The news is now everywhere. In what clearly amounts to a “German Schism” (very much redolent of the “Dutch Schism” of the Sixties) the German bishops have overwhelmingly voted for the desecration of the Holy Host and the rape of the Sacrament of Communion by allowing Protestants to (try to) receive communion.
Make no mistake: Paul VI had nothing more to oppose to the Dutch schismatics bishops than some faint meowing, but in the case of Francis not even that is to be expected.
This Schism follows the Amoris Laetitia pattern, according to which “in certain cases” sacrilege and scandal can be allowed. Discernment, concrete situations, all that satanic dog shit is present here, too. The fig leaves do not change the reality: this is a very official, if undeclared, schism, and if we had males as Cardinals and Bishops it should be treated as such. We have kitten, females and homos. Therefore, don't hold your breath.
In the Schismatic church of Germany, it is too much to ask that the Protestant spouse shuts the Francis up and either dies without pretending he/she can receive communion or converts to the Catholic Church. This is too difficult, see. It could cause cataclysms, global warming, a resurgence of the Nazi Party and, worst of all, a problem with the Kirchensteuer. Therefore, it is better to invent a new religion applicable to all the “special cases” we want (make no mistake: they will become the norm very soon; not that it matters anyway) in order to keep the paying customer satisfied.
Truly, Germany has become (again) the main source of all the shit now threatening to submerge Europe, both on the political and on the Catholic sphere.
By God's grace, my faith is strong. Therefore I know, I know for certain, that all the Saints and the Angels are looking at this disgrace, and that nothing of this will remain unpunished.
Nil inultum remanebit.
Think of this, you damn satanical Bishops, and shiver.
Or not, and then may God's just punishment incinerate you and make you suffer forever.
I have just written about the rather unprecedented (I think; the German clergy is certainly not new to provocations) initiative of the German clergy, who are more or less collectively, and under the protection of a couple of hundred “experts”, attacking the sacrament of holy orders.
The aggressive attitude and the appeal to a number of “experts” – as if Right and Wrong depended on numbers – remind one of the so-called “Dutch Schism”, also carried out with the help of gatherings, votes on motions, and the like.
Whilst the German Zeitgeist-prostitutes (I insist on this term, because it's the most fitting I can find, and think its use in connection with the German clergy should be greatly increased) are for now not at the level of open defiance of Catholic values the Dutch managed to stage (remaining unchallenged for around fifteen years and unpunished afterwards, one must add) they are certainly not very far away; and in fact, to maintain that open defiance should not be a taboo anymore is, in a sense, defiance already in act.
What consequences can, therefore, be drawn by the growing aggressiveness of the German clergy, now fully devoted to Mammon – the Kirchensteuer – in preference to God – Catholic values -? In my eyes, we can draw the following ones:
Already the fact that the exercise (defined as “four-day meeting”, but clearly the dry run of an open revolt) took place shows how much the Papal authority is suffering. No one fears the Pope, least of all the Germans who are the most powerful contributors to the Church finances. With Bergoglio, they knew they had someone they would not have to be worried about. They are now starting to demand the price of their support. The mere fact that the “meeting” took place is a humiliation for the Holy Father; a humiliation which he has richly deserved merely by allowing that such a gathering, and with such an agenda, be thinkable, let alone executed.
In addition, we must consider the “meeting” cannot and will not remain at the present, already extremely grave level of dissent. It is in the nature of such “revolutionary” movements than every cry for reform be outdone for a louder cry for harder reform. When the point is reached where taboos can be individually questioned, who is to say which taboos shall not be questioned?
The situation in Germany is slowing becoming worse than in Austria, because whilst in Austria the likes of Cardinal “how much I like fags”- Schoenborn at least pretends to want to preserve some kind of orthodoxy, in Germany the top ranks of the Clergy have put themselves, as the Germans love to say, “at the top of the movement”, openly encouraging and formerly promoting dissent within the Church.
Unless Pope Francis wakes up – and I use these words on purpose, in the hope that he is merely sleeping the sleep of the parish priest unaware of what happens around him – he will be remembered as a worse accessory of the demolition troops than Paul VI, whom Francis himself dares to call “great”. I have waited a couple of days before commenting on this, in the hope the Pope would move. Alas…
What I fear we must brace ourselves for is a Papacy marked by semi-autonomous provinces, each one lead by a clique of prostituted clergy making their own policy to please the masses, and abandoning themselves to horrible abuses in the sure knowledge the Pontiff – who is even ashamed of the title – will limit himself to this or that admonition and this or that exhortation, but in the substance will simply ... sleep.
Pope Francis is clearly losing control of the Church, and the horrible question is whether he wants it in the first place. What we see as a humiliation for the Pope, he may simply see as the fitting behaviour for… the bishop of Rome.
This Michael Voris video is, I must say, rather harsh even for his standards. Which is not bad, actually, as the present situation justifies in my eyes a good dose of harshness, and then some.
The basis of Voris’ message is that the bishops can’t pass the buck and blame the modern times, or the media, or the situation they have found for the lack of orthodoxy we see all too often in Catholic parishes. It is exactly the duty of the bishop to react to modern times (times have never been “old”, in fact, and every age has always had its own challenges and difficulties), to pay attention that his priests behave orthodoxy, to take care that Catholic teaching is correctly – and actively – represented in the media however possible, and in general to take care of the souls of his diocese.
It is true that, as Voris points out, things are not so extreme as they used to be and one must admit that there is no Liberation Theology around, neither has Pope Benedict to confront a bishops’ rebellion remotely comparable to the Dutch Schism, or to the Winnipeg Statement. Still, there is a lot of nonsensical waffling around, convenient espousing of fashionable ideologies and, most importantly, almost complete blindness towards heterodox priests, heretical theologians and politicians who are Catholics in name only.Voris makes two concrete examples regarding “homo masses”, but the same complaint can be made regarding, to name just two, abortion or contraception.We will not have any meaningful resurgence of Catholic thinking in the West, until the Bishops start to do their job properly collectively and not only with the courageous initiative of a small number of brave men not fearing unpopularity.
The only integration of Voris’ thought that I would like to make is that if it is undoubtedly true that the bishops are responsible for what happens in their own dioceses, it is equally honest to admit that the Popes are responsible for the quality of the bishops. It is not that those appointed were noted for their own courage and/or orthodoxy and then magically became cowardly and/or heretical after the fact. Rather, the bad quality of many of today’s bishop can be directly attributed of the bad quality of the appointments. This simple fact must – unpleasant as it is – be brought at the very centre of the debate if we want to avoid the situation in which Popes ask their bishop to behave well, whilst appointing people predisposed to behave badly. In this respect, it is i my eyes cleat that an awful lot must be accomplished still, and that Pope Benedict’s papacy can be – again, in this respect – archived as a missed opportunity.
I’d have to ask a theologian whether it is ok to call very bad bishops – as I seem to understand the word from the video – “bums”; but frankly, I wouldn’t say that they haven’t deserved to some clear words anyway.
I am now in the process of reading (and digesting) Romano Amerio’s Iota Unum. Professor Amerio was chosen as perito from the Bishop of Lugano during the fateful years of the Second Vatican Council and therefore not only had all the documents going through his desks, but was also best informed on the background events.
Professor Amerio’s ruthlessly honest analysis of the changes experienced by the Church in the way it presents itself – and of how the Church hierarchy has modified the way of interpreting Her role – offers the starting point for a vast number of discussions. Today I would like to dwell on the role of the Pope.
Professor Amelio identifies the role of the Pope as being basically twofold: direction and prescription. The first is the identification and formulation of proper rules of conduct which are in themselves not binding but mere suggestions; the second the prescribing and enforcing of a certain behaviour. Historically, Popes have used both functions in various ways, but the ability of the Pope to act as a source of prescriptive law (that is: to demand and to enforce rather than merely to suggest) has never been downplayed.
With the Second Vatican Council, a dramatic change occurs. The papacy shifts, to use Amerio’s words, “from governing to admonishing”. The first function is clearly downplayed and considered more or less obsolete, the second one is now declared to be the weapon of choice.
Let us read from the Opening Speech of the Council: confronted with the problem of how to deal with error, John XXIII declares that the Church
prefers today to make use of the medicine of mercy, rather than of the arms of severity.
John XXIII indicates that the Church wants to resist error
by showing the validity of her teaching, rather than by issuing condemnations
This concept that mercy and severity be intrinsically opposed (so spread today, even in the everyday language) is a novel idea. It is, in fact, contrary to the firmly held belief of the Church that, as Amerio beautifully puts it,
the condemnation of error is itself a work of mercy, since by pinning down error those laboring under it are corrected and other are preserved from falling into it.
This tragically weak conception of the role of the Papacy rests on the rather naive idea that errors be, in the long term, self-correcting; that in other words be sufficient for the Church to merely point out to the right thinking in order for the straying sheep to, in time, see the errors of their ways and naturally come back to orthodoxy.
This new concept of the way a Pope exercises his powers – which Amerio aptly calls, with Isaiah, Breviatio Manus Domini or “foreshortening of the arm of the Lord” – does not die with John XXIII but continues unabated, and even in a dramatically accentuated form, under the pontificate of his successor Paul VI.
Paul VI is so weak that when the “Dutch schism” occurs (an unbelievable event in which a so-called “Dutch Pastoral Council”, a gathering of more than 5000 representatives of the Church in Holland, convened in the presence of the Bishops and voted with a 90% majority for the abolition of priest celibacy, the employment of secularised priests in pastoral position, the right of bishops to exercise a deliberative vote on papal decrees and even the ordination of women) his reaction is to point out to all the errors of the deliberation, but at the same time to ask the bishops: “what do you think that We can do to help you, to strenghten your authority, to enable you to overcome the present difficulties of the Church in Holland?”.
This is breathtaking. Paul VI is confronted with a compact group of heretical bishops and far from severely punishing them, he asks them what he can do to strenghten their authority. Here we see not only the great personal weakness of the Pope, but the utter inability of the new “soft” approach toward error to avoid its spreading and its becoming more and more aggressive. The Dutch schism was in fact not silenced until John Paul II demanded obedience rather than meekly suggesting it.
But Paul VI was not the only one. Let us read the words of Cardinal Gut, the then prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, regarding Paul VI’s approach to liturgical abuses:
“Many priests did whatever they liked. They imposed their own personalities. Very often unauthorised initiatives could not be stopped. In his great goodness and wisdom, the Holy father then made concessions, often against his own inclinations”.
Here, a Cardinal sees in the giving in to unlawfulness an indication of “goodness and wisdom”. Furthermore, the repeated indication of initiatives which “could not be stopped” by those whose job would have been to stop them reveals all the scale of the weakness dominating the Vatican corridors in those fateful years.
Even heresies can be stopped. Even extremely spread ones. It just takes the right people at the helm.
Only two days ago I have pointed out to the great courage and firmness showed by Pope Pius XII in front of Nazi evil. Today I point out to the “self-demolition” (not my words: Paul VI’s) started just a few years after the death of that great Pope.
The contrast couldn’t be more dramatic.