Pleased to write for the first time for the New York Post, with @gjpappin, in defense of the Vatican’s renewed agreement with China https://t.co/d2OoCagDTo
— Adrian Vermeule (@Vermeullarmine) October 29, 2020
🇻🇦The Vatican just renewed its agreement with China.
— Gladden Pappin (@gjpappin) October 29, 2020
Why?
The deep theological & political reasons behind the Vatican's approach are rarely discussed.@Vermeullarmine & I lay out reasons for the agreement in today's @nypost https://t.co/Jr99ijJd1H
Actually, having two different jurisdictional orders for the same territory is very much possible. Juridical "neatness" at the expense of what is pastorally wise is a problem. But apologists for the papal centralism prefer juridical "neatness." Even Latins recognize that the supreme law of the Church is charity, and the good of Christians overrides all other considerations, even "ecclesiastical neatness." Who in Rome consulted the underground bishops in China for their opinions?
Anthony Clark's latest at least offers both sides of the argument: China’s Catholic Leviathan: Jesuits and the Sino-Vatican Agreement. But the affirmative is still wrong: full communion with the bishop of Rome is not the highest good.
No comments:
Post a Comment