Daily Archives: April 2, 2013
It is a mild day in September 2012. The SSPX has decided the post-Conciliar Church has now become trustworthy, and under the lead of the wise Pope Benedict XVI is going to progressively mend Her ways. Yes, they have been asked to “accept” Vatican II; but in the end, what is the risk of that? It is clear the worst excesses are behind us, and the situation will in time adjust itself by its own dynamic. They have also been asked not to publicly criticise those manifestations of Vatican II they consider questionable, but why would this be so important? If one is satisfied that a self-healing process is already at work, does it make sense to insist in accelerating this process at the price of a painful laceration within the Church? Is it not so, that the advantage of being able to gain influence from the inside vastly overweights the small disadvantage of not being able to openly criticise the mistakes of Vatican officials and other influential prelates? Furthermore, would this silence not be more then compensated by the rapid increase in followers and weight a regularised SSPX would now have?
The SSPX priests then decide that the price is worth paying: they accept the Preambolo dottrinale as modified by Pope Benedict at the last minute, and decide the price to pay is high, but the rewards for the Church will be much higher. A sizeable minority thinks this is madness, but the majority of the moderates carries the day.
Fast forward to April 2013. Benedict is not the Pope anymore; in his stead, an Argentinian obsessed with social issues Is now in charge. This man never picked a fight with the SSPX in Argentina and on many issues appears to be fairly orthodox; but liturgically speaking he is, compared to Benedict, like Donna Summer compared to Schubert. He is not new to Pinocchio Masses, and doesn’t even think he is bound by the Church’s liturgical rules, which he evidently considers stuffy and of archaeological rather than pastoral value. Around him, there is open talk of destruction, and an almost revolutionary ferment is clearly perceptible.
The SSPX priests think of the September decision, and reflect on what has become of their hopes.
The liturgical abuses are not behind them. On the contrary, they are now coming from the very top, with Muslims or women put in the place that is properly reserved for bishops, or priests, or at least laymen. Our friends cannot say anything, as this would be seen as grave insubordination; particularly so, because coming from those who were long seen as disobedient.
The wreckovation is now going on in full force, and the Society is silent. With the most prestigious and influential voice for Tradition falling away, they notice they have become accomplices of the upcoming devastation, then their silence now makes them accessories in the same sins they have been denouncing for decades.
But what about their influence? Did they have even one Cardinal in the Conclave? No, they hadn’t, and for good reason. Utterly isolated and seen as dangerous hotheads, the SSPX have no friends in the Vatican, and the Curial knives are out for them; the more sharpened, because the Society would now not be able to resist their slaughterers without losing her face and reputation.
Perhaps there are good news from the front? No, there aren’t. The reputation is gone, because there is no reason anymore to be a priest or supporter or donor of the Society. Those priests who have recognised their mistake, or had voted against the agreement but did not want to abandon ship, are now going in droves. Why should they remain, when the SSPX is not anymore what moved them to join in the first place? Then, they might as well have joined the FSSP, who will now, so much is clear, better face the wrath of the Vatican corridors.
The priests of the SSPX sit in front of the ruin of a once proudly Traditionalist organisation, reduced to self-castration, humiliation and perhaps annihilation. They have lost face, and they know it. If they were to re-rebel now, no one would give them any credibility: like virginity, credibility is lost only once, and once gone there’s no way to have it back.
It’s too late now. The ship has sailed for the wrong destination, and there’s no hope she will be able to make it to a safe heaven. The voyage begun with such high hopes and confidence in the future has now proved to be a safe recipe for shipwreck.
They realise only now that their hopes, and their delusion, was exactly the same of Vatican II.
Fittingly, The punishment also looks the same.
“I don’t know. We’re still trying. We’re trying our best to do it. We gotta listen to people”.
This is the kind of waffle Cardinal Dolan managed to tell ABC talking about the ways the Church should allow perverts (he said “gays”) to feel “welcome”.
As a Catholic, one cannot avoid feeling embarrassed at the cowardice regularly put on display by this disgraceful man.
Cardinal Dolan is required to take position on so-called “gay” issues, and what does he do? Does he point out that sodomy is an abomination? Does he remind his audience that exterminating angels aren’t sent on earth to commit a genocide as a post-lunch routine? Does he spend at least thirty seconds talking of the very grave danger of hell for both sexual perverts and those who aid and abet them?
No, he doesn’t. Instead, he loses himself in inane waffle concerning the way the Church should allow perverts to “feel welcome”; inane waffle leading absolutely nowhere, as abundantly proven by the fact the Cardinal himself has no clue how this “welcome” should be put in place without going against Catholic teaching.
The Cardinal is the de facto number one cleric in a country of 360 million, but he is simply unable to pin down simple words like “abomination”. His main concern is the way the Church “gotta listen to people”.
This man is worse than useless; he is a walking threat for Catholicism in the United States. He just doesn’t have the guts to say the simplest things. He answers that he would say to the “gay couple” that the Church “wants their happiness”, but stops short of saying both what is the problem with them in this life and what will, very probably, be the much bigger problem in the next.
This is a shepherd only worried with looking good with his sheep whilst they get near the ravine, fully unconcerned with using his rod and staff and only worried with pleasing them. I am surprised he isn’t a Jesuit.
I shudder at thinking Pope Francis’ age unavoidably makes of this man one of the papabili in the next conclave, unless of course something intervenes in the meantime, like – ideally – what you see in the photo above.
Timothy Michael Dolan was appointed cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI.
Thankfully, the Russian Government appears on the brink of banning international adoption of Russian children from so-called gay couples not only towards the US (this has already happened in January) but worldwide.
In a world drunk on emotionalism and feel-good rubbish, oblivious of the very basics of Christianity, it is beautiful to see there are Countries willing to protect these basic principles.
Please also note that the upcoming ban extends the already existent prohibition concerning co-habiting perverts in the US following the recent French “developments” in the matter. Therefore, those who have dismissed the ban on US perverts as a purely politically motivated measure against the United States will have some difficulties in reconciling their views with the now proposed measures.
Besides, it is very salutary that a bunch of Western Countries are told, for all the world to see, that they have strayed from Christianity to such an extent that they are seen as potential menace for children from Christian countries.
I am eagerly awaiting for the Pontiff's hard statement on so-called “gay lifestyle” in general and adoption from perverts in particular. Being so keenly aware of the need to protect the weak, the Pontiff is certainly appalled at the trend, all over the Western Europe, for delivering defenceless children to the perverted influence of militant deviants. I also notice the Pontiff made very clear poverty is also to be considered as spiritual poverty – in fact, a more dangerous threat to one's salvation than material poverty -. Consequently, I am sure he will consider there can be no direst spiritual poverty, and no bigger threat to one's salvation, than being raised by perverts.