Fr. Z: a slap in the face?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
So I find it very hard to believe that the Quiet Revolution was anything other than an external liberal takeover in which the Church was a covenient scapegoat.
Having been born just 4 years before it happened and being a Francophone Quebecer, and having heard first-hand accounts of people just slightly older than I, I profoundly disagree. The Church kept Francophones a poor oppressed minority. People with 10+ kids in a poor rural economy had little means to educate their children, perpetuating the circle of poverty. Many people entered religious life simply to escape poverty and get a free education.

I was the first generation of Francophone that had the privilege of a widely available university education. I went to McGill, an Anglo university. I remember going past the Roddick Gates of McGill as a child, asking my father what that place was. He told me it was an English university but not to pay too much attention as I’d never be able to attend there. Well I showed him, I graduated in 1980 with a degree in chemistry. Without the Quiet Revolution and liberal programs to financially open access to higher education, I would have spent my life among the working poor.

By the early 60’s, Francophones had enough of serfdom to British and American anglophones, and the Quiet Revolution was born. One part of it was throwing off the yoke of a Church that put an inhuman reproductive burden on the laity. They correctly identified the Church’s rigid doctrine as holding them back socially and economically.

One of my best friend’s wife remembers her father thundering out of the confessional swearing at the priest. They were poor, his wife was ill, and he confessed to using natural family planning to prevent further pregnancies. He was refused absolution! For something perfectly licit!

Another case, a woman being refused absolution because she wasn’t either nursing or pregnant. She blasted to the priest that she was a widow!!!

Sorry but your theory holds little water. With all due respect, you are a convert looking at it from the outside. Those of us who are cradle Catholics and either lived with the pre-Vatican II Church here, or had parents who did, may have a slightly different take on it.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I heard something about this, it may be plausible and this is from the Catholic News Agency, CNA. Well respected.
 
One of my best friend’s wife remembers her father thundering out of the confessional swearing at the priest. They were poor, his wife was ill, and he confessed to using natural family planning to prevent further pregnancies. He was refused absolution ! For something perfectly licit!

Another case, a woman being refused absolution because she wasn’t either nursing or pregnant. She blasted to the priest that she was a widow!!!

Sorry but your theory holds little water. With all due respect, you are a convert looking at it from the outside. Those of us who are cradle Catholics and either lived with the pre-Vatican II Church here, or had parents who did, may have a slightly different take on it.
I’m sorry but, in all charity, again this does not relate to the whole Church. This happened in your area, in your province, but it is not something that happened in the whole Church.

My other thought on these stories about not receiving absolution is, that I was always told there are two sides to every story. What was the priest’s reason for not granting absolution, we do not know. What is said in a confessional is personal and private.

We are not better Catholics than those of the pre-Vatican II Church. Let us not look down on the very roots of our faith.
 
Last edited:
My point is, the last people we should be fighting against is the priests standing up for the true Faith,
Next to last. I would say the last person we should fight against would be the Holy Father. And if criticism of him is not fighting against him, then neither is criticism against any particular priest - that Golden Rule thing.
 
Right. The old Anglo nationalist culture was the oppressor. Not the Church.
They only took advantage of the situation.
I’m sorry but, in all charity, again this does not relate to the whole Church. This happened in your area, in your province, but it is not something that happened in the whole Church.
Again I‘m not talking about the whole Church. I used my Church as an example to counter the argument that liberals do more harm than conservatives. No human, liberal or conservative, is immune from harmful behaviour.

One of the absolution stories was related from a book written by a priest following a conversation with a colleague. And the story from my friend is from someone who is still a devout practicing Catholic… who embraces the changes of Vatican II. She’s not someone I would doubt the veracity of.
 
We are not better Catholics than those of the pre-Vatican II Church. Let us not look down on the very roots of our faith.
In general you’re right, but I’m talking of a local Church that was, IMHO, heretic. And I’m not alone in that opinion.
 
Next to last. I would say the last person we should fight against would be the Holy Father. And if criticism of him is not fighting against him, then neither is criticism against any particular priest - that Golden Rule thing.
Wait, but now you are avoiding the fact that he’s saying things against the true teaching of the church. Homosexual unions whether civil or otherwise, publicly supports what is against God. Any priest speaking against this should be encouraged because being a Christian isn’t about acceptance, its about doing God’s will and helping your brothers and sisters get to heaven.

Hypothetical Situation*

It would be like the Pope saying that its ok to masturbate because he/she doesn’t have a partner and needs to feel accepted. No, that would be wrong and against church teaching.
 
I’m talking of a local Church that was, IMHO, heretic. And I’m not alone in that opinion.
thank you, and yes, I understand that. It is sad what happened to your province at that time. I pray that there has been healing in that area and that Catholics there can realize that we have a beautiful faith with a beautiful history. Yes there have been sins and problems and ups and downs but God gave us an awesome Church, from the beginning and into the future.
 
Last edited:
They only took advantage of the situation.
I can’t agree and I hope you will hear me out.

The situation in Quebec circa mid 20th century, and historically, is very similar to what Hispanic Catholics experienced in the American Southwest. That’s what I am, so I can speak to it.

Like Francophones in Quebec (and Louisiana), we were denied access to social advancement by a White Anglo Saxon Protestant hegemony. As in Quebec, we were second class citizens even though our ancestors were here first. And as in Quebec, the WASPs’ stated reasons for disfavoring us was that we spoke a different language, were parochially educated, and owed allegiance to some man in Rome and therefore lacked critical thinking skills.

That was the party line… but it wasn’t true. It was all just an excuse for raw anti-Catholic bigotry. But in the colleges, you are forced to regurgitate the party line in order to graduate. “We are here to open your mind. Religion is a crutch for people who cannot think on their own. Want proof? Look how rich and successful our graduates are. You can be so much better off than your parents…” if only you will abandon the Faith.

It wasn’t the quality of the Anglo colleges that made that generation of Quebecois or Hispanics successful. It was the WASP imprimatur they gave us.
 
As one of the persons described, I must say that the Holy Father’s refusal to clearly and consistently proclaim the Church’s teachings on marriage and the family has made my job as a parent much, much harder. I can no longer trust the institutional Church with the upbringing of my children. Now I have to personally vet the Catholic schools and their staff to make sure that they haven’t bought into the media’s narrative of distortion and misinterpretation… a narrative that wouldn’t exist if our Shepherd wasn’t so nice to the wolves.
I agree 100% here. I have staked out middle ground as it relates to Pope Francis…meaning I see people on one side who thinks the pope approving gay marriage is in the future and people on the other side who think he is a heretic.

I think he is “overly pastoral.” I support his reaching out to those on the margins, but his language is extremely imprecise and needs too much correction and explanation after the fact. I have to do more “explaining” with my protestant friends with Pope Francis more than I ever did with B16 or JP2.
 
The Dog Country and the Cat Country had a long series of wars, and a recent long season of insurrection, but they are now at peace and the Cats wish it to stay that way. In order to promote cultural understanding with the Dog Country, the Cat Country entrusts a very valuable diamond to the Dog Country for display at a museum. The Dog Country is so thrilled at the prospect of peace they build a museum for housing the diamond and give it to the Cats.

The Cats have long taught that the Mice are evil because they carry disease and those diseases can kill people. The Mice see an opportunity to get rid of the Cats by turning the Dogs against the Cats. The Mice pour billions of dollars into the Dog Country to start a public-relations war on the Cats. They find some old Dogs who remember the old wars and are sympathetic to the Mice because of their common emnity towards the Cats; they find many young Dogs who don’t care about the Cats, but who do care about the “Canine Tiger” economy of their country. The Mice dig up some “dirty laundry” some bad stuff that some Cats did a long time ago, and use that to paint the Cats as backwards, medieval, and opposed to the economic progress of the Dog Country. In this environment, many of the pro-Peace Dogs notice that their own friends and children are starting to question the Cats.

The Peace Dogs go to warn the Cathedral Cats who are in charge of the Cat Church. The Cathedral Cats had trained an honor guard to mind the diamond, but the discipline and training of the guard have gone by the wayside. Instead of focusing on education, training, and discipline, the Cathedral Cats had gotten distracted by an over-emphasis on social justice. The Peace Dogs warn the Cathedral Cats that the Mice are a grave threat but the Cathedral Cats point out that the Mice–far from being a threat–are major benefactors to the social-justice goals of the Cat Church. When the Peace Dogs hear it, they are stunned; even more so when the Cathedral Cats tell the Peace Dogs that THEY are the problem because they are too judgmental of the Mice. The Peace Dogs are demoralized and many of them give up.
 
Last edited:
Continued from here
Then, to seal the deal, the Mice fund a group of Dogs to steal the diamond when it is being transported from the museum for repairs. The Cat honor guard slacks off as usual. Instead of an armored car, they use a regular car to transport the diamond; only one Cat actually protects it in the back of a car; and the rest of the guard go play with their yarnballs. The car is then overwhelmed by a mob of angry pro-War Dogs who were financed and organized by the Mice. Some Peace Dogs who want peace come out to help the Cats defend the diamond, but they are too late and the diamond is stolen by the War Dogs.

The Mice are guilty of stealing the diamond. It does not matter:
  • That some Cats did bad things, whether a long time ago or recently.
  • That some Dogs had historical resentment against the Cats.
  • That the Cathedral Cats were bad leaders.
  • That the Cats were lazy about the security of their own diamond.
  • That the Cats ignored the warnings from the Peace Dogs.
  • That the actual thieves were Dogs.
What makes the mice guilty is not “intellectual laziness,” but the fact that they masterminded the theft of the diamond (the repeal of the 8th Amendment) and funded the actual operation of stealing/repealing it.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Motherwit:
I’m not interested in interpreting scripture outside of the Church’s interpretation which is that the serious sin of the Pharisees is hypocrisy.
I would definitely not encourage anyone to interpret Scripture outside of the Church, absolutely, which is why I replied as I did. I think the time for calling Catholics who work hard to follow Church teaching, Pharisees, has got to come to an end.

Following the Church of Christ does not make one a hypocrite or a Pharisee. In order to judge someone as a hypocrite you would need to read their hearts. Jesus could call the Pharisees hypocrites because he could read their hearts. He was God, we are not.
I know Jesus didn’t mean that only those who He told us were hypocritical can be known and thereafter never known by anyone again. We’ve had many homilies over the years about the sin of the Pharisees and what it means. It’s quite clear that some people feel entitled to call out particular sins of others over and over but reject that others can call out their sins. That is the definition of hypocrisy
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top