Cushingism assumes in principle possibilities are known realities in the present times and so contradicts the Catholic Church's traditional teaching on faith or morals.
Pope Francis has had the liberal seminary formation of the Jesuits in which Cushingism is the norm.
The error originated in the Fr.Leonard Feeney case in Boston, when the Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cushing assumed there were known exceptions to the dogma on salvation. For him the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance were exceptions and relevant to the literal interpretation of Fr. Leonard Feeney.In other words , he could physically see the dead on earth, saved with the baptism of desire etc, who were personally known exceptions to the Catholic teaching on the need for the baptism of water for salvation in the Catholic Church, every one needed to be a viisble member of the Church, with 'faith and baptism'.
Fr.Leonard Feeney was a Jesuit,like Pope Francis, and was expelled from the Jesuit community.The Jesuit Superior General like the secular media in Boston supported Cushing.The media referred to the Boston Heresy, of Fr.Leonard Feeney, when it was really Cardinal Richard Cushing who was denying a defined dogma, with claims of being able to see the dead who were known exceptions.
Since then in the Catholic Church Cushingism is being used to interpret magisterial documents from the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Wherever there is a reference to the baptism of desire etc it is assumed that these cases are visible to us (Cushingism ) instead of accepting that these cases are known only to God and not visible. (Feeneyism).Since they are not visible they are not exceptions.
Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI interpret Vatican Council II according to Cushingism. Lumen Gentium 16 (invincible ignorance) etc refers to a known exception to Ad Gentes 7 ( all need faith and baptism for salvation) - and to the dogma on exclusive salvation. If they considered LG 16 as being known only to God and invisible to us, LG 16 would just be a possibility accepted in principle and not an exception.This would be an interpretation of Vatican Council II according to Feeneyism (no visible exception). It would also mean there are no exceptions in Vatican Council II to the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism.Vatican Council II would be in agreement with the understanding of extra ecclesiam nulla salus according to the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the communities of Fr.Leonard Feeney and to the sedevacantists Peter and Michael Dimond of the Most Holy Family Monastery,NY,USA.
Atheists
So when Pope Francis said that an atheist could be saved he was referrring to an in principle case, a possibility known only to God and not known to us. The Catholic Church considers atheism a mortal sin.Atheists are heading for Hell and no Church document says that there can be or are, known exceptions.Pope Francis was using Cushingism. He was assuming that there are known cases of atheists in the present times, persons with positive values otherwise, who are saved, or who, he is sure will be saved. But there are no such known cases ! Not a single one in 2013 or during the popes entire lifetime.
Similarly when Pope Francis said recently “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” this is Cushingism. Who am I to judge ? How can he judge when he does not know a single such person. How can he judge anyone on earth?.How can he tell if a particular person is going to Heaven or Hell ?
The pope affirmed that homosexual acts were sinful.So if he did meet a practising homosexual he would have to judge based on the teachings of the Catholic Church. A practising homosexual is in mortal sin and is on the way to Hell. Even in today's reading from Colossians during Mass, we are told that some persons are on the way to Hell, fornicators etc. This is a judgement.So personally the pope could judge! He could say that homosexuals according to the general teaching of the Catholic Church are on the way to Hell and he does not know any exception to this teaching, he cannot know any exception. This would be Feeneyism.
So it is irrational when the pope says who am I to judge , since we humans are in no position to judge any way.Similarly it was irrational for the Archbishop of Boston to judge and say there are known exceptions to the dogma.
It is irrational, since he could also saying like Fr.Charles Curran that the exception is the rule i.e if we could really know any exception.
In Veritatis Splendor Pope John Paul II says a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the outer actions indicates the inner intention. So traditional mortal sin, which include homosexuality, is always a mortal sin.It is intrinsically evil according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.There are no known exceptions and if there is an exception it would be known only to God, the pope would not be able to detect this exception.
"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will,...but remains in a homosexual relationaship and commits the homosexual act and admits this in public, then the pope and any Catholic can judge!.
So in inter religious dialogue Pope Francis can judge that all the non Catholics whom he meets are on the way to Hell, not because he can personally know or see their soul, but because Vatican Council II, interpreted with Feeneyism says so. So does the Catechism of the Catholic Church 846 etc.However if he is using Cushingism, which says there are known exceptions, he will not know if the non Catholic whom he meets is one of the known exceptions, someone who is saved or going to be saved, who is outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church.Then he could say "Who am I to judge ?".
Pope Francis has been using Cushingism in his understanding of Jews,Mulsims and Protestants in relation in salvation.
-Lionel Andrades
1.
Pope Francis has said gay people should not be marginalised but integrated into society.
Speaking to reporters on a flight back from Brazil, he reaffirmed the Roman Catholic Church's position that homosexual acts were sinful, but homosexual orientation was not.
He was responding to questions about whether there was a "gay lobby" in the Vatican.
"If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?"
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment