Catholic identity is so obscured now that the even the Roman observer is incapable of finding anything amiss in recommending the music of iconic subversives who waged cultural revolution against the Family, God and especially the Catholic Church.
Nine years after it was established, L’Osservatore Romano printed a declaration of obedience to the Pope. The year was 1870—exactly one hundred years before rock ‘n’ roll would reach its zenith. That declaration reaffirmed that LOR would remain faithful “to that unchangeable principle of religion and morals which recognizes as its sole depository and claimant the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth”.
We’ve come a long way, baby! Quite obviously the Devil who was given free reign on October 13, 1884 to attack the Church for one hundred years was not some figment of Pope Leo XIII’s imagination. One century later the “pope’s own newspaper” is endorsing the Devil’s own counterculture. Click here to read more
You are currently browsing the archive for the Catholic newspapers category.
Tags: l'osservatore romano, scandal, Vatican
A Scots priest contacted us recently to urge discussion on our blog about the forthcoming Ad Limina visit. He is very keen that the laity write to the Vatican well in advance of the Scottish Bishops’ Ad Limina visit, which is to take place during the first week in February.
There’s no shortage of problems in the Scottish Church for which the bishops must be held to account. This thread should serve to remind us all of the many scandals in the Church in Scotland at the present time. Many of them have been debated on this blog – like, for example, the case of the American priest, Father David Cotter, serving in the Diocese of Paisley, who announced on Radio Scotland that he supported the anti-life policies of the then presidential candidate, now President Barack Obama, for whom, Father Cotter cast his vote by post. Click here to read that thread
Sadly, there are plenty more scandals in the local Church – Fr Cotter’s support for a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights politician whom he helped achieve the most important and powerful governmental post in the world, is but one cog in a very big wheel of dissent and scandal.
But enough from me – here’s the piece submitted by the Scottish priest who asked for this thread:
In approximately 8 weeks the Scottish Bishops will be going to Rome for an Ad Limina visit, something which normally happens every 5 years but which due to the change of Pope has been 7/8 years since last happening.
At this the bishops will be asked to give an account of themselves, their actions, events in and plans for their Diocese and the Catholic Church in Scotland.
Over recent years, especially the last 2/3/4 years we have repeatedly seen actions by bishops which were not in obedience to Papal instruction/wishes, Roman Curia/Commission’s instruction/directions. Action/s have been taken by individual bishops/the Scottish Bishops Conference which have been disobedient and so failed to be part of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”. As a result we’ve witnessed some actions/policies which are clearly schismatic. Here’s a brief overview of the goings on in the Church in Scotland.
In Glasgow, there was a murder in a Glasgow church. The priest, if you remember, was giving out rooms in the parish house. This murder of a young girl in a Catholic Church made headlines that brought the Scottish Church into disrepute. Bloggers should send details of this scandal to Rome, enclosing newspaper cuttings if possible.
In Dundee, the Vicar General had girl friends over a period of 18 years. Again, national headlines resulted. Headlines that should be sent to Rome.
In Glasgow there was a negative response to the papal Moto Proprio, Summorum Pontificum, when Archbishop Conti stated that priests ordained after 1970 would not get permission to say the Tridentine Mass; this was outright rejection of the permission Pope Benedict had given to every priest in the world.
In Summorum Pontificum, bishops were told to encourage younger priests to learn the old Latin Mass, help them, so that its beauty and reverence would not be lost to future generations. Has any Scottish bishop done this? So far, one only hears of certain bishops’ deliberate suppression of the old Latin Mass, not their encouragement. Rome needs to be told that Summorum Pontificum has been mostly ignored in Scotland.
Then there is the increasingly common practice of priests administering the Sacrament of Confirmation instead of the Bishop. Yet, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 we read:
1313 In the Latin Rite, the ordinary minister of Confirmation is the bishop.
Although the Bishop may for grave reasons concede to priests the faculty of administering Confirmation, it is appropriate from the very meaning of the Sacrament that he should confer it himself, mindful that the celebration of Confirmation has been temporally separated from Baptism for this reason. Bishops are the successors of the apostles. They have received the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. The administration of this sacrament by them demonstrates clearly that its effect is to unite those who receive it more closely to the Church, to her apostolic origins, and to her mission of bearing witness to Christ.
What grave circumstances have there been each year that bishops in certain dioceses confer this sacrament only 3-5 times? But they will go to Ecumenical services more than 5 times over the year! Rome needs to be told about this. If your child was ordained by a priest instead of the Bishop, write to tell the authorities in Rome so that they can raise the matter with the Bishops.
In 2000 in Scotus Seminary the Scottish bishops built a chapel. In it was placed a “crucifix”, claimed to be a work of art, which was strands of metal formed together to represent Christ’s body on the cross, naked, which looked like the leftovers from the previous night’s spaghetti bolognaise – it did not in any way show the real suffering and sacrifice of Christ on the Cross for the forgiveness of our sins. This was, in fact, a naked man who had modelled for the “cruciform”. Students were faced with this “cruciform” every time they entered the chapel. Imagine trying to pray with that naked man hanging above the altar. Little wonder that the seminary closed.
In this Chapel right up to closure students were discouraged from kneeling in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, yet from the Year of the Eucharist came clearly the message that we urgently needed to get back to an awareness of the Real Presence, something shown by reverent actions. Again, I say, little wonder that we have no seminary in Scotland. Remind Rome of this background to the closure of Scotus.
The highly unsuitable, virtually doctrine-free “Alive O” Religious Education curriculum was implemented by the Scottish Bishops Conference late 80s/early 90s while Ireland was waiting for Rome to give approval to it; such approval was never given, in fact the opposite – according to Rome it is not suitable for teaching Catholic pupils and yet the Scottish Bishops have it in our Catholic Schools. Why? We need to tell Rome that children in Catholic schools are being denied a solid Catholic education.
Are things so bad here because the papal nuncios are part of the Bishops Club, members of the Magic Circle in the country to which they are posted; not wanting to rock the boat, therefore not reporting matters to Rome which are a betrayal of Catholic Faith/Teaching/Principals? Ask Rome why the papal nuncios are not passing on the truth about the state of the Church in Scotland.
If Bishops are not acting in obedience to Rome, shouldn’t this be reported by a papal nuncio? This certainly does not seem to happen in our present times – bishops allowing/advocating masses for homosexual groups to make them feel at ease, where there is no attempt to make clear they must repent and sin no more, is but one present day example in the UK. Masses for the Quest organization have been held in a Glasgow parish (Ed: we reported this in the newsletter at the time) so this is clearly a scandal that should be reported to Rome.
Within the last 2/3 days we have seen Rome’s/Pope Benedict’s outrage and betrayal, something brought about by Bishops in Ireland not properly and truthfully addressing matters. Why was Benedict/John Paul not informed of such matters? Unless Rome is kept informed about the reality of the local churches, similar scandals could break out elsewhere, including Scotland.
Rome, must act in an authoritative way when Bishops do not act in unity with the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” but they can only know about these scandals if we tell them. They seem to think Scotland is in a good condition. We must correct their misconceptions.
The above are but some issues that you may wish raised and investigated at the Scottish Bishops Ad Limina visit to Rome this February; you may have others of your own. If so they should be raised with/made known to the appropriate congregations/authorities in Rome within the next 3-4 weeks (they will need them by early January so that questions raised may be looked into prior to the February meeting) so bloggers are encouraged to write without delay to the relevant Congregations in Rome. END
Editor: Click here for the Vatican addresses and get those keyboards working. Costs very little to post a letter to Rome, so no excuses.
Click on ‘comments’ to post questions and comments. If you’d like help with your letter email us via the website and we’ll gladly advise.
Week after week, relentlessly, Monsignor Basil Loftus, a priest of the Diocese of Aberdeen, writes articles in the Catholic Times which undermine and even openly attack the Catholic Church in its doctrine, disciplines, you name it. He just keeps on attacking. Below, you can read last week’s offering. Read it and reflect, not only on the disgraceful content but on the irresponsibility of the editor, Kevin Flaherty, who sees fit to undermine the faith of his readers week in and week out, by poisoning their minds with these shocking articles. The Scottish ad limina visit is coming up in February, and we’ll be posting a thread on that topic later this weekend but keep the Mgr Loftus articles in mind: we need to let the Pope know that our bishops are permitting the sale of this newspaper in their cathedrals, parish churches and shops run by the Daughters of Saint Paul (renamed with the much more overtly feminist label “Pauline Sisters”)
Below, the article in full: it is not available online (wonder why?) so thanks to Athanasius for kindly typing it up, word for word, from the newspaper.
The primacy of conscience
Mgr. Basil Loftus (published in the Catholic Times, Sunday, 6 December, 2009)
Few statements in the Acts of the Second Vatican Council seem clearer than that on conscience. Yet none have greater need of understanding. Let the Council speak for itself: “In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience faithfully, in order that he may come to God for whom he was created. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the otherhand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious” (Declaration on Religious Freedom – Dignitatis Humani, n3). So, what can possibly be the difficulty, or the need for further understanding?
Effectively, this clear and strongly expressed doctrine was a reversal of an equally clear and strong contrary doctrine taught by Pope Pius IX immediately before the First Vatican Council. In 1864, in his Syllabus of Errors, that Pope had condemned the idea that non-Catholics enjoyed any freedom of conscience. Because of this historical background there are today those who claim that the extent of Vatican II’s declaration on the freedom of conscience is limited to non-Catholics, since it was their problem that the Council sought to solve.
The gist of the opposition to freedom of conscience within the Church boils down to an admission that no-one is forced in conscience to be a Catholic, but once someone has chosen to follow Christ within the Catholic Church, then they must follow the rules of that club. So the power of the magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church, takes precedence over the primacy of conscience within the Church.
In order to come to a greater understanding of Vatican II’s teaching on conscience, and its relevance within the Catholic Church, we need to look in greater detail at the way its Declaration on Freedom of Conscience developed. It will be seen that those same Catholics who by the time of Vatican II were learning to live with Christians from other churches, as well as within the restrictions of a secular State, were also conscious that the same human dignity which demanded respect for conscience in others, was also their own human dignity within the Church.
In Error number 77 of Pius IX’s 1864 Syllabus of Errors it was established that it was not permissible to hold that “in the present day it is no longer appropriate (non amplius expedit) for the Catholic religion to be the sole religion in a country (unicam staus religionem), to the exclusion of all other cults.” In other words, said the Pope, it most definitely was appropriate.
Nor was this all-embracing monopoly of Catholicism merely a religious matter. Error number 76 was that it was necessary to scrap , or, in more elegant language, to declare an “abrogation” of “the civil power” enjoyed by the Church. In other words, said Pius IX, the Church’s civil power must not be abrogated. A footnote to Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, (1776a), cites six further documents from Pius IX which make clear that the “doctrine of the Pope’s civil power (de civili Romani Pontificis principatu) must be most firmly held by all Catholics (quam Catholici omnes firmissime retinere debeant).”
Two very different authors have highlighted the effects of this arrogant teaching, that Vatican II had to deal with.
Roger Aubert deals with Error n. 76 – the need for the Catholic religion to be the only religion in any country. Referring in particular to Latin America in the 20th century, he points to the developments that had taken place there in the centuries since the Catholic nations of Spain and Portugal, with the approval of the Pope, had carved up that continent between themselves, established their own ‘inquisition’, and imposed Catholicism at the point of the sword. Secularism, a resurgence of native Amer-indian religions, and the influx of Protestantism had all altered the context of life in those countries.
So, “in spite of its advocacy in the 19th century of many positions that proved ultimately to be untenable, and in spite of its stubborn attempts to associate those positions with the dictates of divine-positive and natural laws, the Church came gradually to alter its stance and accommodate to new conditions. It withdrew its massive excommunications, re-interpreted some of its doctrines and learned to live within the liberally-controlled secular States.” (The Christian centuries, the Church in a Secularised Society, volume 5, p. 380).
Then Aubert goes on to show how this same accommodation also affected the position of Catholics within their own Church: “Although the great majority of Latin Americans , as many as 80% in some countries, ceased to be practising Catholics, and persisted in this position into the mid-20th century and beyond, they tended to maintain a predisposing tendency towards Catholicism. From time to time they performed actions, dictated to them by their individual consciences rather than by the clergy, that in their own minds at least re-linked them to the Church.” (p.380)
It is this wider-ranging freedom of conscience, within as well as outwith the Church, which was the problem posed to Vatican II, as Aubert goes on to argue: “ In some ways the practice of Catholicism as it evolved in 19th-century Latin America anticipated the spirit of daring initiative displayed by some prelates at the Second Vatican Council.”
In a very different vein, Julia O’Faolain’s historical/factoid novel – The Judas Cloth – deals with the Church’s ‘doctrine’ of temporal power, and the consequences of the condemnation of those who opposed it. In trying “to imagine the climate… which prevailed in the Papal States during its final decades”, she identifies the problem as being the fact that “two principles had clashed: a people’s right to determine its destiny and the Pope’s (right) to territorial independence” (p.2).
Those who, in the years leading up to 1870, opposed the idea of temporal power for the Church were acting in accordance with their consciences from within the Church. They were opposing what, in his footnote quoted above, Denzinger clearly shows had been touted as a “doctrine” to be “most firmly held by all Catholics.”
Certainly the Holy Spirit appeared to be on the other side. Within days of the First Vatican Council’s proclamation of papal infallibility, and with the way then clear for papal civil power to be defined with an awesome new authority, “God,” to quote one of the lecturers at the Gregorian University in Rome in my time as a student there, “sent his servant Garibaldi.” The Papal States were overthrown. The Council was aborted. Every single state in the international family of nations, with the sole exception of Ecuador, withdrew its recognition of the pope as a temporal sovereign. Papal temporal power became history.
Nor did the creation of the Vatican City State 59 years later, in 1929, as a result of a bilateral treaty between the Pope and Mussolini, restore the anachronism of temporal sovereignty. Yes, the Pope is sovereign of a miniscule territory. But this is not the basis of his dealing with other territorial sovereigns within the international family of nations. This is not what other sovereigns recognise him as.
With rare and maverick exceptions, dictated by the exigencies of international law governing such matters as post, telegraphs, driving-licences and pharmacy, (an unlikely grouping, I admit!), no Pope ever invokes his position in international law as sovereign of Vatican City State. Always he receives ambassadors, despatches nuncios and approves international treaties and concordats as head of the Holy See, which is the non-territorial and administrative arm of the Catholic Church. The distinction is ignored by journalists, who use “the Vatican” as shorthand for both the Catholic Church and the Holy See. But it is important. It shows that what once purported to be the “doctrine” of the Pope’s civil power, to be “most firmly held by all Catholics,” was rejected when those same Catholics, acting in conscience and in defence of their human dignity, would have nothing to do with it.
In this they were allied to all those other Catholics whose conscience had led them, not least in Latin America, to reject the Church’s teaching that “heresy has no rights” because the Catholic Church had claimed a monopoly in religion within any State. None of this proves that Vatican II’s teaching on conscience extends to dissent within the Catholic Church. But it does clearly show the fallacy of those who argue that Vatican II was not dealing with difficulties about conscience and its link with human dignity within as well as outwith the Catholic Church.
A more detailed examination of the rights of conscience within the Church is well overdue: “inevitably, a second great argument will be set afoot now on the theological meaning of Christian Freedom. The children of God, who receive this freedom as a gift from their Father through Christ in the Holy Spirit, assert it within the Church as well as within the world, always for the sake of the world and the Church. The issues are many – the dignity of the Christian, the foundations of Christian freedom, its object or content, its limits and their criterion, the measure of its responsible use, its relation to the legitimate reaches of authority and to the saving counsels of prudence, the perils that lurk in it, and the forms of corruption to which it is prone. All of these issues must be considered in a spirit of sober and informed reflection.”(John Courtney Murray, in Walter Abbott’s The Documents of Vatican II, p.674) This must be our task for next week. END
Read Martin Blackshaw’s article below on his latest attempts to contribute to the blog of the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, the former Transalpine Redemptorist monks…
Then click on ‘comments’ with your thoughts – is the priest in charge of that blog right to censor challenging views? Tell us why/why not…
I am one who has always agreed with the Church’s teaching that there should not be an absolute freedom of the press… There must be limits to what people can say in their writings, limits which preserve the Christian religion, morality, privacy and overall decency from the assaults of those who would undermine the order established by God.
In the days before Vatican II, this right-minded method of censoring was applied in almost every country. I say almost every country because we all know that Communist Russia and Nazi Germany had a different approach, which was to censor everything but the atheistic Party line.
After Vatican II, however, everything was turned on its head and this atheistic method of censoring, once favoured only by cold blooded killers like Stalin and Hitler, gradually gained the ascendancy in Christian Europe and the US.
Today, it has come to such a pass that all manner of attacks on Christianity are published widely in the press and media while any Christian response, greatly diminished, as it is post-Council, is effectively neutralised by editor censorship.
