Cardinal Maradiaga’s Poisonous Fruit

The Catholic Thing ^ | November 19, 2013 | John Zmirak

[ebb tide]

Vaticanologists are making much of a major speech by one of the eight cardinals the pope has designated as leaders of reform, Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga.

The speech is ambitious: It offers a comprehensive re-reading of the Church’s role in politics, and of the government in economics. The cardinal makes bold, sweeping assertions in a tone as confident as Karl Marx or Ayn Rand: “With the New Evangelization we restart (start anew) from the beginning: we once more become the Church as proclaimer, servant, and Samaritan.”

Does the cardinal really mean that the Church ever ceased to be these things? If so, when? And by what authority does the speaker makes this implicit attack on all his predecessors? By the experience of the Church in Latin America, where large swaths of his flock have fled to Pentecostalism?

Which popes, precisely, is he accusing here:

Too many times [the Church] gives the impression of having too much certitude and too little doubt, freedom, dissension or dialogue. No more excommunicating the world, then, or trying to solve the world’s problems by returning to authoritarianism, rigidity and moralism, but instead keeping always the message of Jesus as her sole source of inspiration.

Such grand and unsupported attacks on an institution’s past are a common rhetorical device of revolutionary movements, which demonize the past, thus gaining the power to shape the future.

Power is the point here: For all his protestations of “humility” and “service,” the cardinal imagines a Church that will have extensive political and economic power, wielded through laymen and politicians whom it can mold. In what shape political and economic principles does he hope to mold them?

Cardinal Maradiaga makes his sympathies clear when he quotes as an authority on the morality of international investment the Swiss radical Jean Ziegler – a longtime defender of Fidel Castro, who has called the United States an “imperialist dictatorship”:

The globalization of the exchange of services, capital and patents has led over the past ten years to establish a world dictatorship of finance capital. . . .The lords of financial capital wield over billions of human beings a power of life and death. Through their investment strategies, their stock market speculations, their alliances, they decide day to day who has the right to live on this planet and who is doomed to die.

Ironically, Ziegler here denounces foreign investors for threatening poor people with death; on other occasions he has condemned the United States for forbidding its citizens to do business with Cuba.

Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga makes a point Globalization has helped tens of millions in long-impoverished places like India and China move from grinding poverty to relative prosperity – even as wealth stagnated or shrank in Europe and North America. Talented people in developing countries are no longer doomed to subsistence agriculture or foreign-aid handouts; increasingly, they can compete against better-paid, comparatively privileged workers in richer countries. This reality is something Jean Ziegler prefers to ignore.

The Cardinal elaborates on Ziegler’s conspiracy theory, writing himself:

The effects and consequences of the neoliberal dictatorships that rule democracies are not hard to uncover: they invade us with the industry of entertainment, they make us forget about human rights, they convince us that nothing can be done, that there is no possible alternative. To change the system, it would be necessary to destroy the power of the new feudal lords. Chimerical? Utopian?

The Church decidedly bets on living the globalization of mercy and solidarity.

So democracies like ours are “neoliberal dictatorships,” which the Church will help reform through the “globalization of mercy and solidarity,” that is, by helping governments to seize wealth from some people, skim its own share off the top, and distribute that wealth to others. Those “others” will doubtless be grateful, as Hugo Chavez’s supporters were in Venezuela; indeed, they will form powerful voting blocs dependent on state redistribution of wealth, as directed by humble clergymen.

This shows no awareness of decades of research about the true causes of poverty: the lack of clear property rights, political corruption, crony capitalism, populist politics, and centralized bureaucracy. Such problems cannot be solved by foreigners, but by local action to build up a culture of enterprise and institutions that protect small business owners. But it’s much more convenient, comfortable, and conducive to grabbing power to blame everything on the Yanquis.

The good cardinal has already shown in the past his proclivity for shifting blame. In May 2002, the cardinal explained who was really to blame for the sex abuse scandal: Jews in the media.

Tiny coteries of evil investors cause starvation in the developing world, while cabals of Jewish journalists try to smear the innocent bishops. Is it all clear now? Based on Manichean, conspiratorial analyses such as these, we humble, loving “Samaritans” must reject the pharisaical Church of the past, and march forward to use the guns and prisons of the state to enforce “mercy” and “solidarity” among the classes and the nations.

In Quod Apostolici Muneris, the great Leo XIII frankly condemned socialism as a Satanic counterfeit of the Gospel. If I might be permitted to cite this pope from the Church’s compromised past:

they assail the right of property sanctioned by natural law; and by a scheme of horrible wickedness, while they seem desirous of caring for the needs and satisfying the desires of all men, they strive to seize and hold in common whatever has been acquired either by title of lawful inheritance, or by labor of brain and hands, or by thrift in one's mode of life. . . .But the boldness of these bad men, which day by day more and more threatens civil society with destruction, and strikes the souls of all with anxiety and fear, finds its cause and origin in those poisonous doctrines which, spread abroad in former times among the people, like evil seed bore in due time such fatal fruit.

We see that fruit today. And I’m not biting. Neither should you.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"So....what you're saying is no one gives a d##n if people don't go to your church with the exception of their donations? They don't notice if someone's missing because they might be ill? Missing for other reasons? That's not a church community. That's big business!"

Actually, it's not that "nobody gives a d##n". It's that in many Catholic parishes, the real community or fellowship comes from the various movements, ministries, and organizations within the parish, and not the parish itself per see.

For instance, I mentioned the daily Mass group: about 15 of us that are together every day for the 7:00 Mass, maybe 25 for the 8:30 Mass. With those kinds of numbers you can know each other and ... like I said ... if Arlene missed Mon and Tues, by Wed everybody knows if she had a cold or if her husband's in the hospital or if she's downstate visiting her grandkids.

But there's 36 other ministries/organizations listed in the bulletin with which parishioners are encouraged to get involved: RCIA (adult converts' class); 4 different Bible Studies; 5 different choirs; Engaged Encounter; Marriage Encounter; Home & School Organization; Parish Council; Parish Finance Board; Bereavement Ministry; Council of Catholic Women; Knights of Columbus; Newcomers Welcoming; Respect Life Committee; Community Gardens; Widows' and Widowers' Ministry; Food Pantry; St. Vincent de Paul Society (aid to the needy);Adoration Chapel; Cursillo; Rosary Makers; Liturgy of the Hours; etc. etc.

At least at our parish, there's no pressure, hassle or exclusion over donations. If somebody says "We're unemployed but I volunteer with training the Altar Servers and my wife is a Visitor/Eucharistic Minister for the the shut-ins and the nursing home people"-- nobody's going to say Boo to you about there being no money for the basket.

But if people just come to Sunday Mass and that's it, they can go a long time before anybody takes notice of them. If people feel bummed out about that, I always urge them to puh-lease get involved in a movement of ministry. People need small groups. Even Our Lord thought 12 was a pretty good number.

[wintertime]

People need small groups. Even Our Lord thought 12 was a pretty good number
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good point! :-)

Nice post.

[mlizzy]

You don’t have to like or associate with people, but don’t give up on the Sacraments. They are the path to life.

Yes, precisely! The Eucharist is needed for power, understanding, patience, and love.

[dsc]

“But there’s 36 other ministries/organizations listed in the bulletin with which parishioners are encouraged to get involved: RCIA (adult converts’ class); 4 different Bible Studies; 5 different choirs; Engaged Encounter; Marriage Encounter; Home & School Organization; Parish Council; Parish Finance Board; Bereavement Ministry; Council of Catholic Women; Knights of Columbus; Newcomers Welcoming; Respect Life Committee; Community Gardens; Widows’ and Widowers’ Ministry; Food Pantry; St. Vincent de Paul Society (aid to the needy);Adoration Chapel; Cursillo; Rosary Makers; Liturgy of the Hours; etc. etc.”

Maybe that has something to do with the Church’s refusal to baptise my grandson until his parents attend some classes.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I know a husband-wife team who worked for 25 years at the parish and diocesan level in a big diocese in Texas on adult religious education. They were frustrated because no matter how good an educational program was, only the predictable faithful 2-5% of the parishioners would attend: the same ones for everything.

They've become convinced that the best time to fortify adults' knowledge and understanding of Catholic faith and morals, would in conjunction with sacramental preparation for themselves or their children:

• parents' classes preparatory to infant Baptism;

• parents' classes preparatory to children's
  • first Confession and
  • Communion and
  • Confirmation;
• couples' classes preparatory to Matrimony;
• even a bit of teaching (when practical) in conjunction with Anointing of the Sick... if not for the sick person, then for their caregivers and kin.

Isn't there a pastorally effective way to do this?

People who are serious about a job or profession accept the need for regular updating of skills, in-service training, and a duty to enhance one's fund of knowledge and understanding. Should we expect less for the Catholic Life?

I'm thinking of Our Lord's warmly and winsomely inviting words to the effect that unless you're willing to renounce father, mother, wife, husband, children, friends, property, and life itself, and take up your cross, you are not worthy to be His disciple.

What an extremist.

And did it "work"?

[dsc]

“They’ve become convinced that the best time to fortify adults’ knowledge and understanding of Catholic faith and morals, would in conjunction with sacramental preparation for themselves or their children”

They’ve become convinced...I guess that’s what honks me off. My grandson isn’t baptised because “they’ve become convinced.” Who in Hell are they to deny an infant the sacrament?

[piusv]

I find it fascinating how this thread is more about the dumbass comments made by one poster than the real issue in the OP.

I would like to hear the answer to your question Dr. Brian. It’s much easier to avoid the real issue here though.

[dsc]

I meant “they” in the abstract. I was not referring to your friends, who, of course, have nothing to do with my problem.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Of course, I don't know anything about your grandson's circumstances. But it's a situation which required real pastoral sensitivity. On the one hand, Catholic parents have not just the right, but the obligation to have their newborn Baptized, and that should be reasonably soon after birth. On the other hand, the Church baptizes infants entirely contingent on the assumption that the parents are ready, willing, and able to raise him as a Catholic.

The problem, in some cases,is that parents who are ignorant of, or more or less indifferent to the Faith, are having their kids baptized merely as a social convention. They don't have adequate knowledge of the faith and morals of the Church to really be responsible for the child's early spiritual formation; in fact, they hardly know what Baptism is as a Sacrament, what it signifies or what obligations they have assumed in consequence.

So the pastor has to try to ensure that the parents are knowledgeable about what the Baptismal vows entail, just as he has to try to ensure that engaged couples are knowledgeable about what the Marriage vows entail.

Can you blame the pastor for trying to conscientiously fulfill his obligation to teach as well as sanctify?

And the parents: wouldn't they want to broaden and deepen their knowledge of these essential Catholic Truths?

[ebb tide]

I'm with you, dsc. From the Catholic Catechism:

The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I understand your point here, ebb, and the Catechism really is pretty plain. A child of Catholic parents should be baptized shortly after birth.

I will raise a question: what if the parents show no inclination to raise the child as a Catholic? Or show in a manifest manner that they have little or no clue what that means? Plus, they resist instruction?

What if two gay guys --- baptized Catholic ---who have contracted some form of para-matrimony, come in with their adopted infant and want a baptism for the purpose --- as the priest suspects --- of forcing the acceptance of their disordered pseudo-marriage?

[dsc]

“Can you blame the pastor for trying to conscientiously fulfill his obligation to teach as well as sanctify?”

I don’t blame him for wanting, but I do blame him for denying the sacrament.

[dsc]

“I will raise a question: what if the parents show no inclination to raise the child as a Catholic? Or show in a manifest manner that they have little or no clue what that means?”

None of those conditions obtains.

“Plus, they resist instruction?”

It feels to me like resisting bureaucratic nonsense.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I can't judge the particular case. But without reference to that, it general back-and-forth sounds to me like this:

"This is the most poorly-catechized generation in the history of the Church. Why don't our priests teach actual Catholic Doctrine, fer chrissakes?!"

"Well, we're going to have instruction before every Sacrament."

"What?? Fuggedaboudit! The nerve! Who do you think you are?"

[dsc]

“This is the most poorly-catechized generation in the history of the Church. Why don’t our priests teach actual Catholic Doctrine, fer chrissakes?!”
“Well, we’re going to have instruction before every Sacrament.”
“What?? Fuggedaboudit! The nerve! Who do you think you are?”

Looks to me like you are really stretching for the least charitable interpretation.

It is wrong to deny an infant the sacrament of Baptism because the heirarchy are adhering mindlessly to a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic regulation.

That’s it. It’s as straightforward as that. Infants do pass away, God forbid, and then it’s too late.

[dsc]

You are almost right about one thing, though: I mistrust their orthodoxy.

[dsc]

“What if two gay guys -— baptized Catholic -—who have contracted some form of para-matrimony, come in with their adopted infant and want a baptism for the purpose -— as the priest suspects -— of forcing the acceptance of their disordered pseudo-marriage?”

What if the priest tells one of them to bring the child back, and, as the father, have it baptized.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"It is wrong to deny an infant the sacrament of Baptism because the heirarchy are adhering mindlessly to a one-size-fits-all bureaucratic regulation."

To which I can only say,

"Looks to me like you are really stretching for the least charitable interpretation."

But, I ask myself, what is the point of quoting your own words back at'cha? I don't even understand where this argument is coming from.

We both agree (I presume) that a baby should be baptized promptly (a couple days to a couple weeks after birth), depending in things like the health status of the baby. We both agree (I presume) that pastors have the obligation to teach, and the faithful have the obligation to learn, about these sacred Sacraments whose whose responsibilities are so solemn and whose significance is so inexhaustable.

I can only wonder why ANY parents (I am NOT singling out your kin) would deprive their infant of Baptism because they object to the requirement that they tolerate a little instruction from their pastor.

The priest has an obligation to teach - govern - sanctify. The parents have the obligation to have their baby baptized sooner rather than later. These obligations gladly and gratefully mesh. Voila?

[Mrs. Don-o]

“What if two gay guys -— baptized Catholic -—who have contracted some form of para-matrimony, come in with their adopted infant and want a baptism for the purpose -— as the priest suspects -— of forcing the acceptance of their disordered pseudo-marriage?”

What if the priest tells one of them to bring the child back, and, as the father, have it baptized.

That sounds pretty good. But...?

---

I honestly don't know what is the "right" answer.

What if, in the meantime (while the "two" "daddies" are negotiating frowningly about which one of them is going to be "THE" official father), the priest goes to their Facebook page and sees they are planning a "Baptism Party" with gay-themed cake and decorations and party supplies, and displaying, incidentally, the lovely baby baptismal gown with rainbow sash and frills.

There's two Christian Gay Daddies who posted their children's baptism pictures at a gay dating site (Link)

Oh, it's a theme you can have a lot of fun with.

You might wonder why I'm going after this "gay" detour, but it's relevant for this reason: people are increasingly splitting off the Sacrament of Baptism from the Church, and using it as yet another way to celebrate "themselves".

Just as they've split off Matrimony: all self-expression and self-satisfaction, no sense of being part of a sacred Community which has definitions, doctrines, and requirements.

Straight people do this as well as gay people, of course. All personal interpretation and personal choice --- the overall values are borrowed from consumerism, not the Catechism --- no doctrine, no disciple; everything allowed, everything "on demand" like an entitlement or a public utility, nothing required.

Do not take this as directed to you and your loved ones! It's just what we see all too often in the parish: self-centered congregants are astonished when the pastor won't say,"Have it Your Way," "The Customer is Always Right."

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thinking about your problems with the Church, and especially your estrangement from the Sacraments, I feel concerned about you. And I wanted to share this:

We need to keep in mind that what is important about the Mass is not the infidelity of men but the fidelity of God, who makes the Mass valid not by our virtue, but by His promise.

Keep reading.

And the really important, and really interesting people in the Catholic Church, are not the priests, nor even the popes, but the saints.

And with that I say: will you not stay in he Church --- in the Communion of Saints --- with (OK, I'll name a half dozen or so of my favorites)

• the reformer of popes, Catherine of Siena,
• the singular and obstinate Athanasius,
• the tormented Vincent Ferrar,
• the brilliant, honest Robert Bellarmine,
• the mighty-hearted Edmund Campion,
• the tireless inquisitor Turibius of Mongrovejo,
• the driven and inimitable Paul.<

Do you think the "situations," including the religious milieux, in which these sainted people lived, were any less troubled? The Church less conflicted? The times less dangerous? The clergy less compromised? The Powers that Be less menacing? The World, the Flesh, and the Devil less crafty and seductive?

Come on, Yossarian. Even if this Noah's Ark of a Church is full of a thousand aggravating squawks and stinks, even if we have to shovel sh*t off the deck every day of our lives, it's The Ark. We're afloat. It looks like the baboons and macacas are in charge, and (new metaphor) Jesus is seemingly asleep on the foredeck, but He knows everything, calls saints, gives glory to martyrs, and can calm the wind and waves any time He wants to.

Get back on the boat. Stop your "No Thanks, I'll Swim" schism. Trust the saints, who lived in communion with worse popes (Pope Alexander VI, anyone? Pope John XII? Pope Urban VI?) --- and in harder times than yours.