The scribes and pharisees online and at 1P5 are claiming that B. Paul VI should not and will not be a saint tomorrow.

Unbelievable.

Not necessary for belief... not infallible ... calling into question the legitimacy of the Papacy of Pope Francis again?  Outright rejection of Vatican II?  All of it underlies the reasoning behind 1P5's latest article, "Why we need not (and should not) call Paul VI saint."  Even Janet Smith linked to the article by Kwazniewski.

This has been going on for years, outright rejection of recent canonizations - unheard of in the Church when I was growing up.  Now days those of us who do believe and accept - with joy - those whose heroic virtues are recognized and 'canonized' by the Pope are dismissed as ultramontanists and papalotars.

Unbelievable.

Most theologians and faithful Catholics certainly believe canonizations are legitimate.  Those very people who condemn Vatican II are doing in their own way what some of the post-conciliar 'reformers' did when updating the liturgical calendars, removing saints and their feast days and so on.  They are acting in the same protestant spirit of those who removed saints statues and altars from renovated churches, and downplayed devotion and prayers to the saints.

Believable.

Tomorrow a great company of witnesses will be declared saints - canonized.  By the reigning Pontiff, Pope Francis. 

Believe it or not.

The exercise of infallibility comes only when the pope himself proclaims a person a saint. The proclamation is made in a Latin formula of which we offer an approximate translation:

"In honor of the Holy Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of Our Own, after long reflection, having invoked divine assistance many times and listened to the opinion of many of our Brothers in the Episcopate, We declare and define as Saint Blessed N. and inscribe his/her name in the list of the saints and establish that throughout the Church they be devoutly honored among the saints."

 [...]

The 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia discusses the theological foundation for the infallibility of canonization: "The dogma that saints are to be venerated and invoked as set forth in the profession of faith of Trent (cf. Denz. 1867) has as its correlative the power to canonize. ... St. Thomas Aquinas says, 'Honor we show the saints is a certain profession of faith by which we believe in their glory, and it is to be piously believed that even in this the judgment of the Church is not able to err' (Quodl. 9:8:16).

"The pope cannot by solemn definition induce errors concerning faith and morals into the teaching of the universal Church. Should the Church hold up for universal veneration a man's life and habits that in reality led to [his] damnation, it would lead the faithful into error. It is now theologically certain that the solemn canonization of a saint is an infallible and irrevocable decision of the supreme pontiff. God speaks infallibly through his Church as it demonstrates and exemplifies its universal teaching in a particular person or judges that person's acts to be in accord with its teaching."

At the same time, it is important to note that while the decree of heroic virtues and the miracle form a necessary part of the process of canonization, they are not the specific object of the declaration of infallibility. - Source

Front row: Archbishop Óscar Romero, Sister Nazaria Ignacia de Santa Teresa de Jesús March Mesa and Father Vincenzo Romano; second row: Father Francesco Spinelli, Nunzio Sulprizio and Sister Maria Katharina Kasper (Photo illustration by Melissa Hartog/National Catholic Register; public domain)

This was so exciting and glorious.

I remember it well.

I followed it avidly.

Dance.

Today is the Tenth of October!

Which falls on a Wednesday this year!

That's amazing!

So here's the deal about McCarrick.

It's being handled now.

They are talking, addressing, explaining, cautioning on how to interpret it, and so on.  The powers that be are in control and that's it.  I'm kind of over it, myself.  I actually feel sorry for McCarrick now.

I came across an article on how the Vatican is starting to address the case and was struck by the following commentary:

Obviously, many Catholics are outraged that church leaders who seem to have ready answers for how laypeople should live and behave have been so slow to figure out a way to stop sexual abuse by clergy and to hold bishops and cardinals accountable for their personal behavior and for the cover-up. - C. Wooden

I was outraged.

I've settled down now, but that point, how Church leaders are so quick to point out how laypeople are to live, who they can live with - or not - and what language they are to use when identifying themselves, while living a corrupt life themselves, is painful.

Now it will be handled officially and explained away - not without apologies of course, acknowledging "there were failures in the selection procedures implemented in his case", but we won't do that again, and so on.  They can argue among themselves as to who is the greatest all they want.  That's what they do.

He and I.

When I first returned to the sacraments, now decades ago, I sought God alone.  I used to search for places where I could be alone with Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament.  Few churches had adoration, except for one or two on Fridays, otherwise adoration chapels didn't exist.  So I prayed before the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle - all alone in the church, sometimes in a closet where the tabernacle was reserved.  Always undisturbed.  At Mass I sat alone and remained alone afterwards in thanksgiving.  I had no interest in bishops or Church 'politics'.  I had no interest in parish activities.  I had no interest in clubs or socials - none.

Now I'm old, and no one is interested in what I do or say, I'm free to return to that early love.  And let the dead bury their dead.

Remembering my friends who are dead.

They are so many now.

Cardinal Gerhard Müller on why abusive priests should be secularized.

"If abuse is so great...the only solution, and the only justice for the victim, is that the perpetrator must be dismissed from the clerical state,” he said. “If you are a priest, a good shepherd, you cannot ruin the sheep." - Cardinal Gerhard Müller

I was impressed by what Cardinal Müller said recently in an interview on EWTN.  I mention it today after a story broke revealing the late Fr. John Harvey, Founder of Courage, encouraged bishops to resist the zero tolerance policy on abuse and reinstate abusive priests after rehab.  

Amid this summer’s wave of sexual abuse scandals, the Catholic apostolate Courage lauded its founder, Father John Harvey, who died in 2010, for his work with priests who “experienced same sex attractions and were striving to live chaste celibate lives.”

Yet while Courage proclaimed Harvey a “prudent spiritual director” and “a keen student of moral theology and psychology,” a review of his writings and public speeches raises new questions about how his approach to homosexuality - his belief that one could, in fact, change his or her sexual orientation - seems to have influenced his approach to treating abusive priests, advocating, at times, for their rehabilitation and return to ministry. - Crux

I'm sure we will be hearing a lot more on this. 

There's no accounting for grace, to be sure, and a man can change - and this is what Fr. Harvey seemed to base his conclusions upon. It is what vocation directors in dioceses, seminaries, and religious orders believe as well. 

Oh Canada!

If they have Thanksgiving in October, I wonder when they celebrate Christmas?

Happy Thanksgiving to all of my Canadian friends!

Holy crap! Barnhardt has finally lost it.

Mad Meg

Accusing Cardinal Tobin of having an affair with an Italian actor.

George Neumayr has discovered who Tobin’s “baby” is. It is the Italian actor Francesco Castiglione, who – get this – is LIVING IN TOBIN’S RECTORY...

Neumayr is the guy Bishop Morlino said to beware of.   No need to wonder why, with this salacious gossip.  Barnhardt's writing is vulgar and contemptuous, and indecen, she begins the article: 'The filthy faggot Cardinal of Newark, New Jersey.'

The very idea of Tobin having an affair with the Italian actor is laughable.  This is exactly the same level of calumny passing as investigative journalism on which Vigano probably based many of his own conclusions.

Aside from the disturbing scandal-ridden, so-called journalism, what I find troubling is that many people follow Neumayr online, and to my surprise, some very solid people link to him, friend him on FB, and share his stories.  I don't really know who he is and never read him unless someone sends me a link.  Barnhardt shows up on one news aggregate and so I'll sometimes click to read her outlandish commentary.  Again, I'm surprised she has people - even priests - who read and actually support her.  Former online 'friends' continue to do so as well and actually believe what she writes.

I won't link to these people of course, I'm just noting that much of the scandal is fed by this type of crack-pottery online.  As Ouellet wrote to Vigano, "I cannot understand how could you have allowed yourself to be convinced of this monstrous and unsubstantiated accusation."

Beware Neumayr and Barnhardt.

Ed. Note: I neglected to note Castiglione is reportedly a house guest at Tobin's residence while he studies at Seton Hall. Interpreting that to mean he is having an affair/sex with Tobin is a monstrous, unsubstantiated accusation.  It's wicked and slanderous gossip.  This is why bishop's and diocesan spokesmen refuse to talk to so-called journalists like Neumayr or Voris.

Our Lady of the Rosary

Queen of the most Holy Rosary, I love you and thank you!