Cardinal Burke Interview

Monday, December 19, AD 2016

 

Last Thursday Raymond Arroyo of EWTN had an interview with Cardinal Burke, one of the Four Cardinals, in which the Cardinal explains what is at stake.  Here is the ending of the interview:

Cardinal Burke: Of course it does, that [is the] standard instrument in the Church for addressing such a situation. Yes, there are other cardinals. I don’t want to get into this business of the numbers. We have to remember, the criterion here is the truth. There have been cases, for instance, take for example the case of Henry VIII and his desire to be able to enter a second marriage without having his first marriage declared null—all of the bishops of England except St. John Fisher went along with the error, but St. John Fisher is the saint because he defended the truth. And all of us in the Church who are cardinals, bishops, we have the responsibility to defend the truth; whether we seem to be numerous or we seem to be very few doesn’t make any difference. It’s the truth of Christ which has to be taught.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Cardinal Burke Interview

  • “It’s the truth of Christ which has to be taught.”
    .
    It doesn’t matter what a majority of people think or believe or hope for. Only Truth matters. Comply and go to Heaven. Disobey and go to hell. It’s black and white. No grey.

  • Cardinal Burke cleaves to the truth, and makes his case for truth as clearly as
    his formidable skills allow. Evidently, he trusts in the power of the truth to act
    as a beacon for all men of goodwill. His Eminence has no power besides the
    truth, he cannot threaten nor compel men to act other than by persuading them
    of the truth before them. Clarity and reason and transparency are allies for
    such a shepherd, and draw other honest men to the cause of truth.
    .
    Pope Francis, on the other hand, appears to have decided that his program is
    best served by ambiguity and appeals to emotion, coupled with some rather
    cynical manipulations of synods and Curial bureaucracy. Clarity and reason
    and transparency do not appear to be the allies of such a shepherd, and
    honest men can be drawn to his agenda only by threats, manipulation, and
    chicanery. Honest men would likely withdraw from working under such a man,
    and so the dishonest and cynical would step into the vacuum. This will not end
    well.

  • Commonality, Francis and Luther.
    Good intentions, Bad results.

  • One man or woman together with God and His Truth is justified.

  • That there might be exceptions to remarriage seemed quite possible to me. Here is a case I would wonder about. Let’s say a Protestant is forced into a marriage when that person was 18, ran away from the marriage months after and then divorced and remarried and is now married a second time for forty years. That person wants to enter the Catholic Church, but the first spouse cannot be found nor can any witnesses to the first marriage be found. An annulment to the first marriage is not granted because there are no witnesses, yet that person knows, and God knows, the first marriage was forced (and thus was not a sacramental marriage). Could that person be given permission to receive the sacraments?

  • Bravo Cdl. Bourke and the others with him presenting the ‘Dubia’ whci has received the support of at least 30 other cardinals, and probably hundreds of bishops.
    When Cdl. Kasper came out with his comments WRT divorced and remarried without annulment back during the synod on the family, I mentioned then to my PP that he was a heretic, which he received with not much happiness :-).
    Since then, and for two other areas of disagreement – one of which is the de facto disagreement with parts of Amoris Laetitia – he has been side-lining me in my ministry as a deacon in various ways – he is a vindictive man and this has been noticed by many parishioners. Fortunately, he will be being moved by June next year – can’t happen soon enough. 🙂

  • On that very same show, he interviewed Johnny Mathis, the best male voice of his generation:

    ..

  • It is good that EWTN is giving Cardinal Burke airtime. The more publicity on the heretical machinations of Pope Francis the better. But my guess is that most Catholics don’t even realize a dispute about Catholic doctrine is in progress as they will surely hear nothing about it at Sunday Mass. The latest thing being pushed at our parish is the Catholic version of the Protestant Alpha program, which, by the way, Cardinal Burke condemns.

  • Richard, as far as I know, you don’t really need witnesses. When I was getting my annulment (both of us were practicing Catholics married in the church), he refused. He also refused to have children. The annulment office told me that it’s better for me if he refuses to fill out any paperwork. When I went to marry my husband (who was not Catholic and had married a non-practicing Catholic outside the church), he just needed an annulment of form (I think that’s what it was called). Neither annulment was hard. Mine took 2 years, his took 6 months. I have a cousin who’s ex-husband got an annulment to marry her. Both “practicing” Catholics, in the Church by her deacon father. that marriage lasted maybe 4 years. Even she was able to get an annulment (which only took a year) … apparently his alcoholism, which she ignored when marrying him, was an impediment to a valid marriage.

  • Re Missy. Agree. My impression from both knowledge and experience is that annulments are practically automatic. A priest in Detroit who sat on the Marriage Tribunal as the Marriage Court is called said that he never knew of a case of denial. And now with the easy annulments of Pope Francis getting an annulment anywhere should not be a problem. Witnesses are not essential to the process.

  • What is that old saying ? While the cat is away the mice will play?
    Two thousand years ago Jesus said that the only justifiable reason for divorce was adultery.

  • Timothy Reed, what if a man adulterates himself with alcohol or drugs? Does that count? Standard Alanon advice for spouses in abusive alcoholic marriages: leave. As a recovering alcoholic ever capable of returning to my vomit, I told my wife to dump me quicker than snake snot if I ever drink again. It’s that simple.

  • This is not a rebuttal, but an enhancement : LQC
    What we need to see here is the difference between the Letter of the Law, and the Heart of the Law. Jesus did not come into the World to condemn it, but rather to save it ! He knew from the start that we could never keep the Ten Commandments; thus, He also knew that we would not be able to keep all of His teachings and commands. He wants us to Care.
    And He wants us to Try.
    The Lord I kneel before will not condemn me for failure. He wants me to love Him. I do.
    And if you love someone you care how THEY feel ! If they are happy; you are happy. If they are sad; you are sad. If they are weeping, you want to comfort them.
    When I repent, it’s not out of fear. It’s because I know that I have hurt someone I love.

  • Timothy, I agree with everything you wrote in your enhancement except this: “If you love someone, then you will care about how they will feel.”
    .
    No.
    .
    Rather, you will care that the person gets to Heaven, regardless of how that person feels. When I was down in my cups, high as a kite on booze and drugs, someone caring about how I felt would have killed me because he would simply have given me another shot of vodka, another bag of heroin, another snort of cocaine to alleviate my pain and misery to make me feel better. Thank God for coworkers and a boss who had enough of how good I felt, and thank God for the Holy Spirit’s baseball bat of withdrawals.
    .
    As I told my wife, “If you love me and I drink again, then leave and let me suffer because I will need to suffer in order to get sober.”
    .
    But as you correctly imply, Timothy, things are more nuanced in most circumstances than such extremes as alcoholism or drug addiction. When you spouse grieves, then you grieve with her. When she rejoices, then you rejoice with her. Why? Because you are both one flesh. What can break that joining? In one example (I am sure there are others) and in a very real sense, the solvent of alcohol.
    .
    One last thing – something my 12 step sponsor and my priest confessor (his sponsor) told me a long tme ago: God doesnt give a care about how you feel, Paul. He will do everything necessary to get you sober, even if that means dropping you to your knees in utter pain and remorse. That’s called God’s grace and mercy.

  • Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

    Beautifully written.
    Especially; “….need to suffer in order to get sober.” A hard truth but it is true none the less.

  • Great discussion. Marriage is sacred, God often refers to His relationship to us like one of marriage.
    Re the great points made by LCC concerning other ways of being unfaithful (alcohol): Our waywardness is manifested in many other ways- making false idols of our various sins, including a list given by Paul—”greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers”.
    When unfaithful in one we are simply unfaithful.
    .
    Galations 5:20 “fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions, envy,* drunkenness, carousing, and things like these” are listed as deal breakers.

PopeWatch: Four Cardinals

Tuesday, November 15, AD 2016

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300-199x300

 

Four Cardinals wrote a letter to the Pope on September 19, 2016 asking for clarification in regard to portions of Amoris Laetitia.  Having received no response, the four Cardinals have gone public.  Sandro Magister at his blog Chiesa gives us the details:

ROME, November 14, 2016 – The letter and the five questions presented in their entirety further below have no need of much explanation. It is enough to read them. What is new is that the four cardinals who had them delivered to Francis last September 19, without receiving a reply, have decided to make them public with the encouragement of this very silence on the part of the pope, in order to “continue the reflection and the discussion” with “the whole people of God.”

They explain this in the foreword to the publication of the complete text. And one thinks right away of Matthew 18:16-17: “If your brother will not listen to you, take with you two or three witnesses. If then he will not listen even to them, tell it to the assembly.”

The “witness” in this case was Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. Because he too, in addition to the pope, had been a recipient of the letter and the questions.

The five questions are in fact formulated as in the classic submissions to the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. Formulated, that is, in such a way that they can be responded to with a simple yes or no.

As a rule, the responses given by the congregation explicitly mention the approval of the pope. And in the routine audiences that Francis gave to the cardinal prefect after the delivery of the letter and the questions, it is a sure bet that the two talked about them.

But in point of fact the appeal from the four cardinals received no reply, neither from Cardinal Müller nor from the pope, evidently at the behest of the latter.

*

The four cardinals who signed this letter and are now making it public are not among those who a year ago, at the beginning of the second session of the synod on the family, delivered to Francis the famous letter “of the thirteen cardinals”:

> Thirteen Cardinals Have Written to the Pope. Here’s the Letter (12.10.2015)

The thirteen were all members of the synod and in full service in their respective dioceses. Or they held important positions in the curia, like cardinals Robert Sarah, George Pell, and Müller himself.

These four, however, while all are recognized for their authoritativeness, have no operational roles, either for reasons of age or because they have been dismissed.

And that makes them more free. It is no mystery, in fact, that their appeal has been and is shared by not a few other cardinals who are still fully active, as well as high-ranking bishops and archbishops of West and East, who however precisely because of this have decided to remain in the shadows.

In a few days, on November 19 and 20, the whole college of cardinals will meet in Rome, for the consistory convoked by Pope Francis. And inevitably the appeal of the four cardinals will become the subject of animated discussion among them.

The ebb and flow of history. It was at the consistory of February 2014 that Francis gave the go-ahead for the long trek that resulted in the exhortation “Amoris Laetitia,” when he entrusted to Cardinal Walter Kasper the opening talk, in support of communion for the divorced and remarried.

Right away at that consistory the controversy broke out with the greatest intensity. And it is the same one that divides the Church even more today, including at the highest levels, seeing how the unclear suggestions of “Amoris Laetitia” are being contradictorily interpreted and applied.

Kasper is German and, curiously, two of the cardinals who – on the side opposite his – have published the present appeal are also German, not to mention Cardinal Müller, who signed the letter “of the thirteen” and now has received this other no less explosive letter.

The division in the Church is there. And it conspicuously runs through precisely that Church of Germany which represents for many the most advanced point of change.

And Pope Francis remains silent.  Perhaps because he thinks that “oppositions help,” as he explained to his Jesuit confrere Antonio Spadaro in giving over for publication the anthology of his discourses as archbishop of Buenos Aires, which have been in bookstores for a few days.

Adding:

“Human life is structured in oppositional form. And that is also what is happening now in the Church. Tensions need not necessarily be resolved and regulated. They are not like contradictions.”

But that’s just the point. Here it is a matter of contradictions. Yes or no. These and no others are the fitting answers to the five questions of the four cardinals, on the crucial points of Church doctrine and life brought into question by “Amoris Laetitia.”

Now it’s their turn.

In addition to Italian, English, French, and Spanish, the whole document is also available in Portuguese and German translations:

> Criar clareza. Alguns nós por resolver em “Amoris laetitia” – Um apelo

> Klarheit schaffen. Ungelöste Knoten von “Amoris laetitia” – Ein Appell

Continue reading...

4 Responses to PopeWatch: Four Cardinals

  • This gem jumped out at me.

    “….The Holy Father has decided not to respond. We have interpreted his sovereign decision as an invitation to continue the reflection, and the discussion, calmly and with respect…”

    This is one of the most perfect pieces of charitable warning shots, I’ve ever read….

    Push back (discernment and perpetual pursuit of clarified answers will continue until….)

  • I imagine that the Pope is angry now. Angry people of limited intellect do dangerous and foolish things when cornered.

  • The end of my story over at Spero News shows a real life example of “Amoris Leatitia” being used as a reason for a diocesan staff person to fail to practice the spiritual work of mercy of admonishing the sinner. This admonishment could result in protecting children from being given scandal, or could result in reconciliation of a marriage breakup.
    http://www.speroforum.com/a/YUAHKEULPT21/79314-Pope-Francis-in-hot-seat-over-marriage-statements#.WCvK4qIrIWo

  • LQC-If so, if JB is angry, then as it says in 2 Peter 2:19, he will be a slave to this anger that overcomes him. I am thankful that four cardinals are confused also. I need a shepherd, not a hireling and certainly not a wolf, to care for me and dispel my confusions stated as clearly as possible at:
    Amoris Laetitia: Mercy Robots & Sinning In Heaven; New Truth? Jesus’s Mistakes? God’s Errors?; Mercy Uber Alles? St. Irenaeus Says “Heresy”; Can The Church Condone, Permit, Or Legitimize Sin? Link: http://www.catholicstand.com/author/guy-mcclung/page/2/

    Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

PopeWatch: Anna M. Silvas

Thursday, June 9, AD 2016

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

 

Sandro Magister at his blog at his blog Chiesa brings us the commentary on Amoris Laetitia of Professor Anna M. Silvas, a world renowned authority on the Church Fathers, who teaches at the University of New England and Australian Catholic University.  Her analysis is devastating:

 

And all that was be fore I came to reading chapter eight. I have wondered if the extraordinary prolixity of the first seven chapters was meant to wear us down before we came to this crucial chapter, and catch us off-guard. To me, the entire tenor of chapter eight is problematic, not just n. 304 and footnote 351. As soon as I finished it, I thought to myself: Clear as a bell: Pope Francis wanted some form of the Kasper proposal from the beginning. Here it is. Kasper has won. It all explains Pope Francis’ terse comments at the end of the 2015 Synod, when he censured narrow-minded “pharisees” – evidently those who had frustrated a better outcome according to his agenda. “Pharisees”? The sloppiness of his language! They were the modernists, in a way, of Judaism, the masters of ten thousand nuances – and most pertinently, those who tenaciously upheld the practice of divorce and remarriage. The real analogues of the pharisees in this whole affair are Kasper and his allies.

To press on. The words of n. 295 on St John Paul’s comments on the “law of gradualness” in “Familiaris Consortio” 34, seem to me subtly treacherous and corruptive. For they try to coopt and corrupt John Paul in support precisely of a situational ethics that the holy pope bent all his loving pastoral intelligence and energy to oppose. Let us hear then what St John Paul really says about the law of gradualness:

“Married people… cannot however look on the law as merely an ideal to be achieved in the future: they must consider it as a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties through constancy. And so what is known as ‘the law of gradualness’ or step-by-step advance cannot be identified with a ‘gradualness of the law’, as if there were differing degrees or forms of precept in God’s law for different individuals and situations. In God’s plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness”.

Footnote 329 of “Amoris Laetitia” also presents another surreptitious corruption. It cites a passage of “Gaudium et Spes” 51, concerning the intimacy of married life. But by an undetected sleight of hand it is placed in the mouth of the divorced and remarried instead. Such corruptions surely indicate that references and footnotes, which in this document are made to do some heavy lifting, need to be properly verified.

Already in n. 297, we see the responsibility for “irregular situations” being shifted to the discernment of pastors. Step by subtle step the arguments advance definite agenda. N. 299 queries how “current forms of exclusion currently practiced” can be surmounted, and n. 301 introduces the idea of “conversation with the priest in the internal forum”. Can you not already detect where the argument is going?

So we arrive at n. 301, which drops the guarded manner as we descend into the maelstrom of “mitigating factors”. Here it seems the “mean old Church” has finally been superseded by the “nice new Church”: in the past we may have thought that those living in “irregular situations” without repentance were in a state of mortal sin; now, however, they may not be in a state of mortal sin after all, indeed, sanctifying grace may be at work in them.

It is then explained, in an excess of pure subjectivism, that “a subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding its inherent value”. Here is a mitigating factor to beat all mitigating factors. On this argument then, do we now exculpate the original envy of Lucifer, because he had “great difficulty in understanding” the “inherent value” to him, of the transcendent majesty of God? At which point, I feel that we have lost all foothold, and fallen like Alice into a parallel universe, where nothing is quite what it seems to be.

A series of quotations from St Thomas Aquinas are brought to bear, on which I am not qualified to comment, except to say that, obviously, proper verification and contextualization are strongly indicated. N. 304 is a highly technical apologia for moral casuistry, argued in exclusively philosophical terms without a hint of Christ or of faith. One cannot but think that this was supplied by another hand. It is not Francis’ style, even if it is his belief.

Finally we come to the crucial n. 305. It commences with two of the sort of throwaway caricatures that recur throughout the document. The new doctrine that Pope Francis had flagged a little earlier he now repeats and reasserts: a person can be in an objective situation of mortal sin – for that is what he is speaking about – and still be living and growing in God’s grace, all the “while receiving the help of the Church”, which, the infamous footnote 351 declares, can include, “in certain cases”, both confession and holy communion. I am sure that there are by now many busily attempting to “interpret” all this according to a “hermeneutic of continuity”, to show its harmony, I presume, with Tradition. I might add that in this n. 305, Pope Francis quotes himself four times. In fact, it appears that Pope Francis’ most frequently cited reference through “Amoris laetitia” is himself, and that in itself is interesting.

In the rest of the chapter Pope Francis changes tack. He makes an inverted admission that his approach may leave “room for confusion” (n. 308). To this he responds with a discussion of “mercy”. At the very beginning in n. 7 he declared that “everyone should feel challenged by chapter eight”. Yes we do, but not quite in the blithe heuristic sense he meant it. Pope Francis has freely admitted in time past that he is the sort of person who loves to make “messes”? Well, I think we can concede that he has certainly achieved that here.

Let me tell you of a rather taciturn and cautious friend, a married man, who expressed to me, before the apostolic exhortation was published: “O I do hope he avoids ambiguity”. Well, I think even the most pious reading of “Amoris Laetitia” cannot say that it has avoided ambiguity. To use Pope Francis’ own words, “widespread uncertainty and ambiguity” (n. 33 ) can certainly be applied to this document, and I venture to say, to his whole papacy. If we are put into the impossible situation of critiquing a document of the ordinary magisterium, consider whether in “Amoris Laetitia” Pope Francis himself is relativizing the authority of the magisterium, by eliding the magisterium of Pope John Paul, specially in “Familiaris Consortio” and “Veritatis Splendor”. I challenge any of you to soberly reread the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor”, say nn. 95-105, and not conclude that there is a deep dissonance between that encyclical and this apostolic exhortation. In my younger years, I anguished over the conundrum: how can you be obedient to the disobedient? For a pope too, is called to obedience – indeed, preeminently so.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to PopeWatch: Anna M. Silvas

  • Something has to be done to stop this Pontiff’s heresy. I guess the only things we can do is pray and fight back with essays like this until the Lord removes him from the Seat of St Peter. It’s clear he will not repent unless some miracle happens.

  • Legibus ambiguities in the house of Francis.

  • The real analogues of the pharisees in this whole affair are Kasper and his allies.

    Of course. If every time Francis insults someone or some group, just think “projection,” and it will make sense.

  • I would wholeheartedly endorse one of the concluding remarks of Ms Silvas’s reflections.
    “Being something of an ancient soul, I see this document as the bad fruit of certain second-millennium developments in the Western Church. I briefly point to two in particular: the sharply rationalist and dualist form of Thomism fostered among the Jesuits in the 16th century, and in that context, their elaboration of the casuistic understanding of mortal sin in the 17th century.”
    It brought to mind Cardinal de Lubac’s encomium of Maurice Blondel: “Latin theology’s return to a more authentic tradition has taken place–not without some jolts, of course–in the course of the last century. We must admit that the main impulse for this return came from a philosopher, Maurice Blondel. His thinking was not primarily exercised in the areas proper to the professional theologians, nor did it base itself on a renewed history of tradition. Still, he is the one who launched the decisive attack on the dualist theory that was destroying Christian thought. Time after time he demonstrated the deficiencies of the thesis of the “extrinsicist” school, which recognized “no other link between nature and the supernatural than an ideal juxtaposition of elements which…were impenetrable to each other, and which were brought together by our intellectual obedience, so that the supernatural can subsist only if it remains extrinsic to the natural and if it is proposed from without as something important only in so far as it is a supernature…”

  • Thanks for posting an excerpt of Anna Silvas’s AL review. It is excellent. Readers here might find comments on this subject interesting on the Vox Cantoris blog:
    http://voxcantor.blogspot.com/2016/06/alice-in-amoris-laetitia-land.html
    One person in particular defends AL and thinks Anna’s review misleading.

  • Is the bigger picture the destruction of Church tradition authority in toto? In the eyes of many, if the Church is wrong about X (implemented by men in the past, and enforced) then it is also wrong about not only A, B, C but all of A through Z. And “wrong” is embodied in and now defined by JB’s NonNonCon principle, the principle of NonNonContradiction-a thing can simultaneously be and not be. This undercuts all of Scripture, the Catechism, every dogma, and anything previously declared “infallibly.” This endows the current pontiff-wheover and whenever-with unlimited power, because if there are no limits to truth, there are not limits to power – just ask Mao, Adolf, Barry Soetoro, Nero, PolPot, Fidel, that pudgy North Korean with nuclear dreams, and Hillarydemon. Adultery and sinful reception of Jesus’s Body and Blood are sins and they are not sins. Men (and women) voluntarily engaging in same sex sex is a sin against nature and it is an act of loving virtue. One end result of NonNonCon is the coalescence of earthly church [I know, contradiction in terms] power in whoever happens to be pontiff and those who pull his strings (or her strings as the future may be). Let us pray for God to cleanse His Church – before the 2018 “non magisterial” exhorting that (attempts) to extend not only the ministerial priesthood, but the episcopate and the Chair Of Peter to females and probably to males who self identify as having enlarged operational mammary glands. Guy McClung, San Antonio TX

  • I’m thinking, the next time a Francis apologist tosses out promethean neo-pelagianism, I’m going to toss back modernist-ultra-montanism.
    .
    (The next time will be the first time, by the way.)

  • Really – folks, other than praying, howling at the moon, living as holy as possible, and raging against the dying of the light in a few comments read by almost no one, what do we do? I for one do not want to sit back and enjoy inevitable ecclesial rape and behold, helpless, the attempted destruction of the Mystical Body Of Christ. If they are going to point their croziers at me and herd me onto an heretical boxcar, I want to refuse, and fight. How? Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

PopeWatch: Muller Out, Schonborn In

Wednesday, June 1, AD 2016

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

 

 

 

 

Sandro Magister at his blog Chiesa explains why those who have been attempting desperately to interpret Amoris Laetitia in an orthodox manner have been utterly rejected by the Pope:

 

 

 

ROME, May 30, 2016 – The prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith is still the same, German cardinal Gerhard L. Müller.

Who diligently continues to carry out his task, most recently with the monumental address he gave in Oviedo on May 4 for a correct understanding of “Amoris Laetitia,” in harmony with the previous magisterium of the Church on the family:

> Reading Exercises. The “Amoris Laetitia” of Cardinal Müller

But it is increasingly evident that for Pope Francis, it is not Müller but another cardinal who is the teacher of doctrine authorized to shed light on the post-synodal exhortation: Cardinal Christoph Schönborn.

On May 19, in meeting at the Vatican with the two cardinals and three bishops who make up the presidency of the Latin American episcopal conference, when asked about “Amoris Laetitia” Francis responded as follows, according to the website of the CELAM:

“The pope responds that the heart of the exhortation is chapter 4: love in family life, founded on chapter 13 of the first letter of Saint Paul to the Corinthians. While the most difficult to read is chapter 8. Some, the pope say, have let themselves get trapped by this chapter. The Holy Father is fully aware of the criticisms of some, including cardinals, who have been unable to understand the evangelical meaning of his statements. And he says that the best guide for understanding this chapter is the presentation of it made by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, O.P., archbishop of Vienna, Austria, a great theologian, member of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, highly expert in the doctrine of the Church.”

Already on April 16, questioned by the journalists on the return flight to Rome from the island of Lesbos, Francis had indicated Schönborn as the right interpreter of the document, recommending that his presentation be read and rewarding him on the spot with flattering titles, even mistakenly promoting him to former “secretary” of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith.

But then Müller gave his talk in Oviedo, with the intention of bringing clarity to the carousel of contrasting interpretations and applications of “Amoris Laetitia” that had already gained a foothold. But for the pope, that talk of his wasn’t worth a thing. Just as it wasn’t worth a thing for “L’Osservatore Romano,” which completely ignored it.

For Francis, in fact, the only one that still applies is the interpretation of “Amoris Laetitia” made by Schönborn at the official presentation of the document, in the Vatican press office on April 8, the day of its publication.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: Muller Out, Schonborn In

  • Hummm.

    Did “pride” play a role in this decision to trump Muller?

    http://m.asianews.it/index.php?art=37653&l=en

    Good homily your Holiness.

  • Thank you Donald McClarey for all of the expositive work you have down to set this before us.
    Good call Philip.
    False “mercy” not only endangers the souls of others, but also those of us who try to out-mercy each other and the Lord.. seeking popular acclaim, or for whatever other off-motive. Our good deeds can be soiled by our impure motives which keep us alienated from God.
    When we face that final judgment false mercy givers may have to hear “Then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.” from Matthew 7:23
    That chapter of Matthew famously starts with the proscription-““Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.” but it ends with talking about not building on sand…

  • We are all sinners.

    The decrement of the recipient of Holy Communion is not to be a haphazard participation, but one of formed conscience.
    The line between Christ’s teaching and local diocesan guidance via priest, is an issue if instruction is lackadaisical, or hinges on “let your own conscience guide you.”

    I have little doubt that most of the priesthood is aware of Christ’s teaching regarding divorce and the reception of Holy Communion, the “objective lack of clarity” is disconcerting.

    All the more reason to double your efforts in praying for priests and the current pontificate.

  • Lesson here seems to be that orthodox Cardinals should stop trying to fit Pope Francis ‘square’ proximate heresies in the ’round hole’ of accepted doctrine. Rather they should be honest and call them like they see them.

  • “For those who refuse to believe their eyes” – excellent! Thank You.

PopeWatch: Never Mind

Friday, May 20, AD 2016

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

Father Z wonders how the Pope might cure the problems with Amoris Laetitia:

 

I am trying to think back through the Church’s long history for an instance in which a Pope has withdrawn one of his own teaching documents, on faith and morals.

Of course Popes have superseded previous documents by issuing their own.

But has a Pope ever withdrawn one?  How would that work?  In my mind’s eye I see a Pope giving a presser on an airplane (which in the future may become the Roman Pontiff’s official cathedra):

POPE WITH MICROPHONE: Okay, everyone, listen up!  That document I issued a while back… you know the one… okay, that’s all over now.  No more document, okay?  It’s gone. I’m withdrawing it.  It’s like… like an annulment, a rendering of something that was something into nothing, right?  Got it?  It’s not going to be on the website anymore.  We are not going to twitter about… tweet?… tweet about it.  We are asking everyone to just, like, throw it away.  If you love Vatican II, just stop talking about it.  Okay?  Thanks in advance everyone.

PRESS SECRETARY: Okay, folks, that’s it for today.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: Never Mind

  • Jorge Bergoglio’s ego is too big to withdraw an exhortation that he himself wrote.

  • Memorize Canon law 749-3 recent converts and it will protect you from mistakes in documents…

    §3. No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident.

    That’s canon law telling you that the false can occur in documents. Read section 40 of Evangelium Vitae and watch St. John Paul II subtly imply that God did not give the death penalties of the Pentateuch…yes He did in the first Person imperative. Read section 42 of Benedict’s Verbum Domini where his late life pacifism screws up the Old Testament by saying that the prophets challenged every form of violence…individual and communal. Elijah killed 552 men minimum. Jeremiah 48:10 warns the Chaldeans to kill the Moabites well…”Cursed be he that doeth the work of Jehovah negligently; and cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood.”. Eliseus cursed boys who mocked his office (Aquinas ST) and two bears killed 42 of them. Prior to sanctifying grace brought by Christ (Jn.1:17), God used and willed much violence because man was much weaker morally and Satan was stronger prior to Christ….so mankind needed fear of the Lord in a physical sense greater than we do…though they did have actual grace and certain people cooperated greatly with that but the vast majority was unfaithful…hence the exiles.

  • There is no need to withdraw the Infamous Footnote. If we just interpret it within the traditional Catholic context of ‘psychological mitigating factors’ (which is where it was dredged up from) then it becomes a nullity. The only way it can stand as valid is if people engaged in non-sacramental marriages are all engaged in compulsive behavior. The Infamous Footnote then becomes another pastoral ideal that crashes when it runs into hard reality.
    The really big problem for Catholic teaching is explaining HOW and WHY it came to be in the first place.

  • It’s like… like an annulment, a rendering of something that was something into nothing, right?
    –something seen in “Z” mind’s eye.

    Ugh. That’s not what an annulment is, that’s what Protestants (and too many of the Catholic Christian faithful) think it is. (I’m confident Fr. Z knows the difference and that he’s poking fun at misunderstandings of Church doctrine in high places within the Church.)

  • Of course an annulment recognizes that the marriage did not ever exist in the first place- not that something that was is now no longer.
    The pope has had opportunity to address the footnote. He doesn’t want to because it serves a purpose for him. Our pope says he is a loyal son of the Church- but
    It seems that in his eyes, the Church is not any more ekklesia “called out”, called to be separate from the corrupt age, but now as Church we should just identify with the mainstream of the morally relative and corrupt culture…


    Acts 2: 38 Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. … … 40And he testified with many other arguments and exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’

    and though he has warned about moral relativism

PopeWatch: Archbishop Bruno Forte

Tuesday, May 10, AD 2016

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

 

The bald faced mendacity behind Amoris Laetitia was recently confirmed by Archbishop Bruno Forte, crony of the Pope, and chosen by the Pope to be Special Secretary for the recently concluded Synod.

 

Archbishop Forte has in fact revealed a “behind the scenes” [moment] from the Synod: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.

“Typical of a Jesuit,” Abp Forte joked, attributing to that suggestion a wisdom that has allowed the maturation necessary to conclude that Amoris Laetitia, as Abp. Bruno Forte explained, does not represent a new doctrine, but the “merciful application” of that [the doctrine]of all time.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to PopeWatch: Archbishop Bruno Forte

  • The idea seems to be that the end justifies the means- a white lie, a seemingly innocuous deception for the purpose of achieving a greater outcome than could be gained by honest means, (respectful of God and man.)

  • Perhaps a future pope will put the official copy of the exhortation on trial, condemn it, publicly burn it then scatter the ashes in the Tiber.

  • Oh, for the halcyon days of February 2013, when Catholics gave a ____ about whether their Pope was an honest broker.

  • Dale, I think (and I hope I am wrong) that most Catholics raised on V II actually believe Jorge Bergoglio is an honest broker. That’s the whole problem.

  • The protestant reformers coined the term ‘Jesuitical’ – how perceptive and prophetic they were.

  • Since I’m not registered to comment over at Father Z’s blog (the Crisis essay he links to is worthwhile too, by the way) I’m just going to throw a my $0.02 into this thread;

    Chalcedonians (i.e. Christians suscribing to the Trinitarian doctrine affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon) were in the minority. Compared to the number of Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, etc., severely so, yet the Church survived —Just as Christ promised Peter it would.
    .
    In the Grand Scheme of Things, this is Small Potatos.

  • “In the Grand Scheme of Things, this is Small Potatos.” Yea, contradicting the word of Jesus’ teaching in the bible about marriage is really nothing compared to the fears of Climate Change, where believers in that, like Pope Francis, are saying “God made a mistake when he created life on the foundation of CO2. Plants need CO2 to live and give off O2 in exchange. We animals need O2 to live and give off CO2. How could God have been so mistaken in basing the whole of life on such a fragile element?

  • Technically, O2 and CO2 are NOT elements, but chemical structures coomposed of elements. O2 is composed of two atoms of the element oxygen in covalent bonding. CO2 is composed of three atoms – one of the element carbon and two of the element oxygen – in covalent boindg.
    .
    I say again and repeatedly, if anthropogenic global warming were the real planetary crisis being asserted, then the United States and the rest of the nations of the Earth would be converting full scale to a nuclear energy economy with all due haste. That this is NOT being done by the very people who are asserting the reality of anthropogenic global warming demonstrate their disbelief in what they purport.
    .
    Factio Democrata delenda est !

PopeWatch: AMORIS LÆTITIA -The Orthodox Reading

Friday, May 6, AD 2016

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

Sandro Magister at his blog Chiesa has an article by Dominican theologian Angelo Bellon as to the correct way of reading AMORIS LÆTITIA:

 

 

Instructions for reading the post-synodal exhortation “Amoris Lætitia”

by Angelo Bellon, O.P.

In the exhortatiton “Amoris Lætitia,” the most controversial question is the one concerning communion for the divorced and remarried, which however is never expressly mentioned.

It must be noted that above all in the eighth chapter the language is at times very indefinite and can lend itself to conclusions that are not only different but even conflicting.

So then, precisely with regard to this chapter I would like to present a few general reflections and then take into consideration the most controversial expressions.


GENERAL CRITERIA OF INTERPRETATION

1. The first criterion of interpretation is that of the context in which the exhortation must be read in order to avoid distorting it.

This context was provided by John Paul II in the encyclical “Veritatis Splendor,” in particular at footnote 100:

“The development of the Church’s moral doctrine is similar to that of the doctrine of the faith. The words spoken by John XXIII at the opening of the Second Vatican Council can also be applied to moral doctrine: ‘This certain and unchanging teaching (i.e., Christian doctrine in its completeness), to which the faithful owe obedience, needs to be more deeply understood and set forth in a way adapted to the needs of our time. Indeed, this deposit of the faith, the truths contained in our time-honored teaching, is one thing; the manner in which these truths are set forth (with their meaning preserved intact) is something else’.”

So the hermeneutical principle of interpretation is found here: the documents of the magisterium, including those on moral issues, must be interpreted according to the hermeneutic of continuity and development. And certainly not according to the hermeneutic of discontinuity, rupture, or transformation with respect to the perennial magisterium.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to PopeWatch: AMORIS LÆTITIA -The Orthodox Reading

  • Exactly to your last comment. I’d add that Fr. Bellon would need to do a similar intricate tango to get Pius XII and predecessors on the death penalty as being continuous with ccc 2267 ( prisons are inescapable now in Europe only …so execution is rarely necessary all over the globe…lol ). And once he did, Fr. Bellon would have to face the pastoral result….three Popes asking for death penalty abolishment in the media outlets …which contradicts their own faulty ccc 2267 which allows for rare necessity of execution. So Fr. would have three contradictions to mold in order to get them to look continuous. Has Catholic apologetics become salesmanship whenever continuity is the a priori goal of a peace making explanation. It sounds like sales. Cardinal Newman saw an actual regression in the 4th century…not an illusory misunderstanding. Does Fr. Bellon accept that regressions can happen in non infallible venues? Or does he think all documents are furtively infallible…so he must harmonize them?

  • Taken together with Mueller, Burke, Schneider, and Brandmuller, this is beginning to look like a concerted effort to smoke out the Holy Father, Vatican-style. The more clerics come forward to insist on an orthodox reading of AL that dispels its ambiguities, the greater the pressure for the pope to come forward to either affirm or deny their interpretation. Will it work? Given that at lest two or three of these men are betes noir of the current leadership claque, the odds are pretty good. Let’s see how this plays out.

  • There is another “most controversial” question. No 297 of AL says “Here I am not speaking only of the divorced and remarried, but of everyone in whatever situation they find themselves.” Jorge Bergoglio has proclaimed as a new universal teaching – a la calling Arius’s proclamations Arianism – Bergogliansm – that “The way of the Church is not to condemn anyone for ever” (No. 296) and the words are there in AL , crystal clear, that he, and those supporting him, mean for this to apply to anything and everything. AL is the nose, or rear end, of the Bergoglian camel under the tent. Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

  • It appears that Jorge Bergoglio is throwing the saints in heaven under the bus.

  • Or maybe Guy it just means that because God created us with the freedom to love Him or to reject Him by loving our sins more, it’s not the Church that condemns us forever but ourselves.

  • A statement by the Congregation of the Faith was just released that said in a strong affirmative manner that any divorced-remarried Catholic cannot go to communion. End of story.
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

    This dovument gives full theological statment.

  • “It appears that Jorge Bergoglio is throwing the saints in heaven under the bus.”

    Along with the would be saints here on Earth. *tears*

PopeWatch: Bishop Athanasius Schneider

Thursday, April 28, AD 2016

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

Voice of the Family is hosting the English translation of Bishop Athanasius Schneider’s reflections on Amoris Laetitia.  Go here to view the translation  They indicate that the Bishop has given permission for the text to be shared widely, so I have taken the liberty of setting it forth below.  Here are his reflections:

 

 

 

 

The recently published Apostolic Exhortation “Amoris laetitia” (AL), which contains a plethora of spiritual and pastoral riches with regard to life within marriage and the Christian family in our times, has unfortunately, within a very short time, led to very contradictory interpretations even among the episcopate.

There are bishops and priests who publicly and openly declare that AL represents a very clear opening-up to communion for the divorced and remarried, without requiring them to practice continence. In their opinion, it is this aspect of sacramental practice, which, according to them, is now to undergo a significant change that gives AL its truly revolutionary character. Interpreting AL with reference to irregular couples, a president of a Bishops’ Conference has stated, in a text published on the website of the same Bishops’ Conference: “This is a disposition of mercy, an openness of heart and of spirit that needs no law, awaits no guideline, nor bides on prompting.  It can and should happen immediately”.

This opinion was further confirmed by the recent declarations of Father Antonio Spadaro S.J., after the Synod of Bishops in 2015, that the Synod had established the “foundations” for the access of divorced and remarried couples to communion by “opening a door” that had still been closed during the previous Synod in 2014. Now, as Father Spadaro alleges in his commentary on AL, his prediction has been confirmed. There are rumours that Father Spadaro was a member of the editorial group behind AL.

The way to abusive interpretations appears to have been paved by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn himself, who said, during the official presentation of AL in Rome, with regard to irregular unions, that: “My great joy as a result of this document resides in the fact that it coherently overcomes that artificial, superficial, clear division between ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’”. Such a statement suggests that there is no clear difference between a valid, sacramental marriage and an irregular union, between venial and mortal sin.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to PopeWatch: Bishop Athanasius Schneider

  • This good bishop would be an amazing Pope. He’s to my knowledge the most traditionally-minded Catholic bishop in the world, yes, even more than Card. Burke.

    I hope they don’t silence him.

  • I hope the Pope is embarrassed by this.

  • Schneider seems to be a good man. His forthrightness will be his undoing. One cannot reason with a thug.

    “I hope the Pope is embarrassed by this.”

    Thugs do not embarrass. Introspection that is honest/efficacious is a quality they lack. They worship the person in their mirror and fail to see the face of Satan, in disguise.

    Karl

  • “Bless me Father, for I have sinned; and I have read every word of Bergoglio’s Amor Laetitia. I have been rejoicing in love. Eleven months ago I had an abortion and I have been receiving Holy Communion almost daily since that day. Father, I am now again pregnant and I am scheduled for an abortion tomorrow. I fully intend after this Confession to have the abortion and to then proceed again to receive Holy Communion every day. By the way, I was married when I had the last abortion, but I civilly divorced that jerk, and now I am living with another guy who impregnated me with this latest baby, and I will continue to live with him after I kill it and love him after you give me absolution. God willing I will not get pregnant again, but if I do I will again have an abortion because my boyfriend says a child would seriously injure our love. For these and all my sins I am truly sorry.”
    “My beautiful child, truly God’s mercy knows no limits and your faith is admirable. I must say what a good thing for someone like you to read the wise words of the Holy Father and then to go forth and live in love. I absolve you from your sins, if such acts of love as yours can even be called “sins,” in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. For your penance . . . “
    “Whoa, padre, who said anything about “penance”? There is nothing in Amor Laetitia about me having to do any penance.”
    “My loving child, I was simply going to commend you for the love you have for your partner and have you continue to show your love for him.”
    “Got it. See you next time. By the way, you sure were good telling my friends who voluntarily engage in homosexual sex activities that the principles of Amor Laetitia make it possible for them to celebrate their love and to come regularly to Holy Communion. Is this church now great, or what? I can’t remember when I put so much in the collection basket, ever.”

    “Oh yes, my wise child; of course Amor Laetitia’s goodness is not limited – God’s mercy is boundless and now there really is no sin”

    Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

  • Does anyone still doubt the serous and dangerous crisis we face in the church.

  • Have any of you seen this?

    http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2016/04/archbishop-bans-cardinal-muller-from.html

    Do any of you really think that this was not known to Jorge Bergoglio and approved by him, beforehand?

    Do you not understand that thugs often operate though proxies?

    When in any of our lifetimes have we seen something this openly scandalous?

    Maybe I have missed it, being just a kid at pushing 62.

PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-Overall Thoughts

Tuesday, April 26, AD 2016

 

 

 

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

There is no way to mince words in regard to Amoris Laetitia:   it is a disaster for the Church.  In the Exhortation, the Pope and his ghost writers engage in a lengthy exercise to find excuses to disregard the clear command of Christ in regard to divorce and remarriage.  That much of this is done with a wink and a nod merely adds mendacity to the charges that could be brought against this document.  The reasoning, to use a charitable term for the arguments made by the Pope and his ghost writers, could be used in reference to any sin imaginable.  The Catholic Church has always taught that both confession and a firm intention at amendment of life were necessary for the forgiveness of sins.  Pope Francis seems to do away with amendment, and although it is not completely clear from this turgid, twisted document, he seems to be arguing that, depending upon the peculiar situation of a particular individual, what is clearly sin may not be sin, at least not mortal sin, in regard to them.  Thus even the confessional may not be necessary in many cases, since confession is in reference to sin, and who are we to judge?  This stands the teaching of the Church on its head.

Some people are content to focus on the true parts of the Exhortation and do their very best to ignore the rest.  This is understandable for people who find it heartbreaking that a Pope put his name to this dangerous mess, but it is ultimately mistaken.  The only reason why the Exhortation was written is because the Pope regards the position of Catholics in adulterous marriages to be a crisis for the Church.  That on his way to addressing that question he dispenses some truisms and bromides is of no consequence.  Rather than calling upon Catholics in adulterous marriages to repentance and amendment he changes the teaching of the Church.  That sad fact is all one needs to know about Amoris Laetitia.

 

Here in one post is PopeWatch’s stripped down version of Amoris Laetitia with the commentary of PopeWatch:

Continue reading...

15 Responses to PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-Overall Thoughts

  • May God have mercy on those who are led astray by this document.

  • May God have even more, true mercy on those who are leading others astray through this.

  • I’m still most bothered by the cunning use of truth and Christian words of faith to replace doctrine with…well, relativism. The call to “accompany” when referring to sinners, flies directly in the face of leaving that house and shaking the dust from our sandals if they refuse to believe…and woe be to them.
    Yet, in spite of it all, I have learned far more about our beautiful Church than I would have had this synodic travesty not occurred.
    Truth, will set (the faithful) free.

  • I am thoroughly disgusted with Amoris Laetitia – I so miss the engineering precision of Benedict XVI when explaining difficult theological matters, and the exalted philosophy of John Paul II. After decades of greatest (most of my adult life as a matter of fact), we now have Latin American Marxist Peronism, and it is like muddy, fetid, stale water in the mouth.

  • 311? Right back atcha.
    Donald McClarey, thank you for wading through this swamp, because I could not face it without your commentary. A little humor alleviates a lot of pain.

  • 311. People who don’t buy into this are probably heretics….

    Among the MANY disturbing, heretical, and idiotic things in this missive, the pontiff chose to double down on this recently and say those who cling to the old ways (truths of the Church taught by Christ) are idolators! The commit the sin of idolatry! The are diviners! They do not adhere to the new surprised of ‘the spirit’….

    I beg the Lord to help us.

  • I’m coming away from this as a wake up call for all of us.

    The Church will be chastised first.
    Then expect the homeland you live in.
    I heard this from a Father of Mercy, Fr. Bill Casey, at a Marian Conference years ago. I have the C.D.’S from his talk.

    He quoted Venerable Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.

    I believe this to be true. The overblown paedophile problem… the Bishops not owning it and dealing with it…..and now a misguided pontiff whom I must…we must pray for.

    This is the, please pardon my abrasiveness… this is the shit we have to pray through folks.
    It just is what it is Right Now…
    Not forever, but right now. Today is all we have. Tomorrow isn’t ours. Pray for conversion of All Sinners.

    St. Gertrude prayer; Eternal Father. I offer thee thy most precious blood of thy divine Son Jesus, in union with the masses being said through out the world today, for all the Holy Souls in Purgatory, for sinners everywhere, for sinners in the Universal Church, those who are within my home and family. Amen.”

    This is it.

    Sinners in the universal Church.
    Our own homes.
    Our own families.

    Pray for this Francis.
    Today I plead with you to pray for him.
    Pray.
    It’s what we CAN do that will help.
    Let’s not loose today to disappoint.
    Let’s pray through this…together.. please.

    PS. Excuse the profanity.
    I too am disappointed.

  • Something for the pontiff to consider.
    Our fight is with principalities and dominions… or did I get it wrong.

    He, Pope Francis, might be having a hard time seeing the forest through the trees….just saying. Yes. Keep praying. God will work through trust and perseverance.

    Homeland security is a funny thing.
    Murderers with perpetual Halloween masks are not going to win the day…just the fleeting moment.

    Keep up the prayers.
    Our support is from above…..not below.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2016/04/26/watch-satanists-mock-killing-of-unborn-children-in-bizarre-and-grotesque-protest/

  • I said earlier that this document is a pile of crap. I will not read it or heed it because the Church already possesses sufficient teaching and this document adds nothing.

    It is a power play put in effect by Kasper and Marx. They have this Pontiff wrapped around their fingers and he doesn’t even realize it. Kasper and Marx disgust me. The other prelates the Pontiff has surrounded himself with – Daneels, Maradiaga, Wuerl….they are no better.

    I’m just going to soldier on, go to Sunday Mass, educate my sons, go to Confession (more often than I recently have) and treat the corrupt prelates with the same contempt I have for our politicians in Washington. The Church does not belong to Bergoglio, even if he thinks it does. It belongs to Christ.

  • Thanks Donald for all the pain this exercise must have cost you and for reducing it to something understandable and accordingly deplorable. Unfortunate for all of us that it conflicts in so many places with our understanding of Catholic teaching. A.L is a major extension of Vatican II liberalism whose intent was to Protestantize the Church. For all practical purposes we are now Lutherans. (Time magazine cover to follow.) Accordingly, we should not be surprised if there was some sort of divine intervention soon that would at least assure of Remnant of Catholics when Christ comes again.

  • Death fixes our relationship with God. The saints and martyrs in heaven will not, cannot and do not change on the Catholic Faith. The Church Triumphant, militant and suffering are the Church. If any Pope can change the mind of a saint, let him try.

  • Come again Philip ? What was the quote from archbishop Sheen?

  • Anzlyne.

    Here’s my reference; Fr. Bill Casey from Oct. 14-16, 2011. Marian Confrence XX held in Boyne Falls Michigan at the Boyne Mountian Resort. The title of the talk: The Priest is a Marked Man.

    Father quoted Sheen; “The Church will experience the chastisement prior to the world.”

    I’ve searched for this quote, however I haven’t been successful.

    I hope this helps. Fr. Casey is a dynamic speaker and obedient to Holy Church. A orthodox priest if ever there was one.

  • Thank you Philip- I love both of those two priests too- wish I could have been there for the retreat.
    and I believe Archbishop Sheen’s prophecy too- “The Church will experience the chastisement prior to the world.” I wonder if we are first so that we can be an object lesson and warning to the world and maybe help them come to Jesus.

  • Anzlyne.

    Your welcome.
    In the talk, Fr. Casey speaks of the “Church Nice.” It is remarkable. The Church Militant has become the Church Mush, Tolerant, Door Mat…and on. He quotes from Fr. John Hardon as well, who btw..foresaw this era we live in.
    Hardon spoke of the fate of First century Christians and how the faithful will be forced to celebrate Mass underground if not enough Catholics wake up from the deep sleep of indifference. The coma many are experiencing is going to be fatal. Fatal for their souls.

    I won’t ramble on. The Clinton statement about how religions must change their views on abortion, is to me a clarion call.
    She, Hillary, is one of many of minions Lucifer has in his control. Overwhelming? No.
    They will not win.
    We must be there for our neighbors and family that are not ready for the chaos when it breaks upon us. They will see our calm, our peace. They will want it. They will ask you how come you have it. You will lead them to Truth.

PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-the Lean Version-Part 11-Conclusion

Monday, April 25, AD 2016

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

 

The conclusion of our stripped down look at Amoris Laetitia with some commentary by PopeWatch:

301.  People living in shack ups, the Pope refers to them as “irregular unions”, can’t simply be considered to be living in mortal sin because of possible mitigating factors.  (When it comes to sin the human mind can come up with infinite excuses for such conduct.  The Church never bought into that, except as a possible lessening of the penance imposed in the confessional.  Pope Francis takes this aspect of the priest-penitent relationship and uses it to argue that mortal sin is not mortal sin.  He clearly indicates that he is not referencing as a mitigating factor ignorance that what is being done is sinful, which would be the only legitimate factor which would cause someone not to be in a state of sin in such an adulterous marriage.)

302.  More of this rubbish.

303.  Personal conscience uber alles.

304.  Rules are sometimes not rules for the individuals involved.  (A rather confused paragraph.  Arguing that white is really black tends to be a fairly complicated exercise.)

305. “For this reason, a pastor cannot feel that it is enough simply to apply moral laws to those living in “irregular” situations, as if they were stones to throw at people’s lives. This would be speak the closed heart of one used to hiding behind the Church’s teachings, “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families.”  (Note the scare quotes around irregular when referring to people in adulterous unions.  The Pope argues like a juvenile in many cases.  This passage obviously tells priests that if they fail to give communion to people living in shack ups in mortal sin, they do so at their jeopardy.  This Pope will make the priests of our Church co-conspirators with him in ignoring the clear command of Christ.)

Continue reading...

7 Responses to PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-the Lean Version-Part 11-Conclusion

  • 305. …”This Pope will make the priests of our church co-conspirators with him in ignoring the clear command of Christ.”

    I’m offering up my morning Rosary for the priest who follow this sheppard.
    The Church will withstand the errors.
    The faithful will have a faithful Sheppard too.
    This is a storm that has been brewing for a long time and we are witnesses of it’s power.

    It too will pass. The Son will shine in His Church. Keep at the daily rosaries.

  • “sitting on the chair of Moses and judging at times with superiority and superficiality difficult cases and wounded families.”

    This Pope has an odd way of readying scripture and deriving the opposite meaning. The part about “sitting on the chair of Moses” referred to Jesus saying that the Pharisees having legitimate authority to judge but that their conduct didn’t match their word. In other words, if the Pope were orthodox he should have read it as “Laity, listen to and submit to the moral teachings of the Priests since they are supposed to teach what the Magisterium teaches. Priests, shape up and live to the moral teaching of the Church and actually teach what the moral teaching of the Church are.”

    Instead, he turns the teaching upside down and makes the unfaithful priests and willful sinners right and condemns the faithful Catholic and faithful priest.

    I would really like to see how he eisegetes Isaiah 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

  • Good Lord, Don, you deserve a medal for plodding through that ambiguous, obscure, boring, repetitive, and highly-unsatisfying document. Hard enough to read it, much less try to summarize it like this.

  • Agreed Anil Wang- he just seems to see things opposite the way they are, it seems a purposeful misreading!
    Maddening.
    This whopper (325 paragraph deception) misrepresents, distorts, and includes aspersion, defamation, and prodding of priests and teachers from behind– but sweetly and confusingly intermingled with paragraphs of inspiration about the hopes of love and family.
    The image to me is not the pope joyfully leading his followers in the open air a la John Bosco– but instead a pied piper.

  • Jorge Bergoglio does not know the realities of those of us whose lives have been decimated by long unrepented, public infidelities, known to the Church and supported by the Church, even as the marriages are judged to be valid. He is locking us, our families and our children up in a room with our abusers, hears our cries and turns his attention to the sufferings of our abusers, obsesses over them, sheds tears for them, publicly excuses their behaviors and motives.

    Even, as he ignores us, their victims.

    His lack of Charity is incomprehensible to me. To this victim of marital clerical abuse, his treatise, excusing unrepentant, long term infidelity and civil unions of those involved in the same, and their fruits, is little different than publishing, as a Papal teaching document, a similar defense of clerical child abuse.

    Jorge Bergoglio is a nauseating human being.

    Karl

  • Thanks Don. Excellent work for teasing out the substance of the Pope’s many heretical words from the swamp of emotional drivel. Pope Francis is the personification of C. S. Lewis’s character Screwtape who seeks the damnation of all that listen to him.

  • Does anyone know of a good analysis (maybe written by one of the Church Fathers or Doctors) of Christ’s words “What you hold bound will be held bound, what you loose will be loosed.” I cannot imagine that He meant that the successors to St. Peter were allowed to abrogate the 6th commandment.

    Karl, I’m very sorry for what you are going through. If you’ve petitioned for an annulment in the past, can you re-petition? It’s sad that this pope is not concerned with the faithful half.

PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-the Lean Version-Part 10

Friday, April 22, AD 2016

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

 

Part 10 of our stripped down look at Amoris Laetitia with some commentary by PopeWatch:

271.  Moral education must not involve too much of a child.  (A legitimate concern, although PopeWatch has observed that kids, like most people, tend to live up to, or down to, expectations.)

272.  A rather confused and turgid paragraph on ethical formation in kids.

273.  Excuse making for wretched conduct, a major theme of the Exhortation.

274.  The family is the first school for human values.  (A prime cause of the bloat in the Exhortation is the tendency of the Pope and his ghost writers writing the same thing again and again with minor variations.)

275.  Get your brats off the damn electronics for a while.

276.  We pick our friends, God picks our relatives, and learning to put up with them is an important element in growing up.

277.  More eco-babble.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-the Lean Version-Part 10

  • As to 297, I don’t believe Pope Francis believes anyone is in hell ( Fr. Karl Rahner and Von Balthasar said one can hope for such) given that he is against the death penalty like his two predecessors both of whom said we can’t be certain Judas is in hell. I suspect there’s a connection between the two issues.
    We can be certain Judas is in hell given Christ’s unrelenting dire words on Judas which words are inappropriate for a person glory bound through purgatory….and we can be certain due to Christ’s use of past tense prophecy about Judas “perished”…said prior to his full sin. St. Justin Martyr noted that past tense prophecy is unconditional…it’s as good as done ergo the past tense….Isaiah….” by his stripes we were healed”.
    This goes to gender fluidity in 286. The OT in Sirach says, ” The severity of a man is better than a woman’s indulgence.”
    Yes….I think it is effeminate to oppose the death penalty and to hold out hope for Judas and I think high clergy is often venially effeminate to a degree due to being over cultured which Plato noted in book three of the Republic causes men to be too feminine. Scripture speaks of women who had “the courage of men” like Judith….ergo many women support the death penalty and will shoot a home invader faster than these last three Popes would.

  • I agree with Bill. Contrary to the hopeful interpretations floating around, in which the pope is merely speaking of this earthly life, it seems obvious that the operative word in “no-one can be condemned forever, because this is not the logic of the gospel” is forever.
    .
    As many have pointed out, this would account for the pope’s relentless anthropocentrism: If nearly all are saved, and even the most evil are merely annihilated (as he told Scalfari), then our focus should be on making this earthly life as commodious as possible for all, even the most hardened criminals. It’s the flipside of the secular humanist drive to maximize earthly pleasure in the face of a meaningless, purposeless universe.

  • bill bannon: The condemned capital one murderer is brought to Justice by the state. As a member of the state, the condemned capital one murderer executes himself. In a free will act of his sovereign personhood, the capital one murderer chose to take another person’s life. Now, he must give it up. Thanks be to God. In hell, no soul is remembered, giving rise to the idea that hell is empty. Judas, Herod and the like are names given to betrayal and murder as well as to condemned, but we, as people, do not know. So, this matter is in God’s hands. Therefore, it is ultimately heresy to mislead soul by stating that hell is empty.

  • Murray No rational, immortal soul can be annihilated. Having been, the soul cannot be undone. The soul cannot be and not be at the same time. God does not contradict Himself. It is the law of non-contradiction. The law of non-contradiction is manifestly violated by the Supreme Court in its decisions abrogating The Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the United States, the will of the people ratified by every state .

  • Mary,
    We can know about Judas with certainty because of Christ’s words which make a Church declaration redundant and unnecessary….and it’s a topic too micro for a declaration. Christ’s words made both Augustine certain about Judas and Chrysostom certain about Judas being in hell. The last three Popes have had an habitual fear of the severe in scripture.
    Heck…99% of Catholic homilies avoid the severe side of scripture for decades now. I confronted two priests years ago at the rectory in their office as to why they only preached the soft side of scripture. In both cases, these soft homilists threw fits I didn’t think they were capable of …at me. Finally someone brought out the severe in them….me….by saying they were avoiding the severe. Lol. It’s the last time I fraternally corrected any priest in a spirit of dialogue because I didn’t want to blow my money on a bullet proof vest which I now believe you need with soft homilists when you engage them in DIALOGUE….the Francis solution.

  • If Pope Francis is correct what is the point of being Catholic? Personally, I believe that is his point.

  • Don, I think your take on 291 is off base. Friendly fire is accidental. And Pope Francis’ firing on his own troops appears to be anything but accidental. So, wouldn’t fragging be the better term?

    Regarding the law of gradualism, it is a valid concept, properly understood. But in the context of AL, it is rendered meaningless.

PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-the Lean Version-Part 9

Thursday, April 21, AD 2016

 

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

Part 9 of our stripped down look at Amoris Laetitia with some commentary by PopeWatch:

241.  Separation in marriage can sometimes be warranted, but must always be viewed as a last resort.

242.  Pastoral care must be shown to the separated, abandoned or divorced, especially those unjustly separated, abandoned or divorced.

243.  It is important that those who have entered into new marriages not be “discriminated” against by the Church.  (Probably the most foolish section thus far in the Exhortation.  The Church constantly discriminates in regard to people based upon their conduct and beliefs.  The Church should be far above the secular pieties currently in vogue at any particular time and place during her passage through this Vale of Tears.)

244.  Speed up the annulment process and make it free of charge.  (Wink, the fix is in when it comes to Catholic divorce annulments.)

245.  Bad impact of divorce and separation on kids.  (It teaches them early on that you can’t rely upon anyone in this Vale of Tears.)

246.  For this reason, Christian communities must not abandon divorced parents who have entered a new union, but should include and support them in their efforts to bring up their children. “How can we encourage those parents to do everything possible to raise their children in the Christian life, to give them an example of committed and practical faith, if we keep them at arm’s length from the life of the community, as if they were somehow excommunicated? We must keep from acting in a way that adds even more to the burdens that children in these situations already have to bear!”  (Translation:  “Ignore the clear command of Christ.  Do it for the kids!”  This is a very mendacious argument.  I have never heard of priests “discriminating” against the children of the divorced or those born out of wedlock.  I have seen priests make extra efforts to make sure that such kids get to Church and catechism.  The idea that there are hordes of priests busily visiting the sins of the parents on kids is a typical example of beliefs that the Pope firmly clings to which simply are not true in reality.)

Continue reading...

3 Responses to PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-the Lean Version-Part 9

  • ” It is important that those who have entered into new marriages not be “discriminated” against by the Church.”

    Am I beyond help because I view Christ’s own impeccable choice to discriminate when he dares to call some of us, “My sheep?” Discrimination is most often the path to paradise.

  • 246 is another straw man the pope lines up in front of the firing squad (so much for being anti-death penalty). Who is saying we should shun people in these objectively adulterous relationships? This is completely different than not admitting them to the sacraments because they choose to remain in a state that renders the reception of the sacraments sacreligious.

  • Principles must be judged. Persons must be tolerated. Toleration does not mean indulgence. The sodomite has in an act of his free will of his sovereign personhood chosen sodomy for himself. The Little Sister of the Poor has in an act of free will of her sovereign personhood chosen consecrated virginity to The Supreme Sovereign Being, God, for herself. Obamacare does not endow virginity, sovereign personhood or unalienable human rights and may not impinge on the Little Sister’s consecrated virginity. Two identical acts of the free will of the sovereign personhood of the citizen. No, the Little Sister does not forfeit her citizenship when she consecrates her virginity. The Little Sister’s vows are accepted by her bishop and the Pope himself validates the Little Sister’s congregation. The same act different consequences.

PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-the Lean Version-Part 8

Wednesday, April 20, AD 2016

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

Part 8 of our stripped down look at Amoris Laetitia with some commentary by PopeWatch:

211.  More on marriage prep.  (All of this is mostly well and good, but it fails to comprehend that the average parish priest has a lot more on his plate than just counseling couples who wish to be married.)

212.  Pope argues for simple rather than elaborate and expensive marriages.  (The Pope is completely correct on this.)

213.  Couples in marriage prep should be taught the meaning of each part of the marriage liturgy.

214.  The Pope lays stress on the phrase “till death do we part”.

215.  Quotes approvingly the Kenyon bishops who have complained about young people focused on their wedding day and forgetting about the life long commitment.

216.  Couples to be married should meditate upon the Bible readings and they should pray together.  (The last is very important indeed, and just not prior to the marriage.  In all marriages there are always some tears, and praying together at the end of the day is a great means to deal with the inevitable sorrows that confront us in this Vale of Tears.)

Continue reading...

10 Responses to PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-the Lean Version-Part 8

  • As for #212, even simple weddings nowadays can cost a pretty penny.

  • 231. Love between those married for a very long time is a wondrous thing.

    Amen!

    I thank God for the great gift of my parents love for each other. They made it to their 64th married year on earth and with God’s grace their love continues on for eternity.

    When you leave the nest that your parents raised you in, you can appreciate the love they shared for family. When I left the nest I encountered so many people who did not experience a loving family life. What a blessing to have had such a faithful and honest to goodness loving parents.

    To you parents.

    God Bless your marriage and your families marriages. We are loved.

  • Doesn’t #240 give us more than a clue about the dangers of “gay” parents? How does one relate to good old Mom and Dad?

  • This blessed old codger received as an engagement gift from his wife-to-be, a copy of Fulton Sheen’s, “Three to Get Married.” That was nearly 6 decades ago, and yes, there were ups and downs, mostly caused by ourselves, but with God’s grace, we persevered and as we now face life’s last days with it’s pains, and unknowns, I stand amazed at the deep peace and joy that we share. We watch the world, in a million different ways, rushing to obtain the same thing that we have been gifted. Without God, it is all meaningless.

  • @DonL.

    Perfectly said;”Without God, it’s all meaningless.”

    When my wife and I go out West to visit a dear friend and his wife, we are surrounded by everything money can buy. He worked very hard to achieve his huge wealth, and I am not belittling it. How many Rolex’s or antique cars, or properties does it take to bring fulfilment?

    We know the answer, but they are struggling with it, and it’s sad.
    When heading out for Mass on Sunday we always invite them, but it’s not a taste they have cultivated.

  • “Pope argues for simple rather than elaborate and expensive marriages. (The Pope is completely correct on this.) ”
    I agree but – art and beauty and music at the ceremony can be expensive and also important – Simple and beautiful would be good… the importance of the day should be marked. We dress up for Sunday mass. We decorate the altar in special ways for Christmas and Easter
    The $ don’t matter so much as the depth of meaning– wearing momma’s dress or growing your own flowers can be great, sister in law baking the cake — but still as elaborate and beautiful as is worthy of the occasion.
    Four of our five had nuptial masses– yay- all carefully picked their readings and songs — but the most expensive and elaborate was the “so-called” wedding

  • “Pope argues for simple rather than elaborate and expensive marriages. (The Pope is completely correct on this.) ”

    Back in 1982 my mother made all the arrangements. She rented out the parish hall, and she and her friends prepared the food and served it. I gave the priest a gratuity of $50.00. The whole thing cost around $500.00. Thirty-four years and three kids later, my Bride and I still look back fondly on that December 18.

  • don L. The sodomite in a free will act of his sovereign personhood has chosen sodomy for himself. If the sodomite wishes to have children he is free to marry heterosexually. Give the children the right to choose. Informed consent to gay parents comes at emancipation at eighteen years of age.

  • OOPS Don L.

  • @Mary De Voe.

    It’s comments like this last one you just posted that allow me the opportunity to say this; You would make the perfect Supreme Court Justice. I’ve missed your comments.
    Great to see you back.

PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-the Lean Version-Part 7

Tuesday, April 19, AD 2016

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

Part 7 of our stripped down look at Amoris Laetitia with some commentary by PopeWatch:

181.   Members of families should remember that they are called to do good in the world as well as in their family.

182.  No family can be fruitful if the members of the family see their family as different or set apart from other families. “Still, some Christian families, whether because of the language they use, the way they act or treat others, or their constant harping on the same two or three issues, end up being seen as remote and not really a part of the community.”  (PopeWatch wonders what “two or three issues” the Pope has in mind.  Perhaps environmentalism, income inequality and pacifism?)

183.  A call for family members to be the most annoying type of social justice warriors.

184.  More of the same.

185. 1 Cor 11:17-34 interpreted as rich v. poor, an interpretation completely alien to the text, but that is how Pope Francis sees the world.

186.  Pope tries the trick of interpreting worthiness to receive communion as to whether you sign on to his leftist view of the world.  (Like most leftists, the Pope tends to regard morality as having the “correct” beliefs on a laundry list of current social justice issues rather  than morality as traditionally understood by the Church.)

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-the Lean Version-Part 7

  • The more I read this (the short version of AL, not the whole of TAC), the more I am grateful for Kevin Thompson’s blog on marriage, family, etc

  • Authors or doers? We need an end to the Papal ordinary magisterial writing ( some of it very ordinary like caving into the liberal world on wifely obedience in this document and the death penalty)….until Catholic institutions are cleaned up by phone by Popes actually working the phone instead of authoring and traveling to iconic photo ops…Lesbos. Last week the University of San Diego ( Catholic under and with the Bishop on the board) held its 5th annual drag show with the organization, Pride, involvement despite the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education notifying them that it is a scandal. Money is perhaps the culprit. Their endowment is 395 million dollars from entities like McDonalds and Jenny Craig.
    PROOF positive that the curia has no teeth in stopping a Catholic institution from affirming sinful lifestyles. The Pope with one threat ( see canon law on papal power) could correct that Bishop and end that scandal. He won’t…he’s busy not working but talking. Phone work and threats is hard work…authoring is not…Jeremiah…” but I have sat alone because thou hast filled me with threats”.

    http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4835/USD-%e2%80%98Drag-Show-%e2%80%99-Criticized-by-Vatican-Continues-Under-New-President.aspx

  • 193. Lack of historical memory in families is a problem if geezers are not listened to. (PopeWatch finds this ironic since Pope Francis has never shown much interest in the historical memory of the Church.

    Why should he? He’s a geezer! He’s just doing he job that all of us geezers should be doing!

  • As to 182, those who are treated as outcasts, be they individuals or families, in much of today’s Church are those who support capital punishment, oppose dangerous and irresponsible open borders immigration policies, and who think man-made global warming (err, climate change) is a hoax. I

  • Thanks Donald. I agree on the marriage prep part. The rest, no so much. Overall, the document is subversive to the Catholic faith. It would have been better that it were not written and the Synods were not held. Pope Francis would be better off if he only communicated with God and spared the rest of us from potential loss of faith.

Cardinal Burke’s Strange Commentary on Amoris Laetitia

Monday, April 18, AD 2016
 
(Guest post by commenter Greg Mockeridge)

I remember watching a documentary on Michael Jackson shortly after his death. In this documentary, a journalist had said regarding Jackson’s ever-changing facial appearance, ” Just when I thought Michael couldn’t look any weirder, he would look weirder.” Likewise, Just when I thought the pontificate of Pope Francis couldn’t get any more bizarre, it gets more bizarre.

And the release of the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (AL) added another bizarre twist to the disaster that is this pontificate. I’m not really surprised by the document itself. From what precious little I have read, it seems to be standard Pope Francis writ, some beautiful statements along with incoherent gibberish and laced with a poison pill or two.
What I really find bizarre is this essay from former prefect of the  Apostolic Signatura and now Patron of the Knights of Malta Cardinal Raymond Burke that appeared on the National Catholic Register’s website on Monday April 11th. The first two paragraphs state:

The secular media and even some Catholic media are describing the recently issued post-synodal apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, “Love in the Family,” as a revolution in the Church, as a radical departure from the teaching and practice of the Church, up to now, regarding marriage and the family.

Such a view of the document is both a source of wonder and confusion to the faithful and potentially a source of scandal, not only for the faithful but for others of goodwill who look to Christ and his Church to teach and reflect in practice the truth regarding marriage and its fruit, family life, the first cell of the life of the Church and of every society.

As to what His Eminence means by “even some Catholic media” is not all together clear. Some have tried to say that the Cardinal is merely referring to the National Catholic Reporter/America Magazine crowd. Regardless of who the good cardinal had in mind by that statement, the upshot of it is that the Pope Francis shills in the orthodox Catholic Media Complex have used Burke’s essay as a club to beat the pope’s orthodox critics over the head. One such example is this attack on Steve Skojec (of One Peter Five fame) from blogger Dave Armstrong. 

 
But contrary to what Mr. Armstrong asserts in his post, the Cardinal has not come out “strongly in support” of the apostolic exhortation. He utters not a word of praise (or criticism for that matter) of AL. He merely says, repeatedly, that the document is not magisterial. 

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Cardinal Burke’s Strange Commentary on Amoris Laetitia

  • I read a few Catholic blogs today before my son’s baseball game. Mr. Skojec wrote a column printed in a Bermuda paper and he has nothing kind to say about the current Pontiff.
    It must be pointed out that Latin American politics has often been blood sport. My wife told men things about Colombian politics that made my skin crawl. The current Pontiff is a caudillo, rewarding his pals and punishing his adversaries. It is the Chicago political machine writ large.
    The current Pontiff is, it must be pointed out, a hypocrite. He has spoken forcefully in advocacy of the poor, yet he is in alliance with the fat cat German hieraechy, who never misses a meal nor drives a Focus.
    So, now, countless bishops and priests will use this garbage document to give Communion to ANYONE. Nothing new here….Cardinal Wuerl has no problem giving Communion to abortionists and open homosexuals.
    Pray and tough it out. There is nothing else to do. There is one positive thing this Pontificate has done. It has destroyed for a generation or more the phenomenon of Papal celebrity.

  • I see Cardinal Burke’s article as careful spin. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • What does the Bear think His Eminence is trying to
    accomplish with his careful
    spin?

  • It is something of a mystery why Cardinal Burke choose to speak out as he did as he had to know his statements would confuse and dismay many of his supporters. It would have been better to have said nothing.

  • I think the Reporter/America crowd are getting much enjoyment out of the traditional crowd taking pot shots at each other. It seems to boil down to you can’t be my friend if your level of disdain for this document isn’t the exact same as mine.

  • If Cardinal Burke came out with a full throated attack on the Exuberance of Sex by Jorge Bergoglio, then what would Bergoglio’s response be? He cannot take criticism.

  • I don’t find any fault with Cardinal Burke’s essay. It may have not said everything he could have said, but he said nothing wrong.
    The true pain for me is the hypocrisy (from Penguin Fan)
    He ( the pope) “has spoken forcefully in advocacy of the poor, yet he is in alliance with the fat cat German hierarchy, who never misses a meal nor drives a Focus.”
    I agree PF
    Yet the pope has that certain positional identity we are called to respect.. though choking on it… I am struggling with anger with both Caesar and Caiphas and trying to trust the promise of Jesus concerning the Holy Spirit,
    Frustration about the confusion/misdirection hypocrisy is not just about the pope, but also the priests who are smilingly covering for this whole trend away from Catholicism.

  • Cardinal Burke tells us that the pope quoting his own teaching from the disputed synod and that he is presenting his own personal beliefs. He says that the non-magisterial nature of the document is evident. “There is no consistent effort to relate the text, in general, or these citations to the magisterium, the Fathers of the Church and other proven authors.”
    Cardinal Burke is not one of those dissembling priests smiling and covering for the pope. He is pastoral and concerned for how the people- common laity like me- are able to keep their faith through this dust storm

  • “What does the Bear think His Eminence is trying to accomplish with his careful spin?”

    It is a salvage operation. Whether it is a salvage of the exhortation or the Church herself is open to debate.

  • I don’t see this in terms of not being friends with someone if they view the Exhortation differently from me. It’s a look at the substance of what the Cardinal says. I also do not believe in circling the wagons for those in my own circles. After all, is this not one of the things we criticize those in, say the mainstream media, for doing?

    Whether or not the pope can or cannot take criticism is not relevant here. What would his response be? Why should Cardinal Burke fear that? If there is any pre-retirement age Cardinal who has nothing to lose, it’s Burke. The pope cannot do anything worse to him that what he has already done. The patronage of the Knights of Malta for a Cardinal of Burke’s age and abilities id ecclesiastical Siberia.

    One of the things wrong with the Cardinal’s essay is, as I point out in the piece, that he says the pope in AL #3 “clearly” says something the pope clearly does not say.

  • Could it be that the Cardinal is exercising prudence at this time, waiting for the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Pentecost is just around the corner.

  • This “exhortation” is garbage.

    Instead, read the words of a real Catholic leader.

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/04/hope-celebration-of-1050th-anniversary.html

    Poland recently observed its 1,050th anniversary of its adoption of the Catholic faith and its founding as a nation. No earthly power has ever stopped it since.

  • Penguins Fan, I too want to believe in an all wonderful Poland, but have you looked at its birthrate? Couple the low birthrate with the fact that many young people leave for US/UK and they have a demographic disaster.

  • Not to worry. In September, the Church will be sede vacante and shopping for a new pope.

  • Why do you say that ?

2 Responses to Mother Angelica is Giving a Thumbs Up From Heaven

  • I found this on Steve Skojec’s Facebook page. So, hattip to him as well.

  • Fr. Murray is truly concerned with Mercy.

    False Mercy is unfortunately the teaching of the day but this day will come to a close.

    Good clip!
    As you stated, thumbs up from the founder of EWTN.

PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-the Lean Version-Part 5

Friday, April 15, AD 2016

PopeWatch2-199x300-199x300

 

Part 5 of our stripped down look at Amoris Laetitia with some commentary by PopeWatch:

121.  Marriage is the icon of God’s love for us.

122.  Married couples do not have to reproduce perfectly the relationship of Christ and His Church.  (Whew!  That’s a relief!)

123.  Conjugal love is the greatest form of friendship.  (Too weak a term for what exists between spouses in a happy lengthy marriage.)

124.  A love that is weak cannot sustain the commitment that marriage requires.  (Basing a marriage all on love is always a mistake.  PopeWatch has seen some marriages survive rough patches simply because both parties were fundamentally decent people, and adhered to what some would consider bromides such as “A deal’s a deal.”)

125.  Marriage involves constant mutual respect.

126.  The joy of love needs to be cultivated in marriage.

127.  Tenderness is a sign of a love free of possessiveness.

128.  Pope writes about lover’s gaze in marriage.  (Parts of this Exhortation read like an old Dear Abby column from the Fifties.)

Continue reading...

4 Responses to PopeWatch: Amoris Laetitia-the Lean Version-Part 5

  • I’ve known two marriages where one spouse cared for the other, dying from a wretched disease. I would have thought the care and loyalty shown by the healthy spouses to the dying ones is a higher form of friendship than conjugal love, but maybe I’m missing something. I may need to read the unabridged AL.
    .
    Alas, I’m fairly certain Baptist minister Kevin A Thompson’s blog is more useful than our Pope’s exhortation.

  • One question no one ever asks: How many Catholics are ready and willing to shed their blood for “ambiguity?
    My theology professor use to exclaim that “No one follows an uncertain trumpet.” Confusion is a weapon of the diabolical.

  • 124 – depends on what you mean by love. Amoris probably would not cut it. Caritas or agape, on the other hand, can. If love = amoris = romantic attraction/attachment, good luck with that. If by love you mean a commitment to willing the true good of the other, than, yes, that is a sufficient basis for a marriage.

  • Dulce nuptias inexpertis.