jump to navigation

Voris on a subject near and dear to my heart January 5, 2011

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

Michael Voris discusses the National Catholic Reporter, their naming Sr. Carol Keehan as “Person of the Year” and the constant un-Catholic, and even anti-Catholic, sentiments that are present, week in and week out, in that publication.  He asks the question, how is it that this publication appears in most parishes in this country?  How is this being allowed to happen, when NCR and similar publications routinely spout dissent, and outright heresy?  How are these being promoted in parishes throughout the country?

I would add, how is it that parishes in our Diocese routinely invite speakers in to speak on topics that are dangerous to the faith of parishioners, and can even be construed in some cases as being anti-Catholic?  How do we have the annual cavalcade of new age speakers in the five churches that make up the “Collin County Catholic Churches Association?”  I have been through the process with the Bishop, and I know what he will say regarding these speakers.  He, or his staff, actually, will say that “no ecclesial prohibition exists against Sr. X, or Fr. Y, and so they are free to speak in our Diocese.”  You see, that’s how it works – no one takes responsbility to stop this kind of action, and so we have new age Maria Schwan coming to St. Mark in Plano, and new age Fr. Bill Sheehan coming to St. Joseph in Richardson, both during Lent, after we had the supremely new age Joyce Rupp last year.   Because the large majority of bishops over the last 40 odd years have been, out of a sense of being “pastoral” (read, anything goes), extremely reticent to put a prohibition on dissenting, even heretical religious and priests, and because the Vatican generally has more important things to do than to chase down every dissenting female religious, there are no prohibitions, and so these speakers are free to come and speak and spread their new age (or whatever dissent they hold) message year after year.  The pastors at the parishes involved allow this to happen, I suppose, either because they kind of like this sort of new age catholicism themselves, or they don’t want to upset Mrs. So and So, Director of Family Affairs and ‘Religious Education’, who arranges for these conferences to happen every year.   The pastor, or Mrs. So and So, may also happen to be a big fan of the Distorter, America, Commonweal, and the like, which is why you see those publications lying around all over. 

It’s the perfect scenario for deflecting responsibility.  If you go after the pastor, he will say it’s the bishop’s call. If you go after the bishop, he will say it’s up to the pastor, or his hands are tied because of a lack of prohibition.  That the bishop himself, in our case, Bishop Farrell, is perfectly capable of issuing such a prohibition is, of course, never mentioned.   There is cover there, too, of course – “well, it’s the responsibiltiy of the bishop who oversees the particular convent involved,” although “convent” is used generously, as some of our modern female religious now live paired up in a condo, and call that a “convent.”   That doesn’t prevent any bishop from regulating the speakers who come into his diocese.

The point I am trying to make is, the dissenters and those who permit the dissent to occur have evolved a near perfect system of deflecting responsbility in order to allow the dissent to continue, all in the name of being “pastoral,” or “tolerant,” or whatever the excuse de jour is.  Only in rare cases where the Vatican gets involved, as in the case of Thomas Reese or Charles Curran, does some limitation occur, but even men such as these regularly speak in Catholic parishes.  They are simply no longer allowed to teach courses at Catholic universities.  But they get plenty of newspaper interviews…….

The only way, THE ONLY WAY, I have seen that seems to work in terms of putting a stop to this kind of activity is for concerned parishioners to speak with their checkbook.  If you don’t like this kind of activity at your parish, stop putting money in the basket, but leave a note saying you’d be happy to give again as soon as the parish stops inviting in speakers like Schwan, Sheehan, Rupp, Curran, Rohr, etc ad nauseum.   Give that money to the Dominican Sisters of Mary Mother of the Eucharist, or to the Poor Clares, or the Carmelites in Dallas, or Food for the Poor, or whatever.  Do not feel guilty.  You are merely responding to a situation not of y0ur own making.  You bear more culpability in continuing to fund these kinds of activities, through your donation (money is fungible, and your tithe may wind up paying the light bill when madam new age comes to town), than you do for “mooching” off your parish while you are not contributing in protest.  Yes, I’m being harsh, but if you read this blog, chances are, you’re a more substantial contributor to your parish than most other parishioners, and your refusal will be felt.  Nothing will change unless you act, and that’s a fact.

UPDATE: I promise I wrote all of the above before I saw this, yesterday’s video:

You could do all the organizing that Voris mentions, which might be as effective as de-funding, but would definitely be a great deal more work.  Your call.

Comments

1. Terry Carroll - January 5, 2011

My goodness! You’d think we consulted your blog posting before yesterday’s “Larger Issues” episode of the Vortex! See http://www.youtube.com/user/RealCatholicTV#p/a/u/0/QBKLbCdk7vA

You do great work!

tantamergo - January 5, 2011

Thanks for the comment, I updated my post with Michael Voris’ latest video. Sounds like he’s experienced some of the same things I have.

2. Steve - January 5, 2011

Hi Tantamergo,

Say what? Bishop Farrell has “cover” too???

REALLY?

Sure, he can’t:

A) Do anything directly about revoking the canonical status of these dissenting Priests and Sisters.

B) He can’t do anything directly either about shutting down their religious orders, monasteries, or convents. And,

C) He can’t legally keep them out of his Diocese either by using a secular venue in the area for promoting their errors.

But, what he SURE CAN do is this:

Act like the shepherd he is supposed to be – to prevent the dissenters from giving their “missions” at parishes which are DIRECTLY under his jurisdiction.

So, Bishop Farrell:

1) Do you love your flock so little that you’re willing to expose them to DANGEROUS teachings and beliefs which can lead them AWAY from Christ and His Church? And,

2) Why do you allow dissenters to come into your Diocese to “preach another Gospel” (Gal 1:8-9) which is clearly opposed to the Catholic faith?

We’re really confused, Bishop Farrell, as to why you aren’t more assertively protecting us from the errors that these dissenters seem to spread on a regular basis amongst your flocks here in the Dallas Diocese.

And, Bishop, we’re hurt and that you seem to care so little for us, in how you allow these dissenters too try to undermine our Catholic faith. Can you tell us why you REFUSE to keep them away, as a good spiritual father should?

tantamergo - January 5, 2011

Well, that’s what I’ve been told in the past, regarding this notion that only the bishop where the dissenter in question resides can put a prohibition on them. The basic point is, it’s more painful for the bishop to block the speaker coming than it is to just let them come on in (if you assume that the bishop is not supportive of the new age speakers, in general, which is not altogether clear). Until faithful Catholics make it more painful to bring these speakers in than it is to keep them out, they will continue to come. I’m not holding my breath.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: