Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Lord’s descent into the underworld
At Matins/the Office of Readings on Holy Saturday the Church gives us this 'ancient homily', I find it incredibly moving, it is abou...
-
A French newspaper has reported Pope Francis, once Benedict dies, will abrogate Summorum Pontificum and handover Old Rite's celebrat... -
I was at the Verona Opera Festival when Summorum Pontificum was published but it wasn't until All Souls Day that I first attempted to s... -
In a conversation with our bishop recently, I thought he said that some parishes in the diocese were already using the new ICEL translations...
5 comments:
A good article. His final sentence just about sums up the prevailing situation:
In this respect, a wise saying commends itself: Many times, the solution to the Church’s problems is found in the funeral rite.
There are problems with this priest's writings. He criticised for example Michael Rose's "Goodbye Good Men" in a manner which seemed to miss the point.
Your previous article on the VEC is typical of the problems Rose seeks to expose (admittedly he is clumsy at times) but Johansen wants to be the "Good Cop" to Rose's "bad".
Sound intriguing, about the unpleasant thing that might be done to dissenting Bishops. Can the Pope fix it up with the Episcopalians and Anglicans to offer them jobs in inner city parishes?
Hard saying here: I'm afraid that article doesn't convince. The Pope is NOT a CEO, and this is not a business for business' sake, at least if we are to believe self serving Bishops who seek to deflect attention from the financial value of their dioceses in order to hopefully protect them from becomming fundraising fodder to pay off pederasty suits. "After purchase a property's only value is spiritusl!" I've heard Robert Brom make that one. Bull...and not a Papal Bull, either.
Further, Fr. J endorses JP II's 'teach, correct, convince' approach (to paraphrase), but that approach didn't work. The bishops are as obdurate and schismatic of intention as ever, brazenly dismissive of such a significant papal decree as "Summorum Pontificum" or anything which seeks to minimize their bull-headed protestant toadying.
The final paragraph entitled "Danger of Schism" says it all. What it boils down to is fear. Fear that a significant number of bishops are going to go into open schism and take a significant portion of the church with them, as they did during the period of the Heresy of Arius. Well, fear has no place in the heart or mind of a Pope. And the revealed truths of the faith are not to be sacrificed on the altar of fear, especially of convenience. America was slapped hard by Leo XIII, after nearly being declared in Schism.
After 660 million dollars and counting, Benedict needs to become the enforcer, and administer the American Church some cruell kindness with the firm, open palm of his hand. Then let them turn the other cheek.
Oh, phooey. feh. Pshaw. horsefeathers.
Schism, schmizzem. Why is no one talking about the big elephant in the room? They ought to be able to smell him, if not see him. He makes it sound as if people are having the vapors over "someone walked to the left of the deacon rather than to the right" issues.
Far from the laity being liable to move towards schism, they are far more likely to get disgusted at what they see as hypocritical CYA. they lose their faith and stop believing in God entirely.
If a pope can just routinely ask for a bishop's resignation at age 75 for NO reason other than "he's 75"...he ought to be able to call to account those bishops who've KNOWINGLY scandalized the faithful by moving around molester priests from place to place and not seeming to give a flip about the children and youth they come into contact with.
Not every accusation is credible, but many are and many priests have admitted to their, shall we say, "transgressions."
Ditto the lavender seminaries. Granted, it's a small minority who get into trouble, but it's an inattentive person who has never heard the expression "one bad apple spoils the who bunch."
And damn skippy EVERYONE suffers. The molested, their families, the FAITH of those families, their friend's own faiths, the faith of those they know and people they work with can be scandalized by seeming inaction "business as usual" attitudes.
You don't leave children in charge of a mother and father who lets the oldest boy molest the younger kids. That's irresponsible. that IS a big deal.
The faithful who now have to shell out BILLIONS of their hard earned cash which SHOULD be going for education, good works etc....now going into lawyers pockets, with precious little for the victims, have EVERY RIGHT to be angry at the CYA "not my fault" shuffle -- MOSTLY from the top. The BISHOPS and their offices control the assignments and hold the keys to investigation and have the abilities to yank faculties. They also should be charged with cleaning up lavender seminaries. Heterosexual men don't want to be around homosexual men. You don't put them on submarines together, why would you put them in seminaries and rectories together, especially given that homosexual inclination is a disordered condition?
One can feel sorry for pedophiles, and hope they can work through their issues. One can also hope that they would get temporal punishment to. But you don't put someone who has a tendency towards kleptomania in charge of the cash register.
[Now I am not saying all homosexuals are pedos..I know probably most of them aren't and that there are heteros who are pedos....so don't misread what I'm saying here.]
The bishops SHOULD be accountable for seminaries which turn a blind eye to homosexuals and put good men through left-wing "tolerance camps" if they show any signs of not being 100% on board with a gay agenda.
Not the least of parties who suffer from their gross ineptitude is the long put upon legions of good priests. The vast majority of whom are Godly men. I think any man who puts on a collar today is a hero. This good priests have to too often suffer in silence because bishop C.H.A. will give the whistleblower an assignment counting holes in the accoustical tile, and then the good priest isn't anywhere where he can be effective, should he "call" the bishop on it.
The bishops let this get so far out of hand covering up the manure in the sandpit it finally got too much that even they have to be dragged kicking and screaming to have their nose shoved in like a bad puppy "Look what you did."
Good men who want to be priests really have to have extra courage to be able to handle the snide and cynical treatment from the secular world "ah-ha--there's a priest--wonder how many kids he's molested" -- or "ah-ha -- must be a gay, wonder how many bars he's trolled."
Look, maybe back in the 50s they thought these sorts of men could be "cured" -- well, why are they still taking chances? Why are the bishops not stomping all over the lavender seminaries and why did they keep transfering these people from place to place so long? I think they are just as morally culpable, IF NOT MORE, as the priests who did wrong.
"Oh, so and so got into trouble at some school -- I know...let's put him in hospital work" ....and then he turns around and molests a patient.
This stuff DOES NOT FLY with the laity.
And then because we HAVE fewer priests, they are expected to do more and more, and they can often carry such a crushing workload they get burnt out. Who wants a job where the weight of the world comes on your shoulders and you have have few to share the burden with you? It's not fair to the good priests, and it's not fair to the laity. And these long suffering guys are supposed to pick up the pieces because the powers that be were incompetent jerks who only cared about hiding the problem instead of fixing the problem.
Nuts to the bishops who played CYA for so long. I may have to kiss their rings, but they have to EARN personal respect.
Post a Comment