Pope, Heresy, Mercy, Cash

William Blake, "A Vision of the Last Judgment"

Interesting blog post from an old favourite of this blog, Msgr Charles Pope, among other things the Monsignor with no uncertain trumpet.

This time the issue is about the lack of balance (a commenter says, probably more correctly, “order”, but the concept is the same) that is at the origin of every heresy. It is not that the truth proclaimed by the heretic is necessarily wrong, but being taken out of context and without the balance of the bigger picture given from the Magisterium it unavoidably ends up reaching the wrong conclusions. This is a brilliant explanation in simple terms as to why there are thousands of different major and minor Protestant denominations, each one of them – I mean, of those who strive to be Christians – taking passages of the Scriptures which might not be wrong in themselves, but have been simply eradicated from their proper context.

The examples made by Msgr Pope are of chilling simplicity: the generally accepted belief of the Divine Mercy  and the more and more often downplayed or outright refused concept of judgment and, possibly, hell.

One doesn’t need to say that our refusal to see the point will not make the point any less real when the appropriate time comes.

In pure Catholic fashion, we are then reminded of the virtue of hope and of its proper understanding as opposed to presumption and despair. At the same time, Msgr Pope ends his message with another pleasantly chilling memento, this time in form of a song.

I must here admit (probably earning the boos of the American readers) that I didn’t know the song. I found it so hauntingly beautiful that I listened to it several times. I cannot resist the temptation to post the video here.

Mundabor

Crystal Cathedral: Heavenly Line Obviously Engaged

Pension payments in danger: ouch!

You would think that this “name and claim”, “prosperity Gospel”, “let me hear only the good news”-people (I do not know exactly how much the Schullers fit the bill; from what I have heard I’d say: pretty much)  would avoid Chapter 11 proceedings. In the end, the combined energy of thousands of people pushing toward the same end must give an incredible… hour of power.

The last initiative was even more impressive. The Boss Himself would get the church out of financial trouble. The church doesn’t need to be sold, rather there would be a huge mobilisation of faithful; people from all over the planet would run to the rescue of a piece of real estate located somewhere in Orange County, California. Why they should do that, no one really explained. Eh, the Big Boss will hear us because we can gather a lot of.. power, so just shut up and expect the miracle, will you?

From what has emerged up to now, it would appear that Heaven’s lines are pretty busy. Be it because it is August and people prefer to relax on the strand rather than sending money the other side of the planet to a place they’ll never visit, or be it because the Heavenly Operator is currently on holiday somewhere extremely nice, there seems to be no great flow of money. If there were, the Schullers would be  shouting it so loud that the echo would arrive everywhere in no time.

Instead, less-than-heavenly practices begin to emerge: like for example the one that whilst the enterprise was drowning in debts, revenue would have been used to prop up the pension fund of the founder, or to unduly pay church insiders first. I wonder what the Principal thinks and, in a non unrelated matter, what the potential spenders make of this.

In the meantime, the offers continue to rise and, unfortunately, the Diocese of Orange has raised its bid to more than $53m. I begin to fear that they are really intentioned to get this deal; which, as I have written on several occasions in the past, wouldn’t be much of a good news.

But the moral I would like to draw from the entire matter is a different one.

“Prosperity Gospel” doesn’t work. It’s a clear case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc delusion. Things don’t always go well. They just aren’t supposed to. We are not supposed to be in control of our destiny, God is. Our duty is to be obedient children, hope for the good, accept the bad, and carry the Cross whenever Jesus asks us to. We must do our best, and be of good hope; but we must never naively believe that we have, when all is said and done, any real (as in: somewhat irresistible, or automatically working, or invariably drawn from our prayers) power to influence what happens to us. This is not Christianity, but New Age bollocks.

“Lifetime of Impotence” reflects our earthly travel much better than “Hour of Power”. We are at the mercy of the Lord every moment of our life. This is good so, as whilst we do our best we are constantly reminded that we are ashes, and taught that basic humility that is the first step away from hell. Certainly we must do our best, and certainly we must pray with confidence that our prayer is heard. As to what will happen, that’s not for us to decide.

The “Hour of awakening” will, very probably, soon be striking for this ecclesial community in Orange County. I hope and pray that these events will persuade several of them that to fabricate a made-to-measure Gospel for one’s own superficial enjoyment and illusion of self-empowerment doesn’t work, and that the Protestant madness of picking and choosing isolated verses of the Scriptures instead of getting the big picture from the Only Church authorised to teach it and created by Christ is a factory of self delusions, and often going to lead to a rather brutal awakening in the end.

Mundabor

Pro-Lifers Must Stay Outside of Montreal Basilica.

Outside of Montreal Basilica, they now have pro-lifers to keep them company.

You will not believe this.

A group of pro-lifers wearing pro-life t-shirts were denied entrance to Montreal Basilica because their message was “too political”.

Being against abortion is “too political”.

I assume being against the war in Iraq isn’t.

I know, you don’t believe me. This is why I have posted the link.

I can’t wait for the day when being Catholic will be “too political”. By all those atheists and Muslims around, we can’t be so insensitive…

I hope this will have consequences.

Mundabor

Church, Caudillos, Cojones

Sincere friend and great asset of Catholicism: Francisco Franco.

The Holy Father will soon visit Spain for the World Youth Day. He will find a country where Catholicism has been in steady decline for some time. This is the same, though probably even more marked, that has happened in France, Italy and the Catholic part of Germany.

I look at all those countries and my answer to who is the culprit is always the same: the clergy. I have lived personally – and I do not doubt that the same has happened in the other countries examined – the simple reality that there has been no issue by which traditional Catholic practice or thinking has been attacked or dismantled, without prestigious members of the Clergy giving their support.

We live in times where bishops allow churches to be used by non-Christians; support the building of mosques; carefully avoid to mention I do not say Satan and Hell – whose existence they have long forgotten – but even the evil of abortion, or basics like Sunday Mass obligation; sabotage the sacredness of the Mass; downplay or do not believe in the Eucharist; downplay or do not believe in the Church as the way to Salvation; downplay or do not believe in the sacrament of confession. I could go on.

You tell me whether a national church whose clergy doesn’t even have the gut to forcefully remind the faithful of Mass obligation has any right to avoid being punished by the Lord with humiliation and decay. The Church (big C) is obviously indefectible, but the same guarantee is not given to the local churches, in Italy, France, Spain, Germany. If they insist in wanting to commit suicide, here and there they might even succeed.

This is exactly what is happening today, where we see a generation of cowardly or heretical or plain stupid bishops trying the possible and the impossible to please the young generations not by being Catholic, but by pretending to be young. The problem is that the Church is not sexy, and no disco-masses or similar bollocks will ever – thank God – make it so, nor will any dismantling of her liturgical apparatus make her attractive to secular minds. A church without sacredness is neither fish nor fowl: she is too boring for the worldly, and too shallow for the spiritual.

So, the Pope will visit a country with declining Catholicism. He will crowd the streets, as a Pope is always a media event. He will say the usual words that everyone is expecting to hear: be good, don’t be bad; be faithful, don’t be atheists; do things right, don’t do things wrong. To the bishop, he’ll give similar words: be courageous, don’t be weak; say it straight, don’t say it “nuanced”; be real bishops, don’t be fake bishops, & Co., & Co.

After which, he’ll go away leaving the same incompetent cowardly bishops free to continue the work of destruction in exactly the same way as they were doing before his arrival, and the church in Spain will continue to die exactly as she was doing before his arrival.

Mind, I do not think that they will succeed in this. The clergy, as Cardinal Consalvi reminded Napoleon and us, has tried to kill the Church for eighteen centuries and has never succeeded. But if the church in Spain avoids extinction, I think it will not be for lack of effort of her incompetent shepherds, but because the V II generation will not live long enough to see the work of destruction completed.  Already the next Pope will be the first one in half a century not directly involved with V II, and from there the dynamic will take its own course. The first Pope with real chuzpah will be enough to repair if not all the damage, an awful lot of it. Catholicism is, if properly used,  an extremely powerful weapon.

If the government of the United States embarks in a policy of senseless spending, sooner or later some rating agency will downgrade its debt. For the Church, the punishment is slower, but harsher. The Lord punishes the Church by making her weaker, allowing her to lose perspective and prestige, suffering that she be humiliated.

The Church in all Western European countries has been, as the Spanish experience abundantly proves, downgraded not of one, but of several notches. It is high time that those in charge (Pope, bishops) realise this simple, undeniable, plain to see reality and react accordingly. The Church in Spain is in decline because in Spain , as in many other countries, the clergy “no tienen cojones“. The sooner this very simple message is understood, the sooner the reconstruction work will start.

The present situation is like talking with a shepherd whilst more and more of his sheep fall into ravines, with the shepherd saying “you see, in these modern times more and more sheep are lured into the ravines” (no, they always were at risk; but they used to have good shepherds); “we admonish them not to fall into them, but we believe in sheep liberty and therefore can’t force them” (of course you can, you must, even!); “at the same time, we must be sensitive that we are not harsh to the sheep that are still alive, lest they throw themselves into the ravines, too” (gotta love the logic: don’t tell them not to fall, or they will fall). Whilst you talk with the shepherd, you see further sheep falling. The shepherd says to them “oh please sheep, be good, don’t fall into the ravines”, but stays there without moving one finger. More sheep disappear. The shepherd looks at you and says “sad, isn’t it? It’s the modern times, you know…”.

I do not doubt that the Papal visit will be a great media success, though…

Mundabor

So-called “Same sex marriages” (ugh!) on their way to become a major issue in 2012 race

The liberal teacher couldn't explain why Cinderella didn't fell in love with the step sisters.

This is National Organisation for Marriage‘s Brian Brown:

“When the Iowa Supreme Court did the unthinkable in 2009 and invented a right to gay marriage in Iowa’s state constitution, they set off a powerful voter reaction that is still unfolding. First, voters threw out all three Supreme Court justices who faced voters in the retention election, including the Chief Justice. Next, Iowa voters will elect a presidential candidate who has pledged to take concrete steps to preserve marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Finally, Iowa voters will elect a pro-marriage majority that will put forward a proposed constitutional amendment reversing the activist decision by the Supreme Court.”

Of course, you may say that the NOM has all interest to amplify the real situation on the ground, but from what can be seen from the other side of the Pond he is not very far from the mark, though perhaps a bit premature if we extend his statement to the US as a whole.

Still, it is rather probable that NY’s decision on institutionalised sodomy will have nationally sa bit of the effect that the 2009’s decision of Iowa’s Supreme Court had – and is still having – locally.

As it happens so often, it is only when shocking things happen that we understand the scale of the attack brought to Christianity as the basis of Western civilisation. Paradoxically, the decision of the State of NY might have contributed to the awakening of too many people whose only reaction to homo propaganda was indifference or a kind of benevolent smugness.

Mundabor

Nuns’ “Liturgic” creativity

In order to make your holiday season more pleasant, some light remark about the strange happenings among “progressive” sisters. Hat tip to “Messa in Latino” for the blog post.

We can see below two example of nuns’ creativity. The first is the arrangement prepared by the nuns of St. Joseph in Cuneo (alas, Italy).

Creative Nuns, Exhibit 1

We have not one, but two loaves of breads, strangely on the floor. I am assuming that here the intrepid nuns are not suggesting to the celebrant to use the loaves for the consecration; it seems to me rather more probable that at some time during of after the ceremony the good nuns will divide the bread among them, thus feeling oohhh sooooo emotionally linked to the Last Supper, and at the same time tragically downplaying the Holy Communion. It would be like saying “If we can’t consecrate the Host, at least we’ll parrot Jesus by breaking it and giving it around”.  But this is only, mind, an attempt of mine to explain why nuns should leave loaves of bread on the floor, which requires some exertion.

Even less explicable is why there should be, in near proximity to the bread, women’s shoes. Perhaps the ladies want to remind us of the feeeeminine paaaaart of creaaaaation, though they only succeeded in reminding me of the level human stupidity can reach. My fault, no doubt. The rest of the photos is rather more predictable: the many flags are probably there to remind the priest of “world peaaaaace” (without which reminder, of course, no Mass would deserve the name) and the photos remind one of a kindergarten, or elementary school.

Which, actually, explains everything.

—————————————————–

The second photo is even less amusing:

Creative nuns, exhibit 2

We are in Argentina. A nun (we are told that she is one; she is not dressed like one, though) is taking her vows. Around her strange things are happening, with a multitude of people (some of them might be nuns; but we don’t know, because they don’t dress like ones)  actually imposing hands on the lady and in this way clearly parroting the real imposition made from the (unseen) priest; one doesn’t need to be a genius in order to understand that the real and fake imposition very probably happen at the same time.

This is, how should I put it, not so funny. It gives the idea that the validity of the lady’s vows (provided she is really becoming a nun; which we don’t know, because she doesn’t dress like one) depends from the imposition of the hands by the community.

The chap in jeans further underscores the solemnity of the moment. You can say what you like, but these “trendies” do know how to make pomp. 

I wish the lady in question all the best, but frankly the start couldn’t have been worse. As the Italians say, “If the good day is seen from the morning…”

Mundabor

Christian “Just War Theory” is Too Christian, Say Critics.

A possible ethical approach to the Iran question

A strange, but rather interesting article from the CNA.

It would appear that there are objection to an US Air Force Ethics Course incorporating the Christian take on war. Living in Europe, I had thought that some nuChurch pacifist had expressed objections to the idea that war be “Christian” in the first place, but the problems seem mainly to pivot around the fact that in some people’s mind, Christian ideas should not be part of a course of Ethics held by the armed forces.

The logic of this fully escapes me. Even as a Christian, I wouldn’t have the least objection in learning, say, what Classical Greece’s prevalent thoughts about just war were. It seems to me that one has a legitimate right, even if he happens not to be a Christian – or a believer, come to that – to have a grounding in historical facts about the way ethics – or religion – and war have interacted.

Not so, say the critics. War must be seen from a perspective that is completely kept separated from any religious thought or tradition about it.

Once again, it seems to me that these kind of people are not worried about the separation of Church and State, but are worried about cancelling Christian thought from every aspect of Western civilisation.

Besides, it is fair to say that Christianity has greatly improved warfare exactly from the ethical point of view, so that an explaining of the Judeo-Christian influence on warfare makes perfect sense even for the most atheist of soldiers.

The course is also criticised for the extensive use of prevalently Old-Testament verses to give an ethical – and here, clearly religious – justification to war. As if the vast majority of soldiers were required to forget that they are Christians when they learn how to be ethical soldiers. How absurd.

Lastly, allow me to say that after decades in which Jesus has relentlessly been described as a Birkenstock-wearing flower child, to know that there are ethical courses describing Him as “the Mighty Warrior” is absolutely refreshing.

The texts are now under review and the basic question is whether a presentation of the Christian perspective of war – as opposed to a pure “rational” explanation of just war based on “rational ground”, which can’t exist unless these grounds are based on Christianity – is allowed.

Let us hope that reason prevails.

Mundabor

Immaculate Heart of Mary: The take of the “Catholic Encyclopedia”

As August is the month of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it might a good time investment (not more than a matter of minutes) to read the relevant entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It is rather well-written, concise and accessible to the everyday reader, and gives a historical perspective of the development of this devotion.

Once again, the rich tapestry of Catholic devotion is squarely put in front of the reader (with active links to the Sacred Heart of Jesus and to the Miraculous Medal, for example).

The older I get, the more I get to understand what a wonderful gift we have in Mary. It is not that I was stupid in years past (at least, I hope not), but rather that there are certain perceptions that go deeper in one’s person consciousness as the years slowly work in him. I understand only now that the treasure that I have discovered – nay: that I am slowly discovering – would have been able to give me a vast amount of consolation in years past. In a sense, it is as if a fountain of love had been besides me all the time, but I just hadn’t really noticed that I could actually drink out of it, thinking it a beautiful, decorative garden accessory instead.

I can’t stress often enough the importance, and the benefits, of the daily recitation of the Rosary. For those who might not be familiar with this queen of Catholic devotions, there is a link on the top right-hand corner of this blog.

Happy August!

Mundabor

Homosexual, Pedophile And Sadist. Meet Bishop Lahey, Church Of Post Vatican II

St John Vianney, pray for us

[…] the bishop sat quietly, his right hand trembling slightly as he ran his index finger along his mouth, chin and the cleft between his nose and upper lip.

He was dressed in a grey sportcoat, khaki pants and a tan shirt with the top few buttons undone. He wore glasses and his grey hair was neatly combed and gelled.

The bishop in question is Raymond Lahey, a man found in possession of hundreds of pornographic photos concerning nude boys, some of them extremely graphic and even concerning torture. In case you think the photos had been put there by, well, chance (??) his computer also had tales concerning torture.

The article doesn’t mention with one word the homosexuality of the chap. It doesn’t even waste one word to wonder how on earth can it happen that a homosexual becomes a bishop. 

I know that I am being unfair here, but at times I get the impression that in the Sixties and Seventies if one wasn’t scum one didn’t have the possibility of becoming priest, at all. I know, it’s the magnifying lens effect  of the press, but for heaven’s sake it can’t be that they didn’t see what kind of rubbish they were getting in.  I wonder whether this chap, for example, ever had the possibility to exercise any direct or indirect influence regarding acceptance of seminarians.

If he had, it’s not difficult to imagine of which sort it was. How many others like him?

I’d bet a pint that this bishop wasn’t a staunch defender of the Tridentine Mass, but rather one of the liberal types. Am I wrong?

NuChurch: the gift that keeps on giving.

Mundabor

Jesuits Forced to Sell Family Jewels

Jesuits in Pictures

St. Cuthbert must have lived in times where books were very expensive articles, but he must have scarcely imagined that around thirteen centuries after his death, his own Gospel would have gone for the rather impressive amount of £ 9,000,000 in 2011 currency.

Whenever I read such news, I can’t avoid wondering what is happening. An order may decide to sell precious objects for a variety of reasons, but in this case it is clear that at least part of the proceeds will go to pay for current expenses, nicely called “educational work” and, in fact, what is supposed to be a rather core activity of the order.

Basically, what seems to be happening here is that the order is not financially viable anymore, and it is therefore starting to sell the family silver to be able to arrive to the grave in a dignified way.

Tut,tut.

One can’t avoid thinking that whilst the Jesuits are forced to sell things gifted to them – albeit many years ago – other orders like the SSPX thrive and instead of selling the family jewel, build new seminaries.

One wonders who is the order doing things right.

Mundabor

P.s. on a slightly unrelated matter, I thought that the sale of articles that have been blessed was forbidden; but I must be wrong on this as it is inconceivable that this article wasn’t.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Homosexual Priests* (*But Were Afraid to Ask)

Gustave Dore', "The Destruction of Sodom"

Hat tip to Rorate Caeli for this beautiful, beautiful article about the liturgical impact of homosexuality in the priesthood appeared in the CNA.

Some quotations:

[…] more and more Catholics are coming to the unavoidable conclusion (contrary to “official findings”) that the overwhelming majority of abuse cases were directly related to homosexuality

One may further deduce that the historical spike in such incidents also likely coincided with an increase in the relative number of homosexual men in the priesthood – a proposition too unsavory (not to mention too politically incorrect) for many to acknowledge

Those who are willing to look at the situation with eyes opened wide are left to ponder, not just the aforementioned abuse crisis, but also the broader implications of homosexuality in the priesthood.

It follows an exam of the various way in which a homosexual priest is, ipso facto, unfit for the habit from the liturgical point of view:

About the priest as alter Christus:

Psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a consultant to the Vatican Congregation for Clergy and a leading expert with more than 35 years of clinical experience treating priests and others who suffer with Same Sex Attraction (SSA), said in a recent interview with regard to homosexuality in the priesthood, “Narcissism – a personality disorder in which an insatiable need for admiration often leads to attention-seeking behavior – is prevalent among men who struggle with homosexuality. This conflict results in a need to draw attention to his own personality in the liturgy rather than to surrender his personal identity in favor of Christ.”

A priest is supposed to be “all male” as Christ was “all male”:

we must not fail to recognize that Christ also reveals in a uniquely profound way what it means to be “male,” and the reality of Christ’s maleness is made expressly manifest in the Mass where the Sacrifice willingly offered by Jesus in love for His Bride and their beloved children is re-presented. (The reader may also wish to consider how this factors into the Church’s inability to confer Holy Orders upon women.)

Insecurity adds to narcissism to tempt the homosexual priest to make of the liturgy his own show if he thinks that this is “popular” among the pewsitters.

“The insecurity inherent to SSA could also predispose the homosexual cleric to seek the approval of the laity by treating the liturgy as performance or by otherwise calling attention to himself”.

The pride so developed in homosexual persons makes the rest:

Furthermore, the underlying anger and disdain for authority that is also endemic to homosexuality could lead to rebelliousness and a determination to ‘do his own thing’ with the liturgy.”

Extreme self-centredness of the homosexual person, whose pleasure comes before everything else:

A quest for self-fulfillment on the part of the priest is the antithesis of the spirit of the liturgy, but according to Dr. Fitzgibbons, homosexuals often tend “to see and to treat their own pleasure as the highest end.”

With the introduction of the mass ad populum,

For the priest who also struggles with an underlying inclination toward narcissism, the temptation to use the liturgy as a venue for seeking attention and personal gratification can be all but overwhelming.

The article continues by saying that as no V II document ever mandated the Mass ad populum, the return of the Mass ad orientem for everyone (including NO) might be in the cards in a not-too-distant future.

This excellent article, of a lucidity and political incorrectness which some years ago would have been unthinkable, omits in my eyes to mention the most important reason why a homosexual can’t be priest: because he is a sexual pervert.

All the problem mentioned (the narcissism, the self-centredness, the search for pleasure, the love for show and attention, the tendency to rebellion) can be also present in a heterosexual male, albeit very often and very probably in lesser degree. But crucially, heterosexuals aren’t sexual perverts even if they are weak; homosexuals are sexual perverts even if they are chaste.  This is why in the 1930 years or so before the V II madness the Church had – alas – plenty of the first, but didn’t want to have the second. This is also why a person with deep-seated homosexual tendencies can’t be priest, even if chaste. Would you want a chaste person with attraction to children to be priest?

Vatican II has brought with itself – along with all the other problems – a perversion of the concept of perversion. Suddenly, taboos were considered minor problems. Whilst Pope Paul VI complained about the “fissures” through which the smoke of Satan was entering – without doing anything to close them, by the way – Satan was entering from the main entrance, undisturbed – nay, welcomed in the name of a new way of “being church” – and ready to wreak havoc for decades to come. 

Similarly, and in another ironic/satanic twist of things, the liberal idiots who have opened the doors of the Church to homosexual priests are now pretty much the same people criticising the Church for the very problems they have created. 

How long will it take before people realise that Vatican II was all wrong, because the mentality that originated it was wrong in the first place, is truly beyond me. The defenders of V II and the legend of it having being “hijacked” remind me of those senseless dreamers thinking that Communism was good, but its execution bad.

I prefer to keep my eyes open.

Mundabor

Throw The Liberals Out: A Michael Voris Video.

Church liberal

http://www.gloria.tv/media/64698/embed/true/autostart/true

With his usual refreshing language, Michael Voris examines in the video above the present situation of the Church in the United States.

What is clearly to be understood by his message – even if not explicitly said – is that in the same way as liberals must be thrown out from the position of power they hold in universities and the like, they must also be thrown out from…. around three-quarter of the US bishop’s thrones. Whilst he himself calls for a more decisive action from the – minority of – orthodox and sincere bishops, it is clear that a spring cleaning is not to be expected, and the biological exit the most likely outcome. In the meantime, the orthodox one must become more and more vocal, minimise the damage made the liberals, purge their own dioceses of liberal influence and create a climate more favourable to the appointment of orthodox bishops; which should go without saying, of course, but such are the times…

The Church of today reminds one of Tolkien’s Rohan: dramatically weakened, largely decayed and massively infiltrated by numerous Grima Wormtongues working at her destruction; but still mighty and able to properly wake up to duty and battle, when the spell of post V II liberalism and Neo-Modernism has been cast away.

Mundabor

Responsibility

Giotto, "Jesus encourages the money changers to consider, if they can, leaving the temple". No, wait...

Responsibility comes from the Latin respondere, “to answer”.

The person who is responsible is the one who has to answer if things go wrong. He is in charge, therefore he is the first one to whom guilt is apportioned. To be in charge means to be the one who is in trouble when bad things happen, the first one who has some explaining to do, and it better be good.

This is a very simple concept. Empires have been built on it. Schools have used it all the times. Countless generations of parents have availed themselves of it. In church matters, Popes and Bishops have used it for almost two thousand years. Ask John Wyclif, or Jan Hus, or the Cathars how it worked. They’ll tell you in no uncertain terms.

The concept seems to be slowly dying. Responsibility is not seen as being in charge anymore, but rather as being the one who is supposed to make some noise.

Look at how many children behave (in church and outside) and consider to what extent this generation is enslaved to the whims of one’s own children, with an army of spineless parents not able to do anything more than to make their impotence and incompetence known to the general public. Make no mistake, the next generation of drug addicts, alcoholics, spineless, spoiled rotten eternal adolescents is growing under our very eyes. They can’t even behave in church, but they are supposed to get through the trouble and challenges of a lifelong marriage. Good luck with that.

Look at how teachers behave, their ability to promptly and severely punish – and therefore, being feared; and therefore, being obeyed and respected – almost completely vaporised by a generation who has demonised the very concept of authority and is simply terrified of every physical contact.

Look at the bishops, all too often reduced to be the smiling spectators of a dynamic which they, even when they don’t like it, feel obliged to leave unopposed. Unless, of course, they are pleased with it.

And look at the Popes, with the past century introducing an extraordinary, unprecedented Papal behaviour like publicly denouncing that from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God, without acting to close the goddamn fissure at once, and with utmost energy. Don’t think that this doesn’t continue today; it only happens in a less tragically ineffective way. Sadly, modern Popes don’t reign. They encourage.

The last generation seems to be the first one for which talking is considered a valid substitute for acting; again, so many people play the game (with their own children; with their own pupils; with their own priests; with their own cardinals and bishops) that this has become normal, and accepted as “the way things go”.

The one in charge is the one who has to act.

If he doesn’t, he’ll have to answer for it, some day.

Mundabor

Heresy from the Window: Neo-Modernism and NuChurch

Brilliant blog post on “Ite Ad Thomam” about Modernism vs. Neo-Modernism. The blog post (the blog is run by strictly orthodox Thomist theologians) is particularly notable because its rigorous exam of the evil of Neo-Modernism doesn’t stop at the extremists, put points the finger to the widespread corruption of traditional Catholic thinking still present today in the very heart of the Church.

The summa divisio is between Modernism and Neo-Modernism.

The first is defined as follows:

Modernism is the idea that there are no eternal truths, that truth is the correspondence of the mind with one’s lifestyle (adaequatio intellectus et vitae), and that, therefore, old dogmas must be abandoned and new beliefs must arise that meet ‘the needs of modern man’. This is a radical denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth: the correspondence of the mind with reality (adaequatio intellectus et rei), which is the basis of the immutability of Catholic dogma.

Modernism is, in its essence, the attempt to protestantise Catholicism, adopting the motto of most of their communities: we’ll make out our theology as we go along, and according to the need of the moment.

Neo-modernism is defined thus:

It is the idea that old dogmas or beliefs must be retained, yet not the traditional ‘formulas’: dogmas must be expressed and interpreted in a new way in every age so as to meet the ‘needs of modern man’. This is still a denial of the traditional and common sense notion of truth as adaequatio intellectus et rei (insofar as it is still an attempt to make the terminology that expresses the faith correspond with our modern lifestyle) and consequently of the immutability of Catholic dogma, yet it is not as radical as modernism. It is more subtle and much more deceptive than modernism because it claims that the faith must be retained; it is only the ‘formulas’ of faith that must be abandoned–they use the term ‘formula’ to distinguish the supposedly mutable words of our creeds, dogmas, etc. from their admittedly immutable meanings.

One can immediately see that this kind of thinking is infinitely more dangerous than the previous one. Modernism is an open attempt to tear down the walls of Catholicism and, as such, is bound to encounter fierce resistence; but neo-modernism is an attempt to infiltrate the city without tearing down the walls and is a less spectacular, but more insidious threat.

“Ah”, you will say,”but this is simply the Church’ reaction to the new times”. Exactly this is the problem. The idea that there be “a new man” in the presence of which capital punishment is not justified anymore is, in nuce, Modernist thinking; the idea that there be a new man who, in the new phase of evolution which he has now entered, isn’t authorised to wage war is the fruit of exactly the same error; and the idea that one can be saved by praying for peace or “having his heart in the right place” comes from…. well, no one really knows whence, but it sounds so good that it has become the unspoken mantra of countless Catholic parishes here in the UK.

The blog post distinguishes three degrees of neo-Modernism: the “vanguard” a’ la von Balthasar theorising formally not heretical, but absurd nuCatholic novelties like the one that Hell might be void – the author of this one, mind, was made Cardinal by the late Pope, though unless I am mistaken he went to his “reward” before the official ceremony -; the more moderate but still at times strange sounding theologians a’ la Ratzinger himself – and here a rather adventurous “evolutionistic re-interpretation of Resurrection” is mentioned, details if you follow the link – and in the end the mainstream, “nuChurch”, “home made popular theology” of the present times that I have mentioned above.

I liked this article because I often reflect that if a properly educated Catholic of, say, 200 years ago would be absurdly allowed to come back to earth and assist to a Novus Ordo Mass without telling him anything, he would probably not recognise it as Catholic and if asked would, methink, say that what he has assisted to was a Protestant celebration, of a very bad sort. As to the homily, he would probably not be able to recognise anything familiar at all and would say that the priest was clearly confused, and clearly unaware of the basics of Christianity as a religion. A lot of other things – from the half-naked people in shorts and flip-flops, to the people standing when receiving communion, to them receiving in the hand – would leave him simply horrified at the point of believing that he might have assisted to a cruel parody of the Holy Mass instead of the real thing.

Think of it, one wouldn’t need to go as far back in time. Any of our relatives who died during the Fifties would probably think pretty much the same.

The dismantling of the liturgy brought with it the dismantling of sound Catholic thinking. It is no coincidence that our ancestors wouldn’t be able to recognise either.

Mundabor

De-Christianising Christianity

Jacopo Bassano, "The Feeding of the Five Thousand"

Another beautiful blog post from Father Longenecker, talking about the banalisation of the miracle of the feeding of the Five Thousand.

Even if I have never personally heard anyone trying to banalise the miracle in such a way, I remember reading something similar. In my case too, my reaction was of disgust at people who have lost their faith to the point of not believing in Christ’s miracles anymore, but want to teach the faith to others.

To want to explain away Jesus’ miracles is a clear sign of lack of faith. Jesus’ miracles are the direct consequence of his Divinity. Without the miracles, you can’t justify his claim of being the Messiah, nor his further claim of being God, nor his claim that he would take away our sins by dying for us, nor his claim that He would come to us in the miracle of the Eucharist. Without Jesus’ miracles there can simply be no Christianity.

The miracle of the feeding of the five thousand has, in my eyes, another very important significance that is often lost today: the Jews had to learn by heart, already during childhood, a long list of attributes of God. This was in order to avoid being accused of blasphemy once – after the bar/bat Mitzvah – they were considered old enough to willingly blaspheme. Among the many attributes of God where the fact that God alone can create food (not in the sense of processing or cooking of course, but in the sense that God creates the Earth and the animals that produce it). By miraculously creating bread out of sheer nothing, Jesus already sends the message that He is God. We modern Westerners may have lost, in a sense, this direct correlation between creating food and divinity: to us, Jesus is God, therefore He could perform miracles. But to a Jew reading Matthew’s Gospel in the first century AD, and who had the long list of God’s attributes learned by heart, the meaning of the feeding of the five thousands must have caused the contrary logical process: this man can create food, therefore he can only be God. Matthew’s Gospel is full of such references, that to a Jewish reader immediately say: this is God. God only can give life, therefore Lazarus’ resurrection directly points out to Jesus’ divinity; God only can take away (without violence, of course) life, therefore the “killing” of the fig tree directly points out to Jesus’ divinity, and so on.

All this is lost on modern liberals. They don’t believe in anything else than their own liberal ideology, and must therefore explain away Jesus’ divinity. They do it because when they have done so, they will be able to explain away everything else they don’t like. They will tell you, for example, that Sodom was destroyed because its inhabitants weren’t “hospitable” (or was it “vegetarian”; I never can remember which); that Jesus talked very, very harshly about Sodom because, well, no one knows anymore at this point; that he would, say, only have male apostles in order not to hurt the Jewish sensibilities. The list goes on and can become very long, I remember the sermon of the Canadian Anglican/Episcopalian claiming that Jesus overcomes his own racial prejudice by dealing with the Syrophoenician woman.
It really doesn’t get more blasphemous, or stupid, than that.

To attack Jesus’ miracles is to attack Jesus. It’s as simple as that.

Mundabor

Confession Time

Confession expert: St Alfonso Liguori

There is a very interesting article about confession on the “New Theological Movement” blog . The article gives the “layman” some idea of the difficulties every confessor must face, difficulties that we are perhaps not entirely aware of.

At the same time, the author of the article tries to strike a balance between the need for spiritual direction and the need to not let people wait in vain for a confession. This last problem strikes me as a rather  rare one,  as in my experience the priest who hasn’t the time to hear all the people who want to be confessed by him is doing things extremely well (Padre Pio, St. Philip Neri, St. John Vianney come to mind) or, more probably, very badly. Generally, confession lines are very short; which would indicate that, in case of problems, confession times are even shorter.

What I notice is that in many churches here in the UK confession time is limited to 30 minutes a week, one hour at the maximum. This creates in my eyes a vicious circle in which the limited possibility to go to confession will reduce the number of those seeking it – bear in mind that most Catholics do not think very clearly about that and will take every excuse to postpone – and, more strikingly, send the message that confession is not such a big deal after all, which will again act as a further deterrent to confession. The result will be fewer people queuing at the confessional, and perhaps the decision of the priest to further reduce confession time because…. no one’s there.

In my eyes, the time management problems mentioned in the article would be solved if the priest would act as follows:

1) stress from the pulpit the need for confession

2) make confession easily available.

Some priest might say that he is, in fact, always available for confession, but this seems to me a very disingenuous statement and, actually, one of the clearest signs of a mediocre priest. A priest who has already shouted to the world (through his confession times) that he can’t dedicate more than 30 minutes a week to confession is not exactly encouraging the faithful to knock at his door trying to get one. This reminds me of those company bosses saying “my door is always open”.

Similarly, a priest claiming that he hasn’t time to hear confessions because of his various social engagement, parish committees etc. would be well advised to rearrange his priorities starting from the fact that he is a priest first, and a social worker fifth, or seventh.

Looking at today’s UK, I can’t avoid thinking that the confession problem is largely a priestly creation, originated through: a) lack of encouragement to go to confession during the homily; b) short and “strange” confession times (eg. 30 minutes, and then the confessor has to go to celebrate Mass); c) priests often showing up late for confession time, so the 30 minutes are rather 25; d) in the sum of all this, the unspoken message that confession is not really so important.

If there was the habit – or perhaps, the obligation – for priests to dedicate more time to confession (say: at least two hours a week, divided in at least three days during the week, of which at least one suitably late after working hours) and the correspondent encouragement, frequently repeated, to go to confession, I think things would change rather rapidly. I may be too optimistic here, but I think that the biggest problem is not one of lack of will, but lack of encouragement. The sheep are not very intelligent animals, or particularly active. They must be encouraged and guided frequently, perhaps with a bit of a rod and staff here and there; but then they react, and go in the desired direction.

Let me conclude this with a short message to those among my readers who might be thinking about conversion, or thinking to come back to the sacraments, but are scared to present themselves in front of the confessor, fearing that he will skin them alive. Every practising Catholic will confirm to you that this is very, very unlikely to be the case. Even most priest who are lions from the pulpits are lambs in the confessional. If you go there with the right spirit, you’ll be absolutely fine and will get out of the confessional enriched by a beautiful spiritual experience, and wondering what the worries were all about.

Mundabor

“Why Marriage Matters”: NOM Leaflets

The National Organisation for Marriage has an interesting page, “Why Marriage Matters”.

The page explains to Protestants, Catholics and Jews why marriage is directly relevant to them, and why they should mobilise to defend it.

The leaflet for Catholics (in English) is here.

Whilst you could print the .pdf file in two pages and the work is therefore rather concise in nature, this is something that can be forwarded to friends and colleagues in the US and have, in fact, a concrete chance of being actually read.

The arguments are of rather practical nature and should therefore make the matter accessible even to those (the majority among Catholics) who don’t have a solid formation on the matter. I personally would use different, more “militant” arguments, but it seems to me that the NOM approach is simple and accessible for everyone.

This might a good idea for an email.

Mundabor

Catholics and Hymn Singing

http://youtu.be/faNij71hh7o

Interesting blog post of Father Longenecker as to why Catholics won’t sing hymns.

Several explanations are attempted, some of them valid and/or serious, some others made rather in jest.

I would personally say that the reasons are, mainly, as follows:

1. As Father Longenecker points out, most modern hymns are just plain stupid, childish, and ugly. Whenever I am stuck at a mass with such hymns, I am tempted to despair for the human race. It gets a bit better only when I notice that it is always the usual suspects who sing, the others hopefully offering their suffering to the Lord.

2. Hymns singing at Mass is not, as far as I understand it, a very Catholic thing. If it has been fine for Catholics not to sing hymns at Mass for 2000 years there is really no reason why they should do it now. The fact that Protestant love to sing hymns at their own Mass says absolutely nothing in favour of the practice. Rather, I would say that…

3. It is the fundamentally different Catholic understanding  of the Mass that doesn’t match really well with the idea of hymn singing. Catholics just don’t go to Mass to sing. It’s not that they – as Father Longenecker puts it rather doubtingly himself  – “don’t sing hymns because they still don’t know how to participate at Mass”; it is rather that their understanding of their participation at Mass is completely different, because their Mass is completely different, from the Protestant one. Not communal meal, but sacrifice. Not celebration of the community, but stunned silence in front of the enormity of the miracle taking place in front of them. Not loud singing, but reverent silence. Not excitement, but humble kneeling. All this, of course, unless the Catholic Mass is more or less gravely protestantised; but this is another matter altogether, and certainly no improvement.

