The question of why a revolution succeeds or survives, why, even when it’s clearly failing, it manages to stay in place, and uninterested parties don’t overturn it, is far more interesting and practically relevant to reversing it than merely trying to get the motives of the villains right. In the revolutions in Catholic faith and practice over the last 60 years, asking why so many Catholics are indifferent to failing policies and declining metrics is far more important than merely pointing out that people are trying to subvert the Church.
Certainly, the Lavendar Mafia in the hierarchy of moral corruption running to the top that Gene Thomas Gomulka, Dr. Kwasniewski, Janet Smith, and many others have pointed to is the most obvious factor behind the revolutionary mindset still possessed by many a hierarch, with many of them seemingly actively opposed to the faith over which they are the leaders.
But while this corruption runs deep, it’s not the whole story. In the liturgical revolution of the 60s, most of the priests and bishops weren’t ideologues or morally corrupt but were swept along by the propaganda and manipulation of those who were, and who were more focused on manipulation.
Similarly, in the broader “Catholic Revolution” of the 60s, most people weren’t ideologues, but were carried along with it, because the Church’s enemies, instead of a direct assault, tried a charm offensive.
Rather than fighting the Church outright, the Church’s enemies were now offering to help, pretending to meet the Church’s naively open approach with their own warm (yet false) welcome. They “helped”, or “infiltrated”, that is, by building up a power structure that is not the Church but exists within and around it, and to which the bishops—and many others—abdicated authority, a system of managerialism which turns the bishops into mere puppets or guardians of a system of secularization that is smothering the faith from within.
Why do the priorities of the bishops we hear so often sound so much like blatheringly secular corporatist or governmental speak? Why does it seem so hard to get them to speak clearly on any matter of faith and morals that’s not aligned with the interests of the world? Because, at a high level, the Church’s institutional power has been abdicated ever since Vatican II to the world of corporate managerial and government concerns, and the bishops are just the middle managers for a process that they feel is outside of their control, a treadmill that they feel they can’t leave.
It’s not the French this time, but we’re in a sort of second Avignon Captivity of the Church.
This is the story (probably just the beginning) of “Diocesan Inc.” or the managerial infiltration of the Church.
More: https://x.com/drkwasniewski/status/2010127337300599141?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w
The question of why a revolution succeeds or survives, why, even when it’s clearly failing, it manages to stay in place, and uninterested parties don’t overturn it, is far more interesting and practically relevant to reversing it than merely trying to get the motives of the villains right. In the revolutions in Catholic faith and practice over the last 60 years, asking why so many Catholics are indifferent to failing policies and declining metrics is far more important than merely pointing out that people are trying to subvert the Church.
Certainly, the Lavendar Mafia in the hierarchy of moral corruption running to the top that Gene Thomas Gomulka, Dr. Kwasniewski, Janet Smith, and many others have pointed to is the most obvious factor behind the revolutionary mindset still possessed by many a hierarch, with many of them seemingly actively opposed to the faith over which they are the leaders.
But while this corruption runs deep, it’s not the whole story. In the liturgical revolution of the 60s, most of the priests and bishops weren’t ideologues or morally corrupt but were swept along by the propaganda and manipulation of those who were, and who were more focused on manipulation.
Similarly, in the broader “Catholic Revolution” of the 60s, most people weren’t ideologues, but were carried along with it, because the Church’s enemies, instead of a direct assault, tried a charm offensive.
Rather than fighting the Church outright, the Church’s enemies were now offering to help, pretending to meet the Church’s naively open approach with their own warm (yet false) welcome. They “helped”, or “infiltrated”, that is, by building up a power structure that is not the Church but exists within and around it, and to which the bishops—and many others—abdicated authority, a system of managerialism which turns the bishops into mere puppets or guardians of a system of secularization that is smothering the faith from within.
Why do the priorities of the bishops we hear so often sound so much like blatheringly secular corporatist or governmental speak? Why does it seem so hard to get them to speak clearly on any matter of faith and morals that’s not aligned with the interests of the world? Because, at a high level, the Church’s institutional power has been abdicated ever since Vatican II to the world of corporate managerial and government concerns, and the bishops are just the middle managers for a process that they feel is outside of their control, a treadmill that they feel they can’t leave.
It’s not the French this time, but we’re in a sort of second Avignon Captivity of the Church.
This is the story (probably just the beginning) of “Diocesan Inc.” or the managerial infiltration of the Church.
More: https://x.com/drkwasniewski/status/2010127337300599141?s=46&t=IydJ-X8H6c0NM044nYKQ0w
No comments:
Post a Comment