Its really hard to know how Leo will turn out. Is he a less clumsy Bergolio? Is he imbued with the spirit of the age? Is he biding his time and softly very softly taking his foot off the woke accelerator?
I have no answers, only this thought: that there are scandals so despicably evil, that one must speak out and condemn from the Petrine Chair.
Agreed. The silence of Leo is, I will admit, beginning to get under my skin. It's one thing to be deliberate and careful. It's another to sit by and watch as manifest evils are committed (e.g., the LGBT parade into St. Peter's, or the behavior of the bishops of Charlotte & Detroit).
I was not really aware of Mr. Kirk until this terrible event, nor did I know of his platform. Notwithstanding his views, it's extremely troubling that there are those out there who could be persuaded to cheer the murder of...anybody, really, but there are some dark forces out there.
I say this as a liberal myself—an imperfect one, for sure, and one with a penchant for the traditional mass—but one committed to libertas: free choice for free wills. (Not particularly progressive, as for me the only progress one can make is toward a closer communion with the Almighty.) I have to suspect, despite the blathering chorus online, the vast majority of people, regardless of affiliation, are not cheerleaders for such evil. For those who so choose will have their intellects darken and face the only judge who matters at times' end.
It seems, in this case, as in most others, we face a situation less of conservative vs. liberal than of those of goodwill vs. those lacking in charity. The same sad story, of principalities and powers of this world conspiring to cajole the hearts of humankind to choose something other than the Good.
Are you aware of Charlotte’s bishop Martin promoting LGTBQ classes at Charlotte Latin High School? It is a private school, not associated with the diocese.
There was a suit against the school by the parents of the two victim children. Bishop Martin supported the school’s decision to require attendance at the LGBTQ classes.
My understanding is that the Diocese of Charlotte was filing an amicus brief (probably completely wrong term), as supporting the school in their right to prevail over parents who object to something being taught or done at the school (in this case the LGB things). It occurred to me, recently, when I heard that, for the 3 Diocesan High Schools, the Bishop has mandated No Use of Altar Rails with Kneelers for communion (and even causing one school to remove them) AND requiring use of projection screens so that the students can see words for hymns, and long prayers like the Gloria and the Creed, instead of any missal or some other paper product, AND requiring the use of students as extraordinary ministers of communion AND requiring a student to give a 5 minute talk during mass... anyway I thought maybe the Bishop wanted to be ready in case parents from these Catholic High schools decided to object. If Charlotte Latin HS wins their case, the precedent for schools overruling objections of parents would be in place. Of course, it could be completely unrelated but ...
Yes--huzzah for St. Pier Giorgio Frassati on July 4th, a day relatively thin on saints. (And my birthday, so it has been a challenge to have a saint to grasp for a day doubly-special to me.)
Bishop Schneider rightly condemns the "desecration" at St Peter's Basilica by the alphabet crowd and the reprobate clerics that facilitated it. He rightly points to Pope Leo as the one who ought to "repair" the damage of these "spiritual criminals and murders of souls." I am not holding my breath for Pope Leo to do anything. The buck stops with him but he bears responsibility for either tacitly approving or failing to condemn the event. It seems Cardinal Burke is best suited to do the right thing and conduct a public act of reparation at St Peters before his TLM.
Thanks for your lengthy summary. Its going to take me most of the coming week to wade through it.
I must ask you a question though. Is it possible that the offer of a return to St Peter's for the TLM on October is deliberately designed to cause traditional Catholics to be more moderate in their condemnation of the recent Gay fiasco within the same noble building along with Fr James Martin's crowing about his private audience with Pope Leo?
The longer time goes by with Leo NOT condemning the shameful events of the Gay pilgrimage, to me, the more obvious it is where he stands.
I don't think these two things are directly related.
My view of Leo is that he is somewhat passive and overly friendly to everyone, that he trusts the people around him too much, and that he delegates a great deal (or lets a great deal be as if delegated) to lower levels. He does not have the background or personality of a micromanager; on the contrary, he is too hands off. This is a weakness I hope he will learn to overcome.
Its really hard to know how Leo will turn out. Is he a less clumsy Bergolio? Is he imbued with the spirit of the age? Is he biding his time and softly very softly taking his foot off the woke accelerator?
I have no answers, only this thought: that there are scandals so despicably evil, that one must speak out and condemn from the Petrine Chair.
Agreed. The silence of Leo is, I will admit, beginning to get under my skin. It's one thing to be deliberate and careful. It's another to sit by and watch as manifest evils are committed (e.g., the LGBT parade into St. Peter's, or the behavior of the bishops of Charlotte & Detroit).
I was not really aware of Mr. Kirk until this terrible event, nor did I know of his platform. Notwithstanding his views, it's extremely troubling that there are those out there who could be persuaded to cheer the murder of...anybody, really, but there are some dark forces out there.
I say this as a liberal myself—an imperfect one, for sure, and one with a penchant for the traditional mass—but one committed to libertas: free choice for free wills. (Not particularly progressive, as for me the only progress one can make is toward a closer communion with the Almighty.) I have to suspect, despite the blathering chorus online, the vast majority of people, regardless of affiliation, are not cheerleaders for such evil. For those who so choose will have their intellects darken and face the only judge who matters at times' end.
It seems, in this case, as in most others, we face a situation less of conservative vs. liberal than of those of goodwill vs. those lacking in charity. The same sad story, of principalities and powers of this world conspiring to cajole the hearts of humankind to choose something other than the Good.
Thanks for the read.
Are you aware of Charlotte’s bishop Martin promoting LGTBQ classes at Charlotte Latin High School? It is a private school, not associated with the diocese.
Yes. It's a disgrace. He should be sued by them, rather than obeyed.
There was a suit against the school by the parents of the two victim children. Bishop Martin supported the school’s decision to require attendance at the LGBTQ classes.
Oh, I see, well in that case it sounds like the school has already sold its soul to the devil, and the bishop is only applauding the transaction.
My understanding is that the Diocese of Charlotte was filing an amicus brief (probably completely wrong term), as supporting the school in their right to prevail over parents who object to something being taught or done at the school (in this case the LGB things). It occurred to me, recently, when I heard that, for the 3 Diocesan High Schools, the Bishop has mandated No Use of Altar Rails with Kneelers for communion (and even causing one school to remove them) AND requiring use of projection screens so that the students can see words for hymns, and long prayers like the Gloria and the Creed, instead of any missal or some other paper product, AND requiring the use of students as extraordinary ministers of communion AND requiring a student to give a 5 minute talk during mass... anyway I thought maybe the Bishop wanted to be ready in case parents from these Catholic High schools decided to object. If Charlotte Latin HS wins their case, the precedent for schools overruling objections of parents would be in place. Of course, it could be completely unrelated but ...
Yes--huzzah for St. Pier Giorgio Frassati on July 4th, a day relatively thin on saints. (And my birthday, so it has been a challenge to have a saint to grasp for a day doubly-special to me.)
Bishop Schneider rightly condemns the "desecration" at St Peter's Basilica by the alphabet crowd and the reprobate clerics that facilitated it. He rightly points to Pope Leo as the one who ought to "repair" the damage of these "spiritual criminals and murders of souls." I am not holding my breath for Pope Leo to do anything. The buck stops with him but he bears responsibility for either tacitly approving or failing to condemn the event. It seems Cardinal Burke is best suited to do the right thing and conduct a public act of reparation at St Peters before his TLM.
Thanks for your lengthy summary. Its going to take me most of the coming week to wade through it.
I must ask you a question though. Is it possible that the offer of a return to St Peter's for the TLM on October is deliberately designed to cause traditional Catholics to be more moderate in their condemnation of the recent Gay fiasco within the same noble building along with Fr James Martin's crowing about his private audience with Pope Leo?
The longer time goes by with Leo NOT condemning the shameful events of the Gay pilgrimage, to me, the more obvious it is where he stands.
I don't think these two things are directly related.
My view of Leo is that he is somewhat passive and overly friendly to everyone, that he trusts the people around him too much, and that he delegates a great deal (or lets a great deal be as if delegated) to lower levels. He does not have the background or personality of a micromanager; on the contrary, he is too hands off. This is a weakness I hope he will learn to overcome.