue and embrace the teaching of the Church.

Has the Church given any instructions on this point?