Required reading for today is an article in OnePeterFive by Peter Kwasniewski who posted a letter from a faithful young priest from the battle lines of the faith.
Here are excerpts:
I recently discovered that the examination of conscience provided by my current parish to penitents never references unchastity even once. Abortion is on the list of sins, but unfaithfulness to one’s spouse is not on the list. Instead, it says “non-exclusive love of spouse,” which is rather ambiguous. Contraception is completely missing. So is immodesty in dress, speech, or behavior. So are homosexual acts, bestiality, pornography, and masturbation. The vaguely termed “disrespect of sexual dignity” is on the list. I also learned from experience that this entire “soft approach” has all been carefully calculated. The word “dignity,” in particular, is suggestive of the pro-homosexual Dignity movement.
The use of fuzzy terms is deliberate. The priests don’t want to offend people who should be warned and chastised. They don’t want to shock. They don’t want to tell people what is really wrong with them that will lead them to eternal death.
If someone is dying of a deadly disease that can be cured with antibiotics, would a doctor tell him, “You have a disorder of the body. Just go home and take a rest”? Of course not. The doctor would diagnose his illness as specifically as possible, then prescribe antibiotics – the right kind and right dosage specific to the disease! If he had just sent the patient home with a vague diagnosis and prescribed herbal tea, such a doctor would be charged with malpractice and he would lose his license. Then, the relatives of the poor deceased patient would sue him.
But the confessional is exactly the place where priests should be doing the spiritual diagnosis and prescribing the treatment. According to the letter of this young priest, they are failing.
In one parish’s missal, I have seen the words “man” and “men” crossed out, and gender-neutral pronouns assigned to our beloved Savior. Deacons have been trained to say that Jesus Christ became “human” instead of “man,” and our people are told to say “for us and for our salvation” instead of “for us men and for our salvation,” as the approved text has it. Even staff members refuse to call priests “Father.” This is not uncommon in parishes, at least in the northeast USA.
Once again we see here the deliberate ambiguity which is designed to allow people to simply make up their own minds about everything, such as ignoring the most obvious chromosomal differences between men and women, and changing the words in the Bible itself. This is the triumph of relativism that Bishop Sanborn forcefully denounced in his sermon, The Role of the Priest in the Church.
Last excerpt from the letter of young priest who diagnosed the illness in the Catholic Church accurately:
Vast numbers of clergy have never read a single work by Aristotle or Aquinas, or any magisterial work prior to 1960 – and because they were formed in a secular, non-classical, anti-ecclesial, non-liturgical, non-literary, atheistic culture posing as Catholicism, they have absorbed its thinking and internalized its lies. Their souls are full of stumbling blocks placed there by heretics. They have become intellectually and morally bankrupt and are in no way suited to be pastors of souls. There is no rapport, no common language or common ground with them, because the very ground for knowing the real is denied by them. They think primarily with slogans. For generations, they have not been doing the primary thing they are supposed to do: uphold the apostolic traditions. Their predecessors rejected their own identity as priests and bishops a generation ago and accepted themselves as well dressed community activists and fundraisers who were content to possess priestly character and enjoy the trappings of Catholicism without the Faith. Some of them were successful at these things – so successful that they attracted the attention of the pope, who made them monsignors, bishops, even cardinals. The popes should have looked for piety in bestowing honors upon the clergy, but instead they looked for money, diplomatic skills, secular political connections, and willingness to submit to power.
You call it an apostasy, and rightly so. Let us call a spade a spade. It is time to decry modernism in the clergy, and every modernist priest must be denounced, whether or not it is his fault that he is one. Culpability cannot be taken into account when so many souls are endangered. The surest way to do this is for a pope to repeal Vatican II and its attached postconciliar pronouncements. By “repeal,” of course I do not mean delete it from the list of councils; I mean to cease to render it a springboard for implementing constant change, and to relegate it to a position of impotence in the practical life of the Church. It shall no longer be quoted in catechisms or taught in schools; it shall be a quaint museum piece for scholars of the future to discuss over tea. If there is anything in it that sheds light on the Catholic faith better than any other council or pope, I would like to know what it is; surely, fifty years would have been enough time to discover it. Bishop Barron keeps saying councils take one hundred years to have any effect; people like him say this merely to evade the present disaster. This “one hundred years” statement is pure nonsense; it is not based on historical evidence. Regardless, since it was never meant to teach anything definitively or to condemn anything definitively, Vatican II as an ecumenical council stands in contradiction to its own essence, which is to be magisterial.
So repeal it. If this is done, many priests and bishops who worship the holy twins (Roncalli and Montini) will form a schism. The ones who stay with the Church will truly reform her.
That’s correct. We begin by dumping Vatican II and pulling out all of the roots of Modernism, denounced by Pope Saint Pius X, as the “synthesis of all heresies.”