11 Comments

Gee, I wonder who this is aimed at?

Expand full comment

I wish they could all get to read it. The satire is so brilliant and would probably become reality in not-too-distant future.

Everyone, please share! It's so useful snd thought-provoking that I hope this piece is not behind a paywall.

Expand full comment

It's not behind a paywall.

We want to keep our main work free, or at least available after a time of preview for paid subscribers.

That becomes easier, of course, the more people that do the monthly or annual tthing. And we are very grateful to them!

Expand full comment

That was hilarious, and the point well taken. I find both positions (St. Bellarmine/Cajetan) to have issues, but this satire certainly accomplished its goal of pointing out the shortcomings of the latter.

Expand full comment

Thanks Sean, glad you liked it. Did you read this?

https://www.wmreview.org/p/bellarmine-silveira

Expand full comment

Thank you for sending. I’d have to reflect a bit more on da Silveira’s theory of “indirect magisterial approval,” by which he purports to equate a theologian receiving permission to print with magisterial endorsement. That seems problematic, since theologians advancing contradictory positions have all received such approbations. Consequently, it seems that da Silveira’s theory would introduce contradiction into the corpus of magisterial teaching.

Expand full comment

Oh yes, it doesn't mean that. The idea - not his, you can find it in people like Vacant, Kleutgen etc, but older than that I think - definitely entails more than what you describe. You could try these for size, but they've not been reformatted for the new site yet:

https://www.wmreview.org/p/vacant-oum-chapter-iiib

https://www.wmreview.org/p/honorius-de-mattei-feser-i

Expand full comment

It’s interesting that Catastrophe and The Leftovers would say that it’s obvious whether someone is a woman, underage, habitually insane, or unbaptized, but that the Code’s list includes two things that we simply cannot know - whether a person believes in the Faith or is schismatic. We just can’t know those two things without a future judgement by the cardinals, including those installed by Susan. In fact, we are able to know whether a person is a woman but only up until the moment our ever-faithful cardinals declare the person pope. Then we simply lose any ability to judge the person’s gender. We must wait until the day that the ever-faithful cardinals tell us what the person’s gender is, remembering that if such cardinals are excommunicated by Susan, we will be obligated to throw them under the bus.

And we must not forget another factor. Those who insist the question of gender is relevant are ultragenderists and should accept the obvious solution - to admit that we place way too much importance on the role of the pope and should just accept that neither the papacy nor the gender nor the religious beliefs of the pope really matter all that much. After all, the church is full of liturgical music experts, Protestant converts and lifelong Conservative Catholics, as well as progressive Catholics (often certified by no less than 12 years of Catholic education!) who are more than happy to tell us what is safe or unsafe to believe. Didn’t Jesus promise that the gates of hell would never overcome the liturgical music experts? Are we willing to believe that His promise has failed? Perish the thought.

Expand full comment

It’s extremely funny but at the same time it’s not because it hits too close to reality..

Expand full comment

LJC! Dear Mr. Wright, thank You very much this brilliant satire, in that the whole problem has been clarified!!! This clear and evidenced position originates from Sanctus Spiritus obviously. God bless You & Your Family! Best regards from one strictly susanvacantist ;)

Expand full comment

No doubt, Pope Susan took her regnal name to honor Susan from the Council and all the Susans who have assiduously served the Spirit of Vatican II through their activism in their local parish councils.

Expand full comment