Why I Read So Few Catholic Blogs

Credit:  www.pinterest.com

I had an interesting run in with a Catholic blogger recently. The blogger is Paul Anthony Melanson and he has a blog entitled, "La Salette Journey." He wrote a post criticizing Pope Francis for his "Urbi et Orbi" message. His post is entitled, "Does Pope Francis offer an authentic Gospel or the 'Social Gospel?' " [HERE].  His answer is that Pope Francis is preaching only a social gospel, and not telling the world about spiritual salvation. Therefore, Pope Francis is preaching a false gospel. Melanson quotes extensively from Dietrich von Hildebrand to show just how wrong Pope Francis is.

It is interesting that Melanson gives no direct quotes from Pope Francis' Urbi et Orbi message. He does link to another Catholic blogger, "The Radical Catholic", who is also harshly critical of Pope Francis and - surprise, surprise! - "The Radical Catholic" also does not give any direct quotes from Pope Francis. Neither of these two Catholic bloggers even give any links so that we can read for ourselves the message from the Holy Father.  These bloggers offer only harsh criticism and condemnation.

Since these two self-proclaimed models of Catholicism refuse to play by any rules of fairness, I will make up for their deficiencies. You can go HERE to read the full Urbi et Orbi message from Pope Francis.

ISIS in Iraq
Credit:  rt.com

In his message, Pope Francis said, "Jesus is the salvation for every person and for every people" and then went on to list several hot-spots in the world such as Iraq and Syria "who for too long now have suffered the effects of ongoing conflict, and who, together with those belonging to other ethnic and religious groups, are suffering a brutal persecution." The Holy Father prayed for "all who suffer in Ukraine, and grant that their beloved land may overcome tensions, conquer hatred and violence, and set out on a new journey of fraternity and reconciliation."

The Holy Father prayed: 

May Christ the Savior give peace to Nigeria, where (even in these hours) more blood is being shed and too many people are unjustly deprived of their possessions, held as hostages or killed. I invoke peace also on the other parts of the African continent, thinking especially of Libya, South Sudan, the Central African Republic, and various regions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I beseech all who have political responsibility to commit themselves through dialogue to overcoming differences and to building a lasting, fraternal coexistence.

Victims of terrorism in Nigeria
Credit:  www.thecuttingedgenews.com

Pope Francis mentioned the suffering of millions of children in the world:

The Child Jesus. My thoughts turn to all those children today who are killed and ill-treated, be they infants killed in the womb, deprived of that generous love of their parents and then buried in the egoism of a culture that does not love life; be they children displaced due to war and persecution, abused and taken advantage of before our very eyes and our complicit silence.

Further:

I think also of those infants massacred in bomb attacks, also those where the Son of God was born. Even today, their impotent silence cries out under the sword of so many Herods. On their blood stands the shadow of contemporary Herods.

Truly there are so many tears this Christmas, together with the tears of the Infant Jesus.

Credit:  womennet.am

Pope Francis concludes his message by saying:

Dear brothers and sisters, may the Holy Spirit today enlighten our hearts, that we may recognize in the Infant Jesus, born in Bethlehem of the Virgin Mary, the salvation given by God to each one of us, to each man and woman and to all the peoples of the earth.

May the power of Christ, which brings freedom and service, be felt in so many hearts afflicted by war, persecution and slavery. May this divine power, by its meekness, take away the hardness of heart of so many men and women immersed in worldliness and indifference, the globalization of indifference. May his redeeming strength transform arms into plowshares, destruction into creativity, hatred into love and tenderness.

Then we will be able to cry out with joy: "Our eyes have seen your salvation"

Both Melanson and "The Radical Catholic" are very upset that Pope Francis would equate "salvation" with being concerned and praying for an end to the the physical suffering of so many millions around the world. From the Radical Catholic:

While I wish to distract neither from the horrible plight of so many suffering around the world today nor from the genuineness of the Holy Father's sentiments, I find myself wondering: Did Christ come to save us from these things? Did He come to save us from poverty, famine, persecution and suffering? Did He come in the glory of His power to establish a kingdom in which there is no want, no calumny, no corruption? Is this the reason for His appearance two millennia ago? Is this the meaning of His Advent?

I can only wonder:  are these two bloggers for real?  Did they never read Matthew 25 - "whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren, you do to me?"  Christ talks about clothing the naked, feeding the starving, caring for the poor.  He said that those who don't do these things will not be in the Kingdom of God.  A Christian never separates concern for the spiritual state of persons from concern for their physical state.  It is just as wrong to not care for people physically as it is to neglect them spiritually.  

I wrote a comment to Melanson's blog in which I said, "I guess Dr. Hildebrand wouldn't like Pope Benedict XVI either. What up with these popes trying to give comfort to the world?! That is something Jesus would never do."  

I then linked to the 2012 "Urbi et Orbi" message from Pope Benedict XVI [HERE].  In this message, Pope Benedict mentions the tremendous suffering of people in various countries, such as Syria and "the Land where the Redeemer was born", North Africa, "the vast continent of Asia", Mali, Nigeria, the "Democratic Republic of Congo" and Kenya.  Pope Benedict ended his message with:

Dear brothers and sisters! Kindness and truth, justice and peace have met; they have become incarnate in the child born of Mary in Bethlehem. That child is the Son of God; he is God appearing in history. His birth is a flowering of new life for all humanity. May every land become a good earth which receives and brings forth kindness and truth, justice and peace.

Eerie how similar these messages are, and yet Melanson has the audacity to say in his comment to me:

Actually, Dr. Hildebrand would have no problem with Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict never advanced a Social Gospel. Read your own link, if you are capable. Nowhere does Benedict hold Christ as the Savior from poverty and all the ills of society.

Oh really?  What do you call this:

May peace spring up on the vast continent of Asia. May the Child Jesus look graciously on the many peoples who dwell in those lands and, in a special way, upon all those who believe in him. May the King of Peace turn his gaze to the new leaders of the People’s Republic of China for the high task which awaits them. I express my hope that, in fulfilling this task, they will esteem the contribution of the religions, in respect for each, in such a way that they can help to build a fraternal society for the benefit of that noble People and of the whole world.

May the Birth of Christ favour the return of peace in Mali and that of concord in Nigeria, where savage acts of terrorism continue to reap victims, particularly among Christians. May the Redeemer bring help and comfort to the refugees from the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and grant peace to Kenya, where brutal attacks have struck the civilian population and places of worship.

May the Child Jesus bless the great numbers of the faithful who celebrate him in Latin America. May he increase their human and Christian virtues, sustain all those forced to leave behind their families and their land, and confirm government leaders in their commitment to development and fighting crime.

It is obvious that these bloggers hear only what they want to hear and read only what they want to read.  They certainly don't let reality intrude.

I wrote back to Melanson quoting from James 2:16:

If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it?

I cannot remember my entire comment because Melanson refused to post it.  Instead, he alluded to it by writing this:

Since "Catholic in Brooklyn" doesn't care to engage in honest dialogue, I won't be publishing her comments.

She left another comment asserting that men are primarily interested in the food for the body. She misses the point.

Lucifer was the first preacher of the Social Gospel. He said to Jesus, "Turn these stones into bread."

And how did Jesus respond? With the most succinct rebuttal of the Social Gospel: That man does not live by bread alone but by the Word of God.

I guess Melanson's idea of dialogue is that he talks and unless you agree with him - shut up.

I have a question for Melanson, "The Radical Catholic" and all the other radical traditionalists who see Pope Francis as basically a heretic.  Do they honestly believe that Pope Francis is not preaching the message of salvation to the world? Pope Francis wrote a book-length apostolic exhortation which is entirely concerned with preaching the Gospel to the world.  From that document:

Lastly, we cannot forget that evangelization is first and foremost about preaching the Gospel to those who do not know Jesus Christ or who have always rejected him. Many of these are quietly seeking God, led by a yearning to see his face, even in countries of ancient Christian tradition. All of them have a right to receive the Gospel. Christians have the duty to proclaim the Gospel without excluding anyone. Instead of seeming to impose new obligations, they should appear as people who wish to share their joy, who point to a horizon of beauty and who invite others to a delicious banquet. It is not by proselytizing that the Church grows, but “by attraction”.

John Paul II asked us to recognize that “there must be no lessening of the impetus to preach the Gospel” to those who are far from Christ, “because this is the first task of the Church”. Indeed, “today missionary activity still represents the greatest challenge for the Church” and “the missionary task must remain foremost”. What would happen if we were to take these words seriously? We would realize that missionary outreach is paradigmatic for all the Church’s activity. Along these lines the Latin American bishops stated that we “cannot passively and calmly wait in our church buildings”; we need to move “from a pastoral ministry of mere conservation to a decidedly missionary pastoral ministry”. This task continues to be a source of immense joy for the Church: “Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance” (Lk 15:7).” (14-15)

Melason, "The Radical Catholic" and others would do well to read carefully the following statement from Pope Francis:

“I prefer a Church which is bruised, hurting and dirty because it has been out on the streets, rather than a Church which is unhealthy from being confined and from clinging to its own security. I do not want a Church concerned with being at the centre and then ends by being caught up in a web of obsessions and procedures. If something should rightly disturb us and trouble our consciences, it is the fact that so many of our brothers and sisters are living without the strength, light and consolation born of friendship with Jesus Christ, without a community of faith to support them, without meaning and a goal in life. More than by fear of going astray, my hope is that we will be moved by the fear of remaining shut up within structures which give us a false sense of security, within rules which make us harsh judges, within habits which make us feel safe, while at our door people are starving and Jesus does not tire of saying to us: “Give them something to eat” (Mk 6:37).” (49)

Are these the words of a man who is preaching only the "social gospel"?  The purpose of "Urbi et Orbi" is to speak to the world.  Should we just ignore the world's tremendous suffering and instead tell them that they had better repent of their sins or they're going to hell?  Is that how we will reach them?  There is a time and place to preach repentance to people.  But that is not the purpose of "Urbi et Orbi."  To accuse Pope Francis of preaching a false gospel because he shows compassion and empathy for the suffering of the world is truly appalling.

Melanson banned me from his "Catholic" blog because I support the Holy Father.   One of those commenting on Melanson's blog wrote this in response to my comment:

Actually Jesus didn't come to bring comfort to the world. He came to bring peace to individual souls who turn to Him and away from their sins with humility and contriteness of heart in complete surrender. And that can only happen if those individuals openly reject the world.

Oh but hey, don't take my word for it, let Him tell you:

"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’" - Matthew 10:34-36

So what do you think you know that Christ doesn't know?

If this was true Catholicism, I would immediately turn in my card. Is following a Christ a matter of just pointing out the sins of others and telling them to shape up or ship out and disregarding their physical suffering since they brought it on themselves anyway? How can anyone possibly say that because you care about the physical suffering of people, then you obviously don't care about their souls? This is exactly what Melanson and "The Radical Catholic" are saying about Pope Francis. They would do well to heed the words of Our Lord as recorded in Matthew 12:36 - "I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak,"

For Paul Anthony Melanson and "The Radical Catholic" and so many others whose main occupation seems to be condemning the Holy Father, here are the words of Pope Francis from Evangelii Gaudium:

“One of the more serious temptations which stifles boldness and zeal is a defeatism which turns us into querulous and disillusioned pessimists, “sourpusses”. Nobody can go off to battle unless he is fully convinced of victory beforehand. If we start without confidence, we have already lost half the battle and we bury our talents. While painfully aware of our own frailties, we have to march on without giving in, keeping in mind what the Lord said to Saint Paul: “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Cor 12:9). Christian triumph is always a cross, yet a cross which is at the same time a victorious banner borne with aggressive tenderness against the assaults of evil. The evil spirit of defeatism is brother to the temptation to separate, before its time, the wheat from the weeds; it is the fruit of an anxious and self-centred lack of trust.” (85)

UPDATE:  I have invited Paul Anthony Melanson to comment, but he refuses to acknowledge me.  

Credit:  www.pinterest.com

Try Not To Judge The Priesthood By The Priest

Alec Guinness in "The Prisoner"

I recently saw a truly great movie with Sir Alec Guinness (a Catholic convert) made in 1955 that, up to now, I never even knew existed.  It is called "The Prisoner",  about a Cardinal in an unnamed Communist country who is arrested by the government and charged with treason.  If you wish to watch the movie online, you can do so on Youtube.   This is a very powerful movie, and I recommend you take 90 minutes to watch it.

As Wikipedia says, "The Cardinal was based on Croatian cardinal Aloysius Stepinac, who was a victim of a show trial staged by the communist regime led by Josip Broz Tito[2]and on Hungarian cardinal József Mindszenty, who was also the victim of the communist-staged show trial, while the communist regime was fronted by Mátyás Rákosi and Árpád Szakasits."  In the movie, the Cardinal is arrested immediately upon completing a High Pontifical Mass.

Here is the trailer for the movie:

The Cardinal in the movie is also a famous war hero who fought against the Nazis in WWII.  As a loyal Prince of the Church, he is adamantly anti-Communist, and therefore a threat to the government who wants to discredit and then execute him.  But to do this, they must get him to confess to crimes he did not commit.  The person put in charge of interrogating the Cardinal is someone who had fought alongside the Cardinal in WWII and knows him to be a man of high moral values.  He realizes that the usual threats of physical torture and even death will not work, so he resorts to psychological torture by using sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and generally trying to confuse his mind.  He eventually succeeds in convincing the Cardinal that he did indeed betray the people and the government, and because the Cardinal is such a good and holy man, he readily admits to crimes that he believes he committed but in reality did not.  At the end of the movie is a scene in which a prison worker looks at him with great disappointment, and Alec Guinness tells him, "Try Not to Judge the Priesthood By The Priest."

I think we would all do well to take this advice.  The priesthood, instituted by Jesus Christ, is a sacred vocation charged with saving souls.  We would all be doomed to eternal damnation without the Catholic priesthood.   Who could hear our confessions and absolve us from the sin which damns our souls, who could change bread and wine into the the life-giving sacrament of the Eucharist?  Who could confirm us?  If how we spend eternity is the most important question in our lives, and I believe it is, Catholic priests are the most important and invaluable people on the earth because we cannot attain eternal life in heaven without them.

Just as there seems to be an attempt in our world to destroy everything that is good and right and holy, such as the family, there has been and continues to be a war to stamp out the Catholic priesthood which is so indispensable to the salvation of our souls.  This war against priests, and in effect against the Church, played out in full force in the January 27 edition of the New York Times, as seen in an editorial written by Frank Bruni concerning an upcoming book by Garry Wills.  Mr. Wills calls himself Catholic but yet constantly rails against the Pope and the Magesteruim of the Church.  Both the book and this editorial are nothing less than diabolical in tone, and could have easily been dictated by the devil himself.   The editorial is entitled "Catholicism's Curse."

Mr. Bruni starts by telling us that he and Mr. Wills have nothing against priests.  Mr. Bruni says he has met many good priests who, according to Mr. Bruni, are good in spite of, and not because of, the Catholic Church:

“I HAVE nothing against priests,” writes Garry Wills in his provocative new book, “Why Priests? A Failed Tradition,” and I’d like at the outset to say the same. During a career that has included no small number of formal interviews and informal conversations with them, I’ve met many I admire, men of genuine compassion and remarkable altruism, more dedicated to humanity than to any dogma or selective tradition.

You know there is a "but" coming, and here it is:

But while I have nothing against priests, I have quite a lot against an institution that has done a disservice to them and to the parishioners in whose interests they should toil. I refer to the Roman Catholic Church, specifically to its modern incarnation and current leaders, who have tucked priests into a cosseted caste above the flock, wrapped them in mysticism and prioritized their protection and reputations over the needs and sometimes even the anguish of the people in the pews. I have a problem, in other words, with the church’s arrogance, a thread that runs through Wills’s book, to be published next month; through fresh revelations of how assiduously a cardinal in Los Angeles worked to cover up child sexual abuse; and through the church’s attempts to silence dissenters, including an outspoken clergyman in Ireland who was recently back in the news.

Mr. Bruni would definitely not agree with the advice given to us by Sir Alec Guinness and in fact, Mr. Bruni believes we must judge the priesthood by the priest.  I wonder if he feels that way about other institutions.   What about pedophiles who have been caught in police departments, teachers, government officials, the Protestant ministry, the Hasidic community, all at much higher rates than among Catholic priests?  Shouldn't we be judging these institutions by the same standards Mr. Bruni wants us to use with the Catholic priesthood?  The fact is that pedophilia is found everywhere in our culture and it is a very sad fact that this includes the Catholic Church, as Mr. Bruni does not hesitate to point out, and yes, bishops did mishandle many of these cases:

LET’S start with Los Angeles. Last week, as a result of lawsuits filed against the archdiocese of Los Angeles by hundreds of victims of sexual abuse by priests, internal church personnel files were made public. They showed that Cardinal Roger M. Mahony’s impulse, when confronted with priests who had molested children, was to hush it up and keep law enforcement officials at bay. While responses like this by Roman Catholic bishops and cardinals have been extensively chronicled and are no longer shocking, they remain infuriating. At one point Cardinal Mahony instructed a priest whom he’d dispatched to New Mexico for counseling not to return to California, lest he risk being criminally prosecuted. That sort of shielding of priests from accountability allowed them, in many cases across the United States, to continue their abusive behavior and claim more young victims.

Mr. Bruni continues on with a description of Cardinal Mahony's handling of abusive priests and then launches into an attack on the Vatican:

Church officials and defenders note that Cardinal Mahony’s gravest misdeeds occurred in the 1980s, before church leaders were properly educated about recidivism among pedophiles and before the dimensions of the child sexual abuse crisis in the church became clear. They point out that the church’s response improved over time. That’s true, but what hasn’t changed is the church’s hubris. This hubris abetted the crisis: the particular sway that abusers held over their victims and the special trust they received from those children’s parents were tied into the church’s presentation of priests as paragons.

And this hubris also survives the crisis, manifest in the way that the Vatican, a gilded enclave so far removed and so frequently out of step with the rest of the world, clamps down on Catholics who challenge its rituals and rules. Much of what these dissenters raise questions about — the all-male priesthood, for example, or the commitment to celibacy that priests are required to make — aren’t indisputable edicts from God. They’re inventions of the mortals who took charge of the faith.

I'm assuming Mr. Bruni would say it was hubris that caused Our Lord to choose an all-male priesthood in the Apostles.  Mr. Bruni also seems to reject Matthew 16:19 in which Our Lord said to St. Peter, our first Pope, "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."  No doubt Mr. Bruni would see this as the epitome of hubris and an "invention of mortals".

As an example of the hubris of the Catholic Church, Mr. Bruni tells us about the "injustice", as he sees it, that has been done to an Irish priest who is in active rebellion against the Magesterium of the Church:

And yet with imperious regularity, Vatican officials issue their relished condemnations. These officials are reliably riled by nuns, a favorite target of their wrath. And they’ve been none too pleased with an Irish priest, the Rev. Tony Flannery, 66, who was suspended from his ministry by the Vatican last year and informed, he recently said, that he could return to it on the condition that he publicly express his endorsement of a range of official positions that he had questioned, including the exclusion of women from the priesthood. Last Sunday he broke a long silence to say that the Vatican had threatened him with excommunication and to call its approach toward him “reminiscent of the Inquisition.”

Among the Vatican’s issues with him was his stated belief in a 2010 article that the priesthood, rather than originating with Jesus and a specially selected group of followers, was selfishly created later by a “privileged group within the community who had abrogated power and authority to themselves.”

Mr. Bruni now presents us with the fiction of Garry Wills, who asserts in his new book that the priesthood was not given to us by Jesus Christ, but an invention by mere mortals, and that the priesthood was actually opposed in the early Church. Mr. Bruni also feels that the Church needs to have a more democratic government:

That may sound like an extreme assertion, but the new book by Wills, a Pulitzer Prize winner who has written extensively about Christianity and the church, says that at the start, Christianity not only didn’t have priests but opposed them. The priesthood was a subsequent tweak, and the same goes for the all-male, celibate nature of the Roman Catholic clergy and the autocratic hierarchy that this clergy inhabits, an unresponsive government whose subjects — the laity — have limited say.

Mr. Bruni and Mr. Wills now completely toss out Vatican I, which said that the teachings of the Magesterium, which is guided by the Holy Spirit, are infallible:

“It can’t admit to error, the church hierarchy,” Wills told me on the phone on Thursday. “Any challenge to their prerogative is, in their eyes, a challenge to God. You can’t be any more arrogant than that.” 

Mr. Wills makes an outright attack upon the priesthood and Mr. Bruni agrees, trying to tell us that the abuse crisis proves that the Church and the world would be much better off without the Catholic priesthood:

“We Catholics were taught not only that we must have priests but that they must be the right kind of priests,” he writes in the book, which argues that priests aren’t ultimately necessary. “What we were supposed to accept is that all priesthoods are invalid ones except the Roman Catholic.”

That’s an awfully puffed-up position, and there’s a corresponding haughtiness in the fact that bishops can assign priests to parishes without any real obligation to get input or feedback from the parishioners those priests serve. This way of doing business in fact enabled church leaders to shuttle priests accused of molestation around, keeping them one step ahead of their crimes.

It has also helped to turn many Catholics away from the church, while prompting others to regard its leaders as ornamental and somewhat irrelevant distractions. They cherish the essence and beauty of their religion. They just can’t abide the arrogance of many of its appointed caretakers.

The arguments made in Mr. Bruni's editorial and Mr. Wills's book about the Catholic priesthood and the teachings of the Catholic Church are not only specious, but they are dangerous to our souls.  This is not to say that there are not problems within the church.  The church is filled with sinners.  We all have fallen natures and live in a fallen world.  We need spiritual guidance and correction, and we get it all the time from the Magesterium.  Certainly if the priests and bishops who now stand accused had put themselves entirely in line with the teachings of the Church, the abuse crisis would have never happened.

The Church is not the cause of the crisis.  It was and is caused by those who refuse to abide by the divinely inspired teachings of the Church.  To throw out the priesthood is truly to throw out the baby with the bathwater.  It is to quite literally throw away our eternal salvation.

We all must be very careful when we speak against priests.  From Catholictradition.org:

IN his epistle to the Christians of Smyrna, St. Ignatius, Martyr, says that the priesthood is the most sublime of all created dignities: "The apex of dignities is the priesthood." St. Ephrem calls it an infinite dignity: "The priesthood is an astounding miracle, great, immense, and infinite." St. John Chrysostom says, that though its functions are performed on earth, the priesthood should be numbered among the things of Heaven."

According to Cassian, the priest of God is exalted above all earthly sovereignties, and above all celestial heights-----he is inferior only to God. Innocent III says that the priest is placed between God and man; inferior to God, but superior to man. St. Denis calls the priest a Divine man. Hence he has called the priesthood a Divine dignity. In fine, St. Ephrem says that the gift of the sacerdotal dignity surpasses all understanding.

For us it is enough to know, that Jesus Christ has said that we should treat his priests as we would his own person: "He that heareth you, heareth Me; he that despiseth you, despiseth Me." Hence St. John Chrysostom says, that "he who honors a priest, honors Christ, and he who insults a priest, insults Christ." Through respect for the sacerdotal dignity, St. Mary of Oignies used to kiss the ground on which a priest had walked.

St. Francis

Yes, we have a troubled priesthood in many ways.  But have we contributed to it by not honoring our priests as they deserve?  They are here as representatives of Jesus Christ.  As quoted above and taken from Luke 10:16, Jesus Christ said:  "He that heareth you, heareth Me; he that despiseth you, despiseth Me."  We need to look beyond the priest as a man and see our Lord himself.  We need to keep in mind that the priest is here to save our souls.  If we were on a lifeboat in the middle of an ocean and that lifeboat was our means of salvation, we would treat it with great respect.  When our priests fall, it is not our job to condemn them. It is our job to pray for them, just as St. Francis did.  From catholic.org:

Francis was not a reformer; he preached about returning to God and obedience to the Church. Francis must have known about the decay in the Church, but he always showed the Church and its people his utmost respect. When someone told him of a priest living openly with a woman and asked him if that meant the Mass was polluted, Francis went to the priest, knelt before him, and kissed his hands -- because those hands had held God.

Try not to judge the priesthood by the priest. 

Credit:  http://pinterest.com/pin/436356651365237654/

The Sad Tale of Father Z and Me

Pope Paul VI

The Holy Father has now declared Pope Paul VI to be Venerable, the second stage to beatification and then canonization.  The grumblings and rantings have started among  "Traditional" Catholics.  I posted a response to one such traditional blogger here.  John Vennari of Catholic Family News has not disappointed me in his response, either.  I'm afraid he is the voice of many Catholics who call themselves "traditional".  Notice the sarcastic, dismissive tone Vennari uses against the men chosen by the Holy Spirit to lead the Church, including and most especially our current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.  

The proposed beatification of Paul VI is nothing more than the triumph of wayward sentiment. Again we see Catholic terms stripped of their meaning. A beatification or canonization, once a sure sign of the heroic virtue of the person canonized, is now degenerated to the level of the Academy Awards. In the case of both Paul VI and John Paul II, it is a special achievement medal bestowed by revolutionary prelates on leaders who advance modernist causes.

Pope Benedict XVI, a life-long Vatican II progressive to this day, has shown himself first and foremost a disciple of the New Theology by agreeing to beatify its star icons.

John Vennari

Vennari, who considers himself a very devout Catholic, now blasts us with cynicism and condemnation of the Church, completely rejecting the Authority of the Pope:

The beatification of Paul VI and John Paul II also serve another purpose: it is a means of canonizing Vatican II and the conciliar revolution. The new program of Vatican II cannot withstand genuine Catholic scrutiny. It is a rupture with the past; it finds no support in Scripture, Tradition or reason.

The Conciliar revolution thus must be imposed by intimidation; not an intimidation at gunpoint, but an intimidation that overwhelms Catholics by proclaiming the alleged[??] saintliness of its most determined innovators. “Blessed “ John XXIII, “Venerable” Paul VI, “Blessed” John Paul II, new saints for the new religion [new religion? What does this mean?], all elevated to their exalted status by a new canonization process that dispenses with the devil’s advocate, and no longer insures the miraculous beyond all natural explanation.

The new conciliar program reveals its propagators as churchmen who publicly betrayed their Oath Against Modernism [he is including our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, in this condemnation], solemnly sworn to God on the night before their ordination. The eminent theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton warned in 1960 that the man who took the Oath Against Modernism, and who then promoted Modernism himself, or allowed it to be promoted, “would mark himself not only as a sinner against the Catholic Faith but also as a common perjurer.”[6] Pope Benedict’s Vatican “beatifies” such men.

I truly hope that any Catholic who reads the words of John Vennari completely rejects them for the hate-filled, anti-papal venom that they are.  John Vennari is no different from the progressives that he condemns.  He rejects the authority of the Magesterium just as much as any pro-abortion, pro-homosexual politician or "nun on the bus" does.  Satan doesn't care how he gets us, just as long as he does.  One way is as good as another, as far as he is concerned.

Father John Zuhlsdorf

I took a look at Father Z's blog to see what he and his readers are saying.  Father Z took a much more mainline approach, basically just reporting the facts and not making any comment one way or the other.  But his readers didn't hold back:

Here are just a few comments that sound very similar to John Vennari:

Gratias says:20 December 2012 at 9:51 am  Venerable Paul VI, defender of communism in Hungary, Poland and USSR, destroyer of Catholic worship through Vatican Council II and Liberator of the Seminaries.

* * * 

restoration says:20 December 2012 at 10:12 am  If dismantling the Church brick by brick is considered “heroic virtue”, we have many more “Venerables” out there who need to be recognized. What a sick joke this “Saint Factory” has become. What a failure of leadership and truth. This Roma Curia soils the name of those declared Venerable in the past with this abominable declaration. I am ashamed that the Holy Father allowed this nonsense to be promulgated. Pope Paul VI was no hero to anyone but the Masons. The nightmare of his Papacy has not ended for the average Catholic in the world today.

Everyone makes mistakes, but a genuine hero would have begun to reverse course once the damage was obvious and fought the forces of evil that dwelled in the Church. Humane Vitae notwithstanding, Paul VI continued leading the Church deeper into chaos long after it was evident to all that he had made terrible choices . His pride and obstinate refusal, unto death, to reverse his errors is only an example to others for what NOT to do. God have mercy on his soul!

* * * 

Athanasius says:20 December 2012 at 10:54 am  All I can say is, thank God these types of decrees are not infallible, because there is a lot to be said against. Not just Paul VI’s betrayal of Cardinal Mindsentzy for sake of being nice to the Soviets, but his presiding over and giving the Church over to the devil. He did not speak with a clear voice, he did not defend the Church. Bl. Pius IX, the truly great Pope of the 19th century, by contrast, fought heroically against actual physical persecution, namely that the freemasons took up arms to kill him twice and in the end succeeded in making him a prisoner in the Vatican. He never gave into the world, or presided over pro-abortion and pro-eugenics bodies like the UN.

This just seems to me, in nearly communist fashion, to beatify anyone who had anything to do with the Council. If we want a hermeneutic of continuity, how about raising to the altars Popes like Pius XII, for whom there is a documented miracle of John Paul II telling a man not to pray to him, but to pray to Pius XII instead. I see things like this and my eyes glaze over. More reason to ignore about anything coming out of Rome. 

* * * 

jacobi says:20 December 2012 at 12:37 pm  It’s all a bit puzzling. At worst this trend devalues the concept of sainthood.

I cannot judge whether or not John XXIII or Paul VI displayed heroic virtue or not.

But objective observation suggests that John XXIII was naive and impetuous, and that Paul VI was vascillating and easily manipulated. Both were frankly out of their depth in dealing with the acute and pre-planned machinations of the liberal and Modernist elements at work during and more importantly after Vatican II.

John Paul II was initially too pre-occupied with his native Eastern Europe and only belatedly woke up to the problems of the wider world.

Thank God for Benedict.  [At least this guy is supportive of our present Holy Father, but that doesn't excuse his condemnation of the predecessors of Pope Benedict XVI] 

* * * 

shin says:20 December 2012 at 2:10 pm  So have the Post-Conciliar authorities tinkered with sainthood and all that leads up to it too?

After all, nothing else was left untouched. 

* * * 

kallman says:20 December 2012 at 6:12 pm  This must surely be, at least in part, an attempt to “shore up” the status of the post conciliar Church during a time of increasingly critical retrospectivity [What the heck is retrospectivity?].

Pope Paul VI and Father Joseph Ratzinger

There were also some great comments supporting Pope Benedict's decision to declare Pope Paul VI venerable.  There was one in particular that I really applaud:

charismatictrad says:21 December 2012 at 9:38 am  Perhaps it’s been said before, but in order to compensate for all of the negative comments, I’ll say my .02, too.

Pope St. Gregory VII, in His Holiness’ “Dictatus Papae,” says that no one shall judge the pope. The essence of Protestantism is that each man becomes his own pope. Unfortunately, some of those in the traditional crowd fall into the error of making themselves their own pope. Just as anti-Catholic Protestants are hyper-judgmental of the Faith, so too are some traditionalists. On the one hand, they say “Hooray for Summorum Pontificum,” while on the other they condemn our Holy Father’s decision to recognize Pope Paul VI as Venerable. On the one hand they say that liberals do not understand Vatican II, but they themselves fail to recognize that the documents of Vatican II did not change the liturgy. I seem to recall hearing that, while addressing an audience, the Venerable Pontiff asked, “What has happened to the liturgy?”

I consider myself a traditionalist, but I have a tendency to prefer “orthodox” because of the connotations that have been (often times) appropriately attached to traditionalists. [emphasis mine]

I very seldom comment on Father Z's blog, but I couldn't restrain myself this time.  Father Z evidently doesn't care for my comments because, although he has not kicked me off of his blog, my comments are always held "for moderation."

Here is my first comment.  The words in red are Father Z's answer:

Brooklyn says:21 December 2012 at 7:45 am  Have we all become our own Magesterium so that now we can second guess the decisions of the Holy Father? Isn’t this what led to the crisis in the Church in the first place?

Am I mistaken, Father Z, that the declaration of venerable and the canonization of saints are among those duties of the Holy Father which are declared infallible? [You are mistaken. The Holy Father's promulgation of the Congregation's decree is not an act of the Roman Pontiff teaching infallibly.]We either believe Matthew 16:19 (“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed”) or we don’t. If Matthew 16:19 is not true, then we are of all men most miserable.

I followed up with this comment, which Father Z released after editing:

Brooklyn says:21 December 2012 at 11:55 am  Father, if what you say is true, “The Holy Father’s promulgation of the Congregation’s decree is not an act of the Roman Pontiff teaching infallibly.” [Yes, what I wrote is true.] then how do we trust when anyone is declared venerable? [You don't have to accept with religious submission of mind and will that this or that person lived a life of heroic virtue.] Are you saying that this is basically a political move and not done under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Do we have the right to second guess the Pope whenever he declares someone venerable? [You are making this far too complicated.] 

In response to my question about trusting the Pope's declaration of venerable, Father Z says:  "You don't have to accept with religious submission of mind and will that this or that person lived a life of heroic virtue."  Really?  This is the same kind of argument that people use about approved apparitions.  You don't have to accept them even though they are approved by the Church.  If they're approved by the Church, why wouldn't you accept them?  And along the same line, if you accept the God-given authority of the Pope, why wouldn't you accept his declarations?  Is it really okay to instead sit on the sidelines and throw tomatoes at the Pope?

Further, I have to say, I don't know how I am "making it too complicated" by asking whether we are free to second guess the Pope's declaration of venerable.

Father Z edited out my statement that I was in total agreement with the comment by  charismatictrad, in which he spoke against judging the Pope and said that, in this regard, some traditionalists are as bad as progressives in the Church.  I also said that both traditionalists and progressives would do well to take note, which was also completely eliminated by Father Z.

I posted one other comment which I knew Father Z would delete, and sure enough, that is exactly what he did.  He did, however, send me an email answering the comment.  Here is my original comment as contained in the email I received from Father Z:

Author : Brooklyn 
Comment:Father Z, is there a reason why you will not allow me to say that I agree with @charismatictrad?  I've tried twice, and you've deleted both comments.  One was at the end of the last comment of mine that you published, and another you deleted entirely.

 This was Father Z's answer in the email he sent:

Say it in a separate comment.
Also, I don't allow discussion of my moderating or editorial choices.  Period.  It wastes my time and everyone else's.
Blessings,
Fr. Z

Father Z certainly has a right to put whatever he wants on his own blog.  He does not have to post anything from me or anyone else.  But as you can see, he refuses to answer my question about why he edited out my comment about being in agreement with charismatictrad.  Why would he allow some readers to post downright disrespectful comments against the Holy Father, but not allow me to post in support of the Pope's actions?  Is it just me taking this too personally, or does Father Z seem to side with those who condemn the declaration of Pope Paul VI as Venerable?

Here is one comment supporting Venerable Pope Paul VI.  Father Z's comment is in red:

Maria says:20 December 2012 at 1:07 pm  I hope Pope Paul VI becomes a saint. [You realize that Paul VI died in 1978, right?]

What difference does it make when Pope Paul VI died?  As I posted in another place, St. Gregory the Great was canonized on the day he died.  St. Anthony of Padua was canonized less than a year after his death.  Father Z's comment seems very prejudicial in regard to Pope Paul VI.  I don't like what seems to be between the lines.

I know that Father Z has his ardent supporters who think he can do no wrong, and if any of them should happen to read this post, they will get very upset with me for daring to question Father John Zuhlsdorf.  But we must always use the critical part of our thinking.  There is only one person in this world whom you can totally trust, and then only what he says in regard to faith and morals.  That person is our Holy Father.  With every other person in the world, we must listen with a critical ear and ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit to know what is right and wrong.  At the same time, if you should ever hear anyone criticizing and/or condemning the Pope, just turn around and walk away, because you are not in the presence of the Holy Spirit.

The real reason for all of the criticism leveled at the Holy Father, from both conservatives and progressives, is a lack of humility.  We think our opinion is right, and no one else has as good an understanding of what is happening as we do.  If we don't like something, we feel we have every right to be as critical as we want to be, even it involves the Holy Father and the Magesterium.

We have some horrific times ahead of us.  Here in the United States we are suffering from the very beginnings of persecution, but in other parts of the world there is outright martyrdom.  We will not survive the shaking that is to come if we are not grounded in the Foundation of Jesus Christ.  A major part of that Foundation is the Vicar of Christ.  It is not important that we understand or personally agree with everything the Pope says and does.  But we must not judge him.  Only our Lord has the right to judge His Vicar.  We are standing on very shaky ground once we allow ourselves to become critical and dismissive of our Holy Father.

I do want to make it clear that I am not condemning Father Z.  He does a lot of good things.  I have been at Masses where he was the celebrant, and he says the Mass with great reverence and skill.  I certainly admire his knowledge of the Church and theology.  But he is not the Pope.  We can't just accept everything he or anyone else says on face value without critical thinking.  None of us, including and most especially yours truly, are exempt from falling.

I'm just a little piece of the Catholic blogosphere.  Father Z gets more hits in an hour than I do all day on my little blog.  What I write here isn't going to make a whole lot of difference to anyone.  But for what it's worth, I do want to remind everyone that Pope Benedict XVI is the Vicar of Christ, he is the one we should look to as our final authority on earth.  Our Lord gave us an ironclad promise that He would never allow His Vicar to lead the church astray.  I do pray that all Catholics, both liberal and traditional, will stop all this arguing and bickering, finger pointing and condemning, and come to unity in the Holy Spirit.  We are faced with a fierce enemy who has taken control of a vast portion of our world.  He will be defeated in the end, but we need to make sure we are not one of his victims.

TV: From Vast Wasteland to Vast Cesspool

Over 50 years ago, on May 9,  1961, Newton Minnow, then chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, gave a speech in which he referred to TV as a "vast wasteland." This is what he said:

"When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better.

But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your own television set when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a day, without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.

You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly commercials — many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you'll see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, I only ask you to try it."

This was in the days of The Andy Griffith Show, Leave It To Beaver, Lassie, Father Knows Best, The Dick Van Dyke Show, and for some "racy" stuff, Peter Gunn.  Most people never had more than 7 channels, and that was in the city.  For those in the country, they were lucky to have 1 or 2 channels.  TV stations actually signed off at night and came back on in the morning usually with the national anthem and a patriotic video.  If you missed a TV show, there was no way to record it and go back and watch it again. 

But now there are hundreds of channels to choose from, and they are all on 24/7.  We have DVR's and other ways in which to record the programs and watch them when we want and however many times we wish.  My cable company allows me to watch not only on TV but on iPads, iPhones, iPods and laptops.  I can actually carry TV around with me wherever I go, even into the bathroom.

Some might think that the term "vast wasteland" is still a good moniker for TV.  However, I think "vast cesspool" is much more fitting. 

On what may seem an entirely different subject, but really isn't, the Collect from today's Traditional Latin Mass is:

"Grant, O Lord, unto Thy people grace to avoid all contact with the devil, and with pure minds to follow Thee, the only God."

Everything in this world comes from one of two sources.  It is either of God or of the devil.  Where you do you think most TV shows come from?  Are we avoiding contact with the devil when we watch TV shows that promote sexual perversity, brutality and moral ambiguity?  Below is an article from Media Research Center on the shows that are up for Emmys this year and just what they represent. 

2012 Emmys Honor the Profane

What does Hollywood value? Sex and lawlessness.
Published: 9/21/2012 11:08 AM ET

By Lauren Thompson
Author Archive

In typical Hollywood fashion the 2012 Emmy Awards are giving the high honors to television shows that trade in sexual depravity and even brutality. The ceremony, which will air Sunday evening on ABC, is sure to be a glamorous roll in the mud.

HBO shows “Game of Thrones,” “Girls,” and “Boardwalk Empire” are all nominated in respected categories. “Game of Thrones” received harsh backlash for decapitating former President George W. Bush and even came under fire by liberal critics for a litany of gratuitous sex scenes.  [According to Wikipedia, "Game of Thrones" explores the themes of magic, social hierarchy, crime and punishment, civil war, sexuality and incest, and religion, apart from moral ambiguity of its characters.  From an interview:  Game of Thrones star Kit Harington has claimed that sex is "very important" to the show  The actor, who plays Jon Snow, hinted that the forthcoming second season would be even more explicit than the first.  "The second season doesn't hold back in that area," he told Vulture. "We go even further in our explicitness, because sex is being used as a weapon. It's such an important part of the series."]

George W. Bush's decapitated head in "Game of Thrones"

The gory, medieval drama is nominated for two Emmys.

“Girls,” is hailed by liberals as “a dawn of a bold and honest new era” for its ability to inflict on viewers graphic, ugly sex scenes, drug use and plots about abortion and masturbation.

Other nominees for bread-winning categories are “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad.” “Mad Men” follows the life of philandering advertising executive Jon Hamm and is always a favorite for an award. “Breaking Bad,” AMC’s popular show about a chemistry teacher turned meth manufacter, also receives regular praise and awards.

And what awards show wouldn’t be complete without a heavy dose of gay culture? ABC’s “Modern Family” is thought to be a lock to win in its respective categories. 

Homosexual kiss from "Modern Family"

[From Wikipedia: "Modern Family drew criticism from the LGBT community for its portrayal of Cameron and Mitchell as not being physically affectionate with each other. The criticism spawned a Facebook campaign to demand Mitchell and Cameron be allowed to kiss. In response to the controversy, producers released a statement that a season two episode would address Mitchell's discomfort with public displays of affection. Executive producer Levitan has said that it was unfortunate that the issue had arisen, since the show's writers had always planned on such a scene "as part of the natural development of the show." The episode "The Kiss" eventually aired with the kiss scene in the background which drew praise from multiple critics.]

Other sordid offerings include FX’s crass comedy show called “Louie C.K.” In one episode CK took part in a staged debate over masturbation against an opponent, labeled a virgin Christian, who had formed a group that was adamantly opposed it. CK berated the girl for her beliefs and ended the uncomfortable scene by telling her, “I’m going to think about you later when I masturbate, and there’s nothing you can do about it.”  [I am particularly offended by Greg Gutfeld who plays himself in this episode and who is a Catholic.  Why aren't the bishops saying something about this?]

From the Louis CK Show in which he debates about masturbation
This is entertainment and worthy of an Emmy?

 Lovely.

As vapid and self-congratulatory as the Emmys and other entertainment awards shows are, they perform one valuable service: they make it clear exactly who and what Hollywood values and celebrates. And it’s not ordinary Americans.  

* * * 

I don't quite get the last statement from this article.   If these values are not about ordinary Americans, then why are ordinary Americans watching these shows?   The last show mentioned in this article, Louis CK, stars one of the most immoral, anti-God comedians in our era.  He has picked up where George Carlin - pray for his poor, sad soul - left off.  If you can stand it, here is a routine from Louis CK in which he blasphemes God in telling the story of Abraham and Isaac.  The story of Abraham and Isaac is a beautiful story from the Old Testament which pictures the sacrifice of the Son of God to save humanity from eternal damnation.  Warning:  this video is completely blasphemous against the God of the Universe.




According to Wikipedia, this is the reception given to Louis CK's show:

Although initial critical response to the show was mostly positive but divided, Louie has gone on to receive almost unanimous critical acclaim. The first season earned 70 out of 100 rating based on 20 reviews on Metacritic. The stand-up segments received strong praise, as did the show's perceived "indie film" style, with some likening the show to the work of Woody Allen. Criticisms largely centered on the pacing and low-key delivery of the show's jokes, which often include long setups compared to the rapid-fire punchlines of a traditional sitcom.

Critical response to Louie improved since its debut, with the show appearing on 9 of the 28 "top show" lists tracked by Metacritic for 2010, and 22 of 39 lists in 2011, which included 3 lists where the show was ranked 1st. The first four episodes of the second season scored 90 out of 100 based on 7 reviews on Metacritic. The third season has received very positive reviews, scoring 94 out of 100 based on 16 reviews on Metacritic.

This show is up for Emmys for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series, Outstanding Directing for a Comedy Series and Outstanding Writing for a Comedy Series. 

UPDATE:  Modern Family won Emmys for Best Comedy Series, Supporting Actor and Actress and Directing Comedy.  Louis CK won for Writing Comedy and Writing, Variety, Music or Comedy Special (C.K. Live at the Beacon Theatre)

Why aren't the bishops speaking out against this?  People's souls are in danger of eternal hellfire if they keep putting this kind of garbage into their minds.  And yet our Bishops are silent.

Here are some excerpts from one of the best TV shows ever created, The Twilight Zone, from an episode entitled "The Obsolete Man."  This episode was originally broadcast on June 2, 1961, about one month after Newton Minnow gave his famous "vast wasteland" speech.  Towards the end of this episode, when Burgess Meredith's character is awaiting his execution, we hear him reading aloud from Psalm 23.  If this was a wasteland, may we please have it back?