Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Infallibility has its limits
New York Daily News ^ | April 27, 2005 | MARIO CUOMO

Posted on 04/28/2005 2:00:04 PM PDT by franky

Infallibility has its limits

By MARIO CUOMO

Many of us who cling desperately to our Catholic Church for instruction, inspiration and support prayed that a new Pope would help heal the church's serious wounds and reconnect it more surely to modern realities.

Instead, the cardinals have chosen a good and holy man who, we are told, rather than reform the status quo will reaffirm it more insistently than before. The current challenge of the church is twofold. First, it must continue proclaiming the unalterable and unchallengeable truths of Christ, instructing us to love one another as we love ourselves and to collaborate in improving the world that God created but did not complete. That includes the obligation to be generous to those in need, and to avoid unjust and unnecessary wars that kill innocent people.

To deny these eternal and unchangeable truths of Christ is to renounce the Catholic Church. The second challenge is to reassess the alterable rules made for us by the male descendants of Peter who were and are humanly frail, as he was, and to readjust those rules to better serve the purpose of helping modern Catholics to live fuller and holier lives in this ever-changing world.

This would include, among other things, reconsidering celibacy, women's role in the church and other contentious man-made church policies. The church can do this without abandoning its fundamental commitment to the Gospel of Jesus, and has in fact done it in the past in changing its position on slavery, usury, salvation outside the church and divorce. The church is extremely hesitant about using or even defining the idea that it is "infallible" in its teaching. None of the currently contentious issues has been so designated. In fact, the church asserts its infallibility only under strictly defined limits, and it has happened very few times in church history. The only formal exercise of papal infallibility in modern times was by Pope Pius XII and dealt with Mary, the mother of Christ.

Despite this history, our new Pope's record and the opinion among Vatican watchers offer little hope for meaningful changes or even for a clear admission that its man-made rules are indeed alterable by the church that made and enforces them. But then, ours is a church that continues to entertain the possibility of miracles, big and small and is capable of startling and invigorating changes of course like the ascendance of John XXIII, who gave us the Second Vatican Council that brought Catholicism a bright new enlightenment in the 1960s. Hope springs eternal.

Cuomo, former governor of New York,practices law with Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.

April 27, 2005

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/col/story/304330p-260394c.html

New York Daily News


TOPICS: Current Events; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics; Theology
KEYWORDS:
And to think that I played baseball with him in our youth. He was from Jamaica Estates in Queens, NY.

Where he learned this stuff is beyond me. It is these views that has the Church realing. "...bright new enlightenment in the 1960s." To him, maybe?

1 posted on 04/28/2005 2:00:05 PM PDT by franky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: franky
Many of us who cling desperately to our Catholic Church for instruction...

Oh brother. Big Fat phony!

2 posted on 04/28/2005 2:02:10 PM PDT by murphE (The crown of victory is promised only to those who engage in the struggle. St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: franky
and to collaborate in improving the world that God created but did not complete.

Huh?!...Is Mario articulating his own theology?

3 posted on 04/28/2005 2:03:48 PM PDT by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: franky
That includes the obligation to be generous to those in need, and to avoid unjust and unnecessary wars that kill innocent people.

And how about avoiding abortions that kill innocent and "unnecessary" people?

4 posted on 04/28/2005 2:06:29 PM PDT by KidGlock (Get in the pit and try to love some one)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport

I don't trust anything that man says. I haven't for a long long time.


5 posted on 04/28/2005 2:06:41 PM PDT by Aleighanne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: franky

Mario Cuomo is as Catholic as an eggplant is!


6 posted on 04/28/2005 2:07:46 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: murphE

Yes and his reference to the Blessed Mother comes off very flat. "Mary, the mother of Christ" as if she was someone selected from a contest.


7 posted on 04/28/2005 2:08:45 PM PDT by franky (Pray for the souls of the faithful departed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock

I noticed he avoided abortion and gays.


8 posted on 04/28/2005 2:10:19 PM PDT by franky (Pray for the souls of the faithful departed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: franky

And another thing... sorry this struck a nerve. American Catholics think it's all about THEM. But the Church has many many more adherents, in Latin America, and Asia, and Africa. And the Church must remain faihtful to those followers as well as to the teachings of the past. Mario Cuomo and his ilk must realize the Catholic Church is bigger than their concerns for gays and abortion and women priests.


9 posted on 04/28/2005 2:11:01 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: franky

Looks like you answered your own question.


10 posted on 04/28/2005 2:12:49 PM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: franky
"Many of us who cling desperately to our Catholic Church for instruction, inspiration and support.."

Mario "the Mouth", you have identified exactly why you are NOT a Catholic. The Church IS instructing you and you have rejected it. You should be ashamed. Time for you and your kind to either submit to the authority of the Church or leave and join the rest of the Protestants. You have a gazillion different denominations to pick and choose from if you decide to do that. Don't let the door hit ya in the a$$ on the way out!

11 posted on 04/28/2005 2:13:18 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper ("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." Pope JPII)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: franky

If Cafeteria Catholics could choose their own Pope, Mario I would be a contender.


12 posted on 04/28/2005 2:20:28 PM PDT by Argus (This tagline will self-destruct in ten seconds...nine...eight...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: franky
Duplicate thread.
13 posted on 04/28/2005 2:22:39 PM PDT by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: franky
changing its position on slavery, usury, salvation outside the church and divorce

Sorry, abortion-boy, but the Church has never altered its teaching on slavery, usury, salvation outside the Church or divorce.

Keep dreaming, Mario.

14 posted on 04/28/2005 2:23:24 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Sorry, abortion-boy, but the Church has never altered its teaching on slavery, usury, salvation outside the Church or divorce.

Evidently these are somebody's (or some group's) talking points because I have heard the same stuff--in the same order--from the "progressive" crowd at various Catholic gatherings. Is this McBrien's work?

15 posted on 04/28/2005 3:19:11 PM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Why, I'm glad you brought that point up.

They are indeed talking points, and they all come from a single book: Rome Has Spoken - an anti-Catholic book by Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben.

Fiedler is a lesbian nun who is a longtime activist for the Women's Ordination Conference.

Linda Rabben is a non-Catholic lesbian Marxist sociologist who writes porn on the side.

They are both involved with an ongoing "Bible project" to provide a gay-friendly dynamic "translation" of the Bible.

The book is crammed with fabrications and embarrassing errors.

I'm sure Governor Cuomo, who owes his governorship to his own campaign workers' electioneering on Edward Koch's supposed homosexuality, has a signed copy of this farcical book in his personal library.

16 posted on 04/28/2005 3:31:21 PM PDT by wideawake (God bless our brave soldiers and their Commander in Chief)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: franky
readjust those rules to better serve the purpose of helping modern Catholics to live fuller and holier lives in this ever-changing world.

I'm pretty sure Jesus said, 'Go ye and conform yourselves to an ever-changing world.' It's in there somewhere, isn't it? Live according to the wisdom of the world. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I remember that one. The Gospel according to Mario.

17 posted on 04/28/2005 3:39:00 PM PDT by siunevada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

You said:
Mario Cuomo and his ilk must realize the Catholic Church is bigger than their concerns for gays and abortion and women priests.

Yes. It's even bigger than they themselves!
Mario spent that whole two days of the conclave
waiting by the phone and is still miffed.


18 posted on 04/28/2005 3:40:52 PM PDT by charliemarlow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport

Yes. The theology of me. (btw, love your screen name :)

V's wife.


19 posted on 04/28/2005 4:24:07 PM PDT by ventana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ventana
Thanks.

I love the way some people just make up their theology as they go. They deny the traditional teachings of the church, and then have the audacity to stand in judgment of what the church does.

20 posted on 04/28/2005 4:51:17 PM PDT by Kenny Bunkport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: franky

Mario Cuomo just has no idea what he is talking about when it comes to infallibiilty. He is just repeating a total myth about only two cases of formal acts of infallibilty int the last centery.

Jimmy Akin's of Catholic Answers lays to rest this idea
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/06/two_instances_o.html


21 posted on 04/28/2005 6:31:11 PM PDT by Atheist2Theist (http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: franky
and has in fact done it in the past in changing its position on slavery, usury, salvation outside the church and divorce.

the position on salvation outside the Church and divorce has not changed.

