Cardinal Wuerl has released his reflections on the Pope's exhortation and has laid out a pastoral plan for his archdiocese. In it there are some points I had not noticed before that deserve to be highlighted:
Naturally, if someone flaunts an objective sin as if it were part of the Christian ideal, or wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches, he or she can in no way presume to teach or preach to others; this is a case of something which separates from the community (cf. Matthew 18:17). Such a person needs to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion. Yet even for that person there can be some way of taking part in the life of community, whether in social service, prayer meetings or another way that his or her own initiative, together with the discernment of the parish priest, may suggest” (AL, 297).
Here we see Pope Francis qualifying his previous remark, that divorced and remarried people, cohabiting people, and same-sex attracted people should be accompanied somehow into the life of the parish. He is not wholesale clobbering objectivity, simply asking for a more merciful approach.
Nota bene especially the assumption on the part of the Holy Father that anyone who dissents from the Church's teaching would be willing to a.) practice discernment and b.) practice discernment together with the parish priest!
Having been raised in a parish run by dissenters, I find his naivete on this matter astonishing. Those who dissent from the teaching of the Church want nothing other than to impose their viewpoint and lecture orthodox Catholics about the merit of their flaunting doctrine.
What if the parish priest wants to impose something other than what the Church teaches? I was raised in a parish where self-intinction was normative and justified by the pastor. Pope Francis assumes that the ones dissenting would be in the minority, but what if the dissenters are running the parish, the diocesan chancery, and the USCCB? What if the ones making lio are the ones desiring proper ritual? Should they be in discernment with their parish priest over his need to listen once more to the Gospel message and its call to conversion?
Yet, the underlying moral principle which should inform both that personal discernment and the priest’s ministry is that a person whose situation in life is objectively contrary to moral teaching can still love and grow in the faith, he or she can still take steps in the right direction and benefit from God’s mercy and grace while receiving the assistance of the Church (AL, 305).Pope Francis believes that the person struggling to remain true to their faith is in the pew and not in the sacristy. I have seen a parish hold itself together in spite of the sins of its pastor. They had to muster themselves and many have pulled away. But if the pastor's situation in life is objectively contrary to the moral teaching, what then?
Cardinal Wuerl says that, "Our parishes, as the place where people most experience the life of the Church, must be places of welcome, where everyone is invited, particularly anyone who might be disillusioned or disaffected by contemporary society or even by our faith community."
But if the faith community caused the disillusionment, why would the person accept the invite? There is a cognitive disconnect at play in the Cardinal's words. How can we be a place of welcome to people who do not welcome our invitation...?
Pg.28-29 gets to a point I have been making for some time now. We have to stop greeting earnest couples seeking marriage prep with canon law and paperwork. We have to stop asking about parish registration when someone seeks baptism or a funeral, especially when canon law defines a parishioner as any baptized person within the territorial boundary. We have to abandon our uniquely American focus on registered parishioners. But that requires changes in diocesan policy.
What if the chancery staff are the cause of one's disillusionment? What then?
Pg.36 begins a list of what are described as irregular situations or special circumstances: Immigrant families, families in the military, families with members with special needs, who are interfaith, divorced, or who have same-sex attraction. I don't understand why these families are not simply just families- why box them in a label? Isn't that in itself being judgmental? Or does it instead reveal an unspoken norm for defining what family means. Norms are norms for a reason, and while we should be pastorally considerate of the exceptions, we should hesitate to make exceptions the rule in policy.
Finally the document says, "There is always the temptation simply to announce doctrinal points as if this were the same as engaging in pastoral ministry with persons who are discerning how they can appropriate the teaching." Again, the assumption seems to be that the person in discernment is a.) in discernment rather than outright dissent and b.) wants to appropriate the teaching.
What would the apostolic missionaries of times past say to that claim? Patrick denounced Druid worship, Boniface chopped down the pagan tree, and Methodius wrote a Slavic language for the purpose of announcing doctrinal points. Engagement did not make the Huron response less bloody for Brebeuf. At some point, you risk all for doctrine. We seem unwilling to confront the tide of secularism with bold measures. Milquetoast hasn't worked for decades now, so why does Cardinal Wuerl insist upon it?
Pope Francis also seems stuck in the past, still railing against sour-faced conservatism, unaware that doctrinal liberalism is in its ascendancy, and that is much more souring.
I am not the only one with concerns:
https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2018/03/05/a-demur-on-the-aow-document-implementing-amoris-laetitia/
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/evangelii-gaudium-a-key-to-understanding-francis-papacy
Speaking of the ascendancy of dissent:
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/meet-the-theologians-of-the-new-paradigm
No comments:
Post a Comment