Pope Leo XIII speaks to the Synod…… September 30, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, awesomeness, Basics, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, the return.
1 comment so far
……and, quite possibly, the current Bishop of Rome. Pope Leo XIII wrote in his 1899 encyclical to the American episcopate, Testem Benevolentiae, denouncing the heresy of Americanism, the following bit below. Reading it again last night, I was struck by how much the “new problems” afflicting the Church, of huge swaths of the world being lost in sin and demands to contradict Doctrine in practice if not directly in order to somehow “excuse” the inexcusable, are not new at all. They are in fact the same old temptations the Church has always faced to please men and not God. Pope Leo was countering a grave problem he saw in the late 19th century US episcopate, that of indifference and a tendency to reduce the Church to an inoffensive worldly do-good society. Unfortunately, Pope Leo’s denunciation of widespread problems in the US hierarchy were ignored then and more or less openly repudiated later on, so that by the mid-20th century many bishops in the US were proclaiming their indifferentist beliefs and tacit rejection of rather large swaths of Doctrine.
Fast forward 115 years from when it was written, I think we can plainly see that the warnings were not heeded, the errors not addressed, and now the errors, even the openly promoted heresy, has spread like a cancer to include vast swaths of timeless, constant Church belief, up to an including solemnly defined Dogmas. But I am poor and ineloquent, it is far better to let Pope Leo speak for himself (I add emphasis and comments):
…..For they [the Americanists, still very much with us today] contend that it is opportune, in order to work in a more attractive way upon the wills of those who are not in accord with us, to pass over certain heads of doctrines, as if of lesser moment, or to so soften them that they may not have the same meaning which the Church has invariably held. Now, Beloved Son, [This encyclical was addressed quite specifically, and pointedly, at Cardinal Gibbons, who, whatever his merits, had pushed the idea of national conferences and episcopal agitation for social concerns] few words are needed to show how reprehensible is the plan that is thus conceived, if we but consider the character and origin of the Doctrine which the Church hands down. On that point the Vatican Council says: “The doctrine of faith which God has revealed is not proposed like a theory of philosophy which is to be elaborated by the human understanding, but as a divine deposit delivered to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared [It is precisely this sense that is apparently very nearly extinct in the entire, worldwide episcopate today]………That sense of the sacred dogmas is to be faithfully kept which Holy Mother Church has once declared, and is not to be departed from under the specious pretext of a more profound understanding” (Constitution of Catholic Faith, C. IV). [That is, later "understandings" of dogmas cannot be contradicted by later "explanations" or even 'pastoral applications." REALLY, THIS STUFF IS NOT VERY HARD!]
……Far be it, then, for any one to diminish or for any reason whatever to pass over anything of this divinely delivered doctrine; whosoever would do so, would rather wish to alienate Catholics from the Church than to bring over to the Church those who dissent from it. [And is this not precisely what has happened in the past 50 years, as millions of spiritually starved Catholics have fallen away, exhausted from a diet of progressive pablum?] Let them return; indeed, nothing is nearer to Our heart; let all those who are wandering far from the sheepfold of Christ return; but let it not be BY any road other than that which Christ has pointed out.
We have sadly had a chance to see, lo these past several decades, just how that kind of softer, “more attractive” presentation of “difficult” Doctrine works out. Most of the time, it is simply dealt with as mokusatsu, killed with silence, if not relativized into meaningless, innocuous nothingness. That’s been the case with contraception and fornication, and looks to be spreading to include fake marriage, divorce, blasphemy of the Blessed Sacrament, etc., etc. “Oh, it’s too hard to talk about X” our bishops living in multi-million dollar mansions say. “Oh, we will turn people away from the Church,” say the men who have overseen the greatest collapse in Church attendance, vocation rates, donations, you name it in recorded history. What an utter collapse in authority.
It would be unbelievable if we were not living through it. Catholic bishops being the prime agents of the destruction of Dogma. For the vast majority of the history of the Church, such would have been unthinkable, a few very notable exceptions aside.
On a lighthearted side note, I cannot tell how great is the temptation I feel to write “Pope Saint Leo XIII.” I know he hasn’t even a cause, but I have long felt this great pontiff has been ignored and overlooked to our collective shame. I do very much love and admire this pontiff. I am really enjoying his biography.
More horrendous heresy from disgraced bishop Conry September 30, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, the return.
Via commenter Richard M (thanks), Joseph Shaw, Chairman of the Latin Mass Society has some highly toxic comments from the now disgraced and resigned Bishop Conry of Arundel and Brighton in England. A couple of things: when one embraces one heresy, many others usually follow. The Faith is an intricate web, with Dogmas feeding into each other and propagating out into numerous directions, if you will. So a denial of one “small” Dogma will inexorably lead to the denial of others. Secondly, I will reiterate the statements I’ve read from Aquinas, Liguori, and other great Doctors: private sin always drives public heresy. It was true with Luther, with Henry VIII, with Pelagius, and it’s true with the shameful former bishop Conry. These comments were given in an interview with the conservativish Catholic Herald in 2008. You can see how the personal sins were already leading Conry to embrace all manner of highly destructive errors, especially those regarding the 6th and 9th Commandments:
But is the teaching itself wrong? “It could be. It’s not an infallible teaching. Clearly the basic Creed formula, what the Church teaches about the sacraments is infallible but there’s only been one strictly infallible statement.” [What? "There's only been one strictly infallible statement?" Ever? Or with regard to contraception? Isn't one enough?!? And I would say the vast majority of orthodox theologians would posit that the Church's constant belief and teaching on contraception as always and everywhere intrinsically sinful has risen to the level of an infallible Dogma. Witness the incredibly reductive definition of "infallibility," one put forth by the highly dangerous, destructive, and erroneous Dr. Rick Gaillardetz, which says anything not proclaimed ex-cathedra is not infallible. Sure makes it convenient to radically redefine the Faith according to one's preferred sins, doesn't it?!?]So in a sense it’s a matter of opinion? “Well, it’s… It is.” [Said the fornicating bishop]
On talking to young people
“You can’t talk to young people about salvation. What’s salvation? What does salvation mean? My eternal soul? You can only talk to young people in young people’s language, really. And if you’re going to talk to them about salvation, the first thing they will understand is saving the planet.” [Another conceit of the leftist illiberal cabal dominating the episcopate: people are stupid compared to them (especially anyone who disagrees with them). Thus, who can understand concepts taught from the inception of the Church, concepts which literally sold the Faith to billions, converted a huge Empire, and built Western Civilization? Far from a simple Faith that can be understood by all, this is a faith that requires PhD's in theology from elite leftist schools and exists in such subtle shades of nuance "little people" can't possibly understand! Well, "bishop," my 7 year old daughter understands two things: people are small and weak, and not nearly so powerful and world-destroying as leftists like to pretend, and she will be judged when she dies, to enter either Heaven or hell for all eternity. In fact, "young people," whatever that means, often have a purer faith, and a more clear-cut understanding of things like salvation, than adults with our pretensions of knowledge and baggage cars full of sin. We like to twist things to our advantage, don't we, Conry? But children most often do not.]
And the saddest thing of all, on confession
Is it a good idea to go to Confession regularly? “No, because my own experience when we had Confession every day at St Chad’s Cathedral in Birmingham was that regular penitents came back with exactly the same words week after week. So there you would say, actually, there is no conversion taking place.” [This man is not of the Catholic Faith. His entire sensibility is alien and even hostile. It is a great blessing, in reality, he was caught out for the impostor he has always been. How many others like him?]
You should really go read the entire post by Shaw, if you already haven’t. He explores how bishops leading sinful lives can be manipulated, or manipulate themselves, into embrace of heresy. Blackmail, self-justification, guilt……this is the witches brew which has helped produce the great sexular pagan heresy in the Church, as so many ostensible leaders have fallen into lives of sin and then tried to justify that sin by foisting heresy on the Church. I do not think we can underestimate just how widespread this phenomenon has been and continues to be.
Lord, have mercy on Your Church. Please send us the leaders we need, and not those we so deserve.
Over half of Canadian religious over 80! September 29, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, religious, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving.
Reader GM sent me this link, a general waste-of-time product of a bishop’s conference, in this case, Canadian, but with one not so golden nugget:
In the afternoon, the Most Reverend John Corriveau, O.F.M. Cap., Bishop of Nelson, B.C., led a panel discussion on the challenges facing consecrated life today. Father George Smith, C.S.B., General Superior of the Basilian Fathers and Vice President of the Canadian Religious Conference (CRC), was invited to present an overview of the current situation of religious life in Canada. In 2013, there were over 17,000 religious men and women in Canada. Fifty percent were over 80 years old and only one percent under 40.
I guess there are not so many young and faithful religious orders in Canada as in the US? Then again, the Conference of Canadia has always been several steps ahead of even the USCCB in dogmatic, lockstep leftism. So, it is little surprise they have tolerated few relatively orthodox religious orders.
In a mostly unrelated note, I was at a conference taught by a local traditional priest wherein he remarked that Seder meals, Jewish meals that precede Passover, have been co-opted by a good number of Novus Ordo Catholics. The priest stressed his opinion that this aping of Jewish practice is due both to the starvation so many Catholics feel for things liturgical and significant, being accustomed to a thin diet of watered down post-conciliar gruel, and to a tendency to return to the old temptation of Judaizing.
The Judaizers were those early Catholics, all converts from Judaism, who thought the New Covenant demanded all the old sacrifices of the Old Covenant, especially male circumcision. Also demanded were Jewish dietary restrictions and some other things of various levels of import. Since most converts at this time were adults, circumcision was both very painful and very dangerous. The dietary restrictions were annoying to some, difficult to others. The Judaizers fomented the first crisis in the Church, necessitating the First Ecumenical Council at Jerusalem, probably around AD 65 or so. This is the famous encounter when Saint Paul, not the Pope and not even a bishop, challenged and corrected the first Pope, Saint Peter, to his face, over Peter’s duplicity in sometimes supporting the Judaizers, and sometimes not (yes, I know the specific issue was about eating with them, but there were much larger implications). It was also against the Judaizers that Saint Paul wrote the Letter to the Galatians, warning them to reject “the Law,” meaning the Old Mosaic Law, and to expect salvation only through Grace (and, by necessity, works done in cooperation with Grace). This statement has of course been twisted by protestants to their own destruction, to mean not what Saint Paul said (don’t listen to the Judaizers dragging you back to the Old Covenant), but some made-up notion that works (of the law!) mean nothing, and only Grace avails. That one bit of Scripture, taken radically out of context and standing in total isolation, as usual, forms the essential basis of almost all of evangelical protestantism in the US and now, around the world. And it could not be more wrong. But I digress……..
Is it not interesting how the errors come around, though? Saint Paul writes a letter against one heresy, which is then taken up, nearly 2000 years later, by others, to justify their new heresy! Too bad Saint Paul could not live to be 3000 years old, but that would not be fair to him, and there would still be some heretic in the year 3001 who would take his words and twist them to his own destruction.
That is why we need our glorious mother, the Church, to provide understanding on the meaning of many difficult passages of Sacred Scripture. But always remember, contra protestants, our Church is older than Scripture, and holds the divine means to decipher, and proclaim, the Truth Christ has revealed.
If only our leaders would do so in good conscience. But I am a sinner, and not fit to judge.
Meh, sometimes I just can’t help myself.
Bishops who promote error, cave to culture just covering their own sins? September 29, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the return.
That is the message conveyed by two very important, if incredibly disquieting, recent posts on Rorate. The posts consider the forced resignation of British bishop Kieran Conry for having carried on, it is reported, multiple affairs with women, some of them married, over the past several years. While he says such incidents “only” started six years ago, I judge that highly unlikely – he has probably never taken his vow of celibacy seriously in the slightest. And what is worse, as a lawsuit being filed in England seeks to prove, the hierarchy in England and probably all the way to Rome well knew this man was not only conducting multiple affairs, but often with women already married! How many marriages has he helped destroy? How many children’s lives have been irrevocably ruined by his out of control libido and those of the slatterns he’s dallied with? And this is a supposed successor to the Apostles? How many like him are there?
As Rorate notes below, when bishops refuse to teach the Truth, or, even more disturbingly, suddenly turn tail in the face of the culture and become a public opponent of Church Doctrine, as we have seen some very highly placed bishops do, of late, it almost certainly means something very, very bad:
This collapse of Bishops’ moral position, their personal moral position, is a tumor destroying the credibility of the Church from the inside and from all sides. When a bishop (or priest) who certainly knows better says something bizarre and completely outside Catholic Tradition, or begins to waver when faced with secularism, Catholic faithful should increasingly ask themselves the questions:
Is the bishop speaking for himself, or is he speaking on behalf of those blackmailing him? Is there truly such thing as a “moderate” bishop, or is he being “moderated” by the enemies of the Church out of fear that his duplicitous behavior will be revealed?
Rorate notes the following comments by this disgraced former bishop:
‘It has been difficult keeping the secret,’ he told the Mail. ‘In some respects I feel very calm. It is liberating. It is a relief. I have been very careful not to make sexual morality a priority [in his sermons]. I don’t think it got in the way of my job, I don’t think people would say I have been a bad bishop. But I can’t defend myself. I did wrong. Full stop.’
Rorate has commentary here, but I’ll interject my own. What self-serving tripe. What unmitigated gall. He has been caught performing acts of wanton immorality, of conducting himself in a completely shameful manner (even if most people, in these shameful days, do the same), and his only concern is his own relief? And then he trumpets the fact that he has helped undermine Catholic Doctrine precisely because of his utter unfaithfulness and seeming happiness to continue in sin? Has he sworn off any of these “relationships” (I doubt they rise even to that level)? Has he evidenced true remorse for the scandal he has caused not just the faithful of Arundel and Brighton, but the entire Church? Not to my knowledge. This man evidences absolute no sorrow over the scandal he has caused and the sins he has committed, he is sorry because he has been caught. And, sir, by definition, you are not just a bad bishop, you are a demoniacal one.
Picking up with Rorate again:
When, regarding any point of doctrine, but in particular sexual morality and marriage, you see a bishop who is speaking less about it, or less often, or is distorting it, or hiding or criticizing those points he dislikes, or calling it old-fashioned, or dismissing its relevance, or who suddenly turns away from his formerly courageous modus operandi when feeling the pressure of secular activists, watch out. [As in the case of Cardinal Dolan, perhaps? Or Bishop Tobin? Or Bishop Armand Ochoa? Or Bishop Robert Lynch? I could go on for quite some time]This means a lot.A lot.IT MEANS A LOT.
……..This sad episode is relevant in itself, but also as a powerful symbol of a global problem — a grave warning to all the Catholic faithful, a fundamental breach of trust in the very core of the transmission of the Truth that is the very reason for the Apostolic Succession, a wound that can hardly be repaired afterwards. How many souls are thus lost?
This matter brings to mind a questions regarding that most toilsome of terms: “full communion.” As in, are the individuals in the hierarchy who have been aware of his numerous infidelities for years in “full communion?” What about all those bishops who preach error, ore refuse to teach difficult truths? Is “full communion” so reductive as to mean nothing more than not doing something the Pope tells you to not to do, or vice versa? Everything else is up for discussion? This is not to argue the point of view of the SSPX, this is a question of vital relevance for every Catholic striving to be faithful.
A final thought: Yes, former Bishop Conry is very deserving of prayers. As are those women who knowingly (or, doubtfully, unknowingly) aided in the corruption of a priest/bishop. And we must always bear in mind our own sins, which, for some of us, might even exceed those of Bishop Conry. But at the same time, we are discussing Doctrine, duty, and the manifest failure of the vast majority of bishops in these key elements of their apostolates. This is a matter that goes beyond mere personal failings or judging individual sin* and extends to the core reasons for the crisis in the Church. I shan’t apologize for taking a hard line on that.
Speaking of, another hint from “Boney” (what’s his name?!? Help me out!), who lives in this afflicted Diocese (we, in Dallas, know how you feel), that there have been indicators for some time that things were far from right with former bishop Conry:
Whenever I met him he was kind, warm, interested in us and courteous, though I was a bit taken aback when he asked if we “really believed all that stuff” about Marian apparitions and sites of Marian pilgrimage. I got the impression he did not understand people’s devotion to Our Lady and the Saints, nor those who genuflected towards the Tabernacle and knelt for Holy Communion.
My emphasis. The great Moral Doctor Saint Alphonsus tells us that the lack of a strong devotion to the Blessed Mother is a moral, if not absolute, sign of pending damnation. Or, more accurately, he says that a great devotion to the Blessed Mother is morally, if not absolutely, necessary for salvation. And he quotes other great Saints and theologians in his defense.
So perhaps there is no great mystery in former Bishop Conry’s fall, and the whole scandal. It all has to do with the widespread lack of respect and devotion given to Our Lady, Mother of God and Mother of the Church.
Our Lady, pray for Bishop Conry, the women, all those who knew and said nothing, and for all of us poor, weak, sinful souls. Beg Your Son to have mercy on us!
* – Having said that, perhaps more judgmentalism, and more repercussions for such scandalous acts, might result in fewer people committing them? Is that not how shunning in polite society used to work, before Western Civilization morally collapsed?
Below, “Lady Conry,” chosen over another Lady (via Daily Smail):
Diocese of Orange, CA, takes the protestant “Crystal Cathedral”……..and makes it worse September 26, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, Art and Architecture, disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Liturgy, sadness, scandals, secularism, the return.
Hoy vey. I remember when this story broke, a few years back. Tod Brown, thankfully retired Bishop of Orange (replaced by FW’s former bishop, Kevin Vann), had taken the inexplicable act to purchase the facilities of a bankrupt evangelical sect and use those facilities for the new cathedral of Orange. Many were nonplussed, as the gaudy, hyper-modernist “Crystal Cathedral” seemed a very poor match for Catholic liturgical sensibilities. But, the perennial apologists said, “hey, it may not look good now, but I can see how it could be turned into a really rollicking Catholic cathedral.” Well, apologists, feast your eyes on this. If it were any colder and more devoid of warmth, it would have to be moved to the South Pole – of Pluto (skip ahead to ~2:45 for the cathedral design proper):
Note in all the rationales given for this
modern art museum cathedral above, virtually none refer to making the place Catholic. They refer to “sacred” and “liturgical,” but not “Catholic.” And for all the false erudition on display, they manage to completely miss the point. You can’t get “sacred” from rationalist, analytical individuals. You get sacred from holy, pious people.
So, what’s really changed – a central altar with no tabernacle, which I can’t stand, a lot of cold white stone, and some landscaping? Well, nothing says Catholic like a double row of trees.
I sure love Eliot B’s humor. His only comment on the above: I say again, New Evangelization: put down the Super-Council, step away from the Church, and just go home. You’re still drunk. So very, very drunk.
I have a comment of my own: who could possibly take that “liturgical consultant @~3:00 seriously? Are you kidding?
I really thought Bishop Vann was better than this. Fooled me. There’s not even a proper crucifix. I don’t know what it is, it’s grotesque. Note how Sister “Kit” @0:30 has an equal length cross – think she played a big role in selecting picking that resurrectifix out?
Oh, look at the bone they threw the Catholics in a crypt church @~6:00! How generous!
I’m sure these folks thought they designed just a bang up cathedral…….for their own religion, whatever that is.
Enjoy your cathedral for the next 70 years, Orange-ites.
Prayer requests September 25, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, Society, scandals, Admin, Latin Mass, Ecumenism, sickness, religious, Interior Life, episcopate, priests, Virtue, persecution, error, secularism.
Via Facebook (my wife’s, I am still off), please pray for a Belgian priest Fr. Anselm. He is a Norbertine priest with a strong attraction to the TLM and the traditional practice of the Faith. His superiors in his order do not like that attraction, no not one bit. He has been told to either get on board with the “ways of the abbey,” and stop “genuflecting and bowing too often, stop praying so much,” or to go elsewhere. As I said, he loves the TLM and would like to offer it full time. Many speak very highly of this priest (I do not know him). He is very unhappy in his current situation. Please pray for him!
A reminder to please continue helping the Iraqi Catholics. The best way is helpiraq.org. A better exhortation than I could give:
Most of all, these suffering souls, and their tormentors, need prayers. Anyone can do that, even if you are not in a position to help, financially.
Finally, pray for a changing of hearts among the leadership of this Diocese of Dallas. I heard a most disheartening thing a couple weeks ago that I pray is wrong, but considering the source, almost certainly isn’t. I can’t really be very specific, other than to say it touches on something very, very near and dear to our traditional Catholic hearts It was not good news. Please no speculation, it was not a threat to anything existing, just a realization that what we have will probably be all we’ll ever have for a very, very long time. Capiche?
Bah! Need brain bleach! Latin “Gather Us In!” September 24, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Liturgy, mortification, secularism, Society, Tradition.
Everytime I hear the first three notes of this sickening tune I get it stuck in my head for days! Eliot Bougis, look what you’ve done!
Well, if I’m going to suffer, so are you:
Some intriguing questions from the same source, different post:
1) What did Vatican II teach us that the Church did not already know? IOW, what would a Catholic who were never exposed to the documents of Vatican II lack as a Catholic?
2) What is the magisterial basis for the concept of “dialogue”? I am aware of the biblical arguments that might be brought forward, which can be discussed in their own right, but what I would like to know is where “dialogue” is promoted in the pre-V2 Magisterium.
1 – I would answer, in practical terms (meaning out of the realm of the more esoteric aspects of theology) nothing.
2 – I would describe the basis as “problematic” and counter to much of the prior Magisterium, and especially the writings/exhortations of numerous Saints. There are some references in the pre-conciliar Church, starting from perhaps 1880 or so, and growing in frequency and urgency as you move towards 1962. But, Magisterial pronouncements, I can think of none.
Y usted? (soy muy formal)
UPDATE: Heh, brainwash. Sheesh. You guys get top, top commentary here. Worth every penny. This update will only make sense for those who saw the original lede.
Why is such unique hatred and loathing directed at the Traditional Mass? September 24, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Tradition, Virtue.
Boney at That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill asks a very pertinent question – why is the Traditional Mass the object of the greatest loathing from a very wide, and influential, part of the Church? What is it about the TLM that inspires such fear and hatred? In other words, it appears another Catholic is showing clear signs of “getting it:”
The sudden, powerful, self-propelling movement within the Church to limit, to disparage, to counteract, curtail or even stamp out, in places, or in parts of the Church, the Traditional Latin Mass is laced with fear not that the past is a threat to the present, but that it is what informs the future. The present can be so easily altered, the past can be so easily brushed aside, or erased, by those who wish to erase it, but when the memory and tradition of the past enters afresh once more into the present – and is suppressed, or feared, we can be sure that what is at stake is the future. [What did Big Brother say in 1984? He who controls the past, controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past? Yes, it's just like that in the Church, which is why the first thing the revolutionaries did during the Council, well before any "reforms" reached the people, was to disparage the Church of the past. They still do that today as the core of justifying their program of constant novelty and destruction of faith]
An awesome story regarding Cardinal Burke September 23, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Christendom, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Holy suffering, Latin Mass, martyrdom, Papa, persecution, sadness, sanctity, scandals, the return, Tradition, Virtue.
Reader GM sent this to me and I thought it was well worth sharing. From Vox Cantoris, a story regarding Cardinal Burke’s virtue and concern for souls:
A few years ago, I read a story on the Internet, which I can no longer find; it was written by a man that once suffered from same-sex attraction.
He wrote that he was outraged that then Bishop Burke of LaCrosse in Wisconsin would speak out firmly against sodomy. This man sent letters to the Bishop, hateful and spiteful letters. A few years later, he had a conversion to Christ and His Church. By then, Raymond Leo Burke was the Archbishop of St. Louis, in Missouri. The man that harassed him so many times sought him out in St. Louis and was surprised when the Archbishop accepted his request for a meeting. He came to the Archbishop and apologised. Archbishop Burke then went to a closet to retrieve a shoebox. Inside the shoebox were all the letters of harassment and hate that the man had sent to him. Archbishop Burke explained that he would regularly pray over the letters for the man and gave him back his letters with his blessing.
I have a personal friend that knows Cardinal Burke personally, I told him this story and his reply was, “I don’t know that I’ve ever heard that but I believe it because that is exactly the kind of thing that Cardinal Burke would do.”
I pray this story is true, if for no other reason than the benefit of the soul in question.
I don’t know if any of the current prelates in the Church have the kind of heroic sanctity that has been demonstrated by so many Saint-bishops of the past. But among them all, at least insofar as we in the Anglosphere with our tendency to focus entirely on English-speaking prelates see things, I would have to say Cardinal Burke would be one of only a few I could imagine as being in that exalted class. I’m certain he has his warts and has made many mistakes, but he has also been about as strong a defender of the Faith as we’ve seen in recent years. But, I do have to say, for all his forthrightness and clarity with regard to Doctrine, he is probably only average or slightly above compared to the historical conduct of bishops going back centuries in the Church with regard to doctrinal defense. Reading defenses of Doctrine or exhortations to observe it from great Saint bishops of the past is generally mind-blowing in its depth, clarity, and force of reason. Cardinal Burke is strong, but perhaps not quite to that level. To his credit, however, he does seem to have grown into the role over the past decade or so, and Cardinal Burke has emerged as perhaps the strongest friend of the TLM in high Church office. I have no real idea of his personal practice of virtue, this anecdote aside, although it is reputed to be very strong.
At any rate, it appears Cardinal Burke and many more defenders of the Faith are going to be made to suffer real persecution for their beliefs. May God bless and strengthen him and all those in high positions in the Church who cooperate with Grace by being true shepherds and not one of the large number of wolves in sheep’s clothing, or the even larger number of empty clerical suits.
An assessment of US Catholic colleges well before the Council September 22, 2014Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, Christendom, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, Society, the return.
I have seen many Catholics, who have at least some awareness of the crisis in the Faith, struggle with comprehending how the revolution that struck the Church in the 1960s seemingly came out of nowhere. The fact is, it didn’t – the revolution had been growing in fits and starts for 150 years, at least, prior to the Council. Generally, revolutionary sentiment and error existed just below the surface. In the early 20th century, the revolutionaries, fired by inordinate zeal, attempted to prematurely break out into the open, but were crushed by Pope Saint Pius X and a still overwhelmingly orthodox Church. The revolutionary simply went back underground, continued to grow and influence more and more, so that, by the late 50s, the Church was nearly, if not quite, a seething cauldron of error and proto-revolutionary sentiment under a patina of orthodoxy. At least, that was the case among the institutional Church – the academics, religious, priests, bishops, etc. Many were fully gone over into heresy and revolutionary sentiment, while many others were too weak to resist. All that was needed was a spark, and the Council was that spark.
How did the revolution continue to advance even under official bans and lay opposition? One key breeding ground was the university. Most the key leaders of the 1960s revolution came out of academia. There they had been coddled and protected, allowed to “experiment” with heresy and error, for decades. As evidence of that, read this critique of the American Catholic (ahem) university in the 1940s, from a book whose title I will reveal at the end of the post:
In the American Catholic college……the apostasy was more implicit, and took the form of a wholesale aping of secular standards.
The Catholic colleges did not say outright that man is in the world for the achieving of his own ends, that he is the alpha and omega of all things. They did not say, as the teachers in secular colleges, that man’s eternal destiny is only an idea that some theologians and philosophers like to play with; that it is the notion which made for the backwardness of the dark ages and the superstition of the Middle Ages’ that it is, in fact, the reason why Catholic countries today are without modern improvements, such as bathtubs and showers! [They may not quite have done so then, but they do today!] But the courses in the Catholic colleges were, nevertheless, completely secularized. The religion course was in a compartment all by itself, and its presentation was dull and mediocre, without fire, and it communicated its message not at all to the other courses in the curriculum. These courses seemed to be set up only with an eye to making the student, later on, a rich man or a power in some field where his scientific prestige or political aggrandizement would redound to the glory of the college. Even a mediocre student could, for the most part, be assured of a good job upon graduation. And every student could be sure that he would look like and be like every other college graduate of every other college in America, whether Catholic or non-Catholic. That he was totally unaware that his Faith was the most exciting thing in the world, and that the full living of it would change the world, seemed not to matter to anyone………. [All of these are not just valid criticisms of Catholic colleges today, but almost all Catholic schools from pre-school on up. Catholic schools are not ordered towards producing superlative Catholics, but nominal Catholics, at best. They are ordered to produce high achievers and important men of the world - both of which often make right practice of the Faith very difficult. But we can see this problem has been with us for some a long time.]
………We had no need to ask ourselves for how long this state of things had come to pass in Catholic education. The answer was right before our eyes, across the street in Harvard Yard. Twenty four Jesuit priests were studying that year at Harvard…….The Greeks have a saying, “Send you son to school to a slave, and he will become a slave.” We might add, “Send your priests and nuns to secular schools, and they will become secular teachers – in Catholic schools!” [and that is precisely what happened, especially after Council, which precipitated the most dramatic decline in religious life in recorded Church history. Ever before the Council, there was a push from the highest levels of the Church for religious to receive secular education. And those religious proceeded to become thoroughly secularized, and then secularized their entire orders! This is still ongoing today, perhaps due to lack of an alternative. Even some of the most conservative/orthodox religious orders (but not traditional), especially active orders, send their members to secular colleges so they can teach, or whatever. Some require degrees before acceptance. Thus there is still a great deal of exposure to radical secular thought, even if many of those so exposed are relatively inoculated against it by a strong faith. One wonders if some of that secularism does not creep into the practice of their religious life, however. Note the early involvement of the Jesuits, which order over the course of the 19th and 20th century turned elite education into something of an idol.]
…….None of the secular colleges have knowledge according to the pattern which a priest should be teaching. It is easy to see the harm that comes to the Faith of the priests in these universities.……
……It would fare better for Catholic colleges, it seems, if they had, on their faculties, more Cure’s d’Ars, and less PhD’s. The times in which we live are badly in need of saints in the priesthood. And we are supplying, at the present, a conforming, course-taking, liberal clergy!
Thus……the failure of Catholic colleges in the post-war period in America. The inroads of liberalism had disequipped them for the strong religious leadership of their own people……..
It must be stressed that this thorough denouncement of Catholic education came from people with direct experience of it, 70 years ago. This was decades before the scandal of Land O’ Lakes and the formal surrender of the American Catholic college to leftist dogma. In a very real sense, and save for a handful of exceptions, Catholic colleges chose secular dogma and worldly accolades over Jesus Christ and their own sanctification through marginalization and anti-Catholic bias. To say it very clearly, Catholic academia, and most primary/secondary schools, have chosen to embrace the dogmas of this fallen world in order to gain the world’s approval and to be a “player” along the same lines as all the other secular universities. Thus, they are just as far gone into leftism and amoral indifferentism as the worst secular colleges. But, at least at a secular college, the errors are presented straight up, and not under the devastating deception of being somehow “Catholic” and in line with the Faith.
Oh, the book. The excerpt is from The Loyolas and the Cabots, by Catherine Goddard Clarke. Yes, she was part of the sad tale of Father Leonard Feeney, but there is a great deal to recommend in the book in spite of that fact. I left the “announcement” until now because I did not want to bias your reading above.