It's Hard To Part With Rose-Colored Glasses, But They Blind One To The Truth

Steve Soukup of the Culture of Life blog sounds the siren call for denial of reality when it comes to serious blunders by the Pope.  He repeats the tired yarn of "blame it on the big bad media for misquoting the Pope".  No.  Perhaps we might have ascribed credibility to that excuse early on in the papacy, but admittedly this spiel is getting rather old and worn.  Two years have gone by.  That should have been plenty of time for the Vatican press office to take control of the pope's messages to present them to the media.  After all, the mainstream media was no more friendly to Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI than they are to Pope Francis.

The previous pontiffs did take some precautions.  Rarely, if ever, did they do extemporaneous interviews.  They knew that the media would indeed make mincemeat out of their words.  Incredibly this pope engages in these interviews quite frequently.  He cannot claim ignorance regarding any potential misquote, given the fiascoes that have already occurred.  Therefore we must conclude that either: 1) he doesn't care about the damage caused by the media or 2) he actually desires the confusion.

I don't know how Soukup gets the erroneous impression that we rely upon mainstream media for our information. There is so much "first-hand" data from which to learn.  For instance, to learn just what poison was foisted upon us last October in the interim relatio from the sin-nod, we need only look at the report that is posted on the Vatican's own website.  And then there are video clips of the pope himself prounouncing horrible stuff that might well veer into heresy - such as the one below that smacks of the heresy of indifferentism (with that same stench being acknowledged by the pope!).  Both Creative Minority Report and Harvesting the Fruit have commentary.  Soukup et al can rail all they want against those of us who call a spade a spade, but that won't change the nature of the truth that daily slaps us in the face.

The Three Unhelpful Monkeys

There's a blog piece by Tom Peters being bandied about, apparently with the aim of stifling honest examination of some papal gaffes such as the most recent ones regarding Catholics being "like rabbits" and publicly scolding the poor expectant mother.  It is called "Feeling Devastated By What Pope Francis Says?  Try These 3 Helpful Keys".  This is not his first post written with the aim of keeping rose-colored glasses over people's eyes as they acknowledge the ever-burgeoning mess that is growing in front of them.  A little over a year ago, I commented on earlier "rose-colored-glasses" pieces that he wrote.  Rather than reinvent that wheel, I link to it here.

Let's look at this latest, shall we?  We'll start with what Peters calls "the three keys".

1. The pope will not change Church teaching.  We do have the Lord's promise that no pope will ever solemnly promulgate error.  But much damage can occur in other ways (a point often overlooked).  There can be the careless words about punching people and chiding expectant mothers who are experiencing difficult pregnancies.  There's the mistreatment of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and the awful sin-nod of last October.  I could go on and on; you get the point.  A pope does not have to be a formal heretic to inflict much damage.  By virtue of his office, his carelessness and flippancy can cause much scandal to the point of the damnation of some souls.
2. (Speaking of oratorical styles of other popes) "If you expect Pope Francis to speak as the previous two popes, you will be devastated".  For most of us, that's not the case.  The role of the Vicar of Christ demands, though , speech that is crystal-clear, unambiguous, and without any trace of nuance.  We benefited from that not only from John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but from the great majority of pontiffs throughout Church history.  They all had their "styles", but most of them subordinated their personal speaking preferences for practices that led to clear communication with their flock. 
3. "When Francis speaks to the mainstream media, he is choosing to speak to non-Catholics".  I'm sure Peters sincerely believes that, but on what basis?  Why should anyone else believe that? No matter.  Regardless of what the pope may "choose", the whole world is always his audience.  We wouldn't be having these discussions if that weren't the case.  No one who speaks to reporters and into microphones can pretend that only a select group of people will be his audience.  In his case, the whole world is his audience; nothing will change that reality.  At best, it would be recklessly imprudent to focus only on one sector of the populace - if indeed that is his intent.  I for one discern no reasonable strategy behind behaviors that have been shown, time and again, to wreak havoc among a large segment of his world-sized audience.

He closed his piece with what he called a "powerful work of the Holy Spirit..the largest Mass in history".  Yes, he is referring to this debacle, where no doubt the Body of Our Lord was literally trampled underfoot as Sacred Hosts were being passed around like so many chips and crackers. 

Now I realize that some might be "devastated" by this post.  Well, deal with the hard truth as you grab your Rosaries and pray for Holy Mother Church.

Rose-Colored Glasses Often Lead To Complicity In Sin

Yesterday was Thanksgiving.  Being busy with Mass, food prep and the dinner I was unable to post some thoughts.  For what it's worth, I'll do so now.

With some regularity I'll receive some very irate comments to my posts urging - even demanding - that I "cease negativity and be grateful for the a) pope's cuteness, b) happy-clappy crap, c) you name it".  For the record I'll state that I am very grateful for what Jesus did 2000+ years ago, and that He founded His Church to mediate His graces and to save souls, including mine.  But thanksgiving is more than just happy, "positive" thoughts about real blessings received.  It also involved dogged, relentless efforts to preserve these blessings AND to recover those that we squandered by apathy and even disdain.  Those efforts require speaking the truth, sometimes in direct and blunt terms.  It is for these reasons that I - and other bloggers - speak out against evils emanating from within the Church and even those originating from the Holy Father (when not speaking infallibly).

I now have a word of warning to those who insist on looking at the hierarchy - and particularly the pope - through rose-colored glasses.  While in the past you have lambasted others and me for "being negative", I could not help but notice your abysmal silence when that debacle that I call the SinNod was going down last month.  Why, oh why, was that?  I could hypothesize a number of reasons, but in reality those reasons are quite irrelevant.  Rather I beg you to consider that you are silent in the face of numerous gaffes and even de facto heresies that have spewed from the Vatican and even the Holy Father's mouth.  Time and time again you ignore the glaring evidence before your eyes.  Not only that, you chastise those of us who have the clarity to understand that there is an elephant in the living room - all to perpetuate your own denial of the truth that all is not peaches and cream at the Vatican.

