Thursday, October 23, 2014

WHILE I QUESTION SOME OF WHAT IS POSTED ON PEWSITTER, THIS EDITORIAL IS EXCELLENt!

October 23, 2014
Cardinal Burke: From Under the Bus Into the Widow's Web


By Frank Walker
Pewsitter.com



In yesterday’s Vortex Michael Voris apologized for informing people about Cardinal Burke’s warning to the Pope last week. Burke publicly told the Pope to stop ‘harming the Church’ by staying silent in the face of the heterodox direction of the Synod. The Vortex reacted with the breaking story but later deleted the report. In a second Vortex Michael explained that the story had violated his code against criticizing popes. He believed his report was a sin and he’d given scandal. This prompted some appreciation from the liberal and flowery queen of Patheos, Elizabeth Scalia.
Good for Voris. A manful apology and restatement of his mission, and a sound refutation of a contingent of Catholics who are becoming increasingly unhinged toward Pope Francis and vile toward any who will not agree that he is an antipope and a threat to the church. I myself deleted several comments about Pope Francis today, including one calling him “Frank the Fraud”, and I dropped a banhammer on someone actively wishing for his death.
From here Scalia pours venom on the combox people she’s encountered, with their ‘idols’, their love for Fr. Corapi, their conservatism and their ‘republican longings.’ Into this nest of contempt she then drops Cardinal Burke, the man who said the thing that Michael Voris went to Confession for reporting.
For the folks raising them and then casting them down, Conservative Ideology has become a huge idol (what I call in my book a “Super Idol” — one that looms so large it blocks off connection to the humanity of others). Like the pagans of old they are forever trying to serve their idol with the purest of their offerings.
Something similar is going on within the Catholic church where, for some, good Pope Saint Pius X remains the be-all-and-end-all of Catholic thought and rigorous expression. For them, John Paul II had some good moments and some dicey ones, and Benedict XVI was exemplary, but only until he resigned his office and — like a dupe of the devil — brought about this terrible, awful, no-good, teeth-gnashing, and heretical Franciscan papacy.
This is all idolatry, whether secular or sacred or — thanks to the culture wars — a commingling of both.
It is the mania to have something before our eyes that — like the golden calf — reflects ourselves and our thinking back to us, and therefore affirms us in our rightness. For some traditionalist Catholics, Francis is not adequately mirroring them back to themselves, and so he is to be despised. For them, Cardinal Burke is the new idol of choice, the “living saint” of a canon lawyer who will save the church from unruly Francis, otherwise it will be the end of the church and the end of the world!
Nothing human will effect the end of the church, unless God wishes it, and as to the end of the world, do we mean it when we say “we wait in joyful hope for the coming of the Lord” or don’t we? If we don’t mean it that might explain a lot. But it also indicts ourselves, and our prayer, as lacking in truth, and in faith.

6 comments:

Joe Potillor said...

The reason Francis is such a headache is not because he doesn't mirror traditionalists, but rather it's because he's ambiguous, constantly insults us, and assumes we're fashion followers...

It'd be one thing if he actually left us alone to our little corner and actually sought the others...but the constant poking whether it's by "inflexibility" or the various other insults leaves a rather bitter taste for those of us that are "traditional"

I don't think it's an idolatry to point out the mistakes of the Pontiff, rather it's an idolatry to assume that everything Francis says is good, orthodox and wee wonderful.

quicumquevult said...

In the interest of charity for the Holy Father, I won't say anything negative about Pope Francis publicly, but I can't disagree with Joe's comment. It gives solid food for thought.

Anonymous said...

If you believe that one can commit adultery in his heart...one can surely commit the sin of hatred in his heart. It makes no difference what you say or don't say, quic....(and all the rest of you who harbor hatred for Francis in your hearts).

"One can disagree with the Pope's words and deeds...it doesn't mean I hate him."

I'll save you the trouble of writing your reply...

rcg said...

Who was it that referred to Pope Benedict XVI as "the Rat"? And it was more than one and it was the media. I have heard people say Pope JP II was a disaster. The same folks who played audio addresses from Martin Sheen in Mass, had politicians address the congregation on voting support for tax levies, and played Youtube videos.

I don't care for the behavior at all from either group, they are not Sides', but also think it is a good Christian and Catholic exercise to discuss the ideas and lessons of our clergy, including the Pope, to discern the use and application and even criticism. They should not be ad homenem for no other reason than that Latin makes some people go batty.

Would it be uncharitable to say that the Holy Father is a sincere and good pastor who has good lessons but is not a good extemporaneous thinker? I think there was a don of Oxford named Spooner who could be counted on to reliably misspeak some spectacular malapropisms. Students would gather under his windows and call for an address so they would have something to laugh about. Spooner caught on and began to refuse impromptu speeches. This is a far more serious situation but we could laugh, charitably, about it if would be seriously addressed by the person doing it.

Anonymous said...

What is VERY interesting is how disagreement about orthodoxy and orthopraxis is PRESUMED to be motivated purely from a visceral hate IF the person disagreed with is considered 'liberal' whereas to disagree with anyone else is considered nothing but the exercise of syllogisms motivated by a deeply felt love for humanity and all noble things.

But why? Why can't some people on every side of every debate be motivated by love and some by logic and some by hate?

Why can't we as a society accept that inasmuch as we're all equally human, any given population, any given group or tribe or bloc will naturally have a spectrum of motivations for their opinions?

Lots of prominent people disdained JP2 and Cardinal Ratzinger. The latter was called lots of names from "Grand Inquisitor" to "Panzer Kardinal" and others less kind. They never were called out for being motivated by hate. In fact to my knowledge no one called them out at all.

But disagree with the praxis of Francis and it's gotta be hate? Quibble with some random saying whether in or out of context and you are ipso facto an evil, horrible nasty person? Really?

This double standard, this immediate application of a glaring double standard in our culture is one of the reasons our culture is divided as it is.

To treat people differently based on skin color (all while decrying racism and accusing them of it!), or gender or class, or affiliations... and ascribing to them the worse of motives without evidence... this sort of thing isn't calculated to generate social harmony.

We must regain the lost art and virtue of being able to disagree, argue, and dispute without hostility and a presumption of motives or dare I say, without instantly "judging" them.

Bill Meyer said...

We must always remember, I think, that bishops--even popes--are men. There have been bad bishops, and there have been bad popes. Blindly following any man is a recipe for disaster.

We have the CCC, and ready access to the canons and to the GIRM. It is not difficult to discover which path is true, if only we take responsibility for our own choices. As we must.