Papal Pornography

If one thought the papal interviews couldn't get much worse than what they had been, they regrettably err.  Today's is so depraved that parents may be advised not to discuss this in the presence of small children.  He whined and complained about the media (while giving an interview to the media - go figure), lamenting their tendency to report unpleasant news, "even if they are true".  He likens the reporting of "nasty" things to coprophilia.  If you never heard that term before, please be advised that until two hours ago, I never did either.  Apparently neither did the creators of the blogger platform on which I write this blog, for its spell-checker is prompting me to change it.  I will give the wikipedia definition now.

Coprophilia (from Greek κόπρος, kópros—excrement and φιλία, philía—liking, fondness), also called scatophilia or scat (Greek: σκατά, skatá-feces),^[1] is the paraphilia involving sexual arousal and pleasure from feces.

He went on to say that "since people have a tendency towards the sickness of coprophagia, a lot of damage can be done".

Coprophagia!  Another term, similar to the first but not quite identical.  What is that?  Again we look to wikipedia.

Coprophagia /kɒp.rə.ˈfeɪ.dʒi.ə/^[1] or coprophagy /kəˈprɒfədʒiː/ is the consumption of feces

So people "have a tendency" toward this, uh, dietary predilection?  Dear readers, when is the last time that was served at your dinner tables?  When was the last time you saw that featured at your favorite restaurants? When is the last time that crossed your minds?  I didn't think so!

Two things need to be discussed.  To liken journalism to a perverted sexual fetish is nothing short of the sin of slander against those journalists who take seriously their responsibilities to inform the public of current affairs.  One might think the pope is taking a swipe at those of us who shine the light on his evident designs to undermine Holy Mother Church in all manners possible.  It's worth noting that Father Spadaro accuses those who criticize Amoralis Lamentia as "being influenced by the devil".  Hmm.  Do I detect a coordination of talking points here?

But what is behind the pope's decision to use vulgarity?  As I mentioned earlier, I never even heard of these terms, and I'm not particularly naive.  Several others never did, either.  So what gives?  Who would even think to use terms that describe perverted practices?  One of my friends pointed out that such language would be quite familiar to the "gay community", that is, those who regularly engage in such perversions as part and parcel of their lives.  With whom is the pope surrounding himself?  One who lies with dogs arises with fleas.

This is the Vicar of Christ who is now not only spouting thinly-veiled heresy - now he's uttering vulgarity to boot.  As I said before regarding the cardinals and the dubia, let us pray that the course of this papacy changes and soon.

Correction - Today is not the first time such vulgarity spewed from the pope's mouth.  Almost word for word he uttered the same bile in 2013.  What is filling the mind of the Vicar of Christ?  Please, Lord, awaken us from this surreal nightmare!

Holy Communion - The Divorced Who Ask Will Be Admitted

Remember Eugenio Scalfari, the Italian atheistic journalist who interviewed the pope several times but allegedly never bothered to record the proceedings of the interview?  Supposedly he simply wrote from his memory.  He reported some whoppers by the pope and immediately sent the Vatican press office into a tizzy; at least we're supposed to believe the tizzy was authentic.  I actually think it was quite an act: the pope can let a little heresy out with the help of his friend, and when the resultant flack starts to fly, they can claim it was all just some sort of mistake.  It's a neat way to insinuate heresies into people's minds while taking no responsibility for it, isn't it?  Recall these incidents from last year.  You'd think that if Scalfari really was misrepresenting the pope, that the pope would avoid him.  In this latest interview from a few days ago, the pope and his press office may have tipped their hands.

Rorate obtained a translation of La Repubblica.  It contained another "telephone interview" in which the pope said of divorced folks and Holy Communion with regards to the sin-nod outcome, "all the divorced who ask will be admitted".  One question that popped immediately into my mind is, "if it's just divorced folks and not remarried, what's the problem?"  Immediately following that another thought, a reply to my question, came; "if they're just divorced and not remarried, they wouldn't need to ask".

