McCarrick Report

[Anastasia]

There is something else that bothers me. Obviously, my knowledge of Jesuits is much more limited than probably most of the Roman Catholics. Yet I knew some and also read St Ignatius books and letters. He and those I knew appear to be totally different in spirit from PF and others like Fr Martin. The fundamental difference I think is that for St Ignatius Christ was the Lord and he was His knight. So, there was clearly an unquestionable authority above St Ignatius. His purpose was to serve Him and be with Him. His system of discernment is based of a sense whether this or that brings him closer to the Lord or takes away from Him. It is very clear and a mind is joint there with a heart.

Apply this system then to the postmodern Jesuits like PF and Fr Martin. It does not work because they do not seek the will of God, they seek their own will. It is easy to see I think: if some priest abuses children he, apart from harming others, is blaspheming every time he celebrates Mass. Hence, if his superior keenly feels God above himself he will immediately act in a way to purge the Church from such an awfulness, for God’s sake and for victim’s sake. He will feel that if he does not, he joins in spitting on God. The most important is to purge the Church from the rot, not to cover the rot.

This is why I think the problem is not so much with Jesuits as such but with the postmodern minds which enter into various frames/spiritualities – Jesuit, Carmelite etc. and then eat/process its contents, changing it to suit their “flexible without limits” minds.  (A Carmelite friar who is telling the public that “cantering prayer” is a logical outcome of the teaching of St Teresa of Avila is just another example of eating the substance, changing it to the opposite via through the subject of a prayer, Christ while preserving the shell.)

[chrysostom]

Such open dissimulations are sad, they are shadows and straw compared to the real truth of Christ but they influence many souls to carry on in the death of sin, and so we ought to pray hard for all shepherds since each one will face an account before their Maker in the end for all those under their charge, and the unfaithful ones caught unrepentant in such monumental evil will suffer a fearful judgement. But there is yet time to repent - all of us for our own sins included. Pray, pray, pray!

[Anastasia]

1 hour ago, chrysostom said:

Pray, pray, pray!

Prayer is important of course but that stuff of blur is designed to get people used to blur and to lose their ability to recognize the truth when they hear it. It is very important to speak about those things. When they are spoken about, they lose their potency and ability to influence a mind. Actually, I think it was St Ignatius Loyola who advised, if one feels overwhelmed by “stuff” to speak just to anyone because the situation/temptation, being “taken out of a person into the light” loses its power.

[chrysostom]

Granted - I did not mean to suggest prayer and discussion of these things can't happen at the same time.

Edited November 12, 2020 by chrysostom

[Ash Wednesday]

13 hours ago, Anastasia said:

There is something else that bothers me. Obviously, my knowledge of Jesuits is much more limited than probably most of the Roman Catholics. Yet I knew some and also read St Ignatius books and letters. He and those I knew appear to be totally different in spirit from PF and others like Fr Martin.

Correct. I cannot speak as much for other orders, but the Jesuits in particular in the latter part of the 20th century changed quite a bit (for the worse), as a departure from their origin.  You might see an occasional priest that is not this way, but often when heterodoxy is discussed, the Jesuits generally get brought up more than other orders. They also oversee a lot of education in schools and Universities that claim Catholicism but are mostly heterodox. 

"I know my Catholic faith! I went to Jesuit schools my whole life!"

 

[Peace]

22 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

For sure, but that's not what I'm talking about happening with Fr. Martin. When Fr. Martin is asked if he assents to the Church's teaching on homosexual acts, he answers by saying "the official Church teaching is they are not kosher."

This statement can get him in 0% "official" trouble, and when people are frustrated by this non answer, he can complain they are being unreasonable and demanding. Then there is another constituency, the gay-acts-are-okay group, who can hear Fr. Martin's words and say, "ah there is an official Church teaching on gay sex acts, but specifying this way implies there is also an unofficial one, perhaps more to my liking."

I have no idea who Fr. Martin is by way of background.

But people are gonna do whatever they are gonna do anyway. If you know what the official teaching of the Church is, but you choose to do the opposite anyway, that's on you. If not Fr. Martin, the same folks would be pulling out some obscure passage of the Bible and stating "You see, gay marriage totally fine." Is the Bible at fault because it states the truth? I don't see how you really put the blame with Fr. Martin if he is teaching people the true doctrine of the Church.

Now, if the good priest is telling people that the official teaching of the Church is XYZ, but is then suggesting to people that they are totally free to ignore it and just do whatever they want, then that would be another thing, I think. Has he done this?

22 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

Imo this is the effect Fr. Martin means to have. I don't think there is an internal conflict he is being discreet about. Can't be sure, because when stakes are high, you cannot know if a Jesuit will say what they mean or instead mess with you in some way. 

OK, fair enough. If he means to suggest that people are free to ignore the teaching, then I would not like that.

22 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

But its a Jesuit idea that there is an official Church teaching, which is overridden by teaching produced by your personal discernment of how that teaching impacts your life.

I will give you an example. Fr. Martin was an advisor on the movie "Silence" which is about Jesuit missionaries in Japan. At one point one of the priest characters hears the voice of "Christ" telling him to apostatize - symbolized by stepping on an image of Jesus - and in obedience to "Christ", does so. Fr Martin explained in a column in America magazine, how a Jesuit could possibly "discern" whether to commit blasphemy and conclude it is the right thing to do: https://www.americamagazine.org/arts-culture/2017/01/18/fr-james-martin-answers-5-common-questions-about-silence

In case it isn't clear to anyone reading, this is 1000% garbage. If you "discern" a call to apostatize and hear Jesus audibly telling you to commit blasphemy, we know on an objective level that your discernment is wrong; your discernment is probably being led by the devil himself.  But Fr. Martin sees this as a legitimate outcome of good discernment, and that is just one example of how  deeply deformed and mutated Jesuit spirituality has become in this, the first half of the 21st century.  And that deformation applies to the doctrine of "mental reservation" as well, as it is currently practiced.

Am I fan of so many of our leaders being masters of double speak - no. But I should point out 'vatican types' are as a rule good at it, whether they are Jesuits or not. I recall the archbishop of St Louis testifying that "I'm not sure whether I knew it was a crime or not,” referring to adults having sex with children.

OK. This is where it gets complicated for me. Perhaps I do have a part of the "Jesuit" spirit in me that apparently is the disdain of Phatmass.

We have certain things that are intrinsically evil. They cannot be done under any circumstances. You can't have a "personal discernment" of Church teaching that causes you to go out and rape an infant. So at least as a general principle I would agree with you that certain things cannot be legitimately discerned.

But on the other hand we do have this idea of conscience. Not everything is always so black and white. For example, we know what the current teaching of the Church is with respect to the death penalty (either the JP2 version or the updated PF version). There are plenty of folks ( @KnightofChrist @fides' Jack ) around here who flat out reject both the JP2 version and the PF version). If we wanted to be all rule-bound and black-and-white we would say that they disagree with the current teaching of the Church, with their superiors, and charge them to the game. But I can cut them some slack because they are following their own conscience and making their own discernment of what the proper teaching is, as far as they see it. Is that different? Are they wrong for not just being all black and white "The Catechism says XYZ" take it or leave it?

Now, if we are looking at an issue like blasphemy, sure, we all know what the black-and-white rule is. If someone shows us a picture of Jesus, we are not supposed to step on it. If someone tells us to deny that Jesus is God, best not to do it. That is an evil thing to do, obviously.

But let's say a Muslim terrorists captures all of the members of Phatmass, pulls out the long-sword and starts slowly cutting off our heads unless we state "Jesus is not God." Let's keep it real here folks, once he starts hitting some arteries, 99% of us are going to say it, under that type of duress.

But even taking the duress aspect out of it, the question there would be, if you say it under those circumstances, have you really blasphemed? Does God really prefer for every single person on the planet Earth to march to his death in that situation? Leaving our children parentless, and our dogs without the daily provision of Kibbles and Bits? Perhaps God would want every person to march to his death in that situation - but I think it is legit for the Christian at least to be able to ask "God is this what you want of me" instead of just saying "Well the rulebook says XYZ so off with my head."

Now, I did find that part of the movie where Jesus appeared out of nowhere and was all like "Go ahead, step on me" to be a bit fantastical. Honestly I can't really see that happening either, just to be clear. Certainly, I think based on what we see in Sacred Scripture, and based on what the Church teaches, I would have confidence that Jesus would not be like "Go ahead, step on me" but if we find ourselves in that situation, I think that there is some room for the Christian to at least try to discern like "Does God truly desire me to martyr myself in this situation?" We all think that we know what the answer would be, but do we really unless we ask the question?

Also, unless you actually ask the question and attempt to discern God's will in particular situations, how are we not just following rules like a pharisee or a robot? Are we gonna be like the Jews who were all like "the law states that we have to stone this woman to death, let's stone away" but then Jesus comes along and is like "Yeah why don't we just set that aside for today?"

Just some food for thought I guess.

[HumilityAndPatience]

22 hours ago, Anastasia said:

The natural feeling of a heart then is being removed and swapped by a cold logical reasoning "Nazis have no rights to know so I can lie". Then this new paradigm "if one has no right to know I can lie" is applied to other situations to which, if they were evaluated by a heart (feeling) would not permit a lie.  Like "lying for keeping the Church together" is only convincing if one does not feel in his heart that he cannot lie about the Church = to lie about the Body Christ, the Truth, to keep that Body together because if one injects a lie into that Body he will poison it. But this can be only felt with a heart sensitive to a lie and Truth ("Everyone who is of the Truth hears My voice.").

I think you have it the wrong way around, if I am reading correctly.

Cold logical legalism = "lying" is always a mortal sin

Reason informed by the heart = can "lie" when prudential judgement dictates

Newman covers this in his Apologia. In other words, we are not to judge whether a man's lie is prudential or not. It is for Christ to judge. And indeed, it might have been prudent to use Pope Francis' wording, assuming it was a "lie" in the first place...

21 hours ago, Anastasia said:

It does not work because they do not seek the will of God, they seek their own will.

This is a leaping statement to make...

21 hours ago, Anastasia said:

It is easy to see I think: if some priest abuses children he, apart from harming others, is blaspheming every time he celebrates Mass. Hence, if his superior keenly feels God above himself he will immediately act in a way to purge the Church from such an awfulness, for God’s sake and for victim’s sake. He will feel that if he does not, he joins in spitting on God. The most important is to purge the Church from the rot, not to cover the rot

You are definitively assuming PF's heart/knowledge on the matter when it is certainly not clear.

[Peace]

16 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

This is a leaping statement to make...

You are definitively assuming PF's heart/knowledge on the matter when it is certainly not clear.

Yeah I thought that was quite comical considering how bent out of shape she got when I accused her of lying.

[Lilllabettt]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

I have no idea who Fr. Martin is by way of background.

Fr. Martin is most famous recently for his outreach to the gay community. He wrote a book called "building bridges." His work is sorely needed. Unfortunately he is one who seems almost gleeful in discovering the different ways he can walk right up to the line and leave everyone guessing if he has crossed over it.  The fact that faithful people are confused and troubled by what he says and those on the peripheries find confirmation for their rejection of the Gospel in what he says - are not problems he thinks important enough to correct.

I'm glad you acknowledge there are such things as intrinsic evil. Blasphemy and apostasy are 2 of those things. ( Clerics Obfuscating about sexual misconduct, i could put in that category, at this piont. ) In the movie, Silence, lay people are shown staying strong in the face of torture, and I think the movie as a whole is a commentary on the wisdom courage and strength of "simple" Christians vs intellectualized and ultimately weaker Jesuits.

1 hour ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

I think you have it the wrong way around, if I am reading correctly.

Cold logical legalism = "lying" is always a mortal sin

Reason informed by the heart = can "lie" when prudential judgement dictates

Newman covers this in his Apologia. In other words, we are not to judge whether a man's lie is prudential or not. It is for Christ to judge. And indeed, it might have been prudent to use Pope Francis' wording, assuming it was a "lie" in the first place...

This is a leaping statement to make...

You are definitively assuming PF's heart/knowledge on the matter when it is certainly not clear.

Nope nope nope. It is never acceptable for clerical authority to lie to the faithful, play games, tell half truths, engage that Jesuit formation to dodge and weave, or confuse about whether they know and when they knew about sexual misconduct in the external forum. That's called clericalism. It's abusive. If this is prudential judgment, then his judgment is BAD.

https://www.simchafisher.com/2018/09/07/does-francis-know-he-sounds-like-an-abuser/

Just imagine if PF was a lay principal and parents asked if he knew about sexual misconduct by a teacher. And he told them  "investigate it yourself". And he says a year later "I knew nothing" and then later it comes out, he did know the teacher had a reputation and that there were allegations (not publicly known). Would we be tolerant of the ambiguity, the "mistakes". I mean come on. Oh he's a priest? He's the Pope? We have to give him the benefit of the doubt - to the extent he can pee on us and we have to believe him when he says its raining?

The catholic tradition around avoiding detraction and gossip, not judging hearts and knowledge is very beautiful and unfortunately easily deformed, manipulated and abused. The same way 'mental reservation' and the role of discernment in moral theology have been deformed and abused by people who confuse their reputation with God's and PR with the mission of the Church. The pearl clutching about rash judgment in this area is all, as PF says, solemn nonsense. 

Lets do what the NY Times does and say falsehood instead of lie, since that's less emotional a word. When PF gave an interview saying he said "several times" previously that he "knew nothing" about McCarrick, that was a falsehood.  When PF claimed, repeatedly in that same interview, that he knew nothing about McCarrick, or else he wouldn't have stayed silent, that was a falsehood. We know from the report - written by those PF can fire on a whim -  that he knew about McCarrick's reputation and the allegations against him.

Lets say as Peace said, it was a "mistake." PF has made so many "mistakes" around sex abuse. These all have been made 10 years AFTER the reckoning of the early 2000s. There is NO excuse for these guys not to get it by now. Unless they are defective in some aspect of human or spiritual formation (Jesuits often are.) In which case the Pope job is not for them.  You can't play paddy cake around clerical sex abuse. Enough is enough.

You know I don't actually want the Pope to resign. I think its a trend that's bad for the Church, and just makes the Vatican more political. You know over the years I spent a lot of difficult hours late at night, wringing my hands, studying, working to understand the things he says and does, find ways to give the benefit of the doubt, construct an adequate defense in my own mind, overlook the unpleasant aspects of his personality, the habit of insulting faceless "others", the bad temper, the way of speaking and writing impenetrable gobbledy gook (JP2 had this as well. St Paul as well lol!!!! )  Over and over again, I've been shown that PF feels no sense of obligation or responsibility to pastor people like myself. He has other priorities. the environment and refugees, as my archbishop said when the McCarrick scandal first broke wide open. It's enough for me ... I'm done! Trust is earned.

 

Edited November 12, 2020 by Lilllabettt

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Fr. Martin is most famous recently for his outreach to the gay community. He wrote a book called "building bridges." His work is sorely needed. Unfortunately he is one who seems almost gleeful in discovering the different ways he can walk right up to the line and leave everyone guessing if he has crossed over it.  The fact that faithful people are confused and troubled by what he says and those on the peripheries find confirmation for their rejection of the Gospel in what he says - are not problems he thinks important enough to correct.

With respect to the homosexuality issue, how has he crossed the line, or "come close to the line"? I think that is pretty subjective. If PF comes out and says "Gay people should not be kicked out of their own families" folks are gonna come out (as they have recently) and say that this PF tacitly endorsing homosexual activity, even though that interpretation of the statement was patently absurd.

What I am saying is that I'll take this McCarrick report with a grain of salt. But I am also gonna take statements like yours above with a grain of salt too.

But you could be right. As always, "show me the money."

8 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

I'm glad you acknowledge there are such things as intrinsic evil. Blasphemy and apostasy are 2 of those things.

You know I really hate it when you correct me like that. Yeah, it's true. That is what the Catechism states. Nevertheless, the law said stone the adulteress to death, until the Lord came along and said otherwise. How that applies to stepping on a photo when a sword is making it's way through your jugular - well hopefully I'll never have to find out.

8 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

In the movie, Silence, lay people are shown staying strong in the face of torture, and I think the movie as a whole is a commentary on the wisdom courage and strength of "simple" Christians vs intellectualized and ultimately weaker Jesuits.

LOL. You really hate Jesuits. Admit the truth! What happened? Your ex-boyfriend dumped you and became a Jesuit, didn't he?

Nah I don't think that was the point of the movie at all. The vast majority of the "simple" Christians stepped on the photo you know. There were a few hardcore ones, the ones who died in the water I think. Actually I think there is a monument to them in Japan. I saw it when I lived there.

But the Jesuits in the movie were tortured like crazy. Let's keep it real they held out for longer than 99% of Phatmass would. They weren't just some intellectual soy boy punks, either. I mean, these guys walked into the situation basically knowing that it was going to be death. I think the main character only gave up when they started to torture other people, instead of torturing the guy himself.

I thought the main theme of the movie was a reflection on the supposed "absence" of God. Like, where is he, or why does he appear to remain silent in the times when we need him most? I think most Christians have experienced that feeling at some time, on some level.

The whole part about the guy apostatizing at the end while still having a little cross tucked away in his robe, to be found only at his death,  was just some cornball Hollywood ish I thought.

[HumilityAndPatience]

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

Nope nope nope.

St Augustine gives the example of a just man hiding in your house with murderers abound- is one permitted to lie when they come knocking? This is not a simple question. There is a rich history of debate amongst doctors of the church and there is room for prudence.

 

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

And he says a year later "I knew nothing" and then later it comes out, he did know the teacher had a reputation and that there were allegations (not publicly known).

It should be implicit that PF knew of the allegations and history. "I knew nothing" should be taken to mean that there was no definitive judgement made until that point. It should be viewed as an obvious truism that PF knew of the allegations. Occam's razor applies here. Simple explanation is that PF continued the line of thought on this matter as per his predecessors and "knew nothing" concrete on the matter of Mccarrick

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

It's enough for me ... I'm done! Trust is earned.

Do you agree with Vigano that Vatican 2 should be dropped and forgotten as well? And that Pope Francis must resign? 

Edited November 13, 2020 by HumilityAndPatience

[Lilllabettt]

29 minutes ago, Peace said:

With respect to the homosexuality issue, how has he crossed the line, or "come close to the line"? I think that is pretty subjective. If PF comes out and says "Gay people should not be kicked out of their own families" folks are gonna come out (as they have recently) and say that this PF tacitly endorsing homosexual activity, even though that interpretation of the statement was patently absurd.

What I am saying is that I'll take this McCarrick report with a grain of salt. But I am also gonna take statements like yours above with a grain of salt too.

But you could be right. As always, "show me the money."

You know I really hate it when you correct me like that. Yeah, it's true. That is what the Catechism states. Nevertheless, the law said stone the adulteress to death, until the Lord came along and said otherwise. How that applies to stepping on a photo when a sword is making it's way through your jugular - well hopefully I'll never have to find out.

LOL. You really hate Jesuits. Admit the truth! What happened? Your ex-boyfriend dumped you and became a Jesuit, didn't he?

Nah I don't think that was the point of the movie at all. The vast majority of the "simple" Christians stepped on the photo you know. There were a few hardcore ones, the ones who died in the water I think. Actually I think there is a monument to them in Japan. I saw it when I lived there.

But the Jesuits in the movie were tortured like crazy. Let's keep it real they held out for longer than 99% of Phatmass would. They weren't just some intellectual soy boy punks, either. I mean, these guys walked into the situation basically knowing that it was going to be death. I think the main character only gave up when they started to torture other people, instead of torturing the guy himself.

I thought the main theme of the movie was a reflection on the supposed "absence" of God. Like, where is he, or why does he appear to remain silent in the times when we need him most? I think most Christians have experienced that feeling at some time, on some level.

The whole part about the guy apostatizing at the end while still having a little cross tucked away in his robe, to be found only at his death,  was just some cornball Hollywood ish I thought.

Well, if you listen to fr. Martin, the real linchpin in the priest's decision to apostatize was his obedience to "Jesus." That "Jesus" told him to apostatize, was really the thing that finally broke him as far as doing it. And he didn't "break down" as far as losing his nerve, he simply obediently followed his discernment.

If I was going to be a martyr they would have to kill me quick. I doubt God would send to hell, or even punish much if at all, someone who apostatizes in the face of torture or the death of others. That situation pretty much tosses out the deliberate and complete consent peg on the mortal sin stool.

However the troubling part is the thesis that this is good discernment and the "Right" decision, ever. In the early Church people who did this would be excommunicated for 7+ years, required to publicly confess and do hard penance before being re-admitted to communion. It's definitely the wrong choice to apostatize even though God understands human weakness.  Just like dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was the wrong thing to do, and no amount of compassion and understanding for people weary of war can ever turn that decision into good discernment.   But my point in bringing up the movie and Fr. Martin was to illustrate a thing that is prevalent in Jesuit spirituality - the idea that personal discernment is the pinnacle of moral theology, and there really is no objective yard stick of good or bad discernment. If blasphemy can be considered good discernment than any other sort of behavior can also be good discernment. Fudging on what you knew about sexual misconduct, for the "Good of the Church" can be good discernment.

Im not a fan of the Jesuits because they are responsible for a lot of suffering (related to sex abuse particularly) in the world, and the deformation of this aspect of their charism (mental reservation discernment etc) is huge obstacle to healing, worldwide.  Also, when someone plays semantic games, and you know they are playing, and they know you know they are playing, there's a limit you know.  It gets to be too cute. You dont have to be a crashing gong or clanging cymbal but some light percussion would be nice. 

[Lilllabettt]

14 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

St Augustine gives the example of a just man hiding in your house with murderers abound- is one permitted to lie when they come knocking?

Sorry but this isn't relevant. McCarrick is not a just man and journalists asking the Pope what he knew and when about McCarrick's predation are not "murderers." If someone makes the prudential judgment that silence is appropriate in that situation then their prudential judgment is BAD.

16 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

"I knew nothing" should be taken to mean that there was no definitive judgement made until that point.

Sorry but that's jesuitical. I didn't KNOW anything. I knew but I didn't KNOW. Give me a break.

 

18 minutes ago, HumilityAndPatience said:

Do you agree with Vigano that Vatican 2 should be dropped and forgotten as well? And that Pope Francis must resign? 

Makes me think you don't read what I write here.  I wrote I don't want the pope to resign, as its a bad trend for the church. will just lead to more political "campaigns" in the Vatican and worldliness instead of holiness.  However I don't see how things will get better unless PF has a major mindset adjustment in how he sees his job and the world. He is 80 years old, with God all things are possible. I pray God works a miracle. But he has had these habits for a long time. He is not popular in Argentina, for reasons. He didn't just start making these "mistakes" and not feeling like he has to clarify or explain himself.

And no, I am not a trad - not even an "extraordinary form" trad. They have taste, but too many of the people in the movement, Vigano included, are cranks. unpleasant to associate with. Wouldn't want the cray to rub off you know. (their cray on me in case thats not clear lol)

[HumilityAndPatience]

5 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Sorry but this isn't relevant. McCarrick is not a just man and journalists asking the Pope what he knew and when about McCarrick's predation are not "murderers." If someone makes the prudential judgment that silence is appropriate in that situation then their prudential judgment is BAD.

The example is to show the possibility for a lie to be a just action. I'm not proposing that the scenario be applied to Mccarrick's handling. But if it were, then the "just man" would be the reputation of the Church (not McCarrick), for example. And the murderers would be those who wish to slander the Church and her clergy. 

9 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Makes me think you don't read what I write here.

I did- and if seemed as if you were unsure, hence my questions (in charity)

[Peace]

41 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Well, if you listen to fr. Martin, the real linchpin in the priest's decision to apostatize was his obedience to "Jesus." That "Jesus" told him to apostatize, was really the thing that finally broke him as far as doing it. And he didn't "break down" as far as losing his nerve, he simply obediently followed his discernment.

But here is the thing. What if you were in that situation and our Lord really did say to you "Lillabettt. I want you to step on my figure."

What would you do? Would you step on it, or would you be on some intellectual "No, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church states at paragraph 1208 that blasphemy is an intrinsic evil"?

I think that you would step on it, if that is what God told you to do, correct?

Now, you are probably right in that from what we know, God would never say such a thing in that situation (although I can't say that I have 100% absolute confidence in that conclusion). But that's not the hypothetical. The hypothetical is that God actually said it. From that standpoint, the Jesuits would be correct, would they not? It's not like you would pull out your Catechism and be like "No, Lord . . ."

Sure, there are all of these questions about whether the discernment is valid, whether the person is merely just trying to justify his actions under the pretense of discernment, or if he has been deceived, and so forth. But that is a bit beside the main point I think - that there is a legit role for discernment that goes beyond just a black and white following of code like a computer.

41 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

However the troubling part is the thesis that this is good discernment and the "Right" decision, ever.

Yeah but in the movie God literally spoke to him! What, you thought that was supposed to be a hallucination?

Yeah it is Hollywood stuff, but I'm not talking about a situation where a person is going through some vague or amorphous process of trying to figure out what God wants you to do, without any type of clarity. Sometimes "you know" what God wants you to do in a given situation. And sometimes he does literally speak to people. Sometimes you just know without any doubt whatsoever what he wants you to do in a given situation.

I mean, if we are just talking about some BS where people are using "discernment" as a justification to do whatever it was that that they wanted to do in the first place, that is one thing. But that's not really what I am assuming here. I am assuming that a person legitimately (and in an earnest spirit) is attempting to discern the will of God.

I think there is room for that, although I would say that what the Church has specifically taught should be paramount in making that determination. Like you, if a person comes to a conclusion that is at odds with what the Church teaches, I think that his determination should be considered highly suspect, he would probably want to check his true motives and other outside influences that may be causing him to go the opposite way.

Now if we could only get people on this forum to apply that principle and show some respect for the Church's teaching on the death penalty! Alas.

41 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

In the early Church people who did this would be excommunicated for 7+ years, required to publicly confess and do hard penance before being re-admitted to communion.

Yeah but 7 years penance was a walk in the park back then. Jacob had to toil for 14 years just to marry this chick Rachel.

41 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

But my point in bringing up the movie and Fr. Martin was to illustrate a thing that is prevalent in Jesuit spirituality - the idea that personal discernment is the pinnacle of moral theology, and there really is no objective yard stick of good or bad discernment.

Yeah if they are saying it is the "pinnacle" I would disagree with that too.

41 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Im not a fan of the Jesuits because they are responsible for a lot of suffering (related to sex abuse particularly) in the world, and the deformation of this aspect of their charism (mental reservation discernment etc) is huge obstacle to healing, worldwide. 

Wait a second. All the pedophile priests are Jesuits all of a sudden? Come on now.

41 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

Also, when someone plays semantic games, and you know they are playing, and they know you know they are playing, there's a limit you know.  It gets to be too cute. You dont have to be a crashing gong or clanging cymbal but some light percussion would be nice. 

But what if you think they are playing semantic games, but they really are not?

I am assuming that the above statement applies to PF as well. It's interesting to me that you have that perception of him, as playing "semantic games" or what have you. That has not been my perception of him at all. I think that sometimes he speaks too loosely and would be better to choose some of his words more carefully. I think that some of his handling of matters cold have been handled much better, but I don't buy the line that he is trying to hide the ball for some nefarious reason or some vague notion of "The Good of the Church" or something like that.

That could be in your head. Or I could be willfully blind to it. To be concluded in the next episode, I suppose.

1 hour ago, Lilllabettt said:

Sorry but that's jesuitical. I didn't KNOW anything. I knew but I didn't KNOW. Give me a break.

Well one possibility is that he actually didn't recall anything about the allegations at the time that he made the "I know nothing" statement.

Like, if in the year 2013 someone has a vague 30 second conversation with you about XYZ by the time we get to 2018, it could very well be the case that the entire memory of the conversation is gone. Stuff like that happens to me all the time, where someone mentions a conversation to me that we had 6 months or a year ago, but I have no memory of it at all when they mention it to me, and I'll literally be like "I never said that, what are you talking about?" When I say "I never said that" it it not a lie or me being dishonest. I honestly didn't think that I said that, because the conversation was no longer within my memory.

One thing to me that is pretty telling is that there does not seem to be any record of any documents being formally submitted to PF concerning this matter (unless they were burned at the conclave!) That is pretty odd I think. If this guy McCarrrick is persona non-gratis and the entirety of Christendom from time immemorial is aware of his abuses, nobody thought it might be a good idea to send PF a letter or an email stating "Hey pal, watch out for this guy"? Does that make sense?