[ultima ratio]

Threshold of hope was written in liberalese: with perfumed words. You could read it a half hour at a time and feel good--but you wouldn't have the foggiest idea what it was saying after you put it down. Let me ask you: what was the Pope saying? Can you remember?

But my major reason for writing that post was to wake some Catholics up to reality. It is not good to idolize the pope to the extent of rationalizing away his deficiencies as a leader. But this is what Catholics do: they blame middle management, but not the boss. If we have a problem with lousy bishops and cardinals, then there is only one man to charge with this: John Paul II, that lovable old grandfather of a man. It is also on his watch that there has been a world-wide collapse of Catholicism in the West. He has not disciplined apostate bishops, he has elevated men to the cardinalate of very doubtful orthodoxy. No one else is responsible.

Cardinal Law is a man who allowed a priest in his diocese to act as an activist for NAMBLA, a priest he KNEW had raped a six year old boy. A thousand page dossier was on his desk on this guy--yet he covered up for him for two decades. You would think the Pope would be curious as to why this went on for so long--and at a minimum ask for his resignation. Granted the Pope is a kind man--but in this case, his kindness has been harmful to hundreds of Catholic kids.

There is a homosexual subculture that has not only been growing in the seminaries, but it is actually alienating straight young men who are serious-minded about the faith. How could this Pope not have known about this all this while? The same thing is happening in Europe and Australia. Yet things just drift on, with little or no change. It took the media to bring all this to the attention of the average Catholic. Most would not believe the truth--just as my family didn't believe me when I told them at first. To the average Catholic it's inconceivable that priests and bishops sometimes have LESS faith than themselves.

[betty boop]

Threshold of hope was written in liberalese: with perfumed words.

Pope John Paul II is not a liberal. Neither does he speak the language of a liberal.

Let me ask you: what was the Pope saying? Can you remember?

Yes; be of good faith, be of good cheer: There is always reason for hope when one places one’s living trust in the Lord. The book is an extended meditation on the three cardinal theological virtues of faith, hope, and love.

It is not good to idolize the pope to the extent of rationalizing away his deficiencies as a leader. But this is what Catholics do: they blame middle management, but not the boss.

With all due respect, The Holy Father is a spiritual leader, not an earthly one. He’s the Vicar of Christ, not the district attorney. I think you may be mixing your metaphors….

If we have a problem with lousy bishops and cardinals, then there is only one man to charge with this: John Paul II, that lovable old grandfather of a man. It is also on his watch that there has been a world-wide collapse of Catholicism in the West. He has not disciplined apostate bishops, he has elevated men to the cardinalate of very doubtful orthodoxy. No one else is responsible.

It would be lovely to have some one person to blame for the hideous disaster that has befallen the Church. But the fact of the matter is the corruption was widespread and endemic before the elevation of His Holiness. Pope Paul VI worried about it out loud, conscious of the evil that had taken root inside the Church.

Paul's answer was to further liberalize, I gather: Isn’t that what Vatican II was really all about? I also gather that then-Cardinal Vojtila [sp?] (before he became Pope), along with now-Cardinal Ratzinger, were very active behind the scenes at Vatican II, trying to hold the line on Orthodoxy. However, Vatican II was all about “modernization,” of bringing the Church “up to date.” Thus a trendy liberalism was legitimated at that conclave. If you want to know where homosexuality (the root of the current scandal) got its open welcome in the Church, it was from this liberalism – not from the Pope’s orthodoxy.

He’s damned if he does, and damned if he doesn’t: He’s way too orthodox for many American Catholics; but they’re glad to blame him for the very fruits of the “liberalizing tendencies” in the Church that he’s battled against all his life.

Cardinal Law is a man who allowed a priest in his diocese to act as an activist for NAMBLA, a priest he KNEW had raped a six year old boy. A thousand page dossier was on his desk on this guy--yet he covered up for him for two decades. You would think the Pope would be curious as to why this went on for so long--and at a minimum ask for his resignation. Granted the Pope is a kind man--but in this case, his kindness has been harmful to hundreds of Catholic kids.

I hold no brief for Cardinal Law. I believe he will be removed in due course. The Pope is not only a kind man, as you say; he is also a deeply spiritual, just and loving and forgiving man. When it comes to a prince of the Church, such as Cardinal Law, perhaps His Holiness prefers to leave matters up to the civil authorities, on the one hand; and up to the judgment of Jesus Christ on the other.

BTW, I share your outrage RE: the paedophiliac/homosexual scourging of the Holy Church. But trust in the Lord: We have it on good authority that anyone who injures “the least of my little ones” has an absolutely hideous future in store for him…. No merely human punishment can equal it, certainly not removal from office, defrocking or excommunication...which is all the Pope can do.

I understand he spends most of his time praying for us sinners, for God's mercy and forgiveness. He is frail, in failing health; perhaps he’s saving his strength for what he believes matters most: the salvation of his flock. Going after Cardinal Law isn’t going to save anybody’s soul, as far as I can tell.

JMHO. FWIW. Thanks for writing.