Wednesday, 13 April 2011

A response to the 'Gaudium et Spes' generation: thank you Cardinal Pell!

The latest edition of The Swag, the journal of the National Council of Priests of Australia, carries a response by Cardinal Pell of Sydney to the atrocious attack on the Church by Fr Eric Hodgens, a priest of the Melbourne Archdiocese, in its last edition. 

Responding to the liberals: yes!

Excellent.  And there is some great stuff here, long overdue to be said out loud.

The story also gets a run in The Australian today, albeit with a rather sensationalist headline.

Good to see at least one bishop stand up for the teaching authority of the Church!

Here are Cardinal Pell's key comments, with a few comments of my own!  The sub-headings, bolding and comments in red are mine.

"Some Gaudium and No Spes

April 2011 By George Cardinal Pell

Father Eric Hodgens’ piece on the Gaudium et Spes priests gives us plenty of food for thought. It is well written and provocative, as you would expect of a priest who described his own cohort as possessing “the biggest proportion of intelligent, educated and competent leaders”. But it is unbalanced, misguided, selective and sometimes inaccurate.

Recently I have been concerned by the theological extremism of some Swag contributions, and am grateful for the opportunity to state the case for the orthodox mainstream. I am not ordering anyone to “withdraw to the fortress and sing the old song[hmm, why not!  Until the 'new song' becomes orthodox, sticking the old might be safer!], but my best lines are still from the New Testament with its ancient truths and melodies.

Nature of the Catholic priesthood

Eric sees himself now as “a presbyter called and ordained by the Church – the People of God” rather than as “a priest called and consecrated by God”. It is difficult to know exactly what this means, but it might point us to a number of fundamental issues.

Fr Hodgens: a radical protestant, or just a liberal heretic?

More cards have been laid on the table than in Father Hodgens’ earlier writings. While it would be interesting to know whether he still has any jokers up his sleeve, it is more important to recognize that many of the cards cannot be identified accurately. We do not know, for example, his answers to the nine questions he lists. We do not know the limits to his hostility to some ancient devotions such as adoration of the Blessed Sacrament and veneration of Our Lady. We do not know whether his opposition to the papacy and episcopate touches these institutions themselves or simply the style of recent incumbents. So too with priesthood and traditional Christian teaching on marriage, divorce and sexuality.[ie just how far does his heresy go]

We cannot be sure whether Eric’s theological position is typical of a liberal or a radical Protestantism. But as an exercise in loyal dissent it moves beyond the limits of orthodox Catholicism.[Yep that is pretty clear!]

Let me attempt to state the issue in the most basic terms.

The Church as the recipient of revelation

We find no evidence in Eric’s article that the Catholic Church is the recipient of divine revelation, “God’s message not some human thinking” (1 Thess 2.13); nor that the Catholic Church was founded by the Son of God “the Word who was with God . . . the Word who was God” (Jn 1.1), Jesus the Christ, the son of Mary with a divine as well as a human nature. If Christ is divine, New Testament teachings have a unique authority.

The failure of the liberal agenda

Eric writes with the genuine anguish of most of us older Catholics who grew up at an unusually high tide of faith and practice and lived through the radical decline which followed the social revolution of the 1960s in the First World. But some of the damage was self-inflicted.

One major point of difference is that in my view Eric’s prescriptions are a significant cause of our problems. His solutions were put into practice after the Council, to some degree in Australia, but especially in Belgium, Holland and French-speaking Canada. They emptied the Churches there.

Pope Paul VI appointed no bishops who were opposed to the ethos of Vatican II, and for various reasons the good bishops appointed in Holland were overwhelmed, tossed aside by the liberal gales. This brings me to another contemporary fact, which I never anticipated as a young seminarian in Rome during the Council or as a young priest. The now aged liberal wing of the Church, which dominated discussion after the Council and often the bishops and the emerging Church bureaucracies, has no following among young practising Catholics, priests or religious. This is not only true in Australia, but everywhere in the Western world. In these different countries dominated by a secular media and intelligentsia, liberalism has no young Catholic progeny.

