DEPTH OF DOCTRINE? DO NOT, You BETRAYAL
The anti-dogmatism is not, at source, only an irrational attitude, superficial and inconsistent: is much worse, is something extremely pernicious for the life of faith of the Christian community, because it is a project that aims theoretically well structured decisively to implement the reforms in the Church for years Hans Küng and his disciples, eg Enzo Bianchi, theorized as necessary to "walk" in the history of the Church and have prophesied as imminent realization […]
The term that is heard repeating these days, even after the interview of Pope Francesco in The Nation, is the necessity of an adequate “deepening” of the doctrine [see who]. It is the thesis of Gianni Gennari [on Corriere della Sera] the way of the desired "reverse" the Magisterium on natural methods: great changes, but that would be only "depth" of the doctrine of 'Human life. By analogy this interpretive scheme is applied to the question "synodal", that of communion for divorcees who were married civilly. However, this argument is also married to Andrea Tornielli (The Print), that already long ago spoke of "insights" in reference to the new doctrine of the Council on Religious Freedom.
Seeing the use of this label that the media are applying the reform projects of the doctrine on the sacraments (Marriage, Penance and the Eucharist) I realized yetin time than would be desirable that journalists were limited to inform on current events ecclesial without continuing to confuse Catholics with their interpretations sociopolitical [see my previous article who].
Any label affixed to the facts of the Church, although it appears journalistically effective, does not help to understand what it is. The label is a claim interpretation quick and easy, “ready-to-wear”, but the effect on public opinion is negative, not only for the inevitable shallowness of this kind of interpretation, but also and especially for the message that indirectly conveys. L '' deepening ', label from which party, is no exception to the rule: with it the message that is conveyed is that the Catholic Church, under the pontificate of Pope Francis, proceeds quickly to a substantial change of its moral doctrine, and consequently proceeds ineluctably toward a radical change of its pastoral practice, with the approval of all, believers and non-believers.
Those that are labeled as "insights" are therefore, in the intention of the sponsors, of substantial change in the doctrine hitherto taught by the Magisterium, and should therefore be labeled rather as a "break" with Tradition. In fact, these are "small steps" in the direction of legislation that would revolutionize the very structure of ecclesiastical discipline, to the point that - if indeed they were adopted by ecclesiastical authority - would entail a radical reform of the doctrine: but not in the direction indicated by Benedict XVI ("Reform in the continuity of the same subject the Church") but in the sense that Pope Ratzinger considered unacceptable, that is of aa real "rupture" with the Tradition, ie with the doctrine of the Magisterium, by the Council of Trent to Vatican II, from the encyclical Chaste marriage of Pius XI to the apostolic exhortation Familiaris company of John Paul II.
Of course, we heard during the first phase of the Synod of Bishops about the family, many theologians and prelates auspice to overcome (ie the abolition) the teachings of Paul VI (Human life) and John Paul II (Familar company), and then we heard, on the same occasion, other theologians and other prelates who have pointed out that these changes are in contradiction, not with unimportant details, but with the essential meaning, deep, the message transmitted by the Church in those documents.
Who digs deep, with the theological reason, to find that message in its essence of revealed truth, realizes that a proposal that is in direct contradiction with it is not that his denial. In short, a revolution, a break, certainly not one of the many ways that can be done and is done by the fact that the Church to progress in the understanding of revealed truth, according to the formula, theologically perfect, a "homogeneous evolution of dogma". "Homogeneous" is evolution that leads to a doctrine that is part of the same "kind", ie does not propose a doctrine of another kind, but the same doctrine enriched accidental changes, with pastoral applications. In short, a break can not be called 'deepening'.
The term "investigation" is used by "Vaticanists", in their proverbial psychological subjection to the language from time to time prevailing in mass culture, because it is the term used for the speech and debates on the edge of a news. If the facts are separated from opinion, the views are the '' deepening '. That so called because it promises to deepen the meaning of a situation topical or a news item, without the intention to cancel. No deepening riguardor the "capital mafia" ends up denying that there has been an investigation by the judiciary and consequently a scandal and serious political repercussions. Deepening means going deep, and by going in depth one finds the "aletic core" of an event or a theory, which is what in the course of the analysis remains the same.
If it changes instead, we can no longer speak of "deepening": we must speak of "scientific revolution" (Thomas Kuhn). Applying this criterion to the epistemic ongoing discussions within the Church, you can not label it as "depth" to the proposal for a substantial reform, chand like those who patronizes the advent of the new "universal church" mold "ecumenical" and "humanistic" where are transposed instances of the schism of East andriLutheran form.
These distinctions may seem my quibbles or Byzantinisms abstract facing issues so vital and engaging as the access of divorced Catholics to Communion or the use of contraceptives in marriage between believers. But - I say - if a journalist or a newspaper reader does not like to go into this theological problematic, to take care of another: no one asks him to have a personal opinion on the school controversies between theologians or on the appointments and dismissals of high ecclesiastics. If it is a non-believer, you disinterest of these internal problems of the Church. If a believer, is interested only in what the Church teaches on these and other matters, without bothering to interpret the secret intentions of the Pope or to judge whether the Synod of Bishops are right conservatives or progressives.
No one will take my advice; but then, if one intends to enter into the merits of these issues, the only criterion of assessment is that serious theological, certainly not the socio-political, which is fine just for the record of another kind: financial, parliamentary, Judicial. And the evaluation criteria must be provided by competent persons, the considerations which must be analyzed with patience and with the intention to understand complex concepts, related to theoretical premises not immediately deducible and a huge mass of historical data. If you make this effort, the first thing that you will understand is that every true depth of revealed doctrine is a better com- understanding of his transcendence than the vicissitudes historical and cultural.
Said this, add: the implied intention of those who speak of "insights" is to convey to the public the message of a new Catholic pastoral should regardless of dogma: ignoring not only the facts but also indirectly proclaiming the futility or even worse the negative function, of "brake" to the news that would be suggested by the Holy Spirit.
And here I take this opportunity to repeat once again that this anti-dogmatism it is not, at source, only an irrational attitude, superficial and inconsistent: is much worse, is something extremely pernicious for the life of faith of the Christian community, because it is a project that aims theoretically well structured decisively to implement the reforms in the Church for years Hans Küng and his disciples (Enzo Bianchi) theorized as necessary to "walk" in the history of the Church and have prophesied as imminent realization.
These reforms, which are much more than a mere "deepening", distort the Church of Christ, making them deny that consciousness of himself as a "universal sacrament of salvation", not so much for the adaptations of his pastoral to the prevailing (adaptations that are needed, however,, so much so that there have always been) As for the charism of infallibility (which allows it to preserve and interpret according to the "mind of Christ" revealed truth) and for the promise of indefectibility (thanks to which it has always been and will always be holy, catholic and apostolic, able to administer the sacraments of grace).
I find it rather hypocritical use of the label 'study to propagate a reform of the Church runs to abolish the dogmatic foundations of his faith and his discipline. Because - as I have explained several times - there is a practice that does not call you back, at least implicitly, to a theory, ie in the regulative principles of the action, to the goals to be achieved as considered in itself positive, bearers of progress and happiness.
The anti-dogmatism is nothing but the hypocritical rhetoric whose, while denying the dogma of its function of orientation of the religious consciousness, work in view of certain changes in the Church that it considers necessary for the realization of its political and religious utopia. Catholic dogma, that is the truth revealed by God in Christ, is put aside, not because it is considered an abstract theory from which it can derive a practice "updated" but because we have chosen a different theory, rather the opposite, under which you want to promote a reformist or revolutionary practice. In short, There is declared enemies of dogma as such, but in reality you are fanatical supporters of a different dogma.
If one listens to many voices sign of progressive reformer, notice that some, theologians most listened, have the courage to speak clearly of these dogmatic principles, attributable to historicism, declined in a Hegelian dialectic according to the scheme of "passing through the negation" (Repeal) of which I have already spoken on several occasion (see what I wrote about Hans Kung and his ecclesiology, who). But many poor and timid disciples acolytes of these opinion makers Church does not have the courage and the intellectual capacity of the state to which system ideological and dogmatic principles which are inspired in proposing certain mutations of pastoral practice as necessary to the progress of the Church in the time that sitiamo living. So then comes out the vapid speech of pastoral, while respecting the doctrine in words, contradicts the facts. And this contradiction presents hypocritically as 'deepening'.
Octave of Christmas
In placid night
The article reproduced here was posted on 21 December 2014 in the online magazine