FWIW - Thoughts On 2016 And 2017

In a few hours 2016 will end and 2017 will begin.  On a personal note 2016 has been somewhat difficult owing to two family deaths, one of them immediate.   With regards to Catholic and national life, it's a mixed bag from my perspective.

Of course Our Lord has promised that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church.  But think about the words of that promise, for Our Lord chooses His words precisely and words have precise meanings.  When we talk about the gates of any institution not prevailing, doesn't that refer to that institution being under seige?  In this case, wouldn't the Church then be the attacking army?  Let's be very blunt about this, shall we?  At this time, the Church is taking no proactive stand against any real evil whatsoever.  I'm speaking primarily of the institutional Church, starting with Pope Francis himself for he constantly displays his divergence from the true mission of the Church to save souls.  Instead of having the salvation of souls and fidelity to the magisterium at the forefront of its actions and very existence, the institutional church, under the deliberate impetus from this pope, not only cowers before the gates of hell but in some cases (Amoris Laetitia being only the latest example) seems to be reinforcing the gates of hell.

There are pockets of faithful Catholics who are striving to keep the faith alive.  By God's grace we are finding each other and are learning to work together to counteract at least some of the mischief that emanates from the Vatican.  Within the past few weeks four faithful prelates promulgated the dubia to correct errors being caused by Amoris Laetitia, and more are rallying with them.   Unless the pope issues an appropriate response to the dubia, a formal correction to the errors of Amoris Laetitia will be issued.  In that we rejoice and pray for while correction seems to be forthcoming, it won't come without considerable angst.  In the meantime we bloggers will keep writing in the hopes of waking up fellow Catholics.  In the midst of this travail, I'm stunned by how many Catholics are oblivious to the sorry state of the Church at large.  While some of the blame can be laid at the feet of the official Catholic news outlets, the great bulk of it lies with the Catholics in the pews themselves.  Most have internet access.  With real information just a few mouse clicks away, there's simply no excuse for ignorance.

On the national front, 2017 promises to be much better than the past eight years.  During the first few days of November there was much apprehension regarding the real possibility of a Hillary presidency.  Many prayers, many rosaries were offered for the outcome of the election.  God displayed His mercy in sparing us the scourge of four more years of a quasi-socialistic dictatorship.  That's not to say that Trump will be perfect, but let's face it; Bozo the Clown would have been preferred over Hillary.  Trump's election is not so much a cure as it is a reprieve.  We now have some breathing room, some time, in which to work.  We must pray, fast, work, educate our fellow Americans regarding our heritage.  Catholics in particular must work to learn the Faith ourselves and to bring Christ's teachings into the public square.

2017 can be an opportunity to bring western civilization back from the precipace.  The question now is whether or not we will avail ourselves properly of that opportunity or squander it.

In The Wake Of Celebrity Deaths, Some Catholics Forget The Faith

At this time of the year (end) we start seeing litanies of well-known personalities who have passed to their eternal rewards.  This year is no different.  What truly befuddles me, though, is how otherwise intelligent Catholics join in on the wailing and gnashing of teeth.  It is one thing to pray for their eternal repose, as we would pray for the souls of all who departed this life in 2016 (and earlier).  But why is more attention paid to these "famous" people that others - including those who were part of our own lives?

Even more baffling is the tone taken by otherwise faithful Catholics as they join in this caterwalling.  Take, for example, the recent deaths of George Michael and Carrie Fisher.  When these Catholics mourn the passing of the musician Michael but don't utter a prayer that he repented of his sodomy before his end (he was gay, and died of AIDS), one can wonder what really occupies the minds of these Catholics.  In a facebook page I broached that topic and was mocked as being judgmental for doing so.  I could understand such a reaction from the page of a non-Christian, but find it troubling from a page of someone who is ostenstibly aiming for heaven and God.

Then, as a form of tribute to Carrie Fisher, other Catholics, instead of praying for her soul, type "may the force be with you"!   What??!?!  Since when do faithful Catholics ever let new age garbage out of their mouths - or keyboards as the case may be?  Are these Catholics suffering from a weird kind of schizophrenia?  Do they not allow Jesus Christ to guide how they view the "famous" as opposed to the "ordinary"?  Perhaps they should study closely the Letter of James; he had some things to say about toadying to the worldly well-placed.

Does anyone else find all this kvetching over these deaths bizarre?

Pope Francis Demonizing Faithful Catholics During His Christmas Address To The Curia

The pope's Christmas Greeting to the Roman Curia this year was singularly lacking of any semblance of Christmas cheer.  National Catholic Register has some commentary on the address, but at the bottom of that article is the full text of the pope's address.  He speaks of the "reform of the curia" and making it "conform to the signs of our time".  Shouldn't it be conforming to God's immutable will?

We then see how he talks of "malicious resistance" to this reform, and how he says this resistance "takes refuge in traditions, appearances, formalities".  He's taking pot-shots at those faithful Catholics who adhere to God's teachings, particularly on marriage and family, and I believe he's taking deliberate aim at the four cardinals who promulgated the dubia.  Then he calls for "unconditioned obedience" to this "reform".  Where is his call for unconditional obedience to Christ's teachings regarding marriage and worthiness to receive Holy Communion?

Perhaps his ire against the dubia cardinals, particularly Cardinal Burke, may be a motivation behind another recent action of the pope's.  Recall that Pope Francis named Cardinal Burke as patron of the Order of Malta after he ejected Burke from some Vatican posts.  It seems that a senior official of the Knights of Malta was involved in the distribution of condoms.  For that he was ejected from the order.  Lepanto Institute did a very thorough investigation into the matter and found ample evidence that this official was indeed involved in that very anti-life activity.  His ouster was entirely justified.

Now why, oh why, does Pope Francis find it necessary to create an entire commission to investigate the matter?  It seems rather simple to me; an official in a Catholic organization was caught in activities not becoming a Catholic.  He was ejected from his post as a result.  Granted, when other such scandals have been unearthed, it's only when public scrutiny occurs that the offending party is disciplined (and sometimes the offender is retained).  But Cardinal Burke is at the helm of the Order of Malta, and I think it's likely that he took immediate and proper action.  So why does the pope seek to meddle after the fact?  Is he that much of a micro-manager or is this just an excuse to take out some long knives against Cardinal Burke?

In an interview with Catholic World Report, Cardinal Burke pointed out that any pope who professes formal heresy would automatically cease to be pope.  In that article, Burke goes into the provisions in canon law for such a scenario.  He also voiced hope that the pope will answer the dubia, to allay possible schism.

Cardinal Walter Brandmuller, another of the four dubia cardinals, granted an interview to Der Spiegel.  He too was questioned about the dubia and its implications.  Brandmuller pointed out that "whoever thinks that persistent adultery and the reception of Holy Communion are compatible is a heretic and promotes schism.”  As we read the article, we are reminded that Pope Francis, in his letter to the Argentinian bishops, did make allowance for unrepentant adulterers to receive Holy Communion; in other words, Pope Francis gave approval for sins of sacrilege to occur.

Now consider both these interviews together.  On the one hand, Cardinal Brandmuller states that someone allowing for Holy Communion to be given to unrepentant adulterers is a heretic and promotes schism.  In that same article, Pope Francis is fulfilling that definition of "heretic" in his letter to the Argentinian bishops.  On the other hand, Cardinal Burke points out that a pope formally professes heresy automatically ceases to be pope.

Faithful Catholics, do we understand the gravity of the situation?  Depending on how Pope Francis treats the dubia, the Catholic Church might well find itself in schism.  If he states formally the heresy that those in public mortal sin can receive Holy Communion, it seems that he will have ejected himself from Peter's chair.  The Church might well find herself in schism.  As hard as it is to admit, schism would be far preferable than the Church being led into error.  As you read further down the LifeSiteNews piece, Pope Francis himself seems to understand that he could well divide the Church.

Vatican Vibrations?

Remember Father Lefty Goodvibes from almost seven years ago?  I'm wondering if he was called to the Vatican to offer his services there - perhaps as a shaman.  Now calm down!  Of course "Goodvibes" is a fictitious character.  I only wish some of the slop coming from the pope's mouth were just as imaginary.  Papolaters, if you think the term "slop" is overly harsh, what would you prefer I call the unabashed indifferentism and New Age glop that he uttered a few days ago?  Bovine excrement?

I'm referring to his recent letter to the mayor of Paris, who happens to be an atheist.  He asked her prayers, but if she is not inclined, to send him "positive waves".  Is this an example of the "new evangelism"?  To affirm someone in their sin against the First Commandment?  To appeal to New Age idolatry?

This serious lapse is not the first such episode. In June 2015 he asked a group of reporters to "send him good vibrations" if the "cannot pray because they aren't believers".   Why didn't he urge them to pray?  Did he have any concern for their souls?  Is he not the chief shepherd?  Our Lord had something to say about true shepherds versus hirelings.

Will prayerful Catholic songs soon be replaced by the following?  I regret that in this clip seems to sum up the pseudo-spirituality evinced by the pope's letter to the mayor.  Let's continue to pray our rosaries that Our Lord will once again be honored at the Vatican.

A Little Comedy In Light Of The Electoral Vote

Events Of Today Dec 19 2016

St. Januarius was a bishop who was martyred under the Roman emperor Diocletian.  Read here for the story of his martyrdom and the miracle that has been occurring with respect to his blood that was preserved as a relic.  The blood liquefies three times a year and has been doing so all along.  Only three times has it failed to liquefy and each of those times has been a foreboding of disaster.  One of the days the blood liquefies is December 19th.  Today it failed to do so.

Also of significance today is the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey.  The assassination was done quite openly by an off-duty Turkish police officer.  Obviously we don't know what the response of Putin will be.

We also heard today that Cardinal Burke and the other Cardinals will issue a formal correction of Amoris Laetitia soon after the completion of the Christmas season.  It makes sense to wait till then as to not distract from the truth of the Incarnation of Jesus.  His Eminence discussed this in an interview with LifeSiteNews.

Last but not least, today the Electoral College formally elected Donald Trump as the next President of the United States.  It will be a relief to have an adult in charge of the White House once again.  I suppose we'll next be hearing, from college towns where progressives reign, that there is a run on vital supplies such as diaper pins, crayons and play-dough.

Now consider that next October will be the 100th anniversary of the Fatima apparitions.  Many things do seem to be converging.  We must continue to pray for that all will repent and beg God for His mercy.

Papolatry - Deadly To The Church

Papolatry isn't a new word.  It has a formal definition; see the Oxford Dictionary.  The definition is "excessive reverence for the pope".  Our Lord promised one thing regarding the pope: that he would never solemnly proclaim error, that is, anything that contradicts the Deposit of Faith.  That's it.  As we all know, such a solemn proclamation must meet a stringent set of conditions.  The pope has free will.  Apart from such solemn declarations, he can wreak all kinds of havoc if he is so inclined.  A number of examples can be found in Church history.

This blog, and others, have been shining the light on various errors being promulgated by the Vatican and yes, by Pope Francis.  Others in high places share our concerns: hence the issuance of the dubia.  We have been pilloried and criticized for so doing; that reaction is certainly not unexpected.  Now some in the Vatican are enraged because they know the light is shining on their schemes, threatening their outcome.  The preceding post gives us a glimpse into the halls of the Vatican.

Others, though, particularly among faithful Catholics in the pews, are likewise outraged that their illusions of the papacy are being challenged.  Many hold to a dangerously simplistic concept of the papacy, believing that every utterance and deed of the sitting pope is beyond question.  They too rail against us, accusing us of "pope-bashing" and "causing division".  On Friday, I posted Cardinal Burke's latest interview where he answered that criticism as it was leveled at him and the other authors of the dubia.

I believe these Catholics, holding that the pope cannot be questioned, are falling into the error of papolatry.  That itself is its own sin, as the one guilty of it ascribes to the pope authority and power that never was granted to him by Jesus Christ and His Church.  Only Jesus (and His Mother) can be held to be completely free of error.   Not even the sainted popes were completely free of error.  Recall that the now-sainted John Paul II kissed a Koran.  Of course we read in Galatians how the first pope himself fell into such a grievous error that Paul had to publicly rebuke him.

A year or two ago, social media was full of these papolatrous individuals.  Their numbers have dropped as the accounts of this pope's verbal gafffes and misdeeds increase at an alarming rate.  I think many of them find that they cannot deny the incontrovertible truth that slaps us all in the face continually.

To those who persist, I beg you to wake up and remove the blinders from your eyes.  For all your accusations of us regarding "pope bashing" or even "not being true Catholics", I fear it is you who are falling into papolatry, a sin against the First Commandment.  You are placing yourselves in grave dangers; one of these dangers is that of being seriously disilusioned to the point of despair when the evidence becomes too great for even you to ignore.  Yes, the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church, but all must know and acknowledge where the problems are within the Church lest they become part of the problem.  Some of you papolaters are already part of the problem.  For your good and that of the Church, please cease and desist.

Reign Of Terror In The Vatican

Steve Jalsevac, one of the founders of LifeSiteNews, published yesterday a piece in which he details the horror that the Vatican has become under this pontificate.   He quotes from first-hand sources who must remain anonymous for obvious reasons.  I've heard similar stories about the climate at the DC chancery; as the case with Jalsevac, I'm not at liberty to divulge my sources.  I link to the article now and urge you to read it.  How anyone can continue to pretend that all is sweetness and light with this pontificate is beyond the comprehension of any sane person.

Cardinal Burke On EWTN Dec 15

In this interview with Raymond Arroyo that was released yesterday. Cardinal Burke answers his critics and restates the need for the dubia and for fidelity to the timeless teachings of Jesus Christ.

Priestly Formation Document - Its Sinister Context

With this post I'd like to delve more into the problematic guidelines for priestly formation that were recently released; see yesterday's post.  Some good people don't see the harm in what was said in the guidelines per se about concern for the environment.  As I said yesterday, I think it's necessary to look at them in the context of other proceedings from this papacy to date.  Together they paint a very ominous picture.

In addition to Laudato Si, many questionable statements were issued and deeds committed by the Vatican, many with the cooperation of anti-life forces.  Recall that last month the pope addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, calling for the creation of "a regulatory system that included inviolable limits and ensure the protection of ecosystems".  Will seminarians be brainwashed taught to shill for these "regulatory systems"?  Also recall how the pope waxed lyrical about the UN summit on climate change last year.  He, the Vicar of Christ, stated that the summit was "humanity's last chance to thwart climate disaster" and that the world is at "the limits of suicide".  Will seminarians be forced to parrot that crap?  Will they be forced to teach that "global warming is a sin" that must be "atoned" by recycling and carpooling?

Will they be forced to promote the Catholic Climate Covenant?  That was a bit of a fad a little while ago and may well make a comeback.  Let's look at the Catholic Climate Covenant in light of some very troubling facts unearthed and exposed by Michael Hichborn of Lepanto Institute.  Sarah Spengeman, Program Director of CCC, is a member of Emily's List.  That organization exists for the sole purpose of helping elect pro-abortion women to political offices.  The Lepanto page shows the online evidence.  Additionally, Spengeman's social sites show her to be sympathetic to women's ordination and homosexual perversity.

I bring up the matter of Sarah Spengeman for she is only one of the anti-God activists that new priests, thanks to that ill-considered "gift of the priestly vocation" thing, will be forced to promote (even if only indirectly).  They will also be forced to portray "climate change" as sin, thus obfuscating the true serious nature of sin.  In fact, the very acceptance of the notion of "climate change" as fact may be its own sin against honesty, for by no means is "climate change" settled science and it is outside the competency of Church hierarchy to pronounce it settled.  So it seems that our seminarians will be coerced into preaching a progressive agenda that has nothing to do with scientific truth, let alone the salvation of souls.

Problematic Guidelines For Priestly Formation

The Vatican released new guidelines regarding the education and formation of priests.  LifeSiteNews has a nice synopsis, and I now link to the full document "The Gift Of The Priestly Vocation" in pdf format.  It appears to be an update of previously issued guidelines that reflect the teachings of Pope Francis.  An immediate question that comes to mind is that any such guidelines should be reflective of the Teachings of Jesus Christ, which do not change for He Himself is immutable.

As does Mr. Bentz, I too take strong exception to the rather strange and perhaps harmful priorities that the pope seems to be urging for new priests.  If you have the document itself open, please go to page 71 and look at the second paragraph in section 172.  The new priests are expected to promote "climate change" junk science from the pulpits.  While the phrase "climate change" is not specifically mentioned in this document, the reference is clear.  To what else would "emerging planetary crisis" be referring?  And who are these "experts and researchers"?  Well, let's take a look at Laudato Si itself and some of the "research" that occurred.  They include "luminaries" such as Jeffrey Sachs, Hans Schnellnhuber, Naomi Klein, etc - progressives who just happen to be advocates of "population control".  Now is the priest being asked to promote population control?  Not directly, but by what he'll be ordered to do, he will insinuate "population control" sympathies to his congregation, even if he's doing so unwittingly.

We also have to note what is not being said in that document, especially in the context of other current controversies embroiling the Church.  As the LifeSiteNews article states, scant attention is being paid to pro-life and culture of life concerns.  While the document proscribes the ordination of homosexual candidates, it makes no mention of what priests are to do in combating the ever-encroaching homosexual culture that threatens to swallow up more vulnerable people and to demand that homosexual sin not only be accepted but celebrated by everyone.  Since the document does talk of "peace and justice" I do not understand why the priest would not be instructed to do all he can to combat the mortal sin of homosexual conduct.  Again, this deliberate omission must be seen in context: this time, the context of the two sin-nods with the resultant mess known as Amoris Laetitia - or as I call it, Amoralis Lamentia.

As an aside, two other prelates are supporting the dubia issued by the four cardinals: Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia and Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes of Germany.  I pray that more join them and that the dubia receive the responses that they deserve, for the good of all concerned.

The LifeSiteNews piece ends with an opinion of the document being "in general, well-rounded".  That is not reassuring.  Consider the case of one person who secretly hopes to poison another.  Does he/she force the poison upon the intended victim outright, or does he/she administer the poison in some other food?  That food may be good and wholesome in and of itself.  However, those few grains of poison render the whole serving deadly.  So it is with this document.

Church Militant! Stand With The Four Cardinals!

Randy Engels, who wrote "Rite of Sodomy", one of the first books to expose the gay infestation within the Catholic Church, issued an open letter to Pope Francis on the occasion of the filth that poured from his mouth during that interview a few days ago.  Here it is at it is published at Renew America.  When the pope uttered almost identical bile three years ago, she had written a letter then.  My one disagreement with Ms. Engels is that the pope wasn't only referring to "false news", but "nasty things, even if they're true".  As we know, "nasty" is a term ascribed by subjective judgment/feeling, not by the merits of objective truth.  In other words, the pope was slandering all of us who seek to shine the light on his attempts to undermine Holy Mother Church.  Did he feel the need to trot out that vile insult in a lame attempt to discredit those of us who are shining the light on Amoralis Lamentia and the de facto schism that is becoming more and more apparent?

Perhaps, as Ms. Engel suggested, he was actively trying to desensitize Catholics to the sinfulness of various perversions in order to make things like Amoralis Lamentia more palatable.  Let's look at the title of that document itself - Amoris Laetitia.  Some have criticized my coined term for the document, but perhaps the actual name is problematic itself.  Blogger Ann Barnhardt has issued her own commentary about the papal vulgarity and noted that a Latin definition of "amoris" is sodomy.  I googled it myself and sure enough, it is one of the translations of "amoris".  Yes, it's only one of five definitions, but might we be looking at some deliberate "double entendre" here?  Given past history, I'd say that's a reasonable possibility.

Meanwhile more faithful Catholics are openly protesting Amoralis Lamentia.  Two leading Catholic philosophers, Germain Grisez and John Finnis, issued a 37-page letter to Pope Francis, asking him to condemn some errors that they believe could arise from Amoralis Lamentia.  (The link to the letter on the First Things article is broken.  Go here and download it in case it "disappears")

Yesterday I mentioned a meeting that Bishop Schneider chaired, regarding the AL mess.   He gave a talk at that meeting.  He detailed times throughout history when prelates either defended God's teaching against man's sinful fancies (such as St John Fisher standing against Henry VIII) or when they capitulated to public demand (Aaron the first Jewish high priest making the golden calf).

Now let's look at another aspect through the lens of Our Lady of Akita.  The message of that apparition is quite similar to that given by Our Lady of Fatima, namely, that if there isn't repentance, God will chastise the earth.   Two phrases from Our Lady's message of Oct 13 come to mind.  First, cardinals and bishops will be opposing each other.  Given Archbishop Pinto's rebuke of the four cardinals (apparently at Pope Francis' behest) and Cardinal Tobin's attack on Archbishop Chaput, we see that prophesy playing out before our very eyes.  Another piece of the prophesy that is unfolding as I write this is "the Church will be full of those who accept compromises".  Indeed, the upper eschelons of Church hierarchy seem to be dominated by those who work to undermine her mission to save souls.  Getting back to Fatima, Sister Lucia dos Santos predicted that the "final battle between Christ and Satan will be about marriage and the family."

No one with at least one functioning eye ball in their skull can deny that all these events are happening as we breathe.  What must we do?  First, we remember that we are part of the Church Militant.  We're not the "church mellow", not the "church meely-mouth", not the "church mediocre".  Each and every one of us is called to step out of his/her own insular existence and take up the fight.  It means doing precisely what Our Lord commanded as He communicated through His Mother at Fatima and Akita.  We must also take our public stances - each and every one of us - alongside the four cardinals to demand that the teachings of Jesus Christ be upheld in our Church.

Amoris Laetitia Or The One True Faith - Each Catholic Must Choose

A few weeks ago I wrote how Cardinal Farrell knotted his knickers because Archbishop Chaput had the audacity to act like a real bishop.  The latter issued guidelines for Catholics in his own diocese, telling his flock that Church Tradition took precedence over Amoralis Lamentia.  Now it seems like Farrell will soon be taking pot-shots at Archbishop Sample for doing the same thing.  Sample's clear and accurate statement "accepting an erroneous judgment of conscience is neither mercy nor charity" will not sit well with Farrell and the others who hope to exploit ambiguity so that God's teachings may be undermined.

Thankfully we do see an increasing number of those who are standing with the four cardinals in approval and support of the dubia.  A number of churchmen issued an open "Letter of Support Of The Four Cardinals From Catholic Academics And Pastors".  Church Militant TV interviewed Dr. Joseph Shaw, one of the signers of that letter.  When asked whether or not he believes schism is brewing, he replied, "it seems appropriate to use the language of schism."

He was commenting on a statement made earlier by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.  When asked if the pope's silence in regards to the dubia increases the risk of schism, he replied that "a certain type of schism already exists in the Church."  In a meeting this past Monday he remarked, "the reaction to the dubia is a proof of the climate in which we actually live in the Church right now.  We live in a climate of threats and of denial of dialogue towards a specific group."  Of course that specific group is those who faithfully adhere to the teachings of Jesus Christ despite the rubbish found in Amoralis Lamentia and other progressive flim-flam.  At that Monday meeting, also in attendance were Cardinals Burke and Brandmuller, two of the four cardinals; Bishop Schneider chaired it.  Amoralis Lamentia was discussed, as well as courses of action to be taken.

Professor Roberto de Mattei, also in attendance, stated that "it is important to comprehend that today there is a clear choice between fidelity to the Church, to the perennnial Magisterium, or infidelity, which means errors, heresy and apostacy."  He has taken his stand with the four cardinals against the mess found in Amoralis Lamentia.  Each and every Catholic faces that choice, like it or not.  Ora et labora.

Papal Pornography

If one thought the papal interviews couldn't get much worse than what they had been, they regrettably err.  Today's is so depraved that parents may be advised not to discuss this in the presence of small children.  He whined and complained about the media (while giving an interview to the media - go figure), lamenting their tendency to report unpleasant news, "even if they are true".  He likens the reporting of "nasty" things to coprophilia.  If you never heard that term before, please be advised that until two hours ago, I never did either.  Apparently neither did the creators of the blogger platform on which I write this blog, for its spell-checker is prompting me to change it.  I will give the wikipedia definition now.

Coprophilia (from Greek κόπρος, kópros—excrement and φιλία, philía—liking, fondness), also called scatophilia or scat (Greek: σκατά, skatá-feces),^[1] is the paraphilia involving sexual arousal and pleasure from feces.

He went on to say that "since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia, a lot of damage can be done".

Coprophagia!  Another term, similar to the first but not quite identical.  What is that?  Again we look to wikipedia.

Coprophagia /kɒp.rə.ˈfeɪ.dʒi.ə/^[1] or coprophagy /kəˈprɒfədʒiː/ is the consumption of feces

So people "have a tendency" toward this, uh, dietary predilection?  Dear readers, when is the last time that was served at your dinner tables?  When was the last time you saw that featured at your favorite restaurants? When is the last time that crossed your minds?  I didn't think so!

Two things need to be discussed.  To liken journalism to a perverted sexual fetish is nothing short of the sin of slander against those journalists who take seriously their responsibilities to inform the public of current affairs.  One might think the pope is taking a swipe at those of us who shine the light on his evident designs to undermine Holy Mother Church in all manners possible.  It's worth noting that Father Spadaro accuses those who criticize Amoralis Lamentia as "being influenced by the devil".  Hmm.  Do I detect a coordination of talking points here?

But what is behind the pope's decision to use vulgarity?  As I mentioned earlier, I never even heard of these terms, and I'm not particularly naive.  Several others never did, either.  So what gives?  Who would even think to use terms that describe perverted practices?  One of my friends pointed out that such language would be quite familiar to the "gay community", that is, those who regularly engage in such perversions as part and parcel of their lives.  With whom is the pope surrounding himself?  One who lies with dogs arises with fleas.

This is the Vicar of Christ who is now not only spouting thinly-veiled heresy - now he's uttering vulgarity to boot.  As I said before regarding the cardinals and the dubia, let us pray that the course of this papacy changes and soon.

Correction - Today is not the first time such vulgarity spewed from the pope's mouth.  Almost word for word he uttered the same bile in 2013.  What is filling the mind of the Vicar of Christ?  Please, Lord, awaken us from this surreal nightmare!

Please Don't Call This Feastday "Slap A Heretic" Day

Today is the feast of St. Nicholas.  Among other accomplishments, he helped defeat the heresy of Arianism in the Church.  This heresy claims that Jesus Christ is not divine in nature.  There was a council conducted, with both Nicholas and Arius in attendance.  As the story goes, Arius was spouting his heresies.  Nicholas became so incensed that he went over and slapped Arius.  The others in attendance stripped Nicholas of the signs of his office and imprisoned him.  He repented.  In the cell he was visited by Jesus and Mary and they restored to him his office.

As I read the story, I see no signs of Jesus and Mary vindicating his loss of temper and act of violence.  I think it's safe to say that had not Nicolas repented, Jesus and Mary would not have come to him.

Those of us who write our blogs and otherwise engage in apostolates to counteract the heresies that bombard us will recognize in ourselves the temptations to act as did Nicholas.  While we must speak and act, we must continually keep our own emotions in check lest they undermine our tasks and perhaps our eternal salvation.  Let us not dare to snicker at Nicholas's fall into temptation for that might indicate a willingness to engage in impropriety and sin ourselves.  Nicholas repented; with that he was able to continue his mission.  Let's not celebrate his lapse into sin, but his repentance and great service to the Church.

President Trump And Notre Dame

Most of us remember how the University of Notre Dame disgraced itself by allowing the Messiah Most Miserable to sully its commencement ceremony AND receive an honorary degree from what once was a Catholic institution.  This happened in 2009.  Many good people protested, both before and during the debacle, from afar and right on the campus itself with some being arrested.  Father Jenkins was warned of the protests beforehand but carried on, claiming that the President of the United States should be a welcome speaker.

My!  How times change in these eight years!  When faced with the prospect of President Trump giving a commencement address at his campus, all of the sudden, Jenkins is having his doubts!  Says the UND president, "I do think the elected leader of the nation should be listened to. And it would be good to have that person on the campus — whoever they are, whatever their views.  At the same time, the 2009 commencement was a bit of a political circus, and I think I’m conscious that that day is for graduates and their parents — and I don’t want to make the focus something else."

Let's examine all this, shall we?  We'll start from the end: "I don't want to make the focus something else".  What a piece of crock!  When Obama came, Jenkins didn't care one whit about that day being "for the graduates and their parents".  It was a victory lap for both Obama and Father Theodore Hesburgh.  The latter was president of UND from 1952 - 1987.  During that time he authored the heretical Land-O-Lakes Statement and helped the infiltration of progressivism into the inner workings of the Church hierarchy.  Because he also gave aid and comfort to Msgr Jack Egan as the latter was developing the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, he fostered the kind of "community organizing" that jump-started Obama's political career.  Yes indeed, Jenkins was celebrating a triumph of progressivism that day, not the graduates.

Now let's look at the "circus".  He thinks that more of that may be present because of Trump as opposed to Obama?  Arguably he has a point.  Consider the rioting and rampage that occurred in various metropolitan areas as marauders roamed the streets, smashed windows, beat up Trump supporters, set things on fire, etc while proclaiming that Trump is "not my president".  Consider all those Clinton supporters who claimed to be traumatized, with many campuses setting up crisis counseling centers all because their candidate lost.  Perhaps Jenkins is concerned that UND students will have their noses put out of joint in such great numbers that he'll have trouble setting up enough counseling centers, safe spaces, etc.  Such a circus might indeed dwarf what he faced in 2009.  Does Jenkins realized what he might have admitted?  He might have cheered all the mayhem that happened elsewhere after the election, but isn't so keen with the prospect of his own campus being trashed by overgrown brats.  Well, just as he jailed the pro-life protesters, he can grow a backbone and be prepared to haul away any rampaging snowflakes.

Such double standards these progressives have!  And now the masks are coming off their faces.

Radcliffe Debacle In Light Of Amoralis Lamentia

Some of my blogging colleagues reposted a story from last year regarding Father Timothy Radcliffe, a former Master General of the Dominicans who is now an open homophile.  That last term is not to imply that he himself is embroiled in the gay lifestyle (although there is reasonable probability of that) but it does signify that he is a willing enabler of such sinful conduct.

Initially I declined to do so, simply because his appointment by Pope Francis to the post of Consulter for the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace was last year's news.  In retrospect, I see my colleagues' wisdom in so doing for the recent events regarding Amoralis Lamentia and the dubia do put the Radcliffe matter in a new light.

Recall how Radcliffe stated that "gay sex..can be expressive of Christ's self-gift".  Of course this statement is pure blasphemy, to equate mortal sin with Christ's love for mankind.  But now consider the interim relatio report from the sin-nod from two years ago.  It drew much-justified criticism because it too suggested that mortal sin can "contain positive values".  And yes, the pope was well aware of this content before the document was promulgated with his approval.

No reasonable, honest person can deny any longer that there are efforts afoot by progressives in the Vatican (and that includes Pope Francis) to undermine the Teachings of Jesus Christ Himsef regarding faith and morality.  While it's true that the pope cannot solemnly proclaim error, he can accomplish nefarious ends by other, less flamboyant methods such as introducing confusing documents (such as Amoralis Lamentia), appointing dissidents such as Radcliffe to influential posts and by removing faithful prelates from their positions of influence.

Cardinal Burke, one of the authors of the dubia, has asked that rosaries be offered "so that bishops and priests will have the courage to teach the truth and defend the faith against all her enemies, both within the Church and outside the Church.  And may all confusion be dispelled from the Church."  While he made that appeal specifically for Dec 1, this intention is obviously one that deserves ongoing prayers.  Let us also pray that Pope Francis does restore clarity, as requested in the dubia.  But if he doesn't, let us pray that these cardinals follow up with the corrective measures as briefly described by Cardinal Burke.  The festering boil of heresy within the Church must be brought to a head so that it can be lanced and the infection treated.

Masons And Mafia In The Vatican?

A few days ago I wrote of the none-too-veiled threats emanating from the Dean of the Roman Rota, Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto.  Some of my blogging colleagues nicknamed him "Don Vito", owing to his mafia-esque demeanor in issuing his threats.  Well, it turns out they aren't that far off the mark.  One Peter Five reveals that while Don Vito may not be a mafioso, he is a mason.  Membership in secret societies such as the freemasons is forbidden to Catholics.

I urge all to read that last link carefully, along with the other embedded links.  The one entitled Paul VI Beatified? is an eye-opener.  It's a pdf, therefore downloadable.  I'd suggest you do so.

I must admit that when I first read Pinto's threats, my thoughts went immediately to another Don Vito and to the music below.  Whether or not the mafia has invaded the Church remains a possibility; the invasion of the masons is a fact.

Islamic Terrorism - Courtesy Of Catholic Charities

Two years ago it was revealed that various Catholic Charities offices in Texas were receiving millions in federal grants to facilitate massive immigration, some of it illegal.  One of those outlets was the one in Dallas.

On Monday, a Somalian immigrant plowed his car into a crowd at Ohio State University, then began stabbing bystanders.  He was shot by a police officer.  ISIS is taking "credit" for the act.  But perhaps ISIS shouldn't hog all the dubious "glory".  Some of that "glory" belongs to Catholic Charities of Dallas.

From Breitbart News we read that the terrorist and his family entered the US through Texas and were resettled by Catholic Charities in June 2014.  This is yet another illustration why nations who seek reasonable security at their borders are not to be demonized by progressives in the Church.  Well, let me rephrase that for they obviously are going to run their mouths about that.  This is why we must oppose them and rebuke them for they play the "useful idiots" for those who seek to destroy civilization.

From The Niggers Of The New Age Department - Persecution By Dissident Bishops

It's one thing for faithful Christians to be maltreated by secular society for holding fast to the moral teachings of Jesus Christ.  It's quite another for faithful Catholics and priests to be knifed in the back because they are living and speaking in accord with the Faith.  Thanks to Amoralis Lamentia, rogue bishops are doing precisely that with increasing frequency.

I wrote recently of San Diego Bishop McElroy ordering his priests to sin by offering Holy Communion to flagrant adulterers.  Now it appears that indeed one of his priests is in his crosshairs.  Father Richard Perozich of Immaculate Conception Catholic Church wrote some columns in his parish bulletin of matters of Catholic morality.  His columns were faithful to Church Tradition and contradicted some pet causes of the progressive elements in the hierarchy - including McElroy.  The latter forbade anymore such columns in the parish bulletin.

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic Ocean in Scotland, Father Matthew Despard has been ordered to leave his parish.  Some time ago, he wrote a book called "Priesthood In Crisis".  It revealed the workings of the gay influence among Catholic clergy.  First he was removed from ministry because he "injured reputations".  For his telling of truth, he is being punished.

Of course the four cardinals who wrote the dubia are taking flack from some of their errant brothers.  Cardinal Claudio Hummes of Brazil recently rebuked them.  His line of reasoning is that "we are 200, they are only 4". Leaving aside for the moment that other bishops are speaking out, we ask precisely what his statement proves.  Since when is truth defined by consensus or majority?  Is Hummes so ignorant of Church history that he fails to consider other faithful prelates who stood alone, such as Athanasius or John Fisher?

In the Netherlands and Belgium, some dissident bishops have adopted another tactic.  They have changed the words of the Lord's Prayer - the Our Father as it is prayed at Mass.  Remember - this was a prayer dictated to the disciples by Our Lord Himself.  These false shepards have the audacity to edit what Jesus clearly said.  They know better than Our Lord?  The words are changed so that they trivialize the truths regarding sin and tempation.  When coupled with the suggestions in Amoralis Lamentia that those in mortal sin be allowed to receive Holy Communion, we can see how faith is being weakened, along with a proper regard for the Sacraments.

We'll see more of these incidents in the next coming days.  I will post as I'm able to shed the light on cockroaches and to hopefully awaken others to the need to pray and speak out.

Glaring Evidence Shows The Need For The Dubia

If there are lingering doubts as to the necessity for clarification of the mess known as Amoris Laetitia (or as I call it, Amoralis Lamentia), let these facts show why the dubia must be taken seriously.

Today it was announced that Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego has ordered his priests to give Holy Communion to adulterous Catholics.  In other words, he is ordering his priests to commit mortal sins of sacrilege in offering Holy Communion to unrepentant adulterers AND to contribute to the mortal sin of sacrilege on the part of those who desperately need the medicine of repentance.  Of course no faithful priest can do that.  Such is the way that Amoralis Lamentia is emboldening those who care not one whit for the Sacraments of Matrimony, Eucharist and Penance.  Recall that one of the dubia questions deals with this very topic.  We pray for these priests as they are being put into a horrible position, that they have the courage to withstand the evil even as it emanates from their own bishop.  We pray even more who will acquiesce to this sinful suggestion with glee.

This same bishop also ordered his priests to welcome "LGBT families".  That phrase in quotes is an oxymoron.  Two same-sex adults in a perverted relationship can never constitute a true family.  No real "family" can exist in a situation based on mortal sin.  Again, McElroy is commanding his priests to validate sinful situations - something that no priest can ever do.

We see similar affirmation of mortal sin in the Archdiocese of New York.  Joseph Sciambra has details of a "retreat" being offered to those embroiled in perversion at St. Francis of Assisi parish.  Apparently that parish is quite a cesspool in that regard.  And let's not ever forget what happened in my own parish over four years ago when Father Marcel Guarnizo withheld Holy Communion from a flaming lesbian and was punished by Cardinal Wuerl for being a faithful priest.

So now one can see the confusion that Amoralis Lamentia is causing.  I believe this confusion is being intentionally created.  The progressives in the Vatican do not want to overtly state their intentions to junk the Traditions of Jesus Christ so they wish to do so by subterfuge. This is why so many of them hate the dubia-letter posted by the four cardinals; it is forcing the progressives to be up front about their goals, and they understandably find themselves threatened.

We saw the utter defensiveness of some a few days ago.  Today we saw a reaction from the Vatican that can only be called "lashing out in fear and guilt".  The Dean of the Roman Rota, Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto, actually threatened the four cardinals by saying that they could have their cardinalates stripped from them - for daring to ask for clarification.  Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture also took note of the fear and guilt that seems to be all over Pinto.  Cardinal George Pell came to the defense of the four cardinals, wondering how anyone could actually disagree with a question.  He's right; by definition, a question is not a statement of fact or opinion so there's nothing in it with which one can disagree.  Will we soon hear that Pinto is drawing aim at Pell's cardinalate?

We must continue to pray.  Pray that the pope indeed does clarify AL to be in conformity with the timeless teachings of the Church.  But if he won't let us pray that the festering boil of heresy will come to a head so that it can be lanced and healed quickly.

Pope Francis Rigidly Promotes His Progressive Priorities

I thank Vox Cantoris for pointing out the pope's mindset that underlies his rhetoric and actions in two areas.  Let's look at priestly formation, for starters.  Rorate Caeli analyzed a talk that the Pope gave to a group of Jesuits a few months back.  In it he lamented "rigidity" in the priestly formation in traditional circles.  Notice how he slyly insinuates that when a young man is "too confident, rigid and fundamentalist", then he might be "mentally ill".  Of seminary teaching he laments "educating in light of overly clear and distinct ideas".  Then he talks about the "dynamics of personal discernment, which respects the law  but knows how to go beyond."

There's much to unpack here.  First, let's look at the phrase "overly clear".  Most sane people would agree that clarity is a good to be desired.  Clarity is tied to truth.  How is it possible to be "overly clear" or "overly truthful"?  If one lessens the truth or clarity, then one is engaging in dishonesty and obfuscation, right?

Now let's address that second quip about the "rigidity" indicating "mental illness".  This is nothing short of slander directed at young men, aspiring to the priesthood, who exert much effort to follow God's immutable commands.  And yes, God's commands are quite clear.  For instance, "thou shalt not commit adultery" does not admit of any exception.  Does the pope find that "overly clear"?  Well, perhaps he needs to take that up with the Author of that "rigid"command.

This dovetails right into that last quote: "respect the law but know how to go beyond".  If one is going beyond what God's law says is permissible, he/she should drop any pretense of "respecting the law".  "Respect" is just a mental game played by those who would justify thumbing their noses at God's law, and ultimately God Himself.

So, as far as Pope Francis is concerned, is everything up for "discernment" and "accompaning on the journey"?  Is everything to be considered free of "rigidity"?  Surprisingly, NO!  There are some matters, according to this pontiff, that are to be considered set in stone, that admit of no divergence of opinion whatsoever.  These are matters that are indicative of his real loves and mindsets.

Today he addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences regarding "climate change".  He said it's "indispensible to create a regulatory system that includes inviolable limits and ensure the protection of ecosystems" blah-blah-blah.  "Indispensible"!  "Inviolable"!   Hmmm!  Sounds like rather "rigid" language to me!  Where does "knowing how to go beyond" fit in with this paradigm?  So the Teachings of Jesus Christ as revealed through His Church is subject to "gray areas" but "climate change" junk sciene is sacrosanct?

Let's look at this "regulatory system".  Who will be controlling this "regulatory system"?  The pope never got around to divulging that teensy detail, but one can imagine that the UN (Useless Nincompoops) would have their hand in that, along with George Soros and other assorted oligarchs.  Over the years I've done many posts on the menace of environmentalism.  As you read the posts, you'll notice that one underlying motive to this movement is the deconstruction of western civilization and its Christian roots.  In particular, pay close attention to this post, noticing the three motives that seem to be underlying this junk science (and watch the video).

Unless we believe that the pope is a total idiot, we must concede that he is in cahoots with the progressives and their agendas.  Owing to his position as Vicar of Christ, he is poised to spread the poison of progressivism.   Many Catholics at one time were naive in their disbelief of this problem.  While some continue their pollyanna-esque blindness, an increasing number are admitting that the ever-mounting pile of evidence is shattering their illusions.  Some of these, though, are now trying to ignore the problem, pretending that it has no relevance to their lives.  This blog joins with the Remnant in stating that we cannot be indifferent and silent with respect to the harm being caused by this papacy, for souls are at stake.

Who Stays and Who Goes

Amoralis Lamentia has given us a view into the pope's mindset regarding the Deposit of Faith that he's tasked to defend.  That defense is not happening; we see quite the opposite occurring.  But if AL isn't enough, let's remember the maxim "personnel is policy".  It certainly applies in this case as one watches the personnel shifts in various Vatican organizations.  See who stays and who goes.  Particularly look at the conduct of those retaining their posts and those obtaining new posts.

The pope appointed a new apostolic nuncio to Mexico.  He is Archbishop Franco Coppola.  Mexico has been dealing with the topic of gay #mowwidge as has the United States.  The faithful Catholics there have been conducting marches to rally support for traditional marriage.  Coppola scolded their efforts, telling them not to march but to "dialog" with the supporters of evil.  In a sane world, a real bishop would have been encouraging faithful Catholics to step up their efforts and would have rebuked those shilling for perversion.  As you read the LifeSiteNews piece, it's clear that Coppola's sympathies are with the promoters of sodomy.

Getting back to Amoralis Lamentia, the pope last month praised a dissident theologian whose heresies provided some foundation for AL.  This happened during a Jesuit conference last month, and the theologian is Bernard Haring.  Apparently it was Haring who devised the aberrant definition of "discernment" that seems to be a favorite buzz word among the progressive elements.  This "discernment", according to Haring, "allows" for contraceptive use.  He carried on so much that Pope John Paul II forbade him to teach at any Catholic school and stripped him of his "Catholic theologian" title.  So now this pope is praising a dissident for the very behaviors that caused his sainted predessor to discipline him?

Meanwhile, the purge of the faithful prelates in Vatican organizations marches on.  From the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, several faithful prelates were ejected.  These include U.S. Cardinal Raymond Burke, Austrilian Cardinal George Pell, and Canadian Cardinal Marc Oullet.  The latter still retains his headship of the Congregation of Bishops - for now.

Now let's look at the Pontifical Academy for Life.  Who got canned from that body?  All of them!  According to One Peter Five, the pope rewrote the statutes of that organization that effectively removed the entire membership.  Moreover, these new statutes state that members may be selected without regard to religious affiliation, and that the new members will not have to take the Jerome Lejeune Oath, an oath requiring members to defend the dignity of the human person from conception to natural death.  Why was that oath excised?

There's an important "side note" in that One Peter Five link.  According to inside sources, many in the Vatican were supporting Hillary Clinton's bid for the US presidency.  If that's so, they were supporting sin.  To the extent that foreigners can interfere with our elections, I don't know.  If their support was more than trivial, can it be said that they sinned mortally?  Can it be said that this sin goes all the way to the top?

I suspect there will be more personnel shake-ups to admit more poison into Church structures.

Amoris Laetitia And Dubia - Separating Wheat From Chaff

Slowly but surely the Dubia that the four cardinals submitted to Pope Francis is bringing a lot of dissent and heresy to light.  The head of the Greek Bishops' Conference (I won't even attempt that name) wrote to the four cardinals and flat out accused them of heresy.  One Peter Five has the text of the letter, and it is a beeyute!  He opens the letter by stating that the four cardinals should turn in their red caps (I don't know the proper term) and then accuses them of heresy, apostacy and scandal.  One wonders if he actually read the dubia, for all it does is ask the pope to clarify some passages in Amoris Laetitia that seem to contradict the tradition of the Church.  Or maybe he did read them and is simply trying to frighten others into not considering their input.

Cardinal Cupich seems to be mouthing similar things - almost as if they were all given "talking points".  I have written about the sword-crossing between him and Archbishop Chaput when the latter reaffirmed Church teaching in his own diocese.  In an interview, he told Edward Pentin that those who have "doubts and questions" regarding Amoralis Lamentia need "conversion in their lives".  I and others have written extensively about Cupich's dissidence many times.  Please read that list for yourselves for I haven't time nor space to detail just why Cupich may be the one needed conversion.

One wonders if that head of the Greek Bishops' Conference might have such strong words for his German counterpart.  Archbishop Robert Zollitsch openly declared his belief that "Christ did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat."  He believes that Jesus only offered "solidarity with the poor."  Now that is heresy.  Will the Greek head say anything about that?  Will the Pope have a rebuke for this heresy-spouting bishop?  I think we'll hear crickets and Zollitsch will retain his post.

However, it does seem that the four cardinals are not standing alone.  Polish Bishop Josef Wrobel says "the four cardinals did well in asking for clarification about Amoris Laetitia".  He added that AL "is not written well".  He offered that as a potential excuse reason for its lack of clarity.

Two American bishops share the same last name: Tobin.  That's about all they share.  Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island opined last July that AL was "marked by ambiguity and that's intentional on the Holy Father's part, I think...so people can do just about whatever they want."  This bishop has consistently stood for the truth.  On the other hand we have Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis.  In the previous link I detailed some issues we've had with him.  He called the four cardinals "troublesome".  Well, it might actually be a good thing to be regarded as "troublesome" to a progressive.  We know now why Joseph Tobin received his red hat!

Bishop Athanasius Schneider published a letter in which he defended the dubia and the four cardinals as a "prophetic voice."  In his letter, Schneider takes aim at the progressive syncophants who lobbed ad hominem attacks at the four cardinals without offering any real clarity, comparing the current situation to that of St Hilary of Poitiers and Pope Liberius.  The letter is worth careful study.

Then there is Bishop Jan Watroba, also of Poland.  He remarked on the ambiguity of AL, saying that he "preferred the clarity of Pope St. John Paul II".  I pray that these three bishops retain their posts and aren't sent to "diocesan siberia", if you get the drift.  I also pray that many more bishops join them to stand for the teachings of Jesus Christ.

LifeSiteNews is conducting a petition effort to ask the Holy Father to respond to the dubia.  Please sign and pass along.

Carhart Quits Maryland!

Another reason to be thankful on this Thanksgiving Day.  Who knows why he's leaving Maryland?  Maybe it's the suit about which I wrote yesterday; maybe it's just the straw that broke the camel's back.  Let's pray that he repents before he has to stand before God's judgment throne.

Abortions will still continue up to 19 weeks at Germantown Reproductive Heath Services, and they will continue throughout the state.  Let us continue to pray that all abortions cease.

Read Operation Rescue's report.

Carhart And Germantown Reproductive Health Services Sued For Botched Abortion

On January 19 I reported on yet another botched abortion that necessitated a woman being taken by ambulance to the hospital.  Operation Rescue reports that the woman has filed suit against both Carhart and Germantown Reproductive Health Services for the malpractice that left her disabled and probably unable to bear another child.  The OR report links to the court documents that list both Carhart and the abortuary as co-defendants.

Since Ms. Devine was injured at Carhart's hands, at least four other women suffered as well - three in Germantown.  That of course does not count the hundreds of babies who were torn to pieces at the hands of Carhart and his barbaric staff.  We pray that this suit brings this killing center to a screeching halt.

Catholic Standard Shills For False Unity At Truth's Expense

On page 3 of the Nov 12 issue of the Catholic Standard and here on the online version appears an article entitled "Catholics' Post-Election To-Do List Includes Work For Unity, Healing".  Right there in the title you can foresee the problems in the article.  Instead of focusing on "unity and healing", the focus needs to be on proper catechesis so that Catholics understand Our Lord's teachings on life, sexuality, marriage, family, and the prominence that faith should have in our personal and civic lives.  Without that understanding, any pretense at unity will be that - a mere sham.

However, as we peruse this article, we see no emphasis on truth.  That lack of emphasis is seen in the selection of people quoted in this article.

• Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis (not to be confused with Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island) turned a deaf ear to us when we pleaded with him to intervene in the plans of a local KofC council to rent their hall to lesbians to hold their "wedding reception".  Is that what he means by "building bridges" as he said in an interview?  In that same interview he approved of the ambiguity of Amoralis Lamentia and poo-pooed the efforts of the four cardinals who published the dubia.
• The National Catholic Reporter is so faithless to true Catholicism that its two bishops have directed the pubication to remove the word "Catholic" from their title.  Of course those directives are disobeyed.
• Sister Simone Campbell along with her Network bunch, are pro-abortion.  She and NETWORK sided with the Obama administration against the USCCB to support Obamacare's HHS mandate.  When asked whether or not she thought abortion should be illegal, she took a line out of Obama's script and replied "that's beyond my pay grade.  I don't know".  So we're supposed to believe that a leader in "Catholic social justice" doesn't know if baby-murder should be illegal?  In another interview after the DNC convention (during which she publicly praised the NARAL president) she stated "I don't think it's a good policy to outlaw abortion" then went on to slander pro-life people.
• Father James Martin makes no secret of his sympathy for "gay rights".  He was honored by the dissident group New Ways Ministry for his advoacy of the sodomite lifestyle.

Why does Carol Zimmerman (author of the Catholic Standard piece) call these people "Catholic leaders"?

Let's talk about some of these "divisions".  The only way that there could be "divisions", at least in the general election, is if Catholics voted for Hillary Clinton.  A goodly number of faithful priests have outlined why voting for Hillary, who made no secret of her devotion to baby-murder and institutionalized sodomy, would have been a sinful act.  Those who voted for her, knowing of her stances, sinned.  I've posted many times on this blog why it was sinful to withhold votes for Trump.  On those posts are links to homilies/writings of others making the same case.  Still, some have not only withheld their votes from Trump; they magnified their sin in casting votes for Clinton.

Now the Catholic Standard is issuing a "kiss-and-make-up" call, all the while quoting from dissidents who most likely sinned with their votes.  No true reconciliation can happen unless those who voted for Clinton (particularly those who were arrogantly blatant about it) announce public repentance for that sin.  We must face the fact that those who cast such votes betrayed the unborn children as well as faithful Catholics.  If there is not that public repentance, we've no assurance that they won't repeat that sin, should they deem it suitable for them to do so.

I for one refuse to play that silly, deceptive make-believe game of false reconciliation.  It will be asked if I hope to work with those Clinton voters in the future.  I will reply, "unless they repent, NO!"  Now the question is, "do those who sinned with their votes wish to work with us in the future?"  If so, the must repent.  Either way, it's up to them.

Cardinal Farrell's Second Error

In the latest online edition of the Catholic Standard, we see an article regarding the disagreement between Cardinal Kevin Farrell and Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia.  I wrote on this a few days ago; please review.  In the wake of Farrell's criticism of the guidelines that Chaput issued for his own diocese, Farrell betrayed a viewpoint that dissents from the Church's teachings on the indissolubility of marriage.  It is fair to say two things about Farrell's error: 1) it conforms to the apparent error of Pope Francis and 2) if this viewpoint is promulgated, many souls will be placed in danger of damnation owing to rotten council.

But Farrell's statements betray another error.  Since when do the bishops need to answer to some "bishops' conference" to "discuss these things"?  The local conferences have no canonical authority over individual bishops; each bishop answers only to God and the Holy Father.  Period.

So let Pope Francis take up any objections directly with Archbishop Chaput - if he dares.  As things stand now, Amoris Laetitia is being subject to scrutiny on account of the dubia issued by the four cardinals.  For now, Farrell may want to stick with the Church's ageless teachings.  They're ageless for they come from God Himself, who is not bound by time nor its changing fads.

A Little Humor In Light Of The Dubia

What is happening with the dubia is ground-breaking and must be covered with prayer.  Still, I must admit that the following caused me to laugh! 😀

Papal Reactions To The Dubia

Tomorrow there will be a consistory at the Vatican to formally create the new Cardinals.  Traditionally before such gatherings, the pope has held pre-consistory meetings with already existing cardinals before the ceremony.  This time he canceled it.  Understandably a number of eyebrows are raised, particularly because Pope Francis has often lauded "dialogue" and "collegiality".

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to postulate a reason for this cancellation.  That reason is the Dubia written by the four cardinals, requesting formal clarification regarding doctrinally questionable segments of Amoris Laetitia.  A response from the pope has been requested.  Can anyone doubt that it would seem grossly disingenuous of the pope if he didn't at least mention it at any meeting of cardinals.

The Dubia is formatted in such a way that it must be answered with "yes" or "no", with no "in-between" responses feasible.  In an interview, the pope had this to say: "Some, as with certain responses to Amoris Laetitia, persist in seeing only white or black, when rather one ought to discern in the flow of life.."  "Discern in the flow of life"?  What the hell does that mean???  Might it be a clever way of saying "go with the flow"?  If so, what flow?  Who/what determines the flow?  Are we even (in the pope's mind) even allowed to ask that question, because, well - the god of surprises!!!  Faithful Catholics have news for him.  Has he considered that at the end of time there will either be heaven or hell?  Doesn't that truth seem to be rather "black and white"?

Elsewhere in the interview he says critics of Amoralis Lamentia "don't understand" that the Church "exists only as an instrument to communicate to men God's merciful design".  As I learned my Baltimore Catechism, Jesus Christ founded the Church to help us get to heaven.  That is done by administration of the Sacraments, as well as promulgation of Christ's teachings.  His teachings on faith and morals are quite direct, "black and white".  One either obeys or disobeys them.

I will post now a video of yesterday's episode of World Over, where Raymond Arroyo interviews Robert Royal and Edward Pentin.  The whole thing is worth watching, but pay close attention between the 27:10 and 29:09 marks, where Pentin relates what his sources told him, that the dubia has the pope "boiling with rage".  While we'd hope for a calm response to the letter, at least we know that the dubia isn't being ignored - at least privately.

Let us pray that the pope reaffirms the Teachings of Jesus.  Barring that, let us pray that these cardinals stay the course and that others join them.  Vox Cantoris has words about that.  Now the video.

Must The Four Cardinals Formally Correct The Pope?

Earlier this week we learned of the attempt of the four cardinals to seek clarification from Pope Francis regarding the heretical statements in Amoris Laetitia.  The questions were formatted in such a way that they must be answered in the positive or negative - no "in-between".  In September they had posed their questions to the pope privately but received no reply.

Yesterday the National Catholic Register published an interview between Edward Pentin and Cardinal Burke regarding these questions.  Towards the end, Pentin asked His Eminence about any "next steps", should these publicized questions not be answered.  The cardinal spoke of "taking a formal action of correction of a serious error".

That more or less leaves the proberbial ball in the pope's court.  Whether or not such a formal action would be deemed necessary is largely up to him.  Unfortunately, he has given us an indication of his inclinations.  Recall that several months ago, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia issued guidelines that plainly stated that divored/remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion unless they live as brother and sister.  He was directly contradicted by Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell.  Farrell plainly stated that those de-facto adulterors could receive Holy Communion while continuing in their mortal sin.  Now recall that the pope picked Farrell to head the Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life, as well as naming him a Cardinal.  With that in mind, it is reasonable to deduce that with regards to the heresies embodied in Amoralis Lamentia, that Farrell and the pope are of like mind.

Let us pray that the pope will ponder carefully the correction that the four Cardinals are trying to offer him.  But let us be prepared for what will likely follow in the wake of continued papal obduracy.

USCCB = Underlings of Soros Conducting Communist Business

That does seem to be the order of business at the USCCB meeting that opened in Baltimore yesterday.  They opened their meeting by asking President-Elect Trump, in oh-so-thinly-veiled language, to adopt a policy of blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants.  This, of course, is right out of the progressive marching orders.  As pointed out in the anthology of previous posts, there is plenty of money to be had with regards to illegal immigration (hopefully Trump will shut off that cash spigot).  The bishops are doing the bidding of their puppet-masters; that's why they've put their bid for amnesty front and center.

When a sane, faithful Catholic thinks of issues for which the bishops might petition for governmental action, one thinks of intrinsic evils that pollute our culture.  These evils include:

• The wholes-scale murder of helpless babies, aka, abortion
• The growing threat of euthanasia
• The enshrinement of homosexual perversions as societal norms that no one may question
• The marginalization of Christians who live out their faith in their businesses

I don't know where the meeting is happening, just that it is in Baltimore.  Would someone who knows please advise via comments?  Perhaps someone in the vicinity can go and lodge a protest there.

One thing we can all do to send the USCCB a message is to boycott the CCHD collection this coming weekend.