Tagle to Replace Muller at CDF, Francis Grooming His Ideal Successor? February 24, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
A lot of people hold the pious hope that this Francis phenomenon will simply be a short lived nightmare, a sort of slumbering return to the horrifying days of the late 60s and 70s before we wake up and get back to “normality,” meaning something more conservative-ish like JPII and Benedict (leaving aside how much these two pontiffs leave to be desired compared to, say, a Gregory XVI or Leo XIII, let alone a Pius V).
I have been trying to steel folks in my inner circle – and, to some degree, readers of the blog – to the fact that Francis and those who elected him are not at all satisfied with a trip down memory lane to their salad days as bead wearing long haired hippy revolutionaries in the Church. They mean to make the revolution they’ve always sought permanent. Even though Francis has behaved almost frenetically in trying to impose this agenda, he’s old and his pontificate could end at any moment. More importantly, he could be replaced by someone sane and possessed of a Catholic sensus fidei, and the dream would go into remission, again.
Unless, of course, they can so arrange things that Francis is simply the first of an endless line of progressive pontiffs who will “sing their new church into being.” Rorate holds similar concerns, as expressed below, considering the rumors that arch-liberal Cardinal Tagle of Manila is going to replace Cardinal Muller at the CDF and thus have a powerful resume for the next conclave:
To the recent reports from other sources that Cardinal Müller has already offered his resignation from CDF, Rorate can now add, from its own very well-placed sources, that there is a plan at the highest levels to replace Müller as Prefect of CDF with no less than the Asian “Pope Francis”, the man seen by many as Francis’ dauphin, Luis Antonio Cardinal Tagle.Müller, appointed Prefect in July 2012, has been effectively marginalized in the past years over the Family Synods and most importantly over Amoris Laetitia. Questions about his future in the Roman Curia have been persistent through the years. It remains to be seen whether he will eventually be sent back to Germany to take the still-vacant see of Mainz (traditionally a red-hat see), or be tossed to a ceremonial position, or whether, like Stanisław Cardinal Ryłko last year, he will simply be retired long before turning 75.Tagle’s own theological oeuvre is very thin and his academic reputation rests mainly on the essays he wrote as part of the Bologna School’s History of Vatican II. It is his slick promotion by the mainstream Catholic media, his reliably progressivist views (couched in “moderate” language) coupled with his stint at the International Theological Commission and the patronage he received from Joseph Ratzinger, first as CDF Prefect then as Pope, that have combined to give him an aura of learning far beyond what is supported by his real output. His election as President of both the Catholic Biblical Federation (in 2014) and Caritas International (in 2015) and his designation as one of three Delegate Presidents of the Extraordinary Synod of 2014 further guaranteed his prominence in the universal Church.Should this latest plan come to pass, Cardinal Tagle, who will turn 60 in June, will have an enviable “CV” for a conclave frontrunner: a long stint (more than 15 years and counting) as diocesan bishop then archbishop, followed by a stint as head of a Curial dicastery.
Coup Complete? Knights of Malta Condom Chancellor Claims Cardinal Burke “De Facto” Suspended February 22, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, asshatery, Basics, contraception, cultural marxism, disaster, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, persecution, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, Society, the struggle for the Church.
A bit more data on the attempts to reduce Cardinal Burke’s formal role and thus influence in the Church, the notorious Albrecht von Boeselager, the man at the center of the controversy within the Knights of Malta for his involvement in the distribution of condoms, has claimed that Cardinal Burke is “de facto” suspended. Well, it’s certainly clear that at this point, with his dismissal by Francis from his former post as Cardinal Patron of the order, Cardinal Burke lacks any clear apostolate or formal role in the Church. He’s also, of course, been shuttled off to Guam. Francis intervened decisively in Boeselager’s favor, not only reinstating a man who had taken gravely immoral actions entirely contrary to the Doctrine of the Faith, but deposing the former leadership of the Knights and instituting direct Vatican control over what had been, throughout its 500 year history, always a lay-led and run organization.
That’s what you call a decisive intervention. There are many prurient reasons for this intervention, not the least of which being the Boeselager’s wealth and their involvement in the often corrupt Vatican bank, but don’t think the issue of contraception did not play a significant role. I’m quite certain it did. In fact, this entire issue may have been orchestrated in order to further isolate and ostracize Cardinal Burke, the most effective leader to date of opposition to Francis, at least publically among the episcopate. The report, via LifeSiteNews:
The Knights of Malta official at the center of controversy over the Order’s Catholic identity and sovereignty says its patron, Cardinal Raymond Burke, has been “de facto” suspended.
Albrecht von Boeselager, a German aristocrat, was removed from his post as Grand Chancellor on the grounds that he violated his promise of obedience. He hadn’t submitted to his superiors’ request that he resign after it was revealed he had overseen the distribution of contraception in the developing world. The Catholic Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil.
After Boeslager’s removal caused a kerfuffle, Pope Francis personally stepped in, reinstating Boeselager to his former position. The pope also asked Grand Master Matthew Festing, the order’s highest-ranking official who had removed Boeselager, to resign. This was unusual because the order of Malta is a sovereign state. [It’s also the first time such a demand – and it was a demand, done under great pressure, not a request – has ever been made in the 500 year history of the order.]
The pontiff then appointed a “papal delegate” to run the order.
In comments translated by The Tablet, Von Boeselager told the Archdiocese of Cologne’s website, domradio.de, that delegate Archbishop Angelo Becciu is now fulfilling Cardinal Burke’s role.
Becciu “has the full confidence of the Pope and is his spokesman,” von Boeselager said. [Gee, you figure?] “That means that Cardinal Burke as Cardinal Patron of the Order is now de facto suspended.” [Is that, suspended as Cardinal Patron, or suspended in a more general sense?]
Von Boeselager said it’s a “completely unfounded accusation” that Pope Francis undermined the Order’s sovereignty by demanding Festing’s resignation. [This is BS. All other reports have indicated Francis went on one of his epic tirades when Festing was summoned to the Doma Sancta Marthae and insisted on a most groveling “resignation” on the spot, directing Festing to blame Burke for the entire affair. But spinners gonna spin]
“The Pope acted at the Order’s wish and he took great care that the Order’s sovereignty was in no way violated or impaired,” [as he unprecedentedly violated a sovereign order’s sovereignty] he said. “He asked the Grand Master to step down, his resignation was carried out according to the Order’s regulations and was accepted. The appointment of the Holy Father’s delegate is expressly limited to the spiritual side of the Order and has nothing to do with its activities as a sovereign power.”
We shall see what further action is taken against Cardinal Burke. With this most vindictive and ideological of Bishops of Rome, there is no chance he’s done trying to humiliate him and break his influence.
Something tells me these efforts will backfire, however.
Bad News on All Fronts With Francis February 16, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, different religion, disaster, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church.
Maybe not ALL fronts, but on many, anyway. Because I haven’t had time to post much thanks to 3 days of truly interminable meetings (which are, Deo Gratias, now done), I’ll just post a roundup of many of the troubling items that have broken just in the past few days. Much of this may be old news, but sometimes the gravity of things really sinks in when items are compressed together.
First up, last week it was revealed that Francis – in a truly revealing move, as if we needed more revelation of his extreme ideological predilections – had decided to attack “restorationist” religious orders with numerous vocations at a meeting of heads of religious orders last fall, because being a Jesuit, he knows that the only purpose of a religious order is to grow old, modernist, corrupt, and decadent, prior to ending with a pathetic whimper:
Pope Francis has stated that the rise of new religious institutes that attract numerous religious vocations “worries” him because they often promote “rigidity.” Francis denounced new traditional religious orders as “Pelagians,” who want a return to asceticism and penance.
In an obvious reference to the Legionaries of Christ, he called young people in traditional orders “soldiers who seem ready to do anything for the defense of faith and morality, and then some scandal emerges involving the founder [male or female].”
“So, do not put hope in the sudden, mass blooming of these Institutes,” he added.
“When they tell me that there is a congregation that draws so many vocations, I must confess that I worry,” he said during the closed-door meeting with 140 Superiors General of male religious orders and congregations that took place November 25. The transcript of the unscheduled Q&A was published this week by the leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera.
Asked about how to fire the hearts of young people for the cause of the Gospel, the pope turned his focus to the training of “seminarians and future priests.”
Francis said that in priests’ training the “logic of black and white” that “can lead to abstract casuistry” must be avoided. [Anytime you see a Church official use the term “casuistry” in a pejorative sense, run, screaming, in the other direction. This is code speak for hatred of doctrinal clarity.]
“Discernment, meanwhile, means moving forward through the gray of life according to the will of God. And the will of God is to be sought according to the true doctrine of the Gospel and not in the rigidity of an abstract doctrine,” he said.
Asked what should be done about the plummeting number of vocations to the priesthood, the pope said that while the decline “worries me” he is also worried about the rise of new traditional religious orders.
“Some are, I might say, ‘restorationist’: they seem to offer security but instead give only rigidity,” he said. [Yes, we know how you feel about us. You’ve made that abundantly clear.]
I would just add that, coupling this attitude with Francis’ move last fall to reserve approval for most new religious institutes to the holy see, instead of local ordinaries as has been the case for hundreds of years, this kind of mentality has chilling prospects for the formation of new traditional religious orders, and the future of those which are already extant.
Next, in a move that just made be burst out in laughter because it is so predictable, Francis has banished good Cardinal Burke to Guam, at least for the time being (although there are unconfirmed reports that Cardinal Burke had recently started clearing his schedule of planned events going out months). That’s about as far as one can possibly get, geographically, from Rome. I would imagine Francis will soon name Burke apostolic nuncio to Antarctica next:
The Vatican has sent conservative Cardinal Raymond Burke to the Pacific island of Guam to investigate an important case of sexual abuse, dispatching a seasoned jurist who has clashed repeatedly with Pope Francis for a sensitive mission halfway around the world.
The Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith back in October named Burke the presiding judge in its trial of Guam Archbishop Anthony Apuron, who is facing multiple allegations of sex abuse of altar boys in the 1970s, the Vatican press office said Wednesday. Apuron has denied the charges and has not been criminally charged.
Possibly related – Bishop Michael Byrnes, formerly Auxiliary of Detroit, was recently appointed co-adjutor archbishop of Guam in a move some saw as a further de-conservatizing of the US episcopate. Tiny Guam is apparently to get some all-star episcopal representation due to its fortuitous geographical location? You can read more analysis and speculation on this development here at One Peter Five.
Finally, and most troubling, the generally quite reliable Hilary White is reporting that some major shoe in the progressive-modernist Franciscan agenda is to drop this fall. She thinks Vatican III will be called, but I doubt it. I think there will be a proclamation regarding deaconessesseses, paving the way for fake priestesses later. Add in perhaps a repeal of the discipline on married priests. White also reported close contacts between Francis and the now never to happen Hillary Clinton administration. The source for this is an unnamed Roman priest, so take it for what you will:
The Catholic TwittFace world is popping and sparking and buzzing and sizzling with this, like an Italian electrical socket.
This anonymous blog in Italian, clearly based in Rome, is the latest coolest thing among the Rome Vatican-watchers. There. Y’all’re running with the cool kids now!
So far we’ve only had it in crappy Google-translate English. But a friend has helpfully helped to clarify the details with a good translation from the Italian original.
Let me tell you a story. Last Thursday, in a coffee bar in front of the Porta S. Anna (facing Vatican City) a Monsignor (very close to Bergoglio) in his 50s and a layman go for a coffee. The discussion turns to the “dubia”.
The Monsignor, with an “enough” says: “The Pope will never answer the “dubia” of the 4 Cardinals. He will never lower himself to their level. Francis has much bigger plans, which do not stop with Italy. The only hitch during this period has been the election of Trump.”
To which the layman replied: “And what has Trump got to do with Amoris Laetitia?”
“He has everything to do with it” replied the Monsignor, continuing: “the aim was to back Clinton, because she has a special relationship with Francis. They’re in frequent contact. And the goal to be reached was that the Catholic Church was to rehabilitate certain “non negotiable” principles in a soft manner, in such a way that the Vatican too would have had strong global political support, which is needed at this time, above all for the big manoeuvres which are coming.”
About this we must agree with the great Assange… read here …
The layman even more amazed says: “And which manoeuvres are coming?”
The Monsignor sips the last drops of coffee and says: “But have you still not understood that the vision which you have of the Church has been left behind?
“…But do you not understand that today the Pope is a world leader? That had Ratzinger stayed we’d all be finished. Do you know what the next manoeuvre will be? Precisely the diaconate for women. Because it’s the only way to show our concrete closeness to the Lutherans and Anglicans. And you will see that by November we will have the diaconate for women.Not of course identical with what you think. But it will come very close.”
If this is remotely accurate – and there is much external evidence to confirm that something along this line is in the works – we see the plan unfolding. Francis will re-make the Church into an inoffensive, completely neutered global NGO ak in to the disintegrating Anglican “Communion” with the backing of worldwide political power to squash whatever opposition emerges in the Church (opposition which, to date, has been depressingly weak and ineffective). All the “offensive” parts of the Gospel will be removed – or rendered mute and pointless – in the interest of worldly political power and the approval of men. If this is true, mass opposition must be the result. But judging by the reaction to the atrocities that have gone before, I have little hope it will materialize.
More from the Italian priest, “Fra Christoforo:”
Now let us take a moment to reflect. Saint Peter’s Square is by this point almost always empty (and ‘Tv 2000’ only films that small group of people crowded together in front of the window.)[This is true. EVERYONE I know who has gone to Rome has managed to get quite close to Francis. This would not be possible were the square thronged with tens of thousands of people.] What do the faithful matter to Bergoglio? From the contents of this conversation it can be inferred that the Argentinean has plans much broader than evangelisation. Often and willingly he has said that evangelisation is a form of proselytism, which is not OK. Just recently he even said that he is worried that in certain congregations there are many vocations.
There you are. He seeks only himself. He seeks to keep the spotlights on himself, and not to tread on anyone’s toes, because he is the LEADER.
And Jesus Christ does not concern him. How unlike St Paul. The Apostle to the gentiles said “we are become as the refuse of the world” (1 Cor 4,9-13) precisely because in first place he put evangelisation. Bergoglio instead, to the prejudice of Christ and of the salvation of souls, wants the first place for himself.
Dear readers, this is the reality. And in a week there will be more appalling news. But I won’t anticipate the press releases.
Some final thoughts from Miss White, including her prognostication about what this “appalling news” will be:
And the question about the “bomb” Perp Francers is preparing for the “whole world” is running around Rome journalist circles. Everyone seems to be talking about “the big one,” though no one knows exactly what it’s supposed to be.
Personally, my money’s on an Ecumenical Council. Vatican III that his buddy Kasper has wanted all these years. But if this is true, there is an even bigger question. Councils aren’t just a happy little get-together. They always have a stated goal. They are called for particular ends.
It might be a good idea to ask ourselves, what could Jorge Mario Bergoglio want badly enough to call an Ecumenical Council to get?
I think the synodal process proved to this point that a), he doesn’t need a council/synod to achieve his goals, and b), in spite of his best efforts to pack the court, so to speak, councils and synods work as a gathering place for opponents as much as they do for supporters. At a general council, while the opponents might be in the distinct minority, there would still be enough to raise a serious stink and possibly block some of the more extreme proposals. Thus, this bomb, if it materializes, will not involve a council or another synod, but simply an “executive order” a la Obama. Progressives despise democracy, anyway (or even the false impression of democracy), and would rather rule as an autocrat.
But I could be wrong. We’ll see, but I suspect the bombs being dropped will simply come down as orders from on high from the Argentinian publicly occupying the Chair of Peter.
Hatred Much? Pro-Abort University Staffer Calls for Rape of Pro-Lifer(s) February 13, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, asshatery, Basics, disaster, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, unadulterated evil.
Because they’re all about visualizing whirled peas. Yes, please do continue to manifestly demonstrate that all your high-minded rhetoric of the past has been naught but pleasant sounding claptrap to advance your noxious agenda and never-satiated quest for power.
A Purdue University staffer was in an online exchange with a local pro-lifer, and called for her to be violently raped because she holds is such an adherent of badthink. Doubleplusungood, Outer Party Member 8954324!! Off to the Miniluv for you!
This kind of completely unhinged rant, this reduction of fellow human beings to below the level of garbage, has become an epidemic of late. Overwhelmingly, the extremists are on the far left side of the political spectrum. People are becoming more and more brazen in their willingness to demonstrate the utter contempt with which they view many others, simply for holding differing views. Far too many have been so inculcated into an ideological bubble that neither seeks nor allows any dissent that when confronted with a radically point of view – even one abundantly supported by massive evidence, such as the ongoing practical genocide against black babies on the part of the abortion industry – they react with unmitigated hatred and hostility.
Ace is calling for a national, dispassionate divorce. More and more, that seems a far happier outcome than what increasingly appears to be in the offing, rampant violence in the streets with numerous uninvolved/innocent individuals being caught up in the nightmare:
A Purdue University staff member is being investigated after he allegedly threatened to rape pro-life women during an online debate about the campus pro-life club’s recent campaign.
The Purdue Students for Life group has been facing a heavy backlash this week after its members put up posters around campus that focused on how the abortion industry targets black women and their unborn babies for abortions. In coordination with Black History Month, the campaign posters read “Hands Up, Don’t Abort” and “Black Children are an Endangered Race” and included the hashtag #BlackLivesMatter. [That is pretty hardcore and in your face, but the facts eminently support the claim. Nearly half of all black babies conceived are murdered in the womb. In some locales like NYC the number is closer to 2/3. That is very nearly genocide, and something of which the vast majority of the population, especially millennials carefully propagandized within the education industrial complex, are wholly unaware. But what is being called for here is the END of the slaughter of blacks. It is somehow racist to desire more black babies to live? Does everything seem totally upside down?]
On Monday, a small group of pro-abortion students and faculty held a sit-in protest during the pro-life club’s meeting and demanded an apology, LifeNews reported.
Then on Wednesday, the team at Students for Life reported the discovery of a violent threat against pro-lifers by Purdue staff member Jamie Newman. Newman reportedly called for the rape of pro-life women in an online comment on Live Action News.
According to Students for Life, Newman used his Disqus account “jamiegnewman” to post the following comment:
Oh, I’m sorry. So, let me make my intentions quite explicit: I did in fact offer to rape Tom’s wife/daughter/great grandmother. Free of charge, even. I’m generous that way.
Here’s the number for the West Lafayette Police Department: 765-775-5500. Here’s the number for the local FBI office: 765-435-5619. Drop that dime! I could strike at any minute
*giggles* (like a girl) [Oh, so brave. Such an online strong man. See the photo of this brawny alpha male below.]
……..Newman also allegedly posted two comments on Feb. 4, according to screen shots by Students for Life:
You folks are vile, racist idiots, who richly deserve all the opprobrium that will be heaped on you as a result of this unbelievably thoughtless, stupid escapade. That you are seemingly incapable of appreciating the moral, legal, and social differ[ences]…
“And that you should have pulled this stunt at the beginning of Black History Month suggests you are are either epically cluless or profoundly malicious. So which is is – embarrassingly dumb or simply evil?
Across the country, and I believe Purdue has been a part of this, young men have been booted off campus through kangaroo courts that find them guilty of “rape” upon nothing more than an accusation from an aggrieved and frequently unhinged woman, frequently months if not years after the alleged act. This persecution of males was instigated through threatening communiques from the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice, which threatened to pull federal funding from colleges that did not implement an extremely aggressive persecution of males anti-rape policy.
So, has Purdue applied this same kind of draconian policy to this leftist staffer? I mean, here we have an actual threat of rape. If this were a male student having made this threat, he would be gone. There would be no “due process” or “investigation,” both of which are entirely lacking for most young men unjustly booted off campus for “hooking up” with the wrong unsettled woman.
See how they respond:
The university said it is investigating Newman and his alleged threats of sexual assault against pro-lifers. Local news station WLFI reports police also are investigating.
Purdue Assistant Vice President for Strategic Communications Julie Rosa told Campus Reform: “Obviously, a threat of rape is outside the bounds of any definition of protected speech. Due process requires that, before taking any action, we verify the alleged facts and give this staff member the chance to explain himself if he can. Needless to say, the statements, as alleged, are reprehensible and unacceptable in the eyes of the entire Purdue community.”
Hundreds of young men were given no chance to explain themselves, were provided with no counsel, and could not even cross-examine or challenge their user’s claims. Contradictory evidence supplied by the accused is often thrown out.
But we all know that we live in a two-class society, where members of one of the left’s approved classes – and especially its (at present – this will change) darlings, the academia – get special rights and privileges, while the rest of us get the full measure of the law and whatever extrajudicial punishment the societal elites (almost all of them within the left-wing spectrum) feel moved to dole out. This can include total social ostracization, the ruining of careers, if not actual criminal prosecution and jail time. All for holding wrongthink.
People will not stand for being treated as inferior, second class citizens. And the other side has, over decades, painted itself into an intellectual and emotional corner where it cannot see those outside their narrow ideological worldview as anything but. That’s why I keep alluding to this not ending well. I pray to God I’m wrong.
The awesomely hulky and overbearingly masculine Mr. Newman:
In my experience, the wimpier, more ineffectual, and more effeminate a person knows he is, the more prone to online threats they are. But we’ve seen an epidemic of violence emanating from exactly these sorts, when they are in comfortably large groups confronted with single individuals or much smaller groups. When confronted with strength – there were specific occasions of this at Berkeley – they suddenly become much more accommodating and reasonable.
Classic cowards and bullies. How crass and boorish our culture has become. There was a time, within living memory, when making threats like the ones this poor lost soul made would have gotten one permanently banned from polite society, certainly a university setting where one has some charge over young people and especially young ladies. Not anymore. Not only will this guy likely not lose his job, he’ll probably receive many plaudits and kudos from his colleagues.
And that’s why all but a select few colleges will not see my money or my kids.
Francis: Pope accuses Christians of ‘cowardliness’ for overfocus on following ‘all’ 10 Commandments February 2, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
Reveal a bit too much, perhaps, Papa Bergoglio? Those who are capable of observing the 10 Commandments rarely find cause to chastise others over their doing the same.
Anyway, this has already been all over, but Francis has once again made plain he has no mercy for those he perceives as his ideological opponents, and would really rather they not be in his new, oh-so-humble and merciful church. “Why don’t you just leave?” is a not-unreasonable summation of this latest rant (my emphasis and comments):
In another in a long stream of apparent attacks on his critics, Pope Francis gave a homily last week accusing Christians who avoid taking risks out of concern for the Ten Commandments as suffering from “cowardliness,” warning that such people become “paralyzed” and unable to “go forward.”
“‘Not taking risks, please, no… prudence…Obeying all the commandments, all of them…,’” [Do you not get the implication that the pope sees something seriously wrong with people who actually obey the Commandments? That would explain a very great deal, wouldn’t it?] the pope said, characterizing the thinking of such Christians. “Yes, it’s true, but this paralyzes you too, it makes you forget so many graces received, it takes away memory, it takes away hope, because it doesn’t allow you to go forward.”
Such people become “confined souls” who suffer from the sin of “cowardice,” the pope added. “And the presen[ce] of a Christian, of such a Christian, is like when one goes along the street and an unexpected rain comes, and the garment is not so good and the fabric shrinks…Confined souls…This is cowardliness: this is the sin against memory, courage, patience, and hope.” [This doesn’t remotely make sense. It’s just a gratuitous insult.]
The remarks were made during a homily delivered on January 27th during a mass he was celebrating in Casa Santa Marta….. A translation was provided by both Rome Reports and Vatican Radio (the Rome Reports translation is quoted above).
The translation published by Vatican Radio rendered the Italian word “pusillanimità” (similar to the English word “pusillanimity”) as “faintheartedness.” However, Italian-English dictionaries translate the word “pusillanime” and “pusillanimità” as “cowardly” and “cowardice.” The pope used the word twice during his homily.
The pope’s remarks appeared to be directed against those who criticize him for using Amoris Laetitia to permit those who are living in adulterous second “marriages” to receive Holy Communion at the discretion of their priest. The practice contradicts the Church’s Code of Canon Law, as well as its perennial tradition of prohibiting the sacraments to those who are living in public mortal sin……….
…….The pope’s statements are the latest in a volley of barbs apparently aimed at critics of Amoris Laetitia in recent weeks.
In late December, addressing the issue of resistance to his attempted reforms, [THEY’RE NOT REFORMS! WHY DO PEOPLE GRANT HIM ALL THAT INTELLECTUAL ASSENT! They are massive attacks on the solemn Doctrine of the Faith! They are radical and dangerous innovations! They are a surrender of the Church’s sacred duty! But they are not “reforms!” Reforms improve things, they don’t wreck them!]Francis decried “malicious resistance” that “takes refuge in traditions, appearances, formalities, in the familiar, or else in a desire to make everything personal, failing to distinguish between the act, the actor, and the action.” The last reference seems to be to those who object to his insinuation in Amoris Laetitia that those civilly remarried and living in an adulterous relationship are not guilty of a sin if they commit it with the intention of maintaining unity for the sake of children, or if they fear they might fall into another sin. [So now the ends justify the means, apparently. It’s better to commit this mortal sin than that one!]
On January 20 Francis complained in a homily about “lazy Christians, Christians, who do not have the will to continue, Christians, who do not struggle for a change of things, for new things to come, those that if changed would be a good for everybody.”[Ummm, that’s pretty much all and those like me do. But you’re not talking about what is really best for souls, Francis, you are talking about what is best for your ideological presuppositions.] He made an apparent comparison of his critics to “the doctors of the law who persecuted Jesus,” observing that “these men did everything prescribed by the law. But their mindset was distanced from God. Theirs was an egotistical mindset, focused on themselves: their hearts constantly condemned [others].”
And once again Francis clothes himself with a false cloak of Jesus Christ, inverting the truth – Christ chastised the doctors of the law for permitting sin in exactly the same way Francis encourages it – in order to justify his massive novelties and dangerous (im)moral experiments.
Ah whatever. I’ve gotten to the point where I expect nothing less than ad hominems on the faithful and a wholesale assault on the Faith from this guy. It’s infuriating and makes me very sad because I know he’s wreaking massive destruction on souls, but for whatever reason it is our lot to be stuck with this man at this time. May God have mercy on His Church and send us a worthy successor of St. Peter soon if not immediately.
h/t reader TT
Bishop Robert Barron and the Cult of Man February 2, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
Before I begin, I’ll say that I have a sneaking admiration for Dave Rubin, the interviewer in question below. Yes he’s an out n’ proud type who pretends to be married, and yes he’s an atheist and a liberal……..wait, why do I like him again? Well, I don’t like him per se, but I do have some admiration for the fact that he is willing to hear out all comers, even those with radically different viewpoints, he despises the SJW Left, and he might even be heading towards a classical liberal/conservative standpoint. But he has many miles to go, which is why my respect for him is nascent and limited.
He recently had Auxiliary Bishop Robert Barron on his interview program. Bishop Barron, as has been his wont over the years, mixed in some fairly solid defenses of the Faith with some abject surrenders that to me obliterated whatever good he may have conveyed. Michael Matt in the first video below largely shares my assessment, noting that Barron blew a golden opportunity to reach out in charity to a lost soul and seemed to put human respect far above the Truth of Jesus Christ:
There are all kinds of things to takeaway from Barron’s abject surrender on the subject of the intrinsically disordered nature of the sodomitical inclination and the evil of any acts associated with that inclination.
First, he says the Church has been “disordered” in focusing too much on the sin. This is what he thinks of Sacred Doctrine? Bishop, heal thyself – or better yet, get over thyself and your worldly opinions.
Secondly, there is much aping of the Franciscan notion of false mercy. Barron appears to hardly believe in sin anymore, excepting of course for those hateful pharisaical neo-promethean right wingers. They all go to hell.
But seriously, should we expect anything else from the man who reduced the story of Original Sin to “theological poetry?” No wonder he holds extremely messed up views of moral theology.
We see again and again this notion that the poor benighted Church before Francis was doctrinaire, hard-hearted and merciless. What a load of chaff. First of all, the moral/doctrinal collapse has been setting in for 50+ years. This is only the fulfilment of errors advanced for decades. Far from being doctrinaire, the Church has been caving relentlessly on Doctrine for decades.
But even the shriveled husk of Doctrine defended by JPII and a few others is apparently too much for the new Church of infinite humility and Francismercy.
This is where all the modernism in the Church has been headed for decades – towards complete moral surrender and oblivion for souls.
Church of accompaniment far more concerned about the opinions of men and not giving offense than with proclaiming the Truth of Jesus Christ
Even the poor soul in the interview is left wondering what the heck the Church believes, and seems surprised that it’s really this weak. Rubin is an admitted atheist, what on earth in this exchange would possibly dissuade him from any of his current beliefs and practices – on these matters most closely related to his primary moral failing and his erroneous beliefs the bishop totally fails because he is more concerned with being perceived as a “nice guy” and not giving offense than he is with conveying Truth vital for this man’s salvation.
And that is the entire problem – the crisis – in the Church in a nutshell. Even the “conservatives” fear the opinions of men far more than they do the judgment of God, who they have turned into a cosmic candy dispenser, handing out salvation to everyone who comes calling.
If they are not right, they face an awful, awful reckoning.
Here is the full interview. Barron does give a fairly good account of himself at times, but that really just makes his collapse on sodomy all the more pernicious for he mixes truth with error as Aquinas warned against:
The Moral Collapse of the Boy Scouts Appears Complete January 31, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, cultural marxism, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, sexual depravity, sickness, unadulterated evil.
Well, that didn’t take long…….2 1/2 years from accepting self-described homosexual youth members, then accepting scoutmasters and other leaders who openly practice sodomy, to now, accepting girls pretending to be boys. The test case involves an EIGHT year old. The parents that are allowing children to become so warped and then encourage their self-hatred and self-abuse would ideally be prime candidates for repeated visits from CPS, but in this crazy mixed up world of ours, that’s not likely to happen. Quite the contrary, the parent (only one is mentioned) involved will be praised to the skies for helping gift their child with a lifetime of loneliness, confusion, self-loathing, and exceedingly high rates of drug dependence, violence, and suicide.
Once again, an “advance” much ballyhooed and cherished by leftists has children as its principle victims (my emphasis and comments):
A New Jersey woman whose son [A lie becomes the truth……..Orwellian. It’s not her son, it’s her daughter, and far too young to even the remotely comprehend the implications of this “gender dysphoria” the poor confused soul has been sucked into through whatever means] was asked to leave his Boy Scouts troop after leaders found out he is transgender said she has mixed emotions about the organization’s decision to allow transgender children who identify as boys to enroll in its boys-only programs.
The Boy Scouts of America announced Monday that enrollment in its boys-only programs will now be based on the gender a child or parent lists on his application to become a scout, rather than the gender listed on the child’s birth certificate. [Once you start to yield to the sexular pagan agenda, there is no limit to the demands they will make upon you, and each surrender makes the next both easier and more likely. The Boy Scouts, as I predicted when they first collapsed, are finished.]
Eight-year-old “Joe“ Maldonado was asked to leave his scout troop in Secaucus, New Jersey, last fall after parents and leaders found out he is transgender. The organization’s statement did not specifically mention Joe’s case, but said it changed the policy because of the larger conversation about gender identity taking place around the country.
Kristie Maldonado, Joe’s mother, said she had mixed emotions Monday night when a Boy Scouts representative called to tell her the organization would allow her son to re-enroll in his troop. Maldonado said she would like her son to rejoin the Secaucus troop, but only if the scout leader who threw him out of the troop leaves. [As I said, the demands never stop. They will dictate every tiny detail of policy to you, until your organization is nothing but another leftist agitation group.]
She said “Joe“, who will turn 9 on Wednesday, has spoken publicly about the incident. She called him a “ham” and noted he had a big birthday party on Saturday with the mayor of Secaucus in attendance. [Please never tell me there are not powerful inducements for confused young people to get sucked into this nightmarish lifestyle. The mayor attended her birthday party! Even though she’s so young she can have no comprehension of the consequences of her actions. Is her young body already being flooded with carcinogenic hormones to help insure she doesn’t have second thoughts?]
Speaking of powerful inducements, how many parents, possibly of a social justice warrior inclination, might be encouraging – consciously or unconsciously – their children to loathe their true nature and desire to be the sainted “other?” There are incredibly powerful inducements at play – cultural approbation, a very high station in the pyramid of victimhood, political blandishments, the adoration of the leftist media, power to force people to take actions you desire, and a virtual “get out of jail free” card that excuses any current or future misdeeds to ethereal “bias.” For a growing number of people, these enticements are too sweet to resist.
Will parents start abandoning the Boy Scouts en masse? Participation has been declining for a long time, and its accelerated of late. But given how fast the Boy Scouts – long a stalwart defender of traditional morality and beliefs – are collapsing, I’m surprised more people haven’t abandoned it yet. I know there are families with long associations with the Boy Scouts, who loathe to accept the rapidly changing reality and comprehend the insidious, destructive moral collapse at work in the organization. I’m sure they are convinced that their troop is “one of the good ones,” with no open individuals given over to these various disordered (if not actively sinful) inclinations.
But for how long? If they won’t abandon the Scouts over this, what, if anything, could possibly induce them to do so?
The organization, much like the Church, is being hollowed out from within. We see in this a clear warning of what will happen to any organization that surrenders to the Leftist cultural zeitgeist – at least in its human element.
It leaves nothing but destruction and gravely wounded souls in its wake.
PS -All the comments directed at families above can be equally, if not more forcefully, directed at the Church in the US, which has had a long association with the Boy Scouts. Is there any moral collapse that will induce pastors, bishops, and/or the USCCB, to finally and unequivocally cut ties?
Yes, I won’t hold my breath.
A few weeks ago, I did a post announcing Cardinal Burke coming to the Diocese of Dallas to offer Mass on 01/22. I received some hot criticism of this post, offline. Those upset over the post were either involved in bringing Cardinal Burke in, or were particular admirers of the pastor of the parish that hosted him.
So, what is at issue in this little local imbroglio? Confession, and whether I was unfairly harsh towards a local priest my local correspondents feel is very good. Admittedly, I was pointedly critical in a post that perhaps should have been both happier and more bland, simply announcing the good Cardinal’s upcoming arrival and congratulating those who arranged for his visit (both were in the post, along with some other more critical thoughts).
Now, everyone’s definition of good is relative. My definition of a good priest in these days starts with offering the TLM, or at least the Novus Ordo in Latin, or having serious aspirations to do either but being frustrated by episcopal obstinance/malfeasance. Frankly, a handful of exceptions aside, all the extraordinary priests I know are members of explicitly traditional orders.
Taking Confession extremely seriously is requirement #2. This is what separates the men from the boys in my mind. Confession is the great ignored, even inconvenient Sacrament of our time. It is inconvenient because it is a standing rebuke to much of the new theology and ecclesiology that has been imposed on the Church in the past several decades, beliefs that say that whether one is Catholic or not doesn’t count for much, that basically all men are saved, that virtually no one ever commits a mortal sin, etc. These kinds of beliefs are the primary reason why Confession is so little available.
There used to be a sort of rule of thumb in the Church, back in those dark unreconstructed manualist days before the “sainted” Council, that for every hour of Mass, there should be at least an equal number of hours of Confession. In fact, most pre-conciliar parishes had priests (plural) in the Confessional before, during, and after virtually every Mass, along with other set times. This was when the Church, and the souls within, took things like sin and Grace and damnation and redemption very seriously.
But today, in this Diocese as in almost every other, Confession is limited to perhaps an hour a week, if one is lucky, or “by appointment only,” if one is not. This in spite of the fact that our former Bishop, now Cardinal, Kevin Farrell, repeatedly (and a bit uncharacteristically) exhorted his priests and especially pastors to have more REGULAR hours of Confession. Many pastors responded to these exhortations, by adding one more hour weekly to the one they already had (such generosity!), while some did not. A few relative heroes did even more, adding maybe 2 or 3 hours more Confession, and staffing those hours with more than one priest.
In the dearth of Confession, the tyranny is in the numbers. If there is only one priest hearing confessions for one hour a week, and each soul has only 3 minutes with the confessor and there are no gaps in people in the confessional, that one priest can hear 20 confessions a week or 1040 a year. That may sound like quite a lot, but when you have numerous parishes with 7,000, 8,000, 10,000 souls ostensibly belonging, one can instantly see the problem. Of course, the reality is different. What tends to happen is that the same handful of relatively serious souls go to Confession with at least some regularity, while the great mass never go at all.
Couple this with what is known of Catholic belief, even among self-described regular Mass attendees, and the crisis grows into stark relief. The vast majority of Catholics, regular Mass-goers or not, find nothing immoral in contraceptive use or fornication. A near majority even think abortion is morally permissible in at least some cases. The large majority are fine with pseudo-sodo-marriage and think divorce and remarriage are perfectly acceptable. The vast majority believe the Blessed Sacrament to be nothing more than a symbol. The former, if engaged in personally, constitute grave sins requiring sacramental Confession before the Blessed Sacrament is received (recent emanations from Rome notwithstanding). The latter places one outside the community of the faithful; reception of the Blessed Sacrament in this state constitutes the horrible sin of sacrilege and again immediate recourse to Confession is vitally necessary.
Taken together, what we have in the Church today is a great mass of people regularly receiving the Blessed Sacrament in a state that St. Paul decried perfectly in 1 Corinthians 11:27-29 (a bit of Scripture infamously and deliberately excluded from the readings of the Novus Ordo Mass), and with little to no means to correct this dire condition. Adding to that, the very lack of Confession time communicates to the faithful that this is something that isn’t to be taken very seriously. Writ large, this is very close to what Pope Saint John Paul II decried as the “fundamental option,” the idea that God is infinitely loving (and apparently no longer just) and that virtually no one, if anyone (short of evil right wingers like me) is damned. That this is utterly contrary to our Blessed Lord’s clear Word as revealed repeatedly in Sacred Scripture and the guidance of vast numbers of Saints and Fathers seems to count for very little these days. Confession remains generally unavailable.
Not only that, but we have numerous warnings from the Blessed Mother and many of these same Saints about the number of souls condemned to hell. While such warnings are widely viewed as quaint relics from a benighted age to most priests and prelates in the Church today, they have been so numerous, so consistent, and so emphatic that to doubt or deny them is a fool’s errand. I certainly do not. I take these warnings deadly seriously, as I take the biblical types that reveal to us the very small number of the elect, and the great number of the damned.
So, yes, I take Confession very seriously, and its lack of availability as one of the greatest scandals afflicting the Church today. In fact, lack of Confession and unwillingness to take its vital necessity seriously constitute very large elements of the present crisis in the Faith. Thus, the great number of souls falling to hell like so many snowflakes, to quote Our Lady of Fatima.
Several years ago, at the time when former Bishop Farrell was making his exhortations, I did a post that summarized the availability of Confession in the Diocese. I checked most every parish. Some had zero regular hours for Confession. Most had one. A few had two. A tiny handful had somewhat more. Two parishes stood out as placing a great (or, one might say, adequate) emphasis on Confession. I’m sure locals know which two those are (Mater Dei, and St. William in Greenville).
So, even as someone who has admitted mistakes and made public apologies in the past, I don’t feel particularly bad about the post announcing +Burke’s visit and Mass. I didn’t criticize Cardinal Burke in the slightest (in fact I praised him quite a bit), all my critical comments were directed towards confession and the probability, the virtual certitude, that, on a daily basis, souls with unconfessed mortal sins receive the Blessed Sacrament – and the role the diminution of the importance of Confession plays in that. Perhaps I erred in prudence in combining critical commentary in an announcement post for a happy event. Perhaps I could have chosen more artful phrases. But if I erred in charity, it was for the souls of those in gravest risk of eternal damnation, preferring their eternal destiny over more human concerns like the feelings of my correspondents or the pastor of the parish I criticized. Of course, even that may be argued as simply misplaced zeal, but that was my intent, nonetheless.
PS – There were claims I had erred in stating Mary Immaculate – the parish that hosted Cardinal Burke – had only one hour of Confession a week. That was all that was listed on their website (in addition to “by appointment”). I also perused a few bulletins. I saw no other times listed. But apparently, there is a monthly meeting/confab called “Arise” (not entirely unproblematic in its own right) where priests hear Confession. I have no details as to how many priests are present, or for how long Confession is available. Whether this constitutes “regular” Confession or not is arguable. But I thought I’d include this only substantive rebuttal of my arguments for completeness’ sake.
I certainly welcome your comments and appraisal of the matter, if you have any. Thank you.
If You Want to Get Involved in the Fight over Atonement Parish in San Antonio – UPDATED January 24, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, Basics, different religion, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Latin Mass, Liturgy, persecution, priests, Revolution, scandals, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
……..a site has been constructed to help keep people informed. There is a meeting for concerned parishioners and others interested in maintaining orthodox catechesis and reverent liturgy in the San Antonio area this Thursday, January 26, at the Embassy Suites hotel ballroom at 7750 Briaridge, San Antonio at 7:00 pm.
The website only has basics on Fr. Phillips and the Atonement situation at present, but hopefully it will be updated to indicate how people can help. You might consider contacting the chancery of the Archdiocese of San Antonio directly at 210-734-2620 or perhaps the Vicar General or others listed on this site, like the communications director Jordan McMorrough at the same number, x1128.
Raise a ruckus. Get their attention. Don’t cuss, don’t proclaim them to be bound for hell, but do express your exasperation and scandal at this development.
Naturally, no contact info for either of San Antonio’s bishops was provided. We wouldn’t want the bishops to be bothered by puny little things like the spiritual lives of hundreds of distraught souls. They’re much too busy, and frankly too good, to deal with any little thing like that.
In the interim, the Diocese of Dallas will breathe a hefty sigh of relief that the mighty triple 16″ 50 cal guns of veneremurcernui.wordpress.com are directed on another target………….heh.
UPDATE: IMPORTANT! Commenter Richard Malcolm had this to add:
I think it’s important to note that Mr. Wilson’s letter at the SaveAtonement site is urging those interested NOT to contact the chancery, as he thinks this will be counterproductive. “Any individual action such as writing to the archbishop or demonstrating at the chancery could be counter-productive. Please use common sense.” However, he seems to favor bombarding the Congregation for Clergy.
I don’t know enough to say. I suspect he’s right – he seems to know his stuff – though the faithful of a parish have a right to express their concerns about their parish and pastor to their ordinary, even when they know it may be futile. I think non-OLA people may want to confine themselves to the Congregation, though.
Tantumblogo comments: I can understand Mr. Wilson’s point of view. You can certainly do what you feel best. I have seen both approaches. Whether being meek and silent or loud and boisterous works better depends much upon the situation. I’m on the outside here, so I’ll tend to defer to what the locals think, but I will add this little bit of opinion: letters to the Vatican will have even less impact than those sent to the chancery. Especially with this pontiff.
I know of only one priest who faced a railroad job like this that survived it. And he “survived” by being banished to the furthest reaches of the diocese, but he did not cave on authentic catechesis and reverent liturgy. He did that by being prepared well in advance with very strong canon law representation. He also had all the facts on his side and not a single complaint against him. That why I tend to default to the make a ruckus approach. It’s high risk, yes, but also high reward if the ruckus is loud enough and garners enough media attention. It could the only thing that “saves Atonement.”
Mr. Malcolm may offer a middle way: outsiders like most readers of this blog may want to demure from contacting the Archdiocese (in my experience, not many would, anyway). Let the folks in San Antonio deal with this matter for now. But do as the Spirit moves you.
Coincidence or More? Multiple Moves Against Tradition, Orthodoxy in Recent Days – Including in San Antonio January 23, 2017Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Latin Mass, Liturgy, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
There is an old saying: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times, conspiracy. Now, that might apply to three crimes in the same town, but in an institution as vast as the Church, probably far more than 3 occurrences of something are necessary to prove any kind of conspiracy. Nevertheless, it was disconcerting late last week to find all the below taking place:
The bishops of Malta, formerly a place of deep faith and devotion, decreed they were accepting Francis’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitia and implementing it, permitting those in adulterous second “unions” to receive the Blessed Sacrament, and suspending any priests who adhered to the constant belief and practice of the Faith (denying the Blessed Sacrament to public adulterers per that practice).
A priest in Colombia was suspended a divinis for having criticized the massive, unprecedented, morality-destroying aspects of Amoris Laetitia.
In the Diocese of Rockford, Ill, Bishop Malloy has arrogated to himself the right to determine if, and where, Mass may be offered either according to the ancient Rite or even facing the Lord, Ad Orientem. This kind of false assertion of power should be very familiar to Dallas area Catholics, as it is precisely the same standard imposed by former Bishop, now Cardinal, Kevin Farrell. Immediately after Summorum Pontificum was released, Bishop Farrell issued a statement declaring only he had the right to assess where the TLM was “needed,” if anywhere, and threatened harsh sanctions against any priests that disobeyed. This was a public declaration. The imposition against Ad Orientem worship was done privately, against at least one priest who started offering Mass, including Novus Ordo Latin, facing the tabernacle. That priest has now returned to offering Mass Ad Orientem since Farrell’s departure. Pray God that Bishop-Elect Edward Burns, Farrell’s replacement, will be much less draconian in his treatment of wholly legitimate methods of offering Mass.
Finally – and this has not gotten nearly as much coverage – Fr. Christopher Phillips of Atonement Parish in San Antonio, the world’s first Anglican Use parish erected in the Catholic Church under the direct intervention of Pope St. John Paul II, was sacked late Friday afternoon by San Antonio Archbishop Gustavo Garcia Siller in what amounts to a canonical coup. Phillips has a long history at Atonement, not all of it good, but offered the most traditional, reverent liturgies in the vast San Antonio Archdiocese outside the sole weekly TLM permitted at St. Pius X parish on Sundays. Atonement offered both Anglican Use and Novus Ordo Latin Masses every Sunday, and it appears a desire for greater “liturgical uniformity” may have played a significant role in Phillips’s removal:
The parish joining the Anglican Ordinariate may also have been a contributing factor.
The actual letter from Archbishop Garcia-Siller:
Now, I say that Phillips is being sacked, because I’ve never, once, in observing Church affairs closely now for 7 years or so, seen a pastor removed for “reflection” ever re-instated. If lucky, he would be transferred to a backwoods assignment, but in all likelihood, Phillips will never have a public ministry again.
Note the similarity in language used by Bishop Malloy and Garcia-Siller, and the similarity in objectives.
Finally, a bit more about Atonement: this is probably a minority opinion, but I know of a handful of families who found Phillips’ pastoral care – in their particular cases – counterproductive. These were all deeply private matters and not related to public ministry, as I understand it, but there were certainly concerns, and complaints, regarding counsel Phillips gave to various families that some felt made matters worse. There was also a possible ongoing “situation” – maybe a scandal – involving a certain deacon who retired from the parish this past year. Concerns had been expressed about this deacon for some time, again by a handful of folks, to my knowledge (bear in mind I am in Dallas but did assist at Mass and Tenebrae at Atonement several times before we went full-TLM all the time. I know some current and former Atonement parishioners but not a whole lot. It could be there were broad-based complaints of which I am unaware).
I say this to note that there may be extenuating circumstances in this case, but I doubt those really had anything to do with Phillips’ case. First of all, the reports came from a small number of people. Secondly, Phillips appears to enjoy the overwhelming support of the people of Atonement. My gut instinct says this is really about doctrinal orthodoxy being taught publicly at Atonement and probably some demands being made to conform to the corporate line that were not obeyed.
Many of the founding members of the parish were former Episcopalians who converted to Catholicism. Phillips, the parish’s first and only pastor, was ordained by then-Archbishop Patrick Flores, who died Jan. 9. [I doubt the timing is coincidental]
In a one-page letter to parishioners, Archbishop Gustavo García-Siller called the Catholic Church’s “pastoral provision” to bring Anglicans into the fold “a great blessing in our archdiocese, and a path for many of our separated (Anglican) brothers and sisters.”
But he noted that his concerns “relate to expressions in the life of the parish that indicate an identity separate from, rather than simply unique, among the parishes of the archdiocese” and that he has asked Phillips “to dedicate some time to reflect on certain specific concerns that I have shared with him.”
The letter praised the parish as one that attracts many Catholics who want “clarity of doctrine and traditional liturgical expression.”
In a separate statement, García-Siller noted “serious concerns regarding a lack of ecclesial communion with the parish and the Archdiocese of San Antonio.”
Two parishioners and one former parishioner said they interpreted the archbishop’s concern as a reference to a longtime hope by Phillips and other members of Our Lady of the Atonement to someday leave the auspices of the archdiocese and join the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.
In an unsigned email from the church office to parishioners, provided by a founding parishioner, Chuck Wilson, the parish staff seemed surprised at Phillips’ removal from the parish operations, including its school.
“We were notified today of the canonical process being instigated by the archdiocese to remove Fr. Phillips,” it said. “The archbishop stated that Fr. Phillips has done nothing wrong, but his ministry is detrimental to the faith of the people and keeps the people of the parish separate from the communal activities of the archdiocese.”
The email said Phillips has been removed from the parish grounds for 15 days. Wilson said Phillips’ personal residence is at the parish.
So I was right – this is about removing Phillips, and his enforced 15 day removal from the parish is to create a vacuum in leadership wherein the Archdiocese can act to impose its will. Not long, but probably long enough. Shades of the treatment Fr. Rodriguez received – and is receiving – in El Paso.
The statements about upholding the Anglican-use liturgy and the doctrinal orthodoxy of the parish are red herrings, in all likelihood. Otherwise, there would have been no reason to remove Phillips.
Illegitimate though it may be, Fr. Phillips has probably been presented with a choice – tow the line we are demanding you tow, or never serve in public again. The number of limitations and absurdities imposed on Phillips would likely astound readers, just as (a partial list of) those imposed on Fr. Rodriguez astounded me, and made plain to me the reality of the different religion being stood up in the name of the Holy Catholic Church. In Phillips case, however, he does have a family to consider. I tend to imagine, however, that this period of reflection is nothing of the sort, that the decision has already been made, and the only thing that can save Fr. Phillips’ role at Atonement is an ace canon lawyer. I hope he has one.
So while these events from many different regions may appear disparate and unrelated, I tend to doubt they are. This is all likely part of a broad-based pushback against the very modest “gains” made under Popes JPII and Benedict, and the re-imposition of an aggressive, heterodox “Spirit of Vatican II.”