One Peter Five has a great analysis of this strategy of using Scalfari to insinuate heresies into unsuspecting minds.  Well, maybe he isn't using Scalfari per se, but rather working in concert with Salfari.  There's too much of a pattern now for us not to notice.  I truly hope that the "it's not the pope's fault, he's just controlled by the Vatican meanies crowd" will finally acknowledge what is as plain as the noses on their faces.

May God help us all.

Update - Rorate Caeli has published a reply to the sin-nod's back-door attempt to admit de facto adulterers to Holy Communion, written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.  The length and depth of this reply causes me to believe that he did not have in mind this Scalfari interview (probably knew nothing of it at the time of his writing).  Please read it on Rorate's site.

Latest Papal Interview - Preliminary Reports Of Another Disaster

My friend at "What Did the Pope Really Say" caught a link to a preliminary report of the interview that was to be released today.  This too, along with so many others, promises to be a disaster.  Here's a Reuter's blurb summarizing some papal remarks with the statement "communists are closet Christians".

Whether or not this summary is accurate will have to be seen in other accounts of the interview.  However, some quotes deserve immediate attention - and correction.  There is the incredible statement that "poverty is at the center of the Gospel".

Any Catholic child with a basic knowledge of his/her faith will know that the center of the Gospel is Jesus Christ.  Yes, the Gospel does entail service to the poor, but that is ancillary to the main focus of eternal salvation.  I might suggest that all who are snookered by that "social gospel" heresy take a look at Matthew 26:6-13.

I await further details with trepidation.

With All Due Respect, Michael Voris, You Cannot Put Lipstick On A Pig

Well, you can try, but you'll only engage in an exercise in futility.  In today's Vortex, he tries to chide those of us who are rightly concerned about the nonsense spewing forth from the Vatican.  Voris trips all over himself while so doing.  I'll elaborate before I post the video.

• Look at the title: "The Most Misunderstood Pope In History".  Doesn't that make you want to ask why, in all the church's 2000-year history, Pope Francis has earned this title?  Please don't blame it on the internet and blogs, for they were in force during the pontificates of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.  These two pontiffs never had too much trouble making themselves understood (efforts of left-wing media notwithstanding).
• From 1:03 on, we hear an apology (?) for the pope's "off-hand way of talking".  "Does he guard his words and consider that he should be much more circumspect in what he says and to whom?  Well, it's just clear that's not his style...That's who he is.  He has become the most ill-quoted and misrepresented pope in the history of the church".  Leaving aside (for the moment) the exaggeration in that last sentence, can we see "cause and effect" being made plain?  If anyone is careless in his speaking and with whom he speaks, he can expect all sorts of misquotes and misinterpretations to ensue.  These misquotes, etc are an expected result of sloppiness in communication.  That's true for anybody, as common sense dictates.  When the speaker holds a position of great responsibility, his/her moral responsibility for misunderstanding increases commensurately for greater is the damage that can be done.
• Let's elaborate on the "that's not his style" quip.  For now I'll consider Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, for they too dealt with hostile newsprint and electronic social media.  I'm quite certain that both men had their own "styles".  However, it seems to me that they never let their "styles" dominate their considerations in how best to communicate their message.  They were willing to lay their "styles" aside so that the truths that they were trying communicate would not be obfuscated by delivery styles.  They no doubt hoped to minimize any media distortion.
• At 1:26, he continues.  "Does he need to stop talking to so many people in such an off-handed fashion?  Well, that argument might be easily made, but face it, he's not gonna do that; that's not who he is."  We'll stop right there.  His "off-handed fashion of talking" is not an indelible feature of "who he is", any more than it would be for any of us.  What is now an indelible feature of "who he is" is that he is the Vicar of Christ.  He holds great responsibility.  Granted, not all - in fact, very few - of his words will bear the weight of Church teaching.  BUT many will place great stock in the most careless quip he utters.  Right or wrong, that's a fact; will His Holiness continue to cause scandal to them? 
• At 2:04 he mentions the interview (second one) with Scalfari and the subsequent "Vatican clarifications".  He opines that the list  of speculations is growing monotonous.  Be that as it may, please review the three previous "bullet points" for the most probable causes behind this malady.
• At 3:21 he states that "even the Vatican itself doesn't know what the Pope said and then has to run around to find out what he said, who he said it to, and put out all kinds of fires whipped up in part by Catholics".  The first part of that sentence may well be correct.  It does seem like internal communications in the Vatican are an abysmal disaster.  Why doesn't the Vatican know what he said?  Without that basic knowledge, how can adequate translations be prepared in any timely fashion?  It is that disheveled state of affairs that is the cause of "all kinds of fires", not the Catholics who dare to notice and state what is all too achingly obvious.
• At 3:40 he mentions the interview regarding "civil unions".  Noting the various definitions that different nations place on given terms, might it not have been prudent of His Holiness to at least alert his communication office so that they could have prepared appropriate and timely translations?  That might have helped prevent some of the hub-bub that Voris decried.

Moral of story?  Pray that the pope learn from these disasters and take responsibility for what issues forth from his mouth.  Real spiritual peril can result.

By the way - recall the first Scalfari interview?  You know, the one that really wasn't an interview for it had not been reviewed by the Vatican but still managed to be posted to the Vatican website?  It was pulled down in short order - but guess what?  After the subsequent interview a week or two ago, the first interview reappeared on the Vatican website.  Father Zuhlsdorf's blog has more detail - and today it came down again!  Is there any kind of coordination in that office?  I wrote a little ditty to (dis)honor this state of affairs; it can be sung to "The Hokey-Pokey".  I'll post it before the Vortex.

They put the interview in.

They pull the interview out.

They put the interview in,

And they spin it all about.

They spew Lombardi's nonsense

And they turn it inside out.

That's what it's all about!

Another Papal Interview - A Planned Debacle?

Remember last October when Pope Francis granted that interview with Eugenio Scalfari of La Repubblica?  That's when he let loose with less-than-papacy-worthy comments such as:

• "Proselytism is solemn nonsense". 
• "Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them."

I need not elaborate (I would hope) on why these statements are problematic if not downright heretical.  I did elaborate on some reactions and "damage-control efforts" here and here.

One might have hoped that the Holy Father would have learned not to give interviews at all, let alone to Eugenio Scalfari.  Alas, such was not to be!  In fact, we may have reason to believe that the resulting chaos was intended.

Last week saw another interview - with more lunatic quotes.  In this conversation (not recorded again, by the way), the Pope allegedly estimated that 2% of priests are pedophiles. That's 1 priest out of every 50 priests; I'd call that a bit of exaggeration to say the least.  He also stated that there was "room for maneuver" when it comes to priestly celibacy, going so far as to use the term "problem of celibacy".

Immediately Father Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See's Press Office, went into "damage control" mode - much as he did last autumn after the first fiasco interview.  Here's his statement, published in Zenit.  Just as he did last year, Lombardi attributes the indignation about the off-kilter papal remarks to words that "cannot be attributed to the pope".  He ended his statement with this about quotations: "Is this an omission or explicit recognition that this is an attempt to manipulate some naive readers?"

Father Lombardi sounded quite indignant.  I might be inclined to believe him - if this all wasn't a repeat performance of the first interview and its subsequent damage-control.  When this interview with Scalfari happened last week, both the pope and Fr Lombardi knew what to expect.  I'm coming to believe that they wanted this subsequent hub-bub to occur, so that tradition-defying statements could be issued, with responsibility for those statements being attributed to a "straw-man" - in this case, Scalfari.  The only other possibility is that the Holy Father, the Director of the Holy See's Press Office and others are incorrigible dunces who refuse to learn from their mistakes.

There is a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  That statement is very relevant, in two respects.

1. Either it refers to the Holy Father and his underlings in the Vatican who are (seemingly) falling for the wiles of the Scalfaris of the world.  OR
2. It refers to the Catholic populace at large, who are being asked/cajoled/browbeat into believing that the Vatican is simply an "innocent victim" rather than cunning manipulators of the trust of the Catholic faithful.

Pope Francis is the Holy Father.  We must pray for him.  In order to do so, we must look at situations with rose-colored glasses removed.  We must have no hesitancy in facing what is plain as day.  Of course (I speak particularly to my fellow bloggers), we must not be silent.