Attack of the Theocons

I read this article with some interest, in that many of those "theocons" I agreed with on the war with Iraq (except on the issue of it's our duty to give people "democracy.") Of course, I was labeled a neo-conservative by many of my traditionalist friends, and there was some very interesting debates on the issue, especially with fellow team member Michael Brendan Dougherty.

Yet here's something the "theocons" fail to understand. Many of these men vehemently opposed the Pope on the Iraq war, and rightly so I argue. They will explain their justification that the issue was not a doctrinal one, but rather a political\prudential one. I'm sorry, but that's the same thing us traditionalists have said all along against these same theocons who have a vehement hatred of traditionalists.

It might have been interesting to also point out the fact that the theocons are rigid in Catholic social doctrine, yet promote Bishops(or excuse them is the better term) who are actively opposed to Catholic social doctrine, and refuse to criticize those in Italy who are against Catholic social doctrine. The theocon idea in application is as flawed as the Neo-Catholic, then again, almost every theocon is a Neo-Catholic.

Is it any wonder we're in such a problem?

L.A. Archdiocese blasts American Life League

Even the Neo-Catholics must be getting sick of Mahony. In responding to John Pacheco, Thomas Woods made a very interesting point, that the debate should be about whether men such as Mahony are truly in the church, rather than traditionalists. Well Mahony's marauders have struck again, this time against a pro-life organization.

The organization wrote a letter of protest to Mahony about Gray Davis, the Terminator(Arnold) and Cruz Busmante, all claiming to be faithful Catholics, all receiving the Blessed Sacrament, yet all ardent defenders of the slaughter of innocents in abortion. Ms. Brown rightly notes that these people should be denied communion, since it is a privelege not a right. The response from the Archdiocese would be utterly hillarious if it were not so utterly tragic.

"The reception of Holy Communion by Catholics is a right guaranteed by the Church, not a privilege,"
"She's not Judge Judie, she's not Bishop Judie, and she's not Pope Judie. The bishops of the Church, with the Holy Father, are the ones who interpret Church law."

Well let's note what is said. That "Judge Judie" is incompetent in Church law, and since the Archdiocese is "with the Church" they know what Church law is. What does Church law say about receiving the Eucharist? The article points out rightly that:

"Canon 915 states, in part, that those "who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to communion." Brown reiterated, "Individuals who advocate abortion, which is intrinsically evil, are persisting in grave sin and should not be given Holy Communion. Schwarzenegger, Davis, and Bustamante are three such individuals." "

So perhaps the Archdiocese has finally conceded what traditionalists have suspected all along, Mahony and his ilk are not actually within the Church, since they can't even understand the basic neccessities of the Eucharist! Don't count on it, but is it any surprise the Church is in this state, where one of the most hated cardinals is celebrated by the Vatican, and his staff can't even get the issue of communion right? I wonder if there's anywhere in "Communio" ecclesiology for such heretical beliefs. I don't know, let's ask Apolonio, the "communio" expert who seems to think everything falls under "Communio" ecclesiology, without ever defining excactly what it is.

How can one be a Saint when Divine Providence Rejects him?

Ratzinger on John Paul I's election

A few interesting things. First, he notes just how healthy John Paul I was at the time of his mysterious death. While not a big fan of Conspiracy Theories, something is quite amiss in regards to the smiling Pontiff's death, and it is sorta wierd. Yet we won't go into that.

Ratzinger then talks about how he viewed John Paul I as a saint, because of his holiness.

Of course, traditionalists have said the attempt to canonize John XXIII and John Paul I is merely that of looking to canonize the New Order, and there could be some truth to that. The Meaning of a saint, has, in application, lost any real venerable meaning to it. A saint is something extraordinary nowadays, since we've had so many canonized to the fact John Paul II has been known as a "beatification and canonization machine." He was looking to again disregard any and all tradition by beatifying and canonizing Mother Theresa the same day, or even just skip right to the canonization, and he fast tracked everything. He may just want everyone to know for sure in his mind the obvious, but as I've said before, these actions have repercussions.

Raztinger, back to the article, also tells us that Divine Providence "rejected" the election of John Paul I, by killing him. While doing his best to say that "we didn't error" (And I agree) it's still quite a shocking statement. Think about that, God killed the Churches choice for Pope is what that almost boils down to. If it's true, and Providence gave a "no" to JP I's election, doesn't that sorta impede the idea he should be canonized as a saint, the first saint whom God rejected? Under todays meaning of saint, wouldn't surprise me if everyone tries it.