When the shepherd becomes a wolf...

...the flock has a right to defend itself.

Actually, according to Dom Prosper Gueranger, that right is more of a duty. Gueranger was referring to the protest registered by the layman Eusebius against the heresy of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who in his Christmas Day sermon in the year 428 denied the Divine Maternity of our Blessed Lady before the entire congregation.

In the recent brouhaha in the church of Saint-Taurin, Thiberville, in the French diocese of Evreux, we see the lay faithful doing just what Eusebius did nearly sixteen centuries ago by rising up in wrath against their perfidious bishop and ejecting him from their church.

The bishop of Evreux, Mgr. Christian Nourrichard, removed the orthodox and traditionally-minded pastor, Abbé Francis Michel, and re-assigned him to a ministry among liberals. The faithful of Saint-Taurin were doubly upset since not only did they lose their priest thereby, but his traditional sacerdotal ministry was to be replaced, in true modernist fashion, by that of a ‘team’.

It might be objected that Mgr. Nourrichard’s crime was not of the same order as that of Nestorius; it cannot be claimed, for instance, that he openly denied a defined doctrine of the Church, and he violated no law, either civil or ecclesiastical.

Nonetheless, what the bishop was doing amounted to taking away the people’s bread in order to feed them with stones instead, a move in which we cannot help but discern ideological partiality in the post-conciliar religious wars within the Church.

“Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will he reach him a stone? Or if he shall ask him a fish, will he reach him a serpent?”—Mt. 7:9-10.

Mgr. Nourrichard’s contempt for the faithful of Saint-Taurin is emblazoned forth on the silly chasuble he chose for the occasion—rainbow colours more suited to a children’s birthday party than to the most holy sacrifice of the Mass. Furthermore, he cannot have been ignorant of the significance of the rainbow to the homosexualist movement, and the consequent scandal to the faithful on that account. What kind of statement was he attempting to make with such provocative gestures? The faithful of Saint-Taurin seem to have been in no doubt as to their bishop’s intentions.

Happily, the flock would not meekly submit to this wolf in sheep’s clothing. Their resistance was offered immediately and with great heat, as may be seen in the remarkable video footage below:



And this:



And this, courtesy of the French network TFI:



After a meeting with the Apostolic Nuncio, we are informed that Mgr. Nourrichard has “changed his mind”, and that Abbé Francis Michel is to remain in charge of Saint-Taurin, at least for the foreseeable future.

Concern has been expressed in certain quarters of the blogosphere regarding the reaction of the congregation to Mgr. Nourrichard’s behaviour. Some commentators were unhappy that the bishop was booed and heckled in the sanctuary, and that voices were raised in anger before the very altar of God. Likewise, concerns have been raised regarding obedience to legitimate authority. It is a difficult question, and we must not lightly toss aside the obedience and filial respect we owe to our spiritual shepherds. Melancholicus has considered the matter carefully over several days but in the end must come down on the side of the congregation of Saint-Taurin. For Mgr. Nourrichard’s actions do not constitute the exercise of lawful authority so much as the abuse of it. Recalling Dom Gueranger, when the shepherd becomes a wolf, the flock has a right to defend itself. The flock likewise has a right to bread rather than stones, and fish rather than serpents. We have scriptural precedents for dramatic, even violent, resistance to attempts to weaken or destroy the sacredness of holy religion: Mattathias slaying the apostate Jew on the altar of sacrifice (I Macc. 2:23-4), and the Lord Jesus driving forth the moneychangers from the Temple (Mt. 21:12-13), to recall but two such.

What the faithful of Saint-Taurin did was necessary. It may indeed be regrettable; but what is most regrettable is that they had to do it in the first place—for which Mgr. Nourrichard, and he alone, bears the responsibility.

Papabile?

Someone (preferably a figure of authority in the Congregation for Divine Worship) should inform this man that yellow is not a liturgical colour, nor is blue; and that the use of kiddie balloons is not prescribed by the rubrics of any liturgical ceremony, past or present, known to the Catholic Church.

This is the same Schönborn who only a few weeks ago granted a Catholic funeral to the perverted artist and self-described Stalinist Alfred Hrdlicka, who undertook a visit to Medjugorje without taking the trouble to inform the local ordinary, Mgr. Ratko Peric, thereby lending that nest of racketeers a boost of credibility at precisely the time that the Holy See is preparing the Church to distance herself from what is undoubtedly a manifest hoax, and who at home has presided over some decidedly gruesome liturgical atrocities, at precisely the same time as our Holy Father is attempting to restore a modicum of dignity and solemnity to the post-conciliar Mass. Each step taken by the Holy See to repair the damage wrought by the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ is countered by a step in the opposite direction by Schönborn and that with the most remarkable if not coincidental timing. Perhaps the man is merely prone to making the most unfortunate gaffes, but it looks more as though his words and actions indicate an ideological agenda at variance with the Benedictine restoration of the Church. Astonishingly, not a few Catholics seem to think that this man is solidly on our side, God knoweth how. There is even a website devoted to him which, although not quite in the same league as the former Cardinal Ratzinger Fan Club, is nonetheless a worrying testament to the esteem in which he is held. During the latter years of John Paul II, Schönborn was described as papabile by innumerable publications, and the aura of misplaced mystique surrounding this vastly overrated prelate has still not been extinguished.

Christoph Schönborn was born in 1945. As of this January 22, he is 65 years old—still young and vigorous enough, and popular enough, to be a threat at the conclave which shall choose the successor to Benedict XVI. Despite his chances having been talked up by both Catholic and secular sources in advance of the 2005 conclave, he seems never to have been in the running, and in the end the Church was blessed with Papa Ratzinger instead. But what of the future? A few years ago Milan’s Tettamanzi was touted by conservative sources as a great catch, and what wonders wouldn’t he do for the Church were he raised to the throne of Peter! He might not be a screaming liberal in the vein of his predecessor Carlo Maria Martini, but fortunately the man’s open ambition as well as his questionable views on homosexuality were sufficient to prevent the scandal of a Tettamanzi pontificate. We need the same thing to happen again in the case of Christoph Schönborn, because the election of a pope is as much about keeping the wrong man out as it is about getting the right man in.

If Schönborn were elected, we would have a John Paul III, even if this were not the name chosen by the new pope. Like his namesake he would be generally orthodox, especially on issues pertaining to life and the family. But he would be politically confused, and inclined for some ill-thought-out idealism to favour the Left. He might be given to making regrettable concessions on that account. He might be as ecumenically unfortunate as his namesake, and prone to making the most inopportune overtures to liberal protestants, to secular Jews, to Muslims and even to pagans. His liturgical sense would be non-existent, at least if his track record in the Archdiocese of Vienna is anything to go by. And since he is young (relatively speaking), we could expect his pontificate to be a long one. His rule over the Church would be lenient to the point of negligence. Time perhaps for the Benedictine reform of the Church and of the liturgy to be put on hold for a while; time for a new breath of life to be breathed into the ailing revolution. Holy God forfend.

The only difference Melancholicus can see between John Paul II and this putative ‘John Paul III’ is that in the pontificate of the former, the revolutionaries were both more vigorous and more numerous. As of this writing, death and retirement have—Deo gratias—removed a good many of them from the scene. But the Mystical Body must be built up by example, exhortation and action; while the house lies in ruins it is not sufficient to be content that the wreckers are fewer in number than hitherto.

Melancholicus does not wish to shove his oar in in electing the next pope, so he shall propose no ideal candidate. That is a matter for the Holy Ghost and for the Cardinal electors.

But we can do better than Christoph Schönborn.

A great deal better.

UPDATE: a much fuller and even more depressing summary of Cardinal Schönborn’s trespasses is provided here.

The Bug

The Bugnini died in 1982, and—happily for those of us who seek some measure of beauty and solemnity in public worship—is still dead.

Long may he remain so.

Now all we need do is wait for his disciples to join him.

How long, O Lord, how long?

Reflections on the feast of St. Ambrose

Today is the feast of this courageous and holy saint who withstood a bloodstained Roman Emperor (Theodosius) by barring the latter from his church until he had done penance for his sin; he had slaughtered 7,000 of the inhabitants of Thessalonica in retaliation for the assassination in that city of his governing appointee. To resist a fourth-century Roman Emperor was a different matter to resisting a pro-gay, pro-abortion politician in our own time, but with only a few honourable exceptions, our bishops show themselves more timorous in dealing with such pygmies than did Ambrose with the mighty Theodosius.

A bishop truly worthy of the name.

We have lately begun a new liturgical year, and stand almost on the cusp of a new civil year. Melancholicus does not know how many episcopal Sees will become vacant in 2010, but as the world is divided into two-thousand-odd dioceses, apostolic vicariates, prefectures and administrations containing three-thousand-odd bishops (including auxiliaries, titulars and retirees), there are bound to be more than a few vacancies in the coming year. Will many of those chosen to fill vacant Sees pattern themselves on St. Ambrose, or solicit his intercession for their episcopate? Melancholicus is not confident that they will; poor-to-middling prelates seem to be a perennial fact of ecclesiastical life. But if even one of the new appointees would take Ambrose as a model, what a difference it would make to the whole world!

Farewell to a shitten shepherd

Meet Willie Walsh, the smiling, welcoming, thoughtful, paternal and ever-so-inclusive bishop of Killaloe.

He is your friend—unless, of course, you happen to be an orthodox Catholic (or, for that matter, one of his priests). But if you’re a just an ordinary “I’m ok, you’re ok” kind of Joe, with no fixed opinions about anything and a relaxed laissez faire attitude to Church doctrine, he’ll like you. If you’re an ethnic or sexual minority, he’ll positively gush over you. Just as long as you’re not one of those rigid, hidebound types that like services in Latin and think that good clean gay love is an evil thing, you should get along with him just fine.

It is less than a month since Melancholicus announced an end to blogging on Infelix Ego, but whenever a member of the Irish hierarchy opens his mouth in order to spew forth drivel, nonsense and general heretical ordure, the occasion just cries out for comment.

Mercifully, this barley-water prelate turns 75 in January and will tender his resignation to the Holy See. Doubtless his resignation will be accepted at once, since bishop Walsh has so far shown himself to be rather less than indispensable as a pastor of souls. By his retirement, bishop Walsh will have been steward of the diocese of Killaloe for fifteen years. Fifteen very long years. Let us take stock of his tenure and examine how he has arrested the decline in the fortunes of his diocese, how he has encouraged vocations, how he has revitalized catechetics in the schools, how he has restored the sacred liturgy, how he has injected a renewed vigour to the Catholic religion by expelling the secular ideological cockle that had been sown therein by enemies of the faith, and how he has reversed the stagnation and apathy brought on by three decades of gross mismanagement at the hands of the conciliar church.

Oh, wait.

He did none of those things, did he?

Bishop Walsh is the very type of the conciliar prelate. His words reveal him as that lamentable sort who yearns to turn the holy Catholic Church—of which he is a bishop—into a carbon copy of the Episcopal Church, replete with clerical divorce, lesbian priestesses, theological lassitude, blessing of same-sex unions, and a focus on the temporal which excludes any consideration of the hereafter—in other words, a sort of pseudo-religious social club in which the spirit of contemporary political correctness can flourish, where preaching the Truth is replaced by a convivial consensus-finding chat over tea and biscuits and in which nothing really matters at all so long as no-one ever says anything that might be construed as offensive.

Will the good bishop leave the diocese of Killaloe in better shape than he found it? That may be doubted. There were no “priestless parishes” in Killaloe when he took office in 1995. By 2004, there were five such parishes. God knows how many there are today, but Melancholicus would be surprised indeed if there were fewer than that. There are actually sufficient priests, between secular and religious, to staff the Killaloe diocese adequately, but bishop Walsh does not want the trouble of them. Priests, you see, get in the way of “lay ministry”, which is the current fad of the hour; apparently, the laity are unable to realize their “true vocation” or their “potential” with all those priests about. Sunday Mass: who needs it? Much better to have Sister Julia from the local Mercy convent or Mrs. Moriarty from down the road kit themselves out in quasi-sacerdotal attire and concelebrate a priestless communion service in lieu of the Holy Sacrifice—at least this sort of thing is what the empurpled princes of the conciliar church are anxious to promote.

What of vocations? Here Melancholicus cannot speak with authority since despite extensive trawling he has been unable to locate any statistical source on the number or quality of students for the Killaloe diocese in 1995 vis-à-vis 2009, but given that episcopal orthodoxy equals plentiful vocations whereas episcopal heterodoxy equals few or no vocations (which state has been observed so often as to require neither proof nor demonstration), he would be surprised in the extreme to discover that Killaloe is not one of the most consistently under-performing dioceses in the whole of Ireland. If any of his Irish readers is able to furnish him with the relevant facts and figures, by all means please comment!

What of the liturgy? Melancholicus is perhaps fortunate at never having attended a Mass celebrated within the borders of bishop Walsh’s diocese, save for a single offering of the Traditional Latin rite at Kilbaha in 2001. But the fact that, in a recent interview with the Irish Independent, the good bishop dismissed the entire liturgical heritage of the Church before 1969 with the remark that he had ever received “only one request” for the liturgy in Latin (whether traditional or novel was not specified) surely suggests he is unconcerned with theological precision, with beauty in worship, and with the shockingly irreverent manner in which the vernacular liturgy is so often handled; and that, Summorum Pontificum notwithstanding, he just can’t bother his arse.

Finally, has he brought an end to the apathy, the stagnation and the decline that has bedevilled Catholic dioceses generally since the revolution of the ’sixties? Has he taken pains to shake off the aura of the high-powered company director which has unaccountably attached itself to the modern episcopate, and begun to adopt the attitude of a genuine pastor of souls? Alas, not a bit of it. This scandalous newsletter, in which the new executive style is talked up in management-speak replete with countless buzzwords, says all that needs to be said on this score. All the clichéd bromides are there; all the tired formulae of yesterday, rehearsed as though this were something new and exciting. Melancholicus is already bored, so he shall not attempt to make a list. Souls eager for spiritual torment can follow the link if they have a mind to.

But don’t take my word for it, gentle reader; let Google assemble a litany of the fellow’s crimes and posturings and show us—via the Indo alone!—how far astray this successor of the Apostles has actually gone. True, there is wheat mixed in with the chaff. But the discerning reader will surely agree that there is an awful lot of chaff.

It is hardly necessary to add that, so far, none of his brother bishops have taken the trouble—publicly, at least—to encourage the faithful by explaining how their colleague’s secular liberal wish-list is at odds not only with the Tradition of the Church, but with the integrity of the faith itself. There is not a peep of a correction to be found on the website of the Irish Bishops’ Conference. Suppose that bishop Walsh had uttered something egregious from the liberal point of view; suppose that—mirabile dictu—he were to denounce homosexuals as “notorious sinners” and to describe their bedroom antics as “grotesque”. Need we rehearse what would happen then? His brother bishops would be falling over themselves in their haste to distance themselves from his remarks and to smother them with the face of welcoming, inclusive tolerance that the conciliar church considers the supreme virtue. Not hard to be politically correct, is it? Much harder to be a Christian. There is still time for one or more of the Irish bishops to practice a little discreet fraternal correction. But Melancholicus won’t be holding his breath.

The patron of the Killaloe diocese is St. Flannán, who (I am confident) would not see eye-to-eye with his Wishy-Washy successor on multiple matters. That being so, it behooves us (and especially the unfortunate Catholics of that wretched diocese) to pray fervently that when Wishy Washy’s vacant seat is filled again, the new incumbent will be an appointment worthy of such high office, that he will, and that he will not sow confusion and indifference among the flock or court the admiration of the media like his predecessor. The first task of the new bishop will be to begin repairing the damage wrought by this shitten shepherd.

The clarity of his teaching makes me glad to be a Dubliner...

... and even gladder to be a Catholic. Not.

This story courtesy of Novus Ordo Catholic World News, and is Melancholicus’ first hosting of a story from that source since it was ‘renewed’ by its owners back in August:

Irish archbishop denies disagreement within hierarchy on civil partnerships

December 01, 2008

After Dublin's Archbishop Diarmuid Martin said that the Irish episcopal conference had not expressed an opinion on proposed legislation allowing civil partnerships for same-sex couples, the Irish Times saw "significant differences" between Ireland's two leading Catholic prelates on the issue. Archbishop Martin took issue with that analysis.

Cardinal Sean Brady of Armagh had earlier delivered a stern warning against legislation that could undermine traditional marriage. Archbishop Martin said that other bishops agreed with the cardinal but "may have said it in different ways." The Dublin archbishop added that while opposing same-sex marriage, Church leaders were "not against other forms of intimacy." The Irish Times saw "significant differences of emphasis" in the archbishop's statement.

In a prompt reply to the Irish Times, Archbishop Martin decried what he said was "false interpretation" of his public remarks, and emphasized that he was "supportive of the basic content of Cardinal Brady's position." The archbishop went on to say that the relevant Christian teaching begins with an emphasis on the fundamental importance of marriage, but added: "I am fully aware of the need to protect the rights of a variety of people in caring and dependent relationships, different to marriage."

The offending article by Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs correspondent for the Irish Times:

Bishops differ over emphasis on civil unions

PATSY McGARRY Religious Affairs Correspondent

SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES of emphasis among Ireland's Catholic bishops on the Civil Partnership Bill have emerged.

Yesterday, the Archbishop of Dublin Most Rev Diarmuid Martin said that, while he didn't feel any of his fellow bishops were opposed to what Cardinal Seán Brady said about the Bill at the recent Céifin conference in Ennis, they might have said it differently.

"We haven't expressed an opinion as an Episcopal Conference (on the Bill)," he said. "I don't think anyone in the conference is against what Cardinal Brady said, but they may have said it in different ways."

The Archbishop also said that while the Catholic Church favoured marriage, "it is not against other forms of intimacy".

Catholic teaching "is linked to the complementarity of the sexes", he said, "and this was not something it was possible for any individual to change. It is part of the order of things since Creation." He noted that while "the Catholic Church is in favour of marriage, it is not against other forms of intimacy". He added that "consistently, all Christian churches emphasise the uniqueness of marriage based on the complementarity of the sexes", but they addressed other forms of intimacy on other bases.

Archbishop Martin was speaking at a press conference in Maynooth yesterday which was also attended by the Bishop of Down and Connor, Most Rev Noel Traenor. It took place as the three-day winter meeting of the Irish Episcopal Conference was under way. It ends today.

In his address to the Céifin conference on November 4th, Cardinal Brady indicated that the Government could face a legal challenge if the Civil Partnership Bill became law. "Those who are committed to the probity of the Constitution, to the moral integrity of the word of God and to the precious human value of marriage between a man and a woman as the foundation of society may have to pursue all avenues of legal and democratic challenge to the published legislation if this is the case," he said.

The Bill was "perhaps the greatest revolution in the history of the Irish family" and the Government was obliged by the Constitution to guard the institution of marriage "with special care", he said.

The Civil Partnership Bill is expected to become law next year and will give greater protection to cohabiting and same-sex couples in areas such as pensions, inheritance and tax. Cardinal Brady said a complete assessment could not be made until the legislation was published, but that it appeared the Government was prepared to grant to cohabiting and same-sex couples the status of marriage in all but name. Apart from the restrictions on adoption by same-sex couples, "it is difficult to see how anything other than the introduction of de facto marriage for cohabiting and same-sex couples is envisaged", he said.

The cardinal said he found it "remarkable" that "Ireland looks set to repeat the mistakes of societies like Britain and the US by introducing legislation which will promote cohabitation, remove most incentives to marry and grant same-sex couples the same rights as marriage in all but adoption".

He said one in four children of cohabiting parents experienced family breakdown before they started school, compared to just one in 10 children of married parents. "Other studies in Britain and the US suggest that children born outside of marriage are more likely to do worse at school, suffer poorer health and are more likely to face problems of unemployment, drugs and crime," he said.

What was it Melancholicus said yesterday about his local ordinary? If memory serves me rightly, I believe it included the words ‘equivocating’, ‘double-tongued’, ‘politicised’ and ‘careerist’ among sundry other unflattering epithets. But whatever else might be said against Melancholicus on that account, he cannot be accused of having not given all sides in this instance a fair hearing. So he invites his readers to decide. Was Mr. McGarry, or was he not, justified in drawing the inferences he did after his Grace’s ambiguous ramblings on marriage and sexual intimacy at that press conference in Maynooth? The answer to this question hinges on whether his Grace of Dublin expressed himself and expounded Catholic teaching on the subject clearly and forthrightly; my lord archbishop’s words were obviously so clear and forthright as to necessitate the sending perforce to D’Olier street of a letter exculpating himself of any pastoral negligence in an attempt to explain his position.

His Grace of Dublin’s response, in the letters section of the same newspaper:

Archbishop and civil unions

Madam, - I have received a number of calls from people who feel that my remarks, as presented in your report of November 26th, "Bishops differ over emphasis on civil unions", seem to indicate that I do not accept Catholic teaching on marriage.

I was responding to a series of questions from journalists regarding a variety of aspects of the forthcoming Civil Partnership Bill. It is possible that the manner in which my different remarks appeared may have given rise to false interpretation.

While saying that I might have addressed the theme differently, I did clearly say that I was supportive of the basic content of Cardinal Brady's position on the Bill and of his comments at the recent Céifin conference.

Above all my remarks wished to stress that the Christian teaching on marriage, rather than starting out from negative criticisms, is a positive endorsement of the unique and irreplaceable contribution to society made by the family based on marriage, that is, on the mutual and exclusive love of husband and wife.

While stressing, as I have consistently done, the Christian teaching on the mutuality of the sexes as fundamental to the understanding of marriage, I am fully aware of the need to protect the rights of a variety of people in caring and dependent relationships, different to marriage.

Unfortunately, some members of the public and some public commentators seize on such comments and concern as an opportunity to say that I advocate positions in conflict with Catholic teaching. For my part, I regret if my comments may have appeared unclear. On the other hand, the contrived polemic of such commentators does little to promote marriage and its value to society.

- Yours, etc,

Archbishop DIARMUID MARTIN, Archbishop's House, Drumcondra, Dublin 9.

His Grace’s statesmanlike composure slips in the closing sentence, his self-control having clearly been stretched to its absolute limit, enabling us to catch a quick glimpse of the fury beneath. He refers, scathingly, to ‘such commentators’, in the plural. Obviously his pique has been roused by others besides Mr. McGarry alone. Who are these others? Catholic bloggers and news agencies, both at home and abroad, most likely. At this stage this story has gone all around the world, and his Grace is clearly furious that he has been publicly exposed in an evasive and calculating dodge worthy of Rowan Williams so shamelessly misrepresented.

“For my part, I regret if my comments may have appeared unclear. On the other hand, the contrived polemic of such commentators does little to promote marriage and its value to society.”

May have appeared unclear? There’s no may about it, dear Diarmuid. Your words were unclear, period. Stop trying to cover your arrogant arse and admit your fault. Had you the humility to do that, we would hold you in a new respect. But alas, one can’t teach old dogs...

And what about the contrived polemic? You have some cheek, dear Diarmuid. You tried to straddle both sides of the fence. You tried to please both parties—your flock and your secularist enemies—simultaneously. It didn’t work, and the fault is your own. In case it may have escaped your attention, permit me to remind you that your appointment to the See of Dublin makes you one of the two most senior leaders of the Catholic Church on this island. Do the words ‘Primate of Ireland’ hold any meaning for you? You have a great power to influence others, for good or for ill, and it is disgraceful—not to say demoralising—for Christ’s faithful to behold their bishop, their archbishop, the shepherd of their Church, playing games with semantics and dodging urgent questions of doctrine and morals with the brazen aplomb of a lying politician, all simply to avoid a few days’ critique at the hands of the outraged and anti-catholic press. I don’t know why you went to the effort; surely you knew it was inevitable you would have been criticised by someone. If you had taught forthrightly, we would not have lambasted you with our ‘contrived polemic’; the other side would have. But which is better? To please your flock and enrage the enemies of Jesus Christ, or vice versa? Personally, I think you made the wrong choice. I seem to remember something in the Gospels along the lines of “woe to you when the world shall speak well of you...”, and all that. But you might disagree; well, it’s your prerogative.

Furthermore, dear Diarmuid, since when is it up to ‘such commentators’ to ‘promote marriage and its value to society’? We do so when we can, certainly. In fact we are doing it now by offering you our criticism, since you are not doing it yourself. You are the archbishop. Is it not your job vigorously to promote Catholic morals, including the unpopular teaching on marriage and sexuality?

That having been said, I guess I just bagged myself 8,000 points. Cheers, Diarmuid.

Target practice

Although this is hardly news (Smasher and Fr. Finigan, among others, have drawn attention to it already), Melancholicus is interested to note that the Irish Catholic bishops’ conference has launched its own website.

For reasons it would be tedious to enter into here, Melancholicus disapproves on principle of such things as national bishops’ conferences, regarding them as cancerous outgrowths inspired by the revolution of Vatican II and engineered so as to impose the policies thereof. If he is to be consistent, he must also disapprove of websites representing such bodies. Nevertheless, he will be visiting the bishops’ conference website often, not because he has much faith in the leadership of these our fathers in God or hopes to find therein nourishment for his soul, but because in placing themselves thus so openly on the web, the bishops have exposed themselves to be shot at. And the temptation to engage in a little episcopal skeet is just too much to resist.

[loads shotgun]

As today is the first day of a new month, a time for fresh beginnings and new inspirations, Melancholicus feels a little idea coming on:



Announcement for all interested parties!!!

The 2008 bishop-hunting season begins today and will close with the Benedicamus Domino of None on the Saturday before the First Sunday of Advent (that’s 29 November this year).

Targets permitted in this season’s shoot:

All bishops as well as archbishops within the jurisdiction of the Irish bishops’ conference are fair game, including those retired on or before the commencement of the season. Deceased bishops are off limits, as is the apostolic legate. Promotion to the sacred college either before or during the course of the season does not confer any special protected status, hence cardinals may be hunted as keenly as the lowliest auxiliary. Monsignori and parish priests, although not bishops, may also be hunted throughout the season, although these are less prestigious prizes whose scoring value is much lower. Also considered fair game are lesser clergy and members of religious orders and institutes of either sex. Laypersons in the employ of dioceses, parishes or religious orders may also be hunted, though the point-scoring value of these last is so low as to be hardly worth the effort.

[disengages safety]

Scoring is as follows:

• The Primate of All Ireland: 10,000 pts


• Other archbishops: 8,000 pts each


• Diocesan bishops: 5,000 pts each


• Auxiliary bishops in Metropolitan Sees: 3,000 pts each


• Auxiliary bishops in other Sees: 2,000 pts each


• Titular bishops: 1,500 pts


• Retired cardinals: 1,500 pts each


• Retired archbishops: 1,200 pts each


• Retired diocesan bishops: 1,000 pts each


• Other retired bishops: 800 pts each


• Monsignori not in episcopal orders: 500 pts each


• Parish priests: 300 pts each


• All other active clergy: 150 pts each


• Male and female religious: 100 pts to 500 pts each (variable according to status and celebrity)


• Lay employees of the conciliar bureaucracy: 5 pts each

Scoring is cumulative. Individual targets may be bagged as often as you like, according as they make more or fewer gaffes over the next two months.

[takes aim through telescopic sight; sees purple biretta—or should that be, sees grey tab shirt?]

The season is open to all. Happy hunting!

Famous last words

John Charles McQuaid CSSp, sometime archbishop of Dublin (1940-72) and iconic personification of pre-conciliar Irish Catholicism that the mavens of the New Ireland^TM love to hate, was a father of the Second Vatican Council, having attended the council sessions which punctuated the latter years of his long archiepiscopate.

In more recent years, McQuaid became the subject of a tendentious biography (1999) written by our friend the egregious John Cooney, a biography which is by no means devoid of merit but is nonetheless marred by its author’s ultra-liberal partisan views.

McQuaid was one of those many orthodox prelates whose last years were troubled by the tension between their adherence to the Catholic faith and the obligation they believed they had to impose the nouveau regime of Vatican II upon their dioceses. McQuaid was clearly troubled by some of the more problematic new orientations inherent in the acts of the council, orientations which could be susceptible of an heterodox interpretation, and apparently felt the need to clarify the council’s continuity with sacred tradition. McQuaid would never have even contemplated engaging in any public criticism of the council—he could never have become an Irish version of fellow Holy Ghost Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, for instance. Nor would he have permitted criticism of the council to be published by his diocesan clergy. But the fact that he felt it incumbent upon himself to reassure the faithful that the Catholic Church was still the Catholic Church is truly remarkable in itself. Having returned to his archdiocese from the last session of the council in 1965, he declared to his flock in Dublin’s pro-cathedral that nothing had changed, adding that “nothing in this council will disturb the tranquility of your Christian lives”.

He couldn’t have been more wrong, could he?

Twenty years ago today

Whatever the reader may think of the above-pictured event, there is no doubt that it sent a message straight to the heart of the conciliar church. It is possible, likely even, that the oft-cited ‘state of emergency’ did indeed exist in the late 1980s; the Society of St. Pius X was at that time the only priestly organisation that was training priests for the old religion and, as it turned out, Archbishop Lefebvre would be dead three years later. Under such circumstances, it may be argued that the consecrations were necessary. The question of the protocol rejected by the Archbishop shall not be entered upon here.

But what of now? What prevents you, O bishops, from returning to full communion with the Apostolic See?

The two faces of Cardinal Roger "Spirit of Assisi" Etchegaray

Recently we lauded him over his comments regarding priestly celibacy, but we’re definitely not praising him now.

From Catholic World News:

Leading cardinal sees papal resignations as future norm

Rome, Dec. 13, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Roger Etchegaray (bio - news), the vice-dean of the College of Cardinals, writes in a new book that the resignation of the Roman Pontiff "in the future should be something normal," the Apcom news agency reports.

The French cardinal reportedly discusses papal resignation at some length in his forthcoming book, in the context of his recollections about the final days of Pope John Paul II.

Ah, Lord, alas that Thou shouldst have taken Alfons from us, and hast left us Roger!

RIP Alfons Cardinal Stickler

A true son of the Church, Cardinal Alfons Stickler of Austria, passed to his eternal reward on 12th December, the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. He was 97 years old.

The Lord bless him, and lift him up, and make His face to shine upon him, and give him peace.

May he be welcomed by the angels into paradise, and may he hear those blessed words from the mouth of the Just Judge: Euge, serve bone et fidelis, quia in pauca fuisti fidelis, supra multa te constituam, intra in gaudium Domini tui — “Well done, good and faithful servant: because you have been faithful over a little, I shall set you over much. Enter into the joy of your Lord.”

Melancholicus is saddened, because although the sacred college contains more than its fair share of fifth columnists, marxists, and general goofballs (the majority of whom were elevated in the previous pontificate), Cardinal Stickler was one of the good guys; he was Catholic.

The traditionalist movement, in particular, has good cause to be grateful to his eminence for his tireless efforts on behalf of the restoration of the traditional Latin liturgy, and we would do well to repay his goodness to us by offering our prayers and sacrifices for the repose of his soul.

Cardinal Stickler was one of the commission of nine cardinals appointed in 1986 to investigate the juridical status of the traditional Latin Mass. The commission found by a majority of 8 to 1 that Paul VI had never abrogated the Old Mass, but its findings were never officially made public.

In the closing years of the twentieth century, when the young Melancholicus was just beginning, in terror, to explore the possibility of a vocation to the priesthood, he was given two books to read by the then vocations director of the Dublin archdiocese, which explored the issue of celibacy from diametrically opposing viewpoints. One of these was typical dissident boilerplate so vacuous and forgettable that he cannot now even locate the work on Google; the other, however, was The Case for Clerical Celibacy: Its Historical Development and Theological Foundations by his eminence Cardinal Stickler. Melancholicus was as impressed by his eminence’s writing and scholarly erudition as he was nauseated by the work of the modernist author.

And so, though a callow youth without much education in sacred matters, Melancholicus was steered firmly on the path of orthodoxy by the guiding hand of a true son of the Church.

May he rest in peace.

Cardinal Wetter's lament

from Catholic World News:

German cardinal decries seminarians' religious education

Munich, Nov. 8, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Cardinal Friedrich Wetter of Munich has complained about the lack of religious knowledge among candidates for the priesthood in Germany.

Cardinal Wetter told reporters in Bavaria that the Church might be compelled to add another year of seminary training, in order to provide remedial education for young men who begin priestly training without an adequate knowledge of their faith.

Extending the length of seminary training could aggravate a shortage of young priests in Germany. The DPA news agency reports that 264 young men entered the country's seminaries in 2006 - a number that is sharply down from figures that reached over 800 in the early 1980s.

Is the penny starting to drop now? Are the bishops beginning to realise what a disaster the ‘renewed’ catechetical programmes foisted upon the faithful worldwide since the Second Vatican Council have been? Are they ready now to withdraw these modernist catecheses and replace them with something that actually teaches the Catholic faith? Melancholicus is not impressed by the impassivity of the bishops when nearly two generations of Catholics have grown up without any kind of adequate knowlege of Catholicism thanks to the conciliar revolution. It is a sad commentary upon this wretched state of affairs when even aspirants to the sacred priesthood, who by definition are supposed to be interested in religion, have no solid formation in the Catholic faith.

Melancholicus is glad that Cardinal Wetter has at least noticed the problem. His solution would be to add an extra year to seminary formation; perhaps the ‘spiritual year’ called for by the Second Vatican Council but, ironically, is found only in the seminaries of traditionalist communities. This would be a good start. But what of the majority, who will never pass through seminary? Are they to be left in as great ignorance of their religion as before? Melancholicus hopes this does not come as a surprise to Cardinal Wetter, but the problem of ignorance in matters of faith is not confined to the seminaries.

It is time for a thorough overhaul of all catechetical programmes in use throughout Europe. Over thirty years of experience has shown that these programmes are useless and do not teach the faith. There is nothing for it but to scrap them all, lock, stock and barrel — but will the bishops actually act while there is still time? The situation is as bad in Ireland as it is elsewhere. Many concerned souls are labouring, praying and lobbying the Irish bishops for the withdrawal of the diabolical Alive-O programme, but their entreaties have so far fallen on deaf ears. In the meantime, another generation of Irish youth passes through the Catholic school system and graduates at the last with a breathtaking lack of knowledge of the Catholic religion they are supposed to have studied for so many years.

And still the bishops are sitting on their hands...

The mettle of Archbishop Burke

From Catholic World News:

Excommunication looms for would-be women priests

St. Louis, Nov. 8, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Archbishop Raymond Burke of St. Louis has warned two local women that they face excommunication if they go through with plans for a Sunday ceremony at which they will claim to be ordained as priests.

The archbishop sent personal letters by courier to Rose Marie Dunn Hudson and Elsie Hainz McGrath, reminding them that they would incur the "censure of excommunication" if they participated in the ceremony, which is being held at a Jewish synagogue under the auspices of the "Womenpriests" organization.

Archbishop Burke noted that the fraudulent "ordination" ceremony, held in direct violation of Church teaching and authority, would constitute an "act of schism." He warned the women that additional penalties could be used against them, along with the excommunication that would be automatically imposed.

McGrath told an AP reporter that she would ignore the archbishop's warning, which she characterized as a "form of intimidation."

This story would be viewed by the worldly as just one more example of the tyrannical, patriarchal, male-dominated, clericalist hierarchy engaged in the ruthless persecution of suffering and oppressed womyn. They would not be able to see any aspect of this matter beyond that, since this is all the limits of their secular cultural paradigm actually permit them to see. Hence, all Ms. McGrath could detect in the letter she received from archbishop Burke was a “form of intimidation”.

Melancholicus, on the other hand, is quite touched by the pastoral solicitude shown by archbishop Burke to these unfortunate and erring souls. They both received personal letters from him, the purpose of which was not to “intimidate”, but to admonish and call them back to the right path before it is too late. The archbishop might simply have put out a press release, or even have ignored the whole affair; instead, he chose to contact both womyn personally. The invalid and sacrilegious simulation of the sacrament of Order carries with it a penalty of latae sententiae excommunication; consequently, should they proceed with their intentions, McGrath and Hudson will incur the penalty anyway, regardless of what archbishop Burke may say or do. The archbishop’s warning is hence just that—a warning, not a threat.

Furthermore, by consenting to participate in this invalid and unlawful ‘ordination’, Hudson and McGrath place themselves in a state of formal schism, outside the communion of the Catholic Church, with potentially dire consequences for their salvation. What kind of shepherd would the archbishop be if, without any word of admonition or attempt at correction, he were to allow members of his flock to be carried off into sin by their own pride and vainglory?

In fact, it is archbishop Burke, and not the two womyn, who shows the greatest courage in this affair. In their minds, Hudson and McGrath have nothing to lose. The excommunication means nothing to them. The media and the world will side with them against the hard-hearted, tyrannical, chauvinistic archbishop, and they know it. The archbishop also knows it. He knows he will draw fire from the secular press because of his stand in defence of right order in the Catholic Church. But he prefers to do his duty as shepherd of the flock entrusted to him by Christ our Lord, rather than look the other way and pretend he doesn’t see what’s happening under his nose in his own diocese for fear of journalistic indignation.

The Church needs more prelates with the mettle of archbishop Raymond Burke.

Furthermore, what are these ladies doing having their ceremony in a synagogue, of all places? It is hardly surprising under the circumstances that they could not find a Catholic church, but surely their local ECUSA parish would have been able to help them out, no?

Perhaps a strongly-worded letter to Kate Schori admonishing her for not coming to the aid of the womynpriests in their hour of need may be required...

Archbishop Ranjith: bishops who defy Summorum Pontificum are instruments of the devil

A word to the wise from the good archbishop secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship:

“The motu proprio Summorum Pontificum on the Latin Liturgy of July 7th 2007 is the fruit of a deep reflection by our Pope on the mission of the Church. It is not up to us, who wear ecclesiastical purple and red, to draw this into question, to be disobedient and make the motu proprio void by our own little, tittle rules. Not even if they were made by a bishops conference. Even bishops do not have this right. What the Holy Father says, has to be obeyed in the Church. If we do not follow this principle, we will allow ourselves to be used as instruments of the devil, and nobody else. This will lead to discord in the Church, and slows down her mission. We do not have the time to waste on this. Else we behave like Emperor Nero, fiddling on his violin while Rome was burning. The churches are emptying, there are no vocations, the seminaries are empty. Priests become older and older, and young priests are scarce.”

It is refreshing to hear a senior prelate speak so frankly on the abject state to which holy mother Church has been reduced, and of the foot-dragging by the conciliar establishment in their attempts to forestall all efforts to repair the damage sustained by our Lord’s mystical body on their watch. And what archbishop Ranjith says is true; the bishops are indeed fiddling while Rome burns. While the new conciliar religion holds sway, the churches continue to empty, as do the seminaries. The hour is getting late. And yet, the bishops will not surcease from being part of the problem, never mind refusing to contribute to a solution.

Cormac attempts to frustrate efforts to restore the liturgy

Melancholicus has learned, via Damian Thompson and Fr John Zuhlsdorf, that his eminence Cormac Cardinal Murphy O’Connor, archbishop of Westminster, has recently issued a set of guidelines for the implementation of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in his diocese.

Fr Zuhlsdorf wondered if his eminence’s instructions were inspired by an Ad clerum by bishop Arthur Roche of Leeds, in which the good bishop attempts to place the provisions made by Summorum Pontificum under his own personal control.

In any case, the response by both +Cormac and +Arthur to the Holy Father’s motu proprio has been mealy-mouthed and begrudging. While both appear to respect the letter of the motu proprio, they are clearly at odds with its spirit.

Possibly because the spirit of Summorum Pontificum is in opposition to the spirit of the Second Vatican Council? Melancholicus would like to think that therewith he has hit the nail on the head.

In any case, the restoration of the sacred liturgy will not be achieved overnight. Under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum, it will be the continuation of a process that traditionalists have already found long and difficult; the motu proprio makes this process somewhat easier, but much patience and prayer are still necessary on the part of those who wish to see availability of the Old Mass extended beyond its current meagre level. And we must not be surprised at the obfuscation and stonewalling of prelates like +Cormac, even though it may be exasperating; they will do whatever they can get away with to resist what they see as ‘turning back the clock’ on Vatican II, and we must accept this as a fact of life. The progressivist junta may be starting to lose its grip in some places, but it is still plenty capable of making life as uncomfortable as possible for the restorationists in the meantime.

The ‘reform’ of the Church in the ‘spirit’ of Vatican II has been the life’s work of countless clergy and religious of +Cormac’s generation. Before the accession of Pope Benedict XVI, Melancholicus tended to view that group with a mixture of bitterness, resentment and anger at what they had done—and continue to do—to the Church. That anger is now being turned, by degrees, into pity. Melancholicus cannot find it in his heart to hate these destroyers of tradition, and hence of Catholicism; he can only pity them. These people, who were the youth and the future of the Church in the sixties and seventies, are now increasingly looking like the past. They are old (or at the very least middle-aged) and they are set in their ways. For them, to deny the progressivist vision at this stage of their lives, and to embrace the tradition, would be tantamount to turning their backs on their entire life’s work, and thereby admitting that they had been mistaken, and that it was all a waste. It doesn’t matter how much reason and logic we present before them; it doesn’t matter how gently and how dispassionately we argue the cause of tradition, for, human nature being what it is, nobody likes to acknowledge that the work of their entire lives has all been for nothing. Deep down, however, there may be an unconscious realisation among the progressivists that they are losing the struggle, and that their road is ultimately a dead end. On that account there is now a sort of terror in the progressivist camp, a terror which will make those who experience it shrill and nasty, and prompt them to do their worst with their remaining years and resources rather than accept the inevitable. Time itself is against them; nobody is following in their footsteps; they have no heirs. Just as their refusal to submit to Humanae Vitae has left the laity committed to their charge without offspring, so too their dissent has left them without progeny in the spiritual order. They have inspired no vocations to take their places left vacant by death or retirement; when they die, their ideology will die with them, and deep in their hearts they know it. In the meantime, do not expect them to go gently into that good night.

It is not progress to keep resolutely forging ahead when one has struck out along the wrong path; that is regress, not progress. In this case the true progressivist would be the man who turns back, seeking the right path.

In this battle of ideals within the Church, the Traditionalists are the true progressives.

The time has surely come to suppress this heretical, non-Catholic order

Melancholicus deliberately refrained from commenting on the affair of the Catholic archbishop of San Francisco giving holy communion to gays in drag since so many others have addressed the issues involved so much more eloquently than he could have. But there was also another reason: Melancholicus just wasn’t interested. That the archbishop gave holy communion in direct violation of Canon Law to a pair of ridiculous individuals who were publicly expressing their support for a lifestyle of manifest grave sin by dressing in drag and mocking the consecrated life should surprise no one; what more ought we to expect from a conciliar prelate?

Even though said prelate has already admitted he was wrong to do so, and has apologized to the faithful for the scandal caused, this has not prevented a fellow cleric from leaping to his defence in the secular press. This man is a professor of Moral Theology (!) at the University of San Francisco. He is, of course, a Jesuit.

From Lifesite:

Jesuit Priest Professor Says Archbishop Was Correct in Giving Communion to Transvestite 'Nuns'

San Francisco media finally reports on communion for transvestite 'sisters' scandal

By John-Henry Westen

SAN FRANCISCO, October 17, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The story of the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" receiving Communion from the Catholic Archbishop of San Francisco has been major news since the occurrence on October 7. However, despite the fact that the story made it to Fox News' O'Reilly Factor, the local San Francisco media refused to cover it until today.

In a separate segment, O'Reilly railed at the local media for failing to cover the story. And it seems the verbal spanking had a salutary effect.

However, the San Francisco Chronicle which published a story entitled "Archbishop apologizes for giving Communion to gays dressed as nuns," also published today a puff piece promoting the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence".

Beyond that, the Chronicle was able to find a Jesuit Catholic Priest Professor willing to come out publicly saying that giving communion to the two transvestite 'sisters' was the right thing to do. Rev. Jim Bretzke, professor of moral theology at University of San Francisco, a Jesuit Catholic university, told the Chronicle: "While I can see Bill O'Reilly and others might be offended, the sisters do not meet the criteria the church has for denying Communion."

"The general sacramental principle is that you don't deny the sacrament to someone who requests it," said Bretzke in a statement clearly at odds with Catholic teaching on the matter as voiced recently by Pope Benedict XVI just prior to his being elected Pope.

While Bretzke admits that those who have been excommunicated cannot be given Communion, then Cardinal Ratzinger insisted that beyond excommunicated persons, those persons with "obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin" must be refused communion.

Trivializing the matter, Bretzke, who for this year is a visiting professor of theology at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, said, "Over-accessorizing and poor taste in makeup is not an excommunicable offense . . . Even if these people were bizarrely dressed, the archbishop was following clear pastoral and canonical principles in giving them Communion. The default is, you give Holy Communion to one who presents himself."

Archbishop Niederauer himself admitted his giving Communion to the sisters was wrong. In an apology letter to Catholics after the event he wrote in reference to the 'sisters': "giving them Holy Communion had been a mistake. I apologize to the Catholics of the Archdiocese of San Francisco and to Catholics at large for doing so."

Explaining, the Archbishop added: "Someone who dresses in a mock religious habit to attend Mass does so to make a point. If people dress in a manner clearly intended to mock what we hold sacred, they place themselves in an objective situation in which it is not appropriate for them to receive Holy Communion, much less for a minister of the Church to give the Sacrament to them."

Far from being an anomalous fruitcake, the contemptible Bretzke is emblematic of his order, at least in the United States. But Melancholicus has no good reason to hope that the Jesuits might be in better condition elsewhere. In Ireland they flirt with heresy every bit as much as their brothers on the far side of the Atlantic; in England they have sunk to such a state of depravity that — with the exception of one or two devout and honourable souls — St. Edmund Campion and the Jesuit martyrs of the Reformation would surely disown them.

The continued existence of the Jesuit order inflicts more harm than good on the ecclesiastical body politic. Melancholicus believes the time has come for the Church to suppress this aberrant and apostatical order — although actual suppression is probably unnecessary, since the ‘renewed’ and radicalized Jesuits are hardly attracting any vocations — the inexorable march of time will be sufficient to remove them from the scene.

Populorum Progressio, and more fluff from the hierarchy

Irish prelate urges idealism in politics

New York, Oct. 18, 2007 (CWNews.com) - Pope Paul VI would support the work of the UN, but would also press for reform of the international body, if he were alive today. That was the message brought to the UN headquarters in New York by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin, Ireland.

In his talk at a UN conference marking the 40th anniversary of Pope Paul's encyclical, Populorum Progressio, the Irish archbishop said that the papal document was aimed at "establishing a new way of looking at the relationship between the Church and the world." "Were Pope Paul here with us today he would certainly be saying thanks to all those who have given themselves in the service of humanity within the UN system," Archbishop Martin said. "He would surely also certainly be making remarks on the slow progress of U.N. reform."

The archbishop called for a "new revival" in political life, to be led by "a new generation of politicians inspired by ideals, but also capable of taking the risks involved in transmitting those ideals into the possible."

This is a news story? It says nothing. The grand-sounding words of archbishop Martin likewise say nothing. What, precisely, is the political “idealism” that the archbishop is urging? After all, your grace, idealism is not wanting even among the socialists, but we don’t want to encourage them now, do we? Furthermore, what does your grace mean by “new revival” in political life? What are the “ideals” to which your grace refers? They can be anything the archbishop’s hearers/readers want them to be. Melancholicus finds this deplorable. In post-conciliar times the ecclesia docens has perfected to a fine art the practice of using as lofty and elevated a discourse as possible while not actually teaching anything. This reduction of the Church’s teaching role to vacuous soundbites devoid of actual content is one of the most deplorable features of the malaise that grips the conciliar church, and which distinguishes the latter from the Catholic Church. Solid, precise teaching is a characteristic of the Catholic religion. Vague and grandiose utterances devoid of meaning are a characteristic of the new religion.

Populorum Progressio is one of the more ‘difficult’ papal encyclicals of modern times, and it is best to let it die a quiet death than to resurrect it now. We would do much better to base Catholic political theory instead on Quas Primas, but where can be found today the prelates who have the courage to address the impious United Nations with the teaching of that magisterial document?

The full text of archbishop Martin’s address to the UN can be read here.

Consistory report: Armagh to be elevated to the sacred college

This just in from Catholic World News.

A papal consistory will be held on 24th November, at which 23 new cardinals will be elevated to the sacred college by Benedict XVI. Of Irish interest is the fact that the archbishop of Armagh, successor of St. Patrick and Primate of All Ireland, the Most Rev. Seán Brady, will be among them.

Once Archbishop Brady receives his red hat, Ireland will have three cardinals — Brady, his retired predecessor Cathal Daly and the former archbishop of Dublin, Desmond Connell, although of the three, Brady is the only one under the age of 80 and hence eligible to participate in the next conclave.

Melancholicus wonders if this is the first time in history that there will be three living cardinals in Ireland. Perhaps one of his kind readers (if he has any) would care to enlighten him.