Rorate Caeli

Abp. Paglia, clear or unclear? We report, you decide.

We are glad we were not the only ones to be left confused (cf. previous post) by the reported recent declarations of the President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Abp. Vincenzo Paglia. Even a Vatican Radio interviewer had to ask him  today exactly what he meant. Is his response clear?

Q. - During your recent press conference in the Vatican, you spoke of individual rights, particularly those related to patrimonial questions. But some media have referred that you spoke of the recognition of the rights of gay couples. From your texts,* though, these affirmations do not [seem to] follow.

A. - I have obviously been very surprised by what some media have reported. Not only were the words not understood - and therefore the regard with which they were said were not understood - but in truth, and perhaps knowingly, they were, as it were, "derailed". Allow me this railroad metaphor: they were derailed from their track. And it is certain that, when the train is derailed, it does not reach the station, it risks running off a cliff. It is something else to examine if, in the existing [legal] systems, those norms that protect individual rights may be derived.** This is something completely different from the approval of certain possibilities. [Source: Radio Vaticana]

*We should add that no media source mentioned Paglia's words as having come from the prepared texts, they did not appear in them, but apparently from impromptu opinions made outside the prepared remarks.

**The very notion of homosexual civil partnerships (or civil unions, or PACS) exists primarily in order to assure the individual property rights of each "partner" regarding what is commonly held by the "couple" - which is why exlusively family law matters such as adoptions by such "couples" are not automatically granted by the legal recognition of these "partnerships" (for instance, the French PACS regulation does not allow joint adoption by the "partners"). So homosexual advocacy groups seem to be right when they see an opening, by the highest Vatican official on family matters, in the recognition of individual property rights to the commonly held assets derived from these "partnerships", an opening that is clear even in the above-quoted clarification.


I am not Spartacus said...

George Orwell could have been describing The Roman Curia:

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, "I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so." Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

"While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement."

So, we have members of the Hierarchy who, long ago, surrendered to the nice-ness of feminism and so gay supplanted sodomite because the visual images generated by gay are much more acceptable than the visual images generated by sodomite.

We must be nice and not use certain words for it is an inescapable truth in the Kingdom of Liberalism that one will be castigated for using language condemned by cultural marxists but not for engaging in undeniable sinful actions; and it is an ineluctable truth that while certain categories of men (sodomites) are not only praised for their courage in sloughing-off Objective Morality they are rewarded for their perversion by being accorded a phony moral platform to attack those who adhere to objective morality and object to their behavior.

Feminism and Homosexualism are the twin scourges of modernity which are the instruments of torture in the passion that the Body of Christ is suffering in the world today.

NIANTIC said...

I think the "clarification" needs a further clarification. The bottom line is that he has placed the subject on the slippery slope of future approval.

I wonder if +Paglia and +Mueller smoke and drink together.

Chris said...

Abp. Paglia said this:

""While the church opposes recognizing gay unions as 'marriage,' he said, it affirms the full dignity of homosexual men and women. 'If a country outlawed homosexuality, I would work to overturn it,' he said, adding that he believed there are still '20 or 25 countries' that define homosexuality as a crime."

Then he "clarifies" by saying this:

"It is something else to examine if, in the existing [legal] systems, those norms that protect individual rights may be derived.** This is something completely different from the approval of such possibilities."

Yet Abp. DID "approve" of the "possibilities" of protecting a legal "right" to homosexual sodomy. In fact, he went further and said he himself would work to overturn laws against sodomy!

Can a "clarification" contradict the text one is clarifying?

Libera Me said...

The gates of hell have pushed into the highest echelons of the Church. They will push further and further until our Church just like our Lord is hardly recognizable. So many quote these words from Scripture in defense of wicked clergy all the while failing to understand that this is the time if the passion of the Church. It is true Hell's gates will NOT prevail IN THE END ...but it is going to get much uglier and we cannot take scandal or defend the indefensible wolves. God help us-- shorten these days!

Flex said...

Once the camel gets his nose in the tent it is just a matter of time until you have the whole camel in the tent.

Where is the Pope?? said...

I don't care if they "smoke and drink together". I just wonder what it is they smoke and drink.

New Catholic said...

"Patrimoniale" is certainly not limited to inheritance - but to all property entitlements that belong to an individual or are held together by a couple, or a corporation. We have changed "Patrimonial", which could imply this, to "property" to make this clear, since this Civil Law concept is widely understood in nations adhering to the Continental legal tradition, and is similar, yet different, from property rights in Common Law jurisdictions.

Do not try to post this again.


Matt said...

The ongoing lack of clarification actually is his clarification. He really does believe in these "gay" rights because he refuses to come right out and either uphold the Truth or state quite plainly he believes in the opposite.

Hmm? said...

The real question is: What is Pope Benedict going to do about this? Nothing?

mundabor said...

What a disgraceful man, but how typical of the state of affairs in Rome.

The man is trying to appease the crowds all right; and he does so in typical V II-style, so that everyone can take from it what he likes. A game seen countless times already.

At this point, I could imagine Paglia demanding that ways be found in order for Satan not to be discriminated against in the Mass. If this would serve to let him appear in synch with the times, I bet he would seriously consider it. All in a pastoral spirit of course, and never really meaning anything according to the listener.

Blog post on the matter coming.



J.G.Ratkaj said...

No wonder the voice of Rome is of little pertinence in the public social and political discourse. One time they lament "relativism", then they express themselves full of inconsistencies, which is relativism best of its kind.

Long-Skirts said...

Abp.Paglia said:

"Not only were the words not understood - and therefore the regard with which they were said were not understood -"

No, it's understood.

"when the train is derailed"

Why not get on the Barque?


Shale-gray morn
Lace in purse
Thin-paged Missal
Scriptural verse.

Rosary rattles
Scooped from table
Pray ‘fore Mass
If I am able.

Quiet still
Children sleeping
One more coffee
For my keeping.

Back porch view
Trees stand guard
There’s naught to fear.

For like the tree
With anchored root
When heresy-hales
I can dispute…

Hold holy ground
Like surpliced birch -
“Anchors aweigh!”
I sail to Church.

LeonG said...

Code of Canon Law coming up for revision so do not be surprised at what is coming up very soon.

Francis said...

Yawn, More Vatican II ambiguity and doublespeak from modernist, heretical and worldly bishops.If these liberal and scandalous "bishops" can't even condemn one of the four sins which cries to Heaven for vengeance (in this case homosexuality) while at the same time talking about it as an individual "right" then it ain't going to be too much longer before the real chastisment begins. These people deserve neither our attention or our loyalty, just our prayers for their conversion back to the true faith. Our Lady of Akita pray for us.

Johannes de Silentio said...

I propose an auto-da-fé, but with punishment restrained to forced resignation.

Lopes said...

The Brazilian press (O Globo newspaper and others)is reporting today that these comments indicate a shift in the Church's position in relation to the sodomites.

The article mentions a 'clarification' but do not hold your breath about anyone trying to decipher what that exactly means. The timing is perfect as carnival kicks-off on Friday.

hearhear said...

Hmm? above has identified the key issue. Will the pope actually DO anything, anything at all, about this? Or will he tacitly approve these comments?

Maronite Catholic said...

I was hoping his yes would be yes or his no would be no instead I got a story about trains.

I a simple high school graduate can clarify things better than this.

Rick DeLano said...

Another instance of the Fish(ichella) rotting from the head down?

Matt said...

Hmm? asked, "What is Pope Benedict going to do about this? Nothing?"

Nope. Nothing.

Gladius said...

"Feminism and Homosexualism are the twin scourges of modernity which are the instruments of torture in the passion that the Body of Christ is suffering in the world today."

To which I would add unbridled Avarice, which has secretly gripped the Vatican since the ratification of the Lateran Treaty in 1929. If the Hierarchy could free itself from the financial masters who wield absolute power in the Vatican, there could begin to be hope for improvement in the spiritual life of the Church.

Eric Brown said...

Vincenzo Paglia is a leader in ecumenism and interreligious dialogue with Jews. He opposed any attempt to deny communion to pro-abortion politicians back in the 2004 presidential election(John Kerry controversy). He is not only a radical modernist but a Vatican II liberal appointed by Benedict XVI to run the Pontifical Council for the Family. What he has done is advocated for state sanctioned sodomy, fornication, and a Vatican campaign for the elimination of all sodomy laws. His remarks presuppose the homosexualist ideology that homosexuals are "gay" and that distributive justice and its penalties against homosexual conduct are "discrimination". Vincenzo Paglia remarks are vicious, abominable, and totally discredited from a modernist archheretic in the Vatican.

Mar said...

Imagine this scenario. The SSPX Society make a decision to 'come back to Rome'. They find themselves under the jurisdiction of the President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, one Abp. Vincenzo Paglia. He directs them to follow his lead and take a 'more relaxed' stand on sodomy, far removed from the sin crying to Heaven from vengeance.

Far-fetched assessment? I don't think so. And the same could be said in relation to other high prelates with jurisdiction such as Fisichella and Muller, involving issues just as grave as sodomy.

No wonder the SSPX are sticking to their guns.

Lynda said...

There is no country that prohibits "homosexuality". There isn't even such a thing as homosexuality as generally used. Human beings are of two sexes - male and female - which complement each other and allow sexual intercourse with the potential for procreation. If an individual person has a tendency to be sexually attracted to persons of his own sex rather than the complementary sex, that is clearly not in keeping with the natural order and purpose of sexual attraction. Such attraction is not to be acted upon or intentionally developed or entertained. It is not for the good of the person or of society. Man-made laws which would grant recognition or status to such sexual tendencies or relationships are inherently against the Natural Law and the common good. Persons have true "rights" as persons, flowing naturally from their human nature. People have a right to dispose of their property how and to whom they see fit, provided properly recognised duties to husband/wife or child are not thereby flouted. Any two persons may jointly own property; if they are joint tenants of their property and one dies, the other becomes the sole owner. All persons have such property rights regardless of whether they are or ever have been attracted to someone of the same sex. What there is no right to, is to have a sexual relationship - other than the natural family- and community-building lifelong, exclusive sexual union between a man and a woman, i.e. marriage - recognised, endorsed or supported by the public. Marriage has existed as long as societies; it is an institution upon which family and society depends for existence and which has always been recognised as having an inherent public character. States have been created by men to help promote the public good, and as such have always recognised the pre-existing, necessary, natural institution of marriage, which is written into the nature of the individual and the naturally-forming community and nation. States cannot create marriage - they can only recognise it as it is a natural institution necessary to human flourishing. Likewise, states cannot eliminate marriage or change its essential character. States may purport to do so, as many do in various ways, the most egregious being to purport to equate a sexual relationship between two persons of the same sex, with marriage. This is to deny the essence of marriage (which exists independently of any state) and thereby deny the existence and reality of marriage.

Anonymous said...


Please help me. Sometime ago there was a discussion on Rorate caeli of the errors of Vatican II by a theologian. I am unable to find this article. Can someone give me the link?

Thank you,
Fr. Janz

Common Sense said...

"By deception, thou shalt wage war."

Does it sound familiar? One of the biggest deceptions used by gays is pretending that they are victims of the society in which they live. The actual fact is that the common law always has protected individuals without asking them what their sexual orientation was. The gays always complain that they are victimised on account of their sexual orientation, but again, when working in tandem, everybody has to carry equal weight. What they're really complaining about is that they want to not only exhibit their own style of sexual promiscuity but they also want to engage in the impudence of being able to recruit and pervert others, without any consideration for the family unit. The participation of gays in the devastation of the family is the crux of the problem.

Have no qualms, the gay agenda is to be more equal than others, to have more rights than others, and to be able to trash and crush to death anything and anybody who opposes them. So the family is at stake because it constitutes a solid unit against homosexual invaders. Some gullibles think that the gays are just poor innocent fairy-like creatures, almost adorable. Those people who participated in anti-gay rallies would tell you stories of being intimidated, threatened, obscenely shouted out and even physically assaulted by some gays.

Having said that, by no means do I claim that one size fits all. I am primarily talking about the vocal, politically-motivated activists. Needless to say, the filth of unnatural acts counts for the same, whichever group of individuals performs them. Of course there are people who do it out of weakness rather than other, more malicious motives. For that reason there always has been the law which, indeed, discriminated against homosexuality, primarily to protect the family and to prevent molestation of everyone in general.

From whichever perspective we look at homosexuality, it is indeed a plight for the homosexual himself/herself and for that matter to everyone else. But, of course, these individuals won't have that it is the Creator's will that a man take a wife, so they also voice other ideas which cause societal divisions - like 'do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else' and 'you live by your values and I'll live by mine' and other such choice phrases.

Barbara said...

Mar said:

"No wonder the SSPX are sticking to their guns."


I pray they do it humbly and firmly.

Much as the Ecclesia Dei priestly societies are absolutely essential and important - let's be honest and admit they have been muzzled up in the Church. I appreciate the FSSPX 's voice of clarity.

Not that the other TLM fraternities don't hold firmly to the faith - but, I repeat they are hushed up publicly.

Matt said...

Lynda said, "...States cannot eliminate marriage or change its essential character. This is to deny the essence of marriage (which exists independently of any state) and thereby deny the existence and reality of marriage."

Very good explanation of marriage and the state, Lynda, but prudentially when these things come to pass, what then do we do? Look out then for the persecution to begin. People say it won't happen but it will. If something is offered to heterosexuals, saying no to homosexuals will result in charges of discrimination. Such notions are already being tried in various lawsuits around the country (USA btw).

Tom said...

Mar said..."Imagine this scenario. The SSPX Society make a decision to 'come back to Rome'. They find themselves under the jurisdiction of the President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, one Abp. Vincenzo Paglia. He directs them to follow his lead and take a 'more relaxed' stand on sodomy, far removed from the sin crying to Heaven from vengeance.

"Far-fetched assessment? I don't think so."

Your assessment is far-fetched, monumentally so.

The Society's bishops and priests could not be denied its right and duty to uphold the Church's teachings in regard to sodomy.


Federline said...

Thank you, Long-Skirts, for your always-wonderful doggerel. It never fails to add insightfully to the discussions that we have here. We all are edified by your verse; we all come away feeling more keenly your mastery of the language and hoping more fondly for the arrival of your next, truly inspired and truly inspiring composition!

Clinton R. said...

More of the modernist Orwellian double speak that is so typical of the Post Vatican II Church. Once Catholic teaching was clear and one know what you should and shouldn't do. Of course now, a bishop can utter any nonsense and get away with it. These are very dark days and they most likely will get darker. Domine, miserere nobis. +JMJ+

Gratias said...

Gays in the priesthood caused enough damage as it was. We do not need to promote Obama's agenda from the Vatican.

Mar said...

So, Tom, when the SSPX say to ++Paglia, Your Excellency, you are wrong about this matter, the Church has always taught that sodomy is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, and the faithful have a right to know that without any equivocation, and therefore we are going speak out about it publicly, and will tell them not to listen to what you say - how do you think His Excellency will reply? Sure, go ahead, you're
right of course? I don't think so.

The great saints and teachers of the Church did not simply teach what the Church taught, they also named those whose teachings were contrary to those of the Church, pointing out their errors lest the faithful be led astray.

As to the right and duty to uphold the Church's teachings being denied, these days that is being done time and time again. For example, what about the priest who
refused to give Holy Communion to the avowed and unrepentant lesbian at her mother's funeral? He got very short shrift indeed.

Benedict Carter said...

Don't these clerics THINK before they open their mouths?

There is a strong case for Cardinals and the Pope himself to their mouths firmly shut unless they are teaching in a solemn way, in which case the comments should be approved beforehand.

Otherwise - SHUT UP.

Scott said...

Where is Greg Burke in all of this? And Bishop Morerod is bothered by some comments by Bishop Fellay?!

Katsumoto said...

hearhear wrote:
"Will the pope actually DO anything, anything at all, about this? Or will he tacitly approve these comments?"

He'll probably promote Abp. Paglia and excommunicate the SSPX bishops.

Romanitas said...

Tom said: "The Society's bishops and priests could not be denied its right and duty to uphold the Church's teachings in regard to sodomy."

You need to get to know more chancery offices and seminary professors!

John said...

Part of what is so astonishing in this is the failure to recognize that active homosexualism is not only destructive of the family but profoundly dangerous to morality. "Proud" homosexuals are predatory and there is a very real link between "gay pride" and the abuse of children. That is, I always thought, precisely part of the reason the Holy Father has insisted upon denying all homosexuals from taking sacred orders.

Claudius said...

Dear Fr. Janz, I don't recall the specific article you're talking about, but it may well be here:

Once there, scroll down to the section entitled "Crisis in the Catholic Church" and see the articles.

Also see this by an SSPX theologian:

You may well have been thinking of this book rather than an article.

Proverbs8:13 said...

Pursuant to Pride: go here & scroll to the bottom to see Chicago Archdiocesen "gay" ministry founded by Bernardin logo conjoining "Faith & PRIDE (sin)".

AGLO "ministry" was latest commended in this letter to his flock on "gay marriage" by Cardinal George:

AGLO marched in 2007 gay pride march, but when news got out in 2008 Cardinal George forbid the march:
After civil unions passed in Illinois, AGLO announced open search for LGTBQ choir director:

Here’s the job post:
Under "Resources", “social services” one site offers help in “chaste” living another site offers the opposite:

AGLO’s one charity is collecting & distributing “toiletries” to vulnerable street youth:

A website of an AGLO congregant:
Mustard Seed of Men Ministry MSM Is dedicated to the spiritual care of Nigerian & African homosexuals, their lovers and even those who hate them
A visitor wonders how AGLO continues to meet on church property: “The Wild Reed. Thoughts and reflections from a progressive, gay, Catholic perspective.”
Said visitor works for CPCSM--Catholics for gay marriage in Minnesota:

And another AGLO congregant:
“Ron Helizon, 65, passed away due to complications of a stroke March 6. He was the beloved partner of Gordon Burrows. Known as "The Polish Princess", Helizon was a popular bar owner and community activist for several decades. He was especially vocal in Catholic gay outreach as a member of the Archdiocese Gay and Lesbian Outreach ( AGLO ) .”

Tom said...

Romanitas said...Tom said: "The Society's bishops and priests could not be denied its right and duty to uphold the Church's teachings in regard to sodomy."

Romanitas said..."You need to get to know more chancery offices and seminary professors!"

1. The Society of Saint Pius X has acknowledged several times that should they obtain regularized status from Holy Mother Church, the Society would receive a protected canonical structure that Bishop Fellay likened to a "Rolls Royce" — that is, fist-rate, tremendous protection.

2. On top of that, the Society would enter into said structure with bishops ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre...Bishop Fellay would suffice to protect the Society from big, bad "seminary professors" and additional big, bad men!

Bishop Fellay alone would not permit "chancery offices and seminary professors" to force the Society to "go soft" on sodomy.

3. Regardless of that which "chancery offices and seminary professors" teach, the Society, FSSP, ICK, Bishop Rifan...any free to hold fast to Pope Benedict XVI's teaching on so sodomy, which, of course, is the Apostolic See's orthodox teaching.

Please. Let us stop the silliness...the nonsense...that features the invention of absurd situations to justify as to why the Society is "sticking to its guns" as the other poster declared.

The game that some of you folks have played is absurd.

Ummm...let's see...the Society will not play by Pope Benedict XVI's rules to obtain regularized status. How can I justify the Society's refusal to walk Pope Benedict XVI's path that leads to regularization?

Oh, I know...what if a big, bad bishop/wolf with large ears and large teeth tells the Society that they must...ummm...oh, go soft on sodomy.

Yeah! Yeah!

That is a absurd scenario that I can invent to justify the Society's suspended a divinis status.

Man...that was close! Had they entered into peace with Pope Benedict XVI, the Society would have been forced to have gone soft on sodomy.

I am sure glad that the Society stuck to its guns.

Oh, oh! What if the Society is regularized then forced to "go soft" on the Resurrection?

They would be forced to say that the Resurrection is a myth...and what if they were forced to "go soft" on...ummm...the Papacy.

That is, forced to say that the Papacy is false's time to do away with the Papacy!

Yeah! Yeah!

Oh...what if they forced the Society to go soft on...

Please let us stop the nonsense in regard to Pope Benedict XVI/Rome and the Society.



Tom said...

Certain posters have played games of "pretend" in regard to the SSPX.

Example: What if the Society plays by Pope Benedict XVI's rules to obtain regularization. Then along comes a big, bad wolf with large ears and large teeth...

...sorry, I meant an archbishop...who will force the Society to "go soft" on sodomy.

As long as we ae playing pretend...

To turn the tables on certain posters, I will offer a game of pretend that, unfortunately, is, oh...a bit more plausible than the other poster's above game of pretend.

The Society has been regularized...and a couple of years down the road Rome receives a telephone call...

"Hello, Rome? Good morning! Yeah, it's the Society. Ummm...we're calling about, oh...a few things.

"Huh? Oh, well we read that the Pope has a major ecumenical/interreligious gathering planned a few months from now and ummm...

"Well, we're not happy about that. You know how we have always felt about Assisi, ecumenism, all that stuff and well...

"Sorry, but as you have known, ever since we...ummm...signed on the dotted line with you guys, well, we've had rumblings here and there from some of priests, some of our parishes, with the laymen attached to us us and ummm...

"What am I trying to say? Well, it's this...we've pretty much adhered to the agreement...we ceased to say nasty things publicly about the Pope, New Mass, Vatican II, ecumenism...

"...but well, tomorrow, we will release a statement that condemns the planned ecumenical/interreligious event.

"Sorry, but we will denounce the Pope as a grave sinner. We also plan to denounce the New Mass as "evil".

"Oh, we will release an additional statement to denounce Vatican II as a error-ridden "tragice event" in the life of the Church...and...

"Hello! Hello!

"Rome, are you on the line? Hello? Hello? Rome? Rome? Hello? Hello?"

Speaking humanly, I believe that my game of "pretend" is more plausible than the other poster's game of pretend.

But speaking spiritually, which is the important way to think and speak, I do not believe that my game of pretend is plausible.

Again, I most certainly have every reason to believe and trust that should the Society enter into peace with the Holy Catholic Church via Pope Benedict XVI, that the Society would never fall victim to the game of pretend that the other poster presented.

The Apostolic See has made clear for years that the Society would receive from Rome protection via a first-class canoncial structure that the Scoiety likened to a "Rolls Royce".

The Apostolic See and the Society, with the Blessing of the Holy Ghost, desire peace with each other.

The Holy Ghost fuels the Holy Father's desire to work with and protect the Society of Saint Pius X.

I trust Pope Benedict XVI's peace efforts in regard to the Society of Saint Pius X. I pray that the Society will trod the path to peace with Rome that the Holy Father has paved.

By the way, as examples, the FSSP and ICK have most definitely thrived via obedience and loyalty to The Apostolic See.



John McFarland said...

Let me offer the appropiriate hermeneutic..

1. Of course it is unclear. Ambiguity is the hallmark of modernism.

2. Since ambiguity is the hallmark of modernism, any "clarification" will also be unclear.

3. But "clarified" or not "clarified", it will be 75-90% modernist-leaning unclear.

Benedict Carter said...


The answer from me anyway is that I, personally, do not trust this Pope at all.

HE was one of the original Revolutionaries, bent on destroying what had been built up over 2,000 years. Not read his early stuff, exulting at the direction Vatican II was going?

His own theology is decidedly dodgy. He doesn't even believe that St. John wrote St. John's Gospel.

He has promoted and protected those he studied with or who have studied under him, and all of them are tarred with the same brush as that which declared the Modernist lot barred from teaching before 1962.

He does nothing at all as the Church falls into final ruin in the West. Unable to let go of his own failed experiments, he is the blind leading the blind. No condemnations of heterodox priests, Bishops, even Cardinals and their damnable views.

We still have a Mass he himself has declared to be grossly defective.

He maintains the line that trying the impossible job of turning a Trabant into a Bentley is the right thing for a Pope to do rather than get rid of the damned Trabant and drive the Bentley out of the garage where it has lain, despised, for fifty years.

In my opinion of course.

The last straw for me was hearing him witter on not long ago about "Cosmic liturgies" a la the clever buffoon Teilhard du Chardin.

When we have a Catholic in St. Peter's Chair, not a wannabe crypto-protestant, THEN we might see Traditionalists fall into line as you want.

Tom said...

Tom said: "The Society's bishops and priests could not be denied its right and duty to uphold the Church's teachings in regard to sodomy."

Romanitas said: "You need to get to know more chancery offices and seminary professors!"

Romanitas, I have always approached the notion of Rome-SSPX agreement from the spiritual perspective.

Today, Pope Benedict XVI is the Roman Pontiff. I have every reason to believe that His Holiness is a holy Catholic believer.

Based upon that alone and regarding the issue, for example, of requiring the SSPX to "go soft on sodomy," it is preposterous to believe that Pope Benedict XVI would demand that the Society "go soft" on sodomy.

To do so would require Pope Benedict XVI to overthrow an unalterable teaching held by The Apostolic See.

Now, that is the spiritual perspective in regard to an agreement between Rome and the Society.

Now, let's approach the above via a way of thinking that is human...bottom line human.

Pope Benedict XVI is an intelligent man...brilliant.

I believe that the above applies to Bishop Fellay.

Pope Benedict XVI is aware that as Bishop Fellay has made clear, the Society will not enter into "full communion" with the Church simply to die.

The Society, as Bishop Fellay has declared, will not go over to Rome's side just to permit modernists within the Church to destroy the Society of Saint Pius X.

I know that. You know that. Most of all, Pope Benedict XVI is aware keenly of the above.

From the perspective that is strictly human and practical..."let's end this boring nonsense...let's get the SSPX signed up..."

...Pope Benedict XVI would not enter into a detailed accord with the Society only to destroy said accord.

"Hello, Society, it's the Pope. Huh? Yes, it's great to enjoy peace with other. Finally!

"You guys have done well lately. Everything is fine and dandy between us.

"Oh, by the way. Some seminary prefessors and chancery types here and there want you to go soft on sodomy.

"So, obey those seminary professors. Huh? Yeah, I realize that I'm asking you to destroy the Society. Bye."

That is a complete pipe-dream. Not gonna happen. Not gonna happen.



LeonG said...

We can see quite clearly that the neo-catholic church favours gay marriage but as long as it is called a "civic partnership". This is what the French bishops have done publicly.
Do we need any more evidence of the near complete disorientation of the post-conciliar church?

Fr. Janz said...

New Catholic,

Do you remember an article posted here during the talks with the CDF in which a theologian of the SSPX outlined the Society's objections to the VII?

By the way, I would also like to thank Claudius for responding.

Thank you,
Fr. Janz

Romanitas said...

Tom said: "3. Regardless of that which "chancery offices and seminary professors" teach, the Society, FSSP, ICK, Bishop Rifan...any free to hold fast to Pope Benedict XVI's teaching on so sodomy, which, of course, is the Apostolic See's orthodox teaching"

I cannot speak for bishop Rifan, since he has a diocese within someone else's diocese, but the IBP, ICRSS, and FSSP are invited into dioceses because their moral and liturgical views somewhat align with those of the local ordinaries. This is not necessarily the case for the SSPX. While they would certainly have canonical protection under one of these so-called prelature systems, they could cause hell within a given diocese because of their vociferous attitude. It is not so much canonicity that is at stake, but conflict.

I'm not sure what you meant by the rest of that [disorganized] series of hyperboles.

Brian said...

Tom wrote, what if a big, bad bishop/wolf with large ears and large teeth tells the Society that they must...ummm...oh, go soft on sodomy.

I trust that you are aware that this post is not about some imaginary “big, bad bishop” somewhere saying that Catholics "must...ummm...oh, go soft on sodomy," it is about President of the Pontifical Council for the Family seemingly saying that Catholics should support a form of quasi-marriage called "civil unions."

Long-Skirts said...

Tom said:

"...Bishop Fellay would suffice"


"Render your gender
Give it to me
Even in Rome
They've sympathy."

Even in Rome
Forked-tongue they speak
Where flesh is strong
And spirit is weak.

Where flesh is strong
And smothers the soul
Becomes the great goal.

As to his or her bearings
New mass of confusion
Sends up the red herrings.

New mass of confusion
Lets sin have a voice
Where gender benders
Build the Tower of choice.

Where gender benders
Full of jealousy
Hate anything female
Her fertility.

Hate anything female
The enmity
God placed between Satan
And the Virgin Marie.

God placed between Satan
Manly Bishop stand strong -
Though reviled and rejected
To HIM you belong!!

I am not Spartacus said...

Thank you, Long-Skirts, for your always-wonderful doggerel

When one comes across rhetoric replete with rebarbative ruction directed at a beloved contributor to a Traditional site, one quickly concludes that jealousy is the subtext of the putative praise.

I have seen this malignant medusa metaphorically rear her head in her several times before and she is always nasty and mephitic.

Long-skirts poetry is as far from doggerel as such a description of it as doggerel is far from reality.

Any soul incapable of appreciating the insightful and spiritually profound poetry of Long-Skirts is one lacking many things - not the least of which are common decency and chivalry.

New Catholic said...

Dear Fr. Janz,

Is it this one?

Best regards, please pray for us,


Tom said...

Mar said..."So, Tom, when the SSPX say to ++Paglia, Your Excellency, you are wrong about this matter, the Church has always taught that sodomy is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, and the faithful have a right to know that without any equivocation, and therefore we are going speak out about it publicly, and will tell them not to listen to what you say - how do you think His Excellency will reply? Sure, go ahead, you're
right of course? I don't think so."

The Society couldn't care less as to how he would reply — that is, if his reply contradicts the Church's official teaching in regard to sodomy.

The Society would enjoy absolute protection via a "Rolls Royce" (Bishop Fellay's words) canonical structure with The Apostolic See.

Everybody knows that the Society would never tolerate such nonsense.

In fact, the archbishop could not possibly foist your pretend teaching upon the FSSP, ICK and additional Traditionalists.

They enjoy the freedom to teach th Apostolic Faith and don't enjoy anything close to the canonical structure that the Society has acknowledged that Rome would employ to protect the Society from big, bad Churchmen.

The "let's pretend" game that the original poster initiated in regard to the SSPX and the notion of being forced to "go soft" on sodomy is monumentally preposterous that it's mind-boggling that adult Catholic would have even invented such nonsense.

Even more incredible is that certain posters have thrown in with such absurd, presposterous nonsense.

1. The Apostolic See longs for peace with the Society of Saint Pius X.

2. The Society, following decades of discord with The Apostolic See, signs an agreement with Rome.

3. Bishop Fellay acknowledged that The Apostolic See has made it clear from the beginning that the Society would receive a tremendous "Rolls Royce" canonical structure which, in turn, would protect the Society from th "let's pretend" nonsense that certain posters have concocted.

4. After decades of turmoil, meetings, discussions and having achieved agreement and peace with the Society, the Apostolic See would permit an archbishop to force the Society to "go soft" on sodomy.

That, in return, as The Apostolic See would be well aware, would meet with total resistance from the Society.

Peace with Rome and the Society would then be broken...turmoil...and we'd be right back to square one.

How any sentient adult Catholic could possibly buy into the "go soft" on sodomy pipe-dream is beyond belief.

It is mind-boggling as to the extent that some of you will go in regard to your determination to put down Holy Mother Church while attempting to justify the SSPX's suspended a divinis status.

No wonder why certain Churchmen are leery about some of the SSPX's supporters.

Seriously, some of you go out of the way to justify opposition to the Society.

Any Cardinal, bishop or priest who is leery of the Society and has read your posts is likely alarmed...and it's your fault posters.

Frankly, you manner of thinking is not uplifting, at least from the spiritual point of view.

The bottom line is what you are really saying is that you do not trust Pope Benedict XVI.

You do not trust Pope Benedict XVI in his holy desire to enter into peace with the Society.

That is what you are saying. That is very sad.


Long-Skirts said...

Thank you, I am not Spartacus, I am humbled.

Fr. Janz said...

New Catholic,

Thank you, but no that is not it. Perhaps I did not read it here. It was a list of specific doctrinal problems in VII with citations.

-Fr. Janz

Benedict Carter said...

Dear Fr, Janz,

I know the document you are referring to. I believe you'll find it in the Documents Section of in English.

Benedict Carter said...

Mar said...

Tom, you're protesting too much - calm down, take a deep breath, get that bee out of your bonnet.

The Church, relying on the Holy Gospel, has always and everywhere taught that wolves in sheep's clothing are a serious matter. You, on the other hand, while calling others silly, treat the matter as a joke and encourage others to do likewise.

Now, some would regard that as silly.

And, BTW, kindly refrain from
1) twisting my words
2) putting words into my mouth.

Thank you.

FormerNeoCath said...


Perhaps I have more patience with Tom than you do, because I used to be just like him, rabidly against the SSPX. I even turned down a possible college roommate because I discovered that he assisted at SSPX chapels. I embraced all the standard neocath charges against the SSPX: Protestant and all the rest.

Later I decided to actually do my homework. I began with the SSPX USA website and read many of the articles and FAQs there, including "Can Obedience Oblige Us to Disobey?", along with articles at The Remnant like "Gnostic Twaddle" and "Actions Speak Louder Than Words." Catholic Family News was also key.

I then read the books Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Iota Unum, One Hundred Years of Modernism, The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, The Catechism of the Crisis in the Church, and others.

I then decided to go to an Ignatian Retreat conducted by the SSPX. I later went to another.

In short, I discovered that the SSPX is, simply, Catholic. They teach only what the Church, until Vatican II, always taught. No more and no less. It's only because of today's breakdown that they seem so radical.