Evangelical Christians School Defenders Of Amoralis Lamentia

Today's online issue of Crisis magazine featured a book review of Cardinal Coccopalmerio's attempt to justify chapter 8 of Amoralis Lamentia.  This chapter is one of the most troubling parts of AL as it erroneously states that adulterers can receive Holy Communion while still continuing their mortally sinful conduct.  The review is called, "A Cardinal's Implausible Defense Of Amoris Laetitia".  Implausible it is.

I don't need to add commentary to this good review.  I will add some context, though, considering this cardinal.  Most recently, a priest-secretary of his was busted for hosting a drug/gay orgy on Vatican premises.  At the time of the bust, Msgr Capozzi was so stoned that he had to be taken to a hospital for detoxification.  Coccopalmerio also said that some Anglican orders were valid.

So the good cardinal is trying to be ecumenical.  Well, here's an idea for him to promote ecumenism and to actually improve Amoralis Lamentia.  A group of American evangelical Christians stated some solid moral teachings regarding marriage in the form of articles.  They call it the Nashville Statement.  As far as morals go, it seems quite faithful to Traditional teaching.  It certainly is a vast improvement over the spiritual rot that is now embedded in this alleged papal teaching.  Why doesn't the Cardinal - in the interests of "dialogue", of course - suggest that chapter 8 be scrapped and this Nashville Statement be inserted in its place?

Seriously speaking, that replacement would be a vast improvement.

USCCB - Puppets And Mouthpieces For Muslim Terrorists

Today Crisis Magazine published a piece by William Kilpatrick entitled "The Downside Of Dialogue".  He is commenting on a document called "Revelation: Catholic And Muslim Practices".  This thing was concocted by both the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Islamic Society of North America.

I've written in the past why I believe the USCCB could just as well stand for "Useless Syndicate of Corrupt Cowardly Bishops".  But let's take a look at this Islamic Society of North America (ISNA for brevity), shall we?  Discoverthenetworks (see right side bar) has done rather extensive research into their origins and history, detailing links with the Muslim Brotherhood.  Notice their aim to impose sharia law wherever it can, and their allegiance to the Wahhibist brand of Islam - the same from which springs ISIS.  Jihadwatch has a plethora of articles detailing ISNA's Hamas links and their disdain for the State of Israel.

Let me say a word about that word "dialogue".  Much deliberate mischief has been wrought by that word's invocation.  Dialogue is used in terms of describing conversation between equals.  However, progressives will blather mindlessly how Jesus "dialogued" with others.  HE DID NOT!  Certainly He conversed with others, but He always spoke as a Teacher instructing His disciples.  In the same way, the bishops are called to proclaim the truth.  They have a charism as teachers; they are belittling that charism by engaging in distracting "dialogue".  That should cease immediately.

This document is 66 pages long.  Maybe one day, if I have time, I'll wade through the mess.  In the meantime let's look at one statement.  In its conclusion we read, "Both Jesus and Muhammad loved and cared for all whom they met, especially the poor and oppressed; their teachings and example call for solidarity with the poor, oppressed, homeless, hungry, and needy in today’s world."  Last week I wrote on a "Muslim Day" parade in New York City.  In that parade we saw clear demonstration of Muhammad's "love and solidarity".  It is an act of blasphemy for the USCCB to equate the charity commanded by Jesus Christ and the murderous barbarism of the Muslims.

Once again the USCCB is showing itself to be a collection of stooges for the progressives.  At one time I would simply have suggested that they not be taken seriously.  My opinion has changed; I fear now that they must be regarded as enemies of the True Faith.  We must watch them with caution and oppose them.

From The "Et Tu Brute?" Department - Austin Ruse Shills For Dissenting Catholic Politician

Barbara Comstock, a Catholic Virginian who is running for US Congress, is asking the Obama administration to make oral contraceptives available over the counter for women over eighteen.  She is a GOP insider who has the backing of Rick Santorum, Mark Levin and other leading figures.  Why she feels it necessary to cheer Obama's contraceptive mentality is beyond me.  She has garnered well-deserved criticism of LifeSiteNews and other pro-life organizations.

Austin Ruse, president of C-Fam, wrote an article in Crisis magazine entitled "Is Contraception the Hill We Want to Die On?"  He defends Ms. Comstock's formal and material cooperation with the mortal sin of birth control.  Let's take a look at what Comstock did.  In joining that push for contraception, she is actually engaged in an act that is inherently sinful.  I cannot judge her condemned for I know not her degree of culpability; by the same token I cannot assume her excused either.  I am surprised and disappointed that Ruse did not address that facet of the issue, for that one, among all other considerations, deals with the eternal (as opposed to political) consequences of Comstock's foolishness.

The title of the article is Ruse's attempt to take LifeSiteNews and other like-minded people (such as this author) to task for "charging up contraception hill".  In reality, it is Comstock who made that foolish foray up that hill.  We're simply choosing not to look the other way.

Ruse does make some good observations.  He notes, all too accurately, that Catholic homilies on these matters are few and far between.  He also notes that the USCCB has taken no public action regarding contraceptives per se - much to their shame.  Other than these, I cannot but believe that Ruse has done the Teaching Magisterium of the Church a gross disservice.