Sunday, November 17, 2013

SOUTH AMERICAN SWAGGER : DISASTER IN DALLAS

CARDINAL MARADIAGA ARCHBISHOP OF TEGUCIGALPA

SOUTH AMERICAN SWAGGER. : DISASTER IN DALLAS
His name is Oscar Cardinal Maradiaga, and he has been chosen by his friend Pope Francis to be the Co-Ordinator for the Council of Cardinals which is charged with making recommendations to the Holy Father about the reform of the Roman Curia, among other things. He is also the President of the disaster plagued CELAM - the South American Bishops Conference. He was born in Honduras in 1942 and is the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa.

Had he wanted to raise his profile outside the Church , he could not have done so more effectively than by the extraordinary Address he gave to the University of Dallas "Ministry Conference" on 25th October, 2013.

RUPTURE AND REVOLUTION
Cardinal Maradiaga's Address has already been characterized in the Media, even the more responsible Media, as a " rant". It is not easy to criticize that characterization after reading the whole text. The distance between the sober and reasoned rhetoric of the Holy See for generations, nay, centuries and the present stream of public utterances seems to grow daily.


We can justifiably say that the Cardinal, in this Dallas Address has wholeheartedly espoused the false "spirit of the Council" and the Marxist version of Liberation Theology. At the same time,in rather brazen fashion he set about telling the world how it should go about the New Evangelisation without even a nod to the dismal failure of his own Latin American Bishops conference to reduce the inroads of Pentecostalism into their own churches.

Indeed, even in Cardinal Maradiaga's own vest pocket homeland of Honduras, (second highest Murder and Suicide figures in world - almost 9 times that of Australia per 100,000 population and 5 times higher than even gun crazy USA), the 8,000,000 population that was nominally 81%Catholic is said to be now 46% Catholic and 41% Pentecostal.

But let us examine what His Eminence said in detail.

THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

His Eminence frames his whole address on the foundation of the Second Vatican Council.He begins by lauding the growth of the Church in Africa, and Asia and even speaks favorably of aspects of her evolution in the United States quoting George Weigel from a book written 13 years ago.(He might have done better to check the recent analysis of official statistics that shows the Church in the United States to be imploding under almost every statistical heading.

But his Eminence's special scorn is reserved for the Church in Europe.So intense is his disparaging language that one wonders at the objectivity he brings to other considerations involving Europeans.

His initial thesis regarding the Council is extraordinary: " In principle , it meant an end to the hostilities between the Church and modernism, which was condemned in the First Vatican Council." If that did not take your breath away, or you think he must have meant something else, read on : "On the contrary: neither the world is the realm of evil and sin - these are conclusions clearly achieved in Vatican II - nor is the Church the sole refuge of good and virtue.Modernism was, most of the time, a reaction against injustices and abuses that disparaged the dignity and the rights of the person."

So there Pope Saint Pius X you laboured in vain, and did not really know what was going on!
                                   Pope Saint Pius X at the Episcopal Consecration of
                                                the future Pope Benedict XV.


The Cardinal's grasp of history is about as unrealistic as his failure to talk about the condition of the Church in his own backyard whilst lashing the Church in Europe.Beside this consideration, his tortured grammar fades into insignificance.

Gathering steam, His Eminence proceeds to flesh out his view of Vatican II.The Marxist flavor is immediately apparent. Here we encounter his recitation of truths in such a way that the Marxist spin is given full force.

Of course we are well familiar with this type of propaganda from aging American dissidents, but here, we are getting it from a "favored" friend of the Argentinian Pontiff. He reviews the "people of God" phrase in such a way as to disparage the historic role of the hierarchy.Without seeing the irony of such words coming from his privileged mouth and favoured position , he opines that "the hierarchy is a ministry ( diakonia= service) that requires lowering ourselves to the condition of servants".Right....this from a man whose whole address breathes a spirit of arrogant assertion.

He goes on to say that there is no essential difference between clergy and laity.He sets up here a straw man , as he does repeatedly throughout the address, and proceeds to attack it. In the process, he only makes clear his own political prejudices .He leaps about in trying to keep his theme going, often to the point of absurdity.Consider : referring to the common priesthood of the laity , he goes on "this change in the concept of priesthood is a fundamental one: "In Christ the priesthood is changed"(Hebrews 7:12). Indeed, the first trait of the priesthood of Jesus is that " he had to be made like His brothers in every respect."

Now, the priesthood that is "changed " referred to in the passage from Hebrews, is clearly the Temple priesthood of the old dispensation and NOT the ministerial Priesthood instituted by Christ as His Eminence seeks to assert.

And wildly cherry- picking of phrases such as "He had to be made......."and forcing them into this inept proposition is absurd; for the ministerial Priesthood instituted by Christ makes the Priest in the New Dispensation one who acts "in persona Christi" quite unlike the common priesthood of the laity. This is a patently false proposition, though one that is at the heart of His Eminence's address.

But His Eminence is now out and rolling and at last confident enough to refer to South America.He tells us that the South American Bishops Conference at Aparecida in May 2007 stated that " to become authentic, the Church needs only to return to Jesus".

What are the presumptions behind this statement? " to BECOME " means that she IS NOT" to "RETURN TO" means that she "HAS LEFT" Jesus!

Perhaps the authors of that statement were looking in the mirror! They and the Cardinal ought not tar the entire Church with their own deficiencies.

In another swipe at the Europeans and specifically the Italians His Eminence goes on : " Thus it is symbolic indeed that the last three Popes have not been Italian; the temptation of Europeanizing and Italianizing the church has always been one tied to pretenses of power .Fortunately, things have changed." This is the sort of rant one might expect from a teenage University student.

Now His Eminence seeks to expound the New Church concept as the essential thought of Vatican II.He gushes : "Many of the traditions established in the Church could lead her to a veritable self-imprisonment. The truth will set us free, humility will give us wings and will open new horizons for us." New Church indeed.It is as if the Holy Spirit had not been around for 1,900 years!

There is more in similar vein.

His Eminence continues " With the New Evangelisation we restart ( start anew) from the beginning : we once more become the Church as proclaimer, servant and Samaritan."

What is this man affected by? When was the Church not " proclaimer, servant and Samaritan"? Except perhaps in the immediate wake of Vatican II when she was busy contemplating her navel as " the smoke of Satan" entered the Sanctuary to use Pope Paul VI 's words.Did she not take the Gospel throughout Africa, Asia, and even remote South America, and even now into the electronic realms of the Internet? Did she not care for the displaced throughout so many wars and two World Wars and the Great Depression and hide and save 800,000 Jews from the Nazis? Servant indeed. And does she not to-day still operate around the World the largest non- Government network of hospitals, Schools,hospices etc Samaritan indeed!

What a load of nonsense His Eminence is putting forth.

What we come to realize is that he is unloading all his own prejudices onto his audience.

Please look out for Part II the Address gets far worse!

1 comment:

Kevin Burgess said...

At first reading this seems disconcerting, worrying and very unsettling.. coming from someone wearing the red hat. It certainly needs further study and a lot of prayer for discernment.