Progressive Cognitive Dissonance

cognitive dissonance –noun Psychology. anxiety that results from simultaneously holding contradictory or otherwise incompatible attitudes, beliefs, or the like

Professional progressive Fr. Richard McBrien in his most recent column displays a very striking (and humorous) cognitive dissonance when it comes to the laity.

McBrien laments the use of Good Shepherd Sunday as an excuse for the clericalists (you know who you are) to "exhortations to obey the hierarchy with the same commitment as one would obey Christ himself."

Sheep need not listen to the shepherd. McBrien ridicules the notion that today's modern laity are sheep in any way.

While there is surely a sense in which Jesus Christ is our Good Shepherd and we the flock that he tends and loves, the relationship is not literally that of a shepherd and his sheep.
...
Never before in the entire history of the Church have we had such a well-educated laity. And never before has the label "sheep" been so utterly inappropriate a designation for them.

Never before have we had such a well-educated laity. Not sheep. Baahh.

Interestingly, earlier in the very same article, McBrien despairs over the trend in the church he sees as "a stampede back to the Council of Trent" (Apparently not a cool council like VII)

Parenthetically, one cannot deny the sense of demoralization experienced by many Catholics who were deeply committed to the renewal promoted by Vatican II and Popes John XXIII and Paul VI, only to see evidence of a return to pre-conciliar ways of thinking and of doing business.

Perhaps the obvious has eluded Fr. McBrien. This well educated laity, chafing from decades of being force fed drivel by progressive clericalists, are helping to lead the very stampede he so disparages.

It seems that when this well educated laity dismisses "the Spirit of the Council" along with McBrien and his ilk, they do not merely revert back to sheep but take on the distinct aspect of the lemming.

Truth is, in this latest outburst from McBrien, he is really hinting at his own bafflement that these lemmings did not follow him of the cliff with smiles on their faces. Now drowning himself, he gazes back at the cliff off which he just plummeted wondering "Where did they all go? Damn sheep!"

The McBrien Prize For Really Inept Vaticanology

George Weigel makes me laugh. The U.S. press incessantly tries to use their political vocabulary to describe Church and Vatican issues usually completely missing the point. George Weigel, in an article in National Review, exposes the ineptness of the U.S. media in covering the Church while simultaneously ridiculing Fr. Richard McBrien. A win-win. Behold.

By combining low-grade sourcing, a faux-authoritative voice, and leftist political spin in equally impressive measures, Michael Sean Winters and the editors of the Washington Post’s “Outlook” section have won the pole position in this year’s chase for the coveted Father Richard McBrien Prize in Really Inept Vaticanology (named for the Notre Dame theologian who memorably announced that Joseph Ratzinger couldn’t possibly be elected pope, less than 24 hours before Ratzinger was elected).

In “Not Eye to Eye: Wholly Different Angles on the World,” a front-page “Outlook” piece on March 30, Winters claimed that, during his forthcoming visit to the United States, Pope Benedict XVI will “show how much his worldview differs from President Bush’s when he denounces the continuing U.S. occupation of Iraq before the U.N. General Assembly — a denunciation that’s expected to be especially harsh after the recent martyrdom of a Chaldean Catholic archbishop killed by insurgents in Mosul.” In that one sentence, Winters managed to commit several of the capital sins of Vaticanology: He confused the views of low-ranking bureaucrats with the thinking of senior Vatican officials, the pope’s own thinking, and the official position of the Holy See; he assumed that the pope comes into international forums like the U.N. as a policy proponent rather than as a voice of moral reason; and, perhaps worst of all, he somehow imagined the Benedict XVI would cheapen the sacrifice of the slain Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho by using the Chaldean prelate’s death as a way to score a political point.

Read the rest.

The Art of Dissent

Dissent is an art form.

There are those who come right at you and question the teachings of the Church. They are the hacks. The really talented dissenters are crafty. They know through years of experience that they do not need to challenge a Church teaching head-on. In fact, increasingly they know that such clumsy dissent can get you in hot water. No, the really crafty dissenters know that they need not directly challenge any doctrine or dogma, the real art form is in sowing doubt.

A frontal assault can get you in trouble and you might also need to try and back up your argument with facts and research. Too bothersome. Too messy. The top tier dissenters know that they need only plant the seeds of doubt — preferably when no one is looking — and move on. They are sure to always maintain some semblance of plausible deniability.

Fr. Richard McBrien is a master dissenter. A doubt sower of the first rank. In a recent article in the Tidings, McBrien writes a seemingly pointless article about the fact that we have never had a Pope named Joseph. Innocuous enough it would seem. He walks us through a little history regarding how and when Pope's started choosing new names. No problem. Then, pointing out that there has never been a Pope Joseph, McBrien lays this on us. Pay attention.

Joseph, however, disappears from the New Testament after the family's pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 2:42-52). He probably died sometime before Jesus began his public ministry.

Because of the biographical gaps, a number of apocryphal writings attempted to fill in the blanks. The Protoevangelium, or Infancy Gospel, of James claimed that Joseph was already an aged widower with children when he married Mary. How else to explain the many references to Jesus' brothers and sisters in Mark 3:31; 6:3; Matthew 12:46; 13:55; Luke 8:19; John 7:3-5; 1 Corinthians 9:5; and Galatians 1:19?

New Testament scholar Jerome Neyrey, S.J., however, discounts the various traditional explanations. The evidence for "stepbrother," he writes, is "merely legendary" (referring again to the Infancy Gospel of James 9:2 and 17:1).

On the other hand, the linguistic evidence for "brother" meaning "cousin" is "very thin." We have but one example in the whole Old Testament where a cousin might be called a "brother" (1 Chronicles 23:22). [See Father Neyrey's "brothers of Jesus," The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism, pp. 198-99.]

What did he just say? Nothing really. But what is the overall effect? He suggests that The Protoevangelium of James builds a back story for Joseph to cover for the numerous references to Jesus' brothers in the Gospel accounts. He asks a simple question, "How else to explain the many references to Jesus' brothers and sisters?" How else indeed. He then quotes others to do the dirty work for him. Having one scholar discount the possibility of step-brothers and also discounting the possibility that "brother" could have meant "cousin."

See what he did there? He calls into question the very belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary and doesn't even get his hands dirty. Quote some scholars, discounts some possibilities, sow some doubt and move on.

He then returns to the topic Popes named Joseph. Those seeds of doubt have been planted and you never even saw it happen.

Fr. Peter Phan is a hack because he got caught. Professionals like McBrien know that the truly great dissenters are like thieves in the night. You never even know they were there until you discover your faith is missing.

Ecuminism the McBrien Way

Perennial progressive malcontent, Fr. Richard McBrien has an article about the progress made in the area of ecumenism. While I actually agree that some of the things he lists are progress, his main criteria for evaluating ecumenism is Catholic rejecting the past. The past, of course, is anything that came before 1962. Witness the horror.

On closer-to-home issues, Catholics were cautioned not to participate actively (via singing or joining in prayers) at weddings or funerals held in Protestant churches, and if one of the couples was a Catholic marrying outside the Church, even if a son or a daughter, the Catholic parents and other Catholic relatives were forbidden to attend the ceremony, lest they give scandal.

Weddings between a Catholic and a Protestant, permitted only by a canonical dispensation, could not be held inside a Catholic church, but had to be conducted privately, often in a rectory parlor. Moreover, the non-Catholic party had to a sign a promise to raise their children as Catholics and the same non-Catholic spouse could not be buried in a Catholic cemetery alongside their lifelong Catholic partner.

Needless to say, Protestants were never allowed to receive Holy Communion at a Catholic Mass, and Catholics were strictly forbidden to receive what "purported" to be Communion at a non-Catholic service.

I am particularly interested in the last part of his litany of horrors that focuses on reception of holy communion. Yes, Protestants were not then and are not now allowed to receive Holy Communion. McBrien makes out like this is a petty and impolite gesture on the part of a rigid and backward church. Fr, McBrien goes so far as to laud those who take matters into their own hands.

Rules for mixed marriages were substantially amended and all of the restrictive practices that were in place prior to Vatican II were now abandoned, with the exception of the official regulations governing intercommunion. But many have decided that issue for themselves and have acted accordingly.

It is terrible that Fr. McBrien would encourage non-Catholics to "decide that issue for themselves'. This prohibition is no simple matter of only those in the club get to enjoy the feast. No, it is something way more serious than that. In fact, this prohibition it is an act of love and protection. Fr. McBrien would do well to remember what St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 11:29.

For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.

So in the name of false ecumenism, Fr. McBrien would have his brothers and sister drink judgment unto themselves. Not very friendly.

Two Takes on Tridentine Mass

These two article appeared within days of each other. It's comical how different the takes are. This first one is from Sunday's Washington Times on the effect of Summorum Pontificum:

Roman Catholic churches nationwide are rushing to accommodate a surge in demand for the traditional Latin Mass, which is drawing a surprising new crowd: young people.

Since July, when a decree from Pope Benedict XVI lifted decades-old restrictions on celebrating the Tridentine Mass, seven churches in the Washington metropolitan area have added the liturgy to their weekly Sunday schedules.

And then you get this from "The Tidings" a progressive Catholic magazine by Father Richard McBrien:

The pope's recent authorization of the Tridentine Latin Mass, without the need to seek the local bishop's permission, has stirred some measure of debate within the Roman Catholic Church, especially in letters-to-the-editor and on blogs written by individuals who seem not to have day-jobs.

