Cardinal Pell’s incarceration a “Modern Form of Crucifixion.”
"Well done, good and faithful servant!"
Cardinal George Pell,
the archbishop emeritus of Sydney, Australia, and prefect emeritus of the
Secretariat for the Economy of the Holy See and the Vatican City State, died
suddenly in Rome on Tuesday.
A summary of his
service to Christ can be read here.
Pope Francis recalled
Cardinal Pell’s: "consistent and committed witness, his dedication
to the Gospel and to the Church," commending him for his life’s work and
who, even in the face of hardship, “without wavering, followed his Lord
with perseverance even in the hour of test,” praying that he
would “be welcomed in the joy of heaven and receive the award of peace
eternal.”
Cardinal Pell had
been convicted of child abuse. He served over 400 days in prison, much in
solitary confinement, for a mob and medias driven conviction that was
unanimously overturned by the Australian High Court.
Former Prime Minister
Tony Abbott called Pell a “great son” of Australia and a “great
leader” of the Catholic Church. He remembered him as a “committed
defender of Catholic orthodoxy and a staunch advocate for the virtues of
Western Civilization."
In interviews Cardinal Pell was always respectful of Pope Francis and argued repeatedly over the past 10 years that Catholics should not be attacking each other in the media, but calmly discussing their differences with each other. In a September 2021 interview, he had said Pope Francis has "a great gift of empathy and sympathy" and a great capacity to show closeness to people who are suffering and those who care for them. Asked why there is so much opposition to Pope Francis among conservative Catholics, Cardinal Pell said, "I think a lot of conservative Catholics feel a little bit confused, a little bit uncertain, they wonder just what is being taught."
However, it is claimed that before his death Cardinal Pell grew increasingly disillusioned with the direction of Francis’ papacy, notably its emphasis on inclusion and canvassing of the laity about the future of the church. Details of these concerns can be read here.
Italian blogger Sandro Magister, claimed that Cardinal Pell was the author of a "A Memorandum on the Next Conclave," which Magister published on his blog in March under the pseudonym "Demos." The author of the memo begins by saying, "this pontificate is a disaster in many or most respects; a catastrophe." It complained about Germany's Synodal Path and its discussions about "homosexuality, women priests and communion for the divorced" while "the papacy is silent."
Shortly after Cardinal Pell's death,
Damian Thompson, associate editor of the The Spectator, published what he said was a recent submission to the
magazine by Cardinal Pell criticising the Synod of
Bishops process as "a toxic nightmare." Cardinal Pell's
secretary, Fr. Joseph Hamilton, confirmed Cardinal Pell wrote the
article.
In the article, Cardinal Pell described the synod process as: "this potpourri, this outpouring of New Age good will. It is not a summary of Catholic faith or New Testament teaching. It is incomplete, hostile in significant ways to the apostolic tradition and nowhere acknowledges the New Testament as the Word of God, normative for all teaching on faith and morals. The Old Testament is ignored, patriarchy rejected and the Mosaic Law, including the Ten Commandments, is not acknowledged."
In a September 2021 interview, Cardinal Pell had said Pope Francis has "a great gift of empathy and sympathy" and a great capacity to show closeness to people who are suffering and those who care for them. Asked why there is so much opposition to Pope Francis among conservative Catholics, Cardinal Pell said, "I think a lot of conservative Catholics feel a little bit confused, a little bit uncertain, they wonder just what is being taught."
It complained about Germany's Synodal Path and its discussions about "homosexuality, women priests and communion for the divorced" while "the papacy is silent."
ReplyDeleteIf I might derail slightly, John Inge, the Anglican bishop of Worcester, has released an open letter to the diocese detailing 'why he believes that the celebration and honouring of monogamous, faithful same-sex relationships by the Church of England would be consonant with the scriptural witness.'
It's worth reading in that it sets out the trajectory that it's been evident that the CofE has wished to take since SSM was legalised and that Mr. Welby has been equivocating about ever since. God is, according to Mr. Inge, capable of calling on the Church to rewrite doctrine under the influence of 'what is happening in the ‘secular’ world'. The letter seems to me to be a series of leaps between forgone conclusions strung together by some wild speculation and fantasy, but it's predictably being hailed as a theological tour de force.
You may slightly digress,although it's stretching the meaning of the term.
DeleteThis is a good source document for all the modernist-progressive nonsense spewing out of the liberal wing of the Anglican 'community'. There's nothing new here that one hasn't encountered on the misnamed 'Thinking Anglican' website, or for that matter on dissident Catholic sites.
Tell HJ, do the Orthodox Church make use of the concept of natural law in their theology?
I live for stretching terms and exploiting technicalities!
DeleteNo, it's not new, but coming from a bishop rather than internet agitators is surely a signpost that this won't be long coming (introduced under the guise of a decision of conscience and then implicitly compelled, as remarriage was). There aren't many traditionalist bishops left to oppose it.
In my opinion, they should just get on with it and end this cowardly 'mutual flourishing' nonsense limbo that says that two mutually exclusive things can be true at the same time (and it will be interesting to see if the con-evangelicals' uncrossable red line moves again). It was obvious from day one that the prohibitions on celebrating SSM in the CofE were only ever a temporary hold until the traditionalists had died out, and much of the CofE already does it anyway in 'blessing' or 'affirming' same sex relationships.
Anglican practice from the beginning has been to rewrite scripture according to the desires of the state and, since they have redefined marriage as simply a partnership offering mutual support and sexual intimacy (note that Mr. Inge raises procreation only to dismiss it), view the scriptures as mutable and have no Tradition to bind them, then there's no reason not to affirm same sex relationships.
Anyway, yes - we do draw on the concept of natural law. It's found in the Fathers who speak of the logos physios (law of nature), kata physin (things according to nature), and para physin (things against nature). It goes back as St. Justin the Martyr, who developed the concept from Stoics. St. John of Damascus, for example, wrote that 'both knowledge of God’s existence and virtue are planted in us by nature. While we then abide in a natural state, we abide in virtue; but when we deviate from the natural state, we come into an unnatural state and dwell in wickedness.' Natural law has never developed as a separate 'discipline', as it were, in the Orthodox Church in the way that it did in the West via Augustine and Aquinas (lacking the challenges of the Reformation and Enlightenment, the OC has never had to systemise its theology in the Western sense), but it's there in the background of almost everything.
This is an interesting lecture on the role of natural law in Orthodox theology (it's quite long, but you can scroll down for the transcript).
Thanks for that article ...
DeleteHJ thinks the bottom line in this debate is what is revealed in scripture and what is revealed in natural law - they are both the Word. Modernists can use their Gríma Wormtongue tactics on the written Word, making all sorts of lame arguments about culture and advances in science, and Jesus said and didn't say etc,; but when it comes down to the Word in nature and sexual complementarity they're snookered.
Hence the need to disassociate sex from reproduction. Sexual complementarity is irrelevant is sex is simply an exercise in erotic gratification. Not that this is a particularly novel argument; it was quite widespread in many ancient cultures to keep women for baby making and boys for pleasure.
DeleteIs this accurate?
DeleteThe (Orthodox) Church's position on contraception is less well known than its stand on abortion. Several official publications have condemned family planning, regarding it as a form of prostitution within the family and as a sin. The official position of the Greek Orthodox Church was set forth in an encyclical written in 1937, which recommended abstinence as the only legal method of avoiding conception. The position of the Christian Orthodox Church on abortion and contraception is fundamentally identical to that of the Roman Catholic Church. Because the position of the Christian Orthodox Church on birth control, which has been fixed for centuries, has not been officially debated and has not been communicated to the members, it has not fully guided daily life. One might suppose that members of the Christian Orthodox Church are freer of church control of their fertility behavior than are Catholics."
HJ thought there was more leeway. This suggests the position hasshifted?
Yes, broadly. Unlike abortion, contraception isn't something that there's an 'official' Orthodox pronouncement about comparable to the CCC or Humanae Vitae, etc. The Orthodox and Catholic positions are 'fundamentally identical' insomuch as contraception, from NFP, is sinful and should be avoided (although it's the desire not to have children, not the contraceptive act per se in which the sin lies: the Fathers speak against frustrating the natural purpose of intercourse).
DeleteWhere the position differs, I think, is that the OC views it as a pastoral issue rather than a dogmatic one, and it is the role of the local bishop, via the priest, to give guidance to couples depending on their individual circumstances. Under the principle of oikonomia, a couple may be allowed to use non-abortifacient contraception in some cases (if the life of the wife would be at risk from another pregnancy, for example, and the couple cannot remain celibate).
The first set of comments in the linked article are correct; the different versions of the book are indicative of Met. Ware of blessed memory becoming more nuanced in his opinions and/or opinions over time, and of the difficulties in East-West communication when we say the same words, but mean different things. It's also quite amusing that the author complains of being treated with hostility in an online Orthodox forum ... given his hostility towards the Orthodox in his own comments section, I suspect he simply got back a taste of what he was dishing out!
