SSPX and Rome - Toward a Marian Hermeneutic for Modernity (and Vatican II) to Preserve Church Unity

A guest article by Dr. Michaël Bauwens, University of Antwerp. As usual, we share this essay for the benefit of wider and deeper conversation, not as an official Rorate editorial position. ~PAK

The rising tensions concerning the scheduled episcopal consecrations by the SSPX and the announced ensuing excommunications by the Vatican have provoked a range of reactions – from pleas for ecclesial unity, obedience, leniency and pragmatism, to the intricacies of canon law, all the way to ideologically hardened hearts. These are pressing and legitimate ecclesial worries indeed, but the current situation shows that the roots of the problem are really doctrinal and theological, and are still far from being resolved.

"The Death of Benedict XVI: The Failure of the Hermeneutic of Continuity"

 by Côme de Prévigny

Much has been said about Benedict XVI in recent weeks. The major newspapers, not very complacent, have recalled that he was called "panzercardinal" when he was the Pope's guarantor of dogma. The more conservative media hailed him as the architect of liturgical pacification, the one who had the merit of publishing the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Perhaps we forget that with his death, a real page in the history of the Church is being turned, since with him the last great actor of Vatican II has disappeared. Even the last six surviving Council Fathers (almost one hundred years old), out of the two thousand five hundred, did not play the outsized role that he did as an expert. He attended the debates as a theological consultant to Archbishop Joseph Frings of Cologne and on many occasions lent his pen to this leading prelate. With Joseph Ratzinger also dies the last cardinal appointed under Paul VI, a key figure who took part in the great papal decisions of the last half-century, one of the eminent figures of the contemporary Church, whose role was to apply the decisions of the Fathers and then to interpret them.

An undeniable evolution

The Radical Claim and Fatal Flaw of TC’s Article 1 — Article by a French Priest

Rorate is pleased to bring to its readers an English translation of a critique of Traditionis Custodes written by a priest of the Institute of Christ the King, published initially behind a paywall in Revue Catholica on November 10, 2021, but now available online for free. Fr. Jestin addresses the theological radicalness of the motu proprio and exposes its fatal weakness by concentrating on the infamous Article 1, with Francis’s accompanying letter and articles by Andrea Grillo dated July 16, July 19, July 21, and July 24. Since Grillo is the doyen of the liturgical progressives currently in power, the attention paid to his work is both right and revealing (see also this related article). My thanks to Zachary Thomas and John Pepino for assistance with the translation.—PAK

The End of Conciliation Efforts

Fr. Laurent Jestin, ICKSP, La Rochelle

November 10, 2021

[English translation: January 10, 2022]

Cancelling Pope Benedict: Reflections on a recent article and the “hermeneutic of rupture”

Rorate has received this excellent essay by “A Concerned Priest” and is pleased to share it with our readers. It is one of the best analyses to date of the impossible theological premises on which Pope Francis has enacted his campaign against the survival of the traditional rites of the Church.

REMINDER: The Case for Pacelli

Rorate Note: Re-posting this from April 2014. Vatican II, Liberation Theology and the near destruction of the liturgy and the Church were canonized today. While we are now asked to pray to Pope St. Paul VI, we are also asked to ignore the last traditional pontificate of Pius XII, whose case for canonization has been thwarted. Yet, while Paul VI laicized so many priests and religious, and oversaw the destruction of the Roman Rite, Pope Pacelli reigned over a glorious flourishing of the Church in almost all measurable aspects. See below for some staggering statistics:  
----------------------------------------------------------------
Original post:

The canonizations of Pope John XXIII and John Paul II will take place this Sunday, with many flocking to Rome to be a part of the historic event.

Without questioning the two already-mentioned canonizations, the question still remains: Why not Pacelli? 

