But what of this silence so far? Perhaps I may be so bold as to remind the Holy Father of something.
In a memorable scene from the 1967 film masterpiece A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, the oily Thomas Cromwell (played by the great Leo McKern) tries to trap Sir Thomas More (brilliantly portrayed by Paul Scofield) into admitting that his silence on the matter of the King's supremacy over the Church in England indicated denial.
Cromwell: Now, Sir Thomas, you stand on your silence.
Sir Thomas More: I do.
Cromwell: But, gentlemen of the jury, there are many kinds of silence. Consider first the silence of a man who is dead. Let us suppose we go into the room where he is laid out, and we listen: what do we hear? Silence. What does it betoken, this silence? Nothing; this is silence pure and simple. But let us take another case. Suppose I were to take a dagger from my sleeve and make to kill the prisoner with it; and my lordships there, instead of crying out for me to stop, maintained their silence. That would betoken! It would betoken a willingness that I should do it, and under the law, they will be guilty with me. So silence can, according to the circumstances, speak! Let us consider now the circumstances of the prisoner's silence. The oath was put to loyal subjects up and down the country, and they all declared His Grace's title to be just and good. But when it came to the prisoner, he refused! He calls this silence. Yet is there a man in this court - is there a man in this country! - who does not know Sir Thomas More's opinion of this title?
Crowd in court gallery: No!
Cromwell: Yet how can this be? Because this silence betokened, nay, this silence was, not silence at all, but most eloquent denial!
Sir Thomas More: Not so. Not so, Master Secretary. The maxim is "Qui tacet consentire": the maxim of the law is "Silence gives consent". If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.
What then are we to make of the deafening silence of so many Bishops, and now Popes, who remain studiously silent over outrage after outrage which become more virulent and threatening every day? Let us consider just one example: the silence of the hierarchy in the face of the ever-more-blatant homosexual onslaught. What brought this all to mind was not only the circus going on in Rome as we speak but also the recent piece by Marion Horvat found at Gloria tv: http://en.gloria.tv/?media=642117 If Thomas More is correct, and that the maxim "Qui tacet consentire" is the guiding principle, then we must conclude that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church are indicating their consent to an explosion of sodomy.
Oh, but some will say it is merely fear that restrains their disciplinary hand. Let us suppose it is only this, fear of being pilloried and crucified by the world and their media, fear of losing powerful friends if they would put a stop to these hideous charades, fear of angry lapsed Catholic parishioners who will close their wallets when the collection plate is passed around. But all available evidence suggests that something more than fear is at play here.
I have called this Synod the "Bastard Synod" because, as of right now at least, it stands illegitimate in the eyes of Catholics. Yes, there are rumblings that some Cardinals are finding a new backbone they never thought they had but until we start hearing strong words from them we have every right to feel betrayed and back-stabbed and abandoned. According to Britain's Catholic Herald the infamous statement in the realtio which says we must be "welcoming homosexuals" has been updated to "providing for homosexuals". I am not convinced that that is much of an improvement if the Church refuses to warn them that this sin will lead them to Hell. And of course the mid-term report says nothing whatsoever about sin, judgment or the Abode of the Damned.
Cardinal Burke, as most people know by now, has called on Pope Francis to immediately clear the air and at the same time state Catholic teaching clearly and unambiguously on marriage and families.
I am wondering if we will get nothing but silence from the Pope. Or worse.
9 comments:
Bingo, as they say. Of course the Pope will not make any statement whatsoever until or if it becomes clear to him that this attempt at "changing" the Church has failed. I am one who sees that this has all been instigated by Pope Francis. He's not the unwitting victim; he's the instigator. Good Lord, how can people not see this?
I see that too, Elizabeth and so do all the Catholics I know who are paying attention. We know what Freemason Francis is and what he does and why he does it and for whom he does it. Knowing doesn't really help things though, does it?
We still have to pray for Francis and all the rest of our enemies within The Church. I know you know that, Elizabeth. Not an easy task. We don't do it for any other reason but because Jesus told us to do it and we are Catholic.
We can't let these evildoers distract us from our mission. Stay focused. And keep praying the rosary.
As the 'revisionist' historian Michael Hoffman has stated in his publications, the policy of gradualism or incremental change is the one favored by all governing bodies, including the Vatican. How did usury, which in medieval times was a serious sin, become accepted and is now praised, with a bank on every corner?! By officially sanctioned gradualism, that's how.
Many young couples are enslaved to usury and eventually by economic pressure fall and have recourse to abortion followed by divorce. Two great evils that it would appear the Synod of the Family would like to liberalize and regularize into acceptance.
Hoffman's latest book on the Catholic Church during the Renaissance is due for publication early 2015. Promises to be revelatory!
I have no links to the author, but the book is worthy of mention as it seems an historical drama of 500 years is at last reaching the consciousness of the ordinary Catholic.
Anon,
Money does not grow on trees, therefore it's not governed by the Natural Law. How it's acquired, how it's loaned and paid back, and on what it's spent are matters taken into consideration when determining the morality of its use. The Church Fathers were concerned, as is Scripture, to protect the poor from the rapacity of the rich who oppressed them through interest-taking, but they stopped short of categorically labeling all taking of interest as intrinsically immoral.
OTH, human sexuality is governed by Natural Law and it becomes fatal spiritually [and at times, physically] when it's violated. You are comparing apples to oranges here. You simply cannot suggest that the Church adapt a "gradualism" where it can't apply. The teachings of the Church against usury were never as absolute as, say, those against abortion and adultery, which are non-negotiables.
Here, educate yourself a bit:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=646
Totally agree with Elizabeth. This Pope is a shame.
Thank you, Marie, for your comments. There is a new book coming out which tackles some of these issues, written by E Michael Jones. Not being an expert I can only say that it looks fascinating, from a Catholic point of view.
http://www.culturewars.com/Reviews/BarrenMetal.htm
Re Marie; that argument calling into question the growth of money as being independent of Natural Law was addressed and demolished by St Thomas Aquinas!
It is all covered in Hoffman's book "Usury in Christendom,The Mortal Sin That Was And is Now Not". Well worth reading.
E Michael Jones and Michael Hoffman have exchanged a couple of 'combative' emails on the internet, so I look forward to reading Jones' latest book.
His Eminence Cardinal Burke with the wind of the Holy Ghost at his back needs to depose the Argentinian. The cardinal obviously has many supporters and when he makes his move to ascend to the Throne of Peter, he will have many more supporters.
If a sign from heaven was needed, look no farther than this detestable "synod" and its results.
Your Eminence: Make the move now.
Francis rocks!!!!
Post a Comment