« Vatican Document Corrects Neocath Excesses | Main | Melanchthon against Origen on Justification »

July 15, 2007


Luis Gutierrez

Please bring this research project to the attention of interested
persons. The project is about global issues such as solidarity,
sustainability, nonviolence, gender equality, and the U.N. "Millennium
Development Goals," with heavy emphasis on the interactions between
religion and society. Each newsletter is a digest of current research
and emerging issues. Any feedback would be most welcome.

Thanks, Luis

The July 2007 issue of the SSNV newsletter has been posted:

Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence (SSNV)
Volume 3, Number 7, July 2007


The August 2007 issue is in preparation - the central theme will be


The SSNV newsletter is a free monthly service of The Pelican Web.

As always, feedback and collaboration are welcome.


Luis T. Gutierrez, Ph.D.
Website: The Pelican Web
Newsletter: Solidarity, Sustainability, and Non-Violence
Email: luisgutierrez@peoplepc.com



V1 N1 May 2005 - Cross-Gender Solidarity -
V1 N2 June 2005 - The Phallocentric Syndrome -
V1 N3 July 2005 - From Patriarchy to Solidarity -
V1 N4 August 2005 - Synthesis of Patriarchy and Solidarity -
V1 N5 September 2005 - From Solidarity to Sustainability -
V1 N6 October 2005 - Dimensions of Sustainability -
V1 N7 November 2005 - Analysis and Synthesis of Objective Evidence -
V1 N8 December 2005 - Solidarity, Subsidiarity, and Sustainability -
V2 N1 January 2006 - Synthesis of Solidarity and Sustainability -
V2 N2 February 2006 - Sustainable Human Development -
V2 N3 March 2006 - Patriarchy and Mimetic Violence -
V2 N4 April 2006 - Mimetic Violence in Patriarchal Religions -
V2 N5 May 2006 - Mimetic Violence in Patriarchal Religions 2 -
V2 N6 June 2006 - Mimetic Violence in Patriarchal Religions 3 -
V2 N7 July 2006 - Mimetic Violence in Patriarchal Religions 4 -
V2 N8 August 2006 - Mimetic Violence in Patriarchal Religions 5 -
V2 N9 September 2006 - Sabbatical Activity ~ September 2006 -
V2 N10 October 2006 - Sabbatical Activity ~ October 2006 -
V2 N11 November 2006 - Sabbatical Activity ~ November 2006 -
V2 N12 December 2006 - Sabbatical Activity ~ December 2006 -
V3 N1 January 2007 - MDG1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty -
V3 N2 February 2007 - MDG2: Universal Primary Education -
V3 N3 March 2007 - MDG3: Promotion of Gender Equality -
V3 N4 April 2007 - MDG4: Reduction of Child Mortality -
V3 N5 May 2007 - MDG5: Maternal Care Improvement -
V3 N6 June 2007 - MDG6: Mitigation of HIV/AIDS Epidemic -
V3 N7 July 2007 - MDG7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability -


V3 N8 August 2007 - MDG8: Global Partnership for Development -
V3 N9 September 2007 - Combined Evaluation of the U.N. MDGs -
V3 N10 October 2007 - Outlook for Attaining the 2015 MDG Targets -
V3 N11 November 2007 - If not the MDGs, then what? -
V3 N12 December 2007 - Patriarchy, Humanity, and the Human Habitat -



Here are few remarks. Please excuse the mistakes.

I can't agree with the above commentary : Jesus teaches to the young man an objective truth. Love toward the neighbor and God derives directly from authoritative teachings (from the Bible and Rabbis). But Jesus, in a one to one dialog, had the possibility to make this young man go further in the understanding of the Law : an understanding that comes from the heart.

The church can't of course make such personalisations when she gives an official statement. However its ministers;, the priests, are able to, because each of them knows their flocks.

Sadly many of them just say : "People won't understand" and then leave things without doing anything (when not mumbling against the Church). And we, just lay people, have just a little knowledge and understanding of our faith.

I think that the Church allow the truth to be clearly understood in a century, and that its ministers are here to make this truth be a living truth, not just a mathematical truth.


Joseph O'Leary

Notice that Jesus teaches (a) through dialogue (b) in reference to concrete human situations (c) with reference to Scripture. The Tridentine Mass revival will annul such teaching and make priests more like the present unimaginative CDF, parrotting "objective" doctrines -- in of course the false "objectivist" sense of objectivity (you do not get my point on this). The Novus Ordo is hated by conservatives because it lets Scripture speak (14% of the OT as opposed to 1% in the old lectionary) so we can hear the prophets present God as a God of justice and peace, or as a liberator (as in today's first reading from Exodus 3).


I think I understand what you mean. However, the Magisterium can't materially speaking express doctrine through dialogues (too many catholics ;-) ). That's why I said it's the priest's job to give the teachings through dialogues and to root them in the human situation of their flocks.

Concerning the Tridentine rite (I 've just seen one at Fongombault, a very long time ago), isn't the way the Motu Proprio does things more able to be used in the way you said? I mean, with that Motu Proprio, someone like me who is just a "novus ordo one" will go on listening to the Mass I love and I have always known; whereas a fellow Catholic whose sensibility is Latin, mystery, etc... will be able to have a Tridentine Mass. The priests will be able to be nearer their flock this way.

Morever if I have righly understood, the Easter celebration will only be able to be said in the ordinary rite : this will show the absolute unity of the Church despite its diversity...

Byzantine catholics with their rites aren't a problem; why would "old Catholic rites" be one?

Concerning the scriptures, we aren't forbidden to read them out of the Mass, are we?


I mean : Unless one thinks the extraordinary rite is evil, I can't really see any problem. The more flexibility, the more freedom.


Joseph O'Leary

The extraordinary rite is not a different rite but a step back to an earlier form of the present Roman rite. The reforms seen as urgent and necessary by Vatican II are thus treated as optional and reversible.

I am all for creative variety in inculturated forms of the Roman rite, as in Vietnam and the Congo (praised by Benedict XVI in The Spirit of the Liturgy), because they are moving in the direction of Vatican II. But a return to the unreformed rite is moving in the opposite direction, the direction of "no change" strongly advocated by the Lefebvrites.

So it is not innocuous at all.


But I thought that the extraordinary rite had been reformed along the centuries many times?

Concerning the second and third paragraphs of your answer (thanks you to have taken this time) I can't agree about the "toxicity" of the use of the ER (extraordinary Rite), because ER isn't just for Monseigneur Lefèbvre followers; there are "trads" who don't have a problem with the existence of the Novus Ordo although their sensibility is in the ER, and who don't have a problem with ecumenism or inter-religious dialogue. One can imagine that people can discover this way of celebrating Mass and enrich themselves with what that rite emphasises.

And finally, since the rite (I was told) has been reformed (slightly) over the centuries, why not dream of new reforms and perhaps variety?

Thank you.

PS : I'm afraid of one thing in today's Church (perhaps in the past too, but I wasn't here to see the good old days). I have remarked that people use many words that can be useful in sociology such as "traditionalist" "progressive", etc... But I remarked that this destroys dialogue in charity, because once one hears that such people go to "Latin Mass" or that such people wants a Vatican Council III, the dialogue no longer exists. It turns to : your just a(censured) trad/ you're just a (censured)progressive.

Where's charity then?

I. Shawn McElhinney

Notice that Jesus teaches (a) through dialogue (b) in reference to concrete human situations (c) with reference to Scripture.

In dealing with individuals there is naturally going to be a different approach than when speaking generally.

The Tridentine Mass revival will annul such teaching and make priests more like the present unimaginative CDF, parrotting "objective" doctrines -- in of course the false "objectivist" sense of objectivity (you do not get my point on this).

