Daily Archives: March 16, 2013
Besides being one of the most shameless hypocrites on earth, Cardinal Mahony must be truly terrified.
Clearly sensing further humiliations might be in store for one of the poster boys for the stupidity, inefficiency (and perhaps worse) exhibited by too many shepherds in the matter of homosexual sex scandals, our friend hastens to lavish the Pontiff with suspiciously loud praise; a brazen captatio benevolentiae that would sound strange in normal times, but is simply pathetic in the particular situation in which the Cardinal finds himself.
Let me say beforehand that I do not like at all this sudden infatuation of the entire Catholic planet for the newly rediscovered “return to the simplicity of the Gospel”. It seems to me that it smacks of easy populist slogan in the best of cases, and demolition of the prestige and authority of Church and Papacy in the worst. I do not doubt all those enthusiastic “new Franciscans” will not stop being stunned at the lavish richness of Roman churches and palaces, and at the magnificence the Church still so often displays in her activity. I actually notice most of this newly found admirers of poverty have nothing against ermine Mozzettas, very seldom seen on Francis’ shoulders (on very cold days, perhaps?). I do admire the astounding beauty and shameless splendor of the Church, and therefore avoid waxing lyrical about this “return to the original spirit of the Gospel” (or however it is called). Still, if a clergyman has the credentials to praise the new “Franciscan fashion” without appearing a hypocrite, more power to him.
But wait, is this the case of Cardinal Mahony?
Isn’t this the very man who built a huge, horrible monument to his own vanity? An unwatchable bunker with nothing to tell a casual observer it is a Cathedral (Modernists don’t “do God”), but otherwise huge?
How about the decoration? 5.6 acres of ground, 33,500 sf of alabaster (world record), an organ with 6,019 pipes and the man tells us “so long, ermine and fancy lace”? Can you imagine how vast a surface of 33,500 is, all made of alabaster? Is this “encountering Jesus without trappings”?
How about the cost? $189.7 of total cost, how is this “LOW and humble church”?
Seriously: how can the one lavishing praise on Pope Francis’ “simplicity” be, of all people, the man mocked all over the planet for his megalomaniac passion for ugliness and waste? How can he have the brazenness of launching himself firmly on the side of the black shoes and the simple cassock?
Again, the man must be terrified, and ready to face the ridicule he perfectly well knows will fall on him, for the hope the new Pope will be somewhat moved by his utterly shameless adulation, and persuaded to spare him further trouble.
Seriously, this man is a walking provocation.
P.s. Mahony tweets courtesy of Father Ray Blake’s blog.
The excitement and shock about the changes of the few days (in just 24 hours, it would seem the Hermeutic Of Continuity With The Seventies has taken a solid lead) caused me and many others to forget some rather secondary issues, like the bunch of acidic women of very questionable femininity promoting abortion, illegal immigration, and homosexuality and calling themselves “nuns”, principally because they scrounge from the effort and sacrifice of past generations of devout Catholics.
Now, the mad nuns may not be such an important issue as institutionalised sexual perversion, but they will probably become a good litmus test to see how the present Pontiff will deal with the issue of dissent.
The interesting matter here is that the mad nuns tend to hide behind the finger of their “social engagement” (notice they love traveling with the bus, too; it must be some kind of socialist mania; “nuns on the bicycle” would be healthier, methinks…), which in their eyes justifies pretty much everything they do, from the issue of abortion to the one of sodomy, not to speak of “wymyn” priest. Now, the newly elected Pontiff is also, we are told, very much focused on amassing treasures of social justice on earth, but he seems very distant from the viragos on pretty much every issue not directly stinking of socialism. If, therefore, he will chose to fare a soft line against the wymyn, we will know his engagement in favour of Christian doctrine stops short of damaging Socialist mantras. If, on the other hand, he will crush the dissent we will know this is one who doesn't wait 45 years to act when he sees the need for it.
One of the mad nuns has, in an interview to a rag calling itself “Catholic”, expressed the wish that an “Italian solution” may be found: the burying of the acts in the most forgotten drawer of the Vatican bureaucracy, never to be touched again as long as the “sisters” live (which, let it be said, won't be for very long).
Sister Mad might be proven right, but the style of the Pontiff seems rather to indicate he is not very much the type for this kind of insabbiamento, and whatever his decision he'll take care to let us know his take on the matter.
I have more than half a feeling that the wymyn won't be the only ones to be bitterly disappointed by the allegedly “progressive” Pope. But I am in incurable optimist and I also thought Cardinal Scola would make it, so don't even think of giving any credibility to my gut feelings.
It is fair to say the last ones have not been easy days for anyone loving the Church of our grandfathers, the Church which understood Herself as the enemy of the world rather than its accomplice. For those who think – as you, if you ask me, very well should – that the Lex Orandi determines at some point the Lex Credendi and, unavoidably, the Lex Vivendi the last days must have been at risk of heart attack, seeing that the puppeteers have made it to the Papacy.
More in general, it is also fair to say we live in such disturbing times that there are doubts not anymore – as it was at times in the past – about the personal morality of the Pontiff, which in the end is something which does not directly impinges Church’s life; but, far more dangerously, about his Catholic soundness in all aspects of Church life, from the way of dealing with heresy to the way of tackling the growing persecution of Christianity even in the West, to – very obviously, and rather crucially – his Lex Orandi.
It is, therefore, not unsurprising that the recent “pick” of the Cardinals (let us repeat here once again for the new entries: The Holy Ghost does not pick the Pope; the Cardinals do) has caused much discomfort, some dismay, and some very emotional reactions.
In my very little way – I say this because my blog can’t be considered “big” or “influential” in any meaningful way, though after almost three years of stubborn work it’s not a tiny blog anymore – I have tried as I could to get some perspective and, worried as I undoubtedly am, to put the straight facts on the table; not denying what is bad – some aspects of this Pope are more than bad, they are scary to the point of being creepy; see the “puppeteer” link – but also trying to properly weigh what appears to be not only good, but very good even.
Still, I understand emotions will run high; then if you love something, you get emotional about it; and if you love the Church, you want the best for Her. Of course, this will cause some dismay, and of course others, more balanced – or alternatively, more tepid lovers of Truth – will find the dismay inappropriate, or even hostile, and will see in critical blog posts or – predictably – even more critical readers’ comments a kind of traditionalist snobbery and alternative Papacy.
I heartily disagree.
Catholicism is based, in his philosophical approach, on truth and reason. Catholicism never asks you to believe blindly, but to reason yourself to a solid, unimpeachable Faith. Logical reasoning requires, and trains to, Truth as its foundation. Truth is the key with which most of us – all those who have not been endowed with mystical faith – open the doors to the supernatural grace of faith. As I see it, faith builds supernaturally on a solid foundation requiring, first and foremost, truth as its building material and logic as its building technique. Good Catholics will, therefore, want to have the Truth dished in front of them in its entirety, unpleasant as it may be. Fallen humans as we are, this will cause inordinate reactions here and there; but it is vastly preferable to have the truth and the inordinate reactions born out of sincere love for the Church, than neither or the two in the all-too -common Pollyanna approach so typical of those who think the Pope is the remote-controlled toy of the Holy Ghost, and we live in the best of all possible Catholic worlds.
In this work of search for Truth, Rorate Caeli absolutely excels. They have, if you ask me, the right foundation for their work: they search for the Truth and write it as it is, without any worry that, in some twisted way, Truth may be dangerous for Catholicism. Truth can never be a danger for Catholicism, because it is one of its building materials. No matter how unpleasant the facts, we work with the facts and examine them in the light of our faith, because this is the only way we can walk in charity.
Charity born of blindness is pure emotional escapism; it is the frequently heard reasoning that the Pope can’t be wrong because the Holy Ghost pointed His finger directly on the man’s chest, and whatever is wrong is someone else’s fault (the legendary wolves, typically), is all part of an astonishing intelligent plan we simpletons can’t see, or is just not happening.
Rorate Caeli is at the exact opposite of this reasoning. It is charity born of truth, not dreams.
They are doing a sterling work for Catholicism. If they report bad news, don’t shoot the messenger; and of the one or other comment is, perhaps, a bit too harsh, it is not difficult to understand that it is harshness born of love, not of haughtiness.
Thank God for Rorate Caeli.
As they say, relata refero, so take this with a pinch or three of salt.
Cardinal Pell says we have “little” (I’d have preferred “nothing”) to fear, says the article, which doesn’t quote his words directly, and doesn’t even put the “little to fear” words in quotation marks.
Cardinal Pell seems to indicate his evaluation comes not from intimate knowledge of the man, but from past work made with him.
It isn’t much, but it’s something.
If this Pope is so humble, he will quickly understand he has a lot to learn in matter of liturgy, and it would be very wise to keep Monsigner Marini by him and – as he is such a good listener – listen to what he says.
If this Pope thinks he can demolish the liturgy and make of it a kitsch (I see a lot of kitsch in this Pope; my bad, no doubt) happening for former juvenile tambourine-player and a sort of kindergarten-ersatz, then the mildest things that can be said is that he isn’t so humble after all.
We shall see. Stranger things happened at sea than a Cardinal who understands as a Pope he has very special duties, and he won’t die if he wears red shoes and a Mozzetta.
The problem here is, though, that to remain by the examples the Pope does not refuse to wear the Mozzetta and the red shoes out of hate for the colour red, but out of an ideological orientation that seems rather ingrained, and an integral part of the persona he wants to project.
If kitsch liturgy and inappropriate dress are part of one’s message, one won’t change it so easily. Still, one never knows…