Thoughts on German Bishops and the Church Tax

Article: For German Bishops, Sacramental Mercy Has a Price

The Problem

Certain Catholic news sources have been talking about a new story—that isn’t really new. I personally wrote about it in 2012. What’s different about it is it’s no longer just the liberal Catholics. Now conservative Catholics are speaking about the story—and using bad logic in doing so.

The situation is uniquely German. Since the 1870s, Germany has deducted taxes from every citizen according to their religious belief—Protestant, Catholic or Jewish—and given it to the religious denominations. It’s not something I think should be done, but the churches have nothing to do with it. It’s going to happen no matter what the churches say. The problem is this: Some Catholics, in order to avoid paying the taxes, have legally declared themselves as belonging to no religion. The Church in Germany has responded by denying these people the sacraments, except for emergency situations.

The Assessment of Fallacies

The problem is, I do not think the accusations are just when it comes to the sense that the bishops should take no action. Rather, it seems to me that certain Catholics are using the unpopularity of the German bishops to make their own behavior look better . . . using rhetoric that plays off of emotions instead of the facts of the case. But in justly assessing something, that is exactly what we must not be led by.

The article starts out by mentioning Cardinal Kasper, saying:

As Cardinal Walter Kasper prepares to receive an award and give a speech at The Catholic University of America later today, some are accusing him and his episcopal colleagues of Germany of hypocrisy.

The critics point out that while Cardinal Kasper and most of his fellow German bishops have been leading the charge to allow those in “irregular” marital situations — those who are divorced and remarried — to receive Communion, they have simultaneously denied the sacraments, including even Confession, to those who opt out of paying Germany’s “church tax.”

Invoking Kasper is a good way to slant the article right off the bat. He’s unpopular with conservative Catholics, and invoking him is a good way to turn them against the situation being described. So introducing the article with the Cardinal is the Red Herring fallacy. Citing him is gratuitous. The article could be written without him. Moreover, invoking the German position on divorce and remarriage is an example of the tu quoque fallacy. Whether or not the sins of divorced and remarried Catholics are dealt with is irrelevant as to whether or not the bishops deal with the people who renounce their faith legally to avoid paying the Church tax.

In other words, just because the German Bishops were wrong on their views on divorce and remarriage, doesn’t mean they’re wrong on the issue of people who claim they’re not Catholic to avoid taxes.

Using slogans like “Pay to Pray” is an appeal to emotion and a straw man. That is simply not what this is about. The affair is over Catholics believing they can renounce the faith legally and not face the consequences. These are not innocent people being “picked on.” They did make a legal act renouncing their faith, and the question is to ask what is the appropriate response. If sanctions are justified, they have no cause to object.

The Church Teaching Says This Is Not The Same As Apostasy

Now, it is true that separation from the Church for legal purposes was decreed as not being the same thing as real apostasy. The exact quote is: 

2.  The substance of the act of the will must be the rupture of those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments, and pastoral governance – that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church. This means that the formal act of defection must have more than a juridical-administrative character (the removal of one’s name from a Church membership registry maintained by the government in order to produce certain civil consequences), but be configured as a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church: it supposes, therefore, an act of apostasy, heresy or schism.

3.  The juridical-administrative act of abandoning the Church does not per se constitute a formal act of defection as understood in the Code, given that there could still be the will to remain in the communion of the faith.

That’s fair enough. Unless a person intends to break with the Church in fact, he can’t be charged with apostasy or a formal act of defection. But there’s a problem. There’s nothing in the document that says that the people do this suffer no penalty. It just says they do not fall under the category of choosing to leave the faith.

So, this document means we don’t call such Catholics apostates and don’t punish them like apostates. But that doesn’t mean they are free of penalty.

My Personal Opinion On the Subject

Personally, I am inclined to think (always recognizing the Pope as the one who makes the final decision, willing to submit if he decides in a manner different than this opinion) that even though this is not an act of apostasy, it is an act of scandal. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines scandal as:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. (2847)

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing. (1903)

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. (1887; 2498)

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.” This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,⁸⁹ or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”

In terms of this incident, possible scandal is caused by giving the impression that they really are rejecting the faith in fact, not just as a legal fiction. That can cause doubt among the faithful and give the unbelievers something to point fingers at.

In Church history, even giving the appearance of renouncing the Catholic faith is a serious issue, even if it is done insincerely. For example, during the Roman Empire, Christians were given a choice of sacrificing to idols or death. Many Christians died for their faith. Some apostatized. But a third group (called libellatici) thought they could be clever. They managed to get certificates claiming they had sacrificed when they really did not. They thought they had been faithful . . . but the Church did not see it this way. This was a matter of scandal because, to anybody who saw it, it looked like the person was denying his or her faith. The Church required penance before they could be returned to the faith.

Even today, in the face of ISIS, we see people who are given a choice of death, paying the jizya tax or converting. Catholics have witnessed for their faith by choosing hardship and exile.

So I don’t think that the people who do this in Germany are doing right. Are the bishops being too harsh? Maybe. I would support an investigation into what should be done in these cases. I also think a friend of mine had the right idea. He offered the opinion that the Church in Germany should refuse the tax funds to prevent government intrusion into the life of the Church.

But the bishops do have the right to determine how to apply Catholic moral teaching and the Canon Law insofar as this determination does not go against Catholic teaching. So that’s the point of investigation: Is the bishops action in keeping or not in keeping with the Church teaching?

Of course, Pope Francis and his calls for finding a way to reconcile people to the Church is fitting here as well as with people in irregular marriage situations. Obviously the unrepentant can’t be treated like the repentant, but finding the best way to bring each individual back to the Church applies to the tax-cheat as well as the divorced and remarried. The sin has to be rejected, but the Church is called to find out how to help them do so.

Conclusion

But rhetoric seeking to add more dislike to the German bishops after their stand during the extraordinary synod is not just. The issue would be present regardless of what position the German bishops took on divorce and remarriage. We can’t assume, “They were wrong on marriage, therefore they are wrong on tax-dodging.” So let’s not judge them rashly here.

Thoughts on German Bishops and the Church Tax

Article: For German Bishops, Sacramental Mercy Has a Price

The Problem

Certain Catholic news sources have been talking about a new story—that isn’t really new. I personally wrote about it in 2012. What’s different about it is it’s no longer just the liberal Catholics. Now conservative Catholics are speaking about the story—and using bad logic in doing so.

The situation is uniquely German. Since the 1870s, Germany has deducted taxes from every citizen according to their religious belief—Protestant, Catholic or Jewish—and given it to the religious denominations. It’s not something I think should be done, but the churches have nothing to do with it. It’s going to happen no matter what the churches say. The problem is this: Some Catholics, in order to avoid paying the taxes, have legally declared themselves as belonging to no religion. The Church in Germany has responded by denying these people the sacraments, except for emergency situations.

The Assessment of Fallacies

The problem is, I do not think the accusations are just when it comes to the sense that the bishops should take no action. Rather, it seems to me that certain Catholics are using the unpopularity of the German bishops to make their own behavior look better . . . using rhetoric that plays off of emotions instead of the facts of the case. But in justly assessing something, that is exactly what we must not be led by.

The article starts out by mentioning Cardinal Kasper, saying:

As Cardinal Walter Kasper prepares to receive an award and give a speech at The Catholic University of America later today, some are accusing him and his episcopal colleagues of Germany of hypocrisy.

The critics point out that while Cardinal Kasper and most of his fellow German bishops have been leading the charge to allow those in “irregular” marital situations — those who are divorced and remarried — to receive Communion, they have simultaneously denied the sacraments, including even Confession, to those who opt out of paying Germany’s “church tax.”

Invoking Kasper is a good way to slant the article right off the bat. He’s unpopular with conservative Catholics, and invoking him is a good way to turn them against the situation being described. So introducing the article with the Cardinal is the Red Herring fallacy. Citing him is gratuitous. The article could be written without him. Moreover, invoking the German position on divorce and remarriage is an example of the tu quoque fallacy. Whether or not the sins of divorced and remarried Catholics are dealt with is irrelevant as to whether or not the bishops deal with the people who renounce their faith legally to avoid paying the Church tax.

In other words, just because the German Bishops were wrong on their views on divorce and remarriage, doesn’t mean they’re wrong on the issue of people who claim they’re not Catholic to avoid taxes.

Using slogans like “Pay to Pray” is an appeal to emotion and a straw man. That is simply not what this is about. The affair is over Catholics believing they can renounce the faith legally and not face the consequences. These are not innocent people being “picked on.” They did make a legal act renouncing their faith, and the question is to ask what is the appropriate response. If sanctions are justified, they have no cause to object.

The Church Teaching Says This Is Not The Same As Apostasy

Now, it is true that separation from the Church for legal purposes was decreed as not being the same thing as real apostasy. The exact quote is: 

2.  The substance of the act of the will must be the rupture of those bonds of communion – faith, sacraments, and pastoral governance – that permit the Faithful to receive the life of grace within the Church. This means that the formal act of defection must have more than a juridical-administrative character (the removal of one’s name from a Church membership registry maintained by the government in order to produce certain civil consequences), but be configured as a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church: it supposes, therefore, an act of apostasy, heresy or schism.

3.  The juridical-administrative act of abandoning the Church does not per se constitute a formal act of defection as understood in the Code, given that there could still be the will to remain in the communion of the faith.

That’s fair enough. Unless a person intends to break with the Church in fact, he can’t be charged with apostasy or a formal act of defection. But there’s a problem. There’s nothing in the document that says that the people do this suffer no penalty. It just says they do not fall under the category of choosing to leave the faith.

So, this document means we don’t call such Catholics apostates and don’t punish them like apostates. But that doesn’t mean they are free of penalty.

My Personal Opinion On the Subject

Personally, I am inclined to think (always recognizing the Pope as the one who makes the final decision, willing to submit if he decides in a manner different than this opinion) that even though this is not an act of apostasy, it is an act of scandal. The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines scandal as:

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense. (2847)

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing. (1903)

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. (1887; 2498)

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to “social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.” This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,⁸⁹ or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. “Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”

In terms of this incident, possible scandal is caused by giving the impression that they really are rejecting the faith in fact, not just as a legal fiction. That can cause doubt among the faithful and give the unbelievers something to point fingers at.

In Church history, even giving the appearance of renouncing the Catholic faith is a serious issue, even if it is done insincerely. For example, during the Roman Empire, Christians were given a choice of sacrificing to idols or death. Many Christians died for their faith. Some apostatized. But a third group (called libellatici) thought they could be clever. They managed to get certificates claiming they had sacrificed when they really did not. They thought they had been faithful . . . but the Church did not see it this way. This was a matter of scandal because, to anybody who saw it, it looked like the person was denying his or her faith. The Church required penance before they could be returned to the faith.

Even today, in the face of ISIS, we see people who are given a choice of death, paying the jizya tax or converting. Catholics have witnessed for their faith by choosing hardship and exile.

So I don’t think that the people who do this in Germany are doing right. Are the bishops being too harsh? Maybe. I would support an investigation into what should be done in these cases. I also think a friend of mine had the right idea. He offered the opinion that the Church in Germany should refuse the tax funds to prevent government intrusion into the life of the Church.

But the bishops do have the right to determine how to apply Catholic moral teaching and the Canon Law insofar as this determination does not go against Catholic teaching. So that’s the point of investigation: Is the bishops action in keeping or not in keeping with the Church teaching?

Of course, Pope Francis and his calls for finding a way to reconcile people to the Church is fitting here as well as with people in irregular marriage situations. Obviously the unrepentant can’t be treated like the repentant, but finding the best way to bring each individual back to the Church applies to the tax-cheat as well as the divorced and remarried. The sin has to be rejected, but the Church is called to find out how to help them do so.

Conclusion

But rhetoric seeking to add more dislike to the German bishops after their stand during the extraordinary synod is not just. The issue would be present regardless of what position the German bishops took on divorce and remarriage. We can’t assume, “They were wrong on marriage, therefore they are wrong on tax-dodging.” So let’s not judge them rashly here.

TFTD: In Case You Thought the Battle Was Over

Article: "Judge Rules Missouri Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - NBC News.com."

Just a reminder that the battle in standing up for what is right in the face of those who call evil good is not over. The president can still abuse the executive order and judges can still legislate from the bench. All the change of power in Congress will accomplish is preventing some appointments that would enable evil and reducing the number of bills from Congress seeking to expand immoral acts as “rights” from making it to the President’s desk.

Personally I think politicians who are lukewarm in their support of Christian morality are better than politicians who openly advocate what we call evil. But it’s still inferior to the politicians who take their Christian beliefs seriously and view their office as a vocation to do right.

But of course, the lukewarm politicians are not likely to become fervent unless we become vessels bringing God’s grace.

So, no, the battle is not over. We can’t relax just because the majority of members of Congress have changed the letter of their party affiliation from a D to an R.

The battle’s not over until God calls us home.

TFTD: In Case You Thought the Battle Was Over

Article: "Judge Rules Missouri Gay Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - NBC News.com."

Just a reminder that the battle in standing up for what is right in the face of those who call evil good is not over. The president can still abuse the executive order and judges can still legislate from the bench. All the change of power in Congress will accomplish is preventing some appointments that would enable evil and reducing the number of bills from Congress seeking to expand immoral acts as “rights” from making it to the President’s desk.

Personally I think politicians who are lukewarm in their support of Christian morality are better than politicians who openly advocate what we call evil. But it’s still inferior to the politicians who take their Christian beliefs seriously and view their office as a vocation to do right.

But of course, the lukewarm politicians are not likely to become fervent unless we become vessels bringing God’s grace.

So, no, the battle is not over. We can’t relax just because the majority of members of Congress have changed the letter of their party affiliation from a D to an R.

The battle’s not over until God calls us home.

Once More, Not Time To Relax

³ Put no trust in princes, 

in children of Adam powerless to save. 

⁴ Who breathing his last, returns to the earth; 

that day all his planning comes to nothing. 

(Psalm 146:3-4)

I personally consider myself an independent in terms of US Politics because I find both parties fall short of the Catholic moral teaching. One party stands actively in favor of things we must call evil, the other is indifferent in standing up against these things—even to the point of questioning whether they should stop fighting those battles to gain more votes.

So, as I watch the results of the elections tonight, it’s not so much a sense of elation as a sense of resignation. Yes, the political party which stands most in opposition to the Catholic moral teaching seems to be suffering election losses, but the actual numbers are too small to make much of a difference in protecting us from an activist court system and a President who uses executive orders to rule by decree. The Senate seats picked up by the Republicans are too small to override a presidential veto. That means that we won’t see bills protecting marriage, the right to life and religious freedom succeed in becoming law. We probably won’t see executive orders overturned by bills becoming law.

I suspect we’ll see more executive orders and judicial activism take place.

Moreover, some of the candidates who are winning as Republicans have shown that they do not have any desire to protect these issues (Colorado comes to mind).

So, like always, a Republican majority in Congress doesn’t mean that our beliefs will be respected by the government. At best we can hope them to be lukewarm defenders of what we know is right. At worst, look for a growing number to be indifferent to the point of dumping this defense in exchange for more votes.

The upshot is this. It’s not time to relax. We’re going to have to continue to deal with the attacks on what is right, only slightly more protected from some unjust bills becoming law.

So, we need to pray, first of all. We have to continue to teach the message of salvation to the world, remembering that regardless of whether the politicians have a “D” or an “R” after their names, it is our task to reach out to them to change their hearts to do what is right.

We can’t put our trust in princes (or politicians). We have to look to God and to the Church He tasked to preach His message to the whole world. 

Once More, Not Time To Relax

³ Put no trust in princes, 

in children of Adam powerless to save. 

⁴ Who breathing his last, returns to the earth; 

that day all his planning comes to nothing. 

(Psalm 146:3-4)

I personally consider myself an independent in terms of US Politics because I find both parties fall short of the Catholic moral teaching. One party stands actively in favor of things we must call evil, the other is indifferent in standing up against these things—even to the point of questioning whether they should stop fighting those battles to gain more votes.

So, as I watch the results of the elections tonight, it’s not so much a sense of elation as a sense of resignation. Yes, the political party which stands most in opposition to the Catholic moral teaching seems to be suffering election losses, but the actual numbers are too small to make much of a difference in protecting us from an activist court system and a President who uses executive orders to rule by decree. The Senate seats picked up by the Republicans are too small to override a presidential veto. That means that we won’t see bills protecting marriage, the right to life and religious freedom succeed in becoming law. We probably won’t see executive orders overturned by bills becoming law.

I suspect we’ll see more executive orders and judicial activism take place.

Moreover, some of the candidates who are winning as Republicans have shown that they do not have any desire to protect these issues (Colorado comes to mind).

So, like always, a Republican majority in Congress doesn’t mean that our beliefs will be respected by the government. At best we can hope them to be lukewarm defenders of what we know is right. At worst, look for a growing number to be indifferent to the point of dumping this defense in exchange for more votes.

The upshot is this. It’s not time to relax. We’re going to have to continue to deal with the attacks on what is right, only slightly more protected from some unjust bills becoming law.

So, we need to pray, first of all. We have to continue to teach the message of salvation to the world, remembering that regardless of whether the politicians have a “D” or an “R” after their names, it is our task to reach out to them to change their hearts to do what is right.

We can’t put our trust in princes (or politicians). We have to look to God and to the Church He tasked to preach His message to the whole world. 

Beckoning Their Foes to the Exit? The Curious Case of the Media and Slanted Reporting on the Church

Article: US cardinal slams Pope Francis over softer approach to homosexuality | Daily Mail Online

I have been writing about the conservative grumbling about the synod and some of the rhetoric about the faithful opposing Pope Francis. Of course I think it is a dangerous thing to make oneself a judge over whether the Pope is faithful or not. But the drumbeat of the media is interesting as well. It seems that they are not content to report on disgruntled Catholics, but want to stir up their discontent as well.

There have been several news reports about “conservative” cardinals “opposing” the Pope because of his “changing" the teaching of the Church. But the headlines don’t match what the cardinals actually say. There are no rebukes of Pope Francis. There are no changes to the teaching of the Church. What is being said is that some members of the laity are confused about the reports about the synod.

So, what we have seems to be a three step attack:

1. Media misreports words of Pope or synod to give impression of changing Church teaching.
2. Media misreports words of bishops to give impression of rebellion.
3. Media encourages thoughts of conservative Catholics wanting to leave the Church.

Basically, it looks as if they’re making the Church to look bad enough (from a conservative perspective) that the faithful won’t trust the magisterium, and perhaps want to leave—encouraging an exodus from the Church (whether physical or mental), leaving it to those with a liberal perspective. It’s a media participation in the devil’s plans to encourage the orthodox Catholics to doubt God’s role in the Church.

It seems to be working. I have seen certain Catholic news sites turn from accurately reporting the facts to assuming that the media reports are true, reacting in horror, doubting the Pope, thinking the Church will change her teaching. I have seen Catholic bloggers turn from defending the faith to assuming that the Pope is changing it. I have seen some apologists go from defending the Church from misrepresentation to complaining that they have to defend the Church from misrepresentation—blaming the Pope for the media irresponsibility.

When that happens, it becomes easy for the average Catholic to become demoralized, thinking the teaching authority of the Church is being overwhelmed with error.

To prevent this, faithful Catholics need to be informed so they can recognize the difference between the actual teachings and interviews with the Magisterium. It’s time to stop taking media reports (whether mainstream media or political commentary from either faction) as if they were accurately reporting the news. None of these have shown themselves to be reliable in assessing what is going on. Once a source has shown itself unreliable in accuracy, we need to investigate what they claim, rather than taking it at face value.

Otherwise, we give the devil the opportunity to try to separate us from our faith.

Beckoning Their Foes to the Exit? The Curious Case of the Media and Slanted Reporting on the Church

Article: US cardinal slams Pope Francis over softer approach to homosexuality | Daily Mail Online

I have been writing about the conservative grumbling about the synod and some of the rhetoric about the faithful opposing Pope Francis. Of course I think it is a dangerous thing to make oneself a judge over whether the Pope is faithful or not. But the drumbeat of the media is interesting as well. It seems that they are not content to report on disgruntled Catholics, but want to stir up their discontent as well.

There have been several news reports about “conservative” cardinals “opposing” the Pope because of his “changing" the teaching of the Church. But the headlines don’t match what the cardinals actually say. There are no rebukes of Pope Francis. There are no changes to the teaching of the Church. What is being said is that some members of the laity are confused about the reports about the synod.

So, what we have seems to be a three step attack:

1. Media misreports words of Pope or synod to give impression of changing Church teaching.
2. Media misreports words of bishops to give impression of rebellion.
3. Media encourages thoughts of conservative Catholics wanting to leave the Church.

Basically, it looks as if they’re making the Church to look bad enough (from a conservative perspective) that the faithful won’t trust the magisterium, and perhaps want to leave—encouraging an exodus from the Church (whether physical or mental), leaving it to those with a liberal perspective. It’s a media participation in the devil’s plans to encourage the orthodox Catholics to doubt God’s role in the Church.

It seems to be working. I have seen certain Catholic news sites turn from accurately reporting the facts to assuming that the media reports are true, reacting in horror, doubting the Pope, thinking the Church will change her teaching. I have seen Catholic bloggers turn from defending the faith to assuming that the Pope is changing it. I have seen some apologists go from defending the Church from misrepresentation to complaining that they have to defend the Church from misrepresentation—blaming the Pope for the media irresponsibility.

When that happens, it becomes easy for the average Catholic to become demoralized, thinking the teaching authority of the Church is being overwhelmed with error.

To prevent this, faithful Catholics need to be informed so they can recognize the difference between the actual teachings and interviews with the Magisterium. It’s time to stop taking media reports (whether mainstream media or political commentary from either faction) as if they were accurately reporting the news. None of these have shown themselves to be reliable in assessing what is going on. Once a source has shown itself unreliable in accuracy, we need to investigate what they claim, rather than taking it at face value.

Otherwise, we give the devil the opportunity to try to separate us from our faith.

TFTD: Reflections on Brittany Maynard

News Article: Brittany Maynard, The 29-Year-Old With Brain Cancer, Has Committed Suicide.

The news has come out that Brittany Maynard has indeed committed suicide. It is a tragedy compounded by the fact that certain groups portray her action as heroic.

The Catholic position on suicide is as follows:

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. (2258)

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God. (2212)

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. (1735)

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives. (1037)

(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

We cannot call her actions good of course. But when it comes to her moral culpability, we cannot see into her heart. We don’t know of her mental and emotional state to know whether she met the conditions for mortal sin. We don’t know to what extent her pain impaired her judgment.

We also don’t know what level of culpability she has for advocating suicide as a good (See #2282 in the Catechism above). Objectively, we must call it wrong.

However, God knows her heart, and knows of all the circumstances. When He judges her, it will be with mercy and justice. We can trust in Him and so we can continue to pray for her soul instead of despairing for her salvation.

What strikes me about this case however is there were people and groups who support legalized suicide who bear some level of responsibility—people who failed her by telling her her decision was good, people who stayed silent when they should have spoken out. People who thought that saying “goodbye” instead of “Wait!” was good.

Objectively, what they did or failed to do was wrong as well, and will need to be answered when they face God at the end of their lives.

So, when praying for the soul of Brittany Maynard, also pray for those who influenced her decision to do what was wrong that they may repent.

TFTD: Reflections on Brittany Maynard

News Article: Brittany Maynard, The 29-Year-Old With Brain Cancer, Has Committed Suicide.

The news has come out that Brittany Maynard has indeed committed suicide. It is a tragedy compounded by the fact that certain groups portray her action as heroic.

The Catholic position on suicide is as follows:

2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. (2258)

2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is contrary to love for the living God. (2212)

2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. (1735)

Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives. (1037)

(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

We cannot call her actions good of course. But when it comes to her moral culpability, we cannot see into her heart. We don’t know of her mental and emotional state to know whether she met the conditions for mortal sin. We don’t know to what extent her pain impaired her judgment.

We also don’t know what level of culpability she has for advocating suicide as a good (See #2282 in the Catechism above). Objectively, we must call it wrong.

However, God knows her heart, and knows of all the circumstances. When He judges her, it will be with mercy and justice. We can trust in Him and so we can continue to pray for her soul instead of despairing for her salvation.

What strikes me about this case however is there were people and groups who support legalized suicide who bear some level of responsibility—people who failed her by telling her her decision was good, people who stayed silent when they should have spoken out. People who thought that saying “goodbye” instead of “Wait!” was good.

Objectively, what they did or failed to do was wrong as well, and will need to be answered when they face God at the end of their lives.

So, when praying for the soul of Brittany Maynard, also pray for those who influenced her decision to do what was wrong that they may repent.

TFTD: The Difference Between the Honorable One and the Knave

I read in the news today that six judges in North Carolina chose to resign their position rather than violate their consciences over the judicial diktat on so-called same-sex “marriages.” They recognized that they had an obligation when it came to choosing between doing what they were obligated to do before God and saving their jobs and going along with the flow.

In contrast, during the push to legalize same-sex “marriage,” of the proponents of same-sex “marriages", whether county clerks who illegally signed marriage licenses for same-sex couples (or refused to sign normal marriage certificates), or judges who equated their political views with what was constitutional, or governors who refused their sworn duty to uphold the law and refused to defend laws defending marriage . . . not one of them chose to resign. When it came to a choice between doing what they disagreed with or resigning, these people chose to go beyond their authority instead.

That’s the difference between an honorable person and a knave. One seeks to do what is right, even at great personal cost. The other abuses their authority in order to promote a cause.

Unfortunately, the knaves do not face any consequences for their actions.

When government officials can get away with abuse of power to promote their personal agendas, that’s how corruption and loss of freedom happens.

There’s irony when the people who truly follow their consciences are considered bigots who force their views on others, while government officials can push their agendas into law and are considered defenders of freedom.

We can be pretty sure that if these judges did not resign, but stayed in office and refused to comply with the law, they would face consequences.

TFTD: The Difference Between the Honorable One and the Knave

I read in the news today that six judges in North Carolina chose to resign their position rather than violate their consciences over the judicial diktat on so-called same-sex “marriages.” They recognized that they had an obligation when it came to choosing between doing what they were obligated to do before God and saving their jobs and going along with the flow.

In contrast, during the push to legalize same-sex “marriage,” of the proponents of same-sex “marriages", whether county clerks who illegally signed marriage licenses for same-sex couples (or refused to sign normal marriage certificates), or judges who equated their political views with what was constitutional, or governors who refused their sworn duty to uphold the law and refused to defend laws defending marriage . . . not one of them chose to resign. When it came to a choice between doing what they disagreed with or resigning, these people chose to go beyond their authority instead.

That’s the difference between an honorable person and a knave. One seeks to do what is right, even at great personal cost. The other abuses their authority in order to promote a cause.

Unfortunately, the knaves do not face any consequences for their actions.

When government officials can get away with abuse of power to promote their personal agendas, that’s how corruption and loss of freedom happens.

There’s irony when the people who truly follow their consciences are considered bigots who force their views on others, while government officials can push their agendas into law and are considered defenders of freedom.

We can be pretty sure that if these judges did not resign, but stayed in office and refused to comply with the law, they would face consequences.

To Whom Will You Go?

Read more »

To Whom Will You Go?

Read more »

TFTD: Wasn't this supposed to be a PARODY originally?

Two years ago, The Onion published the article "Supreme Court Overturns 'Right v. Wrong’.” It was supposed to be a parody of bad judicial decisions. But with recent rulings and what it lets stand in the lower courts, it seems that the Supreme Court has rejected the concept of the obligation to do what is right with the concept that restrictions on behavior are bad.

What we have seems to be that the person who feels obligated to do what is right can be fired, sued or prosecuted by people who equate doing what is right with violating the rights of people who think that is a hindrance to their behavior.

Also, as a side note, it’s curious how the justices listed in the article as defending “right” turned out the ones who seem to be defending “wrong” currently.

TFTD: Wasn't this supposed to be a PARODY originally?

Two years ago, The Onion published the article "Supreme Court Overturns 'Right v. Wrong’.” It was supposed to be a parody of bad judicial decisions. But with recent rulings and what it lets stand in the lower courts, it seems that the Supreme Court has rejected the concept of the obligation to do what is right with the concept that restrictions on behavior are bad.

What we have seems to be that the person who feels obligated to do what is right can be fired, sued or prosecuted by people who equate doing what is right with violating the rights of people who think that is a hindrance to their behavior.

Also, as a side note, it’s curious how the justices listed in the article as defending “right” turned out the ones who seem to be defending “wrong” currently.

More Talk on Schism

The drumbeat of media commentators talking about the danger of schism within the Catholic Church seems to be a popular theme. The latest comes from The Guardian writer, Andrew Brown. His article, "A Catholic church schism under Pope Francis isn’t out of the question,” takes the theme of Ross Douthat and expands on the idea of a conservative schism. He writes:

Until this weekend, I had largely believed in the liberal narrative which holds that Pope Francis’s reforms of the Catholic church are unstoppable. But the conservative backlash has been so fierce and so far-reaching that for the first time a split looks a real, if distant, possibility.

One leading conservative, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, published over the weekend a homily he had prepared for the traditional Latin mass at which he started ruminating on papal authority. Pope Francis, he said, was the 266th pope, “and history has seen 37 false or antipopes”.

Why mention them, except to raise the possibility that Francis might turn out to be the 38th false pope, rather than the 266th real one?

This is a fascinating nudge in the direction of an established strain of conservative fringe belief: that liberalising popes are not in fact real popes, but imposters, sent by the devil. The explanation has an attractively deranged logic: if the pope is always right, as traditionalists would like to believe, and if this particular pope is clearly wrong, as traditionalists also believe, then obviously this pope is not the real pope. Splinter groups have held this view ever since the liberalising papacy of Pope John XXIII at the start of the 1960s. I don’t think that’s what Pell meant, but it was odd and threatening to bring the subject up at all.

The other warning of schism, though veiled in regret, came from the conservative American journalist Ross Douthat, who wrote on Sunday that “[Conservative Catholics] might want to consider the possibility that they have a role to play, and that this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resists him.”

I believe Brown has a faulty understanding on the workings of the Church—his misunderstanding of what an antipope is leads to a misinterpretation of Cardinal Pell’s words. If one reads the full text of Cardinal Pell’s words, it is clear that the cardinal is not speaking of questioning the legitimacy of Pope Francis. It is a homily on the papacy and how it survived many controversies. Cardinal Pell doesn’t question the legitimacy of the Pope. Rather, he is assuring the faithful who are deeply troubled by the media coverage of the synod that the Church has never fallen into error and never will..

(An antipope, by the way, is a person established as pope in opposition to one canonically chosen. So, Pope Francis couldn’t be an antipope because he was canonically chosen. The idea of labeling a Pope an antipope nowadays is a way to seek giving legitimacy to conservative dissent among the fringes).

But, let’s talk about the dangers of schism. That’s not the same as having a political dispute. That’s a denial that the truth is found in the Church, and a belief that the faction of the Church knows better than those that Our Lord gave His authority to.

Think about it. We Catholics profess our belief that Jesus is God, and that He gave the Church authority to teach in His name. He gave her the power to bind and loose. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. He promised that He would be with the Church always until the end of the age. With these promises, we can take one of three positions:

1. We can have faith that the Church will not teach error in matters of salvation because we have faith in Jesus (The Catholic position).
2. We can deny that the Church properly interpreted those promises (This would be the position of the Protestants and Orthodox).
3. We can deny that Jesus had the power/will to keep those promises (The position of non-Christians).

The problem is, positions #2 and #3 are not Catholic positions, and to hold either of them is to deny an element of the Catholic Faith. So, why should we look at a Catholic who publicly denies the first position as an example of being a faithful Catholic? After all, the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out that among the sins against faith are:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

So when people are claiming that the Church is going to fall into error and that the Pope is teaching dangerous things, it is a serious matter indeed. But people are playing with fire here. Taking the premise that the Church is going to change Church teaching as true, people are deceived into thinking that their own private judgments are closer to the truth than that of the Pope when he teaches.

Usually, when I encounter this online, I ask the person which council declared him or her infallible—because that is effectively what they are claiming for themselves. I think any reader who thinks this way should also ask themselves this question. The point is, you are not and I am not infallible. We can fall into error of misinterpreting the teaching of the Church. In fact, the point is we are supposed to look to the magisterium of the Church for guidance. It’s hard to do that when we’re making ourselves the judge of the Church teaching and teachers.

Historically, schism has come when a group of Catholics have decided that the Church under the leadership of the Pope no longer (or never did) possesses binding authority. The history of the Church is full of schismatics who thought the Pope was too “lenient” on Church teaching. The Church had antipopes because some people decided they didn’t like the results about the Pope who was chosen, and thought they had the authority to name a different one.

Those two are the extremes of course. But the devil doesn’t need to use extremes to lead people to hell. All he needs to do is to get people to put their will first, and follow the Church only if it agrees with what they wish to believe. They can remain within the Church of course. But once they think of themselves as the judges of the Church, they become too proud to be taught. Anything they hear that is contrary to what they decide is right immediately becomes suspect. 

If the devil can get people to do that, it doesn’t matter whether they formally break in schism—they’ve already denied Christ’s promises.

Faith in Christ doesn’t mean that we accept everything the hippy-dip promoter of the Spirit of Vatican II people proclaim. But it means that when the Pope teaches on a matter involving salvation, it means he is not going to teach error.

More Talk on Schism

The drumbeat of media commentators talking about the danger of schism within the Catholic Church seems to be a popular theme. The latest comes from The Guardian writer, Andrew Brown. His article, "A Catholic church schism under Pope Francis isn’t out of the question,” takes the theme of Ross Douthat and expands on the idea of a conservative schism. He writes:

Until this weekend, I had largely believed in the liberal narrative which holds that Pope Francis’s reforms of the Catholic church are unstoppable. But the conservative backlash has been so fierce and so far-reaching that for the first time a split looks a real, if distant, possibility.

One leading conservative, the Australian Cardinal George Pell, published over the weekend a homily he had prepared for the traditional Latin mass at which he started ruminating on papal authority. Pope Francis, he said, was the 266th pope, “and history has seen 37 false or antipopes”.

Why mention them, except to raise the possibility that Francis might turn out to be the 38th false pope, rather than the 266th real one?

This is a fascinating nudge in the direction of an established strain of conservative fringe belief: that liberalising popes are not in fact real popes, but imposters, sent by the devil. The explanation has an attractively deranged logic: if the pope is always right, as traditionalists would like to believe, and if this particular pope is clearly wrong, as traditionalists also believe, then obviously this pope is not the real pope. Splinter groups have held this view ever since the liberalising papacy of Pope John XXIII at the start of the 1960s. I don’t think that’s what Pell meant, but it was odd and threatening to bring the subject up at all.

The other warning of schism, though veiled in regret, came from the conservative American journalist Ross Douthat, who wrote on Sunday that “[Conservative Catholics] might want to consider the possibility that they have a role to play, and that this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resists him.”

I believe Brown has a faulty understanding on the workings of the Church—his misunderstanding of what an antipope is leads to a misinterpretation of Cardinal Pell’s words. If one reads the full text of Cardinal Pell’s words, it is clear that the cardinal is not speaking of questioning the legitimacy of Pope Francis. It is a homily on the papacy and how it survived many controversies. Cardinal Pell doesn’t question the legitimacy of the Pope. Rather, he is assuring the faithful who are deeply troubled by the media coverage of the synod that the Church has never fallen into error and never will..

(An antipope, by the way, is a person established as pope in opposition to one canonically chosen. So, Pope Francis couldn’t be an antipope because he was canonically chosen. The idea of labeling a Pope an antipope nowadays is a way to seek giving legitimacy to conservative dissent among the fringes).

But, let’s talk about the dangers of schism. That’s not the same as having a political dispute. That’s a denial that the truth is found in the Church, and a belief that the faction of the Church knows better than those that Our Lord gave His authority to.

Think about it. We Catholics profess our belief that Jesus is God, and that He gave the Church authority to teach in His name. He gave her the power to bind and loose. He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against her. He promised that He would be with the Church always until the end of the age. With these promises, we can take one of three positions:

1. We can have faith that the Church will not teach error in matters of salvation because we have faith in Jesus (The Catholic position).
2. We can deny that the Church properly interpreted those promises (This would be the position of the Protestants and Orthodox).
3. We can deny that Jesus had the power/will to keep those promises (The position of non-Christians).

The problem is, positions #2 and #3 are not Catholic positions, and to hold either of them is to deny an element of the Catholic Faith. So, why should we look at a Catholic who publicly denies the first position as an example of being a faithful Catholic? After all, the Catechism of the Catholic Church points out that among the sins against faith are:

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

So when people are claiming that the Church is going to fall into error and that the Pope is teaching dangerous things, it is a serious matter indeed. But people are playing with fire here. Taking the premise that the Church is going to change Church teaching as true, people are deceived into thinking that their own private judgments are closer to the truth than that of the Pope when he teaches.

Usually, when I encounter this online, I ask the person which council declared him or her infallible—because that is effectively what they are claiming for themselves. I think any reader who thinks this way should also ask themselves this question. The point is, you are not and I am not infallible. We can fall into error of misinterpreting the teaching of the Church. In fact, the point is we are supposed to look to the magisterium of the Church for guidance. It’s hard to do that when we’re making ourselves the judge of the Church teaching and teachers.

Historically, schism has come when a group of Catholics have decided that the Church under the leadership of the Pope no longer (or never did) possesses binding authority. The history of the Church is full of schismatics who thought the Pope was too “lenient” on Church teaching. The Church had antipopes because some people decided they didn’t like the results about the Pope who was chosen, and thought they had the authority to name a different one.

Those two are the extremes of course. But the devil doesn’t need to use extremes to lead people to hell. All he needs to do is to get people to put their will first, and follow the Church only if it agrees with what they wish to believe. They can remain within the Church of course. But once they think of themselves as the judges of the Church, they become too proud to be taught. Anything they hear that is contrary to what they decide is right immediately becomes suspect. 

If the devil can get people to do that, it doesn’t matter whether they formally break in schism—they’ve already denied Christ’s promises.

Faith in Christ doesn’t mean that we accept everything the hippy-dip promoter of the Spirit of Vatican II people proclaim. But it means that when the Pope teaches on a matter involving salvation, it means he is not going to teach error.

The Conservative Op-Ed Writer and the Precipice

I came across a rather bizarre article in the New York Times about the Church. That in itself is not too unusual for that paper. What made it even stranger was the advocacy of disobedience by conservative Catholics. In "The Pope and the Precipice,” we see conservative columnist Ross Douthat opine that the Pope is supporting change on the Church teaching on sexuality and the votes on the final relatio was intended as a rebuke of the Pope . . . and perhaps it should be.

He writes the following:

Francis is charismatic, popular, widely beloved. He has, until this point, faced strong criticism only from the church’s traditionalist fringe, and managed to unite most Catholics in admiration for his ministry. There are ways that he can shape the church without calling doctrine into question, and avenues he can explore (annulment reform, in particular) that would bring more people back to the sacraments without a crisis. He can be, as he clearly wishes to be, a progressive pope, a pope of social justice — and he does not have to break the church to do it.

But if he seems to be choosing the more dangerous path — if he moves to reassign potential critics in the hierarchy, if he seems to be stacking the next synod’s ranks with supporters of a sweeping change — then conservative Catholics will need a cleareyed understanding of the situation.

They can certainly persist in the belief that God protects the church from self-contradiction. But they might want to consider the possibility that they have a role to play, and that this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resists him.

Mr. Douthat would have us believe that the Pope really believes the Church teaching must change:

But something very different is happening under Pope Francis. In his public words and gestures, through the men he’s elevated and the debates he’s encouraged, this pope has repeatedly signaled a desire to rethink issues where Catholic teaching is in clear tension with Western social life — sex and marriage, divorce and homosexuality.

and:

Yes, Francis has taken no formal position on the issues currently in play. But all his moves point in a pro-change direction — and it simply defies belief that men appointed by the pope would have proposed departures on controversial issues without a sense that Francis would approve.

 He believes that the Pope can err unless opposed, and he fears a schism can occur if the Pope changes the teaching (see HERE)

I think his understanding of God’s role in all of this seems to be a defective one. If the Pope changes a teaching in such a way that it says that a sin is not a sin, or that public sinners may receive the Eucharist, this is a matter involving salvation—if the Pope teaches wrongly in this matter, it is something that will endanger the souls of many. If the Pope could do that, we could never trust a teaching of the Church. We could never know when the Church taught error and could never be sure we could trust a teaching.

But if this be true, then either the Catholic Church has misunderstood the meaning of Christ’s promises or it means Christ could not keep His promises. Either way, the Church teaching on same sex attraction would be the least of our worries because it means the Church already has taught gravely serious error.

So this is the precipice Mr. Douthat is standing in front of. He’s convinced that the Pope will choose wrongly unless he is challenged. Once you take that step it’s a long way down, because it makes you the arbiter of right and wrong and the judge of the Church. That way lies the dissension, rebellion and schism that he fears. Basically it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy brought on from wanting to avoid it.

But I believe Mr. Douthat grossly misreads the intent of Pope Francis. He is not a “hippy-dip” liberal. He has a record of writings and actions which show he has spent his time defending the Church teaching.

If you read what he has to say, in context, we see that he has always defended the Church teaching from those who would change things. Consider four years ago, (three years before he became Pope), then Cardinal Bergoglio took a stand leading the Church in Argentina against the attempts to legalize same-sex marriage. The article cites him as saying:

He wrote: “In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

Cardinal Bergoglio continued: “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

These are not the words of a man who supports a change in Church teaching.

Mr. Douthat’s problem is not that he’s a false Catholic. I won’t accuse him of being a heretic or a schismatic. He seems very sincere in his faith, wanting to be obedient to the Church. The problem is that he sees things in one possible way, and that way is the belief that Pope Francis is what the liberals claim him to be.

As for myself, I don’t fear the catastrophes he does, and this is for two reasons:

1. I believe that Jesus Christ is still watching over His Church (which is found in communion with the successor of St. Peter) and will not permit her to teach error.
2. I believe Pope Francis loves God and loves the Church and is determined to be a good servant of Christ.

Because of that, I cannot accept his thesis. There may be a schism if certain Catholics are deceived into trusting their own wisdom over Christ’s and believe that the Church will teach error. But this won’t be the Pope’s fault. This will be the fault of those who lost their faith in Christ, and see the Church as a battleground of factions.

So, I keep praying for the Pope every day, and trust in God to give him the needed grace to serve faithfully.

Forget the role of Our Lord and Savior, and you put yourself on a precipice . . . the only way to avoid a fall is to get off the ledge.

The Conservative Op-Ed Writer and the Precipice

I came across a rather bizarre article in the New York Times about the Church. That in itself is not too unusual for that paper. What made it even stranger was the advocacy of disobedience by conservative Catholics. In "The Pope and the Precipice,” we see conservative columnist Ross Douthat opine that the Pope is supporting change on the Church teaching on sexuality and the votes on the final relatio was intended as a rebuke of the Pope . . . and perhaps it should be.

He writes the following:

Francis is charismatic, popular, widely beloved. He has, until this point, faced strong criticism only from the church’s traditionalist fringe, and managed to unite most Catholics in admiration for his ministry. There are ways that he can shape the church without calling doctrine into question, and avenues he can explore (annulment reform, in particular) that would bring more people back to the sacraments without a crisis. He can be, as he clearly wishes to be, a progressive pope, a pope of social justice — and he does not have to break the church to do it.

But if he seems to be choosing the more dangerous path — if he moves to reassign potential critics in the hierarchy, if he seems to be stacking the next synod’s ranks with supporters of a sweeping change — then conservative Catholics will need a cleareyed understanding of the situation.

They can certainly persist in the belief that God protects the church from self-contradiction. But they might want to consider the possibility that they have a role to play, and that this pope may be preserved from error only if the church itself resists him.

Mr. Douthat would have us believe that the Pope really believes the Church teaching must change:

But something very different is happening under Pope Francis. In his public words and gestures, through the men he’s elevated and the debates he’s encouraged, this pope has repeatedly signaled a desire to rethink issues where Catholic teaching is in clear tension with Western social life — sex and marriage, divorce and homosexuality.

and:

Yes, Francis has taken no formal position on the issues currently in play. But all his moves point in a pro-change direction — and it simply defies belief that men appointed by the pope would have proposed departures on controversial issues without a sense that Francis would approve.

 He believes that the Pope can err unless opposed, and he fears a schism can occur if the Pope changes the teaching (see HERE)

I think his understanding of God’s role in all of this seems to be a defective one. If the Pope changes a teaching in such a way that it says that a sin is not a sin, or that public sinners may receive the Eucharist, this is a matter involving salvation—if the Pope teaches wrongly in this matter, it is something that will endanger the souls of many. If the Pope could do that, we could never trust a teaching of the Church. We could never know when the Church taught error and could never be sure we could trust a teaching.

But if this be true, then either the Catholic Church has misunderstood the meaning of Christ’s promises or it means Christ could not keep His promises. Either way, the Church teaching on same sex attraction would be the least of our worries because it means the Church already has taught gravely serious error.

So this is the precipice Mr. Douthat is standing in front of. He’s convinced that the Pope will choose wrongly unless he is challenged. Once you take that step it’s a long way down, because it makes you the arbiter of right and wrong and the judge of the Church. That way lies the dissension, rebellion and schism that he fears. Basically it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy brought on from wanting to avoid it.

But I believe Mr. Douthat grossly misreads the intent of Pope Francis. He is not a “hippy-dip” liberal. He has a record of writings and actions which show he has spent his time defending the Church teaching.

If you read what he has to say, in context, we see that he has always defended the Church teaching from those who would change things. Consider four years ago, (three years before he became Pope), then Cardinal Bergoglio took a stand leading the Church in Argentina against the attempts to legalize same-sex marriage. The article cites him as saying:

He wrote: “In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.”

Cardinal Bergoglio continued: “Let us not be naive: this is not simply a political struggle, but it is an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill (a mere instrument) but a ‘move’ of the father of lies who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

These are not the words of a man who supports a change in Church teaching.

Mr. Douthat’s problem is not that he’s a false Catholic. I won’t accuse him of being a heretic or a schismatic. He seems very sincere in his faith, wanting to be obedient to the Church. The problem is that he sees things in one possible way, and that way is the belief that Pope Francis is what the liberals claim him to be.

As for myself, I don’t fear the catastrophes he does, and this is for two reasons:

1. I believe that Jesus Christ is still watching over His Church (which is found in communion with the successor of St. Peter) and will not permit her to teach error.
2. I believe Pope Francis loves God and loves the Church and is determined to be a good servant of Christ.

Because of that, I cannot accept his thesis. There may be a schism if certain Catholics are deceived into trusting their own wisdom over Christ’s and believe that the Church will teach error. But this won’t be the Pope’s fault. This will be the fault of those who lost their faith in Christ, and see the Church as a battleground of factions.

So, I keep praying for the Pope every day, and trust in God to give him the needed grace to serve faithfully.

Forget the role of Our Lord and Savior, and you put yourself on a precipice . . . the only way to avoid a fall is to get off the ledge.