Priestly Formation Document - Its Sinister Context

With this post I'd like to delve more into the problematic guidelines for priestly formation that were recently released; see yesterday's post.  Some good people don't see the harm in what was said in the guidelines per se about concern for the environment.  As I said yesterday, I think it's necessary to look at them in the context of other proceedings from this papacy to date.  Together they paint a very ominous picture.

In addition to Laudato Si, many questionable statements were issued and deeds committed by the Vatican, many with the cooperation of anti-life forces.  Recall that last month the pope addressed the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, calling for the creation of "a regulatory system that included inviolable limits and ensure the protection of ecosystems".  Will seminarians be brainwashed taught to shill for these "regulatory systems"?  Also recall how the pope waxed lyrical about the UN summit on climate change last year.  He, the Vicar of Christ, stated that the summit was "humanity's last chance to thwart climate disaster" and that the world is at "the limits of suicide".  Will seminarians be forced to parrot that crap?  Will they be forced to teach that "global warming is a sin" that must be "atoned" by recycling and carpooling?

Will they be forced to promote the Catholic Climate Covenant?  That was a bit of a fad a little while ago and may well make a comeback.  Let's look at the Catholic Climate Covenant in light of some very troubling facts unearthed and exposed by Michael Hichborn of Lepanto Institute.  Sarah Spengeman, Program Director of CCC, is a member of Emily's List.  That organization exists for the sole purpose of helping elect pro-abortion women to political offices.  The Lepanto page shows the online evidence.  Additionally, Spengeman's social sites show her to be sympathetic to women's ordination and homosexual perversity.

I bring up the matter of Sarah Spengeman for she is only one of the anti-God activists that new priests, thanks to that ill-considered "gift of the priestly vocation" thing, will be forced to promote (even if only indirectly).  They will also be forced to portray "climate change" as sin, thus obfuscating the true serious nature of sin.  In fact, the very acceptance of the notion of "climate change" as fact may be its own sin against honesty, for by no means is "climate change" settled science and it is outside the competency of Church hierarchy to pronounce it settled.  So it seems that our seminarians will be coerced into preaching a progressive agenda that has nothing to do with scientific truth, let alone the salvation of souls.

Problematic Guidelines For Priestly Formation

The Vatican released new guidelines regarding the education and formation of priests.  LifeSiteNews has a nice synopsis, and I now link to the full document "The Gift Of The Priestly Vocation" in pdf format.  It appears to be an update of previously issued guidelines that reflect the teachings of Pope Francis.  An immediate question that comes to mind is that any such guidelines should be reflective of the Teachings of Jesus Christ, which do not change for He Himself is immutable.

As does Mr. Bentz, I too take strong exception to the rather strange and perhaps harmful priorities that the pope seems to be urging for new priests.  If you have the document itself open, please go to page 71 and look at the second paragraph in section 172.  The new priests are expected to promote "climate change" junk science from the pulpits.  While the phrase "climate change" is not specifically mentioned in this document, the reference is clear.  To what else would "emerging planetary crisis" be referring?  And who are these "experts and researchers"?  Well, let's take a look at Laudato Si itself and some of the "research" that occurred.  They include "luminaries" such as Jeffrey Sachs, Hans Schnellnhuber, Naomi Klein, etc - progressives who just happen to be advocates of "population control".  Now is the priest being asked to promote population control?  Not directly, but by what he'll be ordered to do, he will insinuate "population control" sympathies to his congregation, even if he's doing so unwittingly.

We also have to note what is not being said in that document, especially in the context of other current controversies embroiling the Church.  As the LifeSiteNews article states, scant attention is being paid to pro-life and culture of life concerns.  While the document proscribes the ordination of homosexual candidates, it makes no mention of what priests are to do in combating the ever-encroaching homosexual culture that threatens to swallow up more vulnerable people and to demand that homosexual sin not only be accepted but celebrated by everyone.  Since the document does talk of "peace and justice" I do not understand why the priest would not be instructed to do all he can to combat the mortal sin of homosexual conduct.  Again, this deliberate omission must be seen in context: this time, the context of the two sin-nods with the resultant mess known as Amoris Laetitia - or as I call it, Amoralis Lamentia.

As an aside, two other prelates are supporting the dubia issued by the four cardinals: Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia and Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes of Germany.  I pray that more join them and that the dubia receive the responses that they deserve, for the good of all concerned.

The LifeSiteNews piece ends with an opinion of the document being "in general, well-rounded".  That is not reassuring.  Consider the case of one person who secretly hopes to poison another.  Does he/she force the poison upon the intended victim outright, or does he/she administer the poison in some other food?  That food may be good and wholesome in and of itself.  However, those few grains of poison render the whole serving deadly.  So it is with this document.