Rome’s Reconciliation

llll

Wow, what a complete load of bunkum.

I don't know where to begin. How about at the beginning?

An institution devoted to perpetuating the superstitions of a stone age civilization that has selectively interpreted those superstitions to allow money lending at interest, preserve circumcision, end the stoning to death of adulterers and animal sacrifice, is experiencing a schism over what version of the second (inaccurate) translation (Greek, Latin, English/French/German/etc.) from the original records of that religion to favor?

To do so they are accommodating an obvious racist who denies the systematic and documented attempt by the Nazis to exterminate the Jewish race, while themselves denying the spirit and teachings of their messiah who, amongst other things, is said to have said not to look for his teachings or intent in books. You know, like the Bible.

If religion where not responsible for so much misery and death this aspect of humanity (easily explained by natural selection and Darwinism), by which I mean our superstitious devotion to God, would be laughable.

But in world where true believers, all equally convinced that their ideas about God and Divinity are right while everyone else must be damned, are increasingly devoted to the violent destruction of heathens there is nothing funny about it.

If I were to believe that God were a thirteen tentacled monster sitting in a cloud of purple mist my beliefs would be as credible as these anthropomorphic daydreams that cause so much trouble with their insistent denial of everything human.

Unfortunately for us while my comforting day dreams cause no problems for anyone, except perhaps me, the beliefs of these anoxic believers result in almost endless misery for millions worldwide every year.

Shame on all of you who believe in God. The fact that it is comforting to you is no excuse at all. Stand on your own two feet and take responsibility for our lives and leave this idiocy behind.

History will not judge you kindly.

Great article. Although I certainly am not a canon lawyer, I too wonder if the SSPX Bishops indeed met the canonical requirements for a lawful lifting of his excommunication. Bishop Fellays statements seem to indicate otherwise.
-Glenn D.
http://www.stgemmagalgani.com

The church has a lot of practice at ignoring or denying reality.
How many priests were and are practicing pedophila, while the bishops let them, and moved them around when they were about to get caught? So why should they need to be aware of a holocaust? Without the Vatican Klaus Barbie wouldn't have made it to Argentina. Aids, unwanted births, so what? Heck, a large percentage of the Nazis were gay. Hmm, I am starting to see the connection.

"John Paul II and Ratzinger (men who could hardly be accused, reasonably, of preemptive concessions to modernity..."

Seriously? This is why George Weigel is so out of touch. Had he talked with traditional Catholics (I doubt he knows many, if any, as he continues to live in his happy neo-Catholic Opus Dei-esque world) he would have known the views of most who agree JPII was a disaster of a pope and Fr. Ratzinger was the source of many problems during Vatican II.

But, Fr. Ratzinger has indeed seen the error of his ways and has done many good things to reverse the mess of a liturgy in parishes today. Much of the reversals are in stark contrast to JPII, one must note.

Weigel is still writing like JPII is the pope. But God has spoken -- and so has the Supreme Pontiff, who continues to move rightward. Time for Weigel to accept the tradition and Benedict XVI are in and Vatican II and JPII are out.

A Catholic politician who recognizes that many Americans do not share the Pope's position on abortion is denied Communion. A schismatic bishop who does not recognize the reality of genocide is welcomed back. How come?

A Catholic politician who recognizes that many Americans' position on abortion is not the Pope's is denied Communion. A schismatic clergyman who denies the Holocaust is welcomed back. How come?

Dear armchair theologian, the 1983 Code of Cannon Law removes the censure of excommunication in case of necessity. That is why this excommunication was never licit. Why do you think it was lifted? It is similar to an annulment of a sacramental marriage, when the "thing" in question never occurred. Please take a little time to study the Catholic Faith before writing silly articles.

Dear armchair theologian, the 1983 Code of Cannon Law removes the censure of excommunication in case of necessity. That is why this excommunication was never licit. Why do you think it was lifted? It is similar to an annulment of a sacramental marriage, when the "thing" in question never occurred. Please take a little time to study the Catholic Faith before writing silly articles.

DO YOU REALLY NEED "SCRIPTURE" TO TELL YOU NOT TO KILL,STEAL,ETC...ETC...PLEASE?!?!

MAN OH MAN WHAT DELUSIONAL,WEAKMINDED,AND INSECURE HUMANS ARE?!?!?!?

Enter Your Comment
Why all the arguing amoung leaders in the church? Scripture tells us to love one another no matter what. nothing else matters and nothing else works. Let's pray for a church and a world with love amoung all humans.

Why are we surprised that there is an emergence of Catholic reactionary philosophy?

We've already seen the rise and solidification of radical Evangelicals, Muslims, and Jews. Each preaches their own pecular brand of rigid hierarchy, arrogance and exclusion; each preaches fear and hate ot "Other."

Welcome to the 21st century, where small minorities feel they must proclaim their right to "not get along." Unfortunately, the Lefebvrists will do as much damage as the other fear-and-hate driven philosophies, and the rest of us will continue to suffer.

the POPE is a DOPE! only DOPE'S believe in super beings! GROW UP! LOVE THE HAT THOUGH?!

Writers sympathetic to Lefebvre, like Michael Davies, describe the schism differently from Mr. Weigel's picture of a politicized throw-back to the Ancien Regime: "Of all the bishops in the world, only Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer, of Campos in Brazil, refused to compromise in any way with the revolution masquerading under the guise of reform and which was manifestly destroying the Church. Archbishop Lefebvre established a seminary, with the approval and encouragement of the Holy See, in which priests could be trained to celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Its immediate success evoked the fury of liberal bishops who pressured the Holy See into ordering the Archbishop to close his seminary in a manner that not only ignored the requirements of Canon Law, but those of natural justice. The Archbishop refused to comply unless he was accorded the canonical hearing which is the right of every Catholic, a request which was ignored. This gave rise to the painfully ironic situation of a respected prelate being condemned without a trial for an offense that had not been specified, and then having his amply justified refusal to comply cited as an offense to justify his condemnation!"

The usually impressive Weigel seriously misses the mark on this one. He fails to recognize that Vatican II was explicitly NON-DOGMATIC. It completely disclaimed the promulgation of anything new or binding. Instead, it merely attempted to repackage traditional Catholic teaching in words and language more accessible to modern man. Unfortunately, it failed miserably. Instead of greater clarity, we got ambiguity, which kicked off 40 years of gobbledygook. Like the dozens of other Church councils that no one can remember today, Vatican II is best forgotten. So long as the SSPX agrees to submit to the perennial teaching of the Church, it should not be forced to submit to the ambiguities of Vatican II.