Friday, October 24, 2014

Of Rock-Star Religious And The Follyhood Of Hollywood

Lately two "acts" have been winding their way through Catholic circles: one is some Italian nun who apparently can sing (choices of material leave something to be desired).  Another is that of a pair of priests who can tap-dance.  There are videos of both - and I refuse to post them.  In this post, I won't say too much of these entities.  Rather, what piques my curiosity is why so many good Catholics seem to be in awe of them.  I had a discussion on facebook about the priests and some of the comments are downright troubling.

I started off the discussion by asking "Why are people so fascinated by priests and religious who engage in "dancing with the stars" antics that are, at best, ancillary to their sacred vocations? Just asking..."  I heard a number of responses.
  • "Their joyful witness is something that the world is incredibly hungry for".  No.  A tap-dance routine, no matter how happily done, will not satisfy the world's hunger.  They need to hear the truths of our faith preached to them in a straight-forward fashion.  They need the Holy Mass.  They need the Sacrament of Penance.  "Joyful witness" to what?  Jesus Christ, or their dancing talents?
  • "So many don't think of them (priests) as normal human beings".  That begs the question of what we consider a "normal human being" to be.  The way I've understood it is that a human being is created in the image and likeness of God and that image and likeness is manifested through man's intellect and will.  Period.  I suspect that our concept of "being human" has been dumbed down by the secular culture - and deliberately so over these past few decades.  Our de facto belief (as a superficial culture) seems to equate "human" as "clown".  Unfortunately faithful Catholics are acquiescing to this degradation in attempts to "win people over".  In reality, we bow to lies and that will only lead to ultimate futility.  Should we not be teaching our young and those with whom we come in contact the real dignity that comes with being human?
No one begrudges these priests of their hobbies.  The problem is that we now know them not because they're exemplary teachers of the faith or stellar confessors, but because they can do tap-dance routines.  In our minds we have replaced the essential with the superficial, the primary with the ancillary.

Last year I had occasion to write about this false-joy mindset that is in actuality a focus on silliness.  I and some others had spoken out against it and were lambasted by those who wanted to remain in la-la land.  Here it is, for what it's worth.

Let's pray for these two priests, that their ministries (meaning at the altar, in the pulpits and confessionals, etc) be fruitful and that they continue to draw closer to Our Lord.

Thursday, October 23, 2014

Pope's Erroneous Call For End To Death Penalty AND Life Imprisonment

As most Marylanders know, the State of Maryland last year abolished capital punishment of deadly criminals (the execution of innocent babies goes unabated, however).  I wrote two pieces that both excoriated the Maryland Catholic Conference and demonstrated why they actually violated Church teaching in their effort to abolish capital punishment.

In their efforts to abolish capital punishment, both on their website and during testimonies in Annapolis, the MCC stated that Maryland would be able to protect its citizens through the use of life imprisonment without parole in lieu of the death penalty.  I've saved screen shots of two of these and will post them after the jump break so as not to take up too much space in the main screen.

However, Pope Francis today made clear his opposition not only to the death penalty, but to life imprisonment.  He said "life imprisonment is a hidden death penalty".  So he just contradicted Archbishop Lori and the Maryland Catholic Conference.  He made the latter appear to be a bastion of conservative common sense - that's quite an accomplishment!

More seriously, though, he spoke in disregard to Evangelium Vitae and the hundreds of years of Church teaching.  He seems to impute motives of "violence and revenge" to governments who employ these means.  I've no doubt that some corrupt regimes do precisely that; however, to issue a blanket denouncement of life imprisonment - and the death penalty for that matter - is simply irresponsible.

What also seems to be disregarded is that governments have a solemn duty to protect their citizens from unjust aggression - including that which arises from other citizens.  That is an overriding concern, and in fact one that must rise above the "redemption" of one criminal.  So without at least life imprisonment, just what does His Holiness think should be done with those violent criminals who simply won't be "redeemed"?  Do I hear crickets?

Ladies and gentlemen, sometimes we must disagree vociferously with our Church leaders in matters of "prudential judgment".  Clearly this is one of them.  I link now to excellent points by Vox Cantoris.

Again, the MCC writings are below this jump break.

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Archdiocese Of Atlanta Promoted Gay Pride Day

Both the Eponymous Flower and LifeSiteNews revealed that two weeks ago in Atlanta, the Shrine
of the Immaculate Conception both advertised and promoted the annual "gay pride" day in October.  Archbishop Wilton Gregory authorized both these abominations.  According to event organizers and the parish's "gay ministry" cabal, they've been doing this long before Gregory's arrival.  To that I reply, "so what?"  Gregory's been in charge of that place long enough and should have quashed that desecration from the get-go.

But hey!  Maybe I'm engaging in "hostile inflexibility" as the Pope may have called it.  Perhaps the archbishop has simply been worshiping the "always new" "god of surprises!

I seriously hope that faithful Catholics there will organize themselves so that they can take appropriate action next year.

PS - The picture to the right is the work of the blogger of http://www.harvestingthefruit.com/.

This Apology Could Do With Its Own Apology

Regrettably Michael Voris issued an apology for reporting on Cardinal Burke's comments last week.  If you go here, you'll see the video is no longer working; he took it down.  My friend at Les Femmes saw this apology before I did.  I say AMEN! to all her comments and I too pledge NOT to succumb to a false clericalism that refuses to acknowledge the obvious problems issuing forth from this papacy.  Contrary to what Voris says, we do not have to "comb through" everything the Pope says to find statements that, at best, obfuscate the faith.  In fact, it takes much more effort and mental gymnastics to pretend that we are not being continuously bombarded with oddities.  If nothing else, I want to assure others that they need now bow before the "god of surprises".

I have to wonder about something.  He seems to believe that his reporting of Cardinal Burke's all-too-accurate assessments somehow "harmed the Church".  But he merely reported what the Cardinal said.  Are we to surmise from this "apology" that he believes that Cardinal Burke harmed the Church by stating that the Pope was doing harm by not standing for the Faith?  If not, where's the alleged harm?

I also couldn't help but notice a parallel between this and another situation that happened about six weeks ago.  Consider: this past Friday Voris published his report on Cardinal Burke's remarks.  A few days later it was pulled down.  Yet another few days later he issues an apology.  Does it sound familiar yet?  Here's a hint: Msgr Charles Pope!

By the time I became aware of Msgr Pope's reaction to Cardinal Dolan's stance regarding the St Patrick's gay parade, his blog post - rightly critical of Cdl Dolan - had been pulled.  Fortunately LifeSiteNews and others saved it so I was able to save it.  So, like Voris, Msgr Pope posts an article and then it's pulled down!  Then - like Voris - Msgr Pope apologized for his previous post.  Even the timing of events is almost identical.

Now if one reads Pope's apology very closely, one can detect that he apologized under duress, probably from the Archdiocese of Washington.  Their server does host his blog and he is a priest of that diocese (just happens to be mine as well).  Now a question for which we may never receive an answer: was Voris's apology influenced by some outside entity?  Perhaps I'm just speculating, but one must admit the other similarities are quite striking.

God Of Surprises A False Idol

Let's take a look again at this notion of this so-called "god of surprises".  Again I'll link to the Pope's closing address at the SinNod.  I'm not certain that I dealt with it thoroughly in the last post and want to do so for we are seeing way too many manifestations of clergy bowing before this idol.

He chides those whom he considers embroiled in "hostile inflexibility".   Supposedly we close ourselves within "the written word" and don't allow ourselves to be "surprised by God".  Now think of it.  What would cause the serious, faithful Catholic to be surprised, even alarmed, if they were to encounter something that seemed off the mark?  Most likely it would be some deviance from God's word.  There's no doubt that our understanding of God's written word is not perfect; but in many cases neither is that understanding completely lacking.  The Catholics who have made good faith attempts to study their faith and to live it out (via prayer, Sacraments, good works) are, to varying degrees, able to perceive spiritual danger.  Often that spiritual danger is signaled by a divergence from God's written word as found in Scripture and/or Church tradition.  Thus the "surprise" that some may experience is really a red flag, a warning that spiritual peril is afoot; rather than embracing that source of "surprise" perhaps it should be fled, as Peter urges us to do with Satan.

The Pope has suggested that "God always surprises".  "Always"???   I can see surprises happening from time to time, but if one is always surprised, perhaps that tendency betrays an abysmal ignorance of the faith OR they are dabbling with spiritual forces that will lead to their eternal perdition.

Dare I suggest that any attempt to dissuade Catholics from reliance on God's written word in favor of some "surprise" is itself seduction by the devil?

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Of New Things And Surprises And Diabolical Subtleties

A little note before I begin this post.  I will be expounding on these rather bizarre statements from the Pope, understanding of course that they are not spoken ex cathedra.  However, because there are some good-hearted people who think that every word he utters is a prophetic declaration or that it's just wonderful when he dons a clown nose for a silly selfie, there needs to be some input that is not derived from the "three monkeys" approach.  I'm pleased to note that many of my fellow bloggers seem similarly persuaded.  In fact, I shall be linking to them (as I often do).

Within the past several weeks Pope Francis has said some things that are perilously close to being logically, philosophically and theologically impossible.  These anomalies of thinking seem to be shared by prelates such as Cardinal Kasper, and their stench emanated from the SinNod.

On October 13, the Catholic Herald (UK) reported on the Pope's homily.  In that, he reportedly stated that "if laws do not lead people to Jesus they are obsolete".  It's obvious that he is confusing God's law with Pharisaical customs, for there is nothing inherently evil about eating with sinners (we all are sinners).  Why that distinction was not drawn is not so much careless, but now in light of the SinNod, somewhat suspect.  God's laws will never be obsolete.  They are His word, and as God Himself is eternal, so are His laws as they reflect His eternal will.

We certainly did see an attempt during the SinNod to question the eternity and relevance of God's laws, especially with the indissolubility of marriage and the gravity of the sins of sacrilegious Holy Communion and sodomy.  They are contained in those three paragraphs that should have been removed but in reality they still remain part of the report despite the votes of the prelates in attendance.

Regarding the fallacy of the law "not leading people to Jesus", recall that it's God's law that is indispensable to our discernment of Jesus in our lives and Church as opposed to some counterfeit.  Let's look at that statement again, rephrasing it ever so slightly.  "If laws do not lead people to Jesus, it's because that pseudo-lovely image of Jesus is a counterfeit.  God's authentic laws will never lead to anyone but Jesus."  With all due respect, I think this statement to be tad more accurate than the former.

In that article, we also heard about this "god of surprises", and he has been throwing that phrase at us ever since.  You'll notice that I did not capitalize that "g".  "God of surprises" is not a phrase that I've ever seen in the Scriptures nor in any other Church documents (I suppose that omission renders them "obsolete"?).  What is with this fetish about "being surprised"?  In the various contexts in which this phrase is bandied about (including the closing address of the SinNod), I suspect this "god of surprises" is not much more than a pagan idol designed to lure the naive into abandoning the One True Faith.

Let me share a particularly blasphemous manifestation of this "god of surprises", with thanks to Vox Cantoris.  Father Thomas Rosica, official of the Vatican Press Office and player in the SinNod, tried his best to make those in irregular marriages (that is, adultery) seem legitimate by opining that the Holy Family was "irregular"!  To suggest any hint of sin about the Holy Family is both intellectually insulting and blasphemous.  Is it, as the blogger suggests, part of the campaign for us to "mature", as said Pope Francis in his closing address?  Most likely so.  In saner times, Father Rosica would have been disciplined if not defrocked.  Now he'll probably be rewarded.

During the Mass during which Pope Paul VI was beatified, Pope Francis said repeatedly that "God is not afraid of new things".  There is truth to that statement - for several good reasons.  First, we read in Ecclesiastes 1:9-10 that "there is nothing new under the sun".  God is eternal.  His Word and Law is eternal.  Furthermore, we know that all public revelation has occurred and ended with the death of the last Apostle (John).  If there is any new "dogma" or tweaking of settled Church teaching, the impetus of such is utter foolishness at best and diabolical at worst.  Of course God can overcome all such duplicity; we weak humans need to exercise prudence and discernment.  Those two qualities must not be confused with fear and suggestions for such confusion must be rejected.

Let's face it.  This talk of "god of surprises" and "new things" is progressive manipulation of words to manipulate the Catholics into questioning the Magisterium and the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, this time in regards to divorced/remarried Catholics and those embracing the sin of sodomy.  Even now they are preparing in earnest for next year's ordinary synod, where they hope that they will be more successful in undermining the Faith.

Monday, October 20, 2014

Double-Shame On CUA - Dissident Cardinal Kasper To Receive Award From CUA

Two days ago the esteemed Cardinal Burke gave an interview to the Catholic World Report.  In that interview he lamented that the SinNod was obviously orchestrated by certain elements (and Edward Pentin opines from the top - the Pope?) to advance progressive, dissident agendas.  He also went so far as to say that Cardinal Kasper's racist remarks were made to advance his dissident positions.  It is obvious that indeed the remarks were a clumsy attempt to discredit Cardinal Napier.  He might have gotten away with his lie had it not been for Edward Pentin's recording.

Quite frankly, Cardinal Kasper has been shown to be a flaming dissident and a bald-faced liar.

Now comes the burning question  Why, oh why, is the Catholic University of America going to bestow its Johannes Quasten Award on him on Nove 6th?  See this Rorate Caeli post for the details.  Apparently the attendees will also sit through his wind-bag exercise about the "Theological Background of the Ecclesiological and Ecumenical Vision of Pope Francis".  I don't know about any of you, but I think the world has already had its face rubbed enough in that muddy mess of a "vision".  At the end of his closing remarks at the end of the SinNod, the pope said we now have "one year to mature".  "Mature" means to be brainwashed into accepting heresy.  It's odd how I'm just noticing now that "mature" and "manure" are different by only one letter - but in the context of the pope's address I don't think it's that much of a difference.  But with this address, the "manure-maturation" process will be underway!  I am reminded of David Kupelian's book The Marketing of Evil.  He talks of the psychological process of jamming.  Since the progressives in the Church are working for acceptance of the gay sin inside our Church, I can see him borrowing a tactic of gay activists.

But let's get back to the Catholic University of America.  What has gotten into them?  As we saw yesterday, they are about to renege on their responsibilities as Catholic educators and let a gay rights activist be celebrated on campus.  Now they're going to bestow a prestigious award to a dissident cleric who has attempted to push through his warped agenda during last week's SinNod.  In prior posts I have lauded CUA for standing firm in Catholic matters, such as keeping their dorms unisex.  Now with these two pieces of news that I share, I must wonder if they've been infected with that deadly disease known as "the Francis Effect".  Pray for CUA, for things don't bode well for them spiritually.

Sunday, October 19, 2014

Catholic University Of America To Host Screening Of Gay Activist's Biography

Initially the CUA administration had cancelled it, citing correctly that this movie would advocate the sin of sodomy on a Catholic campus.  Crud reports that the administration has capitulated (not their word but mine) and is allowing the gay propaganda to be seen on campus.  Apparently they are also permitting the "Milk" screenwriter, Dustin Lance Black, to speak on campus now.  As of October 17 (this past Friday) a date has not yet been set.

The Director of Campus Activities approved this rescheduling.  She needs to be contacted, as well as higher officials.  The word "Catholic" in the school's name has meaning.  Integral to that meaning is that the campus will not permit on its grounds propaganda that would be injurious to the spiritual well-being of its students, and that only those programs that at least don't contradict Church teaching will be considered for admission to campus.

Contact:
Katie Jennings, Director of Campus Activities, jenningk@cua.edu
Board of Trustees, CUA-Trustees@cua.edu

Please do so asap.  Else this thing will soon be rescheduled.

Three Offensive Paragraphs To Remain In The Final Report

In my post that showed in the wee hours of this morning, I mentioned that Rorate Caeli had reason to believe that the three paragraphs of the interim report that were voted out of the final report were still going to remain.  I just learned that Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register has reported the same thing.

Father Federico Lombardi stated (according to the Register) that the three paragraphs "are not completely rejected.  They cannot be considered an expression of synodal consensus”, he said, but rather show a “work in progress” and areas that “still have a ways to go.”

"Not completely rejected"?  If not, what was the purpose of the vote?  Was that voting exercise just another part of the "dog and pony show" of the SinNod, so it was ok to disregard the obvious rejection of the three paragraphs?

"Work in progress" and "still have a ways to go"?  What does that mean?  Does it mean that the paragraphs remain so that Catholics can be deceived into thinking that settled moral doctrine is fair game for debate and attempts to change it?  If not, what can be the reason for keeping the rejected paragraphs in the report?

Those three paragraphs are by no means examples of "surprises of God" but merely the machinations of those bent on the destruction of Holy Mother Church and the damnation of countless souls who will be hapless enough to be deceived by the wolves who are masquerading as shepherds.

I would recommend to you that you read this article by Sandro Magister on "The True Story Of This Synod, Directors, Performers, Assistants".  You can see the machinations have been going on for some time.  Both Machiavelli and Alinsky would be proud of them.  They are NOT going to give up their schemes to bastardize the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  Anyone who thinks this final report represents a victory for faithful Catholics really need to step out of their bubbles and take off the rose-colored glasses for we are in for a long struggle here.

In my previous post I gave a nod to Saul Alinsky, for all of this is right out of his playbook.  However, this post's nod will go to Nancy Pelosi for she coined the term "we have to pass it to find out what's in it."  It seems rather appropriate for the dissidents are determined to get that theological and spiritual poison into the hearts and minds of Catholics by whatever means they can, be those means ever so unethical.

SinNod's Grande Finale - Part 2 Of 2, With A Nod To Saul Alinsky

In this second part, I'll now deal with the final relatio that was released today - except for the English version.  Many secular sites are kvetching and moaning that the paragraphs regarding homosexuals, found in the interim report, did not make the vote to be included in the final report.

So they were rejected.  However, Rorate Caeli has reason to believe that those three paragraphs will  be included in the English version (that's supposed to be released next week).  Correction - in all languages.  I'm not certain of their information source so we'll have to see.  I'd be interested to hear from those of other languages.

Even if the relatio is clear of the foul language, the damage has been done and deliberately so.  The bug has been put in the ears of the Catholics in the pews that perhaps there is "virtue to sodomy" and that de facto adulterers can receive Holy Communion without committing sacrilege.

Ladies and gentlemen, with that in mind, may I introduce to Rule #8 of Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals?  It's summed up nicely here.  In essence, it suggests that the change agent (dissidents in the Church who put in those horrible paragraphs) should "keep the pressure on; never let up".  We can be very certain that we have not heard the last of these heresies.  I think the removal of those paragraphs was damage-control.  No doubt they were surprised by internet scrutiny and the spinal fortitude shown by Cardinals Burke, Pell and Muller.  I suspect this was just a temporary retreat so they can regroup and try again later.

I'll have more to say on this later, but it is getting late here.  For now, I'll close with the latest Vortex report on all this.