jump to navigation

From Indifferentism to Apostasy August 25, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, priests, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, Tradition, Virtue.

Some good material from Catholicism.org of the St. Benedict Center of New Hampshire, on how the attitude of religious indifference that crept deeply into the Church in the mid-20th century has transmogrified into open, practical apostasy.  The wounds to the Church have been unbelievable, and continue to grow and spread.

I cut and paste below some of the parts I found most interesting (adding my own emphasis and comments):

Indifferentism is the condemned heresy that advances the possibility of salvation in any religion. Apostasy (according to Father Hardon) is the “complete abandonment of the Christian religion and not merely a denial of some article of the creed.” There is a certain inexorable logic — or at least a psychologically coherent dynamism — that facilitates the journey from indifferentism to apostasy. It may take some time — a few generations perhaps, which is a brief span in the life of the Church — but indifferentism will feed the beast of apostasy.

Do we live in a time of widespread apostasy? [I don’t see how this can even be open to question at this point. If you want to read the “proofs” for this, go to the link]

………So, too, to speak of a “silent” apostasy of the former Christendom is to make a very loud denunciation of a people who once produced saints but have now forgotten God.

For decades, we here at Saint Benedict Center have warned that, to advance the possibility of salvation for non-Catholics who live and die in their various religions — without the benefits of baptism and without the divine and catholic faith — will seriously harm the Church’s missionary zeal. We have further warned that it will confuse Catholics themselves, who will wonder why they have to live the strict moral code of the Catholic Church when the rest of humanity can apparently be saved without it. [EXACTLY!  Why on earth can’t I contracept,  divorce, commit usury, etc., and be a “good Catholic,” when all these other people abide by religions that tolerate or even promote such and are apparently “saved?”]

Whatever the details of his own theology concerning these questions, “Pope Emeritus” Benedict has agreed with us that such fears are not only warranted, but, indeed, have also been realized in our day as a “deep double crisis”……[A good quote from Benedict follows basically emphasizing what was contained in the preceding paragraph.]

………..So, according to the Pope Emeritus, the abandonment of the conviction that infidels are lost led to a double crisis of the death of the missions and the questioning, by the faithful, of the “obligatory nature of the faith and its way of life.”

It is the second half of this crisis that led to the “silent apostasy” mentioned by Benedict’s predecessor. [I think it is much more accurately termed a practical apostasy, if not a formal one, but it is increasingly indistinguishable even from formal apostasy] It may be summarized in the following rhetorical questions: If Catholicism is not necessary for someone born into a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist family, why is it necessary for me? If natives of desert islands can be saved by living according to what they know of the law of nature, why do I have to believe something supernatural? If Jews do not need Jesus Christ, His teaching and His Church, why do I? [And, of course, tens or hundreds of millions of “Catholics” have answered this question for themselves, and determined that, of course, they don’t have to.  Thus, Catholic rates of divorce, contraception, and even abortion are generally indistinguishable from the general populace, if not a bit worse]

Ireland’s online newspaper, Independent.ie, recently ran an article entitled, “Bobby Kennedy: the parish priest of the clan.” It gives us a some insight into how indifferentism and apostasy — at least in its beginnings — go hand-in-hand. [The Kennedy’s do make an object lesson in how this process occurred, aided and abetted by modernists in the Church who co-opted the Kennedy clan in their own plan to remake the Church into a liberal protestant denomination that moved absolutely no one to any kind of piety or devotion but which played very well with the powers of the world]

“Back in his undergraduate days, he joined other Harvard Catholics at lectures by Father Leonard Feeney, an influential Jesuit priest who… preached that only Catholics could be saved. Bobby was embarrassed enough by those diatribes to discuss them with his brother Ted and his father, who arranged for him to meet Archbishop Cushing to convey his concern.” [Boy was that a fateful meeting for Fr. Feeney and the St. Benedict Center]

This same Bobby Kennedy, who, as I was told by Brother Francis, argued with Father Feeney that his Protestant friends were going to be saved as Protestants, was not exactly a stickler for the Catholic Faith on other points, as that same Independent.ie article witnesses: “He called it ‘an awful thing’ that the Church taught that babies, his or anyone’s, were born in sin.”

So this indifferentist rejected the doctrine of original sin? At least according to his biographer, Larry Tye, who penned that piece, which is an excerpt from his book, Bobby Kennedy: The Making of a Liberal Icon.

And that Archbishop to whom Bobby went “to convey his concern” about Father Feeney? He not only persecuted Father Feeney for teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church, but also helped to legalize the sale of contraceptives in Massachusetts. [Very true, and that’s only a small part of it.  Cushing worked mightily to break the natural opposition of Catholic politicians in Mass to approve contraception.  He actually went around pressuring people to abjure their faith, so he could have contraception legalized.  And, of course, he closely coordinated his activities with Planned Butcherhood]

It should be remembered that Bobby’s brother, John, thought Jesus Christ essentially had no business in politics.

I asked my friend Joe Doyle, frequent SBC conference speaker and Executive Director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, whether there was ever a formal apostasy in the political family. He could not think of one, but sent this informative reply:

Over the course of five generations, the Kennedys have transitioned from being nominal Catholics to being liberal, nominal Catholics, to being dissenting, liberal, nominal Catholics, to being non-practicing, dissenting, liberal, nominal Catholics. To use an accurate phrase disfavored by the post-conciliar church, they are all obstinate and notorious heretics. [In addition to being scandal-mongers and deeply immoral people]

Nor should we forget that, as has been said before, when it comes to morals, they not only refuse to impose Catholic teaching on others, they refuse to impose it on themselves. [In which sense, they are standard bearers for the kind of politicized, worldly Catholicism we see promoted by most bishops and clergy in the Church over the past 50 years.  That such Catholicism has very little appeal to souls and seems very poor at inspiring them seems to matter very little to these folks]

This is what comes of not wanting to appear “unreasonable,” or “harsh,” of fudging on absolutely vital Dogmas of the Faith in order to win worldly approval and not upset those with power and influence.  The story of the “Feeneyites,” whatever their “sin,” is a microcosm and antecedent of the story of the Church as a whole in these very dark days.

Ultimately, many, many leaders in the Church have decided -and this goes back decades or a century or more – that they would much rather serve men than God.  Maybe they don’t think that consciously, but, effectively, that is the decision they have made.


1. c matt - August 25, 2016

Out of a billion or so self-identified Catholics, how many you figure are real Catholics? 5%, 10%? At least in the US and most of the western world, I don’t see it much above that.

Frank - August 25, 2016

I’m beginning to think it’s closer to 5 percent. Many of today’s “neo-Catholics” may never have been taught the truth about a lot of things, so I don’t know how culpable they are. But bishops and priests are accountable and many of them need to be very worried about their own souls, I fear.

c matt - August 25, 2016

Well, I was born post V II, have no special insight, and have been able to muddle through it. With the internet, ignorance is a tough plea to make.

Tantumblogo - August 25, 2016

If you define being Catholic as accepting and practicing the Faith whole and entire, to the best of your ability, it may be a lot less than 5%, as I have run into so many Catholics who you think are pretty solid who reject one Doctrine of the Faith or another. And they are perfectly fine with that. Rather like Robert Kennedy in the above.

2. Brother André Marie, M.I.C.M. - August 25, 2016

Thank you for the “plug.” God bless and Mary keep you.

Tantumblogo - August 25, 2016

Anytime, thanks for the good work. I enjoy the interviews with Dr. Frederickson, I’ve been to several of her talks here in the Dallas area. Her father was an exceptional scholar, as she is. I hope to post some more of your interview with her tomorrow.

3. Woody - August 25, 2016

Read Pope Gregory XVI’s Mirari Vos which is referenced to in the beginning of this fine article, Paragraphs 13 & 14. What is puzzling me is how we look at recent popes. What great popes they were because they said orthodox dogma MOST of the time. And yet on FEW occasions they spouted heresy. What? Really? Is this so hard to say and also understand: there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Can I draw a similarity between this hard statement and another that appears in John’s Gospel: He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, shall live forever. Have I failed to see the exceptions that God made in the Gospels? Have I failed to read the exceptions to the Church’s doctrines regarding these hard sayings? Are there exceptions to these truths? Is it all just relative to the times? Are these and other orthodox statements scandalous to the Church today? “Then Jesus said to the twelve ‘Will you also go away?’ And Simon Peter said to Him “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the CHRIST, the SON OF GOD.’ ” (My emphasis) What the Church has taught in the past is the Truth. It cannot be false now. It cannot be. Thank you Brother Andre Marie.

Tantumblogo - August 25, 2016

Great comment Woody. Don’t go gettin’ too mad now! But you are always, always welcome. Thanks for the contribution!

4. c matt - August 25, 2016

I know Archbishop Cushing traces his succession back to the apostles . . . I just didn’t realize it was Judas.

Tantumblogo - August 25, 2016


5. Margaret Costello - August 26, 2016

Speaking of religious indifferentism, is it true that Mother Theresa promoted it too? Have you ever done a post on that? Is it ok to canonize someone who did so many of the corporal works of mercy but neglected the more important i.e. the spiritual? Good post, btw. The poor Kennedy clan…so lost:+( God bless~

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: