Today, however, it is particularly important to clarify the criteria used to distinguish the authentic sensus fidelium from its counterfeits. In fact, it is not some kind of public opinion of the Church, and it is unthinkable to mention it in order to challenge the teachings of the Magisterium, this because the sensus fidei can not grow authentically in the believer except to the extent in which he or she fully participates in the life of the Church, and this requires a responsible adherence to her Magisterium.

They're using illicit clay and glass vessels. Of course they aren't actually priests, so no harm no foul.

So two points: 1) Sensus fidelium cannot be seen as a corrective force against the clear, unequivocal, ancient teaching of the Magisterium; 2) The sensus fidelium arises from those baptized who are also faithful to the Magisterium.**

Now I recognize the convenient position in which the Reporter and their adherents find themselves vis-a-vis this statement by the pope: They don’t believe him as a matter of course when he says something that offends their sensus dissentium,*** so why start here?! After all, he was not declaiming ex cathedra so this is just his private opinion; Cardinal Newman said this thing about conscience and drinking that totally trumps anything the pope says; etc. But at what point might these people realize that the problem might lie not with the Church, but with their conception on how the Church ought to be?

Not holding my breath, but it would be kinda cool if the major publications that called themselves “Catholic” were, perhaps, Catholic.

———-

*Come now, the movement is not about being authentically Catholic in the way the Church understands herself or being authentically Woman as the Church sees women’s roles in the Church (e.g., exalted as the Immaculate Conception) so why confuse outsiders by using those words in such disparate ways?

**Both points back up nicely what I had been saying in both posts on the topic and in the short comm box discussion of the second one.

***Yes, I kinda coined that on the fly.

Today, one day later, they published a piece that pretty much ignores an application of what they called for because it is wielded by the Cardinal Newman Society and people faithful to the Church’s Magisterium and hierarchy.

Yesterday, in support of women’s ordination, they wrote:

We must speak up in every forum available to us: in parish council meetings, faith-sharing groups, diocesan convocations and academic seminars. We should write letters to our bishops, to the editors of our local papers and television news channels. … We have heard the faithful assent to this in countless conversations in parish halls, lecture halls and family gatherings. It has been studied and prayed over individually and in groups.

Today:

The Cardinal Newman Society is well-known for its role in controversies over speakers and course offerings on Catholic campuses. Catholic college and university leaders who have come within the group’s crosshairs describe “blast communication” tactics that include waves of protest emails, letters and calls to bishops and college officials.

That looks to me like an implementation of what they called for in the previous paragraph.

Think: thousands of phone calls and emails from concerned, faithful Catholics across the fruited plain coming in to the bishop’s office and directly to the university. A great groundswell of faithful Catholics, individuals fed up with institutions that use their Catholic credentials to undermine the faith rather than promote and spread it, take it upon themselves to voice their displeasure.

On that phrase, “sensus fidelium,” Jeff Miller over at his Curt Jester blog helpfully offered, “While no Latin scholar by any stretch of the imagination I think the phrase just might have something to do with fidelity.”

Indeed. You *might* say the faithful who contact the bishop or the school are sharing the sense they have of what a Catholic institution ought to be and do.

I wonder why the Editors at the Reporter don’t congratulate the good people at the Cardinal Newman Society for their effectiveness at spurring-to-life the sensus fidelium in defense of what these members of the laity think is authentic Catholicism.

and

Okay, smile firmly in place, the editors at the National Catholic Reporter issued this amazingly daft bit of theologizing. They are just madder than a cut snake and have some venom to spit. The tragedy will be the scandal to anyone poisoned by this reckless conglomeration of bad theology and insidious interpretation.

I make some in-line comments in green with longer reaction between paragraphs where appropriate.

The call to the priesthood is a gift from God. It is rooted in baptism and is called forth and affirmed by the community because it is authentic and evident in the person as a charism. [Yes, but whither the hierarchy of the Church instituted by Christ on Peter, the Rock, and the other eleven Apostles, to teach the Truth guided by the Holy Spirit? Do they have a say in such a sensitive matter?] Catholic women who have discerned a call to the priesthood and have had that call affirmed by the community [again, whither the hierarchy?] should be ordained in the Roman Catholic church. Barring women from ordination to the priesthood is an injustice that cannot be allowed to stand. [Balderdash. To pretend to ordain women would be a far graver injustice, mostly because it would actually *be* an injustice.]

