How the next Pope can heal divisions...

One of the challenges facing the next Pope, regardless as to who it is, will be in healing the cultural divide between the unfortunate wings of the Catholic Church. Cardinal Pietro Parolin, who is seen as a favorite to become the next Pope, has spoken of one of the more unfortunate divides in the Church over the Tridentine Mass. There is gossip about him that he intends to further restrict it, but I am actually not entirely certain about that. He seems to even take a more sympathetic stance toward the French regarding Traditionis Custodes. Although it's hard to tell what Parolin's exact views are in the midst of the gossip and banter, I think the divide among Catholics regarding Old Rites and New Rites is going to continue unless something is done.

Traditionis Custodes, on face value, doesn't ban the Tridentine Mass, though many Bishops maliciously took it that way. Here is where I'll say things that Traditionalists are not going to like, but they need to understand. I do not believe that Traditionis Custodes was ever intended to phase out the Tridentine Mass at all, but was meant to build bridges between those in the Church who refused to attend the Novus Ordo and preferred the Tridentine Mass with those who only looked at the Novus Ordo as the true expression of Vatican II. One thing neglected among Catholics and often difficult to grasp is the hermeneutics of continuity. The hermeneutics of continuity is the Church's official doctrine regarding the interpretation of Vatican II with the continuity of the Church as it existed before Vatican II. If one reads works such as Michael Davies's The Liturgical Revolution or Alcuin Reid's Organic Liturgy, one will find that the reform of the Western liturgy actually predates Vatican II. The only Missal we got from Vatican II was the 1962 Roman Missal, and Eastern Catholics were ordered to return to their traditions.

Far from being an anti-Traditionalist Council, Vatican II encapsulated the pastoral process of prior years leading up to its culmination. Today, you won't see many Catholics fasting from midnight before they receive Holy Communion in the morning, let alone six hours prior to receiving Holy Communion as is a recommended abbreviated Eucharistic fast in the East. You can thank the Ven. Pius XII for shortening the Eucharistic fast, not Vatican II! And that, I don't think, is understood when we talk about Vatican II's liturgical reforms. They predated Vatican II. Far from being a Council that changed the direction of the Western Church, Vatican II further propelled the Western Church on liturgical reform. But some reform is too much. That is where Traditionalists have a point.

The problem in the Church, is not that there are two expressions of the Western Rite. The problem is one group insisting that only one version of that expression was valid. The next Pope is going to have to address this issue with the same hermeneutics of continuity that his predecessors used. Far from phasing out the Tridentine Mass, it must be noted from Traditionis Custodes, that Francis actually wanted the Tridentine Mass continued. But he wanted the Tridentine Mass continued in the spirit of continuity with the Novus Ordo. This was also Pope John Paul II's and Pope Benedict XVI's vision as well. Such position is also maintained by Cardinal Sarah, whom Traditionalists are very enthused with. But many who attend the Tridentine Mass refuse to see the Novus Ordo as valid. Which is why Francis went to great lengths to ensure that those who continued celebrating the Tridentine Mass would also see the Novus Ordo as valid. In order to continue Francis's legacy, the next Pope will have to further help Traditionalists see the Novus Ordo as bearing continuity with the ancient Church.

But how is that to be done? With the general direction the Novus Ordo is going, things have to change in the Novus Ordo. Let's be realistic, Traditionalists are going to continue looking at the Novus Ordo with skepticism if bishops and priests continue to castigate those who receive on the tongue or in the mouth despite the Church's instruction. Traditionalists are never going to see the Novus Ordo as respectful to God if the charismatic dancing continues to be done and EHMCs remain as numerous as they do and the priests continue to appear as if they're just having a conversation with the congregation. Traditionalists would come to accept the Novus Ordo if it included more incense, was done ad orientem, and with much more Gregorian chant as Musicam sacram argues for and commends. Far from being anti-traditional, much of the abuses that we see in the Novus Ordo, the Church already does consider as being in opposition with the spirit of Vatican II that these people claim to follow. And the next Pope will have to further address these deficiencies. In that way, bringing Novus Ordo attendees to respect the ancient customs of the Church and Tridentine Mass attendees to respect the New Mass of St. Paul VI. I don't think any Traditionalists have issues with the Ordinariate, after all.

The next Pope, in bringing together Traditionalists, Novus Ordo attendees, and the Ordinariate, will be fulfilling not only the legacy of Pope Francis, but will also be fulfilling the hermeneutics of continuity of Vatican II, honoring the ancient Traditions of the Church, and building bridges in the Church Universal. Also, he would not be giving cause for anxiety to Eastern Rite Catholics who might be more inclined to wonder that if the Pope can abrogate a Western liturgy, can he then abrogate an Eastern liturgy? Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, a Novus Ordo, reconstructed and enforced to include more Gregorian chant, incense, and ad orientem posturing of the priests, is both what is encouraged and what is the expectation of Vatican II. Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, the 1962 Roman Missal was produced by that Council. Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, the Ordinariate is just the fruitful outcome of a theologically corrected once-Protestant liturgy. Far from being against the reforms of Vatican II, a return to Tradition was called for. The next Pope's biggest task will be in implementing what those reforms actually looked like. Easing Traditionalists into accepting not the Novus Ordo as they have perceived it, but as the Church perceived it. In doing so, Traditionalists would come to accept the Novus Ordo, also allowing for easing of restrictions against the Tridentine Mass and a greater harmony of continuity to exist in the Church. I pray the next Pope can actually do what the Church needs, and not further continue divisions by ignoring the plights of the Traditionalists.

My view on Fratelli Tutti revisited...

A couple of years ago, I wrote a post about the Pope's encyclical Fratelli Tutti. I think it's healthy to reflect on how one's mind develops over the years toward the search for Truth and whether or not I still actually affirm that there are heresies in it. Overall, the Catholic dogma can be vast and is established and is firmly rooted in its historical tradition. This is what separates Catholicism from Protestantism. Whereas Protestantism undergoes self-criticism through Biblical reflection, Catholic doctrine is guided by historic tradition which roots out novelties of Scriptural interpretation, ever discerning how the Holy Spirit is being listened to. Re-reading my comments on Fratelli Tutti as of today, I can state with confidence that the document is a largely problematic document, but each Papal Encyclical is written to a specific audience, for a specific purpose, at a specific point in time. So I think I should re-look at Fratelli Tutti and reassess the analysis I made on it. Consider the Epistles of the New Testament. Whether written by St. Paul, or St. Peter, or St. John the Evangelist, each one of these are episcopal encyclicals, and the two by St. Peter are Papal Encyclicals! They are dealing with different circumstances in the Church and different contexts. With that said, a proper reassessment of some of Fratelli Tutti's statements can be further explained.

Private Property

On private property, the statement of Fratelli Tutti when compared to other areas of Catholic dogma don't really appear well. I compared Fratelli Tutti's assessment of private property to Rerum Novarum's assessment of private property. This was wrong of me to do so. When read side-by-side, Rerum Novarum seems to contradict Fratelli Tutti. However, Fratelli Tutti never undermines the doctrine of private property and its management in Rerum Novarum. In today's world, where capitalism is often idolized, we tend to also become very much attached to our own private property. While capitalism was a dominant philosophy when Rerum Novarum was written, there was a budding philosophy that many were beginning to take seriously - communism. Communism undermined the value of the human individual and attacked the private property rights' of the given stewards. The fact of the matter is that all property we are given is actually a direct gift of God Who has made us stewards of that private property. This should be understood first when we discuss the question of private property. When reading Fratelli Tutti in full, we should take into account that the importance of Pope Francis's comments on private property is not to undermine the value of private property, but to remind us of the important usage of private property in direction to the common good of men. That's not heretical at all.

Just War

I still maintain that his position on war has always seemed contradictory. But I think there is an important point to consider is that when the Pope is speaking as an advisor on stately matters, he is not infallible. On this matter, when he is advising nations not to seek war, he is certainly speaking on the position of a stately advisor. Even though this is an encyclical, there are aspects that he seems to address toward the world and to his actual sheep. And I think this is a problem with Pope Francis overall. He strikes me as a much more worldly Pope who gets too much caught up in media attention rather than the focus of his flock. In his writings on Just War, this is a prime example. That said, his position that takes on a much more pacifistic approach is a more healthy way for the lay Christian to engage. Reading some of St. Basil's ethics, one finds that there is considerable question as to whether a soldier would be guilty of murder should he kill another Christian in combat. And I think this also requires historical combat. What extent should Christians be involved in wars between countries when we know that we might be killing our own brethren? On a practical matter, as Fratelli Tutti indicates, no war is a far superior position.

