Faithful Catholics Wax Indignant At The SinNod's Interim Report

G. K. Chesterton once said "If the world grows to wordly, it can be expected to be rebuked by the Church; but if the Church becomes too worldly, It can be hardly expected to be rebuked by the world."  No, it can't, and these days it isn't.  On the heels of yesterday's disastrous relatio (due in part to the stacked committee engineered by the pope), the Human Rights Campaign released this

They are rejoicing and gloating over what seems to be transpiring at this SinNod.  They seem to have solid basis for their jubilation.

Many of us understand the trouble that document signals for the Church.  We bloggers made known our concerns yesterday, particularly with those passages that condone homosexual behaviors.  Today's Vortex shows Voris interviewing a panel of the clergy, including Archbishop Bruno Forte, whom many believe was instrumental in the writing of paragraphs 50-53.  I'll post the video now and below that, I'll have more news.



Cardinal Burke sharply criticized the document, stating that it's a "betrayal" that "faithful shepherds cannot accept".  He called upon Pope Francis to issue a statement defending true Catholic teaching on the various topics that were mangled in the relatio.  Bishop Rogelio Livieres also has some well-founded criticism of proceedings.  Cardinal Muller had some pointed language for the thing.

There is something else to consider, and I thank Chris Ferrera for pointing this out.  Yesterday, the date of the release of this relatio, was the anniversary of some key Divine interventions.  It was on this day that Pope Leo XIII had his vision of satan attacking the Church, prompting him to compose some remedial prayers to be prayed after every Mass; these prayers are called the Leonine prayers.  They were scuttled after Vatican II, although noting in the council documents so directed their abandonment.

It was also the 97th anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima.  To the three children Our Lady made plain that we must pray and repent else we will be judged.  Did we see some stark sign of that judgment issue forth from the Vatican?  I believe we did.

As we read the comments of Ferrara's piece, a reader points out another anniversary: that of Our Lady at Akita, where she warns of bishops being set against each other, and a strong exhortation to be faithful to the daily Rosary.  None of this is a coincidence.

Long Knives Out For Another Good Bishop AND Franciscan Friars Of The Immaculate

We've seen the unceremonious sacking of both Cardinal Burke and Bishop Livieres of Paraguay.  Now it looks as though Bishop Robert Finn is the latest in the progressive cross-hairs.  Eponymous Flower has listed some of his accomplishments in the Diocese of Kansas City - St Joseph.  Here are a few (please read the whole list)

• Promoted Summorum Pontificum and offered the Extraordinary Form of the Mass
• Raised vocations to a 40-year high (Bishop Livieres did that too.  Is increased vocations now considered to be a liability in the Church of Nice?  I suppose so, if the young men are orthodox).
• One that EF missed is that he formally asked the "National Catholic Reporter" to stop calling itself "Catholic", owing to its embrace of heresy and dissidence.  No doubt that set some teeth on edge at one of the "church of nice's" favorite rags.

Finn's administration has not always been stellar. In 2011 he failed to report to the authorities a priest who had pornography on his computer.  But why is Finn being fly-specked while someone like Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg FL is given a free pass?  Remember that the latter had to spend thousands of dollars to various, uh, "partners" in legal settlements AND he gave the green light to Michael Schiavo as the latter murdered his wife Terri in his diocese.

The Vatican recently sent Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergrast to "investigate" Bishop Finn while the latter was in Rome.  His investigation basically consisted of polling people by asking "do you think Finn is fit to be a leader"?  There's no hint that Prendergrast was the slightest bit interested in the 2011 incident.  So what is that about???

That's the story of the Vatican progressives baring their teeth at Bishop Finn.  Now let's look at their ongoing malicious vendetta against the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate.  Six of the Friars had sought incardination under other bishops and were awaiting dispensation from their vows to the FFI.  They did not receive those dispensations.  Rather, they received suspensions "a divinis".  That is a sanction reserved for the most grave matters; moreover, it is a sanction that is subject to strict due process under canon law.  Commissioner Fidenzio Volpi observed none of the due process regulations; he delivered the suspensions with no regard to the processes of Canon Law.

None of this is any accident.  Moreover, it is unreasonable to presume that Pope Francis had no knowledge of these matters.  Some, in attempts to give to the Pope the "benefit of the doubt" have to resort to all manners of denial and logical contortions to the point of engaging in intellectual and yes, spiritual, dishonesty.  It's high time that rose-colored glasses were stripped from all faces.  If we're going to lift up our Church and her leaders in prayer, we must be relentlessly honest about the faults of all concerned.  Else our prayers will be so much pious but ineffectual fluffy-puff-stuff.

This Papacy - Troubling Incidents Continue To Increase

A few weeks ago, I wrote of "Obvious Questions Regarding This Papacy".  Since then, more questions have surfaced.  First, I recommend to your reading "The Rise Of Bergoglianism" by Christopher Ferrara.  While I look a bit askance at the term "bergoglianism", Ferrara reminds us of some things that should cause us to have great concern for the future of the Church.

I won't rehash what Ferrara wrote, please read for yourselves.  I will mention that Ferrara missed a few things.  For one thing, there was the multi-marriage extravaganza that occurred earlier this month, and the plethora of issues raised with that.  There is the bizarre treatment meted out to Cardinal Burke; see here and here.  There is the rather nauseating appointment of Bishop Blase Cupich as Archbishop of Chicago.  I haven't written about this (yet) but other blogging colleagues have.  See here and here.  There is also the troubling dismissal of Bishop Rogelio Livieres of Paraguay.  He was an opponent of liberation theology (quite the fad in Paraguay) and one who managed to fill his seminaries with numerous vocations.   More troubling is that Pope Francis has refused to receive the bishop when he came to discuss his dismissal, as no reasons had been given to him beforehand.

Then there is the matter of Cardinal Walter Kasper.  He is reputed to be a close friend of Pope Francis' and will most likely wield much influence at the Extraordinary Synod of the Family to be held next month.  He has stated that he favors the allowance of Holy Communion to those Catholics who are divorced and who have civilly remarried without obtaining a Church annulment.  Now mind you, he's not about "changing doctrine", but just "pastoral practice".  Got that?  Gotta love that "pastoral" word - it allows for all sorts of double-talk chicanery.  Kasper had the gall to insinuate that his proposal "was agreed" ahead of time by the Holy Father.  I pray that's presumptuous double-talk for the only other explanation is horrifying.

Kasper is also on record as favoring a "reinterpretation of the Church's ban on contraception".  He says that  "so-called natural family planning, which is promoted by the Church as an alternative to contraception, also has an artificial element", according to the Telegraph.  Read John Kippley's analysis of this statement.  So in addition to a major theological failure, we also have from Kasper a biological gaffe as well.

So Cardinal Kasper wields Vatican influence and Bishop Cupich takes the See of Chicago, while Cardinal Burke and Bishop Livieres have been given the proverbial boot.  It makes sense, and I'm not being sarcastic.  There seems to be a move to marginalize authentic tradition for intellectual and theological slop, and sentimental notions of "mercy" and being "pastoral".

We need to pray for this upcoming Synod.  Again, the Vicar of Christ cannot solemnly promulgate error.  But other sorts of havoc, almost equally damaging, can be visited upon the Church.  I join my friend Carol in stating that this blog also refuses to be silent regarding the increasing number of "elephants in the living room".  We must see clearly in order to pray properly.  We will pray as we sound alarms.

Good Bishop From Paraguay Being Thrown Under The Bus

Bishop Rogelio Livieres of the Diocese of Ciudad del Este in Paraguay has seen his priestly ordinations suspended pending the pope's decision about an alleged situation in that diocese.  It seems that a priest who had been serving in the diocese of Scranton PA and allegations arose of sexual misconduct.  It is alleged that then-Bishop Joseph Martino had the priest (Carlos Urrutigoity) transferred to Paraguay.  Bishop Livieres has defended Father Urrutigoity, stating that the allegations are unproven.

It should be pointed out that Bishop Livieres is a strong opponent of liberation theology and a strong proponent of the Latin Mass.  The number of vocations from his diocese exceeds those of the neighboring diocese.  It has also been said that Bishop Livieres took one of his fellow bishops to task owing to the latter's sexual misbehaviors.

So we have a bishop who has instilled real Catholic life into his diocese and who has not thrown a priest under the bus without due process.  For that, the long knives are pointed at him.  By the way - several years ago we had a similar situation in the United States - Scranton PA, to be precise.  The target of USCCB venom was Bishop Joseph Martino, mentioned earlier in this post.  To get some background, I'll link to my older website.  Scroll down till you see "A Real Bishop in Scranton PA".  This is no coincidence, in my opinion.  If Father Urrutigoity was involved in scandalous behavior, he's still entitled to due process and not just condemnation by innuendo.  Is the antipathy towards Father Urrutigoity, who was assisted by both Bishops Martino and Liveres, supposed to be a warning to any other bishop who may decided to remember he's Catholic and not a progressive "liberation theology" hack?