No hagamos un trato... al menos este trato

Monday, June 12, 2017

*George Weigel

English Spanish

Ayudar a los que se han separado de la Iglesia Católica a regresar a la plena comunión es un esfuerzo noble. Pero tales reconciliaciones no pueden conducirse como si fueran el equivalente eclesiástico de las negociaciones laborales: usted da un poco aquí, y nosotros daremos un poco allá. La única unidad de la Iglesia digna de serlo es la unidad dentro de la sinfonía completa de la verdad católica.

Esto nos lleva a la rumoreada reconciliación entre la Iglesia y los seguidores del difunto arzobispo francés Marcel Lefebvre. Mientras se considera con frecuencia que las quejas de los lefebvristas sobre la liturgia post-Vaticano II constituyen el corazón de su cisma, los puntos de ruptura más fundamentales implican la enseñanza del Concilio sobre el derecho humano fundamental de la libertad religiosa, y la acogida por el Concilio del diálogo ecuménico e interreligioso, que incluye la afirmación conciliar de que hay elementos de verdad y santidad en otras comunidades cristianas, y ciertamente en creencias no cristianas.

Ahora, según el arzobispo Guido Pozzo, alto funcionario del Vaticano que participa en las discusiones con los lefebvristas, puede ser posible zanjar las diferencias que el arzobispo Lefebvre creó al admitir que las enseñanzas del Vaticano II no tienen el mismo peso doctrinal. En este escenario, se le daría un pase a los lefebvristas en lo que tiene que ver con la afirmación del Concilio sobre la libertad religiosa, el ecumenismo y el diálogo interreligioso, y regresarían a la plena comunión a través del mecanismo de una "prelatura personal", la misma estructura que gobierna al Opus Dei.

Esta es una muy, muy mala idea.

Es cierto que el Vaticano II habló sobre una "jerarquía de verdades" dentro de la única fe católica y apostólica. Pero eso no significa que algo de lo que el Concilio enseñó es más o menos cierto (lo que significaría que algo del Vaticano II es más o menos falso, o al menos más o menos dudoso). Hablar de una "jerarquía de verdades" significa simplemente que algunas de las verdades que la Iglesia Católica enseña están más cerca del Misterio Pascual de Jesucristo crucificado y resucitado que otras.

La Iglesia enseña la verdad del Nacimiento Virginal y la verdad de la Inmaculada Concepción de María. Ambas doctrinas son verdaderas, pero el Nacimiento Virginal está más cerca del Misterio Pascual que la Inmaculada Concepción. Del mismo modo, el Vaticano II enseñó que la revelación divina es real y que la libertad religiosa es un derecho humano fundamental. La realidad de la revelación divina es una verdad más cercana al corazón de la fe que la verdad de que la libertad religiosa es un derecho de las personas que debe ser reconocido en la ley. Pero ambos son verdaderos.

Al seguir el ejemplo del arzobispo Lefebvre, el clero de la Fraternidad Sacerdotal de San Pío X (FSSPX) – miembros ordenados del movimiento lefebvrista – ha afirmado que lo que el Concilio enseñó sobre la libertad religiosa es falso porque contradecía la enseñanza católica establecida, afirmación que tiene que ver más con la agitación en la política francesa post 1789 que con un relato serio de la historia de la doctrina católica sobre iglesia-estado. El fundamento del rechazo de la FSSPX a la libertad religiosa importa menos que el mismo hecho. Restituir al clero de la FSSPX a la plena comunión con Roma, al mismo tiempo que se le permite cruzar los dedos detrás de sus espaldas cuando hace la profesión de fe y presta el juramento de fidelidad sobre la libertad religiosa (y el ecumenismo) podría, por una extraña ruta ultra-tradicionalista, consagrar el "derecho a disentir" dentro de la Iglesia.

Eso sería un desastre. Tal “derecho” a la “disensión fiel” ha sido reclamado durante mucho tiempo por los progresistas católicos, sobre todo con respecto a la Humanae Vitae, la encíclica de Pablo VI sobre los métodos adecuados para regular la fertilidad, y Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, la carta apostólica de Juan Pablo II que reafirma que la autoridad de la iglesia para ordenar solo se extiende a los hombres. Los reclamos de "disensión fiel" siempre han sido rechazados por la máxima autoridad docente de la Iglesia.

Hacer un trato con la FSSPX y el movimiento lefebvrista según la hipótesis del arzobispo Pozzo – para que a esta nueva prelatura personal se le conceda un derecho a rechazar ciertas enseñanzas del Concilio Vaticano II – sería hacer la sinfonía de la verdad católica más discordante que melódica. Daría aún más validez a la disensión en la izquierda católica. Esto reforzaría la noción de que la doctrina no se trata de la verdad, sino del poder.

Y hacer todo eso dañaría inmensamente la Nueva Evangelización.

Comments from readers

Paul Schlachter - 06/13/2017 01:59 PM: George has got most of it right this time. It was the Benedictine papacy that first suggested to SSPX a personal prelature solution for reasons of sacramental validity. Bishop Fellay rejected this structuring of relations and continues to reject it. The validity of confession and communion are driving this, not any notion that the decrees of Vatican II are not to be followed. There's no way that Abp. Pozzo could ever have compromised on Christian-Jewish relations, the collegiality of the bishops, the role of conscience in coming to truth and other matters advanced at the Council.

JAMES A HORWATH - 06/12/2017 05:04 PM: I strongly and sincerely object to the characterization of the issue as well as the position taken in this article as it is not consistent with the factual history or current mind of the Church. First of all, the SSPX has never "broken away from the Church" and they are not, and never have been, in formal schism. They are validly ordained priests of the R.C. Church, and the sacraments they dispense are recognized by the Church as valid but at times are illicit because of their irregular canonical status, which because of historical events going back over 40 years was arguably unjust (Bishop Athanasius Schneider, sent as apostolic visitor to the SSPX by Pope Francis, said exactly that - look it up). The excommunications of the bishops were lifted by Pope Benedict. Pope Francis has authorized the priests to hear confessions, perform marriages, celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 rubrics in some circumstances, and yes, by letter from the Vatican to the SSPX superior general, to ordain priests without the explicit authorization from the local Ordinary. These are facts. Vatican II's teachings were explicitly stated, by the pope himself at the Council, to be NOT dogmatic teachings. That is, they are NOT required to be accepted in order for one to be a Catholic. Indeed, some of the teachings were very controversial during Vatican II itself and the Church has NEVER, EVER defined these as dogmas required in order to belong inside the Church. The Vatican recognizes this principle and is offering the personal prelature to the SSPX, which has been discussed at length and in serious consultation with the SSPX in recent years precisely to correct the canonical irregularities and heal unnecessary wounds of the past. Your article seems truly to lack the understanding and attitude of charity that is behind these mutual efforts of the SSPX and the Holy See. I ask you to publish these comments and to reconsider your position, which is alarming and quite unfortunate.

Carlos Diaz Lujan - 06/12/2017 04:01 PM: This is not the first time George Weigel outrageously misses the point. How callous and insensitive can he get by referring to the serious theological discussions between the Vatican and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre�s Society of Saint Pius X as �making a deal�? These discussions have absolutely nothing to do with any "deal�. Weigel is being extremely uncharitable, not to mention unChrist-like, by calling the Vatican�s attempt to reconcile and re-unite brothers �making a deal.� As if the parties were negotiating the price of a refrigerator or resolving a playground dispute. Let's keep in mind that by its own definition and express will of its leaders, Vatican II is not a dogmatic, but rather a �pastoral council.� As such, Vatican II didn�t define any question of faith or of revealed truth; rather it discussed ideas, gave suggestions and made assumptions ingratiating it with the times. Renowned Catholic scholars, prelates and theologians, men of proven fidelity and devotion to the Church, have objected to Council texts they believe break with Catholic Tradition and undermine the Church�s divine mission. Today, more than half a century later, huge numbers of apostasies, bitter quarrels, legal battles, and egregious public scandals continue to painfully haunt and plague the Church worldwide, exactly as many faithful Catholics warned. Instead of criticizing the Vatican, Weigle should be applauding its tolerance, pastoral sensitivity and respect for legitimate diversity. Does Weigle seriously think that continuing a policy of bullying, marginalizing and persecuting Catholics who disagree with Vatican II will bring true unity and lasting peace to the Church? Have not 52 years of that strategy proven that it�s a complete failure? Rather than denigrating the Vatican-SSPX discussions, all of us should be overjoyed they are taking place and praying for their success.

Dr. Michelle Rios - 06/12/2017 03:25 PM: TO ERR IS HUMAN, TO ADMIT IT IS DIVINE. The novel concepts and notions pushed at Vatican II provoked not only heated disagreements and intense animosity among Catholics fully faithful to the Church�s Magisterium; they also raised serious doctrinal objections, not a few of which are universally recognized as theologically valid and well-founded. Indeed, the Council failed to address Russia�s Consecration to the Immaculate Heart as specifically requested by the Mother of God at Fatima, Portugal in 1917. It also refused to condemn the Nazi genocide, or to denounce the Communists� persecution of the Church and its horrific oppression of humanity, among many other terrible evils. It would, therefore, be extremely disingenuous, if not outrightly dishonest, to pretend that these disagreements and divisions did not unleash ugly, unChrist-like bullying, discrimination, and hostility towards those remaining true to their informed Catholic conscience and pre-Vatican II faith and liturgy. Denying, ignoring, or minimizing these festering disagreements and unresolved objections, or worse, attacking or attempting to silence those with the courage, honesty and integrity to express them; far from healing the open wounds, only deepens them; far from resolving the festering conflict only worsens it; inciting greater resentment, animosity and war among Catholics; turning Christ�s Church into a bloody battlefield and a shameful cause of scandal to the world. How is the New Evangelization helped by erecting Vatican II dogmatically, as a barrier that divides or a wall that separates Catholics, who precisely because of their fidelity to the Church�s Magisterium, in good conscience cannot accept it? In recognizing the charism Archbishop Lefebvre�s Society of Saint Pius X contributes to the Church, the Vatican is not enshrining a �right to dissent,� but rather living the Spirit and Letter of Vatican II. Isn�t high time we end all this bullying, division, and discord?

Philip Wachter - 06/12/2017 10:52 AM: As I understand it, their objection to Ecumenism has a lot to do with the old adage: "... Outside the Church there is no Salvation..." My experience with many very conservative Catholics is an attitude of Superiority in regards to non-Catholics. Like "... Outside the Church there is no Salvation...", now what are you, meaning non-Catholics, are going to do about it? But I feel that what it really should be, "...Outside the Church there is n on Salvation..." now what are we Catholics are going to do about it?

Patricia - 06/12/2017 10:49 AM: I totally agree with what is written here. I do believe we can do more for the homebound, the dick, and the fallen away. The doctrines are wonderful, what we need is for these parishoners who are ready to take the messages into the communities. I was homebound for years and even Cstholics in my bldg. excused thdmselves for taking me to church. I thank God for my Catholic foundation, or i'd have left the church.