Pope Francis ‘Paradigm Shift’: Continuity or Rupture in the Mission of the Church? An Assessment of His Pontificate’s First Five Years
By José Antonio Ureta Lecture at the International conference on Old and new Modernism: the roots of the Church's crisis Rome, June 23, 2018 Reverend Fathers, Ladies and Gentlemen, If in the early councils of the Church the laity were invited to participate without decision-making powers – except for the 8th Council of Toledo, in which the laity not only participated in the deliberations but even signed the minutes --, I believe that it is not unreasonable to accept in this doctrinal colloquium that brings together academics from various disciplines a lecturer who is not an academic but a militant 1
Catholic who has monitored the life of the Church four over decades. If Pope Francis has been rightly criticized for his praxism by some of those present - I think notably of Professors Roberto de Mattei and Giovanni Turco - I think we all agree that one should also avoid the opposite excess, that is sticking to a bookish culture entirely absorbed in abstract lucubrations disconnected from reality, typical of so many modern intellectuals. This attitude stems from the Cartesian split between the intellect and reality, between thought and action. For my part, as a Catholic militant and disciple of Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, I strive to have my thinking develop in the struggle. As Roberto de Mattei explains in his recent work, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira: Apostle of Fatima and Prophet of the Reign of Mary, in the late Brazilian intellectual’s process of mental elaboration, “studying is more an element to fight better than to get to know the truth better. This is not something done in an office, in vitro, studying in a test tube
2
but it is done in the clash, in the fight, in battle, thinking about it and studying what is needed to carry it out.”1 In fact, the best explicitations by the great master of the Counter-Revolution were fruits of struggles of the moment. I am thinking of his first book, In Defense of Catholic Action, which as early as 1943 denounced the infiltration of the errors of Neo-Modernism into Brazilian Catholic circles. Twenty years later, those errors oriented the debates at the Council. Another example is his Declaration of Resistance to the Vatican’s Ostpolitik, the first document with worldwide diffusion in the contemporary era that raised the delicate question of the liceity of opposing the directives of a Pope. Also meant to answer a possible objection was a suggestion Dr. Plinio made to Arnaldo V. Xavier da Silveira to study and include in his book on the Novus Ordo of Paul VI, a section on the theological possibility of a heretic Pope, recently published as a separate book. In this context of struggle as “man’s great interlocutor” – while carrying out other initiatives in which the disciples of Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira have been engaged in recent years, 1
Op. cit. pp. 32-33.
3
such as the “Filial Appeal to Pope Francis on the Future of the Family,” signed by 900 thousand Catholics worldwide, or the “Declaration of Fidelity to the Church’s Immutable Teaching on Marriage and Her Uninterrupted Discipline,” signed by 36 thousand people - in this context I am honored to announce the publication of a work of mine titled, Pope Francis ‘Paradigm Shift’: Continuity or Rupture in the Mission of the Church? An Assessment of His Pontificate’s First Five Years. The scope of this work is limited. It seeks to make a list of Pope Francis’s positions that reveal a paradigm shift in relation to the perennial teaching of the Church, but only in matters concerning the laity. Therefore, I purposefully excluded from the book, subjects that are as such more important and also controversial, but which concern the very structure of the Catholic Church and her fundamental dogmas. These issues greatly exceed the visual field and knowledge of the common faithful and even of well-informed and trained faithful who are not specialists. Nor is this work intended to make an in-depth doctrinal analysis of each of the topics covered (which would exceed the author's competence), but simply to present a commented 4
account, an inventory as it were, of the current Supreme Pastor’s statements and initiatives that have more seriously aggrieved the sensus fidei of his flock. The topics, addressed in eight chapters are those that have most disconcerted ordinary Catholics. Therefore, I am not referring to traditionalist media but to conservative faithful who still fill parishes and were not ideologically transshipped by neo-modernist pastors. They are: Pastoral retreat from "non-negotiable values", notably defending the sacred character of life and that of marriage as the indissoluble union of a man and a woman; Promoting the neo-Marxist and anti-globalization agenda of so-called "social movements"; Promoting the "green" agenda of world governance and an ambiguous mystique towards "Mother Earth"; Favoring immigration and Islam while showing parsimony towards persecuted Christians in the Middle East; Religious Indifferentism, philosophical relativism and theological evolutionism illustrated, for example by that early disturbing video containing the pope’s intentions 5
for the Apostleship of Prayer, widely disseminated on social networks; Preaching a new, subjective morality without absolute imperatives; Allowing access to communion by remarried divorcees through the implementation of Amoris laetitia; and The present pontificate being the object of sympathy from worldly powers and anti-Christian currents. In a summary chapter, the work shows that a desire to adapt the Church to revolutionary and anti-Christian Modernity is the common denominator of the present pontificate’s paradigm shift. The final chapter deals with the liceity of resisting such a paradigm shift according to the teaching of St. Paul taught in his Epistle to the Galatians. In other words, it is the love of the Papacy itself that must lead us to resist political-pastoral gestures, statements and strategies that contrast with the depositum fidei and the Tradition of the Church. Note that while it is true that no pope can infallibly teach a heresy, it is also true that a pope who does not use the charisma of infallibility or addresses a question not covered by 6
it can err. And in that case, the faithful can and should resist for the sake of truth and the Church. In order to avoid sterile lamentations over the shocking aspects of Pope Francis’ sponsored paradigm shift and instead modestly contribute to orient the perplexed faithful, in its conclusion the book insists that resistance can and should be exercised not only regarding the admission of adulterers to the Eucharistic banquet but also to defend human life against abortion and euthanasia, to defend indissoluble marriage and combat the legal recognition of homosexual unions, to defend private property and free enterprise against collectivist policies and assaults by the so-called "social movements", to reject indigenist ideology and miserableness as a solution to the alleged "global warming of anthropogenic origin" that divides the scientific community; to defend Christian identity and national culture when dealing with the issue of migration and consequently rejecting Western Islamization and the philosophical and spiritual relativism of the "multicultural" utopia, as well as refusing the Vatican Ostpolitik with antiChristian regimes that persecute Catholics.
7
One question, however, remains: How to relate to the pastors who adopt and put into practice the paradigm shift of Bergoglian inspiration? - How to relate to the Shepherd of shepherds, who is promoting it? The work posits that it seems indispensable to avoid two "easy" yet opposite solutions. One would be to say, “After all, the Pope is the representative of Christ and the bishops are the successors of the Apostles. They are the 'living magisterium'. Who am I to judge them? If the Pope and the bishops who support him are mistaken, it is their problem.” The other would be, "All this is clearly heresy; therefore, the one promoting it cannot be Pope,” thus falling into sedevacantism and dispensing oneself from resisting a superior because one no longer recognizes his authority. On the contrary, it is necessary to reject this false alternative by recognizing Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ on Earth and our diocesan bishops as successors of the Apostles without thereby failing to "resist them to the face", as St. Paul resisted St. Peter. Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira once suggested this intermediate way, which avoids both pitfalls, to the leaders of 8
the Chilean TFP as a conclusion for the book The Church of Silence in Chile, which denounced a decisive part of the local episcopate for having collaborated with communism to bring about the country’s destruction. The organization sought to answer this question: “Given our attitude of resistance and turning our attention to our spiritual lives as Catholics, are we bound in sound doctrine to approach these (demolishing) pastors and priests to receive Church teachings from their lips and the sacraments from their hands?” Assuming that "in order to have full ecclesiastical coexistence a minimum level of mutual trust and concord is required in the spiritual relations between sheep and shepherd and child and father," and "given the scope and importance that these Pastors and priests attribute to the demolishing action a nuanced response would suggest that "in the concrete order there are no conditions for the habitual exercise of that coexistence” without it “entailing serious risk to the faith and grave scandal among the good." Therefore, "ceasing ecclesiastical coexistence" with them "is a right of conscience of Catholics who consider it damaging to their faith and life of piety and scandalous to the faithful people."
9
Naturally, such a proposal should not be put into practice universally, since the demolition process may be more advanced here and somewhat more delayed there. For example, when it comes to the readmission of civilly remarried divorcees to the Eucharist the situation in Germany is not the same as in neighboring Poland or Africa. It is therefore understandable that some faithful attend churches of pastors and priests who practice the new paradigm and others who refuse to do so and avoid any habitual spiritual and religious relations with those churchmen, including with regard to sacramental life. If any of those present are confused by this proposal believing that the suspension of their habitual relationship with the demolishing Shepherds amounts to a schism while fully recognizing the latter’s authority and jurisdiction – let us note that the right that assists unjustly coerced faithful is analogous to that of a wife and children in relation to an abusive father who psychologically attacks them. Without abandoning the home, they may legitimately decide to occupy remote rooms in the house to protect themselves from the bad father's influence. Such a withdrawal from daily and habitual coexistence does not represent ignorance of the indissoluble 10
marital and filial ties that bind them to the father nor a lack in their duty of fidelity to him. On the contrary, it may lead the faulty father to make an examination of conscience and convert, leading to a resumption of normal family life. This analogy is not forced. Indeed, based on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Ephesians - “the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the savior of his body” (5:23), the Fathers of the Church and later the medieval canonists used the mystical marriage metaphor symbolized by the episcopal ring to analogously designate the relations a bishop maintains with his diocese. The metaphor is valid, a fortiori, to represent relations between the pope and tota Ecclesia. In reality, the rights of a spouse who is forced to separate go even further. In fact, a spouse who is the victim of abuse has the right to completely cease living together, changing domicile or expelling the deviant consort. The 1983 Code of Canon Law , reiterating the immemorial legislation of the Church establishes that “spouses have the duty and right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them” (1151). In addition to adultery neither consented nor 11
forgiven (1152), it is legitimate to have a separation of bodies with permanence of the bond “if either of the spouses causes grave mental or physical danger to the other spouse or to the offspring or otherwise renders common life too difficult.” Such separation may be asked of the Ordinary or, "if there is danger in delay, by proper authority," with the only restriction that, “when the cause for the separation ceases, conjugal living must be restored.” (1153). The “separation of bodies” without the dissolution of the conjugal bond is an institution that still exists in the civil legislation of many countries of Christian tradition. It only loosens a bit the conjugal bond by waiving the sole obligation of cohabitation. All other duties originated by marriage remain valid, and notably the duty of fidelity and the obligation to help in case of need. This total separation without dissolution of the bond, admitted by canon law and civil legislation represents a far more drastic attitude than the one suggested above, which consists in a simple suspension of the habitual exercise of coexistence equivalent to living in remote quarters but within the same house - in relation to Pastors whose sheep feel psychologically 12
assaulted by the attempt to impose on them an unacceptable paradigm shift in the teaching, discipline and life of the Church. This balanced resistance is what characterizes our proposal as an “intermediary way,� that is, one that maintains intact the bonds of fidelity that unite the faithful to their legitimate Pastors but which takes the prudential measures necessary to preserve the integrity of one's faith while practicing charity toward the weak by preserving them from being scandalized by coexisting with prelates engaged in church autodemolition. This is the proposal of a simple layman, who, although without any specialization in theology, morals or canon law is cognizant of Church doctrine and discipline and allows himself to be guided by the sensus fidei and by reason illuminated by faith. He therefore takes this opportunity to unpretentiously submit it to your consideration. If it comes to happen - God forbid! - that the present virtual division within the Church favored by the paradigm shift promoted by the highest ecclesiastical authorities turns into a formal split, as some fear, we believe that Catholics faithful to their baptism should cling to the perennial teaching of the 13
traditional magisterium of the Church and to the pastors who transmit it unchanged, in the hope that the Holy Spirit will return to the right way those who have strayed, without however becoming anxious about the canonical status of the latter. This is a delicate theological-canonical matter that totally escapes the competence of the common faithful and is a matter of controversy even among specialists. In the present confusion, which risks worsening in the near future, one thing is certain: Catholics faithful to their baptism will never take the initiative to break the sacred bond of love, veneration and obedience that unites them to the successor of Peter and the successors of the Apostles even though these may eventually oppress them and demolish the Church. If by abusing their power and seeking to force the faithful to accept their deviations those prelates condemn them for their fidelity to the Gospel and resistance to authority, it is those pastors and not the faithful that will be responsible for that rupture and its consequences before God, the rights of the Church, and History. Saint Athanasius, a case in point, was a victim of abuse of power but remained a star in the firmament of the Church.
14
I take this opportunity to express my gratitude for the immense help provided by my colleagues Juan Miguel Montes, Federico Catani and Samuele Maniscalco, without which the preparation of this work and its publication would not have been possible at all. And I close these brief words with the same expressions that conclude the assessment of Pope Francis's first five years, that is, by reiterating our unshakable faith and unalterable fidelity to the Roman Pontiff’s primacy of universal jurisdiction and to his ex cathedra infallibility, as well as to the truth of faith on the indefectibility of the Church contained in the Sacred Scriptures and proclaimed by the ordinary universal magisterium. That indefectibility is the supernatural property that guarantees the perpetuity and immutability of its essential elements, founded on the promise of Our Lord and embodied in the closing verse of the Gospel of Saint Matthew: “Behold, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (28:20). In the interim, as Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira said, “it is possible and even probable that we will have terrible disappointments. But it is quite certain that the Holy Spirit continues to stir up 15
in the Church admirable and indomitable spiritual energies of Faith, purity, obedience and dedication which in due time will once again cover the Christian name with glory. The twentieth-first century will be not only the century of the great struggle, but especially the century of the immense triumph.�
16