Daily Archives: June 10, 2012
This is a very good example of what happens when those who are in charge refuse to do their job, and unless something happens fast we must brace ourselves for much, much more of this.
Since last summer, an open revolt has been going on in Austria, with more than 300 priests and deacons clearly and openly espousing heretical positions. Just click on the “Stop” sign on the right hand side if you want to know more.
The man in charge and with the task to stop this mess is their – unofficial – ally, but he is also a personal protege’ of Pope Benedict, so nothing happened to him. Nothing happened, of course, also to the priests themselves, who were simply told they are being naughty, or rather “unhelpful”. Clearly, they feel encouraged to go on – with a distinguo here and a small concession there of course – and are the heroes of their own rebellious parishioners.
When such things happen, either one acts to quench the fire at its beginning, or he must accept responsibility when the fire unavoidably extends. The Church is very hierarchical. It is not that no one is in charge, and it is not that no one is responsible. The man in charge is, ultimately, the Pope, and the Pope has the responsibility to watch that bishops and priests behave. He is there for that. If he doesn’t do it, he is a bad Pope. It truly is as simple as that, and how good the Pope personally is does not count. Unfortunately, we live in an age where the virtuous life of a Pope easily helps to conceal the shortcomings of his work. Until a major heresy explodes of course, at which point history’s verdict will be merciless, and deservedly so.
There is one man in charge, then, and the bucks undoubtedly stops by him. In this case, the man in charge threatened – very vaguely – after many months, and we had hoped that at last the Vatican steamroller would start moving. Alas, this did not happen.
On the contrary, the German clergy – encouraged by such evident lack of action – started to become very nervous, and to challenge the Vatican in a thinly veiled manner to protect the interest of their …. sponsors (or better said: clients), the Kirchensteuer-paying German Catholics, many of them divorced and desirous to have things their own way.
Now it appears not one or two deranged idiots, or one or two deranged theologians, but 150 priests from the second-biggest German diocese, Freiburg, admit to giving communion to remarried divorced Catholics, and Benedict XVI starts to look more and more like Paul VI, without the excuse of V II.
The strategy of the Austrian-German-Swiss (very soon) priests and hierarchy is all too clear: they want the money of the Kirchensteuer and are scared by the growing number of Austrian-Germans-Swiss (non)pewsitter refusing not only to accept Catholic rules (for which clearly said clergymen don’t care two straws) but also to pay the Kirchensteuer (for which clearly said clergymen care a lot). Therefore, the shepherds must show they care for the sheep, and call their cowardice and – if we are honest – prostitution “pastoral care”.
In Rome, things aren’t much better and, actually, they are very possibly worse. The man in charge does pretty much… nothing, and unavoidably encourages (unwillingly, of course) the revolt to spread. These priests aren’t stupid: they know which side their bread is buttered, and can recognise an harmless and indecisive Pope when they see one.
These priests – secretly backed, or openly not strongly opposed, by their bishops – are clearly using the tactics already used with Pope Paul VI: mass revolt first, and what, oh what can a Pope do – if he is a bad Pope, that is – but to make concessions to them? This is, my dear readers, all the difference between a good and a bad Pope: the good Pope acts, the bad Pope first doesn’t act, and then says “how can I act, now?”. Mind, the good Pope always acts: if the disease if more dangerous, the cure he will apply will be more energetic. He would defrock not 150, but 15,000 priests if needs be. This is why generally he does not need to defrock many of them. The bad Pope finds some accommodation, because by admitting he will not act when the revolt is big he admits he can be strong-armed. As a consequence, his Church will become a sort of unofficial priestly democracy, led by the populists and the heretics.
Now as in Pope Paul VI’s times, the heretical priest have recognised the weak Pope and – in this case, also seeing that the Holy Father is increasingly more frail, and approaching death – see a good opportunity to strike hard. This is nothing new: we have seen this with the altar girls, and with the countless abuses and irreverent practices then become accepted. We are now seeing this with the abuse of Holy Communion, and the sheer number of the rebellious priests involved in this unspeakable mass sacrilege from the very altar puts the Holy Father in front of the alternatives between showing strenght or letting the chaos go on. But the Pope seems to have no strenght, so the chaos will – bar pleasant but improbable surprises – go on.
Please note the Holy Father – also here, in pure Paul VI manner – positively encourages the revolt (unwittingly, I think) not only avoiding to take any serious action against the Austrian priest and their unofficial protector and mentor, cardinal Schoenborn, but also – and not more than a couple of days ago – expressing himself in a very mealy-mouthed way about the suffering of the divorced and remarried, as if this suffering had come down from the sky like hail or drought. As always, when you say to people they are oh so suffering without telling them who is the responsible for this, they’ll ask you why you should add to their suffering; and if you don’t have the balls to say what is what, you’re in trouble.
As you sow, so shall you reap. The Holy Father’s lack of action has predictably led to the necessity of acting even more harshly now, and if he does not act – which he probably won’t, besides declaring urbi et orbi how saddened he is – there will be even more painful battles to be fought down the line. Alas, being sad never solved any problem, nor does it substitute in any way the need for action. It merely encourages the heretics to become bolder.
I have to say that, unfortunately, this Papacy has up to now given proof of a rather spectacular incompetence as far as concrete action is concerned, and the increasing frailty of the Holy Father might make the next year or two a remarkably catastrophic phase in the history of the Church. I hope the next Pope is a very strong man, or this post V-II mess will accompany all of us to our grave. A pity, as I for myself had hoped to live long enough to see the end of this V-II madness, as I have seen the end of Communism.
At this point, I think it is fair to say the Church would be infinitely better off with fornicators like Alexander VI, personally immoral but energetic and never a unwitting friend of heterodoxy, than with your typical “modern” Pope: personally very pious, but more or less incapable of managing the Church in a decent way. This kind of Pope confuses millions, and contributes every day to the loss of countless souls. But he is very pious and goes to confession every day, so he should be fine when he dies. I’d personally be less sanguine than that.
We must pray for the Pope that he may somewhere find the courage to deal appropriately with heresy, or to consciously pave the way for a successor hopefully able to do it.
If this goes on, brace yourself for the schism of the century; courtesy of a very saddened Pope Benedict XVI.
You only need to click on this article to understand what is wrong with today’s “Telegraph”.
1) The Photo
Taken by Alamy, a professional Data bank, it has clearly been chosen to convey a positive image of sodomy: smiling, likely staged young faces surrounded by the support of the present, and a festive atmosphere. The “Homograph” clearly approves. Faggots.
2) The Caption
Read the usual homosexual language: “gay” instead of sodomite or homosexual; “gay right” as if they existed in the first place; “pioneer” as if the insitutionalisation of sodomy were anything worth “pioneering”. Faggots.
3) The Article
Whilst the article reports some of the criticisms, it has at least two big faults:
a) it does not condemn in the least. Just imagine an article writing about combined marriages in some Muslim country, where the interviewed says “we’re so proud our human right to decide the fate of our children has been recognised”, or the like. There is no distancing whatever. The very pretence of just being “describing the facts” is negated by the photo, the caption, the short presentation of the article. Faggots.
b) It gives the impression the ruling will now apply to everyone, and even the (only) Church will be obliged to comply with the diktat of the Government. The article says verbatim:
Homosexual couples in Denmark have won the right to get married in any church they choose, even though nearly one-third of the country’s priests have said they will refuse to carry out the ceremonies.
It is clear both the writer and the editor of this article want to describe a great victory for sodomites, a game-changing event. (You guessed it…:) Faggots.
But is it really as the “Daily Homograph” says? Not really. Go and visit Cranmer for explanations. Still, I am not persuaded this is merely (as Cranmer says) “utter nonsense and very poor journalism”. This is much more than that; this is utter faggotry and very bent journalism instead.
This used to be a conservative newspaper. It has now become the transvestite prostitute of the Prime Minister.
P.s. I had read this article the day it came out. I decided to write about it only if the world press would pick the news, as the matter seemed truly far too absurd to be true. It turned out these people are both faggots and very bad journalists. I’m glad I have not been led by these perverted amateurs to write an article about the impending danger of perverts demanding to “marry” in a Catholic church!
I am not a friend of the “SSPX will be eaten alive after the reconciliation”-argument. I am not, because it seems to me that what one might call “corporate identity” of the SSPX – based not only on strictest Catholicism, but on the conviction that this should prevail against sabotages made from bishops or Popes – is strong enough to resist any attempt at, so to speak, domestication by the V II crowd.
Still, episodes like the one reported here help us to better understand where the skeptics within the SSPX come from. A French Bishop travels to Germany to celebrate the ordination of six deacons of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (the “reconciled” traditionalists, mind) and the local press shoots at him like it’s grouse shooting season. You see here the usual vocabulary: “some” in the diocese are “hurt” (how sensitive these manipulative bitches, including males, are will never cease to amaze me) because the Fraternity is “perceived” as a bunch of “fundamentalists”. Translated: dear bishop, please do not do anything which I might “perceive” to be in some way (I do not hate to explain) “wrong” because I would be “hurt”, and please let me decide who is a “fundamentalist” because I am oh so good. Classic.
Still, I can easily imagine what the skeptical elements among the SSPX will think in reading such news: if a bishop can be criticised because the Fraternity – which has been in good standing every day of its existence – is seen as a group of “fundamentalist”, what will happen to the SSPX, a group which will continue to be far more vocal than the FSSP even after the reconciliation?
One can understand reasonable persons may disagree on this. Still, my take is that:
a) those who have resisted being called “schismatics” for so many years will certainly not care much if someone is “hurt” by whatever they do;
b) Once the SSPX is reconciled, there will be a number of bishop ready to travel to visit them, fully uncaring of the “hurt” of the easily hurt violets.
c) It is not that anyone expected this to be a walk: polemics and accusations were to be expected anyway.
d) Once the SSPX is reconciled, the traditionalist argument will receive much more weight; it will, so to speak, be able to punch much harder. The shrinking violets know this, and their attempt to silence every sympathy for the traditionalist cause is a clear indication they know the punches are coming.
Bishop Castet has been brave. Many others will follow him. I do not see any reason to be worried, provided one is conscious the reconciliation will not be the end of the controversies, merely the start of new ones.
Reblog of the day
Every now and then, some idiot will come out in search of easy notoriety, and will question the one or other feat of the extraordinary life of Padre Pio.
This is not surprising. Satan is as terrified of Padre Pio now that he is dead, as he was when the great Saint was alive. More so, arguably, now that he is dead and in Paradise, able to help so much more.
To us Catholics, the resurgence of the one or other rumour, of the one or other slander is the source of mild amusement at best. Those who know something of Padre Pio’s life – whoever wants, can find a wealth of unbiased information – know that he was slandered for a great part of his life, and that it is a great sign of a saint’s holiness that he be slandered after death.
To non-Catholics, Padre Pio will always…
View original post 700 more words