jump to navigation

Cardinal O’Malley’s troublesome 60 Minutes interview November 19, 2014

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the return.
trackback

Cardinal Sean, as he likes to be called, was interviewed by the progressive political organization “60 Minutes” recently and the interview was broadcast Sunday night.  I know my opinion regarding Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City-St. Joseph, MO diverges from some readers but I was pretty disgusted to see him thrown under the bus by Cardinal O’Malley Sean. I could not tell who to be more incensed by, the interviewer for constantly asking questions with a decisively left-wing slant, or Cardinal O’Malley Sean for willingly playing her game and failing to give a vigorous defense of the Church and his brother bishop, who to my mind was very much railroaded by a highly antagonistic political-media establishment that was seriously peeved by Bishop Finn’s orthodoxy.  Suffice it to say, it is quite ludicrous to pick on him for a comparatively very minor crime when men like Cardinals Mahony Roger and Daneels Gottfried are still in full public ministry (yes Mahony is “retired” but he is very far from inactive in LA and still exercises great influence there) even though their cover-ups were orders of magnitude worse and in the case of Daneels still ongoing.  I guess the red hat does have its privileges, provided one is of the correct ideological orientation?

By the way, I’m not going to give CBS a bunch of clicks, if you want to watch the whole interview (I recommend not having eaten for at least an hour or two before doing so) find it yo dang self, but this preview below contains some of the more egregious elements:

Did you like how she spun the Vatican investigation of women’s religious in the US?  Poor persecuted sweet little leftist sisters!  No, the investigation had nothing to do with repeated statements from LCWR leadership that they were “post-Catholic” and even “beyond Jesus,” it had nothing to do with the fact that virtually every single one of their orders, which they inherited in full fruit of vibrancy, will be gone within 10 or 20 years due to absolute lack of vocations, it has nothing to do with all the moral and theological error they promote and instill in vulnerable minds, no, it was all about the fact that they did not oppose abortion enough (quite the contrary, they support it, and with vigor!).  What a travesty of a presentation.  Unfortunately, Cardinal O’Malley gave a very poor response, even calling the apostolic investigation of these dying, anti-Catholic religious (are they still really Catholic religious?) a “disaster.”  What a way to treat the man who made him Cardinal and gave him such a platform. See how quickly these will o’ the wisp bishops will turn when the wind blows a different direction!

I will say that the newsreader’s attempts to spin the opposition to sodomite boy abuse in the Church as an invention of Pope Francis are simply disgusting.  Repeatedly in the narration of the interview, the left-wing newsreader tries to make this false portrayal, but then I ask: who rehabilitated and returned to power the exceedingly corrupt Cardinal Sodano, a man heavily on the payroll of the disgraced Father Maciel and who had been sacked by Pope Benedict?  In fact, who has returned many such individuals to positions of power and authority?  Who invited the aforementioned Cardinal Daneels to help preside over the Extraordinary Synod on the Family, of all things!, even though Cardinal Daneels is still actively involved in the cover-up of his own crimes and those of several of his proteges?  But the newsreader can get away with such injustices because 99 1/2% of all Catholics, let alone those outside the Church, have no idea of the truth of such matters.  In truth, no Pope to date has done more to combat the clergy boy rape scandal and the cover-ups by bishops than Pope Benedict.  While some bishops are under investigation now, given how some others (like Daneels) are given important new sinecures and all those under investigation are of a more orthodox bent, the “crackdown” appears to many to look more like an ideological witch-hunt than a real attempt to curb priest sex abuse of minors.

There was of course also an obligatory segment on the USCCB’s stand regarding unconstrained immigration from predominately Hispanic countries.  Only visible on the CBS site, you can witness Cardinal Sean distribute the Blessed Sacrament through a border fence in Nogales, Arizona with great showmanship.

I should say in Cardinal O’Malley’s defense who knows how 60 Minutes butchered his quotes?  They are notorious for doing so and have faced a number of lawsuits in the past for dramatically misrepresenting the statements of those they interview.  I couldn’t even watch the whole thing, it literally did turn my stomach.

