Sunday, August 7, 2016
WHY DO CATHOLIC LIBERALS ENJOY POLARIZING AND DIVIDING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH?
All one needs to do is to remember the 1960's and 70's to know what liberals did to the Church and how orthodox Catholics had their peace of mind disturbed by them to the extent that many of them lost their faith over it.
But then, thanks be to God, Pope Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict slowly but surely returned the Church to some sanity and orthodoxy began to take root. Pride in things Catholic, the culture of pre-Vatican II as well as pride in a strong Catholic identity was returning. There was palpable excitement not a feeling of doom and gloom although there was recognition that this stronger but small Church would have to be a mustard seed in the soil of a corrupt secular culture that is more effective in gaining converts, especially Catholic converts than Holy Mother Church is.
But there is still a cabal of churchmen and women who are nostalgic for the 1960's and the polarization of that period. They do not want unity but chaos. They still love disturbing the peace and reducing Catholic identity to mush.
And they are narrow minded and think that the Church's apex of effectiveness is the last 50 years of iconoclasm with the liturgy--that is why they think 50 years of the Mass facing the people, in the vernacular, filled with banalities and music that is trendy is better than the 1,600 years of Mass ad orientem with the progressive development of a variety of styles of Latin chant. They have the audacity to suggest that Mass facing the people is in fact the priest praying to the people since Christ is in their midst--what rubbish.
We had a priest in our diocese write in our most recent edition of our diocesan newspaper such rubbish and it goes unchallenged. Rather than insist that ad orientem as well as facing the people are both valid ways of celebrating the Mass in either form, he states that just because his last 50 years as a Catholic (he's a convert) the Mass was always celebrated facing the congregation and as a priest for 40 years, that's the only way he's celebrated it, then that 50 years trumps 1600 years of ad orientem. That's how ridiculously silly progressives are. They can't be taken seriously in their narrow mindedness.
Thus it is striking that Cardinal Christoph Schönborn Archbishop of Vienna gave an interview to Der Standard newspaper, in which he spoke opposition "strong and significant", while "active" and "vociferous" which is inside the Church against the Pope.
He also states the obvious which begs the question, why?
"...while the pope has been well received by those who do not have much to do with the Church, "in the Church there is a polarization "of views on the reforms that the pontiff has been trying to undertake."
What has caused this opposition or serious polarization?
In my most humble opinion, from the papacy of Pope Paul VI there was polarization on externals. Pope Paul tried to defend the Church from the liberals of that period who wanted to change immutable Church doctrine and dogma. He was successful with Humanae Vitae. But the liberals had so poisoned rank and file Catholics that they did not accept immutable truths any longer but the gibberish of the liberals who wanted Catholic doctrine and dogma in faith and morals to change and for natural law to be tossed since it stood in the way of liberal heterodoxy.
Under Pope Francis there is a real fear that natural law will be tossed and the doctrines of the Faith will be changed to accommodate the heterodox or homodox sinfulness of men and women with it comes to marriage, divorce or simply cohabitating.
Pope Francis, of course, continues the iconoclasm of cultural Catholicism but this time applied to the papacy and His Holiness has done so from the moment he stepped out onto the loggia of Saint Peters.
Why this return to the failed policies and ideologies of the 1960's with its crass iconoclasm that tried to destroy the cultural identity of Catholicism as well as its orthodox faith and morals. What's the point?
The point can only be that there is a cabal of churchmen and women who enjoy being iconoclastic and disturbing the peace. But then I must ask once again, "what's the point?"