When You Have Lost Phil Lawler

Friday, March 3, AD 2017

Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture is about as far from being a bomb thrower as it is possible for a Catholic commentator to be, and thus I read with some astonishment his recent post entitled This Disastrous Papacy:

Something snapped last Friday, when Pope Francis used the day’s Gospel reading as one more opportunity to promote his own view on divorce and remarriage. Condemning hypocrisy and the “logic of casuistry,” the Pontiff said that Jesus rejects the approach of legal scholars.

True enough. But in his rebuke to the Pharisees, what does Jesus say about marriage?

So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”


Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

Day after day, in his homilies at morning Mass in the Vatican’s St. Martha residence, Pope Francis denounces the “doctors of the law” and the “rigid” application of Catholic moral doctrine. Sometimes his interpretation of the day’s Scripture readings is forced; often his characterization of tradition-minded Catholics is insulting. But in this case, the Pope turned the Gospel reading completely upside-down. Reading the Vatican Radio account of that astonishing homily, I could no longer pretend that Pope Francis is merely offering a novel interpretation of Catholic doctrine. No; it is more than that. He is engaged in a deliberate effort to change what the Church teaches.

For over 20 years now, writing daily about the news from the Vatican, I have tried to be honest in my assessment of papal statements and gestures. I sometimes criticized St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, when I thought that their actions were imprudent. But never did it cross my mind that either of those Popes posed any danger to the integrity of the Catholic faith. Looking back much further across Church history, I realize that there have been bad Popes: men whose personal actions were motivated by greed and jealousy and lust for power and just plain lust. But has there ever before been a Roman Pontiff who showed such disdain for what the Church has always taught and believed and practiced—on such bedrock issues as the nature of marriage and of the Eucharist?

Pope Francis has sparked controversy from the day he was elected as St. Peter’s successor. But in the past several months the controversy has become so intense, confusion among the faithful so widespread, administration at the Vatican so arbitrary—and the Pope’s diatribes against his (real or imagined) foes so manic—that today the universal Church is rushing toward a crisis.

In a large family, how should a son behave when he realizes that his father’s pathological behavior threatens the welfare of the whole household? He should certainly continue to show respect for his father, but he cannot indefinitely deny the danger. Eventually, a dysfunctional family needs an intervention.

In the worldwide family that is the Catholic Church, the best means of intervention is always prayer. Intense prayer for the Holy Father would be a particularly apt project for the season of Lent. But intervention also requires honesty: a candid recognition that we have a serious problem.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to When You Have Lost Phil Lawler

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Resign!

Friday, March 3, AD 2017


Well this is interesting:

According to a report in The London Times and best selling Catholic author and journalist Antonio Socci, about 12 cardinals who have supported Pope Francis since his election in March 2013 now fear that his controversial reforms may cause a schism in the Church, and so they hope to pressure the Pope to resign. 

“A large part of the cardinals who voted for him is very worried and the curia … that organized his election and has accompanied him thus far, without ever disassociating itself from him, is cultivationg the idea of a moral suasion to convince him to retire,” reported Socci in the Italian newspaper Libero, as quoted in The London Times of March 2.

The cardinals who want Pope Francis to resign are among the liberal prelates who backed Jorge Bergoglio (Pope Francis) four years ago, said Socci, and they would like to replace him with Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican secretary of state. 

“Four years after Benedict XVI’s renunciation and Bergoglio’s arrival on the scene, the situation of the Catholic church has become explosive, perhaps really on the edge of a schism, which could be even more disastrous than Luther’s [who is today being rehabilitated by the Bergoglio church],” said Socci

Continue reading...

23 Responses to PopeWatch: Resign!

  • Would a resignation be a type of retirement?

    Three Pope’s?

    I suppose that is insignificant due to the importance of his removal from the office. The real question becomes his successor.

    At the future announcement of PF’s resignation could we expect more lightning, or possibly an earthquake? My guess.
    A rainbow. Not the hijacked version.

    I’m praying for him as usual.
    I will not cease.
    The gates of hell will not prevail over Holy Catholic Church.

  • This Pope is not going to resign – at least not until he fundamentally transforms the Church as Obama has America.

  • This pope insists on casting the nets over the shallow waters in the hopes, I believe, of drawing in the fallen-away, the disillusioned, the outcast, and the self-exiled. Not that this is a bad thing in and of itself, he should, though, every once in a while, show that he is also a shepherd and tend to the faithful of the flock.

  • Jimmy Chonga.

    I thought so too.
    That his efforts, reckless though they be, are in that vein. Wanting to convert as many through his idea of mercy.
    Lutheran Church is being vindicated by his “love in,”in stead of conversion…But that is my nickel observation.

  • I love Benedict, and admire the humility that led him to retire, but his action opened a can of worms. This article reads like something from the 1200’s.

  • Bergoglio’s preemptive war against the sovereign personhood of the newly procreated in original innocence, the standard of Justice for all people, through population control; then blaming the environmental problems on “people as pollution” displays a lack of trust in divine Providence. Not seeing volcanoes and earthquakes as divine retribution for the sins of man, Bergoglio assaults people instead of our sins. Bergoglio has excommunicated himself.

  • He was coerced Pinky, don’t forget that and now he’s an old man being manipulated.

  • Pope Francis has brought honesty and humanity back to the Church.I thank God that he was sent to us!!

  • Would it be enough for him to resign though? Surely Laudato Si and Amoris Laetitia need to be…scrapped, or something.

  • Jimmy & Philip — Converting the exiled, but to what? I think Bergoglio’s real goal is to convert the Church to the outside world (not vice versa), so at the end we are all a bunch of grinning social workers alternating between hugging each other and the nearby trees.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Happy FrancisChurch Lent, You Religious Bastard! – The Stumbling Block
  • Susan Weddell: How can Pope Francis bring honesty and humanity back to us without Jesus Christ and the TRUTH?

  • I can’t figure out if Susan Weddell is being humorously sarcastic or idiotically serious. No offense, but anyone who thinks as Susan wrote has serious issues.

  • We will be thrilled if he resigns. However, we will still be left with a powerful group of sodomite Freemasons, who hold all the cards except the ones the Good Lord holds. Providence allowed Donald Trump to be made president against all odds. His opponents never even saw it coming, not at all. Things can change on a dime, if the Good Lord wills it.
    Please Lord, help us rout these evil men from your church. Amen.

  • Kathleen, I pray for his resignation and a conservative replacement….as well as the rooting out of the Freemasons in the Curia every day. I pray more Catholics do the same. I also prayed for Trump to get elected when he ran and I continue to pray for his safety and
    guidance from God.

  • Yes Kathleen we’d still be left with those guys- can we call them “deep church”😁

  • The discourse about freemasons has always struck me as a RadTrad fantasy. Gay cliques, careerists, aspirant den-mothers-on-salary are our problem. I suspect the corruption is worse under Francis because he simply doesn’t care about the substance of these issues and the purpose of investigations and sanctions is to punish adversaries, not promote discipline. I’m frankly surprised they haven’t trumped up charges against Cdl. Burke.

  • “Pope Francis has brought honesty and humanity back to the Church.I thank God that he was sent to us!!”

    So, was it Pope St. John Paul II or was it Pope Benedict XVI who deprived the Church of honesty and humanity? I’d really like to know. If Bergoglio is allegedly bringing those things back, then they MUST have been lacking under his predecessors.

  • So, was it Pope St. John Paul II or was it Pope Benedict XVI who deprived the Church of honesty and humanity? I’d really like to know. If Bergoglio is allegedly bringing those things back, then they MUST have been lacking under his predecessors.

    I suspect S. Weddell defines ‘honesty’ and ‘humanity’ to mean ‘doesn’t get under my skin’.

  • I’m not generally one to assign guilt by association, but the Shea is strong with this one.

  • Sorry, that was uncalled for. I don’t know that this lady is even familiar with the gentleman to whom I refer. I apologize for the previous comment.

  • Sorry, that was uncalled for. I don’t know that this lady is even familiar with the gentleman to whom I refer. I apologize for the previous comment.

    I did wonder of ‘Susan Weddell’ has any connection to Shea-pal Sherry Weddell.

  • “I’m not generally one to assign guilt by association, but the Shea is strong with this one.”

    “Sorry, that was uncalled for.”

    It was a funny line though. I will use it in the future. 😆

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Marks of the Church

Thursday, March 2, AD 2017



Lifesite News has a cry from the heart as to what Pope Francis has done to the Church:

What liberal prelates like McCarrick, Murphy-O’Connor, and Danneels knew about Bergoglio’s capacity to “make the Church over again” has only slowly and confusedly become evident to faithful Catholics over the last four years, but especially in the last year. Based on a mistaken notion of papal infallibility, many Catholics have defended Pope Francis to the point of absurdity. But sober-minded Catholics who know the traditional teachings, history, and practices, are alarmed at the clear fact that many of the Holy Father’s actions and statements are at odds with what has gone before.

In Bergoglio’s four years as Pope Francis the four marks that set the Catholic Church apart from every other religion on the face of the earth, namely that she is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic, have become obscured and even undermined.

The oneness or unity of the Church in her submission to Christ as head, in her doctrinal integrity, and in her confession of one faith has been obscured and undermined in various ways under Francis’ pontificate:

  • He has called for a “decentralized” Church, and allowed individual bishops’ groups to determine for their own “regional” churches what is moral and right. In this way, it is supposedly permissible for adulterers to receive Holy Communion in Germany while across the border in Poland it is gravely sinful.
  • His ambiguous speeches and especially his papal writings have turned cardinal against cardinal, bishop against bishop, and lay-faithful against lay-faithful.
  • He has refused to answer Church leaders earnestly begging for clarity on points of contention.
  • He has allowed Catholic doctrine to be minimized in the name of religious “dialogue” with other Christian denominations with a history of hostility towards Catholic doctrine on marriage, the Eucharist, and the papacy. Under his leadership, the Vatican has even hailed Luther, the founder of Protestantism, as a “witness to the gospel.”

The holiness and sacred reality of the Church as the bride of Christ has been obscured and undermined in various ways under Francis’ pontificate:

The Catholicity or universal mission of the Church to ceaselessly toil for the salvation of souls has been obscured and undermined in various ways under Francis’ pontificate:

The apostolicity of the Church where the deposit of faith is authentically handed down from the apostles through their successors the bishops and cardinals has been obscured and undermined in various ways under Francis’ pontificate:


Continue reading...

25 Responses to PopeWatch: Marks of the Church

  • In a burst of brilliant light, the Archangel Gabriel flew in to St. Peter’s basilica with a scroll in his hand. It read; “Until further notice, the pontificate is limited to a four year term.”

    Term limits. 😥 Pope Francis’ term is nearing completion. 😕

  • Ooh no.

    I was sleep texting again.

  • Pope Chastisement has caused many in the Church to decide if they are for Christ, or not. He has woken many Catholics up to the assault on their faith. Sides have been drawn. Yes now means yes, and no means no. Unfortunately, most of this reaction has been among the laity. With few exceptions, the clergy have not spoken as clearly or have acknowledged the assault. I will continue to pray for the clergy.

  • With few exceptions, the clergy have not spoken as clearly or have acknowledged the assault. I will continue to pray for the clergy.

    Among the clergy I’m acquainted with, Francis has gone down the memory hole and as little reference to him as possible is made. (There remains a photo in the hallway outside the nave). He doesn’t teach, he doesn’t sanctify, and his ‘governing’ consists of playing institutional politics.

  • He is not my pope.

    Only prayer and fasting drives out certain demons. We are not praying enough.

    With the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit, The Church will survive. “May the Divine Assistance be always with us. Amen.”

  • Hailing Luther as a “witness to the Gospel” nothing but the TRUTH, did Luther adhere to the Gospel: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church.”?
    The Catholic Church, every church and The Vatican, belong to all people, every generation and all future generations, in part and in whole, in joint and common tenancy. The Catholic Church is held in trust for all generations, past, present and future. For this reason, the Church may not be taxed. The Church is a DONATION to all people, a free will donation by Jesus Christ to every nation in every generation for Jesus is outside of time. Jesus Christ instituted the Church and her Sacraments and only Jesus Christ’s Truth must be obeyed and followed to be a Christian and a Catholic.
    Renting out Jesus Christ’s Church is not within the authentic authority of Pope Francis… money grubbing. Francis cannot profane what is Holy. Francis cannot give the children’s food to the dogs.
    God forces no one to heaven or into Christ’s Church. There is no mercy, nor grace, unless desired and all conditions must be met. Grace and mercy cannot abide in a dead soul no more than life can abide in a dead body. God must resurrect a dead soul to grace and mercy when the soul appeals to God for grace and mercy. Francis has nothing to do with granting mercy and grace unless God grants and allows grace and mercy.

  • Mary De Voe.

    The commonality between Luther and Francis is disconcerting.

    Oh well. We can only change ourselves through the Grace of God, and until those we care for help themselves all we can do is pray.
    Praying for the Pope to discern the promptings of the Holy Spirit v. the thief who steals the gifts.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Don’t Be Afraid to Say It. Francis Should Step Down! – The Stumbling Block
  • Maybe the laity needs to write to Pope Francis along the theme of “Mit Brennender Sorge” (context intentional)

  • Matthew 23:9

    And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

  • Once again, we see the familiar fallacy of trying to define Catholics by their tenets or the Church by her teaching.

    When he was still an Anglican, Mgr Ronald Knox asked himself a simple question: “Why did those who anathematized Nestorius come to be regarded as “Catholics” rather than those who still accept his doctrines?” He realised that we do not have to concern ourselves with the theological arguments at all; the short answer is that the “Catholics” had the bishop of Rome in their party and the Nestorians did not.

    As he says, “if you ask a Catholic “What is the Catholic Faith?” and are told it is that held by the Catholic Church; if you persevere, and ask what is the Catholic Church, you are no longer met with the irritatingly circular definition “the Church which holds the Catholic Faith” ; you are told it is the Church which is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.”

    It is a real test, not a vicious circle and one that is is remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.

  • “As he says, “if you ask a Catholic “What is the Catholic Faith?” and are told it is that held by the Catholic Church; if you persevere, and ask what is the Catholic Church, you are no longer met with the irritatingly circular definition “the Church which holds the Catholic Faith” ; you are told it is the Church which is in communion with the Bishop of Rome.””

    Because past popes have almost universally been ardent defenders of the teachings of the Catholic Church. Alas, that cannot be said with a straight face of the current Pope.

  • Good summary of the evidence against this dreadful man. Hopefully, more folks will become aware of his devilish efforts to undermine the Church. Since Pope Francis is being permitted to do this by God we must believe that some good will ultimately come from it. For example, this could be a way of separating the wheat from the chaff in the Church. Mysterious are the ways of the Lord.

  • Philip Nachazel:
    “The commonality between Luther and Francis is disconcerting.”
    Luther built his church on the evil being done by evil men in the Church. Francis is building his church on the evil he is creating.

    Matthew 23:9
    “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”
    “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, WHO is in heaven.” WHO denotes the sovereign Persons of the Trinity.
    Michael Paterson-Seymour: The Catholic Faith is a gift from God . Religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, Christ WHO is the TRUTH. So, the Catholic Faith is an exposition of the TRUTH, as Jesus Christ is the Revelation of God, God WHO is in heaven.

  • Mary De Voe.

    Good distinction.
    The common ground between the two men is obvious. A subversion of Holy Catholic Church. Even if PF doesn’t intend to hurt the Church, he is by his opinions.
    Good intentions and where they can lead is…well, not nice.

  • Philip Nachazel: Well said. Well noted.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote: “Because past popes have almost universally been ardent defenders of the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

    Well, by Knox’s definition, that is a tautology: “The fideles, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome.”

    That popes have been singular in their views can be seen in the debate over heretical baptism, which St Stephen alone defended. As Bl John Henry Newman says, “Pope Stephen took this side then in a memorable controversy, and maintained it against almost the whole Christian world. It was a signal instance of the triumph, under Divine Providence, of a high, generous expediency over a conception of Christian doctrine, which logically indeed seemed unanswerable. One must grant indeed, as I have said, that he based his decision upon Tradition, not on expediency, but why was such a Tradition in the first instance begun? The reason of the Tradition has to be explained; and, if Stephen is not to have the credit of the large and wise views which occasioned his conduct, that credit belongs to the Popes who went before him. These he had on his side certainly, but whom had he besides them? The Apostolical Canons say, “Those who are baptized by heretics cannot be believers.” The Synods of Iconium and Synnada declare that “those who came from the heretics were to be washed and purified from the filth of their old impure leaven.” Clement of Alexandria, that “Wisdom pronounces that strange waters do not belong to her.” Firmilian, that “we recognize one only Church of God, and account baptism to belong only to the Holy Church.” “It seemed good from the beginning,” says St. Basil, “wholly to annul the baptism of heretics.” Tertullian says, “We have not the same baptism with heretics; since they have it not rightly; without, they have it not at all.” “Then may there be one baptism,” says St. Cyprian, “when there is one faith. We and heretics cannot have a common baptism, since we have not the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost in common. Heretics in their baptism are polluted by their profane water.” St. Cyril says, “None but heretics are re-baptized, since their former baptism was not baptism.” St. Athanasius asks, “Is not the rite administered by the Arians, altogether empty and unprofitable? He that is sprinkled by them is rather polluted than redeemed.” Optatus says, “The stained baptism cannot wash a man, the polluted cannot cleanse.” “The baptism of traitors.” says St. Ambrose, “does not heal, does not cleanse, but defiles.”
    Expedience is an argument which grows in cogency with the course of years; a hundred and fifty years after St. Stephen, the ecclesiastical conclusion which he had upheld was accepted generally by the School of Theologians, in an adhesion to it on the part of St. Augustine.”
    The piety and learning of all these Fathers counted for nothing; they did not have the bishop of Rome in their party.

  • “Well, by Knox’s definition, that is a tautology”

    Yes, and even a cursory study of history establishes that he is wrong.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Even a cursory study of history establishes that he is wrong.”

    I would suggest the lesson of history is the reverse: “And in fact there can be little doubt that, in the West, our labelling of this party as orthodox and that as heterodox in early Church history comes down to us from authors who were applying this test of orthodoxy and no other.”

  • Popes Honorius, Liberius and John XXII beg to differ.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Popes Honorius, Liberius and John XXII beg to differ.”

    On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the Orthodox anathematize the “Three Wicked Hierarchs,” Liberius, Honorius and Nicholas (who defied the Council of Chalcedon by tampering with the Creed). But, in the West, no one broke communion with any of them.

    As Bl John Henry Newman observes of many of the schisms in the early Church, “[T]here was, in various parts of the world, both among the educated and the uneducated, an indignant rising against this innovation, as it was conceived, of their rulers. Montanus and his sect in the East, represent the feelings of the multitude at Rome, the school of Tertullian, Novatian, and the author of the Elenchus, able and learned men, stood out in behalf of what they considered the Old Theology, terminating their course in the Novatian schism; while the learned Donatist Bishops and the mad Circumcelliones illustrate a like sentiment, and a like temper, in Africa.” All these movements were protests in favour of tradition and against what they perceived as innovation.

    The story is the same for the Assyrian Church of the East after Ephesus, the Armenians, Copts and Ethiopians after Chalcedon, with this difference that they continue their distinctive witness down to the present day.

    According to Protestant historians like Milman, “The Church came to think otherwise, and thus they found themselves de-Catholicized in the long run.” But which Church? “The Church” fixes the date of Easter, “the Church” decides that heretics need not be rebaptized, “the Church” decides that the Incarnate combined two Natures in one Person. It beggars belief that the early pontiffs just happened to find themselves on the winning side in every controversy; the only definition that holds water is that “the Church” means the church in communion with the bishop of Rome and I defy anyone to propose any other the tits the facts.

  • Bl John Henry Newman notes, “of a Council Perrone says, “Councils are not infallible in the reasons by which they are led, or on which they rely, in making their definition, nor in matters which relate to persons, nor to physical matters which have no necessary connexion with dogma.” Præl. Theol. t. 2, p. 492. Thus, if a Council has condemned a work of Origen or Theodoret, it did not in so condemning go beyond the work itself; it did not touch the persons of either.”

    Again, “As to the condemnation of propositions all she tells us is, that the thesis condemned when taken as a whole, or, again, when viewed in its context, is heretical, or blasphemous, or impious, or whatever like epithet she affixes to it. We have only to trust her so far as to allow ourselves to be warned against the thesis, or the work containing it. Theologians employ themselves in determining what precisely it is that is condemned in that thesis or treatise; and doubtless in most cases they do so with success; but that determination is not de fide; all that is of faith is that there is in that thesis itself, which is noted, heresy or error, or other like peccant matter”

    Thus St Robert Bellarmine was able to maintain that Honorius himself never held the doctrine condemned by the Council. Given that the matter was never agitated in his lifetime, it is impossible to say what explanation he might have offered. The reason is obvious enough; in condemning the Monothelite heresy, the Council was pronouncing on a question of faith and morals, but whether or not Honorius held that opinion is not.

  • The condemnation of Pope Honorius was noted in the Roman Breviary under the feast day of Pope Leo II until the Eighteenth Century. Efforts by apologists like Saint Bellarmine to pooh pooh the fact of his condemnation do them little credit.


  • It beggars belief

    Christianity in a nutshell.

    And speaking of Honorius: more relevant now than ever.

    Honorius was pressured to react to a popular heresy Monothelitism, which held that Jesus Christ possessed only one will naturally. But the Church teaches that Jesus Christ has two inseparable but distinct wills or two distinct operations naturally. However, the Church also teaches there is only one will and one operation in Christ morally. In other words, there is no opposition between the two wills and two operations in Christ.

    Although Honorius believed the Church’s true teaching, he wanted to avoid trouble in the Church and offending the Monothelitites, one of whom was the Emperor Heraclius. Similar to today, bishops wanted clarification, but Honorius counseled silence.
    About 40 years after Honorius died, however, the Sixth General Church Council condemned the fact that Honorius had remained silent. Pope Leo II, the successor to Pope Agatho, accepted this condemnation with some qualification.


    Honorius’s decision was condemned—not because he actively preached falsehood or heresy—but because he “neglected” teaching the truth. As Pope Leo II pointed out, even during the silence of Honorius, the apostolic tradition and teaching remained untouched and “immaculate.”

PopeWatch: Malta

Tuesday, February 28, AD 2017




Tolerance for me but not for thee seems to be the order of the day for the heterodox in the Church who now think they hold the whiphand.  Malta is a prime example according to Edward Pentin at The National Catholic Register:


The Archbishop of Malta has confirmed to the Register that he told the country’s seminarians earlier this month that if any of them do not agree with Pope Francis, “the seminary gate is open,” implying they are free to leave.
Archbishop Charles Scicluna’s remarks are the latest in what Church sources in Malta say is a heavy-handed crackdown on any ecclesiastic unwilling to subscribe to the Maltese bishops’ interpretation of the apostolic exhortation, Amoris Laetitia — an interpretation the bishops say is identical to the Holy Father’s.
Last month, Archbishop Scicluna and Bishop Mario Grech of Gozo — the episcopate’s only two bishops — released “Criteria” on interpreting Chapter 8 of the Pope’s apostolic exhortation on the family in which they appeared to assert the primacy of conscience over the objective moral truth.
The guidelines allowed some remarried divorcees to receive Holy Communion after a period of discernment, with an informed and enlightened conscience, and if they are “at peace with God.”
Their interpretation caused an international outcry among theologians, canonists and others who argued that it contradicted previous papal teaching, as well as breached canon law and the catechism. Archbishop Scicluna has defended the guidelines, saying they “adhered to Amoris Laetitia” and also “followed the interpretation that the Pope approved.”
Since the Criteria were published Jan. 13, a number of clergy sources in Malta have contacted the Register alleging the bishops won’t tolerate any clergy having a different interpretation of Amoris Laetitia than the one presented in the Criteria among the clergy.
According to the sources, three priests are allegedly intimidating anyone who does not agree with the Criteria. The three had been opponents of the previous bishop, Archbishop Paul Cremona, but have now become the present bishops’ allies. One of them reputedly attacks any priest who shares critical stories on the Internet.
“This group of priests, with a few others, have been hogging the conversation for decades,” said a Maltese priest on condition of anonymity. “No one else seems to be allowed to contribute to the debate and they have done untold damage to bridge-building since they brook no opposition.”

Continue reading...

7 Responses to PopeWatch: Malta

  • What if a priest’s conscience won’t allow him to aid in the profanation of the Eucharist?

  • “What if a priest’s conscience won’t allow him to aid in the profanation of the Eucharist?”

    For progressives, some consciences are more equal than others.

  • “According to the sources, three priests….” Name these priests! If it is true, name them. They should be happy to stand by this activity. If they are ashamed of it, why? I’m sick and tired of not naming the guilty. Call them out publicly and maybe they will repent, if not everyone will know who they are and who they stand with.

  • Regarding progressives, if it were not for HUGE double standards, they would have no standards.

    Off topic, but relative to the island Malta. In 869 AD, Muslim Arabs captured Malta.

  • “Off topic, but relative to the island Malta. In 869 AD, Muslim Arabs captured Malta.” The barbarians have captured Malta twice.

  • “Scratch most heterodox Catholics and there is a Grand Inquisitor trying to get out.”

    Would seem so.

    Primacy of Conscience….. Opening the doorway. Since the “seminary gate is open,” I would walk out of there and join an order who appreciates objected moral truth. Who will know for certain what beasts will come through the doorway of primacy of Conscience in the future? In “good,” conscience women priesthood?
    Good conscience could bring about the first fast Communion drive thru’s. After all, we are good Catholics striving for efficiency and since the majority of us commute and daily Communion is important, why not? Maybe have Mystic Monk coffee available for those who wish to save time, so they can get Jesus and a latte.

    When would this end?

    The doorway created by this reasoning could invite beasts that otherwise would of never entered.

    The seminary gate is open!
    Then get the hell out of that seminary if your superior is the Archbishop of Malta.

  • Philip Nachazel: Men must have a vocation to Holy Orders. “Women priests” are damned and losing their eternal destiny. Just sayin’.

PopeWatch: Justice

Monday, February 27, AD 2017





The Pope’s emphasis on mercy uber alles is coming back to bite him:



Pope Francis has quietly reduced sanctions against a handful of pedophile priests, applying his vision of a merciful church even to its worst offenders in ways that survivors of abuse and the pope’s own advisers question.

One case has come back to haunt him: An Italian priest who received the pope’s clemency was later convicted by an Italian criminal court for his sex crimes against children as young as 12. The Rev. Mauro Inzoli is now facing a second church trial after new evidence emerged against him, The Associated Press has learned.


The Inzoli case is one of several in which Francis overruled the advice of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and reduced a sentence that called for the priest to be defrocked, two canon lawyers and a church official told AP. Instead, the priests were sentenced to penalties including a lifetime of penance and prayer and removal from public ministry.

In some cases, the priests or their high-ranking friends appealed to Francis for clemency by citing the pope’s own words about mercy in their petitions, the church official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the proceedings are confidential.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to PopeWatch: Justice

  • The innocent priests that we’re falsely accused of pedophilia and subsequently treated like criminals.. where is their justice. Off topic? I guess, but to me that is the true outrageous and unacceptable fact. No due process.

    Pope Francis?

    Pray hard for him and his soul.

  • A cynic might think that under this Pope, the canon law is a weapon to be used contra internal adversaries. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Ecclesiastical tribunals will make mistakes because they’re working with scanty and dated evidence most of the time.

  • In the hands of Pope Francis mercy for sinners has become license for sin.

  • Pope John Paul II said: “One crime and the priest is OUT”

PopeWatch: Que?

Saturday, February 25, AD 2017


From the only reliable source of Catholic news on the net, Eye of the Tiber:



Claiming that she was almost certain she had comprehend a word the new visiting Nigerian priest used during the homily, longtime parishioner Abby Longworth excitedly turned to friends and fellow parishioners today to inform them of the good news.

“I wouldn’t put my life on it, but I think he said ‘magisterium,’” Longworth whispered to parishioners, adding that she thinks he may have also used the word “obedient,” which, if her assumption was correct, meant the priest was delivering a homily about being faithful Catholics who adhere to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

“If my theory is correct, and I pray it is, that would mean that this really is a kick-butt homily. He is Nigerian after all, and Nigerian priests are typically pretty solid, which only strengthens my theory that much more.”

While Longworth is excited to believe that she might’ve just heard a wonderful homily, she is now reportedly bracing herself for next week, when another visiting priest, Fr. Batongbacal Estrella, visits from the Philippines.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to PopeWatch: Que?

PopeWatch: Image

Friday, February 24, AD 2017


An interesting communique from the Vatican:


The Secretariat of State includes among its responsibilities the protection of the image of the Holy Father, so that his message may reach the faithful intact, and so that his person is not exploited.

For the same reasons, the Secretariat of State safeguards all symbols and official coats of arms of the Holy See via the appropriate regulatory instruments at international level.

To render this protection increasingly effective for the aforementioned purposes and to stop any illegal situations that may arise, the Secretariat of State carries out systematic surveillance activities to monitor the ways in which the image of the Holy Father and the coats of arms of the Holy See are used, taking appropriate action where necessary.


Continue reading...

7 Responses to PopeWatch: Image

  • Is PF seeking first to understand… before being understood?

  • The Secretariat of State must protect the office of the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Vatican. When Pope Francis is in error, the Secretariat of State must protect the Pope, not his error. Therein lies the great challenge.

  • Weren’t there protest posters against Pope Francis popping up around Rome recently? I wonder if it’s related to that.

  • Interesting that the Vatican is treating Pope Francis as a product.. Unfortunately, he is low quality product which nothing can salvage except the grace of God. Let us always pray for Pope Francis.

  • Hopefully, this episode will be the catalyst that makes Milo stop his homosexual activity and even return to the Catholic Church. If this were to happen I wonder how many invitations he would receive from the MSM and the Catholic Church to tell his story? My guess is few due to the awkward situation of having the guilty interview the repentant.

    Let us pray for him.

  • “[T]he Secretariat of State safeguards all symbols and official coats of arms”

    In Scotland, arms are protected by the Lyon Court against unlawful assumption and use, with both criminal penalties (it has its own Procurator-Fiscal) and civil remedies for the lawful bearer.

    The arms of foreign sovereigns are protected as a matter of comity; other foreign arms have to be matriculated, before they can be born in Scotland.

PopeWatch: Jesuits

Thursday, February 23, AD 2017


PopeWatch has long thought that much that afflicts the Church can be summed up in one word:  Jesuits.  Sandro Magister gives us a case in point:


Incredible but true. In the eighth chapter of “Amoris Laetitia,” the most heated and controversial, the one in which Pope Francis seems to “open up” to remarriage while the previous spouse is still alive, there is no citation at all of the words of Jesus on marriage and divorce, presented primarily in chapter 19 of the Gospel according to Matthew:

«Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”»

It is an astonishing omission. Also striking are two other moments of silence from Francis, on the same question.

The first took place on October 4, 2015. It was the Sunday of the beginning of the second and final session of the synod on the family. And on that very day, in all the Catholic churches of the Latin rite, at Mass, the Gospel passage read was from Mark (10:2-9), parallel to the one in Matthew 19:2-12.

At the Angelus, the pope avoided any reference to that passage of the Gospel, in spite of its extraordinary pertinence to the questions discussed at the synod.

And the same thing happened last February 12, with another similar passage from the Gospel of Matthew (5:11-12) read at Mass in all the churches. This time as well, at the Angelus, Francis avoided citing and commenting on it.

Why such adamant silence from the pope on words of Jesus that are so unequivocal?

One clue toward a response is in the interview that the new superior general of the Society of Jesus, the Venezuelan Arturo Sosa Abascal, very close to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has given to the Swiss vaticanista Giuseppe Rusconi for the blog Rossoporpora and for the “Giornale del Popolo” of Lugano.

Here are the passages most relevant to the case. Any commentary would be superfluous.


Q: Cardinal Gerhard L. Műller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, has said with regard to marriage that the words of Jesus are very clear and “no power in heaven and on earth, neither an angel nor the pope, neither a council nor a law of the bishops has the faculty to modify them.”

A: So then, there would have to be a lot of reflection on what Jesus really said. At that time, no one had a recorder to take down his words. What is known is that the words of Jesus must be contextualized, they are expressed in a language, in a specific setting, they are addressed to someone in particular.

Q: But if all the worlds of Jesus must be examined and brought back to their historical context, they do not have an absolute value.

A: Over the last century in the Church there has been a great blossoming of studies that seek to understand exactly what Jesus meant to say… That is not relativism, but attests that the word is relative, the Gospel is written by human beings, it is accepted by the Church which is made up of human persons… So it is true that no one can change the word of Jesus, but one must know what it was!

Q: Is it also possible to question the statement in Matthew 19:3-6: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”?

A: I go along with what Pope Francis says. One does not bring into doubt, one brings into discernment. . .

Q: But discernment is evaluation, it is choosing among different options. There is no longer an obligation to follow just one interpretation. . .

A: No, the obligation is still there, but to follow the result of discernment.

Q: However, the final decision is based on a judgment relative to different hypotheses. So it also takes into consideration the hypothesis that the phrase “let man not put asunder…” is not exactly as it appears. In short, it brings the word of Jesus into doubt.

A: Not the word of Jesus, but the word of Jesus as we have interpreted it. Discernment does not select among different hypotheses but listens to the Holy Spirit, who – as Jesus has promised – helps us to understand the signs of God’s presence in human history.

Q: But discern how?

A: Pope Francis does discernment following St. Ignatius, like the whole Society of Jesus: one has to seek and find, St. Ignatius said, the will of God. It is not a frivolous search. Discernment leads to a decision: one must not only evaluate, but decide.

Q: And who must decide?

A: The Church has always reiterated the priority of personal conscience.

Q: So if conscience, after discernment, tells me that I can receive communion even if the norm does not provide for it…

A: The Church has developed over the centuries, it is not a piece of reinforced concrete. It was born, it has learned, it has changed. This is why the ecumenical councils are held, to try to bring developments of doctrine into focus. Doctrine is a word that I don’t like very much, it brings with it the image of the hardness of stone. Instead the human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development.

Q: I seem to understand that for you there is a priority for the practice of the discernment of doctrine.

A: Yes, but doctrine is part of discernment. True discernment cannot dispense with doctrine.

Q: But it can reach conclusions different from doctrine.

A: That is so, because doctrine does not replace discernment, nor does it the Holy Spirit.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to PopeWatch: Jesuits

  • Sophistry and rationalization. Pure unadulterated male bovine manure.

  • Incredible.

    While reading Abascal’s answers I can’t help but recall these words; “Let your speach be yea yea; or no no, and that which is over and above these is evil.” Matthew 5:37 – Douay-Rheams version.

    This is not good. ( A. Yes, but doctrine is part of discernment. True discernment cannot dispense with doctrine.)

    Maybe it’s me. I read double speak here. It’s as if Hillary Clinton is giving the answers.

  • Fr Abascal’s replies suggest that he is unfamiliar with the literature on the subject, which is really the hoary Biblical Question.

    Much of the argument over the Biblical Question, when the development of biblical criticism at last forced Catholics to confront the development of dogma and the historical nature of consciousness and dogmatic expression was thrashed out threadbare over a century ago.

    It is voluminously documented in the writings of Maurice Blondel (Histoire et dogme 1904), Alfred Loisy (L’Evangile et l’église 1902), Lucien Laberthonnière (Positivisme et catholicisme 1911) and Edouard Le Roy (Dogme et critique) and the correspondence between them (they were indefatigable letter-writers) and in the columns of periodicals such as La quinzaine and Annales de philosophie chrétienne.

    It is difficult today to appreciate the separation, up until then, of theology from history as a factor for understanding this conflict; it resulted in a lack of historical consciousness which at its extremes, and even among theologians, approached a mythic mentality. It drove men like Mgr Duchesne and Loisy to the opposite extreme of a ruthless historicism, leaving to theologians the task of reconciling doctrines with facts.

    In his letter of 18 August 1898 to Baron von Hügel, Blondel seemed to recognize the complementarity of his method of immanence with historical study. “The success which is so necessary and—with time—so certain of your biblical criticism seems to me intimately bound to the progress of the apologetic method of immanence, which alone, it seems to me, includes the freedom of evolution and the fixity of orientation in the life of humanity.”

    In his opposition to Loisy, Blondel insists on searching for the “real history” beneath its historical and written record. His philosophy of action allows him to see “tradition,” grounded in the actual lives of Christians, as the continuous link in the development of dogma. And, inversely, this living tradition of the life of faith reaching to the present allows the Christian historian, in faith, to recognize the integral supernatural reality of the originating events of Christianity.

    What they all shared, in opposition to Protetant Biblical scholars was the belief that the “Church is the continuation of the gospel; Christian development is not exterior to or alien to the gospel.” (Loisy to Blondel, 11 February 1903).

  • “That is so, because doctrine does not replace discernment, nor does it the Holy Spirit. ”

    Oh good. My discernment (and of course counsel of the Spirit) is that I can shack up with that hot neighbor of mine, not pay my taxes, give depressed wages to my employees and generally hate anyone who is not like me.

    Its about time I say.

  • Comment of the week Phillip! Take ‘er away Sam!

  • As I said recently to RCIA students, “Pope Francis, is a Jesuit. Jesuits play loose with the liturgy, and the Magisterium can be most annoying to them”. And I am a graduate of Gonzaga University.

  • I feel your pain, Jerry: 12 years of Jesuit education myself including BA St Louis U (’79) and MA Santa Clara U (’85), but there were still Jesuits with a reasoning brain in their head and a deeply spiritual life formed on Christ in the Gospels (Did the Sp. Exercises of S.I ever talk about “interpreting” the Scriptures? Yeah, yeah, “discernment”, but that was discerning if one was following the Standard of Christ or the Standard of the Devil (#136-147)—a lost cause for Jesuits who entered after 1970, it appears).

    In conclusion, I feel your pain.

  • I think Giuseppe Rusconi clearly had Abascal on the ropes by his relentless serious of logical questions.

    I diagramed the discussion Abascal’s side of the argument, a series of retreats before Rusconi’s unrelenting advances, like this:
    • Abascal: premise: “historical context” of Scriptures (SS)
    • Abascal: Ok then: “discernment” of SS real meaning
    • Abascal: Ok then: SS need to be “interpreted”
    • Abascal: Ok then: Personal conscience has priority over SS
    • Abascal: OK then: SS’ Doctrine has always changed
    • Abascal: OK then: Discernment is higher than Doctrine.

    In the end, Abascal gave it up when he averred:
    ” ..Reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development.”

    Just cant make out anything here, for all the grey fog lying about. I guess Philip is right about the “hot neighbor” option.

  • Then, I guess S. Dominic was all wrong when he chose black and white as the symbols of his order, because he asserted that by reasoning, one could successively distinguish good from evil until it eventually became as clear as black from white.

  • A valid Sacrament of Matrimony cannot be rationalized away, because Jesus Christ is the witness. Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ. If Pope Francis rationalizes Jesus Christ’s witness away, Pope Francis will cease to be the Vicar of Christ.

  • This is a serious question: In what way is this not moral relativism?

    Perhaps I misunderstand the concept or what is being said.

    It sounds to me like Abascal is saying “there is an objective Truth for each of us and it is up to us to discern that Truth for ourselves. If we do so, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we are objectively in the right.”

    If that is correct, then the Roman Catholic Church is wrong and our sola scriptura Christian brethren are right: “read the Bible. Pray on it. God will tell you what to do.”

    What am I missing?

  • I am glad that Phillip made the comment. Had I, a woman, made the comment I would be drinking water with ashes in it and running around the temple three times to prove it was only humor. Gosh, I am tired and still running.
    I recently watch QUO VADIS by Henryk Sienkiewicz. In the film, Marcus seizes the cross from the wall, breaks the cross and throws the cross on the floor, saying: “I will not share my wife with anyone.” Some men cannot share. Some men become abusive because they need another person to stroke their inferiority complex.
    Keep up the good work. Gosh, I’m still running.
    If one of the spouses refuses to consent to an annulment, the marriage stays intact. So, how can one spouse in the Sacrament of Penance seek and procure an annulment without the consent of the absent party to the marriage? If we look at the issue from heaven we see that God is not giving consent to annul valid marriage through the Sacrament of Penance. If the person persists in his studborn refusal to accept the Word of God on his marriage, he may go to hell and still be married.

  • Fr. Abascal’s words are so convoluted! He says it is not reletavism, then in the same sentence says it is relative. Sheish!! This guy is so confused, and wants to spread his confusion. The words of Jesus are very clear! But, one must have eyes to see and ears to hear. This guys eyes and ears are blind and deaf!

    When I converted to become Catholic, I had the experience of seeing and hearing differently. I had read the book of John Ch 6 twice ( at least, maybe more) and never understood that Jesus was talking about the Eucharist. Then during my conversion, the next time I read it, it was SO obvious Jesus was talking about the Eucharist, I couldn’t read it any other way.

    Fr. Abascal seems obsessed with the Holy Spirit and discernment, but I think he is lacking the Holy Spirit to help him understand the obvious words of Jesus. His eyes and ears are blocked to the truth of Jesus.

    We have priests teaching against the obvious words of Jesus Christ. God help us!! Mother Mary, help us!

  • Clara: I must add to your wonderful comment. To receive Jesus in the Holy Eucharist unworthily is condemnation. Isn’t there enough condemnation in the world?

  • The Jesuits that traveled the Great Lakes were my favorite Saints. But my opinion of Jesuits today was formed by Malachi Martin.

PopeWatch: And Stay off my Lawn!

Wednesday, February 22, AD 2017



It will be interesting to see how the younger fans of the Pope react to this:


Pope Francis wants youngsters to BRB from their cellphones at the dinner table, warning that the lack of face-to-face communication with adults could result in “war.”

“When we’re at the table, when we are speaking to others on our telephones, it’s the start of war because there is no dialogue,” the 80-year-old pontiff told students last week at Roma Tre in Rome.

The pope also chided today’s youths for their lack of manners, saying that instead of a friendly “good morning,” they opt for an “anonymous ‘ciao, ciao.’”

“We need to lower the tone a bit, speak less and listen more,” he said.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: And Stay off my Lawn!

PopeWatch: Pontiff as Party Leader

Tuesday, February 21, AD 2017



The Pope in a letter has given a  gathering of leftist groups in California their marching orders:


The following is the message sent by Pope Francis to the participants in the Meeting of Popular Movements taking place in Modesto, California, United States of America, from 16 to 19 February.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

First of all, I would like to congratulate you for your effort in replicating on a national level the work being developed in the World Meetings of Popular Movements. By way of this letter, I want to encourage and strengthen each one of you, your organisations, and all who strive with you for “Land, Work and Housing,” the three T’s in Spanish: Tierra, Trabajo y Techo. I congratulate you for all that you are doing.

I would like to thank the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, its chairman Bishop David Talley, and the host Bishops Stephen Blaire, Armando Ochoa and Jaime Soto, for the wholehearted support they have offered to this meeting. Thank you, Cardinal Peter Turkson, for your continued support of popular movements from the new Dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development. It makes me very happy to see you working together towards social justice! How I wish that such constructive energy would spread to all dioceses, because it builds bridges between peoples and individuals. These are bridges that can overcome the walls of exclusion, indifference, racism, and intolerance.

I would also like to highlight the work done by the PICO National Network and the organizations promoting this meeting. I learned that PICO stands for “People Improving Communities through Organising”. What a great synthesis of the mission of popular movements: to work locally, side by side with your neighbours, organising among yourselves, to make your communities thrive.

A few months ago in Rome, we talked at the third World Meeting of Popular Movements about walls and fear, about bridges and love.[1] Without wanting to repeat myself, these issues do challenge our deepest values.

We know that none of these ills began yesterday. For some time, the crisis of the prevailing paradigm has confronted us. I am speaking of a system that causes enormous suffering to the human family, simultaneously assaulting people’s dignity and our Common Home in order to sustain the invisible tyranny of money that only guarantees the privileges of a few. “In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history.”[2]

As Christians and all people of good will, it is for us to live and act at this moment. It is “a grave responsibility, since certain present realities, unless effectively dealt with, are capable of setting off processes of dehumanisation which would then be hard to reverse.”[3] These are signs of the times that we need to recognise in order to act. We have lost valuable time: time when we did not pay enough attention to these processes, time when we did not resolve these destructive realities. Thus the processes of dehumanisation accelerate. The direction taken beyond this historic turning-point—the ways in which this worsening crisis gets resolved—will depend on people’s involvement and participation and, largely, on yourselves, the popular movements.

We should be neither paralysed by fear nor shackled within the conflict. We have to acknowledge the danger but also the opportunity that every crisis brings in order to advance to a successful synthesis. In the Chinese language, which expresses the ancestral wisdom of that great people, the word “crisis” is comprised of two ideograms: Wēi, which represents “danger”, and Jī, which represents “opportunity”.

The grave danger is to disown our neighbours. When we do so, we deny their humanity and our own humanity without realising it; we deny ourselves, and we deny the most important Commandments of Jesus. Herein lies the danger, dehumanisation. But here we also find an opportunity: that the light of the love of neighbour may illuminate the Earth with its stunning brightness like a lightning bolt in the dark; that it may wake us up and let true humanity burst through with authentic resistance, resilience and persistence.

The question that the lawyer asked Jesus in the Gospel of Luke (10:25-37) echoes in our ears today: “Who is my neighbour?” Who is that other whom we are to love as we love ourselves? Maybe the questioner expects a comfortable response in order to carry on with his life: “My relatives? My compatriots? My co-religionists? …” Maybe he wants Jesus to excuse us from the obligation of loving pagans or foreigners who at that time were considered unclean. This man wants a clear rule that allows him to classify others as “neighbour” and “non-neighbour”, as those who can become neighbours and those who cannot become neighbours.[4]

Jesus responds with a parable which features two figures belonging to the elite of the day and a third figure, considered a foreigner, a pagan and unclean: the Samaritan. On the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, the priest and the Levite come upon a dying man, whom robbers have attacked, stripped and abandoned. In such situations the Law of the Lord imposes the duty to offer assistance, but both pass by without stopping. They were in a hurry. However, unlike these elite figures, the Samaritan stopped. Why him? As a Samaritan he was looked down upon, no one would have counted on him, and in any case he would have had his own commitments and things to do—yet when he saw the injured man, he did not pass by like the other two who were linked to the Temple, but “he saw him and had compassion on him” (v. 33). The Samaritan acts with true mercy: he binds up the man’s wounds, transports him to an inn, personally takes care of him, and provides for his upkeep. All this teaches us that compassion, love, is not a vague sentiment, but rather means taking care of the other to the point of personally paying for him. It means committing oneself to take all the necessary steps so as to “draw near to” the other to the point of identifying with him: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” This is the Lord’s Commandment.[5]

The economic system that has the god of money at its centre, and that sometimes acts with the brutality of the robbers in the parable, inflicts injuries that to a criminal degree have remained neglected. Globalised society frequently looks the other way with the pretence of innocence. Under the guise of what is politically correct or ideologically fashionable, one looks at those who suffer without touching them. But they are televised live; they are talked about in euphemisms and with apparent tolerance, but nothing is done systematically to heal the social wounds or to confront the structures that leave so many brothers and sisters by the wayside. This hypocritical attitude, so different from that of the Samaritan, manifests an absence of true commitment to humanity.

Sooner or later, the moral blindness of this indifference comes to light, like when a mirage dissipates. The wounds are there, they are a reality. The unemployment is real, the violence is real, the corruption is real, the identity crisis is real, the gutting of democracies is real. The system’s gangrene cannot be whitewashed forever because sooner or later the stench becomes too strong; and when it can no longer be denied, the same power that spawned this state of affairs sets about manipulating fear, insecurity, quarrels, and even people’s justified indignation, in order to shift the responsibility for all these ills onto a “non-neighbour”. I am not speaking of anyone in particular, I am speaking of a social and political process that flourishes in many parts of the world and poses a grave danger for humanity.

Jesus teaches us a different path. Do not classify others in order to see who is a neighbour and who is not. You can become neighbour to whomever you meet in need, and you will do so if you have compassion in your heart. That is to say, if you have that capacity to suffer with someone else. You must become a Samaritan. And then also become like the innkeeper at the end of the parable to whom the Samaritan entrusts the person who is suffering. Who is this innkeeper? It is the Church, the Christian community, people of compassion and solidarity, social organisations. It is us, it is you, to whom the Lord Jesus daily entrusts those who are afflicted in body and spirit, so that we can continue pouring out all of his immeasurable mercy and salvation upon them. Here are the roots of the authentic humanity that resists the dehumanisation that wears the livery of indifference, hypocrisy, or intolerance.

I know that you have committed yourselves to fight for social justice, to defend our Sister Mother Earth and to stand alongside migrants. I want to reaffirm your choice and share two reflections in this regard.

First, the ecological crisis is real. “A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.”[6] Science is not the only form of knowledge, it is true. It is also true that science is not necessarily “neutral”—many times it conceals ideological views or economic interests. However, we also know what happens when we deny science and disregard the voice of Nature. I make my own everything that concerns us as Catholics. Let us not fall into denial. Time is running out. Let us act. I ask you again—all of you, people of all backgrounds including native people, pastors, political leaders—to defend Creation.

The other is a reflection that I shared at our most recent World Meeting of Popular Movements, and I feel is important to say it again: no people is criminal and no religion is terrorist. Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist. No people is criminal or drug-trafficking or violent. “The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence yet, without equal opportunities, the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and will eventually explode.”[7] There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions—and with intolerant generalisations they become stronger because they feed on hate and xenophobia. By confronting terror with love, we work for peace.

I ask you for meekness and resolve to defend these principles. I ask you not to barter them lightly or apply them superficially. Like St. Francis of Assisi, let us give everything of ourselves: where there is hatred, let us sow love; where there is injury, let us sow pardon; where there is discord, let us sow unity; where there is error, let us sow truth.[8]

Please know that I pray for you, that I pray with you, and I ask God our Father to accompany and bless you. May He shower you with his love and protect you. I ask you to please pray for me too, and to carry on.

