Daily Archives: May 13, 2012
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has asked Cardinal Schoenborn to “explain” his recent decision to reverse the decision of one of his priests, who has annulled the election of a Gemeinderat (parish council member) because one of the “elected” was not only homosexual, but an unrepentant sodomite even living in a registered civil partnership. Now, people like Vincent Nichols would obviously look the other way and pretend (insulting our intelligence, and endangering his soul; if he believes in its existence, that is) one should be “nuanced” in these matters; but the priest in question was a tad more Catholic and had annulled the vote.
Enter the Cardinal, who couldn’t wait to show the Austrian “Catholics” what a friend of perverts he is, and reversed the decision.
This is, in case you don’t know, the same man who doesn’t do anything beyond the strictly obligatory to counter the heresy in Austria. The reasoning of the (hopefully heterosexual) Cardinal is always the same: I want to look good, let Rome look bad, and try to appear to my local heretics as the good man who tries to defend their stance as good as he can. Alas, one is a Cardinal and has a job to do; but his heart goes out to them,and feels with them…
This time, it appears he will have to endure some slight unpleasantness. The CDF – up to now not really aggressive in the matter of the heresy – has now decided to pat him on the cheek and tell him the least audible of the “naughty boy” imaginable. The Cardinal is invited to say why he reversed the decision (which, clearly, everyone already knows) and if he does not answer to the letter (this detail shows a clear sense of self-esteem from the members of the CDF; they basically invite him to ignore them for the time being) he will be asked to confer next time he is in Rome.
Also note the “Standard” says it appears the Cardinal will not be asked to reverse his decision. That would be too harsh, surely…?
If you do not find this terrifying, I can’t blame you and Schoenborn, who is himself a member of that august congregation, will probably not find his sleep much troubled.
Still, if I were the ineffable, oh so modern and oh so vain Cardinal, I’d start to be slightly worried anyway.
Everyone knows Schoenborn is a former pupil and protegé of the Pontiff, which circumstance certainly goes a long way in keeping him away from big trouble even when he most deserves it, which is rather often (Medjugorje also comes to mind; and the laser Masses; and the Western Masses; the man is a real piece of work, or you would say of Sachertorte). As long as Pope Benedict lives, nothing worse than a letter of the CDF in which the latter expects to be ignored will happen to him. But the Pope is becoming increasingly more frail, and I doubt he will stay with us for, say, another decade. When the successor is elected, the good Cardinal could find himself in the Sachertorte up to his very neck, and if this happens I doubt he would be able to chew all of it.
One is reminded of another protegé of a Pontiff, called Marcial Maciel. The death of JP II was basically the end of the road for him.
Schoenborn might not be a pervert, but he certainly makes everything possible to help them, so I wouldn’t say he is much better than Maciel anyway. He is probably worse, because Maciel did not give scandal.
I wonder what the Cardinal thinks of the reconciliation with the SSPX?
13 May: Fatima Reblog
I have written already about the beautiful site of “The Age of Mary”. Among (many) other things, the site is notable for the best narration of the Fatima events I have been able to find on the Internet up to now. I would like to spend some words about this astonishing series of historical documented facts.
Let us first say very clearly that, no matter how impressive the miracles and apparitions, as a Catholic you are not obliged to believe anything of the entire story. As in every private apparition, no belief is required of the faithful; not even in the cases publicly endorsed by the Church as worthy of belief. I would be the last one to accuse a Catholic of being a lesser one because he doesn’t believe in the Fatima apparitions.
But please allow me to say why I am one of those who do. Some…
View original post 913 more words
On Rorate Caeli, another excellent blog post about the difficult (well, no; not really…) decision the SSPX must take in the next weeks, and which might lead to a dangerous, expensive, and rather damaging split.
I leave it to you to follow the article in its many interesting points. I limit myself to comment on a couple of points:
1. The split itself: the author of the article points out disagreement doesn’t mean disobedience, and in the end one or more of the bishops may well decide that much as they disagree, they will obey. The example made is Bishop Tissier de Mallerais. The evidently well-informed author states ” These last few days, even after the reception of his superior, he has called the faithful to unity in several different places”. This is extremely good news, though if the disagreement was not so serious as to cause a split I can’t avoid considering the words in the response letter rather on the harsh side.
2. The author also points out to “the predators coming from Sedevacantist mini-chapels that have, as their main sign of charity, the fact that they hate one another”. One could make the obvious observation that perhaps more attention should have been paid to these communities before accepting them as part of the Society, but I assume such distinctions are not always as easy to make beforehand as they appear after a division has occurred. Up to a certain extent, such influences and questionable strains – possibly kept under the radar screen when absolutely necessary – are unavoidable in an organisation like the SSPX. My take on this is that rather than hoping in an illusory unanimity in favour of the reconciliation, the latter should be seen as a welcome opportunity to force the enemies of the Church – because if we look at things rationally, this is what they are – to come out in the open and admit their hostility to Rome qua Rome. The reconciliation will unavoidably lead to disagreements, and the disagreements will happily lead to a cleansing.
On a separate note, I notice up to now and apart from the leaked letter the three bishops have not issue any public statement against the agreement, let alone an open threat of splitting the Society into two. Whilst it might be said that they will do it the moment the reconciliation is announced, I wonder whether it is possible to reach in a forceful manner the more the hundreds of priests and seminarians without stating publicly what the consequences of a reconciliation would be. I might be too sanguine here – I rather often am, thank God – but in my eyes if the three were determined to go on with the split in case of reconciliation, than it would make sense to openly and publicly threat with the former in order to try to prevent the latter.
We will see how this evolves, but we are approaching one month from the SSPX letter to the three bishops and such a split has not been publicly announced.
I invite to continued prayers that this situation might come to a positive end soon.
Reblog of the day
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…
View original post 258 more words
I was shocked at finding this site. They have the effrontery to publish the Hail Mary in twelve languages, including Latin! Fools! Don’t they know the faithful might be easily overwhelmed by such an information overload and, as a consequence, stop attending mass, become Presbyterian and contract “unions” with people of the same sex?
Seriously, what do these people think, that a Catholic faithful may be able to … learn the Hail Mary in Latin? Really?? We are still paying a very heavy price after having to force – yes, force! Poor lambs! – our elderly people, who have so loved peaaace in their own time, to go through the traumatic change of having to say “and with your spirit”, and you should now impose on (or suggest to) the poor souls an entire prayer, in Latin?
How are the poor old ladies and gentlemen supposed to cope? How is that charitable?
I am shocked. Shocked!!