Daily Archives: April 3, 2014
We have been all bored to death in the last days with the fantasy tale about the 98% of the Catholic women apparently using contraceptives. We have, also, been amused by the strange theories according to which this, provided it was true, would be proof that the Church is wrong on the matter.
Theology by democracy. Very funny. What’s next? Elective bishops? Priestesses? Communion to dogs? Homo marriages?
But really, as a person raised up in a Catholic country and then moved here in Blighty, I can clearly see the differences between Catholic and… wrong thinking on this and many other matters.
In Catholic Countries, it is not that people do not behave wrongly. Of course they do. The big difference is that in those Countries people know they are sinning and are intelligent enough not to try to persuade themselves they aren’t.This creates the well-known phenomenon of the…
View original post 721 more words
The Bishops of England ans Wales have assured the MPs who have voted for the glorification of sexual abomination that they do not have to fear they will be denied communion. Bishop Egan is therefore (predictably) isolated in his position, and I do hope he does not cave in to his reprobate colleagues.
No embarrassment at the next cocktail, then.
Boy, these people stink of hell from Whitehall. After acquiescing to the politicians during the debate, they are now finishing the job (another word comes to mind) by helping the politicians to let the scandal die out. hey, it has happened. Yes, we can be privately opposed. In charity. Paying attention we are not “homophobic”. Being very “inclusive”. Just do not make any noise whilst doing so, thank you…
What a shame.
Enjoy the new Church of Francis.
Full of fluff, and Catholicism-free.
We have in the past weeks read several statements from Church prelates about the fundamental impossibility to reconcile Jesus' teaching about the indissolubility of marriage, the obvious nature of public adultery of what some disgraceful bishops call “good remarriage”, and the constant teaching of the Church about it being a sacrilege to receive whilst in mortal sin with the modern view of “mercy”; the latter consisting in helping people who have no fear of The Lord go to hell under shepherds who have forgotten His existence a long time ago.
Some of the statements we read around are more definitive (Cardinal Mueller and Cardinal Caffara come to mind), but in what I read a common message emerges: it can never work.
Now, it must be clear to us that we are in front of a huge test here, not only in the rather less probable case that Francis issues official “road maps” allowing public adulterers to (believe they can) receive, but even in the far more probable case that the rules are merely circumvented and made a mockery of by a generic permission to the priest – say: , “in very particular cases”, “after hearing the partners”, and when he is satisfied that they “understand” the “problematic” nature of their relationship, and all the other subtly worded vague “securities” and “precautions” that one can imagine – to give communion to them, perhaps with or perhaps without the approval of the bishop.
What will then, in this case, our prelates do? Will they cry very loud that what has been done is an exercise of hollowing out Church rules of probably unprecedented dimension? Will they continue to do so after the first excitement has passed? Or will they consider the resulting problems merely “local” issues, about which they are not qualified to talk more than they would be concerning the internal diocesan affair of their colleague bishops and archbishops?
This is not a little question, because if the latter way is chosen a huge gate will be opened for the creation of a de facto double Church – or a de facto openly schismatic behaviour -, in which some dioceses and countries – particularly in Asia and Africa, if experience is any guidance – continue to forbid such desecrations under the orders of bishops who believe in God, and many other dioceses and Countries will allow the formation of a generalised heteropraxis with the acquiescence of bishops who don't. How big the pressure would soon become in the West to “get on with the programme”, you can easily imagine.
From October, it might not be enough to simply run one's diocese in an halfway orthodox way. To do so would be to open the door to Franciscan devastation wherever a bishop has lost the fear of the Lord, and you can be sure the new appointments would fall on those so inclined. If the Obama hits the fan, it will be the duty of every sound Catholic, whether pewsitter or Cardinal, to denounce the scandal according to his rank and to the means at his disposal.
Will, in this case, the Mueller and Caffarra of this world stand up for Christ? Or will they retire behind their respective “competencies”? Who will speak for Christ? Who will cry “sacrilege” to heaven, and openly denounce the Pope for doing so?
I frankly don't know. I fear the worse. I fear we will hear from many corners the usual excuse of all cowards and of all losers: “it's too late now”. But a priest is required to die for Christ. That's why he is priest. A bishop or cardinal the more so.
October will very probably be a huge test for countless Western bishops and priests. I do not know how many will stand the test. I am rather worried, though.
The Holy Week is approaching again, and with it the Maundy Thursday Mass with attendant (but not compulsory) washing of the feet of the viri probandi.
It seems to me that this gives us additional clues as to how Francis thinks.
What Francis did last year was a blatant, shameless liturgical abuse. The fact that he was at that point the Bishop of Rome does not make it any less abusive; then whilst Francis can change the rules, he is bound to the existing rules until he changes them.
Francis was, therefore, subversive once in washing the feet of women and infidels in blatant violation of the law; but he was also subversive – apparently paradoxically, but actually logically – in his refusal to change them, leaving the rules as they are as he goes on doing as he pleases. The message here is very clear: if rules aren't really important, there's no real need to change them, either; and conversely, if rules are important than it was wrong for him to violate them.
This subtle but very dangerous, clearly subversive attitude will be equivocated by the Pollyannas, and it will be confused with prudence and conservatism instead. “You see? – they will say – Francis has not changed the rules concerning the washing of feet!”. No, he hasn't changed them. He prefers to trample them directly, and this is the policy he is obviously suggesting to priests and bishops the world over. With such a Bishop of Rome, every subversive priest and bishop will feel free to to do exactly as Francis did; many of those who don't will be put under pressure to follow Francis' example; but in all this, Francis will remain the brave innovator for the subversive, and the prudent conservative for the Pollyannas. Only a tiny minority of sound thinking and properly instructed Catholics will realise that this reckless behaviour is abuse of power, and encouragement to the others to do likewise. Vaya lio, indeed!
Once again we see here the workings of a Modernist mind, sowing confusion and disobedience as he avoids frontal attacks to Truth.
One year after Francis' Maundy Thursday liturgical abuse, countless parish churches will, without much trumpeting and drumming around, quietly adopt his ways. He knows perfectly well he can chip away orthodoxy one piece at a time just by way of his bad example, and this is exactly what he has been doing with his liturgical abuse and why he did it.
This is a demolition of sound Catholicism in instalments.
Something Francis has been doing from the very first hour of his pontificate.
I have always been unnerved by those commenters who, in the last years, said Benedict was right in not cracking down on the German clergy because this would have caused the “danger of a schism”.
This is the same as to say that if an employer has thieves among his workforce he should not fire them, lest they go out stealing.
As it was, the thieves, or the schismatics, were allowed to continue their work inside the employer's premises, or rather the Church.
The result is under our very eyes.
Compromise with the Truth leads to compromising the Truth.