WORSE THAN DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN

The Remnant ^ | 01/2004 | Thomas A. Droleskey, Ph.D.

[ultima ratio]

I don't buy your excuse. This pope has a history of saying one thing and doing another. He condemns liturgical abuses--yet his papal Masses provide the venues for the worst abuses. He decries syncretism, but participates in pagan rituals, praying with animists--even praying at one point in a synagogue with rabbis their prayer for the coming of a DIFFERENT messiah. He issues encyclicals affirming the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, but continually caves to bishops who institute rubrics which offend against this central Catholic dogma. He makes a speech condemning the sexual abuse of children by priests, but takes no other disciplinary action though he has known about the coverups for decades. He decries the poor state of catechesis in the West, but disciplines nobody for apostasy--and even elevates a notorious doubter of the Resurrection to the cardinalate. Meanwhile millions of ordinary Catholics scratch their heads and try to look the other way, blaming the mess on their faith-impaired bishops (which the pope himself had appointed)and blaming anybody in sight who might have the audacity to complain. None of this will fly. It's gone on too long. It's time to admit the emperor has no clothes.

[ultima ratio]

Merely because I believe this Pope is a great part of the problem is no reason to think I am either a schismatic or a chronic complainer. I don't deny his authority--just that he won't use it appropriately. We are in the midst of an immense struggle between Sacred Tradition and those who claim to be part of a revolution--which they arrogantly call a "New Pentecost". But there can be no new revelation, no second Pentecost--only the one, as Scripture has told us. So I am part of this fight against those who would impose a new Church, a new religion--and of course my rhetoric reflects this.

[Polycarp IV]

Just to keep things in context:

Reads a little bit differently than the bs spin "The Remnant" and Dr. D put on it. Pitiful.

Context: John Paul II showed he was bewildered about which direction the liturgical reform would take, particularly in Africa

This is why I will NEVER align myself with these radtrads. Willful deception is no more below them than the liberals they so loathe.

This kind of dishonesty is reprehensible.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

I don't see your rhetoric as excessive or malicious.
Posts comparing some to Jack Chick and their arguments to judas points are over the top IMHO and not worthy of a Catholic of whatever liturgical preference.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

There's no dishonesty Brian. The Pope said things would change. He said he didn't know how far it would go. Whether the first sentence is in the quote or not it means the same thing.

[Land of the Irish]

That was before he was Pope.

He's now been a Pope for 25 years to address and correct his so-called "concerns".

In that position and time frame, what has he done?

What is better about the Pauline Mass today than the one in 1978?

Altar girls?

[Polycarp IV]

The Pope said things would change. He said he didn't know how far it would go.

As did every bewildered participant in VII. I do NOT accept the spin and weight being applied to this 40 year old quote.

Ratzinger was a liberal at one time. He would not be considered a liberal today. Even if this author were somehow remotely near the truth regarding JPII's VII quote, it would have no bearing whatsoever on JPII's motives today.

I sure as heck don't want to be judged by some off handed comment I made 40 years ago (of course, since I'm only 37, that would be a difficult prospect ;-)

[ultima ratio]

Willful deception? Give me a break. The quote was perfectly fine on Drolesky's part. What is more interesting is the nit-picking of neo-Catholics like you and American Colleen. You strain at the gnat, but swallow the modernist camel whole. You avoid Drolesky's larger point--that the Pope has once more failed to stand up to the challenge to reform the liturgy in a meaningful way.

[neocon]

Laghi was said to have nominated better and theologically sounder appointments than Jadot, but he was still responsible for the Bernardin and Law appointments

I had prepared a much longer post, but I'm sure no one's really interested in my analysis anyway, since I don't hew completely to any of the prevailing party lines. So I usually get vilified, and not being a masochist, I think I'll sidestep that experience.

But I did want to respond to your mention of Cdl. Law. While I don't entirely share the prevailing traditionalist view of Cdl. Bernadin, since I have actually read some of his homilies, I don't think it's quite accurate to lump Cdl. Law in with him.

Although he's certainly the whipping boy of the hour (decade?), Cdl. Law actually had a reputation as reliably orthodox in the USCCB. He was, in fact, the main force behind the publication of the new Catechism, which was sorely needed. (I think if the RadTrads would concentrate less on litugical fussbugetry and more on catechesis, they would be of far greater service to the Church than they are in their current role as Chicken Little.) Cdl. Law was also instrumental in arranging for the Pope's trip to Cuba, and quite famously scotched the Common Ground Initiative by saying that there was no point in "dialoging" on settled matters. You may remember that he gave the homily at Cdl. O'Connor's Requiem, during which he announced, in concert with the deceased, that the Church must always be "unambiguously pro-life". The resulting several-minute standing ovation left Mr. Clinton and his lovely wife, Bruno, among other members of the political Left, quite red-faced.

While Cdl. Law did famously mishandle several abuse cases in the Archdiocese of Boston, it must be remembered that he inherited many of the other cases from his predecessor, Cdl. Madieros. Furthermore, two things changed during the time Cdl. Law was in charge of these scandalous affairs: shrinkdom changed its tune from "we can cure anybody of anything" to "pedophilia is always incurable", and victim status changed from being a public mortification to a highly prized position, from which might accrue public sympathy and, perhaps, a monetary windfall. So, at the outset his course of action was in conformance with the best medical and legal advice: treatment and return to ministry, and secrecy to protect the victim's privacy. These two changes pulled the rug out from under his policies, though it must be noted the cases were of pederasty (which the Left now seems to feel is morally neutral, and perhaps even beneficial to the victim [look for shrinkdom to pronounce it "normal" in the next few years, coming to a DSM near you]), not of true pedophilia.

Was Cdl. Law culpable? Certainly after a "treated" priest re-offended, it should have been obvious that the priest could no longer be trusted around children, so for such cases I do hold him responsible. But I don't think it's quite fair to expect him to second-guess medical advice which was standard across the field at the time. He's not a psychologist after all. Naturally, the Leftist press made the most of the situation, because they saw in it an opportunity to discredit the Catholic Church, particularly on sexual matters, which would help the media advance the Leftist agenda, again particularly in sexual matters. I do not think the current push for legalized gay marriage in Massachetts is a mere temporal coincidence. When the Church, and the bishops of Boston in particular, speak out against this development, they can now be dismissed with a flippant, "Physician, heal thyself," or the like.

I have a natural aversion to acquiescing to the demands of a braying mob - it's the elitist in me -, so I do think the better solution would have been to leave Cdl. Law in place and let him clean up the mess. And I must note the service done to the Leftists in the USCCB by the removal of a solidly orthodox, quite well-respected, and senior cardinal. Luckily, though I had some initial qualms in respect of his position regarding the VOTF, Abp. O'Malley seems to be a solid fellow. I don't seek to excuse Cdl. Law's negligence, only to suggest that his status as universal scapegoat might not be entirely deserved, and that a more nuanced analysis might more accurately portray his situation, and what was at stake, politically speaking, in his removal. Enough, perhaps, to credit Pio Laghi with a "theologically sound" appointment in Cdl. Law?

[american colleen]

This is the way I read it: T. Drolesky heads up a column with: "Vatican caves on meaningful reform of disastrous New Mass"

Then he says (quoting JPII):

“Certainly, we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local traditions: words, gestures, colors, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is immense.”

It's a bit leading - opening with a caving of the Vatican and then taking a partial quote out of context to make it seem that the pope wants to change everything but the Eucharist.

So I find the same exact quote but put somewhat in context by the folks at Una Voca and it starts out this way:

In 1965, when still Bishop of Cracow, John Paul II showed he was bewildered about which direction the liturgical reform would take, particularly in Africa. "Where will it end?" he asked, "Certainly we will preserve the basic elements, the bread, the wine, but all else will be changed according to local tradition: words, gestures, colours, vestments, chants, architecture, decor. The problem of liturgical reform is enormous ... " (Malinskl, Mon Ami, Karl Wojtyla, Paris, 1980, p.220.)

Now this book was written by JPII's friend Father Mieczyslaw Malinski and it is entitled "The Life of My Friend Karol Wojtyla." Fr. Malinsky is a very orthodox priest and he and the pope have been friends since the 1940s when they established the underground seminary in Poland. Poland is still the only strongly Catholic European country - tons of priests and tons of Mass goers.

What I read in the second passage translated to me that JPII was bewildered by what direction the new mass would take in the future... "where will it end?" is key (and left out of Mr. Drolesky's citation) - something a lot of Catholics - clergy and laity - wondered back then (this was in 1965). It seems to me Bishop Wojtyla is lamenting the fact that almost everything will reflect local custom (Africa probably being the farthest extreme) but he knows that the center of the liturgy - The Eucharist - will remain the same everywhere. The last sentence (and I wish I could see it completed and the few sentences following it included) "The problem of liturgical reform is enormous..." seems to fit in with "Where will it end" - at least the way I read this whole thing. Which of course is much different than Mr. Drolesky reads it.

Of course we have the benefit of knowing some of the answers 40 years later but Bishop Wojtyla did not.

[Polycarp IV]

You avoid Drolesky's larger point--that the Pope has once more failed to stand up to the challenge to reform the liturgy in a meaningful way.

Obviously, if the directives had been promulgated several months ago, in the context of the widespread dissent on their content, what good would it have done?

If half the world's bishops reject it, then its not yet time for it.

If he had tried to push it through despite the opposition, and it was rejected, he would have had 2 options: sack half the world's bishops, and/or have open schism, or have a major liturgical directive ignored, further deteriorating what little disciplinary authority the papacy has left for the next pope.