Vatican City, 10 February 2017


[1] Address to the 3rd World Meeting of Popular Movements, Paul VI Audience Hall, 5 November 2016. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2016/november/documents/papa-francesco_20161105_movimenti-popolari.html

[2] Evangelii Gaudium §52

[3] Ibid. §51

[4] Cf. General Audience, 27 April 2016. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20160427_udienza-generale.html

[5] Ibid.

[6] Laudato Si’ §23

[7] Evangelii Gaudium §59

[8] Cf. St Francis of Assisi, Peace Prayer.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to PopeWatch: Pontiff as Party Leader

  • I’m wondering whether the following is a “rhetorical question.” “Is the Pope Catholic?”

    Subsidiarity Forever! We shall not be moved.

    I see two common stains in liberation and popular movements: envy and hatred. Both are sins against the most important Theological Virtue – Charity. It seems as if he “sleep walked” through this past Sunday’s Gospel.

  • I saw no reason to read past his thanks to the odious (c)atholic Campaign for Human

  • T Shaw wrote, “I’m wondering whether the following is a “rhetorical question.” “Is the Pope Catholic?””

    As Wittgenstein points out, there is one thing of which one can say neither that it weighs one kilo, nor that it is does not weigh one kilo and that is le grand K in Paris. Both statements are meaningless.

  • the
    Campaign for Human Development gave us the community organizer, Obama, a Saul Alinskyite as president. As much as 30 percent supports abortion groups. If Pope Francis wants peace, he, Pope Francis, needs to stop provoking Satan.

  • I’m no philosopher. And, I spent the past weekend with the wrong crowd – a bunch of over-aged boy scouts.

    Great World Philosophers:

    “To be is to do.” Socrates

    “To do is to be.” Plato

    “Do be do be do.” Sinatra

    Great Catholic Popes
    St. Peter
    St. Gregory the Great
    Pope Francis – like Sinatra above, he doesn’t belong.

  • Pingback: The Half Time Period Of Alinskyite Popes Is Rather Short. | Mundabor's Blog
  • Perhaps he has a split personality. Or maybe just a hypocrite. That was Jesus’ word for Pharisees:


  • Introspection and the Pope are clearly not on speaking terms.

  • This Pope has ‘Rules for Radicals’ down pat!

  • Reading the Pope’s words is simply too much like work and not worth the effort.

  • I think some forget this a tradition in the papacy, not that unique to Francis… In two encyclicals, Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) in 2005 and Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) in 2009, Benedict reminded Catholics of the perils of indifference to modern human and ecological maladies. In Deus Caritas Est, Benedict details the church’s proper role in works of charity and in seeking social justice, expressing the interconnectedness of justice and charity as the complementary requirements of all people of faith. “Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due,” he writes, “is an essential task which every generation must take up anew.”

  • “Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due,” he writes, “is an essential task which every generation must take up anew.”

    And often killing tens of millions of people in the attempt, as the last century so graphically demonstrated. God save us from utopian economic and political schemes no matter the source. The Popes have a poor track record in these types of endeavors. They created the Holy Roman Empire and then spent most of the next thousand years fighting the Emperors of that amorphous entity.

  • The US and the Cupboard countries have given this bunch of leftist crap a gigantic NO! The Pontiff of Rome knows nothing except leftist drivel and being a bully. My five year old has more sense than this leftist drivel.

  • Stupid auto correct on this stupid phone. Visegard not Cupboard. Geez.

  • “Is the Pope Catholic?” The simple and obvious answer… NO, and… therefore it is impossible that he is Pope. Non-Catholics need not apply. (That goes for the previous 5 joker apostates as well). Pax Christi, pray for a Pope!

  • Tim Mc Hugh: “In two encyclicals, Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) in 2005 and Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) in 2009, Benedict reminded Catholics of the perils of indifference to modern human and ecological maladies.” The great divide is that when Pope Benedict wrote these principles he was referring to the sovereign human being, but Never, Never, the state, especially the state engineered by criminal tyrants.
    Man in his relationship with God, makes these decisions through his conscience and each person is different, and divine Providence provides for all differences.

PopeWatch: LarryD

Monday, February 20, AD 2017


LarryD at Acts of the Apostasy has given the benefit of every possible doubt to Pope Francis through this purgatory of a Pontificate.  PopeWatch was thus struck by this post:


I’ve read some reviews, synopses, and commentaries of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio’s recently published booklet, “The Eighth Chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia,” and I gotta tell you, I never knew Episcopalians had cardinals. I knew they had bishops, but not cardinals.

Here’s the pertinent pernicious paragraph:

“The divorced and remarried, de facto couples, those cohabiting, are certainly not models of unions in sync with Catholic Doctrine, but the Church cannot look the other way. Therefore, the sacraments of Reconciliation and of Communion must be given even to those so-called wounded families and to however many who, despite living in situations not in line with traditional matrimonial canons, express the sincere desire to approach the sacraments after an appropriate period of discernment… Yes, therefore, to admission to the sacraments for those who, despite living in irregular situations, sincerely ask for admission into the fullness of ecclesial life, it is a gesture of openness and profound mercy on the part of Mother Church, who does not leave behind any of her children, aware that absolute perfection is a precious gift, but one which cannot be reached by everyone.” 

In other words, R.I.P. heroic virtue. Take the wide road. Don’t rely on God’s power to sanctify you each day – through prayer, through courageously bearing one’s cross, through sacrifice, through baptismal graces, through reception of the graces one receives worshiping at Mass – because gosh darn it, God doesn’t want you to be unhappy. God doesn’t want you to feel left out because you haz sincere desires. You can even be a cohabiting couple – simply express a sincere desire to approach the sacraments, and the Church won’t look the other way.

Imagine parents treating their children this way, giving them what they wanted because they felt they deserved it, and didn’t want to feel left out.

Oh…wait. Bad example.

That excerpt is more appropriate for inspirational posters one sees hanging in corporate meeting rooms and business corridors. This is Holy Mother Church we’re talking about, though, not Google headquarters.

The Church, though, doesn’t demand absolute perfection. She helps us become perfected and ultimately reach heaven, not hand out the Eucharist like it’s a participation trophy. None of us deserve the Eucharist – it’s an incredible gift from Jesus Christ of himself. All of us must meet requirements to be worthy of reception – one of which is to be in a state of grace. Remember the parable of the marriage feast in Mt 22?

“And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who has no wedding garment; and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding a garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.”

This is serious business. What the cardinal is recommending, is that one can do evil in order to bring about a good. Since when, in all the history of the Catholic Church?

Continue reading...

12 Responses to PopeWatch: LarryD

  • Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ, yesterday today, and the same forever. 9 Be not lead away with various and strange doctrines. For it is best that the heart be established with grace, not with meats; which has not profited those that walk in them.”

    The meats found in Amoris Laetitia are not fit for the sojourner who seeks his final destination. One who eats of this meat will find it difficult to journey on since his bowels will dictate his progress or lack there of.

  • Despair is the devil’s tool. Go ahead be as bad as you will, you cannot reach perfection. The Sacrament of Reconciliation may not be used to annul first marriages since two witnesses establish a judicial fact. There is only one testimony in the Sacrament of Penance. Penance, by the way, is for the penitent, not his ex-spouse. Undoing of the Sacrament of Reconciliation will help no one.

  • Sometimes extending the benefit of the doubt is not all that beneficial. This is a case in point.

  • A picture is worth a thousand words. The brief caption adds 10,000 words. I don’t take away “epciscopalian” cardinals. I say they are shallow thinkers cardinals. I am being charitable and nonjudgmental, here.

  • There is no question that the Church, under Pope Francis and those sychophants who cling to him, is in a de facto – not formal – schism. The SSPX is looking better all the time, and their canonical regularisation is only months away. I guess that is one good thing, at least, that we can thank Pope Francis for. Of course, their situation was perfectly regular in 1970, until in 1975 the jealous liberal bunch conned the CDF and Pope Paul into removing their canonical status under false pretences.

  • Thanks for the link, Donald.

  • Phillip.

    From “Disrupters” come the greatest bunch of pro-aborts the Catholic Church can muster…And from where? Chicago and San Diego. Great. At the very least I can feel comfortable knowing that the liberial Catholic Church is leading in the anarchy.

  • “Thanks for the link, Donald.”

    Thaks for writing a great post Larry!

  • Atta boy Larry D. better late than never.

  • This justification by the cardinal is provably false, because he says sacrament of Reconciliation. This requires from purpose of amendment, which those divorced remarried not living as brother and sister cannot offer.

  • ” after an appropriate period of discernment…” Saint Thomas More could have kept his head. Apparently he thought it better to enter the Kingdom of Heaven with his head under his arm than risk to going to Hell with it on his shoulders.

PopeWatch: Chant Grammy

Saturday, February 18, AD 2017



From the only reliable source of Catholic news on the net, Eye of the Tiber:



Saint Gregory the Great was awarded the Grammy for Best Chant last night at the 59th annual Grammy Awards.

Accepting his award for ‘Salve’ the Roman artist paid tribute to Jesus Christ, whom he said he loved “like a father.”

“I can’t possibly accept this award,” a clearly emotional Gregory said in his acceptance speech. “I’m very humble and I’m grateful and gracious, but the music of my life is Corsican, and the ‘Miserere’ album was just so monumental…people of Corsica, it was so monumental.”

Gregory later went on to apologize for swearing during an earlier performance dedicated to Jesus, saying that “Christ meant so much to me that I could not give a poor performance.”

Gregory becomes the first pope to win a Grammy twice.

Continue reading...

One Response to PopeWatch: Chant Grammy

PopeWatch: Burke to Guam

Friday, February 17, AD 2017





Just when you thought that things couldn’t get much weirder at the Vatican:


Cardinal Raymond Burke has traveled to Guam, to take testimony in the canonical trial of Archbishop Anthony Apuron of Agana.

Archbishop Apuron, who has been accused of molesting a number of young men, was relieved of his pastoral responsibilities in the Guam archdiocese last June. He has insisted on his innocence and refused to resign. However, in October the Vatican named an American prelate, Archbishop Michael Byrnes, as coadjutor with “special faculties” to take over leadership of the archdiocese.