Death Penalty

This one is far more shakier. The past few Popes, from John Paul II to Benedict XVI to Francis, have all been hotly against the death penalty. And though past posts in the past have had me unequivocally defend capital punishment, I think St. Mark the Ascetic's position should be taken. When lay Christians bring others to be punished before the state tribunals, those Christians sin. When Christian rulers carry out punishments against criminals, there is no sin committed. According to Romans 13, the state has been given full right by God to wield the sword of judgment. There is a distinction then that should be made. Unfortunately, it's not a distinction that is made by today's moralists. We don't see any effort to make a distinction, but instead, we presume that the call for Christians to seek the end of the death penalty is an inherently unequivocal call for even Christian rulers to cede their God-given authority. That's where things become more ambiguous and more confusing. Because the historical doctrine is that the death penalty can be used by the legitimate authorities without sin, but the current mode of thought is that all Christians are to be against it. And yet, Fratelli Tutti isn't directed at state officials, but to lay Christians. The intended audience of Fratelli Tutti needs to be taken into account. This is not a political advisory statement to officials, even if it was, such political advisory would not be considered infallible. I think the difficulty is that the position is based on philosophical prowess rather than theological prowess.

Equality

While the question of equality really ought to be defined based on what is meant by equality, I think we should look to earlier theological positions of Pope Francis to determine what is meant before making a conclusion. In Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis upholds the traditional hierarchical nature of the Church. What he means by equality then cannot, in any way, be a contradiction to what he has maintained in the past. So we should take a view on equality that is far less absolute. Are we all equal as brothers in Christ through our baptism? Yes. Again, the audience of Fratelli Tutti is not those who are outside of the Church. Therefore, we can conclude that equality is not a heresy.

In full retrospect, I think I may have been too hasty with my statements on Fratelli Tutti in the past and I apologize for those positions. Although I will leave that post up to show what my mindset was back in 2020, I'll leave a link at the bottom to this post so that people can have an idea of how my view on the document has changed. Please don't judge me for any errors in the past. I was deeply affected by Traditionalist circles at the time Fratelli Tutti was written and I think that affected my overall reading of it too.

To Sedevacate? - Pt. 1

I decided to pick up St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine as I wrestle with the question of what to do regarding Pope Francis. It is possible he is an Antipope and I have indeed referred to him as such before and while the sedevacantist position has its grounding in historical theology, I don't think one should ever jump to it rashly on the basis of a few texts. In the next part, I'll show that St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine can definitely be read to support the sedevacantist position but for now, I want to go over some of the things he states about whether or not the Pope could be a heretic. There is a distinction he makes between occultic (hidden) heretics and manifest heretics. Only the latter is ipso facto excommunicated but the former, while holding error, can still in fact be full members of the Church. I'll discuss this distinction more in my next post too. Bellarmine has this to say about four opinions on whether the Pope can err:

"1) Should the Pope define something, even as Pope, and even with a general Council, it can be heretical in itself, and he can teach others heresy and that this has in fact happened thus. This is the opinion of all the heretics of this time, and especially of Luther, who in his book on councils recorded the errors of even general councils that the Pope approved. It is also the opinion of Calvin, who asserted that at some time the Pope with the whole college of Cardinals manifestly taught heresy on that question of whether the soul of man is extinguished with the body, which is a manifest lie, as well show a little later. Next, he teaches in the same book that the Pope can err with a general council.

2) The second opinion is that the Pope even as Pope can be a heretic and teach heresy, if he defines something without a general Council, something that this opinion holds did in fact happen. Nilos Cabásilas has followed this opinion in his book against the primacy of the Pope; a few others follow the same opinion, especially amongst the Parisian theologians such as John Gerson, Almain and still, Alonso de Castro as well as Pope Adrian VI in his question on Confirmation; all of these constitute infallibility of judgment on matters of faith not with the Pope but with the Church or with a General Council.

3) The Third opinion is another extreme, that the Pope cannot in any way be a heretic nor publicly teach heresy, even if he alone should define some matter, as Albert Pighius says.

4) The fourth opinion is that in a certain measure, whether the Pope can be a heretic or not, he cannot define a heretical proposition that must be believed by the whole Church in any way. This is a very common opinion of nearly all Catholics. ...

From these four opinions, the first is heretical; the second is not properly heretical, for we see that some who follow this opinion are tolerated by the Church, even though it seems altogether erroneous and proximate to heresy. The third is probable, though it is still not certain. The fourth is very certain and must be asserted." (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. IV, ch. II)

We see that the opinion that the Pope can only be deemed infallible when speaking in agreement with the Church and with the Councils on his own is not necessarily heretical as determined by Bellarmine. Of course, Vatican I seems to suggest that this opinion is now a heresy but, it limits the Papal authority to a matter of ex cathedra statements. If the Chair of St. Peter is derived from the Church, then only speaking in accordance with the Councils and the Church, and not of himself, can the Pope be said to be speaking infallibly. So there is a legitimate case to be made still for the second opinion. That said, regardless of how the ex cathedra statement is interpreted as, it is only when he is defining a matter of faith. We have had multiple encyclicals and councils containing errors as of recently that have never been submitted as de fide statements. To say the Church is bound to error when it is only made pastoral and not as a matter of dogma is erroneous. For the Church is only bound to that which is a de fide matter. Neo-Catholics aren't particularly conservative as they pretend to be. They've only been concerned with conserving the mistakes made by liberals. Some of them have even insisted the Church is bound by everything a Pope says or does, which is highly inaccurate. This is why Bellarmine also states that, "just as it would be lawful to resist a Pontiff invading a body, so it is lawful to resist him invading souls or disturbing a state, and much more should he endeavor to destroy the Church" (On the Roman Pontiff, Bk. II, Ch. XXIX)

Now, Pope Celestine I shows in his epistle that Nestorius lost authority the moment he began to preach his heresies. But we note in the case of St. Cyprian that he viciously disagreed with the Pope's question on whether or not heretics should be rebaptized. Dom John Chapman notes this instance, commenting that "St. Jerome...tells us: 'Bl. Cyprian attempted to avoid heresy, and therefore rejecting the baptism conferred by heretics, sent [the acts of] an African Council on this matter to Stephen, who was then bishop of the city of Rome, and twenty-second from St. Peter; but his attempt was in vain." (Studies on the Early Papacy, 48) The Pope had Tradition on his side in this matter. Though he never defined the position as a de fide statement, the Pope had the Tradition on his side, St. Cyprian did not. St. Cyprian could have definitely been considered a Donatist heretic but he was not. He was not because he was moved for what he felt was orthodoxy and his push toward his position was for what he resisted as a heresy. Citing St. Vincent of Lerins Chapman writes, "For who is so mad as to doubt that blessed Cyprian, that light of all saints and martyrs, with his colleagues shall reign for eternity with Christ? Or who, on the contrary, so sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and the other plagues, who boast that it is by the authority of that Council that they rebaptize, shall burn with the Devil for ever?" (50)

We might finish this section with words of the Great Enunciator, Marcel Lefebvre,

"To be a heretic, it is necessary to be pertinacious in adhering to the error; it is not enough to have uttered an heretical phrase. For example, on the subject of the Blessed Trinity―a very difficult subject subject―we might make a mistake or blunder in speech and say something that is not very orthodox. If someone points it out to us we retract; but if they accuse us of heresy, or excommunicate us...how frightful." (Lefebvre, Against the Heresies, 16)

I want to also add that sedevacantists should not be treated as heretics or Protestants. That is grotesque slander from the Neo-Catholics who have shown that they only intend to conserve every single mistake the liberals in the Church have made via "pastoral" decisions any way. Sedevacantists may adhere to the position that the See of Peter remains vacant as a heretic holds that position but they are still in a valid Apostolic Succession. The current situation the Church is in right now is comparable to the Great Schism of the 14th century. That year in which we had a multitude of claimants to the Papal Throne and holy people on both sides adhering to the other as legitimate. We are in that situation currently. Sedevacantists must be treated as our fellow brethren. They are often better Catholics than some of those who uphold the current Pope as legitimate too.

Capital punishment - a response to my bishop

Recently, I wrote to my bishop calling on him to clarify the Church's stance on capital punishment. I also conferred with someone I know to be quite knowledgeable and trustworthy what the Church's position on this is and he told me two things, "1. Stay away from online discussions, these are damaging to the soul. 2. Tradition upholds the usage of capital punishment. Period." This is why you may have seen me veering away from online discussions lately but it has enabled me to write my own thoughts down on this blog much more lately, not to mention it has freed me to devote more time to reading and praying which have been extremely beneficial for the soul. But I also decided to write to the bishop calling on him to clarify the Church's stance as what he included in our February issue of our Eparchial magazine I believe is spiritually damaging to the Melkite Eparchy. That is specifically the Abp. José Gómez's letter to the Biden administration, which, while overall decent, also included a note that the Catholic Church has in its mission to seek the abolishment of the death penalty. And is this accurate about the Abp. José Gómez?

Let me just say, I put not trust in princes whether they be the princes of the State or the princes of the Church. Even to people who have applauded President Vladimir Putin's advances in Russia, I have been saying to them lately to use cautious optimism. I used to think that Putin was the greatest leader too but he is only human. And my bishop is also no exception to that rule. Even as people tell me he is "one of the good bishops", I always tell them that I don't know much about him so I cannot make that affirmation or denial. But based on the latest exchange, I can say that even if he is one of our "better bishops", the Church is in a very sore position. Lately, I asked him to clarify this statement because I know fully well what the Tradition of the Church is on this position. I showed to him the following citations:

For one, God commanded Saul to kill all of the Amalekites. When the Holy Prophet Samuel confronted Saul about his refusal to do as God commanded and Saul's efforts to keep the King of the Amalekites as his prisoner, the Holy Prophet Samuel killed the wicked king right in front of Saul's face. We know the rest of the story. Saul became possessed with an evil spirit and the Holy Prophet Samuel was vindicated. 

The thief on the cross who repented accepted that he had been justly condemned to death. Jesus even affirms that God commanded the death penalty in Matt. 15:1-9 and in Mark 7:1-13. 

Pope Innocent I states in ad Exsuperium, Episcopium Tolosanum, "It must be remembered that power was granted by God, and to avenge crime the sword was permitted; he who carries out this vengeance is God's minister (Romans 13:1–4). What motive have we for condemning a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God's authority." 

The document anathematizing Martin Luther, Exsurge Domine, condemns Luther's position "that heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit". 

St. John Chrysostom states the following: "You see how he has furnished him with arms, and set him on guard like a soldier, for a terror to those that commit sin. For he is the minister of God to execute wrath, a revenger upon him that does evil. Now lest you should start off at hearing again of punishment, and vengeance, and a sword, he says again that it is God's law he is carrying out." Homily 23 on Romans 

St. Joseph of Volotsk states: "Were not the Orthodox emperors and holy fathers at the ecumenical and local councils merciful and clement? But they commanded to all, wrote in the holy canons, and ordered to all future generations that kings, princes, and judges commit heretics, and especially apostates, to terrible punishment and death, along with murderers, robbers, and other criminals." Homilies 16, in The Enlightener, or the Denunciation of the Heresy of the Judaizers cited in Met. Hilarion Alfeyev's Orthodox Christianity, vol. I: The History and Canonical Structure of the Orthodox Church 

This position is further maintained by St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite in Christian Morality when he speaks of the punishments that await those who practice sorcery. "The Sixty-fifth Novel of Leo the Wise ordains that whoever is found practicing magic in any way...is to receive the ultimate punishment and to be punished as rebels against the emperor are." He goes on to exhort this form of punishment recommended by Leo the Wise and other emperors as "just laws".

The Ven. Pius XII further stated, "Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live." (The Moral Limits of Medical Research and Treatment)

To these could also be added the affirmations of St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas:

However, there are some exceptions made by the divine authority to its own law, that men may not be put to death. These exceptions are of two kinds, being justified either by a general law, or by a special commission granted for a time to some individual. And in this latter case, he to whom authority is delegated, and who is but the sword in the hand of him who uses it, is not himself responsible for the death he deals. And, accordingly, they who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, You shall not kill. (City of God, Bk 1, ch. 21) 

