“It is contrary to a ‘truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith’ to reject or condemn ‘a theology of eucharistic coherence that multiplies barriers to the grace and gift of the eucharist,’ as if no such barriers existed. They do exist, and they are a matter of divine revelation.” —The central sentence in a recent, stark and very clear piece by the bishop of Springfield, Illinois, Thomas Paprocki, 70, writing in First Things magazine in an article published this morning on the internet, which immediately went viral (link). Essentially, Paprocki (with whom by chance I spoke at some length two weeks ago — I attended a talk he gave) is arguing that the Eucharist, as something profoundly sacred, like all profoundly holy things, must be approached with veneration and an inner attitude of repentance for any and every sin. Paprocki then argues that some of his brother bishops — and a cardinal he does not name — are overlooking, or downplaying, this need for veneration and repentance. Then he suggests that this overlooking, or downplaying, “denies settled Catholic teaching,” and so is, in fact… heresy(!). So this is a quite powerful theological “salvo” fired by Paprocki in defense of the traditional Catholic view of the Eucharist, in the face of differing, more modern views of the meaning of the Eucharist and of receiving communion. This dispute is now fully in the open, and seems likely to lead to further arguments and declarations in the near future…
“This has been the constant teaching of the Church for the past two thousand years.”—Ibid.
“Thus a cardinal of the Catholic Church, like any other Catholic who denies settled Catholic teaching, embraces heresy, the result of which is automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church.” —Ibid.
“Yes, you read all that right. The bishop of Springfield, Illinois, formally argued this morning that the cardinal bishop of San Diego [Cardinal Robert McElroy, 69, and a link to the recent America article that sparked all this] has committed a heresy, and that he thus might have incurred an excommunication, and that he thus should be prevented by the Pope from voting in a future conclave.” —Catholic journalist J.D. Flynn in an article today for his good news service, The Pillar, at this link
“For it is by grace you have been saved, though faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is a gift of God — not by works, so no one can boast.” —St. Paul to the Ephesians 2:8
***
Letter #63, 2023 Tuesday, February 28: Heresy
And so it begins…
“Bishops against bishops… cardinals opposing cardinals.” (link)
So said Our Lady of Akita, Japan, to Sister Agnes Sasagawa on October 13, 1973.
Here is the text:
“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.” (link)
***
And now, perhaps also… bishop against cardinal?
***
The theological wars in the Church just ramped up a large notch today, via a very powerful, very clear, stunning article published in First Things by Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois.
I encourage readers to go to this link and read the article at First Things, in keeping with the respect due to the integrity of that good magazine.
But, as is my practice, and especially for the sake of those who are older and do not easily navigate the internet — and because this article is being widely forwarded from one reader to another since its publication —I also publish it as a service to all in its entirety below.
And below that, I publish the text of a commentary by J.D. Flynn, also published today, on The Pillar website.
Of course, I hope, and pray, that the leaders of the Church, and, in fact, all of us, seek with great good will to understand the reasons and motivations of each bishop — each person who is teaching — in order to put the best construction possible on everything, and to avoid erroneous or exaggerated interpretations, leading to wrong judgments.
But it is true that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God” (St. Paul to the Romans 10:17).
And it is true that the hearing of the Word of God — the Gospel, the “Good News” of Jesus Christ — in all its austere, forgiving, sanctifying, astonishing redemptive power is what all people need to hear… not any watered down or distorted version of the faith.
The full truth.
So, let us pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance in all of these matters, which are obviously of importance, and so obviously require considerable prudence and wisdom on the part of all… as well as great courage… and great charity.
Perhaps it would be good to recall the words of St. Augustine, words the good American Cardinal John Foley always used to quote to me (link): “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”
And this is why I also recalled the words of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 2, verse 8: “For it is by grace you have been saved, though faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is a gift of God — not by works, so no one can boast.” —RM
***
Note: In his pastoral letter dated April 22, 1984, Bishop John Ito, the Ordinary of the Diocese of Niigata, Japan, wrote… “I authorize throughout the entire diocese of which I am charged, the veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita.” The Bishop noted that the events are only a matter of private revelation, and are not points of doctrine. The Bishop also mentioned in his pastoral letter that he had known Sr. Agnes Sasagawafor 10 years. “She is a woman sound in spirit, frank and without problems; she has always impressed me as a balanced person. Consequently the messages she says that she has received did not appear to me to be in any way the result of imagination or hallucination.” Four years later, on June 20, 1988, during Bishop lto’s visit to Rome, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith approved the contents of the pastoral letter. Bishop Ito’s official recognitions of the occurrences and the Madonna’s messages were reported in the October, 1988 issue of the magazine 30 Days. [Additional Note: I was the editor of that issue of 30 Days, 35 years ago. That is when I first came to hear of the phrase “bishops against bishops”…—RM] In the August 1990 issue, Cardinal Ratzinger is quoted as saying that “there are no objections to the conclusion of the pastoral letter.” Cardinal Ratzinger has invited the Bishop to continue to inform him about the pilgrimages and conversions.” (link)
P.S. I want to thank you all for your donations. Your generous support allows me to keep this and other content free and available to all. Please consider a donation if you are able to do so. Also, we believe you might enjoy the most beautiful issue we ever produced, on the Virgin Mary (link).
Imagining a Heretical Cardinal (link)
By Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki
February 28, 2023
Imagine if a cardinal of the Catholic Church were to publish an article in which he condemned “a theology of eucharistic coherence that multiplies barriers to the grace and gift of the eucharist” and stated that “unworthiness cannot be the prism of accompaniment for disciples of the God of grace and mercy.”
Or what if a cardinal of the Catholic Church were to state publicly that homosexual acts are not sinful and same-sex unions should be blessed by the Church?
Until recently, it would be hard to imagine any successor of the apostles making such heterodox statements.
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon today to hear Catholic leaders affirm unorthodox views that, not too long ago, would have been espoused only by heretics.
“Heretic” and “heresy” are strong words, which contemporary ecclesiastical politeness has softened to gentler expressions such as “our separated brethren” or “the Christian faithful who are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.”
But the reality is that those who are “separated” and “not in full communion” are separated and not in full communion because they reject essential truths of “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
Thus, it is deeply troubling to consider the possibility that prelates holding the office of diocesan bishop in the Catholic Church may be separated or not in full communion because of heresy.
Yet both the cases mentioned above would in fact involve heresy, since heresy is defined as “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (canon 751 of the Code of Canon Law).
What, then, constitutes “some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith”?
According to canon 750,
A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
In 1998, Pope John Paul II added a second paragraph to canon 750, which states,
Furthermore, each and every thing set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The Holy Father also amended canon 1371 of the Code of Canon Law, adding an appropriate reference to canon 750, so that it now reads: “The following are to be punished with a just penalty: a person who… teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750 § 2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract.”
Canon 752 says,
Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
In his apostolic letter Ad Tuendam Fidem, Pope John Paul IIexplained his reason for making these changes to canon law:
To protect the faith of the Catholic Church against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful… we, whose principal duty is to confirm the brethren in the faith (Lk 22:32), consider it absolutely necessary to add to the existing texts of the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, new norms which expressly impose the obligation of upholding truths proposed in a definitive way by the Magisterium of the Church, and which also establish related canonical sanctions.
Normally canonical sanctions require that either a judicial or administrative process be followed before a penalty can be imposed.
However, it is important to note that canon 1364 says that “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
A latae sententiae excommunication is a sentence that is automatically incurred without any canonical process.
While an automatic penalty without due process is unheard of in most judicial systems, canon law provides for such penalties, due to the distinctive character of spiritual offenses such as apostasy, heresy, and schism, since a person who espouses apostasy, heresy, or schism has de facto separated themselves ontologically — that is, in reality — from the communion of the Church.
Thus heretics, apostates, and schismatics inflict the penalty of excommunication upon themselves.
Returning to the earlier examples cited, it is contrary to a “truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” to reject or condemn “a theology of eucharistic coherence that multiplies barriers to the grace and gift of the eucharist,” as if no such barriers existed.
They do exist, and they are a matter of divine revelation.
The truth about eucharistic coherence that must be believed by divine and Catholic faith was articulated by St. Paul in his First Letter to the Corinthians: “Whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord… For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself” (1 Cor. 11:27–29).
This has been the constant teaching of the Church for the past two thousand years.
Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.” A mortal sin is one which “destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God.”
With regard to the sinfulness of homosexual acts, the truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is also stated clearly in the Catechism:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Thus a cardinal of the Catholic Church, like any other Catholic who denies settled Catholic teaching, embraces heresy, the result of which is automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church.
In addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in canon 1336, such as prohibiting residence in a certain place or territory and removing “a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary.” Canon 1364 adds, “If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.”
Canon 194 provides for removal from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself in the following cases:
The Holy Father also amended canon 1371 of the Code of Canon Law, adding an appropriate reference to canon 750, so that it now reads: “The following are to be punished with a just penalty: a person who… teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff, or by an Ecumenical Council, or obstinately rejects the teachings mentioned in canon 750 § 2 or in canon 752 and, when warned by the Apostolic See or by the Ordinary, does not retract.”
1) a person who has lost the clerical state;
2) a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church; and
3) a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.
However, canon 194 adds this restriction: “The removal . . . can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.” Only the pope can remove a cardinal from office or dismiss him from the clerical state in the case of heresy or other grave crimes. If he does not do so, the unseemly prospect arises of a cardinal, excommunicated latae sententiae due to heresy, voting in a papal conclave.
We must pray that the Holy Spirit will not let this happen, and will inspire anyone who espouses heretical views to renounce them and seek reconciliation with our Lord and his Church.
Thomas J. Paprocki is bishop of Springfield, Illinois, and chairman-elect of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Canonical Affairs and Church Governance.
The shot heard ’round the conference, and being last (link)
By JD Flynn
February 28, 2023
In any given week, a diocesan bishop in the U.S. spends time thinking about his priest pension fund, his personnel assignments, the mismatch between parish locales and population centers, vocations and retirements, the administration of his Catholic schools, how to ensure that the diocesan revolving fund is able to make and collect loans from parishes, and how to make work the Vatican’s new pastoral placement requirement for transitional deacons.
When he’s done with that, he thinks about litigation, probably, about the health of his priests, how to provide better pastoral and sacramental care for immigrant communities in his diocese, or how to address family ministry as cultures shift their definitions of family. He thinks about the challenges that religious communities in his diocese are facing, or the legislative issues of his state Catholic conference — including the protection of Catholic identity in his Catholic schools. He thinks about declining Mass attendance.
If he really has extra time, he might think about the data which shows he needs to repair relationships with his priests, or about creative ways for the Church to lead after the monumental Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Diocesan bishops, in short, are charged with a considerable number of practical and immediate problems which demand a great deal of their attention.
They’re busy men. And the things to which they pay attention matter, which is why The Pillar aims to give them attention.
But bishops are also teachers of the Catholic faith, and that matters to them — usually not as a distraction from those governance responsibilities, but as a matter of equal weight.
That’s why a lot of bishops have been paying attention to the back-and-forth over sexual morality and Catholic doctrine, which has been unfolding between Cardinal Robert McElroy and a number of other bishops who are responding to him.
In an essay, a podcast interview, and a couple of recent lectures, McElroy has been urging a rethinking, or a reframing, of Catholic sexual morality — arguing that the Church’s pastoral and teaching ministries spend too much time on sexual matters, and too little time on the rest of the obligations incumbent upon Catholics. In the same context, he’s proffered a vision of synodality that has ruffled some feathers, and suggested that settled doctrinal issues, like the priestly ordination of women, can be relitigated, and he’s urged a more open approach to the reception of Holy Communion.
The cardinal called on the Church to discard “a theology of eucharistic coherence that multiplies barriers to the grace and gift of the eucharist,” in favor of “a eucharistic theology that effectively invites all of the baptized to the table of the Lord.”
A number of U.S. bishops have responded to McElroy: Barron (twice), Aquila, Naumann, Conley, and Paprocki among them. Some of the responses have grown rather strong.
Without naming McElroy, Paprocki set out to consider the implications of a cardinal who might teach heresy.
But the hypothetical became concrete when the Illinois bishop quoted an excerpt from McElroy’s essay, which, he said, is “contrary to a ‘truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith,’” and thus constitutes heresy.
