I am reliably informed that since the very worthy Father Finigan has left, two novelties have surfaced.
1) The new parish priest (Father Fisher) can celebrate the Traditional Mass, but he won’t.
2) The “Tablet” has made his reappearance.
I do not doubt that many of you miss Father Finigan, and I agree with you such a one is not easy to replace. But there is, in my eyes, a great difference between a substitute without the talent of his predecessor – which is excusable – and one who undermines his work – which isn’t -.
The Tridentine Mass goes out just as, rather symbolically, the “Tablet” gets in. You can, dear parishioner, now avail yourself of a number of excuses as to why what is happening is not bad; or not so bad; or not very bad. You can say to yourself that the new man (Father not-much-of-a-Fisher) does not want to celebrate the Tridentine Mass because he feels he would not be as good as his predecessor. Or you may tell yourself that perhaps he has an unpleasant cough, that would – for the moment at least – suggest it is better to cough exclusively in vernacular. Perhaps you may want to examine the possibility that Father has a lisp, and thinks this stands in the way of a worthy pronounciation of the words, among others, “Dominus”, “Agnus”, “Miserere” and, obviously, “corpus”. The possibilities are endless.
The same applies to the sudden reappearance of the “Tablet”. Perhaps Father Finigan didn’t consider it an obscene rag from and for the enemies of Catholicism, but was simply allergic to that particular paper? Could it be that the “Tablet” has now become orthodox? What if Father Fisher is, in a very cunning and Francis-like move, selling the Tablet again in order for his parishioners to understand how bad it is? Or perhaps his bishop has threatened him with horrible persecution – like, say, beating him with a feather – if he does not sell the magazine?
The last line of defence might, as so often, be: “but he is so nice”. Nice people, so this reasoning goes, can’t be bad priests. Everyone knows that. Father is nice; therefore, everything must be OK, eh? no?
Or, my dear parishioners, you can decide that you will not swallow any strange story; that you will look at reality straight in the eyes; and that these changes so soon after the new man’s arrival can only mean one thing: Father Finigan’s parishioners are going to be slowly, but surely subject to a parish reeducation camp, that will only be considered concluded when the “Tablet” sells well, dissent is fashionable and so lío, and Francis is the best Pope e-v-a-h!
What to do, my dear parishioners?
Look long and hard for a TLM solution suitable to you. If you can afford to travel some distance, consider it. Do not exclude any possibility. There are two SSPX possibilities in London only, of which Wimbledon should be feasible for many. You may want to consider it even if you were a NO parishioner. One day, you might remember how you decided to attend the TLM when… it went away, and may the Lord reward you richly!
You may, in all cases, not have any suitable Tridentine alternative and realise now you have lost the one you loved. I feel with you for your loss. But TLM or no TLM, I suggest that you do this: make the choice, today, that you are not going to attend in a parish that offers the “Tablet” for sale. Not once. Starting from this very moment.
Nothing good can come, in the long term, from a priest who not only tolerates, but reintroduces the “Tablet” after his worthy predecessor removed it. Nor can you lull yourself in the hope that by “staying” and “fighting your battle”, the parish climate will change. How many “Tablet”-like priests do you know who have been converted by his own parishioners? How probable is it that he will change his ways? How probable that the parishioners will slowly change theirs?
My advice to you, my dear parishioners, is that you immediately stop attending in Blackfen, with no ifs and no buts; that you look, and keep looking, for TLM options in the months and years to come, availing yourself of that possibility as soon as you reasonably can; that you draw a line in the sand, and decide that the time of nice and smiling priests siding with the world has come to an end, and you will not attend anymore in a parish that sells the Tablet, for the good of your own soul and of the souls of those entrusted to you.
Take courage, my dear parishioners. Don’t cling to a past now gone. Father Finigan is now rather far away, and the “Tablet” is smiling at you from the shelf instead.
Is this parish, the same but now another, the place where you want to attend? Is this the priest you want to entrust with the task of guiding you towards salvation?
The TLM is out. The “Tablet” is in. Or I could put it in another way: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. You have the truth of this in front of you. It is being, in fact, being rubbed under your nose as I write this.
One life, and after that the judgment. Do not entrust people who offer to you the “Tablet” to read the task of guiding you on your way to Purgatory. From their magazines you will know them. Do not be deceived by the gradualism with which he will go at his work: orthodox homilies perhaps, and here and there a hint of former times. This is one who sells you the Tablet, and can celebrate the Tridentine Mass but won’t.
Let Father answer for it when he dies.
As to you, I suggest that you keep your distance from both the magazine and the priests who sell it.
The more I stumble upon Tablet articles, the more I wonder what on earth lets these people think they are Catholics.
Courtesy of the Pewsitter – a Catholic news aggregator run by people actually caring for orthodoxy, and infinitely better than the well-intentioned but irredeemably tame, diabetes-inducing and at times outright Pollyann-ish service of the New Advent – I have now been informed of this latest piece of utter nonsense, in which a woman who was apparently once made a religious sister fully espouses Jimmy Carter’s position in preference to the obviously backward one of… probably the most subversive Pope in history.
To read the article is an unreal experience. I wonder how many Presbyterians would ask that the Only Church “ordains” women – as if such a thing were possible at all -. But no, not only this one here might even think she is a Catholic, but she also writes – at the very end of her “bio” page – that she is a religious sister! And she does not meddle only with Catholics, either! She wants female Rabbis and Muezzins, too!
If anyone had said to my grandmother that one day religious sisters would have gone around saying that “Jesus fully embraced gender equality”, she would have asked him to not make such offensive jokes about religious sisters; obviously, though, only after having “gender equality” explained to her; a concept that Jesus allegedly “fully embraced”, but clearly no one knew anything about before a bunch of faggots and dykes decided to make a lot of noise, and an army of bleeding hearts and omega males (note to the reader: the emasculation of the Western male is at the very root of today’s “gender” madness even among non religious people) decided to espouse their “cause”.
It is sad to think that whilst people openly, publicly impugning the known Truth – a sin against the Holy Ghost – are allowed to remain Catholics in good standing, the good friars and sisters of the FFI are put under Francis’ oh so merciful steamroller. But hey, who is he not to judge them?
I wish Sister What’s-Her-Name repentance and the grace of a happy death; but – judging from both the photo and the writing – this is no spring chicken anymore, and so hardened in sin that a turnaround can be reasonably called very improbable. The woman bears such strong signs of reprobation, it is shocking and almost scary to read her. It is, in fact, nothing else than shocking to know there are people around who not only think in this way – a thought terrifying enough if you are mindful of its ultimate consequences – but have their heresies published in a media outlet with the gall to call itself Catholic.
The devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.
This here looketh like an easy prey.
Please go on “Protect the Pope” (please, please do!) and read there about the “Tablet” correspondent now suspended for calling the Pontiff Emeritus “The Rat”.
Now, please let us understand ourselves here. I am not prone to any form of Papolatry, or excessive deference to the Pope whenever one thinks that the Pope is seriously damaging the cause of Catholicism. I have written here very often, and will continue to do so, that we must not be blind, and if a Pope behaves like, say, a clown we must call him out as clown even if he happens to be Pope, because the fact that he is the Pope makes it so much graver that he acts like, say, a clown.
I also have no doubt myself that this papacy is an utter disgrace for the Church; that with it God is punishing us; that we are going to go through terrible times. I have also made no mystery of the fact that I wish the end of this Papacy, because I am persuaded that the danger of a new conclave is preferable to the danger of the continuation of this papacy, with the attached appointments of cardinals and bishops. I do not need to remind you that a faithful Catholic has the right to ask the Lord for the painless death of the Pope, if he thinks that this Pope is gravely damaging the Church. It goes without saying that the same faithful is not for this reason exempted from praying for the eternal salvation of the very Pope he thinks it would be better to see six feet under. In my case, I am so astonishingly soft that I limit myself to pray the Lord for the restoration of Tradition, which theoretically includes events like the conversion of the Bishop of Rome to sound Catholicism, or a judicious toccatina (“little touch”; that's how Italians call a small, but worrying heart attack) or other problem leaving him healthy enough to care for his soul, but suggesting to him that he steps aside. Basically, I am being as soft as the final aim I am praying for allows, but I still wish the attainment of the aim in precedence to the Pope's life. Yep. This, just in case you think I am a retiring wallflower thinking we will advance spiritually if we drink the same brand of mineral water as the Pope, or none if he drinks none.
I have, though, three observations to make.
1. The way I see it, every criticism of the Pope must concern something he does or says or thinks. You criticise the Pope for a reason, the reason generally being that he has said or keeps saying or thinks of doing something damaging for the faith and the souls of Catholics. But not even this robustly critical Southerner can condone the comparison of the Pope with one of the most universally despised animals on this earth; a comparison made in a fully gratuitous way, as purest name-calling. This is not the reaction to something outlandish that Benedict said, and that called for such a comparison (for example: if the Pontiff Emeritus had hypothetically extolled the merciful life and familial ties of rats; or their being non-judgmental; or their smelling like the canalisation; or the like). No, this is simply a very gratuitous, uncalled for, insulting way of calling a Pope Emeritus. If he had called him “Pope Holy Water”, or even “Pope Mozzetta”, or “Pope Bespoke”, at least one would see there is a criticism there of a certain way of seeing the Papacy; there would be a message. What, however, Mr Mickens writes says nothing more than his despise for Benedict, full stop.
If the usual Papolater criticises the words Mr Mickens uses, is one thing. If after what I have just written even I am scandalised, it might be quite another.
2. The Mickens' type of people are those always ready to accuse Catholics of being “uncharitable” for not wanting to cope with every kind of abomination or scandal. How this should be “charitable”, is beyond me.
These alleged “tolerant” people generally are the worst. Mr Mickens seems no exception.
3. I truly hope Mr Mickens does not lose his job because of this. Whilst this is bad, and very bad for a journalist, if this is his livelihood – as it generally is – I truly hope it will not come down to that. Let him apologise and pay more attention in future, but it would be bad if Catholics would now call for such a crisis in the life of a man who could have a wife, children and/or a mortgage, because of a very stupid Facebook message. Firing Mr Mickens would not change the Tablet, for sure.
You see, perhaps we “intolerant” people are those who, in the end, have more sense of proportions even towards those who have no sense of decency.
The news is very recent that Cardinal O’Brien would have been ordered to leave Britain and retire in a location evidently chosen by them.
The decision isn’t surprising as, rather astonishingly – or perhaps not; you choose – the troubled Cardinal planned to retire not in a monastery, to spend the rest of his life in retirement and prayer as would be natural in a man just disgraced for his sexual perversion, but in a rural cottage in the fairly remote East Lothian (Country? Scotland, of course!), near a “lifelong friend”. Now let us reflect…
an old homosexual; living apparently alone; in an isolated cottage; located in a parish led by an “old friend” of his; in the same country he has disgraced.
Is it surprising the Vatican has now intervened? I don’t think so.
What is surprising, though, is that the “old friend” of the Cardinal plans to challenge the plan himself, and here the echoes of “vicious” (old queens) become too loud to be naively dismissed. This “lifelong friend” of the Cardinal is so incensed at not having his lifelong buddy oh so near to his old friendly bosom, that he plans to challenge the decision all alone because he is the (legal) landlord of the cottage in the question and the Church can’t say to him whom to have as guest in his cottages.
Cue his words: “I am 72 years old”, “I have nothing to lose”. How passive-aggressive. Truly, this one looks like a first class bitch. The “I have nothing to lose” hint is also profoundly disquieting, as priests aren’t disgraced for challenging a Vatican’s decision and this, in itself, wouldn’t be a problem at all. What would be the problem is if it emerged the lifelong friendship of the two was anything less than appropriate. In which case the reference to the 72 years old with “nothing to lose” and preferring to risk loss of face to the loss of his “lifelong friend” does begin to make sense.
We do not live on the moon, Father Creanor, and your undue bitching in things that have nothing to do with you are wildly inappropriate in the best of cases, and extremely suspicious – not to say scandalous – in the worst. We are talking of a Cardinal of whom a lifelong homosexual attraction has just been revealed, causing a great scandal and loss of prestige for the Church in Scotland. How near you would prefer to have your homosexual “lifelong friend” is utterly and completely irrelevant.
The Church doesn’t want the Cardinal to live in an isolated cottage, in Scotland of all places, because it is simply not fitting, and actually scandalous, that he does. To whom the cottage belongs is neither here nor there. The Church can order every clergyman to leave wherever they want him to live, period, and it is for no prospective “landlord friend” to challenge this. The Cardinal can, of course. I very much doubt he will.
This a “lifelong friend” of the Cardinal.
Perhaps it would be good practice to get information about one’s “lifelong friends” before considering one for a red hat. Who knows how many painful mistakes might be thus avoided.
Over at Linen on the Hedgerow, the continuation of a problem first raised by EF Pastor Emeritus: what to do with the copies of the “Tablet”, an obvious toxic waste. The question is formulated as follows:
The dilemma grows – what to do with the bulk of (remaindered) Tablets?
You can’t use them as landfill material because of the environmental pollution threat – what can you possibly do with them?
Polite and creative suggestions gratefully received.
Of course, the best solution would be to save the trees and with them our oh so oh endangered oh planet from oh unavoidable oh death…
Failing that, we could put the Tablet fragments in one of those caves used to store nuclear waste.
Mind, though, that we would have to shred the paper very finely. Otherwise we would run the risk of some academically challenged researcher finding them in sixteen or seventeen centuries, and telling us that it can’t be excluded that in the XXI Century the Church had wymyn priests…
This blog post here is a beautiful example of everything that is wrong with the blasphemous concoction of victimhood and passive-aggressive heresy nowadays going under the name of “progressive Catholicism”. It is, therefore, unsurprising the blog post would come from a “Tablet” contributor.
The lady is then, one day, told that her son is bent. Her reaction?
“complete acceptance on my part and happiness that my son had felt able to tell me; anxiety, knowing the negative reaction he would no doubt receive from some other people”.
Complete… what? If her son had told her he is a paedophile, or a zoophile, would she have been “accepting”? If no, why on earth? If it’s not about perversion, but about “acceptance” we should be “accepting” of everything under the sun, surely? But no, the boy being her son, he must clearly be above criticism. It is the others, those evil “some people”, who are oh so not “accepting”. Tut, tut.
Obviously – and to express it in the usually brutal Italian way – every cockroach is beautiful to her mother, and this is not the first mother defending her son against evidence and reason. The big difference, though, is that once upon a time a mother would still have had an inkling of the danger for her son’s soul; whilst perhaps saying other are too harsh on him she would have never even conceived to say that homosexuality is fine, because her son is homosexual.
Alas, we live in times of “acceptance”, as if it were some sort of virtue. No it isn’t. A homosexual boy must be told to pray and pray that he might be freed from this terrible affliction; that God did not make him a pervert because God doesn’t do perversion; that it is on him to embark on a prayerful journey toward sanity and normality rather than to be “proud” – or in any way “accepting” – of his perversion; that sodomy is a lurid abomination sane people cannot even think about without feeling like vomiting; and so on, and so forth.
I can vividly picture Padre Pio “accepting” homosexuality. What you did you say? Really? Oh well, he must have been one of those “some people”…tut tut to Padre Pio too, then…
It goes on with almost every line.
My other children, my family and my friends have been completely accepting. Other acquaintances, including some church goers have raised eye brows while being embarrassed to discuss their views. A loyal priest from another diocese quite understandably reiterated the Church’s teaching including the need for celibacy.
Look, nowadays one does not even have the right of being embarrassed in front of sexual perversion. They are supposed to say “hey, your son is a pervert, let’s celebrate our acceptance”!
I wonder what “some people” drink in the morning.
As to the very feeble but at least apparently half-orthodox Catholic priest, one is happy to know the lady finds the teaching about celibacy “understandable”, only one wonders why. If homosexuality is ok, why should the “natural expression” of the homosexual’s “love” not be ok too? Where does the tale come from that homosexuality is just fine and only sodomy a problem?
True, inclination (read: perversion) is in itself not sinful. But this does not mean that the inclination is good, or even neutral!
The inclination is, literally, perverted (per and versio, “wrong direction”) and a terrible deviation exactly because it can easily lead to a sin crying to heaven for vengeance! Because it goes against nature even before committing sodomy! Because it is repellent to common decency even before every act of sodomy having been committed!
If one would tell you that his son has an inclination to rape hens, or to have intercourse with dogs, would you think that the “inclination” is fine and dandy, and worthy of “acceptance”, provided the son in question does not act on his “inclination”? And please let us stop accepting the trite argument of the sodomites “not hurting anyone”. Firstly, they do hurt each other, a lot! Secondly, a sin is measured by its offence to God and not by the harm made to other people, or animals. The word “inclination” is also in itself suspect. One can have an inclination for tiramisu’, or strawberries with clotted cream. If he is attracted by people of his same sex this is actually called, erm, perversion.
Still, the lady seems to accept the idea of celibacy… apart from the fact that she doesn’t. Try this
While the Church teaches that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ – in my opinion, a very wrong view –
Apart from the absurdity of saying “it is (traditional) Church teaching, but this is very wrong” (the lady writes for the Tablet, therefore she is perfectly at ease with absurdities) , you notice the underlying current of thinking: if my son desires to insert his penis in another man’s shit hole, why should the Church tell him not to do so? Amazing, nicht wahr?
I wonder which mother in the past would have ever dared, however strong her affection for her son, to help him to go to hell in such a way. But then again nowadays a mother feels free to give scandal saying that her son is “gay” and is even offended when others are “embarrassed”. What narrow-minded “some people” they are. They should be joyously accepting! Mala tempora currunt.
I would like to go on commenting, but I would go on until tomorrow morning and this threatens to reach 1000 words already. You can have a go at the countless absurdities disseminated everywhere (“My son is generous, loving and kind and I am proud of that”: what is this to do with the matter? When has being “kind” helped someone in mortal sin to avoid hell? In the “church of nice”, perhaps! In Christianity, nope! And how can a mother who even thinks the Church is wrong in condemning sodomy hope to avoid being considered accessory in her son’s sins, sins she encourages with everything but openly spoken words?). If I had had such a perversion, I truly hope my mother would have remained at my side with true love and charity, rather than helping me to go to hell (and probably going to hell herself in the process) so that she can feel “accepting”.
Again, continue the reading yourselves if you so wish. This is not even angering, merely amusing. The lady writes for the Tablet.
The impression caused by the Papal visit is still hovering over Catholic things here in the United Kingdom, as can be seen in the stream of press articles it continues to generate. Still – and as it is only natural – the impact of the visit will soon disappear from the media radar screen. When this happens, the attention will be once again monopolised from the usual actors of the British Catholic arena.
In this contribution on the Catholic Herald, William Oddie points out to an interesting (if foreseeable) phenomenon: the warping of Pope Benedict’s message to suit the agenda of those who don’t like him and work against him.
The dynamic is interesting: the online version of the magazine (more short-lives and news like, so to speak, as it is in the nature of the medium) takes an openly anti-Papal stance; the paper version corrects this, but still makes of Pope Benedict the paladin of the distortions the Tablet also pursues: socialism, environmentalism, third-worldism.
This is, I am afraid, the destiny of everyone who is popular: even his covert enemies will be forced to say that they like them and will try to pursue their own agenda by saying that, hey, what they say is exactly what the popular guy thinks.
We have already seen a particularly shameless example in our disgraceful Archbishop of Westminster implying that Pope Benedict has suddenly decided to re-align himself with his own (Nichols’) position on sexual perversions. Oddie’s article gives just another example of what might become a big fashion.
No doubt, before long the Pope who has criticised environmentalism – seen as a new and false religion – will be praised sky-high as an environmentalist icon by the very same people whom he has criticised, whilst the Pope who has bravely said that it is perfectly legitimate for Catholics to have different opinions about the Iraq War will no doubt be elected to Prince Of Pacifists by all those interested in propagating such a lie.
Everyone wants to align behind Pope Benedict. Even those who want to stab him.