Dear Protestant: Where did you get your New Testament?

Greek Manuscript New Testament

At least a couple of times every week, Protestants use New Testament verses to show me where the Catholic Church is wrong about something. I always make them take the necessary step back by asking the following:

"Where did you get your New Testament?"

When they answers that it came from God (as indeed it did), I say, "Yes, but what was the mechanism God used to bring it to you today? How did it come to you, historically and in real time, since it did not drop out of Heaven into your hands, leather-bound?"

Nine times out of ten, they have no answer because they have never considered the question.

The quick answer:

The Catholic Church officially determined and set the canon of of the New Testament approximately 400 years after Christianity began. The canon was declared by the body of Catholic bishops at the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) and confirmed by Pope Boniface (419 A.D.).  

This is historical fact.

Let me flesh out a few more of the details, which very few Christians (Protestant or Catholic) know.

After Christ's ascension into Heaven, and after the Holy Spirit descended upon the first Christians at Pentecost, the Church thrived and grew exponentially for years before even one line of the New Testament was written. Let that sink in: Baptisms, catechesis, communal worship, conversions of thousands of sinners, Apostles and their companions traveling to other lands and risking imprisonment, torture, and death to evangelize the world with zeal -- all went on for over a decade before the New Testament was even begun, much less completed.

Without having written a word, the Church was teaching, preaching, growing, and flourishing for many years.

Eventually, a very few Apostles and their disciples starting writing down some of the Church's oral Tradition: The Gospels, which recorded the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and also the Epistles (letters) of St. Paul and others, which gave encouragement and instruction to local churches being established throughout the world. The young Church cherished those gospels and letters, and began to incorporate them into her liturgies and masses.

More and more written accounts and testimonies materialized as the Church grew, but contrary to today's popular belief, it was not obvious to the early Christians which of these writings were truly God-inspired.

As brutal persecution of the Church continued in those first centuries, clarity about Christian writings became important. After all, Christians were being martyred routinely, and it was necessary to know which books were worth dying for.

Three categories of writings existed at that time:

1. Those writings that were universally acknowledged/accepted
2. Those writings that were disputed or controverted
3. Those writings that were known to be spurious or false

The first group included divinely-inspired books that we have in our Bible today, such as the four Gospels, the Epistles of St. Paul, and the Acts of the Apostles.

The second group included books that were simultaneously accepted in some Christian regions, rejected in others, and disputed in others. Some of these were indeed divinely-inspired, such the Epistles of James and Jude, one of Peter's, two of John's, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Book of Revelation, even as many Christians did not believe they were. Some were books that never made it into the final canon of the New Testament, but which several Christian communities considered inspired (and even used for catechizing and in the liturgy), such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, Apostolic Constitutions, the Epistle of St. Clement, St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, etc.

The third group consisted of the fakes floating around, spurious works which were never acknowledged or claimed by the Church, such as about 50 false gospels including the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of James, a couple dozen "Acts" (Acts of Pilate, Acts of Paul and Thecla, etc.), and some epistles and apocalypses.

Under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit and after a long series of historical events, a gathering of Catholic bishops went through the process of authoritatively and infallibly setting the books of the Christian canon, using the following criteria: a) The book in question must have been written in apostolic times by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle, and b) The book in question had to be doctrinally sound, completely conforming to Catholic Church teaching.

Several books met those criteria, and so it happened that some four centuries and 20 generations after Christ's Resurrection, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church authoritatively set the canon of the New Testament, ending all confusion and doubt among the faithful.

Rome had spoken, and the canon was closed.


Which leaves us with some takeaways:


-- If the Catholic Church (bishops and pope) had the authority from God to set the New Testament canon, then she cannot be the corrupt and un-Christian "Whore of Babylon" as is claimed by many Protestants.

-- If one accepts the canon of the New Testament, one must also accept the authority of the entity who gave it to us, i.e., the Catholic Church.

-- If one rejects the authority of the Catholic Church, one should and must also reject the canon of the New Testament that came to us through the authority of the Catholic Church. (It makes sense that Martin Luther, the rebel behind the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, wanted to throw out several of the New Testament books that he despised.)

-- The New Testament cannot be "personally interpreted" by each individual Christian, because it was never meant to be taken outside of the Church from which it came.

-- The New Testament cannot and does not contradict Catholic doctrine, as it was Catholic doctrine that was used as a criterion for its authenticity and authority.

-- The New Testament was discerned and canonized by men who had divine authority to do so -- men who believed explicitly in the Mass, the Eucharist, the ministerial priesthood, Confession, Purgatory, veneration of Mary, infant baptism and infused grace, justification by faith and works, the Communion of Saints, etc., etc.

-- The Bible came from the Church. In other words, the Bible is Church-based, not the other way around. If you get this paradigm wrong, you get some messed-up theology.

-- If a Protestant uses Scripture to attack the Catholic Church, it's like ripping off a man's arm to beat him with it. Using a Catholic Book to beat up the Catholic Church makes no sense.

-- If you believe that your eternal salvation is based entirely on a Book, isn't it important to know where the Book came from and who was given authority to proclaim it? Who meticulously copied, preserved, protected, and guarded it with their lives, and who ultimately vouched for the fact that it is indeed the written Word of God?


There is so much more to discuss, and I would love to do so in the comments. Meanwhile, one of the best books on the subject, which I devoured when I came back to the Church, is Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by Henry G. Graham.





**Note: I did not include the Old Testament canon in this post, because I wanted to work with something that both Protestants and Catholics agree on, namely, the 27 books of the New Testament.

From the Register: "Are Many Marriages Today Invalid?"

In light of Pope Francis' recent off-the-cuff remarks about marriage validity (and subsequent walk-back), a heated discussion has ensued among many Catholics about just how hard or easy it is to confect a legitimate marriage.

Thankfully, and contrary to what we might hear, it's not all that difficult to confect a valid and/or sacramental marriage! This article from the National Catholic Register, lays it all out beautifully:

Are Many Marriages Today Invalid?

This fantastic piece is written by Benedict Nguyen, M.T.S., J.C.L./J.D., D.Min (ABD), who is canonical counsel and theological advisor for the Diocese of Corpus Christi and an adjunct professor for the Avila Institute.

I have bookmarked the article for myself and I hope each of you will take the time to read it through. It's clearly written and easy to understand, and many of my own questions were answered.

Loss

Some things stick in our minds and never leave us. When in the midst of my panic attack, my friend Nikki Westby, a cognitive behavioral therapist, said something that had never occurred to me, and which hit me like a ton of bricks:

"From the moment we are born, we begin to experience loss."

Blink. Blink.

I've pondered those words for almost two years now, and the fruit has been profound.

It now makes perfect sense to me that every pain in life, every suffering we endure whether physical or mental or emotional, is connected to some kind of loss.

Loss of childhood.

Loss of youth.

Loss of innocence.

Loss of friendship.

Loss of a romance.

Loss of companionship.

Loss of a loved one.
Loss of a parent.
Loss of a sibling.
Loss of a spouse.
Loss of a child.

Loss of a job.

Loss of a community.

Loss of prosperity.

Loss of security.

Loss of health.

Loss of abilities.

Loss of pets.

Loss of homes.

Loss of expectations.

Loss of an intact family.

Loss of good looks and beauty.

Loss of memories.

Loss of material possessions.

Loss of autonomy.

Loss of one's good reputation.
Loss of identity.
Loss of homeland.

Loss of physical comfort.

Loss of mental acuity.

Loss of dreams. 

And on and on and on.

Ultimately and inevitably, it all culminates in the loss of life itself.

In the western world, we tend to live as if death will never come for us, and we blot it out of our minds by seeking as much pleasure and material comfort as we can. We avoid suffering at all costs. But when we train so hard and condition ourselves so thoroughly for a pain-free existence, we are unprepared, shocked, and even indignant when loss does come our way. It was not, after all, a part of our carefully laid plans.

But no matter how fiercely committed we are to maintaining strict control of our lives, the losses will keep coming, and they will never let up. The more we fight and claw to hold on to the things that cannot ultimately stay in our grasp, the more we compound our pain, suffering, confusion, and angst. The longer we live, the more losses we will endure, and if we have not understood and accepted what God is doing for us, we risk becoming more and more anxious and fearful, perhaps even falling into despair.

What, then, do we do?

The way I see it, we should view every loss for what it is: Our loving Father detaching us from the things of this world, a world which is passing away, so that we might attach to Him. He only allows us to lose something in order to gain something greater. 

Detachment from the world = Attachment to God. 

For a while now, I've been all about the concept of total surrender, abandonment to a God who loves us and can be trusted. Surrender does not mean passivity, as of course we may and should fight disease, disaster, injustice, sin, corruption, and every kind of moral and physical evil while we are here. Fight the good fight every day, for sure, but do so with a proper understanding of holy detachment, and the realization that every earthly loss really is a step toward Heaven. 

When we truly trust the Lord, we no longer live in fear of losses that are beyond our control. The pain of the loss will still be felt, even searingly, but the fear and anxiety that precede and accompany that loss will be replaced with an interior peace, and yes, as the saints tell us, even supernatural, unimaginable joy. 

Back to Nikki's words, then: The image of a newborn baby beginning a lifetime of loss is no longer jarring or tragic, but hopeful. Each loss is a detachment that marks a human life's journey all the way to the Beatific Vision, the end for which we were made. 

From the perspective of Heaven, our loss is gain. And all is well. 

Professor Robert P. George on what's happening to religious liberty

It's been a bazillion years (give or take) since I've blogged, and while I have several things in the pipeline, my life at home has been incredibly busy, and I have not been able to complete a thing!

However, in the meantime, I urge you to watch this talk that I had the privilege of seeing in person, when Princeton Professor Robert P. George (one of my heroes) spoke locally at the invitation of Catholic Phoenix.

This talk is brilliant.

This talk left my own holy and courageous Bishop Olmsted nodding his head in agreement.

This talk outlines what has happened in this culture for the last few years, why our heads are spinning, why we are disoriented and bewildered, and what to expect next.

There is so much clarity here for anyone confused about the growing LGBT frenzy-obsession and the fallout for Christians and those who are concerned for religious liberty.

Get some tea, find some quiet time, and watch.

(If you have no time to watch the video, click here for the audio version.)

If your Catholic friends are divorcing, read this.

Recently I received a heartbreaking email from a male reader with an all-too-common dilemma. Here is an excerpt, with some identifying details changed (and emphasis mine):

I wanted to get your opinion on something and as always, your prayers. Recently, some good friends of mine have decided to divorce after 6 years of marriage. We were in each other's wedding and remained somewhat close until 2 or 3 years ago. With having additional children (we have 5 children, the oldest being 9) our lives have made it harder to stay in touch. It was only until recently that the husband contacted me saying that he needed some help. His wife had been having an adulterous relationship and he found out about it. He was not without guilt, having had an emotional affair with someone else as well. Both had made mistakes and he was wanting to rectify everything. He went to our local priest, went to confession for the first time in 10 years, and wanted his wife to start counseling. She refused and has since continued her relationship outside of marriage. They have 3 small children. 

The tipping point came this past weekend when I was at a store, and I ran into her (almost literally) in the parking lot and our eyes made contact. I couldn't even muster the strength to say hello. I left the parking lot feeling like I let God down. It was a perfect opportunity to simply say hello and break the ice a little. It has been killing me ever since. She's in a downward spiral, her parents support her adulterous lifestyle and are only adding fuel to the fire. She's all about material things right now and isn't thinking clearly about anything. 

I now feel this call/obligation to write to her. Not to be judgmental, but to remind her of mercy. That she doesn't have to go through with anything, and that I stood by them at their wedding and heard them profess on that day a commitment to love unconditionally. That everyone at that wedding had an obligation to lift them up when times got tough and we've failed to live up to our part of the bargain. That I'm not going to sit by like the countless others and support her decisions. I want her to know the truth. I know in her heart of hearts, she is searching for God. She just doesn't realize it. 

I know they are in the midst of divorce proceedings and I don't want to interject, but I feel I need to do something. I'm just very hesitant. Feelings are fleeting and I'm wanting to really test this to make sure it is the right thing to do. 

What would you do?


What would you have told him? More importantly, what would you do if you were him?

Among the regrets in my life are about three occasions where I did not discourage, and even tacitly encouraged, the divorce of Catholic girlfriends. I can barely type those words. All those instances were many years ago, and today my response to women who come to me basically asking "permission" to divorce (without abuse or safety issues) is very different. However, my previous complicity still hits me hard. Were there "good reasons" for those divorces? At the time, I believed there were, but looking back, I'm not so sure. Perhaps it was simply my desire to see my friends "happy" that informed my bad advice. Or maybe it was simple cowardice on my part.

My answer to this reader was the following:

Please, please, please do exactly that! Oh my goodness, if only we had more people who thought like you!

What you say is really perfect because it is true that it is your obligation (and the others' as well even though they won't do it and would not even think to). Good for you and I will pray for you. Whatever happens you have a clear conscience after this. Oh, I hurt  for those children who will be saddled with the lifelong effects of a broken home. It's always the children who must sacrifice for the adults, isn't it?

As someone said, the children are left to reconcile the two worlds that even the adults couldn't reconcile. What a heavy burden to put on the innocent. 

May God reward you. 


As it turns out, he spent many hours -- and many, many prayers -- composing the letter to his friend. He sent it, and he heard that she received it kindly, although he does not expect an actual response. He also had firm but loving talk with the husband and father, who has since fallen into similar sins.

My reader, praise God, did not sit idly by like so many friends and family do and "support" the break-up of this family. He did what his faith, his friendship, and his witness to the marriage obligated him to do: He spoke. He spoke the truth in love, but by gosh, he spoke.

The marriage/family/"gender" catastrophe in the culture today is happening because good people are too afraid to speak.

Like this courageous reader, you must speak.

You can do this. I promise you. Ask the Holy Spirit and the Blessed Mother to guide your hand or your tongue, and speak.

Secularists who subscribe to gender fluidity: Is this new science or just a feeling?

Serious question.

After watching these two videos of seemingly intelligent university students saying things that seem utterly irrational (we would almost want to say crazy), my brain craves a clear answer from you, dear secularists who believe in "gender fluidity".

First, please watch the videos. If you don't watch the videos all the way through, please do not bother to comment on this post.



College Kids Say the Darndest Things








Okay, when I watched those video interviews, my jaw literally was hanging open, and my mind was crying out, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no.... I cannot be seeing and hearing this. We cannot be here. This is a joke."

But, I understand that my position is not the "enlightened" nor "educated" nor "acceptable" one today. The college students in the videos are the ones who stand for the vision and view of the secular elite, our ruling class, so to speak: Academia, government, Hollywood, the arts, the media.

Before my main question, some context:

This rejection of "the gender binary" -- the idea that there are two sexes, male and female -- was not even a thing just a few short years ago. Oh, I'm sure it was always there way out on the fringes, but it was not a part of mainstream thought, not even approaching the radar screen of most Americans, conservative or liberal (or most human beings in general, for the history of mankind).

The concept of "gender fluidity" has blazed onto the scene in a fury, a frenzy, and one might even say faddishly. The very same high-minded folk who champion gender identity ideology today had neither thought about it nor believed in it just a few short years ago. How do I know? Well, I've been a citizen of this planet for 49 years, and I've been politically, socially, and intellectually active for at least the past 35 years. Even having been plugged in for all that time, I am bewildered at the speed of this new line of "gender" thought as it burns through every aspect of our lives and culture -- a line of thought that we all now must agree to, lest we expose ourselves as bigots or troglodytes.

Now my question:

You who are secular pride yourselves on being firmly on the side of science and the material, not believing in nebulous, emotions-based things like religion, God, metaphysics, the supernatural, the transcendent. So: What is the new gender science, the science that no one understood or saw before, that has been uncovered recently and requires the overthrow of men and women? 

Where did this science come from? Can you cite it? How did this new science capture the imagination and sweep the nation so quickly? How is it that the populace never before understood that there is no actual distinction between men and women, and why did most secular Americans miss it as well, until very recently? Why did you previously believe that there were men and there were women? Because I think you would agree with me that in the recent past, within all of our memories, we never would have heard the answers we just heard on those videos.

Or, could it be that there is no breakthrough science to which you can point? Maybe this new ideology sweeping the nation is just that: an ideology. Maybe it's based in people's feelings more than in any science or in the understanding of biology/human nature? Perhaps gender ideology is no more than a socio-political movement that seeks to undo sexual norms and constraints so that we are all "free" to do what we want, when we want, with no judgement or opposition?

I guess I'm wanting to know if you changed your mind so suddenly because something concrete and empirical convinced you away from everything you (and everyone else) had previously known, or if you are simply going with the zeitgeist, which has sprung up from feelings and desires?

And why is there suddenly (again, like a flash) such a steep social, political, and even financial price to pay for those of us who hold to the axiomatic idea of male and female, the same one you yourself held, until your very recent "conversion"?

Thanks for considering jumping in the discussion. I want to understand the principle behind your stance, and how it came about so quickly.

Discussion: Is "the single life" a true vocation?

In the first decade or so after my reversion, I heard and accepted the idea that there are four vocations, or "callings" from God:  Marriage (to which most are called), ordained life (deacons, priests, bishops), consecrated life (non-ordained religious who consecrate their lives to God, i.e., sisters, nuns, brothers, lay consecrated), and the single life.

In the past few years, though, I have heard many contend that "the single life" is not and has never been a Catholic vocation. I myself have begun to question if it's merely an idea we've devised to help ease the pain of those who have not found a spouse or discerned a religious vocation. You know what I mean: "I haven't found a husband yet, so I wonder if I am called to the single life?"

Perhaps those who stay single have simply never discerned their vocation (or maybe they keep discerning with no end in sight) or have been kept from living out their true vocation by the conditions of their particular culture or circumstances? I'm not entirely sure.

Two things I do know for sure:

1) There is a primary vocation to holiness, and we all have that vocation.

2) It is possible to miss one's specific calling or vocation.**



I'd like your thoughts. Let's talk this through.



+++++++



**Even if a soul should "miss" his vocational calling, that person still has not committed a sin if his intentions were good. This is so important for people to know, especially the scrupulous. God will work with whatever path we have put ourselves on. He is not a puppet master pulling our strings. He is a loving Father who makes all things work for good for those who love Him.

Introducing...

Miss Cordelia Therese! 

7 pounds, 3 ounces

19.5 inches

May 3, 2016

Mother and baby are doing just fine!

Thank you for your prayers!

+++++++

Grandma loves you, Cordelia! See you soon!

After 49 years, I re-lit my baptismal candle today

49 years ago today, I was baptized at the Bethesda Naval Hospital Chapel, at one month old. My parents had given me the gift of natural life, and now they presented me for the gift of eternal life. In this second birth, I was born of water and the Spirit, and my baptismal candle, representing the Light of Christ, was lit for the first time. It was then carefully, lovingly wrapped and packed away.

I wish you could see this in person!
Beautiful three-dimentional images,
stunning detail, yellowed with age.

In the waters of Baptism, I died and rose with Christ. Original Sin was washed away, and my soul was infused with sanctifying grace, the very life of God Himself, without which I could not live in the presence of God, i.e., in Heaven. This baptism was no "symbolic reenactment", no simple "remembrance" of a Bible scene -- I had become, in fact, a new creation in Christ. My soul was literally cleansed and made holy, and I had become incorporated into the Mystical Body of Christ.

Though I was given the gift of supernatural life in abundance, I naturally retained concupiscence, which is the tendency to be drawn to sin. Concupiscence is the one effect of Adam's sin that remains with all of us, even the baptized. So, when life was lived, often in willful ignorance and self-love, and despite prompts and nudges from both the Lord and my Blessed Mother, I went my own way. I squandered the baptismal grace with which the Lord had so lavishly flooded my soul.

Baptism -- which leaves a mark or "character" on a soul for all eternity, even an eternity in hell -- can not be repeated (there is only "one baptism" as St. Paul and the ancient Creed say). And yet, I needed God's sanctifying grace to enter Heaven someday, as no mere human can survive in God's presence without it. How could I get it back?

Christ never leaves us orphans. He knew that if we sinned gravely, severing our friendship with Him, we would need access to His grace again. When we fall from grace by committing mortal sin, we come back through the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession). This is the cycle of redemption: Baptism, which is the ordinary means of salvation, then Confession when we choose evil and need restoration. 

So at 27 years old, when I finally learned and claimed my faith, I drove to my hometown two hours away and entered a Tucson confessional after at least 15 years away. I emerged reconciled, restored, and grace-filled, and I floated out into the sun-drenched parking lot with a spirit lighter than air!

Though I had wounded the Body of Christ through sin, my repentance, confession, penance, and prayers served to lift up and restore that Body. The grace of my baptism was replenished, and the Light of Christ burned bright in me again.

Many people light their baptismal candles every year on the anniversary of their birth in Christ. That has never been our family's tradition, but today I remembered the date, and with infinite gratitude to God and my parents, I sought out my candle.

And today, after 49 years, I lit that candle for the second time.

My soul is full of joy!









Related posts:

Mortal and Venial Sins

The Fall of Adam and Eve

Pope Francis, The Joy of Love, and the pastoring of souls

*UPDATE: Cardinal Schönborn Gives Clarification on Communion (hopefully, this will put all the anti-Francis nastiness to rest.)

I am not going to lie. I am exhausted. I have been discussing the Pope's latest exhortation on my Facebook page for two days now, in several different posts and threads, and it's taken its toll. But, I have to blog it, and I hope to be coherent.

Pope Francis' post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (AL), “The Joy of Love” is a 255-page, nine chapter document about Love and the Family. It's deep, thorough, beautiful, and wonderfully practical. It clearly and unequivocally restates Church teaching that abortion, contraception, and gay "marriage" are objectively, intrinsically immoral. It stresses the right of a child to have a mother and a father, the right of parents to educate their children, and the rights of conscience for health care workers and others.

I've heard almost no one talk about those facts or what else is in the document (and there is so much!). I've only heard people talk about what is not actually in the document, but what they believe is implied in a footnote, and they are upset.

Keep in mind: AL is not a doctrinal document, it is a pastoral one meant to accompany us messy, wounded souls on our journey to the heart of the Trinity. The exhortation is not magisterial in nature and does not intend to change magisterial teaching.

However, the ferocity and malice from some of the "faithful" is appalling. Listen well, please: I am not appalled by those who simply feel confused about some of the language used in the document -- specifically, that one footnote in this vast work, which the pope could not even immediately recall when asked about it on the plane ride on April 16. But on that plane ride, he did express great frustration with the fact that the media was focused on something they considered most important (the question of Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried), not what he considered most important:

"When I convoked the first synod, the great concern of the majority of the media was communion for the divorced and remarried, and, since I am not a saint, this bothered me, and then made me sad. Because...do you not realize that that is not the important problem? Don’t you realize that instead the family throughout the world is in crisis? Don’t we realize that the falling birth rate in Europe is enough to make one cry? And the family is the basis of society. Do you not realize that the youth don’t want to marry? ... Don’t you realize that the lack of work or the little work (available) means that a mother has to get two jobs and the children grow up alone? These are the big problems."

I share the Holy Father's frustration! It is troubling to me that the firestorm of discussion on social media is about something that, frankly, isn't even there. It troubles me that vast numbers of critics have not even read the document.

If nothing else, I urge all those concerned about the exhortation to read the "controversial" chapter, which is Chapter 8. I read it, and I found it true, and good, and beautiful. I kept shaking my head as I read it, wondering on what basis folks were upset? I kept thinking, "But there is nothing new here! I have know all of this for 21 years, since my reversion. It's nothing new!"

I am guessing that this type of passage, below, is what bothers some people, but can someone explain why? These are the same principles the Church has always used when discerning and pastoring individual souls and culpability:


301. For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain “irregular” situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin. As the Synod Fathers put it, “factors may exist which limit the ability to make a decision”.

302. The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”. In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”. For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person.

(I urge you to read the entire chapter so that even this perfectly sound passage is put in the context of the whole.)

The Pope exhorts pastors to walk with, to "accompany", the wounded on their journeys to Christ and sanctity. It's what we do, it's what Christ does, it's what mercy and love require. In no way (and the pope says this time and again) does this change the moral law or the teaching of the Church or the requirements of the Gospel. But it acknowledges that in countless cases, due to the messed up cultures we all live in now, and the lack of formed consciences, we find ourselves in some real fixes! Some from which we cannot easily be extricated.

I use merely one example here, and it's a common one (I taught RCIA for five years, I can tell you many more):

A pastor encounters a secular and/or Protestant woman who (civilly) married a divorced man 20 years ago. She is currently moved to become a Catholic, but her beloved husband is not. Her secular husband wants no part of an annulment proceeding for his first marriage (let's say it was a Protestant wedding and assumed sacramental), and he certainly will not agree to live without sex for the rest of his life so that his wife can become Catholic and receive Communion. There are four children in the home, and that happy, stable home will be put at risk and likely be broken apart for those innocent children if the woman suddenly cuts the man off sexually. The Catholic Church recognizes the difficult situation and does not (now or previously) advise breaking apart the family.

So, what is the woman in the scenario to do? How does a pastor advise this particular soul in her particular situation? It's extremely complex (remember, truths and principles are simple, but people and circumstances are complicated), and aside from judicial issues, there are pastoral issues involved for this infinitely valuable soul and the souls of her family. That is exactly the kind of thing, that complexity, that question of levels of culpability, that Pope Francis was addressing in Chapter 8, and there is nothing new there.

The pope is addressing pastors who are dealing with these excruciating situations where individual human beings may not be fully culpable when they find themselves in a type of no-man's land with no easy solution.

We can work to gather people in, or we can push them away.

The hand-wringing, the complaints, the anger, the vitriol, the despairing by otherwise "faithful" Catholics is hard to watch. There is true hatred for this pope, and it's sad and ugly! (And I'm saying this as someone who admittedly prefers the "style" and doctrinal clarity of a Benedict or a St. John Paul II.)

I used to get annoyed when people would focus on the sins of the "older brother" in the Parable of the Prodigal Son, (because I so sympathized with that older brother) but now I see why he is the most miserable of the characters in the story. When we have everything, when all that the Father has is ours, why are we (as I was) so afraid at the idea that someone else might "get away with something"? I also think about the Parable of the Laborers, and those who came late and got the same wage as those of us who worked all day. Have we been treated unjustly? No, we haven't! Our wage is just! Are we envious because God is generous and extends mercy to those who haven't been laboring as long as we have -- or can't just "get it right"?

I reiterate: I am not speaking to those who simply wish to have clarification about the document and those who are sincerely confused. But there is something unholy about the whole-sale ignoring of a 255-page document by the Vicar of Christ on the crisis of marriage and family, when it's a message this world so desperately needs to hear.





Related article:  Amoris Laetitia and the Progressive Pope Myth