Let it not be forgotten that his cause for beatification was expressly launched by Paul VI together with that of John XXIII precisely to combat their "almost being turned into symbols or banners of opposite tendencies within Catholicism". (Source) In beatifying and canonizing one but not the other -- does this not imply something about the relative strength of these "opposite tendencies" within the Church? 

Clearly, a very strong case can be made for Eugenio Maria Giuseppe Giovanni Pacelli (Pope Pius XII), from a standpoint of sheer numbers alone.

For those who say we are now living in the greatest age of the Church, let us consider the numbers below, just for the dioceses of the United States during the reign of Pius XII. They are remarkable, to say the least -- if the canonization of a Pope also takes into consideration the appraisal of his pontificate (other than his personal holiness and his prophetical wisdom, both of which are irreproachable regarding Pope Pacelli), then these surely deserve observation:

The Canonization of Vatican II: The case for Pacelli, revisited

Today, it was reported that Pope Bergoglio announced last week in his annual Lenten meeting with priests in Rome, that Paul VI will be canonized a saint this year.

As terrifying as this is, it should come as no shock. No matter how much damage they did, no matter how many souls they lost to Hell, no matter how much they destroyed the liturgy and, with it, the Faith, one thing is clear: Vatican II is being canonized via these failed pontiffs.

Since 1983, and the dissolution of the Devil's Advocate, Catholics of good will can honestly question these canonizations. What cannot be questioned, however, is the tragedy that is the case for sainthood for Pope Pius XII.

While the post-Concilliar popes (yes, all of them), left nothing but destruction, or at best the slowing of destruction in their wakes, the Church under Pope Pacelli flourished in every category.

And so we bring you this post, from 2014, as a reminder of what the last, saintly, Pre-Concilliar Pontificate accomplished in the United States:

Proceedings of Dialogos Conference on Dignitatis Humanae published

In 2015 the Dialogos Institute held an important conference in Norcia, Italy on the interpretation of the controversial Declaration of the Second Vatican Council on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae Rorate Caeli reported at the time (here and here). Now the Dialogos Institute has published a volume containing the interventions held at the conference.

The myth of the Hermeneutic of Continuity

The following Rorate translation was first published by our Spanish-language partners "Adelante la Fe." 

Interview of José María Permuy, conducted by Javier Navascués

Papolatry is a widespread phenomenon in the Catholic Church. Many Catholics take as infallible everything the Pope says, failing to realize that the successor of Peter is only infallible under very specific and limited conditions and when he speaks ex cathedra, which in practice occurs only rarely. Conservative groups, together with many members of the Church, cherish an especial veneration for the Second Vatican Council and its documents. In effect, they elevate what was merely a pastoral council to the level of infallible dogma. In accordance with Benedict XVI’s thesis of the hermeneutic of continuity, they would interpret the Second Vatican Council in the light of Tradition, without rupture or break, without the least error, approving of everything. This cannot be.

José María Permuy, a professional in the field of education, a lecturer and author of many articles on the traditional teachings of the Church, explains on this occasion why it is not possible to speak of “hermeneutic of continuity” in its proper sense.

Why cannot this concept be accepted?

Because it is a half-truth, well-intentioned as it may be. It is certain that there are conciliar texts that are susceptible to two or more interpretations. There, precisely, lies the problem. If these texts were clear, there would be no room for diverse interpretations. The fundamental problem, therefore, is not the subjective interpretations that are made, but the ambiguities and the objective contradictions made in some of the affirmations of the Second Vatican Council in comparison with the Magisterium of all time.

It is true that over the years the Popes have tried to clarify doctrinal issues, such as the primacy of the Pope or the necessity of Christ and His one true Church for salvation. 

It is no less certain that on other occasions, the Popes, including Benedict XVI, have promoted, in theory or in practice, conciliar ideas contrary or alien to the Tradition of the Church, such as the separation of Church and State, ecumenical and interreligious prayer meetings, the recognition of the “martyrdom” of heretics and schismatics, the translation of the Mass into the vernacular and the progressive introduction and permission for Communion in the hand, extraordinary Eucharistic ministers, altar girls, etc… Francis is doing nothing but taking these erroneous ideas to their logical conclusions.

Book Review: The Church of Christ by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton

The Church of Christ: A Collection of Essays by Monsignor Joseph C. Fenton. Ed. with an introduction by Christian D. Washburn. Tacoma, WA: Cluny Media, 2016. 362 pp. Paperback. $24.95. Publisher's page / at Amazon.

This collection of essays from one of the greatest American theologians, Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton, makes an urgent and marvelous contribution to the renewal of Catholic theology today. The hermeneutic of rupture has been utterly disastrous. The needed renewal urged by the Second Vatican Council must be pursued once again. The thoughtful, balanced, orthodox, and acute analysis of Msgr. Fenton serves as a prime example of the kind of renewal that was and remains desirable, one in organic continuity with the great tradition, committed to the unchanging dogmas of the Church but open to new insights and corrections in matters purely speculative or hypothetical. Fenton is also clearly a man of prayer, a theologian on his knees yet one who truly practices the rigorous scientific discipline of dogmatic theology. This collection of essays is absolutely essential reading for any serious student of ecclesiology. It will serve as a corrective to the misbegotten attempts at renewal which suffer from an unwillingness to embrace all the unchanging dogmas of faith. It will also invite a return to that thoughtfulness and nuance which in fact informed pre-conciliar theology, a thoughtfulness open to legitimate development.

An Authoritative and Binding Magisterial Document Cannot Overthrow the Teaching of a Previous Document of the Same or Higher Authority

Participants at the Dignitatis Humanae Colloquium in Norcia (Photo Source) 

At the blog of the Dialogos Institute, Prof. Alan Fimister gives an interesting account of a colloquium held last summer on Dignitatis Humanae in relation to previous magisterial teachings (about which we reported at the time). He notes that all participants held as a basic principle that no authoritative and binding document of the teaching office of the Church can overthrow the teaching of a previous document of the same or higher authority. There were, however, two approaches to showing how Dignitatis Humanae did not overthrow previous teaching on religious liberty. One was to argue that Dignitatis Humanae was of a lower grade of authority than the previous established teaching, and that its own teaching is therefore not binding and must rejected on the basis of the previous teaching. The other approach was to argue that Dignitatis Humanae, if interpreted properly does not in fact contradict previous magisterial teachings. Various ways of giving such a reading were proposed. Fimister himself seems to agree most with Thomas Pink’s proposal: “the Declaration refers only to the abstract competence of the state qua state and so does not touch upon the powers of the state as instrument of the Church.” But Fimister then somewhat modifies Pink’s thesis with the help of St. Augustine’s argument that a state is only really just (and therefore only really a state) when it worships the true God:

10th Anniversary of the Hermeneutic of Continuity Speech

Has it already been a decade since Pope Benedict XVI gave one of the most important addresses of his pontificate (and, we may say without fear of contradiction, of the past fifty years)? On December 22, 2005, not long after his election to the Chair of St. Peter, Pope Benedict set forth the fundamental principle of his pontificate: reform in continuity, rather than discontinuity and rupture.

[New Catholic: for Rorate, the Hermeneutic of Continuity address was a major game-changer. The blog, as you may recall, had been founded just two days earlier, and the Pope stunned the Catholic world with this address. We were the first venue to provide English translations of the main excerpts of the address for over a week (at that time, the Vatican seriously neglected the language, and the Curia always boycotted Pope Benedict).]

Places Still Available at the Dignitatis Humanae Colloquium in Norcia

There are still places available at the Dignitatis Humanae Colloquium in Norcia, from 30th October to 1st November. As we reported earlier, some of the most distinguished scholars in the Traditionalist movement (including Roberto de Mattei, Thomas Pink, John Lamont, and John Rao) will be debating the meaning of the most controversial of Vatican II's documents, in the presence of Cardinal Burke. Accommodation from the 29th October is with the Benedictine sisters of Norcia. Book now so as not to miss this unique occasion!

Ten Years Ago Today: Pope Benedict's First Message

Ten years ago today, on April 20, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI delivered the first message (that is, formal address) of his pontificate, after he celebrated Mass with the Cardinals. Notably, his message was delivered in Latin -- in retrospect, a significant symbol of his intention to promote a "hermeneutic of continuity" and to restore some measure of gravitas and auctoritas to the Apostolic See and to the Roman Church in general. It is worthwhile, especially in these very different days of 2015, to ponder what he had to say on that occasion.

* * *

FIRST MESSAGE

OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI

AT THE END OF THE EUCHARISTIC CONCELEBRATION

WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS

IN THE SISTINE CHAPEL

Wednesday, 20 April 2005

1. “Favour and peace be yours in abundance” (I Pt 1:2)! At this time, side by side in my heart I feel two contrasting emotions. On the one hand, a sense of inadequacy and human apprehension as I face the responsibility for the universal Church, entrusted to me yesterday as Successor of the Apostle Peter in this See of Rome. On the other, I have a lively feeling of profound gratitude to God who, as the liturgy makes us sing, never leaves his flock untended but leads it down the ages under the guidance of those whom he himself has chosen as the Vicars of his Son and has made shepherds of the flock (cf. Preface of Apostles I).

Colloquium on Religious Liberty in Norcia

We are pleased to share the following announcement of a conference to be held in Norcia, the birthplace of St. Benedict, later this year. It is being organized by the Dominican theologian, Fr. Thomas Crean OP, who has written on the topic.

The 50th Anniversary of Paul VI's First Italian MassSome hard truths about the "1965 Missal" and the Liturgical Reform

Today marks the 50th anniversary of the first "Mass in Italian" to be ever celebrated, an event deemed important enough to be celebrated by the current Pope with a special commemorative Mass at the same church in Rome (Parrocchia di Ognissanti, Via Appia Nuova, 244) where it took place. The original Mass was celebrated by Paul VI on March 7, 1965 which happened to be that year's First Sunday of Lent. The repeatedly vandalized plaque now marking the event (see above) goes so far as to say that it was this event that inaugurated the liturgical reform decreed by Vatican II. (The text of the plaque says, "On March 7, 1965, His Holiness Paul VI, inaugurating the liturgical reform decreed by the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, deigned to celebrate in this temple the first mass in Italian language, amidst the emotion and joy of an entire people, forever faithful and grateful.")

The rite used by Paul VI was the so-called "1965 Missal", essentially the 1962 Missal but with the modernizations and simplifications laid out in 1964 by Inter oecumenici, which document came into force on the same day as the Pope's Italian Mass. (We use inverted commas because there never was an editio typica for the entire Roman Missal as reformed in 1964-1965.) The actual Mass celebrated by Paul VI itself served as the inauguration of the "1965 Missal". It would not have been entirely in Italian because Inter oecumenici mandated that the Orations, Preface, and the silent priestly prayers including the Roman Canon (which continued to be said inaudibly) were to remain in Latin. It also ordered that "Missals to be used in the liturgy, however, shall contain besides the vernacular version the Latin text". Messa in Latino recently published a few pages from a 1965 Italian-Latin Missal showing the bilingual Ordo Missae. (In the USA, vernacularization was already being implemented as early as 1964. The US Bishops' November 1964 document with rules for the use of Latin and the vernacular can be read here.)

Nevertheless it is not true, as is sometimes implied in blogs oriented to the "Reform of the Reform", that the 1965 Missal only allowed a modest use of the vernacular. The permission for the use of the vernacular in Inter oecumenici is sweeping and includes all the parts said or sung by the congregation:

For the record: "Clearer in Manila" as Pope Francis defends Church teachings on human life and sexuality during Philippine visit

The most important passages in bold. All texts are as published on the Vatican website. The speech in the Mall of Asia arena, as actually delivered, was a mix of the English prepared text with off-the-cuff remarks in English and (mostly) in Spanish, while an on-the-spot translation was provided by Msgr. Mark Miles. The Vatican website however provides a fresh translation of the Spanish-language interpolations.

