A New Front in the Catholic Campus Culture Wars
August 24, 2012
Anne Hendershott
Last month’s Vatican decree that the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru has lost the right to call itself pontifical or Catholic has resonance for Catholic colleges and universities in the United States. While Vatican representatives say they have spent years trying to persuade the University of Peru to comply with Church guidelines for Catholic universities, most American Catholic colleges and universities have devoted several decades to ignoring them.
Refusing to comply with Ex Corde Ecclesiae (From the Heart of the Church), the 1990 papal document requiring all Catholic colleges to teach “in communion” with Church doctrine, the University of Peru—like Catholic colleges here—has long claimed independence from Catholic authority. This independence was codified in a symbolic manifesto issued in 1967 at a meeting of U.S. Catholic academic leaders in Land O’ Lakes, Wisconsin, led by Notre Dame’s longtime president, the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh. What became known as the Land O’ Lakes Statement declared: “To perform its teaching and research function effectively, the Catholic university must have a true autonomy and academic freedom in the face of authority of whatever kind, lay or clerical, external to the academic community itself.”
Defiant from the earliest days of the release of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, many Catholic college presidents have refused to implement it. Notre Dame’s then-president Fr. Edward Malloy, along with Fr. Donald Monan, chancellor of Boston College, responded to the release of the document by publishing an article in America calling the document “positively dangerous.” Warning of “havoc” if it were adopted, the faculty senate at Notre Dame voted unanimously for the guidelines to be ignored.
The National Catholic Register has reported that the most recent Vatican concerns about the University of Peru stemmed from the granting of honorary degrees to Gianni Vattimo, a gay supporter of same-sex marriage, and to Gregorio Peces-Barba, one of the writers of the Spanish constitution whom the Register described as “anti-Catholic.” Catholic colleges in the United States have been doing this for years—most recently at Georgetown, which honored Kathleen Sebelius, the pro-choice Secretary of Health and Human Services and the creator of the controversial contraception mandate that has been denounced by bishops throughout the country because of the threat it poses to religious liberty.
For decades, many Catholic colleges and universities have operated as if Catholic doctrine were a social construct contingent on the specific historical, cultural, and institutional contexts in which it emerges. Yale sociologist Michele Dillon points out in her book Catholic Identity: Balancing Reason, Faith and Power that for progressive Catholics—like those teaching on Catholic campuses—authority is diffuse: “It is not located solely in the official hierarchical power structure, but it is dispersed, seen in the everyday interpretive activities of ordinary Catholics.”
While most Catholic colleges continue to ignore Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Pope Benedict has quietly continued his commitment to revitalizing Catholic higher education here and abroad. In a speech to Catholic college presidents at Catholic University a few years ago, Pope Benedict warned those gathered that any appeal to the principle of academic freedom to justify positions that contradict the faith and teaching of the Church betray the university’s identity and mission. Unfortunately, the subtlety was missed by many of those in attendance. The congratulatory headline in The Chronicle of Higher Education claimed that “Pope Benedict Thanks Educators and Addresses Academic Freedom in Talk.” In a published interview in The Chronicle, Mary Lyons, president of the University of San Diego, called the Pope’s speech “affirming and generous” and pronounced the controversies surrounding Ex Corde “so 90s.”
Well, maybe not. Georgetown alum William Peter Blatty, author of The Exorcist, announced in May that he is leading an effort to file a canon lawsuit against his alma mater for failing to live up to the demands of the school’s Catholic identity. Motivated by the honors given to Sebelius by Georgetown, Blatty is joined by alumni, students, and members of the university community in the lawsuit because they agree with his conclusion that “21 years of ignoring Ex Corde Ecclesiae makes a mockery of our Church and of Christ Himself.”
In an open letter explaining his decision, Blatty said that he was sad to see that “Georgetown University today almost seems to take pride in insulting the Church and offending the faithful.” Calling Georgetown a “Potemkin village” in an interview, Blatty complained that the university “points to its chaplains, its Masses, its Knights of Columbus Chapter. At alumni dinners, they will make sure there is a Jesuit in a collar at every table, like the floral arrangement.” For Blatty, Georgetown is the “leader of a pack” of schools that fail to fulfill their Catholic identity, and the lawsuit may be “the only thing that can stop Georgetown in its path.”
Blatty is right about that. The Presidents of these colleges will never implement the tenets of Ex Corde Ecclesiae unless they are forced. The goal of Blatty’s lawsuit is to revoke Georgetown’s right to call itself Catholic. The pronouncement by the Vatican that the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru is neither Catholic nor pontifical may be just the start.
Anne Hendershott is Distinguished Visiting Professor of Public Affairs at The King’s College. She is the author of Status Envy: The Politics of Catholic Higher Education.
RESOURCES
John Paul II, Ex Corde Ecclesiae
Land O’ Lakes Statement
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
8.24.2012 | 8:03am
Felapton says:
To all appearances, Blatty's lawsuit was an irrelevant flop. Is this article an attempt to revive it?
8.24.2012 | 9:20am
bill bannon says:
Ex Corde Ecclesiae says this:
"Finally, Catholic theology, taught in a manner faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium, provides an awareness of the Gospel principles which will enrich the meaning of human life and give it a new dignity."
Everyone's mind goes to sex and gender issues and says..."yeah...sock it to them."
The trouble is that the Magisterium, no.3 in the above sources of authority, can be incorrect (forget sex for the moment). "Exsurge Domine" by Pope Leo X in 1520 placed Catholics under latae sententiae excommunication if they agreed with Luther that burning heretics was against the Holy Spirit. Now the entire Church after Vatican II believes with Luther that burning heretics is against the Holy Spirit.
Heck....now we're against giving lethal drugs to Timothy McVeigh who fortunately disagreed with us and under brunt of that death penalty perhaps, did in fact receive our last sacrament.
Ex Corde Ecclesiae doesn't deal with the Catholic fact that outside instances of infallibility, the Magisterium can be incorrect. It as a document retroactively would have agreed with Leo X in supporting burning heretics and teaching same in Catholic Universities. Christ made it a point to twice praise the de facto moral actions of the heretical Samaritans who changed a sentence in the Pentateuch to make Mt. Gerizim God's place of choice....and who rejected the post pentateuch prophets as non canonical.
What if a Catholic theology teacher suddenly in mid career in the 1990's thinks the new death penalty position of the catechism and of Evangelium Vitae is the erroneous result of Popes commenting on sociology without doing any research? What if a good young theology professor supporting five children reads " Verbum Domini" last year and particularly section 42 and thinks Pope Benedict to be greatly erroneous in insinuating that God never ordered the dooms of the Canaanites in the Pentateuch even though the Pentateuch and Wisdom 12 has God doing just that.
Must both these professors teach what they think is, in the first case of the death penalty, unfortunate and in the second case of "Verbum Domini" downright undermining of inspiration. Will all persons with a very strong conscience even teach Catholic Theology if in effect their life can involve the sin of flattery vis a vis the Popes by this kind of excessive conformism to whatever they say in a formal document. Exsurge Domine was a formal document and it excommunicated latae sententiae any Catholic who saw burning heretics as against the Holy Spirit....and now we all see burning heretics as against the Holy Spirit. These last two Popes are trying to keep orthodoxy over simple ( and neither were conservative on biblical hermeneutics). Orthodoxy wasn't simple in 1520. It wasn't simple when Dominicans fought with Franciscans over usury or when both fought the Jesuits over
Chinese ancestral rites. Fr. Corapi was about simple. Or so we thought.
"Finally, Catholic theology, taught in a manner faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and the Church's Magisterium, provides an awareness of the Gospel principles which will enrich the meaning of human life and give it a new dignity."
Everyone's mind goes to sex and gender issues and says..."yeah...sock it to them."
The trouble is that the Magisterium, no.3 in the above sources of authority, can be incorrect (forget sex for the moment). "Exsurge Domine" by Pope Leo X in 1520 placed Catholics under latae sententiae excommunication if they agreed with Luther that burning heretics was against the Holy Spirit. Now the entire Church after Vatican II believes with Luther that burning heretics is against the Holy Spirit.
Heck....now we're against giving lethal drugs to Timothy McVeigh who fortunately disagreed with us and under brunt of that death penalty perhaps, did in fact receive our last sacrament.
Ex Corde Ecclesiae doesn't deal with the Catholic fact that outside instances of infallibility, the Magisterium can be incorrect. It as a document retroactively would have agreed with Leo X in supporting burning heretics and teaching same in Catholic Universities. Christ made it a point to twice praise the de facto moral actions of the heretical Samaritans who changed a sentence in the Pentateuch to make Mt. Gerizim God's place of choice....and who rejected the post pentateuch prophets as non canonical.
What if a Catholic theology teacher suddenly in mid career in the 1990's thinks the new death penalty position of the catechism and of Evangelium Vitae is the erroneous result of Popes commenting on sociology without doing any research? What if a good young theology professor supporting five children reads " Verbum Domini" last year and particularly section 42 and thinks Pope Benedict to be greatly erroneous in insinuating that God never ordered the dooms of the Canaanites in the Pentateuch even though the Pentateuch and Wisdom 12 has God doing just that.
Must both these professors teach what they think is, in the first case of the death penalty, unfortunate and in the second case of "Verbum Domini" downright undermining of inspiration. Will all persons with a very strong conscience even teach Catholic Theology if in effect their life can involve the sin of flattery vis a vis the Popes by this kind of excessive conformism to whatever they say in a formal document. Exsurge Domine was a formal document and it excommunicated latae sententiae any Catholic who saw burning heretics as against the Holy Spirit....and now we all see burning heretics as against the Holy Spirit. These last two Popes are trying to keep orthodoxy over simple ( and neither were conservative on biblical hermeneutics). Orthodoxy wasn't simple in 1520. It wasn't simple when Dominicans fought with Franciscans over usury or when both fought the Jesuits over
Chinese ancestral rites. Fr. Corapi was about simple. Or so we thought.
8.24.2012 | 10:57am
JDD says:
bill bannon,
The Catholic faith isn't, in the end, settled by one particular theological conclusion of of a Jesuit Group vs. a Franciscan Group, or some interpretation by a professor, or Fr. Corapi or anyone else. The Catholic faith at least *starts* with the foundation that we will listen to _and stay with_ the Apostles, who listened to Christ and passed on authority in the same manner as He did.
At our foundation we have as our core that it would be better to be temporarily 'off course with the Apostles' if you will, than 'sure of my own direction without them' - and that is where you begin to have trouble.
The Catholic faith isn't, in the end, settled by one particular theological conclusion of of a Jesuit Group vs. a Franciscan Group, or some interpretation by a professor, or Fr. Corapi or anyone else. The Catholic faith at least *starts* with the foundation that we will listen to _and stay with_ the Apostles, who listened to Christ and passed on authority in the same manner as He did.
At our foundation we have as our core that it would be better to be temporarily 'off course with the Apostles' if you will, than 'sure of my own direction without them' - and that is where you begin to have trouble.
8.24.2012 | 1:00pm
John Hendershot says:
(Disclaimer: No relationship to Anne Hendershott that I know of). There is a difference between respectful disagreement followed by, "Come, let us reason together" and the attitude of "I don't have to do nothing if I don't want to" - however that attitude might be justified.
* Is Georgetown faithfully disagreeing or blazing its own path to nowhere?
* If this is faithful disagreement, who are the participants? In what forum?
* Is Georgetown faithfully disagreeing or blazing its own path to nowhere?
* If this is faithful disagreement, who are the participants? In what forum?
8.24.2012 | 1:09pm
Mike Melendez says:
@bill bannon: I'm trying to understand what your have written but the best I can come up with is that the Magisterium is occasionally corrected. I don't get what your point is beyond that.
8.24.2012 | 1:22pm
bill bannon says:
JDD
Lol. That is where the people who got barbequed by the apostles from 1253 AD onward " began to have trouble." 31,000 according to the Inquisitor Llorente, 6000 according to Will Durant and currently scholars are going lower. Fine, if a heretic was simultaneously a murderer ( see Gen.9:6). Otherwise it was materially murder in retrospect.
Lol. That is where the people who got barbequed by the apostles from 1253 AD onward " began to have trouble." 31,000 according to the Inquisitor Llorente, 6000 according to Will Durant and currently scholars are going lower. Fine, if a heretic was simultaneously a murderer ( see Gen.9:6). Otherwise it was materially murder in retrospect.
8.24.2012 | 1:44pm
Jy says:
Bill
It is true that outside of specifically defined moments of infallibility, that pronouncements of the Pope may still be in error. However, as Catholics, statements made in official documents deserve our serious attention and to so degree do demand at least a benefit of the doubt. Do not assume that we have no obligation to give some kind of assent to any document which is not strictly infallible. Catholic faculty who have pledged obedience to the Magisterium are bound to have humility towards its pronouncements, even those they do not understand or have some argument with, in deference to the Office which Christ has established in Peter and the Apostles. Else, why promise obedience? If a faculty member deems his judgement capable of being superior to the settled decisions of the Church, why would he even *want* to pledge obedience via Ex Corde Ecclesiae in the first place? To have the shiny title "Catholic" placed on the university billboard as a marketing ploy?
Further, there can be no question for faithful Catholics about settled teaching. However, for things which are not settled Church teaching, I do not think you can credibly claim that the Church would penalize professors/schools arguing about things which are more prudential judgements than anything else. I've never heard of a professor who argued for a greater application than JPII wanted of the death penalty be censored. A professor who argues for abortion and women's ordination may indeed be censored, for these have consistently been denounced. (Even Aquinas who believed ensoulment happened some time after conception, declared abortion at any time to be a grave evil.)
It is hard for people in our age to imagine why the Pope might write that burning of heretics is not against the will of the Spirit. I can sympathize with how this has caused you much consternation. I think, however, that in order to make sense of such things we have to understand that God, in choosing to use human agents in effecting salvation through Truth, has to often "write straight with crooked lines", and even allow words which are harsh seeming depending on the era. Using a hermeneutic which strives to maintain the continuity of Church teaching, given the recognition of less than infallible statements, we can perhaps say that what the Holy Spirit wished to communicate through the imperfect form of Exsurge Domini, was that *in general* one cannot absolutely say that *no* heretic should be burned. Imagine if there was a heretic who was causing severe social unrest through his heresy, the death penalty might indeed be warranted, as it would be in modern societies for comparable troublemakers. It is indeed a rare case in which this might be true, but such a case is not impossible and so making it incorrect to state that the burning of heretics is catagorically against the will of the Spirit. In today's time, the death penalty is less and less necessary, what with more perfect forms of incarceration being in the capabilities of modern societies, and so indeed the previous Pope has said; even if he is ultimately wrong about that prudential judgement, you can hardly say that he was severely rocking the boat with some incomprehensible anti-traditional teaching; he never said flat out that it was a grave evil.
My example explanation is just private speculation, and I could be wrong. But we must, as obedient Catholics, perform similar reflections as we strive to understand what God is trying to get across to us through his chosen methods. And certainly Catholic faculty in promised fidelity are bound to teach the same.
It is true that outside of specifically defined moments of infallibility, that pronouncements of the Pope may still be in error. However, as Catholics, statements made in official documents deserve our serious attention and to so degree do demand at least a benefit of the doubt. Do not assume that we have no obligation to give some kind of assent to any document which is not strictly infallible. Catholic faculty who have pledged obedience to the Magisterium are bound to have humility towards its pronouncements, even those they do not understand or have some argument with, in deference to the Office which Christ has established in Peter and the Apostles. Else, why promise obedience? If a faculty member deems his judgement capable of being superior to the settled decisions of the Church, why would he even *want* to pledge obedience via Ex Corde Ecclesiae in the first place? To have the shiny title "Catholic" placed on the university billboard as a marketing ploy?
Further, there can be no question for faithful Catholics about settled teaching. However, for things which are not settled Church teaching, I do not think you can credibly claim that the Church would penalize professors/schools arguing about things which are more prudential judgements than anything else. I've never heard of a professor who argued for a greater application than JPII wanted of the death penalty be censored. A professor who argues for abortion and women's ordination may indeed be censored, for these have consistently been denounced. (Even Aquinas who believed ensoulment happened some time after conception, declared abortion at any time to be a grave evil.)
It is hard for people in our age to imagine why the Pope might write that burning of heretics is not against the will of the Spirit. I can sympathize with how this has caused you much consternation. I think, however, that in order to make sense of such things we have to understand that God, in choosing to use human agents in effecting salvation through Truth, has to often "write straight with crooked lines", and even allow words which are harsh seeming depending on the era. Using a hermeneutic which strives to maintain the continuity of Church teaching, given the recognition of less than infallible statements, we can perhaps say that what the Holy Spirit wished to communicate through the imperfect form of Exsurge Domini, was that *in general* one cannot absolutely say that *no* heretic should be burned. Imagine if there was a heretic who was causing severe social unrest through his heresy, the death penalty might indeed be warranted, as it would be in modern societies for comparable troublemakers. It is indeed a rare case in which this might be true, but such a case is not impossible and so making it incorrect to state that the burning of heretics is catagorically against the will of the Spirit. In today's time, the death penalty is less and less necessary, what with more perfect forms of incarceration being in the capabilities of modern societies, and so indeed the previous Pope has said; even if he is ultimately wrong about that prudential judgement, you can hardly say that he was severely rocking the boat with some incomprehensible anti-traditional teaching; he never said flat out that it was a grave evil.
My example explanation is just private speculation, and I could be wrong. But we must, as obedient Catholics, perform similar reflections as we strive to understand what God is trying to get across to us through his chosen methods. And certainly Catholic faculty in promised fidelity are bound to teach the same.
8.24.2012 | 1:51pm
Ed says:
There is no consensus whether item 33 in "Exsurge Domine" (and other parts of "Exsurge Domine") was Ex Cathedra. Some claim it does not address faith or morals and, therefore, addresses discipline. As such, it was not infallible. To be fair, some argued the entire encyclical was Ex Cathedra. Significantly, "Exsurge Domine" item 33 was not new. It was an affirmation of Canon 3 from the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), which addressed the excommunication and extermination of heretics. That, however, was not considered infallible. During both the so-called medieval Inquisition and the later Spanish Inquisition, the Church did not burn (or exterminate) heretics. In fact, several Popes condemned all such acts. The state, in fact, executed heretics; the Church merely turned over those determined to be heretics. This was a matter of discipline. Heresy, especially in Spain, was equated with treason, which the Spanish rulers determined was punishable by death.
Whether the Church should have objected to the state's use of capital punishment seems not relevant to this discussion because the Church, through the Pope or the Magisterium, has never opined Ex Cathedra regarding capital punishment. Indeed, Pope John Paul II opposed capital punishment but always made clear this was his personal opinion and not Church doctrine. Thus, Catholics may support or oppose capital punishment, and disagree among themselves, without severing their communion with the Church.
On the other hand, the Church has spoken Ex Cathedra regarding abortion. In particular, the Church clearly and unambiguously has declared abortion always to be a grave sin and those who support the taking of human life are guilty of heresy. As a consequence they are subject to "latae sententiae" excommunication. Stated differently, this is an issue on which Catholics may not dissent without consequence.
Felapton mocks that "Blatty's lawsuit was an irrelevant flop." He offers no support. I am not aware of the Vatican declaring it "an irrelevant flop". He filed a perfectly legitimate and courageous lawsuit. As I understand it, the lawsuit is still ongoing, although I have not read much about it in the past few weeks. Moreover, I believe if other local Bishops do not enforce "Ex Corde Ecclesiae" against the universities and colleges within their diocese, more lay person like Blatty will fill the void left by the Bishops' dereliction. In all events, Felapton ignores one of Jesus's critical lessons to us--we are not here to succeed, we are here to be faithful.
