Monthly Archives: March 2011
And when you think that, semel in anno, the Church shows some teeth and takes some exemplary measures to make clear that the modernist party is now clearly at an end, promptly you are forced to change your mind.
It is not true, says the president of the College, that Archbishop Dolan would have suggested the closure of the institution. It is not true that – as the irish Catholic reported – Dolan was “appalled” at the standards therein found and wants the place to be simply shut down. Note that Archbishop Dolan is the one who still hasn’t acted against the Homo Masses in his own diocese. I am sure it takes some doing to “appall” him.
Granted, the seminary’s President is the first one who would lose his position and therefore it can be that his intervention is something he felt obliged to, a defence ex officio in purest “comical ali”-style (someone able to define an apostolic visitation “a positive and affirming experience” shows that he has nothing to learn from the Arab comic talent after all) but I doubt that he would have released such a statement without having received assurances as to the future of the (as he said using the usual nonsensical buzzword, “vibrant”) institution he leads.
We shall see. I liked the idea of the Irish priests being formed in Rome, away from bad influence. Too good to be true, perhaps.
Read here on Rorate Caeli about the first Tridentine Mass in the York Minster since the Deformation.
1) Completely packed, with extra accommodation provided.
2) More than 700 people attended.
3) After the Mass, rather impressive procession through the streets of York to the shrine to St. Margaret Clitherow.
Just like the old times!
I admit that this was organised by the latin Mass Society (kudos a gogo) and that therefore a certain ability to mobilise was there. But such initatives will certainly contribute to awaken the interest for the Tridentine Mass in many who never had the privilege to assist to one or even to know of its existence i practical terms.
New and revolutionary idea: the drive-through confessional.
Please read Father z‘s contribution attentively.
This is a dramatic development. Very important.
Observe, in the end, the newspaper he links to.
This is even more important.
On the Corapi matter there is a development and, if you allow, some reflections.
The development is that officials of the company publishing Corapi’s work have (rather too heavily, I would say) criticised the bishop for Father Corapi’s supension. The intervention is in my eyes counterproductive, as it turns out it was not the bishop who suspended Corapi but the superior of his religious order, the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity. Besides, it doesn’t help when one says that the suspension is illicit under Canon Law, but doesn’t say why.
In my eyes, this Corapi’s defence is a bit too overzealous and should have been better avoided. More interesting appears the statement of the company’s official that the person writing the letter against Corapi was a disgruntled employee who has physically assaulted him, but we would have to know more details on this to be able to value the episode.
The other reflecion regards the fact that from one side, Corapi’s diocese stresses that the presumption of innocence is of the “highest importance” but from the other side, EWTN makes clear that they have suspended Corapi from their program because their internal policy is that no priest whose faculties have been suspended is broadcast, period.
One sees to what absurd consequences today’s praxis leads. He is presumed innocent, but the praxis is that when you are presumed innocent you are considered guilty until proven innocent, whilst your presumption of innocence is stressed everywhere. I fail to see the logic here: if presuming one innocent really means to presume one innocent, then the poor man should be treated, pending investigation, as one who is innocent of the accusations moved against him. It is not that he is in danger of taking an aeroplane to Burkina Faso, or that he spends hours alone with adolescents.
The mentality herein exhibited can be developed with some very interesting mind games: you don’t like father Z? Write a letter to a half-dozen of bishops accusing him of everything under the sun, pending investigation he’ll be certainly asked not to blog. Or perhaps Father Finigan is your enemy? What about Cardinal Burke? Pell, anyone? And really – I do have to ask this again – if a letter is enough to suspend a priest, why should the Pope not be asked to suspend himself should such a letter arrive?
I do not want to sound petulant here, but it’s weeks since this matter has started; when there are true facts behind the allegation, generally people come out offering an unstoppable flood of further circumstances and this goes very rapidly to the press. Think of Berlusconi, with the first facts more and more corroborated by the new elements which inevitably begin to emerge once these things become public.
Nothing of the sort here. Just a letter from a former, highly emotional and probably unstable (if the allegations of physical assaults are true) woman who is now, probably, scared to death by her own fit of hysteria (and she should be, methinks). In the meantime, the circus goes on, Father Corapi is still suspended, and EWTN still doesn’t have the decency to just apply basic common sense instead of rules clearly born for other circustances.
Truly, there are things that must be changed here. It can’t be that in the country that so much worships freedom of expression and religious freedom any popular priest can be silenced with a letter.
1) Both were made for a good cause and with good intent.
2) Both got out of control, and disaster ensued.
3) Both released highly toxic materials.
4) Both caused negative consequences lasting for decades.
5) Both show an astonishing lack of proper internal controls.
6) Both show clear lack of communication, inept damage limitation, and a massive dose of wishful thinking.
7) Both caused serious consequences for generations of innocent people.
In the rather disconcerting matter of the Instruction on Summorum Pontificum, extremely clear signals are now being received a bit everywhere that the Instruction is going to be (largely) rather an improvement on the existing Motu Proprio than the sabotage attempted in the rather dangerous corridors of the Vatican.
That things are largely improving is now proven by the fact that a “trendy” magazine (whose name I do not want to make in case it should bring them two or three clicks) basically confirms the conservative content of the Instruction in its latest draft.
If this matter will end up with a lieto fine (that is: with only minor damage but with the official, if certainly ignored, clear indication that Summorum Pontificum is here to stay) I think that some lesson will have to be learned, like for example:
1) That whilst the corridors of the Curia are now certainly more conservative than they were 15 or 20 years ago, conservatism does not necessarily mean favour for the Tridentine.
2) That this Holy Father – good person as he is – has his own people so little under control, that they can dare to think to partially undo the most important provision of his papacy under his very nose. Think whether this could have ever happened to St. Pius X, or Pius XI, or Pius XII! A rather alarming lack of leadership is apparent here and if I were allowed to respectfully voice my opinion in the Holy Father’s presence I’d suggest that he might dedicate less time to writing and more time to selecting the right people, demanding that they work properly and controlling that they do as they are told. There’s a time to be a theologian and a time to be a Pope, methinks; particularly when episodes happen which, like this one, clearly point out to what can only be a diffused praxis instead of a single episode thought out by imaginative prelates.
3) That the leak has been providential and very well-timed, and that it pays to voice one’s dismay when things are attempted that are a shame to Catholicism. Leaks are, at times, good for one’s Church, and for one’s liver.
I will not translate the (as so often: how refreshing!) rather harsh word of Messa In Latino to those who say – as the weak and spineless are bound to say – that it is oh so unchristian to criticise a document before it is out. Rather let it go out, would their recipe be; after which they’ll invariably say that now ithat t is out it doesn’t make any sense to complain…..
The fearful will always have a reason why they don’t want to battle, but they’ll prefer to call it “love for peace” or even “obedience”. Bad Catholicism, if you ask me.
This battle has been (apparently) won because brave people (first of all Messa in Latino and Rorate Caeli) have had the gut to call a spade a spade and to do it out loud.
Nothing un-Catholic in that. On the contrary!
But we certainly need more commitment in the Curia, and a more decisive action from the very top.
The question is, my dear readers, not a rhetoric one.
One wonders whether the Jesuits should not be consigned to forced extinction before the sheer force of mortality extinguishes them; which it will do before long unless they recover sanity.
This here is the latest example. A Jesuit Catholic University decides that “domestic partners” should get the same benefits as married couples. Notice that the term of “domestic partner” is used, which might be a local particularity but might also be a clumsy attempt not to say (oh, that word…) “same-sex marriage”.
Most astonishing, though, is that such a scandalous decision is justified by the University with the allegedly Jesuit principle of cura personalis. In the nuChristianity of these deluded heretics such a principle justifies both scandal and being accessory to another’s sin; and this from an institution controlled by a religious organisation, led by a Jesuit; an organisation known the world over and therefore more easily confused by poorly instructed Catholic with authentic bearers of Christian values.
Francis Xavier and St. Ignatius would roll in their own grave at knowing that their successors disfigure their principles in the most cretinous of ways, even leaving the most elementary Christian principles out of the equation.
It is truly better that such cancerous organisations are abolished par ordre du mufti than to allow them to further sabotage the cause of Christianity.
The Church has closed long-standing institutions when they have covered themselves with such a shame that their survival could not be justified any more. The homo-seminary in Austria comes to mind, and various orders of “sisters irreligious” in the United States could soon follow the example. There is no reason why the Jesuits should be allowed to continue to sabotage Christianity in such a way. When they don’t deserve to live anymore they should die, the good ones among them (if any) moved to other orders to be properly re-instructed and the bad deprived of their habit and left to fend for themselves, as they didn’t want to fend for Christ.
Cura personalis, my aunt.
Cura te ipsum, rather.
Those among you who have the rare ability to read German (a very beautiful language in its own right; not easy to assimilate for sure, but ready to compensate the one who puts the effort with countless pearls of breathtaking literary beauty) will certain enjoy this blog site.
In the superior two-column format allowed by the Blogspot structure (not found by me on WordPress at the time of beginning this blog, and sorely missed afterwards when changing format or even “blog provider” would have meant a major disruption, pain in the neck and possible loss of information; but I digress…) you will notice that the left column is devoted to the usual, beautifully orthodox, Catholic apologetics, whilst the right column is devoted to none else than the Pastor Angelicus: the favourite of conservative Catholics the world over and the last great Pope: Pius XII.
I translate the best citations therein reported near the original German text:
“Nur die katholische Kirche protestierte gegen den Angriff Hitlers auf die Freiheit. Bis dahin war ich nicht an der Kirche interessiert, doch heute empfinde ich große Bewunderung für die Kirche, die als einzige den Mut hatte, für geistige Wahrheit und sittliche Freiheit zu kämpfen.”
“Only the Catholic Church protested against Hitler’s attacks to freedom. Until then I wasn’t interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church, which alone had the courage to fight for spiritual truth and for moral freedom”.
Albert Einstein, 1940.
“In dieser Weihnacht ist der Papst mehr denn je die einsame aufbegehrende Stimme im Schweigen eines Kontinents. ”
“This Christmas, the Pope is more than ever the lonely voice raised amidst the silence of a continent”
New York Times, commenting on Pius XII’s Christmas address, 1942.
“Die katholische Kirche und das Papsttum haben bewiesen, dass sie so viele Juden, wie sie konnten, gerettet haben.”
“The Catholic Church and the Papacy have demonstrated that they have saved as many Jews as they could”
Raffaele Cantoni, Head of the Jewish Welfare Committee during the War, 1946.
“Mehr als alle anderen haben wir Gelegenheit gehabt, die Güte und Edelmütigkeit des Papstes während der Jahre der Verfolgung und des Schreckens kennen zu lernen in einer Zeit, da es schien, dass für uns keine andere Hoffnung mehr bestand.”
“More than any other had we the opportunity to know the goodness and noble mindedness of the Pope during the years of persecution and terror, in times when it seemed that for us there was no other hope anymore”.
Elio Toaff, Roman Chief Rabbi, 1951.
“Die ganze Welt schwieg über die Schoah, und da will man jetzt nahezu die gesamte Verantwortung für dieses Schweigen auf die Schultern des Souveräns legen, der weder Kanonen noch Flugzeuge hatte; der sich zweitens bemühte, seine Informationen mit denen zu teilen, die solche Waffen hatten, und drittens, in Rom und anderswo eine große Zahl derer zu retten vermochte, für die er die moralische Verantwortung trug.”
“The entire world kept silent during the Shoah, and now they want to unload almost all the responsibility for this silence on the shoulders of the Sovereign who had neither cannons nor aeroplanes; who, secondly, went to great lenght to share this information with those who had such weapons and, thirdly, in Rome and elsewere succeeded in saving a great number of those, for whom he carried moral responsibility”
Bernhard-Henry Levy, 2010
I understand that the celebrations for the upcoming beatification of the saintly, but rather ineffective (other would say: catastrophical) John Paul II will divert some attention, for the time being, from this truly saintly, truly courageous, truly Catholic, truly great Pope. Still, even in the weeks leading to what will certainly be a huge media event we should never forget the towering figure of our beloved Pastor Angelicus.
Very Interesting blog post from Pat Archbold about the Corapi Affair.
Mr. Archbold says a couple of interesting things, on which I’d like to expand a bit.
1) As Mr. Archbold has been the subject of slandering accusations in the past, he is acutely aware of the effect of such slanders on the life of a person unjustly accused of horrible things. This obviously doesn’t mean in itself that Corapi is innocent, it merely reminds us of how easy the slandering game is.
“Slander, slander! Something will stick!” were, more or less, Voltaire’s trenchant words. As human nature hasn’t changed in the meantime, the principle sadly maintains all its dreadful validity.
2) Rev. Sheenan’s statement adds, in my eyes, further elements to the situation. The Reverend confirms that, as per today, there’s nothing else than the letter. It is not that several people have spoken about the same episodes; it is not that facts have been checked and concordances found; it is not that a variety of elements hardens the suspicion. All there is, is a letter of a former employee.
Ever worked in an office?
3) Again, the Reverend confirms with his own words what we already knew from Father Corapi himself: no criminal law profile involved. Even if Father Corapi were to be found guilty, as per today the matter would not involve civil authorities. This clearly excludes drug use and leaves as main field for supposition “sexual impropriety”, which – being I the chauvinistic bastard you all know and, perhaps, not entirely dislike – instantly reminds me of a famous saying wrongly attributed to Shakespeare. I might, of course, be wrong. It happens to the best….
Summa summarum, what emerges is that (and please take a long breath before you read this) the writing of a letter is enough to have a priest suspended and his reputation provisionally tarnished the world over.
I must ask whether you think that the Holy Father would self suspend himself from his office if a letter should be posted to various Vatican congregations accusing him of some misconduct not relevant for the criminal law.
