Did The Pope Blaspheme During Yesterday's Homily?

When I wrote yesterday about the Pope's homily and mentioned the banana-peel quip, I completely overlooked the real horror of what he said.  I thank other bloggers, namely "That The Bones You Have Crushed May Thrill", for opening my eyes.  I said then that I failed to see how a banana peel would be linked to someone realizing they were a sinner; now I realize that the banana peel was used as a metaphor for temptation to sin.

Here's the original quote: "But Lord, throw a banana peel in front of them, so that they will take a good fall, and feel shame that they are sinners, and so encounter You, [and realize] that You are the Saviour. Many times a sin will make us feel shame, and make us encounter the Lord, Who pardons us, as the sick who were there and went to the Lord for healing."

Leaving aside the obvious lack of charity and respect that the pope exhibits towards faithful, devout, pious Catholics, let's consider some other fundamental points:

• Our Lord may allow us to sin, because we have free will and He honors that which He gave to us.
• Our Lord also allows us to sin, but He will never directly will us to sin for (this is important!) He cannot directly will evil to occur.  It is against His perfect, sinless nature to do so.
• Our Lord will never tempt us to sin.  If a person deliberately tempts one to sin (throwing the proverbial banana peel) that action would itself be sin - probably mortal, for its deliberation and malice towards the one being tempted.
• The pope alleges a final purpose in causing the banana-peel target to "encounter the Lord", but as he should well know, the ends never justifies an inherently immoral means.  To deliberately tempt someone to sin is always immoral.
• In his supposed "prayer", the pope is asking God to commit sin Himself.  This is not prayer - it is nothing short of BLASPHEMY.

Catholic Encyclopedia gives an excellent treatment of blasphemy.  I think that what the Pope did yesterday is to engage in the heretical form of blasphemy.

I am reminded of a conversation that occurred between King St Louis IX of France and his holy mother, Queen Blanche.  She said to him that "I'd rather see you dead at my feet than guilty of one mortal sin".  Do we dare doubt that Our Lord's abhorrence of sin is less than Blanche's?

I am stunned.  This isn't a mere gaffe.  I said yesterday that I think this homily is part of a campaign to get us to accept, or at least be indifferent to, the reception of Holy Communion by those living in mortal sin.  But now I realize that he is presenting a distorted image of God Himself.  But come to think of it, he is the Vicar of Christ who has been doing that for some time: the clown noses, the beach balls on the altars, the discarding of papal traditions.  I never dreamed it would come to this, but now he's painting a horrible picture of God Himself - at least he did so yesterday. I pray we don't see future episodes from the Vicar of Christ.

Let's double down on our Rosaries (I hope that doesn't sound too pelagian) for our poor Mother Church needs them.

From The Maturation Department - Prior Eucharistic Disciplines Were "A Heavy Cross"

In his interview with La Nacion, the one in which he said he was blessed with a "healthy state of unawareness", he claimed that "I'm permanently making statements, giving homilies; that's teaching".  I concur with Pat Archibald at Creative Minority Report that he intends these words to be considered part of his personal magisterium.

With that in mind, I think we need to look seriously at the homily he gave today.  He stated that observances of law and discipline are signs of a "weak heart" (please note I corrected the spelling of "weak").  I'm appalled that as an example he used a prior discipline of a Eucharistic fast, going so far as to call it a "very heavy cross".  He credits Pope Pius XII for amending the discipline.  But..does that mean he thinks that the previous popes, from Pius XI on back, were just a bunch of Pharisaical meanies for instituting the fast in the first place?

After he complains about the inconvenience of the fast, he goes back into a tirade against "rigid" (or is that neo-pelagian?) folks.  He "confesses" that he asks the Lord to (I'm not making this up!) "throw a banana peal in front of them".  I see little repentance, to be frank, for wishing harm to people with whom he disagrees.  I fail to see how slipping on a banana peal is supposed to make people realize they're sinners; perhaps some good old-fashioned "rigid" proselytizing might do the trick.

But let's look at what's being slipped into the discussion and perhaps our thinking.  He's using as an example a discipline regarding the reception of Holy Communion.  Is he trying to instill questioning mindsets about other Eucharistic disciplines and even dogmas?  What happened six weeks ago?  The Sin-Nod!  What was put into the final relatio despite the vote of the attending bishops?  We see in the Italian translation of the preliminary questionnaire some discussion about distribution of Holy Communion to divorced/remarried Catholics who, by definition, are living in the mortal sin of adultery.

What happened today was no unintentional gaffe.  When he says he's "teaching" I believe him.  It's part of the brainwashing "maturation" process to lull us into accepting "pastoral solutions" to icky "rigid" doctrines.  That's why every word of his must be measured carefully.