Modernism: A Historical Retrospect

Last in a Series treating Modernism and Modern Thought

by

Fr. Joseph Bampton, S.J.

It was said in our opening lecture that Modernism represents a spirit, a tendency, a movement in contemporary thought rather than a cut-and-dried system. Such movements develop almost imperceptibly. It is difficult, therefore, to trace the history of Modernism, to say precisely how and when it arose. But certain stages in its development may be put on record.

The name Modernism would seem to be derived from France; the thing would seem to owe its origin partly to French, partly to German sources. The name, it is said, is as old as the days of Jean Jacques Rousseau, the French philosopher and deist of the latter half of the eighteenth century. He used the term Modernist of certain savants of his own time and country who were the forerunners, apparently, of our modern evolutionists. But, as applied to the system we have been discussing, the term Modernism seems first to have come into general use in Italy. The thing, the system of Modernism, as sufficiently appears from what has been said, may be ultimately ascribed to the German professor of Konigsberg in the eighteenth century, Immanuel Kant. The name of Modernism, then, may be traced to Rousseau, the system ultimately to Kant. But Modernism in its present form is much more recent than either Rousseau or Kant.

In the year 1864, Pope Pius IX published his famous Syllabus of Errors against the faith, in which he solemnly condemned by anticipation some of the most conspicuous doctrines of the Modernism of the present day. The views which distinguish it were gaining ground even then, but, as a system, it seems to have developed somewhat as follows. There was a French Catholic Professor of the University of Lille, by name Maurice Blondel, who was known to be imbued with Kantian ideas. He had first come into notice as the author of an essay entitled L'Action, directed to the harmonising of Catholicity and modern thought. In the year 1896, he published a Letter, in which he attacked the traditional methods of defence employed by the Church against the infidel philosophy and science of the day. He declared that traditional method of the Church to be antiquated and out-of-date. He contended that some new kind of apologetics was necessary to meet the requirements of modern thought. He was followed soon after by a French Oratorian priest, Père Laberthonnière, who, in 1897, published a book called The Religious Problem, very much on the same lines as the Letter of Maurice Blondel. Similar views had been expressed in print by another French priest, the Abbé Marcel Hébert, an avowed disciple of Kant, a professor of philosophy in the École Fénelon in Paris. Observe, the attack was delivered at first upon Scholasticism of which it is enough to say here that it is the traditional method employed in Catholic schools of philosophy and theology. Blondel, Laberthonnière, and Hébert were soon joined by a more formidable adherent, the Abbé Loisy.

The Abbé Loisy had already come into some prominence as a man of extreme views on scriptural subjects; he became one of the leaders of this new movement, and, therefore, we must devote a little more attention to him. He began his career as a professor in the Catholic Institute of Paris. He was a man of brilliant abilities and of great learning; but, after a brief tenure of his chair, he had to be dismissed on account of his liberalising tendencies by the Rector of the Institute, the late Mgr. d'Hulst. At that time, however, he was not formally condemned. He became chaplain to the Dominican Convent of Neuilly, near Paris, but unhappily, while residing there, he began to publish under assumed names papers and articles, many of which were in distinct opposition to Catholic teaching. Such furtive methods of propagating their views have unfortunately become characteristic of the leaders of Modernism. Loisy seems to have set the example. From his retirement as chaplain, he presently emerged as professor again, this time in a Government post, in a lay school of higher studies in Paris. There, under Government patronage, he became bolder, and published what is perhaps his best-known work, The Gospel and the Church. That book was a reply to a work by the German Lutheran professor, Harnack, entitled The Essence of Christianity. Loisy's book was ostensibly a defence of the Church. But its main thesis was "The necessity of the adaptation of the Gospel to the changing needs of humanity." And the adaptation advocated by Loisy was of such a radical kind that this book and similar publications led to his condemnation, and, on his refusal to retract, to his excommunication in 1908. We have mentioned Blondel, Laberthonnière, Hébert, and Loisy. To these may be added Leroy, another French lay professor, whose book, Dogma and Criticism, reversed all accepted notions of what dogma means, and the Abbé Houtin, who, in the Crisis of the Clergy, published a violent attack upon the Church. Observe the rate at which Modernism was travelling. At first it began with an attack on the scholastic system; in a few years'  time it developed into an attack upon the Church itself. However, the views thus advocated began to spread among some of the younger and more adventurous spirits in the ranks of the French clergy. From France they passed, chiefly through the writings of Loisy, into Germany and Italy. In Germany, the names of Schell and Schnitzer were associated with the movement, and, in Italy, those of Romolo Murri, the priest-agitator, and of Fogazzaro, the well-known author of Il Santo. England did not escape the invasion of the new errors, as the Autobiography and Life of Father Tyrrell sufficiently proves, and in the year 1900 a joint pastoral of the English Bishops warned English Catholics against them. It might have given pause to those Catholics who affected Modernist views if they had taken note of the kind of persons who claimed fellowship with them. To confine ourselves to France, the cradle of the movement, there were first the Sabatiers, the younger of whom, Paul, lectured on Modernism here in London at the Passmore Settlement in 1908, and was dubbed in France the Pope of Modernism; but the Sabatiers were Protestant divines of what we should call in England "broad-Church" views. Another ally of the Modernists was the well-known Professor of the College of France, Henri Bergson, but Bergson is a professed free-thinker. And yet another patron of the movement was Solomon Reinach, the distinguished archaeologist and art critic and litterateur, but a Jew.

So much with reference to the leaders. Now to come to the rank and file. What the number of the adherents of Modernism may have been at any given time is difficult to estimate. It was undoubtedly large at one period, especially in France and Italy. In 1909, a French writer went so far as to say that the number of Modernists amongst the French clergy alone might be computed as at least fifteen thousand. This was a gross exaggeration, a libel on the French clergy as a body. It was promptly contradicted by one who was perhaps the best authority on the subject - the Abbé Loisy himself. Loisy said that he would not put the number at fifteen hundred, and he added that, in his opinion, Modernism had for the moment sustained a complete rout. That was true of the movement considered as a public agitation carried on openly and without concealment in the Church. And what brought about the rout was the energetic action taken by Pope Pius X. In July, 1907, he published a syllabus - Lamentabili - in which he condemned sixty-five of the most distinctive doctrines of Modernism. They were extracted chiefly from Loisy's writings. Later, on September 8th of the same year, he published his famous encyclical Pascendi, in which he condemned the whole system of Modernism, root and branch.

