jump to navigation

Another doozy from Voris December 14, 2010

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, North Deanery, sadness, scandals.

Michael Voris feels that the Church is being forced to retreat into a ghetto, precisely the opposite from what was intended by Vatican II, when the “opening to the world” was so trumpeted as absolutely vital for the future of the Church.  I don’t think it is unreasonable to say that the traditional methods of communicating the Faith are in a state of near collapse and great disarray.  I don’t think it unreasonable to say that, since the Church seemingly lost control of much of the Catholic education establishment, and with many parishes where what is transmitted as the Faith is, at best, severely watered down if not outright rejecting many core doctrines, that new means need to be supported by the Church much more aggressively for evangelizing and defending the Faith.  The family, of course, is so under attack it hardly merits mention, since the collapse in societal standards in this area is so totally apparent.  Will the Church shrink in many of its former bastions?  No question?  Will the Church be forced into relatively small cultural ghettoes in much of Europe and the Americas?  I think it very likely.  Anyone think this is far too negative a view?

Voris’ negative views of many “professional Catholics” who work against new methods of promoting the Faith and often seem to undermine the efforts of some of the most devout Catholics touch on a very important subject.  How does this relate to events like we see in the Dallas Diocese, where we have certain staff members at some parishes continually pushing to bring in speakers at very important points in the Liturgical Year to preach a message which has been rejected by the Vatican as counterproductive, even dangerous?


1. FrDarryl - December 14, 2010

Illatively true.

2. thewhitelilyblog - December 15, 2010

Tantum. I want to ask something related. It’s related because the period I will bring up is just about the beginning of us being pushed ‘to the rim of the world.’ That’s a quote from someone, don’t remember who, but it sure fits because that’s what it feels like. (At the Fourth of July parade, my church has a ring side seat right where the parade turns the corner, and this year, with it falling on Sunday, and the parade starting right after mass, you’d have thought that our parish with its many many children would be right out there on our property with their lawn chairs. Not. Gay Pride contingent automatically included–in this little quiet suburb! And it just hurt so much. I’m telling you, it crossed my mind: when you can’t go to your own parade, you need a new country.)

Well, here’s my question. It’s pretty standard now for Catholics, at least novus ordo ones, to view those priests and laypeople who fought back against the English government as traitors. I’m looking at a post in a Catholic historian’s blog which calls Father William Watson, whom they executed, a traitor for his participation in an attempt to overthrow James I and restore the Church, for example. Unlike, say, Saint Edmund Campion, who was, according to the logic, a true martyr because he only wanted ‘freedom of religion’ and to love his Queen.

What do you think of that? It struck me hard, to see Watson called a traitor and his death not a martyrdom at all. Is this Vatican II’s revisionism? If we had a chance today to overthrow the mess we’re in and substitute the Church in partnership with a (tolerant, of course) state–could we, would we? I’m not saying by force, and I don’t think that’s actually the kicker for the branch that calls Watson a traitor; I think the real kicker is ‘religious freedom’ vs. ‘religious state with tolerance.’ As you might suspect, force sometimes is necessary. For example, what do you think would happen if we actually voted both parties out of office in favor of a religious party? I’m pretty sure they’d give up their pretense of democracy immediately, and then we’d better be armed.

I just wonder what you think. I don’t have many people to discuss this with. I’d give you the link to the site that calls Watson a traitor if you’re interested.

I hope I find my way back to this comment to see your answer.

tantamergo - December 15, 2010

Wow, those are hard questions. When Voris posted a video that the ideal form of government for Catholics was a faithful Catholic monarchy, he got alot of flak, and there were alot of negative comments on my blog. My friend Steve B noted that he felt that Voris was dead on, and I’m rather inclined to agree, but people in this country have been conditioned against both monarchy AND religious parties. The modern mythos of “freedom of religion” a la the 1st Amendment has been (mis)interpreted by the dominant elites and much of the populace to mean “freedom from religion in public.” You can do your icky, neanderthalish Christofascist thing in private, but don’t bother me with it. I would not say that Fr. William Watson, whose case I do not know, was one of being a traitor, but that’s exactly what the English at the time tried to claim, that the state was superior to all and all owed fealty to the state first, even before God, as the head of state was the living embodiment of “God.” That was one of the main selling points of protestantism as far as the elites were concerned – Luther sold protestantism as a means to have private state religions in all the principalities of Germany with each little prince as the head of his own church, no longer beholden to Rome. That had alot of appeal. But to try to overthrow a monarch who has usurped what had always been the Divine Right of the Church is not to me, treason, it’s revaunchist, but not treason, and of course we have to keep in mind the persecutions going on. Who is this historian?

There won’t be anything like religious parties in this country, or a monarchy, until after things go seriously south for a long time, if that happens. I’ll have to think on this some more.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: