Quo vadis?

Tweet

Will you be there with them?

[This is a retitled repost of a piece I wrote almost six months ago at the conclusion of the Synod on the Family. I admit that it was prescient in predicting that the Pope's exhortation would use obfuscation and ambiguity to advance his agenda while avoiding the direct contradiction of doctrine. But of course I was not the only one to foresee this. Pay attention to the excerpt from the Scalfari interview, directly below. I had actually forgotten it, but it deserves another read now: On communion for the divorced and remarried, the Pope allegedly said: "the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted." After Amoris Laetitia, can anyone seriously doubt that this isn't his goal?

But the real focus of the piece was on how faithful Catholics should respond to this Pope. Hence the new (and I think more appropriate title). Quo vadis? Peter flees Rome to avoid probable torture and death, and on the road outside of the city meets the risen Christ. "Where are you going?" Peter asks Him. "I am going to Rome to be crucified again." Peter gets the message and finds the courage to return. Of course, Peter's question to Christ could also be Christ's question to him.

Where are you going?]     

Rorate Caeli has translated a recent Eugenio Scalfari piece where he reports the Pope's intentions towards communion for the divorced and remarried. Rorate correctly notes that we are long past the point where anyone could reasonably doubt the basic veracity of the Pope's favorite journalist writing in the Pope's favorite newspaper.

It is true -- Pope Francis answered -- it is a truth and for that matter the family that is the basis of any society changes continuously, as all things change around us. We must not think that the family does not exist any longer, it will always exist, because ours is a social species, and the family is the support beam of sociability, but it cannot be avoided that the current family, open as you say, contains some positive aspects, and some negative ones. ... The diverse opinion of the bishops is part of this modernity of the Church and of the diverse societies in which she operated, but the goal is the same, and for that which regards the admission of the divorced to the Sacraments, [it] confirms that this principle has been accepted by the Synod. This is bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.

But this is merely confirmation of what we already knew. The Pope's behavior at the Synod should have left no doubts in anyone's mind as to what side he was on. Communion for the divorced and remarried was advanced by a powerful minority, all of whom were close friends or allies of the Pope. Some of them were handpicked by him to attend the Synod at the last minute. A two-thirds majority narrowly approved paragraphs of the final Relatio containing language that will move the heresy forward--the narrow approval a function of his handpicked attendees. And needless to say, far from condemning his heretical allies, the Pope gave a final address where he bitterly attacked those who had attempted to defend Church teachings.

We are still awaiting an official English translation of the Relatio, and sources claim that the Pope himself will pen a concluding exhortation on the matter. My prediction is that the Pope will not directly endorse the heresy--it is in the nature of his strategy and of the heresy itself that it is often not directly endorsed. But it will advance the cause. And communion for the divorced and remarried will become the quasi-official practice within the Church.

I have written many critical pieces on this Pope. I'm not sure whether I have explicitly called him a Modernist--an adherent of the Modernist heresy--although he clearly is one. But like the hyper-evolving alien in that horror movie, the heresy of Modernism itself regularly metastasizes into different forms.

Michael Lofton at OnePeterFive identifies one current form of Modernism as Kasperism--the view that dogma is to be left intact in theory, but may be contradicted in practice. (the name is in honor of Cardinal Walter Kasper, its most well-known proponent). I think that gets it exactly right. And like all forms of Modernism it is disingenuous and slippery, although particularly so in this case.

The Modernists or Kasperites sense impending victory, but they are probably clever enough to not overplay their hand. The idea is to leave enough ambiguity to lull their potential opponents--of whom even now there are many--into continuing silence or inaction. No one wants to stick their neck out first and engage the enemy, for they believe they will merely be accused of creating one. In this way, the heretics believe they will win without a shot being fired.

What to do?

Let me first speak of rank-and-file Catholics. Most faithful Catholics are probably not aware of what is happening or especially and most importantly the Pope's role in it. They are busy simply being Catholics--worshipping God through His Church as faithfully as they can--not reading blogs or debating on Facebook. No doubt they will continue in this until the real fireworks start. I won't address them since they wouldn't be reading this anyway. That's okay, of course.

Catholic journalists, bloggers and interested readers and thinkers are another story, and so I will address them directly: You pride yourselves on being informed, so you cannot now plead ignorance. If at this point you defend Francis and attack his opponents, you are doing the Devil's work and have become collaborators in the destruction of the Church. Whatever it is--an obstinate naiveté, pride, fear, money or an exaggerated fetish for charity, now almost certainly being used as a cover for one of the latter three--get over it. Give it up. You have put yourselves on the path to hell, and your statements and actions will have the effect of helping to bring others along with you. Stop and do the right thing. For your own souls, at the least.

Faithful priests, bishops and cardinals: The Church now needs a public champion. Someone must be the first to rebuke Francis to his face, for without a first there will be no others. It will probably be a thankless task, at least in this life. You will be slandered and vilified, called an "extremist" and a "schismatic". Your name may not go down in human history, at least in any major way, in part because the victory will not be won so quickly. Someone fifty or a hundred years from now may get most of the recognition and applause. But of course, as much as it seems to matter to so many of us, it shouldn't, and you of all Catholics should know that.

For all of us, I think of that van Eyck painting, The Adoration of the Mystic Lamb (The Lamb of God), which was the subject of today's Feast of all Saints homily at St. John Cantius. All of the saints are there in that beautiful country, adoring the Lamb. There are priests, bishops, popes (a handful), women religious, monks, soldiers (male and female), hermits, philosophers, married men and women, and the unmarried faithful including not a few children.

When the earthly battle is won in fifty or a hundred years, at the same time virtually all of us will be there in that other country, or at least each of us could be there. Nothing is stopping us. Nothing is stopping you. Literally nothing.

Except perhaps you.

Sign, as it were, your own petition to be on the Church's side. Other people will see it. That's the catch. You might lose a few friends. You might even lose money or position.

Someone might call you a schismatic on Facebook.

Facebook (not so long from now) might block your account.

You think that's tough? Tell that to the martyrs in that painting.

But they're pulling for you and praying for you, even now.

Don't let them down.      

The Question Isn't, Anymore, Whether the Pope is a Heretic; It's What Do We Do About It

Tweet

Will you be there with them?

Rorate Caeli has translated a recent Eugenio Scalfari piece where he reports the Pope's intentions towards communion for the divorced and remarried. Rorate correctly notes that we are long past the point where anyone could reasonably doubt the basic veracity of the Pope's favorite journalist writing in the Pope's favorite newspaper.

It is true -- Pope Francis answered -- it is a truth and for that matter the family that is the basis of any society changes continuously, as all things change around us. We must not think that the family does not exist any longer, it will always exist, because ours is a social species, and the family is the support beam of sociability, but it cannot be avoided that the current family, open as you say, contains some positive aspects, and some negative ones. ... The diverse opinion of the bishops is part of this modernity of the Church and of the diverse societies in which she operated, but the goal is the same, and for that which regards the admission of the divorced to the Sacraments, [it] confirms that this principle has been accepted by the Synod. This is bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.

But this is merely confirmation of what we already knew. The Pope's behavior at the Synod should have left no doubts in anyone's mind as to what side he was on. Communion for the divorced and remarried was advanced by a powerful minority, all of whom were close friends or allies of the Pope. Some of them were handpicked by him to attend the Synod at the last minute. A two-thirds majority narrowly approved paragraphs of the final Relatio containing language that will move the heresy forward--the narrow approval a function of his handpicked attendees. And needless to say, far from condemning his heretical allies, the Pope gave a final address where he bitterly attacked those who had attempted to defend Church teachings.

We are still awaiting an official English translation of the Relatio, and sources claim that the Pope himself will pen a concluding exhortation on the matter. My prediction is that the Pope will not directly endorse the heresy--it is in the nature of his strategy and of the heresy itself that it is often not directly endorsed. But it will advance the cause. And communion for the divorced and remarried will become the quasi-official practice within the Church.

I have written many critical pieces on this Pope. I'm not sure whether I have explicitly called him a Modernist--an adherent of the Modernist heresy--although he clearly is one. But like the hyper-evolving alien in that horror movie, the heresy of Modernism itself regularly metastasizes into different forms.

Michael Lofton at OnePeterFive identifies one current form of Modernism as Kasperism--the view that dogma is to be left intact in theory, but may be contradicted in practice. (the name is in honor of Cardinal Walter Kasper, its most well-known proponent). I think that gets it exactly right. And like all forms of Modernism it is disingenuous and slippery, although particularly so in this case.

The Modernists or Kasperites sense impending victory, but they are probably clever enough to not overplay their hand. The idea is to leave enough ambiguity to lull their potential opponents--of whom even now there are many--into continuing silence or inaction. No one wants to stick their neck out first and engage the enemy, for they believe they will merely be accused of creating one. In this way, the heretics believe they will win without a shot being fired.

What to do?

Let me first speak of rank-and-file Catholics. Most faithful Catholics are probably not aware of what is happening or especially and most importantly the Pope's role in it. They are busy simply being Catholics--worshipping God through His Church as faithfully as they can--not reading blogs or debating on Facebook. No doubt they will continue in this until the real fireworks start. I won't address them since they wouldn't be reading this anyway. That's okay, of course.

Catholic journalists, bloggers and interested readers and thinkers are another story, and so I will address them directly: You pride yourselves on being informed, so you cannot now plead ignorance. If at this point you defend Francis and attack his opponents, you are doing the Devil's work and have become collaborators in the destruction of the Church. Whatever it is--an obstinate naiveté, pride, fear, money or an exaggerated fetish for charity, now almost certainly being used as a cover for one of the latter three--get over it. Give it up. You have put yourselves on the path to hell, and your statements and actions will have the effect of helping to bring others along with you. Stop and do the right thing. For your own souls, at the least.

Faithful priests, bishops and cardinals: The Church now needs a public champion. Someone must be the first to rebuke Francis to his face, for without a first there will be no others. It will probably be a thankless task, at least in this life. You will be slandered and vilified, called an "extremist" and a "schismatic". Your name may not go down in human history, at least in any major way, in part because the victory will not be won so quickly. Someone fifty or a hundred years from now may get the recognition and applause. But of course, as much as it seems to matter to so many of us, it shouldn't, and you of all Catholics should know that.

For all of us, I think of that van Eyck painting, The Adoration of the Mystic Lamb (The Lamb of God), which was the subject of today's Feast of all Saints homily at St. John Cantius. All of the saints are there in that beautiful country, adoring the Lamb. There are priests, bishops, popes (a handful), women religious, monks, soldiers (male and female), hermits, philosophers, married men and women, and the unmarried faithful including not a few children.

When the earthly battle is won in fifty or a hundred years, at the same time virtually all of us will be there in that other country, or at least each of us could be there. Nothing is stopping us. Nothing is stopping you. Literally nothing.

Except perhaps you.

Sign, as it were, your own petition to be on the Church's side. Other people will see it. That's the catch. You might lose a few friends. You might even lose money or position.

Someone might call you a schismatic on Facebook.

Facebook (not so long from now) might block your account.

You think that's tough? Tell that to the martyrs in that painting.

But they're pulling for you and praying for you, even now.

Don't let them down.      

Flashback: The Horror!

Tweet

The future pope being blessed by a televangelist

I wasn't a regular reader of Rorate Caeli when Pope Francis was elected, but I remember this post, largely because it seemed so out of step with the cautious optimism of the time. The opinion itself was soon mixed up in accusations that the author was SSPX or some such, and so was dismissed by many as biased and uncharitable. And while Rorate itself called the author a "cherished friend", even that traditionalist site qualified the contribution with, "(this post) is a personal assessment by the author and does not indicate any opinion of this blog or its contributors."

But what faithful Catholic could today dispute any of this? Every single claim below has been borne out by Bergoglio's words and actions as Pope. Indeed, the piece is almost a perfect summary of his pontificate. Mr. González and Rorate Caeli got it right.

By Marcelo González, of Panorama Católico Internacional, March 13, 2013:

The Horror! 

Of all the unthinkable candidates, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is perhaps the worst. Not because he openly professes doctrines against the faith and morals, but because, judging from his work as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, faith and morals seem to have been irrelevant to him. 

A sworn enemy of the Traditional Mass, he has only allowed imitations of it in the hands of declared enemies of the ancient liturgy. He has persecuted every single priest who made an effort to wear a cassock, preach with firmness, or that was simply interested in Summorum Pontificum. 

Famous for his inconsistency (at times, for the unintelligibility of his addresses and homilies), accustomed to the use of coarse, demagogical, and ambiguous expressions, it cannot be said that his magisterium is heterodox, but rather non-existent for how confusing it is. 

His entourage in the Buenos Aires Curia, with the exception of a few clerics, has not been characterized by the virtue of their actions. Several are under grave suspicion of moral misbehavior. 

He has not missed any occasion for holding acts in which he lent his Cathedral to Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even to partisan groups in the name of an impossible and unnecessary interreligious dialogue. He is famous for his meetings with protestants in the Luna Park arena where, together with preacher of the Pontifical House, Raniero Cantalamessa, he was "blessed" by Protestant ministers, in a common act of worship in which he, in practice, accepted the validity of the "powers" of the TV-pastors. 

This election is incomprehensible: he is not a polyglot, he has no Curial experience, he does not shine for his sanctity, he is loose in doctrine and liturgy, he has not fought against abortion and only very weakly against homosexual "marriage" [approved with practically no opposition from the episcopate], he has no manners to honor the Pontifical Throne. He has never fought for anything else than to remain in positions of power. 

It really cannot be what Benedict wanted for the Church. And he does not seem to have any of the conditions required to continue his work. 

May God help His Church. One can never dismiss, as humanly hard as it may seem, the possibility of a conversion... and, nonetheless, the future terrifies us.

Fidenzio Volpi is Alive, Francisco Franco is Still Dead

Tweet

Yesterday, a number of sources reported that Commissioner Fidenzio Volpi, the Pope's man responsible for destroying reforming the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate, reported that the father was critically ill (after suffering a serious stroke) or perhaps had passed away. The Eponymous Flower wrote a short post:

Edit: we are in the process of confirming, but the Apostolic Commissioner of the Franciscans of the Immaculate has died as we've been informed by a reader, who particularly asks for prayers: 

"May I take advantage if this comment section to inform you and your readers of news which is beginning to come out, but which has not yet been confirmed (therefore completely unofficial)? It seems Fr Fidenzio Volpi O.F.M. Cap. has died today, 6 May 2015, Feast of St John before the Latin Gate. May I ask everyone to pray a little while to Ss. Francis and Claire to ensure that his time in Purgatory is as short as possible. " 

Oremus!

Shortly after, Messa in Latino wrote this note:

News spread this morning of the alleged death of Fr. Volpi, following a stroke yesterday. 

Reliable sources however, while they confirmed the stroke that hit a few days ago, denied that he had died. 

It was confirmed a few minutes ago that the Fidenzio Fr. Volpi is still alive, albeit in a very critical state of health. 

We pray for him.

A few hours later the website for the FFI issued this press release:

The news of the death of Father Fidenzio Volpi, released today by some traditionalist oriented blogs, is false and devoid of any foundation. Our religious family is praying for the conversion of all those that are leading a campaign of increasingly unscrupulous slander and defamation that ultimately affects the Catholic Church itself. 

Father Volpi, who today greets everyone with affection, has been taken ill in the evening of April the 29th and immediately hospitalized. 

The Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate wish to express their debt of gratitude to Father Fidenzio Volpi along with the devout obedience to the Apostolic See.

The above is notable for a number of things:

• While the "traditionalist" Eponymous Flower did run a headline reporting Fr. Volpi's death, it did so with the label, "Unconfirmed". The other "traditionalist" site "corrected" that report by saying essentially what was later confirmed by FFI in the press release.
• Given that Fr. Volpi appears to have been taken ill, perhaps critically, after suffering a serious stroke (the FFI did not deny this) more than a week ago, and this fact was essentially kept secret by the relevant parties, labeling a news report that he may have died "devoid of any foundation" is a bit much.
• And calling the varied news reports that he was critically ill or dead, "increasingly unscrupulous slander and defamation" has a shrill totalitarian ring to it.
• Claiming to pray for the "conversion" of these Catholic bloggers--one of whom runs a well-trafficked Italian site dedicated to the Latin Mass--is disgusting and sick.
• That the press release offers no concrete information or specifics on the issue of Fr. Volpi's health (other than to imply that he is alive) simply confirms the usefulness of the blogs as news sources.
• Though traditionalists have been tireless in reporting on the scandal of Fr. Volpi's actions towards FFI and obviously view him negatively, the two reports made no reference to these events and each asked their readers to pray for the man.  

From the beginning, Rorate Caeli has chronicled the persecution of the order--shuttering its seminary, shutting down its publications arm, putting its leader and founder, Fr. Stefan Manelli, under the 21st century Catholic equivalent of house arrest, banning the Latin Mass, forcing its members to take a new loyalty oath, putting pressure on other bishops not to accept fed up "fugitives" from the order, and so on.

Recently, there was a still somewhat mysterious and unexplained civil settlement between the family of Fr. Manelli and Fr. Volpi. Allegedly they won a judgment against him for defamation, though this was officially denied.  

Interestingly, the fancy new FFI website appears to contain no reference to these events, though there are ample History and F.A.Q tabs. It does feature a picture of Pope Francis sitting in the center of five FFI members--presumably those who elected to conform with the new regime. There's that picture of Fr. Volpi clutching hands with the Pope--in a "moment of intense and friendly conversation"--though who he is exactly (beyond his name) and what his purpose or connection might be is left unexplained. The Press Release page is curiously empty.  

In pure Stalinist fashion, the wrenching events of the last two years have been shoved down the memory hole.

The Church of Mercy loves you. And in the end, you will love the Church of Mercy.

Catholic Journalist Vittorio Messori and Rabbi Giuseppe Laras on "the Fourth World War"

Tweet

Shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attacks. the journalist Vittorio Messori--the "most translated Catholic writer in the world"--wrote a favorable piece on Rabbi Giuseppe Laras--President Emeritus and Honorary of the Italian Rabbinical Assembly--regarding his views on Islam. Now, obviously, Messori is a Catholic and Laras is a Jew. In addition, Messori is a conservative, or more accurately, Traditionalist Catholic, whereas Laras cultivated links with some of the Church's more liberal elements. However, both write for Corriere della Sera. More importantly, they have similar views on Islam. In a January 14, 2015 piece, Messori references an article Laras wrote on the previous day. It was translated and reprinted by the Traditionalist Catholic blog RORATE CÆLI:

I have always appreciated the sincerity of Rabbi Giuseppe Laras (renowned in Italian Judaism not only for his culture but also for his religious sensitivity) when he voices his opinions. So, in yesterday’s article in this newspaper, he doesn’t hesitate from the start in affirming that “we are at war, we are just at the beginning and yet we don’t want to admit it.” 

As a realist, I would be inclined to agree with him. The third world war (called “cold” but always a war) ended, because of the enemy’s collapse and deserting of the field, but after that there was the new Pearl Harbor on a September 11th morn in New York City. Here, let’s say it with the clarity of Laras – [we have] the fourth world war. The hypocrisy of the dominant ideology today - political correctness – has been attempting exorcisms and in order to tranquilize us they have built an ideal of “moderate Islamism” encouragingly increasing it by repeating the mantra of “dialogue”. Nevertheless, those who know the Koran, those who know history and the society that has given it form over a thousand and a half years, know that those Muslims we call “extremists” (to use our Western categories) are not wrong in shouting (Kalashnikov in hand) that a “moderate” Muslim is a bad Muslim. Or, at least, he is a coward and that Allah will punish him. How many among those who are scandalized by this have read, without mental censures, the Koran entirely and maybe also the monumental collections of hadith - the sayings attributed to the Prophet? 

A French friend, a Catholic religious in Jerusalem and well-known biblical scholar, told me recently that in their convent, there was an old Muslim who had worked for them for a long, long time as a factotum. Honest, trustworthy and a hard worker, he had become part of the family and all the religious had great affection for him which was sincerely reciprocal. One Friday, the man came back from the mosque with a dejected air about him. The Superior of the House, after insisting, was finally able to make him talk. He said: “Today the Imam who conducts the prayers told us during the sermon that, on the day of the triumph of Allah and his Prophet, which will arrive soon, we will then rid this Holy City of Jews and Christians, and all of those infidels who don’t make a profession of faith at once will have to be killed. This is what the Koran wills and we are bound to obey it.” There was a pause, then: “But have no fear Father, you know that I love all of you. I know what to do if I have to kill you, I’ll find the way not to make you suffer.” 

This anecdote, unfortunately, is authentic. As the questions both courteous and harsh from Giuseppe Laras are authentic, which I believe can be summed up like this: is it possible, for the Islamic world to accept that tolerance, that distinction between religion and politics, that equality among people of different religions, that refusal – without exceptions, of violence, in short - that reality if possible, on which to base a less inhuman world? 

As we know, in 1948, the then few already independent Islamic States sitting at the newly-formed United Nations, refused to sign “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” affirming that they did not correspond to their view of the person and society. A society, among other things, where slavery was not officially abrogated, where polygamy was in force and still is, in which the woman is relegated to a role of submission, where the non-Muslim is an inferior citizen, subject to a heavy tax and a series of codified and public humiliations. Will it ever be possible to arrive at a modus vivendi or will the conflict have to continue and even become aggravated, since the fundamental values remain so diverse? 

As you know, everything is possible, to God, to Yahweh or to Allah, according to the faiths, but from a simply human point of view, the objective does not seem achievable. In fact, Islam is divided to such a degree that there are massacres between Shiites’ and Sunnite or among other communities in bloody battle every day. Above all, there is no superior authority, which is able to take binding decisions for the faithful, like the pope for Catholicism. On the contrary, there isn’t even a clergy nor a religious hierarchy inside the communities. Everything is left simply to men with just a 1400 year old immutable book in their hands. The Ottoman Caliphate, abolished in 1924 by Kemal, was a sham at the service of the sultanate, and, in any case, his fading authority was not acknowledged beyond the borders of the Turkish Empire. 

But even if it came back, what could a “pope of Mecca” do, not having the great, liberating resource like the one of Rome: that is, a Scripture which can be analyzed and studied in depth according to the times and situations without negating it, flexible without betraying it, Divine but entrusted to the reason of believers who must brave the centuries with it? 

Christianity, first and foremost is much more than a book, it is an encounter among the living, among men and the living Christ, with the riches and flexibility that are born from life. The Koran, however, is not like that, rather, it’s the opposite, with its original text kept in Heaven next to Allah, eternal, unchangeable, dictated word for word to Muhammad, with its sentences being observed always and anyways in a literal fashion, with a rigidity that must challenge every culture - whatever the cost. 

Is it possible to pull out a “ mildly moderate” Muslim from here? 

If this is the situation, Rabbi Laras doesn’t hide his worry: “There is a temptation that can be outlined in both Christianity and European politics: i.e. leaving the Jews and the State of Israel alone to facilitate political, cultural and religious peace with the Muslim world.” For him, this would be a “disastrous policy” in which its ruinous effects for Christians were already visible. In fact, he says: “after almost all the Islamic countries were rid of “their” Jews, they focused with violence and massacres on the large Christian minority.” The Rabbi’s conviction, however, requires that a discussion be opened: the persecution of the baptized has causes, we believe, more complex than the venting on them by a violent religion in search of victims. It would be a very important discussion, and precisely for this unable to be addressed in such reduced spaces. For the time being it is sufficient to take Laras’ warning seriously: there is a war going on and it is not timely to hide behind western kindness towards the antagonists accompanied with stern Cassandra-like rebukes which are limited to certifying a dramatic reality.

Tip from the commenter "johnc" on Science Fiction author's Vox Day's indispensable Vox Populi blog.