Saturday, 20 April 2013

Liberte, Egalite, Fr...Oh, Let's Just Call the Whole Thing Off and Kick in a Priest

Is 'SSM' worth this? Who are the 'civil rights' campaigners now?
Eccles just tweeted something the whole world needs to see.

To be precise, this is French police taking a priest by force and giving him a kicking for good measure.

The mask of 'equality' is slipping in France.

This is tyranny. This is what is coming to our country, but with far less resistance.

Watch it here from 4.10 and pray for these brave priests and ordinary French citizens, whose right to protest against same-sex marriage - or rather - whose right to defend the fundamental premise upon which rests the institution of marriage rests, is being violently removed from them.

This is what happens when people try to defend their nation, the family, marriage and freedom.

This is our future.

This is the future of this country's children.

The Governments of the world do not want people to defend principles. They don't want people to have principles. They just get in the way of the plan. They have underestimated, perhaps, just how many people will be prepared to lose their freedom, or even die, just for a single principle.

I don't know what page we are on in the Book of Revelation, but I think France has shown us that this dragon is going to take some slaying...


P Standish said...

The treatment of the priest is appalling, but what's the story with the youths attacking the police barrier? What did they have to do with the protest? Why were they not reined in? Once that sort of behaviour is aimed at the CRS then not very nice things are going to happen.

BJC said...

I don't know if you've seen this but Cardinal Vingt-Trois is right. This will end in violence. No one is going to take up arms over cutting income tax or raising VAT. They will though when they see their family life being invaded and their children being influenced by government imposed dictat. Over here we are less likely to take to the streets but who knows.

If this is one of Austen's story by the way then fair play to him. It shows somewhere in there his Catholic instincts are still working.

pelerin said...

In contrast to the peaceful march in January in which I took part, things now seem to be turning ugly. The film was from Friday night - there have been nightly demos during the week and another is due tomorrow afternoon there.

I understand that the demonstrators were allowed until 10 pm to be there legally outside the Senat but they overstayed their welcome hence the violence from the CRS. The brave priests were from the SSPX church in the Latin quarter with many of their parisioners. The SSPX are standing up against this law with courage.

The cardinal whilst disagreeing with the law does not take part in any of the demos. When asked on several occasions why not, he has replied that as he has a 'direct line' with the president being up until recently the president of the French Bishops Conference, he does not need to demonstrate. (He turned up in January to wish the marchers well and then left promptly.) Many feel he should lend weight to the protests by joining them.

I believe Tuesday is the day when the law will finally be passed so I expect there will be more trouble as both sides get heated.

The Bones said...

Yes aren't those 'direct lines' just so effective when the phone is always off the hook.

Lynda said...

We need more Bishops, priests and laity to stand against evil tyranny and be willing to be martyred. Thank God for those priests - we need their visible leadership in fighting this injustice.

Andrew rex said...

The priest was attempting to prevent the lawful arrest of the young man who is shown earlier attacking the police barrier. The priest is SSPX not Catholic. It's not surprising this kind of thing happened to him when he chose to mix with, and egg on, far right elements who are using same sex marriage as an excuse to foster civil unrest. The priest is no different to any other lawbreaker, he does not deserve special treatment because he wears a collar.

We all have the right to protest peacefully but the state also has the right to place reasonable limits on protesters in order to protect the common good, as well as a duty to ensure the safety of others. The French police are known to be heavy handed and no-nonsense but from this video they acted reactively not pro-actively.

This had moved beyond reasonable protest. When you see young men in hoodies with their faces covered by masks and scarves kicking and attacking the police who are protecting the senate building. The demonstrators are holding up far right emblems and flags, as well as singing offensive chants. This was an attack on the state. Whether you agree with same sex marriage or not, the behaviour of these protestors is disgraceful.

Andrew rex said...

''Yes aren't those 'direct lines' just so effective when the phone is always off the hook.''

- you seem to be arguing for a right to veto not just protest.

Annie Elizabeth said...

Appalling but not surprising: did you see my post about French government monitoring of Traditional Catholics for "religious pathology" and the recent French TV documentary slurring trad Catholics as Nazis?

Andrew rex said...

''...and the recent French TV documentary slurring trad Catholics as Nazis?''

Yes, unfortunately some elements of the SSPX are just that.

Amfortas said...

Sadly some extreme right wing groups have attached themselves to these demonstrations and look for opportunities to provoke the police. I'm not saying this is what happened on this occasion The CRS has a fairly brutal reputation.

pelerin said...

This afternoon's march in Paris looks as if it is extremely well supported. Impressive photos on the website of 'Le Salon Beige.'

pelerin said...

Well - what a surprise! Today's demo in Paris is actually featured on the Daily Mail website with photos. At the time of writing there are 4 comments.

As usual, French reports of the number involved vary from the official police statement of 45,000 to that of the organisers who say that 270,000 took part. A huge difference.

There was a counter demo in the Place de la Bastille but only a few hundred turned up.

Lynda said...

The behaviour of the state is much worse in nature and extent. We have a duty to fight evil, particularly tyranny. There was no good reason for the police to assault the priest as they did.

Pétrus said...

@Andrew Rex

The SSPX are Catholic in every sense of the word. One can even fulfil one's Sunday obligation at an SSPX Mass.

Anonymous said...

Got to say Bones, I agree with Andrew here. I was on the seafront yesterday to observe the EDL and opponents clashing and I was mightily glad for the police presence. Of course protest is a good thing, but I was happy when the police arrested those who were trying to provoke a riot

Amfortas said...

Tim Stanley has now posted on this incident over at the Telegraph. Nothing excuses what the CRS did to that priest but the run up to the events shows that this was not part of the mainstream demo. These young thugs kicking the barrier in front of the Senate do not represent MPT. They may just be FN hardcore jumping on a legitimate bandwagon. Regrettably the dividing line between FN and SSPX is a little blurred among some Frenchmen.

schmenz said...

Thank you, Andrew rex, for your comments. They perfectly illustrate how deep the problem in Church and state are. You have no idea whatever of what you are talking about and that is why we are in the crisis we are in.

By the way, bodily harming a Catholic priest is a gravely sinful act. I have no doubt your poor upbringing contributed much to your ignorance on these matters, as on others.

Andrew rex said...

schmenz and petrus - the sspx ARE in schism because they are not in union with the bishop of rome aka the pope and do not recognise his authority - please read your canon law. they have no faculties therefore they have no right to administer the sacraments or wear clerical clothing. you may attend an sspx mass in very exceptional circumstances but the sspx are not roman catholic in any sense of the meaning.

i'm not sure canon law says anything specifically about bodily harming a catholic priest actually but even if it does it is no more or less right than harming any individual. however, the priest in question was preventing the lawful arrest of a demonstrator engaging in violence against a police line protecting the senate building. they have every legal right to enforce the law even though, as I have already mentioned, they were heavy handed as French riot police tend to be. the French police clearly acted reactively. priests are subject to the civil law just like any citizen. in my opinion, it was a big error of judgment for those sspx priests to be at the front line with other protestors from the far right.

Pétrus said...

@Andrew Rex

The SSPX are NOT in schism. They are canonically irregular. They also accept the authority of the Pope. If you visit any SSPX chapel you will see a picture of the Holy Father proudly displayed.

The Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei has even confirmed that the SSPX are not in schism. The Catholic Church regards the SSPX issue as an internal matter of discipline. If they were in schism this would not be the case.

Andrew rex said...

The following is taken from a letter from Msgr Camille Dei of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei to EWTN - ref 343/98 dated 27 October 1998.

The Code of Canon Law defines schism as "refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (canon 751). "The Pope is the Supreme legislator in the Church." Communion with him is a fundamental, non-negotiable hallmark of Catholicism which is not determined by those who set themselves up to judge him, but by the Pope himself (cf. Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium #22-25).

While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis, that is they are forbidden by the Church from celebrating the Mass and the sacraments because of their illicit (or illegal) ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood without proper incardination (cf. canon 265).

While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute "formal adherence to the schism", such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook which states in response to question 14 that the SSPX defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the Old Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo, the Second Vatican Council and the New Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith. It is precisely because of this schismatic mentality that this Pontifical Commission has consistently discouraged the faithful from attending Masses celebrated under the aegis of the Society of St. Pius X. For Catholics, assistance at Mass celebrated by a priest not in good standing with the Church, although not necessarily itself always a sin, "deprives participation at Mass of that fullness of communion with Christ and his Church which the Mass, by its very nature and in all its forms, is called to express"

QED, argue your way out of that definitive statement.

Pétrus said...

@Andrew Rex

Your information is unfortunately out of date. Why are you quoting a letter from 1998 when there has been more recent information from Ecclesia Dei.

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" has this to say in 2007

"The Bishops, Priests, and Faithful of the Society of St Pius X are not schismatics. It is Archbishop Lefebvre who has undertaken an illicit Episcopal consecration and therefore performed a schismatic act. It is for this reason that the Bishops consecrated by him have been suspended and excommunicated. The priests and faithful of the Society have not been excommunicated. They are not heretics. I do, however, share St. Jerome’s fear that heresy leads to schism and vice versa. The danger of a schism is big, such as a systematic disobedience vis-à-vis the Holy Father or by a denial of his authority. It is after all a service of charity, so that the Priestly Society gains full communion with the Holy Father by acknowledging the sanctity of the new Mass"

The consecration of bishops by the SSPX was a schismatic act - the SSPX itself is not in schism. Since that interview as you are no doubt aware the excommunications have been lifted.

The Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI said the following in 2009 when the excommunications were lifted :

"Another mistake, which I deeply regret, is the fact that the extent and limits of the provision of 21 January 2009 were not clearly and adequately explained at the moment of its publication. The excommunication affects individuals, not institutions. An episcopal ordination lacking a pontifical mandate raises the danger of a schism, since it jeopardizes the unity of the College of Bishops with the Pope. Consequently the Church must react by employing her most severe punishment – excommunication – with the aim of calling those thus punished to repent and to return to unity. Twenty years after the ordinations, this goal has sadly not yet been attained. The remission of the excommunication has the same aim as that of the punishment: namely, to invite the four Bishops once more to return. This gesture was possible once the interested parties had expressed their recognition in principle of the Pope and his authority as Pastor, albeit with some reservations in the area of obedience to his doctrinal authority and to the authority of the Council. Here I return to the distinction between individuals and institutions. The remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the field of ecclesiastical discipline: the individuals were freed from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. This disciplinary level needs to be distinguished from the doctrinal level. The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons. As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church. There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved. In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church."

The SSPX has no canonical status in the Church. Why did that need to be stated if they were in schism, and outside the Church?

You might consider them schismatic however the Church does not. They are Catholic in every way.

Vincent said...

I'm sorry, I can't help but comment: I don't think it's a clear cut issue, I'd like to know a lot more. Can't condone the abuse of a priest (seeing as it's a grave offence), but nor will that video cut any mustard with my atheist friends. Too much grey...

@Andrew, please, please don't bring up this old nonsense. His ministry may not be licit, his ordination is still valid. That makes it still an excommunicable offence to act with violence towards an ordained minister of the church, regardless of whether you think he is schismatic.

You're using as you're evidence a document written in 1998. I would like to remind you that Pope Benedict XVI said in a letter to the four bishops of the SSPX that the lifting of the excommunication was a "discreet gesture of mercy towards four Bishops ordained validly but not legitimately." They are Catholic. Their actions are treated as valid by the Holy See, including the forgiveness of sin - a ministry exercised only by Catholic Priests.

Maybe you don't agree with the priest in the video protecting that young man, but he was still a priest...

Patty said...

Well, the bill passed, fat lot of good our prayers did. With a pro-gay 'marriage' pope in charge, let's not hold our breath for God's intervention.

The Bones said...

The Pope is not pro-gay marriage.

The Only Safe Space in the World

Virus normalcy, the so-called 'new normal', is for Christians almost certainly more abhorrent than it is for people of other reli...