Daily Archives: July 1, 2011
The video above is a collage of fragments from lessons given by Bishop Williamson to his students at the SSPX’s St Thomas Aquinas seminary in Minnesota.
You might crack an easy joke and say that these less than six minutes are all the sensible talk that his students could assemble out of many years of teaching, but in my eyes this would be more than a tad ungenerous. What comes out of this video is a man profoundly Catholic and able to make his point in a very eloquent manner. As an Italian, I find his southern-European gesticulating the more interesting… The beautiful Karl Jenkins music accompanying his words is in my eyes too loud, and I can’t understand every word he says. There might be another joke lurking here….
I heard this video and thought of what I have written often from pre-blog times: bishop Williamson is certainly a man with his own idiosyncrasies, not all of them pleasant or reasonable. But I’d rather have him as bishop than everyone else in England & Wales.
As we have experienced before Summorum Pontificum, liberal catholics are not weary to prophesy a great catastrophe for the Church is she decides to start taking Catholicism seriously. As if liberal Catholicism wouldn’t be rapidly extinguishing itself already, the French magazine Témoignage Chrétien (one of those rags living on subsidies, informs us Messa In Latino) expresses his concern that the Church in France might suffer oh so much if there is a full reconciliation between the Vatican and the SSPX*. Some of the arguments brought about to justify the alleged haemorrhage of faithful are as follows:
1) France is the “historic cradle” of the “Lefebvre movement” and still today its most important stronghold. It is not clear to me how this should cause people to leave the Church en masse. The SSPX being bigger in France doesn’t motivate one more to leave the Church, if this is what he wants to do. Rather, I’d think that France is the country where the reconciliation will bring the most copious fruits, because the SSPX is more present on the territory.
2) Reminiscences of the war in Algeria play, allegedly, a role. One never ceases to be amazed at what excuses people may find.
3) The “trauma” of the “affaire Gaillot”, the ultra-liberal bishop who was kicked out by JP II. The reasoning here is that if you give the boot to an ultra-liberal bishop, people will defeat en masse if the Church reconciles herself with the SSPX. This would make halfway sense, if the supporters of Gaillot were very many, and very angry. But as they are very few, and very much dying, one doesn’t follow the logic.
Dulcis in fundo, bishop Vingt-Trois – the head of the bishops’ conference – is invited to make pressure on the Pope unless he wants to be considered a lightweight compared to his predecessor, Lustiger. The appeal to the vanity of one man is not likely to obtain much of a result, as here the problem is rather that Pope Benedict would seem to be very interested in a full reconciliation. Témoignage Chrétien admit it themselves when they notice, whining a little, that “the Curia doesn’t seem much interested to the feelings in France”.
One can easily imagine that such “don’t do it or the Church will explode” argument – which very resembles a “don’t do it or the schismatics will make a schism” argument – will be much used by others in France and elsewhere. Thankfully, it may well be that the Holy Father is simply of a different opinion.
* This is FSSPX in Latin, and SSPX in English. I read them around both, and never can decide which one to use.
We are informed today that an inter-faith commission of no less than 40 members (Catholics among them) worked together for no less than five years before reaching an agreement as to how to evangelise.
One is a bit taken aback at such news, as it is not very clear what the real aim of the exercise should be.
Catholicism has a very long tradition of evangelisation. Actually, the Only Church is the only one that can say that her tradition of evangelisation is as old as Christianity and has been, well, rather successful these last 2000 or so years. It is, therefore, difficult to think that the Church should learn something from Protestants about how to be… the Church.
One might, then, say that the participation of the Church in such initiative might have been of some benefit to the others, non-Catholic communities. Which creates the impression that the Church is helping Protestant to convert more people to… a heresy, and whilst it might be, again, said that it is better for a soul to convert to Christianity through a Protestant community rather than to remain, say, a Muslim, I have some problems in imagining, say, Jesuits of the XIX century thinking in the same way and helping, say, Lutheran missionaries in their effort of converting non-Christians.
Besides, the entire initiative reeks a bit of Christian relativism: if you start to spread around the idea that Catholics and Protestants can agree on a common ground of action (the communique makes clear that this is not a theological statement, of course; but the practical effect is not very dissimilar), the step from there to a Catholic believing that, from a practical point of view, there’s no big deal in being Protestant or Catholic is not very far.
I am obviously not saying that Catholics should obstacle Protestants in their effort of evangelisation of non-Christians. But I wonder whether this is right. Would Pius IX agree to such an initiative, I wonder? Would S. Pius X think that a “common policy” with Protestants is of any importance? Would they not say, instead, that Protestants are, before every consideration on evangelisation, certainly not allied of Catholicism, but rather conversion material?
This impression becomes, in my eyes, stronger, if one looks at the terms of the “agreement”: platitudes like “do not put the potential convert under pressure” (you don’t say?) and “don’t approve the destruction of pagan temples”. But wait, there is something that is completely absent from the agreement… oh yes, it is the Blessed Virgin! Now obviously Catholic missionaries will continue to stress the Marian role. But once again, a picture is drawn in front of us where Mary finds no place, and this is sent to the press the world over as a kind of achievement.
So this is what we have at the end of the effort: the impression that Christian denominations have (on a practical, working level) the same importance, and a flattening on platitudes which leave out of the guidelines what is specifically “Catholic”.
Doesn’t seem a great achievement to me.
You’d think that a soldier who has served (or even died for) his country would have the right of having words like “God” or “Jesus” in his funeral service.
But this doesn’t seem to be the case in the military cemetery in Houston, where you simply can’t say the words.
This is a very interesting development, mainly because it shows all the intolerance and stupidity of its proponents. It goes not only against the most elementary sense of religious liberty, but against liberty tout court.
As such, this exercise in intolerance and dictatorship must certainly come from…. liberals. It is as if they’d say “Jesus must stay outside”, as you’d do with dogs. Even worse than that, it is some cretin telling you what to tell and not to tell when you remember a beloved one. And this cannot be an incident or a misunderstanding as several organisations have reported the news. One would wonder what would be the practice with Allah & Co, but by this level of ideological blindness and pure hatred it would not be surprising to know that the same rules apply.
The Department of Veteran Affairs has already stated that it ““respects every veteran and their family’s right to burial service that honors their faith tradition.” It is therefore an easy prediction not only that this scandal will soon end, but that this might well cause a couple of liberal heads of the Department of Veteran Affairs – the cemetery director being a prime candidate – to silently roll on the green cemetery grounds. Still, this episode goes to show the extent of the intolerance of modern “liberals”, probably the most illiberal people remained on the planet after the North Koreans.
These people are a true menace for freedom and must be stopped until they ban us from pronouncing every word not pleasant to them.
More examples in the last days showing the indescribable stupidity of liberals.
The first one is a mother whose young son – only four years old, poor child – tells her that he wants a tutu. Promptly the mother seizes the moment, writes a book with the telling title my princess boy – a contradiction in terms of course, but liberals don’t let logical absurdities come in the way of their ideology – and embarks in a, no doubt, remunerative and sales-promoting tour with the poor child, explaining to all of us how bigoted we are. Chances are that this boy will, notwithstanding his perverted and exploiting mother, still grow up to be a healthy adult male utterly ashamed of his embarrassing mother (if you have seen the film “Laurel Canyon”, Christian Bale gives a very good portrait of such an adult); but make no mistake, mommy will do all she can to make of her son a pervert, because she now has an emotional investment – and a financial interest – in it.
The next level of parental perversion is shown by a Canadian couple (remember: Canada is a country able to put a Catholic bishop in front of a human rights tribunal because he’s Catholic) who, now expecting a child and not wanting to wait a couple of years before starting the perversion work, knows whether it will be a boy or a girl but doesn’t say to anyone, in order to stress that the child should be able to select his “gender” of choice. No you idiots, he won’t. Note that these parents already have two young boys going around dressed as girls. God bless all three of them, poor children.
No amount of liberal madness can ever justify playing with one’s children’s lives to satisfy one’s ideological stance. These people are seriously threatening the future of their children, either giving a substantial contribution to them growing up with sexual perversions (remember: God doesn’t do perversion; humans do!) or saddling them with a huge amount of confusion and uncertainty which will not be easy to throw away as they grow up; particularly considering that in this case perversion is not even seen with a kind of resigned detachment, but clearly encouraged and provided with parental approval. Which, by the way, is another very strong argument (if such were needed) against adoption by perverts.
Private Baldrick was never so right.