Daily Archives: June 6, 2012
It will soon be five years since the great day of the announcement of Summorum Pontificum, up to now the key moment of this Pontificate. These five years read like a mirror of the Pontificate itself: much better at great gestures than at day-to-day administration.
Summorum Pontificum was certainly historical in its value, and of vast significance in its implications: so vast in fact, that the Holy Father lacked the courage to enforce it.
Five years later, the implementation of Summorum Pontificum is left to the good will of the local bishop; which means, local bishops being what they are, that it has largely remained lettera morta. After “only” almost four years, Summorum Pontificum even had its own Instruction, Universae Ecclesiae, which made even clearer how the Pope wanted to see his reform implemented, and that nothing would happen to those who just refuse to do it. Basically, this is the history of this pontificate: not deprived of theological breadth, but clearly lacking in practical bite.
Five years have passed, and still very few have the privilege to smell the incense.
Thankfully, many more have woken up.
Marriage supporters in Maryland have announced they have gathered more than double the signatures required to place a new law legalising and institutionalising sodomy and same-sex perversion before the people.
The vote will apparently take place in… November, together with the Presidential election.
Maryland has almost 6 million inhabitants, and 30% of them are black. It won’t be an easy time for many of them, as a Presidential campaign increasingly focused on social/religious issues puts them more and more violently in front of the clear heathenism of their candidate.
Of course, it is not that Obama’s “coming out” will immediately alienate him “the Black vote”; but it will certainly make it more difficult for his traditional supporters to follow him. If even one in thirty abandons him it will be a big blow; if it is one in ten or twelve he will probably not survive it. By choosing – or possibly: after being forced by Biden’s stupidity – to alienate the moderate electorate, Obama is staking everything on a massive mobilisation of the minorities (particularly blacks) and angry fringes (sodomites, lesbians, child rapists, dog rapists, coprophagists, and their friends and supporters).
It seems very difficult to me that the strategy may work, and I struggle to think of a democratic President who fled to the left and was greeted there by enthusiastic multitudes securing reelection.I notice, on the other hand, that this brand of hard liberalism never secured Ted Kennedy a nomination, and when McGovern and Mondale were chosen to represent “change” they were more or less mercilessly filleted by Nixon and the Gipper respectively. Life at the left border of the political spectrum seems to be short and ending in painful death, at least if you want to become or remain President.
Of course, Obama will not lose in Maryland, as even Kerry was able to easily win the State in 2004 and Obama himself won in a landslide in 2008. But he is making it more and more difficult for him to win the race, and considering 10 of 16 key battleground states have passed amendments to protect marriage I think Barack Hussein is making his job as difficult as possible. I can’t imagine this to be the result of a cold calculation, rather of a necessity created by the insistent flirting with extreme positions, coupled with the immense stupidity of the VP.
Reblog of the day
Another excellent blog post from Fr Longenecker, “The Collapse Of Cultural Catholicism”..
Fr Longenecker explains the roots of the problem in very clear terms:
“[…]for the last forty years Catholics themselves have not taught Catholicism to their children. They’ve taught ‘American Catholicism’ which is a watered down blend of sentimentalism, political correctness, community activism and utilitarianism. In other words, “Catholicism is about feeling good about yourself, being just to others and trying to change the world.”
As a result of this,
The next generation has drawn the obvious conclusion that you don’t need to go to Mass to do all that. You can feel good about yourself much more effectively with a good book from the self-help shelf, or by attending a personal development seminar. You can be involved in making the world a better place without going to church.
According to the author,
The solution is simple: we…
View original post 782 more words
Still, his observations are highly interesting. He describes an association gradually taken over by extreme liberals (read: perverts, and those who would like to be it). First, they get rid of the concept of – as far as it goes – scientific accountability. Then they create an ideological climate of opposition to their own ideology. Lastly they factually shut out any opinion divergent from their own. One is reminded of the supposed “scientific” evidence about the biggest hoax of the age, “man-made global warming”.
