Catholic Light

A friend asked today:

Does anybody see any problem with one becoming a Rosary Rally Captain [in the...] Public Square Rosary Crusade operated by The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property (TFP). Does anyone on [this list...] know anything about this organization?

I advise people to steer clear of TFP.

Most of its activity in the US seems to be in two areas: organizing protests against anti-Catholic manifestations in society, and exploiting anti-Catholic manifestations in society to raise funds.

TFP started out well, but degenerated for a long time into a personality cult for its founder Plinio Correa de Oliveira (now deceased); he claimed prophetic powers and a grandiose role for himself in world history and even in salvation history. His followers wrote hymns about him and devotional prayers about his mother (!).

I would compare the group to the Moonies: a personality cult using religious elements for political purposes.

Here are two articles about TFP:

One by a former member, John Armour:
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=48d48e0a68a48ae1ab6e40d8e6d44a18&topic=2649714.msg25491502#msg25491502

One by Rick Salbato, who writes about Catholic fringe movements:
http://www.unitypublishing.com/NewReligiousMovements/FatimaCult.html

For TFP's official status: in Brazil, where it was founded, the bishops' conference warned Catholics not to join or support it, in 1985. TFP defenders claim that this opposition stems from TFP's opposition to then-trendy liberation theology.

However, traditionalists, including Lefebvrists, are equally adamant against the group. They got to see it up close when TFP cultivated relationships with them, until traditionalist leaders in Brazil such as the retired Bishop of Campos, Antonio de Castro Mayer, found out about Plinio's secret doctrines. (See Bp. de Castro Mayer's 1984 letter.)

Most people involved in TFP groups in the US, of course, including priests who might opine about it, have no idea of any of the above. It's possible that the errors of the past have been eliminated in practice, but I think it would be better to organize Catholic lay apostolate in groups with no connection to the apparently heretical Plinio.

The informative web site Petrus (www.papanews.it), directed by Gianluca Barile, is looking ahead at the work of the investigating Commission on the phenomena of Medjugorje.

To summarize: Official meetings of the new commission will begin after the summer, with the six visionaries summoned to Rome for interviews. Petrus expects that they will be asked to disclose the ten "secrets" which they have refused to give up in previous investigations. The article also reports a suggested compromise idea floated in Rome: that CDF could reject the claims of an apparition, but grant approval to the messages (thousands of them?) as "interior locutions". Is it just a last-ditch attempt to salvage the phenomenon?

Related link:

• How the visionaries dealt with past investigations:
  "Questionable games surrounding the 'Great Sign'" (Diocese of Mostar)

My translation of the article follows.

Trickery, interior locutions, or apparitions? The 'seers' of Medjugorje will have to report to the Ruini Commission and submit the ten secrets received (?) from the 'Gospa'

VATICAN CITY - Vicka Ivanković, Mirijana Dragičević, Marija Pavlović, Ivan Dragičević, Ivanka Ivanković and Jakov Čolo, the famous pseudo-seers of Medjugorje, will have to report to the Vatican, probably right after the summer, to respond to questions from the Commission of inquiry - instituted by Benedict XVI, under the presidency of Cardinal Camillo Ruini - assigned to shed light on the alleged Marian apparitions that they have reportedly witnessed uninterruptedly since June 24, 1981. At the same time, the six will be called on to submit to that body, created at the Pope's will, the ten secrets which the Madonna is said to have entrusted to them.

Official meetings have not started yet, but the tendency among the members of the Commission is to meet and 'interrogate' the protagonists of that bruited event in person. The Commission, which took office last March and is eagerly at work to shed light on the supernatural events that call millions of pilgrims from all over the world to the little town of Bosnia-Herzegovina, has already been informed by the Bishop of Mostar on the disobedience of the pseudo-seers to local ecclesiastical authority. Casting shadows on the apparitions, notoriously, are the theological inconsistency of the messages, their contradictions, and the infinite number of the apparitions.

Besides Cardinal Ruini, participants in the Commission are the Cardinals Juliàn Herranz, Jozef Tomko, Vinko Puljic and Josip Bozanić; the Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Monsignor Angelo Amato; Monsignor Tony Anatrella, psychoanalyst and specialist in social psychiatry; Monsignor Pierangelo Sequeri, Lecturer in Fundamental Theology at the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy; Fr. A. David Maria Jaeger, Consultor for the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts; Fr. Józef Kijas Zdzislaw, Relator of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints; Fr. Salvatore M. Perrella, Lecturer in Mariology at the Pontifical "Marianum" Theological Faculty; the Rev. Achim Schütz, Lecturer in Theological Anthropology at the Pontifical Lateran University (in the role of secretary) and Monsignor Krzysztof Nykiel, official of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (in the role of assistant secretary). When the Ruini Commission has completed its investigations and expressed its own opinion, it will report to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, from which the final word is expected.

The establishment of the Commission represents an exception in the history of the Church, in consideration of the complexity of the phenomena that are allegedly happening at Medjugorje. It is naturally too soon yet to know or foresee what the Vatican will ratify in its regard, but in the 'Sacri Palazzi', many among the Cardinals and Bishops of the Curia are certain that at the end the Holy See may recognize these events 'only' as interior locutions of the seers and not as true and proper apparitions. In that way, the pilgrims would be able to continue to go to the little town in Bosnia-Herzegovina to venerate the 'Gospa' (as they call the Virgin there), knowing well, however, that our heavenly Mother is not appearing in that place.

An acquaintance has posted this link in a couple of places: a young monk in Wisconsin, a convert taking a somewhat deflated view of the proposed Anglican-use Ordinariate, puts out this little welcome sign for other prospective converts:

Do you agree with this statement:

I believe that to join an Ordinariate is to promise before God that, when I am traveling and not able to attend an Ordinariate parish, under pain of mortal sin I will assist at a folk Mass with streamers and liturgical dancers, if that is all there is to be found, in order to fulfill my Sunday obligation.

Now, I'm all for the Sunday obligation, and believe you me, I've endured some poor music and odd liturgical proceedings for its sake, but the 'profession' which Brother Stephen demands above is really not constructive.

I came into the Church in 1980 -- at perhaps the nadir of the liturgical barbarities -- so I have probably suffered more for the faith at the doings of bad liturgists than young Brother Stephen has, especially now that he resides in a lovely Cistercian monastery. Is he really in a position to strike an inquisitorial pose and demand that other people promise now to accept aesthetic sufferings?

I remember from experience that prospective converts simply do take some time to go through the intellectual and volitional steps implied by becoming a Catholic. They consider various aspects: to accept points of Catholic doctrine, and recognize the authority of the Church, and finally agree to be obedient to the Church.

It is not up to us, their friends, to decide which issues they absolutely must deal with first, even though, in the end, a convert must accept everything that the Church authoritatively teaches (and prescribes) in order to be a good Catholic. We can trust the pastors of the Church to ensure that any new Catholics of Anglican heritage will have proper instruction on the Sunday obligation, but if we stick a finger in their eye now, as if to assert our superiority, it is not exactly a heroic act of charity.

Kevin Symonds went to work today on one of the internet spin-meisters for Medjugorje. On his blog Desiderium, Kevin fisks a pretty typical piece written in defense of the dodgy apparition in Herzegovina.

I have to wonder if the supporters realize how weak their case is: they seem to have little defense to any critique about the visionaries and their messages.

When somebody points to problems at the core of the phenomenon, the defenders rush to distract attention by pointing to "fruits" on the periphery.

The people experiencing those "fruits" are outsiders: visitors with little involvement in the phenomenon. But when you look at the core of the phenomenon and stick to the core, you find a bunch of alleged seers, all of whom make a living off the alleged apparition. You find so-called messages that, due to their content, can never be plausibly be called celestial.

There are cases of so-called seers passing off their own thoughts and imaginings as messages and visions from Heaven: for example, in the cases where the visionaries at Medjugorje had "apparitions" of their associates who were away, such as Ivan at seminary or Fr. Zovko in jail. In both cases, the visions were accompanied by messages about the status of those persons, but facts later contradicted those claims.

When you look at the core group, you find manipulation, self-editing, refusal to cooperate in official theological investigations and unofficial medical tests, and even some clear cases of lying.

The hard-line supporters pretend not to see that -- but look at these nice seminarians over here! but look at these nice people going to confession! but look at the good deeds this person did in the US after he went to Medjugorje! but look at these foreign bishops who think it's real!

This is pretty dense, and disappointing when all this evasion comes from someone who's supposed to be a grad student studying religion.

Writer Genevieve Kineke of life-after-rc.com gave an interview to Boston's NPR station today about the Legion scandal. MP3 audio is on-line at http://streams.wgbh.org/online/cross/cross20100520.mp3
.

Once again, my distaste for weekly network TV shows is confirmed.

An episode of "Glee" came on -- a show I've never watched -- and the plot is apparently about a threat to abolish the school's choir.

Who do the writers present as the bad guy of the episode? Who wants to do away with the group he formerly starred in? A "Christian" character, of course!

And to make the guy "worse", they throw in some unrelated stereotypes too: he's out to "convert" former choir members (it's a dig at ex-gay ministries). And he sells big SUVs and says he doesn't believe in global warming. That's one of the ultimate heresies to Hollywood, apparently. I wonder whether this episode was written before Climategate blew up in the faces of the East Anglia and Penn State experts.

If the writers are so desperate for material that they have to resort to a cheap cliché, this show must have jumped the shark already in its first season.

Life is too valuable to waste any of it on this.

Back in 2002, when this was a brand new blog, I wisecracked about a group of lay people with the ambitious project of building an enormous monument in honor of Our Lady's Immaculate Heart, in the form of a triumphal arch in Buffalo, overlooking Lake Erie.

This was the design concept they were working with at the time:

I suggested they expand on the theme:

But nobody's called to thank me for my contribution to the effort. '

Anyway, they're still working, and they've reworked the design.

I'm afraid it's still not very appealing; it's weirdly futuristic and geometrical. The stark structure rising up at the end of a promontory doesn't look welcoming; it doesn't have the gentleness, delicacy, or stateliness suitable to a Marian shrine. It's a blunt object -- well, actually it's round-ended -- and really rather masculine in form. The only sign of motherhood in it is the use of abstract-looking egg-like ovals.

As for the structure at the base of the arch, that looks more like a shrine cafeteria than an actual shrine:

And I have to wonder -- is this to be built on reclaimed land? Putting a 700-foot monument on landfill might lead to some engineering problems.

But I'm not a pro about this. Maybe someone with actual knowledge of architecture could look at these concepts and comment more insightfully.

As the Holy See released its statement in Rome yesterday vis-a-vis the recent apostolic visitation to the Legion of Christ, a strange meeting took place along the Canada/U.S. border. Two active Orangemen, an active Freemason, an active Knight of Columbus and an Opus Dei cooperator donned disguises, met secretly in a field, and under cover of darkness discussed in whispered tones how best to manipulate falsehood into real temptation, hoping to lure the unsuspecting into a deathly trap.