All Essays Copyrighted by Pauly Fongemie

VISION 2000, PART 2:

(Begun 1988, updated, 1992, 2007)


Lay-Centered Church was supposed to be a workshop, but it was more like a rally before the big game, to hype what is already hyped: The tour de force of a feminized church, a triumph, in the war to advance the downfall of Christendom. Sister Janet Gagnon was the presenter. She is worried by the presence of "Certain right-wing groups that are a danger to the Church."

The Church is in transition, on the brink of at last implementing the mandates of Vatican II, "but for enemies of Vatican II: Opus Dei, Catholics United For the Faith, CUF they are called, the Vatican, that is certain clergy in the Vatican."

By implication she obviously meant His Holiness, John Paul II, whom she described as unsympathetic toward Vatican II [If only that were true!]:

"We need a new pope, more like John the 23rd."

She admitted reluctantly that she was doubtful that the real Vatican II, which was constructed, according to her, to be more radical than the version we are currently laboring under was viable; she offered the opinion that the real Vatican II could not be implemented until the 2000's. If only the audience realized how ironic that statement was.

Regarding the enemies of the Church, she warned,

"Their chief victims are lesbians and gays, women who want reproductive rights, et cetera, be on guard."

She again veiled her assault at the Vicar of Christ by alluding to his firm stand on celibacy. It is celibacy that fires her gullet. Venom spews from every other phrase, by which she propagates the dissolution of the male clergy, through the casting of negative aspersions on them, associating celibacy with male aversion to women:

"Celibacy keeps women ritually impure, celibacy is getting in the way of the mission of the Church, celibacy alienates the laity; women are viewed as dangerous to priestly purity. The Church was a source of persecution of witches, priests' wives were made concubines, and their children bastards. If you do not know the truth of this, you cannot make decisions for yourselves. The abuses generated into the Reformation."

These are exact quotes, as I wrote everything down as it was spoken. I would not know how to make this stuff up if I wanted to.

She does not care to consider that celibacy is not an option for unmarried persons either, and that, even if the discipline of celibacy was lifted from the priesthood, the Church cannot and would not ordain women. But then, when she so cavalierly dismisses accurate Church history to substitute Protestant prejudices as a rationale, it is probably expecting too much that celibacy as a positive choice would be given a fair shake. The lay persons in attendance did not seem to question that her facts were wrong and how the connection between celibacy and the ban on female priests was an assumption that should be challenged. She had them spellbound and then clapping.

When I spoke with some of them later, all but one besides myself, agreed with her. Do priests know that their image has been tarnished, perhaps irrevocably? It was only a few years ago that the laity were positive about the sacrifices made by the clergy. But celibacy and the demand for women priests, which I think is not the real aim, are not different sides of the same coin, but different coins altogether. Even if Christ 'changed His mind', which He will not do because He is Eternal Truth itself, and permitted women to be ordained, there is no evidence that celibacy would not necessarily be a requirement in the Western rite. I suspect that ultimately what they are really after is a different church and the destruction of the priesthood and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is the means. These fatally flawed women, if they no longer believe in the Christ of Catholicism or His authority over His Church, then desire for the priesthood is of no value, but the laity are merely pawns here also: stir them up, inflame their resentments which are artificially instilled, and have them supervise their own demise, while weakened, abused priests are marginalized along with the orthodox laity. I wonder what the Bishops who do not effectively face up to this challenge must be thinking? Surely they cannot be so naive to believe that a nonhierarchical church will have room for them? Or if it does, that their role will not be neutralized?

Gagnon hinted of schism with the voice of authority usurped:

"We need to do it for ourselves, for it is our mission, not the Church's."

Note how subtle the schism aspect. She means apart from the Church, or else why insert this phrase, after all we have been told for years now that we are Church, not the Church.

Another tactic that Gagnon deftly employs is the art of language mastery, coyly exchanging the terms presider or presbyter for priest. Note, presbyter is a valid form in formal usage, such as Canon Law, but the laity are in the long established custom of thinking of presbyter as a Protestant term. Presider denotes an overseer or a caller of the gathering, who sits among the people, and connotes nothing of sacrificial ministry. Psychologically speaking, this has the effect of rendering the priest less than a priest, without actually saying so, for it substitutes the substantial and unique function of the priest as he who offers sacrifice, to one who sits as a 'concelebrant' with the people, not the alter Christus of the Mass.

Paired with this ploy was her masterful inversion of priest and presider, the former, when speaking of the evil of celibacy, and the latter, when speaking of the circle of community:

"The priesthood is not a state of life, it is merely a service, we are not well served by celibacy. The laity are on the bottom rung of the hierarchy, this is wrong, for we are the people of God. The presider is with us in the circle, which is the symbol of the new church, the old Church used to be a triangle. We are no longer submissive; it is healthy to rebel, we are addicts, we changed our behavior."

No humility, no will to obey, no order of Melchesidech forever. However she did get the submissive part accurately----they are not submissive any longer. Regarding obedience and submission she sneaked in her stab at the Vatican hierarchy that disciplined poor Charlie Curran:

"He was persecuted for some little thing that he said ten years ago; some theologians need disciplining, but not him; they can't shut up thinking theologians because this will erupt if you love the Church, question it."

If only the members of the audience would question her; I dared not reveal my position, because by then I was taking copious notes under her eyes, and she looked at me, a little unsure; I was not about to give her reason to throw me out. This last has been used effectively and with impunity in a similar setting.

Conflict and tension are encouraged to energize the audience to the call to action:

"We have to get rid of our duelistic thinking [shades of Bishop Gerety] and get into holistic thinking it is going to get worse (the sarcastic irony I could have interjected here was hard to suppress). The male clergy against women ministers; the Church is becoming radicalized, our only hope is a new pope, we will be smaller in numbers, more congregational. You haven't seen anything yet, I am personally glad that vocations are down, that means the laity will have to do it all for themselves; the pain of being human in our parishes calls us to find a new way. Vatican II was a sneak preview of things to come."

Duelistic versus holistic is code for rejecting Catholic morality, good and evil, for pantheism.

Gagnon then went on to tell us how she was personally proud that when she was Vocations Director for her order of nuns, [St. Joseph] she worked to decrease vocations. I mean imagine the audacity, the impudence, and no objections from anyone. Perhaps a few were there innocently and quietly absorbing it all for future reference, but from the response of the majority, they were in support of her. At first the attendees wore masks of mystery, vapid looks that made it difficult to discern if their glazed eyes and rapt sway were as a result of shock and horror or something else. But my doubts were soon laid to rest when the audience broke out in robust applause with nods of affirmation to one another. As I have already indicated, only one gentleman, a man from my parish displayed any dismay, but he, alas, attributed it to his "reluctance to change." The Big Lie runs ever and ever deeper, deeper into paganism:

The closing 'liturgy' included a prayer-like plea, which I have to paraphrase from memory as my notes at that time were temporarily mislaid:

"O Lord, there is no Heaven, but that which is earth, and we pray that one day, eternity will only mean that we can keep our bodies as they are now."

Prayer as propaganda. It finally had to happen. Was there no shame? It is very painful for me to write about these events that are touted as catechesis, but it would be even more painful not to do so.

Faithful women (and some men, mostly priests) are suffering intensely, in virtual abandonment by their Bishops and their pastors, who prefer to have their heads in the sand, rather than risk being unpopular. Our pain, "our being human in our parishes" is never important to anyone, precisely because we do not carp and scream for attention, make threats, or hurl vile language as was bestowed against our Blessed Mother or Bishop Proulx, according to him. Because we are that, faithful, the Bishop feels free to take us for granted because he knows we will never leave.

The clergy need a strong Bishop to lead, not follow, to become sensitive, but not the the way the feminized, effete clergy have. I am weary of feminists' self-induced, indulgent pain, which gives birth to false pride in women who are trained to confuse democracy and Church structure, inverting one onto the other, and which confusion nurtures a lack of humility.

But I will never tire of caring about the authentic agony of the faithful who struggle to endure this great apostasy. Lest the reader think that a truly orthodox woman could not possibly be infected by this rot-inducing spiritual blight, think again. One of the women in my parish eventually became a 'believer' in the cause. She conveyed to me how at first she was shocked, but that as she attended more workshops, she got "used to it". She actually encouraged me to give it time, that if I did, I would "soon be just like me." [her]. I have one benefit that she did not and does not possess, I read good orthodox Catholic literature, she reads mostly the diocesan paper [now defunct] and whatever comes out of the Chancery. She is at least confused if not an overt revolutionary. What does it matter to those who plot and scheme to destroy the Church from within? Confusion is as good as anything to serve the goals of the insiders. This Catholic mother and educator was so steeped in the new elitism of effetism, that she once excitedly told me that she wished that a certain pastor could be hers instead of the one we had at the time. The wished-for pastor is an activist homosexual who commits blasphemy and heresy with ease and utter abandon. He once said that Mary and Joseph engaged in conjugal relations and that was how Jesus came to be born. And this is the kind of priest she unwittingly favors, as I am certain she would be scandalized to hear this.

 Because I am so concerned, I will make my stand with Christ and His Vicar, I will fight the good fight as St. Paul exhorts us to. I will pray and ask God to give me the courage I need to withstand the onslaught of heresy and ruinous 'renewal', the insults of judgmental busybodies who attempt to dissuade me from my task.

When I became a soldier for Christ at my Confirmation, the Holy Spirit was already fortifying me, and a soldier I am destined to be by Christ's will. Even if I touch only one hurting heart, uncloud one confused mind, salvage one soul, the suffering will be a bargain, although I am unworthy to try, not as worthy as those whom I fight for.

It will be a monumental undertaking, a challenge of a lifetime for our Bishops and clergy, to uproot the rotting growth of modernism infecting the diocese. Whether or not it is already too late to enrich the good soil that remains, and provide for a true harvest of souls, I sometimes dare not consider. But I do not want to commit the sin of despair. I am convinced that like the war of attrition that has brought us to death's door, the struggle to reclaim Tradition will have to be one of attrition, a plodding, patient task. We have lost almost two generations now and the hideous alien "thing" of today cannot be undone as such.

The stench is putrefying, the treason vile. I wrote urgently to the Bishop, knowing that for now, it will do no good, only place myself in harm's way. I have written to the Vatican trusting still that my concerns will find a receptive ear. I sent a copy of my follow-up with the Bishop re these matters to Bernard Cardinal Law, who is the metropolitan for Maine. He said he never received it. He did not request me to resubmit it, so I know I was receiving the bureaucratic brush-off. How stupid do they think we are?

All I know is that to do less, to remain silent, is to aid and abet the traitors who plan the overthrow of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. The flock in Maine is starving for the exercise of rightful authority, and the reassertion, the reassurance, of the Truth, the Divinely revealed nature of God's willed plan whereby He instituted specific male and female roles in the matter of the Sacraments. The distinctions are being slowly, but surely blurred, to further the aims of those who no longer believe or if they do, know not what it is they profess to believe.

Always I pray, and I invite you, the reader to accept this challenge and join Christ's army to pray for, and petition the Bishops, unceasingly, that they may recover their courage, so that we can be a truly recovering Church, and to that end that they will take swift, decisive action. The diocese is in grave peril, and to do less, is to commit a serious sin of omission, to commit high treason itself! Some Bishops are so far gone, to use the phrase, only prayer is the only recourse.

Satan is once more in the garden, tempting Eve and Adam, read duped women and Bishops and priest followers. We have yet to learn what Christ meant when He said, "I come to serve, not be served."

Heaven help us!