By SHAUN KENNEY
One of the great allures of the Catholic tradition is that we have one teaching office: the Magisterium. Not one of many magisteria…but a single, cohesive, traditional, biblical teaching office that reaches back from God’s first utterance through Christ and to the present day.
Now in a colloquial sense, one might suggest there is a magisterium of work that one might collect over time. The magisterium of Pope Pius XII contains over 1,600 manuscripts, speeches, and notes collected over the course of his lifetime.
It’s an odd phrase, but an intended one. The reformers of the Second Vatican Council used the phrase “magisterium of Pius XII” in reference to the corpus of work that the Holy Father wrote in preparation for the council — even to the point of this collected work being the second most cited work after the Holy Bible in the Second Vatican Council, according to Pope John Paul II’s biographer, George Weigel.
Of course, there are vast distinctions between this lowercase-m “magisterium of Pius XII” and the so-called magisterium of Pope Francis that was announced as a corpus of work at the USCCB 2019 meeting in Baltimore.
The most relevant of these differences (and we will remind ourselves of this further on) is that Pius XII was one of the last Popes who wrote his encyclicals almost exclusively. Even John Paul II had the assistance of Ratzinger cum Benedict XVI. With Francis, the encyclicals are far more collegial than any Pope before him, meaning that other writers have had tremendous if not singular input.
Both Bishop McElroy and Cardinal Cupich — the latter being the architect of the last-minute upheaval regarding lay-involvement in sexual abuse oversight — overstepped their boundaries, not only with a rather clumsily executed public relations campaign before the USCCB meeting, but with a clearly divisive effort that paints the Catholic bishops in the darkest light possible…at least from the viewpoint of the Vatican.
Just before the USCCB meeting, a British based commentator by the name of Austen Ivereigh published a book claiming that the Catholic bishops of America were threatening schism against Pope Francis on the basis of rejecting both Evangelii Gaudium, Amoris Laetitia, and Laudato Si’.
Naturally, Archbishop Daniel DiNardo as president of the USCCB was aghast at such a calumny. Why would Ivereigh even suggest such a notion when the Catholic bishops — like most Catholics in America — have been struggling to reconcile Francis’ pontificate with that of his Predecessors?
The answer came in a stinging public address by Archbishop Christophe Pierre, papal nuncio to the United States, who in the hinted words of Vatican diplomacy offered two challenges: (1) the bishops needed to come to terms with this magisterium of Pope Francis, and (2) what was at stake was not the new evangelization, but rather communion — a word that suggests some of our Catholic prelates are trending dangerously towards schism with Rome.
National Catholic Reporter (aka The Fishwrap) quoted two bishops in open praise of this address: McElroy and Cupich.
Thus we arrive at the penultimate document of the USCCB gathering, the essay Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship — which, if you are a bishop or prelate (or in Rome) reading this, no pew-sitting Catholic in America reads or consults, for reasons that will be explained momentarily.
What was at stake here was not just a single word defining the “preeminence” of abortion as a moral and cultural issue, mind you. This was what McElroy and Cupich were trying to strike out when invoking the “magisterium of Pope Francis” in the context of a threat against their fellow bishops.
What was at stake here, and etch this into your memories firmly, was Pope John Paul II’s Evangelium Vitae and its demotion in the Magisterium of the Church.
No objective observer saw it any other way; and the architecture of the argument — from Ivereigh’s screed, to Pierre’s admonishment, to Cupich’s invocation of the “magisterium of Francis” and right up to McElroy’s either/or choice — stunned and shocked the Catholic bishops.
Fr. John Hardon, SJ, used to remark that there was no stopping abortion without a recognition of the Real Presence of Christ. So preeminent was this thought that Hardon was practically overwhelmed in his writing and speech with this singular concept. If every abortion is a perversion of the Holy Mass, if every shriek of “this is my body!” from the abortion industry doesn’t remind you of Christ’s words “This is my Body” at the first Holy Mass?
Remember that 70 percent of all Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ. If we can’t see the actual Body of Christ in the Eucharist, how then could we possibly see the humanity of the preborn child?
Is it no small wonder then that some of our priests and bishops (and even cardinals) have traded their faith for material goods? That their power — their hands, their feet — are what will stop human suffering?
Fr. Hardon said that only a flood of divine grace could ever stop abortion, much less heal our country. Why then would our bishops — McElroy and Cupich among the 67 others who voted against the measure to state clearly that abortion is the pre-eminent holocaust affecting our times — shut off that flood of Divine Grace with junk? With stuff? With materialism?
Thankfully, it was Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas, who stood up and broke the spell in the room, followed by the heartfelt admonishment of Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia who called out McElroy and Cupich alike, stating that the exclusion and non-recognition of abortion as a pre-eminent concern “sets up an artificial battle between the bishops’ conference of the United States and the Holy Father, which isn’t true.”
Which is precisely what McElroy and Cupich wanted, using Ivereigh’s screed of a book and the misuse of Pierre’s legitimate concerns regarding division in the Church. Clearly there is division, but it is now painfully self-evident that the division is not inspired by the Catholic bishops of America, but rather from a handful of Fabian operators currying favor from the Vatican by stirring up artificial divisions between the USCCB and the Holy Father.
At least, this is the charitable version that I would prefer to believe. After all, I charitably gave latitude on the Pachamama incident and was disappointed. Charitably, latitude was given on the Amazonian Synod and women’s ordination. Charitably, latitude was given on the thrust of Pope Francis’ encyclicals and their intent. Charitably, one believed that synodality really stemmed from an honest belief that the Holy Spirit could guide the people of God, not from some mundane and materialistic concern such as the German church tax.
Moreover, I do not want to believe that the target of the magisterium of Pope Francis is the undoing of the magisterium of Pope John Paul II — which is ultimately what we are being set up for with a cold either/or choice. After all, why John Paul and not Francis? Why Pius XII and not Pius X relative to one another?
Our Lady of Akita wasn’t too far off at all, nor was St. John Bosco.
Thankfully, the Catholic bishops struck down McElroy’s edit and kept abortion where it should be — front and center in the consciences of faithful Catholics, precisely because Evangelium Vitae tells us as such and rejects the old moth-worn seamless garment theology of the 1960s. Why dust it off unless to demote abortion and the sanctity of human life entirely in order to conform to the world?
Blessed Duns Scotus used to pray before an image of the Blessed Mother before every disputation with the words, “Allow me to praise you, O Most Holy Virgin, and give me strength against your enemies.”
Three cheers for Strickland and Chaput, then, for allowing themselves to be open to this strength.
+ + +
Also, look up the Penitential Rosary and pray it every day. Short version? Start as you always would, but every bead is an Our Father, Hail Mary, and Glory Be. It is the powerlifting of all rosary prayers. Give it a try!
+ + +
First Teachers warmly encourages readers to submit their thoughts, views, opinions, and insights to the author directly either via e-mail or by mail. Please send any correspondence to Shaun Kenney c/o First Teachers, 5289 Venable Road, Kents Store, VA 23084 or by e-mail to kenneys@cua.edu.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress