Catholic Standard And Catholic Review Repeat Our Sunday Visitor Inaccuracies Regarding Bishop Strickland

Both the Catholic Standard and Catholic Review use the same article from Our Sunday Visitor as they relay the news of Bishop Strickland's ouster.  OSV acknowledges that the Vatican has not yet given any official reason for Strickland's ouster, but it does point out a tweet that Strickland wrote last May stating that the Pope is "undermining the deposit of faith". 

All Strickland did was call a spade a spade.  Let's look back at some of the antics coming forth from this Vatican, shall we?

• A few weeks ago, he signed a document that allows gays and transgender perverts to be godparents at baptism
• While Strickland was stripped of his diocese, the German bishops who declared their intention to "bless" gay unions remain untouched.
• There is the colossal pachamama debacle during which this filthy idol was worshipped in the Vatican Garden, in the pope's presence.  Later that week, he placed a pachamama plant on the altar during Mass - a direct violation of GIRM and an act of idolatry.
• There is that insidious footnote in Amoris Laetitia, stating that de facto adulterers may receive Holy Communion while continuing their mortally sinful lifestyles
• He declared the death penalty to be inherently evil, directly contradicting 2000 year old Church teaching. 

This list could go on and on, but these will suffice to demonstrate that yes indeed, the pope is undermining the deposit of faith.

As for this October 31 address in question, LifeSiteNews diligently recorded the entire thing and published it for our reading.  Here it is.  Please read it.  Some reading the OSV article might get the erroneous impression that Strickland is calling the pope a "usurper".  In an interview with the Pillar Catholic, Strickland plainly states that such is not his view.  Rather, he was reading a letter from a friend to illustrate the confusion that this pope is undeniably causing.  He states that the pope is neglecting to clear up confusion by not answering the dubia and not issuing plain statements of belief.

Further on down the OSV article, we read that "the letter outright attacked Pope Francis' validity as the successor of St. Peter...Bishop Strickland said the letter's words were challenging but did not dispute the allegations."

I find great fault with the reporting of Our Sunday Visitor in this matter.  They utterly failed - whether by neglect or intent, I do not know - to take into account Strickland's subsequent exchange with the Pillar, during which Strickland acknowledges Francis's papacy.  OSV's sloppiness could lead the unsuspecting reader to believe that Strickland doubts the validity of Francis' papacy.  The OSV has a duty, in my opinion, to correct their reporting.  Moreover, The Catholic Standard and Catholic Review. have a duty to acknowledge their own sloppiness in their blind repetition of the OSV error without doing any "due diligence" verification themselves.

Here are more details about these matters from the Lepanto Institute.

Pope Francis Appoints Jeffrey Sachs To Pontifical Academy Of Social Sciences

Readers of this blog will recall that I've written much about Jeffrey Sachs.  He is a population control proponent who has openly advocated for contraception and abortion as means of "reaching a level and sustainable population".   Because (not "despite" but "because") of that, he has been quite a fixture about the Vatican these past several years, having weighed in on Laudato Si, possibly Amoris Laetitia and various synod reports.  In short, his pernicious and spiritually deadly musings have been promulgated by the Vatican.

Sachs, with Jewish roots, has never announced any conversion to Catholicism although he claims Catholic social teaching has influenced him.  Of course that influence is of the progressive "social justice warrior" variety that is merely a facade for all things atheist and socialist, as evinced by his advocacy of baby-slaughter and his silence regarding human rights abuses in Red China.

I suppose all this, in the eyes of this current pope, makes Sachs a prime candidate for a position in the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences.  That's right!  A non-Christian pro-abort is now occupying an official position within a Vatican organization. 

Please pray your Rosaries and please prepare to resist this pope when what he says or does runs counter to the Faith and Christian morality.

Vatican Arm-Twisting Session For The Covid Vaccines To Occur In May

An international conference will occur between May 6-8, entitled "Exploring The Mind, Body And Soul: Unite To Prevent And Unite To Cure".  Frankly, it has a New Age ring to it.  These days, that is what we can expect from the Vatican, for that is who is sponsoring this gab-fest.  Take a look at the description of the thing in that "about the conference" section.  How many times do you see the words, "God", "Jesus", "faith", "eternal salvation".  Zero-zip-nada!  Ladies and gentlemen, the mission of the Church is to save souls from hell and help them towards heaven.  Similarly, that is the mission of the various Vatican offices.  Any other temporal concerns, good though they may be, are ancillary to eternal salvation and the worship of the One True God.

The verbosity of the mission statement is quite obvious, pompous verbal diarrhea notwithstanding.  This bunch is seeking ways to cajole people into accepting the so-called corona viruses and any other medical intrusions into our bodies, preparing us for the Great Reset.  Along with that, we see thinly-disguised plugs for an "equitable health system for all", that is, socialized medicine  

The choice of speakers bears this out:

• Dr. Falsey Fauci, the covid guru himself
• Chelsea Clinton, who once lamented that Planned Parenthood's "services" weren't available to her grandmother (let that sink in a moment)
• Jane Goodall, studied chimpanzees, founding board member of Nonhuman Rights Project , advocate of "population control" 
• Kerry Kennedy, President of Robert F Kennedy Human Rights.  Why was her brother, Bob Kennedy Jr,  not invited?  He has been outspoken against the Covid vaccines.  Maybe I just answered my own question.
• Joe Perry, lead guitarist for Aerosmith.  Pray tell, just what are his qualifications to speak on medical matters?
• Cindy Crawford, model.  What are her medical qualifications?
• Deepak Chopra - promoter of New Age practices.  The wise Catholic will understand that many of these practices are gateways to the occult and to demonic influences
• Stephane Bancel, CEO of Moderna, one of the main producers-distributers of the morally-tainted covid vaccines.  Moderna is listed as a sponsor of this event.
• Albert Bourla, CEO Pfizer, another producer-distributer of an abortion-tainted covid vaccine

Over the years, an unfortunate pattern has evolved.  When the attendees and speakers of these gabfests are progressives who spew forth crap that is diametrically opposed to Tradition, the nonsense produced often finds its way into "apostolic exhortations" or other official-sounding prattlings.  The objective of that is to manipulate unsuspecting Catholics into believing that these are magisterial teachings binding on a Catholic conscience, and must be obeyed.   We've seen how all those environmentally-oriented sessions featuring Jeffrey Sachs resulted in Laudato Si.  The Synods on the Family resulted in Amoris Laetitia.  Wanna bet that a soon-to-be encyclical will be named Vaccinius Obligatorium (or some such thing)?

We will keep our eyes on this.  Suffice it to say for now that any bloviations these people make about vaccines are not magisterial teaching.

ADW Set To Implement Amoralis Lamentia, To The Detriment Of Countless Souls

I'm in the Archdiocese of Washington and didn't hear of the impending storm until I saw the news on Canon 212.  This webmaster in turn cited the Tablet and the Catholic Herald - both British websites.  I find it most peculiar that the news broke on foreign sites, not American.  But it's not the first time this has happened!  But I digress!

The "pastoral plan" (there's that word "pastoral" again!) is on the archdiocesan site.  I'd suggest that we all download it for safe-keeping.  It's a 58-page tome, but quite a bit of it is blank space and pictures.  The thing is rife with talks of "pastoral accompaniment".  For example, on page 11 of the pdf, right-hand column under "step by step", we read "In considering a pastoral approach toward people who have contracted a civil marriage, who are divorced and remarried, or simply living together, the Church has the responsibility of helping them understand the divine pedagogy of grace in their lives and offering them assistance."  The Church does that by telling them in no uncertain terms that they must quit their sinful situations and go to Confession.  Why, oh why, is that not plainly stated?  Their eternal salvation hangs in the balance.

On page 13 of the pdf, we read "If there is a breakdown that leads to separation or even divorce, that loving accompaniment by the Church needs to continue, said the Holy Father. “It is important that the divorced who have entered a new union should be made to feel part of the Church".  There is so much wrong with this.

• If a Catholic divorces and civilly remarries, they have ejected Our Lord from their lives by their mortal sin.  The Church cannot "accompany" them in their sin.  The Church must practice the Spiritual Works of Mercy.  That entails "rebuking the sinner".
• Notice the word "feel".  Feelings often have nothing to do with reality.  The goal of making them "feel part of the Church" when in fact they have separated themselves from sanctifying grace would be to engage in deception that can only have disastrous consequences for the souls of these divorced Catholics living in adultery.

As with Amoris Laetitia itself, probably the most egregious "poison pill" is found towards the end of the document.  In this case, it is on page 53 of the pdf, bottom right.  To wit:  "At the core of accompanying people on the faith journey and helping them appropriate the Church’s teaching stands the humble recognition that the culpability of any of us does not depend solely on exposure to the teaching. It is not enough simply to hear the teaching. We have to be helped to grasp and accept it. We must have “experiential” and not just “objective” moral knowledge, to use the language of Saint John Paul II in his encyclical letter, Veritatis Splendor (The Splendor of Truth). Priests are called to respect the decisions made in conscience by individuals who act in good faith since no one can enter the soul of another and make that judgment for them. As Pope Francis teaches, “We have been called to form consciences, not to replace them”

Let's be plain-spoken, shall we?  This gobblygoop is nothing more than an attempt at a disclaimer of responsibility for those who are literally hell-bent on thumbing their noses at God's moral teachings on marriage, family, sexuality, etc.  I'll point out some of the more obvious nonsense.

• culpability of any of us does not depend solely on exposure to the teaching. It is not enough simply to hear the teaching. We have to be helped to grasp and accept it.  Would the same excuse be given if the teaching in question regarded the topic of theft?  If someone hears the teaching "thou shalt not steal", they simply must obey it.  No one has to "help them to accept it".  If a thief is caught and tried, that defense (in most cases) will be laughed off.
• Here is the link to Veritatis Splendor from the Vatican website.  I looked up the word "experiential" and couldn't find it.  Is anyone else able to cite the specific section of that encyclical where this term "experiential moral knowledge" exists?  If not, I must assume that either Pope Francis fancied something that wasn't there OR it's a cheesy attempt to misuse the name of Pope Saint John Paul II to lend undeserved credibility to both AL and this "pastoral plan".
• Priests are called to respect the decisions made in conscience by individuals who act in good faith since no one can enter the soul of another and make that judgment for them  Let's not kid ourselves.  Anyone whose "conscience" directs them to disobey God's commands is NOT acting in good faith, absence of "acceptance" notwithstanding.

This "pastoral plan" is not the only thing written by the Cardinal regarding Amoralis Lamentia.  More can be found here.  I believe some fallout is soon to be manifest in the parishes.  Please advise in the comments if and when that happens, with details.  

Father Thomas Weinandy Continues To Articulate The Truth - His Full Article Here

A few days ago, a piece by Father Thomas Weinandy was published by Sandro Magister on his blog.  Father Weinandy, who was sacked by the increasingly inimical USCCB for speaking truth, demonstrates how the so-called "pastoral" approach is in fact deadly to souls.   This piece is the keynote address that Father gave at Notre Dame University in Sydney Australia where I believe he currently teaches.

Many Catholic sites linked to the address as it appeared on Sandro Magister's blog.  However, when I went to look for it there, I found that it had been pulled.   After some searching, I found it at the Catholic World Report.  To guard against another (ahem!) "mysterious disappearance", I'll copy and paste it in its entirety.

This piece is lengthy, so I'll put the jump break here.

Debate Over. Amoris Laetitia Is Heresy

Below what I now write is a video from the Remnant's Michael Matt, commenting on the Profession Of The Immutable Truths About Sacramental Marriage.  When I first posted about this on January 2, only the three bishops from Kazakhstan, the authors, had signed it.  Now the number of signers is seven, including one cardinal.

Matt points out that this statement is not one asking for "clarification", as was the dubia.  Rather, this statement directly contradicts and rebukes the errors of Amoris Laetitia.  Some ambiguity remains, though.  Pope Francis is not merely erroneous in how he interpreted Amoris Laetitia, but the pope's more egregious error lies in how he wrote Amoris Laetitia.  His interpretation is not erroneous; it's the document itself that is inherently heretical.

The dubia have been answered.  They may not have been answered according to protocol, but let's be real.  If the pope holds God's immutable truths in disdain (and he does!), why on earth would we think that he'd give a rat's ass about the protocols of the dubia?  We have the answers; we have the clarity.  It's just not a clear answer that we might wish, but it is what it is.  The progressives who wrote Amoris Laetitia (that includes the pope!) will not stop with Communion for unrepentant adulterers.  They seek to undermine Humanae Vitae and other cornerstones of Catholic moral teaching.

So what are we faithful Catholics going to do about it?  As Matt says, we must resist.  No one gets to sit quietly on the sidelines.  We are all members of the Church Militant and we must pray and act like it.

One Bright Spot In The USCCB Gabfest In Baltimore This Week

The USCCB held their annual Baltimore meeting this week.  What were the issues being considered by the shepherds of the Church in the US?  Here's a line from the Not-At-All Catholic Reporter: "The longest and most passionate discussion on the first day of the fall assembly of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops Nov. 13 focused on immigrants, on how to help them but also how to drive home the point that they, too, are our brothers and sisters and should not be demonized."

Got that?  The emphasis was not on the large-scale apostasy from the faith by so many Catholics, not the abysmal state of catechesis and priestly formation, not baby-murder and the encroachment of homosexuality in our culture - but immigrants.  Also notice the de facto demonization that occurred, that was directed at those of us who do not coddle the illegal border-crashers.  Cardinal Cupich slandered us by insinuating that we engage in "poisoning rhetoric".  Ladies and gentlemen, that was before he lost the Pro-Life Chair election to Archbishop Naumann.  One can only imagine how he might have been railing against our "rhetoric" with some choice rhetoric of his own!  More on that below.

We do know that the bishops are going to issue a "presidential statement", since they don't appreciate that President Trump is actually behaving as, well, a president.  Goodness!  With all this passion and angst expended to flout the nation's immigration laws, why, the bishops haven't had much time to devote to their other pet issues - like "climate change and "gun control".

But this event hasn't been a complete progressive jabber-jaw session.  The USCCB's Pro-Life Office will be headed by Archbishop Joseph Naumann of the Kansas City Archdiocese and not by the uber-progressive Cardinal Cupich.  I cannot think of two many other bishops who are more polar opposites than these two.  The former has chided pro-aborts, obeyed Canon 915 and expelled the Girl Scouts for their moral lapses whereas the latter has done his utmost to bog down the pro-life cause in seamless-garbage morass.  Cucpich, when Bishop of Spokane, went so far as to forbid his priests to participate in the 40 Days for Life campaign.

The vote is a curious one.  Cupich is clearly a darling of the progressive Vatican.  Yet he was defeated in his bid for this rather influential post.  Usually a cardinal occupies that position, but this time tradition has not been followed.  Yet the vote spread itself still remains a bit troubling; a 54% to 46% split cannot be called a landslide.

Let's go on to other matters, one of which is particularly nonsensical.  Bishop Richard Malone of Buffalo NY spoke as a representative of the Bishops' Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth.  He was asked by a member of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property whether or not Amoris Laetitia allows Catholics living in adultery to receive Holy Communion.  Malone refused to answer the question, saying (among other things), "it is not in my providence to respond to that question right now".  Remember - Malone is on a committee for marriage and family life, and he refuses to answer a question that the average Catholic of 50 years ago could answer in a flash.  The answer (of course) is that Church teaching has always forbade those living in mortal sin to receive Holy Communion.  Period.  This committee is tasked with coughing up a "pastoral plan" to implement Amoralis Lamentia, i.e., to devise some "wiggle room" to cajole Catholics to accepting sacrilegious Holy Communions.  The ones who would be the most imperiled are those adulterers who would be given false comfort while they commit sacrilege on top of their adultery, confirming the trajectory of their souls towards hell.

I believe this year's extravaganza is over.  If it wasn't financed by our donation dollars, it was by federal lucre (they receive quite a few bucks in government grants) which stems from our tax dollars.  Either way, we footed the bill for it.  What a waste!

Evangelical Christians School Defenders Of Amoralis Lamentia

Today's online issue of Crisis magazine featured a book review of Cardinal Coccopalmerio's attempt to justify chapter 8 of Amoralis Lamentia.  This chapter is one of the most troubling parts of AL as it erroneously states that adulterers can receive Holy Communion while still continuing their mortally sinful conduct.  The review is called, "A Cardinal's Implausible Defense Of Amoris Laetitia".  Implausible it is.

I don't need to add commentary to this good review.  I will add some context, though, considering this cardinal.  Most recently, a priest-secretary of his was busted for hosting a drug/gay orgy on Vatican premises.  At the time of the bust, Msgr Capozzi was so stoned that he had to be taken to a hospital for detoxification.  Coccopalmerio also said that some Anglican orders were valid.

So the good cardinal is trying to be ecumenical.  Well, here's an idea for him to promote ecumenism and to actually improve Amoralis Lamentia.  A group of American evangelical Christians stated some solid moral teachings regarding marriage in the form of articles.  They call it the Nashville Statement.  As far as morals go, it seems quite faithful to Traditional teaching.  It certainly is a vast improvement over the spiritual rot that is now embedded in this alleged papal teaching.  Why doesn't the Cardinal - in the interests of "dialogue", of course - suggest that chapter 8 be scrapped and this Nashville Statement be inserted in its place?

Seriously speaking, that replacement would be a vast improvement.

Disgraceful Dismissal Of Cardinal Muller

Cardinal Muller has been dismissed as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.  We knew that was coming, owing to the Cardinal's stances on both Laudato Si and Amoris Laetitia.  One Peter Five has further details of the dismissal interview. The pope summoned Cardinal Muller to a conference.  Right away the Pope presented him with five questions in apparent mockery of the dubia issued a few months ago by the "dubia Cardinals".  The questions are (with the Cardinal's replies):

• Are you in favor of, or against, a female diaconate? “I am against it,” responded Cardinal Müller.
• Are you in favor of, or against, the repeal of celibacy? “Of course I am against it,” the cardinal responded.
• Are you in favor of, or against, female priests? “I am very decisively against it,” replied Cardinal Müller.
• Are you willing to defend Amoris Laetitia? “As far as it is possible for me,” the Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith replied: “there still exist ambiguities.”
• Are you willing to retract your complaint concerning the dismissal of three of your own employees? Cardinal Müller responded: “Holy Father, these were good, unblemished men whom I now lack, and it was not correct to dismiss them over my head, shortly before Christmas, so that they had to clear their offices by 28 December. I am missing them now.”

Any Catholic worthy of the name would have answered all five of these in the negative, as has the Cardinal.  Immediately afterwards, the Pope announced to the Cardinal his dismissal from the post and abruptly ended the interview by walking out without even a "good bye".

When Cardinal Muller first complained about the manner of his dismissal, these details were not known.  Now we can understand the Cardinal's complaint in the correct context.  He also remarked that the Church should follow its own social teaching.  I agree.  For all the jibber-jabber about "dialogue" and "accompanying", those two elements were nowhere to be found in that conversation.

I will say one thing.  The pope put forth five questions and received five very prompt replies.  Will he now condescend to answer the cardinals' dubia?

Who's next?  Will it be Cardinal Sarah?  How about Archbishop Schneider or maybe Bishop Paprocki?  Pray that the faithful prelates remain steadfast and show your support for them.

Cardinal Wuerl Trips Over Himself While Celebrating Amoralis Lamentia

Amoris Laetitia

One year ago today, the world was scourged with Amoralis Lamentia, a piece of pig poop that has already cast doubts upon the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself, leading to the peril of many souls and most likely the damnation of more than a few who have passed to their judgments during this past year.

Many of us have been sounding the alarm regarding this spiritual poison while its shills have been "circling the wagons" around Amoralis Lamentia as they attempt to put some lipstick on that pig.  One of those lame attempts was published by Crud, authored by Cardinal Wuerl who played a pivotal role in tweaking the results of the two sin-nods to justify the publication of AL.  Please have this link open (should be in separate window) as we unpack this mess.

• "avoiding the constraints of a perspective that focuses solely on certain aspects"  That's the end of the second paragraph.  Now just what might be these "certain aspects"?   Might these "certain aspects" include minor details such as the Sixth Commandment and the Church's laws on marriage and receiving Holy Communion worthily?
• "This apostolic exhortation, which follows on the Synod of Bishops that met in October of 2014 and another in 2015 to discuss the challenges to marriage and family today, reflects the consensus of those meetings and many voices."  Whom does he think he's fooling?  We all know that the final report of the extraordinary sin-nod contained three paragraphs that were voted out by the bishops in attendance.  We all know these reports were compiled too quickly after the discussions; the only logical explanation is that these reports were created before the discussions, if not before the synods themselves.
• "Holy Father points the way to how the Church might take steps to support married couples and families in their lives, and to mercifully bring hope and healing to those who find themselves in broken and wounded situations, with a sensitivity toward the diversity of particular relationships and cultures,"  Are we truly to believe that for the past 2000+ years of Christianity the Church has not known how do deal with these "broken and wounded situations"?  Those means of healing remain exactly the same for the words of Jesus Christ Himself are immutable.  We'll spell it out.  Any underlying sin must be eradicated and confessed to a priest.  The occasion of sin must be abandoned.  God's Commands transcend "particular relationships and cultures".  Therefore, these "relationships and cultures" must be brought to conformity with God's commands, not vice versa.
• "Even for those in a marriage that does not reflect entirely the Church’s teaching, continues the Pope, Christ inspires the Church to turn to them with love and affection to assist them in overcoming the trials they face."  Again, this is no mystery.  The underlying sin must be eradicated and repented of in the Sacrament of Confession.  The occasion of sin must be eradicated and/or abandoned.  Important edit: If this "marriage" involves a "spouse" who was married to another and was civilly divorced without a proper annulment, then no real "second marriage" exists.  Rather, the situation is an adulterous shack-up.  Any priest worthy of his collar will tell the parties in no uncertain terms to immediately cease and desist their mortal sin of adultery.
• "Without claiming to present an entire pastoral plan, the Holy Father calls for a family apostolate that offers more adequate catechesis and formation, not only of engaged and married couples and their children, but also priests, deacons, seminarians, consecrated religious, catechists, teachers, social workers, medical professionals, and other pastoral workers."  If that catechesis involves absolute and unwavering fidelity towards the teachings of Holy Mother Church as she has taught over the past several hundred years, this might be one tiny silver lining to an otherwise very gloomy cloud.
• The hermeneutic required for a fruitful appropriation of the document’s teaching on this point is based on the understanding that none of the teaching of the Church has been changed: This includes the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage, the directives of the Code of Canon Law, and also the role of individual conscience in the determination of personal culpability. If that individual conscience acts in disobedience to God's commands, even if it is aware of the demands of God's law, full culpability exists.  If the sin is inherently serious, in the case of full knowledge that sin is very likely mortal.  No "hermeneutic" will change that.
• "The exhortation does not create some sort of internal forum process in which a marriage can be annulled, or in which the objective moral order can be changed. Instead, the exhortation places greater emphasis on the role of the individual conscience in appropriating those moral norms in the person’s actual circumstances".  Got that?  We give the perfunctory nod to the "objective moral order" but if it contradicts these "actual circumstances", well, "objective moral order" be damned.  That's what's really being said.
• "In this context, the role of the priest in listening and offering affirmation or challenge to persons as they work through their own understanding of their situation becomes central to the type of pastoral work with married couples needed today. It is the very heart of the ministry of accompaniment that the exhortation calls for."  Let's cut through the flim-flam, shall we?  Working through the situation boils down to conformity with God's laws and nothing else.  If these laws are being transgressed, that transgression must cease immediately, and the sin be confessed, along with the resolution to avoid the near occasion of that sin.  If the priest eschews these simple truths in the pursuit of this "ministry of accompaniment" he will likely find himself in the unenviable position of cooperating with mortal sin via his silence.  By the way, can anyone tell me just where in the Church's 2000+ years of tradition can this phrase "ministry of accompaniment" be found?
• "The apostolic exhortation calls for a compassionate pastoral approach to many people - married, single, and divorced - who are struggling to face issues in life, the teaching of the Church, and their own desire to reconcile all of this."  Desire to reconcile - or - desire to justify the continuance of mortal sin?

I'll close this piece with one last quote. "In the action of going out, encountering, sharing, and accompanying, moreover, we also recognize that in the journey, we - ourselves - are also drawing closing to the Lord."  I'm copying/pasting these excerpts right from the article so I guess "drawing closing" is a typo that was supposed to mean "drawing closer".  If so, that statement is brashly presumptuous. Amoralis Lamentia is one giant screed designed to exalt man's faulty, unformed and uninformed conscience over God's transcendent, immutable commands.  Any deviance from those Divine commands is sin, "hermeneutics" and "accompaniment" notwithstanding.

I pray that the four "dubia" Cardinals see their way to issuing the formal correction since it is apparent that the pope has no intention of answering the dubia.  Cardinal Wuerl's piece, for what it's worth, reflects the intentions of the pope regarding Amoralis Lamentia.  To follow this path that the pope and his collaborators set forth is to flirt with eternal damnation. We must pray, speak the truth and resist this evil onslaught.

Amoralis Lamentia Defenders Demonstrate The Necessity For The Dubia

Last Friday I alluded to facebook discussions in which I'm currently embroiled.  Many of the participants are of the mindset that: 1) no doing or saying of the pope can ever be subject to scrutiny and debate and (even more troubling) 2) if the current pontiff says anything then it must be blindly accepted regardless of the Teachings of the Church promulgated before the current papacy.

