Friday, May 27, 2016


Fr. Dwight Longenecker writing for Crux hits the nail on the head and gets to the crux of the matter! (My comments in red.)

By Father Dwight Longenecker

Crux Contributor May 27, 2016

Earlier this month, Basilian Father Thomas Rosica, who serves as an English-language aide to the Vatican Press Office, launched a fierce attack on radical traditionalists in the Catholic blogosphere.

As reported by the Catholic News Service, Rosica stated, “Many of my non-Christian and non-believing friends have remarked to me that we ‘Catholics’ have turned the Internet into a cesspool of hatred, venom and vitriol, all in the name of defending the faith!” (My comment: Does Fr. Rosica read the National Chismatic Reporter, NCR or the venom directed at Vox Clara and Pope Benedict by Praytell posts and commenters??? The NCR had some of the most horrible comments of any chismatic publication!)

“The character assassination on the Internet by those claiming to be Catholic and Christian has turned it into a graveyard of corpses strewn all around,” Rosica said.

He went further with the withering remark, “Often times the obsessed, scrupulous, self-appointed, nostalgia-hankering virtual guardians of faith or of liturgical practices are very disturbed, broken and angry individuals, who never found a platform or pulpit in real life and so resort to the Internet and become trolling pontiffs and holy executioners! reality they are deeply troubled, sad and angry people.” (I wish Fr. Rosica wouldn't mince his words and would say what he really thinks; enough of this political correctness!)

Is Rosica correct, or is the director of Salt and Light media throwing salt in open wounds and generating more heat than light?

To understand his comments, we should remember that there’s some history here. In February 2015 Fr Rosica’s lawyer threatened to sue Canadian blogger David Domet. Domet blogs at Vox Cantoris (You know how we Canadians are! Vox comments here sometimes! YIKES!) and is a member of a clan of traditionalist bloggers who trade in sensational accusations about the Catholic Church, of which they claim to be faithful defenders.

Michael Voris’ Church Militant website jumped to Domet’s defense, a major tempest in a teapot blew up, and Rosica’s lawyer backed off. (We Canadians have a tendency not to understand freedom of the press as we Americans and we Italians do.)

The traditionalists continued their campaign against Rosica when he allowed a gay activist to attend a Vatican conference, downplayed the fact of gay activists invited to Pope Francis’ White House reception, and sidelined the importance of the pope’s meeting with Kentucky county clerk and conscientious objector Kim Davis.

In other words, Rosica is firmly in the crosshairs of the radical traditionalists.

Are Rosica’s criticisms fair, or is he just licking his wounds and nursing a grudge against sensible, holy and well-meaning Catholic conservatives? Perhaps it is worth letting these folks speak for themselves.

A quick click through David Domet’s Vox Cantoris blog reveals a few common themes. The Holy Father is consistently disrespected, referring to him as “Jorge Bergoglio.” This is common usage across radical traditionalist websites and blogs. (This is disrepectful and should be called the mortal sin it is, breaking the 4th Commandment! Thanks Fr. Longenecker for pointing this out!)

Does this qualify as a “cesspool of venom and vitriol”? Maybe not. But dig a bit deeper into radical traditionalist sites such as Michael Matt’s The Remnant, Steve Skojec’s 1Peter5, or Anne Barnhardt’s blog, and Rosica’s words will not seem like an exaggeration.

Anne Barnhardt, refers to Pope Francis as a “diabolical narcissist,” and in an interview at Creative Minority Report calls the pope a “fag hag.” (One wonders if she is a Chick Publication plant!)

The anonymous Mundabor, like most of the radical blogs, calls for Amoris Laetitia to be withdrawn and ponders how a heretical pope might be deposed, while Barnhardt, writing here at The Remnant,writes an incendiary and ludicrous article calling for “all bishops who are true Catholics” to rise up and depose Jorge Bergoglio.

Meanwhile, the shadowy TradCatKnight deals not only in conspiracy theories about the apostasy of “Pope Bergoglio,” but also warns of chem trails, the nefarious Jews, global government conspiracies, the skull and bones club and various other ominously apocalyptic stories.

Novus Ordo Watch chronicles the diabolical machinations of the post-Vatican II church, the invalid resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, church conspiracies and lies about Fatima and the widespread apostasy in the highest levels of the Vatican.

Robert Sungenis, another online character who is very interested in the apocalyptic messages from Fatima, has been accused of being anti Semitic. Sungenis is most well known for his odd geocentrist views.

Is the radical traditionalist blogosphere not only “a cesspool,” but an asylum for Catholic crazies? If readers care that much, I suggest they browse through the named websites and draw their own conclusions.

