Sure! Here's the
link, the audio playback itself is at the bottom beneath all the notes for the episode.
Pope Francis is drawing lines I'll grant you. But I would not call myself a 'trad' and he's drawn the line to exclude me and people like me. He calls me a 'neo-pelagian' and an 'American' and all sorts of other insults. He has thrown me in his 'basket of deplorables' without having ever met me.
I would say that's another mistake he's making is painting Americans and the Church in America with broad brushstrokes. Are his most outspoken critics here trads? Yeah, most likely. Though his most outspoken critics anywhere are probably trads, given his track record. But he's alienating many but maybe the most liberal and progressive "Catholics" when he says American opposition is basically a merit badge to him.
His words and actions do seem schismatic, but I don't feel like I am the one who can judge that he is actually in schism. I look to various cardinals and bishops to make the case and issue the ultimatum. Or for the Holy Spirit to directly remove him.
It's kind of like impeachment. Trump is your president until he is impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate. I may decide something about Trump, but what I think really does not matter. What some professors think doesn't really matter. What the polls say doesn't really matter. What he did doesn't even matter outside of the impeachment and trial. The US constitution has a provision for impeachment, but the Church doesn't have it spelled out for the pope. It's all just theory.
What worries me is if we all go off in separate directions as was done in the Reformation 500 years ago. We had some bad popes at the time, but was what happened the right thing? This time I could see us again splitting into dozens of groups that would then fission into another 50,000 in a few hundred years. Or, if done right, we stay as one with the pope and his cronies retiring early and orthodoxy restored.
God reclaims. One way or the other it will be the work of God in our midst.
Copying from Fradd's podcast notes included in the link above, who in turn was taking from
Summa Theologiae, it would seem Aquinas posits that we're
duty bound to correct even a prelate. Maybe a person needs to examine their conscience to determine whether the desire to correct a prelate originates in pride, but I think if it comes from a righteous place than we all have a duty to correct His Holiness.
You're right, I wouldn't want to commit any of the errors that created the protestant revolt, but there seems to be precedent or at least a framework, for Catholics correcting a prelate established by the Saints and Doctors of the Church.
(IIRC, Fradd discusses in the podcast how specifically this would apply to the Pope)
**Blue text is my emphasis/highlight
Article 1. Whether fraternal correction is an act of charity?
On the contrary, To correct the wrongdoer is a spiritual almsdeed. But almsdeeds are works of charity, as stated above (II-II:32:1). Therefore fraternal correction is an act of charity.
I answer that, The correction of the wrongdoer is a remedy which should be employed against a man's sin. Now a man's sin may be considered in two ways, first as being harmful to the sinner, secondly as conducing to the harm of others, by hurting or scandalizing them, or by being detrimental to the common good, the justice of which is disturbed by that man's sin.
Consequently the correction of a wrongdoer is twofold, one which applies a remedy to the sin considered as an evil of the sinner himself. This is fraternal correction properly so called, which is directed to the amendment of the sinner. Now to do away with anyone's evil is the same as to procure his good: and to procure a person's good is an act of charity, whereby we wish and do our friend well. Consequently fraternal correction also is an act of charity, because thereby we drive out our brother's evil, viz. sin, the removal of which pertains to charity rather than the removal of an external loss, or of a bodily injury, in so much as the contrary good of virtue is more akin to charity than the good of the body or of external things. Therefore fraternal correction is an act of charity rather than the healing of a bodily infirmity, or the relieving of an external bodily need. There is another correction which applies a remedy to the sin of the wrongdoer, considered as hurtful to others, and especially to the common good. This correction is an act of justice, whose concern it is to safeguard the rectitude of justice between one man and another.
Article 4. Whether a man is bound to correct his prelate?
Objection 1. It would seem that no man is bound to correct his prelate. For it is written (Exodus 19:12): "The beast that shall touch the mount shall be stoned," [Vulgate: 'Everyone that shall touch the mount, dying he shall die.'] and (2 Samuel 6:7) it is related that the Lord struck Oza for touching the ark. Now the mount and the ark signify our prelates. Therefore prelates should not be corrected by their subjects.
Objection 2. Further, a gloss on Galatians 2:11, "I withstood him to the face," adds: "as an equal." Therefore, since a subject is not equal to his prelate, he ought not to correct him.
Objection 3. Further, Gregory says (Moral. xxiii, 8) that "one ought not to presume to reprove the conduct of holy men, unless one thinks better of oneself." But one ought not to think better of oneself than of one's prelate. Therefore one ought not to correct one's prelate.
On the contrary, Augustine says in his Rule: "Show mercy not only to yourselves, but also to him who, being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger." But fraternal correction is a work of mercy. Therefore even prelates ought to be corrected.
I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.
Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 5:1): "An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father." Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church.
Reply to Objection 1. It would seem that a subject touches his prelate inordinately when he upbraids him with insolence, as also when he speaks ill of him: and this is signified by God's condemnation of those who touched the mount and the ark.
Reply to Objection 2. To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: "Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: 'Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5." It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."
Reply to Objection 3. To presume oneself to be simply better than one's prelate, would seem to savor of presumptuous pride; but there is no presumption in thinking oneself better in some respect, because, in this life, no man is without some fault. We must also remember that when a man reproves his prelate charitably, it does not follow that he thinks himself any better, but merely that he offers his help to one who, "being in the higher position among you, is therefore in greater danger," as Augustine observes in his Rule quoted above.
Summa Theologiae, second part of the second part, Question 33.
