TOLD OFF TO A STANDSTILL IN THE CONFESSIONAL

To comment, please open your gmail account, use my email address or Facebook. 

From Leo Leitch: You can be quite confident, Julia, that your Monsignor has read the documents of Vatican II.



Last Saturday in the confessional I got told off to a standstill  

I'd 'fessed up to an estrangement between me and my PP. Actually I hadn't 'fessed that up, because it's not necessarily sinful. But my confessor seemed more interested in that statement (I was explaining why it was weeks since my last confession) than in my sins.

"Why is there this estrangement?" 

Because among other things, I said, in last Sunday's homily the PP quoted Pope Francis' statement that "God wills a diversity of religions". I said that was heresy.

"You are incorrect! Why do you say it is heresy?"

"Because Jesus' last direction to his disciples before ascending into heaven was "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", and Islam doesn't believe in the Trinity. So to say God wills the Muslim religion must be heresy." 

"You are incorrect," said the Monsignor (yes,  he was one such). "You should read the Catechism."

"I've read it, Father."

"You should read the documents of Vatican II."

"I've read them, Father."

"Well, you read them incorrectly." 

"Are you aware, Father, that there is a vast body of opinion within the Church who believe in the faith as it was taught for 2000 years?" 

I could have added that the Catechism and Vatican II are man-made documents, and the Gospel is the word of God,and so is Acts, which states that obedience to God comes before obedience to men. But I thought I'd said enough already. 

"Does it ever occur to you that you might be incorrect?"

"Yes, Father, every day. Every day I re-examine my position in my spiritual reading and silent prayer."

"For your penance, make the Stations of the Cross." Which, being far more than any penance I've ever been given in my life, seemed a bit OTT for the sins I'd actually confessed, and more commensurate with any putative sin of pride in declaring the Pope to be heretical, which I hadn't confessed, because it's not a sin.

"Yes, Father. Thank you, Father."


But that's not all. I've been ticked off also by 'Anonymous', in relation to an earlier post, Spiteful Demon sows discourse in PN Diocese and the lack of spiritual directors in same. He/she says:

To save your soul and make yourself a more effective apostle you might have to move to Wellington or Hamilton or God forbid, even Auckland, to find the spiritual care you require. It is available but perhaps not in your diocese. 

Well gosh, that's telling me. But he/she is hardly singling me out, because most people lose their soul. We know that from reading the saints, and if you don't believe the saints, try the Gospel: "The road is easy that leads to destruction, and there are many who take it. How narrow is the gate and hard the road that leads to life, and there are few who find it" (Mt 7, 13b, 14). 

I quoted this to a dear friend yesterday who belongs to the Church of Nice. "Is that in the Bible?" she asked. Which rather illustrates my point. 

And 'im indoors is hardly likely to move to another diocese because I'm in need of spiritual direction. I console myself with the fact that spiritual directors are a modern phenomenon. Teresa of Avila had John of the Cross, and vice versa. But did the Cure of Ars have a spiritual director? Did John the Baptist? Therese of Lisieux?

***

Also "Anonymous' is a comment on the late, lamented Father Bryan Buenger of Dannevirke, now of some blessed diocese in the States (Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, March 15):  

"The loss of Fr Bryan is so sad. He connected with my older boy in five minutes - no one else has got close."

'Another 'Anonymous': 

A beautiful sermon. Still feeling the loss all the way from Wellington.

'Anonymous' says:

I don't know what church you go to but I have never been to the church of nice.

I say: 

'Church of Nice' is a handy metaphor for the liberal/progressive body in the Catholic Church of our day, as opposed to traditional Catholics, who obstinately cling to the truths taught by the Church for 2000 years. 
Because the NZ Conference of Bishops is decidedly liberal/progressive - and has been since the '80s - most parishes here (certainly in the PN Diocese) naturally follow suit. 
The over-riding characteristic of the Church of Nice is not to mention anything that might upset people. Such as contraception, abortion, homosexual relationships, sex outside marriage, Communion for those who indulge in any or all of the above, or Communion for non-Catholics, all of which is seriously sinful. 

'Anonymous' says: 

	If that is your definition of the Church of Nice - I stand by my sadness at having never been invited there. The people in my church do talk about homosexuality an inordinate amount, they openly invite everyone and anyone to receive Communion, contraception is celebrated as God's gift to mankind; fornication is encouraged and the latest innovation is to acknowledge and endorse gender fluidity and non-binary identification. I wish I could visit the church of nice you speak so fondly about - our church is the church of exclusion and rudeness.
	I say: I mean of course, by my definition of the Church of Nice, that those topics and the sinfulness thereof are never mentioned by the priest from the pulpit - or rather from anywhere but the pulpit, which seems out of bounds now for most priests when giving 'homilies' (a so much nicer word than 'sermon').
	As long ago as September 2017 (blush blush), commenting on my post 'Church of Nice, State of Nasty', Judith Norton said: Yes, I follow Church Militant and it is so sad that NZ is finally having to contend with the Church of Nice. It is very noticeable now if you know what to look for. I say: I didn't realise how long it is since I first mentioned the Church of Nice. But it's been around a lot longer. And it's amazing how many people are oblivious. Michael Voris can get a bit strident but maybe Church Militant should be required reading for all RCs.

'Anonymous' (II) says: 

I was tempted to buy your book but your taking unwarranted umbrage at my comment about spiritual direction completely dissuaded me. It seems that rather than choosing to be constructive in your criticism of fellow Catholics including the hierarchy in the vein of fraternal correction - you just hike the lonely road to contrary-land.

 I say:

Oh dear. I certainly didn't take umbrage. I gave your comment serious consideration; I did have spiritual direction for years, but the distance I had to travel made it impracticable.
I didn't take you seriously about moving to another diocese, because by your "God forbid" remark I took your tongue to be in your cheek, and replied in the same vein. My sense of humour tends to be dead-pan and I wonder sometimes about using smiley icons to show I'm joking.
I do apologise if I caused offence. It certainly wasn't intended.

Bob Gill says:
I  have noticed some variations in different New Zealand dioceses within the ‘Church of Nice’. In the Hamilton cathedral, for example, they have religious paintings on the walls, but such paintings have been removed from some churches I have visited in the Palmerston North diocese.

When I offered to donate a picture of Our Lady to my local church recently, I was thanked and advised that the picture would be hung in the church foyer – it wouldn’t be allowed to hang within the church. I immediately withdrew my offer. 

I visited a New Plymouth church recently and the bare walls stared back at me as soon as I entered the church. I guessed immediately who the church’s bishop was, even though I didn’t know beforehand that the church came under the Palmerston North diocese.

Surprisingly, one traditional practice acceptable to the ‘Church of Nice’ is the candle-stand. If your church lacks the traditional touch, do consider getting one of these made.