Punishment ought to be proportionate to the fault. But in a fault not only is there an aversion of the mind from the last end, but also an undue conversion of it to other objects as ends. Not only then should the sinner be punished by exclusion from the end, but also by other things turning to his pain. 2. No one is afraid to lose what he does not desire to gain. They then who have their will turned away from their last end, have no fear of being shut out from it. Consequently that mere exclusion would not be enough to call them off from sinning. Some other punishment then must be employed, which sinners may fear. 3. One who puts to undue use the means to a certain end, not only is deprived of the end, but incurs some other hurt besides. Thus inordinate taking of food not only does not bring health, but further induces sickness. But whoever sets up his rest in creatures does not use them as he ought: he does not refer them to their last end. Not only then ought he to be punished by going without happiness, but also by experiencing some pain from creatures. Hence divine Scripture not only threatens sinners with exclusion from glory, but also with affliction in other ways. Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire (Matt. xxv, 41). He shall rain nets on sinners: fire and brimstone and the breath of stormy winds shall be the portion of their cup (Ps. x, 7). (St. Thomas Aquinas, Contra Gentiles, Bk. 3, ch. 146) 

Hereby is excluded the error of those who say that corporal punishments are unlawful, and quote in support of their error such texts as, Thou shalt not kill (Exod. xx, 13): Let both grow until the harvest (Matt. xiii, 30). But these are frivolous allegations. For the same law which says, Thou shalt not kill, adds afterwards: Thou shalt not suffer poisoners (maleficos, pharmakous) to live (Exod. xxii, 18). And as for both growing until the harvest, how that is to be understood appears from what follows: lest perchance in gathering the tares ye root out along with them the wheat also: in this passage then the killing of the wicked is forbidden where it cannot be done without danger to the good, as happens when the wicked are not yet clearly marked off from the good by manifest sins, or when there is ground for apprehension that the wicked may involve many good men in their ruin. The fate of the wicked being open to conversion so long as they live does not preclude their being open also to the just punishment of death. Indeed the danger threatening the community from their life is greater and more certain than the good expected by their conversion. Besides, in the hour of death, they have every facility for turning to God by repentance. And if they are so obstinate that even in the hour of death their heart will not go back upon its wickedness, a fairly probable reckoning may be made that they never would have returned to a better mind. (Ibid, ch. 147)

In addition, the Catechism of Pope Pius X states:

It is lawful to kill when fighting in a just war; when carrying out by order of the Supreme Authority a sentence of death in punishment of a crime; and, finally, in cases of necessary and lawful defence of one's own life against an unjust aggressor.

But in 1992, an incredible change was made to the teaching of the Church by Pope John Paul II. Pope John Paul II and his two successors demanded the Church to start seeking the abolishment of the death penalty. But Pope John Paul II knew better than Pope Francis. You couldn't change the teaching by asserting the death penalty was "morally inadmissible". You had to change the death penalty subtlely. I pointed this out to Crazy Church Lady and she sharply noticed this too but this is because Pope John Paul II himself was working craftily and deceitfully to change the Church teaching on this issue. Note what the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church says:

Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. (2267)

If you note, in none of the texts from the saints or the fathers do you see the assertion that capital punishment is only included as a possible punishment "if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor". In fact, the Traditional teaching of the Church is to the contrary. There is no assumed reason other than the two following: 1. government, being subjected to God, has been given the authority to wield the sword of God's vengeance on Earth and 2. capital punishment is a just punishment given by the legitimate authorities. As the former aforementioned whom I trust clearly stated, "Tradition upholds the usage of capital punishment by legitimate authorities. Period." Not "Tradition upholds the usage of capital punishment by legitimate authorities if you can't safely isolate them from society".

It gets even worse when you consider what the USCCB's Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church states. Reading the following, I was rather horrified at the utter incompetence and lack of awareness of our bishops! Even though the edition was printed in 2011,it's frightening that they state:

Modern society in fact has the means of effectively suppressing crime by rendering criminals harmless without definitively denying them the chance to reform....The growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty and the various provisions aimed at abolishing it or suspending its application constitute visible manifestations of heightened moral awareness. (405)

Say what?!? Even with talk in favor of gay marriage and abortion growing in that decade in which they wrote that they are able to contend that the growing aversion of public opinion towards the death penalty constitutes visible manifestations of heightened moral awareness? Did the Tsars not have the option of Siberia? What is more isolating than Siberia? Nope. According to the bishops, isolation and the abolishment of capital punishment was only made available recently! The bishops have been clueless for years! The bishops demonstrate in this statement that they have no regard for moral theology unless it concerns the abolishment of the death penalty. Now to return to my own bishop's response to the previous texts I showed to him.

Daniel. I do not have the time to fully address the issue of capital punishment. We cannot accept the Old Testament thinkings about this since Christ came to fulfill the Old and brings with him a change. But it is quite clear from the commandments from the Old and New Testament: "You shall not kill!" Capital punishment is killing. Certainly there may be opinions of theologians, saints and fathers, but the rule is clear. I suggest you sit with a good scripture scholar to properly understand the scripture and not twist its message to what you like or believe. To my understanding the Matthew and Mark texts are not accepting to kill, and the thief on the cross has nothing to do with this issue. Best wishes and prayers, [xxxxxxxx]

I'm going to reason he is within his best intentions but a lot of what he said in his response is plain wrong. For one, he does not actually properly address the issue of the text in 1 Kings 15 in which God commands the slaughter of the Amalekites. And further, he actually twists Scriptures when insisting that the commandment "Thou shall not kill" condemns capital punishment. The texts in Scripture that reference capital punishment use the word muwth (putting to death) and the text that gives the condemnation of "Thou shall not kill" uses the word ratsah (to kill in such a way that one incurs blood guilt, murder). Capital punishment is muwth (putting to death), not ratsah (murder). And I studied Biblical Hebrew. Third, it is not a "twist" of Scriptures when one is trying to understand the Scriptures in light of what the fathers and the saints say! It is an attempt to follow the consensus patrium established by the Lerintian canon to the best of my ability and it is shocking that he would make such an insidious accusation. Fourth, he does not address that Jesus claimed that God gave the commandment that one must be put to death for dishonoring their parents. And what is this craziness of the fathers and saints having opinions regarding the moral law? Did we send to Heaven people who willfully neglected the moral law of God? Um, sorry, no, we did not! Either the moral law is subjected to opinions or capital punishment is harmonious with the moral law as the Church has always taught.

*Earlier, I wrote it was the 1993 Catechism but Pope John Paul II published it in 1992.

The heresies in Fratelli Tutti

(Disclaimer: I have since revised my views on the document.)

I intended to do this sooner and then thought about neglecting it but I feel without addressing these issues, then a planned future post will never make much sense. Indeed, I had felt writer's block for quite some time and all of a sudden, a dam has burst open and a flood of ideas is running through my head. I've been spending more time reading lately too.

Pope Francis's recent encyclical, Fratelli Tutti, will go down in history as the worst encyclical ever. I have been appalled by both what I've read in it and what I've seen coming from the neo-Catholic community. Of course, the neo-Catholic mentality is to embrace anything and everything on the basis of following a blind authoritarianism. That is not the Catholic doctrine. That has nothing to do with the Catholic faith. If a Pope is preaching heresy, he is rightly resisted by the faithful. One of my friends has scolded me with the typical neo-Catholic rhetoric. "We're not Protestants any more!" "You have not the authority to judge the Pope!" It is true I have not the authority to judge the Pope. I am only making judgments on the teachings of the Pope. If that ends up being a judgment of Francis, then perhaps he is a manifest heretic and therefore not even the Pope.

Some defenders of the Pope's social theology have stated that he simply just frustrates conservatives and liberals at the same time. The problem with this reasoning is that bad theology can and does exist in small doses with good theology. We don't condemn Arius because he denied the historical realities of the crucifixion and resurrection. We condemn Arius because he denied that Jesus was God. We don't condemn Origen for his theology of the Trinity or for his condemnation of the Pagan Celsus. We condemn Origen because he taught that all men will be saved. Heresy is heresy regardless of how much orthodoxy it is mixed with.

Private Property

The first heresy of Fratelli Tutti is in its "re-envisaging" of private property.

For my part, I would observe that “the Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property”. The principle of the common use of created goods is the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order”; it is a natural and inherent right that takes priority over others. All other rights having to do with the goods necessary for the integral fulfilment of persons, including that of private property or any other type of property, should – in the words of Saint Paul VI – “in no way hinder [this right], but should actively facilitate its implementation”. The right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods. (120)

Actually, on the contrary, private property is historically and loudly recognized by the Christian tradition since Naboth had his vineyard forcibly stolen from him by Ahab in 3 Kings 21. Since the divine commandment was given of "thou shalt not steal". And even in Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII it is recognized multiple times.

 The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races. (8)

With reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquillity of human existence. (11)

Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. "It is lawful," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence."" But if the question be asked: How must one's possessions be used? - the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy Doctor: "Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, ‘Command the rich of this world... to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.’" (22)

The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia further adds that,

The Catholic Church has always regarded private property as justified, even though there may have existed personal abuses. Far from abolishing the commandments of the Old Law (Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, nor anything that is his) Christ inculcated them anew (Matthew 19:18-19; Mark 10:19; Romans 13:9). And though the Catholic Church, following in the footsteps of her Founder, has always recommended voluntary poverty as an evangelical counsel, yet she has at the same time asserted the justice and, as a rule, the necessity of private property and rejected the contrary theories of the Circumcellions, Waldenses, Anabaptists etc. Moreover, theologians and canonists have at all times taught that private ownership is just. Leo XIII, especially in several encyclicals, strongly insisted on the necessity and justice of private ownership. Thus the encyclical "Rerum novarum" expressly condemns as unjust and pernicious the design of the socialists to abolish private property. The right of acquiring private property has been granted by nature, and consequently he who would seek a solution of the social question must start with the principle that private property is to be preserved inviolate (privatas possessiones inviolate servandas). And Pius X, in his Motu Proprio of 18 Dec., 1903, laid down the following two principles for the guidance of all Catholics: (1) "Unlike the beast, man has on earth not only the right of use, but a permanent right of ownership; and this is true not only of those things which are consumed in their use, but also of those which are not consumed by their use"; (2) "Private property is under all circumstances, be it the fruit of labour or acquired by conveyance or donation, a natural right, and everybody may make such reasonable disposal of it as he thinks fit."

Just War

The irony of this one is that in Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis actually ends up refuting himself. He states, 

War can easily be chosen by invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or precautionary excuses, and even resorting to the manipulation of information. In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly “justified”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the possibility of legitimate defence by means of military force, which involves demonstrating that certain “rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy” have been met. Yet it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right. In this way, some would also wrongly justify even “preventive” attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing “evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”. At issue is whether the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the enormous and growing possibilities offered by new technologies, have granted war an uncontrollable destructive power over great numbers of innocent civilians. The truth is that “never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely”. We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war! (258)

While he is correct from a human perspective that wars are almost never carried out justly, he actually reiterates that the teaching of the Church is that there is a legitimate use of defense and yet ends up deciding to reject this teaching flatly. This is simple obstinance in an alleged papal document! People have asked me if I have read "all of it". I've certainly read enough of it to get the gist that this Encyclical belongs on an Index of Forbidden Books, not in the official teaching Magisterium of the Church!

Death penalty

This one has raised heated controversy but nonetheless the rejection of it by Pope Francis does constitute a heresy.

There is yet another way to eliminate others, one aimed not at countries but at individuals. It is the death penalty. Saint John Paul II stated clearly and firmly that the death penalty is inadequate from a moral standpoint and no longer necessary from that of penal justice. There can be no stepping back from this position. Today we state clearly that “the death penalty is inadmissible” and the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide. (263)

Once again, Pope Francis has taken the position that inadequacy leads to rejection of the teaching. The Church's bureaucracy itself in the Middle Ages had instituted the death penalty against those most pernicious of heretics who intruded upon the life of the Church and disturbed greatly the worship of the parishioners. It was not instituted to "eliminate others" for we eliminate ourselves with our own heresies and destruction of the image of God with our own sins. But several saints, including St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, St. Joseph Volotsky, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The position of Francis, being contrary to their views, effectively undermines the credibility of the Church. For if the Church is infallible on faith and moral teachings then the Church screwed up by permitting the death penalty to be carried out by the State. Such would mean that the Church is not infallible on morals. Francis has actually explicitly denied the infallibility of the Church.

Equality

This one should be more obvious but it is not. Paragraphs 103, 104, 131, 161, and 272 all show that Fratelli Tutti is devoted to the establishment of equality in a fraternity called for by Francis. But if equality is supposed to be called for then we would have no angelic hierarchy of St. Dionysios or St. Thomas Aquinas, no priestly hierarchy of the sacraments, and men would become the same parts of the body of Christ. Men are different. They are created differently. They have different purposes, different qualifications, and are inherently unequal. We are competing against nature by advocating for equality. This is why the Church has always taught that in proper social ordering, there is hierarchy. Improper social ordering is anarchy and chaos. Only in anarchy and chaos is there true equality.

This document should be seen as non-binding on those who are faithful to the teachings of the Catholic faith. There are too many heresies for this to be dogmatic. Therefore, I humbly reject it and denounce it.