Catholic Light – Page 3 – (but not lite!)

“The Courage to Reveal”

The chairman of the German Society for Mariology, Manfred Hauke, looking at the Bosnian pilgrimage site Medjugorje, calls first for a clarification on the question of the phenomenon’s authenticity and then for pastoral answers. By Regina Einig

Q. Professor Hauke, the new Apostolic Visitator to Medjugorje, Archbishop Hoser, has recently determined that the pilgrimage activity in that town in Bosnia-Herzegovina corresponds to the recommendations of the Second Vatican Council. How do you interpret this statement, and how can we place it in context?
Hauke: In his first homily as Apostolic Visitator to Medjugorje on July 22, Archbishop Hoser mentioned that the Marian devotion carried out in the parish places Christ at the center and therefore corresponds to the Second Vatican Council. It really does not belong to his assignment as papal emissary to make a statement about the authenticity of the reported Marian apparitions. In his interview on August 18, 2017, he emphasized that he had not involved himself with the content of the “apparitions”, as that was not his assignment. Such a separation between the truth of the messages and pastoral care cannot be reassuring: the question of authenticity needs to be posed first, and only then can the pastoral answer follow, and that includes concern about those who visit Medjugorje.

Q. Why must the question of authenticity be posed first?
Hauke: According to the Council, forms of Marian devotion that are “recommended by the Magisterium” (Lumen gentium 67) should be encouraged. Certainly that does not include celebrating a youth festival again on this August 5, based on the message that the Mother of God had celebrated her 2000th birthday on August 5, 1984 (and would therefore have been born in the year 16 B.C., which would mean that in the historical year of Jesus’ birth, that is, circa 7 B.C., she would have been about nine years old). This absurd message was spread by Fr. Tomislav Vlasić OFM, who was laicized in 2009, whom the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith accused of dubious mysticism and transgressions against the sixth commandment, among other things. That the real Mother of God is suggesting to change the liturgical date of her September 8 birthday feast and correspondingly also the feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8, is ridiculous. The Second Vatican Council, moreover, emphasizes very clearly the responsibility of the bishop for his diocese and the obedience owed to him on the part of the faithful (Lumen gentium, ch. 3). The local bishop has complained against the establishment of houses by religious communities in Medjugorje without his written permission.

Q. For more than thirty years people have been streaming to Medjugorje. Archbishop Hoser points to the search for Christ as a theme of the pilgrims. Does this make the question of the authenticity of the apparitions superfluous? What good will it do to publish the results of the commission’s investigation now, if the Church is certifying de facto that there’s no problem?
Hauke: The current handling of the problem should be turned around completely: the Holy See should publish a statement, supported with historical facts and theological explanations, that takes a position on the phenomenon of the reported apparitions; the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would have the competence to do this. After that, it should rule on the pastoral issues, which would probably be resolved gradually after a disclosure of the facts and the scandals at the root of the case.

Q. The Pope wants the Visitator to give the pilgrims and those who provide pastoral care stability and guidance. Why is this needed at all, if religious practice in Medjugorje, in regard to prayer and the reception of the sacraments, is substantially more intensive than in most parishes?
Hauke: Perhaps the need for direction is due in part to the problem of five Franciscan parishes in Bosnia, which Archbishop Hoser himself mentioned in August 2017. The disobedience of the Franciscans toward the bishop can be traced in fact to the “Gospa”, who, according to the seers’ assertions, spoke more than once against the removal of two Franciscan parochial vicars and thereby criticized the bishop.

Q. Bishop Ratko Perić of Mostar-Duvno considers the apparitions thoroughly implausible—including those that took place in June 1981, which were evaluated positively by a Vatican commission in 2015. How do you interpret this assessment? What reasons are there for or against the position of the Bishop of Mostar?
Hauke: Bishop Perić has known the events connected with the “apparitions” since the beginning, including numerous details that are not known to the public. After it was reported by the press, and not denied by the Vatican, that the Ruini commission had judged the first seven apparitions on the first ten days as genuine, the bishop made his own investigation known to the public (2017). The result reflects the examination undertaken of several scholarly studies, on the basis of tape-recorded interviews made by Franciscans from June 27 to 30, 1981. Apparently the Ruini Commission did not study these interviews, which so far have been available in print only in English and French translation, at all. The very delineation of “seven” initial apparitions in “ten” days, of which a member of the commission spoke, contradicts the historical events. Depending on how you count them, there were 17-18 “apparitions” in the first ten days with quite unusual happenings. To “overlook” these facts for the benefit of the pilgrimage industry is as weighty as the mantle of silence over the moral scandals that are connected with the “apparitions”. These scandalous facts are thoroughly comparable with the abuses in Chile: the Holy See only intervened (2018), when the truth could no longer be hidden, because the secular press worldwide was showing interest. In order to prevent something similar in the case of Medjugorje, courage is needed to reveal countless facts that are uncomfortable for the Church.

