Category Archives: Dissent
Taken from here:
“Ever since Vatican II, the understanding of obedience and authority has taken on new nuances or concepts,” Sister Wirtz told Vatican Radio, “so I think it’s important for us to look at what does Gospel leadership mean today.”
“We’re very hopeful that we will have more open dialogue in the future,” she continued. “I think the LCWR are really using an approach of prayer and reflection, trying to open this channel of understanding from both sides.”
“I think in some circles it’s been recognized, but I think from the circles within the Vatican we don’t hear that recognition,” added Sister Wirtz, an American who also serves as general superior of the Franciscan Sisters, Daughters of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary.
I was very excited (no, not really) at reading these words, because it is evident to me we are assisting to the birth of a new religion. Sister Mary Lou Wirtz, the head of Mad Nuns United (though they called themselves International Union of Superiors General) has launched a rather shrill battle cry this week, and is now hoping to rally sufficient mad nuns around them, or at least keep her position.
Read again the hilarious statement of the female, and you will see without any difficulty what we are talking about. Even Sedevacantists do not deny the obedience to the Pope, though they deny that a legitimate Pope is in charge. Even Protestants would recognise without any doubt that the absolute cornerstone of the Church is her being based on Peter. There can be no doubt this is a constitutive element of Catholicism: if you take it away, there is no Catholicism anymore.
Not since the, erm, advent (small a) of Msss Wirtz: not only obedience now takes “new nuances”, but actually it has taken a new concept. Obedience now is different than it used to be. The traditional understanding of the Papacy has clearly passed its sell-by date. Gosh, Luther could not have said it better.
Why would things now be different? Why, Vatican II of course. All that free flow of Holy Spirit, finally liberated from the tyranny of Pius XII and Pius XI, has clearly changes things forever. What do we have now? A strange concept named “Gospel leadership”. Let’s try: “And Jesus answering, said to it: Blessed art thou, Gospel: because ink and parchment hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art the Gospels; and upon this books I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”.
It is not only that it sounds stupid, it is that there is no Catholicism left in it, merely a vague “Gospeling” meaning nothing, and which can be filled with everything. There can be no leadership of the Gospels, because the Gospels aren’t any part of leadership, and never were able to justify or ground any. There were no Gospels in Jesus’ time, and it was the authority of the Church, led by Peter, that established the very Gospel whose “leadership” should now justify a rethink of the role of the Pope. In Catholicism, leadership is spelled Papa Echo Tango Echo Romeo.
Again: not only is this utter crap. This is crap not based on history or reason, and in obvious contradiction with Catholicism.
Does this deter our new wannabe Prophetess from spitting her bile? No, it doesn’t. The last phrase quoted is so hilarious you wonder what these people smoke in the morning, and can be rephrased as follows: “In some circles of mad nuns there is now a recognition that as you have a penis, we cannot obey to you on any account, and will even theorise a new religion to avoid that; but you, male chauvinist that you are, you do not agree with this”.
Sister needs a doctor and the doctor must, first of all, check her for cocaine consumption. Such outlandish statements clearly denote either that the woman makes use of substances creating a sharp loss of reality, or either that the Vatican is being once again so astonishingly incompetent, deaf, blind and generally faineant that she thinks she can launch provocations like this one without any fear of consequence.
It is high time this bunch of hysteric females were really punished. Kick all those with such idea out and deprive them of the habit (that they don’t use) and of the money on which they scrounge. Let them fend for themselves, if they are oh so social they’ll find local authorities willing to pay for their social activity.
Unfortunately, Sister Wirtz might not be on cocaine, and know very well what she is doing: bitch without end for a small correction, and you will avoid the exemplary punishments.
My six readers are certainly aware (they should be at least, as the post is prominently displayed in my right hand column) that the heresy in Austria has been going on pretty much undisturbed for now far too long.
I do not report about the minutiae of this endless non-story, as the only thing worth nothing is the absolute inaction of Cardinal “I support Medjugorje” Schoenborn, here and there interrupted by some positive non-action like pointing out to the rebels their careers might suffer if they continue rebelling. Their careers might suffer? You don’t say? Ah, there must really be some smart people at work in Austria. It must be the mountain air.
It has now transpired the Vatican itself has finally moved with devastating energy, and is going to fall on Father Schueller with all the weight and the lethal energy of a timid pussycat. The meowing is, in fact, so terrible that the entire Catholic world is astonished at this show of feline determination.
What has happened is that Monsignor Schueller has been… deprived of the title of Monsignor.
What a fall. Sic transit gloria mundi. Words fail me.
I must say, this display of ruthless determination reminds me of the most glorious days of the Spanish Inquisition, and no doubt the present Vatican hierarchy will be remembered as an example of ice-cold willingness to ruthlessly meow against heresy. Nil inultum remanebit.
My own cat could not have done better, I assure you.
Father Schueller himself feigns indifference and says it’s no big deal, he never cared for the title anyway, and he will continue undisturbed to organise a revolt against the most basic principles of the Church (whilst obviously continuing to be a priest in good standing). We do believe that he will continue to spread heresy undisturbed; but come on, being deprived of the title of Monsignor must be a terrible, terrible blow. I shudder at the thought. Ugh!
In case, though, you would think the Vatican is being too harsh in their meowing, and that it is utterly insensitive of them to not only ignore, but even cruelly punish the sincere cry for “reform”, “inclusiveness” and all the other words ending with “ness” coming from the country who gave us Mozart, Haydn, Schubert and … Hitler, please consider the Vatican is not always so unbelievably harsh.
They are, for example, extremely gentle with the SSPX, allowing them in their wisdom not to be in full communion, and demanding from them that they become a bit more like
Mons Father Schueller in order for them to be allowed to be in full standing again. Now, this is smart, isn’t it?
I must now leave you, because the terrible news coming from Rome forces me to go and have a camomile tea.
The times are changing, for sure.
We must not be afraid of inaction anymore.
Everyone knows “open” is the way diplomatic circles use when they want to say a discussion has been totally useless. The same diplomatic tones are used by the Vatican to describe the meeting with that bunch of failed men going under the name of “LCWR”. This tells us the ladies were as bitchy as can be reasonably expected from them.
This would be in itself not really news, and my esteemed readers could well wonder why I waste their time in mentioning this.
I do, actually, because it appears the diplomatic niceties had a less diplomatic “tail” in the declaration of William Levada after the fact. The otherwise perfectly useless Fishwrap reports the story, and one could almost think – if one would not know the way the Vatican works – that the Vatican is now preparing to bite.
Cardinal Levada said it very bluntly: if the LCWR does not change their ways, the Vatican will simply withdrawn from them official recognition, basically not allowing them to say they represent the leaders of communities of so-called religious sisters.
One is pleased at the fact the Cardinal even mentions some form of sanction; but one cannot avoid thinking the following:
1) mere weeks after the decision to start with the “re-education” of the witches, the possibility of the success of this undertaking is openly doubted by the same people who are responsible for them. This might show an always welcome realism, but also the silliness of thinking the re-education might have worked in the first place.
2) the “sanctions” ventilated by the Cardinal are against the organisation, not against the people who have created today’s mess. Put in crude terms, the sisters would be able to continue abusing Church resources and living at the expense of decent Christians (both living and dead); there’s no talk of excommunication, or of kicking the worst among them out.
3) Taking away official recognition from the LCWR would not make any very big change: the organisation would remain, and would continue to boasts of their rebellion. The liberal media would pet them like it’s going out of fashion.
I wonder how the Cardinal think his strategy would work.
Still, this might be the beginning of the beginning of a Vatican change of attitude toward the Magisterium of Nuns. After 40 years of heresy, one would say acting might be appropriate.
Domine, da mihi hanc aquam has a beautiful fisking of one of the many articles appeared in the secular/leftist/abortionist/pervert press about the Vatican rebuke of the LCWR.
Besides making interesting reading in itself, the blog post is interesting because it shows the extent of media manipulation in these matters, and the total absence of every journalistic ethics in reporting the facts. The “fisked” article seems, in fact, rather the work of an overexcited student than the product of what should be a professional journalist.
Apart from this, it must be noted how these “protests” reach, basically, no one apart from some nut cases, no doubt with some perverted priest among them. It is, in fact, funny to think if the Chicago Sun-Times came with two people (say: a journalist and a photographer), this was enough to inflate the total number of wackos who chose to sit on the (we are told) non air-conditioned church (what a sacrifice, uh? ) of more than 1%. This, in a huge diocese with more than 2 million Catholics.
If this is support, I’d prefer my causes not to be supported.
Enjoy the fisking…
To put it mildly, Hans Kueng does not age gracefully.
This vecchio malvissuto, who has thrown away his entire life (and, unless he repents, his soul) prowling about the world seeking the ruin of souls has now decided to burn the last bridge and, in two words, declare Pope Benedict’s papacy illegitimate if a reconciliation with the SSPX becomes reality.
As always, this blog will not say things half, and I must say that there are two scandals here:
1) a liberal madman going to always new extremes in his madness, and
2) a Catholic hierarchy utterly unable to punish in an exemplary manner anyone related to the Holy Father by way of friendship, or acquaintance, or former professional activity.
It is beyond belief that in 2012 this man has not been excommunicated. This is not meekness. This is cowardice, incompetence, and a huge scandal.
Every time some nut case like Kung speaks, others follow him, souls get lost, and Christians get confused. The fact this man is not allowed to teach anymore is an almost insignificant detail compared to what the entire planet clearly perceives: that this is a priest in good standing and has been so his entire life. Every time such things happen I wonder who will be judged more severely, the nutcase talking dangerous nonsense or the sane man who did not warn others of this danger, and whose job it was to do just that; then the particular menace with these people is that the nonsense apparent to an adequately instructed man sounds perfectly reasonable to those not taught to think properly.
If a couple of dozen hotheads among politicians and theologians were excommunicated, they would clearly not stop spreading their manure; but Catholics would not be confused, and the nutcases in question would soon fall into irrelevance like those occasional former bishops with wives, and other similar deluded cretins who make a couple of headlines for some days and are then considered too irrelevant even for the boulevard papers.
As it stands, the Church screams from the rooftops she is not interested in being taken seriously, in caring for good catechesis, and in protecting the simplest or least instructed among the faithful from such ravenous wolves.
I have written about the greatest hoax of our times, Medjugorje, here and in other places (to find them, please use the search function).
We are now informed Cardinal Puljic of Serajevo, a member of the Ruini-led commission “studying” the hoax, says “we need to finish [our work] this year”.
Well congratulations, say I, this is very fast by Church standards, though it is not entirely clear to me whether the Cardinal expresses a private wish or rather gives publicity to the commission’s objectives.
Be it as it may, in this matter I have a certainty and a fear, both of them – as I immodestly think – solidly grounded.
The certainty is that this ridiculous joke of a hoax will be exposed, and the lack of its supernatural character made plain once and for all even to the thickest, for whom two diocesan bishops – the ones who are supposed to know, and to be obeyed in such matters – are not good enough . The very idea the Church might endorse a “phenomenon” involving the Blessed Virgin inciting to disobedience to the bishop, taking the sides of a fornicating priest, and appearing with astonishing frequency to some of the world’s specialists in lies and contradictions is too daft to even contemplate.
The fear is that in the usual effort of not displeasing anyone, the commission will not refrain from the accustomed sugary words about how pious and in good faith are those who flock to Medjugorje in order to live their Christian faith bla,bla. As the Medjugorje fan base is largely made of rather thick heads – a fact of which you will immediately persuade yourself with a short Internet tour – ready to believe all and everything but what the competent bishop, Catholic rules and common sense say, there is no doubt in my mind the smallest quantity of sugary “approval” (even if only given, so to speak, to the intention) will immediately be wilfully misunderstood as the umpteenth excuse not to understand plain words, and to go on as accustomed with the daily fake telefaxed miracle they so desperately seem to need as a surrogate for their, well, lack of Christian faith.
On the contrary, in my opinion if the Church wants to go beyond the minimum objective of setting things straight, and proceed to set up to recover these poor deluded souls to Truth, nothing less than the strongest condemnation is necessary, and nothing else will achieve its aim.
They can do it softly softly of course, and by doing so they will satisfy the overwhelming majority of those who tell themselves Catholic, and the totality of those who are; but the latter don’t need to be satisfied as they are already persuaded.
In order to let the fan base see reason, the commission will need to be brutal. If they don’t, there’ s no hope such specialists in self-deceit will not find ways to continue to deceive themselves.
Alas, I very much doubt the Commission will have the guts.
P.s. This blog doesn’t give voice to heresy. Intelligenti pauca.
Some of you will have read of my rather perplexing experiences in Bruges, Flanders. Rather a couple more – says my stats table – have read, or at least clicked on, my several posts about the Heresy in Austria.
In what appears to be the deserved punishment for the Vatican’s incompetence and culpable inaction, the heresy now spreads to Flanders, where – as I write this – no less than 211 priests have signed a sort of petition explaining things the poor idiots “don’t understand”.
Unfortunately, your truly can help with German, but he is totally at a loss to interpret that strange-sounding mixture of guttural sounds called Flemish. For this reason, I will have to rely on the always excellent Rorate Caeli for a list of those things the poor idiots – or worse; read my post about Bruges – don’t understand. They seem to be the following:
1) We do not understand why the leadership of our local communities (such as parishes) is not entrusted to a man or woman, married or unmarried, professional or volunteer, who received the necessary formation.
2) We need dedicated shepherds. We do not understand why these fellow faithful cannot lead Sunday services.
3) In every living community we need liturgical leaders. We do not understand why – when there is no priest – a service of Word and Communion is not allowed.
4) We do not understand why skilled laypeople and formed religious educators can not preach. We need the Word of God.
5) We do not understand why faithful of good will who remarried after a divorce have to be denied Communion. They are equally part of the community.
I regret the demise of those blessed times when a slap in the face was the way such questions – when posed by, say, an unruly child; adults would obviously, being adults, not pose them – were dealt with. Unfortunately, nowadays the children aren’t treated that way anymore, and many of them seem to have become priest.
Why they did that, is beyond me. Unless they’re homosexual or pedophiles, of course.
Still, I do not want to hide from you the fact that in my modest opinion, the biggest culprit for this mess is the Vatican, and one wonders how many countries – or parts thereof – will launch such “initiatives” before someone in the right chambers wakes up, smells the coffee and starts being Catholic instead of regaling us with the usual platitudes about how good bishops are supposed to be, without caring to do anything when they – regularly – don’t.
The northern European barn is slowly, but surely burning. I can’t hear the Vatican sirens anywhere.
The time for empty talk has passed. This is the time for sharp and decisive action, for exemplary excommunications, for punishment and restoration of sound Catholic thinking. Beginning, of course, from Cardinal Schönborn but now – alas – having to go much further than some diocese lost in Mitteleuropa.
The Neville Chamberlain policy didn’t work. It never could, it never will.
In Austria, in the middle of Europe, a heretical movement has already gained the approval and open support of more than 250 priests, around 6% of the Austrian clergy. Their “Call to Disobedience” is openly advertised on the Internet.
All the members of this heretical uprising are still in good standing as Archbishop Cardinal Schönborn refuses to do anything to effectively counter this heretical insurgence. He limits himself to obligatory meowing, but in fact he helps the heresy to spread through his inaction.
Cardinal Schönborn’s motivation is – besides his vanity and desire of popularity – the money of the Austrian dissidents. His desire is for the vast number of Austrian dissidents to continue to fill the pockets of the Austrian Church. For this reason he pronounces some faint words of circumstance, but in fact allows the heretics to continue their work undisturbed.
This scandal must stop. Souls are at stake. Cardinal Schönborn’s inaction, motivated by vanity and greed, endangers souls and makes the work of the devil. Every day that this uprising is allowed to survive the reputation of the Church is damaged, the Magisterium sabotaged, the faithful confused. Cardinal Schönborn doesn’t care, provided he is popular among the dissident and they continue to finance the Church.
This shame must cease. The heretical priests must be punished and Catholic orthodoxy restored.
Please help by sending your protest to the following email addresses:
Congregation for the Clergy: email@example.com
Papal Nuncio in Austria: firstname.lastname@example.org
Holy Father: email@example.com
Cardinal Schönborn will not act unless forced to. Please stop this scandal by sending your protest emails and forwarding them. You may want to forward (and mention in the protest emails you send) the links to blogs written by priests as they will be very effective. Two beautiful examples are EF Pastor Emeritus and Father Z.
Please take the time. Souls are at stake. Heresy is spreading in the middle of Europe.
BLOG CONTINUES BELOW AS USUAL
From the Pope’s address to the bishops of England And Wales (emphases mine):
Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society. Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed. I urge you as Pastors to ensure that the Church’s moral teaching be always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended. Fidelity to the Gospel in no way restricts the freedom of others – on the contrary, it serves their freedom by offering them the truth.
In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.
I do not know where Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols was when these words were pronounced. In the loo, possibly, or perhaps outside for a cigarette. The most probable hypothesis is, however, that he was there, heard the words, read them afterwards, and never cared.
This is the same Vincent “Quisling” Nichols who, you will remember, had to make clear, in the very weeks of the papal visit, who is boss by stating that he doesn’t know whether he would “recognise the reality of gay marriage”. This is, also, the same person who, when the ink on Universae Ecclesiae was not yet dry, was already on record stressing that there would be no instruction in the celebration of the Tridentine Mass in seminaries.
Many, and most of them scandalous, are the achievement of this champion of imitation Catholicism. I have recently reported that his penchant for getting at odds with Catholic teaching has recently received the honour of an internet page ad hoc, that I have linked on the right (Catholic links) under Bad Shepherds: The Vincent Nichols Files
I am now informed – from whom I understand to be the same good soul who has set up the internet site, and many thanks to him – that Vincent Nichols is striking again: he is allowing premises of the diocese to be used by an openly dissenting (means: clearly heretical) homosexual and lesbian group (plus other assorted perversions) called Quest. The excellent site of John Smeaton has the story , and provides you with several links to the astonishing affirmations of these people. Please send the children to bed in advance.
If you read the words at the beginning of the message, you’ll understand what mockery Archbishop Vincent Nichols is making of the Pope’s words. We are far away, here, from Catholic teaching “always presented in its entirety and convincingly defended”. We are, actually, by its exact contrary: Catholic teaching not presented at all, and openly undermined.
All this, on the Diocese’s premises, which gives the group a kind of at least indirect endorsement. The 1986 “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons” (link on this site, under “Catholic links”; and another document that Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols must have misplaced) expressly deals with the matter, stating as follows:
“All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous”.
I am, alas, not a mother tongue, but the meaning of these words seems rather clear to me. It seems to me that the then Cardinal Ratzinger says to the bishops:
1) you may think that to allow “dissenters” to use diocesan structures is just and charitable, but it isn’t;
2) to do so is:
2.1) contradictory to the purpose of teaching sound Catholicism;
2.2) misleading, and
2.3) often scandalous.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols is, also, accessory to these perverts’ heresies not only by silence, but – in giving them the space – by partaking. Not bad for the head of the Church in England & Wales.
John Smeaton wonders whether this time, Archbishop Nichols will “surprise us with a new found fidelity”. I appreciate the humour, but I’d say that it is safer to try to have him surprised by a phone call from Rome:
The place where to address your concern is:
Congregazione per il Clero
Palazzo della Congregazioni, Piazza Pio XII, 3 – 00193 Roma
tel. 06 69884151 fax. 06 69884845
You can, I think, simply send Mr. Smeaton’s link (more diplomatic than mine) with some short words of concern. Please forward his link or mine to people you know and ask them to also send an email or a letter.
I do hope that our anonymous good soul will update Mr. Nichols’ site with this latest exploit. It might, one day, make Rome’s work easier.
In order to try to understand what is happening in Austria, it is perhaps useful to inform the readers about a peculiarity of Austria, Germany and Switzerland. In these countries, you can pay a kind of voluntary tax, or more simply said a tithe, through your normal income tax. This is called Kirchensteuer in Germany and Switzerland, and Kirchenbeitrag in Austria.
This means that:
1) the taxman will do everything for you, and give the money to the relevant church;
2) Once you have registered for the tax, you’ll pay automatically in proportion to your income tax (Germany) or to your taxable income (Austria);
3) In Germany, the procedure to get out of the tax was considered, last time I looked, bureaucratic and unpleasant, so that there is a kind of psychological/administrative disincentive to the dreaded Kirchenaustritt, the getting out of the system.
In the countries where it is in place, the Kirchensteuer ensures vast sums of money to the relevant church organisations. This is why the German priests are probably the best off of the planet (the Swiss ones might beat them, though), and I can easily imagine that the Austrian ones are not left very far behind.
Now, in order to try to understand the (shameless) workings of Cardinal Schönborn’s mind, you must understand that in Germany and Austria, a lot of people pay the Kirchensteuer, who don’t go to Mass or even believe in God. This has cultural and historical reasons: in the traditionally Protestant Germany the belonging to a church is more strictly linked to the paying of the tithe; but even among Catholics, the paying of the Kirchensteuer is often seen as a kind of “doing one’s duty”: I don’t go to Mass, the reasoning goes, but I do my part financially so it’s all right. Don’t think that the German clergy does anything to persuade them that this is not true! Various other elements traditionally concurred, like the scandal of the parents if one started to talk about Kirchenaustritt, the shame of telling one’s parent that one doesn’t even believe in God anymore, the fact that the Germans live in small(ish) villages in greater percentages than Brits or Italians, the clear Christian roots, the diffused moral conservatism, etc. A colleague of mine was once told in no uncertain terms that in case of Kirchenaustritt she would be disinherited. You understand from this that the grip of the Kirchensteuer-system on the country was, in the past, rather strong.
After V II we therefore had a very strange situation: millions and millions of people who have forgotten – or haven’t been taught – the very basics of Catholicism, but who are the one who pay for it. This creates, in my eyes, several distortions:
1) Many Catholics have started to believe, in their culpable ignorance, that their paying gives them the right to meddle in the way the shop is run from the theological point of view. Austria is an extreme example.
2) The Catholic Church in these countries has become a fat, satiated, overinflated, bureaucratic, ministerial apparatus providing a service to their non-churchgoing clients: the Church has lost them as solid Catholics, and she now panders to their wishes in order not to lose them as good spenders. We see this in Germany but, most clearly, in Austria.
3) There is no incentive for the local priests to have a vibrant, orthodox Catholic community. The priest knows that the shop lives largely out of those whom he never sees. He knows that the thread which keeps them linked to the Kirchensteuer-system is rather feeble, and becomes more so as the older generation dies. Therefore he tries, like Simon & Garfunkel, to keep the customer satisfied.
4) The dissatisfaction has become more virulent with the scandals; scandals which have hit Austria particularly hard and by which the late Pope Blessed John Paul II distinguished himself with his well-known talent for trusting the wrong people, then denying reality, then denying reality again, then doing nothing, then protecting his friends, then finally doing too little, and too late. This has caused permanent damage in a country where church attendance was already dwindling and respect for and obedience to the Church as an institution not taught at all.
Mind that this situation is different from, say, Italy. In Italy you pay a part of your taxes to either the Church or some other organisation of your choice, but you can’t choose whether to give or not. In Germany and Austria it is different: once you get out, your net pay increases.
This is, then, the situation Cardinal Schoenborn is facing: great dissatisfaction with church scandals from people who haven’t been properly instructed, and therefore think they can make the rules. At the same time – again, these people not being properly instructed – the hierarchy is afraid of telling things as they are, lest a mass exodus from the voluntary tax occurs.
The edifice is now trembling, the Kirchenaustritte fastly accelerating, and the Church in Austria reacts….. trying to keep the customer satisfied.
Now: if Cardinal Schoenborn believed in God, he would simply do what is right and trust that Providence will always give the Church the money it needs; he would strongly call his sheep to obedience, punish the rebels, instruct the others, and be an example of orthodoxy himself. In short, he would do his job and serve God instead of Mammon.
Instead, Cardinal Schoenborn authorises the exhibition in the Cathedral museum of a work of (degenerate) art showing the Last Supper as homosexual orgy, a feat possibly beyond Peter Tatchell. He authorises the strikingly sacrilegious Western Masses, and this for three years in a row and not caring for opposition. He flies to Medjugorje without consultation with the local bishop, further encouraging the very questionable – and censored by the local bishop – “nuChristianity”, “Madonna at teatime”, “ecumaniacal” practices going on there. He expresses himself more or less in favour of married priests (not a heretical position in itself) with reference to the (homosexual, but don’t tell him) pedophile scandal to please the angry liberals. He expresses himself in conciliatory ways towards sodomites living together.
This is not the behaviour of one who believes in God. This is the behaviour of one who, in plain language, doesn’t care a straw for anything else than his own popularity among the public and the proceeds from the Kirchensteuer.This is the simony of modern times.
This explains, I think, his behaviour and the constant pandering for the favour of the angry Austrians sitting (or more often, not sitting) in the pews. He silently encourages rebellious behaviour in his priests so that they can give the angry spenders the motivation to stay in and continue to pay; when an open uprising erupts, he does as little as he absolutely must, at the same time sending a clear message that he is not the enemy of the heretics, Rome is; he authorises the above mentioned blasphemous exhibition initiative to pander to the atheists and show them that he really doesn’t care for God, so they have nothing to fear from him (but they can continue to pay to please their mother, bitte sehr); he makes a mockery of the mass (see also here for another mass after his liking) in order to please the ignorant crowds.
In doing all this, Cardinal Schönborn always pays attention not to stretch things too much: he is always ready to backpedal (blasphemous exhibition; western masses; Sodano criticism) when he must, but he always does things in a way which lets him appear the “good, sensitive, modern guy” even when he must cave in. You see how it works here: I’ll show to my customers that I am such a capital chap; and then I’ll backpedal if I have to, deflecting the criticism in Rome’s direction.
This is how Cardinal Schoenborn is presiding over the slow destruction of Catholicism in Austria. His example might find imitators in Germany and Switzerland, particularly if the “Call to Disobedience” is not stopped very soon; he will do the latter when the pressure becomes strong enough, and not one moment before; as always, paying attention to appear like the good guy; the one whose bills atheists, militant homos and rebellious Catholics can continue to pay in good conscience. I so wish the Cardinal would hear from Rome some words from the same song:
you’re in trouble boy,
and now you’re heading into more.
Don’t hold your breath.
It would seem unbelievable that in a world that reacts to news in a matter of hours, the heretical call to disobedience from around 250 Austrian priests is still online.
Furthermore, no news has reached the internet of any serious disciplinary proceeding against the initiators of this uprising. We all know how fast a priest can be suspended pending investigation, and the news made public so that what these priests say or have said is not confused with priestly ministry. This doesn’t seem to apply to heretical priests calling to disobedience, at least not if Archbishop Cardinal Schoenborn is in charge.
This uprising has in the meantime more than 250 priests as followers, but the internet site has not been updated so we don’t know how many they have become in the meantime. The only reaction of Cardinal Schoenborn has been some obligatory meowing centred on the need of obedience, without a word of clear condemnation of the delirious theological position of the rebels.
As I write, all the priests calling to open disobedience, and whose names can be read under “Mitglieder” on the internet page, so openly shameless and sure of impunity are they, continue to be in good standing and continue to spread their heretical ideas and to confuse the faithful.
This call to disobedience is demolishing the Church in German-Speaking Countries with every day that it is allowed to stay online. It gives the Austrian Catholics the impression that rebellion be legitimate; it makes it more probable that such rebellion may spread to other German-speaking countries; it makes a mockery of the office of the priest and of his promise of obedience.
Every day that such a scandal is allowed to survive, Cardinal Schoenborn makes himself beautiful with the vast mass of Austrian “rebels lite”; those who don’t know much about Catholic doctrine, but pay the “church tax” the Cardinal is clearly after and are now, polluted by the heresies their own priest have encouraged, refusing to pay en masse; at the same time, the Cardinal gives these “catholic lite” the impression that they do have a leverage against Rome. Fools all of them, but the biggest fool is the Cardinal, who doesn’t do anything sensible (obligatory meowing not being anything sensible) to stop this and allows his desire for popularity and Kirchensteuer-money to come before sound Catholicism, the prestige of the Church and the soul of his sheep.
The initiative has started on the 19th June. If the Cardinal had been awake – and thinking about Catholicism rather than about his Kirchensteuer proceeds – the initiative would have been stopped in a matter of hours, the responsible suspended pending investigation, and an example given to everyone. This is what a shepherd does who doesn’t want heresy to spread among his sheep. Cardinal Schonborn does, of course, the exact contrary and we now have more than 250 priests in the uprising.
I can’t imagine any better way to help them to spread the heresy than the sort of fake ex officio rebuke, but in practice complete inaction, that Cardinal Schoenborn is staging.
This scandal must be stopped; the initiators and all those who have given their support suspended, investigated and asked to offer a complete retractation or – better, say I – be defrocked. Most of all, the priests responsible must be ordered to take the site down, now.
There is an excellent blog post about male priesthood from Jennifer Fulwiler on the National Catholic Register. The blog post is the more interesting, because the now-converted (Deo gratias…) author remembers her reasoning about the male priesthood when an atheist and – as she herself admits – a feminist.
Mrs. Fulwiler brilliantly puts it as follows (emphases always mine):
At the time I had recently become a mother, and there’s nothing like pregnancy and childbirth to hit home the fact that men and women are really, really different. Even outside of the Catholic perspective, there’s no denying that whoever created us—whether you call it God or Nature or Allah or whatever—created men and women with complementary yet entirely separate capabilities. Women can carry new human life within their wombs, men can’t. Women can breastfeed, men can’t. Men are generally stronger; the strongest man in the world is always going to be the stronger than the strongest woman in the world. The list of the innate differences between the genders goes on and on. Assuming that the entire human race was not born into an inherently unfair situation, it would seem that our Creator does not believe that you need to be able to do all the same stuff in order to be equal.
This injection of common sense would do a lot of good to a lot of feminist – be they atheist, or wannabe Christian – out there. But such an injection would require them to sacrifice some holy cows, which is why they choose to remain impervious to logic, and allergic to truth. One of these cows is described by the blog post author as follows:
[...] I had begun to question this pervasive modern idea that what you do is your value. [...]. One of the results of this idea is that we, as a society, decided that if women are not invited to do every single thing that men are invited to do, the only possible explanation could be that they are valued less — and being barred from doing certain activities means that their options for reaching complete fulfillment as human beings are limited. The more I considered it, the more this worldview struck me as sadly utilitarian. I started to think that it’s possible to believe that men don’t make good lactation consultants, women don’t make good guerrilla warfare combatants, etc. without it being a commentary about the inherent worth of one gender over another.
I generally explain this concept with my persuasion that feminists want to be men, and therefore feel as a deminutio every instance in which it becomes clear to them – or, alternatively, to the thinking part of the human race – that they cannot. Strangely, you never hear feminists fighting for the abolition of one of the last, blatant bastion of sexual discrimination: the separation of men and women in sport competitions. No need for equality there. Differences must be taken into account. There are structural specificities that would be impossible to ignore.
The next injection of common sense comes regarding the male priesthood itself:
When God took on human flesh, he did so as a man. He could have come down as a woman, as a brother and sister team, or as a genderless being. But he didn’t. If you want to reject Christianity as untrue, that’s one thing; but if you accept Jesus Christ as God incarnate, it seems like you must also accept that God sees the male gender as having a special role to play in the world.
Yes, brilliantly and amusingly true. Once again, the contradiction of accepting Jesus as God Incarnate and refusing what choices this God Incarnate made is clearly absurd. The fact that 100% of the Apostles were men (no female quota there, in a clear show of political incorrectness) actually closes the question.
The best part is for the end: the Blessed Virgin.
Once I discovered Catholicism, one of the many things that rang true about its teachings was the emphasis on Mary. It made perfect sense that God would give a woman a critical role in his plan, someone who could serve as an example of perfect feminine holiness—and it made sense that his true Church would understand and celebrate this fact.
I add to these beautiful words a fact that to me seems extremely relevant: that in the heavenly hierarchy (yes! There is a heavenly hierarchy!) the Blessed Virgin is above every saint, above every Apostle, even above Peter and Paul and St. John the Evangelist and St. John The Baptist; even above every Angel, every one of them! Only the Trinity is higher in glory than the Blessed Virgin!
So let me reassume the brilliant feminist theory: a bunch of chauvinistic traitors manage to utterly ruin the clearly feminist, emancipated message of Jesus; they isolate Mary Magdalen and succeed in cancelling from history every trace of her apostolate; they proceed to create a rigidly man-dominated system, clearly showing which one is the qualitatively better sex………then they proceed to put a woman in the highest place conceivable for a human being, and this in a society that had come to consider women as little more than reproduction instruments.
Explain this, angry feminists….
It is beautiful to see that, when one is ready to apply some elementary logic rather than senseless slogans, a lot of things start to appear very clear, and to make a lot of sense.
Even for an atheist.
On Insight Scoop, an interesting blog post dealing with the matter of “why dissenters remain in the Church”. After all, Luther & Co. at least had the intelligence and logical thinking of drawing the consequences of their revolt.
The blog post article (in turn mentioning an essay) opines that in the end it is a matter of power: the power-obsessed liberals do not want to go away, they want to conquer and reign over nuChurch. The same would be true, says the article, when the dissenters say that the Church “infantilise” them. Like a rebellious child, they are looking for….. power at the expense of the legitimate authority of the Church.
I found the theory very interesting and it is in my eyes unquestionable that the quest for power is an important part of liberal thinking. One is reminded of school and university, where the most vocal leftists were clearly looking for personal advantages and a political career and whenever you heard “we must this” and “we must that” you knew who was supposed to lead the “collective” effort.
Nevertheless, I would like to offer other three elements; of which two I would attribute largely to the female public (and please note that among “dissenters” women are clearly very well represented).
1) Ego or, if you wish, pleasure. Human beings as such tend to do what gives them pleasure, and to eschew what gives them pain. Dissenters act in a way that is not different: they please their ego by feeling “modern”, “progressive”, “inclusive” and “rebellious in a comfortable way”. But they mostly abstain from thinking this to the end, because to draw the consequences would be traumatic.To say “I have decided to leave the Church” would be very painful, because it would force them to really feel the gravity of what they are doing. As long as they don’t say that they want to go, they think themselves free to feel like “reformers” instead of what they are: heretics.
To make a parallelism with everyday life, think of the “wannabe rebel” adolescent who questions parental authority but continues to be fed and cared for by them. Were he to be kicked out of the parental home – or to decide to leave it and fend for himself – his rebellion wouldn’t be much fun anymore. Therefore he will choose to be rebellious from the comfort of the family. The well-fed, shirt-ironed, college-paid “rebels” are, and always will be, the vast majority.
2) Emotions. Some people (particularly women, but not only them) tend to put a huge premium on how they “feel”. In this perspective, thinking is merely an optional. Therefore, many dissenters (particularly women) will stay within the church (or thinking they do) because of the fuzzy feeling they get by calling themselves “Catholic” and still feel part of the oh so big family. This is the religion of their fathers and mothers, and they just don’t see as “fuzzy” to say to them (or to their tomb) that they have become Episcopalians, even if they are. “I have always felt comfortable in the Catholic Church”, they’ll say clearly revealing the inability to add 2+2 if it feels bad.
3) (Macho alert! Feminazis please look away now!!) Approval. The day a woman stops kidding herself (between seventeen and nineteen, mostly), she realises that women have in their genes a strong need for the approval of men. You see this happening anywhere, with women fighting for male approval in the office and dissing the female colleagues in their presence with an energy and passion men would never find (or care to find) to diss other men in front of women; or berating each other in what makes them cheap in the eyes of men (ever heard men calling each other “slutter”?). I could make much stronger examples, but the important thing for us is that the same mechanism is at work here. These “emancipated” wannabe priestesses badly need to be approved by the same men they accuse of being oppressive to them. It’s…. dad all over again! They can’t do their own thing, leave the church, get a beer with their friends, go to a bar and never give a dime for what the people of the opposite sex in the church they have left think, as men would. No. They must get men’s approval, and in their deluded minds they think that if they only nag men for long enough, they’ll get their way. Foolish but, I must say, very gender typical. Works rather well on an individual level, anyway..
And so there we are, with this singular mixture of ego trips (“the Church doesn’t satisfy my needs“), emotional orgies (” I always feeeelt that I was born a priesteeeeess”) and starvation for men’s approval (“I’ll not be satisfied until men approve of women priest”) causing what we are seeing: the strange phenomenon of rebellion without severance, and seeking approval from those rebelled against.
I complain very often about the BBC, a nest of liberal vipers all too ready to forget any balance and abandon themselves to the most scandalous liberal/atheist/anti-Catholic bias.
I must say, though, that even on the BBC I have never heard anything remotely approaching the total lack of balance and basic religious literacy of the incompetent wannabe journalists living from the public purse at this sender.
You would think that the article has been written by some thirteen-years-old girl playing journalist, so cretinous the entire presentation of the matter is.
The author of this piece of misinformation truly seems to believe that it is possible to con the Church into creating what can’t be created. To even think of being able to write that “women were secretly ordained” as priests is on the same level of intelligence as believing that in 2002 seven women were secretly appointed Dobermann Of The Year, or Second Moon Of The Earth, or Secret Presidents of Middle Earth.
There cannot be women priest, because being a man is a constitutive element of being a priest. There can’t be women priests more than there can be barking cats. It’s as simple as that, and even a girl journalist – even if entirely stupid – should be able to get this.
Sadly, simple logical thinking doesn’t seem to be a requisite for journalism anymore. The newspaper ludicrously talks of “ordinations” as if a real ordination – instead of a pathetic masquerade – had really taken place. It talks of “domino effect” as if a mickey-mouse priestess would be able to validly confer holy orders to another mickey-mouse priestess. This is so stupid that every seven years old child, properly instructed, would find it completely unworthy of his time and an insult to his intelligence.
The bias truly knows no boundaries. The wannabe barking cats
“made their way down the aisle, beaming like brides”.
Good Lord! What is this, the screenplay of a third-rate comedy? The excited little scream of a Justin Bieber fan? This is below stupid.
But this is not all:
The two-and-a-half-hour ceremony ended with Holy Communion — the moment they’d been waiting for.
No it didn’t. They ate some bread after having dressed themselves and were blasphemous and sacrilegious in so doing. I’m glad that the idiots attending were punished with two and a half hours of this, though.
Each woman performed the rites for the first time as a priest, breaking bread and serving wine as tears of joy flowed down their faces.
Our little girl journalist is here fully losing control, or perhaps she thought that she was writing an email to some, no doubt, stupid girlfriend of her. Whatever this is, this isn’t journalism.
Following these pearls of wisdom and journalistic talent, the mind (if any) of these nutcases is explained or, better, unwittingly exposed:
Fellow ordinand Patti LaRosa had a similar experience growing up. She came from a close-knit Italian family and always felt comfortable in the Catholic Church.
So the lady felt “comfortable” in the Catholic Church. Hey, why leave it then? If I decide that I now am, say, a Mullah, why not to appoint myself “Catholic mullah”? I feeeel so comfortable with that!
And it so happens about this lady that:
Several times a week she would go to church during her lunch break, and one day she realized, “I’m supposed to be a priest.”
So she sits there and one days she thinks, “I’m supposed to be a priest”. She could have thought “I’m supposed to be an elephant”, and the logical content would have been exactly the same.
I suppose the lady doesn’t feel comfortable with elephants.
There should be less money for useless public radios, and more money for serious mental health care.
You may think that “Litany of Lament” is an invention of mine to mock the deluded geriatric potheads recently responsible for the heresy fest in Detroit. Well this is not the case and the “Litany of Lament” was, in fact, an official part of the proceedings.
Without repeating this piece of comedy in its entirety, let me explain for you some revealing points:
“2. Angered by church leaders who protect pedophiles and persecute prophets, we cry…”
It is, of course, not forbidden to be angry at bad shepherds. But it is decidedly forbidden to aspire to so-called female priesthood. Now make no mistake, when they say “persecute prophets”, they mean “punish women stupid enough to think they can be priests”. They even had huge posters about this at the conference. What claim these ladies have to be “prophetic” is not clear to me; neither it is, I think, to them….
“3 Denied Eucharist because of the failure to address the priest shortage, we cry.”
This is very, very funny. I mean, if they were in the middle of the Australian Outback one would understand a certain difficulty in finding a Catholic church; but what the old potheads are saying is “we must have wymmyn priest because now they are so rare we can’t find a church”. Beside the obvious heresy of wanting wymmyn priest, this is just plain stupid.
“4. Aching for the Eucharist to be celebrated as nourishment for sinners, not a reward for good behavior, we cry…”
This is rather difficult to understand. I never thought (and was never taught) that I can get communion only if I have been oh such a good boy. Being free of mortal sin and well disposed to receive the Eucharist is, in fact, all that is required. On the contrary, it is receiving a good communion that will wash out my sins, provided they are not mortal.
Moreover, the distinction between “people who behave well” on the one side and “sinners” on the other is wrong. We are all sinners of course, so the expression doesn’t make sense. But substitute with “aching for the eucharist to be given to everyone even if an unrepentant pervert” and I think you’ll get at the root of what they meant….
“5. Wondering why we are closing parishes rather than opening ordination, we cry…”
Heresy again. “Opening ordination” (to wymyn, it is meant here) is just not allowed. It is Church doctrine. Even if there’d be only, say, twelve priest left on the face of earth, Church doctrine would not change. “Closing parishes” is, therefore, neither here nor there and oh, have I said that asking for wymyn priest is heretical?
“6. Longing to celebrate creative theologians rather than mourn their marginalization, we cry…”
Buzzword alert: “celebrate”. The “creative” theologian is the heretical Hans Kueng, not allowed to teach anymore and not defrocked merely to avoid doing him a favour, but applauded by the marijuana-crowd.
“7. Oppressed by rigid structures of racism, we cry…”
Buzzword alert: racism. This is very, very funny. The Church who sets black men very high in the hierarchy (think of Cardinal Arinze) and has priests and bishops of every possible skin colour or shade would be “racist”. I think the word just had to be there. The old fools are so accustomed to using it….
“8. Blind to the beauty of God’s image in gay and lesbian people we cry…”
This is outright blasphemous. The beauty of God’s image is in the person, not in his being a pervert.
God doesn’t do perversion, God doesn’t create perverts, God doesn’t want one to be a pervert.
“12. Amidst the shattered images of godliness and ministry, we cry…”
It is difficult to understand what was meant here as probably the joint had already gone around for long enough. What I think this might mean is that without wymmyn priest the ministry of priesthood is “shattered” (read: God was fooled by a bunch of chauvis, these two thousand years) and that – I think; bear with me though, I am just trying to give some meaning to the words – therefore the Church is not reflective of, or representative of, any “godliness”.
Fun reading, I know.
It reminds me of those liberal teachers asking the young pupils at elementary schools “how they imagine God”.
These are the typical old people acting like children.
With the added brain damage from the drugs.
And so the delirious “council” of dissenting geriatrics has taken place. Without mass, mind, as the smell of canonical consequences for those priests foolish enough to participate was too strong for even one to be found.
The video you can see here (From Father Z’s blog) gives you some sample of the deluded world in which these people still (that is: not for very long) live: they challenge the Church of Christ because “Christ challenged the hierarchy of his days” (hel-lo? They weren’t Christians!); they want to “invite everyone like Christ would have done” as if Church teaching were merely a matter of all happily singing together; they talk of “lesbians and gays” (and whoever else is generally associated with these words) as if one were excluded from the Church merely because one has a perversion, at the same time trying to make the perversion approved.
The video would be mildly amusing if it was about progressive Episcopalians; it being about people calling themselves “Catholic”, one wonders why the warden allowed them to go out.
As you can see from the video, the crowd was, on average, clearly old. These are people who were young in the heydays of LSD and who could never get to grips with simple concepts like, erm, obedience. Their smug expressions show all the arrogance of those who think that they can question 2000 years of Church teaching, because it doesn’t match with their own “liberal” mindset. Fools.
As already stated, the announced ecumenical mass did not take place, being substituted with the usual “kumbaya-can’t you feel the spirit-oh let us feel all new age together” bollocks. A demonstration of (pun not intended) impotence and irrelevance as you couldn’t find a better one. Mildly amusing, though, and useful to instruct the faithful.
There’s unrest in the geriatric department of the madhouse.
It won’t last for very long.
If you don’t know what the American Catholic Council is, don’t worry: you are not alone.
In short, this is one of those ridiculous outfits which claim to be Catholic whilst clearly being Protestant. From thinking that everyone should be priest, to being in favour of wymmyn priest, to encouraging the usual pervert sexual behaviour, they serve you the whole enchilada of the “dissent” madness. You may ask why they don’t become Protestant as they clearly… already are, but intelligence and logical thinking are graces clearly not given to everyone.
It so happens that this mickey-mouse “catholic” organisation holds a conference in Detroit in the next few days, featuring some of the usual heretical muppets. The event will (would; was supposed to) also host an “ecumenical mass”, which considering the ideas of the organisers screams “liturgical abuses” from very, very far away.
Now the local Archbishop is a certain Vigneron; a man who might possibly not be a sword of Catholic orthodoxy (I seem to recall his diocese being pretty harshly criticised by Michael Voris in the past; I might be wrong) but has certainly the energy to avoid tolerating such a load of manure without reaction.
Therefore, Archbishop Vigneron has made the following:
1) he has not authorised the mass, and
2) he has written a letter to his priests and deacons stating that his questions about the mass have not been answered to his satisfaction, that the whole thing screams of liturgical abuse, and that therefore any deacon or priest who should entertain the unealthy thought of participating in this liturgy runs the risk of being dismissed from the clerical state.
I can picture the “dissident” Protestants-telling-themselves-Catholics now faced with the unpleasant reality of even a “moderate” archbishop throwing around threats of laicisation for deluded feminist/homosexual hotheads, and posed in front of the unpleasant task of having to find a priest in good standing but ready to risk the soutane (if he ever wore one) for them or show that the archbishop can well and truly block them.
Alternatively, they may ask some layman to celebrate a fake mass; or some wymmyn; and what about the dog……
I think of their situation and try to feel sorry for them in their quandary.
Thankfully, I can’t.
Below are some of the comments in the comment box of the National Catholic Reporter. Let us see what kind of deluded humanity we find there.
There is the one who has decided that 2000 years of Tradition are just wrong, whereas he himself is, of course, right:
The whole system of leadership appointment needs change and should come from the bottom up not the top down.
Then there is the one who doesn’t need the Church, because the Church doesn’t serve him and doesn’t accommodate his needs:
I answer to God not to any priest, bishop, or pope. I find less need everyday for a non-responsive, self-serving hierarchy.
Interesting is also the one who thinks that God himself has been conned these last 2000 years. Thankfully, we now have him to tell us what God always wanted:
The “Way” that Jesus showed us and invited us to follow had no hierarchs, not even the Temple priests
Amuse yourself with the one who says himself a Catholic, whilst also saying that being Catholic is bad (hey, his ex-Lutheran wife, but rather still Lutheran wife, “taught” him so). One wonders who has converted whom:
I was raised as a Catholic (Big C) and married a Lutheran, who converted to the big C. She has taught me that the word ‘catholic’ should never have the big C. The day we accept that we are catholic, and not Roman Catholic, we will all be better off.
Or do you prefer the obsessed trendy with nightmares of Trent restoration:
Benedict is doing a more disgusting job than John Paul II in trying to drag Catholics back to Trent.
What about the Pentecostal “the Holy Spirit directs us” chap, who at the same time is obviously not directed by the Holy Spirit to write in proper English (emphases mine):
Since Vatican Council II—the People of God have implemented what the Council was directing them to do. It was JP II (the Grate) and Benedict the Panzar Pope, who were/are trying to drag people back to where THEY were comfortable—a Church of subserviant people—who are “little people, simple (read stupid) who need their bishops to point out the way for them (this is a synopsis of Benedict’s thoughts)
Finally, there’s the anarchist revolutionary, believing in Revelation through the Internet. Unfortunately he misses the signs of the times, big time. He also seems to believe that higher education is a modern invention:
When all is said and done, I think point #4 in your critique is the bedrock of the revolution that is now happening in the modern church. The current so-called leaders are still living in the ages where only members of the clergy could read and only members of the hierarchy could make spiritual decisions. Now, in the modern age, vast numbers of people are thinking for themselves because of the effects of institutions of higher learning and the availability of research and documentation.
This is just the result of a couple of minutes of browsing, and all the comments are taken from merely two blog posts.
You’d never say this come from the site of a magazine calling itself “Catholic”.
You would think that the Jesuits had some sense of shame. Perhaps, a few have. The impression is, however, that most of them don’t. I can’t explain otherwise how a group old sixty-eighters (several of them, no doubt, homosexuals; some of them, very probably, sodomites) continue to march towards extinction as if this were a valuable end, and one worthy of pursuing.
Take this article from a magazine called – with unwanted humour – National Catholic Weekly. The author of this article wants you to absolutely know that if he is not an homosexual himself, he would so much like to be one.
Let us examine the forma mentis of our man from his way of writing:
1) He receives a letter from a reader. The reader points out to Pedro Arrupe, the former Superior General of the Jesuits, he who got the boot in 1981. (” a move that dismayed many Jesuits”, says the article’s author, and we don’t doubt it for a second). The reader points out in his letter that “so many Jesuits were screaming fags that something had to be done, you know, to clean the filth out of the clergy.” I can’t see how anyone can have anything to say against this self-evident statement. Unless he is a liberal Jesuit, of course, in which case:
a) the word “fag” will hurt the oh so delicate feelings of our man (to the point that he describes the word as “not the pleasantest thing to read in the morning”). This screams “homo” if nothing else does; and
b) he will not say a word confirming that homosexuality is “filth”. To him it is, probably, just an “orientation” in the liberal sense. Like preferring vanilla to strawberry, say. Again, besides saying much about his theology, this inspires some fears about his sexuality.
2) Read this:
Homophobia is still out there, no matter how much we would wish to think of ourselves as an enlightened culture, and exists in our church.
This is another beautiful example of homo-thinking. One would expect a religious to be worried about homosexuals within his orders, but does he spend a word on that? Emphatically, no. Instead, he throws around the favourite word of fags – and those who would like to be it – all over the planet: “homophobia”. “Homophobia” is, then: a) not compatible with an enlightened culture (read: Christianity pre-modern-Jesuits is backward and “homophobic”) and b) “homophobia” exists within the Church (which is a coherent statement, seen that “Christianity” and “Homophobia” really express the same concept). Just as an aside, note that “church” is written with the small “c”.
It doesn’t stop here. Exhibit 3) is this truly, truly disturbing statement:
Thus, the need for June as “LGBT month,” as just proclaimed by President Obama.
The brown-nosing to President Obama (he of the late-term abortion, and who considers a pregnancy a “punishment”; but our man doesn’t seem to care.. a fag) doesn’t hide the fact that here an explicitly homosexual language is used; a language which is never used by the Church in her official statements, like encyclical letters and the like. Not only does the Church never use the word “gay” (which is absurd: they just aren’t as their rate of depression, psychosomatic morbidity and suicide attests), but she obviously never uses the extremely homo-laden expression “LGBT”. This man, of course, does. He takes a certain pride in it, as you can read in the article. How very ………
It follows the most absurd attempt to smuggle some politically correct statement of the extremely liberal US bishops are….. Church teaching.
Church teaching is, if the man can read, here, where it says that homosexuality is not an acceptable option; but hey, let us not allow Church teaching to come in the way of pro-homo propaganda…
The last pearl (before I get tired) of this not-very-manly author is his oh-so-sensitive drowning in a huge wave of sympathy for the poor oppressed homos:
And shouldn’t a group of people be free to call themselves what they want?
“No”, is the simple answer.
He wouldn’t call a pedophile “Smart” if they decided to call themselves that way. He wouldn’t call a Ku Klux Klan member “Natty” if they decided to call themselves that way. He wouldn’t call a Neo-Nazi “Spiffy” if they decided to call themselves that way.
The problem is, that to this man homosexuality is so… natural, that he is even unable to see the problem and therefore writes the bollocks we have just read.
The work of cleaning of the Jesuits from the filth within them has certainly not been concluded with the kicking out of Arrupe, and one shudders at the thought of what the situation must have been at the time. Still, these Jesuits are such a public shame, that I hope the Pontiff will soon act to put an end to their antics as he has acted with the “irreligious sisters” in the USA.
He doesn’t have to call them “bunch of pot-smoking faggoty liberal idiots”. I understand that a religious will have to express himself in a less vitriolic way than an indignant layman would.
But if he gets the concept, it will be more than enough.
From Rorate Caeli, good news from the extraordinarily amusing world of the barking cats, that is: of those women who think that a woman should be (and in fact: even is) able to receive Holy Orders so that the grave gender discrimination Jesus put in place against them may come to an end. When the Vatican decided that such acts would henceforward be delicta graviora, the poor ladies had nothing better to do that meowing “discrimination” out loud.
Norma Jean Coon, a woman who deluded herself to the point of believing that she was ordained deacon, has now officially renounced to her error.
If you read her declaration on her internet site you’ll notice that the language is still extremely approximate and obviously wrong (at the beginning she gives the impression of still thinking that she has effectively been ordained, which is ridiculously wrong; and that her excommunication is purely due to this alleged “ordination” not being authorised, which is plain ridiculous), but if you continue to read you’ll discover that the lady gets the substance of the matter absolutely right and declares that:
1) she recognises the truth of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, and
2) she recognises that Holy Orders are an institution only reserved to men.
It takes a certain courage to admit coram populo that one has been so astonishingly wrong, and it certainly hasn’t been easy to completely distance oneself from a group of supposedly barking cats which had obviously been the object of a considerable emotional investment. Therefore, Mrs. Coon deserves our appreciation and our prayers.
It still seems barely believable to me that a mother of five could ever achieve such a summit of self-delusion, but the hints in Mrs. Coon’s declaration (that she has pretended to “officiate” only on a couple of occasions, and that the pangs of conscience must have been rather strong from the very days following her mock-ordination) lets one think that in this case the Holy Ghost has been at work to avoid the poor woman the damnation she was clearly working towards, with rather spectacular results.
Please also note that we might be here in front of a future conservative Catholic (the Prayer of St. Michael eminently displayed on the page leaves few doubt as to whom she thinks was at the origin of her troubles), and it is in fact rather natural that when one begins to see the light he may want to enjoy it in all its splendour.
It must be liberating to discover oneself free from ego-driven error and ready to enter the realm of real freedom: the freedom to follow the Truth and willingly submit to it.
Please join me in my prayers both for Mrs. Coon and in thanksgiving for this happy conversion.
I have written already about the strange idea (entertained even by some people who, for reasons unknown to yours truly, define themselves as “Catholic”) that a cat should be allowed to bark or, if you want to put it more directly, that a woman should be allowed to be priest.
The very simple fact that a woman cannot be a priest more than a cat can bark (to become a priest it is necessary to be a male in the first place; to bark it is necessary to be a dog – oh well, a canidae – in the first place) appears to elude the ladies (of both sexes) who fight such an heroic battle against common sense and ridicule.
In the last days we had another example of this astonishing forma mentis, when a rather routine like announcement from the Vatican has been attacked again by feminists fringes looking for the usual self victimhood festival.
The Vatican has decided to promote the canonical crime of attempted ordination of a woman (attempted, mind: you can’t ordain a woman as priest more than you can make a cat bark) to the exclusive rank of the delicta graviora, which are the most serious category of canonical crime and attract, inter alia, exclusive Vatican competence.
The feminists reason that if you decide that a crime involving women should be considered with more severity, you are attacking women. One must love the logic. It is as if those deluded women attempting to obtain “ordination” were punished because born women, rather than because they offend a sacrament. The harsher rules apply, by the way, to both sexes, so that the argument of the feminists (of both sexes) that the Church is persecuting the foemina diaboli so dear to their imagination is, as always, devoid of any logic.
Logic or no logic, these news are always worth reading because they provide some very nice entertainment in these distressing times. For example, it may make your day to know that there are people around calling themselves “Roman Catholic WomenPriests” (last one is only one word I think; more progressive, you know……) and that these people demand that the Church “affirm women’s full equality in the Church, including priestly ministry”. I can’t wait for the demand that the Evangelists be referred to as St. Lucia, St. Joan, etc.
Incidentally, the women also complain because the Church dares to mention them in a document also dealing with paedophile priests. Here we see the height of delusion and paranoia. It is as if the paedophile priest issue were highly radioactive: if the Vatican wants to mention it, well of course no mention of women must be made in the same document… Document they haven’t read, because if they had they’d have discovered that it also deals with several other canonical crimes (simulated celebration of the Eucharist, say).
God forgive the poor deluded old girls. They are obviously pagan blasphemers worshipping the god of feminism. A god showing the signs of its age, as do the worshippers themselves.
Still, the infinite mercy of God might reach out, we are told, even to them.
I’ll remember them in my Fatima prayers. And plead for insanity on their behalf.
One never ceases to be amazed at the ability of so many people to warp the most elementary concepts of logic, provided it helps them to feel good, important, modern or even supposedly clever. The always excellent Father Zuhlsdorf reports of the usual protest of a colourful bunch of women in pursuit of that logical, theological and, well, anatomical impossibility: the Female Priesthood. This would be funny if the mere existence of such extraordinary utterances were not a sad indication of the state of utter decay in which the Teaching has fallen after the happy experiments of the last decades.
Granted, the ladies are gravely confused even for the standard of your average Catholic, but how many Catholics really know why? How many Catholics think that the Church opposes (oh, that word…) “female priesthood” just because of her “conservatism”? If you were to ask your average Catholic in, say, San Luis Obispo whether he thinks that one day the Church might have (oh, that word…) “priestesses”, how many do you think would react with a hearty laugh and how many would answer that “one day the Church might be forced to react to societal changes”? I am terrified of writing this, but I strongly suspect that nowadays most Catholics believe that Male Priesthood is a choice. Which, if you think of it, is a beautiful witness of the decades long, relentless work of so many priests and bishops to undermine everything Catholic and to substitute it with the shallow, sugary, politically correct, insipid fare served at so many Protestant and at all Secularist tables.
If you, dear reader, are in need of a well-grounded and definitive knowledge of why there will never be a priestess before cats can bark I suggest the reading of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the encyclical letter of John Paul II dealing with the issue. It is easy to read, pretty well argued and unmistakably clear in saying that the nonsense must come to an end and that even the discussions about the expediency of having Shrek as the next President of the United States (or of having “priestesses”, or such like) are not allowed.
For your convenience, the link is provided on this very same blog, under Church Teaching. Have fun and spare a thought for the poor women.