You should expect in the coming days to see op-eds published in major American publications from US bishops talking the gay priests off the ledge, and explaining that the Instruction is not really the final word, that it must be interpreted, and that it doesn’t carry the weight of a papal pronouncement. This is part of the campaign to water down the Instruction and make sure that it is only honored in the breach, not in its implementation.
Diogenes anticipates this reaction—that the Instruction does not have the force of canon law—and provides a rebuttal from a “highly placed Vatican official”:
That is true [that it was not issued in forma specifica, meaning the Pope has not officially invested it with his personal authority]—but the reason is important: “Instructions” do not normally promulgate new legislation (which would require the forma specifica approval of the Pope). Instructions rather provide greater specification to the way that the existing discipline of the Church is to be understood. That is what we have here: a restatement in more precise terms of the centuries old discipline of the Church.
As this document breaks no new ground legislatively, no forma specifica approval is warranted. In converse fashion, one may likewise conclude that the notions of the likes of [a prominent Log Cabin Dominican] are not only ruled out by this document, his ideas were never a part of authentic Catholic discipline (note esp., the letter of Card. Medina footnoted in this Instruction).
This won’t stop people, including some very high-ranking clergy, from trying to say that whether to implement the Instruction is a matter of personal interpretation on behalf of bishops, superiors, and rectors. But when you see these op-eds appear, they will clearly indicate who is on the side of the Good Guys and who is not.
Keep an eye out.
Technorati Tags: Catholic, doctrine, homosexuality, priesthood
Folks also need to check this other blog entry on the same subject by Diogenes called armageddon…
http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=3253
I couldn’t stop laughing.
Well, yeah.
Perhaps it would be better for the Bishop to perform a simple excorcism type of rite and then reclaim the ground for Christ via the Mass.
Boy, that would make even better headlines.
Actually, I believe there would have to be a full re-consecration of the grounds in order for it to be deemed fit to perform Mass upon.
Here’s a link quoting one seminary rector who likes nuance.
http://www.wwj.com/Article.asp?id=149155
I brought up the document at dinner tonight with my husband who does not follow Catholic news and is thoroughly disillusioned with Catholicism in general, though he still attends Mass some of the time.
Ironically, his conclusion about the document, formed by listening to secular news, is that it has sanctioned homosexuality in the priesthood for the first time.
I wasn’t able to probe into why he had come to that conclusion, but it might be an indication of how confused the general public is going to be about what has taken place when the secular media gets finished with this news story.
Dennis Mahon wrote:
“I believe there would have to be a full re-consecration of the grounds…”
I doubt that the Corona Ranch and Rodeo Grounds were ever consecrated to begin with, so a “full re-reconsecration” is probably not necessary.
The instruction will help with those who are confused about what Church policy is but are willing to implement it, especially if they have a document to back them up.
Outfits like the Jesuits will not only refuse to implement the instruction they will sabotage its implementation everywhere they can. We need bishops who are not afraid of controversy, think with the mind of the Church and are prepared to act decisively.
Carrie, I think your husband’s reaction is understandable.
I think all the talk about WHY the document was not issued with the full authority of Benedict XVI is what the estimable Joseph Kennedy jr. referred to, in another context, as “Catholic gobbledegook”.
Benedict and his advisers are neither stupid nor unsophisticated. It was an absolute certainty that the American bishops and seminary directors would oppose this instruction and try to subvert it with all of their might, using any loophole or apparant loophole, and active or passive resistance, as the document could be construed to permit.
But their only power over you and your bretheren comes from their communion with Peter. It was certainly possible for Benedict to issue this instruction in such a way that resistance would be impossible.
That he did not do so means that the status quo will more or less continue. You know it and I know it.
To believe otherwise involves believing that Mahoney, Gumbleton, Skylstad and the others have been acting in good faith all along and only require a nudge from their shepherd to get with the program.
Who on Earth believes that?
Welcome to 1968 folks! It will be the Humanae Vitae reaction all over again – except with even more deeply entrenched relativism and nuance today.
Already we have Bp. Skylstad, Cdl. McCarrick and Fr. James Martin on the side of t be a Mass.
It’s not just him “calling” it that; In fact, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider.
The guy who runs the ranch hints that the bishop is overreacting by saying that the Planned Parenthood event had nothing to do with abortion. Everything Planned Parenthood does has to do with abortion. It is soaked in the blood of innocents right down into the figurative foundation stones of the organization. It can’t escape the stench of death that accompanies it wherever it goes.
My guess is that they weren’t handing out guides to pre-natal care. They were more likely handing out information on contraceptives and abortion, which should be anathema to the mainly Catholic Hispanic community.
Technorati Tags: abortion, bishops, Catholic
]]>
6135
2005-11-29 16:45:56
2005-11-29 20:45:56
open
open
no_mass_on_tainted_ground
publish
0
0
post
There’s the Colisseum in Rome, once used to butcher thousands of Christians, which was for a time used as a Church after gladiator events ceased, and is still used to this day during the Good Friday procession.
And then there’s another site of vicious persecution: Vatican hill.
I applaud the good Bishop’s firm pro-life stances, but I don’t buy his “can’t say Mass on tainted ground” thing at all. It is rather ahistorical.