Friday, October 16, 2015

THE EMASCULATION OF THE CATHOLIC HIERARCHY AND DOGMA, DOCTRINE AND THEOLOGY

Update correlated to something Fr. James Reese, SJ reported about some of the Synod Fathers which applies to the Archbishop who related an actual story that should then be the basis for giving Catholics Holy Communion who live in institutionalized sin:

"One conservative curial cardinal complained of the "schoolboy theology" being presented in episcopal speeches. There is some truth in that complaint. There is little evidence in their talks that bishops consulted theologians in order to understand contemporary thinking in Scripture, ethics or doctrine."

Original post:

When you listen to progressives schooled in the 1970's as I was, it is all about feelings. Thus if a woman who can't receive Holy Communion because she is in a second marriage not recognized as a Sacrament, and her son commits suicide and she comes forward at his funeral with arms crossed over her chest, to receive a blessing and the priest has a feeling of sympathy for her in this situation, he says, you need to receive today and places the host in her mouth, then this is all that is needed to say we must give Holy Communion to Catholics in second marriages. In the case of the woman, which is a true story, she then was so emotionally overwhelmed by being forced by the priest to receive Holy Communion (positively) that she began the annulment procedure which was successful and her second marriage was validated in the Church.

So the means justify the ends for the progressive, especially since bleeding heart reactions are the basis of their theology.
It was an archbishop who related this true story about a priest who forced a grieving mother to receive Holy Communion at a funeral Mass for her son.  It is a "feminine" reaction. I don't use that pejoratively, but to point out that males and females respond differently to these kinds of situations.

The masculinity of the Church's hierarchy and priesthood confirmed by a masculine liturgy in the Extraordinary Form  would scoff at the dripping bleeding heart that moves a man to do what he did. Men are normally more objective and linear in their thinking, women more subjective and circular.  However feminist ideologies  have infiltrated the liturgy and the Church and the men who are bishops and priests. Thus you have archbishops and priests proposing this kind  of shallow thinking that is not based upon doctrine or good theology, it is based upon feelings, "I'm okay, you're okay."

I hope it is just a fad, but my age group and older is glorying in their youth of the 1970's. The 1970's "I'm Okay; you're okay generation. But it is only a passing fad, we'll never be young again and we are aging and predestined to die! We'll just have to get over it, especially the baby boomers who think even in their old age they can change the world like they did in the 70's!

The masculine response the priest should have given and the archbishop should have supported  to this grieving mother would have been to respect the respect she was showing by not receiving Holy Communion at her son's funeral Mass. Then after a few days, to meet with her and say to her how important it is for her to be in full communion with the Church by having her first marriage annulled and her second marriage validated in the Church. That's the masculine and appropriate response to this situation.

I might add, though, if the grieving mother came forward and expected to receive Holy Communion, I would have given it to her. But then later, I would have  met with her to counsel her to do the annulment!

28 comments:

Jusadbellum said...

The thing that most so-called "progressives" utterly fail to grasp is that our ancestors converted pagans and Protestants in the "bad old days" before dripping every doctrine through the feeling washer cycle.

When has it ever been 'easy' to be chaste? Never! When has the marriage laws ever been easy to explain? Never! And yet our ancestors - without all the whiz-bang theology (or what passes for pastorally sensitive theologizing) - were able to challenge people to rise to the ideal as a norm not an exception.

How easy would it have been to capitulate to the Arians or the Gnostics or the Cathars or the Protestants or the indigenous peoples of America on the score of Catholic moral teaching! How easy and yet how harmful would it be to encourage men and women to indulge their lust for one another!

There is no love in telling someone to go ahead and sin with abandon or tell them that they are animals incapable of being virtuous! There's no maturity and no adult level smarts in telling someone that their free choices in life were unfortunate and they need to make amends with God in order to find peace in this life and the next.

But the crucial key is that we must preach Christ and him crucified FIRST.... first one must know and fall in love with the King in order to then care what the Kingdom's rules happen to be.

This is the crucial missing link to so many traditionalists and conservatives and the missing link that many progressives simply fail to appreciate. If you don't have a personal romantic and dynamic relationship with Jesus Christ as real person then your faith will inevitably become an ideology based on this or that ritual and reading of rules while your heart will seek out some other god to fill the void.

How many progressives will reject traditional Catholic rules but adopt equally draconian rules for themselves involving ecology, political correctness, and socialist do-goodery? They may mention "the Lord" but their read god seems to be some confused Gaia-goddess and Eros. Jesus becoming just a nice old hippy guru who makes them feel good about recycling and voting for the all-powerful state to take care of the poor.

Conversely, how many traditionalists fall into the trap of seeing salvation as a matter foremost of rule obeying without the joy of obeying the Ruler? I suspect fewer than the progressives but enough to be noticeable.

The world, flesh, and devil are formidable foes to our souls. Only genuine, robust, personal and communal Catholicism will guide us past the shoals to a safe harbor. We need both a powerfully personal experience of Jesus and a mature understanding of why the King has rules in the kingdom....

gob said...

Have any of you seen any of the many paintings depicting "The Sacred Heart of Jesus"? It is usually a bleeding heart wearing a crown of thorns. Quite likely that's where the term "bleeding heart liberal" came from. Folks here often prefer to imagine God...Jesus as a kind of heavenly prosecutor, who, like a Federal Prosecutor, has as his goal "getting convictions".

Clyde Catholic said...

Theologically, our obedience is not to "rules," but to God's will and command. God, through His love for us, has embodied His will in Holy Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church so that we might have a mediated, through Christ and the holy Spirit, understanding of His otherwise inscrutable will. The inscrutability remains at the deepest level, and the freedom of the Holy Spirit means that God's will is not pressed between the pages of the Bible, the CCC, or any dogma. However, His will and truth are embodied most simply and accessibly in Church doctrine and in the Creeds so that even the simplest among us can understand them. So-called traditionalists understand this very well. We are immediately suspicious of anyone, Pope, council, or synod who tries to tell us that these things should be reconsidered or "put on the table for discussion." We certainly do not want to be legalistic, but if it comes to choosing between "rules" and some humanistic/progressivist gobbledy-gook, we'll go with the rules.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

GOB, I have always been fascinated by the Sacred Heart of Jesus beginning with my exposure to Mass at Sacred Heart Church in Augusta in the early 1960's until it was closed. My current parish, almost a replica of Sacred Heart, has a Sacred Heart Chapel which is quite beautiful and St. Margaret Mary is depicted in the large transept window experiencing the vision of the Sacred Heat. It is one of the most beautiful windows here.

For me the love of the Sacred Heart compels me to conversion and I do not want to offend that Love, unconditional love in any way. And if I am in a state of offense I want to be washed clean through Sacramental confession. And if I happen to leave the priesthood, I would want to be properly lacized in order not to offend that love.

The same should be true of anyone. Doctrines and dogmas and healthy theology inform, Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity who is the Face of God and God's acceptance of us.

To denigrate that love through an "I'm okay; you're okay" ideology is just down right sad. I've been there in the 70's and done that but thank God I'm not in arrested development and mired in it in 2015!

Clyde Catholic said...

Gob, your theology, and your perception of the theology of others, is pretty screwed up.

Jusadbellum said...

The One I love, Jesus Christ, came to reveal how we can please the Father and find true joy. So when one of these gifts are denigrated, when one of the means given us to please the Father is held in contempt, how ought I react?

How would anyone react to pearls being thrown to swine? Gifts tossed in the rubbish heap? Wouldn't anger and alarm be called for?

Ah, but see, we are told that the only cause for alarm and anger in today's society is for the crime of being politically incorrect. Then we can safely be upset and get a bit of the 'feels' and feel smug in our anger. But when someone breaks God's law and teaches others to break God's law - then we're supposed to roll our eyes and smile and feel smug superiority for our tolerance since we know that these rules are just made up BS unlike our glorious new religion of PROGRESS!!!! that came to us from the angelic wings of mortals like Marx, Gramsci and Mao.

Yes, yes, we can dispense with God's laws all day long but woe unto the man who dispenses with man-made law! On him does our ire rightly rest!

It's really a tale of two cities.... the secular city accepts only power as ultimate arbiter of right and wrong and the power is determined by the elites whereas the City of God accepts God alone as source of what's good and see in the very warp and woof of nature itself a calling card of God's goodness. Thus regardless of one's social standing and 'power' one can be in the right.

How far have we fallen when we adopt the worldly way of looking and reacting rather than the Christian way? In this the Africans put us to shame for they are Christians first and nationalists second.

rcg said...

The representation of traditional Catholics, priests and laity, as ultra rigid and harsh, you will be comforted to know is false. Of course there are such creatures, but the exception is not the rule. We have lines of sorrowful people lined up to kneel in. Oncessional every Sunday and as far as I know our extremely orthodox priest absolves them all.

George said...


There is no contradiction or conflict between God's Mercy and His Justice, between His Law and His Love.
Each are applied through His Holy Will in accordance with His inscrutable Wisdom and Nature. The Holy Scripture and the infallible dogmas and doctrines of the Holy Catholic Church, having been revealed to her by God for our spiritual benefit, are ever true and cannot be changed, because He that has revealed cannot change, nor can He deceive or be deceived.

Anonymous said...

The denigration of religious dogma and authentic proclamation of the faith is no accidental movement in the Catholic Church. It is done deliberately to desensitize the faithful. The nuns on the bus are not the only organized force doing spiritual wreckovation. The Synod's peculiar preoccupation with homosexuality and adultery is just another avenue to marshal destructive forces aimed at the heart, the Sacred Heart, of the Church.

We must fight this movement every day. St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were good at this fight because both Popes recognized in their own way that tradition was indispensable to confront modernism. The current HF lacks the necessary philosophical insights to mount a successful counter offensive. Lacking the necessary means, he often gets captured by the likes of Cardinals Kasper and Daneels. Jesus advised prayer and fasting to fight such clever and stubborn evil forces.
anon-1

gob said...

No comment from anybody about a "dripping bleeding heart" being somehow unmanly?

It's interesting that so many refer to "Holy Mother Church" when we consider "the masculinity of the Church's hierarchy and priesthood confirmed by a masculine liturgy in the Extraordinary Form...who would scoff at a dripping, bleeding heart".... "Let's all give a big hand to the ladies for preparing the great dinner tonight....Ladies, come out of the kitchen and take a bow."

George said...


Some Margaret Mary's own religious sisters were hostile to her. Theologians who were called in declared her visions delusions and suggested that she eat more heartily. Later, parents of children she taught called her an impostor, an unorthodox innovator.

Of course, they were wrong about her.

Link:


St-Margaret-Mary

gob said...

Fr. McD. are you thinking that you might "happen to leave the priesthood"? Just seems a bit odd that you brought that up...unsolicited....

Jusadbellum said...

Gob, I have no idea what you are trying to communicate.

DJR said...

Speaking of emasculation... God, help us. Society is unraveling at a dizzying pace.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3273776/Gay-married-couple-divorce-one-year-include-man-relationship.html

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

No GOB, I was trying to make a parallel. If I were married and got divorced, I would seek an annulment before I married again, or even before I began to date. Or if I messed up and sinned before an annulment, I would eventually seek one to rectify my errors and sins. That's all I was saying.

How about you? If you divorced your wife and fell in love again, would you seek an annulment or simply enjoy an adulterous affair and institutionalize your adultery with a civil marriage?

Jesus' bleeding heart was caused by our sins--that's why it is bleeding even in the risen Christ--that should be enough for you to get your annulment properly, no?

Clyde Catholic said...

Gob, the Church is the "Bride of Christ." That makes her a her. When Christ returns to get her out of the kitchen, you're gonna' love the flambe'.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

"Bride of Christ" is a metaphor. It does not describe the gender of the Church as the Church has no gender. It describes the intimate relationship of Christ and the Church.

When launching a ship one might pray, "May God bless her and all who sail in her.". Are we to understand that, because we refer to a ship as "her," that boats have gender? Certainly not.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

You are completely wrong and you must correct this egregious error. The Church is not metaphorically feminine but in reality as the Church is comprised of souls which is always feminine! All souls are feminine and are fertile to receive the seeds of Gid sanctifying and actual graces. Anima is the soul of a man or woman in Latin, a feminine word!

Flavius Hesychius said...

Boats my not have gender, but bateaux do...

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

And in Spanish, silver is "la plata," also feminine. Is that silverware you use at supper feminine? Those coins in your pocket?

Your egregious error is not understanding how language works.

Anonymous said...

Kavanaugh, your theological ignorance is literally stunning.

John Nolan said...

Can we please stop confusing sex with gender? If I were at supper in Germany my knife would be neuter gender, my fork feminine and my spoon masculine. In France my knife would be masculine and my fork and spoon feminine.

The coins in my pocket would be feminine in French (la monnaie) and neuter in German (das Wechselgeld).

A ship is feminine in Latin (navis) but like most nouns in English is grammatically neuter. Referring to a ship, or the Church, as 'she' is personification. The word for soul is feminine in the Romance languages when derived from the Latin 'anima' (although 'spiritus' and its derivatives are masculine) but in English is of course neuter.

The word 'gender' is from the Latin 'genus' meaning 'kind'; to specify male or female one would have to use 'sexus' (4th declension, masculine).

Clyde Catholic said...

There was once a very wealthy gourmet who, when he had a craving for a certain food, would simply buy a plane ticket to the place best known for that food and have dinner. One day, he had a craving for Scrod. He thought, "Boston, that is the best place for Scrod." So, he bought a ticket and flew to Boston. When he landed, he got in a taxi and said to the driver, "Where I can get Scrod?" The taxi driver laughed and said, "You know, every man that gets in this cab asks me that, but this is the first time I have heard it in the "plu perfect subjunctive."

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Gender- the state of being male or female.

John Nolan said...

'Gender - the state of being male or female'. This is one definition, but a fairly recent one, and certainly not the primary definition. In fact, if used in this way, it would mean that a noun of masculine or feminine gender would be respectively male or female, which is nonsense. (Chairs in France are female, chairs in Germany are male. Really?)

Sex (male or female) is biologically determined. Gender (masculine, feminine or neuter) is a construct whose application is chiefly grammatical. The reason people nowadays use gender instead of sex is precisely because it is an artificial construct, and can be assumed or changed at will. A man can therefore have 'gender-reassignment' treatment and call himself a woman. However, biologically he is not female but male (albeit castrated).

We have had this conversation before, and I referred you to Merriam-Webster; indeed I remember quoting it verbatim. But here you are, still sticking to one definition and the least authoritative one at that. I hope your theology is better than your literacy.

Clyde Catholic said...

John Nolan: re: theology better than literacy. It is not.

Michael Kavanaugh said...

OED is good enough for me.

Gene said...

Yeah, I think the sum of your knowledge, theological and otherwise, comes from OED and maybe an anthology or two.