I received the following comment, fairly typical of the local dissenter crowd, in the latest post about the NCR’s article on Fr. Kleba.  I post it here with my immediate response:


Anonymous anonymous said…

The only people who think Fr. KLeba looks bad go to the Oratory for Latin Mass. Also, Louise Lears received nothing that resembled due process. The reason that the Canon Law process hides behind silence is not to protect anyone. The silence only protects the process itself in which the Archbishop is judge, jury and prosecutor. In which someone like Louise Lears doesn’t even get to present her final case before the final verdict is given.ev

28 July, 2008 22:03

Delete

Blogger thetimman said…

Not the only people, ev.

The thing is not a question of liturgy– I cannot comment on St. Cronan’s liturgy because I have not assisted at one. Though to apply the maxim of St. Prosper, “lex orandi lex credendi” (the law of prayer is the law of belief), one can have strong suspicions of what it would be like, liturgy is not the immediate issue here.

This is pure and simple about assenting with the will and mind to the teachings of Christ as given to HIs Holy Church. 

I welcome a statement from either Fr. Kleba or Sr. Lears, or both, stating they unequivocally accept the infallible truth that it is not possible for women to receive priestly ordination. Please, ask them to send it to me and I will publish it here.

It may go a long way towards the reconciliation they need and the Church desires.

And the extent of due process given Sr. Lears is well-documented. To disagree with the outcome is not the same as to have a well-founded belief that the process was unfair.

29 July, 2008 04:52

_______________________________________

It is often observed by those who wish to reject Catholic teaching while seeking to retain the Catholic descriptor that such-and-such immemorial teaching of the Church, or the faithful adherence to it by some prelate, priest or layman, is not in accord with the “spirit of Vatican II”.  This observation is also made in a somewhat tongue-in-cheek fashion by those who support those teachings.

But what would the spirit of Vatican II think of Archbishop Burke’s actions and decisions in the recent headline-making matters in St. Louis?  I stumbled across this excerpt from Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, on another blog in a piece (ironically enough) that critiqued the SSPX position.  What does Vatican II have to say?:

25. Among the principal duties of bishops the preaching of the Gospel occupies an eminent place.(39*) For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old,(164) making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock.(165) Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking. Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.(40*) This is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church, whose definitions must be adhered to with the submission of faith.(41*)

(39*) Cfr. Conc. Trid., Decr. de I reform., Sess. V, c. 2, n. 9; et Sess. I XXlV, can. 4; Conc. Oec. Decr. pp. 645 et 739.
(40*) Cfr. Conc. Vat. I, Const. dogm. Dei Filius, 3: Denz. 1712l (3011). Cfr. nota adiecta ad Schema I de Eccl. (desumpta ex.S. Rob. Bellarmino): Mansi 51, I 579 C, necnon Schema reformatum I Const. II de Ecclesia Christi, cum I commentario Kleutgen: Mansi 53, 313 AB. Pius IX, Epist. Tuas libener: Denz. 1683 (2879).
(41*) Cfr. Cod. Iur. Can., c. 1322-1323

164 Cf. Mt. 13, 52.
165 Cf.2 Tim. 4, 1-4.

I think if everyone involved in the movement to excuse the actions and publicly promoted heterodoxy of Bozek, Lears and the “womenpriests” read this Vatican II document and took it seriously, the problem would be swiftly resolved to the great benefit of all Catholics in the Archdiocese.