Faggioli & Longenecker on the radical disconnect between liberal academic theology and nearly everyone else in the Church

Fr. Dwight Longenecker, "Are Liberal Catholic Theologians Past Their Sell By Date?" (Fr. Dwight Longenecker, March 7th, 2018), comments on Massimo Faggioli's latest article at Commonweal. First, Faggioli honestly acknowledges that young Catholics don't care for the older, established liberal theological establishment [with the bold commentary of Guy Noir - Private Eye* in brackets]:

"[T]he estrangement between academic theology and the institutional Church is one reason many younger Catholics are now turning to neo-traditionalist circles for instruction. A new generation is re-examining what’s happened in the church since the 1960s and reacting against the theology that came out of the Second Vatican Council. Some younger Catholics are also questioning the legitimacy of the secular, pluralistic state. This is why the concerns of academic theology are no longer merely academic. [Notice that! Theology is no longer academic because it now touches on… the political! Speaks volumes about his priorities].

Those who have contact with young Catholics… have noticed that this theological anti-liberalism is not just coming from a few marginal intellectuals. Catholic anti-liberalism is part of a broader phenomenon, a new quest for Catholic identity that takes various forms. It may be expressed as an enthusiasm for the Tridentine Mass and a distaste for the Novus ordo. Or it may take the form of an interest in countercultural communities—in some version of the “Benedict Option.” But it can also take the form of a theo-political imagination that rejects liberal democracy in favor of a new Christendom. [Would he think it fair to say Catholic liberals reject ‘Church’?] Mixed in with this ideal is often a suspicion of those who come from parts of the world where Christianity is not the predominant religion. [Guffaw. Cardinal Sarah? And in Latin America Catholicism IS still predominant.]

This rise of Catholic anti-liberalism marks a regression in the ability of Catholics to understand the problem of the state and of politics in our age. [Only if you disagree with their analysis, right?] But it also says something about the state of Catholic theology, especially in America."

Faggioli then goes on to make the claim that theology can only really exist and flourish in a traditional academic setting. [Because only their can it be toyed with without regard for devotional or moral relevance].

"I believe that the fate of Catholic theology in the Western world is inseparable from the fate of academic theology. [In one way, liberal Catholicism cannot maintain any standing unless propped up by the academy and its priest culture.] In order to survive and flourish, theology needs universities, publishers, and journals. [Like America and Communio?] You can just about imagine the church surviving intellectually without academic theology, but I think it …

Longenecker remarks: "I don’t buy it. In my experience it is just as arguable that the very academic establishment the Faggioli wants to prop up is the very kiss of death of any real, creative and dynamic theology."

Guy Noir seems to concur. He comments: "All quite telling. I read once that Evangelicals are really the only ones who any longer talk theology, and that’s simply because they actually believe it. We could extend the comment to trad Catholics. Really, do you ever get the impression any of these liberals passionately believe anything at all outside of a vague moral therapeutic deism? No, because the most feel, and whittle down their doctrine to match those feelings. Liberalism and real theology are antithetical.

If anything new is to come along in theology, concludes Longenecker, it will not come from within the halls of academe, but will most likely "spring up from some home schooler, some start up online academy, a blogger who reads instead of watching TV or some hard working home grown scholar who is teaching at a classical school or slaving away teaching the great books to undergraduates."

You're right: way past sell by date. Let the younger generation discover the neglected treasures of Catholic tradition and discover that Catholic theology, like the Catholic Faith itself, can be the most beautiful adventure in the world.

[Acknowledgement: Guy Noir - Private Eye is our underground correspondent we keep on retainer in an Atlantic seaboard state.]

Even this supporter of Teilhard de Chardin finds Massimo Faggioli's and James Martin's effort to rehabilitate him "weird"

Read especially the last parts of Mark Lambert's "I may surprise you with a defence of Teilhard de Chardin" (November 23, 2017).

... his reputation as a bit of a rebel means that an approval of a proposal asking for Pope Francis to remove the monitum has almost inevitably, drawn support from Pope Francis merry band of theological nitwits & cheering boys. The fact that such people as Fr. James Martin and Massimo Faggioli are cheering for the petition to remove the monitum (warning) against the writings of Teilhard... well... it speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Ii could easily be argued that the central error of our times is evolutionism taken as a paradigm for the whole of reality, including God, revelation, tradition, and morality. As Father Z puts it, if Teilhard's writings were ambiguous and seriously erroneous when the monitum was imposed, then surely they still are? ...

... I can't help but be disappointed by this constant desire to forego the practice and common sense of the past and re-write everything in the ink of modern secularism. Isn't this glib jostling for attention intellectually drab and dishonest?

Yes I defend Teilhard de Chardin's extravagant and audacious writings. I love them! As a scientist he wanted a free-ranging, peer review of his work. His ideas should be challenged, but not demonised. But I don't mistake them for the teaching of my Church, and I don't regret or seek to revoke the very valid monitum placed on them in 1962. Fr Teilhard de Chardin accepted the Holy See's censure, & he would have accepted the monitum as a just act by the teaching authority of the Church, just as he accepted the censure of his superior in 1925. The fact that Faggioli and Martin are seeking to rehabilitate him somehow is weird (given he is pretty much old hat these days), and strikes me as just another anti-orthodoxy bandwagon for them to jump on.

[Hat tip to J.M.]

Spadaro and Figueroa in La Civiltà Cattolica: Eeeek! The FUNDAMENTALISTS are coming!!!

But wait! Do they even know what a 'Fundamentalist' is? Of course not! And here is Frank J. Sheed to prove it in "Reading is Fundamental!" (July 21, 2017).

[Hat tip to JM]

The beautiful, amusing, profound banalities of Franky-the-Grouch Schaeffer

Franky Schaeffer has made a career of trying to get over himself and not succeeding. In Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God: How to give love, create beauty and find peace(2014), he has written just the kind of book to seal his place in the hearts of those whom Alasdair MacIntyre calls the "readership of the New York Times," or at least to that part of it which shares the biases of those who write "that parish newsletter of affluent and self-congratulatory liberal enlightenment." Franky is clearly one of that readership's darling ex-fundamentalists.

On the one hand, he confirms their anti-religious biases by repeatedly savaging his fundamentalist parents as "deluded," mocking their belief in biblical miracles, and paying them backhanded complements like these:

[My parents] believed that to be kind is to be in tune with the way things are, or to be in tune with the way things would have been if there had been no fall from grace in the Garden of Eden. My evangelical parents were not stupid, so either they really didn't believe Eden existed, or some part of their otherwise intelligent brains snapped when they adopted the one-size-fits-all born-again version of American fundamentalist Christianity.

On the other hand, he confirms his liberal readership's moral superiority (and salves his own conscience) by showing a kinder, gentler side to his revulsion at their fundamentalism by looking for positive reasons to appreciate the practical effects of their 'indoctrination' of him in the biblical 'myths' of his childhood:

Ironically, although mom and dad may have been deluded by their fundamentalist certainties, I am mostly at peace in my home ... because I was indoctrinated in knee-jerk guilt. I realize now that my parents were often right for the wrong reasons. For instance, I feel guilt when I shout at Lucy and Jack. And when it comes to the "big sins" I would not have burned in hell for sleeping with the many women I've looked at longingly, but adultery would have ruined my marriage and the home where I play with my grandchildren.

Hence, although he mocks his parents' view of adultery as "derived from a tribal myth about God proclaiming the law from a mountaintop," he can still posture as exhibiting filial piety and gratitude for "sometimes liking the result of my parents' delusions" (emphasis mine).

What a stand-up fellow! His parents may have had ridiculously wrong reasons for the virtues they inculcated in him as a young lad, but they were right and praiseworthy insofar as their sentiments about those virtues conformed to those celebrated by his liberal readership. God help us. To see Franky as exhibiting the virtue of filial piety here would be like admiring the 'courage' of the terrorists who piloted their passenger jets into the Twin Towers on 9/11.

The mainstream reviews, of course, are predictably rapturous, cloying, fashionably liberal, and religiously obtuse: their darling ex-fundamentalist has seen the light, and his book is "extraordinary," "profound," "tender," "sensitive," "beautiful," "brilliant," "thought-provoking," "redemptive," "honest," filled with "great insight and unselfconscious humor" and "amazing grace."

Yet there is little if anything approaching real filial piety in this self-absorbed exercise in narcissistic therapy, even if there is much to admire artistically in this as in many of Franky's works (I, for one, superlatively enjoyed his autobiographical novel, Portofino, and would recommend it to almost anyone). Whatever artistic beauty and humor may be found in the present work, however, there is more than enough resentment, mockery and cynicism to make up for it.

What we see here is the Franky reflected in the image of his portrait on the cover of his book: an artist holding paint brushes and possessing many skills, yes; but a sad and bitter little old man who thinks he's being intellectually profound and beautiful (and witty) when he's really only wallowing self-indulgently in his own cynicism and depression. A "Christian atheist" or an "atheist Christian" is not a profundity. It is an absurdity. And that is a fact, no matter how much Franky may posture as intending to "give love, create beauty, and find peace."

One can only pray and hope that Franky's progeny will live to survive his legacy with more spiritual integrity, forgiveness, and joy than he has exhibited in his treatment of his parents. I feel genuinely sorry for him.

The common allies (and enemies) of Brexit and Vatican II

"The Theology of Brexit" (Old Life, June 30, 2016) sees Massimo Faggioli as reminding us that Vatican II and the European Union are part of the same cultural moment; that the ties between Vatican II and the EU are even closer in the minds of traditionalist Roman Catholics; and points to Damon Linker's suggestion that aspects of Angela Merkel’s responsibility for the circumstances that led to Brexit could also be applied to Pope Francis, who is perhaps the post-Vatican II pope that most embodies Vatican II.

[Hat tip to JM]

A stragegy for defeating the Democrat politics of resentment and character assassination

What one must learn: first, that Democrats no longer play by conventional rules of intellectual debate, but are Machiavellian opportunists, using the media as a tool of intimidation and character assassination; second, to realize that traditional conservatives are completely ineffective because they haven't realized this; third, that an effective yet moral strategy for change is available if the sleeping conservative giant would wake up and use a little imagination. Illustrations provided.

Wherein Fr. Z. takes Card. Danneels to the woodshed

Fr. John  Zuhlsdorf, "Wherein Card. Danneels makes excuses" (Fr. Z's Blog, November 13, 2015):

Retired Belgian Godfried Cardinal Danneels – who protected a child abuser priest – was invited to the last Synod on the Family despite the fact that he was over 80. HERE That was a surprise, both because of the scandal Danneels was involved in and because of his age. Because of his age because the Cardinal Bishop of Hong Kong (who is standing up to homosexualists), younger than Danneels, was told that he was too old to participate.  Double standard?  You decide.

Danneels was also apparently involved in a group that – contrary to the rules that John Paul II established for conclaves and which Danneels and the others swore oaths to obey – conspired with a group to influence the election.  HERENow Danneels is in the spotlight again, for these comments. From Catholic World News:

Worth reading: Read more >>

The anatomy of the sissified Jesuit mind

Dorothy Cummings McLean, "Two Year Among the Liberal Theologians" (Catholic World Report, October 31, 2015):

... "Own your heresy" tweeted Douthat, and Father James Martin, SJ seemed to throw up his hands in holy horror. Oh, how irresponsible! Oh, how potentially damaging to a career! Oh, how the CDF will swoop down like a wolf upon the fold. Except it won't, and it almost never does—and they're too busy packing up Monsignor Charamsa's office right now anyway.

The brain-blowing combination of asserting that what is not Catholic teaching is somehow Catholic teaching and then shrieking like a frightened schoolgirl when the word "heresy" is uttered is what the American Catholic/Jesuit theological academy is all about, and I should know. I was in it for two of the most miserable years of my life....

What went down, starting back on October 22nd

Everyone won. Everyone lost. Wow. Here are the details. Roberto de Mattei, Corrispondenza Romana (RC, October 27, 2015).

I think of the Jewish merchant in Boccacio's Decameron who told the bishop of Paris after returning from a business trip to Rome that nothing so corrupt and stupid as the Church could possibly have survived all these centuries without God behind it, so he was ready to convert and become a Catholic!

But, come on, lads, can't we do a wee bit better?

"Synod & Council: The Conservatives' Failed Strategy"

Boniface, "Synod & Council: The Conservatives' Failed Strategy" (Unam Sanctam Catholicam, October 8, 2015):

I have not offered much thought or commentary on the 2015 Synod thus far; my reasons are fairly the same as those offered by Ryan Grant in his recent article "Why no synod coverage?" (Athanasius Contra Mundum, Oct. 7, 2015); at any rate, by now there is ample evidence to prove that Synod 2014 was rigged, and nobody should be surprised that the 2015 Synod will be pushed towards a predetermined outcome as well. Rorate just had an excellent piece suggesting that the Synod is turning into Vatican III. Radicals will always hijack these sorts of deliberatory bodies, taking advantage of procedure to relentlessly drive their progressive agenda.

Is anyone really surprised by this? Anyone who has been paying attention should not be. What is surprising is not that the liberals are trying to turn this into Vatican III, but that the conservatives are making the same fundamental errors they made at Vatican II.

Say what you want about the liberals, but they know how to set an agenda and ram it through. They position themselves to get the right press at the right time. They appeal to the emotions. If they want something done, they get their people in the right places, dominate committee discussions, relentlessly use the parliamentary processes to drive their agenda, and shut down opposition. They find pretexts to eject orthodox candidates from seminary. They orchestrate the firing of faithful Catholic journalists. In short, they fight.

I have been in government before, and I tell you, those who win are not necessarily those who have the best or "right" ideas, but those who know how to use the existing authority structure to facilitate the implementation of their ideas. They fight and they use the system and its structures to fight for them.

Conservatives do not fight, at least not in this manner. Sure, they think they do; we talk about fighting the good fight and all that, but by and large conservatives do not try to drive their agenda.

Conservatives tend to take the misguided position that merely speaking the truth is sufficient. That, in the face of the liberal onslaught, it is enough to calmly reaffirm the Church's constant teaching, perhaps in the naive confidence that the truth will always win out in the free marketplace of ideas. Are the liberals ramming through a heterodox praxis? Publish an article on the Church's real teaching. Are they dominating the procedures of a meeting to get their people on the right committees and drive their agenda? Give a talk. Just speak the truth. Hand out copies of a book.

Why did this Martini-led faction want to promote Bergoglio's election?

Beats me. Any ideas?

Marco Tosatti, "The election of Jorge Bergoglio by the Martini-led 'Mafia'" (La Stampa, September 24, 2015; translated in Adfero, Rorate Caeli, September 25, 2015):

The election of Jorge Bergoglio was the fruit of secret meetings that cardinals and bishops, organized by Carlo Maria Martini, held for years at St. Gall in Switzerland. This is what is claimed by Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens, the authors of a just published biography of the Belgian Cardinal Godfried Danneels, who refer to the group of cardinals and bishops as the “Mafia-club”.

Danneels, according to the authors, had worked for years in preparation for the election of Pope Francis, which happened in 2013....

... In addition to Danneels and Martini, among the others who made up the group according to the book were the Dutch bishop Adriaan Van Luyn, the German cardinals Walter Kasper and Karl Lehman, the Italian cardinal AchilleSilvestrini and [before his death] the English cardinal Basil Hume. [For more on these "usual suspects," read the article and do your own further research.]

... UPDATE (September 26): Since late Friday/early Saturday Danneels' biographers are trying to fix the mess they created by revealing the Mafia that (first made life hell for the late years of John Paul II, tried to elect Bergoglio in 2005, made life hell for Pope Ratzinger), deposed Benedict XVI, and finally elected Bergoglio in 2013, and are now trying to say that he actually didn't say what he actually said.

Synod conspirators muster: new member Archbishop of Berlin

Augustinus, "'Shadow Synod' participant is new Archbishop of Berlin" (Rorate Caeli, June 8, 2015): "Heiner Koch, 61 years old, Bishop of Dresden-Meiβen, as the new Archbishop of Berlin ... is now without question aligned with the 'progressivist' camp." He is also "one of the three German delegates to the 2015 Synod along with Reinhard Cardinal Marx of Munich and Franz-Josef Bode, Bishop of Osnabruck. Despite some conservative-sounding statements made by the Archbishop-elect during the Benedict years (such as a 2012 statement on the futility of discussing matters already closed by the Magisterium) he is now without question aligned with the "progressivist" camp. All three German delegates to the 2015 Synod have publicly come out in favor of the Kasper "hypothesis" and all three attended the now-infamous "Shadow Synod" held on May 25 at the Gregorianum in Rome.

Fr. Ray Blake: "I blame the Bolognese"

Fr. Ray Blake, "I blame the Bolognese" (Fr. Ray Blake's Blog, May 25, 2015):

If you look at the remarks of Dr Diarmuid Martin you can see where the problem lies, and it is not just what he has said since after the vote but, maybe, always.

A friend bought an autobiography of a bishop recently and then complained how shallow, self justifying it was. How it seemed to lack any talk of Grace and seemed spiritually vacuous, as if it was written by a name dropping minor politician, rather than a Christian and a man of faith. I have yet to read it but I suspect it is typical of any apologia of any bishop today, with no attempt as Newman might have made, to reveal his method of thinking or his spiritual motivation, or the action of God in his life.

Catholics today might be divided into those influenced by the School of Bologna, who believe in rupture or discontinuity and those who believe in continuity. The documents of Vatican II as Pope Benedict suggested can be read either way, they are designed to be somewhat ambiguous, open to acceptance by even the most traditionally minded of Council Fathers but with a fair degree of play for those who would end up 'interpreting' them. There has been a great deal of talk about an actual Council and 'a Council of the media', in the same way as there is about an actual Francis and a Francis constructed by the media, I suspect that is all a little simplistic, certainly as far as the Council is concerned, one has only to look at whose hands were behind the various documents, what their intentions were. The writers invariably became the interpretors.

The hermeneutic of the Bologna School was always about rupture, its origins seem to have been in ameliorating the excesses of Mussolini's rule, of seeing the Church from the level of the poor, quite natural from Red Bologna. The problem echoes all of the movements of the early 20th century that were on the side of the poor, they created an elite to decide what the poor really wanted, and ended up by disenfranchising those whose cause they had come to power to support. We see that in Bolshevikism or Communism, Italian or Spanish Fascism, National Socialism or even in the Argentinian Pope's native Peronism. Sooner or later the poor or the 'masses' become frustrated by their new masters.

What the Church has lost, in Ireland as much as as elsewhere, are the 'toiling masses'. The Year Zero-ism that the Bologna School puts forward cuts the Church off from its roots, and not just its cultural roots but also its intellectual roots, As Monsignor Klaus Gamber says in 'Reform of the Roman liturgy' (my thanks to Viterbo).

'But what possible advantage can be gained for the pastoral care of the faithful by changing the feast days of the saints in the Church calendar, changing the way of counting Sundays during the liturgical year, or even changing the words of Consecration? What possible advantage can be gained by introducing a new Order of Readings and abolishing the old one, or by making minor and unimportant adjustments to the Traditional Rite, and then finally, by publishing a new Missal? Was all this really done because of pastoral concern about the souls of the faithful, or did it not rather represent a radical breach with the Traditional Rite, to prevent the further use of traditional liturgical texts and thus to make the celebration of the 'Tridentine Mass' impossible, because it no longer reflected the new spirit moving through the Church?" 

The act of changing the Church in fact eviscerated it, removing it even culturally from the place most of its members 'were at', as we used to say. What had stood firm for generations in its 'renewed form' was incapable of standing for a few decades after the 'New Pentecost' promised by Bl. John XXIII.

A Church that is rootless is not 'owned' by the people. A Church that is afraid to teach because it has cut itself from it previous Magisterium, and which instead sows uncertainty, has nothing to say in the daily living of its members, nor in the intellectual forum in general. In fact it is irrelevant. It has all the outward appearance that it once used for the furtherance of its mission but has lost its interior meaning. It is not so much an Emperor with no clothes, but the clothes without an Emperor, all that is left is the institution, which itself is meaningless. In Germany, as in Ireland, the real-estate portfolio seems to be what the Church is about rather than any actual teaching or revelation of Christ.

What I find so sad about Archbishop Martin's statements is that seem to be about institutional power, and influence, the very thing that disgusted the Irish during the abuse crisis. This is what even practising Catholics seem to find so objectionable about the Irish bishops, but in fact they are like many European bishops who have nothing to say and nothing to offer except a vacuous institution; the Church preaching not Jesus Christ but simply protecting its back.

I blame the Bolognese because they have emptied the Church of meaning, leaving it ineffectual, substituting for doctrine a warm feeling, for the worship of God, a celebration of community. This what the Irish Church has been offering for decades - pap!


In a way this video says everything about what is wrong with the Church in Ireland, it is narcissistic and feel-gooding, self-neutering, incapable of reproducing itself, neither evangelising nor being self-critical. It is shallow, self-referential, lacking the ability to speak to either the mind or the heart, only to sentiment. It neither depends on or leads to Jesus Christ, in fact it becomes a replacement for him.

[Hat tip to Sir A.S.]

How Vatican II was being 'hijacked' by liberal revisionists already during the Council, and not merely afterwards by those who implemented it

We've all heard the commonplace canard that the collapse of the faith that occurred in the wake of Vatican II was the result of a poor implementation of an otherwise unimpeachable, infallible ecumenical council. The documents, we are constantly assured, are crystal clear and in no manner deficient.

Likewise, we've all heard (unless we've forgotten or repressed the news) individuals protesting ambiguities in Vatican II documents. Michael Davies famously referred to "time bombs" in the Vatican II constitution on sacred liturgy; Bishop Athanasius Schneider has called for a "New Syllabus" for a correct reading of Vatican II; and others more recently, like Cardinal Kasper himself, have admitted that many of the documents contain intentional ambiguities that were introduced by dissenting factions at the Council:

"In many places, [the Council Fathers] had to find compromise formulas, in which, often, the positions of the majority are located immediately next to those of the minority, designed to delimit them. Thus, the conciliar texts themselves have a huge potential for conflict, open the door to a selective reception in either direction." (Cardinal Walter Kasper, L'Osservatore Romano, April 12, 2013 - emphasis added)

Well, which is it? Either the documents are clear or they're not. They can't be both. It's not enough to say that the documents can be interpreted in light of tradition. A lot of things can -- even propositions clear as mud, if you squint. The question is whether they are clear and unambiguous (and, going beyond the subject of this post, whether they have been interpreted with consistent, unambiguous clarity in the half-century since the Council).

Lately I have been reviewing a number of posts on this topic by Boniface over at Unam Sanctam Catholicam, including his excellent review of Roberto de Mattei's magisterial study, The Second Vatican Council: An Unwritten Story and some other articles. But what was especially interesting was to re-read his study of what the Council Fathers themselves had to say about ambiguity in the Council documents. The statements are all taken from the public acts of the Council -- statements put forth, not by obscure fathers, but heads of religious orders, like the Irish Dominican Michael Browne; archbishops of major sees like Cardinal Siri of Genoa; Cardinal Ottaviani, head of the Holy Office; even the Karol Wojtyla, who criticizes two documents for ambiguity; and none other than Paul VI himself, who admits "fundamental contradictions" in the final text of Lumen Gentium, contradictions that will eventually lead him to publishing an explanatory note to the document. Boniface writes:

(1) That the critique of ambiguity in the documents of Vatican II is not some canard invented and bandied about by traditionalist Catholic bloggers, but was in fact a substantial charge made against many conciliar documents by the Council Fathers themselves. It was, and remains, a legitimate criticism of the documents of the Second Vatican Council that must be taken seriously since the Council Fathers themselves took it so seriously.

(2) That to offer this critique does not imply any "denial of the Council", heterodoxy, or poor taste - if it does, then similar accusations must be leveled against Cardinal Ottaviani, Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Cardinal Kasper, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, and the hundreds and hundreds of bishops who all voted non placet on many conciliar documents and did not thereby become heretics by doing so. What we are dealing with when looking at the question of ambiguity is a simple acknowledgement of fact - the documents have inherent ambiguities, and as much was admitted by scores of Council Fathers.

Nor was it the case that these ambiguities were all eventually clarified to the satisfaction of the Council Fathers before the Vatican II documents reached their final form for publication. Indeed, many were published with their resident ambiguities and even contradictions in them far from unresolved, and in one case overriding 249 negative votes, including objections posed by none other than Archbishop Karol Wojtyla of Cracow!

The documents selected as examples by Boniface include Lumen Gentium, Dignitatis Humanae (to which Wojtyla had objections), Dei Verbum, Gaudium et spes, Unitatis Redintegratio, and Nostra Aetate. Sacrosanctum Concilium is omitted from discussion, not because it doesn't contain loopholes through which one could drive a truck, as one observer put it, but because of its ample treatment by others, most notably Michael Davies.

There are dozens of examples of specific criticisms Boniface examines -- far too many to quote here. Let a couple from his first example (Lumen Gentium) suffice (without the footnotes):

In September 1964, during the opening of the third session, a group of conservative bishops presented a document ("Note Addressed to the Holy Father on the Schema Constitutio De Ecclesia") to Paul VI which expressed "serious reservations" about the chapter on Chapter 3, saying that the teaching contained therein was "uncertain" and contained "doctrines and opinions that are often vague or insufficiently clear in their terms, their true meanings, or in their aims." The document also called the teaching of collegiality "a new doctrine, which, until 1958 or rather 1962, represented only the opinions of a few theologians." The document was signed by twenty-five cardinals and thirteen superiors of religious orders, including the Dominicans and the Jesuits.

... Amazingly, Paul VI himself noted in a letter back to Cardinal Larraona, dated October 18, 1964, that Chapter 3 of what would become Lumen Gentium did in fact contain "fundamentally contradictory statements", and said that these "objections [are] supported in Our personal opinion." These concerns would later cause Paul VI, not to amend Lumen Gentium, but to add an explanatory note to the document. (emphasis added)

By way of conclusion, Boniface writes:

As anyone can see, the documents of the Second Vatican Council were problematic from their inception, and this much was admitted by the Council Fathers. While they all had their own concerns, questions and difficulties, the theme that connected them all was ambiguity, expressed in such terms as "lack of clarity", "greater precision needed", "insufficiently clear", "lacking distinction", "perplexing", and so on. This was the opinion of a great many of the Council Fathers, even some of the liberals and (in the case of Lumen Gentium), Paul VI himself.

Given this straightforward evidence, this obvious matter of fact, it is no longer tenable for anyone to assert that the charges of ambiguity in conciliar documents is a recent invention by Traditionalists, nor that it is without merit or unsubstantiated. On the contrary, the documents of the Second Vatican Council do contain problematic ambiguities that need to be addressed and remedied. It does not detract from the validity or authority of the Council to simply admit this; many Council Fathers admitted it, and they did not consider it disobedient or schismatic to do so. Rather, they saw it as their duty as bishops to ensure that the faith was expounded in the most clear, precise, and easy to understand manner as possible. In posting these citations from these same fathers, we do so hoping the problems that went unheeded in 1962-65 will one day be satisfactorily addressed.

Finally, Boniface also has a post on why a purely legal (administrative) solution to these problems won't work, apart from spiritual reawakening from the ground up. Pray for Mother Church, our shepherds and our fellow Catholics. We desperately need God's help.

The Façade of "Mercy"

Cardinal Dolan to Michael Voris at the St. Patrick's Day parade: "Love to have ya!"

The problem behind what the eye sees may run deeper when one consider's Cardinal Dolan's Gay Problem.

In other news, there is an interesting discussion HERE of

1. the NYC St. Patrick's Day Parade (interview with C.J. Doyle of Catholic Action League);
2. an interview with Paul McGregor of Holy Innocents Parish about the reason why Fr. Wylie was exiled to a very dangerous area of S. Africa, which involved not merely his defence of the TLM at Holy Innocents in NYC, but his whistle-blowing on financial malfeasance by Msgr. Francis Chullikatt of the Holy See's United Nations Permanent Observer Mission, in connection with the Path to Peace Foundation affiliated with the Holy See's United Nations Permanent Observer Mission; and
3. the arbitrary hold put on the cause for the beatification of the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen by the Archdiocese of New York (a.k.a. Cardinal Dolan): he doesn't want to release Sheen's body to be moved back to Peoria, IL -- why? because he wants the income from a prospective shrine to Sheen at St. Patrick's Cathedral to fill the archdiocese coffers with pilgrim's financial offerings? -- all speculations the Cardinal could immediately end by an announcement of his reasons for putting a hold on the beatification process.

"Cardinal rebukes head of German bishops: We can’t ignore Christ’s teaching on marriage"

"Cardinal rebukes head of German bishops: We can’t ignore Christ’s teaching on marriage" (LifeSiteNews, March 11, 2015):

German Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes, who headed the Papal Council Cor Unum until 2010 and was made a cardinal by Pope Benedict XVI, has publicly opposed the words and direction of the German Bishops' Conference....

First of all, Cardinal Cordes rebuked Cardinal Marx for his claim that the Catholic Church looks to and expects much from the Church in Germany. He noted that Germany has barely any supernatural Faith left (only 16.2 percent of German Catholics believe in a Triune God, as a personal God with a Face, instead of an abstraction), so therefore, Germany is hardly a model for any other country concerning the Faith.

Read more >>

[Hat tip to Dr. Ralph Martin]

Vatican correspondent: Synod Secretary Cnl Baldisseri blocked copies of books defending Church teaching from reaching Synod fathers

Vatican correspondent Edward Pentin reports that it was the Secretary of the 2014 Synod, Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri, who blocked the distribution of the pro-marriage book Remaining in the Truth of Christ: Marriage and Communion in the Catholic Church when it was mailed to each of the Synod fathers. The book contains chapters defending Church teaching written by Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Brandmüller, and Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Cardinal Müller, among others. Baldisseri was reportedly "furious" when he discovered that copies of the book had been mailed to each of the Synod fathers, and intercepted them. The books are believed to have been destroyed.



See also Dr. Ed Peters, "It was worse than a crime -- it was a blunder" (In the Light of the Law, February 26, 2015):

There are credible reports that Lorenzo Cardinal Baldisseri, head of the secretariat for the Synod of Bishops, ordered the confiscation of pro-marriage materials legally mailed to synod participants last October. In addition to whatever international and/or Vatican City State laws might have been violated thereby, and besides the possibility of the violation of Canon 1389 (abuse of ecclesiastical office), this action, if indeed it was taken by ranking prelate, offends at a level that will, I suggest, haunt Church staffers for years to come. Read more >>

Kasper with looser lips

In case you missed it: Hilary White, "Cardinal hits young traditionalists who want to ‘be clear in their positions’: calls it ‘the beginning of terrorism’" (LifeSiteNews, February 9, 2015). Read about what Cardinal Marx says here about homosexuals and how he construes the meaning of the Gospel. Appalling.

At the very end, Marx declares:

“This whole pontificate has opened new paths. You can feel it. Here in the United States everybody is speaking about Francis, even people not belonging to the Catholic Church. I have to say: The pope is not the church. The church is more than the pope. But there is a new atmosphere.”

And Guy Noir - Private Eye adds:

There is a new atmosphere. There is no mystery or uncertainty as to this. Silence is confirmation, especially in our age of instant communication. And the fact is that atmosphere matters immensely. The other unhappy fact is that the Pope is most certainly encouraging this atmosphere; the schismatics are encouraging faithfulness.

Perplexing.

Here is Cardinal Marx's lecture on YouTube for any of you with the patience and fortitude to listen to it.

Michael Voris interviews John Allen, Edward Pentin, others on various defects in Catholic media coverage

[Advisory & Disclaimer: See Rules 7-9] "On this episode of Mic'd Up, Michael Voris breaks down the players in the UN-Catholic Media: various media outlets that present themselves as Catholic but undermine the Faith.

"Guests include Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register and John Allen of Boston Globe's Crux, along with CMTV's own Matthew Pearson, Christine Niles, and Peter O'Dwyer."

1. [0.14] Voris' introduction to this episode of Mic'd Up
2. [4.15] Interview with Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register
3. [10:05] Conversation with Matthew Pearson about anti-Catholic dissenting "Catholic" media outlets
4. [34:33] Discussion with Chistine Niles and Peter O'Dwyer about the "Reactionary Catholic Media"
5. [48:10] Interview with John Allen about secular media coverage of the Catholic Church [very interesting]

In the fourth section, Christine Niles summarizes how CMTV intends to position itself between two extremes it wants to avoid: (1) what she calls the "Church of Nice" Catholics, who provide the wrong diagnosis and the wrong cure for the current crisis, because they think everything is rosy, don't see the crisis, and regard everything coming from this pontificate as perfectly fine, and therefore see nothing to worry about; and (2) "Reactionary" Catholics, who provide the right diagnosis, recognize there are real problems that sometimes go all the way up to the top, but they provide the wrong cure, because their modus operandi is to mock, denigrate, bash and trash the Holy Father in ways that are absolutely unacceptable, and they drive people to independent Catholic communities that may be materially, if not formally, schismatic.

[I'm paraphrasing here, in the foregoing as well as in what follows.]

What, then, is the right diagnosis and right cure? Whatever the problems, says Voris, you can't depart from Peter ... even if Peter is wrong (and he won't be wrong on official teaching because that is protected by the Holy Spirit), and he can be wrong in the way he says something, even the way in which he understands things on the natural level. The doctrine of papal infallibility, stresses Niles, has very narrowly defined parameters. The Holy Father can say things that are vague, confusing, even wrong. But one must never depart from Peter. At one point, Voris refers to renegade bishops and stresses that even if they are notorious dissidents who are on the wrong side of major moral issues, one must respect the authority of their office and remain under their authority so long as they require of you only what is in keeping with Church teaching.

Related responses:

• Louie Verrecchio, "Trandwriter 25: Michael Voris almost gets the SSPX ..."
• John Venari, "CFN Media 4 - Response to yet another Voris Assault"
• John Venari, "CFN Media 5 - Response to Voris Pt 2: 'Reactionaries' and Blunder"
• Michael Matt and Christopher Ferrara, "INFLAMMATORY MEDIA: On Michael Voris & Mrs. Niles" (TheRemnantvideo, Feb.17, 2015)
• "The SSPX responds to false accusations" (District of the USA)

Two from Fr. Z on the upcoming Synod (Session II) this fall

• "Polish Archbishop predicts ugly confrontations at Synod: 'innovators have not been idle'” (Fr. Z's Blog, February 4, 2015).
  
  
• "John Allen pulled a fast one over at Crux about the Synod" (Fr. Z's Blog, February 5, 2015).