T -129: “Theology” as the Work of Human Hands

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, Benedict XVI, Bergoglian/Kasperian "hate theology done on the knees", Bergoglio, card. Baldisarri, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Reinhard "Bling" Marx, Cardinal Sarah, Catholic Church, communism, corrupt information, corruption, Edward Pentin, FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, Francis church, German Bishops' Conference, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, hippies, homosexuality, intrinsic disorder, Intrinsically Immoral, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Kirchensteuer, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, National Catholic Register, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Peoples Liberation Front of Judea, Polls, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Rev. Fr. Eberhard Schockenhoff, Roman Curia, Secret Synod 2014, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Synod of Bishops 2015, Tags "the new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II, Team Bergoglio, Tradition, Vatican, Vatican II

The below post appeared on the Rorate Caeli blog. (see here) The subject matter is of critical significance since this latest iteration of the “NOUVELLE THEOLOGIE” for the lack of a better term, of the Rev. Schockenhoff  serves as the “philosophical” underpinning for what this blog terms the Bergoglian/Kasperian “theology done on the knees”.

What is most important to understand when reading the below is that the degeneration of what can be termed “post neo-modernist theology” has gotten to the point where its adherents aren’t even hiding the fact that this “theology” directly contradicts man’s knowledge of his Creator as known through “divine revelation”. (see here) The key takeaway is the following observation made by the author of this text: [with ed. notes]

He [Schockenhoff] makes no attempt to square this bizarre fantasy [his “theology”] with the words of our Lord in Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”

In concluding, what we are a witness to on the one hand, is incontrovertible evidence that this “neo-modernist theology” has detached itself from even a superficial attempt to justify itself with respect to that part of the Catholic Faith that comes to us “as known through “divine revelation”.

On the other hand, we are also witnessing incontrovertible evidence of the incompatibility of this “neo-modernist theology” with our knowledge of God as known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made”, ie. natural law, evidence that we can observe in the attempt to change Catholic doctrine with respect to the issue of aberro-sexulaity by TeamFrancis at the Synod of Bishops.

In other words, this latest iteration of this “post neo-modernist theology” designated on this blog as the Bergoglian/Kasperian “theology done on the knees” is completely contrived. It bears no content that is grounded in the Catholic understanding of either of the two sources of Catholic Faith, i.e. as known through “natural light of human reason from the things that are made” and as known through “divine revelation”. Furthermore, this latest version of “post neo-modernist theology” has degenerated to the point where its “inventors” can’t even hide this fact any longer.

On a higher level, what we now can observe is that during the short span of 50 years, the Catholic Church has gone from introducing a liturgy which was the “work of human hands” (see here), to attempting now to introduce a “theology” that is likewise the “work of human hands”. One can only understand this process of “normativization” as a logical progression.

Which raises one very important question for the Faithful, and that is this:

How much salvific value is contained in this Bergoglian/Kasperian theology done on the knees”… if any?

And now to the Rorate Caeli post and …

FOR THE RECORD

The Neo-Modernist Theology of Eberhard Schockenhoff

According to Edward Pentin, “the ‘mastermind’ behind much of the challenge to settled Church teachings among the German episcopate,” and “the leading adviser of the German bishops in the run-up to the synod” is Fr. Eberhard Schockenhoff, professor of moral theology at the University of Freiburg, about whom we have had occasion to report in the past. It is a sign of the state of theology in the German speaking world that Fr. Schockenhoff is considered a theological “moderate.” He is careful to quote the Fathers and Doctors of the Church to support his positions, and always makes a show of respect for magisterial teaching. This is probably the reason why the German bishops have chosen him, and not one of his more extreme colleagues to help them make the case for changing the unchangeable teachings of the Church on sexual morality.

Fr. Schockenhoff’s moderation is, of course, only a matter of style; an examination of his work shows him to be a dedicated neo-modernist. He lays out the fundamental principles of his theology in a remarkably clear and short book, Erlöste Freiheit [Redeemed Freedom], to which we refer in the page and section numbers bellow.

The fundamental principle of Schockenhoff’s theology is a certain understanding of revelation. According to Schockenhoff’s tendentious reading of Dei Verbum (which follows that of Max Seckler), Vatican II abandoned the traditional understanding of revelation as divine instruction and adopted a new understanding of revelation as “dialogical-communication” between God and man. This dialogical communication is a personal encounter with God, in which God communicates not truths that could be expressed in propositions, but rather simply His love. This entails a clear rejection of the definition of faith in Pope St. Pius X’s Oath Against Modernism: “a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source.” For Schockenhoff, faith is not assent to propositional truths proposed from without, but rather a personal encounter with God’s love

From this basic principle Schockenhoff draws some rather astonishing consequences. He argues that God’s dialogue of love with creatures implies a limitation of God’s omnipotence. God in creating free creatures to share His love allows Himself to be determined by human freedom (p. 54). This frankly blasphemous conclusion is part of a complete reworking of the relation between three terms that Schockenhoff takes to be the “fundamental values of Christianity”: freedom, truth, and love. He argues that abandoning the traditional understanding of revelation as divine instruction means that one can abandon the traditional idea that freedom and love both depend on truth (p.42). Instead, freedom and truth have to accompany each other:

The interior relation to the freedom of the subject follows necessarily from the epistemic presuppositions of revelation theory. Religious truth exists only concretely as the freely grasped subjective conviction of individual persons, and not as an abstract quantity, toward which the human person could have moral duties such as assent, acknowledgement, and obedience. (p. 44).

Thus religious truth takes on a particular personal form for each believer (p. 45).

The moral life on this account does not consists in ordering everything to God as final end, and thus in conforming to God’s will. Rather the moral life is a free dialogue of love with God, in which human persons freely cooperate in building up His creation (p.97). It is obvious that this approach can do away with the whole structure of traditional Christian morality. Moreover, Schockenhoff is quite clear that it excludes the traditional understanding of a great many doctrines of faith as well. Thus Schockenhoff explicitly states that his theology is not compatible with the teaching that Our Lord died in satisfaction for our sins (p. 58).

The case of Schockenhoff shows that present crisis is only superficially about sexual morality. The real issue is the nature of revelation and of faith. The fundamental problem with theologians such as Schockenhoff is a neo-modernist understanding of revelation. We are thus in full agreement with the insightful analysis recently offered at the traditionalist blog Laodicea:

Most of the particular controversies that have devastated the vineyard over the last hundred years are corollaries of the basic dispute, proxy wars for the real conflict. The basic question is this: is faith “a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality” or is faith “a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source”?

As a kind of test to see how someone understands faith Laodicea offers the question as to whether explicit faith is necessary for salvation:

“can someone be justified after the age of reason without explicit faith in the Trinity and the Incarnation?” If you answer ‘yes’ to that question you are ultimately forced into accepting Modernism, if ‘no’ into rejecting it.

If one applies this test to Schockenhoff the result is entirely clear. In his discussion of eschatology, Schockenhoff argues that universal salvation is possible, but that God will make it depend on whether the victims of injustice freely choose to forgive those who harmed them. Only if the victims forgive will all men be saved (section 14.3). He makes no attempt to square this bizarre fantasy with the words of our Lord in Mark 16:16: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.”

T -131: Filling in the Blanks for Francis

Tags

ABERRO AGENDA, Benedict XVI, Bergoglian/Kasperian "hate theology done on the knees", Bergoglio, card. Baldisarri, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Reinhard "Bling" Marx, Cardinal Sarah, Catholic Church, communism, corrupt information, corruption, David Gibson, Edward Pentin, FAMILIARIS CONSORTIO, Francis church, German Bishops' Conference, Glastnost, Great Cardinal, heretical pope, hippies, homosexuality, intrinsic disorder, Intrinsically Immoral, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, Kirchensteuer, Life Site News blog, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, National Catholic Register, Neo-Pagan, new springtime, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Peoples Liberation Front of Judea, Polls, Pope Francis, Raymond Burke, Roman Curia, Secret Synod 2014, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Synod of Bishops 2015, Tags "the new springtime of the spirit of Vatican II, Team Bergoglio, TeamBergoglio, Tradition, Vatican, Vatican II

Today we return to the theme of the HIDDEN AGENDA that was behind Francis’ calling of the “bi-synod” after the Consistory of Cardinals in 2014, i.e. the Secret Synod of 2014 and the Stealth Sex Synod this year.

We have demonstrated in numerous posts that the real reason for calling this synod was to change the Catholic teaching with respect to aberro-sexuality. We last summarized our argument in the post titled So It Was The Homo Agenda All Along. (see here) In this post, we highlighted the National Catholic Register article written by Edward Pentin relating the “closed-door meeting, masterminded by the German bishops’ conference under the leadership of Cardinal Marx”, and the almost exclusive focus of this one “study day” on changing Catholic teaching on aberro-sexuality.

In a subsequent post titled HIDDEN AGENDA Comes Out of the Closet, (see here) we explained how the promoters of the aberro-sexual have been “outed” and are now speaking about the ABERRO AGENDA openly. The money quote from the Pentin article was as follows:

Many observers have long expected Cardinal Kasper’s more explicit public support for the homosexual agenda, saying that the “opening” toward “remarried” couples was only the first step toward the widening of the revolutionary agenda, to include approval of same-sex relationships.

And this is where we pick up this thread today.

However, there is one problem with the above quote. The problem with the above quote is that it appears to limit the “revolutionary agenda” to the “opening toward married couples” and “same-sex relationships”.

The problem with this understanding of the “revolutionary agenda” is deceptive. In our post titled Francis “Showing a Leg”, (see here)  we explained why the issues relating to the “communion for the divorced and remarried” is a fake issue, or as we called it a “non issue”. It was introduced into the Secret Synod of 2014 deliberations to tie the HIDDEN AGENDA at the synod to “the Family”.

The important information that the above cited paragraph from Edward Pentin provides is that it confirms our analysis that the “opening” toward “remarried” couples” was a ploy and served as a transition mechanism through which the Secret Synod would introduce the ABERRO AGENDA. Once again the relevant passage reads: “opening” toward “remarried” couples was only the first step toward the widening of the revolutionary agenda, to include approval of same-sex relationships”.

And once again, this above confirms our analysis that appeared in our post titled Synod of the Three Paragraphs from the 18th of December 2014. (see here) This is how we concluded this analysis:

For those who have been following this thread, it is very apparent by now that the Secret Synod was called not to discuss issues concerning “The Family”, but rather had a hidden agenda to try to change the teaching on the “objectively intrinsically disordered” human condition of homosexuality.

A further confirmation of the correctness of our analysis came from none other than Francis, the bishop of Rome himself. On the 20 of March 2015, Francis made the following statement:

Francis called it a simplification to give people in such unions [Ed. Note: divorced and remarried] Communion because with that “we are not fixing anything.” He added, “What the church wants is for you to integrate your life into the life of the Church.”

“There are some who say: ‘No, I wish to take communion and that’s that.’” But the pope characterized this as making Communion a symbol or an honorific. To which he retorts, “No. Reintegrate.”

So from an objective reading of what Francis said, this would be consistent with Francis’ position all along, i.e. that he is against a doctrinal change in Catholic teaching with respect to the Holy Sacrament of Communion. To be more specific, Francis’ position is a “pastoral position” on this issue, as per Sandro Magister, is as follows:(see here)

On communion for the divorced and remarried, it is already known how the pope thinks. As archbishop of Buenos Aires, he authorized the “curas villeros,” the priests sent to the peripheries, to give communion to all, although four fifths of the couples were not even married. And as pope, by telephone or letter he is not afraid of encouraging some of the faithful who have remarried to receive communion without worrying about it, right away, even without those “penitential paths under the guidance of the diocesan bishop” projected by some at the synod, and without issuing any denials when the news of his actions comes out.

So this is the state of play on the issue of communion for the divorced and remarried. Just to recap, Francis is for and against at the same time, i.e. voting present.

As to the ABERRO AGENDA, we have some new developments. Actually, it is ONE development, but a rather important one. In an interview published on the Life Site News blog, (see here) Cardinal Robert Sarah, the prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments had this to say about the HIDDEN AGENDA that is being promoted under the banner of the Bergoglian/Kasperian “theology done on the knees” at the Synod of Bishops:

Regarding the Synod’s General Assembly in October 2014, the cardinal said, “It was clear that the real focus was not and is not only the question of the remarried-divorced persons, but, whether the doctrine of the Church is to be considered as an unattainable ideal, unachievable and therefore in need of a downward adjustment to be proposed to today’s modern world. If things are like this then it necessarily requires a clarification if the Gospel is Good News for man or an unnecessary burden which is no longer possible.”

What the good Cardinal is saying is that there in fact was and still is a HIDDEN AGENDA at play. Secondly, if this HIDDEN AGENDA is to be accepted by the Catholic Church, “necessarily […]a clarification if the Gospel” is required. And we know that this position is a non starter. Regardless of what was written in the Lineamenta.

Reading further, it appears that this was not the most important part of the interview. In the following paragraph, we read the following:

In answer to which ideologies to fight against today, the Cardinal unmasked the deceit and lack of true love behind them. “Today one of the most dangerous ideologies is that of gender, according to which there are no ontological differences between man and woman, and the male and female identity would not be written in nature. … To say that human sexuality does not depend on the identity of man and woman, but a sexual orientation, such as homosexuality, is a dreamlike totalitarianism, and is a real ideology which negates the reality of things. … I don’t see a future in such deceit.”

For our purposes here, the key point is that Cardinal Sarah ties homosexuality to the gender ideology.

This above paragraph is very important for two reasons, namely that TEAMFRANCIS at the Secret Synod of 2014 has been trying to introduce the change in Catholic moral teaching pertaining to homosexuality as an extension of “opening” toward “remarried” couples was only the first step toward the widening of the revolutionary agenda, to include approval of same-sex relationships, i.e. an issue of the “Family”.

Yet Cardinal Sarah clearly and poignantly places the promotion of the homosexual agenda not in the category of “the Family”, but rather into the category of the gender ideology. Once again:

In answer to which ideologies to fight against today, the Cardinal unmasked the deceit and lack of true love behind them. “Today one of the most dangerous ideologies is that of gender, […] such as homosexuality…

It does not get any clearer than the words of Cardinal Sarah that homosexuality IS an integral part, i.e. a subset of the gender ideology.

Furthermore, Cardinal Sarah has a large supporter of his position regarding gender ideology. It has been widely reported that over the span of the last few months, Francis has been observed to criticize gender ideology. Here is the relevant passage from the National Catholic Reporter titled Francis strongly criticizes gender theory, comparing it to nuclear arms. In the article, Francis is quoted as saying the following: (see here)

“Let’s think of the nuclear arms, of the possibility to annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings,” he continues. “Let’s think also of genetic manipulation, of the manipulation of life, or of the gender theory, that does not recognize the order of creation.”

I will leave of here for today, but the proximity of nuclear arms and gender ideology in this speech leaves little doubt as Francis’ public position on these two topics.

So concluding, the obvious point that needs to be made here is to ask the following question:

How can someone (Francis) who views “gender ideology” as the equivalent of “nuclear arms” that can “annihilate in a few instants a very high number of human beings”

and

simultaneously can promote the “homosexual agenda” by personally implanting the offending paragraphs rejected by the Synod Bishops regarding the “homosexual agenda” into the final Relatio and then instructing the synod bishops to disregard “doctrinal solutions” in the Leneamenta?

The only rational explanation to the above conundrum is that Francis does not understand that homosexuality is a part of gender ideology.

And if this is the case, then Cardinal Robert Sarah has just filled in the blanks for Francis.

T -149: Theological Structuring? Francis Don’t Need No Stinking Theological Structuring!

Tags

"theological structuring", Andrea Gagliarducci, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Muller, Catholic Church, Edward Pentin, Eponymous Flower, Evangelii gaudium, Francis church, heretical pope, hippies, Holy Office, Immemorial Mass of All Ages, Jack Tollers, Jesuits, Joseph Ratzinger, messeging, Modernists, MondayVatican blog, MSM, narratives, Neo-Pagan, One Peter Five Blog, optics, Pagan Christians, pathological, Pope Francis, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, puppet monarch, Raymond Burke, Robert Spaemann, Roman Curia, Rorate Caeli, Sandro Magister, Secret Synod 2015, Sensus Fidelium, spirit of Vatican II, subversives, Summorum Pontificum, Synod 2014, The Radical Catholic blog, TLM, Tradition, Universal Church, Vatican, Vatican II

Today we will delve into the topic of “theological structuring” since it has become quite the hot topic and much in the news lately. To be more precise, there have been a number of developments in this new and exciting, not to mention previously unheard of discipline of neo-modernist theology, developments that this blog would like to run through its Peirce/Ockham pragmatic methodological framework. (see here)

But before we get into the subject matter, a short introduction is in order. If you dear reader will recall from our Man Marking Marx series, the term “man marking” is an English soccer expression that means to stay close to a “specific opponent to hamper his play”. So today, the Deus Ex Machina blog will pick up and be man marking Victor Manuel Fernandez, the titular Archbishop of Tiburnia and the President of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina. And coincidentally, the ghost writer for the former archbishop of Buenos Aires and the present bishop of Rome.

The logical place, for the purposes of this post is to begin with the interview that Cardinal Gerhard Muller, the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) gave to the French Catholic newspaper La Croix. The Vatican Insider provides us with the relevant passage: (see here) [emphasis added]

“The arrival of a theologian like Benedict XVI in the Chair of St. Peter was no doubt an exception. But John XXIII was not a professional theologian. Pope Francis is also more pastoral and our mission at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to provide the theological structure of a pontificate.” So according to Müller’s statement, the former Holy Office must “theologically structure” Pope Francis’ pontificate. And this is probably the reason why the Prefect gives public statements on such a frequent basis, like never before.

So the above words of Card. Muller were the genesis of the function of “theological structuring of a pontificate”, a new and exciting novelty theological area of FrancisChurch and a task “on-boarded” at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The Vatican Insider observed the following:

In one of the numerous interviews he has given over the past few weeks focusing on the next Synod, Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, spoke about a new task for his dicastery. It is a task that is never been mentioned in the documents outlining the precise competencies of the former Holy Office.

So this was the state of play until the 10th of May 2015. It was on this day that the Universal Church was notified that not everyone within the FrancisChurch hierarchy is happy with “theological structuring” of the Francis pontificate. Actually, Francis himself might not be happy with this new development brought about by the organic (?) evolution of post VII doctrine. The notifying party was none other than the titular Archbishop of Tiburnia and the President of the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina, Victor Manuel Fernandez.  Here is how Archbishop Fernandez explained the position of FrancisChurch with respect to “theological structuring” of the Francis papacy via the Radical Catholic blog: (see here)

I have read that some say that the Roman Curia is an essential part of the mission of the Church, or that a Prefect in the Vatican is the sure compass preventing the Church from falling into ignominy, or that this Prefect guarantees the unity of the Faith and facilitates serious theology from the Pope. But Catholics know from reading the Gospel that it was to the Pope and the Bishops that Christ granted a special governance and enlightenment – and not to a Prefect or some other structure. When one hears such things, one could almost get the impression that the Pope is merely their representative, or one who has come to disturb and must, therefore, be monitored. […] The Pope is convinced that what he has written or said cannot be treated as an error. Therefore, all these things can be repeated in the future, without having to fear receiving a sanction for it.

So there you have it. Follow-up question is what do you do with a paragraph like this?

It is here that a methodological approach, such as through the Peirce/Ockham pragmatic framework becomes indispensable. Therefore, let’s start separating the wheat from the chaff, shall we?

I will leave the completely ridiculous and absurd assertion that whatever musings come out of the mouth of the bishop of Rome is equivalent to the “written Word”,  for another post or two where I can do it justice. However, I will once again provide you dear reader to the link of the interview with Senor Jack Tollers that quite neatly, explains the state of Argentinean theology and by extension a couple products of this “theological school”. Remember, Occam’s razor posits that “With all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one”.

The issue I want to address in this post is the “Francis don’t need no stinking theological structuring” part. And in this respect, what Archbishop Fernandez claims to be the case, i.e. that “it was to the Pope and the Bishops that Christ granted a special governance and enlightenment – and not to a Prefect or some other structure”, is a TRUE statement.

To support this assertion, we go over to the VASSALLO MALTA blog, where this exact question as put to Fr. Benoît-Dominique de La Soujeole, OP, a Dominican of the Province of Toulouse, France. Since 1992 he has been a member of the editorial board of authoritative journal La Revue thomiste de philosophie e de théologie. Since 1999 he has held the title of Professor of dogmatic theology (Church and sacraments) at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Fribourg (Switzerland), where he is also Prior of the Dominican monastery of St. Albertus Magnus. (see here)

The following question was put to Fr. Benoit-Dominique:

Individual Pope figures aside, can the Successor of Peter’s ministry be considered theologically “lacking” and in need of a certain “theological structuring” by individuals other than the Pope?

Certainly not! The Pope has everything it takes to enounce the faith of the Church. The Congregation De doctrina fidei helps the Pope in the preparation and implementation phases but the “crux” consists in enouncing the faith of the Church and this is the Pope’s very own and personal ministry. By “structuring”, Cardinal Müller may have meant this, above all preparatory, work.

From the above, it looks pretty straightforward with respect to the “theological structuring” issue. The correct answer is indeed that, and paraphrasing again, Francis doesn’t need no stinking theological structuring since Francis “has everything it takes to enounce the faith of the Church”.

In Catholic doctrine at least!

But in practice, the case appears to be completely different.

Which brings me to this next passage which describes how Sandro Magister broke the news of the new global warming/cooling/changing encyclical will be delayed. Here is the relevant passage: (see here)

According to Vaticanist Sandro Magister [LINK], Pope Francis has decided to postpone the publication of his long-awaited encyclical on the environment. The reason, according to Magister, is that the Pope realized that the document in its current state had no chance of receiving the approval of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith under the leadership of Cardinal Gerhard Müller. If it seems somewhat improper for a Cardinal to be telling a Pope what he can and can’t write, don’t fret, gentle reader: the text wasn’t written by Pope Francis at all.

The below is the actual wording of Magister’s passage as it reads on his Italian language blog:

Perché lui passa come grande teologo, anzi, come il teologo di riferimento di papa Francesco, il suo consigliere più insigne, il suo ghostwriter sin da quando era arcivescovo di Buenos Aires. Nell’estate del 2013 si stabilì a Roma per scrivere con Francesco la “Evangelii gaudium”; e poi ancora vi si è stanziato lo scorso marzo nella settimana che il papa s’era ritagliata per scrivere la prossima enciclica sull’ecologia. Da Santa Marta è trapelato però che Francesco abbia cestinato la bozza che Fernández gli aveva confezionato, forse presago, il papa, che il cardinale Müller l’avrebbe poi comunque demolita, una volta avutala tra le mani.

Here is my translation of the questionable bit:

It has emerged from Santa Marta [FrancisChurch HQ], however, that Francis has trashed the draft that Fernández had prepared, perhaps foreboding for the pope, the cardinal Müller would then still demolished it, once having received it in his hands.

It is therefore correct to imply that Francis’ “foreboding”, or the strong inner feeling or notion of a future misfortune that card. Muller would “demolish” Archbishop Fernandez’s text was brought about by some form of “extra magisterial” arrangement between the two men. Therefore, it is correct to say, as Edward Pentin states that: (see here)

The Vatican has denied that Pope Francis’ forthcoming encyclical has been delayed because the Holy Father feared the first draft would not be approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).

In other words, it is correct to say that there appears to be a causal relationship between what is written in the eco encyclical and an approval from the new “theological structuring” facility at the CDF is required. Furthermore, this is contrary  with Archbishops Fernandez’s assertion, and the TRUE and correct assertion that: “it was to the Pope and the Bishops that Christ granted a special governance and enlightenment – and not to a Prefect or some other structure.”

However, to both the Archbishops chagrin and dismay, this proper and TRUE understanding of the relationship between the Petrine office and the CDF (Roman Curia) does not appear to reflect reality within the Vatican’s Sacred Walls.

Concluding, what inferences can be drawn from the above?

First inference is obviously that Francis has created a theological mess. When taking into account the Spaemann, Joas and Tollers observations that we laid out in our previous post (see here), it is apparent that card. Muller had to take it upon himself to create a new and never before heard of function at the CDF on account of Francis’ and his advisers incompetence.

To be more precise, the incompetence that we are referring two is on two levels. First is the incompetence of using a theologically unsound ghostwriter and next, the incompetence of not being able to discern that which the ghostwriter has written. To prove this last assertion, please recall that Fernandez was the ghostwriter behind the Apostolic Exhortation Evagelii Gaudium, a document that poor card. Burke still doesn’t know exactly what to make of.

The next inference is that Francis feels “bound” to put the document past the Prefect of the CDF for the Prefects approval. This is highly unusual since we recall that a pope, an absolute sovereign has all the necessary faculties to produce any document that he wishes to produce, even ones that other cardinals and bishops do not know what to make of. Here is the relevant text from the VASSALLO MALTA blog post cited above for the record:

The Pope has everything it takes to enounce the faith of the Church. The Congregation De doctrina fidei helps the Pope in the preparation and implementation phases but the “crux” consists in enouncing the faith of the Church and this is the Pope’s very own and personal ministry. By “structuring”, Cardinal Müller may have meant this, above all preparatory, work.

This point cannot be stressed strongly enough!

Next, the observation that Francis appears to have “bound” himself to an approval from the CDF, an approval that he doesn’t need, goes a long way in suggesting that Francis’ power over the Curia and the Vatican apparatus has been limited. One supporting assumption to this new situation is the firing of Archbishop Fernandez. If you recall dear reader, Francis would not remove Msgr Ricca from the IOR and is still living at the hotel that is managed by this notorious deviant (see here), whose transgressions were of a much more serious nature. But two years on and one disastrous Secret Synod of Bishops later, it would appear that now, terms are being dictated to Francis.

It is as if a palace coup has taken place and we have a puppet monarch on the throne?

And the price for that appears to have been paid by the monarch, is the “suspension of the Francis revolution”?

It would go a long way in explaining the Magister and Gagliarducci observations outlined in the The Cruelest “god” of All post.

Given the above, the question arises: what in the wild, wild world of sports is going on here?

For the answer, tune in tomorrow and the next day and most likely a few more days after that.

But one thing is for certain. Francis has brought the reality that is South American governance into the Sacred Walls of the Vatican and squarely into the middle of the Universal Church.

Post scriptum:

In the mean time, please familiarize yourselves, dear readers with the following definitions:

A coup d’etat is defined as follows: (see here) with emphasis

A coup d’état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ ( listen (help·info)); French: blow of state; plural: coups d’état), also known as a coup, a putsch^{[citation needed]}, or an overthrow, is the sudden and illegal seizure of a government,^[1][2][3] usually instigated by a small group of the existing state establishment to depose the established government and replace it with a new ruling body. A coup d’état is considered successful when the usurpers establish their dominance. If a coup fails, a civil war may ensue.

We are obviously referring to what is commonly called a “soft coup d’etat” or what is termed as a “veto coup d’etat” where the visible figurehead is not removed, but he loses this sovereign powers, while the soldiers Curia plays the role of “guardian of the existing order”.

And a puppet monarch is defined as follows: (see here)

A puppet monarch is a majority figurehead who is installed or patronized by an imperial power in order to provide the appearance of local authority, while allowing political and economic control to remain among the dominating nation.

Figurehead monarch, as source of legitimacy and possibly divine reign, has been the used form of government in several situations and places of history.

There are two basic forms of using puppets as monarchs (rulers, kings, emperors):

figurehead: the monarch is a puppet of another person or a group in the country, who are ruling instead of the nominal ruler.

puppet government under a foreign power.

Context: German Courts More Catholic Than The Pope!

Tags

Basic Law, Benedict XVI, Bergoglio, bp. Ackerman, bp. van Elst, Cardinal Kasper, Catholic Church, collegiality, ECB, Edward Pentin, Francis church, German Bishops' Conference, German Catholic Church, German Church, German Constitutional Court, Grundgesetz, heretical pope, Islamification, Jesuit Father Hans Langendörfer, Joseph Ratzinger, Kirchensteuer, Mario Draghi, messeging, Modernists, MSM, narratives, new springtime, OMT, optics, pathological, Pope Francis, spirit of Vatican II, Synod 2014, Vatican, Verfassungsgericht

 

Yesterday, I wrote a post about the situation within the Catholic Church in Germany. (see here)  I tried to illustrate that the local (German) situation is a bit different than that which cards. Kasper and Marx presented to the outside world at the recently concluded Secret Synod. To be more precise, the positions regarding serial adulterers divorced and remarried receiving communion and aberro-sexuals of the German Church authorities, as presented by those two clerics to the outside world, are not as monolithic among the German bishops as it would appear from their representations.

As I was writing the above post, a very important development occurred. Since my post was already rather long, I decided to do a follow-up post on this material. The important development has to do with the German Bishops’ Conference attempt to change the German Church labor law, and simultaneously secretly undermine Catholic teaching. What has however made this situation more “fluid” is that a court decision has been issued which one can only describe as : a ruling supported Catholicism and against the German Bishops’ Conference.

I reproduced an article which appeared on the Breitbart New Service website written by Edward Pentin. (see here). I have also taken the liberty to rearrange Mr. Pentin’s paragraphs to provide a more coherent picture of the issues at stake.

Background

Now if you will recall, Mr. Pentin,  is the same reporter who had the minor problem with card. Kasper at the Secret Synod (as described recently here). He provides a very good overview of the situation on the ground: (with emphasis and [comments])

Germany’s Catholic bishops are pressing ahead with reform of a controversial Church labor law that would allow employees who are in homosexual relationships or those divorced and civilly remarried to work in Church-run institutions.

What this new “reformed” Church labor law entails is as follows:

The proposed changes, allegedly being spearheaded by Jesuit Father Hans Langendörfer, Secretary of the German Bishops’ Conference, have been considered in secret for at least the past 18 months, according to sources. “It’s like a hidden bombshell,” one informed source close to the German Church said, adding that the language they will also use will be purposefully vague and therefore open to interpretation. This could be used, opponents fear, to dismiss those employees who are upholding Church teaching and being “too Catholic” on the grounds that they are the ones causing scandal by creating a “negative atmosphere.”

To tie in the last sentence to yesterday’s post, these laws will allow for the disciplining of bishops like van Elst while allowing bishops like Ackermann to do whatever they so choose. And now under not only the guise of “collegiality”, but on the basis of “the law”.

Germans and the Law

For those readers who have no contact with Germany proper, as is the case with most non-Europeans, a little explanation here is in order. The Germans take “the law” very seriously. This law abiding tradition is a national character trait that has defined the Germans from earliest times. A good example of this national respect for the law can be seen by watching how German pedestrians react when standing on a street corner during a red light. Furthermore, due to the countries unfortunate history, the post war generation has decided to secure the nation against a repeat of previous episodes through the creation and strict adherence to “the Grundgesetz” which translates into the Basic Law. The Grundgesetz is the superior law of the German land. This Basic Law is strictly enforced by the courts, and its primary purpose is to protect the German state from threats, whether foreign or domestic.

A good case in point is how the German high court, or the Verfassungsgericht ruled in the case of a constitutional complaint brought by a group of German professors against the European Central Bank’s debt purchasing program, known as the OMT. This OMT program was designed to fight the financial crisis in the wider Europe, and is managed by the Italian head of the European Central Bank, and Jesuit educated Mario Draghi. Now, the importance of the ruling is that it ties the hands of Mr. Drahgi, and creates a situation where the entire European Union could easily disintegrate, creating havoc across the entire continent. This havoc would mostly affect the Germans themselves, so it is not in the best interest of the Germans to tie Mr. Draghi’s hands, or so the argument goes. But to the German mindset, the law is THE LAW.

In an article pertaining to the latest ruling, titled: “German court parks tank on ECB lawn, kills OMT bond rescue” (see here), we read the following passage:

Germany’s top court has issued a blistering attack on the European Central Bank, arguing that its rescue plan for the euro violates EU treaty law and exceeds the bank’s policy mandate.

When reading the above, one also needs to keep in mind that the German law is FORMALLY subservient to the European law.

Another quote for more context:

The court judgment was shockingly harsh, though it left a possible way out if the OMT is redesigned and greatly limited in scope. “There are important reasons to assume it exceeds the ECB’s monetary policy mandate and thus infringes the powers of the Member States, and that it violates the prohibition of monetary financing of the budget,” said the court.

The above hopefully provide a good insight into the relationship between “the Law” as it regulates the activities of the citizen and the state. And we see how defensive the highest court can be when issues of security of the state arise.

Court Ruling on the Church Labor Law

Now that we have a better idea of how seriously the Germans take their law, we can make some observations about the Church Law court ruling itself. For this, we return to Mr. Pentins article where he writes:

Proponents of change were wrong-footed last week when Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court ruled that a Catholic hospital in Düsseldorf had the right to dismiss a senior doctor who was divorced and remarried.

The judges overturned a prior judgment of the Federal Labor Court which had declared the dismissal of the doctor invalid. The constitutional court ruled that the labor court had not “sufficiently taken into account” the meaning and scope of the Church’s autonomy.

In other words, the Church can fire individuals who do not abide by Church teachings.

And how did the German Bishops react to this favorable court ruling? This passage sheds light:

German bishops have publicly welcomed the constitutional court’s ruling, but played it down […best laid plans] and are expected to spin their new law as “more merciful”. The court ruling has shown, however, the country’s judges to be arguably more Catholic (even though some are not Catholic) than many of the country’s bishops.

Significance of the timing of the court ruling

It turns out that the best laid plans of the German Bishops were dashed by the timing of the court ruling. Mr. Pentin writes:

The timing of the ruling is also interesting as many of the bishops hoped the court would have given the ruling after they had met and decided on the new changes to the Church’s labor law.

Which leads to a very interesting question and that is this. Why did the Court issue the ruling before the Bishops’ Conference vote?

Mr. Pentin provides a very good answer to just that question. The following is the explanation:

The motives behind the court’s decision are said to be a willingness among Germany’s judiciary to uphold religious freedom in the face of Islamist threats and riots in Germany involving supporters of the Islamic State militant group.[… those people with who Francis wants to dialogue.] Realizing the Islamist threat is increasing, they have reportedly opted for a way that strengthens the Church and religious freedom. [Shocking… to the uninitiated!] The ruling also follows a similar decision taken in June this year by the European Court of Human.[…and it’s not just the Germans] Rights to uphold Church autonomy.

So it would appear that the German courts as well as the European courts are starting to view Christianity as a counterweight to the perceived threat of the “Islamification” of the European continent.

A good illustration of this perceived treat is obtained from this story that appeared in the German press recently, where local Islamic vigilantes started to organize “sharia” police units to patrol Muslim neighborhoods in Germany (see here). In the article we read:

The German government has strongly criticized nightly patrols in the city of Wuppertal by men calling themselves “Sharia police.” The 33-year-old behind the patrols claimed that their goal was only to raise attention.

Not only has the German government criticized the “Sharia police”, but it appears that the German courts are doing something about it. And that something is issuing favorable rulings in “religious liberty” cases for the Catholic Church.

Bishops Conference vote on new Labor Law

The German Bishops’ Conference wanted to quickly pass the new Church labor law. Here is what transpired. We read the following:

The bishops were to unanimously vote in favor of change on Nov. 24, [ “unanimously”. Everything is “unanimously” until it’s not “unanimously”] but decided to postpone the decision until April after a minority of conservative bishops resisted the move. They were also impeded by a federal court ruling that ironically supported the Church’s current laws that forbid employing staff whose lifestyles run contrary to Church teaching. [ Looks like a knock out one-two punch!]

So it “appears” that the vote that “the bishops were to unanimously vote in favor of change on Nov. 24″,was postponed. The reason given was that a “minority” of conservative bishops resisted the move. This is no doubt the case. This is exactly the point I raised in yesterdays post when I wrote see here):

So that makes it at least 5 bishops who are in the minority camp. Now given that there are approximately 144 living German bishops (see here), including Benedict XVI and cards. Muller and Brandmuller, the majority positions which the German speaking cardinals presented at the Secret Synod could have been a majority position. However, what needs to be kept in mind is that the minority position is a dangerous position to hold, let alone to make public. Therefore there is no real way of gauging how many of these bishops support the leadership position of the German Bishops’ Conference.

But a further question is this: since when did a minority of conservative bishops have anything to say in the Deutsche BIG Religion? Just to make the point, here is the quote from card. Marx before the Secret Synod, where he deals with the minority bishops views:

Marx announced in Magdeburg, however, that he personally, as soon as the Synod will have begun, as President of the German Bishops’ Conference has an already revised document he will present that will explain the position of the German bishops at the Synod. In any case the majority. The minority will probably have no voice at the Synod. Those German bishops who support the position of Kasper, Marx and his predecessor, Zollitsch, all are notable signatories of the document, so says the DBK-chairman. The ranks of the German bishops will be pretty close.

So it looks like there was no need for unanimity in the German Bishops’ Conference position that card. Marx went with to the Synod, but now the German bishop have a need for unanimity to pass a “much less important” and according to its proponents a “benign” church law?

Well, not really.

Concluding

What is most likely the case, and the cause of the problems for the German Bishops’ Conference is the court decision which would supersede whatever political decisions that the bishops would have made.

Therefore, it is not clean cut whether this new Church labor law will come into effect. And by the time the Synod of 2015 rolls around, the “priorities “ of the German Bishops might be somewhere else. And the reason being that the courts will have changed their agenda.

Let’s chalk one up a small victory to the “god of surprises”.