At his installation, Archbishop Byrnes revealed that the Vatican had begun a canonical trial of Archbishop Apuron on the sex-abuse charges. The Vatican press office has now confirmed this, and disclosed that Cardinal Burke was named as the presiding judge in the case.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to PopeWatch: Burke to Guam

PopeWatch: Taking It

Thursday, February 16, AD 2017



For a Pope who dishes out insults readily to those who have the temerity to differ from him, Pope Francis seems remarkably sensitive to insults aimed at him:


Pope Francis on Sunday criticised the everyday use of “insults”, an apparent reference to anonymous attacks he has faced over the last week in Rome.

In his weekly Angelus address, Francis highlighted Jesus’ commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” saying the edict applied not only to actual homicide, “but also to those behaviours which offend the dignity of the human person, including insulting words.”

“Certainly, these injurious words do not have the same gravity and do not lead to the same verdict of guilt as homicide, but they are placed on the same level because they are the premise of more serious acts and reveal the same malevolence,” he said.

Francis may have been referring to criticism he has received this past week, as well as tensions over the manoeuvring of conservatives opposed to his reforms of Church teaching and governance.

“We are used to insults,” he said. “It is like saying, ‘Good morning’.”

But “who insults his brother kills that brother in his heart,” the pontiff added.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to PopeWatch: Taking It

  • Is it an insult to tell Jorge Bergoglio the truth?

  • Was it an insult when the leader of the Catholic Church quipped; “What’s a matter, are your hands stuck together?”
    An altar boy probably thought it an insult coming from a Pope.

    The old adage applies. “If ya can dish it out be ready to take it.”

  • It’s humbling – even terrifying – that a person can devote himself to the service of God and live so long without knowing his own weaknesses.

  • So PF is rewriting the examination of conscience? Used to be curses and insults came under other commandments. His commentary could be stretch in many different ways. Some will think that he is giving the green light to crimes of passion/feuds in raising insults to a higher level. Is he also saying to insult him is a mortal sin? As a local in my neck of the woods would say, “He generates much confusement.”

  • Those of you who are afraid the pope is making the Catholic Church into a Protestant church–Have a point in many areas. However, it will have to be a liberal Protestant church–maybe even along the lines of those that accept members of all faiths & no faith s.a. Atheists. I was a very conservative Protestant before becoming a very conservative Catholic. My conservative friends in the Protestant churches would NEVER join the type of “Catholic” church that the pope wishes to build. It is down right emabarrasing to read on social media my conservative Protestant friends’ horror over the pope’s last banishment of a sound Catholic Bishop or one of the pope’s latest anti-Catholic pro increments. *long sigh*.

  • Sorry! That last statement should have said “latest anti-Catholic pronouncements.”

  • “insult to tell Jorge Bergoglio the truth?”

    I am constantly finding that those on the Left claim offense for a multitude of reasons on of which is as an excuse to claim “higher ground” or a moral superiority to those with whom the Left disagree. And the pope is a Leftist.

    I have taken to telling people that stating the truth is not offensive unless the truth shoes them in a bad light. I also tell them that just because They choose to be offended doesn’t mean that I choose to take responsibility for their offense.

    The Left is quite adept at taking offense yet could care less if they give offense or cause others damage.

    I’m with Rush Limbaugh. He says there is no compromise with the Left. We must simply defeat the Left. May it be so.

  • To Christian Teacher: your comments remind me of the damage done by Liberal Catholics in the wake of Vatican II who drove ,many Catholics into Conservative protestant Churches.

PopeWatch: Cardinal Coccopalmerio

Wednesday, February 15, AD 2017



Father Z brings us the details on Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s official or unofficial, response or nonresponse to the five dubia of the Four Cardinals:



In the shallow, liberal, Italian Catholic weekly Panorama we are informed about a booklet now out over the name of Card. Coccopalmerio, Prefect of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.  It is ballyhooed as “the response” to the Five Dubia of the Four “intransigent” Cardinals, who are dissenters because they are defending doctrine.

Of course it can’t be that, can it?  The response to the Dubia should come from the Holy Father (to whom they were submitted) or from the CDF (whose Prefect has spoken unofficially about the issues but who hasn’t issued anything official).

Beware. When you read Panorama your IQ is likely to drop.  The use of verbs would help their writers come off as less smarmy.  But I digress.

Here is some of the piece in my fast translation.  My emphases  and comments.

In a little book on the reasons why the Church can’t turn back in the face of those who “are not in tune with Catholic doctrine”.

“Divorced and remarried, unmarried couples living together, are certainly not models of unions in harmony with Catholic doctrine, but the Church cannot look the other way. For which reason the sacraments of reconciliation and of communion ought to be given also to so-called wounded families[a euphemism intended to arouse emotion rather than thought, empathy rather than clarity] and to those who even though living in situations not in line with the traditional canons on matrimony, express a sincere desire to draw closer to the sacraments after an adequate period of discernment.” [Not just “canons”.  They are not in line with Christ’s teaching either, or the perennial doctrine of the Church.

This is the pointed, calm and precise response that Pope Francis gives [Noooo…. Pope Francis didn’t give it.  The Cardinal did.  But this is what they want you to accept.] to those especially within the church and even in the College of Cardinals, who continue to express doubts about the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia in which, for the first time, there is foreseen the possibility of admitting to the sacraments those who contract a second marriage, unmarried couples living together and those people who live together in deformity with ecclesial directions in the matter of nuptial unions.

An indirect response, in any event, [See the slight of hand?] but [BUT!] the fruit of a deep canonical and ecclesiological study made, at the request of the same Pontiff, by one of the closest and most trusted collaborators, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (the “ministry” of justice of the Holy See).

The text – a booklet of only 30 pages entitled, “The 8th chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia” – was printed by the Vatican Press and on Wednesday 8 February arrived in religious bookstores which surround the Vatican.

The Doubts of the Four Cardinals

An initiative, they [the famous “they”] explained in the Vatican, that aims to “clarify” all the “doubts” raised by the most traditionalist elements bound with a vengeance [How mean!  How merciless!  How … mean!] to the defense of ecclesial doctrine in the matter of matrimonial life and of access to the sacraments.  [What sort of surreal, Dali-esque landscape has the Church become if those who defend doctrine are suddenly the dissenters?  Clocks are melting off the sides of tables.]


To all appearances, like a “normal” request for canonical clarifications, [This is more slight of hand: the Dubia ask for doctrinal clarifications, not just canonical.  So, the respose from an official of a canonical office isn’t going to take care of the doubts.] in reality a gesture of clear though polite disobedience on the part of four members of the College of Cardinals the organism which by its very nature is called to back up the reigning Pope in the governance of the Church.  [“Those dirty rotten mean old cardinals!  They are mean old meanies!”  (That’s the general level of the reader of Panorama, by the way.)]

It is normal that if a Cardinal feels the need to have clarifications on certain matters he can ask for them calmly – they assure us across the Tiber – in the course of personal audiences with the Pope. It is another thing to publish an open letter and bring up doubts and discontents in public opinion. A clearly offensive gesture toward the Pope almost completely like those which are used in interviews. As, for example, the German Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, did in recent days, who, in a newspaper, openly criticized admission to the sacraments of couples living together and the divorced and remarried because, he admonished, Doctrine “is to be left alone” (la Dottrina “non si tocca”).  [Do you see what they did?  They smear Müller in order to raise Coccopalmerio above him as an authority.  Thus the Doctrinal Cardinal is out and the Canonical Cardinal is in.]


This is another confusing puzzle piece to deal with.  It is confusing because it has the appearance of official approval (it was published by the Vatican Press), but it remains a non-response response to the Five Dubia.  That’s probably why the ad hominem attacks lace the Panorama piece.

In any event, we still – prayerfully and patiently – await greater clarity from some with the true authority to issue what are manifest and actual responses to the Dubia.  Or else… we await a statement that they are not going to be answered.

Clocks melting off the edges of tables.  Elephants on stilts.  This situation is getting really strange.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: Cardinal Coccopalmerio

PopeWatch: Bannon

Tuesday, February 14, AD 2017



Further evidence that the Catholic left are busily attempting to depict the thrice-divorced Steve Bannon as a radical Catholic traditionalist.  From Breitbart, of which Bannon was formerly editor:

On the far-left MSNBC cable television channel Sunday, Father James Martin said that Steve Bannon is a “radical traditionalist” opposing Pope Francis’s reforms and pining “for a time when the Church was purer.”

In a segment titled “Steve Bannon vs. the Pope,” Martin suggested that Bannon uses Church teaching to promote “racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic sentiments.”

Apparently, in Father Martin’s version of the gospel, it is wrong to oppose radical Islamists, but it is fine to bear false witness against a fellow Christian, running him down with baseless slanders and slurs.

Bannon is not only an anti-Pope Francis, Martin alleged, “I would also say he is an anti-Pope Benedict and an anti-Pope John Paul.”

“All these people were about economic justice,” Martin said, implying that Steve Bannon is not.


Father Martin also made the astonishing claim that Jesus Christ does not share Steve Bannon’s view of Catholicism as the “Church militant,” which he said is a synonym of “radical traditionalists.”

“I don’t think it was Jesus’ point of view either,” he said.

What Father Martin fails to mention is that his religious order—the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits)—was approved in 1540 by Pope Paul III with the papal bull titled “To the Government of the Church Militant” and the Jesuits were commonly referred to as the pope’s “shock troops.”

Moreover, as literate Catholics know, the “Church militant” is a common expression employed by countless Catholic saints including Pope John Paul II to distinguish the members of the church on earth still doing battle with evil from those who have already died.

In his most famous text, The Spiritual Exercises, Saint Ignatius Loyola—the founder of the Jesuits—wrote out a series of rules that should be followed “to foster the true attitude of mind we ought to have in the church militant.”

Continue reading...

13 Responses to PopeWatch: Bannon

  • When everybody with whom Father Martin disagrees is a radical traditionalist (Is there anything wrong with it?), nobody is.

    If one believes the Pope and clergy ought to be more concerned with the salvation of souls than “economic justice” (whatever that is) or “social justice,” is a rad trad. Then, I am one.

    Bless their hearts. Father Martin and his ilk hate you. Act accordingly. Pray for them.

  • Here we see the pot calling the kettle, “black.” “Martin suggested that Bannon uses Church teaching to promote ‘racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic sentiments.'”

    That is Martin’s (and all liberals’) modus operandi. Politicize, subvert, and weaponize a sentence or two from a Gospel or two to advance “economic justice” (whatever that is); regularize or sacramentalize adultery, fornication, and sodomy; fundamentally transform evil, unjust America; etc. Then, proceed to damn to Hell, or hand over to the Inquisition, anyone that disagrees.

    The stupid, it hurts.

  • I guess the Jesuits have gone from “shock troops” to “shocked troops.”

  • The left wing slant of the Pope and the Fr. Martin’s of the world will bring in approximately 7 people back or to the Church while alienating millions more.
    How’s Anglicanism doing?

  • The spiritual and corporal works of mercy belong to the Church and the conscience of the person. Involuntary charity is extortion.
    Capitalism may be defined as giving to the customer what he needs (not what he wants) to survive and the customer giving to the merchant what he needs (not what he wants) to survive, in the absence of avarice, love of money, contempt for the customer and for the merchant, guile in the transaction; because all valid contracts, material and metaphysical, are made in the human beings’ immortal soul.

  • Father Martin also made the astonishing claim that Jesus Christ does not share Steve Bannon’s view of Catholicism as the “Church militant,” which he said is a synonym of “radical traditionalists.”

    “I don’t think it was Jesus’ point of view either,” he said.

    Funny, because if you know anything about 1st century Israel, you’d know that Jesus was raised in and came from an ultra-traditionalist town – the modern day equivalent of the “buckle of the bible-belt.” May not make Him immediately fundamentalist but it does make the picture more complex.

    See: (relevant bit starts at 8:45 in case the link below doesn’t start on time)

  • The night before last I went with a Protestant family member to her “church” which is evangelical (no, I am not converting over to the heretics; if I intend that, then all I have to do is heep lauds onto Jorge Bergoglio’s head). I heard more correct teaching about social justice from a preacher in breakway Protestantism than I ever will from this “Father”James Martin. Kindly read my commentary here; it’s too long to post in the comment space at TAC (you’ve been warned!):


  • Time to dust off Pope Clement’s Dominus ac Redemptor the papal brief promulgated on 21 July 1773 by which Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Society of Jesus. Today’s Jesuits once again do not appear to be a net positive. Look at their colleges for instance. Scandalous!

  • Fr Martin is a perfect fit for MSNBC whose left-wing propaganda is irrelevant to normal Americans. Accordingly, it is doubtful he did much harm.

  • LCQ, this is relevant to your post.

    (It’s funny, I thought Jesus said render to Ceaser and render to God etc – who knew the poor belonged to Ceaser.)

  • Caesar does such a good job taking care of the poor, too, by making so many more of them. Catholics who look to Caesar to truly relieve the poor, and allow them to provide for their own needs, are asking for a greater miracle than the Resurrection. As the song says:

    Give a man a free house and he’ll bust out the windows
    Put his family on food stamps, now he’s a big spender
    no food on the table and the bills ain’t paid
    ‘Cause he spent it on cigarettes and P.G.A.
    They’ll turn us all into beggars ’cause they’re easier to please
    They’re feeding our people that Government Cheese

    Give a man free food and he’ll figure out a way
    To steal more than he can eat ’cause he doesn’t have to pay
    Give a woman free kids and you’ll find them in the dirt
    Learning how to carry on the family line of work
    It’s the man in the White House, the man under the steeple
    Passing out drugs to the American people
    I don’t believe in anything, nothing is free
    They’re feeding our people the Government Cheese

    Decline and fall, fall down baby
    Decline and fall, said fall way down now
    Decline and fall, fall down little mama
    Decline and fall, decline and fall

    Give a man a free ticket on a dead end ride
    And he’ll climb in the back even though nobody’s driving
    Too ******* lazy to crawl out of the wreck
    And he’ll rot there while he waits for the welfare check
    Going to hell in a handbag, can’t you see
    I ain’t gonna eat no Government Cheese

  • Funny, I don’t know any faithful, loyal catholics who use so many “ists’ in a row, but there he is doing it.

  • With respect to Father Matin. Again I see moree evidence of the clericalism that has characterized the Catholic left as it uses the laity to serve its efforts to take over the Church. Since 1979 they have been wanting a liberal pope. Looks like they have him.

PopeWatch: Zeitgeist

Monday, February 13, AD 2017



PopeWatch has long believed that the key to understanding the Pope is the way in which his native Argentina impacted his thought.  Over the weekend PopeWatch was reading a fascinating article published in 2015 that looked at the Pope’s intellectual background based on the dominant intellectual trends in Argentina during his formative years.  The author, Claudio I. Remeseira, summarizes the main aspects of his thought that explains much of his papacy:

Francis’ mindset straddles this divide. One Anti-Modern trait of his thinking is his mistrust of Liberalism. Despite his constant appeals to political tolerance, Francis’ political thought is rooted in a pre-modern, organicist view of the community as foundation of social and political life. Liberal democracy and the modern doctrine of human rights are the antithesis of that view. In Evangelii gaudium, the word “people” appears 164 times; the word “democracy”, not once.

Another trait is his hostility toward capitalism. Far for being inspired in any left-wing or Marxist philosophy, Francis’ anti-capitalism comes down from the European right-wing writers of the early 20th century, who in turn found their source of inspiration in the Middle Ages. At the final stage of the Cold War, John Paul II made a timid move towards accepting the market as an autonomous social force. In the age of the anti-globalization movement, Francis would have none of it. His critique of capitalism seems to go even further than the objections traditionally made by Catholic Social Teaching since Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. It is when indicting the world’s economic woes that Francis strikes his most prophetic tone (which, by the way, is another characteristic of Argentinian theology). The encyclical Laudato si, his great jeremiad against the evils of capitalism, has established Francis as one of the world’s foremost critics of Neoliberalism.

But, did the old adversary of Liberation Theology really turn into a radical leftist, as some critics on the right say? A quarter of a century after the demise of the Soviet Union and when the other world-Communist power, China, has morphed into its own kind of State-steered Capitalism, there is more room for the Pope to openly condemn social injustice without raising the suspicion of being a revolutionary. In any case, what Francis probably has in mind is not a socialist but some sort of populist economic system — something, perhaps, closer to a 21st-century update of the Peronist social-welfare state. Some of his initiatives, such as the World Encounter of Popular Movements, seemed to have been conceived with the intention of becoming the Solidarność of a post-Industrial era.

That era, already unfolding before us, has in Francis’ view one preeminent protagonist: the masses of the poor and the excluded, the disenfranchised of the world. They are the Peoples of God, the pilgrims of the Trinitarian God’s journey on this planet. To Francis, the mission of the Church is indistinguishable from them — it must be a Church of poverty and for the poor. Herein lies his true radicalism: an uncompromising identification between the suffering of the poor and Christ, and his determination to persuade the world to join in that mission.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to PopeWatch: Zeitgeist

  • The pope got his views on economics from European right-wing writers who looked back to the Middle Ages and not from Marxists? I don’t think so. This is the same pope who gladly accepted a sacrilegious crucifix with Christ on a hammer and sickle. Also, all of his “friends” in high office are at least socialists.

  • I don’t buy it. If the pope is against neoliberalism, why does he prominently ally himself with the neoliberal globalist establishment (Jeffrey Sachs, Paul Ehrlich, George Soros, U.N.dignitaries, etc.)? Why does he favor the same causes as they do, using much the same language (open borders, environmentalism, population control)? He decries capitalism, sure, but then so do many of his globalist partners. As Father of Seven points out, he seems never to have met a socialist “popular movement” not to his liking.

    As far as I can tell, there are two options: the pope is either an unwitting tool of the globalists–the most useful of idiots–or he is their conscious ally.

  • As far as I can tell, there are two options: the pope is either an unwitting tool of the globalists–the most useful of idiots–or he is their conscious ally.

    I think you’re assuming more sophistication on the part of the Pope than is actually there. Consider the environment of Pope Francis coming of age. Back in 1963, the American University Field Staff published an anthology on the evolution of political life in a raft of 3d world countries, Argentina included. The scholar writing about Argentina remarked that the political culture was bereft of a notion of mutually-beneficial exchange, hence politics had degenerated into a contest for power that income might be redistributed to one set of clientele or another, zero sum. The Pope also seems to conceive of ordinary business activity as a set of injuries done by criminals against abstractions in his mind (“the poor”). Law enforcement and employers are just big bad wolves to him.

  • Argentina is a basket case. It’s politics, economics, philosophy, it’s entire outlook on life is a failure. Blessed with natural resources, the Argentine state is maybe the b8ggwst failure on the world stage, rivaled by Mexico. In Bergoglio’s Argentina, the US is hated, but no Argentine would pass on the opportunity to move to the US.
    Argentina’s population is similar to Canada and Poland. Both nations have a superior economy. Poland has surpassed Argentina in less than 30 Yeats of being a free nation.
    The mission of the Church I’d to lead souls to Christ, rich, poor, middle class, whatever and wherever.
    The current Pontiff does not think so such because he is incapable of it. He is a Caudillo Pope, a bully who squashes all who disagree with him. The greater failure is not Bergoglio but the cardinals who elected him.

  • South Sudan is a basket case. Argentina’s merely a disappointment. It’s political life is far more orderly than it was in 1963 and it remains (bar Chile and Urguay) the most affluent Latin American country (and one of the few with a homicide rate under 10 per 100,000). Still, the Pope’s understanding of his world likely gelled when Argentina was a politico-economic mess.

  • To me the Pope has no business engaging in public political or economic discussion. His job is to be the Vicar of Christ and do what Christ would do if He were here, which, as far as we know, is still the salvation of souls. How many times have we listened to Pope Francis and were inspired to become more holy ourselves? How about never?

    One thing Pope Francis could do right now is to advocate the increased use of the sacrament of Confession. But can any of imagine him doing such a thing? Of course not. Unfortunately, Pope Francis is all about the things of this world, i.e, government handouts, antipathy towards Capitalism, and denigration of orthodox Catholics. As a result he fails in his mission of doing what Christ would do.

  • I’m still waiting for somebody to show me where in the bible Jesus taught and directed his disciples to go get government to take care of the poor. Did not Jesus say, “You will always have the poor.” Why is the leadership in the Church so willing to turn over to government the responsibility of “caring for the poor?”