22 May 2014

Saul Alinsky Chosen as Visitor to the Franciscan Sisters

In the past I have "enjoyed", in the gallows humor sense, the employment by persecutors of Catholic tradition of the tried and true tactic of the Saul Alinsky:  accuse your enemies of the fault that you yourself possess in order to defuse the charge from being used effectively against you later.

Case in point-- Pelagianism: the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. The teachings of Pelagius are generally associated with the rejection of original sin and the practise of infant baptism.

This charge was recently laid at the feet of the traditionally-minded Catholic.  You know, the one who still believes in the necessity of infant baptism and who acknowledges the efficacy of confession and the desirability of frequent recourse to it.  Well, to be sure, it was actually the label "neo-Pelagian".  Well, actually, "self-absorbed, Promethean neo-Pelagian", if you want to get all technical.

Or, take this one: crypto-lefebvrian and definitely traditionalist drift.  So, what is this?  Moreover, is this a bad thing?  It's a bad thing, right?  Huh?  This is what the apostolic visitor to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate cited as the problem with the order--which order is in the middle of being destroyed.  Ironically, this is not an auto-demolition of the order, as has happened to the Church in the last fifty years.  No, this is destruction from without, by those who foisted the larger destruction-from-within of the worldwide Church.

It is as though adhering to the traditional praxis of the Church is "crypto-lefebvrian" all by its lonesome.  Either it is, or it isn't.  If it is, then you are essentially accusing "Lefebvrians" of nothing more than adherence to the traditional praxis of the Church (and I don't think the accusers want to do that).  If it isn't, then adherence to the traditional praxis of the Church is in fact being condemned in and of itself-- pitting the accusers against Catholic faith and practice handed down through immemorial custom as well as stated in positive law.

But all this is beside the point, we are told by our neo-Catholic betters.  You see, the FFIs had it coming, because there was dissension in their own ranks.  They were divided, and thus an Apostolic visitor was needed. 

How, then, does that explain the need of a visitor for the unified body of the Franciscan sisters? No dissension cited there.  What gives?  Pat Archbold thinks he knows:  push so hard at traditionally-minded Catholics that you push them right into the SSPX, thus justifying all the crypto-lefebvrian and schismatic charges as a result.  Voila! Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Archbold points out that the FFIs haven't reacted this way yet, and he suspects the sisters won't either.  Time will tell.

As an aside, though the circumstances are not exactly identical, is not the Fisher-More punishment essentially the same thing (they had it coming)?  Whatever the faults of the college, or the order, isn't the extra-legal punishment the same (take the Mass away!) for the same charge (crypto-lefevbrianism!)?

My question as a result of all this inaccurate name-calling is a bit different.  Just who is schismatic?  The schism from the faith can occur on either side of this little fracas, so fraught with peril for the universal Church.  The Congregation for Religious is clearly sawing the branch off.  The question is whether they, Yosemite Sam-like, are not sitting on the branch they are sawing?

If they are not careful, as I mused above, they will be left equating the "crypto-lefebvrian and definitely traditionalist drift" of their enemies with nothing more than the crime of being Catholic. 

If someone wishes to punish a Catholic for wanting to celebrate the Missal of Pius V, which is a lawfully-promulgated liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church and which has never been abrogated, just who is being schismatic here?


Anonymous said...

I think you nailed it.

Jim Cole

Siderúrgico said...

To get the crypto-lefebvrian label, you just have to say publicly:

- There might be problems with the texts and implementation of CVII.

- Some things might have been better before CVII.

FSSP, ICKSP, Barroux, etc, know it very well and don't go there. The Good Shepherd Institute has said it and got in trouble. The FI organized a congress to say it and see what happened.

David Heath said...

If they saw to much, they will saw through the cross that holds up the out-stretched arms of the Crucified Christ (Himself one the first "crypto-lefebvrian's"), that will then fall with a resounding ... and mushroom cloud that results will not be pretty.

M. Prodigal said...


This 3 minute video will give you an idea of the sort of consecrated religious the Vatican does not seem to want in the heart of the Church--you know, doing those things like prayer and penance.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the proper way to approach this is one of waiting and seeing.

Being under investigation doesn't say that the accused is guilty of what it is being accused of.

This investigation is just trying to see if the accusation has weight, or if this is just a misunderstanding, or something else.