jump to navigation

What do you think of this list of the top twenty most dangerous Catholics? – UPDATED February 4, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, Papa, Revolution, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church.
trackback

UPDATED.

So Church Militant TV has a new video up I both saw, and a reader sent to me, concerning a list of the top twenty most dangerous Catholics of the last 100 years.

UPDATE:  Now, the list remains incomplete, only half has been released so far, but as I read it, I was quite surprised to find so few in the upper echelons of the hierarchy.  The entire list is there if you take the survey.  My mistake, I only read the article at Church Militant itself.  So all the points made below stand.  No popes listed, the names are heavily American, and almost no one in the curia or a major leader at Vatican II.  For instance, Donald Wuerl is a politician, tends modernist (or is, whatever), and has given scandal on numerous occasions, but, really? Top 20 worst Catholics?  Not even close.  He’s nothing compared to some of the radicals in Europe, or some of those from the 60s-70s timeframe.  To leave off Cardinal Martini is inexplicable to me.  He’s the father of the current-day progressive wing in the Church.  No de Chardin?  No Congar?  But bear in mind, some of those – de Chardin, Congar – received numerous plaudits from post-conciliar popes.  Perhaps that played a role?

Here are some of the more prominent names:

Charles Curran
Richard McBrien
Karl Rahner
Edward Schillebeeckx
Hans Küng
John Dearden
Joseph Bernardin
Theodore Hesburgh
Hans Urs von Balthasar
Pedro Arrupe

I’m struck by several things.  For one, the list is overwhelmingly American.  But many of the most destructive ideas have flowed out of Europe, and often, from high cardinals and others deeply entrenched at the highest levels of the Church.  Most of the names listed here are priests, whose ideas, while certainly damnable, would not have had the impact they did had ecclesiastical authority not failed in its duty to discipline them or exclude them from the body of the faithful.

Now, the list is only half complete, so I’m hoping a whole slew of names – Martini, Frings, Alfrink, Bea, Congar, Suenens, Bugnini, etc., will make the list. Well, they didn’t.  A list that does not include a number of the leading radicals from Vatican II – which includes those appointed by Paul VI to lead the Council – is woefully incomplete.  And there are more top officials from today that I might include in my list – Koch, Schoenborn, Marx, Kasper…….basically the entire German episcopate.

But I’ll say something else.  It is true that the crisis in the Church is a crisis of bishops.  But who has appointed those bishops, and kept them in office, and even protected them, at times?  If the list of “most dangerous Catholics” means those who have contributed the most to the crisis in the Church, can any list be complete that does not feature the names of  Giovanni Montini and possibly Jose Bergoglio?

Look, I understand CMTVs editorial views. I know they are loathe to criticize any pontiff, especially the post-conciliar ones.  I understand their viewpoint, even if I think it erroneous.

Having said that, from what limited study I’ve done of Vatican II, I am unable to conclude otherwise than that Pope Paul VI got the Council he wanted, more or less.  John XXIII set the tone, but it was Paul VI who packed the all-important leadership/management with the Council almost entirely with thoroughgoing progressives.  It was Paul VI who decided, at virtually every important logjam, in favor of the progressives, at least until the very end, when their excesses began to surprise and shock even him.  And it was Paul VI who unleashed the Novus Ordo and deliberately put forth the notion that the TLM was abrogated, to the point of persecuting those priests who refused to go along.  I could go on, HJA Sire and others have thoroughly criticized the pontificate of Paul VI in quite harsh terms.

Since the Council, with some exception for Benedict XVI, the dominant liberal interpretation of it has been allowed to stand, and even be promoted, by every pontiff of the intervening period, at least by silence and inaction if not by actual promotion (which, of course, has frequently occurred, as well).  But you know all this already.

So I guess the question is…….can a list of the most “dangerous” Catholics of the last 100 years be complete without including any popes?  Or is it tending too much towards scandal, with the wide audience CMTV has, to say so? (I tend to take more liberties, as I regard my readership as generally very well formed and steadfast, and able to stand “sterner stuff”).

And what of the many non-Americans/fathers of Vatican II who have contributed most to the collapse?  And no Tielhard de Chardin?  No Anibale Bugnini?

Nevertheless, while argument over who should be included could go on forever, I think the basic idea, to identify by name some of the most damaging Catholics of recent years is a pretty good one.  While you or I might already be aware of most or all of these folks, many are not. It’s helpful to get those names out there. Who else would you have on  your list?

Comments

1. Joseph D'Hippolito - February 4, 2016

You should seriously consider Mark Shea, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Elizabeth Scalia, Simcha Fisher and (especially) Michael Sean Winters. He’s nothing but an ideological whore.

Oh, did I mention Mark Shea?😉

Tantumblogo - February 4, 2016

Now those are some interesting suggestions.

2. Baseballmom - February 4, 2016

All 20 names are on the list if you click on the link. He gave short bios on ten of them. Arrupe is at the top of my list, due to his influence on Jorge Bergoglio.

Tantumblogo - February 4, 2016

Dangit. I read the piece at Church Militant and it didn’t have the full list. Only half, for some reason. Did not go to the survey. I R DUMB

3. Brian E. Breslin - February 5, 2016

Guys, if I may- I certainly know the point here and get the idea- but in all honesty, I bet good old Brian Breslin could make this list through my lifetime. I could very well have been the reason someone was turned off by the Church through my words, actions, or inactions.

4. George - February 5, 2016

I agree with you that Pope Paul VI’s papacy launched a severe crisis in the Catholic Church. Perhaps because he was a Pope people have be reticent to blame him. Perhaps it was because Paul appointed others to on committees to make decisons. Look at the confusion of Vatican II. The document says one thing but the practice is another. The result of Paul VI’s papacy is the deregulation of discipline in the Church. For example optional habits for clergy or worse de emphasis of the Rosary and confession. Put Pope Pius X and Paul VI in a room together. You don’t have simple differences of opinion you have diametrically opposed views. Saint Pius X protected the deposit of faith from modernism. Paul VI threw the deposit of faith at the feet of modernism.

Observer - February 5, 2016

Giovanni Montini must be top of the list because he either didn’t oppose or perhaps even facilitated the Kung gang. But what does that say about his brother cardinals who voted him pope. They all couldn’t have been ignorant of his weakness, both theological and temporal.

Dismas - February 5, 2016

Different religions.

5. c matt - February 5, 2016

I have to agree, failure to include any popes is gross negligence at best. After all, the buck does stop with the pope. In fact, that is his main purpose. As for dangerous, I would actually rank Frankenstein lower than Montini, and possibly JP II even. Frankenstein is so obviously bad, he is less likely to mislead the elect. Montini, even his so-called greatest achievement (HV) actually set the stage for later decay of sexual morality by equating the procreative and unitive ends, rather than keeping the procreative at the top spot. This lead to JP II’s “TOB” which has been used by the likes of West and others to basically push Catholic porn, and turn “natural family planning” into Catholic contraception. What makes JP II so dangerous is he was seen as “one of us”, not a progressive. Mind you, I am not saying he intended for any of this, I am just saying, at least unwittingly, he set the stage for this to happen, and by his perhaps naive trust in “the truth will out” gave too much leeway to his opponents (B XVI had this fault as well). To me, Frankenstein is more the symptom, not the cause.

6. c matt - February 5, 2016

looks like my previous comment got eaten. Probably a good thing as it was not very flattering of several recent successors of Peter. Shea is an interesting selection. What about Christopher West of TOB fame/infamy? Also many of the pushers of Catholic Contraception (i.e., Natural Family Planning) – not because of any bad intent on their part, but because the result ends up in a contraceptive mentality, even unwittingly. In fact, I rate those who have good motives even more dangerous – the nefarious you can usually see coming from a mile away.

7. Dismas - February 5, 2016

Anybody’s list is as worthy of consideration as Voris’ – well, on second thought, most moreso because of his heretical papolatry.

So my own list would include some individuals recently “canonized” or “beatified” in this different religion.

Again, just my view, but I consider the most dangerous to be those who are not the more radical and obvious heretics (although they are certainly worthy of mention) but those who can gin up a facade of orthodoxy to a poorly-catechized Catholic world. It is a Hegelian dialectic at work and the enemy will be satisfied, when all of this dust settles, if he has been able to shift the Mystical Body of Christ just a little bit from the Truth.

How many do we now see weeping and gnashing teeth regarding Bergoglio and appealing to – of all people – Wojtyla as a standard of orthodoxy? Voila!

Branch - February 5, 2016

I couldn’t agree more. If history proves that the sedevacantists were right, then these men will have been the most dangerous of all.

8. David - February 5, 2016

I’m glad Aruppe made this list. Years ago, I listened to a talk that was given about The Decline of the Jesuit Order” and I believe Aruppe was the Superior General in the 1960s and in the 1970s when much of the ” watering down” began.

By the way, is Jean Jadot on this list? I can think of all the progressive U.S. Bishops (particularly Sullivan, Untener, Clark, Mahoney, Pilla) who were appointed during 1973 and 1980. A large decline in manliness and vocations.

9. Michael Jarman - February 5, 2016

Martini missed the list but absolutely should have been on it. It’s the Universal Church, but way too many North Americans. That’s not to say that Land O’ Lakes and Winnipeg weren’t disasters for the Universal Church, they were. But no Carlo Maria Martini, the Sith Lord behind most of the destruction? Come on!

10. Michael Jarman - February 5, 2016

Oh, and only because of a personal experience and not because he’s “worthy,” Matthew Clark. (Yea, he’s a North American. I used to be a liberal and contradicting myself is a hard habit to break. Pray for me.)

11. Joseph D'Hippolito - February 6, 2016

Two more names: Roger Mahony and Bernard Law, for enabling sexual predators in the clergy and for being more concerned about protecting the Church’s “image” (and financial assets) than about doing the right thing.

12. Joseph D'Hippolito - February 6, 2016

Let me make a suggestion for the most dangerous Catholic: “Saint” JP II “the Great” (fraud), who made theological revisionism (especially regarding capital punishment), syncretism and appeasement of Islam fashionable among “orthodox” circles (especially in the Apologetics-Industrial Complex).

13. Amos - February 6, 2016

The list should be called the most “damaging” as dangerous sonds like some of them purposely intended harm. Some didn’t some did.

Your additions like Congar, Bugnini, and Teilhard are spot on.

But who tired to give some of these men cardinal hats (like Congar, de Lubac, Balthasar) and more or less continue the crisis? John Paul II, that’s who. I would put him on the top 20 most “damaging.”

Jorge El Curioso - February 7, 2016

De acuerdo.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: