Will Pope Francis Emulate The Climate Change Shysters?

Over the life of this blog I've done quite a few posts that expose the colossal hoax known as "climate change".  Here is one anthology of posts.  I suggest careful study of the first, and the video to which it links.

It appears that Pope Francis has glommed onto the global warming hoax, as it appears that he'll devote an encyclical to promulgating this erroneous theory.  Contrary to the yap and yammer from progressives, the science to which they refer is, at best, shoddy.  Much of the so-called "research" has been nothing more than elaborate scams, as the videos in this post anthology will reveal.

If such an encyclical is released, it will not touch upon the areas of faith and morals.  Of course we must ensure that we don't waste or carelessly pollute, but the underlying premise behind that obligation is that mankind is, in the eyes of God, above all other creation and the earth must be preserved for service to future generations of people.  If he's going to promote "climate change", he will be promoting a flawed theory based on junk science.

Someone suggested to me that the leftists may be hyping this up in hopes that the pope will fall in line behind them like a mouse following the piped piper to its doom and that the actual encyclical will be along the vein described in the previous paragraph.  If that does happen that there is shilling for climate change, we are not obliged to obey error.  In fact, we will have the solemn duty to resist - respectfully, but unmistakably.  Here is an excellent post describing circumstances and ways in which we must resist even popes who might lead us into error, complete with papal citations.

Even if the encyclical is relatively benign, one may wonder why he chose that topic on which to base this encyclical.  Just a few months ago the sin-nod ended, a meeting in which it was suggested that there might be "positive value" to sodomite mortal sin.  In a saner time, a bishop would have been horrified at the prospect of basic morals being cast into doubt.  This situation reflects a greater spiritual pollution that has corroded the minds and consciences of so many Catholics, a pollution that threatens them with damnation.  I don't believe this has escaped the pope's notice.  So why is he not addressing that as opposed to a matter that is not essential to eternal salvation?  Is there a decent answer to that question?

#LifeofCatholics!

Louie Verrecchio of Harvestingthefruit.com has devised his own answer to the bimbo video!  It may be worth following his suggestions!


#LifeofCatholics from Louie Verrecchio on Vimeo.

MD Public Schools Accommodating Sharia Law

Parkdale High School in Riverdale, MD (that's Prince George's County) is allowing qualified students to leave class for eight minutes daily to pray.  These students all happen to be members of the Muslim Students' Association.  About ten are participating and more want to do so, but some teachers are balking at the idea.

Would this same school allow Christian students a similar break so that they can read their bibles somewhere?  Why do I think that's a ridiculous question?  Will these Muslims have their own room in which to pray (I believe they like to face east when praying)?  Would that mean this school is favoring Islam above other religions?  Of course - but Islam falls within politically correct, progressive standards.  They'll get a free pass that other faiths won't receive.

In Montgomery County, all the school board incumbents were elected.  Did PG County suffer the same fate?  We really must issue some pink slips next time.

Bimbo Video - A Segue To Women's Ordination?

First, let me highlight a point that I did make in my Christmas Day post, "More On The Bimbo Video".  I just now emboldened some lines previously written that made clear that what I wrote was in no way to be construed as an evaluation of the actress's character in general.  That said, she did agree to adopt the stereotypical mannerisms and personae of a bimbo.  I opine that was abysmally poor judgment on her part - but she chose to play a bimbo, now she owns the consequences.  I am not the only "mean-spirited" woman to be bemused by this mischaracterization of women.  Mary Jo Anderson, writing for Catholic World Report, in her own excellent article, nicknamed her "Coquette".  She briefly quotes the reactions of other Catholic women that are quite direct.

Having just learned of this article (which I highly recommend for your reading), I now believe it was that piece, rather than our US-based blogs, that caused the Pontifical Council for Culture to pull the video.  CWR does have far greater international readership than do we, and this article would have made tremendous blips on the Vatican radar.  However, her article is also in English.  The Council pulled only the English version of the bimbo-video.  The Italian version remains on their site.  Please note that below the video they did provide the script in English.  Why in the name of heaven did they bother to do that?  Would it not have made more sense to leave the English online?  How stupid do they think we are?  Or, more to the point, how stupidly can they act?

But the woman in the video asks "at what point are we today as women".  I redirect your attention to the window that opened when you clicked the first link.  Please check the comments section for information from commenter Marie, for which I thank her.  Therein she cites a post by Eponymous Flower, dating back to November, just after the Sin-Nod.  This post exposes the heterodox Pablo D'Ors, appointed as Consulter for the Pontifical Council for Culture by Pope Francis.  Please read the EF post, as I believe Tancred is onto something.  D'Ors dabbles in Zen Buddhism, describes himself as "erotic, mystical and weird" with a "life full of loving relationships" and yes, he's a priest.

Tancred's article starts by saying, "The Pontifical Council for Culture  is preparing an 'opening' towards women priests?   Pablo d'Ors, appointed papal Consultor of the Council for Culture since July 1st, is convinced of a realignment. 'While orthodox Church representatives are being kicked out from the Vatican, heretics are being brought in,' said Messa in Latino about the Spanish priest, novelist and Zen Buddhist and his interview in the daily newspaper La Repubblica."  No doubt there is a realignment, and it's to the detriment of the Church and the souls entrusted to her care.

As for the answer to that first question regarding an "opening towards women priests", I strongly suspect the bimbo-video is part and parcel of that opening.

Bimbo Video Gone?? NOPE!!!

Remember this and this?   Well, you be shocked - just shocked I tell you! - to learn that the bimbo video has mysteriously disappeared!  (ahem!)

Or...has it?  Remember - once something is on the internet, it never really goes away!  Never-ever!

Perhaps I had a divine revelation from above, or some preternatural flash of wisdom!  Nah!  Those of us who've been dealing with progressive peons within the chanceries, Catholic conferences and yes, the Vatican, simply know too well how their brains churn.  I knew that the video would be pulled - not because they realized that the video reeked of both stupidity and immoral depravity, but because too many of us exposed it for the ungodly drivel that it is.  At least three of us, e.g., Creative Minority Report, Tenth Crusade and this blog, exposed it.

Question!  Why do they think the mere pulling of the video will do them any good?  Without a proper apology, they simply look like bumbling fools in damage-control mode.

Knowing that the video might be pulled, I made certain that it would never quite go away.  Here it is! You'll need Windows Media Viewer to watch it.

By the way - the gal suggests emailing lifeofwomen2015@gmail.com.  Why don't we use that email address to comment on both the cheesy video and even cheesier way in which they're trying damage control here?

To Vatican/Church officials: Any communications with this blog will be publicized.

More On The Bimbo Video

On Tuesday I commented on the disgraceful video produced by the Pontifical Council for Culture (if that clip is what they produce, they really aren't any culture council at all, but I digress).  Yesterday my friend and blogging colleague at Tenth Crusade put up her own take on the matter.  Truth be told, I thought her analysis was more superior and in-depth than was mine.  She is absolutely right.   That woman who "starred" (using the word "starred" loosely) in that flick adopted the personae of the typical dumb-blond-sex-kitten bimbo.  That observation is not to be construed as an evaluation of the woman's character in general, but one must question why she played that role.  Perhaps she thought it was ok since it was a Vatican venture; that is its own can of worms and does speak to scandal emanating from the Vatican.

I don't know how much the Pontifical Council for Culture paid this woman to purse her lips and squint her eyes in what Tenth Crusade aptly describes as seduction to get her point across.  At least they allowed her to be decently dressed but otherwise it clearly was an abuse of her sexuality.  The fact that any Vatican agency would see fit to release that clip that is just a few steps shy from pornography only points to corruption and lack of Catholic morality in that Council and perhaps at higher levels of the Vatican.  If there is indeed that kind of laxity of Catholic morals, is it too much to fear that there might well be a lack of belief in Jesus Christ Himself?

I went to Christmas Day Mass today.  The gospel was from John 1:1-18.  Please read, for it speaks of the importance of authentic belief in Jesus Christ.  This bimbo-video is the antithesis of what one might expect from those who really hold dear their God and their Church.

Le Figaro Interviews Cardinal Burke

Lifesite News reported on an interview given by Cardinal Burke this week to Le Figaro (Rorate Caeli has the entire English translation).  Among other things His Eminence said (quoting LSN), "it is amazing that those who have defended Catholic teaching and practice on withholding Communion from those in publicly irregular sexual situations, are being accused of being against the Holy Father, and of not being in harmony with the Church.”

His Eminence has suffered persecution in spades.  His ouster from key Vatican positions happened in retaliation for his defense of the Teachings of the Church and of Jesus Christ against the progressive rot within the Vatican.

I and several of my fellow bloggers have experienced a microcosm of these accusations.  For example, I've been told that I'm "down on the pope" and "mean", etc.  Clearly we have a classic case of "if you don't like the message shoot the messenger".  It won't work for the truth will come out.

By God's grace we will continue to defend Holy Mother Church in whatever way we can.  We hope and pray more will join us.

May all my readers, with their families and friends, have  blessed Christmas!

UPDATE!  CASE IN POINT!  The Catholic bishops of England and Wales are accusing faithful Catholics, and those who stood up to the Kasper bullying at the sin-nod, of being Donatists.  They call their screed "Reflection Document for Clergy".  LifeSite News has the full scoop on this document that gives thinly-disguised carte-blanche approval for "katholycs" thumbing their noses at the Church's teachings - with assistance from dissident clergy.

So I guess that makes me a neo-pelagian donatist, mean-spirited person, in the eyes of progressives and libs.  Coming from them, that's a badge of honor.

How The Church Of Nice Determines Its Ideas And Agenda

I understand that Pope Francis chewed out the Curia royally, chiding them for their "fifteen diseases".  His ire is misdirected.  He should be aiming his big guns at the Pontifical Council for Culture for spewing forth the following plop production - unless - (God forbid) he approved the promulgation of this trash.  Its alleged purpose?  To garner input from women

Well, Your Holiness, listen to this woman (me)!  If you really think any woman with two syncopated brain neurons will swoon over this clip and mindlessly obey its babbling, you are hopelessly out of touch with reality!  At best, I find this clip to be laughable.

What truly is lamentable is that this appears to be a serious attempt to garner input for a meeting of bishops scheduled for February 2015.  Has all the Vatican establishment become so cowed by the feminazis that they feel they must debase themselves by putting the name of the Pontifical Council to this slop?  Supposedly this is produced by the Church, but not once is the word "God" mentioned.  Should it not be God's will, discerned by prayer, that determines agendas for meetings?  If this is what the bishops need for input, I shudder to think of what the output will be.

Here's a fun game!  As you watch this banal clip, how many of the "fifteen diseases of the Curia" can you detect in it?  Let us all know via the comments!

(HT - Creative Minority Report)

CCHD - Blood Of Police Officers On Its Hands?

Michael Hichborn of Lepanto Institute illustrates how a New York based community-organizing outfit was in the thick of the various New York protests, acting as agitators.  This bunch is the Northwest Bronx Community and Clergy Coalition.  This year it received $35,000.00 from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD).

Please read the Lepanto article for further details.  When the next CCHD shakedown collection looms near, we will remind you of the misuse of Catholic donations.  Then we'll say #no2cchd.

Cuban Refuge: I Am A Catholic Without A Pope

A few days ago I commented about the US-Cuban disaster that was brokered in part by Pope Francis.  Some of that deal's most vociferous opponents are Cuban refuges.  A Cuban gentleman in Florida, who was a political prisoner of the Castro regime for 16 years reacted to the deal by stating "I'm Still  Catholic till the day I die, but I am a Catholic without a pope."

Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski chided these Catholics by saying "you can't build a future on top of resentments."  May I suggest that those Catholics whose concerns are dismissed by this bishop are not so much resentful, but knowledgeable?  They know the evils of which the Castros are capable for they have lived through it.

Would someone please point me to one single concession for human rights to which the Castros agreed as part of this shyster deal?  All I see is opportunities for some American businesses - with US money lining the pockets of the slave-drivers over there.  The only thing I see being fostered is the enrichment of the communist thugs.

That this pope helped foster this dismal arrangement is a disgrace and a slap in the face to the Cubans who suffer and continue to suffer because of socialism and communism.

Common Core Shilling For Islam

Dianne Lynn Savage is a citizen of North Carolina, who learned of Islamic propaganda at a public school there.  Listen very carefully to the video.  This propaganda is done as part of a Common Core curriculum.  A few more details are here.

Parents!  Taxpayers!  Are you paying attention?  If so, and this pig slop is occurring with your tax dollars, are you taking action?  As Mrs Savage eloquently states, we have a moral obligation to do so.

Stench Of Corinth In St Peter's Square

Three days ago Pope Francis celebrated his 78th birthday.  Regrettably the celebration featured an immoral dance, the tango, which was expressly condemned by Pope St Pius X in 1914.  On Pius' behalf, the Vicar General of Rome wrote "The tango, which has already been condemned by illustrious Bishops and is prohibited even in Protestant countries, must be absolutely prohibited in the see of the Roman Pontiff, the centre of the Catholic religion."

I post two videos below the jump break.  One gives more details behind the prohibition of the tango.  It also shows a Mass in 2008, celebrated by then Cardinal Bergoglio, when the tango was danced in front of the altar, as part of the "thanksgiving".  Boys and girls, can we say "sacrilege"?

The other shows the debauched dance being performed in St. Peter's Square three days ago, with the approval of Pope Francis.  Can it be that he was simply unaware of the condemnation by his sainted predecessor?  I hope I'm wrong but I highly doubt it.

Sidewalk Counselors Speaking The Truth In New Jersey

Apparently this video was produced earlier today, in front of an abortuary in Cherry Hill, NJ.  Listen to the words of this sidewalk counselor.  How are you and/or your church living up to your responsibilities to speak up for the innocent babies?  If ever there was an authentic "social justice" issue, this is it.

Pope Francis And Obama Bow Before Fidel And Raul Castro

Many have learned that the Messiah Most Miserable made moves to "normalize" relations with Cuba, with ostensible "assistance" from the Holy Father.  In reality, both men only served to ensconce the murderous Castro dynasty even deeper in Cuba, thus solidifying the de facto slave status of the Cuban people.

I link to a number of links to explain why this action is nothing short of a disaster (nothing new for either Obama or Pope Francis).  Lee Edwards explained in his piece why our embargo against Cuba was established in the first place.  The Acton Institute delved a bit into the pope's role in facilitating discussions between Obama and Raul Castro.

Senator Marco Rubio, himself of Cuban descent, gave an interview with Mark Levin.  He explains how the US garnered nothing from this exchange while the Castro regime will only be enriched by it, leaving little for the Cuban people.  Cuba has been a base from which Communist regimes took hold in Latin America (some were subsequently evicted).  Our current pope has demonstrated socialist leanings.  Might there be a link?  Either that or he's simply bereft of any common sense regarding the nature of atheistic communism.

Mainstream Catholic Media - Their Sinful Disregard For The Truth

Last year Greta Van Suserten interviewed Sarah Palin.  Both agreed that the mainstream media had become partners of the Obamanistas by covering up their dangerous derelictions of duty.  I'll post the video and below that, I have some words for the Catholic mainstream media.



What these ladies said goes double for the Catholic mainstream media.  By that, I mean the Catholic News Service (arm of the USCCB), all the diocesan media outlets (our own Catholic Standard leads the pack in mediocrity).  I regret that I must add EWTN to that group; were Mother Angelica of decent health, I'm sure EWTN would never have devolved into a "church of nice" brown-nosing outfit.

I started this blog because the Catholic Standard would not address real issues facing Catholics.  Most notably at the time, they wouldn't address the terrible disobedience to Canon 915 that was demonstrated by Cardinal McCarrick, then Archbishop of Washington.  Until that time, the Standard at least had a "letters to the editor" section.  At that time, the section was permanently discontinued.

