Recently, I received an anonymous comment accusing me [falsely] of "slandering" a couple of columnists who have been featured in The Catholic Free Press. This because I exposed their errors. I usually don't respond to anonymous comments [anyone who refuses to use their real name when making an accusation isn't really worth the time after all], but I do so here to once again highlight the spirit of dishonesty which has infected the Worcester Diocese like a cancer. Calumny, as defined by the Catechism of the Catholic Church [something this confused soul should spend some time with], consists of "remarks contrary to the truth" which results in harm to "the reputation of others" while giving "occasion for false judgments concerning them." (CCC, 2477).
Now the two columnists which I am supposed to have "slandered" are Father John Catoir and Stacy Trasancos. The first, as noted here, is promoting what amounts to subjectivist conscience. And, as Dr. Germain Grisez tells us: "The sin of deliberate nonassent is committed by those who rationalize their failure to assent as following their 'conscience,' using the word in a subjectivist sense. Conscience truly so-called is formed by moral truth, which can be known with certitude by the help of the Church's teaching. 'Conscience' in a subjectivist sense refers to one's own opinions and preferences, treated as more authoritative than any practical truth or requirement originating beyond oneself. But to treat one's own opinions and preferences as more authoritative than the Church's teaching is deliberate refusal to give that teaching the assent it deserves; and this refusal is only rationalized, not justified, by saying: 'My conscience tells me it is right for me to do X, so it is right for me, no matter what the Pope says!'"
In his Encyclical Letter Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI teaches clearly that spouses, "are not free to do as they like in the service of transmitting life, on the supposition that it is lawful for them to decide independently of other considerations what is the right course to follow. On the contrary, they are bound to ensure that what they do corresponds to the will of God the Creator." What is this if not a complete rejection of subjectivist conscience?
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, explains that, "..argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one's own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgment regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good."
So much for Fr. Catoir, purveyor of a subjectivist conscience. The second, Stacy Trasancos, I dealt with here. I wrote, "In a Blog post on the subject of women's ordination, Mrs. Trasancos writes, "We know that by the end of the first century the Roman Catholic Church was established and there can be little doubt that the cultural influences of that time and place affected the doctrine [that only men are called to the ministerial priesthood]. We do also know that the Church has evolved over time and that part of theology's goal is to communicate faith to changing cultures. For these reasons, maybe the question of women in the priesthood will remain unsettled. There isn't any hard logic to support the idea that the concrete forms of the ecclesiastical offices cannot be changed....Whether women should or will someday be priests, isn't for this single writer to say." (See here).
I appealed to the CDF's document Inter Insigniores to refute Trasancos' falsehood [that the Church's doctrine was affected by cultural influences] as well as her assertion (via a quotation she cites) that there isn't any "hard logic to support the idea that the concrete forms of the ecclesiastical offices cannot be changed." And then I cited Pope John Paul II in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, No. 4: "..in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."
When one sets oneself against a teaching of the Church which must be held definitively, one sets oneself against the teaching of the Church. This truth is made clear in Canon 750 of the Code of Canon Law. Archbishop J. Francis Stafford of Denver has said [correctly] that the issue of women's ordination has been explored exhaustively, and now "it is time to move on...The Church's teaching is definitive, and has been set forth infallibly by formal declaration. It will not and cannot change. Therefore, for those who see with the eyes of faith, the matter is resolved"
For Trasancos to suggest that the matter isn't necessarily resolved is dishonest.
0 comments:
Post a Comment