Strange proposals at the Vatican

Lifesite News notes how there are proposals at the Vatican to abolish terms such as "living in sin" and "contraceptive mentality." See here

The thrust of such proposals is that truthful and accurate language, calling something that which it is, is somehow less than charitable because it includes a judgment.

Those behind these proposals apparently believe that love of enemies means condoning vice and sin. In the words of Dr. Germain Grisez, one of the finest moral theologians of our time, "It might seem to follow that love must accept everyone, even enemies, just as they are, and to affirm them even in the error or sin which is present in them. But the law of lovedoes not require indiscriminate affirmation of everything about other persons (see Saint Thomas Aquinas, S.t., 2-2, q.34, a.3). One's love must be like Jesus'. He loves sinners and brings them into communion with himself in order to overcome their error and sin. When the scribes and pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus, he not only saves her from being stoned to death but warns her not to sin again (see John 8:3-11). In a true sense, Jesus is not judgmental, he sets aside the legalistic mentality, readily forgives sinners, does not condemn the world, and points out that those who refuse to acknowledge their sinfulness are self-condemned by the truth they violate (see John 3:16-21). But he realistically recognizes sinners as sinners and never accepts error as truth...Similarly, if Christians' love of neighbor is genuine, it not only permits but REQUIRES THEM both to 'hold fast to what is good' and to 'hate what is evil' (Romans 12:9)."

And again, according to Dr. Grisez, "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others" 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason, he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guiltof anyone' (Gaudium et Spes, No. 28). This norm, however, does not preclude JUDGMENTS necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned."

Very often, the poorly instructed Catholic will be heard to remark "I don't like the word 'judge,' or to those of us who defend the Church's authentic Magisterial teaching while exposing error they will say: "You're judging."

What if we are? Judging isn't always sinful. It is only sinful when we judge another's interior dispositions, when we judge their soul. But we are entirely free to judge words, ideas and actions which fail to hold up when placed in the Lumen Christi (Light of Christ). Sacred Scripture (which these confused souls obviously don't spend much time with) makes this abundantly clear: "should you not judge those inside the Church"? (1 Corinthians 5:12), and again: "the saints will judge the world and angels" (1 Corinthians 6:2-3), and again: "the spiritual man judges all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15), and again: "Let prophets speak and the others judge" (1 Corinthians 14:29).

Not all judging is sinful. This is just common sense. Our legal system is structured in such a way that when a person commits a crime, he or she is tried before a judge and sentenced (judged) if found guilty. Likewise, it is our right (and duty) to judge words, ideas and actions which are not in conformity with the Gospels or which fail to conform to the Magisterial teaching of Christ's Church and to expose these as fallacious and/or sinful. In so doing, we are not rendering a judgment against a person. We are following the teaching of the great Saint Augustine (Bishop, Father and Doctor of the Church), who said: "Interficere errorem, diligere errantem" - kill the error, love the one who errs. This killing of what is sinful or erroneous is necessary if our charity - our love of neighbor - is to be genuine. Otherwise, our love is counterfeit. It is a fraud.

I an not really surprised that Father Thomas Rosica would lend his support to such proposals given his defense of the scandalous funeral Mass for the late Senator Ted Kennedy, a confused and lost soul.

Does Cardinal O'Malley condone such violence toward children?

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons, had this to say, "As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case." (No. 7).

But in the controversy which has erupted in the wake of Cardinal O'Malley's decision to help find a Catholic school for the ward of the lesbian parents who was initially denied admission on the basis of their illicit relationship, Cardinal O'Malley has not only advanced a false notion of compassion, but he has failed to address the violence which is done to children when they are placed in "an environment that is not conducive to their full human development." Why is this? Does Cardinal O'Malley condone this violence to children? If not, should he be finding a Catholic school for the ward of lesbian parents? Is this not tacit approval of an illicit relationship and the environment to which an innocent child is being exposed?

Is Cardinal O'Malley crippled by lukewarmness? Last year, when many faithful Catholics were scandalized over Senator Ted Kennedy's very public funeral liturgy, His Eminence responded by asserting that, "At times, even in the Church, zeal can lead people to issue harsh judgments and impute the worst motives to one another." How true. But, as Father Bede Jarrett, O.P., has reminded us, "Not only may I sin by being angry when I should not, but I may sin by not being angry when I should be. If my reason tells me that it is right to be angry, then I disobey God when I refuse to give place to wrath; for, as the New Testament teaches, it is possible to 'be angry and sin not.' (Eph 4:26). Our Lord Himself, when need arose, roped together a bundle of cords and drove from the Temple those who trafficked in the House of Prayer, and down the front steps He flung the tables of the money-changers. Perhaps for most of us, the fault is not that we are too angry, but that we are not angry enough. Think of all the evils that are in the world, that are known to all, admitted to exist by public press and on public platform. Would they have survived thus far, had folk all shown the indignant anger of Christ? Hypocrisy, cant, and the whole blatant injustice that stalks naked and unashamed in national life - may not our own weakness and silence have helped to render impotent all efforts to reduce these terrible things?" (Classic Catholic Meditations, p. 168, Sophia Institute Press).

Yes, zeal can sometimes lead to excess. But when James and John displayed an excess of zeal, asking our Lord to rain down destruction on those who wouldn't accept Him, He gave them evidence of his admiration for their zeal as he gave them the name Boanerges: Sons of Thunder. But, as Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer reminded us, we must "Fight against that weakness which makes you lazy and careless in your spiritual life. Remember that it might well be the beginning of lukewarmness...and, in the words of the Scripture*, God will vomit the lukewarm out of his mouth."

Lukewarmness in the Church has brought us nothing but disaster. Can we not see it? Yes, zeal must be tempered by the Cardinal Virtues of prudence and temperance. But God hates the lukewarm. It is a lukewarm Church which fails to deliver the Gospel with courage, with fortitude. The faithful are looking for shepherds, not for leaders who are crippled by lukewarmness and moral cowardice.


* Rev 3:16.