YES! Cardinal Muller, head of CDF: “Episcopal Conference….not linked to any specific teaching authority” March 27, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church.
Dang straight. Good, clear catechesis from the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Gerhard Muller:
The claim that a Bishop’s Conference was “not a branch of Rome”, “gives me the cue to remind you that the dioceses are not branches of the Secretariat of the Episcopal Conference or [branches of] the diocese, whose bishop President of the Bishops’ Conference is.” This was Gerhard Müller Cardinal, Prefect of the Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith, for the Catholic French magazine, Famille Chrétienne. He had been previously asked what he thought of a statement “where a German bishop had stated that the Bishops’ Conference, which he was presiding, was no “branch of Rome,” he was referring to remarks by Reinhard Cardinal Marx, President of the German Bishops’ Conference. Müller explained further: “A Bishops’ Conference is not a Particular Council, [it is] a lot less than an Ecumenical Council. The President of the Episcopal Conference is no more than a technical presenter, there is no special teaching authority linked with this title. “The attitude that a Bishops’ Conference is not a branch of Rome,” brings with it the danger to revive a certain polarization between the local Churches and the Universal Church which had come rest in the First and the Second Vatican Councils. The Church is not the sum of national churches whose presidents would choose a boss on a universal level.” [Very true. One of the reason I deplore the modern national episcopal conferences, among many, is that they frequently present views masquerading as doctrinal decisions or “rulings” that are nothing of the sort. Episcopal conferences are great novelties and their only “authority,” to the extent they have any, flows from the voluntary and unanimous judgment of the individual ordinaries who constitute them. They also represent a great temptation to use groupthink to exert pressure on individual bishops either to accept the dominant, often erroneous point of view, or to inhibit faithful prelates like Burke from speaking out on issues when they are ordinary. The USCCB leadership has been furious with Burke in the past, when he was still in the US, for violating their silent, secretive rule not to deny Communion to pro-abort or other heretical katholyc politicians. As I see it, national conferences have become self-interested bureaucracies staffed largely with left-leaning (or full-on revolutionary) apparatchiks who often undermine the Church’s Doctrine and Her mission to save souls in pursuit of a broader left-wing agenda. Harsh, but how many scandals at CRS, Catholic Charities, CCHD, etc., do we have to see? And those are just the tip of the iceberg]
On the question of whether some teaching or disciplinary decisions about marriage and the family could be delegated to the Bishops’ Conferences, the Prefect of the CDF replied: “This is an absolutely anti-Catholic idea that does not respect the catholicity of the Church. Bishops’ Conferences have authority in certain topics, but they possess no magisterium against the magisterium without a pope and without communion with all the bishops.” [Nice slap down of Cardinal Marx]
“The Church is not a philanthropic organization. It is not enough if we say that we respect the views of all and wish good for all,” Müller explained further. Indeed it is not too difficult to fall into the trap of presenting the gospel as a therapeutic agent, but this does not correspond to the requirements of Jesus. “Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and receive all manner of slander because of me, said Jesus. The first Apostles, the Church Fathers, the great bishops of the Church had so often to sail against the wind. Why should this be any different for us?
Thanks to Tancred for the translation. He is not entirely ideal, certainly, but Cardinal Muller has been fighting quite vociferously against the German-Kasperite gambit to radically undermine the entire moral edifice of the Church. It has been sad to see his efforts dismissed by some other prelates, with statements like “of course he would say that, he’s the guardian of Doctrine, that’s his job,” as if that somehow reduces the import of his statements! In fact, it highlights their importance even more, but the German conference (save a few notable exceptions) is so far around the bend on this matter nothing short of a miracle will pull them back.
Pray Lenten/Easter Novena starting today! March 27, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Lent, Novenas, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
1 comment so far
I found this prayer in Dom Gueranger’s Liturgical Year, and then found out it has been used as a pre-Easter Novena. It is definitely focused more on the Passion and death of Our Savior, rather than being one focused on the infinite glory of the Resurrection. So, the Novena is supposed to end before sundown on Holy Saturday. I thought it was really beautiful.
O Jesus! thou true Son of God.
Graciously hear us! Have mercy on thy suppliant people.
Thou that alone didst save the world by the triumph of Thy Cross, do Thou, by the Blood Thou didst shed, deliver us.
And graciously hear us.
By Thy death Thou didst destroy death; by Thy Resurrection Thou didst give us life; for our sake Thou didst suffer undue punishment.
And graciously hear us.
May we celebrate, in peace, these days of Thy Passion, and thereby be consoled by Thy sweetness.
And graciously hear us.
Let not them perish, for whom Thou didst suffer the Cross; but, by Thy Cross, lead them to life everlasting.
And graciously hear us.
I agree with a commenter’s idea that on the specific matter of helping end division among faithful Catholics, coordination with like-minded individuals is one of the first steps to take. Consider it done.
But on the broader matter of opposing the ongoing decline in the culture, boycotting corporations and especially charities that support egregiously amoral activities like anything related to Planned Barrenhood, sodo-marriage, and the like, is another relatively easy step to take. No, you don’t have to send a letter, and you certainly don’t have to avoid every company and charity on the list (available here, from Life Decisions International), but you could choose to stop shopping at this place or that to make a statement. For instance, even though I find Home Depot generally has superior product selection, because of their ardent support for sodo-marriage, I no longer shop there, but at Lowe’s. The point is not to make your life a nightmare of narrow choices and constant moral conundrums, the point is to to what you can.
As a way of helping, find below some of the major corporations and charities that are tied to grave immorality. First, the corporations:
Bank of America
Johnson and Johnson
Levis (one of the worst. I used to love Levi jeans but won’t have anything to do with them anymore)
Nike (another bad one)
Polo Ralph Lauren
Southwest Airlines (gives lots to Komen and Planned Barrenhood)
American Automobile Association
American Association of University Women (particularly egregious)
American Cancer Society
Boys and Girls Clubs
Council of Churches
Glaucoma Research Foundation
Human Rights Watch
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
League of Women Voters
March of Dimes
Muscular Dystrophy Association
National Childhood Cancer Foundation
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
National Osteoporosis Foundation
National Parkinson’s Disease Foundation
Ronald McDonald House
Save the Children
Susan G. Komen
YWCA (neither are remotely Christian anymore)
More and more, as we also see in the Church, corporations and charities form a densely tangled web in which charities donate to each other, and corporations cross-pollinate their “charity” as well, and the whole thing becomes an impenetrable fog. It’s gotten to the point that the vast majority of charities wind up giving some money to Planned Barrenhood, either directly or through another agency like Komen. Other evil charities like the Human Rights Campaign similarly receive funds from a wide variety of other charities.
The above is not meant to beat you down. Take it for what you will. If it’s helpful to you, please, by all means, use the info above. There are many more less well known companies and charities also on the banned list at FightPlannedParenthood, but bear in mind, that’s only a partial list, because it only addresses those entities that fund PP. Others not on the list above fund many other evils (which is why I added Home Depot, they do not fund Planned Parenthood, directly, but they are big fans of sodomy, especially in San Fran and their Atlanta HQ). To me, it’s important to try to limit my business with the especially bad actors as much as possible, but I’m probably not going to change banks over the matter. But I won’t drink Starbucks, for about 200 reasons. As I said, whatever works best for you.
Hope the above helps!
The theological significance of veiling March 26, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Art and Architecture, awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Lent, priests, sanctity, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
If you assist regularly at a TLM parish, or maybe a very reverent and tradition-leaning Novus Ordo one, you have seen all the statues and crucifixes veiled since Passion Sunday. That will continue until the Easter Vigil Mass. Many may not know why that veiling has taken place, or perhaps have only a partial understanding. The sermon below is very illuminating in that regard. It does more than merely explain the practice of veiling (statues and women), but also delves quite deeply into the great theological significance of so many of the physical aspects of church design as they relate to the Sacred Liturgy. Compare and contrast with modern church architecture and you can easily see how the Lex Orandi has been radically changed, leading to a problematic if not disordered Lex Credendi and Lex Vivendi.
So much thought has gone into traditional liturgical design! It is otherworldly, beyond human. I love the thought of the altar being the place where Heaven opens up and we get a literal, physical (if unseen) connection between the eternal world of God and the temporal world of creation. Such a great vision!
I love all the photos of churches, veiled and otherwise, in the video. Anyone know which church is shown @~2:50-2:55, or @11:58?
Also valuable is the catechesis on the symbolism and importance of chapel veils. I may risk the ire of some female readers, I don’t know, but with such powerful and meaningful arguments in favor of chapel veils, I remain surprised that some long-time female TLM-goers still seem to have a problem with the practice. I won’t even begin to question motives there, but given, as Father says, that every woman is a living icon of the Church, it seems odd that some would still refuse. In the local context, I don’t think it’s a case of lack of catechesis or understanding for the importance of chapel veils.
My only problem with this priest’s sermons and general catechesis, is that he gets too excited and talks too fast for me to follow sometimes. I really appreciate his work in so many respects, I think he is a great teacher on so many subjects, but at times he just really flies while speaking. I’m glad he slowed down quite a bit from the midpoint on.
Thanks to Sensus Fidelium for all those beautiful images of our Catholic Faith. BTW, please do consider supporting Sensus Fidelium! That apostolate needs some monetary support and I think it is very deserving.
So many people who come into the Church, or even those who have been raised in it but develop a particular fire of devotion, often feel that there is something missing. Something big, but undefinable. They often find that the Church whose beliefs they read about in a good catechism or that they see in old pictures is not the Church they experience on a daily basis. Something very significant has changed.
I think that sense of absence, of loss, is conveyed very well in a recent post at the Ignatius Press website, as relayed by Pertinacious Papist. It’s a lament for a Church that no longer seems to quite exist, and for a past, we are told over and over again, we can never return to. I found it quite moving. Perhaps you will, as well:
Eamon Duffy’s The Stripping of the Altars forced professional historians and casual readers alike to revise assessments of the Catholic religion in England in the years immediately preceding the Reformation:
If medieval religion was decadent, unpopular, or exhausted, the success of the Reformation hardly requires explanation. If, on the contrary, it was vigorous, adaptable, widely understood, and popular, then we have much yet to discover about the processes and the pace of reform.
In the almost six hundred pages following this observation, Duffy develops support for this thesis: that the Reformation in England was more of a revolution against a popular, widely-revered institution than an effort to reform something rife with problems and corruption. He can only build his case by reference to contemporary written accounts and a study of Church artistic works that somehow managed to survive state-sponsored efforts to obliterate the past. [And many of us feel that what happened in the mid-20th century was another revolution against the Church, from within]
The Tudor and Puritan road he guides his readers down is littered with burnt books, defaced statues, destroyed altar screens, and melted down church vessels. Destroy the artistic creations and traditions of an age, and when the last person who remembers it dies, a world dies also. This is where the road ends.
In our own time, those of us old enough to remember the Catholic Church as it was prior to Vatican II are also living with an obliterated past on a road marked ‘Dead End’. Inevitably, as the days move along, we are a vanishing breed on an all but forgotten journey. [Not forgotten. Some of us who were not even alive then are striving to remember and keep that Church alive]
These days much is made of the Catholicity of celebrated writers Chesterton, Tolkien, and Waugh. The latter two lived long enough to experience firsthand changes wrought by Vatican II, and both railed against them. (Details are at hand in the Ignatius Press edition of A Bitter Trial.) Tolkien and Waugh would never again feel at home in the Church. G. K.’s childhood memory of successful businessmen, bankers, and shop clerks falling to their knees as Cardinal Manning passed by along Kensington High Street seems to come from a world other than this one. G. K.’s old nemesis, George Bernard Shaw, might think the Church has become a bit more palatable, but what would G. K. himself think? Given his sense of humor, he might have somehow managed whereas Belloc—had he lived to see the day—would have blown a fuse.
Tolkien is said to have been dismayed by the exiling of Latin to what would become in our time a liturgical antique shop. Pope Francis the other day spoke approvingly of the vernacular replacing it. Pope Francis knows more languages than I do, but Tolkien, who understood Old English well enough to translate Beowulf, was irate. At times I myself am not even sure what to make of the English version, let alone the German or the Polish, which I do not grasp at all. From the current Psalm translations, O Lord, deliver us!
Complaints in this vein are now seen as coming from the make-believe world of annoying and tiresome fuddy-duddies. It has not taken long to obliterate a world where liturgical Latin could flourish. And there is no going back, except in memory. Eamon Duffy understands this. The last sentence of The Stripping of the Altars sounds a mournful note. [See my final comments below. I am not quite as hopeless as this, but I do fear the Church cannot go home again, and even a “restored” Faith of the future will be in many significant ways different from that of the past.]
I would argue that much the same was true of the farmer, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick-maker of my time. You did not have to be a Jesuit to know what was going on in an age when—by the way—not everyone at Sunday Mass trooped forward to receive communion. (Barely a majority did.) Share that fact with someone today, and mention fasting from midnight; the smell of tuna fish sandwiches for breakfast in your classroom after ‘First Friday’ Masses, etc.
With respect to the past, we are all ‘cafeteria Catholics’. [Interesting, and disturbing point. I fear he is right. Even as Catholics striving to be faithful, it is very difficult to reformulate the Catholic existence of the past into our own lives in this present time, so cut off, even if only by 50 years!, from a Church that no longer exists]]
Tell someone you fondly remember Pope Pius XII from an age when pontiffs were not expected to smile like beauty queens. Attempt to explain why he is your favorite pope. Mention the Marian Year while you are at it. Describe his serious, ascetic demeanor. As likely as not, your listener will bring up the Nazis.
To adapt a line from the novelist L. P. Hartley, “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
The one thing I will add, the one bit of disagreement I have with the notion of irreparable loss, is the fact that that past is still available in little pockets, here and there. I feel the author must not have access to the TLM, or even more, a traditional community. But I do recognize that even these pockets are unable to recreate in full that glorious past. People try, we hopefully all try, but we have to recognize that we are isolated geographically, historically, and culturally from the full vibrancy of the Church that was. Experiences vary from location to location and community to community, but being as isolated as we are, there are surely gaps. For one thing, we are at best islands in a hostile culture and, even more, a frequently hostile Church. We no longer have the whole Catholic culture surrounding us, as it used to be, though never very fully in this country. Unable to draw on past experience, what we are able to create is necessarily limited, though I pray not stunted and deformed. That is the greatest tragedy of the collapse of Christendom and the Church’s voluntary retreat from her historic role……something that was centuries in the making can be lost literally overnight, and it will take literally centuries to build it back up again……..if it can be. I fear you cannot go home again, and even if the Church does regain some semblance of her historic and God-given role, it will be necessarily be quite different from the Church that was. That may not necessarily be a bad thing, but, then again, it could. It all depends on who ultimately wins the struggle for the Church, and how complete their victory is.
Great to see below, even if this number represents only about 10% of all priests in England and Wales. Sooo……where are the American priests, who are generally viewed as being, on average, a bit more orthodox than those of England and Wales? And what of the priests of all the traditional religious orders? Is there opposition to any changes just taken as a given? But if they don’t speak out, who could know? The Fraternity, Society, IBP, ICRSS, and others could number three times as many as in the case of England. Via Tancred:
Almost 500 priests in Britain have signed a letter urging those attending this year’s family synod to issue a “clear and firm proclamation” upholding Church teaching on marriage.
In the letter, published in this week’s Catholic Herald, the priests write: “We wish, as Catholic priests, to re-state our unwavering fidelity to the traditional doctrines regarding marriage and the true meaning of human sexuality, founded on the Word of God and taught by the Church’s Magisterium for two millennia.”
Last year’s extraordinary synod provoked heated debate on the question of whether remarried Catholics should be permitted to receive Holy Communion – a proposal presented by retired German Cardinal Walter Kasper……
……Notable signatories to the letter include theologians Fr Aidan Nichols and Fr John Saward, and Oxford physicist Fr Andrew Pinsent. Fr Robert Billing, spokesman for the Diocese of Lancaster, Fr Tim Finigan, blogger and Catholic Herald columnist, and Fr Julian Large, provost of the London Oratory, have also signed the letter. [Frs. Blake and Hunwicke also signed]
You can read more here, including the text of the letter.
Tancred does allude to the fact that it is possible more priests could be found to endorse the anti-Catholic novelty being heavily pushed by Cardinal Kasper and his allies. Could an effort like this then backfire, in a sense?
Actually, this is just the kind of effort that could build rapport between the various traditional groups. This could be an issue to bring those kinds of priests together. That would be a great initiative along the lines of building up a cohesive traditional response to the crisis in the Faith. Someone should make an online petition for orthodox priests across all the various groups – diocesan, Ecclesia Dei, SSPX, religious – to get on board with support for traditional marriage.
None of which would be to say or imply that the Church is somehow a democracy. Of course, we all know better, but it would be beneficial in many regards, for instance: establishing the existence of broad-based opposition, providing a very good example of leadership, confirming souls in the Faith, opposing error, and inspiring many faithful who may have grown cynical and de-energized in expecting the worst. In terms of “resistance,” the laity can do a lot, but priests could do much more. I think this could be a great vehicle for the start of a general orthodox priestly response.
Tancred also notes that Cardinal Nichols (primate of England) has “admonished” priests not to discuss the Synod, which to me seems silly (especially given that Nichols himself has weighed in on the matter, and quite decisively on the side of Kasper – perhaps he fears too many priests would support the constant belief and practice of the Faith, and undermine the novelties being pushed). I know that many traditional priests in the US have spoken out on this matter, and I pray they continue to do so.
Help a very good apostolate in need March 25, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Interior Life, Latin Mass, priests, sanctity, Tradition, Virtue.
I don’t know about you, but I have found Sensus Fidelium – formerly known as Video Sancto – one of my top resources for edification in the Faith. The sermons are just fantastic, including the one I post below.
Unfortunately, the man who posts all these videos and takes the time and effort to add all the pictures and whatnot is in need of financial assistance. He has had a hard time of late and as such may have to give up producing the videos. He is asking his Catholic audience to help him out to the extent feasible for them.
He has a fundraising site. He has a short term goal of $5000 and is already over $3000. Given how much value I’ve found in Video Sancto/Sensus Fidelium, I had to help him out. Perhaps you may feel similarly moved. God bless you and thank you.
As for the video – if you are at all like me, you may have habitual sins you have struggled to overcome. By the Grace of God and prayers of others, I have managed – at present – to overcome some really long term sins. But I have a couple of others that still like to hang around. So I really appreciated the guidance of this video, relying on compunction to overcome these kinds of lifelong/habitual sins:
Summary from Video Sancto on the video below:
Many of us suffer from habitual sin, which must be overcome with God’s gift of compunction (definition: ‘piercing of the heart with habitual contrition’). Compunction makes mortal sin and deliberate venial sin very rare. This habitual hatred for sin also preserves us and fortifies us against temptation. This is because sin and compunction are mutually exclusive. St. Teresa of Avila became a mystic through compunction. In order to receive this gift one ought to (1) pray for it, (2) meditate upon the Passion of our Lord while considering his own lowliness and ingratitude, (3) remember his future death, and (4) persevere in all this – pray for it every day.
It is always good to pray for the priests in these sermons. 3 Aves are recommended.
I’m certain virtually every reader has by now heard about or read the latest claims of the geriatric Italian militant atheist Eugenio Scalfari, reporting in the Italian daily La Repubblica ~10 days ago the results of a recent interview he conducted with the Pope. As per his normal habit, Scalfari took no notes and used no recording device, so his reconstruction of events is based totally on memory. Bear in mind, this man is 90 years old, and he has a severe ax to grind as a militant atheist.
Having said that, his reported comments have not been rebutted or rationalized in any way by the Vatican. They have been allowed to stand as is, causing untold scandal and confusion. As reported by Rorate and other sites, Scalfari reports the Pope as saying this:
What about those with no faith? The answer is that if one has loved others at least as much as himself, (possibly a little more than self) the Father will welcome him. Faith is of help but that is not the element of the one who judges – it’s life itself. Sin and repentance are part of life [and include]: remorse, a sense of guilt, a desire for redemption and the abandonment of egoism.
Those who have had the fortune of meeting Pope Francis, know that egoism is the most dangerous enemy of our species. Animals are egoistic because they are prey to their own instincts, the main one being their own survival. On the other hand, man is moved also by conviviality and so feels love for others, and for the survival of the species to which he belongs. If egoism overpowers and suffocates his love for others, it darkens the divine spark within him and he is self-condemned.
What happens to that lifeless soul? Will it be punished? How?
Francis’ answer is very clear: there is no punishment, but the annihilation of that soul. All the others will participate in the bliss of living in the presence of the Father. The annihilated souls will not be part of that banquet; with the death of the body their journey is ended and this is the basis for the missionary work in the Church: to save the lost souls. And this is also the reason why Francis is a Jesuit to the core.
What to make of this? That Scalfari is communicating the grossest errors and condemned heresies should be obvious. What to make of the fact that the Vatican has, to date, made no correction or explanation?
As for the errors, Dallas-based theology Professor Christopher Malloy shares the following (Malloy is what you could call a Thomist):
First, “If one has loved others at least as much as himself… the Father will welcome him.” Well the statement is totally ambiguous. The condition of salvation is to die in grace. No one who dies without sanctifying grace in his soul is saved. Period. This grace entails, as its proper effect, a habitual orientation to love God out of charity for his own sake, and in consequence to love the self and the neighbor in God. Now, love is always oriented to a good……. In short, loving my neighbor “more” than myself or “at least as much” does not identify the proper condition of salvation. In fact, outstanding doctors of theology state that I have a duty to love myself more than my neighbor. That is right, more. They say the order of love is as follows: Love God first of all, your own soul next, your neighbor’s soul next, your neighbor’s body next, and your own body last. That would be the proper order of a loving mother for her children. And why self love in terms of spiritual goods first? Because I do not will my neighbor to have a good unless I appreciate, love, that good too. Moreover, unless I love God and love my loving God, I would not consider it a value to will for my neighbor. Hence, good love of neighbor requires good love of self. In sum, Unless I love my neighbor in God, and because of God, I cannot get into heaven.
Second, charity cannot exist without faith. So, if I am not a believer, I cannot have the charity I need to have be saved. I must be converted to the one true God in faith in order to have charity so as to please him. Heb 11. [I would describe this, in my clumsy, amateur way, as the difference between natural love and supernatural love flowing from Grace. Sure those with no faith in Jesus Christ can love, but their love is a natural love and not connected to sanctifying Grace. Their love also has the propensity to be highly disordered and prurient, because it does not flow from a love of God]
……Fourth, “There is no punishment but only annihilation”. This is heresy. Everyone who dies without sanctifying grace goes straight to hell. And the soul cannot be punished in hell if it doesn’t exist. Whoever says the opposite states heresy. [Dang skippy. I pray Scalfari completely butchered what the Pope said in that regard. Otherwise, it would make the Pope’s many references to satan and demons farcical.]
Scalfari is leading people away from the truth of Catholic faith. It is lamentable that he carries on like this without being rebuked.
I saved a bit there at the link. Go check it out.
I, for one, am thrilled to find a blog from a traditional Thomist and co-parishioner who is a formally trained theologian. That’ll be going in the blogroll.
If you want still another take, check out Pat Archbold’s column here.
Pope Francis named Juan Barros as Bishop of the Diocese of Osorno in Chile earlier this year. Just this past weekend was the consecration Mass. There has been scandal attached to this man for years, with repeated and well-documented claims he covered up years of sexual abuse of three men, one of whom currently resides in the United States. At the consecration Mass, it is reported that hundreds of protesters disrupted the proceedings:
Despite protests that ended with three people arrested, as well as a campaign asking the Vatican to revisit the decision, a Chilean bishop mentored by the country’s most notorious sex abuser priest took possession of his new diocese on Saturday.
The appointment by Pope Francis has led many observers to question the pontiff’s commitment to tackling the scandals of clerical sex abuse and hold those who stood by accountable for their inaction.
An estimated 4,000 people dressed in black as a sign of mourning gathered in front of the cathedral of the diocese of Osorno, Chile, to demand that Bishop Juan Barros Madrid, former military chaplain, not take possession.
A video of the event posted online shows the crowd throwing objects at the prelate, pushing him, and trying to stop him from entering St. Mathew’s Cathedral, despite strong security measures……
…….Requesting to remain unnamed because he has ties with the diocese, the person said that while Barros was celebrating the Mass, many kept screaming “Pedophile!” and “Get out!” The situation escalated to the point that the celebration had to be cut short, skipping the homily, Communion, and other parts of the liturgy.[Wow. So was it valid? That’s so totally unfortunate]
[The root of the protests]……Since Barros’s appointment was announced last January, it has been criticized by elements of the local community because of ties Barros had with the Rev. Fernando Karadima, a priest the Vatican condemned in 2011 to a life of “solitude and prayer” after being found guilty of sexually abusing several devoted followers during the 1980s and the 1990s.
Three of Karadima’s victims, Juan Carlos Cruz, James Hamilton, and José Andrés Murillo, have accused four Chilean prelates, including Barros, of covering up for Karadima and of being present while he abused them.
I am far from clear that the protesters are necessarily faithful Catholics. They may be, in part, but they may also be secular opponents of the Church seeking to stir up mess.
Having said that, Vox Cantoris has followed the reports more than I have and he is clear that this episcopal appointment is disgraceful, and quite contrary to the rhetoric we hear about being close to the sheep and all that:
Only days after stripping the disgraced pervert Cardinal, Keith O’Brien of his title and power and sending him to retire quietly in a £200,000 cottage, Pope Francis; amidst the outrage of the people of the Diocese of Osorno in Chile has permitted another bishop to take his Cathedra – a man implicated in the scandal of sodomy and perversion and the abuse of three men from the time they were boys. Is this to be considered another “who am I to judge” episode as with Msgr. Ricca appointed to a high position within the Vatican Bank? If so, then the definition of scandal has been forgotten along with a real understanding of mercy for those victimized by the evil and perverted pederasts who performed abominable acts upon young boys of teenaged years…….
…….Since this appointment was announced in January, Chileans have been outraged. Crux further reports that “The Archbishop of Concepción, Fernando Chomalí, met with the Pope a few weeks ago and warned him that the Barros appointment was causing consternation in Chile, not only in the community of Osorno, but throughout the country. Pope Francis admitted to knowing the suffering of the victims of Karadima and the damage to the Chilean church. However — despite everything — the Pope, through the Nuncio in Chile, Ivo Scapolo, reconfirmed Barros without considering the facts and warnings of so many people, including priests and bishops. With pain we see that the faithful will have to accept and deal with Pope Francis’ decision. A pain and fear we know too well.”
Yet, Pope Francis still proceeded in spite of the warning. This is a scandal to the people of Osorno; it is a scandal and an insult to the three victims assaulted by a homosexual pederast priest whilst the then Fr. Juan Barros, watched. [And, it is claimed, did nothing to stop it]
……The Pope must be accountable for this; not just to Almighty God, but to the smelly sheep in the periphery.
As I stated in an interview with “From Rome” – Let us not, as Catholics, give an exaggerated status to any pope along the lines of what our protestant friends think – an infallibility without respect for the Gospel, which he does not possess. The First Vatican Council defined it very clearly.
All the talk of mercy, thumbs up photographs and the washing of feet and the daily media spin from the manipulators in the Vatican Press Office won’t fix this. The Pope himself is responsible for this and there is no spinning out of it.
It is a disgrace to Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.
In their dictatorship of mercy and condemnation of the Law and those who try to live by it some appear to have forgotten who is in charge.
Sheesh, truly a mess. At the very least, the pronouncement sounds quite tone deaf. Surely there were other candidates for the position? Reading between the lines a bit, it seems the papal nuncio to Chile made this a hill he was willing to die on. He really insisted upon this appointment. I really have no idea why.
This Diocese, by the way, is tiny. It has 35 priests! Shoot, Clear Creek may have that many in a few years. I have seen some contradictory reports that the bishop was either opposed by over half the priests in the Diocese, or supported by them, but it seems clear there is division among the priests there, too.
I guess the broader question is……given the scandals that have so afflicted the Church with regard to perverse, abusive priests, and given that we know there are still many of these priests (perverse, possibly not abusers of children) in circulation……..should not the Vatican err decisively on the side of caution and insure that no priest with even a hint of this kind of scandal is ever promoted to the episcopate?
Do you think this appointment represents a backing away from Pope Benedict’s very strong, unyielding stand against priest sex abusers? It’s hard for me to discern at this point, it could be a one off anomaly, or I suppose this Barros could be innocent, but is not discretion the better part of valor? Was this really a necessary appointment to make, given the wound and scandal it is causing? Should we see more mass action of this kind by faithful Catholics to scandal in the Church?
I pray this is not a return to the really bad old days of episcopal appointments.
I’ve got to agree with most everything said in the video below. The only question it left me with was whether asking for our Church back is the right response, or is it simply to take it back, without “asking?” No, I’m not entirely sure what that means, either.
The video below came out on Saturday, but I didn’t get around to watching it until last night. So, to some it may have seemed that posts yesterday were just singing this same tune, but I was ignorant of the similarities in argument. Having said that, I’m very glad to see the similarity in opinion displayed below. I also feel the bit of exasperation with trying to appease all the different factions among faithful/orthodox/traditional Catholics, an impossible and frustrating task. You can’t do it, the only approach to take is a big tent, inviting in all people of good will who are willing to take part in the fight to restore the Faith. Excluding this group because they are not of my tribe or that person because, well, they aren’t on board with all my dogmatic prudential judgments…….as has been passionately argued in the comments of recent posts, good luck with that. I guess some folks would prefer their doctrinal purity to an improved shot at really aiding in the restoration of the Church:
You know, one thought that crosses my mind from time to time – I try to keep it out, but it likes to return – is whether some of these folks who seem to have a bit of addiction to rageohol and the excoriation of foreign tribes don’t really rather prefer the Remnant, whatever that means to them, to be small, and for there to be essentially no earthly chance to restore the Faith. I pray that’s never the case with anyone, but sometimes I see such closed mindedness it really seems hard to just explain as adherence to some ideological position. Then again, ideology is an incredibly powerful thing, as Pope Francis frequently reminds us.
Video is probably old for most folks so I won’t load it up with a bunch of commentary, other than to say it’s very, very good and I am gratified that there are very good, dedicated souls out there who seem to agree with my overarching point of view.
Yes, in other words, it’s all about yay me! But that’s what you come here for, no?