If and when the time comes, what will you do? Will you go along, stay silent, or speak out?
That is the question that confronts me and has confronted me since the day Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation. For better or for worse, I chose to speak out in opposition to that unprecedented action and was roundly criticized for it. Again, for better or for worse, I made the decision to occasionally speak out during this year of living ambiguously and for this decision I have made no friends.
For these decisions I have been called a reactionary, a pompous jerk, unmerciful, and even a sedevacantist. That’s ok.
The ‘reactionary’ thing is probably the most common pejorative used against most who have voiced concerns over events of the last year or even the last 50 years. When something happens and you ‘react’ to it in a negative way, you are branded a reactionary. That is the nature of the beast.
So I thought I might approach the problem from a different angle so that everyone can understand that a decision to ‘react’ is not necessarily reactionary. Rather it is a difficult conscious decision, but perspective is needed to see that.
In order to avoid the ‘reactionary’ label, let us take the react out of it. Let’s look together at a possible future scenario and ask yourself how you would choose to behave and why?
Say, for the sake of hypothetical but plausible example, the outcome of the Synod on the Family on the question of admission of divorced and remarried to communion follows the suggestions of Papal advisers Cardinals Marx and Kasper. That the remarried are admitted to communion after some pastoral counseling and the annulment process is moved from tribunal to pastor. In this case, the Church does not change its immutable teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, but the newly implemented pastoral praxis dramatically alters the landscape.
Let’s leave the predictable liberal cheering of such moves aside for the moment and focus on those orthodox Catholics who rightly understand the dangers associated with such change in praxis. For such as these, I see three options, go along, stay silent, or speak out.
The first group will go along. They principally see orthodoxy as simple adherence to the current magisterium. They are generally unconcerned with whatever prior teaching and practice might have been. In essence they are magisterialists and view orthodoxy through this lens. If this is what the Pope and Bishops say today, then that is what orthodoxy means today. That the Pope and the Bishops have practically and pastorally erred historically and allowed schism to develop and harden is of no consequence. The Bishops must have their reasons and we are not to question them. They will be the most vocal critics of any that do not share their magesterialism.
The second group will stay silent. They recognize in part the dangers that such a break from tradition represents and that such practices risk undermining the doctrine itself. Yet, they will focus almost entirely on the simple fact that the Church has not formally changed her teaching on the indissolubility of marriage. If they talk about it at all, they will focus on that aspect, the Church has not changed its teaching so there is nothing to get upset about. They are generally orthodox Catholics who seek to remove to the castle keep only the immutable doctrine, no matter the losses of souls and tradition that occur outside the walls.
The last group will choose to speak out. They recognize that such a a change in praxis is a complete contradiction. That the very idea of readmission goes against all tradition and undermines the doctrine to the point of irrelevance. Further, they recognize that moving the annulment process to pastors would defacto make for quick and easy Catholic divorce.
Those pastors who resist it would be pilloried as merciless and Catholic divorce seekers would simply find a more agreeable pastor. They would rightly understand that such changes in praxis undermines the whole understanding of marriage and can lead to other worse woes such as those openly hoped for by the Bishop of Middlesbrough, Terence Drainey when he says that the synod should ” call[ed] for a “radical re-examination of human sexuality” that could lead to a development in church teaching in areas such as contraception, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage and cohabitation and the role of women in the Church.”
This group would realize that this current magisterial ‘praxis’ is not infallible and is in direct contradiction to all the tradition that came before it that sought to uphold the critical and immutable understanding of marriage. Recognizing the danger to doctrine and souls, this group would feel compelled to speak out and actively oppose the implementation of this praxis. The also understand that if such initiatives become rooted, there is genuine danger of real and lasting schism within the Church on these issues. I say schism because one assumes there may be Bishops, priests, and lay people who refuse to go along and as such will be seen as separate.
As such, this group will choose to speak out even though they will likely be pilloried by liberals and the magisterialists. But nevertheless, they feel compelled to support and restore the traditional understanding and praxis that support the doctrine.
So if something like this was to happen, which group would you be in? What would you choose to do? Would you agree that the latter group above are merely reactionaries and that their intransigence hurts the Church?
I would ask you to think about it. For my part, I have made my choice. In the case of schism, break glass. We can clean up the mess later.
March 17, 2014 at 8:33 pm
So you know that they sinned in the past. But you need to know about those intimate details about their life *now*. Being able to draw a logical conclusion based on what you can see – even if it is entirely likely – doesn't give you the right to pronounce judgement.
March 17, 2014 at 8:38 pm
"For my part, I have made my choice. In the case of schism, break glass. We can clean up the mess later."
What does this even mean?
When discipline inadequately aligns with dogma and doctrine, we have both the right and the duty to speak up. And that is what would happen if the Church were to revise her annulment process such that it became too watered down, discipline and doctrine would be out of proper alignment. We have the right to speak up for the sake of our brothers and sisters, but it is also good to speak up in case we are wrong and in need of fraternal correction.
But why even mention schism? Are you planning to go into schism if the Church were to make this (poorly conceived) disciplinary change? Are you saying the Church would be going into schism with the "true Church" if she did (a common Protestant and schismatic traditionalist claim)? The label "reactionary" may not be entirely useful, but language like this does not aid your point, does not make you sound like the loyal son of the Church we all know you are. This kind of language sounds like it is seeking out the deep end.
March 17, 2014 at 8:40 pm
You are being obtuse. There is no point in even responding to you.
March 17, 2014 at 8:58 pm
So "judge not lest ye be judged" is obtuse? Good to know.
March 17, 2014 at 9:04 pm
Curious how those who are accused of 'protesting' VII are treated more harshly by the ones you speak of than those who protest the teachings of Jesus and the Church that He founded (protestants). With the latter we are lectured that we must be ecumenical.
March 17, 2014 at 9:12 pm
I'm on the verge of heading over to the Orthodox. Yes, they have major jurisdictional arguments with each other; in the long run, those are minute matters. Eastern spirituality is stable and trust-worthy. Western Christian spirituality is constantly fluctuating and hard to pinpoint. The Catholic Church is not the place in which I want to raise my unborn child. The Western Church, I believe, doesn't even believe in its own narrative. For me, it has be a depressing and emotionally destructive journey. God bless to men and women of good will and faith.
March 17, 2014 at 9:16 pm
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Worldwide-Adoration-for-Family-Synod/666098776782916?notif_t=page_new_likes
March 17, 2014 at 9:30 pm
When one is granted an annulment and gets married again, what is that considered? I'm genuinely confused about the annulment issue.
March 17, 2014 at 9:34 pm
Why not ask what might happen should a Pope, whose election occurs under no strange circumstances and with no canonical questions (as there are none in this case), formally and publicly teaches that Jesus was in no way God? Or why not ask what might happen should Jesus return, but as a Muslim? The answer to both questions is FAITH. You either have it, or you don't.
By the way, it is entirely possible that some past Popes have firmly intended to teach some heresy but, to put it gently, their positions were terminated by their Boss. Popes have free will, just like the rest of us, but for none of us does that mean that everything we intend comes to pass.
March 17, 2014 at 10:03 pm
I hate the term reactionary and have told certain well known Catholics at their sites to stop using this term to anyone who dares simply to give their opinion. I would be among those who would speak out because there is such a thing as sinning not just commission but also OMISSION.
March 17, 2014 at 10:17 pm
If one is granted an annulment, it means his marriage never existed; by virtue of some deffect, it was not a marriage at all, but mere cohabitation. So, the "new" marriage is actually the first marriage.
March 17, 2014 at 10:19 pm
You're not paying attention. The Greek pastor is the one who determines annulment and it isn't as cut & dried as with the Catholic Church; people can get married up to three times. The Priest is also an employee of the parish council which changes things too.
March 17, 2014 at 10:22 pm
They use various translations of the liturgy, are fine with divorce and contraception and do have innovations such as the manner in which they receive Communion.
March 17, 2014 at 11:20 pm
The reasoning is that the Orthodox were right all along, and that Rome is not trustworthy.
March 18, 2014 at 1:50 am
I've seen traditionalist Catholics describe NFP as Immoral. NFP is used by Catholic couples to space children purposefully, if they choose to do so.
The Orthodox reject abortion and abortive contraception., from what l've read.
March 18, 2014 at 2:52 am
I'm already a catechumen in the Orthodox. *thumbs up*
March 18, 2014 at 2:53 am
They do reject those Ben.
March 18, 2014 at 2:56 am
Your discription is a little confusing, and it is this kind of "simple" explination that causes problems. An annulment is not a declaration that the couple "co-habitated." An annulment declares that at the time of the marriage ceremony there was something lacking in the union which caused the sacramental aspect of the marriage to not occur. This is significant because it assumes the couple vowed in good faith, even though they were not capable. The couple did not sin (as a cohabitating couple does) nor are any issue drom their union seen as born out-of-wedlock (again, as the would in a cohabitating couple. An example that might illustrate this is that a marries couple going through RCIA would have their marriage validated, but no confession of fornication would be needed. A cohabiting couple would? However
March 18, 2014 at 2:57 am
A cohabiting couple, however would need to confess BEFORE being married in the church. (Stupid phone keys are too close together!)
March 18, 2014 at 2:58 am
What you don't understand about the Orthodox Church is that it isn't as cut and dried as it seems; the different churches have slighly different rules and it all comes down to pastoral care so if you approach your pastor and talk to him about pregnancy, it comes down to your circumstances, not to a cut and dried rule.