The old saying that the Nile isn't just a river in Egypt can apply easily to aging liberals in the Church as well as some younger ones. They appear to be in total denial about the experiment of liberalism in the Catholic Church following on the heals of the Second Vatican Council. The denial concerns the state of the Church, especially in Europe, but also here in America where liberalism has all but destroyed the prophetic nature of Catholicism and allowed it to succumb to the dictatorship of secularism promoted by partisan politics and the primacy of the individual over the collective good or what is called the common good.
For example, John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter commented on the grave situation of the Church in Belgium. This once predominantly Catholic country is a mere shadow of its former self. Only 7% of Catholics go to Mass on Sunday. The sex abuse scandal has reached the highest levels of the Church there and has led to a "police state" action against the hierarchy in that country which would have been inconceivable even 25 years ago.
John Allen writes, "“A 2008 study by Leuven University, for example, found that only about seven percent of Belgian Catholics attend Mass on a weekly basis, down from 11 percent a decade earlier. Only half of newborn children in Belgium today are baptized, the same study found, and only one-quarter of couples in Belgium today choose to be married in the church.
Ambivalence about the Catholic church, and the Vatican in particular, can be glimpsed from the way Belgium responded to the controversy last year over Benedict XVI’s remarks en route to Africa to the effect that condoms make the problem of AIDS worse. While those words triggered wide debate, only in Belgium did the national parliament formally vote to censure the pontiff.”
Allen continues to point out how one elected government official, a socialist, felt when Pope Benedict named a new more traditionally minded Archbishop for Belgium to replace the retiring, somewhat liberal Cardinal who, on his watch, the Church declined to the point described above, "“Benedict’s choice of Léonard, 70, to replace Danneels further aggravated backlash against the church in some quarters. Deputy Prime Minister Laurette Onkelinx, a leading French-speaking member of the Socialist Party, charged that Léonard’s staunch ethical traditionalism would endanger the “Belgian compromise” between believers and secularists – an informal “live and let live” agreement to avoid open cultural war. For much the same reason, Le Soir called the appointment “stupefying.” ”
In effect this socialist feared that the policies of a previous archbishop/cardinal that allowed for a compromise between believers and secularists (as though being secular is a new religion, which I guess it is now) would be threatened by a Catholicism that overcomes the impotency of liberalism that has so infected it in Belgium. In other words, the socialist fears that a traditionalist archbishop will be like Viagra for the Church Militant and threaten the "godless, secularist agenda" of Belgium. He fears the "staunch, ethical traditionalism" of a potent Catholic Church that in Belgium was once a shinning light of Catholicism in Europe!
We can see secularism in this country conspiring with the liberal elite in the Catholic Church, especially in universities, trying to accomplish here what has successfully happened in secular Europe. Just think of Fr. Jenkins wholehearted embrace of President Barack Obama at Notre Dame. The president knows what he is doing in "dividing and conquering" traditional Catholicism and thus promoting his radical, secularist political agenda. He used the Daughter of Charity and the Catholic Health Association to do the same in getting his comprehensive health bill passed through congress. He even gloated about his victory which could not have happened with out Sister's help and her organization!
Belgium, Holland and Austria are warning signs to Catholics in America. The failed liberal experiment there is happening here. Who will stop it?
10 comments:
If all the clergy were to disappear, how could successors be appointed? the current line is unbroken from Christ, through Peter to today's clergy, like sour dough bread. But with the seminaries waning and children leaving and not even baptising their children, what would resurrect the Church when none are left? I wonder this because I think that the clergy will die out, essentially in a few years. Yet the Truth of the Church will remain. When the scandals are over because all involved are gone, how will people inspired by the Word resurrect the clergy and the Church?
The Holy Spirit will have to do it and He is, we can't all alone or by the liberal means employed over the past 40 years! Fr. AJM
The liberal/secular demon is still in the ascendancy. I am not convinced that the few bright spots of traditional, believing Christianity and conservative values are other than death throes. I hope I am wrong. But, if I am not, this insane liberal, globalist, utopian dream will end in some cataclysmic world war or tragic cultural upheaval...it always has. Then, we will have my hoped for swing to the right...and I want one that makes Francisco Franco look like Mr. Rogers. Yes, there will be abuses and extremes, there always are. But, a radical corrective is needed and will, eventually, occur. So, our lib/socialists with their extremism and hatred of authority, tradition, and restraint will bring about the very thing they say they hate...and guess what...they will be the first casualties. I can, at very least, take some satisfaction in that thought (yes, Fr., I'll be at Confession Saturday).
I'll try to present a positive outlook on liberalism and socialism among the lay people, that is the regular people who subscribe to liberal thinking and not those pushing the agenda on a national level. Most "regular" liberal people are liberal because they believe that governments exist to help the less fortunate. In other words, for most regular liberal people, a misguided sense of charity is at the forefront of their thought. Therefore, I think there is hope that, over time, these people will come to see (as I have) that liberalism is a "false god" in terms of actual effect. Liberalism makes promises of charity, but never actually has a tangible, long-lasting charitable effect.
Once regular liberal people recognize the leaders of liberalism for what they are - people who use a false charity to promote a culture of death and totalitarianism - they are more likely to search for truth. Their innate goodness and charitable spirit will lead them to the Church. The Church just has to be sure to maintain constancy in the face of the secular culture so that it is to the Church, the beacon of charity and truth, that these people turn.
Marc,I do not have as charitable a view of "regular" liberals as you do. Most of the ones I know are "peace at any price," guilty-conscience, self-hating, anything between two consenting mammals, everything is ok as long as you don't hurt anyone else, one religion is as good as another morons who bow down to the mythic poor as if they were some god and worship at the feet of any demagogue who tells them they are really nice people whose good intentions will save them. These are the regular liberals I know...they are everywhere.
Sorry to double bang the same post/thread, but have a major, respectful, disagreement with Marc.
Using Government as the method of execution of 'helping' the poor robs the 'givers' of the choice. This may seem irrelevant, but the idea of making the choice to do good, literally, was important to be the topic of a parable as well as feature of the Genesis story.
Secondly, it jeopardises the Church by creating a link with actions that may not turn out well with 'the Will of God'. This is a clear error.
Classical Liberalism understands that Man, as creations of God, can each be instruments of His will, each bringing their hands to his tasks. Having faith that God was not stupid in creating Man allows for these many answers to flower. We are currently choosing answers to fit what WE want, not God. (l)iberals are people who want control and power over others rather than the free spirits with the facility to chose and act as instruments of God.
I agree with you both pinanv and anonymous. I'm not sticking up for the liberal position. I just think that your regular, run of the mill liberal is coming from a charitable mindset. It is, as you both point out, based on a misguided foundation and is inherently godless because it seeks a utopian society of man's, not God's, making.
However, in the spirit of charity, I was saying that perhaps the common ground we have is the idea of charity itself. Perhaps liberals may be brought to God and his Church by making it known that real charity is not possible without the Holy Spirit.
I was, before joining the Church, about as liberal as one could be. I major step for me was the recognition that liberalism and charity are not synonymous, as secular culture would have us believe. For younger people, like myself, the perception in the secular culture is that liberalism is the force of great good. The materialistic selfishness is never brought to the fore. Instead, the focus is on this faux charity.
But, who in the world is actually having an effect? Who are actually doing charitable things and not just talking about it? Christians, throughout the world!
This essay brings to mind how appalled I was to learn that in the Province of Quebec that the young have left the Church in great numbers. The older as well. The excuse was that the Church was too powerful and suppressive. Well where are they now that Catholicism has been dummied down so much? Even more disturbing is that no one up there believes in marriage anymore. Two people just choose to live together and have a family. Then they all hope for the best. Appalling!
Continuation:
When he announced the Vatican council, many were in total disbelief, including future Pope His Holiness Pope Paul VI, who stated “the old boy does not know what a hornets nest he is stirring up” When Pope John died the battle lines had already been drawn between the traditionalist and progressives. It has been asserted that the progressive blocked the succession to the thrown of Peter of Cardinal Siri in the 1958 conclave, now there is no concrete evidence, but Siri would have been a profoundly strong Pope and along with Cardinal Ottaviani, and Lefebvre the liberals would have been suppressed. Cardinal Montini was elected most likely because of his pastoral skills and closeness to Pope Pious XII. He carried out the reforms of Pope Pious XII and was recognized as a great pastor while archbishop of Milan. He was considered a pastoral progressive, but still could garner the support of the likes of Siri and Ottovani. Pope Paul VI was not able to hold back the on slot from the left, he was overwhelmed, not strong enough to deal with the liberals. Siri, Ottaviani, Lefebvre where pushed aside, and looked at as relics of an bygone age, the Church embraced modernity fully and with gusto. The liberals embraced the ideologies of liberalism in that they used nothing but their own reason, exercised their own law as a way to deal with rogue, and pedophile priest. People love this attitude that rejected law, and justice, liberals look at justice as flexible, answering to the will of the state or society of the time. Pure human reasoning becomes all law. The bishops that failed in their responsibilities had a relativistic view of their authority. They embraced the understanding Pope Pius IX statement on the Church being above the state, but not by any human reasoning, but only by it divine author. These bishops put themselves above the law, both civil and cannon law, under the guise of pastoral care they ignored true justice, and have brought great harm to the Church that will take generations to overcome.
Bishops like Siri, ottaviani, and Lefebvre would have never violated cannon law, for this law was sacred and part of the divine law. The liberals would have labeled there actions as clericalism to move them out of the way. The issues are a product of society, Americans don’t want anyone telling them how to do anything let alone how we should live our lives. This rejection of truth, and assailing anything that would be looked at as enforcing right would inflamed the liberal thinkers. The results of this way of thinking is what we have today, the liberals can’t see that their miss guided understanding of freedom and total disregard for authority is what has lead to the train wreck that we are in. The smoke of Satan has most certainly entered the Church. The liberals used the call for collegiality as a way to usurp Papal authority, to make the way clear for there agenda, liberals have used the kindness of past popes and the cry of the spirit of Vatican II as a way to undermine their responsibilities and ignore authority. This post is an important one and it would take a great more time and discussion to completely understand the reasons of the liberal takeover of the Church in the 60’s and 70’s.
The first half of my previous comment did not post so here it is.
This is a long post, because of it size I will make it two comments
The misguided false ideology of secular liberalism has been working to strip all religion from society for centuries. It can be asserted that Martin Luther ushered in the so called “Enlightenment period” that was the predecessor of secular liberalism. By relying only on civil law as the principle of man existence, removing any notion of the divine. In this thinking the state becomes the arbiter of right and wrong, and the foundation of human rights. This is what leads man to his own disorder and threaten to abolish all human rights. Secular liberalism is nothing more than socialism and communism rewrapped and relabeled. It requires man to become dependant on the state, and their fore the state becomes god, but an oppressive one. His Holiness venerable Pope Pious IX saw the dangers of this thinking, and expressed well the dangers of modern liberalism in his encyclical Quanta Cura which contains his syllabus of errors. Now one must read this with historical perspective. Liberals of the enlightenment where anti clerical and anti Catholic, and roused up public sentiment against the Church. From the French revolution to the Italian revolution the Church was under ferocious attack. Vatican I was interrupted by the revolution, and was only continued as Vatican II. Curious thought, what would the Church look like if Vatican I would have finished without interruption? While all this was going on the Church was not immune to the effects of society, and with out the secession of strong Popes liberalism would have seeped in earlier. His Holiness Pope Pious XII was a strong Pope of great character and intellect. Reading from his writings you can see the build up of what the vision of Vatican II should have been. The Papacy changed after Pious XII not just outwardly but in appearance but in substance. His Holiness Pope John XXIII was a good pope, a joyous person who lived the Christian life with gusto. He saw the good in all men almost naively so. He was to be an interim Pope, one that would not rock the boat. Pope John wanted to open the doors of the Church to allow all men to live out with joy the Christian life, to place the Church back into society as a force for true justice and good.
Post a Comment