Church teaching has always taught that there are nine ways that one can share in the guilt of a particular sin without being the primary one to commit that sin.  I refer to this, this and this (paragraph 1868).

For ease of reference, I'll list the nine below.

1. Counsel: Giving advice or direction to the evil-doer;

2. Command: Ordering or inducing another to commit sin;

3. Consent: approving of the sin, before or after its act;

4. Provocation: Inciting or urging one to commit sin;

5. Praise or flattery: Inciting or urging one to commit sin by praise;

6. Concealment: helping one to commit sin by offering to conceal the crime;

7. Partnership: Sharing the fruits of another’s sin;

8. Silence: Not speaking out when we should, or not acting to prevent sin when obliged;

9. Defending evil: Attempting to justify the evil actions of others.

Many detractors, I believe, are acting in accord with numbers 8 and 9.  This goes for some bloggers and other social media wielders who do not speak out when the Pope utters rank heresy (as I believe he did here).  To those bloggers, I believe our platforms and audiences present to us an obligation to speak out.  If that is not your persuasion, I'd welcome comments as to why you would not believe that to be the case.

Be advised that I will not risk being an accessory to the corrosion of Holy Mother Church by my silence.  I'd encourage others to do the same so that the Church can be about her true mission to save souls.

I'll present this link to show how many sainted Catholics - many of them popes - regarded silence in the face of evil with utter disdain.  I'll close with this from St Catherine of Siena: "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence!"

Reply To Tom Peters' Objections About Our Concerns

Two days ago Tom Peters posted a blog article in which he attempts to rebut concerns broached against an earlier post of his.  I would suspect that among the "reactions" to which he is, well, reacting is my post about the rose-colored glasses and/or the Vortex embedded therein.  I am somewhat taken aback by what appears to be judgmentalism and condescension regarding heartfelt concerns that motivate us.

His second paragraph begins with, "sure, I get it, it’s fun to be a cynic. It’s cool to be the one always predicting the next bad thing that’s going to happen."  Tom et al, I assure you that we are not having "fun" dealing with the messes that are issuing forth from the Vatican.  We see these "bad things" as causing confusion - the sort of confusion that can destroy faith and damn souls to hell.  We write to obtain clarification of these conundrums, not because we "enjoy the novelty of being papal skeptics".

Peters then lets off with "We must trust that when the cardinals chose Cardinal Brogoglio to be Pope, the Holy Spirit knew what He was doing. So let’s quit with the doom mongering."  Again, we are not "doom mongering" when we point out problems so obvious that one would have to be in active denial not to acknowledge it.  But let's look at the quote again.  Here we have him stating a premise then a conclusion.  However, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from that premise.  We trust that the Holy Spirit knows what he was doing; but that doesn't mean we should remain silent when there is cause for alarm.

Case in point.  No one denies that the Holy Spirit guided the Cardinal's actions many centuries ago when Pope Alexander VI ascended to the papacy.  No one can deny that Alexander's papacy was one huge debacle.  Hailing from the Borgia family, he brought with him some "family traditions".  He had people murdered, he fathered whole broods of illegitimate children and yes, he taught his children to be cut-throats as well.  Lucretia Borgia was his daughter via one of his concubines.  From another woman he sired Cesare Borgia - so ruthless was he that Machiavelli based his signature work The Prince on his chequered career.  Would Tom Peters have called it "doom mongering" to point out Alexander's foibles?   Yes, the laundry is indeed a tad spotty.

By the way - in the quote from Peters' piece that appears two paragraphs ago, I copied and pasted it from Peter's blog.  Thus the misspelling "Brogoglio" is Peters', not mine.  It should read "Bergoglio".

My friend at The Tenth Crusade put up an excellent rebuttal of Peters' piece.  I urge you to read it.  I need not rehash what she has said.  Rather, I'll direct your attention to this question that he poses in his second-to-last paragraph.  "If Pope Francis sees dissenting Catholics living more active lives of charity, showing more passion in their desire to fix the problems of the world, and being more vocal in the great debates of our time, what happens then?"   What Peters proposes is an impossibility.  Dissenting Catholics by definition are those who hold in disregard the Teachings of the Church that originate from Our Lord Himself.  In separating themselves from the Church, they cut themselves from the grace of truth and they usually attempt to draw others into their dissent.  Not only do they endanger their own immortal souls, but the souls of those whom they successfully seduce into their sinful patterns of belief and conduct.  Whatever else "charity" may mean, it does NOT mean the facilitation of the damnation of souls.  Charity leads to eternal salvation, not perdition.  Far from "fixing the problems of the world", they greatly exacerbate them owing to their disobedience to the Creator of the World.  For the life of me, I don't understand how Peters could suggest such an outlandish situation.  I might suggest a careful study of Pope Benedict's Caritas In Veritate.  As the title suggests, Pope Benedict made plain that there is no authentic charity without an adherence to truth.  And yes, truth does include (in many cases) "tradition" with a small "t", for those willing to disregard "tradition" are often quite willing to jettison "Tradition".

Peters, in the final paragraph, asks "So which is it going to be?"  I'll answer that.  As we see problems (and yes, Tom, they ARE problems), we will continue to bring them to light in order to bring about their rectification.  That's a part of "living the Gospel".  I for my part ask, "How much longer are you going to engage in denial and play the Three Monkeys?"