jump to navigation

Blessed John Paul II saved the Church from the fate of anglicanism May 3, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, Ecumenism, General Catholic, sadness, sickness, Society.
comments closed

So says the Telegraph’s Damian Thompson:

John Paul II preserved the unity of the Catholic Church at a moment when it seemed likely to fracture.

I was a schoolboy during the last years of Paul VI; what I remember from the time was a sense that the boundaries of Catholicism were being stretched until they seemed likely to snap. The Catholic Church in the 1970s had something of the flavour of the Anglican Communion today. The question of women priests did not tip the Church into schism, but it was a distinct possibility. The Dutch Church had effectively declared UDI from the Vatican; beneath the near-impenetrable jargon of American and European theologians lay fundamental assaults on Catholic belief in the Real Presence, the sacramental priesthood and many other doctrines.

John Paul II used the power of the papal office to close down debates over these matters. Liberal Catholics may regard this as an assault on intellectual freedom, but from a sociological perspective what we were witnessing was the leader of a worldwide religion using his teaching authority to declare that his organisation believed X and not Y. No religion can survive without such boundaries, wherever they are drawn. The Church in the past has closed down debate over (for example) the divine nature of Christ; John Paul ruled that the Church did not have the power to ordain women now or ever – and, in issuing this ruling, put the prospect of women priests beyond the boundaries of Roman Catholicism, just as lay presidency at the Eucharist lies beyond the pale. The Church became a more peaceful place as a result.

That is just one example; there are other instances of boundary-drawing which kept in what other Catholics were trying to throw out, such as traditional devotion to the Virgin Mary, which was marginalised after the Second Vatican Council but, thanks to Mary’s devoted servant John Paul II, is now firmly back in the mainstream.

Karol Wojtyla was a man of formidable intellect: his encyclicals, and the Catechism he commissioned, sought to enrich rather than pare down the Magisterium. But it strikes me that his central achievement was to spell out what Catholics believe and what they do not, something that was by no means clear when he took office.

I think that may be a valid point.  I think there may have been a bit of a rush in the beatification, but it’s not something I would grouse about.  Having said that, I do recognize that Blessed Pope John Paul II did many very good things, and I think did point the Church in a much healthier direction, away from indifferentism and theological chaos, and back towards recognizing Catholicism as the One True Faith instituted by Jesus Christ on earth while at the same time beginning to rein in the excesses of theological abuse.  There is still a very long way to go, but simply changing course was a difficult task.  Pope Benedict XVI has done more things to get the Church further back down the road to Sanctity and Truth.

But the Church is always in need of reform.

Two great pictures on abortion and global warming May 3, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic, North Deanery, sadness, sickness, Society.
comments closed

There are many people who believe in the idea that man is irrevocably wrecking environment through carbon dioxide emissions (carbon dioxide being something that all human beings exhale, and which is also produced in the combustion of hydrocarbons).  Many of these people have a firm agenda to both reduce the standard of living in much of the world and keep it low in others. Another part of their agenda is to reduce the number of human beings, since human beings will inevitably exhale, and want goods produced by industrial processes, which will further damage the sanctity of our demanding earth goddess gaia who must constantly be appeased (or else, she will loose terrible vengeance in the forms of tornados, hurricanes, etc – no really, NBCs chief stooge Brian Williams blamed the tornados in Alabama on global warming and demanded a ritual child sacrifice to appease gaia, so he immediately went to the nearest Planned Barrenhood.  Actually, he did the former, but only thought the latter was a very good idea).  And so these earth mother goddess appeasers are very much in favor of abortion, so that people can continue to have absolutely no inhibitions on their sexual behavior while at the same time receiving no child as punishment remaining ‘conscious’ stewards of the environment.  I found two pics that relate to the mindset of these kinds of individuals, and refute the fallacies inherent therein:

There is a consequence to abortion – well, many, actually.  It’s not a blob of cells, and it’s not your body, it’s a baby who has an immortal soul created in the image and likeness of God.  Abortion results not only in death, but frequently in great misery for the woman who has procured one. 

The second pic:

Comparative global carbon emissions.  China and India have very few environmental laws or standards in place, while the US has voluminous standards.  The US produces much less carbon dioxide per capita GNP than does China or India or many other countries.  Unless environmental standards are applied universally across the globe, there is no point pursuing them, because China’s rate of carbon dioxide production is slated to dwarf that of the US in a few short years, with other nations also producing prodigious amounts.  Since the wind blows where it will, imposing draconian cuts on industrial activity in the US or Europe will have only a niggling impact on carbon dioxide emissions so long as China, India, and other countries continue to emit unconstrained megatons of CO2 every year.

But that’s never been the point.  The point has been to find an excuse to force upon the US a centrally planned and directed economy.

Australian bishop removed May 3, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, sickness, Society.
comments closed

What could have been a significant topic worldwide, coming in the wake of Pope John Paul II’s beatification, has become a footnote in the wake of the killing of bin Laden.  A bishop in Australia stepped down after failing to defend and uphold the Faith, was subsequently removed from office, and has now come out blasting:

A day after Bishop William Morris of Toowoomba said he would retire early following an apostolic visitation, Pope Benedict XVI removed him from office.

The May 1 retirement announcement and May 2 removal followed an apostolic visitation led by Archbishop Charles Chaput[Interesting that Bishop Chaput got the assignment.  Good for him for following through. -ED] In a 2006 pastoral letter, Bishop Morris had expressed support for women’s ordination.

Following his removal, Bishop Morris blasted the Vatican for conducting an “Inquisition.”

“I believe there is creeping centralism, a creeping authoritarianism and fallibility in the way the church operates and discusses issues,” he said. “It is not just Pope Benedict: it is the whole Curia, with Benedict as the leader.”

It was like the Inquisition,” Bishop Morris added. “He [Pope Benedict] was immovable. There was no dialogue.”

“It has been my experience and the experience of others that Rome controls bishops by fear, and if you ask questions or speak openly on subjects that Rome declares closed, . . . you are censored very quickly, told your leadership is defective . . . and are threatened with dismissal,” the prelate told the priests of his diocese.

How  many things are wrong with the statements above, from a perspective of defending, upholding, and propagating the Faith?  How many subjects would Bishop Morris like to ‘dialogue’ on (bear in mind, ‘dialogue’ to the heterodox means letting them harangue you about how wrong, antedeluvian, and reactionary your views are, until you come around to their ‘enlightened’ views).  This is the core issue – as a Catholic, there are certain beliefs we are required to hold as a matter of Faith.  They are called dogmas, and there are 418 of them.  One of these dogmas holds that Christ only ever intended to confer the Sacrament of Holy Orders on men, and that is all the Church has the faculty to do, and that is all it has ever done. There are other dogmas – marriage can only exist between one man and one woman, forever.  Artificial contraceptive use is contrary to God’s Will and the natural order and its use constitutes a mortal sin.  Jesus Christ is present Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist.  Purgatory exists and many if not virtually all of us will spend at least some time there after death.  I could go on for a very long time.  

The bishop’s role is the most important that can be entrusted to a man.  He is the shepherd personally responsible for the faith of every person in his diocese.  He has complete responsibility to uphold, defend, and propagate the Faith.  If a bishop starts to openly reject the Truth Christ has revealed through His Church, expressed in the various catechisms and other Church documents developed over its 2000 year history, he is abrogating his role as chief shepherd, is allowing his flock to wander dangerously afield, and may even cause many souls to be lost.  Given that awesome responsibility, it is apparent that when a bishop openly rejects a revealed Truth, what we are actually witnessing is a collapse of faith in that man.  For to abrogate that responsibility, that highest calling, is to reveal a lack of faith that such a responsibility exists, or to confuse that responsibility to the Highest Authority with the approval of ever faithless, ever changing man.  It is a fundamental breech of faith that excludes one from continuing in such a critical position.

And former Bishop Morris’ comments since his removal make that breech of faith plain. 

Pray for our bishops.  They are under constant pressure from men, and constant attack from evil.  Pray that they may always uphold the Faith and declare its glorious Truths with all the fiber of their being, with great love and passion and the force of Right.  Pray that we may have more excellent, holy, God loving – and fearing – bishops, whose highest concern is always and without question the salvation of immortal souls.

Voris on the feminization of the Church, Mk. II May 3, 2011

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, Society.
comments closed

Michael Voris tends to engender strong reactions.  A couple of weeks ago, there were many hostile reactions to one of his videos.  I found it interesting that some of the strongest reactions came from female bloggers.  I then went to comment on my perception of the feminization of the Church.  Voris, who is actually me, and I he*, has some similar thoughts:

I agree that altar girls are not a good practice for many reasons, including those Voris cites.  What concerns me more is the domination of Chancery and parish staffs by women.  In some cases, this staff acts like a praetorian guard, insulating the priest or bishop from the people.  At times, these staff can be rather nasty, and enjoy exercising their notion of power or control.  No, certainly not all, but I have definitely met a few.  At one time in the Church, most parishes had a staff of 2 or 3, aside from clergy.  In some cases, there was no other staff besides clergy.  Nowadays, our priests are outnumbered 10 or 15 to 1 by staff, and while much good is done by these folks, I wonder if this is the best direction for the Church, to act as a sort of social service organization employing dozens.  In this environment, I get worried about division of effort, and I know there are some priests out there who are very good at the ‘church craft’ and social service side, but who are weaker in their proclamation of the Gospel, their celebration of the Sacraments, and their desire to save immortal souls.  Certainly, the Church needs both, but just like the feminization aspect, it seems the Church has skewed too far to one side.  I believe there is a connection between this ‘social service’ role and the feminization of the Church.

*not really!