The Novus Ordo Mass, that masterpiece of post-Vatican II social engineering, was brought to you by this guy Bugnini. Hank Igitur does a little editorializing with the help of an author whose name he can’t quite pronounce…
Tag Archives: Featured
Hank Igitur might be onto something here…
This medical breakthrough just might be the answer when it comes to helping our bishops and cardinals stand up for the authentic teachings of Holy Mother Church!
I’m reading Phillip Lawler’s new book, The Smoke of Satan: How Corrupt and Cowardly Bishops Betrayed Christ, His Church, and the Faithful…And What Can be Done About It (Available at TAN Press ). For those of us who have managed to pull our heads out of the sand and acknowledge that the Church is indeed facing a crisis of massive proportions, one of the questions we often find ourselves asking is this: Why didn’t the Bishops and the Popes DO something?!?!
Bishop after bishop assures us with wide-eyed breathless sincerity that “Gosh! I had no idea that Father X or fellow Bishop Y or Cardinal Z was doing that! I’m as shocked and disturbed as you are…” And far too often, the tangible evidence backs up their claims, no matter how implausible they seem. Some of them, perhaps, really are clueless rubes that had no inkling that such evil was taking place under their noses or in the diocese next door. If that’s the case, then they’re lousy leaders at the very least. Others knew full well what was going on, and took “plausibly deniable” steps to suppress knowledge of the crimes. Still others (Lord help us!) may have been active participants in the evil.
“See no evil. Hear no evil…”
But there are also too many clerics and prelates who simply convinced themselves that nothing bad was actually happening. They have been behaving like those “See no evil, hear no evil” monkeys we are all familiar with.
None of the above postulated explanations are very reassuring. Regarding the third category of clergy, Mr. Lawler offers the following explanation in his book:
Two common human traits strengthen the tendency to avoid problems. One is the normal desire to avoid unpleasant confrontations. The role of a pastor is to unite, not to divide, and most priests are not aggressive personalities. The other, closely related factor is the willingness to give everyone the benefit of the doubt. In combination, unfortunately, these two characteristics–healthy and even laudable in themselves–can produce a sort of cockeyed optimism or willful blindness, a stubborn refusal to recognize reality. We want to see virtue in others, and sometimes we can only see if our eyes are shut tight.
Sexual Abuse, Doctrinal Dissent, and Denial–They’re all linked.
“OK,” you say, “so we have some real jerks in our parishes and dioceses. Why didn’t the Pope do something? Pope Francis seems weak in this regard, but what about Pope Benedict XVI or Pope Saint John Paul II? And not just regarding criminal conduct, but what about all the heresy, disobedience, and doctrinal dissent?” That latter part of the question is crucial. Although it may not appear to be linked with the current lavender mafia/sex abuse crisis, believe me: it is!
Mr. Lawler continues:
For the sovereign pontiff, pastor for the universal Church, there is another consideration that weighs against stern disciplinary measures. The duty of the Roman pontiff is to preserve unity among the faithful. If he cracks down on abuses–any sort of abuses–the pope, any pope, might risk dividing his flock. If he demands that recalcitrant priests and theologians end their dissent from formal Church teaching, they may choose instead to leave the Church, bringing their followers with them. Rather than risk schism, the pope may choose to accept an uneasy truce between Catholic factions that seem irreconcilable. This, it seems clear, was the path chosen by John Paul II and Benedict XVI.
This tendency, this reluctance to address a problem head-on has been with us for some time, as Mr. Lawler points out:
If Church readers are prone to overlooking current problems, they are equally likely to downplay past failures. Despite the grave losses that Catholicism has suffered during the past fifty years–the thousands who have left the Church, the families that have broken apart, the priests and religious who have forsaken their vows, the parishes and schools that have been closed–bishops remain reluctant to calculate the total damages and identify the root causes of the disaster.
In the years following Vatican II, thousands of priests walked away from their duties to begin a new life in the secular world. When they left, there was no formal announcement. The rumor mills buzzed, but there was no explanation of their departure. They simply disappeared…Wouldn’t a healthier institution have been more forthright, admitting that these young priests had deserted their ministry?…for those who embraced a false optimism or willful blindness, it seems pointless to dwell on painful memories. Far better to speak confidently about the future!
Just be glad the USCCB isn’t running the FAA.
Imagine a series of disastrous airliner crashes, one after another, and now try to imagine the Federal Aviation Administration delicately avoiding any mention of the crashes or investigations into their causes, but instead blithely opining about how much air travel safety is improving, and how bright the future for the airline industry looks! Pretty darn absurd.
But that’s the attitude what passes for Church leadership these days is taking.
This episode of CCM Reports investigates the sordid world of “Liturgical Dancing,” an entertainment feature used in some Novus Ordo Masses. WARNING: Once seen, this stuff can’t be un-seen. Proceed with caution.
First, I hope that this post is not perceived as just another “tin foil hat” moment. There still may be Catholics out there who think that the whole “Viganò Thing” is just another wild conspiracy theory concocted by “Rad Trads” bent on seeing the destruction of this papacy. No tin foil hats are required to understand what the former Nuncio is saying, or why it’s still a big deal.
The Summer of Shame.
Most of the Catholic readers who wander through the blogosphere are aware of the ongoing crisis which is plaguing our beloved Church. We are living through two rather massive challenges: First, there’s what’s been called “the Summer of Shame” which has resulted from the seemingly never-ending series of allegations of sexual misconduct (old cases, new cases; child victims, post-pubescent victims; predatory priests, complicit and occasionally criminal bishops, etc. etc. etc.) Second, there’s been the long-running uneasiness which many Catholics have with what looks like an increasingly heterodox direction we’re seeing from Rome when it comes to long-standing doctrines and dogmas.
The two are related, if for no other reason than those attempting to deflect anger over the first crisis charge that Traditionalists are attempting to incite anger against the Holy Father because they’re upset with what they perceive as the second crisis (and in fact, said Traddies are just rigid hypocrites and Pharisees, etc.)
One of the most stunning events this summer were the claims made by Archbishop Carlos Maria Viganò. His first letter contained eleven pages of what appeared to be rather specific allegations which provided a list of names, dates, and events, as well as information on where the source documentation could be found. The first letter was reacted to with ad-hominem counter attacks, along with accusations of rumor-mongering and gossip. Various statements and homilies from Rome seemed to equate Abp. Viganò with “the Great Accuser.”
There was a second letter from Viganò appealing to Cardinal Marc Armand Ouellet to describe what he knows about the documentation described in the allegations. The Cardinal responded with attacks against Viganò, but did so in such a way which almost seemed to confirm some of Viganò’s original statements.
The Third Letter.
And now, in the past few days, a third letter has been released from Abp. Viganò. I found his arguments compelling. If his allegations are not true, they are certainly worthy of a point-by-point refutation by Vatican authorities…providing said authorities can provide convincing proof that the archbishop is making all this stuff up.
Vigano emphasizes the fact that he’ll be dead soon, and doesn’t want to face Christ’s judgement with the knowledge that he failed to disclose alleged crimes of his fellow priests and prelates on his conscience. Fear of God’s judgement sounds like a pretty compelling reason not to simply make stuff up because you’re mad they didn’t make you a Cardinal. Just sayin’…
For those interested in learning more about this, please consider viewing the following video. The two scholars discussing this third letter are not crackpot Rad Trads; far from it. Dr. Marshall (https://taylormarshall.com/) is the author of a number of books including _Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages: A Quick Layman’s Guide to Thomism._ Dr. Marshal and Dr. Timothy Gordon offer a reasoned description of the history of the controversy and give a pretty good analysis of the contents of the third letter.
The link can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8WMHtZXgMw
Again, my intent is not to throw a hand grenade into the middle of our mutually-shared faith, kicking Holy Mother Church when she’s down, or anything of the like. But we need to remember that we _are_ in a crisis of very profound dimensions. These points are worth considering.
Note: The contents of the third Viganò can be found here in its entirety (scroll down past the Italian original to find the English translation)à https://www.marcotosatti.com/2018/10/19/vigano-risponde-al-card-ouellet-la-terza-testimonianza/