Daily Archives: April 29, 2012
This good priest from realcatholic.tv is on fire.
Notice the cassock.
Rorate Caeli has an interesting article mentioning Cardinal Siri’s take on the abandonment of the cassock.
I have written about it in the past, but would like to make some points again:
1) It is not true that the habit doesn’t count. The habit counts a lot. The habit reminds the priest all the time of who he is. This happens by all kinds of “uniform”, at the point that “to wear the uniform” is strictly identified with, say, military identity. You are, therefore you wear, and when a priest tries to look as if he wasn’t one, I wonder how much he wants to be one.
2) The clerical habit (specifically: the cassock; the real, authentic clerical garb of the Catholic priest) is also a form of social control for the priest. If a priest has the habit of going out without his, well, habit, and no one really notices, it will be much easier for him to go unnoticed in the wrong places, or to frequent the wrong people (like prostitutes, or so-called “gay saunas”). If the public expects to see him in cassock everytime he is seen at all, all this will become a much more difficult exercise, and in case of discovery there will be no defence possible:whoever sees the priest in “plain clothes” in another part of town will have strong reasons to suspect the man is up to no good.
3) The clerical garb (best of all: the cassock) reminds everyone (not only the priest) that his wearer is detached from the world. The priest wanting to be seen as “one of the others” is ipso facto betraying his role as a priest, even in those cases (which I assume will be a minority) in which his refusal to wear clerical garb is due to a well-intentioned, if ill-thought pastoral zeal. The priest is not of this world. He is there to remind us of the other one. The more he identifies himself with this life, the less will be able to do his job concerning the next one.
Not only must the Church insist on the priests wearing clerical garbs, but if you ask me the Church should insist on the Priest wearing the cassock whenever practicable. Don Camillo rode a bicycle and a light motorcycle with a cassock, and it worked rather well.
Besides, no priest is so despised as the one who wouldn’t want to be one.
I do not know whether I am the only one, but the concept of “patience” as practised in the Vatican corridors seems rather odd to me.
Whenever heresies or grave acts of disobedience arise, the Church reacts with such slowness, in comparison a sloth looks like Usain Bolt. The thinking here appears to be that one doesn’t have to rush things, and “the Church has always time”, and “the Church thinks in centuries, not years”.
But then one wonders why the same thinking is applied so selectively. If there is so much time, and the Church thinks in centuries, why was the battle against abortion not started, and aggressively so, when abortion legislation swept the Free World?
“Ah, this is because the Church is attentive not to engage her weight in battles she knows are lost”, is the mantra I used to hear in years past. The reasoning goes that if you fight against abortion and lose, then you’ll lose leverage when you fight against….. I don’t know exactly what, as in the last forty years I haven’t seen much of a fight anyway, unless it was for popular causes (we have now Popes engaged for the environment, for example; a rather novel concept, if you ask me).
My question then is: if the Church has time, and thinks in centuries, wouldn’t this be a wonderful reason to engage in all kind of battles, particularly those who would seem lost to this generation?
It is very, very seldom, that important societal changes take place overnight. Even when events take place in rapid succession (take the French revolution, or the October one) it is plain to see the events have leavened for decades before the revolutionary outbreak. What we can clearly see is that even the Church cannot hope to introduce or re-introduce important societal changes unless a long, patient work is started, which then goes on for generations if needs be.
The battle against abortion is such one; the one against contraception another; the one against sodomy a third, and the one against euthanasia a fourth one.
I get seldom as angry as when I read, on comments written around, that a certain battle is lost. Lost, my foot! No battle is ever lost with the Holy Ghost on your side. But we have to have the courage to fight, and the determination to carry the fight in our graves and transmit it to the following generation if needs be.
How was this called? O yes…
Interesting article on the National Review Online. The idea of the article is that the polls saying the Catholics were more and more inclined to disobey their bishops in matter of homosexuality ended when the controversy on the HHS mandate. As the author eloquently puts it:
[Cafeteria Catholics ] do not take kindly to being bullied by bishops, but — and here’s the shock to the Obamaites — they also don’t much like it when bishops are bullied by someone else. Nobody likes a bully, and Obama showed himself to be one in this controversy.
Leaving aside for a moment I don’t think the US bishops bullied anyone, and if they did they did it with the Truth, which can never be “bullying”, I would add my own personal interpretation to the matter.
In my eyes, something slightly different appeared. If you ask me, a cafeteria Catholic is more like a dormant orthodox Catholic, who is so poorly instructed – by his own clergy – that he thinks it natural to be allowed to question Catholic teaching; when he is properly informed about it, that is.
The Cafeteria Catholic thinks so, because this is the world he sees everywhere around him, and he was never taught to stop and reflect Christianity doesn’t work that way.
At some point, though, this will end. At some point, the bishops will stand and will tell them what is what, in no uncertain term. At this point many dormant Catholics will become real ones, because few organisations have power over their own followers as the Catholic church, when the clergy only does the work properly.
I have no doubt whatever that, if the effort continues unabated, at least 10% of those (soi-disant) Catholics who would have voted for B. O. will ditch him on this matter only. This might, alone, be fatal to him. More importantly, I think that 10 or 15 years of continuous hammering about these themes will cause the Church to gain an extremely strong support among Catholics about all main moral issues, as young people become voters and old hippies fill the graves.
The Jesuits re-conquered Poland to Catholicism in one generation, and made such a thorough work of it that the consequences are felt to this day.
The Church is an extremely powerful aircraft carrier. If the people in charge want to use it.
Reblog of the day
Those who have read me for some times know that whilst my attitude toward salvation is probably – in line with my Mediterranean upbringing – more relaxed than the apocalyptic concept of some, particularly Northern European, hard-liners, I still do not indulge in complacency as far as salvation is concerned.
I obviously do not subscribe to any of the childish heresies of Medjugorje (not recognised by the Church as worthy of belief), but I am not a fan of the devotion of the Divine Mercy (recognised as worthy of belief) either. I love to think that the faciloneria of so much post V-II thinking (= the departed was such a fun chap, therefore God certainly called him to Himself to enjoy the jokes and it is well-known that in Hell Stalin, Hitler and Pol-Pot need Satan if they want to play a hand of poker) has not polluted me.
View original post 1,542 more words