Good piece from Pat Archbold. I’m out of time, hope you enjoy. I add a few comments:
I don’t care for the term neo-Catholic, for it is too often used as pejorative. For this reason, you will not often find the term in my writing, not least for the reason that I was frequently accused of being one. [I agree. I try to avoid the term, too, because it originated as an insult. But I was one by default 5 years ago, as are many other well-meaning people who simply have not grasped the deadly intellectual inversion at the heart of the post-conciliar Revolution, which Archbold makes clear below]
The term neo-Catholicism actually has a meaning, even if that precise meaning is frequently ignored. Generally, the term refers to Catholics that take their faith seriously, but generally don’t have a problem with the Church of the last 50 years, even embracing changes that have proven themselves disastrous……
……..As you can see, NuChurch has inverted the order. First, NuChurch put love of God on a par with love of neighbor, as if they were one command. Love of neighbor, they would have us believe, is equal to love of God. But as can be seen from EG161, even that is not enough. Pope Francis, avoiding Jesus’ direct answer to the question, answers the question with another quote entirely, purposely avoiding love of God, not just as the primary commandment, but dropping it altogether in favor of the love of man.
This simple, but pernicious change is at the heart of NuChurch. Any Catholic from a century ago would understand that the love of God comes first and that love of neighbor, which derives from the first, is secondary. But now man is first and the love of God is a secondary to loving man, instead of the other way around. This is the grand inversion that is at the heart of NuChurch.
But don’t take my word on it. Listen to Pope Paul VI address this very question in his closing remarks from the Second Vatican Council:
“It might be said that all this and everything else we might say about the human values of the council have diverted the attention of the Church in council to the trend of modern culture, centered on humanity. We would say not diverted but rather directed.”
It is right there from the beginning. This error, this inversion of the Truth of God’s command is at the root of all of it including our man-centered liturgy, false ecumenism, indifferentism, and the false mercy of the current pontificate. [And in certain episcopal sermons] They believe that the only love that matters is the love of man. Yet the Council of Trent takes a very different approach.
“Moreover, no honor, no piety, no devotion can be rendered to God sufficiently worthy of Him, since love of Him admits of infinite increase. Hence our charity should become every day more fervent towards Him, who commands us to love Him with our whole heart, our whole soul, and with all our strength. The love of our neighbor, on the contrary, has its limits, for the Lord commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves. To outstep these limits by loving our neighbor as we love God would be an enormous crime.” —Catechism of Trent, Part 3, Chapter 5, Question 5
So ingrained has this inversion become in NuChurch, that when a Catholic puts the love of God and his commandments first as he always should, he is derided by no less than the Pope himself as a rigid and unmerciful Pharisee.
But once you see this inversion and understand it for what it is, your entire approach begins to change and your neo-Catholicism can no longer be sustained.
That’s precisely it, and beautifully put. The humanist revolution at the heart of Vatican II is irreconcilable with the First Commandment. It disfigures everything it touches, and it touches everything. With the elevation of Christ’s second commandment above the first, there is no end to the Revolution nor the deformation of the Church.
And yes, there are people who see many problems in the Church but refuse to see the inversion at the heart of it. They are to be more pitied and deplored, even given all the damage they may help rationalize if not realize.
Longtime readers will know that over the past 3 years or so I have lost just about all faith in the Republican party. Especially since the elections of 2014, when they were handed historic majorities in both Houses of Congress and yet have done little with those majorities but to continue to advance Obama’s agenda, I have been forced to come to the conclusion that both parties are now dominated by corporatist masters and an over-awning acceptance of cultural leftism.
Some folks held out hope that ousting former Speaker John Boehner would yield some positive developments, but in his first major legislative act as Speaker, Paul Ryan has produced a massive, bloated omnibus spending bill that greatly expands immigration and other items noxious to the base. Even more, this spending bill was negotiated by a tiny group on insiders, worked out in close collaboration with Obama and congressional democrats, and was basically kept hidden from the large conservative caucus in the House. Once it was completed, the public and general members of the House were provided with all of 48 hours to review the nearly 3000 page bill.
In short, they’ve flipped the bird at those who put them in office once again. How long are we going to continue to vote for guys who only pay lip service to our concerns at election time, and then rule like leftist insiders once they’re in office?
Some of the worst aspects:
(2) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds Sanctuary Cities
Five months ago, 32-year-old Kate Steinle was bleeding to death in her father’s arms. She was gunned down in broad daylight by a five-time deported criminal alien whose presence in the country was the direct result of San Francisco’s refusal to comply with U.S. immigration law—yet Paul Ryan’s omnibus rewards these lawless Sanctuary Cities with federal grants. Division B Title II of Ryan’s omnibus funds various grant programs for the Department of Justice (pages 167, 168, and 169) and contains no language that would restrict the provision of such grants to sanctuary jurisdictions.
In a Congressional hearing, Steinle’s father demanded Congressional action and recalled his daughter’s dying words: “Help me, Dad.”
(3) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds All Refugee Programs
Despite broad support amongst Republican lawmakers for a proposal to halt all refugee resettlement, Ryan’s appropriations bill will fund President Obama’s refugee resettlement operation and will allow for the admission of tens of thousands of refugees with access to federal benefits. Division H Title II of Ryan’s bill contains appropriations of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and contains no language that would restrict the program. Nor are there any restrictions for the program in Division K of Ryan’s bill, which provides funding for the Department of State, which oversees refugee admissions.
Ryan is not one of the 84 cosponsors of Babin’s bill to halt the refugee operation, and he recently told Sean Hannity that he does not support halting resettlement because, “We’re a compassionate country. The refugees laws are important laws.”
(4) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds All of the Mideast Immigration Programs That Have Been Exploited by Terrorists in Recent Years
Although multiple immigrant and visa programs in recent years have been exploited by terrorists (such as the F-1 “student” visa, the K-1 “fiancée” visa, and our green card and refugee programs), Ryan’s proposal does nothing to limit admissions from jihadist-prone regions. As Senators Shelby and Sessions of Alabama noted in a joint statement: “The omnibus would put the U.S. on a path to approve admission for hundreds of thousands of migrants from a broad range of countries with jihadists movements over the next 12 months, on top of all the other autopilot annual immigration.”
(5) Ryan’s Omnibus Funds Illegal Alien Resettlement
On page 917 of Ryan’s omnibus a section titled“Refugee and Entrant Assistance” funds the President’s resettlement of illegal immigrant border crossers.
(7) Ryan’s Omnibus Quadruples H-2B Foreign Worker Visas
Despite Ryan’s pledge not to move an immigration compromise with President Obama, tucked 700 pages into Ryan’s spending bill is language that would resuscitate and expand a controversial provision of the Schumer-Rubio Gang of Eight plan to increase the H-2B visa program.
The provision “would quadruple the number of H-2B visas for unskilled guest workers, for a total of more than 250,000,” writes immigration attorney Ian Smith. The Americans who fill these jobs are typically “society’s most vulnerable — including single women, the disabled, the elderly, minorities, teenagers, students, and first-generation immigrants,” Smith explains.
A recent BuzzFeed exposé revealed how this program allows businesses to discriminate against American workers and “deliberately den[y] jobs to American workers so they can hire foreign workers on H-2 visas instead.” As one GOP aide told Breitbart News, “This provision is a knife in the heart of the working class, and African Americans.”
The bill has now passed into law. It passed with a majority of Republican and Democrat support. Both parties own this turkey.
This bill also postpones the “Cadillac tax” portion of Obamacare, helping to keep it politically viable for a little longer. Democrats are crowing that this budget represents a huge victory for them. Why, exactly, do we keep voting Republican?
I’m not fan of Trump or his movement. But it appears the Republican party is doing all they can to assure his election. I very much get the extreme anger that is driving his lead position in the polls. There are tens of millions of Americans who feel, quite rightly, that neither party serves their interests in the slightest. That’s a very dangerous thing, for tens of millions of the hardest working, most virtuous citizens to feel that their government not only does not represent them, but constantly works against them, belittles them, mocks them, and yet constantly demands they pay for this thing or that that they hate. I don’t think this can continue much longer without some kind of reckoning, and I fear the longer that reckoning is put off, the more extreme the reaction will be.
Checkered Flag is a major large force, mixed type air defense exercise held at Tyndall AFB, FL a few times a year. With the F-35A scheduled to achieve initial operational capability in August of next year, F-35s have been participating in more and more regular large force exercises (LFEs), though not the king of them all, Red Flag, to my knowledge.
Anyhoo, F-35s from the 33rd Fighter Wing at nearby Eglin are participating in Checkered Flag for what I think is the first time. Some good military pr0n below, check out the tail art on the Wild Weasel F-16CG from Shaw:
That’s 50 years of Wild Weasel SAM suppression aircraft
I’m still very cool to the F-35, but it’s inevitable at this point. There is simply nothing else available, thanks to the hideous direction of Robert Gates.
Reader TE sent me the following video this week. It’s fairly close to home for him. New wheeled version of the MLRS launcher, called HiMARS. I guess they’re keeping the tracked versions, too? I don’t follow Army stuff very much, so I really don’t know:
So MLRS can launch either the original battlefield-ranged rocket or the theater-ranged ATACMS. Video of the tracked platform from the 80s below:
That’s you’re Flightline Friday for today. Not that many care!
Two more articles for your consideration during the long, cold winter of my absence from this blog. First, students in Virginia were directed to make the shaddat, or irrevocable statement of faith in islam, in a calligraphy class:
Students at Riverheads High School in Greenville, Virginia, were told to practice calligraphy by writing out the statement “There is no god but Allah. Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” The assignment was given by classroom teacher Cheri Laporte. [They were told to “practice” writing this. Did they write it three times? If they did, whether they meant it or not, they are now considered muslims for life, and leaving that religion could expose them to a death sentence. I can see why parents would be enraged]
…….Parents told The Schilling Show that their children were not given the translation of what they were writing.
Riverheads High School Principal, Max Lowe, did not directly acknowledge an inquiry requesting confirmation of the incident, clarification of policy, and disciplinary measures, if any, taken against Ms. Laporte.
The school district defended the assignment…….[Of course they did. Bureaucrats are loathe to admit a mistake]
………But parents say that other religions were not represented. Parents told The Schilling Show that “the Koran was presented to students, the Bible was not. The teacher reportedly declined to provide a Bible because all the students have either read or seen a Bible.”
Female students were also encouraged to wear a hijab, it was reported. [Now this, to me, tips it from being possibly innocent, to likely deliberate attempt to either win kids to islam, for whatever reason, or at least, to indoctrinate them in a multi-kulti “islam is the religion of peace” kind of mentality]
When asked about the hijab, the district explained the students were merely being taught about “modest dress adopted by many in the Islamic faith and were invited to try on a scarf as a part of an interactive lesson about the Islamic concept of modest dress.” [Can you imagine the school/teacher inviting students to wear veils, to learn about the Catholic concept of modest dress? They’d rather die that do that]
“The scarf used in the activity was not an actual Islamic religious hijab,” the district stated.
Directly related to the above, the Dallas Morning News has an article about the burgeoning homeschooling movement in the area. They don’t single out Catholics as being leaders in this movement, even though we are, and their primary subject for the article is a Catholic family. While the desire to instill the Faith into children is cited as a prime reason for homeschooling, and one I certainly agree with, I am dubious as to the cost factor associated with Catholic schools as an alternative. Yes, it is significant, even crippling, but much more significant to me, and to many other Catholic homeschoolers, is the fact that if you care about your kids keeping the Faith, Catholic schools are the dead last place you want to send them:
For Kahlig and her husband, their decision to home-school their children came down to finances and religion.
“We felt that home schooling was the best option for our children,” Kahlig said. “We would love to have them in one of the local Catholic private schools, but they are just too expensive. We could probably send one student there, but it just wouldn’t be financially possible to send all of our children there.” [Well, whatever. By hook or crook, you made the right choice, maybe better than you know. No educational cohort loses the Faith to a greater degree than those who are the product of Catholic schools. Combined with Catholic college, over 80% fall away]
The Kahligs are one of many Frisco families who face a financial challenge when trying to find an academic option that also incorporates spiritual enrichment.
Bonnie DeAtley, a mother of three, estimated that she and her husband save roughly $25,000 a year by home schooling their children instead of sending them to a private Catholic school. But to have the religious community that comes along with such a school, DeAtley and Kahlig joined Catholic home-schooling groups to supplement their children’s at-home education.
Sarah Griffith, founder of Catholic Homeschoolers in Frisco, decided to home-school her children in 2009 and “realized I needed a support group. So I got together with another home-schooling mother and used a room at our local church for our group to meet once a month.”
CHF, which meets once a month at St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church in Frisco, now has 20-30 families that meet for religious enrichment classes, field-trip outings and mothers-night-out events. It is one of dozens of home-school social groups in the area. [These groups are numerous and tremendously helpful. I do recommend them, generally.]
“We don’t have anything against public schools,” [???] said Kim Martin, who along with her husband moved from Dallas to Frisco. “We just recognize the benefits from the individual attention and direction that a home-school environment provides.” [Whatever. I’m a product of public schools. I have loads against them, especially now. Why are there so many little leftists running around? Indoctrination in the schools]
…….“No teacher — public or private — can give a student a better education than a dedicated and motivated parent.”
Totally agree, and that’s an extremely important factor. Even more important, to my wife and I, at least, is the ability to form our children in the Faith according to our lights and the guidance of the constant belief and practice of the Faith. For a variety of reasons (and going back decades – you can quote Fulton Sheen on this from the 60s), Catholic schools are poison for the retention of the Faith into adulthood. Public schools are increasingly problematic, from a spiritual/moral as well as educational perspective. Some protestant private schools are OK, provided you can deprogram your kid every day or week from the errors they’ve been exposed to. But when it comes to instilling the Faith, having strong oversight over who my kids interact with (all the efforts to family and educator can be undone by one disastrous peer influence), and teaching them according to classical means and with a strong emphasis on history, literature and the greatness of Catholic Christian civilization (Christendom), homeschooling is really the only alternative.
God bless all those parents who make the sacrifices to do it.
I was reading the other day – lost the link, sorry – that the British government is estimating that, by the year 2030 – only 15 years away! – that Britain will have to cease use of all natural gas for cooking, home heating, etc., in order to meet emission targets set at the recently concluded Paris confab of the rich and powerful to rape the (relatively) poor and powerless on climate. Have fun shivering in the dark, guys. At least I have lots of firewood. Even though many governments are now moving to outlaw use of firewood in cooking and heating, too.
All because of this, terrible, horrible, no-good, unimaginable crisis:
So about 1.2 deg F rise over the past 130 years. Heavens to betsy, what will we do?
I’m trying to set you up with all kinds of posts for my upcoming long absence. I will try to do a little posting over the break, but it usually doesn’t work out so well. And I will be off for nearly 3 glorious weeks. So, I’m doing what I can to leave you as many posts as possible before I go away for a while.
Ever been there? I got sent there for a “scared straight” program back in 1984, and I hadn’t even done anything wrong! That anyone knew of. For some reason some bonehead Methodist youth leader thought scaring the tar out of innocent middle school kids by exposing them to hardened felons would be a good idea. They also sent us to a youth reformatory near Waco and some home for pregnant teen girls. Sheesh. Very weird.
A corollary to the below. Aircraft aluminum melts at about 1150-1200 Fahrenheit. But aluminum structure in aircraft is limited to speeds below Mach 2.3 continuous, or 2.5-6 for short bursts of time. At those speeds, aircraft skin reaches temperatures around 350-400 F. That is the maximum temperature that aluminum can be used without significant weakening. All metals weaken greatly at temps well below their melting point. That is why the SR-71, to travel at Mach 3.5 or so, had to be made almost entirely of titanium and exotic steels, to handle the 500-800 degree temps experienced. Likewise, the X-15 rocket plane, to travel at Mach 6 and endure temps up to about 12oo F (or about 650 C) had to be constructed from exotic steels like Inconel X. Regular steel would have softened too much even at those low temps to be used effectively in aircraft design.
Now, a building is not an aircraft, but the same basic principles do apply. Aircraft, to save weight, are typically designed with safety factors of about 1.5 (that is for commercial aircraft, military aircraft, to obtain more performance, generally have lower safety factors). This means the structural design is set to withstand 50% more load than the aircraft is ever expected to experience in even the most severe service. Buildings generally have safety factors of more like 2. This means there is more redundant structural strength, so that more structure can be lost, fail, or severely damaged before the overall design is compromised.
It is estimated that the jet fuel conflagration in the Twin Towers burnt at about 1500 F. While it is true that steel does not melt until much higher – 2500~2800 F – at 1500 F low carbon steel of the type used in building construction will be structurally useless. That’s the point of the video below. I, too, don’t want to get into the endless back and forth over 911 truthferism – I exhaust myself arguing one set of religious beliefs already, thank you – but it’s a quite valuable demonstration all the same.
Another factor not mentioned is creep. Creep is the (relatively) slow stretching out of a substance – typically member of some kind under load. Creep is directly related to operating temperature. The higher the temp, the larger the creep. A steel beam that doesn’t creep a micron at 200 F creeps like crazy at 1200 F. That can also cause structural collapse, as members creep in a fashion that causes things like rivets to pop as holes no longer align, or welded joints to give way. That can also precipitate structural collapse.
Creep also occurs when structural loading suddenly increases. A beam that normally operates at 50% design stress that suddenly goes to 110% – say, because other members were caused to fail by impact – will start to elongate. Over time, say, 12 hours or so, that could cause a structure to collapse even without the impact of heat.
I designed some plastic parts that worked like champs up to about 155 F. But go to 160, and over 24 hours they would creep into frankenstein shapes. And that was under no other load but gravity. I know plastic is not steel, but the same principle definitely applies.
The appointment of Fr. Greg Kelly, formerly vicar for clergy in the Diocese for many years, to auxiliary bishop was announced yesterday. He is, in essence, replacing former auxiliary Mark Seitz, who departed to El Paso a little over a year ago:
Bishop Kevin J. Farrell announced Wednesday that Monsignor Greg Kelly will serve as the Diocese of Dallas’ new auxiliary bishop. The news followed the official announcement of the appointment by Pope Francis earlier in Rome.
Kelly will be Dallas’ second auxiliary bishop, joining with Bishop Doug Deshotel in assisting Farrell with leading the diocese’s nearly 1.3 million Catholics.
“Christmas came early to the Diocese of Dallas,” Farrell said at a press conference. “I could not think of a better person. He is one of the most hardworking priests.”
“I’m very grateful to the pope for this appointment,” Kelly said. “I’m looking forward to looking with [Farrell] in this capacity.”
Kelly has served in the diocese for over 34 years. Trained at Holy Trinity Seminary in Irving, he was the chaplain at the University of Dallas for 10 years before serving as pastor at St. Gabriel the Archangel in McKinney. He has acted as the vicar for clergy for the diocese since 2008.
Upon learning of his appointment, Kelly said he was glad to stay in the diocese.
“I thought, ‘Great. I don’t have to go anywhere,’” he joked…….. [Whew. What a doozy. My side hurts]
………In his new position, Kelly expects to continue his work with the diocese’s clergy in addition to other roles.
Kelly will be ordained as bishop Feb. 11 at the Cathedral Shrine of the Virgin of Guadalupe.
Someone has already asked about Bishop-elect Kelly. He was pastor at St. Gabriel in McKinney for a while, but departed in 2008 under what I understand was a bit of a cloud. Or that was the scuttlebutt, anyway, could just have been rumor. He’s been at the chancery ever since. Maybe some longtime McKinneyites can inform us.
I’ve only ever had one interaction with him, he served as go-between when the former Novus Ordo Latin Mass in Plano was undergoing one of its many struggles. I think he faithfully reported my concerns, not that they had any impact. He seems a likable enough guy. He’s a product of Holy Trinity Seminary in the 70s, so I wouldn’t expect a traditional firebrand.
Other than that, you got me. Love to learn more, feel free to share in the comments.
It’s very easy and quick: Christmas is an obviously joyous season, when we celebrate the Nativity of the Lord. Join in the joyfulness, and honor Our Lord, by assisting at Mass every day, at least during the Octave, if not until the Epiphany.
Sounds like a good idea to me. I will try it. I usually go to Mass 4-5 days a week. But I’ll be off work, so I’ll have no excuses not to go every day.
The other topic. I love the O Antiphons, which start today and run through Dec 23. These antiphons will be sung daily during the office.
Two of my favorites. O Sapientia (wisdom), and O Rex Gentium. For the O Antiphons, I prefer plainchant to polyphony.
So, a reader apparently attended the Mass offered by Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell at the Sacred Heart Cathedral Sanctuary of Our Lady of Guadalupe opening the “holy door” of the year of mercy for the Diocese of Dallas. They kindly sent me a link to a video of Bishop Farrell’s sermon, posted on the Diocesan website. I think they did so because they felt the sermon problematic. I must agree with their surmise.
The comment in the lede is certainly dramatic, I’d even say shocking. I’ll go ahead and try to contextualize it, by quoting the words preceding and following the quote:
And Jesus is there to forgive us. The situation of our lives, perhaps, may be inconsistent with the Church’s teaching today. But that does not mean that Jesus does not welcome us back into the Church. We are the ones, the sinners, Jesus came to save, not those, who are Saints. The Saints don’t need Jesus. Anyone who considers himself free from sin does not need Jesus, and certainly does not need the Church.
I needed a moment to pick my jaw off the floor, and put my brain back in my head. This sermon……it’s really messed up.
Wow. I mean, wow. What kind of ecclesiology is this?!? I can try to be nice, and read into these frankly clumsy and very unfortunate words what Bishop Farrell is trying to say, which is that we all are guilty of sin, and all have need of God’s mercy and forgiveness. Of course, such forgiveness is not handed out willy nilly to those who continue to sin unrepentantly, but only to those who exhibit contrition and have penitent hearts. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that points gets clearly made. Bishop Farrell does later say we can’t go on sinning forever, that while Christ will forgive our sins at some point (????) we must stop.
My larger problem is this: Bishop Farrell never gets around to saying just how sins are forgiven. We never hear words like contrition, conversion, penance, Confession, or any of the rest.
But this statement regarding the Saints……whaaaa? The Saints don’t need Jesus? Everything in the created universe needs Jesus/God to sustain them in existence from one moment to the next. But with regard to holiness, how do you think the Saints became saintly, Bishop Farrell? Sanctity flows from cooperation with Grace, not from just being super awesome humans. We hear much talk of Pelagianism from certain quarters today, but these comments reek of Pelagianism.
I am also amazed at the language tying Saints to the concept of sinlessness. Virtually all Saints were incredibly cognizant of their sinfulness, and the degree of their unworthiness from the great torrents of Grace Our Lord showered on them. They never pretended to be holier than thou. They had heroic humility, that’s what made them Saints.
However, I’m not sure if a later bit is not even more problematic. It speaks to the great abdication of duty that has riddled the episcopate as false, humanistic concepts of mercy have come to the fore. Another quote:
We have to be compassionate, we have to be forgiving. How often we want to excommunicate people out of the Church, we want to put them out of the Church because their sinners or they’re public sinners, or they’re this or they’r ethat. I don’t have a month go by where I don’t get a letter telling me to put such and such a person out of the Church because they are public sinners. That’s what the Church is for, it’s to welcome those people back in. We can’t be announced I’m puttin’ them out of the Church. Welcome them back into the Church.
A fundamental error of protestant – and modernist – scripture scholarship is to take individual bits of Scripture as stand alone declarations, completely cut off from both context and the entirety of Sacred Scripture. This is especially true of the Gospels.
That’s what Bishop Farrell is doing in this sermon. He is sharing all the bits of the Gospel the world has always liked, the bits about endless mercy and forgiveness, communicating a sense that the Church has erred in the past when souls were excommunicated for grave public sin or promotion of error (ahem).
Also unclear throughout is quite what he means by “welcoming back,” this phrase used throughout the sermon – does he mean assisting at Mass? And if so, does that mean these individuals guilty of what he terms “abominable sins” should, along with the other 90% else who haven’t been to Confession in years, receive the Blessed Sacrament?
What is entirely left out, of course, are those “hard sayings” of Jesus, which greatly modify the great truth of God’s Mercy by making it plain that receiving this mercy is dependent on our cooperation with Grace and our complete refusal to countenance any sin in our lives. But for those who refuse this, for those who refuse to convert or who continue to sin, Christ has a much different message:
But if thy brother offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more; that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
And if he will not hear them, tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen and a publican.
Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in Heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven. [St. Matt. xviii:15-18]
As I pointed out quite recently, excommunication has been part of the Church since Apostolic times. Excommunication of those who persist in obstinate public sin and/or heresy is a direct command of Christ. Does Bishop Farrell believe that he is either above that command, or that it is no longer operative? This has in fact been perhaps the definitive failure of the episcopate over the past 50 years, the manifest abdication of solemn duty with regard to safeguarding the deposit of Faith by excluding those who promote error or who give grave scandal through public sin.
Bishop Farrell is doing something else throughout the sermon, which I pray is not intentional. He is actually spreading great confusion, conflating individual acts of private sin, which we all commit, with continual acts of public sin which continue even after counsel and rebuke. Here the insidious nature of the episcopal failure to maintain discipline is truly revealed in its devious intent: most bishops refuse to correct those in error or grave public sin, and on that basis pretend, because the correction has not been made, that they cannot act to apply disciplinary measures such as denying reception of the Blessed Sacrament or even excommunication, which, once again, is not a “hard” or “cruel” discipline, it is a profoundly loving one whose intent is to bring the soul back to their senses, to reject their sin or error, and back into the loving bosom of Holy Mother Church and the life of Grace!!!!!
This is the fundamental error of the sermon: that protecting the deposit of Faith and avoiding the grave SIN of scandal among the faithful by applying the Church’s constantly practiced disciplinary measures is somehow being “judgmental” or “unmerciful.” He applies the lesson of the prodigal son wrongly, once again conflating events mid-sentence: from a soul with great contrition who has stopped sinning and begged forgiveness of the Father and asked for permission back into His House, the Church, there is a mental/rhetorical switch to public sinners and heretics indicating no contritionand who continue in their public sin and scandal. These are two very different things.
Tragically, many in Church leadership have found it very convenient over the past several decades to pretend otherwise, as the world, and especially powerful Katholyc political masters, capable of doling out millions to Church coffers, have descended into lives of abject immorality, including the promotion of heinously evil policies. Instead of opposing these evil acts with all the resources Holy Mother Church provides, they clothe their refusal to call these men to account – FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR OWN SOULS – with an aura of false virtue, contending they are being “merciful” and “non-judgmental,” while what they are really doing is failing totally in their duty as shepherds of souls and heirs of the apostles. It’s the wolves in sheep’s clothing writ large.
Author Kurt Schlichter notes in a column that, these days, being a father of an intact family that adheres to and attempts to instill traditional values in all members, especially those deriving from the nearly extinct heritage of Christendom is a profoundly rebellious – I would say countercultural – act. While I might disagree a bit with the idea that Ward Cleaver is the ideal model for fatherhood – after all, he and June seem a bit materialist, and only have two kids – the basic idea that being a father, providing for your family, being self-reliant, not being a whiner, and holding to the moral dictums of Christianity is so rare nowadays is a damning indictment of our culture, so afflicted as it is by the tenets of narcissism, self-seeking pleasure, and cultural marxism.
The better parts:
Using the forthright, capable, and spectacularly mature father of the Beaver as a touchstone is waiving a red state cape in front of a blue state bull. Our culture has been telling us for half a century how the Ward Cleavers of the world are a punchline, that they’re dull and unforgivably uncool. But look around at what repudiating Ward has wrought upon our society – can anyone seriously make the argument that America would not be massively better off with more males channeling him by supporting their own families and raising their own kids without leaving it to Uncle Sam and Team Taxpayer to clean up the wreckage of their refusal to grow up and act like men?.….. [Quite the contrary, the mass media today almost invariably portrays fathers – especially white fathers – as bumbling fools and selfish, overgrown man-boys. Minority fathers often get a less demeaning portrayal, but think on the impact that idiots fathers in shows like Everybody Loves Raymond, That’s So Raven, Home Improvement, The Real O’Neals, etc., have had. The role models for many men, so far as the media goes, vary between being a dull, ramrod Ward Cleaver type, or buffoonish, grunting cartoon characters. Having said that, I think most children would be infinitely happier with Ward and June Cleaver as parents than those on virtually any 1980-today sitcom or drama on offer. But that’s the thing about our culture, it has forced children to bear the burden of all the license and moral decay it has encouraged]
…….Normal Americans, those who live that lifestyle or aspire to it (many broken families realize that their situation is not optimal and do the best they can to replicate the traditional model), are a powerful but quiet presence in American political life. Richard Nixon called them “the Silent Majority.” [Nixon could rightly make that claim at that time, 1968, but 50 years on, traditional, believing intact families are a distinct and shrinking minority in this country. Nearly half of all children are already born out of wedlock, and in most European countries, a large majority already are.] Bill Clinton meant them when he talked about people who “worked hard and played by the rules.” They fight the wars, pay the taxes, and they vote. They built this. And that is why the left must must suppress the normals – the elites need them to do society’s work, but they can’t afford to let them be aroused at election time. So we see the media and Hollywood portraying us normals as dull, dreary drones who need guidance and inspiration from our betters in the liberal elites. [Or you have hateful movies like American Beauty or The Graduate depicting normal, monogamous suburban life as dreary, repressed, and miserable.]
That’s why being a man – not merely bearing the physical accoutrements of maleness but actually being a man – is a rebel act.[That’s because it’s damn rare these days. I am blessed in the traditional Catholic milieu to know a fair number of real, honest to goodness men, but outside that, they are virtually extinct]By being a man, you reject the role the liberal elite has prepared for you, that of a weak, confused manchild unfit to be sovereign over your own destiny. [Which is what they want. Leftists crave power, absolute power if possible. They want power over you and your life. Leftists have known, since the days of Lenin and Trotsky, that the family is the prime object between them and the kind of power they seek. So, in order to lay the groundwork for a culture so broken that people will crave a government with totalitarian power over them, they seek to destroy the family. If you read Solzhenitsyn, you will find that millions of children were abandoned as orphans in the former Soviet Union as a result of deliberate policy to destroy the intact family and divide husband and wife, parent and child. That has been there program in the US since WWII. And they have succeeded to a terrifying degree] Taking care of your family yourself repudiates them. Defending your family (especially when you exercise your fundamental Second Amendment rights) repudiates them. Raising your children as strong, independent Americans instead of spoiled, crybullying snowflakes, repudiates them. Just being normal repudiates them.
Maybe Ward Cleaver wouldn’t put it this way, but I will: By choosing to grow up and be a man, you tell the liberal elite to go to hell.
But what’s more important, you will do you God-given duty. The great crisis our culture faces is primarily a crisis of fatherhood. Yes, the left has, with diabolical wisdom, chosen its target well. By destroying fatherhood, they knew they would destroy the family. That sense is what underlies much of modern feminism.
However, far too many men have become willing collaborator’s in this effort to destroy the family. Far too few men have fought back. Far too many have happily gone along with the destruction of marriage and the family, choosing to “enjoy” the fleeting (if false) pleasures the current degraded moral climate offers, rather than leading a chaste and morally upright life. And far too few cultural leaders, especially within the Church (but also all other churches and sects), have given them inspiration and the tools to eschew the temptations of the moral sewer we inhabit and become the men God is calling them to be.
There is certainly much blame to go around. I wonder, however, the degree to which the collapse of the proper understanding and conduct of the priesthood – the ultimate spiritual fatherhood – has influenced the collapse of the familial paternal role. I would wager, it’s been quite significant.
But, of course, I’m preaching to the choir again. You know me…..can’t get enough “amens.”
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 