The Malefactors Are Squirming

During this past year, Theodore McCarrick has been living in a small Capuchin friary in Victoria KS.  He has remained silent - until now.  A few weeks ago, he granted an interview. The reporter, Ruth Graham, asked him point-blank if he "did it".  Here is his reply: “I’m not as bad as they paint me. I do not believe that I did the things that they accused me of.”

The italics are mine, for obvious reasons.  Dear readers, if someone were to state that you committed a crime, say of sexual abuse (like the ex-cardinal) or even something else like bank robbery or murder.  If you're anything like me, you'd be denying those accusations with all the vehemence that you could muster and would even demand that the accusations be retracted under pain of legal action.  His statements have both guilt and arrogance screaming all over them.

During the conversation he spoke of the former seminarians who accused him of abuse in his summer beach house, implying that they were put up to it.  He also had vitriol to hurl at Archbishop Vigano, who helped blow the cover off of McCarrick.  He said that Vigano was "talking as a representative of the far right".

McCarrick is not the only one to have a bone to pick with "the far right".  Yes, I'm afraid the pope gave another plane interview during which he inserted both feet into the papal speech apparatus.  He was presented with a book written by Nicolas Seneze entitled "How America Wants to Change the Pope".  Sadly the author is mistaken for there are plenty of progressives who just adore the pope as he is.  In many ways, the title of that book has things precisely ass-backwards.  Upon receiving the book the pope let out with this blooper: "For me, it's an honor that Americans attack me".  Of course his press handlers scurried into damage control mode, but too late. I thought the pope and other clergy were to be honored when they suffer for doing God's will; even then, they weren't expected to thump their chests over it.  Praying for fish, promoting LBGT supporters to the College of Cardinals, etc, is NOT "doing God's will".

Two prelates aren't quite as cheeky as they are facing the music for their misdeeds.  Recall that in Seattle, Archbishop Sartain approved a public Catholic funeral for a flaming gay who announced his planned suicide well in advance.  Years before, Sartain approved a Catholic funeral for a priest who had abused several boys.  Just days after his approval of Fuller's funeral was made public, Sartain resigned his position.

In Buffalo, NY, Bishop Richard Malone is under intense scrutiny owing to his own sexual misdeeds.  He knows it.  He has been recorded as saying, "this could be the end for me as bishop".  I hope he takes it further and realizes that if he doesn't repent and make a good confession, that the end could be hell - literally.

There are those good Catholics who state that only by prayer and fasting can these evils be purged from our Church.  I agree, except for that "only" part.  Prayer, fasting, sacraments are crucial, but by themselves they are insufficient.  The reactions related above have occurred because of intense scrutiny and protest as well as prayer.  We need both - from every single faithful Catholic.

The Lord's Prayer - An Ash Of The Past???

A few days ago, the pope returned from Romania on a plane.  Yes, a plane!  As we are all aware by now, the pope, planes and interviews are recipes for disasters and this was no different.  The cabin oxygen must have dipped as he said that "fundamentalists" want to return to "ashes of the past" and said also that "tradition..is not the container of ashes".  Then he carried on about "future".

The Church is called upon to preserve and proclaim Tradition for therein lies the timeless Teachings of Jesus Christ.  God's word is timeless as is Our Lord Himself.  God is not bound in time.  He does not change over time for God does not change.  Neither does His word.  Neither does Tradition.  It is only common sense to understand that.

It's quite possible that the pope uttered that tripe not only as an insult to faithful Catholics, but to pave the way for his tinkering with both the Lord's Prayer and the Gloria.  Understand that both were originally uttered by Our Lord Himself and angels respectively.  It takes an unbelievable amount of hubris to edit the words of Our Lord Himself.  What?  Are we to believe that Jesus misspoke when He said "lead us not into temptation"?  What's that?  A misunderstanding in English?  Ain't it funny how the Church got the English wrong for hundreds of years!  Goodness!  How did the Church ever struggle along without progressives "enlightening" it?  Likewise the angelic hosts must have stumbled over their words when they proclaimed that first Gloria.

In two or three months, what else about Sacred Scripture will be considered an "ash of the past"?  Will it be the teachings on hell and the final judgment?  How about Paul's admonishments regarding sodomy?  Who knows?

I do know this.  Should this bastardization of the Lord's Prayer be promulgated in US parishes, I will VERY LOUDLY recite the Lord's Prayer as He uttered it.  I hope I will not be alone, should it come to that.  You can put that in your pipe and smoke it, for anyone interested in ashes.  So dear US bishops, if you want to avoid that, then "lead me not into temptation".

The Pope's Odd Response To Vigano's Testimony

The pope was in Ireland at the Wicked Mangling of Families event that was just winding down when Archbishop Vigano's testimony was made public.  Today he flew home and gave another interview.  The patterns of the past few years have shown that when the pope flies and talks with the reporters on that plane, nonsense often billows forth from his mouth.  Today was no exception.  The only difference is that it didn't take endless bloviation to reveal his inner mind.

Of course he was asked about his reaction to Vigano's revelations.  Let's examine his remarks bit by bit.

• "Read the statement carefully and make your own judgments".  Who among us, if we were made aware of spurious accusations against us regarding some heinous crime, would simply tell the public to "make your own judgments"?  I for one would react with outrage at my name being pilloried and slandered.  Perhaps the pope can't - because the statement is not slander?
• He believes in the "journalistic capacity to draw your own conclusions".  Look - either the statements are true, or they are false.  They stand on their own factual merit - not upon some "journalistic capacity".  Talk about a cop-out response!

This is quite similar to the cop-out that McCarrick tried initially when he said that he "didn't recall" that alleged episode of abuse.  Many of us cannot remember everything we did thirty years ago, but we know damned well we did not rape children and we can say so with absolute certainty.  Why couldn't McCarrick?  Why couldn't the pope, this morning?

The pope's utterly dismissive attitude is contrasted to that of Cardinal Burke, who said that "the declarations made by a prelate of the authority of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò must be totally taken to heart by those responsible in the Church."  The cardinal went on to call for a thorough investigation into these allegations.

In his homily today, Bishop Joseph Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler TX also called for an investigation, adding that he found the allegations to be credible.  Lending weight to the credibility of the allegations is an account published by England's Catholic Herald.  It recounts that Pope Francis reduced sanctions against a number of clergy abusers of minors.  The article is from February of last year, but still it demonstrates an imprudent tendency of the pope to be lenient with those who pose threats to children.  The article contrasts the pope's practice with that of Pope Benedict, who laicized about 800 priests and who hardly ever granted clemency to the abusers.

Pope Minimizes Islamic Violence While Bad-Mouthing Catholicism

As he was on his way to Rome from Poland a few days ago, the pope attempted a white-wash of Islamic violence that was not only insipid on its face, but downright slanderous to the Catholic faith.  He said, "if I speak of Islamic violence I must also speak of Catholic violence".  Really?  When did Catholics, in pursuit of their creed, engage in barbarous acts such as:

• beheadings of babies
• wide-scale rape and murder of women
• shooting up night clubs
• murderous rampages along the lines of San Bernardino, Nice, etc
• bombings such as the Boston Marathon incident
• et cetera, et cetera

Have there ever been criminals who are Catholics?  Yes.  But no one pretends that these criminals committed their crimes in obedience to the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

The Muslims, however, do carry out their crimes in the name of their murderous creed.  The pope's denial of that plain fact is so insipid that the muslims themselves hold him and his prattlings in contempt.  I will say this for these muslims; at least they are honest about what their religion teaches.  They hold the pope in contempt for his obvious attempt to appease him.  Frankly I understand how they do so and indeed the pope's pandering does make him appear to be a simpering fool as his mealy-mouthed whitewash is unworthy of a Vicar of Christ.  When these thugs say that their violence is mandated by their koran, they are correct.

Both Cardinals Burke and Sarah spoke words of wisdom as I pointed out in my blog post regarding the pope's plane trip to Poland.

When The Pope Calls Evil "Good" And Good "Evil"

That is essentially what happened in the Pope's homily today.  He took the occasion to (again) vilify faithful Catholics as "rigid" and therefore "heretical".  Read this LifeSiteNews report, along with commentary.  He claims to decry an "all or nothing" attitude that he perceives in us, forgetting that Our Lord Himself often took an "all or nothing" stance, particularly when it came to obedience to His immutable commandments.

Last November, in a plane interview (Yep!  Pope Francis and planes are a bad combination!), the pope seemed disinclined to view the usage of condoms in light of the Fifth and Sixth Commandments.  First He cited the pharisees' question, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath" as a roundabout way to justify using condoms to prevent the spread of aids.  What he fails - refuses to understand is that there is a world of difference between "healing" (a good act) with usage of condoms (inherently evil act as it frustrates God's intentions for sexual relations).  The latter can never be justified.

He then segues into a screed about what he calls "big wounds": social injustice, environmental injustice, etc.  His remarks during his interview are really quite explicit.  To summarize, the pope - chief shepherd of the Church, can't be bothered with mortal sins of the flesh, even though they most likely will cause the eternal damnation of millions.  These poor souls don't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to this "social gospel".  He shows that he has his priorities exactly ass-backwards.  Please read the above link thoroughly, for it is an excellent treatment on why each person must conform to God's moral demands before he/she can even begin to address "social issues".

About six weeks ago, Msgr Charles Pope offered commentary on wise words uttered by Cardinal Robert Sarah during an interview, detailing why the concept of the "social gospel" is complete anathema to the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.  At about the same time, the Cardinal spoke at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.  He warned that "today we are witnessing the next stage and the consummation of the efforts to build a utopian paradise on earth without God."

Regrettably, the pope's poo-pooing of the immutability of God's commands and disregard for the same in preference to focus on temporal matters seems to be part of these "efforts to build a utopian paradise on earth without God."  If we are to counteract this spiritual poison, it is vital that we not be cowed by attempts to marginalize us as "rigid" and even "heretical".

The New Possibilities That Point Toward Hell

Once again we hear the pope making wild claims while engaged in an in-flight interview.  In the past I viewed these interviews as just another source of scandal.  In retrospect I can see I was incorrect.  The scandals aren't coming because of the plane interview settings, but because of what the pope has on his mind.

At any rate this latest revelation occurred on a flight from Greece.  Maybe "revelation" is not an accurate term.  Perhaps it is simply confirmations of suspicions that faithful Catholics have had after the two synods and the release of Amoris Laetitia.  Due to other commitments, I've been a little slow to report on these matters but fortunately my blogging colleagues at One Peter Five and Les Femmes have put up excellent analyses of that mess.  They both link to Cardinal Schonborn's statement, the one that the pope seems to think is more authoritative than 2000 years of Church teaching.

The pope was asked about "new possibilities for the divorced and remarried".  If by "new possibilities" he speaks of these adulterers (for if the first marriage isn't annulled they are living in adultery) being admitted to Holy Communion while still engaged in ongoing mortal sin, he is confirming their path to hell.  That is not so much a "new possibility" but a highly probable eternal destiny if they continue on that till death.

Two more things:

1. Those who are in denial of the situation, hiding behind the "the pope can't change doctrine" canard now have no morally acceptable choice but to wake up to the peril in which these "non-binding" statements place so many souls.
2. I'm seeing some nonsensical suggestions to Catholics that they need not read Amoris Laetitia for themselves because they're just "ordinary Catholics".  Such suggestions are patently irresponsible.  I believe the late Father John Hardon when he said "only heroic Catholics will attain heaven in this day and age."  We might as well start by grappling with the heresies in Amoris Laetitia.

Denial Runs Strong In Surprising Places

As I mentioned yesterday, too many good Catholics are in denial regarding the reality that we currently have a pope who poses a danger to souls every time he opens his mouth.  Am I saying that the pope intends this damage?  I of course cannot say one way or the other, although common sense indicates the affirmative.  I will say, however, that regardless of his motives, he indeed is causing real damage.

Therefore it troubles me greatly when prominent Catholic pro-life leaders advocate the continuance of denial.  When they do so, they unwittingly act as to dissuade their readers from discerning the input that feeds their souls.  Thus these deniers contribute to the spiritual damage already being wrought by the pope's harmful words.

A sad "case in point" is found in an article by Judie Brown, co-founder and president of American Life League.  ALL has always been in the forefront of the Catholic pro-life movement as they have correctly pointed out the spiritual destruction caused by contraception.  The article is to be found in RenewAmerica entitled "The Pope Francis Effect".  While I respect Mrs. Brown highly, I have no choice but to refute this.

Let's bring in the first two sentences:  "Over the last week, considering all the events that Pope Francis participated in during his six-day visit to Mexico and the many lives he touched with his words, his actions, and his very presence, it seems so sad that only one or two sentences from one interview captured our attention. It is as though nothing else happened that week."  The effects of his trip to Mexico are debatable at best, but I won't broach that for now.  Suffice it to say that any (debatable) benefit from his trip was far outweighed by the heresy against morals in his "one or two sentences".  No amount of benefit will mitigate the immense harm and scandal caused by his stated approval of contraceptives.  For example, consider the morning of April 15, 1865.  Can you just imagine someone asking Mary Todd Lincoln, "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"  Well the notion that we should dismiss the outright heresy because of the "lives he touched" is similarly preposterous.  Let us consider that his heresy is "touching lives", too.

Proceeding down, she says "the pope was speaking off the cuff".  So what?  It was still the pope who was speaking.  "What he said or didn't say really isn't the problem."  Yes it is, when Humanae Vitae, Casti Connubi and Evangelium Vitae are undermined in the eyes of the world by the Vicar of Christ, the "problem" cannot be overestimated.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect that if it weren't Pope Francis on that plane and instead we had Cardinal Dolan, Cardinal Wuerl or some other progressive shepherd on that plane uttering those exact same words, Mrs. Brown's take on the matter would be decidedly different - and rightly so.

She said that "it is troubling to realize that all the good (?) Pope Francis did during his visit to Mexico was so easily overshadowed by one or two silly comments made to reporters".  I'm glad she acknowledged that, at best, the comments were "silly", but actually they constituted heresy.  Refer to what I wrote of Mrs. Lincoln's experience at Ford Theater.  She might have watched a lovely performance, but when the shots were fired, what constituted the real impact of that evening in her life?

Toward the end she says, "it makes me so sad that we are always so prone to jump on something negative rather than embracing the positive.  No, the positive will never take top billing on the nightly news."  A few things..

• It seems that Mrs. Brown, at least in this case, has fallen for the "positive versus negative" codswallop.  I've said this many times and now will say so again.  The "positive versus negative" paradigm has nothing to do with objective truth or falsehood of a given statement or situation; rather it is a paradigm that focuses on the emotional impact that said statement or situation has on its beholders.  Obviously whether a situation is "positive" or "negative" depends on whom you ask and their particular disposition - not the objective merits of the same.
• As far as "top billing on the nightly news", the problem is that the news is abuzz about the whole mess, and viewing what we would consider a "negative" as a "positive".  To wit:
• ABC News
• Inquisitr
• Los Angeles Times
• Wall Street Journal
• NBC News
• The above news sites are on the first page after I googled "pope Francis contraceptives".  Can we all now see the scandal caused by the pope's utterance of heresy?  Please - let's not blame the media for this.  They didn't "bait" him into a trap.  He's a grown-up who is responsible for what he says, just like the rest of us.

My friend at Tenth Crusade, in writing about these matters, states that "we are going to get louder".  Many of the other writes I cited yesterday said the same thing.  I say "amen".

Shedding The Shackles Of Denial - Faithful Catholics Finding Their Voices

As we all know by now, the pope let loose with a statement regarding contraception that can only be classified as heresy.  This happened on one of his now-infamous plane interviews this past Thursday.  There are still Catholics who insist that the pope caused no harm.  Here are their arguments and my refutations in "bullet form".

• "less than 25% of Catholics really know what the Church teaches or even cares, what the Pope says or doesn’t say isn’t going to matter one bit" This is an actual quote from a recent exchange regarding the contraception heresy matter.  Now is this supposed to be comforting to be told that no one cares what the vicar of Christ says?  What really does that say about the crap coming from the pope's mouth?  And by the way, I hold that the world isn't entirely oblivious to papal sayings when those words tickle their ears with justifications for their mortal sins.  In that case the world is all too quick to glom onto the errors; therein lies the scandal.
• "It's becoming obvious that he doesn't fully grasp his international role, where a casual comment is elevated in importance."  While that would be nice to believe, we must realize that if he doesn't understand the gravity of the papal office then he's an absolute moron.  I might concede that point if we were talking about some 20-year old kid whose Catholic education was thoroughly dumbed down by the "spirit of Vatican II" but NOT in the case of someone who was educated before Vatican II AND who went through seminary and rose to become a cardinal.  No, Pope Francis has been "around the block" a few too many times for us to really believe that he doesn't appreciate the weight of his office.
• Then we have the folks on Facebook who sniff "if you criticize the pope I'm going to unfriend you, so there!"  Well, they can go ahead and do that if they can't handle the facts as they present themselves.

But many are waking up and smelling the coffee - and saying so publicly.  I salute them.  In an article that she wrote a few days ago, Jenn Giroux said that "this week was the straw that broke this faithful Catholic's silence".  World Net Daily's columnist Barbara Simpson weighed in, as did the blogger Non Veni Pacem who writes why he/she will no longer consider his/her anger against the pope's misdeeds as matter for confession.  LifeSiteNews has quotes from other Catholics and pro-life leaders who are rightly appalled at the pope's utterance of heresy.

