Why Fiducia Supplicans Is Spiritually Poisonous

Some otherwise faithful Catholics are obviously having difficulty accepting that the Vatican is so depraved that it has put out such a poisonous document.  They want to believe so badly that this pope is not so corrupt as to undermine the Church that they twist themselves into pretzels believing that there might be some redeeming quality to FS as to restore their faith in this papacy.  But therein lies their error.  They put too much faith in a sitting pope rather than in the Church's teachings and traditions as handed down through the centuries.

I will now relay some of the most frequent denial tactics that I've read on social media. Here is the text of Fiducia Supplicans.  By the way- please have the FS document open as you read this post.

"The priest gives a blessing to all people after Mass".  That is a general blessing to the congregation at large, not targeted to specific people, especially those designated because of sinful relationships.  It has always been ok to bless people and ask for God's guidance.  That begs the question of just why did the pope highlight those in "irregular relationships"?  And why is the word "irregular" used when the more truthful adjective is "sinful"?

"The theology of marriage isn't challenged"  Perhaps not overtly, but it is.  A blessing on a gay couple, even though it may not be "liturgical", does lend legitimacy to the relationship that makes those two people a "couple".   "Only individuals are being blessed, not the relationship".  Read the document.  It's right there in the title to Section 3 of the tome.

Those are two common attempts to deny the harm of FS.  Let's take another look at the thing, shall we?

Since my previous post on this topic, there have been a number of commentaries that have demonstrated the fatal flaws of Fiducia Supplicans.  I see no need for me to "reinvent the wheel as it were, so I will link to them and recommend all to your reading.  An important aside - I link to articles such as these so that you can draw your own conclusions and not just rely on my understandings of what the authors say.  We ALL have a duty, no matter our stations in life, to be informed of these matters.  Ignorance is not a morally acceptable option.

The first of these is an analysis by Cardinal Gerhard Muller.  He notes several troubling aspects of FS.  First, there is the attempt to introduce another type of "blessing".  Why?  Because the blessing already recognized by the Church demand agreement between the blessings and the Church's teachings.  Having this last sentence in mind, please pop over to the other browser window with FS open, and read paragraph 12 in its entirety.  You should be getting a sense of how insidious FS is, since it overtly calls for a new type of "blessing" that is not subjected to "too many moral prerequisites",  because they could "overshadow the unconditional power of God's love".  Absolute satanic nonsense!  The "moral prerequisites" are God's Commands.  His love and His commands stem from Him.  God does not have a split personality.

Muller goes on to say that sinful persons can be blessed, e.g., blessed to ask graces to turn from their sin.   However, paragraph 31 talks of blessing homosexual couples, not individuals.  An attempt to do that would be to cooperate in the mortal sin of homosexual conduct.  One cannot bless a couple without blessing what defines them as a couple - in this case, mortal sin.  That is both sacrilege and blasphemy.  Added to that is the guilt of cooperating with the mortal sin of sodomy.

Again, I urge you to read Cardinal Muller's entire piece.  But now we'll read what others have said.

The next article to consider was written by Father Thomas Weinandy and was published in First Things.  Father cleared up a misconception held by many.  Francis did not pen that tripe.  Rather, it came from Cardinal Victor Fernandez, aka Kissy Face, with Francis' approval.  Weinandy's main focus appears to be on paragraph 31, which is quite the poison pill amidst all that word salad.  Weinandy aptly calls it "jargon, sophistry and deceit".

In his last paragraph, Weinandy suggests the possibility that FS might have been well-intentioned.  Here I must disagree with Father.  The track records of both Francis and Kissy-Face testify against any possibility that this is well-intentioned.  It is a brazen attempt to cajole poorly-educated clergy into doing the indefensible - to normalize mortal sin in the Church's teachings.

Now let's look at what Eric Sammons says in Crisis Magazine.  He speaks a bit on the role of the pope in the Church and contrasts that with Francis' conduct.  In the writings of previous popes, their footnotes are drawn upon Scripture, doctrines, writings of their predecessors.  Not so for Francis.  Sammons states, and I think him correct, that approximately 65% of his references are his own previous teachings and/or writings.  He is his own source of teaching, in other words.

Paragraph 7 states that "the Holy Father's above-mentioned response invites us to broaden and enrich the meaning of blessings."  Sammons correctly points out that it is not the proper role of any pope to "broaden and enrich" anything.  Rather, the pope's responsibility is to teach and guard what has been handed down from the apostles.

Sammon's piece deserves a close and careful read.  I need not rehash what he said, but he does do a great job in unpacking FS, illustrating its divergence from Tradition.

More on FS soon.

Progressive Prelates Use Their Sacerdotal Authority As Weapons Against The Faithful

It seemed to me that Cardinal Muller still retained some concept of "sensus fidelium", but this account from GloriaTV disavows me of such notions.  Apparently he claims that a Catholic can conclude that his/her marriage before the Church is invalid with no canonical proof whatsoever.  In other words, he/she is his/her own judge in that matter, and the Church affirms this subjective evaluation.

We also received word from Church Militant TV that a faithful Catholic in Canada is finally being allowed onto her parish's property after being banned for over a year.  Her request that the parish announce the right to kneel for communion was met with slander from both the pastor and the parish secretary, with the apparent complicity of the local archdiocese.  Only after light was shone on the situation was the woman allowed onto her church property and to receive the sacraments.

These two stories seem unrelated, don't they?  Oh, they are very much related!  These are accounts of prelates who have no regard for the sacraments and the proper administration of the same.  On the one hand, you have a cardinal voicing approval for adulterous Catholics to pretend that they can receive Holy Communion.  On the other hand, a pastor vindictively - and in violation of canon law - denies the sacraments to a Catholic in good standing who simply asked to kneel at communion.

So here are two points we can glean from all this:

• Dissent from the Teachings of Jesus Christ - progressive prelates are just hunky-dorry with it and the subsequent sacrilege against the Sacraments.  
• Upholding the Teachings of Jesus Christ, especially in the face of the negligence and derision of prelates.  The bishops and clergy will meet such fidelity with resentment and even hatred, going so far as to punish the faithful by withholding sacraments which is itself a direct violation of Canon Law, specifically Canon 843

Progressive prelates, being compromised in their faith, administer the sacraments on basis of their own whims, caprices and even malice.  In doing so, they only add to the pile of sins that they already carry.  Unless they repent - and for many the clock is ticking loudly - their eternal salvation is in grave doubt.

Disgraceful Dismissal Of Cardinal Muller

Cardinal Muller has been dismissed as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  We knew that was coming, owing to the Cardinal's stances on both Laudato Si and Amoris Laetitia.  One Peter Five has further details of the dismissal interview. The pope summoned Cardinal Muller to a conference.  Right away the Pope presented him with five questions in apparent mockery of the dubia issued a few months ago by the "dubia Cardinals".  The questions are (with the Cardinal's replies):

• Are you in favor of, or against, a female diaconate? “I am against it,” responded Cardinal Müller.
• Are you in favor of, or against, the repeal of celibacy? “Of course I am against it,” the cardinal responded.
• Are you in favor of, or against, female priests? “I am very decisively against it,” replied Cardinal Müller.
• Are you willing to defend Amoris Laetitia? “As far as it is possible for me,” the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith replied: “there still exist ambiguities.”
• Are you willing to retract your complaint concerning the dismissal of three of your own employees? Cardinal Müller responded: “Holy Father, these were good, unblemished men whom I now lack, and it was not correct to dismiss them over my head, shortly before Christmas, so that they had to clear their offices by 28 December. I am missing them now.”

Any Catholic worthy of the name would have answered all five of these in the negative, as has the Cardinal.  Immediately afterwards, the Pope announced to the Cardinal his dismissal from the post and abruptly ended the interview by walking out without even a "good bye".

When Cardinal Muller first complained about the manner of his dismissal, these details were not known.  Now we can understand the Cardinal's complaint in the correct context.  He also remarked that the Church should follow its own social teaching.  I agree.  For all the jibber-jabber about "dialogue" and "accompanying", those two elements were nowhere to be found in that conversation.

I will say one thing.  The pope put forth five questions and received five very prompt replies.  Will he now condescend to answer the cardinals' dubia?

Who's next?  Will it be Cardinal Sarah?  How about Archbishop Schneider or maybe Bishop Paprocki?  Pray that the faithful prelates remain steadfast and show your support for them.

Diocese Of Rome Lures Adulterers Into Mortal Sin And Sacrilege

LifeSite News reports that Cardinal Agostino Vallini, Vicar General of the Diocese of Rome, has released guidelines based on Amoralis Lamentia that lure adulterers into greater mortal sin by receiving Holy Communion while carrying on in that state.  Cardinal Villini is merely the Vicar General of that diocese.  The Chief Shepherd of that diocese is none other than Pope Francis himself.

These directives fly in the face of the Teachings of the Church.  They most certainly contradict Humanae Vitae, Familiaris Consortio and others.  Supposedly this is to be allowed for limited cases and only when the adulterers are consulting with a confessor.  But think about this for a minute.  If these adulterers are conferring with a confessor, is not that confessor explaining to them the gravity of both adultery and receiving Holy Communion while in that state?  Therefore the adulterers should know that their sins are grave.  The confessor is supplying them with knowledge of the Church's teaching.  If they continue their sin, they are thus doing so in full knowledge of the sin and in deliberate disobedience to the Church.  Therefore we see: 1) grave matter, 2) full knowledge 3) deliberate consent.  The educated Catholic will know that these three conditions determine mortal sin.  It only takes one mortal sin for a soul to be damned to hell if he/she doesn't rectify the matter within the Sacrament of Confession.  If adulterers receive Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin, they commit yet another mortal sin, that of sacrilege against Holy Communion.  No Amoralis-Lamentia-based double-talk will erase that reality.

Now in order for a valid Confession to occur, the penitent must have the firm purpose of amending their sinful ways.  That means they must actually quit the sin, not merely give lip service to it.  If they approach the Confessional while having no intention of correcting their fault, they commit a sacrilege against the Sacrament of Confession.

Again, this is the Diocese of Rome.  Does anyone really believe that this guideline, which is in reality an outright temptation to mortal sin, would ever have been promulgated without the permission - if not instigation - of its bishop Pope Francis?  We see more seduction to mortal sin coming from Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, president of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.  This is the Vatican office charged with interpreting Church law.  He stated that adulterers who "want to change their situation but cannot" can receive Holy Communion.  He gave an example of a woman shacking up with a man and his children.  He states that she may be unable to leave lest she neglect her duties to the children.  But what "duties" are discharged by flaunting adultery before the children's eyes?  See this post from Toronto Catholic Witness for some analysis of Coccopalmerio's heresy.

We also see the following developments:

• The news of Cardinal Burke's being dispatched to Guam
• The long knives coming out for Cardinal Muller after he declared that sanctifying grace and mortal sin cannot coexist in a soul.
• The persecution of Father Peter West

These developments seem to be the attempts to silence those clergy who hold fast to Christ's words to us through Tradition.  I suspect we'll see more such persecutions and more blatant moral heresies.  Pray that either the dubia are answered or that the four cardinals take their next steps with all alacrity.

Cockroaches Do Hate The Light

I wrote last week about the horrid "guidance" that Cardinal Wuerl gave to his priests and seminarians regarding Amoralis Lamentia - see here and here.  As you can see from the links, Church Militant picked up on it, too.  Usually the chancery ignores what we write, although I know for a fact that my postings are monitored.

In his own blog, Cardinal Wuerl doubled down on the errors of Amoralis Lamentia.  I cannot say the errors belong to Wuerl alone, for those errors are promulgated by many - including Pope Francis himself.  He speaks of "a small number of clergy and media supporters"..."challenging the integrity of..Amoris Laetitia".  I've no doubt that with this "small number of clergy" crack, that he's taking a swipe at Cardinal Burke and the other three cardinals for issuing their dubia.  Reminder - in issuing their dubia, the four cardinals seek not to undermine any papal teaching but to clarify it.  There are a number of bishops who now claim that those in adulterous situations can receive Holy Communion without bringing their lives into conformity with the clear, timeless teachings of Jesus Christ.

Notice how he speaks of "the determining role of individual conscience when assessing personal culpability before God and therefore before his Church."  Wrong.  An individual's conscience never trumps God's Holy Will as revealed through His Teachings in the Catholic Church.  If an individual commits sin while being aware that Jesus Christs forbids such actions, he/she is culpable, personal proclivities and inclinations notwithstanding.  He/she is bound by Canon 916 not to approach the Communion rail.  If the sin is manifest and grave, the minister of Holy Communion is bound by Canon 915 to deny that person Holy Communion, lest he be party to sacrilege.

Regrettably, the Vicar of Christ has advocated for such sacrilege to occur.  Recall the instruction that he gave to priests from his native Argentina.  A few days ago the pope joined the bandwagon, accusing us of (wait for it!)  "obeying all the commandments, all of them..this paralyzes you too".  Hmm.. I seem to recall in the Gospel of John where Jesus says, "he who loves me will obey my commandments".  But according to the pope, obedience will make us "forget so many graces received..it doesn't allow you to go forward".  Go forward?  Forward - to where?  Reminder - disobedience to God's commands - any of them - will cause the sinner to lose grace.

Cardinal Muller has rebuked such confusion.  He railed against those who use AL to "justify situations against the will of God".   He added, "adultery is always a mortal sin and the bishops who create confusion about this must study the doctrine of the Church".  He didn't mention the pope by name, but his meaning is clear.  I suspect there may soon be some personnel shake-ups at the CDF very soon.

We faithful Catholics need to pray and to educate ourselves regarding our Faith.  We certainly will get no solid education from too many of our chanceries.

Is Cardinal Muller Cowering Before Vatican Progressives?

It certainly appears that way, given the statement that he released on Sunday.  He is Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  He said that a "fraternal correction" regarding Amoris Laetitia is "not possible" because AL poses "no danger to the faith".   Edward Pentin, in the National Catholic Register, points out that the CDF lodged a large number of corrections for AL; not one of them was accepted.

Now what else happened at the CDW just a few days prior to that?  Recall that on December 26, the pope ordered Cardinal Muller to dismiss three of the priests who were working with the CDW.  When the Cardinal succeeded in getting an audience so that he could discuss the matter with the pope, the pope tersely told the cardinal, "I am the pope, I do not need to give reasons for any of my decisions.  I have decided that they have to leave, and they have to leave".  He then walked out of the room, ending the meeting right then and there.  So much for all this "collegiality".  It seems reasonable to guess that Cardinal Muller felt the pope's displeasure.  One might think of the fear that a mafia underling would feel if his don behaved like that.

Like Mundabor, I strongly suspect that Muller is in "cya" mode: that is, "cover your @ss".  While I can understand Muller's "about-face", I can in no way condone it.  I had hopes that he was a bright spot in a very dark place, but he has cowed; no John Fisher is he.  Maybe he will reconsider; I pray he does.  But if he does not, let the four dubia cardinals press forward and do what needs to be done to bring some light and truth to the higher echelons of the Church.  Maybe Cardinal Napier can join them with his own dubium.