The Lidless Eye Inquisition

*Ecumenical Jihad listing is for weblogs or websites which are either dedicated to or which to the webmaster (i) are worth reading and (ii) characteri ze in their general outlook the preservation of general Judeo-Christian morality and which are aimed at positively integrating these elements into society. (Such sites need not even be Catholic ones.)

As society has grown more estranged from its founding principles, I wish to note sites which share the same sentiments for the restoration of society even if the means advocated in this endeavour differ. The Lidless Eye Inquisition does not necessarily endorse particulars with sites under this heading.

Exposing The Quicksand of The Palm Beach

(A Response to David Palm)

(This is the first in a two part post-GAM)

(David's words will be in red, my words in regular font, and my source material in blue.)

In an article that appeared in the March 2004 issue of the New Oxford Review, reprinted with permission by the Seattle Catholic, David Palm makes the claim that the confusion in the Church today is due in some part, to the “words, deeds, and omissions of Pope John Paul II.” Now, no reasonably orthodox Catholic would deny that various papal activities and policies are not above criticism as to their prudence or timeliness, provided that such criticisms are stated in a spirit of reverence toward the office and the person of the pope. Pope John Paul II acknowledges as much:

While it is right that, in accordance with the example of her Master, who is "humble in heart," (13) the Church also should have humility as her foundation, that she should have a critical sense with regard to all that goes to make up her human character and activity, and that she should always be very demanding on herself... (Redemptor Hominis #4)

But Mr. Palm, like many of his “traditionalist” allies, exceeds such prudential criticisms:

“In the remainder of this article I will point out a number of examples in which right Catholic belief and practice would be wrongly altered by following the example set by John Paul II.”

What Mr. Palm is saying, in effect, here is that the Pope, in the examples he cites, is acting in a manner that is not in conformity with the Catholic faith, a position he continually reinforces throughout his article. As I am sure David is well aware, such a claim is a serious accusation and if made without sufficient evidence, which includes going to the necessary pains of acquiring a proper understanding of the activities and issues in question, constitutes, in object, a grave violation of the Eighth Commandment, prohibiting the bearing of false witness. And since the Fourth Commandment extends to those in positions of authority, it is likewise violated by such unsubstantiated accusations.

If this article is the best case Mr. Palm can make, then I suggest he make a beeline for the confessional! And Canon 212 doesn’t come to the rescue.

One thing’s for sure, though, Catholic belief and practice would “ wrongly altered” (and gravely so) if the many misrepresentations of the Pope’s statements and activities, like those made by David Palm, were allowed to stand as though they were true.

Every example Mr. Palm gives is an example of such gross misrepresentation regularly employed by those who have made a cottage industry out of promoting a view of the Church as a pre. vs. post Vatican II dichotomy.

The first is that of the death penalty. On this issue, I must say, in fairness, even some non-“traditionalist” orthodox Catholics are confused. The teaching of the Church has always been that the State has the right to put to death those guilty of the most serious crimes insofar as the protection of society, which includes the physical safety, the protection of the public order, and the vindication of the moral order, necessitates. Evangelium Vitae in no way changes this. Just as a fundamentalist can, and often does, twist Scripture to his own destruction (cf. 2 Pet. 3:16), an unstable and untaught Catholic can do the same with papal encyclicals and other Church documents. It is of paramount importance that one approach such Church writings understanding the difference between doctrinal imperatives and prudential judgments. This is especially true regarding Evangelium Vitae and capital punishment, because the encyclical contains both regarding this issue.

In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul II, citing the first edition of the Catechism, states a doctrinal imperative:

“If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” (EV #56)

If one looks at what the Roman Catechism (aka The Tridentine Catechism), published by the Apostolic See in 1566, says regarding the just use of capital punishment, John Paul’s above statement is nothing more than its logical conclusion. The Tridentine Catechism states, as Mr. Palm correctly points out, that the just use capital punishment is an “act of paramount obedience” to the Fifth Commandment. But since this is the case, would not such just use be limited by what is necessary to satisfy the requirements of such obedience, which is, as the same Catechism states, “the preservation and security of human life?” Ergo, the logic of the Roman Catechism demands that if bloodless means are sufficient to preserve and secure human life, the civil power must restrict itself to those means, because, as both EV and the First Edition of the New Catechism of the Catholic Church state, “they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.” Analogously, this would be the same as saying that the use of anti-biotics to treat an infection is more in conformity with the dignity of the human body than amputation and that if it is sufficient to treat the infection, medical ethics would demand limiting treatment to the use of anti-biotics. Interestingly, St. Thomas employs a similar motif in regard to the death penalty:

Therefore, if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on the account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Cor. 5:6) Summa Theologia II, II, q. 64, Art.2)

Again, logic would demand, vis-à-vis the above statement from the Angelic Doctor if bloodless means are sufficient to alleviate such danger, it would be morally incumbent upon the State to limit herself to such means.

Determining whether or not capital punishment is necessary is left to the competence of the State. So, the “rare if not non-existent” statement in Evangelium Vitae is the pope’s opinion as to the efficacy of penal systems and therefore not binding. Mr. Palm then accuses Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver of “blurring the distinction between prudential judgment and Church doctrine,” by taking Justice Antonin Scalia to task for criticizing the “prudence of the pope’s stance.” I also publicly took Justice Scalia to task on the issue of the death penalty because Scalia himself blurs that very distinction by characterizing the pope’s position thus: “In other words, the death penalty is rarely, if ever, morally permissible. “ (Letter to Editor March 19, 2002 issue of The National Catholic Register)

Since Justice Scalia’s statements regarding the Church’s teaching on the death penalty demonstrate a lack of fundamental knowledge of Catholic teaching and the degree of assent Catholics owe towards it, he really ought to practice reverential silence on matters of theology and stick to jurisprudence.

David then takes aim, as many “traditionalists” do, at the pope’s 1999 statement in St. Louis:

Unfortunately, the confusion grows deeper. For the Holy Father has, in a public talk, asserted a view of the death penalty which extends even beyond Evangelium Vitae and the Catechism: "The dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform.... I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary" (Papal Mass at the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Mo., Jan. 27, 1999; emphasis mine).

This text seems to represent an absolute and unconditional prohibition of the death penalty, in that it implies that the death penalty automatically takes away "the dignity of human life," and also that the death penalty is intrinsically cruel. Such a prohibition — if that is truly what this represents — extends well beyond what the Church has perennially taught concerning capital punishment. This cannot help but confuse the individual Catholic.

When the pope’s statements in St. Louis are taken in conjunction with the prudential judgments expressed in Evangelium Vitae, they in no way even seem to say what Mr. Palm thinks they do. The pope is NOT saying that the death penalty automatically takes away the dignity of human life. Nor is he saying that it is “intrinsically cruel,” meaning that it is wrong per se. What the Holy Father is saying, laboring under the presupposition that capital punishment is unnecessary due to more developed penal systems, that it would be wrong to use it.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that: “...the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character. Those who delight in man’s punishment for its own sake may be called savage or brutal, as though lacking the human feeling that leads one man to love another.” (STh. II-II Q. 157 ad 4) And since such punishments that exceed their medicinal purpose are immoral, the Holy Father’s personal view, as expressed in St. Louis is clearly compatible with perennial Church teaching. And since, as I already stated above, determining necessity is dependent on the efficacy of penal systems, it is left to the competency of the State, and not the Church, to make that determination. Therefore, a Catholic can take either side on the death penalty.

Understanding these distinctions will go a long way in dispelling confusion surrounding this issue.

Furthermore, it is also helpful, I believe, that understanding the pope’s prudential opinions on certain subjects, requires looking back beyond the present pontificate. The Church’s discouraging the death penalty goes back at least as far as the pontificate of Pius XII. While recognizing the State’s right to execute those guilty of serious crimes, he made appeals to civil authorities to not execute condemned criminals, including an appeal to President Eisenhower to spare lives of the Rosenbergs, who were executed for espionage on behalf of the Soviet Union, in 1953.

Hence, John Paul II is not saying that capital punishment is intrinsically wrong anymore than Pius XII did.

David then sets his sights on Hans Urs von Balthasar:

One of the most pernicious errors that plagues the Catholic Church today is creeping universalism. While few will come out and baldly state that no one is damned to Hell, the door is left open to that conclusion by writers such as Hans Urs von Balthasar in his book Dare We Hope "That All Men Be Saved"?

It is true that universalism, the belief that all will be saved, has had a deleterious effect on the faith of many Christians, Catholic and non-Catholic. But since the “pernicious” error of universalism is normally rooted in the belief of the non-existence of hell, the non-existence of the Devil, and various other forms of theological and moral relevatism, I’m afraid it is mixing apples and oranges to say that the “door is left open” by the thesis advanced by Fr. von Balthasar in his book. First of all, von Balthasar presents the idea universal salvation as a hope that, in ways known to God alone, all somehow respond to his grace and repent before or at death, as opposed to a doctrine based upon a denial of judgment. Despite the arguments David presents in the article, it is NOT binding on the Catholic conscience that it is certain that there are in fact human souls in Hell. Of course, the prevailing theological opinion through the ages is that many, even most suffer eternal damnation. The overwhelming consensus of the Fathers, both East and West hold this view, but not all. Exceptions include St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Clement of Alexandria, and St. Gregory Nazienzen. But this is only a matter of theological opinion and not of doctrine and Mr. Palm would do well to not confuse the two. The fact of the matter is that whether or not the statements of Jesus in the Gospel are predictive or admonitory remains an open question that the Church has never settled. The popular pre-Vatican II commentary A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture (Dom Bernard Orchard Ed. Thomas Nelson Publishers 1953) says the following about Mt. 7:13-14:

The Christian must not follow the majority, 13-14, nor run after every specious teacher, 15-20, nor be content with mere professions of loyalty or even the grace of miracle-working, 21-23. He must do the will of the Father as declared by the Son, otherwise his efforts are wasted, 24-27. (Lk13:23 f.) Our Lord does not minimize the difficulty of the Christian way of life, but laments the fewness of those who in fact follow it. He uses images familiar to Jewish teachers (SB 1, 461 ff.). The ‘ city gate ‘, or possibly ‘ defile ‘ through which we enter upon the way is as narrow as the path is narrow (‘ strait ‘) to which it leads. That there are few who walk this way is a fact of experience. It does not follow that only these reach the goal—who can calculate the mercy of God? Our Lord does not intend to define the number of the ‘ elect ‘—a question which he refuses to answer in Lk. 13:23 f.(pg.865 Emphasis Added)

David claims that “several magisterial texts leave no room for a Hell empty of human souls.” He cites two instances to substantiate his claim. The first of which is the following from the pope St. Pius X encyclical On Teaching Christian Doctrine Acerbo Nimis :

"And so Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV, had just cause to write: 'We declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect'" [#2]

Superficially, this quote seems to make the case for the claim that the Church has authoritatively taught that we know for certain that there are human souls in Hell. But in actuality it doesn’t for two reasons. First is that since the encyclical cited above deals with the issue of general catechesis and not eschatology or soteriology, such a statement should be understood as admonitory and not authoritatively predictive. Secondly, if we are to understand this statement in the manner with which David thinks it should be understood, we would also have to say that the Church authoritatively teaches that we know for certain the particular reason that such souls are damned, thus rendering Mr. Palm’s case based on the above citation untenable.

He then cites #633 of the New Catechism as another proof positive to make his case. But if he is correct here, the Catechism is a veritable self-contradiction on this point because it teaches elsewhere that “In hope, the Church prays for ‘all men to be saved’ (1 Timothy 2:4)” (CCC §1821), and “The Church prays that no one should be lost” (CCC §1058). Ergo, if the Church can, “[i]n hope,” pray that “ all men to be saved,” she can allow for the belief of universal salvation as a possibility, however remote that possibility may be in reality.

No polemic against the hope that all will be saved would be complete without a pot shot at the Holy Father’s remarks given in a general audience on July 28, 1999. Here, Mr. Palm does not disappoint:

One finds, unfortunately, that support for this new-fangled notion may be found at the very top of the Church's hierarchy. In a general audience of July 28, 1999, the Holy Father stunned many faithful Catholics when he stated that: "Eternal damnation remains a real possibility, but we are not granted, without special divine revelation, the knowledge of whether or which human beings are effectively involved in it" (emphasis mine ).