Whether the Church should have objected to the state's use of capital punishment seems not relevant to this discussion because the Church, through the Pope or the Magisterium, has never opined Ex Cathedra regarding capital punishment. Indeed, Pope John Paul II opposed capital punishment but always made clear this was his personal opinion and not Church doctrine. Thus, Catholics may support or oppose capital punishment, and disagree among themselves, without severing their communion with the Church.
On the other hand, the Church has spoken Ex Cathedra regarding abortion. In particular, the Church clearly and unambiguously has declared abortion always to be a grave sin and those who support the taking of human life are guilty of heresy. As a consequence they are subject to "latae sententiae" excommunication. Stated differently, this is an issue on which Catholics may not dissent without consequence.
Felapton mocks that "Blatty's lawsuit was an irrelevant flop." He offers no support. I am not aware of the Vatican declaring it "an irrelevant flop". He filed a perfectly legitimate and courageous lawsuit. As I understand it, the lawsuit is still ongoing, although I have not read much about it in the past few weeks. Moreover, I believe if other local Bishops do not enforce "Ex Corde Ecclesiae" against the universities and colleges within their diocese, more lay person like Blatty will fill the void left by the Bishops' dereliction. In all events, Felapton ignores one of Jesus's critical lessons to us--we are not here to succeed, we are here to be faithful.
8.24.2012 | 3:32pm
michael Currie says:
Several years ago, either in National review or First Things, a list was published that named all of the various accredation(sic) agencies that universities had to comply with in order to remain in good standing with them. The list was quite lengthy and my sense was that the criteria of those agencies listed did not include academic freedom yet one would have to listen long and hard and futily in order to hear any criticism of this fact. I guess they really matter unlike Catholicism.
8.24.2012 | 5:00pm
bill bannon says:
Jy,
You wrote about the Pope and the death penalty: " he never said flat out that it was a grave evil.". Sure he did. John Paul II said in 1999 in St. Louis that it was "cruel and unnecessary". Then the US Bishops put that oral mistake in writing in their written document. Catholicism has about 6 predominant Catholic countries in wiki's top 20 worst murder rate countries and only one has the death penalty but also has a 3% arrest rate for murder. We know from God giving the death penalty over 34 times in the Bible that it deters...but only if appeals do not take forever
(the US) and only if arrest rates are not rediculously low as they are in Guatemala.
You wrote: "Imagine if there was a heretic who was causing severe social unrest through his heresy, the death penalty might indeed be warranted, as it would be in modern societies for comparable troublemakers." I addressed that with the example of murder. But such a death penalty is not for his heresy but in your further example of unrest: for his conspiracy toward action. Not even China executes for
false belief but only if that person foments actions in public. Therefore the Church
now does not hold at all that any heretic, even one is to be killed merely for heresy
void of action. So Exsurge Domine was wrong on article 33. In the Old Testament only two laws commanded burning: a priest's daughter who prostituted herself and three people being promiscuous: mother daughter and one same male with both women.
You wrote about the Pope and the death penalty: " he never said flat out that it was a grave evil.". Sure he did. John Paul II said in 1999 in St. Louis that it was "cruel and unnecessary". Then the US Bishops put that oral mistake in writing in their written document. Catholicism has about 6 predominant Catholic countries in wiki's top 20 worst murder rate countries and only one has the death penalty but also has a 3% arrest rate for murder. We know from God giving the death penalty over 34 times in the Bible that it deters...but only if appeals do not take forever
(the US) and only if arrest rates are not rediculously low as they are in Guatemala.
You wrote: "Imagine if there was a heretic who was causing severe social unrest through his heresy, the death penalty might indeed be warranted, as it would be in modern societies for comparable troublemakers." I addressed that with the example of murder. But such a death penalty is not for his heresy but in your further example of unrest: for his conspiracy toward action. Not even China executes for
false belief but only if that person foments actions in public. Therefore the Church
now does not hold at all that any heretic, even one is to be killed merely for heresy
void of action. So Exsurge Domine was wrong on article 33. In the Old Testament only two laws commanded burning: a priest's daughter who prostituted herself and three people being promiscuous: mother daughter and one same male with both women.
8.24.2012 | 5:11pm
Ed says:
Bill Bannon greatly amuses himself with churlish claims, albeit confusing, of "people who got barbequed". And, for good measure, he tells us those people were "barbequed" by "apostles". I am pretty sure all the apostles were dead by this time, many having been killed by the secular authorities whose heirs executed judgments during the Inquisitions. This evidences virulent anti-Catholic animus. While no one can be certain no member of the Church never engaged in capital punishment as a penalty for heresy, the overwhelming and uncontradicted history shows it was the state authorities who carried out virtually all executions. As noted above, most emperors, kings and other rulers of that time considered heresy to be equal to, or worse than, treason.
8.24.2012 | 5:13pm
bill bannon says:
Ed,
You wrote: "During both the so-called medieval Inquisition and the later Spanish Inquisition, the Church did not burn (or exterminate) heretics. In fact, several Popes condemned all such acts. The state, in fact, executed heretics; the Church merely turned over those determined to be heretics."
Total fiction but innocent on your part because your reading matter derived from a 19th century Catholic writer. Go to new advent's Catholic Encyclopedia/ Inquisition...note where I capitalized then to the word " stake":
" The aforesaid Bull "Ad exstirpanda" remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-02), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES THEREFORE were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to be noted that excommunication
itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from
excommunication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a
heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy."
So...Popes bound the seculars to burn heretics under pain of excommunication.
Prior to 1253, it was seculars who burned them on their own. I guess they began to lose interest and the Popes were gaining interest in that period.
You wrote: "During both the so-called medieval Inquisition and the later Spanish Inquisition, the Church did not burn (or exterminate) heretics. In fact, several Popes condemned all such acts. The state, in fact, executed heretics; the Church merely turned over those determined to be heretics."
Total fiction but innocent on your part because your reading matter derived from a 19th century Catholic writer. Go to new advent's Catholic Encyclopedia/ Inquisition...note where I capitalized then to the word " stake":
" The aforesaid Bull "Ad exstirpanda" remained thenceforth a fundamental document of the Inquisition, renewed or reinforced by several popes, Alexander IV (1254-61), Clement IV (1265-68), Nicholas IV (1288-02), Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and others. THE CIVIL AUTHORITIES THEREFORE were enjoined by the popes, under pain of excommunication to execute the legal sentences that condemned impenitent heretics to the stake. It is to be noted that excommunication
itself was no trifle, for, if the person excommunicated did not free himself from
excommunication within a year, he was held by the legislation of that period to be a
heretic, and incurred all the penalties that affected heresy."
So...Popes bound the seculars to burn heretics under pain of excommunication.
Prior to 1253, it was seculars who burned them on their own. I guess they began to lose interest and the Popes were gaining interest in that period.
8.24.2012 | 5:31pm
bill bannon says:
Ed,
I used "apostles" because JDD to whom I was responding used it for current Magisterium. And when checking new advent, it's just above " Number of victims".
I used "apostles" because JDD to whom I was responding used it for current Magisterium. And when checking new advent, it's just above " Number of victims".
8.24.2012 | 5:48pm
Ed says:
Bill, you are in serious error about many things, but most especially about my sources. I have not read any 19th century authorities on this topic. I have, for what it is worth, read some 19th century authorities regarding antichrist; I recommend them to you. All my authorities are 20th and 21st century scholars and researchers.
But, really, Bill, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia? At first I thought you were joking. Then, I realized you are quite serious. Encyclopedias are, in all contexts, regarded as tertiary sources that may not be relied on as authoritative. The Federal courts, for example, frown on the citation of such sources. In addition, the New Advent publication is not regarded as even an acceptable tertiary authority in theological discussion.
It is patently false that the "Popes bound the seculars to burn heretics". The truth is the opposite. During that time the Popes did not have that sort of influence over the secular rulers. This, of course, is why the Popes were powerless to prevent one Catholic ruler from going to war with another Catholic ruler, even though they desperately wanted to do so.
There is another irrefutable fact to consider. It is this. The Church was not blamed for executing heretics, as opposed to the state executing them, until the Protestant Reformation. After that, all sorts of scurrilous anti-Catholic lies became the currency of a good part of Christendom, which now was rent. Plainly, those lies continue to attract those whose hatred of the Church can never be abated.
But, really, Bill, the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia? At first I thought you were joking. Then, I realized you are quite serious. Encyclopedias are, in all contexts, regarded as tertiary sources that may not be relied on as authoritative. The Federal courts, for example, frown on the citation of such sources. In addition, the New Advent publication is not regarded as even an acceptable tertiary authority in theological discussion.
It is patently false that the "Popes bound the seculars to burn heretics". The truth is the opposite. During that time the Popes did not have that sort of influence over the secular rulers. This, of course, is why the Popes were powerless to prevent one Catholic ruler from going to war with another Catholic ruler, even though they desperately wanted to do so.
There is another irrefutable fact to consider. It is this. The Church was not blamed for executing heretics, as opposed to the state executing them, until the Protestant Reformation. After that, all sorts of scurrilous anti-Catholic lies became the currency of a good part of Christendom, which now was rent. Plainly, those lies continue to attract those whose hatred of the Church can never be abated.
8.24.2012 | 5:57pm
Ed says:
Bill, I saw where JDD used "Apostles". He used it in a completely different context than you did. It is quite unfortunate that you aborted his appropriate use.
Also, I know I said this in a response that has not yet been posted, but, do you really get your theology from an encyclopedia?
Also, I know I said this in a response that has not yet been posted, but, do you really get your theology from an encyclopedia?
8.24.2012 | 6:31pm
JDD says:
bill bannon,
All the Walls of Text are dancing around the question I was trying to get at, which is what is your starting point?
Do you start from assuming that Catholicism is wrong, and you're going to find out how? Or do you start from assuming that Catholicism is right, and you're going to find out how?
Both are legitimate positions for one to take, and a person is free to take whatever route they choose. I've been in both positions myself.
But would you think it fair to say that the first position is a skeptic and the second person is an advocate?
Colleges are free to likewise take whatever route they choose - but should name themselves accordingly. A Catholic College should be approaching things from the position of being convinced of the truth of its own stated faith - obviously! Otherwise it should in all intellectual honesty call itself something else. There are plenty of skeptic colleges out there - and frankly I see nothing intellectually dishonest about them. But then it must be said clearly that that college is just an *investigator* of Catholicism - not a teacher.
All the Walls of Text are dancing around the question I was trying to get at, which is what is your starting point?
Do you start from assuming that Catholicism is wrong, and you're going to find out how? Or do you start from assuming that Catholicism is right, and you're going to find out how?
Both are legitimate positions for one to take, and a person is free to take whatever route they choose. I've been in both positions myself.
But would you think it fair to say that the first position is a skeptic and the second person is an advocate?
Colleges are free to likewise take whatever route they choose - but should name themselves accordingly. A Catholic College should be approaching things from the position of being convinced of the truth of its own stated faith - obviously! Otherwise it should in all intellectual honesty call itself something else. There are plenty of skeptic colleges out there - and frankly I see nothing intellectually dishonest about them. But then it must be said clearly that that college is just an *investigator* of Catholicism - not a teacher.
8.24.2012 | 6:32pm
Anne Hendershott says:
To Felaptan:
Thank you for your comment - but you are wrong about the lawsuit. It has not even been filed yet. Georgetown University alumni, students and others are still in the preparatory phase of a canon law suit to be filed with the Archdiocese of Washington and the Vatican, seeking remedies “up to and including the possible removal or suspension of top-ranked Georgetown’s right to call itself Catholic or Jesuit in its fundraising and representations to applicants.”
The effort is being led by the distinguished Georgetown alumnus William Peter Blatty, who won an Academy Award for his screenplay and book The Exorcist and has been honored by Georgetown with its John Carroll Medal for alumni achievement.
Blatty is urging Georgetown alumni, students, parents, faculty and anyone associated with Georgetown to join the lawsuit at www.gupetition.org. The website includes an inspiring letter by Blatty and a description of Georgetown’s historical ties to the Jesuits, the Washington Archdiocese and the Vatican.
The Cardinal Newman Society is helping with the lawsuit. Such intervention is necessary only because Georgetown’s leadership has repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to uphold Georgetown’s obligations under the U.S. bishops’ guidelines, Ex corde Ecclesiae and Canon Law.
Thank you for your comment - but you are wrong about the lawsuit. It has not even been filed yet. Georgetown University alumni, students and others are still in the preparatory phase of a canon law suit to be filed with the Archdiocese of Washington and the Vatican, seeking remedies “up to and including the possible removal or suspension of top-ranked Georgetown’s right to call itself Catholic or Jesuit in its fundraising and representations to applicants.”
The effort is being led by the distinguished Georgetown alumnus William Peter Blatty, who won an Academy Award for his screenplay and book The Exorcist and has been honored by Georgetown with its John Carroll Medal for alumni achievement.
Blatty is urging Georgetown alumni, students, parents, faculty and anyone associated with Georgetown to join the lawsuit at www.gupetition.org. The website includes an inspiring letter by Blatty and a description of Georgetown’s historical ties to the Jesuits, the Washington Archdiocese and the Vatican.
The Cardinal Newman Society is helping with the lawsuit. Such intervention is necessary only because Georgetown’s leadership has repeatedly demonstrated its unwillingness to uphold Georgetown’s obligations under the U.S. bishops’ guidelines, Ex corde Ecclesiae and Canon Law.
8.24.2012 | 8:26pm
Citizen Jerry says:
To Felapton and others who are perhaps secretly cheering for Blatty's suit to be an irrelevant flop -- this does not change the eternal Word. I can only hope that secularists masquerading as Catholics, those who put their faith in liberal politics rather than the Magisterium, will have a good explanation when the Age of Man comes to a close.
8.24.2012 | 8:43pm
A.M. says:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm -
Reading the whole encyclical also helps to put it more in context and understandable, how at the time , the Holy Father might have seen a need for it , to prevent the cancer from spreading far and wide !
The first Pope Peter had the two liars _ Ananias and Sapphira , fall dead at his feet , for lying to The Spirit , to use them as an example ; atleast , the encyclial would ahve given heretics ample time to contemplate the seriousness of their actions !
' You be one that the world may believe ' - if the office of Papacy is concerened with that very important role , the subsequent history of the world has amply shown what divisions and lack of faith has done and continues to do, in the many catastrophic wars , all other evils agaiinst life !
Would it be that those heretics who were burned did get time enough to repent ...and avoid the eternal buring ..an act of mercy , if such is the case !
And The Church , ever tended on by The Spirit , now invites Her, to bring all to the Ocean of Mercy ...in prayer ..aided by the countelss saints also who intercede ..
Is it not good to see how The Spirit guides the Office of Papacy , tending Her ,from a time when people were falling dead , for lying ...to our times ..
As to the colleges , it really is unfathmomable why they would rob the students of all that The Church has to offer ..other than the old enemy of ours, as in pride - ' we . each of us know better and would rather serve the enemy , in that pride !'
Reading the whole encyclical also helps to put it more in context and understandable, how at the time , the Holy Father might have seen a need for it , to prevent the cancer from spreading far and wide !
The first Pope Peter had the two liars _ Ananias and Sapphira , fall dead at his feet , for lying to The Spirit , to use them as an example ; atleast , the encyclial would ahve given heretics ample time to contemplate the seriousness of their actions !
' You be one that the world may believe ' - if the office of Papacy is concerened with that very important role , the subsequent history of the world has amply shown what divisions and lack of faith has done and continues to do, in the many catastrophic wars , all other evils agaiinst life !
Would it be that those heretics who were burned did get time enough to repent ...and avoid the eternal buring ..an act of mercy , if such is the case !
And The Church , ever tended on by The Spirit , now invites Her, to bring all to the Ocean of Mercy ...in prayer ..aided by the countelss saints also who intercede ..
Is it not good to see how The Spirit guides the Office of Papacy , tending Her ,from a time when people were falling dead , for lying ...to our times ..
As to the colleges , it really is unfathmomable why they would rob the students of all that The Church has to offer ..other than the old enemy of ours, as in pride - ' we . each of us know better and would rather serve the enemy , in that pride !'
8.24.2012 | 9:35pm
Jy says:
Bill
So, my hermeneutical point of learning through the imperfect statements of less than infallible documents still stands, as some heretics may in fact be reasonably as a result of the consequences of their heresy. But again, since we admit that none of these bulls (or personal statements of the Pope) are completely infallible, what does any of that have to do with Ex Corde Ecclesiae? Do you fear professorial censure for disagreement with less than settled doctrine?
So, my hermeneutical point of learning through the imperfect statements of less than infallible documents still stands, as some heretics may in fact be reasonably as a result of the consequences of their heresy. But again, since we admit that none of these bulls (or personal statements of the Pope) are completely infallible, what does any of that have to do with Ex Corde Ecclesiae? Do you fear professorial censure for disagreement with less than settled doctrine?
8.24.2012 | 11:19pm
Ed says:
Anne Hendershott's characterization about Blatty is accurate. I think many people would be impressed by the fact that in his book "An Exorcist Tells His Story", Fr. Gabriele Amorth, the chief Exorcist of the Vatican, states that Blatty's book and subsequent film "The Exorcist" is an accurate depiction of an exorcism. Plainly, Blatty knows the difference between Catholicism and heresy. And, he knows what possession looks like.
8.24.2012 | 11:43pm
bill bannon says:
Ed,
Some of the essays in the old Catholic encyclopedia are by Arthur Vermeesch who helped Pope Pius XI with Casti Connubii and was the premier moral theologian in the Church in the early 20th century so your assertion that it is not taken seriously in theological matters is bizarre. Any reader here will note the quality of Blotzer's essay on the Inquisition.
By the way, do not repeat your claim that abortion is condemned Ex Cathedra. It is not. It is condemned infallibly in section 62 of Evangelium Vitae but by the Pope acting in concert with the Bishops whom he notes he polled on the matter worldwide. Ex Cathedra is also an extraordinary modality but in it, the Pope speaks alone while referring to others as witnesses. Abortion was not condemned that way but in concert with the Bishops.
I said you read things derived from a writer of the 19th century. You changed that to my saying you read him himself.
Your own paradigm is internally flawed as was his. You have the Popes guiltless by saying they simply handed over heretics to seculars whom they knew would kill the heretics. Lol. That's what Pilate did. He claimed innocence in that he was
handing over Christ to the crowd so it was their responsibility for killing Him. Perhaps you could call it the Pilate theory of the Inquisition.
Some of the essays in the old Catholic encyclopedia are by Arthur Vermeesch who helped Pope Pius XI with Casti Connubii and was the premier moral theologian in the Church in the early 20th century so your assertion that it is not taken seriously in theological matters is bizarre. Any reader here will note the quality of Blotzer's essay on the Inquisition.
By the way, do not repeat your claim that abortion is condemned Ex Cathedra. It is not. It is condemned infallibly in section 62 of Evangelium Vitae but by the Pope acting in concert with the Bishops whom he notes he polled on the matter worldwide. Ex Cathedra is also an extraordinary modality but in it, the Pope speaks alone while referring to others as witnesses. Abortion was not condemned that way but in concert with the Bishops.
I said you read things derived from a writer of the 19th century. You changed that to my saying you read him himself.
Your own paradigm is internally flawed as was his. You have the Popes guiltless by saying they simply handed over heretics to seculars whom they knew would kill the heretics. Lol. That's what Pilate did. He claimed innocence in that he was
handing over Christ to the crowd so it was their responsibility for killing Him. Perhaps you could call it the Pilate theory of the Inquisition.
8.25.2012 | 12:01am
bill bannon says:
Jy,
Ex Corde E. is one reason you have incredible lemming syndrome in Catholicism on the 180 degree turn on the death penalty. John Paul II argued at length in EV that Cain's exemption from death by God after his murder of Abel teaches us now to move away from the death penalty. This is the leader of 1 billion Catholics not noticing that the same God a little later in Genesis 9:6 gives a death penalty for murder to both Jews and Gentiles when the first kingdom is about to start under Nimrod in Gen.10. God was protecting Cain from vigilantism because the first kingdom did not begin until later. Then that same God gives a death penalty when kingdoms begin. The Pope doesn't notice it but that's not the crazy part. The crazy part is the mass conformity of thought afterwards by Catholic writers, pundits, etc.
on the issue. Paul corrects Peter in Galatians and there is no such Catholic of prominence in existence now who is capable of healthily correcting a Pope when he misses something.
Ex Corde E. is one reason you have incredible lemming syndrome in Catholicism on the 180 degree turn on the death penalty. John Paul II argued at length in EV that Cain's exemption from death by God after his murder of Abel teaches us now to move away from the death penalty. This is the leader of 1 billion Catholics not noticing that the same God a little later in Genesis 9:6 gives a death penalty for murder to both Jews and Gentiles when the first kingdom is about to start under Nimrod in Gen.10. God was protecting Cain from vigilantism because the first kingdom did not begin until later. Then that same God gives a death penalty when kingdoms begin. The Pope doesn't notice it but that's not the crazy part. The crazy part is the mass conformity of thought afterwards by Catholic writers, pundits, etc.
on the issue. Paul corrects Peter in Galatians and there is no such Catholic of prominence in existence now who is capable of healthily correcting a Pope when he misses something.
8.25.2012 | 4:32am
Michael PS says:
Note that Exurge Domine condemns the 41 propositions in globo as, "errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth." Each censure does not apply to each proposition and "offensive to pious ears and seductive of simple minds" covers a lot of ground well short of heresy, or even error.
8.25.2012 | 10:13am
bill bannon says:
JDD
I believe in Catholicism. But the outer crust constantly contains the unnecessary, the theatric, the fallible...believed in for itself. That's why God removed the grandiosity of the previous papal territories through the actions of Italy.
I believe in Catholicism. But the outer crust constantly contains the unnecessary, the theatric, the fallible...believed in for itself. That's why God removed the grandiosity of the previous papal territories through the actions of Italy.
8.26.2012 | 8:12pm
bill bannon says:
Michael PS,
How can something not be error if it is "seductive of simple minds"?
How can something not be error if it is "seductive of simple minds"?
8.27.2012 | 1:59pm
Don Roberto says:
I'm sorry for Peruvian youth. The pagan-libertine infection spread by Hollywood and the devil's advocates will spare few in this globalized world. The faithful must unite to fight this fell disease. May God grant Church leaders wisdom, strength, courage, and the grace to know His will. †
8.27.2012 | 2:11pm
Emeka says:
bill bannon says:
"The trouble is that the Magisterium, no.3 in the above sources of authority, can be incorrect (forget sex for the moment). "Exsurge Domine" by Pope Leo X in 1520 placed Catholics under latae sententiae excommunication if they agreed with Luther that burning heretics was against the Holy Spirit."
This is an over simplification, I have read "Exsurge Domine" http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm.
Luther says:
"That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit"
now read this following passage of Matthew 18.6
where Jesus says:
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
Which is better burning or drowning?
To understand the mentality of 1520, more than 500 years ago we can´t succumb to simplistic interpretations. In an age in which many where iliterate and unintelectual it takes a heretic to start a war. A heretic is even more dangerous to the peace of the land than an armed bandit group. A heretic is like Osama bin Laden with a Nuclear bomb. The civil authorities where even more zealous for burning heretics.
Don´t forget that God allowed the patriachs to marry more than one wife and to practice divorce. But later Jesus says no to the practice. In that sense God too is fallible.
I advice Bill Bannon to read Exsurge Domine first.
"The trouble is that the Magisterium, no.3 in the above sources of authority, can be incorrect (forget sex for the moment). "Exsurge Domine" by Pope Leo X in 1520 placed Catholics under latae sententiae excommunication if they agreed with Luther that burning heretics was against the Holy Spirit."
This is an over simplification, I have read "Exsurge Domine" http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm.
Luther says:
"That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit"
now read this following passage of Matthew 18.6
where Jesus says:
“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
Which is better burning or drowning?
To understand the mentality of 1520, more than 500 years ago we can´t succumb to simplistic interpretations. In an age in which many where iliterate and unintelectual it takes a heretic to start a war. A heretic is even more dangerous to the peace of the land than an armed bandit group. A heretic is like Osama bin Laden with a Nuclear bomb. The civil authorities where even more zealous for burning heretics.
Don´t forget that God allowed the patriachs to marry more than one wife and to practice divorce. But later Jesus says no to the practice. In that sense God too is fallible.
I advice Bill Bannon to read Exsurge Domine first.
8.27.2012 | 6:22pm
bill bannon says:
Emeka,
Print your post and show it to your pastor after fixing the L area in "iliterate" "unintelectual" and changing "advice" to advise. Mt.18:6 cannot be used in the manner you used it. Your pastor will agree with me. You compared a poetic phrase to real life executions that preceded crime.
Not even China executes for what a false believer might do. What if a cop gave you a ticket in Dunkin Donuts because you might speed after ordering an expresso? Would you be glad because he was imitating the logic of Exsurge Domine? You actually have to wait until a false believer actually commits a crime before burning him to death. That's why Christ twice praised the heretical Samaritans because He was interested in their character not their faulty canon. The Church missed what He was doing in that couplet.
Print your post and show it to your pastor after fixing the L area in "iliterate" "unintelectual" and changing "advice" to advise. Mt.18:6 cannot be used in the manner you used it. Your pastor will agree with me. You compared a poetic phrase to real life executions that preceded crime.
Not even China executes for what a false believer might do. What if a cop gave you a ticket in Dunkin Donuts because you might speed after ordering an expresso? Would you be glad because he was imitating the logic of Exsurge Domine? You actually have to wait until a false believer actually commits a crime before burning him to death. That's why Christ twice praised the heretical Samaritans because He was interested in their character not their faulty canon. The Church missed what He was doing in that couplet.
8.28.2012 | 1:52pm
JDD says:
[bill bannon] "I believe in Catholicism."
Here is part of Catholicism. Do you believe in it?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2R.HTM
Here is part of Catholicism. Do you believe in it?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2R.HTM
8.28.2012 | 5:55pm
bill bannon says:
JDD,
I won't be reading your link whatever it is. You don't use your surname but you nevertheless have yourself confused with a Vatican ecclesiastical judge? Frs. Corapi and Enteneur saw themselves as discerning of orthodoxy too...until the women and boats hit the fan.
