The Flying Buttress: What Inquisitors' Minds Want to Know

An archive for issues of The Flying Buttress newswire, whose purpose is to comment satirically on dissent within and relating to the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Disclaimer: These publications are works of satirical fiction. Any similarity to persons living or dead is purely coincidental, but it all depends on what you mean by the word "is." May the Lord bless you and keep you!

Sunday, September 30, 2007


+ An exciting new public relations campaign, complete with wristbands, headbands, key chains, necklaces, t-shirts, coffee mugs, bobbleheads - even scapulars - is sweeping across the Archdiocese of Cincinnati!

+ It’s a campaign generated by the Archdiocesan Office of Communications and The (Occasionally) Catholic Telegraph to celebrate the long and distinguished ecclesiastical career of Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk as it draws to a close in August of 2009. Featured are highlights of his integrity and wise stewardship, the milestones of a track record which has brought such a wealth of vocations (and so many fruits) to our Archdiocese. Though this campaign is officially called “A Celebration of Archbishop Pilarczyk,” it has become known in certain underground circles by another name, based on the popular “What Would Jesus Do?” movement.

+Here at The Flying Buttress we have developed our own collection of Pilarczyk career highlights, culled from various scenarios which have occurred during his tenure. We’re hoping these highlights, gathered from the tireless research of WCPO-TV's I-Team, will add a significant dimension to our readers’ appreciation of this distinguished servant of the Church...

Scenario 1

Victims of sexual abuse in Cincinnati call for the publication of the full history of abuse in the Archdiocese to help the healing process, as was done in the Covington Diocese.

What Would Pilarczyk Do (WWPD)?

Why, he’d not only waffle about finishing such a report, he’d even waffle about making it public! After all, who needs a sincere apology?

Scenario 2

Victims of sexual abuse in Cincinnati want to know why the police weren’t called in specific cases, and why abusing priests weren’t fired.


Why, he’d claim he didn’t know he had to call the police, and that he couldn’t fire priests! He'd even say he never lied to anybody about it!

Scenario 3

The WCPO I-Team interviews the Archbishop twice in 2003 to establish some background on sexual abuse cases.


Why, he’d claim through a paid lobbyist that the interviews never took place!

Scenario 4

A victim of a gay priest files a civil lawsuit against the Archdiocese.


Why, he’d have the Tribunal dismiss the young man’s allegations and attempt to discredit him!

Scenario 5

One of Cincinnati’s gay priests, addicted to crack cocaine and male prostitutes, is potentially a big headache. But there’s an even bigger problem: this priest is heir to a family fortune worth tens of millions of dollars, which he has bequeathed to the Archdiocese.


Why, he'd pretend the problem was diabetes, place the priest on medical leave, and ensure this priest’s inheritance could still be bequeathed to the Archdiocese!

Scenario 6

The pastor of Cincinnati’s largest parish, a close personal friend (sic) of the Archbishop, is caught misusing parish funds.


Why, he’d refuse to comment on the case, merely allowing the priest to take early retirement, and stall on releasing the audit!

Scenario 7

One of Cincinnati’s brave priests sends a letter to the Archbishop, warning him about the ongoing homosexual sex abuse activities of a fellow priest.


You guessed it - nothing!

Scenario 8: The Mother of all Scenarios

The person hired by the Archdiocese to perform criminal background checks for all Church and school volunteers turns out to be a criminal himself, with a long rap sheet and a history of a homosexual relationship with the Archdiocesan Personnel Director.


Why, he'd write a letter to the parish that complained about this, claiming that “…we need to be able to give people a chance to do right after they've done wrong"!

Miscellanea CATHOLICA

+The Flying Buttress renews our dedication to St. Michael on this his feast day, and we wish a blessed Michaelmas to all our readers! Here are The Prayers to St. Michael (short version, long version and Exorcism); and the Act of Consecration to St. Michael.

ALERT: Weapons of Mass Disruption

+Reviled Flying Buttress publisher Tomas de Torquemada, noticing a certain trend among American bishops who, for a variety of reasons which come under the category of “smokescreens,” do not approve of the apparent liberation of the 1962 Missal, (READ: are threatened by it, since it signals the beginning of the end of their post-Conciliar joyride) asked the St. Joseph Foundation for help in interpreting one particular phrase of Summorum Pontificum.

+The English phrase in question is “juridically impeded.” We focused on this phrase because we thought it was being used to create a loophole wide enough to accomodate a Mexican 16-wheeler, resulting in various illicit restrictions being placed upon priests who wish to celebrate this rite.

+What follows is the full response of the St. Joseph Foundation, who was kind enough to not only point out that we were mistaken, but to give us permission to use their answer, provided we printed their response in full. We are delighted to do so, and truly grateful for their clarification:

“Dear [Senor Torquemada]:

I am responding to your question concerning Summorum Pontificum, art.5 § 4. You ask about the meaning of the phrase “juridically impeded.” In this context, I believe that the term refers to priests who have certain canonical limitations on their celebration of the sacraments. For example, if a priest has been placed under a penalty such as excommunication or interdict, he is prohibited from celebrating Mass (cf. cann. 1331 § 1, 1o, 1332). Thus, this passage of SP simply means that priests who are prohibited from celebrating the sacraments generally, also are prohibited from celebrating them according to the 1962 liturgical books.

With regard to your question about the interpretation of SP by some bishops, I do not believe that they are focusing on the requirement relating to juridical impediments. Rather, I think that they are focusing on another term that appears in SP. The provision of SP that you cite (art. 5 § 4) has two requirements for priests wishing to celebrate Mass accoding to the 1962 Missal:

“idonei esse debent ac iure non impediti.”

The second requirement is that they not be juridically impeded (iure non impediti); the first requirement is that they must be idonei. That is, they must be worthy or suitable. I believe that it is this requirement of worthiness that some bishops are interpreting as providing authority for them to examine priests on their ability in Latin and their understanding of the liturgy.

Whether this interpretation is compatible with SP is a question that the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” may need to decide. For my own part, I have great difficulty in reconciling some of these interpretations with the letter and spirit of SP. By contrast, Edward Cardinal Egan of New York has issued a statement on SP in which he interpreted this requirement of worthiness to mean simply that the priests celebrating with the Missal of John XXIII must be able to pronounce the Latin words correctly. This interpretation by Cardinal Egan seems to me to be much more sound.

I hope that this information will assist you.

Sincerely yours,

M.D. The St. Joseph Foundation San Antonio, Texas”

Miscellanea CATHOLICA
+Once again, Mother Angelica reminds us how Catholic liturgy should look and sound.

Sunday, September 09, 2007

Does Peter's Barque Have a Bite?

+Our readers may recall that before releasing Summorum Pontifium, Pope Benedict XVI met privately with about 15 bishops to discuss their reactions to the document. However, as our Rome correspondent Alfredo Fettuccine reports, the Holy Father conducted a second meeting by conference call on the same subject, just a few hours later, with his “liberal” American bishops.

+Pope Benedict, hoping to score some collegial points with this historically hostile audience, apparently took pains to compose a rather progressive Responsorial Psalm, based on an old Broadway standard, with which to open this call. Unfortunately, his original responses were rudely interrupted and replaced by Bishop Donald W. Trautman, Chairman of the US Bishops’ Committee on Liturgy and the apparent spokesman for this group From what we understand, the resulting Psalm, somewhat reminiscent of the disjointed language of Sacrosanctum Concilium, has now been inserted into all the Gather hymnals in the Diocese of Erie, PA (with guitar tablature added).

+Here, sadly, is what became of the opening of that phone call. Note that the verses were sung by the Holy Father, while the untoward responses were sung by Bishop Trautman.

V: I dreamed last night we got off the boat to heaven;/ This “great façade” it just couldn’t be prolonged,/ And so I wrote/ Such a Universal Indult!/ So the bishops they would know right from wrong…/

R/: But the bishops all say sit down,/ Sit down, you're rockin' the boat!/ Don’t assume we’ll all come around;/ Your Summorum we won’t promote!/ That old Missal will drag us under -/ All those smells and bells will just never float./ Sit down, we frown, take off that gown,/ Sit down, you’re rockin’ the boat!/

V: The most wondrous thing on this side of heaven,/ Whose cause I plead, and whose treasures are my gist,/ Is why I beg to restore our one Tradition,/ ‘Tis a blessing, not a change to resist…/

R/: But the bishops all say beware -/ You’re on a divisive trip!/ You’re giving us quite a scare/ Our jurisdiction you will clip!/ Those Lefebvrites will drag us under/ We know their objections as if by rote:/ Sit down, we frown, take off that gown,/ Sit down you’re rockin’ the boat!/

V: I bowed my head, “Lord, have mercy on my bishops,”/ And a great big wave came and washed them overboard!/ But as they sank, they all hollered “Someone save us!”/ Did they finally awake, my Dear Lord?/

R/: But the bishops all say sit down,/ Sit down, you’re rockin’ the boat!/ There’s no way we could drown,/ Vatican II keeps us afloat!/ This nostalgia will drag us under;/ Your authority is just so remote -/ Sit down, we frown, take off that gown,/ Sit down you’re rockin’ the boat!/

Miscellanea CATHOLICA

+Bishop Trautman, in fact, has already violated in writing the terms of Summorum Pontificum, by requiring his priests to pass an examination in Latin and in the rubrics of the 1962 Missal before offering it. What part of “does not need the bishop’s permission” didn’t you understand, Your Excellency? And since Latin and the 1962 rubrics are shunned by Trautman as if they were anathema, who exactly will be administering those exams?

+How many priests (and bishops) do you suppose will react to Summorum Pontificum the way Father Peter Daly, of St. John Vianney parish in Prince Frederick, MD, has? Why is it that the post-Conciliar Church is so adept at producing arrogant, devious and mealy-mouthed ideologues, and so inept at producing humble saints?

+If you’re looking for others in your area to start a petition for a Traditional Latin Mass, here is a link:

Commentary on "Summorum Pontificum"

The Exorcism Begins in Earnest

+Our readers may be familiar with the claim of the late Father Malachi Martin regarding certain mysterious events that took place during the evening of June 29, 1963.

+Father Martin describes, in “Windswept House,” a satanic enthronement ritual -performed by members of the Church’s own hierarchy - that took place that evening in the Vatican and in Charleston, South Carolina, simultaneously and coordinated by telephone. He then indicates that this enthronement of Satan within the Church was the true cause and sustenance of the revolution that swept through Her in the years that followed.

+If Martin’s story is true (and he claimed it was), then The Flying Buttress views this motu propriu as the first serious public step toward undoing this enthronement ritual, and therefore at healing all the far-reaching confusion which followed. Confusion is, after all, the first trademark of the presence of the Church’s ancient enemy.

+We predict the eventual effect of Summorum Pontificum on all the heterodox, “progressives,” dissenters, heretics, and the proud and sinless homosexuals who infest the Church will be quite similar to the reaction of a possessed person when a Crucifix or a Rosary is brought near to them, or touches them.

+That being said, however, we offer some critical commentary on several phrases in this document and the accompanying letter which, to a layman attempting to employ both faith and reason, sadly indicate a Rome who still appears to be weak and compromised. Is Benedict XVI that Knight in Shining Armor who will restore the Church Militant and Triumphant? No, but he is laying the groundwork for that Knight:

“Up to our own times, it has been the constant concern of Supreme Pontiffs to ensure that the Church of Christ offers a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty, ‘to the praise and glory of His name,’ and ‘to the benefit of all His Holy Church.’"

+Paul VI, however, in promulgating his Missal, seemed more concerned with offering a worthy ritual comprehensible and acceptable to mankind than in offering a worthy ritual to the Divine Majesty. In fact, in the all-too-common usage of his Missal, mankind has replaced the Divine Majesty as the object of worship.

“In more recent times, the Second Vatican Council expressed a desire that the respectful reverence due to divine worship should be renewed and adapted to the needs of our time.”

+One wonders, first of all, how “respectful reverence” can be adapted to anything, let alone to the needs of our time. Is this therefore a relativistic reverence? And how are the spiritual needs of mankind in our time – the Church’s primary concern - different from man’s needs in any other time? Be that as it may, we all know how “reverently” the Missal of Paul VI has been used in practice.

+While many have attempted to defend this Missal based on the fact that it can be celebrated “reverently,” that is not the issue. Pagans can slaughter chickens “reverently.” The issue is the omission of the sacred mystery, the omission or merely oblique focus on the Holy Sacrifice, and the replacement of the alter christus priest with the Amiable Lecturer, Congenial Social Worker, Psychologist, Team Leader, and All-Around Swell Guy.

+While sacred mystery evokes reverence, reverence does not in and of itself invoke sacred mystery.

“These [Paul VI’s liturgical books of 1970], translated into the various languages of the world, were willingly accepted by bishops, priests and faithful.”

+...except for those tens of millions of faithful and many thousands of clergy and religious who left the Church rather than accept the “reforms” of 1970.

“Thus Roman Pontiffs have operated to ensure that ‘this kind of liturgical edifice ... should again appear resplendent for its dignity and harmony.’”

+More recently, however, Roman Pontiffs have operated to ensure something quite different, namely, that a Missal based on a Calvinist communion service (as Paul VI himself admitted) – in other words, a rite which is in its essence not Catholic - should appear to be Catholic. They have also operated to perpetuate the myth that the “reforms” of Vatican II have been good for the Church, rather than devastating.

Articles 7 and 8: legal and procedural disputes.

+Though these articles intend the very opposite, they in practice will be nothing more than the loopholes which disobedient bishops have always managed to find, bogging down urgent questions in years of canonical proceedings.

And, from the accompanying letter:

“In the first place, there is the fear that the document detracts from the authority of the Second Vatican Council, one of whose essential decisions -- the liturgical reform -- is being called into question.”

+What should be called into question is the work of Bugnini’s Consilium: whether it fulfilled the liturgical decree of the Council, or whether it embarked upon its own prefabricated and premeditated revolution which it then attempted to disguise as the work of the Council. How do we know that the Missal of Paul VI was not what the Council Fathers had in mind on the question of liturgical reform? They voted it down soundly when it was presented to them!

+If the Missal of Paul VI violates both the letter and the spirit of the liturgical decree of the Council, does it not therefore also violate its authority? Is not this “fear,” therefore, just a smokescreen?

+In order to better understand how the vague and internally inconsistent language of the Vatican II documents laid the foundation for Bugnini’s Revolution, the student of history would do well to compare the procedural technique of the Freemasons as applied to the French Revolution/Reign of Terror, the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the Bolshevik Revolution, and Vatican II. They are one and the same technique.

“…a good number of people remained strongly attached to this usage of the Roman Rite, which had been familiar to them from childhood.”

+Yet it is among those who never knew the Missal of 1962 in their childhood that this Rite attracts the most devotion (as the Holy Father acknowledges elsewhere).

“The celebration of the Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI will be able to demonstrate, more powerfully than has been the case hitherto, the sacrality which attracts many people to the former usage” [as a result of mutual enriching of the two Rites].

+How this will occur remains to be seen: it will require the priest to turn around and once again face the altar; it will require the faithful to receive Holy Eucharist kneeling and on the tongue; it will require the use of an altar instead of a communal table; it will require the restoration of the Tabernacle on the altar; it will require prayers and rubrics which restore the priest’s role as alter christus, it will require…

“There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church's faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place. Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books.

+ Is there really no contradiction between the sterile, secularized and philistine Protestant parodies of worship upon which the Missal of Paul VI is based, and the Catholic Mass lovingly and carefully developed over centuries based on Apostolic Tradition? Is there really no rupture evident in the revolution of Bugnini’s Consilium, which took an officially sanctioned Sherman’s March through our Tradition?

+Does the Holy Father mean that there has been no rupture in the history of the development of the “Tridentine” Mass? That would be correct. Or does he mean that the promulgation of the Missal of Paul VI does not constitute a terrible rupture in the liturgy? That would be a ludicrous statement, a slap in the face to any Catholic who takes his faith seriously, and a contradiction of his previous statement as Prefect:

“After the Council… in place of the liturgy as the fruit of organic development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it, as in a manufacturing process, with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.” (Quoted by Philip Goddard in “The Latin Mass Society Newsletter,” May 2004)

+The Pope’s prior remarks on this lack of continuity and unity should be enough in and of themselves, but Goddard adds: “In order to justify their desire to deprive traditionalists of access to their preferred rite, therefore, the modernists are compelled to argue that they are not two different rites, but an older and a newer version of the same.”

+Does the last sentence of this paragraph (“Needless to say…”) also now force the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, as well as all the other orders and societies “adhering to the former usage,” to celebrate the Novus Ordo?

“The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.”

+Just as the attempted total exclusion of the old Rite was not consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness (note the reference to the “new rite,” a slip of the tongue which all by itself destroys the previous attempt to make these two Missals one unified rite). Moreover, any value and holiness present in the new rite is not inherent, since it did not come from within Tradition but from something utterly inimical to it. If it has any value, it would be only that holiness added by those priests who have refused to surrender the alter christus to modernism.

+We conclude our perspective on the Missal of Paul VI with some thoughts recently posed by one of our readers to several members of Cincinnati’s Catholic intelligentsia. To our knowledge, he has never received the courtesy of a reply:

“Regarding the approaching universal indult for the Missal of 1962, I am at a loss to explain the utterly schizophrenic behavior of the Church. The Church bemoans the scarcity of vocations to the priesthood, yet Her default liturgy, the Missal of Paul VI, is one that demeans priests and the sacrificial nature of the priesthood, reducing them to “presiders” over the “assembly.” The Church affirms that the Holy Eucharist is the “source and summit of Christian life,” yet Her default liturgy degrades the Eucharist by having laity receive standing, in the hand, and from other laity. The Church bemoans the loss of faith in the Real Presence, yet Her default liturgy is one that emphasizes a communal meal at the expense of transubstantiation. And worst of all, the Church twice dismisses the architect of Her default liturgy, Annibale Bugnini, under suspicion of being a Freemason, yet She promulgates the very liturgy he created! Can anyone explain this to me?”

+Let the exorcism begin…