Some time ago I wrote a blog post about the desperate gesture of twenty-five French priests writing to Cardinal Ouellet and asking him to the help the Holy Father to select better bishops
I do not know whether the letter had a direct effect on this appointment (and it might, in fact, well be that the decision had been taken before the letter being received), but one can certainly say that the new appointment for Aberdeen will not cause any such letter to be written.
Abbot Hugh Gilbert, OSB is known to be a holy and very orthodox man. He had been openly rumoured as a successor for the unspeakable Archbishop Murphy O’Connor (so openly, in fact, that it moved the Spectator to write an article about him) and with the benefit of hindsight it is no less than a tragedy that instead of him the almost-as-unspeakable Vincent “Quisling” Nichols was the chosen one.
Perhaps the key to this appointment’s interpretation lies in the clear perception that Nichols’ appointment was a serious mistake, and that the best thing to do now is to react by injecting a good dose of holiness and orthodoxy in the clergy of the British Isles, clearly in dire need of it.
Pluscarden is a success story not only because of the prestige of the institution and the reputation acquired by its Abbott, but because it thrives. Once again, it is plain to see that seriously intended Catholicism – not trendy waffling around – is what is needed.
I am not as deluded as to think that the new Bishop will now avoid some political adjustment to the new situation and in fairness, being a bishop is not the same as being an abbot; still, it is fair to say that one can have the highest hopes of his becoming an exemplary bishop and to shame Vincent “Quisling” Nichols just by way of contrast.
Congratulations to the Abbot for his new appointment and best wishes for his, no doubt, excellent work as Bishop.
You would have imagined that the bishops would have been not slow in reacting to Universae Ecclesiae, but I’m sure the speed with which Archbishop Nichols has started to fire his Big Bertha against the Tridentine post is nothing less than remarkable.
Mere hours after the publication of the Instruction, Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols was already intent at the first trial shots. His analysis of Universae Ecclesiae doesn’t stress the huge importance of the work in terms of the obligations it puts on bishops, or the renewed statement of the importance given to the Tridentine Mass, or its being every bit the equal in rank to the Novus Ordo.
Instead, his analysis focuses on the (now reduced, though he doesn’t say) powers of the bishops and, most importantly, on the stressing of the only weak point of the Instruction: the absence of compulsory instruction in the celebration of the Tridentine in Seminaries.
It is really telling of the Archbishop’s forma mentis that he would immediately point out to the only point that is not overtly in favour of the mounting tide of Catholic conservatism. It is, at the same time, very telling about the spirit and attitude with which at least the bishops of England and Wales will react (react is here truly the right word) to Universae Ecclesiae.
Just a few hours after the release of the instruction, ++ Nichols’ trumpet has gathered his own around him and made clear to them that they may start preparing to battle. As so often in life, the why something is said tells you much more about an issue than what is, in the specific case, being said. This is clearly the case here, with the first distinguos clearly giving the start for the slow, silent, relentless work of sabotage now approaching. The Italians call this seemingly innocuous, but in fact very dangerous sabotage muro di gomma, or “rubber wall”. It is clear here that Archbishop Nichols’ message to his troops is “we may not be able to stop this, but we will certainly try”.
We will see whether he has any success. In my opinion, a prompt enforcement from the part of Ecclesia Dei will cause things to run smoothly from the start, whereas uncertainties in the enforcement will condemn this instruction to certain, if perhaps rather slow, death.
Let us hope the first will be the case.
Read on the once-conservative, now pinko-sexual and cameron-cutie “Daily Telegraph” this article from Christina Odone expressing her surprise at Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols not liking the concept of “big society” because, basically, it is not socialist enough.
Now Ms. Odone wouldn’t have hovered much around the “Telegraph” some twenty or thirty years ago – when the newspaper was seriously conservative, and seriously Tory – and the fact that she herself writes “I had never so much as flirted with the Tories until David Cameron came on the scene” tells you a lot about her (absence of) Conservative credentials.
Still, Ms. Odone understands the most important part of the matter, that is: that the “Big Society” concept is, in the way it is supposed to work, intrinsically Catholic. This is rather elementary, as the simple fact is that in Catholic thinking help to those in need must come from the mutual assistance of citizens moved by Christian charity, rather than from an administrative behemoth destroying charity and creating conflict and egoism.
The socialist state destroys charity because it doesn’t force them to voluntarily make an effort and give a part of their own to help those in need, but rather expropriates them of what is theirs. Similarly, the socialist state doesn’t instil in the needy the gratitude for the help charitably received by those better off,but rather encourages them to think of handouts in terms of their rights. This way, you have resentful rich and resentful poor, and the socialist state manages to keep the voters (the poor will always be more than the rich) always hungry after the next expropriation and thinking that they have the right to expect money not theirs to flow to them.
This is, as you have already understood, exactly the thinking of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols. His accusation of the “big society” lacking “teeth” basically means that he doesn’t like it, because this way the state will recede (a bit) from welfare expenditure and leave the citizen to organise themselves, activity which they will obviously do much more efficiently than the huge red tape machine craved by the Socialist state in order to promote entitlement thinking and provide employment opportunities for its minions.
That the charity of the citizen would provide for the (most immediate: no welfare thinking) necessities of the needy is something which doesn’t even cross ++Nichols’ mind. He is just too socialist for that. To him, “big society” makes sense if it provides even more welfare, but if it is used to utilise sensible citizen action in stead of senseless waste of resources and rampant entitlement thinking, he can’t approve of it anymore.
Archbishop Nichols is a socialist dressed as a socialist, talking as a socialist and giving interviews as a socialist. And this is just one of his many deficiencies.
I have written yesterday a blog post about Pontius Pilate. It seems to me that the Holy Father, by sending him to Westminster and by (for what we know) not considering his removal after the many disappointments he has given (homo masses continue undisturbed; clear support for homo partnerships; bullying of Cardinal Vaughan school are just three of the many), has acted and his still acting more like Pontius Pilate than like he should as the successor of Peter: putting the desire to avoid conflict and strife before the desire to do what he knows is right.
With the important difference that Pontius Pilate’s hand were bound by his superiors’ desire to avoid confrontation, whilst the Holy Father himself has no superior to whom he has to answer.
No earthly one, anyway.
My last post was in defence of Michael Voris complaining about those religious who seem to have forgotten (probably because they have) what Christianity is about.
If you want an excellent example of such behaviour, look no further than to the Numero Uno of English Catholicism, our well-known disgraziato Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols.
Nichols is already notorious for the zeal with which he undermines Catholic doctrine and Catholic principles. His clear support for so-called same-sex couples speaks volumes about the heretic Pope Benedict has made the mistake of putting at the top of the English Hierarchy (and the even bigger mistake of not removing when it became clear that the man doesn’t care a straw for Catholic orthodoxy), and his continued refusal to put an end to the scandalous homo masses in Soho should leave even the most naive supporter of Archbishop Vincent “Quisling” Nichols in no doubt as to what side he has chosen. He has also managed to pick another scandalous battle in the Cardinal Vaughan School matter. In short, wherever he can undermine Catholic values, he relishes the job.
On another occasion (when our anti-hero decided to bash bankers; a very popular and risk-free activity at the moment and therefore an ideal occupation for this disgraziato) I have written about him as follows:
++ Vin “Quisling” Nichols lives in a world where abortion kills 200,000 a year and the womb has become the most dangerous place to be, easily eclipsing war zones. He has witnessed the disintegration of British society through the widespread recourse to divorce and easygoing, taxpayer-financed, future securing teenage pregnancy. He has seen the mockery of the family through the legalisation of so-called civil partnerships and has had the nerve to say that he was not against, and that the Church’s opinion on the matter is “nuanced”. He presides over a society where no Hollywood comedy thinks it can do without the obligatory faggot and the BBC even has the temerity to re-write the recent rendition of Evelyn Waugh’s “Brideshead revisited” in very pink tones. He sees every day how every kind of monstrosity (from old couples, let alone old men, adopt children to the renting of uterus to the slow crumbling of opposition to euthanasia) gets a foot in the door of British society, and he complains about ……bankers!
This applies – verbatim if you exclude the miraculously let aside bankers – to the present situation; with the important exception that we are now in the middle of the Holy Week.
You would think that the UK Catholicism Supremo would profit of the Holy Week (when he is bound to have more media attention) to:
1) point out to the many ways in which our society behaves in an an-Catholic or at least un-Christian manner (say: abortion; divorce; sexual promiscuity; homosexuality) and
2) extol the virtues of the Catholic way as a sure remedy to those evils.
You would think that he would do it, if he cared for Catholic values. But the simple fact is that Archbishop Nichols doesn’t care a straw for Catholic values.
He really, really doesn’t. All he cares for, is to speak every now and then over economic social issues, which should be the preserve of politicians, whilst he is supposed to be, first and foremost, occupied with the cure of souls. If he believed in their existence, that is.
We are now well into the Holy Week, and our astonishing Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has been on record as follows:
1) On Sunday (Notabene: Palm Sunday!) on the Sunday Telegraph. He gets a big interview on a major newspaper on Palm Sunday and what does he talk about? Yep, that Cameron’s “Big Society” is not “social” enough for his liking.
2) On yesterday’s Evening Standard (not as prestigious as the “Telegraph”, for sure, but read nationwide) our chap is on record as intervening to ask a brewery not to change the name of a pub entitled to Cardinal Manning. And do you think that he did so defending Cardinal Manning’s lifelong battle for everything Catholic? Of course not! He does it because in this way Manning’s commitment to “social good” would be played down.
“Social good” is everything Vincent “Quisling” Nichols is interested in. It is the only issue he wants to go on record during the Holy week. This is a mickey mouse of an Archbishop, if there has ever been one.
I can’t wait to hear about our completely de-Christianised Archbishop talk about earth day on Good Friday, or on the immediately following weeks. But I’m sure he’ll put some social issues in the middle; just to be on the safe side, you know.
This man is a scandal through and through.
When even a rather well-known Catholic blogger – up to now known for defending the indefensible on a couple of issues – starts to admit that ++ Vin “Quisling” Nichols has not performed according to the expectations, one understands that the inability of said ++ Vin “Quisling” Nichols to deliver even a modicum amount of Catholicism starts to be more than a disappointment and that it starts to be, in fact, rather a scandal een in the eyes of those who see themselves as moderates.
In fact, the tragedy of said archbishop is the tragedy of most of the Western and of the totality of the E&W hierarchy: the utter inability to be Catholic and to think and speak like one. Our contemporary bishops are rather a strange mixture between the hollow rhetoric of a David Cameron (more exactly: the pathetic attempts at rhetoric of a Gordon Brown) and the amusing exercises of Jim Hacker, the unforgettable “Minister/ Prime Minister”.
Bishops don’t talk about Catholicism anymore. ++ Vin “Quisling” Nichols might even have forgotten altogether what Catholicism is (which, by the way, would be rather good for his souls’ chances the day he kicks the buckets, as we all must). You don’t hear him thundering against homosexuality and in fact he continues to tolerate the unspeakable scandal of the homo masses in Soho; but hey, talk to him about bankers and see how he gets all excited…..
We live in times (as one of my idols, “Sir Humphrey Appleby”, famously said) when politicians talks like religious leaders and religious leaders talk like politicians. Both talk nonsense of course, but I’m sure it sounds well and in the end this is what counts. I blame Kennedy’s inaugurations speech, the first time a politician dared to say to his electors that they shouldn’t pose any obligation on him and became extremely famous in the process.
++ Vin “Quisling” Nichols lives in a world where abortion kills 200,000 a year and the womb has become the most dangerous place to be, easily eclipsing war zones. He has witnessed the disintegration of British society through the widespread recourse to divorce and easygoing, taxpayer-financed, future securing teenage pregnancy. He has seen the mockery of the family through the legalisation of so-called civil partnerships and has ad the nerve to say that he was not against, and that the Church’s opinion on the matter is “nuanced”. He presides over a society where no Hollywood comedy thinks it can do without the obligatory faggot and the BBC even has the temerity to re-write the recent rendition of Evelyn Waugh’s “Brideshead revisited” in very pink tones. He sees every day how every kind of monstrosity (from old couples, let alone old men, adopt children to the renting of uterus to the slow crumbling of opposition to euthanasia) gets a foot in the door of British society, and he complains about ……bankers! Again, this is a religious wanting to be a politician at a time in which politicians want to speak like religious (our unforgettable “Clown in Chief” clearly leads the way, as to equate the protection of family with the protection of homosexual unions surely must take the biscuit).
The simple truth is that the bishops of E & W deserve the sack. All of them, with no exception. Here in Blighty there is no bishop of whom you could say that he isn’t a coward, and no bishop you would trust with the nerve of starting a battle like, say, the Italian church has started about Euthanasia. Or take the buses with the atheist advs: a huge controversy in Italy and something our English and Welsh bishops wouldn’t even considering worthy of a serious discussion. in the end, it all comes down to the cojones and our bishops’ lack of the necessary material is both very sad and rather remarkable.
“Unfit for purpose”, I think is the technical term. At this point, they don’t deserve our sympathy anymore.
They deserve the sack.