« Praying with the Pope | Main | Beautiful »
March 12, 2007
Responding..
....to the Hannity/Euteneuer dustup...FoxNews commentator, Fr. Jonathon Morris, LC:
As I watched a fellow Catholic priest spar with you on the March 9 edition of Hannity and Colmes, I hung my head in shame and sadness. My colleague in religion (whom I've never met) used the public airways and Internet to call you a heretic and hypocrite. Because he chose to do this in a public forum, I want you and your viewers to know, publicly, that as an analyst of this television network, I believe this good priest, who does great work, exercised, on this occasion, shockingly poor judgment. I consider his willingness to give his personal opinion about your status within the Church inappropriate and ill-considered, to say the least.
Regardless of the issue and arguments at hand, brandishing law without palpable love almost always repels. I must assume he just made an honest mistake.
The unfortunate event reminded me of the bigger question of the fast-eroding credibility among religious leaders in our nation and its causes.
snip
Here's my point:
When we believe we have discovered truth and, therefore, we believe others are wrong — a sign of cultivated intelligence, not pride — we must reject the temptation to throw civility to the wind. Being right always didn't ever inspire Jesus to jeopardize people's reputation or dignity. It went against his very nature, and it should go against ours too. Sometimes he spoke harshly, but he always spoke in love, and he made sure people knew it.
Sean, I don't always agree with you and Alan, as I have told both of you in person, but I think you are both honest, and both have the humility and courage to accept truth when you stumble across it, even when it comes in bits and pieces. I think it's precisely this three-pronged attitude of honesty, humility and courage that best prepares us, with all of our imperfections, for heaven.
Rather strange.
I agree that Fr. Euteneuer put himself in a challenging situation and the whole concept of heresy could have been put aside in favor of another way of discussing the same subject in a way that's not so incendiary.
Some can say (and are saying) that he should have attempted to contact Hannity privately with his concerns. Possibly true - but, trust me, getting through to those people at that level is very difficult, and would be even for the head of an international pro-life group.
Another possibility, that I hear no one mention: that upon hearing about Fr. Euteneuer's original column, if Hannity was so concerned and really invested in being a faithful Catholic, he could have contact Father and asked, "I'm wondering about that column you wrote...could you enlighten me further? Because you're a priest, and I'm a Catholic in the punditocracy, and gosh, I want to make sure I get Catholic teaching right before I spout off about it to millions. That's a responsibility I take seriously."
But no, he invited him on his show, yelled at him, and allowed him very little time to speak without interruption. Which is par for the course, and to be honest, if I'd been advising Father (yeah), I would have told him not to go on the show - to insist on radio time, perhaps, since that was the starting point of all that, and the radio show is a bit less blustery and frantic than the television setting. That "talk show" environment of those programs is a lose-lose situation, almost all the time.
UPDATE
Thanks to a commentor for noting - Fr. Euteneuer has posted comments on his appearance
(It's also here - a blog with a comment function).
....and another to Fr. Morris:
Your letter to Sean Hannity indicates that you did not know that I asked to speak to him in private about this matter in 2004 otherwise you may have tempered your remarks about my supposed lack of charity in dealing with a high profile Catholic who dissents from clearly-defined and reiterated Church teachings. [See “Fr. Euteneuer asks to meet with Hannity about birth control” on sidebar.] You also seemed to be unaware of the fact that Sean was the one who invited me on his program and who then promptly “[threw] civility to the wind,” refused to display “cultivated intelligence” on the issues and jeopardized another person’s “reputation and dignity.” May I also point out that you did not employ with me the same standard of “fraternal correction” that you expected me to employ with Mr. Hannity. I at least made the attempt to speak to him about this issue in private without success; you, in contrast, went immediately to the internet to take me to task. I do not intend to understand your motives; I can only evaluate what I see in your actions.
The question that comes to mind is an obvious one: if you are a Fox analyst on Catholic matters, wouldn’t you have been the one to have had those “private conversations” on birth control with Mr. Hannity? How about discussions on his abortion exceptions? When you told Sean “in person” that you “disagreed with him,” was it on the issue of birth control? If you had done that, I applaud you, but your powers of persuasion may need a little honing—Sean has only gotten more vocal on this issue over time. If you did not speak to him about his public dissent, then I ask you, “Why?” While we are on the subject, have you also analyzed and disagreed with Bill O’Reilly’s perfectly horrible disdain for the Holy Father and the Church that you represent?
snip
As a seminary rector, I would sincerely hope that you are not teaching by word or example the young men in your charge to be politically correct sissies who are afraid to roll up their sleeves and defend the Church in private and in public. We have tons of those types in the clergy already. I would advise you to drink deeply of the wisdom of the Number Two man at our Headquarters who has in no uncertain terms told all of us that high profile dissenters are a scourge and a danger to souls. [See item: “Bertone: Dissident Catholics More Worrying Than Atheists.” http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/jan/07011003.html.]
I wish you fraternal blessings for your priestly work.
Is it me, or is it getting hot in here?
My only problem with Fr. E's first response, which concerned the show in general - is his use of the vocabulary of "conservative" and "liberal." I can see his reasoning, since Hannity's MO is "conservative." Fr. E then uses the occasion to say that Hannity has been revealed as a "liberal."
That's a mistake, though because we're talking about matters of faith here, and that vocabulary is totally inadquate to the cause. Besides, I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of political conservatives in this country share Hannity's "no problem" with contraception, and don't even see it as a moral issue, much less a political one.
So with that caveat...Round Three? Four?
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
I'm very disappointed by this Legionary Priest's attempt to suck up to a celebrity. Amy, you're right, Fr. Euteneuer could have handled it differently, but that said, Hannity's behavior was inexcusable and showed that Euteneuer was right about him. The Legionary's response unfortunately reminded me of the response of Cardinal Egan when asked about the pro-abort Catholic pols--they're my friends. Yes, friendship with the world is the game.
Posted by: David Deavel at Mar 12, 2007 4:16:44 PM
With all due respect to Fr. Morris, I had to read his opinion a couple of times to make sure I read him correctly. And now, after the second reading I have to respectfully ask Father just which scriptures he felt confident in conveniently skipping over in order to design a rather incomplete picture. In giving the benefit of the doubt I'm assuming that perhaps he may just be in denial as to the rather obvious attitude demonstrated by Jesus in particular public situations of judgement....not only Him alone in those scriptures, but also the one He called no man better born of woman - John the Baptist - who also was no Mr. Sweetness and Light towards certain of adulterers...who also presumably liked to justify that they too were "good" members of the faith of the times.
Posted by: chris K at Mar 12, 2007 4:17:30 PM
Why was Fr. Morris so soft on Hannity, even suggesting he has humility? It just does not seem honest to give Hannity such dignity after the way he behaved.
Posted by: Michael at Mar 12, 2007 4:20:36 PM
So now this other priest has validated Hannity in thinking he can disagree with and disobey the church and still be a "Good Catholic."
Such people can be so smug and self righteous it almost takes really sharp words to penetrate. Nicey nicey stuff won't do it. And Hanity himself wasn't being polite, civil,or gentle. At least Fr. E attempted to speak the truth to Hannity. That shows genuine love for his soul. To speak the truth in a loving way while someone is yelling at you on national TV and hardly letting you get a word in edgewise is an awfully difficult assignment.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Mar 12, 2007 4:22:08 PM
What really got me about the interview is the way Hannity kept on saying "Judge not, ...." He totally ignored the fact that the priest was talking about Hannity's recorded statements that contradict Catholic teaching, not judging the state of his soul.
Posted by: Sr Lorraine at Mar 12, 2007 4:34:39 PM
If Fr. Thomas was throwing stones at Hannity, the Fr. Jon was throwing stones at Fr. Thomas just as much. How does Morris defend himself?
Posted by: cricket at Mar 12, 2007 4:36:28 PM
Why didn't Sean mention the church's treatment of Galileo?
Posted by: The Kid at Mar 12, 2007 4:42:06 PM
I guess LC now stands for "lapdog of conservatives."
Posted by: Hunk Hondo at Mar 12, 2007 4:43:07 PM
Being right always didn't ever inspire Jesus to jeopardize people's reputation or dignity. It went against his very nature, and it should go against ours too.
Father Morris's bible must have left out the various things Jesus called the scribes and pharisees--apparently right to their face too, since (in my version) it says that his words led them to plot his murder.
Posted by: ron chandonia at Mar 12, 2007 4:43:58 PM
Boy are you ever right about the TV talk/interview shows- you almost never come across well on those things because you are up against a professional. No matter how right you are, and how wrong they are, they can almost always make you look foolish.
