CathInfo.com

Well, I did try to address it. I tried to suggest the context in which one could figure out how Ci Riesce could be understood amidst the other teachings of the Magisterium. But I have not personally done an exhaustive study of the question. I did sponsor the symposium on this general issue in Faith & Reason in the 1980’s from which we are now digitizing several of the articles. I thought Fr. Most’s reconciliation of the texts was the most persuasive at the textual level, and William Marshner’s essay was best at providing the fundamental conceptualization of the problem which permits the texts to be properly understood. We had several scholars showing different ways in which this could be done, and since the 1980’s I have not found this topic to be problematic, so I haven’t thought about it a great deal since that time.

All of these essays are now available online: Most (Vatican II vs. Pius IX: A Study in Lefebvrism (an earlier article); and from the symposium, Religious Liberty: What the Texts Demand); Marshner (Dignitatis Humanae and Traditional Teaching on Church and State); and a more limited essay by William Sockey (Religious Freedom and Human Rights). As I said in my last message, these materials, along with Fr. hαɾɾιson’s work, are better than anything I could write up on short notice.

But note, as I stated in last week’s column, it does not really matter (ultimately)  if we see exactly how the texts fit together, any more than it matters if we see how two Scripture texts fit together. We might not see it, but all the relevant texts are still true. This does not mean the attempt to explain them properly is unimportant, for doing theology well is not unimportant; it just means that it isn’t essential to the Faith to do so, and it is also possible that we don’t have quite enough theological development yet to know for sure how they fit together. As I pointed out in that column, we may see several possibilities without knowing for sure which one is best or which one bears the most fruit.

It is just as sensible to demand to know how Ci Riesce squares with Dignitatis Humanae as posing the question the other way around. Either way, if the question is posed as a challenge to the veracity of the other text, it is not a question posed from the point of view of the Catholic Faith. The correct question is, “Since we know both texts are true, how are we to understand what they teach so that the truth of both is upheld?” Without that spirit, our own passion and price (because we prefer the one text or the other) will interfere with our intellectual perception of the solution.

Again, a number of scholars have shown how this can be done. But I don’t have sufficient personal expertise in this area to improve upon what they have already written. My goal in all this is to present the framework and the tools necessary for a proper Catholic understanding, not to state that this or that solution is definitive, for I do not believe the Church herself has yet said which approach is best. But the Church has said that both statements are true.

-- Jeff

"But, for better or worse, the ultimate test of any policy is that policy’s results."

Does this apply to Vatican II as well? Now I am serious, as I just attended a well attended lecture by Fr. John O'Malley discussing his book, "What Happened at Vatican II". This very well know Catholic historian believes that Vatican II is a break with tradition and it is unclear what direction the Council actually prescribes. He said the underlying meaning (in his opinion) of Vatican II is "a call to holiness". During the question and answer period a young seminarian asked Fr. O'Malley, "What does this call to holiness mean and how do we implement it?" Fr. O'Malley paused for a very long time and then stated that we need to go back to our "conscience"... whatever that means.
 
He then went on to praise our new President, Barack Obama, saying his message in the Inaugural speech was the same message as Vatican II...dialogue...inclusiveness...fellowship.

Fr. O'Malley also said the decree on Religious Liberty was at odds with previous Church teaching...that Fr. John Courtney Murray was silenced in the years prior to the Council...that Collegiality was in conflict with the definition of Vatican I on Papal Infallibility, ect.

My point here is why not look at the fruits of Vatican II? You suggest it in other areas, don't you? Nobody knows what Vatican II actually says...because it is admittedly (Fr. O'Malley agreed) ambiguous...it appears to have ushered in an era of doubt and questioning of all areas of discipline and even Dogmas in some cases.

If you would actually read the docuмents of Vatican II, I do not think you will find them ambiguous. In those portions of the docuмents where the Church is teaching something about faith and morals, she is infallible. Such parts are fairly clear. Insofar as the Council fathers may have recommended this or that approach in some portions of some docuмents, the recommendations may of course be good or bad, being the result of human prudence, and not possessing any guarantee by the Holy Spirit. The same is true of all magisterial docuмents.
But the doctrines of the Church are not to be judged by their results, for they will certainly result in good, but only in the lives of those who live those doctrines them properly. Policies are an entirely different matter.

The speaker you listened to seems to have been very confused.

Thanks for your note.

-- Jeff