Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Political Agendas, Decisions, And A Short Memo To The Pope

Pope Benedict needs to weed some of these 'old boys' out of the ranks of Cardinals before he adds anymore because if he doesn't, he is not addressing the 'filth' in the Church.


I find the thinking of traditionalist apologists very fascinating. While generously accusing liberals of using the sexual abuse crisis to further their theological agendas, they in fact engage in the same. The following is from Damian Thompson who is a traditionalist columnist for the London based Telegraph. The article is referencing the second installment of Jason Berry's expose of the Legion.


Interesting fallout from the Legionaries scandal
By Damian Thompson Religion - Telegraph.com.UK - April 14th, 2010

My traditionalist priest friends are, thank God, not susceptible to the sin of Schadenfreude. But, if they were, they might note that several Vatican officials dragged into the financial side of the Legionaries of Christ scandal were stubbornly opposed to Pope Benedict XVI’s attempts to improve the worship of the Catholic Church by liberating the pre-Vatican II form of the Roman Rite. (It's only the liturgical progressives who take bribes from con artist pedophiles?)

As I said yesterday, I can’t see how Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals, can cling on in the light of accusations of his links to the fabulously wealthy Legionaries made by Jason Berry in the National Catholic Reporter. And Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz of Krakow, formerly John Paul II’s private secretary, must also be a nervous man. (I agree. One would think both are nervous men and one can hope, both are remorseful men. But if they are anything like their patron, they are not.)

Dziwisz is accused by Berry of accepting charitable donations that smoothed the way, shall we say, for Legionary supporters to attend the “private” Masses of John Paul. Cardinal Ratzinger abandoned those semi-public occasions when he became Pope, perhaps because he suspected something was not quite right. Also, Berry reports that Ratzinger pushed away one of the Legion’s “charitable” bungs when it was offered to him in an envelope. His puritanical attitude towards money was one of several things that distinguished him from the curial backslappers, who were sometimes surprisingly effective at limiting his access to John Paul II. Another was his wish to act more firmly against senior clergy accused of sex offences. (Wishes do not change reality and Ratzinger made no dent in this reality, and after five years he has made no dent in this reality. Is he still just 'wishing' as Pope.)

Something I’d like to know: in their obsession with getting as close as possible to papal Masses, did the Legionaries exert any pressure on Archbishop Piero Marini, John Paul’s MC (and the designer of liturgies whose rubrics owed more to the Metropolitan Community Church than to Catholic tradition)? Archbishop Marini, you may recall, was given a slap-up party by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor in Westminster to celebrate the publication of a book subtly dissing (as we say these days) Pope Benedict’s reforms. (Please Damian, Archbishop Marini is not implicated in any wrong doing, and just in case you failed to notice, Cardinal Pio Laghi also turned the Legion and Sodano down cold after their bribery attempt to have their pet seminary raised to Pontifical status.)


*************************************************


One of the complaints traditionalists had with the Legion before it's stunning fall from Grace, was that the Legion did not push too strongly for 'the reform of the reform' when it came to the liturgy. For a bastion of Catholic orthodoxy and piety, the Legion didn't seem to have it's act together when it came to reforming the Mass in the direction of a more vertical expression.

It could be that the Legion wasn't very on board with this reform because it suited their mentality to face their congregation to keep 'an eye' on them. Can't do that very well when your back is turned and you are supposedly focused on Jesus. Besides actors like to interact with their audience--kind of like JPII.

I keep wondering why Damian is so quick to blame Archbishop Marini for his distaste of JPII's Masses. Marini wasn't the actor, he was just the stage director. JPII was the director/actor. Anyone who doubts that doesn't get the type of papacy JPII ran. Even the 'courageous filth reformer' Cardinal Ratzinger, couldn't find the courage to buck JPII. Why would a reasonable person assume JPII was somehow subservient to the liturgical wishes of Marini?

It is nice to see that both liberals and traditionalists can see the need for Benedict to finally do something about the corruption in the College of Cardinals. Pope Benedict might strongly consider removing a bunch of Cardinals before he calls another consistory where he appoints even more of the same. That's just a thought. A sort of hopeless wish.

Msgr Georg Ganswein--Benedict's right hand man and all around papal assistant--was quoted yesterday in the German newspaper Bild that it was not Pope Benedict's job to comment on individual abuse cases. That was the job of respective bishops and dioceses:

"It does not make sense, nor is it helpful, for the Holy Father to comment personally on each case," the he told the German newspaper Bild.
"It is overlooked too fast that various bishops and bishops conferences carry responsibility," he said.
"Criticism that helps the cause is always legitimate," he was quoted as saying. "But I doubt that in this case the criticism really follows this purpose."

Ganswein has something of a legitimate gripe, but it is Benedict's responsibility to discipline and remove offending bishops and cardinals and so far his record is squat with this responsibility. He has removed none. Five years as Pope and the same corrupt Cardinals still have their positions or have actually been promoted. And if he finally acts in the case of Cardinal Sodano, once again it will be because he has been forced to act by the 'anti Catholic agenda driven media'. Just where is the courage in that?

Rumor has it that a papal commissioner will be put in charge of the Legion. That it will not be suspended or disbanded or at the opposite end given a 'certificate of good conduct' as was the hope of Cardinal Rode. Not terribly shocking that Rode would want to give the Legion, not just a get out jail free card, but a pat on the back.

Memo to Benedict, you must remove this guy because he no longer has any credibility. Any decision which comes from his dicastery about the Legion or the LCWR will be vilified. They will not be evaluated on their merits, but on his documented corruption. See, that's the whole issue with the Legion. It can not stand outside the personal corruption of Maciel and neither can any decision that comes from Rode's dicastery as long as that man is it's head.

There is a lesson in this for you as well Holy Father, because you are the head of the entirety of the Church and the less transparent, the less courageous and upstanding you seem, the more you cast the entire church in disrepute. It's all of a piece because that's the way it works in autocratic hierarchy. You are no better than the corruption you leave in place or try to hide.


7 comments:

  1. Gosh, the self-righteousness of these people is amazing! Vatican: Cult of Personality! Cult of Greed! Cult of Irresponsibility! Cult of Bigotry! Cult of Shift-the-Blame!

    Did I forget any?

    ReplyDelete
  2. ## No, Thera, you didn't :)

    "Something I’d like to know: in their obsession with getting as close as possible to papal Masses, did the Legionaries exert any pressure on Archbishop Piero Marini, John Paul’s MC (and the designer of liturgies whose rubrics owed more to the Metropolitan Community Church than to Catholic tradition)? Archbishop Marini, you may recall, was given a slap-up party by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor in Westminster to celebrate the publication of a book subtly dissing (as we say these days) Pope Benedict’s reforms. (Please Damian, Archbishop Marini is not implicated in any wrong doing, and just in case you failed to notice, Cardinal Pio Laghi also turned the Legion and Sodano down cold after their bribery attempt to have their pet seminary raised to Pontifical status.)"

    ## What I find amazing, depressing, horrigfying, revolting, frustrating, & agonising, is this: what the logic of the excuses made for the the Pope implies about the Vatican, and about a *lot* of members of the episcopate.

    Sodano
    Groer
    Marini
    Mahony
    Babini
    Egan
    JP2
    Nichols
    Murphy O'Connor
    Brady
    - and so on...

    If they have been so corrupt, or obstructive, or unwilling to hear accusations, or so remiss in dealing with them, or a lot of other things - why in the name of all that's holy were chosen as bishops or as cardinals ?

    If Damian - whose weblog I have visited a lot recently - and those who share his outlook, are right, then a lot of the men who are in the Curia who govern doceses are utterly unfit to look after anything more complicated than a paper bag.

    It is the logic of the defenders of the Pope that is so damning - all I'm doing is making it explicit; nothing more.

    I want to scream when I see the constant excuses. For God's sake, can't these mitred low-lifes get into their thick skulls that the logic of apologising cancels out that of excuses - where there are excuses, there cannot be true sorrow for sin, because there is no true repentance. C. S. Lewis explains this point very well. What a mere Anglican layman with a working conscience could see plainly, was beyond the understanding of the members of the so-called infallible so-called Catholic so-called Magisterium.

    How the hell do they expect to be taken seriously ?

    What would happen, if a Catholic-in-the-pew went to confession & said,
    "Actually, Father, I'm very sorry for committing adultery, and it was very bad, but it was not really my fault, because Society is to blame" ? Would such a man be absolved ? Of course - he'd be told in no uncertain terms that he was not properly disposed, so he could not be absolved.

    But what is utterly wrong in the confessional, turns out to be utterly OK in the Vatican.

    The Church of Satan is more ethical - as are the Wiccans.

    The Church hid these scandals, because it feared to lose face - it has now lost face because it hid them. Did no one see that this woulfd be the inevitable result of such an immoral policy ?

    Mention these things, criticise the Pope, bring up the fact that the almost unbounded authority over each and every single Catholic which Vatican I recognises for him has moral implications, so that with the universal authority goes a noless universal responsibility - and you get called anti-Catholic. But the logic that relieves the Pope of responsibility, relieves him of authority: the two are inseparable. Power without responsibility is totally contrary to the example of Christ. What Rome wants, it seems, is power, dominion, glory, praise, honour, authority, freedom from moral responsibility, strength, riches & greatness - & to Hell with Christ, whom they crucify daily. These people are apostates & liars, as their works prove.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "The Church of Satan is more ethical - as are the Wiccans."

    In a sense...yes. As at least superficially they claim (and many adherents try) to be coherent in what they do. They do not, but at least they are more overtly transparent as to what they are about.

    Perhaps one needs to ponder then that the (US version ala La Vey) is a fraud; a clever hoax.

    The core principle of the high level Luciferian....and of any (serious) high level occult tradition is that of Inversion. Thus the 'logic' (or illogic...) of Chaos. The main thrust of that is both to say 'A' & do 'B', but also to pretend to do 'A' whilst really doing 'B'.

    In Bill Cosby's classic comic routine involving a dad finding his little boy eating cookies (with his hand holding one, face covered with it....)....and the kid denying that he is eating a cookie, we see the innocence of mental & moral immaturity.

    Below the age of reason (normally around 6-7) the child does not fully comprehend 'Bad Vs Good', thus is not held morally culpable for freely chosing 'bad'. The child exhibits denial of cookie eating as he thinks that denying it = reality. (at some level of his reasoning).

    But we are neither speaking of 4 year olds, nor are we speaking of illicit cookie consumption.

    We refer to Prelates of the Church. Who are mature men with advanced academic degrees in Philosophy, Theology, & Scripture study. They are also seasoned men of moral & ethical argument. And experienced 'men of the world'. They are supposed to know right from wrong;= they are also VERY culapble for their actions (individually & corporately)!

    They are denying that they ate the cookie, that they are holding a cookie, that anyone else ate a cookie, that there is palpable evidence of cookie consumption all around them, knowledge of cookie consumption, responsibility for cookie consumption - and in some cases the very existence of the cookie.

    ...despite having crumbs all over their hands.

    Moreover, they are smarter then the 4 yo & positively & demonstrably evil as they not only ARE aware of & responsible for the illicit cookie consumption...but are blaming it on all & sundry. Except themselves.

    The essence of Mortal Sin is in knowing it is wrong AND freely choosing to do it. Hence why it is so hurtful to our relationship with God. The more intentional the deed, the worse & more demonic.

    Surely some Prelates are Blind - in that they have allowed Satan to dupe them into thinking they are 'doing good for the Church'.

    Yet as articles like this make frighteningly clear - their 'God' is not God; it is the Church. The organization they have pledged themselves to. With Christ as mere talking point & corporate logo. A useful medium of control 'for the simple'.

    There is your...'Church of Satan'.

    Anon Y. Mouse

    These men know what they are doing it wrong & are freely choosing to do it. Believing such is their priviledge by virtue of office.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Clever, Colleen: you managed to slip the d-word into the posting.

    And gave me a much-needed laugh at the end of a long day of reading about and trying to respond to commentary re: this crisis.

    Despite some folks who now want to claim that the storm is over and the church has weathered it just fine, thank you very much, this is not going to go away.

    Unless Benedict wants that smaller, purer church--but the remnant left can hardly keep calling itself pure, given what we know now, can it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Rat-biter said:

    If they have been so corrupt, or obstructive, or unwilling to hear accusations, or so remiss in dealing with them, or a lot of other things - why in the name of all that's holy were chosen as bishops or as cardinals ?

    Why were they chosen? Not for their thinking ability. But for their swallowing skills! Their ability to dissociate one thing from another thing. To compartmentalize. To curry favor. To act like Papal Pets.

    Oh, wow, your last paragraph is a glorious capstone to you rant!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bill, the remant can only stay and support this hierarchy because they are still in total denial about the Papacy. They can give ground on the Cardinal riff raff, but not on the Pope. Benedict must always be pure no matter how many cookie crumbs are spattered all over his pure pristine cassock and fiddle back chasuble.

    Rat-biter, you have some great lines in your post. I just laughed with this zinger: "then a lot of the men who are in the Curia who govern doceses are utterly unfit to look after anything more complicated than a paper bag."

    This is would only be true if they heard from someone who told them professional psychologists said it was a paper bag.

    In a more serious vein your observation about confession vs Vatican spin is right on.

    Ex LC/RC members are making a similar point about the current Legion leadership and Maciel. At least in the sense that they did nothing to convert Maciel. They did exactly the inverse. They bent over backwards to cover for Maciel's utter lack of any spirituality by insisting he suffered like Christ and acting as if he did. Which of course is a real life example of what Anon is writing about. This is pure evil and because Maciel's life was conflated and comingled with Jesus it is Satanic. No wonder the gutless bastards had an exorcist at Maciel's death bed. Not for Maciel but to protect themselves from Maciel.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm working myself up to post something I spent all day yesterday writing - and then thought better of it, trying to be compassionate. Doing that likely kept me from writing my current blog - as I was caught up in a different aspect. (But the more this heats up, the more I am tempted....)

    Just took another look at it. Short, sweet. Titled: Poppery? Foppery? Pride Fest!

    I think the Vatican may have earned it!

    ReplyDelete