I’m sorry to pick on this name calling thing but even if you don’t have enough respect for yourself to be called Cardinal O’Malley, preferring instead to approach the many sheep of his flock like a kindergarten teacher, one would like to think that the office would demand avoiding such cheap and false demonstrations of approachability.  In truth much of the present leadership of the Church is very far from kind, warm, and approachable and are some of the worst clericalists the Church has been afflicted with.

It saddens me, but given the name dropping of Bishop Finn  in the interview I am sure he is finished in Kansas City. Apparently there is a new standard in the Church, more orthodox bishops are liable to be sacked over even relatively small failings, while progressive bishops can continue getting away with what they have always gotten away with.  It helps to have friends in high places.

 

Comments

1. richard w comerford - November 19, 2014

Re: The strange case of Bishop Finn

Bishop Finn was IIRC indicted on 3-felony and 10-miscdemenor counts.

He pleaded guilty to one misdemeanor. In specific failing to notify authorities that one of his priest allegedly possessed child porn.

Curiously he seemed disinclined to make any effort to appeal in spite of the following matters:

The prosecutor in the case has a long history of making anti-Catholic statements in public.

The pictures in question were never admitted as evidence.

The computer on which the pictures in question were allegedly found by a “technician” has gone missing.

The “technician” appearing as a witness did not describe the pictures as pornographic.

So far no one who claims to have actually seen the pictures in question has described them in public as porn or as of children without cloths.

The Chancellor of the Archdiocese did in fact report by telephone this matter to the police with jurisdiction in a very timely manner.

The police later claimed that the Chancellor failed to inform them that the pictures in question were porn.

When the Archbishop became personally involved he promptly reported this matter to the secular authorities.

Curiously the prosecutor indicted the Archbishop not the Chancellor.

As part of the plea deal the Archbishop admitted the prosecutors office into the running of his Archdiocese in an extraordinary manner.

Finally, the media which has kept this case alive and portrayed Finn as purportedly protecting child molesters is the NC Reporter. When the Archbishop took office he repeated the warning made by the first Ordinary under which NC Reporter took form – namely (among other things) that NC Reporter could not use the word “Catholic” See http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00Cofv

Reportedly + Finn took a plea at the urging of the Country’s Cardinals’ to include Cardinal Sean.

Curiouser and curiouser.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

2. richard w comerford - November 19, 2014

P.S.

What happened to Flight Line Friday?

3. steve - November 19, 2014

I believe that the following ties in with this thread.

Across the Catholic blogosphere, particularly among Traditionalists who blog, we encounter such stories as the Cardinal O’Malley interview in question.

But why…and the following does not point to this blog…do many Catholic bloggers, especially Traditionalists, ignore, particularly when it involves Pope Francis, uplifting stories that pertain to Churchmen who uphold Holy Tradition?

For example, there wasn’t anything that could be interpreted as wishy-washy and pandering (such as the manner in which some folks interpreted Cardinal O’Malley’s 60 Minutes interview) about Pope Francis’ support of the Culture of Life this past Saturday.

Pope Francis this past Saturday condemned such Culture of Death practices as abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia.

His Holiness declared that “to play with life is a sin against the Creator.”

He said that doctors, for example, must make the “brave choice,” even up to the point of civil disobedience, never to commit abortion or euthanasia.

Pope Francis exhorted in strong terms to embrace the Culture of Life.

Not surprisingly, CBS and NBC television news broadcasts refused to report Pope Francis’ remarks in question.

ABC news (TV) spent literally a few seconds to report only that Pope Francis condemned euthanasia.

Why is not the Catholic blogosphere reporting to the hilt Pope Francis’ powerful pro-Culture of Life declarations in question?

NBC News’ recent story/interview that featured Bishop Cupich presented him as a “Pope Francis bishop”…that is, “non-confrontational” on Culture of Life issues.

That spin flopped in light of Pope Francis’ declarations last Saturday that called upon Catholics, particularly doctors, to resist any cooperation with the Culture of Death.

Again, certain folks have maintained that during their respective recent major news media interviews in question, Cardinal O’Malley and Bishop Cupich presented themselves as wishy-washy Churchmen.

That certainly was not the case this past Saturday in regard to Pope Francis.

His Holiness roared like a lion in defense of Traditional teachings that pertained to the Culture of Life.

Let us give thanks and praise to Pope Francis’ for his strong pro-life stance.

stevendallas - November 19, 2014

Why are Pope Francis “uplifting” declarations often ignored by traditional bloggers? Because we’ve learned in the last 20 months to look at his ACTIONS rather than his words. Why would he say those things and then turn around and appoint a liberal like Cupich to such a powerful archdiocese?

steve - November 19, 2014

Why did “Traditionalist” Pope Venerable Pius XII in 1948 A.D. appoint Monsignor Bugnini as Secretary to the Commission for the Liturgical Reform.
?

Why did Pope Venerable Pius XII throughout the 1950s approve then enact Monsignor Bugnini’s radical reforms?

Why did Pope Benedict XVI elevate such “liberals” as O’Malley and Levada to the rank of Cardinal?

Why did Pope Benedict XVI appoint “liberal” Levada as Prelate to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Did a liberal or conservative Pope appoint Cardinal (then-Archbishop) Dolan to lead the New York Archbishop Diocese?

Why to all of the above?

Because Popes, for better or worse, make decisions that they believe best serve the Church.

Pope Venerable Paul VI gave us Cardinal Ratzinger (conservative) and Archbishop Weakland (radical).

Popes Pius XI and Pius XII gave us Cardinals and bishops who, during Vatican II, proved themselves to range from traditional to radical.

That simply is the 2,000 year old way of the Church.

steve - November 19, 2014

I believe that Pope Francis’ uplifting moments are ignored by Traditionalists bloggers for the same reason the news media ignore said moments:

Such moments do not fit the narrative (supported by more than a few Traditionalists and liberals — Catholic and secular liberals — ) that Pope Francis is an unorthodox Pontiff who is determined to overthrow the Church.

Traditionalists and liberals have had to ignore the fact that in powerful fashion last Saturday, Pope Francis had upheld and promoted traditional Culture of Life teachings.

Branch - November 19, 2014

No, I think it’s because “Traditionalist bloggers” suspect that this in keeping with the tactics of the Modernist, and they refuse to be duped.

stevendallas - November 19, 2014

Exactly, Branch. Wouldn’t be surprised if some of those popes regretted their appointments later on. You can’t always predict a modernist’s behavior until they get into positions of power. Cupich is pretty much an open book, he will do much damage.

steve - November 19, 2014

Then that is that. “Traditionalist bloggers” will believe as they please. They refuse to be “duped”.

Conversely, I, who favor Holy Tradition, have not been “duped” by Pope Francis’ endless promotion of the Culture of Life.

I go back to Pope Saint John XXIII’s Pontificate.

From that time through Pope Benedict XVI’s Pontificate, I had not encountered a Pope who had referenced Satan and his constant rampage against the Culture of Life as has Pope Francis.

Pope Francis’ incredible amount of warnings against Satan and His Holiness’ incredible amount of references to the Culture of Life have not duped me.

I defy anybody to produce a Pope other than Pope Francis who has sounded more warnings against Satan’s constant attack upon the Culture of Life.

c matt - November 19, 2014

Part of it is “management by exception.” You would expect the Pope to promote the culture of life – that is simply basic decency (with this Pope that may be an occasion for joy, which itself is a bit sad). Where he errs, the secular media applaud him and traditionalists call him to account.

J Rebecca - November 19, 2014

When someone says, “Water is wet,” it isn’t news. When someone says “All you supposedly good Catholics who have been going around saying water is wet are just neo-pelagians afraid to confront the great surprise that water isn’t wet, and we should never keep water for ourselves, but instead send all the water only to the poorest of the poor, so I am going to donate all the water of Castel Gandolfo before I go and have a swim with the true believers, who are all our protestant brethren,” that is news.