***

Here I would like to say a special word to the young priests, religious and seminarians among us. I ask you to share the joy and enthusiasm of your love for Christ and the Church with everyone, but especially with your peers. Be present to young people who may be confused and despondent, yet continue to see the Church as their friend on the journey and a source of hope. Be present to those who, living in the midst of a society burdened by poverty and corruption, are broken in spirit, tempted to give up, to leave school and to live on the streets. Proclaim the beauty and truth of the Christian message to a society which is tempted by confusing presentations of sexuality, marriage and the family. As you know, these realities are increasingly under attack from powerful forces which threaten to disfigure God’s plan for creation and betray the very values which have inspired and shaped all that is best in your culture.

- Homily at Manila Cathedral, January 16, 2015

(Video)

A Study in Contrasts: Francis, Benedict, Augustine

In the speech delivered at the end of the Synod, Pope Francis said something puzzling. It was another one of those invocations of “the God of surprises,” this time in the midst of a stark opposition between “the letter” and “the spirit”:

One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called—today—“traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

When I read this, I scratched my head, recalling the quite different way in which the Pope’s predecessor, Benedict XVI, had spoken of the spirit and the letter of the Second Vatican Council, in the address he delivered only nine years ago today, December 22, 2005:

Special Major Article: "THE RECONCILER: ending the great equivocation on Vatican II" - In age of no dogmas, why should Spirit of Vatican II be the only one?

The History of the Catholic Church does not begin in 1963. On the anniversary of Humanae Vitae, an article by Italian historian Roberto de Mattei, with a reminder of who truly betrayed the Church and the Council -- those who dogmatize what they want to say it said while throwing away the entire previous history and doctrine of the Church, which is why they rejected and still reject the firm doctrine merely repeated at Humanae Vitae. Plus, with Pope Francis' recognition of the work of Abp. Agostino Marchetto, a vast selection of recent publications that intend to end any equivocation on the history and doctrinal value of Vatican II in relation with the entire history and Tradition of the Church. RORATE

***

___________________________________________

THE RECONCILER

Historian sees merit in Pope Francis for having reopened the debate on Vatican II: in order for it to emerge from the Great Equivocation.

Roberto de Mattei

[published in Italian daily Il Foglio - July 12, 2014 edition]

Was the Second Vatican Council a council that was “betrayed”? By whom?

It is a pertinent question, following the publication of Instrumentum Laboris, the Vatican document that will lead the discussion in the upcoming Synod on the Family. The texts cited by Instrumentum Laboris are in fact, only from the Council or post-council, almost as if a radical shift has occurred in the magisterium of the Church since the 1960s on the theme of the family which is of crucial importance today.

The Bologna School has no doubts: there had been this theological and pastoral shift , but Paul VI stifled the incentive. All of the regrets of “The History of Vatican Council II”, written by Giuseppe Alberigo, are staked on the contrast between the “prophet”, John XXIII, who inaugurated the “new Pentecost” in the Church, and the icy John Baptist Montini who ditched it. Behind this historical reading of Vatican II and now re-proposed by Alberigo’s followers, Alberto Melloni, Giuseppe Ruggieri and Massimo Faggioli, is the innovative theology of Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar and most of all, Karl Rahner. Up to 1965, during the last weeks of the final session, at a conference entitled “The Council: the beginning of a beginning” , the German Jesuit, presented Vatican II as the beginning of a new era in the history of the Church, destined to renovate the community of believers, in an analogous manner to what had happened at the First Council of Jerusalem. Paul VI had betrayed the Council with the Nota praevia in 1964, in which he wanted to limit the significance of collegiality introduced by Lumen Gentium but most of all [he betrayed it]with the “repressive” encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968.

The controversies that followed Humanae Vitae created the first great hermeneutical rupture among the protagonists of Vatican II.

In 1972 the international journal Communio was founded by Joseph Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthasar and Henri de Lubac, and it opposed Concilium in which Karl Rahner, Yves Congar,and Edward Schillebeecks wrote. It was de Lubac who coined the expression “para- council” to condemn that atmosphere of feverish agitation in the years following Vatican II brought on by many theologians to force their conclusions [ideas, interpretations].

In a long interview granted to Angelo Scola in 1985 (“Journey into the Council” Supplement to no. 10, 1985, 30 Giorni, pages 6-30), De Lubac described the “para-council” as a movement of pressure from the media which had intended to influence the Council and post-council on themes such as the primacy of the pontiff and the relationship of the Church with the world.

The same year, Hans Urs von Balthasar, who in 1962 had suggested “Knocking Down The Bastions”(his book, Boria, Turin 2008) in an interview from the same magazine, 30 Giorni, (“Journey into the Post-Council by A. Scola, Edit. Milan 1985), protested that all the expectations of the council had dissolved into “American optimism”. The site Papalepapale recently re-published an interview given to Vittorio Messori by Balthasar in which the German theologian sustained that ‘dialogue’ had shown itself to be “a chimera” and affirmed the necessity of returning to sound doctrine and “to the Tridentine model” of the seminary.

De Mattei answers dissident leader of Franciscans of the Immaculate- "Christian is my name, Catholic my surname." - If there's a "Crypto-Lefebvrianism", its head is Benedict XVI - Abp. Marchetto? We discuss together, with no spirit of demonization

Christianus mihi nomen est, catholicus cognomen

Roberto de Mattei

Corrispondenza Romana 

June 27, 2014

The ultimate criteria of judgment for a Catholic must be the one of the Church: to love and hate what the Church loves and hates: loving the truth in all of its uniqueness and integrity and hating error in all of its multiplicity of expressions. Orthodoxy and heterodoxy remain the final measure of judgment which Christian Reason must be subject to.

In 1542, Pope Paul II, instituted the Congregation of the Roman Inquisition, afterwards called the Holy Office and nowadays named the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the aim of guarding the purity of orthodoxy. In 1571, Saint Pius V, supported it with the Congregation of Index which had the task of indicating all the books deforming correct Catholic Doctrine. In 2002, L’Index Librorum prohibitorum 1600-1966 was published by the Centre d’Études de la Renaissance at Sherbrooke University, and gathers together all of the condemned works until the suppression of the Index, which Paul VI wanted in 1966.  From Protestantism to Illuminism, from Catholic liberalism to modernism, there is not one heterodox writer that has not been singled out and condemned for the good of the Church and for the salvation of souls.

The Index established a precious instrument to help Catholics know and detest errors and heresies. The Holy Office was the supreme tribunal which every Catholic could turn to when they had doubts and perplexities in matters of faith and morals. To the Congregation for the Faith, which followed the Holy Office, we owe, in recent years, a number of notifications, such as Dominus Jesus in 2000 or Considerations regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Homosexual Unions in 2003.

After the disturbing declarations by Cardinal Kasper at the Consistory in February 2014, on the theme of the divorced and remarried, and the equally disquieting document Instrumentum laboris, presented on June 26th, in preparation for the upcoming Synod on the Family, it would be right to expect a clarifying statement from the Congregation (today presided over by Cardinal Müller) about the grave problems on the table in matters relating to the family and sexual morality.

Today, however, there is an attempt to substitute orthodoxy with “orthopraxy”.

The international theological publication “Concilium” dedicated its latest number to the theme: From “anathema sit” to “Who am I to judge?” starting with Pope Francis’ famous sentence on homosexuality: “who am I to judge,” pronounced during the return flight from Brazil in July 2013. The authors define orthodoxy as “metaphysical violence”. They retain that the formulas and dogmas cannot comprehend historical evolution, but each problem must be collocated in its historical and socio-political context. The concept of orthodoxy must be surpassed, or at least re-dimensioned, since, it is used as “a point of reference to suffocate freedom of thought and as a weapon to control and punish.” (“Concilium”, 2/2014, p.11). The primacy of doctrine must be substituted by pastoral praxis, as Father Juan Carlos Scannone explains, intervening in support of Cardinal Kasper, in the article Serene Theology On One’s Knees found in the “Civiltà Cattolica” of June 7, 2014.

The categories of orthodoxy and heterodoxy are being set aside as antiquated. And new semantic expressions are emerging. One of the most curious is “crypto-lefebvrianism”:

Archdiocese of São Paulo: invoking Vatican II in defense of "LGBT"

This week the Archdiocese of São Paulo's "Justice and Peace Committee" issued a statement invoking the Second Vatican Council "in defense" of the "dignity" of "citizenship [civil liberties] and safety of homosexual people" to mark São Paulo's upcoming  18th Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Travesties and Transsexual Pride Parade. 

The Archdiocese of São Paulo is Brazil's largest diocese, with nearly 6 million Catholics. It is headed by Odilo Cardinal Scherer, one of the frontrunner papabili of 2013.

Emphases ours. 

Committee of the Archdiocese of São Paulo defends the dignity of gays

The text was published just a few days before the 18th Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Travesties and Transsexual Pride Parade, which will take place next Sunday

SÃO PAULO – Last Wednesday (April 30th), the Justice and Peace Committee of the Archdiocese of São Paulo published a release in “defense of the dignity of citizenship [i.e. civil liberties] and safety of homosexual people. The text was published just a few days before the 18th Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Travesties and Transsexual Pride Parade of São Paulo, which shall take place next Sunday, (4th), at Avenida Paulista.

“We cannot be silent in view of the reality experienced by such population, which is a target of prejudice and victim of systematic violation to their fundamental rights such as health, education, work, living, and culture, among others”, stated the Catholic Church related entity in a press release. The committee says also that the LGBTs “endure unbearable verbal and physical violence on a daily basis, culminating in murders, which are true hatred crimes”.

The entity invites “people of good will and, particularly, all Christians to reflect upon such deeply unfair reality faced by LGBT people, in order to actively use their best efforts to overcome it, guided by the supreme principle of human dignity”.

Still according to the press release, the entity’s stand, “faithful to its mission of announcing and defending the evangelic and civilizational values of human rights, grounded on the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, approved by the Second Vatican Council: 'The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ'", says the document.

To give voice. The director of the Justice and Peace Committee of the archdiocese, Geraldo Magela Tardelli, stated that this is the first time the committee “formally” writes in behalf of homosexual people.” The committee has a mission, according to Bishop Paulo Evaristo Ars: 'we have to give voice to those who are voiceless’. At this time, we are noticing that there is a growth of violence against homosexual people, so we cannot be silent in relation to such violation to human rights”, stated the director.

According to him, the holding of the Gay Parade has determined the disclosure of the press release. “We think that this was the right time to disclose this release. We from the Church are engaged in defending the human rights and do not agree with any kind of violence, irrespective of color and sexual orientation of people”, says Tardelli.

Source. Among the "citizenship" "rights" included within the "dignity" of such persons is probably the "right" to homosexual "marriage" and adoption rights, recognized by national courts in the past couple of years, naturally without any episcopal action.

Translation into English by Fratres in Unum, with slight corrections.

***

It is remarkable that this statement came out barely 3 days after the canonization of the Pope in whose reign the following judgment was passed on calls to stop "discrimination" against homosexuals:

"Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory.  ...  

Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. no. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons, Nos. 11-14. 

July 24, 1992