Hey quisling priest! People are losing their souls!

Hey quisling priest! People are losing their souls!

[IMHO “effete” would be a better description than “quisling”]

MAR 02, 2016 by HILARY WHITE at WhatIsUpWithTheSynod.com/index.php/2016/03/02/hey-quisling-priest-people-are-losing-their-souls/

From: Hypothetical contingencies 2 March 2016 Fr Hunwicke’s Mutual Enrichment:

“Politicians, wisely, refuse to answer hypothetical questions from journalists about what they will do in hypothetical situations. Perhaps one should follow their lead. Why put ones head above a parapet before any conceivable moral obligation to do so is clear? But there seem to be so very many people around who are seriously troubled about what might be God’s will in a hypothetical situation in which some Roman Pontiff or other in some improbable hypothetical future tried to impose upon the Church some doctrinal proposition which was plainly contrary to the Paradosis [the Tradition], or some pastoral praxis which had implications plainly contrary to the Paradosis.”

Sorry, but this is exactly the kind of bs that just jacks me. Really. This is why I don’t read Fr. Hunwicke or in fact any of the so-called “good” English priests. Almost no priests, in fact.

In fact, the entire opening of this post just reads to me like it could have been said, a lot less prissily, as, “I’m actually too much of a damn effeminate coward to come out and say what I plainly see is happening, but I’m going to be coy and talk about it in this language because people think it’s cute.”

Really? This is the leadership we are looking to. Really? Does anyone still want to talk to me about how the “good conservative” priests and bishops are going to save us? Anyone? … Bueller?

What kind of men are these priests, anyway?

Why put ones head above a parapet before any conceivable moral obligation to do so is clear?

Ummmmm… because you’re a priest? And because there are thousands, potentially millions, of people being led INTO EVERLASTING PERDITION by the disinformation being spread by Pope Francis and his merry little band of slavering minions. Isn’t that enough “moral obligation” to stick your head up?

…a hypothetical situation in which some Roman Pontiff or other in some improbable hypothetical future…

Which part of “contraception can be licitly used in cases where the woman has Zika,” don’t you people understand?

Why did you get ordained? Why? What was it for? Because it sounds to me like the only thing you’re afraid of is “things” “getting back” to your bishop. Buddy, that crocodile ain’t going to eat you last. Maybe if your problem is that you’re taking a paycheque from bad men, you could consider another source of income.

Get AQ Email Updates

7 comments on “Hey quisling priest! People are losing their souls!

  1. Captain Kirk: Mister Spock! Popes and theologians addressing hypothetical questions and doctrinal propositions which might be contrary to the Paradosis … analyze using your usual superior Vulcan logic!

    Spock: Fascinating, Captain. We must always be cautious in handling doctrinal propositions, making sure that our terms are logical and clear within the context of tradition, precedent, and semantics. παράδοσις (parádosis)< of course, is an interesting Greek word in exegesis. In the biblical hermeneutics of the New Testament and Early Christian theology, from the ancient Greek verb παραδίδωμι (paradidómi), “I hand over, pledge, hand down, deliver, commit, commend, betray, abandon,” as the noun parádosis meaning “transmission” in the sense of “a giving over which is done by word of mouth or in writing, i.e. tradition by instruction, narrative, precept, etc.” A usage we find in Epictetus and Plato. Perhaps, as in the earlier Rubbergate controversy in papal hermeneutics, an appeal to Occam’s Razor will clarify Pope Bergoglio’s recent comments…

    Captain Kirk: Rubbergate?

    Spock< ?B>: When Pope Benedict seemed to approve the use of condoms in certain situations and was quoted widely on that subject by the media.

    Father Mulcahy, S.J.: The Pope was speaking hypothetically in that situation.

    Professor Jürgen Habermas: I speak hypothetically sometimes. Particularly when navigating through the commodity fetishism and alienation of modernity.

    Opie: Sure, Paw! Like, if someone’s infected with a dangerous virus they have to go down to the drug store and get some rubbers!

    Barney Fife: Did you hear that Gomer?

    Gomer: Shazam!

    Sheriff Andy Taylor: Now, Opie we’ll have to talk about this when you get a little older.
    So no more talk about rubbers and the Pope for now, no matter how many hypothetical situations the Frankfurt School people have put into your head.

    Fonzie: The hypothetical is very serious, Cunningham! We should review what they call at Marquette the protasis and the apodosis – the main clause in a conditional sentence, expressing the logical consequent which is key in hypothetical situations.

    Father Sarducci, S.J.: That does pop up from time to time. Teilhard de Chardin used to speak hypothetically quite a bit. As did Karl Rahner, of course, and Professor de Waelhens at Louvain.

    Professor Sartre: The hypothetical clause comes up quite a bit in existential phenomenology. One thinks of Kierkegaard, for instance, and Karl Jaspers, of course. Along with Wittgenstein, Rudolf Carnap, and Bertrand Russell, particularly in his BBC debate with Father Copleston. But that’s a long story which we should leave to the footnote commentators.

    The Bard: Good idea.

    Father Copleston, S.J.: I have no objections. As long as we cover all of the conditional and hypothetical clauses of the Quinque viæ of St. Thomas Aquinas.

    Captain Kirk: But how does Occam’s Razor clarify the controversy, Mister Spock?

    Spock< ?B>: As you may recall, Captain, Occam’s razor is the logical principle in epistemology and scientific method for seeking the simplest solution – lex parsimoniae, the ‘law of parsimony’ in Latin, a logical and rational “problem-solving principle” formulated by the medieval 14th-century English Franciscan scholastic philosopher and theologian. William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347).

    If I may consult the ship’s computer for a moment…
    “The oldest and very clear equivalent of Occam’s razor is the one of Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans two millennia before Occam, as Proclus very clearly describes. The Pythagoreans have the principle that we have to make the simplest suppositions as Pythagoras ordered them to do when they describe what is necessary to describe: “τῶν μὲν Πυθαγορείων … παρακέλευσμα ἦν …… δι’ ἐλαχίστων καὶ ἁπλουστάτων ὑποθέσεων ἐπειδὴ δὲ καὶ τοῖς κλεινοῖς Πυθαγορείοις” και “δεῖν γὰρ ἐπ’ ἐκείνων καὶ αὐτὸν παρακελεύεσθαι τὸν Πυθαγόραν ζητεῖν ἐξ ἐλαχίστων καὶ ἁπλουστάτων ὑποθέσεων δεικνύναι τὰ ζητούμενα·” The 13th-century scholastic philosopher Robert Grosseteste, in his Commentary on Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics Books (Commentarius in Posteriorum Analyticorum Libros) (c. 1217–1220), declares: “That is better and more valuable which requires fewer, other circumstances being equal… For if one thing were demonstrated from many and another thing from fewer equally known premises, clearly that is better which is from fewer because it makes us know quickly, just as a universal demonstration is better than particular because it produces knowledge from fewer premises. Similarly in natural science, in moral science, and in metaphysics the best is that which needs no premises and the better that which needs the fewer, other circumstances being equal.”

    Or in the Latin of 17th-century Irish Franciscan scholastic philosopher and theologian John Punch: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitate (entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity). In simplest terms the principle may be summarized in the following manner: “Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.”

    Reverend Neuhaus: Now that that is cleared up, I wonder if we could discuss the Naked Public Square in modernity and Professor Charles Taylor’s secularization theories in light of the crisis of values which follows from disenchantment in the sense in which Max Weber explained when…

    Bob Hope: This is the good part, Bing!

    Father Mulcahy, S.J.: Oh, yes, we’re covering some of this in the new course on Lonergan at Fordham….

  2. Opie: Paw! Paw! I’m gonna run down to the drug store right now to get me some rubbers now that the Pope says they’re OK with the genetically-modified Zika virus coming that Bill Gates and the UN’s World Health Organization have cooked up for population control!

    Opie: Rubbers? Opie’s talking about rubbers.

    Aunt Bee: Why, that’s wonderful, Opie! The reverend was just saying the other day how Catholics breed like rabbits.
    Maybe one day you can grow up to direct The Da Vinci Code.

    Opie: Yessum. I was just readin’ ’bout how the Pope and the King of France were always trying to keep the Illuminati and occult knowledge down to prevent progress and the Enlightenment and all, like we got here in Mayberry with the 4-H Club and all.

    Sheriff Andy Taylor: Now, Opie, remembers what I said. If I hear you talking about rubbers and the Pope one more time, you’re gonna be in heap of trouble, young man! A heap of trouble!

    Dr. Jacques Lacan: Now this is a very interesting conditional and hypothetical proposition which we should analyze carefully for its hermeneutics. Notice the protasis:
    “If I hear you talking about rubbers and the Pope one more time…” And then the apodosis: [then] “you’re gonna be in heap of trouble, young man! A heap of trouble!”. This is quite fascinating as we review the hermeneutical posturing of the mirror stage of the decentered ego in postmodern bourgeois subcultures in which commodity fetishism, alienation, and self-estrangement from Cartesian dualism subvert and call into question patriarchal authority structures.

    Professor Derrida: And the grand narratives which support them.

    Professor Lyotard: I would like to address that…

    The Professor: You’ll get your chance, smart guy!

    Spock: That will involve the use of logic and argumentation within theoretical discourse.

    Ted Baxter: The Pope said what about condoms?

    Ginger: What did the Pope say about condoms, Gilligan?

    Gilligan: Oh…um…well, I wasn’t really listening to the radio very carefully, Ginger…

    Tex Baxter: The Pope said something funny about condoms and we’re supposed to guess what it was, right?

