The Daily Kos has an excellent article to debunk all of this and is actually what I've been writing the whole time. Certainly Pope Francis' homily today at St. Peter's supports the Daily Kos conclusions.
THIS HITS THE NAIL SQUARE ON THE HEAD!
One Last Reality Check on the Pope and Kim Davis
The Vatican embassy in Washington DC is operated by the most
experienced and oldest continuous foreign affairs department in the
world. So, no, no one “duped” or “trapped” any official into having Pope
Francis meet there with Kim Davis, especially when the pope
specifically stated after their meeting that “conscientious objection”
by “government employees” is a “human right.”
Today, the pope opened a synod for bishops: "This is God’s dream for his beloved creation: to see it fulfilled in the loving union between a man and a woman."
The pope has consistently, since his time as cardinal primate of Argentina, shared Davis’ opposition to same-sex marriage. He has referred to such a union as “the work of the devil,” an “anthropological regression,” and “disfiguring God’s plan for creation.” He has called the movement in many countries to accept same-sex marriage as "ideological colonization that we have to be careful about that is trying to destroy the family."
In his speech to the UN, Pope Francis “reminded the UN of their duty to recognize ethical limits, … ‘for carrying out an ideological colonization by the imposition of anomalous models and lifestyles which are alien to people’s identity and, in the end, irresponsible.’”
“Taken together with his unscheduled stop to see the Little Sisters of the Poor the Davis encounter means Francis has expressed personal support to leading symbols of the two most contentious fronts in America’s religious freedom debates – the contraception mandates imposed by the Obama administration, and conscientious objection on gay marriage.”
Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia “has long been acknowledged as a leader of the Church’s conservative wing and a strong voice in America’s culture wars … Francis stressed the importance of religious freedom, one of Chaput’s signature issues, throughout the trip.”
“It was really good to know that Francis stands with us on this very important issue,” said Chaput.
Previously, Pope Francis granted a private audience to Steve Green, billionaire owner of Hobby Lobby, in March 2014. He “asked members of the Green family how their Supreme Court fight against President Obama's contraception mandate was progressing.”
In June 2014, the pope met in private with Doug Coe, head of The Family, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and former U.S. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne who served under Bush 43 amid unprecedented scandal. The Family is “the oldest and most politically influential Christian conservative organization in Washington.”
In November, the pope called for an ecumenical conference on the “complimentarity of man and woman in marriage” and gave the opening address.
In attendance were Rick Warren, "marriage can only be between a man and a woman;” Southern Baptist Convention's Russell Moore, “marriage is culturally imperiled;” Nicholas Okoh, the Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria, “homosexuality is a manifestation of the devil;” and Alan Spears, president of the Alliance Defending Freedom, “the pope’s US visit could be the opportunity those fighting for traditional marriage have been waiting for.”
While in Washington DC, the pope also met with the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, who equated marriage equality with Apartheid.
Yes, the pope meets a lot of people but, except for Pres. Obama, he has never met in private with any US Democrat.
Yesterday, "Pope Francis called critics protesting the appointment of a new bishop in Chile, who has been accused of covering up sexual abuse crimes committed by priests, 'lefties' in a video message" ... "Think - with your head - and do not be swayed by the unfounded allegations of lefties," Pope Francis said in footage broadcast Saturday by the Chilean TV channel Mega. Fifty one members of the Chilean Congress sent a letter protesting the appointment of Bishop Juan Barros to the Vatican. Parishioners had asked the Vatican for a message.
The pope previously decried an “economy of exclusion and inequality.” Yet finance executives such as a “billionaire investor,” the CEOs of Merrill Lynch & Co., Bank of America Corp, First Data Corp, the vice chairman at private-equity firm Blackstone Group and LP Jefferies Group LLC’s global head of equities, were “embracing his arrival in New York.”
Now that the 2016 campaign is well underway, of 14 speeches released to the press, the only omission the pope made from his prepared texts was, “If politics must truly be at the service of the human person, it follows that it cannot be a slave to the economy and finance.”
The only “reform” Jorge Mario Bergoglio has brought to the Vatican curia was creating a Secretariat of the Economy under Australian Cardinal George Pell, friend of Rupert Murdoch, and a Secretariat for Communications – which shows where his priorities lie. (The Vatican Bank was forced to begin adopting standardized financial reporting and tightening up its loopholes for money laundering in 2010 or risk being excluded from international financial markets.)
The Secretariat for Communications should be proud of what was accomplished. After the pope had twice sympathized with his US bishops about how much they had suffered from the sex abuse scandal and praised their “courage,” a meeting with five victims abused by clergy or teachers or family members was arranged for the pope’s last day in this country so that that would be the final headline as he boarded the plane for his return to Rome.
On March 5, 2014, Pope Francis stated that, as regards the sexual torture of children, “The statistics on the phenomenon of violence against children are shocking, but they also show clearly that the great majority of the abuses come from the family environment and from people who are close. The Catholic Church is perhaps the only public institution that moved with transparency and responsibility. No one else did as much. And yet, the Church is the only one being attacked.”
News that the pontiff met with his former student who is gay along with his partner as well several other friends. was withheld until after the brouhaha about Kim Davis had flamed out.
But no matter how polished the PR, the pope's trip was no comfort to children still being abused by priests around the world, women still being denied healthcare and gays still being persecuted.
Yesterday, a priest with a "high-profile role in the Vatican" who came out as gay on the eve of a big meeting of the world's bishops was fired. Monsignor Kryzstof Charamsa had planned a press conference in Rome for midday on Saturday to discuss his sexual orientation and criticize the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for spreading ‘pervasive and blind homophobia,’ but was pre-empted by the Vatican action.”
Even though within six months of his election every Vatican official in an important decision-making position had either been appointed or approved by Pope Francis, the press always refers to unpopular judgments as being made by “the Vatican” and popular ones as “the pope’s.”
34 comments:
The Daily Kos...you must be kidding. Nothing but a liberal rag.
Exactly why I printed it because they are telling the truth unlike other liberal media outlets that are spinning the truth and making the poor pope a victim of malious clerics!
Daily KOS has always manufactured their own truth to suit the Left's advantage. Look for the ulterior motive.
They are telling the truth to give the left a realty check! Seems like you have drunk the lefts hijacking of the pope for their own nefarious purposes by drinking their koolaide!
They ARE the Left...
Amazing Father, you are a spinner for this papacy!!! Remember we are not to "worship" a pope!!!!!
We now have a pope named Francis
A surprise for me and you
And if we believe the Belgian cardinal,
He was elected in a coup
He outdoes them all at humble
Resides in a Vatican “motel”
And he carries his own suitcase
No hop to answer his bell
Yet he leaves us all quite baffled
Since on doctrines a pope cannot budge
But when asked about gay priests he retorts
“Who am I to judge?”
Could this be Peter the Roman?
The last pope before eternity?
Who praises Kasper’s sellout
As “serene theology”?
Lefebvre’s own troops don’t trust him
Yet he grants them faculties and support
Just days before he emasculates
Marriage in the canon law court
He wants us to protect our dear “Mother Earth”
Which God gave to us to subdue
It’s now a mortal sin of shame
When smoke runs through your flue
The secular press loves to quote him
The Church’s enemies just want to drool
A man who came to change things
“aggiornamento” through iron-fisted rule
Yet they’re outraged to learn that this pontiff
Met a clerk who denied marriage to gays
But on the very same trip
He met two “married” men
(Did it happen on the same day?)
Pius the X warned the Church of his day
Modernism was a sneaky-type sin
But his caution is now disregarded
We let anything and everyone in
Will he one day make Hans Kung a Doctor?
Like Aquinas, Augustine, Jerome?
Will he open St. Peters to Syrians
To use as their mosque while in Rome?
We must respect the office of Pontiff
No ridicule is meant by this text
But the way things are going
With the cards Francis is showing
I can’t help but ask
“Just what next?”
Many indeed believe he is "Peter the Roman", but who Am I to judge? Father I understand your strong and constant defense of this Pope but you must as an intelligent man have some fear and confusion about him don't you???? One cannot goose step to everything he says and does!!
Those who are Anti-pope Francis on this blog are neo-Protestants when it comes to the papacy. No one is suggesting that any Pope is perfect just as no one should think that the pre-Vatican II Church was perfect and its liturgy. There were abuses but of another kind, usually authoritarian in nature. And keep in mind that the priest abuse scandal, we now know, occurred in the 1950's and well before but there was a silence of both Church and culture about it.
What the neo-Protestants here do not grasp and I continue to say this as a result of their post-Vatican II malformation, not just in the doctrines and dogmas of the Church but the underlying anthropology and philosophies of those doctrines and dogmas, is that the Church has an ethos to her teachings and the respect to be shown to the Magisterium and the living popes and bishops even if we don't like, this, that or the other. We are, by Church teaching, to defend the Catholic Church, meaning the pope, bishops, priests, deacons, religious and laity and each one needs to know their proper role.
The laity don't run parishes nor do they pick the pope and run the Vatican. Only Protestant laity run their churches.
Father Pope Francis has to make up his mind what the Church stands for and what it stands against, it is very simple.
Sometimes it is necessary to defend the Catholic Church from the popes, bishops, and priests. Such is the case when the clergy fail to live up to their proper role of handing on the faith that they received in trust. This is not neo-Protestantism.
The idea that one does whatever the pope says to do even if it is not in accordance with the received doctrines is a manifestation of neo-Protestantism, though, insofar as it is a reliance of one man's interpretation in lieu of the Church's teaching. There is no difference between this sola papa nonsense and putting one's faith in Pastor Bob down the street at First Baptist. The Catholic faith is not beholden to one man's interpretation, which is in essence what you are suggesting with your erroneous papal positivism.
The Catholic ethos is to believe the faith as revealed by God in his Church. If the pope does not hold the Catholic Faith in his public teachings and pastoral practice, it is not Protestant to point that out. It is our duty to do so in an effort to reduce the scandal.
And we are told time and time again the S.S.P.X. is the real PROBLEM, not Monsignor Krzysztof Charasma and others like him. Our Lady has warned us what is about to come, the small schism is here the BIG schism is not far away, how very sad indeed. This all could have been avoided if only Vatican II had not happened.
Remember the bishops, Cardinals and priests will not save Holy Church it will be the laity who will save the Church from the soon to come collapse on the horizon. Only the return of the TLM and pre-Vatican II practices will save it from complete and utter schism.
Well, the thoughts of many posting here are similar to those expressed to the Washington Post
"Conservatives counter that in the climate of rising liberal thought, they have been thrust unfairly into a position in which “defending the real teachings of the church makes you look like an enemy of the pope,” a senior Vatican official said on the condition of anonymity in order to speak freely.
“We have a serious issue right now, a very alarming situation where Catholic priests and bishops are saying and doing things that are against what the church teaches, talking about same-sex unions, about Communion for those who are living in adultery,” the official said. “And yet the pope does nothing to silence them. So the inference is that this is what the pope wants. ...
March was the subject of a leak about his allegedly lavish personal tastes.
More often, dissent unfolds on ideological grounds. Criticism of a sitting pope is hardly unusual — liberal bishops on occasion challenged Francis’s predecessor, Benedict XVI. But in an institution cloaked in traditional fealty to the pope, what shocks many is just how public the criticism of Francis has become.
In an open letter to his diocese, Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, R.I., wrote: “In trying to accommodate the needs of the age, as Pope Francis suggests, the Church risks the danger of losing its courageous, countercultural, prophetic voice, one that the world needs to hear.” For his part, Burke, the cardinal from Wisconsin, has called the church under Francis “a ship without a rudder.”
Even Pell appeared to undermine him on theological grounds. Commenting on the pope’s call for dramatic action on climate change, Pell told the Financial Times in July, “The church has got no mandate from the Lord to pronounce on scientific matters.”
In conservative circles, the word “confusion” also has become a euphemism for censuring the papacy without mentioning the pope. In one instance, 500 Catholic priests in Britain drafted an open letter this year that cited “much confusion” in “Catholic moral teaching” following the bishops’ conference on the family last year in which Francis threw open the floodgates of debate, resulting in proposed language offering a new stance for divorced or gay Catholics."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/a-conservative-revolt-is-brewing-inside-the-vatican/2015/09/07/1d8e02ba-4b3d-11e5-80c2-106ea7fb80d4_story.html
So there are also priests and bishops prepared to speak out against the confusion now reigning in the Church - are they all to be called neo-Protestants?
Jan
This Pope and this Vatican II cabal have weakened my faith...not in God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...but in the Catholic Church. No one can sit here, in light of this Pope and the present state of the Church, and with any credibility at all denounce Martin Luther and John Calvin.
It seems there are those among us
Who have given up hope
And hardened their hearts and their minds
Against our humble pope.
There is wringing of hands and sighing
"Oh how we miss what's past"
When there could be prayer and almsgiving
Or keeping watch through the night--steadfast.
There's presumption of guilt before trial,
Assuming the worst from him
And yet it was Our Lord Christ who said
"By their fruits shall you know them."
And the fruits of our Holy Father
Have been misrepresented, I fear.
The only "confusion" is coming from those among us
Who do not have ears to hear.
The challenge, it seems, among us
Is to seek the Truth at all cost
Let's start by being honest with ourselves
And ask how WE our seeking the lost.
Why such ill-will toward our Father
If he is following the Spirit's call?
We would be wise to do the same
And take a break from chatterings so small.
"Whatever is good and true and lovely
Think on these thing" says St. Paul
I don't see any of these things in the comments.
Just conspiracy theories and cabal.
Are we, who are in Christ, so jaded
That we can't see the Lord in our midst?
Can we not think on things that are praiseworthy
Without a begrudge and clenched fist?
This is not a call to ignore mistakes and sin
Or to simplify issues complex;
But rather an encouragement to take a step back
And look at things through a larger context.
If perfect love drives out all fear,
Then let us hasten our prayer
And ask our Lord and the Saints above
And the Blessed Mother for their help and care.
Because there seems to be a lot of fear
In the comments of this and many-a more site
And I can't help but think that so much lamenting
Does nothing to enhance the Kingdom of Light.
So brace up my brothers and sisters,
We must fight with claw and tooth.
It is not Francis, our pope, who we are against,
But the father of lies and untruth.
We must search for the Good among us.
Find it and do not budge.
Because it is when we are looking for the Christ in others
Can we comprehend "Who am I to judge?"
Anon. Jan and Marc:
I think you may be missing the point. Last time I checked, we laity were not members of the hierarchy with magisterial authority. It is one thing for those who are such members to engage in spirited debate about the direction of the Church. It is quite another for laity to seek to insert themselves into the process. Our role is to trust the process and to provide input through the proper channels when asked instead of constantly agitating and fomenting further discord. I for one feel quite confident that Pope Francis knows exactly what he is doing in guiding the process. Not only does he have a lot more experience than any of us here. He also knows things that none of us is privy to. So, a bit of humility on our part may be in order perhaps?
Well, sorry, Anonymous Anon 2, I prefer the advice of the holy Bishop Athanasius Schneider who said this year:
"Bishop Athanasius Schneider
It is a sad truth that we are in a time of great crisis in the Church. God is with us, however. You have asked me what the faithful can do to combat the errors spreading through the Church. I would like to answer with some suggestions:
We must create groups of true Catholics, scholars, families, and clergy who will spread courageously the full Catholic truth, especially on the Church’s teachings on the family, on nature, and the commandments of God.
As a means to this aim, we must make use of all the resources that the modern world offers to us. We are not confined to waiting for the media to spread these messages. We do not have to wait for each individual pastor to preach them from the pulpit. We should embrace the new media forms that allow us to spread the Gospel and the teachings of our Holy Mother, the Church. We should take our message to the Internet, publish it on websites, blogs, and social media."
I certainly to try to do just what he says.
Jan
Another thing Bishop Athanasius Schneider says - and I and others have taken a lot of comfort from him:
"Bishop Schneider goes on to encourage marginalized traditional Catholics to take comfort in retaining the Apostolic Faith. Asked about the innumerable traditional Catholics in the clergy and laity who feel isolated and scorned, he states:
I would like to say to these priests, seminarians, young people and families: "It is an honor and a privilege to be faithful to the Divine truth and to the spiritual and liturgical traditions of our forefathers and of the saints and being therefore marginalized by those who currently occupy administrative power in the Church. This your fidelity and courage constitute the real power in the Church. You are the real ecclesiastical periphery, which with God's power renews the Church. Living the true tradition of dogma, liturgy and holiness is a manifestation of the democracy of the saints, because tradition is the democracy of the saints. With St. Athanasius I would like to tell you these words: Those in the Church who oppose, humiliate and marginalize you, have occupied the churches, while during this time you are outside; it is a fact that they have the premises — but you have the Apostolic Faith. They claim that they represent the Church, but in reality, they are the ones who are expelling themselves from it and going astray (cf. Letter to his flock)."
Jan
Anonymous 2,
The priests at my parish have made it clear to us that we need to take an active role in fighting for the Church's teaching through our prayer and through making our voices heard. Our role is not to trust "the process." Our role is to trust God and fight for the faith as the members of the Church Militant that we are.
If your priest hasn't informed you about your duty in this regard, that is on him. But, as for me, I will be obedient to my pastors and speak out. Our priests are very concerned about the state of things -- they've added additional Masses and public rosaries throughout the week with Prayers to St. Michael -- beseeching God to defend the Catholic teaching during this synod. Since they know much more about this than me given their education, I will defer to them.
So, now we have bad poetry, too.
There he goes again---crazy "Uncle Joe" Biden denouncing the GOP presidential candidates as homophobes---golly, they don't favor unbiblical "marriage equality." And Hillary Clinton says "marriage equality" will suffer under a GOP president.
Yes, Hillary is a liberal Methodist, but when is some Catholic bishop going to meet with "Uncle Joe" and say: "Mr. Biden, you are getting up in the years and your soul is in peril. For decades you have taken stances pleasing to the secular media but severely at odds with church teaching, as pertains to abortion and same-sex marriage. A few years ago, you even endorsed same-sex marriage on one of the Sunday talk shows. Accordingly, I (we) have put up with your antics long enough. You will repudiate the Democratic party platform that supports abortion on demand and same-sex marriage. I will give you a generous one week to think this over. If you fail to see the errors of your way, then I will have to invoke Canon 915."
Father, although the sex abuse cases did occur in the 1950s and before as you say, it is reported that:
"The number of alleged abuses increased in the 1960s, peaked in the 1970s, declined in the 1980s and by the 1990s had returned to the levels of the 1950s."
http://americamagazine.org/issue/478/article/facts-myths-and-questions
The levels of abuse at least in the 1950s were much lower than the 1970s. Logically, it follows that the relaxation that occurred after the second Vatican Council contributed to this abuse. Also 51 percent were between the ages of 11 and 14, and 15% vetween the ages of 16 to 17 - making 66% of all abuse over the age of puberty so that means 66% of abuse falls into the homosexual category showing that the Church had/has a problem with allowing the ordination of homosexuals to the priesthood.
"The number of children abused by priests from 1950 to 2002 was greatest in the 1970s, with the data showing "a peak in the year 1970."
The survey, by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York, also showed that the most common year of ordination for priests accused of abuse was 1970."
http://www.goerie.com/article/20040229/FRONTPAGE/102290052
Therefore, Father, your statement is not correct. In fact the US Bishops point to the decline in sexual mores in the United Sates as a reason for the sexual abuse, which is really the opposite of your conclusion. Bad and all though it is the numbers of sexual abuse by priests is miniscule compared to overall figures: "The John Jay report notes that in the period 1992-2000, the number of substantiated sexual abuse cases in American society as a whole has been between 89,355 and 149,800 annually. At a minimum, this number for one year is eight times the total number of alleged abuses in the church over a period of 52 years."
Jan
I was reading a story at The Remnant about the St. Gallen Mafia scandal resulting from Cardinal Daneels soon-to-be-published biography and there was a section for reader responses. Although this post does not deal with that particular issues, I think this woman's response applies to much of the controversy around the current pope:
"I am disappointed to see that many people are expecting a direction of 'what do we do now'. I, and the nice people at The Remnant, and most Catholics have been doing the things that Catholics are always supposed to do: pray, do penance, raise your families, go about your daily duties. During much of history people had no clue about what was going on in the neighboring village, let alone in Rome. They went to Mass and lived as Catholics. God is not likely going to ask us if we figured out the machinations of the Vatican but he will certainly want to know about our own behaviors and omissions. I don't understand all of the emoting over what to do. None of us have any control over things as they are other than by prayer and sacrifice. I would sincerely like to understand why people are so anxious to prove or disprove Francis' (Benedict's, JPII's, PaulVI's, etc) papacies. What difference can it make in the daily routine? I suppose my question is, in what way should one behave differently if they had absolute knowledge that Pope Francis is or is not truly Pope? It does not change our obligations."
I agree with Cletus. Pope Francis is Pope and I am not in a position to judge his bona fides. The only people who could I suppose would be the college of cardinals. Heaven forbid we enter another time of schism!
Dismay or doubt as to his prudential decisions abound but don't add up to a case against his authority as Peter's successor. In any event, we really need to spend more time looking at what he actually writes and does not what people say he does or writes or said....and we need to focus on the local church.
To paraphrase St. Paul, if I knew all the ins and outs of intrigue and could judge the good from the bad but I do not have love, and do not persevere in my own life of grace...then it's all for naught.
If I could prove beyond all moral doubt that Francis was an anti-Pope but in so doing I argue myself right out of the Church, then what does it gain me but damnation?
The risk of being so wrapped up in anger and wrath that we open a door to the evil one is real. I have found it much more healthy to say a rosary and divine mercy chaplet for the intentions of Our Holy Father than to spend too much time on blogs!
The same goes for our host, Fr. K and other priests. Unless I'm praying for them I've decided I'd better not nit pick.
One must remember in decades past most Catholics did not even know who the current Pope was! There was no need to, you got your Roman Catholic teaching from Holy Mass and your parish priests and sisters, this pope worship stuff is just ridiculous. The Church is in a tailspin as His Grace Cardinal Burke said this year the Church has no RUDDER, now we have the Polish Monsignor who flaunts his "boyfriend" before the media, I'm sorry this is the result of WHO AM I TO JUDGE, it has nothing to do with "hating" Pope Francis it is the truth and truth always always hurts. So please Father, don't start with the calling me a neo-Protestant that is such a cheap shot at us who are calling out the Pope. And now we hear the largest Gay bathhouse in Europe is attached to Cardinal Ivan Dias own apartment next to the Vatican, this is just getting out of hand.
Yes, I saw the article over at "The Remnant" online" it details everything the "Mafia" did to destroy Pope Benedict the XVI, Benedict did indeed say to pray for him the WOLVES in the Vatican were out to destroy him and Danneels and his gang did just that and installed Bergoglio.
Marc is 100% right, the Church most certainly isn't a democracy, but we should sand up for the faith.
I'd like to address part of the comment from The Remnant that was quoted above. While it is true that the pope's personal faith does not influence our daily lives in any way since it is always our task to see to the duty of our state, this does not mean that we have no responsibility when it comes to the hierarchy.
First, we have an affirmative duty to hand on the faith to our children and families. We also have the duty to live the faith in the world and to be prepared to offer a defense of the faith when necessary. In that regard, surely I am not the only person here who, as a known Catholic, is asked questions by family and co-workers, both Catholic and non-Catholic, about the media reports. These things are legitimately confusing people. So, while it is true that people in the past did not know who the pope was or what he was doing, people in the present do know. We have an obligation to know about these things so that we can defend the truths of the faith -- whether that involves using the pope's positive statements or differentiating them.
Second, as educated people (that is, people who have received), we have an obligation according to our knowledge. It is not permissible to be in communion with heretics since the sacraments of heretics are not efficacious for salvation. Obviously, since we have no sedevacantists participating on this blog, we needn't discuss why it is improper for us to judge whether the pope is or is not the pope. Before getting to that point, though, we need to understand the mentality that seeks to ask the question whether Francis is or is not pope, especially if we are in an environment with other Traditional Catholics.
We recognize and resist the modernist errors on the left, and we also recognize and resist the sedevacantist error on the right. In both instances, we must have the ability to defend the truths of the faith. And that is why it is necessary to understand the current nature of the crisis in the Church.
Anonymous Anonymous 2 said...
Anon. Jan and Marc:
I think you may be missing the point. Last time I checked, we laity were not members of the hierarchy with magisterial authority. It is one thing for those who are such members to engage in spirited debate about the direction of the Church. It is quite another for laity to seek to insert themselves into the process. Our role is to trust the process and to provide input through the proper channels when asked instead of constantly agitating and fomenting further discord. I for one feel quite confident that Pope Francis knows exactly what he is doing in guiding the process. Not only does he have a lot more experience than any of us here. He also knows things that none of us is privy to. So, a bit of humility on our part may be in order perhaps?
The history of the Church does not support this laissez faire view. There were many times in our sacred history where the laity had to rise up to defend the Faith, and sometimes from erring clerics, even popes.
Our era is no different.
There is nothing in our Faith that says the laity's role is to "trust the process" when that process is dominated by obvious heretics and homosexuals.
The laity "trusted the process" at Vatican II (I remember praying for the success of the council), and look what we got.
When we read that Gregorian Chant was to be maintained, we trusted that statement. A short while later we were singing Kumbaya.
The laity also trusted, when Pope Formosus was elected, that he was a valid pope. Yet two of his successors told the laity the opposite.
Whom were the laity supposed to "trust" in that period of the Church's history? The popes who said Pope Formosus was a legitimate pope, or the popes who said he was NOT a legitimate pope and then annulled all his acts?
The laity trusted, when various seminarians were ordained, that those new priests would not be trying to sodomize their sons. We also assumed that none of our bishops would turn out to be homosexuals.
It is beyond time that the laity stood against the error and blasphemy that is entrenched in the Church, even at the highest levels, and if we have to oppose clerics, even the very highest, so be it.
The days of pray, pay, and obey are over. That went out with Vatican II. If there are people who don't like that, all I can say is, "Get over it." We're not going to shut up.
I agree with DJR, Marc and others. Our trust was indeed broken after the Second Vatican Council when we were told not to worry that the Mass would just be in English not Latin. It would continue on the same as before - ha ha! How long did that last before, as DJR mentions, Kumbaya was ushered in, along with the Singing Nun - who sad to say ran off with a lesbian and then ended up commiting suicide. We have indeed witnessed a great freeing up period since Vatican II with many nuns and priests leaving the priesthood, the abuse scandal and the vast numbers of Catholics no longer practising their faith.
When St John Paul II The Great gave an indult for the Traditional Mass how many bishops ignored that? The overwhelming majority. If the laity had sat back and just gone about their business of bringing up children, etc, as the woman who comments on the Remnant suggests, then there would have been no moto proprio from Pope Benedict. If those abused had sat back and said nothing but gone about their business of bringing up children, etc, then the abuse would no doubt still be going on.
The vast majority of Catholics do say nothing and go about their business of bringing up children, etc, and that is why the Church is in such a bad state. If a few more of the laity had spoken out then I am sure that the liberals would be long gone. Silence means assent, so those Catholics who say nothing - like the woman who commented on the Remnant - are responsible for the ongoing liberalisation of the Church. Those who say nothing in the face of such outrageous happenings in the Church are the weakest link. I see them in reality as aiding and abetting the liberals through silence. As Cardinal Burke said just a few weeks ago:
"Even within the church there are those who would obscure the truth of the indissolubility of marriage in the name of mercy, who would condone the violation of the conjugal union by means of contraception in the name of pastoral understanding, and who IN THE NAME OF TOLERANCE would remain silent about the attack on the very integrity of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
Jan
But why is the woman commenting in the Remnant not worried about the state of the Church and preferring not to comment? Simple, because she is a member of the SSPX. She has already made a statement about the Church by going off and joining that group. Nothing could be stronger against Pope Francis than doing something like that. She is actually only parroting what she has been told by SSPX priests whose organisation is benefiting from the liberalism in the Church. So who is going to follow the recommendations of a member of the SSPX? Certainly not me.
Jan
How does the expression go: Every man a pope? Well, I’m not ready to be pope. Perhaps others are.
The clergy abuse scandal is different and to raise it in this context is an example of red herring fallacy—the conduct in question not only represented a gross betrayal of an intimate and sacred trust but also criminal behavior. It’s not the same thing at all as argument over doctrine and discipline and who has authority to determine such matters.
I see nothing inappropriate in asking questions, seeking clarifications, and trying to determine the proper application of Catholic teaching as long as it is done with an attitude of submission to the magisterial authority of the hierarchy. But who are we to seek to compel those with such authority to be “doctrinally correct” during the process of deliberation, especially as the outcome of the process is unknown?
But that’s just my personal opinion, although Cletus and Jus seem to tend somewhat in this direction too. Clearly others have a different opinion.
Anonymous 2, what you're missing is that the outcome of the process cannot be unknown since we are dealing here with the unchangeable doctrine of the Church rooted in the very words of Christ. Since these things aren't up for discussion, the fact that they are being discussed is the problem. The discussion indicates that these churchmen believe they can change the doctrine or change the practice, which both amount to the same thing.
If this were a discussion about predestination and predeliction, for example, there could be reasonable debate within certain bounds since there is a legitimate difference in the schools of thought on this issue and it hasn't been defined exactly. That is the sort of thing about which discussion can be had.
Post a Comment