Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« What's up with Frank Schaeffer? | Main | Reese's Pieces... »

Friday, February 13, 2009


NW Clerk

Twomey's book is FANTASTIC and the section where he smacks down John Allen for his preposterous book, "Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vaticans Enforcer of the Faith" is ALONE worth the price of the book.

Robert Miller

Father de Souza's comments are right on.
What I don't understand is why Catholics are so uptight about the Williamson and Maciel incidents.
Ratzinger never has made any bones about his view that the Church needs to be as open to the integrists as it has been, since Vatican II, to modernists. Lifting excommunications does not mean the end of the journey, but only the beginning.
I sense beneath the whole flap over Williamson's remarks on Hitler's persecution of the Jews a politically-correct unresolved assertion.
The 20th assuredly was the bloodiest of centuries. It certainly is understandable that Jews grasp the monstrous demonic of the century from the perspective of the suffering of their brethren at the hands of the Nazis. It is further understandable that Catholics, as "spiritual Semites" (cf., Pope Pius XI), whose Semitic and Gentile brethren fell prey to the mass murders of the last century, feel a special kinship with Jews. Finally, can anyone doubt that Benedict suffers profoundly the complicity of his nation in mass murder?
Having acknowledged all that, I still think it is fair to ask why an integrist bishop's denial of the quantitative magnitude and technical method of Hitler's persecution of the Jews is an occasion for garment-rending.
It's as if he'd blasphemed. Has he? If he has, what does that mean? Blasphemy used to have a very specific definition. It also is generally protected by post-Enlightenment civil law. But do we, as Catholics consider it blasphemy -- we who regularly hear Christ blasphemed?
As for the Maciel affair: Benedict already has dealt with him, on a juridical level. All of the twaddle about the uncertain future of a Legion with an undermined "founder's charism" is a smokescreen for American Catholics (especially modernists and bishops) who want to sink the "reform of the reform".
Indeed, both of these incidents are embarrassing mainly in that they show how little help Benedict is getting from bishops, clergy and laity in his Pontificate project of trying to fit the "spirit of Vatican II" back into the Tradition.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad