jump to navigation

Cardinal Farrell: Priests Have No Role to Play in Marriage Prep October 10, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, cultural marxism, Dallas Diocese, disaster, error, family, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

Hey, that cardinal’s hat wasn’t going to land on his head all by itself.  It had to be earned.  Kevin Farrell may not pray much, have a great depth of spirituality, or even know much theology, but he sure as heck know who the piper is, and what tune is being called.

There are actually two aspects to this report.  One is the outrageous statement made by former Dallas bishop and now Cardinal Farrell, and the other is how the Catholic media presented this statement, at least in the form of the headline.

To cover the claim, first:

Marriage ministry needs to be done by married couples because priests have “no credibility in this area,” Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, told a church gathering. [So, marriage is in the direct area of responsibility for Cardinal Farrell]

Delivering the keynote address to 500 delegates from the Diocese of Down and Connor at the Faith and Life convention in Belfast Sept. 30, Farrell discussed Pope Francis’ 2016 apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” (“The Joy of Love”) and appealed to parishes to establish study groups on the document and to train couples to teach, prepare, guide and accompany married couples. [Giving a talk to a large group of laity concerning “Faith and Life,” Cardinal Farrell chose to make a bold statement]

On the role of priests in marriage accompaniment and preparation, he said they had “no credibility when it comes to living the reality of marriage” even though they may know the principles, the philosophy and the theology. [This is manifestly incorrect.  Priests have the primary responsibility to train and form lay people in every aspect of life, but especially regarding the Seven Sacraments. More in a second.]

Speaking to Catholic News Service afterward, the Dublin-born former bishop of Dallas said parishes would have to be prepared to train laypeople for such a role, which he saw as a new model of accompaniment in line with the pope’s vision for the church…….[So is this really about what’s best for couples, or who provides the best catechesis, or is it about implementing an ideological agenda in the Church?]

……..Ministering by couples to couples is better done by “people who have walked in their shoes,” the cardinal said. He admitted he did not “have a clue” how to answer some of the questions on couples’ difficulties, which his own nieces and nephews had put to him. [Well that’s more the shame for you and your family, not to mention the Diocese of Dallas which you led for nearly a decade, and now the entire Church.  This claim is based on a logical fallacy, that only those who live an experience can speak sensibly on it. In point of fact, being buried knee deep in an experience can actually warp one to a point that making a sensible, helpful contribution on it is impossible – one is simply too close to the problem.  Even though Cardinal Farrell makes some statements about the laity needing to be trained, lay-led catechesis in the vast majority of the Church (re: Novus Ordo world) has been and remains a disaster.  Most laity are very poorly and narrowly educated, and what education they have received has been dominated by leftist/modernist suppositions.  It is very hard not to see this as yet another avenue by which to undermine the sanctity of marriage.  And, by the way, Cardinal, lay people have been doing the lion’s share of what a paltry excuse for “marriage prep” exists in the Church today.  Priests, largely sequestered in their offices as administrators and occasional “sacramental administrators,” have only rarely played a substantial role in marriage prep for decades.  Indeed, my wife and I received exceedingly poor marriage prep, consisting of two 1 1/2 hour meetings, from an old hippy couple in Austin, both divorced and remarried.  What shining example we received!  We didn’t learn diddly squat, except that sex is groovy and we should contracept.  There are exceptions to this sad practice, which has done so much already to undermine marriage in the Church, and turn American Catholics into creatures indistinguishable from the broader culture when it comes to marriage, and now you wish to visit the American/Western disaster upon the broader world (or has Cardinal Farrell so adopted his beloved leader’s ideology that he has convinced himself that it’s 1955 again, and mean old priests, casting poor divorced souls out of church left and right, refusing to hear their confessions, are giving lay people really severe, strict, morally impossible catechesis. What planet do these guys live on – or are their arguments really so weak they must create a straw man Church)?  Anyway,  those exceptions are far too rare, and generally concentrated in traditional parishes and the few brave, persecuted, orthodox Novus Ordo priests.]

“I have no experience of that and the majority of priests don’t have that experience,” Farrell said, noting that many of the married couples who attended the 2014 and 2015 Synod of Bishops on the family insisted that more lay couples be involved in marriage ministry. [Priests absolutely DO have, or CAN have, experience of a beautifully lived marital vocation, in the form of the witness provided by their parents!  This is where many great Saints and moral theologians, such as Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri, gained their experience, and it was sufficient to guide dozens of generations of married Catholics to sanctity.  It is only in this period of cold hearts and dead faith that the leadership of the Church find it necessary to invent all kinds of new failed programs to replace the old, successful ones, the ones that were given up for dead because they failed to “resonate with the new man.”  But the new man is the same as the old, it is only the faith of the new men in leadership which has failed.]

Well, we can certainly see that in Cardinal Farrell, Francis found the right man for his job of remaking the Church in his own image.

Now, if you’re like me, Cardinal Farrell was speaking quite boldly, even definitively.  He left no doubt that he feels that priests “have no credibility in this area.”  That’s a quite definitive statement.

So how did the Catholic press, especially Catholic News Service writer Sarah MacDonald, report this really remarkable declaration from Farrell?  Get this headline: “Prefect suggests couples can be better at marriage prep than priests.”  Hmmm.  Is that your takeaway from this?  That Cardinal Farrell suggested that priests could be better at marriage prep than priests? It read to me like he just came out and said it, like a bald statement of fact.

And so we see that fake news is not limited to the secular world!  That’s how you got Trump, Mzzz. MacDonald.

Beyond the differences, he is a Peronist Pope” – Lieutenant Governor of Buenos Aires, March 14, 2013, the day after Francis was elected Pope.

You’ll get one or two posts today, and like it!

Advertisements

Dallas Own “Ultraliberal” Cardinal Farrell Attacks Correctio Signers……. October 5, 2017

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Dallas Diocese, different religion, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Liturgy, persecution, Revolution, scandals, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

…….and thus serves his patron and master.  GloriaTV calls Farrell ultraliberal – an assessment I would have argued with once but not so much today (Farrell is a veritable weathervane for the ecclesiastical winds) – and notes his line of ad hominem attack against the signers of the Correctio Filialis:

Pope Francis “is not a heretic” according to the ultraliberal Curia Cardinal Kevin Farrell, 70. Taking to cruxnow.com on October 2, Farrell attacked the Filial Correction by launching personal attacks against the signatories rather than by responding to their arguments. According to him the signatories “use any excuse just to attack him [Francis].”

In response to the interview, one of the signatories, Deacon Nick Donnelly, states on twitter that Francis “is not accused of being a heretic, but of promulgating heresy”.

During a NCR-interview in 2016, Farrell insinuated that Amoris Laetitia has the same authority as the Bible, “Basically this is the Holy Spirit speaking to us.”

Please don’t tell me what good things Bishop Farrell did while he was here.  First, that was then, this is now, but even more, he did a heckuva lot of bad things like totally ghettoizing the TLM and even blocking priests from offering Mass partially in Latin, Ad Orientem, or basically anything that substantially improved the reverence of the Mass. And that’s only his malfeasance with regard to the Liturgy.  He did a few things better than his seminary but on the grand scale – and as we find out more and more after his departure – he was just what you would expect a creature of McCarrick would be.

I will say that there is scant difference between “promulgating heresy” and being a heretic.  I suppose one can maintain the pious hope that Francis is acting in ignorant innocence with his manifold attacks upon the ancient Faith (get ready for further attacks on the Liturgy and Communion for protestants!), but I believe the massive evidence we have accrued in less than 5 years indicates that invincible ignorance is out of the question.  I am also becoming increasingly aware of very poignant, pained, and emotional personal interventions made by good souls to Francis to amend his ways, but he has coldly and brusquely dismissed all of these.  Perhaps some of these will make it to print one day, unfortunately what I have learned is too much of hearsay and unsubstantiated to print.

For some good news, Cardinal Farrell maintains that his small advisory role at the  Apostolic Signatura will not prevent him from pursuing formal correction of Francis should the situation demand it:

The nomination as a member of the Apostolic Signatura is “not a full-time position”, Cardinal Raymond Burke told journalists on Monday. He will assist in the work and serve as a judge when asked to do so.

Burke further stated according to Vaticanista Edward Pentin, that the nomination will not change nor delay his plans to issue a fraternal correction of Pope Francis if he further declines to answer the dubia.

I’d say the time for that correction is now, good Cardinal Burke.  However, I can understand delay if you are having difficulty finding others to join you in this correction, though I suspect with the Correctio out there are gathering support, now is about as good as time as you will find.

Please pray for Cardinal Burke and all those who are working to stop the total dissolution of the Church.  They need much support for strength.  I am personally praying that more bishops – especially some active ones- will sign the Correctio and then join Burke in his own correction.  Where things go from there will be in God’s hands, but I pray the truth may see the light of day and the Lord’s will be done.

War of Words: Chaput Fires Back at Farrell November 18, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
comments closed

I’ll take practical schism for $400, Alex.

Yesterday, 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 interview, he also dropped some none-too-subtle criticisms of American prelates like Chaput who have made clear they will not be implementing false mercy for manifest adulterers, admitting them to reception of the Blessed Sacrament.  Farrell made clear he had wished Chaput and similar conservativish bishops had waited until the USCCB – a locus of administrative bureaucracy to the point of killing faith if I’ve ever seen one – had reached some common, watered down, soul-numbing policy all could agree to.

Well, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia has now fired back, wondering if Farrell even read his archdiocesan policy, claiming Farrell’s concerns were very far from the mark.  Given what I know of Farrell’s lack of what you might call thoroughness and intellectual persistence, and near total acceptance of the cultural conventional wisdom, I’d say it’s a fairly safe bet to conclude he not only hadn’t read the policy, but couldn’t care less.  Let’s see what Chaput had to say in rebuttal (my emphasis and comments):

Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput has fired back at Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell’s suggestion that his guidelines for implementing Pope Francis’ controversial Exhortation Amoris Laetitia are causing “division.”

“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,” the archbishop stated in comments emailed to LifeSiteNews.

Earlier this week, Farrell — one of Pope Francis’ most outspoken American supporters — said that he disagreed with Chaput issuing his own guidelines in his own diocese, stating that implementing the pope’s exhortation should be done “in communion” with all U.S. bishops. [Well.  So did Farrell similarly complain when the bishops of the Archdiocese of Buenos Aires chose to implement Amoris Laetitia according to Francis’ revolutionary intent, instead of waiting for a joint decision of all the bishops of Argentina?  Yeah…….we’ll see that about a month after hell freezes over]

But at the center of Farrell’s criticism appears to be Chaput’s insistence that the document be interpreted, as Chaput has previously stated, “within the tradition of the Church’s teaching and life.” Chaput’s guidelines unequivocally state that divorced and civilly remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion unless they “refrain from sexual intimacy.”

For Farrell, this is problematic.

“I don’t share the view of what Archbishop Chaput did, no,” the cardinal-designate told Catholic News Service on Tuesday. “I think there are all kinds of different circumstances and situations that we have to look at — each case as it is presented to us,” he said. “I think that is what our Holy Father is speaking about, is when we talk about accompanying, it is not a decision that is made irrespective of the couple.” [This is nothing but an apologia for excusing and ultimately ignoring sin.  This is exactly – I mean precisely, even to the use of the exact same words – the same argument put forth by the Currans and Drinans with regard to use of contraception in the late 60s and early 70s.  Contraception would only be for married persons, after a period of discernment and accompaniment, under the watchful eye of a priest.  Yeah……how has that worked out.  Exactly as they intended, that’s how, with Catholic use of contraception completely indistinguishable from that of the general population, and souls likely – almost certainly –  falling into hell like snowflakes]

But Chaput called Farrell’s criticism of his guidelines, and the fact that he issued the guidelines as a bishop acting in his own diocese, “puzzling.”

“Why would a bishop delay interpreting and applying Amoris Laetitia for the benefit of his people? On a matter as vital as sacramental marriage, hesitation and ambiguity are neither wise nor charitable,” Chaput said. [That’s the least of what could be said in rebuttal]

“I think every bishop in the United States feels a special fidelity to Pope Francis as Holy Father. We live that fidelity by doing the work we were ordained to do as bishops. 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. [Whatever] 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,” he added. [Maybe they aren’t so puzzling after all. Maybe the message is, you will comply, or else.  Perhaps not today, perhaps not tomorrow, but soon, there will be repercussions for “dissent”]

Chaput doubled down on his key for interpreting the exhortation, stating that any implementation that contradicts not only Sacred Scripture but the Church’s previous magisterial teaching is contrary to the mission of the Church given to her by Christ.

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,” he said.

Dang right.  Good for Chaput.  I’d rather it be said with a bit more emphasis, that the veil of false episcopal decorum be dropped entirely, but so be it.  He still made a very effective rebuttal.  Farrell can hardly respond save for appeal to authority – “bu- bu- but the pope said!”  That used to be all one had to say, but who knows what the future may hold.

 

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.
comments closed

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.

 

How to Buy a Cardinal’s Hat: Farrell Comes Out Hard for Amoris Laetitia October 17, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, attachments, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Wellity wellity wellity………the things we learn my little droogies.  I had sometimes scratched my rassoodok, wondering if perhaps I weren’t a bit too hard on our former Bishop Kevin Farrell.  Now, the evidence against him was really overwhelming, but I think most every Catholic who has a sense of fealty towards his ecclesiastical superiors does have an occasional doubt or two when he finds himself cross-ways with the man appointed to serve as his spiritual shepherd.

And Farrell had done some good.  The Fraternity parish, increase in vocations, end of the horrific run of scandals, getting the diocese’s funding situation in order, approving some orthodox lay people here and there for fairly influential assignments.  He could have been worse.  As I believe I fairly conclusively demonstrated late last week, Farrell started off his tenure probably a shade or two right of center but after March 2013 veered quite perceptibly leftwards.  What was his true inclination, if he even has one, other than parroting the opinions of the men he felt the need to please?

Well, if his first interview is any indication, I was not unfair at all in my appraisal of Farrell, and may well have even been more generous with him than I should have.  Amazingly, the Cardinal-Elect Prefect of Francis’ very powerful and influential new dicastery for the family gave his first major English-language interview to the National Heretic Reporter, and immediately launched forth on a very radical, and very combative, assessment of Amoris Laetitia, it’s doctrinal standing, and its role in the remaking of the Church.

I quote extensively from LifeSiteNews below, as there is quite a bit to unpack.  My emphasis and comments:

In a lengthy new interview, Bishop and soon-to-be cardinal Kevin Farrell said whether those in unions the Church labels adulterous may receive Communion is a “process of discernment and of conscience.” He says Amoris Laetitia “is the teaching of the Church,” comes from the Holy Spirit, and will be the “guiding document” of the new Vatican dicastery Pope Francis appointed him to head.

In August, Pope Francis named Farrell, the former bishop of Dallas, to lead the newly-formed Dicastery for the Laity, the Family and Life. The Pontifical Council for the Laity and to the Pontifical Council for the Family will be folded into this new dicastery. On Sunday, Pope Francis announced that Farrell had been named a cardinal along with two other U.S. bishops: Chicago Archbishop Blase Cupich and Indianapolis Archbishop Joseph Tobin (not to be confused with Rhode Island’s strongly pro-life Bishop Thomas Tobin).

The appointment of these three bishops as cardinals is a “seismic shift” in the American Catholic Church, according to Vatican expert John Allen Jr.,  because Farrell, Cupich, and Tobin belong “to the centrist, non-cultural warrior wing of the country’s hierarchy.” [We can see how far left Allen is, by his incredible definition of “centrist.”  By his standards, Chairman Mao was just a shade left of center]

Speaking to the National Catholic Reporter, long condemned for its open opposition to Church teaching, Farrell said, “I think that the document Amoris Laetitia is faithful to the doctrine and to the teaching of the church. It is carrying on the doctrine of Familiaris Consortio of John Paul II. I believe that passionately. Basically this is the Holy Spirit speaking to us.” [Regarding “carrying on the doctrine of Familiaris Consortio, such a comment is beneath contempt.  It is positively Orwellian in its inversion of the truth.  And apparently, Farrell assesses something as being from the Holy Ghost or not according to how well it aligns with his own ideological views]

………“I firmly believe [Amoris Laetitia] is the teaching of the church,” said Farrell. “This is a pastoral document telling us how we should proceed. I believe we should take it as it is.”

Farrell said he wasn’t necessarily saying the divorced and remarried should receive Communion.

“That’s a process of discernment and of conscience,” and a “journey,” he said. “The priest, the pastor needs to accompany people in difficult situations.” [This is EXACTLY the language the revolutionaries in the Church a generation ago used to obtain a practical apostasy on the subject of contraception and, to a lesser degree, abortion.  Charles Curran and his ilk used intentionally deceptive phrases, claiming contraceptive use could/would only be rightly used by solidly Catholic married couples after a process of discernment, guided by a priest, and only for very serious reasons.  Yeah, that lasted about 5 minutes.  Then it was all contraception, all the time, and, in fact, if you don’t contracept, you’re a bad Catholic, because look at how you are assaulting poor defenseless mother nature]

Farrell told the National Catholic Reporter the divorced and remarried should be included “in all the ministries of the church.”

In honesty, I am not surprised by this in the slightest.  This is precisely the kind of opinion I would expect both of a man so rapidly promoted by Francis, and given so important a new position.  I’m also completely unsurprised at what heterodoxy Farrell is all too happy to support, given the right reward.

What this does make clear is that this is both the required position Francis is demanding of ambitious men in the Church, and the vehicle by which a new stage of the social revolution is to be conducted.  I deliberately mentioned contraception above, because this reception of the Blessed Sacrament by manifest adulterers is an even more egregious affront to the Sovereign Lord.  These guys have no new tools, no new methods, just the same old lies they’ve trotted out for the last 50 years.  What they do have, however, is power, and the will to use it in unjust, even cruel manner.  Just as the FFIs and FSIs about that.

Enjoy your newchurch.  For me, I think the SSPX would be insane to accept the carrot of “regularization” at this time.  I also find it absolutely ludicrous that the SSPX can be held out to be irregular, while creatures like Farrell get to walk around pretending  to be the image of Catholic orthodoxy.  That is too great an affront to logic and decency for me to bear.

 

Bishop Farrell’s Doctrine Evolution in a Nutshell October 11, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I’m about to be stuck in the lab for the rest of the day, so enjoy this brief synopsis of Kevin  J. Farrell’s “evolution” in thinking over the course of his 8 1/2  years in Dallas.

First, that pretty fair voting guide he and Bishop Kevin Vann produced prior to the 2008 election, shredding the “seamless garment” and providing pretty clear guidance to Catholic voters (noting, however, even this could/should have been vastly better).

Next, a tweet from two months ago:

farrell_bergoglian

That’s courtesy Rorate.  No wonder I hate Twitter with such a passion.

Dang.  I’ve read all the Gospels like 7 or 8 times cover to cover.  I must really suck at reading comprehension.

Is that what you call closing the deal for a Secretariat and red hat?

Then of course there was the parish gun ban debacle, which, thank God, didn’t go as he expected (at all), then the 180 on immigration, then permitting Biden to receive Communion in the Diocese, then the liberalization of the ministry conference, then further mucking around with UD, then……

We all wondered, back in the day, who really was the impetus behind that voting guide, Farrell, or Vann?  I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

 

Dallas’ former Bishop Farrell Gets Red Hat October 11, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, different religion, disaster, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

I’ll admit, I was a bit shocked by the timing.  I’ve mentioned the wise local priest who more or less predicted the course of Bishop Farrell’s tenure here (in very broad, but accurate, strokes), and one additional thing he told me was that Dallas was viewed as such a hardship assignment after 17 disastrous years of administration by Charles Grahmann, and Bishop Farrell had such a golden boy aura about him, that his next sinecure would be a really plumb one, and would probably come with a red hat attached.  But he thought that would be several years down the road, not literally a few days after Bishop Farrell’s arrival in Rome.

Well, the ladder has been climbed.  I guess spending virtually no time as a parish priest has its rewards.

Snark aside, Bishop Farrell is, if nothing else, a relatively able administrator.  I think he could have done a very great deal more to reform and reorient this diocese in a much more successful and faithful direction, but apparently, the powers that be, be very, very pleased.  It is difficult to convey what a wreck he inherited here.  Grahmann was, as a commenter rightly noted, laying the groundwork for lay-administered Eucharistic services and basically priestless parishes a la Albany and Rochester (and Dallas was nearly in that league back in 2007 or so).  Farrell did stop that trend and emphasized the requirement for virtually all parishes (aside from some very small ones administered by priests from elsewhere) to have permanently assigned priests.  He also saw a number of relatively to strongly orthodox young men ordained, men who will one day form, it is fervently hoped, the backbone of a much improved clergy in Dallas.

It’s a bit interesting that Farrell gained his red piping along with a group that is widely viewed as exceedingly liberal, including two of the most liberal prelates in the US, Blaise Cupich and Joseph Tobin (not the relatively conservative Thomas Tobin of Providence, RI).  Just as interesting is who was passed over, again: Gomez, Chaput, and Vigernon, men who have led far larger dioceses for far longer than either Tobin or Farrell, and who serve in archdioceses almost always associated with a cardinal’s hat, historically.  But they are seen as conservatives, and thus out of fashion in this pontificate.  You can draw your own conclusions on where deep Church insiders view Farrell’s ideology/ecclesiology, since he was included in such a group.  He started out somewhat conservativish here, at least from a lay person’s perspective, but visibly swung liberal under Francis.  At least, that’s what I and my two friends think.

Pope Francis will conclude the Year of Mercy by creating 17 new cardinals, including three from the United States: Archbishop Blase J. Cupich of Chicago; Bishop Kevin J. Farrell, prefect of the new Vatican office for laity, family and life; and Archbishop Joseph W. Tobin of Indianapolis.

Announcing the names of the new cardinals Oct. 9, Pope Francis said, “Their coming from 11 nations expresses the universality of the church that proclaims and witnesses the good news of God’s mercy in every corner of the earth.”

The new cardinals — 13 of whom are under the age of 80 and therefore eligible to vote in a conclave to elect a new pope and four over 80 being honored for their “clear Christian witness” — will be inducted into the College of Cardinals Nov. 19, the eve of the close of the Year of Mercy.

The next day, Nov. 20, they will join Pope Francis and other cardinals in celebrating the feast of Christ the King and closing the Year of Mercy, the pope said……..

……..In creating 13 cardinal-electors — those under the age of 80 — Pope Francis will exceed by one the 120 cardinal-elector limit set by Blessed Paul VI. The number of potential electors will return to 120 Nov. 28 when Cardinal Theodore-Adrien Sarr of Dakar, Senegal, celebrates his 80th birthday.

The youngest of the new cardinals — who will be the youngest member of the College of Cardinals — is 49-year-old Archbishop Dieudonne Nzapalainga of Bangui, Central African Republic……..

………Seven of the 11 nations represented by the new cardinals did not have a cardinal at the time of the pope’s announcement: Central African Republic, Bangladesh, Mauritius and Papua New Guinea will now have cardinal-electors. Malayasia [are there a million Catholics in all of Malaysia?  There are not], Lesotho and Albania will be represented in the College of Cardinals, although their cardinals will be too old to vote in a conclave.

Here is the list of new cardinals in the order in which Pope Francis announced them:

— Archbishop Zenari, an Italian who is 70 years old.

— Dieudonne Nzapalainga of Bangui, Central African Republic, 49.

— Archbishop Carlos Osoro Sierra of Madrid, 71.

— Archbishop Sergio da Rocha of Brasilia, Brazil, who will be 57 Oct. 21.

— Archbishop Cupich, 67.

— Archbishop Patrick D’Rozario of Dhaka, Bangladesh, 73.

— Archbishop Baltazar Porras Cardozo of Merida, Venezuela, who turns 72 Oct. 10.

— Archbishop Jozef De Kesel of Malines-Brussels, Belgium, 69.

— Archbishop Maurice Piat of Port-Louis, Mauritius, 75.

— Bishop Farrell, 69.

— Archbishop Carlos Aguiar Retes of Tlalnepantla, Mexico, 66.

— Archbishop John Ribat of Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 59.

— Archbishop Tobin, 64.

— Retired Archbishop Anthony Soter Fernandez of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 84.

— Retired Archbishop Renato Corti of Novara, Italy, 80.

— Retired Bishop Sebastian Koto Khoarai of Mohale’s Hoek, Lesotho, 87.

— Father Simoni, 87.

Ever read The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, and descriptions of how European liberals co-opted possibly naive third-world bishops to back their agenda?

And the boyos continue to have outsize influence on the US episcopate.  Both Farrell and Tobin are Irish, and I wonder if Cupich isn’t, too.

Bishop Farrell Farewell Interview August 19, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, huh?, It's all about the $$$, sadness, secularism, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Via the Dallas Morning News, a farewell interview conducted with outgoing Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell.  I found two aspects of the interview quite starkly apparent – I’m sure  you’ll see what I mean below.  While the questions asked may have led the conversation in a certain direction, I was still struck by the lack of any mention of the supernatural/transcendent.  The other aspect I’ll flesh out a bit below.  BTW, I found the liberal Morning News’ headline unfair, as I’ll also discuss:

……..Farrell sat down for a conversation looking back at the changes in the Dallas diocese during his tenure — and assessing the needs his successor will face.

His responses have been lightly edited for clarity.

 

What did you do to assess the needs of the diocese?

“I spent my first three years traveling to parishes. I used to listen to people in the back of churches when they’d be going out of church on Sunday, and I would always stand and listen to them talk and they would complain to me about some things, and some were important.” [You guys here in Dallas remember seeing Bishop Farrell around parishes all the time, right, pretty much every Sunday?  Honestly, while there are 70 parishes in the Diocese, do you recall him at your parish more than once or twice, at most?  I have heard/read many, many complaints of Farrell’s lack of visibility/accessibility.]

“[But] I  never forgot after three or four years when I got an email from Plano, I won’t tell what parish, asking me, now that I’d been there for three years, when was I going to do something about the terrible condition of the parking lot at one of our parishes. People expected me to do everything and anything.” [Like defend the Doctrine of the Faith against heresy and immorality?]

What has changed in the diocese under your leadership?

“I believe that parishes work differently than they used to in many different aspects. I think I have brought lay people in to do the administration, overseeing everything that’s done.” [Is this supposed to be a good thing?  In my writing going back to the very beginning, lay staff have been one of the most consistent, gravest problems in the Diocese.  From Sister Rupp to Always Our Children, they almost always feature in some scandal or heartbreak]

“We have what we call the diocesan finance council. Here are lay men and women who are involved in all of what I would call the business aspect of the church, I have tried to get them to lead and take responsibility for doing that.  In our high schools, I have board of directors and boards of trustees that I have always tried to empower. To empower the laypeople to make the decisions, not me. I’m not atumblr_nwettqFiF21sztyb3o1_1280 businessman. I’m not even that interested in the business aspect. That’s not my thing and not my vocation. I may be mildly successful at it. But it’s not my desire, neither am I interested in it.”

What are the challenges your successor will face?

“Obviously the challenge we all face is the tremendous growth of this diocese. That is a challenge that will continue. I do hope I have recruited enough young people to enter the seminary over the years so that task will be a little easier. When I came here to the diocese, we had 17 people studying for the priesthood over at Holy Trinity Seminary. Today, we have at this moment 70.” [There is no question the seminary situation is far better than when Bishop Farrell arrived.  Now, there has been quite a bit of attrition in the seminaries, where a lot of guys drop out before ordination, but things were in a deplorable state under Grahmann and they’re now quite a bit better, but short of need, sadly.]  

“I did not open up many [Was MD the only one? Perhaps some nationality based ones?] new parishes for the specific reason that I didn’t have the staff to staff, the priest staff. I think that after about three more years, that will be alleviated, The diocese will start seeing some of these young men being ordained.”

What else will your successor need to focus on?

“I think the work of trying to integrate and trying to get our communities to work together. You have people on the north side of Dallas who have never been, who have no idea what the south of the Trinity River looks like.” [This is I guess where the DMN got their silly headline about “rich people getting out of their comfort zones.”  For those outside the area, the Trinity River acts as a sort of literal and figurative dividing line between North Dallas and South Dallas, “rich” Dallas and “poor” Dallas, although, more and more, the distinction has become blurred.  South Dallas historically has lacked investment.  I live in Irving but I technically live south of the Trinity. So that’s the reference.  As for Bishop Farrell’s statement……I again note that souls, salvation, conversion, rarely seem to enter in. Lots and lots of people I know go south of the Trinity regularly to visit/serve with the Carmelites and the Missionaries of Charity, or to go to the DFW National Cemetery.  This is rarely an issue for committed Catholics, for CINOs, maybe so]

How soon do you think Pope Francis will name your successor?

“I think it will be within two months after I leave. I know sometimes that can stretch out for a year. But it will not happen in a diocese as large as Dallas. We grow continually, from migrants coming from the north and immigrants coming from the south. “

Meh.  Again with the hints that a successor has all but been selected.  As a for instance, I can guarantee you Farrell knew he was leaving Dallas, going to Rome, and probably heading this dicastery months ago. Rome would not give a bishop only 2 weeks to wind up affairs in a diocese after nearly 10 years of leadership.  I guess we’ll see.

Well Godspeed Bishop Farrell, thank you for Mater Dei.  May your successor give true liberty to the TLM in the Diocese of Dallas.

Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell Given Huge Promotion, Transferred to Rome August 17, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, family, Francis, General Catholic, pr stunts, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
comments closed

Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell’s increasingly controversial tenure as Bishop of Dallas has come to an end.  He was appointed by Francis to head the important new Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life just created.  His transfer is effective in 2 weeks, which is really short notice, so we can expect that his effective tenure as Bishop of Dallas is over as of today, or perhaps, weeks ago. DMN coverage next, some commentary from me at the bottom:

Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell has been tapped for a position at the Vatican, where he will oversee a new department focused on the lives and families of ordinary Catholics around the world.

The promotion, effective Sept. 1, will make Farrell the highest-ranking American clergyman serving in the Vatican, the Diocese of Dallas announced Wednesday.

The move leaves an opening in Dallas, where Farrell has been bishop since 2007……..

…….Farrell said Wednesday morning that he was “extremely humbled” by the appointment and “grateful for the Holy Father’s confidence in me.” But, he said,  “I meet this news with mixed emotions.”

“Dallas has been my home for 10 years and, from the beginning, I quickly grew to love the beautiful people and culture here,” he said in a statement. “The strong faith, kindness and generosity of the people in the Diocese of Dallas surpassed all of my expectations.”

A diocese spokeswoman said a new bishop could be appointed as soon as October. Auxiliary Bishop Greg Kelly will lead the diocese in the interim.

Pope Francis chose Farrell to lead the Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life, a newly-created department that combines the responsibilities of two existing pontifical councils. It will be part of the Roman Curia, an administrative body that advises and helps the pope carry out the church’s affairs worldwide.

In his new role, Farrell, 68, will focus on the needs of lay people, regular Catholics who are not part of the clergy.

The reorganization comes as Pope Francis strives to make the Catholic Church more inclusive and efficient. [“Inclusive.”  That’s what Christ stressed all the time, wasn’t it?  He never said anything about bringing the sword of division, separating the wheat from the chaff, or anything like that. The redefinition of Jesus Christ along sexular pagan lines continues apace.]

The pope wrote that he created the new department so that the Roman Curia can effectively “respond to the situation of our times and adapt to the needs of the universal Church.”…….

…….The Diocese of Dallas saw an increase in vocations to the priesthood and raised $130 million during a landmark fundraising campaign under his leadership, said diocesan spokeswoman Annette Gonzales Taylor. [Well, just about any vocations would have been an increase from the total collapse of the seminary system and ordinations under the last decade or so of his predecessor.  Ordinations have averaged 3 or 4 a year under Farrell, much more than before, but not nearly enough to make up for the number of priests set to retire soon]

“We’re exceptionally proud, but we’re also exceptionally sad to be losing him,” Gonzales Taylor said Wednesday. “He’s just be an outstanding leader and, from my point of view, a wonderful boss. He’s going to be sorely missed.”……

…….Farrell’s new assignment will reunite him with his brother, Brian, who is also a bishop and the secretary of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

Farrell asked for prayers as he begins “this next unexpected chapter of my priesthood.”

“My God continue to bless the Diocese of Dallas,” he said.

In the end, Bishop Farrell’s tenure played out almost exactly as expected by many local observers when he was first named Bishop of Dallas in 2007.  It was widely expected then that he would not retire here, that he would be something of an interim or “caretaker” bishop.  Certain well-informed local priests expected him to spend 7 or 8 years (in reality, it was 9) addressing the myriad problems left by his predecessor Charles Grahmann and then be promoted to some dicastery in Rome, to finish out his career near his much-beloved brother.  This is exactly what happened.

In many material respects, Bishop Farrell’s tenure was a successful one – he got the Diocese out of debt after massive payouts to the survivors of priest sex abuse cases, and did somewhat improve the seminary and the number of priests being ordained, which latter had all but died under his predecessor.

I have already observed, I believe, how hard Bishop Farrell has changed direction under the current pontificate.  He has really tacked into the wind. Under Benedict Bishop Farrell was fairly conservativish, a bit “right” of center in the American episcopate.  Since, 2013, however, he seems to have drifted quite a bit in the other direction.

As a man, like so many bishops – though he was, it seems, an extreme case – he was very hard to get in front of.  He seemed to be constantly gone, or had others run very effective interference for him.  Even in public events, getting much more than a handshake and a smile from Farrell was all but impossible. Obtaining a meeting was apparently reserved for a select few (if any).  Even though he supposedly obtained a mansion for fund-raising, there are no reports of fundraisers actually being held there, to my knowledge.  Farrell tended to “rule” from behind the scenes and was certainly not above hiding behind bureaucratic subterfuge, as the Joyce Rupp/Dr. Rick Gaillardetz imbroglios, the twin issues that launched this blog in late 2009, showed.

Farrell was always assessed as a very political creature who would not be long in Dallas.  Benedict’s abdication probably kept him here a year or two longer than planned.  But now he has gotten his reward, a plum assignment, in Rome, near his brother, in which to ride out his career.  Many have speculated Bishop Farrell’s socially liberal policies of late (banning guns in all diocesan facilities – since repealed – strident support for unlimited Hispanic immigration, constant paeans on his blog to the new wisdom of Francis, taking up a crusade on domestic violence, etc) were perhaps related to a desire to seem in step with the new mood in Rome.  It is likely these later stands may have been more reflective of Farrell’s true beliefs, given his status as protege of the very troubling Cardinal McCarrick, and may well serve as indicators of why Farrell was chosen for this very important new office.

Of course, I pray for Bishop Farrell’s success in his new duty and that he may use this apostolate for the good of souls and of Holy Mother Church, which could have a huge impact on the life of the Church. As to how Bishop Farrell will conduct himself in this new role, he has always been a very good soldier, knowing who he needs to please and how to do it.  I was not the only one to notice what seemed a fairly substantial change in Bishop Farrell’s rhetoric and pastoral emphasis after March 2013.  Remember his joint statement with former Ft. Worth Bishop Vann on the USCCB’s 2008 “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” staking out a very welcome and clear guidance with respect to the life issues trumping all others in determining who Catholics can support, electorally (pretty much wiping out legitimate support for democrats)?  Could you imagine him releasing such a document, today?

We also eagerly await the naming of his replacement, which comes at such a critical juncture for this diocese.  If Bishop Farrell was something of an interim crisis recovery expert,  it was similarly expected that his replacement would likely be much younger and here for a very long time.  It is thus vital to pray for this new bishop, conducting Rosary crusades and other prayer efforts, even outside the chancery itself, to show our filial obedience and spiritual communion with out present and future ordinaries, while imploring God that they be men worthy of the name, Catholic bishop.  Please also pray for Bishop Farrell, that the Grace of Jesus Christ may guide and direct all he does according to the Truth revealed and practiced by the Church for over 1900 years in his very important new role.

Amazingly, with the sacking of Cardinal Burke, this new appointment makes Bishop Farrell the highest ranking “American” (he’s Irish, but served most of his apostolate in the US) in the Curia.  That’s something that sort of makes one go “gulp.”

A few other interesting notes from Rocco Palmo:

……the Vatican statement announcing the move conspicuously did not include Farrell’s elevation to the rank of archbishop, which has always been customary practice for appointments of this kind……

…….Third, he enjoys close ties and clear goodwill among four prominent figures in Francis’ orbit: having served as vicar-general and auxiliary of Washington under Cardinals Theodore McCarrick and Donald Wuerl until his southern transfer, the sister of the ever-influential head of Francis’ “Gang of 9,” Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, lives in Dallas, [Yikes] while the work that brought him to DC to begin with saw him succeed then-Bishop Sean O’Malley as director of the capital’s Centro Catolico Hispano, which the Capuchin founded a decade earlier as Latinos began to arrive in the city en masse, only leaving the role on his appointment to the Virgin Islands……..

…….Lastly for now, as some fireworks are bound to ensue in the top rank with the appointment for a now-vacant Dallas church – where Farrell was already laying the groundwork to receive another auxiliary – it bears recalling that, with the new Prefect to be aided by three Secretaries for each of the new office’s areas of competence, the legislation establishing the Dicastery provides that (in a first for a top Curial organ) the lead deputies need not be clergy, but may likewise be named from among religious or the laity.

Yes, I’m certain that for this new Dicastery for the Laity, Francis has found his man.

And here I thought I would have nothing to blog on today.

Dallas Bishop Farrell Links Brexit to Sin, Societal Upheaval June 28, 2016

Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Interior Life, mortification, scandals, secularism, Society, the struggle for the Church, Virtue.
comments closed

What do you make of this?  It’s a bit all over the map, but I found the connection between the British vote to leave the EU, and major evils like social upheaval and wanton avarice rather tenuous, at best.

Via Bishop Farrell’s personal blog (emphasis in original, my comments):

“The gods of disorder and upheaval enjoyed a busy night.”  This headline in The New Yorker Today online referring to the Brexit election caught my attention. Sometimes it seems like forces of turbulence and upheaval are prowling our world sowing fear and disorder among us. The Middle East is aflame, Europe is awash with hundreds of thousands of displaced persons seeking refuge [displaced persons?  Please.  It’s a veritable invasion by primarily military age men, from places where there is no ongoing warfare or anything else. Talk about motivation by greed, what is 2 million men abandoning their jobs and families to get rich off the backs of European taxpayers called?] , the European Union is threatened, Christianity is under attack, terrorism is increasing and even the weather has become hostile. Who or what is the maleficent force behind this plague on our planet? [The weather is doing what the weather has always done. In point of face, we happen to be blessed to live in a relatively temperate period, not an ice age or a period of far above average heat.  It has been far hotter on average, globally, many times in the past, than it is at present, in spite of the warmist propaganda.  And how on earth is the European Union being “threatened” somehow an indication of upheaval?!?  Is Bishop Farrell unaware that EU technocrats just today floated a plan to completely destroy the remaining shards of national law and identity and impose an overarching European army, government, courts, etc, abolishing all national entities?!? Talk about being tone deaf.]

In the words of Pogo, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” The ancient Romans and Greeks would indeed have attributed such times of tribulation to angry gods. Today, we know the real culprit is human greed, avarice and covetousness. Yes, just like all those things mentioned in the Ten Commandments. [In other words, sin?  Does sin not displease God?  Is it not, in fact, the very worst thing in the Universe?  How can Bishop Farrell be so sure some of the evils afflicting us are not chastisements from God for a sick and failing Church, unworthy leaders, and mass sin and apostasy?!?]

You will recall that Scripture identifies the Original Sin as our desire to be like gods (Gen. 3:5). Stop and reflect for a moment. Each of the occurrences that I have mentioned finds its ultimate cause in human greed or avarice often manifested in a desire for power……..[I find it odd that the Brexit vote is being tied into blandishments against sin]

…….Ideas, individuals, programs, projects, political parties, proposals even laws of the land are demonized, regardless of their merit, so that they may be targeted for destruction with greed, avarice and power often the underlying justification. [Who exactly is doing the demonizing here?  This post by Bishop Farrell is directly in response to the Brexit vote?  And yet he is strongly linking that vote with only wanton, selfish concerns, instead of very reasonable concerns regarding national sovereignty, national identity, unconstrained illegal muslim immigration, and an unelected and repressive technocracy installing a more and more oppressive regime of tyranny at every turn?  St. Luke iv:23 comes to mind]

The anti-venoms for disorder and upheaval caused by greed and avarice are the common good, love, compassion, consideration and mercy toward others…..

Those are all, certainly, wonderful things, but impossible for humans to reliably maintain in practice absent the Grace of God.  That is because Original Sin and our own actual sins have so disfigured our souls and poisoned our intellects that, absent God’s Grace, man is, in general, incapable of not acting sinfully, selfishly.

Why is the focus so horizontal, so much on the plane of the natural and the human, instead of the supernatural and Divine? I would argue that “the anti-venoms for disorder and upheaval” are prayer, penance, and the Sacraments.  It is by them that we receive the Grace of God that makes truly effective love, compassion, consideration, and mercy possible.

Love and even compassion can become disordered when disconnected from the Truth of Jesus Christ and His Church, and living in accord with the moral order they established.  Far better than counseling human emotions would be a cry to turn towards God in the ways He has shown are most pleasing to Him.  I would argue that in point of fact, the world and certainly our nation are cursed by God, for the evils we have enshrined in law as supposed “goods.”  The very evils Bishop Farrell identifies, islamic invasion, cultural and moral collapse, and even a badly confused and failing Church are all signs not of God’s blessing, but of His curse.

But, alas, declaring such might be too radical, too against the ingrained interests of the dominant culture, for some people to countenance.  And so, it falls to lowly bloggers, instead of esteemed bishops, to make these “extreme” points.

Fisk concluded.  And I didn’t even mention Bishop Farrell claiming people can walk into a gun show and come out with a fully automatic weapon without a background check or even showing ID!  What I want to know is, where the heck is this gun show?!?  Somalia?  Cuz it sure ain’t in the US.  Obtaining a fully automatic weapon is a minefield of regulations and a good way to commit a felony.  Was the gun made before ’86?  Was it made in the US or in a foreign country?  If the latter it has to have been made prior to ’68.  So we’re talking about 50 year old guns, in many cases.  The only way to obtain a post-1986 automatic weapon is to be an FFL (gun dealer) and get a letter from local law enforcement requesting a demo for that particular type of firearm.  If the FFL allows his license to expire, he must give up the gun, and it must be destroyed.  ALL automatic weapons must be registered with the ATF and a $200 tax paid.  So, Farrell was just quoting some totally unfounded ignorant anti-gun propaganda in his post.  That’s because most anti-gun nuts are completely ignorant of the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon.