Demanding An Apology – A Growing Fashion

Demanding An Apology – A Growing Fashion

From Demanding an Apology | Psychology Today…

There are some people who command an apology! “I’m waiting for an apology,” a young woman texts her friend. A mother says to her son who forgot to pick her up from the train station: “If you don’t apologize, I’m not going to your graduation.”

What good is an apology if it does not reflect an actual feeling of regret? It is simply an exercise of power.  Read entire article here

Editor writes…

Demanding apologies is very much in vogue these days.  Pope John Paul II has an entire Wikipedia page devoted to listing his apologies for all sorts of things.  Crackers. Needless to say Francis is on the bandwagon, apologising to anyone and everyone except, of course, Catholics like the majority of the bloggers here whom, on the contrary, he has punished for the crime of adhering to the traditional Catholic Faith and Liturgy.

There are umpteen other instances where people in positions of authority in the Church and in politics, are anxious to show themselves to be contrite for historical “sins” which they did not commit.  Goodness, it’s difficult enough taking responsibility for our personal sins without taking on the sins, real or imagined, of those who lived centuries ago.

Then, too, we have the ridiculous spectacle of Prince Harry demanding an apology from the Royal Family, when it is they who have a right to an apology from the Duke & Duchess of Delusion, having had their private conversations and personal family issues published in his autobiography and discussed in televised talk-shows around the world. Talk about speck and plank.

Surely, if an adult is commanded to apologise (when they do not consider an apology necessary for whatever reasons), then it is pointless to force him/her to comply?  Arguably, to apologise in such circumstances might involve lying (“I’m sorry, I know I’ve caused harm or scandal by doing this thing that has annoyed you” when the person thinks no such thing) and/or false humility – pretending to be sorry for the sake of appearances – risking spiritual pride.

I’m opposed to this whole fashion of offering apologies for claimed historical abuses whether allegedly caused by Church or State, and I’m not crazy either at the thought of being forced to apologise and made to promise never to do that awful thing again, as if the “guilty” adult were a ten year old 😀

Your thoughts…

Comments (33)

  • Athanasius Reply

    Those who demand apologies are people who have no conception of their own sins and are utterly absent of humility. “Learn of me”, said Our Lord, “for I am meek and humble of heart”. How few there are today who follow that wise counsel, choosing rather to imitate the Pharisees.

    The only apologies worth savouring are spontaneous apologies from people who know they’ve done wrong and have the humility to admit it and ask pardon. All other forms of apology are empty and meaningless, especially forced apologies. Beware the person who demands an apology!

    January 15, 2023 at 12:05 am
    • Michael 🙏 Reply

      Athanasius

      Amen amen

      Every blessing

      Michael 🙏

      January 15, 2023 at 12:42 pm
  • RCAVictor Reply

    Those who are intimidated into issuing an apology – esp. a public apology – for their alleged sins, such as whiteness, capitalism, colonialism, nationalism, sexism, cisgenderism (pick your woke sin du jour, or one from Column A and one from Column B) might want to notice that, for the woke mob, the apology is never enough. Once they know you are spineless enough to grovel before their virtue-signaling, they will be back, and soon, to demand an apology for another made-up sin.

    Reminds me of this passage from St. Matthew:

    And when an unclean spirit is gone out of a man he walketh through dry places seeking rest, and findeth none. Then he saith: I will return into my house from whence I came out. And coming he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished. Then he goeth, and taketh with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is made worse than the first.

    January 15, 2023 at 1:58 am
  • Antoine Bisset. Reply

    Well, here is my view on slavery. Those West Africans who were sold into slavery in the Americas were lucky to get it. They were sold by their own relatives (to remove them from the lineage) and by their captors in battles. The alternative was death, or being sold by the principal slave traders, the Arabs, into Middle Eastern countries where the males would be castrated.
    Open air work in plantations, food and housing supplied, prospects of survival, even marriage and promotion. (Could not have been that bad as why are there so many descendants?). One problem was that the plantation owners were colonists who had a “Protestant” work ethic. African men did no work, the women did the work. So the planters encouraged the men to work. The overriding narrative that slave owners were vicious monsters flogging their slaves. Probably any beatings were out of sheer frustration.
    Slaves were valuable. The retail price of a slave delivered to the Americas is comparable to the price of a BMW today. No one buys a a BMW to kick the doors and break the headlights.
    Do I apologise? No, I do not. The UK stopped the transatlantic slave traffic, boarding slave ships and freeing slaves. The Preventive Squadron blockaded the Atlantic, taking on all suspected slave ships for around 60 years. It cost the lives of 17,000 British sailors and huge sums of money. The British government borrowed those huge sums of money and the debt was not finally paid off by the UK taxpayer until the 1950s. We put an end to slavery. We did it. Us. All alone.

    January 15, 2023 at 9:34 am
    • Athanasius Reply

      Antoine Bisset

      I was particularly struck with the last sentence of your comment. This huge debt you speak of is like the huge national debt we keep hearing about today. The questions no one seems to ask are: To whom do we owe all these huge trillions? Who exactly is enslaving the nations through borrowing on high interest? Why are these international money lenders not named in public? It’s these people who really run our nations and the world and it’s high time they were exposed and brought to trial!

      January 15, 2023 at 11:44 am
    • Faith of Our Fathers Reply

      Antonine I know not what the Lives of Black Slaves were really like, nor am I really all that concerned. What I certainly do know is the Life of White Slaves within past Generations of my own family, and I have had arguments about this in the past.
      I.E. I and probably all on here can probably remember members of their Families with Silicosis. Most of them worked in Coal Mines which were actually a Lot worse than Deep Coal Pits . I have already said it on Here before but with all of these garbage Apologies I have still to hear the Aristocrats in the U.K. apologize to us. Especially Catholics of Irish Descent for the Man made Famine. Whilst Millions were starving through lack of food in Ireland, lots of food was being taken under the guise of Exports to the Money Men in the U.K.
      Which of course leads me to the White Slaves.
      Lots of Our ancestors who came from Ireland landed up in these Dark Hole Coal Mines and am sure if given the choice they would rather have picked cotton in the Sun rather than dig up Coal usually up to the waist in water.
      I never heard any of my Grandparent’s sing .
      O De Camp Town Races
      on their way to work 12 Hour Shifts in Stinking Coal Mines.

      January 15, 2023 at 8:56 pm
      • Antoine Bisset

        You are quite right. The only slavery that is highlighted involves blacks on plantations in the Americas, it seems. Working in cotton mills in the UK from the age of 12 or fourteen and working long days and long weeks for a pittance is indistinguishable from slavery. After the ’45 many Scots were transported to the Americas for indentured servitude, slavery by another name. The book “Kidnapped” by Robert Louis Stevenson has white slavery as its basic premise. In earlier times the coasts of Europe were raided by pirates who took people from seaside villages to be slaves. St Patrick was captured by pirates and enslaved for a few years.

        January 16, 2023 at 9:06 am
  • westminsterfly Reply

    Today’s demands for ‘apologies’ are very often acts of aggression, and people very often do it to wrong-foot the other person, who they might be prejudiced against or dislike for some reason, in order to cower them into submission. Look at the disgraceful fiasco of Lady Susan Hussey and ‘Ngozi Fulani’ (real name Marlene Headley). Fulani turned up to an event in full African dress, and engineered a situation where she claimed she was the victim of abuse (I don’t think being asked ‘where do you come from’ is abusive) and nearly ruined the life of a completely innocent and elderly lady, who was shamefully thrown under the bus by the Royal Family, and who has since been made to publicly apologise to Fulani. So the narrative is that Fulani is the victim and Lady Hussey the aggressor, when in truth it is the other way round. It’s happening all the time.

    January 15, 2023 at 11:11 am
  • Antoine Bisset Reply

    I ticked “like” and a popup in Cyrillic appeared…

    January 15, 2023 at 11:38 am
  • Jorge Reply

    Editor,
    I would be interested to read more about why you are actively and directly opposed to apologies even being ‘offered’ by the Church to victims of historic abuse, never mind demanded?

    I do not know if you are a parent or have children of your own, maybe you do not, but how would you feel if your own child was abused by a priest and his Bishop subsequently covered up this abuse, protected the abuser and then knowingly moved the abuser to another parish, as to allow them to continue to abuse more children?

    Imagine your child growing into a deeply damaged adult, unable to function properly, denied a happy life because of the abuse they suffered at the hands of the Church?

    Do you honestly believe this person has no right to an apology, at the very least?

    This scenario is typical of thousands of documented clerical abuse cases, if not hundreds of thousands of abuse cases. The idea that nobody need ever apologise seems especially cruel and unchristian.

    January 15, 2023 at 11:46 am
    • Athanasius Reply

      Jorge

      Without wishing to diminish in any way the trauma caused to children abused by priests, you seem to have an entirely secular world view in this matter.

      You say, for example, that abused children suffered at the hands of the Church when in fact the Church is the spotless bride of Christ, incapable of sin. What you really mean is that children have suffered at the hands of Churchmen and, as we all know, men are sinners, some more grevious than others. The Church is divine, her members are fallen human beings.

      Think of the worst sin ever committed by man against God – the sin of Judas Iscariot. The betrayal of Judas was certainly way more serious than even sexual sins, yet even this sin was not the cause of Judas’ damnation. His damnation came about because he despaired of God’s mercy. He apologised for his crime, after a fashion, by throwing the thirty pieces of silver back at the Pharisees and repenting of having betrayed innocent blood, but he could not bring himself to believe that he could be forgiven by God and so went away and hanged himself in despair. The grace of God is there to heal both sinners and the sinned against, there is no other method of healing.

      No amount of apologies or financial payouts will help victims of sexual abuse, especially if they are belated and from people who had no part in the crimes, so why do people go after this hollow solution when only Our Lord can heal them. Was He not betrayed and abandoned by his closest friends and left to die a terrible death for all of us? Did He demand apologies or financial compensation from them after His resurrection? No, He did not.

      We all have to bear with injustices in our lives, some more than others, but it’s in staying close to Our Lord, who knows everything and who will judge all in the end, that we find peace and the ability to carry on in a corrupt world. The way this world thinks and speaks right now reminds me of Our Lord’s own admonition to St. Peter, when the latter tried to talk Him out of His Passion and death: “Get ye behind me Satan”, said He, “you think as men think, not as God thinks”.

      Our Lady told St. Bernadette that she could not promise her happiness in this life, only in the next. That pretty much sums up life for most of us. Some people suffer terrible things at the hands of terrible sinners, but it’s in the learning to accept this suffering in union with Our Lord’s suffering that they smooth their path to heaven. If they demand and recieve apologies and compensation for what they have suffered, then, to quote Our Lord again, “they have had their reward in this life”. It’s a very poor alternative to eternal life but it’s sadly the way of the world today.

      Those in positions of trust who sexually abuse children will certainly not escape the strict justice of God at their judgement. There is the Sacrament of Confession of course in which even these heinous crimes can be forgiven if the penitent is sincere, which only God knows. Ultimately though, every sin will have to be answered for in eternity, including the multitudes of sins we all commit in our lives and the effect those sins have had on others.

      I will end here by saying that while I absolutely believe that some priests have sexually abused children (God have mercy on them), the numbers are hugely inflated and untrustworthy thanks to the bribery of compensation offered by the so-called justice systems of the various (now apostate) nations of the West. I know personally of false claims made against priests for the sake of getting a compensation payout.

      My heart goes out to any child who has been a true victim of sexual abuse, robbing them of their childhood innocence, but we need to be very careful about these claims. Look what they did to Cardinal Pell on false claims and look at the money-spinning lies told about the Magdalene Laundries. There have been no apologies offered to the offended parties in these cases!

      January 15, 2023 at 6:34 pm
    • editor Reply

      Jorge

      I apologise (!) for being late to reply to your comment.

      There’s really not much left to say after Athanasius’ comprehensive response. I would add only that – in part – I am opposed to these public “apologies” by churchmen for offences, real or imagined, caused by priests in days gone by, because many of the alleged perpetrators are no longer alive to defend themselves in the case of possible false allegations. I once heard from a priest who annoyed parishioners because he was insisting on silence during Mass, at least at the Consecration (!) and a couple of fishwives began a whispering campaign against him implying abuse of a child. Happily, he had an excellent Parish Priest who made no bones about what would happen to individuals concerned if they did not stop their mischief-making. And, so it came to pass that all was well that ended well in that case. How many other false allegations have been made though? Not so long ago I read a report about a Scots priest awaiting trial at the time, but when I read the details of the charges, I was stunned. Touching a girl(s) hair, and other low-level “abuse” if that is what it actually was. In the report I read there was nothing sexual, so I must add that, obviously, I don’t know the whole story but I remember thinking, WOW! God help that poor priest – although these days, he should have had more sense than to make any demonstration of affection however innocent it may be, in reality. This is life in progressive Scotland.

      Above all, though, as Athanasius has already pointed out, “the Church” cannot sin, past, present or in the future, because the Church is of divine constitution – “The Church and Christ are one” (Saint John Henry Cardinal Newman). Newman again: “…the Holy Church has been set up from the beginning as a solemn religious fact… as a picture, a revelation of the next world, as itself the Christian dispensation” (PSII, 66) In other words, the Catholic Church IS Christianity. Christ/Christianity cannot sin. So, no pope has the right to give the opposite impression through his careless use of language and/or his ignorance of the true nature and mission of the Church – which is NOT to save the planet, but to save souls.

      I’m not even touching on the superficiality, the sentimental nature of much of this modern culture of apology, but – think about it – if it were as important as it’s cracked up to be by those demanding (and offering) an apology for the sins of others, why didn’t God simply apologise to the generations to come for the sin of pride and disobedience of our first parents? Why send His Son to earth to suffer and die the painful death of the Cross? Crazy stuff.

      No, an apology means nothing unless it comes willingly and sincerely from the person who did the wrong in the first place. Not from anyone else. Certainly not from someone centuries down the line, in some ridiculous show of pseudo-repentance for past sins/crimes over which he had absolutely no control – while turning a blind eye to the sins and crimes about which he DOES know and over which he can exercise authority. Unsuitable candidates are still being accepted into seminaries which, in turn, churn out bad priests – some of whom go on to abuse children. There’s nothing divinely constituted about seminaries, and their rectors do not have even the limited gift of infallibility available to popes, so let’s start there. Strict entry qualifications, fully enforced. Then there won’t be any need for a future pope to run about hugging trees and apologising for the child-abuse of the 21st century.

      But don’t get the idea that I see no need for action against those who make it through the seminary and go on to become priest-abusers. Lock up the key and throw them away Lock them up and thrown away the key! And as part of the legal process and/or Church process, they should have to face those they’ve abused and/or the child’s parents and asked if they would like to apologise (profusely) before they head for prison. Not told to apologise. Meaningless. Asked if they want to do so. That, itself, would be revealing. No reduction in sentence as a result. Nothing to gain.

      That would be a meaningful apology. Nothing to gain – he’s off to prison anyway. So, I reject your closing argument – I have never said that nobody need ever apologise. I’m due a few myself, but I’m settled down for a long wait. A meaningful apology from the guilty party is always to be welcomed.

      However, there’s nothing “unChristian” about disapproving of fake apologies, given for the cameras and tabloid front pages.

      January 15, 2023 at 8:24 pm
  • Faith of Our Fathers Reply

    Thanks first of all to all on here I know who have said a prayer for the Healing of My Daughters Eye.
    Secondly just to lighten up the Topic and I was assured that this was a True Story.

    Years ago a Man was charged of Embezzling Money from a Rich Firm . His court case was a case to be tried by a Jury.
    The Man was found Not Guilty.
    After the Jury gave their Verdict the Judge said to Him . ” The Jury has found you not guilty you are Exonerated.”
    The Man said back to the Judge.
    ” Does that mean I can keep The Money ” .
    Probably he then apologized for stealing it in the first place.
    I think that definitely goes down as a useless Apology.
    Of course that was the Days of Double Indemnity.

    January 15, 2023 at 12:19 pm
    • Antoine Bisset Reply

      Very appropriate story. Good fun.
      But now I channel my inner pedant…
      “Double Indemnity” was a film noir with Fred McMurray. He did not get off with it. Edward G Robinson saw to that (playing a good guy for once).
      Double jeopardy was the legal principle that you could not be tried twice for the same crime. A principle now kicked into the long grass by the Scottish government.

      January 15, 2023 at 12:30 pm
      • Athanasius

        Antoine Bisset

        I’m not quite sure what to make of the Scottish Government’s change to the law in the case of double jeopardy. If it had not been for this change, the murderer in the infamous World’s End case could not have been tried again and found guilty on new forensic evidence. That was a good outcome, but I worry that it could also be used to convict innocent people who have already been tried and found not guilty.

        I remember that film, by the way, starring Barbara Stanwick, Fred McMurray and Edward G (one of my favourite actors). It was a good movie, though a bit dark.

        January 15, 2023 at 6:43 pm
      • editor

        Athanasius,

        Excellent point. It would be like the Brexit vote and the Scottish independence vote: Sturgeon’s idea of democracy – and, no doubt, justice – is to keep going until the population (or judge and jury) reach the “correct” decision.

        January 15, 2023 at 9:00 pm
  • New Reply

    Editor,

    I would like to apologize (!!) for disappearing after asking a few questions once. You gave some very thoughtful answers and I am thankful. I was uncomfortable about the importance of tradition in Catholicism then, my doubts have since been dispelled. And, you helped. Thank you! (Perhaps you have forgotten this, but I did put thought into your responses.)

    https://catholictruthscotland.com/2020/09/02/3-september-feast-of-st-pius-x-greatest-pope-of-20-century-miracle-saint/

    Athanasius,

    You say that Judas is damned. A priest told me (yes, the same priest I asked about then) that we can’t be sure that anyone is in hell. We can’t be sure that even Judas in in hell. Jesus only says of him that “it would be better for him had he never been born”. We can assume his fate, but we can’t know for sure.

    In the same vein. I just heard on a talk show that canonized saints are declared by the church to definitely be in heaven.

    Are these two things true? Is it true that (1) there are people that the church declares to definitely be in heaven and that (2) the church does not claim for anyone that they are definitely in hell?

    January 16, 2023 at 4:45 am
    • editor Reply

      New,

      Thank you for your kind apology – not really necessary since there’s no obligation to return to the blog although it is, of course, a welcome courtesy when that happens. Thank you anyway, much appreciated. I’m delighted to have been of some help in clarifying some issues for you.

      Athanasius will answer the points you put to him but I will throw in my tuppence worth as well.

      On the question of Judas, we are guided by the words of Our Lord which you quote (“better for that man if he had never been born”) and the interpretation put on those words and on Judas’s actions, by the Fathers of the Church; great saints like St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus and others have declared him to be in Hell. For what possible reason would Christ have to say that it would have been better for Judas if he’d never been born, unless that man were never to attain Heaven? We deplore those who seek to eliminate the disabled because they won’t (the story goes) be able to enjoy a full and “normal” life, career, wealth etc. in this life. As Catholics we know that all of that is secondary, that the disabled have every right to be born and be valued precisely because they have souls, destined to live forever in the Presence of God in Heaven. Nobody is in Hell who does not deserve to be there, so to deny that there are souls in Hell is to deny that God is fully Just. Modernists can’t comprehend that truth because they have reduced the “merciful Jesus” to a caricature of true mercy, which is always tempered by justice. We see that even in our human court system. A judge may take account of a defendant’s personal situation/mental health etc. and hand down a reduced sentence but there will always be “strings attached” – a condition(s) of some kind to ensure that his mercy is not offered at the expense of justice.

      As for the canonisation process. It is true that for centuries the Church has been able to declare that a particular soul is definitely in Heaven but only after a rigorous process of investigation into that person’s life. And that began with the appointment of a Devil’s Advocate – a priest assigned to go looking for evidence against the canonisation, i.e. the declaration that that person is definitely in Heaven, and so we could be confident that this was not a mere Church Awards Ceremony for those with a cult following. Then, too, miracles were required (I think it used to be three, but am open to correction on that), attributable to that person’s intercession before God. Only God can effect miracles but the saints may intercede for us, i.e. ask God to grant our prayer for a miracle for this or that purpose. Those miracles had to stand the test of time and be clearly of supernatural origin. Now, the number of required miracles has been reduced – to only one, I believe – and, in recent times, these have been “questionable”. So, once prayers had been addressed to the candidate for canonisation and those prayers answered with the requested miracle(s) the process could move forward. It was, as I say, a rigorous process. Then Pope John Paul II dispensed with the office of Devil’s Advocate and the entire process was thrown into disarray, with particular candidates being “fast-tracked” and causing questions to be asked (but not answered) about the reliability of the process. I do not pray to any of the “fast-tracked” candidates – they remain in my general prayers for the souls who may be suffering in Purgatory.

      The changes to the canonisation process are but one more aspect of the crisis in the Church and there can be little doubt that those “fast-tracked” canonisations – including recent popes – will have to be re-examined in the light of the previous rigorous regime. It is my considered opinion that, when that happens, only those which meet the criteria set out prior to the post-Vatican II changes to the process will stand as being saints definitely in Heaven.

      January 16, 2023 at 11:49 am
    • Athanasius Reply

      New

      I think Editor has more or less answered your queries as I would have answered them. It is generally accepted by the Fathers of the Church that Judas is indeed in Hell – but for the sin of despair rather than his betrayal of Our Lord. If he had only got down on his knees before Our Lord and begged forgiveness, he would most certainly have received it. Tragically, he chose not to trust in Our Lord’s mercy and instead ended his own life, which God alone has the authority to do. Another pointer for us is that the Apostles were instructed by heaven to replace Judas with another Apostle, indicating that his fate had been sealed. Not one of the Evangelists mention Judas in a favourable light. They speak of Peter’s thrice denial and repentance, of Thomas’s doubting and repentance, but never of Judas’s repentance. I think it’s fairly well established then that Judas is in Hell.

      As for the canonisation process, it used to be very safe inasmuch as there was the Devil’s Advocate looking into the life of the proposed candidate as well as multiple indisputable miracles required for both beatification and canonisation. The process used to take many decades or centuries before a declaration was made, which prudence added to the safety of the declaration. Since Vatican II, however, the process has been whitled down to a popularity contest couple with just one miracle which is not even allowed to stand the test of time. What I mean by this is that the devil can deceive by producing an apparent healing of someone, which is why the Church always waited a long time after apparent miracle cure to see if it would last. The reason for this is that anything produced by the devil is of short duration since he is not God and cannot therefore effect a lasting cure. The other reason is that some people are neurotic and therefore suffer from ailments, which can appear very real, which do not exist other than in their mind.

      This latter is particularly pertinent to the cure of a nun attributed to John Paul II. Her illness could well have been the result of neurosis, yet it was proclaimed very quickly and without due diligence.

      You’ll have noted how quickly the processes for John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II have proceeded – super fast – yet I know for a fact that the cause of Pius XII, the Pope just before Vatican II, has been ready for a long time but has been kept on hold. I learned this first from the late Bishop Canisius van Lierde (RIP) when I met with him in the Vatican 20 years ago, then again during a telephone conversation with Fr. Peter Gumpel, Pius XII’s postulator some years later.

      So what we have going on right now is a Modernist Church hierarchy eager to canonise the Council by canonising the Popes of that Council, whether they are worthy or not, while a really saintly Pope, Pius XII, has his cause put on the back burner because certain Jewish factions would be upset and that would disrupt the heresy of inter-religious dialogue. You get what I’m saying? Some high prelates in the Church have less interest in truth than in convenience!

      January 16, 2023 at 2:34 pm
  • WurdeSmythe Reply

    Chief among sinners here.

    For every actual thoughtless act and genuine disservice I have ever been guilty of, I am humbly and truly sorry.

    For all the imagined sleights that the leftist woke-mob soyboy crybabies dreamed I’ve committed, I haven’t the foggiest notion what you mean. I suspect I haven’t near the capacity to cause you harm as you have the capacity to be harmed. I submit that you should try not to get in the way or underfoot of the adults in the room, lest your fragile ego shatter at the thought or mention of its own shadow. Boo.

    January 16, 2023 at 2:39 pm
  • New Reply

    Thanks a lot. It made me angry when the priest said that. I’m glad to know that St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Alphonsus declared him to be in hell. Other questions if you don’t mind.

    (1) really? There is not a single person recently canonized that you do not consider saintly. That you don’t venerate? Surely some of them would have made the cut anyway (even if the rules were not dumbed down).

    (2) What is your opinion of saints/martyrs (St. Christopher & Simon of Trent for example) that have been removed recently from the calendar/list of martyrs. What does that mean? Are they still saints/martyrs? Is it right that they have been removed.

    January 16, 2023 at 2:45 pm
    • Athanasius Reply

      New

      Yes, I consider St. Padre Pio’s canonisation to be perfectly safe. I hold reservations, however, with regard to the canonisations of John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II (the popes of Vatican II). There is certainly more than enough evidence to suspect that at least the latter two acted contrary to established Catholic doctrine during their Papal tenures. Paul VI, for example, drove the establishment of the New Mass – lifted straight from the Protestant meal service blueprint of the XVI century apostate Thomas Cranmer – a Mass which has resulted in the devastation of the Church. John Paul II, among other dubious behaviours, orchestrated the Assisi gatherings of all religions, during which a Buddha was placed atop a tabernacle and worship by Buddhists while some pagan Indians sacrificed chickens to their false deity on a Catholic altar. These scandals definitely suggest that JPII had fallen into the condemned heresy of syncretism. If not outrightly guilty of heresy, he was at least negligent in his papal duty and as a result brought great scandal. The posthumous condemnation of Pope Honorius I by the Church gives some kind of indication of how JPII might be judged when the Traditional Catholic Faith is restored to the Church. You can read about him here: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/honorius-i-pope

      As for the removal of Saints and Martyrs from the callendar/list of martyrs, this only indicates a removal of particular feast days, not a nullification of the canonisations of those removed. Sts. Christopher and Simon of Trent are still canonised saints.

      January 16, 2023 at 9:57 pm
  • Josephine Reply

    I’ve had this “apologise or else” thrown at me, too and I think it’s childish. It come from people who can’t deal with conflict, don’t know how to create the right atmosphere for a genuine apology.

    As for this fashion of making an apology on behalf of the Church for sins committed ages ago – it’s even more ridiculous.

    January 16, 2023 at 3:17 pm
    • Fidelis Reply

      Josephine,

      I agree with everything you say, including “creating the right atmosphere for a genuine apology” but I have to add, whatever happened to offering up slights and offences? SHOULD Catholics be asking for apologies, or should we be prepared to unite whatever sufferings come our way to the sufferings of Jesus in His Passion and on the Cross? That’s what I thought we were supposed to do, not demand apologies.

      January 16, 2023 at 5:37 pm
  • Josephine Reply

    I forgot to say that I love the “Sorry, I can’t today” joke in the intro, at the top of the page. LOL!

    January 16, 2023 at 10:11 pm
  • New Reply

    Thank you! Two last questions please.

    (1) At my church there are two priests. One gives the mass and the other hears confessions until communion when he comes out to help give communion. What are your thoughts on hearing confession during mass.

    (2) I am confused about when, how, and why we genuflect. I had thought that we genuflected to the cross with Our Lord on it above the altar. But I’ve since come to understand that it is the altar/tabernacle. Some sources I’ve read say that you should genuflect (to the tabernacle?) when you enter the church. Other sources seem to say when you enter the pew. Some sources say make the sign of the cross at the same time. Others say do not. How do we genuflect when we leave? Must we genuflect whenever we cross the nave? Are there other times during the mass besides coming and going when we genuflect?

    It is a lot of baby questions I know, but I’ve looked at a lot of articles and tutorials and have heard it every which way. If you youtube this, for instance, every priest will give slightly different, to very different and/or unclear, examples. And it is often passed over quickly in videos on proper gestures in general. Please help. I want to get all this right.

    January 17, 2023 at 3:18 am
    • editor Reply

      New,

      I found an article on the confessions question, which is interesting
      https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/hearing-confessions-during-mass-4426

      I have seen this practice and don’t like it at all – it used to happen in one Glasgow parish, years ago, but I’ve not been there in a long time, so not sure if it still occurs. In my considered opinion, Mass and Confession should take place separately. Most churches now have Mass half an hour before Mass begins. Note on terminology:- the priest offers Mass, he does not “give” Mass.

      We genuflect as we enter the pew at the beginning of Mass and when we leave the pew at the end, and if we go out and return to the church for any reason during Mass – except when we approach for Holy Communion. You just leave your pew and go straight to the altar rails to kneel and receive Holy Communion. Also, we genuflect any time we cross in front of the sanctuary (i.e. in front of the altar, tabernacle etc). EXCEPT at Communion time because we are carrying Our Lord within us, so no need to genuflect to the tabernacle. The reason for genuflection in church is to acknowledge that Our Lord is truly present in the Tabernacle, under the appearance of Bread.

      There is no rule about making the sign of the cross as you genuflect. I don’t do that. It’s a personal thing. You might say a silent prayer such as “my Lord and my God” as you genuflect, but again, that’s up to you. The genuflection is, itself, a form of prayer, acknowledging the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Tabernacle.

      January 17, 2023 at 8:57 am
  • New Reply

    Thanks so much you guys for your responses. I’ve taken screen shots of your replies and saved them to pictures.

    I’ve read that article. There were two others I read online as well. Two were neutral. The one you linked to and one other. Another article condemned the practice.

    It is not something I would have thought about. I am a new Catholic and at my church it is common practice. There is a line against the entirety of the far wall across from the tabernacle. The line turns the corner and continues against the side wall spanning 1/4 – 1/2 of it. The only reason it ends there, probably, is because with a longer line those in the back would have no chance of getting their confession heard before communion. This is because the priest leaves just before communion to assist the priest offering the mass. As it is, the last 10 – 30 people in often don’t get to confess, but there are always people that chance it and get in the back of the line if they couldn’t arrive earlier. I’ve always confessed during mass. It is very convenient.

    As I said, I had never thought anything of it. But recently I went to a different church for the first time and was surprised to find that confession was not offered during mass. And, now that I think about it, it seems sloppy. When walking down the (narrow) isle you must shuffle sideways so as not to brush up against the people waiting against the wall for one. Glad to see you share my thoughts. Thanks also for the explanation on genuflecting. Very helpful.

    January 17, 2023 at 10:15 pm
    • editor Reply

      New,

      I have no idea where you live or where you attend Mass, but I would strongly urge you to find a traditional Latin Mass – you are less likely to meet with the kind of shenanigans that are sadly now commonplace in “novus ordo” / New Mass parishes.

      January 17, 2023 at 10:22 pm
  • New Reply

    Not offered here. But I am moving my family within a year or so if all goes as planned. We’ll have to wait it out, but it is something that I am looking forward to with relish. 🙂

    Thanks again for clearing away some of my doubts.

    January 18, 2023 at 1:21 am
  • editor Reply

    Marinaio, on another thread (“Vatican: Inside Information…”) quoted the following which I think is important to read here, as well…

    “Cardinal Ratzinger’s people placed in his hands a “letter of apology” that needed to be written and signed by Archbishop Lefebvre for all the “personal offense” he had given to JP II. It was, the Vatican minions insisted, a sine qua non for the agreement to be ratified. Monsieur l’Abbe’ du Challard told us that when he returned to Albano Laziale, where the saintly Archbishop was staying, Archbishop Lefebvre took the sample apology letter in his hand, read over it, and shook his head, saying, “Ils sont me’chante!” (They are nasty!) The rest is history.

    “Nasty” is the word I’m afraid I find myself using to describe a couple of clerics who are demanding an apology from me. Very nasty. I struggle to fight a strong sense of bitterness towards them – so much so that I’ve asked a sound TLM priest to offer Mass for them. Their dreadfully vengeful attitude towards me reveals more than personal nastiness: it reveals, too, an apparent absence of a truly Catholic spiritual life. To take offence and to nurse a grievance is the precise opposite of the Christian spirit.

    There are some here who know the identities of these priests but I do not want the situation to be aired on this blog, at least not yet. There is a time for every purpose under Heaven, as God reveals in Ecclesiastes, and that time is not quite yet. So, let’s just call them Father A & Father B, and I would ask all of the bloggers, readers and visitors to this site to keep them in your prayers – and to pray that I am able to resist the serious temptation of falling into bitterness. Me being such a wonderfully sweet gal, an’ all, we don’t want that 😀

    January 18, 2023 at 11:34 am
    • Lily Reply

      That’s really interesting that Archbishop Lefebvre would call the “Vatican minions” demanding an apology from him, for giving offence to JP II, “they are nasty”. It just dumbfounds me that these priests and prelates do not follow the humble example of Jesus himself in accepting criticism and even false claims. They want to be treated well, LOL! They don’t even see the contradiction!

      January 18, 2023 at 3:09 pm

Join the discussion...


%d bloggers like this: