Reader Response to a Blog

I have received the following in reply to a blog of a few days ago:

This is late, but I just read your defense of Rod Dreher's reasoning on Pope JPII's lack of action on heresy. I want to be sure that I understand you - did you actually end with the argument that non-action was preferred to avoid schism? Having attested that schism will ultimately result from the pent-up rage of the leftist liberals in the church when the next pope also does not bend to their wishes, how would action against heretical bishops, abbots, etc. have done anything except hasten that day and clarify Catholic truth for the young who are to this day being misled or not led?

I wouldn't say that I so much defended Dreher's reasoning — though I did that to some extent — as I did his right to say what he said, and that he had good reasons for doing so. As to where I ended up — I would say, rather, that I think the argument is very good for thinking that "judicious" use of papal authority to remove miscreants may have helped to stem the tide when it was rising. "Judicious" use, rather than wholesale use. And earlier use, rather than later. I think Pope Paul VI was a very holy and great man, but he dropped the ball.

Frankly, I think there are times in history where nobody could have done anything to prevent a very bad outcome. Maybe the outcome could have been made less bad. Maybe it could have been made a different kind of bad. But, many, many times, a bad outcome has been simply unavoidable. I think that is the case, now, with the Iraqi situation: war or no war, somebody somewhere somehow is going to have hell to pay on this earth. I think that is the case, too, with the evisceration of the Catholic faith in the USA: nobody could have stopped it, it had been coming for such a long time.

We already have schism - we just haven't formalized it and the tension of trying to unite people of polar opposite positions is a nightmare. Our pastor actually said, at morning Mass, that even though we may think different things are true, we need to keep our unity. HUH? I would so much appreciate it if the clergy would speak the truth and let the unbelievers make of it what they will. Stay and convert or go where you share beliefs.

We do already, in some respects, have material schism. The bishops have simply refused to implement Ex Corde Ecclesiae, for instance. And I certainly agree with your "stay and convert or go where you share beliefs": that is merely demanding simple honesty from people. And yet, in a certain sense, we do need to keep our unity. Unlike Protestants, for instance, who think church membership is irrelevant or insignificant, the Catholic Church has always considered membership to be necessary and vital: that is why schism, heresy, and apostasy are such grave sins. Of course, it is dishonest and unwise to allow the truth to be stretched so far as to be denied, merely to preserve unity.

I see around me the wreckage of the secularization of the Church. Lifelong Catholic women (some who avoided birth control and have large families as a result of obedience) now are enamoured of having women priests and non-judgmentalism, etc. They positively seethe when it is suggested that the church has not, in its wisdom, decided to call women -- "they would be so much more sensitive" -- they have never worked for a tartar of a female boss.

This is the result of the failure of catechesis in our country. Not only do Catholics not know the faith, they don't know why it is what it is, and many of them parrot the scoffing that permeates our secular culture.

I know that I cannot attend any service on Sept. 11th and listen to about need to "heal;" to have "compassion;" to be "welcoming" and "non-judgmental," etc. I had to ask that our priests include prayers for the Armed Services last fall - two of the three gave me arguments, but they did it for a few Masses.

I agree with you here completely. Far too many of us, priests and laity, Catholic and non-Catholic, take far too much for granted: our easy, open way of life is not in the least bit natural. It has taken Western civilization a couple of thousand years to reach this point. And it has been bought with a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. And it requires blood, sweat, and tears to preserve it, too. I cannot help but think of the Hobbits in the Lord of the Rings: their quiet, quaint, secure life had been maintained only by the vigilance of the Rangers, whom the Hobbits did not know existed or whom they scorned and derided.

I was the only woman out of nine attending a parish book club that didn't think that non- or non-practicing Catholics should be invited to Eucharist at weddings and funerals. One woman, a teacher in our local public middle school said, "I really don't know what the differences are in the churches." She's the product of the "God is Love - that's all you need to know" catechesis and a direct result of the decision of American bishops to drop the Baltimore Catechism as a teaching aide.

Yes, this is a failure of catechesis: they don't know what they should believe as faithful Catholics, they don't know why it is the faith of the Church, and they have, therefore, no clue why certain disciplinary stands are built upon certain other doctrinal positions. This is a blunt reply to a woman who says she doesn't know what the differences in the churches are: then why are you talking about these things? The better reply would be to suggest that she learn them!

The "God is Love" attitude has been exposed and condemned in the essay I blogged two days ago. I don't know if I'd lay it at the feet of those who abandoned the Baltimore Catechism. I have only become briefly acquainted with it myself quite lately. The problem was larger: professional Catholics simply stopped teaching the Catholic faith. And, in many cases, started teaching another. Any other.

Our RCIA program did not mention chastity as part of the discussion of morality. Instead, a pamphlet was given to everyone stating that in the past, sexual morality was the only morality of concern to Catholics, but now we worry about social justice issues. The lack was evident on the last night of our celebration of the new members when one of the elect announced that she was moving in with her fiance a year before her wedding.

Well, that remark about morality is simply slander: slander of generation upon generation of Catholics.

This is all the result of the clergy's buying into the leftist, socialistic cant of the secular culture. The words used by the left are so sweet that silly folk ("useful idiots" to the Soviets) get sucked into supporting awful moral and political positions.

I suppose some would think you are speaking too much in generalities here. But, as a generality, I have to agree with what you say. I think the Church is filled these days with Subversive Traitors, many of whom are, indeed, "useful idiots" who simply do not know that their lives are being dedicated to wrecking what they are supposed to uphold.

Thank you for your long and well-reasoned blog!

Thank you for taking the time to write to me.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Wed. 09/04/02 09:25:15 PM
Categorized as Classic.