War of Words: Chaput Fires Back at Farrell November 18, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
I’ll take practical schism for $400, Alex.
Yesterday, we saw the unfortunate comments of former Bishop of Dallas, and now Cardinal-Elect, Kevin Farrell, singing the Francis tune for all its worth. In the same interview, he also dropped some none-too-subtle criticisms of American prelates like Chaput who have made clear they will not be implementing false mercy for manifest adulterers, admitting them to reception of the Blessed Sacrament. Farrell made clear he had wished Chaput and similar conservativish bishops had waited until the USCCB – a locus of administrative bureaucracy to the point of killing faith if I’ve ever seen one – had reached some common, watered down, soul-numbing policy all could agree to.
Well, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia has now fired back, wondering if Farrell even read his archdiocesan policy, claiming Farrell’s concerns were very far from the mark. Given what I know of Farrell’s lack of what you might call thoroughness and intellectual persistence, and near total acceptance of the cultural conventional wisdom, I’d say it’s a fairly safe bet to conclude he not only hadn’t read the policy, but couldn’t care less. Let’s see what Chaput had to say in rebuttal (my emphasis and comments):
Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput has fired back at Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell’s suggestion that his guidelines for implementing Pope Francis’ controversial Exhortation Amoris Laetitia are causing “division.”
“I wonder if Cardinal-designate Farrell actually read and understood the Philadelphia guidelines he seems to be questioning. The guidelines have a clear emphasis on mercy and compassion,” the archbishop stated in comments emailed to LifeSiteNews.
Earlier this week, Farrell — one of Pope Francis’ most outspoken American supporters — said that he disagreed with Chaput issuing his own guidelines in his own diocese, stating that implementing the pope’s exhortation should be done “in communion” with all U.S. bishops. [Well. So did Farrell similarly complain when the bishops of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires chose to implement Amoris Laetitia according to Francis’ revolutionary intent, instead of waiting for a joint decision of all the bishops of Argentina? Yeah…….we’ll see that about a month after hell freezes over]
But at the center of Farrell’s criticism appears to be Chaput’s insistence that the document be interpreted, as Chaput has previously stated, “within the tradition of the Church’s teaching and life.” Chaput’s guidelines unequivocally state that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion unless they “refrain from sexual intimacy.”
For Farrell, this is problematic.
“I don’t share the view of what Archbishop Chaput did, no,” the cardinal-designate told Catholic News Service on Tuesday. “I think there are all kinds of different circumstances and situations that we have to look at — each case as it is presented to us,” he said. “I think that is what our Holy Father is speaking about, is when we talk about accompanying, it is not a decision that is made irrespective of the couple.” [This is nothing but an apologia for excusing and ultimately ignoring sin. This is exactly – I mean precisely, even to the use of the exact same words – the same argument put forth by the Currans and Drinans with regard to use of contraception in the late 60s and early 70s. Contraception would only be for married persons, after a period of discernment and accompaniment, under the watchful eye of a priest. Yeah……how has that worked out. Exactly as they intended, that’s how, with Catholic use of contraception completely indistinguishable from that of the general population, and souls likely – almost certainly – falling into hell like snowflakes]
But Chaput called Farrell’s criticism of his guidelines, and the fact that he issued the guidelines as a bishop acting in his own diocese, “puzzling.”
“Why would a bishop delay interpreting and applying Amoris Laetitia for the benefit of his people? On a matter as vital as sacramental marriage, hesitation and ambiguity are neither wise nor charitable,” Chaput said. [That’s the least of what could be said in rebuttal]
“I think every bishop in the United States feels a special fidelity to Pope Francis as Holy Father. We live that fidelity by doing the work we were ordained to do as bishops. Under canon law — not to mention common sense — governance of a diocese belongs to the local bishop as a successor of the apostles, not to a conference, though bishops’ conferences can often provide a valuable forum for discussion. [Whatever] As a former resident bishop, the cardinal-designate surely knows this, which makes his comments all the more puzzling in the light of our commitment to fraternal collegiality,” he added. [Maybe they aren’t so puzzling after all. Maybe the message is, you will comply, or else. Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but soon, there will be repercussions for “dissent”]
Chaput doubled down on his key for interpreting the exhortation, stating that any implementation that contradicts not only Sacred Scripture but the Church’s previous magisterial teaching is contrary to the mission of the Church given to her by Christ.
“Life is messy. But mercy and compassion cannot be separated from truth and remain legitimate virtues. The Church cannot contradict or circumvent Scripture and her own magisterium without invalidating her mission. This should be obvious. The words of Jesus himself are very direct and radical on the matter of divorce,” he said.
Dang right. Good for Chaput. I’d rather it be said with a bit more emphasis, that the veil of false episcopal decorum be dropped entirely, but so be it. He still made a very effective rebuttal. Farrell can hardly respond save for appeal to authority – “bu- bu- but the pope said!” That used to be all one had to say, but who knows what the future may hold.