No, you say? Are you sure? Do you really think that before measures of this sort are introduced the accusations should have at least some external concordance, some additional elements inducing one to believe that the situation is worthy of serious investigation? You do? Mere common sense, I hear you say?
Alas, common sense seems not to live in ecclesiastical offices anymore, having left its place to an unholy terror of absolutely everything that might, by a deranged mind, be remotely considered a cover-up.
Now, Father Corapi – or everyone else for that matter – might in a purely hypothetical manner turn out to be Saddam’s secret son-in-law in charge for the ruthless torturing and killing of every missing person in the United States in the past two decades. But frankly, I don’t think that an ex colleague writing a letter and saying this should be sufficient, in itself and without any further element, to have him suspended.
As I have written often in the past, the Church is showing a will to self-flagellation slowly bordering on paranoia. It is high time that sanity takes the place of the current madness and this irrespective of the result of the investigations about Father Corapi (on whom I personally am ready to bet not one, but several pints until I read that there are concordances and further elements of suspicion besides a letter of a disgruntled employee, or of a scorned woman), but purely in order to put an end to a praxis that doesn’t afford any protection, any protection whatsoever to any priest with some degree of notoriety or even without any degree of notoriety but merely disliked by the one or other nutcase in his parish.
Mr. Archbold sums the current situation admirably:
My employer, also implicated in the suit, stuck by me and defended me until it was eventually dropped. Wrongfully accused priests no longer have this luxury
Time to wake up, folks.
Yes, you can and no, I am not joking.
Tomorrow is the Feast of the Annunciation. This feast, when it falls on a Friday of Lent, has, so to speak, “way of right” over the friday obligation to abstain from meat.
The idea is that the joy for the Annunciation is, on this day, more worthy of being honoured than the sorrow for Our Lord’s suffering.
You may want to astonish the one or other colleague and surprise them with a small lecture in sound Catholicism.. 😉
Rumours become more numerous that the upcoming “Instruction” will not be as bad as previously feared.
I do not like to be cynical, but in my eyes one has the duty to look at reality with open eyes.
That things are not working as they should, I think everyone will agree. One should ask himself, then, what would allow things to work and whether the upcoming instructions will cause a movement in that direction.
Let us see the main positive points that are emerging.
1) There will be a clear reference to the fact that Summorum Pontificum is here to stay.
This seems, prima facie, positive. The only problem is that we knew that already. Words are, therefore, going to add themselves to other words. Not much here, methinks.
2) There will be a renewed encouragement to the bishops to give application to the motu proprio.
Fair enough, but: what’s the effect of this? It’s not that the bishops needed to be informed of the fact, and it is not that they gave a damn anyway. The question then is: what does this change?
3) There will a renewed explanation that the faithful have a right to the Tridentine whenever a “group of faithful” requests it.
This is almost a mockery as how many people make a group of faithful is – astonishingly, almost four years after Summorum Pontificum – still not said. Therefore, the bishops are going to ignore the Holy Father’s word in the future exactly as they have done in the past, positively encouraged from the fact that the Holy Father shows no inclination whatsoever to give some normative content to his now often-heard and little-enforced encouragements.
4) Seminarians should be trained not only in Latin, but in the Tridentine specifically.
This is also involuntarily funmy. Seminarians should have been trained in Latin all the time. They don’t, because those leading the seminaries don’t give a damn.
If they have not given a damn these last 45 years, what lets the Holy Father thinks that they are going to stop now?
Thie entire affair reminds me of the unruly school class with a weak teacher who continues to say: “Children, children! Behave!” and when the children do not behave, thinks that what is needed is to say: “Children, children! Behave!” once again…
From what has transpired up to now, this is what this instruction will be: in the best of cases a reiteration of weak encouragements, something the bishops will use as a check list of the things they are going to continue to ignore; in the worst of cases, a subtle but clear indication that as long as this Pope lives there’s going to be no fight for the Tridentine and when the next Pope is elected, the dices are going to be thrown again….
In both cases, you can imagine whether anything is going to change in the way the Tridentine is boycotted.
I have already written about Father Corapi. I truly like the man. I think he is one of the finest preachers around. In my “The Quotable Catholic” section he is rather well represented, though probably much less than he deserves.
Father Corapi has now been put on administrative leave. At this point (and this is what makes it rather difficult to write about it) we don’t know much about the exact circumstances. What we know, though, from Father Corapi himself is that a former employee has written a letter to several bishops accusing him of misconduct on a vast series of accounts (drugs and women seem to be prominent, though) and that as a result he has been suspended pending investigation.
Just for the record, please note that:
1) No misconduct on minor is involved in any way and 2) no criminal offences are involved in any way (which sound strange to me, considering that drug use from the former drug addict Corapi would seem to be part of the accusations).
I would like to point out, here, a very important concept that, it seems to me, is too often lost when such events are discussed. A man is a good Catholic preacher when he succeeds in properly communicating the Catholic Truth and thus helps others on their way to God. Whether he is a saint or a sinner (better said: in what degree he is a sinner, as we all are) is something which will impact his own soul at the moment of death, but certainly does not impact the Truth he goes around preaching, nor the good he spreads around by doing it.
I don’t need to believe that a person is a saint to feel encouraged to do as he says. If he is able to encourage and motivate me, this is enough. If he is also a saint, good for him, but this doesn’t make the truths he says any more true.
Corapi is – as a preacher – a fine pearl of Catholicism. Besides his life being a beautiful witness of Catholic courage (a fact that, as I have said, is not in the first line here), his way of explaining the Catholic teaching is what makes him so rare and such an effective help to Catholic evangelisation.
We must always separate the Truths a preacher talks about, from the degree in which he is able to adhere to them. First of all no one will ever be able to completely adhere to them, and secondly the truths would become not one iota less true even if the preacher should, say, turn out to be a homosexual child rapist who earned a second income in a brothel whilst selling crack to fund his alcoholism.
If your excellent history teacher at school turned out to be an alcoholic, this didn’t make him any less good at teaching history, nor history any less true because he drank.
Having said that, we don’t know and pending an investigation, I think that even Father Corapi wouldn’t be angry at us for saying “I like you a lot but as I don’t know you personally, I can’t start screaming your innocence right now”.
Others have made a comparison with Maciel, but as I like Corapi a lot I prefer to make a comparison with Padre Pio, more or less horribly slandered (and certainly seriously damaged in his reputation) not for days or months, but for years. A famous episode concerned his being accused of profiting of his role as confessor to get sexual favours from a certain woman; it turned out that the accusation had been motivated by the jealousy of another lady, who subsequently confessed her grievous sin.
Frankly, I do see some parallels here, but again: I wasn’t there.
Corapi might be more Padre Pio or more Maciel (come on, we know the first hypothesis is by far the more probable and he is innocent until proven guilty anyway). Still, my admiration for Corapi (whose sincere inspiration I do not doubt for an instant, however little or however big his faults and private sins may be) as a fine preacher is undiminished whatever the outcome of this affair.
I didn’t want to write about Father Corapi as I don’t like to use this blog to speculate about things I don’t know, but I have read things whose general tone (and possibly general spirit) I didn’t like and thought it fitting to express my admiration for the man’s sincerity and ability once again.
Here is wishing him all the best; he is in my prayers and, I do hope, in yours.
I hope to see him roaring from the pulpit again very soon.
Death toll for a bastion of V-II (in its worst form) nu-church. Maynooth College is going to close after 216 years, the last decades of which spent attracting claims of not being fit for purpose. This is the result of the recent Apostolic Visitation.
Please notice that this doesn’t mean the end of the formation of Irish seminarians; nor does this mean the end of a specific programme for them. More simply, it means that the souls of the seminarians are going to be protected by allowing them to become priests in a healthy environment, away from the bad influence of a progressive establishment.
Irish seminarians will in future be formed in an ad hoc restructured Pontifical Irish College in Rome.
Vicinity to the Pope and orthodox formation. One may hope that the vocations from Ireland will soon increase.
I have often noticed in the past that when Christians hurry to help Muslims, the latter are generally appreciative of the matter only for as long as the emergency goes on; but as soon as Christians have taken them out of the shite, the help received is soon forgotten.
Take Bosnia, where a coalition of – in his absolutely vast majority – Christian countries risks lives and material to save muslims from indiscriminate carnage, without this having any long-lasting effect on the prejudice of too many Muslims towards Christianity.
Or take Iraq, when (again) the armies of Christian countries free a 28-million people from an extremely cruel dictator, from whose heel the Iraqi themselves had never had the gut to free themselves. Here too, within 48 hours the jubilations had left place to complaints because, hey, electricity has not come back yet. After six months, complaining about the Americans had become more fashionable than a drug addicted poof stylist. The simple fact that just a handful of months before everyone would have died just for complaining had already been conveniently forgotten.
In the last days, we are assisting to a new episode of this new, three-tongued, arab-muslim little game. The intervention is good in principle, but of course the way it is being made has already been criticised by a very high ranking arab official with, oh what a coincidence, political ambitions in Egypt. Chap obviously says, one day after when the news has gone through the entire Arab world, that he has been misinterpreted, so he now has both sides hedged. Inevitably, he and the Arab countries in general will end up saying that no, they were certainly not for doing things as they have been done; it will be, as always, us being very bad, imperialists, & Co.; not before the backside of the inhabitants of Bengasi has been saved by the intervention of Christian countries, of course.
And now please raise his hand who believes that Muslim countries would have risked their men and material in a military operation meant to avoid Christians massacring each others.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan* has given an interview about the homosexual priest abuse scandal. He is not particularly measured in his tone, calling the entire affaire “hideous” and “nauseating”. Up to here I do not have any problem as it seems to me that the homosexual priest scandal cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, called with softer tones than those.
Where I personally start to dissent with the Archbishop is when he goes one – or three- steps forward and goes as far as to say that the homosexual** paedophile priest scandal “needs to haunt” the Church. The expression is so strong in its self-flagellating intent that the cbs news link gave it both the headline and a very prominent place in the article. Can’t imagine that this was not what was wanted, and agreed beforehand.
Now, if you ask me one thing is a clear, honest admission of past faults; an entirely different one is the semi-permanent and professional self-harm about it. I have seen it happening in Germany countless times and I assure you, it is both sickeningly pathetic and with the effect of letting you lose every bit of esteem for the self-flagellating whino performing the act.
Whatever the faults of the past (and the Church has her own faults, but she fares rather stupendously compared with any other institution of comparable size you would care to mention, bar none), it seriously cannot be that high members of the Church decide to henceforward permanently apply the cat o’ nine tails to the Church that Christ founded for a bit of easy popularity, and to react to every accusation moved toward her with a further salvo of self-accusations and self-flagellations. As I said before it doesn’t even work, it really doesn’t.
Archbishop Dolan is certainly too expert in the ways of the world to seriously be surprised by the supervisor of a child abuser reassigning him, or otherwise attempting to cover up the scandal. As a career man, he knows perfectly well how strong the temptation to cover your institution is, particularly if you love that institution. He doesn’t say to the interviewer that in most cases, the bishop so covering did not count with further abuses; he doesn’t point out to him that by all the shame, priests still fare better than teachers, or fathers (you can find a wealth of information on this; I never save it on my computer because the matter makes me, well, sick). He doesn’t even say that the idea that a sex offender could easily be cured and rehabilitated was utterly normal in the Eighties, and shared by other religious communities.
He doesn’t point out to any of this. On the contrary he – as the Italians say – “shoots on the Red Cross”. A bit too easy, methinks, and certainly not his job.
Frankly, I slowly wonder whether this kind of behaviour is more motivated by a strange, but in hypothesis vaguely justifiable desire to “wash your dirty linen in public” (which, if you ask me, is wrong anyway) or by a desire to extol one’s own blamelessness by pointing out to the filth around one.
Slowly but surely, what makes one sick is the fact that almost no one of our bishops and cardinals (starting, alas, from the very top) has the gut to say that enough is enough and that it is time to look at things in a sensible way. A sensible way means that one doesn’t overlooks the mistakes, but can put them in the proper context. You don’t hear teachers constantly punishing themselves in such a way, do you now?”Ah, but they were simple teachers, you see; these are priests….”. I am rather surprised that those who are the first to deny to the priest his moral role and what he is and represents (namely: the Church that Christ Founded) are, of all people, those who expect from them a superhuman absence of every vice or weakness. Similarly, you won’t see many of those complaining about paedophile priests express their approval to the kicking out of the homosexual ones. Liberal logic, what a mystery…..
All the while, Dolan’s behaviour contributes to the widespread opinion among anti-Catholics that you should better not allow your child near a priest and slowly damages their reputation as public figures; which is no surprise, really, if this is the way the shepherds themselves defend the reputation of those entrusted to their care.
Archbishop Dolan has the questionable privilege of having, in the middle of his diocese, one of the most scandalous pro-homo soi-disant “Catholic group” of the entire Christianity (of the one who believes in Christ, at least). If he really wants to be haunted, he’d be better to be haunted by the scandals he continues to tolerate and of which he is directly co-responsible rather than from scandals of the past, and in which he was never involved.
* what is this thing Americans have with the middle initial? Do people really say “Timothy M. Dolan?” Do they really remember it two minutes after they’ve written it?
** well he doesn’t say “homosexual”, does he? I wonder why?
In a Father Z’s post, a very perceptive Bishop (outside of Europe, of course) makes a lot of intelligent observations about why the Novus Ordo is woefully inadequate and how the return to the Vetus Ordo will be the “saving grace” of the Church.
Of his many points, one struck me light a lightning: what if EWTN would start transmitting its daily mass ad orientem.
Think of it: the biggest Catholic sender on earth broadcasts its daily Mass with the Tridentine use. Very rapidly (after some weeks of feeble protest, perhaps; perhaps with a keen curiosity from the start) the Tridentine would become familiar to millions who never had the opportunity to assist to one before; nay, who didn’t even know that there was the possibility of attending to such a Mass!
In a matter of a few months, perhaps a few weeks, a huge number of them would not only become accustomed to it, but start to cherish the sobriety, the atmosphere, the solemnity, the sense of sacredness that the Tridentine conveys so well to all those who take the time and make the effort to understand it. Soon, these very people would start asking their own priest what about that beautiful, spiritual Mass they see on EWTN. What will the priest answer then, “we don’t do this”? “You are 45, but not a stable community?”.
In a world more and more made global by mass communication media, a single decision could have a planetary impact.
I do hope they’ll think seriously about it.
In the very early days of this blog I wrote about the scandalous decision of the mickey-mouse tribunal called Europe’s Human Right Court (an organisation not even part of the EU and mainly created, as all these institutions are, to give jobs to the friends and the friends of the friends), that said that a crucifix in a schoolroom was, well, not atheist enough.
It seems a long time but it was, in fact, a little more than eights months ago. Today the matter comes to its provisional (and hopefully: definitive) conclusion with the decision of said mickey-mouse tribunal (appeal, this time) that er, no, well, the crucifix is a religious symbol but, er, ah, well, it also isn’t.
What has happened is, in my eyes, very simple:
1) the “court” is a motley conglomerate of well-connected, lefty cretins mainly without experience as a judge, or a legal background in the first place;
2) said cretins enjoy playing God, but they would also like to keep their, no doubt, very well paid jobs;
3) in order to do so they must avoid ending in the centre of the public opinion, their incompetence and ideological bias exposed;
4) their decision about the crucifix was clearly against point 3). They angered the Vatican and the Italian government massively, and the latter were certainly not isolated at all. In short, our cretins were biting more than they could chew.
5) A backpedaling was clearly in order, as otherwise the shutting down of this useless, senseless, non-Eu (“what”? Yes. “Are you sure?” Yes, I am) organ would have become a real possibility.
Only eight months after the blunder, the solution: the absurd decision (which everyone pretends to believe) that the Crucifix is a social symbol.
The Crucifix. A social symbol.
What’s next: that Muslims bow in direction of the Mecca because it’s good for your back?
Of course, crucifixes have a vast social importance in countries like Italy, or in places like Bavaria or rural France. A country that is Catholic in its very social fabric will obviously see its religious symbols acquiring a cultural role. They’ll be part of the landscape like the pizza, the Weissbier, or the baguette. But this role is there exactly because of its religious significance, not because, say, Italians like football, pizza, beautiful women and, of all things, crucifixes.
By all the efforts of my imagination, I really can’t see how the realistic depiction of a Man horribly suffering whilst being tormented to death can be something of a social phenomenon. Cricket is a social phenomenon, not crucifixes!
Be it as it may, the idea of the “social” significance has been the argument of the Italian government from the start. Gotta love these Italians, really 😉 : always ready to twist and turn with suave shamelessness, as long as they reach their goal 😉 . The “social” argument allows the Italian government to play “secular” whilst making very clear (what, make no mistake, more than 99,99% of the Italians will immediately grasp) what the real issue is and where the journey goes. At the same time, this kind of argument allows the above mentioned cretins (or their colleagues, equally concerned with their job) to backpedal in a halfway elegant way, keep their job, congratulate themselves on the continuation of the lucrative employment and promise to themselves that they won’t do anything so stupid anymore, ever.
Once again, I must point out to what I have written on several occasions: that the government of the rather uncontrolled Berlusconi is making things for Christianity that a Cameron would find not only inconvenient, but positively “intolerant” and “discriminatory”. Whilst I do not think that any of them has big chances of avoiding hell, my pint is on Berlusconi any day.
Summa summarum, the situation as per today is that a huge suppository is hovering around the offices of the so-called Europe’s Human Right Court.
I wonder whether the suppository is a social symbol, too.
“Cordileone” is clearly a dialectal version of the Italian “Cuordileone”; that is: cuor di leone; that is: Lionheart.
Nomen omen, you would say as Cordileone is the name of the Bishop of Oakland, California. Bishop Cordileone is the author of the most assertive, argumented, aggressively Catholic attack to the neo-paganism en vogue among the Washington so-called elites and part of the judiciary I have ever read. The man truly is astonishing and his clear desire to tell the entire Catholic Truth irrespective of any possible accusation of “engaging in politics” (which, let us remember, in the US can have heavy tax consequences; a good excuse for cowards btw) does him great honour.
You find the link to his intervention here, but I’d like to report some excerpts for your convenience and, so to speak, as an appetiser.
It is a curious irony that in this moment of history, when people in a number of countries in the Middle East are agitating for change from dictatorship to democracy, here in our own country, the oldest democracy with a written constitution in the world, there is a movement of the ruling class toward taking more and more power into its own hands. The flashpoint for this movement? The hot-button issue of our day: marriage.
In an explicit denial of his public duty, the then attorney general of the state of California (now governor) refused to defend the law of the state in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case concerning the constitutionality of Proposition 8. His reason? He is personally opposed to it.
Irony No. 2: after decades of hearing Catholic legislators (whose job, admittedly, is to make the law, not enforce it) claim that they could not let their personal views on a public issue (in this case, abortion) influence their public role, we now have the chief law enforcer in the state doing exactly that.
When the City Council of Washington, D.C., passed a local ordinance to allow same-sex “marriage,” the citizens organized to put it to a vote so they could decide for themselves. The City Council obstructed them from doing so every step of the way. Bear in mind that the city of Washington has a very large African-American population. […]
Thus, irony No. 3: a small group of political elites (almost all of them white), in a claim to expand rights, deny one of the most fundamental rights in a constitutional democracy — the right to vote — to the masses of black citizens.
Irony No. 4: During the presidential campaign, Obama stated that he favored preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. In a change of course, he more recently had said he favors the repeal of DOMA, but asserts it should be done through the legislative process, not the courts. Now, he has taken an action that does exactly that, i.e., repeals DOMA by the decision of a federal court judge.
[……] irony No. 5: In the court case challenging the constitutionality of the legislation that allowed the revival of cases of sexual abuse of minors by clergy that had expired long in the past, the federal district court judge ruled against the plaintiffs. With regard to the argument that the Church was targeted, he did not deny this claim (the evidence was apparently too overwhelming that we were). Rather, he argued that it is not unconstitutional to target a religious group, as long as their access to worship is not impeded. Why, then, would it be unconstitutional to target a sexual minority (which defining marriage in the law does not do, anyway) as long as their freedom to engage in sexual activity as they choose is not impeded?
The fact of the matter is, wherever “gay marriage” has become the law of the land, it has happened in a way that avoids the democratic process, and sometimes even goes directly against it. On the other hand, whenever the people have had the chance to vote on marriage, they have consistently affirmed it. And this, despite the proponents being outspent (sometimes by huge margins), facing opposition from the cultural elites and enduring strong media bias
Regardless of one’s position on the marriage issue, these and so many other moves by our public officials should give cause for concern about the fate of democracy in our country. I urge all of our people to inform themselves of the facts, to inform their consciences from the natural moral law and Church teaching — understanding that marriage is not discrimination against anyone, but benefits everyone and that we must treat those who disagree with us on this issue with respect and compassion — and then to take action by speaking truth to power, advocating for this fundamental good of our society and voting their conscience at the ballot box.
I so wish we had one (nay, half; nay, one quarter!) of these good men of God among our bishops.
Being so vast, the US are a country full of contrasts, where you find some of the most orthodox Catholics and some of the most desperate cases of insanity.
One of the latter has been divulged in the last days: a booklet from a self-professing “Catholic” group seriously (I think; ready to stand corrected) maintaining that a “full Catholic” position on certain marriage can be different from the one doctrinally prescribed by the Church. You couldn’t make it up, could you now?
In this matter, the “heretic but still fully Catholic” chaps and chapettes have decided for the righteousness of “marriage equality”. This, mind, doesn’t mean anything concerning the position or the dignity of husband and wife within the marriage (as I had, very stupidly and in my innocence, initially believed), but it is basically meant to mean that marriages between man and man, or between woman and woman, are “fully Catholic”. I don’t think it squares with the English language, but there you are; I suppose that everyone must throw in some “equality” nowadays as it lets one feel oh so good.
The US Bishops have punctually reacted. Now, do you think that they have said that these ideas are absurdly and openly heretical? Do you think that they have invited the people clearly responsible for such beastly ideas to backpedal or be excommunicated? Do you think that they have profited from the occasion to sound from all trumpets what marriage is?
Wrong. They have “emphasised” (ok: they actually “emphasized”) that the beastly booklet is “not in conformity” with Catholic teaching and have invited those responsible for the publication to not identify themselves as “Catholic”.
This reaction is typical of the half-diplomatic, half-cowardly approach of so many bishops everywhere in the West. They see HERESY written all over the place and they limit themselves to some polite remark, putting some dots on the “i” and hoping not to upset anyone.
Do you want evidence of ths? This group is clearly identifiable with a religious sister and a priest (I won’t do them the favour of mentioning them; well, no really, I can’t be bothered to cut and paste their names) and the US ecclesiastical authorities have needed several years of pro-homo madness (seven, to be precise) of the two before barring them from working for the Archdiocese of Washington as they were happily doing. When the two stopped working for the archdiocese but continued their evil work, the vatican needed another (get this) fifteen years before barring the two from any work with homosexuals. What has become of this ban is not entirely clear to me as it is obvious that the two – pastoral work or no pastoral work – continue to try to influence as many homosexuals as they can.
We are now informed that “serious questions” have been raised about the adherence of this bunch of nutcases to catholic teaching, thirty-three years after the group was founded.
Serious questions? You don’t say!
Notice here that Fr whatshisname and sister couldntcareless are still – at least from what transpires from the CNA article – in possession of their respective religious dress.
One truly wonders.
See here a very optimistic Michael Voris about the soon to be released Instruction regarding Summorum Pontificum, about which much has been written on these pages.
Voris’ message is that his sources indicate two powerful measures in favour of the scope of Summorum Pontificum:
1) the instruction that one part of the seminarians (in every seminary, I assume) is to be instructed in the celebration of the Tridentine, and
2) words aiming at appealing to the bishops to stop boycotting Summorum Pontificum.
Whilst this sounds good at first sight, i can’t avoid posing myself the following questions:
1) what is of the already leaked – and confirmed from several sources – restrictions to the celebration of the Tridentine in the Diocese of Milan (Ambrosian Rite)?
2) What is of the also leaked rumours of ban of celebration of the Tridentine for ordinations, and of the old version of the Masses of religious orders?
Voris doesn’t say anything on this. One hopes that the outcry has been the end of those provisions. They were most certainly there as confirmed even by those who disputed their devastating influence on the edifice of Summorum Pontificum. But it goes on:
3) Why should the rectors of the seminaries take heed of what Pope Benedict says, perhaps giving some lips service if they really can’t avoid it, and
4) why should the bishops stops ignoring the Pope’s wishes now, when ignoring him is exactly what they have been doing all these years, unpunished.
At the root of the problems are not the bishops – whose allergy to proper Catholicism was always obvious – but Pope Benedict himself, who doesn’t do anything concrete to care that his “reform of the reform” is not only proclaimed, but seriously put to work. What we have, on the contrary, noticed is that those very same bishops who drag their feet and undermine his work are not only not punished, but are often promoted. There is nothing in Pope Benedict’s work that says that he doesn’t want to be only an innovator, but an enforcer of his own innovations.
On the other hand, the day Pope Benedict decides to force his bishops to acquiescence – I doubt it very much, but would be extremely happy to be contradicted by facts – he will not need any new documents, the removal of a dozen of the hardest cases being a rather more effective and immediate mean to this end.
As it is today, the impression is that Pope Benedict is happy to be the one who paves the way for a recovery of traditional Catholicism, without being the one who actually takes care that this recovery also happens in the lives of Catholics the world over. He probably thinks that this gradualisms will – as the Italians would say – save the goat of the “reform of the reform” together with the cabbages of the internal peace.
We will see. For the moment, I allow myself not to share Voris’ optimism both on the content of the Instruction, and on its ultimate application.
This time, we have an added fun factor as our Mr. Nutting debates against… GK Chesterton, who at least to these foreign ears has been even provided with an admirable, very posh English accent.
Mr. Nutting is, as always, pure Nutting and Mr. Chesterton is, well …… 100% authentic GK Chesterton.
Enjoy this short video and let us hope that others, hopefully on the GK theme, will follow.
Citizenship must be considered today within the context of globalization, which is characterized, among other things, by large migration flows. Faced with this reality, as I mentioned above, it is necessary to combine solidarity and respect for the law, lest they upset social life, and the principles of law and cultural and even religious tradition which formed the Italian nation must be taken into account.
The speaker is clearly saying: immigration must be allowed to happen in conformity of the religious traditions of the land. Read it again if you don’t believe it, it is unmistakable.
You will now ask me who is the author of such oh so intolerant, racist, non-inclusive (actually, positively excluding), discriminating words.
Nick Griffin, the BNP chef? Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader? Or perhaps someone from the newly constituted but rapidly expanding English Defence League?
You have lost, dear reader. The author of these words is a fellow called Pope Benedict XVI.
I can hardly imagine the scandalised reaction of our modern, inclusive, pro-everyone-and-everything, moral vacuum politicians a’ la David Cameron (our Prime Minister, now openly against Christianity) had the above mentioned statement come, verbatim, from any one of the chaps already mentioned; the outrage of the champagne sipping liberals and the cries of the professionally persecuted. But this comes from the Pope and it will be a little more difficult to attack him frontally, particularly after the success of his visit has shown that Catholicism is better ignored and undermined quietly (the bishops will take care that there is no reaction) than attacked openly.
True, the Pope was speaking to the Italian mayors, in a country that is far away from venerating every form of multiculturalism and whose open-heartedness to newcomers has always been within the frame of a clear expectation that they adapt to our customs. His job was, so to speak, easier there than it would be here. Still, it is good to notice that what in England is considered racist and non-inclusive is considered rather standard fare in Italy, and mentioned without any qualm by a Pope.
This gives you the exact measure of the PC-madness currently infesting Britain.
Beautiful blog post from Domine, Da Mihi Hanc Aquam.
As Lent is the main “confession time” and the only time of the year many Catholics will approach the confessional (and they are already clearly in front of the very many who will not do it because they believe – possibly with the complicity or, worse, acquiescence of their priest – that they can be their own confessors), it is very fitting to lead your attention to this beautifully written, very open, very encouraging piece of sound catholic advice.
I found the one about the “excuse, explanation or decoration” rather funny (once at the Oratory there was an entire homily on the matter, it tells you who cares for the sacraments and who doesn’t) and the one about “thine own sins ans no one else’s” outright amusing, but the entire piece is enjoyable and edifying at the same time.
Now that we are in the midst of Lent, perhaps this will help the one or the other “undecided” or lapsed catholic on the brink of coming back to sacramental life to take the plunge.
To my knowledge, people don’t die on the confessional and if they do, well I suppose it is because of a heart attack; but even so, I’d rather die of a heart attack just after the absolution than discover after death that I really, really needed one.
As you can read here, there was a notable victory for the Christian front in maryland, where a legilsative initative supposed to allow so-called homosexual marriages has been unexpectedly defeated.
If you read the article and look at the video, you’ll notice the many elements that make one rather hopeful for the future: the prevalence of young people (this is a student organisation after all), the great quantity of people honking in support of the Christians, the very use of the word “crusade” (when have you heard that last time in Europe?), and the fact that the homos’ defeat was unexpected.
If you look at the video you’ll also see an interesting episode: a man (evidently a doctor) stating that at medical school everyone knew homosexuality is a pathology. One listens and wonder to what extent facts always considered obvious have now been abandoned in favour of a politically correct “nuMedicine”.
Anyway, let us enjoy this victory and let us hope that many others will follow.
Hat tip to Lux Occulta‘s Shane for this beautiful Michael Voris video.
Voris’ as always very outspoken message begins with a harsh criticism of the way Mass is too often celebrated: a self-celebration that is Protestant in nature and exclusively centered on more or (more often) less entertaining clowns. “All of this emphasis on all of these humans is absolutely out of place”, says Voris, and Cardinal Burke clearly points out to the danger of losing one’s faith by allowing oneself to be contaminated by such a protestant (and very convenient, and very “do not judge”, and very “inclusive”) thinking.
“The Mass is about Jesus Christ, everything else is Protestant”, says Voris with the usual openness and one wonders how long will we have to wait until we hear such concepts expressed by our bishops as a matter of course and, most importantly, openly and assertively instead of being coded within the usual politically correct crap they feed us with.
The second part of Voris’ message is even stronger than the first and points out to the immediate danger of damnation hovering over the countless priests and bishops who have perpetrated or allowed these abuses. “How many bishops in America have allowed this”, says Voris and thinking of our own bishops in the United Kingdom one is even more afraid.
The simple truth is that from the part of Catholic hierarchy considered as a whole, a betrayal of everything that is Catholic is going on that has few precedents (and possibly: no precedent, as even in the darkest days of the IX and X century Christian feelings were certainly better protected and better transmitted among the faithful) in the history of the Church.
Whilst remaining faithful to the Church founded on Peter by Christ, we must acknowledge the simple truth that many, many bishops make the work of the devil and that their criminal neglect of Catholic Truth to favour the approval of the masses will have – bar an always welcome repentance – to be paid at the highest price.
Very rightly, SPUC’s chef Smeaton says that Archbishop Nichols’ view on homosexuality endanger children’s souls . It goes without saying (though Mr. Smeaton says that, too) that Archbishop Nichols gravely endangers his own soul, too.
These are, alas, the times we live in. We are surrounded by bishops who, when they have not completely lost the faith – which by the tone of their actions and inactions seems by far the most frequent case – have surrendered every idea of fighting the good fight and are happy to feed the faithful with inane platitudes and assorted harmless slogans. In turn, this gives us priests who, when they have not completely lost the faith – which must be a rather frequent occurrence if you just listen to what many of them go around saying – are, poor chaps, too weak to start a battle against their own bishop; a battle that would see them in the end chastised in the best of cases, and utterly ruined in the worst.
Whenever cases like the one in Thiberville happen, where a joke of a bishop like Nourrichard (yes, he is the one in the photo; seriously!) is allowed to prevail over a courageous priest and his authentically Catholic community, priests all over the planet register the event and take note.
Make no mistake, though: I am less angry at the priest who can’t find in himself the courage to willfully undergo persecution that at the bishop who can’t find in himself the courage to be unpopular. A priest is a human being too and if he is “not born with a lion’s heart” (Manzoni) he will end up merely trying to limit the damage. I am also aware that (to say it with Manzoni again) “courage, one cannot give it to oneself”. May God have mercy of the poor priests who can’t find the strenght to do what they know they should do as he will – hopefully – have mercy on me, who are also unable to do what I know I should do.
But the position of a bishop is entirely different. Besides having greater responsibility as a successor of the Apostels, a bishop is so established in a world of power and privilege that even the persecution of a seriously modernist Pope (not to be seen anywhere on the horizon, by the way) would not go beyond the loss of a diocesan position and the confinement in some very comfortable – as the Italians say – “elephants’ cemetery”, very probably still in the company of all the accoutrements of rank and prestige.
A cowardly bishop has, therefore, no excuses, let alone a faithless Bishop wilfully and actively making the work of Satan (yes, I am thinking of Vincent “Quisling” Nichols and his ilk). We are all sinners of course, but there is a huge difference between being short of Jesus’ demand in one’s private life and to undermine His message in the public one.
God bless Michael Voris, Cardinal Burke and all those who fight the fight for the integrity of Catholicism in the face of the modernist, homosexualist, protestantised fifth column formed by too many bishops and, alas, still far too compact in its ranks.
Memento homo, quia pulvis es, et in pulverem reverteris.
In the last days two events have contributed to remind us of this simplest, most important of realities of our lives. First was Ash Wednesday, the yearly reminder of the crude reality of this earthly existence ( a reality which should be clear enough to most of us but that is, as life is, easily and conveniently forgotten), and second the powerful earthquake in Japan, once again posing the world in front of the caducity of human existence, however sophisticated the technological solution to protect it may be.
On such occasions I can’t avoid thinking (and make no mistake, I am prone to making the exact same mistake as almost everyone else and to see my death as an event certainly destined to take place in some extremely remote future with no connection whatsoever to my actual circumstances) “what if”. What if my day was, well, today; what if the summon to the, let us say, Head Master should come far before the normally expected times. Would I be ready to pass an exam to whose failure there would be no remedy? Would I be able to be tested without warning, and found prepared?
Honestly, dear reader, when I think of it sometimes a slight shudder runs through my bones. Not because I would think that I would not be prepared (in which case I would run to the nearest confessional at alarming speed), but because the idea of a sudden test with no possibility of remedy is not one to be too relaxed about.
Quantus tremor est futurus, quando iudex est venturus, cuncta stricte discussurus. These words, actually referred to the Last judgement, will impact us (very probably) far before that day, as we almost certainly will not have to wait the Last Judgment to know how we have fared.
Tremor. Iudex. Cuncta. Stricte. No easy words, for sure.
For very many, that sudden call has come some hours ago. Christians and non-Christians, rich and poor, good and bad, beautiful and ugly, a number of people has been summoned to the Head Master when they really, really weren’t expecting it. The soldier going to battle, the hostage of kidnappers, the person diagnosed with a dangerous disease all have time to react; but many of those in japan hadn’t, not much of it at any rate. How many of them were ready? How many could stand the test? We pray for them of course, but in my little ways I can’t avoid thinking of such events as a powerful reminder of the fragility of this reality and of the dangers of not considering the caducity of our earthly experience.
We are all temporary workers – nay: daily labourers! – in God’s employment, and He can give us instant notice whenever he chooses.
Let us use these days to remember this too. It will do a lot of good when the summoning, unavoidably, comes.
You would think that the Anglicans, even if progressively forgetting what Christianity is, would still retain a minimum of decency and at least defend a very simple concept, that one first is accepted into the Christian community through his baptism and then receives communion.
Well, you would be wrong. Apparently, somewhere in the world (a very “liberal” place, no doubt; Canada comes to mind) someone has decided that to require one to be baptised before giving him communion is not “inclusive” enough.
If you don’t believe me (and I don’t blame you if you don’t) read here.
The argument brought against the hineous discrimination of non-Christians is that Jesus “did not discriminate” (note the magic word) about whom he invited. The fact that Jesus insisted on being baptised Himself is elegantly avoided, because obviously not “inclusive”.
Similarly, the fact that the twelve were, to all intents and purposes, bishops and as such full members of the nascent Church already founded on Peter when He instituted the Eucharist is also conveniently ignored.
Thirdly, two thousand years of Christianity is utterly ignored.
Instead, we are informed that Christianity – Catholics as well as the wrong versions – has been discriminating against non-Christians these last 2011 years, which poses the interesting question as to why would Jesus allow this to happen and why would he wait for some Canadian nutcase 2011 years after the fact to correct this – we are informed – clearly un-Christian practice.
The state of utter oblivion of everything Christian within the Canadian Anglicans is clearly visible in the use of the words, with some of their so-called priests feeling strongly about this, that is: thinking that Christianity had done such fundamental, absolutely basic things since inception in a seriously wrong way and that this must stop now. No doubt, these individuals dream of “common tables” when Hindus, Muslims, Sikh and, why not, atheists with a liking for bread (we want to be “inclusive”, remember?) participate to such an “inclusive communion” and this would be called by them, possibly, Christianity. Or perhaps not, as it is clear that in this case to want to impose a label on such a ceremony would be clearly a discrimination towards non-Christians and therefore also to be felt strongly about.
It is no surprise than this should come from the same community (the Canadian Anglicans) already well-known for giving communion to a dog. These people just haven’t a clue of what communion is, and of what Christanity is. Political correcteness and inclusiveness is all they know and all they preach.
You really couldn’t make this up. I have known Muslims far more Christian than these people, and they weren’t Christian at all.
Two aspiring foster parents are denied the possibility because they are Christians.
The simple fact that they said to the officials that they would teach their children that homosexuality is sinful disqualifies them, says the judge, from adoption. This is a country with officially more than 30 million Christians.
The Prime Minister agrees with the decision.
I have already pointed out many times to the hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, an atheist cretin trying to disguise himself as a Christian when convenient.
Cameron has now officially thrown away the mask, and this will do him no good. No doubt, in the next days he’ll come out with some slogan invented by some of his sleek, probably homosexual PR-“cuties” to try to repair the damage. The other hypothesis is that the man is so ignorant of Christianity that he doesn’t even understand what he is saying.
Cameron is an enemy of Christianity. He is an enemy of everyone of us. To support him in any way, shape or form is to help the enemies of Christ.
Messa In Latino has the latest news about the improvident instruction on Summorum Pontificum and the news are a mixed bag.
All the bad elements of the instructions are confirmed and seem now rather definitive: the non-application of Summorum Pontificum to the Latin rites who are different from the Roman rite, unfortunately, stays. This means that the diocese of Milan and – if memory serves – part of those of Lugano (5,000,000 faithful, Ambrosian rite) will be destined to be a Tridentine desert unless, as it has been suggested, the next Archbishop doesn’t provide a small “Summorum Pontificum” ad hoc. This is very, very bad and one can’t avoid seeing in this decision a kind of frightful ammunition given to the Sixty-eighters. Same situation for the rites of the religious orders (like the Dominicans), where the blow is a bit softened by the rather easier way to get over the ban (consent of superior suffices if the Mass is cum populo; no bishop required and no authorisation whatsoever if the mass is not cum populo).
Also confirmed is the fact that the Tridentine will not be used for ordinations, not even if authorised by the Bishop. Ordinations with Tridentine Mass will – obviously – remain for traditionalist orders, but that’s that. Interestingly, Messa in Latino points out to the fact that in France one-quarter of seminarians describes themselves as traditionalists even if not members of one of the traditionalist orders. This will certainly bring further and well-deserved sympathies – and probably further vocations, also fully deserved – to the SSPX.
In the disappointment of this and other, so to speak, minor bad news (all of them already known), one or two elements of improvements seem to have paved their way into the instruction, no doubt in order to give some token satisfaction to the very dissatisfied, ehm, serious Catholics. The two improvements would appear as follows:
a) in case of controversy between priest and Bishop, Ecclesia Dei decides. This is not much of a consolation as a priest is required to start an open war with his bishop before Ecclesia Dei is required to intervene in the first place; this is very far away from the original hope that Ecclesia Dei could appoint churches within the diocese to the celebration of Tridentine masses whenever the bishop slept. Still, it might make some bishop a bit more prudent, when he has a priest who is clearly imprudent.
b) The teaching of Latin in the seminaries is to be reintroduced. This is a bit of a joke as officially the teaching of Latin has never been abolished (Veterum Sapientia, I have written about it here) and the entire matter sounds not entirely credible, but one registers at least the token consolation and point of principle.
Summa summarum, the instruction remains very bad; a disappointment and a mistake, and a weapon in the hands of the trendies, but with some small half improvement and symbolic concessions meant to sweeten the pill.
Mala tempora currunt.