Wednesday, December 18, 2013

George Nemayr on Cardinal Wuerl Appointment

I agree with his assessment. And the title says it all.

Here's a bit from the article. No one can say that George Neumayr is afraid to court controversy:
Wuerl’s promotion confirms that the bad guys have won this dispute, which means, among other things, that the Democrats won’t think twice about sticking a phony Catholic on the ticket with Hillary. “Pope Francis Catholics” will hit the campaign trail with confidence in 2014 and 2016, quoting his half-baked “who am I to judge?” musings and pointing to Wuerl's disavowal of canon law. 
It was clear from day one that Francis never took canon law all that seriously, seeing it as one of those awful relics of “rule-bound” pre-Vatican II Catholicism. In fact, he had been violating it down in Buenos Aires long before he washed the feet of a Muslim woman on Holy Thursday days after his pontificate began. (The sycophantic Catholic press said that he had the “right” to do that as the supreme legislator of canon law while conveniently ignoring that he had done the same as archbishop of Buenos Aires when he enjoyed no such right.) So it makes perfect sense that he would make the antinomian Wuerl one of his chief bishop-makers. 
“Do not give what is holy to dogs,” Jesus Christ instructed his disciples. That was his Communion policy. But Wuerl and Francis strike a different tone, one that they flatter with the name “pastoral,” as if laxity and indifference to sacrilege have ever been good for souls.
So what's next? Watch the appointments of new bishops from the U.S. With Cardial Wuerl and Cardinal Levada advising the pope, well, I am less than optimistic. Will they even consider priests who might implement canon law 915? Somehow I doubt it.

Pray for Holy Mother Church and for the shepherds many of whom starve the sheep by withholding the food of the one, true faith.

1 comment:

  1. "It was clear from day one that Francis never took canon law all that seriously..."

    With all due respect, when did JPII or BXVI take canon law seriously? If either of them did, then bishops who enabled clerical sex-abuse would have faced canonical trial in Rome. If either of them did, they would have disciplined Wuerl regarding Canon 915. Frankly, the Catholic hierarchy has viewed itself as above all theological and moral accountability -- and has for centuries. You think this is a new development? Hardly. St. Peter Damian could have told you about it.