Showing posts with label Fr. Angelo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fr. Angelo. Show all posts

Monday, August 4, 2008

Fr. Angelo's Straw Man II

Point Two:


“I do not attack Pope John Paul II in my book but actually use his teachings as a defense of my position.”



I do indict the Congregation for The Causes of Saints in my book for not doing its job and many have complained that since the revisions of the canonization process (Divinus Perfectionis Magister) there is question if some individuals were granted the titles of Blessed and Saint through a flawed and bias process. In the minds of these Catholics, an infallible assurance that the canonized is a Saint cannot be held if the Church ordained process has not been applied. I am not arguing the virtues or vices of their position at this time but I am arguing that Mother Teresa’s virtues and vices exclude her from canonization. I am morally bound to hope for her salvation. Equally, I am morally bound to hope that she is not canonized.


In chapter one of my book, I quote the 1983 Code of Canon Law:


Canon 212 § 2—The Christian faithful are free to make known their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires to the pastors of the Church.


Canon 212 § 3—In accord with the knowledge, competence and preeminence which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church, and they have a right to make their opinion known to the other Christian faithful, with due regard for the integrity of the faith and morals and reverence toward their pastors, and with consideration for the common good and the dignity of persons.


Pope John Paul II promulgated this code of canon law. I am following these canons, Fr. Angelo is not.


In chapter two of my book, I quote Pope John Paul II and offer a challenge:


Man is no longer convinced that only in the truth can he find salvation (Veritatis Splendor, 84).


I offer this challenge:


“Did Mother Teresa believe and consistently teach that only in truth can man find salvation?”


How did I go against the pope in using the pope to make my arguments?

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Fr. Angelo's Straw Man I

Point one:

Fr. Angelo assumes any action taken by the Holy Father’s subordinates and rubber-stamped by him is an action that cannot be questioned by the faithful.

Let us expand upon on what I said in “Sandal to me or scandal to you?”. Whom do you think appointed most of the bishops, archbishops, and cardinals who moved priests around and turned a blind eye to the corruption of the youth? If you guessed Pope John Paul II, you are correct. This is the moral problem of evil applied to the office of the papacy.

The moral problem of evil is built on the view that there is an all-powerful and sovereign God who directs the universe. “How a good God could allow evil?” atheists argue to discount God. What the atheists fail to consider is that if there is no God there is no evil. The point is evident when reversed. The details surrounding the moral problem of evil are vast and not part of this post. Confusion on this issue resides in a misunderstanding of creation, the fall, free agency, and mystified metaphysics. There is evil and God is not its author, Satan is (I John 3:8). However, God (Causa Prima) directs all things (Causa Secundae) to serve His sovereign will (Vatican I, Dz 1784).

The moral problem of evil merited response from God (Job 38) and Church (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, 49, 2). However, this problem does not apply to the papacy unless you think the pope has the power of God and is the first cause who directs all secondary causes in the Church. Sadly, such a view is unconsciously common among today’s Catholics. The hierarchy are unconscious of giving themselves divine attributes and the laity are unconscious of giving the hierarchy divine attributes.

If you consistently apply Fr. Angelo’s position you would lay all that has gone wrong in the Church over the last 40+ years at the feet of the popes. Much of the evils in the Church are the sins of the councilor and post-councilor popes, but not everything. This also explains why there was such a loss of faith after the Church fell into hard times. In the laity’s minds, the hierarchy was the faith. When the hierarchy changes, so does the faith. There is nothing divine about such a faith. Here again, Fr. Angelo’s doctrine is philosophically and theologically un-Catholic.

On the practical side, Fr. Angelo’s argument shows a gross misunderstanding on how the Church operates. When a pope makes an appointment of bishop or some office in the curia he does not micro-manage the decisions of his officers. If the prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints recommends that so-and-so be beatified, the pope does not personally research all the details of the case, he just accepts the decision of the prefect. To question a rubber-stamp act of the pope is not to “express…opinions contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father.”

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Fr. Angelo’s Straw Man

In the science of informal logic there is a fallacy known as “the straw man fallacy.” A person commits the straw man fallacy when he or she misrepresents their opponent's position intentially or unintentially.

Fr. Angelo made this accusation:

“I am sorry that you, a Catholic, have chosen a public forum like this to express your opinions contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father.”

Fr. Angelo whole argument is that my book is an opinion “contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father.” Fr. Angelo’s assertion is fallacious for the following reasons:

1. Fr. Angelo assumes any action taken by the Holy Father’s subordinates and rubber-stamped by him is an act that cannot be questioned by the faithful.

2. I do not attack Pope John Paul II in my book but actually use his teachings as a defense of my position.

3. The reason why there is a canonization process (Servant of God, Blessed, Saint) is so there is not a mistake in canonizing someone who is not fit for the title. Fr. Angelo is treating Mother Teresa as a canonized Saint not as a candidate for canonization.

4. No Catholic scholar since the canonization process started in the Catholic Church ever argued that anything short of canonization was an infallible act the Roman Pontiff. Mother Teresa has not been canonized so the act of beatifying her was not an infallible act.

I will expand on each point in the next blog.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

The Marian Dimension of Mother Teresa’s Dark Night « Mary Victrix

The Marian Dimension of Mother Teresa’s Dark Night « Mary Victrix

I am going to run an ongoing blog about this page. It is a good representation of the kind of responses I receive from certain "Catholics." At present, there are priests and bishops reading my book. I have friends who are priests. They are priests of all different backgrounds. All of them believe the priest and on this website, Fr. Angelo, is not well.

After Fr. Angelo definitely stated that he did not want any more posts, I asked a friend of mine, who is a parish priest, to look at Fr. Angelo’s comments and give me his opinion if I should let Fr. Angelo know that he was destroying a “straw man.” The priest responded by telling me, I choose my words carefully, not to waste my pearls. I say this not to be mean but to show that Fr. Angelo’s opinion is not the dogma of the priests, and the priests I know feel very strongly that Fr. Angelo is fatally flawed in his opinion.


Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household.
These are the words of Jesus (Mt. 10:34-36). It is not my expressed desire for conflict but if conflict comes to the Church because of my book’s fidelity to the Gospel, I welcome the conflict.

The rhetorically ruff exchange on Fr. Angelo’s webpage started when I came across his blog. I know Fr. Angelo personally but have not spoken with him in 5 years. I have lived with his community (Franciscans of the Immaculate) and even thought about joining them. I did not join them because they seemed to have the veneer of Traditional Catholicism but lacked the substance thereof.

Fr. Angelo posted:

Not so long ago, with the publication of Blessed Mother Teresa’s letters to her spiritual director
much misinformation was disseminated about her “dark night,” namely, that is Mother had lost her faith. The arch-atheist, Christopher Hitchen’s and other anti-Catholic enthusiasts were quick to vilify this holy woman, whose trial should be a source of edification.

Recently
Zenit interviewed Missionary of Charity Father Joseph Langford, cofounder with Mother Teresa of her community of priests, the Missionaries of Charity Fathers, about his new book Mother Teresa: In the Shadow of Our Lady.

Blessed Teresa, like Our Lady, took the road to Jerusalem in obedience to Jesus: Unless you pick up your cross and carry it, you cannot be my disciple. Perseverance in the dark night of faith is spiritual chivalry, spiritual prowess and largess, and in the case of Mother Teresa, it is an extension of the Marian Way of Beauty.

One cannot argue with likes of a blasphemer like Hitchens. In an
debate between him and Bill Donahue of the Catholic League he referred to the faith-based defense of Mother as “white noise.” All we can do is say to Hitchens is “come and see.” His only hope is the Way of Beauty . . . and of course, prayer and fasting. Here is an excerpt of the Zenit interview with Father Langford:

Q: What did you learn about the Blessed Mother from Mother Teresa?

Father Langford: The book is a compendium of what I learned of Our Lady over the years, from watching and listening to this Saint of the Gutters. It is a simple apologia for Our Lady’s role, wrapped not in polemics, but in the humble sari of one of the gospel’s most credible and approachable witnesses.

It is impossible to observe Mother Teresa’s faith without being reminded of the faith of Our Lady. Though her darkness bore other names and other dimensions, Mary of Nazareth lived her own night of faith.

Consider Joseph’s months of doubt; finding no room in Bethlehem; the flight into Egypt; the years of Jesus’ absence from Nazareth; the hours of his agony on the cross; and her own agony as he lie in the grave. From these came the lessons of faith she shared with a young Mother Teresa.

Mother Teresa’s own life, and her sense of the role of the Mother of God, was that of “an ongoing Visitation,” a “going in haste” to bring God to others. This Marian vision was based on Mother Teresa’s own experience, but also firmly rooted in scripture.

The Gospel account of the Visitation in the first chapter of Luke shows obvious echoes of the “visitation” made by the Ark of the Covenant to David, also “in the hill country of Judea.” No one disputes that the Ark carried a special anointing of grace and divine presence, that it was itself a “theotokos” (”God-bearer”), though only made of wood.

Can God not do the same and more, in a latter Testament, with a new and better Ark? Are we scandalized that God can make of flesh what once was? Or has our generation understood “neither the scriptures nor the power of God?”

In the end, Mother Teresa would not be one to argue, but simply to say of this Marian mystery, as she so often did of the mystery of Christ hidden in the poor: “Come and see.”


I posted:

Mother Teresa did many corporeal works of mercy, and she deserves praise for those works. However, why do those works instantly translate into her having an authentic “dark night of the soul?” Some may reply, “She was also a Catholic.” It is true that she professed many Catholic beliefs but it takes more than the profession of many Catholic beliefs and the performance of the corporeal works of mercy for a dark night of the soul to take place.

Mother Teresa’s “dark night” is based on the presupposition that she was holy. Therefore, her “dark night” is interpreted as a true sanctifying dark night of a Saint. But is that truly the case? Is her life being interpreted correctly? Mother Teresa said, “There is so much contradiction in my soul” (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, 169). Perhaps, it was this kind of contradiction to which she was referring, “There are millions who live in Indian cities and villages in ignorance of God and of Christ, in abominable sinfulness. We shall bring them to Christ and Christ to them” (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, 116). But then said taught, “We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men—simply better—we will be satisfied” (Mother Teresa: Life in the Spirit, 81). She wanted to preach, “The Kingdom must be preached to all” (Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light, 133). But the kingdom she preached was, “I convert you to be a better Hindu, a better Catholic, Muslim, Jain, or Buddhist” (Mother Teresa: Saint of the Poor, 38–39).

If St. Francis, St. Claire, St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, etc., read Mother Teresa’s words in the last paragraph, it is safe to say they would not conclude that her words were the words of a Saint who experienced the dark night of the soul. It is also safe to say that Mother Teresa’s words are not the “Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye” (Jn. 2:5) of Our Lady.

I believe the common presupposition of Mother Teresa’s “dark night” must give way to a new interpretation of her person. I am sorry for any pain my words and the information I am presenting may be causing some readers. I will leave you with this consolation. St. Thomas Aquinas said, “the lover is not satisfied with a superficial apprehension of the beloved, but strives to gain an intimate knowledge of everything pertaining to the beloved, so as to penetrate into his very soul” (Summ. Theol., la. 2ae., q. 28, a. 2). Accordingly, anyone who loves Mother Teresa cannot desire to represent her other than who she really was. Take all Mother Teresa’s words before the Blessed Sacrament and ask Our Lord if her words are the words of a Saint who experienced the dark night of the soul.

Pax et Bonum,
Mark M Zima

Fr. Angelo responded:

Mark,

I do not find your words painful, and I should hope that others do not. I am sorry that you, a Catholic, have chosen a public forum like this to express your opinions contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father.

I trust Holy Mother Church and her beatification process. That you should defame someone like Mother Teresa, publicly for all to see, and assert your opinions, however astute, in contradiction to a declared beatification is both scandalous and presumptuous. I will not have it here. Period.

The lives of the servants of God whose causes have been introduced for canonization are scrutinized by a “devils advocate,” as you well know, and Mother Teresa’s words would not have been the first to pose theological difficulties which were eventually resolved, leading the way to beatification and then canonization. That you should present rogue opinions to the faithful in the pews contrary to the teaching of the Holy Father is presumptuous to the point of ridiculousness.

I am not going to argue this with you. Even if there were a basis for your contention, which I do not for a second grant, then responsible, humble and qualified theologians whose consciences were so convicted should, according to the proper domain of their mandate, discuss this within scholarly and magisterial circles; however, for an armchair theologian as yourself to write such things, either in a book or a blog, and discuss them as though an authentic Catholic life could be based on such arrogance is irresponsible and reprehensible.

I will say the same thing to you that I would say to a Modernist: if you think you know better than the Pope and are willing to declare it publicly, even to those who are even less qualified to make theological distinctions than yourself, then perhaps you are not ready live as a Catholic.

I have much sympathy for Traditional Catholics who have suffered and continue to suffer by the neglect of fathers within the Church, but that is not an excuse to create more dysfunction within the family. I suspect your position on Mother Teresa is just a small part of a larger hermeneutic of discontinuity. (Full disclosure: Mark and I know something about each other’s theological inclinations as we have met and spoken before).

I sympathize with those who struggle interiorly to remain within the Bark of Peter and who express their spiritual needs respectfully. But I have no respect and will show none for this kind of scandal.

Take it somewhere else.

I am sorry that you have brought it to this. I could not respond to your public and presumably learned comments in any other way.