Now many of you are aware that Michael Voris has, in the past, taken to task some of us who've voiced our criticisms of the pope's bloopers.  I've had to contradict him in response.  However, it seems that the heresy uttered by the pope is so blatant that he cannot ignore it.  In today's Vortex he all but says the pope committed heresy.  By the way - I did download this so it won't disappear as did the video from the synod.  I'm going to expound on the video beforehand, again in bullet format.

• At the 2:24 mark, Voris directly refutes the notion that "the Holy Spirit selects the pope".
• At 3:09, he begins a litany of popes who were true reprobates.  I'm surprised he neglected to mention Alexander VI.
• At 5:20 he states the obvious truth that "men in the office of the pope can be wrong".
• At 5:49 he asks "Why should reporters even be allowed to pop questions at the pope?  Any pope?  Always a bad idea."  The short obvious answer to the first question is because this pope says so - and even invites the questions.  We agree that it's a bad idea.  Most of the previous popes did as well, and that is why they gave few (if any) interviews.  So perhaps that first question should be phrased "Why does this pope invite these interviews on a regular basis?"
• At 6:04 Voris says that what the pope says about climate change, etc has no magisterial weight.  That is something that most educated Catholics understand.  However, progressive clergy, bishops' conferences, etc actively promulgate the hoax that everything coming from the mouth of Pope Francis is of Divine inspiration.  Therein lies the reason why many faithful Catholic bloggers MUST take issue with this pope's ever-increasing errors and now heresies.  Perhaps now Voris can admit that we play a vital role.
• At 6:30 Voris says "Jorge Bergolio can easily misspeak, especially if he's conflating his thoughts with what amounts to a hypothetical theological discussion point about nuns in the congo which no one can find any actual evidence of .."  True enough, but when he speaks while wearing those papal robes, he is not just some ordinary guy on the plane running his mouth.  Were that the case, the reporters wouldn't be one bit interested in what he has to say.
• At 7:16 we hear "we must suffer as He did, even if that suffering comes at the hands of His shepherds."  But we do not suffer in silence, lest others be led astray.
• He continues, "It is absurd to think that the men who are popes are perfect in their understanding, thoughts and so forth."  Most of us aren't asking for perfection from our pontiffs.  But is it too much to expect that our popes not constantly insult the devotions of faithful Catholics, not embrace progressivism and not utter heresies against basic Catholic morality?
• At 7:35 he correctly says that "it has become..a cult of the pope, driven by media, which turns it into a feeding frenzy from every side.."  Every side?  I can see it from the progressive side.  However, many of us must call out the errors for the express purpose of disarming the "cult" aspect of the matter and to keep objective truth in front of the world's eyes.  Those who incessantly try to excuse the pope's errors, minimize them, or stifle our attempts to refute errors are just as responsible for the "cult" problem as are the media.
• The "danger of the media driven papacy" can be controlled and even diffused.  The primary responsibility for that lies with the pope himself, with his Vatican staff.  That brings us back to a question asked here and elsewhere: "Why does the pope see fit to grant these impromptu interviews?"
• At 8:31 he brings up the example of Pope Benedict's interview, when the condom remark was taken out of context.  Yes, Pope Benedict made a mistake when granting that interview.  Now here's the really important point.  Pope Benedict XVI never repeated that "papal interview: error!  "Popes make mistakes!"  Yes, but if they keep making the same mistakes repeatedly, with devastating consequences, it's quite fair for us to ask why.
• "Private thoughts that are wrong.." cease to be private when they are spoken before reporters who will literally broadcast these thoughts to millions.  I do congratulate Voris for acknowledging those remarks of the pope as being "wrong".
• "For the first 1900 years we were spared.  From here on out, we're on notice".  True enough; for the first 1900 years the errors could not be widely promulgated.  Now they can be, and thus faithful Catholics must contradict those errors as they occur.

Kudos to Michael Voris for acknowledging that the pope's remarks on this latest plane interview were decidedly off the mark.  But let us not trivialize the damage potential that they do have.

Yikes! More Papal Bombs From A Plane Interview!

I'm beginning to wonder about the composition of the air that is pumped into the plane cabin while Pope Francis jets around, for gaffes and errors abound each time.  These occurred today as he was en route from Africa to Rome and gave yet another debacle interview.