Posted by: thomas tucker at Mar 12, 2007 4:48:45 PM
This is what I don't get. A public personality like Sean Hannity states several times that he disagrees with the church on XYZ. I understand that the nice thing to do is take him aside and tell him about it. But when does the error that is now out there bringing hurt and scandal ever get addressed? Short of someone like Hannity having a change of heart and publically recanting the prior remarks - it doesn't. In that sense I think Father Euteneuer was right and even brave to address it and give Sean Hannity the opportunity to ask for clarification or admit that he was wrong. At the very least he at least illustrated that Sean just might be wrong in his dissent.
Posted by: Elena at Mar 12, 2007 4:52:48 PM
Well good grief, talk about one extreme to the other. On the one hand we have Fr. Euteneuer, who basically comes off like a fire and brimstone preacher yelling "heretic" and telling Hannity he would deny him Communion, and on the other hand there's Fr. Morris, who seems to be bending over backwards to make amends and soothe the savage beast (Hannity) while barely acknowledging that Fr. Euteneuer has truth on his side.
Nobody wins on these Fox sparring matches it's true (except Hannity and Colmes' ratings) but it sure would be nice to see a powerful AND orthodox Catholic communicator take on loudmouth cafeteria Catholics like Hannity and drive home the same points (with more humor and less heresy talk, perhaps?) Of course, if Fr. Euteneuer hadn't challenged Hannity directly by name, he wouldn't have been invited onto the show to begin with.
Still, I'm SO tired of the arrogance of people like Hannity, who think that because they studied in a seminary and know a bit of Latin automatically makes them "devout." It's like Amanda Marcotte saying she has the right to dump on her own religion because she got a degree from Loyola.
Posted by: CV at Mar 12, 2007 5:13:56 PM
I'm surprised Fr. E wasn't more prepared for the ubiquitous "Judge not..." line. Sr Lorraine could've supplied him the perfect rejoinder by saying that rather than judging Hannity's soul, his statements contradict Catholic teaching. Soundbyte length too.
Posted by: TSO at Mar 12, 2007 5:16:54 PM
It's been a long time since I've talked with Fr. Jonathan. (He was still Br. Jonathan when I knew him.) For the little my knowledge extends, he's a good guy, even if I found him overly exuberant about recruiting for LC, but I think he's woefully mistaken here.
The website doesn't make it crystal clear, so some might not fully catch on to the fact that Fr. Jonathan works for Fox News as a guest contributor. He regularly writes a column on the website and has done television commentary for them for some time. So, in all likelihood, he probably feels like he's defending a friend a bit and probably has met Sean personally. I'm not sure how Jonathan first got picked for doing the TV work. His good looks probably don't hurt and I'm sure some of it comes from the fact that he worked on Gibson's film, The Passion -- he's one of the two LC priests mentioned in the credits -- and that he's now stationed in Rome and was there during JPII's death.
Personally, I think the guy's had way too much attention thrown at him at a young age. And it's natural that a priest could be as caught up in the confusing conservative/catholic times (are they one and the same, in conflict with each other, an ideological distortion of the latter for the former, etc.)as so many others are.
So, I'm disappointed in this column, if only because I think, on the little I know of him, Fr.'s better than this. But he's a good priest overall.
Not trying to overly defend him, but I would hate to see this reduced to LC=conservative lapdogs as it was above.
Posted by: JACK at Mar 12, 2007 5:24:32 PM
Canonical question: Father E said he would withhold Communion from Hannity if Hannity approached him.
Does a minister of Communion have that canonical authority, to withhold Communion from someone like Hannity, without prior instructions from the Ordinary?
Also: What precisely is Hannity's position regarding contraception? That Humanae Vitae is wrong? Or, that HV doesn't require outlawing contraception, or acknowledging that contracepting is preferable to aborting or spreading disease? The latter is hardly a manifestly dissenting position; Amy in the past linked to a Tablet article from an Opus Dei priest / moral theologian who argued much the same.
Posted by: Rick at Mar 12, 2007 5:29:17 PM
Well, at least Alan Colmes came out OK is this clip. His interjection toward the end cracked me up! :)
Posted by: Sue T. at Mar 12, 2007 5:37:54 PM
Several have mentioned that Fr E. should have talked to Hannity privately. I initially thought that would have been a better approach until I realized that Hannity invited Fr E on the show to discuss his column. If Fr E had refused, Hannity would have more than likely gone on the air and basically accuse Fr E of being a coward for not defending his position.
I think Fr E did the right thing. Perhaps he could have worded his responses a little better, but overall, I think that Hannity comes off as an *ss.
Posted by: Brian Day at Mar 12, 2007 5:41:12 PM
Sean, I don't always agree with you and Alan, as I have told both of you in person, but I think you are both honest, and both have the humility and courage to accept truth when you stumble across it, even when it comes in bits and pieces. I think it's precisely this three-pronged attitude of honesty, humility and courage that best prepares us, with all of our imperfections, for heaven.
Oh, I get it! It was wrong of Fr. Euteneuer to imply that Mr. Hannity was bound for hell, but it's acceptable to speculate about his suitability for heaven. Thanks, Padre!
Posted by: Rich Leonardi at Mar 12, 2007 5:50:33 PM
Father Jonathan has just given permission to Cafeteria Catholics to continue with their pick and choose mentality. I grew up in the same era and same diocese as Sean Hannity and I can tell you that the catechesis was horrible!
It would be great if Bishop William Murphy would publicly clarify the Church's teaching in the Long Island Catholic. In my entire lifetime, I have never heard a priest in this diocese preach about the sinfulness of birth control.
Posted by: lourdes at Mar 12, 2007 6:04:20 PM
Hopefully Grisez's fourth tome planned for 2004 (?) and geared to clerics and religious will help the men in collars discern the particular grave moral responsibility they are bound by as vicarious Pascal Lambs - neither Fr E. nor Fr M. in my mind comes off well in these encounters: they may feel they were addressing only Mr. H. But the whole of America (with global reach via cable syndication) is watching - your audience Gentlemen of the Cloth is everyman. As Barbara Nicolisi noted last week at her blog Church of the Masses, media savvy Catholics do not grow on trees they need to be 'pruned' to bear fruit. We need a Christian Center for the Arts and Media to help folks grasp that arguments from practical reason (pagan philosophy) suffice to describe the pursuit of happiness, to be human is to act humanely. A Catholic is not called to be a a witness to mere humanity by avoiding inhumane conduct (the decaloque, Thou shalt not... etc.) but to be a witness to Christ (Blessed are the poor in Spirit, see Cantalamessa post on Matthew 5 below). Unfortuately neither of these priests makes anything close to that argument, as indeed most of their brothers or fathers in faith, the bishops, also fail. Anyone with clout and some disposable income should seriously consider Barbara's proposal, and help out these hapless men of the cloth!
Posted by: Clare Krishan at Mar 12, 2007 6:13:30 PM
Thank you, Fr. Morris, for correctly pointing out that Fr. E. was being judgemental. And waaay too publically.
Too bad mnay in the com boxes here don't get this.
Sean Hannity: the new poster boy for Conservative Cafeteria Catholics!
Posted by: Brigid at Mar 12, 2007 6:16:25 PM
"overall, I think that Hannity comes off as an *ss"
When doesn't Hannity come off that way?
I'm ashamed of Fr. Morris for what he has said. I fear he may be too "embedded" with Fox to be able to speak honestly and forthrightly about this matter.
Posted by: Jordan Potter at Mar 12, 2007 6:19:09 PM
I'm surprised to find an LC bashing a fellow priest. If anything I thought he'd be backing up his brother priest, who was in a rough spot being barked at on national TV like that, not defending Hannity, who appears to be objectively in the wrong.
We had a saying in my old evangelical world: truth without love can be hurtful, but love without truth is meaningless. It's a tricky balancing act to get them both right, and we do err. But should we beat up the person who slipped up speaking the truth, and let off the guy who’s glaringly, publicly, wrong?
As for the question of heresy, while it might be a bit harsh to throw the term around in public, it’s not exactly incorrect, and maybe even understandable given the heated circumstances (be honest: how many of us could really can keep our cool, and be all gentle, sweet, and nice, in a situation like that? I don’t think I could.). For your erudition:
Heretic: a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. -Diciontionary.com
”The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval.” -St. Thomas Aquinas
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 12, 2007 6:24:07 PM
Having read both Fr. Euteneuer's letter and Fr. Morris' column, I have to side with Fr. Euteneuer.
Sadly, many Catholics who watch Fox News will side with Sean Hannity whose views on birth control matches theirs; and Fr. Morris' letter will go a long way toward convincing them that they're just fine, that birth control is really okay with the Church, and that even priests disagree about it.
In fact, since Fr. Morris' letter doesn't mention birth control or contraception at all, people reading the letter will come to the conclusion that Fr. Euteneuer's 'rudeness' or incivility is a greater sin, a greater denial of Christ than Mr. Hannity's support of the evil of artificial contraception. It's as if a guest present on the occasion of Salome's dance for Herod were to be more upset with John the Baptist's head for making all the guests ritually unclean than he was with Herod for beheading John the Baptist in the first place.
Posted by: Red Cardigan at Mar 12, 2007 6:35:56 PM
This is exchange is evidence of what Cardinal George said in his last ad limina visit to the Vatican:
"The church's mission is further weakened by her inability to shape a public conversation that would enable people to understand the Gospel and the demands of discipleship."
Nearly all public conversation these days has the character of this exchange. It has the character of a political point-counterpoint, and is full of logical falacies, such as the ad hominem fallacy and the failure of the discussion participants to stay on point.
What relevance does the Church scandal have to this topic? None. What discipleship is ever possible if the response is: "judge not lest you be judged"?
The public conversation is nearly beyond repair. Not just on TV (though perhaps especially on TV), but in backyard barbecues as well.
Posted by: Mike at Mar 12, 2007 6:37:31 PM
I just viewed the video again, and frankly, I thought Hannity was a lot more rude than Fr. Euteneuer. Why didn't Fr. Morris rebuke him as well? Maybe he's got a bit of a need to be liked; and fears Fr. Euteneuer's performance might reflect on himself. So he says, "Gee, we priests aren't really like that; we're nice guys! Everybody please like us!" All dressed up in nice, holier-than-thou language. That's what it looks like to me.
If Hannity got hot under the collar, it's because Fr. Euteneuer's remarks were hitting home. As they should. I think Fr. E did the best he could in the circumstances.
Frankly, I wish more priests would give their "opinions" about the status of sinners in the Church, without worrying so much about what others might think.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 12, 2007 6:56:07 PM
Ms. Welborn, thank you for making me aware of all this. Up until last week, I had sometimes listened to Mr. Hannity on WABC New York (770AM) while driving, and liked some (not all) of the moral positions he took. But after watching him try to beat up a priest verbally on TV, I will be listening to him no more. Nor do I think he won the debate in the audience's eyes. I think his over-the-top technique, e.g., "Answer the question, Yes of No!" lost him points (that is, most of his 'fans' probably developed more sympathy for the priest than for him). I thought the priest showed some courage and cool in dealing with him. I do not think calling someone a "hypocrite" is wrong when that person is publicly mocking the Church he professes to belong to, and the priest who is trying to dialogue with him. Mr. Hannity invites hyperbole as part of his style, and Father's comments fit within these bounds, didn't they? But we can pray for him and for all those very public Catholics, that the Holy Spirit guide them in the right way. They have a tough job. Amen!
Fr. Kevin Hanlon, M.M.
Posted by: Fr. Kevin Hanlon at Mar 12, 2007 6:58:11 PM
I wonder if Father Morris would have objected if Fr. E. had called Senator Kennedy a heretic? Somehow I doubt it. I also am surprised at Father Morris’ ability to read souls in this way. Fr. E. spoke of Hannity being an objective heretic, yet Fr. Morris knows that Hannity is of good will, the only way he could have such knowledge is an ability to read his soul.
Posted by: Christopher Sarsfield at Mar 12, 2007 7:09:52 PM
Brigid,
Doesn't branding someone judgemental require the accuser to make a judgement, thereby making them judgemental themselves?
Posted by: ken at Mar 12, 2007 7:18:38 PM
Father Euteneuer responds HERE.
The first point I have to straighten out is for those who were concerned that this was not handled first in private. Well, in fact, I did attempt to handle this matter in private with Mr. Hannity in 2004, but I never received a response to my letter asking him for a meeting. [See side bar item, "Fr. Euteneuer asks to meet with Hannity about birth control."] As far as I am concerned, I did my due diligence before I went public with my complaint about his hypocrisy; but even if I had not, it was Mr. Hannity’s schedulers who called me to make an issue of it, not I who demanded to appear on his show! In this age of culpable clerical silence on many serious issues affecting people’s souls, do we now want a priest to keep silent about something so important? We can’t have it both ways.
Posted by: Jason at Mar 12, 2007 7:28:17 PM
Geez, if I didn't know any better, I would mistake Fr. Jon for a Jesuit.
Posted by: someone in LynchLand at Mar 12, 2007 7:43:12 PM
The Hannity suck-up priest is exactly the sort of priest that is responsible for making Sean Hannity ignorant of his faith in the first place.
What a disgrace. I can't believe that guy is LC.
The guy will no doubt be licking Giuliani's boots before too long.
Posted by: Jay Anderson at Mar 12, 2007 8:30:58 PM
Question: What is the precise definition of heresy? The CCC says it is "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same" (2089).
Is Hannity guilty of that? He's clearly wrong, don't mistake me. But is he heretical? Is the Church's teaching on abortion or contraception something that must be "believed with divine and catholic faith"? I rather doubt it, since for most people it's something self-evidently true, and not even necessary to hold on faith. Does that mean that if someone sees for himself that it is wrong (and thus doesn't BELIEVE it strictly speaking) he is heretical? Seriously, I'm asking, I'm not trying to be a semantic pain in the neck, and I'm certainly not defending Hannity. This same matter came up back in 2004 when some American sued John Kerry canonically for heresy on account of his position on abortion--which struck me as way weird.
My way of thinking is that any Catholic who dissents from Church teaching on this or any matter is simply wrong, plain and simple, but that a heresy is more properly an error concerning dogma, not morals, even though both obviously come under the competence of the Magisterium.
Posted by: ContraMundum at Mar 12, 2007 8:50:19 PM
I would sincerely hope that you are not teaching by word or example the young men in your charge to be politically correct sissies who are afraid to roll up their sleeves and defend the Church in private and in public.
Here's another one who won't be making bishop.
Posted by: ron chandonia at Mar 12, 2007 8:57:51 PM
"Is Hannity guilty of that? He's clearly wrong, don't mistake me. But is he heretical? Is the Church's teaching on abortion or contraception something that must be "believed with divine and catholic faith"?"
Yes and Yes.
The very fact that a Catholic could believe or convince themselves that the dissension on the subject of Contraception is anything else is a sad comment of the failure of the clergy, at all levels, to catechize the faithful.
A priest has the responsibility to deny communion to anyone who he knows of his own knowledge to be a public unrependent sinner, and to direct his Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist to do the same. A public figure who supports either abortion or contraception is such a sinner.
A priest also has the responsibility to counsel such a sinner privately, and if he refuses to repent of his sin, publicly, because of the grave harm such a public sinner can do, in the way of example.
That most modern clergy refuse to do this, because it clashes with secular culture is also a sad comment on the modern clergy.
It doesn't matter if 98% of the Catholics in the United States believe contraception is okay. There was a time that a large percentage of the Eastern Church supported the Arian heresy, including bishops of the Church. That did not make it non-heretical, that merely made the heresy wide spread. The long term result of that heresy was the introduction of the Nicene Creed. I've no doubt that there were many followers of Arian who walk away from the Church Universal when it was required they say the Nicene Creed.
Is it going to take a modern creed which declares abortion to be murder and contraception to an affront to the divine providence of God to finally get Western Catholics to appreciate the severity of their heresy?
Posted by: TerryC at Mar 12, 2007 9:19:30 PM
"Nobody wins on these Fox sparring matches it's true (except Hannity and Colmes' ratings)"
Another reason to turn off or get rid of your TVs.
Posted by: dpt at Mar 12, 2007 9:20:58 PM
Anyone else sick of the clergy sex abuse scandal being the trump card? If you haven't heard the show, Hannity tried a few times to shut down Fr. E. by bringing up the scandal (as in, "why are you going after me? what have you done about the sex abuse scandal, huh?")
It's yet another way in which those involved in the abuse and/or cover-up have hurt the Body of Christ. Now any priest or bishop who tries to defend Church teaching is put on the spot about the scandal. Maddening.
Oh, and as for "I went to seminary and know Latin," where does that fall on the scale when compared to "I was an altar boy," or "I am an EME?"
Posted by: Sarah L. at Mar 12, 2007 9:22:18 PM
I applaud Father Euteneuer for his courage and patience in dealing with this public personality. The Bishop should step out and clarify the Church's teaching on birth control while this opportunity lasts. If the premise of this show is to have a catholic persona play against another, then this episode clearly shows that the balance and the credibility of this program are in jeopardy. Negative publicity of this type is a questionable gift to this network.
Posted by: Torquemada at Mar 12, 2007 9:26:53 PM
Father E. apparently asked Hannity for a meeting regarding his views on birth control. In all fairness to Sean, a request for a meeting does not have the urgency to it that perhaps a more strongly worded letter laying out Father E's concerns would have. Can we give Sean the benefit of the doubt on this letter?
It should not have been a surprise that Sean reacted as strongly as he did to Father E.'s column. It is an obvious fact of human nature that people react defensively to criticism. Wheere there is deep hurt ( being told you are a heretic by the church you love),there is deep anger. I believe Father Morris was right in suggesting that the truth must be spoken in love. A gentler, more private approach would have been far more effective.
Posted by: Anne at Mar 12, 2007 9:28:11 PM
Question: What is the precise definition of heresy? The CCC says it is "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same" (2089).
I don’t know if Hannity would qualify as a formal heretic, unless the Church had formally tried to correct him and he had obstinately and stubbornly persisted in his view. Don’t know enough about heresy itself to say for sure.
However, regarding things which must be believed, Canon 750 states:
§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
That means dogma, doctrine, the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium, everything on faith and morals. He who doesn’t, according to Canon Law, “sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.”
It’s hard for me to believe that no one has ever pointed this out to Hannity, hard for me to believe that someone in his position really doesn’t know this, to the extent that he really would be invincibly, rather than willfully, ignorant of the truth. I could be wrong, but that’s how it looks to me.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 12, 2007 10:07:35 PM
Amy,
I think Fr. E was correct in tagging Hannity as a liberal for this reason; a liberal's arguments are most often based on emotion, not reason. Sean continually points this out to his listeners. His tirade was an emotional outburst, not a sensible response to very serious charges. I think this is an effective way to follow up the debate. I do hope Fr. E continues to hold the high ground. Does anyone know the name of Hannity’s bishop?
Posted by: S at Mar 12, 2007 10:25:47 PM
Fr. E called a spade a spade, Hannity was self-righteous and refused to even consider he might be wrong. And then a priest who is on the FOX payroll rings in calling his fellow priest judgemental?
Heaven forbid! If more priests were a bit 'judgemental,' maybe we would not have an American Catholic Church full of self-satisfied, 'don't judge me!' pagans. I know little of Fr. Morris, but his post calling Hannity and Co. humble seekers after truth certainly seems stroking, to say the least. I say Fr. E handled things very well and Hannity was anything but humble in appearance. And if a priest feels compelled to deny communion, perhaps the person in question might for a nano-second engage in a bit of self-examination. Instead of huffing and puffing about altar boy days or seminary years.
"Politically correct sissies who are afraid to roll up their sleeves and defend the Church in private and in public." Yes, that describes how too many Catholic leaders at least appear. May more be men who fear God and do not try to be culturally relevant at the expense of truth.
Posted by: Joe at Mar 12, 2007 11:05:20 PM
OK, I really wasn't going to comment on this--I have already emailed Mr. Hannity about what I thought was an egregious attack on a priest. Essentially, he accused Fr E of being somehow complicit in the sexual abuse scandal (to a greater level than any ordinary Catholic). That was ridiculous, unless he had some evidence, which I invited him to bring forth. Gee, shocked that I haven't heard back from him!!
But this attitude that I have seen that, even though Fr E tried to talk with Mr Hannity privately, somehow, it is understandable that Mr Hannity could overlook it--not that important?? Sorry, but if a Catholic priest requests a meeting with me about a public sin (or, really, about anything regarding the Catholic faith) I would certainly meet with him, even if I did not agree with his premise. A priest is supposed to be a teacher and spiritual father to all. And IMHO, this does not change just because one may be a celebrity in the eyes of the world. None of us has celebrity status in the eyes of God--we are his children--ALL OF US. Whether we be Pope, Bishop, Presbyter, or layman is not relevant. Rude, S Hannity certainly was; mistaken in the Church's teaching he appears to be. (Given the most charitable view that can be assigned without further info.)
Posted by: marymargaret at Mar 12, 2007 11:09:22 PM
I agree with you completely on the "liberal" thing amy. Improperly frames the issue especially within the context of a tv show.
Posted by: v at Mar 12, 2007 11:58:56 PM
I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of political conservatives in this country share Hannity's "no problem" with contraception, and don't even see it as a moral issue, much less a political one.
That's a no-brainer. But being that there is only one Church which teaches that contraception is morally wrong, a more interesting numbers comparison on contraception would be between Catholics who happen to identify as politically conservative and Catholics who identify as politically liberal. They could be close, but I'd be very surprised if those were equal.
Posted by: Pauli at Mar 13, 2007 12:31:05 AM
What a pathetic piece by the LC - a real disappointment, a huge opportunity to practice "clarity with charity" lost.
Was Fr. Tom perfect? No - but the deck was stacked against him by a host who extended a bogus invitation, then blindsided him with the clergy abuse business and the old "when's the last time you beat your wife" trick: would you rather non-Catholics abort or contracept? Hannity wouldn't touch the issue Fr. Tom wrote about - Sean's mocking public dissent from Catholic teaching on contraception.
Thank you for taking him on, Father. For being courageous enough to stand up to Hannity and to defend the teachings of the Church.
John Madigan
Posted by: John M at Mar 13, 2007 1:10:00 AM
Dissent = Heresy; Heresy = Dissent
Fr. E. clearly demonstrates that the American Catholic Church needs all of our prayers!
Fr. E. needs prayers for his continued good work; S.H. needs our prayers to correct his dissenting views and use his celebrity promote Catholic teaching AND apologize for his disrespect to Fr. E. on his TV show; Fr. M. for his lack of clarity in teaching Catholic doctrine to S.H, O'Reilly, and for his poor decision to publicly chastise Fr. E.
Pray the Office; Pray the Rosary; Pray to God now for our Church and its leaders!
Vivat Jesus
Posted by: Marty at Mar 13, 2007 1:41:21 AM
I think Hannity should direct his comments about the clergy sex abuse scandal to Fr. Morris and not Fr. Euteneuer. After all, Fr. Morris is a priest with the LC, and we all know about the situation surrounding the founder of the LC.
God bless Fr. Euteneuer!
Posted by: Matt C. Abbott at Mar 13, 2007 1:41:46 AM
I do hope this doesn't turn into a Priest Vs. Priest sparring match with the lazy-Catholic and non-Catholic viewers scandalized.
But, taking that as a given, I really am boggling at the suggestion that Fr. Euteneuer was horribly rude to take on a public tv and radio figure who's promoting sin as devout Catholicism. People like Hannity are doing untold damage, particularly since they're "conservatives" and seem all right to a great many Catholics who distrust liberals.
I'm not sure about the heresy question. I hope a canon lawyer like Dr. Ed Peters will explain what constitues formal heresy. Preaching dissent against Church teachings for several years on national television, though, looks like a prime candidate to me.
Posted by: Eileen R at Mar 13, 2007 2:00:01 AM
I am no fan of loosely assigning labels to people, and I think Fr. E was careful in his phrasing:
"Hannity, like so many other cultural Catholics, is really a liberal when it comes to certain aspects of sexual morality."
That is not a "mistake" as you claim, it is the evident conclusion. While we may be conservative in one regard, we can be liberal in others, while God calls us to be perfect in both. Sean has an imperfect liberal stance on sexual morality as Fr. E validly points out.
Posted by: Andrew at Mar 13, 2007 6:35:19 AM
I'm not sure if anyone mentioned this yet but I heard Hannity on his radio show yesterday say if the Catholic Church didn't want him he would call up his friend Jerry Fallwell and attend his church. I'm not kidding. He had a caller on the line who sounded like a knowledgable and well spoken Catholic man. The guy couldn't get through to Hannity. It was sad. I think Sean Hannity has maybe already left the Church, if he was ever in it. I know he is buddies with Ollie North, and I think North was once Catholic, but no more. I wouldn't be suprised if Hannity left, but I said a rosary for him anyway last night in our Eucharistic adoration chapel at my parish.
Posted by: Tim F. at Mar 13, 2007 7:00:48 AM
"I think Hannity should direct his comments about the clergy sex abuse scandal to Fr. Morris and not Fr. Euteneuer. After all, Fr. Morris is a priest with the LC, and we all know about the situation surrounding the founder of the LC."
Matt,
And not just the founder. The current LC sex scandal involves a (then) three-year-old in Mexico City. The alleged abuser is in hiding, and Frs. Maciel and Corcuera were no-shows in court last week.
Posted by: Jeannette at Mar 13, 2007 9:09:09 AM
Aimee Milburn:
If you read back the passage you quoted, you will see that the word "heresy" is not in it. My question is not whether Catholics must "hold" everything taught by the Church. Of course they must. My question is the precise meaning of "heresy." It's one thing to say that someone is being a bad Catholic by publicly endorsing contraception, as Hannity has done. It's another thing to call it heresy. There are many offenses against Church unity, and many kinds of sin. While the Church's teaching on contraception (and all things) is true, that doesn't make dissent from all issues heresy. Heresy and dissent are clearly not coextensive, to the mind of the Church.
The Church teaches authoritatively on matters of both faith and morals, no doubt. But heresy is "the stubborn denial" to believe something that must be held with "catholic and divine faith." The teaching on contraception is not de fide, thus not such an issue.
Posted by: ContraMundum at Mar 13, 2007 9:16:32 AM
It would appear that Fr. might have over identified with his friends and fellow media celebrities in his open letter of admonishment of Fr. Euteneuer. Fr. is young, and I think that we need to be charitable and refrain from using terminology like "suck-up" (as above).
Perhaps he should have taken the opportunity to show his love for his friend by adding an invitation to Sean to spend some time discussing the reasonableness of our Church's teaching on artificial contraception; the distinctiveness and efficacy of Natural Family Planning; and our late Holy Father's teaching on the Theology of the Body.
In the spirit of the New Evangelization, Pope John Paul called our attention to the following words of our first Pope: “But even if you should suffer because of righteousness, blessed are you. Do not be afraid or terrified with fear of them, but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that, when you are maligned, those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame. For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that be the will of God, than for doing evil.” 1 Peter 3 14-17
Posted by: Joseph R. Wilson at Mar 13, 2007 9:55:12 AM
It should be noted that Fr. E narrowed his use of the term "liberal" to "certain areas of sexual morality" which seems to fit just fine.
Posted by: chris K at Mar 13, 2007 10:22:36 AM
I don't want to simply reduce this to LC-bashing, but I do think certain aspects of the Legion come into play here. I have noticed two things that LC (and RC) members hold in common:
1) An almost hero-worship of the rich and famous. I can't count the number of times my RC friends name-drop famous people they have met or who are "good Catholics". I realize they have a charism to the rich, but it seems to devolve to sycophantism many times.
2) A high level of criticism for how other, non-Legion, Catholics spread the faith. If something is not done the "Legion"-way, it's looked down upon as not effective and perhaps even adverse to the Faith.
Both of these aspects, it seems to me, come into play in Fr. Morris' criticisms of Fr. Euteneuer.
Posted by: francis at Mar 13, 2007 10:40:36 AM
"I just viewed the video again, and frankly, I thought Hannity was a lot more rude than Fr. Euteneuer."
I didn't think Fr. E. was rude at all! People just aren't used to hearing someone tell the truth.
Posted by: Peggy at Mar 13, 2007 11:10:50 AM
Who cares what Sean Hannity thinks? He is wrong, the best we can do is pray for him, and other liberal catholics and the American Catholic Church, which is still recovering from a hangover of the Age of Aquarius hippy types who have ruined the Liturgy, ruined the school system, and ruined the general morals of generations.
Posted by: Matthew at Mar 13, 2007 11:31:48 AM
After reading all these comments, I'm sending up fervent thanks to God that we don't get this show on our cable grid. Sean Hannity sounds like a rude blowhard. What's happened to the idea of disagreeing with someone else's ideas, but handling those issues in an appropriate way -- not with screaming, name-calling or ranting. Hannity may call himself a Catholic, but his disrespect to Fr. E. would indicate either a lack of training or outright contempt. In my own work, I've had to deal with people like Hannity, and it's very tempting to think of responding to them in kind, but it never does any good -- they'll never change their minds, they're just after a fight. At least 99% of the time, I'll pray and bite my tongue. The other few times, both parties ended up looking bad. "Liberal" or "conservative", we need to be respectful to others, even when we disagree with them. Even a "godless" man like Voltaire is supposed to have said, "I disagree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it". Can we Christians not do likewise?
Posted by: Patricia Gonzalez at Mar 13, 2007 11:37:18 AM
Wow. "Politically-correct sissies." You gotta love, and we all know what he means.
Posted by: thomas tucker at Mar 13, 2007 11:53:50 AM
Marymargaret,
Very well put! I admit I paused to consider when I heard Mr. Hannity criticize Fr. Euteneuer for not contacting him privately before going public. But then when I learned that Fr. Euteneuer had done precsiely that--to no avail--it really made me sick, especially when Mr. Hannity goes on to accuse him of bringing this up solely to gain personal fame and recognition.
I prayed a decade for Mr. Hannity last night too as I'm sure there are not a few Evangelicals who already tending to the seeds of his apostacy.
Posted by: Brian at Mar 13, 2007 11:56:37 AM
Contra:
As I said, I don’t know enough about heresy to be able to say for sure. My point was not to define heresy, but to point out that in rejecting the teaching on birth control, which is a definitive doctrine, Sean Hannity “sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.”
Which sounds a lot like heresy to me, especially given that he is doing it consistently and stubbornly in a very public way.
I’m not sure about your comment, The teaching on contraception is not de fide, thus not such an issue. There are many things and movements in history that have been declared heretical that were not directly against a basic dogma, such as Quietism. Heresy may not be so narrowly understood as a simple list of dogmas to go against. Again, this is not my area, so I can’t say for certain.
Anyone else here competent to clarify matters regarding heresy?
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 13, 2007 11:57:49 AM
It's yet another way in which those involved in the abuse and/or cover-up have hurt the Body of Christ. Now any priest or bishop who tries to defend Church teaching is put on the spot about the scandal. Maddening.
"It's wrong, it's being dealt with, now let's talk about you."
-or-
"How can you talk about a 40 year old abuse scandal when there are people dying today in Iraq?"
(Two can play that game)
Posted by: Tony at Mar 13, 2007 12:28:33 PM
I didn't think Fr. E. was rude at all! People just aren't used to hearing someone tell the truth.
Touche´, Peggy! :)
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 13, 2007 4:02:17 PM
I love Hannity's retort about him going to seminary.
Martin Luther was a Catholic priest once, too. :)
Posted by: Schultz at Mar 13, 2007 4:31:02 PM
ROUND FOUR?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258501,00.html
Posted by: Jeannie at Mar 13, 2007 5:26:57 PM
From the new column by Father Morris linked by Jeannie above:
"In a future column we can examine the specific issue of artificial methods of contraception (the original debate), and in particular, why just over 75 years ago, every major Christian denomination opposed their use in marital, sexual relations, and why the Catholic Church still does."
Humnanae Vitae condemns contracepting the marital act. As far as I know, the Church doesn't insist that it is an additional sin to contracept a nonmarital sexual act.
Of course sex outside of marriage is a sin itself, gravely harmful to those who engage in it. But do those who insist on sinning this way, sin additionally by contracepting?
As far as I can see, that's hardly a defined position of the Church.
Posted by: Rick at Mar 13, 2007 5:54:13 PM
Fr. Euteneuer wrote:
"May I also point out that you did not employ with me the same standard of “fraternal correction” that you expected me to employ with Mr. Hannity. I at least made the attempt to speak to him about this issue in private without success; you, in contrast, went immediately to the internet to take me to task."
In a new reply, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258501,00.html Morris wrote:
"Before publishing my original article, I communicated to Fr. Euteneuer in a personal letter this attitude of fraternal unity and respectful disagreement. I also offered to consider publishing on Foxnews.com his response to my column."
How interesting - Fr. Euteneuer specifically mentions that Morris failed to contact him, and now Morris is claiming he did. I can't help but wonder if Morris is a liar?
Posted by: Job at Mar 13, 2007 7:20:52 PM
I would think that Cardinal Eagan would be Hannity's bishop, tending he lives in New York, where he hosts the radio show. It would pretty hard for Hannity to join Falwell's church because it is in Virginia and he's in New York
Posted by: Larry at Mar 13, 2007 7:22:50 PM
Fr. E. said it like it is, and was spot on. His approach was pastoral, but direct. Sean Hannity is no wilting lily and can take it, or at least he should be able to take it, considering his use of invective and ridicule.
Father spoke clearly, and did not respond personally to the very personal and inaccurate attacks against him. Hannity's objections were all diversionary and by no means to the point. He was, in fact, discourteous to the good priest.
Without question, we should adopt the means best suited to conversion. Prudential judgments about use of the best means we can and should debate. However, I think sometimes we worry too much about short term results and end up doing far too little far too late. We can afford to make minor mistakes in our delivery. We cannot afford to remain silent. That Father E. looks like the Lone Ranger is a far bigger problem than anything else. However, he spoke up when most would remain silent, and when many are bound to sympathize with Hannity because the poison of scandal has already had way too much time to do its work. I say make the man a bishop. Now!
BTW re Heresy. Moral truths taught definitively by the Church are an object of divine faith. We may not dissent from them or publicly profess the contrary without sinning against the virtue of faith. There is not only the sin of contraception, but the sin of rejecting the Church's teaching on the matter. Fr. E.'s use of the word "heretic" might not have observed all the canonical niceties (I am not a canonist), but it got the point across. One does separate himself from communion with the Church by public rejection of the faith and thereby imperils his immortal soul.
God bless Fr. E. for speaking the truth come what may.
Posted by: Father Angelo at Mar 13, 2007 10:47:30 PM
Moral truths taught definitively by the Church are an object of divine faith. We may not dissent from them or publicly profess the contrary without sinning against the virtue of faith.
Thank you, Fr. Angelo! That's what I thought. And I agree that we cannot remain silent. So many in the Church have remained silent for so long, sin has become wide-spread and there are actually people here now who think that it is wrong to speak up, that we're being judgmental if we do (which apparently is what Sean Hannity thinks, too, and possibly Fr. Morris).
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 13, 2007 11:24:51 PM
I may be wrong, but my take on Fr. J's new column is that (it appears) he was told to "Get with the program" by someone in authority over him. The LC priests I know are good men and they are held on a pretty tight leash.
Posted by: S at Mar 13, 2007 11:46:16 PM
"Moral truths taught definitively by the Church are an object of divine faith."
Do you have a source for that, Father? If that is something taught by the Magisterium I would certainly accept it, but it clearly clashes with what Thomas Aquinas says about objects of faith, and I've never seen that put in that way before--and I've read a lot. Thanks.
Posted by: ContraMundum at Mar 14, 2007 8:35:22 AM
By the way, the fact that we may not dissent from moral teachings is a different matter altogether. But the Church has always distinguished clearly between teachings of morality (which are in principle accessible to reason unaided by revelation) and those touching on God, Christ, sacraments, redemption, etc., which could in no way be known to us apart from revelation and hence are strictly matters of divine faith. The very fact that the Church uses the formulation "faith AND morals" suggests a clear difference. If morals were a matter of faith, why then say "faith and morals"? Why not just "faith"?
I'm not defending Hannity or anyone who would dissent here. I'm just saying we should get our terminology correct. And if what you say is true, Father Angelo, then there should be some documentation for it. I've read the CCC, the CIC, the parts of DS and not found that phrase.
Posted by: ContraMundum at Mar 14, 2007 8:39:39 AM
Father E. is in the right, but priests and bishops who engage in these public disputes will always be open to the "what about the scandal?" charge. It would be nice if orthodox priests like Father E. were to take on, say, Cardinal Mahony with equal vigor, and in an equally public manner.
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Mar 14, 2007 11:08:08 AM
Contra, again the canonical ins and outs of heresy is not my area, but another way of looking at it is this: The ban on contraception can be considered a part of the deposit of faith.
Here's how: the deposit of faith consists of revealed truths contained in scripture and tradition. The ban on contraception originated in scripture, revealed in the story of the sin of Onan who avoided getting a child by spilling his seed on the ground, which was so displeasing to the Lord that He slew Onan for it (Gen 38:8-10).
The Church Fathers in tradition consistently affirmed the ban on contraception, and the Church has followed the example of scripture and tradition ever since. Humanae Vitae was a reaffirmation of the teaching of scripture and tradition on contraception, handed down to today.
As to the "difference" between faith and morals, are not the Ten Commandments a part of revelation and a matter faith? Yes, some things can be ascertained by human reason alone, including the existence of God. But morals are an integral part of faith, without which faith would be dead.
The New Testament is itself a revelation of a whole new way to live, a whole new kind of morality that had never been seen before: that of selflessness. No longer eye for eye, but giving oneself up for another even to the point of death. This was a new thing, not ascertained by reason, revealed by God – and shocking to the pagan world when Christians started living by it, and dying by it.
The phrase "faith and morals" refers to different aspects of the whole faith which we are to believe. They are both types of love, one directed to God, the other to neighbor. As Jesus put it:
Love God with all your heart, etc. (faith)
Love your neighbor as yourself (morals)
Both are necessary in the attainment of heaven. Sean Hannity may not be a heretic; he may just be sincerely misguided, and if so then I hope he comes to his senses soon. But the assertion that contraception is good is, objectively speaking, heretical in light of Catholic teaching, if I understand it correctly.
Posted by: Aimee at Mar 14, 2007 11:46:35 AM
"The ban on contraception can be considered a part of the deposit of faith."
Well, that's what I am disputing. It's certainly part of the Church's ancient teaching, but I balk at calling it part of the deposit of faith. I think it's more properly a matter of natural law, not necessarily a matter of revelation. The story of Onan from the OT has to do with a lot more than contraception, although it clearly is not unrelated to this question.
As for the Ten Commandments, Aquinas thought that commandments 4-10 (i.e., the second tablet) are clearly knowable by human reason, and were revealed because of the intellect-darkening effects of sin. But not essentially a matter of faith.
I know you probably think I'm a crank for continuing on this issue, but I don't think it is sufficient to consider all these things "matters of faith" in the same way. Of course Catholics must accept all of it--I do not dispute that. I'm not saying that simply because something is not a strict matter of faith Catholics need not observe it. But there is a difference between giving full assent of the mind and will to something revealed by God (e.g., the dogma of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ) and something being an object of human action (e.g., certain perverse sex acts).
Let me put it this way: a Ca tholic who says that the Son and Spirit are not equal to the Father is a heretic (at least materially)--I presume we're all agreed on that. What about someone who thinks contraception is okay, but prefers not ever to do it himself. He's clearly not guilty of the sin of contraception. Is he guilty of the sin of heresy? He's a dissenter, sure, but I think the most you can say he is guilty of is being wrong, and even lacking in obedience to the Church's teaching authority. But not heresy.
I think the meaning of words is important. If we want to use the term "heresy" to describe all kinds of dissent, fine. But then we will need to find another word for dissent of the stricter (i.e., dogmatic) kind. But since the word heresy has always been used in the stricter sense, I suggest we leave it where it is and just take people like Hannity to task without using that word.
I'm not sure why you refer the commandments of love of God and neighbor to faith and morals, respectively. I think both commandments refer to both faith and morals. I get the impression we're not communicating very effectively here.
Posted by: ContraMundum at Mar 14, 2007 12:15:43 PM
Hey Contra,
Someone posted this earlier,
Heretic: a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church. -Diciontionary.com
Now compare that to your statement: What about someone who thinks contraception is okay, but prefers not ever to do it himself. He's clearly not guilty of the sin of contraception. Is he guilty of the sin of heresy? He's a dissenter, sure, but I think the most you can say he is guilty of is being wrong, and even lacking in obedience to the Church's teaching authority. But not heresy.
Now if the church uses the above definition of heresy, than wouldn't someone who says contraception is ok, but wouldn't use it still be considered heretical?
Not trying to start a fight, but to me it would seem that such a person you describe would still fall under that definition.
So here is an intresting thought: if 95% of the USA thinks contraception is ok, and that percentage is the same with Catholics (which I am not sure what percentage of Catholics believe it, but I would bet it would be pretty close), then does that make 95% of catholics, heretics?
Posted by: Travis at Mar 14, 2007 12:33:22 PM
Hello Travis:
That's a fairly fluffy definition of "heresy" and I wouldn't rely on dictionary.com. The CCC offers us a definition, which I've cited already in this thread. My point is that the Church's own definition of "heresy" seems to limit it to doctrinal/dogmatic errors, rather than errors concerning morals.
As for the huge percentage of Catholics contracepting, that's an enormous problem and 95% is not an implausible number. But I think that makes them guilty of sinning (materially or formally or both) against chastity, not against faith.
Posted by: ContraMundum at Mar 14, 2007 1:02:44 PM
One can certainly err against morals and not be a heretic. But what about a professed believer who knows what the Church teaches, refuses to be corrected, and promotes his views in public repeatedly and persistently over time? Isn't that a little more serious than simple error?
I've read the section on heresy in the Code of Canon Law, but feel I need help interpreting it correctly. Looking around, I found an article by Bishop Robert Vasa about heresy, in which he explains:
As a point of information, the present Code of Canon Law does include a couple of canons on heresy. Canon 751 defines heresy as “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt, after the reception of baptism, of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith. . . .” There are a number of teachings of the Church that must “be believed by divine and Catholic faith.” We must believe, for instance, that Jesus is true God and true man. To deny or doubt this, with obstinacy, is heresy. We must believe the God exists in Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We must believe that Jesus rose from the dead. We must believe that He ascended into heaven. These phrases will all be familiar because they constitute the Creed that we recite each Sunday.
... There are also moral teachings that constitute a part of the deposit of faith that must be accepted and adhered to, “firmly embraced and retained.” Canon 750 concludes: “therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.” It is certainly necessary to exercise a great deal of caution and care in arriving at a founded conclusion that someone accepts or teaches heresy. There is something terribly harsh about calling a person a heretic. This is not something that is ever done lightly or capriciously. Nevertheless, there are those of the household of Faith who obstinately deny some truth that is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.
He cites abortion as an example of a contemporary heresy; contraception is also a definitive doctrine, and so must also, according to his explanation, be held with divine and Catholic faith.
I think it's important to make a distinction between objective heresy, however, and an actual heretic. I think one could promote heresy without realizing it is such, and so not really be guilty of being a heretic. Especially if one, when one realizes one's error, corrects the error. Let's hope and pray Sean Hannity does.
The article is here: http://sentinel.org/articles/2006-7/14481.html
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 14, 2007 1:50:54 PM
Aimee:
Thanks! That's a helpful quotation. I have never heard of Vasa, but if he is a reputable canonist and this opinion is widely shared by canonists and theologians, I will be happy to eat crow. Ultimately, it's a theological issue, not one of canon law, of course, but this is a start. I must say it still sounds odd to me to say that the teachings on abortion and contraception are part of the deposit of faith. But I guess we all have a lot to learn.
Posted by: ContraMundum at Mar 14, 2007 2:41:05 PM
You're welcome! It's been a learning experience for me too, as I haven't had to look closely into this subject before. Feel a bit like I'm stumbling around in the dark, trying to work out something way beyond me. Not a fun one, I admit.
I guess that's why they have entire tribunals of trained canon lawyers, who are also trained in the relevant theology, to figure these things out for us.
As far as I know Vasa's opinion is accurate. He's currently bishop of Baker, Oregon, but was formed in Lincoln, Nebraska, a good diocese, where he served as a Msgr. before being called to be bishop.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 14, 2007 3:51:55 PM
Dear Mr. ContraMundum,
Thank you for your comments regarding the quality of the effort to have pro-choice baptized Catholic politicians held accountable canonically for their support of what Pope Benedict XVI has called, "the gravest injustice of our time."
Writing rarely in the public forum, I feel that this is indeed an occasion which requires a response. I happen to be the canon lawyer you refer to above as having denounced Senator John Kerry for heresy in 2004.
First, those who reference canons 750, par. 1 and 751 of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 are correct in applying those norms to the fact patterns of those who support the Right-to-Murder heresy, also known as the Pro-choice position. This is my personal opinion on the question, as it is also the official position of the Holy See.
Regarding denial or doubt of the Church's teaching on contraception, it is my personal opinion that the doctrine is also proposed by the Magisterium as definitive and infallible, and above that, even as being dogmatic in nature. In support of this belief I cite Pope Pius XI of happy memory:
“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness [ipsas quoque sacras Litteras testari] that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]
“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew [altam per os Nostrum extollit vocem atque denuo promulgat]: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Cf. PIUS XI, Encyclical Letter, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, AAS 22 (1930), 579-81. It can be found at the following hyperlink: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
It is consequently my opinion that the teaching has been proposed as revealed in Holy Writ by a Supreme Pontiff, in casu Pius XI, as infallible and of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. As such, although not technically an “ex cathedra” definition, it nevertheless is regulated canonically by can. 750, par. 1 and can. 751 of the Code. Hence, those who pertinaciously deny or doubt the doctrine objectively commit heresy. By stating this opinion, however, I am not judging whether or not those who objectively deny the teaching, as Sean Hannity may have done, are subjectively guilty. That is for the competent ecclesiastical authorities to decide.
When holding Sean Hannity accountable for his publicized words, I do believe that Fr. Euteneuer, a very honorable and courageous Priest, was emphasizing the objective violation of Divine and Catholic Faith, and not his subjective guilt. However, it must be noted that according to the Code of Canon Law, from the moment one objectively violates the law, he or she is presumed to have freely willed what has been externally posited (cf. can. 1321, par. 3: “When an external violation has occurred, imputability is presumed unless it is otherwise apparent.). From that point onwards, the burden is on the dissenter to demonstrate that he was not morally responsible for his choice of words or actions, not Fr. Euteneuer to preach, as some have suggested, an irresponsible love of neighbor on one hand, and a burying of the truth on another.
Perhaps it is time that we Catholics have the courage to recognize just how risky it is, spiritually, for us to dissent from the Church’s teaching against contraception. Even more, we seriously need to examine how much widespread contempt for this teaching over the past decades has significantly contributed, on the temporal level, to the genocide which is abortion.
Yours faithfully,
Marc Balestrieri, JCL
President,
DE FIDE
Posted by: Marc Balestrieri at Mar 14, 2007 5:12:31 PM
Dear Mr. ContraMundum,
Thank you for your comments regarding the quality of the effort to have pro-choice baptized Catholic politicians held accountable canonically for their support of what Pope Benedict XVI has called, "the gravest injustice of our time."
Writing rarely in the public forum, I feel that this is indeed an occasion which requires a response. I happen to be the canon lawyer you refer to above as having denounced Senator John Kerry for heresy in 2004.
First, those who reference canons 750, par. 1 and 751 of the Code of Canon Law of 1983 are correct in applying those norms to the fact patterns of those who support the Right-to-Murder heresy, also known as the Pro-choice position. This is my personal opinion on the question, as it is also the official position of the Holy See.
Regarding denial or doubt of the Church's teaching on contraception, it is my personal opinion that the doctrine is also proposed by the Magisterium as definitive and infallible, and above that, even as being dogmatic in nature. In support of this belief I cite Pope Pius XI of happy memory:
“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness [ipsas quoque sacras Litteras testari] that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, "Intercourse even with one's legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it."[45]
“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew [altam per os Nostrum extollit vocem atque denuo promulgat]: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”
Cf. PIUS XI, Encyclical Letter, Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930, AAS 22 (1930), 579-81. It can be found at the following hyperlink: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
It is consequently my opinion that the teaching has been proposed as revealed in Holy Writ by a Supreme Pontiff, in casu Pius XI, as infallible and of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. As such, although not technically an “ex cathedra” definition, it nevertheless is regulated canonically by can. 750, par. 1 and can. 751 of the Code. Hence, those who pertinaciously deny or doubt the doctrine objectively commit heresy. By stating this opinion, however, I am not judging whether or not those who objectively deny the teaching, as Sean Hannity may have done, are subjectively guilty. That is for the competent ecclesiastical authorities to decide.
When holding Sean Hannity accountable for his publicized words, I do believe that Fr. Euteneuer, a very honorable and courageous Priest, was emphasizing the objective violation of Divine and Catholic Faith, and not his subjective guilt. However, it must be noted that according to the Code of Canon Law, from the moment one objectively violates the law, he or she is presumed to have freely willed what has been externally posited (cf. can. 1321, par. 3: “When an external violation has occurred, imputability is presumed unless it is otherwise apparent.). From that point onwards, the burden is on the dissenter to demonstrate that he was not morally responsible for his choice of words or actions, not Fr. Euteneuer to preach, as some have suggested, an irresponsible love of neighbor on one hand, and a burying of the truth on another.
Perhaps it is time that we Catholics have the courage to recognize just how risky it is, spiritually, for us to dissent from the Church’s teaching against contraception. Even more, we seriously need to examine how much widespread contempt for this teaching over the past decades has significantly contributed, on the temporal level, to the genocide which is abortion.
Yours faithfully,
Marc Balestrieri, JCL
President,
DE FIDE
Posted by: Marc Balestrieri at Mar 14, 2007 5:33:51 PM
Dear Mr. Balestrieri,
Thank you so much for that very needed contribution. The quote from Pius XI was incredible, and I for one am very grateful.
I was just looking at your website, and quickly decided that you are a true defender of the faith. May God bless your efforts.
(I was also pleased to see that your site has a link to the same article by Bishop Vasa that I cited above.)
In Christ,
Aimee Milburn
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 14, 2007 7:26:57 PM
Contra,
If I am not mistaken, your point is that the motive for divine faith (formal object) is God who reveals, and not the light of human reason, or even the authority of the Church. An example of a truth taught with divine faith would be dogma of the Blessed Trinity. If so, fair enough.
This is why moral theologians refer to ecclesiastical faith and religious assent. Ecclesiastic faith is the motive for belief in truths that are not directly a part of divine revelation but are connected to it and are taught by the magisterium in an infallible way. I would argue that the ban on contraception is binding in this way. With religious assent we are to hold those truths taught authoritatively but not infallibly by the Church, such as decrees promulgated by the Holy Office that otherwise do not reaffirm infallibly taught doctrine.
The Church teaches that we may not dissent at from anything taught authoritatively by the Church, whether taught infallibly or not. But when does one sin against divine faith and become a heretic? This is an interesting question from a theological point of view. However, from the point of view of catechesis and discipline, the distinction between those truths proposed directly by Christ through His teaching of the apostles, and those which are only connected to that teaching, but are infallibly proposed by the Church, in my opinion, is not really all that important. I agree with Bishop Vasa that we have to be careful with the word heretic, but I also think we can be too careful.
I think Bishop Vasa rightly points out that that which is definitively proposed by the Church is also the object of divine faith. In other words one sins against divine faith when one rejects anything taught definitively by the magisterium. I am not a theologian, and I know that there can be a legitimate theological discussion about whether theological faith is directly offended by rejecting a teaching like the intrinsic evil of contraception, or whether it is only a sin against the moral virtue of faith, but either way, the magisterium seems to be clear that dissent from defined truth is a mortal sin against "faith."
This seems consistent with the CCC:
The Church's Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these (88, emphasis mine).
Posted by: Father Angelo at Mar 14, 2007 8:23:52 PM
Reverend and Dear Father Angelo,
Thank you for your reply.
Very respectfully, I submit that your conclusion is defective based not upon your correctly stated major premise recapitulating the principle of how a truth revealed directly in the Deposit of Faith is dogmatic, but your minor premise affirming that the Church's teaching against contraception is not directly revealed.
Can. 750, par. 1 of the Code of Canon Law states the essential elements of what makes a doctrine of Divine and Catholic Faith:
"A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them."
The canon's criteria can be broken down into the following essential elements, whereby were one to be lacking, the doctrine in question would not be dogmatic in quality:
1) A teaching CONTAINED IN the Word of God, written (Sacred Scripture) or handed down (Sacred Tradition);
2) The same teaching is simultaneously proposed AS REVEALED by the Magisterium;
3) The Magisterium in question is either SOLEMN OR ORDINARY AND UNIVERSAL;
Posted by: Marc Balestrieri at Mar 14, 2007 11:42:03 PM
(Second half to posting above in reply to Fr. Angelo)
Now, when Pope Pius XI proposed in Casti Connubii the Church's teaching against contraception, he did the following:
1) He proposed the Church's teaching against contraception as being directly revealed in Sacred Scripture: directly revealed, by the Pope citing the words, "Sacred Scripture" as subject, and the words, "bears witness" as verb and object of the clause. "Bears witness" is a term of art commonly used by theologians in qualifying a teaching as directly conveyed: a "witness" has direct knowledge of the object in controversy, not hearsay.
2) He taught that the "Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death." In stating this phrase Pius communicated these two points: First, that the act is in fact a "crime," and secondly that commensurate punishment is mortal in nature. The qualification of the sin as being lethal is confirmed by the Pontiff both when he expressly writes such ("qui tale commiserint, gravis noxae labe commaculari"), and when he admonishes confessors in very strong words not to remain silent when confronted by misguided faithful who confess the sin ("We admonish, therefore, priests who hear confessions and others who have the care of souls, in virtue of Our supreme authority and in Our solicitude for the salvation of souls, not to allow the faithful entrusted to them to err regarding this most grave law of God";
3)He invokes his "Supreme Authority" as Pontiff teaching the Universal Church in a matter of Faith and Morals;
And 4), Pope Pius XI writes that the Catholic Church, by virtue of Divine Legation, raises her voice and "promulgates" anew (more clear in the original Latin) this teaching against contraception. Such language is not indicative of a walk in the tulips.
All the essential criteria of can. 750, par. 1 are met under the terms of can. 749, par. 3. Hence, the teaching against contraception is one of Divine and Catholic Faith.
Nothing in Casti Connubii, Fr. Angelo, indicates that the teaching against contraception is only "indirectly" contained in Sacred Scripture, account taken of the words and force with which the Roman Pontiff writes on the topic.
As such, it appears that the assumption holding that the Church's teaching against contraception is not directly revealed is gravely fallacious -- a sort of petition of principle -- being that it is built upon an unproven minor premise.
If you believe that I am mistaken in my analysis, please provide a "direct" rebuttal -- namely, only referring to Casti Connubii as the source text.
This matter is too grave in consequences for one to ground the analysis on unproven demonstration.
Respectfully yours,
Marc Balestrieri, JCL
President,
DE FIDE
Posted by: Marc Balestrieri at Mar 15, 2007 12:44:51 AM
Aimee, Father Angelo:
Thank you. Seems you're right. Just to be clear on this: As to the overall origin of this thread (the Hannity/Euteneur dustup) I have thought all along that Hannity was in the wrong and Euteneur in the right. My only query was whether "heresy" had a more narrow meaning than some people were giving it. All dissent is wrong; no dissent is ever justified (especially if done publicly), no question about that for me. And it does seem that dissent on moral questions does indeed involve a kind of inadmissible "choosing" and thus, at least in some cases, heresy.
Thank you for your courteous give-and-take. God bless you.
Posted by: ContraMundum at Mar 15, 2007 8:55:07 AM
Contra - no worries. I for one am glad you were asking, as it's a fuzzy subject for most of us, myself included. The exchange here has been very instructive and useful for me.
Mr. Balestrieri, I appreciate your detailed analysis, with the conclusion that the teaching against contraception is one of Divine and Catholic Faith. It confirms what I had worked out on my own using the same canons, but wasn't sure about given my inexperience with canon law. So again, I'm grateful for your contribution.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 15, 2007 10:01:06 AM
Contra,
You are welcome.
Mr. Balestrieri,
Thank you for clearing that up. My statement regarding the connection of the Church's teaching on contraception to divine revelation was ill-informed.
My point in response to Contra was to show that the Church clearly affirms its authority from Christ to teach as part of the deposit of faith, not only not only on matters pertaining to the creed, but also on morality, and even on matters not directly part of the deposit. It was never my intention to suggest that the Church's teaching on contraception is anything but infallible and obliging under pain of mortal sin. As I wrote earlier, I thought the use of the word heretic by Fr. Euteneuer in reference to Sean Hannity was quite appropriate.
In my earlier post I wrote: "Moral truths taught definitively by the Church are an object of divine faith. We may not dissent from them or publicly profess the contrary without sinning against the virtue of faith."
BTW a group of men under my direction here in Connecticut are very interested in the use of canonical denunciations against heretical "Catholic" politicians. We have a number of state legilators here who, as you may know, are working for full same-sex marriage.
Posted by: Father Angelo at Mar 15, 2007 1:11:19 PM
Father, they also voted the bill forcing Catholic hospitals to provide Plan B favorably out of committee today. Some legislators supportive of the bill highlighted their Catholicity at Tuesday's hearing. There comes a point when Church authorities must hold these folks accountable--for their own sake, if nothing else.
Posted by: Peter Wolfgang at Mar 15, 2007 2:28:50 PM
Peter,
That is why there needs to be a canonical denunciation from those who are willing to stand up in the public forum and do the right thing.
Posted by: Father Angelo at Mar 15, 2007 2:40:22 PM
Hear, hear!
Amy, these comments, beginning when Mr. Balestrieri weighed in on canon law, are so interesting. Maybe you should make a new post about it, as this thread is about to drop off the page.
Mr. Balestrieri has initiated canon law cases against Kerry, Kennedy, and others for heresy. Fascinating! These are class-action canon lawsuits, and he is inviting people to join in the suits. His website (www.defide.com) states,
Recently, Denunciations for Heresy were also filed naming Senator Edward Kennedy (MA), Mr. Mario Cuomo (NY), Senator Thomas Harkin (IA), and Senator Susan Collins (ME). As these criminal cases are unprecedented both historically and procedurally under the new Code of Canon Law of 1983, all Catholic and Protestant Christians, even the non-baptized, may, and are invited to join these class-action suits.
Posted by: Aimee Milburn at Mar 15, 2007 4:19:59 PM