Showing posts with label Benedict XVI. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Benedict XVI. Show all posts
Friday, April 17, 2020
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Wednesday, January 15, 2020
Monday, January 13, 2020
Saturday, December 10, 2016
False Interpretations and Unspoken Assumptions
There’s no doubt that there is infighting in the Church. Without getting into who is right and who is wrong, Catholics are pitted against each other. This time, it is not just orthodox vs. heterodox. Added to that conflict is a civil war between Catholics professing to be faithful to the Church—indeed Catholics who strove to defend the Church during earlier pontificates—on whether one needs to oppose the current shepherds or whether that is wrong. One of the areas of contention is over the claim that we never had this level of confusion in the Church before (a claim I disagree with).
I have a few theories. One of them involves the growth of Social Media plus smart phones allowing us to be instantly misinformed about what is going on with the Church. One who wants to undermine the Church can now reach a global audience as opposed to xeroxed pamphlets shoved under people’s windshield wipers. But that’s only one part of the problem. It doesn’t explain how some stalwart defenders of previous Popes can now turn on the current one. To some critics of the current Pope, they don’t see how one can support him without rejecting his predecessors. Since they know his predecessors taught truly, they believe they have to oppose the Pope today.
Yes, St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI did explain boundaries of intrinsic evil. Nobody denies that. But what we forget is they also stressed reconciling the sinners to God, not expelling them from the Church, except for grave issues in hopes that would bring them back to their senses. Like it or not, they did have teachings against unrestrained capitalism and destruction of the environment (in earlier documents, they called it “ecology”). Like it or not, there were bishops who did regrettable things during their pontificates but remained in their positions. There were pro-abortion Catholics who were never excommunicated back then too. We tend to forget these things and that some Catholics bitterly condemned them.
It seems to me that Pope Francis takes his predecessors’ teaching on intrinsic evil as a given and has devoted his teaching to emphasize what we overlooked (but was always present) in his predecessors’ teachings—how to reach out to those Catholics estranged from the Church in the hopes of bringing them back. This is why I think some have missed the point of previous papal teaching: We were so concerned with blocking those people actively trying to corrupt Church teaching (and they existed), that we assumed all people who wound up afoul of Church teaching were part of this group. We didn’t consider that some of them might have been badly educated on what the Church taught and why, and might be brought back if we reached out to them. We assumed they made an irrevocable decision and any attempt to reach out to them meant compromising on truth.
Yes, some of the issues are muddled because some people do want to undermine Church teaching, whether knowingly or through being mistaken. But when one starts wth the assumption that the Pope’s position is the teaching of the Church (the quote ignored in favor of “Who am I to judge?”), we will see his teachings on mercy and forgiveness presuppose the works of his predecessors. It’s only if we assume he intends error to begin with that we’ll see error in his words. This is why Benedict XVI could talk of Pope Francis in an interview this way:
[Q] Some commentators have interpreted this exhortation as a break, particularly because of its call for the decentralization of the Church. Do you detect a break from your Papacy in this programmatic text?
[A] No. I, too, always wanted the local churches to be active in and of themselves, and not so dependent on extra help from Rome. So the strengthening of the local church is something very important. Although it is also always important that we all remain open to one another and to the Petrine Ministry – otherwise the Church becomes politicized, nationalized, culturally constricted. The exchange between the local and global church is extremely important. And I must say that, unfortunately, those very bishops who oppose decentralization are those who have been lacking in the kind of initiatives one might have expected of them. So we had to help them along again and again. Because the more fully and actively a local church itself truly lives from the centre of faith, the more it contributes to the larger whole.
It is not as though the whole Church were simply dictating to the local churches: what goes on in the local churches is decisive to the whole. When one member is diseased, says St Paul, all are. When, for example, Europe becomes poor in faith, then that is an illness for the others as well – and vice versa. If superstition or other things that should not occur there were to fall in upon another church, or even faithlessness, that would react upon the whole, inevitably. So an interplay is very important. We need the Petrine Ministry and the service of unity, and we need the responsibility of local churches.
[Q] So you do not see any kind of break with your pontificate?
[A] No. I mean, one can of course misinterpret in places, with the intention of saying that everything has been turned on its head now. If one isolates things, takes them out of context, one can construct opposites, but not if one looks at the whole. There may be a different emphasis, of course, but no opposition.
[Q] Now, after the present time in office of Pope Francis – are you content?
[A] Yes. There is a new freshness in the Church, a new joyfulness, a new charisma which speaks to people, and that is certainly something beautiful.
Benedict XVI, Pope (2016-11-14). Last Testament: In His Own Words (Kindle Locations 769-787). Bloomsbury Publishing. Kindle Edition.
This is the testimony of a Pope emeritus who believes the current Pope to be orthodox and consistent with his predecessors. But many Catholics who praise Benedict XVI seem like they would disagree with his assessment.
This is why I have misgivings about the things four cardinals, a group of philosophers, and a mob of Social media critics say—in various levels of politeness—the Pope should answer the dubia. Whether they intend it or not, what some of them really mean is, Answer it so we can see if you are orthodox or heterodox. When one looks at it this way, there is no confusion when the Pope and his supporters say things are already clear. He does intend them to be understood in the light of Church teaching.
I believe the way out of the confusion some complain about is not in the Pope speaking differently. Confusion ends when we start assuming the Pope is orthodox and we interpret what he says from that perspective. No Pope will look orthodox if people assume he is heretical. Remember, sede vacantists and the SSPX interpreted St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI as teaching error when these Popes went against their views.
The confusion is not about what Pope Francis said or did. The confusion is about individual Catholics on the internet being mistrustful of the Pope. They have interpreted Church teaching in a certain way and anything that does not match that interpretation must be in error. What they don’t ask is whether they misinterpreted the Pope or prior Church teaching. If a critic misinterprets one of these (they often misinterpret both), they will reach a false conclusion.
We should start questioning our own interpretations. If interpretations do not correspond to what a teaching is, they are false interpretations. We should look at our own assumptions. If they are wrong, we will be misled. The hard part is, self-deception is easy. Nobody likes realizing they’re wrong and we have ways of shifting the blame to excuse ourselves. But when this interferes with our obligation to seek out and follow truth, that can have dangerous consequences.
Sunday, March 6, 2016
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Pride: The Danger of Judging of Popes
There is a troubling group of Catholics out there who, while a minority, are quite vocal out there. They are the Catholics who believe that Pope Francis is making a definite break in Catholic teaching, teaching error and needing to be resisted. If they were only a fringe group, we could just dismiss them with a shrug and a shake of the head. But it isn’t merely the lunatic fringe. It is people who equate the Pope with a political view that they don’t like, and don’t think the Church should be teaching on those subjects and that the Pope should focus on subjects they agree with.
The irony of it all is the fact that prior to the pontificate of Pope Francis, there were other Catholics who rejected the teachings of his predecessors, equating them with a political view they disliked and thought that the Church would be better off teaching on subjects they agreed with. Basically, the two groups are guilty of the same behavior but with a different bias. What’s most tragic about this is the fact that both groups seem to condemn the other for doing this, but both are blind to the fact that they are guilty of the very same thing: Having a selective view that is twisted to match political views that justifies themselves and vilifies the others at the expense of obedience to Church teaching.
What’s overlooked is that the predecessors of Pope Francis said pretty much the same thing on issues of social justice that he did, and that Pope Francis has said the same thing as his predecessors on the moral teachings of the Church. Pope emeritus Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II were not “right wingers” and Pope Francis is not “Left Wing."
So a large part of the judging of popes seems to be ignorance of or ignoring what the Popes have actually taught in favor of a caricature. The problem is, we can’t accurately assess something without knowledge of the facts—facts which the media stories do not supply. Now it may be forgivable for people ignorant of the Catholic faith to not realize that there is more to the story than the media reports. But we Catholics do not have that excuse. If we have faith in God to protect His Church from error when it comes to matters of salvation, there can neither be a case of the Church was right before but wrong now, nor a case of the Church was wrong before but right now. The Holy Spirit didn’t take a nap during Vatican II or the election of Pope Francis. Nor did the Holy Spirit take a nap until Vatican II. There is a continuity in the teaching. It’s just that the ways of expressing the teaching can be done in different ways by different Popes in different ages.
The point is, as the Church faces new circumstances, new attacks, new understandings, teaching develops—but never contradicts former teaching. We’ll never go from saying divorce and remarriage is wrong to saying it is OK. But over time, we have had to answer questions from different sources, and perhaps face situations that the Church in earlier times did not have to address (for example, the widespread rejection of the belief that a valid marriage is permanent that exists today). Pope Francis has to address the problem of a society that has no idea what marriage is really for. When people no longer understand what is the sin, the older methods of explaining the moral truths may be inadequate.
Ultimately, this judging of Popes is based on the idea that the Church should be what the individual wants it to be. When the individual puts himself or herself in opposition to the Church teaching, or when the Church teaches on something the would-be judge thinks is similar to a political view he or she dislikes, the objection is that “God doesn’t care about that,” or that “the Church should be focussing on serious issues.” That’s pride—the belief that *I* can’t be a sinner. If the Church says I am sinning or that my political views are against what following Christ requires, then the Church must be in error.
Mind you, when it comes to being faithful to Church teaching, there are different ways to do it, and two faithful Catholics can have two different views on what the best way to carry it out. So, it’s not being faithless if one would prefer a different approach (in keeping with the teachings, mind you) on doing these things, so long as we recognize exactly who has the authority to decide on what the Church will officially do—whether that concerns the way to carry out a doctrine or what the discipline of the Church is going to be. If one refuses to accept the Church teaching, that makes them disobedient.
For example, take the disputes that have happened concerning the Mass as it exists today (the Ordinary Form), vs. the Mass in the form of the 1962 Missal (the Extraordinary Form). The preference for the Extraordinary Form is not sinful in itself. Some people prefer the Extraordinary Form. I prefer the Ordinary Form. One preference is not right while the other wrong. But it is the Pope who decides what is best for the Church, and if he decides on something that is different than we prefer, he has the authority from Christ to make that decision. Blessed Paul VI and St. John Paul II were not wrong in mandating the ordinary form. Nor was Pope emeritus Benedict XVI correcting error by expanding permission for the use of the extraordinary form. Those who defied Blessed Paul VI and St. John Paul II during their pontificates did wrong, and that fact was not changed by the decision of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI. It merely meant that those who began to use the extraordinary form of the Mass according to the motu proprio, after permission was given, were not sinning in doing so. Yet a good deal of ink and bandwidth has been expended seeking to portray Blessed Paul VI and St. John Paul II as teaching error.
That’s what this judging of Popes does. It is an arrogant decision that the individual has the charism of infallibility while the Pope does not. If the Pope teaches differently than I would prefer, it means the Pope is in error. Such a view refuses to accept the possibility of being deceived by the devil through pride. And if we refuse to accept the possibility that we can be wrong, it blocks us from accepting Our Lord’s grace and salvation.
These aren’t minor matters. Those who presume to judge the teachings of the Pope are possibly (I will not judge their culpability) putting their souls in danger. So, when we encounter such people on the internet or in person, at least say a prayer for them that they might come to trust that God is watching over the Church.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Do Not Be Afraid
Brothers and sisters, do not be afraid to welcome Christ and accept his power. Help the Pope and all those who wish to serve Christ and with Christ's power to serve the human person and the whole of mankind. Do not be afraid. Open wide the doors for Christ. To his saving power open the boundaries of States, economic and political systems, the vast fields of culture, civilization and development. Do not be afraid. Christ knows "what is in man". He alone knows it. (Homily of Blessed John Paul II, Oct 22, 1978)
One of the things I see with some of my fellow Catholics is a sense of fear when it comes to the recent announcement from Pope Benedict XVI that he will retire effective February 28th at 8pm. Since there has not been a Papal resignation in 600 years, it seems to be a shocking thing to us.
The important thing to remember is that Christ has promised to be with our Church always (See Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20). The successor of Benedict XVI will be a different person and will handle the Church in a different way to be sure. But Benedict XVI handled the papacy differently than Blessed John Paul II.
We may like the changes or we may prefer things the older way. But the important thing to remember is that when the new Pontiff is elected, he will be protected in the same way as the previous popes.
So come what may in the future, we can have faith in knowing that God will continue to watch over His Church. Individuals may be persecuted and individuals may err. But our Church is protected and the gates of hell will not prevail over her.
Do Not Be Afraid
Brothers and sisters, do not be afraid to welcome Christ and accept his power. Help the Pope and all those who wish to serve Christ and with Christ's power to serve the human person and the whole of mankind. Do not be afraid. Open wide the doors for Christ. To his saving power open the boundaries of States, economic and political systems, the vast fields of culture, civilization and development. Do not be afraid. Christ knows "what is in man". He alone knows it. (Homily of Blessed John Paul II, Oct 22, 1978)
One of the things I see with some of my fellow Catholics is a sense of fear when it comes to the recent announcement from Pope Benedict XVI that he will retire effective February 28th at 8pm. Since there has not been a Papal resignation in 600 years, it seems to be a shocking thing to us.
The important thing to remember is that Christ has promised to be with our Church always (See Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20). The successor of Benedict XVI will be a different person and will handle the Church in a different way to be sure. But Benedict XVI handled the papacy differently than Blessed John Paul II.
We may like the changes or we may prefer things the older way. But the important thing to remember is that when the new Pontiff is elected, he will be protected in the same way as the previous popes.
So come what may in the future, we can have faith in knowing that God will continue to watch over His Church. Individuals may be persecuted and individuals may err. But our Church is protected and the gates of hell will not prevail over her.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Reflections on the Announced Retirement of Pope Benedict XVI
I was certainly caught by surprise at the announcement of the Pope that he will step down, effective February 28th. I was introduced to his writings in the 1990s during a time when I was beginning to study what the faith I was brought up with meant. I found his works wise and insightful.
As many crises arose in the Church, I was impressed at how he and Blessed John Paul II stood up for the truth in a sea of relativism. Portrayed as a hateful old man by many, I saw in him a deep love and understanding of the obligations of seeking and doing what was right that binds us all.
At the death of Blessed Pope John Paul II, I thought he would be a good Pope, but I thought his age would keep him from being elected (Because of that assumption, I thought Cardinal Arinze would be a good man to be elected if we couldn't have Cardinal Ratzinger). So when the news came of his election, I was elated. His work after his election showed this elation was justified.
During his pontificate, he continued the work of making clear the teachings of the Church, showing a profound love of Christ in doing so. His encyclicals showed the recognition of the fact that a desire for reform of the world could not simply be done by government decree, but had to have at its base a love for each person from the moment of conception to natural death.
Despite the attacks he suffered with the misrepresentation of his deeds and words, he showed he was a Pope deeply in love with Christ and seeking to lead people to seeking Christ.
Now, he has stated he must retire due to health reasons. I find myself saddened at the news, but trust he is doing so because he believes it is best that he steps down before his health declines to the point he can no longer lead the Church.
I thank God for giving us Pope Benedict XVI at the time he was needed, and offer my prayers for the Pope and for his successor.
Reflections on the Announced Retirement of Pope Benedict XVI
I was certainly caught by surprise at the announcement of the Pope that he will step down, effective February 28th. I was introduced to his writings in the 1990s during a time when I was beginning to study what the faith I was brought up with meant. I found his works wise and insightful.
As many crises arose in the Church, I was impressed at how he and Blessed John Paul II stood up for the truth in a sea of relativism. Portrayed as a hateful old man by many, I saw in him a deep love and understanding of the obligations of seeking and doing what was right that binds us all.
At the death of Blessed Pope John Paul II, I thought he would be a good Pope, but I thought his age would keep him from being elected (Because of that assumption, I thought Cardinal Arinze would be a good man to be elected if we couldn't have Cardinal Ratzinger). So when the news came of his election, I was elated. His work after his election showed this elation was justified.
During his pontificate, he continued the work of making clear the teachings of the Church, showing a profound love of Christ in doing so. His encyclicals showed the recognition of the fact that a desire for reform of the world could not simply be done by government decree, but had to have at its base a love for each person from the moment of conception to natural death.
Despite the attacks he suffered with the misrepresentation of his deeds and words, he showed he was a Pope deeply in love with Christ and seeking to lead people to seeking Christ.
Now, he has stated he must retire due to health reasons. I find myself saddened at the news, but trust he is doing so because he believes it is best that he steps down before his health declines to the point he can no longer lead the Church.
I thank God for giving us Pope Benedict XVI at the time he was needed, and offer my prayers for the Pope and for his successor.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
More Reason for Calm Response
Source: In defense of L’Osservatore Romano | National Catholic Reporter
On Monday I posted an article about my misgivings on the lynch mob mentality towards the L'Osservatore Romano (henceforth abbreviated L'OR). On Tuesday I posted an article on a Vatican Press Conference which seemed to negate one of the charges against L'OR. Today, we seem to have an article which seems to negate another charge against L'OR.
John Allen, in a well balanced article, brings up what seems to be some mitigating factors in what appeared to be the most substantial charge: That L'OR violated the embargo.
While it is true unlimited discussion was barred until 11/23, all papers had the right to discuss certain chapters (1, 6 and 17) on 11/21/10. John Allen tells us:
L’Osservatore, because of its special status, was allowed to comb through the entire manuscript, and obviously made some journalistically sound judgments about which sections would be of widest public interest, including the lines on condoms (which come from chapter two). The paper waited until Sunday to run the extracts, though because L’Osservatore is always released the evening before its publication date, it actually came out Saturday night.
If this is true, this seems to destroy, at one stroke, most of the charges against L'OR. If the Vatican Publishing House did give permission for L'OR to discuss more of the book than others on 11/21, and if the 11/21 edition went public on 11/20 due to simple standard procedure, then it seems the charges of violating the embargo cannot be applied to L'OR. In such a case, either the Vatican Publishing House broke the embargo, or nobody did depending on whose authority the permission was granted.
If this article is true, it seems the only charges validly remaining is whether L'OR did the Vatican a disservice by translating the German word used for "basis" as "justification" and whether they were guilty of lack of context.
Still, while such decisions may indeed be poor judgment, they certainly seem less severe than the original charges, and may merit an action less severe than those who are calling for the head of Vian.
That's not to say there is nothing wrong with this article. There are things in this article I disagree with. Regardless of Vian's actions on layout or color, these are irrelevant and the "hard hitting editorials" and focus on popular culture is only of value if it reflects a Catholic view. Let's not forget the USCCB debacle over The Golden Compass for example, where the (removed) review kind of forgot to mention the atheistic message of the book/movie. Some decisions by the L'OR editorial staff were decidedly uninformed, creating moral confusion. So I don't think this is entirely an example of seeking payback as Allen seems to think.
However, I believe the points made concerning the level of culpability of the L'OR do require us to consider the grounds on which Vian is being called on to resign, and whether such a call is rational or not. If it is for a cumulative set of complaints, this should be stated, and not seek a cumulative penalty for one charge.
However, as I said before, if Vian and his staff have done anything wrong, it falls to the Vatican to determine what should be done. It might be more lenient or stricter than we would want, or it might match what we would want. That's irrelevant. The fact is, the Vatican has the authority to treat with this as they see fit.
More Reason for Calm Response
Source: In defense of L’Osservatore Romano | National Catholic Reporter
On Monday I posted an article about my misgivings on the lynch mob mentality towards the L'Osservatore Romano (henceforth abbreviated L'OR). On Tuesday I posted an article on a Vatican Press Conference which seemed to negate one of the charges against L'OR. Today, we seem to have an article which seems to negate another charge against L'OR.
John Allen, in a well balanced article, brings up what seems to be some mitigating factors in what appeared to be the most substantial charge: That L'OR violated the embargo.
While it is true unlimited discussion was barred until 11/23, all papers had the right to discuss certain chapters (1, 6 and 17) on 11/21/10. John Allen tells us:
L’Osservatore, because of its special status, was allowed to comb through the entire manuscript, and obviously made some journalistically sound judgments about which sections would be of widest public interest, including the lines on condoms (which come from chapter two). The paper waited until Sunday to run the extracts, though because L’Osservatore is always released the evening before its publication date, it actually came out Saturday night.
If this is true, this seems to destroy, at one stroke, most of the charges against L'OR. If the Vatican Publishing House did give permission for L'OR to discuss more of the book than others on 11/21, and if the 11/21 edition went public on 11/20 due to simple standard procedure, then it seems the charges of violating the embargo cannot be applied to L'OR. In such a case, either the Vatican Publishing House broke the embargo, or nobody did depending on whose authority the permission was granted.
If this article is true, it seems the only charges validly remaining is whether L'OR did the Vatican a disservice by translating the German word used for "basis" as "justification" and whether they were guilty of lack of context.
Still, while such decisions may indeed be poor judgment, they certainly seem less severe than the original charges, and may merit an action less severe than those who are calling for the head of Vian.
That's not to say there is nothing wrong with this article. There are things in this article I disagree with. Regardless of Vian's actions on layout or color, these are irrelevant and the "hard hitting editorials" and focus on popular culture is only of value if it reflects a Catholic view. Let's not forget the USCCB debacle over The Golden Compass for example, where the (removed) review kind of forgot to mention the atheistic message of the book/movie. Some decisions by the L'OR editorial staff were decidedly uninformed, creating moral confusion. So I don't think this is entirely an example of seeking payback as Allen seems to think.
