In the land of boorish populism, Pinocchio masses and Tango masses, (you will see a familiar face in both I am afraid) it was only a matter of time before this here happened: two lesbians having their own child baptised and being confirmed themselves.
Now, I have already written about the fact that a priest is supposed to baptise if, and only if, he thinks that the child has a reasonable, well-grounded hope to be raised in the Catholic faith. Say, two Jews are thinking of conversion, but they want their offspring to be baptised and raised as Catholics in the meantime. I never got a problem with the fact that Felix Mendelssohn and his siblings were all baptised before their parents converted to Christianity. In that case, it made sense to do so, and there was more than solid ground to believe the children would be raised in the Christian (if, alas, not Catholic) faith. But this here is beyond belief.
Firstly, one must ask how well grounded is the chance that a child will be raised in the Catholic faith if the people he lives with are the very epitome, and very publicly so, of all that the Church opposes. This is as if Stalin would have asked for his son to be baptised; with the difference that in Stalin’s case one might have hoped the mother of a child was a closet Christian; no risk of the sort here.
Secondly, one must ask what kind of demented – or rather, perverted – priest can allow two lesbians to stand in front of the altar and the congregation and state that they believe everything that the church believes and profess everything that the church professes and pretend he believes what they say.
There isn’t much to say here: this is how the Church of Bergoglio sanctions abominations under the disguise of “mercy” at all costs; only in isolated cases at the beginning, and more and more frequently in future, so that if this disgraceful papacy is allowed to continue it is not at all unthinkable that in five or ten years time such exercises will be the norm, and every fag and dyke in the land will feel authorised to be extremely incensed should a priest deny the baptism to the child, or the confirmation to them.
For the record: I think such a baptism is madness. It would be a madness even if the godfathers were Catholics of unimpeachable credentials; but in this case the godparents seem to be friends of the “family”, so they are perverts by association, full stop. That one of them is supposed to be Ms Kirchner already says it all about what is going on here.
The sacraments only have sense if they are given in conformity to the sense and function they have. If everyone should be baptised just because he is born, then I wonder why Francis does not proceed to a declaration of Automatic Universal Baptism of All The Unbelievers In The World Upon Birth and be done with it. At that point, you can give communion to every public adulterer because of the hope some sacramental grace may flow from the desire of the adulterer to receive communion, and give give the sacrament of confirmation to, say, avowed lesbians (I know, it’s absurd; just making a point here… I hope…AAARRRGGHHH!!!)
You will say: “but Mundabor, this is not how it works. You just can’t give baptism automatically to everyone”.
I know, it’s not how it works.
Exactly this is the point.
From Rorate Caeli: emphases theirs.
Pope Francis then asked: “Are our temples places of adoration? Do they foster adoration? Do our liturgical celebrations foster adoration?”. Judas Maccabeus and the people “were zealous for God’s temple because it was the house of God, God’s dwelling place, and they went as a community to find God there, they went to adore”.
“But, I think – I say this humbly – that maybe we Christians have lost a little the sense of adoration, and we think: we go to the Temple, we come together as brothers – that’s good, it’s great! – but this is where God is. And we worship God.”
Yes. Have we?
What about the Pinocchio Mass, for example? Does it foster adoration?
Or perhaps is the Tango Mass more in tune with God’s dwelling place?
What about, for example, openly admitting past mistakes (so that they can never be used as excuses for other liturgical wreckovations) and crushing down very hard on the abominations happening all over the West?
I seem to detect a certain dissonance between words and facts, and you know which ones speak louder.
Keep praying for Francis; that he may, one day, always practice what he, at times, preaches.
Many of us have seen, either live or in the evening, the images of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral. It is very clear this was supposed to be something extraordinary. The solemn beauty of the ceremony certainly did not fail to impress the viewers the world over.
Why the ceremony was so beautiful and solemn, it is very easy to say: because of the importance of the person to whom the solemnity was meant to be a tribute.
This is very easy to understand. It is, actually, ingrained in human nature. No commenter had any need to explain to his viewers why the British Government decided to go through such a complicated, expensive, meticulously planned and executed exercise.
Imagine, though, if things had gone differently. The PM steps in front of the journalists and says: “Good morning everyone! Today we celebrate the life and achievements of Margaret Thatcher. Capital gal, you know, what with one thing and the other. We’ll hop in to St. Paul now, where the archbish will say another couple of words; nothing stuffy, you know… we also have a Punch and Judy show for the children, in order for them to be introduced to politics…. it’s important, to know politics…. whatever, thanks for being here and have a nice day!”.
Not good, you would have said. No reverence, no dignity, no respect. For Cameron to have pulled something like that would have meant to show utter disregard for the deceased.
It is indicative of the times we live in that everyone understands the death of an important Prime Minister must be treated with extreme reverence, but even people who go on to become Pope (and countless priests with them; and many of those who attend their masses) treat with utter lack of reverence the Sacrifice of One infinitely more important than every Margaret Thatcher, and insult Him with all sorts of antics – up to and not excluding dancing Pinocchios – with some pretext or other (like the “Holy Ghost”, say. I fear one day the Holy Ghost will get truly, truly angry).
There were no Pinocchios around yesterday; no puppets; no stupid music; no dancing entertainers; and no “children’s funeral”. Solemnity, beauty, and reverence wherever you turned, because they are the most natural tribute to rank and greatness, even merely human one.
Most people understand these truths naturally.
Too often, our clergy – Pope certainly not excluded – don’t.
You might not have noticed it, but those who have clicked around to take the temperature of the Catholic blogosphere have become aware of a widespread unease at Pope Francis’ latest exploits. Already weeks into his pontificate a good, young priest commented on Rorate Caeli and made no mystery of the fact he was scandalised by the Pope’s behaviour; another priest promptly assured him he has the same feeling. For any two to write, there are hundreds who think the same.
In addition to simple comments, if you read around the blogosphere you will even find blogging priests – I will not make names – expressing themselves with unusual openness about the problem they see in the Holy Father’s behaviour. The cry of orthodox Catholics has become so loud than in just a few days the “Guardian”, the “Times” and the German “Spiegel” have reported, and none of them has tried to dismiss the opposition to the Pope’s feat as the rant of isolated grumpy old men. Even Father Lombardi has felt he had to intervene, and has tried to mount a very clumsy, illogical and rather pathetic attempt at explanation of the Pope’s liturgical abuse, certainly without success.
Orthodox Catholics are complaining and not only the Catholic world, but the world at large has noticed.
This is, if you ask me, a major difference with the wreckovation of the Sixties and Seventies. In those times, with the access to public information limited to a restricted number of outlet, it wasn’t easy to get the word of opposition out. Countless Catholics were, no doubt, confused and mortified by what was happening, but they did not have any outlet to express their dismay, besides talking to – and being probably mocked by – their priest. There were some initiatives, like the worldwide Una Voce or its English affiliate Latin Mass Society. But these were clearly limited in the scope of their activity and the audience they could reach, and they certainly were no worry whatsoever for the Vatican II demolition troops.
Fifty years later everything has changed, and liturgical abuses don’t go unpunished so easily anymore. The atomisation of news outlets caused by the explosion of the blogging world makes any attempt to silence the cry of orthodox Catholics utterly futile.
Of course, we must not kid ourselves into believing that as conservative Catholics pretty much rule the blogosphere, they will be perceived as the real audience the Vatican will aim at. The contrary is, I am afraid, true. This Papacy seems to be liked – I am being politically incorrect here; but then I always am – most by those who don’t care for tradition, true Catholic values, and Mass attendance, and to cause a favourable reaction chiefly among the huge mass of distracted “rosewater Catholics”. This is, it seems to me, the main audience the Pope is seeking. A superficial message to attract the superficial.
“I like the fact this Pope is one of us”, says the woman at the bakery who never cares to attend. “How nice he is”, says the man at the barber’s shop who wouldn’t waste three seconds thinking whether he/his wife should avoid contraception; “he certainly likes the young”, says the boy who couldn’t even recite the Ten Commandments if his life depended on him. All these people don’t go around reading Catholic blogs, and many of the older among them probably still do not really know what a “blog” is. Again, this seem to be the target of the Vatican’s new “popularity drive”, possibly in the very deluded hope that such an enterprise may encourage people to rediscover Catholic values. A very strange hope, if you consider that the “popularity drive” started in the Sixties is exactly what caused the emptying of the pews in the first place, so that this strategy reminds one of the man wanting to cure his alcoholism by changing vodka brand. This, of course, without considering the undermining of Catholic values put in place every time tradition is trampled, or liturgical abuses put in place in front of a worldwide audience (“I find it very good that he washed the feet of women”, says the butcher’s wife, and she has no idea why the feet are washed in the first place).
The “popularity drive” will, therefore, continue, and I am eagerly awaiting for the Pope driving the school bus, or making a night shift at the bakery, or inventing some other stunt to please the masses. Still, now the game won’t be very easy, because the voice of serious Catholicism is here to stay, and will not be silenced by any amount of consent garnered among the distracted, the tepid and the outright indifferent.
If any one of us were in the position to ask Pope Francis if he had expected to find so much resistance and criticism after his decision not to wear the Mozzetta, he would probably get the answer the Pope had expected one or two murmurs from right-wing corners, but certainly not a worldwide indignation. Similarly, the newest episode of the feet-washing has most certainly caused a criticism far above the expected measure, even putting the “new Franciscans” in the defensive. If Pope Francis thinks this indignation is going to stop, he is not as smart as we think. I am confident he is coming around to the simple reality he can’t do as he pleases.
The time of the Pinocchio Masses has gone, and continuing on that road will cause the Pontiff wild opposition and, at some point, well-deserved ridicule.
Pope Francis seems a smart man. He will, methinks, try for a while to push his “stunt” agenda, but if the Catholic blogosphere continues to pay attention and denounce his antics he will soon discover he will go down in history as an unmitigated disaster born of barely controlled pride. If he is intelligent, he will draw the consequences.
The time of the Pinocchio Masses has gone.
Just so we do not think the Cardinals have chosen an example of liturgical orthodoxy, this is what we are confronted with.
I think at 7:50 what you are supposed to see is Jesus.
If you haven’t had enough, feast your eyes with the “Smiling Christ On The Cross” at 8:08.
I pity the poor children.