What JPII wanted accomplished in the original draft will be accomplished in the next decade or two, as these liberals die off.

If he followed YOUR path, the Church would be in open schism. Schisms last millenia, liberals only last decades.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Even if this author were somehow remotely near the truth regarding JPII's VII quote, it would have no bearing whatsoever on JPII's motives today.

So how do we judge his motives? By his actions? His words and actions today are at odds.

[Polycarp IV]

So how do we judge his motives?

Its a dangerous game judging men's motives. Very dangerous, and rarely if ever wholly accurate.

[american colleen]

Thanks so much. What you said has been floating around in my head in bits and pieces for the last year or so... I could never have organized those thoughts and written them all down cohesively as you did. Thanks again!

SuziQ you might want to scope out what neocon has to say about Cardinal Law.

neocon, hope your health is better these days. Nice to "see" you!

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Okay, I'll rephrase. How do we reconcile the conflict between the Pope's words and actions?

[american colleen]

If he followed YOUR path, the Church would be in open schism. Schisms last millenia, liberals only last decades.

Thanks! This is so true... as much as we want a pristine and perfect Church (impossible anyway) schism condemns many souls.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

I truly appreciate your reply and I would agree a better quote would be in order. Obviously I read quote too fast to pick up other differences.

Still the problem of liturgical abuse/experimentation I fear may still be with us if it's true that abuses will be dealt with by "proper training" and not discipline when needed. Isn't it possible to say after 35 years that some priests/bishops are simply not interested in celebrating mass correctly and have their own agenda? Another reason for prayer.

[ultima ratio]

This is baloney. Nobody expected the Cardinal--and others--to "second-guess" standard medical advice at the time. But one would have thought that they would have caught on after a few decades. Any old lady in the pew without a shred of theology might have told these "spiritual shepherds" that twenty and thirty years of failure had created a very bad pattern, that the same sickos they kept shunting-around from parish to parish and for whom they kept writing such glowing letters of recommendation and to whose victims and lawyers they kept shelling out oodles of hush money, were not showing signs of rehabilitation--were, in fact, continuing to pile up their victims, thousands of Catholic kids whose lives had been blighted forever.

So I don't give Law or the others a pass on this. In fact, I deem him more responsible than the sick priests he protected, regardless of whether or not he made a pro-life speech at Cardinal O'Connor's funeral. Nor do I give the Pope a pass since he knew what was going on in his Church--it had been going on here and elsewhere for decades and was getting worse, not better, yet he never lifted a pinky to root out the problem. The bottom line is everybody knew the psychologists were full of it--but nobody thought to do what they could to protect the kids. It's part of the corruption that still plagues the Church today, of which the scandals are only a symptom. Those in the know understand that homosexual networks have ascended to power in many countries and they are in the business of promoting their own. In the U.S. in particular this network is still very much in place--and still covering-up.

[Polycarp IV]

if it's true that abuses will be dealt with by "proper training" and not discipline when needed.

A good number of younger priests desire complete orthodoxy and obedience in celebrating the mass. The older generation that so enjoyed making a mockery of it is passing away. Liberalism is infecund.

Isn't it possible to say after 35 years that some priests/bishops are simply not interested in celebrating mass correctly and have their own agenda?

Definitely, but they are dying out. No one now is going to give up their life in the service of their liberal agenda to role play as a glorified social worker/counselor. The younger priests want to be real priests.

I have talked to several priests now who bit their tongues and sat through lousy seminary training just to get ordained. Meanwhile they were clandestinely studying orthodox theology texts while in seminary.

Now that they're ordained, our bishop is bewildered that they are orthodox, desiring liturgical practices including more Latin, gregorian chant, frequent confession, etc. In one to two decades, they will be the majority of the pastors, liberalism and dissent a footnote, and the directives desired by this Pope fully implimented.

Read Greeley's whining rant about the "Young Fogey's."

Its the best barometer of the emerging direction in the Church I've seen.

Here in the USA, it seems the glass is empty, for good reason. But for those willing to search, there is still some evidence the glass may be becoming half full once again.

I see that most in the homeschooling and Indult Latin Mass movements.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

re Judging motives:

true about judging motives, very dangerous.

Can judgment be reserved re:schism about those who attend unauthorized Latin mass? Suppose that's the best of 2 choices? Suppose they didn't support SSPX consecrations? Suppose they have children whose faith formation they are responsible for? I go to Novus ordo but I won't judge those who believe their or especially their children's faith is in danger to attend badly celebrated NO with heretical sermons ad nauseam. How can interfaith and ecumenical pope logically condemn them (traditionalists) either?
Times are hard for orthodox catholics of whatever liturgical preference. It's crazy to be pronouncing anathemas on each other. Why couldn't this be our pastoral approach for each other?