Thus the word of the LORD came to me: Son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel. When you hear a word from my mouth, you shall warn them for me. If I say to the wicked man, You shall surely die; and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death. If, on the other hand, you have warned the wicked man, yet he has not turned away from his evil nor from his wicked conduct, then he shall die for his sin, but you shall save your life. If a virtuous man turns away from virtue and does wrong when I place a stumbling block before him, he shall die. He shall die for his sin, and his virtuous deeds shall not be remembered; but I will hold you responsible for his death if you did not warn him. When, on the other hand, you have warned a virtuous man not to sin, and he has in fact not sinned, he shall surely live because of the warning, and you shall save your own life. (Ezekiel 3:17-21)
When priests were feeding me their false gospels and it just wasn't sitting right (no matter how nice it might have been to believe it)...I turned to reading and seeking out on our own...found EWTN, the writings of the Saints, Bishop Sheen - etc. This is the path taken by everyone who is intellectually protected from deception.
When I was naive, thinking priests in Boston were on the up and up, I remember taking the above reading from Ezekiel to several of them thinking they too had been shnookered and would see the light if you showed it to them.
You know what their answer was?
Those are bygone days before Jesus Christ. When He came, it wiped out the Old Testament. It's naughty and unnecessary to talk about sins now, they explained.
I'd hit the books again..and go back.
"Remember what you said about the ways of the prophets of Old Testaments being wiped out? What about John the Baptist?"
His ministry before Christ, they answered.
"Yeah? Well how come Christ said John the Baptist is the greatest of all men?"
"You are mistaken. John the Baptist's ministry is part of Christ's, he goes before Christ to warn the people so the choices are loud and clear in the public square and they are forced to choose which side they will stand on when Christ comes. That's your job. You people think you are The Christ, that's what's going on around here."
Our duties exist, whether it's a King or a peasant.
Authentic Popes don't make mistakes in doctrine - but our religion doesn't call us to affirm their errors outside of their Divinely protected judgment.
It's in keeping with our authentic religion to say that Pope John Paul II was a fabulous teacher, writer, preacher, lover of men and women and children - - but it's also fair to say he lacked the paternal instinct of discipline.
The wreckage in Boston is causally related to the lack of discipline and right judgment in the heirarchy about what to do with people who are dangerous mentally, sexually, spiritually, liturgically, sacramentally, intellectually operating with their stamp of approval.
It's fair to say that as much as we love John Paul II, we aspired to the changes necessary to clean out the corruption and theft of our religion and the seduction and statutory rapes of our children. It's fair to say they are not happening when you put Larry Kessler and advocates who promote sexual partners for children while handing out condoms in charge of safe sex environments.
We all know what is happening. The Pope knows what is happening.
It's fair to say, that since he knows and he refuses to take actions against it and in fact promotes Sean, the Pope thinks Sean is doing a swell job.
The Pope knows that those of us who have been showing him and others the paper trail in Boston crying out in the public square that Sean has instituted a sexually unsafe environment for children will be further challenged by promoting Sean. Stands to reason that Hehir and MJ England and BC and Larry Kessler and Margaret Roylance and Jack Connors and Janet Eisner and Peter Meade and Peter Lynch - will be empowered by the affirmation of Sean's shtick. More children will be referred to Planned Parenthood and BAGLY, perhaps even the Man Boy Love Association.
With Sean's elevation, and the appointment of Levada who covered up for pedophiles and punished whistleblowers, the appointment Levada's replacement...these things do not leave any room for anyone to conclude the Good Old Boys network has been put out of it's misery.
My friend in Christ sent me another article which talks about decisions made by Popes that are less than enchanting. It refers to our precious John Paul II - and may be a challenge for some of you to read.
It's safe to post because you all know how much of an advocate I am for JP II - how much I loved him and I promote his teachings - there's no where to go for people to say that by posting it - it means I reject him. Such nonsese posted isn't going to fly with my readers (and I'm up to 20,000 unique readers a month).
I've never tolerated anything schismatic on this blog - nor will I ever.
You're never going to come here and read that I've gotten off the Ark of Christ's One, Holy, Apostolic Church.
But, I never have nor will I ever go along to get along with the Good Old Boys Shtick.
I disagree with Fr. Harrison on one point - I do believe that JP II is "the Great". Other than that - every word I agree with.
Perhaps he's right though...if I lacked discipline as a parent and my children went astray, I'm not quite sure I'd go to my grave with people saying I was a great parent.
There's all kinds of reasons why children go astray. I know many who are great parents, who did all they could in the way of discipline and teachings - and the children were still led astray. But, at the end of the day, they hold no culpability because they did everything humanly possible.
If nothing else, boys and girls - what happened to Fr. Chris Coyne is a monument that the days of going into our parishes with good intentions of quietly interchanging orthodoxy while leaving (or appointing)the schismatics in leadership and teaching roles and thinking it will fly - are over.
To reward the mess this man Bishop has made is beyond astounding. Most of us simply have no words. Few of us are willing to say out loud what we are saying behind closed doors...but..some of us have that duty.
A few quotes from the article...
Nevertheless, in the interest of well-roundedness, it is fair to point out areas in which John Paul II’s leadership has been less than what hoped. Some readers may feel that no criticism of a reigning pope can ever be legitimate, at least not in public. Such a stance does not take into account rights of the faithful that are explicitly recognized by the Church itself. The 1983 Code of Canon Law says:
"[The faithful] have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence, and position, to manifest to the sacred pastors their views on matters that concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful, but in doing so they must always respect the integrity of faith and morals, show due reverence to the pastors, and take into account both the common good and the dignity of individuals" (CIC 212 §3).
No clause in canon 212 exempts the words, deeds, policies, or omissions of a pope himself from such criticism. Moreover, by affirming the right of the faithful "to make their views known to others of Christ’s faithful" as well as to the Church’s pastors, this canon makes clear that public as well as private criticism can be legitimate.
This isn't a cult.
That saintly and learned Doctor of the Church, Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, when asked for advice by a newly elected pope, replied that the most vital duty of the Roman pontiff is to appoint the right men as bishops. Indeed, if this duty remains unfulfilled, even the most beautiful and orthodox papal encyclicals and the most prudent papal legislation will remain ineffective, because they will go unenforced.
Some of John Paul II’s personal appointments have been good ones. Not all of the not-so-good appointments can be blamed on the Pope, since in most cases case he must depend on the recommendations of his advisors. But the Pope can change those advisors if generally weak, liberal, and insubordinate episcopates emerge (or continue) over time. There is no denying that such mitred mediocrity still prevails in many countries after a quarter-century of the present pontificate.
Some key appointments in which the Pope certainly had personal knowledge of the men in question are mystifying. For instance, as a theologian, Walter Kasper has "demythologized" many miraculous elements in the Gospels. He and Karl Lehmann were leaders in the German bishops’ campaigns of the 1990s to get divorced and remarried Catholics admitted to Communion and to resist John Paul II’s clear instructions regarding controversial abortion counseling procedures. How can the bestowal of red hats on such clerics be reconciled with the canon law that the Pope himself promulgated? Canon 351 §1 stipulates that those made cardinals must be (among other things) "truly outstanding in doctrine."
Let me conclude with a personal testimony. One of my professors in the seminary in Sydney, Australia, taught year after year—in the classroom and in published articles—that the Resurrection of Jesus was a spiritual, non-miraculous event that left his mortal remains somewhere to decay. This meant that the Gospel accounts of his subsequent physical appearances were mere mythologized descriptions of internal, intangible "experiences of grace" in the hearts and minds of the disciples. Archbishop Edward B. Clancy of Sydney, who had been a Scripture professor in the same seminary, was aware that this was being taught to his future priests, but showed no outward signs of concern.
Trying to tell me "Cardinal Sean" (gross) has plans to give Margaret Roylance (et al) Humanae Vitae, I'm here to say the result of that is going to be riducling it behind closed doors. It doesn't pan out.
That's why when you go to EWTN, you don't see Richard McBrien.
The Bishop knows it because you don't see Larry Kessler and Margaret Roylance at the Men's Conference.
The community will churn out the products of who you have in place to teach.