The statements of the Holy Father’s general audience are not in the least problematic, even if what he actually said included the “whether or” part, which, according the official Italian translation of the general audience, does not, a point David concedes:

This appears in the official version of the Pope's talks, Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, but without the doctrinally difficult wording "whether" (se e in Italian).

But then qualifies his admission this way:

Presumably someone in the Vatican noticed that the words, as they were actually spoken, were problematic and intervened to make sure the official version conforms unambiguously to Church teaching. Still, it is the publicly spoken version that has received so much attention. Thus the Holy Father's spoken words appear to deny that the sources of public revelation (i.e., Scripture and Tradition) are sufficient to tell us whether any human souls at all are damned.

Mr. Palm offers no proof to the assertion that it was not the Italian version of the text that were the actually spoken words of the Holy Father, as opposed to the English version that got so much attention. Since it is he that is making the claim, the onus is on him to offer such proof. He is also, again without any evidence, leveling a serious charge (albeit under the thin veil of presumption) against Vatican officials of doctoring the pope’s words in some sort of cover-up . Since, as I pointed out above, that even if the pope’s statement actually included the words “whether or” there would be no need for such cover-up because they are not doctrinally problematic in the first place. Besides, anybody, be they supporter or detractor, knows well that John Paul II is man enough to take responsibility for whatever he says and doesn’t need his lieutenants doing his dirty work for him.

As one would suspect, this “creeping universalism,” as David is wont to call it, is not without “troubling practical results” in his view. The first of which is that he claims that it dampens missionary zeal:

“The driving motive behind all the great missionary efforts in the history of the Catholic Church has been the understanding that, without Christ and His Church, human beings are in varying degrees in a disadvantageous situation regarding their salvation. The imperative to go and preach the Gospel, even in the face of torture and death, has been driven by the conviction that multitudes are in danger of eternal damnation if they are not reached. But if everybody will be saved or if Catholics may entertain true doubts whether anybody at all will end up in Hell, then a key motivation for missionary work and Catholic evangelism is subverted.”

This argument suffers from at least two flaws. The first of which is that an equally strong, if not stronger, argument could be made that a hope that all men be saved, ala von Balthasar, would greater stimulate missionary activity. In any human endeavor, the greater prospects, or hope, of success, the greater the motivation to embark on such an adventure and face the risks involved. And likewise, the lesser chances for success, the lesser the motivation. This is a fundamental truth of human nature and the laws of human nature become MORE, not LESS applicable when it comes to any religious endeavor such as missionary activity and evangelization in general. Secondly, if we are to follow David’s logic here, we would have to say that the belief that one can be saved outside of full communion with the Church if he is invincibly ignorant of his obligation in regards to that fact (a belief which David seems to hold BTW), something Pope Blessed Pius IX taught in at least two instances, likewise subverts motivation for missionary work and Catholic evangelization. After all, why expend the effort in the face of grave risks to evangelize any given culture when it would be easier to just leave them invincibly ignorant which will thus save them anyway?

The fact of the matter is that the “hope that all men be saved” ala Fr. von Balthasar and CCC §1058 and 1821 no more undermines a healthy fear of damnation and hence does not impede missionary drive anymore than the belief that invincible ignorance saves because it does not deny the reality of mortal sin and its eternal consequences ( as dogmatically taught by Ecumenical Councils Lyons I, 1245; Lyons II, 1274; and Florence, 1439 and Pope Benedict XII’s bull Benedictus Deus 1336) and the possibility, if not the likelihood, that some indeed many, if not most, will be lost.

David then blames Balthasar’s thesis for much of the collapses of ecclesiastical discipline:

Agnosticism about the reality of human damnation also stands in large measure behind the collapse of ecclesiastical discipline that plagues the Catholic Church. If a shepherd in the Church truly believed that the souls under his care are in jeopardy of hellfire on account of heresy, sacrilege, and mortal sin (as is taught by innumerable Fathers, Doctors, and popes) then he would act decisively to suppress these things and punish the individuals responsible for spreading them, even to the point of excluding them from the body of the Church. This is what the entire tradition of the Church (and even her present canon law [see canon 915]) tells him to do.

Whether or not “[a]gnosticism about the reality of human damnation” contributes in large part behind the failure of many of the world’s bishops to exercise discipline in their dioceses, blame cannot be attributed to von Balthasar’s thesis. Since, as I pointed out above, Fr. von Balthasar’s thesis does not contradict any element of Catholic doctrine concerning eschatology or soteriology, Mr. Palm’s assertion here is absurd.

To make absurdity even....well....more absurd, he levels the same charge at John Paul II:

Could it be that our Holy Father does not exercise his disciplinary authority because he is not convinced that we can know whether there is anyone in Hell? Is it not possible that certain theological conclusions and practical outcomes logically go hand in glove?

This comment shows that Mr. Palm does a very selective, and may I add, a very bad, job of reading what the Pope actually said in that audience:

Christian faith teaches that in taking the risk of saying “yes” or “no,” which marks the (human) creature’s freedom, some have already said no. They are the spiritual creatures that rebelled against God’s love and are called demons (cf. Fourth Lateran Council). What happened to them is a warning to us: it is a continuous call to avoid the tragedy which leads to sin and to conform our life to that of Jesus who lived his life with a “yes” to God. (Emphasis added)

Contrary to whatever David Palm may want the reader to think, the Holy Father does not take the possibility, if not the probability, of human damnation lightly, as the above statement makes very clear. He makes this clear to bishops in conjunction with their grave responsibility to teach and defend the faith every time they go Rome for their ad limina visits. According to moral theologian and former advisor to the late Cardinal O’Conner of New York, Msgr. William Smith claims that during one such ad limina visit in 1983, the bishop from Rockville Center, New York remarked to the pope that “there is so much invincible ignorance around about matters divine and that invincible ignorance would save people’s souls and help them to heaven.” To which the Holy Father responded, “That is true. There is much invincible ignorance. And because of invincible ignorance about the teaching of the Church certainly these people will not go to hell. But the bishops and priests responsible for this invincible ignorance will certainly go to hell.”

So, we have to look elsewhere for the reasons as to why the Holy Father seems reluctant to “ crack the whip, “ so to speak in terms of taking action against some of the dissent in the Church.

Before people jump on this “John Paul II needs to crackdown more” bandwagon, they need to remember that the purpose of any punishment is medicinal, and if there is good reason to believe that any course of action as a punitive measure will not achieve that aim or cause a backlash worse than the original problem, they should not, indeed must not, take such an action, as the principle of proportionality would dictate.Understanding this will go a long way in understanding why John Paul II is not more heavy-handed in exercising his disciplinary authority. The Holy Father believes with good reason that a more heavy-handed approach will cause a large-scale schism in the West. If you strike the Shepard, you scatter the sheep. And as history as shown, schism has not only removed the chaff, but also the wheat from the Church as well (cf. Matt. 13:25-29 and Leo XIII Satis Cognitum #10). Thus by depriving such people of the benefits that visible communion provides (i.e. sacraments etc.), it is harder for the pope to reach such souls with the well-articulated orthodox teaching contained in his encyclicals and apostolic letters, etc.

Of course, the pope’s strategy here is not above prudential criticism. Prudential decisions, such as these are, are not without risks regardless of what course of action is taken. There is no absolutely certain safe course here. And valid arguments, crafted with great force, can be brought forth to dispute John Paul II’s strategy here. Some, such as Dr. James Hitchcock and others, have taken issue, in varying degrees, with the Pope’s posture toward dissenters and the bishops who seem to make no effort to deal forcefully with them. But to say, as Mr. Palm does under the guise of a question, that that the John Paul II’s actions are influenced by confusion over the demographics of the Netherworld is irresponsible and unworthy of any serious consideration.

Continued...

:: Greg Mockeridge 6:12 PM [+] | ::

************************************

:: The Lidless Eye Inquisition ::