The most egregious statement in the Nov. 19 press release announcing Roy Bourgeois’ “excommunication, dismissal and laicization” is the assertion that Bourgeois’ “disobedience” and “campaign against the teachings of the Catholic church” was “ignoring the sensitivities of the faithful.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Bourgeois, attuned by a lifetime of listening to the marginalized, has heard the voice of the faithful and he has responded to that voice.

Ah, here is the crux of the matter: The stodgy hierarchy silenced and laicized a cleric with whom the editors at the Reporter agree. That is why they’re madder than a wet hen, and almost as coherent. Mr. Bourgeouis heard “the voice of the faithful,” and since what he claims to have heard matches what the Editors also want to hear, they and Mr. Bourgeouis are right, and the bishops of the Church in union with the pope, wrong. Q.E.D. “My magisterium trumps obedience to the one Christ established.” Pity. Obedience is a great virtue, and obedience even when one believes the order is misguided is a mark of many a canonized saint.

Moving along.

Bourgeois brings this issue to the real heart of the matter. He has said that no one can say who God can and cannot call to the priesthood [what if God Himself said so? … we'll get to that in a moment.], and to say that anatomy is somehow a barrier to God’s ability to call one of God’s own children forward places absurd limits on God’s power. The majority of the faithful believe this.

A breathtakingly unCatholic and ignorant thing to say. We believe that human persons are enfleshed spiritual beings, not animals with immortal souls. The soul of the person is primary in the person and the body is the physical manifestation of that soul. A person’s soul, not just his or her anatomy, is also masculine or feminine. A man is a father and a woman a mother not just because the biology works out that way, but because a man has a fatherly spiritual makeup and a woman a motherly spiritual makeup. The reason a given person is the sort of person who can be ordained is because he is male through and through, not because he has a penis. Impotency and sterility are impediments to Orders for a man!

The reason this is a hideous lie goes far beyond mere biology.

I recall a story concerning Father George Rutler of the Archdiocese of New York, a story I received second- or third-hand so my details may be fuzzy without damaging the point. He was leaving the hospital room of a woman to whom he had just administered the Anointing of the Sick and was stopped by a woman who tersely informed him, “I could have done that if I had a penis!” To which Father Rutler simply replied, “Madam, I used my thumb.” And continued on his way.

Again, men are not eligible for Orders because of anatomy; rather the substance of their masculinity at one and the same time makes men the “stuff” capable of receiving Holy Orders and also manifests itself physically in the male anatomy.

See: in order for a sacrament to confer the grace and the change it is intended to confer, the matter, the stuff, upon which or with which the sacrament is confected must be correct. Pouring milk does not confect baptism, only water. Likewise, pouring water and saying the words over a dog does not baptize the dog—there is no immortal soul made in the image and likeness of God to be baptized. Hosts must be of wheat flour and water, not rice flour or any other kind of flour. The wine must have some small amount of alcohol; it cannot be grape juice. The person upon which Holy Orders are conferred must be masculine. Performing the rite of ordination over a woman is a grand and hideous lie that imperils the souls of any who take part. That is all Catholic doctrine, not just my opinions.

As for “the majority of the faithful believe this,” I believe the Editors have us confused with the Anglicans who vote on doctrine from time to time. But then: the Anglicans just failed to allow women to be ordained bishops. What is an Editor at NCR to do?

We’re Catholic: Democracy is not our way. Right is right if the world be wrong.

Back to the Editors.

Let’s review the history of Rome’s response to the call of the faithful to ordain women: [Yes, let's.]

In April 1976 the Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded unanimously: “It does not seem that the New Testament by itself alone will permit us to settle in a clear way and once and for all the problem of the possible accession of women to the presbyterate.” In further deliberation, the commission voted 12-5 in favor of the view that Scripture alone does not exclude the ordination of women, and 12-5 in favor of the view that the church could ordain women to the priesthood without going against Christ’s original intentions.

Okay, they gave their recommendation. And what happened next?

This:

In Inter Insigniores (dated Oct. 15, 1976, but released the following January), the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said: “The Church, in fidelity to the example of the Lord, does not consider herself authorized to admit women to priestly ordination.” That declaration, published with the approval of Pope Paul VI, was a relatively modest “does not consider herself authorized.”

Boom. The CDF, the congregation charged with safeguarding doctrine, within the same year of the pontifical commission cited above, affirmed a position contrary to the view the Editors got out of the commission, and the statement was published with the Pope’s signature.

Of course, while “does not consider herself authorized” does not rise to “we solemnly declare…,” the explanation given in that document (read it—it’s not very long or heady) sums up the reasons nicely. In short: God set the example while on earth, His Apostles understood the example and passed it along. It has remained the practice of the Church since the Apostles for a reason, and the Church is happy to delve into those reasons.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission can opine all it wants about the words of Scripture and what they explicitly or implicitly proscribe and prescribe; but their opinions, while valuable, are not doctrine. We are Catholic. We therefore have Sacred Tradition which includes but is not limited to what’s in the Bible. We can know God’s mind in the consistent practice of the Church as handed down from the time of the Apostles.

It should be further noted here that another papal commission appointed by John XXIII and expanded by Paul VI overwhelmingly recommended in their 1966 majority report that the Church should change her teaching on birth control. Of course, following that commission the seminal encyclical Humanae Vitae settled the matter quite the other direction. During that period, the upstart National Catholic Reporter got off the ground by publishing the leaked majority report from that commission and helping sow much discord in the time before and since Humanae Vitae was published. So bucking against the Church is nothing new for them.

But now they get into their delusional, “So you’re telling me there’s a chance…,” in earnest.

Pope John Paul II upped the ante considerably in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (May 22, 1994): “We declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.” John Paul had wanted to describe the ban as “irreformable,” a much stronger stance than “definitively held.” This met substantial resistance from high-ranking bishops who gathered at a special Vatican meeting in March 1995 to discuss the document, NCR reported at the time. Even then, bishops attuned to the pastoral needs of the church had won a concession to the possibility of changing the teaching. ["So you're telling me there's a chance…"]

How anyone can be confused by the meaning of the words “the Church has no authority whatsoever to…” is beyond me. In so saying John Paul II essentially said, “it’s not even a question we can seriously discuss because no matter what reasons you bring up for why it’s allowable and/or a good idea, we have not the competence to change the matter.”

All I can figure by this notion of a “concession to the possibility of changing the teaching” is that some bishops got John Paul II to admit he had not declared, as a defined dogma, that the matter was closed. Not much of a concession, considering the plain language of that document and these two follow-ups:

• A 1995 document from the CDF that says,
  

  This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium,” and describes the ban on women’s ordination as belonging “to the deposit of the faith.

• A 1998 document, also from the CDF, which said,
  

  The Supreme Pontiff, while not wishing to proceed to a dogmatic definition, intended to reaffirm that this doctrine is to be held definitively, since, founded on the written Word of God, constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. As the prior example illustrates, this does not foreclose the possibility that, in the future, the consciousness of the Church might progress to the point where this teaching could be defined as a doctrine to be believed as divinely revealed.

Note in that second passage the language at the end: while the Pope did not feel the need to go all of the way to definitive doctrinal definition, it wasn’t because he, and the Church, don’t believe that to be the case. But at any rate, the matter is not one up for question, it is simply a matter of how emphatically it is taught by the Magisterium. The Church avoids issuing definitive, doctrinal statements of the strongest degree, but that does not mean everything that hasn’t crossed that threshold is utterly negotiable.

I’ll spare you the next few paragraphs which amount to the Editors at NCR trying to convince themselves “So you’re telling me there’s a chance,” blowing smoke about whether a majority of bishops actually accept the teaching and how the mean old men in Rome squelch dissent seemingly for the sheer fun of it.

There is one line, however, that is indicative of their underlying error:

Many have pointed out that to say that the teaching is “founded on the written Word of God” completely ignored the 1976 findings of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

Yes, and? A pontifical commission is not the Magisterium, no matter how badly one may want contraception approved and women ordained. The pope who called for the commission is free to take their recommendations and do with them as he sees fit. If he reads their research and comes to a very different conclusion, that is his prerogative: he is Peter. He is the one whom Christ charged to “turn back and strengthen your brethren” when Satan sought to sift them all “like wheat.”

The Editors conclude with this terrible mangling of what is the Magisterium and a call to action, as though the papacy is a Congressional committee:

Blessed John Henry Newman said that there are three magisteria in the church [What, can't bring yourselves to capitalize "Church" in this proper usage?]: the bishops, the theologians and the people. On the issue of women’s ordination, two of the three voices have been silenced, which is why the third voice must now make itself heard.

What are they talking about? Because of the marvels of modern technology the dissenting classes have never been as capable to spread the seeds of discord and boldly proclaim their dissent from the keyboards and video cameras of convents, universities, monasteries, parishes, cathedrals, and the like, as they are today!

As for the “three magisteria,” I believe they have the Catholic Church confused with the Anglican communion—which, it should be noted, Blessed John Henry Newman fled for the historicity and security of Rome.

Newman indeed believed that the faithful and theologians had a role in the development and clarification of doctrine, but by no means did he teach that the laity’s or (God save us) the theologians’ roles were co-equal to the bishops in the establishing, defining, teaching of doctrine. Had he done so he would not be on the cusp of canonization by that same hierarchy.

The Magisterium, the official teaching office and capacity of the Church, is exercised by the Pope singly as the bishop of Rome, and by the whole body of bishops in union with the pope, all guided by and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

Undaunted, they continue…

We must speak up in every forum available to us: in parish council meetings, faith-sharing groups, diocesan convocations and academic seminars. We should write letters to our bishops, to the editors of our local papers and television news channels.

Our message is that we believe the sensus fidelium is that the exclusion of women from the priesthood has no strong basis in Scripture or any other compelling rationale [Have you ever read Inter Insignores or Ordinatio Sacerdotalis? If so, you're either daft or a liar.]; therefore, women should be ordained [So sayeth us, the new Magisterium]. We have heard the faithful assent to this in countless conversations in parish halls, lecture halls and family gatherings [Ah, anecdote. For what it's worth, I and most of my Catholic friends have heard and believe the opposite. Do we cancel you out?]. It has been studied and prayed over individually and in groups. The brave witness of the Women’s Ordination Conference, as one example, gives us assurance that the faithful have come to this conclusion after prayerful consideration and study — yes, even study of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. [So, daft? or liar?]

The sensus fidelium does not mean the general clamor of all baptized persons, or even of all baptized Catholics, and certainly not a poll of the noisiest people, but of all Catholics who retain the obedience of faith to the Roman pontiff and all legitimate authorities above them—i.e., faithful Catholics. On matters such as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption—and even the “Santo subito!” chant that spontaneously erupted in St. Peter’s Square during the funeral Mass for Blessed John Paul II—the sensus fidelium pointed toward something that was already a wholesome thought, a good and legitimate possibility, with a corpus of supporting evidence and no major roadblocks within the Church to becoming a reality. The first two were defined, the third has been expedited and is on the way. The sensus fidelium isn’t there like a rival legislative body to countermand the clear and unequivocal teaching of the Pope, but to urge the Church toward a conclusion clearly within reach and clearly a worthwhile conclusion to reach.

NCR joins its voice with Roy Bourgeois and calls for the Catholic church to correct this unjust teaching.

The worst injustice—offense against God by injuring your neighbor—is scandal: Leading souls away from Christ and His Church, especially through heretical teaching, dulling their ability to receive the Truth. Scandal and heretical teaching poison the mind against the Truth and damage trust in the teachers, making the teachers’ task that much more difficult and dulling the individual’s ability to accept the Truth.

Mr. Roy Bourgeouis and all within the Church who persist in their errors and use their considerable megaphones to spread this discord sincerely need prayers, as do any whose faith is damaged by their prideful, irresponsible, writings.

Fake Catholyc group Catholics United hosted a conference call this morning about the SBA List hearing in Ohio. In their press release, they misstate in the first line that the Ohio commission ruled that SBA List made false claims in their billboards. In fact, in a narrow 2-1 ruling, the commission only found there is enough merit to the case to have a full hearing later. (Perhaps someone should sue Catholycs United for libel?)

The release boasts that Catholycs United is set to unveil a letter “signed by 34 religious and lay leaders throughout Erie County, including at least 13 Catholic nuns, a priest, several business owners and other leaders” supporting their position on the issue. … but did you catch that? A priest! They found a whole priest to support them! So much for Catholics United claims that parishes should stay out of politics (they might, after all, mention the importance of voting pro-life).

Sr. Marlene Bertke, OSB Benedictine Sisters of Erie and David Robinson, Executive Director of Pax Christi USA joined Catholycs United executive director Chris Korzen in hosting the call. Pax Christi and Catholics United have shared staff in the past.

Things got interesting towards the end of the call. As reported by the Washington Independent, Doug Johnson, National Right to Life’s legislative director who provided a sworn affidavit in SBA List’s defense, attended Catholycs United’s call and kept his silence until the very end, when he jumped in and started lobbing truth-grenades:

“Are you familiar with the 23-page sworn affidavit where we enumerate section by section the parts of the [health care reform] bill that allow federal funding of abortion? It’s online and available to anyone who wants to look at it.”

“Do you believe that I was lying when I signed the NRLC’s sworn affidavit to the Ohio Elections Commission?” Johnson later pressed.

Then things got even better:

At this point, a reporter for the National Catholic Reporter admonished Johnson for crashing the call and suggested he host his own call at a later juncture, saying Johnson “came with an agenda and not a question.” … “I write for the National Right to Life News with a readership of over 300,000. What’s your readership?” Johnson shot back at the reporter.

Oh, SNAP!

To give you an idea about just how deluded Catholycs United and their side is over this issue, David Robinson, Executive Director of Pax Christi USA, made the outrageous claim that “every independent review says it (the health care law) does not expand abortion.” As Tom McClusky points out, Robinson’s claim is demonstrably false. I’m sure that the various folks who have been so energetically fact-checking me will join me in condemning Robinson’s irrational and false claim.

Papists, the other side is getting desperate. Let’s redouble our efforts and continue to pray and act so that citizens are not misled going into this critical election about what is really at stake.

And good on Doug Johnson. I’ll look forward to a clarification from NC Reporter as to their readership.

In this sense, he is an expert at “boomerang arguments”, ones which come back to hurt him more than they trouble me.

First exhibit – lies: Winters claims I think “Democrats are the root of all evil.” I don’t.

Second exhibit – more lies: “We all know, in Peters’ worldview, that Sr. Carol would say anything and do anything to support Obama.” Nope, I don’t. But it’s certainly clear that Sr. Carol is willing to do things I am not willing to do to support Obama, for instance, publicly oppose the prudential advice of the the bishops of America on a matter of critical importance. I’m not claiming she’ll do anything, I’m claiming she has done something, and that something was wrong. She should also fact-check her pro-Obamacare brochure (page 9, for instance).

Third exhibit – twisting the truth: “We all know, in Peters’ worldview, that Sr. Carol is disloyal to the bishops,” Winters claims. Hold on! … “My worldview”? Winters is right that in my rush to compose the article I accidently cited words attributed to Cardinal George that have been called into question (I take it he checked the other 25 links in my original story and those all checked out). This correction of the record poses no problem for me, because I’ll simply switch that original quotation over to a full interview conducted by National Catholic Reporter’s own John Allen with Cardinal George. I invite Winters to read the interview published by his own organization, which supports my original claim.

When he is done, Winters should then read this statement by Daniel Cardinal Dinardo, Chairmain of the USCCB’s pro-life Committee, Bishop William Murphy, chairman of its Committee on Domestic Justice, Bishop John Wester, chairman of its Committee on Migration. Then, Winters should next read this statement by Archbishop Raymond Burke. I’m confident there are others in the same vein.

As you can see, “my worldview” is actually in good company. Indeed, in a way, I’m maybe nicer in my criticisms than are the bishops. So whose worldview is Winters living in?

As Winters writes about me, “Peters likes the bishops when they like him, but surely it is the work of Satan when the bishops’ own news agency directly contradicts, with facts and quotes, assertions he made based on shoddy reporting at the Spectator.”

My quotation of these three statements above demonstrates that many bishops of senior authority in the Church have a serious problem with the actions of Sister Keehan, actions which call into question her loyalty and obedience to their authority, and which suggest that “her worldview” is not one of a faithful Catholic (I’ll get to the Spectator shortly).

But of course, to paraphrase his own words back at him (boomerang!): “Winters likes to ignore the bishops when they disagree with him, choosing instead to attribute the fault to me when the bishops’ own words directly contradict, with facts and quotes, assertions he made based on his own shoddy understanding of the nature and teachings of the Church.”

In other words, Winters is skilled precisely at accusing others of making the sort of mistakes that he specializes in (boomerang!). Logic 101: if Winters has such a problem with my critique of CHA, and I show how my critique of the CHA is shared by senior bishops, Winters ought to take it up with the bishops I mention above, not me.

Winters says (sarcastically) I should consider running as a Senate candidate sometime. Well, I hate to break it to him, but I’m focused on being a good Catholic commentator today. And I think I’ve sufficiently defended my position here. (Before I finish entirely, however, and move on, Winters may want to tell his editors at NCR that the version of the CNS story they chose to republish is the old, uncorrected one, the same one that CNS corrected after we demanded that they revise it.)

In my next post I will spend more time discussing the developing story about Catholic hospitals closing in Pennsylvania, and what lessons we can take from the situation.