Rorate Caeli

Abp. Nichols praises "Civil partnerships" for "people of the same sex"

A Vatican II moment in England.

True, all men are not alike from the point of view of varying physical power and the diversity of intellectual and moral resources. Nevertheless, with respect to the fundamental rights of the person, every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent.
Gaudium et Spes, 29


The Archbishop of Westminster, leading cleric in England and Wales, said the following words at a recent press conference following the Bishops' meeting:

'We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision,
............
'As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give. Stability in society depends upon the reliability of commitments that people give. That might be in offering to do a job but especially in their relationships with one another. Equality and commitment are both very important and we fully support them.' 

OK, then. As long as the politicians don't call it marriage!
(Source and tip: Father Blake; image: recently-unveiled coat of arms of the Speaker of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.)

78 comments:

  1. Lee Lovelock-Jemmott8:46 PM

    WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS CLERIC. Sorry for the capitals but as an incoming Catholic with whom my Metropolitan shall be Abp Nichols, it is beggers belief that the lieks of me and others till want to be Catholics; then again, that is all thanks to the Old Roman Mass and the Clergy who serve these masses who remain very orthodox and zealous in their obedience to The Holy Catholic Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous9:05 PM

    The wrong Nichols received the pallium, that's for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Amongst God's creatures, "Equality" does not exist in Heaven, which is an eternally unequal hierarchy of being.
    In Hell, pace Dante, it does exist: all are equally far from God.
    God created the first, Satan rules the second.
    The old order strove to emulate Heaven; the new is already an incipient Hell.
    Look which one Vatican II chose.

    ReplyDelete
  4. P.K.T.P.9:06 PM

    This man is fundamentally a heretic. No relationship can be endorsed if it in any way encourages a disordered way of life, one that is contrary to nature. These partnerships, by fostering a morally illicit association, encourage sin. We are required by God to flee sin and also the occasion of sin. Moving in with another invert exposes the two to the near occasion of sin. It is therefore sinful in itself. Anyone who endorses such sick and perverted relationships compounds the sin and therefore violates God's laws himself.

    This Archbishop needs to visit the nearest confessional, and not as the confessor. It's called the Sacrament of Penance and NOT the Sacrament of 'Reconciliation'. Now we can see why. Sometimes, reconciliation can be a bad thing, but penance never is.

    Recently, H.H. promoted a bishop who thinks that women can be priests. Now this. In purely human terms, we can all see where this is going; it is moving towards a schism at the top. All the more reason for Rome to recognise the S.S.P.X. Rome needs to recognise that the Society is Catholic so that, once so acknowledged, the Society can be in a position to admit, with great regret, that Rome is no longer Catholic. Will this day come? Only God knows. When He returns, will there be any faith left on earth?

    P.K.T.P.

    P.S. I reiterate, although I should not have to, that this is in no way a condemnation of the man who has such orientations. Only God can judge such a man. We all know this. The question is whether or not homerastic relations are compatible with the Catholic Faith. They are not. The Catholic Faith if irreformable, so that cannot change. Those who cannot accept the teaching of the Church have a power (if not a right) to defect. Really, by rejecting that teaching, they do defect from the Faith.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Someone send the CDF's "Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons (June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.)", approved by Bl. Pope John Paul II who ordered the publication of the document. He will learn while the Church opposes ANY legal recognition of sodomy-related activities, as well as all forms of sexual activity outside marriage (AKA " fornication").


    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Archbishop Nichols was championed as a great conservative figure by (among others) Damian Thompson. I wonder what he has to say about this?

    ReplyDelete
  7. P.K.T.P.9:19 PM

    This puts the Pope in a difficult position, as did the heretical statement of Cardinal da Cruz Policarpo on womanpriest. That Cardinal had to retract his statement. To be fair, then, this Archbishop must do so as well.

    If the Pope grants a red hat to Nichols now, this will be seen to be an endorsement of homo partnerships by the Vicar of Christ. That must not be.

    The S.S.P.X now can point to Nichols and say: You see, Holy Father, your own prelates defy essential Church teaching, all in the name of a (perhaps false) fidelity to Vatican II. Now can you see, Your Holiness, why we in the Society hold the conviction that there is a state of necessity?

    This state of necessity is international, Your Holiness. Your own new bishop in Fontibón, Brazil, defies you on womanpriest. The man on whom you conferred a pallium in England defies you on inverted sexual relationships. The emergency, Holiness, is internationsl; it is universal.

    This state of necdessity goes to the very centre, to the Mater et Magistra, if this Pope fails to take action. And what action has he taken against Fr. Raymond Gravel of Repentigny, in the Diocese of Joliette, Quebec, the former male prostitute turned priest, who has never retracted his support for the legalisation of abortion and inverted marriage on television? Why have you not laicised him, Holiness? Are you afraid of him? Who is the Pope? Benedict XVI or this former male prostitute turned pro-abortionist?

    There is a priest in Toronto who simulated a marriage between two men in a Catholic Church. Nothing has happened to him. We need not words but action.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 'It was a bright cold day in April and the clocks were striking thirteen'

    ReplyDelete
  9. Amongst God's creatures, "Equality" does not exist in Heaven, which is an eternally unequal hierarchy of being.
    In Hell, pace Dante, it does exist: all are equally far from God.


    There's some sort of hierarchy in Hell as well, if you believe in the teaching on Limbo.

    ReplyDelete
  10. NomadNick9:23 PM

    How dare you term Archbishop Nicols’ horrendous statements, a "VATICAN II MOMENT”? There is nothing in the Council even remotely condoning homosexuality or “unions” of homosexuals.

    A "post-Conciliar 1970s moment"? Yes, that would perhaps be an appropriate designation, but don’t malign an ecumenical council of our Church with such flippant and false characterizations.

    ReplyDelete
  11. P.K.T.P.9:26 PM

    Mr. Howard is right even if you do not accept Limbo. While all in Hell suffer the pain of loss equally, they suffer the pain of sense differently, in accordance with their differing degrees of their sins. This is because God is perfectly just.

    Satan suffers more than any other, and his fallen fellow angels suffer more than do the damni.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  12. P.K.T.P.9:30 PM

    I must agree with NomadNick, and I speak as one who despises and regrets the very existence of Vatican II. Vatican II can be faulted for its horrendous ambiguities, leading to error; and it can be faulted for its endless exception clauses which detracted from proper standards. But it did not in any way endorse homerastic relationships of any kind. In fact, at the time, the entire idea would have been unthinkable, as it should always be. The approval of inverted sexuality always leads to the destruction of a culture and a society.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Blokes shagging Blokes in Seminary,
    Are routinely counseled, "You can't get married."

    So, as long as they can't get married and as long as they exhibit pertinacity in perversity, it's all Cool, Baby in the Church of What's Happening Now with Bishop Flip Wilson.

    But, remember, the real problem is with the SSPX so Abp. Nichols will not be required to sign a Preamble....

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous9:32 PM

    Nomad, I think you need to relax just a bit. Have any scotch? It works well in stressful times like these.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dear NomadNick,

    We are, in part, being facetious. However, the point is quite serious: the Most Reverend Archbishop defends the structure of the civil partnerships precisely because the Church is "committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life". The idea that the Church defends equality in such a wide way in all possible ways, remember, against "every type of discrimination", comes directly from Gaudium et Spes. If questioned, the Most Reverend Archbishop can understandably quote Gaudium et Spes to justify his position.

    NC

    ReplyDelete
  16. what does an archbishop have to do to be deprived of his see?

    Say that Vatican Two was a pastoral council that was partially in continuity with previous councils and partially a rupture with previous councils.

    That is it; oh, and prefer the Immemorial Mass and the Traditional Sacraments

    That should do it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ah, yes, how lovely. But at least the bishop is in full communion with the Holy See, unlike those pesky SSPXers, right?

    ReplyDelete
  18. We have been doing our "Vatican II moment" series for years, and every single time some dear but obtuse people fail to understand it. Let us try one last time: we do not "blame" Vatican II; we show in quite clear terms that many of its words have been, are, and can reasonably be used to defend surprising actions, omissions, and views. Abp. Nichols can certainly do it this time, if confronted. It is sad, but it is true.

    NC

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lee Lovelock-Jemmott9:59 PM

    Second P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  20. P.K.T.P.10:12 PM

    After Nichols signs his retraction, or at least a Premable to it, the Pope will ask him forevermore to wear a condom, as a sign, perhaps, that he has seen the light and is taking a more responsible approach as a pastor of souls. The Pope might even approve his putting a condom on his heraldic shield. After all, a condom can be a sign, perhaps, that the sinner is at least taking more responsibility for his actions, and this can lead to reform of character.

    I believe that it was Pope St. Pius X who insisted that, while condoms are always immoral, their use can signal an improvement in behavious, one that might later lead to reform of character.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  21. PellFan10:21 PM

    I can assure you that the Archbishop could open an abortion clinic in the square in front of Westminster Cathedral and he would still be awarded the cardinal's hat in the next conclave. That's the way New Church works.

    ReplyDelete
  22. J. G. Ratkaj10:27 PM

    Like most "conservative" hierarchs Archbishp Nichols is a great imposter.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Before I dismiss the charge that Vatican II and homosexuality have no linkage, I want to know how many of the bishops that were there are or have been linked to homosexuality. We may not know for a few more decades, but it may not turn out to be a small number. I mean, since the church says homosexuality is a sign of a disordered mind, and Vatican II was such a .. well, never mind.

    I can wait on that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. forgive me for asking, but short of assassinating the Pope and/or celebrating a Black Mass live on the BBC, what does an archbishop have to do to be deprived of his see?

    I suspect dressing up as a Nazi would probably do the trick (although a Che Guevara t-shirt is probably ok, sadly :-( ).

    The current state of the world/church reminds me of solving a rubik's cube. The first 2 layers its fairly easy to distinguish progress but getting the final bit right things look like they are going to pot until suddenly everything comes together. Lets hope my analogy holds some truth.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear "John",

    Offending us will not get you posted. Why don't you look for greener pastures?

    NC

    ReplyDelete
  26. Tradical11:50 PM

    PKTP:

    "After Nichols signs his retraction, ..."

    I think that went a bit too far. Unfortunately, Archbishop Nichols is a prince of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  27. While all in Hell suffer the pain of loss equally

    The Jansenists at Pistoia defined the limbo of children as a place "in which the souls of those dying in original sin are punished by the pain of loss without any pain of fire," and this proposition was condemned by Pius VI in Auctorum Fidei. And since that time few, if any, theologians have held that those in Limbo suffer the pain of loss at all.

    ReplyDelete
  28. BasilHume12:43 AM

    The Prime Minister of the UK recently declared: "I support gay marriage because I'm Conservative".
    Is the Primatial Archbishop of that realm now saying: "I support gay civil partnership because I'm Catholic"?
    Just remind me, what was the sin of the Sadducees??? Was it not sucking up to the civil authorities, however decadent they might be, in the hope of maintaining a position in society? And just remind me: what exactly happened to the Sadducees after Jerusalem was sacked in AD 70?? Did Our Lord say to them: "Well done, my good and faithful servants"?. or were they wiped from the face of the earth?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Prof. Basto12:47 AM

    RESIGN!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Lopes1:26 AM

    But he is in 'full' communion, you hear that?! Stay away from the SSPX and traditional priests as they do not have jurisdiction!

    Besides with the new-new-new translation of the NO Missal we are moving in the right direction.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sin is sin is sin! There is not one moral law for Christians and another based upon taste! I would prefer the government get out of "marriage" altogether. The government has not the power to marry Christians and can only deal with property issues.
    This whole civil partnership like civil marriage is a parody of true marriage. Sodomy is sodomy, onanism is onanism, sterility is sterility!

    ReplyDelete
  32. The Archbishop of Westminster, leading cleric in England and WALES...

    Sir Thomas More: "Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for WALES?"

    CHRIST
    WAILS

    Look to the timeless
    Look to the true -
    Look to the Christs
    Giving their lives for you.

    Look to His Mother
    Look to Her spouse -
    Flee from the dens
    Where the thieves rob His House.

    The thieves have seduced
    The thieves have well groomed
    Their sheepheaded souls
    They have crushed and consumed.

    The new hired Herods
    Lure with a kiss -
    Only pure-pious wise men
    Know something's amiss.

    Follow these wise men
    It's clear who they are -
    Crystal Light shines upon them
    Under Bethlehem's star!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Vagabondo3:19 AM

    Ok, I should know better than to be shocked by bishops. Pretty entry-level trad fare. But this is truly incredible. I had to reread this a few times to make sure I was getting it right. Truly the liberal religion of nondiscrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Peterman4:14 AM

    Christmas is the season for fruitcakes.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Byzcat5:20 AM

    This is not the first Archbishop who is soft on morality and dogma, nor will he be the last. The worst enemies of the Faith have always been firmly entrenched within the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  36. P.K.T.P.6:00 AM

    dcs:

    Were you replying to my post? I'm not sure. However, I wss not referring to Limbo but to Hell. I'm saying that all in Hell suffer the pain of loss equally but they suffer the pain of sense all unequally, in accordance with their sins.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ivo K.6:53 AM

    As long as he has his 'full communion,' 'hey I'm fully regularized!' and 'I love V2!' papers stamped, the faithful are safe in his hands. It's those nutters who love the TLM and think that the Church was swell before V2 that the faithful have to be kept from. They're the ones who teach unscientific and intolerant things, like that the male and female sex organs have a natural purpose. THey have no idea that biology is just a natural construct, and that, if a man wants to turn himself into a tiger or marry a dodge, that, too, can be worked into the construct.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dear NC,
    the phrase you quote from Gaudium et Spes, namely "every type of discrimination, whether social or cultural, whether based on sex, race, color, social condition, language or religion, is to be overcome and eradicated as contrary to God's intent", should be first of all understood within the context of the 60th, i.e. pre 1968, i.e. pre-sexual and other Western 'revolutions'. Of course, it is possible to assume, that certain periti, who might have had some intention directed far to the future and included the word "sex", meaning that in distant future it will be possible to use in terms of kind of approval of homosexual co-habitions. However, it is more likely that at that period of time the phrasing meant what it really was and still is for any person of common sense, i.e. that discrimination, among others, based on sex, means precisely on one's sex. In other words, discrimination because of the fact, that one is a man or a woman. It hardly had in mind so-called transgender, transsexual and the like.
    Thus, my argument is that the quote form Gaudium et Spes might be used for various perverse explanations, as it could have been used by archb. Nicols. However, it is not the text of the quote itself to be blamed (at least in this very case), rather than, let us say, wicked mind of certain persons and actually the cultural climate and misconceptions of nowadays.
    To make it short, in this very case it is indeed more relevant to talk not that much about the Vaticant II, but much more about the post-Conciliar period, which was used but the same, I would say, satanic forces, to destroy the moral grounds and the Faith itself with the use of certain interpretation of that same Vatican II.

    ReplyDelete
  39. You make my point precisely, Jonvilas. Ambiguity and generic grand statements are exactly why so many different things are justified in the name of the Council.

    NC

    ReplyDelete
  40. Once again we are betrayed, not by a secular humanist or atheist, not by a Church hating anti Christian; no we are betrayed, at the very moment when the battle to save marriage is at its height, by one of our own leaders, an Archbishop no less.

    What a disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Alsaticus9:14 AM

    Neo-conservative prelates are often more concerned - if not obsessed - with courting the liberal media favor (or neutrality) than fulfilling their ministries as priests or bishops.

    We had one of the post-Vatican II moment in France when the Abp of Rennes, Bp d'Ornellas, decided that the loose bowel old man in Castellucci's play is a metaphor of ... the Passion of Christ. And that smearing feces on the face of Christ is a step further into the understanding of the faith.

    Not only he is still archbishop of Rennes, not only he has been a Benedict XVI nomination there, but FrenChurch conference voted him to be in charge of ... catechism ! after his weird, disturbing "analysis" and praise of a poo-poo "catechesis".

    We've already seen how neo-cons bishops can turn to be a big disappointment. The self-destruction of BelgChurch has not been in the least stopped or merely made slower by Abp Léonard. He has pushed more Danneelsians into the episcopate.

    However to be fair with Abp Nichols, he was "acclaimed" as the less rotten candidate (the Magic circle had awful people to promote then) rather than the best candidate. It seems the recent Scottish nomination of the abbot of Pluscarden is far better.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Oliver10:27 AM

    Everything is possible in the conciliar church ..... except of course the old faith. Worse is to come ....

    ReplyDelete
  43. Gaudium et Spes is talking about discrimination and not about "equality" as currently promoted in the UK. "Equality" here in the UK means that we all have to be homogeneous - we will have to act alike, think alike, be alike. This is Huxley's brave new world - described by Christopher Hitchens as "the hedonist nihilism of Huxley still beckons toward a painless, amusement-sodden, and stress-free consensus". Indeed we have just had a series of programs on TV entitled "Brave New World with Stephen Hawking" described as "Professor Stephen Hawking examines how science is striving for humankind's next leap forward".

    One of your posters suggests that the Archbishop might open an abortion clinic in front of his Cathedral and Rome would not object. No need - his predecessor was quite happy to allow our leading Catholic Hospital in London to head off in that direction. Rome did object but so what?

    ReplyDelete
  44. GQ Rep11:30 AM

    There goes his chances for "the red hat"

    ReplyDelete
  45. Barbara12:31 PM

    Outrageous! He should be removed from office. This man is no longer Catholic. Come on, how long will Rome permit such situations to continue?

    The state of necessity is getting worse day after day, so it seems to me.


    Why won't SOMEONE do SOMETHING?


    Dear P.K.T.P,
    I am surprised that a man of your intellgence and knowledge would stoop so low with such a repulsive post, which begins "After Nichols signs his retraction.." Really, does this help the discussion of such a serious matter? It lowers the standard of this excellent blog and I object to it. Besides, it's not in the least funny.

    Barbara

    ReplyDelete
  46. Isaias 3: ... and the effeminate shall rule over them.... For Jerusalem is ruined, and Juda is fallen: because their tongue, and their devices are against the Lord, to provoke the eyes of his majesty

    Wait..what?

    Oh, phew; that is just about the old days; it could not possibly pertain to Holy Mother Church during the dispensation of the New Theology for there is no punishment for praising perversion.

    But, why did this effeminancy arise so abruptly and with such vengeance in the modern reformed Church?

    Well, the great Dom Gueranger teaches us in "The Liturgical Year" that a decrease in penitential acts, such as fasting and abstinence, ineluctably leads to a rise in effeminancy.

    Wait...what?

    Do you mean to tell me that Holy Mother Church, in relaxing the strictures on fasting and Abstinence might have erred?

    Nah.

    I know from reading the modern Popes that it is only the dead Catholics who were Crusaders or Inquisitors who did bad things.

    Nope. It is all good in the Church of what's happening now; laxity in penitential acts and rigor in religious liberty; it's all good, baby

    ReplyDelete
  47. This is a bit of a rabbit hole but:

    PKTP writes:
    Were you replying to my post? I'm not sure. However, I wss not referring to Limbo but to Hell. I'm saying that all in Hell suffer the pain of loss equally but they suffer the pain of sense all unequally, in accordance with their sins.

    Indeed I was replying to your post. The point is that not all in hell suffer the pain of loss equally. The souls in Limbo (which is part of hell) do not suffer the pain of loss at all.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous2:09 PM

    Dear Tradical,
    While ++Vincent Nichols is the Metropolitan of Westminster, he is not a 'Prince of the Church', nor, God willing, will he ever be appointed one, despite the fact that +CMOC turns 80 next year.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Tradfly2:10 PM

    Jonvilas,
    Sorry, the text of Gaudium et Spes which concerned "overcoming" every sort of discrimination already conveyed a much broader understanding since the 1920's. Perhaps not in common parlance, yet in many circles these words were understood exactly as they are today. Even more so, in that the periti specifically identified so wide a variety of discrimination, such that their obvious intent becomes conspicuous by its omission.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Bernonensis2:24 PM

    How must this look to the people in the Ordinariate? They left a sinking ship only to find themselves on another vessel whose pilots are blithely steering toward the same rocks.

    It's time for Rome to suppress the position of archbishop. National episcopal conferences leave it nothing more than an empty title, a kind of monsignorate for bishops, and one that apparently goes to their heads so that they try to create their own versions of Catholicism. Nichols is an example of this, Milingo was another, and, of course, the very worst was Lefebvre, as reflected in their respective treatment by Rome.

    ReplyDelete
  51. GQ Rep2:27 PM

    "Outrageous! He should be removed from office. This man is no longer Catholic. Come on, how long will Rome permit such situations to continue?

    The state of necessity is getting worse day after day, so it seems to me.


    Why won't SOMEONE do SOMETHING?"

    MAYBE 'CAUSE FROM THE POPE ON DOWN, THEY DON'T THINK ANYTHINGS WRONG WITH THIS. THAT'S JUST A MAYBE.

    WHAT WE NEED IS ANOTHER POPE ST. PIUS X, OR ANOTHER VEN. POPE PIUS XII.

    ANY PROSPECTS? ONE OR TWO. AND ONE'S NOT EVEN A CARDINAL.

    ReplyDelete
  52. You are correct, Tradfly. All current meanings of the word, including those we mention here were certainly well-known in some Socialist and "avant-garde" circles in the decadent Interbellum years.

    NC

    ReplyDelete
  53. Spero3:03 PM

    May God give the Holy Father fortitude and wisdom to rule the Church in the name of Christ.

    If error has no rights, HOW CAN SINS CRYING OUT TO HEAVEN for vengeance have rights?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Who still believes that the liberal modernist new church of the post-conciliar era is not defecting from The Roman Catholic Faith? It has a protestant vernacular liturgy and a pluralistic pastoral model both of which have provoked an exponential decline in every chief indicator.

    ReplyDelete
  55. GQ Rep4:44 PM

    I'm off to England/France/Germany/Poland after Christmas on a photo assigment, so I'll get to see this guy in action for afew weeks going to Mass at Westminster Cathedral, etc.

    From what two friends of mine in Egland have already said about Nichols before, he's no way a Catholic. You could label him a USA Episcopalian, or a Presbyterian or Methodist (or a Unitarian) in his views. But not Catholic.

    Pope Benny has appointed so many bad bishops lately (Tagle, the guy in Belgium, Nichols, and two new radicals this week, 1 in Colombia and 1 in Italy), that I am very much beginning to think that he plays two sides of the coin....radical and traditional.

    And that will lead the Church to ruin that will take generations to repair/rebuild.

    Anyway, what I've been reading even in the secular press about this issue today....if the Pope is still a Catholic, this guy should either be asked to resign, or at least loose his chances for being addressed as, "His Eminence,Vincent Cardinal Nichols".

    But don't be surprised if he's on the next list.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Shocking and apalling. But will the Vatican take him to task for it? Probably not. They didn't with German Bishop Zollitsch who publicly denied the propitiatory nature of Christ's sacrifice (a worse heresy is hard to imagine). How long, Oh Lord!

    ReplyDelete
  57. Delphina5:57 PM

    Ben,

    What does a bishop have to do to get the axe? Glad you asked!

    Let him mandate the Catechism of the Council of Trent as standard RCIA study text.

    Let him ditch the females meandering about the altar area.

    Let him nix Holy Communion under both kinds.

    Let him mandate that each and every parish under his jurisdiction offer at least one TLM every Sunday.

    That ought to do it. You'll never see or hear from him again.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Is this Jack Nichols who played in movies? He must think he is playing the part.

    ReplyDelete
  59. This "archbishop" is just another example of the state of necessity being in effect - something which I have long argued to the deaf ears of the Vatican. One wonders what is the state of mind of BenedictXVI these days? Has he, as they say, lost it?

    I find the fact that Archbishop Nichols has faculties and canonical status, while the SSPX and many independents do not, a clear indication of the state of necessity in our times. Who was it that said the floor of Hell is paved with the sculls of bishops? Egads my dear Pope, act while there is still time.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops" - St. John Chrysostom

    I think the aforementioned and the following say it all.

    "The road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops" - St. Athanasus

    ReplyDelete
  61. Mr. Perkins says that, in Hell, the pain of loss is equal in all while the pain of sense is unequal. I disagree about the pain of loss. St. Alphonsus de Liguori says that all the other pains of Hell are nothing compared with the pain of loss. We have to assume that this is true of all the devils and damned. The pain of loss is a punishment for turning away from God and the pain of sense punishes an inordinate love of creatures. Now the former sin is always more deserving of punishment than the latter. Hence, the punishment for turning from God (pain of loss) is always greater than the one for turning to creatures (pain of sense). If, as Mr. Perkins says, the pain of loss is equal in all, then it can always be represented, for argument's sake, by the number 10. So Satan's punishment (loss plus sense) can be no more than 20. But the punishment of the least wicked one would be no less than 10. So even though Satan is probably very many times as wicked as this least wicked one, Satan's punishment is no more than twice as great as that of the least wicked one. This is incongruous, but it is based on the idea that the pain of loss is equal in all.

    ReplyDelete
  62. GQ Rep10:37 PM

    "One wonders what is the state of mind of BenedictXVI these days? Has he, as they say, lost it? "

    Not so much lost it as thrown in the towel, washed his hands of it all and walked away.

    A smile, a wave, a photo op, afew mild words, a quick trip here and there is all we'll get now from Pope Benedict XVI.

    I'll be surprised if I'm wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  63. BasilHume11:23 PM

    VATICAN CITY, 30 NOV 2011 (VIS) – Benedict’s general prayer intention for December is: “That all peoples may grow in harmony and peace through mutual understanding and respect”.

    -that is just SO profound.

    ReplyDelete
  64. P.K.T.P.11:26 PM

    Brian:

    Your point is illogical. First of all, no matter how wicked Satan may be, it is for God alone to limit or not limit any pain.

    More to the point, the pain of loss is an absolute. You either have it or you do not; and it is intolerable equally to all, for all equally need God. Therefore, the pain itself must be equal to all.

    Furthermore, we cannot say that Satan is hundreds of times more wicked than any other particular person. Only God can judge that because only God knows all the circumstances of each person's fall. What we can say is that the devils' actual sins are greater, since they tempt others every day and have done so over the millennia.

    Let us assign the number ten million to represent the pain of loss. Everyone in Hell has this number. Now the pain of sense of the devil is 8.3 million; of Beelzebub, 7.8 million; of the average abortionist, 530. The devil suffers much more but they are all suffering one 'hell' of a lot.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous11:33 PM

    dcs:

    By Hell, I did not mean to include the Limbo of the Infants. The term 'Hell' sometimes includes Limbo and sometimes not. This is a matter of how we perceive these states.

    I was under the impression that thsoe detained in Limbo do suffer a pain of loss but not a pain of sense.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  66. P.K.T.P.11:59 PM

    Dear Barbara:

    Yes, it was a repulsive post, just as it was repulsive for a reigning Pope to discuss condoms in a private book. What he had to say did not help the situation, owing to the context. Nichols and men like Raymond Gravel of Quebec have created that context. What is needed are absolute condem-nations (pun intended) of condoms and of all types of inverted and perverted behaviour--something from the top. And we need actions to follow words.

    I checked the V.I.S. appointments this morning. Guess what? Nichols is still standing. Were the Pope St. Pius X, he'd be kneeling in a monastery with the lock on the outside of the door. What is truly repulsive--what is vomit-inducing--is the fact that he was still Archbishop of Westminster at sunrise this morning.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Mr. Perkins says that my point is illogical. It's interesting that, between my writing that comment and my reading Mr. Perkins', I thought of the objection, "You either see God or you don't. You suffer the loss or you don't." I will answer it. Not all of the damned had the same potential. Some presumably had the potential to become canonizable saints, while others had a smaller potential. So, though they have all lost the same goal (the Beatific Vision), the loss can be said to be greater in some because they had an ultimately greater potential. God, the exceedingly great reward of the saints, is always the same, but the happiness from the Beatific Vision differs from person to person. Note that when I assign different degrees to the pain of loss, I am mostly (if not totally) speaking of the remorse of the damned. So Lucifer has this tormenting thought that no one else has or will ever have, "You were created as the highest creature, and you forfeited that dignity. Your natural perfection would have been glorified, but you are now the king of Hell."

    I cannot say with certitude how evil Satan is, but I can safely guess that the most wicked one is more than twice as wicked as the least wicked one.

    ReplyDelete
  68. GQ Rep1:13 AM

    "By Hell, I did not mean to include the Limbo of the Infants. The term 'Hell' sometimes includes Limbo and sometimes not. This is a matter of how we perceive these states."

    Wasn't it Pope Benedict XVI who tried to tell us that there was no Limbo, or initiated a stury-group to evaluate the possibility of distancing the "up-to-date" modernist Catholic Church from such "medieval" thinking?

    That should have been a red flag of sorts into his real thinking a few years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Archbishop Nichols, you have scandalised the faithful and betrayed the Catholic Church, and not for the first time. You have lost the trust and respect of your people.
    You live in your palace off the donations of hard-working Catholics who, if they make serious mistakes in their jobs, risk losing them.
    To err is human, but for a bishop to do so repeatedly in matters of faith and morals, and in full knowledge that these mistakes are serious crimes against the Catholic Faith, can only be regarded as a declaration of heresy and schism.
    Your Grace, do the honourable thing. Go, bag and baggage. Go now. Just go.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Lamentably, Nichols, like so many of his contemporaries is a direct product of liberal modernist thinking; relativistic pastoral processes and, most significantly of all, a liturgical rite which is not Roman Catholic but breeds protestant beliefs and an anhropocentirc orientation.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Delphina, you mean like Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer? He's the only one I know who has done what you said. None of the other 3 or 4 thousand bishops has the guts (or orthodoxy) to even attempt it.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Since civil courts cannot administer Sacraments, nor can people who do not intend to receive them receive them. what is the fuss?

    ReplyDelete
  73. So, Jack, let me see if I've got this straight: it is your contention that homosexual couplings are in accordance with the law of nature and therefore the state may treat such couplings as if they were natural unions equal to marriage, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Dominican3:48 AM

    I heard from someone sensible and in the know that some who have been ordained into the Ordinariate are actually in civil partnerships. Can anyone shed any light on whether this is true?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Frenchy1:38 PM

    Frenchy

    People, this is all frighting, Do you all know what the word Apostasy means? It is in the book of Revelations. We ARE living in the end times. Our Blessed Mother said at Fatima that there will be a great apostasy at the highest levels of the Church prior to the end times.

    ReplyDelete

Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.

_______
NOTES

(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!