Posted by Tantumblogo in different religion, Ecumenism, foolishness, Francis, fun, General Catholic, silliness, the return, the struggle for the Church.
I actually thought it would be Calvinism, but I guess the “god” of surprises has shocked again. From Eye of the Tiber, which I have neglected for too long:
Just hours after Pope Francis published his latest work Reformatio Si, Catholic theologian Cardinal Walter Kasper told reporters that, though Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation mandating all Catholics convert to Lutheranism might be tough to comprehend, he nevertheless prayed that they have faith in the same Holy Spirit that not only chose Francis to become pope, but also “was the instrument behind the works of St. Martin Luther.”
“I would like to say that, though this new exhortation is a few hundred years coming, it’s finally here,” Kasper said. “Honesty, I think that controversies surrounding Reformatio Si are ludicrous. Luther reformed a corrupt Church, meaning that his ideas were superior to the Catholic faith, and since God calls us to greatness, we then ought to except the superiority and greatness of Luther’s teachings.”
“Listen, and listen to me clearly,” Kasper went on to say. “I got 95 thesis but a pope ain’t one. I understand that and Francis understands that. And that’s why, as of tomorrow, Pope Francis will relinquish his title as Head of the Whore of Babylon, and will kindly ask to simply be called ‘Pastor Jorge.’ He has been given a part-time job as Associate Youth Pastor in Training at Atonement Lutheran Church in Louisville Kentucky. We ask everyone to pray that he does well.”
I needed a laugh. But then again, maybe it’s not so funny after all. A little too close to the mark. More on that tomorrow, God willing and time available.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Latin Mass, Liturgy, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
There is an old saying: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times, conspiracy. Now, that might apply to three crimes in the same town, but in an institution as vast as the Church, probably far more than 3 occurrences of something are necessary to prove any kind of conspiracy. Nevertheless, it was disconcerting late last week to find all the below taking place:
The bishops of Malta, formerly a place of deep faith and devotion, decreed they were accepting Francis’ interpretation of Amoris Laetitia and implementing it, permitting those in adulterous second “unions” to receive the Blessed Sacrament, and suspending any priests who adhered to the constant belief and practice of the Faith (denying the Blessed Sacrament to public adulterers per that practice).
A priest in Colombia was suspended a divinis for having criticized the massive, unprecedented, morality-destroying aspects of Amoris Laetitia.
In the Diocese of Rockford, Ill, Bishop Malloy has arrogated to himself the right to determine if, and where, Mass may be offered either according to the ancient Rite or even facing the Lord, Ad Orientem. This kind of false assertion of power should be very familiar to Dallas area Catholics, as it is precisely the same standard imposed by former Bishop, now Cardinal, Kevin Farrell. Immediately after Summorum Pontificum was released, Bishop Farrell issued a statement declaring only he had the right to assess where the TLM was “needed,” if anywhere, and threatened harsh sanctions against any priests that disobeyed. This was a public declaration. The imposition against Ad Orientem worship was done privately, against at least one priest who started offering Mass, including Novus Ordo Latin, facing the tabernacle. That priest has now returned to offering Mass Ad Orientem since Farrell’s departure. Pray God that Bishop-Elect Edward Burns, Farrell’s replacement, will be much less draconian in his treatment of wholly legitimate methods of offering Mass.
Finally – and this has not gotten nearly as much coverage – Fr. Christopher Phillips of Atonement Parish in San Antonio, the world’s first Anglican Use parish erected in the Catholic Church under the direct intervention of Pope St. John Paul II, was sacked late Friday afternoon by San Antonio Archbishop Gustavo Garcia Siller in what amounts to a canonical coup. Phillips has a long history at Atonement, not all of it good, but offered the most traditional, reverent liturgies in the vast San Antonio Archdiocese outside the sole weekly TLM permitted at St. Pius X parish on Sundays. Atonement offered both Anglican Use and Novus Ordo Latin Masses every Sunday, and it appears a desire for greater “liturgical uniformity” may have played a significant role in Phillips’s removal:
The parish joining the Anglican Ordinariate may also have been a contributing factor.
The actual letter from Archbishop Garcia-Siller:
Now, I say that Phillips is being sacked, because I’ve never, once, in observing Church affairs closely now for 7 years or so, seen a pastor removed for “reflection” ever re-instated. If lucky, he would be transferred to a backwoods assignment, but in all likelihood, Phillips will never have a public ministry again.
Note the similarity in language used by Bishop Malloy and Garcia-Siller, and the similarity in objectives.
Finally, a bit more about Atonement: this is probably a minority opinion, but I know of a handful of families who found Phillips’ pastoral care – in their particular cases – counterproductive. These were all deeply private matters and not related to public ministry, as I understand it, but there were certainly concerns, and complaints, regarding counsel Phillips gave to various families that some felt made matters worse. There was also a possible ongoing “situation” – maybe a scandal – involving a certain deacon who retired from the parish this past year. Concerns had been expressed about this deacon for some time, again by a handful of folks, to my knowledge (bear in mind I am in Dallas but did assist at Mass and Tenebrae at Atonement several times before we went full-TLM all the time. I know some current and former Atonement parishioners but not a whole lot. It could be there were broad-based complaints of which I am unaware).
I say this to note that there may be extenuating circumstances in this case, but I doubt those really had anything to do with Phillips’ case. First of all, the reports came from a small number of people. Secondly, Phillips appears to enjoy the overwhelming support of the people of Atonement. My gut instinct says this is really about doctrinal orthodoxy being taught publicly at Atonement and probably some demands being made to conform to the corporate line that were not obeyed.
Some more from a secular San Antonio paper, which seems to confirm my instinct:
Many of the founding members of the parish were former Episcopalians who converted to Catholicism. Phillips, the parish’s first and only pastor, was ordained by then-Archbishop Patrick Flores, who died Jan. 9. [I doubt the timing is coincidental]
In a one-page letter to parishioners, Archbishop Gustavo García-Siller called the Catholic Church’s “pastoral provision” to bring Anglicans into the fold “a great blessing in our archdiocese, and a path for many of our separated (Anglican) brothers and sisters.”
But he noted that his concerns “relate to expressions in the life of the parish that indicate an identity separate from, rather than simply unique, among the parishes of the archdiocese” and that he has asked Phillips “to dedicate some time to reflect on certain specific concerns that I have shared with him.”
The letter praised the parish as one that attracts many Catholics who want “clarity of doctrine and traditional liturgical expression.”
In a separate statement, García-Siller noted “serious concerns regarding a lack of ecclesial communion with the parish and the Archdiocese of San Antonio.”
Two parishioners and one former parishioner said they interpreted the archbishop’s concern as a reference to a longtime hope by Phillips and other members of Our Lady of the Atonement to someday leave the auspices of the archdiocese and join the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.
In an unsigned email from the church office to parishioners, provided by a founding parishioner, Chuck Wilson, the parish staff seemed surprised at Phillips’ removal from the parish operations, including its school.
“We were notified today of the canonical process being instigated by the archdiocese to remove Fr. Phillips,” it said. “The archbishop stated that Fr. Phillips has done nothing wrong, but his ministry is detrimental to the faith of the people and keeps the people of the parish separate from the communal activities of the archdiocese.”
The email said Phillips has been removed from the parish grounds for 15 days. Wilson said Phillips’ personal residence is at the parish.
So I was right – this is about removing Phillips, and his enforced 15 day removal from the parish is to create a vacuum in leadership wherein the Archdiocese can act to impose its will. Not long, but probably long enough. Shades of the treatment Fr. Rodriguez received – and is receiving – in El Paso.
The statements about upholding the Anglican-use liturgy and the doctrinal orthodoxy of the parish are red herrings, in all likelihood. Otherwise, there would have been no reason to remove Phillips.
Illegitimate though it may be, Fr. Phillips has probably been presented with a choice – tow the line we are demanding you tow, or never serve in public again. The number of limitations and absurdities imposed on Phillips would likely astound readers, just as (a partial list of) those imposed on Fr. Rodriguez astounded me, and made plain to me the reality of the different religion being stood up in the name of the Holy Catholic Church. In Phillips case, however, he does have a family to consider. I tend to imagine, however, that this period of reflection is nothing of the sort, that the decision has already been made, and the only thing that can save Fr. Phillips’ role at Atonement is an ace canon lawyer. I hope he has one.
So while these events from many different regions may appear disparate and unrelated, I tend to doubt they are. This is all likely part of a broad-based pushback against the very modest “gains” made under Popes JPII and Benedict, and the re-imposition of an aggressive, heterodox “Spirit of Vatican II.”
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, Francis, General Catholic, horror, priests, Revolution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
That’s what Damian Thompson says, anyway. Some interesting observations below – some revelations as to Francis’ character. It might even be considered a bit psycho-analytical. I was not aware of Francis’ scandal in reinstating a scandalous progressive boy-raping priest that Benedict had previously defrocked. That’s a damning indictment that Francis’ mercy extends only to perceived ideological allies, and not those whom he is most charged to shepherd and defend:
On 2 January, the Vatican published a letter from Pope Francis to the world’s bishops in which he reminded them that they must show ‘zero tolerance’ towards child abuse. The next day, the American Week magazine published an article that told the story of ‘Don Mercedes’ — Fr Mauro Inzoli, an Italian priest with a passion for expensive cars and underage boys.
In 2012, Pope Benedict stripped Inzoli of his priestly faculties, effectively defrocking him. In 2014, however, they were restored to him — by Pope Francis, who warned him to stay away from minors.
Then, finally, the Italian civil authorities caught up with this serial groper of teenagers in the confessional. Last summer Inzoli was sentenced to four years and nine months in jail for paedophile offences. The Vatican, under ‘zero-tolerance’ Francis, refused to supply evidence that prosecutors wanted…….. [I doubt he was guilty only of “groping,” and I hate how the media continues to soft-pedal these men’s crimes. They, painfully and cruelly, rape young boys, destroying their irreplaceable innocence and scarring them for life. Those who suffer childhood sex abuse are never quite right again. Reducing that to “groping” is yet another example of why so many of us have no respect for the media. As for Francis, his “zero-tolerance” depends entirely on whether one is seen as an ally or not. Leftism is always about power – those perceived as aiding that pursuit of power can never do any wrong, those who oppose it can never do any right.]
……A man who, when he took office, seemed endearingly informal — paying his own bill at his hotel, refusing to live in the Apostolic Palace, making surprise phone calls to members of the public — now cuts a less sympathetic figure.
He has broken with a far more significant papal tradition than living in the papal apartments or travelling in limousines. He has defied the convention that a pope, once elected, ceases to play nasty curial politics. [I’m shocked, shocked that a convicted Peronist would behave like a…..convicted Peronist]
Pope Benedict respected this convention. [Probably too much. It undermined his ability to effect any change – if he even wanted to.] Liberals who were worried that the ‘Rottweiler’ would harbour ancient grudges watched in amazement — and relief — as he turned into a virtual hermit. This created the factional chaos that led to his resignation — but right up until the end, Benedict was always ‘the Holy Father’.
That title has almost dropped out of use inside the Vatican under Francis, at least in everyday conversation. And, when you hear it, there is an edge of sarcasm. For example: ‘As the Holy Father so wisely says, we all have a natural tendency to eat shit.’
The priest in question is no fan of Francis. But the fact is that the Pope did say it — in public. Last month, he told the media to stop spreading fake stories because ‘people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia’. Which means eating excrement.
Why did he say it? The traditionalist blog Rorate Caeli suggested that ‘ageing or an underlying medical issue’ was responsible for his ‘persistent anger, rancour, vituperation, use of uncouth words (which is known to be increasingly frequent in private)’. [Nah. It’s just who he is. It’s who he’s always been. This is a severely intemperate man. This is a man who is not in control of his appetites. Humility is what gives us the moral strength (and grace) to practice penance and limit our appetites. Francis may or may not limit his physical, material appetite, but his appetite for more ethereal things like obeisance and the gathering of power appears voracious.]
Again, this is an opponent speaking. There is no evidence that the Pope is mentally ill. However, plenty of Vatican employees will testify to his outbursts of temper, rudeness towards subordinates and vulgar language. [Again, intemperance. Intemperance also speaks to a lack of solid interior life driven by humility and devotion to prayer.]
He can also be genial, funny and compassionate. But this side of his personality is increasingly reserved for his inner circle and his allies.
All popes have inner circles, it goes without saying. What distinguishes Francis from his recent predecessors is the nature of the alliances he forms. He is far more brutal in the exercise of his power than, say, Pope John Paul II, who certainly had an authoritarian streak in him. [Indeed. Some say Francis is even more authoritarian than Pius XII, the supposed epitome of the “bad old Church.”]
‘Bergoglio divides the church into those who are with him and those who are against him — and if he thinks you’re in the latter camp then he’ll come after you,’ says a priest who works in the curia. [Think that had much impact on the Franciscans of the Immaculate?]
‘Bergoglio’, note: he doesn’t even call him ‘Francis’. Tellingly, this priest used to be a fervent supporter of some of the Pope’s administrative reforms and he doesn’t look back nostalgically at the reign of Benedict, whom he blames for neglecting his papal duties.
But, like so many Vatican employees, he’s sick of Francis’s habit of telling the entire Roman curia that they are modern-day Pharisees — an analogy that casts the Argentinian pontiff in the role of Jesus. [Convenient, that.]
Clearly Francis believes that relaxing the rules on communion for Catholics in irregular marriages is an act of Christlike compassion. [Could there be more to it than that? As a point of attack against the entire moral edifice of the Church, a more insidious one could hardly have been chosen. I don’t think that’s accidental in the slightest.] This is also the view of the venerable liberal cardinals who campaigned to elect him. It is often said that he is enacting their agenda — and it’s true that Francis is well disposed to liberal demands for women deacons and married priests. [Thus the upcoming terror of Synod 2018. Lord, please prevent this from taking place.]
He is not, however, their instrument. In the words of a Vatican observer who held an important position in Rome for many years, ‘He hasn’t taken on the old progressive mantle so much as created his own personality cult.’ Theological niceties bore him. Personal loyalty obsesses him — ‘and if the cardinal electors had done due diligence they would have discovered that he was an extraordinarily divisive figure among the Argentinian Jesuits’.
It’s not hard to detect a Latin American flavour to the deal-making and settling of scores that has become blatant over the past year. Most Catholic bishops had thought Francis was a plain-spoken and perhaps touchingly naive reformer. Instead, they are confronted by a pope who is simultaneously combative, charming, bad-tempered, idealistic and vengeful……..
Oh, I think the naivete is an act. I think he – as the scion of those who elected him – knows exactly what he is doing and the impact it will have. This is a man bent on remaking the Church in his own ideological image. Niceties mean nothing to him, all that matters is the end result.
He’s a leftist Borgia, minus the appetites against the 6th and 9th Commandments.
Posted by Tantumblogo in damnable blasphemy, disaster, Ecumenism, error, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, secularism, silliness, the return.
I’m sure these will be a huge draw as the Church – under Francis – prepares to celebrate the 500th anniversary of the man, and his acts, that did more to injure and divide Christianity than any other person in the history of the world. I mean, what’s not to celebrate?!? He started up the greatest heresy in the history of the Church, he caused endless self-replicating schisms that continue to this day, he started wars of religion that killed millions and devastated Europe for over a century, he encouraged personal immorality so long as one had “faith,” he started the process of the Christian church submitting to the state, and he paved the way for the entire historical arc, with all its misery, that has played out since. He is easily one of the most pitiable, ruinous souls ever to afflict God’s creation.
But he certainly has a following in the Church today, and has since the modernists burst forth in full flower in the mid-20th century. The current pontiff seems to believe that the protestant revolt/revolution is something to be celebrated, but he’s hardly the first. Remember, one of the “great” doyens of the Second Vatican Council had such a deep devotion and reverence for this man, he likened him to another Saint Paul!
In other words, it’s all coming together, just as planned!
St. Martin Luther, Patron of Heretics and Anti-Popes
St. Martin Luther,
You saw the corruption in the Church,
and had the courage to speak out.
You recognized parts of the Bible that did not belong
and took them out
(even though your followers had to put
some of them back in).
You changed Holy Writ to make salvation
depend on “faith alone.”
You tore the Christian West apart
and gave birth to 40,000 sects.
St. Martin Luther, Pray for Us.
Print your official St. Martin Luther Holy Card picture to the desired size on card stock, then print the prayer on the back of it. Optional: have it laminated at Staples.
Oh, and his personal morality was so corrupted it gave rise to his hatred of Holy Mother Church and his uncountable heresies.
But other than that he was just the very figure of a Catholic Saint, and the movement he inspired completely worthy of Catholic emulation and devotion.
Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, persecution, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the return, the struggle for the Church.
So said the well-known liturgist Msgr. Nicola Bux. To help explicate his definition a little more, consider the two items below. First, a priest in Sicily – mirroring more than one in Spain, for centuries perhaps the most Catholic country in the world – has blessed a lesbian couple in church, and called for the Church to “bless gay unions:”
What is true in Spain, is also possible in Italy. A priest of the Archdiocese of Palermo, where Pope Francis recently installed a “Bergoglian” as archbishop, “blessed” a lesbian couple. “I hope that the church will one day bless gay unions,” said the priest.
The Sicilian case is reminiscent of those in Castellón in Spain, where a priest “blessed” a lesbian couple in the Church. The priest then denied the blessing: He had “only” blessed the “love.” The two lesbians had however sent “wedding invitations.”
The former Jesuit church of Palermo, which is dedicated to St. Francis Xavier, has long been “committed” to the acceptance of aberrosexuality……..
………..Don Scordato congratulated the lesbian couple explained his decision and blessed it in the church. He called upon the church to “impartially receive and to pray for the couple,” the two lesbians.
The incident not only drew attention all over Italy in the leftist media but was also part of a documentary about and for “gay marriage” in Italy.
The two women, Elisabetta Cina (49) and Serenella Fiasconaro (46) are not practicing Catholics. But both are active in the gay scene and are committed sociopolitically for the recognition of homosexuality. Both have appeared already in T-shirts with provocative inscriptions in public. [So this was not an act about “welcoming” or “acceptance,” this was a nakedly political act to achieve a political end. It was, also, a religious act, a demonstration of fealty to the religion of leftist sexular paganism over the Catholic Faith.]
Critics accuse the pair and Don Scordato of putting on a subversive act with the aim of overthrowing the doctrine of the Catholic Church on aberrosexuality.
“The two women one day came to me and asked me to bless their wedding rings. The Church does not allow the sacrament of marriage for homosexual couples. I have invited them to come to Mass to introduce themselves to the community, because the Church has to accept all,” said Don Scordato last Sunday before calling the lesbian couple to meet him at the altar. Then he called on the faithful, “to greet the two and their love with a round of applause.” [Did not our Blessed Lord advise His disciples to shake the dust from their very shoes when places would not receive the Gospel? Did he not say to let those who persist manifestly in grave sin, after being counseled as to its evil (and this sin of same-sex perversion is so well-known and so against the natural law that no real counsel is necessary), to be as heathens and publicans to the Church, and to have nothing to do with them? Did He say to endorse their sin and give it Church recognition and glorification? This is precisely the kind of redefinition of the Church along marxist lines outlined in AA-1025, which may or may not have been an actual biography, but it was certainly prophetic nonetheless]
Moving on, to further illustrate how the Left operates, it is being reported that a group of 45 priests and scholars wrote a private letter – subsequently leaked with signatures attached, probably by allies of Francis – to the Sacred College of Cardinals imploring them to lobby Francis to effectively rescind, by way of clarification, the many problematic (read as novel, to many, even heterodox) portions of Amoris Laetitia. Those priests and scholars are now reportedly being heavily persecuted with the aim of getting them to repudiate their criticism or at least distance themselves from the letter:
Not long ago, as is well known, a group of 45 scholars, teachers, and pastors, wrote a Letter. (I emphasise that these people came from a wide variety of countries throughout the world: I emphasise this because I do not want what I am about to say to be narrowly construed as a criticism of any members of the English Church.) The Letter was addressed to each member of the Sacred College of Cardinals respectfully asking them to beg the Holy Father graciously to consider the clarification of certain parts of Amoris laetitia which have proved to be dangerously ambiguous……..
……..Intimidation and cruel pressures have, it appears, been applied to persuade some of the signatories to the Letter to rescind their signatures.”
Intimidation and persecution is how the Left has always worked. From the protestant revolt through the French Revolution to every communist government to the political correctness, “safe spaces” and “bake the damn cake” policies of today, the Left has almost never gained power without repression and intimidation, generally of a very violent kind. For that matter, they rarely let go their grip on power without a healthy amount of blood being spilled. Something to consider as we witness the resurgence of the leftist-modernist clique in the Church.
Speaking of, how are the Franciscans of the Immaculate making out these days? Boy, I bet you’ll never read another critique of aspects of Vatican II from them!
Speaking of, I better whip out the Nehru jacket, platform boots, and polyester jacket, it’s feeling more and more like 1970 again, idn’t it?
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, General Catholic, huh?, It's all about the $$$, sadness, secularism, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Via the Dallas Morning News, a farewell interview conducted with outgoing Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell. I found two aspects of the interview quite starkly apparent – I’m sure you’ll see what I mean below. While the questions asked may have led the conversation in a certain direction, I was still struck by the lack of any mention of the supernatural/transcendent. The other aspect I’ll flesh out a bit below. BTW, I found the liberal Morning News’ headline unfair, as I’ll also discuss:
……..Farrell sat down for a conversation looking back at the changes in the Dallas diocese during his tenure — and assessing the needs his successor will face.
His responses have been lightly edited for clarity.
What did you do to assess the needs of the diocese?
“I spent my first three years traveling to parishes. I used to listen to people in the back of churches when they’d be going out of church on Sunday, and I would always stand and listen to them talk and they would complain to me about some things, and some were important.” [You guys here in Dallas remember seeing Bishop Farrell around parishes all the time, right, pretty much every Sunday? Honestly, while there are 70 parishes in the Diocese, do you recall him at your parish more than once or twice, at most? I have heard/read many, many complaints of Farrell’s lack of visibility/accessibility.]
“[But] I never forgot after three or four years when I got an email from Plano, I won’t tell what parish, asking me, now that I’d been there for three years, when was I going to do something about the terrible condition of the parking lot at one of our parishes. People expected me to do everything and anything.” [Like defend the Doctrine of the Faith against heresy and immorality?]
What has changed in the diocese under your leadership?
“I believe that parishes work differently than they used to in many different aspects. I think I have brought lay people in to do the administration, overseeing everything that’s done.” [Is this supposed to be a good thing? In my writing going back to the very beginning, lay staff have been one of the most consistent, gravest problems in the Diocese. From Sister Rupp to Always Our Children, they almost always feature in some scandal or heartbreak]
“We have what we call the diocesan finance council. Here are lay men and women who are involved in all of what I would call the business aspect of the church, I have tried to get them to lead and take responsibility for doing that. In our high schools, I have board of directors and boards of trustees that I have always tried to empower. To empower the laypeople to make the decisions, not me. I’m not a businessman. I’m not even that interested in the business aspect. That’s not my thing and not my vocation. I may be mildly successful at it. But it’s not my desire, neither am I interested in it.”
What are the challenges your successor will face?
“Obviously the challenge we all face is the tremendous growth of this diocese. That is a challenge that will continue. I do hope I have recruited enough young people to enter the seminary over the years so that task will be a little easier. When I came here to the diocese, we had 17 people studying for the priesthood over at Holy Trinity Seminary. Today, we have at this moment 70.” [There is no question the seminary situation is far better than when Bishop Farrell arrived. Now, there has been quite a bit of attrition in the seminaries, where a lot of guys drop out before ordination, but things were in a deplorable state under Grahmann and they’re now quite a bit better, but short of need, sadly.]
“I did not open up many [Was MD the only one? Perhaps some nationality based ones?] new parishes for the specific reason that I didn’t have the staff to staff, the priest staff. I think that after about three more years, that will be alleviated, The diocese will start seeing some of these young men being ordained.”
What else will your successor need to focus on?
“I think the work of trying to integrate and trying to get our communities to work together. You have people on the north side of Dallas who have never been, who have no idea what the south of the Trinity River looks like.” [This is I guess where the DMN got their silly headline about “rich people getting out of their comfort zones.” For those outside the area, the Trinity River acts as a sort of literal and figurative dividing line between North Dallas and South Dallas, “rich” Dallas and “poor” Dallas, although, more and more, the distinction has become blurred. South Dallas historically has lacked investment. I live in Irving but I technically live south of the Trinity. So that’s the reference. As for Bishop Farrell’s statement……I again note that souls, salvation, conversion, rarely seem to enter in. Lots and lots of people I know go south of the Trinity regularly to visit/serve with the Carmelites and the Missionaries of Charity, or to go to the DFW National Cemetery. This is rarely an issue for committed Catholics, for CINOs, maybe so]
How soon do you think Pope Francis will name your successor?
“I think it will be within two months after I leave. I know sometimes that can stretch out for a year. But it will not happen in a diocese as large as Dallas. We grow continually, from migrants coming from the north and immigrants coming from the south. “
Meh. Again with the hints that a successor has all but been selected. As a for instance, I can guarantee you Farrell knew he was leaving Dallas, going to Rome, and probably heading this dicastery months ago. Rome would not give a bishop only 2 weeks to wind up affairs in a diocese after nearly 10 years of leadership. I guess we’ll see.
Well Godspeed Bishop Farrell, thank you for Mater Dei. May your successor give true liberty to the TLM in the Diocese of Dallas.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, family, Francis, General Catholic, pr stunts, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell’s increasingly controversial tenure as Bishop of Dallas has come to an end. He was appointed by Francis to head the important new Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life just created. His transfer is effective in 2 weeks, which is really short notice, so we can expect that his effective tenure as Bishop of Dallas is over as of today, or perhaps, weeks ago. DMN coverage next, some commentary from me at the bottom:
Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell has been tapped for a position at the Vatican, where he will oversee a new department focused on the lives and families of ordinary Catholics around the world.
The promotion, effective Sept. 1, will make Farrell the highest-ranking American clergyman serving in the Vatican, the Diocese of Dallas announced Wednesday.
The move leaves an opening in Dallas, where Farrell has been bishop since 2007……..
…….Farrell said Wednesday morning that he was “extremely humbled” by the appointment and “grateful for the Holy Father’s confidence in me.” But, he said, “I meet this news with mixed emotions.”
“Dallas has been my home for 10 years and, from the beginning, I quickly grew to love the beautiful people and culture here,” he said in a statement. “The strong faith, kindness and generosity of the people in the Diocese of Dallas surpassed all of my expectations.”
A diocese spokeswoman said a new bishop could be appointed as soon as October. Auxiliary Bishop Greg Kelly will lead the diocese in the interim.
Pope Francis chose Farrell to lead the Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life, a newly-created department that combines the responsibilities of two existing pontifical councils. It will be part of the Roman Curia, an administrative body that advises and helps the pope carry out the church’s affairs worldwide.
In his new role, Farrell, 68, will focus on the needs of lay people, regular Catholics who are not part of the clergy.
The reorganization comes as Pope Francis strives to make the Catholic Church more inclusive and efficient. [“Inclusive.” That’s what Christ stressed all the time, wasn’t it? He never said anything about bringing the sword of division, separating the wheat from the chaff, or anything like that. The redefinition of Jesus Christ along sexular pagan lines continues apace.]
The pope wrote that he created the new department so that the Roman Curia can effectively “respond to the situation of our times and adapt to the needs of the universal Church.”…….
…….The Diocese of Dallas saw an increase in vocations to the priesthood and raised $130 million during a landmark fundraising campaign under his leadership, said diocesan spokeswoman Annette Gonzales Taylor. [Well, just about any vocations would have been an increase from the total collapse of the seminary system and ordinations under the last decade or so of his predecessor. Ordinations have averaged 3 or 4 a year under Farrell, much more than before, but not nearly enough to make up for the number of priests set to retire soon]
“We’re exceptionally proud, but we’re also exceptionally sad to be losing him,” Gonzales Taylor said Wednesday. “He’s just be an outstanding leader and, from my point of view, a wonderful boss. He’s going to be sorely missed.”……
…….Farrell’s new assignment will reunite him with his brother, Brian, who is also a bishop and the secretary of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.
Farrell asked for prayers as he begins “this next unexpected chapter of my priesthood.”
“My God continue to bless the Diocese of Dallas,” he said.
In the end, Bishop Farrell’s tenure played out almost exactly as expected by many local observers when he was first named Bishop of Dallas in 2007. It was widely expected then that he would not retire here, that he would be something of an interim or “caretaker” bishop. Certain well-informed local priests expected him to spend 7 or 8 years (in reality, it was 9) addressing the myriad problems left by his predecessor Charles Grahmann and then be promoted to some dicastery in Rome, to finish out his career near his much-beloved brother. This is exactly what happened.
In many material respects, Bishop Farrell’s tenure was a successful one – he got the Diocese out of debt after massive payouts to the survivors of priest sex abuse cases, and did somewhat improve the seminary and the number of priests being ordained, which latter had all but died under his predecessor.
I have already observed, I believe, how hard Bishop Farrell has changed direction under the current pontificate. He has really tacked into the wind. Under Benedict Bishop Farrell was fairly conservativish, a bit “right” of center in the American episcopate. Since, 2013, however, he seems to have drifted quite a bit in the other direction.
As a man, like so many bishops – though he was, it seems, an extreme case – he was very hard to get in front of. He seemed to be constantly gone, or had others run very effective interference for him. Even in public events, getting much more than a handshake and a smile from Farrell was all but impossible. Obtaining a meeting was apparently reserved for a select few (if any). Even though he supposedly obtained a mansion for fund-raising, there are no reports of fundraisers actually being held there, to my knowledge. Farrell tended to “rule” from behind the scenes and was certainly not above hiding behind bureaucratic subterfuge, as the Joyce Rupp/Dr. Rick Gaillardetz imbroglios, the twin issues that launched this blog in late 2009, showed.
Farrell was always assessed as a very political creature who would not be long in Dallas. Benedict’s abdication probably kept him here a year or two longer than planned. But now he has gotten his reward, a plum assignment, in Rome, near his brother, in which to ride out his career. Many have speculated Bishop Farrell’s socially liberal policies of late (banning guns in all diocesan facilities – since repealed – strident support for unlimited Hispanic immigration, constant paeans on his blog to the new wisdom of Francis, taking up a crusade on domestic violence, etc) were perhaps related to a desire to seem in step with the new mood in Rome. It is likely these later stands may have been more reflective of Farrell’s true beliefs, given his status as protege of the very troubling Cardinal McCarrick, and may well serve as indicators of why Farrell was chosen for this very important new office.
Of course, I pray for Bishop Farrell’s success in his new duty and that he may use this apostolate for the good of souls and of Holy Mother Church, which could have a huge impact on the life of the Church. As to how Bishop Farrell will conduct himself in this new role, he has always been a very good soldier, knowing who he needs to please and how to do it. I was not the only one to notice what seemed a fairly substantial change in Bishop Farrell’s rhetoric and pastoral emphasis after March 2013. Remember his joint statement with former Ft. Worth Bishop Vann on the USCCB’s 2008 “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” staking out a very welcome and clear guidance with respect to the life issues trumping all others in determining who Catholics can support, electorally (pretty much wiping out legitimate support for democrats)? Could you imagine him releasing such a document, today?
We also eagerly await the naming of his replacement, which comes at such a critical juncture for this diocese. If Bishop Farrell was something of an interim crisis recovery expert, it was similarly expected that his replacement would likely be much younger and here for a very long time. It is thus vital to pray for this new bishop, conducting Rosary crusades and other prayer efforts, even outside the chancery itself, to show our filial obedience and spiritual communion with out present and future ordinaries, while imploring God that they be men worthy of the name, Catholic bishop. Please also pray for Bishop Farrell, that the Grace of Jesus Christ may guide and direct all he does according to the Truth revealed and practiced by the Church for over 1900 years in his very important new role.
Amazingly, with the sacking of Cardinal Burke, this new appointment makes Bishop Farrell the highest ranking “American” (he’s Irish, but served most of his apostolate in the US) in the Curia. That’s something that sort of makes one go “gulp.”
A few other interesting notes from Rocco Palmo:
……the Vatican statement announcing the move conspicuously did not include Farrell’s elevation to the rank of archbishop, which has always been customary practice for appointments of this kind……
…….Third, he enjoys close ties and clear goodwill among four prominent figures in Francis’ orbit: having served as vicar-general and auxiliary of Washington under Cardinals Theodore McCarrick and Donald Wuerl until his southern transfer, the sister of the ever-influential head of Francis’ “Gang of 9,” Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga, lives in Dallas, [Yikes] while the work that brought him to DC to begin with saw him succeed then-Bishop Sean O’Malley as director of the capital’s Centro Catolico Hispano, which the Capuchin founded a decade earlier as Latinos began to arrive in the city en masse, only leaving the role on his appointment to the Virgin Islands……..
…….Lastly for now, as some fireworks are bound to ensue in the top rank with the appointment for a now-vacant Dallas church – where Farrell was already laying the groundwork to receive another auxiliary – it bears recalling that, with the new Prefect to be aided by three Secretaries for each of the new office’s areas of competence, the legislation establishing the Dicastery provides that (in a first for a top Curial organ) the lead deputies need not be clergy, but may likewise be named from among religious or the laity.
Yes, I’m certain that for this new Dicastery for the Laity, Francis has found his man.
And here I thought I would have nothing to blog on today.
Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, Papa, persecution, sadness, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
I instantly saw the report come out on Tuesday from a French source alleging that the evil American globalist financial power had somehow forced Pope Benedict XVI’s abdication by freezing assets at the Vatican bank. Here is the report below, translated by Google:
“Few know what SWIFT (the acronym stands for Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) is: in theory, is a global “clearing house”, uniting 10,500 banks in 215 countries. In fact, is the most occult and sole center of American-globalist financial power, a bastion of blackmail on which the hegemony of the dollar, the most powerful means of political and economic espionage (to the detriment especially for us Europeans) and the means by which the most feared global finance breaks the legs of states that do not obey. …
“‘When a bank or territory is excluded from the system, as it did in the case of the Vatican in the days before the resignation of Benedict XVI in February 2013, all transactions are blocked. Without waiting for the election of Pope Bergoglio, the Swift system has been unlocked the announcement of the resignation of Benedict XVI.
“‘There was a blackmail come from who knows where, through SWIFT, exercised on Benedict XVI. The underlying reasons for this story have not been clarified, but it is clear that SWIFT has intervened directly in the management of affairs of the Church.’
“This explains and justifies the unprecedented resignation of Ratzinger, that many of us have been able to exchange for an act of cowardice; the Church was treated as a state ‘terrorist’, but worse — because note that the dozen banks falling into the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ‘are not excluded from SWIFT’ and continue to be able to make international transactions — and the Vatican finances could no longer pay the nunciature, to convey transport missions — in fact, the same ATM of Vatican City had been blocked.
The Church of Benedict could not ‘neither sell nor buy’; its own economic life was counted in hours.”
So my initial inclination was to think this was all a bit histrionic, especially the typically European hyperbole over (often European-dominated) international institutions like SWIFT and of course the cruel hand of the American Dollar.
HOWEVER, I started looking through some dates on these matters, and things lined up shockingly well. The Vatican Bank lost access to all electronic monetary transfers on Jan. 1, 2013, ostensibly due to failure to implement Euro-mandated reforms regarding protections against money laundering. For years, PBXVI had been trying to reform the Vatican Bank, or “IOR,” without total success. As 2012 melted into 2013, his reform process came to a standstill with the forcing out of IOR head Gotto Tedeschi, the man hand-picked by Benedict to reform the bank. Tedeschi seems to have been nothing but a fall guy, facing a number of false allegations after his dismissal and beating them all in court (even Italian court, which is really saying something). It appears his force out was part of the broader struggle to undermine and foil every attempt PBXVI made at reform at every level. Tedeschi was simply an early casualty in the war against Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bertone.
SO, the day after Pope Benedict announces his abdication, voila!, the ban on electronic monetary transfers/credit card transactions is suddenly lifted! That seems an enormous coincidence, but who am I to judge?
Anyway, I see Louie Verrecchio has written a long piece on this subject with far more detail than I can give, so if you really want to dig deep into it, you can read his post. I really tend to think the Vatileaks scandal, the 300 page dossier on sodomite clergy in the Diocese of Rome/Vatican (how quickly that has been forgotten), and the constant machinations of the modernist cardinals like Daneels, Kasper, McCarrick, et. al., were probably more significant factors, but this may have been the icing on the cake to convince Pope Benedict to realize that his pontificate was being ground to a halt, with ongoing damage to the Church (though not so much damage as since!). I still think there is a missing link, which Rorate Caeli has referred to, regarding a certain turncoat cardinal, ostensibly an ally/protege of Benedict, who convinced him that abdication was a safe course as a friendly, like-minded successor was assured.
I do think the many revelations we’ve seen in the past 12-18 months do make clear (to this writer, anyway) that Pope Benedict abdicated under duress. That is to say, the stated reason (health) was perhaps only one part of a very complex picture, featuring attacks on his pontificate from every possible angle.
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, episcopate, General Catholic, Papa, scandals, secularism, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Almost 672,000 people have signed the filial petition to Pope Francis imploring him to drive the Synod to uphold and re-affirm the Sacred Doctrine of the Faith regarding marriage and the family. If you haven’t done so (and what of the members of your family?) please do so now! It may make no difference to Pope Francis if even millions sign such a petition, but it will make a difference to each one of those souls who do sign, to be reassured in the knowledge that there are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Catholics as concerned and scandalized as they are. It will show that there is still at least a kernel of the Faith at work in a not insignificant number of souls.
So please sign today! Let’s see the number of signatories cross 1,000,000! If your kids haven’t signed, have them do so! Surely you have at least a dozen e-mail addresses like I do, let them use one of them!
PRIESTS! Our good spiritual fathers and shepherds of souls, have you signed the Credo Priests affirmation to always uphold the Sacred Doctrine of the Faith in your care of souls? There are nearly 50,000 priests in this country but so far fewer than 1500 have signed. A lot of very good priests are not on the list. I pray they are soon. I can’t think of many good reasons why they would not be. But who am I to judge?
Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, different religion, disaster, disconcerting, error, General Catholic, Papa, scandals, secularism, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
I could throw out a lot of adjectives, but I’d just be repeating what has already been said many times before. Via Mahound’s Paradise (original here), some excerpts from Pope Francis’ sermon to the glorious progressive people’s children of the future (I add emphasis and comments):
You said a phrase that I underlined and took note of: “that we might know how to welcome and accept the one who thinks differently than us.” Truly, sometimes we are closed in. We shut ourselves in our little world: “This is either the way that I want it or we’re not doing it.” And you went even further, “that we don’t close ourselves into the ‘little convents’ of ideologies or in the ‘little convents’ of religions. That we might grow in the face of individualism.” [Submitting to the Doctrine of the Faith is the opposite of individualism.
When a religion becomes a “little convent” it loses the best that it has, it loses its reality of adoring God, of believing in God. It’s a little convent of words, of prayers, of “I’m good and you’re bad,’ of moral regulations. I have my ideology, my way of thinking and you have yours; I close myself in this “little convent” of ideology. [Does Pope Francis believe that Sacred Doctrine given by God directly to the Church for the conversion and salvation of mankind equates to mere ideology? He has said this so many times, it seems impossible to conclude he does not. How is this different from what has been enacted in the dying, most liberal protestant sects? Once again Pope Francis decrees Doctrine – directly revealed by God! – to be somehow in opposition to God, or to a right relationship with God. And then he decries “moral regulations,” while he constantly lays out his own, deeply progressive, moral universe! Are these moral regulations simply the traditional moral Doctrine of the Faith?]
Open hearts. Open minds. If you are different than me, why don’t we talk? Why do we always throw rocks at that which separates us? At that in which we are differing? Why don’t we hold hands in that which we have in common? Motivate ourselves to speak about what we have in common, and then we can talk about the differences we have. [Does that last bit ever happen, or do they tend to get ignored and papered over? Or worse, does a least common denominator approach prevail, where critical distinctions are lost and important truth cast overboard in the interest of a worldly, false, and ineffectual sense of “unity?”] But I said, talk, I didn’t say fight. I didn’t say close ourselves in. I don’t say “shut ourselves into our little convent,” to use the word you used. But this is possible only when I have the capacity to speak of that which I have in common with the other, of that by which we are able to work together…….[I have to conclude based on this the audience consisted primarily of 5 and 6 year olds?]
………This is called social friendship: to seek the common good. Social enmity destroys. A family is destroyed by enmity. A country is destroyed by enmity. The world is destroyed by enmity. And the biggest enmity is war. And today we see that the world is destroying itself with war because people are incapable of sitting down and talking. OK, let’s negotiate. What can we do in common? In what things are we not going to give in? But let’s not kill more people. [Does Pope Francis really believe ISIS, for instance, will respond to negotiation? Please. Should the Allies have negotiated with Hitler? But I thought the Allies were really bad because they failed to bomb the railways to the concentration camps?!? Is this the kind of contradiction that emerges from a simplistic and naive world view?] When there is division, there is death, death in the soul because we are killing the capacity to unite. We are killing social friendship. And that’s what I ask of you today: be capable of creating social friendship……
………Hope is fruitful. Hope is given in work, and here I want to mention a very grave problem that is being experienced in Europe: the number of youth who don’t have work. There are countries in Europe where as many as 40% of youth 25 years old and younger live unemployed. I am thinking of one country. In another country, it’s 47% and in another 50%. [Yes, why is that, Pope Francis? Why is that problem closely correlated with the degree of socialism in the government and the influence of trade unions over those governments? In France, Spain, Italy, and many other European nations, youth cannot find work because the socialist economies are incredibly anemic and do not create new jobs, while trade unions protect current members at the expense of young people. All of this is a direct product of left-wing political-economic policy.]
Evidently, when a people is not concerned with giving work to youth — and when I say “people,” I don’t mean government, I mean the entire people — it doesn’t have a future. [I have a huge problem with this statement. I think it very revealing.]
The youth become part of the throwaway culture and all of us know that today, in this empire of the god money, things are thrown away and people are thrown away, children are thrown away, because they are unwanted, because they kill them before they are born, the elderly are thrown away — I’m speaking of the world in general — because they don’t produce anymore. In some countries, there is legal euthanasia, but in so many others there is a hidden, covered up euthanasia. Youth are thrown away because they are not given work. So then? What is left for a young person who doesn’t have work? A country that doesn’t invent, a people that doesn’t invent employment opportunities for its youth, what’s left for this youth are addictions, or suicide, or to go around looking for armies of destruction to create wars……..[Like the muslim hordes descending on Europe, which development you have endorsed?]
……..And I, Cuban young people, though you think differently from each other, though you have your own points of view, I want you to go along accompanying each other, together, seeking hope, seeking the future and the nobility of your homeland. We began with the word hope and I want to conclude with another word that you said and that I tend to use a lot: the culture of encounter. [Groovy, man] Please, let us not have “un-encounter” among us.[Yeah, that would, like, be a total drag] Let us go accompanying each other, in encounter, even though we think differently, even though we feel differently, but there is something bigger than us, which is the greatness of our people, which is the greatness of our homeland, which is this beauty, this sweet hope for the homeland to which we have to arrive.
I think the bit about people failing to “give work to youth” is quite revealing. First of all, governments don’t create jobs, vibrant economies do. Secondly, it reveals a fundamentally socialistic, or at least progressive, outlook to demand that people be “given” jobs. I don’t believe in that. I love this bit from the John Wayne movie McClintock! below, beginning at 21:00, where a young farmer new in town hits up John Wayne for a job. I think Wayne’s response really dead on.
Aid in the form of “handouts” are certainly necessary for many at various times, but if relied upon for a long period of time inevitably poison one’s sense of self-worth. Ask anyone who volunteers at food banks or similar places about how folks who have relied on such aid for long periods of time frequently become very demanding and unappreciative. The same mentality is operative when one speaks of “giving” jobs to youth (and this is not the first time Pope Francis has used this language).
Certainly the destructive effects of lavish, unaffordable welfare states and incredibly stagnant economies unable to cause new job creation even among Europe’s very few young people (relatively speaking) are very bad things. But the language of the speech seems to operate from the very mentality that gave rise to this unproductive form of political-economic system in the first place. It’s not about “giving” jobs to the young, it’s about the young being able to find positions to fill where they work an honest day for a fair wage. This may sound like semantics, but words have meaning and I think these words are very important.
All in all, I really do wish this Pope would be afflicted with severe laryngitis for the rest of his pontificate. Is that bad?