...Some of the blame for our current predicament can be laid at the feet of Fr. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit Priest who attempted to institute a “New Religion” by combining Darwinian evolution with his unorthodox view of Theism.
As Wolfgang Smith has written, Teilhard de Chardin intended to start a New Religion.[1] He made it quite clear on several occasions. In a letter to Leontine Zanta he wrote:
“As you already know, what dominates my interest and my preoccupations is the effort to establish in myself and to spread around a new religion (you may call it a better Christianity) in which the personal God ceases to be the great Neolithic proprietor of former times, in order to become the soul of the world; our religious and cultural stage calls for this.”[2]
Dietrich von Hildebrand and Wolfgang Smith trace much of the heterodoxy of the second Vatican Conciliar process to the circulation of Teilhardian conceptions of science[3] (especially with respect to biological evolution) and derivatively, Teilhard’s view of religion. Teilhard seems to have made the transformism[4] of biological evolution palatable to certain Catholic Theologians who wished to embrace what they perceived as modern evolutionary science. Traditionally, the entire notion had been thought heretical particularly as concerned the biological evolution of human beings.
MORE...
ENDNOTES:
[1] Wolfgang Smith. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. (Rockford, Ill., Tan Books and Publisher’s Inc., 1988), pp. 209-210.
[2] Lettres a Leontine Zanta (Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1965), p. 127; quoted by von Hildebrand in Trojan Horse in the City of God (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1967), p. 239.
[3] Which was steeped in Baconian conceptions of science and which fully accepted the Bifurcationism of Descartes.
[4] Also referred to as “Macroevolution” in which major animal body plans are alleged to have developed slowly and incrementally over eons of time from entirely different ones, e.g. amphibians from fish, birds from reptiles etc. In evolutionary biology this is referred to as “common descent” with modification. There is no persuasive evidence that this has occurred above the level of genus or species if dispassionately considered. Recall also that Fr. Stanley Jaki has argued that “Origins” questions by their very nature are not scientific but philosophical meaning that the question of so-called Macro-evolution is non-scientific from the start since the origin and development of terrestrial life is scientifically unrepeatable. The most one could do is make inferences from established facts.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Roman Catholic Priesthood: A Gay Profession?
Multiple sociological studies and a great deal of anecdotal data indicate that in the wake of the Second Vatican Council the Roman Catholic Priesthood has become increasingly dominated by homosexual men. This can be seen in multiple ways including:
1. The abrupt change in language regarding homosexuality emanating from the Holy See as documented by Marian Horvatt in the prior piece and excerpted here.
He (Pope Benedict)clearly states that in his opinion, homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things, not to be compared or confused. Here he supports the progressivist contention that has spread to prevent public furor against pedophilia from striking at homosexuality. Certainly there is a difference between the two crimes when studied by scholars and punished by the courts, but regarding pedophile priests in the clergy, it so happens that the two vices are intimately related. Benedict ignores this fact.
He affirms categorically there is no place for pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood, but what about homosexuals? He says nothing against the homosexual subculture that has established itself in the American Catholic Church since Vatican II.
His actions since assuming the papal office confirm his soft stance on homosexuality in the priesthood. To replace him as head of the CDF, he chose his friend Archbishop William Levada, known for complacent handling of pedophile priests when he was Bishop of Portland, and for his friendly approach to homosexuals when he became Archbishop of San Francisco. Then he appointed as Archbishop of San Francisco George Niederauer, who openly supports “tolerance’ for homosexuals and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage.”
In 2006, Pope Ratzinger signed an unmistakably “soft” document setting out new guidelines regarding homosexuals entering the seminary.(7) Instead of condemning the sin against nature and firmly barring those who practice it or have tendencies toward it from the sacred priesthood, the document takes a more tolerant view. Only those with “deep-seated tendencies” toward homosexuality are barred from priesthood; those with “transitory problems” or “chaste” homosexuals can be accepted. New Oxford Review editor Dale Vree rightly noted that “the priesthood will continue to be or become a ‘gay’ profession, thanks to this document.”
Then there is this from Dale Vree:
original HERE...
We've been waiting nine long years for this document on homosexuals in the seminary. It has a long-winded title: "Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders" (hereafter "Concerning").
The document was obviously written by a committee - or many committees - and it intended to satisfy as many people as possible. But we are not satisfied, not in the least.
Bear in mind that this document is about "discipline" (or shall we say ill-discipline).
The most egregious sentence is that those "who practice homosexuality" (italics added) are "profoundly respected." So we should have profound respect for those who commit homosexual acts, which are mortal sins. By that logic, we should have profound respect for fornicators, adulterers, and child molesters.
On February 2, 1961, the Holy See promulgated a document called "Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders," signed by Pope John XXIII. The relevant section had one sentence on homosexuality: "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with the evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious danger" (#30; italics added). That's all that the new document, "Concerning," needed to say.
So how do we go from "evil tendencies" (i.e., orientation only) to having "profound respect" for homosexual acts in "Concerning"? Up until "Concerning," the 1961 document was never abrogated and was still in force. Indeed, on May 16, 2002, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments reiterated the policy: "Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." It was published in the November-December issue of Notitiae, which means it is the position of the Holy See. Of course, this policy had been and continued to be violated by many bishops, major superiors, seminary rectors, and vocations directors.
Earlier in 1997 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued a letter to the world's bishops giving guidelines for candidates for the seminary. One stipulation was "sufficient affective maturity and a clearly masculine sexual identity." In the recently released document, "Concerning," the candidate "must reach affective maturity," but there is no mention of having a clearly masculine sexual identity.
By signing Concerning... Pope Benedict loses his conservative credentials.
And "Concerning" does repeal the previous policy. "Concerning" refers to "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" that supposedly would bar one from the seminary. Much consternation has been expressed about what "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies are. But "Concerning" does offer a contrast to deep-seated homosexual tendencies; it is "homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded" (italics added). In these cases, a homosexual whose homosexuality is "not yet superseded" can be admitted to the seminary. The contrast between "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" and "a transitory problem...not yet superseded" is pretty murky.
The Catechism (#2357-2359) makes a clear distinction between homosexual "acts" and "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" (also referred to as an "inclination" or a "condition," which in the U.S. is often called an "orientation"). But the Catechism does not speak of a "transitory problem." So, what is a "transitory problem"?
It turns out that a "transitory problem" includes homosexual acts. Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, which issued "Concerning" and is responsible for its implementation, gave an interview to Vatican Radio on November 29, 2005. Speaking of "transitory problems," he said: "For example, an uncompleted adolescence, some kind of curiosity; or perhaps accidental circumstances, a drunken state, maybe particular circumstances like a person who was imprisoned for many years. In these cases, homosexual acts do not come from a [deeply] rooted tendency.... These acts are done because one wants to obtain some sort of advantage.... These acts...do not constitute an obstacle to seminary admission or to holy orders" (italics added; translation from the Italian provided by Rocco Palmo).
The National Catholic Register had an interview with Cardinal Grocholewski (Dec. 11-17, 2005), where he explained what "transitory problems" are. He said basically the same things he said in the Vatican Radio interview, but added: "It may have been about pleasing a superior or someone he knows, or to earn money." And in a Register news story (same issue), transitory problems might involve "experiences that occurred under the influence of alcohol, drugs or coercion, Cardinal Grochelewski [sic] said" (italics added). The neocon Register registered no objection to any of this, not even in its Editorial in the same issue.
This certainly opens up a can of worms. So you can be in jail for "many years" and commit homosexual acts, and still you can be admitted to the seminary. You can commit homosexual acts in a "drunken state" or under the influence of illegal "drugs," and that's O.K. You can commit homosexual acts "to obtain some sort of advantage," and that's O.K. You can "please" a superior or someone else, and that's O.K. You can commit homosexual acts to earn money -- which would include being a "gay" male prostitute -- and that's O.K. Good golly, Miss Molly, it's a free-for-all!
Never mind homosexual acts; do we want priests who have been "imprisoned for many years," who are druggies, who sell their bodies (and their souls) for money? This is hideous in and of itself.
Moreover, any candidate for the seminary could say his problem with homosexuality is not "deep-seated" and is only a "transitory problem." Nothing will change with regard to admitting homosexuals into the seminary.
Even if a seminarian's homosexuality isn't "deep-seated," it will likely become deep-seated when he is placed in an all-male environment for five to eight years, and sleeping in bedrooms with men. Putting homosexuals in an all-male environment is what's called "an occasion of sin," that is, it leads to deep-seated temptations. You might as well put heterosexual men in the convent or a nunnery for five to eight years, and let them sleep in bedrooms with girls and women, and see how long they remain chaste.
Even homosexual tendencies (without committing the act) are considered by the Church to be "objectively disordered" (Catechism, #2358). What is objectively disordered inclines one to commit an intrinsic moral evil, in the case of homosexuality, a mortal sin. Just one lapse by a seminarian or priest, and he's blackmailable forever. Just as many bishops and cardinals are now, which goes a long way to explain why we have this ridiculous document, "Concerning." At least nine bishops have had to retire because of homosexual acts, and it wasn't because their brother bishops exposed them.
Under a "transitory problem," the new document, "Concerning," says the problem "must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate [which precedes being a priest by about one year]." And Cardinal Grocholewski reiterated this. So how does a seminary make sure about that? Put seminarians under house arrest - and in solitary confinement - for three years? Of course not. This three-year rule would be so easy to fake.
The 1961 document was signed by the "liberal" Pope John XXIII. "Concerning" was signed by Pope Benedict XVI, supposedly a "conservative." With his new policy, Benedict has forfeited his conservative credentials. Benedict has given away the store.
Moreover, "Concerning" says, "The call to orders is the personal responsibility of the Bishop or the major superior." It is obvious that nothing will change, for many bishops and many major superiors (along with their rectors and vocations directors) are the problem in the first place. They are the ones who have been admitting homosexuals into the seminary. Homosexuals represent about two percent of the male population and it is estimated that 25-50 percent of seminarians are homosexual, and in certain pink-palace seminaries the percentage is well beyond that.
In response to "Concerning," numerous bishops (including Bishop George Niederauer - more about him later) and numerous major superiors and seminary rectors have stated that they will continue to do what they've been doing - i.e., admitting homosexuals. And who can blame them? For "Concerning" has no teeth. As Mao said, it's a "paper tiger."
According to a news story in The New York Times (Sept. 15, 2005), Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., the former Editor-in-Chief of America, said that "with the shortage of priests, the church can hardly afford to dismiss gay seminarians." And that is exactly what happened. Fr. Donald Cozzens, a former seminary rector, said in The Changing Face of the Priesthood that "the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession." And it will continue to be or become a "gay" profession, thanks to "Concerning."
The Vatican forgot - or maybe it didn't care - that with so many homosexual seminarians (even in some conservative orders), many heterosexual, manly men will not apply for the seminary. And those who do enter often drop out, or, if they don't keep quiet about the "gay" culture in the seminary, they are kicked out.
Moreover, a celibate and chaste heterosexual priest gives up marriage and family, which is a huge sacrifice, while a celibate and chaste homosexual priest gives up what is "objectively disordered," which inclines one to commit a mortal sin.
Then there is the question of pedophilia. According to the John Jay Report, 81 percent of priest sex-abuse victims were boys. As of June 2005, the known settlements for pedophilia (the large majority of cases being pederasty) total $1.06 billion. Church property has been sold to pay the settlements. Dioceses have declared bankruptcy. And victims have committed suicide and otherwise have had their lives ruined.
Brian W. Clowes and David L. Sonnier did a comprehensive study called "Child Molestation by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals" (Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2005). Among other things, they report that: (1) "Homosexual activists Karla Jay and Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report [Simon and Schuster] that 73% of all homosexuals...preyed on adolescent or younger boys," and (2) while homosexuals represent about two percent of the male population, according to the Archives of Sexual Behavior (vol. 29, no. 5, 2000), "around 25-40% of men [who are] attracted to children prefer boys." If you want pedophilia, notably pederasty, to continue in the priesthood, keep ordaining homosexuals.
According to the Washington Post (Nov. 23, 2005), neocon Brian Saint-Paul, the new Editor of Crisis, greeted the new document, "Concerning," with "satisfaction." The Post quoted him: "The Vatican has made a wise decision to come down in the middle of the road on this dispute." Really now?
William Donohue of the Catholic League, also a neocon, greeted "Concerning" with satisfaction. According to John L. Allen Jr.'s online "The Word From Rome" (Nov. 25, 2005), Donohue "welcomed the document's nuance." Said Donohue: "The Vatican is prudent not to have an absolute ban on admission of homosexuals to the priesthood...." (This is not unexpected, for Donohue appears to be soft on homosexuality. See the articles by Michael S. Rose in our Dec. 2005 issue and by Maria Briggs in our May 2005 issue. Donohue has also defended Fr. Marcial Maciel of the Legionaries of Christ from charges of pederasty.)
This document, "Concerning," is Pope Benedict's defining moment, and he flubbed it. Likewise, his appointment of William Levada to be Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was the most important appointment Benedict would make, and he flubbed that too. Then there was Benedict's cordial, high-profile, four-hour-long meeting with dissident theologian Hans Küng. Editorials in the National Catholic Reporter (Oct. 14, 2005) hailed this meeting as "refreshing indeed," "the importance of [this] symbol can't be far from anyone's imagination," and it "sets a positive example about how leaders can emphasize things that unite us...." An Editorial in Our Sunday Visitor (Nov. 20, 2005) chimed in saying: "Pope Benedict has shown himself to be a uniter rather than a divider." But how do you reconcile the irreconcilable? We prefer what Jesus said: "Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division" (Lk. 12:51)...
...The latest outrage is Benedict's appointment of Bishop George Niederauer to be Archbishop of San Francisco. Niederauer is clearly "gay"-friendlyHe pastored a parish in West Hollywood with a large "gay" congregation, where he said that homosexuals are "wonderful." As Bishop of Salt Lake City, he opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex "marriage." He denies that there is a link between homosexual priests and the molestation and rape of boys. He helped found the Coalition of Concerned Religious Leaders in Utah, which supports "tolerance" for homosexuals.(my emphasis throughout). Topping it off, he has been praised by Sam Sinnett, head of Dignity-USA, and Francis DeBernardo, head of New Ways Ministry - both groups being comprised of proud "gay" and lesbian Catholics.
At this rate, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's investigation of Fr. Maciel for multiple acts of pederasty on his seminarians will likely vanish into thin air. With "cover-up" Levada at the helm of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and with Benedict failing to uphold the 1961 document and basically endorsing the status quo regarding homosexuals in the priesthood, we cannot expect that the Vatican will do anything about the Maciel case...
...When Ratzinger became Pope, we orthodox Catholics were ecstatic. But it's likely that Benedict's papacy will be very unpleasant - even bitter, since we had such high hopes.
2. Lack of punishment of Bishops complicit in the Sexual Abuse Scandal
Dale Vree continues...In Karl Keating's E-Letter (March 8, 2005), he noted that for 26 years of the John Paul papacy, of which Ratzinger was the doctrinal watchdog for 24 years, only 24 people were disciplined. Keating comments: "That is fewer than one per year!... The Catholic Church boasts 1.1 billion members. This means that, on average, over the last quarter century, the Vatican has disciplined only one out of a billion members per year. This is about as close to zero as you can get. Is there any social, commercial, or governmental organization that disciplines such a small percentage of its people?... If the Church had the kind of inquisitorial bureaucracy that its critics imagine, the Vatican would be disciplining 24 people each week.... However you look at it, 24 cases in 26 years is...laughable." It appears that Ratzinger (now Benedict) is not the Panzerkardinal after all, not God's Rottweiler.
Ostensibly, if the current Pontiff believed that a homosexual Roman Catholic clergy was detrimental to the Church he is surely in a position to do something about it as was Pope John Paul II who clearly did not. Pope Paul VI did nothing to blunt the increase in number of Vatican clerics who were known to engage in homosexual behavior or were sympathetic to it. In fact, Guimares argues in his book In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, that Pope Paul VI actually assisted many homosexuals in finding positions throughout the Vatican hierarchy. It appears that the Holy See has tried to shield those at the Bishop level or higher who either were involved in the sexual abuse crisis or are otherwise known to engage in homosexual behavior albeit only with other adult men.
3. Virtual Lack of Preaching againt Homosexuality in the Catholic Church in the US
With the number of Catholic priests in the developed West in free-fall, it is more than peculiar that one never hears Old or New Testament scriptural references to homosexuality or even masturbation for that matter during the liturgical readings or in homilies througout the US. This cannot be accidental. In fact, my experience is that matters involving human sexuality are avoided like the plague by homilists.
4. Refusal to consider a married clergy option in the Latin Church
Since the maintenance of a chaste and celibate Roman Catholic clergy is a matter of discipline rather than docrtine or dogma, it theoretically can be changed. This would be one way to end the predominance of the homosexual contingent which is currently in control of Catholic seminaries in the US. Rectors and professors could be carefully screened eliminating those who have a history of admitting or favoring homosexual candidates.
If the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church as presently constituted including many of the seminary directors are either actively homosexual or at least sympathetic to homosexuality this would explain why nothing has been or is being done to rectify what clearly is a growing problem of monumental proportions and that is a predominately "gay" Roman Catholic clergy where the default position/mindset is one of homosexuality rather than heterosexuality. The negative fruits which have been forthcoming as the Catholic clergy became more and more "gay" could not be more obvious. Regrettably, it would be in the interest of an increasingly homosexual Roman Catholic clergy to resist attempts at eliminating them from the priesthood.
JPH
1. The abrupt change in language regarding homosexuality emanating from the Holy See as documented by Marian Horvatt in the prior piece and excerpted here.
He (Pope Benedict)clearly states that in his opinion, homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things, not to be compared or confused. Here he supports the progressivist contention that has spread to prevent public furor against pedophilia from striking at homosexuality. Certainly there is a difference between the two crimes when studied by scholars and punished by the courts, but regarding pedophile priests in the clergy, it so happens that the two vices are intimately related. Benedict ignores this fact.
He affirms categorically there is no place for pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood, but what about homosexuals? He says nothing against the homosexual subculture that has established itself in the American Catholic Church since Vatican II.
His actions since assuming the papal office confirm his soft stance on homosexuality in the priesthood. To replace him as head of the CDF, he chose his friend Archbishop William Levada, known for complacent handling of pedophile priests when he was Bishop of Portland, and for his friendly approach to homosexuals when he became Archbishop of San Francisco. Then he appointed as Archbishop of San Francisco George Niederauer, who openly supports “tolerance’ for homosexuals and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage.”
In 2006, Pope Ratzinger signed an unmistakably “soft” document setting out new guidelines regarding homosexuals entering the seminary.(7) Instead of condemning the sin against nature and firmly barring those who practice it or have tendencies toward it from the sacred priesthood, the document takes a more tolerant view. Only those with “deep-seated tendencies” toward homosexuality are barred from priesthood; those with “transitory problems” or “chaste” homosexuals can be accepted. New Oxford Review editor Dale Vree rightly noted that “the priesthood will continue to be or become a ‘gay’ profession, thanks to this document.”
Then there is this from Dale Vree:
original HERE...
We've been waiting nine long years for this document on homosexuals in the seminary. It has a long-winded title: "Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders" (hereafter "Concerning").
The document was obviously written by a committee - or many committees - and it intended to satisfy as many people as possible. But we are not satisfied, not in the least.
Bear in mind that this document is about "discipline" (or shall we say ill-discipline).
The most egregious sentence is that those "who practice homosexuality" (italics added) are "profoundly respected." So we should have profound respect for those who commit homosexual acts, which are mortal sins. By that logic, we should have profound respect for fornicators, adulterers, and child molesters.
On February 2, 1961, the Holy See promulgated a document called "Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders," signed by Pope John XXIII. The relevant section had one sentence on homosexuality: "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with the evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious danger" (#30; italics added). That's all that the new document, "Concerning," needed to say.
So how do we go from "evil tendencies" (i.e., orientation only) to having "profound respect" for homosexual acts in "Concerning"? Up until "Concerning," the 1961 document was never abrogated and was still in force. Indeed, on May 16, 2002, the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments reiterated the policy: "Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." It was published in the November-December issue of Notitiae, which means it is the position of the Holy See. Of course, this policy had been and continued to be violated by many bishops, major superiors, seminary rectors, and vocations directors.
Earlier in 1997 the Congregation for Divine Worship issued a letter to the world's bishops giving guidelines for candidates for the seminary. One stipulation was "sufficient affective maturity and a clearly masculine sexual identity." In the recently released document, "Concerning," the candidate "must reach affective maturity," but there is no mention of having a clearly masculine sexual identity.
By signing Concerning... Pope Benedict loses his conservative credentials.
And "Concerning" does repeal the previous policy. "Concerning" refers to "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" that supposedly would bar one from the seminary. Much consternation has been expressed about what "deep-seated" homosexual tendencies are. But "Concerning" does offer a contrast to deep-seated homosexual tendencies; it is "homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded" (italics added). In these cases, a homosexual whose homosexuality is "not yet superseded" can be admitted to the seminary. The contrast between "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" and "a transitory problem...not yet superseded" is pretty murky.
The Catechism (#2357-2359) makes a clear distinction between homosexual "acts" and "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" (also referred to as an "inclination" or a "condition," which in the U.S. is often called an "orientation"). But the Catechism does not speak of a "transitory problem." So, what is a "transitory problem"?
It turns out that a "transitory problem" includes homosexual acts. Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, which issued "Concerning" and is responsible for its implementation, gave an interview to Vatican Radio on November 29, 2005. Speaking of "transitory problems," he said: "For example, an uncompleted adolescence, some kind of curiosity; or perhaps accidental circumstances, a drunken state, maybe particular circumstances like a person who was imprisoned for many years. In these cases, homosexual acts do not come from a [deeply] rooted tendency.... These acts are done because one wants to obtain some sort of advantage.... These acts...do not constitute an obstacle to seminary admission or to holy orders" (italics added; translation from the Italian provided by Rocco Palmo).
The National Catholic Register had an interview with Cardinal Grocholewski (Dec. 11-17, 2005), where he explained what "transitory problems" are. He said basically the same things he said in the Vatican Radio interview, but added: "It may have been about pleasing a superior or someone he knows, or to earn money." And in a Register news story (same issue), transitory problems might involve "experiences that occurred under the influence of alcohol, drugs or coercion, Cardinal Grochelewski [sic] said" (italics added). The neocon Register registered no objection to any of this, not even in its Editorial in the same issue.
This certainly opens up a can of worms. So you can be in jail for "many years" and commit homosexual acts, and still you can be admitted to the seminary. You can commit homosexual acts in a "drunken state" or under the influence of illegal "drugs," and that's O.K. You can commit homosexual acts "to obtain some sort of advantage," and that's O.K. You can "please" a superior or someone else, and that's O.K. You can commit homosexual acts to earn money -- which would include being a "gay" male prostitute -- and that's O.K. Good golly, Miss Molly, it's a free-for-all!
Never mind homosexual acts; do we want priests who have been "imprisoned for many years," who are druggies, who sell their bodies (and their souls) for money? This is hideous in and of itself.
Moreover, any candidate for the seminary could say his problem with homosexuality is not "deep-seated" and is only a "transitory problem." Nothing will change with regard to admitting homosexuals into the seminary.
Even if a seminarian's homosexuality isn't "deep-seated," it will likely become deep-seated when he is placed in an all-male environment for five to eight years, and sleeping in bedrooms with men. Putting homosexuals in an all-male environment is what's called "an occasion of sin," that is, it leads to deep-seated temptations. You might as well put heterosexual men in the convent or a nunnery for five to eight years, and let them sleep in bedrooms with girls and women, and see how long they remain chaste.
Even homosexual tendencies (without committing the act) are considered by the Church to be "objectively disordered" (Catechism, #2358). What is objectively disordered inclines one to commit an intrinsic moral evil, in the case of homosexuality, a mortal sin. Just one lapse by a seminarian or priest, and he's blackmailable forever. Just as many bishops and cardinals are now, which goes a long way to explain why we have this ridiculous document, "Concerning." At least nine bishops have had to retire because of homosexual acts, and it wasn't because their brother bishops exposed them.
Under a "transitory problem," the new document, "Concerning," says the problem "must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate [which precedes being a priest by about one year]." And Cardinal Grocholewski reiterated this. So how does a seminary make sure about that? Put seminarians under house arrest - and in solitary confinement - for three years? Of course not. This three-year rule would be so easy to fake.
The 1961 document was signed by the "liberal" Pope John XXIII. "Concerning" was signed by Pope Benedict XVI, supposedly a "conservative." With his new policy, Benedict has forfeited his conservative credentials. Benedict has given away the store.
Moreover, "Concerning" says, "The call to orders is the personal responsibility of the Bishop or the major superior." It is obvious that nothing will change, for many bishops and many major superiors (along with their rectors and vocations directors) are the problem in the first place. They are the ones who have been admitting homosexuals into the seminary. Homosexuals represent about two percent of the male population and it is estimated that 25-50 percent of seminarians are homosexual, and in certain pink-palace seminaries the percentage is well beyond that.
In response to "Concerning," numerous bishops (including Bishop George Niederauer - more about him later) and numerous major superiors and seminary rectors have stated that they will continue to do what they've been doing - i.e., admitting homosexuals. And who can blame them? For "Concerning" has no teeth. As Mao said, it's a "paper tiger."
According to a news story in The New York Times (Sept. 15, 2005), Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J., the former Editor-in-Chief of America, said that "with the shortage of priests, the church can hardly afford to dismiss gay seminarians." And that is exactly what happened. Fr. Donald Cozzens, a former seminary rector, said in The Changing Face of the Priesthood that "the priesthood is or is becoming a gay profession." And it will continue to be or become a "gay" profession, thanks to "Concerning."
The Vatican forgot - or maybe it didn't care - that with so many homosexual seminarians (even in some conservative orders), many heterosexual, manly men will not apply for the seminary. And those who do enter often drop out, or, if they don't keep quiet about the "gay" culture in the seminary, they are kicked out.
Moreover, a celibate and chaste heterosexual priest gives up marriage and family, which is a huge sacrifice, while a celibate and chaste homosexual priest gives up what is "objectively disordered," which inclines one to commit a mortal sin.
Then there is the question of pedophilia. According to the John Jay Report, 81 percent of priest sex-abuse victims were boys. As of June 2005, the known settlements for pedophilia (the large majority of cases being pederasty) total $1.06 billion. Church property has been sold to pay the settlements. Dioceses have declared bankruptcy. And victims have committed suicide and otherwise have had their lives ruined.
Brian W. Clowes and David L. Sonnier did a comprehensive study called "Child Molestation by Homosexuals and Heterosexuals" (Homiletic & Pastoral Review, May 2005). Among other things, they report that: (1) "Homosexual activists Karla Jay and Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report [Simon and Schuster] that 73% of all homosexuals...preyed on adolescent or younger boys," and (2) while homosexuals represent about two percent of the male population, according to the Archives of Sexual Behavior (vol. 29, no. 5, 2000), "around 25-40% of men [who are] attracted to children prefer boys." If you want pedophilia, notably pederasty, to continue in the priesthood, keep ordaining homosexuals.
According to the Washington Post (Nov. 23, 2005), neocon Brian Saint-Paul, the new Editor of Crisis, greeted the new document, "Concerning," with "satisfaction." The Post quoted him: "The Vatican has made a wise decision to come down in the middle of the road on this dispute." Really now?
William Donohue of the Catholic League, also a neocon, greeted "Concerning" with satisfaction. According to John L. Allen Jr.'s online "The Word From Rome" (Nov. 25, 2005), Donohue "welcomed the document's nuance." Said Donohue: "The Vatican is prudent not to have an absolute ban on admission of homosexuals to the priesthood...." (This is not unexpected, for Donohue appears to be soft on homosexuality. See the articles by Michael S. Rose in our Dec. 2005 issue and by Maria Briggs in our May 2005 issue. Donohue has also defended Fr. Marcial Maciel of the Legionaries of Christ from charges of pederasty.)
This document, "Concerning," is Pope Benedict's defining moment, and he flubbed it. Likewise, his appointment of William Levada to be Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was the most important appointment Benedict would make, and he flubbed that too. Then there was Benedict's cordial, high-profile, four-hour-long meeting with dissident theologian Hans Küng. Editorials in the National Catholic Reporter (Oct. 14, 2005) hailed this meeting as "refreshing indeed," "the importance of [this] symbol can't be far from anyone's imagination," and it "sets a positive example about how leaders can emphasize things that unite us...." An Editorial in Our Sunday Visitor (Nov. 20, 2005) chimed in saying: "Pope Benedict has shown himself to be a uniter rather than a divider." But how do you reconcile the irreconcilable? We prefer what Jesus said: "Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division" (Lk. 12:51)...
...The latest outrage is Benedict's appointment of Bishop George Niederauer to be Archbishop of San Francisco. Niederauer is clearly "gay"-friendlyHe pastored a parish in West Hollywood with a large "gay" congregation, where he said that homosexuals are "wonderful." As Bishop of Salt Lake City, he opposed a constitutional ban on same-sex "marriage." He denies that there is a link between homosexual priests and the molestation and rape of boys. He helped found the Coalition of Concerned Religious Leaders in Utah, which supports "tolerance" for homosexuals.(my emphasis throughout). Topping it off, he has been praised by Sam Sinnett, head of Dignity-USA, and Francis DeBernardo, head of New Ways Ministry - both groups being comprised of proud "gay" and lesbian Catholics.
At this rate, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's investigation of Fr. Maciel for multiple acts of pederasty on his seminarians will likely vanish into thin air. With "cover-up" Levada at the helm of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and with Benedict failing to uphold the 1961 document and basically endorsing the status quo regarding homosexuals in the priesthood, we cannot expect that the Vatican will do anything about the Maciel case...
...When Ratzinger became Pope, we orthodox Catholics were ecstatic. But it's likely that Benedict's papacy will be very unpleasant - even bitter, since we had such high hopes.
2. Lack of punishment of Bishops complicit in the Sexual Abuse Scandal
Dale Vree continues...In Karl Keating's E-Letter (March 8, 2005), he noted that for 26 years of the John Paul papacy, of which Ratzinger was the doctrinal watchdog for 24 years, only 24 people were disciplined. Keating comments: "That is fewer than one per year!... The Catholic Church boasts 1.1 billion members. This means that, on average, over the last quarter century, the Vatican has disciplined only one out of a billion members per year. This is about as close to zero as you can get. Is there any social, commercial, or governmental organization that disciplines such a small percentage of its people?... If the Church had the kind of inquisitorial bureaucracy that its critics imagine, the Vatican would be disciplining 24 people each week.... However you look at it, 24 cases in 26 years is...laughable." It appears that Ratzinger (now Benedict) is not the Panzerkardinal after all, not God's Rottweiler.
