The Vatican’s Left Turn Under Francis

American conservative Catholics who defend Pope Francis keep saying that Francis is truly orthodox, despite the fact that the liberal US media love him. Maybe they’re right. But the further we go into this pontificate, the more I wonder if liberals understand something about Pope Francis that conservatives do not.

Read more

Editor’s note: Under Pope Francis,  if you like your Mass – and it’s Traditional – you’re a heretic and you CAN’T keep it!

What do conservatives really think about Cardinal Mahoney?

LACathedral

Text and video (Don’t miss the reader comments)

Editor’s note: If you watch the video, note the illicit and just plain wrong post-consecration decanting of the precious blood.

CM says:
February 27, 2013 at 11:20 am

Hi! I have lived in the LA Archdiocese all my life. Yes Mahoney is a “liberal”. Where should I start? He wrote and promulgated “Gather Faithfully Together”. A document that outlined his vision of the Mass and it’s meaning, the “appropriate” gestures, and the words to describe all the participants. It’s the first time I ever saw the word “presider”, which was, apparently supposed to apply to the priest celebrant. But most of us saw that he was trying to leave open the possibility of non-priests leading worship. It is THE document that got dear Mother Angelica of EWTN in so much hot water with Mahoney. She was right to criticize it.
Mahoney was an advocate of liturgical dancing.
He gave very short shrift to pro-life work, and no attention at all to NFP. Priests were discouraged to even talk about it, be ause he thought it would drive the faithful away.
He made sure the diocesan seminary was staffed with people of the same ilk. They made a point of discouraging young men who had a more traditional view of serving the Church. He opened the seminary up to women who wanted to study theology, etc.
He was known to be very harsh with priests who tried to disagree with his policies.
The books he wanted used for CCD were so watered down they were all but useless for learning the basics of the Faith.
He raised the age for Confirmation to 15 or 16, too long after puberty, and made it a two year program that is grindingly difficult for families to have to endure, not to mention tedious. The families I know went through it said a lot of the time was just filler, and they had to also, somehow, fit in a hundred “service hours” for the Church in already tight schedules.
He was a fan of moving tabernacles away from the center of the church so that the focus could be on Jesus “active” presence at the Mass. The tabernacle was a distraction.
He wanted as many parishes as possible to be renovated, at great expense, to fit his model of the Mass.
The Religious Education Conference became a showcase for all the “progressive” religious and lay theologians, teachers, etc. who could then come and poison our diocese with watered down teachings on Faith and morals.
He was soft on Dignity, the gay rights Catholic group. He allowed them a lot of freedom in the diocese, allowing them to have their own Masses in our parishes. He also encouraged a group that encourages families with same sex attracted children to meet and find acceptance of their children’s lifestyle.
And last, but not least, he built his own massive, horribly ugly cathedral down in LA. He couldn’t find the money to renovate to earthquake codes the historic St. Vibiana’s Cathderal, but the cost of this warehouse looking thing was a great waste of money. He actually had a campaign during the Mass years ago, inviting everyone to buy a paver that would go on the floor around the altar. And, no, your name was not going to be on it, but you could go out into the foyer, and look up in a computer exactly where your paver was to be located. Oh, and I almost forgot, a former well known head of Disney, who donated a ton of money to building the “cathedral”, a non catholic, and gay sympathiser ,etc., will be buried under the altar someday. Perfect.
We cannot wait for him to stop talking and writing. We have been praying for him for years. *Sigh*

New Mass Translation: All over but the shouting.

There will certainly be challenges with the new translation for everyone. For instance, “And with your spirit” is not idiomatic, nor is the word “consubstantial” familiar to most parishioners. But we all know what the real disagreements will be. There is an online petition asking the Bishops not to demand the use of the new translation, and in the comments you can see the points of contention.

There is, of course, the procedural argument: The change is being imposed from above and does not reflect the views of the laity because it was not produced by a democratic process. This is the constant tension over the hierarchy. But there is also a theological argument, a dispute over what the language is for. According to one South African Bishop, the very reason for the new translation was based, among other things, upon “a purely arbitrary decision to demand that the English text had to faithfully represent the Latin . . .” Well, quite.

Read more

San Francisco priest defines “true orthodoxy” and its inherent tensions

“True orthodoxy,” continues Fr. Rolheiser, “asks us to hold a great tension, between real boundaries beyond which you may not go and real borders and frontiers to which you must go. You may not go too far, but you must also go far enough. And this can be a lonely road. If you carry this tension faithfully, without giving in to either side, you will no doubt find yourself with few allies on either side, that is, too liberal for the conservatives and too conservative for the liberals.

Read more

Editor’s note: I hate to think how Fr. Rolheiser’s words are being interpreted in his own home city.

Conservative Actors Bemoan ‘Intolerant’ Hollywood

It’s not easy being a Republican in Hollywood, even if your brother is an A-list director and producer. That’s what actor Clint Howard told attendees at a California GOP convention over the weekend.

Howard, an actor since 1961 and the younger brother of filmmaker Ron Howard, said that while he is comfortable speaking publicly about his conservatism, his advice to Republicans looking to break into the industry is to keep their political opinions to themselves, even though Hollywood liberals seldom do.

Read more

Modern Catholicism Lacking In Traditional Elements

The new Roman Missal, once it’s implemented in all English-speaking Catholic parishes in 2011, will be a vernacular missal faithful to the original Latin text of the traditional Mass. The English Missale Romanum that was approved in 1970 was a mere paraphrase of the original Latin text of the old Mass (or the Extraordinary Form), rather than a translation. The changes in the 2011 Missal will be significant. Regarding the future Missal, even Pope Benedict acknowledged that “many will find it hard to adjust to unfamiliar texts after nearly forty years of continuous use of the previous translation.” Those in the know say that the tone of the new Missal will emphasize the sacredness of the Divine Liturgy.

It’s inevitable, I suppose, that some Catholic modernists are not happy about the coming changes. Since Vatican II, different factions of Catholics have emerged: traditionalists, conservatives, and liberals can barely agree on anything and in many instances they are at war with one another. The coming “return to tradition” Missal has so enraged some liberal Catholics that the National Catholic Reporter, a modernist Catholic newspaper, has initiated an online petition asking that the publication of the new translation of the Missal be “delayed indefinitely.”

Ironically, Vatican II never called for the wholesale reconstruction of the Mass. Instead, Vatican II specifically envisioned Catholics learning to sing the key parts of the so called New Mass in Latin. Clearly, certain unwarranted liberties were taken over the last forty years, and this is what the Pope wants to change.

When I left the Church as a young twenty something I thought it was because I was an agnostic, but the fact is, I was unhappy at the new style of Catholic worship. In those days I felt I was the only one who felt that way but since then I’ve come to see that thousands, even millions of Catholics, are on the same wave length.

Read more

Dangerous fictions that conservatives must oppose with the same boldness, vigor, and conviction with which the other side advances them.


Here are just a few of the radical, unproven, destructive lies that conservatives are either accepting as true or that conservatives consider less important than preserving reputations, friendships, positions, peace, unity, or comfort:

• Science has proven that homosexuality is 100% heritable.

• Homosexuality is ontologically analogous to race.

• Disapproval of homosexual practice constitutes hatred of persons.

• Disordered sexual desire is constitutive of identity.

• No one can experience an eradication or diminution of same-sex attraction.

• The presence of same-sex attraction renders volitional same-sex practice moral.

• The legalization of same-sex marriage will not affect either marriage or society.

• The redefinition of marriage is a civil right.

• The redefinition of marriage will not lead ineluctably to the legalization of plural marriages.

• Homosexual couples—who are by design sterile—have a right to acquire children.

• Homosexual couples have an inherent right to create deliberately motherless or fatherless children.

• Children don’t need or have a self-evident, inalienable right to be raised when possible by the biological parents who produced them.

• Either mothers or fathers are expendable.

• Widespread cultural affirmation of homosexuality will not further undermine First Amendment speech rights.

• Widespread cultural affirmation of homosexuality will not further undermine religious liberty (Even former Georgetown University law professor and current EEOC member, lesbian Chai Feldblum, affirms that the “rights” of homosexuals should and will trump religious liberty.)

• The legalization of same-sex marriage is not a central, “existential” political issue (Only the abortion holocaust is a more critical, existential issue than marriage and the natural family).

• The affirmation or embrace of homosexuality by teachers, legislators, and judges is irrelevant.

• One can be a Christian while embracing and affirming homosexual practice.

• Society has an obligation to provide to homosexual couples through civil unions the same benefits it provides married heterosexual couples.

• Homosexuals will be satisfied with civil unions.

All of these are dangerous fictions that conservatives must oppose with the same boldness, vigor, and conviction with which the other side advances them. We must do so without regard to personal comfort or our desire to “fit in” and be liked—which are manifestations of pride and cowardice. We must not exploit the rationalization that peace and unity demand our silence or acquiescence, for truth trumps even those. We must begin to treat conservative beliefs about homosexuality as if they are objective, immutable, transcendent truths—which, of course, they are.

Courtesy: Illinois Family Action