Branch - November 19, 2014

Not even everyone who says “Lord, Lord” is actually with Him.

c matt - November 19, 2014

Realistically, I doubt a Pope can have personally vetted every candidate. He relies on his committees, who probably in turn rely upon others. Still, the buck should stop with him. I think it is more telling who a Pope removes within curial circles, as you would think he’d take more personal charge over that.

kevirish01 - November 19, 2014
LaGallina - November 19, 2014

It’s a sad day when Catholics celebrate the fact that their pope said something CATHOLIC!!!

steve - November 19, 2014

Catholics have always celebrated orthodox teachings.

Every since I can remember, Catholics have expressed great joy at each orthodox Papal declaration.

No matter how many thousands of times Popes have repeated the same orthodox teachings, I have never encountered Catholics who failed to have “celebrated the fact that their pope said something CATHOLIC!!!”

Do you rejoice each time a Pope says something “Catholic”.

Or do tire each time that a Pope says something “Catholic”?

c matt - November 19, 2014

No, I think she meant at this point, she is surprised when the Pope says something Catholic. God of surprises!

LaGallina - November 20, 2014

I am sad that this pope says so few CATHOLIC things that we are shocked on those rare occasions when he does. It truly breaks my heart on a daily basis. (And while Catholics have long been champions of the pro-life message, being pro-life is not a Catholic thing, per se.

TG - November 19, 2014

I actually read the positive story about Pope Francis in one traditionalist’s blog and in the Family Research Council’s newsletter email they sent me. It seemed like he did a turnaround which is typical for him. It depends on the audience.

4. stevendallas - November 19, 2014

Don’t forget about this stomach turning action by Card. “Sean” earlier this year:

http://bostoncatholicinsider.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/cardinal-omalley-has-baptism-reaffirmed-by-methodist-minister/

steve - November 19, 2014

Yes, that will always remain as a tragic moment for Holy Mother Church.

From the dawn of the Church to today, we’ve had stomach-turning moments…Bishop Judas betrayed Jesus…our first Pope thrice denied Jesus.

c matt - November 19, 2014

One committed suicide out of despair for his deed; the other bitterly wept and begged forgiveness. Not saying O’Malley should off himself, but not even a crocodile tear is in sight.

5. richard w comerford - November 19, 2014

Mr. Steve:

You posted in part:

“His Holiness roared like a lion in defense of Traditional teachings that pertained to the Culture of Life.”

However, relatively speaking, no one heard the Holy Father’s roar.

However when the Supreme Pontiff said that we do not have to talk about abortion all the time everyone in the world heard his roar.

When recently the Catholic King of Belgium signed into law a bill, enacted by largely Catholic legislators, that enabled the euthanasia of minors in Catholic Belgium no one heard from the Successor of Peter.

Also at the recent Synod on the family, presided over by Holy Father Francis, he was silent as both Princes of the Church and lay people addressed said Synod and advocated for adultery and sodomy.

At the recent address in question Pope Francis spoke to a relatively small and specialized group. Historically such addresses receive little public attention.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

steve - November 19, 2014

Mr. Richard W Comerford…

Anything that a Pope has said publicly has always been open to widespread international publicly.

On October 29, 1951 A.D., Pope Venerable Pius XII addressed a small group of participants at the Congress of the Italian Catholic Union of Midwives.

From that time forward, that address, which had upheld every aspect of the Church’s doctrine on human life, has been quoted widely.

For decades and even centuries, Papal addresses to small audiences, dependent upon topics, have received widespread publicity.

Statements from various Popes on such topics as the death penalty and evolution, even when addressed to small audiences, have for decades received widespread attention.

That said, we are dealing with the now…with Pope Francis.

Even a telephone conversation, when the topic of said telephone conversation fits a certain narrative, from Pope Francis to just one person is subject to massive attention from within and without the Church.

Pope Francis’ recent remarks related to the death penalty and (theories of) evolution received international attention.

Just a few Saturdays ago, Pope Francis addressed the Marian Apostolate Schoenstatt. His Holiness offered a strong defense of traditional Catholic teachings related to family and marriage.

His Holiness, during that address, also condemned non-traditional forms of “family” and “marriage” that, particularly throughout western nations, have been promoted of late as “normal”.

Angelqueen, a Traditionalist Web site, was the only such Web site that I found to have covered Pope Francis’ remarks in question.

Even then, the remark at Angelqueen was that Pope Francis’ statements in question constituted “modernistic psychobabble”.

Angelqueen’s constant narrative is that Pope Francis is an horrific, unorthodox Pope.

Therefore, whenever His Holiness upholds and promotes Traditional Catholic teachings, Angelqueen (and scores of Traditionalists blogs and Web sites) either fails to report Pope Francis’ teachings or twists his statements to fit Angelqueen’s narrative.

To return to Pope Francis’ strong defense last Saturday of the Culture of Life and his powerful condemnations of abortion, artificial birth control, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia:

Pope Francis’ statements in question do not fit the narratives — that Pope Francis is a radical, doctrine-despising Pontiff — offered by liberals and Traditionalists alike.

Therefore, neither party was keen to have reported the Holy Father’s important and uplifting pro-Culture of Life teachings and exhortations.

The fix is in against Pope Francis.

c matt - November 19, 2014

The narrative is that PF is a modernist, and his actions have not necessarily defeated that narrative. The modernist tacks left, then right, as need be to suit his purposes. When the sheep get spooked by a surprise, the shepherd says some soothing words to calm the nerves until the next surprise. Not saying that is my take on him just yet, but I do not see that narrative has somehow been dispelled by his acknowledgement of Satan and pro-life statements in one speech, and “who am I to judge” and “serene theology” in another.

Tantumblogo - November 19, 2014

It’s more than just speeches. It is concrete acts. It is the unprecedented severity of his actions against the Franciscans of the Immaculate. It is the conduct of the Synod under his close oversight. It is never contradicting those pronouncing the most grievous errors in his name.

I’m sorry, saying some consoling words in a speech does not even begin to counteract these concrete acts. Again, I don’t want to get into a tit for tat, because that will be endless, and how on earth do I score or rate a nice 50 word statement in a speech or sermon versus the violent destruction of a religious order or allowing Cardinal Kasper and others to continue to run wild spreading error and leading souls astray? Cardinals Kasper, Marx, Rodriguez-Maradiaga, O’Malley, etc., constantly speak in the Pope’s name and say some very damaging things, and there has not been one correction.

So how many “points” is a throwaway line in a speech worth, versus suspending a divinis priests of the FFI who tried to continue their apostolate elsewhere?

Look I get the point, some folks just cannot stand to think that we might have a really bad pontiff in charge. They seek some kind of solace in his good statements. Fine. But as for me, if he says some really amazing thing that moves me and I think really counteracts the many other not so good statements or even worse the concrete acts he’s made, I’ll post it, but I haven’t seen much that would fall into that category of late.

steve - November 20, 2014

I understand that Pope Francis has done many confusing things.

Cardinals and bishops have noted that Pope Francis has often spoken and acted in puzzling ways.

I am not Pollyanna in regard to Pope Francis.

He is very much (in varying degrees) an adherent to the New Orientation.

That also applied to Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XV.

My take is that Popes Paul VI and John Paul II were holy men. Popes Francis and Emeritus Benedict XVI are holy men.

But each Pope in question has promoted in varying degrees the novelties associated with The New Orientation.

Said novelties…examples: Communion in the hand, Ecumenism, overthrow of the TLM for the Novus Ordo, altar girls, interreligious “dialogue”…are, in my opinion, poor practices that have weakened the Church.

But I do not accept the notion advanced by certain Traditionalists that said Popes are heretics (not that you said that they were/are).

I certainly agree that Pope Francis has undertaken various actions that should have given us pause.

