jump to navigation

Does the process of canonization need to be un-reformed? October 16, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Four Last Things, General Catholic, Glory, Interior Life, Papa, priests, religious, Saints, scandals.
comments closed

Pope John Paul II did away with the “devil’s advocate” in the process of sanctification some years back, “streamlining” the process by removing an antagonist who would point out failings and faults in the person undergoing review for beatification/canonization.  This has caused some discomfiture, with seemingly “political” canonizations of curious timing or merit.  Now, we are told Pope Paul VI, that man of such tremendous self-doubt and seeming manic-depressive tendencies, among other things, is to be beatified next year.  Fr. Ray Blake shares the same qualms I do:

The dying Emperor Augustus cried out, “I’m becoming a God!”
It strikes me dying Popes might cry out, “I am becoming a Beatus!”
Apparently Paul VI might be declared “Blessed” next year, John XXIII is already beatified as is John Paul II, there is strong lobby for Pius XII and of course John Paul I, I have always had a sneaking admiration for Pius XI but no-one else is that interested.
My Orthodox friends are horrified by the haste of some of our beatifications and canonisation, and so I am I. I am not sure what we mean any longer when we beatify someone or canonise them, in the past three criteria where necessary:

  1. They were in heaven: proved by miracles
  2. They had an enduring and wellfounded cultus
  3. Their holiness was outstanding and an example to the faithful
Obviously those who have been beatified and canonised fulfil all of these requirements, however there does seem to be a danger of writing history with an airbrush in our present day haste to raise certain individuals to the altar. Although in all cases there is holiness, in many there seem to be many other issues too. Too often beatification/canonisation can be seen as a political act, placing the Blesseds or Saints actions and words beyond question.
There is always the danger when the following generation beatify their benefactors, their teachers, friends, patrons and masters that it is ideas that are being raised to the altar rather than individuals, it is a piece of nepotism, even more worrying than that of the Borgias
In the case of St Jose-Maria Escriva who was certainly outstanding but with the extreme haste of his canonisation one wonders quite what influence Opus Dei and its money, and the political situation in Spain at the time of his death,  had on the speed of his canonisation. Would a great deal really have been lost by letting the euphoria following his death have settled down for a few decades and for his cultus to have bedded down more firmly in the Church outside of Opus Dei and Spain before his canonisation?
In the case of Pius XII there are obvious questions being asked both inside and outside the Church, not just about his wartime record but also about his private life, which seems to be a little eccentric: that nun, the monkey glands, for example. 
Paul VI, “Hamlet” as his predecessor called him, is possibly even more ambiguous, he certainly suffered, he lived with self-doubt all his life, he was too ill even to attend seminary, even in his lifetime there were rumours about blackmail, which were spread by his enemies, but which have never been answered. I wonder is it right for someone with so many enemies to be raised to the altar, shouldn’t a reconciliation be necessary first?

Not merely enemies, but so many people of good will who have grave concerns over the seeming drive to canonize all Popes of recent memory and who want the process steamrolled for various ends.  Historically, it took many years for even great Saints to be canonized.  Some amazing Saints like John of Avila, recently made Doctor of the Church, spent hundreds of years as Venerables or Blesseds.  Now, individuals of seeming much less merit, but with much more popular acclaim/money behind them, are canonized almost overnight, in Church terms.  Remember the demand for St. Teresa of Calcutta’s canonization after her death.  That drive still exists, though more muted.

I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade, but since we’re so overwhelming concerned about ecumenism these days, and this instant canonization so disturbs the Orthodox, shouldn’t we perhaps look at reinstating the devil’s advocate role, or at least making the process less dependent on popular acclaim?

Things are getting ugly out there October 16, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, awesomeness, Basics, disaster, General Catholic, Glory, Holy suffering, persecution, sadness, sexual depravity, sickness, Society.
comments closed

Similar to a prior video I saw a month or two ago from Brazil (that I did not show on this site), a group of lesbian feminists, attacked the Cathedral in Buenos Aires in celebration of their feminist conference and in pursuit of their desire for abortion and – of course – state recognition of gays simulating marriage.  I suppose there was a pogrom, directed at the Church, since it will not yield on this issue.   Why would you attack and deface a Church you so desperately crave the approval of, unless it’s got nothing to do with “marriage,” or religion, and it’s all just been a bunch of BS aimed at making you feel better. What they really crave is confirmation in their sin, but as I’ve said repeatedly, it won’t work.

