POINTING OUT THE SINS OF CLERGY AND LAITY AS A WAY TO DIVIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CARRIED OUT NOT ONLY BY THE PRESS BUT BY EX-CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND LAITY SOME OF WHOM WON'T ADMIT THEY ARE "EX"

Dr. Bill Cummings, an ex-priest and I presume ex-Catholic is extremely well educated in the wrong form of Catholicism, the "spirit of Vatican II" in terms of its rupture with its past. Cardinal Mueller equally as well educated and formed in scholarly Catholic matters is schooled in the proper school of Catholicism and its orthodoxy. Here's Dr. Cummings impressive educational experiences:  Dr. Cummings received his high school education in a California Monastery, and then attended the University of Wisconsin where he earned degrees in philosophy and divinity.  At Catholic University in Washington, D.C., he received an STL in Theology and an MA in Semitic Languages, followed by extensive doctoral work in Rome, Italy, where he earned his SSB Re Biblica and his SSL Re Biblica from the Pontificium Institutum. Upon completion of his formal education, Dr. Cummings held teaching positions at St. Mary’s College in Moraga, California, Notre Dame, Indiana, and the Monastery in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. (Someone should inform Dr. Cummings, that Pope Francis is more impressed with the simple faith of his Grandmother, Nona Rosa, than with that of scholars in the Catholic Church! His Holiness has made harsh judgements against Catholic academics and compares them to the religious scholars of Jesus' day, the Pharisees. Yes, Pope Francis is one to judge and harshly!)

In the post immediately below this one, I printed Cardinal Mueller's devastating critique of the corrupt German Church and its hierarchy which he believes is creating a very real possibility for a new and larger Protestant-type revolt against the true Church, a new Reformation if you will.

But Cardinal Muller said the following which hits the nail on the head as it concerns an editorial in Macon's paper yesterday:

"Whoever is faithful to the teachings of the Church, will be combated in the press and even more vilified as an opponent of the Pope, as if it were not the case that the Pope and all the bishops in communion with him would be witnessed of revealed truth, which was transferred to them for faithful administration, so they are not lowered by human beings to human proportions." 

Neil M. Cullinan, from what I now understand, is a Catholic, writes in his several thousand word op ed (compared to my 245 word letter to the editor) and has some unkind, judgmental words for me:  

"I suggest you stop judging so harshly those with whom you disagree. Learn from your own pontiff, Pope Francis, who earned the world’s affection when he said: “Who am I to judge?” Try to give up your hubris, the arrogant belief you possess the “truth.” We have enough of those people already scattered around the world. Try to practice humbleness. You may even find a few more Catholics returning to the fold."

My comments: I suspect that Dr. Cullinan only reads the press accounts of Pope Francis and the cherry-picking they do to manipulate what the Pope actually says by omitting the context. We've gone over a thousand times the context of "Who am I to judge" concerning a priest in the Vatican who has same sex attractions but nonetheless is living a chaste lifestyle and is faithful to his promise of celibate chastity.


On top of that, if one listens to Pope Francis, actually listens, one discovers almost immediately that Pope Francis is the most judgmental pope we have had in centuries and his judgements are quite populist and thus Trump-like: "nuns whose faces look like pickled peppers; seminarians who are little monsters, curia members who have spiritual Alzheimer's and Europe which is like an aging grandmother (and not in the complimentary way), he calls people gossips and tells them when they gossip they are worse than a terrorist bomb and the list runs on and on. 

Who is Dr. Cullinan trying to fool here? If he's just reading press reports I guess I'll give him a pass.

But my point here is that if one only reads the press, one thinks Pope Francis isn't Catholic as does Dr. Cullinan. One would think His Holiness if a post-Catholic like Dr. Bill Cummings. But this betrays the reality if one actually reads and listens to the entirety of Pope Francis' writings and talks, even off-the-cuff remarks. And thus Cardinal Muller is correct when he states the following:

"...as if it were not the case that the Pope and all the bishops in communion with him would be witnessed of revealed truth, which was transferred to them for faithful administration, so they are not lowered by human beings to human proportions." 

Finally, Dr. Cullinan like many anti-Catholic commentators takes the Church to task for the crusades and its atrocities as well as the bishops' mismanagement of the pedophilia scandal.

I would like to comment on the pedophilia scandal and say that I agree that the incessant news  coverage of this tragedy for the past 15 years, first for its victims, then for the Church as a whole, has contributed to the loss of Catholics from Mass attendance and Church participation and increased the number of Catholics who are not only inactive but now can be called "nones."

Yet the press does not cover  as incessantly what the popes and bishops are doing to address this tragedy and that Pope Benedict lacized more priests over it than any of his predecessors and that Pope Francis has kicked up the reform several notches. Nor does the press cover other religious institutions to the same degree as the Catholic Church in terms of the very similar problems and scope of the problem as the Catholic Church has had. 

What Dr. Cullinan has done in a very immature way it to act as a teenager or an angry spouse and throw up something in the face of his parent or spouse that has no pertinence to the current discussion in order to justify himself or exacerbate the discussion and perhaps shut it down. His childish comparison of me to my predecessor sounds like a teenage boy criticizing his father because he's not like his father (the teenager's grandfather)! (And by the way I admit I am not like Msgr. Cuddy and have always be secure in my own personal identity and comfortable with my skin, warts and all, even acne!)

Then this brings us to the Crusades, which in teenage fashion Dr. Cullinan resurrects like others who want to bring the Church down a notch or two or more.

Never do any commentators on this point to any good that may have come from the Crusades such as keeping the invading barbarians from encroaching further into western Europe and the forcible conversion of Christians to Islam in  conquered territories. If not for the Crusades, all of Western Europe and all of what is now Israel would be like the former Christian stronghold which at one time rivaled Rome in this regard, what is now known as Turkey and Istanbul (Constantinople)!

Never do commentators also point out that the Crusades were governmental actions albeit the state and Church were married at the time which we have learned is not a good combination for either.

Would Dr. Cullinan make the same critique of The Church of England as being responsible for the wartime atrocities of Great Britain, especially in their colonizing zeal because the head of the Church of England is the Monarch, the King or Queen at the time?   Of course he wouldn't but he should if he were to be consistent in his logic which isn't very logical.

DISCUSS!