Kirkens eneste problem

1. mar.11 min læsning

Opdateret: 3. mar.

Nej, det er ikke photoshoppet. Pave Johs. Paul II kysser virkelig koranen

"Sandelig, sandelig, siger jeg eder, jeg er Fårenes Dør. 8 Alle de, som ere komne før mig, ere Tyve og Røvere; men Fårene hørte dem ikke. 9 Jeg er Døren; dersom nogen går ind igennem mig, han skal frelses; og han skal gå ind og gå ud og finde Føde. 10 Tyven kommer ikke uden for at stjæle og slagte og ødelægge; jeg er kommen, for at de skulle have Liv og have Overflod. 11 Jeg er den gode Hyrde; den gode Hyrde sætter sit Liv til for Fårene. 12 Men Lejesvenden, som ikke er Hyrde, hvem Fårene ikke høre til ser Ulven komme og forlader Fårene og flyr, og Ulven røver dem og adspreder dem, 13 fordi han er en Lejesvend og ikke bryder sig om Fårene. 14 Jeg er den gode Hyrde, og jeg kender mine, og mine kende mig, 15 ligesom Faderen kender mig, og jeg kender Faderen; og jeg sætter mit Liv til for Fårene. 16 Og jeg har andre Får, som ikke høre til denne Fold; også dem bør jeg føre, og de skulle høre min Røst; og der skal blive een Hjord, een Hyrde." - Johs. 10

"Mig er given al Magt i Himmelen og på Jorden. 19 Går derfor hen og gører alle Folkeslagene til mine Disciple, idet I døbe dem til Faderens og Sønnens og den Helligånds Navn, 20 og idet I lære dem at holde alt det, som jeg har befalet eder. Og se, jeg er med eder alle Dage indtil Verdens Ende." - Matt. 28, 18-20

Der er ikke så få som har opfattelsen af, at Kirkens fundamentale problem består i udlægningen af den katolske tro, af liturgisk praksis, eller bedre præstelig formation. Alle disse ting er gode og centrale ting, som har meget stor indflydelse på Kirkens evne til at udbrede Sandheden. Men der er én afgørende ting, som kan løse alle disse problemer omgående, såfremt dette doktrinære problem blev løst i morgen. Og dette problem handler om Kirkens beskrivelse og forståelse af religionsfrihed, eller menneskets ret til at efterstræbe sandheden i henhold til menneskets subjektive samvittighed. Denne forståelse fik for alvor sit gennembrud i koncilsdokumentet "Dignitatis Humanae", og har martret Kirken sidenhen. Og det er da eller ikke uden grund, at fx FSSPX finder sin absolut største anke mod Det 2. Økumeniske Vatikankoncil, i netop dette spørgsmål. Lad os dykke ned i "DH" og sammenligne indholdet med hvad tidligere paver traditionelt har skrevet om spørgsmålet, og udfolde hvorfor dette problem er så markant. Og også, hvorfor FSSPX er den eneste præstelige orden som forsvarer den traditionelle doktrin den dag i dag.

Problemet kort

Hele omdrejningspunktet er hvorledes Kirken besidder den selvopfattelse, som muliggør at Kirken søger at udbrede den katolske tro, evangeliet og til sjælenes frelse, og hævde sin ret til at udbrede Sandheden til menneskeheden. Det er hele Kirkens eksistensberettigelse der her er på spil, fordi Kirken er grundlagt med dét ene formål at frelse sjæle, herliggøre Gud og manifestere Hans vilje på jorden. Hvis ikke Kirken hævder sig selv som den ene sande tro, i den ene sande kirke, stiftet af den ene sande Gud, så er alle bestræbelser i virkeligheden fuldstændig ligegyldige, og så er alle andre samtaler, problemer og vanskeligheder virkelig symptomer, hvad enten vi taler liturgisk praksis, kunst, kultur, moral, etik og bøn. Det hele står og falder med, om Kirken er sand eller ej. Og som vi skal se, har Dignitatis Humanae, dokumentet om religionsfrihed fra Det 2. Vatikankoncil, haft fuldstændigt ødelæggende konsekvenser for Kirken og for kleresiet, i forhold til at manifestere denne sandhed i verden. Hvis menneskets samvittighed er den højeste og eneste målestok for menneskets religiøse udfoldelse, og hvis mennesket ikke må tvinges til ikke at udøve skade på åbenbaret sandhed, så har Kirken ingen legitim eller spirituel relevans. Ihvertfald ikke sammenlignet med andre religioner.

2. Økumeniske Vatikankoncil: "Dignitatis Humanae"

"This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits."

Denne kontroversielle formulering er den primære anstødssten for fx FSSPX' indstilling til koncilet, fordi den tilkendegiver at menneskets egen samvittighed er den objektive målestok for at vurdere sandhed, og efterleve den. Dels formuleres en ret til fravær af tvang, og dels formuleres menneskets egen samvittighed eller overbevisning som objektive målestok. Vedrørende tvangsspørgsmålet, har adskillige paver historisk formuleret det problematiske i denne form for liberalisme, som har sit ophav i den franske revolutions oplysningsfilosofiske grundlag, som tilsiger at ingen guddommelig og overnaturlig lov skal indskrænke menneskets ret til udfoldelse. Den katolske position er til gengæld, at Gud gennem overnaturlig åbenbaring har vist Sig for os, og åbenbaret Sandheden til os, fordi Han er vores skaber, og ønsker en relation til os i henhold til Hans vilje. Denne traditionelle position legitimerer også tvang, såfremt mennesker vælger at afvise Hans bud og afledte moral, fordi det aldrig kan være legitimt at handle og agere i modstrid med hvad der er åbenbaret Sandhed, og i forhold til guddommelig lov. Fejl har ingen rettigheder, og kan i sin natur aldrig få ret. Når Gud er perfekt, så skal Hans lov manifesteres i Himlen og på jorden. Et andet problematisk aspekt er, at DH eksplicit indikerer at ingen person kan tvinges til at agere på en måde som er i modstrid med personens egen anskuelser, hvad enten det er privat eller offentligt, "indenfor fastsatte grænser". Det er denne "within due limits" som i sig selv er så vagt formuleret, at den på ingen måde kan siges at tydeliggøre den katolske tradition på dette område. Menneskets egen anskuelse og ret til religiøs frihed i den forstand, er en bombe under Kirkens ret til at udbrede evangeliet, fordi mennesket skal frelses fra synd gennem Kirken, men også fordi Kirken har et guddommeligt mandat til at udbrede Sandheden. Effekten af DH er flere ting.

For det første, at Kirken helt opgiver at kæmpe for sin egen eksistensberettigelse. Fokus lægges altså på religioner udenfor Kirken, og fokus lægges på at behage og tilpasse katolsk tradition til den tænkemåde og de praksisser som andre religioner synes den katolske kirke skal have og besidde, for at de kan elske den. Det er naturligvis ikke bare en dybt naiv forestilling, men også dybt skadelig forestilling. For det andet indbefatter det at Kirke og stat skal adskilles. Det er en farlig og forkert anskuelse, fordi en stat aldrig kan være værdineutral, sålænge den udøver magt som har gyldighed for en række mennesker indenfor et område eller territorium. Her er tidligere tiders paver også fuldstændigt eksplicitte i det spørgsmål, fordi der aldrig vil være et tomrum blot fordi Kirke og stat adskilles. Hvis ikke Kirken bemægtiger sig et politisk rum, så vil dette rum blot udfyldes af andre, og hvis de ikke er katolikker, så er det ikke Guds vilje de manifesterer. Se blot eksemplerne i vor tid. Forneden kan vi se og læse nogle eksempler fra hine tiders paver, som var stærkt antiliberale, fordi de forstod konsekvensen af oplysningstidens strømninger:

Pave Gregor XVI - "Mirari Vos"

"Now We consider another abundant source of the evils with which the Church is afflicted at present: indifferentism. This perverse opinion is spread on all sides by the fraud of the wicked who claim that it is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained. Surely, in so clear a matter, you will drive this deadly error far from the people committed to your care. With the admonition of the apostle that “there is one God, one faith, one baptism”[16] may those fear who contrive the notion that the safe harbor of salvation is open to persons of any religion whatever. They should consider the testimony of Christ Himself that “those who are not with Christ are against Him,”[17] and that they disperse unhappily who do not gather with Him. Therefore “without a doubt, they will perish forever, unless they hold the Catholic faith whole and inviolate.”[18] Let them hear Jerome who, while the Church was torn into three parts by schism, tells us that whenever someone tried to persuade him to join his group he always exclaimed: “He who is for the See of Peter is for me.”[19] A schismatic flatters himself falsely if he asserts that he, too, has been washed in the waters of regeneration. Indeed Augustine would reply to such a man: “The branch has the same form when it has been cut off from the vine; but of what profit for it is the form, if it does not live from the root?”[20]

..This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly “the bottomless pit”[22] is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws — in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty."

Når Kirkens og Guds moral går ud, går opløsning og amoral ind. Det er nærmest profetisk og desto mere præcist analyseret, og derfor ser vi ikke bare i samfundet, men også i Kirken i dag, meget store moralske problemer, fordi denne indifferens er så udbredt.

Pave Leo XIII - "Libertas"

"From this it is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law. Likewise, the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects, which would equally be criminal and would lead to the ruin of the commonwealth; but the binding force of human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law. Thus, St. Augustine most wisely says: “I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law.”[5] If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.

.Therefore, the nature of human liberty, however it be considered, whether in individuals or in society, whether in those who command or in those who obey, supposes the necessity of obedience to some supreme and eternal law, which is no other than the authority of God, commanding good and forbidding evil. And, so far from this most just authority of God over men diminishing, or even destroying their liberty, it protects and perfects it, for the real perfection of all creatures is found in the prosecution and attainment of their respective ends; but the supreme end to which human liberty must aspire is God."

Pave Pius IX - "Qanta Cura"

"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of “naturalism,” as they call it, dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that “that is the best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace may require.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an “insanity,” viz., that “liberty of conscience and worship is each man’s personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way.” But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching “liberty of perdition;”3 and that “if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling.”

Pave Pius IX - "Syllabus of errors (Liste med fejl)"

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. — Allocution “Maxima quidem,” June 9, 1862; Damnatio “Multiplices inter,” June 10, 1851.

Pave Pius X - "Pascendi"

"What, then, is the Church? It is the product of the collective conscience, that is to say, of the association of individual consciences which, by virtue of the principle of vital permanence, depend all on one first believer, who for Catholics is Christ. Now every society needs a directing authority to guide its members towards the common end, to foster prudently the elements of cohesion, which in a religious society are doctrine and worship. Hence the triple authority in the Catholic Church, disciplinary, dogmatic, liturgical. The nature of this authority is to be gathered from its origin, and its rights and duties from its nature. In past times it was a common error that authority came to the Church from without, that is to say directly from God; and it was then rightly held to be autocratic. But this conception has now grown obsolete. For in the same way as the Church is a vital emanation of the collectivity of consciences, so too authority emanates vitally from the Church itself. Authority, therefore, like the Church, has its origin in the religious conscience, and, that being so, is subject to it. Should it disown this dependence it becomes a tyranny. For we are living in an age when the sense of liberty has reached its highest development. In the civil order the public conscience has introduced popular government. Now there is in man only one conscience, just as there is only one life. It is for the ecclesiastical authority, therefore, to adopt a democratic form, unless it wishes to provoke and foment an intestine conflict in the consciences of mankind. The penalty of refusal is disaster. For it is madness to think that the sentiment of liberty, as it now obtains, can recede. Were it forcibly pent up and held in bonds, the more terrible would be its outburst, sweeping away at once both Church and religion. Such is the situation in the minds of the Modernists, and their one great anxiety is, in consequence, to find a way of conciliation between the authority of the Church and the liberty of the believers."

Skt. Pius X rammer hovedet på sømmet her, når han nærmest profetisk skriver at denne liberalisme, skulle den have lov at blomstre spontant, ville lægge bånd på sig selv. Den ville kun udbredes og ikke bremses af noget eller nogen, men ville totalitært undertrykke menneskets evne og ret til at opnå det højeste gode, nemlig Gud, fordi mennesket i sin syndige natur ville være en slave af sit eget kød, og derfor nok ville være fri til at behage sine drifter, men også være en slave af dem. Det er hele essensen af sand frihed, at vi kun bliver frie når vi ikke er slaver af kødets lænker.