A group of young men (and some women) then stood outside the Cathedral to prevent its further desecration.  These men were subsequently spat on, spray painted, shouted at, and otherwise attacked for what seems like a very long time. Is there no policia in Buenos Aires, or is it so corrupt that it only protects the civic order when it suits the government’s interest?

The blasphemies they make are beyond description, especially those directed at the Blessed Mother, who loves each of them more than they are capable of imagining.

Yet, after watching the whole video, it’s obvious most of these souls are lost in the hell of perversion and radicalism.  As much as their actions are despicable, much of this is acting out great internal pain.  I pray their hearts may be softened for conversion.  It’s unlikely.  I thank the men (and women) who proudly witnessed to the Faith through horrific provocations by peacefully praying the Rosary.  Good on them, what a cooperation with Grace!  While terrible to watch and very much worse to go through, what a blessing!  The Lord felt them worthy to be badly persecuted!

NUDITY WARNING.  No, there is nothing even slightly arousing about it, but I have to say it.

It won’t be long before this kind of thing is happening here, and worse.  I know it does to a small extent, but not like this, and not with the civil authority totally looking the other way.

A Cardinal seems to be getting it…. October 16, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, General Catholic, sadness, secularism, Society.
comments closed

…..or maybe not.  Cardinal Antonio María Rouco Varela of Madrid stated that the Church can’t get a New Evangelization going until it stops its fall into worldliness:

There is no way of getting away from the “Sitz im Liben” of the New Evangelization, if we want to apply and carry it out properly. [Odd that he would use a term drawn from modernist, protestant German biblical “higher criticism” to make his point…..] Secularism is perhaps its most characteristic mark. The story of secularization which began in the 17th century culminated in the 20th century with the postulation of the “death of God” and the exaltation of the “Superman” [protestantism->rationalism-> enlightenment->modernism-> secularism->atheism] . The two most terrifying totalitarianisms of the time – Communism and Nazism – like the two World wars are inexplicable without these two theses that went into crisis after 1945. [Uhhh…..maybe it’s the translation….] Vatican Council II, called at that historic crossroads to update the doctrine and pastoral [but which are which?!?] of the Church, opened the way for her to surpass herself “ad intra” and “ad extra”. [Ah, yes, there’s been so very much excellence all around, I have a hard time naming all the superlatives]
Nevertheless the “revolution of 1968″ relaunched it and radicalized it to the extreme of denying the dignity of every human being: the healthy offspring of a chimpanzee is worth more than a disabled child, according to a famous English-speaking anthropologist. [I’m not sure what the “it” is, here.  The culture? The Church? The “new springtime?”]  Has the Church – bishops, priests, religious and lay people – been up to this challenge? [By any objective measure, whatever Vatican II was called to achieve, has been a complete failure. Unless it was called to institutionalize failure, but I’m not quite that cynical]Have they perhaps sometimes been influenced by the secular ideology? Has it not cost us sometimes showing what and who we are inside and outside of the “public forum of history” (Benedict XVI). The Holy Father called us to “deworldification”. We have to respond by examining our consciences and with the conversion of our hearts. Without this profoundly spiritual premise, the undertaking to evangelize would be pointless.

So, finally at the end, we get to the good stuff.  I was actually much more hostile to his comments the 2nd time I read through them (see all the red above) than I was the first time.  It should be pointed out that Cardinal Varela is a big fan of Kiko Arguella of the disastrous neochatachumenal way, and even allowed Kiko to help redecorate the Cathedral.

It’s a bit ironic that a Spanish Cardinal – of all places, if you know the history of the Church – would use a modernist German theological term in order to advance his point about how the Church needs to be more worldly.  So while the Cardinal seemed to get it at the end, I am left perplexed, wondering if his entire philosophy is not such that “deworldification” might mean something radically different to him than it would to, say, you or I or St. Teresa.  And that, is the entire problem in a nutshell.

Pretty words mean little.  Pray for action.

No radio tonight October 16, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Dallas Diocese, General Catholic.
comments closed

Just a quick reminder, I’ve dropped my show back to one night a week.  I know millions will be distraught at this selfish act on my part, but I simply couldn’t stand the strain, you see.  The strain of your overwhelming expectations, your constant demands for more, MORE, MORE! I’m only one man! And not a very good one at that!  I can only do so much!  What do you want from me?!??!

I’ll be on Thursday night as per usual.  I  may have occasional shows on different nights, for instance, if Fr. Rodriguez is only available on an off-night.

Thanks for listening!  God bless you!

Another bishop to pray for…. October 16, 2012

Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, awesomeness, Basics, contraception, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, scandals, Society.
comments closed

….this time, a relatively good one?  I have been told that it is impossible to get an annulment in the Diocese of Colorado Springs.  It simply won’t happen.  Oh, there might be one every few years, at most, based on the narrow, traditional criteria for which annulments have been granted in the Church, not the ridiculously expansive, pseudo-psychological reasons used to justify tens of thousands of annulments around the country every year.

But beyond that, I knew nothing of Bishop Michael Sheridan. Well, it turns out, he has some pretty strong things to say about abortion, and euthanasia, and some other issues, the politicians that support these forms of murder, and those who for them (I add some emphasis and comments):

If Vice President Joe Biden travels to Colorado to campaign for re-election, it would be better if he did not present himself for Holy Communion at a Catholic Church within the Diocese of Colorado Springs. Because Bishop Michael Sheridan , a stalwart defender of the unborn, says the pro-abortion Catholic won’t likely receive it.

Sheridan said he would ensure that Biden knows he is not to partake of Holy Communion, which Catholics believe is the actual body and blood of Jesus Christ.

Sheridan’s Statement

Sheridan warned Biden during an interview with a writer for the Gazette-Telegraph of Colorado Springs.

Columnist Daniel Cole pointed to Sheridan’s strong, unequivocal statement in 2004 on the subject of abortion, politicians and the voters who put those politicians in office. Sheridan wrote in a teaching that he reprised in 2007, “There must be no confusion in these matters.” He added:

Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences.[This is not about politics. It is about the good care of souls.]  It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance.
[Again, this is about keeping souls from piling sacrilege on top of the sin of apostasy. It’s not about “punishment,” save for a possible means to shock souls from their error and return them to the Faith. It does a soul no favors to allow them to receive the Blessed Sacrament unworthily, “eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves.” (1 Cor 11:29)]

Cole asked the prelate whether his position had changed.

Answered Sheridan:

It’s clear to me that the Code of Canon Law, Canon 915, says that a Catholic politician who publicly espouses positions that are contrary, not just to any teachings of the Church, but to serious moral teachings, should not receive Holy Communion until they recant those positions publicly. [Yes! Public scandal/apostasy requires public redress]

Canon 915 is a codicil of canon law that governs who may received Holy Communion and under what circumstances. It says that “those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Canon 915 explains that “[a] person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition (i.e., sorrow based on sincere remorse at having offended God, rather than mere fear of eternal punishment) which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

Thus, pro-abortion Catholic politicians are barred from Holy Communion.

A voter, Sheridan said, would “need a little bit more nuance” because he might not vote for a politician solely because of his position on abortion and other “non-negotiable issues.” Still, Sheridan said, “It would be very difficult for me to understand how, if there are two candidates quite far apart in their positions on these matters, I could vote for the one who consistently opposes these Church teachings, simply because he might be in favor of a few good things.”  [Thank you!]  

Sheridan also noted that Catholic politicians who support the Obama administration’s mandate that forces Catholic employers to provide free contraceptives to employees also fall under the rule of Canon 915, meaning that teaching is also “non-negotiable.”

I should add, that as gratified as I am by Sheridan’s stance, and as much as I will especially now pray for him, he has really taken only the most minimal stance that a faithful bishop can.  What is so tragic, is that even this minimal defense of the Faith is so rare, that it seems outstanding in comparison to so many other prelates.  And that sad fact is what we especially need to offer prayer and penance for, and implore the Good God to convert the hearts of all the leaders of the Church to do not only this but much,  much more in defense of the Faith, for the good of souls, and in the proclamation of the Truth.  It is our duty as laity to aid the bishops with all the prayer and sacrifice we can muster.

Dallas’ own Bishop Farrell made a similar, though not as clear, statement in 2008 in conjunction with Bishop Kevin Vann.  This statement makes clear that Catholics must vote against any politician who supports abortion in particular, but it fails to address the consequences of such a vote as Bishop Sheridan does above.