The unstated racism of the ‘c’atholic Left

There was an article in, of all places, Hell’s Bible (aka The New York Times) about the influence of the traditional Roman Rite in Africa.

This article prompted a spittle-flecked nutty from the usual suspects, such as Beans and Ruff. Beans tweeted in reaction:

Read that again…. “they cannot really comprehend”.

What a racist remark.

This reminds me of Card. Kasper’s Africa Gaffe.

Behold, the true attitude of the Left.

Please share!

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, What are they REALLY saying?. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to The unstated racism of the ‘c’atholic Left

  1. Mike says:

    In defense of Faggioli, Kasper, et al., their smirking condescension is not confined toward black Africans. Racism is only one of the arrows in their infernal neo-Gnostic quiver.

  2. donato2 says:

    There is a name for the “theological effects” that Maximum Beans seems to be worried about. It is called “Catholicism.”

  3. Lisieux says:

    Why do I suspect that in other context, Signor Faggioli would dismiss Fr Neuhaus as a rabid neo-con?

  4. Rich says:

    So, sensus fidelium is enough not to expect people to have to “receive” the Church’s teachings, but not enough to allow neo-traditionalists to celebrate the Mass in ways they “cannot really comprehend”, RIGHT???

    I guess all people’s sensus fidelii are equal, but that of some is more equal than others.

  5. ejcmartin says:

    It reminds me of comments from our “progressive” strategic planning committee report that suggested “The answer to our problems is not to bring in more foreign-born priests. They do not have the background or training or skills necessary for this place, culture or this time.” Soft racism at its worst. [If the foreign priests don’t have adequate language skills, it is very difficult for everyone to function and interact well. That has to be kept in mind.]

  6. Eric says:

    One of the problems with the vernacular liturgy is the actual DIVISION it causes. I am quite sure this is probably manifest most in the great continent of Africa with all the different tribal/ethnic divides. Solution: the Latin Mass. Comprehend that Massimo. Maybe that fact has not been yet “received” by the progressives, aka Modernist.

  7. Eric says:

    Well said.

  8. Eric says:

    Father, I know I have heard that line before, and I found it! Poor Massimo just got finished watching Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Marcus Brody: “”You’re Meddling With Powers You Cannot Possibly Comprehend.”

    [That’s it!]

  9. mzanghetti says:

    I have dealt with foreign priests and it’s funny because the two had very different results. I was in a parish that had a priest from Poland, his English was at worst marginal, and in my opinion more than adequate to the task. The parish revolted and he lasted less than a month. They began to share an American priest with another parish that caused another revolt. I moved away and have no idea what happened after that. A few years later was in a parish that received a priest from Uganda who’s English was borderline understandable. After a few conversations that ended in roars of laughter when the misunderstanding was straightened out which usually required translating into French and then to English. After a few days of this the parish took the bull by the horns and put Father Peter into an immersive English course that had him speaking better English is about a month. He was there for about a year and there were tears of sadness all the way around when he left. I only mention this because of the comment above in red, sometimes it can be an incredible gift when the language skills aren’t where they need to be.

  10. JamesA says:

    Fantastic article, despite the predictable liberal response. How did this manage to get past the editorial pagans at the NYT ?!

  11. Chris in Maryland 2 says:

    I guess this is the hallmark of the the “new Church” that Cdl. McCarrick – interestingly enough at Villanova, Faggioli’s “safe space” – stated was the aim of getting Cdl. Bergoglio elected.

    These 3 men above have deluded themselves to think that they are going to get away with this dismissive, brute-force popularity contest they call their “new Church.”

    Who would want something so ugly and shallow – as represented by such low-minded speech as Faggioli’s?

    [Not to worry. He’s thinks he’s onto something that will keep people talking about him for a while. This is his shtick du jour, if we can mix languages like that!]

  12. Moro says:

    There is another sort of racism in the church – the de facto segregation of language groups. On the surface you may say this is pastorally necessary and I can believe that in some cases it may be. But in far too many parishes the non-English speaking communities live in their own little world separate from the rest of the parish. This despite the fact that most of them speak English and could easily partake of young adult groups, CCD, etc. with the rest of the parish. Until about a year ago I didn’t think much of it. I began reading the archdiocesan paper written in Spanish and list to local Spanish Catholic radio. I was amazed by the coverage of political action for immigration, hunger, etc. to vote call your congressmen, etc. Things I haven’t heard called for for pro-life or any other cause (even something like hunger, healthcare, etc.) in the English speaking Catholic world since at least the prior bishop of our diocese. Basically, the DNC was treating the Hispanic Catholic community as their voting base and the powers that be in the diocese were enabling it. So it’s almost like this segregation was planned and maintained to keep hispanic Catholics “on the reservation” I’m not the least bit Hispanic, ethnically speaking. I only speak Spanish because I have lived in two Spanish speaking countries. So this was totally new to me to uncover this. I suspect many Hispanic Catholics experience this as a normal part of parish life and think nothing of it.

  13. Oxonian95 says:

    My own experience leads me to agree wholeheartedly with Faggioli’s words (if not his sentiment). I’m a recent convert to the Church after 4 decades of devout Protestantism. One of the (many) surprising spiritual benefits of the practice of traditional Catholic piety and sacraments (Eucharist, Confession, rosary, adoration) has been the uncomprehended grace that I can sense entering into and healing my soul. As a Protestant, every attempt to reach God began and ended with my powers of thought, of comprehension. For a long time I viewed Catholic sacraments and sacramentals as “hocus-pocus”–a sort of attempt at magic without thought. I understood only dimly, and therefore incorrectly. The sacraments and sacramentals do indeed work without my comprehension, and therefore work much more powerfully. My head no longer gets in the way of the path of grace to my heart and soul. So indeed, the tradition is producing effects that I do not comprehend, and I am grateful for it.

    [If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that the Novus Ordo “experience” is more like your former Protestant “experience” and that your experience of Tradition is something quite different. In that sense you agree with “Beans”, who contends (wrongly) that there is an unbridgeable gap between just about everything Novus Ordo and Vetus Ordo. Did I get that right?]

  14. Oxonian95 says:

    In response: No, not right–perhaps the word “tradition” doesn’t yet narrow itself enough for me to use it as others mean it. I really mean the sacraments (which I had little experience of), and their direct, a-rational effect on my spirit. I attend Novus and Vetus. I prefer Vetus, but the spiritual effect I am describing is present in both, perhaps more powerfully in Vetus. [If that is the case, then you may be saying something quite different from what Beans claims about the theology of the two forms being irreconcilable.]

  15. Pingback: TVESDAY CATHOLICA EDITION | Big Pulpit