But then, that applies to virtually any Pope.

Pope Venerable Pius XII, a great Pope in many ways, gave us Monsignor Bugnini and radical liturgical reforms.

Pope Venerable Pius XII opened the door to Catholic participation in the Ecumenical Movement…relaxed the fast prior to Mass…threw in with the United Nations.

Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI gave us visits and prayer sessions inside Protestant churches, synagogues and mosques.

Popes have made pastoral mistakes.

If any of us were Pope, we would do the same.

Branch - November 20, 2014

What is happening is more than “pastoral mistakes.”

Tantumblogo - November 19, 2014

And C Matt I did not mean to pick on you, yours was just the most recent comment. My comment was not directed at you.

c matt - November 20, 2014

No probs – I understood what you were getting at and I agree. PF has done a great many things that concern and I wanted to keep the comment relatively short. Just pointing out some of his opportune zig-zagging.

6. Branch - November 19, 2014

Couldn’t agree more, and thank you for covering this. It makes me sick and angry.

7. richard w comerford - November 19, 2014

Mr. Steve:

Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

“The fix is in against Pope Francis.”

Holy Father Francis is, for the moment, the world’s media super star. However during the recent Synod the Successor to Peter sat silent while Princes of the Church advocated for sodomy and adultery. The Supreme Pontiff controls his own media destiny in this matter. I would not blame the Supreme Pontiff’s communications problems on a conspiracy of petty, American bloggers.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

8. Magdalen - November 19, 2014

I believe St. John Paul II wrote an encyclical called Evangelium Vitae.
Am pleased the present pope did uphold the pro-life truth.

9. Suzy Rogers - November 19, 2014

See a similar post at the media report on Bishop Sean.

http://www.themediareport.com/

10. steve - November 20, 2014

Mister Comerford…

Do you believe that a “conspiracy of petty American bloggers” or, for that matter, bloggers of any nationality, exists against Pope Francis?

I don’t.

Many Traditionalist blogs are very open in regard to their hatred of Pope Francis and refusal to report, or at least accept, his orthodox declarations.

Proof…

Look to the right-side of this page for links to the following blogs:

Angelqueen and Mundabor.

Each blog in question daily express their hatred of Pope Francis and almost always refuse to report his powerful orthodox, traditional declarations.

When said blogs on occasion report such declarations, they advance the following spin:

“Pope Francis said “X” today. Yes, what he said was orthodox. However, he is just trying to trick the Pollyannas into believing that he is orthodox. He tossed a bone to the conservatives.”

It has been noted by observers of the “liberal” news media that when the news media, on occasion, report the Pope’s traditional declarations, the spin is as follows:

“In a move designed to placate his right-wingers, Pope Francis today condemned abortion…”

It has been well documented that the news media have spun the Pope’s orthodox statements as little more than bones tossed to howling right-wing Catholics.

The news media and many Traditional Catholic bloggers have adopted the “Pope Francis on occasion tosses a bone or two at right-wingers to simply placate them…His Holiness doesn’t really hold orthodox views”.

You haven’t noticed that spin?

I have. Many Catholics have noted the above reality.

I hope that you don’t believe that a conspiracy exists against Pope Francis.

On the contrary. By and large, the news media (so-called mainstream) and many Traditional Catholics are very open in their determination to present Pope Francis as a radical, unorthodox Pontiff…even to the point of often having refused to publicize his orthodox declarations.

By the way, many Cardinals and bishops have condemned the news media portrayal of Pope Francis…and the daily vicious attacks against him via many Traditionalist bloggers.

I am far from alone in having noticed the spin game that has been played against Pope Francis.

c matt - November 20, 2014

But the “spinning” is both ways – his Pollyanna defenders spin even his most outrageous acts and words as “orthodox” if you twist yourself in a pretzel, squint, and don’t look too closely. I am sure he holds many orthodox views, and I don’t doubt the sincerity of those views. However, he also holds many heterodox views. And it seems he generally likes to speak to a “safe” audience. That is, you don’t see him roaring his orthodox views in front of heterodox audiences, and vice-versa. His strategy appears to be to get as many to like the Church as possible, even if he has to fudge who the Church is, and what she stands for. I see that as a recipe for disaster.

richard w comerford - November 20, 2014

Mr. Steve:

Thank you for your reply wherein you posted in part:

“I am far from alone in having noticed the spin game that has been played against Pope Francis.”

The Holy Father has publicly ridiculed, mocked, insulted and demoted souls who accept the Church’s teachings on faith and morals in full.

At the same time the Successor to Peter has also publicly praised, exulted, encouraged and promoted souls who publicly reject in full or part the Church’s teachings on faith and morals.

The Vicar of Christ on Earth is receiving media coverage from both the great and lowly that reflects his actions and speech.

No one should IMO be surprised.

God bless

Richard W Comerford

11. steve - November 20, 2014

c matt…

It is easy to explain as to why Pope Francis has conducted himself in a manner that has spread confusion throughout the Church:

Pope Francis is an adherent to The New Orientation. That is that. It is simple.

Popes Paul VI, John Paul II and Benedict XVI unleashed their share of confusion throughout the Church each time that they, in varying degrees, implemented The New Orientation.

When Pope Saint John Paul II issued his endless string of “apologies” to the Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Moslems, women, this group and that group, he often confused and upset the Faithful.

The impression was given that the Church had been a big, bad institution.

But one aspect to The New Orientation is that our Churchmen’s adherence to the Ecumenical Movement calls for them to “apologize” to non-Catholics for the supposed “wrongdoings” committed against non-Catholics at the hands of the Church.

Incredibly, a Vatican document acknowledged the grave danger that was associated with Pope Saint John Paul II’s unprecedented program of “apologies” to non-Catholics and the world at large.

The document in question acknowledged that the Pope’s program in question could easily shake the faith of many Catholics.

Regardless, Pope Saint John Paul II refused to halt his implementation of that aspect (the apologies) of The New Orientation.

Pope Benedict XVI spread terrible confusion among Catholics via his New Orientation-related attitudes toward Jews in relationship to the New and Old Covenants…

…via his prayer and worship programs conducted inside Protestant church buildings…via his interreligious activities inside synagogues and mosques.

Pope Francis, in his way, adheres to The New Orientation.

The New Orientation, that is, the attempt to wed destructive novelties to Holy Tradition will never succeed to renew the Church.

The New Orientation will only continue to weaken the Church.

The New Orientation is at the root of the collapse of the Catholic Church during our Vatican II Era.

Therefore, Pope Francis’ Pontificate is doomed to failure as his version of The New Orientation will perpetuate the collapse of Catholicism.

In that regard, he will join the ranks of Popes Venerable Paul VI, Saint John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

Branch - November 21, 2014

Good points, especially about the potential danger to the faith of Catholics that this New Orientation presents. Here is my question, though: what are we to make of all of this? I think the situation is especially complicated now that Pope John Paul II (and John XXIII for that matter) are canonized, which implicitly puts a stamp of approval on the New Orientation.

Are we to believe that the Church was in fact a big, bad institution and that much that occurred in our tradition was misguided, albeit by otherwise holy men and women? Saints who were products of their times, in other words? If that’s so, is it a slippery slope? And isn’t there a question of truth that is getting lost in all of this? If we know better now, and only now, then what exactly DID the Church know then?

Or, perhaps, are we to believe that what has occurred traditionally was correct and that the New Orientation has abandoned this; and that we explain the presence of otherwise holy men and women (JPII, John XXIII) by the fact that THEY erred, that THEY were misguided (in giving us over to novelties)?

Or, something else? This is the central dilemma in the Church today as I see it. This confusion.

12. Murray B - November 23, 2014

Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive and a conservative and a Republican. The meaning of the term “progressive” is too broad to be of much use. “60 Minutes” is a liberal news organization or la-la-liberal organization to many conservatives.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: