Popes Francis and Benedict Trashed by Lying Prelates and Their Toady Deacons [UPDATED]

Actually, they were trying to praise Francis at Benedict's expense, but wound up making Francis sound small and petty, thus trashing both men with their lies.

Elizabeth Scalia has the story. Read it there and then my comments below will make sense. But here's the money quote:

By now you’re dying to know the story, but I will not repeat it, because that would be a backward obedience to the father of lies. I will tell you that the tale purports to be about a cruel and utterly bitchy remark, made by Francis (as he was vesting as pope for the first time) and directed to an underling only doing his job; moreover the bitchiness was understood to be a swipe against Francis’ predecessor, Benedict.

I am just sick enough, though, to suspend any last vestiges of tact and grace that still reside within me and call this vicious little rumor out as the Pure-D Bullshit I believe it to be.

[...]

No, the snippy little remark we have seen attributed to Francis and repeated in sad places (to, apparent applause in sad pews) seems like the fantasy of a soured spirit — the thoughts of a craven kind of person — perhaps a Cardinal whose own career is cornered and against the wall, imagining what he would have said and done had he been elected, and loving it so much, he just has to share it.

Perhaps the sort of man who spent the first few days after the papal election swanking around Rome, and social media, dropping remarks that made him sound like a 14 year-old fashion reporter settling scores with an editor who banished him from further attempts at his own designs. So small and venal he was even content to misrepresent the point of the traditional red shoes of a pope — meant to symbolize the blood of martyrs that has propelled the church forward, all these centuries — by defining them down as a meaningless affectation.

Yes, that’s small and bitchy. From a “prince” of the church...

That's some bold speculation on Elizabeth's part, but I think she's probably correct as to the source of this rumor. And "bitchy" was my exact first thought when I heard the rumor (which I won't repeat here either, but there's plenty of other sources where you can find it).

Neither does Elizabeth name names, but I will. The speculation is that the false quote attributed to Pope Francis originated with the disgraced reprobate Cardinal Mahony, and the story was passed on to a deacon of the Los Angeles Archdiocese, Eric Stoltz (no, not the actor), who related it to his congregation - DURING MASS - and to wild applause. And then bragged about it via social media afterward (it's even included on his Facebook cover photo ... jerk). Sorta like his former boss:

Yes, Elizabeth's description "bitchy" fits quite well. 


UPDATE
More on the rumor/lie from La Stampa (NOTE: I said earlier in this post that I wouldn't repeat the rumor here, but it does appear in the quoted text below):

... But urban myths started to circulate within the first few hours of his papacy. According to one of these rumours, straight after his election, Francis apparently refused to wear the red velvet mozzetta trimmed with (synthetic) ermine, saying to the Master of Papal Ceremonies, Guido Marini: “You can wear it! The carnival’s over.” A rude and boorish comment to make to the Master of Ceremonies. As far as Vatican Insider has learnt, said comment was never made. As Marini placed the mozzetta on Francis, the Pope simply said: “I would prefer you didn’t.” No reference was made [to] the carnival and no humiliating comment was made against the Master of Ceremonies....

(emphasis added)

Most people with a functioning moral compass recoil in horror at the thought that our humble Holy Father might say something as mean and nasty as that, which is why we know it, instinctively, not to be true. But, in those holding positions of authority in the Church who react with elation to this false story and gleefully spread it around, we are apparently not dealing with fully functioning moral compasses.

Pope Francis and Evangelical Catholicism

George Weigel, has written a book titled Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st-Century Church, which one reviewer called a "masterpiece of Catholic history and thought" and a "possible guide for the Church’s mission in the centuries ahead" that he would have, if he could have gained access to the conclave, "smuggle[d] in enough copies ... to place one on the chair of each elector".

Weigel's Evangelical Catholicism is held out as a way of moving beyond what he refers to as the "Counter-Reformation Catholicism" that has shaped the Church's practice and devotions for the last 500 years. Weigel starts from this premise:

“In the catechetical-devotional Catholicism of the Counter-Reformation Church, the Catholic learned about Jesus Christ through brief catechism formulas that aptly summed up the Church’s doctrine about the Son of God who became the son of Mary. Evangelical Catholicism begins not with knowing about Jesus, but with knowing Jesus.”

In essence, building the Church of the 21st Century and beyond begins exactly where it began 2000 years ago - with a personal relationship and knowledge of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh who continues to dwell among us and continues to offer us salvation:

“Evangelical Catholicism proclaims the great gift of friendship with Jesus Christ, not as one attractive possibility in a supermarket of spiritualities, but as the God-given and unique means of salvation for everyone.”

Now, I know that in many Catholic quarters - among both traditionalists and so-called "progressives", the phrase "personal relationship with Jesus" sets off alarms. It calls to mind those pesky protestant evangelicals that many in both traditional and progressive circles see as having had a pernicious influence on the direction that American Catholicism, in particular, has taken in the last couple of decades, including (in their analysis, but not mine) such ecumenical efforts as Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

But Weigel states that the Catholic Church being influenced by and acting like protestants is not what he is referring to:

"Evangelical Catholicism is not a way of being Catholic that adapts certain catechetical practices and modes of worship from evangelical, fundamentalist and Pentecostalist Protestantism."

Rather, it is an acknowledgment that Catholicism is uniquely qualified to spread the Gospel message that offers each and every individual a friendship with Jesus Christ, or, if you will, a "personal relationship with Jesus". And I don't think Catholics should shy away from using that admittedly protestant terminology to spread what is an essentially Catholic message. Because THAT IS THE GOSPEL. That the Catholic Church is the means by which the human person can have friendship and a personal relationship with his Savior. For that personal relationship is a Eucharistic one in which our Lord continues to come to us and feed us, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. That is what each soul craves - to have that God-shaped hole filled, literally, with the One who loves us so much that he died for us. I can think of no more personal relationship with Jesus than to have him physically enter into us and fill us with Himself through the Eucharist.

So, if the thrust of the Catholic Church's Gospel message in the 21st Century and beyond lies with moving people toward personal knowledge of and friendship with Jesus, I say "Amen!"

And, in a piece yesterday at National Review, Weigel writes that, in Pope Francis, the Church has found just the man to lead the way:

The election of Pope Francis completes the Church’s turn from the Counter-Reformation Catholicism that brought the Gospel to America — and eventually produced Catholicism’s first American pope — to the Evangelical Catholicism that must replant the Gospel in those parts of the world that have grown spiritually bored, while planting it afresh in new fields of mission around the globe. In our May 2012 conversation, the man who would become pope discussed at some length the importance of the Latin American bishops’ 2007 “Aparecida Document,” the fruit of the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean. The essential message of that revolutionary statement (in which there was not the least bit of whining about Protestant “sheep-stealing” but rather a clear acknowledgment of Catholicism’s own evangelical deficiencies in Latin America) can be gleaned from this brief passage, which I adopted as one of the epigraphs for my book, Evangelical Catholicism: Deep Reform in the 21st-Century Church:

The Church is called to a deep and profound rethinking of its mission. . . . It cannot retreat in response to those who see only confusion, dangers, and threats. . . . What is required is confirming, renewing, and revitalizing the newness of the Gospel . . . out of a personal and community encounter with Jesus Christ that raises up disciples and missionaries. . . . 

A Catholic faith reduced to mere baggage, to a collection of rules and prohibitions, to fragmented devotional practices, to selective and partial adherence to the truths of faith, to occasional participation in some sacraments, to the repetition of doctrinal principles, to bland or nervous moralizing, that does not convert the life of the baptized would not withstand the trials of time. . . . We must all start again from Christ, recognizing [with Pope Benedict XVI] that “being Christian is . . . the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.”

Here, in a statement that then-cardinal Bergoglio had a significant hand in drafting, is what John Paul II and Benedict XVI have called the “New Evangelization” in synthetic microcosm:

• The Church of the 21st century cannot rely on the ambient public culture, or on folk memories of traditional Catholic culture, to transmit the Gospel in a way that transforms individual lives, cultures, and societies. Something more, something deeper, is needed.

• That “something” is radical personal conversion to the Lord Jesus Christ and an embrace of the friendship he offers every human being: a friendship in which we both see the face of the Father of Mercies (who calls us out of our prodigality into the full dignity of our humanity) and learn the deep truth about our humanity (that it is in making our lives into a gift for others, as life itself is to each of us, that we come into human fulfillment).

• This conversion of minds and hearts builds a community that is unlike any other: a “communion” of disciples in mission, who understand that faith is increased as it is offered and given away to others.

• That communion-community best embodies the truth of the human condition if each individual member of it, and the Church itself, fully embraces the entire symphony of Catholic truth, and in doing so, lives the moral life as a life of growth in beatitude, in compassion for others, and in evangelical charity.

• Finally, this communion-community lives “ahead of time,” because it knows, through the Easter faith the Church will celebrate in a few weeks, the truth about how the human adventure will end: God’s purposes in creation and redemption will be vindicated, as history and the cosmos are fulfilled in the New Jerusalem, in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb, where death will be no more and every tear will be wiped away (Rev. 21:2–4).

That is the message that Pope Francis will take to the world: Gospel-centered Catholicism, which challenges the post-mod cynics, the metaphysically bored, and the spiritually dry to discover (or rediscover) the tremendous human adventure of living “inside” the Biblical narrative of history.

[Read the whole thing]

Opus Dei Obsessed Columnist at LA Times Thinks Archbishop Gomez a "Risky Choice" for Los Angeles

Los Angeles Times columnist, Tim Rutten, is crying over the appointment of Archbishop Jose Gomez as coadjutor of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles:

... The other signal Rome may be sending with this appointment may be disruptive. Los Angeles' new coadjutor bishop and -- barring the unforeseeable -- future cardinal has spent most of his priestly career as a member of Opus Dei, the secretive and controversial Catholic movement with its roots deep in Franco's Spain. Opus Dei, which stresses doctrinal orthodoxy and an ultramontane loyalty to the papacy, was a great favorite of Pope John Paul II and is a favorite of Pope Benedict XVI. The former created a "personal prelature" for the organization, so that its roughly 90,000 members scattered around the world report directly to their own bishop in Rome and he reports directly to the pope. No other such arrangement exists in the church. John Paul also canonized the movement's Spanish founder, Josemaria Escriva, who, according to close associates, on occasion expressed admiration for Hitler's antagonism to Bolshevism and skepticism that 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust.

You don't have to be a fan of the dreadful "Da Vinci Code" to find Opus Dei a trifle creepy. [ED.: Note the use of that word. It won't be the last time you'll see it.] Its secrecy is legendary, as is its predilection for discredited "mortifications" of the flesh, such as wearing the celice -- a spiked metal circlet applied to the thigh until it draws blood -- or self-flagellation with a knotted cord.

Politically, Opus Dei's sympathies generally extend to the authoritarian. It provided Franco with Cabinet ministers and supported Augusto Pinochet in Chile.

Gomez's connections to the movement couldn't be deeper. Born in Monterrey, Mexico, he studied theology at the University of Navarra, which is rather like Opus Dei's Harvard. Ordained as a priest of the movement, he later served as one of its superiors, Vicar of the Delegation of Texas. Though there are 22 Opus Dei bishops among the church's 27,811 prelates, Gomez is the only one who is a full member of the order.

In a recent pastoral letter to San Antonio Catholics, Gomez wrote, "My approach and understanding . . . owes a great deal to my appreciation of the spirituality of St. Josemaria Escriva."

The changes for Los Angeles' Catholics may be wrenching. [ED.: Awwwwww. My heart bleeds.] Mahony is the last of the politically progressive, pastorally centered American prelates selected in the wake of Vatican II. Gomez belongs to a traditionalist generation. The cardinal, for example, has promoted lay participation in every canonically permissible kind of ministry. Gomez, like the pope, is said to favor clearer and more traditional divisions between the lay and clerical roles.

Some also are bound to be wary of his close association with Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, his mentor in Denver and one of the church's most stridently conservative voices. Chaput, for example, feels that Catholic office-holders who cast pro-choice votes ought to be denied Communion. He recently gave an address in Texas in which he argued that John F. Kennedy was wrong in insisting on separation of church and state.

In California, a staunchly Democratic state [ED.: This is the gist of the concern, isn't it? Party trumps piety.] where one out of every four people is Catholic, that sort of confrontational leadership could have serious consequences.

My Comments:
Whenever Rutten - who, apparently, has some sort of unhealthy obsession with Opus Dei - is unhappy about matters Catholic, I'm downright ecstatic.

Speaking of Rutten's unhealthy obsession, let's compare a portion of the column above attacking Opus Dei to another Rutten rant against the personal prelature. Here's what Rutten writes now:

You don't have to be a fan of the dreadful "Da Vinci Code" to find Opus Dei a trifle creepy. Its secrecy is legendary, as is its predilection for discredited "mortifications" of the flesh, such as wearing the celice -- a spiked metal circlet applied to the thigh until it draws blood -- or self-flagellation with a knotted cord.

Politically, Opus Dei's sympathies generally extend to the authoritarian. It provided Franco with Cabinet ministers and supported Augusto Pinochet in Chile.

And this is what Rutten wrote in May of 2008 (in a column that had absolutely nothing to do with Opus Dei, but in which Rutten tried to paint the late Bob Novak as having fascist ties because he was brought into the Church by a priest with a membership in Opus Dei):

McCloskey also happens to be a priest of the ultra-conservative and secretive -- some would say sinister [ED.: That's worse than "creepy", right?] -- Catholic organization Opus Dei. You don't have to buy into Dan Brown's preposterous caricature of Opus Dei in "The Da Vinci Code" to know that it really never has fallen all that far from its roots in Francisco Franco's Spain.

Column writing is fairly easy if all one has to do is borrow heavily from one's previous columns, and merely rewrite a little here and there. It does tend to get a little monotonous, however, if one allows one's unhealthy obsessions to continually take over one's columns.

More Opus Dei obsession from Rutten is evident here (in which Rutten tries to tar Opus Dei by attempting to associate the prelature to the scandals surrounding the Legionaries of Christ and its founder Marcial Maciel):

... All of this made Maciel and the Legionaries great favorites of Pope John Paul II, who believed new, traditionalist orders -- like the Legionaries and Opus Dei -- would provide a bulwark against secularism. The pontiff publicly called Maciel "an efficacious example to youth" and took him along as a key advisor on his trips to Latin America.

This papal approval tended to obscure the Legionaries' creepy [ED.: Note how Rutten uses that same adjective - "creepy" - that he uses to describe Opus Dei on a number of occasions.] internal organization ...

here (in which Rutten inexplicably drags Opus Dei into a column defending Notre Dame's decision to invite President Obama to receive an honorary law degree and speak at the university's commencement exercises):

... The principal organizer of the Notre Dame protest is a group called the Cardinal Newman Society -- no, they're not the people who ran the Newman Centers you may recall from your college campus. This bunch came together in 1992 to enforce more stringent orthodoxy at American Catholic universities.

One of its projects is to publish essays by the Rev. C. John McCloskey, the Opus Dei priest who acts as a kind of chaplain to the GOP's neoconservatives and was influential in the conversion to traditional Catholicism of such prominent conservative commentators as Robert Novak and Larry Kudlow. In one of the essays disseminated by the society, McCloskey argues that "for a university to be truly Catholic," its faculty would have to be "exclusively" Catholic. Welcome back to the Counter-Reformation...

here (in which Rutten ostensibly defends Opus Dei against Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code libel):

Now many Catholics, this one included, regard Opus Dei as a creepy [ED.: There's that word again.] outfit with an unwholesome affinity for authoritarianism gleaned from its formative years in Franco's Spain.

What a sad, obsessed individual.

(emphasis and editorial commentary added throughout)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
LA Slimes Columnist Defends Sebelius Against Bob Novak Op/Ed; Calls Opus Dei "Sinister" Organization with Fascist Ties

San Antonio's Archbishop Jose Gomez to be New Archbishop of Los Angeles

Over at The American Catholic, Darwin reports some awesome news for Los Angeles (but sad news for my favorite city, San Antonio):

Whispers in the Loggia and New Advent have exciting breaking news for the church in the US:

Pope Benedict will name Jose Gomez, 58, archbishop of San Antonio since February 2005, as coadjutor-archbishop of Los Angeles.

[More]

Literaturgy

I am secure enough in my manhood to admit to being a fan of Jane Austen. And I proudly list Pride and Prejudice as one of my favorite novels, and the BBC/A&E version of Pride and Prejudice as one of my favorite movies.

So, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this spot-on piece of literary-liturgical allegory from St. Louis Catholic:

If today's faithful Catholic is represented by Elizabeth Bennet, bright, hopeful and coming of age, then the liturgical forms would have to be represented by Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham.

Mr. Wickham is immediately accessible, loves to talk--especially about how bad ol' Darcy is-- has some initial minor flash but soon proves to be tedious and unreliable.

Mr. Darcy at first glance looks stuffy and condescending, but proves over time to be noble, true, of high quality and charitable.

The ordinary and the extraordinary.

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
The "Elizabeth Bennett Conservatives"

Fr. McBrien Attacks Pope Over Liturgical Reforms [UPDATED]

(Hat tip: PewSitter.com)

Dissident priest and Notre Dame professor of theology, Fr. Richard McBrien, continues his campaign of waging war on the Church's traditional liturgical and devotional practices in a direct attack upon the Holy Father:

... Lest anyone question Benedict's personal preference in this matter, it should be pointed out that, beginning on the feast of Corpus Christi last year, those receiving Communion from the pope must do so only on the tongue. He has also expressed support for restoring the practice of the priest's celebrating Mass "facing the East," which means in plain English with his back to the people. [ED.: That's funny I was under the impression that the words "facing the East" were, themselves, "plain English". Does that, then, mean "facing the people" means in "plain English" with his back to God? Make no mistake that Fr. McBrien's purpose here is an appeal to a sort of emotional grievance populism that would be the envy of Huey Long and perhaps even Glenn Beck. Only it's worse ... he's resorting to a sort of populism that sets the people against God, with the grievance being that God is receiving more attention than they are.]

Given the possibility that such reversals (sometimes referred to as a "reform of the reform") will eventually be mandated, one can only imagine the confusion, frustration and anger that many priests and laypeople will experience. [ED.: I never cease to be amazed by the chutzpah and blatant hypocrisy of those, like Fr. McBrien, who continue to make this astoundingly ironic argument. No one seemed to care too much about the "confusion, frustration and anger" experienced 40 years ago by those who were forced to endure far greater cataclysmic change in the years following the 2nd Vatican Council. And we're supposed to worry that such minor shifts as Communion on the tongue and Mass said ad orientem are going to suddenly turn the Catholic world upside down? Please.]

Today, if individual Catholics choose to receive the sacrament on the tongue, they are free to do so. Eucharistic ministers -- priests and laypeople alike -- respect their wishes. The great majority, however, prefer to receive Communion in the hand and continue to do so. [ED.: The great majority don't go to Confession, either. Oh. That's right. Fr. McBrien thinks that's a good thing, too.]

But this proposal, if enacted, would actually prevent Catholics from making that choice for themselves. They would be denied the option, approved by Paul, that has been available to them for the past 40 years, namely, to receive Communion in the hand or on the tongue.

The so-called "John Paul II priests" would very likely be happy with such a reversal of practice and would ostentatiously deny giving Communion to those with outstretched hands. However, many other priests, whether old enough to have been shaped by Vatican II or not, would ignore the mandate and continue to distribute Communion in the hand to those who requested it. [ED.: In case you haven't already figured it out, in this particular scenario, the faithful, devout, and obedient "so-called 'John Paul II priests' " are the bad guys and the defiant and disobedient priests who "would ignore the [Vatican] mandate and continue to [treat the Body of Christ disrespectfully]" are the good guys.]

What would happen as a result of this tug of war at Communion time? Would some bishops threaten priests with suspension? If so, how many priests would expose themselves to such a penalty? If the numbers were large, how would the church be able to compensate for the additional decline in the number of available priests? [ED.: Hyperbolize much? I doubt we would see such widespread rebellion against the Church's authority by priests. If the Bishops said do it this way, the vast majority of priests would comply, even those who would rather not.]

Mandating the celebration of Mass with the priest's back to the congregation [ED.: Too much ink has already been spilled on addressing the outright stupidness of this description. And Fr. McBrien is a disingenuous hack for continuing to spout such nonsense. Actually, he's a disingenuous hack for a lot of reasons, this being merely one among many.] might pose an even greater problem, except in churches built before the Second Vatican Council and still with main altars facing the rear wall. But such churches are probably in the minority today. The architectural problems would be exceeded only by the pastoral dislocations. [ED.: Pastoral dislocations? Again, hyperbolize much? This is, quite simply, a canard. There will be no widespread "pastoral dislocations" over such small (albeit significant) changes as Communion on the tongue and Mass ad orientem.]

May none of this come to pass. [ED.: May you soon come to see the error of your ways, stop rabble rousing for the pantsuit set, stop trying to remake the Church in your own image, and come to embrace the richness of the Church's traditional liturgy and devotions. Barring that, may you soon be defrocked, removed from your teaching position at Notre Dame, and be left on the outside looking in as the reform of the reform that you so abhor comes to pass right before your terror-stricken eyes.]

(emphasis and editorial commentary added)


UPDATE
Fr. Z does his patented fisk of Fr. McBrien here.

Fr. Z Fisks Silliest Man Ever to Have Donned a Collar (Even if the Only Time He Dons It Is For Appearances on NBC)

Read it here.

I'm not sure what the bigger scandal is: that Notre Dame is using its commencement ceremony to honor a pro-abortion President, or that Notre Dame continues to employ this silly man on the faculty of its Theology Dept.

(Hat tip: Creative Minority Report)

Doping Scandal Hits U.S. Catholic Bishops

(Hat tip: Regular Guy Paul, posting at Southern Appeal)

This is funny:

... According to a Justice Department official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, federal investigators are drafting subpoenas on behalf of several unnamed elected members of Congress. Indications are the subpoenas will be served before week's end, and that the Bishops to be summoned are Archbishop Burke, Bishop Martino and Archbishop Chaput. If so, a Senate subcommittee hearing might be scheduled as soon as early March.

Allegations of steroid abuse comes as sweet justice to many progressive groups, including Gimme Back My Church. Agnes Flurferstine, co-director of Gimme Back My Church, is especially pleased.

"There is no way that these bishops are not doping," she said, resplendent in a silver-blue pantsuit with matching hair. "Their recent statements regarding Catholic politicians are much too powerful to not be enhanced in some way."

When asked what type of illegal substances the bishops might be taking, Agnes was reticent in her reply. "Well, I'm not sure what they're called out on the street. We don't rely on unnatural substances in our organization - we rely solely on the Spirit of Vatican 2."

One substance these bishops are rumored to be taking is called "Vitamin B16". The reported effects of "Vitamin B16" are increased boldness, improved resistance to liberal public opinion, and pronounced Magisterial teaching. Another suspected substance is "Vicar's VapoRub", a topical cream that is very difficult to test for, and extremely powerful. According to an unverified lab report, its use can only be detected by heightened levels of liberal Catholic Internet outrage, usually within 24 hours of use, and sustained for days and weeks afterwards.

[More]

"What Happened to the Friendly Lady Vicar with the Colorful Jumper?"

Bishop Blair: "The Church Militant"

Toledo Bishop Leonard P. Blair writes in the June issue of The Catholic Chronicle:

The church militant

Written by Leonard P. Blair, Bishop of Toledo
Friday, 06 June 2008

When I was a seminarian many years ago, amid the social and religious turmoil of the 1960s, some people rejected the New Testament’s language of spiritual warfare to describe the Christian life. Anything that hinted of combat or violence had to give way to “peace and love,” even in the spiritual realm. However, if this viewpoint were to prevail, a significant element of the New Testament would be discarded. In the end, it is always better to let God’s word challenge us, rather than thinking that the time has come for us to change the Bible to suit ourselves.

Amid all the trials and turmoil of history, including today, even in our own diocese, it is important to remember that the life of the church is not one of unruffled calm or of peace and triumph.

The peace that Christ gives is not of this world. He comes “not to bring peace, but a sword.” (Mt 10: 34) Jesus is the strong one who came to overthrow the prince of this world (Mt 12:27ff; Lk 11:18ff). The conflict which Jesus waged against Satan and the world of sin is one that will be prolonged until the end of time, both in the church and in the life of every believer. Indeed, in “the last times” the conflict is destined to grow in subtlety, brutality and intensity.

Christ is already the conqueror of the world and the Lord of history. Only when He comes again, however, will all evil be definitively cast into hell, and perfect peace reign supreme. In the meantime, those who believe in Christ are exposed to the hatred of the world (Jn 15:18-21). The church collectively endures the assaults of the powers of a sinful world in league with the evil one.

Individually, each Christian wages a spiritual battle, not using human violence or worldly tactics, which Jesus renounced, but relying on the power of God. It is when we become totally poor and powerless in the eyes of the world, as Jesus did on the cross, that we are spiritually powerful. A severely ill or disabled person, uniting his or her sufferings to Christ, can be a real “prayer warrior,” and whenever we fight evil with good, even to the point of martyrdom, we are truly conquerors.

***
I said earlier that to reject these images would be a distortion of God’s word, but there also needs to be a note of caution. God can bring good out of evil, and the scourge of war can bring out the best in people and bond them together, but war is always ugly and hard. No one hates war more than those who have actually had to fight one on the front line, and have stared its horrors in the face.

To speak of spiritual warfare is to speak of hard things too: of death to self, of discipline, the patient endurance of moral and physical sufferings that result from original sin, of temptations and trials, and the carrying of the cross. Although victory is assured in Christ, there are many casualties, many wounded in the conflict, which rages not only in the world, but also in the church. Jesus warned us of scandals, failures, of hirelings, false teachers, of houses that collapse and of seeds that wither and die...

[Read the whole thing]

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
Another outstanding column by our beloved Bishop.

Ironically, I've been told that Bishop Blair doesn't allow the Knights of Columbus, when donned in full regalia, to carry their swords during Masses or other events at the Cathedral (when Aidan and I attended the Red Mass at the Cathedral last Fall, Aidan asked why the Knights weren't carrying swords; I asked my Grand Knight about it later, and that was the answer he gave).


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
Bishop Blair Composed Holy Spirit Novena

Bishop Blair: "Reflecting on Pope Benedict and the Seeds of Hope"

Bishop Blair: "Come Holy Spirit"

Bishop Blair: "Truly Grave Moral Reasons" and "Serious Moral Soul-Searching" Before "Could Be Morally Permissible" to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidate

Bishop Blair: "Lent 2008: ‘Lord, Teach Us to Pray’ "

Bishop Blair: "The World is Not Enough"

Bishop Blair: "Peace on Earth, in Communities, Homes"

Bishop Blair Urges Toledo-Area Catholics to Reject Domestic-Partner Registry

Bishop Blair: "Listening to Our Mother"

"How a Shepherd Speaks"

Bishop Blair: "A Dialogue of Truth and Love"

Bishop Blair: "Upholding the Bond of Love" (Part 3)

Bishop Blair: "Upholding the Bond of Love" (Part 2)

Bishop Blair: "Upholding the Bond of Love"

Bishop Blair: "The Gospel of Life Revisited"

Bishop Blair: "Building Your House on a Rock"

Meeting the Bishop - After Action Report

Bishop Blair Teaches: "And With Your Spirit"

Bishop Blair: "What God Joins Together"

TIME: "Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?" [UPDATED]

(Hat tip: The Curt Jester)

TIME Magazine, which failed to include Pope Benedict among its "TIME 100", wants to know whether the Holy Father's recent visit to America signaled the end of "liberal Catholicism":

He may not have been thinking about it at the time, but Pope Benedict, in the course of his recent U.S. visit may have dealt a knockout blow to the liberal American Catholicism that has challenged Rome since the early 1960s. He did so by speaking frankly and forcefully of his "deep shame" during his meeting with victims of the Church's sex-abuse scandal. By demonstrating that he "gets" this most visceral of issues, the pontiff may have successfully mollified a good many alienated believers — and in the process, neutralized the last great rallying point for what was once a feisty and optimistic style of progressivism.

***
To some extent, liberal Catholicism has been a victim of its own success. Its positions on sex and gender issues have become commonplace in the American Church, diminishing the distinctiveness of the progressives. More importantly, they failed to transform the main body of the Church: John Paul II, a charismatic conservative, enjoyed the third-longest papacy in church history, and refused to budge on the left's demands; instead, he eventually swept away liberal bishops. The heads at Call to Action grayed, and by the late 1990s, Vatican II progressivism began to look like a self-limited Boomer moment.

Then, the movement received a monstrous reprieve. The priest sex abuse scandal implicated not only the predators, but the superiors who shielded them. John Paul remained mostly silent. A new reform group, Voice of the Faithful, arose; the old anger returned, crystallizing around the battle-cry "They just don't get it."

Benedict's visit, however, changed the dynamic. And that's a problem for progressives. Says Fr. Thomas Reese, a senior fellow at Georgetown University's Woodstock Theological Center whom Benedict famously removed from his previous job as editor of America, "Reform movements need an enemy to organize against. As most bishops have gotten their acts together on sex abuse, they have looked less like the enemy and more like part of the solution. Enthusiasm for reform declined. With the Pope's forthright response, it will decline even more."

[More]

My Comments:
Of course, we've known for a while that "The Scandal" has been "the last great rallying point" of so-called "progressive" Catholics who want to use it as a means of calling into question the Church's moral authority on important issues and cowering into silence those who appeal to that authority.

In fact, a moniker has been given to invocations of that particular ad hominem rhetorical device (see "Anderson's Law", or whatever you want to call it).

At any rate, it looks like the "We Are Church" crowd is going to have to find a new whipping boy.


UPDATE
Fr. Z's take on the TIME article.

Opinions ...

..., they say, are like arseholes: everyone's got 'em, and they all stink.

Yesterday, in a post about TV commentator and blogger reactions to the liturgy at the Papal Mass, I expressed my initial impressions - in real time as I was watching EWTN - of the liturgical music selected for yesterday's Papal Mass.

Now, as a matter of principle, I generally stay away from discussions about liturgy - like the plague, in fact. I have never been to a Mass in the Extraordinary Form, and the Ordinary Form Masses with which I am most familiar are probably the sort with which most people in 90% of American parishes would be familiar. And, while OCP forms the basis of most of the music, I nevertheless happily attend Mass at my local parish without any complaints about the liturgy. Furthermore, if given the choice of driving only 5 miles down the road to attend Mass in the Extraordinary Form (a choice I don't have, by the way), I would still choose to attend my neighborhood parish and its OCP liturgical offerings.

Nevertheless, as I watched yesterday's Papal Mass, I did find it embarassing - yes, "embarrassing" - that, given what this Holy Father has written about the "Spirit of the Liturgy", the musical selections for the Mass were, apparently, all that America had to offer. Again, the sentiments I expressed were my immediate real-time opinions as I watched what was taking place.

I can understand that some might disagree with my assessment of the liturgical music that was chosen. I can even understand that some might find it inappropriate for me to express such sentiments regarding such a joyful occasion as a Papal Mass on U.S. soil (although I think Amy Welborn makes an excellent point, which expresses the motivation behind my sentiments).

But for the life of me, I can't figure out how someone might attempt to read my mind and conclude that expressing my immediate gut reaction evidences "sour grapes" or a desire to "return to pre-Vatican II days" or a "selfish agenda" or anti-Hispanic racism (as I've been informed some contributors at a certain blog I no longer frequent have said and/or implied).

On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge that the opinions expressed on this blog (especially where liturgy is concerned, which is why I try to avoid that subject altogether) might be full of bovine excrement.


Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
"An Overweening and Preening Exercise in Multicultural Exhibitionism" [UPDATED]

"An Overweening and Preening Exercise in Multicultural Exhibitionism" [UPDATED]

So Fr. Neuhaus describes the painful and embarassing liturgy I just watched via EWTN.

I'm sure much will be written on St. Blog's about some of the questionable liturgical choices that were made for today's Papal Mass (especially given what this Pope has written about liturgy over the last 20 or so years as Cardinal Ratzinger).


UPDATE
Christine the Soccer Mom offers excellent insight on the liturgical selections at Domestic Vocation. I agree with her that Placido Domingo's Panis Angelicus was quite moving (and the Holy Father really seemed to appreciate that respite from the rest of the banality).

And I know you want to know what's being said in the commentary over at The New Liturgical Movement.


UPDATE #2
Others commenting include:

The Curt Jester, who has a good roundup of the St. Blog's commentary.

Rich Leonardi, who notes "Look how wonderful we are, Your Holiness!"

Creative Minority Report, which exclaims "That mass, musically speaking, was one of the oddest things I have ever seen."

Amy Welborn, with posts here, here, and here.

Father Z, who found the music "simply dreadful", and opines that "the Mass seemed over consciously multi-cultural... terribly self-conscious... [and] stage[d]".

Chris Blosser's Benedict in America blog has "Further Reactions & Commentary on the Washington Mass' Musical Selections"

UPDATE #3
Maureen Martin writes at CatholicNews.org:

Papal onlookers beg Pope to ‘offer up’ poor musical selections from Papal visit for them

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Patti Renfroe said she knows that when the Holy Father hears “One Bread, One Body” played this week during his historical trip to the United States, it has to hurt his aesthetical nature, but she is hoping that the pain it causes him may mean she will spend less time in Purgatory.

“As he rode by, I yelled out, ‘Pope Benedict, please offer up ‘One Bread, One Body’ for me and my kids, for our salvation!” He kind of gave me a knowing, but pained smiled and nodded. “What that man has to suffer for us,” said Renfroe, a music teacher at Our Lady Queen of Heaven School in Arlington, Virginia. “People just don’t appreciate it.”

Meanwhile, the eight members of the Thompson family, who traveled from Providence, Rhode Island, to see the Pope, stood along the police barricades, holding placards with the phrase “Remember Us When You Hear City of God!” painted in tempera paint. “Please offer it up for us! My dad’s out of work,” 12-year-old Josiah Thompson continued yelling as the motorcade drove by. “I just hope he heard me,” said Thompson. “Anytime I hear a lame song, I offer it up for him. My dad says if I keep doing this, he’ll probably live to be 103.”

[More]

UPDATE #4 (18 April)
Fr. Neuhaus follows up on yesterday's remarks on EWTN with today's post at the First Things blog:

The Thursday Mass at Nationals Park introduced the Holy Father to aspects of the aesthetic suffering endured by the faithful in America. The background notes we have been supplied are not specific about who, for instance, is to blame for the choice of music. The whole thing was overweeningly, preeningly multicultural. In his words of welcome to the pope, Archbishop Wuerl of Washington noted the many nations, languages, ethnicities of the Church in America, indicating that there are also Catholics here in America who trace their lineage to Europe. Well yes, there are a few.

In the response to our EWTN coverage, we received hundreds of complaints about the over-the-top stretch to be multicultural, along with some complaints by those were offended by our mentioning it. It’s hard to win on this score. And I have to remind myself that even mild criticisms of the way the Holy Father’s visit is being handled are taken amiss by people for whom even the chance to see the pope from a distance is one of the great moments of their lives. When over the years one has been present at papal events beyond numbering, one inevitably develops a measure of critical distance in which even mildly critical comments can clash with the intense piety of many of the Catholic faithful. Anything short of all-Wow!-all-the-time is taken as a sign of insufficient enthusiasm. Raymond Arroyo and I have multiple opportunities to remind one another of this dynamic.

***
Of course nothing can diminish, never mind negate, the astonishment of the Real Presence of Christ in the Mass, but it must be admitted that the mish-mash of music and liturgical practices putatively representing the “other” of multiculturalism did vigorously compete with the central reality. I offered an observation or two on this in the course of our EWTN coverage, provoking the response that the people in the stadium were obviously enjoying themselves and we mustn’t try to impose our elitist musical and liturgical criteria. Ouch. The point I was making is that Benedict has written very specifically over the years about the distortion of the dynamics of worship when attention is focused on “our wonderful selves” rather than on the glory of God. He has also stressed the importance of renewing commitment to and continuity in the tradition of sacred music, including Gregorian chant, a tradition almost entirely absent from the stadium Mass. So the point of the commentary on that Mass is that it is remarkable that, on matters about which Benedict has been so emphatic, his views were so egregiously ignored or defied.

Admittedly, in his frequent writings on matters liturgical, Benedict has often offered a caveat on the difficulty of doing it right on occasions with huge crowds such as is the case here and will be Sunday at Yankee Stadium, so I expect he is resigned to things getting out of hand and his pastoral disposition is to go along with the more or less inevitable. It is also the case that some of those in Nationals Park said they did not notice the music and other multicultural indulgences that were so prominent in what was televised. Which is probably just as well.

[More]

UPDATE #5 (18 April)
More from me, here.

Creative Minority Report: "It's Morning Again in the Catholic Church"

Patrick at Creative Minority Report has produced an ad modeled on the famous 1984 Reagan campaign ad: "It's Morning Again in the Catholic Church".

Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP, Says: Convert England to Catholicism

(Hat tip: Dave Hartline at The Catholic Report)

Fr. Z comments on a Catholic Herald (U.K.) article on English Dominican theologian Fr. Aidan Nichols' proposed program for re-converting England to Catholicism.

As the article notes, Fr. Nichols is regarded as a potential candidate to become the next Archbishop of Westminster. His new book is titled The Realm: An Unfashionable Essay on the Conversion of England.

For more on Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP, see his website Christendom Awake (also listed in my sidebar).


UPDATE (8 February)
See "The Conversion of England" by Fr. Richard John Neuhaus at First Things.

And to Think We Were Almost Spared ...

From Catholic News Service (via National Catholic Reporter):

It was 1966 and Mercy Sr. Suzanne Toolan had been asked to write a song for an event in the San Francisco archdiocese. With the deadline looming, she worked on a song in an unoccupied room next to the infirmary in the Catholic girls’ high school where she taught.

“I worked on it, and I tore it up. I thought, ‘This will not do,’ ” Toolan said. “And this little girl came out of the infirmary and said, ‘What was that? That was beautiful!’ I went right back and Scotch-taped it up.”

That schoolgirl saved “I Am the Bread of Life,” one of the most popular hymns of the Second Vatican Council era...

Fr. Longenecker has an interesting take on the sad state of modern Catholic hymnody, and actually mentions the "Bread of Life" song:

... Another problem are hymns that simply put Scripture verses to music. "I am the bread of life...he who comes to me shall not hunger...etc" Again, the music may be pleasant and the words of Scripture are undeniably wonderful and true, but it simply isn't a hymn. The words are the words of Jesus about himself. They are not words of praise, worship and adoration addressed to God...

ZENIT Interview of Catholic Report's Dave Hartline

You can read ZENIT's interview of Catholic author and blogger (and my fellow Ohioan) Dave Hartline of Catholic Report here. Here's an excerpt that pertains to Catholic voters:

Q: One chapter of your book focuses on the Catholic vote. What are your thoughts about the Catholic vote and the upcoming U.S. presidential election?

Hartline: This question is a microcosm of the whole turning-tide phenomena. Many faithful Catholics were angered by politicians who spoke about the importance of their Catholic faith, only to denounce or ignore the teachings of the faith.

However, as more Catholic prelates have taken a courageous stance in defending the Church, it has inspired not only more clergy to the same, but lay people as well. There is still a long way to go in this effort, but at least the battle has been joined.

Catholic Lecture Series Opens at Toledo's Corpus Christi Parish

From The Toledo Blade:

The Rev. James Bacik will open the 25th Annual Fall Lecture Series at his church, Corpus Christi University Parish, with a talk at 5:30 p.m. tomorrow on "Renewing the Ordained Priesthood: Radical Solutions and Short-Term Approaches."

The six speakers in the series, which continues each Tuesday through Oct. 30, will address the topic of "Voices for Renewal in the Church," as well as the call to discipleship for all in the 21st century.

Father Bacik, a graduate of Oxford University, is pastor of Corpus Christi and author of a number of books, including Catholic Spirituality, Its History and Challenge.

He said his lecture will address the way Vatican II changed the "emphasis points" of the priesthood.

"Priests are often said to be representatives of Christ as priests, prophets, and kings or shepherds," Father Bacik said. "Vatican II put more emphasis on the pastoral role, that is the shepherding, or the overseer of the community, which changes the understanding of what a priest is all about."

The series will continue with lectures each Tuesday through Oct. 30, starting at 5:30 p.m. in the church, 2955 Dorr St., with a question-and-answer session to follow.

In addition to Father Bacik, the scheduled speakers are:

• Oct. 2: Richard Gaillardetz, author, theologian, and professor of Catholic studies at the University of Toledo, speaking on "Renewing the Baptismal Priesthood: Reflections on Becoming an Adult Church."

• Oct. 9: The Rev. James Alison, Catholic theologian and author of The Joy of Being Wrong: Original Sin through Easter Eyes, on "Taking Responsibility for Catholic Renewal: Desire, Imagination, and Institution in a Voluntary Church."

• Oct. 16: Elizabeth Johnson, distinguished professor of systematic theology at Fordham University and author of Truly Our Sister, on "Frontiers of the Quest for the Living God."

• Oct. 23: Peter Steinfels, religion columnist for the New York Times and co-director of the Fordham Center on Religion and Culture, on "Catholic Identity in a Secular Age."

• Oct. 30: The Rev. Ronald Rolheiser, author of The Holy Longing and president, Oblate School of Theology, on "The Gospel and Secularity: Being Missionaries to Our Own Children."

Tickets for individual lectures are $10 and series tickets for all six lectures are $25, available from Corpus Christi University Parish, 419-531-4992.

(emphasis added)

My Comments:
This ought to be "interesting". I imagine the collective angst over Pope Benedict's "reform of the reform" will be palpable.


UPDATE
Be sure to read Dale Price's take on the cast of characters involved in this lecture series.

"Faithful Cross Above All Others, One and Only Noble Tree"

Jamie Bogle comes through with another outstanding post over at Roman Christendom, this one about "The Exaltation of the Holy Cross and the Grand Restoration of the Roman Rite".

Bob Casey Is Not His Father’s Pro-life Democrat

David Freddoso writes at National Review Online about U.S. Sen. Bob Casey's recent votes to fund abortion groups:

Is Sen. Bob Casey (D., Pa.) pro-life? Did he win the votes of pro-life Pennsylvanians last year under false pretenses?

The question arises now after two extremely puzzling votes that Casey took last Thursday on the foreign operations appropriations bill. At 6:53 P.M., he voted for an amendment by Sen. Sam Brownback (R., Kan.), to preserve the federal government’s so-called Mexico City policy, which prohibits the granting of federal funds to overseas groups that refer and perform abortions.

Twenty minutes earlier, however, Casey had voted for an amendment by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) that not only overturned the Mexico City policy, but also increased funding for overseas groups that perform and refer abortions. Certainly, Casey had not had a change of heart in the space of 20 minutes.

The contradictory votes received little attention, but certainly neither made sense in the context of the other. This Monday, however, Casey resolved the tension. He went to the floor of the Senate and announced that on the Brownback amendment, “it was my intention to vote ‘nay.’ Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the outcome of that vote.”

Casey’s vote in favor of funding abortion providers has been duly updated on the Senate website. Casey’s view is indisputably different — opposite in fact — from that of his father. Two-term Gov. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania had been revered in the pro-life movement. He was denied a chance to speak at the 1992 Democratic National Convention because he wanted to give a pro-life speech.

Not so with the younger Casey. His spokesman, Larry Smar, denied that Sen. Casey has changed the pro-life position on which he ran last year and defeated Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.). “He does not support public funding of abortion,” Smar wrote in response to National Review Online’s inquiries. “The amendment he voted for would not allow public funding of abortion, which is illegal” under another provision.

But this answer is disingenuous. The Boxer amendment does not put money directly into grants for providing abortions, but it funds groups that perform and refer them. Since money is fungible — that is, it can be used for anything — there is really no difference. That is why this amendment was so controversial, and why other pro-life senators — including Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) — voted against it, and have voted against it in all of its many incarnations over the years.

The debate on the Senate floor left little room for confusion about what the amendment actually does. “Many who support abortion question whether it should be used for family planning purposes, which these funds are designated to be used for,” Brownback argued. “We should not force American taxpayers to subsidize organizations that perform or actively promote abortion.”

Smar also included in his answer a line of rhetoric adopted in recent years by pro-abortion politicians seeking to tamp down the issue in order to make it less damaging. “Senator Casey supports measures that will reduce the number of abortions,” he wrote. “Providing support for family planning will reduce the number of abortions.”

This line originated with Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.), who proudly maintains a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record from the National Abortion Rights Action League. Although she has publicly called for “common ground” on the abortion issue, she has treated it as though it were merely a problem of a lack of federal funding for (widely available) contraceptives for teenagers. This position, unless adopted for wholly political reasons, would require the impossible belief that the 50 million abortions performed since Roe v. Wade have nothing to do with the procedure’s easy, court-mandated availability with no restrictions and under any circumstances whatsover.

***
“We knew all along Casey would sell out to Schumer and the Senate leadership,” said one Republican operative who worked with Santorum’s doomed campaign last year. “But maybe now they’ll let him speak at the convention.”

Previous Pro Ecclesia posts on this subject:
USCCB Official Commends Senate Vote Against Involvement In Coercive Abortion Programs; Decries Gutting Of Mexico City Policy

Senate Democrats (Including Allegedly "Pro Life" Bob Casey) Vote to Rescind Mexico City Policy

Crisis: "The Return of Rick Santorum"

National Catholic Register on the Late Bob Casey, Sr.: "Mighty Casey and American Humility"

Senate Approves Stem Cell Bill - Congress Still Short Votes Needed to Override President's Promised Veto

Fidelis and National Jewish Groups Demanding Casey, Jr. Return Campaign Contributions

Fidelis Criticizes Bob Casey for Using Catholic University to Promote Campaign