Rosica may well be right that these are “disturbed, broken and angry individuals, who never found a platform or pulpit in real life and so resort to the Internet and become trolling pontiffs.” The question is, does it matter?

Yes, because there are a large number of Catholics who are lost sheep. It doesn’t take a radical traditionalist to admit that Catholic catechesis over the last fifty years has been weak and often non-existent.

In the wake of the Second Vatican Council, too much preaching and catechesis focused only on peace and justice issues, or presented a subjective and sentimental understanding of the Catholic faith. Pastors and catechists are not the only ones at fault. The Catholic faithful themselves have too often preferred a fuzzy, feel-good message. (What I call coloring book Catholics which describes these radical so-called traditionalists, as true traditionalists respect the papacy and the sitting pope, no matter his peccadilloes.)

Indifference, and indifferentism, have produced a notoriously lax and ineffectual form of American Catholicism.

Catholics who are looking for a faith with rigor, discipline and a tough line are invariably drawn to the traditionalist message. It is possible to find a strong, joyful traditional Catholic witness that combines clarity and charity, and those who relish Catholicism with grit should search out such communities. (Yes, my blog!)

Unfortunately, such teachers and parishes are hard to find, and too often the “Church of the Internet” takes over. Self-appointed online teachers fill the vacuum, and a poisonous, self-righteous extremism takes the place of true, simple, and humble piety.

What can be done? Alas, not much.

Observations such as Rosica’s are reminiscent of Jesus’ own words, calling the Scribes and Pharisees “whitewashed sepulchers” and “a brood of vipers.” and look what that got him! The venomous and vitriolic bloggers will most assuredly not accept criticism, but lash back with a fuller fury and loftier righteousness.

Impervious to both gentle reproof and harsh attack, they will, like cornered animals, snarl and bite back.

Therefore, one must shrug, get on with the difficult calling of following Christ the Lord, and remember Rosica’s final comment: “We must pray for them, for their healing and conversion!”

Yes, I agree with Fr. Longenecker's assertions. However, progressives do the same thing but with finesse, meaning their motives aren't as clear as traditionalists who are more honest. Both break the 4th Commandment, but the progressives are more stealthy and sophisticated, more academic! 


Anonymous said...

Here we go again. Demonize those few remaining Catholics who actually believe in the Catholic Faith. I've often thought is that the mission of Pope Francis. Let's face the hard reality. The vast majority of everyday Catholics don't believe or even know what the Church teaches. They don't believe in the Real Presense, or the sacrament of confession. The fast majority believe abortion is fine, homosexuality is fine, contraception is fine. They majority believe every religion is equal, there is no objective truth. The clergy is a cease pool filled with effeminate men who have turned the sacred liturgy into a side show. Decades of pedophilia around the world, EVERY diocese in the world was complicit. Yet it is the faithful few who are being demoralized and demonized by these evil men. The pope has no fear of teaching error because he knows the vast majority of Catholics don't care anymore. And. The bishops have proven themselves to be spineless traitors to the Faith. They are the ones who allowed in known numbers of priests to rape children and hid it and allowed it to continue.......for decades. And these are the me who we should trust. Fr. Rosica was proven to be a liar who intentionally gave out misinformation to the press during the synod. He is as much a proven liar as is Kasper and Baldassari and Forte.

Keep persecuting the faithful few. Apparently we are the souls on the edge, the forgotten. According to Francis we should be the ones that all of you should be showing mercy and kindness to, am I not correct. But it's all a lie. We are in the final battle. The Faith of the majority of Catholics has already been destroyed, Now you are going after the remnant of faithful Catholics who have stayed true to the Faith. Keep up the attacks. We will never abandon Christ or the Church He founded.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness,*
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.f

Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you [falsely] because of me.g

Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven.h Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Anonymous said...

"This is disrepectful and should be called the mortal sin it is, breaking the 4th Commandment! Thanks Fr. Longenecker for pointing this out!)"

Father you are so quick to judge and condem ordinary Catholics who are rightly scandalized by this pope. Yet you are totally silent when the pope:
commits liturgical abuse
when the pope is silent when entire nations turn from Christ and embrace sodomy
when the pope gleefully accepts a communist crucifix
when the pope essentially denies the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception by saying the BVM felt "betrayed at the foot of the cross"
when the pope praises men like Kasper who clearly heterodox and all the while publicly PUBLICLY humiliates faithful prelates like Cardinal Burke
When the pope praises every Communist dictator he has ever met yet condemns Trump because he wants to build a wall to keep out criminals. The pope even went so far to say he isn't a Christian. Pro abort Obama is praised, no rebuke nothing.
When the pope teaches scandalous and unclear things in Chapter 8 of A L. Not a word from you.
Planned Parenthood is selling the body parts of babies, the pope stands before Congress and is silent. SILENT!!!

Not one word from you. Yet you condem anyone who is scandalized, JUSTLY scandalized by the actions of a man who HAS NO AUTHORITY TO CHANGE OR ALTER DEFINED DOCTRINE. The pope can't say that sacraligeous communions are a good thing. He isn't God and he can't change Truth.

Wrong actions and words arewrong no matter who is doing/ saying them.

It is not a good thing for a priest, a Shepard to remain silent while souls are in danger of loosing their souls by following or believing erroneous teaching.

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. 18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will know them by their fruits. Matthew 7:15-20

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

All though there is no such thing as Catholic fundamentalism, because Fundamentalism is a Protestant movement of the late 1800's and early 1900's, these comments that precede mine are typical of a schismatic, Gnostic mentality that places individual interpretation above the pope alone or the pope and bishops together in either the Ordinary Magisterium or Extraordinary Magisterium.

It isn't Catholic and no lay person has the authority to call the pope out, call for his resignation or any such thing. The pope is the supreme pontiff period. If a Catholic can't deal with it they should join the protestant fundamentalists and ultra pseudo traditionalists insisted that liberal Catholics do the same, such as join the Unitarians or Episcopalians.

Coloring book Catholics have a little knowledge and that is what is so sad about them.

Anonymous said...

"If a Catholic can't deal with it they should join the protestant fundamentalists "

Wow! And you are a priest. A priest not trying to help souls but condemning them and encouraging them to leave the one true Faith and formally join a heretical sect. Your bishop should remove your faculties immediatley.

Aren't you called to leave the 99 sheep and go after the lost one? Not you. You tell them to go to hell. Newsflash Father, Canon Law states every Catholic has a right to DEMAND that clerics teach the truth. The pope has no right to teach error and your silence makes you complicit.

Anonymous said...

Accessory to Another’s Sin

I. By counsel
II. By command
III. By consent
IV. By provocation
V. By praise or flattery
VI. By concealment
VII. By partaking
VIII. By silence
IX. By defense of the ill done

Anonymous said...

We are in the situation where many of the things points out by anonymous at 6.41 are indeed happening. The answer to it appears to be what Bishop Schneider is saying and I certainly would not call him a fundamentalist:

By 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."

James said...

Fr. Longenecker always has interesting things to say (he wrote an amazing piece on the transfiguration a while back), but I think he needs to take a more discriminating approach to this particular problem. Nothing is gained by lumping together reasonable, intelligent blogs (e.g. Vox cantoris, although I wish he wouldn't bang on about sodomy) with the bile-spewing, furniture-chewing excesses of Mundabor or Novus ordo watch.

One important distinction is between anonymous blogs (which people tend to take with a pinch of salt) and blogs by named individuals, in particular priests. I'm happy to ignore what the likes of Mundabor have to say, but I find it troubling when priests resort to snarkiness when referring to Pope Francis. Even Fr. Hunwicke and Fr. Blake are sometimes guilty of this.

Anonymous said...

It's very telling, about you Father, that you never encourage people to pray for Pope Francis. Surely Pope Francis most be the number #1 target for the Devil. A reasonable person would have to admit that since Francis was elected he has caused daily confusion and error. Instead of condemning people who are frustrated you condemn them. I am not saying that you have to denounce Pope Francis from the pulpit. But surely when you see the Vicar of Christ go to a Protestant house of worship and basically tell a Protestant that it is up to her whether or not to go and receive Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass. You remained silent or tried to rationalize this position or condemed people that were scandalized by it. I can't imagine Padre Pio doing that or Archbishop Sheen. I can picture the, encouraging the faithful to not loose hope but to pray for the Holy Father because he certainly needs it. You never do that. You either remain silent or condemn people. You never encourage people, ediucate people or pray for people who are justly scNdLized by error. You just arrogantly dismiss them and condem them. You never ask for prayers for the pope or for prayers for souls in distress. You just stand there and point your finger and condem. To me that's not how a priest should act.

Anonymous said...

It's a slippery slope Father. You are doing what you accuse "fundamentalist CTholics" of doing. You say they tell people to go become Episcopalians and you just told them to leave the Church if they don't like Francis. You are these me as them.

And I know if you publish this post your response will be to ignore the position I took and just say something smart like "blah blah blah". Very sad this novus ordo Church. No spirituality and no intellectual ability at all.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

When Catholics of whatever ilk break with the pope or denigrate him in the most mortal sinful ways, they are on the slippery slope to schism. Schism for coloring book Catholics is when a Catholic separates from the pope and becomes a schismatic.

rcg said...

This seems like passive aggressive nonsense. People will do outragious things and when someone gets exorcised over it they respond to the anger and not the content to a oid addressing their own actions. While the reactions may be uncivil the person in question is not only undermining Church teaching they are attempting to bind the hands of opposition to their works with chains of Charity. Wouldn't that be a mortal sin? Fr Rosica's public use of homosexuals in assignments is clearly a provocation that is both condesending and facilitating of sexual deviancy for people who desire to publicize their practices.

Marc said...

"Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations."

If you were a real papist, as you claim all Catholics should be, then you would actually love the papacy and have the courage to point out those who abuse that esteemed office. If you love Pope Francis, specifically, then you would have some regard for his immortal soul.

If you genuinely think that there are no problems with this papacy or Pope Francis, then either you aren't paying attention, aren't sufficiently knowledgeable about the Catholic faith, or have some interest that is preventing you from accessing reality.

People who are critical of the particular pope are being critical because they love Christ and his Church and detest an abuse of the papal office. Catholics love the papacy since it was founded by Christ. And they love the person of the pope since he is our Holy Father. But just as in our family life, loving our father does not mean that we make excuses for his offensive public behavior due to the scandal involved.

For example, if my father were making racially problematic statement in public, I would both tell him to stop and disassociate myself from those statements in the public. If my father were blaspheming Christ and leading people away from him, I would do even more since I love Christ and his Church -- I would take a very strong stand for Christ contra my own father.

The pope does not get a pass to say whatever he wants to say simply because he is the pope. Just as I would rightly rebuke my own father for incorrect statements and seek to repair the scandal in the public, so it is with the pope.

TJM said...

A related point. A while back, Pew Research, hardly a conservative think tank, did a study of the political blogosphere and concluded that LIBERAL blogs, on the whole, contained more vitriol towards conservatives and more simplistic comments (i.e. the lib talking points) than their conservativen counterparts. The New York Times failed to report this. I wonder why because the Times generally supports many of its editorial viewpoints masquerading as news by quoting Pew Research.

Cletus Ordo said...

So if Fr. Longnecker, Mark Shea and the other assorted pundits with a national following engage in name-calling, generalizations and provocative vitriol, it's not a sin? It's only when the Trads come out?

I can't shake this feeling that a lot of clerics long for the good old 1970's when there was no internet and offended Catholics had little choice but to just shut up and take the abuse. If they can't win the arguments on the merits of their argument, they try to silence the opposition by shaming them. Not an accusation, mind you, just a conjecture based on observation.

So, uh, WHO, exactly is wrong here?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

There is no need to demonize Pope Francis and those of us who support the papacy and basic Catholic teaching on the virtue of charity. For anyone to think that breaking that virtue is justified does not understand Catholicism and thus are coloring book Catholics.

One can respectfully critique this, that or the other about the papacy, how popes are elected and the actions of a particular pope. Name calling, immature responses to authority or father figures and the like are out of place when it comes to the Holy Father, our papa. That is why the 4th Commandment is involved in so much of the uncharitable remarks about our Papa. It really is sophomoric and betrays some of the psychological issues Fr. Longenecker and others have pointed out very clearly.

Anonymous said...

Marc is not the one who gets to determine that Pope Francis is abusing his esteemed office. Unless or until he comes to that realization, his pronouncements are mere presumption and self-aggrandizement.

TJM doesn't know much about the Pew Research Center. It is not a "think tank." Their self-description, "Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. We conduct public opinion polling, demographic research, content analysis and other data-driven social science research. We do not take policy positions.

Our mission

We generate a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue and supports sound decision-making. We are nonprofit, nonpartisan and nonadvocacy."

Marc said...

Father, the problem is that you are demonstrating that you don't support the papacy and basic Catholic teaching on the virtue of charity. Instead, you are demonstrating a sort of idol worship of the person of the pope. This is shown by your argument that charity dictates silence in the face of blasphemy. In a very real way, you are placing the pope above Christ.

I say this out of charity and filial love for you as a priest in charge of many souls: examine things carefully and consider your duty, both for yourself and those under your charge. At the very least, constant resort to name calling those who are making their points rationally is beneath you. It is, in fact, the very error that you are accusing people of making toward there pope. On the contrary, both here and elsewhere, there are many people making arguments against the actions of the current pope without resort to such tactics. They are taking issue with the substance and not with the personality. This is a proper mode of critique, but we don't see the same from people of your ilk in response -- we see from you a slew of accusations in the form of insults and name calling.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I agree with the above statement:"Marc is not the one who gets to determine that Pope Francis is abusing his esteemed office. Unless or until he comes to that realization, his pronouncements are mere presumption and self-aggrandizement."

Marc is not the one to determine blasphemy in the Magisterium of the Church, papal or otherwise, it is for others who are in the college of bishops to decide that.

It is as though the laity in a parish turn things upside down and take on the clerical role and make the clergy take the laity's role--a result of coloring book Catholicism and a lack of understanding of the hierarchical nature of the Church and the flow of authority and who decides what.

Marc said...

So, in your opinion, it is impossible to know that something is blasphemy? Or is it only impossible when the hierarchy is involved?

You seem to be able to spot all sorts of "mortal sins" in your commenters...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Marc, you have every right to let your thoughts be known to the pope in a private letter or a private letter to your bishop. But, no, in the public forum you have no right to call a pope, bishop, priest, deacon, religious or lay person a heretic or convict them of blasphemy. That is done only in a court of canon law.

Marc said...

I didn't call the pope a heretic. Yet you somehow have the right to call me a schismatic, which you have done here repeatedly for several years now?

TJM said...

Anonymous,thanks for the laugh and confirming my point about Pew. Pews self description is a nice explanation of a think thank. Go back to bed and get some needed rest,anon

Woody said...

From the same Crux website, recall the following, about Edward Pentin’s interview of Bishop Fellay:
“At one stage, Pentin asked Fellay about the pope’s repeated denunciations of “doctors of the law” and “fundamentalists,” wondering if Fellay takes those jibes as directed at his society or traditionalists generally. In response, Fellay said he’s asked around Rome what the pope means by that language.
“The answer I got most was ‘conservative Americans!’” Fellay, who’s Swiss, laughingly told Pentin. “So really, frankly, I don’t know.”
One might suspect Fellay was deflecting, except for this: He’s absolutely, one hundred percent right about what one typically hears in Rome on the subject of who leaves this pope cold.”

“Conservative Americans” sounds mighty like Fr. Longenecker, The Wanderer crowd and the like (who else would be included, eh?), to me.

And with respect to I dare say pharisaical blanket condemnations of acts as “mortal sin”, let’s recall the words of the Holy Father in “Amoris Laetitia”:

“302.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly mentions these factors: “imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors”.343 In another paragraph, the Catechism refers once again to circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility, and mentions at length “affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability”.344 For this reason, a negative judgment about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the person involved.345 On the basis of these convictions, I consider very fitting what many Synod Fathers wanted to affirm: “Under certain circumstances people find it very difficult to act differently. Therefore, while upholding a general rule, it is necessary to recognize that responsibility with respect to certain actions or decisions is not the same in all cases. Pastoral discernment, while taking into account a person’s properly formed conscience, must take responsibility for these situations. Even the consequences of actions taken are not necessarily the same in all cases.”

Perhaps in these trying times we all should pause and consider the effects of "conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors" as they relate to imputability of objectively disordered acts such as calling the Pope names or using his Christian names with implied disrespect for his office (with all of which I do not agree).

In these types of discussion, of an essentially ecclesiological nature, calling people "schismatics" or averring that they are mortally sinning, seems to me to come down to the old, worn out management by fear technique (again, typical of pharisaism). And does our Holy Father things to be done that way? I think not.

Mark Thomas said...

I would not include Vox's blog among those labeled "cesspools of vitriol". I read and post to Vox's blog. He and I may disagree at times in regard to the issue of tone as related to way that we respond to the issues of the day within the Church.
However, I don't find any relation between Vox and his blog and blogs characterized as "cesspools of vitriol".

Vox obviously loves Jesus Christ and His Church. Vox is intelligent and articulate. He is neither sedevacantist nor insists that only those who march in lockstep with his opinions are "true" Catholics.

The following is an interview with Vox. I find that his passion stems clearly from his love of Jesus Christ and His Church. Here is the interview in question.


Mark Thomas

Vox Cantoris said...

I must be sure to thank Father Longenecker for all the free publicity.

I'm a cradle Catholic. I love Christ and the Church. I believe what the Church teaches and the Church teaches what I believe (when she is in harmony today with her past). I am not a schismatic. I have no schismatic mentality. I chant two Masses every weekend, OF on Saturday, EF on Sunday. Yet, I think the OF is a dead letter. I've tried for 30 years the Reform of the Reform and have come to the conclusion, it is not possible.

Why should a lay Catholic, disturbed at the daily scandals, not complain? If the Pope is distressing, or permitting those around him to distress, the peace of Catholics, then he needs to be called out. It is not Catholic to be papolaters.

I love the Pope. I love Pope Francis, I wish him no harm. Do I like him? Do I like what he has been doing? No. I don't. Do I wish he would follow Benedict's example? In a minute. I'm sure there is a nice cafe in Argentina where he can have a slice of pizza and drink mate.

To state that I am a schismatic is hurtful and just not fair. Papa Bergoglio is not above criticism, he is not Jesus Christ. Could I and others be more charitable? Sure, of course, all of us can; including Tom Rosica and Dwight Longenecker.

Vox Cantoris said...

As for the "sodomy" thing, I do use it quite a bit. My wife and I have a very close and dear friend who was raped by a now defrocked Catholic priest of some high stature at the time.

Vox Cantoris said...

A recent blog post was titled, "J....B..... and Fernandez unmaked," on the matter of the ten year old work in AL as revealed by Magister. Why? Because as a Catholic, I find it greatly disturbing to me to write "Pope is unmasked" as opposed to the "man" using his given and surname. Is it disrespectful? Clickbait? Perhaps it is and mea maxima culpa.

Well, not genuflecting at the Mass to God but grovelling on the floor to wash the feet of man is pretty disrespectful too.

Are we not all disturbed by that?

A highly regarded intellectual, philosopher, author, priest and Provost of a Congregation was asked about Paul VI and Humanae Vitae and the Credo balanced against everything else which was a disaster. His answer was quite telling, "Humanae Vitae and the Credo were from Paul VI, all the rest was Giovanni Montini."

Anonymous 2 said...

The passages Woody quotes from Amoris Laetitia are significant. I do not read Father McDonald to be judging the subjective culpability of those posting disrespectful or “schismatic” comments but rather to be characterizing the objective act of making such comments as sinful, or even mortally sinful.

Moreover, shouldn’t those passages be an invitation to introspection to all of us, specifically that we consider what factors may be influencing our actions -- in the instant case the views we hold, the narratives to which we subscribe, and our expression of them, whether or not such views, narratives, and expression are objectively sinful, but especially when they are so? And when we do this might we not conclude that we are not being “objective” and “impartial” and “just” in what we think and say about those we oppose or with whom we disagree, because we are influenced by factors such as those listed in the quoted passages? At the very least, shouldn’t such introspection and awareness of the possible influence of such factors counsel humility before our own mystery and that of others?

I am directing these questions as much at me as anyone else on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Fr. MacDonald,
You just used the term "coloring book Catholics." That was truly shameful. Perhaps it is time for you to take a break from the internet, as it seems to be a temptation to sin for you. And if your mother could see you right now, I think she would slap your face for your rudeness and flippancy.

Anonymous said...

And by the way, the days of "pray, pay, and obey" are over. When priests and bishops were complicit for decades in the rape and molestation of children, they lost the right to tell the laity that they didn't have a right to speak up in the face of evil. And that goes all the way to the pope, who is just as sinful as the rest of us.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

So now you promote not praying. Great, wonderful Catholic ethos. Not supporting the Church, great wonderful Catholic ethos and not obeying the Church in the areas of defined faith and morals has handed on by the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium. Great. Why are you Catholic? Maybe Unitarianism or Episcopalianism is you cup of tea?

Anonymous 2 said...

After posting my previous comment, I read the previous thread in which Father McDonald recommended another blog “The Labyrinthine Mind,” although I cannot now see the passage where he does so (Father, have you edited this out of your original post?). Anyway I went on this blog and read the following in the “About” section. It seems particularly relevant to the matters currently under discussion:

“The human mind is a mysterious labyrinth. It’s a labyrinth full of light and darkness from where each individual reaches out to the divine, the transcendent, to God.

Life is a mystery and the mind is where we process it all. This blog is a way for me to explore the labyrinthine ways of my own mind and share it with others.”

Anonymous said...

Marc says, " Marc said...I didn't call the pope a heretic."

On May 14, 2016, 6:15 p.m. Marc said, "Pope Francis's ideas and ideology, insofar as they conflict with Christ's teaching and the Church, need to be viciously attacked." And, "When the pope stops erring, well stop criticizing."

To assert that a pope's "ideas and ideology" are in conflict with Christ's teaching is as close to calling him a heretic as one might come without using the word.

When you add to that the assertion that the pope is "erring," well, then, you've pretty much called him a heretic without using the word.

Marc has previously dismissed the opinions of others as worthless and to be ignored. His opinions regarding the Holy Father should also be ignored, except to call Marc to give up his arrogance and his presumption.

Anonymous said...

Although its author is an exemplary pastor and a thought-provoking blogster, this article paints with too broad a brush to be credible--lumping sincere and deeply faithful Catholics like the authors of Vox Cantoris and OnePeterFive with rad trads, sedevacantists and crazies.

As for "those of us who support the papacy and basic Catholic teaching", may I suggest that the depth of one's love and support for the papacy and the Petrine office may well be measured by the extent of his distress and concern when the papacy or the Church as an institution seems damaged by the actions of those currently in and around the papal office. And that an informed and faithful Catholic has every right to do what he can (depending on his station in the Church) to defend the integrity and credibility of Church and Pope. For instance, in some cases this might involve arguing publicly and respectfully that a particular papal action or communication might best be withdrawn lest it have disastrous unforeseen consequences.

As a random (and intentionally debatable) example, perhaps a Catholic statesman in the 16th century could have advised Pope Pius V on alternative papal actions that might have lessened the likelihood of the loss of whole nations to the Church. Thus, in view of today’s relaxed view of the marriage bond, one could ask whether the defense of Henry VIII’s was worth the loss of Mary’s Dowry (Catholic England) to the Church, or whether some compromise—of the sort that might come easy today—could have preserved the Church in one of the most thoroughly Catholic countries history has seen.

Woody said...

I don't recall if you already linked to this article by Sandro Magister, Father, but it is worth attention for at least two reasons: first, his title refers to "Bergoglio" although in the text it is Francis, or Pope Francis, as I scanned it; I recall that there was some question about use of the papal Christian names under either Benedict or Saint John Paul, and it was said then that this is commonly done in Italian, especially vaticanisti, circles. Second is the text itself which suggests a paradigm for evaluating the Holy Father's actions, and maybe also our own thoughts and actions, that seem somewhat removed from the juridical style that so many of us, including me most of the time, fall into so easily. Well, in my case, I have the excuse that I am a civil lawyer (so maybe I can take refuge in the "habit" excuse enumerated in the list of mitigating factors).

Anonymous said...

Marc has also written, "When the patriarch of Constantinople turns out to be a heretic, he can be deposed. And, anyway, he is just one bishop (and the bishop of a very small flock at that). What he does affects very few people. When the bishop of Rome is a heretic, then everyone is forced to follow suit. That is the problem with having one bishop to which every other bishop in the world is merely an assistant serving at the will of the one actual bishop."

Accusations of heresy abound....

Marc said...

Anonymous, I'm so flattered that you pay so much attention to what I write! It's nice to have fans.

Anonymous said...

Marc - It's no "so much attention," it's GOOGLE. Sheesh...

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous at 2:26 p.m. said..."And by the way, the days of "pray, pay, and obey" are over."

Those days must never end for Catholics. In regard to Holy Mother Church, how can we possibly cease to pray for, offer our financial support, and obey Her? We cannot possibly do so as She is our spiritual Mother.

That doesn't mean that we don't have the right and duty to voice our concerns respectfully to our Churchmen. We have that right and duty.


Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

I certainly wouldn't call the comments of Marc vitriolic. Some of his comments may be hard-hitting but, let's face it, a lot of what is going on in the Church is hitting at the very heart of our Faith.

In many ways we are in this position simply because the conservatives have never spoken out against error. Since Vatican II we have had this creeping liberalization going on. But the "Church of Nice", as Michael Voris refers to, says nothing. The strongest I have ever heard them admit to is "the [wrong] spirit of Vatican II", otherwise they have allowed things to run along unchecked. They are happier pointing the finger at Traditionalists than they are Liberals and I consider their comments are in fact vitriolic. They find it uncharitable to speak out against error or against liberalism but charitable to criticize Traditionalists for doing so. By not raising a voice in opposition they themselves are definitely complicit in the liberalization of the Church.

In my view, a lot of the snarky comments coming from the Conservatives is because they themselves are on the ropes. Liberals are indeed taking over the mainstream Church. Their flocks are dwindling. Because of this many Conservative priests will have only two choices: either to become liberal themselves or to join a traditionalist parish. They've brought this on themselves.

It is not so long ago that Pope Benedict was referred to as a "Rottweiler", quite frequently on liberal blogs and some very heinous things were said about him. I don't recall Frs Longenecker or Rosica speaking out against that or some of the dreadful things said against St John Paul II The Great.

I would be interested if anyone could point to any posts by Frs Longenecker and Rosica against the liberals. I doubt we will find any. Rather I think it is a case that both of these priests are on the liberal side and they don't like being called out for it. A couple of anonymous posters here are ingenious at finding out old posts so I am sure if such posts exist from Frs Longenecker and Rosica they will be able to find them.

Marc said...

Anonymous, I appreciate your trying to deny your obsession by hiding behind Google. But I can't help but point out that, to Google something, you have to know what you're Googling. So, again, I'm flattered that you remember posts I made weeks and months ago.

You make all this commenting worthwhile by taking such note of my thoughts. You are the wind beneath my wings.

Rood Screen said...


Internet trolls are narcissists, psychopaths and sadists.

Anonymous said...

Well, you want to story to be about YOU and who YOU imagine is obsessed with YOU. What it is actually about is your words which are easily found and reposted.

Diverting the thread to someone else's behavior just doesn't work, now does it?

Marc said...

Dialogue, for some reason I remembered to ask you today: do I recall correctly that one of your former parishioners is in the ICRSS seminary?

Long-Skirts said...

“Cet animal est tres mechant
Quand on l'attaque il se defend!"

"This animal is very wicked
When attacked it defends"

Thank you for your defense of the Catholic Faith.

Rood Screen said...


As far as I know.

Marc said...

Dialogue, I am in St. Louis this weekend for Mass where the Institute has some seminarians in residence. And at the Institute parish I sometimes frequent in Kansas City there was a deacon in residence earlier this year -- a very tall fellow whose name I don't know. Anyway, I was just curious. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

Fr McDonald, a priest that thinks himself Catholic, recommends:

"If a Catholic can't deal with it they should join the protestant fundamentalists and ultra pseudo traditionalists insisted that liberal Catholics do the same, such as join the Unitarians or Episcopalians."

What for? For Bergoglio it's the same, all will go to heaven, we will all meet there according to him, even animals, all religions contribute in some way or another, so why move somewhere else when ecumenism is so fashionable?

In "Bergoglios Church" there is a place for EVERYONE. I guess Fr. McDonald hasn't read Amoris Laetitia yet. Or is it that adulterers and sodomites are welcome but Catholic fundamentalists are not?

Gene said...

The true Church is in hiding. The Catholic Church, through practice and indifferentism, has become a big Methodist Church with a liturgy...sort of.

Anonymous said...

I have been waiting on the sidelines for a while now, I attend Holy Mass at an S.S.P.X. church and will continue to do so until Rome recovers the Faith, folks even now Pope Francis is saying the ISLAMIC invasion of Europe is just fine and dandy this is truly horrific of this Pope to say. I was in Germany this Spring and on the streets of Berlin, Cologne, Frankfurt, Hamburg, to name a few, one would think you were in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, it was sad to see Germany "German" no more and SHOCKING to see robes, hijabs, niqabs, and turbans, only in the cities of Dresden and Leipzig will you find resistance against the ISLAMIC invasion, the PEGIDA movement and now the Alternative for Germany Party have joined forces in trying to stop this ISLAMIC invasion, folks Im telling you now from first hand experience Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches are empty in Germany and Mosques abound in EVERY German city. Even now Germany and Europe are expecting another 2 MILLION Muslim INVADERS this Summer, this has all been planned by the LEFT including OBAMA. The only ones in Europe who have been warning for years about this are Geert Wilders, Heinz-Christian Strache, Marine Le Pen to name a few, but lest the time for Europe is over you cannot stop this amount of INVADERS coming in Europe is finished as we know it.

Tony V said...

It's not just Catholic blogs--people do get nasty on the internet. Many are hidden by a cloak af anonymity, and even those who aren't act differently to how they would if they were speaking face to face. It's kind of like road rage.

All the same, Rosica's comments were pathetic. This is a guy who tried to silence a blogger by threatening a lawsuit. This is typical of the fringe that (ironically) thinks itself "liberal": muzzle the opposition.

I think what Rosica and Co. can't stand is the idea of a laity that might stand up to them. A stand which, by the say, directly challenges their number 1 sacred cow, the Second Vatican Council, which (in Lumen Gentium) insists the laity must "promptly accept in Christian obedience decisions of their spiritual shepherds."

I'd like to commend Fr McDonald for running a blog where difference of opinion is welcomed and respected. That's something worth applauding.

I don't always agree with Fr McDonald. I'm not on board, for instance, with the notion that criticism of the pope (this pope, or any pope) breaks the 4th commandment. We've had bad popes throughout history; we've had antipopes and popes have been deposed. Such times weren't ideal but that's life. But all the same, Fr McD is willing to let people exchange their views, and I hope most of us try to do so politely. I just hope he doesn't get in trouble from any "liberals" higher up the ecclesiastical food chain...the last thing "liberals" want is free discussion.

Anonymous said...

I went full sede before I realize that the crisis of faith affects not just liberals but most Catholics. We somehow forgot that God promised to protect the Church. It's not only liberals who will not submit to teachings they disagree with but also conservatives and traditionalists. We have models in our minds of what the Church teaches and if the magisterium dare contradict it we don't obey but believe the magisterial authority made a mistake somewhere. Pope Francis, heretics, whatever--they CANNOT destroy the Church, because God made certain promises. If the teaching authority were to declare something contrary to our models we are supposed to disregard our models, because God cannot lie. We trust not the ideas in our heads, but God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived, who guides the Church. We pretend to be loyal to the magisterium but we trust ourselves more,