Daily Archives: April 6, 2012
Excellent blog post from George Neumayr at the American Spectator (a magazine I link to; there aren’t many).
In the Guarnizo affair, it appears Wuerl was the real engine of Father Guarnizo’s, well, undeserved punishment, and the man on whom the blame must be apportioned. I wasn’t there, of course, but as I tend to believe (sinner that I am) a priest with a spotless reputation rather than a lesbian wannabe Buddhist activist, and there’s no doubt in my mind Guarnizo did what he had to do, did it as quietly as he could, and is now punished for having acted as a true priest should.
Some of the most interesting passages from this interesting blog post:
Cardinal Wuerl’s silence is deafening. He still hasn’t commented directly on his baldly unjust “administrative leave” order to Fr. Marcel Guarnizo. Nor has he explained to the faithful why Barbara Johnson, the self-described practicing lesbian and Buddhist to whom Fr. Guarnizo properly denied Communion, enjoys a canonical right to the sacred species.
Perversely, Cardinal Wuerl has at once violated the canonical rights of a faithful priest while inventing out of thin air a “policy” that orders his subordinates to distribute the Eucharist to anti-Catholic activists and defiant mortal sinners.
The word “pastoral” should make the faithful groan at this point. It is one of the great weasel words of the “spirit of Vatican II” Church in America. The word “pastoral” invariably dribbles from the lips of bishops like Cardinal Wuerl who regularly expose their flocks to wolves. Jesus Christ said that the “good shepherd” watches the gate. Cardinal Wuerl’s “policy” is to leave it wide open for the Church’s fiercest enemies. This is why the Pelosis and the Barbara Johnsons just keep coming up for Communion. Since Cardinal Wuerl refuses to control the sacrament, they will.
A Church official who has watched Wuerl’s persecution of Fr. Guarnizo with horror commented to me that if Jesus Christ had served in Cardinal Wuerl’s archdiocese “he would be on administrative leave too.” Unlike the Cardinal Wuerls, Christ never felt the need to play patty cake with the enemies of the Church. He liked struggling sinners but not unrepentant ones who seek to defile his temple.
I have no desire to participate in this worldly game of ring-kissing in which the Cardinal Wuerls wallow. They enjoy the trappings of their office without actually exercising it for the good of souls. They demand 13th-century obedience while behaving like 21st-century flakes who play church in costume and staff.
As St. Augustine said, God does not need our “lies.” He needs our truth-telling, even if that truth-telling means wounding the egos of derelict successors to his disciples.
Kudos to Mr Neumayr and the American Spectator. This culture of “sensitivity” has to stop, and be replaced with a culture of Catholicity instead.
What being “sensitive” leads to is under everyone’s eyes.
I have written a blog post about Pope Benedict’s words concerning the Heresy in Austria.
On the same occasion, though, the Pontiff expressed himself about Vatican II in a way I feel obliged to comment upon. Those who think a Catholic blogger should not comment on Pope’s declarations other than in the most subservient of terms can click away now.
The Holy Father is at this point talking about the Austrian heresy, and asks the rhetorical question whether orthodoxy does not bring to unintended or unwholesome consequences. His words are as follows (emphases mine):
Let us ask again: do not such reflections serve simply to defend inertia, the fossilization of traditions? No. Anyone who considers the history of the post-conciliar era can recognize the process of true renewal, which often took unexpected forms in living movements and made almost tangible the inexhaustible vitality of holy Church, the presence and effectiveness of the Holy Spirit. And if we look at the people from whom these fresh currents of life burst forth and continue to burst forth, then we see that this new fruitfulness requires being filled with the joy of faith, the radicalism of obedience, the dynamic of hope and the power of love.
The thinking here, as I understand it, is as follows: if we remain orthodox we are not going to generate inertia and fossilisation (British English spelling on my blog, thanks…). This is proved by Vatican II and the years that followed it, so rich in true spiritual renewal engendered by the Holy Spirit.
I must, respectfully, disagree on this. Whenever I look, I find Vatican II and the years that followed only brought devastation, which often took entirely expected forms of heresy, contributed to countless souls being lost, almost completely destroyed Catholicism’s cultural patrimony and traditions, almost completely killed catechesis, and left a spiritual wasteland on its trail.
If you ask me, the Pontiff’s words beautifully express, and I say this in the most respectful manner but also with no falseness, everything that is wrong with the Vatican today. There is, fifty years after the catastrophe started, still no desire to see what immense disaster was put in motion when Vatican II was started. On the contrary, there are desperate attempts to still try to portray it as something positive, as a phase of renewal. Vatican II (both in its weak, approval seeking and badly worded documents and in the mentality it engendered) was, as they say, wreckovation rather than renovation. It was an unmitigated failure, a stupid (no, let me reword it: stupid) attempt at self-destruction in a senseless quest for popularity and consensus, a disgraceful selling out to secular fashions.
The Pope who spoke the words mentioned above presides over a Catholic world whose members in their vast majority do not even to go Mass; who couldn’t tell you the Ten Commandments to save their lives; who have almost no notion of the works of mercy or of other mainstay of traditional Catholic thinking; who barely know what a Rosary, or a Vesper is; who have such a superficial notion of Catholicism that they couldn’t tell you where the differences with Protestants lie; who have such a superficial notion of Christianity that they couldn’t tell you why contraception is wrong, or premarital sex; who couldn’t formulate in a halfway acceptable way why the Church does not contemplate “women priests”; who know next to nothing about Catholic teaching on wealth, capital punishment, war; who couldn’t even tell you what Mass is, or what a sin is. My dear readers, I could go on for a long time, but this is everyday experience if you live in any but the most traditionally Catholic countries, at least in the West.
All this is the fruit of Vatican II. If the Church is alive today it is not because of Vatican II, but notwithstanding it. We see the Holy Spirit at work in the Church because we saw Vatican II trying to kill Her, and failing.
This Pontiff and the men he has around him are unable – or unwilling – to see all this. They are unable to see the Vatican II “experiment” has failed, and has failed miserably. They are unable to see that it had to fail, because it was unCatholic from the start. Instead, we are dished the same rhetoric we have been fed for the last fifty years. At this point, every defence of Vatican II seriously reminds me of a North Korean PR exercise.
The long and painful, but necessary work of disintoxication from Vatican II will not start with this pontificate, possibly not even with the next. But it will come one day, and on that day Catholicism will finally behold the horror, and the immense stupidity, of it all and look back in shame at not one, but several generations of Churchmen abetting such devastation of Catholic patrimony.
I have, and no one of us conservative Catholic can have, the shadow of a doubt about the indefectibility of the Church, and the constant protection the Holy Ghost gives her.
We only have to look at Vatican II.
Dear reader, I herewith admit to a grave fault; at least, grave in a blogger.
The fact is, the Austrian heretical movement (abetted, covertly if not overtly, by the disgraceful Archbishop Cardinal Schoenborn) makes my blood boil to such an extent, that I try to avoid writing about it for fear I would become too vitriolic even for this blog, or else get a stroke.
Still, I have checked every now and then and until the last weeks I have noticed nothing more than the usual, as the Italians say, “fried air”:
a) the Cardinal pretends to recall the heretics to order whilst paying attention to be perceived, in the broad public opinion, to be seen as doing so only unwillingly and only for the sake of his office. He is about the church tax money and his own popularity, you know.
b) the excuses put forward to justify this inaction are the most stupid imaginable, like the one going along the lines that if you start fighting heresy, heresy will erupt. Asses. No wait: cowardly, heretical asses.
c) The Vatican doesn’t express more than some subdued grumble (one invitation here; one observation there), possibly (or probably) because cardinal Schoenborn is a personal friend and protegé of the Pontiff.
There now seems to be a change at least as far as point c) is concerned. Rorate Caeli reports the following words from the Holy Father (emphases mine):
Recently a group of priests from a European country issued a summons to disobedience, and at the same time gave concrete examples of the forms this disobedience might take, even to the point of disregarding definitive decisions of the Church’s Magisterium, such as the question of women’s ordination, for which Blessed Pope John Paul II stated irrevocably that the Church has received no authority from the Lord. Is disobedience a path of renewal for the Church? We would like to believe that the authors of this summons are motivated by concern for the Church, that they are convinced that the slow pace of institutions has to be overcome by drastic measures, in order to open up new paths and to bring the Church up to date. But is disobedience really a way to do this? Do we sense here anything of that configuration to Christ which is the precondition for all true renewal, or do we merely sense a desperate push to do something to change the Church in accordance with one’s own preferences and ideas?
There can be no doubt the country in question is Austria, and the “call to disobedience” the literal translation of their “Aufruf zum Ungehorsam”. Where does this, then, leave us? I see only three possibilities:
1) This is a last public warning for Schoenborn: either he now starts to act decisively, or the Pontiff will do it for him, and he won’t be pleased at the result.
2) This is a last public warning for the heretics: if they do not back pedal, the Pope will crush them. Schoenborn will not be touched because he is a buddy, and will continue to play the part of the modern prelate who crushes the heretics, because you got to do what you got to do.
3) The Pope spoke, but his words will not be followed by facts, and he will be content with, so to speak, paving the way for the actions of his successor. Successor who will not be Schoenboern’s buddy, so the latter will have to prepare himself for rather tough times.
We shall see what the future brings. Personally I think 3) is the most likely scenario, followed by 2), followed by 1).
What I think can be said, is that the Pope’s words represent the starting of the engines of the Big Vatican Heresy Steamroller. The steamroller will move very slowly, but when it does it will crush everything on its path.
Reblog of the Day
In occasion of the now widely publicised conversions celebrated today in Westminster Cathedral, I allow myself to give my little piece of advice to those thinking of conversion.
This little advice is given in charity (the real one. Fake charity is for whinos, and Anglicans…). Charity requires that one tells the truth out of love. Calls of “who are you to judge” don’t have any effect with true Catholics. Catholics deal with Truth, not false compassion. Anglicans need to be told the Truth without any fear that they might be “hurt”. They’re heretics, of course they will! It’s not a walk in the park, it’s two systems of values clashing, and they can’t be both right.
Charity requires the Truth, and the Truth said whole. Those who aren’t ready to undergo a painful process to reach the Truth can avoid wasting time reading this. If only one reads and…
View original post 854 more words
To remind you of the tragedy of heresy in this day, and perhaps also to make you smile (I am not aware on Good Friday one is not allowed to smile; not if he is Catholic, I mean; if you want to know how it is among Presbyterians you must ask them; though nowadays they’ll probably tell you you can do pretty much everything…) I would like to introduce you to the Luther Insult generator.
You click the page and immediately, without any preamble (the man was a very direct chap) you will be insulted in the modern rendition of an authentic Luther insult. To be insulted again, you just click the “insult me again” button anew.
You can read the entire list but seriously, it truly is not fun.