This is actually an admirable description and entirely appropriate to our purposes.

The “particular situation” referred to as “undesirable” in Wikipedia is, in the case of the parable, the Field that nourishes, which is the Church — and the wheat, Her priesthood together with the Faithful. It is, after all, through the Church that Christ comes to man in the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  The Church is the indispensable means of salvation for all men. Destroy the Field (the Church) through the depredation of weeds and you destroy the means of salvation. Is this not the sole objective of satan — that none should attain to salvation, but perish everlastingly in the “Lake of the Second Death”, in Hell, together with him and those who serve him — among which are not only the demons, but men?
 

You may reply that the same soil nourishes and feeds wheat and weed alike. True. But the wheat in the Field (the Good seed ²) was planted by God Himself  to be nourished and to grow and to further nourish unto Eternal Life. The weeds deplete the soil of what the wheat needs to grow: it steals nourishment intended for the wheat.

God Himself established the Field and planted each seed of wheat — but this was not so of the weed.

It had to be planted by someone else other than the Master of the Field. The parable explicitly and pointedly states that “it was the enemy who had done this.” Finding that he could not destroy the Field, the enemy secretly infiltrated it, planting weeds among the wheat which, in time, would choke it and kill it.

This is precisely what happened within the Church following Vatican II. The priesthood, Religious life, vocations and the fidelity of the Faithful had, until then, flourished. The “plants considered undesirable in a particular situation” — specifically those unsuitable for consecrated life — rather than being excluded from, were cultivated in the seminaries and houses of Religious life. People who had no business in the Field — the “plants in the wrong place” — were permitted to flourish to the exclusion of the wheat. Homosexuality, in particular, grew rampant within nearly every seminary and house of formation in the Church. It was to such an extent that heterosexual men were not simply discouraged from becoming priests, but actively discriminated against by homosexual rectors and seminarians alike. To use a term near and dear to Francis (and essentially to the same effect), they were considered “too rigid”, their view of the priesthood was “too traditional”, they were “too pious”, and that piety and faithfulness to tradition threatened the delicate and effeminate environment, the liberty given to homosexual promiscuity and the sodomistic orgies that flourished.

As the weeds flourished, the wheat withered.

This is a concise summary of the present situation concerning priests and seminarians. The weeds choked out the wheat until a Field that was largely wheat became a desolate Field that was largely weed with little wheat remaining. It is a queer weed, lavender and pink with flowery petals that reek of decay, rooting deeply and spreading aggressively. But few are willing to call it a weed ... preferring to call it a flower ...

“The dragon — that old serpent, who is the devil, satan” ³  — we would do well to be clear about the enemy and name him for what he is: vicious, deadly, “the prince of this world” ⁴ who has no place in God’s Church. He does not treat or parley: he drags off to Hell whom he can … and deceives the rest that he is just a twinkle in a predator’s eye ... those whom he has over sown in our seminaries, monasteries, rectories, and chanceries. The dismissive voices that would call the charade simply “progress” and a “gay” affair at that —  despite its manifestly deadly consequences, are now without excuse ... or concealment.

Are we alone in this frightful indictment? We think not — even apart from Archbishop Viago’s explosive revelations of the homosexual predatory network in the Church, Bishop Mutsaerts — of the Netherlands, appointed by the Dutch Bishop’s Conference to attend the Youth Synod in Rome in October, has refused to attend for clearly articulated reasons in an interview with Lifesite News that underscores the absence of accountability in this grave situation:

LifeSite: “Excellency, why did you decide not to go to Rome where you were to have joined the youth Synod in October?”

Bishop Mutsaerts: “To put things briefly, it comes down to this: given all the recent difficulties and lack of openness, the whole thing will lack credibility. We are going to talk about young people, no less, even though it appears that we are not even capable of offering them security. We all know of the difficulties in Rome, we also know of the Pope's letter about Ireland, with its mea culpa and “forgiveness” and all, but there is not a single word about what we are going to do about it, who are the culprits and what are we going to do with them. It would totally discredit us if in this situation, we go and talk about youth. If it were another subject, it would be different. But we need openness about this business. What we need is the truth, only it will serve us. That will only be possible if there is openness, and well, we can't have openness without an independent investigation. That is also what Archbishop Chaput said.” [American Archbishop Chaput, chairman of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has urged Francis to cancel the Synod on Young People altogether, given the lack of confidence in the credibility of the bishops, while others such as Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler Texas, New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Bishop Edward Burns, of Dallas Texas, Bishop Philip Egan, bishop of Portsmouth, England, among others who wish, instead, to address the most critical issue of the clerical abuse that has shattered the Church.]

LifeSite: “But you would prefer that the whole affair be scrapped, in order first to let light shine on everything that's coming out right now.”

Bishop Mutsaerts:  “Yes, we need light to shine on all that. Our credibility is in jeopardy. And we shouldn’t do it ourselves. I understand from the Pope that he identifies clericalism as the main cause. That’s probably true to some extent, but the greater part of the problem is somewhere completely different.”

LifeSite: “Where is the problem, then?”

“When I read the reports of the scientific institute of the New York University, almost 80 percent of the people involved have something to do with homosexuality. It’s a tricky subject, but we have to name it because if you don’t name it, you can’t judge it properly and you can’t investigate it properly, and take measures. I’m not saying that’s the cause, I don't know how I should interpret those figures, just don’t sweep it away, just take them into account.”

What did Shakespeare say about “A Rose by any other name ...”?

Another Synod — as we see above — has been called for instead: a Synod of the Bishops — concerning their job description  ... and their abject failure in fulfilling it.

But don’t count on Francis summoning it: he is too heavily vested in the very causes that demand it!

   Printable PDF Version

Comments? Write us:  editor@boston-catholic-journal.com

________________________________