Paprocki pointed out that those who commit the canonical crime of heresy are excommunicated, and that clerics who do so might be removed from ecclesiastical office, or be stripped from other ecclesiastical honors or functions.
Then he looked to Rome:
“Only the pope can remove a cardinal from office or dismiss him from the clerical state in the case of heresy or other grave crimes. If he does not do so, the unseemly prospect arises of a cardinal, excommunicated latae sententiae due to heresy, voting in a papal conclave.”
“We must pray that the Holy Spirit will not let this happen, and will inspire anyone who espouses heretical views to renounce them and seek reconciliation with our Lord and his Church.”
Yes, you read all that right. The bishop of Springfield, Illinois, formally argued this morning that the cardinal bishop of San Diego has committed a heresy, and that he thus might have incurred an excommunication, and that he thus should be prevented by the pope from voting in a future conclave.
That’s no small thing.
In fact, for all of the year-long debate over the USCCB “Eucharistic coherence” document, or debate over how to engage with President Biden, or the various episcopal debates over the Latin Mass, the word “heresy” has not, to my recollection, passed from the lips, or pen, of any U.S. bishop in reference to another
This is a new step — one which Paprocki, who tends to be careful with his words, likely weighed carefully.
And with it, any notion that the U.S. bishops have found some conciliar fraternity with each other should be laid to rest.
When the bishops decided recently to take their disagreements behind closed doors at USCCB meetings, they did so in part to demonstrate to lay Catholics a unified front. That can’t be sustained. The division is obvious to anyone watching the Church.
Now, you might be thinking that this debate involves maybe 10 or 12 bishops altogether, that the rest haven’t weighed in because they’re busy running their dioceses, and they aren’t paying attention.
That would be a mistake.
There is likely no U.S. bishop unaware of the profound chasm between cadres of bishops — one which is not limited to particular issues, but is a broad clash of theological worldviews, rooted in differing interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, and the popes who have followed it.
Paprocki’s essay is the shot heard round the conference.
And while many bishops will be reticent to discuss this, few likely harbor the illusion that the debate doesn’t pertain to them. Indeed, it will shape much of what happens among American bishops, and their conference, in the years to come.
The standard American episcopal allergy to internecine conflict might keep the sharpest debates kept behind closed doors, but likely not for long.
So what will happen?
Paprocki’s essay will embolden both sides of the debate. Some bishops will invariably suggest he’s the heretic. Some will claim he’s opposed to the leadership of Pope Francis, while Paprocki and his allies will suggest that they’re ones faithful to the pope’s teaching, in continuity with all that has come before it.
Someone will probably argue that Paprocki has committed the delict of c. 1390 §2, and ought to be sanctioned.
Cardinals will likely lobby the Vatican to intervene, and if that happens, there will be cycles of debate about what the Vatican’s intervention actually meant. The bishops will be likely unable to discuss nearly any issue of leadership or collaboration which goes untouched by their escalating division.
And let’s say that the issues Paprocki raises go unaddressed ahead of the next papal conclave.
The Holy Spirit protects the Church, she will endure all tests of time.
But consider if the issue he raises go unaddressed, and a conclave happens – in our social media era – in which a number of cardinals accused of heresy were participants. If you think the periodic and isolated challenges to the validity of Benedict’s resignation were just a one-time blip on the radar, you’re probably wrong. Broader challenges to the credibility of a conclave could become a very live issue for the life of the Church, and for the pastoral ministry of American bishops.
All that might seem dramatic. Perhaps even melodramatic. After all, it was just an essay.
But an American bishop accused his brother bishop of heresy this morning, so the fierce debates of recent years will probably seem like prologue to what’s coming next.
As I’ve said before, in debates over Sacred Revelation, there is a right answer and a wrong one. Truth is being debated, not preference or prudential judgment. But if history is any guide, that means the debate will be neither short, nor, for many people, especially comfortable.
I don’t hyperbolize, readers – By disposition, I’d rather be measured and correct than inflammatory or exaggerated. But I don’t want either to downplay the magnitude of the conflict in which American bishops are now engaged.
As the history of the Church in America is written, Feb. 28, 2023 will likely be a day well-noted.
Facebook Comments