    Phyllis: Well, Mary, I realize that you’re a lapsed Catholic in real life, not on this show, of course, which panders to popular 1970s attitudes, but I’m sure a seasoned swinger like Rhoda wasn’t waiting for the Pope’s permission.

    Rhoda: Oh, don’t worry, Phyllis, I’m not Catholic.
    I just sound like an Italian from Longk Island.

    Emily: But, Bob, what will happen when someone explains to the Pope that condoms aren’t good for the environment? I mean, dolphins and baby seals have enough trouble with soda can tabs.

    Sue Ann Nivens: Mary, will explain it to you, Ted. But always remember to use scissors to cut up those plastic things that hold six-packs of beer cans together.

    Ted Baxter: All those poor little dolphins and baby seals choking to death.
    Does the Pope know about this, Lou?

    Mary: Well, not yet, Ted. But someone in the Vatican will get around to explaining it to him.

    Dick: And I’m for Bernie Sanders!

    Hans Küng: In a way, I was shocked by the Pope’s naïveté on this issue too. But then this Pope is always full of surprises!

  3. Barney Fife: The Da Vinci Code? Rubbers!

    Aunt Bee: Why, yes, Barney, when Hillary becomes president, all the schools will have them! We were just discussing the UNICEF dispensers at the Mayberry PTA meeting.

    Barney: What are we gonna do, Andy???

  4. Jan: Well, gosh, Mom, now that the Pope has given permission to use condoms, Greg and Peter want to know if they should get some for our vacation to Hawaii.

    Carol Brady: Condoms??? Mike!!!

    Carol: Mike, we’ve got a real problem on our hands after that last papal interview.

    Mike Brady: Oh, really? What did the Pope say?

    Carol: Jan said that Peter and Greg think they should get condoms for the vacation to Hawaii now that the Pope gave a nod to birth control in his latest interview.

    Mike: Oh. That could be a problem. But what do you think of my perm job?

    Carol: Mike, I think you need to have a talk with the boys. And with Jan, too!

    Mike: Greg, Peter, you boys are going to get in a lot of trouble if you head down that slippery slope of Situation Ethics that Pope Francis has been toying with in these airplane interviews.

    Greg: Hello, is this the 7-Eleven near Ridgemont High School? Do you have any…

    Ward Cleaver: It’s Greg Brady. He thinks he has the 7-Eleven near Ridgemont High School…

    Ward Cleaver: At first, I thought it was Eddie Haskell. But you should have seen the looks on their faces after I told Mike Brady!

    Fred Rutherford: Ward, if you don’t mind my asking, you don’t think Clarence and Wally could be involved in this, do you?

    Eddie Haskell: Sure, they’ve got ’em down at the drug store!

    Ward Cleaver: Absolutely not, Beaver! I don’t care if he is the Pope!

    Jan: OK, Greg.

    Greg: It will be our secret.

    Sally: Bernie Sanders???!!! What are you thinking, Rob?

    Buddy Boy, that would be a pretty BIG increase in my tax bill!

    Mel Cooley: Maybe you need to take a nap, Rob.

    Tex Baxter: Is this the 7-Eleven near Ridgemont High School?

    Emily: Well, you tell me. You’ve got the Jesuit education. How did he get off of the topic of global warming and climate change, Bob?

    Peter Brady: This is all just a great big mistake.

    Bobby Brady: Yeah, a mistake. It was Jan’s idea. She reads Cosmo and Vanity Fair.

    Peter Brady: And probably that stuff by Helen Gurley Brown and Lena Dunham.

    Bobby Brady: Yeah, stuff like that!

    • Eddie: My mom likes that you and Mr. Cleaver use birth control and don’t breed like rabbits like some Catholic families in the neighborhood.

      Mrs. Cleaver: Thank you, Eddie.

  5. Mike Brady: Well, now, Carol, Honey, let’s think this through. Suppose Jan and the boys have slipped through the neo-Kantian matrix and are heading down the modernist slippery slope of Situation Ethics. What’s the worse thing that could happen?

    Carol Brady: What’s the worst thing that could happen???
    What have you been smoking? Are you stoned, Mike?

    Mike: What would make you say that?

    Carol: And you asked what was the worst thing that could happen.

    Jan: Do you think my new wig will make me popular at school?

    Carol: She’s really done it now, Mike.

    Mike: OK, so she went out and bought a crazy wig. Lots of kids do crazy things in adolescence. Not all of it is because they’re sliding down the neo-Kantian slippery slope to Frankfurt School Armageddon.

    Jan: OK, you were right about my crazy wig. But if the Pope says that condoms are OK, is it alright for Greg and Peter to get some?

    Dr. Jacques Lacan: We should examine the conditional and hypothetical clauses that pertain to this dilemma. In Jan Brady’s protasis, we have the illuminating conditional “if the Pope says that condoms are OK” which is followed by the apodosis “is it alright for Greg and Peter to get some” in the form of a rhetorical question for which, in her own mind, infused as it may be with Frankfurt School assumptions and presuppositions of 1970s suburban California liberalism and Situation Ethics, she has already concluded in the affirmative for condoms, no? We should consider the most recent developments in topology as we examine the answers and solutions for a decentered ego in postmodern bourgeois subcultures in which commodity fetishism, alienation, and self-estrangement from Cartesian dualism are subverting patriarchal authority structures.

    June Cleaver: Ward, I think that means they are undermining your authority.

    Professor Kant: Morality is not properly the doctrine of how we may make ourselves happy, but how we may make ourselves worthy of happiness. We can explore this by returning to the a priori foundations of knowledge.

    Professor Jürgen Habermas: He may have a point.

    The Professor: Oh, yes, Gilligan. When the decentered ego in postmodern bourgeois subcultures passes through a neo-Kantian vortex it can be very disorienting and confusing.

    Ginger: Gilligan is taking the neo-Kantian Transcendental turn.

    Mary Ann: I just hope he can remember the directions to Louvain!

    Ginger: It’s somewhere between France and Amsterdam.

    Professor Derrida: At this point Ginger is subverting the discourse.

    Eddie Haskell: Oh, it’s called The Tingler, Mrs. Cleaver. It’s showing at the Drive-In.

    Professor Derrida: Every discourse, even a poetic or oracular sentence, carries with it a system of rules for producing analogous things and thus an outline of methodology. We can begin to deconstruct these, yes?

    Beaver Cleaver: Miss Landers sure takes this college postmodern Deconstructionism seriously.

    Robin: Gosh, Batman, Miss Landers sure has a lot of homework for Beaver Cleaver!

    Batman: Right you are, old chum. Have you been keeping up with your studies of Egyptology and ancient classical languages, Robin?

    Robin: Gosh, I try, Batman. But Latin and Greek homework takes a LONG time to finish.

    Batman: Just make sure to keep up with your translations of the Latin philosophical works of Cicero, Robin. You never know when civilization might collapse and they will come in handy some day.

    Robin: Gosh, I know it, Batman!

    Batman: Very interesting, Catwoman.

    Catwoman: Just don’t make me have to issue a trigger alert warning, Batman!

  6. The Professor: Let’s recap what happened in our narrative so that the terms of the argument will be clear.

    Ginger: Will it take very long?

    The Professor: As long as you like!

    The Professor Professor Lacan?

    Dr. Jacques Lacan: We were discussing conditional clauses for hypothetical situations in the subversion and unraveling of patriarchal authority structures in the wake of the Angst, commodity fetishism, alienation, and self-estrangement from Cartesian dualism in modernity.

    Professor Derrida: Doctor Lacan had set this up for us in light of Jan Brady’s discourse about condoms with Mike and Carol.

    Jan: But the Pope said that condoms are OK now.

    Ginger: Is there something you want to do, Professor?

    The Professor: Doctor Lacan would like to speak with you, Ginger. To get the background on the case.

    The Professor Don’t you see, you’re real identity is Mary Ann.

    Carl Jung Which will come as a shock to Dawn Wells.

    Professor Jürgen Habermas: The Professor mentioned to Gilligan how the decentered ego in postmodern bourgeois subcultures when it passes through a neo-Kantian vortex can be very disorienting and confusing.

    Woody: Which was a perfectly valid point. I get disoriented and confused whenever I pass through a neo-Kantian vortex.

    Professor Lyotard: But we’re missing the metanarrative….

    Dr. Jacques Lacan: We can discuss it in more detail.

    Professor Derrida: And then Ginger said:

    Ginger: Gilligan is taking the neo-Kantian Transcendental turn.

    Mary Ann: I just hope he can remember the directions to Louvain!

    Ginger: It’s somewhere between France and Amsterdam.

    Professor Derrida: Which, as I said, was Ginger’s way of subverting the discourse, even without trigger alert warnings.

    Professor Sartre: I was able to follow that and it’s just fine. But I wonder if we would be able to discuss Alexandre Kojève and his Paris Hegel seminars so that we could get to the epistemology, existential phenomenology, and ontology of the dialectic underlying Ginger’s and Gilligan’s Angst and Geworfenheit in a Heideggerian sense. We are about midway between Kierkegaard and Heidegger here, phenomenologically speaking. Then we can return to the discourse and these rhetorical concerns.

    Reverend Neuhaus: That’s my opening. I hate to interrupt again as pushy and aggressive professional Protestant converts sometimes do, but this might be a good time to discuss the Naked Public Square in modernity and Professor Charles Taylor’s secularization theories in light of the crisis of values which follows from disenchantment in the sense in which Max Weber explained when…

Leave a Reply