The Bishop's Weekly Column from the Parish Bulletin

OUR LADY OF FATIMA

CATHOLIC CHURCH

The Paradox of Pope Benedict XVI

November 29, 2006

I think it is certain that Pope Benedict's leadership of the Catholic Church so far has been extremely interesting to say the least. A veritable industry of blogs have surfaced (this humble one amongst them) dealing with day-to-day issues in the life of the Church. In contradistinction to Bishop Williamson's dire predictions as referenced in a column yesterday I think we are living in the most exciting of times. Joseph Ratzinger was born on the vigil of Easter, and baptized with the Baptismal Water solemnly blessed during the vigil ceremony (which at that time was held in the morning) four hours after he entered this world. Indeed his opening words as Pope on the loggia overlooking St. Peter's Square referenced the joy of the Resurrection. To my mind there is a great deal still to hope for in so far as the "resurrection" of the Church is concerned. Sandro Magister had a most interesting column in late October on the resurgence of Faith in Italy. Curiously when I looked for it to link to it the page doesn't load up.

What I find even more interesting is the clearly unintended polarization that this lightning-rod of a man has produced. What I mean is that the strangest people are switching sides. Earlier this year a former Remnant columnist Dr. Thomas Droleskey, announced that he no longer believed that Benedict XVI was a true Pope. A few years ago he was one of Pope John Paul II's staunchest defenders. A couple of years ago he issued what was supposed to have been a two part column blasting independent Catholic clergy for not being in communion with Rome. I wrote a lengthy rebuttal which the Remnant didn't dare to print since I totally wiped out Droleskey's arguments. Nevertheless, the second part of the column never appeared. Now, as the wheel has turned for him again, he is hobnobbing with some of the "independent" clergy he was previously disparaging, even associating himself with the line of clergy that descends from a Vietnamese prelate that Droleskey had written was "in his dotage" when he supposedly consecrated some Traditional bishops in 1981, after the scandalous affair at Palmar de Troya in 1976-77. For his escapades, Thuc was twice excommunicated and Rome went out of its way to state the invalidity of the orders conferred. The unspoken reason was Thuc's mental incompetence. Over the last three years I have amassed a wealth of documentation that conclusively proves this.

Well now another wheel is turning. I received this in an e-mail last night:

Dr. Robert Sungenis and John Lane had a debate at Mount St. Michael's in October regarding sedevacantism. Sungenis was anti, Lane pro for the issue (you probably know all this). Anyway, at the end of the debate, one of the CMRI nuns went up to Dr. Sungenis to shake his hand and congratulate him on winning the debate. Tom Droleskey, the moderator of the debate, later chastised this nun because according to him she should not have done this openly with many other people around that heard her; especially, because the CMRI are sede. Have you heard about this issue? Are the CMRI nuns that closeted concerning this issue? Actually, the better question for you would be, do you care :-) ? I just found it rather interesting.

For months I have heard rumors from several priests concerning the matter raised. This is an issue I preferred to avoid until now. My sources indicate that almost half the convent of nuns has flipped over and they now recognize Benedict XVI as Pope. Supposedly the "Commander-in-Chief" was up in arms about the issue which explains why the October conference this year was all about "Caputvacantism". It was a sorry attempt to re-evangelize the diminishing acceptance of their theory. Apparently it failed, according to the e-mail referenced above. Indeed in another of their parishes, it was reported to me that almost nobody in the congregation even buys into the sede theory anymore. Indeed why would they ? It defies all logic that one could hold that the permanent "Rock" of the Church, against which the "Gates of Hell would not prevail" could be dynamited in 1958 thereby calling into question the very veracity of Our Lord's own words. As time marches on and the wheels turn for us all, the paradox of Pope Benedict is that he certainly makes people sit up and take notice of him and in the most surprising of ways.

+TF