Having devoted a whole section to "challenges" on my website, it was quite ironic for me to come across a short list of challenges by Dr. Thomas Woods which can be found on Mario Derksen's site. The motivation for Dr. Woods' challenges ("Eight Challenges to James Likoudis [and other Neo-Catholics]") - 8 in all - was to seek clarification on apparent contradictions and perhaps even a veiled duplicity on the part of some of the Vatican's political and pastoral moves in recent years. I am indebted to Dr. Woods for bringing these issues to the foreground since they afford me the opportunity to respond and assuage the legitimate concerns of faithful Catholics. No doubt, certain doubts would remain festering deep down in many good Catholic consciences unless they were adequately and forthrightly addressed. Now, more than ever, Roman Catholic apologists must not shirk away from addressing legitimate and authentic complaints raised by our brothers in the faith.
When I first read Dr. Wood's challenges, I must admit that they were quite intimidating since, on an initial reading, they hit all the marks of concern that even "neo-conservatives" have; the dilemmas themselves being perceived sources of scandal in anyone's books. As I looked at the charges closely and started to do some research on my own, however, I discovered that Dr. Woods' challenges did not hit the mark at all. What follows are my reasons for thinking so.
Dr. Woods' comments are in black and red. My comments will be in blue.
Challenge #1: Cardinal Walter Kasper, the John Paul II appointee who heads the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity, openly admits that conciliar and post-conciliar ecumenism amounts to a rupture with the past, and says that Pope Pius XI's "ecumenism of return" (by which non-Catholics are expected to return to unity with the Catholic Church by becoming Catholics) "no longer applies after Vatican II." "Today," he says, "we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would 'be converted' and return to being 'catholics.' This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II." On another occasion, he explained: "The old concept of the ecumenism of return has today been replaced by that of a common journey which directs Christians toward the goal of ecclesial communion understood as unity in reconciled diversity."
Challenge: Defend this.
Answer: In seeking to defend any statement by a high ranking Vatican cardinal, one must always remember to keep in mind that there will exist a high level of nuance and subtlety which are invariably going to be imbued into the communication. If this one little principle was respected in dialogue, the Church, as Dr. Woods' well knows - being a professor of history no less - would have saved Herself a good number of schisms and disruptions. For this reason, the Church in her age and wisdom, is more prepared to patiently wait and listen to what her sons are saying in toto before correcting them and risking rupture. Let us therefore examine some of Dr. Woods' selected citations of the Cardinal:
"Today, we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would 'be converted' and return to being 'catholics.'"
The Cardinal is not using "conversion" in the sense of embracing the truth found in the Catholic faith. He is rather speaking about, if I may sink to using such an illustration, a kind of "Borg" (ala Star Trek) mentality that would simply assimilate Christian communities without respecting their own cherished heritages. What the Cardinal (and the Church) wants is an accomodation and recognition in truth and not a triumphant assimilation and loss of identity within the Catholic Church. This is more in line with the intent of his comments and he seems to confirm it here:
"It is important, in this context, to assert that ecumenism today does not mean a loss of identity, but a certain unity in diversity."
(http://www.episcopalchurch.org/ens/2002-127.html)
"The closer we come to each other," he observed, "the more painful it is that we are not yet in full communion." Christians should not allow their frustrations to give rise to either pessimism or disillusionment, the cardinal continued. He also warned against an attitude that would reject the cautions put forward by the hierarchy, in favour of "unauthorized ecumenism." That approach, he said, "in the pursuit of greater communion, could actually cause new divisions." Rather than encouraging "abstract models of unity," which could give rise to "new deceptions," Cardinal Kasper argued for "a more experienced, more adult" approach. He cautioned that Christians should be prepared to work tirelessly toward unity, realizing that the goal is not near. The road toward complete union, he said, "will no doubt be longer than we have imagined."
(http://www.cwnews.com/Browse/2002/03/17618.htm)
And the Cardinal goes on to suggest the kind of "unity and diversity" he is talking about:
"The goal is not a uniform church-this is not what the other churches want either-but the unity of the one church in reconciled diversity. If you look at the example of the Eastern churches that are in communion with Rome, you can see that we already have a viable model for such a unity in diversity. And I believe it is crucial for us in the Catholic Church to model this possibility in a more unequivocal and inviting way.
