Catholic author Michael Brown writes:
"Recently, as members of our bishop’s council on culture, we attended a Mass con-celebrated by all the bishops in Florida (eight of them, main celebrant, Archbishop Thomas G. Wenski of Miami); about thirty priests; and more than a dozen deacons who were honoring the anniversary death of a local prelate. It was a very formal Mass, replete with beautiful singing and organ and incense — an hour and a half, and a truly holy experience. The sanctity was palpable.
There is no question that when done the right way, with elan as well as solemnity, the liturgy, even as formulated since Vatican II, can be profound.
But herein — what occurs elsewhere, during Mass — is the problem.
While the United States bishops, gathering for an annual conference, discuss political issues such as immigration, far more urgent matters concerning the Church itself — particularly in the U.S. — press in from all sides.
None is more so than that of the liturgy and church attendance, which is some dioceses is in free-fall.
One example: Pittsburgh — for decades a Catholic stronghold — has seen a forty percent drop in attendance since 2000.
In many parishes, youth are an endangered species — all but gone save for small scattered pockets on Saturday or Sunday, most seduced by weekend sports events or turned off by what they hear as long, dry homilies and uninspiring music, as well as unnecessary prolongations contrary to the flow of Mass. A modern, sterile interior does not help in the feeling of holiness — and without any feeling, without a sense of the Holy Spirit personally touching them, pews empty..."
What Mr. Brown neglects to mention is that the war on masculinity within the Catholic Church is a major factor in the emptying of pews.
As this article explains:
"Though the New Evangelization has been a major effort in the Catholic Church for over forty years, it has failed to stem the disastrous losses of the faithful in the U.S. The New Evangelization is faltering: since 2000, 14 million Catholics have left the faith, parish religious education participation of children has dropped by 24%, Catholic school attendance has dropped by 19%, baptisms of infants has dropped by 28%, baptism of adults has dropped by 31% and sacramental Catholic marriages have dropped by 41%. Something is desperately wrong with the Church’s approach to the New Evangelization.
The New Emangelization Project has documented that a key driver of the collapse of Catholicism in the U. S. is a serious and growing Catholic “man-crisis”. One third of baptized Catholic men have left the faith and the majority of those who remain “Catholic” neither know nor practice the faith and are not committed to pass the faith along to their children. Recent research shows that large numbers of young Catholic men are leaving the faith to become “Nones”, men who have no religious affiliation. The growing losses of young Catholic men will have a devastating impact on the U.S. Catholic Church in the coming decades, as older Catholic men pass away and young men fail to remain and marry in the Church, accelerating the devastating losses that have already occurred.
While there are massive cultural forces outside of the Church (e.g. secularism, pluralism, anti-Christian bias, radical feminism, pornography, media saturation, etc.) and missteps within the Church (e.g. failure to make men a priority, sex abuse scandals, homosexuality in the priesthood, etc.) that have contributed to the Catholic “man-crisis”, the New Emangelization Project has conducted dozens of interviews with top Catholic men’s evangelists that suggest that a core reason for the “man-crisis” is that bishops and priests have not yet made the evangelization and catechesis of men a clear priority. Men are being ignored by the Church."
_________________
Addicted to homosexuality and effeminism, the Cult of Softness has a deep and abiding hatred of real men and anything even remotely resembling masculinity. I've addressed this truth often at this Blog- see here for example.
In the New Church, which will accept the Man of Sin, the Cult of Softness will be the New dogma. Already there is preparation on so very many levels.
The Latin Vulgate (see the Douay-Rheims Bible) indicates that the effeminate will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:10). But the New American Bible, which is used by the USCCB, omits the word effeminate:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (Latin Vulgate):
Verse 9: "Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:
an nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt nolite errare neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri
Verse 10: Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.
neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt."
1Corinthians 6: 9-10 (New American Bible) posted online by the USCCB:
Verse 9: "Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites
Verse 10: nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."
Why do you think this is so? The Latin Vulgate, which we have obtained from the great St. Jerome, is the most precise translation of the Sacred Scriptures available. There are many other problems with recent translations of the Scriptures. But my focus here is on this passage. Why has the word "effeminate" been dropped from 1 Corinthians 6?
Dr. Leon Podles writes, "Walter Ong, having been formed in a masculine, Jesuit, clerical milieu does not seem to be aware of how feminized Christianity had become even before the 1960s, but he saw a rapid shift in the Catholic Church in the 1960s toward even greater feminization...The contrasts of Christianity, grace and sin, life and death, have been toned down with a considerable loss of emotional power. Without this power, the popular appeal of the liturgy has declined (even with a more accessible language) and church attendance has plummeted...Even the change from Latin to the vernacular was also a symptom of feminization, according to Ong. Latin had been a means of maintaining a Latin culture in the Roman Catholic clergy. A language restricted to men is common; it is a sign of masculine separation from the feminine world. After it became a learned language, Latin was learned almost exclusively by men. The system of education that used Latin and centered around Latin literature was centered around contest and disputation and was confined almost entirely to men. The disappearance of Latin was part of the demasculinization of the clergy.." (The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity, pp. 133-135).
So crippled by radical feminism and effeminate clergy, the Church often finds herself incapable of either giving or receiving fraternal correction. The Cotton-Candy "Church of Nice" (not the Church founded by Christ Jesus to deliver hard truths and thereby save souls), is the Church of "Who am I to judge?", the Church of empty, bland New Age homilies- Chicken Soup for the Chicken Catholic. Because I had the audacity to stand up to several women at a parish in Baldwinville, Massachusetts who were disrespecting Our Eucharistic Lord by talking loudly and laughing before the tabernacle as people attempted to prepare for Holy Mass, I was told by the priest that I am a "large man" who is scary and that I would be "ostracized."
This is a favorite tactic of liberals to silence authentic men who are not sissified and who actually possess backbone.
The Cult of Softness permeates the entire Church. It is passive aggressive and desires total control of everything it comes into contact with.
But it cannot fight head on or on solid ground. That is its weakness. And it is there we must take the fight.
Showing posts with label Attendance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Attendance. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 15, 2017
Monday, July 11, 2011
Father John Unni urges those in attendance at St. Cecilia's "Welcoming Mass" to shed the burden of shame
In a statement issued yesterday by the Catholic Action League, we read:
"The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today criticized the Archdiocese of Boston for allowing the so-called 'welcoming Mass' for lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgendered persons to go forward at Saint Cecilia's Church in Boston's Back Bay. The mass had been originally scheduled to celebrate Gay Pride month in Boston. Following protests by faithful Catholics, the event was rescheduled and re-themed.
The Catholic Action League called the decision to allow the mass 'a cowardly betrayal of trust resulting in the spiritual abandonment of Saint Cecilia's Parish to moral error and mortal sin.'
Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: 'The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Everyone is welcome, and everyone deserves to hear the full truth of the Church's teachings. Sadly, that was not the case at this morning's liturgy at Saint Cecilia's.
Today's liturgy was a scandal and a surrender, where the homosexual identity was affirmed, and where Catholic moral prohibitions against homosexual behavior were ignored. Those prohibitions are explicit, longstanding, and severe. Instead of calling his congregation to repentance, interior conversion, and the personal pursuit of holiness, the homilist, Father John Unni, attempted to anesthetize the consciences of his listeners by urging them to shed the burden of shame.
The salvation of souls demands that Catholic priests and prelates demonstrate the courage to tell homosexuals that their participation in the sin of impurity against nature deprives them of sanctifying grace and imperils their immortal souls. At Saint Cecilia's, however, today's message was the spiritual equivalent of 'Don't worry, be happy.' The Archdiocese of Boston has, once again, failed to protect the moral and spiritual welfare of its members.'"
Should a Catholic priest be urging others to "shed the burden of shame"? In his book entitled, "True to Our Feelings," Robert Solomon writes, "Aristotle calls shame [in his Nicomachean Ethics] a 'quasi-virtue' because to act wrongly and not be ashamed is much worse than to act wrongly and be ashamed because one has done wrong." (p. 96).
Thomas Aquinas follows Aristotle in viewing shame as a "quasi-virtue" and asserts, in his Summa Theologica, that shame, being praiseworthy, is either itself a virtue or contributes to virtue. He says that shame is a recoiling from that which is dishonorable and disgraceful, and since lack of moderation is the most dishonorable and disgraceful thing there is, shame contributes more to moderation than to any other virtue. He says that shame is not so much an essential component of moderation as it is a preparation for it, laying its foundation by instilling in persons the horror of that which brings dishonor and disgrace.
Which is why Father Unni's exhortation to "shed the burden of shame" is so very troubling. One who is shameless fears neither God nor man. For such a person, that which is shameful becomes something to boast in. But we already have St. Paul's warning: "For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction. Their God is their stomach; their glory is in their 'shame.' Their minds are occupied with earthly things." (Philippians 3: 18, 19).
Is this really what Father Unni wants for his people? For them to glory in their shame? To fear neither God nor man?
Will this teaching lead others to embrace holiness of life or will it encourage them to embrace self-will while rejecting the salutary fear of God*?
* "The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, to decline from the ruin of death." (Proverbs 14: 27).
* "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God." (2 Corinthians 7:1).
"The Catholic Action League of Massachusetts today criticized the Archdiocese of Boston for allowing the so-called 'welcoming Mass' for lesbian, homosexual, bisexual and transgendered persons to go forward at Saint Cecilia's Church in Boston's Back Bay. The mass had been originally scheduled to celebrate Gay Pride month in Boston. Following protests by faithful Catholics, the event was rescheduled and re-themed.
The Catholic Action League called the decision to allow the mass 'a cowardly betrayal of trust resulting in the spiritual abandonment of Saint Cecilia's Parish to moral error and mortal sin.'
Catholic Action League Executive Director C. J. Doyle stated: 'The Church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. Everyone is welcome, and everyone deserves to hear the full truth of the Church's teachings. Sadly, that was not the case at this morning's liturgy at Saint Cecilia's.
Today's liturgy was a scandal and a surrender, where the homosexual identity was affirmed, and where Catholic moral prohibitions against homosexual behavior were ignored. Those prohibitions are explicit, longstanding, and severe. Instead of calling his congregation to repentance, interior conversion, and the personal pursuit of holiness, the homilist, Father John Unni, attempted to anesthetize the consciences of his listeners by urging them to shed the burden of shame.
The salvation of souls demands that Catholic priests and prelates demonstrate the courage to tell homosexuals that their participation in the sin of impurity against nature deprives them of sanctifying grace and imperils their immortal souls. At Saint Cecilia's, however, today's message was the spiritual equivalent of 'Don't worry, be happy.' The Archdiocese of Boston has, once again, failed to protect the moral and spiritual welfare of its members.'"
Should a Catholic priest be urging others to "shed the burden of shame"? In his book entitled, "True to Our Feelings," Robert Solomon writes, "Aristotle calls shame [in his Nicomachean Ethics] a 'quasi-virtue' because to act wrongly and not be ashamed is much worse than to act wrongly and be ashamed because one has done wrong." (p. 96).
Thomas Aquinas follows Aristotle in viewing shame as a "quasi-virtue" and asserts, in his Summa Theologica, that shame, being praiseworthy, is either itself a virtue or contributes to virtue. He says that shame is a recoiling from that which is dishonorable and disgraceful, and since lack of moderation is the most dishonorable and disgraceful thing there is, shame contributes more to moderation than to any other virtue. He says that shame is not so much an essential component of moderation as it is a preparation for it, laying its foundation by instilling in persons the horror of that which brings dishonor and disgrace.
Which is why Father Unni's exhortation to "shed the burden of shame" is so very troubling. One who is shameless fears neither God nor man. For such a person, that which is shameful becomes something to boast in. But we already have St. Paul's warning: "For many, as I have often told you and now tell you even in tears, conduct themselves as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction. Their God is their stomach; their glory is in their 'shame.' Their minds are occupied with earthly things." (Philippians 3: 18, 19).
Is this really what Father Unni wants for his people? For them to glory in their shame? To fear neither God nor man?
Will this teaching lead others to embrace holiness of life or will it encourage them to embrace self-will while rejecting the salutary fear of God*?
* "The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, to decline from the ruin of death." (Proverbs 14: 27).
* "Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of the flesh and of the spirit, perfecting sanctification in the fear of God." (2 Corinthians 7:1).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
