Vatican naivety

[fpb]

To anyone who still believes the legends about the all-wise, far-sighted Vatican diplomacy, Cardinal Schoenborn's intervention in the Lefebvrite mess (http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=21984) should be a wholesome learning lesson. Apparently the Vatican took so little trouble vetting the SSPX before the excommunication sentence was withdrawn that they were not even aware of the character of its bishops. (Nor, indeed, of its clergy - http://www.corriere.it/cronache/09_gennaio_29/lefebvriano_treviso_intervista_25c1329a-edf2-11dd-b7db-00144f02aabc.shtml .) Mind you, Cardinal Schoenborn is not one to talk; a few years ago, he gave scandal to the whole Church by allowing into Vienna's legendary and beautiful St Stephen's Cathedral a "modern art" exhibit so hideous, and so hideously blasphemous, that yours truly positively refuses to describe it. And why was that? Because he had not vetted the "artist", trusting to the "prestige" he had gained among the ideological accomplices that make up the bulk of the "contemporary art" establishment. It seems to me that rather too many modern Catholics receive only half of their Lord's commandment, being indeed as innocent as doves, but scarcely as prudent as snakes. And the story seems to be repeating itself, with Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos proclaiming to the four winds that the Lefbvrites "have accepted Vatican II" without a single Lefebvrite voice to confirm it, and against the sect's whole previous output.

Indeed, nothing but terminal naivety could possibly explain the taking of such a step, unasked, at such a time. Vatican! It is 2009! Do you know where your children are? The anti-Church forces that already dominate the European Union have now won power in America by a decisive margin, and are in charge in Canada (always), Australia, Brazil, Argentina, and a number of lesser countries. Christians are persecuted and murdered, not only in the Communist and Muslim world, but in India as well. And at this time of all times the Pope goes and makes a decision that is not only certain to play straight into the hands of all the enemies of the Church at the very moment of their triumph, but which directly reinforces all the attacks against him personally - Papa Ratzi - the Panzerkardinal - the Hitlerjugend member - etc.

If you think for a minute that this will have no effect, pay attention. I just read a rumour that the Obama administration is going to nominate Douglas Kmiec as Ambassador. This is as good as looking for a public showdown with the Vatican, on the matter of abortion. The Vatican and the American hierarchy condemned Kmiec by name during the elections because of his disgusting doubletalk on the matter of abortion; the Vatican will then have the lovely choice of openly refusing President Obama's envoy at a time when his followers would be delighted to have an excuse to assault the Church across the world, or accept an envoy who is a public enemy of the Church. And that is only a small portion of what we can look forward to.

And all this for what? The SSPX are what they are, and everyone who had to deal with them knows them for what they are. This should include the Pope, who has years of experience trying to make them see sense (http://fpb.livejournal.com/127125.html). There will be no reconciliation. Make your minds up to it. It is not a matter of what Richardson is, but of what the whole SSPX is; and sooner or later, and in spite of all their well-meaning naivety and their concessions, the Vatican will come up against it.

Comments

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I am sure the Church will get grief for this association with the SSPX, but it isn't clear to me that things are really so much worse in that regard than they would be if the excommunications had not been lifted. The Kmiec ambassadorship, in particular, has been in the works prior to the lifting of the excommunications, or at least I had been hearing the same rumors prior to it.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

No doubt Obama had no particular brief for the Church, and no doubt he overrates his own ability to do something to change it. He may well imagine that imposing a pro-abortion so-called Catholic as the emissary of "the most powerful man on Earth" could give the Vatican something to think about. And Kmiec served as a very useful figleaf and needed to be rewarded. My point is: is the time of Obama's victory the right time to make things harder for ourselves?

[sanscouronne.livejournal.com]

Erg.

It may be President Obama's place to change America, but it is not his place to change the Catholic Church. I would find it hypocritical to engage in respectful diplomatic dialogue with Iran, yet affront/confront the Church with such offensive views.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Of course. But, given the man, the party, and the background, would you find it odd?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

PS: how does someone with your views fit into the world of fashion? Or are there more pro-life models and customers than I imagined?

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

In any case, the best thing to do now is to pray for the sincere repentance and conversion of the SSPX. The alternatives are all much worse, both from the standpoint of PR, and more importantly from the standpoint of souls.

[mentalguy.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, John Allen just wrote a piece about the decision as well, focusing on the PR aspect of it.

[solitary-summer.livejournal.com]

Hm, I had to google because I didn't recall any scandal, but if this is about the Alfred Hrdlicka exhibition in the Dommuseum (not the Cathedreal itself), then Schönborn is responsible for not having paid closer attention to the particular exhibits before the exhibition opened, but he most certainly was familiar with Hrdlicka, his work as well as his political and religious opinions. He could hardly not have been when Hrdlicka is the best known contemporary Austrian sculptor, and his 'Monument against War and Fascism' is only a couple of hundred meters from St. Stephen's Cathedreal, on a prominent location between the Albertina museum, the Opera and the Hotel Sacher.

I found an article (http://diepresse.com/home/kultur/news/375223/index.do) from Die Presse (conservtive paper) where Schönborn is quotes as distancing himself from that particular work of art, while still valuing Hrdlika's work in general: "Hrdlicka ist einer der bedeutendsten lebenden Künstler Österreichs. Wie kaum ein anderer Künstler hat er sich mit dem leidenden und geschundenen Menschen befasst und zur 'Compassion' mit der 'Passion' eingeladen. Dieses Mitleiden drückt er in seinem Werk in erschütternder Weise aus", heißt es. „Deshalb habe ich auch einer Ausstellung im Dommuseum zugestimmt, ohne im einzelnen die auszustellenden Werke zu kennen."

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Since you force me to say it, I have to answer that a depiction of the Last Supper as a homosexual orgy strikes me as neither profound artistry nor suitable to an annex to a Cathedral. And whatever the "prestige" the man may have gained in the modern-art racket, of which I have the lowest possible opinion, his known opinions should have alarmed anyone who seriously considered the opportunity of presenting one of his works in the museum of a Cathedral - and, at that, one of the noblest and most famous sacred buildings in Christendom. Nothing you said does anything to contradict my thesis, that the leaders of the contemporary Church show a really frightening amount of naivety when dealing with insanable hatred both from the left (Hrdlicka) and from the right (the SSPX).

[solitary-summer.livejournal.com]

I'm not forcing you to say anything, and I'm not saying I'm a big fan, I merely wanted to clarify that Schönborn made his choice based on personal familiarity with the artist and his work - which, unless the quote I gave is a diplomatic lie, he seems to like at least in part. He obviously didn't 'vet' the objects that went into the exhibition, but he didn't blunder into this as blindly and ignorantly, or as misled as you suggested.

Schönborn's statement (http://stephanscom.at/artikel/a14573) regarding the exhibition on stephanscom.at (in Italian).

[fpb.livejournal.com]

A diplomatic lie is decidedly my assessment of it. And if this was not a blunder, then what is? I am not trying to start an argument with you, but prudence is one of the absolute duties of a prince of the Church, and it has not been much in evidence of late.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Oh, BTW - I trust so-called conservatives with Christianity about as much as I trust Obama. Less, if anything.