English College in Rome: Scene of Latest Seminary/Homosexual Scandal? 

From the Editor…

Some time ago, I was contacted by an English reader who was concerned about a seminarian from an Archdiocese in England who, on social media outlets, has shown support for the “gay culture”. I received evidence of this “support” for the “so-called gay culture” and – given that the Vatican prohibition on the acceptance into seminary and ordination of homosexuals includes not only those who are homosexually active or with deep-seated homosexual tendencies but also those who “support the so-called gay culture” – the material did ring an alarm bell.
However, I didn’t act on the information immediately, but waited a bit before contacting the Rector at the Venerable English College in Rome to ask for an email address for the seminarian in question. I decided that the first, and fair, thing to do was to give the seminarian the opportunity to reflect on the Church’s prohibition on ordaining homosexuals, and to inform him of the fact that, despite his involvement in the “gay culture” having been scrubbed from his internet history, the evidence is still held on file by concerned Catholics.

Promptly, the Rector, Monsignor Whitmore, replied to provide an email address and I contacted the young man on 26 July 2018 explaining that “…a reader in England sent me some Facebook screen shots of you, ‘liking’ ‘gay’ clubs and stating that you were on ‘Pride’ committees – stuff like that -which led me to believe that you – at least at that time – didn’t fully and unequivocally accept Catholic teaching on homosexuality as laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You appeared also, on Twitter, to support a pro-gay ‘marriage’ article in the Telegraph… Since you are on your way to ordination to the priesthood, it would be reassuring to know that the above is all in the past and that you now, fully and unequivocally, accept Church teaching on homosexuality.”

[Name] replied promptly, to assure me that he did now fully and unequivocally accept the Church’s teaching on this matter…” [emphasis added]. I decided that I was obliged to take him at his word, and reassured him on this point.

Then the veritable tsunami of homosexual scandals broke, with shocking insights into the normalising of homo-sexual life in Catholic seminaries, published across the internet. Bishops, not merely tolerating homosexual couplings  (bad enough as that would be) but actually approving such activity within seminaries.

After further consultation with our source in England, I wrote again to the seminarian, my email dated 20 October, 2018,  as follows, but this time, received no reply:

Dear [Name],

Further to our brief email exchange in July, when I was pleased to accept your assurance that you now accept the teaching of the Church on homosexuality, I hope you appreciate that, in the light of the tsunami of homosexual scandals involving priests and bishops which followed our correspondence, given the Church’s prohibition on the ordination of homosexual men or even those with “deep seated tendencies” or who “support the so-called gay culture”, I am unable to remain silent in the face of the evidence of your participation of the “gay” scene, and even support for same-sex marriage.

We are discussing, on our blog, the sacking of a sound priest from both Maynooth seminary in Ireland and St Mary’s Oscott in Birmingham, simply because he sought to apply the prohibition required by the Church. You can follow that conversation here

As you will see, if you read Father Marsden’s Open Letter to the UK Bishops, and contributions from our bloggers, on that thread, I must, on reflection, offer you another opportunity to re-consider your position.

My intention is not to upset you. I hope you understand that, and that I do, in conscience, believe that I was wrong to so readily dismiss the Church’s ruling on refusing homosexual candidates for seminary, in your case. That I was wrong to do so, has been driven home to me by the flood of revelations now in the public domain, and the shocking role of many bishops, themselves homosexually compromised, in the cover-up of homosexual abuse of vulnerable young people – including seminarians.

I look forward to your reply, in the hope that you have, in fact, realised yourself, in the light of the ongoing scandals, that the Church is wise to refuse ordination to those who are actively homosexual, have deep seated tendencies towards homosexuality and/or who support the so-called gay culture, and that you will, consequently, re-consider your own vocation. [Signed…] Ends.

When it became clear that the seminarian was going to sit it out, I felt I had no alternative but to contact the seminary Rector, Monsignor Philip Whitmore, Archdiocese of Westminster, copying into that email, the Vice Rector, Fr John Flynn, Diocese of Salford, Pastoral Director, Fr John Metcalfe, Diocese of Hallam, Academic Tutor, Fr James McAuley, Diocese of Portsmouth and Spiritual Director, Fr Anthony Doe, Archdiocese of Westminster. Thus, nobody at the seminary can claim ignorance of the fact that a seminarian with a public homosexual profile is to be ordained for an English archdiocese. My email – dated 24 October, 2018 – to the Rector, copies to the above-named senior staff, follows:

Dear Monsignor Whitmore,

Some months ago, I wrote to you to request an email address for [Name]. I repeat my gratitude for your speedy response to my request, and I apologise for the length of this email, which, I hope you will come to see, is lengthy only out of necessity. The following is the pertinent extract from my first email to [Name] which explains why I had decided to write to him:

“…a reader in England sent me some Facebook screen shots of you, ‘liking’ ‘gay’ clubs and stating that you were on ‘Pride’ committees – stuff like that -which led me to believe that you – at least at that time – didn’t fully and unequivocally accept Catholic teaching on homosexuality as laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You appeared also, on Twitter, to support a pro-gay ‘marriage’ article in the Telegraph… Since you are on your way to ordination to the priesthood, it would be reassuring to know that the above is all in the past and that you now, fully and unequivocally, accept Church teaching on homosexuality.”

[Name] replied promptly, to assure me that he did “now fully and unequivocally accept the Church’s teaching on this matter…”

Despite the Church’s prohibition on accepting homosexuals into seminary and ordaining homosexuals to the priesthood, I felt I could, in conscience, let the matter rest there.

However, in the light of the subsequent tsunami of scandals involving homosexual seminarians, priests and bishops, not least the persecution of priests such as Father David Marsden SCJ during his work as a seminary formator in not one, but two seminaries (Maynooth and Oscott), I now feel that I am conscience bound to inform you of my concerns about the prospect of [Name] going forward to ordination. Indeed, although I’m sure that you will be aware of the case of Father David Marsden SCJ, you can read about his situation and the attendant growing concern among the laity regarding the failure to apply the Church’s prohibition on accepting homosexuals into seminary, and, subsequently, ordaining them, on our blog here

My own conscience is now troubling me, not least because I am reminded of the detail of the Church’s concerns about homosexuality within the priesthood: “In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”.” [emphasis added – Source]

Further, to bring the issue right up to date, I have, only this morning, received the following news from a friend in England:

“At today’s press briefing, Veteran Vaticanist Sandro Magister also asked a question on the Church’s acceptance of homosexuals. Magister asked Cardinal Tagle:

“You have said that the synod has been insistent on the welcome and accompaniment and integration of homosexual young people. So I ask you: In the seminaries throughout the world, we know that the welcome of homosexual young men as candidates to the priesthood is very strong and also very generous, with the effect that Pope Francis has spoken about it in alarming words.”

Last May, Pope Francis spoke behind closed doors to Italian bishops gathered for their plenary assembly, telling them: “The seminaries are welcoming too many homosexuals” and “we need to put the brakes on it.” Ends.

I wrote again to [Name] on Saturday, but, to date, I have not received any reply.

[Ed: at this point I reproduced here, my latest email to the seminarian, dated 20th October – see above].

If, Monsignor, you have any doubts about my concerns, I will readily email you the screen shots from [Name’s] Facebook which show that he – at the very least – “supports the so-called gay culture.” 

Be assured, I take no pleasure in writing any of this but I feel duty bound to place the matter in your hands, leaving it with your conscience and the consciences of the staff copied into this email. [Signed, Editor, Catholic Truth] Ends.

Receiving no reply from the Rector, or any of the priests at the Venerable English College in Rome copied into my email, and since publicity is genuinely our last resort, I wrote one last time to the seminarian as follows:


Dear [Name],

When you failed to respond to my email dated 20 October, I decided that I ought to contact the Rector and other senior staff at your seminary. It occurs to me that I should have copied you into that email, so, with apologies for that oversight, better late than never, please find below, my email to them.

As a friend has just said, when even Pope Francis expresses the view that something has to be done about the rampant homosexuality in seminaries, it’s clear that there is a problem!   Quite!

Thus, I repeat my exhortation to you to reconsider your position; perhaps you would reply to this email by Thursday, November 1, Feast of All Saints, latest, to let me know if you agree.

Since I have not had any reply from your Rector (not even the courtesy of an acknowledgement), then, absent the above requested assurance from you, I will be duty bound to place the information in my possession, into the public domain. That does not mean that I will name you – I won’t do that, but with the available data, it should not be too difficult for informed English Catholics to work out your identity. Obviously, that is not desirable, so I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your position, if not as a result of my email(s) then as a result of reminding yourself of the Church’s prohibition on the ordination of those with homosexual tendencies, or even who “support the so-called gay culture”…

[My above email to Mgr. Whitmore et al appended here, in original email – Ed.]

Kind regards – God bless you.
[Signed]… Ends.

Conclusion…

So, what do we learn from the above correspondence? Do we learn that Oscott is not the only English seminary with a serious homosexual problem? Is the English College in Rome also implicated? Well, we certainly learn this:  that there is a seminarian in the English College in Rome who is going forward to ordination despite his documented support for the so-called “gay culture” – and we learn that each of his superiors, knowing this, apparently refuses to apply the Church’s prohibition on his ordination. 

The Church has good reason for refusing ordination to homosexuals. It’s not about “bigotry” or “discrimination” in the pejorative sense. Below, the pertinent section from the Vatican document Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders…

“From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter,

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.  Source   [Ed: emphases added].

Clearly, there is no excuse whatsoever for seminary Rectors to continue to accept and ordain young men with homosexual tendencies or who are supportive of the culture that nourishes this tendency – which is, in fact, a vice.

We have asked the seminarian in question to re-consider his position – that is, to withdraw from seminary and refuse ordination in an act of humble submission to the teaching and discipline of the Church. Failing this, his superiors should refuse him ordination.

Given the flood of recent scandals, and the ongoing scandals at the Irish and English seminaries, Maynooth and Oscott respectively, the senior seminary staff – together with their bishops/archbishops – bear a very heavy responsibility before God for their defiance in refusing to apply the crucial criteria for the discernment of priestly vocations. The crisis in the Church today is essentially a crisis in the priesthood and that crisis is hallmarked by the widespread infestation of homosexual activity and mentality, into the once glorious Catholic priesthood: “This Congregation reaffirms the need for Bishops, major superiors and all relevant authorities to carry out an attentive discernment concerning the suitability of candidates for holy orders, from the time of admission to the seminary until ordination. This discernment must be done in light of a conception of the ministerial priesthood that is in accordance with the teaching of the Church. Let Bishops, episcopal conferences and major superiors look to see that the constant norms of this Instruction be faithfully observed for the good of the candidates themselves, and to guarantee that the Church always has suitable priests who are true shepherds according to the Heart of Christ.”

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, on 31 August 2005, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication.

Rome, 4 November 2005, Memorial of St Charles Borromeo, Patron of Seminaries.

Comment: 

Presumably, our approaches to both the seminarian and senior seminary staff will continue to be ignored.  Hopefully, bloggers and readers will feel rightly outraged at this blatant disregard for the Church’s prohibition on accepting into seminary and ordaining homosexuals, including men who – like the seminarian referred to above – support the “gay” culture.  Given the flood of scandals which are continuing to shock the world, then, hopefully you, too, will contact the senior seminary staff at the Venerable English College in Rome – click here for email addresses. Let them know that you have read about this scandal on this blog and they’ll perhaps realise that rudely ignoring the genuine concerns of the Catholic people, isn’t going to work. 

Is there anything else, then, that we can do,  beyond the above calling to account of those with responsibility to deal with this situation, and the obvious prayer and penance?  Let’s hear it!   But first, an important note…

Important Note…

Please do not speculate, in the comments, as to the identity of the seminarian reported in this article.  or name any seminarians at the English College in Rome.   If you have information pertinent to this situation, please contact the Rector directly, and if you think Catholic Truth can help in any way, email editor@catholictruthscotland.com   Indeed, it would be useful for us to be able to include in any future reports the fact that the identity of this seminarian has been reported to the Rector by others, independently of our approaches.  However, here, on the blog, no names, no pack drill… Anyone flouting this instruction will be blocked from participating in the discussion.  

29/6: Happy Feast of Ss Peter & Paul…Faith of our Fathers, Living Still!

On this day, Catholics recall the key event in the establishment of Christ’s Church on earth, when He appointed Peter to lead His Church: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church…” (Matthew 16:18)

These days, however, more than ever, we need to remind ourselves about the profession of Faith which Peter made in the divinity of Christ  just prior to Our Lord’s appointment of him as the first pope:  having asked the disciples “whom do men say that the Son of man is?” (v.13) He then turned to Peter to ask him directly: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” (v.16).   

Now, with Peter’s profession of faith made public, he is given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (v.19)

The election of Pope Francis has thrown the Church into turmoil, so let’s use this thread to remind ourselves, firstly, of the need to pray for the Pope and for all the Bishops of the Church, but also to remind ourselves of the need for steadfast faith in the face of this terrible crisis – there is little merit, after all, in fidelity to Christ and Church when ruled by a faithful, saintly pope!

Key question:  should Pope Francis make a public declaration of Catholic Faith, to mark today’s Feast, given the confusion surrounding many of his public statements and the scandal surrounding Amoris Laetitia? 

As with all Feast Day / devotional threads we may discuss relevant issues, of course, but also post favourite hymns, prayers, poems, and share stories of miracles of grace attributable to these great saints.

A very happy Feast of Ss Peter & Paul to all our bloggers, and visitors to this site. 

Comments invited…

FSSP: Two Masses Enrich Each Other

The usually cautious and reserved Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) has now given its current opinion concerning the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and on its possible formal re-integration into the structures of the Catholic Church. Father Bernhard Gerstle – the head of the German district of the FSSP – just gave a 24 April interview to the German Bishops’ official website Katholisch.de in which he explains many of the positions and opinions of his priestly fraternity. (Father Gerstle is the same priest who, in 2016, made a politely critical statement about the papal document Amoris Laetitia.)

Father Gerstle explains, first of all, that he himself split off from the SSPX because of the “illicit episcopal consecrations” in 1988 which, in his eyes, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger tried to forestall. (Interestingly, and just in the recent past, there have been voices saying that Cardinal Ratzinger, as pope, later removed the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops because he realized that he had contributed to the intensification of that earlier conflict. Worth noting is that, Bishop Athanasius Schneider, who has served as an official Vatican liaison to the SSPX, recently called this act of excommunication an “injustice.”) In Gerstle’s eyes, the 1988 breach happened due to a “lack of trust toward Rome.” He also claims that many more priests within the SSPX had disapproved of the episcopal consecrations, “but did not make the final step.” Thus, there were “only a few priests and seminarians who left the Society of St. Pius X at the time [in 1988].” Gerstle explicitly says that the foundation of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter happened “essentially due to Cardinal Ratzinger, [who was] then head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.”

Father Gerstle further distances himself from those smaller groups within the SSPX – whom he calls “hardliners” – who “reject the Second Vatican Council to a large extent, for example with regard to religious freedom or as to the decree on ecumenism.” Some of them, he says, also doubt the validity of the new liturgy. Gerstle makes it clear, moreover, where the Fraternity of St. Peter stands with regard to the Second Vatican Council:

The Fraternity of St. Peter, however, has accepted to study without prejudice the conciliar texts and has come to the conclusion that there is no breach with any previous magisterial statements. However, some texts are formulated in such a way that they can give way to misinterpretations. But, in the meantime, Rome has already made here concordant clarifications which the Society of St. Pius X should now also recognize. [Emphasis added]

Additionally, Father Gerstle insists that for the FSSP, the new 1983 Code of Canon Law is the standard. In his eyes, the SSPX has here some more reservations. For the FSSP, explains Gerstle “there is not a pre- and a post-conciliar Church.” “There is only the one Church which goes back to Christ,” he adds. Gerstle also insists that the FSSP does not “wish to polarize or even to promote splits,” but that they wish to instill in their own parishes “an ecclesial attitude.” Certain (unnamed, unspecified) abuses in the Church should only be criticized in a “differentiated and moderate way.”

Father Gerstle also distances himself from the concept “traditionalist” when he says: “This notion I do not like at all to hear. We are not traditionalists, but simply Catholic.” As Catholics, he says, “we appreciate tradition,” but without “completely blocking organic adaptations and changes.”

The worthy celebration of the traditional liturgy, together with a loyal teaching of the Catholic Faith, is at the center of the work of the FSSP, according to Gerstle. “Salvation of souls” and “eternal life” are their Fraternity’s own concern. Unfortunately, adds the German priest, “the Four Last Things have been widely neglected in the Church, with the effect of a belittling and attenuation of sin and of a loss of the practice of sacramental confession.”

Father Gerstle sees that “one cannot simply introduce everywhere again the old liturgy and, so to speak, impose it upon people.” “Both rites thus [with the help of the “reform of the reform”] should enrich each other,” explains the priest. Certain elements of the new liturgy could be “enriching for the extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.”  To read IP5 extracts click here To read entire interview with Fr Gerstle, click here

Comment:

I’ve only ever conversed with one FSSP priest and it was not pleasant.  He insisted on describing the Society of St Pius X priests as “wolves”.  I insisted that, while they are certainly far from perfect, they are not “wolves”.  The chat went downhill from there. So, I read the above interview with much interest, and have concluded that while they may not be “wolves” the FSSP priests are certainly not going to get back on the fence any time soon – while they talk of the SSPX reconciling with Rome, they, the FSSP have manifestly reconciled themselves to the new Catholicism born at Vatican II.

I do agree with Fr Gerstle – and have said it often on this blog – that we should not need labels such as “traditionalist” because ALL Catholics should be adhering to both Tradition and Scripture. In the current crisis, these labels have sprung up to distinguish those who go along with the revolutionary changes in the Church post-Vatican II, and those who do not. 

The FSSP – according to Fr Gerstle –  appears to go along with the revolution to a large extent – even to describing the traditional Mass as the “extraordinary form” (a dead giveaway, as far as I am concerned), so I suppose that accounts for his dislike of the term “traditionalist” and his attitude towards the SSPX.  Allow me to hastily add, however, that I know that not all FSSP clergy are hostile to the Society of the Saint Pius X; however, Fr Gerstle is the Superior of a district of the Fraternity of St Peter and so, we may assume, may we not, that what he says, reflects the policy or position of the FSSP on the Mass and the SSPX, and indeed, everything else covered in the interview. 

Reading both the IP5 shortened version and the entire interview, is recommended before commenting. Then, loud and clear, let’s hear what YOU think…

Bishop Fellay on Church & Pope…

For several weeks various rumours have been circulating in the press concerning the possible canonical recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X by Rome. Rather than compound these rumours with commentaries, DICI preferred to interview the Superior General of the Society, Bp. Bernard Fellay, to ask him to make an assessment – click here to view interview on video…

Comments invited…

The one thing, the first thing, the only thing that matters for the Church is to save souls!

The one thing, the first thing, the only thing that matters for the Church is to save souls!

Rome Rabbi Admonishes Pope Francis

A French reader emailed the article below, which is more outspoken and detailed than any I’ve read in the press in the UK – both secular and “Catholic”.  Comments invited…

The afternoon of January 17, 2016 Pope Francis, after his prayer time with migrants at the time of the Angelus and the passage of the Holy Door of St. Peter’s Basilica with its 5000 non-EU guests, so sesame New World, will travel as scheduled to the synagogue.

Awaited with joy, this visit is a decline of more than the spiritual primacy of the Catholic Church to the world and men. Prepared by the Jewish community of Rome and the Papal services, it will mark a turning point in relations between Jews and Catholics, turning to the advantage of the Hebrew religion. The recent remarks made ​​by the Chief Rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni, a preview of this meeting, are there to testify.

In an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Rabbi sent a clear and precise message to Pope Francis: Christians should not try to convert Jews. It is the Pope, he said, to send this message to the faithful Catholics around the world. Would be put into practice the new doctrine contained in the conciliar document Nostra Aetate doctrine that has been reinforced by the recent theological documents out of the Vatican cellars for 50 years of the decree of Vatican II and which states that the Catholic Church should no longer have missionary activity among Jews.

 Pope Francis listens as Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome, outlines his demands during the pope’s visit to the main synagogue in Rome January, 17

Pope Francis & Rabbi Riccardo Di Segni, the chief rabbi of Rome,  during the Pope’s visit to the main synagogue in Rome January, 17

“If the Church says that the Jewish people must be appreciated and respected but written only in a theological paper, few people understand the message. “Said the rabbi. “But if the pope visits a fundamental historical place like the Great Synagogue of Rome, then the message of friendship and respect is clearly understood and expressed. “

“The Vatican supports, says rightly Di Segni Rabbi, the Jews are still the chosen people, even if we do not believe in Jesus and that we continue to have a role in what they call salvation, even as non -croyant in Jesus. From a practical point of view this means that not need to be converted Jews. Judaism is considered a religion that is part of their religious system and deserves to be respected. “

From a practical standpoint, the chief rabbi would ask simply to Pope Catholic, so this new theological vision of the Jews, who is not Catholic, is understood around the world that the Good Friday prayer for the conversion Jews still in force in the form of the “extraordinary rite”, although already reworked to be more acceptable to the Jews by Benedict himself, is now removed. Not less ! Delicate but crucial issue for the Jewish people who believe that anti-Semitism still persist hints within the Catholic Church despite his fraternal statements, more than fraternal, submission, “elder brothers in faith”. The repentance and abdication of the conciliar popes will never be enough: it always takes more, until no remnant of Catholic doctrine survivor of the extermination camp what the conciliar Church. Give them a hand, it’s not the arm, but they will take whole body!

Di Segni is firmly Riccardo decided to talk with the Pope during the visit of the afternoon. He already has some ideas and advice for the Vicar of Christ, he gives the scoop Haaretz: “What is happening thus demonstrates that the documents, the latest published last year, have not yet been received uniformly. Perhaps it would be better disclose, to make them happen also in the peripheries. “In a word, it is the traditionalists attached to the Tridentine Mass, poor commuters on the sidelines of conciliar Catholicism, which are to be rehabilitated!” All we hope that these prayers are only a folkloric survival.   “(Sic)

To help get the message, or rather the admonition, the visit of Francis will be with members of the Jewish community and a dozen survivors of the concentration camps, children from schools, shopkeepers, that is to say Jewish merchants. Few policies and church members.

Some other so-called contentious issues, while already one can doubt that in time it is the Church that will reverse, are in the background and will not be discussed even if they weigh the “good” relations between Jews and Catholics: the question of the beatification of Pius XII, accused by the Jewish community of not having quite strongly condemned Nazism and the recent issue of the diplomatic agreement between the Holy See and Palestinian state. A letter written by 71 rabbis around the world has also been sent to Pope Francis that he reviews this diplomatic position.

If for the rabbi De Segni this pope “is very interesting”, well that “we can talk with him”, efforts are however requested it in all areas to demonstrate its good faith towards them: we must, for example explains the rabbi, the use of offensive terms such reconsideration Pharisees because they maintain prejudice towards the chosen people.

As we can see is the disappearance of whole sectors of the Catholic doctrine, prayers, writings, lyrics, it is a rewriting theological, linguistic, liturgical and history of the Catholic religion, the Jews imposed in this dialogue one way for 50 years. It is the creation of a new religion that will name a Catholic they are striving with the complicity of ecclesiastical rights forgetful of Christ, new religion that would be perhaps this Noahide religion theorized by Talmudic rabbis of the nineteenth century. In a nutshell, that is the disappearance of traditional Catholicism firmly they work conscientiously and since Vatican II, obviously.

At the disappearance of this Catholicism which saw the conversion of Jews celebrated with a nice example was the chief rabbi Eugenio Zolli who chooses the name of Eugenio, at his baptism, in honor of Pope Pius XII and its protective action in favor of the Roman and Italian Jewish community during the Second World War and the occupation of Rome by German troops. But there also is another story that our conciliar popes want to put in the closet.

In any case, with such beginnings, the visit this afternoon the 17 January 2016 certainly will sign another abandonment, another repentance, another abdication for the humiliation again and again of the Catholic Church and through it Christian civilization, already fairly attacked by migratory invasion which is now also the feast day the Vatican!   Source  

 

Bishop Fellay: Cardinal Kasper Quite Logical and Perfectly Consistent …

bpbernardfellay_01You were received by Cardinal Müller on September 23rd.  The communiqué from the Vatican Press Office repeats the language of the 2005 communiqué issued after your meeting with Benedict XVI, which already said that the parties would “proceed gradually and over a reasonable period of time… with a view to the envisioned full communion.”  The 2014 communiqué, on the other hand, speaks about “full reconciliation.”  Does this mean that you are starting over at the beginning? 

Yes and no, depending on the perspective that you take.  There is nothing new, in the sense that both our interlocutors and ourselves, we realize that doctrinal differences still exist—which had been made quite clear during the theological discussions in 2009-2011—and that because of this we were unable to sign the Doctrinal Preamble that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has proposed to us since 2011.

But what is new?

There is a new pope and a new prefect heading the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  And this recent interview shows that neither they nor we want a break in our relations:  both parties insist that it is necessary to clarify the doctrinal questions before there is any canonical recognition.  This is why, for their part, the Roman authorities are demanding the endorsement of the Doctrinal Preamble which, for our part, we cannot sign because of its ambiguities.

Another new fact is the current aggravation of the crisis in the Church.  On the eve of the Synod on the Family, serious, well-founded criticisms made by several cardinals against Cardinal Kasper’s proposals about communion for the divorced-and-remarried are coming to light.  This has not been seen in Rome since the criticisms by Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci in their Short Critical Study on the New Order of Mass (the “Ottaviani Intervention” of 1969).  But what has not changed is the fact that the Roman authorities still do not take our criticisms of the Council into account, because to them they seem secondary or even illusory, given the severe problems in the Church today.  These authorities do recognize the crisis that is convulsing the Church at the highest level—now among cardinals—but they do not consider that the Council itself could be the main cause of this unprecedented crisis.  It is like a dialogue of deaf people.

Can you give a specific example?

Cardinal Kasper’s proposals in favor of communion for divorced-and-remarried persons are an illustration of what we blame on the Council.  In the talk that he gave to the cardinals during the Consistory on February 20th of this year, he proposed doing again what was done at the Council, namely:  reaffirming Catholic doctrine while offering pastoral overtures.  In his various interviews with journalists he harps on this distinction between doctrine and pastoral practice.  He says that theoretically doctrine cannot change, but he introduces the notion that concretely, in reality, there are some situations in which the doctrine cannot be applied.  Then, in his opinion, only a pastoral approach is capable of finding solutions… at the expense of doctrine.

Cardinal Kasper is quite logical and perfectly consistent:  he proposes applying pastorally to marriage the new principles concerning the Church that were spelled out at the Council in the name of ecumenism:  there are elements of ecclesiality outside the Church.  He moves logically from ecclesial ecumenism to matrimonial ecumenism.  Thus, in his opinion, there are elements of Christian marriage outside of the sacrament.  To look at things concretely, just ask spouses what they would think of “ecumenical” marital fidelity or fidelity in diversity!  Similarly, what are we supposed to think about a so-called “ecumenical” doctrinal unity that is united in diversity?  This sort of result is what we denounce, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith either does not see it or else does not accept it.

How are we to understand the expression from the Vatican communiqué:  “proceed gradually?” 

The mutual desire of Rome and in the Society of Saint Pius X to continue doctrinal discussions in a broader, less formal framework than in the previous discussions.

Cardinal Kasper’s proposals in favor of communion for divorced-and-remarried persons are an illustration of what we blame on the Council.  In the talk that he gave to the cardinals during the Consistory on February 20th of this year, he proposed doing again what was done at the Council, namely:  reaffirming Catholic doctrine while offering pastoral overtures.  In his various interviews with journalists he harps on this distinction between doctrine and pastoral practice.  He says that theoretically doctrine cannot change, but he introduces the notion that concretely, in reality, there are some situations in which the doctrine cannot be applied.  Then, in his opinion, only a pastoral approach is capable of finding solutions… at the expense of doctrine.

For our part, we blame the Council for making this artificial distinction between doctrine and pastoral practice, because pastoral practice must follow from doctrine.  Through multiple pastoral concessions, substantial changes have been introduced in the Church, and its doctrine has been affected.  This is what happened during and after the Council, and we denounce the same strategy that is being used today against the morality of marriage.

But was it only pastoral changes in the Council that indirectly affected doctrine?

No, we are in fact obliged to note that serious changes were made in doctrine itself:  religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism….  But it is true that these changes appear more clearly and more evidently in their concrete pastoral applications, because in the conciliar documents they are presented as simple overtures, just hinted at, with much left unsaid….which makes them, in the words of my predecessor, Fr. Schmidberger, “time bombs.”

In the proposals of Cardinal Kasper, where do you see a pastoral application that makes more evident a doctrinal change introduced during the Council?  Where do you see a “time bomb?” 

In the interview that he granted to the Vaticanist Andrea Tornielli on September 18th, the Cardinal says:  “Church doctrine is not a closed system: the Second Vatican Council teaches us that there is a development, meaning that it is possible to look into this further. I wonder if a deeper understanding similar to what we saw in ecclesiology, is possible in this case (i.e. that of divorced Catholics who have remarried civilly).  Although the Catholic Church is Christ’s true Church, there are elements of ecclesiality beyond the institutional boundaries of the Church too. Couldn’t some elements of sacramental marriage also be recognized in civil marriages in certain cases? For example, the lifelong commitment, mutual love and care, Christian life and a public declaration of commitment that does not exist in common-law marriages.”

 But if the doctrinal discussions in 2009-2011 accomplished nothing, what good is it to resume them, even in a broader fashion? 

Because, following the example of Archbishop Lefebvre, who never refused to go to Rome at the invitation of the Roman authorities, we always respond to those who ask us about the reasons for our fidelity to Tradition.  We could not shirk this responsibility, and we will fulfil it in the spirit and with the obligations that were defined by the last General Chapter.

But since you just mentioned the audience that Benedict XVI granted me in 2005, I remember saying then that we wanted to show that the Church would be stronger in today’s world if it upheld Tradition; I would also add:  if it proudly recalled its bi-millennial Tradition.  I say it again today, we wish to contribute our witness:  if the Church wants to end the tragic crisis that it is going through, Tradition is the response to this crisis.  This is how we manifest our filial piety toward eternal Rome, to the Church, the mother and teacher of truth, to whom we are deeply devoted.

You say that this is about giving witness; it is not rather a profession of faith?

One does not exclude the other.  Our Founder liked to say that the theological arguments with which we profess the faith are not always understood by our Roman interlocutors, but that does not relieve us of the duty to recall them.  Moreover, with his characteristic supernatural realism, Archbishop Lefebvre added that the concrete accomplishments of Tradition:  the seminaries, schools, priories, the number of priests, brothers and sisters, of seminarians and lay faithful, also had a great value as proof.  Against these tangible facts no specious argument can hold up:  contra factum non fit argumentum.  In the present case, we could translate this Latin adage by the saying of Jesus Christ, “A tree is judged by its fruits.”  And in this sense, while professing the faith, we must give witness to the vitality of Tradition.   Source

Comment:

If you can highlight one point made by Bishop Fellay which outshines the rest, share it with us. I can’t get past the (obviously rhetorical) question: “why isn’t Bishop Fellay Pope?”