Apologia Pro Epistula Sua

[thesmellypocket 1859]

 

EXALTED OWYN, PRAY FOR US, NOW AND AT THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH.

 

((I am aware this letter has errors, but decided to keep them to reflect the haste with which it is printed: there the ink, etc. must be smudged, or there may be a genuine error from the irp writer in hasty spelling.

APOLOGIA PRO EPISTULA SUA.

OR: A DEFENCE OF ONE’S OWN LETTER.

 

I.The Original Letter; False Claims.

 

[!]The letter appears rather hastily printed.

 

FRIENDS,

 

I am puzzled by the thesis that was given me in response to a letter I wrote to Father Boniface. He has cleared acted outside the bonds of charity and civility in this matter. For I wrote him a private letter, and he has written a public response, I appealed to his sense of charity but he appealed to his audience’s sense of polemics; I asked for a concrete answer and he has given me, to use an informal term “shilly-shelly.” This is not the behaviour of a priest, but a polemicist, and, since he has made a private matter public (disobeying a licit and explicit order of the High Pontiff in the process and virtually bordering on Schism), I do not violate his honour when I publish the original letter below. Make what you will of it; I will defend it because it was written in a spirit of charity, and he has not really addressed what I said, but side-stepped it. He did not even so much as acknowledge it with a short return letter, to the point where I speculated whether it had reached him at all, but rushed to the printing press without so much as a whisper.

 

The original letter: 
 

“Holy, Esteemed, and Reverend Father.

 

What is Charity? I believe it is to be found in the will, not in feelings. For if our love for any man should last only as long as we have warm feelings for him, it was not him that we loved, but our feelings.  Besides this, we cannot always control our feelings, and often they are wrong about the true nature of a man. No, plainly that is not true love. Instead, to truly love a man is to will the best for him, and even to carry it out ahead of thy own immediate good. 

 

I perceive that, in the last open letter which thou didst write to his Eminence the Auditor, thou wast acting under this kind of charity. I mean to say that thou hast a good conscience, and are conscious of appearing before that Judge Who will say to Thee: “Thou art a priest. I gave thee ordination, and yet thou suffered thy sheep to starve.” That is, to remain silent and not to speak would be a betrayal of the truth, and thou art scrupulous of offending God by remaining silent and ceasing thy polemical writings.  Thou imagine that it is some sort of noble sacrifice, between being defrocked and speaking, when in fact it is a moral choice, between sinning and not sinning: to disobey is to sin, to obey is, in fact, to keep a clean conscience. 

 

However, the point which I have been trying to make, in that same charity (willing the good and harmony of our Holy Mother, the Church), is that whilst thou mayst believe that not to speak violates the rule of Charity, in fact, it is a violation thereof, for indeed, it is to disobey a legitimate order of the High Pontiff. And that the High Pontiff has the jurisdiction to tell thee to cease writing is indeed true, and until you can prove it is an illegitimate order, it is assumed legitimate, for his power ultimately derives from God. 

 

Now the Church’s true Defender is God, Charity Himself. And we are merely His instruments. Since the authority of the Pontiff comes from God, to disobey the Pontiff is a grave sin. The ends never justify the means, and this sort of attitude is itself a worldly one. Aye, I am afeared that thou are falling into that same wordiliness which thou art wont to expunge, namely, that thou failest to recognise that the Church is in God’s hand – not mine or thine. God never commands us to sin, but to not sin. If good comes of sin, it is because God is merciful, not because the sin was justifiable. 

 

For indeed, thou, I imagine, dost think: “Aye, but I must speak, even to disobey, to avert where the Church mayst go.” But simply put thy trust in God, for if we do not sin, He will do the defending for us. The Church is the Bride of God, our Holy Mother. Dost thou not believe that to sin is a great evil? Dost thou not believe that this be a sin? Dost thou not believe that God is in control of everything, numbering even the hairs on our bodies? Then why persist in this course of action? Why attempt to justify thyself? Why not submit in this matter, and trust that the Good shall win? My friend, thou wouldst do a greater work if thou didst pray for the Pontiff, then to disobey him. The Good does not win through sin, but through itself. (or Himself, I might say, for God is the very form of Good.)

 

God has set the Pontiff in his position, and thou needs must obey him, if wouldst thou obey Him. To do otherwise speaks of a wont of trust in God. I shall continually pray for him and for thee. Please do the same for me. Pray for me, a sinner in need of His grace. I would entreat thee to read again my two Epistles of late regarding obedience and trusting in God. Please meditate on the holy obedience of the Prophets and Saints.

 

From thy ardent admirer, 

 

Pius of Sutica. ”

 

II.A Response to the Thesis. Point-by-Point.

 

I.Now, firstly, the Father says that I questioned his character, “my motives, my morals, and my piety.” As you can see, this is wrong. I do not wish to be uncharitable, so I think he must have misread my letter. For I categorically said that I perceived him to be acting out of charity and with a “good conscience”, but that he was mistaken. I did not say ill-motived, immoral or impious, but just that: wrong. I expected him to hear me out not as a polemicist seeking to slander his opponent, but as a fellow truth-seeker and man concerned for Holy Mother Church. 

 

Lest there be any doubt, I hereby profess ex animo, and with an absolute internal assent and consent, that I love Fr. Boniface, and desire his good, and that it is his actions I question, not his morals. I love the man, but I hate sin; I do nnot know if you sin, since you believe your disobedience to be licit. Now you will be formally told in this letter that, until you can prove otherwise, it is not. And therefore, any further disobedience of this order will be sinful.

 

II.Secondly, he says that the highest obedience is to God and that we should obey God before any earthly authority, and he will, if he bothered to read my Open Letter to Confused Canonists, find that, in this, I totally agree. However, he has failed to demonstrate that the High Pontiff’s order to cease polemical writings is in any way immoral or contradicts his obedience to God. I repeat: he has not done so, and until he does, he is illicitly disobeying the Pontiff. We should obey our superiors in all of those matters which do not explicitly contradict Faith or Morals. Has he demonstrated that to not write polemically does so? He has not. I ask again: demonstrate where it says in the Scrolls or the theses of St. Jude, or any other doctors of the Church, that it is against Faith and Morals for a Pontiff to order one of his subjects to cease public writings on polemical matters. The burden of proof lies with him in this matter. 

 

III.”And they are interpreted by the reader.” What! Your subjective and vague appraisal is unsatisfactory, sir.  You must demonstrate on objective grounds that it goes against any of the moral laws set by God, either in the Scrolls, or through Holy Church. Until you have, you have no ground to stand on. Demonstrate, I say again, where, tell me where, the High Pontiff’s order to cease polemical writings contradicts Faith and morals. Are you now a moral relativist? I trust he is not, friends, and I hope he is not. 

 

IV.“The Scriptures are very clear on this topic.” Are they? ”Thou shalt write polemically in times of crisis at all times, even if your lawful superior should give you an order to the reverse.”-The Scroll of Boniface? Or is it perhaps the Thesis of Saint Jude? No, nothing like this, just quotations of the Scriptures without any explanation as to how the High Pontiff’s command fits attacks these commands. Tell me what commandment, tell me what moral, tell me what Scripture his order violated, and I shall, I hereby profess, bend to your will in this matter.  The Scriptures, sir, do not bow to your feelings, but the commandments of God are Fidelity, justified in themselves. Did Owyn’s subjects start writing polemical tracts after he had sinned, and would they have done so even if he had ordered them to cease? That is for you to prove.

 

III.Conclusion.

 

I realise that the second part of this letter was truly just repeating the same thing, but allow me to conclude with this message to Fr. Boniface: until you can prove that an order from the High Pontiff actually contradicts obedience to God rather than just say “because I said so”, you are bound, UNDER PAIN OF SIN, to obey it. Forgive me, friends, for this rather hastily written letter. Truly I want to put this matter behind me and focus on expounding the Scriptures and finishing my Apology for the Faith. I urge him again to consider my Open Letter and my Second Epistle, and truly consider them for what they actually say. 

 

I remain, as ever, your most humble servant.

 

And may the blessing of Almighty God, and all the prayers of the Saints, rain down upon you, and remain with you, forever and ever.

 

God love you.

[ReveredOwl 5639]

“I worded it wrong, it was in response to the public letter you wrote to me not the private. I’ve yet to pen a response to that.” said Boniface.

[VIROS 2915]

James II, shortly after reviewing Friar Boniface’s most recent work, receives a copy of Pius’. He reviews the priest’s response and speaks again to his nephew “Once again, Pius of Sutica impresses us. He writes with more elegance and specificity than we could hope to achieve in so short a time.” 

[thesmellypocket 1859]

1 minute ago, Boniface said:

“I worded it wrong, it was in response to the public letter you wrote to me not the private. I’ve yet to pen a response to that.” said Boniface.

“My apologies, I hope you will forgive me in this matter. I would not have made the contents of my letter public, unless I were convinced you had responded to it. I thought you were replying to my private letter because you said that the obedience to God supersedes the obedience to the Pontiff; which is a point I grant in my Open Letter anyway. I fear that this letter has already reached the printers, and will be impossible to de-circulate now. I hope you can see that this was a genuine mistake, for which I again apologise,” replies Pius.

2 minutes ago, VIROS said:

James II, shortly after reviewing Friar Boniface’s most recent work, receives a copy of Pius’. He reviews the priest’s response and speaks again to his nephew “Once again, Pius of Sutica impresses us. He writes with more elegance and specificity than we could hope to achieve in so short a time.” 

“As much as I am gratified by Your Holiness’ kindness toward me in praising my efforts (So short a time – I am the wrong side of 150 by human standards!), I have erred in this matter, and hope Fr. Boniface will accept my apology.”

[ReveredOwl 5639]

Just now, thesmellypocket said:

“My apologies, I hope you will forgive me in this matter. I would not have made the contents of my letter public, unless I were convinced you had responded to it. I thought you were replying to my private letter because you said that the obedience to God supersedes the obedience to the Pontiff; which is a point I grant in my Open Letter anyway. I fear that this letter has already reached the printers, and will be impossible to de-circulate now. I hope you can see that this was a genuine mistake, for which I again apologise,” replies Pius.

“Naturally of course, I accept your apology. I had begun writing this thesis after your public letter and I am glad we can agree that obedience to GOD supercedes obedience to a Pontiff. I begun writing this thesis shortly before I traveled to Fort Buck in the northern territories, sadly I was very busy as the frontlines recieved numerous attacks by scyfling pagans and I did not have the time to complete it as I was acting as a medic and offering prayers and last rites to those on deaths door. I will pen a reply to your private letter privately in the coming days however I am most confused for I do not consider this thesis a polemic writing that I was ordered to stop. It is a thesis, do I require consent for every thesis I now publish? Why is it acceptable for you to write a thesis on the topic of obedience but not I, surely it is a matter worth a theological discussion. After all, aren’t theses essentially ones interpretation or opinion of something in the scrolls?” replied Boniface.

[thesmellypocket 1859]

17 minutes ago, Boniface said:

“Naturally of course, I accept your apology. I had begun writing this thesis after your public letter and I am glad we can agree that obedience to GOD supercedes obedience to a Pontiff. I begun writing this thesis shortly before I traveled to Fort Buck in the northern territories, sadly I was very busy as the frontlines recieved numerous attacks by scyfling pagans and I did not have the time to complete it as I was acting as a medic and offering prayers and last rites to those on deaths door. I will pen a reply to your private letter privately in the coming days however I am most confused for I do not consider this thesis a polemic writing that I was ordered to stop. It is a thesis, do I require consent for every thesis I now publish? Why is it acceptable for you to write a thesis on the topic of obedience but not I, surely it is a matter worth a theological discussion. After all, aren’t theses essentially ones interpretation or opinion of something in the scrolls?” replied Boniface.

“I considered it a polemical writing for your accusation that I was attacking your piety, motives and morals, which was not my intention (And I maintain is quite a polemical reading of anything I have written addressing you), and in addition, the fact that you thought to give a public reply to what I thought was a private letter (deciding to write a public reply to my letter instead of writing it privately) reinforced this impression, which, as it turns out, was a false one.

 

I think it was a fair conclusion from my position to conclude that you replying to a private letter of mine publicly, and making this accusation against me whilst the letter itself was not in the public view, was a polemical writing. 

 

I would add that you also referred to my letter as “recent” and my Open Letter is four years old; my private letter is not yet one. This is another reason I assumed it to be a polemical response to my private Letter.

 

I am not aware of the exact nature of your order from the High Pontiff to be honest, and it was also my concern that your letter to the Auditor crossed this line, which you may take or leave, accept or reject: God is your judge in that, not I.”