By Phil Lawler
Showing most recent 200 items by this author.
The prosecution has painted a very unflattering portrait of Cardinal Becciu. He could easily be convicted of incompetence as a money-manager and arrogance as a bureaucrat. But did he break any laws?
Twice, then, I have been late to an interesting story because I underestimated how rough Pope Francis can be on those who oppose or annoy him.
The secular celebration of the “holidays” has becoming increasingly toxic, and the observance of Halloween— also now divorced from its Christian origins— is now even more troubling, with the intimations of Satanic activity more and more evident. Somehow Thanksgiving has escaped the corrosive effects of a consumer culture.
On rare occasions Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI had removed bishops who broke ranks with the College of Bishops by questioning fundamental points of Catholic teaching. In this case it seems that Pope Francis removed Bishop Strickland because he was too clamorous in his defense of Catholic doctrine.
In the 1990s, American Catholics who cherished the perennial teachings of the Church looked to Rome to correct centrifugal tendencies within the American hierarchy. Now the roles are reversed, and we count on our American bishops to protect us from the confusion spreading across the Atlantic.
The Pope does not owe me any explanation for his decision not to read a speech. My point is that by offering an implausible explanation, when no explanation was necessary, the Vatican press office created a problem.
The new statement from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith does not directly contradict prior authoritative statements of Church doctrine or discipline. But it gives every indication that pastors who ignore the rules will have nothing to fear from Rome.
Then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio captured the attention of the last papal conclave with a talk in which he lamented “self-referential” attitudes within the Church. Ironically this Synod— which might be seen as the crowning achievement of his pontificate— is arguably the most self-referential event in Catholic history.
William Fahey, the president of Thomas More College, observed that Ambassadors Flynn and Glendon reflected something of the character of the school’s patron saint; they have both proven to be “unambiguous in their principles, very much like Thomas More.”
I look again in the mirror and see the face of a man who can do nothing to alter his mortality. This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I want to live forever.
With prodigious effort one can still defend the position that the Pope supports the traditional Catholic teaching. But is it really worth the effort— when the Pope does not defend that position himself?
Hamas bears sole responsibility for the blood shed in its raids into Israel. But Israel will not be solely responsible for civilian casualties in Gaza; that responsibility is shared by the Hamas leaders who insisted that civilians remain in place.
Pope John Paul II, in that World Day of Peace message, was outlining the circumstances in which it would be “legitimate and even obligatory” to use military force: to wage a just war. Hamas has created just such circumstances.
If he hopes to bring about the “irreversible change” that his supporters seek, Pope Francis is running out of time. He knows that, and so do both his allies and his critics in the hierarchy.
One scandal after another can be traced to the doorway of the St. Martha Residence. If reporters followed them there, they would undoubtedly change public perceptions of this pontificate. Will they? Not unless they radically alter their approach.
The overall federal debt has just reached $33 TRillion. Who owes that debt? The US government. And who constitutes the US government? “We, the people.”
If the Pope removes Bishop Strickland despite his refusal to resign, it would reinforce the false impression that bishops are in effect branch managers, serving at the pleasure of the Pontiff, rather than successors to the apostles and not subordinate to the Pope but (as Cardinal Müller recently put it) “his brothers in the same apostolic office.”
Bishops are understandably loath to acknowledge serious divisions in the Church, and rightly reluctant to criticize the Roman Pontiff. But in any household, when the father’s behavior is causing serious harm to the family and even to himself, the most loyal and respectful of children realize that the time has come for an intervention.
Pope John Paul II, in his ardent desire for ecumenical progress, once said that he would be willing to return to model of the papacy that prevailed in the first Christian millennium, before the Great Schism, if that would allow for the restoration of Christian unity. What would that first-millennium model look like, brought forward into the 21st century. Certainly that question is worth discussing, and just as certainly the Orthodox world would follow the discussion with keen interest.
The Canadian government still asserts, as a matter of fact, that more than 200 children were buried on the site of a residential school in Kamloops, although excavations there have failed to substantiate that claim. But it IS a matter of fact that dozens of Catholic churches in Canada have been torched or vandalized, presumably by people reacting to those unproven stories.
When Pope Francis questions traditional teachings— and mocks those who see the magisterium as a “monolith”— he undermines all teaching authority, including his own.
“No one” supports abortion up until birth, in the same sense that “no one” believes the earth is flat and “no one” support slavery. There are, regrettably, people on the extreme fringes. On the abortion issue, sadly, the extremists control a major political party.
We, as a society, have not learned our lessons. And now we are being groomed for another set of mandates, perhaps even another round of lockdowns, prompted by inordinate fears.
Without the discipline imposed by those moral considerations, the ius ad pacem could be invoked to justify an unrestrained military campaign, based on the often illusory (but always seductive) promise that military victory will bring a brighter future— in other words that the end justifies the means.
My journalistic sense tells me that people might be interested to know about a bishop who: - no longer wants to act as a bishop, or even as a priest; - wants to marry, even at an advanced age; and -is undaunted by the fact that he will be “marrying” outside the Church. There’s a story there, don’t you think
So when they arrive on campus, at an institution created to serve the truth, young scholars would be required to assent to the falsehood that a man can become a woman, or a woman a man. They would then be bearing false witness, C observes— in a clear violation of the Decalogue that has become so unfashionable in academe.
If the bishop is not listening to the lay people, shame on him. But if he is willing to listen, and he isn’t hearing the truth, shame on us.
Unfortunately, for many Catholics, when we are on vacation (or, more generally, when we are traveling), the experience of attending Sunday Mass in an unfamiliar parish church robs us of the serenity that a vacation should provide.
With unmistakable evidence of widespread internal corruption on the public record, the Jesuit leadership took action-- not against the offender, but against the whistle-blower.
When lay Catholics try to “do things the right way,” and make an appointment to speak with their bishop, they might run into gatekeepers who are determined not to allow any frank criticism of diocesan policy or personnel.
My prediction: Cardinal Angelo Becciu, the leading defendant in the case, will exploit all the confusion— much of which he painstakingly created— to avoid conviction.
The young Father Fernandez did us a favor, actually, by writing that book about kissing. He let us know that we should not take him too seriously
Give the affable prelate from New York some credit; at least he asks the question which so many other Church leaders still avoid. At least his conscience is stirring. But isn’t the answer painfully, blindingly obvious?
In 1970, Pope Paul VI set a limit to the number of cardinals who could vote in a papal conclave: 120. That limit remains in place today. But there are currently 121 cardinals eligible to vote. And Pope Francis has announced his plans to name eighteen more.
The International Theological Commission sought to answer “the question of how to consult the faithful in matters of faith and morals”— which is what the Synod organizers said they were doing in the long series of consultative meetings leading up to the October assembly.
Dive into the ocean— any ocean— and you take a risk; you might be lost at sea. So most of us stay close to shore. Only the saints, like Aloysius Gonzaga, take the headlong plunge.
In other words the organizers of the Synod have decided that we should play the game before defining the rules. This is a process that lends itself to manipulation.
Granted, I still can site only a very small sample. But the evidence is encouraging. We have encountered more and more solid pockets of energetic, orthodox Catholic faith: parishes and communities where a large number of faithful families joyfully living out their faith, and drawing others to join them.
Despite the ballyhoo, it seems, the Declaration on Human Fraternity could not hold public attention even through the day it was launched.
I was moved by the imam’s admonition. If he truly believed that I was risking damnation, then it was an act of charity to warn me. So, far from being offended by his words, I took them as a sign of genuine friendship.
So the Dodgers are trying to remain neutral, giving equal honors to the haters and to the people they hate.
Go ahead: Tell Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., that in 2023, the President of the United States will say that the most important civil-rights battle of the day is the campaign to allow young people to change their sexual identity.
To date, none of the proposed parties to the roundtable has accepted the WCC invitation. But none has rejected the initiative, either, and that in itself is significant.
The pastor, when he sees you approaching, might think: “Oh, boy; here’s that guy who’s always telling me about the things I should do.” If so, he won’t be anxious to talk to you.
Rather than talking about devotion to the Eucharist, why not show devotion, and thus encourage others to do the same?
This has become a fairly standard practice among liberal polemicists: accusing their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves are doing.
Since pro-abortion candidates will reject any restrictions, a firm pro-life leader will demonstrate the extreme, uncompromising nature of his opponent's position on this crucial issue.
Back in January, three top Vatican officials— with the Pope’s explicit approval— told of the German bishops that they “are not empowered to create a governing or decision-making synodal assembly” that included clergy and laity as well as bishops. So why are lay people included as voters at the October Synod meeting?
This Kennedy presidential campaign is going nowhere— certainly not to the White House. But it will be interesting to watch— if the lords of the mainstream media and the censors of the social media allow us to watch it.
And all this happened because a few deluded students scheduled a blasphemous mockery, and the Catholic community responded appropriately: not with an impotent fit of anger but with a confident show of faith. Satan overplayed his hand, and got burned again.
Would the FBI only propose to send agents to the traditionalist parishes that identify themselves as “radical”? Because I know of no such parishes.
The Church is growing apace in Africa, where the ideas approved by the German Synodal Path are, quite rightly, viewed as absurd
[Up until last week I had never—ever—written a poem. Then one morning, after Mass, this came to me, pretty much intact, so I wrote it down, and some people liked it, so...] At last I could do no more. The weight of past mistakes—and worse Weighed down my shoulders, More...
Those facts do not suggest bronchitis. Speculation about what they DO suggest is inevitable, when the information coming from the Vatican PR machinery is implausible.
Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich cheerfully assured one interviewer that critics “won’t be able to stop” the progress of this Synod
Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger (soon to be Pope Benedict XVI) had already said that women’s ordination is impossible. So it shouldn’t be surprising if Pope Francis says the same thing.
For the better part of two centuries, the Church has been wrestling with the question of how diocesan bishops should interact with the Sovereign Pontiff in the guidance and governance of the universal Church. It would be a shame to fritter away the opportunity to advance our understanding of that question, merely to follow the latest fashionable trends.
Pope Paul— who had promised Mindszenty that he would always retain his title as Primate of Hungary— announced that the cardinal had retired. Cardinal Mindszenty loudly insisted that he had not his office voluntarily.
So perhaps the best possible outcome of the October Synod meeting would be a realization, among the world’s bishops, that when the Vatican causes confusion, it is their duty of the bishops to restore clarity.
The suggestion is that many stay-at-home mothers are forced to rely on the government to support their households. Instead, this proposal would force those mothers to rely on the government to care for their children. How is that an improvement?
The German bishops have done what they have no right to do. The cautionary statements from Rome are now routinely ignored. Sooner or later the Vatican must draw the line.
After the Council of Jerusalem, the apostles quickly spread the Gospel message across the world. After Vatican II, the Church talked about evangelization.
Bishop Paprocki is right; there is no point in pretending that all Catholics— or even all Catholic bishops— are in fundamental accord. There are serious disagreements among us, which must be addressed.
Our efforts to evangelize— to bring more people into the Church, and recapture those who have drifted away— is undermined by the reluctance to speak boldly about sin and redemption, damnation and salvation.
You may (for now, in some places, under certain conditions) be comforted, strengthened, and enriched by the traditional Mass. But you cannot promote it. The Eucharistic sacrifice, in any valid form, is the “source and summit” of Catholic spiritual life. But if the Mass is in Latin, don’t tell anyone about it.
Today’s document says that the Pope has “confirmed” the restrictions that Cardinal Roche announced in December (claiming that the Holy See has sole authority to issue dispensations, and thus stripping diocesan bishops of that right), but the rescript looks very much like a new piece of canonical legislation, imposing those restrictions.
This column by Cardinal Cupich is astonishing because he so blatantly misrepresents the thoughts of those who do support the perennial Catholic tradition— in particular, the late Pope Benedict XVI.
Pope Francis has spoken frequently about the need to decentralize Church authority, to listen to the voices of the faithful, to empower diocesan bishops, to develop a “synodal” style of governance. But there is no decentralization, no listening, no synodal style— and now certainly no desire to empower diocesan bishops— in his campaign to suppress the traditional Mass.
Francis and Ganswein are squabbling about what he might have said, if he had said anything. But the salient point is that he didn’t say anything,
“There is no other precedent for the publishing of lists of the accused in society,” Bishop McManus said.
There I was, kneeling before Jesus, and doing all the talking. Dumb. Shut up, Phil. You might learn something.
So if your goal is to empty out the Catholic churches of the world, by all means take your cues from the Synodal Path. But if the goal is evangelization, beware of German leadership.
The settings don’t look like churches, the participants don’t look like worshippers, and the ceremonies don’t look like a Catholic Mass. Which of course they aren’t.
The language may suggest fairness, but the law is a one-way street. Only opponents of abortion are subject to punishment.
Let’s be honest. The terms “Catholic” and “efficiency” do not pop up frequently in the same sentences. Our rivals are probably no better organized than we are.
Australia’s top court ruled that Cardinal Pell could not possibly have done what he was accused of doing; it was physically impossible.
As Sovereign Pontiff, Benedict XVI continued to speak, but he cut back drastically on his writing, conscious that now anything he wrote might be mistaken as a definitive pronouncement, and so cause confusion. (Would that his successor had the same prudence!)
In the absence of a clear explanation for this unusually severe penalty, many Catholics who admire Pavone’s work are understandably confused, upset, even outraged. Still the hierarchy remains silent.
Why is Pavone severely disciplined, when priests like Father James Martin and Father Marko Rupnik continue in good standing?
Priests for Life (PFL) is a large activist organization, with an annual budget of about $10 million. So a question naturally arises: can a diocesan priest devote his full-time attention to a secular organization? Can he set his policies for that organization, disregarding input from his bishop?
Interviews with expert restorers provide a new appreciation for the astonishing expertise that went into the original construction of the basilica, more than 800 years ago.
Since he believes that the Church teaches hate, I wonder why, on Sunday morning, he will turn up at a Catholic church, and affirm his allegiance to “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.”
But of course Pope Francis has not made such specific pleas for the release of these prisoners. On the contrary he has carefully avoided any pointed public criticism of either the Chinese or the Nicaraguan regime.
"I swear to... abide by the national constitution, safeguard homeland unity and social harmony, love the country and religion, and persist in the principle of independent and self-managed churches, adhere to the leadership of the Catholicism of my country in China, actively guide Catholicism to adapt to socialist society and contribute to the realization of the Chinese dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation."
Recently I heard a conservative television commentator say of the sexual revolutionaries that “they’re coming for your children.” That, I think, was a particularly dull observation. They came for your children years ago; did you only just now notice?
The Act promises to respect my beliefs as long as I respect same-sex marriage. But believing as I do, I cannot recognize same-sex marriage. So the legislation requires me either to renounce my beliefs or maintain my silence.
What would you say about the competence of a journalist who headlined a story: "New York Times chooses new editor for pro-abortion propaganda campaign?”
Our goal is active participation; yes. But active participation in what?
“Let’s be plain: the Church has been in schism since 1968, if not earlier."
For the Church, after the Covid lockdown, “moving forward” entails asking how our pastors came to believe that our physical health was more important than our spiritual health, so that for months they denied us the sacraments. That was not a failure of scientific judgment; it was a failure of faith.
A priest condemned abortion, said that homosexual acts are mortally sinful, and added that that the distribution of free contraceptives is “promoting promiscuity” and that it is “lunatic” to encourage children to question their sexual identity. “The views expressed do not represent the Christian position,” the bishop said... They don't?
Bad churchmen are a vexation, but an understandable and probably unavoidable vexation. Harder to explain -- and progressively harder to deny -- was The Void at the center of the Church's activity: the absence of concern for souls in jeopardy.
Isn’t it a grave disservice— a sin against charity— to encourage young people in their delusions?
At this point it is abundantly clear that under the leadership of Archbishop Paglia, the PAL is no longer the institution that was established by Pope John Paul II to defend the dignity of human life.
The “pro-choice” gambit has been eagerly embraced by the Democratic Party, the mainstream media— and now by the Vatican.
Would St. Jean de Brebeuf have asked for a blessing from an Iroquois shaman? How would St. Isaac Jogues have responded to the veneration of the Pachamama?
You may be— you should be— troubled by recent stories about FBI actions against peaceful pro-life activists. But you shouldn’t be surprised.
I have profound misgivings about this synod and the awkward, time-consuming, self-referential process it has begotten.
Notice how quickly skepticism-- which was once recognized as a hallmark of scientific rigor-- is now dismissed as "irresponsible populism."
Recently, on a tip from an alert reader, I checked back on the CatholicFactChecking.com site, to see what new information the site has provided in the last several months. The answer: none at all.
To achieve its stated goal— a full Catholic hierarchy in communion with Rome— the Vatican-Beijing agreement would need to produce results at several times the current rate. Meanwhile the “underground” Church still faces sanctions, the Patriotic Association still issues orders, and the Vatican, fearful of upsetting the negotiations for a continuation of this questionable accord, remains silent as Cardinal Zen faces trial.
A Prince of the Church is being tried as a criminal, by a regime that tramples on human rights, and the Roman Pontiff can only say that he “thinks” he is briefed on the trial schedule?
Sadly, many Catholics have lost their confidence in the Church’s leadership as a result of the scandals. Almost as sadly, many others have clung to their confidence in the leaders, at the cost of forgetting their mission.
Clearly, Democrats think that the abortion issue is a winner for them, and many Republicans agree. So the prophecies become self-confirming.
Synodality apparently means that a small cadre of Catholic activists— in a country where Church attendance is in freefall and hundreds of thousands of Catholics are formally renouncing their faith— should be allowed to lead the universal Church, changing fundamental moral and doctrinal tenets that have stood unchallenged for centuries.
Even Pope Paul VI, insofar as he incorporated worries about overpopulation into Humanae Vitae, was wrong.
A wedding is a public act, at which both the couple and their guests are testifying to something. Are they testifying to the truth? It matters.
Pope Francis is not shy about promoting his favored political causes, such as immigration and climate-change action. But he has been remarkably quiet about overt repression of Catholicism, and even assaults on Catholic prelates, by certain regimes.
This sad case should confirm the enduring strength of the layman’s instinctive understanding that if a person is breathing, moving, heart beating, responding to stimuli— even with the help of machines— that person is not dead.
Panneton is right about one thing: in the battle that really matters, the Rosary is more powerful— and therefore more dangerous to the liberal hegemony— than an AR-15.
Even on the very best reading, Bishop McElroy’s actions (or rather his inaction) have contributed to a climate of scandal that still afflicts our Church, and to the cynicism of lay Catholics who question whether our bishops are ready to police themselves.
The Pope said that “the Church is either synodal or it is not Church.” Then just a few moments later: “Certainly, we can say that the Church in the West had lost its synodal tradition.” So it follows that the “Church in the West” was not Church.
Too often the cautious rhetoric of the pro-life movement suggests that abortion is unnecessary, or unseemly, or unwise, or all of the above. We need to drive home the message that it is unconscionable.
Plenty of people have an incentive to speculate that children’s bodies are buried in mass graves; apparently no one has much incentive to discover the truth of the matter.
If anyone is politicizing the wanton destruction of unborn human life, it is President Biden…
Take two healthy young people who are in love, anxious to fulfill that love and begin their life together. Now tell them that they’ll have to wait a year. Yes, they might practice chastity, and gain much grace in the practice. But let’s face it: there is another option.
Have you heard spokesmen for Planned Parenthood say that abortion accounts for only a small portion of their work? Isn’t it curious, then, that the clinics are now shutting down in states where abortion is restricted?
Pope Francis did not criticize his predecessor directly.... Quite the contrary. But reporters took the cue…
Over the years I have seen and heard hundreds of appeals by Church officials to political leaders, calling for increased spending on various government programs to promote the public welfare. Never— not once— have I heard or seen a Church leader warn against the irresponsible spending that invites inflation.
Pope Francis said “when a bishop loses his pastoral nature, it causes a political problem.” Does a bishop lose his “pastoral nature” when he warns a member of his flock not to endanger her soul? And what IS the political problem— for whom?
“I fear that decisions depend very much upon who are the friends of the accused bishop and how much they have the ear of the Pope.”
Here Pope Francis unambiguously embraces the “hermeneutic of discontinuity” that Pope Benedict XVI diagnosed as the main reason for misunderstanding the directives of the Council.
More than 2 million people have left the German Catholic Church in the past decade... Would you take business advice from consultants who had lost two clients for every one they retained?
A Supreme Court reversal of Roe does not hand the pro-life movement a victory; it only allows pro-lifers a fighting chance in what will be a bruising political battle.
Now the “progressive” wing of the Catholic Church suggests that the magisterium became inerrant in the 1960s. The Council and its proclamations were merely a launching pad, from which the new “tradition” took off.
In taking this dramatic action, Bishop McManus has fulfilled his duty to protect the integrity of the faith... To the best of my knowledge— and I have been watching carefully— no American bishop has ever taken this step before.
"Meanwhile, the genuinely “restorationist” Catholics are dwarfed – in numbers and influence – by millions of other Catholics (many in positions of influence both in and outside of the Church) who reject the actual texts of the Council...
St. Paul implies that if he HAD shrunk from his mission to proclaim the Gospel message in its fulness, he would NOT be innocent of Ephesian blood.
We are all sinners, in need of the spiritual healing that the Eucharist offers. But most of us are ashamed of our sins. While we fall short of the Church’s high standards, we do not call press conferences to applaud gravely sinful actions.
Some analysts have suggested that the choice of Bishop McElroy is a slap at the US bishops’ conference. It is more than that; it is a whole series of slaps
Either it is right to bar Nancy Pelosi from Communion, in which case other bishops should follow the Cordileone decree; or it is wrong, in which case other bishops should protest. This cannot be just a matter of local policy.
No one who actually reads the archbishop’s statement could fail to recognize his obvious pastoral concern for her spiritual welfare, his willingness to give her every benefit of doubt, his reluctance to take this disciplinary action.
If the party is the only reason for scheduling the sacrament, and if Church leaders meekly surrender when civic leaders proclaim that the sacraments are not essential, sooner or later apathetic Catholics are bound to realize that they can skip the ceremony and move straight to the party.
“The Vatican is buzzing with the most alarming rumors” about the surgery last July, from which the Pontiff recovered slowly.
Rather than denouncing the unjust arrest of a Prince of the Church, the Vatican complimented the security forces for the way they had treated him!
Even on the most benign reading, the story that Cardinal Becciu told the Vatican tribunal is a tale of unsupervised, even reckless investing, without even a hint of proper accountability.
The world of Catholic news coverage has changed enormously in the past generation, and CNS is a victim of the changes. But the need for a distinctive Catholic perspective on current events is greater than ever. I shall be sorry to see CNS leave the field.
Prelates sometimes complain that they are often ambushed at funerals or Confirmations, by parishioners who have some axe to grind. But how many of these concerned Catholics have been unable to schedule an appointment with the bishop?
The baby born in 2020 is now two years old; does that party still seem appropriate? By now the new parents have settled into a new household routine; do they even remember that their child is unbaptized?
All Catholic bishops share in the responsibility to protect and defend the orthodox teachings of the Church. Remember that St. Paul challenged St. Peter at the Council of Jerusalem
Today, unfortunately, verbal attacks on the Church encounter virtually no public resistance— even from the Canadian hierarchy. So no one questions the choice of the Church as primary villain in this drama.
I have heard and read many speeches by government leaders, commemorating the D-Day landings. Never once did any speaker fail to pay tribute to the young men who died on the beaches.
The potential loss of the Ukrainian Orthodox churches would be a disaster for Moscow. And while the Russian Orthodox leadership has been quietly supportive of Putin’s offensive, the Orthodox leaders of Ukraine have condemned the invasion.
When questions arise about a school’s Catholic identity, a bishop’s first instinct should be to rush to support faithful Catholic parents. In practice, however, bishops usually choose to support the school administrators, helping them to ward off the concerned parents.
Father Imbelli remarks that the medieval mind had an intuition that “the personal and the cosmic are inextricably linked.” If we lack that important recognition today, is it because we are not fully prepared to acknowledge the message of the Incarnation?
“The most dangerous thing on earth is a great power that refuses to act like a great power.”
“There is no such thing as a just war; they do not exist,” the Pope said last week. This week he reportedly told Ukrainian President Zelenskyy: “you must defend yourselves.” How, if not by warfare?
Pope Francis himself wrote: “I am saddened by abuses of the liturgy on all sides.” Yet here the Pope displayed the same cavalier attitude toward liturgical rules that he deplored last July.
The Russian invasion is indefensible; our sympathy for the Ukrainians is both natural and healthy. But not every step that we could take on their behalf would be prudent or morally licit. The sins of the West are scarlet, but Russia’s aggression is not a remedy for our faults.
"The first tasks of the new pope will be to restore normality, restore doctrinal clarity in faith and morals, restore a proper respect for the law, and ensure that the first criterion for the nomination of bishops is acceptance of the apostolic tradition."
Run down the list of bishops who have been accused of misconduct and forced to resign, and you may notice that a disproportionate number could be classified as “conservative” or traditionalist in their sympathies. Or take the opposite perspective, and look at the list of prelates who have retained in office or even promoted during the current pontificate, despite evidence of misconduct, and notice the preponderance of progressives.
But it is not Covid— that is, not the disease— that has shut down thousands of small businesses, kept millions of children out of school, driven millions of adults into depression, forced the postponement of important medical screenings, and drastically curtailed our civil liberties.
Have you heard of a case in which, after an accused priest has been cleared of abuse charges, he has received an apology from the bishop who suspended him? I haven’t.
We hear often about the severe decline in attendance at Sunday Mass. But I’m reporting that— at least from my perspective— there’s another, more hopeful trend: a quiet growth in the cadre of people at Mass every day.
No doubt the _Post_ editorial writers thought that they were offering a compliment, since “comfort, good works and education” are the greatest benefits they expect from any institution.
Bear in mind that the Byzantine-rite Ukrainian Catholic Church was brutally suppressed the last time Moscow gained control over Ukraine, during the bloody Stalin years.
"...their research suggests that the brain inflammation might have been caused not by the disease, but by the lockdown."
See the non sequitur? "The Catholic Church, which forbids priests from marrying, has been repeatedly rocked by child sex abuse scandals around the world over the last three decades."
In no other legal system— at least, none that honors the rule of law— would the victim of a crime have the authority to set new rules of the prosecution.
Church leaders who have been quick to decry efforts to keep illegal immigrants _out_ of their countries would do well to recognize the dangers of fencing people _in_, and to sound the alarm as Canada slips off the list of free societies.
For any bishops who saw traditionalists undermining the unity of the faithful, the solution was always close at hand. So why did Pope Francis, who so often speaks of decentralizing the Church’s decision-making process, seize on this alleged problem as a reason for Roman intervention?
Pakaluk must be thinking of a Council that we need, but probably cannot have, until some measure of clarity is restored. Or, better, a Council that we could have, if a critical mass of the world’s bishops agreed with the premise that clarity must be restored.
Some people are happy to discuss the _process_ of establishing a _process_ by which the Church should be directed. Others, impatient for actual _solutions_ to the problems that plague the Church, will be frustrated by round after round of inconclusive discussions.
Maybe I shouldn’t assume that the Vatican Secretariat of State was worried about illegal surveillance. If it was being done by agents of the Vatican gendarmerie, investigating illegal financial activity, then it wasn’t illegal. You may recall that in October 2019, the offices of the Secretariat of State were raided— by officers of the Vatican gendarmerie.
So the vaccination passport is intolerable, it is a violation of religious freedom, the bishops insisted that it should not be imposed on churches. Can you guess how the next paragraph begins? “However,…”
You do all “the right things,” according to the latest theories, and yet you remain conscious of your own weakness, your failures, your vulnerabilities.
Cardinal Becciu retains his title, but not his privileges as a member of the College. He retains his legal right to the presumption of innocence, but not the right to be immune from accusations of criminal behavior.
The mainstream media are now determined to shape opinions directly, telling people what they must think, suppressing contrary evidence and dissenting opinion.
The traditional Latin Mass, Archbishop Arthur Roche said in 2015, is a “valid expression of the Church’s liturgy.”
Every argument for vaccination is based on the assumption that the vaccines will curb the spread of Covid. That assumption is now questionable; in fact, it is becoming increasingly difficult to defend.
When every major media outlet is pounding out the drumbeat of incessant and unquestioning support for the vaccination campaign, perhaps there is no great demand for a “Catholic” version of the same fare.
A $1,000 voucher does not nearly cover the cost of tuition at private or parochial schools. True. But it helps— perhaps more than appears at first glance.
If the Vatican is looking for an explanation of the heightened divisions within the Church, and particularly for the latest escalation of the “liturgy wars,” the search should begin, alas, on Peter’s Throne.
In the US, over the Christmas season, umpteen Catholic bishops were photographed smiling alongside politicians who support public funding for abortion on demand. Unborn children were not available for comment.
By making so many decisions personally, without consultation, the Pope is systematically draining off the autonomy— and thus the authority— of the Roman Curia.
Whether lay Catholics wanted liturgical reform is debatable (as is the question of whether this new liturgy, the Novus Ordo, actually corresponded to the instructions from the Vatican Council). But unlike the Edsel, the Novus Ordo was never subjected to a market test. Catholics who wanted to attend Mass had no alternative.
Pope Francis has done what his predecessor said could not be done: not quite “entirely” forbidding the TLM, but definitely suggesting that the old liturgy should be “considered harmful.”
But for the sake of unity within the Church— not to mention clarity of doctrine— the fact that more than 70% of the faithful effectively deny the Church’s teaching about the Eucharist, the “source and summit of the Christian life,” is surely a more urgent concern than the claim that 0.01% deny the validity of the new liturgy.
The end result of this fictional scenario, as I see it, would be not only the defeat of the Covid epidemic but also a rebirth of faith, as people recognized the legitimacy of supernatural claims.
These canny politicians recognize the propaganda value of identifying opposition to the vaccines as a Catholic issue, and then dismissing it because (as Hochul put it) “everybody from the Pope on down is encouraging people to get vaccinated.” They blithely ignore the formal teaching of the Church regarding individual conscience.
“It is astonishing that the Court tolerates this blatant invasion of religious freedom by a bigoted Governor and her health bureaucrats on the pretext of a never-ending ‘emergency’ that morphs as rapidly as the virus itself.”
Pope Francis said: “I ask myself what he did that was so serious that he had to resign." Yet the Pope accepted the archbishop's resignation.
But while they rightly remind us all to examine our consciences before receiving Communion, in this document the bishops do not examine their own consciences, and ask themselves how well they are fulfilling their sacred duty to protect the Sacrament from sacrilege and scandal.
I’d argue that those who have not discovered the work of this remarkable man need the book, as an introduction to one of the best writers in the contemporary Catholic world: a faithful priest, an incisive analyst, and an extraordinary prose stylist.
When the bishop refers to the Catholic faithful as “these people,” and sees no reason for the diocese to accommodate them, something has gone profoundly wrong— something that will not be fixed by a vaccine.
"Whether Francis is personally plugging a book he hasn’t read (yet), or expecting the press to do his dirty work for him, or fudging on what he knew about a high-profile abuse case and when he knew it, or doubling down on incendiary remarks he made off the cuff, he is pretty consistently to be found playing the angles."
How could Biden (or anyone else) be expected to know that it is a grave matter to receive the Eucharist while supporting abortion, if the Vicar of Christ tells him not to worry about it?
In theory the internet, by making it possible for anyone to find a worldwide audience for his thoughts, should have expanded the dimensions of the public square. But in practice, because the most powerful instruments of online communication have fallen under monopolistic control, our public conversation has become severely stunted.
He is one of the Pope’s most reliable allies, one of the world’s most influential prelates. He has apparently weathered the storm of criticism that battered his reputation a few years ago; the resignation of his auxiliary seemed to sap the energy of investigators. Yet some serious questions remain unanswered.
So today Bishop Schneider speaks with some authority when he says that Catholics should be willing to suffer— at a minimum to risk some adverse consequences— for the sake of the faith. He has walked that walk.
Are the French bishops now saying that they will obey the law, and instruct priests to violate the confessional seal when they hear of sexual abuse?
Pelosi’s mission in Rome was to persuade American prelates that they should not take a forthright stand on the abortion issue. And let’s face it: the Vatican gave that mission an enormous boost.
If roughly 3,000 priests molested roughly 210,000 young people— the numbers given in the report— then the average priest-molester racked up 70 victims. The report insists that this is “possible,” and maybe so. But it certainly is not plausible.
Spirited public debate is still acceptable, the attorney general tells us. (And isn’t that nice of him, to allow free speech?) But he, and the FBI, will decide what is spirited debate and what is intimidation. Which means that in practice he and his political allies will be able to intimidate you.
The synod process itself did not lend itself to propositions for dramatic change. The process was controlled by archdiocesan insiders.
Today the most powerful figures in politics, the media, and academe tell us that we cannot, we must not, attempt to move the consensus about Covid vaccination. Nevertheless it moves.
A politician might fret over unfriendly editorials; the Vicar of Christ should not.
If you know that the mainstream media are offering slanted coverage of some stories, and blacking out other stories altogether, you need to find outlets that will provide accurate reporting on the subjects that interest you.
Suppose a pastor decided to withhold the Eucharist from President Biden— not because he wanted to advance the Republican Party, not because he wanted to ban abortion, but because he wanted to save Joe Biden’s soul?
Want more commentary? Visit the Archives.