Then, of course, there was the incident two Lents ago, at my own Church, when a priest at my parish actually obeyed Canon 915 and was promptly thrown under the bus for it.  Remember Father Marcel Guarnizo?  The incident made international news.  Not one peep was mentioned in the Standard, nor was it mentioned in Our Parish Times, published by the Catholic Businessmen's Network.  That is nothing short of dishonesty by omission, and a complete disregard for standards of journalism.

So if the "lamestream media" (to coin Palin's term) won't do their job, it's up to us -the laity to do it for them.  Hence the existence of this blog and many others (some on the right tool bar).  That is one of the points made in yesterday's Vortex.  We need to be talking about these matters.  We need to shine the light on cockroaches and to do so relentlessly.  We are the Church Militant, not the Church Mellow nor the Church Milquetoast nor the Church Meelymouth.

Ora et labora!

The Language of Ka-Ching!

In today's Vortex, Michael Voris urges that we withhold donations from parishes that are progressive and heretical in their direction.  I might add, from my own situation, that it may also be necessary to deny donations to errant dioceses.  I do not contribute to any diocesan collection - certainly not the Cardinal's Appeal.  Instead, reroute your donation dollars to those organizations that are truly Catholic and orthodox.

Do let your pastor/bishop, etc know precisely why they lack your money and that they can remedy the situation by a new-found dedication to the Church and fidelity to their Holy Orders.  Also please network with other like-minded Catholics in your locality and take actions in an organized fashion.  It's time we stand up and speak out.

Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae

In 1899, Pope Leo XIII wrote a letter to James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore.  It's entitled Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae.  In it we see that the current push to accommodate Church teaching to secular culture goes back at least 115 years.  In the fourth paragraph down, we see that Pope Leo addresses that quite directly - and rightly condemns it.

What do we see coming from the sin-nod?  What did we see in that pathetic homily, when Pope Francis scoffed at disciplines instituted by his predecessors?  Besides the blasphemy therein, we saw evidence of trying to "make the Church relevant to the culture".  No!  We must conform the culture to Jesus Christ and His Church.  We will be hated for it, but that is how Jesus Himself was treated.  We can expect no different treatment for ourselves.

Let's stop coddling the culture and get going.

Did The Pope Blaspheme During Yesterday's Homily?

When I wrote yesterday about the Pope's homily and mentioned the banana-peel quip, I completely overlooked the real horror of what he said.  I thank other bloggers, namely "That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill", for opening my eyes.  I said then that I failed to see how a banana peel would be linked to someone realizing they were a sinner; now I realize that the banana peel was used as a metaphor for temptation to sin.

Here's the original quote: "But Lord, throw a banana peel in front of them, so that they will take a good fall, and feel shame that they are sinners, and so encounter You, [and realize] that You are the Saviour. Many times a sin will make us feel shame, and make us encounter the Lord, Who pardons us, as the sick who were there and went to the Lord for healing."

Leaving aside the obvious lack of charity and respect that the pope exhibits towards faithful, devout, pious Catholics, let's consider some other fundamental points:

• Our Lord may allow us to sin, because we have free will and He honors that which He gave to us.
• Our Lord also allows us to sin, but He will never directly will us to sin for (this is important!) He cannot directly will evil to occur.  It is against His perfect, sinless nature to do so.
• Our Lord will never tempt us to sin.  If a person deliberately tempts one to sin (throwing the proverbial banana peel) that action would itself be sin - probably mortal, for its deliberation and malice towards the one being tempted.
• The pope alleges a final purpose in causing the banana-peel target to "encounter the Lord", but as he should well know, the ends never justifies an inherently immoral means.  To deliberately tempt someone to sin is always immoral.
• In his supposed "prayer", the pope is asking God to commit sin Himself.  This is not prayer - it is nothing short of BLASPHEMY.

Catholic Encyclopedia gives an excellent treatment of blasphemy.  I think that what the Pope did yesterday is to engage in the heretical form of blasphemy.

I am reminded of a conversation that occurred between King St Louis IX of France and his holy mother, Queen Blanche.  She said to him that "I'd rather see you dead at my feet than guilty of one mortal sin".  Do we dare doubt that Our Lord's abhorrence of sin is less than Blanche's?

I am stunned.  This isn't a mere gaffe.  I said yesterday that I think this homily is part of a campaign to get us to accept, or at least be indifferent to, the reception of Holy Communion by those living in mortal sin.  But now I realize that he is presenting a distorted image of God Himself.  But come to think of it, he is the Vicar of Christ who has been doing that for some time: the clown noses, the beach balls on the altars, the discarding of papal traditions.  I never dreamed it would come to this, but now he's painting a horrible picture of God Himself - at least he did so yesterday. I pray we don't see future episodes from the Vicar of Christ.

Let's double down on our Rosaries (I hope that doesn't sound too pelagian) for our poor Mother Church needs them.

From The Maturation Department - Prior Eucharistic Disciplines Were "A Heavy Cross"

In his interview with La Nacion, the one in which he said he was blessed with a "healthy state of unawareness", he claimed that "I'm permanently making statements, giving homilies; that's teaching".  I concur with Pat Archibald at Creative Minority Report that he intends these words to be considered part of his personal magisterium.

With that in mind, I think we need to look seriously at the homily he gave today.  He stated that observances of law and discipline are signs of a "weak heart" (please note I corrected the spelling of "weak").  I'm appalled that as an example he used a prior discipline of a Eucharistic fast, going so far as to call it a "very heavy cross".  He credits Pope Pius XII for amending the discipline.  But..does that mean he thinks that the previous popes, from Pius XI on back, were just a bunch of Pharisaical meanies for instituting the fast in the first place?

After he complains about the inconvenience of the fast, he goes back into a tirade against "rigid" (or is that neo-pelagian?) folks.  He "confesses" that he asks the Lord to (I'm not making this up!) "throw a banana peal in front of them".  I see little repentance, to be frank, for wishing harm to people with whom he disagrees.  I fail to see how slipping on a banana peal is supposed to make people realize they're sinners; perhaps some good old-fashioned "rigid" proselytizing might do the trick.

But let's look at what's being slipped into the discussion and perhaps our thinking.  He's using as an example a discipline regarding the reception of Holy Communion.  Is he trying to instill questioning mindsets about other Eucharistic disciplines and even dogmas?  What happened six weeks ago?  The Sin-Nod!  What was put into the final relatio despite the vote of the attending bishops?  We see in the Italian translation of the preliminary questionnaire some discussion about distribution of Holy Communion to divorced/remarried Catholics who, by definition, are living in the mortal sin of adultery.

What happened today was no unintentional gaffe.  When he says he's "teaching" I believe him.  It's part of the brainwashing "maturation" process to lull us into accepting "pastoral solutions" to icky "rigid" doctrines.  That's why every word of his must be measured carefully.

Mass Is Not A Proper Venue To Celebrate Ethnicity

At my church this past Friday, I attended an evening Mass that commemorated the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe.  Unfortunately that's not all that was celebrated.  The Mass seemed to be about being Mexican as much as anything else.  Celebrations of ethnic heritages might be good in and of themselves, but not during Mass.  The main harm in this case is that the message of Our Lady of Guadalupe was diluted by considerations that were, at best, ancillary.  Somehow I cannot think of Saint Juan Diego attending anything with mariachi music; in fact that genre of music was not contrived at the time.

Far better for these sorts of Masses to simply focus on the saint or event at hand rather than introduce ethnic celebrations within it.  Else the real spiritual meaning is lost in all the extraneous clutter.  Another feast day that suffers similar abuse is St. Patrick's Day.  How the feast day of the apostle to Ireland get sidelined by people dressing as leprechauns, dying food and hair green and even drunken carousing is  beyond me - and I'm of Irish descent.

At the Mass this past Friday, the congregation was devout.  Whether or not the mariachi lyrics were helpful I could not tell as I don't speak Spanish (it was overly loud, though).  What I hope we never see again is the de facto night-club performance that disgraced St. Peter's Basilica, with Pope Francis as the main celebrant.  Catholic Family News has a full analysis on that and I'd suggest you read it.  I've no doubt that St. Juan Diego spun in his grave as this performance unfolded.

No, Virginia. Fido And Felix Will Not Go To Heaven

Stories are scurrying around the internet claiming that the Pope says pets will go to heaven.  I'm glad to relate that he said no such thing.  Sentimental hopes to the contrary, animals are not created in God's image and likeness.  Eternal life has never been promised by Tradition or Scripture to them; their souls do not survive death.

Ladies and gentlemen, may we please leave this silly speculation in the trash can?  Let's concentrate on the salvation of people - human beings.  It is for these - us - that Jesus Christ became incarnate and died upon the Cross to save.

Another Troubling Homily From The Pope

Two days ago in his daily homily, Pope Francis made some incredible statements that I think may actually be quite dangerous to those vulnerable to discouragement and depression.  From the Catholic News Agency we read, for example:

• "If, in your relationship with the Lord, you do not feel that He loves you tenderly, you are missing something, you still have not understood what grace is, you have not yet received grace which is this closeness."
• “In history and also in our lives we are tempted to transform grace into a kind of a merchandise, perhaps saying to ourselves something like, ‘I have so much grace,’ or, ‘I have a clean soul, I am graced.’"

There's so much wrong with this I scarcely know where to begin.  But let's start with the word "feel".  There's a difference between "feel" and "believe".  Feeling has to do with emotions, and we know that they aren't entirely under our control at times, thanks to original sin.  Believing, on the other hand, is an act of the will.  The Church teaches that our souls are made in God's image and likeness owing to our intellects and wills, with no mention of emotions.  I'm no philosophical expert, but I believe emotions or feelings are a lower faculty of the human nature and they must be brought into control by acts of wills.  It might be nice from time to time to have favorable feelings regarding our relationship with God; I think these are called "consolations".  However, by no means are their presence or absence any accurate indication of grace in our lives or how close we truly are to God.

Recently it was revealed that Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, after she had understood her call to found the Missionaries of Charity, never again experienced any of these consolations.  She confided this matter only to her spiritual directors.  It was a cross for her, true, but who in their right mind would say she was not "receiving grace"?

Earlier saints experienced similar things.  St. John of the Cross is said to have gone a while without such consolation.  He learned much from it and I believe that was the topic of his work, "Dark Night of the Soul".  His friend, St Teresa of Avila, was once thrown from her horse.  Being a "straight-shooting" talker, she complained to God "if this is how you treat your friends, no wonder you have so few of them."  In the Bible, particularly the Book of Hebrews, we read of the necessity of God's discipline as opposed to consolations.  The lack of feelings can itself be a grace that causes us to love and serve God for who He is, as opposed to the warm-fuzzies that we might enjoy.

The second "bullet" hearkens back to some cracks the Holy Father made last year about traditional Catholics being "pelagian".  I saw his definition of "pelagian" and I'll gladly bear that newly-defined label.  I go to confession every 2-3 weeks.  When I walk out of that confessional, I do say "I have a clean soul, I am graced."  I say that not because I "count merchandise" but because that is what Jesus Christ, through His Church, teaches.  Should I not acknowledge the graces that He procured for me by His Passion, Death and Resurrection?  It is the same thing when I attend Mass and receive Holy Communion.  With that I do say "I have so much grace".  Not to do so would render me an ingrate.

I said in the opening of this post that I believe those words from Thursday to be dangerous to those who are prone to discouragement and even depression.  That is because they suffer from maladies of the emotions.  Were they to rely on their fragile emotions as measures for God's grace and love, as suggested by the words of His Holiness, they would be setting themselves up for spiritual disaster.  Can you just imagine someone, after a life of sin, coming back to the Church and hearing that?  They need to rely on the facts of God's teachings.  If that person goes to Confession and, with all the effort he/she can muster renders a truly honest accounting of their sins, they need to rely on the truth of the priest's absolution that they are once again in a state of grace despite any roller-coaster to which their emotions may be subjecting them.

Our feelings are way too fickle to be any measure of God's love in our lives.  I thank Him for the Sacraments and Traditions of the Church for these are the transmission of God's grace in our lives.

Why Pax Christi Is A Pox

(HT - Pewsitter)

The Not-At-All Catholic Reporter interviewed Rosemarie Pace, director of Pax Christi of Metropolitan New York.  In the interview she let loose with her heretical notions of Who God is (halfway down the article).  When asked how her image of God has changed and why, she answers, "Another way I conceive of God is Spirit, more than Father/Mother or Son/Daughter...I used to think of God as more of a person to whom to turn with requests and praise and thanks..Praying to God as if God were a separate entity is a fallacy.."

As you were reading it, didn't "may the force be with you" sound in your mind?  She is basically saying that God is not a Person, but rather some pantheistic energy field (for lack of better term).

Let's go to the Baltimore Catechism to answer the question, "Who is God?"  Answer: "God is the Supreme Being, infintely perfect, who made all things and keeps them in existence".  We also know (from questions 25-30 of the Baltimore Catechism) that there are three distinct Persons in God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  I won't go into a whole lesson here.  Suffice it to say that Pace is flat out wrong when she opines that God is not a "separate entity" but rather some force or energy that has been mishmashed into creation.  Such is the warped spirituality of a Pax Christi official.

Further down, when asked what distresses her about contemporary Catholicism, she replies, "Unfortunately, the Catholic church is known worldwide for its positions on sexual matters like abortion, contraception, same-sex marriage, and the child abuse scandal. It's not known nearly as well for its far more important mission-related positions on war and peace, torture, nuclear weapons, death penalty, immigration, poverty, climate change, and so forth, what we know as Catholic social teaching."

In terms of the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in Church tradition, she has things precisely ass-backwards.  She dares to insinuate that the progressive talking points are "far more important mission-related positions" than is opposition to the slaughter of millions of pre-born children or the abuse of our procreative powers.  Her priorities - and those of Pax Christi - are completely backwards if not antithetical to true Christian charity.

Now go back to the beginning of the article, when she is asked about challenges facing Pax Christi, she replies (in part), "Because we're Catholic, there are those who have a preconceived notion about us. They may expect us to be focused on issues that are too conservative.."

?!?!?!?!!

Eeeek.  The horror.  To be considered "too conservative".  Well, I'd like Ms. Pace to rest assured that most thinking individuals don't believe that Pax Christi is conservative to any degree.  Considering the interview, especially the points I outlined above, some of us doubt its claim to be Catholic.

Looks Like All Hell Will Break Loose At The Next Synod

About 2-3 weeks ago, I put up a post in which Cardinal Burke publicly asked the Holy Father not to allow long-settled matters such as the sinfulness of homosexuality and remarriage of divorced people to be fodder of pointless debates.  Debates about these matters are pointless for Our Lord has made known His mind about these quite unmistakably throughout the years.  Cardinal Burke also suggested that we all petition the Holy Father along these lines.  Sadly wise words have fallen on deaf ears.

Sandro Magister of www.chiesa.espressonline.net advised that the preliminary questionnaire for the October 2015 synod was released; for now it's only in Italian.  The questions within it give clear indication that those matters will indeed be on the table for the October synod.

In an interview given to La Nacion yesterday, the Holy Father expressed some unfortunate sentiments regarding Holy Communion for those living in adultery - sentiments that bode ill for the October synod.  I quote one below for commentary.  "In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution.  The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptised, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give Communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact. Thus, let us open the doors a bit more.”

"What doors can we allow them to open?"  Answer - the door to the confessional, with a proper desire to quit the sinful relationship as befits authentic repentance.  Divorcees who have remarried without a declaration of nullity of their first marriages are by definition living in a state of adultery.  That is mortal sin, a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment.  For their own good they are prohibited from Holy Communion and from all prominent places of service to the Church.

What I stated in the paragraph preceding this is nothing more than Church teaching for these past hundreds of years.  Once upon a time every child who attended Catholic school was well-versed in these matters.  So why, oh why, are the perennial teachings of Holy Mother Church allowed to be debated, doubted and questioned by the very prelates who are tasked by Our Lord with their protection and promulgation?

As I said, I believe all hell will break loose at the synod.  I don't mean "hell" in terms of strenuous argument but in terms of spiritually deadly heresies being insinuated into the proceedings by those from the highest offices of the Vatican.  If that's the case, we'd better pray that more like Cardinals Burke and Pell will raise their voices and, if necessary, pound their fists on tables in defense of the truth.

Pope Francis Basking In Unawareness?

HT to my friend Carol at Tenth Crusade.  I do have some commentary on yet another revelatory "spontaneous interview".  I do not understand just what in hell would constitute "a healthy dose of unawareness".  This sounds like willful ignorance: a sinful self-inflicted condition.  If any parent were to say that when commenting about the condition of family members, we'd understandably consider them to be uncaring, negligent idiots.  It's their God-given duty to be aware of the status of those in their charges.  How do they plan to answer to God for this "unawareness" at their particular judgments?  Will they have the audacity to blame God, claiming He gave them the "unawareness"?  What we'd say for those ditz-brains of parents might well be ascribed to the pope, if what was quoted is accurate.  I hope there's a clarification of this whopper, but I won't be holding my breath.

Perhaps, though, the "unawareness" might be similar to what we see below.

Interview With Cardinal Burke - In Two Parts

Thanks to Una Voce Austria and Gloria.tv

Part 1

Post by Una Voce Austria.

Part 2

Post by Una Voce Austria.

Keep Speaking The Truth - Even If You're Tired Of Doing So

As you read this, you may rest assured that I speak to myself as well as you.

I won't say too much on this matter for Mundabor has already spoken well of this topic.  Some are becoming discouraged from speaking the truth, particularly about the pope, for they believe they are accomplishing nothing.  The person to whom Mundabor refers is one such individual.  While folks understand the problems coming from the Vatican, they are allowing themselves to become jaded and to retreat in silence.  With all due respect, this is unacceptable.

I will echo Mundabor's exhortation not to abandon the public forum - be they in your social/work circles or on social media.  Your comments do matter!  It is well worth the effort to type your thoughts into the com-boxes!  If you have forsaken social media (such as facebook, twitter, etc) as tools for proclaiming the truth of Jesus and His Holy Roman Catholic Church, return post haste!

Swiss Guard Firing - More To This Than Meets The Eye?

I wrote yesterday about the firing of the current Swiss Guard Commandant.  There were allegations that Anrig was too "rigid" and "militaristic".  Egads!  A soldier acting like a soldier!  We can't have any of that going on now, can we?

My fellow bloggers are to be commended for looking deeper into this situation than I did.  There may be something more sinister driving this firing decision than a mere personality clash.  Rorate Caeli puts forth a belief that the Swiss Guard, under Anrig, has been crimping the style of the gay network that is firmly ensconced within the Vatican.  Mundabor voices similar theories and opines that the Swiss Guard was putting the kibosh on nighttime frolicking by the gays who occupy the same hotel in which the Pope's resides. I agree with my friend at Tenth Crusade that for all the kvetching that the Holy Father has done regarding the plight of the workingman, that this was an odd way to treat one of his own employees.

Let us keep the Holy Father in prayer.  Let us also, for the sake of Holy Mother Church, never stop shining the light on misdeeds in the Vatican.

We Are The Church Militant - NOT The Church Mellow

I learned from the Telegraph today that the Holy Father has dismissed Daniel Anrig from his post as commandant of the Swiss Guard, a position he held for five years.  The Pope announced this in a one-sentence press release.  While there were no specific reasons given, the Holy Father is said to want the Guard to be "less rigid" in its rules and even "less military".  Given recent patterns of behavior, I find these theories to be most plausible.

I'll be frank.  This is just one more instance of him thumbing his nose at customs and protocols that have been a part of the papacy for hundreds of years.  They may seem like minor matters (such as the slippers and apartments), but minor gaffes often turn into bigger gaffes (and they have).  However, let's look at the Swiss Guard, shall we?  By definition, they are soldiers.  While there is much ceremonial significance to their roles, they do have military training.  Their duties require military demeanor.  Anrig is being sacked because he takes seriously his role to protect the pope.  I understand his successor has been chosen and I mean the following to reflect at all upon this gentleman, who I understand is also a Swiss Guard.  Does the pope think that a troupe of "pajama boy bubbas" will be adequate for the security that his role requires?  What does he think he's leaving for his successors?

For me, the Swiss Guard is a reminder that we are the Church Militant - a term that has been in use for hundreds of years.  St Paul spoke of the Church in military language.  Many of the early converts were Roman soldiers.  Only in the past fifty-sixty years has the "flower power" mental poison corroded the thinking of church leaders.  The former Cardinal Bergoglio would be among that generation of clergy most befuddled by that kool-aid.

Other manifestations of the "church mellow" (also known as Church of Nice) thinking were occasioned by the pope's recent trip to Turkey.  It was bad enough that he prayed in a heathen temple, but upon his return, he told reporters that "islam is a religion of peace" and "the koran is a book of peace".  These statements are not only a denial of the truth of islam, but are a slur on the memories of those who've been, and continue to be, butchered by muslims precisely because they are Christians.  I link now to an article - with a video showing the "religion of peace" in action.  WARNING - it is a video of a beheading; that is why I will not post it here.  Please be of strong stomach and keep children away.  I link to it only to dispel the dangerous notion that "islam is a religion of peace".  Nothing could be more untrue.  Pope Francis - and Cardinal McCarrick - will you now wake up?  We need real men - not aging hippies - to stand up for Christ!

Speaking of real men, please watch the Vortex below to understand how some church leaders are systematically discouraging authentic Catholic masculinity - such as displayed by Anrig.

New Chicago Archbishop - A Harbinger Of Disaster For The Church

In many ways, the Church hierarchy in the United States was already a mess, with liberals occupying the Sees of key dioceses.  By appointment of Pope Francis, one more such individual, Bishop Blaise Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago to replace the ailing Cardinal George.  Many of us recalled his abysmal wafflings in not standing for true morality.  I wrote over the years about his derelictions, including the forbidding of his priests' participation in the 40 Days for Life campaign and being one of the cowardly bishops who refused to protest Obama's appearance at Notre Dame in 2009.

It didn't take him long to get started on his progressive rampage.  He apparently wasn't pleased that more women weren't involved in his installation Mass and made quite plain that he wants more women involved in "leadership".  Well that should just inspire more priestly vocations (yes, that is sarcastic)!

This past Sunday on Face The Nation, Cupich said of pro-abortion Catholics receiving Holy Communion that "the grace would be instrumental in bringing them to the truth".  What grace?  Is not Holy Communion a Sacrament of the Living?  I'm no moral theologian, but it seems that no grace could accrue to someone in a state of mortal sin until that sin is properly confessed in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  Otherwise, instead of grace comes the guilt of the sin of sacrilege.

Two other things that he said during that interview are, to be frank, whoppers.  First he stated that "I would not use the Eucharist, or as they call it 'the Communion rail', as a place to have those discussions in which people should be excluded from the life of the church."  This language has a very familiar ring to it!  Go back five years.  When Cardinal Wuerl was asked about denying Holy Communion to Nancy Pelosi, he said he wouldn't because the Church "doesn't use communion as a weapon".  My!  They do have those talking points down pat, don't they?

Then Cupich said that "the Eucharist is an opportunity of grace and conversion; it's also a time of forgiveness of sins".  It sure does sound like His Excellency is getting some sacraments confused with one another.  The "time of forgiveness of sins" particularly mortal sins (as is the support of abortion), is within the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  It is that authentic forgiveness of sin (requiring real repentance, by the way) that is necessary to receive Holy Communion worthily.  Else what you have is an occasion of the mortal sin of sacrilege.  Period.

Last week I observed that the USCCB and many bishops seem to have forgotten that their first job as bishops is to save souls.  Read this post, particularly the first paragraph that quotes the Baltimore Catechism on this matter.  It seems that not only has Bishop Cupich forgotten that basic truth, especially with regards to so-called "immigration reform" but he even had the unmitigated audacity to declare that "immigration reform", as defined by progressives, is God's agenda!  In his nonsensical statement, he says that "God has called us to a better life".  What defines this "better life"?  A life lived for God, marked by obedience to His laws, prayer, reception of the sacraments - or merely a more advantaged life?  The two aren't necessarily opposed to each other, but neither are they equivalent to each other.  It seems His Excellency doesn't get it.

Under this current pontificate, must we dread similar episcopal appointments in the future?

"Social Justice" = Spiritual And Societal Suicide

The video below is a good synopsis on the gobblygook currently called "social justice" by many progressives, including those in the USCCB, state Catholic conferences and many diocesan offices.  As you watch and learn how the progressives work for larger governmental control of "redistribution" please recall yesterday's post detailing why progressives tend to be atheists.   Now recall last week how Pope Francis complained to the UN last week, stating there needs to be "a fairer distribution of food" throughout the world.  Well, just who does the Holy Father propose to do all this "distributing"?

From Ecumenical News we read this rather revealing account.  The Pope is quoted as saying, "I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: 'Not to share one's goods with the poor is to rob them and deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs'."

(Quoting Ecumenical News) "Pope Francis said the economic imbalance is due to ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and take control away from States, which he said are charged with providing for the common good."

Take control from the states?!!?   If the states have that kind of control, they are socialistic.   Has the Holy Father studied the history of socialism and communism?  Does he not have any idea why all his predecessors condemned socialism?

Since the Holy Father is fond of the words of Saint John Chrysostom, perhaps he should ponder these words of the Church Father also: "Should we look to kings and princes to put right the inequalities between rich and poor? Should we require soldiers to come and seize the rich person’s gold and distribute it among his destitute neighbors? Should we beg the emperor to impose a tax on the rich so great that it reduces them to the level of the poor and then to share the proceeds of that tax among everyone? Equality imposed by force would achieve nothing, and do much harm."

Perhaps the greater evil would that such petition would elevate the "kings and princes" to the role proper only to God, thus reinforcing atheists in their mortally sinful disregard of the One True God.

And now, the video.

CCHD Currently Funding A Planned Parenthood Partner

Here is Reason # 5,289 why no Catholic should ever donate one penny to CCHD.  It may well go towards aiding and abetting Planned Parenthood.

The Lepanto Institute, under the leadership of Michael Hichborn, has discovered that the CCHD is granting money to the Cleghorn Neighborhood Center, a Massachusetts-based "community-organizing" outfit.  On its Title X grant application, Planned Parenthood listed Cleghorn as a "community partner" - a partner that has referred young people to Planned Parenthood for "services" - including contraceptives and abortions.  I need not rehash the Lepanto report; please read for yourselves.

"But that's Massachusetts!  What does that have to do with our CCHD collection across the country?" you might ask.  Bear in mind that 75% of all collections are earmarked for the national CCHD office; only 25% of the collections are permitted to remain for local grants.  That means that the bulk of your donations are at the disposal of Ralph McCloud and company - should you choose to donate.  Please don't.