I won't be reading your link whatever it is. You don't use your surname but you nevertheless have yourself confused with a Vatican ecclesiastical judge? Frs. Corapi and Enteneur saw themselves as discerning of orthodoxy too...until the women and boats hit the fan.
8.29.2012 | 10:06am
JDD says:
[bill bannon] "I won't be reading your link whatever it is. You don't use your surname but you nevertheless have yourself confused with a Vatican ecclesiastical judge?
LOL ! It was with some great amusement that, some time ago, I realized that the initials I had chosen were also the abbreviation you mention. And the irony that I'd choosen them on this page of all places. But I am instead a mechanical engineer by trade, with a noggin and a penchant for thinking. Care to continue? We're still talking about:
Here is part of Catholicism. Do you believe in it?
Code of Canon Law
BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI
TITLE V. THE PROFESSION OF FAITH (Can. 833)
Can. 833 The following are obliged personally to make a profession of faith according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See:
7/ in the presence of the grand chancellor or, in his absence, in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, the rector of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university, when the rector’s function begins; in the presence of the rector if he is a priest or in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines pertaining to faith or morals, when they begin their function;
"Frs. Corapi and Enteneur saw themselves as discerning of orthodoxy too...until the women and boats hit the fan."
I don't ultimately rely on these men to tell me what is true, and I never have. Seems to me that Corapi abandoned some principles of his faith. Never heard about Fr. Enteneur until you mentioned him. I'm sure there are many other sinful men and women whom you yourself have never heard of and never will. Are the sins of these men the reason why you now believe no-one is qualified to discern orthodoxy but yourself?
LOL ! It was with some great amusement that, some time ago, I realized that the initials I had chosen were also the abbreviation you mention. And the irony that I'd choosen them on this page of all places. But I am instead a mechanical engineer by trade, with a noggin and a penchant for thinking. Care to continue? We're still talking about:
Here is part of Catholicism. Do you believe in it?
Code of Canon Law
BOOK III. THE TEACHING FUNCTION OF THE CHURCH LIBER III. DE ECCLESIAE MUNERE DOCENDI
TITLE V. THE PROFESSION OF FAITH (Can. 833)
Can. 833 The following are obliged personally to make a profession of faith according to the formula approved by the Apostolic See:
7/ in the presence of the grand chancellor or, in his absence, in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, the rector of an ecclesiastical or Catholic university, when the rector’s function begins; in the presence of the rector if he is a priest or in the presence of the local ordinary or their delegates, teachers in any universities whatsoever who teach disciplines pertaining to faith or morals, when they begin their function;
"Frs. Corapi and Enteneur saw themselves as discerning of orthodoxy too...until the women and boats hit the fan."
I don't ultimately rely on these men to tell me what is true, and I never have. Seems to me that Corapi abandoned some principles of his faith. Never heard about Fr. Enteneur until you mentioned him. I'm sure there are many other sinful men and women whom you yourself have never heard of and never will. Are the sins of these men the reason why you now believe no-one is qualified to discern orthodoxy but yourself?
8.29.2012 | 4:09pm
bill bannon says:
JDD,
The problem with the Profession of Faith is the last paragraph:
" Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act."
Lumen Gentium 25 redux. It means that even if a Catholic prof knows the death penalty position of ccc #2267 is a bad conflation of theology with a bad papal prudential judgement that will get inmates killed by lifers who get free kills in prison without a death penalty, said prof must bite his lip and pretend 2267 is wise. The profession of faith paragraph above means that a prof must pretend that section 42 of Verbum Domini by Pope Benedict ( the dooms were not from God even though multiple scriptures say the reverse) is normal and not a total reversal of 2000 years
of understanding of first Person imperatives by God in the Bible. If Benedict can reverse 1st Person imperatives of God, why are we honoring the ten commandments or anything Christ commanded? Just edit out what you don't like by use of historical context scholarship. Done. Lol....profs must simply parrot even in the non infallible while Popes can reverse first Person imperatives of God. Radical parroting by one group and radical "creativity" by the Pope. We are not converting higher IQ'd countries like Japan but we're great with primitives and people fleeing their own churches. I wonder why. Done. Not rechecking the thread.
The problem with the Profession of Faith is the last paragraph:
" Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act."
Lumen Gentium 25 redux. It means that even if a Catholic prof knows the death penalty position of ccc #2267 is a bad conflation of theology with a bad papal prudential judgement that will get inmates killed by lifers who get free kills in prison without a death penalty, said prof must bite his lip and pretend 2267 is wise. The profession of faith paragraph above means that a prof must pretend that section 42 of Verbum Domini by Pope Benedict ( the dooms were not from God even though multiple scriptures say the reverse) is normal and not a total reversal of 2000 years
of understanding of first Person imperatives by God in the Bible. If Benedict can reverse 1st Person imperatives of God, why are we honoring the ten commandments or anything Christ commanded? Just edit out what you don't like by use of historical context scholarship. Done. Lol....profs must simply parrot even in the non infallible while Popes can reverse first Person imperatives of God. Radical parroting by one group and radical "creativity" by the Pope. We are not converting higher IQ'd countries like Japan but we're great with primitives and people fleeing their own churches. I wonder why. Done. Not rechecking the thread.
8.29.2012 | 10:12pm
JDD says:
So left unanswered: _What_ do you mean when you say you 'believe in Catholicism?' Do you believe there are authoritative teachers other than yourself? When you and those teachers disagree, how do you know you are right? How do you know what is 'crust' and what is just something you don't understand yet, or simply don't like?
What does it mean to you that Jesus instructed the Apostles to follow the teaching of those who sat in the seat of Moses - even when their motives and practices were corrupt?
What do you believe about how teaching is passed on? Are you the final watchman of truth and error, or is there some other group or movement that you do trust?
If you are a Catholic college, what starting point should you teach from? The point of view that you are wrong, or the point of view that you are right?
What does it mean to you that Jesus instructed the Apostles to follow the teaching of those who sat in the seat of Moses - even when their motives and practices were corrupt?
What do you believe about how teaching is passed on? Are you the final watchman of truth and error, or is there some other group or movement that you do trust?
If you are a Catholic college, what starting point should you teach from? The point of view that you are wrong, or the point of view that you are right?
8.29.2012 | 10:21pm
JDD says:
"We are not converting higher IQ'd countries like Japan but we're great with primitives and people fleeing their own churches. I wonder why. "
Wow - not sure how exactly you've gathered data for this conclusion - no action in Japan, really? But even on face value:
"I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants." [Mt 11:25] [Lk 10:21]
Wow - not sure how exactly you've gathered data for this conclusion - no action in Japan, really? But even on face value:
"I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants." [Mt 11:25] [Lk 10:21]
