Daily Archives: June 13, 2011
Read here on Deacon’s Bench about the latest “inclusive” madness. It has been organised by some interfaith group or other, and everyone has been invited to participate. In short, in every one of the participating houses people from the other two religions will get in and read from their own scriptures.
Truly, it is as if the First Commandment didn’t exist anymore. These people get together and everyone appreciates how good the other’s religion is. That this should happen also in Christian churches is another manifestation of the new religion, Niceness.
Scandalously enough, among the Christian parishes adhering to this unheard-of summer sale of Christian values is one Catholic parish. Behind the initiative seems to be (as usual, I would say) a Jesuit, called Father Pat Earl.
In another example of how distant Jesuits have become from Christians, Father Pat Earl is on record with the following words:
“Just having something public is not going to be a big, big deal here, but to have someone come in and read from the Quran and to recognize publicly the existence of Islam and to reverence and respect is a good thing for the church to do,”
Truly, the Jesuits have become the enemies of Christianity and the worst defender of the moral relativism criticised by the Holy Father. This is even worse than moral relativism though, this is active promotion of other religions under the pathetic disguise of fashionable words like “reverence” and “respect”.
I can understand a certain feeling of vicinity (and a rather detached one, anyway) with our – to use the Holy Father’s words – “older brothers and sisters”, the Jews, though I’d never allow this to create any confusion whatsoever about who is right and who is wrong. But it is still not clear to me why I, a Christian, should have any “reverence” for Islam, or show any “respect” for a murderous, false religion founded by a pedophile.
I do hope that the responsible bishop stops this initiative and doesn’t allow the Catholic parish to participate. I am not holding my breath, though.
Let us imagine that it turned out that someone has given money to, say, the Ku Klux Klan. Or the Illinois’ Nazis. Or the British Heart Foundation.
It is difficult to believe that anyone can give money to these (real or imaginary) organisations by mistake. It is not that they have a vast range of operations, of which some of them might find our approval and some others our disapproval. The Ku Klux Klan is not there also to save the forests; the Illinois’ Nazis are not there also to help people with Alzheimer’s disease; the British Heart Foundation is not there also for people with rheumatism.
I hope that up to here everything is very logical. You just can’t give money to a mono thematic organisation by chance.
Strangely, Father Jenkins, the President of the University of Notre Dame (in theory, a Catholic university), doesn’t seem to think along these rather comprehensible lines.
To him, you can give money to an organisation exclusively devoted to the killing of babies (and no, no link; and no name, either) and still not knowing what you are doing, and therefore being worthy of remaining among the trustees of your university.
“Wait a minute, Mundabor”, I hear you say. “This person might have been misled; she might simply have confused the organisation with another one with a very similar name; she might just be a tad naive”.
Nice try, but it won’t work. The lady hasn’t donated three dollars to the friendly woman approaching her on the street with a beautiful smile and a donations basket; she has given in total almost thirty thousand dollar to such causes; the clearly, exclusively devoted to the pro-choice “cause” organisations were not even one, but two (no names again); and she is a successful businesswoman certainly paying attention to everything she does, and must know that this kind of donations bring to her contacts, and sympathies from potential clients of a certain kind.
No, such a behaviour is just indefensible.
It is therefore high time to ask why on earth a person either so clearly disingenuous, or so evidently thick-headed like Fr Jenkins should remain at the top of Notre Dame. The more so if one considers that said Father Jenkins is not a shining example of Catholic orthodoxy.
Please read what letter he has received from Bishop Bruskewitz:
Reverend and dear Father Jenkins,
Permit me to add my name as well to the long list of Bishops of the Catholic Church who are utterly appalled at your dedication to immorality and wrong-doing represented by your support for the obscenity called “The Vagina Monologues” and your absolute indifference to the murderous abortion program and beliefs of this President of the United States. The fact that you have some sort of past connection with the State of Nebraska makes it all the more painful that the Catholic people here have to see your betrayal of the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
I can assure you of my prayers for your conversion, and for the conversion of your formerly Catholic University. I am
Sincerely yours in Christ Jesus,
The Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz
Bishop of Lincoln
Note the words here: “betrayal of the moral teaching of the Catholic Church” and, even more to the point: “for your conversion, and for the conversion of your formerly Catholic University”; words of such harshness that you would hardly expect them to ever be uttered by a bishop to another religious.
There is no prize for guessing which order Fr Jenkins belongs to .
One thing is clear: the man has done stupid things once too often, and he has to go.
You may think that “Litany of Lament” is an invention of mine to mock the deluded geriatric potheads recently responsible for the heresy fest in Detroit. Well this is not the case and the “Litany of Lament” was, in fact, an official part of the proceedings.
Without repeating this piece of comedy in its entirety, let me explain for you some revealing points:
“2. Angered by church leaders who protect pedophiles and persecute prophets, we cry…”
It is, of course, not forbidden to be angry at bad shepherds. But it is decidedly forbidden to aspire to so-called female priesthood. Now make no mistake, when they say “persecute prophets”, they mean “punish women stupid enough to think they can be priests”. They even had huge posters about this at the conference. What claim these ladies have to be “prophetic” is not clear to me; neither it is, I think, to them….
“3 Denied Eucharist because of the failure to address the priest shortage, we cry.”
This is very, very funny. I mean, if they were in the middle of the Australian Outback one would understand a certain difficulty in finding a Catholic church; but what the old potheads are saying is “we must have wymmyn priest because now they are so rare we can’t find a church”. Beside the obvious heresy of wanting wymmyn priest, this is just plain stupid.
“4. Aching for the Eucharist to be celebrated as nourishment for sinners, not a reward for good behavior, we cry…”
This is rather difficult to understand. I never thought (and was never taught) that I can get communion only if I have been oh such a good boy. Being free of mortal sin and well disposed to receive the Eucharist is, in fact, all that is required. On the contrary, it is receiving a good communion that will wash out my sins, provided they are not mortal.
Moreover, the distinction between “people who behave well” on the one side and “sinners” on the other is wrong. We are all sinners of course, so the expression doesn’t make sense. But substitute with “aching for the eucharist to be given to everyone even if an unrepentant pervert” and I think you’ll get at the root of what they meant….
“5. Wondering why we are closing parishes rather than opening ordination, we cry…”
Heresy again. “Opening ordination” (to wymyn, it is meant here) is just not allowed. It is Church doctrine. Even if there’d be only, say, twelve priest left on the face of earth, Church doctrine would not change. “Closing parishes” is, therefore, neither here nor there and oh, have I said that asking for wymyn priest is heretical?
“6. Longing to celebrate creative theologians rather than mourn their marginalization, we cry…”
Buzzword alert: “celebrate”. The “creative” theologian is the heretical Hans Kueng, not allowed to teach anymore and not defrocked merely to avoid doing him a favour, but applauded by the marijuana-crowd.
“7. Oppressed by rigid structures of racism, we cry…”
Buzzword alert: racism. This is very, very funny. The Church who sets black men very high in the hierarchy (think of Cardinal Arinze) and has priests and bishops of every possible skin colour or shade would be “racist”. I think the word just had to be there. The old fools are so accustomed to using it….
“8. Blind to the beauty of God’s image in gay and lesbian people we cry…”
This is outright blasphemous. The beauty of God’s image is in the person, not in his being a pervert.
God doesn’t do perversion, God doesn’t create perverts, God doesn’t want one to be a pervert.
“12. Amidst the shattered images of godliness and ministry, we cry…”
It is difficult to understand what was meant here as probably the joint had already gone around for long enough. What I think this might mean is that without wymmyn priest the ministry of priesthood is “shattered” (read: God was fooled by a bunch of chauvis, these two thousand years) and that – I think; bear with me though, I am just trying to give some meaning to the words – therefore the Church is not reflective of, or representative of, any “godliness”.
Fun reading, I know.
It reminds me of those liberal teachers asking the young pupils at elementary schools “how they imagine God”.
These are the typical old people acting like children.
With the added brain damage from the drugs.
And so the delirious “council” of dissenting geriatrics has taken place. Without mass, mind, as the smell of canonical consequences for those priests foolish enough to participate was too strong for even one to be found.
The video you can see here (From Father Z’s blog) gives you some sample of the deluded world in which these people still (that is: not for very long) live: they challenge the Church of Christ because “Christ challenged the hierarchy of his days” (hel-lo? They weren’t Christians!); they want to “invite everyone like Christ would have done” as if Church teaching were merely a matter of all happily singing together; they talk of “lesbians and gays” (and whoever else is generally associated with these words) as if one were excluded from the Church merely because one has a perversion, at the same time trying to make the perversion approved.
The video would be mildly amusing if it was about progressive Episcopalians; it being about people calling themselves “Catholic”, one wonders why the warden allowed them to go out.
As you can see from the video, the crowd was, on average, clearly old. These are people who were young in the heydays of LSD and who could never get to grips with simple concepts like, erm, obedience. Their smug expressions show all the arrogance of those who think that they can question 2000 years of Church teaching, because it doesn’t match with their own “liberal” mindset. Fools.
As already stated, the announced ecumenical mass did not take place, being substituted with the usual “kumbaya-can’t you feel the spirit-oh let us feel all new age together” bollocks. A demonstration of (pun not intended) impotence and irrelevance as you couldn’t find a better one. Mildly amusing, though, and useful to instruct the faithful.
There’s unrest in the geriatric department of the madhouse.
It won’t last for very long.