So much, then, for defending the truths of Christianity via the secular press and media. I don’t bother to waste the ink any more, for it is clear that sensationalism is the order of the day and truth is of little import, particularly divine truth.
What about the Catholic press, then? Surely its editors would be zealous to defend the truths of our divine religion? Not a chance!
It is said that there are none so illiberal as liberals and I can vouch for the veracity of this statement, particularly in the case of religious liberals. Of course religious liberals are really just Communists by any other name. They have the same revolutionary spirit and they have the same end in mind for Catholicism. The only difference between them and the aforementioned despots is that they mask their atheism behind a feigned religious zeal.
The bottom line is that today a Traditional Catholic is given no freedom whatever to challenge the multitudes of heretical and schismatic writings that appear week in and week out in any number of papers and magazines that claim allegiance to the Catholic Church.
As a result, Traditional Catholics have turned to such publications as The Remnant or The Angelus as a means of airing the true doctrines of the faith, or they have created blogs such as Catholic Truth as a medium for educating confused Catholics who, for decades, have had Conciliar liberalism bottle fed to them so that they no longer have even a basic grasp of the religion of their baptism.
Now, it is on this reasonably new medium called ‘Catholic blogging’ that I wish to concentrate. There are four main categories of Catholic blog sites. These are sedevacantist, traditional, liberal and conservative.
Of these four, the greatest surprise for me has been the censoring of the traditional (by which I mean SSPX) point of view by priest/moderators of conservative blogs.
There are conservative blogs, such as The Sensible Bond, whose lay moderator is quite at ease with a full blown debate in matters relating to the crisis in the Church. But the priest-run ones are different.
For example, Fr. Zuhlsdorf (Fr. Z) banned me from his blog over one year ago for simply mentioning the many public scandals of Pope John Paul II, such as his 1986 and 2002 gatherings of all religions at Assisi, his kissing of the Koran, his receiving the mark of a Hindu Goddess on his forehead and his visit to the Synagogue in Rome where he sat, head bowed, while his Jewish hosts sang a prayer of petition for the coming of the Messiah.
Why did he ban me for mentioning such obvious public scandals as these? He did so for two reasons. First, he was ordained by this Pope and, therefore, will not hear a word against him. And secondly, he just could not justify Pope John Paul’s actions in accordance with the teaching of the Church. The easy option, then, was to get rid of the problem by banning me from his blog. And he has maintained this ban for fear that I will challenge him once again for an answer.
And so this brings me to the point of my article, which is to highlight my most recent censoring by none other than the Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer, formerly known as the Transalpine Redemptorists.
The story goes something like this. I have been aware for some time that the Redemptorist Fathers who run this blog, not satisfied with the personal decision they made to reconcile with Rome, have been niggling at the SSPX as if to justify their own new position.
To be fair to them, they did receive some harsh treatment from certain elements when they made the rather sudden move for reconciliation. Some people just couldn’t handle the shock and disappointment of their apparent compromise with modernist Rome and consequently over-stepped the mark in communicating this to them, forgetting that they are consecrated souls of God who must always be treated with the respect their office demands. And so some comments posted on their blog simply had to be censured. It was the right thing to do. Now, as regards this niggling I referred to. The blog moderator began by advising the SSPX to follow his lead and reconcile with Rome, warning that to resist in the light of Summorum Pontificum was to move dangerously close to formal schism.
My response to that was to post comments to the effect that the SSPX’ resistance to modernism in Rome is not merely a question of the Mass, but a question also of doctrine. I mentioned the doctrines in question, but my comments were not posted.
I emailed the Father moderator about this censoring of my comments and he wrote back saying that he knew nothing of the matter and asked for dates and times of when I placed the comments. I supplied a rough idea, for I couldn’t be certain, but received no response from him and my lost comments never materialised. So I left it at that.
The next thing I heard was that the Redemptorists had posted on their blog a piece claiming that the ‘state of necessity,” declared by Archbishop Lefebvre to exist in the Church, and maintained by Bishop Fellay, to be now unjustifiable in light of Summorum Pontificum, and also claiming that SSPX marriages and confessions are not valid.
This was particularly irritating given that these very Redemptorists had operated for more than twenty years claiming “state of emergency” and administering the sacraments in the same way they now claim the SSPX are doing invalidly.
One comment on their blog calmed my irritation, however. I cannot recall the name of the person who asked the question, but it was basically to the effect that if freedom to celebrate the Tridentine Mass was the only obstacle for them to declaring the ‘state of emergency’ in the Church at an end, then why didn’t they declare the same when Pope John Paul II provided the Mass on request back in 1981?
It’s a good question. I mean, the Fraternity of St. Peter and a number of other institutions in the Church have been celebrating the Tridentine Mass for nigh on thirty years now. Anyway, I left it there and made no comment on their blog. Then, I was informed by the editor of this blog that the Redemptorists had posted a thread in defence of Pope Liberius, the 4th century Pope said to have excommunicated St. Athanasius and put his name to a semi-heretical Arian document.
I went to the blog to have a look and I took an immediate interest when I noted that in the introduction to the thread, the writer mentions that he determined to look into the case of Liberius as a result of an SSPX person drawing parallels between St. Athanasius and Archbishop Lefebvre.
So, for me, there were two matters for debate here. One was the case of Pope Liberius and the other was the significance for the SSPX, if any, of parallels between that period in history and our own.
The case for or against Pope Liberius is not really worth entering into here at this point in time. Suffice it to say, the history of the period (4th century) is rather vague and thin on hard evidence. What the Redemptorist blog piece has done is presented the thesis of a certain Fr. Rorhbacher, a very traditional and eminent historian of the 19th century.
Fr. Rorhbacher, having studied the case in depth, reached the conclusion that Pope Liberius never did excommunicate St. Athanasius and never signed any heretical documents. He claimed that far from being a sinner, he was held as a saint, which conclusion the Redemptorists of Papa Stronsay now support. They even offer proof that the name of Liberius was listed in the Roman Martyrology for 1200 years before being removed in the 16th century by Baronius as a precaution against the attacks of Protestants on his good name.
At first I pointed out to them that while Fr. Rorhbacher’s thesis puts forward a good case for Liberius, there are equally-strong thesis’ in the Church declaring against him. Indeed, St. Jerome himself appears to have written against Liberius.
Then I noted that Liberius was declared a saint by the Eastern Catholics, and not in the usual Latin tradition. I also question the removal of his name from the Roman Martyrology and asked how it was possible that the Church could capitulate to Protestant pressure in this way and also continue to omit his name from the Martyrology for the next 400 years. It didn’t make sense.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, I pointed out that regardless of whether or not Liberius was guilty as charged, the Church has always held that he more than made up for any fall due to human weakness before his death. It is certain, for example, that Liberius was against Arianism and initially defended St. Athanasius to the point that he was exiled for two years by the Emperor Constantius II. Then, after his alleged fall under pressure from this Emperor, he repented, reinstated St. Athanasius and once more took up the cause against this heresy. So the likelihood is that Liberius is now amongst the Blessed in heaven.
This having been said, I was at pains to point out in my comments on this Redemptorist blog that the parallel drawn between Liberius Vs St. Athanasius and John Paul II Vs Archbishop Lefebvre is nonsense.
Why? Because even if Liberius did excommunicate St. Athanasius and sign some kind of semi-heretical document, he did so under duress. The Vatican II Popes, on the otherhand, appear to have adopted certain personal doctrinal positions not consistent with Church teaching and have allowed these to spread throughout the Church by conviction.
This was the point I made, naming religious liberty, religious freedom, ecumenism and all the resultant scandals of a Lutheran-leaning new Mass, various interfaith and ecumenical outrages and other ingredients that have combined to bring about the present crisis in the Church today.
Needless to say, these comments were censored not once, but twice. They were not posted on the Redemptorist blog. Only a last word from the Father moderator was posted accusing me (falsely) of undermining their attempt to restore the good name of Pope Liberius.
So you see, censoring difficult questions in not something restricted to liberal Catholics. It is also the way of those ‘conservative’ priest/moderators who basically cannot answer them in any objective and convincing manner. ‘If in doubt, boot him out,’ would appear to be the method they have adopted.
There are only two justifiable reasons for censoring anyone on a Catholic blog. These are abuse and aggression. Even if a blogger is greatly in error in his statements and conclusions, it is incumbent upon priest/moderators above all to publish their comments and refute them accordingly. This is called correcting in all charity.
This banishing and/or censoring of uncomfortable questions can hardly be construed as either charitable or objective. It leads me to wonder how comfortable these priests are with their own positions.
Tags: censorship, sons of the most holy redeemer, transalpine monks
My first thought on reading this review of the film, Antichrist, penned by Father Peter Malone – is… we must pray for Father Malone.
.co.uk/
features/opinion
/o0000318.shtml
I tried to imagine any of the SSPX priests I know, writing or saying what Fr Malone has written. Not in a million years.
Should the Catholic Herald be publishing this kind of review? Did Fr Malone’s review make YOU want to see this film? What would you say to Fr Malone, if you had his email address? Click on ‘comments’ to tell us now …
Tags: antichrist, Catholic Herald, priest
Below, from this week’s Catholic Herald, are two outstanding examples (from the many available) of the new brand of Catholic gracing the novus ordo parishes today – or in the case of the lapsed lady planning her funeral, not gracing the pews…
First up, a letter…
Bishop O’Donoghue: Is he right to speak of a Catholic litmus test?
From Philip J Butler
SIR – Your headline (Report, July 3) says that Bishop Patrick O’Donoghue believes “disobedience is harming the Church” and the accompanying article says that he thinks agreeing with the ban on contraception is the “litmus test of the acceptance of obedience in the Church”. By what right does the bishop replace the Resurrection of Christ with rejection of contraception as the central tenet of Catholic faith? Is he just as much a pick-and-choose Catholic as he would no doubt accuse those with disagree with him of being?
The derivation of obedience from a Latin word meaning “to listen” indicates that obedience in the Church should not be a matter of a self-selected elite telling everyone else what to think and do, but all of us together seeking to listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit. For over 40 years most of the people of the Church have agreed with its own pontifical commission in finding that that the sinfulness of contraception cannot be proved.
In choosing to disobey that voice, not because he disagreed with it but because of the fears stirred up in him by his curial bureaucrats, Paul VI created a crisis for authority in the Church that has persisted ever since, has never been resolved and scarcely even addressed. Subsequent popes and bishops who will not address the issue are, more than anyone, responsible for the low estimation in which people at large hold the Catholic Church and which so corrosively undermines its credibility and witness, seeing that they simply find it to be thoroughly hypocritical when its leaders insist on teaching which most of its members reject. In this sense it is bishops like Patrick O’Donoghue whose disobedience is harming the Church.
It is no surprise that the bishop’s views were expressed at a retreat for priests. Only celibate men who do not themselves have to undergo the trials as well as joys of childbirth and the raising of families could be so arrogantly indifferent to those who do. A year celebrating priesthood as a thing apart hardly bodes well for the Church.
Yours faithfully,
Philip Butler
Second up, a lapsed Catholic, oops, an “emotional Catholic” (a new brand, just come onto the ecclesiastical market – watch as this one catches on…)
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/f0000439.shtml
Click on ‘comments’ to tell us which (if either) of these two self-styled “Catholics” is closest to obeying Canon Law (e.g. Canon 209: “Christ’s faithful are bound to preserve their communion with the Church at all times, even in their external actions…”) and – tell us, please – who’s to blame for their ignorance?
Tags: bishop o'donoghue, Catholic Herald, contraception, lapsed catholics
Read the comment by Archbishop Conti on Gerald Warner’s recent article in the Scottish Catholic Observer on the matter of liturgical abuses.
scotland.com
/Archbishop%20
Conti%20comment%
20Gerald%20Warner
%20SCO%203%
20July%202009.pdf
Note how selectively Archbishop Conti quotes from Vatican documents, not least the letter to bishops accompanying the Pope’s Motu Proprio, Summorum Pontificum (SP) where he cites the Pope’s assurances that SP does not undermine the bishops’ authority, but fails to quote the Pope’s next words: “Nothing is taken away, then, from the authority of the Bishop, whose role remains that of being watchful that all is done in peace and serenity. Should some problem arise which the parish priest cannot resolve, the local Ordinary will always be able to intervene, in full harmony, however, with all that has been laid down by the new norms of the Motu Proprio. Furthermore, I invite you, dear Brothers, to send to the Holy See an account of your experiences, three years after this Motu Proprio has taken effect. If truly serious difficulties come to light, ways to remedy them can be sought.”
And the Archbishop omits altogether, any mention of Redemptionis Sacramentum (2004) and the central importance of the correct dispositions for approaching to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion.
Click on ‘comments’ to tell us what you think – is the Archbishop feeling the pressure of having a traditional Catholic journalist – and a top journalist at that – writing in Scotland’s only national Catholic newspaper?
Apart from the (rather silly) headline: Politics, like religion, needs doctrines if it is to flourish the Opinion column in this week’s Catholic Herald says absolutely nothing about the underlying causes of, or the only way to put right, the manifest greed and dishonesty revealed by the ongoing scandal of MPs expenses.
Indeed, far from pointing out that this utterly inexcusable self-centred behaviour is indisputable evidence of a Godless society, and unless we restore Christ the King to the centre of national life, the Herald Opinion column doesn’t even mention God. In fact, “religion” is only mentioned in the rather daft title, repeated in the text of this very superficial comment on what is, even by secular standards, a monumental scandal.
Weighing up the merits and otherwise of the new kids on the block, the celebrities jumping on the Independent bandwagon, Jill Seggar expresses concern that Esther Rantzen isn’t quite on the ball on things like the minimum national wage; the fact that she stole her pal’s husband doesn’t rate a mention, not even in this Catholic newspaper. Seems a candidate’s ‘political literacy’ is the main thing, their moral character and religious persuasion is of little – if any - consequence. http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/features/opinion/o0000311.shtml
But, are we really surprised? Do we expect any more of the so-called Catholic newspapers these days? The Herald Opinion column could have been published in any newspaper in the land, from the Daily Telegraph to the Daily Dumpling. There were no Catholic insights, nothing of any substance which should mark out Catholic comment on this disgraceful plundering of the public purse by the very people elected to safeguard it. Should Catholic bishops and Catholic newspaper be leading the way in highlighting the loss of God in our society, explaining that, without God, the kind of unconscionable behaviour of our MPs is only to be expected? Nobody is saying that… Why not?
What do you think? Click on ‘comments’ to tell us if you agree that a Catholic newspaper should offer something more substantial than the daft ’let’s hope this scandal doesn’t damage our democracy’ mantra, when a damaged democracy won’t land anybody in Hell. Over to you!
Tags: God, members of parliament, religion
Catholic Truth lead blogger, Martin Blackshaw, reports on the ongoing scandal of the dissenting publication, Open House, which is quietly eating away at the skeletal bones of Catholicism – i.e. at the little that is left of Catholicism in Scotland after 50 years of spectacular decline.
Read Martin’s article by clicking on the link below and then tell us what you think. Is Canon Law right – should the bishops keep a tight rein on publications in their diocese – or is it a case of “free speech and be damned” (literally) ?
http://www.catholictruthscotland.com/MARTIN%20BLACKSHAW%20Open%20House%20April%2009.pdf
Click on ‘comments’ to share your thoughts with us.
Tags: bishops, canon law, publications
One of our bloggers alerted me to this week’s Tablet editorial which is an all-out attack on Catholic “right wing” blogs. It seems not to have dawned on the editor that the “liberals” don’t care deeply enough about the Faith to want to learn more about it – hence the noted absence of “liberal” blogs, for which Deo Gratias!
A key complaint in the Tablet editorial is that bloggers have a regular go at, well, The Tablet. You’ll see if you visit the second link below, that having a go at the Pope and Catholic doctrine is par for the course, just don’t dare to criticise the daft Tablet.
Anyway, it got me thinking: which Cathlic blog regularly takes a whack at The Tablet, I wonder? Could this be a wee dig at Catholic Truth? I do hope so. I love annoying that rag. Notice the fighting legal talk: maybe I’ll get to wear that “court” suit yet – it’s been at the ready in my wardrobe for ages now… http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/12960
Just to underline why we dislike that episcopally approved “journal” (and I use the term loosely) read their take on Tony Blair’s savage attack on the Pope on the subject of homosexuality… http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/12962
Well, what do you think? Is The Tablet still smarting from their brush with Father Finegan – who won the tussle hands down? Why doesn’t The Tablet have a blog, I wonder? Oh, silly me, I should know the answer to that, since their excuse for not publishing my letter correcting downright falsehoods about me, was “we thought it was true at the time”. No kidding. So – unless someone tells them that the editor can moderate posts and block anything she disagrees with – I doubt if a Tablet blog will ever see the light of the internet.
Click on ‘comments’ to tell us what YOU think…
Tags: homosexuality, the tablet