 |
"Dia shábháil ar fad anseo!" |
Posted on 03/08/2017 5:19:13 PM PST by ebb tide
A very small number of people, whose voices have been amplified by some of the Catholic media, have challenged the integrity of Pope Francis’ post-synodal apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. Thus does Cardinal Donald Wuerl begin an essay defending the papal document—and, far more pointedly, attacking its critics. Let’s take a look.
Right from the outset, Cardinal Wuerl belittles those who disagree with him, claiming that they constitute “a very small number of people.” That is inaccurate, of course; many thousands of people have been disconcerted by Amoris Laetitia. But even if it were true, wouldn’t a good shepherd show more concern for the few who were troubled? I suspect that the number of Catholics who are divorced, remarried, and clamoring to receive the Eucharist could be more accurately described as “very small,” yet the papal document rightly urges clerics to reach out to provide them with pastoral help. Why not also “accompany” the Catholics who are scandalized?
Then Cardinal Wuerl claims that the criticism of Amoris Laetitia has been “amplified by some of the Catholic media.” In reality something close to the opposite is true. The vast majority of Catholic media outlets—those controlled directly or indirectly by the hierarchy—have actively squelched debate on the papal document. (Show me an editorial in a diocesan newspaper raising serious questions about Amoris Laetitia, and I’ll give you the name of an editor who should make sure his resumé is up to date.) Only the few independent Catholic outlets—like the Catholic Culture site—have sustained the debate.
We’re now halfway through the first sentence of Cardinal Wuerl’s column, and already we have uncovered two gross inaccuracies. It doesn’t get better.
The overall thrust of the cardinal’s argument is familiar. He contends that Pope Francis has not challenged or even ignored Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, but has gone beyond it to encourage greater generosity and compassion. What the cardinal does not tell us—nor does the Pope—is what generous and compassionate pastors should do with the Church’s teaching. Should they enforce it, explain it, or set it aside? Yes, definitely they should reach out to divorced Catholics. But what should they tell them? How should they guide them? Those questions remain unanswered—precisely because the defenders of Amoris Laetitia, like Cardinal Wuerl, choose to mock those who ask the questions rather than answering them.
Am I being too rough, in saying that the cardinal mocks the critics of the papal document? I think not. Consider this sentence from his colum:
Perhaps it might be very hard to let go of the symbols, medieval ornaments, and the ecclesial style and privileges that are marks of the Church of another era. What do “symbols” and “medieval ornaments” or even “ecclesial style and privileges” have to do with the argument over Amoris Laetitia? This sentence is a gratuitous swipe at traditionalist Catholics; it is hard not to see it as a reference to the favorite whipping-boy of Amoris Laetitia enthusiasts, Cardinal Raymond Burke, who is noted for his traditionalist sympathies.
One other paragraph in Cardinal Wuerl’s essay deserves notice:
At a recent meeting with a number of priests, when the topic of the pastoral implications of Amoris Laetitia and its pastoral application came up, most were explicit that they recognized an affirmation of their own pastoral concern and accompaniment in the apostolic exhortation. We don’t know how many priests were involved in this conversation, nor do we know how they were selected. We have seen above that the cardinal is not exactly precise in his use of “statistics.” But let’s assume that this time his report is accurate, and “most” of the priests with whom he spoke saw the papal document as “an affirmation of their own pastoral concern and accompaniment.” What does that mean?
If the discussion was centered on the most controversial aspect of Amoris Laetitia, then this response could be interpreted as meaning that the priests with whom the cardinal was speaking had already been admitting divorced/remarried Catholics to Communion, and they were delighted that the papal document confirmed their practice. (Come to think of it, is there any other way to read that sentence?) But maybe the priests were not focused on that neuralgic issue. Maybe the cardinal had steered the conversation toward the safer, more general topics of generosity and compassion, again leaving the tough questions unanswered.
|
"Dia shábháil ar fad anseo!" |
Wuerl the Girl has been putting out basically the same column for a couple of years.
1) Ignore all substantive issues.
2) Pretend that Canon 915 does not exist.
3) Make catty remarks about those who are supposedly obsessed with “medieval” vestments, etc.
You have made a rash and incorrect judgment.
It is incorrect for the celebrant of a Mass, and the acolytes and other ministers, to genuflect before the Tabernacle except at the beginning and at the end of Mass—i.e., when processing in and processing out.
Wuerl should have bowed to the altar when crossing in front of it.
Sad to say, but what you described is actually correct for the new Mass (not that I agree with it). In the new Mass the priest is to genuflect to the tabernacle only twice, when first entering the sanctuary and then before leaving. God bless those priests who continue to follow the old rubric of genuflecting whenever passing in front.
“Wuerl should have bowed to the altar when crossing in front of it.”
He should have?
.
|
"Dia shábháil ar fad anseo!" |
You will get no argument from me.
But he will drop to his knees to wash the feet of muslims on Holy Thursday or to receive a blessing from heretics.
Yes God must bend his will to his subjects, you can really tell who the unbelievers are, can’t you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxD2mt7TPEs
fast forward to; 1:13:48
As far as this:
>>It is incorrect for the celebrant of a Mass, and the acolytes and other ministers, to genuflect before the Tabernacle except at the beginning and at the end of Mass—i.e., when processing in and processing out.<<
I don’t know where you get that nonsense. I used to think you were a traditional Catholic priest. I have never seen a priest, an acolyte, or a lay person not genuflect when passing before the tabernacle, during a TLM Mass or during preparation of the altar.
P.S. I was a pre-Novus Ordo altar boy.
The tabernacle, with the Real Presence, in not on Wuerl's novus ordo table. The table is empty. And if you and Wuerl want to bow like chinese waiters, go for it.
During the Mass, the altar itself is the primary symbol of Christ. The bow has nothing to do with where the tabernacle is.
The priest, etc., are to genuflect to the tabernacle as they process in and out, but not during Mass.
Wuerl is despicable, but bashing him for FOLLOWING THE RUBRICS at Mass is ignorant and silly.
Maybe so at your Masses, but not mine.
I can’t change what’s in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.