jump to navigation

Ouch: The “Che Guevara Pope” September 24, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Maureen Mullarkey has written for a number of mainstream Catholic publications.  They have been distancing from her a bit as her deep distress (I think that’s a fair word) toward this pontificate has grown.  She’s written some pretty hard pieces, and this latest one, titled “Che Guevara’s Pope” might be the hardest yet.  At the same time, I think she raises some criticisms that are none the less valid for their severity.

This might elicit some pushback, I don’t know, but I think there is a lot to ponder here (my emphasis and comments):

…..In large measure, Thursday’s propaganda event [PF’s speech to Congress] will prove a concluding flourish to what this pope is on course to achieve: the descent of the Catholic Church into one more geopolitical “ism,” a pious-seeming companion to every other materialist -ism that tempts modern man away from freedom and toward submission to totalitarian order.Since ascending to the papacy, Francis’ actions have served a mongrel papo-caesarism that drains Christianity of its soul. Christian idiom degrades into the carrier of a secular agenda. [Which has always been the objective of left-wing Catholics, has it not?  But is this just the bumbling of an ideologically bent man, or is it a deliberate effort to produce a de-Christified new one world church for a new world order?]

Ideolatry, the idolatry of fixed ideas, is as rampant in the Vatican as in any other directorate, and just as dangerous. Even more so. Because the pope commands deference from the world’s peoples, the present object of his worship—from climate-change dogma to the antagonisms peculiar to an anti-democratic Leftist elite—disfigures the faith of billions. It becomes a golden calf festooned with gospel quotes. [But not too many, because the Bible is icky]

Deference to a pope comes readily to Catholics. We are groomed for it. Within legitimate bounds, there is grace in that. But the boundaries are not totalizing. Outside of them, obeisance falls prey to forces that do not serve the church. Neither do they lend succor to a civilization painfully wrought from endemic tyrannies and universal poverty. Far, far from it. [I agree, so very much. As much as it pains me to do so, this is why I do arrogate to myself the right to criticize this Pope. I wish I did not have to.  But I really feel it is something that must, in conscience, be done, because he agenda appears to run so counter to what souls, and the Church, urgently need at this point in time.]

There comes a moment when deference glides into collusion. At that point, we all become Good Germans. Fascist-friendly. Trust in respected authority curdles into a thing entirely different—a willed blindness to something dark in the particular voice commanding assent. Decent and dependable, we incline toward the beckoning circle of connivance. [And this, precisely this, is the crux of the argument between those willing to do what is “unthinkable,” to criticize, even severely, a reigning pontiff, and those who refuse.  I see things pretty much as Mullarkey does, though I think it possible to refuse to join in the criticism without becoming a “good German.”]

Our own lifetime has not prepared Catholics for such a moment.[Here I disagree. I think our lifetime has, or should have, prepared us, because this Pope is simply the next logical step to some of the previous ones.  But since 1978 in particular those popes have been just good enough to keep many from seeing the dread undercurrent running through them all at least since 1958, and quite probably since long before that.] But it is here now. We can adjust our sensibilities, our priorities, and our hopes to counter this juncture. Or we can surrender our children and grandchildren to a downward slide into a retrograde world order built on contempt for the bases of those very structures that have lifted a still-increasing portion of the earth’s population out of the misery that is history’s norm.

Something in me gave way at the sight of an exultant image of Che Guevara overseeing the altar in Plaza de la Revolución, the approved site of the recent papal Mass in Havana. A sadistic, murderous thug looked down on attendees in an obscene burlesque of Christ Pantocrator. Under the gaze of a butcher and amid symbols of the regime, Jorge Bergolio joined his fellow Argentine in service to the calamitous Cuban revolution. The entire spectacle played like a farcical inversion of John Paul II’s presence in Warsaw’s Victory Square, in 1979, and in stark contrast to the message he brought to Cuba in 1998.

What collapsed was any lingering sense of obligatory constraint. Gone is the time for courtesy extended to an occupant of the papacy despite his hubris and ruinous impulses…….

………Make no mistake—there is malice in this pope. [But is it accidental, or willed, or does it not matter?] It takes little sophistication to realize that the intentions by which people understand themselves to be motivated are often not the ones that really drive them to speak and act as they do. However incoherent Francis’ logic on issues from economics to munitions, his stridency makes clear his antipathy toward the developed world……[I wonder, then, whether this Pope has never visited the US until now (and when he does so, he comes bearing not a message to scandalize the world and especially the powers that rule it, but one very much in conformity with those powers, a frequently elitist message]

There’s a great deal more worth reading at the link.

Whether the malice is intentional or not is probably immaterial.  But I don’t think Mullarkey’s use of the term excessive.  In a worldly sense, is not the 2299d2aa682b4fd7a990efe6c347743b-b45eeec8410246668eccc4b699207472-0Pope’s call to abandon fossil fuels something that will assuredly lead to a very much poorer world, and in that world, will any suffer more than those already very poor?  Billions will shiver in the dark and go to sleep hungry most nights.  There is simply NO alternative available at present to fossil fuels for the vast majority of present energy needs – not at anything even remotely like present cost.  Modern agriculture would cease, for one thing, without fossil fuels. World population would plummet.  I have a hard time seeing how anyone but an ideologue could really advocate moving away from fossil fuels at anytime in the next 5o or possibly even 100 years.

Even Marx is in on the act

Even Marx is in on the act

Even more distressingly, is not the Pope malicious in his misrepresentations of Catholic belief and his shunning of especially moral doctrine, but so many doctrines of the Church?  The Synod is entirely his creature, and its more progressive aspects have to be occurring under his direct influence.  There is far too much resistance for this sudden hard swerve towards full-on modernism to be simply happenstance.  Even more, has there not been an incredible shift in how the Church is presented to the world in terms of Her mission and purpose?  Pope Francis says his duty is to bring people together for worldly “good” deeds…..is it not to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to everyone and save souls?

Bones points out that Pope Francis had a golden opportunity to strike a game-changing blow against Planned Barrenhood in his speech before Congress, and refused to do so.  He only barely addressed the subject of the sanctity of life, and then to set up his call for an end to the death penalty!  No matter one’s views on how the death penalty may be used or abused in the US, the simple fact of the matter is, it is plain Catholic DOCTRINE that the State has the right of the sword!  But there is never any justification for abortion, ever, and yet, while the issue hangs in the balance in the very halls of Congress in which he spoke, he did not even breathe a word of condemnation for this hideous sin!  At the same time, he lectures us all on climate change and income inequality!  This, in the nation that has probably been more successful than any in history in lifting people out of poverty and into a much more comfortable life, to the point of destructive excess!!!

As Bones noted most poignantly:

If the Pope cannot join his VOICE to the millions in the US who are protesting and campaigning for the defunding of Planned Parenthood then I ask you, in what sense is this Pope’s visit ‘pastoral and to whom, precisely, is he a pastor’?

The US is only one of 6 nations that permits abortions beyond 5 months.  It is the only known nation with a well-established and prolific industry involved int he trade of murdered baby parts.  And yet, when the Pope visits…..crickets.

Pope Francis has the world’s elite – media, politicians, big business leaders, academics – salivating at his feet while they thunderously applaud.  On this trip, has he really chastised the powerful while comforting the afflicted, or has it been the other way around?  Who is more afflicted than the billions of dead unborn?  How does making energy, the lifeblood of all economic development, far, far more expensive, do anything to stand in solidarity with the poor?

I am at a loss, folks.  My heart breaks.  When all the world’s powerful, or the left-leaning of them, anyway (which is most of them) throw roses at your feet, watch out. That’s a very dangerous spot for any soul to be in, let alone the Vicar of Christ.  I fear it means something is horrifically awry.



Polish Bishop’s Conference Rejects Communion for Divorced and Remarried September 24, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Christendom, episcopate, General Catholic, Sacraments, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, SOD, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

For the record, via Eponymous Flower.  Would it be a schism to for a national conference (or local bishop) to refuse to implement a papal command, like, say, the recent Motu Proprio on annulments?  If it is, how many bishops and even conferences (behind the scenes) have embraced schism in refusing to honestly implement Summorum Pontificum?  Of course, the greater threat will be whatever come out of, or after, this Synod.  What if the Synod, or the encyclical that follows, declares it’s OK for the divorced and remarried to receive the Blessed Sacrament (after some “penitential path” that history shows will quickly be ignored), and some conferences refuse to implement that permission?

I guess the fig leaf will be leaving it up to conferences or individual bishops, in that case.

Anyway, the Polish have declared non serviam to the radical agenda (my emphasis and comments):

Holy Communion can not be  given to divorced and remarried Catholics, “this is the unchangeable teaching of the Catholic Church”. Because “what God has joined together, let no man separate, teaches Christ (Mk 10.9)”. This is what the Polish Catholic Bishops’ Conference said in a press statement. “Marriage is a divine as well as both human reality that has been raised by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament.” This is a matter of extreme importance because it concerns  Catholic doctrine. [It’s reassuring to see a conference make this kind of statement, because the conference process has tended towards the lowest common denominator, especially with regard to Doctrine. Conferences like the USCCB have tended to accept all manner of abuse and error, while rarely finding the wherewithal to strongly and clearly proclaim sacred doctrine.  Execrable documents like Always Our Children, which obfuscated mightily on the matter of sodomy and perverse inclinations, are emblematic of that process and a prime reason why I loathe the entire concept of national bishop’s conferences.  That, and their tendency to institutionalize a bureaucratic, NGO-type mindset in the Church.]

Catholics should be concerned that Catholic annulment praxis could lead to the “divorce mentality.”[Indeed, it will. As will the attempts to fast-track or otherwise normalize annulments]

…..In the survey before the Synod of Bishops, many Polish Catholics had emphasized the value of family. The Polish bishops expressly thanked “God for the fact that there are many healthy families in our country who show ‘in good and bad days’  fidelity to their vocation.” [Many pray the Synod would make a similar statement. According to some, many Synod fathers wanted to do just that, but were bullied by synodal leaders like Cardinal Baldisseri, Pope Francis’ picked man, into accepting the highly problematic Relatio.]

At the same time the Polish bishops have recalled that those whose families who are broken have need of pastoral care. Moreover,  the bishops warned against infertility through artificial insemination that is not allowed Catholics  and that stillborn children have the “full right to a  Catholic funeral”.

In their text, the Polish bishops did not address  homosexuality and gender issues, which they had already taken a stand on several occasions according to the Catholic doctrine on this point.

Not exactly a heroic stand, historically speaking, but refreshing nonetheless.  May God bless us with many more such men.  In the Church today, the best bishops rarely exceed the bare minimum of expected episcopal behavior of a few decades past (ok, several).  There are very few who would have been viewed as heroic or saintly 60 or 80 years ago.  Some of that redounds on us, however…….our prayers can and will make a difference.  In that sense, we’re all in this together.  The crisis in the Faith is one primarily of leadership, but the laity have certainly done plenty to bring it on, as well.  Something to keep in mind when we (or I) start feeling a bit big for our britches.  Even though its not exactly a heroic stand, per se, the Polish bishops are still to be congratulated for their adherence to Catholic Doctrine.   Would that many more conferences would do the same.

I think that’s the first time I’ve ever published the word britches.  I’m really pleased with myself.


Another kind of inequality: Pope Francis barely mentions moral evils, dwells on prudential issues at length September 24, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Has Pope Francis mentioned Jesus Christ in any of this speeches in the US, yet?  I believe he did in the Serra canonization Mass but not in the many other speeches.

He certainly didn’t to Congress. He also only mentioned abortion in a passing allusion, while he dwelt at length on eminently prudential subjects like climate change and how to address “income inequality” (one might rebut with Mk 14:7).

Jesus Christ seems to be getting unequal treatment.

The conservative media is beginning to note that Pope Francis’ political/cultural orientation looks less and less like a figment of progressive’s imagination, and more like reality.  Hardest hit: those conservativish Catholic sources who cannot fathom the concept of an ideologically progressive pope:

Believe it or not, the one line he devoted to abortion was one line more than he devoted to the subject of Jesus, who wasn’t mentioned at all in this morning’s speech according to the transcript. Maybe that was a deliberate choice made by Francis, to stick to politics and universal principles before a domestic television audience with many millions of non-Christians. (He did mention Moses.) Or maybe he just had more important things that he wanted to talk about, like the environment.

It’s not that the Pope has rejected traditional Catholic teachings on morals and the family (although he’s upset them a little), it’s that his passions palpably run towards other aspects of Catholic teaching. That’s why the left embraces him notwithstanding the fact that he always says the socially conservative thing about abortion and gay marriage when those topics are raised. They can tell where his priorities are. It’s all in the emphasis. Here’s the sum total of what he said today about abortion to a national legislature that’s currently debating whether to shut down the government to stop the country’s biggest abortion mill from being funded: “The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.” That was sandwiched between several paragraphs about our duty to welcome our illegal immigrant neighbors (“We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever proves troublesome”) [I’m sorry, but that’s really a flippant, unserious kind of argument.  There are very substantial reasons to limit immigration, and those reasons can be perfectly consonant with the Doctrine of the Faith.  This is frankly cheap rhetoric for a Pope to use] and the need to “avert the most serious effects of the environmental deterioration caused by human activity.” Ending the death penalty, which won’t be happening anytime soon in America — unless their royal highnesses, the Supreme Court, intervene, of course — got a full paragraph. Even the Iran deal, or whatever this passage is about, got more than a single line: [Actually, this was probably about the Cuba detente.  Direct papal quote follows]

From this perspective of dialogue, I would like to recognize the efforts made in recent months to help overcome historic differences linked to painful episodes of the past. It is my duty to build bridges and to help all men and women, in any way possible, to do the same. [Nothing about salvation, preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, or any of that?  No: “building bridges”] When countries which have been at odds resume the path of dialogue – a dialogue which may have been interrupted for the most legitimate of reasons – new opportunities open up for all. This has required, and requires, courage and daring, which is not the same as irresponsibility. A good political leader is one who, with the interests of all in mind, seizes the moment in a spirit of openness and pragmatism. A good political leader always opts to initiate processes rather than possessing spaces (cf. Evangelii Gaudium, 222-223).

One person is beyond pleased with the papal speeches.  Joltin’ Joe Biden:

“He’s the embodiment of Catholic social doctrine that I was raised with. The idea that everyone’s entitled to dignity,” the vice president said of Pope Francis in an interview with the Rev. Matt Malone, president and editor in chief of America Media, an ABC News partner.

“I’m excited, quite frankly, as a practicing Catholic. I am really excited by the whole world is getting to see what are the basic essential elements of what constitutes Catholicism.”

So, what constitutes Catholicism to Biden: no mention of Jesus Christ, eternity, salvation, Heaven, hell, sin, repentance, etc.  No, something very different, almost the sense of an “earthly paradise.”

Good luck with that.

Non Sequitur – You’ve done it again, Longhorn hyper-fans September 24, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, blogfoolery, foolishness, history, non squitur, paganism, sadness, silliness, Society.
comments closed

History does not repeat itself, but historical situations recur. That’s a famous line from whom I cannot remember, but I’m not entirely certain it’s correct.  I think on occasion, history does repeat itself. More specifically, I think the history of UT football repeated itself, first in 1986 and then in 2013.

In 1977, Fred Akers inherited a team from the legendary Darrell K. Royal that had gone 5-5-1 in 1976.  They had quite a bit of talent but were badly under-performing.  In his first year, Akers took that team, with basically the same talent, and went 11-1.

202yeahHe had a number of other good years, but some controversial decisions in the 1984 Cotton Bowl, and again at the Cotton Bowl later that year against Oklahoma, began to convince the kind of idolatrous fan that literally lives and dies with each game that Akers could not with the big game. A bad call against Georgia helped precipitate a 10-9 loss and the subsequent loss of the national championship.  A decision to go for a tie against OU instead of a win, in a driving downpour, helped cement Akers reputation.

From that point on, influential alumni, fans, and donors began a whisper campaign against Akers.  They undermined recruiting.  Morale on the team slumped.  After a couple of sub-par years, Akers was fired.  A hero from the Royal era, David McWilliams, was hired. It was glorious!  DKR was back!  National championships would come rolling in.

Jackie gets another win

Jackie gets another win

Only, it didn’t work out that way.  What really happened was that the team became mired in a 10 year period of misery, losing seasons against pathetically weak schedules and a program in utter turmoil.  I got to “enjoy” that while I was at UT, in the midst of the very worst of it all, 1988-1993.  They went 39-38-1 in those 6 seasons, with only 1990 as a bright spot, ruined by the Miami debacle in the Cotton Bowl (which I attended with a murderous hangover).

94-96 was a little better, with the team winning the first ever Big 12 championship in 1996, but 1997 saw a serious reverse and the team drop to 4-7, including a blowout loss to UCLA at home.

So, instead of a return to glory, the UT program stagnated badly from the firing of Fred Akers in 1986 until the hiring of Mack Brown in 1998.

Brown immediately turned things around.  Brown took a 4-7 team to a 9-3 team, with essentially the same talent.  Even more, Brown completely revitalized the program from top to bottom. Facilities were greatly improved, recruiting reached heights not seen since Royal’s glory days, the fan base and alumni were very happy, and money was pouring in.  From 2001-2009, the heart of the Brown era, Texas went 101-14, including playing in two national championships (winning one) and winning two other BCS bowls.

But then things took a bit of a downturn, just as they do for every team from time to time.  Disastrous quarterback play led to a 5-7 record in 2010, followed by 8-5, 9-4, and 8-5 records.  The fan base became restive again, as they did under Akers.  A lot of these people view anything but a 100-0 victory as being total failure.  The more extreme fans were calling for Brown’s head even during the 2010 season, even though the team almost certainly would have won another title the year before if Colt McCoy hadn’t experienced a freak injury in the first quarter that sidelined him for the rest of the game.  After a few more “sub-par” years (which I would have been ecstatic to have seen when I was at UT!), all the great accomplishments, the re-building, the excitement, the victories, all was forgotten. Brown was finished, no good, washed up.  Even though the great Darrell Royal suffered three consecutive 6-4 seasons from 1965-7, but then ran off six incredible seasons from 1968-73, including 6 consecutive conference championships, the fans patience with Brown was exhausted.

As early as 2011, murmuring campaigns were hurting recruiting efforts.  Big dollar donors were undermining relations with high school programs.  Every year, the rumors grew, and recruits became skittish to sign with a program in apparent turmoil.  The quality of recruits dropped badly.  The program was sinking, but a good amount of it was not Brown’s fault.  It was the never-quite-satisfied hyper-fan.

And they got their way.  He was fired.  Charlie Strong was hired to replace him. But things did not go as planned.  Strong took a 8-5 team and saw it go 6-7 in 2014  In spite of brilliant play from freshman quarterback Jerrod Heard, 2015 does not seem to be starting much better.  Many predict another losing season.

It’s still early, but to this erstwhile Texas fan, it sure feels like 1987 all over again.  If Texas fans have a group sin, it is unbelievable hubris, and God tends to spite the very proud with humiliations.  We may get to enjoy quite a bit of that over the next 10 years or so.  I actually hope I’m wrong, but given what I’ve seen in two games this season, this team doesn’t look like it’s quite going to come together.  The defense is the worst I’ve ever seen on a Texas team.

I hope the hyper-fans, like a lot of the guys I see writing at various Longhorn bulletin boards, SBnation, etc, finally learn their dang lesson. They’re not coaches.  They’re not scouts.  They don’t know football 1/10th as well as they think they do.  And there is always a worse alternative.  Just because you fire the guy who hasn’t lived up to your lofty expectations, doesn’t mean his replacement is going to be any better.

I really hope I have to eat my words, but looking at the schedule, I’m predicting 6-6 at best.  It’s 1991 all over again.

The Future?

                            The Future?


Revisiting Fisher More September 24, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in disaster, episcopate, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, Latin Mass, pr stunts, priests, self-serving, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
comments closed

I hesitate to jump back into this fracas again, with all the unbelievably powerful emotions it seems to attract, but I feel compelled to do so due to various comments I’ve seen here and on other blogs.  I want to reset the record with Fisher More, a tiny college of not particularly great quality that ceased to exist last year.

I accidentally fell into the Fisher More College (FMC) imbroglio when I wrote a post trying to assert the notion that Bishop Olson’s barring of the TLM was not necessarily due to a modernist’s hatred of all things traditional and a desire to see an outwardly traditional Catholic university close, but was due to myriad other factors, many of them quite valid. While I thought the action taken unfortunate and bound to cause great excitement (which it certainly did), I saw no evidence that Bishop Olson was motivated by an animus against the TLM, and he quickly reached out to those devoted to the TLM in Fort Worth to assure them of that fact.  I think subsequent events have clearly borne this out.  Fort Worth now has a 7 day a week TLM parish with two permanently assigned priests.

Very closely allied with this issue of Bishop Olson’s actions is the dissolution of FMC and why that occurred.  I have seen comments in various places that have tried to insinuate that a handful of people sort of conspired to insure FMC’s demise, because……well, that’s always been a bit vague. The insinuation was that they are sort of secret modernists who just couldn’t stand to see a “real” traditional Catholic college survive.  There have been dark insinuations about a priest formerly associated with FMC being involved.  I cannot tell you how completely, totally the opposite of the truth that all is.

It’s important to note that in the demise of FMC, there was of course a lot of finger pointing and recriminations as to who was to blame. In the main, there were basically two competing explanations.  One was put forth by the college’s former administration plus a few allies, and then there was a radically different explanation accepted by pretty much everyone else.  I don’t want to get back into all the gory details, which are as endless as they are boring, but basically a whoooole lot of people came to hold a pretty dim view of the administration.  The vast majority of these folks felt an admittedly bad situation had been made irrecoverably worse by perhaps unrealistic expectations and grandiose dreams on the part of that administration.

Who am I to comment on this?  Why should you listen to me?  For a number of reasons, and not by any deliberate intent on my part, I probably became about as well formed a commentator on the FMC debacle as one could find.  Over the course of late 2013 and into 2014, I spoke with about 30 people closely associated with FMC, from faculty and staff to students (former and current) and parents. I got a great deal of background information from people who worked at the college.  I can tell you that every single one of these individuals generally believed the administration primarily at fault for FMC’s problems, both financial and in terms of ecclesiastical direction/outlook.  There were variations, of course, but at least about 25 of those 30 odd people held a very critical view of the administration, and furthermore, felt the college was dead once they moved into the fancy digs (of course, it went on to implode in May 2014 in very ugly fashion just as many insiders predicted to me that it would).

But I want to make something clear.  I was never “buddies” or otherwise close to any of these folks who contacted me.  I knew a few casually before.  I have gotten to know some of them much better since and have no reason to doubt their veracity or their dedication to a whole manner of good works, including their tenure at FMC.  I have spoken to Taylor Marshall twice in my life for a total of approximately 45 seconds.  We’ve never spoken of FMC.  The priest(s) whom some have tried to insinuate somehow conspired to “bring FMC down” similarly have never addressed the matter with me.  All my info came from other sources, most of whom approached me trying to get the truth out after the PR attack against Bishop Olson in 2014 (who, again, I think did the wrong thing, but it was well within his purview and not motivated by a particular animus against the TLM or tradition generally).

I had no dog in this fight.  But when I hear 30 odd good, devoted people giving me one very consistent appreciation of events, and then 4 or 5 others (who had a very substantial self-interest) not only holding the opposite view, but lashing out at the majority, saying some really ugly things about people…….I tend to go with the 30.  I especially tend to do so when I receive the same basic story again and again from totally unrelated angles.   Even more, the explanations of the majority seemed eminently more sensical to me than the countervailing viewpoint.

I am hesitant to bring this up again.  I don’t want to inflame passions that have mostly died down.  But I have now seen a number of comments here and at other places (though I think they come from only a handful of people) asserting that the “real story” has not been told, that there was some kind of nexus of influence through a priest or someone who somehow poisoned a whole bunch of people’s minds against FMC and helped bring it down.  That is all hogwash.  It needs to stop.  If you want the “real” story, read my blog coverage on the matter. There are too many posts to list, but you can search Fisher More and find them.  I don’t think anyone has posted as much on FMC since 2014 as I have.

Fisher More died due to excessive debt and lack of income.  Period, full stop.  It had nothing to do with a priest, or the TLM, or anything else.  The administration inherited a financial mess, had an opportunity to maybe fix things, but it didn’t work out.  End of story.  The TLM matter was really just a convenient target to divert attention from the pending financial collapse, which many insiders feel was assured from mid-2013 on.  Sure there was a lot of concern at the very end over the direction the administration seemed to be taking the college in an ecclesiastical sense but that’s all really just window dressing for the main issue of finances.  They needed 6 and 7 figure donors to keep that place alive and that was always going to take a whole series of miracles. I think the fact the miracles didn’t happen is probably a lot more revealing than some would like to admit.

If you can’t accept that, it’s on you.  Some people have to see “conspiracy” where there is simply difference of opinion.  Being more radically trad does not make one invariably right.  Being more radically trad does not always make one necessarily in the right on a particular matter.

Finis.  I will be watching comments carefully.