Thursday, September 08, 2016

Canon 212 is IMPORTANT

Image result for church council

Canon 212 is important:
"Christ's faithful have the right, and, indeed, sometimes the duty, according to their knowledge, competence, and dignity, to manifest to Sacred Shepherds their judgement about those things which pertain to the good of the Church".

This is one of the chief roles of members of the Sacred College of Cardinal with regards to the Pope. It is often the onerous duty of bishops, presbyters and deacons and the lay faithful too. For priests it is one of the images of Lumen Gentium, them gathering as co-workers with the bishop, not in the sense of a bishop lording it over his priests but working with them, for deacons there are all those patristic texts about being the bishops eyes and ears. What we are not supposed to do is be silent. A silent Church is either dead or fearful.

The good Fr Hunwicke has an important post about an important issue here. I too have heard about pressure being put on individuals to shut up and stop asking embarrassing questions. This kind of bullying is not good for Christ's Church. Telling people to hold their tongues, whether it is about the debate Cardinal Sarah tried to start (in fact started by Joseph Ratzinger) about the orientation of worship, or that letter of 13 Cardinals to the Pope during the Synod, or the book Remaining in the Truth by 10 Cardinals which Cardinal Baldissieri intercepted rather allowing it reach Synod participants or the 500 priests supporting the Church's traditional view on marriage, or the issue Fr John raises, now about intimidation of the 45 theologians and pastors who wrote the letter to Cardinals and Patriarchs asking for clarification of certain aspects of the otherwise beautiful Amoris Laetitia.

Intimidation can work on several levels from the Mafia boss who sends messages saying, "I know where you live", to someone threatening to deprive someone of their living or home, all too easy in the Church. It is especially worrying when the downright heretical are give free range and those who defend what has always, and everywhere and at all times been held as being the Catholic faith are treated with violence. This is not mercy, this is violence in action, so very much at odds with the doctrine of our Holy Father.


Ana Milan said...

As you say, this is violence in action, but I doubt that those responsible would attempt it without the knowledge & consent of PF. Someone knows who it is but again silence enables them to continue in their wickedness. Is there no individual worthy of the title Cardinal to stand up & be counted for Christ? What does it matter if he loses his job - the CC is adrift anyway & it can only get worse. According to Bishop Fellay there are a number of Cardinals supposedly on their side but it is difficult to accept this statement when nothing is being done to stop the heresies of this Papacy. Will Catholics ever be able to trust in their leadership again?

Jacobi said...

“ and the lay faithful too “

I wish it were otherwise. There was a time when we laity, in our naivete, supposed we could leave all that to the “Church”. Not any more.

With an “oldie” like me Father I suppose it doesn't matter all that much. Raised eyes and a ready laugh from the PC priest and a certain backing away by the heterodox, but it will be difficult for those like you.

Sadly, nowadays, Catholics have to consider carefully all that comes from “ the Church”.

Apologies regarding the quotation marks.

Fr Ray Blake said...

Ana, I think many liuetenants go beyond what their boss says, I doubt there is evidence to suggest HH supports such violent abusive behaviour, on the contrary everything he says would repudiate it.
As for Cardinals, they only have to wait and work behind the scenes, perhaps some support both sides. As we saw in the Syynod the intellectual or spiritual standard can be quite low.


Nicolas Bellord said...

Do I detect a slight change of tone at the top? Let us keep praying.

pjotr said...

Dr. Fr. Ray,you are absolutely right that canon 212 is important. But what's the use when serious people - the 13 cardinals who wrote a letter, the 45 theologians/philosophers who asked clarification, Dr. Josef Seifert who did the same, bishop Athanasius Schneider, prof. Spearmann, etc. - are almost begging the pope for clarification to avoid a general confusion and the pope simply refuses to respond. I will not judge the pope, but this attitude only fosters frustration. Who will instil pope Francis that a right, given bij canon 212, corresponds with an obligation to take this right seriously and to respond?
Fr. Peter Klos, The Netherlands.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I spoke too soon. Over on Regina Coeli it is said that the Buenos Aires Bishops have interpreted Amoris Laetitia as allowing adultery in certain cases. Further it is claimed that Pope Francis has given enthusiastic indorsement to that stance. The evidence for this looks strong with copies of original documents. This requires calm and careful consideration but I fear the Rubicon has been crossed.

Pelerin said...

Once not so very long ago it was the case of 'These are the rules - do your best to follow them - if you fail then have recourse to the confessional and make a firm purpose of amendment to change your ways'

Is it a case now of 'These are the rules - do your best to follow them but if you find them TOO difficult for your circumstances then don't worry - just carry on regardless?'

Liam Ronan said...

"Mafia bosses", when they wish to dispose of a problem, invariably summon their capos and instruct them, out of ear-shot and never through a form of communication where their exact instructions might be recorded for later use against them:

"I gotta a stone in my shoe and I wanna know who's gonna get rid of it for me."

All in all very clear and precise instructions to the capos while keeping the boss untouchable. In the States there was a mafiosi boss, John Gotti, who was given the moniker "The Teflon Don".

Liam Ronan said...

I should add, in the interests of the fuller picture, that "The Teflon Don" was ultimately charged with and convicted of his crimes and died in prison following one of the Don's chief capos, I.e. Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano, turning State's evidence against his don in order for Gravano to avoid being prosecuted himself.

Naturally, Gravano (and his family)had to spend the greater part of the remainder of their lives thereafter in a Witness Protection program.