On April 4, the Papal Posse touched upon a number of topics, including Christus Vivit.  Enjoy.

The Papal Posse On The Sex Abuse Synod And Other Related Matters

Another Synod Is On Its Way - So Too Is Another Amoralis Lamentia

This one, scheduled for this coming October, will be called "Synod of Bishops on Youth, focusing on: youth, women, moral issues, and leadership.  I agree with One Peter Five that this one, like the infamous one of 2-3 years ago, that this one will be used as a front to forward a progressive agenda.  Read his commentary.  Some of those young people criticize the Church as being "severe" and "associated with excessive moralism".  C'mon!  Teenagers have been grousing at their parents for the same reasons for countless generations!  They are simply bucking the policies that keep their lives from being ruined because they are too driven by emotions and hormones.  As the wise parents stand their ground, so too must the Church and not think of such youthful rebellion as real guidance.  Robert Royal of Catholic Thing said that he would have found such toadying "pathetic" had he been approached by adults like that when he was a teen.

Such "severe" aspects include the Church's teachings on homosexuality, abortion, shacking up, etc.  The kids have gotten their hopes up that the Church will change her teachings on these matters.  That is impossible of course, for the Church's teachings on morals are those of Jesus Christ.  They won't change for God Himself doesn't change.  But the fact that these heretical hopes are being entertained may well be a convenient smoke screen for those progressives within the Church who do want to insinuate such changes under the guise of "being pastoral" and "accompanying", etc.

As the synod on the family was a disguise for the promulgation of Amoralis Lamentia, I dread the thing that will be published after this youth synod.  It is probably already written and simply is waiting for this October dog-and-pony show to happen.

Arroyo, Royal, Murray Discuss The Growing Murkiness Of Amoralis Lamentia

This World Over episode was aired yesterday.  At present, I cannot find the youtube but will substitute it for this facebook feed. (UPDATE - the youtube is below in place of the facebook link)  I have some friends who seem unwilling to shed their rose-colored illusions regarding Pope Francis.  One in particular thought this World Over was horrid.  I for the life of me cannot guess why.  If anyone finds anything truly objectionable, please advise in the comments.  If you do so, please explain your reasons.  Knee-jerk reactions are not helpful.

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.

Raymond Arroyo And Robert Royal On The Amoralis Lamentia Allowance For Sacrilege

Dr. Mirus Tries To Defend The Indefensible

A few days ago Pope Francis made plain his intention to permit adulterers to seal their eternal damnation by committing sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist.  I wrote about that two days ago.  I don't know why Dr. Jeff Mirus tries to spin Pope Francis' mess in some sort of "positive" way, but he makes some logical gaffes in so doing.  He tries to set forth a hypothetical case of adultery being a venial sin only.  To wit: (begin quote)

"Very briefly, then, I would argue that the following is the most likely scenario in which the presumption that only venial sin is involved may be reasonably justified:

An invalidly married couple has had children together, who are still at home.

Either the man or the woman recognizes the sinfulness of the “marriage”, regrets having entered into it, and desires now to do what is right (which in this case would be for the parents to live as brother and sister while still caring for their children as mother and father in the same household).

The other party refuses to live as brother and sister.

The other party says he (or she) will leave the family if sexual relations are refused.

Hence the man or woman in question continues sexual relations, in effect under duress, to ensure that his or her children are not deprived of one parent.

Now, even if we argue that the morally correct course is to separate from the unrepentant spouse and trust in God, it is easy to see that—at the very least—this would be hard to discern and, even if discerned, there would be tremendous fear of depriving one’s children of a family setting which includes both their mother and their father."

(end quote)  I scarcely know where to begin, but here goes.

• Dr. John Lamont, in his own commentary published on Rorate Caeli, points out that the so-called "repentant" spouse is indeed acting voluntarily.  The difficulties of his/her choice do not compromise their free will.  The so-called "repentant" spouse isn't all that repentant.
• When evaluating the morality of a given act, the FIRST consideration must be to the nature of the act itself.  If the act is inherently immoral, all other considerations are moot.
• Those of us who are old enough remember from our catechism that ALL sins against the 6th commandment are mortal.  Temptations to the same are not mortal as they only become sin when consent is given.  If the so-called "innocent spouse" acquiesces to the meanie, he/she still gives consent.
• As an aside, one might wonder just what the "innocent spouse" would gain in such a scenario.  If the obdurate one threatens to leave the family if he/she is not gratified, what does that say about their own devotion to the children?  What kind of parent would he/she really be?  What kind of "family setting" is it when one spouse is essentially blackmailing the other spouse to commit mortal sin and damn their soul to hell?
• So far the conversation has been about those "rare, difficult" cases.  Well, remember the 1930 Lambeth Conference?  The Anglicans allowed for contraception only "for special cases".  We know how that turned out, don't we?  That's the plan here: allow sacrilege for those "hard" cases, and the camel's nose will be under the tent, never to be removed.

There are a number of folks who can't deal with the increasingly obvious fact that we have a pope who is not taking seriously his God-given charge to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.  In fact, many of his words and actions seem designed to undermine it.  Dr. Mirus seems to be of that mindset.  

By the way - I'd also urge you to read the commentary from Robert Royal.

Now a word about comments.  Most folks know that I entertain most comments, provided they are respectful and honor the Church.  I will not entertain comments from those who won't entertain comments on their own sites, or who charge fees for the "privilege" of commenting.

Polyannas Are NOT Helping!

There's a fair amount of "damage control" occurring in regards to the La Repubblica interview.  Last week Raymond Arroyo hosted Robert Royal and Father Joseph Fessio; the latter two had different perspectives on the Holy Father's words.  Father Fessio is himself a Jesuit so he brings that perspective to the table.  The discussion revolves around the Pope's previous interview, but I find the comments apropos.

In the video below the relevant section starts at 18:46.  At around the 24:00 mark, Father brings up the example of Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) and illustrates how Our Lord engaged the woman in conversation.  He seems to imply that is the strategy of Pope Francis with these interviews.  If such is the case, I think that's flawed.  Our Lord was engaged in a one-on-one conversation.  These broadcast interviews, by dint of the intended promulgation of these, cannot be likened to the one-on-one conversation. Rather we're talking of a one-to-millions proclamation, with these "millions" coming from a myriad of cultures, perspectives, etc.  One size does not fit all.  Isn't it rather ironic that in his attempt to address the interviewer "where he's at" that the Holy Father loses sight of all the other millions of people and their situations?   Does the phrase "can't see the forest for the sake of one tree" have relevance here?