Blaming Lost Sheep For Lousy Shepherds

"US CATHOLIC POLITICIANS CONFUSED ABOUT FAITH, BISHOP SAYS"

"Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio, Texas said most Catholic politicians in the United States have fallen into "a distorted understanding of what their faith is."

I agree, but what did His Grace expect?

Although he doesn't mention it explicitly, Archbishop Gomez goes on to debunk Cardinal Bernardin's "Seamless Garment" metaphor.

Which raises the question, if most Catholic politicians are falling into a distorted understanding of the Faith, could it have anything to do with their bishops having themselves long-since fallen?

How many Euros does it take to buy a Trad?

The Traditionalist movement gets no shortage of enthusiastic coverage from the secular press.

Even the Toronto Star had nice things to say about Fr. Stephen Sommerville when Cardinal Ambrozic suspended him for hanging out with the S.S.P.X and celebrating the traditional Latin Mass.

Now Austria's come out with a postage stamp to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre's birth.

Trads, giddy as schoolgirls, are eating it up, oblivious to the source of this goodwill.

As if the sinister regimes of wicked and crumbling Europe could contribute anything good to Catholicism, even if they wanted to.

So then why do trads get so much good press? Is it that heartwarming traditional stand on homosex and abortion that the leftists dig so much?

Sadly, it's not. They honour Archbishop Lefebvre for the same reason they like Hans Kung: He stood up to the Catholic Church. They don't care why. "Defender of the faith? Whatever. He annoys the Pope. Put him on a stamp."

Ironically enough, in all the world there may be only one man with sight clear enough to see this for what it is. I await Bishop Williamson's December letter. I don't think they can buy him for half a Euro and a pretty picture.

I'm sticking with the indult

So, no surprise, Cardinal Hoyos says the S.S.P.X isn't in schism after all.

Of them, he says "one cannot say in precise terms that there is a schism. There is... a schismatic attitude".

Super. Sound like any bishops' conference you can think of?

Some of the more clever bloggers in this here League of Evil Trads are musing on where this leaves us.

Particularly Hilary here, and W. here (Hmmm, I said "some of the more clever". Check that. I should have said "One of the more clever, and W too". No matter. He's a decent enough chap).

Hilary's question is "[W]hat am I doing hanging on to my death grip on the Oratory?" now that there's the legitimate escape hatch of the S.S.P.X, I supose the thought goes.

Because, when push comes to shove, are the Oratorians going to toss in their lot with the Canuckistan Patriotic Church rather than remain true to the Faith? Walking a tightrope, Hilary says.

W. points out that this could probably be applied to all our indult parishes. Fair enough.

But don't we all agree that whenever regularization comes for the Society, a significant portion, possibly led by Bishop Williamson, isn't coming in? He seems to have hinted at that himself. I may be misjudging Williamson, but can anybody say, contrary spin notwithstanding, that at least some of the S.S.P.X isn't walking a tightrope?

So there we have it. The Society isn't schismatic, strictly speaking, and neither are the Canadian bishops, rotten to their black-hearted cores as they may well be.

So where's a Canadian Catholic to turn? Williamson or Ouellet? How's a fellow to keep from following his chosen wacko out of the Church and on down to hell?

The Society is way too risky.

Why? Because I like the way they talk. Their kind of errors agree with me. I hate Canadian bishops. I wouldn't follow those bepitchforked wolves anywhere.

There's no chance of me going off the leftist deep-end. So I'm sticking with the indult.