Italian court orders release of $45 million worth of assets back to lay association of Franciscans of the Immaculate July 2, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, It's all about the $$$, Papa, persecution, religious, scandals, shocking, Spiritual Warfare, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Well…….yet another of the alleged justifications for the deliberate, premeditated destruction of this order has evaporated into the ether. The only vague accusation still standing was the ostensible “drift” towards a too close embrace of the traditional Mass and the traditional practice of religious life. That’s what this brutal intervention has been about all along.
An Italian court has ordered the assets of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate stripped from the lay association that administered them restored to the group, after finding claims of financial irregularities were patently false (and if that happens in Italy, where “justice” is heavily biased in favor of the prosecution, you know there was really nothing to these baseless accusations):
The Court of Avellino has ordered the release of the property that belongs to the lay associations that are close to the Order of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. Thus, another of the accusations bandied about in recent years dissolves into nothingness, spread against the founder and Superior General, Father Stefano Manelli who was deposed by the Vatican.
The property had been seized at the direction of the late Apostolic Commissioner, Father Fidenzio Volpi, by the district attorney of Avellino. As the traditional Order was placed under provisional administration in Summer 2013, the Commissioner and the leadership of the rebels realized that the properties are not in the direct possession of the Order, but belong to the lay associations connected to the Order.
Thus, the Apostolic Commissioner did not have direct access to the property. Nevertheless, in order to lay hands on it, there were accusations of alleged irregular transfers of assets. Alleged irregularities have been named in the past two years as the reason why the provisional administration was ordered by Rome. Officially there are no grounds for radical intervention in the life of the Order were announced by the Vatican to this day. [That’s true, Rome hasn’t ever stated why this draconian intervention was necessary, all justifications have come from Fr. Volpi or his hand-picked man drawn from among the handful of disaffected friars, Fr. Angelo Bruno]
The judicial panel has now established that there were no irregularities present and ordered the release of the seized real estate assets worth around 30 million euros. [Now that the damage has been done. How do they get their good names back?]
Commissioner Volpi’s actions were directed against the lay organizations related to the Order, the Mission of the Immaculate Mediatrix (MIM) and the Third Order of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate (TOFI). There are thousands of believers organized in these these worldwide and connected to the Order.
Just yesterday the appointment of a new Apostolic Commissioner for the Order became known. With the approval of Pope Francis the Congregation of Religious appointed the Salesian, Fr Sabino Ardito, to succeed Father Volpi. [Anyone know anything about him? I’d say as an Italian Salesian, it’s not a terribly reassuring sign, but both he and the two coadjutors appointed are canon lawyers, which may help prevent the lawlessness of the previous administrator?] The canonist Ardito will lead the fortunes of the Order for the time being until the summer of 2016. Then the three-year period of a regular provisional administration will be finished. The provisional administration could then, however, be extended on a proposal from the Commissioner.
Lord I pray not. May this poor tortured order be freed! But what happens to Fr. Manelli if the apostolic intervention is allowed to expire? I imagine it will be felt that cannot be allowed to happen, and there will be attempts to extend the intervention at least until his death. He is in his mid-80s and not in the best of health, but I hope our Lord keeps him around for many years to come.
Why has all this happened, now that all the justifications have fallen away? There was never rife division in the order, the vast majority were fully in favor of the order’s somewhat traditional turn. I have always felt this brutal breaking of the order stems from their having the temerity to hold conferences and publish books asking uncomfortable questions of Vatican II. The American friar who certainly seemed to be the intellectual leader of the small group of disaffected friars made that much clear – his own book was more or less a polemical attack on those questioning efforts. Ultimately, though, I have a hard time seeing this much hostility being just about questioning the Council. It’s long seemed to me there is something a bit deeper, a bit uglier in the brutality we’ve seen against an order of unimpeachable integrity. This is, and always has been, personal.
Of course, to the progressive, the personal is the political and deviating from their sacred shibboleths is taken as a personal attack. So maybe that’s just how things roll in the merciful Church of today.
Call to end tax exempt status is really a call to end churches and plunder their property June 30, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, Tradition, unadulterated evil.
One of the dominant characteristics of the Tudor dynasty in 16th and 17th century England was its totalitarian nature and profound lawlessness. It was this lawlessness that laid the seed-bed for 17th century rebellion against monastery and the (to the present day) total ascendance of the Parliament over the monarchy. Henry VIII infamously sacked much of the wealth of the English Church, the better to buy support among certain aristocrats and other unscrupulous souls. He did so through an instrument of totalitarian government, the Act of Supremacy, which declared Henry the sole head of the “church in England.”
History never repeats, but historical situations do recur. We don’t quite have an all-powerful king, but we do have a narrow elite hell-bent on pursuing their own narrow interest and using any and all means to do so. We also have a nation horribly in debt and unable to meet even its present-day fiscal obligations, not to mention the titanic mountain of debt that looms on the near horizon. These are two very powerful elements that, with this disastrous Obergfell Supreme Court decision, now have the means to plunder the churches both for the wealth that could be gained by so doing and, to paraphrase King Henry II, to rid themselves of these damned meddlesome Christians.
That’s the conclusion (and the extrapolation) I draw from Denny Burk’s warning that the sexular pagans are not nearly done with their revolution, and that they are coming for the churches next, both for our money, and to silence us once and for all (my emphasis and comments):
Mark Oppenheimer of The New York Times is now calling for the government to remove tax-exempt status from churches. After I posted a link to his article on Facebook, a pastor friend commented: “I’m not sure our small church could survive.” That, my friends, is the point. And Oppenheimer knows it. [Well, he admits as much later]
Legal gay marriage is not the endgame for the gay-rights movement. It never was. Moral approval is the endgame. The agenda is not tolerance for different beliefs and lifestyles. The agenda is a demand that everyone get on board with the moral revolution or be punished. That means if you or your church won’t get with the program, then the revolutionaries will endeavor to close you down. [That is it in a nutshell. Reilly establishes very clearly that this “marriage” movement is all about gaining that precious, precious affirmation these poor souls so constantly crave. It won’t work, of course, the Law of God written on their hearts will continue to keep them in misery so long as they live these terrible lives of sin]
But they aren’t going to say,”We’ll close you down,” in so many words. They will cover it in propaganda that conceals their real aim. They’ll say, as Oppenheimer does, that taxpayers are “subsidizing” churches, that ministers make fat-cat six-figure salaries, and that government should get those rich priests and preachers off the government dole. [I don’t know what our bishops in this country make, but there are some fat cats in the Church in places like Germany. But in this country, even the pastor of a large parish rarely makes more than $60k a year, though they do have many major expenses covered]
Never mind that the average base salary of a full-time senior pastor ranges from $33,000 to $70,000 (source). Never mind that ministers do pay income taxes. Never mind that it is absurd to suggest not paying taxes is a subsidy…….That doesn’t fit the fictional narrative activists wish to advance—that these churches don’t deserve to have their “subsidy” continued in light of their intolerable views on sexuality. [Yep, that’s the point. And the rhetoric about “subsidy” reveals for the tweltheenth time that leftists view ALL income as belonging by right to the state, with lowered taxes somehow becoming “subsidies” or even “gifts” from the state to the citizen. All they need now is their Fouquier-Tinville.]
No, the real intent of removing tax-exempt status is to cripple the institutions that continue their dissent from the sexual revolution. When tax exemptions are removed, donors will give far less than they are giving now. Churches will become liable to property taxes.[Especially in deep blue states, but it could become universal eventually] That means that many churches will have to forfeit their property to the government because they won’t be able to afford the taxes they have to pay on it.[And what a bonanza that could be] Many of them wouldn’t be able to pay them now. If donations went down, they would be that much further from being able to pay them. As a result, churches that reside on valuable properties in urban locations would be immediately vulnerable. Eventually, so would everyone else. [Dang right. Maybe it’s been a great grace that so many traddie parishes are in undesirable locales?]
Oppenheimer knows this. That is why he argues that if churches can’t raise the money for their new tax burden, then they don’t deserve to retain their property.[Who the hell is he to say this? OK, if we ever elect a real social conservative, how about raising taxes on urban elites (especially NYC) to 95%? If government is going to be all about will to power, punish the minority and squash all dissent, then this could involve into savage persecution of the other side depending on who comes out on top after a given election. This process won’t last long, it will end in dictatorship – with a lot of people clamoring for it – just to return to some kind of perceived sense of order] After all, he argues, the government would do a better job than churches at meeting the needs of their community. [This is false, private charities have been demonstrated to be far more efficient distributors of charity, being much closer to local needs. Oppenheimer’s entire piece is full of such bald, unsupported assertions] He concludes, “So yes, the logic of gay-marriage rights could lead to a reexamination of conservative churches’ tax exemptions… When that day comes, it will be long overdue.”……[Ah – did you get that? That’s the key. It won’t be all churches. It won’t be unitarian universalists or other churches of the sexular pagan left. It will be orthodox Christian churches. So this is entirely about crushing opposition]
………When some of us warned of the religious-liberty implications of making gay marriage a fundamental constitutional right, we were told that such things would never happen. What they really meant was, “That will never happen, but when it does you Christians will deserve it.” Oppenheimer is making the case for why he thinks we deserve it.
Is it revealing the degree to which seemingly secular Jews have been playing in the advance of the sexular pagan agenda going back decades now? Is it revealing that the entire Frankfurt School of avowed communists was made up of deeply self-loathing Jews (and thoroughly miserable human beings)? Is there an eschatological element to this involvement by the Jews in the unprecedented retreat of Christendom over the past few hundred years?
Perhaps more immediate questions are: now that we have confirmation that the sexularist revolutionaries are already moving against the Church in the primary area they can influence – funding – and thus all of our dire predictions have been proved right……..does it matter? Now that we have confirmation that these same pagans are already moving to legalize polygamy and even worse, incest, and we’ve been proved right again……will that knowledge make any difference? Will enough people care? Are there enough basically orthodox Christians and protestants of any stripe to stop this runaway freight?
I’m afraid the answers are likely no. In certain regions, more rural communities in the South, West, and Great Plains, there remains a relatively large number of at least somewhat orthodox Christians and protestants, but everywhere else………we’ll be a tiny minority. We certainly are in most cities. And once real suffering starts, our numbers will decrease even more.
If persecuting policies aimed at bankrupting churches are enacted at the federal (national) level, it will be very hard on most parishes. It is possible more friendly state and local policy could offset a good deal of the damage done, however. So this will likely be a more regional phenomenon, where leftist states are able to even further drive all opposition out but survival may be possible elsewhere. Rod Dreher seems to be pointing towards rural enclaves a la the early monasteries. Much will depend on how our bishops respond, but barring an unforeseen miracle I think it will become increasingly difficult to impossible for traditional Catholic communities to exist in liberal areas generally and large coastal cities in particular. Maybe I’m being a bit too negative, but I don’t believe I am. While I predicted pseudo-sodomarriage would be the law of the land 2-3 years ago, if you had asked me 10 years ago whether any of this would come to pass, I would have thought you were crazy. That’s how fast things are moving.
It might not be a bad idea for traditional parishes to start identifying alternative centers for the Sacraments if they cannot maintain their present physical locations. This might include barns, halls, meeting places, even open fields.
I don’t mean to discourage anyone, but we’re heading into a real, red persecution. We need to be prepared.
………and Bishop Michael Jarrell of Lafayette, LA calls for civil disobedience against such manifestly unjust and immoral laws.
Blaise Cupich of Chicago, however, released the formal instrument of surrender for his archdiocese.
Differing responses to the moral calamity that faces us. I am certain this will be par for the course for at least the next few years:
A dozen Catholic priests, accompanied by dozens more of the faithful, prevented the discussion of a bill to create homosexual “marriage” in the Mexican state of Chihuahua by their impassioned protest outside of the capitol building and their entrance into the congress itself to observe the proceedings, according to reports in the local and national press.
Following a prayer vigil the night before in the cathedral of the state capital, the protesters began to gather outside of the state congress and express their rejection of allowing debate over the legal recognition of homosexual unions as “marriages.” At 11:30 pm a group of about ten priests accompanied by laymen entered the congress itself to witness the proceedings, holding placards expressing support for the traditional family.
Seeing the protestors and the presence of the priests, the president of the state congress, Cesar Augusto Pacheco Hernandez, stated that the topic would not be addressed at the session, according to the local El Diario newspaper. The decision was met by cheers from the pro-family protesters……..
……..According to recent Supreme Court decisions, it is “discriminatory” to link “the requirements of marriage to sexual preferences,” as this “unjustifiably excludes homosexual couples -who are in similar conditions as heterosexual couples- from marriage,” the Court stated. It added its claim that it is “unsuitable” to “consider that the purpose of marriage is procreation,” and affirmed that the “only constitutional purpose this decree acknowledges is the protection of family as a social reality.”
They’re almost entirely fake, transitory “unions” anyways! The entire agenda is founded on a hideous lie, which is that the normal course of sodomite/gomorrist relations resembles anything like even marriage as it exists today, as abused and denigrated by “heterosexuals” as it is, let alone marriage as it has been for thousands of years – the indissoluble union of a man and woman oriented towards the creation of new life. The only way sodomite “unions” persist more than a handful of years, if not months, is through constant and expected fornication with others. Even then, above 90% of such relationships last less than 3 years. That lets alone the profoundly unnatural aspects of this behavior, with hideously high rates of all manner of horrific diseases – anal cancer, rectal prolapse, sky-high rates of domestic violence, depression, drug addiction, suicide.
No matter what court decides what, the actions that define the sodomite agenda will remain foul, contrary to nature, incredibly offensive to God and downright sickening and evil.
I’ve wondered as a blogger a few times as to why the pro-life movement has chosen to totally eschew the more confrontational tactics of the late 70s and 80s that generated a lot of controversy but also probably saved a lot of lives. At that time, human chains blocking entrances to mills and rescue operations even inside mills were quite common. I have been told that such means were counterproductive and just got the pro-life movement labeled as crazy, while noting our cultural and religious enemies rarely have such compunction. Radical tactics certainly seem to work for them.
Possibly along those lines, Bishop Michael Jarrell of Lafayette, LA seems to call for civil disobedience, at least among elected officials, without postulating what that might involve (I really think, in charity, priests and prelates owe their flocks very clear moral guidelines on the forms of resistance we may morally engage in).
Personally, I’m all for considering such steps. You know I’ve been praying outside strip clubs for a little while now, and while I think that helpful and sort of an overlooked evil in our midst, I’ve been debating with myself if that’s really the most effective place to be or even if that’s what I’m being called to. Part of me wants to park myself outside some of these sodomite pseudo-churches that confirm these people in their sins by butchering Christianity into a neo-pagan evil and confronting this gravest threat to our religion more directly. But I can envision such engagement escalating quickly and I don’t think we have the numbers for that kind of confrontation, yet, even while I wonder if I am spiritually up to such (I’m sure the others are, but I am weak and cowardly). I’m sure we’ll know very soon where these pseudo-sodo-marriages are taking place, and maybe that’s where we can take a stand in the near future. I’ll think about it more.
The point being, the status quo has obviously failed. Our political and church leadership have totally collapsed in the face of the advance of this gravest of perversions. Do we just circle the wagons and prepare for the day they come for us, or do we take the fight to the enemy while we might still have a prayer of making a difference? Is it prudent to do so, or will that just make the parishes from which we emanate greater targets? Does that even matter at this point? If we’re doomed to suffer anyways, should we actively seek it out or wait till it comes to us? With the abdication of our shepherds, must the sheep become their own shepherds? I don’t know, perhaps you have some thoughts.
A commenter asked why I picked on Anthony Kennedy in my initial reaction to the destruction of marriage decision issued last week, when there was another ‘Catholic’ justice who voted in favor of this demonic nightmare (Sotomayor). Well, I did that for two reasons…….one, this is about the umpteenth time Kennedy has voted against the solemnly proclaimed Doctrine of the Faith – it was he who kept abortion legal in Casey vs. Planned Parenthood, he who de-criminalized sodomy in Lawrence vs. Texas (and wrote the solipsistic majority opinion), he who cast the deciding vote in 2013 in favor of the federal government recognizing “same sex marriage” as actual marriage……and those are just the highlights. Secondly, and more importantly, while Sotomayor does not present herself as a faithful, orthodox Catholic, she acknowledges she differs from the Church on a number of matters, Kennedy DOES present himself as a faithful Catholic. That’s a big distinction.
Anyway, Kennedy has struck again, staying the implementation of aspects of Texas House Bill 2 which has resulted in the shuttering of a large majority of the state’s abortion mills. It is quite possible given this stay, some which had shut down will re-open, at least temporarily:
The Supreme Court barred Texas on Monday from implementing a law that would have forced more than half the state’s 19 abortion clinics to close their doors this week.
The law, which was to take effect Wednesday, would require clinics to adhere to strict new physical standards and the doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
The court granted the reprieve after abortion rights groups requested an emergency stay, having unsuccessfully sought to have the law overturned. The stay will probably remain in place at least through the summer while the parties assemble a legal case and the court decides whether to take it up in the next term.
The court did not offer a reason for its 5-to-4 decision, and the law’s ultimate fate remains unclear. The court’s reliably conservative justices — Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — dissented and would have let the law take effect.
So what are the odds Kennedy will let HB2 stand? I’d say about 50:1 against, at least.
I have been heartened by some of the reaction I have seen to last week’s travesty of a decision. I have seen a large number of conservatives finally, if belatedly, come to the realization that the Supreme Court decades ago ceased to be a deliberative body dedicated to interpreting the Constitution with respect to various laws and regulations, and has in fact become a “third legislature” of nine unelected lawyers (see Scalia’s blistering dissent) whose function is to enact social revolution which could never, or only with great difficulty, have been enacted by normal legislative action (re: “democracy”) into law.
That this is true is revealed by the fact that no one, anywhere, ever had any doubt as to which way any of the four hard leftists on the Court would vote on these matters. It was simply never in doubt. That’s because these leftists don’t give a whit for the Constitution or what it says, they are there to carry out the revolution by other means. This has been the case for at least 60 years and frankly, longer than that.
And the “conservatives”…..please. None of them is rock solid, and Kennedy has morphed more and more into an out and out leftist, at least so far as social matters are concerned. But every single one of them can be turned to statism on this issue or that, as Thomas showed when he voted with the leftist block to support a TEXAS law forbidding Confederate flag symbols (for the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization) on Texas license plates. Scalia supports statism when it comes to law enforcement and the “war on drugs,” Roberts of course has tied himself in knots trying to find ways to keep Obamacare “constitutional”…….they all will squish on one issue or the other. And since the four leftists are utterly unmovable, all it takes is one.
On a more important matter, how have we as a nation come to this point? How have we come to the point when the Church’s very ability to exist in this country is coming under severe threat?
I think we all know……we are here due to the ABJECT, MANIFEST AND NEAR TOTAL FAILURE of episcopal leadership in this country and around the world going back to the late 1800s when the foul and never fully repressed Americanist heresy reared its ugly head. The Church as we have experienced it in this country over the past several decades is simply Americanism in action – indifferentism masked as ecumenism, excess focus on public or social virtues, doctrinal weakness/incoherence, toleration of rebellion, excess deference to protestantism, liturgical abuse, and most of all, heaping doses of moral cowardice masquerading as a false virtue of tolerance. We have come to this point because the leadership of the Church has not only not fought hard enough against the sexular pagan revolution, many key players willingly aided and advanced the sexular pagan revolution through their covert relations with Planned Barrenhood, their Hyannisport meetings, their Land O’ Lakes conference and their “seamless garments.” They have, very nearly to a man, totally failed in their duty to exercise Church discipline, protect the sanctity of the Church’s doctrinal edifice, and use the (truly charitable) means available to them to stamp out heresy and abuse. Instead they have played footsie with heresy and cozied up to politicians and others who have done massive damage to the Faith, all out of desire to “maintain a place at the table” and keep the privileges enjoyed in the past for as long as possible, the impact to souls be damned.
God will not be mocked. He allows our sins to destroy us or at the very least really, really chastise us. The Church in this country is about to go through an unbelievable chastisement due to the failure – at all levels, it must be said – to live the Faith rightly for decades now. It is not going to be at all pretty, or fun. It’s going to be a bitter trial and diabolical confusion.
As I said, may God have mercy on us all. I do think we shall have many opportunities for heroic virtue in the days ahead.
May God have mercy on our country June 26, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, asshatery, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, shocking, Society.
Even though I am still in glorious deep rural Kansas I am aware that 9 unelected, unrepresentative, elitist oligarch lawyers in black robes just destroyed this nation as it has been known.
See previous post. It was spot on. We are beyond done. Major D’s are already speaking of eliminating tax exempt status for churches that do not comply. That will only be the beginning.
May God have mercy on us all, especially “Catholic” Anthony Kennedy AND those prelates and priests who allow him to continue gravely wounding the Church and souls, heap sin upon sin, blasphemy the Our Lord in the Flesh, and basically wage a one man war against all that is good, decent, and holy.
Pray, fast, and receive the Sacraments as much as you can, while you still can. The future of this country unfolds before us like an endless night.
Various and Sundry as I wind down the week June 24, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, episcopate, error, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, Society, Tradition, Virtue.
It’s harvest time at the farm, so I am going to be out for the next several days. I might come back with a scintillating combine video I’m sure you’ll just be wracked in anticipation thereof. Sorry, you’ll just have to wait.
A few items of ephemera for the interim. I took a couple of these from JP Sonnen’s blog. First up, a lovely evening/night pilgrimage at La Salette:
I love our Lady’s apparitions. I need to learn more about La Sallete. I like the idea of a night procession. That’s beautiful. Looks like quite a suitable church, too.
These are good ones:
All three are essential. Since our culture has chosen to forget the God part, it was inevitable that marriage would fall to the state it has.
I also wanted to put up this video from The Remnant, for two reasons. For one, there is a very interesting quote from Elizabeth Yore regarding the recent “climate change” conference held at the Vatican and, of course, the encyclical Laudato Si. But even more there is a plug for a small but deserving online video Catholic apostolate called JMJHF Productions. I’ve posted a number of their videos on the blog before, and they are apparently working on a documentary on this year’s pilgrimage to Chartres, which is something I eagerly await. It might even inspire me to consider going sometime, though I’ve never been a fan of long distance travel.
Have a watch:
I do find it significant that the Vatican has apparently relied so heavily on input from the radical environmental lobby for both the recent conference and the encyclical, to the point of calumniating other viewpoints, even from very devout children of the Church. That is a most troubling development, because it points to a politicization of the Vatican we have not seen in a very long time, and represents the ascension of an ideology that has been at war with the Church for hundreds of years. The message from certain curial figures of late to faithful Catholics has been: buzz off. And they don’t say it quite so nicely.
Were you aware that the Vatican collaborated with the Obama administration to tie the encyclical to various federal policies, which I assume includes the attempt to label carbon dioxide (which we all exhale) a hazardous pollutant subject to EPA control?
I’ve been pretty skeptical of the New World Order rhetoric, but now…….I’m not so sure. There certainly seems to be a tremendous amount of coordination going on around the world, directing events on a score of different fronts in a common direction, coordination that speaks of a high level of organization and conducted by individuals with a huge amount of influence.
But Chartres does give one a good deal of hope. It looks like many hundreds if not more participated?
Finally formally announced: Fort Worth gets FSSP parish June 24, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, Glory, Grace, Latin Mass, Sacraments, sanctity, Tradition, Victory, Virtue.
Bishop Michael Olson of Fort Worth paid a surprise visit to the Fort Worth Latin Mass community parish (Our Lady of theAssumption) to make a special announcement: Fort Worth will soon have its own full-time FSSP parish. The names of the two priests to be assigned have already been determined: Fr. Karl Pikus and Fr. Peter Byrne. Approvals are already essentially complete, it is expected the priests could arrive as early as August. More below:
This past Sunday The Fort Worth Latin Mass Community had a surprise visitor…Bishop Olson.
He came to announce that an official apostolate parish for the FSSP will soon be established in the diocese.
He said all of the paperwork should be finalized some time in July. After that we will be welcoming two new priests, Fr. Karl Pikus and Fr. Peter Byrne, no specific date was given.
The Bishop welcomes all of the members of the Fort Worth Latin Mass community to email him, email@example.com, with name suggestions. He only asks that it not be a duplicate name of a parish already in the Fort Worth Diocese.
I have heard a rumor, and it is only that, that the new parish will be in White Settlement. If so, that’s a bit out of the way for a lot of folks. It’s on the northwest side of Tarrant County. Nice if you’re stationed at Carswell, though.
I feel rather vindicated. When Bishop Olson blocked the offering of the TLM at Fisher-More College during its final days, due to numerous administrative and other problems ongoing at the former college, I was about the only traditional-leaning blogger who defended his action (and I took it on the chin pretty good for doing so). I knew a lot more about the situation at Fisher-More and the reasons for Olson’s action than the vast majority of those who commented, almost all of whom really attacked the bishop for an alleged animus against the TLM. I also knew that Fort Worth would not be long in getting a permanent, full-time TLM parish. I thank Bishop Olson for his generosity and his patience in putting up with some pretty hardcore attacks.*
And so now 1 1/2 years later Fort Worth is going to have a full-time TLM staffed by two priests with daily Mass and Confession. That’s an enormous good for the entire Diocese and region, and indicates anything but a bias against the TLM. Fort Worth will now be among a minority of US dioceses to have the TLM available daily. The DFW area will now have 3 FSSP parishes with two or more priests within about an hour’s drive of central Dallas. That is awesome.
* – no I’m not saying Bishop Olson is Mr. Traditional nor is he my hero, I’m just saying the situation with the Mass at Fisher-More was all to do about Fisher-More and nothing to do with Bishop Olson’s views on the TLM.
If it was belief fit to be included in an 1899 Catechism, how can the opposite be true today? Or is cremation simply yet another one of those many areas where a doctrine remains “on the books,” but few bishops or priests know it or enforce it? And, hey, columbaria are a good source of income for relatively little investment, so, what’s not to like?
From The Catechism Explained: An Exhaustive Exposition of the Catholic Religion by Fr. Francis Spirago and published in 1899 by Benzinger Brothers, NY, from an Italian original:
Cremation is condemned by the Church as being an abominable abuse.
Originally the custom of interring the dead in the ground was common to all nations, for the most ancient human remains that have been discovered bear no signs of having been subjected to fire. Vaults containing skeletons have also been met with, closed by a slab of stone. We know that the Jews buried their dead; Holy Scripture constantly speaks of the burial of kinds and prophets. That his corpse should be left unburied was a chastisement threatened to the transgressor (Dt XXVIII:26). Only during a time of pestilence were the Jews allowed to burn individual corpses (Am VI:10).
The Romans in earlier times buried their dead. Cicero tells us that their graves were considered as sacred, and the profanation of a tomb was severely punished, even by the loss of a hand……..
…...In later times, when manners became corrupt, cremation was practiced among them……It is a noteworthy fact that all barbarous nations, who in an uncivilized state burned their dead, substituted the grave for the funeral pyre as soon as civilization shed its light in their land. Christianity, did, in fact, abolish cremation. But in these days, when Christian Faith is on the decrease, cremation is once more becoming a fashion. St. Augustine denounces the practice as horrible and barbarous. It offends our Christian instincts. For we are taught to regard death as a sleep; the dead sleep in Christ (I Cor XV:18), for they will rise again; they are laid to rest in peace, and the idea of the repose they enjoy is connected with the churchyard, not with the crematorium. When we commit our dead to the kindly earth, we tacitly express our belief that our body is like a seed, which is cast into the ground, to germinate and spring up: “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption” (I Cor XV:42). [Two additional points: Christian people used to strive to emulate Christ and the Saints in all ways possible. Our Lord was buried in the ground for 3 days, and there has never been a record of a Saint not being laid to rest in the ground. By partaking of cremation, those who call themselves Christian are deliberately choosing to end their lives in a way different from Our Blessed Lord and His Saints.]
As Christians we have a higher esteem for the soul, which partakes of the divine nature, and consequently for the body, which is the servant and tool of the soul. No true Christian can fail to shrink from the horrors of cremation; only those who are lost to all sense of the dignity of human nature, to all belief in the truths of religion, can desire it for themselves. [I will admit I am somewhat taken aback by this really forceful language, because all opposition I have read to cremation previously has been much softer than this. That only shows how much standards have slipped in the last 116 years?] Let us remember that Christ, our great Exemplar, was laid in the tomb and rose again. [The key…….] For pagans such considerations naturally have no weight; they disliked the sight of the sepulchral monument, the mount raised over the dead, because it reminded them of death, which would put an end to their earthly enjoyments. For the same reason unbelievers in our own day advocate cremation. Burial suggests to them too strongly the immortality of the soul, whereas cremation appears to promise the annihilation that they desire as their portion after death. Yet let no one imagine that the Christian dreads the destruction of the body by fire as an impediment to its future resurrection, for God can effect the reintegration of the body after it has been dissolved into gaseous elements.
That concluding argument is very interesting, because in previous objections I’ve read on cremation, the idea that cremation implied a denial of bodily resurrection was a primary reason to oppose cremation’s use. The above seems to say that Christians never feared that God could not resurrect cremated remains, and so it was strictly the act of defiance that was problematic.
I think the excerpt above hits on the key point: the reason for cremation’s sudden spike in popularity over the past few decades has to do with the general paganization of the culture and the desire by people to never have to face reminders of death, but more importantly, the afterlife. More and more people conduct their lives as if there will be no judgment; they certainly hope so, anyway. Seeing a cemetary is to them a grim reminder of death, whereas columbaria are generally so well hidden one would never know what they were looking at. Furthermore, most people don’t even bother to have their ashes reposed in some sacred or sentimental place, they simply have them scattered to the four winds. All of this speaks, at least subliminally, of a great fear of death and judgment.
When some folks say: “Well, I know this good Catholic or that good Baptist, and they’re planning on being cremated,” I’d answer with: a) how do you know they are so good?, moral standards have slipped so much across the boards mere visible membership in a Church is hardly a guide to sanctity (as if it has ever been, there were plenty of depraved souls who attended church every Sunday when such was more or less a cultural requirement), and b) it really doesn’t matter what others do, what matters is what you do and how that correlates to emulating our Blessed Lord in every possible respect. The latter alone is all the argument I need to dissuade me from being cremated. I’ve never had an interest in doing so, anyways, I want my bones in the cool, green earth, not burned to ash in a hellish fire.
Then there are other factors not mentioned above: if a loved one were buried somewhere near me, I would visit that cemetery every chance I got to pray for them. I cannot say the same for a columbarium. Secondly, very ancient cemeteries are occasionally forgotten, but for the most part, cemeteries are treated as hallowed ground and not often subject to simply being paved over. At the very least, the remains are relocated, and quite often, whatever development needs to occur happens around the existing cemetery. We had a case of the latter near our former home. Can the same be said for a wall filled with urns? We’d like to think so, but what if the church associated with that wall no longer exists? What happens when the wall starts to decay and fall down? You can lift a head stone pretty easily, but walls have to be rebuilt, most often from scratch. I think there’s going to be a bit of a problem and/or scandal in a few decades when developers come across these strange walls nobody knows or cares much about, whatever legal “guarantees” may have been made aside.
One last point…….the symbolism of cremation is to me inescapable. Do you really want your last earthly act to be being cast into a fire? I’d rather be buried at sea……..
The problem of the modern papal encyclical June 24, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in catachesis, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Holy suffering, Papa, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Great piece by Boniface at Unam Sanctam Catholicam, as usual. I have to heartily second his sentiments……problematic papal encyclicals did not start with Laudato Si. Encyclicals have grown increasingly long-winded and off-topic for decades. The problem really exploded after the Second Vatican Council, when the clarity of the prior Magisterium was replaced by a nebulous hopefulness and a subliminal sense of doubt. Encyclicals no longer simply declare the Faith as they used to, they seem to beg the world permission to be Catholic while hoping to possibly convince a few to come along.
That’s the gist of Boniface’s point, and I think it’s a very important one (my emphasis and comments):
“Nowadays however, the Spouse of Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She consider that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations.”
This principle has effected the manner in which the post-1965 ecclesia docens functions. Essentially, the post-Conciliar encyclical doesn’t know what it wants to be when it grows up. The popes have still utilized them as a means of teaching, but rather than teaching what Catholic doctrine consists of, they have increasingly become occasions for popes to explain why Catholic doctrine is what it is. [In a sort of desperate, if I make this clear enough won’t you accept it kind of way, instead of just laying down the law]
(b) Even when its has opted for explaining rather than declaring the Church’s teaching, the Church has done a poor job of it because it has chosen to explain its teachings in terms of humanist phenomenology rather than having recourse to the Church’s traditional pedagogy. [Another great point. And more and more true, with rare exceptions, as time has gone on. Now we have two whole generations of priests who have been formed thoroughly in this humanist phenomenology, and it has affected their thinking to a great degree. Not just these priests, but almost all of us have to be very nearly de-programmed from the toxic modernist/humanist filth in which we stew in order to come to an appreciation for the Faith That Was (and shall be again).]
(c) By focusing so much on the explanation and presentation over the declaration, the Church has unwittingly given the false impression that the validity of its teachings are bound up with the force of her argumentation, a kind of false intellectualism. [That is a HUGE point. I think it plays a very large role in much of the progressive attempts to subvert doctrine. They think if they can come up with a better argument, the Doctrine must fall by the wayside. We’ve seen that in so many respects when they attack the accuracy of Scripture, when they try to insinuate that the early Church somehow believed differently, etc. Great, great point] She feels shaky and inadequate simply saying, “Such is the voice of the Church; such is the teaching of our Faith”; she feels she must offer a humanistic centered explanation for everything – an explanation that will “suit” the needs of “contemporary man” – with the effect that her message has become completely man-centered. [and watered down] “He taught as one who had authority” (Matt. 7:29) said the people of old about Christ; but when the Church forgets the supernatural force that stands behind her teaching and opts instead for an anthropomorphized message, she no longer “speaks with authority”, in the sense that her words lose their force. Hence people shrug at the latest papal document and move on. [Which is only exacerbated by their length and the numerous segues into side topics, like so-called climate change]
(d) Finally, because the popes have sought for novel means to propose their teachings, encyclicals lose their strenght as teaching documents and become instead opportunities for the popes to foist their own theological or literary tastes on the Catholic people. [Ahem, Laudato Si, but also others]
I’ll conclude with this: some of my best posts have been my shortest ones. Brevity is the soul of wit, and all that. Who besides a few specialists and hardcore believers is really going to struggle through 187 pages (nearly 100,000 words) of carping text? I think it utterly brilliant that Unam Sanctam was one page long. That’s the stuff of Catholic greatness, and Boniface VIII was a great pope.
Here’s a question – how many post-conciliar encyclicals aside from Humanae Vitae, have you read cover to cover? I’ve read a number of the pre-conciliar encyclicals but I have to admit I have never made it through one post-conciliar encyclical all the way (I may have finished Caritas in Veritate, but I’m not sure). I just get too exhausted by the effort. Mind, I’m a guy who reads the Bible cover to cover over and over and is typically reading at least a dozen books on Saints and catechisms and general Catholicism simultaneously. I have fought through a lot of so-so and more than a few bad books, but I simply cannot muster the strength to fight through many of these encyclicals, and I doubt I am much alone.
Pray like mad: working document for upcoming Synod pushes Kasper proposal, “gifts” of sodomy June 23, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Abortion, contraception, episcopate, error, Eucharist, family, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, Sacraments, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Noted fire-breathing, knuckle-dragging raddest of trad sites Whispers in the Loggia (I kid) has announced the release of the instrumentum laboris, or working document, for the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family
and the Destruction of Marriage (I’m sorry, getting a bit jaded). The text, in spite of having significant portions fail to gain the requisite approval at the Extraordinary Synod, includes the full Kasperite proposal (and goes even further in some respects), as well as the ground-laying language on sodomy which is sure to lead to an eventual push to declare sodomy no longer a sin and some kind of recognition of pretended sodo-marriages.
If you haven’t been praying like mad, now would be a very good time to do so (my emphasis and comments):
And after a second round of global consultation, it has arrived – at Roman Noon, the instrumentum laboris (baseline text) for October’s climactic Synod on the Family was released… for now, however – much like last year’s first volume – the full sequel is only available in Italian.….
……..Among other highlights, the final portion of the framework deals with the proposed changes of practice cited by their supporters as necessary for the church to better respond to families in challenging situations amid current pastoral practice.
On the assembly’s most hot-button issue of all, the instrumentum speaks of a “common accord” among the world’s bishops toward “eventual access” to the sacraments for divorced and civilly remarried couples, but only following “an itinerary of reconciliation or a penitential path under the authority of the [diocesan] bishop,” and only “in situations of irreversible cohabitation.” [No there was not “common accord.” These texts were highly divisive.] The text cautions that the proposal is only envisioned “in some particular situations, and according to well-precise conditions,” citing the interest of children born in a second union. On a related front, ample treatment was given to the state of marriage tribunals, with calls for a “decentralization” of the annulment courts and the floating of the “relevance of the personal faith” of spouses in terms of their understanding of the marital bond as a means for declaring the nullity of a marriage. [I’ll just say it: BS. Just as contraception was put forth by people like Charles Curran as a recourse for well-formed Catholic married couples capable of discerning fine moral points, in practice, the Church has all but abandoned preaching the evil of contraception on a regular basis, and it is used by the large majority of self-described Catholics. The same will happen with divorce, the “precise conditions” (also a feature of the initial Anglican embrace of divorce AND contraception) will disappear overnight and we’ll have mass distribution of the Blessed Sacrament to those in adulterous unions – not that such does not already occur in this country, but the point is, these bishops are tired of fighting the culture, they’re disinclined to accept perennial Church Doctrine and practice, and they are looking for an easy way out. Period, end of sentence.]
In particular, the latter point echoes a longstanding line of the Pope’s – having quoted the impression of his predecessor in Buenos Aires, the late Cardinal Antonio Quarracino, that “half” of failed Catholic marriages there “are null” solely on the grounds of unformed faith, a papal commission formed quietly by Francis last summer is studying possible changes to the annulment process independent of the Synod itself. No timeline is set for its work. [But this is not how the Church traditionally viewed matters. The only grounds for annulments prior to the US circa 1970 were grave incapacity, failure to consummate, or evidence of marriage against one’s will. Now in the American context, excuses are sought after the fact to annul a marriage that has, by the bishop’s demand, already failed (the bishops demand a civil divorce before an annulment can be pursued). And of course the vast majority of the few US annulments appealed to the Roman Rota are rejected. So something is amiss. But it seems the desire is to apply the quite scandalous US practice to the universal Church.]
Elsewhere, three paragraphs were devoted to pastoral ministry to families “having within them a person of homosexual orientation.” While reaffirming the 2003 CDF declaration that “there exists no foundation whatsoever to integrate or compare, not even remotely, homosexual unions and the design of God for the family,” the text urges that “independent of their sexual tendency,” gays “be respected in their dignity and welcomed with sensibility and delicateness, whether in the church or society.” [While being clearly apprised of the depravity of their acts and their exclusion from the Blessed Sacrament until they repent of them, right?]
Perhaps most boldly – reflecting a key emphasis of one of the gathering’s three presidents, Cardinal Chito Tagle of Manila – the text emphasizes that “The Christian message must be announced in a language that sustains hope.
“It is necessary to adopt a clear and inviting communication [style],” the instrumentum reads, one that is “open, which doesn’t moralize, judge, nor [aim to] control, and bears witness to the moral teaching of the church, while at the same time remaining sensible to the situations of each person.” [In spite of the lip service to Doctrine, who really believes this will not mean in practice the complete abandonment of the moral doctrine of the Faith, at least as it relates to the groinal issues so sacred to the left?]
Along the same lines, the theme of “mercy” – the core of the extraordinary Holy Year conceived by Francis and opening in December [including non-ordained ministers of mercy empowered to somehow, I know not how, remit all sins and even the temporal punishment stemming therefrom, to, more or less, “re-baptize” people] – runs pointedly throughout the document, with the term cited over 30 times. Arguably in a hand-showing of the Pope’s intent, the Synod’s conclusions will be entrusted to the pontiff for him to decide upon, with the results likely to emerge sometime in mid-2016, squarely in the midst of the Jubilee Year he’s chartered.
All that said, especially given the topic’s place at the core of the church’s long polarization on family issues, one word was especially conspicuous by its absence: “contraception.” [The Japanese term is mokosatsu – to kill with silence]
All I can say is to again exhort readers to as much prayer and penance as possible. The writing is clearly on the wall. As
Rollo Tomasi Rocco Palmo at Whispers intimates, it is more that slightly significant that the final papal interpretation and enactment of the Synod’s efforts will be introduced at the high point of the Holy Year of Mercy. All the pieces point in a direction quite opposite to a Humanae Vitae moment, where Pope Paul VI, contrary to the recommendations he had received and his own inclinations, was compelled to repeat the perennial Church judgment of all contraceptive-use as inherently immoral.
But the indications at that time similarly pointed to a change in Church Doctrine, and that somehow did not happen, much to the consternation of the progressives of the world. We can only pray the Holy Ghost will intervene again if necessary and insure the doctrinal cohesiveness of the Faith. Speaking from a human point of view, things don’t look too hopeful right now. Who knows, maybe the bishops will surprise us again and not approve the more problematic aspects. Our God is a God of surprises, we’re told, right?