The Church of England’s deterioration into a burlesque parody of itself may be measured by the day. Virtually no one attends services anymore, and ineffectual priests and bishops of all different kinds of sexes, preaching socialism and other twaddle, are driving away those few stalwarts still found in the pews (their pulses really should be checked now and then).
A friend’s recent letter in the Wall Street Journal describes the remains of the C of E in excruciating detail.
This blogger still struggles with the notion a Pontiff in the Holy Catholic Church would tell a bald-faced lie, in this instance Pope Francis’s blatant prevaricating to his bishops concerning Usus Antiquior, the Latin Mass.
What is especially troubling is approximately 80% of the bishops in the Church these days were appointed by Pope Francis, who presumably chose them because they, in general, shared his views on important church matters, including the celebration of the Latin Mass.
Yet, if the reports are accurate, when the bishops were asked in an internal Vatican poll if Pope Benedict’s loosening of the restrictions on TLM should be reversed, two-thirds of them, presumably many of Francis’s picks, replied they were satisfied with the way things were, that no increased restrictions were needed. The bishops cited what any TLM celebrant or pew sitter could have reported, churches where TLM was celebrated were seeing greatly increased attendance by young people, a critical need in today’s church.
So the question asked by no doubt many Catholics is, why did Francis in effect tear up the results of the Vatican poll and go ahead with his 2020 moto proprio Traditionem Custodis, considerably restricting TLM in churches, later adding even more restrictions, then, unfathomably, claim he was simply complying with the bishops’s requests?
Pope Francis lied, but the real question is why? Was he so pig-headed that he decided he knew best and the hell with the bishops? It sure seems that way, and speaking of hell, it also seems to this Catholic convert, not only did Francis sin, but a mortal sin if my understanding of the Catechism is correct, which states in part on the subject,
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
As much as I did not care for Pope Francis, I pray he confessed that transgression before his death, lest he suffer the grievous consequences in the afterworld.
There has been substantial buzz lately about whether or not Pope Francis was truthful when justifying his cancellation of Pope Benedict’s motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, which substantially loosened restrictions on the Latin Mass. Francis, with his Traditionem Custodis, made the celebration of TLM farmore difficult, and with his later additions, it became nearly impossible.
Francis insisted he made his changes to Benedict’s motu proprio at the behest of the bishops, whom he claimed were polled and by a large majority desired it, claiming that TLM was causing disunity in the Church and that action against it was needed.
Now, a respected Vatican reporter, Diane Montagna, writing in Substack, reports that the claim the bishops were opposed to TLM by a large majority is exactly wrong, that with Benedict’s easing up on TLM restrictions, the bishops were not only seeing far greater numbers of young people in church, but they were showing greater enthusiasm for Holy Church as well.
So was it a simple mix-up, the bishops’s wrongly claiming to be opposed to the Latin Mass? Not at all, according to reporter Montagna, who quotes an official Vatican report on the matter:
“[T]he majority of bishops who responded to the questionnaire stated that making legislative changes to Summorum Pontificum would cause more harm than good.”
The overall assessment directly contradicts, therefore, the stated rationale for imposing Traditionis Custodes and raises serious questions about its credibility.
…
Furthermore, the text clearly shows that Traditionis Custodes disregarded and withheld what the report said about the peace Summorum Pontificum had restored, and turned a blind eye to a “constant observation made by the bishops”— that younger people were being drawn into the Catholic Church through this older form of the liturgy.
The official report is long and thorough, but it’s understandable, given the seriousness of the claims against Pope Francis. Montagna’s reporting of only a small detail from it though, reflects more than a little poorly on the integrity of Francis.
Pope Francis not only had the report, but according to reliable sources, literally snatched a working copy out of Cardinal Ladaria’s hands during an audience, telling him he wanted it immediately because he was curious about it.
If Francis did satisfy his curiosity, then it looks as if he just plain lied when claiming he was complying with the bishops’s wants.
I wondered rhetorically in a post not long ago if Francis not only disliked TLM, but its celebrants and those attending it as well. It looks as if I may have accidentally been onto something.
The big question now is, what, if anything, is Pope Leo going to do about this messy situation?
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
Your Tatler has written much (maybe too much) about rich elites who harbor socialist yearnings, in particular as they relate to their cuddly-commie mayor-to-be Zohran Mamdani. Readers then must forgive this blogger for re-opening the subject, at the risk of beating it to death. Happily, Akhī Zohran will only be mentioned in passing. This time the leftist millionaire elite hails from your Tatler’s hometown of Greenwich, Connecticut.
Meet John Cooper, of the well-to-do neighborhood of Rockridge, in Greenwich. There isn’t a do-gooder lefty cause this man hasn’t endorsed, and to top it off, he harbors deep antipathy for the United States of America, at least judging by the letters he bashes out from his digs in Greenwich to various local newspapers.
Cooper shares the attributes of so many of the New York elites who supported Zohran Mamdani, the likely next Mayor of New York. Yet he lives in one of the richest neighborhoods in one of the richest towns in America. Whether he worked for his money or had his money through inheritance is immaterial. One should think he might show just a little gratitude for his good fortune of living in America. Yet he recently had a seemingly endless letter published in a Greenwich paper in which he blasts this country, including the obligatory attack on you-know-who in the White House. We will spare you most of the fellow’s truculence, save for the last paragraph,* in which he displays all the maturity of a spoiled child, not someone having even a few years up on this blogger.
I am beyond ashamed to be an American today and fear for the lives of so many people I know and care about. Therefore, I cannot think of closing this with “have a Happy 4th of July”, without feeling sick to my stomach.
*Those wishing to read this fool’s entire letter, no doubt written in crayon, are welcome to visit my brother’s blog, For What it’s Worth, to which I am indebted, sort of, to learn of the depressing subject of this post.
“Twelfth Night is perhaps the funniest and most moving of Shakespeare’s plays,” McKellen said in a social media post for Trans What You Will. “This is achieved through the complexity of gender and sexuality from first to last. I’m really looking forward to the impact of this latest version of the play at The Space. I hope to see you there!”
Sponsors of athletic events for amateurs are finally coming to their senses regarding men pretending to be women and depriving real women of the prizes they should have won.
But please, leave Shakespeare alone. Sadly, however, an actor whom your Tatler has long respected (regardless certain peculiarities) is doing just the opposite, besmirching the master’s Twelfth Night. Taking place in London on 25 July, the clown show will mercifully run for but one performance. The worry is, that when the critics assuredly fall over themselves with praise, it could mark the beginning of a new fad in the arts: trans/non-binary* performances of the classics. Picture, if you will, a trans/non-binary casting of Ibsen’s A Doll’sHouse.
Happily, casting of that sort should be a a short-lived phenomenon. Fads, by their nature, don’t last long and the limited public for such entertainment will soon tire of it and move on to some other weird form of amusement.
What’s next? Trans/non-binary ice hockey? Or trans/non-binary boxing? Trans/non-binary yacht racing or Trans/non-binary Formula 1 auto racing? The possibilities are endless.
*Keeping up with contemporary nomenclatures can be a real challenge. Does “non-binary” mean “not two,” hence, “tri-sexual?”
Your Tatler has concluded it was merely a matter of time before a radical like Zohran Mamdani gained prominence in New York. Only a catalyst was needed causing dissatisfied elites to remove the veil from their true feelings how the City was run.
That catalyst was Donald Trump, their antichrist, causing, at last, the revelation of their genuine socialist yearnings.
The next few years should provide a real education for these people if they wish to learn from it. They won’t, of course.
The new Archbishop of Detroit, Edward Weisenburger, playing copycat with Bishop Michael Martin of North Carolina, announced in April that he would be making changes in his diocese regarding the celebration of UsusAntiquior, the Latin Mass, which, in his predecessor’s day, was the most liberal in the country in permitting its celebration. The Archbishop was not kidding about his changes. On 13 June His Grace announced that as of 1 July, most Latin Masses in his diocese would be banned.
The Detroit Free Press‘s columnist, Niraj Warikoo, does a decent job of reporting the story, showing surprising sympathy for those who prefer the Latin Mass, unlike most traditional media in the country
For some Catholics, the traditional Latin Mass is a vital part of their religious life, a ceremony that connects them with their faith and history. In the Archdiocese of Detroit, there are currently 17 sites, most of them churches, where the traditional Mass is held.
But starting Tuesday, July 1, those 17 sites will be whittled down to only four churches as the Detroit archdiocese cracks down on the controversial Mass in accordance with restrictions handed down by Pope Francis.
In his brief announcement, Archbishop Weisenburger, in textbook double-speak, claims, “These norms are in alignment with the Holy See’s directives (would that be Francis’s or Leo’s?) while also ensuring continued pastoral care for our brothers and sisters who have found spiritual richness in this form of the liturgy.” In other words, the Archbishop is claiming that by making it nearly impossible to celebrate or attend a Latin Mass, he is somehow “ensuring” its continuation, perhaps by preventing overuse? It brings to mind the well-known quote of the Army officer, who during the Vietnam War, said famously of the Battle of Bến Tre: “In order to save the village it was necessary to destroy it.” The Free Press also quotes Archbishop Weisenburger as saying: “… Fidelity to Christ is only possible if we remain faithful to the Church, under the leadership of our Pope and the local bishop.” Odd, that statement, as his predecessor seemed to have no trouble maintaining the loyalty of his charges, while at the same time having more Latin Mass parishes than any other diocese.
It seems to this blogger Archbishop Weisenburger, along with his counterpart in North Carolina, Bishop Martin, simply doesn’t like the Latin Mass, nor those priests who celebrate it, nor those who attend it. A possible explanation can be found in the closing paragraph of the FreePress’s article.
“It’s very, very regrettable,” Janet Smith, a retired professor of moral theology formerly at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, said of the new restrictions in the Detroit archdiocese. “There’s just no reason that Catholics should not have access to the Mass that was used for 1,500 years in the church. And it’s a growing group, it’s a very young group, it’s a very faithful group.”
Does Archbishop Weisenburger have something against young parishioners of great faith? Does he feel uncomfortable in their company?
There are violence-prone settlers in the West Bank, both Jews and Palestinians. Are the Christian inhabitants of Taybeh, Ramahla (they are a large minority among the muslim population of Ramalah) assisting in any way violent Palestinians? If so, they have only themselves to blame for their predicament, and it is doubtful the government of Israel will come to their rescue, seeing them rightfully, Christian or not, as the enemy.
If, however, the Christians of Taybeh were living peacefully before the radical Jewish gangs began harassing them and encroaching on their turf, the Israeli government must take action. Israel has countless Christian supporters (unlike the Palestinians, especially violent ones, save for a few dying mainstream protestant sects.
Aside from the common decency of helping the Christians of Ramahla, who, while not Jewish, are Judeo/Christian, with a shared heritage, it would be a prominent blot on Isreal’s image if it were to allow the radical Jewish settlers to forcibly annex the Christian portions of Ramahla; an annexation that would be much noticed in the West. It is not unimaginable that President Trump, were he to become aware of the plight of the Ramahla Christians, not being pleased at all by it, when considering our tight relationship with Israel, as well as the substantial aid we provide that nation.
THE TAOS TATLER. 