Monday, October 20, 2014

The church: one step forward, one step back


Funny thing is the heretics are saying the same thing. I'll explain myself so don't worry.
  • Surprise; the church is Catholic. "For Francis, a resounding defeat: Traditionalists have won a huge victory." | "Even in 2015, it's hard for Francis to go much beyond this without risking schism." Of course the secular media are presenting this like their politics: "Catholic bishops veto gay-friendly statements leaving Pope Francis the loser." (Because we're big meanies who want to beat up the divorced and homosexuals. Sed contra, conservative Christians taught me as a kid it's wrong to pick on gays.) They believe or want to that the church is like Congress or a Protestant denomination, where doctrine is changeable by vote. (Even the Constitution is amendable and repealable: witness Prohibition.) I understand the synod won't be done until next year. And so we thank God for Cardinal Burke and the African cardinals who launched the "Blue Thursday" counter-revolution at the Synod. We thank God for preserving the doctrines and dogmas of his Church. And we pray that one of these great Synod Fathers who fought the heretics will soon serve as our next pope. Burke as the first American Pope. I like it. But we need a Pope young enough to stick around for 20 years to finish what Benedict the Great started (why he quit is mysterious).
  • "God is not afraid of new things!" Paul VI beatified?! Shaking my head. Not a heretic and he took the heat for upholding doctrine on contraception (so of course I accept the church's decision) but what a disaster as Pope. This business of beatifying and canonizing Popes as a posthumous honors system with a political agenda (canonizing that stupid council) just confirms non-Catholics' misconceptions about the papacy. Way to score an own goal, church. Being "a disaster as pope" (as if one of the faithful had the right to judge in such matters, and to make that judgement public) and living the virtues in an heroic manner are not mutually exclusive. Many people might think that Pope Celestine V was "a disaster as pope" and yet 17 years after his death he was canonized. I thought of St. Peter Celestine. Realized he wasn't cut out to be Pope so he quit; very different. When I joined the church I didn't check my brain in at the door. Vatican II flopped and it's crashing down around the neo-conservatives' ears. Since that disaster of a council took the ordinary practice of the Catholic religion away from so many people (and done in the name of obedience per Noel quoted above, as Archbishop Lefebvre observed), conservative Catholics have been rallying around the Pope's person in an unprecedented way. I remember the cultural sea change in America from 1968 to 1972; been chasing the old America since ("went back in time" four years ago, because I realized I can). A reason I don't have a lick of devotion to Paul VI and never will. Sorry I don't agree. Humanae Vitae was the most prophetic document in the past 400 years IMO. He stood against what was then a majority heretic body in both Europe and USA. I don't get a raise or a promotion for doing the bare minimum for my job. Why I have no devotion to John Paul II: bad (liberal) cardinal appointments, low-church charismatic your only option (unless you went Greek Catholic, a fine thing), and selling out on altar girls. Paul VI brought you the Novus Ordo and Eucharistic ministers, who were supposed to be for "extraordinary" situations but that's been horribly abused. The liberals have soft-sold women's ordination with it, but support for that has never taken off because it's impossible. The Holy Spirit at work. Paul VI at the UN: the golden era's blind faith in "Progress!" The '50s begat Vatican II: streamline the church for a better world; pitch it as evangelism. (Heretical version pushed by the media: let's work with Protestants and nonbelievers to create a new church, no longer really Catholic.) Well, my archdiocese is broke, closing parishes. "How's that 'renewal' working out for youse?" In 50 years the American church will be sound again (the only young who still go to Mass are conservative), but smaller than now.
  • "Why I got out of New York." “New York in the ’70s was known for three things: cheap rent, free healthcare and free education,” said John, 52, a lawyer. “That was the city I loved, the one where I drove a cab for five years to pay for law school. It’s gone. So Times Square got cleaned up. For what? Now it’s a demented cross between Tokyo and Disneyland.” 15 years ago I liked Manhattan very much. New York's the capital of the world with something for everyone. But I couldn't live there.

2 comments:

  1. John, I do not at all think the synod was a defeat for Francis, far, far from it. He now knows who he has to get ride of. If this man lives long enough, and I do believe that his family is long-lived, he will do what liberals always do: stack the deck. Personally, I think that the real revolution, one that will make Vatican I & II look like the Council of Trent, is not too far off. He will bide his time, get ride of the trouble-makers, replace them with men who think just like he does...and in the end he will call an already stacked synod, and get just what he wants.

    Many saw the same game-plan in the Episcopal Church.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Because we're big meanies who want to beat up the divorced and homosexuals."

    It's not rocket science- we oppose a "warming of attitudes" toward homosexuality for the same reason we'd oppose a "warming of attitudes" toward habitual drunkenness- because hanging around a San Francisco bathhouse is BAD for the homosexual person who does it, in the same way that drinking 24 beers before bed is bad for a drunkard. It's bad for the body and bad for the soul. An extraordinary synod on dietary health might just as well laud the “precious support” that sozzled drinking buddies can give each other. Fine, left-wing reporters may not share this perspective, but I have to hope they're not so stupid that they can't at least describe it accurately... which suggests they miss the point quite deliberately.

    I can understand why leaders of GLBTQWTFBBQAT&T groups might choose to obscure the doctrine by insinuating that Catholics hate gay people- after all, every same-sex-attracted young person they can induce to reject traditional morality is one more warm body to help supply meet demand in the meat market. Why straight lefty journalists should play the same game is more obscure. They clearly know about AIDS; is it so hard to concede that maybe the Church has an eensy-weensy point about the negative consequences of sexual hedonism?

    ReplyDelete

Leave comment