Fr. Nicholson: Pope Francis ushering in an era of upheaval, could lead to a new rash of priest sex abuse (fixed) March 30, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, priests, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church, unity.
Yowzer. That’s a pretty hot take, but I think as he goes through the argument, he’s got a pretty good point. He ties in the doctrinal chaos and exaggerated expectations for massive change in the Church that existed in the late 50s and early 60s – when the priest boy rape became epidemic – with similar expectations today. He forecasts a similar explosion in sex abuse cases if the doctrinal chaos reigning over the past two years, and the concomitant build up in expectations for change in the Church’s immutable Dogmas, will lead to a similar epidemic.
I don’t agree with everything said below, and I’ve certainly disagreed with some of Fr. Nicholson’s takes in the past, but I think he makes an interesting point that is worthy of consideration. I’m glad he did note that while Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope will probably never be a Saint Benedict XVI did help re-establish some greater doctrinal certainty, at least in the Petrine office, they certainly didn’t fully restore the doctrinal integrity that has existed in happier days in the Church’s existence:
Sorry, coded the video wrong!
I do like his summation, that in these times faithful Catholics must unite to support and defend each other and the sacred deposit of the Faith handed onto us, whether that means helping out those being persecuted monetarily or through moral support, calling out doctrinal error, supporting faithful bishops and priests, and the like. That is certainly a key point with me. I do find a bit of irony in this, however, given the source, and what he has said in some other videos. But I’ll just scoot right past that and echo the call for all faithful Catholics of good will to desist from the circular firing squad, turn around, and direct our fire at the encroaching enemies of the Faith who surround us.
It’s always been something of a point of fascination to me, how a Church that was by so many measures robust and doctrinally cohesive in the 50s timeframe was at the same time so ripe for revolution. I do think those of us who did not live through it can never quite imagine what a tumultuous, even earth-shattering time the 60s was. Outside the Church or within, so many things, from TV to jet travel to new music to fashion to advertising to what name you, everything changed radically over that period. People became convinced that mankind really was entering some new technological golden age and that all the old rules, the societal compact, if you will, of all preceding times, could simply be chucked with abandon. That thinking, almost a virus in its effects, certainly penetrated the Church and caused largely unexpected upheaval. At the same time, we also know that by the mid-50s there were many modernists inside the Church who were stealthily, and as the decade went on, more and more openly working towards a revolution. By 1958 they were simply looking for an advantageous opportunity to strike, and Vatican II gave them that opportunity. I think the two events, an ambitious, united, and strongly networked modernist cabal, and a society expecting flying cars, all manner of wonder drugs (medicinal and otherwise) and round-trip tickets to Mars within a few years produced a perfect storm that struck a Church perhaps somewhat complacent and a bit full of itself. The result was a veritable French Revolution, which nobody really expected or saw coming, either, by the way.
As for our current revolution, times are different. We have direct evidence of the disaster that will follow in the wake of doctrinal uncertainty and expectations-building. But I don’t know if that will be enough to deter the aged modernists in their ambitions to show themselves right, lo after all these years, that the revolution of the 60s was an inevitable organic event that simply had to happen, and not a top-down betrayal by elites who foisted a hostile and competing construct on the 2000 year old institution Christ founded. I think the rampant perversion and gross immorality Fr. Nicholson laments answers that question irrefutably, but intellectual pride is, as the Angelic Doctor said, the most difficult form of pride to overcome. And few men in their 70s or 80s are very open to a total reversal from a lifetime of belief, no matter how destructive and contrary they can be shown to be.
As a final aside, and a recommendation to you, I picked up this video on Bones’ site. He has a post where you can sign your name to indicate your support for the nearly 500 English priests who reject the attempts to change sacred belief regarding marriage, divorce, the Blessed Sacrament…….you know what I mean. The whole modernist Kasperite gambit. I signed. You can find my name, Fredo Corleone, bottom of Lake Tahoe, NV.
More garbage from Kasper the modernist paramour March 30, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Reading some more quotes below from Cardinal Kasper, which reveal in stark clarity precisely why he is viewed as the arch-heretic Kung’s prize pupil and also why he is the current paramour of the modernists, I am struck by the question – who with a Catholic heart could not read this man’s work (filth might be a better word) and not react with revulsion? Who would find in this stuff “serenity?” Via Vox Cantoris:
In 1967, this same German Kasper said:
“The God who is enthroned over the world and history as a changeless being is an offence to man. One must deny him for man’s sake, because he claims for himself the dignity and honour that belong by right to man…. We must resist this God, however, not only for man’s sake, but also for God’s sake. He is not the true God at all, but rather a wretched idol. For a God who is only alongside of and above history, who is not himself history, is a finite God. If we call such a being God, then for the sake of the Absolute we must become absolute atheists. Such a God springs from a rigid worldview; he is the guarantor of the status quo and the enemy of the new.”
Cardinal Kasper explicitly rejects a dozen defined Dogmas I can think of off the top of my head right now. This is nothing but modernist immanentism, “we create ‘god’ by our thoughts and loves and desires” horse hockey. We must deny a transcendent, omniscient all-powerful God because……no, not because He claims some dignity or honor that belongs to “man,” but because He claims dignity and honor that offends the monumental hubris of the modernist intellectual. The modernist is offended by this God because the modernist sees himself as god. It works this way: modernists do believe we humans somehow create God out of our spiritual needs, desires, loves, etc., and since no one understands those needs and loves as well as the highly trained modernist intellectual, those modernists embody ‘god’ better than anyone else. This is not ascribing base motives to ideological opponents, this is what these guys really believe!!! No wonder they fight with such passion and have no qualms using unscrupulous machinations, opponents of modernism offend against the dread god Kasper and must be crushed.
This man has to either hate or butcher everything that predates 1870. Tradition for him is nothing but an obstacle to be not just overcome, but obliterated.
Another quote, from a much more recent Kasper book:
In this same book that the Pope has praised, Kasper writes more carefully [the serene theology on the knees book]:
“On the basis of its metaphysical starting point, dogmatic theology has difficulty speaking of a compassionate God. It has to exclude the possibility that God suffers with his creatures in a passive sense; it can only speak of pity and mercy, in the active sense that God opposes the suffering of his creatures and provides them assistance. The question that remains is whether this satisfactorily corresponds to the biblical understanding of God, who suffers with his creatures, who as misericors has a heart with the poor and for the poor. Can a God who is conceived so apathetically be really sympathetic? Pastorally, this conception of God is a catastrophe. For a so abstractly conceived God appears to most people to be very distant from their personal situation.” [Walter Kasper, Mercy: The Essence of the Gospel and the Key to Christian Life, trans. William Madges (New York, 2014), p11]
Yes, this is much more careful, the code speak of the modernist warhorse after 40 years of political machinations. It’s still utter garbage from the top. Dogmatic theology has no difficulty “speaking” of a compassionate God – and see how he once again sets Tradition, or the preceding Magisterium, up as an obstacle to be overcome. In fact, in terms of a right understanding of such concepts as true mercy, justice, compassion, etc, the dogmatic beliefs of the Church form the most beautiful, transcendent, and cohesive whole the Church has ever seen. But since that traditional understanding poses a natural barrier to Kasper’s still pressing modernist sensibilities, it has to be construed as somehow wanting. That is to say, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Church’s 2000 year conception of God, it is in fact the best conception human possible, the problem for Kasper lies in the fact that he and his cabal do not share it, an dare in fact violently opposed to it as being an obstacle to their revolutionary goals. It should be clear, then, why Kasper and those like him constantly speak of the Church’s belief and practice as being some terrible old decrepit thing that must finally be put down.
I would remind that Kasper has already been shown to have misquoted Church Councils, made up quotes from Church Fathers allegedly supporting his position, and completely butchered the plain meaning of others in order to pursue his ends. He has proposed false conundrums and used heavy-handed pressure tactics to influence prelates to support his side.
IOW, everything Pope Saint Pius X said about modernists and their reptelian nature is completely, 100% true.
Tradition-supporting Italian Bishop stripped of power? March 30, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, Papa, persecution, pr stunts, sadness, scandals, secularism, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Rorate has a post regarding Bishop Oliveri of Albenga-Imperia in Italy, a bishop known for his strong support for the Traditional Latin Mass and the traditional practice of the Faith. There have been some (relatively speaking) minor allegations regarding problems handling abuse and some other matters in the Diocese, so last year a coadjutor bishop was appointed. At the time, it was not clear what role the coadjutor would have. Rorate is reporting, based on recent revelations in the Italian press, that Bishop Oliveri will be replaced in all but name as the functional head of the Diocese, with Coadjutor Borghetti taking over all administrative and disciplinary functions:
What was predicted by Italian media in October last year, as reported by Rorate at the time, has taken place exactly as foretold: Msgr. Mario Oliveri, 71, the exceptionally Traditionalist-friendly Bishop of Albenga-Imperia, has been stripped of all powers and is now Ordinary of the diocese in name only.
The appointment of his Coadjutor Bishop, Guglielmo Borghetti, was announced on January 10, but the full extent of the powers given to him was not reported at that time. This has now been publicized thanks to a series of articles in the Italian media and blogosphere in the last few days. The full text of the bull appointing Msgr. Borghetti was read out to the Consultors of the Diocese on March 25, and published on the diocesan website (h/t Messa in Latino). The bull specifies that he is nominated Coadjutor Bishop “with special faculties” consisting of no less than the same jurisdiction that a diocesan bishop has according to Canon 381 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
The new Coadjutor Bishop himself confirmed to the Italian news agency ANSA that he now has full powers. ANSA also mentions that “the priests who attended his first celebration in the seminary have expressly said that for the Diocese of Albenga ‘begins a Copernican revolution.'”
It must be kept in mind that even when a Bishop receives a Coadjutor, the former does not necessarily lose his normal powers as ruling bishop until he steps down. The current situation in Albenga-Imperia is therefore exceptional, and can only be the result of the express will of Pope Francis.
As our readers will certainly realize, this humiliation of yet another Traditional-friendly Bishop stands in dramatic contrast to the Pope’s inaction over the crisis enveloping his scandalous appointment of Juan Barros as Bishop of Osorno in Chile, despite credible and multiple allegations linking him to the sexual abuse of minors.
All the supporting links are in Italian, so it is difficult to understand, specifically, how this assigning of roles to the coadjutor is more expansive and different qualitatively than such appointments normally are.
This matter may bring back unhappy memories for Dallas Catholics, who recall that in 2000, Joseph Galante was appointed Coadjutor Bishop of Dallas in the wake of Bishop Grahman’s disastrous handling of several priest boy-rape cases, especially that of Rudy Kos, which at the time resulted in a historic civil judgment against the Diocese. Scandalously, in spite of the fact that his credibility had been shattered, Bishop Grahman refused to step down and turn over significant areas of diocesan administration to Bishop Galante. There followed a very public row that divided the clergy and laity and led to Bishop Galante’s eventual stormy departure in 2003.
I am not certain if Bishop Galante was given similar “special faculties” to more or less forcibly take over administration of the Diocese of Dallas, as apparently this Bishop Borghetti has. Certainly, it was expected that Bishop Grahman would retire within 18 months of Galante’s appointment, something Bishop Grahman steadfastly refused to do (which brings up rather significant questions regarding obedience, since Pope Saint John Paul II had very clearly conveyed his express desire that Bishop Grahman retire early and give up the reins to Galante- apparently, arch-liberals like Grahman are allowed to obey if they want and disobey when they feel like it – pretty rich coming from a man who demanded absolute unquestioning obedience from all this priests). So could Oliveri “pull a Grahman” and simply refuse to leave, refuse to give up an administrative role, and work with those priests loyal to him to maintain a power base? Unlikely, as it seems only modernists/progressives are allowed to get away with such disobedience. Those friendly to to Tradition generally have qualms of conscience that would prevent them from acting in a way so contrary to the express will of the Sovereign Pontiff. But double standards in treatment can tend to erode that tendency towards obedience, a trend that could have unfortunate consequences for the future of the Church.
As a final footnote, after the ambitious Bishop Galante finally got his diocese (Camden, NJ), he turned out to be at least as dogmatically liberal as Grahman. His administration of the Diocese of Camden was filled with church closures and unhappy laity. Galante revealed himself to be very strongly on the side of the hermeneutic of rupture, you could say. He was no fan of Tradition, and sought to sack priests who were too tradition-friendly. There was also a financial scandal. At least one good local priest indicated “we dodged a bullet” in not getting Galante as our bishop.
So perhaps all’s well that end’s well. But not for Bishop Oliveri.
What happened to all that talk of free discussion and debate? What about making messes and getting the smell of the sheep? Aren’t parish priests probably the closest of all to the rank odors of the rank and file?
I wrote yesterday of 500 priests – including some surprisingly liberal names – of England and Wales begging the Synod on the Family not to implement any disastrous novelties regarding marriage, divorce, the Blessed Sacrament, etc. They thus contributed to the ongoing debate exactly as the Holy Father has repeatedly indicated. Unfortunately for them, old liberal Cardinal Vincent Nichols, who has supported the Kasperite gambit nearly from the beginning, doesn’t think much of debate and seems to prefer closed door decisions handed down as directive to be obeyed unconditionally. Yes, I exaggerate, but only a little, Nichols is widely known as one of the most authoritarian clericalists in the entire English-speaking Church, an insider’s insider who loves to wield power. He basically directed the English priests to butt out, which is odd, concerning the lengths to which the episcopal conference of England and Wales went to seek out lay input they thought would be friendly to the Kasperite approach:
Cardinal Vincent Nichols has slapped down nearly 500 priests who signed a letter to the Catholic Herald expressing concern about the Synod on the Family this October, which is to debate sensitive questions of sexual morality. This is a significant blunder by the Cardinal that exposes both the inflexibility of his leadership style and – certainly in the case of some of the priests – lack of confidence in his stewardship of the Catholic Church in England Wales. Here’s today’s Catholic Herald report:
Priests should not conduct a debate about the October Family Synod through the press, Cardinal Nichols has said, following the publication of a letter signed by hundreds of priests, urging the synod to issue a ‘clear and firm proclamation’ upholding Church teaching on marriage….
…..In a statement, a spokesman for Cardinal Nichols said that the press was not the medium for conducting dialogue of this sort.
‘Every priest in England and Wales has been asked to reflect on the Synod discussion. It is my understanding that this has been taken up in every diocese, and that channels of communication have been established,’ the statement said. [Perhaps the priests found those lines of communication unsatisfactory. Perhaps they did not want their views condensed, massaged, and even controverted by bureaucrats working in the various episcopal conferences and dicasteries. But their action was quite fitting with the rhetoric – the catechesis – the priests have been given by the highest source, was it not?]
Damian Thompson, who makes some valuable contributions but with whom I disagree strongly on occasion, has some explosive analysis. I would not dismiss his views, he knows the inner workings of the Church in Britain better than any other popular writer I know:
This is an unwise – but entirely characteristic – move by Cardinal Nichols. Here are some thoughts that spring to mind:
1. The Cardinal refers to ‘channels of communication’ that, in reality, are either blocked or permit only one-way traffic. I wouldn’t dream of calling a Prince of the Church a control freak, but if Nichols were a politician – a painfully on-message Labour junior minister from Merseyside, say – the cap would fit. The idea that the Bishops of England and Wales ‘welcome’ any views that don’t coincide with theirs is laughable. On this issue they’ve decided to align themselves with Pope Francis’s opinions on Communion for the divorced and homosexuality. The fact that these opinions are inchoate and elusive doesn’t trouble them because the same could be said of their own jargon-rich waffle. Cardinal Nichols is impressively fluent in ‘bishopese’; what distinguishes him from his colleagues is his quietly effective suppression of dissent. On this occasion, however, it hasn’t been so effective. Priests who normally play by the rules were so worried by the Anglican-style chaos of last October’s Synod on the Family (the first of two) that they felt they had no alternative but to speak openly.
2. What Cardinal Nichols did not say, though I suspect he’s aware of it, is that many priests were told by those ‘welcoming’ channels of communication not to sign the letter. As one signatory told the Herald, ‘there has been a certain amount of pressure not to sign the letter and indeed a degree of intimidation from some senior Churchmen’. Without this arm-twisting there would have been many more signatories. So the problem is bigger than it appears.
3. The Cardinal’s anger is directed not just at the priests but also at the press for publishing their letter. Obviously he doesn’t like me, and you wouldn’t expect him to, but he shows little interest in Catholic newspapers that, as it happens, bite their tongues and resist opportunities to criticise him out of loyalty to the Church. He is not rude to journalists but he can be aggressively patronising and it never occurs to him that devout Catholic writers might help him to spread his message. Whatever that is. The situation is doubly frustrating for the media because His Eminence appears to have taken a solemn vow not to say anything remotely memorable in public. At least you can’t accuse Pope Francis of that. To make matters even worse, Nichols employs an infuriatingly inept and ill-informed press office.
4. Finally, I have a nasty suspicion that any priest who was brave enough to sign that letter will find his card marked.
I am not surprised in the least that there was great pressure on priests not to sign the petition. I thank God for the strength of faith of those who did.
I may not agree with Thompson on some points (he makes no bones of his dislike for Michael Voris, for instance), but Damian Thompson is not just a media hound looking for a big story that will injure the Church. He is actually a pretty faithful Catholic, I would say, far more so than John Allen. So with his deep inside connections, and his relative faithfulness, when he says Pope Francis has been the driving source behind the attempts to radically alter the Church’s belief and practice regarding marriage, reception of the Blessed Sacrament, grave sin, and the rest, again, I don’t believe his comments can simply be dismissed out of hand.
To me, Thompson’s analysis makes far more sense, and has far more evidence in support, than do analyses that say that Pope Francis is really orthodox, he’s just badly misunderstood. I had a long addendum here, but I’ll leave it at that. I have found that this is a matter where souls either get it, or simply don’t, or won’t. And really, I pray I am wrong in my grave doubts regarding the direction of this pontificate – in fact, I pray every day that I am wrong. But the overwhelming weight of evidence – not episcopal appointments, not frequent orthodox statements (what else would we expect, a raving Marxist?) – but the Pope’s efforts at the Extraordinary Synod, in the pre-prepared midterm Relatio, in the inclusion of the rejected, incredibly problematic statements from that Relatio into the Synod’s final report, even though those statements failed to gain the approval even of the really picked audience that made up the Extraordinary Synod…….I simply cannot dismiss that.
Having said that, I never rule out the possibility of a great change in direction, and occasionally I see some hopeful signs. But the decisive point will be the second and final session of the Synod, and the encyclical that will surely follow. Those events will define this pontificate, for good or ill.
Phil Robertson of the Duck Dynasty TV series has landed in hot water again after making comments offensive to the dominant leftist orthodoxy. I’m not particular fan of Robertson’s and I’ve never seen the show he’s on, but I do think the media’s reaction is very telling. While I find Robertson’s comments rather crude (but, hey, look at the dude), I think they are actually a cogent criticism of the moral relativism inherent in today’s atheist sexular pagan orthodoxy. See if you agree, below are Robinson’s comments:
I’ll make a bet with you. Two guys break into an atheist’s home. He has a little atheist wife and two little atheist daughters. Two guys break into his home and tie him up in a chair and gag him. And then they take his two daughters in front of him and rape both of them and then shoot them and they take his wife and then decapitate her head off in front of him. And they can look at him and say, ‘Isn’t it great that I don’t have to worry about being judged? Isn’t it great that there’s nothing wrong with this? There’s no right or wrong, now is it dude?’
Then you take a sharp knife and take his manhood and hold it in front of him and say, ‘Wouldn’t it be something if this [sic] was something wrong with this? But you’re the one who says there is no God, there’s no right, there’s no wrong, so we’re just having fun. We’re sick in the head, have a nice day.’
If it happened to them, they probably would say, ‘Something about this just ain’t right.’
Now many in the media, including a right-wing secular atheist blogger I like somewhat, Ace of Spades, are portraying this as a hideous revenge fantasy, wherein all of Robertson’s anti-Christian boogeymen get their comeuppance. I don’t think that’s it at all. I think Robertson is arguing, in a ghastly way (possibly intended to make a point), that when a culture abandons any external moral reference in the form of an absolute source of truth (in the case of Christendom, the beliefs and practices of the Catholic Faith that created Christendom/Western culture in the first place), there are no limits to the depravity to which it will sink. Robertson is saying the atheist really has no morality left to appeal to in the horrifying hypothetical he posited, since they have very successfully destroyed the Christian God as the source of morality for our culture, at least insofar as the elites are concerned. In fact, Robertson makes the evil that inevitably results when a culture detaches itself from a transcendent source of Truth very clear in a follow-up comment:
I gave you four ideologies in the last one hundred years, I see a pattern. You say, ‘why do they do what they do, why is there always murder?’ You know what the scary thing is? The fifth ideology right in behind all of this bunch of stuff we’re dealing with now, has its roots in the United States of America? You know how many they’ve killed? You say, ‘who are they?’ People call them left-wing loons, Bill O’Reilly calls them, political correct crowd, orthodox liberal opinion. You say, ‘what are they famous for?’ They’ve killed 63 million of their own children. 63 million. More than Hitler, more than Stalin. We’re slaughtering ourselves. You say, ‘who is behind it?’ Their father is, he was a murderer, from the beginning, they are slaves to sin, they are controlled by the Evil One. Duh.
This is really a deep and stinging criticism. I am impressed with Robertson’s depth – he has correctly diagnosed that the cultural detachment from Christian truth has led, inexorably, to the deaths of 63 million babies in this country alone, and a billion and a half across the world. Abortion only became legal in countries as they abandoned Christianity. Thus, it first became legal in the Soviet Union, then in northern Europe, then most of western Europe, then North America, and today the front is Central and South America. In every case, abortion did not become legalized until the governing elites had deliberately abandoned their Christian heritage, and also, decisively veered toward the left of the political-cultural spectrum. I think Robertson has elicited such a vehement reaction, because he has drawn back the veil that shows the secret, hidden evils leftism must not just permit, but encourage, in order to satisfy its ever increasing appetite for power and control.
The great bargain leftism demands of its subjects is this: you give us total control over every other aspect of life, and we’ll give you totally unchecked sexual hedonism. But since such hedonism invariably results in a number of evils: abortion, destruction of the family, children tortured by divorce, etc….all those things have to be kept carefully swept under the rug. Leftism cannot stand to have the veil lifted. And thus, the reaction, which has been even more ferocious than in his comments from last year.
I’ve got to say, having read a number of comments from Mr. Robertson, while he’s rough as a cobb, his beliefs are probably more Catholic than a great majority of those who bear that sacred name today. He does spout some evangelical nonsense, it is true, but on the moral issues, he is practically Catholic. And, as I said before, I am impressed with his depth. He may look like a backwoods cracker hick, but he’s actually a deep-thinking and quite intelligent man.
The interesting thing to me, is that our media has grown so shallow and insular they are incapable of seeing the broader moral argument being made here. Not a single mainstream secular media source covering this story has managed to escape their leftist bubble and give these statements even a reasonable hearing. Now, of course, they have a powerful motivation (their own commitment to the leftist cause) to do just that, but I think even more, they are so cut off from Christianity, it is so alien and hostile to them, they are not even capable of imagining these comments in a positive light. And that likelihood should give us pause as Catholics, and move us to recognize that we are truly strangers in a strange land, visitors in our own homes. There can be no reconciliation with elements both so hostile towards, and uncomprehending of, everything we hold dear.
Which only points up what an utter fallacy the entire notion of aggiornamento has always been. But that’s probably meat for another post.
What are you willing to do? March 25, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Admin, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, North Deanery, persecution, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church, Tradition, true leadership, Virtue.
My dear departed friend Vicki Middleton, God rest her soul, was quite a hoot. She was a woman of conviction, and much more. She was willing to put herself on the line on things that she felt important. When her husband Jim was still President of ARCO Oil and Gas Vicki started protesting outside the office in Plano regarding ARCO’s investments in Myanmar/Burma. Since Burma had a very repressive government and was jailing dissidents, Vicki thought ARCO should not be doing business there, so she protested outside. If I remember right, her actions eventually led the board of directors to divest of their operations there.
Years later, Vicki converted to Catholicism. She was the same rabble-rouser she always was. Longtime readers may remember the radio show Vicki invited me on a number of times. Vicki and Jim spent a pretty penny buying air time on 660 AM KSKY to bring an authentic Catholic voice to the area. You may ask, “what about the local EWTN radio station, isn’t that authentically Catholic?” Well, Vicki was on the local EWTN station for a while but was removed for being too critical of the leadership of the Church both locally and globally, although she only asked things like “when are our priests going to really stand up and oppose abortion, or porn, etc”.
But Vicki did more than that. She and Jim were well off, and had been very generous with the Diocese. But when they found out about many scandalous activities ongoing, such as support for Alinskyite organizations at many parishes and lack of preaching the Faith whole and entire, she went so far as to demand her donations be returned and protested outside the cathedral, sandwich-board and all, calling out the ongoing scandals.
The point is, Vicki was willing to do anything, say almost anything, to do what she felt was the best for souls – both her own, and those of others. She loved people tremendously and wanted what was best for them. She was willing to risk being attacked and vilified to make her stand – and she was, often quite vociferously.
I bring this up, because in light of recent posts regarding division among orthodox (or faithful or traditional or conservative – all of which simply serve to distinguish from the great Mass of self-styled Catholics who reject core aspects of the Faith or hold heretical views), some commenters have brought up a point that has been on my mind for quite some time, as well: what are we willing to do to respond to the crisis and effect change in the Church?
I can think of a number of responses, and have suggested some on this blog. One is to really carefully consider the degree to which we support the entire parish-diocese-national conference monetarily, if at all. And, there are examples from Catholics in other areas. Catholics in El Paso conducted prayer vigils outside the chancery for months in the wake of the dismissal of the former priest of San Juan Bautista parish, and with regard to the long interregnum between Bishop Ochoa’s departure and Bishop Seitz’ consecration.
I’ve spoken with Catholics near and abroad about this matter many times. There always seems to be a consensus that something should be done, but no one seems to be ready and willing to take the lead on some concrete action. For the most part, efforts seem to fall apart over disagreement on which issue is paramount to address, what action should be taken, and, even more, who should lead it.
But, just to throw out some ideas, I could see a series of efforts calling attention to the “ghettoization” of the TLM in Dallas. Or, regarding the lack of preaching on the evil of contraception. Or on the abysmal standard of catechesis in parish formation programs. Or on the continuing support of left-wing “social justice” groups. Take your pick. There are dozens if not hundreds of such issues to choose from.
As for me, I am going to commit to finally kicking off an effort I proposed some months back – to start praying outside some of the many falsely named gentleman’s clubs in this area. So here is the plan: I will pray across the street from The Men’s Club, 2340 W. Northwest Hwy, Dallas, on April 8, Easter Wednesday, at 8 pm. There is a post office directly across the street. I will park there and stand near the road and just pray. No confrontation or picketing with signs at this point, just prayer. I’ll stay for about an hour. Any local Catholic men are welcome to join me.
No, that won’t do much for the crisis in the Faith, and I don’t expect any miraculous reaction on the strip joint front, either, but it’s a start. We’ll see how the first attempt goes and proceed from there.
Look, I’m just one guy, and I don’t know that I’m a natural born leader. The broader point of this post is, what are we willing to do as faithful Catholics to really start opposing the crisis in the Church and the general decline and advancing perversion in the culture? Are we just going to continue to complain on blogs (which have their place, obviously!), or do we start to take concrete action? If so, what action could you take, either here in Dallas, or wherever you live? What are you willing to do?
I think it would be fantastic if readers could make their own suggestions and efforts. The militant left in this country makes up a tiny percentage of the population, but because they are motivated and willing to spend much of their time in support of their diabolical cause, they have managed to radically re-shape all of the former Christendom over the past 150 years or so. They have bullied people into accepting all kinds of evil because their commitment and tirelessness gradually wore down opposition – including us. Goodness, they have even managed to get a rough majority of people to accept a definition of marriage both completely unnatural and utterly hostile to its many-thousand year history!
Are we just going to let them continue to steamroll us? Yes, prayer is the foundation of everything, but if now is not the time to make a stand (it may already be far too late), then no time will ever be. I pray my good readers consider how they can respond, individually and collectively. I pray we start to see a lot more Vicki Middleton’s out there obeying the Pope’s command to mix things up and make a mess. The modernists count on us doing nothing. In fact, it is precisely the fact that good men have done nothing that has allowed the modernist/progressive revolution in the Church to advance as far as it has.
I ask again……what are you willing to do?
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?
Yes, Austin has much more than its share of crazies. It is a quite liberal town, and not just by Texas standards. There are a lot of good conservatives there, too, of course, but they are outnumbered by the leftists. We saw that a year and a half ago in the diabolical displays surrounding the passage of House Bill 2, which imposed many sensical (if far from sufficient) limitations on baby murder.
I guess that diabolical spirit is still in the air, as a crazed individual threw a Molotov cocktail gasoline bomb at some souls praying outside the local Planned Barrenhood mill. No one was hurt, thankfully, and the perpetrator has been taken into custody:
Last night at an Austin Planned Parenthood abortion facility, a woman threw a Molotov cocktail (a type of homemade bomb) at a group of Central Texas Coalition for Life prayer volunteers. One of the volunteers was able to quickly stomp out the flame and save the group from any danger. The group was able to record the woman’s license plate number and turn that information over to the police. Police did arrest the woman who threw the bomb directly at the prayer volunteers.
Central Texas Coalition for Life Executive Director Heather Gardner responded last night. “We are so thankful that none of our courageous volunteers were injured during the incident. Because of their quick actions, the woman responsible was apprehended and will be held accountable.”
So here’s the photo of the bomb:
Pro-tip for use of Molotov cocktails: use a glass, not plastic, bottle. Poor execution helped insure no one was injured.
But wait! We all KNOW, because the media always tells US, that it is only pro-lifers who are crazed, violent terrorists, whereas abortionists and their acolytes in darkness are only peaceful, loving people……..who happen to commit and support murder all day long.
What is really surprising is that things like this don’t occur much more frequently. But a culture increasingly hostile towards Christianity may provide a fertile ground for a great increase in attacks like these in the future.
And then there are probably a good number that go unreported, such as the frequent incidents of near vehicular manslaughter committed on a daily basis by one of the former “nurses” at the Routh Street mill. She used to take great pleasure in tearing down the alley that serves as the main entrance to that mill at 40 mph, swerving side to side and frequently forcing opponents of abortion, including children, to scramble out of the way.
For about the tenth time in recent months, the Obama Administration has dropped the mask and revealed itself to be the authoritarian, doctrinaire leftists we’ve always taken them to be. Apparently, without the prospect of another election, there is no longer any point in hiding his true identity and now the truly radical agenda is being revealed. A few cases in point: the recent attempt to ban virtually all firearm ammunition by declaring all non-lead ammo “armor piercing” and all ammo containing lead a deadly pollutant (shot down by virulent opposition). Then there is the activity to enforce carbon dioxide as a “deadly pollutant” associated with gerbal worming with absolutely no law passed giving the EPA such power. We have seen conservatives harrassed, audited, bullied, and threatened by this government for over 5 years with the whole IRS scandal.
Now there is a nakedly political effort by FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to deny disaster preparedness funds paid for by the taxpayers of various states to those states whose governors refuse to openly advocate for massive socialization of the entire economy to ward off the scam of anthropocentric global warming. While the funds are only in the 8 figures, which is chicken feed even to most state governments (Texas willingly gave up about $45 million in federal aid in order to stop funding Planned Barrenhood contraception programs), the naked lawlessness and left-wing authoritarianism on display is breathtaking:
FEMA to deny funds to warming deniers [note the toxic lede. You are a damnable “denier,” a heretic to sacred leftist beliefs.]
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is making it tougher for governors to deny man-made climate change. [Was this how evolution gained mass acceptance 80-100 years ago? Was it shoved down people’s throats like this, as in “believe it or else?” Same with fake sodo-marriage.] Starting next year, the agency will approve disaster-preparedness funds only for states whose governors approve hazard-mitigation plans that address climate change. [This has a 90+% chance of dying in court. At the district level, for crying out loud. They have to know that.]
This may put several Republican governors who maintain that the Earth isn’t warming due to human activities, or prefer to take no action, in a political bind. Their position may block their states’ access to hundreds of millions of dollars in FEMA funds. In the last five years, the agency has awarded an average $1 billion a year in grants to states and territories for taking steps to mitigate the effects of disasters. [So we’re talking $20 million per state, on average. This is peanuts. But the message is not. It is totalitarian]
“If a state has a climate denier governor that doesn’t want to accept a plan, that would risk mitigation work not getting done because of politics,” said Becky Hammer, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council’s water program. “The governor would be increasing the risk to citizens in that state” because of his climate beliefs. [In the entire article, there is not a single rebuttal of this radical, unsupported position. Not only is there no evidence that mankind has caused the earth to warm, there is no evidence that the earth is warming at all (except for the fevered imaginations of climate-humper advocates, who actually go so far as to doctor temperature measurements worldwide to “prove” their sacred religious conviction true). Even more, there is no evidence that warming would be clearly harmful, even if it were to occur.]
…..”This could potentially become a major conflict for several Republican governors,” said Barry Rabe, an expert on the politics of climate change at the University of Michigan. “We aren’t just talking about coastal states.” [He said as he gleefully rubbed his hands together.]
Climate change affects droughts, rainfall, and tornado activity. Fracking is being linked to more earthquakes, he said. “This could affect state leaders across the country.” [B as in B, S as in S. All virtually totally without any substance.]
[And now we get to the point……]……..Environmentalists have been pressing FEMA to include global warming in its hazard-mitigation guidelines for almost three years. FEMA told the Natural Resources Defense Council in early 2014 that it would revise the guidelines. It issued draft rules in October and officially released the new procedures last week as partisan politics around climate change have been intensifying. [But it’s only those evil warming denier conservatives who are partisan. The radical left never politicizes anything, like humdrum federal programs funded by the states themselves. See how they assume our money is their’s to hand out to whom they please?]
…….The gubernatorial approval clause was included in the new guidelines to “raise awareness and support for implementing the actions in the mitigation strategy and increasing statewide resilience to natural hazards,” FEMA spokeswoman Susan Hendrick said.
No, it was included to score points with Obama’s radical base, which is all he has ever cared about. “Reward your friends and punish your enemies” was not a throwaway line to him, it’s his fundamental philosophy.
Totalitarianism, at least in the modern context, is primarily a creation of the left. It is only the left who feels they are so invincibly right about everything, and so demonizes any opponents as not just wrong but evil, that it can rationalize the modern totalitarian state into being as a “necessary evil” they greatly enjoy inflicting on others.. Yes there have been juntas and dictators characterized as right wing, often incorrectly, (and generally in less than well-developed states), but the scale of evil and repression in these examples pales in comparison to the scope and perniciousness of left-wing totalitarian states. And it seems more and more, those of a leftward bent in this country are tired of the messy, time-consuming push and take of democracy, and want their dictatorship of the proletarian now. The degree of Obama’s radicalism is truly breathtaking, and yet the large majority of citizens in this country either don’t know enough to care, or are fully on board with it (and would in fact prefer more). Things are going south at an incredible pace.
A reader sent me a link to another article earlier today demonstrating the wedge questions the left-loving media loves so much. He was wondering why the media would be making big hay of Ted Cruz’ stand on evolution. They do it because the left/media (one and the same) believe they can paint anyone who questions evolution – about which the vast majority of these reporters know absolutely NOTHING – as an ignorant, uneducated, “anti-science” rube, totally unfit for any public office. They have succeeded brilliantly at this gambit for years, not always using evolution but some other meaningless wedge issue, to disqualify the vast majority of conservative candidates and insure the Republican party nominates no one but liberal types like George Bush, Bob Dole, and Mitt Romney.
I really think the right play – not that I believe the Republican party is good for anything other than lining the pockets of their big budget donors, almost all of whom are radical liberals on social issues – is to bone up on these subjects enough to turn the questions around on the reporters to make them look like the fools. So if you get asked about evolution, you answer “micro or macro?,” “punctuated equilibrium or phyletic gradualism?” Or ask the reporter to describe how many universes are necessary in order to make random gradualism a scientifically viable theory? Even if you as the politician have no real idea of the answers, the point is, they will show up the journalist’s ignorance and immediately reveal his ignoble intent. They will move on ASAP to save face.
But conservatives aren’t cursed with the stupid party for no reason. It’s all part of the plan.
The best article I’ve ever read on revolution and reaction in the Church – The Paradigm Shift March 23, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, catachesis, disaster, episcopate, General Catholic, Latin Mass, Liturgy, Papa, persecution, priests, reading, scandals, secularism, the struggle for the Church.
I read the article over the weekend and found in it perhaps the best, most concise description of the revolution ongoing in the Church, and the reaction against that revolution, that I have read in a long time, maybe ever. Via Latin Mass Magazine, a really valuable publication that doesn’t adhere to many sectarian shibboleths, an article entitled The Paradigm Shift by Father X, described as a “parish priest in the Eastern United States.” And isn’t it revealing that an article like this has to be published under a pseudonym, surely for fear of reprisal, whereas Kasper and the other revolutionaries can act out in the clear light of day, knowing, as they do, that most of the levers of power in the Church are in their hands.
Find the article transcribed below with a few excisions for length and fairness. I add emphasis and comments:
People who keep up with traditionalist blogs on the internet may have noticed that 2014 appeared to witness, to speak conservatively, a more negative attitude on the part of the mainstream clergy (and especially members of the hierarchy) toward the Traditional Latin Mass. Traditional funerals are becoming more difficult to arrange, rules which appear to allow for refusing permissions are being interpreted in their strictest sense, and religious communities are experiencing harassment from the Novus Ordo establishment. [I haven’t experienced the first, the last two, certainly]
Why is this? Perhaps bishops and priests who reluctantly made allowances for traditionalists under the papacy of Benedict XVI now feel a bit more supported in their efforts to limit (if not wholly eliminate) access of the faithful to the Traditional Mass.
During the reign of Pope Benedict a delicate balance held sway, a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” paradigm. In other words Authority would simply allow themselves to presume that a number of people simply PREFERRED the old Mass and those requesting it would simply allow that fiction to exist. Now, however, that delicate balance is being upset by the awareness on the part of the Novus Ordo establishment that there are people out there who want the Traditional Latin Mass not out of preference, but out of conviction. These are people who love the “old” Mass because they think that it offers to God a worship BETTER than that of the Novus Ordo. [ding ding ding!] And that conviction, the proverbial elephant in the sacristy, cannot be permitted…..And why? Because we must “save the Council”; and those who choose the old Mass by conviction rather than by preference are saying in effect (at least in the minds of the Novus Ordo establishment), we reject the Council. [I believe the TLM is greatly superior. However, I don’t “reject” the Council, per se’, as I do have very grave reservations over some of its content. I do, however, reject use of the Council as the all-trumping all-guiding declaration of independence from the Church Jesus Christ founded, which is the apparent intent of the modernist cabal]
……There are the words of Pope Benedict who, writing to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1986 with, and let this be noted, the authority of Saint John Paul II backing him up, said that criticism of the Council is not a reason for disciplinary action to be taken against the one criticizing. But as we have been seeing, that notion, expressed by one Pope and authorized by another, is not longer held to by those who have replaced Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict. Hence the shift in paradigm noted above. Now the criticism of the council has become such a, well, “mortal sin that it justifies the destruction of young and growing communities, and young and growing vocations, and young and growing……..Catholics.
If in fact their attachment to the TLM is viewed, at the highest levels of Church Authority, as nothing more than a “fad” which “does not require much attention” despite its continued existence since priests first began to question the changes they (rightly) feared would ensure upon the issuance of Sacrosanctum Concilium over half a century ago, despite the lives of many, many priests (many now deceased) who went ‘independent’ rather than submit to celebrating the Mass of Paul VI, despite the continued attachment to that Mass in the face of the best efforts of Authority to crush and humiliate those who simply wished to worship as they always had, despite the rising up of the SSPX (WITHIN the Church, let it not be forgotten, u ntil it became a victim of political expediency which has not yet spent itself, as witness the recent virtual suppression of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate), despite the groups of young people, to whom JPII was so devoted and for whom Pope Francis shows such deep affection, at Georgetown, at Fordham, at Catholic colleges almost without number virtually demanding the old Mass until even the unwilling authorities had, however reluctantly, to bow to them – ironically – in the name of that very diversity which they proudly claim whenever they choose to dissent from Church teaching or Church polity – if all this is simply evidence of a fad, then what, in God’s Holy Name, would conviction look like!?!?
And that, dear readers, is the problem. The conviction that the Mass of the Ages is the best and most authentically offered worship in the Latin Rite within the immemorial tradition of that rite sticks in the craw of those who will only allow it as a preference. And of course for the priest, this is the cross to which Authority would nail him. [Which is redolent of the experience of our priest friend in El Paso] For if he offers the TLM as a preference, what would keep him from offering, at least some of the time, the Novus Ordo Missae? A preference? Nobody could be asked to accept such a lame argument. And so Catholic traditionalists had better hold on – it’s going to be a bumpy papacy. [Exactly, and perhaps more than that]
Mind you, I don’t want to set up Pope Francis as some sort of Novus Ordo uber alles type monster……….No, it is those who have been waiting for someone like Pope Francis to replace Pope Benedict, thus allowing them to, forgive the phrase, come out with their own conviction -these are the real enemy. [Very clever turn of phrase, and most apropos. A good historian 200 years from now will probably form a really strong argument connecting the infiltration of sodomy into the priesthood, and the advance of the liturgical revolution. I see the strong connection, anyway.] Priests of Tradition are going to be put in a very difficult position when they are visited and interrogated as to just why they will not offer most Masses. And to be sure, if they can quote Cardinal Ratzinger still, Cardinal Ratzinger will be quoted to them as saying in Summorum Pontificum that no priest can refuse to the New Mass out of a conviction? [Can you see how this all can be set up, and surely will in many places?]
In a sense, we ought to be grateful to Francis for pushing the ecclesial envelope to the point where, finally, we shall have to stand up, not for some delicate and fragile political solution to an embarrassing problem within the Church, but for the truth. For the TLM, denuded of the elements of the Catholic Faith which surround and support it, is doomed, doomed as a relic maintained, not as the living and breathing expression of the whole Catholic Faith and practice, but as a quaint expression of a former Catholic piety taken out of mothballs from time to time to exhort the oohs and aahs of the faithful before they return to the “real” Catholicism that has overtaken the Faith. We cannot allow that to happen.
Brilliant point at the end. I’ll add a little bit more: it is my growing conviction regular offering or assisting at the Traditional Latin Mass almost invariably draws one into a much broader “traditional” practice of the Faith. This includes traditional devotions, beliefs strongly associated with the pre-concilar Magisterium, etc. It also almost always causes one to become much more cognizant of the grave problems afflicting the Church, and the problems of the 1960s reform-cum-revolution. One even begins to see such startling contrasts between pre- and post-conciliar piety and practice that a sense of “division” or, ahem, rupture, becomes almost inescapable. I think you actually have to strive mightily to bury the huge contrasts in the psyche, to not allow such to become apparent.
If this is true of lay people, it is double, triply true of priests. And so many priests who begin to offer the TLM perhaps out of a desire to learn a bit more about the Latin Liturgy, or perhaps to understand the Faith of our fathers a bit better, often begin to find they desire to make the TLM the predominate Mass they offer, and even, at times, the sole Mass they offer. This process has been described to me by a goodly number of priests, most who I know who have offered the TLM outside an Ecclesia Dei community will say, even if only under strictest confidence, that if they were allowed, they would offer only the TLM – and really delve into a much stricter and more traditional piety and form of pastoral care. I would say this process is quite commonplace.
So what do we do, when on the one hand, embrace of the TLM tends to lead to an embrace of all of Tradition and rejection of the Novus Ordo and the massive post-conciliar changes, and yet the entire presupposition for offering the TLM, at least according to the status quo in official Church documents on the subject, is that it is merely a matter of liturgical preference/taste? That’s a recipe for a train wreck, and it is already negatively affecting the lives of a handful of priests I know, one who is quite well known but I will avoid mentioning for now.
This gets back very much to what the priest above is saying: the TLM becomes a focal point for reaction against the revolution conducted from within and against the Church. I do not see how conflict can be avoided. The Traditional Mass by itself, even without all the other traditional “trappings,” is a standing rebuke against all the many changes that have been imposed in the past 50+ years. I do not think those committed to a church by man and for man can long allow it to stand. And vice versa. Conflict appears inevitable, which is what the priest is very much saying at the end.
Which yet once more returns to my recent bugaboo regarding infighting among faithful/traditional Catholics. If we have to fight for our very rights to even offer adoration, thanksgiving, contrition, and supplication to God in the way that we feel is by far the most meaningful and efficacious, will we do better separately in our narrow little groups, or collectively as one (still small but) much larger movement?
You should really get a subscription to Latin Mass Magazine. I have had one for years and enjoy it tremendously.