Friday, January 12, 2007
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Rorate Caeli posted a link to First Things (after Robert Miller linked to him in his article) regarding an analysis of the Wieglus events in Poland. New Catholic wrote:
"We believe that Prof. Robert Miller's analysis of the events at First Things, with a kind link to us, presents an accurate portrayal of the deep Vatican problems related to the Wielgus Affair, particularly the disastrous process of episcopal nominations, centered in the Congregation for Bishops." - Rorate Caeli
I think I was on to something in last night's post, JPII - What Did He Know?
New Catholic prefaced his quote from First Things with this disclaimer:
"Let us remind our critics that we had not published a single word on Wielgus in December 2006 - because we had trusted the first note issued by the Holy See, according to which the "Holy See ... took into consideration all the circumstances of his life, including those regarding his past" and the "Holy Father... nourishes full trust in Archbishop Stanislaw Wielgus and, in full awareness, has entrusted him with the mission of pastor of the Archdiocese of Warsaw". " - Rorate Caeli
And then New Catholic finishes with this from First Things:
"The concluding paragraph of Miller's text is particularly appropriate:
'Now, either the Vatican knew about Wielgus' past when it appointed him, as Wielgus says and as the Vatican's statement in December strongly suggests, or else it did not, as Re now maintains. If the former, then the Vatican's investigation of Wielgus prior to the appointment was grossly negligent, failing to discover information that was readily available in Poland. If the latter, as seems much more likely, then the Holy See exercised very poor judgment in making the appointment in the first place and even worse judgment in attempting to ram it through even after the truth about Wielgus became public. It stood by Wielgus while it knew he was lying to the faithful by denying the allegations. Many faithful Catholics looking at this situation will think that our bishops, rather than their critics, are the ones doing the real harm to the Church here.'" - Rorate Caeli
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
"Posted: May 2, 2005
The reason Catholic Church leadership includes homosexuals is because John Paul II refused to believe reports that potential clergy held that orientation – a mistake that will not be repeated by Pope Benedict XVI, says geopolitical expert Jack Wheeler.
In a column on his intelligence website, To the Point, Wheeler explains that a Vatican source disclosed to him why John Paul discounted the charge of homosexuality.
"Whenever Vatican investigators brought the results of their vetting process regarding an individual's candidacy for bishop, cardinal or other office, and they revealed he was a homosexual, John Paul II would refuse to believe it," he writes.
"He did so because accusing someone of homosexuality was a standard practice of the Communist government in his native Poland regarding anyone it regarded as an enemy of the state. From his ordination as a Catholic priest in 1946 to elevation to Archbishop of Krakow in 1963 and Cardinal in 1967, the then Karol Wojtyla witnessed this personal destruction repeatedly. So traumatized, he summarily dismissed such accusations as pope, and would approve the elevation of anyone so accused. "
Wheeler says that's why the church is "riddled" with homosexuals today." - WorldNet Daily
Of course, I don't know how factual this report is, however it seems reasonable - although, I like to think doubtful. If it is true, could the same dynamic have been at work as regards the man
Monday, January 08, 2007
"Finally... it has happened... to me... right in front of my face... and I just can not hide it" -CeCe Peniston
Homogenizing homosexuality within the Catholic Church and culture, from the top down, is it happening right in front of our face in Los Angeles and elsewhere? That gay fish pin story just doesn't go away. Lump it together with all the speculation of recent years that there is a homosexual subculture in the Church, what is a person to think?
More on the fish story:
Contrary to Sacred Tradition, Cardinal Roger Mahony's Archdiocese of Los Angeles 'Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics' [MLGC], under his Episcopal authority, has robbed this ancient symbol of its sacredness, mutating and deforming the Christian Eucharistic fish symbol into a profane external sign of the homosexual subculture.
Cardinal Mahony instructs his nearly 5 million Catholic members to "see in the [gay] fish pin a sign of recognition of our lesbian and gay sisters and brothers." Is Cardinal Mahony trying to hook his already desensitized laity with this fishy bait?
The Cardinal is perversely distorting a once holy and revered symbol used not only by the early Christians but today's Christians as well. Through the gift of the same Sacred Tradition the Apostles received from Christ, the early Christians recognized one another in the image of the fish during the persecution of their Church. - Barbara Kralis Renew America
The above snippet is from an extremely well researched and documented article by Barbara Kralis, brought to my attention at Roman Catholic Blog.
What else can I say? If it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck, even if it has rainbow feathers.
[As regards fish however...what will feminists think when they discover "fish" was a late 20th century vulgarity used by homosexuals in reference to women? It could be another conspiracy thing maybe...well, probably not...one shouldn't get their conspiracy theories all mixed up.]
|My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is:|
Her Exalted Highness Duchess Agnes the Venal of Londinium-le-Thames
Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title
My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is:
Sunday, January 07, 2007
It's a film meme. "You love me! You really, really love me!" (Oh! Sally Fields, shut the hell up!)
Your Favorite Film?
Zeferelli's "Romeo and Juliet" - I've always been in love with Olivia Hussey!
Your Favorite Film Priest?
Montgomery Clift, in "I Confess".
Your Favorite Film Nun?
How could you even ask this? Audrey Hepburn, "The Nun's Story"!
Your Favorite Religious Movie?
"Song of Bernadette" "I did see her! I did see her!"
Your Favorite Comedy?
"Waiting For Gufman" I did not realize Corky was Christopher Guest and I thought he was just a really gay actor.
Your Favorite Action Film?
"My Dinner With Andre"
Your Favorite Thriller?
Yeah, that would be the "Thriller" video by Michael Jackson.
Your Favorite Foreign Film?
"A Man and a Woman" - I'm old.
Favorite "Alternative" Lifestyle Film?
"The Bird Cage" I agreed with the Senator, I also thought Mrs. Coleman a wonderful woman.
Your Favorite Animal Film?
"Babe" I love that pig!
Your Favorite Animated Film?
"Bambi" of course.
Your Favorite "B" Movie?
"Beaches" - I'm so kidding.
Your Favorite "Newer" "B" Movie?
All of the "Scream" series.
Your Favorite Black Comedy Film? (As In Humor.)
"Mommie Dearest", with "Serial Mom" a close second.
Your favorite Period Film?
Your Favorite Biblical Film?
"The Passion of the Christ"
In your opinion, the most important film in Cinematic history?
"Moonstruck" I know! Wasn't Cher great!
Oh! Yeah! I tag Rhapsody, Adoro, Cathy, and Ray!
|My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is:|
Milord Earl Terrance the Profuse of Grasshopper in the Hole
Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title