As was to be expected, both the Pope himself and his measures were severely criticised in certain quarters. He was represented as the very type of a reactionary and obscurantist Roman Pontiff, eager to repress by violent means every indication within the Church of originality of thought and independence of judgment, attempting to stifle a movement with which some of the best thinkers of the age were in sympathy, and which, if properly directed instead of suppressed, might have resulted in incalculable benefit to the cause of religion in general. And not only the person of the Pontiff, the measures also taken by him were fiercely attacked. Such measures were the regulation of the professional studies of the clergy, the prohibition of the reading of books dangerous to faith and morals, the anti-Modernist oath exacted from the officials of the Church and candidates for Holy Orders, and the like. Such measures were denounced as tyrannical, trivial; so trivial, so minute, as to be childish. But the measures had to be drastic, and to descend to matter of detail, if they were to be effective at all. Vague, general denunciations would have been of little use. I wonder how many of those who thus found fault with the Holy Father's action understood what Modernism really meant. I wonder how many of those Christian critics who were among the severest in their criticisms suspected that they were undermining their own position. I wonder how many of them realised that Modernism struck at the very roots of Christianity itself. What the Holy Father did was to tear away the mask from Modernism, and expose it to the world in its true colours as subversive of the Christian faith; and all who called themselves Christians should have been grateful to him for doing so. We Catholics at least may thank God that in Pius X we possess a Pope quick to discern error, and prompt to crush it. We who in this country are accustomed to the spectacle of a State-Church which, faced with the determined onslaught of infidelity upon Christian truth, compromises and temporises and economises and minimises, we who almost daily read and hear of doctrines incompatible with the most elementary Christian notions taught without protest by so-called Christian teachers from so-called Christian pulpits, while ecclesiastical authority looks on with folded arms, helpless, inarticulate, tongue-tied, incapable of taking any steps to protect the truth of which it is supposed to be the official guardian in the land; we, who are more happily circumstanced, may thank God that in Pius X we possess a Pope who understands his office better, and is more conscious of its solemn duties and responsibilities; we may thank God that, whenever the need arises, and Christian truth is called in question, above the confused babel of conflicting tongues there rings out loud and clear, proclaiming truth and refuting error, the voice of the successor of him to whom Christ gave the charge of the sheep and lambs of His flock, for whom Christ prayed that his faith might fail not, whom Christ appointed to confirm the brethren. Pius X will go down to history distinguished amongst the illustrious line of Roman Pontiffs for his vigilance in watching over the deposit of the faith entrusted to his keeping, and for his courage, his superb courage, in defending it; and nowhere have these qualities been more conspicuously displayed than in his condemnation of Modernism. Dominus conservet eum et vivificet eum et beatum faciat eum in terra et non tradat eiim in animam inimicorum eus.

"The Pope has spoken, Modernism has ceased to be." Such were the words of the distinguished French novelist and academician, Paul Bourget. They are true of Modernism regarded as a public movement within the Church. But it would be a mistake to suppose that Modernism as a hidden force is extinct. We need not credit the stories of a secret propaganda, a sort of organised Freemasonry of Modernism among the faithful. We need not accept as authentic the manifesto which purported to come from large numbers of the French clergy, and which declared their intention of subscribing to the anti-Modernist oath as a mere outward formality, while inwardly repudiating it. This document appeared in the public press in 1910; it was unsigned, and, if authentic at all, was probably the work of a handful of malcontents. But, apart from such exaggerated statements, there is evidence to show that Modernism still reckons some secret adherents among the clergy and laity of the Catholic Church. Whatever their numbers, they seem to be considerable enough to encourage them in the hope of gradually influencing the general body of the faithful. It was with the object of warning Catholics against that danger, and of helping them to realise its character, that the foregoing course of lectures was undertaken.

Pope Francis' Address to the 2014 Synod Fathers

His Holiness Pope Francis
(Photo: Getty Images)

Dear Eminences, Beatitudes, Excellencies, Brothers and Sisters,

With a heart full of appreciation and gratitude I want to thank, along with you, the Lord who has accompanied and guided us in the past days, with the light of the Holy Spirit.

From the heart I thank Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, Secretary General of the Synod, Bishop Fabio Fabene, under-secretary, and with them I thank the Relators, Cardinal Peter Erdo, who has worked so much in these days of family mourning, and the Special Secretary Bishop Bruno Forte, the three President delegates, the transcribers, the consultants, the translators and the unknown workers, all those who have worked with true fidelity and total dedication behind the scenes and without rest. Thank you so much from the heart.

I thank all of you as well, dear Synod fathers, Fraternal Delegates, Auditors, and Assessors, for your active and fruitful participation. I will keep you in prayer asking the Lord to reward you with the abundance of His gifts of grace!

I can happily say that - with a spirit of collegiality and of synodality - we have truly lived the experience of “Synod,” a path of solidarity, a “journey together.”

And it has been "a journey" - and like every journey there were moments of running fast, as if wanting to conquer time and reach the goal as soon as possible; other moments of fatigue, as if wanting to say "enough"; other moments of enthusiasm and ardor. There were moments of profound consolation listening to the testimony of true pastors, who wisely carry in their hearts the joys and the tears of their faithful people. Moments of consolation and grace and comfort hearing the testimonies of the families who have participated in the Synod and have shared with us the beauty and the joy of their married life. A journey where the stronger feel compelled to help the less strong, where the more experienced are led to serve others, even through confrontations. And since it is a journey of human beings, with the consolations there were also moments of desolation, of tensions and temptations, of which a few possibilities could be mentioned:

• One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called - today - "traditionalists" and also of the intellectuals.
• The temptation to a destructive tendency to do-goodery, that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the "do-gooders," of the fearful, and also of the so-called "progressives" and "liberals."
• The temptation to transform stones into bread to break the long, heavy, and painful fast (cf. Lk 4:1-4); and also to transform the bread into a stone and cast it against the sinners, the weak, and the sick (cf Jn 8:7), that is, to transform it into unbearable burdens (Lk 11:46).
• The temptation to come down off the Cross, to please the people, and not stay there, in order to fulfill the will of the Father; to bow down to a worldly spirit instead of purifying it and bending it to the Spirit of God.
• The temptation to neglect the depositum fidei, not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters [of it]; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them "byzantinisms," I think, these things…

Dear brothers and sisters, the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us, or even discourage us, because no disciple is greater than his master; so if Jesus Himself was tempted - and even called Beelzebul (cf. Mt 12:24) - His disciples should not expect better treatment.

Personally I would be very worried and saddened if it were not for these temptations and these animated discussions; this movement of the spirits, as St Ignatius called it (Spiritual Exercises, 6), if all were in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace. Instead, I have seen and I have heard - with joy and appreciation - speeches and interventions full of faith, of pastoral and doctrinal zeal, of wisdom, of frankness and of courage: and of parresia. And I have felt that what was set before our eyes was the good of the Church, of families, and the "supreme law," the "good of souls" (cf. Can. §1752). And this always - we have said it here, in the Hall - without ever putting into question the fundamental truths of the Sacrament of marriage: the indissolubility, the unity, the faithfulness, the fruitfulness, that openness to life (cf. Can. §1055, §1056; Gaudium et spes, 48).

And this is the Church, the vineyard of the Lord, the fertile Mother and the caring Teacher, who is not afraid to roll up her sleeves to pour oil and wine on people’s wound; who doesn't see humanity as a house of glass to judge or categorize people. This is the Church, One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and composed of sinners, needful of God’s mercy. This is the Church, the true bride of Christ, who seeks to be faithful to her spouse and to her doctrine. It is the Church that is not afraid to eat and drink with prostitutes and publicans. The Church that has the doors wide open to receive the needy, the penitent, and not only the just or those who believe they are perfect! The Church that is not ashamed of the fallen brother and pretends not to see him, but on the contrary feels involved and almost obliged to lift him up and to encourage him to take up the journey again and accompany him toward a definitive encounter with her Spouse, in the heavenly Jerusalem.

This is the Church, our Mother! And when the Church, in the variety of her charisms, expresses herself in communion, she cannot err: it is the beauty and the strength of the sensus fidei, of that supernatural sense of the faith which is bestowed by the Holy Spirit so that, together, we can all enter into the heart of the Gospel and learn to follow Jesus in our life. And this should never be seen as a source of confusion and discord.

Many commentators, or people who talk, have imagined that they see a disputatious Church where one part is against the other, doubting even the Holy Spirit, the true promoter and guarantor of the unity and harmony of the Church - the Holy Spirit who throughout history has always guided the barque, through her Ministers, even when the sea was rough and choppy, and the ministers unfaithful and sinners.

And, as I have dared to tell you , [as] I told you from the beginning of the Synod, it was necessary to live through all this with tranquility, and with interior peace, so that the Synod would take place cum Petro and sub Petro, and the presence of the Pope is the guarantee of it all.

We will speak a little bit about the Pope, now, in relation to the Bishops [laughing]. So, the duty of the Pope is that of guaranteeing the unity of the Church; it is that of reminding the faithful of  their duty to faithfully follow the Gospel of Christ; it is that of reminding the pastors that their first duty is to nourish the flock - to nourish the flock - that the Lord has entrusted to them, and to seek to welcome - with fatherly care and mercy, and without false fears - the lost sheep. I made a mistake here. I said 'welcome': [rather] to 'go out and find them'.

His duty is to remind everyone that authority in the Church is a service, as Pope Benedict XVI clearly explained, with words I cite verbatim: "The Church is called and commits herself to exercise this kind of authority which is service and exercises it not in her own name, but in the name of Jesus Christ… through the Pastors of the Church, in fact: it is he who guides, protects and corrects them, because he loves them deeply. But the Lord Jesus, the supreme Shepherd of our souls, has willed that the Apostolic College, today the Bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter… to participate in his mission of taking care of God’s People, of educating them in the faith and of guiding, inspiring and sustaining the Christian community, or, as the Council puts it, 'to see to it [...] that each member of the faithful shall be led in the Holy Spirit to the full development of his own vocation in accordance with Gospel preaching, and to sincere and active charity' and to exercise that liberty with which Christ has set us free (cf. Presbyterorum Ordinis, 6) [...] and it is through us," Pope Benedict continues, "that the Lord reaches souls, instructs, guards and guides them. St Augustine, in his Commentary on the Gospel of St John, says: 'let it therefore be a commitment of love to feed the flock of the Lord' (cf. 123, 5); this is the supreme rule of conduct for the ministers of God, an unconditional love, like that of the Good Shepherd, full of joy, given to all, attentive to those close to us and solicitous for those who are distant (cf. St Augustine, Discourse 340, 1; Discourse 46, 15), gentle towards the weakest, the little ones, the simple, the sinners, to manifest the infinite mercy of God with the reassuring words of hope (cf. ibid., Epistle, 95, 1)."

So, the Church is Christ’s - she is His bride - and all the bishops, in communion with the Successor of Peter, have the task and the duty of guarding her and serving her, not as masters but as servants. The Pope, in this context, is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant - the "servant of the servants of God"; the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ, and to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim, despite being - by the will of Christ Himself - the "supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful"(Can. §749) and despite enjoying "supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church" (cf. Can. §§331-334).

Dear brothers and sisters, now we still have one year to mature, with true spiritual discernment, the proposed ideas and to find concrete solutions to so many difficulties and innumerable challenges that families must confront; to give answers to the many discouragements that surround and suffocate families.

One year to work on the Synodal Relatio which is the faithful and clear summary of everything that has been said and discussed in this hall and in the small groups. It is presented to the Episcopal Conferences as lineamenta [guidelines].

May the Lord accompany us, and guide us in this journey for the glory of His Name, with the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of Saint Joseph. And please, do not forget to pray for me! Thank you!

[The hymn Te Deum was sung, and Benediction given.]

Thank you, and rest well, eh?

(Original)

Message of the III Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops

III EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL ASSEMBLY

OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS

We, Synod Fathers, gathered in Rome together with Pope Francis in the Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, greet all families of the different continents and in particular all who follow Christ, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. We admire and are grateful for the daily witness which you offer us and the world with your fidelity, faith, hope, and love.

Each of us, pastors of the Church, grew up in a family, and we come from a great variety of backgrounds and experiences. As priests and bishops we have lived alongside families who have spoken to us and shown us the saga of their joys and their difficulties.

The preparation for this synod assembly, beginning with the questionnaire sent to the Churches around the world, has given us the opportunity to listen to the experience of many families. Our dialogue during the Synod has been mutually enriching, helping us to look at the complex situations which face families today.

We offer you the words of Christ: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will enter his house and dine with him, and he with me" (Rev 3:20). On his journeys along the roads of the Holy Land, Jesus would enter village houses. He continues to pass even today along the streets of our cities. In your homes there are light and shadow. Challenges often present themselves and at times even great trials. The darkness can grow deep to the point of becoming a dense shadow when evil and sin work into the heart of the family.

We recognize the great challenge to remain faithful in conjugal love. Enfeebled faith and indifference to true values, individualism, impoverishment of relationships, and stress that excludes reflection leave their mark on family life. There are often crises in marriage, often confronted in haste and without the courage to have patience and reflect, to make sacrifices and to forgive one another. Failures give rise to new relationships, new couples, new civil unions, and new marriages, creating family situations which are complex and problematic, where the Christian choice is not obvious.

We think also of the burden imposed by life in the suffering that can arise with a child with special needs, with grave illness, in deterioration of old age, or in the death of a loved one. We admire the fidelity of so many families who endure these trials with courage, faith, and love. They see them not as a burden inflicted on them, but as something in which they themselves give, seeing the suffering Christ in the weakness of the flesh.

We recall the difficulties caused by economic systems, by the "the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose" (Evangelii gaudium 55) which weakens the dignity of people. We remember unemployed parents who are powerless to provide basic needs for their families, and youth who see before them days of empty expectation, who are prey to drugs and crime.

We think of so many poor families, of those who cling to boats in order to reach a shore of survival, of refugees wandering without hope in the desert, of those persecuted because of their faith and the human and spiritual values which they hold. These are stricken by the brutality of war and oppression. We remember the women who suffer violence and exploitation, victims of human trafficking, children abused by those who ought to have protected them and fostered their development, and the members of so many families who have been degraded and burdened with difficulties. "The culture of prosperity deadens us. [...] all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us" (Evangelii gaudium 54). We call on governments and international organizations to promote the rights of the family for the common good.

Christ wanted his Church to be a house with doors always open to welcome everyone. We warmly thank our pastors, lay faithful, and communities who accompany couples and families and care for their wounds.

***

There is also the evening light behind the windowpanes in the houses of the cities, in modest residences of suburbs and villages, and even in mere shacks, which shines out brightly, warming bodies and souls. This light - the light of a wedding story - shines from the encounter between spouses: it is a gift, a grace expressed, as the Book of Genesis says (2:18), when the two are "face to face" as equal and mutual helpers. The love of man and woman teaches us that each needs the other in order to be truly self. Each remains different from the other that opens self and is revealed in the reciprocal gift. It is this that the bride of the Song of Songs sings in her canticle: “My beloved is mine and I am his... I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine" (Song of Songs 2:16; 6:3).

 This authentic encounter begins with courtship, a time of waiting and preparation. It is realized in the sacrament where God sets his seal, his presence, and grace. This path also includes sexual relationship, tenderness, intimacy, and beauty capable of lasting longer than the vigor and freshness of youth. Such love, of its nature, strives to be forever to the point of laying down one’s life for the beloved (cf Jn 15:13). In this light conjugal love, which is unique and indissoluble, endures despite many difficulties. It is one of the most beautiful of all miracles and the most common.

This love spreads through fertility and generativity, which involves not only the procreation of children but also the gift of divine life in baptism, their catechesis, and their education. It includes the capacity to offer life, affection, and values - an experience possible even for those who have not been able to bear children. Families who live this light-filled adventure become a sign for all, especially for young people.

This journey is sometimes a mountainous trek with hardships and falls. God is always there to accompany us. The family experiences his presence in affection and dialogue between husband and wife, parents and children, sisters and brothers. They embrace him in family prayer and listening to the Word of God - a small, daily oasis of the spirit. They discover him every day as they educate their children in the faith and in the beauty of a life lived according to the Gospel, a life of holiness. Grandparents also share in this task with great affection and dedication. The family is thus an authentic domestic Church that expands to become the family of families which is the ecclesial community. Christian spouses are called to become teachers of faith and of love for young couples as well.

Another expression of fraternal communion is charity, giving, nearness to those who are last, marginalized, poor, lonely, sick, strangers, and families in crisis, aware of the Lord's word, "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). It is a gift of goods, of fellowship, of love and mercy, and also a witness to the truth, to light, and to the meaning of life.

 The high point which sums up all the threads of communion with God and neighbor is the Sunday Eucharist when the family and the whole Church sits at table with the Lord. He gives himself to all of us, pilgrims through history towards the goal of the final encounter when "Christ is all and in all" (Col 3:11). In the first stage of our Synod itinerary, therefore, we have reflected on how to accompany those who have been divorced and remarried and on their participation in the sacraments.

We Synod Fathers ask you walk with us towards the next Synod. The presence of the family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph in their modest home hovers over you. United to the Family of Nazareth, we raise to the Father of all our petition for the families of the world:

Father, grant to all families the presence of strong and wise spouses who may be the source of a free and united family.

Father, grant that parents may have a home in which to live in peace with their families.

Father, grant that children may be a sign of trust and hope and that young people may have the courage to forge life-long, faithful commitments.

Father, grant to all that they may be able to earn bread with their hands, that they may enjoy serenity of spirit and that they may keep aflame the torch of faith even in periods of darkness.

Father, grant that we may all see flourish a Church that is ever more faithful and credible, a just and humane city, a world that loves truth, justice and mercy.

(Original)

Is Cardinal Kasper Promoting Heresy?

A Layperson's View

His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper
(Photo: CNS)

Usually, a question like the one posed in the title of this article would be rejected outright as too hyperbolic - hystrionic, even - to merit serious consideration. A Cardinal - a prince of the Church - promoting heresy? Balderdash! And a mere layperson presuming to pass such a judgment? Poppycock! However, given the recent series of events, I think it's time for the question to be posed in all earnestness, by laypersons and clerics alike: Is Cardinal Kasper promoting heresy?

According to the Catechism, heresy is "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or an obstinate doubt concerning the same." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2089) In other words, a heretic is one who "has been baptized and claims to be a Christian, but who pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith" (Dictionary of Canon Law, pg. 103)

The Council of Vatican I provides us with the criteria of what a Catholic must believe:

By divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. (Vatican Council I, Dei Filius 3:8)

From this, we can define dogma as "an opinion or belief authoritatively stated, a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted by the Apostles in the Scriptures or Tradition, and proposed by the Church as an article of faith, to be accepted by the faithful." (New Catholic Dictionary, pg. 303)

Now, there are three premises of central importance to the issue of the permission of divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion:

• Divorced and remarried persons are guilty of adultery.

This is a truth revealed by God (Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18) and proposed by the magisterium of the Church to be believed as such (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2384; Council of Trent, Session 24, Canons 5 & 7).

• Adultery is a grave sin.

This, too, is a truth revealed by God (Exodus 20:14) and proposed by the magisterium of the Church to be believed as such (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2380).

• Persons guilty of grave sin are not to receive Holy Communion without previous sacramental confession.

This is also a truth revealed by God (1 Corinthians 11:27-30) and proposed by the magisterium of the Church to be believed as such (Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1385; Council of Trent, Session 13, Canon 11; Code of Canon Law §915-916).

Judging by the criteria mentioned above, it seems safe to conclude that all three of these statements are dogmas which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith and that, therefore, to deny - or even to obstinately doubt - any one of them would be, per definitionem, heresy. In fact, regarding the last, the Council of Trent went as far as to say that, "if any one shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately to assert, or even in public disputation to defend the contrary, he shall be thereupon excommunicated" (Session 13, Canon 11). 

These three statements, taken together, lead to one - and, in my estimation, inescapable - conclusion: divorced and remarried persons are not to receive Holy Communion. To suggest otherwise would be to deny one or more of the dogmas upon which the conclusion is based and, thus, to commit the sin of heresy and, possibly, an act worthy of immediate excommunication.

We return to our question: Is Cardinal Kasper promoting heresy?

Cardinal Kasper is on record as saying that, in some circumstances, he would offer Holy Communion to divorced and remarried Catholics. In fact, in 1993, he released a pastoral letter along with Bishop (now Cardinal) Karl Lehman and Bishop (now Archbishop) Oskar Saier which granted permission to divorced and remarried Catholics in Germany to receive Holy Communion on the condition that they perform a "serious examination" of their conscience. He and his fellow German bishops proceeded to give Holy Communion to such persons until the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith saw it necessary to intervene in 1994 with its Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful. Despite the intervention, Caspar never yielded in his support of this position, and has continued up to the present, made obvious to all at the 2014 Synod on the Family. It would seem, then, that Cardinal Kasper does, indeed, maintain that at least some divorced and remarried Catholics should be permitted to receive Holy Communion.

Barring some glaring fault in the logic of the above considerations, that would mean that Cardinal Kasper is, as a matter of fact, promoting heresy. Openly. Obstinately. Defiantly.

And what are we to make of one who promotes heresy?

Anathema sit.

Granted, it is not fitting for a mere layperson - who is also certainly not without stain - to come to such a conclusion regarding a prince of the Church. Believe me, gentle reader, I do not enjoy passing such a judgment, and do so only after a great deal of consideration. Meditating upon the four last things, I ask myself: What account will I have to make of this action before Our Lord on the Day of Judgment? I do not wish to condemn Cardinal Walter Kasper; on the contrary, I pray for his conversion. But I cannot reconcile the position he is so vigorously promoting with what I believe to be irreformable, divinely revealed truths. Moreover, I feel morally compelled to warn my fellow Catholics that what we have before us here is not merely "misguided moral theology," but rather heresy of the kind Pope Leo XIII spoke when he said "there can be nothing more dangerous."

Redemptor mundi, miserere nobis!

 ___

Note: I would not be surprised in the least if a canon lawyer were to point to this article as a prime example of why lay persons should not presume to engage in canon law. But if I have erred in my thinking - which I readily admit is certainly possible - I would appreciate someone explaining to me where, exactly, the error resides. Upon such explanation, I would gladly retract the article in its entirety.

God’s Unfailing Mercy and Our Response

by

Bishop Robert C. Morlino

His Excellency Robert Bishop Morlino

Dear Friends,

Last week I was blessed to be in Rome for the ordination for two of our men (Scott Emerson and Gabriel López-Betanzos) to the Order of Deacon in St. Peter's Basilica. It was a wonderful event, and I was so pleased to experience it, with so many faithful from our parishes and some brother priests. I know you'll all join me in prayer for our two new deacons and the three we saw ordained this spring (Deacons Chahm Gahng, Christopher Gernetzke, and Tafadzwa Kushamba), as they make their way to priestly ordination this coming June 26!

Of course the attention in Rome is very much fixed upon the Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, which is meeting right now and discussing the subject of "the Pastoral Challenges of the Family in the Context of Evangelization." The pastoral challenges facing our evangelization of, and within, families are numerous and growing by the day. Indeed, in this day, more and more people are unable to define even what "the family" is. Due to a desire to acknowledge the very real love that exists in families in which one or both parents are no longer in the picture, even stating that a definition of family ideally begins with a marriage has become politically incorrect. And yet in this, as in all things, it is the duty of the Church to state the truth in a loving and merciful way.

So, while acknowledging the reality of exceptions to "the rule," it is indeed the case that in accord with the Natural Law of God, written on every human heart, the family typically flows from the procreative reality of a man and woman who have entered into a loving and stable relationship (one man, one woman, one lifetime, with openness to children).

It seems to me that the very first pastoral challenge that we face today is in having the courage to speak this first reality in a way that does not judge, but invites: the family flows from life-giving marriages. Now, can we state this without making to feel alienated the child who was born to an unwed mother, or the father whose marriage failed despite his every attempt, or even the woman who conceived a child through artificial means while living out a same-sex attraction and who now wishes to return to the Church with her child? Yes, we can still speak that initial truth and exhibit the love and mercy of Jesus. But situations like these provide a pastoral challenge, no doubt.

So, these types of challenges are very much at the heart and mind of the Church today and the topic of a great deal of discussion. And yet, at the root of things, it all remains quite simple: we are all broken, and fallen, and yes, sinful, and Christ and His Church must respond with healing, with mercy, and with forgiveness.

This is why mercy has very much become a keyword in the discussion. How can there be mercy for a Church and for a God who believes that there is also justice; that there is right and wrong; that there is sin and redemption? Wouldn’t the merciful thing be simply to "live and let live?"

All of this was on my mind as I encountered Jesus' parable from the Gospel this past Sunday (Mt 22:1-14). In the passage, Jesus speaks to His disciples, as well as the crowds, the chief priests, and the Pharisees, and tells them that, "The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. He dispatched his servants to summon the invited guests to the feast, but they refused to come (Mt 22:2-3)."

Now, even this first segment is shocking: the king has summoned people, and they are refusing. Not only are they refusing, but they are refusing to come to a feast for the king's son. This is not just an act of disobedience, but a very personal insult.

The only response we hear from the king is one of mercy; he invites them again. He says, "send out some other servants, and tell the people 'everything is prepared; I've done all the work; you only have to show up'." In mercy, the invitation is extended again, without question. The people have only to make the appropriate response and they can celebrate the feast. However, they do not.

We are told that some of them ignore the king's servants and go about their business. Others, however, take the king's servants, mistreat them, and murder them. And this misdeed receives a direct response from the king: "The king was enraged and sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city (Mt 22:7)."

And still the king makes another invitation, and this invitation is much more broad: he sends the servants to invite everyone they encounter, "the bad and the good alike (Mt 22:10)," and finally the hall is filled.

This is a remarkable showing of mercy on the part of the king, and it mirrors salvation history itself, from the time of Adam and Eve forward. In the thrice-repeated invitation of the king, we see God's own unfailing mercy. Even when rejected by us, God continues to return, and He returns with the word that "all has been prepared," and all that is required is our appropriate response. And this we cannot fail to note, for, although the king has invited all to the wedding feast, he still requires that they know to what they are responding and that they change accordingly:

But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment. He said to him, 'My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?' But he was reduced to silence. Then the king said to his attendants, 'Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth' (Mt 22:11-13).

In this regard, Jesus concludes, "Many are invited, but few are chosen (Mt 22:14)."

Here we encounter a reality that seems a paradox: is God merciful, or is He not? The reality provides a challenge for many who struggle with the teaching of the Church and with the desire to have only a 'feel-good' Jesus. God is unfailing in extending His mercy, but He does so by invitation: the invitation of Jesus to "come take up your cross, and follow me (Mt 16:24)." In His mercy, God does not stop making the invitation, but the invitation requires a response not only to show up, but to change for the event '' as St. Paul says, "to put on the Lord Jesus Christ (Rm 13:14)."

Yes, God continues to make the invitation to all who hear his servants. Yes, God invites the "good and the bad." Yes, "all are invited." But simply stopping there fails to tell the story. There is a requirement that we not only accept the invitation, but that we respond to him with a change that is noticeable. The invitation of God is tough stuff for those who want to see mercy as license to sin, and it's also tough for those who want to limit God’s ability to make the invitation. This latter challenge, I believe, is the one the Holy Father really wants to challenge the Church with, and the former is the temptation to be more "merciful" than God, who is Mercy Himself.

We must not hinder the mercy of God by failing to be His servants sent to the whole world to invite all to the wedding feast, nor can we fail those invited by not calling them to conversion and to realize fully what it is that they’re called to. Do we serve the purpose of mercy by failing to prepare people to accept the call they are given? If we tell them there is no need to change, does that do them any good when the king arrives, has their hands and feet bound, and throws them into the darkness? Or does it do us any good when we tell ourselves that we have no further need to change?

There is a great deal to ponder here, as it comes to God's mercy and the kingdom of heaven, but it is good too to offer the prayer that opened Sunday's Mass: "May your grace, O Lord, we pray, at all times go before us and follow after...." Indeed, here is a further expression of God's Mercy for, in Christ and in His Church, we have grace before us and after us, if we but ask. All is prepared for us, and we need only make the response - which we’re equipped to make through the grace that goes before us. For, as our Second Reading assured us, "My God will fully supply whatever you need, in accord with his glorious riches in Christ Jesus (Phil 4:19)." This is good news for us who are trying our best to be servants of the King, and it is good news for all to whom the King is issuing his invitation. It is good news, too, for families and for married couples who find themselves struggling with the many issues of today and even those who find themselves in "irregular situations," but desiring to take up the invitation of the King: "I can do all things in him who strengthens me (Phil 4:13)."

Let us not forget and let us not limit God’s mercy. But let us not fail to make the proper response or to call others to make the same.

Thank you for taking the time to read this! May God bless each one of you! Praised Be Jesus Christ!

Bishop Robert C. Morlino

(Original)

The Faith is not Decided by Votes

An Interview with His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke

by

Alessandro Gnocci

His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke

Cardinal Raymond Burke pleases the world very little - or not at all. And, if possible, he pleases the Church which pleases the world even less. Then again, the 66 year-old American from Richland Center, Wisconsin does everything to provide a Catholic jolt to the apathy-prone Christian conscience: he takes part in the March for Life; he says that politicians who support abortion legislation should be denied Communion; he criticizes the rapid advance of the homo-agenda; he lets Pope Francis know that the defense of non-negotiable values is not some fashion subject to pontifical whims; he supports the traditional liturgy. He recently contributed to the anthology Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church (Ignatius Press, 2014), written in defiance of the "merciful opening" proposed by Cardinal Kasper of Communion to the divorced and remarried. No wonder, then, that Bergoglio's planned reshuffling of the Curia provides for the Cardinal to be removed from his position as Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura and exiled to the office of Cardinal Patron of the Sovereign Order of Malta. In the meantime, however, this fine canonist and son of rural America has assumed the role of the opposition - one might say, the katechon - at the Synod on the Family against the revolution attributed to and never denied by the mens papale. As it says in the old polyglot Bible, which lays on the lectern of his study, opened to Ecclesiates: "All things have their season (...) a time to keep silence, and a time to speak."

Q: What do you see behind the media fog which surrounds the Synod?

A worrying tendency is becoming visible, because some are arguing for the possibility of adopting a practice which deviates from the truth of the Faith. Although it should be obvious that one cannot proceed in this manner, many encourage, for example, dangerous openings on the issue of Communion for the divorced and remarried. I do not see how one could reconcile the irreformable concept of the indissolubility of marriage with the possibility of admitting to Communion those who live in irregular situations. This directly challenges the words of Our Lord when He taught that a man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery.

Q: According to the reformers, that teaching is "too hard."

They forget that Our Lord assures the help of grace to those who are called to marriage. This does not mean that there will be no difficulties or suffering, but that there will always be divine assistance to those who remain faithful to the end.

Q: It seems that yours is a minority position....

A few days ago, I saw a news report in which Cardinal Kasper said that we're 'heading in the right direction towards an opening.' In short, the 5.7 million Italians who watched the report formed the impression that the entire Synod is moving in this direction and that the Church is getting ready to change her doctrine on marriage. This, however, is simply impossible. Many bishops intervened to say that changes cannot be admitted.

Q: But this is not apparent from the daily briefings of the Vatican Press Office. This was also criticized by Cardinal Müller.

I do not know how the briefing was conceived, but it seems to me that something is not working properly if the information is manipulated so as to highlight only one opinion instead of giving a faithful report of the different positions presented. This worries me a great deal, because many bishops do not accept the notion of an opening, but only a few are aware of this. One hears only of the 'necessity' of the Church 'opening herself to the world,' as was announced by Cardinal Kasper in February. In fact, his position on the issues of family and the Communion of the divorced and remarried is nothing new; it was already being discussed thirty years ago. Since February, it has gained strength and, regrettably has been allowed to spread. But this must stop, because it is causing serious harm to the Faith. Bishops and priests are telling me that many divorced and remarried individuals now want to be permitted to receive Communion, because 'that's what Pope Francis wants.' On the contrary, however, I note that he has not commented on the matter.

Q: But it seems obvious that Cardinal Kasper and those in line with him speak with the support of the Pope.

Apparently, yes. The Holy Father appointed Cardinal Kasper to the Synod and has let the debate continue along this line. But, as another cardinal noted, the Pope has not spoken. I'm waiting for his comments, which can only be in continuity with the teaching of the Church throughout its history. It is a teaching which has not changed, because it cannot change.

Q: Some prelates who support the traditional teaching say that, if the Pope were to make changes, they would accept them. Isn't this a contradiction?

Yes, this is a contradiction, because the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth and thus the first servant of the truth of the Faith. Knowing the teaching of Christ, I do not see how we can deviate from this teaching with a doctrinal statement or a pastoral praxis which ignores the truth.

Q: Doesn't the stress put by the Pope on mercy as the most important - if not the only - guiding principle of the Church serve to sustain the illusion that one can engage in a pastoral praxis detached from doctrine?

It spreads the idea that there can be a merciful Church which does not care for the truth. I am deeply offended by the notion that the bishops and priests have been unmerciful until now. I grew up in a rural part of the U.S. and remember from my childhood that, in our parish, there was a couple who lived on a neighboring farm and who always came to our church for Mass, but never received Communion. When I was older, I asked my father why this was, and he explained to me, very naturally, that they lived in an irregular situation and accepted that they could not receive Communion. The parish priest was very kind to them, very merciful, and applied that mercy in his work so that the couple could return to a life in harmony with the Catholic Faith. Without truth, there can be no mercy. My parents taught me that, because we love the sinner, we must hate the sin and do everything to free them from the evil in which they live.

Q: In your study, there is a statue of the Most Sacred Heart. In your chapel, there is another image of the Most Sacred Heart over the altar. Your episcopal motto is Secundum Cor Tuum ("According to Your Heart"). A bishop can, then, unite mercy and doctrine....

Yes, it is at the inexhaustible and unremitting source of truth and love - that is, the glorious pierced Heart of Jesus - that the priest finds the wisdom and strength to lead his flock in truth and charity. The Curé of Ars called priests to the love of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. The priest who is united to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus will not succumb to the temptation to tell the flock anything other than the words of Christ as unfailingly transmitted to us by the Church. He will not succumb to the temptation to replace the words of sound doctrine with a language which is confused and leads easily into error.

Q: But the reformers maintain that, for the Church, charity means to chase after the world.

This is the cornerstone of the arguments used by those who want to change doctrine or discipline. I am very concerned. It is said that the times have changed so much that we can no longer speak of natural law, of the indissolubility of marriage. But man has not changed; he continues to be just as God created him. Of course, the world has become secularized, but this is only one more reason to clearly and forcefully to pronounce the truth. This is our duty, but in order to carry it out, one must - as John Paul II in Evangelium vitae teaches - call things by their names. We cannot resort to - at best - ambiguous language just to please the world.

Q: Clarity does not appear to be a priority for the reformers, as, for example, they do not see any contradiction in their position that the divorced and remarried can be admitted to Communion on the condition that they recognize the indissolubility of marriage. 

When someone sincerely maintains the indissolubility of marriage, then he either clarifies the irregular situation in which he finds himself, or he abstains from Communion. There is no third option.

Q: Not even the so-called "Orthodox divorce"?

The Orthodox practice of oikonomia or the second or third 'penitentiary marriage' is both historically and presently very complex. In any case, the Catholic Church, which has known of this practice for centuries, has never adopted it by virtue of the words spoken by Our Lord in the Gospel according to St. Matthew.

Q: Don't you think that, if this opening were to be granted, many others would follow?

Certainly. Now they are saying that it would only be allowed in certain cases. One who knows people even a little knows that, if you acquiesce in one case, you will ultimately acquiesce in the other cases as well. If you recognize as lawful the union between the divorced and remarried, the door will be opened to all unions which are not in accordance with the law of God, because the conceptual bulwark which defends sound doctrine and the good pastoral praxis resulting from it will be eliminated.

Q: The reformers often speak of a Jesus who is willing to tolerate sin in order to approach people. Is this accurate?

Such a Jesus is a concoction with no basis in the Gospels. Just consider His clash with the world as recounted in the Gospel of St. John. Jesus was the greatest opponent of His age and remains so today. I recall what He said to the woman guilty of adultery: "Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more."

Q: Admission of the divorced and remarried undermines not only the Sacrament of Matrimony, but also that of the Eucharist. Is this not an error which strikes at the heart of the Church?

In the First Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 11, St. Paul teaches that he who receives the Eucharist in a state of sin eats his own condemnation. Access to the Eucharist means to be in communion with Christ, to be conform to Him. Many oppose the notion that the Eucharist is the 'sacrament of the perfect,' but this is a false argument. No man is perfect, and the Eucharist is the sacrament of those who are fighting to be perfect, as Jesus Himself demands: "be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." Even he who struggles to attain perfection certainly sins, and when he finds himself in a state of mortal sin, he may not receive Communion. In order to do so, he must confess his sins, repent of them and have the firm purpose of never committing them again. This applies to everyone, including the divorced and remarried.

Q: Today, reception of the Eucharist is barely seen as a sacramental act, but rather as a social practice. It no longer means communion with God, but acceptance by a community. Is not the root of the problem to be found here?

It is true that this Protestant notion is becoming prevalent. And that applies not merely to the divorced and remarried. One often hears that, at special events such as First Communion, Confirmation and Weddings, even non-Catholics are receiving Holy Communion. This, however - again - is against the Faith; it contradicts the very truth of the Eucharist.

Q: Instead of discussing these topics, what should the Synod be doing?

A Synod is not a democratic assembly where bishops gather to change Catholic doctrine according to majority opinion. I would like for it to become an opportunity to offer support to the pastors of all families who want the best experience of their faith and their vocation; to support those men and women who, despite many difficulties, do not want to break away from what the Gospel teaches. This should be a Synod on the family rather than one which loses itself in useless discussions on issues which are not open to discussion in an attempt to change a truth which cannot be changed. In my opinion, it would be better to remove these issues from the table because they are not viable. We should speak rather of how to help the faithful to live the truth of marriage. We should speak of the formation of children and young people who come to marriage without knowing the basics of the Faith and then fall at the first hurdle.

Q: The reformers are not considering those Catholics who have sacrificed to keep their family together, even under dramatic circumstances, instead of starting over?

Many people who have made this effort now ask me if they have it all wrong. They ask me if they have thrown away their lives making unnecessary sacrifices. This is not acceptable; it is a betrayal.

Q: Don't you think that the present crisis in morality is linked to the liturgical crisis?

Certainly. In the post-conciliar period, there has been a collapse in the life of the faith and in ecclesiastical discipline, made especially apparent by the liturgical crisis. The liturgy has become an anthropocentric activity, reflecting the ideas of man rather than God's right to be worshipped as He requests. From there it follows that, in the field of morality, attention is given almost exclusively to the needs and desires of men rather than to what the Creator has written in the hearts of all creatures. The lex orandi is always bound to the lex credendi. If man does not pray correctly, then he will not believe correctly and, thus, will not behave correctly. When I go to celebrate the traditional Mass, for example, I see so many beautiful young families with many children. I do not think that these are families without problems, but it is clear that they receive more strength to deal with them. All this must mean something. The liturgy is the most perfect expression, the most complete expression of our life in Christ, and when that diminishes or is betrayed, every aspect of the life of the faithful is wounded.

Q: What would you say to a Catholic pastor who feels lost among these winds of change?

The faithful must take heart, because Our Lord will never abandon His Church. Think of how Our Lord calmed the stormy sea, and His word to His disciples, "Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith?" If this period of confusion seems to jeopardize their faith, they must engage more actively in a truly Catholic life. But I realize that living during these times causes great suffering.

Q: It is difficult to avoid thinking of a chastisement.

I think of the same - first of all, for myself. If I am suffering for the current situation of the Church, I think Our Lord is telling me that I need to be purified. And I think that, if the suffering is so widespread, it indicates that the whole Church is in need of purification. This is due, not to a God who is just waiting to punish us, but to our sins. If we have, in any way, betrayed doctrine, morals or the liturgy, then suffering will necessarily follow, which will cleanse us, and lead us back to the straight and narrow path.

(Original)

Cardinal Dolan and the Dark Continent

His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan
(Photo: Reuters)

Cardinal Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York recently gave an interview which seems to have received relatively little notice - which is perfectly understandable given the current flurry of reports coming out of the Vatican. It contains, however, a stunningly candid admission on the part of the Cardinal which confirms what many have suspected for years: western prelates have lost the courage of their convictions.

Asked by Francis X. Rocca of Catholic News Service to relate his impression of the African bishops and their participation at the 2014 Synod on the Family, the Cardinal said:

The African bishops have a freshness and - it's a strange words to use, perhaps - an innocence when it comes to their biblical faith. Now, when I say "innocence," I mean these are people - we just had Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama of Jos; 186 of his churches have been torched by Boko Haram, so you're hardly talking about some guy in an ivory tower, you're talking about a bishop who has literally mopped up the blood of his people and bandaged their wounds. When he speaks, though, you can hear Irenaeus, you can hear Polycarp, you can hear Ignatius of Antioch - not just Ignatius of Jos - and that's how young they are: the Church in Africa is where the second and third generation of Christians were. They speak with heroism and conviction, and the rest of us sit up and take notice. We in the Church in Europe, and in North America, we suffer sometimes from lethargy, don't we? Not Africa! And, boy oh boy, can they speak and call us back to the roots of God's revelation, and they're not afraid to do it. And they're not afraid to lead us in an examination of conscience. One of the African bishops today said, "Be careful in the West. What do you import? Military arms? Contraception? Abortion? We don't need that. We don't want that. That's cultural imperialism." And when they speak with that vigor, wow! You can just see the rest of us in the hall turn around, and look, and listen. I found them to be very inspirational. 

The bishops of Africa are prophetic in reminding us that the role of the Church is to transform culture, not to be transformed by the culture. They are magnificent at that. And when you look at the churches in their nations, you see that's being done. I find that very moving. I'm afraid sometimes we in the West might say, "Oh, I guess we've got to dilute things, I guess we've got to capitulate. Obviously this teaching is being rejected. Oh my Lord, we're not popular." And the Africans say, "Well, you know what? We're not supposed to be! What we're supposed to do is propose the truth, and invite people, by the love and the joy in our lives, to embrace that truth. And take it from us, brothers: it works!" We know from the history of the Church that it works, and we know from the present of the Church that it works, because we see it in the people of Africa.

Now, it would be wonderful if this encounter with the genuine, living faith of the African bishops had a knock-on effect on the Cardinal and his work in the Archdiocese of New York. It would be wonderful if he would come to understand that there are scores of American Catholics, both in his own Archdiocese and broader afield, who have that very same faith, and want nothing more than for their prelates to support them in the exercise of that faith. Countless prayers would be answered if the Cardinal would awaken from his complacent slumber and recognize that he, too, is called to fight - and to sacrifice - for Christ's Church. I pray for the same, as should you, gentle reader.

But let's not allow our hopes to blind us to the reality of the situation. The fact that Cardinal Dolan and his confrères from the western hemisphere take exception to the conviction and clarity with which the African bishops defend orthodoxy speaks volumes. What are we to make of the College when the bishop who vigorously defends the Faith sets himself apart in doing so? Conspicuously absent from the Cardinal's résumé, despite his open admission that western prelates - and I see no reason to exempt Cardinal Dolan himself from the charge - have lost the courage of their convictions, is any trace of shame or regret in that fact. It's as if the orthodoxy of the African bishops is to be safely compartmentalized because of the recentness of their conversion and the severity of their situation - that is, their orthodoxy is to be understood - and excused - as a product of their specific situation, which is not unlike that of the Church Fathers with whom they are compared. For, take that very same orthodoxy out of the African context, and put in the West - where more souls are being lost to the ravages of the culture of death than Boko Haram could ever dream of - and it is disparaged from the highest positions as "self-absorbed Promethean Neo-Pelagianism."

No, it is highly unlikely that this brush with orthodoxy will inspire action in the West. More likely is that it will instead serve to reinforce the notion that the days of orthodoxy, while perhaps alive in the remotes of Africa, are well behind us here in the "developed" world, leading us to wonder: which is really the "Dark Continent"?