He took the occasion to rail against "fundamentalist Catholics".  Let's look at the word "fundamental", shall we?  From the Oxford dictionary we see that the word can be either noun or adjective.  The "noun" definition is: "a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based".  The "adjective" definition is: "forming a necessary base or core; of central importance".   Merriam-Webster defines "fundamental" as "serving as an original or generating source; serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function".

I'm not sure just why the pope is using the word "fundamentalist" as a de facto insult.  He means it to be condescending - but is it really?  Using the definitions of the dictionaries as stated above, the "fundamentalist Catholic" hearkens back to the Teachings of Jesus Christ and the mission that He gave to the Church: to save souls.  The "fundamentalist Catholic" understands that God's laws of life and morality must be obeyed and that no measure of "social justice" can ever supplant these basic tenants.  The "fundamentalist Catholic" understands the inherent immorality and atheism that underlies socialism and will eschew any social novelties that only serve to make socialism more palatable to the public.  He/she will cut through any obfuscation of Catholic doctrine, no matter how artfully constructed such obfuscation might be and no matter how camouflaged it may be with items that may be good or pleasing in themselves.

He erroneously equated "fundamentalist Catholics" with "fundamentalist muslims".  Consider that the latter go back to the basics of their doctrines, that is, the Quran.  Therein lies their fundamental precepts for jihad, for "killing the infidel", etc.  The fundamentals of Catholicism and the fundamentals of Islam are by no means equivalent.  Ironically the muslims understand that point more clearly than does the Vicar of Christ.

Then the topic of condoms was broached, particularly as a strategy for dealing with AIDS.  Here the pope's brain-train really jumped the rails.  His thoughts seem to be an indecipherable mish-mash of ideas grasped out of thin air with no unifying principle.  All in all, he seemed to forget that one may not do evil that good may come of it.  Condoms block the sexual act from their procreative purpose; the use of them is always inherently evil.  That's one key reason why his "healing on the Sabbath" quote doesn't logically follow, for healing as the Lord did is not inherently evil.

But he immediately says that is a "small wound", with the "serious wounds" being the whole litany of "social gospel" topics: arms trade, environment, etc.  Now we can see why the pope railed against the "fundamental Catholics" for they understand that contraceptive sex - and sex outside of marriage - unleashes untold evils that really do dwarf "arms trades" and others in terms of destructive effects.

He also spoke of the UN climate conference that is getting underway in Paris.  He said it is most likely humanity's last chance to thwart global environmental disaster, stating that the world was "at the limits of suicide".  He complained about "retreating glaciers", when in fact the opposite is occurring!

However, there are serious environmental concerns revealed during this interview, but as mentioned at the beginning of this piece, the real environmental crisis is inside the planes in which the pope gives these horrendous interviews.

Does The Pope Disdain Large Families?

There is something about planes and microphones that make for a toxic combination for Pope Francis.  A few days ago I said his latest trip (at the time) was an occasion for two serious gaffes.  I haven't even gotten to that second gaffe before this latest, during his return trip to Rome from the Vatican.

While affirming the Church's ban on contraception, he said that Catholics don't have to "breed like rabbits."  That phrase is his.  The Holy Father just insulted millions of Catholics who are generous with life and who welcome their children, often with considerable sacrifice.

He gave a "case in point" when he recently encountered a woman who had seven cesarean sections and was pregnant with her eighth.  He admitted to scolding her for conceiving, telling her "that was an irresponsibility" and judging her for "tempting God".  Consider:

1. The child whose conception the Pope lamented, exists.  He/she is in the image and likeness of God.  Mother Teresa said once that saying there are too many children is like saying there are too many flowers.
2. The Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ, has just lamented the conception of a child.  I hope and pray that this child never learns of this, that the Holy Father held his/her existence as a "temptation of God".
3. How many abortions did the Holy Father unwittingly justify today?  How many "health of the mother" abortion excuses did the Holy Father aid and abet?
4. In case the Holy Father hasn't noticed, western civilization is suffering a population atrophy.  Parishes are closing right and left because of the dwindling population.  In light of this he did the worst thing possible: belittling faithful Catholic parents by saying that they breed like animals.  In fact, they are fulfilling God's command to "be fruitful and multiply".

I for one salute my Catholic and Christian friends who have large families.  They are the hope for our Church.  The real irresponsibility lies in disparagement of these holy families.