Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Archbishop Viganò and our Vale of Tears
































Anonymous said...

Thank you. Spot on. The rush to endow sainthood was, in my view, to make them untouchable and beyond criticism.

Jack Collinson said...

How do you put together your desire expressed in 1. for all American dioceses to undergo a full investigation, with your very correct statement in 5. about it being essentially an homosexual network problem and not a pedophile problem, and your concerns expressed in 7. and 9. about souls falling away through scandal?

Who in the world is competent to set up a tribunal or inquisition against clerical sodomy? The secular authorities are not allowed by political correctness to speak of it that way; they can only speak of child abuse, which means dragging the Church's reputation through the mud even further based on accusations (only 2 priests of the 300 accused in the PA report have been indicted), and more souls lost through scandal.

Why encourage the media's campaign against the Church and the scandal killing souls? If the media were honest we'd be receiving applause and distinction right now for our progress in advancing homosexuality. The message would be: "Catholic Church more open to homosexual lifestyles than we thought, perhaps they aren't so bad after all!" ; "Catholic Church, refuge for minority sexual orientations."

So who's actually going to crack down on the sodomites? The only real option I see is the hierarchs themselves. The laity, however angry and self-righteous, do not have the authority to depose, remove, and laicise bishops, priests, and heads of seminaries.

I can't see why your poor daughter or any other Catholic's faith should be threatened by clerical sodomy at a time when sodomy is celebrated in public and awarded the dignity of marriage. Are these people going to leave the Church and enter a secular world where sodomy is celebrated openly rather than secretly? What good would that do?

We've got to see these sickening crimes separate from the media hype and panic which denigrates the whole Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

Boniface: This summary is much appreciated. Ever since the PA grand jury report's release, I've been asking myself how on earth we expect anyone to convert now. I don't know if it's all the more or all the less shocking that this is very likely due in large part to a near-total lack of faith among many prelates. Except for some outliers like Bp Morlino and (especially, to my mind) Bp Schneider--there are others, of course, not least Abp Vigano--how many prelates even believe in God at this point? Similarly, if there's no hell, as I'm even more sure many of them believe, or nearly believe, it's no scandal to turn souls away from the Faith.

I would like to offer one reflection about the Voris debate. It seems to me that in principle, at least, his "rule" for criticizing a Pope is backward. There's the ancient canonical rule, echoed by, I believe, Innocent III in his inaugural sermon, that the first see is judged by no one except in the case of sins against faith. In light of this, moral corruption, as egregious as it may be, would seem to be a matter less directly at odds with the papacy's constitutive mission and so would arguably require greater discretion in publicly calling out.

As far as the John XXII example goes, I have generally assumed that the propriety of rebuking a pope in doctrinal matters depends on the truth under attack as much as on one's own degree of formation. The debate over the beatific vision is, in the scheme of things, a fairly arcane theological point, and so was likely best left for the scholars to address, whereas the current (and indeed conciliar) crisis touches upon basic truths every catechized Catholic should know: the reality of mortal sin, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, the reality and danger of hell, etc. But I would appreciate your Church-historian's view of this question.

Boniface said...

Well that’s why I think while I understand where CMTV is coming from, everything is much too intertwined in the current crisis to make that tidy distinction. Fundamental doctrinal points are under attack; basic, essential Christian truths. Truths that are at the heart of our moral life as well as our faith life. It’s all one

Boniface said...

I’d like to see the secular arm invoked to deal with actual crimes. I would not oppose Pennsylvania Grand Jury style investigations into every US diocese. This would be for the purpose of uncovering criminal activity and criminal cover up.

As for the eradication of the homosexual networks, that would have to come from within the Church as part of a general reform of morals and governance

Jack Collinson said...

Indeed, a general reform, which will require a overhaul like that of Trent. Apparently the Church is in the iron grip of the "Lavender Mafia" right now though, and practically all are too scared to speak out. Viganó himself fled into hiding.

Investigations might be good if handled in the proper manner and aimed more at justice and reparation for the victims rather than the public vilification of the Church. I'm not sure that the PA grand jury was really like this, seeing as they only had enough evidence to bring 2 of the 300 accused to trial (among those that aren't dead.) It's very difficult at the moment because the Church has no real allies. She's stranded in a sea of secularism which aims to sink and bury her forever, barely keeping afloat, while her own crew bores holes into her hull. No friends without, and few friends within. It's hard to be so critical of the Church herself in this situation, bur many want to cast the blame on her while Catholics jump overboard in despair.

anoniman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Karl said...

Sometimes I wish the rules weren't so clear in religion, as in the fact that we don't have the right to take justice into our own hands. How satisfying it'd be to be part of some zealous and covert counter-network making these prelates and their friends disappear. Back to the barbaric practice of trial by ordeal.

Is that a forbidden thought? I doubt I'm the only one slipping into day-dreams of the kind.

Athelstane said...

"That doesn't mean I would ever attack or insult Rorate for making an editorial judgment different than my own."

Rorate got fairly dog-piled for making a direct assault on Francis, by means of reproduction of a J'Accuse commentary by Argentine traditionalist Marcelo Gonzalez, within hours of his election; suffice to say that skepticism towards this pontificate has grown far beyond the hard traditionalist online cells; and, yes, some critics of the time like Taylor Marshall have since apologized to Rorate.

Far be it from me to dispute much of Gonzalez's characterizations of Jorge Maria Bergoglio, which have been largely borne out in Rome over the past five years, even if you have yet to read THE DICTATOR POPE. The problem for Rorate was Gonzalez himself, who, it became clear, really *did* have a record of Holocaust revisionism and what amounted to a flirtation with anti-Semitism in his public commentary. And this provided a vast, wide avenue of attack on Rorate in the ensuing weeks by a number of critics (many of whom I have little brief for), and before long, the debate became almost entirely about Marcelo Gonzalez and the anti-Semitic "soft white underbelly of traditionalism" rather than the character of Jorge Maria Bergoglio. Faced with all this, New Catholic, of course, doubled down, albeit in evasive ways. Eager to register his indictment of the profoundly problematic Peronista ordinary of Buenos Aires as quickly as possible, he grabbed the first witness to hand despite the baggage that witness brought with him, and was unwilling to cede an inch of terrain not just to the likes of Mark Shea, Dawn Eden, or Fr Angelo Geiger, but even Taylor Marshall.

I bring all this up not to throw Rorate (which has a lengthy slate of fairly diverse bloggers, with some highly respectable names such as Joseph Shaw and Peter Kwasniewski and guest contributors like Roberto de Mattei) back in the doghouse, but to remind us of the ways in which some traditionalist outlets can be their own worst enemies, even when they're proven correct on substance.

Boniface said...

That’s a very valid observation Athelstane. That’s been my experience with them as well.

By the way, nice to see you back. It’s been awhile.

Athelstane said...

Hell Boniface,

I lurk a lot more than I comment!

Anonymous said...

I read this post on Saturday. On Sunday I attended mass at my parish in Highwood, IL.

The bad news: the Chicago Archdiocese steered its priests to preach about immigration and migration. The whole service, before, during and after - well I don't know about after, I departed after communion not being able to handle the bromides posed as gospel - went on and on and on... and on about the intrinsic goodness of immigrants seeking a better life.

The good news: connecting the dots from mass back to this article, Soupy Cupich clearly has a limited repitoire of defenses (or offenses) when challenged. Dusted of the "meh-immigration" talking points and moved right on from examining the horrible sins if not criminal behavior within the ranks of the priesthood.

The prior week, all Chicago churches read his explanation of his explanation on TV of Bergolio's incoherent and certainly insufficient reaction to Blessed Cardinal Vigano's letter. I spoke briefly to the Vicar General following mass, sent to Highwood to likely assure us "nothing to see here" and told him how lame it is to explain an explanation...

In any event, we have their blueprint of operations as I have witnessed and we have our cold fury. Let's prevail!

TN Papist said...

I am not sure about the other links, but consider leaving a stronger warning for the Rod Dreher article.