However, the constant carping about it from points various and sundry got my dander up earlier today and I posted a comment on a blog post that reflects my general view about the whole thing.
People getting worked up about a footnote or a single sentence! There's an old (maybe Protestant) saying: A proof-text without Context is a Pretext. What's the context of the note? Isn't there anything else in the 200+ pages that would guide the interpretation of a single sentence. If your context is that "Francis is a modernist who wants to change church teaching and this sentence is proof.", then you may be correct about Francis, but the proper context OF THIS TEXT is not Francis' personal preferences, but the Magisterium. Francis may want all kinds of things, but we don't read Papal documents in light of off-the cuff statements not protected by the Holy Spirit but on the constant teaching authority of the Church, which is. In 30 years people will read this document blissfully unaware of Francis' verbal diarrhea and only in the context of the documents referenced therein. We should read it the same way.
If the Pope decries gradulism in the law in one part of the document, then he can't be advocating for it in another. He must mean something else (like what kind of baby-steps are necessary to bring people to compliance with the law). Bishop Morlino (no liberal) said that the law of gradualism means that if someone comes up to him and says "I used to be having an affair with 4 women, but now I'm only having an affair with 1 woman" then Bishop Morlino would have to say "that's good! Now let's work on this a little more." THat doesn't mean he lets the adulterer come to Communion. It means he encourages him in the progress he made and encourages him to make it the rest of the way.
I'm sure I'll be hated on now. So I have my asbestos undershorts ready :(
Source
The source of the Bishop Morlino quote is found here, starting around the 44:30 mark.
Since I haven't read the document, I felt a little hesitant about the post, but I figure if I know nothing about it, then I'm at least as qualified as some of the other commenters I'm reading. I also got my example wrong (Bishop Morlino's example was cutting the number of mistresses from 3 to 1) and I had typos in my post, so I'm definitely on the same plane as the other commenters on the interwebs.
The thing is, Pope Francis is not my favorite Pope. I'd prefer if someone else was Pope. But Francis IS Pope, and I AM a Catholic and so I MUST read him in light of the constant teaching of the Church.
The last couple of weeks we were all talking about the passing of Mother Angelica. One of the great stories was about how early on her nuns packaged peanuts to make money. A distributer wanted a kickback to sell the peanuts. In declining to pay the kickback, she said "I'm not going to hell for a peanut." In the same vein, I'm not going to hell for willfully misreading the Pope. I am often confused by the this particular Pope and, almost daily, I'm disappointed by this particular Pope, but the office of the Papacy is a dogma of the Church. My confusion and disappointment can't result in disobedience.
That's the traditional way: obey the Pope. If he says thing you don't understand, then obey the things you DO understand but don't undercut the rest of it. Let someone smarter than you (or more qualified in the case of the bishops) figure it out. That doesn't mean I can't make some good-natured jokes or ask pained questions as a way of blowing off steam. But I must give the Pope -- even this Pope -- the courtesy of reading him in continuity with the Magesterium
There, I said it.
No comments:
Post a Comment