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.

Catholic Standard Follies - Fawning Over Female Catholic Dissidents

In today's edition of the Catholic Standard we read of a panel discussion by three so-called Catholic women "leaders", moderated by John Car, that occurred at Georgetown University.  They were offering advice on leadership.  Given who these women are, one would do well to listen to their advice and do the exact opposite.

Now one might wonder why I'm pointing fingers at the Catholic Standard since it was Georgetown University that hosted this gab-fest.  It's quite simple.  The article is written by Mark Zimmerman, editor of the Standard, and he disingenuously omits key details about these women - details that would make plain to everyone that these gals aren't qualified to advise children in tying their shoelaces much less Catholic leaders in how to lead.  But not to worry!  I and others have already supplied many of these details.  I'll recap below:

• Sister Carol Keehan - Without her shilling for Obamacare in 2010, that deadly piece of legislation might never have been passed.  As a result, religious sisters are compelled to fund contraception and thousands (if not millions) of babies will have Keehan to thank for their murders.  Besides that, she's got quite a rap sheet.  FYI, when Keehan gave the commencement address at Gonzaga's commencement in June 2010, we were there!
• Carolyn Woo - She is president of the scandal-ridden Catholic Relief Services.  The Lepanto Institute has exposed much corruption within the organization, such as their direct involvement in the distribution of abortifacients and of retaining as one of their vice presidents a man who is in a same-sex marriage (and quite unabashed about it).  No truly Catholic organization wants to emulate this woman's habits.
• Sister Donna Markham - See this.  She too jumped on the Obamacare bandwagon in 2010.  She also did a stint as president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.  When the Vatican launched its investigation into the LCWR, well, let's just say she had a lapse in memory when it came to her religious vows.
• John Carr - He comes with his most unimpressive baggage pertaining to his promotion of progressivism while occupying positions within the USCCB.

See, Mark?  This information was not that hard to find; and I think you know that!  Now the million-dollar questions are, "Why did you not report that?  What is the agenda?  Who is dictating the contents of these articles?"

Much of what was uttered at that meeting was pure drivel and a good bit of that was a feeble attempt at "damage control" to try to dismiss the evidence of their malfeasances as reported by this blog and discovered by Lepanto, Church Militant and other organizations.

I will focus on one key admission by Markham as she pouted over the chastisement that Catholic Charities received for accepting government funding.  She mentioned that they receive approximately 64% of their budget from government grants.  Now what are the sources of these "government grants"?  Hint - stare into the mirror and you'll see one source, albeit an unwilling one.  It comes from our tax dollars.  Ladies and gentlemen, when they accept these tax dollars, they accept money that has been extorted from each and every one of us.  The feds have no authority under the US Constitution to engage in this de facto wealth redistribution; they also have no basis in morality to do so, either.  In accepting such funds, Catholic Charities benefits from such extortion and can be said to be contributing to the wrong-doing of the feds.

It can also be said that Catholic Charities is accepting bribes from the feds.  Might this be why they are so quick to jump on board with every progressive effort in which the feds engage?  In the past, Catholic Charities has been known to: allow an employee to take a client for an abortion appointment, conduct "needle exchange programs", take millions of dollars to facilitate illegal immigration, smooching up to pro-aborts in high places, etc.

The Baltimore Catechism teaches us that Jesus Christ founded the Church to help people get to heaven.  Therefore the chief purpose of every endeavor of the Church must be oriented to that end.  Not once in that article did I see the word "heaven" mentioned.  Other words that I failed to notice include "soul", "hell", "sacrament", "eternal life".  You get the drift.

This panel presented a picture on how NOT to lead any Church endeavor.

The USCCB's Corrosive And Deadly "Social Justice" Teachings With Their Poster Boy John Sweeney

Yesterday John Zmirak published an article called "The Myth Of Catholic Social Teaching".  I commend it to your reading.  He basically states that the Magisterium speaks infallibly on matters of faith and morals.  Some issues such as abortion and contraception involve the direct commission of mortal sin.  Those are intrinsic evils; no amount of debate is permissible.  We do not commit murder - period.

There is also the matter of care for the poor.  That is a charge laid upon us.  However, good people can disagree as to the best methods to implement such care.  Sometimes it's clear that those in high places of the Church are exercising faulty logic in their approaches to matters such as alleviating poverty, etc.  In those circumstances, we are not obliged to give obedience to those directives as they do not carry magisterial weight.  Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said so himself when he attempted to have a letter delivered to a US bishops' meeting.  It said - in part - "not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion."

It is becoming all too clear that the USCCB advocates progressive positions on matters such as illegal immigration, self-defense rights, and even the atrocities being committed by Muslims in the Middle East.  I blogged on the muslim matter last week, chiding the USCCB for urging more useless "dialogue" with thugs.  I've no doubt that the USCCB dismisses my words.  Sadly, they probably also dismiss the words of Archbishop Emil Nona, the Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul.  He and four other Mosul bishops have been driven from their dioceses, along with countless thousands of their flocks.  He warns that what we see there could well be a harbinger of things to come in the western world - that means us, folks!  I will quote the archbishops's own words: "Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles.  You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values.  If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home."  King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has issued his own, very similar warning.

I think there are two things Archbishop Nona is trying to say.  First, the US bishops must stop their simpering and groveling pleas for "dialogue".  They are an abysmal waste of time at best and at worst, they serve to distract us when we should be preparing for real action to protect our families and our very culture.

Second, we must stop "welcoming them in our homes".  That means we must stop the floods of immigrants that pour across our borders.  Make no mistake about it; the bulk of illegals are young men, not helpless little waifs.  How many of these young men are muslim terrorists?  We don't know because there is no effective screening of those who cross the Rio Grande.  But again, we hear the USCCB telling us to "welcome the stranger".  Never mind that these "strangers" may well be murderers awaiting their orders from their muslim commanders.  By the way - there are reports that ISIS groups are in Mexico, planning an attack on the US with car bombs and the such.  USCCB, shall we "welcome those strangers"?

A gentleman named John Snyder posted an article on Crossmap a few days ago, taking the USCCB to task for their stance on gun control, given the threats of terrorism that are looming in the United States.  I quote one salient statement:  "USCCB should terminate its disgraceful support for the criminalization of private handgun possession. Such criminalization would eliminate the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves from criminals, including terrorists.  Catholic clergy should abandon pacifism and see reality for what it is. People need guns for protection. As Christ Our Lord proclaimed, 'The man without a sword must sell his cloak and buy one,' according to Luke 22:36"  Hear!  Hear!

So why, oh why, does the USCCB insist on parroting the Obamanista's talking points on illegal immigration, muslims and gun control?  In a word, follow the money, for the USCCB certainly does.  I wrote an article for Defend Life recently (look on page 7 of this link), detailing the obvious links between the USCCB shilling for porous borders and allowance of everyone crossing the Rio Grande.  The money trail was so blatant; they aren't even trying to hide it.

There you have it.  One consequence of the USCCB's wrong-headed stances on these issues will most likely be an increase of murders, if not outright terrorism - both because they favor unfettered admission through our borders AND the removal of our ability to defend ourselves and our loved ones.

"But that's merely conjecture!" some might say.  Fair enough, but it's reasonable to believe this to be a very solid probability.  AND we have evidence of current corrosion of faith and morals by USCCB-esque social teaching.  That evidence comes from the mouth of the corrosion victim himself - John Sweeney!

John Sweeney
Thank USCCB social teaching for this!

Sweeney was recently honored by the AFL-CIO for his union work.  The erstwhile head of both the AFL-CIO and SEIU, at that award function, credited "Catholic social teaching" for giving him the impetus for his work.  I've detailed a lot of his work here and here.  The second link details the two occasions in which I led pickets of Sweeney public events.  I know I gave you a lot to read, so I'll close with a picture showing the beneficial impact of "USCCB social teaching" on John Sweeney.

Recall what Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said - there are areas regarding prudential judgment in which we can disagree with Church leaders.  Many times, particularly with the USCCB, we must oppose them outright.