On reflection we should not find this surprising, as growth is tied to Gospel fidelity, to faith, love and sacrifice. After Vatican II many of us overestimated our cultural strengths and underestimated the virulence of anti-Christian forces. You need strong Christian foundations to participate productively in “open dialogue”. Without these roots the end of the road is agnosticism.

In defence of a few popes

I should conclude with a few words in defence of the four popes who were mauled, especially Paul, John Paul II and Benedict. Incidentally it is a matter of historical record that at the 1971 Synod of Bishops, Pope Paul offered to the bishops the option of ordaining married men to the priesthood and the bishops declined to accept this.[And this kind of thing is of course the reason why traditionalists share some of the misgivings about some recent popes, albeit for very different reasons, with the liberals.]

All three popes were prolific writers, while John Paul II and Benedict were professional academics with a record of scholarly and popular publications rarely if ever equalled by any Australian priest. I believe Pope Benedict is now our most distinguished living theologian.

The charges against the Holy Father do not amount to too much e.g. instituting a special year to honour priests (which was well received by priests and people), continuing with a new translation of the Roman Missal, and encouraging the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated. He did not receive back the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, but only lifted their excommunication. They are still in schism. [Good to see someone clearly using the S word in relation to the SSPX!  Though no doubt that will upset more than a few...]

Pope John Paul provokes a special hostility, allegedly an abuser of power, out of touch in scripture, limited in theology, a bad listener. It is a surprise that anyone came to his funeral. In particular he is denounced for emasculating the leadership of the Church, who are clerical and compliant, “low on creativity, leadership, education and even intelligence”.

In an astonishing example of provincial arrogance, Hodgens claims that “the more intelligent and better educated” bishops (only “some” to be sure) are corrupt and have sold their soul for advancement. Me thinks he protests too much.

Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict were not hostile to intelligence, education or competence, but they have striven regularly to appoint bishops who will defend the apostolic tradition and strive to implement policies which will strengthen the Catholic position, not white-ant it. [I'm sure more than a few traditionalists actually share some of the concerns of the liberals over bishop appointments in recent decades - even in recent months!  The reality I would suggest is that there have been a very mixed bag indeed of appointments.  Traditionalists would certainly like to see more of those who will, as the Cardinal suggests, defend and strengthen the Catholic tradition.  Unfortunately there are still may white-anters in place and still some doubtful ones getting through...]

The failure in recent decades to defend Magisterial teaching

Hodgens’ misunderstanding of the magisterium is typical of his position. The magisterium refers primarily to the teaching authority of the pope together with the bishops (Vatican II’s collegiality). The baptised faithful share in this and so do the theologians with priests and religious.

Certainly the teaching authority of the bishops was recognized early by St. Ignatius of Antioch (+107 A.D.) and St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (+200 A.D.) with his apostolic succession lists of bishops to defend the apostolic tradition. The ancient teaching chair of the bishop exemplifies this, predating by many centuries any groups of professional theologians in the medieval universities. In Pope John Paul’s 27 years of pontificate 24 individuals were disciplined for their theological views, including eight who were silenced or removed, in the worldwide Catholic community of more than one billion believers. Father Hodgens himself escaped any reign of terror and so did many hundreds of dissidents.[Indeed, and the fact that no action has been taken represents a continuing scandal.  But it is not too late to act!]

Eric is a bit too generous to his generation, to which I belong. Many were formidable, but we coincided with a period of decline probably unparalleled since the Reformation.

“Reflections on an ordination golden anniversary” is thought provoking. I am glad Father Hodgens has enjoyed his years of priesthood. Unfortunately much of the analysis is mistaken since his solutions, to the extent we can identify them, are less than Catholic and would make a difficult situation worse.


Tommy G said...

Cardinal Pell - What a man!
He's great!

Cardinal Pole said...

"Pope Paul VI appointed no bishops who were opposed to the ethos of Vatican II"

That's an important point.

"Incidentally it is a matter of historical record that at the 1971 Synod of Bishops, Pope Paul offered to the bishops the option of ordaining married men to the priesthood and the bishops declined to accept this"

Wow, I did not know that.

"[The Holy Father] did not receive back the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X, but only lifted their excommunication. They are still in schism."

So the marriages at which they officiate and the Confessions which they hear are, and always were, valid? Can't have it both ways, Your Eminence.

Three possibilities present themselves:

1. The S.S.P.X. has no jurisdiction whatsoever, so their marriages and Confessions are invalid. (This is Rome's position.)
2. The S.S.P.X. unjustly claims ordinary jurisdiction, is therefore in schism, and therefore their marriages and Confessions are valid. (This seems to be Cardinal Pell's position.)
3. The S.S.P.X. has supplied jurisdiction, so their marriages and Confessions are valid. (This is the truth.)

"Good to see someone clearly using the S word in relation to the SSPX!"

Even when done unjustly, Terra?

Tony said...

It may not suprise you that I find +Pell's response both incoherant, divisive and illogical.

BUT -- there's a big but -- I congratulate him on engaging with Fr Hodgens (who's perspective I don't fully share either) in this forum and I congratulate The Swag for allowing them both to speak.

I only wish it was something the church did more of!

Notwithstanding how much I disagree with +Pell, I do also congratulate him for not using the kind of extremist language you seem to think is just peachy.

Father Hodgens himself escaped any reign of terror and so did many hundreds of dissidents.[Indeed, and this fact represents a continuing scandal. But it is not too late to act!]

Be careful what you wish for!

Kate said...

I'm sorry Cardinal Pole I don't understand your argument here.

To be in schism doesn't magically make invalid sacraments valid. Schism simply means to withdraw submission to the Pontiff or communion with those subject to him. Eastern Orthodox sacraments are valid because they were and are Churches; the SSPX is not.

Anthony S. Layne said...

I hope Cdl. Pell gets some backup over the next five years, and an equally strong and lucid defensor Fidei when he retires. God grant him long lide!

Kate said...

Tony - Apologies for the delay in your comment appearing - for some reason it didn't go to my email account; blogger seems to be having a few glitches at the moment (I lost an entire post this morning).

That said, your comment is a mischievious misreading of what I actually said. But thanks for drawing the scope for creative 'misinterpretation' to my attention, so that I can clarify before Mr Mullins or others similarly misrepresent my points.

To be clear, I am obviously not advocating a 'reign of terror'! The only reign of terror we should be concerned about is the one that has been inflicted on orthodox Catholics over the last several decades by liberals almost every time we venture into a church for Mass or read something claiming to be catholic.

What I am advocating is that our bishops make clear what is and isn't the faith, and not the allow misrepresentation of people and things as catholic when they are not.

Personally I read the Cardinal's comments not so much as engaging Fr Hogdens but rather teaching both him and those who read his material, thus fulfilling a positive duty of his Office.

The suggestion that Cardinal Pell's doing so is somehow being 'divisive' is risable.

Cardinal Pole said...

"Eastern Orthodox sacraments are valid because they were and are Churches"

Because they are (materially but not formally) churches, that is, because they have continued to transmit the power of Order, those of their Sacraments which only require the power of Order for validity--such as the Eucharist and Ordination--are indeed valid, but not, by reason merely of still being churches, those Sacraments which require the power of Jurisdiction for validity. I think that you need to refresh your memory regarding Catholic teaching on the consequences of schism (and I don't mean to say that nastily or patronisingly; it just seems that you're a bit fuzzy on the doctrine involved here).

Kate said...

Let's not get diverted by red herrings Caridnal Pole - the point is that they do have jurisdiction (indeed the very definition of a 'church'!); the SSPX does not. Please explain the basis for your claim!

Kate said...

Cardinal Pole - Thanks for your note.

As I said above, let's not get diverted by red herrings. If you wish to explain your original point 2 a little further, or make some other comment on the original post go ahead.

What I was trying to say was that it didn't seem to me that Cardinal Pell implied anything of the kind -to be schismatic does not necessarily equate to a claim of jurisdiction, and anyway, such a claim surely has no conceivable basis in this instance that I can see.

That said, I'm not interested in having an obscure debate on what is and isn't a church however so please do keep your comments to the substantive issues!