I have a question for my fellow Catholics: when did mischaracterization, ad hominem, and scathing personal attacks become the qualifications for popular Catholic writers? When did it become acceptable for these so-called Catholics to use their platforms to sling mud at and besmirch the reputations of any brother in Christ who disagrees with them? Where is their interest in charitably engaging those with whom they disagree in an attempt to persuade them rather than abuse them? Why should they be empowered to try to force into silence any voice with which they find fault?
Is this how low our standards have fallen? Should we not expect more from those who act as ambassadors of our faith to the online world?
I’ve personally been on the receiving end of any number of cheap shots, mischaracterizations, and even unbelievably vulgar private screeds from certain well-known Internet Catholics. It started (insert feigned shock) when I dared to criticize the pope, invoking (quite respectfully, I might add) a point of disagreement with a certain popular Catholic mommy-blogger.
I’m not going to tell you that it doesn’t bother me at all. It’s certainly diminished over time, but no sane person enjoys being maligned, or treated as if they are the punch line of particularly humorless jokes. It’s become a fairly common thing for me to receive an email or a message from someone with a link to the latest vindictive, bombastic shrieking or mocking condescension coming from the direction of one or another well-known Catholic blog. And in a way, I’m thankful for the increased frequency of these attacks. This is because:
A) It tells me that I’m doing something right.
and
B) Nothing thickens the skin like repeated abuse. Like I said, after a while, you don’t even feel it much anymore.
The good news is that if people want to take a swing at me, rather than what I’m saying, they’re pretty much just wasting their time. Even if they get me blacklisted from Catholic media outlets, that’s not how I make my living. So I can say what I want and not have to worry about skittish editors or nervous benefactors.
Where I get agitated is when these wannabe Catholic celebrities violate the hell out of the Eighth Commandment by viciously and uncharitably attacking people who DO make their living doing this. As far as I can tell, these attacks are motivated by a vindictive desire to drown out ideological opposition. Experience shows that mocking, derision, and character assassination are the chief tactics employed in the service of making opponents irrelevant. No doubt because they fare so poorly in composing actual arguments in support of their positions. Like cultural progressives who scream about protecting free speech until they’re caught silencing dissent in the name of sensitivity and burning the books they find threatening, they don’t care who they hurt just as long as their worldview remains free of any significantly inconvenient challenge.
Enter the reason for my post. My long-time friend, Hilary White, who wrote a story for LifeSiteNews about Pope Francis concelebrating mass with and kissing the hand of Fr. Michele de Paolis, an Italian priest who is a well-known dissident, a leading clerical activist in favor of the homosexual lifestyle, and the founder of an organization which promotes the same. Though not mentioned in Hilary’s report, this event came directly on the heels of unqualified the reinstatement of Fr. Sean Fagan, an Irish priest formerly threatened with laicization by Pope Benedict’s CDF if he did not cease publishing books and disseminating opinions which directly contradicted the Church’s sexual moral teachings. Anyone who actually gives a flying fig about the integrity of the Catholic faith should find these public gestures, laden with potentially heterodox insinuation, at the very least moderately concerning. But this was not the case among some of the top bloggers at Patheos and National Catholic Register. Sharp claws and fangs were immediately unsheathed.
I don’t typically name names in what amounts to mostly petty disputes between the most common of modern creatures — online writers — but these people are playing for keeps.
Two sentences that make me turn on my bullshit detector: ones that start, “Guess what Pope Francis just did?” and ones that start, “According to LifeSiteNews . . . “
– Simcha Fisher
When Mark Shea (who says of people like Hilary and me, “God save the Church from the Greatest Catholics of All Time and their endless hatred for this good and holy Pope.”) posts this shriek of ignorance, insinuation, and error, and Simcha Fisher (who refers to the story in question as “that dreadful hit piece by Hilary White”) opens a 300-comment-strong echo chamber attacking Hilary and LifeSiteNews, and Thomas McDonald (who in the Fisher thread called Hilary “a nasty piece of work”) says this, and then the next thing you know, LifeSiteNews is (evidently) feeling pressured into writing this clarification on why they assigned the story in the first place…I have a problem with that.
I have a BIG problem with that.
Does Hilary have an opinion on Pope Francis? You betcha. She’s been covering him since day one, and she has shared some of those opinions publicly on her website. Of course, as any Catholic with a deep understanding of their faith has experienced, the pope has a remarkable tendency to induce instant heartburn almost every time he steps into the public eye. Can Hilary cover the pope without any bias? That’s a tall order. But that’s okay, because LifeSiteNews isn’t a neutral, objective, third-party media outlet covering life issues, bioethics, and Church news. THEY HAVE A BIAS, TOO. They fight for the pro-life cause and Catholic orthodoxy. Anyone who has read them knows that.
Of course, as any realist knows, journalistic objectivity exists on approximately the same level of plausibility as the tooth fairy. Conservatives talk about liberal media bias all. the. time. Conservative media outlets have arisen to combat the liberal press, and they have (wait for it!) CONSERVATIVE BIAS. Until the day that someone invents robot journalism, the people covering any given story are going to bring their own perspective to it. The larger question is not whether they have an opinion, but whether they choose to share that opinion with the public either before or after writing a story. Just being quiet about what you believe doesn’t mean you don’t believe it, or that it doesn’t color your work. That’s a shell game. And having opinions on a topic doesn’t mean that a reporter is incapable of writing on that topic with honesty and integrity. If you care about the truth, you follow it wherever it leads you.
So here we have this story by Hilary White — a story which presented factual information without interpretation about something the pope ACTUALLY did which was obviously (to the mind of anyone not knee-deep in Catholic normalcy bias) very odd. The facts were presented in a sensible order – the pope did something unusual, it raised eyebrows (and it did: many Catholics were astonished), and the reason it raised eyebrows is because the priest in question is very well known for his positions on the homosexual lifestyle. Such as the pull quote from one of his published books, which was used in White’s piece: “homosexual love is a gift from (God) no less than heterosexual.” It is reasonable to assume that a Roman Pontiff (or his staff) would do just a smidge of homework before concelebrating mass and spending considerable time with a priest on a given occasion. We are not entering into wildly speculative territory when we find that the facts of the story lead us to conclude that the pope knew what he was doing. Assuming he was ignorant is, frankly, a little insulting to his intelligence and the competence of his staff.
Of course, the facts of the story aren’t the problem. As far as I know, they haven’t even been disputed. They can’t be. Fr. de Paolis has an entire Facebook photo album showing some of what transpired.
But now LifeSiteNews is also being maligned as little better than the National Enquirer running stories about aliens and Sasquatch love triangles. Because apparently there was a misleading story about fetal tissue in Pepsi one time. Or some sensational headlines (in a publication that covers the greatest evils the world has EVER seen. Crazy, right?)
Assuming LifeSiteNews isn’t perfect — which seems fairly plausible — can someone please show me a publication which has done more to inform Catholics of the real warfare going on in the trenches of the pro-life, pro-family movement? Because I haven’t come across it in 20 years on the Internet. And Hilary’s dedication to reporting on these topics over the years has come at not insignificant personal cost. I can only imagine that the same can be said of her employer.
This reaction that is happening in the Catholic blogosphere doesn’t even resemble justified outrage. It’s a lynch mob. And it’s comprised of people who call themselves Catholic, but could really use a crash course in what that means.The Baltimore Catechism might be a good place to start, since it presents things simply and clearly and doesn’t “make a mess” of doctrinal certitude. I’m not even kidding.
I don’t know about you, but I’m fed up. It’s yet another reminder that Novusordoism and Catholicism are more different than they are the same.
And just because I know some of you are chomping at the bit to start typing your zingers into my combox about my outrageous hypocrisy, let me save you the trouble. I traffic in criticism of prelates at the highest levels of the Church. I do this because it is their moral duty to uphold, proclaim, and safeguard the truths of the faith, and it is a job toward which many of them have shown a shocking dereliction of duty. When the pope is out there smearing doctrinal lines and leading people to believe that everything is up for grabs and anything can change, that has a profound impact on those who feel obligated to try to follow him with docility and faithfulness but can’t reconcile their own more deeply-grounded understanding of what the Church teaches with his jarring words and actions. They need to be reminded that they are not alone, that their instincts are correct, and that they have every right to adhere to what the Church teaches and to ignore the novel spin a particular pope wants to put on it in order to advance his own ideological agenda. We are working through this crisis together.
You will be hard pressed, however, to find me making ANY personal attacks on my fellow Catholics. This post, and the anger I’m barely restraining, is about as far as I’m willing to take it. I will occasionally reference another writer in response to something they’ve done, but I believe in substantive criticism of ideas, not character-damaging calumny or detraction directed at fellow Catholics.
These self-serving, egotistical bloggers and their commenters should be ashamed of themselves, if they are capable of shame. Their reaction is the reason so few of the reasonable individuals I’ve spoken with at various academic and other Catholic institutions feel at liberty to come forward with their concerns. First, they fear that they will be maligned by the self-designated vigilantes of Catholic mediocrity. Then, they will lose their reputations, and eventually their jobs. Many have families. They can’t afford to throw away careers and livelihoods, so they are forced to keep silent. In a recent conversation I had with a man who has spent his life forming Catholic students, he whispered to me, “I have to be so careful about what I say.” These people should not be forced to live in fear of speaking the truth. GOD. IS. TRUTH.
I doubt very many of my readers bother to read the offending writers I’ve mentioned. Mostly, I hear from people who just can’t bring themselves to do it anymore. I would advise those of you who do read them to consider this: web traffic is the currency of the Internet. If you give power to those who seek to silence their opponents, they will wield it, the truth be damned. While I linked to their offending posts for informational purposes, you may find it of benefit to direct your traffic elsewhere. If you feed trolls, they grow large, and their appetites are insatiable.
For my part, I am not afraid of dissenting voices. I don’t care about disagreement. But I have a strong distaste for bullies and I want to see their power diminished. It would certainly be worth praying for them, but I can’t recommend that you patronize them. Maybe some day, they’ll see the truth.
It would no doubt also do some good to contact the editors of LifeSiteNews and let them know that you want them to cover these kinds of stories. I’m sure it would be appreciated if Hilary received some kind words as well. I don’t know about you, but I want people like her — people who care deeply about the health of the Church and the preservation of her teachings and traditions — to be the ones in the trenches holding those who don’t seem to care about such things accountable.
People always tell me they doubt me when I say a schism is coming. I’d say this kind of thing is evidence that it is already here.
Speak it! The paid guardians of novusordoism indeed. Reading Hilary, you and a few others is the thing keeping me going. Luckily I don’t make my living off of it, so I don’t care about the (comparatively low) scorn I get. But truly Fisher and Shea I find insufferable in style, poor and inaccurate in content and more popular than I can imagine considering the substance.
I get comatose normal it’s reading them. But I have friends in very tardy places who loooove Fisher.
Don’t get it.
Your failure to get it is noted.
*comatose normalists (autocorrect!)
Yes you do well to make this point. This general trend to alack of civility is bad. Maybe it is because we live in a democracy where citizens elect their leaders. Now a candidate will not likely get elected if he just states his beliefs and says his opponent is a good fellow but that you think you would do a better job. As the fellow says everyone denounces negative advertising but over the years it has worked in elections. Each party seeks to demonize the other and will place the worst construction on anything the other party candidate may say in order to attack it and make the candidate look bad. This seems to carry over into all arguments.
I didn’t realize Shea and Fisher were weighing in. Shocker.
Unfortunately, I have not the faintest idea of who has begun attacking whom from this piece. I can’t even tell what the sides are from this. If you’re going to pound other bloggers for their conduct, I’d appreciate a thorough expose regarding who they are and what they wrote. Other than that, I can’t tell if you’re reacting to something that I should be concerned about, or if you’re simply blowing off steam about nothing.
There’s a reason I linked to their comments, John.
This is a huge, confusing problem. Shea and the Fishers are the worst, and Elizabeth Scalia is close behind. Her tone is far milder, but she has this “*I* manage The Conversation” tone about her that is just as obnoxious. None of these people have a theology degree between them. They have never even worked in pastoral ministry of any kind – not in a parish, in a chancery or in a school. *Who are they? And why should ANYONE care about their opinions?” They are theologically untrained and pastorally NON -experienced.
Bottom line is that they are people who need, above all, to keep the hits coming. The only way to do this in this oversaturated social media environment is to generate controversy and start fights, which keep people coming back to your page over and over and over again to either participate or watch. Shea is the master of this, but Simcha is catching up fast.
This, specifically, is a horrible situation. Hilary has her faults, as do we all, but she really is about telling the truth, while the Fishers (and Shea and Scalia) are ALL about self-promotion, with their finger to the wind.
Did Simcha try to contact Hilary before she went to her editor? Just wondering.
Short answer: no.
Well stated, Lisa.
For the most part, ‘catholic’ bloggers are not Catholic. Shea and Fisher are just 2 examples of the most bombastic non Catholics.
I did email Tom Wehner (twehner@ewtn.com) once to complain about Fisher, Shea and Eden. I got an actual response from him stating my concerns would be discussed “among the editors”. But it’s obvious this is the type of attack dogs NCR and EWTN want on staff. They are tools used to keep orthodoxy at bay. Whether they believe the junk they write is not the point. I don’t care whether they believe it or not. They are scandalous, lying scoundrels. DON’T continue to visit their blogs. You’re wasting your valuable time.
Mr. Skoject _ you too are wasting your time trying to reply to them. They have the money and the power backing them. Keep up the good work.
Thank you for saying this! I tried yesterday speaking my mind to a a certain catholic blogger from birmingham, al and was fairly ripped apart for my opinion! Am I not entitled to that! I agree, They are NOT Catholic and I often wonder just where do they get this “right” to lord it over the rest of us! I have suspected for quite some time that this is the case with many of them.
Shea and Fisher are ALWAYS weighing in like the screeching hyenas they are.
Excellent, EXCELLENT post Steve. A lot of people are getting ‘fed up’ along with you.
And God bless and protect Hilary, you, and the other Christian Cassandras out there.
You have my sympathy (for what that’s worth, being anonymous). I fancy I’ve acquired a sense that detects Catholic pharasaiism quickly and I’m very fast with the close tab gesture (CTRL+W). My days of telling them how devilish their words are are over.
Oh yeah … I don’t think it’ll be long before the rampant, long-standing apostasy we’re in will manifest itself in open schism.
Gee, I’d tell them I’d quit reading them but I stopped a long time ago…
Thanks Steve for raising the alarm. I just emailed the Editor. As the daughter of a Deacon who has been silenced for discussing Church teaching in a homily I am well aware of the mood in the American Church right now. That these people can call themselves Catholic is astonishing. Dear Lord spare us from the cottage industry “Catholics” so called. They are willing to pimp out their celebrity/feel good writing to unsuspecting naive Catholics for the almighty dollar and popularity.
Dear Mary,
I am wondering if you are aware that married deacons are required to live as brother and sister with their wife. Perfect and perpetual continence for the ordained is of apostolic origin. I realy wanted to take this oportunity to promote the instruction of the theological foundations of priestly celibacy and continence for the ordained. The negligence of the modernist eclesiastics to not instuct married deacons on the obligations of perfect and perpetual continence for married clergy follows perfectly their agenda to redifine marriage and the priesthood. Once we define conjugal intercoure’s primary pupose to be the unity of the couple and the NO has been thouroughly successful at this,we have now opened the doors wide to married clergy, contraception(including so called NFP), divorce and remarried receiving communion, and homsexuality as being on the same level as male female unions. Please read Christian Cochini’s book “Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy” and Dr. edward Peters’ paper on Canonical considerations of Deaconal Continence. This paper has caused quite a stir, which it most certainly should. Even though I consider his sugestions on how to resolve this mess as lacking in an understanding of the theological foundations of priestly celibacy he nonetheless gets it right on their obligation to perfect and perpetual continence. Some say the issue has been resolved because a U.S bishop has interpreted the law diferrently this debate is far from over and it has many far reaching implications if people are poorly instructed on this matter.
I’ll defer to my local ordinary rather than some random person on the internet, thanks!
Study your faith Tony. This is too serious of an issue toleave it up to your local ordinaries.
You are assuming that the deacon was a deacon before he was a father. In all likelihood, he became one after the daughter. That’s how it worked for several of the deacons I know.
No I am not Brandy. Please study the theological foundations of priestly celibacy. It has far reaching implications on redefining marriage, the priesthood and sexual morality.
What does this even have to do with Mary’s comment other than to shame her?
Also, in the Roman Catholic Church, the issue of married deacons being able to continue marital relations with their wives has been resolved. Because of the return of the permanent deaconate, the mandate against sexual relations has been lifted and is now similar to the Eastern Catholic Church’s practice for married clergy: specific fasting from marital relations during certain times for example.
I think in the spirit of charity, your comment was both inappropriate and uncalled for in this context.
Peace.
Dear Mary… These people aren’t “cottage industry Catholics.” They are Protestants who haven’t left the church.
Mass w/93 year old priest isn’t only homosexual advocate Pope Francis has held hands with recently. There is also this event from March 21, 2014 (scroll all the way down for video):
http://callmejorgebergoglio.blogspot.com/2014/04/compassionate-francis.html
I personally don’t appreciate finding out that my Pope John Paul II is a Koran kisser and Buddha worshiper from PROTESTANTS!
Attack dogs like Winters, Fisher, Scalia and Shea are unpaid Catholic courtiers (guess they get paid like Euro Trash).
Thank you Hilary White – hope LifeSite News does not let itself be silenced – sure they also get contributions from dioceses
A thick, rough coat helps. Also being a trial lawyer who defends horrible criminals.
Let me get this straight. You, Hilary White, Rorate Caeli, Eponymous Flower, Patrick (but not Matthew) Archbold, and others go after the pope day after day, predict schism, say things like “Novusordoism isn’t Catholicism,” create general hysteria about the end times, say crazy things like the Second Council isn’t valid and can be reversed, and when we object, WE’RE the villains? I’m defending the See of Peter. You’re defending Hilary White.
Let me get this straight: you’re well-known for writing about video games? How old are you again?
Check in when you have some credibility.
“I have a question for my fellow Catholics: when did mischaracterization, ad hominem, and scathing personal attacks become the qualifications for popular Catholic writers? When did it become acceptable for these so-called Catholics to use their platforms to sling mud at and besmirch the reputations of any brother in Christ who disagrees with them? Where is their interest in charitably engaging those with whom they disagree in an attempt to persuade them rather than abuse them? Why should they be empowered to try to force into silence any voice with which they find fault?”
It’s not ad hominem to point out that you don’t have credibility on this issue. How long have you been doing the Catholic gig?
You had no problem pointing out to me, the last time we crossed swords, your 25-year career in journalism.
Well, I have a theology degree, and over a decade writing about Catholic topics. And I would argue that if you’re still disputing this with me, you need to study your faith in greater depth.
You want to make an argument about that? Feel free. But insinuation isn’t cutting it.
Masters degree in theology, 10 years of teaching religion and writing curriculum, top-level certification in catechetics (technically, a Master Catechist, though my diocese doesn’t use the term), six years of writing for Catholic media (CNS, Register, CWR, and OSV), but hey, that’s okay, keep acting like you’re the dad and I’m a punk with an Xbox controller rather than a professional journalist with a couple decades writing about emergent technology. I’m sure your day job makes you very well qualified to talk about why the End is Nigh and the pope is a heretic.
BA in Theology, 20 years of online apologetics, door-to-door evangelization over five missions in four countries, 2 years teaching religion and CCD, 6 years writing about Catholic topics professionally, 11 years since I started blogging on these items with regularity. Not to mention 6 children I’m raising in the faith, and my wife, who became a convert in no small part due to my efforts.
You’re not impressing me. We can compare bona fides all day. Maybe it comes out as a wash. Maybe it doesn’t. But I’m happy to test my knowledge and understanding of the faith by debating it with you, not playing the conjecture and insinuation game.
If you want to not be treated like it, stop acting like the punk with an Xbox controller. Put up or shut up. Show me where my assessments are wrong. They’re all here. Show me the error of my ways. Show me how the pope can’t be wrong, isn’t deserving of criticism, or isn’t contradicting the pre-conciliar paradigm.
Or maybe we can just keep the tape measures out and keep comparing things.
YOU brought up the credentials. YOU mocked my day job. YOU act like people defending themselves, their Church, and the pope from attacks are the villains and people like yourself the wounded party. YOU dialed up the rhetoric to 11. And then people respond and you act wounded? No, I’m not carrying on some long debate about Vatican II and papal error. We did that on Twitter and it went nowhere. The council was legitimate. The matter is settled. The idea of debating it is absurd, and would go nowhere. I’ve already shown you where your assessments are wrong in THIS VERY POST, in that you’re acting wounded about people reacting to your hysteria and criticism about Francis. As I’ve said about a hundred times already, he wasn’t my first pick. I’m a Ratzingerian and proud of it. But I have a sneaking feeling you regard Ratzinger with suspicion, too. After all, he is a man of the Council. We have no common ground on which to debate. You appear to be a borderline schismatic who has not yet found the door yet, and seems to looking for an excuse to exit. I’m just a Catholic trying to save my own soul and those of my family and students. I’m not trying to convince the world of anything other than to follow Christ and him crucified, and his vicar on earth in the One True Church. If you’re looking for something beyond that from Shea, Simcha, me, or anyone else, you ain’t gettin’ it.
“Well, I have a theology degree,”
Yeah, well so does Pope Francis and it isn’t a BA from some a third rate school like Franciscan or Christendom; but, you did graduate from the Arizona School of Real Estate. LOL. Summa cum laude right? An intellectual titan you are.
You’re a typical NOVA resident whose level of self-importance is only exceeded by the thinness of their skin.
Who are you to judge?
You mean like using phrases like “Cathowackosphere?” Why don’t you check back in when you start practicing what you preach?
Also, none of the bloggers you mention use a tenth of the vitriol that the Fishers, Shea, or frankly yourself employ. Where you see hysteria I see carefully considered posts that express concerns about the current shape of things. Yes, there are some who are over the top, but you seem to lump everyone who is concerned as a “crazy.”
If someone sees themselves in the word “Cathowackosphere,” then maybe they’re getting a sense that they’ve crossed the line. I was mainly talking about Facebook, Eponymous Flower (which has more references to sodomy than you’ll in a Saturday night at a Village bathhouse) and Rorate Caeli. And, if spmeone uses a tag that says “Novusordoism isn’t Catholicism,” yeah, they’re part of the Cathowackosphere. I’m being read out of the Church I serve by people who don’t like the form of the mass I go to, and you’re getting your britches in a bunch about the words I use? Get some perspective.
There are a lot of words coming out, but very little substance. Have you debunked Hilary’s report yet? Did the pope not do what she said he did? Are there no differences between the pre and post-conciliar Church — including differences that go beyond liturgy?
Novusordism and Catholicism, properly understood, are not the same things. Feel free to compare and contrast. It’ll mean reading something from before 1950, though.
” I’m being read out of the Church I serve by people who don’t like the form of the mass I go to, and you’re getting your britches in a bunch about the words I use? Get some perspective.”
Victim mentality much Mr. McDonald? Who the heck is “reading you out of the Church”? (whatever on God’s green earth that even means).
And if you REALLY want to know what it feels to be ‘read out of the Church they serve by people who don’t like the form of Mass they go to’, try asking the good servants of the FFI….I’m sure they could give you a truly authentic sense of ‘perspective’.
And Steve’s right…you’ve railed ALOT, and haven’t addressed the central point; what is false or inaccurate about Hilary’s report?
Tom,
You’re completely right to call Steve out right there (though I have to admit that Steve consistently keeps this sort of language out of posts and saves it for the comments – still, pot-kettle…)
However, it’s a little overkill to say “You’re attacking the pope, I’m defending the See of Peter.” Hilary and Steve are defending the See of Peter, specifically by critiquing the occupant. They are akin to one who defends the office of the presidency by critiquing the office holder or (in an analogy as I assume some of them may prefer) one defending a throne by calling the occupant to live up to the duties and responsibilities that throne demands.
And one does not defend the See of Peter by tar and feathering the “enemies” (which I affirm Steve and Hilary ARE NOT). Fisher and Shea did just that, ginning up straight up vitriol, the kind of anger which leads one to say that a brother “is a fool.” I, for one, do not like our Lord’s condemnation one who says “fool” of a brother.
This isn’t to say my critique is limited to Fisher, Shea et al. Rorate is guilty of it and it’s questionable if their recent silencing of comments has helped the situation.
Cheap ad hominem, Steve. I thought your piece was a rant against such, Mr. Skojec.
Check in whenever you can look in the mirror. Maybe your theology B.A. could help…
It’s ad hominem to say that I don’t want my doctor working on my car or the baker taking out my appendix?
Holy Guacamole, Mark DeFrancis speaks!
Pot calling kettle black and all that.
😉
Someone at Vox Nova is evidently monitoring this site.
And in any event, you’re not defending the See of Peter. You’re defending a faulty conception of it.
Put another way:
We’ve never said “Novusordoism Isn’t Catholicism”. Why can’t you hysterical people ever get facts right?
Correct. What I said was, “It’s yet another reminder that Novusordoism and Catholicism are more different than they are the same.”
Whatever “Novusordoism” means, I suppose it doesn’t matter to them as they’re desperately trying to vilify people who are saying something is wrong.
For our part at Eponymous Flower, we don’t believe in beating people up for going to the Novus Ordo or living in a robust conservative parish, respecting their superiors and being obedient. We don’t even spend much time attacking individuals, which *is* the primary focus of Patheos/Establicon bloggers in general. (Although a lot of the commenters do.) *I* do beat people up sometimes for rejecting the Catholic Faith. (An attempt at fraternal correction.)
Novusordoism is all the stuff that the Church has become since 1963. It’s a moving target, because immutability has some how morphed into constant change.
It’s the new Mass, the new sacramental forms, the new blessings, the new devotions, the new version of “ecumenism”, the new definition of religious liberty, the new understanding of the Church’s role in the world…etc.
It’s become a silly place, which is sad. There’s no better thing on earth than the Catholic Church. We just need to get her off the drugs and back in fighting form.
you had me at hello… this might be preaching to the choir, but this could be my favorite post all time… ok thats all
Thomas McDonald (starting a new comment because nesting is getting stupid):
“YOU brought up the credentials.”
Yes, I did. Because I struggle to believe anyone with real credentials would have such a hard time seeing the obvious. Then again, I got my theology degree as a second major without buying the books, so as fun as it is to trot that out…it doesn’t mean that much. I didn’t even have to learn Latin. What kind of theology degree is that?
“YOU mocked my day job.”
I didn’t mock it. Maybe you are the best video game reviewer of all time. I’ve played video games for most of my life. I love and have been, at times, addicted to them. That’s how I know it’s not a pursuit for serious grownups to dedicate themselves to, and it’s a far cry from an in-depth study of the Church. It’s escapism, not realism. And the Church is about the Real.
If I’m playing games, it’s because I’m wasting time. It’s because I’m running from something or self-medicating in some way.
The point was, and I’ll admit that it was perhaps unfairly made (because I’m in a pissy mood), expertise in the one thing doesn’t translate into competence in the other.
“And then people respond and you act wounded?”
Who acted wounded? It certainly wasn’t me.
“No, I’m not carrying on some long debate about Vatican II and papal error. We did that on Twitter and it went nowhere. The council was legitimate. The matter is settled.”
That’s not an argument. It’s not even close. And anyone who knows anything about Vatican II knows it was non-dogmatic, and thus entirely subject to revision or even dismissal.
“The idea of debating it is absurd, and would go nowhere.”
Like I said above: “Experience shows that mocking, derision, and character assassination are the chief tactics employed in the service of making opponents irrelevant. No doubt because they fare so poorly in composing actual arguments in support of their positions.”
“I’ve already shown you where your assessments are wrong in THIS VERY POST, in that you’re acting wounded about people reacting to your hysteria and criticism about Francis.”
You must be importing a significance to your own words that nobody else is seeing. You haven’t even come close to making this case.
“As I’ve said about a hundred times already, he wasn’t my first pick.”
Who cares? Do you honestly think this is about feeling slighted because people didn’t get who they wanted as pope? This is about a guy who is systematically dismantling the authority of the papacy and a number of the most central doctrines of the Church. If he wants to be Catholic for a while, I’m on board with that.
“I’m a Ratzingerian and proud of it. But I have a sneaking feeling you regard Ratzinger with suspicion, too.”
I like him. I think he realized and repented of his own progressive tendencies. Yes, there were things he did that were problematic. But he’s the closest we’ve had to a pope who understands the importance of doctrinal continuity in a very long time.
“We have no common ground on which to debate. ”
So we’re not both Catholic? Remember, I said that novusordoism and Catholicism are almost entirely different. Not entirely.
“You appear to be a borderline schismatic who has not yet found the door yet, and seems to looking for an excuse to exit.”
I’m no schismatic. You don’t get to pin that on me. I’ve never even been close.
“I’m just a Catholic trying to save my own soul and those of my family and students.”
That’s admirable. I have no quarrel with that.
“I’m not trying to convince the world of anything other than to follow Christ and him crucified, and his vicar on earth in the One True Church.”
Again, admirable. But that means you need to understand what the Church really teaches, and taught. And if you only study post-conciliar writings, you’re never going to see it. I certainly didn’t. I didn’t even know that starting in the late 19th century and continuing through the first half of the 20th century, the popes were warning of what was coming. Of the dissent and confusion that would be sewn within the Church. It took getting away from institutions known for “dynamic orthodoxy” before I had time to think about looking at what happened BEFORE the council.
And it’s very much not consistent. This should pose a challenge to any serious Catholic.
“If you’re looking for something beyond that from Shea, Simcha, me, or anyone else, you ain’t gettin’ it.”
Since you’re the one I’m talking to, you’re the only one I’m interested in engaging. Yes, I’m in a fighting mood. Already said I was angry. That said, you’re the only one of the three referenced writers who I believe possesses the intellectual capacity and interest in truth to actually find your way to a deeper understanding of the problems in the Church. I wish that instead of acting like I’m a schismatic for holding sacred what Catholics have always held sacred, you’d really take an interest. You might be surprised.
I certainly was. I was just as opposed to it as you were.
Steve. Steve, Steve….you’re getting all bent out of shape for nothing. Remember with whom you’re dealing (with apologies to Gammas):
We are not too dumb;
we are not too bright.
Writing on Patheos
is to be all right.
Mr. Skojec, you stated:
“And anyone who knows anything about Vatican II knows it was non-dogmatic, and thus entirely subject to revision or even dismissal.”
With respect, I think you may be incorrect on that point. In his opening remarks, Pope John XXIII said:
“The Councils — both the twenty ecumenical ones and the numberless others, also important, of a provincial or regional character which have been held down through the years — all prove clearly the vigor of the Catholic Church and are recorded as shining lights in her annals. In calling this vast assembly of bishops, the latest and humble successor to the Prince of the Apostles who is addressing you intended to assert once again the Magisterium (teaching authority), which is unfailing and perdures until the end of time, in order that this Magisterium, taking into account the errors, the requirements, and the opportunities of our time, might be presented in exceptional form to all men throughout the world.”
“Ecumenical Councils, whenever they are assembled, are a solemn celebration of the union of Christ and His Church, and hence lead to the universal radiation of truth, to the proper guidance of individuals in domestic and social life, to the strengthening of spiritual energies for a perennial uplift toward real and everlasting goodness.
The testimony of this extraordinary Magisterium of the Church in the succeeding epochs of these twenty centuries of Christian history stands before us collected in numerous and imposing volumes, which are the sacred patrimony of our ecclesiastical archives, here in Rome and in the more noted libraries of the entire world.”
John XXIII then called Vatican II an ecumenical council:
“As regards the initiative for the great event which gathers us here, it will suffice to repeat as historical documentation our personal account of the first sudden bringing up in our heart and lips of the simple words, “Ecumenical Council.” We uttered those words in the presence of the Sacred College of Cardinals on that memorable January 25, 1959, the feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, in the basilica dedicated to him. It was completely unexpected, like a flash of heavenly light, shedding sweetness in eyes and hearts. And at the same time it gave rise to a great fervor throughout the world in expectation of the holding of the Council.”
Then, also:
“The opportuneness of holding the Council is, moreover, venerable brothers, another subject which it is useful to propose for your consideration. Namely, in order to render our Joy more complete, we wish to narrate before this great assembly our assessment of the happy circumstances under which the Ecumenical Council commences.”
The problem, as I understand it, (not having a theology degree or any background in writing) is that the Vatican II documents overturned (albeit, some in subtle ways) much of Catholic dogma…which is an impossibility. Catholic dogma cannot be changed. Therefore Vatican II Council is invalid, null, and void.
To me, the real question is not whether Vatican II was dogmatic, but whether will we ever have a Pope who will dare to declare that Vatican II is null and void.
at the risk of being labelled unCatholic, I think those opening remarks reflect more a hopeful expectation of what the Council might achieve rather than some dogmatic statement of its reality. Anyhoo, the significant problem with V II documents is their (as we recently learned intentional) ambiguities and vagueness which left them open to the justly derided “spirit of VII” school of interpretation. Thus, the constant imploring by Shea, et al that the documents themselves are “good” is, not to put too fine a point on it, poppycock. The documents themselves are riddled with modernist gobbledegook that can be, and is, twisted to mean just about anything.
Steve, Excellent article. I’ve emailed John-Henry with my support. Thank God for bloggers and writers like you, Hilary and the other writers at LifeSite!
Amen.
Way to go Steve, you hit the nail on the head yet again!
A dozen years ago, Christopher Ferrara and Michael Davies were penning complaints about the Novus Ordo, the Papal Master of Ceremonies, and the oecumenism hamster wheel and the downstream consequences. Seems like a halcyon period in comparison.
Steve, I had been following that FB thread of Simcha’s within the first few minutes of her posting it. I was thoroughly disgusted with the comments being made there against Hilary and LifeSiteNews (her husband was fueling the vitriol all the more so), so I can’t even begin to tell you how ecstatic I am that you have addressed this. You’re like a frickin’ Knight in Shining Armor!
Thanks, Char. It needed to be addressed, but I need to do some work on my chivalry…
So far I think just about everybody everyone involved in this needs to go to confession. This is embarrassing and sad. Responding to mean, ad hominem attacks with more of the same is not what Christians should do.
I would call this “righteous anger,” people’s livelihoods are literally being destroyed if they speak out against the Pope’s words or actions they find troublesome. People with families to support. That should cause everyone to stand up against the injustice.
Steve is doing exactly what Christians should do. He is defending his friend, whose livelihood has been jeopardized by the ad hominem attacks of Shea and the Fishers. And he’s defending the truth, which is all that Hilary was reporting, and against which Shea and the Fishers have no legitimate argument. Hence their recourse to name-calling and finger-pointing.
Thank you for speaking truth, God bless you.
“We are not entering into wildly speculative territory when we find that the facts of the story lead us to conclude that the pope knew what he was doing. Assuming he was ignorant is, frankly, a little insulting to his intelligence and the competence of his staff.”
Oh, but the “implied papal ignorance” card has almost become part of Holy Tradition at this point. They’ve been trotting that out ever since JPII was going around, kissing Korans, and receiving blessings from animist shamans. He only kissed the Koran because he was handed a book and didn’t understand what it was! (Apparently the papal librosculation impulse can’t be easily overridden.) He didn’t realize he was actually participating in an animist ritual in Togoville! Apparently whenever a pope is handed a book to kiss, a gourd of water to pour on the ground, or a hand to kiss, it immediately suspends his capacity for prudential thought.
I expect the formation of a new dicastery dedicated solely to mental gymnastics within the next few years.
Well, here is Simcha Fischer a bit more than a year ago:
“Here are 34 pro-life activities you and your family can do…29. Stay informed. Keep up-to-date on pro-life news with Jill Stanek (JillStanek.com), Lila Rose (LiveAction.org), Feminists for Life (FeministsForLife.org), LifeSiteNews (LifeSiteNews.com), and National Right to Life (NRTLC.org).”
(http://www.catholicdigest.com/articles/good_works/get_involved/2013/01-03/be-a-pro-life-family)
So, what happened? (Clue, the first word starts with a “P”, the second word starts with an “F” and the third word is “Effect”.)
I don’t read her blog but just spending a few minutes skimming it I think that even now she says things 90% of the time that we would heartily agree with. However, 10% of Ms. Fischer has now been effectively “turned”, as they say. Why? I’m not exactly sure. But it is a fact. And to some extent she has now been “neutralized”. More and more I think the Bishop of Rome is (unfortunately) much smarter than he looks.
Wait, what? Is this a joke?
If anyone cares (and I don’t see why they should), I think the reason these Patheos (isn’t that Greek for disease or illness? Who came up with that name?) bloggers are like that is because, in a sense, their faith in the RCC is a bit fragile. I don’t recall who first pointed it out, but it is a fear on their part that if the current occupant of the See of Peter really is as bad as some say he is, it would simply shatter their faith in the RCC. I note that many of them are converts (not saying that is bad), but it seems converts might be particularly susceptible to this because many reach the RCC through intellectual conversion. And if there is something to undermine whatever intellectual conclusions they reached, they may move on. They don’t want to face this doubt (not really, they may say they aren’t afraid, but deep down they likely are), and therefore have to “shout down” anything that brings these doubts to the surface. I feel sorry for them.
That’s a bit generous. There is a lot of ego involved here. It’s clear they are afraid of losing the attention, the money (meager though it is) and especially the junkets. Further to this point, they have an extreme “circle the wagons” mentality, see: http://contrapauli.blogspot.com/2012/09/top-tips-for-faithful.html
note the last paragraph which discusses patheticos bloggers defending egregious behavior of one of their “blogbrothers”.
Very interesting point. I, myself, am a convert and my faith has been very shaky of late. Perhaps I place too much of my faith upon the pope being “good”. Definitely something to think about.
May I kindly ask why I didn’t get added to the accused? I volunteer.
Your blog is boring?
Touche.
Probably. Is that why?
Not to be a jerk, but maybe. I don’t know who you are. Am I supposed to?
A veteran of the Vox Nova crew, most of whom have some connection to the gosizdat wing of Catholic academe, either as graduate students or instructors. Mr. Rocha actually has a history of being the least annoying person on that board.
he is far-left smear merchant from patheos as well. A cheerleader on Simcha’s bull*** fb Thread…
I thought this thread was about Catholic writers, especially at Patheos. I am one, so that’s the only relevance I could think of. But I’d never heard of you either until this post, so no offense.
¿Quien es?
😉
“I’m defending the See of Peter. You’re defending Hilary White.”
The problem with that statement and the thinking of Thomas L. McDonald and others is that they are merely defending Pope Francis, not the see of Peter. Not the papacy. They are making the mistake of confusing their defense of the person of Pope Francis with a defense of the papacy and Church itself. The papacy needs defending from the person of Jorge Bergoglio. I believe it is Pope Francis who is on the path of destroying the institution of the papacy. I believe the best defense of the see of Peter is to acknowledge that that man had no business being elected Pope, that the cardinals made a horrible mistake, and that he is a bad Pope with wicked ideas and actions who is leading the Church into total chaos and destruction. He needs to either resign, or by some miracle, have a conversion of heart.
Well said. Bravo! (Although I guess that word as praise has been diminished somewhat since the Cardinal Dolan interview with David Gregory.)
Overstated, but ’tis true he is unsuitable for the position he holds.
I have a BA in philosophy with 12 credit hours in Religious Studies, MA in English, including 3 hours in journalism and 9 graduate hours in theology. I have had to do the equivalent to an MA as an OCDS. I have several published articles and worked in my university’s PR office for two years. I have taught CCD and have plenty of personal experience. I was reading everything from CS Lewis to Catholic Answers to St.Augustine when I was 13.
I have been turned down for full time jobs (in some cases more than once, and only getting one interview) by _Crisis_ at its prime, various parishes and diocesan newspapers! Human Life International, and American Life League.
I have been blogging for 10 years and get less than 200 hits a day, if I’m lucky.
Any time I regret my failure to be selected as a professional apologist or priest-life writer, I think of shameful situations like this and thank God for sparing me from the dangers of my own pride.
Do I think Pope Francis, and St. John Paul II, and even B16, have said, done, and permitted imprudent or sinful things? Of course! That’s why Popes go to confession weekly. If those acts are public, or publicized, they need to be discussed in a manner that diminishes the scandal without encouraging schism. Do I think any or all of them have been evil Masonic heretics out to destroy the Church? No. The difficulty is finding such a balance when people always insist on polarizing every issue.
Are there some people who move from questioning and critiquing the Holy Father to uncharitably and reflexively finding fault with anything he says or does? Yes. Do I feel the need to respond to those people with vitriol? No. Whenever possibke, .I offer a reasoned critique and otherwise treat them the way Jesus, and the Pope, would have me do.
Do others, in the name of supporting the Pope, particularly converts and apologists who have developed a certain ultramontanist attitude, lump everyone who critiques or questions the Pope into the same category? Yes, and some of those people have long based their role in the blogosphere on trolling and attacking. Pope Francis is just the latest MacGuffin.
I believe one of the reasons I haven’t gotten much attention is that I try not to write unless I have something to say, something to add to a discussion, and usually have been thinking it out for a while before I post. The blogosphere demands instant and constant comment.
As you asked, Mr. Skojec, I published the following comment of support for Hillary on the Lifesite website:
The only thing that puzzles me is that no one has yet connected the dots concerning the nested Lavender Mafia within the Vatican and the invitations to these pro-homosexual clerical activists. Isn’t it odd that in the last days of Pope Benedict the international press was salivating over the dossier which had been purportedly assembled with the exposed names and details of a homosexual cabal within the Vatican? Has anyone heard ANYTHING about this dossier since Bergoglio became the Bishop of Rome? Doesn’t anyone find this strange?
Excellent questions. I suspect this particular rabbit hole is unfortunately deep.
I think if you read between the lines, you’ll see more ample support for that shadowy lavender clique than you’ll need to make the case.
FWIW, Fisher has “apologized” without saying what she did wrong (calling White and LSN liars), who she wronged, why what she said was wrong (the event was factual), and the original lie is still up. But Fisher wants “that person” to know how sorry she is. Mainly because telling people White was a liar was only meant for private consumption.
As the master says, such people are sorry only because they are caught
I believe (unless I’ve missed something) that she apologized for outing private information revealed to her about the matter in a public forum, which added insult to injury.
I have seen no apology for stirring the mob. Nor do I think it particularly matters.
It’s kinda like what you do. Stirring the mob. Classy.
Is that the anonymous commenter’s version of, “I know you are but what am I”?
I think you’ve hit on something, I never thought of.
I think you have your next subject, Steve.
The post and combox comments drip with irony. Humility, anyone?
Very helpful remark. Thank you.
Just for the record: if you had said that to St. Jerome when he was disputing with St. Augustine he would have rapped you along side your head.
I’m fed up and in a fightin’ mood. Sue me.
Killing the Messenger:
“Bloggers upset about this story, I have a challenge for you: what mistake of fact did Hilary White make in this story? If there are no factual errors, what does bug you about the story? That it casts the Pope in a possibly bad light? If that is the case, is it the fault of the author of the story or rather the fault of the Pope by doing this? When Pope Francis doesn’t explain his actions, and I have noticed that he rarely explains either his words or his actions, whose fault is it when his actions may be viewed unfavorably?”
http://the-american-catholic.com/2014/05/29/killing-the-messenger/#sthash.Q73MB0aa.dpuf
The problem with the St. Francis analogy that has often been used regarding the Pope’s actions, it that St. Francis was not Pope. The Pope has the obligation, before God for the good of souls, to silence this priest teaching error in the name of the Church.
I have no degrees in anything, I am not a Catholic blogger and I don’t pretend to be anything more than I am…a laywoman struggling everyday to be the best daughter to my Lord that I can be, so I am sure you will quickly dismiss me as unqualified to have an opinion. Today is my first visit to your blog, prompted by a link from Kevin Tierney. It will also be my last. Your piece was good, your behavior in the com box was atrocious. We have a saying in the south, “pretty is as pretty does.” Maybe you need to focus a bit on the “does” part.
Your attitude is at the heart of much of the problem in the Church and the decaying rot that was once Christian culture. You want men to act like women. News flash: men do not act “pretty.” The dictatorship of those who have enabled the emasculation of Catholic men must be brought to an end.
Interesting I wasn’t aware that the Church had ever taught that charity and humility were feminine characteristics. Perhaps THAT is the problem with our culture and therefore the Church. Perhaps men no longer know what truly “masculine” virtues are and they mistake machismo for those virtues. Give me a man who sacrifices his own desires for the needs of his family, prays fervently daily and disregards image for accomplishment, over a man who screams “I’ve been emasculated” any day.
I’m sure those men would love to have you.
As for me, I’m taken by a woman who can handle my rough edges. Plus, she’s really ridiculously good looking.
God built in to man a warrior spirit. I guess you don’t think that this is compatible with sacrifices and prayer? You equate man’s natural inclination to “machismo”? You are one wounded puppy. I don’t have to scream emasculation. You and your miserable attitude (apparently more comfortable with the metrosexual) screams it. Why not meet a real woman like Church Militant Mamma below instead of trying to wield a castration knife?
Wow – THAT is a lot of anger toward a woman you have never and probably will never meet. The men I admire and love most on this earth are warriors. My Grandfather landed in Normandy at D+4. He fought and was wounded in the hedgerows in France, was in the Battle of the Bulge and ultimately lost his leg taking Aachen. He came home and became a journalist, write and Republican politician. I can’t recall his ever saying an uncharitable word,even when he took people to task for their actions in a daily commentary. My husband was an Army Ranger and he fully embraces all that that means and meant to him. He also works every day to grow in humility and to put the needs of our family first. My other grandfather fought in the Pacific. My father enlisted. My cousins are sailors, my step-son fought in Afghanistan. I have ancestors involved in every single war this country ever fought starting with the Revolution and 13 direct grandfathers who fought in the Civil War. Don’t dismiss those men as metrosexuals or assume you know me or mine and what we hold most dear. They are all warriors and they also grew up in strong Christian homes and knew the value of charity. None of them mistook the need and desire to protect and defend as an excuse for dismissing virtue.
Thank you for the family history. I won’t bore you with mine. Unfortunately it has absolutely nothing to do with the point at hand.
In fact, I could make the case that it was the “Greatest Generation” which was the catalyst for the cultural rot which so quickly followed World War II.
You seem to think I’m equating the Christian warrior spirit with a contemporary military profile. I think we’re talking past each other. As much as I disagree with you and find you the prototype of the emasculating female which is at the heart of this society’s decline, I still have the responsibility to pray for you.
Ave Maria, gratia plena…….
Elisabeth the entire western world and the Catholic Church has been feminized..this is no secret. It is a result of feminism and a cultural Marxism of course and spare me any straw men comments on true masculinity..I’m so very tired of arguing with blind people nowadays. There are not a small number of us who are growing tired of the explanations and excuses. My mind is made up..patience is the discipline I adhere to now
AMEN AMEN! @senrex …. VERY, VERY well said!!!!! I am one woman who could not agree more!!! God Bless!! †JMJ†
Thanks Mamma — see my reply above. And Steve’s response is right on. I like to be tamed by my woman; Lizzy prefers a tamed kitten for a man.
I’m not here to make friends with people who have a habit of attacking my friends, or me. Not that I oppose the idea.
I exercise charity and tact toward my antagonistic commenters the vast majority of the time, as any of my regular readers could tell you.
But I have bad days, too. Trust me, my cause for sainthood is a long way off.
God bless you, Steve. You have far more restraint than I can muster.
And I can certainly appreciate the struggles of a bad day. Which is why we have to hold one another accountable when those days color our interactions with those with whom we disagree. We fail in our ability to teach when we dismiss those we hope to educate as beneath us. I hope your day improves.
I can certainly attest to Steve’s charity toward those who disagree with him. As one who has played the role of antagonist on this blog, Steve characteristically keeps his cool long after most bloggers would use the “ban” feature.
And to dust off an old chestnut, Steve, after you mentioned in your Misalignment post about having not made any converts, well, I wouldn’t be so sure. While I’ve been on board with you about Pope Francis from the beginning, I’ve read a lot of pre-conciliar works since our dustup about Vatican II vis-à-vis the Fisher More incident. At this point, I may not use all of the colorful adjectives that you and Alphonsus were employing, but nevertheless I now agree with you that the Church would be better off if Vatican II and the Novus Ordo never happened; their primary fruits have been destruction and decay. As such, I’m willing to admit that I was wrong about Bishop Olsen’s suppression of the TLM.
You’re alright, Brian. 😉
>>>Trust me, my cause for sainthood is a long way off.
These days you never know. :o)
I’m glad to have found you today by clicking a link, to a link, to another link.
Good work and don’t let the Catholic eunuchs of Amchurch media ever get you down. They do what they do because they know on which side their bread is buttered and so they must do the will of their overlords.
Live Free!
St. John the Baptist was a man of great zeal & love for the truth. Many (if not most times) his zeal was mistaken for unkindness, intolerance & uncharitable… you know, when he called people “You brood of vipers…” Take heart, Mr. Skojec. In today’s responsorial psalm, Our Lord told Paul to “Be Fearless…” you know…. like St. John the Baptist was… †JMJ† I’m also reminded of the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen’s words: “Who is going to save our
Church? Not
our bishops
and religious.
It is to you,
the people
(LAITY). You
have the
minds, the
eyes, the ears
to save the Church. Your mission is to
see that your priests act as priests, your
bishops like bishops, and your religious
act like religious.” †JMJ† Thank you, Mr. Skojec, for this enlightening article. Be assured of our family’s prayers for you.
Never trust or listen to lay people who make their living off of the church. Catholic celebrities like Fisher and Shea are publicity hounds and always have to start something in order to get attention.
`These Neo-catholic 30-pieces-of-silver sycophants will share in the same sufferings eternally, unless they discover repentance, that the temporal world, even with it’s feeble sensibilities, saw in the villains, and their vain rationalizations, at Nuremberg. St Thomas Aquinas said the first response to truth is anger because it touches us in places we thought already settled. One brings to mind the response of the possessed when confronted with holy water, philosophically, or otherwise. Our Lady of Good Counsel in Ecuador, Our Lady Of Lasallette, Our Lady at Fatima, and Our Lady at Akita, and dozens of beatified and canonized mystics have told us where we are and what time it is. They call Our Lady’s maternal warnings “terrorism” as if she were a Mohammedan murderer and the mystics “illiterate prophets of doom”. Meanwhile, they pathologically ignore the fruits of the “Devastated Vineyard” and peripatetically search the satanists (masons/pagans/occultists), schismatics, and heretics for some sustenance that doesn’t, at least, fill the mouth with worms at first bite. They are genuine Obama liberals who believe they can spew forth what they like and proclaim their own martyrdom when their reasoning has been sufficiently impaled. They are all Lady Gaga about the pentecostalist heresy and equally smitten with the universal-Salvationism of contemporary heretics like Barron. So they “dali-lama” the conciliar Popes because to reason against their absurdities is too easy, so like the North Korean Jong dynasty, they have to deify the leader as the ONLY defense of his preposterous actions and utterances. So the effeminate Neo-catholics have a choice. We either trade, respectfully, Mater Dei and Saintly utterances about the time we are in OR bring baphomet with you and we’ll settle accounts with you bitches RIGHT NOW! SALVE REGINA MATER MISERICORDIA ORA PRO NOBIS! VIVO CHRISTO REY!!!
“St Thomas Aquinas said the first response to truth is anger because it touches us in places we thought already settled.”
Spot on. Your whole post was Gold Star worthy. Wow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL0X4QZJamXrxWKb_DtKwvGGm8TrrLuhj6&feature=player_detailpage&v=Uyj3YCIdTns (The Best Catholic Prophecy documentary I’ve ever seen, by far. It runs just under an hour.)
That’s a schismatic video. Stay away from that garbage.
Not to mention it hurts my eyes.
Quotes from Our Lady, saintly-mystics, canonized Popes, encyclicals, and Church Councils, married with contemporary happenings, can hardly be called garbage. Are the Sacraments valid in the New Order Church? Is Francis The Pope? As far as we know, yes. That is where I would differ from the producer. What I find is in many quarters, be they Traditional, Councilliar, Conservative, Liberal, or Libertine, there is an admission, and significant documentation, of something historically wrong. The problem it would seem is in the solutions. The fathers-of-v2 think more of the same, on steroids, will fix things. Establishment conservatives think the problem is economics. Social Conservatives draw from Evangelicalism (mainly because of the dearth of political leadership by the USCCB), but that theology is flawed. Honest liberals know there is systemic world-wide exploitation of slave labor, at the expense of a thriving middle-class, but have no where to go with these complaints. Libertines know the civil liberties are being raped in nearly every place in America, but think pining away for the masonic origins of this Republic is some plausible solution. And, it must be said, there are some in the Traditional movement, who have problems as well. There are those who see The Church as nothing more than a haunt for demons (sedavacantists). They are mistaken. Their arguments are significant, but they are mistaken. The other group that seems to constitute the greater part of Tradition-minded folks is, what may only be called, the Sensitives. You get the feeling if today Francis were to allow Tradition-minded folks their only Catholic Ghetto, ecclesiology, (perhaps like he treats The schismatic Orthodox Churches) worship, tradition, etc.., they would join the rest of the cabal adoring Bergoglio, and forgetting the over-whelming majority of our brethren being disserved and led astray by the faux-Latin Rite known as Neo-catholicism. I don’t see how this attitude can be reconciled with Catholic Charity. When Voris went off the tracks a couple months ago, Shea wasted no time in lauding his disparaging Traditional Catholics. Voris falls into the “bishops are bad/but the Pope is always good” strain, who The Remnant, and others, have pointed out is a kind of Protestantism, which acknowledges The Pope, but pretends his actions/inactions don’t matter. In short, we don’t need “papa” to pat us on our head, give us a cookie, and point out the swing-set we’re allowed to play on again. We need “papa” to be “papa”, put down the spirits affecting his judgment, stop chasing harlots, and restore OUR FATHER’s house. (We don’t want a gated community with parochial interests. We want a Church ALL CHILDREN can be safe in.) VIVO CHRISTO REY!!!
Thank you, I ended up watching it, and now I’ll go take a Xanax. Seriously, though, I’m not sure what there is to dismiss about it. The quotes don’t seem questionable. Like you said, they are from Our Lady, saints, mystics, encyclicals, etc. As for schismatic claims…I don’t know who this Eric Gajewski is, but he seems to be linked to “Defeat Modernism” of whose page on FB I’ve seen before (they have over 5800 likes).
And Steve, you had your “Lines of Division and Convergence” post in early April…you were open to the prophecies that Dr. Kelly Bowring had been writing about then…maybe if you can get past the video hurting your eyes (I had to keep pausing it due to the speed of it–that was more my issue), I think it’s worth watching. Hey, and no quotes from MDM in it. 😉
You’ve said some things of value here, but I would urge you not to squander the merit of your thinking by falling into the sort of spittle-flecked frenzy of insulting and insinuating you know the hearts of your enemies that characterizes writers like Mark Shea. It’s ugly and unbecoming of people who share brotherhood in Christ.
We need to be better than that. There are times when we need to rebuke people, and it won’t always be perceived as charitable. Still, I don’t desire their punishment, but their conversion.
My prayer is that no soul be lost, however unlikely that may be, though I won’t invent heresy to project my insecurities on The Most High. Sir, kudos to you, but unlike 99% of the people in the pew who are most assuredly ignorant of this internecine warfare (due to the PURPOSEFUL betrayal of the Neo-catholics who control almost every chancery), the Neo-catholic intelligentsia have NO EXCUSE. They are well-lettered, well-paid, and have the leisure to explore these matters genuinely, but they tow the line of death to continue the cash flow and access that assisting the hirelings in sheep’s clothing affords them. For love of our brother and sister Catholics, and firstly love for THE HOLY TRINTY and THE MASTERWORK OF HIS HANDS, The Blessed Virgin, do we do battle. I think it is a type of Joan-of-Arc martyrdom we face. That for love of God and neighbor, we might be denied The Sacraments that can save our souls (Cause that is where this is going. You will pledge allegiance to The Council, and all the destruction of the past half-century, or like the soup-Nazi in Seinfeld, “..no sacraments for you!”). We can feel in our bones the hour is late. The time for banal platitudes leading to ethereal discussions is over. We need to get people’s attention. That said, I am (NO EXAGGERATING) the worst of all sinners, virtually nothing, and using the gifts God has given me, undeservingly, to love HIM and OUR QUEEN as best I can. Peace, my brother.
Yes, yes, yes. I have felt for a while now that no one else sees this. It is to the point that I don’t dare mention it to fellow Catholics that fawn over Tomeo, Shea, Fisher, etc…
QUOTE: ” I do this because it is their moral duty to uphold, proclaim, and safeguard the truths of the faith, and it is a job toward which many of them have shown a shocking dereliction of duty. When the pope is out there smearing doctrinal lines and leading people to believe that everything is up for grabs and anything can change, that has a profound impact on those who feel obligated to try to follow him with docility and faithfulness but can’t reconcile their own more deeply-grounded understanding of what the Church teaches with his jarring words and actions.”
Steve — I know you live only about 20 minutes from me. My good brother, I simply MUST meet with you some day, and that sooner than later. I think this column was even-handed and well thought out. The quote that I posted is really the heart of the matter.
I did not convert to the Catholic faith in order to be some kind of proto-Presbyterian or doctrinal mongrel. I am finding it hard enough to understand a few points of the Catholic faith without the leaders of my Church — take that back — without the leaders of CHRIST’S CHURCH creating situations which tax my ability to reason. Truth is hard enough to find some days without those to whom truth has been entrusted making it obscure by torturing it, twisting it, and tormenting it in the public forums.
God bless you, Steve. As they say in Latin “illegitimi non carborundum.”
Your brother in Christ,
Ed
People are really being scandalized. Some are losing their faith. Why is this not a bigger deal to people? I can’t figure it out.
Because staring into the abyss is unbearable, so we turn away.
Normalcy bias.
Diabolical disorientation.
I’ve got ADHD and it looks to me like pure character assassination from the establishment’s “journalistic” guardians. These people are simply paid to lie, deceive and disparage faithful Catholics. They bear part of the blame, but there are others far more blameworthy behind these tools of iniquity.
My vanity does leave me down in the mouth about having such insignificant antagonists.
Steve, just wanted to let you know, if you didn’t already, I am in your corner.
You are in my prayers.
Thank you. I need all I can get right now.
Sorry but I’m going to have to disagree with you on this Steve.
The level of vitriol aimed at this Pope is mind-boggling – and by the way, its “P”ope with a capital “P”- you may want to amend your article to reflect this level of respect.
I am yet to see how this Pope is trashing Catholic Theology and Doctrine and leading us to a schism. He has and will always uphold the teaching of the CatholicChurch. Period. There was never this level aimed at St JPII (who I love dearly)during or after his Pontification, who turned a blind eye to the worst level of paedophile Priests activity in the history of the Catholic Church. Why do certain rules apply to some and not others? I guess it’s because no one dared to utter a word wrong about a great man like St JPII. And rightfully so. I’m outraged that poison is hurled at Pope Francis- for nothing at all! For innuendo, misunderstanding, and fear mongering.
It is not ok to attack the Pope in the manner that has been done on many a so-called conservative blogs.
It is UN-Christlike, and disrespectful to the Pope who holds the seat of Peter, but also to fellow Catholics who uphold him as their leader. I don’t appreciate you maligning my Pope with unsubstantiated information and fear-mongering.
And respectfully speaking, you don’t need a degree to be Catholic. Simcha is a mother to a large family, and a great protector of the unborn. I read her blog. Infact she sent me a book on confession for my young daughter. She lives her Faith in the trenches, and as a mother I relate. So for the sake of personal integrity, you owe her an apology for maligning her character. The standard you apply to her on Hilary, should be applied to you on her.
And if you felt this way about Fisher and Shea wouldn’t the mature and wise thing be to contact them directly about your concerns, rather than publicly writing a “payback” blog post, that maligns their characters? That would be the Christian thing.
I strongly suggest you contact her directly and sought this out. It is far better than adding flame to an already out of control fire.
Lastly, I suggest you try a different approach Steve- and it may bring you much clarity and peace: start heeding the Popes messages before you cut off your nose despite your face. We have a great leader in Pope Francis- his message is Peace! Peace on the international stage, and peace amongst each other.
I think you need to brush up on your papal grammar: http://www.ap.org/content/press-release/2013/papal-succession-style-guide-distributed-by-ap
http://www.grammarly.com/handbook/mechanics/capitalization/5/capitalization-the-names-of-god-specific-deities-r/
As for the rest, I’ve taken the time (and will probably, to my own chagrin, take more time) to discuss some of the things he’s done that warrant specific criticism. Often as not, it’s what he’s NOT doing that is causing the problem: not clearly standing up for the faith when interacting with known dissidents, reinstating heretics without forcing them to retract their public opposition to Church teaching, failing to clarify confusing and misleading remarks (like the telephone call to the woman in Argentina in a divorced/remarried situation, in which he allegedly said she could receive communion), etc. It’s not hard to find the problems if you’re willing to brace yourself and deal with them. There’s a new one almost every week.
And I will remind you: he is not pope, he is our pope. I’m Catholic. Always have been. I have always defended my faith from enemies foreign and domestic. The faith is far bigger than any single papacy.
You’re correct that you don’t need a degree to be Catholic. In fact, like I said elsewhere in the comments, who knows what they’re even worth? I had many edifying classes, but I learned very little about anything relevant outside the past 50-75 years. It’s as if the post-conciliar Church is the only Church there ever was. I only mention my degree and years of study because I’m not just some casual observer who figured out how to install WordPress. There’s a lot more involvement on my part.
But as for trenches, which of us doesn’t do that? I have six kids. I live in the world. I take my faith with me where I go. If we aren’t doing that, we’re doing something wrong. It doesn’t give anyone any sort of special insight or credentials. Simcha is a gifted writer. There’s no question about that. I used to agree with her more often than not. I’m not here to air dirty laundry, but I’ve had run-ins with her clan over perceived slights that wouldn’t have sold her books, to be sure. And so have several other popular writers I know. We’re all sinners, and we all have things we hide when we present our public face. Don’t follow any man too closely and uncritically.
I have tried over time to address both Simcha and Shea over our disagreements. I don’t think you understand the level of vitriol that exists. Shea and I used to be friendly, just like Simcha and I were. Simcha is actually the more reserved and responsible of the two. Just today, Mark Shea was telling anyone on Facebook who would listen about how I’m praying for the pope’s death, etc. During this papacy, he’s written to attack me, or things I’ve said (without quoting the source) a number of times. With extreme prejudice. I’m not backing down from what I believe is true because they think it makes me a monster. So, the character assassination is something I’ve just come to expect.
Pope Francis has a very hard time representing the Catholic teachings I’ve studied for most of my life. I’ll believe he’s a great leader when he starts acting with the dignity, respect, and clarity of doctrine befitting a pope … instead of a fame-hungry ideological progressive wearing a pope costume.
Steve it’s clear that the animosity is political.
Christ told us to resolve our differences amongst ourselves.
I don’t see the purpose for a post like this in evangelising other than retaliation and further attack. And you tempt others into sin by attacking also. The whole thing does not play out good. You really should avoid posts like this.
If you truly believe you are right, then you don’t need reassurance from anyone even Shea and Simcha. What you need is to be on the same page and not post nasties like this. It’s taking the higher road.
Ill choose to put a capital in front of my “P”ope with the risk of being grammatically incorrect if that’s ok with you.
I still think that the vitriol is unwarranted. I tried to read “PopeWatch” by Donald McClarey. I really tried to have an open mind. But it screamed of ridicule and disrespect. You know, when we disagree with our parents, we don’t go around mocking them and ridiculing their behaviour. Well, that is what is being played out by so-called defenders of the Faith towards the Holy Father.
Again, St JPII kissed the hands of priests that were later excommunicated for scandal. And nobody has jumped up in indignation.
Pope Francis is the Holy Spirits perfect choice for our current times. Maybe he isn’t the perfect choice for academic Catholics but he resonates with the majority.
Was the Holy Spirit the One Who chose Pope Francis to be Pope?
He sure was.
The Third Person of the Blessed Trinity.
And that’s fine by me.
Perhaps; but not necessarily. Perhaps next to your school marm grammar book you might place a theological manual as well.
Oh — and how about a logic text as well. If you cannot see the difference between John Paul II kissing the hand of a priest who WOULD offer scandal in the future and Pope Francis kissing the hand of priest who has for decades been an apologist for sodomite perversion, you really are going to have a difficult time holding a conversation here.
Is this a personal belief or part of Catholic teaching? Is there somewhere you can direct me (in the catechism perhaps) to read more about this?
This is an honest question and not intended to come off as sarcastic/attacking. I have heard it stated that the Holy Spirit chooses Popes but my research into the matter is typically inconclusive, so I’ve thought it more a pious belief than an article of Faith – but I’m willing to be corrected if I’m in error.
Peter, the Holy Ghost only guarantees the grace of the office. The one who holds the Office of St. Peter may or may not have been His choice.
This idea of the Holy Ghost “choosing” the Pope needs to be carefully considered. The Pope is chosen by men – fellow Cardinals – who are supposed to ask the Holy Ghost for guidance in their selection. We simply cannot make the assumption that the Cardinals in question prayed for this guidance. We hope hey did, we want to believe they did, but other than that we have no window into their souls or minds to know if they did.
Can a Cardinal deliberately vote for a man without asking – indeed openly ignoring – the guidance of the Holy Ghost? Yes, of course. So we need to approach this question with caution and prudence and not look at papal elections in a sentimental or simplistic manner.
But if all the Cardinals in the last conclave did, in fact, clearly and with all their hearts and in all sincerity pray for guidance, all big “ifs” to be sure, and we were given this man, then common sense demands that if such were actually the case then we as Catholics are being punished in some way by being given a vacillating Pope who one day does something wonderful and the next day does something less than wonderful.
And we do know, as many Saints have told us, that God does punish us in this way, by giving us the leaders we deserve.
As others point out, it is not a dogma that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope. He may inspire and offer graces to those electing the Pope, but just as with other graces, they can be refused or squandered.
And even if He did pick the Pope, that only leads to the further question of “why this guy?” It could be he is the Pope we need for these times; it could just as easily be he is the Pope we deserve.
The purpose of this post is to rebuff a public attack publicly. I’ve quoted Elie Weisel on this before: “I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
The purpose of public criticism of the pope’s public remarks and actions is to publicly address error, perceived or actual, on behalf of those who don’t know enough to recognize or refute it.
I don’t criticize my parents publicly. They are not responsible for guarding and promulgating the Catholic faith while utterly failing to do so.
JPII did many scandalous things. And many people spoke up about them. As well they should have.
Finally, the Holy Spirit does not pick the pope. If there were a Catholic version of Snopes, that would be the most-read article. I don’t know where people get that idea from. It’s completely non-doctrinal, and is in fact seriously wrong. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit picked John XII and the Borgias. You willing to make that case?
Ok then keep feeding the fire if its working for you.
Good night.
No, the only time you capitalize the word “pope” is when it is used as a proper noun. The same with bishop.
Thus, we have a pope in the Church and his name is Pope Francis. He is a bishop in the Church, just like my Bishop Kurt.
Got it?
Got it? Actually its “get it”?
What I get is your smugness.
Actually, it’s “it’s.” If you’re going to correct someone else’s grammar — not once, but twice — please check your own.
You know I wasn’t going around marking everyone’s grammar. I called for respect for the Holy Father when writing about him.
You clearly missed the point Wendy.
No, Ezabelle, I understand your point perfectly. I just don’t agree that it’s necessary, or advisable, to ignore the rules of clear self-expression to show respect to the pope.
The mood of Steves article dripped with disrespect and assumptions.
Free expression and their rules (whatever you mean by that) should be expressed with charity. That’s the rule for being a Christian- above all else.
Ezabelle — another woman here who pines for mandatory estrogen inoculation shots for men. Like I implied to your snarky companion above, if you want “pretty” from men, visit some metrosexual website. You and your ilk have intimidated too many of society’s males into a perpetual genuflection before the feminine. You and Elisabeth above would have chastised Our Lord because he was being too “smug” and “aggressive” for driving the money changers from the Temple.
Senrex- cruel words.
Christ admonished his disciples when they drew a sword to attack His captors. Christ was clearly not a Man, in your eyes because he didn’t defend himself.
Ill pray you resolve your anger.
Ezabelle:
Jesus Christ, true God and true man who came to redeem those who’d accept Him by His passion on the Cross, admonished his apostle Peter from raising a sword in His defense because He knew ‘this cup would not pass’ and that His crucifiers were bent on blotting out His name forever. (In any event, scripture relates that the sword had already come down at least once in lopping off one ear, so Jesus ‘stopped’ Peter after blood had been drawn.) Jesus had chosen Peter as his Vicar on earth. Peter had another duty to fulfill. His was not to be captured with Jesus and possibly crucified next to him.. His was to establish the Church at Rome. Even in sarcasm you shouldn’t jest about Jesus Christ not being a true man or attributing such thoughts to another.
Prayers are always welcome. EZ. I guess you view any man with the temerity to confront you as being angry. Do you expect me to abide by the Marquis of Queensbury Rules because you’re a woman? The women in my life and neck of the woods would view that treatment as condescending and downright insulting.
Christ did not defend Himself in His human nature. He WAS zealous for the defense of His Father (and His) Divinity. BIG difference. What Hillary White was doing in that original article and what Steve has done defending her is truly defending the Divine teachings of the Trinity. Distinctions, EZ — always remember distinctions.
And PLEASE spare me the hyperbolic emotionalism of such words as “cruel.” That don’t cut the mustard.
You are becoming quite amusing. I love a good fight. I live a strong man. I live a man that can get his pint across without being an a$&hole or demeaning my dignity.
I don’t respect a person like you who insults, ridicules, maligns me, makes over reactive assumptions and all the while have never met me.
Maybe the issue is deeper here- you are never allowed to be a true strong man with an opinion, so you hide behind a blog name and cruelly insult others.
Frankly, and respectfully, I thought I was conversing with a b$&@?y woman the whole time.
Oh,the thinly-veiled indignities of a contemporary feminist, a theory which is the outline of a certain diabolical practice we will give no more time to here. Now, MS, if you think men exist to give you affirmation and approval, you reason, as it seems with most of your thoughts, wrongly. Be a real woman and act like THE MODEL FOR ALL WOMEN, THE MATER DEI, kiss your knight and send him this way, or if you insist on perpetuating your presence here don’t be surprised if you have your behind regularly handed to you, with absolutely no deference to the fact that you are reminded monthly of the failings of Eve or that you possess udders to nurseinfants.
Ezabelle besides Christi’s admonishment of Peter at that time…address Senrex Biblical Factual events..never mind his caustic and sometimes sarcastic rebukes of the apostles….was it ok for Jesus to get Angry at the money changers or not?…what does the Feminine high councils tell us men we should do now in more contemporary situational contexts?
An older gentleman came to my office last week to let me know his wife was angry with him for not telling him about their grandson being gay. He had learned this fact a few weeks prior from his daughter–the boy’s mother. Apparently, she had hoped her father (the boy’s grandfather) would tell grandma the “news” because she knew the reaction was going to be extremely difficult for her to process etc.
Well, she found out last week through another source and would no longer speak to the gentleman in my office (the boy’s grandfather). This lasted the better part of a week. She was upset that he had kept it from her…
This continued until she realized that she wasn’t actually upset with her husband (grandpa), but rather at the grandson who was gay and what that meant in her life. In other words, she was projecting anger in one direction to avoid facing the glaring reality that faced her in the other direction…
All of this to say, we sometimes misplace our treatment of others and our occasional vitriol toward unintended recipients because we aren’t willing to face the underlying truth that may be a thousand times more difficult to face.
I believe that is where we are with the Life Site News story…
I believe that is where we are with some of the comments posted after the blog…
and…
I believe that may be where we are with this pope…
@senrex
Please don’t feel a responsibility to pray for me, I find it disingenuous that you sincerely wish to pray for a “emasculating female at the heart of society’s decline”.
Elisabeth, 3 hours ago you said this was your first visit here, and that it will also be your last. Did you already forget your promise? 😉
I was unclear and not specific enough. I had meant other that for this one blog piece. But as it is eminently clear that my kind isn’t wanted here I certainly won’t let the door hit me on the a** on my way out.
I run the joint, and I didn’t tell you to leave. But you came in with guns blazing. Did you really think people weren’t going to argue with you?
Elizabeth I agree with you. Don’t leave.
You see, Elizabeth, you really are revealing your true colors. As I read the Gospel, you are EXACTLY the person for whom I must pray.
I’m pissed off as much as the next traditionalist at Pope Francis’ antics but I have to disagree with you, Steve, the piece in question by Hilary White read like hatchet job.
The title itself was meant to be provocative, so why feign surprise and outrage that it provoked the response that it did?
It’s like taking a photo op like this: http://blog.cleveland.com/world_impact/2009/07/large_obama-pope.jpg
And coming up with this: “Benedict XVI, friendly and shakes hands with the most pro-gay and pro-abortion president of all time!”
Not remotely. When you’re the pope and you concelebrate mass with a guy who is such a well-known heretic that he should be defrocked, and then you let people photograph you kissing his hands and blessing his wooden (and thus unusable for Mass) chalice, you’re sending a message.
Especially when you just reinstated a heretic priest guilty of the same within the last 30 days…and didn’t force him to retract his published writings. And when you were also seen holding hands with another homosexual activist priest the same month.
Circumstantial evidence is just that, but if you add up enough, it paints a pretty damning picture.
Yes, it seems pretty clear where the Holy Father’s sympathies lie. But I doubt –when we look at this case separately– that the Holy Father was sending a signal. The priest in question has little notoriety. He was received and concelebrated along with a group of other priests, and the willingness to break with liturgical norms given the circumstances is nothing new, even in Benedict XVI’s pontificate (tie-dyed chasubles anyone?).
There are so many legitimate issues that concern me about Pope Francis, his penchant for theatrics is the least of it.
Unfortunately when in today’s world, “perception is reality” the pope, and/or those in the Curia DO, in fact, know better. They are not neophytes. He and they know perfectly well that their actions WILL give scandal, therefore, one can only logically presume he and they DESIRE to give scandal. It’s really quite simple. Actions DO IN FACT often speak louder than words (not that his words have been any less heterodox). The pope has been doing nothing OTHER THAN sending ‘signals’ since the day he didn’t take the papal throne and crown….
What would a more appropriate title for the LifeSiteNews piece have been?
I don’t know. How about just being charitable and reasonable and assume that the Holy Father does not know the views of every priest and person who’s parrot he blesses, or hand he kisses, or has an impromptu photo op with?
Perhaps it’s just as simple as him having a penchant for being (hold it…) overly nice and a people pleaser?
Apparently, the Holy Father can even read a biography of a certain prelate twice and express pleasure in doing so, all the while still being recognized as being dead set against the said prelates views.
So I don’t see why we feel the need to sensationalize this incident. Other than the stereotype that trads seem to thrive off of outrage and scandals.
I think I had a similar impression as to the reported event, but not the same reaction to reading the story. I didn’t necessarily find the author uncharitable or unreasonable, but those can be subjective.
To me, I read the original story without much interest or shock, since Pope Francis has repeatedly publicly embraced / kissed / complimented / shown charity toward all sorts of people in all sorts of situation. That seems to be part of what he does, and what he sees as appropriately following the example of Our Lord.
I assumed reading the story that Pope Francis knew who this priest was (and what he is known for) and that the Pope’s gestures were not an endorsement of his views/actions but a recognition of his dignity as a man and priest. Or extending an open hand to someone who’s used to being condemned – offering love & mercy rather than rejection & judgment. Cardinal Burke commented – and I think he’s correct in this – that this Pope is making the effort to remove the concept (or person) of “the Pope” from being a stumbling block for people, or being seen as a closed door preventing people from reconciling with the Faith and moral teachings of the Church.
Goes to show how multiple people can read the same article and come away with different impressions I guess.
Now wait a minute, I thought the concept of “stumbling block” from a scriptural perspective was actually a feature, not a bug (to be removed). So the concept of “Pope” (meaning Catholic teaching on Petrine supremacy, infallibility, etc.?) is now a stumbling block to be removed?
Perhaps it’s just as simple as him having a penchant for being (hold it…) overly nice and a people pleaser?
Such people are a huge problem in the Church and the protestant bodies. The surmise of Lee Podles is, I believe, apt: they went into the ministry because they want to be den mothers.
The priest’s courtesy title is “Father”, not “Auntie Clara”.
Fail. While everyone understands that a pope is practically obligated to play nice with a prominent head of state, no pope is oblliged to make a public spectacle with a notorious and unrepentant dissenter; the latter only happens at the pope’s initiative.
But at the end of the day, the problem here was not that they met; we have heard endlessly since then that Jesus ate with tax collectors and sinners. Yes He did, and if Pope Francis, like Our Lord, was leaving those meetings with repentant converts in tow, no one would be cheering louder than traditionalists.
But he’s not. And while I have some hope that perhaps he gave this priest a private rebuke, if he wanted to do that he might have just met with the guy privately instead of staging a public spectacle that smacks of certain sympathies.
(1) His responsibility as the Vicar of Christ holds a priority over his secondary role as Head of State.
(2) A private rebuke is insufficient as a response to a public scandal. Check the Catholic moral manuals.
Thank, you Steve, for your noble defense of Hilary. She’s my friend too, and I feel privileged to know her. And you are right about the schism that is already here, aided and abetted by the preening blowhards of the neo-Catholic blogosphere. Their politics of hate is so well adapted to a politicized Church, where the slogans of ideology have replaced the dogmas of the faith.
Chris Ferrara
Thanks, Chris. I don’t think I’ve ever been so disgusted with my fellow Catholics as I am today. I wish we could have unity. It appears unable to be so at the present time.
Thank you for writing, Steve. I agree. This is a source of strength for the confused and demoralized. I appreciate it!
Amen.
As Michael Hoffman wrote in his treatise, “The Role of the Merchants of Venom”:
“This is the danger in having unconverted ‘converts’ presume to instruct Christians on the truths of the Christian faith based on a single qualification–the Judaic racial prestige of the new ‘convert’. Hoffman was specifically speaking of Roy Shoeman’s talmudic interpretation of the founding of Christianity in his book titled, “Salvation is from the Jews” (Ignatius).
This thinking applies to Simcha Fisher and to the many ‘convert’ bloggers who provide cover for Newchurch. Indeed, along with Ms. Fisher, we have Mr. Shea, another ‘convert’ who acts as Ms. Fisher’s pit bull.
Read Ms. Fisher’s blog dated April 11, 2013, and titled, “A Little Divisiveness, Please”, when she wrote that all those who “doubt” or “deny” anything having to do with the new religion of holocaustianity (Newchurch being an integral part of that whole) should shut up forever and never be heard from again; the unspoken idea being that the permanent shutting up of such people should be be accomplished by those who own/run this racially prestigious religion and definitely by fiat when necessary.
A quote from Ms. Fisher from the aforementioned blog: “Here is what you can say with certainty: once you publicly deny the Holocaust, you are no longer allowed to say anything, about anything, ever. Shutting up: that’s what’s for you, from now on. The end, goodbye to you and farewell to thee.”
Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/a-little-divisiveness-please#ixzz33E12eheG
“Beginners should look after their own conversion and be humble, lest they should fancy they had done some great thing, and so should fall into pride.” ~St Philip Neri
“Nothing is more dangerous for beginners in the spiritual life, than to wish to play the master, and to guide and convert others.” –St Philip Neri
Think of this every time you hear a new convert speak with authority, and then pray.
I regret that I am allowed to like this post only once. I would give it a thousand likes if possible. And if I have to hear once more how “converts are just so much more zealous in their faith,” I am going to puke. My husband converted ten years ago, and would NEVER presume to lecture anyone about the faith.
Ah, yes. Just what the Church needs–to be made safe for Holocaust denial.
Even Bishop Fellay disagrees–Deo Gratias.
Alas, this sort of thing is a chronic problem in traddie circles, and a weirdly gratuitous one. The editors of The Latin Mass do not allow it in their pages. I’ve had another run in with a man who’s appropriated the handle of a professor at Wyoming Catholic College informing me that the Jews poison the drinking water of the Arabs.
Art,
On a completely different topic having nothing to do with this post or anything related to it, could you contact me at tito.benedictus@gmail.com.
Thanks brother!
In Jesus, Mary, & Joseph,
Tito
Is there something I’ve done you need to discuss offline?
You’re a hard person to reach, so I’ll do this here.
The guys and gals over TAC want to invite you to write for us. Interested?
They may not poison the water of the Arab Christians and Muslims, but they can do things like this:
http://rt.com/news/162680-jerusalem-palestinians-no-water/
Excuse me, he did say cut off the water supply. He indubitably gets this from Mondoweiss, which I believe has made the accusation that Jewish settlers also poison the supply.
Another of his sources would appear to be Human Rights Watch, whose Middle East chapter is an Arab nationalist agitprop center.
It’s a fairly arid area of the world, so disputes over water supply are to be expected. There have also been disputes over water bills, with strikes organized in Arab villages.
We can all learn much about these matters by reading the words of the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem. He will tell it like it is, and then we wont have to rely on secondary sources. But I warn you in advance: the Patriarch paints a strikingly different picture about events in the Holy Land than you will find in the mass media, and he avoids the dead-end of portraying these matters in the usual myopic Right vs Left paradigm. He has the gift of opening our eyes to reality.
Which mass media??
The local bishops are to some degree partisans of their own. There was a particularly scandalous character named Faik I. Haddad who was the superintendant of the Anglican congregations back in the day.
I’m not sure what’s so special about the Patriarch offering a public complaint about vandalism
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.590100
(other than his florid language).
My friend, you have much to learn about what is going on in the Holy Land. I have tried to lead you to water, but I cannot make you drink. In charity, though, I will refer you to the wise counsel of Pope St Pius X when he refused the overtures of Theodore Herzl who asked the Pope to help him in his dream to oust the historic residents of Palestine and install in their place an entirely Jewish state. It is too long to quote here, but you can find it here:
http://catholicism.org/the-zionist-and-the-saint.html
I ‘have much to learn’?
Chum, 98% of the Jewish settlement in that portion of Syria during the period running from 1897 to 1948 occurred in the Valley of Jezreel and on the coastal plain between Gaza and Haifa. The Arab population of that area was not ‘ousted’, it increased during those 50 years.
Would this constitute a personal attack? “These self-serving, egotistical bloggers and their commenters should be ashamed of themselves, if they are capable of shame.”
You could certainly make the case that it is. If so, I’ll own the responsibility for it. The question is whether an accurate critical assessment of a person is tantamount to a personal attack. Was Christ personally attacking when he called the pharisees “You serpents, you brood of vipers”? Was it justified?
And isn’t what he said next appropriate, considering that people who are warning about what they fear is coming to the Church are being viciously attacked by the establishment luminaries of Catholic thought (our own version of Pharisees and teachers of the law)? “Therefore I am sending you prophets and sages and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.”
If the sandal fits…
I believe that habitually slagging ideological opponents through snark, hyperbole, lies, conjecture, and insinuation is deeply un-Christian behavior. And this is what I was specifically focusing on in my critique: those who attack people rather than ideas. Those who tear down and seek to ruin reputations rather than seek to persuade with tact and civility.
I attacked the behavior here, and the frequency of it, which I do find to be self-serving and egotistical. And since this isn’t my first run-in with the accused, I struggle to see the capacity for shame. I would certainly welcome reconciliation with any of those I’ve mentioned. I’m not into grudges, but I know better than to keep sticking my hand out when it gets bitten every time.
I invite you to review my writings. You will find very pointed critiques of public figures who are neglecting their duty to the faith (like the pope) but you will not find me habitually attacking my fellow Catholics, or naming names of people whose ideas I don’t like.
I believe this is the path to great ugliness and discord. I never feel good when I am compelled to call others out — even when, as in this case, I considered it necessary.
I am Catholic, I work full-time for the pro-life movement, and I am a subscriber to LifeSiteNews, however, I also wrote a blog post expressing the serious concerns I had about LifeSiteNews’ decision to publish this story – you can read it here: http://theleadingedgeblog.com/no-lifesitenews-you-shouldnt-have-published-that-article-about-pope-francis/
I do not consider my post to be either uncharitable or bearing false witness – the issue for me was always whether it was prudent and consistent with virtuous conduct to actually publish that story without ALL of the facts.
No one disputes the fact that the Mass took place, or the fact that Francis engaged in a charitable gesture towards at the event – the problem is that LifeSiteNews, and none of the other places who reported this event (that I am aware of) actually bothered to verify what the Pope’s motivations were.
They just published a story that implied a motivation of endorsement of heterodoxy, or left it open to the reader to invent their own motives for Pope Francis’ actions – such a course of action may not only lead to false witness being borne against Pope Francis, but it also creates the very real possibility of a loss of faith for poorly formed Catholics.
I don’t begrudge an organisation making mistakes, but when they regularly publish articles criticizing the mainstream media for their bias or lack of fact-checking on matters of life, faith and family, I believe, for the sake of integrity, they need to ensure that they don’t fall into the same errors themselves.
Personally, I didn’t get the implied endorsement from the article, but I can see how the lack of providing a clear motivation may lead one to such a conclusion. However, at the time of reading the article, I didn’t even consider the potential that one could read into the account any papal endorsement of error.
An interesting question is whether the ability to provide an explanation as to the motivation (or reason why it was done) should preclude the website from running the article.
My impression has been that the “facts” of what went on (what, what, when, where, how) were enough for the article and the “why” best left outside the article to commentators and editorialists.
However, given that what the Pope was intending (if anything) and whether his awareness of this priest’s activities were taking into account (and to what degree) would also constitute pertinent information.
As the article notes, there was an attempt to get a comment, which seems to have not been received, or not considered critical information that would complete the story and make it fit to print. Does LSN have the responsibility – if they are not able to obtain this additional information – to not run the story? Is this a journalistic responsibility, Catholic responsibility, or both?
Brendan,
While I appreciate your concern and measured tone, if obtaining a clear statement of a person’s motivation or intention is a prerequisite for giving a factual account of their actions, well, you can pretty much throw out nearly all reporting that goes on anywhere. It’s a completely unrealistic standard.
Certainly, I agree that the facts of the matter do allow one to drawn regrettable conclusions about Pope Francis, but that is in no way the fault of LifeSiteNews.
Why is it a reporter’s job to verify the motivations of subject of a story? And how can they do this when they request clarification and get no response?
One needn’t imply motivation of endorsement of heresy. The lack of due diligence beforehand combined with the lack of clarification afterward speaks volumes.
Facts were reported. The conclusions were obvious, and consistent with other similar actions by this pope. Nobody made the inferences for readers. I fail to see the problem.
“…the problem is that LifeSiteNews, and none of the other places who reported this event (that I am aware of) actually bothered to verify what the Pope’s motivations were.”
That’s really quite a bizarre sort of claim if you think about it. So, no reportage of the Pope’s actions can be published (or at least no reportage that someone somewhere might think were controversial) unless or until the journalist “verifies the Pope’s motivations”? How does one do that, exactly? (“Memo to LifeSite News fact-checking interns: Hilary White has an exclusive about Pope Francis going bar-hopping with Hans Kung in the Testaccio district. Can you give the Vatican a call and verify the Pope’s motivations in that case?”) Come on. Even now no one really knows the Pope’s motivations for giving his “proselytization is solemn nonsense” interview, his motivations for the the surprise phone call to the Argentinian divorcee or for that matter his motivations for pretty much ANY of his myriad other controversial statements or actions. That we don’t know his motivations is part of the point. He and his aides don’t really give us a lot of help here, often saying silent, or merely saying, “the words/actions speak for themselves. No other statement will be forthcoming” or some such. The neo-Catholic response is either to assume the best or to say we don’t know for sure what his motivations are. Well, fair enough and true as far as it goes. But now, I guess things have reached such an OBVIOUSLY and ABSURDLY scandalous point that we can’t even report the basic facts about what this man says or does without also doing the impossible (getting inside his head).
Enough. Time to get on board the Truth Bus, as the holy rollers might say. There’s plenty of room but it’s leaving soon. You might have to sit next to a talkative SSPX grandmother from East Nowhere. But I do hear that it has Wi-Fi.
“but it also creates the very real possibility of a loss of faith for poorly formed Catholics.”
I’m so tired of this type of thinking. Really? We can’t talk about the important issues because there is this some “Catholic” somewhere who’s tender budding faith may wither. Well, what about the rest of us who aren’t poorly formed and are scandalized by these reports? Apparently, we are supposed to just cover our senses and deny our formation.
Every one of my parish priests for the last 25 years has had the same mentality. Suppress the Truth so that it does not offend all of the apostates who consider themselves Catholic. They don’t even catechize for fear of offending. So then, how will anyone ever be formed properly?
I’m with BXVI, the Church needs to shrink to those who really want to be within the One True Church.
Brendan, regardless of the pope’s motive when he met the activist priest in public, a scandal ensued. Jesus, the preminent Man of Virtue, met with, broke bread with, spoke with sinners who were, or thereafter, became repentent. So, as thinking people we can guess at what the pope meant when he publicly met this heterodox priest:
A) He agrees with the priest’s views
B) He disagrees with the priest’s views but wanted to be merciful.
C) He was ignorant of the priest’s views
If we choose A, then all Catholics are obligated, by virtue of their calling as part of the Church Militant, to address the public scandal caused by the pope’s embrace of the priest, positive comments about the priest’s writings on homosexuals and so on.
If we choose B, then the pope should have issued a public statement that he disagrees with the priest on the matters at hand, but extended the arms of mercy toward him. It would have been a teaching moment not only for the poor old priest, but for all Christendom and the world. Else, he should have met the priest in private and not scandalized the Church (see Matt. 18-15-18).
If we choose C, then we must have some explanation for why the pope knows about this priest’s writings and gave a positive review of them, but somehow doesn’t know his views. This is a job for the likes of Mr. Shea and Ms. Fisher, and I say let them have at it. It is interesting that instead of addressing the facts, they choose to attack the author of a factual article.
Virtue is something more, much more than what you claim for it.
Brendan, Does the Pope kiss every person’s hand that he meets?
Hi there to every body, it’s my first pay a quick visit of this website; this website consists of remarkable and really excellent material designed for readers.
As reported in Catholic Neo-Con Observer, the bloggers have been doing this sort of thing for a long time. They just threw out a bigger net this time and you got caught…
If they could have said you were an anti-Semite, this would’ve happened a long time ago
NeoCatholics such as Shea are the useful idiots of the Judas Council Revolution. When this is fully understood — an understanding which presupposes an understanding of the revolutionary nature of Vatican II and the diabolical disorientation both leading to and flowing from it — then it gets much easier to keep one’s cool when reading their drivel.
If anyone would care to see the depths to which these “Catholics” will sink to malign their ideological enemies, this thread was shocking to me. And I am not easily shocked.
https://www.facebook.com/mark.shea2/posts/10152487064469042
oh dear….looks as though the roaches have scattered at the shining of a light….the page has been ‘removed’.
It must be a privacy setting. The post is still there. Here’s a capture:
http://blog.steveskojec-staging.mrdsdzb3-liquidwebsites.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Shea-Thread.pdf
I can still see it but there’s been no activity for a couple hours on a thread that was hopping right up until then. Is it possible to remove a post and still have it be visible?
Never mind. Just saw a new comment from Dale.
yeeeeeeeesh…..well, it’s pretty clear that lines have been drawn. And Steve, you’re on the right side of the line. Keep speaking the Truth….you already have a taste of what it will cost you (and all of us). This is Matt 10:34-39 come blazingly alive. Persevere, and rejoice in being found worthy to suffer for the Name…without divine intervention it’s gonna get a whole lot worse. I re-read Joel last night…it is a living Word, and speaks as clearly for today as it did then….a good call to spiritual arms…for those with eyes to see.
Thanks, Susan. I appreciate it.
Yeah, well the whole Hell thing is overrated, isn’t it? (sarcasm)
It sounds as though you may be gearing up to join the real fight.. I look forward to that.
Wait, I’m not fighting the real fight yet? When was someone going to tell me that?
ohhhhhh my friend…..this is just a skirmish with flesh. We haven’t even begun to suit up for the main event; and it does indeed appear to be on the horizon.
Ephesians 6:10-18….according to Tolkien…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3YrUgJbMt8
Just read your remarks to Mark Shea on the Facebook thread. Well done, Steve — and well said. Don’t let these thugs discourage you. If there’s any comfort in historical precedent for our times: during the Arian heresy the orthodox supporters of Athanasius and the heterodox supporters of Arius burned each other’s churches down.
The Church survived it and went on to a glorious history. This may be the end of the history as the Great Apostasy sweeps through the Catholic Church. But whether it is or isn’t, the demand for our silence by Conciliar Catholics (I don’t really know how to refer tol them) is an outrage and would exact a price that would cost us and many their very souls.
Steve, thank you so much for your direct, respectful, and thoughtful reply to Shea. It was a breath of fresh air and a real pleasure to read your sincere words.
Well… no privacy setting glitch on Shea’s latest post:
” For Steve Skojec, Hilary White, Michael Voris, Rick DeLano, Bob Sungenis…
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/06/for-steve-skojec-hilary-white-michael-voris-rick-delano-bob-sungenis.html#ixzz33S29IV1g …
….all the comments have been removed….
Keep being that beacon, Steve!!!!! 🙂
This is my first time here, but I feel right at home.;0) I love Hilary White’s work and trust her insights and journalistic integrity implicitly. She’s amazing. I was watching Michael Voris’s program ‘Mic’d up’ and his guests were bemoaning how Mark Shea was so mean-spirited about their new film “The Principle”…maybe you saw it? Anyway, I remember years ago when I was a recent convert and was reading one of Shea’s articles somewhere and I thought to myself that he still sounded like a protestant to me…some people just can’t make that leap into true Catholic thinking. God bless you and your readers who seek truth without maligning your detractors. Mark Shea should be ashamed, but he’s driven by that old protestant sanctimonious self-righteousness and I’m pretty sure he feels he’s RIGHT~ heh heh
Dana, Mark Shea’s attitude has nothing to do with any Protestant background he might have had. Frankly, it insults Protestant converts who do *not* behave the way Shea does. Shea is an obsessive bully. Period. He must destroy his opposition at any cost. He has far, far more in common with a fanatical operative from the Gestapo or the KGB than with any seriously devout Christian — Catholic, Protestant or Eastern Orthodox.
Shea in a nutshell: http://contrapauli.blogspot.com/2012/09/top-tips-for-faithful.html
wow, just reading this thread can become a full-time job. i’d try to read all of it but i can’t convince myself that there would be spiritual benefit in it. i hope i won’t be asked at the pearly gates if i won any battles in the blogosphere.
Trust me. You won’t.
Having been on the receiving end of Mark Shea’s knife (in the combox), I feel for LifeSiteNews and anyone finding themselves in his cross-hairs. Shea’s method of keeping the combox score weighted heavily in his favor is to block, ban, and delete those who prove too capable at debating him. He even follows you into your Facebook inbox and email. I honestly wonder if he and Ms. Fisher are kept around simply because they spur a surge in numbers by their outrageous lack of charity. It can’t be their virtue. As they say, follow the money…
Very interesting topic, regards for posting.
What I see when reading all these comments is a bunch of loyal Catholics who are confused about the state of the Church in these difficult times. I think it was Our Lady who predicted that this confusion would be the devil’s way of enabling those few left with a true understanding of the faith to finally lose it.
We have a unique situation in the papacy today with two living popes. It is fair to question Francis, considering his recent statements and actions. Never before has a sitting pope openly challenged in word and deed the basic teachings of the Catholic Church the way Francis has. This is indisputable. Can you imagine John Paul or Benedict or Pius XII or Leo XIII offering Mass with a staunch defender of homosexual activity? Or any of them suggesting that divorced and remarried Catholics could receive the sacraments? Or any one of them writing that governments should compel the redistribution of wealth? This is very bad stuff.
It is within the realm of reason for any loyal Catholic to question what Francis is doing. It is also plausible to suggest that he may be illegitimate. It is terrible and frightening but it may be true.
God has allowed for this for His own reasons. Almost everyone writing here knows and loves the truth. Christ promised to never abandon His Church. He is with us here on earth everywhere a red light flickers. We must believe in that, continue to defend the truth and pray to His mother.
Don’t beat each other up over this. The time is coming when all this will be understood.
corruptio optimi pessima
Where do we suppose the devil and his angels are hanging about?
This sure looks like the time when, far from being content with sound teaching, people will be avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers (Catholic Answers, this Father Blogger, this blogger NCR, LSN, etc.) according to their own tastes; and then, instead of listening to the truth, they will turn to myths.
If the Church that is indefectible is now quite shaken, what can spare the [catholic] bloggers, however well intentioned (leaving aside those ensnared by sordid money or other)?
Recall the elect could have been deceived as well if that were possible.
There is something about LSN that I find unwholesome. It may be a discernment time for Ms White …
This is the money quote.
“When the pope is out there smearing doctrinal lines and leading people to believe that everything is up for grabs and anything can change, that has a profound impact on those who feel obligated to try to follow him with docility and faithfulness but can’t reconcile their own more deeply-grounded understanding of what the Church teaches with his jarring words and actions.”
Since this pope was elected, almost on a weekly basis he has said something that has disturbed me. I admit that at the beginning when I learned he was a Jesuit, I feared the worst.
Part of the problem is that I was reading the media coverage of the pope. The same media coverage which has been misleading Catholics since the council of Vatican II was called. I have started reading what the pope has said with an open mind and heart, and I have discovered deficiencies in myself (with regard to loving my neighbor unconditionally) which I need to, and have been working on.
That having been said, with few exceptions I have encountered a tone of “know-it-all-ism” from the Patheos crowd. I have seen bloggers who I regularly read years ago when they were a small private blog turn into something entirely different when they joined that particular group. Some have escaped this syndrome unscathed, but others, unfortunately, have not.
By kissing the hand of a scandalous sinner, the pope is demonstrating unconditional love (much like Jesus demonstrated). I don’t think the pope gives a lot of thought to how things look (which is dangerous in this 24/7 news cycle world). I imagined if you could have heard a private conversation between the two men, it would have been decidedly different.
I find it helpful to reflect on what it would take for each party in an argument to change his opinion.
For my part, all it would take would be a return to clear, unambiguous Catholic teaching from the Holy Father. Now, this might be a jarring change of style: it would necessarily entail an end to muddled, anthropocentric theology, the endless parade of maddeningly obscure jargon (“peripheries”, “promethean neo-Pelagian”), and the frequent insinuations and showy gestures implying that everything is up for grabs. But essentially, were the Holy Father to undergo this kind of transformation (and far stranger things have happened!), I’d give glory to God, and would be more than happy to put the past behind me. I suspect the same is true of Steve and many of the commenters here.
This is one of the things that the Sheas, Fishers, and MacDonalds seem unable to grasp: IT’S NOT PERSONAL. They seem to assume that a bunch of hitherto reasonable Catholics just lost their minds one day last March and began hating on Jorge Maria Bergoglio for no reason at all. I don’t understand why they’re so quick to assume bad faith, and so eager to avoid dealing with what people actually say (rather than what the cartoon in their heads are saying), but it makes rational discussion impossible.
By contrast, what would it take for Mark Shea to change his mind? (It’s tempting to say that the question answers itself.) But seriously, when a man has dug himself in so far with invective, name-calling, and accusations of bad faith, and when much of his remaining appeal is to those Catholics who (for whatever reason) enjoy hysterical demagoguery, how can he walk it back?
All the Sheas, Fishers, and MacDonalds CAN do is to make it personal since they have oh-so-little of substance to stand upon. The hermeneutic-of-continuity is, in reality, the discontinuity of shifting sand or perhaps more like quicksand at this point. All of mainstream ‘catholic’ media has the poison of doublethink as its modus operandi.
Not just the poison of doublethink, St. Longinus, but the even-more-potent poison of blind groupthink above all!
Mark Shea is a Catholic-for-pay, and a creep. Watch this and see what he did to a loyal Catholic film producer.
http://www.churchmilitant.tv/fullpreview/?vidID=micd-2014-05-28
Steve, ask a drone like Shea, if he can spare two minutes to speak to uppity peons like us, what precisely a pope would have to do doctrinally to concern him. Or, as I suspect, is his view that whatever a pope does is ipso facto brilliant and holy? If so, he is a living embodiment of the Protestant caricature of the Catholic view of the papacy. The cult of personality surrounding recent popes has not helped in this regard.
The whole thing sends this message to the non-catatonic world: if you want to convert to Catholicism, you’ll need to get a lobotomy first.
To understand Shea, you have to realize all of the Protestant baggage he still carries around. Just look at how ballistic he went when it was pointed out that “Amazing Grace” is a Protestant hymn that has no place in the liturgy. He has staked a lot on becoming a Catholic and rejecting his former evangelical life. To admit we have a questionable pope would be too catastrophic for him.
With the limited time I have available to read ANYTHING, I chose to read, and pray with the time honored and time tested Saints and Doctors of Holy Mother Church, Imitation of Christ, and Sacred Scripture. I almost NEVER read these bloggers. Ever.
The Spirit of Truth speaks to me. I don’t need to listen to any of these rabble rousers with an opinion. The Holy Spirit forms my opinion. Not somebody who would dare use profanity in writing, especially in a religious context.
I despise the “staking of sides”. I stake is in Christ’s side. All of you could benefit from a period of silence and examination of conscience.
*my stake is in Christ’s side.
And the devil is dancing at this petty infighting. Makes me very sad. Truly.
In what sense can the infighting possibly called “petty”? One thing both sides agree on is that the fate of a great number of souls is at stake.
On one side, Steve and Hilary represent those who are greatly troubled by the words and actions of the Holy Father (yes, even in context), and fear that by endearing himself to the world and downplaying the importance of repentance and conversion, he is allowing people to continue down the broad path to perdition.
The partisans of the opposing side believe that the Holy Father’s words and actions, though presented in a novel manner, are basically in continuity with those of his predecessors stretching back to Peter, and fear that those who criticize Pope Francis are leading other Catholics into schism.
It matters a very great deal who’s right. There’s nothing petty about it.
Jesus kissed the hands of the scribes and Pharisees?
thank you Steve, excellent article
Ms. Scalia has created a real nest of vipers over there, almost all of whom seem to be offensively clueless converts, best ignored. It’s a bit ironic, bc she is a cradle. However, I was raised in the same diocese Ms. Scalia lives in now, and I can assure you that in 99.9% of the parishes there any suggestion of orthodoxy was stamped out decades ago. But the place is very culturally catholic, and the ones who haven’t been driven out of the church by sheer boredom just go along to get along for family and nostalgia reasons. She has probably been inured to decades of liturgical and catechetical stupidity (you would not believe the stories I have). When confronted with doctrinal challenges, nastiness is the only calling card these people have left. Which is pathetic, and why i call it “patheticos”.
I think she lives on Long Island, NY so you must be talking about the Diocese of Rockville Centre? I live on Long Island too and it is, with few exceptions, a spiritual wasteland. Faithful Catholics are a very, very, small minority. Mother Mary, deliver us!
Yes, Rockville Centre Diocese: a gigantic pit of what at first glance appears to be mediocrity, but in time reveals itself as utter spiritual bankruptcy.
Yes, Scalia has created quite the brood of vipers over there at Patheos. Shea is unquestionably their ring leader, and I’ve never once seen them question his personal attacks and bomb throwing ways. Her recent book on idols contains passages straight out of the Shea play book. Although to be fair, when she is level-headed, the book is very good. If only Patheos bloggers would recognize their idol.
Excellent post, Steve! I couldn’t have said it better myself! There IS a schism and it’s boiling over. The Church is coming to a real crossroads, whether they realize it or not, and this sort of behavior is not going to get them onto the right path.
Here’s my observation: with all of their so-called Catholic blogging, why is it that they haven’t been a boon to Catholic culture in this country? Why aren’t people flocking through the doors every Sunday, serious about learning or re-learning their faith because they have been so set on fire by these phony-baloneys!
More often than not, I am left very confused about it all. Thank God in his goodness that my church is still a holy and reverent place to be. Even with the tables turned.
It is a terrible trial. The fickleness and cruelty of those who put human respect before the unchanging Deposit of Faith and the trurh is hard to endure. Thank you for refusing to be intimidated.
Clearly, Steve is an evil doofus butthead, and so is become an object for regular 2-Minute-Hates from people who think that defending the papacy is identical with defending everything a pope does. Mr. Bergoglio is another John 23.0, with some Paul 6.0 mixed in: sneaky, tough, anti-trad, bossy, a very socialist/ Marxist radical, a smooth operator & actor, who believes himself completely in the right, and all others & opponents evil & wrong. God bless Hilary White, a truth-speaker in lying times. Still, Steve’s a doofus butthead.
I’m a doofus butthead and I endorse this message.
That’s the strangest description of John XXIII and Paul VI I could imagine.
Steve, I’m sure Mark Shea is going to come here and comment, or one of his constant visitors will. So here’s what needs to be said.
Unless Mark Shea repents of making gratuitous personal attacks and deliberately distorting opposing arguments, he is going to go to Hell. No ifs, and or buts.
Few years back I used to read the Patheos crowd regularly. Then I made the mistake of reading old books of theology and liturgy… I don’t think they are stupid or evil, they probably take themselves as defending the Church. Yet, they have precisely zero interest in the prior centuries of Catholic praxis or tradition, which is utterly baffling to me. So much rests on the Church preserving the Tradition, but somehow the deep deep changes of the last 50-60 years cannot be questioned. Heck, they can’t be even pointed out without somebody starting to shout. The pre-V2 and post-V2 may be the same, but to simply assert this is to akin to burying one’s head in the sand at best, self-lobotomy at worst (shout to Dr. Woods!). They defend every stupid off-the-cuff statement of Papa Bergoglio, yet can’t be bothered to examine basic problems the traditionalists raise. Not even the very basic stuff like versus populum celebration (a totally novel praxis, imposed for ideological reasons with utter disregard for prior tradition) or the eucharistic prayers (do they even know, or care, which one is the – modified – Roman Canon? Which likely has always been part of the Roman Rite. Or that 2 of the new ones are very problematic and the other is foreign to the Roman Rite?). I’ve never seen them address that and so I concluded that they simply do not care. Given this disconnect the term “neo-Catholic” and charges of internalizing Protestantism are absolutely warranted.
@Mr. Skojec in that facebook thread you could have said that hoping for the death of a Pope is perfectly orthodox, even Blessed Cardinal Newman did it and everybody loves Newman:
“But we must hope, for one is obliged to hope it, that the Pope will be driven from Rome, and will not continue the Council, or that there will be another Pope. It is sad he should force us to such wishes.” (Letter to Fr. Ambrose, 1870)
:X (Tongue-firmly-in-cheek here, but I wonder what the reaction would be? Newman can do it, but nobody else can? Newman said a silly thing and it’s a-okay for the laity to correct him? Oooh!)
“I traffic in criticism of prelates at the highest levels of the Church…. You will be hard pressed, however, to find me making ANY personal attacks on my fellow Catholics..” tee hee
The crazy thing here is that anyone would think Shea & Fisher, Inc. opinions are worth all this attention! Protestant catholics and mommy-bloggers….ha ha ha…it’s nuts to even pull up their pages. Leave that mess alone for you must know that the more one messes with garbage the more it stinks.
Sadly, in today’s world, we have too many Catholics who are of a political leaning first and Catholic second. The US Constitution is their Old Testament, Ayn Rand is their Gospel, and Fox News is their parish church with Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh their priests. Even Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is tainted by this. When Rush Limbaugh attacked Pope Francis as being a Marxist, Donohue uttered not one word in support of the Holy Father aside from attacking those who supported Pope Francis and criticized Limbaugh. Donohue later went on tho promote Limbaugh on the Catholic League website. Donohue has also claimed that the Knights of Columbus support his boycott of Guinness … this is not true. I confirmed this with Supreme in Connecticut (as I am a past Deputy Grand Knight)
Last year Jimmy Akin illustrated a story at the NCR on the Affordable Care Act with a hammer and sickle. The ACA may be bad, but it is not socialist, and is not communist.
How can we as Catholics ever hope to win in the war of the culture of death, if we walk hand in hand with fringe elements of the right?
@ Defender: Donohue is controlled opposition. What he says or does is of absolutely no consequence to true Catholicism. Donohue and those like him, keep you spinning in the pretend-opposition-to-the-‘culture of death’-orbit that the Hegelian dialectic requires of the profane (unwashed masses). If you seek truth, you’ll not find it there just as you’ll not find it in ‘mass media’; ‘catholic’ or otherwise.
Your Catholic education may begin here: revisionisthistory.org and anything Michael Hoffman has written. Your secular educatioin may begin here: cuttingthroughthematrix.com.
Mundus Vult Decipi, ergo Decipiatur
Yes, speaking ill of someone else is clearly wrong. Unless it’s Simcha Fisher, in which case THE B**** HAS IT COMING TO HER!!!
Time for an examination of conscience?
Criticizing self-serving and slanderous behavior is tantamount to trying to get a journalist fired, calling her a harpy, saying her publication sets off your bullshit meter, saying she’s a nasty piece of work, etc.?
Are you doing any thinking, or just posting?
It seems to me that you folks are determined to dislike Pope Francis. Did you give him a moment of consideration since he was elevated.
Hello @ManassasGrandma ~ If you are open to knowing the truth, I highly recommend you read this thorough, articulately written piece by Catholic lawyer & author Christopher Ferrara. http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/385-the-francis-effect-a-gathering-storm
To answer your question, yes, he was given consideration. It didn’t take long for him, however, to reveal the path of his Pontificate after he decided to wash the feet of a woman Holy Thursday 2013.
I’d recommend the following: traditio.com; the callmejorge blog or the novusordowatch site –and then the revisionisthistory.org and all of michael hoffman’s writing. None of this is for the faint of heart. But if you want a real education, you go there.
A priest of my acquaintance offered this about ten years ago: “the Pope’s not supposed to say too much”. A great deal of verbiage means a greater danger that the teachings of the Church dissolve into static. It’s been characteristic of Francis that he drops these stink bombs, his press agents offer somewhat sketchy, shifty, and partial denials, and then the Catholic blogosphere goes to work on an inventive enterprise of explaining everything he does not mean by these stink bombs. You’ll never know because the Holy Father never clarifies. Right now we are looking at the upcoming synod with anxiety because it looks the the Pope is fixing for a way to cave to the culture while leaving plausible deniability that that’s what he’s on about; most distasteful. If I were determined to ‘dislike’ him, I would not have to put much effort into it.
Cogent reply and inventive ‘enterprise’ it is. And of course, we know it’s not our culture before which Bergoglio and his predecessors bow. It’s the ‘culture’ of the culture creators and of our oppressors and persecutors.
Good piece. I do wish Catholic writers would not use vulgarities and would not even repeat the vulgarities of others. Thanks.
Cheap ray bans sunglasses Ray Ban RB3025 Aviator Sunglasses Arista Frame Brown Photochromi Ban-a-001] – * This is the style that started it all. The original Ray Ban aviator in Arista, Brown Photochromic, polarized lenses that keep undesirable light from reaching your eyes. Ray Ban Sunglasses consistently combines great styling with exceptional quality, performance and comfort.* This stylish Ray Ban Aviator RB3025 Sunglasses are one Now buy Price Save 87%
Wow I crave having feces cover sex with huge white pussy all inside me.
Ass to mouth is my favorite. BACKLINKS.com and win money!
Hey there! I’ve been rewding your weblog for a long timje
now aand finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout outt from
Huffman Tx! Just wanted to tell you keep up tthe good job!
The Eighth Commandment is not operative in the case of certain people. I have seen Catholics, laity, priest, deacons, and bishops, say all of the following about Donald Trump:
Said that all Mexicans are rapists, said that all Mexicans are drug dealers, supports partial birth abortion, promised to put his pro-abortion sister on the Supreme Court, mocked a reporter for his disability, has never done anything resembling community service, has repudiated his list of “pro-life” judges, has never done a charitable act for anyone, anywhere, has no God but Donald Trump, will build a wall, which is racist, will not build a wall, making him a liar, calls for violence in all his speeches, admires Putin, worships Putin, promises to practice religious discrimination, promises to ignore the Constitution, insulted the Pope, “clashed” with the Pope…
This list is ongoing. Whatever the Clinton campaign pumps out, it will be repeated by Catholic laity, deacons, priests, and bishops.
Marvelous, what a website it is! This webpage presents
usefuhl information to us, keep it up.
These features have ensured that folks stop and have a glance at the
dsi r4 before they mean to buy and similar device providing
options that come with required nature. From wood made machines and mechanical or electronic scoring readouts on the playing of
games online, all games have conquered the hearts of the ageless children. It has amazing graphics plus a huge lineup
of well equipped cars just awaiting a person to remove them for the spin.
I do believe all the concepts you have offered for your post.
They’re very convincing and can certainly work. Nonetheless, the posts are too brief for starters.
May you please prolong them a little from next time?
Thanks for the post.
Great blog right herᥱ! Also your website quite a bit up fast!
What host are yoᥙ using? Can I get yⲟur associate hyperlink ffor
your host? I wish my website loaded up as quickly as yoours
lol.