Fr. Joseph Fessio: "No good deed goes unpunished"

Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J., founder and editor of Ignatius Press, has written a guest essay for Reuters, "No good deed goes unpunished," which addresses the recent reports about remarks by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn about members of the Roman Curia. Here are the opening paragraphs:

Did  Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna “attack”  Cardinal Angelo Sodano, dean of the College of Cardinals and former Vatican secretary of state? If The Tablet weekly in London were your only source of information, you’d think so, because that’s what the headline screamed.

What happened?

Cardinal Schönborn, who like his mentor Pope Benedict is a model of openness and transparency, invited the editors of Austria’s dozen or so major newspapers to a meeting at his residence in Vienna. How many bishops can you name who have extended such an invitation to the press?

The journalists agreed that this would be an “off the record” meeting so that everyone could take part freely and frankly. Was this to impose silence on the press? To cover up once again the misdeeds of clerics? No, it was an attempt by Cardinal Schönborn to be as open as possible and to make himself available to answer any question that was asked. It was an attempt to help educate the press on matters that the press often finds difficult to grasp—such as the essential foundations of the hierarchical and sacramental structure of the Church, and the intricacies of moral theology.

Cardinal Schönborn is a  Dominican and a professor. Which means that he has a serious scholar’s grasp of the foundations as well as the conclusions of moral theology, particularly as expounded by  St. Thomas Aquinas.

Perhaps Cardinal Schönborn overestimated the capacity of the invited journalists for a serious academic discussion. Just what did the cardinal do?

First, he explained that it is important to avoid the errors of a Kantian moral philosophy, that is, one based on the  categorical imperative of duty alone. Thomas Aquinas, inspired by Aristotle, elaborated what scholars would call a  eudaimonistic rather than a  deontological moral philosophy. That is, a moral philosophy not based on mere duty, but based on the natural desire of all men for happiness.

The Tablet, apparently drawing on other published sources, wrote: “Instead of a morality based on duty, we should work towards a morality based on happiness, [the cardinal] continued.” This is in itself accurate. But in the context of the Tablet article, it implied that the Church should change her teaching on homosexual relationships and divorced and re-married Catholics. (Both were mentioned immediately preceding the above quote.)

But what did Cardinal Schönborn mean by the reference to eudaimonism? He tried to explain it to the journalists. The Church attempts to lead men to their ultimate happiness, which is the vision of God in his essence. Moral norms are meant to do that; they have that as their end or purpose. The norms themselves are unchanging. However, our approach to obeying them is gradual and our efforts are a mixture of success and failure. This means that while certain moral norms are absolute, that is, they hold in all circumstances without exception, our approach to obeying them may be halting and imperfect.

Read the entire piece on Reuters' FaithWorld blog.

Visit Cardinal Schönborn's Ignatius Insight author page.

Comments

[Brian J. Schuettler]

Very naive. Very naive. Journalists with an agenda. A lamb among wolves. He needs a guide.

[Gabriel McAuliffe]

I suspected that the situation regarding Cardinal Shoenborn's comments were much closer to what is Fr. Fessio's analysis as stated above. Some have congratulated the Cardinal for thinking like themselves and others have condemned him without really waiting for a full report.

Thanks for this post!

[Dr John James]

The Cardinal needs a very good, and street-wise, press secretary, ideally with a background in journalism.

[Mrs. O]

Regarding homosexual relationships, I am not getting it.
“We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships,” adding: “A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous.”
We are comparing first, a disordered "relationship".
Then we are asked to give more consideration to the quality of the stable disordered "relationships" but this, unlike man and a woman union, can never be made right in the eyes of God.
So what are we giving consideration to again?
So, how did they get that statement wrong?
There are some in the Church that push for "faithfulness" including in homosexual relationships - thus making it right/forgetting the scandal of it all/and disorder.
What does Fr. Fessio see that I don't?
That a faithful homosexual is certainly better than a promiscuous one because.....?
Of course, the CDC will tell you to be faithful because of disease but the Church is a little more than just disease or death of the body but should be concerned more about the soul.
Should it read, are you shooting for the upper parts of hell, middle or lower?

[Brian]

Perhaps we all need time for the full truth to emerge.

[Mrs. O]

I am willing to leave it alone because Fr. Fessio on Al Kresta today said he talked with the Cardinal and it was taken out of context. Although it was mentioned that those in stable homosexual relationships are on different spiritual paths than others, it can be debated. Meaning, or how I took it, we are all spiritually growing but some closer than others.
To me, it was a bad example to use-in any setting.
Because we have in a parish here a "stable" lesbian couple that are very content with their lifestyle and their relationship with God.

[Mark Brumley]

Negatory, Brian. You obviously have not been reading enough liberal and archtraditionalist Catholic v-screeds.

The full truth? Facts are messy. Distinctions are often required to make sense of them. That's work.

Besides, facts are things for small minds.

Really, when it comes to opining, facts are not desiderata. They demand giving the benefit of the doubt to people who, well, mere common sense (not to mention common courtesy) should incline you to give the benefit of the doubt to anyway. Where's the fun in that? How can I sound like an internet know-it-all pundit if I do that? Don't you know that the internet has repealed moral responsibility as regards facts as the basis of comment and judgment?

Fact gathering, you see, requires motion and it's hard to climb down from my intellectual and spiritual high horse for that sort of thing. I've got such a fine, divine view from up here, thin atmosphere notwithstanding. They bring me my air in a can, so I'm breathing fine. In, out. In, out. My wi-fi works ok here, even at my altitude. I can "skype" myself onto some cable news show, whence I can proceed to bolviate away with only the slenderist of cords attaching me to something resembling a fact. No spin.

Just put a Murder Burger and some french fries (opps, I meant "freedom fries") in a sack, and get one of those tip-proof cups and fill it with diet soft drink (no non-IP product endorsements allowed here). Stick the whole thing on the end of a very long pole. Then feed me from down below. I've got my Saint Simeon Stylites t-shirt on, and I'm ready to go. (Saint Simeon, why don't you return my calls?) Definitive judgments on things mortal and ecclesiastical shall commence.

[Brian J. Schuettler]

Mark:
Is that a new brand of coffee you're drinking?

[Mark Brumley]

Brian, I don't drink coffee. I'm a tea man.

[Brian J. Schuettler]

Well, it sure does the trick!

[Mark Brumley]

Yeah. That and reading inane comments about Cardinal Schoenborn and Father Fessio on the internet. Really, some people ought not to be allowed access to a computer. They say such silly things.

[Mrs. O]

Well, explain this to a silly person would you.
How is inviting the media to a meeting that is to be confidential transparency?
None of what was said, or what has been said remotely resembles NOR gives me any more confidence in our hierarchy.
What I would like to see, in addition to these "meetings" is a published summary of what the Cardinal or whomever it was said so we can go and check for ourselves.
That would be a step forward.

[Mark Brumley]

I wish you the best, Mrs. O, in looking for your answers.

[mark]

The sole purpose of creation is worship the Lord
by proliferating and multiplying in the same Judao-Christian tradition we are charged with in the book of Genesis Marriage is only for the purpose of creating and raising more Christian children for same This life has very very little to do with this world or with pleasure Two people of the same sex or two people of the opposite sex that have gotten together "not" to full fill that covenant but to disobey it is as in the 1st book of Romans an abomination under God
Anyone who does not see this as well as abortion as a polytheistic paganism of sacrifice to other God's has not studied scripture, International world history, and theology. Those that present other views have clearly become corrupted God has remained the same, it is only YOU that has changed.

[Manuel G. Daugherty Razetto]

Discovery that someone like cardinal Schonborn may have misjudged either those whom he addressed or their tentacles, as we think we shall be able to show, presents a hard endeavour for the truth.

It makes little sense that a seasoned cardinal would have naively trusted such audience. The Media, always a bad companion when searching the truth, is a tenacious, calculating, skilled predator to Christianity and more exactly to Catholicism. The least excuse is made to exploit any vulnerability seen in their path towards an easy prey that has been made a favourite victim.

With due respect to such a worthy prince of the Church, it is reasonable as well as necessary to state that the continuous assault by the Media causes a great damage to our Church; their exaggerations and or lies inflict durable harm and bad reputation to her. No effort should be missed to press and expedite her defense.

[Ainjell]

I don't believe what the media reports anyway, most of the time, especially when it is about the catholic church and negative. I'm not alone. Many people shrug and say,"there they go again", and dismiss it. I think sometimes we overestimate the harm they can do and underestimate the jadedness of the readers.

[siena]

Isn't it time the good cardinal retired? Far too many 'oops' moments with his left leaning smiliness!