I am unable to prove any sympathy for the man. I think he is clearly part of the problem. But again, it always works that way, as people do not abandon truth and common sense all completely and at the same time, but rather in groups overtaking each other in stupidity.
Welcome to the real world, Dr. Cummings.
Here and then one reads an interpretation – much popular in the Vatican, I think – which makes of those Conciliar Fathers who approved and pushed the V II reform a sort of well-intentioned, but vaguely naive churchmen who, persuaded as they were of the virtues of modernity, were just a tad slow in understanding the problems this marriage between Christ and the modern world would engender.
There is no way the “modernisers” within the Church can escape their responsibility for what happened, and explanations like the one given above are, as we say in Italy, an attempt to hide behind one’s finger. Let us see why:
1) The idea that the world and the Church would now be – because this was the message – happy ever after is fundamentally flawed, and flawed in such a way that no one can claim not to see the falseness of the premise. After 2000 years in which the Church has proclaimed to be the enemy of the world, this idea that suddenly the world and the Church should pedal in tandem in perfect harmony just because we happened to have computers, aeroplanes and medical advancements is more than stupid, it is criminally disingenuous. Every halfway instructed peasant with a sincere heart would have been perfectly aware of this, but the “Conciliar Fathers” apparently weren’t. Congratulations for the sleight of hand, Fathers; just don’t claim innocence.
2) The behaviour of the same “Conciliar Fathers”, of the very same people who took part to the Council, in the following years is the best evidence most of the Conciliar Fathers wanted to surrender to the world and were perfectly uncaring about the consequences. If the narrative of the “good man of God who is just a bit inattentive” had been true, once gone back to their dioceses the bishops would have started an extremely fierce fight for the defence of those values which, one way or the other, they would have seen as being not negotiable. This simply did not happen, and the West was swept by a tsunami of secular legislation against which our heroes opposed, if that, nothing more than a faint meowing. In the years of and following the council, sodomy laws were abolishes in many countries, abortion laws were introduced, and divorce laws were introduced or extended. I remember those times, as even in my country abortion and divorce were introduced in a matter of just a few years. If you think the Church staged anything similar to a fight to protect Christian values, think again. Surrender was the order of the day, and we were given to understand this be something even clever, once we had taken account of “the times”. That the times are what people make of them did not occur to them. The world was unstoppable, and there was no other choice but to bow and go with the flow.
This despicable cowardice, this complete surrender to wordly demands would never had happened, if the “modernisers” among the Conciliar Father had been in good faith. If they had been in good faith, they would have recognised immediately – and with shocking evidence as the years went by – that everything was going the wrong way, that they had castrated the Church and that it was time to grow a pair and put up a fight. Nothing of the sort happened. Instead, Archbishop Lefebvre was ordered to surrender control of his seminary, and the indecent embrace with the world went on with an accompaniment of guitars and tambourines. I remember those days. I remember many around me pointing out to this self-evident reality. I remember every idiot could see what was happening, and I am sick and tired to read those who have made all this mess possible and created immense – though not irremediable – damage treated as if they had been just a bit naive. They weren’t. They were simply, together with the world and in tune with “the times”, smoking the joint of Satan and enjoying it. Some inhaled more and some inhaled less, but all the modernising troops did inhale in some measure, Popes not excluded.
This is why I oppose the narrative of the “good intentions”. The intentions were bad from day one, because the execution proves beyond doubt what the real intentions were.
It has become nowadays fashionable to shoot at Bugnini. Shoot away, say I; but Bugnini did not live on a parallel planet, and could not have operated without the support and complicity of a vast number of his colleagues. If we point out to Bugnini’s errors, we must perforce point out to those who abetted these errors and followed him en masse.
Please let us stop with the tale of the good “modernising” bishop because he wasn’t a good bishop, but a sellout. As long as the Church does not recognises this and tries to justify the unjustifiable, we’ll carry the poison of Modernism (because this it was, in milder or shall I say cleverer form) with us.