Daily Archives: March 16, 2014
“I think I was brought pretty close to tears when Pope Francis said, ‘Who am I to judge?’” said Pike. “It was just a tremendous feeling of being welcomed for the first time — just to even be identified in that context.”
Dyke Pyke was oh so moved
As she is a stereotypical dyke, I thought it right to inflict the picture to you. You may show it to your children as a cautionary tale. If they have the appropriate age, that is.
The soi-disant Catholic, who is an “organizer” in her community, says Francis’ action “stir her heart”. I am glad he did not have to stir her body, for which much more vigorous statement would have been be necessary (“I am a Muslim”, or so).
Believe me, you don’t want to be punched by this one. I’d love to be her grocer, though. No discriminations here. “And this is your fennel, Mssss Hamilton” (insider joke for Italian readers, this one…).
This is the kind of message that is now being repeated everywhere. From faggots to dykes, and from priests to cardinals, everyone wants to jump on the bandwagon of “who am I to judge”-ism.
What does the Bishop of Rome do to set the record, ahem, straight?
oh … but look. He has a new book out about… himself!
How very ‘umble. Eh? Ah? No?
I receive this message from CMTV.
The text first. My comments below.
No one can object to vigorous disagreement on matters of principle, as has been occurring for the past couple of weeks in response to CMTV’s commitment to not engage in public criticism of the Pope, but let’s stop with the idle speculations about causes.
CMTV has no “backers” or “funders” beyond their premium subscribers and revenue from sales of DVD’s and conference fees. Yes, there was one couple that purchased their studio for them ($200,000) and there was one completely anonymous donor whose name isn’t even known to them of $100,000, but that’s pretty much it.
Marc Brammer, who IS a member of Opus Dei, helped launch RealCatholicTV.com in 2008 with “funding” of $250,000, half to the development of the web site and half to staff and production, and they ran out of money, had to lay off just about everyone, within about six months. What staff they had lived on unemployment compensation for the next 12 to 18 months, through early 2011, when subscription revenues finally picked up. Neither Marc Brammer, nor Opus Dei, nor anyone else “funded” then RCTV through that time, and no one else did, either. All relationships with Marc Brammer were ended when the name change occurred in June 2012. Parting of the ways was completely amicable and was, in part, motivated by a desire to eliminate all the baseless speculation about “outside influences” such as Opus Dei, of which Michael Voris is not and never has been a member.
A key concern in our commitment to not engage in public criticism of the Pope — please note that it’s not a matter of “whether” the Pope can or should be criticized, only “how” and “where” — derives from a growing awareness that that there are “unintended consequences” to such criticism, e.g., an enabling and encouragement of “safe havens” that are a form of “Catholicism without a Pope.” When the manner of public criticism of the Pope produces Catholics who describe the Pope as “heretic/modernist/apostate/antipope/evil/enemy of the Church,” then one is creating a climate that, while honoring the Truth of the Catholic Faith, separates itself either formally or psychologically from the Chair of Peter. If that is an observable consequence of public criticism of the Pope, then one should either a) stop public criticism of the Pope altogether or 2) engage in such criticism in a different way to minimize the potential for such consequences.
There is too much historical precedent to conclude that one should never, under any circumstances, criticize the Pope. But if people are, in fact, being led out of the Church as a consequence of such criticism — whether to evangelical Protestantism, “Nonism” or one of the various flavors of independent Catholicism such as the SSPX — then one should seriously reconsider one’s “strategy,” and that is what CMTV is doing. We have had far worse Popes in the past than Pope Francis, but there wasn’t the proliferation of false “safe havens” available as we have today, so public criticism of the Pope lacked visibility (due to technological constraints) and available alternatives to visible union with the Chair of Peter.
You can pretty easily tell who is responding to your work and why by visiting the comboxes of blogs or Facebook or Youtube presences. Those objecting to our commitment not to engage in public criticism of the Pope have some undeniable common traits that coalesce around support for one or the other form of “independent Catholicism.” We are horrified that some would think us supportive of that and it’s only right that they stop supporting us. We are not ultramontanists, nor papolaters, nor will we ever attempt to defend the indefensible. What we will do is what you, in fact, thought we should do some months ago: speak the Truth clearly when it needs to be spoken, but not draw attention to the fact that we might be responding to something the Pope has said or done, which most people already know about anyway.
Maybe there is some comfort in hearing from others that they see and are troubled by the same things that you are, but we judge it both preferable and more charitable to speak the Truth of the Catholic Faith that needs to be spoken and not contribute to potential loss of faith in the Church Herself that seems to accompany the most shrill public criticism of the Pope.
I’m not writing with any expectation that you will post this, but because it’s the only way I know to communicate with you. There are many email exchanges with the most offended parties that I could share with you but they wouldn’t exactly fit in a combox! There is a direct response from Michael Voris to Christopher Ferrara that lays out very well why we have chosen the direction we have chosen. It’s not likely to change anyone’s mind, but it’s pretty clear and summarizes tomorrow’s episode of the Vortex titled “The Pope IS Different.”
First of all, my thanks to Mr Carroll for taking the time to write. I was, in fact, about to cancel the very long message (it is a reflex of mine by very long messages) unread; then I noticed the signature, and thought I would make an exception and, actually, read it. After reading, I have two points and a couple of suggestions.
1. On the matter of the finances.
It is not unreasonable to suppose that a publishing venture would need initial backing, it being very unreasonable that an initiative of this kind would be self-supporting from the start. In this case, it appears there were $250,000 from Mr Brammer, which were spent in six months, and what appear to be indirect donations for $300,000 (if I understand the one with the couple well). Everyone with some knowledge of this matter will know that there is the need for a starting capital, which by ventures of this kind can go on for years; and the question where it comes from is fully justified.
I take notice that you do not receive funds from the Opus Dei, and gladly publish the information. I also gladly publish the other information, that Mr Voris is not member of Opus Dei. I also take notice that, as you write this, CMTV is self-sufficient and in no need of external support.
I suggest you or Mr Voris take care of the “Wikipedia” entry concerning Michael Voris, which certainly encourages to think that Mr Brammer is the owner, and Mr Voris a a producer of content for a station still owned by Mr Brammer who, as you yourself state, is Opus Dei. You see this both in the part called “background” and in the part concerning the “name controversy”, which mentions Mr Brammer as the owner but does not mention any change of ownership at the moment of the name change.
2. On the matter of the criticism of the Pope
The matter of the criticism of the Pope is simply not the issue here. You think souls will get lost if you criticise the Pope, I and many others think souls will be lost if you don’t. What I strongly object to is the insulting comparison of critics of the Pope – of whom Voris must know they are motivated by nothing else than love for Christ and His Church – with a bunch of nutcases like, as in the video, the nuns on the bus. Mind, I was not attacked personally as my micro-blog is far too little to attract this kind of attention, but the criticism of the likes of Christopher Ferrara, John Vennari, Michael Matt, and Louie Verrecchio is uncalled for, and completely unjustified. It is also, without the shadow of a doubt, indirectly directed at the likes of yours truly; of which there are many, blogging in their free time, gratis et amore dei.
Reasonable people may disagree on whether or how a Pope might be criticised, but a line was crossed here that demands something be done. Ferrara, Matt, Vennari and Verrecchio are no sedevacantists. Whatever the faults of sedevacantists – I have my combox populated by colourful characters, too – this is nothing to do with the unjust criticism moved directly to four people (Ferrara, Matt, Vennari and Verrecchio) and indirectly to many others, and the fact that by making their names they were not only directly and unjustly criticised, but also tainted by association by putting them in the same… “bus” as the mad nuns or the above mentioned colourful characters.
Mr Carroll, I do not have any interest in quarreling either with you or with any other sender or blogger or journalist who is, broadly speaking, on the right side. But if your sender wants to avoid quarrels, it must stop looking for them.
If you were to ask my advice in the pub, sitting in front of a warm English beer, I would say to you that your and Mr Voris’ strategy is suicide. But hey, it’s not my TV channel. What I would – always sitting in front of the warm beer – also suggest that you do is apologise for the message appeared on the website and for the video, make very clear your criticism is not meant to people outside of particularly hateful sedevacantists, and express your respect for all those who, whilst following a line you do not think the best one, are doing what they think is best for the salvation of their own and their readers’ souls.
Lastly, allow me to say this: whilst I have, this time, dedicated to you more time than I ever did to a commenter, I do not want to start debates in the matter. In the very simple world in which I live, your sender has made a mistake and it is to your sender to remove it. You may do it or not, it’s your choice. But the army of sincere Catholics out there, who are neither nuts nor Sedevacantists, will look at your sender’s action and take notice.
If your sender shows the intention to avoid throwing away the child of good Catholics with the bathwater of resentful sedevacantists, I will gladly take notice of this, too. As it is, I think a breach of trust occurred, a vulnus that it is for your sender to heal.
“screaming at one another is not acceptable from people who are pro-life”.
Yes, we live in such stupid times that a bishop chides people who try to have babies not murdered for “screaming” at their opponents concerning abortion.
Oh, these pro-life activists. Such uneducated people. Their screaming disturbs the bishop’s postprandial nap, or afternoon pint with his buddies.
If you think this is a joke, it isn’t.
I received from reader Phlogiston1667 this link, and the daft smile the bishop puts in front of the camera speaks volume about the usual V II article we have in front of us here: one who is very good at smiling at the world, and at bullying Catholics.
Another typical trait of the V II tools is that, with the excuse of “having to find ways of speaking the truth in love”, they are very happy with not speaking the truth at all.
And in fact, it is evident to anyone with a brain that if you speak the truth in any meaningful way, someone will call you uncharitable. A bishop might even tell you you are “screaming”, which is obviously a no-no in polite society.
This time, the former auxiliary bishop makes clear he will not allow Catholicism to disturb his quiet once he is in charge of a diocese. Hey, this is an appointment of the Age of Francis. What else do you expect.
Sorry, my dear baby. You will have to die.
We like it quiet here.
I wish I had the gift of the people at the “Eye of the Tiber”; who, with short parodies of real life experiences, expose the stupidity of our times with a short and pungent humour I will never have (I do have some humour at times; only, it is never short…).
Feast your eyes on this to understand what I mean.
It’s probably less than 100 words, but it’s devastating.
I could write a long blog post about the kind of person described in the article. I am sure you all had your own experiences with, well, this person. But I doubt I would do such a good job of it.
I might be considered one of “those who are sincerely seeking the one true faith.” Having become fed up with the emotionalistic (is that a word?) qualities of many Protestant denominations, a couple years ago I started making tentative steps towards exploring whether it would be right to “cross the Tiber.” I was deeply moved by reading some of Evelyn Waugh’s books such as Brideshead Revisited, and by some of the works of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. Also, the emphasis on intellect and some other qualities drew me towards Catholicism.
But the combination of Pope Francis, his “conservative” admirers, American bishops such as Dolan and the prevalence of “The Church of Nice” in Catholicism has stopped me dead in my tracks. No more movement towards the Tiber for me, at least for the forseeable future. One of the main sticking points for me seems to be the very heavy emphasis on authority in Catholicism. I can see how authority has its value, but there have been some huge negative ramifications of it, not just with following bad popes but clearly in the sex abuse scandals. And I have read and heard so many Catholics tie themselves into knots lately, justifying the comments and actions of Francis, and justifying Vatican II, which, it seems clear to me, has almost destroyed Roman Catholicism. Yes, there are the admirable traditionalist groups, but they seem very far from the mainstream in the Church. Even Michael Voris, who I long watched and admired, believes that the Pope is off limits to criticism.
The comment below appeared at the excellent blog of Louie Verrecchio. I feel that a couple of words (or more) of encouragement might be in order not only for the good of the soul in question, but as a little help to all those who might be in a similar state of Francis-induced confusion.
The poster makes, if you ask me, a very Protestant mistake: he confuses the organisation with the shortcomings of the people who run it (the Dolan of the world), and the people who belong to it (the blind Pollyannas who bend over backward to justify everything the Pope or even a priest says or does). When, therefore, the people in charge are way below what is expected from them – Francis and Dolan are the two last examples; or the priest abusing of his position to abuse children; or the bishop helping him to get away with it – this leads him to question the organisation, rather than (merely) the men, bot those who are leaders and those who are led.
This is not the way the Church works. This is not what Catholicism is all about.
To choose Catholicism is to choose the Truth. Truth can’t change, nor can it be devalued by the unworthiness of those who are supposed to defend it, or the blindness of those who can’t get the message – often, because they have never been taught it properly -. I am Catholic not because I like Francis – whom I abhor – or Vatican II – which I despise – or Catholic priests – whom I consider very bad on average -, but because the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. It’s as simple as that.
Christ never told us to be Catholics only when the hierarchy is sound. He never told us to wait for a good Pope to convert to Catholicism. He never gave us the option whether to be Catholics or not according to the quality of the leadership. When we talk about the Church, the only valid criterion to discern whether we must be members or not is whether it is the Church Jesus found on Peter, or not. It is, therefore we must.
The Church is much more than an earthly collection of people, buildings, offices, buses, wheelchairs, and black shoes. The Church is the Bride of Christ. The Catholic pledges his allegiance to the Bride, because he acknowledges that She, and She only, is the spouse of the Bridegroom. Popes may come and go; they may be saints or sinners; they may even have no idea of sound Catholicism like the current one; they may even be positively evil people, like certainly many were in the darkest times of the, say, ninth to twelfth century, and like the current reigning one may well be himself – unless he is just a mediocre, unintelligent, vain Jesuit -. The Popes and Cardinals may be as bad as they like – and they will pay a price for it, make no mistake -; but this does not change one iota in two fundamental things: 1. what the Church is and 2. whether we should be part of it.
No Catholics of the past, both converts or cradle ones, have ever been promised a sound leadership. It was never part of the deal. If I were asked to state why I am Catholic I would not point my finger to St. Peter’s dome. I would point it up to the skies. My Catholicism rests on Christ, not on Francis. Therefore, no abyss of shame Francis may ever lead to Church to would move me to deny her.
Protestants see their own church as they see their political affiliation. If they don’t like the leadership, they seek somewhere else. If one “minister” isn’t sound enough, they will seek another “ministry” they like more.
Catholics see the Church as mother, in both a heavenly and an earthly sense. The earthly mother can be criticised, and can be criticised harshly if she deserves to be criticised harshly, but the mother she still remains. If one has an alcoholic mother he will have to find strong words to tell her – if he loves her, at least -; but he will not say to her ” you are not my mother”.
The mother is the mother. The Church is the Church. That’s it.
The Pope could be drug addict, alcoholic, pedophile, sodomite, murderer, and thief. This would not change my allegiance to the Church one iota.
Certainly, I would pray the Lord that the man may be converted, or taken out of the way (whichever the Lord, in His goodness, thinks best). Certainly, I would suffer for it like the one suffers whose mother is alcoholic. Certainly, I would not be shy in calling such a Pope drug addict, alcoholic, pedophile, sodomite, murderer, and thief if it were apparent that he is giving scandal by being all these things. I would have to, in order to avoid others to be confused by his behaviour, and in order not to be an accessory to the scandal. But never ever, never ever would I think that the deal Christ has given me is not good enough, and I am too good to be a part of the Church he gave us.
“Church” is a very complex word. I doubt there is another word in Catholicism that has so many meaning and nuances like the word “church”. A building for worship is a church; the community of the local christians are the local church; a diocese is a church, and so are the faithful of this diocese; the family is also a church – ecclesia domestica -; every one of the many Rites in Catholicism is a church, and there are other meanings still. But most importantly, besides the earthly organisational characters the church has a heavenly character, of which no Catholic ever loses sight. This is the heavenly Church, as holy and perfect as Her origin. The Church is holy because She teaches a holy doctrine, She is holy in Her mission and – again – origin, and She is holy for all the other reasons a good priest will be able to explain to you better than I ever could. She is not holy because the Pope is good, and She does not stop to be holy if the Pope isn’t good, or is an outright disaster, or is positively evil, or a drug addict, alcoholic, pedophile, sodomite, murderer, and thief.
Catholics know this. They believe in the Church, not in a Pope. In bad times they will make their voice heard; but in all their troubles they will keep their eyes firmly set on heaven. And when they look up, they will know that over there there are no Protestant sects, no wannabe “anglo-catholics”, no strange groupings of confused men, no heathenish or Jewish or Muslim anything; but only the Bride of Christ, perfectly holy and perfectly truthful.
This is why many, like me, criticise the Pope – and boy, how could one not do it who has eyes to see! – without this denting their Catholic faith in the least. On the contrary: if my faith is tested by a bad Pope, I will strenghten my faith by clinging to the Church even more closely; praying more; learning more about Her; praying more for the wayward Pope; putting all my trust on heaven, not on the reckless statements of a man drunk with popularity, and as vain as a peacock.
God gives some Popes, God tolerates some Popes and God inflicts some Popes, said St Vincent of Lerin.
If you ask me, God has inflicted this Pope on us so that we may pay the price of the unspeakable arrogance of 50 years of Neo-Modernism. This is cause for sadness for the punishment we have merited, and certainly calls for us to merit – one day – the end of the punishment by reacting to the mistakes or outright abominations of the past 50 years. But a bad Pope, or many bad Popes, are certainly no reason to question the Bride more than we would question the Bridegroom.
I am not a theologian, or even a priest come to that. A good priest – like, say, a SSPX one – would be able to give far better guidance. But this is the contribution I can give to the original poster and to all those who must be in his position.
Convert to the One Church, not to Francis.
My dear Proddie friend,
You read now everywhere about the scandal caused by the disgraceful Pope Woodstock, and perhaps you think the man’s antics expose the intrinsic weakness of the Church. Perhaps you even think – in your lack of proper knowledge of Catholicism – that Francis may change the tenets of what you call the Roman (meaning by that the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) Church.
Dear friend, you couldn’t be more wrong. Allow me to explain to you why.
The Pope doesn’t own the Church. He isn’t her CEO, either. He is merely the custodian and the caretaker of the enormous edifice entrusted to him; an edifice he has the duty to transmit, intact and properly maintained, to the next custodian.
The caretaker of a huge palace cannot decide that a wing should now be demolished, and a new…
View original post 1,296 more words
The German bishops have picked the new head of the Bishop’s conference as successor of the (un)worthy Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch.
Now put yourself in the shoes of these brave men. They must pick someone with the right Modernist cards, because they need someone ferrying them in the Land of Sacrilege, where public adulterers receive communion and therefore continue to pay the Kirchensteuer. But this Modernist prelate must be one in the graces of the Man In Black Shoes, because they will need some lobby work here and you can’t bee too careful when you are asking the Vatican to sanction your mass sacrilege.
Fortunately for them, there is a man who ticks all the boxes: Cardinal Marx has a solid record of enmity of Christ, and is therefore very well suited for the Creat Tcherman Revolution; but crucially, he is also a member of the gang of eight, which means he has the ear of the Pope. Yep, he’s the man.
Therefore, the very aptly named Marx is now elected the head of the German Bishops’ Conference. What does he do first? He lets it be known that he considers it a “viable path” that “divorced people who recognize their failure can, after a penitential period, seek readmission to the sacraments.”
There. The man leaves no doubt as to why he has been chosen for the position.
Lord, have mercy. And in your good time, free us from this papacy.