The Three Unhelpful Monkeys

There's a blog piece by Tom Peters being bandied about, apparently with the aim of stifling honest examination of some papal gaffes such as the most recent ones regarding Catholics being "like rabbits" and publicly scolding the poor expectant mother.  It is called "Feeling Devastated By What Pope Francis Says?  Try These 3 Helpful Keys".  This is not his first post written with the aim of keeping rose-colored glasses over people's eyes as they acknowledge the ever-burgeoning mess that is growing in front of them.  A little over a year ago, I commented on earlier "rose-colored-glasses" pieces that he wrote.  Rather than reinvent that wheel, I link to it here.

Let's look at this latest, shall we?  We'll start with what Peters calls "the three keys".

1. The pope will not change Church teaching.  We do have the Lord's promise that no pope will ever solemnly promulgate error.  But much damage can occur in other ways (a point often overlooked).  There can be the careless words about punching people and chiding expectant mothers who are experiencing difficult pregnancies.  There's the mistreatment of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and the awful sin-nod of last October.  I could go on and on; you get the point.  A pope does not have to be a formal heretic to inflict much damage.  By virtue of his office, his carelessness and flippancy can cause much scandal to the point of the damnation of some souls.
2. (Speaking of oratorical styles of other popes) "If you expect Pope Francis to speak as the previous two popes, you will be devastated".  For most of us, that's not the case.  The role of the Vicar of Christ demands, though , speech that is crystal-clear, unambiguous, and without any trace of nuance.  We benefited from that not only from John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but from the great majority of pontiffs throughout Church history.  They all had their "styles", but most of them subordinated their personal speaking preferences for practices that led to clear communication with their flock. 
3. "When Francis speaks to the mainstream media, he is choosing to speak to non-Catholics".  I'm sure Peters sincerely believes that, but on what basis?  Why should anyone else believe that? No matter.  Regardless of what the pope may "choose", the whole world is always his audience.  We wouldn't be having these discussions if that weren't the case.  No one who speaks to reporters and into microphones can pretend that only a select group of people will be his audience.  In his case, the whole world is his audience; nothing will change that reality.  At best, it would be recklessly imprudent to focus only on one sector of the populace - if indeed that is his intent.  I for one discern no reasonable strategy behind behaviors that have been shown, time and again, to wreak havoc among a large segment of his world-sized audience.

He closed his piece with what he called a "powerful work of the Holy Spirit..the largest Mass in history".  Yes, he is referring to this debacle, where no doubt the Body of Our Lord was literally trampled underfoot as Sacred Hosts were being passed around like so many chips and crackers. 

Now I realize that some might be "devastated" by this post.  Well, deal with the hard truth as you grab your Rosaries and pray for Holy Mother Church.

Reply To Tom Peters' Objections About Our Concerns

Two days ago Tom Peters posted a blog article in which he attempts to rebut concerns broached against an earlier post of his.  I would suspect that among the "reactions" to which he is, well, reacting is my post about the rose-colored glasses and/or the Vortex embedded therein.  I am somewhat taken aback by what appears to be judgmentalism and condescension regarding heartfelt concerns that motivate us.

His second paragraph begins with, "sure, I get it, it’s fun to be a cynic. It’s cool to be the one always predicting the next bad thing that’s going to happen."  Tom et al, I assure you that we are not having "fun" dealing with the messes that are issuing forth from the Vatican.  We see these "bad things" as causing confusion - the sort of confusion that can destroy faith and damn souls to hell.  We write to obtain clarification of these conundrums, not because we "enjoy the novelty of being papal skeptics".

Peters then lets off with "We must trust that when the cardinals chose Cardinal Brogoglio to be Pope, the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing. So let’s quit with the doom mongering."  Again, we are not "doom mongering" when we point out problems so obvious that one would have to be in active denial not to acknowledge it.  But let's look at the quote again.  Here we have him stating a premise then a conclusion.  However, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from that premise.  We trust that the Holy Spirit knows what he was doing; but that doesn't mean we should remain silent when there is cause for alarm.

Case in point.  No one denies that the Holy Spirit guided the Cardinal's actions many centuries ago when Pope Alexander VI ascended to the papacy.  No one can deny that Alexander's papacy was one huge debacle.  Hailing from the Borgia family, he brought with him some "family traditions".  He had people murdered, he fathered whole broods of illegitimate children and yes, he taught his children to be cut-throats as well.  Lucretia Borgia was his daughter via one of his concubines.  From another woman he sired Cesare Borgia - so ruthless was he that Machiavelli based his signature work The Prince on his chequered career.  Would Tom Peters have called it "doom mongering" to point out Alexander's foibles?   Yes, the laundry is indeed a tad spotty.

By the way - in the quote from Peters' piece that appears two paragraphs ago, I copied and pasted it from Peter's blog.  Thus the misspelling "Brogoglio" is Peters', not mine.  It should read "Bergoglio".

My friend at The Tenth Crusade put up an excellent rebuttal of Peters' piece.  I urge you to read it.  I need not rehash what she has said.  Rather, I'll direct your attention to this question that he poses in his second-to-last paragraph.  "If Pope Francis sees dissenting Catholics living more active lives of charity, showing more passion in their desire to fix the problems of the world, and being more vocal in the great debates of our time, what happens then?"   What Peters proposes is an impossibility.  Dissenting Catholics by definition are those who hold in disregard the Teachings of the Church that originate from Our Lord Himself.  In separating themselves from the Church, they cut themselves from the grace of truth and they usually attempt to draw others into their dissent.  Not only do they endanger their own immortal souls, but the souls of those whom they successfully seduce into their sinful patterns of belief and conduct.  Whatever else "charity" may mean, it does NOT mean the facilitation of the damnation of souls.  Charity leads to eternal salvation, not perdition.  Far from "fixing the problems of the world", they greatly exacerbate them owing to their disobedience to the Creator of the World.  For the life of me, I don't understand how Peters could suggest such an outlandish situation.  I might suggest a careful study of Pope Benedict's Caritas In Veritate.  As the title suggests, Pope Benedict made plain that there is no authentic charity without an adherence to truth.  And yes, truth does include (in many cases) "tradition" with a small "t", for those willing to disregard "tradition" are often quite willing to jettison "Tradition".

Peters, in the final paragraph, asks "So which is it going to be?"  I'll answer that.  As we see problems (and yes, Tom, they ARE problems), we will continue to bring them to light in order to bring about their rectification.  That's a part of "living the Gospel".  I for my part ask, "How much longer are you going to engage in denial and play the Three Monkeys?"

Catholic Media Stands Up to Knox, the Messiah's Anti-Catholic Lackey

Harry Knox, who serves (using the word loosely) on Obama's faith-based advisory council, has shown himself to be quite the anti-Catholic bigot.  Here I must make clear that he rails against Catholics who adhere to the Magisterium on matters of faith and morals, especially in terms of the life issues; I'm sure that with Mr. Knox, "Catholics" such as Pelosi and Biden are acceptable.

 

When the Pope rightly stated that condoms would only exacerbate the AIDS situation, Knox, in his official capacity, opined that he was "hurting people in the name of Jesus".  Now can you just imagine the uproar if Knox had slandered a Moslem or Jew in that manner?  But hey, we're living in the NEW AGE!

 

The Saint Michael Society has started a petition to ask Obama to demand Knox's resignation, stating quite rightly that no bigot has any place in a Presidential administration.  On Hannity's America a few nights ago, Brent Bozell of Media Research Center and Tom Peters of American Papist commented on this matter.  Watch the video below.

 

In this discourse, Peters states quite correctly that "the last acceptable prejudice is anti-Catholicism".  He's quite right.  Now pardon my french here, but in this so-called "new age", we Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium are the Niggers of the New Age!  Others who might be so classified are others who hold pro-life and conservative values.

These next two statements of mine will probably not endear me to too many people, but say them I will.

1. I have made no secret of my displeasure regarding the Manhattan Declaration and the way it completely tap-dances around the matter of contraception.  Clearly there were those who, during the drafting of this thing, were actively militating against any mention of contraception.  In this isolated matter, could their attitudes have been that much different than those of Knox?
2. This "office of faith-based initiative", or whatever it's named, was the brainchild of President George W. Bush.  It was meant to bring faith-based charities together and to give them federal aid.  I immediately saw that there was no constitutional basis for it and made my opposition to it known quite loudly.  Some of my pro-life friends disagreed, saying that Bush had a good idea to help out Christian charities.  I again reiterated that the US Constitution did not permit such governmental meddling.  I also pointed out that under a relatively benign president (such as Bush) there might appear to be no problem, but an infrastructure was being established that had potential for grreat harm, should someone more malevolent assume the Presidental helm.  Well, guess what?  Those chickens have come home to roost.  I agree that Knox should leave that office.  But then the office should be permanently abolished because there is no constitutional basis for it.

USCCB Throwing Smoke Screens and Red Herrings

The post below makes plain the real issues with which we're trying to deal in regards to the USCCB and its ties with organziations that are part and parcel of the culture of death.  The John Carr matter is but one sign of the corruption of the USCCB; he attracts our interest, however, because of his high position within the ranks of the USCCB.

Some good people, however, are being hoodwinked into believing that this is "all about John Carr".  One of them appears to be Father Frank Pavone, president of Priests for Life.  Such confusion is displayed by this blog entry of his.  Please read it and leave your own respectful comments; you'll see that others already have.

Tom Peters of American Papist, now CatholicVoteAction.org also seems to have swallowed the koolaid about John Carr being personally attacked.  He states also that (and I quote), "the situation has not been helped, either, by the sensationalist reporting at RealCatholicTV.com, which in a recent report claimed that the allegations of misconduct at the CCHD was what Pope Paul VI was referring to when he warned that the “smoke of Satan has found its way into the Church” … seriously?"  Yes, Tom, seriously.  We are looking at the truth of the matter.  If the subject matter being examined is by nature so scandalous as to render its reporting "sensationalist", well then, so be it.  We take the truth as it is, not as we'd like it to be.  Tom states that "I don't follow RCTV directly but American Catholic does"  But Tom, you're the one commenting about it.  Doesn't it behoove you to look at these videos?  I'm posting the whole series as clips are published.  Please examine them here, or go to RealCatholicTV's youtube page to see their whole collection.  All, I suggest that in this case, also, to please leave comments for Tom at the end of his posting.