Daily Archives: April 4, 2012
This is what Cardinal Dolan has to say about the reason why the Church has lost teeth in the last decades and can’t transmit Catholic values as she used to do (emphases mine):
For this he faults the church leadership. “We have gotten gun-shy . . . in speaking with any amount of cogency on chastity and sexual morality.” He dates this diffidence to “the mid- and late ’60s, when the whole world seemed to be caving in, and where Catholics in general got the impression that what the Second Vatican Council taught, first and foremost, is that we should be chums with the world, and that the best thing the church can do is become more and more like everybody else.”
Very lucidly spoken, one would say. Cardinal Dolan is showing in these last weeks that he is, at least in certain circumstances, not really “gun-shy”.
Still, I would like to add a couple of observations:
1) Cardinal Dolan’s words would carry more weight if he stopped the unspeakable shame of the so-called gay masses in his own diocese. He was certainly more aggressive than our own home disgrace, Vincent “Quisling” Nichols, but the masses are still there, so he still hasn’t delivered. I call this “caving in”.
2) One notices it is so difficult to take V II out of a generation grown in the middle of it, when one reads that the Cardinal comments the problems about conveying the Catholic message about sexuality saying: “that’s a biggie”. That’s a…. what? Does this not give exactly the impression the Cardinal wants to “be chums with the world”?
I am not accusing the cardinal of hypocrisy, as I am sure he is sincere in his work, as the last months abundantly prove. What I am saying is that he himself, like so much of nowadays’ Church, is so imbued with the forma mentis of the post V II generation that he falls – out of habit, probably – in some of the same traps he rightly recognises in V II itself: the desire to appear “connected” and “with it”, and in some – important – occasions the lack of the guts to say the unpleasant things straight.
Again, if cardinal Dolan had acted in an exemplary manner concerning the gay masses in his own diocese some time ago, his word would have carried more weight now, and his opponents in Washington might even have decided to cave in themselves at the first signs of serious conflict rather than allow things to get at this point.
By not acting in the question of the so-called gay masses, Cardinal Dolan has missed a beautiful – if, in itself, sad – occasion to show that he is not one to be trifled with; as a result, Obama & Co. did, in fact, think he could be trifled with. Chum with the world, and all that. They were, apparently, wrong, but this way Dolan has to have his baptism of fire in a confrontation with the President. If he had kept his shop in order before and had not been, well, gun-shy in matters of sexual morality (a “biggie”, as we are told), this might have not been necessary.
Let us hope this battle experience will be the first one of many, and in future the Cardinal will not be so eager to show he is “like everybody else”.
This is one of the most beautiful blog posts I have ever read. You should read it in its entirety.
Wish I could write that way.
Very fitting for the Holy Week, too.
Holy Week Reblog
Feast your eyes (and ears!) with this Catholic pearl.
Not only you find here a beautiful Tridentine Solemn Mass almost in its entirety, but you also have the commentary of no less than Fulton Sheen, both explaining details of the Mass and providing a short translation of the Latin text as it is sung. This is the Easter Mass of 1941 in the church of Our Lady Of Sorrows, Chicago.
The beauty and solemnity of this Easter Mass, the reverence, the accuracy of every detail (beautifully explained by Fulton Sheen) put to shame the very thought of getting rid of such breathtaking splendour.
Seriously, what the Conciliar Father were thinking – and in the years immediately after the Council, figuratively speaking, smoking – will always be beyond my simple understanding.
I had thought that in a world so stupidly perverted as to even contemplate the possibility of a man “marrying” another man (or a woman marrying another woman) pretty much everything would be possible, like marrying one’s own dog (copyright: Boris Johnson, London’s Mayor).
But in another tragic example of how reality overtakes fantasy, we are now informed a woman decided to marry…. herself.
Whilst the news is reported with the tongue-in-cheek attitude one would expect, I am not entirely sure there isn’t a deep logic in this.
First of all, the thing cannot have been made in jest. Dozens of people invited; eleven-years-old child saying to her mother he is embarrassed for her (good chap; there are hopes) and real, “solo honeymoon” to be paid with real money. Most of all, no sane person would push a joke to this level of insanity. At this point, even if you say it was all a joke no one is really going to believe you.
You might know Proddies have this strange idea of making “marriage vows”, something that always makes me cringe when I see it in movies, and thank God I will probably never be asked to be present to such diabetes-inducing ceremonies. If you want to know , the “marriage self-vow” of the lady in question is “to enjoy inhabiting my own life and to relish a lifelong love affair with my beautiful self”. A beautiful example to selfless dedication to one’s own unlimited narcissism, I must say. Or more probably, an indication of a truly desperate need for a man. But I digress.
The lady in question might, in fact, have hit the bull’s eye. Her boundless narcissism and self-centredness is in nothing different from what we see in poofs and lesbians doing the same. The only difference is the lady isn’t sexually perverted and therefore lacks the dog, or the “partner”, to stage her little circus.
At this point, I predict in future we will have women asking to be married to Martin Luther King, or JFK (wait; perhaps that would be less frequent…), or the ever-present Mahatma Ghandi. Whereas men could ask to be married to… no, really, I can’t imagine men doing such things. Unless they’re fags, of course; but then, fags are not real men, merely pathetic caricatures of women exactly like their pretended “marriages” are the caricatures of the real thing.
I must admit I had never thought of even the possibility of such “self-marriages” happening.
On second thought, though, I am not sure this speaks against me.
Luckily for its lucky inhabitants, the United States are a country where Christian belief is shown much more openly than here in old Europe. One of the results of this is that there are a number of companies who are explicitly and unashamedly Christian and publicly say so.
They are, therefore, ideal targets for Sodonazis looking for an attack on Christianity. They might, for example, pick a Christian producer of T-Shirts and ask it to make t-shirt for some sodomite or lesbian initiative. When the company refuses, they sue it.
What the poor sods are trying to say is that if one, say, is not allowed to sell bread to someone because he is, say, black, so a t-shirt seller should not be allowed to refuse them to have t-shirt because they are, say, perverts.
The problem with it is that confuses freedom with Nazism, a problem occurring very frequently with Sodonazis. I am sure they can have all the t-shirt they want, unless the t-shirt do not go themselves against the conviction of the t-shirt maker. The problem starts when the pervert wants to ask the service provider not only to provide him with a t-shirt, but to endorse his perversion.
Say, a baker is not allowed to refuse to sell bread to a man because he is a sodomite. Rightly so, and perfectly in line with Catholic teaching. But the same baker would have every right to refuse an order for, say, a huge bread penis, or a loaf with some other obscene content supportive of sodomy. In this case the question is not whether the baker wants to sell the sodomite bread, but whether the sodomite wants to force him to go against his religious or social convictions.
Matthew Archbold puts it even better:
if you follow the logic, then a black dude could be forced to print up t-shirts for the next Klan rally.
I had voted some days ago in this Time Poll, after Father Z’s post.
I am glad to answer the call to bloggers to drum for this, and invite them to click the link and vote “Definitely” to the rather juvenile question.
It is not about how much you like him, but about whether you like the US Bishops’ HHS mandate battle.
A strange article on the catholic News Agency, citing a recent analysis, makes the hypothesis Obama has not shot himself in the leg with the HHS mandate, but be expressly wooing the non-Christian and non-believer vote, moving from the assumption that the Catholic vote has been slowly drifting away anyway and the numbers are rapidly tipping the scale in favour of non-believers.
Firstly, allow me to say I am perfectly persuaded Obama is a Christian as I am a communist, and if he has some affection for a religion – meant as a cultural, not spiritual phenomenon – this is most certainly Islam, not Christianity.
Still, I think I should examine the argument and say why I disagree and think the Obama people have simply vastly understated the price they would have to pay if they anger the catholic world.
1) It seems strange to me that whilst we have been told for so many years – and have had impressive demonstrations, see G.W. Bush – that the Catholic vote can make Presidents, suddenly it would pay to woo the enemies of Catholicism. Certainly, in the course of a generational change this might happen, but Catholics are not getting less numerous, nor are they getting less Catholic (than they already are). Vocations in the US have been on the increase for many years now, and the vote has been moving progressively to the Republicans,which is certainly in part due not to the fact that they aren’t Catholics anymore, but that they still are (with all the caveats about the state of the US Catholic culture, of course).
2) Which in my eyes neatly introduces my second point: Democrats lose the Catholic vote, at least in part, because Catholics understand Democrats do not protect Catholic values: the idea that as they are losing them in instalments be better to be losing them altogether seems to me a rather suicidal logic. If Obama were not so blinded by ideology, he would be thinking day and night what to do to please them, not to anger them.
3) Catholics are spread only in certain parts of the countries, and are a powerful force only in a dozen or so of them. But Catholics are, most importantly, crucial in key States like Florida and Ohio: who on earth would willingly set to sacrifice their vote in such important battlegrounds?
4) The theory goes that for every Catholic you lose you will earn at least one atheist. Very strange. I think I am not very far from the mark thinking the majority of the atheist vote is already solidly in Democratic hands, and many of the Republican atheists are socially conservative enough not to want to go against established religion even if they don’t believe in God themselves. Where is this huge untapped reservoir of non-voting Democratic atheists only waiting for the HHS controversy to go vote Obama & the gang? On the contrary, the prospective of losing the Catholic vote is painfully real, and backed by the impressive fact of more than 55 millions voters. The idea of willingly cross them is, in my eyes, pure madness. Don’t believe me? Ask John Kerry.
5) The fallout on the Protestants is completely ignored. In fact, Santorum’s candidature is being propelled in decisive measure by protestant votes, and Protestants can be mobilised as well as atheists. Granted, they vote Republican in their majority already, but there is a lot of potential loss here anyway.
In conclusion, it seems to me Obama has, very simply, done something very stupid whose consequences he had not foreseen, and is now trapped by a controversy he allowed to go too far before noticing the quicksand was all around him. If you ask me, there is no “cunning plan” at all, and political analysts merely try to give, in retrospect, some sense to this senseless ideological entrenchment, initially started in the illusion it would not cause any big conflict, and no so difficult to get out of without loss of face. Exit without loss of face the Government has already attempted a couple of times, with the only result of making the choice between all out fall out or retreat more difficult.
But it’s a lose-lose for Obama. If he caves in he loses face, and if he doesn’t he loses desperately needed votes.
Six months of ferocious controversy on the HHS mandate, and good luck in Florida. I so hope Archbishop Dolan & Co. continue the fight to the end, and step up the tone in Summer.
Reblog of the day
From the inexhaustible, truly precious reservoir of traditional Catholic wisdom of Lux Occulta, a CTS booklet that is a bit different from the others I have mentioned.
The CTS Booklet Abiding Sorrow For Sin is an abridged version from an original work of Father Frederick William Faber, a notable Catholic convert of the XIX century famous among other things for being the founder of London’s Oratory and the author of Faith of Our Fathers.
Faber’s writing style is the one of his age and this booklet, though certainly accessible to everyone, is less easily readable – particularly for very young readers – than more modern CTS productions. Still, the author conveys his points with grace and persuasiveness and one understands how he could achieve spectacular conversions to Catholicism in his London years.
The main theme of the booklet is that true and lasting spiritual progress doesn’t have at…
View original post 313 more words