(cont'd from above) Visitation’s spokesperson made matters worse when she said the school had informed the Archdiocese of the decision but the Archdiocese said that wasn’t true. Monsignor Edward J. Filardi of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church in Bethesda – the parish home to approximately 30 Visitation families – was unequivocal and disappointed. His response: It has been a year sadly full of scandal, so the latest news from Visitation Preparatory School is like another searing dagger to the heart. . . . You then claim to “have prayed over this contradiction.” There is no contradiction in these two statements. And with due respect, I find it hard to believe that you do not know better. Love is not an excuse for license, nor does love require one to condone or comply with any and all behavior. Actually, real love does just the opposite, seeking above all the greater good of the other. Fr. Edward Hathaway, the Rector of the Basilica of St. Mary in Alexandria, also sent a response as part of a wide broadcast email: Rather than challenging its alumnae to live counter-culturally and embrace the Gospel, which sets us free from slavery to sin, I am concerned Visitation will be fostering a culture of dissent over difficult teaching in the area of human sexuality and in the name of a false compassion. In doing so, it does a grave disservice to the young women entrusted to its care. Meanwhile, Catholic Visitation alumnae are critical of the school's decision in an open letter. If Visitation’s leaders will not affirm Catholic teaching, the school cannot promise to be a home for students and teachers who do. . . . A lot of families - a lot of us - have been concerned for a while now about a real move away from a truly Catholic identity to something just ‘in the Catholic tradition,’ and that’s not what we signed up for. The tumult and ideologically-driven drift at Visitation isn’t anything new. For years now, the school has been participating in a variety of causes fueled by some of the familiar foundations who have worked so hard to divide America along racial and class lines. Each year, Visitation sends a contingent to a national seminar that stirs racial division and trains participants in the raw tools of racial activist organizing. Diversity dogma now flourishes at the school – with the “Kaleidoscope Club” serving as the beachhead for racial programming throughout the year. At one recent “diversity day” students enjoyed an “experienced facilitator for diversity, equity, and inclusion” guiding a discussion on how “privilege” can help students “move more quickly toward social justice and change.” Diversity Day 2019 wasn’t a one-off, it was part of a broader program to draw attention to race, something profoundly contrary to Christian teaching. To kick off the day, Erin Murphy ‘05, Director of Student Impact for Rustic Pathways, an organization that provides travel and service opportunities for students, spoke about her journey since Visitation: how her international travels and service prompted her to learn about the opportunity gap and how it relates to racism and the biases that exist both in the United States and abroad. … Following Erin’s presentation, students attended smaller workshops on topics ranging from American gun violence to the Black Lives Matter movement. Kaleidoscope students presented statistics, case studies, and information and then led their classmates, faculty, and staff through exercises to explore and discuss differing perspectives. The school also sends students to a “People of Color Conference,” an event that was saturated to the rafters with ideological activism with panels such as “Supporting Student Organizing to Dismantle White Supremacy and Drive Institutional Change,” taught by the “YA YA Network,” a group that describes itself as providing “training in anti-oppression and political education.” Students who attended were enthralled by the transformational programming. “I always get a lot of ideas that are valuable to bring back to Kaleidoscope,” says Peggy. This year she cited a panel called “The ‘Trump Effect’ in Independent Schools: Supporting Student Diversity After a Racially Divisive Election. Catholic and Christian teaching considers all humans as united as brothers and sisters, regardless of race. Dwelling on race and racial divisions is wrong. But why bother with rules or teachings when there is an agenda to push? Never mind what funders and interests are behind the curtain of the People of Color Conference and what their ideological aims are. All of this is to illustrate that Sister Berchmans’ decision to contort the rules of Catholic theology should hardly be surprising for anyone paying attention. From the looks of things, the question of whether to include gay weddings in a Catholic school alumnae magazine is part of a broader contortion. That the rifts, drift and division have not reached the level now plaguing the United Methodist Church and other Protestant denominations may be the only solace Catholics can take from the controversy. https://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/gay-wedding-controversy-rocks-elite-catholic-girls-school/
Well if Sister Berchman's has, 'prayed' over the matter and has chosen the path of love and mercy over rigid, dyed in the wool dodgy old Church Teachings and the two ladies have regularised things by getting hitched who are we to judge? It seems to me that Sister Berchman is far more in line with the thoughts of the Holy Father than a bunch of stodgy old stay at home parents We'll have to get with the programme folks!! Way to go Sister Mary!! You could certainly teach Jesus a thing or two!! Who needs Church Teaching anyway?
Methinks Sr. Mary knows who has the biggest bank accounts these days and it isn't believing Catholics. She's probably hoping the school will name a library after her when she's dead and buried (or composted?) just like Notre Dame did for Fr. Hessburgh.
I'm not so worried, Dolours, about what Sister Mary said and did as the fact she thinks she'll get away with it. Now why oh why would Sister Mary Berchman's think that? When the Cat's away....
Dr. Kwasniewski has edited his review and it no longer indicates he is backing a "Benedict is Pope" theory. I think, as many of us here, he is experiencing confusion and cognitive dissonance at the current situation and he realized his initial unedited review went too far. https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Bened...d=1559149215&s=gateway&sr=8-1#customerReviews
I think there is wiggle room here depending upon the priest. A priest could refuse to absolve a murderer, for example, if they did not turn themselves into the police under the reasoning that they were not properly disposed. There is a talk on Sensus Fidelium about this and that is where I heard the idea of refusal of absolution for a serious crime until the person turned themselves in to the police. The article below isn't what I was thinking of, but it does indicate a priest may delay absolution until the next confession and that is what I was referring to. From the article: Q. 727. Does the priest ever refuse absolution to a penitent? A. The priest must and does refuse absolution to a penitent when he thinks the penitent is not rightly disposed for the Sacrament. He sometimes postpones the absolution till the next confession, either for the good of the penitent or for the sake of better preparation -- especially when the person has been a long time from confession. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...techism/lesson-17-on-the-sacrament-of-penance
Padraig, none of this has anything to do with faith, especially the Catholic faith. It's about the elite protecting their space and ensuring their survival. That's what all the virtue signalling and European/white guilt is about. And that's what the Vatican's abandonment of the Faith in favour of "social justice" is about. None of them - not Sr. Mary, not the Pope, and not the "social justice" celebrity clergy care one whit about the poor in Western democracies because the poor (the working class) are mere chess pieces moved around by the elite who own the media, own the political parties, own academia, and now govern the Church. I don't think there has been a single system of government in the history of the world which didn't have a ruling elite, and today's privileged elite are making sure that they will be tomorrow's elite. It's not the elite who suffer when masses of people are imported into any society. They will still have their mansions, their security, their private health care and their option to move to a more desirable location. The academics and celebrity clergy will still be useful to their elitist masters for keeping the great unwashed in line. It's always the poor working class who bear the brunt of elitist manipulation. The boiling frog in Europe has slowly begun to feel the heat of the water, just as did the Americans who elected Trump although it may be already too late for Europe. Here's an interview with an author who wrote a book about how Trump got elected and what led up to his success. I don't know anything about the author. For all I know, he could be pushing some terrible, hidden agenda or he could be a saint, but he's a whole lot more clued in to what makes people tick than the hierarchy in our Church:
...well in the case of Pope Francis, Dolores, I am afraid it may be a lot more simple than that. I suspect the poor man is just not too well.
Wow...PF certainly is the master of confusion....and I think he is enjoying every bit of the reaction it draws. How horribly and pathetically sad for the church. He told the youth to “ go make a mess”...why bother, you’ve already made a mess PF. Just horrible.
Maybe not just your scream...but the collective scream of all faithful Catholics....but that’s just wishful thinking. I think he’d just laugh in our face. He’d think it humorous I fear.
His Jesuit superior considered him unsuitable for promotion, but I don't think it was because of his mental or physical health but had something to do with his character. An American priest who saw how he operated in Argentina long before he became a Bishop said that it was his band of followers rather than Fr. Bergoglio himself who had a reputation for being troublesome. Perhaps the Jesuit superior noticed that too. Leopards don't change their spots. Cardinal Muller and others blame the people surrounding Pope Francis for the problems. That Jesuit superior was perceptive, as was the American priest.
He is a marvelous classics scholar and a regular contributor to various conservative publications. He is measured and astute and steeped in the study of history. One of our finest minds IMHO.
I watched another video of an interview he gave. He's very, very smart. He surely has the measure of the elitist academics who cloak their snobbery in a feigned concern for the underprivileged.
Thanks Praetorian. I understand that the priest needs to use his discretion to determine whether or not he should refuse absolution. I'm still confused, however about how restitution before confession could be a requirement in the vast majority of cases. I could understand it for returning, say, a stolen car but it's impossible to make restitution to a murder victim. Requiring that the murderer turn himself in to the police would make sense if someone else had been accused of the murder. Thank God I will never have to determine whether someone should receive absolution because I'm sure I would only give it to people whose sins are similar to the ones I commit.
I'm embarrassed to admit it, Dolours but Pope Francis reminds me of of my own much younger self. I was very, very immature until I reached 26 when I caught up with a bang. In may ways all that he is saying and doing reminds me so much of my much younger self. Generally speaking I think the medical profession assesses mental health in terms of functionality. So if you, say do not wash properly or get to work then there is a functional problem. When I was younger I could get to work, I was always a good worker and I would say I was fully functional. But looking back on myself I would say anyone who knew where I was , what I was doing and thinking that I was..well nuts. I sometimes think this is a sense about the devil . What could be more nuts than to choose to defy God? I mean how can you win? Where can you go with this if you set yourself against God? It is nuts. All sin is a form of insanity. There is a very telling extract in one of CR Lewis's novels , 'Out of the Silent Planet'. The hero confronts an Anglican Minister. In hearing the Minister speak Lewis describes it as though hearing two large flies (bluebottles) buzzing in an empty bottle. Such a very telling description. The emptiness, the confusion, the meaninglessness of it all. Deeply inherent contradictory logic. That's what Pope Francis and my younger self reminds me off. Flies buzzing in an empty bottle. Confusion and empty sound bite. Nuts in fact. Phillip Lawlor has highlighted this empty buzzing sound in a recent excellent piece here: https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?ID=1345 New interview, new revelations damage Pope’s credibility By Phil Lawler (bio - articles - email) | May 29, 2019 In his latest interview Pope Francis says that he does not remember whether or not Archbishop Vigano told him about Theodore McCarrick’s sexual misconduct. He also insists that he knew “nothing, obviously, nothing, nothing” about McCarrick’s misconduct. Those two claims do not sit comfortably side by side. If you told me that you studied French in high school, I might not recall that fact five years later; it wouldn’t stand out in my mind. But if you told me that you had wrestled a grizzly bear, whether or not I believed you, I would certainly remember the claim. Is the Pope suggesting that the news Archbishop Vigano says he conveyed—that a cardinal-archbishop had been bedding seminarians, and had been ordered by the previous Pontiff to retire from public life—would not have made a lasting impression? Yet even that outlandish suggestion is not enough to bring the Pope’s two claims into a workable alignment. Because if Archbishop Vigano had informed him, then even if the Pope somehow forgot, he could not truthfully say that he knew “nothing” about the McCarrick scandal. Archbishop Vigano, not mincing words, made his own position perfectly clear in responding to the new papal interview: “What the Pope said about not knowing anything is a lie.” So once again we find ourselves asking: Is Archbishop Vigano’s testimony credible? Back in September, when most of the dust had settled after the first explosion of the McCarrick scandal, I summarized the available evidence and found that it weighed heavily in the archbishop’s favor. (Defenders of Pope Francis have preferred not to examine that evidence, instead questioning Archbishop Vigano’s motives.) Pope Francis, for his part, had refused to discuss the Vigano testimony, until during this new interview, Valentina Alazraki of the Mexican Televisa network told him that his silence had become burdensome to reporters, and he proceeded to unburden himself. Coincidentally (or was it a coincidence?), on the same day that the Televisa interview was made public, important new evidence emerged, supplied by a cleric who could not easily be described as an enemy of the Pontiff. Msgr. Anthony Figueiredo, a former secretary to McCarrick, professed his “unswerving affection, loyalty, and support for Pope Francis,” even as he released a raft of information confirming important elements of the Vigano testimony. Msgr. Figueiredo revealed:
that in August 2008, McCarrick had received instructions from the Vatican, ordering him to remove himself from public life; that McCarrick had acknowledged the disciplinary action and promised not to make any further public appearances; that copies of the relevant correspondence should be readily available in the files of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops and those of the apostolic nuncio in Washington; that the restrictions on McCarrick were known to Cardinal Wuerl, his successor in Washington and to Cardinal Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, among others; that McCarrick had been forbidden to travel to Rome; and that in spite of the Vatican restrictions, and despite his promise, McCarrick had continued to make public appearances, had visited Rome, and had acted as a Vatican representative to China, to Iran and Iraq, and elsewhere. The Figueiredo files do not directly address the question of whether Archbishop Vigano told Pope Francis about the restrictions on McCarrick. But they do make it clear that the disciplinary action was a serious matter: the sort of topic that an apostolic nuncio (Vigano) would likely have discussed with a Pontiff (Francis) visiting the city where McCarrick lived. But Pope Francis says that he does not remember such a conversation. Notice, again, that he does not deny that the conversation took place; he merely says that he does not recall it. That claim strains credibility—as does the claim of the Vatican press office that, in a transcript of the interview, the Pope’s professed lapse of memory was omitted until reporters called attention to the omission. (A summary article on the interview, posted on the Vatican News service, barely touches on the McCarrick affair, and does not mention the memory lapse.) In the course of the Televisa interview Pope Francis makes other assertions that should raise the eyebrows of skeptic reporters. He says that he brought the Argentine Bishop Gustavo Zanchetta to Rome, relieving him of his pastoral duties, because “the clergy didn’t feel well treated by him”—not because of the abuse allegations that emerged later. He described criticisms of Cardinal Oscar Maradiaga, the chairman of the Council of Cardinals, as “calumnies”—the same claim that he made eighteen months ago about the criticism of Chilean Bishop Juan Barro, and was eventually forced to retract—while also making the much less convincing statement that “there is nothing certain” against the Honduran cardinal. And when asked about a notorious conversation with an Argentine divorcee, in which he reportedly encouraged her to receive Communion despite an illicit new marriage, the Pope again says that he does not recall the conversation, “but I must surely have said to her, ‘Look, in Amoris Laetitia there is that, which you must do.” (As Chris Altieri pointed out in Catholic World Report, Amoris Laetitia was not promulgated until two years after the reported conversation.) However, the most revealing section of the Televisa interview is the Pope’s explanation of why he has remained silent, until now, about the Vigano testimony. He explains that rather than defending himself, he chose to rely on reporters to make his case for him: And that’s what you did, because you did the work, that was great, and I was very careful to say things weren’t there but then, three or four months later, a judge in Milan said them when he was convicted. The Pope’s mention of the “judge in Milan” is a reference to Archbishop Vigano’s legal dispute with his brother, an unfortunate matter that has absolutely no bearing on the archbishop’s claims about the McCarrick scandal. Is Pope Francis revealing that he relied on the mass media to do his dirty work for him, to dig up unflattering information about his accuser, to deflect attention from the evidence? Pope Francis says that he never read Vigano’s testimony in full—but he describes the archbishop’s criticism as “viciousness” and seems, in one particularly confused sentence, to be implying that Vigano was paid to attack him. Thus even as he compares himself to Jesus, as the innocent and silent victim, the Pontiff launches his own vicious attack on the character of his accuser. Archbishop Vigano, in his original bombshell testimony, said that Pope Francis was aware of, and chose to ignore, the charges against McCarrick. It is surely relevant, then, that in his own newly released testimony, Msgr. Figueiredo says that he made his evidence public only after attempting unsuccessfully, since last September, to bring that evidence to the attention of Pope Francis and other Vatican officials. Ironically, Msgr. Figueiredo reveals that his decision to go public with his correspondence was encouraged—indirectly—by Pope Francis. In releasing his new motu proprio, Vos Estis Lux Mundi, the Pope stressed that a cover-up of abuse is itself a canonical crime, and urged anyone with information of a cover-up to come forward. So Msgr. Figueiredo came forward. “It is my hope,” he wrote, “that my openness will encourage and help other priests, religious, and seminarians, who have found themselves trapped in similar abuses of authority and cover up by bishops and superiors.” Amen to that. Phil Lawler has been a Catholic journalist for more than 30 years. He has edited several Catholic magazines and written eight books. Founder of Catholic World News, he is the news director and lead analyst at CatholicCulture.org. See full bio.
