PopeWatch: Liturgical Dance

Saturday, March 11, AD 2017

 

 

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

 

After a humiliating loss for Best Picture at this year’s Academy Awards, desperate La La Land stars Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone have signed a one-weekend deal to teach liturgical dance at next year’s Religious Education Conference.

“Our theme next year will be ‘Embrace The Body Motion,’” Conference executive Bill Thompson said this morning. “All our dance lessons and events will focus on how we express our love for Christ by way of bodily gyration.”

The liturgical dance seminars will include more than 300 workshops on a variety of topics ranging from hallelujah hip-thrusting to pelvic praise.

“One of the main issues we want to tackle next year is people simply standing like robots as they pray,” Thompson said. “A number of workshops will also focus on not only what types spandex to wear, but how to get more men involved. We believe Mr. Gosling will be the catalyst to bringing in a fresh crop of men to participate.”

“For the first time next year the conference will include an interactive, multimedia dance experience where people will be able to feel what it’s like to be inside the body of a liturgical dancer,” Thompson concluded. “No one knows the necessity for true praise and worship until they’ve delved deep into the dark abyss of someone who wakes up one day and realizes that they’re putting on tights so that they can go up in front of a bunch of people at church to dance like idiots on the sanctuary of God.”

Continue reading...

6 Responses to PopeWatch: Liturgical Dance

PopeWatch: Smart

Friday, March 10, AD 2017

 

In his latest interview Pope Francis was asked about the posters in Rome criticizing him:

 

In an interview with Pope Francis released today by the German newspaper Die Zeit, Pope Francis comments on the controversial posters that went up around Rome last month criticizing him for lacking in mercy. The posters, which one Vatican Cardinal called “the work of the devil,” Pope Francis called “great” and developed by “a clever person.”

The posters, found all over Rome, read: “Ah Francis, you have intervened in Congregations, removed priests, decapitated the Order of Malta and the Franciscans of the Immaculate, ignored Cardinals … but where is your mercy?” The posters featured a photo of a cranky looking Pope Francis on his throne wrapped in a thick coat.

Asked by Die Zeit if he felt attacked by the Curia, Pope Francis said he was at peace, adding: “I can understand how my way of dealing with things is not liked by some, that is totally in order. Everybody can have their opinion. That is legitimate and humanly enriching.”

When the interviewer followed up asking if the posters were enriching, Francis replied “the Roman dialect of the posters was great. That was not written by anyone on the street, but by a clever person.” The interviewer interjected, “Somebody from the Vatican?” to which Francis quipped, “No, I said a clever person (laughs).”

“Either way, that was great!” he concluded.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to PopeWatch: Smart

  • Cleverness is using ambiguity to allow for small cracks in doctrine. “Somebody from the Vatican?” – DZ “No, I said a cleaver person.”-PF

    Pastoral Care for the sinner’s who have repented and those yet to repent are found in the teachings of the Holy Church and ministered from Priests in each diocese.
    The fashion of our current culture shouldn’t change the teachings, should it? No.

    My concern is that once a fissure starts it can weaken the vessel. If the vessel fails the absence of living water can not satisfy the the thirsty souls who seek Truth. The Church will not fail. Regardless of Pastoral Care/carelessness.

    Praying for clear water.

  • “Clever person” seems like reference to the devil. “Every person can have an opinion a reference to Relativism and “peace” a reference to spiritual discernment, but in this case thick necked.

  • I assume a papal endorsement of Eye of the Tiber will be forthcoming!

  • That was funny. Humor and truth go together. Perhaps prayers for the Pope are working. Let’s hope so.

PopeWatch: Celebrating the Worst

Thursday, March 9, AD 2017

 

 

Pope Francis is a big fan of the late Father Bernard Haring.  Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture explains what that tells us:

The era to which Pope Francis referred when he acclaimed the work of Bernard Häring, was the period which morphed quickly into and encompassed the 1960s and 1970s. Fr. Häring, as I learned very quickly (and quite on my own) as soon as I went off to college in 1966, was one of the ringleaders of the so-called “new morality” (which was adopted with far more enthusiasm than the new math, and at about the same time). He was hardly breathing new life into moral theology. Instead, he was stripping it of its relationship to Divine Revelation—the very thing which makes authentic Christian theology possible in the first place. Bernard Häring and thousands like him, from Hans Küng to Charles Curran, sought not God but professional relevance in a faithless world. Refusing to be constrained by what Our Lord had revealed and His Church had defined, they claimed instead that the Holy Spirit enabled the fairly cohesive fraternity of academic “experts” alone to discern the real truth.

It goes without saying that the Holy Spirit was widely applauded for teaching what the secular world had already discovered! Häring himself was among the most vocal dissenters from infallible Catholic teaching such as the deep truths authoritatively set forth during his own professional life in Humanae Vitae by Pope Paul VI and in Veritatis Splendor by Pope John Paul II. His utter ruin as a Catholic thinker is so obvious that, however one interprets his motives (and I grant that only God can know them perfectly), we are forced to conclude that anyone who would praise him as one of the first to give Catholic moral theology new life in the twentieth century must be ignorant, confused, or subversive.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to PopeWatch: Celebrating the Worst

PopeWatch: Yes, Next Question?

Wednesday, March 8, AD 2017

 

Father Z asks if a schism exists in the Church:

 

I pay scant attention to Patheos, but for a couple contributors.  This caught my eye after a frequent commentator here alerted me.

Fr. Dwight Longenecker wrote, with my legendary emphases and comments:

Headlines last week were proclaiming that a group of cardinals believe Pope Francis should step down to avoid a catastrophic schism in the Catholic Church.

Schism? What schism?

In fact, the modern Catholic Church is already in schism, but it is an internal schism, hidden to most people.  [He is using the term “schism” equivocally, but read on…]

The divide is very clear and yet virtually unspoken. Nobody dares to really speak of it.  [I don’t know about that.  HERE] The divide runs between cardinals. It runs between bishops and archbishops. It runs between theologians. It runs between parish priests. It runs between liturgists and catechists, church workers, musicians, teachers, journalists and writers. [All true.]

It is not really a divide between conservative and liberal, between traditionalist and progressive. [Wellll…]

[NB] It is the divide between those who believe that Jesus Christ is the Virgin born Son of God and that as the second person of the Holy and undivided Trinity established his church on earth supernaturally filled with the Holy Spirit which  would stand firm until the end of time, and those who believe otherwise. [As I read, I am acutely aware of my post about yesterday’s “Anthema” ceremony for Orthodoxy Sunday of Eastern Christians.]

Those who believe otherwise are the modernists. [Let’s also use “heretics”.] They are the ones who think the church is a human construct. It is a historic accident that occurred two thousand years ago and succeeded by a few twists of fate and a few happy circumstances. Because the believe the church is a human construct from a particular time and place, the church can and MUST adapt and change for every age and culture in which she finds herself.

This is the great divide. This is the schism which already exists.

[…]

I direct the readership’s attention to just about anything offered by Card. Kasper lately and, in particular, the incredible comments made by Card. Coccopalmerio to Edward Pentin HERE:

PENTIN: One last topic: At a recent plenary meeting with the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, you reportedly encouraged the members to push for a less rigid understanding of the priesthood, essentially telling them to give up on an objective and metaphysical notion of priesthood. Your notion was that as we have an understanding of different levels of communion with the Church among the baptized, we should have different degrees of the fullness of priesthood, so as to permit Protestants to minister without being fully ordained. What exactly did you say, and why did you say it?

CARD. C: I was saying we have to reflect on questions. We say, everything is valid; nothing is valid. Maybe we have to reflect on this concept of validity or invalidity. The Second Vatican Council said there is a true communion even if it is not yet definitive or full. You see, they made a concept not so decisive, either all or nothing. There’s a communion that is already good, but some elements are missing. But, if you say some things are missing and that therefore there is nothing, you err. There are pieces missing, but there is already a communion, but it is not full communion. The same thing can be said, or something similar, of the validity or invalidity of ordination. I said let’s think about it. It’s a hypothesis. Maybe there is something, or maybe there’s nothing — a study, a reflection.

Call into question the very concept of validity?  What are the implications?

Effectively, that means the obliteration of the Catholic Church.

What do libs do? They launch things out as ideas, “hypothesis”, and then they walk them back or they add “nuances”.  In the meantime the needle has been bumped a half a point in the desired direct.  Card. Kasper put some ideas out there to kick around.  Chaos ensued.  But now we have some bishops who say that the divorced and remarried can be given absolution and Communion while others don’t.  This, based on an objectively unclear papal document.  It’s surreal.  Now, Card. Coccopalmerio (as LutherFest 2017 revs up) lofts the notion that, perhaps, there are shades or, a spectrum of validity.  Maybe there isn’t really any such thing as validity.

Are there 50 Shades of Gray Validity?

Continue reading...

36 Responses to PopeWatch: Yes, Next Question?

  • Schism has a clearly defined meaning in the Code of Canon Law; “[S]chism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” [schisma, subiectionis Summo Pontifici aut communionis cum Ecclesiae membris eidem subditis detrectatio.] c 751

    Apart from a handful of Traditionalist and Sede Vacantist groups, there is no new schism in the Church. There has been no breach of visible communion.

  • Ah, legal definitions, my bread and butter! In their relationship to reality they frequently remind me of this quote from Lincoln:

    In discussing the question, he used to liken the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, ” Five,” to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.

  • Pope Francis is not to blame for the schism. He merely has allowed those who created the schism to come forward into the light, now that they think they have a Pope of their own.

    No. That would be the case if Pope Francis is a weak Pope. Pope Francis is actively promoting those pushing schism and actively rebuking and undermining those who hold to Orthodoxy. As to whether the Pope can be in schism with the Church, that is an old question that won’t be answered until he tries to make an infallible doctrine that is in contradiction with infallible doctrines in the past. For all Pope Francis’ manifest heresy, he still hasn’t crossed that bridge. In the case of Ecumenical Councils, this has been answered….Ecumenical Councils can be fallible and thus be declared false councils (e.g. Robber Council, e Fourth Council of Constantinople of 879) by a Pope.

  • The “full Communion,” will rush upon heretics that knowingly subvert the Holy Catholic Church. Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Coccopalmerio may wish to hold their tongues tightly to the roofs of their mouths. Mill stones are being made faster than the wordsmith’s can create chaos. Oh eternity! The splendor and the horrifying.

