More more more on the defenestration of Fr. Phillips

Good coverage here.

LifeSiteNews did not hear back on an inquiry to the Archdiocese as to why Cardinal Cupich is keeping Father Phillips from performing priestly ministry.

No.

Oakes Spalding, a St. John Cantius parishioner and blogger, wrote that “This is of course a travesty.”

Spalding said he is convinced Father Phillips is innocent of any wrongdoing, whether moral, legal or civil, and that the charges are political and an attempt to quash a traditional Catholic parish.

“Hostile forces”

He further wrote the allegations were “seized upon by hostile forces in the Chicago Archdiocese and elsewhere as an opportunity to attack and destroy an incredibly successful traditionalist pastor and (perhaps later) the traditionalist order that he founded and the old Chicago church that he saved from the wrecking ball and turned into one of Chicago’s most thriving parishes.”

“The final result was not based on justice but on politics,” Spalding stated, and said those politics are not limited to that of Cardinal Cupich.

Blame Cupich?

“Catholic traditionalists and conservatives have assumed that the liberal Cardinal Cupich is somehow behind it all,” he continued, “not without reason, I think, given his past behavior and reputation. [As convinced opponent of the Latin mass] But I do not believe that blaming Cupich for all of it is correct, or at least, given what we know, entirely correct.”

Father Phillips had other enemies, Spalding wrote, and pledged to name names in a subsequent post.

I’m all ears. Spalding blogs at Mahound’s Paradise, where he is all over this story. Robustly, I might add.

Meanwhile, at One Peter Five, Matt Abbott, regarding the difficulty of finding out what’s going on, asks, “Has Cupich silenced everyone involved?”

Lot of cross-pollination in all of this.

via Cdl. Cupich keeps traditional priest from ministry, despite report finding him innocent | News | LifeSite

It seems we’ll never know what happened at St. John Cantius, Chicago

There are mysteries and there are deep mysteries. What kind do you think this is?

Something happened. What happened? The Congregation of the Ressurrection and the Archdiocese of Chicago have an obligation to make public those parts of their conclusions that can be made public (that is, with names or other information that could identify specific persons blacked out).

Otherwise, the removal of Fr. Phillips will be seen as a persecution motivated not by his “improper conduct” (what was it?), but actually by his good work at St. John Cantius.

The people have a rightful expectation to know what actually happened.

Rightful expectation or not, when has this happened when “causa finita est” is incorrectly applied in incorrect agencies?

via RORATE CÆLI

Catholic pastor C. Frank Phillips innocent of charges but guilty of something else . . .

. . . violating unspecified ” standards for behavior.” and so cannot do public ministry in the Chicago archdiocese.

Although Phillips was not found to have violated any church or secular law, archdiocese spokeswoman Paula Waters said there was other information that warranted his removal and a continued ban on his administering sacraments in public within the archdiocese.

Waters declined to detail the findings against Phillips.

Except to add:

“ . . . The review board “did not recommend that he be returned as the pastor of St. John Cantius. And so, based on their recommendation that he not return and on other factors, the cardinal decided that his faculties to minister would remain withdrawn.” [Italics added]

Question: Was the review board required by the cardinal to recommend that? Without doing so, they really did recommend it? A sort of Humpty Dumpty situation? Or Red Queen?

In any case, the review board that found Phillips innocent “did not make any recommendations,” his lawyer Stephen Komie said. “They returned a straight report.”

So: Why is Fr. P. banned in Chicago? Was it Humpty Dumpty’s “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less”? Or the Red Queen’s off-with-head scenario?

Either way, matters have gotten curiouser and curiouser, as Alice understood her situation.

via Chicago Tribune

Cardinal Brandmüller Questions Francis’ Claim Not to Have Received the Dubia Before Publication

One of the four questioning cardinals hand-delivered it, Francis told Defense of Faith executive not to respond, now Francis has another story? Is it another Chilean abuse complaint, ignored until stuff hit the fan?

I’m gonna try to be a good Catholic and say some prayers over this, remembering that no pope is exactly like another. Join me?

via OnePeterFive

Pope issuing ‘fake news,’ or is it a ‘memory lapse’?

Francis says he read about the four cardinals’ letter asking for clarification on something he said about marriage in his Amoris Laetitia (Joy of Love) letter two years ago from reading about it in the newspapers.

Like Obama saying the same thing when asked about Hillary’s basement email operation?

Or just forgetting about it?

Either way, very strange.

via Blogs | LifeSite

The Profanation of the Sacred and the Sacralisation of the Profane

Fascinating thesis here, put forward by one Dom Karl Wallner, O. Cis. (Cistercian), rector of the Pontifical University of Heiligenkreuz and national director of Missio for Austria, in the blog Canticum Salomonis A Blog for Liturgical Ressourcement,

The last few decades have brought a stark alteration of Catholic cult, liturgy, art, and architecture that many perceive as a break and a rupture, or even as an outright destruction of the former dignity and sacrality. In the long theological debates of the 1970s, “desacralisation” [Brit spelling, sorry] was treated as an imperative for the modernisation of the Church.

Get rid of the mumbo-jumbo, you know.  I do know I wonder about the elevation of the everyday and diminution of the sacred in the mass and how a zeal for making things easier to understand has removed the mystery of it all. Not that clarity has won the day. No. There’s been no concomitant outbreak of clarity.

Dom Wallner, continued:

Along with desacralisation inside the Church there was another phenomenon, which I was able to experience . . . in my encounters with the profane world of show business: a form of sacralisation of the profane, a ritualisation of the banal, the promotion of non-religious objects to the level of cult objects.

From the backstage of the show to which I had been invited, I could observe how the show was designed down the last detail as a sort of dramaturgy, so that the viewer in front of the television participated in a kind of “Pontifical Mass of Entertainment.”

That sounds a bit much, but he makes his point. Judge for yourself by reading further.

via Dom Karl Wallner: The Profanation of the Sacred and the Sacralisation of the Profane

Christopher Steele Visited State Dept Shortly Before 2016 Election

Well known author of the Steele Report/dossier used by FBI to get its FISA approval. Tricky fellow visited his tricky-fellow friends.

Former British spy Christopher Steele visited the State Department in October 2016 and briefed officials there about his work on the infamous anti-Trump dossier, it was revealed on Wednesday.

“Based upon our review of the visitor logs at the State Department, Mr. Steele visited the State Department, briefing officials on the dossier in October 2016,” Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Richard Burr said during a hearing held to review the U.S. government’s response to Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Steele’s visit to Foggy Bottom in Washington, D.C., prior to the election has not been previously reported.

Nor will this be much reported, is a good bet.

via The Daily Caller