22 posted on 04/28/2005 6:34:57 PM PDT by Judica me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: franky
women's role in the church and other contentious man-made church policies

Anyone that thinks that "women's role in the church" is a man-made policy that is changable doesn't understand the role of the priest in the Church, period.

It is just so pathetically sad that even some that attend Mass weekly don't understand what they are witnessing.

These people haven't a clue that the Catholic Mass is of a fundamentally different character than any other religious ritual (with the possible exception of the Orthodox liturgy)

Its bizarre, it would be akin to holding season tickets for a football team and not knowing what a touchdown was, it boggles the mind, but of course orders of magnitude more important.

23 posted on 04/28/2005 6:52:17 PM PDT by kjvail (Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aleighanne

Well, the pope's teaching against the death peanalty is not infallible, but that did not keep Cuomo from treating it as such, as something to be imposed politically. There was and is no consensus against the death-penalty, Indeed, all the polls should there is more opposition to abortion than there is to the death penalty. So why did Cuomo feel called to take action against the dealth peanalty but not against abortion? Was it not simply because the rich and powerful, the people he had to meet face to face, were in favor of abortion on demand? Is it not true that he lies about his personal oppistion top abortion?


24 posted on 04/28/2005 6:59:33 PM PDT by RobbyS (JMJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kjvail

Cuomo either doesn't know or doesn't care that Protestants reject the whole idea of the priesthood as we and the Orthodox understand it. So it doesn't matter to them who administers the Sacrament. They reject the mass as we understand it and, really, so does Cuomo. Theologically liberal "Catholics" like Cuomo are really liberal Protestants.


25 posted on 04/28/2005 7:10:39 PM PDT by RobbyS (JMJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: franky

Cuomo's own infallibility, however, is apparently limitless.


26 posted on 04/28/2005 7:23:49 PM PDT by gbcdoj (And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it. ~ John 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judica me

While this is true, the lack of condemnations from Rome and the ecumenical discussions has led people to think that things have "changed."


27 posted on 04/29/2005 7:06:15 AM PDT by Ambrose II (We cannot bend the Truth to our will, we must bend our will to the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ambrose II; gbcdoj
I need you guys to weight in on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ....is it infallible or not?
28 posted on 04/29/2005 8:28:02 AM PDT by Pio (There is no Salvation outside the Church)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ambrose II
While this is true, the lack of condemnations from Rome and the ecumenical discussions has led people to think that things have "changed."

I agree.

29 posted on 04/29/2005 8:41:19 AM PDT by Judica me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Pio
I need you guys to weight in on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ....is it infallible or not?

The short answer is yes, not ex cathedra but by unbroken practice that began in Dominical institution; if the Church continued, on Christ's own authority, the practice in unbroken tradition and _if_ the Church enjoys indefectibility via Holy Spirit guidance, as promised in Mt 16, then to change now because of 1900 years of injustice against women would mean the Church was not preserved from defectibility in this practice but fell under cultural captivity to unjust partriarchy.

Or, if the reason for change is not that past practice was unjust but that given cultural changes in recent decades, it would become unjust today, that too makes the Church captive to culture and violates the Mt. 16 promise. (Arguing that past practice was not unjust but in today's context is unjust also raises serious logical questions about the justice of present cultural trends.)

If the reason Jesus chose only 12 men as his apostles was that he was afraid to buck unjust patriarchal culture of his day, then he wasn't God Incarnate and we can all forget not just about Catholicism but Christianity.

What makes this doctrinal, not disciplinary, is that ordination is a sacrament, based on direct Dominical institution in Jn 20, the Last Supper etc.: he gives to his apostles and only to them the binding/loosing power and the sacramental power for the Eucharist. This is doctrine and was severely tested by Protestant doctrinal challenges in the 1500s, reaffirmed as Catholic doctrine at Trent. If the institution of the (apostle's) bishop's office were a later, Church-created phenomenon (as Protestants affirmed it was), then the Church could readily go from no women in the office to including women in the office. But if the office was a sacrament established by Christ himself, who knew what he was doing, was not subservient to surrounding culture, then the Church can't change it willy nilly.

Besides, if the Church got this point so horribly wrong all these centuries, then it has not been indefectibly guided by the Holy Spirit all these centuries. But, gasp, there are other things for which the Church is the sole source over all these centuries: namely, the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate. If the Church messed up so badly on the question of bishops and no women bishops/priests, if she is merely floating along on culture, changing for the bad when culture is bad (patriarchal), changing for the good when culture is good (today's enlightened Matriarchal culture), then the claim that Jesus of Nazareth was God incarnate is merely a cultural claim advanced by a bunch of powerhungry elites who grabbed the control of the Church away from the real leaders, the Gnostics.

And it won't do to say that belief that Jesus was God incarnate rests solidly on Scripture whereas belief that he founded the Church's sacramental and governing structure on 12 men and 12 men alone is a later human-church invention, because the Scriptures that assert he was God incarnate (claiming to forgive sins, rising from the dead) were established, in great controversy with the Gnostics and others, by those mean old Apostles and their bishop successors. If we can't trust the apostolic-bishop-led Church to have gotten it right about bishops/women, then we can't be sure Jesus ever claimed to forgive sins or that people saw him after he rose from the dead. And those same mean old powerhungry bishops also wrote the Nicene creed and . . . . Our source for all of these beliefs are contained within Church sources and Church sources alone. The question was formally put in a Dubium addressed to the CDF in 1995 and answered "Yes, OS is infallible" in 1996.

Here are the URLS

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFINSIG.HTM -- text of Inter Insigniores(1976)

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFREPLY.HTM -- “Reflections” on response to Dubium about whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was infallible

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRESPO.HTM -- Ratzinger CDF response to the Dubium, and cover letter

http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/VPOORDIN.HTM -- presentation summary of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2ORDIN.HTM -- text of Ordinatio Saacerdotalis

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PRIESTS/RATORDSA.TXT -- summary of Ratzinger 1996 _Civilta Cattolica_ article on infallibility of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT -- commentary by Jeff Mirus on infallibility issue

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/PILSORD.TXT -- commentary by Peter Pilsner on infallibility issue

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/WEAK.TXT -- text of Rembert Weakland weasel statement on Ordinatio sacerdotalis

30 posted on 04/29/2005 9:06:40 AM PDT by Dionysiusdecordealcis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Pio

The easy answer would be "no, because it isn't ex cathedra."
The correct one would be it is de facto.


31 posted on 04/29/2005 10:53:30 AM PDT by Ambrose II (We cannot bend the Truth to our will, we must bend our will to the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ambrose II
The easy answer would be "no, because it isn't ex cathedra."

The correct one would be it is de facto.

Infallibility does not depend on an ex cathedra pronouncement. This is an urban legend spread by the dissenters to cover their dissent on everything except the most formal pronouncements. What makes a statement irreformable or infallible is the definiteness and clarity and invocation of authority with which it is proclaimed. The pope has to make clear that he intends to settle controversy once and for all, has to make a clear, definite statement of the doctrine or dogma he wishes to define infallibly etc. You'll see that explained in the commentaries on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis whose URLs I posted in # 30.

Moreover, as the case of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis shows, even absent a formal pronouncement of the above sort, unbroken tradition combined with clear dominical institution already de facto makes something irreformable. So JPII in OS was simply affirming that the non-ordination of women was already an irreformable, infallibly taught doctrine and he could not change it (irreformable, get it?) even if he wanted to. Even doctrines taught in this way, in an overwhelming, ancient, unbroken tradition by the "ordinary magisterium" can be irreformable and infallible. Only when someone challenges them (no one challenged the non-ordination of women until 1976, when the Anglicans, who supposedly have valid sacraments--in their eyes--started ordaining what they claimed were true priestesses) does a formal statement with requisite definiteness, clarity, invocation of authority get made ("extraordinary magisterium"). That doesn't mean the doctrine wasn't infallibly/irreformably taught before the the extraordinary statement is made. And JPII insisted that OS was not an exercise of the extraordinary magisterium, rather, a confirmation of an existing ordinary magisterium infallible and irreformable teaching.

Personally, I think he chose not to use the extraordinary, ex cathedra statement in this instance because there was no need for it and using it is one of the things that Eastern Orthodox object to on the part of post-Vatican I popes. By confirming an existing infallible teaching, he confirmed what the Orthodox already believe, and did so on the same basis as they hold it to be irreformable. Had he employed ex cathedra extraordinary magisterium language it still would not have silenced the die-hard dissenters in the West and it would have unnecessarily alienated the Orthodox. To me it looked like he was trying hard to exercise his jurisdiction in a way acceptable to the Orthodox, which is what he called for in Ut unum sint in 1995.

32 posted on 04/29/2005 11:07:43 AM PDT by Dionysiusdecordealcis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dionysiusdecordealcis
This is an urban legend spread by the dissenters to cover their dissent on everything except the most formal pronouncements.

That is what I meant when I said "the easy answer".
Comparing the two to one another. Forgive me for being unclear.
33 posted on 04/29/2005 11:56:30 AM PDT by Ambrose II (We cannot bend the Truth to our will, we must bend our will to the Truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: franky
Bill Buckley stinks.

That must seem wildly out of place on this thread but whenever I see a piece by/about Mario Cuomo or Fr. Charles Curran, I am reminded why I canceled my National Review subscription. I cancelled it because Buckley promoted these heretics and provided them space in Nat Rev to promote their "nuanced" (girlie-man-speak for heresy) ideas on abortion, homosexuality, masturbation blah, blah, damnable blah.

And I will never forget the "Mater, Si. Magistra, No" abomination.

Heretics like these never tire of demanding the Christian Church imitate the hedonism, worldliness and materialism of secularism.

All their "advice" to Holy Mother Church can be distilled to Choose death.. The "culture" from which they draw their ideas to reform the Christian Church IS dead. And I say let's leave the dead to be buried with the dead.

34 posted on 04/29/2005 12:20:41 PM PDT by bornacatholic ("Christian is my name and Catholic my surname." Pope Benedict XV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pio
The last bit's infallible, as an ex cathedra definition.
Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, 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.

As for why it's ex cathedra, I point you to Fr. Harrison's excellent article on Humanae Vitae and infallibility, particularly this quote from the Acts of Vatican I:

Now I [Bp. Vincent Gasser, Relator for the Deputation de fide] shall explain in a very few words how this word 'defines' is to be understood according to the Deputation de fide. Indeed, the Deputation de fide is not of the mind that this word should be understood in a juridical sense (Lat. in sensu forensi) so that it only signifies putting an end to controversy which has arisen in respect to heresy and doctrine which is properly speaking de fide. Rather, the word 'defines' signifies that the Pope directly and conclusively pronounces his sentence about a doctrine which concerns matters of faith or morals and does so in such a way that each one of the faithful can be certain of the mind of the Apostolic See, of the mind of the Roman Pontiff; in such a way, indeed, that he or she knows for certain that such and such a doctrine is held to be heretical, proximate to heresy, certain or erroneous, etc., by the Roman Pontiff. Such, therefore, is the meaning of the word defines.

Clearly then, OS fulfills the requirements.

35 posted on 04/29/2005 1:05:33 PM PDT by gbcdoj (And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it. ~ John 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
And I will never forget the "Mater, Si. Magistra, No" abomination.

Surely you aren't attributing "Mater, Si. Magistra, No" to Buckley? Here's what he actually said about the encyclical (he didn't say that):

William F. Buckley, Jr. National Review (26 August 1961) 114. "Actually, National Review has made no substantive criticism of Mater et Magistra. Simplistic interpretations in secular terms are notoriously unwise. It merely pointed out that 'coming at this particular time in history,' parts of it may be considered as trivial."

William F. Buckley, Jr. National Review (23 September 1961) 188. "The editorial in question spoke not one word of criticism of the intrinsic merit of Mater et Magistra. Our disappointment was confined to the matter of emphasis, and timing, and by implication, to the document's exploitability by the enemies of Christendom, a premonition rapidly confirmed by the Encyclical's obscene cooption by such declared enemies of the spiritual order as the New Statesman and the Manchester Guardian, which hailed the conversion of the Pope to Socialism!"


36 posted on 04/29/2005 1:10:13 PM PDT by gbcdoj (And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it. ~ John 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: KidGlock
No, Kid, he thinks that abortion is just a little more serious than having your appendix removed. I say that because he used the appendix as a point of reference when discussing abortion way back when.

He's a bitter fool who should be allowed to rant and rave to his heart's content, and then firmly corrected with the truth.

He's an embarrassment to all true, Catholic Italians.

I hope his next espresso in unpalatable despite copious sugar, and may his cannolli shells be very dark and taste greasy.

37 posted on 04/29/2005 1:27:13 PM PDT by AlbionGirl ('True love and the miracle of forgiving - I believe in Simple Things.')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
No, brother. Buckley was way off the reservation. His brother, Reid, writing from Spain, took pains to correct Bill in a LONG piece written for The American Spectator.

I will have to go google for the Mater, si, Magister, no nonsense.

38 posted on 04/29/2005 2:07:27 PM PDT by bornacatholic ("Christian is my name and Catholic my surname." Pope Benedict XV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
Following are further comments by Angelo Matera, author of the post above; The Revealer posts them here in the comments section for readers interested in exploring these questions in more depth.

Just one more illustration if you're interested: Another case in point is when Peggy Noonan, in her WSJ column during the height of the scandals, predicted that JPII would clean house and get rid of all the bishops. Anyone who knew anything about the Church knew that wasn't going to happen. Good people can disagree about the remedy for the scandal, but her comments revealed a libertarian-Conservative, anti-institutional biase. It shows up in the deep, ecclesial differences between Conservatives (Noonan, Dreher, Buckley, Hannity, etc.) and Orthodox Catholics who happen to be conservative (Neuhaus, Weigel, McCloskey). It's not a coincidence that Garry Wills was the one who coined the phrase "Mater, Si, Magister, No, for William Buckley, back when Buckley came out against Pope John XXIII's social justice-oriented encyclical Pacem et Terris. Wills, in his recent book, still talks about this fondly. Liberals like Wills and Andrew Sullivan have more in common with Conservatives such as Dreher and Buckley than with more ecclesial minded orthodox Catholics.

------------ If you're interested, this is part of the battle within the Church over the genuine reading of Vatican II. Even ecclesial-minded Catholics like Neuhaus, Weigel and Novak are criticized from more communitarian Catholics like "Communio" theologian David Schindler, who reflects the sort of theology embodied by Catholic lay movements such as Opus Dei and the Legion of Christ (on the right) and Communion & Liberation, Focolare, St. Egidio, etc (sort of the left). He has laid the Catholic critique of "conservative" individualism out here http://ressourcement.aquaetignis.org/articles/schindler.html ..where he quotes Alisdair McIntyre about how:

"...all debates in America are finally among radical liberals, liberal liberals and conservative liberals. That's how I would sum up. If we don't come to terms with liberalism --

Question: But liberalism in what sense? Quite a few people who would describe themselves as conservative or neoconservative are, in fact, liberal...

Schindler: That's the point: They're the conservative wing of liberalism. And in a sense, they wouldn't even deny that, insofar as their project is to show that a benign reading of American liberal tradition is harmonious with Catholicism. That's what I'm challenging. Their approach doesn't go to the roots of our [cultural and spiritual] problem, as identified in this pontificate and in the work of theologians like De Lubac and Balthasar.

John Allen also laid out this battle in the context of Karl Rahner vs. Hans Urs Van Balthasar here, as part of his own interview with Schindler. http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/word112803.htm

Posted by: Angelo Matera (posted by The Revealer) at 1:49 PM, April 4, 2004

39 posted on 04/29/2005 2:12:19 PM PDT by bornacatholic ("Christian is my name and Catholic my surname." Pope Benedict XV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
BTW, I was a subscriber and I remember these issues very well. I also remember how Buckley accused Joe Sobran of antisemitism.

Of course, after Sobran published a response that made Buckley appear an idiot, they parted ways.

Mr. Buckley has memory problems.

Uncommented upon by you was the public forum Buckley granted for heresy to be deseminated. Any thoughts on that practice?

40 posted on 04/29/2005 2:17:05 PM PDT by bornacatholic ("Christian is my name and Catholic my surname." Pope Benedict XV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic

I don't agree with spreading heresy, but you are simply wrong about him saying "mater si, magistra no". See the link I gave for the story on that: It's a quote from Wills, not Buckley, and it isn't referring to Buckley but to Frank Meyer. The two quotes I gave you from Buckley on the encyclical are written 3-4 months after it was published - that's awfully fast for a memory problem.


41 posted on 04/29/2005 2:37:18 PM PDT by gbcdoj (And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it. ~ John 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
Well, his Brother, Reid, made the same "mistake" as I did. The American Spectator carried a very long piece in which Reid corrected his brother and defended Holy Mother Church.

I'll bet I have a copy of that kicking around. I'll check.

42 posted on 04/29/2005 3:08:04 PM PDT by bornacatholic ("Christian is my name and Catholic my surname." Pope Benedict XV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bornacatholic
http://eutopia.cua.edu/printarticle.cfm?ID=67
On July 29, 1961, a short notice in an NR weekly events column observed: "whatever the final effect (of the encyclical), it must strike many as a venture in triviality coming at this time in history" when communism was rising with its dehumanizing usurpation of the economy, and free market economies in the US, Japan, and Europe were booming. Two weeks later, a single line in NR's gossip column quipped: "Going the rounds in Catholic conservative circles: Mater si , Magistra, no." (Contrary to Fr. Collins' assertion, Buckley wrote no essay with this title, seminal or otherwise). America subsequently condemned NR for these remarks, on grounds that it was presumptuous and disrespectful to even appear to criticize an encyclical. However, as Buckley noted in the August 26 NR, "National Review has made no substantive criticism of Mater et Magistra'. It merely pointed out that "coming at this particular time in history, parts of it may be considered as trivial." He also noted correctly that the encyclical, like other social encyclicals, lays out broad principles and does not prescribe specific votes on US federal entitlement or welfare programs. "There is room for disagreement as to whether a particular social measure is dehumanizing in its tendency; Catholics can disagree on this matter."

On September 23, Buckley published in NR a letter he had written to America editor Fr. Thurston Davis, SJ, which Davis had refused to publish. The Mater si quote, Buckley explained, spoken "by a Catholic scholar in Virginia, was flippancy pure and simple. I take no objection to your denouncing the flippancy as having been in imperfect taste: I am quite prepared to subject myself to the criticism of my elders on such matters."


43 posted on 04/29/2005 3:14:27 PM PDT by gbcdoj (And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend it. ~ John 1:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj
Thanks, gbc. It turns out it is I who have the memory problem. I apologize. There is no doubt that brother Reid wrote a long piece correcting his brother. I still can't find it, yet - although I did find Joe Sobran's "Le noveau Canard" which refuted the ugly charges of antisemitism against him.

Heck, Buckley was willing to throw anyone under the bus (including his Dad) if it meant currying favor with a certain clique of N. Y. intellectuals.

44 posted on 04/29/2005 3:43:07 PM PDT by bornacatholic ("Christian is my name and Catholic my surname." Pope Benedict XV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Thanks...it just seemed to me that more than just the usual dissenters were kicking around girl priests. One of them: The high profile Bill Bennett, Washington power-lawyer, ...looks like his conversion was a half-baked one in the Deal Hudson mode.


45 posted on 04/30/2005 5:01:19 AM PDT by Pio (There is no Salvation outside the Church)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunkport

At least he makes no claim of his theology being 'systematic'.


46 posted on 04/30/2005 5:34:38 AM PDT by Cvengr (<;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: franky

**the cardinals have chosen a good and holy man who, we are told, rather than reform the status quo will reaffirm it more insistently than before**

Thanks be to God!

Coumo only needs to take the word "instead" out of his sentence. (And go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation!)


47 posted on 04/30/2005 6:25:18 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson