ironically, JP2, Francis and Benedict say it's okay. But then the extreme branch of the UberTrad Catholics hate all of them (and VaticanII) so they oppose it, often taking quotes or incidents out of context or equating fringe nut cases who latched onto the place as representative of the whole.
The ubertrads are those who Pope Francis calls rigid, and they are small in number.
The problem? Anyone who criticizes Pope Francis is smeared as ubertrad in order to silence any criticism of his actions.
Sorry, buddy, not true. A lot of us are angry at how Francis is destroying church belief in the Eucharist and the holiness of marriage. And I won't even go into the boy loving bishops scandals.
The uberTradcath right opinion on Medjugorje is based on the crusade against the place by Michael Davies.
Thirty years ago, while searching (before the internet) about information on Soros (who at the time was having his pro euthanasia agenda infiltrate the end of life movement with great subtlety) I searched for some information on Soros in a Davies newsletter: when I got it, it was so one sided, vile and full of hatred it gave me intellectual heartburn. Later, I read his screed on Medjugorje, which was a similar hit job.
On the other hand, one Protestant charismatic preacher found it a place of grace ... even though he wasn't too sure about all that Mary stuff... so ironically I first heard about the place in the early 1980s when I read about it in a Protestant magazine.
Of course, our beloved bishop (/s) in Altoona hated the place and there were articles in our diocesan newspaper against going there: saying we should "obey" the wishes of the local bishop, which is the same argument we hear today against the place.
Right. Trust the bishop. (/s). The bishop of Altoona also hated the Catholic charismatic renewal, and the Marian novenas so beloved by the Eastern European types who worked in the steel mills and mines. Indeed, the diocesan newspaper ridiculed the locals for all those "bathtub Madonnas" that dot the area.
But the diocese newspaper praised the gay friendly churches in Penn State (uh, Sandusky link?) and the trendier than thou nuns teaching enneagrams (claiming they were ancient Islamic mysticism when actually they were invented fifty years earlier by a fake "new thought" teacher, and had no scientific validity for psychological understanding.)
well anyway, when I went to Medjugorje, it was with a prayer group from the local Russian Orthodox church, and I found it a place of grace.
so why Russian Orthodox church?
Well, the local priest had a bible study, and because the bible studies in the Catholic churches were usually run by trendier than thou nuns or non existent, half of his class were Catholic.
It says a lot that, when the Satanists left dead animals and graffiti on two churches in that small town, the two churches that they chose were this Russian Orthodox church and the small bible church where my son attended school. Almost as if they knew their real enemies.
speaking of Orthodoxy:
GetReligion has the background on the recent split in Orthodoxy between the Russian and Greek Orthodox movements. It's about the Ukraine more than dogma. (see this link).
Confusion reigns.
Sigh.
-----------------
update: Pope Francis uses the language of psychology and sociology and moderistic "me too" ideas about the family and sexuality. What he is not able to do is to recognize the subtleties that folks know in their heart but have trouble explaining.
He uses modern "concrete" thinking and forgets the poetry. And those who say" Wait a minute that's not quite true" get thrown into his equivalent of the "baskets of deplorables": not just the "rigid" uber right branch of the church, but the ordinary pious folk trying to live an upright life, who find that they are being condemned by this "inclusive" pope.
But there are a few bishops with the courage to try to explain what he is getting wrong using the language of faith and poetry.
here is an example:
In contrast to the "ain't it awful" shouting going on, a subtle criticism of the superficial approach to family morality in the "conference on yutes" can be found here.
The IL,(i.e. document guiding the council on youth) in its original form, is a collection of dense social science data with very little evangelical zeal. It speaks constantly about accompaniment, which is important, but it contains almost no confident teaching. It can’t and won’t convert anybody. Hopefully, the synod fathers will fix this....
Gender ideology treats the body as an instrument to be upgraded, or clay to be manipulated.
In contrast, Christian faith sees the body, not as some kind of “wetware” or clay capsule, but as integral and essential to who we are. God became man to redeem human flesh, not to render it meaningless.
The family, by its nature, is carnal and fertile. A man and a woman become one flesh. New life results. It’s beautiful, it’s mysterious, but it’s not efficient.
To a certain kind of modern mindset, that inefficiency is offensive.
At the heart of gender ideology is a resentment of the weakness and limitations of the body.
At the core of today’s attacks on the family is a hatred of the mutual dependence that families demand, and a distrust of the love within a family that seals it tight as a unit. In the end, all of today’s sexual aberrations and dysfunctions boil down to a rejection of creation; of the natural order as it is.
which explains why Chaput is not a Cardinal but marginalized with other intellectual opponants of Pope Francis' "reforms", such as Cardinal Burke or Cardinal Sarah.
I apologize for my burst of writing on this but it is something that I have a little bit of expertise in...(in the past, I put such things on my personal blog because I knew what had gone on but didn't dare write it without verification.)
No comments:
Post a Comment