Q. Are the apparitions of June 1981 formally recognized by the Commission’s reported evaluation?
Hauke: The Ruini Commission presented its report as requested by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the responsible body; according to the interview of the Pope on May 13, 2017, it asked for further study and does not share the assessment of the Commission. Pope Francis himself expressed his very personal, very negative evaluation of the “apparitions” of Medjugorje in May 2017 on the return flight from Fatima, but at the same time he took the dossier away from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This seems to be a “pastoral” way, at the expense of the question of truth, full of deep-reaching contradictions. Such an approach seriously hurts the credibility of the Church and of doubtlessly authentic Marian apparitions (Guadalupe, Lourdes, Fatima).

(My unofficial translation from the German Catholic newspaper Die Tagespost, August 1; I edited a few words for clarity on August 11.)

Swiss bishop offers guidance on Amoris Laetitia

This week the bishop of Chur, Switzerland published his guidance for confessors for the implementation of Amoris Laetitia. Here I offer an English translation:

—

The Holiness of the Marriage Bond:
a word on the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia

Dear confreres in the priestly ministry,

In discussion about the post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, the eighth chapter, with the question about civilly remarried divorced persons, has come to stand in the center. For this reason I am, in my responsibility as bishop, bringing some guidance to the attention of pastoral ministers (confessors).

As a preface, I would like to hold fast to the following: the Holy Father says in the introduction to Amoris Laetitia, “that not all discussions of doctrinal, moral or pastoral issues need to be settled by interventions of the magisterium” (AL 3). This statement helps us recognize the level of authority of the post-synodal apostolic exhortation.

“If we consider the immense variety of concrete situations such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases” (AL 300), says the Pope in connection with discernment in irregular situations. This also means that the bishop is called upon all the more to point the way with a word, because priests have the task to “accompany [the affected persons] in helping them to understand their situation according to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop.” (AL 300). Furthermore, “every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace” (303). This corresponds fully to what the Holy Father says in Amoris Laetitia 307: “In order to avoid all misunderstanding, I would point out that in no way must the Church desist from proposing the full ideal of marriage, God’s plan in all its grandeur: ‘Young people who are baptized should be encouraged to understand that the sacrament of marriage can enrich their prospects of love and that they can be sustained by the grace of Christ in the sacrament and by the possibility of participating fully in the life of the Church’. A lukewarm attitude, any kind of relativism, or an undue reticence in proposing that ideal, would be a lack of fidelity to the Gospel and also of love on the part of the Church for young people themselves.” Keeping in mind all this guidance within Amoris Laetitia, I ask priests to observe the following:

1. The starting point for accompaniment, discernment, and integration must be the holiness of the marriage bond. The task of the pastoral minister is to convey to people an awareness of the holiness of the marriage bond; or to reconvey it. The Holy Father speaks of “pastoral care … centered on the marriage bond” (AL 211: in the Italian language, “vincolo”). The official German translation of “vincolo” with “Bindung” (connection) is too weak. Therefore I am speaking expressly here of the bond.

2. The marriage bond is already holy, from the creation itself (natural marriage), and all the more through the new creation (the order of grace), through sacramentally contracted marriage (the supernatural order). The formation of conscience in regard to this truth is a pressing duty in our time (cf. AL 300).

3. This formation of conscience is all the more necessary, as a pastor cannot be satisfied “simply to apply moral laws to those living in ‘irregular’ situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives.” (AL 305). The marriage bond itself is a gift of God’s love, wisdom, and mercy that lends grace and help to the married couple. Therefore reference to the marriage bond must come first on the path of accompaniment, discernment, and integration.

4. If, during the confession of an unknown penitent, a confessor recognizes questions that call for clarification, in regard to the marriage bond, he will ask the penitent to confide in a priest who can accompany him on a longer path of conversion and integration; or the penitent should contact the confessor himself outside the context of confession.

5. In the pastoral accompaniment of civilly remarried divorcees, the next point to examine is whether the marriage contract (the “first marriage”) was made validly: whether a marriage bond really exists. The individual priest cannot undertake this examination, and certainly not in the confessional. The confessor must refer the affected person to an official of the diocese.

6. As always in regard to the validity of the marriage contract, a failed marriage must be treated in every case humanely and according to our faith. That means one must tread a longer pastoral way which demands more patience. “Useful in this process is an examination of conscience through moments of reflection and repentance. The divorced and remarried should ask themselves: how did they act towards their children when the conjugal union entered into crisis; whether or not they made attempts at reconciliation; what has become of the abandoned party; what consequences the new relationship has on the rest of the family and the community of the faithful; and what example is being set for young people who are preparing for marriage. A sincere reflection can strengthen trust in the mercy of God which is not denied anyone” (AL 300). “The Church’s pastors, in proposing to the faithful the full ideal of the Gospel and the Church’s teaching, must also help them to treat the weak with compassion, avoiding aggravation or unduly harsh or hasty judgements” (AL 308).

7. The reception of Holy Communion by civilly remarried divorcees may not be left to subjective decision-making. One must be able to base oneself on objective factors (on the conditions of the Church for the reception of Holy Communion). In the case of civilly remarried divorcees, respect for the existing marriage bond is determinative.

8. If in conversation (during a confession) the absolution of a civilly remarried divorcee is requested, it must be established that the person is ready to take on the prescriptions of Familiaris consortio 84 (John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio, November 12, 1981). That means: if both partners cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they are required to live together as brother and sister. This rule still applies now as then, because the new apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia expressly does not intend “a new set of general rules, canonical in nature” (cf. AL 300). The penitent must manifest the firm intention to live with respect for the marriage bond of the “first” marriage.

9. In the preparation and accompaniment of engaged couples, married couples, and families, let us always keep the word of St. Paul in view: “This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church” (Eph. 5:32) – Sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia.

With my thanks for your fidelity to the Lord and his work, I send cordial greetings, together with my episcopal blessing

Chur, February 2, 2017
+Vitus Huonder, Bishop of Chur

On the topic: José Granados, Stephan Kampowski, Juan José Pérez-Soba: Amoris Laetitia, Accompagnare, discernere, integrare. Vademecum per una nuova pastorale familiare, Siena 2016. A German translation is anticipated from femedienverlags GmbH, D-88353 Kisslegg. [Translator’s note: Also available in Spanish as “Acompañar, discernir, integrar”.]

Heraldic question

This evening I took a look at heraldist Fr. Guy Selvester’s blog Exarandorum, which shows examples of heraldry in the coats of arms of bishops, parishes, and dioceses.

To start with, the posts tagged with the label “Bad Heraldry” are particularly educational for an uninstructed person such as myself, and some are a bit amusing. They remind me of the classic site “Web Pages That Suck”, which helped readers learn good design by looking at examples of bad design.

The most recent posting by Fr. Selvester is not a case of Bad anything. It is the noted artist Marco Foppoli’s rendering of a new coat of arms for Bishop-elect Steven Lopes. He was recently appointed by Pope Francis to lead the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, the diocese-like structure for Catholics of Anglican heritage in the United States.

It took me a minute or so to get the symbols: the wolf for the surname, because “Lopes” (a Portuguese name) is derived from Latin lupus; and the crown for his Christian name Steven, since a crown is a stephanos in Greek. A tidy use of symbols!

Are there any readers with an interest in heraldry who could tell me what are the objects to the left and right of the crown?

While Bishop-elect Lopes is a worthy candidate for the office, I do think that some bishops ought to depict a wolf on their coats of arms, whether it’s historically justified or not, just as a matter of Truth In Labeling.

The Church too must use the shepherd’s rod

In 2010, Pope Benedict spoke these words as part of his homily at Holy Mass for the conclusion of the Year for Priests:

“Your rod and your staff – they comfort me”: the shepherd needs the rod as protection against savage beasts ready to pounce on the flock; against robbers looking for prey. Along with the rod there is the staff which gives support and helps to make difficult crossings. Both of these are likewise part of the Church’s ministry, of the priest’s ministry. The Church too must use the shepherd’s rod, the rod with which he protects the faith against those who falsify it, against currents which lead the flock astray. The use of the rod can actually be a service of love. Today we can see that it has nothing to do with love when conduct unworthy of the priestly life is tolerated. Nor does it have to do with love if heresy is allowed to spread and the faith twisted and chipped away, as if it were something that we ourselves had invented. As if it were no longer God’s gift, the precious pearl which we cannot let be taken from us. Even so, the rod must always become once again the shepherd’s staff – a staff which helps men and women to tread difficult paths and to follow the Lord.

At a time when some proposals would falsify the faith, when the faith is chipped away, and when some shepherds are tempted to leave the flock to the wolves without warning them, this counsel from Benedict XVI seems worth recalling.

Lots of blame for the Pope, but no praise

Where are the praises? Where are the bouquets?

The other day we heard from people who blew their stack over the Pope Francis spoken-word-with-pop-music recording made by some record producer.

One Catholic writer reacted on Facebook with one word: “Sick.” A non-Catholic musician heard a Latin Gregorian chant text sung over some drab rock music, and wrote to me to call it “satanic”, and to say that it put a stop to his interest in joining the Church. Other people insisted that this horrible thing was an “official Vatican project” and that the Pope was personally responsible for it.

Really, it was no big deal: adding pop music to papal speeches is just something goofy that happens every few years over in Italy. Here you can listen to samples of the big-name Sony Classical recording of Pope John Paul II’s words similarly adorned with pop music.

But what will the overreacting critics say now? The Sistine Chapel Choir — a real institution of the Holy See — has issued a recording of Renaissance sacred music with some Gregorian chant, and the launch event included the presence of the prefect of the papal household. Following their own logic, those critics ought to be walking on air, saying that Pope Francis is personally responsible for fostering this worthy project. (Audio samples here.)

But they’re quiet now.

The thing that is really a bit sickly is when people are so dispirited about the Pope that they overreact to trivial news stories and jump to ridiculous conclusions.