Today we tend to define church unity as a communion, communio. In such a communion one participates in the one faith, the same sacraments, and shared ministry, but that faith can be expressed in different ways, depending on one's cultural context, historical conditions, and different spiritualities. When we talk of a unity in reconciled diversity, this, of course, cannot mean that there would remain contradictions in principle. In such a unity it would not be acceptable for one church to declare an official teaching of another church as counter to the gospel. The truth is always bigger than our formulas. None of us has the truth, but the truth has us. Through dialogue, with its exchange of gifts, we don't reach a new truth, but we come to a fuller understanding of the truth, which we believe we have in Jesus Christ. This is the dynamic dimension in ecumenical dialogue, and it helps us to discover our full "catholicity." For the divisions of the church are also a deep wound within the Catholic Church. They are contrary to the will of Christ, and they are a sin. We need each other so we can come, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to a greater fullness of truth. (http://www.uscatholic.org/2002/10/featc0210.htm)
Now, in these comments, we can understand and appreciate the Cardinal's thinking on the matter more fairly. He understands well that there cannot be "contradictions in principle", and to entertain and encourage such "abstract models of unity," would "give rise to new deceptions." In my opinion, frank admissions and concessions are hardly the disposition of people who are trying to slip error under the nose of the Pope and dupe the Faithful.
Challenge #2: Number 2 is related to number 1. This head of a pontifical council, appointed to that position and named a cardinal by Pope John Paul II, cites Vatican II in support of his position that conversion is not the goal of ecumenism.
Challenge: Since John Paul II is committed to the systematic implementation of Vatican II, why would he appoint a man to head the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity unless he shared Vatican II's outlook? Might Cardinal Kasper's view, in fact, actually be the one promoted by Vatican II? If not, how could a man of Kasper's background and education make such an elementary error in conciliar interpretation, and why has John Paul not corrected him? Are the texts of the Council completely blameless in all of this? Are traditionalists doing damage to the Church by demanding answers to these questions, or is Cardinal Kasper doing damage to the Church by abandoning Catholic teaching?
Answer: There exists an extreme naivite among our neo-trad friends. In part, since they cannot discern the politico-theological dimensions in the Church, they fail to reconcile how the Holy Father uses people of different theologies to get the most out of them - while keeping the faith free from error. Consider the two main participants in this dialogue over the Jews, for instance: Cardinal Ratzinger and Cardinal Kasper. Have you ever wondered why Cardinal Ratzinger is head of the "heavy weight" Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith while the more liberal minded Kasper is head of the "light weight" Council for Promoting Christian Unity, which has little sway in doctrinal matters? Is that just simply chance? Of course not.
But don't take my word for it. Let's hear it from Kasper himself. Addressing Boston College on Nov. 6, 2002, the Cardinal made a morning presentation to a small group where he discussed the USCCB's controversial document "Reflections on Covenant and Mission." Boston College reported this way:
"He began his evening presentation by again mentioning Reflections on Covenant and Mission and making this controversy the basis for his remarks. 'For after ail the heated public debate in this country on the last Declaration of the "National Council of Synagogues and Delegates of the Bishop's Committee on Ecumenical and Interreligious Affairs" the issue you proposed to speak on puts me in a - I can only say - challenging and complex situation. I can only hope to get out on the other end with unbroken skin. For it is quite unusual and, indeed, until our present era unknown for Catholics to stand together with Jews, and conversely for Catholics to speak against Catholics, and Baptists against Catholics and Jews as well. In my attempt to reflect upon the issues involved, I run the risk of getting caught between fire from all sides, and it is to be seen where I will be found in the end.' At the same time, he made clear he was not speaking "on behalf of the Vatican," but "only on behalf of myself." "The role of our dicastery is to promote dialogue, and not to officially guide its development or to decide on its outcome."'"
In other words, "As far as doctrine goes, my dicastery is rather powerless. I can talk all I want about doctrine, but ultimately what I say is not official church teaching and never will be church teaching. My job is really to develop warm and fuzzy relations with other religions, but I carry absolutely no doctrinal weight with me."
Furthermore, notice the clear and revealing statement by the Cardinal: At the same time, he made clear he was not speaking "on behalf of the Vatican", but only "on behalf of myself." Uh huh. Does this sound like a man with the Pope behind him? Not quite. In fact, our friendly Cardinal probably got some heat by the Pope himself for his encroachments on the objective necessity of Christ for salvation.
The Pope knows what he is doing. That is why Ratzinger and the Pope put the breaks on the "friendly cardinal" by issuing Dominus Iesus. According to the Ratzinger, the Holy Father "followed moment by moment with great attention" the writing of the text. It is not a coincidence, therefore, that this declaration came out just when the talks with the Jews were becoming a little too cozy.
In an interview published on September 22, 2000, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Seitung invited Ratzinger to offer his comments about the criticisms Dominus Iesus had received. This part of the interview focuses on Kasper et. al....