The overwhelming majority of Catholics, however, are apparently unaware of, or have already forgotten, the July 7 papal letter, entitled Summorum Pontificum (Latin, "Of supreme pontiffs"). Indeed, those who attend Mass regularly would never prefer Mass in a language other than their own.

Those who do claim to prefer the Latin Mass, whether Tridentine or Novus Ordo (that is, in keeping with the reforms of Pope Paul VI), constitute a tiny minority of the Roman Catholic Church...

So which is it? Is it a tiny minority or are churches rushing to accomodate a surge? The Times continues with how people, especially the young, feel about the motu proprio:

"I love the Latin Mass," said Audrey Kunkel, 20, of Cincinnati. "It"s amazing to think that I"m attending the same Mass that has formed saints throughout the centuries."

The Tidings:

But if such Catholics are under the ages of 45 or 50, they have little or no hands-on experience of the pre-Vatican II Mass. It is a mystery how one can be nostalgic for something one had never experienced.

This part of each article is on where the priest is facing during the Latin Mass:
The Washington Times:

The biggest difference between the two forms is that the Tridentine Mass is always celebrated in Latin, except for the homily. The priest also leads the parishioners facing east, the traditional direction of prayer.

Tidings:

As a young priest, ordained in 1956, Bishop Wcela knew and celebrated only the Latin Mass, in which the celebrant "proclaimed" the Epistle and Gospel in Latin while facing the back wall.

The back wall? I mean, come on.

The Washington Times:

In contrast to the New Order Mass, which has been in use since the Second Vatican Council in 1969 and is typically celebrated in vernacular languages such as English, the Tridentine Mass is "contemplative, mysterious, sacred, transcendent, and [younger people are] drawn to it," said the Rev. Franklyn McAfee, pastor of St. John the Beloved in McLean. "Gregorian chant is the opposite of rap, and I believe this is a refreshing change for them."

Susan Gibbs, the director of communications from the Archdiocese of Washington, said the attraction demonstrated by the young adults is very interesting..."People who never grew up with the traditional Mass are finding it on their own and falling in love with it."

The Tridentine Mass helps people in their 20s and 30s who have grown up in a culture that lacks stability and orthodoxy see something larger than themselves: the glory of God, said Geoffrey Coleman of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter"s Our Lady of Guadalupe seminary in Denton, Neb.

The Tidings, as you might imagine, isn't as kind:

Again, while no one should question their freedom of speech, not one of them, to my knowledge, has presented a credible justification for their preference.

It's amazing that I have to now go to the secular media for a fair representation of what's going on in Catholicism today. What's worse is that the Catholic media is representing the Church in a far harsher light than the secular media. That's sad.

The Dinosaurs Doth Protest Too Much

Fr. Wacko Progressive Condescending Dinosaur (aka Fr. Richard McBrien. I know name calling is often considered immature at worst and bad form at best, however I contend that name calling, when accurately and creatively done, ought be considered a public service.) writes in the Tidings lambasting the motu proprio and anyone who desires the traditional Latin Mass. Oh, to be sure, we have the typical insults and condescension. Fr. Obnoxious writes "[it] has stirred some measure of debate within the Roman Catholic Church, especially in letters-to-the-editor and on blogs written by individuals who seem not to have day-jobs." Right Father. We should leave the commentary to those who really have no day time responsibilities, liberal academics. Leaving that aside, I wish to take issue with Fr. "I doth protest too much" claim that nobody cares about this issue.

The overwhelming majority of Catholics, however, are apparently unaware of, or have already forgotten, the July 7 papal letter, entitled Summorum Pontificum (Latin, "Of supreme pontiffs"). Indeed, those who attend Mass regularly would never prefer Mass in a language other than their own.

Those who do claim to prefer the Latin Mass, whether Tridentine or Novus Ordo (that is, in keeping with the reforms of Pope Paul VI), constitute a tiny minority of the Roman Catholic Church, which is not to say that they have no right to speak their minds about the matter or to take advantage of the concessions which the Vatican has offered them.

But if such Catholics are under the ages of 45 or 50, they have little or no hands-on experience of the pre-Vatican II Mass. It is a mystery how one can be nostalgic for something one had never experienced.

Fr. Angry Hippie goes on at some length defending fellow dinosaur retired auxiliary Bishop Emil Wcela who wrote a piece about the TLM (Which I wrote about here) of equal mendacity and condescension.

The point that both Fr. Stegosaurus and Bishop Gasosaurus are so desperate to convince you of is that, (paraphrasing)"There is only a very tiny group of right wing, wild eyed, jobless, pajama wearing bloggers who even care about this topic. The overwhelming vast whopping majority either don't know or don't care about this subject and would never attend the traditional liturgy even if you paid them."

Hmmm. Were that the case, why would these Cretaceous era cranks be writing multi part series in leading progressive publications on a topic about which no one cares? Once again, hmmm? (To be fair, these publications often expound upon topics of little interest.)

Frankly, I think Father doth protest too much. The simple truth is that these dinosaurs have looked to the sky and seen the approaching meteor. Unable to deal with their impending extinction they howl at the meteor (all the while claiming it is just a pebble, no worries) and curse the little traditionalist mammals that are destined to inherit their position at the top of the food chain. Evolution is a bitch.

Amber Alert for Father Richard McBrien

Has anybody checked on Fr. Richard McBrien of Notre Dame? I know that after the motu proprio was released his graduate assistants took away his shoelaces. And now the news that he belongs to the “one true church” may be so upsetting to him that he may have to be put on 24- hour watch for a while.

Today's document from the Vatican daringly reaffirmed the primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, but I haven’t seen McBrien's anti-Catholic tirades in the press for hours? I’m really getting worried.

McBrien recently wrote:

“There were always Protestants attracted to the Catholic Church in the pre-Vatican II era for biblical, theological or historical reasons, all of which were carefully laid out in Father John O'Brien's writings. With the Second Vatican Council, however, and with the ecumenical movement which the council and the popes had endorsed, it became practically impossible to present the Catholic Church any longer as "the one, true Church" and all other denominations as awash in error and falsehoods.

And so the traditional apologetical tactics --- "demonstrating" that Catholicism alone is right, while Protestantism is completely wrong --- were generally abandoned. If Protestants became Catholics in the late 1960s or in the '70s and early '80s, it was mainly for family reasons, or because they intended to marry a Catholic, or because they had grown familiar and spiritually comfortable with Catholic worship.

In the past two-and-half decades, however, we have seen something of a reversion to the pre-Vatican II approach. Many seeking entrance into the Catholic Church today do so as an act of rejecting their Protestant past and of embracing "the truth" found only in Catholicism.

Notice that McBrien couldn’t even write about the “one true church” without putting the scare quotes around it. He even threw the old scare quotes around “the truth.” Did Vatican II do away with truth, too?

Now this document might just put him over the edge. Remember that McBrien predicted that if Cardinal Ratzinger was elected Pope, "thousands upon thousands of Catholics in Europe and the United States would roll their eyes and retreat to the margins of the church."

So, someone please look for Fr. Richard McBrien. Look in the margins of the church — the one true church.

1-800-DISSENT

A quick Yahoo news search on Fr."Richard McBrien" shows that his comments calling into question some basic tenets of the faith are included in the the coverage of many of the top news agencies in the country. This list includes but is not limited to the following:

• Time Magazine
• USA Today
• ABC News
• Boston Globe
• Associated Press
• etc

It is obvious that the coverage by the Ordinary Ministers of the Media on limbo was slanted and uninformed. One might think that this is just ignorance of things Catholic, however the inclusion of quotes by Fr. Richard McBrien in so much of coverage shows otherwise.

When trying to put into context the statements, proclamations, and teachings of the Catholic Church they automatically call the toll free dissent number. They purposely and extensively quote from someone who disagrees with the Church on just about everything. In fact, in many of these articles you will find more quotes from the Rev. Richard McBrien than you will from the document being covered. This is not by accident.

The Ordinary Ministers of the Media wish to create the impression that there is not a tenet, dogma, or precept of the Church that cannot be changed if only we just got rid of Popes like JPII and B16. If everything that the Church teaches is subject to change, then those who deny these teachings (especially the moral ones) are simply ahead of the curve. It is their attempt to obtain a "Get out of Jail (Hell) Free Card". If the Church just makes this stuff up, then there is no sin and they are good to go. If not, then...well...best not to think of that.

Fr. McBrien Claims No Original Sin

Lunatic Emeritus Fr. Richard McBrien proves once again he is on the vanguard of the now ossified “Spirit of Vatican II” movement. McBrien, in an Associated Press report, claimed that there is no original sin as proved by Pope Benedict’s announcement on limbo.

"If there's no limbo and we're not going to revert to St. Augustine's teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we're left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace," said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame.
"Baptism does not exist to wipe away the "stain" of original sin, but to initiate one into the Church," he said in an e-mailed response.

The church, in reality, continues to teach that, because of original sin, baptism is the ordinary way of salvation for all people and urges parents to baptize infants, the document said.
In fact, Pope Benedict's discussion of limbo is not all that new though the secular press and Mcbrien would have you believe otherwise. The 1992 the Catechism of the Catholic Church said:

As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

In a document published April 20, the commission said the traditional concept of limbo -- as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God -- seemed to reflect an "unduly restrictive view of salvation."

"Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision," the document said.
We see time and again the fossils of the “spirit of Vatican II” movement are now just tired poltergeists rattling their chains, mumbling about a married Jesus who didn't really resurrect body and soul, all the while insisting on its own inevitable ressurection.