Of course, at times there is some singing, or at least chanting. At a Latin Sung Mass, the faithful participate in some of the… chanting. The Credo, for example, is chanted by the congregation together with the choir, and many answers are also chanted. But even on these occasions, at the sung parts (the Gloria, say) the choir sings, and the faithful in the pews allow themselves to be uplifted by the music and the atmosphere. Which, if you ask me, is a far more profound participation than the merry shouting of Protestant masses, because in the singing we are protagonists, but in the listening we disappear in our prayers, we are made very humble and very littler by the thundering majesty of the choir; and yet, we feel taken up to hope, and to a world of beauty that is like the down payment of a much bigger beauty to come.

Don’t get me wrong: I enjoy a good hymn like the next man, and I find that some of the Protestant hymns are really beautiful (a truly stunning example is above). But I am never requested to sing hymns at the Masses I like most (the low and sung high Tridentine Mass; considering the Oratory Sung Mass a Tridentine for the sake of the argument) and I would never think that there is a problem in this.

If you ask me, the lot of this generation is not to try to improve on what our ancestor have done, but to recover it and fully appreciate it again.

Mundabor

 

 

 

 

 

Magic Circles, Scandals, and Fishes

This man was Pope for five years only, but what an earthquake! Pope Sixtus V, in the Roman parlance still known as "Er Papa Tosto" ("The Tough Pope")..

Father Ray Blake’s latest blog entry starts with these words:

 It is pretty obvious that the Vatican II experiment has failed!

Obvious. Vatican II. Failed.

Sadly, so many years after one of the most dangerous attempts of the Church to commit suicide in instalments (there have been others; but this one is certainly running for the title of “best effort ever”), we hear these words all too seldom, particularly from priests.

Father Blake points out to the phenomenon of the local allegiances:  local groups perpetuating themselves and putting forward for honours and appointments only those made in their own image, whilst the others are scared into silence or simply ignored.

What can be done, is the natural question. My answers are as follows:

1) Abolish the Bishops’ conferences, and give every Bishop full responsibility for his sheep. The time of happily hiding behind the finger of one not being responsible to deal with a certain issue, because other bishops within the bishops’ conference are responsible for that, must come to an end. Every bishop is responsible, and every bishop must be held answerable. No ifs, and no buts.

2) Punish in a fast and exemplary manner heretical and rebellious bishops; This is sorely, sorely lacking as even under Pope Benedict’s wake, abuses continue to happen every day and a reaction is only visible when there is a vast reaction in the media; and even then, only at times. This is a very, very poor show. I have on my home page an appeal to write to Rome to let an unspeakable scandal of heresy and cowardice end. Six weeks have passed. No one moves. In times of telephone and aeroplanes, of twitter and internet, there can be no justification for this kind of inaction. Every day that this goes on is a new scandal; and every day that Rome tolerates this scandal, the Church of Christ is wounded.

Make no mistake: unless we see some teeth from Rome, nothing is going to change. Not now, not in ten years, not in one hundred years. The system of self-perpetuation of the trendy circles will take care of that. 

3) Demand strictest orthodoxy from everyone, priest or bishop; even before punishing, it must be clear to everyone, even the last deacon, that mutiny is not going to be tolerated. Let those who disobey feel Rome’s whip, fast. If there is not enough staff to adequately control what happens in the dioceses then take on board more, for Heaven’s sake. The money is always there if the will is there, the only thing one must do is to have the right priorities. Do you think the people at Volkswagen dream of saying to their clients that they are very sorry, but there is no money for quality control?

4) Rome must take responsibility. The habit of passing the buck must end. Rome is responsible, because no other organisation in the world gives to his Head so much power as the Church gives to Her; not even dictators, or Japan emperors, or Nazi Fuehrers ever had as much power as a Pope has. Therefore, no President, Head of State, Head of Government, Japan Emperor or German Fuehrer is so clearly, inescapably responsible for widespread abuse, as a Pope is. The fish stinks from the head down.

Please, please let us stop with the usual excuses so readily accepted: “we can’t start to do things right all at once, it would be so traumatic”; “we have no light bulbs for the offices”; “some bishops are so, so wicked”; “orthodoxy? For Heaven’s sake, it will cause a schism!”. If you tolerate abuses, you are an accomplice in them; if you don’t have enough light bulbs, buy some; if some bishops are wicked,  kick them out, as it would happen in every organisation concerned with doing things properly.

5) Far better appointments. A new generation of young, determined, combative bishops must be appointed, and the old system of perpetuation of the old cliques completely and publicly demolished. No more bishops taken from the local queue, but people coming from outside, not compromised with the local power structure, and yearning for a fight with the locals. A generation of largely 35- to 40-years old, completely orthodox bishops relishing the job of crushing the local system of power would do wonders in just a few years. Please don’t tell me there aren’t such people. Among the 60 years old they might be more rare – and I am rather sure they are not so rare -; but among the younger there must be plenty of choice. Look at the blogging panorama, and reflect that this is merely the tip of the iceberg.

——————————————————————————–

Granted, things have evidently improved in some areas; we had great impulses particularly in matter of liturgy; a slow but steady return to what might, one day, be described as sanity and sobriety is to be seen; but as far as governance is concerned we clearly aren’t getting enough leadership. By far not.

When there’s a will there’s a way; if no way is found, is because there’s no will. As long as Rome is weak, the local “circles” will be strong. When Rome becomes strong, the local “circles” will be crushed.

Not happening at the moment, though. Archbishop Nichols has been sent to Westminster by none other than Pope Benedict, and from Westminster he now provides probably more than half of the scandals in the English Church. Some good appointments have been made; but mainly there, where no great opposition from the local “circles” was to be expected; where this happened (say: Wagner, in Austria), the Holy Father’s backpedaling has been plain for everyone to see. No surprise that the trendy circles continue to feel in charge. They feel, because they are. Look at my homepage and see for yourself what is happening in Austria; in Germany and Ireland we might not be that far away, the French bishops are atrocious, in Westminster’s Diocese we have homo masses and an openly “dissenting” Archbishop. I have written about other bishops in Brazil, Australia, Germany. Truly, not nearly enough is happening.

In a time of emergency like this, things will begin to seriously improve (as opposed to noticing that only 990 of 1000 abuses still go on, and rejoicing for the 10 that don’t) when we get a papacy able to tackle the problems with the ruthless  determination of the best Popes of the past, rather than with the softly-softly attitude of the Post Vatican-II ones. Popes like Urban II, Pius V, Sixtus V ate problems for breakfast instead of constantly worrying about the reactions to their deeds. Compared to the slowness of the times – in which even to travel from a part of Italy to another could take weeks; news travelled extremely slowly and were often difficult to check; and the world was, figuratively speaking, immensely large compared to today – these men had astonishing promptness, a wondrous energy, a clear vision of what is expected from a Pope, and a strong will to deliver it.

We need strong Popes like those ones; Popes with a crystal clear determination to do what is right instead of encouraging others to do it; Popes with no time for the constant looking right and left, the constant waiting for a better time, the constant fear of being perceived as too harsh; Popes with no desire to be seen as a good great-aunt but as a loving, strong father.

The fish stinks from the head down.

Mundabor

Crystal Cathedral Not On Sale Anymore. Perhaps. For Now.

Televised in front of a worldwide audience: "The Hour of Bankruptcy".

In a move which, to this cynical eyes, reeks of desperation, the Crystal Cathedral board is going to ask the judge overseeing the creditor’s committee to be given another 120 days to raise the $50m they couldn’t raise in the past 10 months.

Talk of positive thinking!

The business plan looks a bit like this: the money will come from somewhere; the Holy Ghost will provide for this; or we might ask 100,000 people to donate 500 dollar each, and Bob’s your uncle.

Look, 100,000 x 500 = 50,000,000. What can go wrong?!

Good luck with that, folks, and congratulations for the nerve. You’re lucky I am not the judge in question, though.

Far from me to wish a Proddie church to grow and prosper, further spreading error; but if the judge allows them further 120 days for this outlandish plan, this might persuade the Diocese of Orange to let the project be, listen to the voice of reason, abandon the idea of buying a protestant temple on the cheap and focus instead on building an authentically Catholic Cathedral. A building made as God intended, built with patience (a virtue) and faith (another virtue), and then able to serve Catholics for many centuries to come.

Mundabor

Don’t Expose Heresy, Says Catholic Writer

Beware of imitations.

Vittorio Messori is, or so they say, the world’s most translated Catholic writer. He is certainly rather well-known in Italy.

Messori is linked with the Medjugorje “phenomenon” (the “pastoral” word for scam, and fraud), and he travelled there already at the beginning of the apparitions. Messori now tells us that he is very worried for the fact that the Vatican is investigating the facts.

First of all, let me say that I cannot escape the impression that Messori senses – as every sensible person – that Rome is finally going to drive over Medjugorje with the steamroller.

One is worried for the loss of something he cares about. I am **not** worried about Medjugorje, because I don’t care for heresies, lies and deception. Does he?

Messori’s “worries” are as follows:

1.

“Whatever will be the decision of the Holy See, the damage will be severe”.

What? Truth causes “damages”? Since when? Has a damage been done when, say, Arianism was uprooted?
The decision of the Holy See will put an end to the circus. Can’t imagine any better decision than this. The damage is being made now, every day.

2.

If the International Commission of Inquiry, presided over by Cardinal Camillo Ruini, will end up ruling on the non-authenticity of the apparitions, if it made a statement of deceit, misunderstanding, perhaps of cheating, for pastoral care it would be a disaster”,

More of the same. Truth is a disaster for “pastoral care”. The sheep are stupid, you see; therefore, they can’t be asked to face the truth. And the sheep would apostatise, therefore it’s better to leave them in, with heretical beliefs and all. More “pastoral”, you see. Let us leave them in their illusions, and heretical persuasions, and let them believe in these extremely strange Blessed Virgin who changes her mind about her apparitions, thanks you for listening to her, apologises to you, asks you to pray for her intentions, says that all faiths are equal, talks to self-confessing liars, greets them saying “blessed be… Me”, says that a former Franciscan who has impregnated a nun and continues to celebrate mass after being forbidden is rather fine, and the bishop condemning him rather harsh; says to the faithful that they must disobey a bishop. I could go on.

3.

I have met and continue to meet so many people who have changed and for whom Medjugorje is the center of their experience of faith: What would you say to them?

How about giving to the poor deluded souls answers such as : 1) that I thought that the center of one’s experience of faith were supposed to be Jesus and the Holy Church, not a sentimental wannabe new theology -cum-live-apparition; 2) that they are worshiping a golden calf in frontal confrontation with the Church founded by Christ, are or were able to follow a chap able to impregnate a nun, and think that the Blessed Virgin says that the faithful should disobey to the Bishop;  3) that people can change for the better for a number of reasons; say, because they have come into contact with Mormonism, or with the Salvation’s Army; but this doesn’t make either any less wrong; 4) that I question anyway any change that doesn’t lead to Christ, but away from Him. “The fornicating, nun- impregnating Franciscan is right, the bishop chastising him is wrong; the seer are liars but the Blessed virgin says that they are very good”. Hhmm…… if these are the good fruits I’ll have the bad ones, thanks….

These answers are just what I came up to in a couple of seconds. I am sure dozens of more arguments can be made.

4.

But if the ruling turns out otherwise, it would still be a serious problem. Canon Law states that the local ordinary, that the Bishop is responsible for the investigation of the truth or non-truth of these cases. And it is known that in the case of Medjugorje, the two bishops (Pavao Zanic and his successor, Ratko Peric, ed) have expressed themselves strongly and without hesitation against the authenticity of the apparitions.

The argument doesn’t stand and appears rather disingenuous:
a) A Pope can always override a bishop in such matters, and this is why not even the FSSPX would see a problem in the Vatican decision to investigate Medjugorje thoroughly and, in case (and I am laughing out loud here) to express a different opinion regarding their authenticity.
b) Messori is certainly aware that the Vatican is acting not because they have any doubt about the bishops of Mostar being right, but because they are rightfully fed up with the continuous existence of this scandalous, dismal, obscene, heretical circus existing only to extract money out of people of little faith, and big credulity.
c) Messori must know that the Vatican had already announced a thorough investigation when the apparitions cease; their decision to act is therefore nothing new.  The only new element is that they have decided to act before waiting for the end of the apparitions because, very conveniently, the latter do not want to cease.

Yes, Medjugorje will never be a danger for Christianity, like Arianism once was; its own stupidity and all too apparent flaws will see to it that only a minority of very gullible people, desperate for apparitions, will continue to follow the “seers”. But frankly I don’t think that this is a reason not to act, and I’d say that the Vatican has left things go for long enough already, and that now it is really time to put an end to this.

If the bishop is not believed, then the Pope will have to be believed. If the Pope is not believed, then very harsh words will have to be spoken. If even the very harsh words are not enough, may God have mercy on those souls.

Make no mistake, the devil is behind this and his harvest will – after decades of failing to tackle the problem decisively – be abundant.

But that this be a reason to let the heresy go on undisturbed is something that only the emasculated stupidity of these post V II-times could generate.

Mundabor

Priests, Pulpits and Sins

The Right Stuff

Reading around on the Internet, one stumbles upon some debates that to this cradle Catholic – who grew up in a country and in a time where Catholicism was still taken seriously – do sound rather strange.

I therefore thought that I would spend two words about what I think is the role expected from a priest vis-a-vis the challenges of modern times – and, come to that, of all times -.

1) I find it very good that a priest is shocked at perverted behaviour. When a priest – or every other person – is not shocked anymore, this means that he has been polluted by perversion himself. One must wonder about the state of a soul who is not taken by disgust at seeing people of same sex holding hands in public or, worse, kissing. Of course a priest must not be a Pollyanna utterly unaware of the existence of sin; but neither can he be one who looks at sexual perversion without cringing.

2) I find it (after the consecration) the most important duty of the priest to be good from the pulpit. In particular, it is inconceivable to me how a priest – any pastor or minister, let alone a Catholic priest – may renounce to address the matter of sin. I do not only mean the sin of lust, but all sins: envy, gluttony, pride, the lot. We are surrounded by obese people, on their way to a life of trouble and a premature death, because the sin of gluttony is not mentioned anymore; we have more and more vocal perverts around, because their sin of pride has been hidden under the cloak of “understanding” for their “plight”, when vocal homosexuality is simply utter rebellion to Our Lord; we have the environmental madness and the spreading of socialist ideas, because the sin of envy is not properly addressed; nay, it is encouraged.

How important the homily is can be clearly seen from the fact that the Church post Vatican II has tried to kill it, transforming it in a harmless chat where no uncomfortable messages are conveyed. The measure in which sin is so accurately avoided in every trendy homily is simply scary. In fact, whilst we still say that something is said “from the pulpit”, the pulpit itself has been one of the victims of Vatican II. How many new churches have been built with a proper pulpit? And when a pulpit is available, how many priests still use it?
The entire concept and physical presence of the pulpit reminds one of sin. NuChurch wants to get rid of the concept of sin. Therefore, NuChurch has to get rid of the pulpit.

Let me state very plainly that to me, a priest who is unwilling to address sin from the pulpit is unrecognisable as a priest.

3) In my eyes, a good priest is one who is, as it is generally said, a lion from the pulpit and a lamb (when he sees contrition, of course) in the confessional. From the pulpit, I am reminded of what a wretched sinner I am. In the confessional, I am re-directed toward the path of salvation. Being a sinner, I need the constant reminder that I go astray, and need to be reconciled to Jesus; that I am like those half-broken spring-propelled toy cars we had as children, which couldn’t go straight and had to be constantly put on the right way again; and this not only in the very grave things, but in the lesser ones also. I need to be reminded that I alone can do pretty much perfectly absolutely nothing; that left to my devices, I am very likely to find a rather fast way to hell; that my path to improvement and to a life of – at least – struggle to be as good as I can goes through the humiliation of penance, the crushing acknowledgment that I continue to nail Christ to the Cross every day. And this humiliation is really good (I mean: salutary), because it keeps me away from the worst of the sin of pride, and puts ruthlessly in front of my eyes what wreckage concupiscence is ready to make in my soul, if I am complacent.

Unpleasant? You bet! The human condition is unpleasant: we are sinners ready to continue to offend Christ every day. We are serial sinners who, unless we are properly instructed and reminded and admonished and rebuked, would easily find a speedy way to hell, and the priest is the man to help us avoid that.

4) Still, my ideal priest is one who uses a wise mixture of all that; one whose homilies are a healthy mixture of instruction and admonition, of hope and brimstone, of roaring and consoling. By one homily of twelve to fifteen minutes a week there is really a lot to say, and a normal churchgoer can have a thorough foundation in Catholic teaching, and at the same time develop a very healthy, nay, indispensable sense of his own sinfulness, in a matter of just a few years. This is what has always happened in the past, when people actually built churches with pulpits; and this is what the perverted generation of Vatican II has abandoned. Even the way to the confessional clearly goes through the pulpit, as the confessionals are deserted because the need for confession is not stressed strongly enough. One would have to talk about sin, you know. So he devotes the homily to the jooooy that awaaaaaits us aaaall in heaaaaven instead. “What a beautiful homily, Father”, will the people whose hand he is – in pure Protestant fashion – happily shaking after Mass say to him. Nothing but smiles all around. How very nice.

5) A good priest is, in my eyes, one who doesn’t refrain from addressing sexual perversion from the pulpit. He will – if he is any good – be able to express himself in a way that is clear without being obscene, and can be directed to the adults without upsetting the children. I agree that one hundred years ago the Sin of Sodom didn’t need to be addressed in Church; but others did, and St. Augustine openly rebuked his parishioners who slept with their own servants without being so afraid of what questions the children of these very fathers might have asked after Mass.

—————-

This is not meant to offend anyone in particular, of course. In fact, the blog where I have read one of these debates is run by what I think a most excellent priest. But then again, it is surprising what comments people (or even: priests) can write around as comments to blog posts or answers to questions. If I look back at my own experience the lack of proper homilies as a child has been, no doubt, one of the things which allowed me to slide away from mass attendance. If the priests isn’t serious, you end up not taking the Mass seriously. My mistake of course, but I can’t say that I was even warned from doing the mistake. Such were the times and such they, I do not doubt, very often are. We live in times where many priests would consider mentioning Mass obligation a no-no. Then they complain about the fact that the world is so materialistic and not turned to God. Why don’t they wake up instead.

A priest doesn’t have to be a master in sensitivity. He is there to save souls. He must be able to find the words, and to use the strong ones when needed. This is what a loving father does.

At times I have the impression that modern “Fathers” would prefer to be called “Mother” instead.

Mundabor

Two Words On “Clericals”

Six Salesians. On the left, Herman Spronck, the now booted protector of pedophiles.

Whilst writing the last blog post about the satanic homosexual, drug-user, embezzler priest, I reflected on the fact that the man was in an establishment for sodomites without wearing his clericals.

Obviously so, you would say. Well yes and no. Let me explain.

Let us imagine that I am a priest with some vices on the side; a frequenter of strip clubs, say, or a client of escort girls. If my parishioners are accustomed to never see me in clerical garbs (because I am oh so “modern”, “pastoral”, and all other stupid terms come into fashion after Vatican II), then it will be rather easy for me to get out of my place at whatever hour during the day without arising any suspicion and, from there, head to wherever I please. No one seeing me going out of the rectory would smell anything fishy.

But let us imagine that the obligation to wear clerical garbs is strictly – and I mean: strictly – enforced. I have a problem now. If I get out of my place during the day without my clericals, I am bound to be noticed sooner rather than later, and If I wait for the darkness I am in even worse trouble. Add to this that I would not be able to play strange tricks, like getting out of my place in clericals and change clothes in some public toilet. It would never work, as I would be constantly at risk of being recognised and automatically exposed.

This would be even worse for a homosexual priest, as the kind of establishment these people frequent tend to be in strange neighbourhoods. One would have to be constantly recognisable as priest, the more so in the strange neighbourhood, to avoid trouble.

Of course, where there’s a will there’s a way; but really, if the rules were thoroughly enforced a whole lot of ways would be closed, and only the most dangerous would remain open.

Which leads me neatly to the other, shorter half of this blog post: all of these priests who do not wear clerical garbs and want to be so much one of us; so much so that they don’t want to be immediately recognised and recognisable as priests:

what are they up to?

Mundabor

Miami Vice II: Meet “Father John” (Warning: explicit language)

"Father John" clearly hasn't heard of him: St. Michael the Archangel.

They say that God is everywhere and I believe it; but it would appear that “liberal” priests are to be found in the strangest places, too.

Make no mistake, the author of this article is – besides being a faggot, which is bad enough – a perfect idiot.  He is, in fact, so stupid that he thinks that he “has won” the “battle for the way he uses his genitals”, forgetting to tell us that:

a) he feels a piece a shit, and hates himself, like everyone of them. This is where the word “homophobia” comes from, “hates of self”. A dominant trait of these people.

b) the day he dies, at the latest, he’ll know “who has won the battle”. Then, he’ll experience a completely different meaning of the expression “being screwed”. Not pleasant even for people who, actually, like being screwed.

Still, this post is not about the pathetic attempts of these practicing homos to give themselves a dignity; nor is this about their self-hate, or the fact that their own conscience catches them even before the particular judgment does (and no, shouting “gay pride” and “human rights” is of no avail); but it is about the other, rather interesting elements coming out of the article:

1) A priest (depicted in the article’s photo and yes, he wears no clericals), called “Father John”, frequents faggoty bars described as “not the kind of place into which heterosexual wander by mistake”, and “an establishment where men occasionally exchange blowjobs in the parking lot”.

2) This priest is not only – which is bad enough, but par for the course in such an establishment – an unrepentant sodomite, but he hasn’t any problem in giving further scandal. The journalist describes his behaviour in this way:

The young man told us extraordinary tales: and openly boasting of sex-and-ecstasy parties in Miami rectories, swinging priestly bachelor pads purchased with illicit cash, embezzlement schemes, S&M, and blowjobs-for-promotions.

Note here: openly boasting; which given the place, and the situation, is an utterly believable claim. A Catholic priest, for heaven’s sake.

3) A conservative Catholic blogger acquaintance of the faggot in question was:

rejected from the seminary, it seems, because of his insistence that homosexual behavior is sinful.

So, the conservative is kicked out of the seminary because he is a Christian and even insists in being it, whilst the obviously satanic “Father John”, who is “modern” and “pastoral”, finds his way into the seminary and from there in a completely homo-dominated “lavender mafia”.

This is what the “aggiornamento” has brought us.
Congratulations, Pope Paul VI. I hope you’ve avoided hell and no, I’m not so sure.

4) The journalist (who is, let us not forget, a faggot and an idiot), dares to implicitly call “hypocrite” an organisation that is against homosexuality and then tolerates such sods as “Father John”. What escapes him is that Father John is the pathology, not the physiology of the Church, and that the hypocrite here is Father John himself, the unrepentant bragging faggot.

The author of the article has, in his foggy thinking, at least the intellectual honesty to report that conservative Catholics thinks that the Church needs to be “purged” (you don’t say? Are you sure? Shouldn’t the Church place an idiot like Father John in every sodomite bar instead?); but being a pervert, he cannot resist from mentioning to us this pearl of the purest heresy, referred to him by a “liberal” (read: either faggot himself, or fornicating) priest:

“Sex is such an important part of who we are. You’re going to find a lot more people who are willing to embrace celibacy because of some sexual neurosis than guys who are willing to embrace it out of religious piety. And guess what? It doesn’t work.”

These words come from a priest – anonymous, of course – . This is one that first decides to become a priest, and then discover that “sex is such an important part of who we are” and those who embrace celibacy have, in their majority, their screws out of place.
What an ass.
You wouldn’t believe it, but these are the people who call the Church “hypocritical”.

Next time you hear of a liberal priest, think of “Father John”.

He might be pretty representative of the genre.

Mundabor

“Miami Vice”

In this rare photo, Agents Crockett and Tubbs upset at learning the news.

This is bad news, and good news at the same time. Bad news, because a shameless behaviour went on unchecked for too long. Good news, because the scandal is out after it is clear that decisive steps have been undertaken to clear up the pig stall (and the pig stall was, apparently, of impressive proportions, and the stink mighty).

It would appear that in the diocese of Miami a group of actively homosexual bishop and priests called the shots in the way you can imagine; bullying of those dissenting; favour for those willing to “favour” the bishop and his friend; toleration of live-in “boyfriends”; alcoholism;  all sorts of sexual license; embezzlement of diocesan money to pay for expensive restaurants; even a commercial enterprise producing an exciting beverage meant to give young people “the best sex they ever had”, or the like, with the bishop himself having a financial interest in the operation.

It would also appear that things went so far, and so public, that a group of angry Catholics took the time and pain to write an extremely detailed, 400-page report to Rome, which led to the defenestration of the bishop John Favalora (I will resist the temptation of telling you what fava also means in Italian; let us say that in this case, it applies well to Favalora’s head), his substitution with an orthodox chap and the above-mentioned cleaning of the pig-stall now apparently well on its way.

Good news all around, then. Well, not really. How can it be possible that an entire diocese falls prey of a homo mafia and no one seems to notice much until the local Catholics get really angry? Come on, folks: is it possible that no rumour comes to the ear of other bishops and other functionaries, and from there to the nuncio? How is it possible to arrive to such extremes of depravity without the matter becoming the subject of the usual whispers and rumours, hints and allegations? We are not talking of clearly secret cases of child abuses here; we are talking of a behaviour that must have been noticed by the clergy as it has been noticed by the laity. How can it be that a group of rightly angered Catholics writes a 400-pages report without first trying to address things in a different way within the US (bishop’s conference’s relevant office, say; apostolic nuncio, say)? Isn’t it reasonable to suppose that steps were undertaken before writing the report, and they haven’t achieved anything? And how is it possible that what was plain to see for the people outside, was fully unknown to the people inside the US clerical apparatus?

Now 109 of the 400 pages are in the hands of “Gawker”, a rather vulgar, secular gossip magazine whose direct link I am not going to publish, but the page I linked to has the link for those willing to deepen the matter. The behaviour described therein would let your blood freeze it it had been put in place in, say, a commercial enterprise; but it becomes outright scary if you think that it all happened in a big diocese of the Catholic Church.

One can’t escape the uncomfortable though that even after so many scandals, the old habit of the full-time wearing of earplugs and blinkers doesn’t want to die; and one must at this point wonder whether other similar situations exist, whose only difference is that in their case there is no group of admirably organised Catholics like we had – thankfully – in Miami.

Scary thought, really.

Mundabor

DOMA: Catholic Call to Arms

The President needs more training.

CNA has a story about Dan Avila, an advisor to the US Bishop, calling Catholics to arms with words whose clarity can only be lauded.

“We just can’t simply sit back. Every Catholic and every Catholic institution concerned about marriage and the family will need to be able to step forward and advocate for the Defense of Marriage Act as federal policy,”

“Even if there’s no immediate prospect for this bill to race through Congress, the fact is that the pressure is building and the case is being made for the eventual demise of DOMA. All those concerned about the preservation of marriage simply need to pay attention, stay tuned, and be ready to respond.”

“Marriage is the keystone of the common good. When you erase from a policy on marriage any reference to sexual difference, you will force the government to ignore and to be indifferent to the absence of either the man or the woman in the most fundamental relationship that we know of.”

“I would daresay that Congressman Nadler and others who are advocating the repeal of DOMA are not also advocating for the repeal of the requirement that be limited to people,” he said. Many who argue for same-sex marriage have taken positions against recognizing group marriage, even as polygamists have filed suit charging that polygamy bans are discriminatory.

One can’t say for sure that the US Bishop will respond to this call to arm with half the energy it would require; but one thing seems clear to me: this issue is going to stay with us, and it will grow in public awareness as 2012 approaches. By supporting the (hoped for) move to repeal the DOMA, Adolf Hussein Obama has taken sides and he will have to live with the consequences.

It surprises me that Adolf Hussein would choose the side that has lost 31 times out of 31, but this is such a self-deluded child president that one should never be too surprised at seeing him, once again, piddle out of the potty-chair without even noticing the puddle.

I do hope he’ll have more of these brilliant initiatives in the months to come. More liberal, more socialist, more populist, more “change”, more Obama.

Go on, Adolf Hussein; you saw how good it worked in 2010….

Mundabor

Mexican Bishop In Trouble About Homos

Bishop Raul Vera Lopez

The CNA reports that Bishop Raul Vera Lopez of Saltillo, Mexico has put himself in a bit of a trouble for his – and his priests’ – relaxed attitude towards Sodomy. CNA now confirms that he has declared to the press that he has “received some questions” from the Vatican, which certainly doesn’t bode well for his chances of having a tranquil autumn.

From what I can read from the CNA press release, Bishop Vera seems one of the rather strange ones. He accuses a Catholic press agency (ACI Prensa, the Spanish-language version of the CNA; which latter yours truly knows as rather factual and not inclined to fight ideological fights against anyone, much less bishops) of having published “outrageous things” that misrepresent his thinking and let him appear at odd with Church teaching; but then he goes on to say that they do it because…

“they are driven by prejudice and phobias against the homosexual community….”

hhhmmm….is this bishop’s talk? Am I sitting in front of the wrong cinema screen? Call me a cynic, but whenever I hear someone accusing someone else of being “homophobic”, I know that heresy is not far away.. How can a press agency, of all things, be driven by such phobias? And a Catholic one, at that? Methinks, they are just being (charitably) Christian? And who are in most cases those who accuse others – and the Church, with great pleasure – of being “homophobic”, but the friends of sodomy and the enemies of the Church?

The bishop’s utterances appear, therefore, already suspect. It is as if yours truly would be accused of being, say, anti-semitic and would reply by saying “ACI Prensa has misrepresented my thinking about the Jews; and they do it because they are clearly linked with the Jewish plutocracy”. Not very credible, is it now?

The CNA describes the controversial activities of bishop Vera as follows:

In March of this year, Bishop Vera published a statement on the diocesan website expressing support for the “sexual, family and religious diversity forum.” The event was aimed at “eradicating what some sectors of the Church believe about homosexuality” — especially the belief “that homosexual actions are contrary to God.”

This is, if confirmed, rather strong tobacco as a bishop – or a diocesan site – expressing “support for sexual diversity” is not unlikely to get the “Golden Sodomite” Prize for the current year; the more so when it is maintained that homosexual actions be not contrary to God. Strange god, this one; perhaps they are confusing with Baal.

Even stranger it becomes when one reflects – as, again, the CNA reports – that the bishop has expressed his opinions in the frame of the continuing support for an organisation called San Elredo community, founded by an American (still) priest called Father Robert Coogan.

This chap has managed, in a remarkable feat, to maintain that his group is not in opposition to Church teaching and at the same time to be on record with the following words:

“How can a person with same-sex attraction have a fulfilling life? And the only answer the Catechism gives is to tell them to be celibate, and that is not enough.”

Now this is very, very colourful (there can be no fulfilling life without sexual satisfaction; that’s a new one from a priest, and says rather a lot about Father Coogan’s own habits) as the ability of claiming to be orthodox whilst screaming around that one isn’t is not given to everyone.

Father Coogan’s and bishop Vera’s logic seem to be remarkably aligned, though; which is probably why they seem to get along so well.

We’ll see how this pans out. It can be – I mean, in theory there’s always a lot that “can be” – that ACI Prensa truly has misunderstood the poor bishop; that the remarks about them being “homophobic” is not authentic; and that when Father Coogan says that celibacy is not enough, he means that homosexuals must pray a lot. Which would be strange, because the Catechism says that, too.

Again, we’ll see how this develops. In the meantime, it is nice to notice that in Rome they have directed their attention towards Mexico.

Mundabor

Michael Voris “Madrid” Statement

This is the answer of Real Catholic TV to the “clarification” issued about their role in Madrid. Emphasis mine.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 26, 2011

REALCATHOLICTV.COM THANKS UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS FOR CLARIFICATION ON ROLE AT WORLD YOUTH DAY

SOUTH BEND, IN – The faithful who work at http://www.realcatholictv.com would like to thank the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for drawing attention to our existence and scheduled contributions to the upcoming World Youth Day events to be held in Madrid, Spain, as well as the launch of its new pilot program striving to address tough issues concerning sexuality and morals facing Catholic youth today, http://www.nobullinmadrid.com.

While we regret that some assistant to the Secretariat for Laity of the USCCB has not given us her approval “to participate in the cultural program”, we prefer to rely upon the higher authority of Our Lord Himself, and an Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic Church as it does what it can to increase the authentic Faith and Morals of the Catholic Church:

“The laity derive the right and duty to the apostolate from their union with Christ the head; incorporated into Christ’s Mystical Body through Baptism and strengthened by the power of the Holy Spirit through Confirmation, they are assigned to the apostolate by the Lord Himself.” Cf. Second Vatican Council, Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity, Apostolicam Actuositatem, 3.

For every press release that is issued mentioning our existence, more and more tangible interest in http://www.realcatholictv.com is generated on the part of ordinary Catholic faithful simply seeking straightforward information on just how to be really Catholic – not only in word, but more importantly in deed, which all too often is lacking on the part of some Dioceses in too many parishes to the grave detriment of souls. For the significant increased attention drawn to the exclusive on-line product found on http://www.realcatholictv.com, we are very grateful.

The faithful at http://www.realcatholictv.com are in full compliance with the universal norms of the Code of Canon Law, the universal legislation of the Roman Catholic Church, which in no canon muzzles ordinary Catholic faithful from using themselves on the web as genuine instruments of dissemination of Catholic principles. To the contrary, the Second Vatican Council calls upon every single Catholic to do his or her share to build up genuine observance of authentic Catholic Faith and Morals, which we only strive to achieve in a concrete and updated format resonating with the youth of today.

To learn more about us, check us out at http://www.realcatholictv.com, and http://www.nobullinmadrid.com. Press and other Media are invited to contact Ms. Susan Vance, Director of Communications, directly at 248-545-5716, or by e-mail at info@realcatholictv.com

Very light-hearted, but spot on.

Mundabor

The Utterly Surprising Jesuit: James V Schall On Redistribution

James V Schall

This man – apparently rather well-known; my bad for ignoring his existence, I suppose – is so endowed with common sense and strict reasoning, that I couldn’t believe that he is a Jesuit. I can easily imagine that he will feel very much in the minority among his confreres. Be it as it may, Fr James V Schall has written such a good piece on redistributing wealth, that yours truly couldn’t resist the temptation to spread the sanity.

The arguments are not new, and in fact by reading classics of factual information and common sense like the excellent “The Sceptical Environmentalist” (written, mind you, by a leftist homosexual activist, not yours truly’s favourite kind) one would be perfectly informed about pretty much every one of them. What is notable here is that these arguments are expressed in such a beautiful, pithy way and that they come from, of all people, a Jesuit. Every day a new lesson…

Enjoy some of the most brilliant quotes I have chosen, but I encourage you to enjoy this very short article in full.

Mundabor

Because someone is rich, it does not follow that he is therefore greedy. A poor man is free to be both greedy and envious.

The primary causes of wealth production are brains, effort, and virtue.

At first sight, the oft-repeated lament that the world’s goods need to be “redistributed” for the benefit of the poor seems logical. Usually behind this apparently innocent approach is the idea of the limitation of the world’s “goods.”

Ecology is potentially the best thing ever to have happened to socialism and absolutism, as their advocates realize.

Do we worry about the oil supply for the good folks, if there be any, in AD 4678? in AD 7842? in AD 11369?

America was said to be overcrowded when Columbus discovered it

Suppose, when oil or coal were first discovered that they were defined by some early save-the-earth politician.

If we really want to help the poor to become not poor, the first thing we must do is stop talking of “redistribution,” which is, at bottom, a branch of envy theory. We have to look elsewhere, at innovation, thrift, incentive, proportionate justice, virtue, markets, culture, and growth.

If we really are concerned with the poor, talk of “redistribution” is not worthy of us.

Three Cheers For Cardinal Sarah

Blessedly un-PC: Cardinal Robert Sarah.

When it happens – far too seldom, admittedly – it is a joy and a pleasure to be able to report about a Cardinal who really takes his job seriously and is more concerned about the souls of his sheep than about his own popularity or acceptance.

Cardinal Sarah is the man in charge of restructuring the entire apparatus of Church development programs. He obviously has a clear idea of what development aid must not be: a purely secular undertaking indistinguishable from secular organisations of the sort. But our man is also very attentive to the duties of a shepherd to speak clearly.

Try this:

“if we have fear of proclaiming the truth of the Gospel, if we are ashamed of denouncing the grave deviations in the area of morality, if we accommodate ourselves to this world of moral laxity and religious and ethical relativism, if we are afraid to energetically denounce the abominable laws regarding the new global ethos, regarding marriage, the family in all of its forms, abortion, laws in total opposition to the laws of nature and of God, and that the western nations and cultures are promoting and imposing thanks to the mass media and their economic power, then the prophetic words of Ezechiel will fall on us as a grave divine reproach.”

These words, pronounced at a ceremony of ordination to priesthood and diaconate, have all the clarity of purpose so often absent from our bishops, particularly (but not only) the European ones.

Cardinal Sarah again:

“These reproaches are serious, but more important is the offense that we have committed against God when, having received the responsibility of caring for the spiritual good of all, we mistreat souls by depriving them of the true teaching of the doctrine of regarding God, regarding man, and the fundamental values of human existence,”

The clergyman who has received the responsibility of caring for the souls of his sheep, and feeds them with common places and innocuous slogan instead, mistreats the souls entrusted to him, and will be punished accordingly. Archbishop Nichols’ ears must be burning, and our Archbishop Namby-Pamby also has an awful lot to reflect about; though Cardinal Schoenborn must, surely, take the biscuit.

In another show of beautifully shameless and absolutely un-PC orthodoxy, Cardinal Sarah says:

“we no longer know what is evil and what is good. There are a multitude of points of view.  Today, we call white what we once called black, and vice versa.  What is serious, and make no mistake about it, is the transformation of error into a rule of life.

“In this context, as priests, pastors and guides of the People of God, you should be continuously focused on being always loyal to the doctrine of Christ.  It is necessary for you to constantly strive to acquire the sensitivity of conscience, the faithful respect for dogma and morality, which constitute the deposit of faith and the common patrimony of the Church of Christ.”

This man is a steamroller. I hope we will be hearing more from him in the months to come. The Church desperately needs people like him.

Mundabor