Card. DiNardo on SSPX excomms and Pres. Obama at UND

His Eminence Daniel Card. DiNardo has something to say about the lifting of the SSPX excommunications and the visit of President Obama to the University of Notre Dame.

This is in the Texas Catholic Herald.

My emphases and comments.

A Shepherd’s Message

By Daniel Cardinal DiNardo

Two weeks ago, the Holy Father sent a letter to all the bishops of the world concerning the events surrounding the lifting of the excommunications of four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988, a sanction imposed by the Holy See at the time since they were consecrated without the mandate or permission of Pope John Paul II. It is to be noted that the lifting of this most severe penalty did not “regularize” their status in the Church but only opened a door for discussions with them and the followers of their traditionalist society for an eventual hopeful restoration of Catholic unity. Pope Benedict XVI had a concern for the goal of eventual reconciliation. The action, however, was overshadowed by the views of one of the said bishops, Bishop Williamson, on the Holocaust and on his anti-Semitic statements. This led to what the pope called an “avalanche of protests both inside and outside the Church.” These protests “laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment.”
Pope Benedict XVI then went on to clarify and assess the whole situation. He states that an initial effort at reconciliation was construed somehow as a kind of repudiation of the reconciliation between Christians and Jews, a reversal of the work of the Second Vatican Council and other dire consequences. Further, some Catholics also displayed hostility to the very person of the Holy Father. He likewise mentions “our Jewish friends who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which – as in the day of Pope John Paul II – has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist.”

[So far we are only summarizing.]

The pope admits that the Holy See would need to pay future attention to sources in the Internet which had already revealed the anti-Semitic sentiments of Bishop Williamson. He also admits that it was a mistake not to clearly and adequately explain the extent and the limits of the lifting of the excommunication at the very moment of its publication. It was a disciplinary matter for four individuals and not a statement on the doctrinal level, a matter that still needed and would need much further work before the restoration of unity with the Catholic Church could take place with the Lefebvrist movement. In fact, the pope also announced that he was joining the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei,” which had worked on the reconciliation, with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican agency that addresses doctrinal questions, particularly issues of the Second Vatican Council and the teaching authority of the Magisterium and of the pope. In doing this, the Holy Father reminded all sides that the Church’s teaching authority did not end in 1962, the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, but also, on the other hand, that authority embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church. The fruits of the Tree of Faith and teaching do indeed grow, but they are not severed from the roots.

The motivation by the Holy See for an attempt at reconciliation with the four bishops and their followers was to embody the hard work of faith, hope and love, the constant preoccupation of the Church and the unity of all believers. It is not easy to break down obstinacy and narrowness on the part of some just as it is not easy to soften the arrogance and one-sidedness of others. Disunity and hostile disagreement do not serve the unity of faith or the credibility of believers. Various groups in the Church cannot bite and devour one another without destruction, a line that the pope draws from St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians 5:13-15.

[Thus endeth the summary.]

I think that the Holy Father’s letter is timely advice for us all during the Season of Lent, a time of genuine interior purification and renewal. I sometimes receive letters from people who mar their otherwise intelligent or well-taken arguments by such nasty invectives that the whole argument or point of view is put in jeopardy. Vigorous and heartfelt discussion, even debate, needs to be placed in the arms of charity for effectiveness. My hope is that this will be the case for all of us in our own local Church.  [How many times have, for example, rather more traditional Catholics short-circuited their initiatives by being nasty to those who might otherwise be able to give them what they want?  Sorry... rhetorical question... let's go on.]

In light of what I wrote above, I want to venture a comment on the recently released statement of the University of Notre Dame; that statement noted that the President has accepted an invitation to give the Commencement Address this year as well as receive an Honorary Law Degree. The news release then outlines the fact that a number of other Presidents have given the Commencement Address at Notre Dame and have thus highlighted, in effect, the university’s importance. [And we now get to the important point...]  I find the invitation very disappointing. Though I can understand the desire by a university to have the prestige [a good way to put this] of a commencement address by the President of the United States, the fundamental moral issue of the inestimable worth of the human person from conception to natural death is a principle that soaks all our lives as Catholics, and all our efforts at formation, especially education at Catholic places of higher learning. The President has made clear by word and deed that he will promote abortion and will remove even those limited sanctions that control this act of violence against the human person. The Bishops of the United States published a document a few years ago asking all Catholic universities to avoid giving a platform or an award to those politicians or public figures who promote the taking of unborn human life. [NB...] Even given the dignity of Office of the President, this offer is still providing a platform and an award for a public figure who has been candid on his pro-abortion views. Particularly troubling is the Honorary Law Degree since it recognizes that the person is a “Teacher,” in this case of the Law. [Excellent point.] I think that this decision requires charitable but vigorous critique.

 

I like that "charitable but vigorous".

It is hard… very hard… to figure out what "vigorous" includes but charity prohibits.  This changes from era to era.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Card. DiNardo on SSPX excomms and Pres. Obama at UND

  1. Fr. Z says: How many times have, for example, rather more traditional Catholics short-circuited their initiatives by being nasty to those who might otherwise be able to give them what they want?

    Agreed. People would do well to study and reflect on Archbishop Vigneron’s 10 Rules for Handling Disagreement like a Christian.

    Perhaps, Father, it will soon be time to make a running list. I think the flood gates are going to open from the US episcopacy, especially in light of Cardinal DiNardo’s call for “charitable and vigorous critique”.

    Thus far,

    Bishop D’Arcy (FWSB, IN)
    Bishop Olmsted (Phoenix, AZ)
    Bishop Aymond (Austin, TX)
    Cardinal DiNardo (Houston, TX)

  2. Henry Edwards says:

    Father Z: How many times have, for example, rather more traditional Catholics short-circuited their initiatives by being nasty to those who might otherwise be able to give them what they want?

    Although it surely happens that way occasionally, this question seems to assume as typical a context at variance with my own experience, [fair enough] in which “rather more traditional Catholics” appear more often on the receiving than the giving end of vigorously expressed disapproval. [All too true. That is my experience also. And yet I have in discussion with priests and a few bishops learned how, under a barrage of nastiness, just simply don't want to have anything to do with people on the traditional side of things. I suppose they have enough on their plates and they get the heave ho. It may be unfair, could it be that traditional Catholics have to be twice as charming as liberals just to be tolerated?] Certainly in the case of more orthodox and traditional priests, of whom one frequently hears especially vigorous criticism.

  3. I’ll go one step further and suggest that, perhaps we ought to be contacting our bishops and asking them to make a statement.

  4. Corleone says:

    Henry – I would agree with you, as I have been ridiculed and simply dismissed as a “fanatic” by several priests (and one bishop)for simply asking them if they have/ever would consider saying the Tridentine Liturgy in their parish (prior to SP). But Father Z’s point definitely stands as it runs both ways. We, as Traditional Catholics need to be not only Uber-Catholics but Uber-Christians. At this stage of the game when it appears the tides may finally be turning in our favour (God’s will be done), we cannot afford to be haughty, dismissive, uncharitable or otherwise “nasty” in any way even in the face of complete and utter ignorance and might I say hate. In other words, we are called to turn the other cheek and not to fight fire with fire.

    On a more topical note, I simply can’t remember another president in my lifetime which appeared to evoke such (justifiable) ire from the Catholic church (even the Clintons were invited and partook in communion in South Africa). This definitely seems like new territory. I’m wondering if there will be a showdown of sorts in the next 4 years between lukewarm bishops and orthodox ones, as well as the church in general against nominal Catholics. It seems the lines are being drawn unlike anytime previously I can remember.

  5. boredoftheworld says:

    Father Z: How many times have, for example, rather more traditional Catholics short-circuited their initiatives by being nasty to those who might otherwise be able to give them what they want?

    Rhetorical, lol. I think I know the type of letter to which the Cardinal is referring and certainly taken in isolation he makes his point. Of course we can’t take things like this in isolation, how does it come to the point that an otherwise sane and rational Catholic writes a “nasty” letter to the bishop? This isn’t rocket science, you all know this.

    If you beat a dog often enough he’s going to snap and growl at everyone, even the person holding out a handful of food. And anyone who blames the dog is an idiot.

    Of course, we’re not dogs, but beat a child, scream at him, scoff at him, reject him, crush his spirit, belittle everything he loves and you create a monster who will snarl and strike out at everyone. And anyone who blames the child is an idiot.

    Of course, we’re not children… well, not anymore at least, we can’t afford to be. Docile obedience and childlike trust seems to result in Life Teen or sister concelebrating.

    Beyond that, how messed up do you have to be to look at an argument or point of view, acknowledge that it is valid and then say “meh, the author is an ass so forget it”? That question is NOT rhetorical.

    If someone runs into my bedroom while I’m asleep and he’s yelling “the house is on fire!” and I say “you’re probably right, I smell the smoke but I resent being awakened like this so shove off” then I really don’t have any room to complain when I wake up dead in the morning.

  6. Gloria says:

    It hasn’t been my experience, with very few exceptions, to hear uncharitable remarks from more traditional Catholics or their pastors. We’re more inclined to pray for tolerance and enlightenment. It’s more the NO pastors who are uncharitable, as we know from friends around California who are literally forced to take Communion in the hand, forbidden to kneel, etc. In a nearby parish, a former pastor told the group of 60 who petitioned for the TLM that the local grocery store would be speaking Latin before he would allow it. The latest pastor angrily told a parishioner to get out of his house when the parishioner told him what a great book on the Eucharist Bishop Schneider’s book, “Dominus Est,” was and tried to give him a copy. [And we can add anecdote after anecdote about how badly we have been treated. And believe me I could match them step for step! But the real point here is that if people want to obtain something legitimate, and there are people who should be helpful and sympathetic but are rather obstacles, how do we bring them around?]

  7. Corleone says:

    Glora – I hear you. And I’m really resisting the urge to pile on some of my own stories. But the point Father Z is making stands. Whether it happens 10% of the time from traditionalists while 90% comes from the Liberals, that’s still 10% of our energy that is wasted when it could be productive. If you want evidence of less than charitable words and behaviour from traditionalists, then look no further than the internet.

    I think a little healthy introspective self-examination here especially during the Lenten season won’t do anyone any harm.

  8. Folks: This is not essentially a discussion of how traditional Catholics have been treated.

    I think it is really about how to work to get respect and action for your legitimate aspirations and concerns.

  9. Virgil says:

    With the focus on responses to Notre Dame’s invitation, I am always left curious about (and excited by) the most important response of all: namely…

    What will President Obama say?

    He’s a well educated man, and a gifted speaker. He will be in his element, giving a commencement address at one of America’s great universities.

    My advice to him is probably less important than Bishop D’Arcy’s advice, but for what it’s worth…

    Hold up Humanae Vitae and the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Bible. (Literally would require 3 arms, so maybe figuratively.) Tell the assembled folks that these must be their contribution to the dialogue, and although we don’t always agree as Americans or as people of faith, YOUR CONTRIBUTION AS CATHOLICS IS TO UNDERSTAND YOUR OWN TRADITION AND TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE NATIONAL DIALOGUE.

    In this way, he trumps Bishop D’Arcy, whose absence means he is not interested in the dialogue. Or that he’s afraid of dialogue. Or that he’s feeling pressured into pulling a publicity stunt and calling it his contribution to the dialogue. Or maybe the Lords Spiritual have monologues, whilst the Lords Temporal have dialogues amongst themselves.

    In any case, I think DiNardo and D’Arcy should be welcomming the chance for a conversation between Catholics and our Protestant president.

  10. Ricky Vines says:

    With Bishop D’Arcy (FWSB, IN), Bishop Olmsted (Phoenix, AZ), Bishop Aymond (Austin, TX), Cardinal DiNardo (Houston, TX) and now Cardinal DiNardo critiquing vigorously Fr. Jenkin’s decision to no avail, can the religious superior from C.S.C. order the priest by vow of obedience to do the right thing? Or is there a higher official that can override Fr. Jenkin’s decision to rescind the invitation?

  11. Corleone says:

    Virgil – I understand your sentiment, but I think this is a “closed case”. Dialogue would imply the church has not said everything it needs to on the subject, or that Obama doesn’t understand the church’s stance. I think at this point he is well-versed and I don’t see him changing his decisions based on the fact that it is in effect one of the reasons he got elected.

  12. Vianney33 says:

    Virgil,
    I am sorry to inform you that the president is not interested in dialogue that would result in any changes. He is only interested in fooling enough Catholics to get elected, which he did, and sneak his agenda by. Please give us an example of something that went in our favor. Oh, that’s right, he didn’t rescind the Mexico City thing on the anniversary of Roe vs Wade. Don’t let yourself be so easily decieved by this smooth talking man. Following him will only lead to perdition.

  13. TNCath says:

    Ricky Vines wrote: “can the religious superior from C.S.C. order the priest by vow of obedience to do the right thing?”

    I seriously doubt the Superior General of the C.S.C.’s will do much of anything–at least publicly.

  14. Bill in Texas says:

    I just want to say that, in Texas, we — I *can* speak for all of us, can’t I? 8-) — really like His Eminence Cardinal DiNardo! Well-spoken, smart, and faithful to the teachings of the Church.

    My guess is that when His Eminence refers to “nasty invective” he is talking about those Catholics whose obstinacy, narrowness, arrogance, and one-sidedness precludes their viewpoints from being considered. This happens (in my experience) with extremes on either persuasion. To paraphrase what Father Z has so often said, if one wants to make one’s point, one will be respectful, civil, to the point, and brief.

  15. Origen Adamantius says:

    There is always the kneejerk reaction, originating in childhood, when corrected that the other guy is worse than I am, as if my sin is justified because I am not like other men. What Dinardo is calling for is Christians to be adult in their faith, speaking boldly without throwing the tantrums of a child or the invective that should mark someone outside of the body of Christ.

  16. Speaking of speakers, Cardinal DiNardo will be the keynote speaker at the Anglican Use Conference in Houston, June 12, 2009.
    http://www.anglicanuseconference.com

  17. Noel says:

    Sheer brilliance: he gets to the simple nub of the matter regarding the lifting of the excommunications and the subsequent brouhaha of those jumping on the bandwagon with their slanted views. No UK fudging the issue here.

  18. Charitable is whatever would save the most souls.

  19. Herbert says:

    How sad that this has happened to Notre Dame. In my opinion Catholic Universities should mirror what the church is. How sad that a Catholic University has chosen to seek worldly acclaim rather than the acclaim of God.

  20. Bob K. says:

    This Fr Jenkins needs to be removed and reassigned. Hopefully to the Middle East to do penance.

  21. Bob K: “This Fr Jenkins needs to be removed and reassigned. Hopefully to the Middle East to do penance”

    Don’t you think the people of the Middle-East have suffered enough as it is?

  22. Biff says:

    Could the Holy Father have set a precedent by giving a red hat to someone in the USA who is not a Metropolitan?

    Wouldn’t it be nice to see L.A. denied a cardinal but Lincoln get one?

  23. Matt says:

    And we can add anecdote after anecdote about how badly we have been treated. And believe me I could match them step for step! But the real point here is that if people want to obtain something legitimate, and there are people who should be helpful and sympathetic but are rather obstacles, how do we bring them around?

    Father, I think that is why you see so many traditional minded Catholics just going to the SSPX, FSSP, ICTK, etc. parishes. [Build your fantasies as you desire.....] Many have tried to work through “the system”, but if you keep running into road blocks, then it is just easier to go where you are wanted. It can’t be a mystery why more that 25% of France’s Catholics attend the SSPX parishes while the NO parishes are closing.

    I have run into similar situations even at my children’s Catholic school. In religion class the teacher asked which pope granted girls the right to serve Mass. My son piped in that he was taught that boys are supposed to be the only ones to serve Mass as it is their introduction to knowing if they want to be a priest. The teacher told him he was wrong and that he did not make the rules for the church. I was stunned by this. We attend the TLM at a diocese parish and the pastor there was very clear that only boys should server Mass. No girls are allowed at to serve Mass at his NO or TLM masses. Consequently this parish has over 20 boys who serve Mass. My children’s school has 3 boys that serve Mass.

    The nun who serves as Principal even asked my daughter if she wanted to start serving Mass. She wisely told her that it was not her place to server Mass. This has made me really wonder about the religious instruction my children are getting at their school.

    I called up the pastor who is in charge of the Parish and expressed my concerns. He said that, while he thought the teacher should not have responded in the way she did, he has no problems with females serving at Mass. So what are my alternatives? It is clear that the people in charge of the school will not change the way they view their instruction.

    My inclination is either to:

    1. Pull my kids from a catholic school and teach them at home. Thereby ensuring they receive an authentic traditional catholic instruction.

    2. Pull them from this school and drive them to the school parish where we attend the TLM. The priests here actually TEACH the religion class to the students. They teach traditional Catholic values. The downside is that the school costs twice as much, has no bus service and only goes through grade five.

    I consider myself a traditional Catholic. I tried to explain my reasoning by pointing out the following:

    In his encyclical Allatae Sunt of 26 July 1755, Pope Benedict XIV explicitly condemned females serving the priest at the altar with the following words:

    “Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: “Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.” We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21.”[3]

    [sigh]

    I pointed out that it has been the longstanding tradition of the Church, reiterated by many past popes, that serving at the Alter is reserved to boys and men.

    I just cannot reconcile that a tradition upheld virulently by so MANY popes and Catholic leaders was now all of a sudden changed. How does this fit into the hermeneutic of continuity?

    I can’t change my pastor’s intentions, so I just go to a parish where traditional catholic teaching is upheld. I think this is what many who really push the NO fear. The faithful young will go to the traditional parishes and those that stay with the NO will slowly see no difference between catholic schools and public schools.

    [Do what you want. Your mind is made up already.]

  24. Matt Q says:

    Father Z wrote:

    “[And we can add anecdote after anecdote about how badly we have been treated. And believe me I could match them step for step! But the real point here is that if people want to obtain something legitimate, and there are people who should be helpful and sympathetic but are rather obstacles, how do we bring them around?]”

    )(

    Yes, Father Z, there is a right way and a wrong way to approach one’s pastor or whomever along with prayer and fasting, but after getting sand kicked one’s face too many times by priests who act as described above, one fights back the same way.

    First off, stop the contributions. [K] When the money dries up, we’ll see how these pastors function. [Starting to question your motivation...] Secondly, treat them the same way. [Lex talionis...?] Unless these pastors are shown they can’t treat people like they do, thinking because they are priests they may act with impunity–and many do–then talking is pointless. Winning World War II wasn’t won by being kissy-nicey to the Germans or the Japanese. We didn’t defeat Saddam Husein that way either. We did talk and make kissy-nicey, and where did that get us? No, in the end, Catholics ultimately have to stand up for themselves and draw the line somewhere.

    What would be a great is for an indulted Tridentine Mass community to be established apart from the offending parish, and when all the Faithful go to that church and Father Nasty has barely a congregation… BAWHAHAHAHA. That’s how. [... strange ...
    ]

  25. Matt says:

    Yes the last post was strange.

    How would you approach this situation Father? My children are in 2-5th grade. They are at the most formative time in their lives. What else could I or should I do? If parents are supposed to be the primary educators of their children, how are we supposed to accomplish this if what we desire for our children is not being taught at Catholic institutions?

    How should we as parents respond when we bring concerns, such as the one I wrote about above, to the people instructing our children and those people seem indifferent? I struggle with this decision. I went to this school as a child, but under the care of a different pastor. I never heard instruction like this.

    I want to do what is proper in the light of tradition, but where do I turn to for help?

  26. One must be charitable at all times. Period. A real Christian cannot descend to the level of insult and the like. To me, vigorous means rock-solid reasoning presented well and persistence. No running off to break-away groups like SSPX if you don’t get what you want right away (NB: my experience of the most nasty conversations are when I defend the true Church and Pope from small-t traditionalists like SSPX). Church militant, remember? So act militant. Stay and fight. Improve the Church on earth with your presence. Outnumbered? So what else is new? Check out Gideon. Ridiculed? So what. Wasn’t Jesus ridiculed? Insulted? So what, do not respond in kind. Fighting the system? So what, so did the saints. How about St. John of the Cross and St. Theresa of Avila? Check out how they handled the corruption at their time. Bottom line, don’t be a spiritual wimp.

  27. Andrew says:

    The more traditional Catholics have been marginalized for a long time. So was our Blessed Lord. Justice is not ours to have here, someone else already told us “Justice is Mine”.

    There are places and times for legitimate criticism or questions, even toward Church authority. But there are also places were we ought to shut our traps and suffer like good Catholics have throughout history have. We have some place to criticize or questions particularly if authorities seem to be doing something which go against what the Church has taught. First, with charity and assuming the best, we ought to question privately. From there, we escalate (maintaining charity) as necessary.

    I think one can appreciate some of the SSPX reaction to the Pope’s recent gracious gestures. Objectively, there has been plenty of injustice throughout the Church toward them. (Many SSPX members and faithful have also be quite unjust too). But in the official statements, one does not see an attitude that somehow the Pope is obliged to repay for all of the injustice of the past. There is a desire among the leadership to discuss the doctrinal issues, ask the hard questions and establish if there are true doctrinal problems, or if a reinterpretation is all that is needed.

    Perhaps that’s a generally good attitude for us as well. Let’s not worry about the past injustices. Bishop Sheen quipped once that a fifth mark of the Church was Suffering. It’s not bad that we get to participate with Our Lord a bit there. In the end his Justice will be had. For us too, God will sort it all out in the end anyway.

  28. Dell says:

    Out of charity please can someone explain for me what is a ‘commencement address’. With my advance thanks.

  29. Paul Haley says:

    Charity, that spoken of by St. Paul, is not just a one-way street. If you’re asking for something from someone, be kind and courteous to that person. Remember Our Lord’s words on this subject which by paraphrasing would be: you pour hot coals on the heads of your enemies by being kind to them. And, the other thing is don’t bang your head against a concrete wall. If he’s not disposed to help, find someone who will. There are channels in the hierarchy to go through and canon law gives everyone the right to use them when necessary. That said, I believe suffering is what God intends to purify us of our evil inclinations – if only we would see it that way.

  30. JKR says:

    We should all email our disapproval to the President of Notre Dame. Here is the address.

    University of Notre Dame Office of the President

    400 Main Building Notre Dame, IN 46556 Phone: 574.631.3903 Email: president@nd.edu

  31. TJM says:

    JKR, I’m a twice graduate of Notre Dame and emailed Father Jenkins immediately after the scandal broke. Although I don’t discourage anyone from sending him a note, you will NEVER receive a response. He is not that kind of guy.

    I am pleased with Cardinal DiNardo’s response. Too bad, Cardinal George who lives a mere 90 miles from Notre Dame can’t be bothered. Unfortunately Notre Dame at this point in its history is more interested in receiving approbation from the secular community than being a witness for the Faith.

    Tom

  32. little gal says:

    “We should all email our disapproval to the President of Notre Dame.”

    Since he’s not receptive, shouldn’t we contact whomever he reports to…both the ND board of directors and his Holy Cross religious superior?

  33. TJM says:

    little gal, you make a great point. Please send your disapproval to the Chairman of the Notre Dame Board of Trustees and his religious superior. For all we know, he’s not keeping either of them fully informed of the firestorm. Tom

  34. irishgirl says:

    I like the Cardinal’s response!

  35. fh in Houston says:

    Cardinal DiNardo rocks. Just for some background, we have two SSPX chapels here in the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. In the past, their clergy have written some harsh comments to Archbishop Fioreza (predecessor) even to the point of questioning the Archbishop’s authority. I believe this is why Cardinal DiNardo has adressed this locally and hopes this issue moves forward.

    Send your children to the University of St. Thomas instead! BO would never be asked to speak there.

    Father, you have the best blog.

  36. Donald McGuire says:

    Before Catholics get their panties in a twist about Obama they should do a little soul searching. Catholic conservatives wholeheartedly supported George W. Bush, who made a hobby of death, torture and destruction. They have failed to atone for a long history of sexual abuse of young parishioners and amorality in the ranks of the clergy.

    Not to mention that the Pope wears dainty red shoes and has a German fascist male model as his personal secretary. Ja!

    Most non-Catholics see the church as a freak show. A lot of former Catholics feel the same way. And judging from the bizarre content of this blog they’re not too far from the mark.