However, I believe the points made concerning the level of culpability of the L'OR do require us to consider the grounds on which Vian is being called on to resign, and whether such a call is rational or not. If it is for a cumulative set of complaints, this should be stated, and not seek a cumulative penalty for one charge.
However, as I said before, if Vian and his staff have done anything wrong, it falls to the Vatican to determine what should be done. It might be more lenient or stricter than we would want, or it might match what we would want. That's irrelevant. The fact is, the Vatican has the authority to treat with this as they see fit.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
An Interesting Clarification
In an article I wrote yesterday, I discussed my misgivings over the mob like mentality of the hostility directed at L'Osservatore Romano. One of these issues I expressed some concern over was the issue of translation. In that article, I wrote:
Reports are the Italian translation are rather different from the original German which was spoken by Peter Seewald and the Pope, giving the impression that the Pope was speaking in a way giving sanction for Catholics to use condoms to prevent AIDS.
If these reports are true about the mistranslations, then it seems this is a serious charge. (I don't intend to say I think they are false charges. I merely follow Socrates and admit that I do not know, therefore I do not consider myself competent to judge).
I also said, in response to whether a mistranslation was deliberate (#1) or incompetent (#2):
Point #1 is a thing which need to be proven, but seem to be insinuated by some writers without proof. Point #2 may be true, but right now the discussion on the web seems to be based on personal translations of German and Italian text which may be accurate but I am not competent to judge one way or another. I think we do need some more authoritative sources to form an accurate judgment.
It seems we do have some more authoritative sources on the intent of the Pope. In the face of whether the German intended "male prostitute" while the Italian used the feminine form of prostitute, Father Federico Lombardi (the Pope's spokesman) went and asked the Pope. The response Fr. Lombardi gave was as follows:
“I asked the pope personally if there was a serious or important problem in the choice of the masculine gender rather than the feminine, and he said no, that is, the main point — and this is why I didn’t refer to masculine or feminine in (my earlier) communiqué — is the first step of responsibility in taking into account the risk to the life of another person with whom one has relations,” Father Lombardi said.
“Whether a man or a woman or a transsexual does this, we’re at the same point. The point is the first step toward responsibility, to avoid posing a grave risk to another person,” Father Lombardi said.
It's an interesting response. Yes, the Italian translation was technically in error using a feminine form instead of a masculine form, but that the changing of the gender did not change the meaning of the point the Pope was trying to get across. The Pope is not endorsing condoms, but is saying that such a person is at least starting to think of morality [even if the individual's response is still deficient].
This indicates one of the points which is used in denouncing L'Osservatore Romano is in fact not as serious as alleged.
This still leaves the issues of violating the embargo against discussing the book until today and the editorial decision to release the passage without context. There is also the issue of the use of "justified" versus "basis." I do not wish to make it seem that I would deny the other charges.
Still, we have at least one instance where the outrage against L'Osservatore Romano seems hasty. Perhaps the other charges will stand or perhaps they will fall as well. At this time we do not know.
Either way, it seems that seeking the facts before judging remains the way to handle this.
An Interesting Clarification
In an article I wrote yesterday, I discussed my misgivings over the mob like mentality of the hostility directed at L'Osservatore Romano. One of these issues I expressed some concern over was the issue of translation. In that article, I wrote:
Reports are the Italian translation are rather different from the original German which was spoken by Peter Seewald and the Pope, giving the impression that the Pope was speaking in a way giving sanction for Catholics to use condoms to prevent AIDS.
If these reports are true about the mistranslations, then it seems this is a serious charge. (I don't intend to say I think they are false charges. I merely follow Socrates and admit that I do not know, therefore I do not consider myself competent to judge).
I also said, in response to whether a mistranslation was deliberate (#1) or incompetent (#2):
Point #1 is a thing which need to be proven, but seem to be insinuated by some writers without proof. Point #2 may be true, but right now the discussion on the web seems to be based on personal translations of German and Italian text which may be accurate but I am not competent to judge one way or another. I think we do need some more authoritative sources to form an accurate judgment.
It seems we do have some more authoritative sources on the intent of the Pope. In the face of whether the German intended "male prostitute" while the Italian used the feminine form of prostitute, Father Federico Lombardi (the Pope's spokesman) went and asked the Pope. The response Fr. Lombardi gave was as follows:
“I asked the pope personally if there was a serious or important problem in the choice of the masculine gender rather than the feminine, and he said no, that is, the main point — and this is why I didn’t refer to masculine or feminine in (my earlier) communiqué — is the first step of responsibility in taking into account the risk to the life of another person with whom one has relations,” Father Lombardi said.
“Whether a man or a woman or a transsexual does this, we’re at the same point. The point is the first step toward responsibility, to avoid posing a grave risk to another person,” Father Lombardi said.
It's an interesting response. Yes, the Italian translation was technically in error using a feminine form instead of a masculine form, but that the changing of the gender did not change the meaning of the point the Pope was trying to get across. The Pope is not endorsing condoms, but is saying that such a person is at least starting to think of morality [even if the individual's response is still deficient].
This indicates one of the points which is used in denouncing L'Osservatore Romano is in fact not as serious as alleged.
This still leaves the issues of violating the embargo against discussing the book until today and the editorial decision to release the passage without context. There is also the issue of the use of "justified" versus "basis." I do not wish to make it seem that I would deny the other charges.
Still, we have at least one instance where the outrage against L'Osservatore Romano seems hasty. Perhaps the other charges will stand or perhaps they will fall as well. At this time we do not know.
Either way, it seems that seeking the facts before judging remains the way to handle this.
Monday, November 22, 2010
A Plea for Calm
39 But if you seek anything further, it shall be settled in the regular assembly. 40 For we are in danger of being charged with rioting today, there being no cause that we can give to justify this commotion.” 41 And when he had said this, he dismissed the assembly. (Acts 19:39-41)
Preliminary Note:
I fully expect someone to accuse me of accusing me of some sort of liberalism, modernism or other ad hominem simply because I advise discovering the truth and who has what level of responsibility before calling for anyone's termination from his position. To those people I simply point to my weblog as proof I have always stood in support of the Pope and the Magisterium and have sought to obey the Church I believe to be established by Christ under the headship of Peter and his successors.
I do not write this article to exonerate Giovanni Maria Vian and L'Osservatore Romano. If they have done wrong, then they should face the results proportionate to what they have done.
Rather, I feel that the anger is beginning to head off in a destructive direction and must be reined in. Whether Giovanni Maria Vian or another individual needs to be fired or reprimanded, I do not know. However, I suspect most of the others do not know either.
I simply call for us to calm down and wait for facts, and not behave in a way to cause scandal to those outside watching us.
Introduction
I figured it would happen somewhere though I didn't know who the target would be. Some radical traditionalists have blamed it on Vatican II. Some conservative Catholic bloggers have blamed the Pope for being "too egg-headed" or "academic." Others spoke about his assistants in general failing him. I was half expecting someone to blame Peter Seewald but thankfully that didn't happen.
Now, however, we are seeing the blame go largely to L'Osservatore Romano. Some of it seems justified. Judging by reports, there seems to be some gross misconduct over their article (bad translation and breaking embargo), if the reports have it right.
I believe that before calling for any action to be taken, we must determine what happened and who was responsible, and only then determine the proportionate penalty to the offense and apply it to the responsible. This is not something determined by the blogging community, but by the proper authority in the Vatican.
An Article for the Prosecution
Canon Lawyer Edward Peters, a blogger I respect introduces his case for strong action, and his article makes some good points here:
I want to ask a few questions about the occasion of this public relations fiasco, namely, the decision by L’Osservatore Romano to publish prematurely, out of context, and without commentary, the single most controversial paragraph of the pope’s book, Light of the World, in, if nothing else, apparent violation of the agreement in place between its various publishers concerning a coordinated release of the work.
Fair enough. These are serious charges, though ultimately I believe it would be the Pope's call to do as he saw fit in response.
However, I am less convinced when he goes on to say:
Instantly, of course, the world formed exactly the wrong understanding of that paragraph that anyone could have predicted.
I have problems with this statement. The reason this does not convince me is that it took more than just a bad editorial decision or even gross misconduct to create this debacle. It took media and dissenters acting with misconduct to scream "Pope says Condoms OK!" to the world without seeking confirmation on this matter.
Now the problem is, at this time we have only secondhand reports of what the Italian says (at the time of this writing, the English edition is dated November 17 and does not have this story). Reports are the Italian translation are rather different from the original German which was spoken by Peter Seewald and the Pope, giving the impression that the Pope was speaking in a way giving sanction for Catholics to use condoms to prevent AIDS.
If these reports are true about the mistranslations, then it seems this is a serious charge. (I don't intend to say I think they are false charges. I merely follow Socrates and admit that I do not know, therefore I do not consider myself competent to judge).
Another thing which bothers me is the imputation of malicious intent which some are attributing to this action.
Philip Lawler is the editor for CWNews who calls for punitive action. In his article, he says:
Why did L’Osservatore Romano violate journalistic norms, ignore obvious dangers, and print a potentially explosive statement out of its proper context? Was the editor hoping to stir up a ruckus, and push sales of Light of the World regardless of the pastoral cost? Was he hoping to stir up a new debate on condom use—something the Pope was quite obviously not seeking? Or was the editor blind to the dangers of publishing this excerpt? Whatever the answer might be, he has demonstrated that his editorial judgment cannot be trusted. As a necessary first step to address the continuous public-relations bungling at the Vatican, Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor of L’Osservatore Romano should be asked to resign.
This strikes me as problematic, and this attitude seems pandemic among certain Catholic blogs. After certain bungles by certain individuals of the Pope's staff, people are saying they have had enough, and the editor should be fired. I've had friends and family ask me why so-and-so is still working instead of being removed. Some people want a clean slate in the Vatican and think people associated with certain problems should be fired.
In a Church Established by Christ, We Cannot Ignore Justice and Mercy
Why does this bother me? Because ultimately the penalty should fit the crime. So Giovanni Maria Vian should not be fired as a "necessary first step to address the continuous public-relations bungling at the Vatican." That's nothing more than scapegoating.
He should only be fired if his actions or negligence in editing the paper are actions worthy of being fired over. By this I mean, either things he chose to do which he should not have, or not to do but was obligated to do, or by failure to offer oversight to people under him where it is reasonable to hold him responsible. Only if this is worthy of termination, are calls for his firing just.
Rash Judgment
Might I remind my fellow Catholics of a couple of paragraphs within the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
- Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280
I do not intend to say people like Peters and Lawler are acting under rash judgment. Perhaps they have information we do not after all. Rather I wish to point out that when malicious intent is being imputed, it must be proven and not assumed.
Not Defending Giovanni Maria Vian
Now don't accuse me of saying we should just ignore this incident. If the accusations are true, something needs to be done. However, Catholic teaching requires we find out what is true, before passing judgment, and recognizing that those with the proper authority and not the mob have this task of passing judgment.
Right now, we are justly angry at the distortion which the media has made of this case. However, before calling for the head of Giovanni Maria Vian we need to ask if certain things are true:
- Did he knowingly make a mistranslation seeking to create an incident? That is a strong charge and requires proof. Does it exist?
- Did his staff incompetently translate the document? If so, it requires correction, but does it require Giovanni Maria Vian to be fired?
- Did they violate the embargo? Since nobody who received an advance copy was supposed to discuss the book until 11/23 and the article was published on Saturday, this seems to be the case. So who is responsible and what is the penalty?
- Did they know the media would take it out of context? That's a hard case to make. I read the quote from the AP article and it seemed immediately clear to me that the quote given did not justify the headline. It became more clear when Ignatius Press released the pages in question that this is not what the Pope said. So in this case, we have fault with the media.
Can We Claim We Know Enough to Judge?
Point #1 is a thing which need to be proven, but seem to be insinuated by some writers without proof. Point #2 may be true, but right now the discussion on the web seems to be based on personal translations of German and Italian text which may be accurate but I am not competent to judge one way or another. I think we do need some more authoritative sources to form an accurate judgment.
Point #3 seems to be the main point of the outrage, and it seems to be valid. Unless it turns out the Pope exempted them, it seems it is undeniable that they broke the agreement. Let the penalty fit the offense in this case.
Point #4 is the main concern I have with the current anger. Properly speaking, we must assess what the person who makes a statement means before we evaluate it. We must make sure that we do not have a false understanding of what was said.
The media reports completely failed to do this. They made a Todd Unctuous style report. Nobody contacted the Vatican for a clarification. Yes the blame is on the L'Osservatore Romano for releasing an excerpt contrary to the embargo is just. But insinuating malice as their motive or claiming they should have realized the media would misinterpret? That's too hard for me to swallow without proof.
Conclusion
So ultimately I call on my fellow Catholics to avoid a rush to judgment of L'Osservatore Romano for what was done by the media of the world in response to this article. Let L'Osservatore Romano be judged for what they have done or what they were negligent in not doing, and not assume malicious intent until we know such intent.
Ultimately any investigation will be handled by the proper departments of the Vatican. We may see someone fired. We may not see anything publically happen. Whatever happens, we must recognize that the Holy Father has the ultimate authority. Since I recognize the Holy Father as a man of great personal integrity who seeks to do what is best for the Church, I trust that whatever he will decide to do, he will do because he thinks it best.
A Plea for Calm
39 But if you seek anything further, it shall be settled in the regular assembly. 40 For we are in danger of being charged with rioting today, there being no cause that we can give to justify this commotion.” 41 And when he had said this, he dismissed the assembly. (Acts 19:39-41)
Preliminary Note:
I fully expect someone to accuse me of accusing me of some sort of liberalism, modernism or other ad hominem simply because I advise discovering the truth and who has what level of responsibility before calling for anyone's termination from his position. To those people I simply point to my weblog as proof I have always stood in support of the Pope and the Magisterium and have sought to obey the Church I believe to be established by Christ under the headship of Peter and his successors.
I do not write this article to exonerate Giovanni Maria Vian and L'Osservatore Romano. If they have done wrong, then they should face the results proportionate to what they have done.
Rather, I feel that the anger is beginning to head off in a destructive direction and must be reined in. Whether Giovanni Maria Vian or another individual needs to be fired or reprimanded, I do not know. However, I suspect most of the others do not know either.
I simply call for us to calm down and wait for facts, and not behave in a way to cause scandal to those outside watching us.
Introduction
I figured it would happen somewhere though I didn't know who the target would be. Some radical traditionalists have blamed it on Vatican II. Some conservative Catholic bloggers have blamed the Pope for being "too egg-headed" or "academic." Others spoke about his assistants in general failing him. I was half expecting someone to blame Peter Seewald but thankfully that didn't happen.
Now, however, we are seeing the blame go largely to L'Osservatore Romano. Some of it seems justified. Judging by reports, there seems to be some gross misconduct over their article (bad translation and breaking embargo), if the reports have it right.
I believe that before calling for any action to be taken, we must determine what happened and who was responsible, and only then determine the proportionate penalty to the offense and apply it to the responsible. This is not something determined by the blogging community, but by the proper authority in the Vatican.
An Article for the Prosecution
Canon Lawyer Edward Peters, a blogger I respect introduces his case for strong action, and his article makes some good points here:
I want to ask a few questions about the occasion of this public relations fiasco, namely, the decision by L’Osservatore Romano to publish prematurely, out of context, and without commentary, the single most controversial paragraph of the pope’s book, Light of the World, in, if nothing else, apparent violation of the agreement in place between its various publishers concerning a coordinated release of the work.
Fair enough. These are serious charges, though ultimately I believe it would be the Pope's call to do as he saw fit in response.
However, I am less convinced when he goes on to say:
Instantly, of course, the world formed exactly the wrong understanding of that paragraph that anyone could have predicted.
I have problems with this statement. The reason this does not convince me is that it took more than just a bad editorial decision or even gross misconduct to create this debacle. It took media and dissenters acting with misconduct to scream "Pope says Condoms OK!" to the world without seeking confirmation on this matter.
Now the problem is, at this time we have only secondhand reports of what the Italian says (at the time of this writing, the English edition is dated November 17 and does not have this story). Reports are the Italian translation are rather different from the original German which was spoken by Peter Seewald and the Pope, giving the impression that the Pope was speaking in a way giving sanction for Catholics to use condoms to prevent AIDS.
If these reports are true about the mistranslations, then it seems this is a serious charge. (I don't intend to say I think they are false charges. I merely follow Socrates and admit that I do not know, therefore I do not consider myself competent to judge).
Another thing which bothers me is the imputation of malicious intent which some are attributing to this action.
Philip Lawler is the editor for CWNews who calls for punitive action. In his article, he says:
Why did L’Osservatore Romano violate journalistic norms, ignore obvious dangers, and print a potentially explosive statement out of its proper context? Was the editor hoping to stir up a ruckus, and push sales of Light of the World regardless of the pastoral cost? Was he hoping to stir up a new debate on condom use—something the Pope was quite obviously not seeking? Or was the editor blind to the dangers of publishing this excerpt? Whatever the answer might be, he has demonstrated that his editorial judgment cannot be trusted. As a necessary first step to address the continuous public-relations bungling at the Vatican, Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor of L’Osservatore Romano should be asked to resign.
This strikes me as problematic, and this attitude seems pandemic among certain Catholic blogs. After certain bungles by certain individuals of the Pope's staff, people are saying they have had enough, and the editor should be fired. I've had friends and family ask me why so-and-so is still working instead of being removed. Some people want a clean slate in the Vatican and think people associated with certain problems should be fired.
In a Church Established by Christ, We Cannot Ignore Justice and Mercy
Why does this bother me? Because ultimately the penalty should fit the crime. So Giovanni Maria Vian should not be fired as a "necessary first step to address the continuous public-relations bungling at the Vatican." That's nothing more than scapegoating.
He should only be fired if his actions or negligence in editing the paper are actions worthy of being fired over. By this I mean, either things he chose to do which he should not have, or not to do but was obligated to do, or by failure to offer oversight to people under him where it is reasonable to hold him responsible. Only if this is worthy of termination, are calls for his firing just.
Rash Judgment
Might I remind my fellow Catholics of a couple of paragraphs within the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
- Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280
I do not intend to say people like Peters and Lawler are acting under rash judgment. Perhaps they have information we do not after all. Rather I wish to point out that when malicious intent is being imputed, it must be proven and not assumed.
Not Defending Giovanni Maria Vian
Now don't accuse me of saying we should just ignore this incident. If the accusations are true, something needs to be done. However, Catholic teaching requires we find out what is true, before passing judgment, and recognizing that those with the proper authority and not the mob have this task of passing judgment.
Right now, we are justly angry at the distortion which the media has made of this case. However, before calling for the head of Giovanni Maria Vian we need to ask if certain things are true:
- Did he knowingly make a mistranslation seeking to create an incident? That is a strong charge and requires proof. Does it exist?
- Did his staff incompetently translate the document? If so, it requires correction, but does it require Giovanni Maria Vian to be fired?
- Did they violate the embargo? Since nobody who received an advance copy was supposed to discuss the book until 11/23 and the article was published on Saturday, this seems to be the case. So who is responsible and what is the penalty?
- Did they know the media would take it out of context? That's a hard case to make. I read the quote from the AP article and it seemed immediately clear to me that the quote given did not justify the headline. It became more clear when Ignatius Press released the pages in question that this is not what the Pope said. So in this case, we have fault with the media.
Can We Claim We Know Enough to Judge?
Point #1 is a thing which need to be proven, but seem to be insinuated by some writers without proof. Point #2 may be true, but right now the discussion on the web seems to be based on personal translations of German and Italian text which may be accurate but I am not competent to judge one way or another. I think we do need some more authoritative sources to form an accurate judgment.
Point #3 seems to be the main point of the outrage, and it seems to be valid. Unless it turns out the Pope exempted them, it seems it is undeniable that they broke the agreement. Let the penalty fit the offense in this case.
Point #4 is the main concern I have with the current anger. Properly speaking, we must assess what the person who makes a statement means before we evaluate it. We must make sure that we do not have a false understanding of what was said.
The media reports completely failed to do this. They made a Todd Unctuous style report. Nobody contacted the Vatican for a clarification. Yes the blame is on the L'Osservatore Romano for releasing an excerpt contrary to the embargo is just. But insinuating malice as their motive or claiming they should have realized the media would misinterpret? That's too hard for me to swallow without proof.
Conclusion
So ultimately I call on my fellow Catholics to avoid a rush to judgment of L'Osservatore Romano for what was done by the media of the world in response to this article. Let L'Osservatore Romano be judged for what they have done or what they were negligent in not doing, and not assume malicious intent until we know such intent.
Ultimately any investigation will be handled by the proper departments of the Vatican. We may see someone fired. We may not see anything publically happen. Whatever happens, we must recognize that the Holy Father has the ultimate authority. Since I recognize the Holy Father as a man of great personal integrity who seeks to do what is best for the Church, I trust that whatever he will decide to do, he will do because he thinks it best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)