jump to navigation

Pure Politics: Cardinal-Elect Farrell Continues Singing Whatever Tune Francis Calls November 17, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Dallas Diocese, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, suicide, the struggle for the Church.
trackback

An interview with CNS of former Dallas Bishop and now Cardinal-elect Farrell raised quite a bit of well-earned ire with quotes like  “perhaps we have emphasized rules and regulations to excess” and “focus on Jesus, not rules.”  First of all, the Church isn’t obsessed with “rules and regulations,” but with teaching the Truth that is required of souls in order to be saved. If you want rules and regulations for their own sake, go work for a Roman dicastery, they have tons of them. When prelates like Farrell reduce the Sacred Truth Jesus Christ has revealed through His Church to “rules and regulations,” they are revealing that they are fundamentally disconnected with the Church and Her role as the vehicle of salvation for all men, and are subordinated the Sacred Deposit of Faith for the preferences of fallen men and a sick, dying culture.

There’s a lot in here to unpack, I’ll only pick a few gems:

Right from the get-go, Farrell announces that “My training for this job was pastoral work.  Forget all the administrative part, that’s the least important.”  Really, Bishop Farrell? When was that?  You only ever served in a parish for about 18 months. You’ve held administrative positions for the last 30 years solid.  Yes, a bishop should certainly have a major pastoral role, but you were known throughout this diocese as an unreachable man who was rarely in town and who viewed duties like visiting parishes a hassle to be endured.  You were generally escorted in and out of parish events as quickly as possible.  But apparently you said all the right things in your interview, you’re now “a man of the people.”

In using the parable of the prodigal son to make his point about the Church embracing sinners without question or call to conversion – one must assume, because that’s what we’ve heard from Francis since Day 1 – Farrell completely misconstrues the parable, which conversion and embrace by the Father was based on the son’s contrition and conversion. But that is not what Francis wants to do in handing out the Sacred Species of Our Blessed Lord in the Flesh without any visible sign of avoiding mortal sin, repentance, and conversion.

Doctrinal indifference has never attracted souls to the Church.  The last 50 years is hideous testimony to that fact.  The Church has grown and been most vibrant when Doctrine has been preached with clearly and with fervor, and when the corruption and laxity in the priesthood and other areas of the Church has been at a minimum. That’s exactly what the Counter-Reformation was about.  And, no, Francis is not drawing crowds larger or more fervent than his predecessors.  In fact, in many cases, they are far smaller than they have been in the past.

“We need a more loving, a more caring Church.”  Consigning souls to hell because of doctrinal laxity and even the promotion of heresy is the complete, total inversion of love.  It is a diabolical inversion of that, to be frank.

“We keep pushing rules and regulations all the time.  Well, none of us are good at following rules.  And perhaps we have emphasized rules and regulations to excess.”  I think the Cardinal-elect may have revealed a great deal more than he intended.

I’m out of time, but I covered most of what Farrell said.  He certainly knows exactly what to say to achieve his career objectives.  I grow less and less convinced, however, that those objectives have much at all to do with the good of souls.  Being charitable, perhaps he thinks he is willing the good of the Church as a material, worldly construct, but it’s not an approach to ecclesiology I think any of the Apostles would have recognized, or shared.  What comes through to me throughout – and this is a view shared by most prelates, that large majority heavily influenced by neo-modernism – is that the eternal destiny of souls is hardly considered, or, to the extent it is, Farrell believes virtually all souls are saved, and thus Doctrine really shouldn’t matter much.  Unfortunately, 2000 years of belief and practice, not to mention the clear guidance of Sacred Scripture, say he, and those many, many like him, are not just wrong, but damnably so.

I’m out of time, or I’d say more.  I don’t know who will replace Farrell in Dallas, I think we’ll be waiting for quite some time to come, but he’d have to be quite liberal indeed to surpass where Farrell is at right now.

h/t reader Richard Malcolm.  Thanks.

 

Comments

1. Richard Malcolm - November 18, 2016

Hello Tantum,

Thanks for the shout-out. But it gets even better: Consider the sharp remarks he aimed at Archbishop Chaput. Well, take a look at what Chaput said in response when he was interviewed by Catholic News Service:

“I wonder if Cardinal-designate Farrell actually read and understood the Philadelphia guidelines he seems to be questioning. The guidelines have a clear emphasis on mercy and compassion. This makes sense because individual circumstances are often complex. Life is messy. But mercy and compassion cannot be separated from truth and remain legitimate virtues. The Church cannot contradict or circumvent Scripture and her own magisterium without invalidating her mission. This should be obvious. The words of Jesus himself are very direct and radical on the matter of divorce.

“…Under canon law – not to mention common sense – governance of a diocese belongs to the local bishop as a successor of the apostles, not to a conference, though bishops’ conferences can often provide a valuable forum for discussion. As a former resident bishop, the cardinal-designate surely knows this, which makes his comments all the more puzzling in the light of our commitment to fraternal collegiality.”

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/NewsBriefs/Default.aspx?rssGuid=philly-archdiocese-releases-archbishop-chaputs-interview-with-cns-90671%2F

How one would love to be a fly on the wall when they ran into each other at the USCCB meeting. You could probably freeze grain alcohol with the new room temperature.

2. Richard Malcolm - November 18, 2016

P.S. You observe: “Yes, a bishop should certainly have a major pastoral role, but you were known throughout this diocese as an unreachable man who was rarely in town and who viewed duties like visiting parishes a hassle to be endured.”

I find it fascinating – and deeply ironic – how this seems to be a pattern with many FrancisBishops, for whom “pastoral” and “humility” seems reduced to advocacy of neo-Kasperite theology and driving one’s own car. The very same…concern was lodged about Archbishop Cupich regarding his tenure in Spokane and Rapid City, for example.

“The overall sense, expressed in varying degrees of detail, is that Cupich’s time in Spokane was quite disappointing and frustrating, especially for those looking for vibrant, clear, and accessible leadership. Those familiar with Cupich’s schedule and activities say that he was often out of the diocese for long periods of time, even more so than the amount of time Skylstad traveled while president of the USCCB. When Cupich was in the diocese, he was not readily available, rarely meeting with diocesan priests, especially not on an individual basis, although he apparently met often with certain, older Jesuit priests at Gonzaga.” http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/3684/A_Tale_of_Two_Bishops.aspx

I guess that didn’t make it into his dossier at the Congregation for Bishops. Or maybe it did, since he wasn’t on the terna in the first place, as I hear it.

3. DFW - November 18, 2016

At the parish where I attend Mass, the announcements re: Mass times for All Saints’ and All Souls’ days were basically the same. i.e. No reminder that All Saints’ is a Holy Day of Obligation. That seems to be the norm for this place. Also, why did parishes quit having vigil Masses for Holy Days the evening before ? The aforementioned parish doesn’t have them and they have two priests and multiple deacons as well as a number of people on parish staff. There are never as many Holy Day Masses as Sunday Masses so obviously no-one expects everybody to show up.

I would say that if people aren’t at Mass on Holy Days because of the rules, they’re not focusing as much on Jesus. I’m sure most people in their 20’s, 30’s, even 40’s probably don’t even know what a Holy Day is.

Richard Malcolm - November 18, 2016

Not surprising when your “evangelization” is effectively reduced to a welcoming smile, a hug, and charity for the poor. I exaggerate, but not by much: It’s well and good to go out “to the periphery,” but what are you actually bringing them? Are you preaching Christ Crucified? Are you trying to teach and sanctify them? The Church is not a social club or a charity relief. It is far more than that.

The Church in most of the West has been trying variations of this formula for fifty years. And you can see the results. Which includes very few of those 20-, 30-, and 40-something Catholics you mentioned in the pews.

4. docmx001 - November 18, 2016
5. Father B - November 18, 2016

What a ridiculous joke the Church has become under Pope Francis. I hope he will resign and that the next pope won’t be one of the Francis lackey cardinals.

6. dthy - November 18, 2016

What does he mean by “Focus on Jesus, not rules”? If we love Jesus we would want to obey His commandments. Mary said at Fatima, “Cease to offend our Lord, He is already so much offended”. That would mean obey the rules.

7. War of Words: Chaput Fires Back at Farrell | A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics - November 18, 2016

[…] we saw the unfortunate comments of former Bishop of Dallas, and now Cardinal-Elect, Kevin Farrell, singing the Francis tune for all its worth.  In the same […]

8. Magdalene - November 18, 2016

Oh, we are not good at following ‘rules’. And you know a lot of things are just ‘ideals’ that are just too darn hard for us! So lets glorify luther who also thought the same thing. ….
Except leading souls to hell or leaving them in sin and refusing to speak the truth because of human respect is NOT love by any stretch of the imagination. Rather it is sinful cowardice when the responsibility to speak the truth is present.

9. Margaret Costello - November 19, 2016

Very well written blog article…concise and to the point. Thank you for reminding all of us that sending people to hell via lax rules is the opposite of love. God bless~


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: