Robert Allen (syndicated columnist)
New York (RAP) August 17, 2014 - Today we have the honor of interviewing Dr. Trevor Rich, Professor of Religious Studies at Catholic University of Auckland, New Zealand, who is here in New York for a religious studies conference. Dr. Rich is a specialist in the Neo-Catholic Studies program at CUA.
Robert Allen: Welcome. Professor, would you please tell us about Neo-Catholic Studies. First of all, what does it mean?
Trevor Rich: Thank you. It's good to be here. Neo-Catholic Studies is a relatively new discipline in the field of Religious Studies. It's principal focus is on a new set of attitudes and new kind of thinking among Catholic conservatives that emerged following the Second Vatican Council.
Robert Allen: "New kind of thinking"? Does this mean that these Catholics would be regarded as deviating from what has gone by the name "Catholic" traditionally? Would they be regarded as "heretics"?
Trevor Rich: Yes, and no. Yes, their thinking would be regarded as novel by the Catholics of, say, the 1920s, but, no, they cannot be called "heretics" insofar as they continue to defer to the authority of the pope and bishops.
Robert Allen: Can you give us an example of the way in which "Neo-Catholics" are novel in their thinking?
Trevor Rich: Certainly. Although they are widely regarded as the "conservatives" in many respects, over the past 60 years they have played the role of enablers for the progressives. They don't realize this, of course. But it's true. They were the fan club of Pope Paul VI when he introduced the new Mass. Get rid of the traditional Latin liturgy? Sure! Replace Gregorian chant with contemporary guitar songs? No problem! Tear down those old sanctuaries? Pull down the old statues? Take out those traditional altars, communion rails, and confession boxes? Why not? Communion in the hand? Altar girls? Lay Eucharistic ministers? Why didn't we think of that before? Sure, why not!
Robert Allen: Why do you think they went along with all these changes so readily?
Trevor Rich: It's an odd thing, really. It's as if they had some sort of contemporary version of the ultramontanist tendency.
Robert Allen: You mean, they follow the pope in lock step, defend him to the end?
Trevor Rich: In a way, yes. Even when the pope is caving in to the demands of progressives, like altar girls and communion in the hand.
Robert Allen: What about Catholic traditionalists?
Trevor Rich: Traditionalist Catholics had, and still have, a similar sort of die-hard adherence to the hard-line drawn by the Church before Vatican II between Catholics, on the one side, and Protestants, on the other. Traditional Catholics wouldn't, and still don't, readily fraternize with Protestants except for the sake of trying to convert them.
Robert Allen: It's odd, though, isn't it, that St. Thomas Aquinas, whom the Church celebrated as a "Doctor of the Church" had no problem drawing from even pagan Greek sources, like Aristotle, and using their concepts to clarify Catholic dogma?
Trevor Rich: Precisely. Traditional Catholics preferred Greek pagans to Protestants, you could say. I suppose they thought the Greek pagans were "innocent" in a way, while Protestants, even though they were Christians, were contaminated by an overt rejection of Catholicism, so that the intellectual contributions of the Greek pagans were not suspect in the way that those of Protestants are.
Robert Allen: And you're suggesting there's a parallel with contemporary Neo-Catholics here?
Trevor Rich: Absolutely. You can see it in the Neo-Catholic abhorrence of Catholic traditionalists, especially groups like the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, also known as the SSPX, to the point that they would prefer modern pagans.
Robert Allen: Neo-Catholics would prefer the company of modern pagans to that of traditionalist Catholics?
Trevor Rich: Yes, indeed. An example comes to mind from the lay apologetics apostolate, Catholic Answers. A Catholic grandmother was concerned about the Common Core curriculum adopted by her grandchildren's Catholic school. The Common Core curriculum includes many elements at odds with Catholic teaching. Basically the Obama administration's vision for what education should be.
Robert Allen: Politically correct ideas about same-sex relations, contraception, abortion, that sort of thing?
Trevor Rich: Exactly. The grandmother went to see the bishop and it was clear he had no intention of stopping the Common Core curriculum. So she wrote to Catholic Answers ...
Robert Allen: The "lay apologetics apostolate," as you put it ...
Trevor Rich: Yes, and she asked them whether it wouldn't be preferable to sent them to a school run by the SSPX where they would get a "solid," traditional Catholic education.
Robert Allen: From what I've heard, in most diocesan Catholic schools, students don't even learn how to pray the Rosary, is that correct?
Trevor Rich: Sad to say, yes. And someone named Michelle Arnold at Catholic Answers wrote a response dated July 1, 2014, which was since deleted from the Internet, in which she told this grandmother that her children be in a far better environment in the diocesan Catholic school, even with the Common Core curriculum, than in the school run by the traditionalist SSPX, because they would at least be in communion with the Church in the diocesan school.
Robert Allen: I see. She said that the grandmother ought to prefer the Common Core curriculum of the diocesan school to the traditionalist Catholic curriculum of the SSPX.
Trevor Rich: Yes.
Robert Allen: So you're saying, in effect, that contemporary Neo-Catholics prefer the contemporary "paganism," as it were, being imposed by the Department of Education under the Obama administration to the traditional Catholicism of the SSPX that has been declared off-limits by Rome.
Trevor Rich: Something like that. The Society [SSPX] has been seeking to regularize its relationship with Rome over the years, but has been increasingly troubled by what looks from their vantage point like a Church in progressive stages of collapse and de facto apostasy.
Robert Allen: But you're saying that the content of their education [that of the SSPX] would be far more Catholic than what the children would receive in the diocesan school with the Common Core curriculum.
Trevor Rich: Without question.
Robert Allen: Well, can you tell us, Professor, what would be your assessment of these tendencies you've observed both among Catholic traditionalists and Neo-Catholics? Why, may we ask, do Catholics prefer pagans?
Trevor Rich: Each group "prefers pagans," to borrow your expression, for different reasons. Traditionalists prefer classical pagans to Protestants because they wish to preserve the classic Aristotelian-Thomist synthesis that has been such a historical bulwark in articulating and safe-guarding Catholic tradition. Neo-Catholics prefer the paganism of anti-Catholic modernity to the Catholicism of traditionalists that has been declared off limits by their bishops.
Robert Allen: What do Neo-Catholics think of Protestants?
Trevor Rich: The irony is that Neo-Catholics embrace Protestants as fellow-Christians. They wouldn't dream calling them "heretics." I would imagine that nearly any "conservative" Catholic today, Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, etc., would answer the question posed by that grandmother pretty much like Michelle Arnold did.
Robert Allen: They would have more of a problem with the grandchildren being sent to a traditionalist Catholic school administered by the SSPX than an essentially "paganized" Catholic school?
Trevor Rich: Right. In fact, the irony runs even deeper. I don't imagine these Neo-Catholics would have any serious problem with those grandchildren being sent to a Methodist or Lutheran school, at least as long as there weren't a better option available, but try proposing the idea of sending them to a traditional Catholic school administered by the SSPX. Their heads would spin. Think about this in relation to how a traditional Catholic would react. Pretty amazing.
Robert Allen: Very interesting indeed. Thank you Professor for your very engaging and illuminating discussion of these issues. I hope we can look forward to the pleasure of seeing you again.
Trevor Rich: Thank you. My pleasure.
Showing posts with label Traditionalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Traditionalism. Show all posts
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Friday, June 20, 2014
Why are Neo-Caths so afraid of being called "Neo-Caths"?
Robert Allen (syndicated columnist)
New York (RAP) June 14, 2014 - A storm of protests by Neo-Catholics who consider being called "Neo-Catholics" the moral equivalent of the N-word led Wikipedia editors to suppress their entry on "Neo-Catholicism" today at 23:25 PM EST. The previous attempt at a similar entry was deleted on February 16th of this year.
We managed to track down one of the original contributors to the Wikipedia entry on "Neo-Catholicism," Daniel Ferrara, and one of the opponents of the article who successfully lobbied for its deletion, Chuck Shea, who both consented to be interviewed in a conference call:
Robert Allen: Welcome gentlemen. Are you both online with us now? Yes? Good.
Mr. Shea, if we could start with you, we understand that you've been pushing for some time to have this Wikipedia entry suppressed. Can you tell us why?
Chuck Shea: Abso-frickin'-lutely. Calling someone a "Neo-Cath" or "Neo-Catholic" is like using the N-word or calling a fag a "fag." It's hate speech.
R.A.: Can you explain why you think so?
C.S.: Damn skippy. When these frickin' Rad-Trads call us "Neo-Caths," they're sayin' that we're not r-e-e-e-e-l Catholics like they think they are. Frickin' bigots! They're sayin' we're second class citizens in the Church, or not citizens at all.
R.A.: Mr. Ferrara, maybe you'd like to step in and explain your side of the debate. Do you find it insulting to be called a "Rad-Trad," and why do you call people like Mr. Shea "Neo-Caths"? What exactly do you man when you say that?
Daniel Ferrara: Yes, of course. Well, I'd rather just be called a "Catholic," but since I believe Catholics adhere to Catholic tradition, and should do so radically, I would say that it's a label we are willing to wear with pride.
We came up with the term "Neo-Catholic" to refer to those Catholics, like Mr. Shea, who, sometimes through no fault of their own, think that dancing the Hokey pokey during the rite of peace or jabbering nonsense like Pentecostals in the middle of Mass are things that Pope Pius XII would have been comfortable with.
R.A.: So you ...
C.S.: [Interrupting] Sonofabitch! You foam-at-the-mouth Rad-Trads are so sneering condescending! You are so frikin' stuck in the stale, stone-cold petrified traditions of the past! Don't you realize that Catholic teaching develops? H-e-l-l-o!!! Have you ever heard of Cardinal Newman??? Duhh!! Can you spell "doctrinal d-e-v-e-l-o-p-m-e-n-t"?
R.A.: Let me see if I understand you gentlemen correctly. So Mr. Shea, you maintain that the changes in the Church and liturgy following the Second Vatican Council are natural "developments" of Church teaching and that they don't represent a break with earlier Catholic traditions, is that right?
C.S.: Damn skippy. Now that garbage about the Hokey Pokey is just a smoke screen.
D.F.: What about your so-called "speaking in tongues" by charismatics?
C.S.: The Charismatic Renewal is part of the New Pentecost and Springtime of the New Evangelization following Vatican II, you idiot. Even Pope Francis has shown this by recently speaking at a Charismatic conference in Rome.
R.A.: Let me now move over to you, then Mr. Ferrara. If I understand your position correctly, what you maintain is that many of the changes embraced by those you call "Neo-Catholics" since Vatican II are not natural "developments" of traditional Catholic teaching, properly speaking, but departures from it in various ways, is that right?
D.F.: That's right. So by going along with everything from babbling incoherently and calling it a "charism," to holding hands during the Our Father and kissing and hugging and flashing peace-signs at their neighbours during the rite of peace, and talking to Protestants as though they're just another "denomination" in the Church, they're breaking with Catholic tradition. It's simply Modernism. They reject Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors and accept the new "Counter-Syllabus" of Vatican II. That's why we call them "Neo-Caths." They think they have the "New and improved" version of Catholicism. They think they're "new-and-improved" Catholics. They use a new Mass. Gathering Hymns, anyone?
C.S.: You think you're so clever, don't you, you blithering stuck-in-the-mud Rad-Trad bigot! What a sorry, depressed live you must lead! What's wrong with "gathering hymns" or any of the things you just mentioned? How dare you call us "Neo-Caths," as thought we've broken with Catholic tradition? That's nothing short of pure defamation!
D.F.: If the shoe fits, wear it.
C.S.: I question the authenticity of your faith. If that shoe fits, wear that, buddy!
R.A.: We're just out of time, gentlemen. On behalf of Road Apples Press, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us today. We hope to ...
C.S.: [Interrupting] If I could just get in a closing word with your audience about my website. Go to the "gear" link at the top of the page, and you can buy T-shirts, coffee mugs, buttons, barbecue aprons and all sorts of cool stuff with slogans like: "I'd Rather be Roasting Self-absorbed Promethean Neo-pelagians"! You would be supporting our ministry by doing so. Thanks for your business. God bless!
New York (RAP) June 14, 2014 - A storm of protests by Neo-Catholics who consider being called "Neo-Catholics" the moral equivalent of the N-word led Wikipedia editors to suppress their entry on "Neo-Catholicism" today at 23:25 PM EST. The previous attempt at a similar entry was deleted on February 16th of this year.
We managed to track down one of the original contributors to the Wikipedia entry on "Neo-Catholicism," Daniel Ferrara, and one of the opponents of the article who successfully lobbied for its deletion, Chuck Shea, who both consented to be interviewed in a conference call:
Robert Allen: Welcome gentlemen. Are you both online with us now? Yes? Good.
Mr. Shea, if we could start with you, we understand that you've been pushing for some time to have this Wikipedia entry suppressed. Can you tell us why?
Chuck Shea: Abso-frickin'-lutely. Calling someone a "Neo-Cath" or "Neo-Catholic" is like using the N-word or calling a fag a "fag." It's hate speech.
R.A.: Can you explain why you think so?
C.S.: Damn skippy. When these frickin' Rad-Trads call us "Neo-Caths," they're sayin' that we're not r-e-e-e-e-l Catholics like they think they are. Frickin' bigots! They're sayin' we're second class citizens in the Church, or not citizens at all.
R.A.: Mr. Ferrara, maybe you'd like to step in and explain your side of the debate. Do you find it insulting to be called a "Rad-Trad," and why do you call people like Mr. Shea "Neo-Caths"? What exactly do you man when you say that?
Daniel Ferrara: Yes, of course. Well, I'd rather just be called a "Catholic," but since I believe Catholics adhere to Catholic tradition, and should do so radically, I would say that it's a label we are willing to wear with pride.
We came up with the term "Neo-Catholic" to refer to those Catholics, like Mr. Shea, who, sometimes through no fault of their own, think that dancing the Hokey pokey during the rite of peace or jabbering nonsense like Pentecostals in the middle of Mass are things that Pope Pius XII would have been comfortable with.
R.A.: So you ...
C.S.: [Interrupting] Sonofabitch! You foam-at-the-mouth Rad-Trads are so sneering condescending! You are so frikin' stuck in the stale, stone-cold petrified traditions of the past! Don't you realize that Catholic teaching develops? H-e-l-l-o!!! Have you ever heard of Cardinal Newman??? Duhh!! Can you spell "doctrinal d-e-v-e-l-o-p-m-e-n-t"?
R.A.: Let me see if I understand you gentlemen correctly. So Mr. Shea, you maintain that the changes in the Church and liturgy following the Second Vatican Council are natural "developments" of Church teaching and that they don't represent a break with earlier Catholic traditions, is that right?
C.S.: Damn skippy. Now that garbage about the Hokey Pokey is just a smoke screen.
D.F.: What about your so-called "speaking in tongues" by charismatics?
C.S.: The Charismatic Renewal is part of the New Pentecost and Springtime of the New Evangelization following Vatican II, you idiot. Even Pope Francis has shown this by recently speaking at a Charismatic conference in Rome.
R.A.: Let me now move over to you, then Mr. Ferrara. If I understand your position correctly, what you maintain is that many of the changes embraced by those you call "Neo-Catholics" since Vatican II are not natural "developments" of traditional Catholic teaching, properly speaking, but departures from it in various ways, is that right?
D.F.: That's right. So by going along with everything from babbling incoherently and calling it a "charism," to holding hands during the Our Father and kissing and hugging and flashing peace-signs at their neighbours during the rite of peace, and talking to Protestants as though they're just another "denomination" in the Church, they're breaking with Catholic tradition. It's simply Modernism. They reject Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors and accept the new "Counter-Syllabus" of Vatican II. That's why we call them "Neo-Caths." They think they have the "New and improved" version of Catholicism. They think they're "new-and-improved" Catholics. They use a new Mass. Gathering Hymns, anyone?
C.S.: You think you're so clever, don't you, you blithering stuck-in-the-mud Rad-Trad bigot! What a sorry, depressed live you must lead! What's wrong with "gathering hymns" or any of the things you just mentioned? How dare you call us "Neo-Caths," as thought we've broken with Catholic tradition? That's nothing short of pure defamation!
D.F.: If the shoe fits, wear it.
C.S.: I question the authenticity of your faith. If that shoe fits, wear that, buddy!
R.A.: We're just out of time, gentlemen. On behalf of Road Apples Press, thank you for sharing your thoughts with us today. We hope to ...
C.S.: [Interrupting] If I could just get in a closing word with your audience about my website. Go to the "gear" link at the top of the page, and you can buy T-shirts, coffee mugs, buttons, barbecue aprons and all sorts of cool stuff with slogans like: "I'd Rather be Roasting Self-absorbed Promethean Neo-pelagians"! You would be supporting our ministry by doing so. Thanks for your business. God bless!
Saturday, June 14, 2014
"Liturgical niggers not welcome" Archdiocese of NY tells traditionalists
Robert Allen (syndicated columnist)
New York (RAP) June 13, 2014 - Fr. David Duke, a liaison of the public relations office of the Archdiocese of New York, generously consented to grant us an interview today over the events surrounding the dismissal of Fr. Justin Wylie from the Archdiocese of New York.
Robert Allen: Fr. Duke, I want to thank you for your generosity in allowing time in your busy schedule at the chancery offices to meet with us here today. As you know, the internet has gone viral with stories about the Cardinal's dismissal of Fr. Wylie.
Fr. David Duke: It's my pleasure to meet with you. Yes, but let me make one thing clear at the outset. It was not the Cardinal himself who dismissed Fr. Wylie. It was the Cardinal's "office," as reported in Rorate Caeli. The Cardinal himself knew nothing of this whole affair.
R.A.: A little background may be helpful here. Can you tell us a little about Fr. Wylie? Who is he? Where's he from?
Fr. D.D.: Yes, of course. Fr. Wylie is a priest of the Archdiocese of Johannesburg, South Africa, who, until very recently, had been on assignment in New York City as attaché to the Holy See’s Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations.
R.A.: How was Fr. Wylie involved with the Archdiocese of New York?
Fr. D.D.: Well, he was here, of course, by permission of the Archbishop of New York, and he also filled in for us as an occasional celebrant at some of our Sunday liturgies at churches around the city. In fact, he proved to be an extremely popular preacher.
R.A.: Why was he dismissed, then? What was the problem?
Fr. D.D.: Well, a few eyebrows were raised initially before he was came to New York when we were contacted by his own archdiocese with a request that we would grant him preaching assignments in nigger parishes.
R.A.: Excuse me? Do you mean African-American parishes?
Fr. D.D.: No, I'm sorry. I wasn't referring to colored people. I was referring to those upstart throwbacks that ought to be bulldozed into the waste dump of history, you know, traditionalists?
R.A.: So Fr. Wylie was serving parishes that wish to offer the traditional Latin Mass?
Fr. D.D.: Yes, in fact, the Archdiocese of New York kindly consented to let him serve, as was his wish, at nigger liturgies three times a month at the Church of St. Agnes and once a month at the Church of the Holy Innocents.
R.A.: This was a problem for the Cardinal Archbishop?
Fr. D.D.: As I mentioned, the Cardinal knew nothing about this. Certainly there was not much anyone in the chancery offices could do about it, given the need for diplomatic courtesies in our age of political correctness and all. What I mean is that while we have every desire to see that the demands of social justice are fulfilled in every corner of the Archdiocese [of New York].... You know, if these people want their nigger liturgies, of course they can have them. But the idea that anyone would want actually sit down and to break bread wish these people, you know, to use the same water fountains and toilets with them, much less participate in their style of worship. Well, to each his own, I guess.
R.A.: So why wasn't Fr. Wylie allowed to continue serving in his New York assignments? Were there complaints from parishioners? Was he discovered to be a closet pederast? What gives?
Fr. D.D.: No, no [laughing]. St. Francis Xavier is our pederast parish. Queers are very much welcomed there, as the Cardinal himself has indicated.
No, Fr. Wylie is so straight he makes Arnold Schwartznegger look like a queer. In fact, he's probably what you would call a top-drawer priest in any diocese, except for maybe his incomprehensible desire to fraternize with nigger Mass lovers. The straw that broke the camel's back was the homily he preached on May 18th at Holy Innocents.
R.A.: Was there a point of orthdoxy in question?
Fr. D.D.: Not really. You couldn't ask for more "orthodox" homilies, so orthodox, in fact, they'd probably set John Kerry's teeth on edge, if you know what I mean. It was more a case of fatal indiscretion. He crossed the line.
R.A.: What do you mean? I thought the homily was an exhortation to charity.
Fr. D.D.: Yes, but he crossed the line: he suggested that there was an urgent need in the Archdiocese to provide regular pastors sympathetic to nigger liturgies to serve and guide their parishes. It's one thing to allow niggers to show up occasionally in a food line in one of your soup kitchens, but another thing altogether to build houses for them right here in our neighbourhoods. Good heavens, before you know it, their kids will be sharing the same playgrounds with ours!
R.A.: Just to be clear, then, you're saying that Fr. Wylie was not dismissed for any defect of doctrine or discipline or character, but simply because he was urging a more charitable support for parishes that provide the traditional Latin liturgy?
Fr. D.D.: Putting it that way makes us seem like the bad guys, which wouldn't be right. All we want is to preserve the purity of our liturgies in the Archdiocese, to keep them, you know, white.
R.A.: As you know, the Archdiocese recently announced, in April, I believe, that it is planning to shut down a large number of parishes. As you also know, Holy Innocents is a thriving parish with a large and enthusiastic constituency, with multiple Sunday Masses, weekday Masses, and, as I understand, the sacrament of Confession available nearly around the clock. Is Holy Innocents slated for closure?
Fr. D.D.: I'm sure you understand that I'm not free to divulge that information. However, as they say, and I'm going to stand by my statement unlike those craven journalists that want to keep anything controversial "off the record," you know ... and so I'm going to say loud and clear: The only good liturgical nigger is a dead liturgical nigger. Not literally of course. But you know what I mean. These guys would bring back the Spanish Inquisition if you let them!
New York (RAP) June 13, 2014 - Fr. David Duke, a liaison of the public relations office of the Archdiocese of New York, generously consented to grant us an interview today over the events surrounding the dismissal of Fr. Justin Wylie from the Archdiocese of New York.
Robert Allen: Fr. Duke, I want to thank you for your generosity in allowing time in your busy schedule at the chancery offices to meet with us here today. As you know, the internet has gone viral with stories about the Cardinal's dismissal of Fr. Wylie.
Fr. David Duke: It's my pleasure to meet with you. Yes, but let me make one thing clear at the outset. It was not the Cardinal himself who dismissed Fr. Wylie. It was the Cardinal's "office," as reported in Rorate Caeli. The Cardinal himself knew nothing of this whole affair.
R.A.: A little background may be helpful here. Can you tell us a little about Fr. Wylie? Who is he? Where's he from?
Fr. D.D.: Yes, of course. Fr. Wylie is a priest of the Archdiocese of Johannesburg, South Africa, who, until very recently, had been on assignment in New York City as attaché to the Holy See’s Permanent Observer Mission to the United Nations.
R.A.: How was Fr. Wylie involved with the Archdiocese of New York?
Fr. D.D.: Well, he was here, of course, by permission of the Archbishop of New York, and he also filled in for us as an occasional celebrant at some of our Sunday liturgies at churches around the city. In fact, he proved to be an extremely popular preacher.
R.A.: Why was he dismissed, then? What was the problem?
Fr. D.D.: Well, a few eyebrows were raised initially before he was came to New York when we were contacted by his own archdiocese with a request that we would grant him preaching assignments in nigger parishes.
R.A.: Excuse me? Do you mean African-American parishes?
Fr. D.D.: No, I'm sorry. I wasn't referring to colored people. I was referring to those upstart throwbacks that ought to be bulldozed into the waste dump of history, you know, traditionalists?
R.A.: So Fr. Wylie was serving parishes that wish to offer the traditional Latin Mass?
Fr. D.D.: Yes, in fact, the Archdiocese of New York kindly consented to let him serve, as was his wish, at nigger liturgies three times a month at the Church of St. Agnes and once a month at the Church of the Holy Innocents.
R.A.: This was a problem for the Cardinal Archbishop?
Fr. D.D.: As I mentioned, the Cardinal knew nothing about this. Certainly there was not much anyone in the chancery offices could do about it, given the need for diplomatic courtesies in our age of political correctness and all. What I mean is that while we have every desire to see that the demands of social justice are fulfilled in every corner of the Archdiocese [of New York].... You know, if these people want their nigger liturgies, of course they can have them. But the idea that anyone would want actually sit down and to break bread wish these people, you know, to use the same water fountains and toilets with them, much less participate in their style of worship. Well, to each his own, I guess.
R.A.: So why wasn't Fr. Wylie allowed to continue serving in his New York assignments? Were there complaints from parishioners? Was he discovered to be a closet pederast? What gives?
Fr. D.D.: No, no [laughing]. St. Francis Xavier is our pederast parish. Queers are very much welcomed there, as the Cardinal himself has indicated.
No, Fr. Wylie is so straight he makes Arnold Schwartznegger look like a queer. In fact, he's probably what you would call a top-drawer priest in any diocese, except for maybe his incomprehensible desire to fraternize with nigger Mass lovers. The straw that broke the camel's back was the homily he preached on May 18th at Holy Innocents.
R.A.: Was there a point of orthdoxy in question?
Fr. D.D.: Not really. You couldn't ask for more "orthodox" homilies, so orthodox, in fact, they'd probably set John Kerry's teeth on edge, if you know what I mean. It was more a case of fatal indiscretion. He crossed the line.
R.A.: What do you mean? I thought the homily was an exhortation to charity.
Fr. D.D.: Yes, but he crossed the line: he suggested that there was an urgent need in the Archdiocese to provide regular pastors sympathetic to nigger liturgies to serve and guide their parishes. It's one thing to allow niggers to show up occasionally in a food line in one of your soup kitchens, but another thing altogether to build houses for them right here in our neighbourhoods. Good heavens, before you know it, their kids will be sharing the same playgrounds with ours!
R.A.: Just to be clear, then, you're saying that Fr. Wylie was not dismissed for any defect of doctrine or discipline or character, but simply because he was urging a more charitable support for parishes that provide the traditional Latin liturgy?
Fr. D.D.: Putting it that way makes us seem like the bad guys, which wouldn't be right. All we want is to preserve the purity of our liturgies in the Archdiocese, to keep them, you know, white.
R.A.: As you know, the Archdiocese recently announced, in April, I believe, that it is planning to shut down a large number of parishes. As you also know, Holy Innocents is a thriving parish with a large and enthusiastic constituency, with multiple Sunday Masses, weekday Masses, and, as I understand, the sacrament of Confession available nearly around the clock. Is Holy Innocents slated for closure?
Fr. D.D.: I'm sure you understand that I'm not free to divulge that information. However, as they say, and I'm going to stand by my statement unlike those craven journalists that want to keep anything controversial "off the record," you know ... and so I'm going to say loud and clear: The only good liturgical nigger is a dead liturgical nigger. Not literally of course. But you know what I mean. These guys would bring back the Spanish Inquisition if you let them!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)