  • Mark 7:6: “He answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” I suppose there have been all sorts of schisms of incomplete, imperfect, and unapologetically heretical practice and belief, from the individual on up since the beginning. A schism need not be explicit
    or formal to exist.

  • Mark 7:6: He answered them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.” Informal schism, intentional deliberate departure from defined faith and practice, has been there from the beginning. A group formally breaking off is
    not the only kind of schism, nor perhaps the most serious. It is the hidden schism of quislings, firth columnists, traitors, and Judases who rot from within, and the useful idiots that unwittingly aid and abet them. Let us not fall into facadism, trusting the pleasant appearance without is an indication of the pleasant environment within. Beware the ‘whited sepulcher’ full of dead bones.

  • Sorry for duplicate post. Thought I hadn’t successfully posted at first.

  • It appears that Pope Francis has confused the priesthood of the laity with the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the ordained priesthood. In the matter of the Sacrament of Matrimony, Pope Francis is calling forth the priesthood of the laity to redefine the Sacrament of Matrimony. The priesthood of the laity a Vatican II concept must be impeccably imbued with the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, so help me God. He would be Jesus. Only the Catholic Church can remove excommunication once a person has been excommunicated. I believe Luther was excommunicated. When Pope Francis formally removes the excommunication of Martin Luther and his followers, then the conversation might begin. Up until then, Pope Francis is tormenting the faithful with absolute maybes and definite nothings.

  • As to whether the Pope can be in schism with the Church, that is an old question that won’t be answered until he tries to make an infallible doctrine that is in contradiction with infallible doctrines in the past. For all Pope Francis’ manifest heresy, he still hasn’t crossed that bridge.

    Unless & until he crosses that bridge, I don’t believe he’ll be in formal heresy either, in spite of his apparent unorthodoxy.

    Edward Peters addressed the schism question over the past weekend.

  • The opening for the schism was Vatican II which quickly resulted in SSPX and perhaps another 10-20% of Catholics who sensed the Church had lost it’s way and consequently rejected much of Protestantization taking place. Now, with Pope Francis the veil of clerical hypocrisy is being removed as we see the moral compromises being revealed in their many shades of black and gray. To me the legal formality is irrelevant. We now have a defacto schism by certain members of the clergy.

  • Not unlike the efforts to repeal obamacare, a new Pope will make a correction to chapter 8. Clarification will come. It isn’t coming from the dubia. My guess is that Pope Francis will step down. The pressure will build and become unbearable. Ego will win. Humility will not prevail. He will not address chapter 8. His health will deteriorate.

    Pray for him.

  • Ernst Schreiber wrote, “Edward Peters addressed the schism question over the past weekend.”

    Dr Peter’s conclusion: “Bottom-line: as to the specific possibility of a pope himself committing (as opposed to, Deus vetet, causing or occasioning in others) the crime of schism—I’m not seeing it.”

    That is obviously right. It follows from the decree Pastor Æternus of the First Vatican Council: “If anyone, then, shall say that the Roman Pontiff has the office merely of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church, not only in things which belong to faith and morals, but also in those which relate to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the world; or assert that he possesses merely the principal part, and not all the fullness of this supreme power; or that this power which he enjoys is not ordinary and immediate, both over each and all the Churches and over each and all the Pastors and the faithful; let him be anathema.”

    There is an obvious corollary: those in visible communion with the Pope cannot be in schism either.

  • “There is an obvious corollary: those in visible communion with the Pope cannot be in schism either.”

    How far do you carry that MPS? Let us say that we have a Pope who denies the divinity of Christ. Would being in visible communion with such a Pope mean that no schism had occurred in the Church? If Catholics cast off allegiance to such a Pope and assembled a group of Cardinals who elected a new Pope who was orthodox, would the old Pope now be in schism or would the Catholics defending the divinity of Christ be in schism? There is much more to Catholicism than “Thus sayeth the Pope!”

  • Mr.McClarey,

    Assuming that your hypothetical pope didn’t speak in the capacity of his office as shepard and teacher of all Christians (as Pope Francis has not done), then it would be impossible to justify supporting schismatic cardinals in good conscience. I would be especially weary of putting my trust in a splintering group of cardinals who elected such a man to begin with. Honorius I doesn’t become less-than-pope for running his mouth nor Benedict IX for being profligate and a disgrace to the chair.

  • I quite agree with Mr. Dowd. “Oh my Jesus forgive us our sins save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to heaven especially those in the MOST need of they mercy”

  • “Assuming that your hypothetical pope didn’t speak in the capacity of his office as shepard and teacher of all Christians (as Pope Francis has not done), then it would be impossible to justify supporting schismatic cardinals in good conscience.’

    There we will have to disagree. A Pope who denied the divinity of Christ would be an anti-Pope and not a Pope, even if he did not use the ex cathedra incantation devised by Vatican I when engaging in apostasy.

  • Let us say that we have a Pope who denies the divinity of Christ. Would being in visible communion with such a Pope mean that no schism had occurred in the Church? [. . . .] A Pope who denied the divinity of Christ would be an anti-Pope and not a Pope, even if he did not use the ex cathedra incantation devised by Vatican I when engaging in apostasy.

    My guess would be that that “ex cathedra incantation” as you call it would be why your scenario would never happen. What I mean by that goes back to all the speculative theology by Bellermine (?) et. al. on how a Pope who taught heresy would cease to be Pope. But he has to teach it, not just speculatively ramble and prate with his marxist drinking buddy who then posts his “exclusive one on one interview” to snapfacechatterbooktwit But I’m no expert. Heck, I’m not even staying at the Vatican Holiday Inn Express, if you know what I mean.

    And your scenario is too simple. The real question is what, if anything, can be done about a Pope who privately denies the divinity of Christ.

    Honorius I doesn’t become less-than-pope for running his mouth nor Benedict IX for being profligate and a disgrace to the chair.

    Honorius’s problem was that he didn’t run his mouth when he should have.

  • “The real question is what, if anything, can be done about a Pope who privately denies the divinity of Christ.”

    History tells us that: elect a new Pope. It has happened many times in the history of the Papacy. We are not familiar with it, because it has been centuries since we last had a lunatic as Pope. Lucky us to live in such times.

  • Since I was too busy there trying to be clever to bother with clarity, what I’m saying is this:
    Francis may want to change unchangeable doctrine about divorce and remarriage, homosexuality (q.v.), cohabitation, birth control, and any number of other things concerning dogma. Liberals/Progressives?Modernists, clergy and laity alike, may want Francis to change those things (and those in the position to do so may be actively encouraging or utilizing Francis to do just that). Francis may just be a fuzzy headed scatterbrain who thinks love (and mercy!) conquers all and everything else is just commentary. The important point is that regardless of what Francis wants and regardless of what the aforementioned Liberal/Progressive/Modernists want, he can’t change dogma. All he/they/(whomever) can do is use ambiguity to pretend like he can.

    But that doesn’t mean we should react to their studied ambiguity, (or anything they –I’m looking at you, German & Maltese Bishops– try to build on that ambiguity) as if they’ve succeeded at doing what they can only pretend to accomplish.

    Bruce Jenner can grow out his hair and paint his nails and rouge his lips and shave his legs and wear short skirts, high heels and a padded bra and call himself Caitlyn. And Google and Wikipedia can redirect “Bruce Jenner” to “Caitlyn Jenner” and call him “she.”

    But he’s still a man.

    Because what can’t be changed

    isn’t.

  • Actually what history tells us is to assassinate the current incumbent before we elect his replacement.

    You left that step out.

  • “The important point is that regardless of what Francis wants and regardless of what the aforementioned Liberal/Progressive/Modernists want, he can’t change dogma.”

    Oh, he certainly can attempt to do so, and take countless souls to Hell as a result. Changing dogma by stealth is precisely what the gang in the Vatican currently is all about and I do not think sitting on our hands and praying for better days is proving to be an effective strategy. I hope that a group of Cardinals can convince him to resign. If not, depending upon the man chosen, I would endorse a group of Cardinals finding that Pope Francis has ceased to be Pope and electing a replacement Pope in his stead. An old remedy from Church history that I wish was not required, but I fear that we have not seen the worst of Francis yet.

  • Hah! I just saw this Clarence Darrow worthy legal move. Mentioned on Fr. Z’s site.

    A Miami defense lawyer’s pants burst into flames Wednesday afternoon as he began his closing arguments in front of a jury — in an arson case.

    Stephen Gutierrez, who was arguing that his client’s car spontaneously combusted and was not intentionally set on fire, had been fiddling in his pocket as he was about to address jurors when smoke began billowing out his right pocket, witnesses told the Miami Herald.

  • The last Pope who may have been murdered was the last Pope to resign, Celestine V.

  • Some lawyers will do anything to win a case! Probably a mistrial I would think.

  • I would endorse a group of Cardinals finding that Pope Francis has ceased to be Pope and electing a replacement Pope in his stead.

    I’m going off of memory here, and I don’t have the time to make sure I’m remembering correctly, but as I recall, the last group of Cardinals who did that were promptly excommunicated by the guy they’d just elected. Because nobody, not even a Council, has the right to judge the Pope. One of us will have to try to look it up. n.b. I’m not saying that that means the Pope is always right.

  • “Because nobody, not even a Council, has the right to judge the Pope.”

    Not a right, but a necessary duty depending upon the circumstance. Necessity in emergency situations is its own law, even in Canon law. A close examination of the machinations surrounding the Council of Constance may be instructive reading for Cardinals who have the good of the Church at heart.

  • I have a soft spot for Conciliarism, the Holy Roman Empire and the Dual Monarchy too, good republican & constitutionalist that I am…

    But, do you really want to encourage and empower the factionalism of the gossipy, clucking grannies in the College of Cardinals like that?

    Whose to say that the stupid faction and the the evil faction wouldn’t get together and do something both stupid and evil?

    And my guess is, the duty born of necessity is to attempt to correct the Pope, not depose him.

  • He has a life expectancy of about 8 years. The Cardinals may hope nature takes its course before he does irreparable damage (above and beyond what he has done). I do wonder if his acts might be considered invalid if it is discovered that Benedict’s departure was coerced in some way.

  • And my guess is, the duty born of necessity is to attempt to correct the Pope, not depose him.

    Francis was pretty irritated that the most recent synod did not give him precisely what he wanted. A certain amount of contumacious and passive-aggressive behavior on the part of bishops may one hopes do the trick.

  • “But, do you really want to encourage and empower the factionalism of the gossipy, clucking grannies in the College of Cardinals like that?”

    Ideally no I would not. However, the election of Pope Francis illustrates that conditions within the Church currently are very far from ideal.

  • Donald R McClarey asks, “Let us say that we have a Pope who denies the divinity of Christ. Would being in visible communion with such a Pope mean that no schism had occurred in the Church?”

    What have opinions to do with visible communion? As Bl John Henry Newman said, “We are called upon, not to profess any thing, but to submit and be silent, as Protestant Churchmen have before now obeyed the royal command to abstain from certain theological questions.”

    He adds that “Such injunctions as I have been contemplating are laid merely upon our actions, not upon our thoughts. How, for instance, does it tend to make a man a hypocrite, to be forbidden to publish a libel? his thoughts are as free as before: authoritative prohibitions may tease and irritate, but they have no bearing whatever upon the exercise of reason.”

  • “What have opinions to do with visible communion?”

    In your view MPS apparently nothing matters except blind obedience to a Pope no matter what he says or does. Thanks for the clarification of your position.

  • “Here, of course, I must explain: — in saying this, then, undoubtedly I am not denying that the great body of the Bishops were in their internal belief orthodox; nor that there were numbers of clergy who stood by the laity, and acted as their centres and guides; nor that the laity actually received their faith, in the first instance, from the Bishops and clergy; nor that some portions of the laity were ignorant, and other portions at length corrupted by the Arian teachers, who got possession of the sees and ordained an heretical clergy; — but I mean still, that in that time of immense confusion the divine dogma of our Lord’s divinity was proclaimed, enforced, maintained, and (humanly speaking) preserved, far more by the ‘Ecclesia docta’ than by the ‘Ecclesia docens;’ that the body of the episcopate was unfaithful to its commission, while the body of the laity was faithful to its baptism; that at one time the Pope, at other times the patriarchal, metropolitan, and other great sees, at other times general councils, said what they should not have said, or did what obscured and compromised revealed truth; while, on the other hand, it was the Christian people who, under Providence, were the ecclesiastical strength of Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius of Vercellae, and other great solitary confessors, who would have failed without them. I see, then, in the Arian history a palmary example of a state of the Church, during which, in order to know the tradition of the Apostles, we must have recourse to the faithful….”

    Cardinal Newman

  • Crossing the line: History tells us that there is no definite list of infallible statements by the popes. Like England, we have a living constitution in which certain great events and declarations stands out. When great controversies arise, such as the Arian heresy, Council propose definitions which, unfortunately, lead on to more controversy and even schism. Chalcedon was rejected by a majority of the bishop of the Church, which led to the first of the eastern schisms which remain with us today. Then the strictly political schism between Rome and Constantinople, which we managed to twist into a theological one. Then comes Luther. Then comes the modernists–which really starts with the efforts of Pope Benedict XIV failed dialogue with the philosophes and so here we. What gives me hope is that despite all this the Church manages to stay afloat in the stormy seas of the world.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “In your view MPS apparently nothing matters except blind obedience to a Pope no matter what he says or does.”

    Pastor Æternus is chiefly remembered for its assertion of the sparingly exercised power of Papal Infallibility. However, it also insisted on two other things: the power of government and the power of jurisdiction.

    Thus, “the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world” and “We further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, for none has greater authority, nor can anyone lawfully review its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an Ecumenical Council, as if to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff.”

  • John Shuh wrote, “History tells us that there is no definite list of infallible statements by the popes.”

    Were Cum Occasione and Unigenitus infallible? Most theologians think so but, whether they were or not is, in a sense, irrelevant; Innocent X, Alexander VII and Clement XI succeeded in unchurching the Jansenists. It is the old story: the Jesuits had the bishop of Rome in their party and the Jansenists did not.

PopeWatch: More on Paglia

Tuesday, March 7, AD 2017

 

Sandro Magister brings us more info on Archbishop Palgia who Pope Francis has placed in charge of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family:

It made news in recent days and for some was a scandal when a glowing eulogy was given in memory of Marco Pannella (1930-2016) by Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, a prominent member of the Community of Sant’Egidio, former president of the pontifical council for the family, and as of a few months ago the president of the pontifical academy for life, as well as being the chancellor for the pontifical John Paul II institute for studies on marriage and family.

It was precisely life and the family, in effect, that were the battlefield of political action for Pannella, a leader of the radical party and a relentless promoter of abortion, divorce, homosexual marriage, and euthanasia.

But this did not stop Pope Francis from praising as “among the greats of Italy today,” in an interview last year, Pannella’s most active comrade in arms, the honorable Emma Bonino, for her commitment to the issue of migration. Just as he did not prohibit Fr. Federico Lombardi from bearing witness to the “highest admiration for Francis” of Pannella himself, an admiration reciprocated by the pope, for efforts on behalf of the incarcerated.

Paglia, therefore, is deliberately following in Francis’s footsteps. Exactly as he is doing in the institutes he oversees, which the pope has not by coincidence entrusted to him.

Settimo Cielo has already covered the news, back when it came out, of the new statutes of the pontifical academy for life that went into effect on January 1, carefully crafted to facilitate the purging of members not in line with the new course, as for example cardinals Carlo Caffarra and Willem Jacobus Eijk, or the renowned scholars Josef Maria Seifert and Luke Gormally.

But now it can be said that the purge is complete. If one goes to the official website of the academy and looks at the three lists of ordinary, corresponding, and emeritus members, one will find that no one appears on them anymore. Absolutely nobody. To find the names of those purged one has to consult the two lists of “former,” with 172, and “late,” with 10.

In other words: everyone fired or buried. And without the slightest forewarning. Not a memo. not an e-mail, not a thank you, not a requiem.

And the new academics who will take the places of the purged? The casting call is already underway, with supervision at Casa Santa Marta, but it will take time. The academy’s own website candidly confesses this, in justifying the delay until October 5-7 of the general assembly that is usually held at the beginning of the year:

“Just for the complexity of the process of appointing new Members of the Academy, made necessary with the approval of the new Statute desired by Pope Francis, the Assembly, will be held next October.”

Continue reading...

14 Responses to PopeWatch: More on Paglia

  • A radical, homosexual pro-abort. If you were Satan, who else would you put in charge of the Pontifical Academy for Life.

  • This pontificate cannot end soon enough. His successor will have an Augean stable to clean out (presuming his successor his a decent pope – ha ha). We’re living in our own variant of the 10th century.

  • If Sandro Magister is correct, than indeed we have a Masonic monster at the helm. Oct. 5-7 of ’17 for the general assembly. I pray that another miracle of the Son ( on purpose ) will overshadow this assembly to the point that it is striped and cleansed of reprobates that would be the “new” academics.

    This overthrow of the JPII institute is demonic. A sure sign of our times.

  • “This pontificate cannot end soon enough. ”
    Agreed. A line has been crossed here. I am now to the point where at the end of this pontificate I will thank God for Francis’ emphasis on mercy and ask God why Franics de-emphasized the sinfulness of that which requires mercy.
    (and yes I pretty much know why. just being rhetorical)

  • Should have added, my wife, who up until now has been a big PF fan, is starting to waver. “When you’ve lost Mrs. D….”

  • Loosing “Mrs. D.”

    It was a struggle for me, big time!
    Separating the Papal office from the man.
    Pope Watch has been a type of scanning apparatus. I didn’t like the scan, but regardless of the imagery, I became aware of the illness. Not unlike cancer, there isn’t much one can do in this uncomfortable setting. Prayers are the best antidote.

  • I stopped putting my tithe into the basket unless the homily spoke of God and His Son, Jesus. There are congregations of teaching sisters and nuns doing good. Support them and see to one’s neighbors in the corporal and spiritual works of mercy.

  • Casting call? More like casting couch.

  • Back to the future.
    Pope Benedict the XVI.
    We miss you.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/catholic-expert-details-39huge-homosexual-underground-in-the-church39

    The lavender Mafia is doing just fine..just peachy.

    If the future JPII Institute for studies on Marriage and Family starts suggesting an expansion of Southern Decadence festivals..well you know….don’t cry to Francis. After all…. It must be the fault of those wacky traditionalist. ( Liberial defense mechanism at work. Lie until everyone believes it true. )

  • I have read your comments and wholeheartedly agree with them. What are we to do if our own pastors keep silence? Jesus never visited blood thirsty tyrants responsable for the death of unborn chldren for economic gain or a dictator responsible for thousands of Christian martyrs. Open your eyes. This Pope holds hands with Satan himself in Cuba ! Gave Castro his approval lovingly. May I remind you that Christ only visited the persecuter and murderer of his people when He was apprehended and had His hands tied ! He did not smile lovingly at those tyrants. He did not bless or approve their satanic principles. . Christ is our Heavenly Father, our only Pastor. Rest assured the Holy Spirit will give us His Wisdom to fight this imposter

  • If God is to blame for free will in man then, God must be to blame for addiction to sodomy and lesbianism. Same sex attraction is an accident of birth. Addiction to sodomy, lesbianism is addiction to the capital sin of lust. The violation of man’s free will through addiction is a free will act for which man must accept responsibility before man can be rehabilitated.

  • How did this guy get approvals from JPII and BXVI ???

PopeWatch: Archbishop Paglia

Monday, March 6, AD 2017

 

 

Further evidence that this whole Pontificate may be, in a best case analysis, a divine practical joke:

 

The archbishop now at the helm of the Pontifical Academy for Life paid a homosexual artist to paint a blasphemous homoerotic mural in his cathedral church in 2007. The mural includes an image of the archbishop himself.

The archbishop, Vincenzo Paglia, was also recently appointed by Pope Francis as president of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.

The massive mural still covers the opposite side of the facade of the cathedral church of the Diocese of Terni-Narni-Amelia. It depicts Jesus carrying nets to heaven filled with naked and semi-nude homosexuals, transsexuals, prostitutes, and drug dealers, jumbled together in erotic interactions.

Included in one of the nets is Paglia, the then diocesan bishop. The image of the Savior is painted with the face of a local male hairdresser, and his private parts can be seen through his translucent garb.

According to the artist, a homosexual Argentinean named Ricardo Cinalli who is known for his paintings of male bodies, Bishop Paglia selected him out of a list of ten internationally-known artists specifically for the task of painting the inner wall of the facade. Bishop Paglia, along with one Fr. Fabio Leonardis, oversaw every detail of Cinalli’s work, according to Cinalli, who approvingly notes that Paglia never asked him if he believed in the Christian doctrine of salvation.

“Working with him was humanly and professionally fantastic,” Cinalli told the Italian newspaper La Repubblica in March of last year. “Never, in four months, during which we saw each other almost three times each week, did Paglia ever ask me if I believed in salvation. He never placed me in an uncomfortable position.”

“There was no detail that was done freely, at random,” added Cinalli. “Everything was analyzed. Everything was discussed. They never allowed me to work on my own.”

 

Continue reading...

21 Responses to PopeWatch: Archbishop Paglia

  • The homoerotic Church painting is not Christ. It is anti-Christ. He has them caught in the nets alright, that is certain.
    The LBGT community has a home in Heaven. They, like all pilgrim’s, must repent and cease in activities that are not befitting to the inhabitants of Heaven. The idea of Salvation may of never crossed Paglia’s mind since it’s possible he is having his form of Heaven now. Hope not. Let’s hope a Lenten miracle destroys the image.

  • Philip above is basically correct. However, I would reword one sentence from the simple:

    “The LBGT community has a home in Heaven”

    to the more complete:

    “The Christian Church has its final home in Heaven; those with same sex attraction join that Church if they repent just as those with alcoholism may join it if they too repent.”

    There is no community in Heaven except the Church. And St Paul makes clear in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 that “…οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται…… βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν”

    Which means:

    “…nor effeminate nor sodomites…Kingdom of God shall receive.”

    St. Paul was as usual precise. He used the term μαλακός to denote male receivers of penetration by males and the term ἀρσενοκοίτης to denote male givers of penetration to males. The English translations we get are sadly sanitized.

  • PS, here is the entire excerpt from 1st Corinthians 6:9-10 in Greek, Nova Vulgata and Young’s Literal Translation into English:

    ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε: οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται οὔτε κλέπται οὔτε πλεονέκται, οὐ μέθυσοι, οὐ λοίδοροι, οὐχ ἅρπαγες βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν.

    An nescitis quia iniqui regnum Dei non possidebunt? Nolite errare: neque fornicarii neque idolis servientes neque adulteri neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari, non ebriosi, non maledici, non rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt.

    have ye not known that the unrighteous the reign of God shall not inherit? be not led astray; neither whoremongers, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, the reign of God shall inherit

    οὔτε μαλακοὶ = neque molles = nor effeminate
    οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται = neque masculorum concubitores = nor sodomites
    βασιλείαν θεοῦ κληρονομήσουσιν = regnum Dei possidebunt = Kingdom [Reign] of God shall receive [possess, inherit]

    It cannot possibly be more clear than that.

  • Thank you Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus.

  • Addiction to lust, sodomy and lesbianism is a violation of man’s free will. Free will is the image of God in man.
    Color of skin and sexual orientation are accidents of existence. The free will choice to sodomy is one sexual sin and another of assault and battery. The most evil is denying the human being’s rational, immortal human soul and thereby making atheists of us all. Scandalizing our Posterity, all future generations deserves a millstone about the neck. Has the millstone been painted into the mural or is it simply the swindle the Great Liar has prepared for man?

  • After 15 years of this stuff, you find yourself saying “Again?”

  • No mill stones Mary.
    Spirit Daily has the story with the sadistic schlock.

    Hell is a myth to many of these unfortunates.

  • Sadly, the Vatican and some surrounding dioceses are infested by homosexual and Free-mason clergy, and appear to be untouchable; well, in this life, anyway.
    Pray for the Church and for the conversion of Pope Francis.

  • The painting in question is a lie and a betray of the truth. The folks in the painting are on their way to hell. That is how the painting should have been done with a background of fiery red.

  • Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
    Does μαλακός mean effeminate?
    Its literal meaning is “soft.” Our Lord uses it twice, on both occasions referring to “soft” clothing: ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς ἠμφιεσμένον ἰδοὺ… οἱ τὰ μαλακὰ φοροῦντες ἐν (Matt 11:8) and ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς ἱματίοις ἠμφιεσμένον (Luke 7:25). The connotation is of luxuriousness, rather than effeminacy.
    The only other occurrence in the NT is St Paul in 1Cor 6:9.
    In Classical Greek, besides it literal meaning, μαλακός can mean mild or gentle, but also faint-hearted or cowardly, depending on the context.
    ἀρσενοκοῖται occurs only in 1 Cor 6:9. It appears to be a coinage of St Paul’s. It is made up of ἄρσην (male) + ἄρσην (lie) and may be an echo of Leviticus 18:22 (but I’m guessing).

  • Apologies, I should have written “It is made up of ἄρσην (male) + κεῖμαι (to lie)

  • Philip Nachazel:: Our Lady said that souls are falling into hell like snowflakes. Our Lady asked for First Saturday reparation. Why is there a hell if there is no one in hell?

  • The picture shocks us. Jesus’ contemporaries were horrified by HIs eating and drinking with sinners. Jesus shocks us. He came to save sinners. We know that His efforts are not futile. EVERYONE who is thirsty is invited to come to the water (Isaiah 55)
    -My second reaction to Paglia and the painting is that the painting may express Paglia’s hope- his hope that is shared apparently by many others in Rome. to be caught up in the nets that Jesus casts out into the Very deep. As a mother, I also hope that Jesus, truly God and truly man, redeems the lost, even in their sinfulness, for He bears their iniquities- he makes intercession for transgressors. Because he surrendered himself to death,was counted among the transgressors, bore the sins of many,and interceded for the transgressors. (cf Isaiah 53:11-12 ). Several times He tells us to learn what it means that He desires Mercy and not sacrifice.

  • Mary De Voe.

    Why indeed?
    The unfortunates mentioned are the souls partaking in their heaven now.
    The idea that hell doesn’t exist allows for unabated recklessness and perverted self expression that is protected by political correctness.
    If the consequences of hell are removed altogether, then the debased appeties of disordered clergy can contrive a fasle narrative and abuse the Gospel message. Enter a mural located in a once holy cathedral.

  • Anzlyne, I agree that is the purpose of the painting, and the purpose is not a bad one. However, the small details of the painting show themes that are totally antinomian and perhaps also Manichaean.

  • @ Anzlyne.

    No one would disagree with needing our Divine Physician, for all are found in need of healing. All are found unworthy of the Glory to come. Sin no more is a commandment from the healing Sacred Heart. In raising the nets the artist depictions are void of repentance to a certain degree. A Christ with genitalia is making a mockery of the forgiving power of Christ. The artist himself is mocking repentance. View the mural.

    If I’m “projecting,” my feelings upon this art as one might suggest, I would defend my position because of the artworks location and it’s responsibility to all worshipers and viewers.

    Call me old fashioned if one must, but the sense of the sacred is lost in the need to satisfy the artists own sexual orientation.
    This is also revealing, as the testimony of the artist indicates; “everything was analyzed, everything was discussed.”

    Shame on them!

  • Thank you both for your replies. I am not antinomian- just a mother fiercely clinging to hope. My son, who embarked on this path at least intellectually at the Gregorian; making this lifestyle choice a reality after leaving seminary is only one of many many bright and beautiful young men encouraged to follow this temptation. I am not one who believes we can absolve ourselves (internal forum). Not manichean either though rearing 5 and grand-mothering 13 one become very aware of the spiritual warfare…
    anyway I sense the kindness of both of you TomD and Philip and I appreciate it.

  • Anzlyne.

    God grant your hearts desire regarding the beautiful soul that is your son. Temptations abound, yet this culture is fueling the fire with reckless abandon.
    Your heart is sustained and those you love will be protected under the mantel of Our Loving Mother, Queen of Peace. She will see to it Anzlyne.

    Peace of Christ dear soul.

    Your son is going in my prayers. Name not needed. Your Angel and my Guardian Angel are working this out as we write.

  • Than you Philip for your loving response to Anzlyne. If the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION is not in the painting then, Jesus Christ is being abused and the nets belong to Satan. Our Mother and Queen, Mary IMMACULATE is the one human being who is not in Satan’s grasp.

PopeWatch: Pope Burke

Saturday, March 4, AD 2017

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

In an epic mistake that drew gasps from Catholics and non-Catholics around the world yesterday, Cardinal Protodeacon Jean-Louis Tauran recently announced that he mistakenly named Jorge Mario Bergoglio as pope at the 2013 Papal Conclave, when in reality it was Cardinal Raymond Burke that won the top prize.

The newly-elected Pope Francis was saying some random thing that would have made many Catholics scratching their heads when the interjection came that Burke had in fact been elected pope.

“I want to tell you what happened,” Tauran told press gathered at the Vatican yesterday. “I opened the envelope, and it said ‘Jorge Mario Bergoglio, La La Church.’”

“Burke,” the story of a white, Catholic, conservative man had already won best supporting cardinal for Making Things Look A Little Less Out Of Control.

“Very clearly, even in my prayers this could not be true,” Burke told those gathered in St. Peter’s Square. “But to hell with it, I’m done with it, because this is true. Oh my goodness.”

It was not immediately clear how the mistake was made, though EOTT tweeted out a photo that showed that the envelope in Tauran’s hand reading “Best Bishop Of A Diocese That Is Not The Diocese of Rome.”

Continue reading...

3 Responses to PopeWatch: Pope Burke

  • An American Pope. How extraordinary. An orthodox Pope. How orthodox.

  • I saw this picture some time ago, and actually sent a printed copy to the good cardinal in Rome. He very graciously replied to my accompanying note, but didn’t mention the photo for some reason.

  • “Red Hatter’s Matter!”-Author unknown..thank goodness.

    Vatican Cards.
    Sort of like poker, sheepshead and Euchre rolled into one.

    Example: I see your bluff, I’ll raise you five and trade my Pope for three of your Cardinals. Oh, and Cardinal Burke is wild.
    Trump is well..trump, and everybody gets a hors d’oeuvre.

    You can’t win. The deck is stacked.

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.”

…and…

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

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. 😆

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.
    Sorry.

  • 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.

    John:
    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.

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

  • 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.”
    -DM

    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
    Development.

  • 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:

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/02/22/be-ashamed-when-tempted-to-use-church-for-power-struggles-says-pope-francis/

  • 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.