Sedevacantism

Another day, another dollar, another chance to post on a topic of concern

Todays topic: Sedevacantists

Recently I reread the book Orthodoxy by the one and only GK Chesterton and came across a number of relevant passages that could be related to this topic but in an indirect manner.  First that it is always dangerous for the human mind to reckon up the human mind.

So what is sedevacantism?  It is a sect of Christianity that claims to be the true Catholic faith.  In general sedevacantists hold that the Chair of Peter is currently vacant, usually stating that it has been so since Pope Pius XII died.  Their focal point rests in their interpretation of Vatican II teaching heresy when it comes down to it.  However they do pass around the theory that a Cardinal Siri had actually been elected by the sacred conclave but was forced by the modernists to reject the office for fear of his life.  Therefore they say John XXIII was elected by the modernists but not actually by the conclave.  Therefore the council and all the things that followed the council including the ordinary form of the liturgy and the Popes from John XXIII on are all invalid and heretical.

It is my opinion that most sedevacantists come at any problem in a rather protestant manner.  Generally the will quote a Pope, or even an anti-pope (to them) to confirm their theories, pulling quotes out of their context and creating a super dogma out of texts that hold no such designation.  For instance you will often hear it referenced that Pope Pius V in Quo Primum condemned any change of the sacred liturgy by any individual.  This is however a faulty notion and is taken up by EWTN staff member Jeffrey Mirus here.   Dr. Robert Sungenis has also taken on sedevacantists and their arguments at his website Catholic International as well as in debates with sedevacantists here. 

Some might say that I am not being fair to these people, but I do believe I am.  I don’t judge their heart just their actions, and their actions speak volumes.  Often they will say we should look at the fruits of the post council church and judge it based on this.  So they want us to take a subjective approach to the issue.  Fine what are the fruits the church shows following VII?  In general the number of Catholics in the world have doubled, relations with people of good will in different religions or lack thereof have improved and scripture studies and theological understanding have developed exponentially. 

What are the fruits of sedevacantism?  Perhaps we can say the best thing that comes from this group is an ability to reference obscure popes and their zeal for tradition, at least what they think tradition is.  They have grown in numbers since their inception, I guess we could even say exponentially since a jump from 0 to 1 is an infinite jump in itself so congrats!

Bottom line what can you do with conspiratists that see trouble everywhere they look, well youll have to read Orthodoxy for that, the second chapter that is.

God Bless!

+JMJ+

Mary, Statues, Veneration and Adoration

Hey, Sorry I was a little late on responding.  I got tied up at work for a while longer than I hoped

Your question of in practice we make both concepts appear the same might just look so to an outsider but there is context.  First Bowing and praying to the statue is a confused saying.  The statue in itself is just a statue.  Just like when Christ references Moses in Numbers 21:8-9 in John 3:14 where Moses creates a serpentine figure and fixes it to a pole with the intention that if the people looked upon the figure, which by itself is just material not worth any veneration nor adoration of any sort, and are to be healed by it.  Now what are they healed by? The figure or the thing which it represents which is the foreshadowing of the son of man taking on the sins of the world and being lifted up on the crossSecond we don’t pray to statues or icons of Mary the saints or even to a picture of the Blessed Trinity.  Pictures, statues and icons are Holy images because of what they represent, what they call into mind.  In themselves they are not holy any more than Elijah’s material and dead bones in 2 Kings 13:14 or the objects that touched Paul and were venerated in Acts 19:11-12. So too its not the cape of Jesus nor Peter who healed the people that touched them but the thing that lies behind them, that is Gods Grace. If someone kneels or prays before an image that doesn’t mean that they adore the image. For instance when Jacob bows before Esau or Abraham bows before his companions at Mamre in Gen 18:2, Lot in Genesis 19:1. Any bowing that is done is done in a manner of reverence for the person (ie: honoring the person for who they are in Christ), not that we adore them and especially we don’t adore the image for the image helps us to call into mind the greater reality that lies behind itFor example have you ever looked at a picture of someone you love and kissed the picture?  You don’t  love the plastic and paper nor the ink that produced the image but the thing it represents. Venerating a statue of Jesus or any Saint which includes the Blessed Virgin calls into mind the person, who they were, what they did in Christ. And simply put why do we do this?  Because in these things we give glory to God.  Just think about it.  Why is Mary important, why

in here magnificat does she declare that all generations shall call her blessed?  Here blessedness is because of Christ, because from all time he thought of his mother and he practiced the 5^th commandment to a greater degree than anyone else.  So too we are called to imitate Christ in all things.  Did he adore Mary? No shes a creature, he is the eternal word, the logos, of the father.  In following Christ we recognize and come to love his Mother who he formed, who he choose among all to be his mother, the one who suffers along (not greater than or apart from) with Christ because of what God wanted of her as stated by Simeon in Luke 2:25-35.  If we are part of his body as we are once we are brought in by baptism then she is in a mystical sense our own mother and this is what the Church recognized from the very beginning, her role being of amazing importance in salvation history. Her be it done to me according to your word, her ability to do so is only by His grace, but she having free will submitted it to him, undoing the sin of the first women, the reversing of the Garden story.  So too Paul reminds us that being one Body we cant say to one part of the body I don’t need you, and death he also tells us doesn’t separate us in Christ. If the confusion rests in the times spent before a statue or a picture I can also help you with that.  Mary, as I have said before is our Mother we love her and like a child they have a father and a Mother.  We love to run to her that, she being righteous like James 5:16 says, she may seek his mercy for us, not because we cant go to him directly (because we do that constantly and especially when we receive him Body Blood soul and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament which being him we do adore). But because the more help we can get the better off we are being sinners and all.  Consider that we spend the majority of the sacred liturgy kneeling, bowing and so forth before a crucifix, now in all reality how much time is spent before an image of Mary is most likely less.  But lets say for arguments sake that someone does spend a lot of time in front of a statue of Mary or a favorite saint.  The reason why the saint or Mary specifically is important is because of Christ.  For instance we can go to se the Grave of Leonardo DiVinci or we can go see his great works like the Mona Lisa.  Generally, and I could be wrong, more people go to see his great paintings then himself.  Does that mean that they think less of him then of his works of course not, it was he that made it in the first and in showing love for the work, as in showing love for the work of his creation Be it Mary, the saints or even a wonderful sunset to a lesser degree we glorify him and our actions whether amazement, kneeling or bowing before the beauty of the representation speaks to the one who is the cause in the first.

Finally all people who assist at the Holy Sacrifice adore Christ in his Eucharistic form.  The way that we do so is generally through prayers of adoration be it mental or vocal.  Sometimes we just behold him who is the way the truth and the life as Mary does when she sits at his feet doing nothing and Martha is frustrated by her inaction.  Every action has an intent just as veneration and adoration do.  Both are different things and might well look like the same thing to someone without the context or knowledge of the intent which in itself is in the person’s heart.  If someone adores an image or a creature they are wrong and should be called out on the carpet just as much as people that create their own personal understandings of the Trinity or Christ violate the one true God and need to be called out as Matthew 18:15-18 tells us.  But it is the Church that is the pillar and foundation of the truth that defines this, and explicitly teaches the difference between veneration and adoration as Luke 10:16 teaches along with many other examples like why are there 27 books that constitute the time after the Birth of Christ.

I do hope this helps, and feel free to ask more questions on this topic or anything else at your wish.  The following link might also be helpful:

Have a great day

+JMJ+

http://www.thecatholicanswerman.com/id54.html

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues

http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/icon_faq.aspx

The New Evangelization in the Eyes of Catholic groups

I remember watching a Simpson’s episode as a child where Ralph Wiggum receives his report card from the teacher and it reads that he failed English, and Ralphie says “Me fail English that’s unpossible”.  Needless to say after the last couple of days I have been engaged in different thoughts especially after the terrible and despicable bombings occurred.  I find myself going back to current as well as old issues in the church.  Last night I was reading some different blogs and I was honestly frustrated with the way some people are running with this concept of the “New Evangelization”.  Specifically speaking Catholics in the US have different ideas.  There are at least 3 groups of Catholics out there, perhaps 4 but the forth one which I would consider myself part of is like skateboarding on floss so it seems like madness. So how do these four groups go about promoting or destroying JPII’s so called new evangelization?

First is the Progressive delegation of the Church.  There are many figureheads of this wing, to name a few

there are the nuns on the bus led by Sr. [?] Campell from the liberal political lobbying group Network, the LCWR leadership, Fr. James Martin the progressive Jesuit and thousands of priests near you.  Such people will often reference the spirit of Vatican II when confronted for their dissidency, and do their best to poo-poo the magisterium when things don’t go their way.  I find that their idea of the New Evangelization consists of tearing down anything traditionally Catholic is favor of any form of ecumenism.  Such people claim that if the Church is to ever be relevant we must have women priests, allow the adulterous to receive Holy Communion, give full acceptance to same sex attracted individuals in all their actions, demand that the government be our caretakers for life and create a decentralized leadership more open to apostolic collegiality.  If we do this, they say, people will come to love us and want to be Catholic because we are thus open to all truly; finally we would be an actual Catholic Church.

The second group is generally referred to as the conservative Catholics, some also refer to them as Neo-Cons in the church.  You might be familiar with the term RINO after the last few elections me

aning that they are Republican in name only.  The latter is not a perfect analogy, but for this I think it serves a purpose.  This groups figureheads include the likes of George Weigle, the late Fr. Richard Nuehouse, many EWTN personalities, many bishops since the JPII era like Archbishop Dolan, Chaput, Wuerl and so forth.  This group of people is not to be seen as against the faith like the progressives, but they should concern us because all too often they don’t actively engage problems with the necessary zeal.  They are also concerning because they delve into a strict heresy from time to time called Americanism.  They will often be on the front lines defending what they call “Americas First and greatest Freedom”, that is the freedom of religion. It seems to be that this group sees the new evangelization as the new spring time for the church were we show love and mercy, only compromising certain disciplines to create an easier to stomach face of the Church, a Catholic-protestant wing persay, that many not be specifically heretical but dance on the edge of indifference and modernism specifically.  It is my opinion that this is the most troubling of the groups because the progressives don’t hide their agenda anymore because they have become prideful.  These Neo-cons are like Wolves in sheeps clothing, whether knowingly or not they are a greater danger than the progressives because they keep alive the Jansinist heresy in different shapes.

The third group is generally referred to as the Tradtionalists with a capital T.  Such people are not

SedeVacantists nor SSPX for both of those groups are either not Catholic or they are canonically irregular.  These people do find themselves on the edge of this abyss however and include the likes of Robert Sungenis, Fr. Michael Rodriguez and others.  To be sure, and I want to make this clear, these people are not as bad as either the progessives or the Neo Cons, but they tend to take things a step too far and try to read all intentions as being wrong in themselves.  It is the traditionalist view that the New Evangelization is nothing more than a sticker campaign to distract people from all the problems the church faces. 

The last group which I generally find myself in is the traditionally oriented Catholics.   Such other people

would include Fr. Z, Michael Voris, Louie Verrecchio, Patrick Madrid, Pat Arnold, and so forth.  We tend to love all of the Catholic faith and really wish to promote more traditional practices within the churches life.  We are also very focused on routing out heresy within the church, but are conscience to the problems of overt traditionalism like the near denial of VII or overstating the role of disaplines without the context.  John Zimack who is a fantastic writer for the National Catholic Register and an author of a number of great books was on churchmilitants Mic’d Up show a while back and kind of attacked the “New Evangelization” as something without a a basic underpinning.  It does seem like a bumper sticker campaign as well to us, but we do want to get out and build the church.  Our concern is not the numbers like the neo-cons and progressives but the quality of the conversion to Christ.  We are focused on teaching the whole faith, unfiltered truth of the faith and demanding a full commitment to Holy Mother Church.  Perhaps the greatest way to look at our position is what Fulton Sheen would say, “The Catholic faith is like a Lion, just uncage it and it will do the rest”. 

So what is the New Evangelization, and how should we go about it?  The NE is just the attempt to rechristianize the West after Protestantism has realized its ultimate end.  We should not expect that the new evangelization will yield grand fruit in terms of the amount of people its draws in, but we should expect that those drawn in by the no holds barred traditional approach will be of high quality.  IT reminds me of the early church, there was only 12, but from those zealous 12 Christendom was born. 

+JMJ+

Dear Patheos and Register Catholics on matters of holocaust deniers and Latin

Hi, Its good to hear that you have opinions on issues, so do I and I also have distinctions to make regading your presumptions.

First we dont go to the Extraordinary Form because we love Latin, that would be like saying you are a Christian because Jesus was a good teacher.  We love the TLM because of everything that organically became the Mass of the Saints.  Latin is great but if a novous ordo is said in Latin with all the things that were thrown together haphazardly in the 70's its still not appealing to us.  Thats not to say its not valid or illicit, of course it is, that was decided at the top level, "Rome has spoken the case is closed" after all.  I happen to go to a local Jesuit Parish which only offers mass in the ordinary form during the week so I am not against it, but I dont promote it like I do the TLM.
Its not just the Latin, but the prayers, and all the organically developed practices that make up the ancient rite which were thrown in the trash bin for whatever reason (perhaps confused ecumenism  im not sure).

Second just because a few so called traditionalists are anti-semetic doesnt mean we all must then proclaim that we are not.  Im not, but what does that matter to you? Its like saying Hitler was a Catholic and proclaimed such, therefore every Catholic must now come out of the woodwork and declare that they are against Hitler.  Ummmm, duh of course we are.  The people that are anti-semetic are the ones who push it out front like Williamson and this Gonzalez character who was referenced on Rorate.

Third the post by this Gonzalez was on the TLM in Buenos Aires which has been shown over and over again to be true.  SO what do bloggers do that dont like this info coming out say?  Well hes anti-semetic [?] so you automatically cant trust anything else.  This is not an ad hominum but a non-sequator.

There is my response,

+JMJ+

Catholic World Report endorses Dr. Ralph Martins book

This is a mirror for a post from Rorate Caeli on a Positive review of Ralph Martins Book


Vatican II and the “Bad News” of the Gospel

Ralph Martin’s new book clarifies what the Council actually taught about salvation outside the Church

David Paul Deavel
April 01, 2013

Ruefully observing statistics showing that only 6 percent of American Catholic parishes considered evangelism a priority, the late Cardinal Avery Dulles once lamented, “The Council has often been interpreted as if it had discouraged evangelization.” Ralph Martin’s new book, Will Many Be Saved? What Vatican II Actually Teaches and Its Implications for the New Evangelization, aims to explain why this interpretation has taken root despite the fact that the Council documents, particularly the keystone document Lumen Gentium (LG), are brimming with talk about evangelization as the Church’s main job. In fact, Paul VI’s encyclical Evangelii Nuntiandi stated that the objectives of the Council were summed up in one statement: “to make the Church of the 20th century ever better fitted for proclaiming the Gospel.” Yet the opposite happened.

Martin thinks, and with reason, that the loss of impetus to evangelize is based upon the widespread notion after the Council that almost everybody will be saved—except maybe really evil people like Hitler and Judas. Having the sacraments or an explicit faith in Christ is seen as a nice add-on. But essentially the theology of salvation could be summed up by the 1989 cartoon movie All Dogs Go to Heaven.

Of course this theology had backing from big names. Karl Rahner declared that the Council had a “theological optimism…concerning salvation.” Richard McBrien’s commentary on LG claimed that the Church now considered the human race as “an essentially saved community from whom a few may, by the exercise of their own free will, be lost.” Even the Jesuit scholar Francis Sullivan, author of a very careful study of the teaching on salvation outside the Church, tended in his more popular writings to throw caution to the wind and claim a “general presumption of innocence which is now the official attitude of the Catholic Church.” These claims were never undergirded by any actual citations or close readings from the Council, which marked a doctrinal development indeed, but not one of automatic salvation or “presumed innocence.”

While the question of the salvation of those who have never heard the Gospel has been bubbling up in a new way since the 16th-century discovery of peoples in the New World, it had been coming to a steady boil over more than 100 years before Vatican II. The categories of invincible ignorance (whereby one could not be held accountable for not knowing about Christ and the Christian message) and implicit faith (whereby the invincibly ignorant might embrace as much truth as God has allowed one to receive and thus embrace Christ implicitly) have been around for a while. That arch-traditional pope Pius IX had already given assent to the possibility of salvation outside the visible boundaries of the Church in encyclicals in 1854 and 1863. This view was even included in a draft document of the First Vatican Council (which was never finished because of the Franco-Prussian war’s interruption). The Second Vatican Council’s teaching of this possibility of salvation outside the sacraments and explicit faith, then, was the culmination of a long doctrinal development that had already been given expression by the papal Magisterium a century before Vatican II.

Martin affirms this development, noting that LG 16 very clearly indicates the possibility of salvation outside of the visible Church and explicit faith. That key passages states:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is considered by the Church to be a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life. (LG 16)

Notice, however, that simple ignorance, even ignorance that could not be helped, is not a sufficient condition for salvation—sincere seeking of God, a real attempt to follow the dictates of conscience, and an embrace of whatever truth is given are all necessary. To such people “divine assistance” will be given. But notice also that the Council Fathers said that such people “may” achieve eternal salvation. But what is so striking is that even when this passage is quoted, the final lines which warn of the dangers to those outside of the faith are rarely quoted and even more rarely commented on at length:

But very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair. Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all of these, the Church, mindful of the command of the Lord, “Preach the Gospel to every creature,” fosters the missions with care and attention. (LG 16)

Far from a human race that is presumed innocent or essentially saved, the Council Fathers see a world in which salvation is neither assured nor easy. It is a world in which, “very often,” rejection of Christ has been a reality, is still possible, and is a main reason for Christian missions. Indeed, the Council also warned about the severe judgment falling on Catholics who do not persist in charity and faithfulness.

The Council’s “optimism,” Martin rightly notes, is about the possibility of salvation outside of the Church, not the probability that everybody inside or outside it will be saved. The Council doesn’t give odds on this question or tell us whether hell is densely populated or not, nor does Martin attempt to do so. But he notes that the “very often” is attached to the negative possibility. In a chapter examining the scriptural references in LG 16 he demonstrates that this “bad news” is indeed biblical. Where, then, did the All Dogs view of the Council come from? Mostly from two sources: Karl Rahner and Hans Urs von Balthasar.

While Martin is clear that he respects both theologians and acknowledges their own pastoral desires, what is demonstrated in the two chapters covering their thoughts is how little backing they had in their own theories. Rahner, while occasionally acknowledging that the Council did not actually say anything new doctrinally on this topic, used the tactic that would later characterize the Bologna school: in Ratzinger’s words, the Council’s texts were interpreted as “a mere prelude to a still unattained conciliar spirit…” Thus, Rahner’s foundations for hope in universal or near-universal salvation were founded upon his own particular theological vision—a vision that gave little attention to the whole witness of either Scripture or Tradition on this point and (as he later acknowledged) underestimated the reality of sin.

While Rahner may have ignored Tradition and Scripture, Balthasar professed to be a man who paid attention to it all. Martin’s brief against him shows, however, that on his professed “theological hope” for universal salvation (best glimpsed in his book Dare We Hope That All Be Saved?), Balthasar has a tendency to ignore and occasionally mischaracterize his sources. Martin offers devastating critiques of Balthasar’s use of Scripture, the Fathers, and indeed logic. Balthasar quotes scriptural passages without even their immediate context, adduces witnesses who do not say what they purportedly say (e.g., Maximus the Confessor’s supposed embrace of universalism), and claims that one cannot love people sincerely if one believes that anyone could possibly reject God—the last a strange claim indeed given his view that the saints stand high as theological authorities. Finally, he seems to back up his positions with rather extravagant extra-biblical speculations about conversions in hell.

Balthasar and Rahner and many of their followers believed that the Church’s missions would be successful only if we could stop telling people the bad news. Whether or not they actually agreed with the speculative views of the theologians, many bishops and pastors embraced the idea that the Church would be better off if it stopped talking about sin and hell and accentuated the positive. As one theologian in 1973 wrote, with this strategy, “men will storm her doors seeking admission.” The result has been less than spectacular. Rare are the people who will spread the faith merely because the Church says so if there is no point to it other than drawing new members into “our community.” To paraphrase Flannery O’Connor, if the Church isn’t a place of salvation, it is simply an Elks Club. And the Elks aren’t doing that well these days either. It was Rahner, after all, whose talk about the “optimism of the Council” yielded at the end of his life to essays on the “winter of the Church.”

Martin does not spare bishops or popes in his criticism of this strategy of talking only about the positives. Paul VI’s and John Paul II’s encyclicals on evangelization, Evangelii Nuntiandi and Redemptoris Missio, are scored for omitting “the traditional focus on the eternal consequences that rest on accepting or rejecting the gospel that motivated almost two thousand years of mission.” Martin calls for an end to this “unwise silence” about a significant part of the Christian message. It is a particularly heartening sign that his book is blurbed by seven US bishops. Perhaps these endorsements are a sign that what Russell Shaw once called the US bishops’ “Potemkin Village” is now being torn down.

Martin’s one misstep is that he too quickly passes by the question of the danger to non-Catholic Christians. While Vatican II’s recognition of the power of salvation at work among other Christians separated from the Catholic Church is accurate, it is perhaps a little too pat. Martin does not mention the dangers to Christians whose baptisms are valid but who do not have the fullness of the sacraments or the guidance of the Magisterium to help them in a world in which, as he notes, the culture’s morality moves further from Christian teaching every day. The bad news is for all of us—Catholics, other Christians, and non-believers. We all need to hear it if the good news is to make sense. And we all need to hear it because it’s true.

About the Author: associate editor of Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture and adjunct professor of Catholic Studies at the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota).

On Priestly Celibacy and trying to Reinvent the Faith for Popularitys Sake

So we're at it again with the modernists.  

Tear down anything that even has a pinch of Catholicity for the sake of connecting better with the culture and with the times. 

The one thing that always pops up that is a discipline and therefore can be changed is the commitment to priestly celibacy.  In todays hyper sexualized world we are constantly told that people cannot control their sexual desires and priests should not be expected to do so either.  We are also told that the celibate lifestyle is the true cause of the sex abuse trial.  Furthermore it is stated that if we just loosed the discipline we would not have the priestly shortage that will plague the church now and going on into the future. 

I cannot tell you how much the celibate life is so despised by people in today’s world.  It’s like today’s world is still staring at Christ up on the cross and telling him to come down.  This attitude is not limited to celibacy it also relates as to how Catholics view the sacred liturgy.

As a side note I want to quick hit the attitude toward the liturgy by even orthodox Catholics.  During the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the Holy Father attempted to restore some of the traditions of liturgy which developed organically over the last 2000 of sacred history.  He was often maligned by the “progressives” and even at points he was condemned by the orthodox faithful for being pompous in bringing back the beautiful aspects often referred to as the trapping of his office.  Things like the fanon, the walking cross, historical vestments and miters were shunned by many as monarchial and not focused on the people enough, that they can’t connect with that life style.  Now enter Pope Francis who is a simple Jesuit.  Referred to as humble for not wanting all the supposed “trappings” of the office like the mozetta, the papal apartments, the golden pectoral cross and the liturgical laws of the church.  Immediately Francis can do no wrong in his thoughts and actions and whatever he does it must be defended as De Fide.  Many of us who are often referred to as rad-trads or even accept and use the term were also out and critical of certain aspects of Benedict’s papacy, including Assisi III and his less than enthusiastic use of the Tridentine Mass.  So now that we challenge this supposed notion of humility that people have tagged as relating to his simplicity.  Yet many of us so called trads don’t accept this connection on its face like the happy clappy orthodox crowd do.  His choice in celebrating the Sacred Liturgy towards the people to begin his pontificate was somewhat concerning because Benedict had made it a point to offer the sacrifice Ad Orientem in the Sistine Chapel.  Now my view on this is that he is more comfortable doing it one way and since that first couple days his probably a confusing and often threatening time a little comfort for his Holiness should be afforded.  There is an old Jesuit joke that as long as no one is hurt during a Jesuit liturgy things went well!  It is a funny joke but quite frankly just a modern thing to pass up the lack of reverence and commitment to proper offering of the liturgy which was no problem for Jesuits prior to the 1800’s at the very least.  Simplicity doesn’t mean that we are able to identify with a person any better than if an action was complex. Living in a Vatican suite is no more humble than living in the papal apartments, sure it might be less square feet but the apartments don’t drop into Earth they are still there and still will need to be maintained.  I personally don’t care where he lives or whether he wears a silver pectoral cross but too many people are back handing Benedict by pretending that his love for the sacred aspects of the office can’t be reconciled with the poor of the church.  Its like during the whole Benedictine papacy all he did was mock the poor, treating them as dirt.  But anyone with half a brain knows this to be utter bafoonery.  Even some prelates which don’t deserve their names

mentioned here have proclaimed the Francisican Papacy as a glorious return to low churching.  I don’t know about anyone else but if there is anything I hate it’s the idea that being lite Catholic is a good thing.  We should not shun our history, we should not shun the things that developed in the church organically.  We should applaud such things and treat them with the due reverence and help people that don’t understand them to have such.  So too when something isn’t organic but pieced together in a hodge podge way like the New Mass was we don’t condemn it as invalid, since its validity is a matter of discipline for form, but we need to ask whether the idea that many point to as sacred simplicity has been taken to a point which it should never have become.  So to finish up this note humility and simplicity are different aspects.  It is humble for one to accept the office and all the things that go with it, and in doing so not use it and laud it over others, yet to stand by its importance and the so called trappings don’t make it somehow less respectable for such things are timeless and often times stand against a culture that is that is against us in the first place, not to mention against Peters authority.

Now back to celibacy.  First the argument that celibacy leads to pedophile predators is on its face false in the nicest matter and straight libel and calumny in its sternest understanding.  Not partaking in the marital embrace is no reason to then go out and rape a child.  You cant even say that they are exploding on the inside and therefore are only acting out because they are suppressed because there are many faithful Catholics (a majority by far) who are single and chaste, and don’t molest children.  The John Jay report which was done to find the causes of the sex abuse crisis showed to those without an agenda that the crisis is a result of homosexuals who found their way into the clerical state and used their position of authority to perpetrate their hideous deeds.   This homosexual culture that has penetrated the Church has been documented by many sources including the book “Good Bye, Good Men” which I highly recommend, and even the recent report by a Polish Priest who did a study on behalf of concerned prelates.  It must be pointed out that this is the primary cause of the abuse crisis and not whether someone is celibate.

Second no one forces anyone to become a priest and therefore accept the discipline, so to say that they are forced into this unnatural situation is a sham on its face.  No one is guaranteed the priesthood, and when a person chooses to enter into the state they do so knowing the rules of the life.  So to make the point that they are trapped in this unnatural state leading to them acting out on their sexuality is a faulty notion.  Can you imagine trying to justify a married man whose wife is abstaining from the marital embrace, goes out and commits adultery then they come back and say well its her fault I couldn't help myself.  There is a certain thing called self-control that should be expected of all people.  I, being chaste, am often tempted by the culture to get all of my desires fulfilled at the time they pop up.  Yet somehow I am able to control my desires by his grace.  No its not easy to be faithful, but those that wish to follow him, firstly the clergy, are called to take up the cross and follow him.  We forego the things of the world.  We sacrifice and die to self-daily in our pursuit of his will.  And one of those things that priests are asked to sacrifice is the possibility of marriage which is primarily for the purpose of children and mutual bonding.  It should be no surprise that people in modernity object to celibacy because as its constantly stated the thing they most think about is the marital embrace.  Yet God wants more for us.  That’s not to say that the marriage is bad, for it is a great thing but it has a purpose just as the priesthood has a purpose, and in the west we generally prefer that distinctions are made and that a priest is not tied to a family (unless otherwise allowed) for reasons that are I think reasonable.  Modern man does not understand this, they think their life is about pleasure and the more the better, and if you are not getting any you just aren’t living so it must be changed.

Finally saying that loosening the celibacy requirement will somehow stop the shortage is a joke.  Just look at the other Christian faiths and they don’t have the requirement, yet they are in even dire straits then we can imagine.  Ask yourself will loosing this requirement really make Catholics in modernity really think about becoming priests?  I mean think about the lifestyle that’s expected of a priest, always on call, little compensation, treated like dogs by the media, shamed for teaching what is Catholic, and completely dedicated first and foremost to God.  How many of us can even begin to accept this as what we are called to.  Paul tells us why being celibate is helpful and quite frankly it makes sense. 

If we are really interested in solving the problems that face us we need to ask what is at the core of the priest shortage and the call for priestly celibacy to be removed?  It is fundamentally a crisis of faith, people don’t know the faith and quite frankly even if they are sacramentalized they don’t care.  Catholics contracept and abort their children out of existence destroying generations of future Catholics including clergy not only prompting a shortage of prelates but destroying the Catholic family and even the catholic education system has come under great pressure because there are so few kids and the modernists have used their positions of influence to secularize the schools.

So for those of you that think that we must rid the church of her beautiful traditions and therefore are shouting at Christ on the Cross telling him to come down from it, to be more in line with what they want I say to you, You opinion on the matter is foolish and is nothing more than surface fodder for modern man who lacks the ability to reason to truth in the first place.

So cheers to you and all my best,

+JMJ+