You come across as bitter Fr. O'Leary. Have you by chance bothered at any point to question your own infallibility much as you demand that the CDF question theirs???

The Novus Ordo is hated by conservatives because it lets Scripture speak (14% of the OT as opposed to 1% in the old lectionary) so we can hear the prophets present God as a God of justice and peace, or as a liberator (as in today's first reading from Exodus 3).

Of course the current lectionary is rather selective in spots with omissions parallel references to God's justice. It is in essence the polar opposite of the old lectionary in this regard which focused too much on the justice side of the equation. The two are sides of the same coin and should be presented together as such. Hopefully there will be a revision to the existing lectionary which while overall a superior product over the older version nonetheless is imbalanced in its own right.

Spirit of Vatican II

Opening the plenary of the German bishops' conference with a two-hour address in late September, Cardinal Karl Lehmann of Mainz said of the Roman release that "It is not appropriate to repeat and republish reminders and admonitions on binding church teaching, which are moreover frequently incomplete or abbreviated, within a period of a few years -- even if they are necessary." First reported in English by The Tablet's Christa Pongratz-Lippitt in Vienna, the address by the president of the German episcopate was termed "striking" and, she wrote, "may signal a new intent to defend the reforms of the [Second Vatican] Council" on the part of the German bishops. Pongratz-Lippitt also noted that "unanimously and with no abstentions," the German conference also "agreed on a 10-point guideline" to govern celebrations of the 1962 Missal in the 27 dioceses of Europe's largest country. Among the norms: a pro tem ban on the creation of personal parishes for the faithful attached to the Extraordinary Rite, and that "priests who celebrate the [1962 Form] had to also accept the Ordinary [Form] of 1970."

(Whispers from the Logggia)

It looks as if the German bishops are aware of the limitations of their papal colleague's vision.

Spirit of Vatican II

Shawn McElhinney, I have visited your weblog and find there a neocath who is still vocal -- many of them seem to have fallen silent of late -- whether because of a general crisis of blogging or because they have run out of things to say or whether because they are registering how unproductive their constant nagging is and have chosen silence as the wiser strategy.

I found very problematic your statements on torture. You object to it being "treated as if on a par with various subjects which are not admitting of latitude in Catholic belief". You insinuate that the Church has some latitude in regard to torture... You say that unlike abortion, gay "marriage" (your scare-quotes), euthanasia, adultery and divorce, and even fetal stem cell research the Catholic Church has not defined what they mean by "torture." Odd to see divorce on this list...

You prefer to say "Catholic principles on human dignity" rather than Catholic condemnation of torture. You say, "There is a difference between noting principles and enunciating teaching and without a definition for a word being understood, there cannot be actual teaching on any issue whatsoever." You seem to want the Church to ease its opposition to torture as the USA has done. Of course you object that people are ruling out of court "any forms of coercion or interrogation whatsoever", but this seems a straw man argument.

The vagueness of church statements, you claim, "has given some people the pretext for lumping under the nebulous term 'torture' many forms of interrogation which seek for a just cause during wartime to coerce enemies to give up vital information for the safety of the common good of society and protection of just public order." So what are these methods you feel are unjustly threatened? Water-boarding?, sleep deprivation for 55 days?

"Technically," you say, until a clear definition of torture is given, "there is no need to take those who prattle on about this issue with even the most remote of seriousness" -- even if they themselves have been victims of torture?

You quote a fellow neocath: "We do not have a definition of torture from the Church and if, as has been suggested, the definition of torture includes a reasonability or proportinality condition [CLEARLY IN CHURCH TEACHING IT DOES NOT] then exactly the same thing will apply to torture: Not everything that looks like torture will turn out to be torture in all circumstances."

So this is what the neocath apologetical movement has come to: weasel words designed to pervert Catholic teaching so as to allow the Bush regime to continue its campaign against human decency.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad