Let’s keep this short: the culprit is Francis, and no other.
It’s very easy to see why.
1. Not even an old incapacitated nincompoop would shut up after the interview instead of immediately saying, very loud, “this interview does not reflect our conversation”. There is no way in hell Francis can escape his responsibility on this. He even received the draft of the interviews, for heaven’s sake. What was he doing, watching the photos of Ms Chaouqui?
2. Many have tried to depict Scalfari as the old man in his dotage. Very wrong. Firstly, it is clear to everyone who is not gaga that Scalfari isn’t. Secondly, it makes sense that Francis would demand that the interview would be made without a recorder or a stenographer. A recorder would have implied Scalfari does not trust the words of a Pope, and a stenographer would have recorded all the inordinate rambling of the man. Notice when Francis rambles we only get the doctored versions, in which charitable souls try to give some sense to the rambling nonsense. If we read the literal transcription of a 30 minutes Francis’ performance, I think the entire planet would be rolling on the floor, laughing.
3. Francis received a draft, and gave the green light to it. This has been admitted from Vatican sources, who had to invent the pathetic excuse it is not clear whether he read it after Repubblica had to say – confronted with the brazen attempt to deny reality – that he bloody well did. There can be no excuse. There is absolutely nowhere to hide. The emperor has no clothes. Period.
4. Scalfari is a journalist. He knows his trade. Whatever was agreed between the two, he will not reveal unless, perhaps, attacked personally. If Francis says “please no recorder, but do not say it was on my request”, Scalfari will make the interview with no recorder, and will not say this was on Francis’ request. Don’t insult your intelligence thinking – or worse, saying – he forgot his recorder home and is unable to take notes.
5. In part, Francis’ interview echo scandalous affirmations already made by him, and which he merely confirms (“And I repeat it here”). How many times is this man misunderstood, and since when has he become unable to read?
What has happened is that 1) Mueller has insisted that the interview be removed as far too obscene, as reported by the media, when he was informed – to his surprise – that it was still on the internet site, and b) Francis had to see it was better for him to have the thing taken down now, than for it to be left on the Vatican site as a permanent monument to his own heresy and incompetence.
He has nowhere to hide.
I have already said, and I repeat it here (see how it works?) that there is crushing evidence that Francis approved the interview, and there is no evidence Hitler ordered the Holocaust.
If you are so dumb as to think Francis did not want this interview as published, you can as well believe Hitler did not want the Holocaust as happened.
From the pleasantly surprising mini-essay of Archbishop Mueller (I know, I know…) concerning marriage, some rather interesting excerpts. Emphases mine.
Marriage can be understood and lived as a sacrament only in the context of the mystery of Christ. If marriage is secularized or regarded as a purely natural reality, its sacramental character is obscured. Sacramental marriage belongs to the order of grace, it is taken up into the definitive communion of love between Christ and his Church. Christians are called to live their marriage within the eschatological horizon of the coming of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word of God.
Pastors are obliged, by love for the truth, “to exercise careful discernment of situations” [...] And yet they cannot be admitted to the Eucharist. Two reasons are given for this: a) “their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist” b) “if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage”.
Clergy are expressly forbidden, for intrinsically sacramental and theological reasons and not through legalistic pressures, to “perform ceremonies of any kind” for divorced people who remarry civilly, as long as the first sacramentally valid marriage still exists.
the faithful concerned may not present themselves for holy communion on the basis of their own conscience: “Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors … have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the Church’s teaching”
The doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage is often met with incomprehension in a secularized environment.
Love is more than a feeling or an instinct. Of its nature it is self-giving. In marital love, two people say consciously and intentionally to one another: only you – and you for ever.
If remarried divorcees are subjectively convinced in their conscience that a previous marriage was invalid, this must be proven objectively by the competent marriage tribunals. Marriage is not simply about the relationship of two people to God, it is also a reality of the Church, a sacrament, and it is not for the individuals concerned to decide on its validity, but rather for the Church, into which the individuals are incorporated by faith and baptism.
in the case of the indissolubility of sacramental marriage we are dealing with a divine norm that is not at the disposal of the Church.
A further case for the admission of remarried divorcees to the sacraments is argued in terms of mercy. Given that Jesus himself showed solidarity with the suffering and poured out his merciful love upon them, mercy is said to be a distinctive quality of true discipleship. This is correct, but it misses the mark when adopted as an argument in the field of sacramental theology. The entire sacramental economy is a work of divine mercy and it cannot simply be swept aside by an appeal to the same. An objectively false appeal to mercy also runs the risk of trivializing the image of God, by implying that God cannot do other than forgive. The mystery of God includes not only his mercy but also his holiness and his justice. If one were to suppress these characteristics of God and refuse to take sin seriously, ultimately it would not even be possible to bring God’s mercy to man. Jesus encountered the adulteress with great compassion, but he said to her “Go and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11). God’s mercy does not dispense us from following his commandments or the rules of the Church. Rather it supplies us with the grace and strength needed to fulfil them, to pick ourselves up after a fall, and to live life in its fullness according to the image of our heavenly Father.
I won’t lie to you and say every thing is as good as that. But most of the article is as good as that. Please let us leave aside for the moment the problems of the text and let us focus on what is means in this particular moment, when the Bishop of Rome blabbers about “mercy” and “pastoral care” clearly engendering the impression some big trouble might be in the making. I see the following possibilities:
1. Francis got scared of the messianic expectations of the liberal crowds, particularly after the Freiburg initiative has shown him what kind of problems are in the making when one opens his mouth without thinking (which is, I would say, every time he is not eating). Therefore, he has a rare moment of reasonableness and sends forth his lieutenant Mueller to calm down the nutcases, and explain he wants to be the Nelson Mandela of Catholicism, but not at the price of formal heresy. This makes sense, because it makes of Mueller, not Francis, the “baddy”. Francis remains, therefore, the good chap who would allow adulterers to receive communion. But the cruel men around him they will not, will not, will not allow him to. Everyone’s happy.
2. Francis wants to “make a mess”. His lieutenants, who have grasped the extent of the man’s subversive madness, start blocking him in purest Vatican style. They are saying “you can be as much as a nutcase as you please, but we won’t follow you where you give such a scandal”. Notice that Mueller’s opposition is presented in term that have to do with the nature it self of the Church and the sacraments, not pastoral care. The Church can’t allow adulterers to receive communion, full stop. He isn’t saying “I think this would be wrong”. He is saying “this can never, ever be right”.
I would, at this point, be happy to congratulate Archbishop Mueller for his defense of the most elementary Catholic truths. Forgive me if I don’t, as I think the time where a future cardinal, archbishop and head of the CDF is praised simply for stating the obvious should be completely forgotten. Archbishop Mueller surprises with his show of (V II; read the article well) orthodoxy. But he should certainly not be praised for saying it.
I am curious to see what will become of this. I would bet my half pint other prelates will intervene in the matter, repeating the points made by the Archbishop. If this happens I will, personally, read this as a preventative straitjacket put around Francis to prevent him from doing immense harm to himself and to the Church. It is good that the reiterations of simple Catholic truths start now, rather than waiting for October 2014.
You never know what a bunch of hippy cardinals, led by a hippie pope, could do instead.
Allow me, for the moment, to draw a brutally frank conclusion: there is reason to hope that either this pontiff has now reached the limit of his own incompetence, or his own men will take care he does not go beyond a certain – and extremely scandalous in any way – limit of incompetence; which they can do simply by publicly recalling the Truths of the faith in such definitive terms as to castrate from the start every attempt to impose a Che-Church (shall I patent this?) on the poor faithful.
Archbishop Mueller did his job today. In a very V II way, I admit, but he did it.
This makes news. Mala tempora currunt.
The Archbishop of Lima, Cardinal Cipriani, has criticised Archbishop (soon Cardinal) Mueller for the latter’s obvious sympathy for Liberation Theology. The (already) Cardinal called the soon-to-be Cardinal “naive”, and actually did it twice in one week.
The substance of the criticism is predictable: Mueller tries to recycle radioactive material, and it won’t wash. Instead, the Cardinal’s ruler descends with unmistakeable speed on Mueller’s fingers with the words
Mgr. Müller’s job is to defend the sound doctrine of the Catholic faith so he should stop being naive and be more prudent.
Note here that Cardinal Cipriani explicitly refuses to “read heresy through orthodoxy”, a game very much en vogue nowadays. He does not bend over backwards to explain that if we understand Liberation Theology as being something different from Liberation Theology, but still Liberation Theology, then Liberation Theology is fine. On the contrary, he sees unorthodox positions being represented and not only says it openly, but states very clearly that Mueller, in virtue of his job, is the very last (but one) who should indulge in such, ahem, Bergoglisms.
Archbishop Mueller had answered he was not upset at being called “naive” (which is rather strange, as the man is notorious for being very easily upset), so the Cardinal repeated it again in order for the words to sink in.
Archbishop Mueller is, as we have already abundantly seen last year (the search function is your friend: right hand column, below the “tag cloud”) one who takes it rather lightly even with dogmas and is therefore not likely to be impressed by the need to be orthodox. Do not expect, therefore, any change on his side.
Still, it happens so rarely that a Cardinal intervenes in favour of orthodoxy, and even has the guts to do so with a man he knows a protegé of the new Pope. Rarely indeed.
There is a saying in Italy: “to speak to the wife so that the mother-in-law understands”.
In this case, it might well be that the Cardinal criticises the wife (Mueller) so that the person he does not want to criticise, but must perforce get the message, understands the criticism is actually meant for him. Who the mother-in-law would be in this case, I do not need to tell.
Who knows. Perhaps the dissatisfaction with Circus Bergoglio is mounting, and signals are already sent in the right direction. Or perhaps I am an incurable optimist.
I had not been informed of the existence of Cardinal Braz de Aviz until a couple of days ago, when I wished to have remained in my blessed ignorance.
The Cardinal cried pretty loud about the tightening of screws at the LCWR (whom he clearly defends to a point) having happened without previous consultation, which is very, very bad. You know, collegiality, “we are the world” mentality and all that.
It is difficult to understand what the Cardinal might have had in mind with such move. The nuns are clearly under the Vatican’s (very soft) heel and a Cardinal with no competence in the matter and obviously no weight isn’t going to change anything in that. Perhaps the Cardinal wanted to accelerate the exodus of Catholics in Brazil, and if this was the intent then I must say the execution was brilliant.
The Cardinal has been, though, now forced to a rather humiliating back pedalling, with the usual press release now confirming the usual harmony and, crucially, that the heel – soft as it is – isn’t going to move a bit.
Did the Cardinal expect to advance the cause of the witches with this? I doubt, though I am sure a genius he is not. What I think more probable is that he has some personal animosity with Mueller – who, as yogurts go, must be rather sour when he wants – and/or wanted to make himself beautiful with Brazil’s “progressives” for some reason of his own. In both cases, it was well done of Mueller to force him to swallow a generous dose of Kefir.
As to this last, I still can’t wait for him to be replaced, which will hopefully happen soon. I am certainly not the only one to notice Mueller is very prompt in reacting to friends of the mad nuns, but is absolutely silent when his own compatriots make a dry run of a Schism and tell their own faithful that taboos can be broken, if they have some patience.
Braz de Aviz is Cardinal, Mueller is Archbishop and at the head of one of the most powerful congregation. That one might reasonably fear his successor might be even worse than him says a lot about the present crisis.
Still, this time the kefir was eaten by the right one.
The Pope today about the correct way to interpret scripture. Emphases mine, and the entire text on the usual Rorate.
The interpretation of the Holy Scriptures cannot be only an individual scientific effort, but must always confront itself with, be inserted within and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church. This norm is essential to specify the correct relationship between exegesis and the Magisterium of the Church. The texts inspired by God were entrusted to the Community of believers, the Church of Christ, to nourish the faith and guide the life of charity. Respect for this profound nature of Scripture conditions the very validity and effectiveness of biblical hermeneutics.
What I think this means, is that when a theologian, in his love for novelty, comes to conclusions that are not in accordance with the living tradition of the Church, he is simply piddling outside of the W.C., and must stop at once, because if he doesn’t he leads his own vanity to confuse the faithful, or worse.
Please read it again before I proceed.
Do we agree?
Allow me, then, to put to your attention a pearl of stupidity of the very man at the head of the commission to whom the Pontiff has addressed his words today. Our Yogurtmeister here is talking of the, erm (cough…) dogma of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary.
[The doctrine is] “not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of the grace of the Savior on human nature.”
It is only that I am a tad ill-disposed toward Mueller, or Pope Francis is sending a clear signal to him directly, present in the room and an extremely obvious example of the piddling habit I have mentioned above?
We will see. If the Pontiff sends Archbishop Mueller back to his native dairies, it is clear he means what he says. If he doesn’t, it is clear he doesn’t.
Clearly, Archbishop Mueller wasn’t informed of the Holy Father’s plans.
He managed to anger both the Archbishop of Lima and the SSPX (he loves that) in just a few days.
The first with a letter with which he inelegantly walks over the Archbishop of Lima in the matter of the non-Catholic, non-Pontifical University of Lima (non-Catholic; where Mueller went every year; get that?).
The second is with the confirmation that some days ago an ultimatum was sent to the SSPX: either you accept to eat the yogurt within the 22 February, or we will try to do what we have tried to do these last 25 years: split you.
Isn’t it ironic that whilst Mueller was bullying left and right, the Holy Father was, Latin-German dictionary in hand, perfecting the message that would make Archbishop Mueller the lamest duck to walk along the Vatican corridors in a long time?
The Archbishop was really taken by surprise: would you send such letters if you knew just hours afterwards people would read them and laugh? Why would Cipriani be worried, when he can simply sit and wait for the man to pack his bags? And how credible must Vatican promises appear to SSPX priests – allegedly so easy to win over, or so does the Archbishop thinks – when the one who makes the promises doesn’t even know he’ll be an “unemployed man walking” in just a few hours’ time? How could anyone not see that now the cards will be reshuffled, and there is no saying whatever what kind of Pope will get out of the Conclave?
Archbishop Mueller’s inning at the CDF will almost certainly prove very short.
But one can’t say it wasn’t, in a rather tragic way, amusing.
And so the SSPX should be, one is informed, scared of the new Pope crushing them, and should have accepted the poisoned bread offered to them by a, erm, rather scheming Pope.
Should they? Really? I am not persuaded at all. Let us see why.
Broadly speaking, the new Pope can only be one of three:
1) a modernist like Schoenborn.
2) a so-so, V-II nuChurch Pope like, well, all of them since Pope Roncalli.
3) A traditionalist Pope.
If 1) happens, you’ll see an explosion of sedevacantism, and as a result of the prestige and position of the SSPX who, whilst not being sedevacantists, are in clear opposition to the antics of nuChurch. Whatever this new Pope may order to them, the Society will certainly apply the blessed “first rule of the Italian army”: gli ordini sbagliati non si eseguono, “wrong orders are not carried out”.
I can, in fact, not imagine anything more promising for the growth of the Society than an utterly disgraceful Pope. Please reflect the likes of the FSSP would all be silenced in no time, and told they are lucky if they can keep the Tridentine Mass, and the Society would soon remain, to all intents and purposes, the only traditionalist shop in town.
The SSPX would then be seen as the last and only bastion of orthodoxy, and rightly so. They have the people, they have the money, they have the faith and the determination. Depend on that, they won’t take stupid orders by any stupid Schoenborn, Pope or no Pope. Amen.
2) So-so Popes can bark – with great effort – but they can’t bite. Therefore, your typical V II Pope would engage in endless “dialogue” without ever coming to any conclusion, which is why they engage in “dialogue” in the first place (besides trying to split the Society). There would be a gesture here and its contrary there, a Bux here and a Mueller there (well, not really; the man will hopefully be gone for good soon); but in the end, nothing would happen.
“You must accept V II”, the Vatican would say. “You must wake up and repent”, the SSPX would answer. Not the stuff of agreements, and it is probably good so as long as this situation persists.
3) If we are blessed by a traditionalist Pope (an event we as Catholics have by far not deserved), then the problem would solve itself by itself. We’d soon have the SSPX in full communion and – in time – Fellay as Cardinal ( I have joked about that in another post, but in this constellation I can’t see any other outcome). Case 3) is not a problem, but the end of all problems, and is therefore not worth discussing much.
What can, then, an hypothetical new and angry Pope do against the Society? A fat nothing, is the answer. The Society exists because the Papacy is in crisis. They will not do the Pope’s bidding when the papacy is even more in crisis than it has been in the times of Paul VI.
On the contrary, it seems to me that the decision of the Pope to go away is in fact a vindication of the SSPX policy. He will soon be gone, and the SSPX is still there. With Benedict, Mueller will soon go (not immediately, probably; the successor will allow him a face-saving time before he picks his own man). If there had been a (bad) agreement, how long had it lasted? Months? If the new pope is bad, than the SSPX was even more right in not wanting lazy compromises, and insisting on guarantees of freedom of criticism beside operational autonomy.
If you are smart, you talk with the Vatican but you don’t trust your own existence to their mercy. Bishop Fellay is very smart, and every agreement would have to be approved by the majority of the SSPX priests, so expect no surprises from there.
So: Pope Benedict will soon be gone. Archbishop Mueller will follow him soon after. The SSPX is still there, as solid as a rock, growing like a mushroom colony, and not scared of anything but lazy compromises.
I wonder who won?
Archbishop Mueller really can’t stay away from journalists. Not only does he like them, but they like him. They sense the man is always good for something politically incorrect, or controversial, or simply short-tempered. He always delivers, and they know it.
This time, Archbishop Mueller has given an interview to the German so-called prestigious German weekly Die Zeit, reported in English by Vatican Insider. As Vatican Insider is part of La Stampa, a highly professional Italian daily newspaper, I will not check that the English rendition faithfully corresponds to the main points of the German text.
Yours truly, who likes Yogurt inordinately (though he prefers Weihenstephan to Mueller) would like here to make some comments himself. The points of the interview I’d like to say two words about are the following ones:
1. Systematic media attacks on the Catholic church.
The Archbishop doesn;t mince words (he never does, anyway) and compares the anti-Catholic atmosphere created in many Western countries to anti-Jewish pogroms. Now this is Germany, and in germany when you compare yourself to the persecution of the Jews it means you are really angry and people have to pay attention to what you say, because of the all-present Vergangenheit, the past. This Vergangenheit is a bit of a joker you can employ on pretty much everything: illiberal laws, the persecution of Kreuz.Net, and the creeping Nazi attitude of German homosexualists and their friends.
The Cardinal points it out in general, but does not say what in wrong in particular. In a country whose biggest Catholic site has been more or less forced to silence by the Nazi attitude of politicians, media and homosexualists, this is not good enough. Alas, it seems the Archbishop wants to play victim without mentioning the bigger victims, because he happens not to like them.
2. No to so-called same-sex unions.
Same yogurt here. Read to the translation of the Archbishop’s words:
“It is impossible for the Catholic Church to accept a relationship between people of the same sex, as such relations cannot in any way be considered equivalent to marriage,”
Notice he doesn’t say such “relationships” are evil, perverted, satanic. He says they are (and I quote) “not equivalent”. This is exactly like saying that the Church does not accept pears being called apples, because pears aren’t apples. Then Church officials complain they are attacked. But it is so surprising they are attacked as backwards and bigots, if they even renounce to say why they are so opposed to perversion? If I were to tell you all day that you simply should not eat pears, would that be enough?
I also notice the Church in Germany has kept, in practice, shtum when the German Government legislated against marriage with the civil partnerships, and that the Archbishop himself never openly attacks those colleagues of him, like the infamous Cardinal Woelki, who express themselves in favour of such abominations. One gets the impression Mueller is rather willing to bully the SSPX, but not so aggressive when his own colleagues and countrymen are involved; and that in this he fully reflects the attitude of the German clergy.
3. Priest celibacy.
For what it’s worth, I give full notes to the Archbishop here. He points out not only to the role of the priest and why celibacy is important, but also makes a very counter-cultural statement, that sexual activity (outside of marriage) is not a natural necessity. Bravo.
4. Criticism of the “dialogue” between lay people and priests in Germany
This is one of those things people who live outside of German can not even easily grasp. Germany is a country where the laity think they must “dialogue” with the clergy about issues like (you got it) so-called priestesses, and the clergy think they must engage in the “dialogue” with the laity and discuss those issues again and again. Come on, this is not even Catholicism anymore.
The Archbishop points out to this, and adds he thinks this must stop. Again, kudos to him.
5. (Umpteenth) Warning to the SSPX
This is another (predictable) serving of yogurt turned sour. It truly seems the Archbishop can’t open his mouth without expressing his anger at the SSPX, an anger which has personal besides Church-political reasons. It also seems to contradict what the Archbishop had said previously, then if memory serves (and it serves) it was Archbishop Mueller himself who declared the talks failed and the door closed, whilst Archbishop Di Noia insists in saying the door is still open (if you drink the poison of V II, that is). Now Mueller takes Di Noia’s position, “we are still waiting for your answer”, but his attitude is diametrically opposite to Di Noia’s one.
I frankly this the Archbishop needs a reality checks if he thinks this kind of message will have any effect whatsoever on the SSPX. More probably, he knows it won’t, but he says it anyway. It might have been wiser to say that there is a man specifically appointed to the task (Archbishop Di Noia) and he would therefore prefer not to touch on the subject. This would have been, methinks, the more diplomatic and intelligent answer, and the Archbishop would have looked much better without giving away an inch. But again, he is short-tempered.
After posting about the end of the Homo Masses in Soho, I received this very interesting comment from Misericordia:
Mundabor, I do not understand why everybody appears to be so jubilant about this news. It seems that the homosexual community who gather at Mass once a fortnight in Soho, are merely moving to the Jesuit Church at Farm Street , where before their social gatherings there, they may attend Mass at 6.30pm. So the Soho Masses will just become the Mayfair Masses! Archbishop Nichols is still giving his support to this, and in his letter to the organisers, has promised to be at Farm Street on March 3rd to greet them.
I found this comment so interesting as to deserve a post in answer.
Yes, I do think we should be jubilant about the news. We should do so for the following reasons:
1) Things have a symbolic meaning, besides having their own factual side. The “homo masses” were a scandal because they were clearly meant to be “particularly welcoming to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered Catholics, their parents, friends and families”. They were, basically, a public platform for perversion under the umbrella and protection of (perverted) Catholicism, as abundantly clear in the video circulated several months ago. The ending of the Soho Masses will not end perversion, but it will end the scandal.
2) The “dating service” will continue (for now, if you ask me) in Mayfair; but again, it would be strange – and I think not even allowed to him – for ++ Nichols to forbid some (very) strange Jesuit to gather active sodomites around them, or for a group of militant faggots to go to Mass together. The suppression of the Mass certainly does not mean the suppression of those among the clergy who condone or approve or abet (or practice) sodomy. What it means is, again, the suppression of the idea that the Church can smuggle such activity as a charitable one. Take it from me, we will continue to have sodomites among the Jesuits for a while.
3) As always, no one knows the future. In theory, this decision could even spark a more vocal pro-homo activity: more playing victim, more barking, more queens in drags, in short: more scandal. In practice, it is fair to say ++ “Quisling” Nichols is now a person observed in the Vatican with a special attention, and he will not be allowed to play games on this. As a result, the (former) Soho Jesuits will be very well advised to keep a low profile, and ++ Nichols to act swiftly if they don’t.
4) We must consider how the Church works. The Church always tries to save everyone’s face. An exemplary rebuke of the pro-perversion Jesuits would have caused the loss not only of their face, but obviously of Nichols’ too. What they do instead is to throw a bone to the dog, and when the matter of principle (the existence of “gay masses” as such) is out of the table they will deal with whatever issue arises with much more freedom. We would all love to see Catholic orthodoxy openly and assertively upheld, but these are not the Popes and the Archbishops to do this. If Popes and Bishops were different, we would not have “gay masses” in the first place, and I have no knowledge of such masses during the reign of Pius XI or Pius XII.
What we have here is a Pope who thinks agnostics are good for Christianity appointing a chap who doesn’t really – on a practical level – believe in the dogma of Mary Ever Virgin to be the head of the CDF, with the latter reining in an Archbishop who thinks that homosexual couples are something good and worthy of protection provided you don’t call their living together “marriage”; an archbishop, mind, also appointed to his actual position by the above mentioned Pope.
The situation being what it is, I’d say the announcement about the Soho Masses justifies something rather akin to a very loud “yeeesss!!”, possibly accompanied by the uncorking of a good bottle. After which, of course, ++ Vincent “Quisling” Nichols will be just as bad, the sexuality of the relevant Jesuits just as questionable and the attitude of the queens just as disgusting. No one of them will disappear in thin air, but all of them might well feel the approaching of a rather cold breeze…
I have just reblogged a post of some months ago about the strange case of the two Archbishops at odds concerning the “Homo Masses” in Soho (or Sodom), London, England.
The BBC informs us today this abomination is now stopped as such masses are (says the BBC; no direct quotes)
not in line with the church’s (sic) central teaching on sexuality.
I feel like reading that 2+2=4; but truly, in this day and age these are real news.
Firstly, let me tell you that when something so beautiful happens we must be grateful to the men behind the decision, however questionable they can be in other matters.
Secondly, we must reflect whether Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has suddenly discovered the basics of Catholic teaching, or whether he has been “encouraged” to do so by his strange, irascible, theologically more than questionable but certainly unpleasant colleague in Rome.
Reading my reblogged post you will have no doubt as to what my opinion is. I must say the man might not be entirely useless after all.
Of course, this being England things are not going to be made in the right way in one go: the Catholic Herald informs us the Jesuits will continue to be the catalyst for a bunch of sodomites wanting to use Church organisations as a dating agency; or, as the Jesuits so suavely put it, ”the pastoral care of the community will continue at the Jesuit Farm Street church in Mayfair on Sunday evenings”.
Particularly spicy seems to me the detail that
the church where the Masses took place will be entrusted to the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham
and I do not doubt the new priests will lose no time in causing the church to lose the bad odour it has had these six years.
So we have the proverbial two birds with one stone: the shameless parody of the homo mass is at an end, and the Ordinariate receives a church in a central position in London, optimally placed for Christian evangelisation. No thanks to the Archbishop, I am sure, but what counts is the result.
Next time you eat your yogurt, consider saying a short prayer for the man who made this possible.
A rather astonishing news came in the last days from the Vatican. It appears Ecclesia Dei now say the SSPX needs more time, and the Vatican is ready to give it to them. Actually, they even mention ongoing discussions…
With all due respect: poppycock.
The SSPX has made very clear, in the most possible public manner conceivable, that further discussions are subject to the Vatican accepting certain conditions, without which there can be no fruitful discussion anyway.
Furthermore, the SSPX has made public that whilst one should never say never, they do not believe in any agreement during this pontificate, and I am rather sure they know why.
Moreover, the SSPX has decided that whatever (future) agreement with the Vatican is proposed, it will not be decided by a small troop of “leaders” (who then ask the other members to simply “obey”) but it will have to be approved by the majority of the SSPX members, thus making it utterly inconceivable that the ambitions of the one or the other may achieve the result of carrying the order with them.
In addition, Cardinal Mueller himself has immersed the negotiations in frozen yoghurt, making very clear he does not want to have anything to do with those bad, bad men who do not even indulge in simony, or encourage sexual perversion like his well-fed German Kollegen. (look at the graphic, please)
Once again: the SSPX has spoken, and unless there is a sudden change of mind from the Pontiff the only reasonable conclusion is that there’s nothing else to say for the time (and the Pontificate) being; then to talk is good, but to waste breath when everything has been said is not very smart.
Why, then, this sudden change of perspective from Ecclesia Dei, which even contradict their own immediate superior?
I can only imagine the following two hypotheses, but perhaps the readers will have other suggestions:
1) Someone at Ecclesia Dei would like to re-launch the discussions and – now Williamson is away – attempt to isolate Mueller, who is clearly an enemy of every sensible agreement. This might make sense because the press release comes from Ecclesia Dei rather than from the CDF itself, and the astonishing description of the discussions as ongoing is clearly an open contradiction of what the boss himself has said. Therefore, it might be Ecclesia Dei now simply pretend the discussions haven’t ended yet; which makes, in this perspective, a lot of sense, as an open offer to the SSPX to re-open them would be linked with some loss of face.
2) This is a very Italian, erm, Southern Italian message: a bit like saying, with a raucous voice, ”you think you have spoken, picciotto, but I will pretend you haven’t; just for a while, whilst you reflect on the consequences… I am trying to help you before you get in serious trouble, mi capisci?“.
The second hypothesis is in my eyes less probable, as there would be no need whatsoever to do it in public in such a cryptic way, whilst in the first case the public – if not open – isolation of Mueller is probably the best message the people at Ecclesia Dei can try to send to the SSPX; it is reasonable to assume many at Ecclesia Dei want to see the SSPX reconciled, and could have made without the Pontiff’s sleight of hand when he last changed the text of the preambolo.
Far-fetched both of them, you may rightly say, and I would agree with you. On the other hand, it does not happen very often that both the SSPX and the CDF say “the matter is closed” and suddenly Ecclesia Dei comes out saying “ahem, we are still waiting for your answer then, aren’t we?”
We shall see. Perhaps it was nothing, merely someone at Ecclesia Dei has simply not been paying much attention… one is reminded of the revocation of the excommunication for the SSPX bishop without even knowing Bishop Williamson’s ideas about the Holocaust.
If this is not a case of insisted sleeping activity, I never cease to be amazed at the Vatican corridors: there must be more mines there than at the border with North Korea…
Strange news today with a mini-consistory announced and six new red hats to be created in November.
None of the new Cardinals is from Italy; five work outside of the Curia, and actually outside of Europe; only one appears – for what I know – to have a reputation of “liberal”; and one cannot avoid noticing both Nichols & Mueller have missed this train.
If I were to dare some reflections, they would be as follows:
A mini-consistory might indicate the Holy Father feels the time allotted to him might be coming to an end. I can otherwise not imagine why he would not wait another six months, perhaps twelve, and then have a more substantial Consistory. Perhaps he wanted to send a signal to countries where Christian are at risk of violent persecution. Perhaps, again, he feels his time is running out.
Archbishop Mueller has been left out. I am not very surprised as the man came to Rome mainly because he is a pal of the Holy Father, and has managed to make a lot of damage since. Whilst I am sure the Holy Father likes and protects him, there are clearly limits to the reputational damage he is ready and willing to bear.
No doubt, he plans to deliver for his Kumpel before long; Mueller certainly wishes him good health.
III) Nichols is also (provisionally) out and this is in my eyes more surprising, particularly considering the extreme prestige of his position and the fact he has been a Cardinal-in-waiting for w hile now. Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is the notorious enabler of the dating service for sexual perverts usually going under the name of “Soho masses”. Rumours of action from Rome have been around for some days; I can easily imagine the two matters are linked, and the bad Archbishop is now asked to deliver at least in matter of blasphemous, openly practiced perversion.
I can also imagine the very tepid resistance put by “Quisling” Nichols to the “homo marriages” in the UK (Lord Carey is very active and the most recognisable face of this campaign; Nichols tries to be noticed as little as possible) might have not helped him much.
Again, this is a high-profile appointment of the current Pope, and a rather scarily young Archbishop of Westminster to boot. I find it entirely possible the Holy Father is now concerned about the way he will remembered, and a red hat for Nichols might – perhaps – be more than he wants to be remembered for.
IV) The news of the Consistory was leaked a couple of hours before the official announcement. If the leak was “steered”, there should be no excessive surprise at other, unwanted leaks happening; if it wasn’t, well it’ s worrying.
I will gather more information about the new six Cardinals in the next days. It seems to me, though, that all in all it could have been worse.
Archbishop Mueller may be ( no, let me correct this: is) a very confused theologian and an enemy of sincere and orthodox Catholics, but at least in matters of homosexuality he has to my knowledge not yet managed to say anything stupid.
There are now signs the man might go for a little confrontation with Archbishop “Quisling” Nichols in the matter of homo masses. Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has not only been almost entirely silent in the matter of UK so-called “gay marriages” ( which are, let us remind ourselves, neither) but he has continued to allow “bespoke” masses for perverts (basically a dating service for lesbians and sodomites; it is difficult to imagine a more satanic abuse of the mass) without wincing, and merely ordering one of those never-ending “reviews” when a video revealed the extent of the mess.
It will be interesting to follow this battle of the heretic wannabe titans, with the irascible Mueller attacking our Quisling and the latter accusing his German colleague of not being “nuanced” and “pastoral” enough. On better reflection, though, such battle is unlikely to ever be fought, as Archbishop “Quisling” Nichols would probably prefer to get rid of the hot potato by announcing the retreat as the result of the “review” or, far more probably, hiding himself with the fag community behind the “orders from Rome”; a popular archbishops’ pastime, this (Abp Schoenborn has developed it to a high art) and apt to allow Abp “Quisling” Nichols to avoid trouble, save face and get rid of the queens.
Still, one should not refuse the good because it come from the bad, and if Archbishop Mueller manages to do something orthodox and put an end to this scandal he should get some kudos from us; as he will get them, I think, from the SSPX.
It has been (as Sir Humphrey would have said) “officially unofficial” since yesterday: V-II ecumenism has gone.
In a radio interview to be broadcast today Archbishop Mueller (the short-tempered, Liberation Theology sympathiser, and theologically challenged Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) has finally said very clearly what conservative Catholics all over the world wanted to hear: the Catholic Faith is non-negotiable.
Therefore, there will now be an end to the endless ecu-maniacal dialogues. As it has been pointed out already, this means the end for the International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, for the Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with the Jews, for the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, for the Commission of the Holy See for Religious Relations with Muslims, for the U.S. Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue, and for all the countless institutions, both local and Vatican, ”negotiating” about the faith.
It cannot be anymore. Speaking of the Catholic faith, the Archbishop says “there will be no compromises here”.
An astonishing U-Turn, nicht wahr? Who would have thought that a man in more than odour of heresy would finally decide to defend the Catholic Faith after so much ravaging?
Still, this is what he said!
But wait: has he?
We must pray for this very confused man.
Archbishop Mueller has a couple of problems: the first one is that he cannot avoid giving more or less arrogant interviews (well, ok: more); the second is that he has been invited from the SSPX to say how he reconciles his strange idea of a non-virginity which is a virginity, but hasn’t done it; instead, he thinks he can put the controversies over his own embarrassing ignorance of the basics of Catholicism (or worse) by just saying “I believe in that in which I am supposed to believe, therefore you must be wrong”.
On the first problem, it is clear the Archbishop should go back to school with very rigid SSPX teachers; that he knows it very well; and that it hurts. Once again, he reacted angrily to the (perfectly legitimate, and still unanswered) questions openly posed to him from the SSPX by saying that those who disagree with him either aren’t very intelligent, or haven’t read him, or couldn’t understand him. Congratulations, with such arguments he would have great success with a group of drunken friends at the pub.
Simply put, either the SSPX is populated by cretins, or Archbishop Mueller is a 1a cretin himself. Reach your own conclusions.
On the second problem, I notice that the Archbishop still hasn’t answered (at least as far as the Blessed Virgin is concerned; on other matters things seems clearer) to the criticism levelled against him. To say “I am orthodox” is rather easy; to say whether you think you were wrong in what you stated and why is quite another.
I could tell you whatever crap gets through my mind, and then react to every criticism saying “yours are provocations, and not even intelligent ones at that. I am right and orthodox, you just don’t read or can’t understand me”. Would you let it pass? Thought not…
Why, then, is the Archbishop allowed to (factually) deny the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and get away with it by just saying “I believe in the dogma?” I could tell you – if I were a theologian burning to say something new and revolutionary to further my career – that the dogma really means, say, that the Blessed Virgin liked baby blue in preference to sage green. When I, then, say that I believe in the dogma I do not do anything else than to repeat that I believe in what I have already stated I believe. Similarly, Mueller has already said that to him “virginity” does not really mean… virginity. Therefore, when he says that he believes in Mary Ever Virgin he has retracted absolutely nothing, because he must first persuade us that he got what virginity is.
The rest of the interview is the usual rather embarrassing blabla: I really didn’t want to become de facto Number Three; I mean, not really really, but the Holy Father told me I could not refuse (the Pope allowed Monsignor Wagner to refuse, though. I wonder why?); I will talk with the mad nuns because the only ones I consider cretins unable to read are the SSPX priests; I do believe in my heresies concerning Protestants and I will not back pedal about them; but I really, really have to back pedal about transubstantiation, otherwise I am in serious trouble; and so on.
The man is a walking embarrassment for the Church: a man dangerously prone to choler (he can’t avoid insulting the SSPX even in his interviews; just imagine what he must be in private), theologically shamed by every properly instructed ten years old boy circa 1910, and so much in love with himself he reminds one of Usain Bolt, without the achievements or the talent.
May God forgive the man who put him in such an important place because he has edited his own books.