Interviewer: Let us return again to your Congregation's disputed document. Rather than being blamed for failing to emphasize content rather than form, the Declaration Dominus Iesus is often accused of a somewhat tactless approach that irritates the spokesmen of other religions and denominations. Cardinal Sterzinsky of Berlin said that in theological formation it is necessary not to forget in sermons the "when, where and how". In Roman documents, however, it seems that this has been forgotten. And Bishop Lehmann of Mainz said that he would have liked "a text written in the style of the great conciliar texts", and wonders to what extent the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith collaborated with other curial authorities in preparing the document. In this connection, he mentions the Council for Interreligious Dialogue and the Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
Ratzinger: As for collaboration with the other curial authorities, the President and Secretary of the Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Cardinal Cassidy and Bishop Kasper, are members of our Congregation, as is the President of the Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Cardinal Arinze. They all have a say in the matter, as I do. The Prefect, in fact, is only the first among equals and is responsible for the orderly conduct of the work. The three members of the Congregation I have just mentioned took an active part in drafting the document, which was presented several times at the ordinary meeting of the Cardinals and once at the plenary meeting in which all our foreign members take part. Unfortunately, Cardinal Cassidy and Bishop Kasper were prevented by concurrent engagements from taking part in some of the sessions, although they had been informed of the dates of these meetings well in advance. Nevertheless, they received all the documentation and their detailed written vota were communicated to the participants and thoroughly discussed. (http://www.petersnet.net/browse/3316.htm)
In Vaticanese, this means that they made themselves scarce when they saw what was coming down the pipe. Notice how, for instance, Cardinal Ratzinger has the reason for Kasper and Cassidy's absence right on the tip of his tongue? In other words, "they had their shot at challenging me and they bailed. Too bad." How else can one explain the cool and, arguably, hostile reaction from Kasper and others (particularly Cassidy) concerning the Declaration? This is especially significant considering the acute tension between the two German Cardinals since 1999 over the issue of the Church's ecclesiology.
So the bottom line here is that the Pope is using Kasper's talents as a trained and effective diplomat but keeping a tight rein on him and his rather liberal theology by checking it against Ratzinger's doctrinal orthodoxy. That's how it works in politics: you utilize the strengths of your subordinates without allowing their divergent opinions to dictate the ultimate message.
Canadians will understand how this works. The New Democratic Party (NDP) (which is a socialist leaning party) was the first political party in Canada to suggest a host of social programs which Canadians have come to expect and rely on. Our pension system and universal health coverage are two examples. Those were the NDP's ideas, but they never got into power. The reigning Liberal Party simply adopted them into their platform and legislated them into law. In effect, you get the good without accepting the rest of the baggage that might come with the socialist ideology. Since it's the same principle with the Church, it is very easy to see how tensions might sometimes arise. (Of course, some Yanks reading this will be totally flabbergasted that a "conservative" actually supports universal health care, but hey, I'm a Canadian conservative.)
In answering a reporter's question about the feud between himself and Ratzinger, the Cardinal made a very poignant and incisive remark:
"Inevitably there will always be some tension, but I don't think tension is bad. Wherever there is life, there is tension, and where tensions end, there is death." (http://www.uscatholic.org/2002/10/featc0210.htm)
This is what keeps the Catholic Church alive and growing: "regulated tension". That's why the Catholic Church keeps growing and thriving and the Protestant sects in Christianity do not. If you have no regulation, you burst apart into countless fragments. If you have no tension, you become a Unitarian.
Challenge #3: The Fraternity of St. Peter is a society of pontifical right established in 1988 for priests who wished to offer the traditional Latin Mass. No one questions the doctrinal orthodoxy of its priests. Yet two and a half years ago they had two perfectly orthodox seminary rectors removed and their election of their superior overturned by the Vatican. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos promised in June 2000 "that the papal Commission [Ecclesia Dei] will be more present, from now on, in the seminaries and the other houses of the Fraternity, and will watch attentively for their good behaviour. It may also happen that the Ecclesia Dei Commission will intervene again, should it become necessary." Did the Vatican "watch attentively" over the past forty years for "good behaviour" at all the Novus Ordo seminaries that were becoming infested with homosexuals, whose criminal acts are currently bringing ruin and disgrace to diocese after diocese throughout the world? Meanwhile, the Jesuits and the Dominicans, whose orders have become sewers of heresy and scandal, have been left alone.
Challenge: Explain these priorities.
Answer:
Well, it's like this. I think Cardinal Hoyos is a man of integrity and I believe him when he gives his reasons here. Furthermore, if you cannot take direction from your superior then you have not understood the notion of Catholic obedience, which, I believe, is the real root of the problem in your camp. St. Padre Pio is often highly esteemed in Traditional circles because of his love for the Tridentine Mass. Perhaps you should also accept his example of humility when the Church silenced him for over a decade. It is also well known that his bishop was purported to be a virulent homosexual. St. Pio's example of submission of will to the Church's discipline - even if he was right in his claims - is the Catholic way. Do you act the same way? Or do you cry about everything that God sends you through the Church in order to mold you into the man that you are not?
Furthermore, I am inclined to believe the Fraternity's own account of the episode. Interested persons can read it about it here. Is it a surprise that Dr. Woods is the subject of a good part of the Fraternity's response? Here is the relevant portion of the letter that pertains to Dr. Woods:
Indeed, for someone who later in this column describes himself as "fixated… on such things as evidence and reality", reality has a limited place in his column. Take out a highlighting pen and go though his page, marking such expressions as "seem to be," "appears to be", "apparently", "assumed", "we also assumed", "the stuff of rumour", "apparently" (again), "it is claimed", "supposedly", "it seems clear". All this within a one page article! What we realise is that there is hardly a paragraph in which some alarmist assertion is not made, but then carefully qualified as a supposition, assumption or rumour. The seed of doubt is sown, but no hard fact given to qualify it. This is the same journalism as the supermarket tabloids, masquerading as traditional Catholicism!
He goes on to admit that the "situation within the Fraternity of Saint Peter has been discussed at length in these pages". The problem is that to discuss can mean one (or both) of two things: to report or state a fact, or to relate a view or speculation. Thus, to discuss the weather can mean to talk about it as it is here and now ("It is raining") or to talk about weather in general ("I wish it were sunny"; "I wonder when it will snow"). These two can be, and often are, confused, and such has often been the case in discussion about the Fraternity "in these pages": fact and speculation are so mingled as to be misleading. Sadly, Mr. Woods’ own article serves only to continue this trend, presenting speculation about socio-political law and trends in conservative movements (discuss in the second sense) as hard and proven facts (discuss in the first sense).
He closes his paragraph with the assertion that the traditional laity "assumed all along that priests who joined traditionalist communities did so to provide us with the traditional Latin Mass, and only that". Leaving aside the obvious possibility that a priest joins a traditional religious order to save his soul or glorify God (apparently lesser motives?), I do not know of any Fraternity priest in this district who did not join specifically for the purpose Mr. Woods names, and who is not here today with that same purpose still in mind. The Fraternity can only speak for itself, but can Mr. Woods name a single Fraternity apostolate where people have turned up for the Traditional Mass only to find the Paul VI rite in progress? Or where the sacraments are being administered from the new liturgical books?
It is, as was stated at the start of this statement, with regret that the Fraternity is forced to turn its efforts away from building up the Body of Christ to defending itself from those who present themselves as fellow traditionalists, but use their expensive toys to launch insidious attacks upon the work of priests who, as Mr. Woods himself admits are "devoted exclusively to the 1962 Missal". It is equally regrettable that such attacks should be made so frequently.
At Springtime every year, I do a bit of weeding on my front lawn. As I look around my lawn, it is easy to locate these weeds because they are common, bright yellow dandy-lions. In fact, they are so noticeable that my next door neighbour sometimes ribs me about how many there are, and often chides me at my tardiness in tending my lawn. But, as I sometimes remind her, it is less destructive and more tactical to wait until these weeds have risen to a certain height where I can pluck them out with less damage and shock to the lawn. If I tried to remove the weeds now, I might not get to the root of the weed and it would grow back - sometimes in a different form, and I would have to start again. It would be, in fact, only a superficial and illusory purging since the roots go very deep. The weed is not simply the bright yellow flower and the other visible parts, but it goes far down into the soil. My attempts at ridding myself of these particular weeds, therefore, would be a futile endeavour. This job is for the long haul. There is no quick fix. One way of increasing the chances of eventual success, for instance, is to fertilize my lawn and feed it well so that the weeds do not suck all the nutrients for themselves. In short, I have to do the best I can do until the time comes to pluck it out. Until then, I must be patient. It's kind of like the approach Our Lord uses with people...
"Jesus told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared. "The owner's servants came to him and said, 'Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?' " 'An enemy did this,' he replied. "The servants asked him, 'Do you want us to go and pull them up?' " 'No,' he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.' " (Matthew 13:24-30)
Challenge #4: Active in dioceses throughout the world, the "neo-Catechumenal Way," a Judaized, semi-gnostic, intra-ecclesial sect, conducts private, closed-door Saturday night "liturgies" which have been dispensed from all compliance with even the absurdly liberalized liturgical laws of the Novus Ordo. The neo-liturgy of this sect has no Offertory, and the congregation dances the horah around the altar-table before consuming a Host the size and consistency of a personal pan pizza, which tends to crumble and leave fragments all over the floor. The sect's lay founders, Kiko Arguello and Carmen Hernandez, who exhibit a shocking familiarity with the Pope, have concocted a neo-catechism in which the movement's adherents are trained to varying levels of gnostic initiation into the thinking of Kiko and Carmen. This "catechism" is rife with heterodoxy, including the proposition that the Church went astray after the eighth century and became obscured by an accretion of unnecessary customs and structures - precisely what the Protestants say -until its essence was freed again by Vatican II. The sect is armed with a letter of commendation from the Pope himself - which is, sad to say, quite authentic. The Pope has repeatedly praised this "ecclesial movement" as one of the "fruits of Vatican II."
Challenge: Defend this. Or, alternatively, provide persuasive grounds for believing that any pre-conciliar pope would have viewed this organization with anything other than horrified disbelief.
Answer:
Click on this link. Just to the right there, do you see the guy holding the "personal pan pizza" host? Try and guess his identity.
Now, just for the record, can you please state if you are officially accusing the Supreme Pontiff of participating in a liturgy and communing with "a Judaized, semi-gnostic, intra-ecclesial sect"? Yes or no? If formal canonical charges are brought against you because of this statement, will you have the integrity to repeat them before a competent tribunal. Yes or No?
Now, let me offer my own little challenge. Name one successful "novus ordo" community that neo-traditionalists have praised? Answer: none. Opus Dei, Charismatic Catholic Renewal, Neo-Catechumenal Way, and many others are constantly berated by these people. Why? Well, if you are trying to show everyone what a miserable failure Vatican II was, you certainly do not want success stories getting in the way. Take, for instance, the recent canonization of Opus Dei's founder St. Jose Maria Escriva. Many of the neo-traditionalists are now calling into question whether the canonization was even valid or authentic. And I've even read a comment from one of these individuals that denied Mother Theresa was Catholic! Any group that is not part of the Borg in the Church is...well...less than Catholic, and really beneath contempt. As the Church moves further and further away from Camelot, and leaves our neo-Knights sitting there encircling the square table and berating the Church for every possible defect, they become more isolated and embittered at anything good in the Church.
For anyone interested in the Neo-Catechumenal Way, I found this site reasonably informative.
Challenge #5: The constant teaching of the Church is that the New Covenant supersedes the Old, but Cardinal Walter Kasper, speaking in his capacity as the papally appointed President of the Pontifical Council for Religious Relations with the Jews, declared that "the old theory of substitution is gone since the Second Vatican Council. For us Christians today the covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality…. Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e. the faithful response of the Jewish people to God's irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to his promises."
Answer: Unnuanced, admittedly, this statement sounds like heresy since it implies the Jews do not need Christ. But we are in the beginnings of theological development in this area for which proper distinctions must be made. Certainly, not all of what the Cardinal says is false. First, notice how he frames the definition of "Judaism"? He says it is the Jewish people's faithful response to God's "irrevocable covenant". This, in itself, is no great revelation because he is simply repeating what the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
"The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value, for the Old Covenant has never been revoked."(CCC, 121)
Behind the veil of Old Covenant lies the face of Jesus Christ Himself, the author and end of this Covenant (Cf. 2 Cor 3:14). To be truly faithful to the Old Covenant requires its authentic fulfilment which is found, objectively, in the New Covenant. If you are speaking to a group of non-Catholics, you learn their language in order to communicate effectively to them. The Apostles and early missionaries understood this. You talk their language so that they may understand the Gospel through their own tradition, and as a result, have a much better chance accepting the essentials of the Gospel. In effect, you compromise on the unessential things in order to stress the essential. When a whole Anglican communion in the U.S. was received into the Church a couple of years ago, they were permitted to keep much of their liturgy. This is the Catholic disposition. It does not seek to violently assimilate groups of people without respecting their own heritage. This would be tantamount to a blasphemy against God since it would demand that form be placed over substance. The early church combatted this heresy in Acts 15 where the "party of the circumcision" who wanted to impose ceremonial acts on the Church because they believed the law of Moses was essential to the Gospel. Now, in the twenty-first century, the Church is looking at the Jews and applying the same principle towards them, and speaking to them through their own religious tradition which is the Old Covenant. By saying, "the Old Covenant is salvific", this can be understood in many ways, but the only one that counts is the interpretation the Church places on it. As doctrine is developed in the Church, we cannot really expect everyone to stay on the right side of it. Some sons and daughters will inevitably step over it - or refuse to do so as the case may be. There are many examples of this
1) Jochiam of Fiore submitted with docility to the judgment of Lateran IV after the Council solemnly condemned his errors.
2) Cornelius Jansen - from whom Jansenism is named - though he died before the heresy took root he did submit his writings to the Church with the wish to abide by her judgment.
3) The founder of Quietism submitted to the penance assigned to him by the Holy Office.
4) It is also said that Nestorius died in communion with the Catholic Church.
5) Pelagius also accepted the judgment of the Church eventually.
This is simply part of the developmental process on any question.
In the meantime, by acknowledging the Old Covenant and the salvific mystery behind it, the Jews can understand that Catholics have a deep appreciation for their spiritual heritage - even if it is yet unfulfilled without Christ. The Jews can only be evangelized through their Old Covenant. You cannot start any where else but with that.
On Christmas night 1998, John Cardinal O'Connor appeared on Nightline along with a young Catholic man who was converting to Judaism. Asked if the young man had Cardinal O'Connor's blessing, His Eminence replied: "Oh yes. Oh yes. He doesn't need it, but he has my blessing, if we're going to call it such, because that's what the Church teaches…. I would be keenly disappointed if there are Christians, and most particularly Catholics, who watch this at Christmas time and have animosity towards Stephen, towards what has happened. If they want to have animosity, I'd rather they have it toward me…. If they want to consider me wrong, that's fine. But I think that he is happy in his choice. I think that his mother is peaceful in his choice, and I think God is smiling on the whole thing."
Answer:
Well, the short answer is you cannot reconcile this with what the Church teaches. The Cardinal misspoke, and should not have said what he said. But what does this prove? That there are prelates in the Church who do not uphold the Catholic faith as they should, at times? Well, yes. But that has always been the case. Let's take a look at two past examples of how the little façade of neo-traditionalism has the same kind of problems.
Take the case of Archbishop John Carroll, the first bishop of the U.S. This is how Gerry Matatics describes the efforts of the Archbishop:
"The first bishop in this country was Archbishop Carroll. I have a big, fat book, The Life and Times of John Carroll. It's amazing the way he sold the Catholic Faith down the river just so Catholics could get along in a pluralistic, democratic society. I have come to see that the American Church was not as pure as I thought that it might have been at its best in this country." (http://www.catholicism.org/pages/matatic.htm>)
So how could this have happened? Why did not the Popes Pius VI and Pius VII reprimand this man? Why were there no rebukes, depositions!?! What a pair of dupes they were!
And then there is the case of Cardinal Spellman, the late archbishop of Boston. Now, he too is the frequent object of scornful derision and loathing by some of our neo-traditionalist friends. You can read about it in this exhibit. And guess who appointed Cardinal Spellman and did not ever offer one word of reproach against him during his entire pontificate? You guessed it...that supreme modernist himself...Pope Pius XII!
The point here is simply that THERE WILL ALWAYS BE things that we find objectionable and dangerous to the faith, and yes, there will be prelates that fail to protect what we believe to be the truth. But unless our neo-trad friends want to indict not only the Popes that I have mentioned for "failing to protect the faith", but a good part of the papacy before it, then there really is no reason to point the finger exclusively at "post Vatican II modernists." This is the reality of the Church. There will be good bishops; there will be bad ones, and there will be horrible ones. Learn it, accept it, live with it. That's part of the cross.
If you want to point the finger, then do it. But please, do not insult our intelligence by doing it selectively, pretending that the Church existed in Camelot for 1958 years. Anyone who has but a cursory understanding of how the episcopacy and its relationship with the papacy have developed over the centuries knows that such a representation is indeed a silly myth. The reason that Camelot works well for our neo-trad friends is quite simple. If they can establish Camelot as fact, then they can use it to inject us with the starch that makes many of them so stiff and bitter.
Funny though. I guess the late Cardinal O'Connor could not have been all that bad. One of the more prominent traditional Catholic Apologists sees fit to have the Cardinal endorse him. Why is that?
In late 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission released a book entitled The Jewish People and the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Bible, according to which the Jews' continued wait for the Messiah is validated and justified by the Old Testament. According to papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, speaking at a Vatican press conference, "It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew." The Good Friday liturgy was altered in 1974 in such a way that the previous prayer's supplication that the Jews be converted to Christ was almost completely obscured. The recent statement of the American bishops disavowing any missionary intent toward the Jews, and which was never corrected by Rome, hardly needs mentioning.
Answer: I have not read the book, so it's difficult to say. But I suspect that Dr. Woods has not either since he would have quoted directly from it instead of relying on a press conference remark. The rationale for the comment, however, is not totally without merit. It is an acknowledgement of the prophecy in Romans 11. The Messiah is, in fact, coming to save Israel. For a more thorough discussion on this issue, see my dialogue with Robert Sungenis.
In regards to the missionary activity towards the Jews, all men still need to be evangelized about Christ, who is the only way to the Truth. However, not all men could or even should experience missionary outreach with the same approach.
Challenge A: Show how any of this conforms to traditional Catholic teaching.
Answer: See above comments. Also, consider this pre-Vatican II "traditional" Commentary on Holy Scripture (Orchard Gen. Ed., 1953):
Romans 11: 25-32 The Present Exclusion of Israel from the Salvation of the Messias must not be regarded as final. From the present, 1-24, St. Paul turns his attention to the future. The time will come when the present problem of Israel's exclusion from the salvation of the Messias will cease to exist because of her conversion, which will follow upon the conversion of the Gentiles. The final conversion of Israel could not be known to St. Paul from any natural source. He himself calls it a mystery, 25, cf. Matthew 13:11, 1 Cor.2:7; Eph 3:3f. Nevertheless he does not claim a special revelation as the authority for his statement but argues the point. The reasons which he advances are taken (1) from the Scriptures (2) from Israel's history, (3) from the divine plan of salvation.
Not exactly what you would expect from a pre-Vatican II "traditional" commentary on the passage, is it? Or more to the point, perhaps "traditional" is really better defined as not so much what came before Vatican II, but more so reflective of a theology of entrenchment and insulationism.
Challenge B: Who is damaging the Church: the traditionalists stunned at these examples of cowardice and infidelity, or these churchmen themselves, who in effect withhold the means of salvation from an entire group of people, and who thereby alienate huge numbers of conservative Protestants who know apostasy when they see it?
Answer: On the contrary, it is the Church trying to accommodate groups of people by #1 being generous in its allowance in regards to form and #2 being faithful to Holy Scripture:
"For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery--so that you will not be wise in your own estimation--that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in and so all Israel will be saved..." (Romans 11:25-26)
Challenge #6: Roger Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles - the largest archdiocese in the United States - is a scandal in himself. His "vocations" office weeds out potentially sane candidates by asking their position on the ordination of women and making their decision on that basis. (Hint: they're in favour.) He is almost immeasurably more sympathetic to homosexual Catholics than he is to those who want to attend the traditional Mass. He spent nearly $200 million on a "cathedral" that constitutes an outright assault on the Catholic faith, and he has all but repudiated transubstantiation in a pastoral letter on the liturgy. He is deeply implicated in covering up for and promoting sexual deviants and criminals.
Challenge: Why is such a man not rebuked in any way - and, to the contrary, greeted with a warm letter of papal esteem on the occasion of the opening of his alleged cathedral (also praised by the Pope)? Before answering that "collegiality" and ecclesiastical decentralization must be observed, be prepared to explain why the mere procedural norm of collegiality is more important than the countless souls who will almost certainly be lost as a direct result of Cardinal Mahony's tenure.
Answer:
Here is one answer:
"For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden...What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory." (Romans 11:17-18, 22-23)
Here is a more pragmatic one:
Under the American system of government, politicians who win presidential nominations in their respective parties are basically playing a "winner take all" game. That is to say, there is usually no room for the loser in the administration of the winner. The winner chooses his administrative team, and the loser goes home or back to his old job as senator or governor. Under the British parliamentary system, however, the political realities are completely different. When the winner of the party's nomination wins the election, he usually bends over backwards to give the loser a very influential post in his cabinet - sometimes excessively so. This is done in order to maintain a sense of unity in the party and to heel wounds caused during the nomination campaign. If the Prime Minister were to cut off his chief rival from his appointed post in the government, then this act could have long lasting and tragic consequences for the party and its future success in getting elected.
Now how is this applicable to this situation with Mahony? Well, while it is true that the Church is not a political organization, there are obviously certain political elements that always come into play in the affairs of men. The Pope's main concern, above all else, is the salvation of souls. Now, how is this to be accomplished? One way is to cut off Mahony and the whole putrefying, stinking lot. This is one way. It is the way of Lamech:
Lamech said to his wives,
"Adah and Zillah,
Listen to my voice,
You wives of Lamech,
Give heed to my speech,
For I have killed a man for wounding me;
And a boy for striking me..." (Genesis 4:23)
This is the way of the world: "bruise me and I'll kick the living crap out of you." This is the approach that some "loyal" Catholics would prefer. But this is not the way of Jesus Christ. It is not the way of mercy. And when we are before the judgement throne of God, only the very stupid and arrogant will choose to approach the Son of God demanding justice instead of begging for mercy. This is what the Pope is trying to tell humanity today: we need more mercy and not less. Because, as Catholics, we believe the Church is divine and that God works through the Church sacramentally and directly, those within Her Sacred bosom are infinitely better prepared to receive the graces of repentance than if they were deposed and banished from Her presence.
The Holy Father is using his office to evangelize these poor and miserable wretches from within the Church. And He has a much better chance of success if they remain within the Church than if they leave her or if they are forced out. In fact, John Paul II is engaging our culture and the Church the way that Our Lord did: not through thuggery but through respect, patience, and mercy. And not just any kind of mercy, but a supernatural kind. (Let's face it. Natural mercy would hardly cut it in the case of some bishops.) Thuggery might have worked in the middle ages (and then not really since that is a myth), but it works even less with modern man. And modern man, like it or not, is the object of our evangelization efforts. He expects respect for his views, and in order to win his allegiance to the gospel, legislative imperialism (like war) is the last resort to be employed. In many cases, it signals defeat for the one who must employ it. And, in my opinion, the Church should never admit defeat. The intellectual and salvific stakes are much too high.
It is a marriage of sorts. Faithful Catholics are not the only ones suffering. The dissenters are not having a great time either. They are fighting against God's church and will always end in defeat, and what is worse, they will always be identified with the Pope as their spiritual leader. For them, that must be a living hell and prison. That is why, in a sense, we don't want to let the "little bird" out of the cage. Inside the Church, they are still going to be confronted with the fact that the official teaching of the Church is everything they are against.
So where has the Pope placed his bets? On the fact that there are probably very few dim-witted people in the Church to be fooled by prelates like Mahony. Keep the stinking puss in the Church, pray that the salt of the earth does its job by rubbing out the cancerous growth and thereby save the limb. Wishful thinking? Not really:
"But where sin increased, grace increased all the more..." (Romans 5:20)
If the laity start living the Catholic Faith and challenging the culture, the salt in the Body of Christ, instead of being attacked by the cancerous cells, will start to reverse the process and heal the wound. In that situation, the territory of conquest for the modernist becomes an unbearable prison. The only way out for him is to choose to leave the body himself.
The devil, of course, has his own designs. He preys on those easily bruised - the Lamechs among us like the SSPX, for instance. Unlike his shrewd modernist counterparts, Lefebvre let the Devil push him out of influence with the Church. Fool. And now, instead of being a purifying rod within the Church burning the rot within Her, we must endure the modernist cancer a little longer. All because he didn't want to play by the rules, and obey legitimate authority.
Exploiting our fallen nature and turning the salt away from attacking the cancer, Satan has turned it instead against the body. As this salt starts to attack the body, it becomes the new cancer.
Challenge #7: Garry Wills, now a well-known dissenter, in his recent book Why I Am a Catholic, has almost nothing kind to say about the Church, but he positively adores the Second Vatican Council. For that matter, so do all "progressives."
Challenge: Why is that?
Answer: For the same reason, I suppose, that the good ol' boys over at Bob Jones University think that Scriptures clearly reveal that the Pope is the whore of Babylon. Delusion has never been in short supply in the economy of religion. Sobriety, on the other hand, has always been a very rare commodity.
Challenge #8: Why do James Likoudis and CUF remain silent about all of these scandals, thereby allowing them to continue taking their course, but accuse traditionalists of "damaging the Church" for simply pointing out what is going on?
Answer: Because, like St. Francis de Sales said: "there is only one thing worse than giving scandal, and that is accepting it." There are no shortage of religio-political pundits dutifully informing us of each sexually titilating detail of a perverse faction of the Western church. And some, like the media and the extreme factions of the Church, seek to exploit the problem in order to position themselves as "saviours" of Her. The left says: "It's celibacy! It's an all-male priesthood! It's sexual repression in the Catholic Church!" The right sing a different tune: "It's Vatican II! It's ecumenism! It's the 'Song of Music'!"
Two thousand years ago, Christ was thrown on the cross, his arms pinned down, and his hands bolted down by two men. One man pierced His hand on the right side. The other did it on the left. And ya' know what? Nothing has changed today.
I say, leave the Mahonians right where they are.
Let the dead bury their dead.
John Pacheco
The Catholic Legate
April 5, 2003
1) Why did Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre sign Dignitas Humanae?
2) The Ignatian principal of charitable interpretation binds Catholics to assign a positive and charitable understanding to another Catholic's statements. How is this principle active in your camp's attitude and disposition towards the Vatican in general and the Holy Father in particular?
3) Since your faction has a marked abhorrence for "novelty", please name one Ecumenical Council (other than Vatican II) whose decrees are still open for debate by loyal Catholics? If you cannot name one, explain to me how your negative opinion of the 21st Ecumenical Council is not simply special pleading, or, alternatively, how your position would not be novel in light of the history of past heretical groups' and their rejection of Ecumenical Councils' decrees?
4) Pope Gregory VII made the following statement to Muslim King Anazir of Maurentania:
"We and you must show in a special way to the other nations an example of this charity, for we believe and confess one God, although in different ways. Many of the Roman nobility, informed by us of this grace granted to you by God, greatly admire your goodness and virtues." [St. Gregory VII, Letter III, 21 to Anazir (Al-Nasir), King of Mauretania PL, 148. 451A.]
Do you agree with this statement, and if not, please explain why you are against assenting to Tradition.
5) Dignitas Humanae defines religious freedom as "immunity from coercion in civil society". (DH,1)
Do you agree with this definition of religious freedom as defined by the decree? If not, do you believe that any form of coercion is a valid means of evangelization? If you do, first, please cite the Magisterial or Patristic evidence for your belief, and second, reconcile this with Jesus' approach to evangelization as recorded in the Gospels.
6) The Dogmatic Constitution of the Church states: "Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated." (LG, 25)
a) How does your camp tangibly and manifestly give "sincere assent...to decisions made by [the Pope], conformably with his manifest mind and intention..."?
b) Outside of recognizing his office and a possible solemn definition, how is your relationship with the current Magisterium of the Catholic Church substantially different from any host of denominations within Protestantism?
7) The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation states: "But the task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the Word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit; it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." (DV, 10)
From a Neo-Tradionalist stand point, demonstrate how this living teaching office "explains the Word of God faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit."
8) a) Please explain the rationale for indicting the post conciliar Popes for failing to consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart, but giving a pass to the pre-Vatican II popes (Benedict XV, Pope Pius XI, and Pope Pius XII) for failing to do so.
b) Pope John Paul II has been
involved with Fatima more than any other Pope (i.e. visiting
Fatima on many occasions, attributing his survival of an
assassination attempt to Our Lady of Fatima, and, in Sr. Lucia's
opinion, consecrating Russia to Mary's immaculate heart). In
light of this, please explain why he is the proverbial whipping
boy of the Fatima-cult crowd when he, more than any other Pope,
has shown his devotion to Fatima?