Next to watching all the geriatric revolutionaries practically grab the Host at Communion, there is NOTHING that irritates me half so much as people who insist on conversing in the Church. It is just plain ignorant, inconsiderate, unnecessary and obnoxious.
Obviously, I don't have any feelings about this. I'm just being objective.
Fortunately, so-called "backward traditionalists" do not require the reminder/warning in regard to hand-clapping.
Unfortunately, Peter Kwasniewski, for example, has insisted that there are horrific issues among "traditionalists" that must be addressed.
Peter Kwasniewski declared:
"While I am an adamant opponent of feminism, I am no less staunch an opponent of chauvinism wherever I see it — and I do see it reappearing in the traditional movement, along with other -isms (e.g., antisemitism, libertarianism, sedevacantism) that are incompatible with Catholic tradition."
"The revival of traditional liturgical practice has permitted the reappearance of some extreme points of view that deserve refutation."
Therefore, should we believe Peter Kwasniewski's above claim, it is imperative within "traditional" Catholic communities to exhort "traditionalists" to reject chauvinism, antisemitism, libertarianism, sedevacantism...
...and that is the short list of horrific issues that have plagued the "Traditional" Catholic Movement.
There are horrific problems among so-called "traditional," as well as "Novus Ordo," Catholics, that "deserve refutation."
Mark, not even the sedevanists are betraying the faith in the colossal apostacy of the German bishops and their cohorts in the laity. Even if you include the sedevanists, the SSPX and the more radicalized in the TLM movement, it is minuscule compared to what the bishops of Germany are foisting on their own country and hope to bring to the Universal synod on synodality and they are praying that Pope Francis has their back once they conquer Rome.
As far as the litany of offenses Mark uses to stereotype other Catholics that respect tradition we can observe that the Church attracts people of all sorts who bring with them various spiritual and mental ailments. We should accompany those people through a rational and prayerful change. We should do the same with the several factions of the Church rather than contriving characteristics of those factions to further separate them.
I noted simply that which Peter Kwasniewski had identified as horrific issues among "traditional" Catholics — issues that are destructive to the Body of Christ.
Father McDonald, along with the above is the horrific issue that you have identified. That is, the situation in regard to Germany.
But there is one simple way to overcome the horrific issues that you, as well as Peter Kwasniewski, have identified. That is, to remain in communion with Pope Francis.
Deo volente, that is my plan. I do not intend to partake of schism.
Therefore, to ensure that I hold fast to the Faith, and in line with Pope Benedict XVI's 2013 A.D. promise: I Pledge my unconditional reverence and obedience to the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.
I hope that certain "backward traditionalists," as well as various Catholics in Germany, also follow Pope Benedict XVI's lead in question.
rcg, are you unaware that I had listed Peter Kwasniewski's "litany of offenses?"
It is he who employed said "offenses" that "stereotype other Catholics," according to you.
That is on Peter Kwasniewski.
It is Peter Kwasniewski who noted that extremism associated with chauvinism, antisemitism, libertarianism, and sedevacantism, has infiltrated the "traditional movement."
It is Peter Kwasniewski who declared that the "revival of traditional liturgical practice has permitted the reappearance of some extreme points of view that deserve refutation."
Therefore, please address that with Peter Kwasniewski.
What irritates me the most me the most are certain older Catholic priests, who after 50 years of failure still believe various forms of liturgical “creativity” including silly liturgical dance and inappropriate modern music etc will attract more young people to attend Mass. They must be very naive or even clinically delusional not to be aware that the clear majority of the small numbers of young people who have witnessed their liturgical “creativity” over 5 plus decades are either indifferent or even think it is weird and/or pathetic.
Yes, Mark, I did. It doesn't matter whose slanders you repeat, you repeated them. But I wasn't talking about you, I was addressing the post, (opus LVXI), wherein you reprised many of the faults of some people used to slander a class of people. My parish is clearly a hotbed of Tradition, but many of the folks are jumping at shadows because of enlightened publicans like Kwasniewski as if the old Liturgy was to blame for the sins people bring with them.
I have often disagreed with you and Fr K re both your contributions to this blog. But when I’ve replied to either of you I have always tried my hardest to avoid ANY personal insult. But with the above you are really pushing your luck, Mark….
Fr Allan has allowed you to post your comments here hundreds of times over a long time - at times to an extent his blog is almost your blog too…You state you regard Fr Allan as God’s holy priest etc ….But Has anything Fr Allan in his replies to you had ANY effect on you at all? Or is it a case that if your idol Francis gives every indication that those he regards as rigid traditional Catholics with (he claims) mental health issues or emotional problems (which in reality are dishonest and nasty and uncalled for insults) are a major problem on a level with heretic Jesuits, apostate bishops and a VERY pro abortion and pro trans activist “Catholic” President…..well, you Mark, believe that must be true too…is that right, Mark? (Can you please answer that?) ….does it EVER cross your mind at all Fr Allan might be correct re for example, the colossal apostasy taking place in Germany and Belgium etc now is a 100 times more serious a problem for the Church than any “rigid, backwardist” traditionalist who has criticisms of the present papacy?
Mark, I have no idea how old you are, but do you have any memories of the lies and slanders made against traditional Catholics like Michael Davies and his supporters in the 1970s and the 1980s? The insults, lies and slander hasn’t changed in almost 50 years! They are the same lies, insults and slander. Catholics like Michael Davies and other traditional Catholics were called back then by “progressive” bishops and lay people everything from rigid, reactionary, misogynistic, mentally unstable to antisemitic etc….the same lies and slanders….
I still have old cassettes of Michael Davies and others at conferences in the latter part of last century - these people were almost always intelligent, completely sane; also they were honest, genuine and had a sense of humour too - and most importantly clearly loved the Church and actually BELIEVED all the dogma and doctrines the Church had taught for centuries- I knew back that what several priest friends of my parents had said about these traditional Catholics were a pack of lies - especially the lies about the mental instability and/or the lack of true learning and intelligence of traditional Catholics.
And back to who are the madmen. I can remember those respected, influential Catholic priests and the occasional bishop (friends of my parents) in the 90s claiming Malachi Martin was completely insane re his claims of homosexually active priests and bishops when interviewed at length by Bernard Janzen and others in the 90s…..But, after everything that was revealed from Spotlight Boston in 2002 to the Summer of Shame with McCarrick etc in 2018 - who turned out to me mad? Who turned out to be liars?
Likewise with Michael Voris (who I can disagree with about some important things) but in the years leading up to 2018 he was called insane and worse for his claims made before 2018….until after 2018 with revelations about McCarrick, Monsignor Grindr and dozens of others….so, again, did it turn out Voris was either a liar or mad with many of his pre 2018 allegations ?
I found out from Wikipedia's great pages on "traditional Catholicism" that no serious study or research/survey has ever been done re numbers of traditional Latin Mass Catholics but many believe the Vatican's estimate of 1 million is way too low - better educated guesstimates suggest at least double that.
So let's say 2 million is close.
Honestly, what percentage of that 2 million people who attend a TLM could be described as a person who:
- truly requires psychotherapy.
- truly hates Pope Francis.
- is sinfully anti Semitic.
- has embraced QAnon type conspiracy theories.
- is seriously misogynistic, and has in his life physically chastised his wife or daughter.
- is genuinely racist and or has an unhealthy fear or hatred of homosexual people.
- etc...
Such people do exist but My guesstimate is that the numbers of such TLM people would be miniscule....
But try another guesstimate -
Based on my 60 plus years life experience, and years studying at a seminary, and the life experience of my parents (my father RIP left the Marist order to marry my mother) and their friends AND based on serious research done by Michael Rose, Richard Sipe, Fr Donald Cuzzens and especially Joseph Sciambra and John Jay college etc...
What percentage of Catholic priests in the Jesuit or Paulist orders especially (I will not guess are gay men by orientation or by actions - though others have suggested astounding figures, especially re the Paulists ) TRULY believe and teach what is in the Catholic Catechism concerning marriage, sexual morality and life issues in general?
Btw
I had a friend who read Fr Donald Cuzzens book and read articles by Joseph Sciambra and Richard Sipe and suggested I google:
Paulist order homosexual.
I did.
Even Wikipedia has lengthy pages under the title - Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
And SO MUCH with titles like
Paulist Fathers dispute Vatican decree against blessings for homosexual couples.
To MANY sermons Paulist priests openly publish online.. including:
"If God must become Asian or African, then God is also in some sense queer....is it less appropriate for gays to imagine Jesus as gay than for Asians to picture Jesus as Asian? I don't think so.."
An "Out at St Paul's" Catholic group in New York announce they are holding their Spring Social at Hell's Kitchen gay bar Bottoms Up...
To Paulists lectures on the theme : If Pope Francis can change Catholic Church teaching on the death penalty then Catholic church teaching on homosexuality can also change - it has to. Millions have suffered and millions still suffer because of gay people being called "disorded" ...
Material like the above are endless.. Some of it makes Fr James Martin look moderate and almost orthodox.
Yet it is those problematic TLM people who are a major problem for the Church today!
Almost all Catholics know something re the Borgia pope Alexander VI - basically a member of a crime family; bribed Cardinals, one of his illegitimate sons Cesare murdered his father's political/ecclesiastical opponents; fathered 9 illegitimate children; reports even of incest with a daughter, Lucrezia etc..
But there was also:
Sergius III - had a 15 year old mistress - one of her children to him became Pope John XI.
Stephen VI went insane and had the deceased Pope Formosus dug up and ordered his dead body to stand trial..
Pope John XII was murdered by the angry husband of a woman John was having an affair with...
Pope Boniface VIII destroyed the city Palestrina over a personal feud.
Pope Benedict IX obtained the papacy due to his father paying bribes, aged as young as 13....this pope was the first pope to be primarily and actively homosexual - and was the only pope in history to sell the papacy and then successfully make a come back until forced into a monastery by a strong and devout emperor....
I think we can assume that some bishops over 2,000 years had fairly colourful lives as well...
BUT the Church survived all that - the damage done was never permanent. Despite who was pope or who was their bishop millions of Catholics continued to pray, worship God, knew the basics of their faith, tried to love their neighbour etc ....over all those centuries.
In my opinion almost no pope or bishop in history caused as much harm (especially long term harm) to the Church as Francis and many American bishops have over the last decade by basically doing nothing about Biden and Pelosi etc calling and promoting themselves as Good Catholics while fully supporting abortion on demand and supporting the insane LGBT activists' agenda - and failing to mention some or all of the Bible parts about repenting, sinning no more, the existence of hell etc; continuing to live in a fantasy land about the wonderful enormous fruits of Vat 2; being almost mischievously, at times, vague and ambiguous...being in denial about the numbers of morally bankrupt clergy still running parishes and dioceses around the world...and by allowing the "toxic nightmare" of synodality especially the latest German catastrophe to continue...
Phew - now I might again have one of my 3 to 6 months breaks from contributing anything here...or at least take a break from all Catholic social media this weekend ...drink some good red wine and watch a classic comedy movie...
In conjunction with Paul's observations, I have pasted links below to a 2-part series called the "101 Outrages of Francis". Caution, for those too faint of heart or snowflaky to handle Taylor Marshall or Michael Voris, you'll definitely not enjoy the host of this list, Mr. Timothy Gordon.
Or rather, not addicted to anger... ". . . A person or situation somehow makes us feel defeated or powerless, and reactively transforming these helpless feelings into anger instantly provides us with a heightened sense of control. . . . In a sense, [anger] is every bit as much a drug as alcohol or cocaine. And it's my strong belief that many, many millions of people worldwide are addicted to anger because of its illusorily empowering aspects."
So the main problems in the Catholic Church today are tiny numbers of traditional Catholic lay people with “anger issues” as opposed to LARGE numbers of Jesuit and Paulist etc priests rejecting Church teaching on marriage, sexual morality and life issues?
And it makes good sense to focus on the possible mental instability of Vigano and the tiny number of traditional Catholic lay people he may influence as opposed to acknowledging everything that was revealed from Boston in 2002 to the Summer of Shame in 2018 - from Fathers Geoghan , Porter et al and their enablers; to Archbishop Weakland to Cardinal McCarrick to Monsignor Grindr et al…?
And again it is very wise and sensible to focus on tiny numbers of Latin Mass Catholics who have problems with certain interpretations of Vatican II as opposed to acknowledging and confronting the enormity of large numbers of Catholic bishops and Jesuits in Western Europe, USA etc who are determined to bless same sex relationships in Catholic churches - and soon or eventually change and update the Catechism re marriage and homosexual acts - or have no problem with all this….?
Do I correctly understand your position and your priorities?
20 comments:
Next to watching all the geriatric revolutionaries practically grab the Host at Communion, there is NOTHING that irritates me half so much as people who insist on conversing in the Church. It is just plain ignorant, inconsiderate, unnecessary and obnoxious.
Obviously, I don't have any feelings about this. I'm just being objective.
Fortunately, so-called "backward traditionalists" do not require the reminder/warning in regard to hand-clapping.
Unfortunately, Peter Kwasniewski, for example, has insisted that there are horrific issues among "traditionalists" that must be addressed.
Peter Kwasniewski declared:
"While I am an adamant opponent of feminism, I am no less staunch an opponent of chauvinism wherever I see it — and I do see it reappearing in the traditional movement, along with other -isms (e.g., antisemitism, libertarianism, sedevacantism) that are incompatible with Catholic tradition."
"The revival of traditional liturgical practice has permitted the reappearance of some extreme points of view that deserve refutation."
Therefore, should we believe Peter Kwasniewski's above claim, it is imperative within "traditional" Catholic communities to exhort "traditionalists" to reject chauvinism, antisemitism, libertarianism, sedevacantism...
...and that is the short list of horrific issues that have plagued the "Traditional" Catholic Movement.
There are horrific problems among so-called "traditional," as well as "Novus Ordo," Catholics, that "deserve refutation."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, not even the sedevanists are betraying the faith in the colossal apostacy of the German bishops and their cohorts in the laity. Even if you include the sedevanists, the SSPX and the more radicalized in the TLM movement, it is minuscule compared to what the bishops of Germany are foisting on their own country and hope to bring to the Universal synod on synodality and they are praying that Pope Francis has their back once they conquer Rome.
As far as the litany of offenses Mark uses to stereotype other Catholics that respect tradition we can observe that the Church attracts people of all sorts who bring with them various spiritual and mental ailments. We should accompany those people through a rational and prayerful change. We should do the same with the several factions of the Church rather than contriving characteristics of those factions to further separate them.
Father McDonald, thank you for your reply.
I noted simply that which Peter Kwasniewski had identified as horrific issues among "traditional" Catholics — issues that are destructive to the Body of Christ.
Father McDonald, along with the above is the horrific issue that you have identified. That is, the situation in regard to Germany.
But there is one simple way to overcome the horrific issues that you, as well as Peter Kwasniewski, have identified. That is, to remain in communion with Pope Francis.
Deo volente, that is my plan. I do not intend to partake of schism.
Therefore, to ensure that I hold fast to the Faith, and in line with Pope Benedict XVI's 2013 A.D. promise: I Pledge my unconditional reverence and obedience to the Vicar of Christ, Pope Francis.
I hope that certain "backward traditionalists," as well as various Catholics in Germany, also follow Pope Benedict XVI's lead in question.
Father McDonald, thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
rcg, are you unaware that I had listed Peter Kwasniewski's "litany of offenses?"
It is he who employed said "offenses" that "stereotype other Catholics," according to you.
That is on Peter Kwasniewski.
It is Peter Kwasniewski who noted that extremism associated with chauvinism, antisemitism, libertarianism, and sedevacantism, has infiltrated the "traditional movement."
It is Peter Kwasniewski who declared that the "revival of traditional liturgical practice has permitted the reappearance of some extreme points of view that deserve refutation."
Therefore, please address that with Peter Kwasniewski.
Thank you.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jerome,
What irritates me the most me the most are certain older Catholic priests, who after 50 years of failure still believe various forms of liturgical “creativity” including silly liturgical dance and inappropriate modern music etc will attract more young people to attend Mass. They must be very naive or even clinically delusional not to be aware that the clear majority of the small numbers of young people who have witnessed their liturgical “creativity” over 5 plus decades are either indifferent or even think it is weird and/or pathetic.
Yes, Mark, I did. It doesn't matter whose slanders you repeat, you repeated them. But I wasn't talking about you, I was addressing the post, (opus LVXI), wherein you reprised many of the faults of some people used to slander a class of people. My parish is clearly a hotbed of Tradition, but many of the folks are jumping at shadows because of enlightened publicans like Kwasniewski as if the old Liturgy was to blame for the sins people bring with them.
Mark,
I have often disagreed with you and Fr K re both your contributions to this blog. But when I’ve replied to either of you I have always tried my hardest to avoid ANY personal insult. But with the above you are really pushing your luck, Mark….
Fr Allan has allowed you to post your comments here hundreds of times over a long time - at times to an extent his blog is almost your blog too…You state you regard Fr Allan as God’s holy priest etc ….But Has anything Fr Allan in his replies to you had ANY effect on you at all? Or is it a case that if your idol Francis gives every indication that those he regards as rigid traditional Catholics with (he claims) mental health issues or emotional problems (which in reality are dishonest and nasty and uncalled for insults) are a major problem on a level with heretic Jesuits, apostate bishops and a VERY pro abortion and pro trans activist “Catholic” President…..well, you Mark, believe that must be true too…is that right, Mark? (Can you please answer that?) ….does it EVER cross your mind at all Fr Allan might be correct re for example, the colossal apostasy taking place in Germany and Belgium etc now is a 100 times more serious a problem for the Church than any “rigid, backwardist” traditionalist who has criticisms of the present papacy?
Mark, I have no idea how old you are, but do you have any memories of the lies and slanders made against traditional Catholics like Michael Davies and his supporters in the 1970s and the 1980s? The insults, lies and slander hasn’t changed in almost 50 years! They are the same lies, insults and slander. Catholics like Michael Davies and other traditional Catholics were called back then by “progressive” bishops and lay people everything from rigid, reactionary, misogynistic, mentally unstable to antisemitic etc….the same lies and slanders….
I still have old cassettes of Michael Davies and others at conferences in the latter part of last century - these people were almost always intelligent, completely sane; also they were honest, genuine and had a sense of humour too - and most importantly clearly loved the Church and actually BELIEVED all the dogma and doctrines the Church had taught for centuries- I knew back that what several priest friends of my parents had said about these traditional Catholics were a pack of lies - especially the lies about the mental instability and/or the lack of true learning and intelligence of traditional Catholics.
And back to who are the madmen. I can remember those respected, influential Catholic priests and the occasional bishop (friends of my parents) in the 90s claiming Malachi Martin was completely insane re his claims of homosexually active priests and bishops when interviewed at length by Bernard Janzen and others in the 90s…..But, after everything that was revealed from Spotlight Boston in 2002 to the Summer of Shame with McCarrick etc in 2018 - who turned out to me mad? Who turned out to be liars?
Likewise with Michael Voris (who I can disagree with about some important things) but in the years leading up to 2018 he was called insane and worse for his claims made before 2018….until after 2018 with revelations about McCarrick, Monsignor Grindr and dozens of others….so, again, did it turn out Voris was either a liar or mad with many of his pre 2018 allegations ?
Mister Paul,
*Thank you* for that post!
Right. On. Target. 🎆
I found out from Wikipedia's great pages on "traditional Catholicism" that no serious study or research/survey has ever been done re numbers of traditional Latin Mass Catholics but many believe the Vatican's estimate of 1 million is way too low - better educated guesstimates suggest at least double that.
So let's say 2 million is close.
Honestly, what percentage of that 2 million people who attend a TLM could be described as a person who:
- truly requires psychotherapy.
- truly hates Pope Francis.
- is sinfully anti Semitic.
- has embraced QAnon type conspiracy theories.
- is seriously misogynistic, and has in his life physically chastised his wife or daughter.
- is genuinely racist and or has an unhealthy fear or hatred of homosexual people.
- etc...
Such people do exist but
My guesstimate is that the numbers of such TLM people would be miniscule....
But try another guesstimate -
Based on my 60 plus years life experience, and years studying at a seminary, and the life experience of my parents (my father RIP left the Marist order to marry my mother) and their friends AND based on serious research done by Michael Rose, Richard Sipe, Fr Donald Cuzzens and especially Joseph Sciambra and John Jay college etc...
What percentage of Catholic priests in the Jesuit or Paulist orders especially (I will not guess are gay men by orientation or by actions - though others have suggested astounding figures, especially re the Paulists ) TRULY believe and teach what is in the Catholic Catechism concerning marriage, sexual morality and life issues in general?
Btw
I had a friend who read Fr Donald Cuzzens book and read articles by Joseph Sciambra and Richard Sipe and suggested I google:
Paulist order homosexual.
I did.
Even Wikipedia has lengthy pages under the title - Dissent from Catholic teaching on homosexuality.
And SO MUCH with titles like
Paulist Fathers dispute Vatican decree against blessings for homosexual couples.
To MANY sermons Paulist priests openly publish online.. including:
"If God must become Asian or African, then God is also in some sense queer....is it less appropriate for gays to imagine Jesus as gay than for Asians to picture Jesus as Asian? I don't think so.."
An "Out at St Paul's" Catholic group in New York announce they are holding their Spring Social at Hell's Kitchen gay bar Bottoms Up...
To Paulists lectures on the theme :
If Pope Francis can change Catholic Church teaching on the death penalty then Catholic church teaching on homosexuality can also change - it has to.
Millions have suffered and millions still suffer because of gay people being called "disorded" ...
Material like the above are endless..
Some of it makes Fr James Martin look moderate and almost orthodox.
Yet it is those problematic TLM people who are a major problem for the Church today!
Mark,
Almost all Catholics know something re the Borgia pope Alexander VI - basically a member of a crime family; bribed Cardinals, one of his illegitimate sons Cesare murdered his father's political/ecclesiastical opponents; fathered 9 illegitimate children; reports even of incest with a daughter, Lucrezia etc..
But there was also:
Sergius III - had a 15 year old mistress - one of her children to him became Pope John XI.
Stephen VI went insane and had the deceased Pope Formosus dug up and ordered his dead body to stand trial..
Pope John XII was murdered by the angry husband of a woman John was having an affair with...
Pope Boniface VIII destroyed the city Palestrina over a personal feud.
Pope Benedict IX obtained the papacy due to his father paying bribes, aged as young as 13....this pope was the first pope to be primarily and actively homosexual - and was the only pope in history to sell the papacy and then successfully make a come back until forced into a monastery by a strong and devout emperor....
I think we can assume that some bishops over 2,000 years had fairly colourful lives as well...
BUT the Church survived all that - the damage done was never permanent. Despite who was pope or who was their bishop millions of Catholics continued to pray, worship God, knew the basics of their faith, tried to love their neighbour etc ....over all those centuries.
In my opinion almost no pope or bishop in history caused as much harm (especially long term harm) to the Church as Francis and many American bishops have over the last decade by basically doing nothing about Biden and Pelosi etc calling and promoting themselves as Good Catholics while fully supporting abortion on demand and supporting the insane LGBT activists' agenda - and failing to mention some or all of the Bible parts about repenting, sinning no more, the existence of hell etc; continuing to live in a fantasy land about the wonderful enormous fruits of Vat 2; being almost mischievously, at times, vague and ambiguous...being in denial about the numbers of morally bankrupt clergy still running parishes and dioceses around the world...and by allowing the "toxic nightmare" of synodality especially the latest German catastrophe to continue...
Phew - now I might again have one of my 3 to 6 months breaks from contributing anything here...or at least take a break from all Catholic social media this weekend ...drink some good red wine and watch a classic comedy movie...
In conjunction with Paul's observations, I have pasted links below to a 2-part series called the "101 Outrages of Francis". Caution, for those too faint of heart or snowflaky to handle Taylor Marshall or Michael Voris, you'll definitely not enjoy the host of this list, Mr. Timothy Gordon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdtTHuZQY_U (part one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZKFurs23JA (part two)
Paul said..."now I might again have one of my 3 to 6 months breaks from contributing anything here..."
Paul, if that is the case (or, should you continue to post here), then I pray that you, as well as your family, enjoy peace and good health.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
"...for those too faint of heart or snowflaky to handle Taylor Marshall or Michael Voris,..."
Or rather, "too sensible."
Or rather, not addicted to anger... ". . . A person or situation somehow makes us feel defeated or powerless, and reactively transforming these helpless feelings into anger instantly provides us with a heightened sense of control. . . . In a sense, [anger] is every bit as much a drug as alcohol or cocaine. And it's my strong belief that many, many millions of people worldwide are addicted to anger because of its illusorily empowering aspects."
Leon F Seltzer PhD
Fr K and Mark,
So the main problems in the Catholic Church today are tiny numbers of traditional Catholic lay people with “anger issues” as opposed to LARGE numbers of Jesuit and Paulist etc priests rejecting Church teaching on marriage, sexual morality and life issues?
And it makes good sense to focus on the possible mental instability of Vigano and the tiny number of traditional Catholic lay people he may influence as opposed to acknowledging everything that was revealed from Boston in 2002 to the Summer of Shame in 2018 - from Fathers Geoghan , Porter et al and their enablers; to Archbishop Weakland to Cardinal McCarrick to Monsignor Grindr et al…?
And again it is very wise and sensible to focus on tiny numbers of Latin Mass Catholics who have problems with certain interpretations of Vatican II as opposed to acknowledging and confronting the enormity of large numbers of Catholic bishops and Jesuits in Western Europe, USA etc who are determined to bless same sex relationships in Catholic churches - and soon or eventually change and update the Catechism re marriage and homosexual acts - or have no problem with all this….?
Do I correctly understand your position and your priorities?
Paul, you ask, "Do I correctly understand your position and your priorities?"
I'm not speaking for mark, but as for me, no, you don't.
Paul,
You are dealing with a priest who votes for the Party that promotes infanticide, transgenderism and grooming of children
TJM - The perverse pleasure you find in lying is on show again.
Post a Comment