Msgr John Enzler - Making Allowances For Some Abortions?

Msgr John Enzler is CEO of Catholic Charities.  He's a former pastor of Blessed Sacrament parish in Washington DC (Chevy Chase neighborhood).  He writes regularly for Our Parish Times.

Unfortunately his leanings are quite progressive.  We've had occasion to comment on the evidence in the past.  In this latest issue of Our Parish Times he wrote a column entitled "Celebrating Life, Equality and Education".  Regrettably it is much worse than the usual progressive screed.  Please go to page 16 of that pdf.  In one paragraph he wrote glowingly of the March for Life.  However, he started the next paragraph by saying "I take a pastoral view of this issue".  Uh-oh!  There's that word "pastoral"!  We know now that it has ominous undertones, thanks to the way Pope Francis has used that word to camouflage all sorts of dissidence and heresy.  Msgr Enzler merely followed suit.  Here is the rest of Enzler's "pastoral view".  To wit: "Let’s start by admitting it’s wrong and admitting that abortion is in fact taking the life of an innocent baby. At the same time, let us as a Church be welcoming to all who may be considering or have had abortions. We don’t condone it, but we need to meet them where they are, recognizing that people are forced to make decisions in all kinds of circumstances. While we don’t agree with the decision, they still need to be welcomed and loved in our Church as part of God’s family."  Shall we unpack all this "pastoral" double-talk?

Let's do this "bullet style".

• The phrase "at the same time" sets the stage for the treatment of a pro-abortion mentality as being equivalent to reverence for life.
• "we don't condone it, but we need to meet them where they are"  It sounds nice, but "where they are" is literally hell-bound.  Where is the acknowledgment that the Church must immediately call such people away from abortion to immediate repentance?
• "people are forced to make decisions" Wrong.  No amount of "force" can ever justify a choice for an intrinsically grave evil such as abortion.  Enzler doesn't acknowledge that those "decisions" are impermissible.  What does that say about his own beliefs regarding abortion?
• "while we don't agree with the decision" It's not a mere difference of opinion.  Abortion is a mortal sin against God's commands.  Where is the truly pastoral concern?  Where are the Spiritual Works of Rebuking the Sinner, Instructing the Ignorant?
• "they still need to be welcomed" If one has committed the sin of abortion, they will find this welcome as they enter the confessional and confess this (and all other) mortal sin.  No other "welcome" will do.

If the topic of Enzler's article was "racism" as opposed to "abortion", would he be evincing such moral relativism?  Of course not!  But consider what was written of him in my previous posts.  We see that at the very best, he is less concerned about the murders of 3500 babies daily than he is about amnesty for border-crashers, etc.  Of course there are big bucks to be had from the latter.  The tiny babies?  Not so much!

I've been blogging on such mess for several years now.  Still I find it difficult to believe that a Catholic priest could vomit forth such pablum.  Consider that he's CEO of Catholic Charities.  Does he occupy this position despite his position - or because of it?  I suspect the latter.  This, and other problems with Catholic Charities, makes it an organization not worthy of one penny from faithful Catholics.

Sin-Nod Proposal To Insinuate Moral Relativism In The Church

There are indications that Pope Francis may be entertaining ideas to slough off some papal authority to local bishops' conferences.  Under the proposal, these conferences would be empowered to deal with moral matters such as homsexuality and divorce as well as some doctrinal matters.  Voice of the Family has a fairly extensive analysis of the problem.

Both Cardinals Muller and Burke rightly condemn this idea as a violation of the very notion of a universal Church and an admittance of moral relativism.  Ladies and gentlemen, the Catholic Church is custodian of the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  These teachings are as immutable and eternal as the God who promulgated them.  They don't change from place to place, era to era.  What this crackpot idea would do is to create situations where the Church in one place would falsely teach that homosexuality is morally acceptable while another would hold onto Christ's teachings.  It would in fact formalize schisms (yes, that's plural) within the Church.

Readers of this blog are well aware of the many problems caused by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  I needn't rehash them here; just put the name in the search box at the top left.  Now can you just imagine the unmitigated disasters that would be spewing forth from that cabal if they were granted doctrinal authority?  The Church in the United States would be crippled beyond recognition.

Let us pray that the Church survives the remaining days of this sin-nod.

How Do Progressives Like Obama Keep Getting Elected?? Look At The Cracker Barrel Situation And You'll See How.

Have you asked yourselves that question numerous times?  I certainly have.  Bear in mind that I live in Montgomery County, MD - a literal liberal loony bin.  I've no problem believing how Dems such as O'Malley and Mikulski get elected, but I did harbor hopes that perhaps the rest of the country had some scintilla of intelligence left.  Maybe they do - but it's rapidly disappearing, it would seem.

I got that impression after I saw the story about the employee of Cracker Barrel (in Florida, I believe) who was fired after giving away restaurant food - without paying for it.  This was not his first incident; it was his fifth.  He had been warned about it the previous four times yet continued to carry on.  What seems to be tugging at the heartstrings of folks is that the man is a 73-year old veteran and (at least during the fifth violation) gave the muffin to a homeless person.  You can read the story in the Blaze and IJR Review.  Bear in mind as you read these accounts that these two sources are generally conservative; yet they too seem to be so swept up in the emotional appeal that they have let their feelings cloud their ability to think and reason in logical manners - manners that weigh immutable moral principles.  They might also be biased against Cracker Barrel for their admittedly cowardly treatment of Phil Robertson a few months back.

The moral relativism is astounding.  While a good many people do understand the man's actions as being theft, too many other have no problem with what the guy did and express anger at Cracker Barrel for firing the thief.  I'll summarize a bit of the faulty thinking and rebut it as best as I can.

• "He was being kind and generous to the homeless person.  Jesus would approve and bless him for it."
• Folks, we can only be truly generous with what is our property, not the property of others.  While the first is authentic generosity, the other is theft - a sin against the Seventh Commandment.  It doesn't matter that he intended to give it away, for an inherently immoral means can never be justified by the ends, be that end ever so laudable.
• "It's only a muffin, how much can it cost?"
• The dollar amount of the theft doesn't change the nature of the crime.
• If indeed the muffin was so inexpensive, why would not the employee simply have bought the muffin himself?  That way the muffin would have truly been his to give away and the generosity would have been authentic and not a bastardization of generosity.
• "Cracker Barrel was so heartless.  Why didn't they give him a chance?"
• They gave him four chances already.  How many chances should Cracker Barrel have given him before they realized that they had to fire this loose canon?  The IJR vdeo reveals that he'd probably have stolen again.  Why should Cracker Barrel have then given him a sixth opportunity for theft?
• "He was fired for being kind to the homeless."
• No.  He was fired for displaying that he was a serial thief.
• "Cracker Barrel needs to respect elders/veterans"
• Respect for elders and veterans does not entail looking the other way when they commit crimes.  Would these same people be so sympathetic if the thief were a bit younger?  Why should age and veteran status matter?  
• I'll be blunt.  His age and veteran status were highlighted to manipulate people's emotions and impair their ability to think rationally.  This tactic seems to have worked on too many people.

Doesn't this man's theft have a rather familiar ring to it?  Why, yes!  It's the same kind of "redistribution" and "compassion" that is practiced - at our expense - by the oligarchy that inhabits the White House and Congress.  It's the same that is advocated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the "social justice" crowd in Church hierarchy -and yes - seemingly approved by Pope Francis himself.

These people, thinking they are "compassionate", are condoning theft, sin against the Seventh Commandment.  It is said that we as a nation get the leaders we deserve.  Ladies and gentlemen of good sense and morals, we must speak out against these erroneous notions when we encounter them - and that seems to be happening with ever greater frequency.