To get around the potential problem of having to invite or snub one of the presidential candidates for the annual Al Smith dinner, Cardinal Egan of New York decided not to invite either one of them. The problem is that John Kerry is a pro-abortion Catholic and it would not do to endorse in some way by inviting him to a Catholic charitable dinner. But we can’t appear to be partisan, so we can’t invite his opponent either. Don’t want to rile up all those chancery Democrats.
But in order not to completely lose face, we’ll invite the president’s father, a former president himself, and another prominent Democrat (who may or may not be pro-abortion; I don’t know him.)
Here’s what the official archdiocesan spokesman says:
“The tradition of the Smith dinner is to bring people together,” Zwilling said in a statement. “Given that issues in this year’s campaign could provoke divisiveness and disagreement and could detract from that spirit, it was felt best to proceed in a different direction while maintaining all of the ideals and values of the dinner.”
God forbid that we should provoke divisiveness and disagreement over abortion. Instead, it’s most important that we all look like we get along.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt 10:34)
Sorry, John, but Rod is right on. Here’s the money quote:
“Delight in smooth-sounding platitudes, refusal to face unpleasant facts, desire for popularity … genuine love of peace and pathetic belief that love can be its sole foundation.”
Recall Weigel’s criticism of JPII as an administrator in Krakow. Recall the numerous statements coming from Rome in the wake of Islamic terror (especially the most recent ones). All of those factors fit Churchill’s quotation.
And there’s another important similarity. Just as the British ruling classes downplayed Hitler’s rise, so too do Catholic hierarchs downplay the rise (and bestiality) of jihadism, which is our century’s equivalent of Nazism.
Winston Churchill made his comments against the tide of public opinion, and history proved him right all along. I think Rod’s running in pretty good company lately.
1. In this situation there is going to be war and terrorism anyway no matter *what* the pope says: people who feel threatened are not going to disarm themselves at the prompting of some cardinal.
2. Given 1, what is the problem with the pope trying to get people to remember that the blind hatred and lust for revenge that war engenders are not good things and that we should be at least thinking about ways to establish peace.
3. Even if it seems silly to be trying to reach out to Islamic madmen, isn’t that what someone in the Christian world should be doing? After all, it’s Cesar who holds the sward not Peter.
Mr. D’Hippolito, I don’t think Rod was attributing the pacifism of the Bishops as a problem with regard to terrorism or Islam, but rather to the sexual abuse scandal in the Church. At the risk of putting words in Rod’s mouth, I think the analogy would be that those in power have shirked from their duty to protect their flock by refusing to confront an evil (be it Nazis or sex abusers) out of fear of the consequences.
If that is Rod’s point, I think he’s exactly correct. Sadly, I believe that many bishops are afraid to confront abusers because they don’t have faith that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church. Given the priest “shortage,” the bishops may believe that defrocking priest-abusers will increase the “shortage”. The don’t believe that God will provide. Their fear of these consequences prevents them from acting.
Unfortunately, this may be the most charitable view of the bishops’ general response to the scandal. Some less charitable interpretations would include: the bishops don’t care about the problem or, some of the bishops are “silenced” by extortion over similar sins they may have committed.
That’s the big question right there. Is Rod referring to terrorism or the scandal? Inquiring Mottramists would like to know..
Jaime: Wouldn’t “Inquiring Mottramists” be an oxymoron…?
See what you’ve started, Rod?
Gene, it’s both. The pacifism of the Church in the face of Islam is intolerable—especially the attempts at FALSE ecumenism. The incompetence and evil in the face of the abuse of children is just as intolerable.
And they are only two of our intolerable problems…..there are more.
Yes, indeed, I strongly concur with this; I probably apply it more broadly than most, but I have no hesitation in concurring.
What keeps happening is that specific problems—symptoms of a far deeper, more pervasive problem—keep occurring, and we all argue through these various eruptions, one after another.
I believe that the truth is that the Church is in the grip of an extremely serious, pervasive crisis, something systemic. It has affected Doctrine, Ecclesiology, Morality, Liturgy, Religious Life, Priesthood, formation, Matrimony and family life, catechesis, Catholic education, especially higher education, Catholic health care. It has been years, DECADES even, since you could count upon walking across the threshold of a Catholic institution (or sending your child across the threshold of one) and be able to count upon encountering Catholicism. DECADES.
I am still waiting for our bishops to address the situation with any sense of crisis. It is simply not happening. Of course, we have seminarians who haven’t integrated sexual morality into their lives, or vocation. Yes, we have a mainstream community of nuns financially contributing to “Emily’s List,” supporting the election of pro-abortion women pols. Of course, “New Ways Ministry,” chastised by the Vatican for its founders’ position on active homosexuality, observes its 25th anniversary and has scores—SCORES—of American Religious Orders sponsoring the event. Can you spell ‘Aggiornamento?’ (until two minutes ago when I looked it up, I couldn’t spell ‘thresh[h]old.’ But I’ve ALWAYS been good at spelling Aggiornamento).
We hold to Faith and to Hope, and, one hopes, to Charity. I believe that decades, even centuries from now, Faithful people will look back and say, ‘You see, we look back to the xx/xxi centuries. We know what the essential elements of Religious life are, of the Roman Rite, of priestly formation, of Matrimony. We know what we need to stress in catechesis and formation of youth, in running Catholic institutions such as schools and hospitals. And we understand far more deeply ecclesial discipline, because we look back to the turning of that century, when the Church churned out more documentation and verbiage than it ever had before, but pastoral oversight was almost wholly lacking as whole areas and works of the Church herself were lost to Catholicism.’
[cont’d]
It does not give me any pleasure to expess these thoughts, but we are deep, deep into denial, still pretending that we are in an Age of Renewal, not even beginning to address our deepest failures honestly. Sixty percent of Mass -going Catholics have walked away from the sacraments in this ‘age of renewal.’ Two-thirds of Catholics can’t identify the Catholic teaching on the Most Holy Eucharist when it is put in front of them. Countless hundreds of thousands, even millions, have graduated from Catholic grammar-high schools and colleges without knowing their Faith. This, evidently, is Renewal; one wonders what a disaster would have looked like.
We’re not doing what we need to, as the Church. We’re drowning under a blizzard of postconciliar documents, God knows: but there’s a vast failure of (a) pastoral oversight, to which the People of God have a right, and (b) Christian formation.
And we’ll continue to have one crisis after another, one problem after another, and good Catholics will chew each other over them, though they’re just symptoms of the deeper, broader, far more pervasive and profound problem that our chief pastors lack the will to honestly address. We are in crisis.
So, yes; I agree with Rod. Being in a position of Authority in the Church while failing to effectively address such a serious crisis isn’t praiseworthy. No one is going to look back on this as a golden age of the Church; and ‘addressing’ a crisis in ecclesiastical documents which are virtually never enforced is almost worse than not addressing the problem at all.
What do you think?
What I think is actually a question. (Or three.)
Why am I so often asked to read a quote from Rod Dreher, read a request for opinions on said quote, and then read all sorts of interpretations of what Rod’s quote might possibly mean?
Fr. Wilson,
I totally agree with your synopsis of the problem.
I can only ask you, how did Holy Mother Church come to this state and what is to be done to begin to rectify the situation?
The following is from one Gerald E. on Patrick Sweeney’s blog:
“Rathergate is also a message to our esteemed spiritual leaders, religious and lay. Stop lying. Stop burying the truth. Clean it up, make amends with victims where necessary. End the bad habits of the past- which go long before Vatican II. Like Rathergate, the Mess of ‘02 combined the worst of the old- obsessive secrecy, inability to treat laypeople as intelligent, mature adults and partners in the work of salvation, poor selection and formation of priestly candidates- with the worst of the new- the toxins of the Sexual Revolution. Worldly institutions handle damage control badly- the much-ballyhooed CBS Wednesday press conference was delayed by six hours, with a badly-written press release to show for its managers’ efforts. Surely the Bride of Christ can do better in its own crises.”
Please Fr. Wilson tell me if you think it is a problem of apostasy. I remember Jesus said “When the son of Man returns, will there be any faith on earth?
So many people do not know that Faith is a supernatural virtue- a gift from God. They believe faith rests on their judement of the evidence and a conviction of their minds or reason.
This is what I believe is the root. We can not venture out in faith if we do not have faith. That is why there are so many cowards.
God Bless You Father,
Isabel
“Please Fr. Wilson tell me if you think it is a problem of apostasy. I remember Jesus said .
When you asked if ‘apostasy’ was ‘the problem,’ I meant what I said: I doubt there ‘s “A Problem.” I suspect that there’s a convergence of problems: priests and laity approach it differently. But most of us are screwing it up.
It does amount to apostasy, though, and Idolatry. We’re erecting false gods.
Again, the easy way is to Blame the Hierarchy. (Actually I do that myself. Probably too often, but I do.)
But let’s not—o ye priests and laymen—forget ourselves.
We are in crisis.
No kidding. When were we not?
I’m not all that concerned about, years from now, folks judging us. I’m really not. For one thing, some posters to the contrary, I’m not at all sure there will BE “years from now.” For what it’s worth, assuming that is unbelievable chutzpah. Shame on you (and lotsa luck, by the way.)
You might now wake up tomorrow, friends. Were I you, I’d worry a hell of a lot more about the real Judgment than I would the history books.
Wemment_author_email>dom@bettnet.com
https://www.bettnet.com
192.168.1.1
2004-09-17 07:01:26
2004-09-17 11:01:26
There is one external threat and it’s radical Islam.
People don’t understand what a threat Islam is because they see the radicals and think no-one will actually convert to that. But a) moderate Islam doesn’t condemn the radicals and b) for an uncatechized person it holds certain attractions in that it needs less effort. Many difficult Christian doctrines are watered down if not directly contradicted. Did you know that Muslims don’t hold to the Ten Commandments? We are definitely facing both internal and external threats and they do play together.
You’re right Charles, in that the parallel only goes so far. I didn’t mean it to be read literally. What I got from the Churchill quote applicable to the Church today is his identifying certain character traits that blinded the British Establishment then, which also, in my view, blinds the Catholic Establishment today.
And of course there is radical Islam, as Dom says. Whatever else one might say about it, that’s one faith that is prepared to fight for its creed. No Christian should welcome violence, certainly, but we didn’t ask for this war to be declared on us, and we have to fight it as if our civilization depended on it. Which it does.
Remember that famous sermon given by the Vicar in the bombed-out church, at the end of “Mrs. Miniver” (1942)? Here it is:
We, in this quiet corner of England, have suffered the loss of friends very dear to us—some close to this church: George West, choir boy; James Bellard, station master and bell ringer and a proud winner, only one hour before his death, of the Belding Cup for his beautiful Miniver rose; and our hearts go out in sympathy to the two families who share the cruel loss of a young girl who was married at this altar only two weeks ago.
The homes of many of us have been destroyed, and the lives of young and old have been taken. There is scarcely a household that hasn’t been struck to the heart.
And why? Surely you must have asked yourself this question. Why in all conscience should these be the ones to suffer? Children, old people, a young girl at the height of her loveliness. Why these? Are these our soldiers? Are these our fighters? Why should they be sacrificed?
I shall tell you why.
Because this is not only a war of soldiers in uniform. It is a war of the people, of all the people, and it must be fought not only on the battlefield, but in the cities and in the villages, in the factories and on the farms, in the home, and in the heart of every man, woman, and child who loves freedom!
Well, we have buried our dead, but we shall not forget them. Instead they will inspire us with an unbreakable determination to free ourselves and those who come after us from the tyranny and terror that threaten to strike us down. This is the people’s war! It is our war! We are the fighters! Fight it then! Fight it with all that is in us, and may God defend the right.
The film then closes with the congregation singing “Onward, Christian soldier” as the focus moves up through the gaps between the rafters to British fighters planes flying off to meet the enemy.
Can you imagine a Roman Catholic bishop, including the Bishop of Rome, giving such a sermon today? Can you imagine a priest doing so?
There’s a “blame America first” crowd out there someplace. I guess it’s only right that we have a “blame the Church first” crowd now too.
Mark, with respect, that’s sloganeering. It’s a way of avoiding the challenges before us.
Can you imagine a Roman Catholic bishop, including the Bishop of Rome, giving such a sermon today? Can you imagine a priest doing so?
I could imagine Fr. George Rutler doing so. I could imagine Fr. Paul Shaughnessy, the Marine Corps Jesuit chaplain, doing so? But, God, there are so few of them.
Iial Catholics who say they read this or that thing I wrote on a blog comments box. These are people who never comment, or if they do, they use false names.
And never doubt how powerful blogs can be in seeding mainstream journalists who can magnify viewpoints expressed on certain smart, well-read blogs. I read all kinds of blogs all the time, and the ideas I find there make it into the Dallas Morning News from time to time, because I make sure that they do, even if I’m not the writer.
He was a pro-choice guy, now repented.
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/1998-01-02/prolife.html
You know, the more I see of these ure of Mr. Lloyd George, the erstwhile great war-time leader, to address himself to the continuity of his work, the whole supported by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Parliament: all these constituted a picture of British fautity and fecklessness which, though devoid of guile, was not devoid of guilt, and, though free from wickedness or evil design, played a definite part in unleashing upon the world of horrors and miseries which, even so far as they have unfolded, are already beyond comparison in human experience.
Rod says, “I believe that decades from now, in the ruins of whatever happens to the Roman Catholic Church in the West, a very similar judgment will be rendered against the entire hierarchy and institutional leadership from the top on down, in the post-Vatican II era.” What do you think?
]]>
4112
2004-09-16 11:15:47
2004-09-16 15:15:47
open
open
churchills_words_for_the_church
publish
0
0
post
You know, the more I see of these d isPermaLink=”false”>https://www.bettnet.com/?p=3716
To get around the potential problem of having to invite or snub one of the presidential candidates for the annual Al Smith dinner, Cardinal Egan of New York decided not to invite either one of them. The problem is that John Kerry is a pro-abortion Catholic and it would not do to endorse in some way by inviting him to a Catholic charitable dinner. But we can’t appear to be partisan, so we can’t invite his opponent either. Don’t want to rile up all those chancery Democrats.
But in order not to completely lose face, we’ll invite the president’s father, a former president himself, and another prominent Democrat (who may or may not be pro-abortion; I don’t know him.)
Here’s what the official archdiocesan spokesman says:
God forbid that we should provoke divisiveness and disagreement over abortion. Instead, it’s most important that we all look like we get along.
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Matt 10:34)
]]>http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Faith/1998-01-02/prolife.html
Here’s something interesting. I just got a call from a very angry woman who identified herself as a parishioner of a large Catholic parish in suburban Dallas. She called demanding to know why the DMN is persecuting the Catholic Church. We got into about a 15-minute discussion, and I told her just the tiniest fragment of the sort of things that everyone who reads these blogs know about the depth and breadth of the scandal. She kept gasping—audibly gasping. She had no idea, none at all. It really shook her up. We ended the conversation on a positive note. She said she’d learned a lot, that she thought everything was fine re: the Scandal.
She said one thing to me that was so touching in its naivete—and I mean that, it was really touching. She said, “But why can’t somebody just call the bishops and ask them to do something? Why can’t somebody call the Pope in Rome and ask him to get rid of these bad men? How can men who do those things be priests? I just don’t understand it. It makes no sense at all.”
And that’s why we have to keep making noise. Not everybody knows what’s really going on. When the world is deaf, you have to shout!
Rod and Dom-
Given what you just posted, shouldn’t we be making a greater effort to get Blogs noticed by more people outside of the existing audience? Wouldn’t that be a more constructive means of using the power of the blog?
Rod – if an average parishoner doesn’t know what’s going on, is it possible that the average priest really doesn’t get it either? Yes, I know the answer, but I’m curious why?
Mark, my pastor is still saying the reason there is a priest shortage is that the Catholic laity have not provided young men who want to be priests. He takes pride in not surfing the web. I think it’s fair to say that he is clueless on the scandal, and I find that simply incomprehensible. This priest is in his mid-50s.
Dom, as far as effect goes, think too about the impact the blogs had on the crystal chapel at Ave Maria University.
And what about Terri Schiavo…the blogs were able to get her situation brought to TV where most Catholics check in.
Think about the impact a jpeg has when foolishness is caught in the act. It’s so very easy to link that foolishness and comment. Where once evidence was difficult to present to someone, linking makes it very easy for anyone to verify a claim.
Think about the problems St. Blogs made for VOTF. Without the blogs, they would have had clear sailing for their liberal agenda.
I think it would be foolish to underestimate Catholic blogging. The hierarchy has no control over this media at all, unlike most other sources of Catholic information for the average Catholic in the pew.
Thank you Fr. Wilson. I sincerely appreciate your remarks and your assesment.
I will keep you in my prayers.
Isabel
Fr. Wilson,
Do you see the Traditional Latin Mass playing any part in the possible restoration of Holy Mother the Church in the near future?
“Do you see the Traditional Latin Mass playing any part in the possible restoration of Holy Mother the Church in the near future?”
An enormous problem we have lived with for thirty-five years is that Vatican II has been seen as some kind of a new beginning, rather than being read, understood and received as part of the ongoing Tradition (anyone who doesn’t want to take my word on this should be aware that Cardinal Ratzinger said the same thing). People act as though the whole Catholic Faith was reinvented in 1965.
In my personal opinion, the liturgical reform was a catastrophe.
Certainly, it did not reflect the mind of the Council Fathers; anyone who reads the liturgical constitution of Vatican II can see that. And the fact that bishops who, during 1967-1969, were in Rome and had the opportunity to witness “demo Masses” of the newRite panned it, should say something as well. These were, after all, Council Fathers.
I have always been amused at the fact that people who profess to believe that the Novus Ordo is OBVIOUSLY incomparably superior to the clearly inferior postconciliar liturgy then proceed to lose their cookies at the prospect that the Faithful might have a (very limited) choice between both rites. You’d think the new, glorious arrangement would commend itself on its merits.
Of course, if you thought that, you’d be surprised that 60% of our worshipping congregation voted with their feet over the past thirty years.
The day is coming when as a Church we’re going to need to take an honest, humble look at our situation, and our mistakes. I am truly glad that the traditional liturgy has been preserved. I am glad that traditional Religious communities have been founded in the last twenty years—traditional Benedictines, Carmelites, Dominicans, Redemptorists, etc—and that, with the secular traditionalist Fraternity of St Peter, they flourish, with their most serious problem being space for applicants.
Not a problem in my diocese.
The Novus Ordo is built on the Tridentine. Those who bad mouth the Tridentine, cut the roots out from under that which they wish to grow. Either we respect all of our liturgies, or we destroy the meaning of any of them.
When we reject our Tradition, our theology rests on nothing but the whim of the moment, no more truthful than the latest political speech from one of the presidential candidates, and subject to continual reinterpretation. If we reject the Tradition, we might just as well sleep in on Sunday morning.
Which brings me right back to that rewriting of Canon Law that seems to have eliminated the concept of heresy.
iven what you just posted, shouldnm and his otherwise outstanding blog, I find it hard to take seriously any combox which includes comments from a man who has repeatedly called for, among other indefensible things, the unilateral nuclear destruction of entire Islamic cities.
And yes, Joseph d’Hippolito, I’m talking to you.
Well Richard – his remarks could have been made out of frustration. My niece, a PFC stationed in Iraq, said the same thing.
But having said that, and with all due respect to Dom and his otherwise outstanding blog, I find it hard to take seriously any combox which includes comments from a man who has repeatedly called for, among other indefensible things, the unilateral nuclear destruction of entire Islamic cities.
And yes, Joseph d’Hippolito, I’m talking to you.
Of all the things that have been said, and could be said, on this thread, do you have to pick on Joe? I mean, really. Is Joe the problem here? Or is it easier to crack on him than the men who are responsible for this present crisis?
Joe and I probably don’t agree on everything, but come on, let’s have some perspective. At least he’s awake, and not a quietist cabbage, hoping everything will come right again if he just sits quite still and waits.
I should add that I’ve thought the same thing about Islamic cities, on 9/11/01, when I saw thousands of people die in front of my eyes while I was standing on the Brooklyn Bridge. I repented of that thought later. But I had it. I think it’s normal in times like this.
I happen to live in an Islamic city, Cairo. I’d prefer not to be nuked.
We’d prefer not to nuke you. But why are you living in Cairo? I wouldn’t live there for anything. Hell, I wouldn’t even GO there.
Hello Rod,
No, it’s not entirely on point.
But with friends like this…I’m saying that he’s not doing you any favors with his cheering section. And I say that agreeing with a lot of your points (if not always the zeal with which they are expressed).
In my anger did I think about dropping a MOAB or a tac-nuke on the Kabaa on Sept. 11? I’m sure most of us did. I also think we thought better of it not long after. Unfortunately, Mr. d’Hippolito has no such excuse. He has been making such extreme, indefensible comments all over St. Blogs for a long time. We didn’t just catch him on a bad day.
And it’s why some bloggers, like Mark Shea, have banned him – as you know.
I also happen to think Islamic radicalism and the societies which support it have to be confronted more aggressively, not just by the West but by the Church as well. I don’t think that cause is done any favors by comments like Joe has made on so many occasions.
But perhaps this is an ideal occasion for Joe to retract and apologize for his remarks and turn over a new leaf. I’d rather see that than see him cast into outer darkness.
best regards
Comments about Joe are sort of a red herring here. But for what it’s worth, Joe posts in my blog. I’ve requested that he not blow up any Moslems there, and he has agreed not to. I’m sure he would accommodate any other blogger who made a similar request. I find Joe’s perspective on a lot of issues insightful. We don’t always agree, but he always makes me think. I share your lack of enthusiasm for blowing up Islamic cities, Charlie, because I have relatives in Abu Dahbi.
Regarding Islam, John Allen’s column this week is devoted to his visit to Africa. He interviewed a bishop who made quite a surprising comment to the effect that the Moslems want to have a government that reflects Islamic law and are not satisfied with anything less, which is making congenial relations with them impossible. That is certainly content requiring careful consideration.
Regarding anger and sin. Who said it…“Be angry and sin not”…? Look at Christ’s response to commerce in the temple. There was more than a little anger behind it, and He was sure no cabbage!
Charlie posted, and I think, to the point:
I happen to live in an Islamic city, Cairo.roblems is that Catholics begin to see those other faiths as equal to their own.
That may be what seems to happen, but it isn’t. To wit, I know of various house of Mother Teresa’s sisters in Islamic countries who work well with Muslims to serve the poor and solve social problems without compromising the faith.
I think you’ve given an oversimplistic reading of the situation as well as a non sequitir. We should not equate Muslims with Satan. The source of their religion may be in the lies of Satan, but that doesn’t make all Muslims evil, nor does it mean they cannot find the natural law that dwells in their hearts.
Dom, the problem is that because Rome finds useful allies in Islamic (or pseudo-Islamic) nations in its fight against abortion, Rome tends to ignore those allies’ more disgusting traits: authoritarian repression and lack of respect for human rights.
Look at JPII’s response to Islamic tyrants as the war against Iraq began last year. JPII argued vociferously against war, ostensibly to protect Christians in communion with Rome living in Arab countries. Yet Renzo Guolo, professor of the sociology of religion at the University of Trieste and a specialist in Muslim fundamentalism, writes in his book, Xenophobes and Xenophiles: Italians and Islam, that those bishops who oppose the papal approach toward Islam remembered how the pope, “who ordinarily speaks about all topics, had spread a veil of silence over the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries.”
Many Christians feel abandoned by Rome, as this Chaldean Christian woman told Italy’s Corriere della Sera:
“We feel abandoned,” a woman named Nura told the Italian daily in 2002.
“After our conversion, we have no one to support us. We ask the Church and Italy: Protect us, defend us.”
Obviously, abortion as birth control on demand must be opposed. But that opposition doesn’t justify Rome’s apparent geopolitical strategy of ignorning or downplaying Islamic fanaticism.
>
carrie1104@sbcglobal.net
http://www.carrietomko.blogspot.com
152.163.100.202
2004-09-21 20:00:22
2004-09-22 00:00:22
Karol Wojtyla must have been a master of “getting along” because he was able to escape persecution while living as a priest in Poland. Was he chosen to be Pope for that very reason?
John Paul I intended to clean house and was permitted to live for only a month. John Paul II did not clean house. And does not clean house, obviously.