Ostensibly, if the current Pontiff believed that a homosexual Roman Catholic clergy was detrimental to the Church he is surely in a position to do something about it as was Pope John Paul II who clearly did not. Pope Paul VI did nothing to blunt the increase in number of Vatican clerics who were known to engage in homosexual behavior or were sympathetic to it. In fact, Guimares argues in his book In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, that Pope Paul VI actually assisted many homosexuals in finding positions throughout the Vatican hierarchy. It appears that the Holy See has tried to shield those at the Bishop level or higher who either were involved in the sexual abuse crisis or are otherwise known to engage in homosexual behavior albeit only with other adult men.
3. Virtual Lack of Preaching againt Homosexuality in the Catholic Church in the US
With the number of Catholic priests in the developed West in free-fall, it is more than peculiar that one never hears Old or New Testament scriptural references to homosexuality or even masturbation for that matter during the liturgical readings or in homilies througout the US. This cannot be accidental. In fact, my experience is that matters involving human sexuality are avoided like the plague by homilists.
4. Refusal to consider a married clergy option in the Latin Church
Since the maintenance of a chaste and celibate Roman Catholic clergy is a matter of discipline rather than docrtine or dogma, it theoretically can be changed. This would be one way to end the predominance of the homosexual contingent which is currently in control of Catholic seminaries in the US. Rectors and professors could be carefully screened eliminating those who have a history of admitting or favoring homosexual candidates.
If the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church as presently constituted including many of the seminary directors are either actively homosexual or at least sympathetic to homosexuality this would explain why nothing has been or is being done to rectify what clearly is a growing problem of monumental proportions and that is a predominately "gay" Roman Catholic clergy where the default position/mindset is one of homosexuality rather than heterosexuality. The negative fruits which have been forthcoming as the Catholic clergy became more and more "gay" could not be more obvious. Regrettably, it would be in the interest of an increasingly homosexual Roman Catholic clergy to resist attempts at eliminating them from the priesthood.
JPH
Thursday, May 15, 2008
On the Sex Scandal:
Ratzinger Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
Tradition in Action
May 2, 2008, original HERE...
I waited a week before talking with my friend Jan about Benedict XVI’s visit to the U.S. By then, some of the euphoria had subsided, and she was ready to concede that the trip was more appearance than substance. These are some of the points my good friend told me she doesn’t understand:
For years she has opposed the UN as a Masonic tool to establish the One World Order. Now she asks: Why are the post-Conciliar Popes praising it and propping it up with their support?
She can’t understand how the representative of Christ on earth can enter a synagogue and praise the Jewish religion.
She realizes that the interfaith meetings held by Benedict in Washington and New York contradict past teaching of the Church and spread a message of religious relativism.
Suddenly, however, in our conversation, she had a strong psychological reaction and stopped analyzing the 5-day visit. Jan didn’t want to think about “negative” things any longer.
Did he protect the children as head of the CDF?
“Aren’t you tired of feeling bad about the Church?” she asked. “It was just wonderful for a week to feel good for a change.” Then she pointed to the “indisputable triumph” of Benedict, the times he addressed the Church’s ongoing sex-abuse scandal and his emotional 20-minute encounter with five victims.
For most Catholics the Pope’s addressing the clerical sex abuse crisis defines this trip. On four occasions, including to the press corps on his trip to Washington, he expressed his pain, compassion and concern. At his meeting with the U.S. Bishops in Washington, he even admitted the sexual abuse crisis had been “badly handled at times” by the Bishops. But immediately afterward he praised the work they were doing now to restore trust.
So we have it: some words of compassion and grief for the victims and one small acknowledgment of the obvious complicity of the Bishops that could hardly be called a censure.
“But what else could he do?” my friend Jan countered. “After all, he really can’t be blamed for anything.”
Beautiful words, but no disciplinary action
On that point, I – along with many commentators on the objective facts – have to differ. What he has delivered so far are clever words, no impartial censures, no disciplinary measures to contain an ongoing crisis.
Cardinal Law at St. Mary Major Basilica
One thing he could do is to punish complicit Bishops – so far a total of 19 American Bishops have been named either as directly involved in sexual abuse cases or in the resultant cover-up.(1) Not one has been penalized by Rome.
Even Cardinal Bernard Law wasn’t fired. He resigned of his own accord, only to go to Rome to be rewarded with very prestigious positions, among them Archpriest of St. Mary Major, the third more important basilica in Rome, after St. Peter Basilica and St John Lateran.
David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests justly observes:, “Thousands of predator priests have been suspended by Bishops, but no Bishops have been suspended by the Pope. Until he does, he essentially condones risk.”(2)
Whatever happened, it happened under his watch
Benedict’s non-culpability was the second part of Jan’s reaction. Regarding this, it seems clear to me he played a large role in the earlier cover-up of the pedophile priests and Bishops. Then, in the more recent past he has often taken a clear position supporting the priests and Bishops, affirming that the public reaction against clergy sexual abuse was chiefly media-produced.
On his U.S. visit, however, he “condemned” the actions of the guilty clergy. This sudden shift of position can raise the suspicion whether he assumed this new stance from a sincere movement of heart or for some other political reason. At any rate, until he assumes a line of action consistent with those fine words, they have a hollow ring.
“If I read the stories of these victims,” Benedict told reporters on the first day of his visit, “it is difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betrayed in this way their mission to give healing, to give love of God to these children.”(3)
At the Immaculate Conception National Shrine: Just a quick mention of the Bishops' guilt
There was no question of any “if” in reading the stories of victims. Joseph Ratzinger, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), had certainly been reading those files for many, many years. The diocesan reports of pedophile and homosexual priests, the heart-wrenching letters of victims and families addressed to the Vatican as a last recourse effort for justice – all ended on his desk. As the one responsible for overseeing the Church’s internal judicial process resulting from accusations of sexual abuse against a minor, he had to be aware of all the case files.
For 24 years, Cardinal Ratzinger responded to the abuse accusations by referring Bishops to the rules of Crimen Sollicitationis, in force since 1962. The instruction calls for secrecy – specifically in cases where priests are accused of abusing the Sacrament of Confession to sexually proposition penitents, and in extension, to clerics accused of homosexuality, child sexual abuse and bestiality. In effect, he used that document to insure secrecy and cover up sexual abuse by priests and Bishops. There is no doubt that Ratzinger was aware of the details of those scandals for a long, long time.
Then, in 2001, a year before the crisis came to public attention in the Boston press, Card. Ratzinger and his Secretary, then Archbishop Bertone, signed a letter of instruction sent to all Bishops titled De Delictis Gravioribus. It specified that cases of sexual abuse by clerics be referred directly to the CDF and be subject “to the pontifical secret.”
A prestigious greeting for Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, who recently paid $660 million to 508 victims
Journalist Ron Fraser gives details: “In his letter of May 18, 2001, sent to the Bishops, Ratzinger pointed to the Vatican’s firm instruction, issued from Rome in 1962, that regarding any accusation brought against a priest involving solicitation, ‘those same matter should be pursued in a most secretive way … They are to be restrained by a perpetual silence. Each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way … is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office’ (Vatican Press, Instruction on the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solitication, 1962).”(4)
Card. Ratzinger also endorsed the key clause Item 13, under the Preliminaries section of the 1962 Instruction, which states: “The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing [the priest] and the witnesses.”(5) In effect, this enabled Bishops to use their authority to silence the victims of priestly abuse by swearing them to secrecy under pain of excommunication.
These instructions were also broadly interpreted to mean that Bishops dealing with complaints against priests could cover them up and not report them to the police.
Smiles for Archbishop Pilarczyk (Cincinnati), who admitted lying and covering up clergy sexual abuse
An editorial in the April 26, 2008 The Tablet, aptly explained the veil of secrecy placed by Ratzinger over sexual abuse cases: He chose to give “greater weight to the prevention of scandal than to the protection of vulnerable minors.”
Therefore, we face a sad contradiction in the papal visit. When speaking to the United Nations in New York, Benedict emphasized the “responsibility to protect, which is not only a right but above all a responsibility.” Nonetheless, under his direction, the CDF counseled silence and secrecy to protect the Catholic authorities rather than the most vulnerable members of the flock, the children.
Did Pope Ratzinger have a change of heart or was he just saying beautiful words to please the American audience?
Pedophile and homosexual priests are closely linked
There is a final statement worthy of attention in Benedict’s response to reporters en route to the US. He assured Catholics that he would do everything possible to see that “this” [the sexual abuse crisis] would not happen in the future by keeping pedophiles out of the seminaries: “I will not speak in this moment about homosexuality, but pedophilia, [which] is another thing. We will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry, this is absolutely incompatible.”(6)
A warm embrace for Card. George, who recently covered for a pedophile priest
He clearly states that in his opinion, homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things, not to be compared or confused. Here he supports the progressivist contention that has spread to prevent public furor against pedophilia from striking at homosexuality. Certainly there is a difference between the two crimes when studied by scholars and punished by the courts, but regarding pedophile priests in the clergy, it so happens that the two vices are intimately related. Benedict ignores this fact.
He affirms categorically there is no place for pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood, but what about homosexuals? He says nothing against the homosexual subculture that has established itself in the American Catholic Church since Vatican II.
His actions since assuming the papal office confirm his soft stance on homosexuality in the priesthood. To replace him as head of the CDF, he chose his friend Archbishop William Levada, known for complacent handling of pedophile priests when he was Bishop of Portland, and for his friendly approach to homosexuals when he became Archbishop of San Francisco. Then he appointed as Archbishop of San Francisco George Niederauer, who openly supports “tolerance’ for homosexuals and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage.”
In 2006, Pope Ratzinger signed an unmistakably “soft” document setting out new guidelines regarding homosexuals entering the seminary.(7) Instead of condemning the sin against nature and firmly barring those who practice it or have tendencies toward it from the sacred priesthood, the document takes a more tolerant view. Only those with “deep-seated tendencies” toward homosexuality are barred from priesthood; those with “transitory problems” or “chaste” homosexuals can be accepted. New Oxford Review editor Dale Vree rightly noted that “the priesthood will continue to be or become a ‘gay’ profession, thanks to this document.”(8)
No, dear friend Jan, I do not believe that Benedict’s comforting words to the masses on the pedophilia crisis are enough for justice to be done and the Church morally healed. Nothing will change unless the Church addresses the root of the moral crisis, the toleration and favoring of both pedophilia and homosexuality in the clergy.
As Atila Guimaraes states in his work Vatican II, Homosexuality & Pedophilia, “Even if homosexual acts are not practiced, homosexuality per se is an aberration both in its tendency, the attraction of a man to another man, and in its end, the sin of sodomy. It cannot be tolerated in any degree or in any place, most especially in a place destined to form the future directors of Catholic souls and members of the Hierarchy.” [my emphasis](9)
1. Ron Fraser, “Benedict XVI and Vatican Justice,” The Trumpet online, April 27, 2008
2. “Benedict XVI in the United States,” The Tablet, April 26, 2008
3. Benedict begins historic visit,” Washington Post online, April 16, 2008
4. “Benedict XVI and Vatican Justice,” The Trumpet online, April 27, 2008
5. Ibid.
6. John Allen, “Transcript from Papal Plane,” National Catholic Reporter online, April 15, 2008
7. “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders"; for more on this document, see the article by Dale Vree, Why the Priesthood Will Continue To Become a "Gay" Profession
8. Ibid.
9. Los Angeles, Tradition in Action, 2004, p. 3
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.
Tradition in Action
May 2, 2008, original HERE...
I waited a week before talking with my friend Jan about Benedict XVI’s visit to the U.S. By then, some of the euphoria had subsided, and she was ready to concede that the trip was more appearance than substance. These are some of the points my good friend told me she doesn’t understand:
For years she has opposed the UN as a Masonic tool to establish the One World Order. Now she asks: Why are the post-Conciliar Popes praising it and propping it up with their support?
She can’t understand how the representative of Christ on earth can enter a synagogue and praise the Jewish religion.
She realizes that the interfaith meetings held by Benedict in Washington and New York contradict past teaching of the Church and spread a message of religious relativism.
Suddenly, however, in our conversation, she had a strong psychological reaction and stopped analyzing the 5-day visit. Jan didn’t want to think about “negative” things any longer.
Did he protect the children as head of the CDF?
“Aren’t you tired of feeling bad about the Church?” she asked. “It was just wonderful for a week to feel good for a change.” Then she pointed to the “indisputable triumph” of Benedict, the times he addressed the Church’s ongoing sex-abuse scandal and his emotional 20-minute encounter with five victims.
For most Catholics the Pope’s addressing the clerical sex abuse crisis defines this trip. On four occasions, including to the press corps on his trip to Washington, he expressed his pain, compassion and concern. At his meeting with the U.S. Bishops in Washington, he even admitted the sexual abuse crisis had been “badly handled at times” by the Bishops. But immediately afterward he praised the work they were doing now to restore trust.
So we have it: some words of compassion and grief for the victims and one small acknowledgment of the obvious complicity of the Bishops that could hardly be called a censure.
“But what else could he do?” my friend Jan countered. “After all, he really can’t be blamed for anything.”
Beautiful words, but no disciplinary action
On that point, I – along with many commentators on the objective facts – have to differ. What he has delivered so far are clever words, no impartial censures, no disciplinary measures to contain an ongoing crisis.
Cardinal Law at St. Mary Major Basilica
One thing he could do is to punish complicit Bishops – so far a total of 19 American Bishops have been named either as directly involved in sexual abuse cases or in the resultant cover-up.(1) Not one has been penalized by Rome.
Even Cardinal Bernard Law wasn’t fired. He resigned of his own accord, only to go to Rome to be rewarded with very prestigious positions, among them Archpriest of St. Mary Major, the third more important basilica in Rome, after St. Peter Basilica and St John Lateran.
David Clohessy, director of the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests justly observes:, “Thousands of predator priests have been suspended by Bishops, but no Bishops have been suspended by the Pope. Until he does, he essentially condones risk.”(2)
Whatever happened, it happened under his watch
Benedict’s non-culpability was the second part of Jan’s reaction. Regarding this, it seems clear to me he played a large role in the earlier cover-up of the pedophile priests and Bishops. Then, in the more recent past he has often taken a clear position supporting the priests and Bishops, affirming that the public reaction against clergy sexual abuse was chiefly media-produced.
On his U.S. visit, however, he “condemned” the actions of the guilty clergy. This sudden shift of position can raise the suspicion whether he assumed this new stance from a sincere movement of heart or for some other political reason. At any rate, until he assumes a line of action consistent with those fine words, they have a hollow ring.
“If I read the stories of these victims,” Benedict told reporters on the first day of his visit, “it is difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betrayed in this way their mission to give healing, to give love of God to these children.”(3)
At the Immaculate Conception National Shrine: Just a quick mention of the Bishops' guilt
There was no question of any “if” in reading the stories of victims. Joseph Ratzinger, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), had certainly been reading those files for many, many years. The diocesan reports of pedophile and homosexual priests, the heart-wrenching letters of victims and families addressed to the Vatican as a last recourse effort for justice – all ended on his desk. As the one responsible for overseeing the Church’s internal judicial process resulting from accusations of sexual abuse against a minor, he had to be aware of all the case files.
For 24 years, Cardinal Ratzinger responded to the abuse accusations by referring Bishops to the rules of Crimen Sollicitationis, in force since 1962. The instruction calls for secrecy – specifically in cases where priests are accused of abusing the Sacrament of Confession to sexually proposition penitents, and in extension, to clerics accused of homosexuality, child sexual abuse and bestiality. In effect, he used that document to insure secrecy and cover up sexual abuse by priests and Bishops. There is no doubt that Ratzinger was aware of the details of those scandals for a long, long time.
Then, in 2001, a year before the crisis came to public attention in the Boston press, Card. Ratzinger and his Secretary, then Archbishop Bertone, signed a letter of instruction sent to all Bishops titled De Delictis Gravioribus. It specified that cases of sexual abuse by clerics be referred directly to the CDF and be subject “to the pontifical secret.”
A prestigious greeting for Cardinal Mahony of Los Angeles, who recently paid $660 million to 508 victims
Journalist Ron Fraser gives details: “In his letter of May 18, 2001, sent to the Bishops, Ratzinger pointed to the Vatican’s firm instruction, issued from Rome in 1962, that regarding any accusation brought against a priest involving solicitation, ‘those same matter should be pursued in a most secretive way … They are to be restrained by a perpetual silence. Each and everyone pertaining to the tribunal in any way … is to observe the strictest secret, which is commonly regarded as a secret of the Holy Office’ (Vatican Press, Instruction on the Manner of Proceeding in Cases of Solitication, 1962).”(4)
Card. Ratzinger also endorsed the key clause Item 13, under the Preliminaries section of the 1962 Instruction, which states: “The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing [the priest] and the witnesses.”(5) In effect, this enabled Bishops to use their authority to silence the victims of priestly abuse by swearing them to secrecy under pain of excommunication.
These instructions were also broadly interpreted to mean that Bishops dealing with complaints against priests could cover them up and not report them to the police.
Smiles for Archbishop Pilarczyk (Cincinnati), who admitted lying and covering up clergy sexual abuse
An editorial in the April 26, 2008 The Tablet, aptly explained the veil of secrecy placed by Ratzinger over sexual abuse cases: He chose to give “greater weight to the prevention of scandal than to the protection of vulnerable minors.”
Therefore, we face a sad contradiction in the papal visit. When speaking to the United Nations in New York, Benedict emphasized the “responsibility to protect, which is not only a right but above all a responsibility.” Nonetheless, under his direction, the CDF counseled silence and secrecy to protect the Catholic authorities rather than the most vulnerable members of the flock, the children.
Did Pope Ratzinger have a change of heart or was he just saying beautiful words to please the American audience?
Pedophile and homosexual priests are closely linked
There is a final statement worthy of attention in Benedict’s response to reporters en route to the US. He assured Catholics that he would do everything possible to see that “this” [the sexual abuse crisis] would not happen in the future by keeping pedophiles out of the seminaries: “I will not speak in this moment about homosexuality, but pedophilia, [which] is another thing. We will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry, this is absolutely incompatible.”(6)
A warm embrace for Card. George, who recently covered for a pedophile priest
He clearly states that in his opinion, homosexuality and pedophilia are two different things, not to be compared or confused. Here he supports the progressivist contention that has spread to prevent public furor against pedophilia from striking at homosexuality. Certainly there is a difference between the two crimes when studied by scholars and punished by the courts, but regarding pedophile priests in the clergy, it so happens that the two vices are intimately related. Benedict ignores this fact.
He affirms categorically there is no place for pedophiles in the Catholic priesthood, but what about homosexuals? He says nothing against the homosexual subculture that has established itself in the American Catholic Church since Vatican II.
His actions since assuming the papal office confirm his soft stance on homosexuality in the priesthood. To replace him as head of the CDF, he chose his friend Archbishop William Levada, known for complacent handling of pedophile priests when he was Bishop of Portland, and for his friendly approach to homosexuals when he became Archbishop of San Francisco. Then he appointed as Archbishop of San Francisco George Niederauer, who openly supports “tolerance’ for homosexuals and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex “marriage.”
In 2006, Pope Ratzinger signed an unmistakably “soft” document setting out new guidelines regarding homosexuals entering the seminary.(7) Instead of condemning the sin against nature and firmly barring those who practice it or have tendencies toward it from the sacred priesthood, the document takes a more tolerant view. Only those with “deep-seated tendencies” toward homosexuality are barred from priesthood; those with “transitory problems” or “chaste” homosexuals can be accepted. New Oxford Review editor Dale Vree rightly noted that “the priesthood will continue to be or become a ‘gay’ profession, thanks to this document.”(8)
No, dear friend Jan, I do not believe that Benedict’s comforting words to the masses on the pedophilia crisis are enough for justice to be done and the Church morally healed. Nothing will change unless the Church addresses the root of the moral crisis, the toleration and favoring of both pedophilia and homosexuality in the clergy.
As Atila Guimaraes states in his work Vatican II, Homosexuality & Pedophilia, “Even if homosexual acts are not practiced, homosexuality per se is an aberration both in its tendency, the attraction of a man to another man, and in its end, the sin of sodomy. It cannot be tolerated in any degree or in any place, most especially in a place destined to form the future directors of Catholic souls and members of the Hierarchy.” [my emphasis](9)
1. Ron Fraser, “Benedict XVI and Vatican Justice,” The Trumpet online, April 27, 2008
2. “Benedict XVI in the United States,” The Tablet, April 26, 2008
3. Benedict begins historic visit,” Washington Post online, April 16, 2008
4. “Benedict XVI and Vatican Justice,” The Trumpet online, April 27, 2008
5. Ibid.
6. John Allen, “Transcript from Papal Plane,” National Catholic Reporter online, April 15, 2008
7. “Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders"; for more on this document, see the article by Dale Vree, Why the Priesthood Will Continue To Become a "Gay" Profession
8. Ibid.
9. Los Angeles, Tradition in Action, 2004, p. 3
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Historicism: License for the New Theology of Vatican II?
Historicism has apparently been proposed by the progressivists (neo-modernists) who prevailed at Vatican II as the overarching principal by which the perennial truths of Sacred Tradition are now to be considered.
Reduced to its lowest common denominator Historicism appears to refer to the new ecclesiology by which those doctrinal truths which prior to Vatican II were always and everywhere believed by Roman Catholics vis a vis the Vincentian Canon-- have been rendered subject to change on the assumption/declaration that all such apparently immutable pronouncements apply only to the time in which they were formulated. Thus, other times and circumstances may demand that they be either altered or completely eliminated. In one fell swoop the entire notion of immutability of key doctrines/dogmas has ostensibly been done away with and for that matter one leg (Sacred Tradition) of the "3" legged stool which historically stabilized the Catholic faith.
Thus the Church of Christ which for almost 2000 years was identical to the Roman Catholic Church has now become something which only "includes" the Roman Catholic Church among other Churches, sects etc. (albeit to a greater extent than the rest according to Vatican II). It is now possible to belong to the Church of Christ to greater or lesser degrees. Presumably, this does away with the troubling problem of violating the law of non-contradiction. What appears to be a hopeless incompatibility/contradiction is overcome by declaring that Truth is relative to time and place. This undermines the very meaning of absolute (timeless) truth--if words are to have any meaning. Under the New Theology it is never possible to know for sure if a given doctrine/dogma/belief or practice is foundational/stable.
For example, at one time it was necessary to prohibit Roman Catholics--on pain of mortal sin--from participating in the religious services of non-Catholics. During another period e.g. the one in which we now find ourselves, ecumenical inter-religious services are even encouraged and participated in to varying degrees by the Holy See. The Pope has even been seen distributing communion to notorious non-Catholics--a practice which at one time would have been unthinkable.
Moreover, at one time in the history of the Church it may have seemed necessary to hold that the Roman Catholic Church was identical with-- in fact was the only Church of Christ. At another, it is apparently propitious to claim that she is only one among many other sects/organizations which themselves are to some degree members of the Church of Christ. What was once an all or none phenomenon has now become a kind of "sliding scale."
With Historicism as a new foundational principle, one wonders to what extent it is even reasonable to believe that the new pronouncements are correct even now. What assurance is there that in 50 years the current beliefs and practices will still be valid--and if not--given the evolutionary nature of the Catholic Church vis a vis Historicism, why not allow each person to determine what personally seems valid to them--ala the principle of "private interpretation" much as so-called "cafeteria Catholics" do now? The Vatican at least implicitly accepts private interpratation given that the new view of the Church of Christ includes those Protestant churches who still adhere to Sola Scriptura as a dogma. On what basis are Roman catholics to be denied a belief in private interpratation for that matter even on such contentious topics as artificial contraception and procurred abortion? Why should any professing Catholic be disciplined (such as in withholding of the Eucharist) for failing to accept Roman Catholic Church teaching on these or any other issues which currently confront contemporary Christians--e.g., a pro-choice abortion position, divorce and re-marriage, destructive embryo research, euthanasia etc.?
What if one's personal degree of "theological evolutionary* progress" outstrips the contemporary view of the Vatican on belief or practice? Who is to say then that such a belief seriously held, is unacceptable--the current, the past or the future Magisterium? These are all questions which I find difficult to answer given the new Historicism of the post-Conciliar church.
JPH
*Guimaraes, Smith and others maintain that evolution of belief was a foundational principle which unifies Vatican II ecclesiology. The progressivists who prevailed at Vatican II apparently admit as much in their own words and statements.
Reduced to its lowest common denominator Historicism appears to refer to the new ecclesiology by which those doctrinal truths which prior to Vatican II were always and everywhere believed by Roman Catholics vis a vis the Vincentian Canon-- have been rendered subject to change on the assumption/declaration that all such apparently immutable pronouncements apply only to the time in which they were formulated. Thus, other times and circumstances may demand that they be either altered or completely eliminated. In one fell swoop the entire notion of immutability of key doctrines/dogmas has ostensibly been done away with and for that matter one leg (Sacred Tradition) of the "3" legged stool which historically stabilized the Catholic faith.
Thus the Church of Christ which for almost 2000 years was identical to the Roman Catholic Church has now become something which only "includes" the Roman Catholic Church among other Churches, sects etc. (albeit to a greater extent than the rest according to Vatican II). It is now possible to belong to the Church of Christ to greater or lesser degrees. Presumably, this does away with the troubling problem of violating the law of non-contradiction. What appears to be a hopeless incompatibility/contradiction is overcome by declaring that Truth is relative to time and place. This undermines the very meaning of absolute (timeless) truth--if words are to have any meaning. Under the New Theology it is never possible to know for sure if a given doctrine/dogma/belief or practice is foundational/stable.
For example, at one time it was necessary to prohibit Roman Catholics--on pain of mortal sin--from participating in the religious services of non-Catholics. During another period e.g. the one in which we now find ourselves, ecumenical inter-religious services are even encouraged and participated in to varying degrees by the Holy See. The Pope has even been seen distributing communion to notorious non-Catholics--a practice which at one time would have been unthinkable.
Moreover, at one time in the history of the Church it may have seemed necessary to hold that the Roman Catholic Church was identical with-- in fact was the only Church of Christ. At another, it is apparently propitious to claim that she is only one among many other sects/organizations which themselves are to some degree members of the Church of Christ. What was once an all or none phenomenon has now become a kind of "sliding scale."
With Historicism as a new foundational principle, one wonders to what extent it is even reasonable to believe that the new pronouncements are correct even now. What assurance is there that in 50 years the current beliefs and practices will still be valid--and if not--given the evolutionary nature of the Catholic Church vis a vis Historicism, why not allow each person to determine what personally seems valid to them--ala the principle of "private interpretation" much as so-called "cafeteria Catholics" do now? The Vatican at least implicitly accepts private interpratation given that the new view of the Church of Christ includes those Protestant churches who still adhere to Sola Scriptura as a dogma. On what basis are Roman catholics to be denied a belief in private interpratation for that matter even on such contentious topics as artificial contraception and procurred abortion? Why should any professing Catholic be disciplined (such as in withholding of the Eucharist) for failing to accept Roman Catholic Church teaching on these or any other issues which currently confront contemporary Christians--e.g., a pro-choice abortion position, divorce and re-marriage, destructive embryo research, euthanasia etc.?
What if one's personal degree of "theological evolutionary* progress" outstrips the contemporary view of the Vatican on belief or practice? Who is to say then that such a belief seriously held, is unacceptable--the current, the past or the future Magisterium? These are all questions which I find difficult to answer given the new Historicism of the post-Conciliar church.
JPH
*Guimaraes, Smith and others maintain that evolution of belief was a foundational principle which unifies Vatican II ecclesiology. The progressivists who prevailed at Vatican II apparently admit as much in their own words and statements.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Is this Matthew 24: 5-14?
The Eschatological Discourse
Signs of the End of the Age
1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings.
2 "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.
5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, [a] ' and will deceive many.
6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.
10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other,
11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,
13 but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
15 "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—
16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
17 Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house.
18 Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak.
19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!
20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.
21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
23 At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.
24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.
25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.
27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29 "Immediately after the distress of those days"
'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c]
30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.
33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door.
34 I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
The Day and Hour Unknown
36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father.
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.
41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42 "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.
43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.
44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
45 "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?
46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.
47 I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,'
49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards.
50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of.
51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(My emphasis throughout, JPH)
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 24:5 Or Messiah; also in verse 23
b. Matthew 24:15 Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11
c. Matthew 24:29 Isaiah 13:10; 34:4
d. Matthew 24:33 Or he
e. Matthew 24:34 Or race
f. Matthew 24:36 Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.
NOTE:
Today, an earthquake occured in China which measured 7.8 on the Richter scale, reputed already to have killed several thousand people. Roughtly 10 days ago a cyclone hit Burma which to date has been responible for the deaths of over 100 thousand people. Severe tornadoes have destroyed a large swath of property in the southern states of the US resulting in deaths over the past 24 hours--this in the wake of severe flooding in the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys. It is being widely reported that more and more people are experiencing starvation around the world at least in part due to rising energy prices.
Their are myriads of wars, disputes and the like throughout the world and it is now widely rumored that the US will strike Iran before the end of the Bush administration. Scientific data have estalished that there has been a significant increase in virulent bacteria some of which are resistant to all known antiiotics. As everyone knows, some viruses formerly seen only in animals have managed to cross the animal/human barrier. With books, newspapers, TV, radio, satellites and the internet, it is at least arguable that the Gospel of Christ has now been preached to the whole world. One could go on and on.
It is hard not to think that Matthew 24: 5-14 is currently underway. Obviously, no one can know for certain. However, Christ provided clues such that his faithful would be aware of the signs and seasons. Prudence would seem to demand that one at least entertain the possibility that God is currently unfolding the kind of warning which Matt. 24: 5-14 provides. See also II Thessalonians 2: 1-12.
The Navarre Biblical Commentaries on Matthew have been useful to me in separating the parts of chapter 24 which refer to Israel including the sack of Jerusalem and those which pertain specifically to the return of Christ and the period which will precede it--what Christ called the "birth pangs." I recommend the Navarre Series to those with an interest in eschatology especially those trying to make sense of current world developments.
JPH
Signs of the End of the Age
1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings.
2 "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.
5 For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ, [a] ' and will deceive many.
6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me.
10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other,
11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,
13 but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
15 "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,'[b] spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—
16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.
17 Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house.
18 Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak.
19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!
20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.
21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
23 At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.
24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.
25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 "So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it.
27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.
29 "Immediately after the distress of those days"
'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'[c]
30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.
31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
32 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near.
33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[d]is near, right at the door.
34 I tell you the truth, this generation[e] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
The Day and Hour Unknown
36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father.
37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
38 For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark;
39 and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.
40 Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left.
41 Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.
42 "Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come.
43 But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into.
44 So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
45 "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?
46 It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns.
47 I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.
48 But suppose that servant is wicked and says to himself, 'My master is staying away a long time,'
49 and he then begins to beat his fellow servants and to eat and drink with drunkards.
50 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of.
51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
(My emphasis throughout, JPH)
Footnotes:
a. Matthew 24:5 Or Messiah; also in verse 23
b. Matthew 24:15 Daniel 9:27; 11:31; 12:11
c. Matthew 24:29 Isaiah 13:10; 34:4
d. Matthew 24:33 Or he
e. Matthew 24:34 Or race
f. Matthew 24:36 Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.
NOTE:
Today, an earthquake occured in China which measured 7.8 on the Richter scale, reputed already to have killed several thousand people. Roughtly 10 days ago a cyclone hit Burma which to date has been responible for the deaths of over 100 thousand people. Severe tornadoes have destroyed a large swath of property in the southern states of the US resulting in deaths over the past 24 hours--this in the wake of severe flooding in the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys. It is being widely reported that more and more people are experiencing starvation around the world at least in part due to rising energy prices.
Their are myriads of wars, disputes and the like throughout the world and it is now widely rumored that the US will strike Iran before the end of the Bush administration. Scientific data have estalished that there has been a significant increase in virulent bacteria some of which are resistant to all known antiiotics. As everyone knows, some viruses formerly seen only in animals have managed to cross the animal/human barrier. With books, newspapers, TV, radio, satellites and the internet, it is at least arguable that the Gospel of Christ has now been preached to the whole world. One could go on and on.
It is hard not to think that Matthew 24: 5-14 is currently underway. Obviously, no one can know for certain. However, Christ provided clues such that his faithful would be aware of the signs and seasons. Prudence would seem to demand that one at least entertain the possibility that God is currently unfolding the kind of warning which Matt. 24: 5-14 provides. See also II Thessalonians 2: 1-12.
The Navarre Biblical Commentaries on Matthew have been useful to me in separating the parts of chapter 24 which refer to Israel including the sack of Jerusalem and those which pertain specifically to the return of Christ and the period which will precede it--what Christ called the "birth pangs." I recommend the Navarre Series to those with an interest in eschatology especially those trying to make sense of current world developments.
JPH
Sunday, May 11, 2008
SSPX Superior General Bernard Fellay On the Current Crisis in the Church
SUPERIOR GENERAL’S
LETTER TO FRIENDS AND BENEFACTORS #72
Society of Saint Pius X
Priorat Mariae Verkundigung
Schloss Schwandegg
Menzingen, ZG, CH-6313
SWITZERLAND
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, which acknowledged that the Tridentine Mass was never abrogated, raises a certain number of questions concerning the future of the relations of the Society of St. Pius X with Rome. Several persons in conservative circles and in Rome itself have made themselves heard, arguing that, since the Sovereign Pontiff had acted so generously and thus given a clear sign of his good will towards us, there would be nothing left for the Society to do but to “sign an agreement with Rome.” Unfortunately, a few of our friends were deceived by such an illusion. We would like to take the opportunity of this Eastertide letter to review once again the principles governing our actions in these troubled times and point out a few recent events which clearly indicate that, basically, nothing has really changed except for the motu proprio’s liturgical overture, so as to draw from all this the necessary conclusions.
Alteration of the Faith
The fundamental principle that dictates our action is the safeguard of the faith, without which no one can be saved, no one can receive grace, no one can be pleasing to God, as the First Vatican Council states. The liturgical question is not paramount; it only becomes such inasmuch as it is the manifestation of an alteration of the faith and, consequently, of the worship due to God.
A notable change of orientation took place at Vatican II with regard to the Church’s outlook, especially on the world, other religions, the State, and even itself. These changes have been acknowledged by all, yet not all judged them in the same way. Until now, they were presented as being very profound, even revolutionary. One cardinal at the Council could even speak of “the 1789 Revolution in the Church.”
While still a cardinal, Benedict XVI phrased it thus: “The challenge of the sixties was to assimilate the best values expressed in two centuries of ‘liberal’ culture. These are values which, even if they originate outside the Church, can find a place, once purified and corrected, in her vision of the world. This is what was done.”1 In the name of this assimilation, a new vision of the world and its components was imposed: a fundamentally positive vision, which dictated not only a new liturgical rite, but also a new mode of presence of the Church in the world: much more horizontal, and more concerned about social and temporal problems than those of a supernatural and eternal character...
At the same time, the Church’s relationship with the other religions underwent a transformation. Since Vatican II, Rome has avoided any negative or depreciatory observations about other religions. For example, the classic term of “false religions” has completely disappeared from ecclesiastical vocabulary. The words “heretic” and “schismatic,” which used to designate the religions closer to the Catholic Church, have also disappeared, except when they are occasionally employed, especially the term “schismatic,” to label us. The same holds true for the term “excommunication.” The new approach is called ecumenism, and contrary to what everyone used to think, it does not mean a return to Catholic unity, but rather the establishment of a new kind of unity that no longer requires conversion.
Broadening the Traditional Definition of the Church
Christian denominations are considered under a new light, and this is especially clear for the Orthodox. In the Balamand Declaration, the Catholic Church officially pledged herself to not convert the Orthodox and to collaborate with them. The dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation,” recalled in the document Dominus Jesus, underwent a reinterpretation for the sake of the new vision of things. They could not keep this dogma without broadening the limits of the Church, and this was accomplished by the new definition of the Church given in Lumen Gentium. The Church of Christ is no longer the Catholic Church, it subsists in her. They may say that it subsists only in her, but the fact remains that they claim that the Holy Ghost and this “Church of Christ” act outside the Catholic Church. The other religions are not without elements of salvation... The “Orthodox Churches” become authentic particular churches in which “the Church of Christ” is built.
Obviously, these new views completely disrupted the Church’s relations with the other religions. It is impossible to speak of a superficial change; for what they want to impose on the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ is a new and very profound mutation. John Paul II consequently was able to speak of a “new ecclesiology,” admitting an essential change in the part of the theology that treats of the Church. We simply cannot understand how they can claim that this new understanding of the Church is still in harmony with the traditional definition of the Church. It is new; it is radically different and obliges the Catholic to observe a fundamentally different behavior towards the heretics and schismatics, who have tragically abandoned the Church and scorned the faith of their baptism. From now on they are no longer “separated brethren,” but brothers who “are not in full communion”... and we are “deeply united” by baptism in Christ in an “inamissible”2 union. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s latest clarification of the word “subsistit” is very revealing on this point. Even as it states that the Church cannot teach novelty, it confirms the novelty introduced at the Council...
Evangelization
Likewise for evangelization: the sacred duty of every Christian to respond to our Lord Jesus Christ’s command is at first upheld: “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk. 16: 15-16). But then it is alleged that this evangelization only concerns the pagans, so that neither Christians nor Jews need be bothered. Very recently Cardinals Kasper and Bertone, addressing the controversy over the new prayer for the Jews, stated that the Church has no intention of converting them.
Doublespeak
Add to this the pope’s positions on religious liberty, and we can easily conclude that the combat for the faith has not slackened over these last few years. The motu proprio that introduces the hope of a change for the better in matters liturgical is not accompanied by the logically related measures that should follow in other domains of the Church’s life. All the changes introduced at the Council and in the post-conciliar reforms, which we denounce precisely because the Church had already condemned them, have been upheld. The only difference is that now they claim at the same time that the Church does not change... which amounts to saying that these changes are perfectly in line with Catholic Tradition. This confusion of terminology combined with the assertion that the Church must remain faithful to her Tradition might well be troubling to more than a few. So long as facts do not corroborate this new assertion, we must conclude that nothing has changed in Rome’s intention to pursue the conciliar course despite forty years of crisis, despite vacant convents, abandoned rectories, and empty churches. Catholic universities persist in their divagations, and the teaching of the catechism is uncertain while Catholic schools are no longer specifically Catholic: they have become an extinct species...
Cannot Go That Way, Forsaking The Way
For these reasons the Priestly Society of St. Pius X cannot sign an “agreement.” It definitely rejoices at the pope’s desire to reintroduce the ancient and venerable rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, yet it also observes the opposition— sometimes very tenacious—of entire bishops’ conferences. Without giving up hope and without impatience, we can see that the time for an agreement has not yet come. This does not prevent us from continuing to hope, nor from following the line of conduct defined in the year 2000. We are still asking the Holy Father to annul the 1988 decree of excommunication because we are convinced that this would be a boon for the Church, and we encourage you to pray for this to happen. But it would be very imprudent and hasty to dash off ill-advisedly in pursuit of a practical agreement that would not be based on the Church’s fundamental principles, and especially the faith.
The new Rosary Crusade we have invited you to join, to pray that the Church recover and resume her bimillennial Tradition, calls for some clarification. This is how we envision it: let everyone pledge to recite daily a rosary at a fairly fixed time of day. Given the number of our faithful and their distribution throughout the whole world, we can be assured that at every hour of the day and night prayerful voices will be ascending to heaven, voices earnestly praying for the triumph of their heavenly Mother and the coming of the reign of our Lord “on earth as it is in heaven.”
+ Bernard Fellay
Superior General
April 14, 2008
originally posted on Stephen Hand's site HERE...
Footnotes
1 Interview, Jesus, November 1984, p. 72.
2 [Theological term meaning “that cannot be lost”—Translator’s note.]
Does it Matter Whether A Professing Christian is Roman Catholic?
Prior to Vatican II, it was abundantly clear from Catholic teaching that the Roman Catholic Church was to be regarded as the true Church of Christ and that not to be a member in good standing of her was to risk spending eternity in Hell unless by the grace of God one was determined to be in a state of invincible ignorance.
The problem of course was that if a person had enough insight to question whether or not such a situation applied to them, it was likely that they were not invincibly ignorant. Under those circumstances it was dangerous indeed to remain uncommitted to or "fallen-away" from the Roman Catholic Church.
In light of Vatican II ecclesiology, it seems that it is no longer necessary to be Roman Catholic. Based on a reading of Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio and Gaudium et Spes where one attempts to give the most favorable light to the Council Fathers it might be possible to say that while not necessary, being Roman Catholic is helpful or more advantageous than being a non-Roman Catholic Christian and preferable to not being Christian at all. This is the sense in which the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church pp. 213-230 presents the section on the 4 distinguishing marks (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) of the Church. I am unable after reading CCC #846 on EENS (Extra Esslesium Nulla Sullus) which references Lumen Gentium no. 16 [ LG no.'s 14 & 15 are actually more relevant to the matter at hand] to harmonize the current post-Vatican II teaching with that of Sacred Tradition.
I would surely appreciate any help which the appropriate Magisterial authority can provide in way of clarifying once and for all that no major change in Sacred Tradition has occured with regard to the precept ""outside the Roman Catholic Church under the authority of the Roman Pontiff there is no salvation" as was consistently taught prior to 1965.
As I have said before, there is a tremendous amount riding on this clarification not only in the material sense but of course in the spiritual sense of the millions of potential souls lost as a result of the preception that it is no longer necessary to actively convert non-Roman Catholics or to remain in the Roman Catholic fold. No doubt many Priests and Religious became laicized at least in part due to what they perceived to be a fundamental alteration in the very nature of the Church they served.
JPH
The problem of course was that if a person had enough insight to question whether or not such a situation applied to them, it was likely that they were not invincibly ignorant. Under those circumstances it was dangerous indeed to remain uncommitted to or "fallen-away" from the Roman Catholic Church.
In light of Vatican II ecclesiology, it seems that it is no longer necessary to be Roman Catholic. Based on a reading of Lumen Gentium, Unitatis Redintegratio and Gaudium et Spes where one attempts to give the most favorable light to the Council Fathers it might be possible to say that while not necessary, being Roman Catholic is helpful or more advantageous than being a non-Roman Catholic Christian and preferable to not being Christian at all. This is the sense in which the 1997 Catechism of the Catholic Church pp. 213-230 presents the section on the 4 distinguishing marks (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) of the Church. I am unable after reading CCC #846 on EENS (Extra Esslesium Nulla Sullus) which references Lumen Gentium no. 16 [ LG no.'s 14 & 15 are actually more relevant to the matter at hand] to harmonize the current post-Vatican II teaching with that of Sacred Tradition.
I would surely appreciate any help which the appropriate Magisterial authority can provide in way of clarifying once and for all that no major change in Sacred Tradition has occured with regard to the precept ""outside the Roman Catholic Church under the authority of the Roman Pontiff there is no salvation" as was consistently taught prior to 1965.
As I have said before, there is a tremendous amount riding on this clarification not only in the material sense but of course in the spiritual sense of the millions of potential souls lost as a result of the preception that it is no longer necessary to actively convert non-Roman Catholics or to remain in the Roman Catholic fold. No doubt many Priests and Religious became laicized at least in part due to what they perceived to be a fundamental alteration in the very nature of the Church they served.
JPH
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in Light of Vatican II
In reciting the Nicene and Apostles Creeds, and in light of the changes resulting from Vatican II, one may rightly ask: what is meant by "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?" Clearly, something different entirely was envisioned by Progressivists. These individuals developed the New Theology, managed to entirely prevail at and after the Second Vatican Council and succeeded in completely redefining the concept of the "Church of Christ."
Prior to the Second Vatican Council, traditional Catholic teaching held that the Roman Catholic Church was identical to the Church of Christ. Post Vatican II, the Church of Christ according to Conciliar documents only "subsists in" that is; exists in the Roman Catholic Church and is no longer identical with it. The Church of Christ is said to exist in other entities as well some of which in the past were termed schismatic or apostate such as the Greek Orthodox Church and the various Protestant sects.
Moreover,in light of Vatican II eclesiology even non-Christian sects such as Judaism and Islam can be considered in some sense part of the Church of Christ albeit to lesser degrees than the Roman Catholic Church or those who have "separated" themselves from it. In other words, an entity larger and more encompassing than the Roman Catholic Church is now said to define the "Church of Christ" even though the so-called fullest manifestation of it is apparently to be found in the Roman Catholic Church. This represents a profound alteration in Catholic teaching and from a philosophical perspective appears to violate the law of non-contradiction. It is not logically possible for the Church of Christ to be identical with the Roman Catholic Church and yet not be identical to it at the same time. Clearly the new view contradicts that which was held for almost 2000 years if words are to have any meaning.
What progressivists have done it seems is to create a kind of sliding scale for Christianity where some sects apparently possess more truth than others and presumably more fully reflect the intentions of Jesus Christ at least as the progressivists conceive of it. In light of Conciliar teaching, it would seem not to matter any longer what actual religion one professes so long as it is a sincerely held belief system. How this does not amount to the Indifferentism which the pre-Conciliar popes anathematized is beyond comprehension. What logically seems to emanate from the New Theology is the creation of a kind of pan-religious ecumenism in which doctrine/dogma has become for all intents and purposes meaningless. It is not suprising that the progressivists found it necessary to abandon the precsision of the Thomistic (Scholastic) system in order to promulgate their heterodox creation. For those Catholics whe try to make sense of Vatican II teahing in this area it is a profound understatement to say that it is extremely frustrating. The fact that no one in the Vatican has been able to adequately address the issue is cause for even more alarm.
Prior to the Second Vatican Council, traditional Catholic teaching held that the Roman Catholic Church was identical to the Church of Christ. Post Vatican II, the Church of Christ according to Conciliar documents only "subsists in" that is; exists in the Roman Catholic Church and is no longer identical with it. The Church of Christ is said to exist in other entities as well some of which in the past were termed schismatic or apostate such as the Greek Orthodox Church and the various Protestant sects.
Moreover,in light of Vatican II eclesiology even non-Christian sects such as Judaism and Islam can be considered in some sense part of the Church of Christ albeit to lesser degrees than the Roman Catholic Church or those who have "separated" themselves from it. In other words, an entity larger and more encompassing than the Roman Catholic Church is now said to define the "Church of Christ" even though the so-called fullest manifestation of it is apparently to be found in the Roman Catholic Church. This represents a profound alteration in Catholic teaching and from a philosophical perspective appears to violate the law of non-contradiction. It is not logically possible for the Church of Christ to be identical with the Roman Catholic Church and yet not be identical to it at the same time. Clearly the new view contradicts that which was held for almost 2000 years if words are to have any meaning.
What progressivists have done it seems is to create a kind of sliding scale for Christianity where some sects apparently possess more truth than others and presumably more fully reflect the intentions of Jesus Christ at least as the progressivists conceive of it. In light of Conciliar teaching, it would seem not to matter any longer what actual religion one professes so long as it is a sincerely held belief system. How this does not amount to the Indifferentism which the pre-Conciliar popes anathematized is beyond comprehension. What logically seems to emanate from the New Theology is the creation of a kind of pan-religious ecumenism in which doctrine/dogma has become for all intents and purposes meaningless. It is not suprising that the progressivists found it necessary to abandon the precsision of the Thomistic (Scholastic) system in order to promulgate their heterodox creation. For those Catholics whe try to make sense of Vatican II teahing in this area it is a profound understatement to say that it is extremely frustrating. The fact that no one in the Vatican has been able to adequately address the issue is cause for even more alarm.
Ambiguity Planted....The "Art of Deception"
A little Catholic bread here, a little antichristic poison there
original HERE...
Note: Pardon the bold highlighting but I think you will see why it is necessary as it sheds light on the documents of Vatican II where ambiguities and all dubiously expressed propositions need correction, to be brought back into line with Church Tradition---or else rejected.---SH
Pope Pius VI, in condemning the Synod of Pistoia, published the most enlightening Bull, Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794:
“[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.
"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged" ---(emphasis added throughout)
Note: See the late Michael Davies' books Pope John's Council and Pope Paul's New Mass for more on the role of deliberate ambiguity planted by liberals with a view to forging "compromise texts" at the Council which they said could be exploited after the Council. The Church, it was astonishing for me to find, has already (long ago) given us the principles of interpretation whereby we can detect the "vicious". I wish I had seen this authoritative pronouncement years ago. Not only does this cast the more grave suspicion on the method of the authors of the texts of the Second Vatican Council (and permitted by that mystery man, Paul VI), but also on books published subsequently by those even in the highest ranks of the Church, to say nothing of conciliar "theologians" in general. The method is to give with one hand what one robs with the other.
Love, yes, always. Relativism and pluralism which embraces contradictions, no. We can't go that way. SH
original HERE...
Note: Pardon the bold highlighting but I think you will see why it is necessary as it sheds light on the documents of Vatican II where ambiguities and all dubiously expressed propositions need correction, to be brought back into line with Church Tradition---or else rejected.---SH
Pope Pius VI, in condemning the Synod of Pistoia, published the most enlightening Bull, Auctorem fidei, August 28, 1794: “[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulating and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstances under which it is used. For very good reasons it can never be tolerated in a synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error.
"Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of either affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual – such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it.
"It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone's use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecessor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed.
"In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required than the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged" ---(emphasis added throughout)
Note: See the late Michael Davies' books Pope John's Council and Pope Paul's New Mass for more on the role of deliberate ambiguity planted by liberals with a view to forging "compromise texts" at the Council which they said could be exploited after the Council. The Church, it was astonishing for me to find, has already (long ago) given us the principles of interpretation whereby we can detect the "vicious". I wish I had seen this authoritative pronouncement years ago. Not only does this cast the more grave suspicion on the method of the authors of the texts of the Second Vatican Council (and permitted by that mystery man, Paul VI), but also on books published subsequently by those even in the highest ranks of the Church, to say nothing of conciliar "theologians" in general. The method is to give with one hand what one robs with the other.
Love, yes, always. Relativism and pluralism which embraces contradictions, no. We can't go that way. SH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
What/Where is the Roman Catholic Church?
In light of Traditional Catholic dogma/doctrine, how should the Second Vatican Council be viewed ? Is it consistent with Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and prior Magisterial teaching?What explains the tremendous amount of "bad fruit" which has been forthcoming since the close of the Council in 1965? “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16)
This site explores these questions and more in an attempt to place the Second Vatican Council in proper perspective.