Wednesday, December 05, 2007

Father Z Slams National Catholic Reporter For Dissension

I say dissension, in the old days they called it "heresy". Check out his post. Go Father Z.


bilbannon said...

Well...Fr. Z can thank Pope John Paul II in part for destroying for a little while the wifely obedience that Pius XI, Casti C., sect.74.... and 6 New Testament scriptures insist on but John Paul overrode all that by calling lone wifely submission the "old" that is replaced by the new in which mutual submission is constant 24/7...(read male never insisting on anything).

Thus he freed women from unilateral obedience at times when there is stress and disagreement....and now Fr. Z is surprised that such a move has born fruit in their not obeying another sentence of Paul..." for I do not suffer a woman to preach or to exercise authority over men."

Yep....subtract 6 scriptures....and it will come back to bite you. But no priest will write an article on the Pope's unfortunate contribution to this area such that the catechism makes no mention of something that God made sure was in the NT 6 times.

So let's summarize....NCR is bad because it wants to nullify Paul in the woman preaching passage....but John Paul is good even though he did a similar thing on fully 6 passages. I think I understand now.

Tim A. Troutman said...

Bill, This and a couple other things seem to be a hot button for you. In fact, they're the only 3 or 4 things I ever hear you talk about. Has it ever crossed your mind that you may have an unhealthy obsession with these issues?

BTW, can you post the link to the document you're talking about or at least the name so I can read it. I've only heard you talk about it.


bilbannon said...

I'll take all that as discourse that really says something very different...."hey...that's true....the women priests are going against the Bible but so did the Pope and the catechism on husband headship which is 6 times in the NT and no one said boo or their clergy profile would suffer. But if they complain about women priests only.... like an obsession...then their clergy profile and standing will increase."

Do you mean links to what John Paul said? Pope John Paul in both Dignitatem Mulieris, sect.24, par.3&4 and and the Theology of the Body section 89.3-4 stated a belief in mutual subjection only of husband and wife based on Ephesians while not facing in detail the fact that the pastoral epistles never mention the mutual part because being pastorals, they were concerned with ORDER....
Ephesians was not but with the whole of the relationship but it repeated what the others said as a lone issue to be followed instead of meshed with mutuality.

Joseph said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph said...

Bill has cracked the code!!! Brilliant! Ok, Bill, put it all down in a report and sent it to the Vatican. Looks like you've figured it out... they have to allow women/gay priestesses and contraception now. Good work! They'll have to listen to you. You've got it all figured out.

But, until they approve of your report, have a little humble obedience to the Church, if you're Catholic. And try not confusing every Catholic you come across with your conspiracy theories before they are actually accepted teachings.

Thank you,

P.S. I think you'll be waiting a long time for approval of your report.

Joseph said...

Oh, and Bill, I think that you'll find more agreement at the Vox Nova blog.

Joseph said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tim A. Troutman said...

Is this the problem paragraph:

The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife" (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ" (cf. Eph 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife as Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" (Eph 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual.

I see no contradiction of Scripture here. He didn't say "wives no longer be subject to husbands".

The Scriptures clearly teach the headship of the husband. Anyone who says otherwise is simply mistaken. However, he never said "the husband is no longer the head" in fact he affirms it. He points out that the author (Paul) saw no contradiction between the two phrases mentioned above (so what shall we say that the Scripture itself is guilty of 'tossing out scripture'?) and that the relationship between husband and wife is not exactly the same as between Christ & the Church in all ways. Of course not! We know of other ways the relationship is not entirely analogous- Christ doesnt make mistake - husbands do, Christ is all knowing husbands are not - Christs role is redemptive the husbands is not... etc...

His specific example is (reaffirming the Scripture) - there is mutual subjection in marriage whereas in the Christ-Church relationship there is not (that doesn't nullify the headship of the husband and certainly doesn't nullify women's subjection). The woman's subjection is obviously distinct from man's or at the very least in need of greater attention since God chose to do so.

However, nothing the pope said would contradict that woman's role is subject to the husband in a unique way.

I don't think this was a good way to write about it, I think it is a failure of JPII to not address the issue more directly and clarify that wives are uniquely subject to their husbands but the important thing to remember is that he did not teach error and did not contradict scripture (although this 'dancing around the issue' could easily lead to someone justifying a belief that would be in direct contradiction with the stated passage).

Yet who am I to criticize the pope?

Joseph said...


I don't think it matters, since Bill has on numerous occasions led us believe that he thinks that anything the Pope says that is not ex cathedra is not binding for the faithful.

So, by his own system, what Pope John Paul II said doesn't apply to him or the Church anyway... even if he believes that the Pope contradicts or nullifies Scripture (which he doesn't).

If Bill believed that this document was binding, then he'd have to stop complaining about Humanae Vitae and just accept the teaching within it. He would also have to accept Pope John Paul II's statement "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" without complaint as well.

That's just according to his own system and his own set of beliefs. But, we all know that Bill isn't bound by his own system and set of beliefs. So, he can contradict himself as much as he wants to and still sound really cool.

bilbannon said...

You worked yourself up into a lather about nothing. I am against women priests based on the scripture I myself cited..."for I do not suffer a woman to preach or to exercise authority over men."
And I believe firmly in the death penalty due to Romans 13:4 inter alia so would be totally unwelcome at Vox Nova based on that and seeing a place for torture in rare did Pius XII affirm the death penalty in 1952 when life sentences were safer. But John Paul also revoked that 1400 year plus concept.
You may be debating someone in your posts but for the life of is not me.

Joseph said...


Good, then I don't know what you're worried about. Pope John Paul II stated, "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". So, sleep tight.

Joseph said...

Bill, by the way, what is your position on contraception again?

bilbannon said...

Tim're hoping that he means what you said.
Were you correct, you would find husband jurisdiction in the catechism because John Paul would have made sure it was there. It is not mentioned once in a book that John Paul stated was a sure guide for Catholics. And if God repeated it 6 times in the New Testament, that is more times than you are going to find mutual subjection mentioned.

You will find husband jurisdiction no where in the catechism because John Paul wanted neither party to be superior in jurisdiction unless the other person was equal in jurisdiction simultaneously....."in the relationship between husband and wife the 'subjection' is not one-sided but mutual." But in 5 non Ephesians passages it only commands "wives obey your husbands".

The traditional understanding is that mutual subjection happens al the time in a myriad of small decisions like your wife reminding you about putting out the recycling even in a somewhat commanding tone because because that is one of your agreed upon jobs. Husband jurisdiction kicks in when decisions are bigger and stress is around and something must be done and a deadlock must be overcome. Jurisdiction is what the non Ephesian passages are about when they mention only one direction of obedience..."wives obey your husbands"..."thus Sarah obeyed Abraham calling him Lord, you are duaghters of hers when you do what is right and fear no disturbance." In that spot by the way, the New Testament quotes the Old as authority....not in the way that John Paul referred to the old way as deficient.

After the catechism writers read John Paul, even they did not know what was going on....ergo they left out of the catechism something God made plain 6 times and certainly wanted in all catechisms....who has jurisdiction in the marriage especially when there is a where addressed.

bilbannon said...

What is the extent of your Catholic education? I ask that because in 2002 Archbishop Amato who was then and is now 2nd in command at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at a Lateran Conference on Fr. Karl Rahner noted to John Allen that Rahner had been an "orthodox theologian" enquotes. If you don't believe John Allen...... then believe this: that a heretic would never have a Conference in his honor in the Lateran while either John Paul or Benedict were alive. So Allen was telling the truth and Archbishop Amato never denied the comment. Google the whole thing.

Fr. Karl RAhner who for years edited the Enchiridion Symbolorum which requires the highest knowledge of Catholic dogmatics....publically...not privately...dissented from Humanae Vitae and the birth control position and stated that there were several artificial forms that he believed in.

Perhaps you if your Catholic education is not extensive find the above incident inexplicable.
How could the 2nd in command at the CDF call Rahner could there be a conference in his honor if he dissented on birth control and not privately as moral theology tomes advise.

Now I want you to tell me how that was possible or simply state that you don't know how that was possible and I can inform you how that is possible.

Joseph said...

"What is the extent of your Catholic education?"

No matter how much Catholic education I have, it will never be enough for you. Why? Because I don't agree with you. You're clearly smarter than the Pope, too. You're smarter than anyone who disagrees with you. The sad thing is, no matter how smart you are, the Church's teaching is that which is opposite to your educated opinion... too bad. Cite all of the examples of people who have high levels of education and who agree with you as you want. The Magisterium does not agree with you... sorry.

No matter how many hoops you try to jump through, no matter how many statements you try to extrapolate and interpret, you won't change Church teaching.

I'm not as smart as you, but the Pope and I agree.

Tim A. Troutman said...

Bill, if you're saying that the Catholic Church has enormous problems in catechesis (even up to the level of the Vatican) then I couldn't agree more.

On the contrary, if you're saying that John Paul contradicted Scripture in an official teaching capacity then I couldn't DISagree more.

Whatever JPII's personal views on the subject are.. I don't know and frankly don't care. I didn't see anywhere in that document where he nullified the husband as the head of the family. If you can show a passage that proves the contrary, then I might have to re-think what I think I know about apostolic letters.

There are lots of bishops openly contradicting Scripture in their private beliefs this is no surprise. Not one pope in history has held perfectly infallible opinions on every subject and they never will. If JPII's writings reflect an erroneous view of the headship of the husband (and they do seem to) I wouldn't be surprised or phased. I also wouldn't care. His private opinions are not part of the Magisterium. His official teachings are and I see nowhere that they constitute error (if seriously lacking for failure to address certain points).

bilbannon said...

That would all be fine if you did not have the inclination to judge others. But look at your inaccurate accusations of me in these above posts. And since you have an inclination to judge others on these matters, your lack of education in this particular area is not good in this case for a person with a tendency to use these issues as weapons against others. And you are far from alone on the net. NFP seems to mean now (and it did not years ago)...accusing pill people of murder as sort of a bonus that goes along with using NFP. They go hand in hand and Rome is to blame for not stopping it because it is creating a pharisaism on a non infallible issue.

In 1968, millions of Catholics were expecting an infallible document as they waited months for Pope Paul VI's encyclical, Humanae Vitae....because only 14 years before, that generation had received an infallible, ex cathedra encyclical in 1954 on an issue of much less personal import...the Assumption the wording of which stated that it was revealing something from God Himself.

Here is the pivotal moment in that encyclical:

"by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

That is breath taking and that is what millions expected in waiting so long on an issue that was far more critical to their lives than the Assumption was because if one believes the Bible, one already believed that Elias and Henoch were assumed into heaven at some level of heaven.

Instead, when Humanae Vitae was introduced at its press conference by Monseignor Lambrushini who had taught theology in Rome colleges...he twice stated that it was not infallible...and it had no such wording as you see above about being revealed by God. No Pope since has stated that the Monseignor was incorrect. Non infallible documents themselves might say that it was "definitive" (notice they will avoid "infallible" or "revealed")
but such documents themselves are non infallible.

Does it have to be obeyed? Yes....but not without exception. The Church herself allows the exception in her imprimatured and nihil obstated moral theology tomes when they write on sincere dissent... but the Church never mentions that exception in catechisms. And how many Catholics go into a Catholic College Library to a moral theology tome and read about the one exception in books that literally seem to try and hide it.

The Church is in the position you could be in as a prosecutor or as a salesman for DELL computer.
Both of those occupations have to represent part of the truth even though they are aware that all truth in general may make their version of it not exactly perfect. And priests have to be partly salesmen and represent issues that they know are not infallible but they do because quite frankly...NFP is wonderful and perhaps the healthiest choice and perfect for everyone who does not have exceptional circumstances like work travel that results in a couple never having intercourse which abstinence is warned against by God's word in I Corinthians 7.

To wrap up, Karl Rahner was called "orthodox" by Amato and allowed a post humous Conference in his honor at the Lateran because every high ranking official including the Pope knows that the issue is not infallible yet (and may be or may not be one day) in such a way to pass muster under canon 749-3 which requires that its infallibility be manifestly clear. And since Pius XI in Tuas Libenter said that an issue in the ordinary magisterium if it is infallible by longstanding tradition e.g. will have the common consent of Catholic Theologians which this issue did not have as it became more detailed in the modern encyclicals.

There were 265 Popes. You yourself can't name more than 8 who ever said a blessed thing about birth control. The tradition was not one from Popes but from early Christians-several councils-and the didache.... who associated contraception with bizarre cults in Rome like the one Augustine belonged to for ten years. And their strictest words led to a set of strict words entering the decretals or old canons and there it remained pretty much unchanged until the 19th century when priests wrote to Rome to ask if Catholics could use the natural rythmns which were just being discovered by science though folk lore always had incorrect versios of same. Rome assented to the dubia from priests that Catholics could use the natural methods. But fierce resistance to the natural methods arose in Spanish Catholic the bishops counference of Malines...and in Arthur Vermeesch the premier moral theology expert of the early 20th century. The Malines bishops said that the natural methods would lead to abortions if they did not work because they would get the couple's hopes up.

Sound familiar??? Exactly what is now said of the pill as being abortion itself by the NFP people who were originally accused by stricter Catholics of being loose.
Enough for now. I recently debated a priest who had no idea what the history of this was.
Must Catholic obey? Yes under pain of mortal sin unless they sincerely dissent and do that with prayer and struggle and counsel and study. Which is what Rahner did....and every high official in Rome knew it.

Joseph said...


Do you think I'm going to scurry off in tears? Do you really think that your insulting my intelligence bothers me? Seriously, don't kid yourself. You've already pointed out that I'm not more smarter than you. I don't have all of that precious Jesuit training under my belt (thank God).

But, it doesn't really matter. Your speaking from a dissident position and I'm not. I'm in agreement with Church teaching, and you're not. It isn't the level of intelligence that matters when it comes to obedience to the Church they profess to believe in. So, you're wasting your time trying to convince me that the Church doesn't mean something that it says.

Vox Nova is still a good site for you to post on. Go get 'em, Tiger. The love to doubt authentic Church teaching. Rrrraaaarrrrr!!!

Joseph said...


You know what? In case you haven't noticed, we aren't going to agree. You prefer to think that the Church really isn't opposed to contraception. You think you're smarter than Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II (and every Pope for that matter), therefore, I will never be able to compete with you intellectually. You also think that you are the sole infallible interpreter of every Church document ever written. That's fine (well, it actually isn't if you're Catholic). I don't agree with you on any of those things.

Basically, I'd like to call a truce so that you don't have to cut and paste old posts that you've typed out over the years. I prefer to read at length from books, so, I'll just pick up a book from Sr. Elizabeth Johnson next time I want to read a long-winded useless argument from a dissenter. You won't convince me that the Church is wrong and you're right. If I can't trust some of the Church's wayward bishops, I certainly can't trust some tiny little internet reformer with half of the Jesuit education of Cardinal Mahony (I don't really know if he was trained by Jesuits, I'm just being a jerk. So, don't type out a thirty-page dissertation on Mahony's eccesial career in correction).

Now, you are free to have a parting shot. I promise I won't cry.

Your favorite internet pharisee,

Joseph said...


Since I've ended my conversation with Bill, and, according to him, I have a nasty propensity to cast stones, would you be kind enough to ask him why he didn't complain to Father Z on Father Z's blog about Father Z's post rather than come all the way over here to do it?

He seemed pretty proud that he outmatched one other priest on the fallibility of the Church's teaching on contraception. Surely, he doesn't think that Father Z is a stronger intellectual opponent and therefore he decided to bring his complaint to your blog... Nah, he wouldn't do that. Right?

bilbannon said...

There was no cut and paste above of past articles. I just did more work for your personal sake than probably many people who have passed through your life fleetingly. And Fr. Z and I had an exchange long ago which you will see at the judgement in perfect clarity. I'll see you there.

StBasil said...

I know this post is old but reading through the comments I had to post one of my own. The fact of the matter is John Paul II was at best ambiguous on his teaching on the roles of husband and wife, in his Apostolic Letter to women and in Theology of the Body. Casti Connubii is an encyclical - a tour-de-force of catholic theology on the married state - and thus is of a greater authority. Plus Pius XI was speaking the same thing other Popes and Fathers had stated before him. It does seem like John Paul II's teaching on "mutual submission" of husband and wife was novel but it also was not enshrined by any sort of ex cathedra statement. As far as I know it never found its way in to an encyclical either. This area is one where I fear John Paul II was not so good - gender relations. When radical feminism was still plaguing us all, he praised working women and didn't teach much on men.

The argument has been made that John Paul II was speaking in the terms of the love of spouses whereas Pius XI was speaking more specifically about authority. The argument can be made but the problem is we can not know for sure. John Paul II's writings often were not precise and clear enough to know for a fact what exactly was being stated. With Pius XI, there was no mistaking his point because his language was very clear. Benedict XVI appears to be more in that mold, using very clear language quite often (it seems to me).

The fact of the matter is Pius XI's Casti Connubii still stands as the hallmark of Papal teaching on the theology of the married state. Arcanum, Leo XIII's encyclical which preceeded Casti, is also related but does not cover as much breadth of the issue. No official, authoritative Papal teaching since has achieved what these two encyclicals have for the Church.

God bless you all.

StBasil said...

I actually posted on my blog about the gender roles issue on my blog ( in case anyone is interested. I find the issue very interesting.

Sorry for the plug :/

Pax Christi tecum.

Tim A. Troutman said...

St. Basil, thanks for the comments I'm just now getting the chance to reply. I appreciate them and agree with what you're saying.