It's also worth reading the comments by 'an Orthodox Christian', about halfway down. He (I presume) speaks particularly to why the matter has never been 'officially debated' - i.e. pronounced upon at an Ecumenical Council:
[Attempts to convene a modern Council have been frustrated by] traditionalist factions, who wished to avoid any risk of an “Orthodox Vatican II” ... The traditionalists have taken Vatican II and the ongoing disaster inside the Anglican Communion as a cautionary tale, and have established a sort of firewall against anything similar happening in Orthodoxy by taking a hardline stance against ANY kind of Great Council or Ecumenical Council being successfully convened for ANY reason – even the most innocent reasons. Because if we can’t successfully convene a Council, then we can’t change anything. From a bureaucratic point of view, boycotting every attempted Council is the best way to safeguard against modernism.
insomuch as contraception, apart from NFP
Deletebecoming more nuanced in his writing and/or opinions
I miss the edit button.
雲水,
DeleteDid Kallistos (Timothy) Ware pass away?? It seems that he did, just a few months ago, may he rest in peace (or whatever the OC version of that is). His book The Orthodox Church is a must-read intoduction to Eastern Orthodoxy, written with a concision that is sublime.
I think we all miss the edit button!
Yes, he reposed in August last year (the Orthodox version is 'may his memory be eternal'). His The Orthodox Church is still the English language introductory text to the Eastern Church and is, as you say, a masterpiece in concision, containing so much content in such a relatively small book, without compromising on depth. We're also indebted to him for his work on the English translation of The Philokalia.
DeleteI tried to get a copy of the Philokalia here, in a celebrated translation by local man Dumitru Staniloae, but they only had bits of it available. Maybe another time.
DeleteBest of luck tracking it down. I have a copy of Staniloae's Dogmatic Orthodox Theology, it's a very impressive achievement.
DeleteVol. 5 of the English translation of the Philokalia was only released last year - Vol. 4 came out in 1995 - from new translators; all of the original team died before the project was complete, which is a sobering thought.
Staniloae published an impressive amount, interupted by 5 years as a political prisoner, and including the 40+ years he apparantly took translating the Philokalia - I suppose I should try to get it in English as it would take me 3 lifetimes to read it in my second language!
DeleteI'm not 100% sure what the main thrust of this post is, especially considering its repeated last paragraph. Is it that Pell was usually very loyal to the pope but at the end of his life expressed severe misgivings, or that the articles then published in his name are not to be trusted?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete@Lain, I’ve been making an effort to plough my way through the Bishop of Worcester’s open letter to his flock, overcoming at several points a strong urge to write it off as yet another TLDR.
“Scriptural” and “biblical” are adjectives Bishop Inge scatters around generously, we might even say heedlessly:
… we believe this to be consonant with the scriptural witness … the general understanding of what scripture and the tradition of the Church required … I desire to live my life under the scriptures … a reappraisal of the scriptures … we are bound by the scriptures, interpreted within the living tradition of the Church through the application of reason and experience … the convictions we have reached after prayer, study of scripture and theological reflection … re-examining the scriptures in the light of science … embracing the wider range of biblical evidence … offering biblical guidance for the issues of our generation … branding them second-class citizens, whatever sophisticated biblical and theological reasons are given …
And yet he is strangely parsimonious with actual Biblical references. In his long letter he cites chapter and verse a miserly seven times. Two of the references have to do with divorce and one each with women keeping their heads covered, women not speaking in church, and marriage between a man and a woman as a “creation ordinance”.
That leaves just two references for homosexual relationships, one each in the OT and the NT. Dealing with the latter verse, Bishop Inge writes:
The word ‘homosexual’ was first used in the Revised Standard Version of 1946 to translate biblical words and phrases referring to various forms of same-sex sexual activity (specifically 1Cor 6.9).
Well, okay, Bishop Inge, let us concede your point that no earlier Bible translator had used the word “homosexual”. Kindly note, however, that fifteen centuries before the RSV, St Jerome in the Vulgate translated Paul’s Greek terminology as “neque molles, neque masculorum concubitores,” which Ronald Knox, in his New Testament published in 1941— still five years before the RSV — translated in turn as “It is not the effeminate, the sinners against nature … that will inherit the kingdom of God.”
That is clear enough, isn't it? As you say in your letter, in the sentence I have just quoted, the text in the original languages comprises, in your own words, "biblical words and phrases referring to various forms of same-sex sexual activity."
Good job getting through it, sorry to have inflicted it on you! In this case, TLDR stands for Theologically Light, Don't Read.
DeleteYes, it's all rather a soup of impressive sounding words that 'have the appearance of godliness but deny its power'; I kept waiting for Inge to make a substantial point, which never came. What he notably fails to address is that the Church has never shared his novel opinion that same sex erotic relationships are compatible with Scripture: we are supposed to believe that 21st Century Westerners know what the text 'really means' better than the people who knew the people who actually wrote them!
Inge happily draws on scholars who agree with him, but none who disagree. He approvingly quotes Brueggemann's observation that we read scripture through the lens of our own views about gender; and then goes on to read scripture through the lens of his own views about gender. He makes a very confused argument about God having no gender, conflates this with an antiquarian misunderstanding about how genitals work to suggest that binary sex is a modern invention (while elsewhere noting that the Bible defines humans as male and female) and then suggests that gender doesn't matter in sexual relationships and there's no such thing as a 'fixed biblical view of marriage' (a linguistic trick, which conveniently overlooks 2000 years of consistent Church teaching that there definitely is such a thing as a fixed Christian view of marriage). He jettisons reproduction as one of the fundamental aims of marriage on the grounds that some couples can't have children, and mentally somersaults into comparing a non-productive heterosexual marriage with a same sex one. Then, as you picked up, he mentions that the word 'homosexual' is a modern invention and claims that the biblical authors aren't condemning homosexual relationships because they didn't use a word that wasn't even invented then.
All in all, it's a piece of philosophical and theological reasoning that a GCSE student should be ashamed to turn in. I have more respect for the people who say that the scriptures are simply a product of a certain time and certain culture and we have to move beyond their limitations, than Mr. Inge's attempt to make them agree with 21st century shibboleths. There is more intellectual honesty in the first group, in my opinion.
@Jack - I've replied to Ray's comment three times, but nothing's showing up. This censorship is outrageous! 😤
DeleteJust behave yourself, squiggly writing person.
DeleteIdeograms are by far the superior writing system, Mr. Man.
Delete@Lain, and what is more, the letter runs to 4,000 words. My computer just counted them for me. That's a lot of words to convey so little meaning.
Delete@ Squiggly writing person.
DeleteThe name is Mr E. Man and, as the site moderator, my word is final.
Anyone interested in some facts.
ReplyDeleteThe Royal Commission, whose mandate was to look at the Church’s response covering the period 1950 to 2010, failed to acknowledge that under Cardinal Pell’s stewardship, the first Australian response to the sexual abuse crisis was established in which victims were able to receive compensation – 20 years before the Royal Commission suggested such a body – and the cover-up of clerical sexual abuse ended.
The sad conclusion is that the Royal Commission was less interested in getting to the bottom of the problem, and more interested in destroying one man’s reputation.
A careful examination of the “findings” of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which accused Cardinal George Pell of covering up sexual abuse when he was a priest in Ballarat, and when an Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, shows that the Royal Commission wilfully ignored the overwhelming weight of evidence that contradicted its opinions.
Further, it failed in its duty to inform Cardinal Pell that it intended to make adverse findings against him, and failed to give him an opportunity to respond to them, contrary to long-established practice and the principle of procedural fairness, which underpins the operations of royal commissions.
As an auxiliary bishop at the time, Bishop Pell had no power to remove or suspend Father Searson. The only person who had such authority was the Archbishop at the time, who did nothing.
The Royal Commission failed to record that within a year of being appointed Archbishop of Melbourne in 1996, Cardinal Pell had removed Father Searson from the parish and retired him.
Thank you, @Cressie. Until now I hadn't been aware of any of that background.
DeleteArchbishop Anthony Fisher's Face Book page has a video clip Requiescat In Pace for Cardinal Pell
DeletePART ONE.....by James Parker
ReplyDeleteLess than four months ago, I sat directly alongside Cardinal Pell at his dining table in Rome. We laughed, philosophised and prayed – and enjoyed a particularly large gin and tonic together.
The purpose of our luncheon meeting was to discuss sport and the ongoing creation of the St John Paul II Foundation for Sport in Australia, which hopes to encourage and facilitate the return of godly values and virtues across the sporting world. It is only since then that I have begun to read the memoirs of his time in prison.
In volume one of his Prison Journal, the late Cardinal wrote: “many of us are tone deaf to the Supernatural, not tuned into any godly wavelength.”
Although we might each struggle to tune into what God might be saying to us, this truth certainly could not be attributed to Cardinal Pell.
Cardinal George Pell and the author in Rome last year
We never discussed the topic of his court cases or his incarceration during our three-hour luncheon. However, what I did raise with him as dessert was ending was a topic very close to my and many others’ hearts, namely childhood sexual abuse.
Within an air of good food, great company and scintillating conversation, any earlier formal atmosphere had now dissipated. I turned and looked directly into the eyes of the Cardinal and shared with him that I was a survivor of extensive childhood sexual abuse. Immediately, I had his full attention, the concrete fixture of his gaze and his silence. His demeanour moved immediately into that of a concerned servant, one never experienced in the presence of a predator on children.
I mentioned to him that it was only within the realms of the Church had I been able to find any true and lasting healing from the layers of trauma experienced for three years during my late childhood.
I shared how for some time I had been running a survivors’ support network across Western Australia, one that is daily mushrooming into every state and territory of this vast nation as survivors struggle to find any meaningful resolution to their past trauma.
I thanked him on behalf of a vast number of abuse survivors for being the first church leader globally whilst Archbishop of Melbourne to hear, and to respond to, the whisper of God’s voice which led to the Melbourne Response protocol being established in 1996 to investigate and deal with complaints of child sexual abuse in his archdiocese.
Imperfect though the protocol has been judged to be compared to today’s standards, it nevertheless made public, and therefore undeniable, for the first time ever within the perimeters of the Church globally the reality that childhood sexual abuse could and did exist within ecclesial confines. Every survivor group internationally should be applauding this courageous action, not vilifying the man who set its wheels in motion.
PART 2 by James Parker faciltator of TRUE IDENTITY
ReplyDeleteCertainly, in Australia the Melbourne Response preceded the creation of Towards Healing, a national Church response, which further opened the door for abuse survivors internationally to come forward to tell their stories and to begin to hold Church leaders accountable.I, and many in the survivors’ support network, have reflected on what our nation and indeed our world might look like today if Cardinal George Pell had not instigated the Melbourne Response. We will continue for a long time to be grateful to him for boldly leaving his comfort zone and for stepping into precarious territory.
In the case of Pell v. The Queen, every survivor in our network, a number of whom have been witnesses in trials against their own abusers, believed all along that Cardinal Pell could not be guilty for the crimes of which he was convicted.
We were hurt that an innocent man had been declared guilty. We are still hurt today that so many continue to believe him to have been guilty and are rejoicing at his untimely death. Sycophants we aren’t; realists we definitely are.
The baying crowds across Victoria could not be silenced until they had secured an innocent scapegoat to crucify in payment of the prevalent sexual sins of every abusive father, mother and person of responsibility across Australia’s history. They would only be satisfied once Pell was incarcerated and mocked by every media and secular outlet. As they spat upon Pell’s Christian gabardine, they got their pound of flesh – for 405 days.
Anyone who has worked within the delicate and often strenuous area of adult recovery from child sex abuse will know that the issues of transference and projection can be commonplace.
If indeed the complainant was a victim of childhood sexual abuse (and we have no reason to this day to believe that he wasn’t), then the accusatory finger was pointed unquestionably at the wrong man. This means that the complainant’s true perpetrator is most likely still to be roaming freely. That isn’t justice. Pell, therefore, not was not only the first voice to speak up for survivors, but he paid the price for injustices committed by others.
From a spiritual perspective, maybe Pell also paid the price for those who are never discovered, tried and convicted, following the path trod by his Master?
As a female friend in Melbourne, an Evangelical Christian with a doctorate in theology and much expertise in the recovery of sexual brokenness, recently shared with me about Cardinal Pell, “he has been a man of courage, singled out for such venom.”
Pell’s sudden passing should serve as a reminder to us all that none of us can know the hour when God will decide on our last breath.
James Parker
>James Parker was a gay rights’ activist. He now facilitates True Identity, an informal network that supports those struggling with sexuality & gender identity issues.
Thanks Cressie, that's a very moving account. May God grant him peace.
DeleteHAPPY ORTHODOX UKRAINIAN NEW YEAR While New Year’s Day is a public holiday on January 1, many Ukrainians still celebrate the "Old New Year", or Orthodox New Year, which is on January 14 in the Gregorian calendar.
ReplyDeleteHappy Orthodox New Year, Cress. (For some reason some of my comments here get deleted, let's see what happens with this one.)
DeleteGadjo, not sure why this happens but they're not being "deleted". Occasionally, for some inexplicable reason, comments do land in the "spam" folder and Jack checks this regularly. None of yours are there.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/VByNuaE_CT0
ReplyDelete