Such is the discussion regarding Amoris Laetitia.  On the one hand, they state that of course all must read AL in light of Church teaching.  Then in the next breath they say, "the pope is opening the doors for mercy", "the priest can act as a tribunal and proclaim a marriage dissolved", "not all situations fit into the rules", etc.  Doesn't that first one make you wonder just what "doors for mercy" have been closed these previous 2000 years of Church history?  Anyway, they are inadvertently providing clear evidence of why the dubia need to be answered.  They are infected with the very confusion that Cardinal Burke et al are trying to prevent - confusion that can actually lead to the damnation of immortal souls.  Below I post an interview given by Cardinal Arinze, during which he points out that no one may change Divine law.

Cockroaches Do Hate The Light

I wrote last week about the horrid "guidance" that Cardinal Wuerl gave to his priests and seminarians regarding Amoralis Lamentia - see here and here.  As you can see from the links, Church Militant picked up on it, too.  Usually the chancery ignores what we write, although I know for a fact that my postings are monitored.

In his own blog, Cardinal Wuerl doubled down on the errors of Amoralis Lamentia.  I cannot say the errors belong to Wuerl alone, for those errors are promulgated by many - including Pope Francis himself.  He speaks of "a small number of clergy and media supporters"..."challenging the integrity of..Amoris Laetitia".  I've no doubt that with this "small number of clergy" crack, that he's taking a swipe at Cardinal Burke and the other three cardinals for issuing their dubia.  Reminder - in issuing their dubia, the four cardinals seek not to undermine any papal teaching but to clarify it.  There are a number of bishops who now claim that those in adulterous situations can receive Holy Communion without bringing their lives into conformity with the clear, timeless teachings of Jesus Christ.

Notice how he speaks of "the determining role of individual conscience when assessing personal culpability before God and therefore before his Church."  Wrong.  An individual's conscience never trumps God's Holy Will as revealed through His Teachings in the Catholic Church.  If an individual commits sin while being aware that Jesus Christs forbids such actions, he/she is culpable, personal proclivities and inclinations notwithstanding.  He/she is bound by Canon 916 not to approach the Communion rail.  If the sin is manifest and grave, the minister of Holy Communion is bound by Canon 915 to deny that person Holy Communion, lest he be party to sacrilege.

Regrettably, the Vicar of Christ has advocated for such sacrilege to occur.  Recall the instruction that he gave to priests from his native Argentina.  A few days ago the pope joined the bandwagon, accusing us of (wait for it!)  "obeying all the commandments, all of them..this paralyzes you too".  Hmm.. I seem to recall in the Gospel of John where Jesus says, "he who loves me will obey my commandments".  But according to the pope, obedience will make us "forget so many graces received..it doesn't allow you to go forward".  Go forward?  Forward - to where?  Reminder - disobedience to God's commands - any of them - will cause the sinner to lose grace.

Cardinal Muller has rebuked such confusion.  He railed against those who use AL to "justify situations against the will of God".   He added, "adultery is always a mortal sin and the bishops who create confusion about this must study the doctrine of the Church".  He didn't mention the pope by name, but his meaning is clear.  I suspect there may soon be some personnel shake-ups at the CDF very soon.

We faithful Catholics need to pray and to educate ourselves regarding our Faith.  We certainly will get no solid education from too many of our chanceries.

Papal Posse On The World Over

On January 5, Raymond Arroyo hosted on his EWTN show "The World Over" Father Gerald Murray and Robert Royal.  In his introduction, he dubbed them the "papal posse".  I post it below.  While the gentlemen do speak frankly on the troubling aspects of Amoris Laetitia (or as I've dubbed it, Amoralis Lamentia), their tones are very measured and respectable.  One of my facebook friends took some umbrage with it, stating that "the papal posse needs a formal correction".  Unless she is of the mindset that the pope can never, ever be criticized (not Catholic teaching, by the way), I cannot fathom a reason for her displeasure.  At any rate, please watch this and consider the input of these gentlemen.

Church Militant! Stand With The Four Cardinals!

Randy Engels, who wrote "Rite of Sodomy", one of the first books to expose the gay infestation within the Catholic Church, issued an open letter to Pope Francis on the occasion of the filth that poured from his mouth during that interview a few days ago.  Here it is at it is published at Renew America.  When the pope uttered almost identical bile three years ago, she had written a letter then.  My one disagreement with Ms. Engels is that the pope wasn't only referring to "false news", but "nasty things, even if they're true".  As we know, "nasty" is a term ascribed by subjective judgment/feeling, not by the merits of objective truth.  In other words, the pope was slandering all of us who seek to shine the light on his attempts to undermine Holy Mother Church.  Did he feel the need to trot out that vile insult in a lame attempt to discredit those of us who are shining the light on Amoralis Lamentia and the de facto schism that is becoming more and more apparent?

Perhaps, as Ms. Engel suggested, he was actively trying to desensitize Catholics to the sinfulness of various perversions in order to make things like Amoralis Lamentia more palatable.  Let's look at the title of that document itself - Amoris Laetitia.  Some have criticized my coined term for the document, but perhaps the actual name is problematic itself.  Blogger Ann Barnhardt has issued her own commentary about the papal vulgarity and noted that a Latin definition of "amoris" is sodomy.  I googled it myself and sure enough, it is one of the translations of "amoris".  Yes, it's only one of five definitions, but might we be looking at some deliberate "double entendre" here?  Given past history, I'd say that's a reasonable possibility.

Meanwhile more faithful Catholics are openly protesting Amoralis Lamentia.  Two leading Catholic philosophers, Germain Grisez and John Finnis, issued a 37-page letter to Pope Francis, asking him to condemn some errors that they believe could arise from Amoralis Lamentia.  (The link to the letter on the First Things article is broken.  Go here and download it in case it "disappears")

Yesterday I mentioned a meeting that Bishop Schneider chaired, regarding the AL mess.   He gave a talk at that meeting.  He detailed times throughout history when prelates either defended God's teaching against man's sinful fancies (such as St John Fisher standing against Henry VIII) or when they capitulated to public demand (Aaron the first Jewish high priest making the golden calf).

Now let's look at another aspect through the lens of Our Lady of Akita.  The message of that apparition is quite similar to that given by Our Lady of Fatima, namely, that if there isn't repentance, God will chastise the earth.   Two phrases from Our Lady's message of Oct 13 come to mind.  First, cardinals and bishops will be opposing each other.  Given Archbishop Pinto's rebuke of the four cardinals (apparently at Pope Francis' behest) and Cardinal Tobin's attack on Archbishop Chaput, we see that prophesy playing out before our very eyes.  Another piece of the prophesy that is unfolding as I write this is "the Church will be full of those who accept compromises".  Indeed, the upper eschelons of Church hierarchy seem to be dominated by those who work to undermine her mission to save souls.  Getting back to Fatima, Sister Lucia dos Santos predicted that the "final battle between Christ and Satan will be about marriage and the family."

No one with at least one functioning eye ball in their skull can deny that all these events are happening as we breathe.  What must we do?  First, we remember that we are part of the Church Militant.  We're not the "church mellow", not the "church meely-mouth", not the "church mediocre".  Each and every one of us is called to step out of his/her own insular existence and take up the fight.  It means doing precisely what Our Lord commanded as He communicated through His Mother at Fatima and Akita.  We must also take our public stances - each and every one of us - alongside the four cardinals to demand that the teachings of Jesus Christ be upheld in our Church.

Amoris Laetitia And Dubia - Separating Wheat From Chaff

Slowly but surely the Dubia that the four cardinals submitted to Pope Francis is bringing a lot of dissent and heresy to light.  The head of the Greek Bishops' Conference (I won't even attempt that name) wrote to the four cardinals and flat out accused them of heresy.  One Peter Five has the text of the letter, and it is a beeyute!  He opens the letter by stating that the four cardinals should turn in their red caps (I don't know the proper term) and then accuses them of heresy, apostacy and scandal.  One wonders if he actually read the dubia, for all it does is ask the pope to clarify some passages in Amoris Laetitia that seem to contradict the tradition of the Church.  Or maybe he did read them and is simply trying to frighten others into not considering their input.

Cardinal Cupich seems to be mouthing similar things - almost as if they were all given "talking points".  I have written about the sword-crossing between him and Archbishop Chaput when the latter reaffirmed Church teaching in his own diocese.  In an interview, he told Edward Pentin that those who have "doubts and questions" regarding Amoralis Lamentia need "conversion in their lives".  I and others have written extensively about Cupich's dissidence many times.  Please read that list for yourselves for I haven't time nor space to detail just why Cupich may be the one needed conversion.

One wonders if that head of the Greek Bishops' Conference might have such strong words for his German counterpart.  Archbishop Robert Zollitsch openly declared his belief that "Christ did not die for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat."  He believes that Jesus only offered "solidarity with the poor."  Now that is heresy.  Will the Greek head say anything about that?  Will the Pope have a rebuke for this heresy-spouting bishop?  I think we'll hear crickets and Zollitsch will retain his post.

However, it does seem that the four cardinals are not standing alone.  Polish Bishop Josef Wrobel says "the four cardinals did well in asking for clarification about Amoris Laetitia".  He added that AL "is not written well".  He offered that as a potential excuse reason for its lack of clarity.

Two American bishops share the same last name: Tobin.  That's about all they share.  Bishop Thomas Tobin of Rhode Island opined last July that AL was "marked by ambiguity and that's intentional on the Holy Father's part, I think...so people can do just about whatever they want."  This bishop has consistently stood for the truth.  On the other hand we have Cardinal Joseph Tobin of Indianapolis.  In the previous link I detailed some issues we've had with him.  He called the four cardinals "troublesome".  Well, it might actually be a good thing to be regarded as "troublesome" to a progressive.  We know now why Joseph Tobin received his red hat!

Bishop Athanasius Schneider published a letter in which he defended the dubia and the four cardinals as a "prophetic voice."  In his letter, Schneider takes aim at the progressive syncophants who lobbed ad hominem attacks at the four cardinals without offering any real clarity, comparing the current situation to that of St Hilary of Poitiers and Pope Liberius.  The letter is worth careful study.

Then there is Bishop Jan Watroba, also of Poland.  He remarked on the ambiguity of AL, saying that he "preferred the clarity of Pope St. John Paul II".  I pray that these three bishops retain their posts and aren't sent to "diocesan siberia", if you get the drift.  I also pray that many more bishops join them to stand for the teachings of Jesus Christ.

LifeSiteNews is conducting a petition effort to ask the Holy Father to respond to the dubia.  Please sign and pass along.

Four Cardinals Publicly Seek Clarification On Amoris Laetitia

In September, four cardinals wrote to Pope Francis to seek formal clarification regarding problematic statements found in Amoris Laetitia.  The pope did not reply to them so now they have made their concerns and questions public.  I will publish the complete text as found in National Catholic Register below the jump break, since it is rather lengthy.

The four cardinals are Walter Brandmuller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner.  They have formatted their writing in the form called "dubia", Latin for "doubts".  The questions are structured in such a way that the answer to be given them must be a "yes" or "no".  Consider also as you read this that the answers will have one of two effects: 1) the reversal of Amoris Laetitia, as well as the proceeds of the two synods or 2) the placement of the pope in formal heresy.  I link now to analysis done by LifeSiteNews, Rorate Caeli, Vox Cantoris, AKACatholic.  Several have asked why there are no more cardinals participating and why these four.  They then answered their own question by pointing out that three of these are retired and the fourth has already had influence stripped from him.  They have nothing to lose from a pope who has shown himself capable of punishing those who contradict him.  Please pray for them, the pope and that the filth may finally be swept from the Vatican.  Now the letter, after the jump break.

Stand With Faithful Catholics Of Nashville TN

Note: What I am about to relate is a scenario that will become more and more common in Catholic schools and parishes.  It is an expected consequence of Amoralis Lamentia.  Last July we reported on a particularly lurid piece of pornography promulgated by the Vatican Pontifical Council for the Family called the "Meeting Point", a euphemism for "sex education".  My post, and the linked LifeSiteNews report, point out many ways in which this program is a slap in the face to the teachings of Jesus Christ.

This past summer several Church officials from around the world authored and signed a letter asking the pope to condemn the errors of Amoris Laetitia.  In this post of mine is a video of pro-life and Catholic leaders asking the same; some ask for the complete withdrawal of Amoris Laetitia.   A few days ago GloraTV announced that some of the signers are suffering repercussions for standing for the faith.  Hey!  Why aren't they being "accompanied"?  Double standard much??

This heavy-handedness is being manifested in the Diocese of Nashville Tennessee.  LifeSiteNews reports that parents of a student at Father Ryan High School were told in no uncertain terms that unless they ceased their objections with the lurid sex ed program there, their son could not return.  The bishop, David Choby basically stuck his finger in the parents' eyes.  While giving some perfunctory lip-service to parental rights, he then went on to say that these rights were subordinated to school demands.  The fact is that Church tradition has always held parental rights to be binding under natural law and that educators were there to support the parents.  Now the parents aren't being supported.  They are being undermined overtly, and are even being punished by a bishop who now stands in stark disobedience to Church teaching and natural law regarding the primacy of parents in the education of their children.

What the diocese is doing is a direct result of the document known as Amoris Laetitia.  Within the document itself are statements and footnotes that undermine parental authority.  Moreover, the abuse that the Nashville bishop is orchestrating against this family is very similar to the vindictiveness that is being unleashed against some of the signers of the letter.

The LifeSiteNews article, at the bottom, has contact information for the bishop and for school officials.  I ask all my readers to contact these individuals.  With respect but in no uncertain terms, please rebuke them for:

• the vindictive punishment meted out to this family
• their disrespect for the place that parents have in the education of their children
• the existence of this pornography in the school

That is what we all can do.  Good Catholics in the Diocese of Nashville should rally around this family and decide on local courses of actions.  Boycotts of collections and pickets come to mind.  Don't be passive in the face of this evil, for if we are passive, we'll only encourage future outrages.

At The Vatican, Personnel Is Poison

On August 16th it was revealed that Pope Francis has appointed Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia to head both the Pontifical Council for Life and the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family.  He already heads the Pontifical Council for the Family.  Please note that it was the latter council that published a "sex education" program during World Youth Day that can accurately be described as pornographic and disrespectful of the authority of parents.  It was also Paglia who stated that during last year's World Family Meeting in Philadelphia last year, gays would enjoy the same status as other attendants, in implementation of the proceeds from the sin-nods at that time.  See here and here for more details.  Given the job he's done so far, what could possibly go right with this new dual appointment?

The 1P5 piece mentions that the former head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Ennio Antonelli, was excluded from the two sin-nods although he is a staunch defender of the Church's teachings in these matters.  Hmm..  Perhaps that preceding sentence might be a tad more accurate if we scratch the "although" and instead substitute "because".  I was aware that no one representing the JPII Institute was present for either sin-nod, perhaps for the same reason.  There is also some expectation that Professor Josef Seifert will be ejected from the Council for Life, both for his defense of the Faith and for being a vocal critic of Amoris Laetitia.

A Catholic News Service piece that appears in Catholic Register stated that the Pope made these changes to "focus more clearly on the horizon of mercy" for "even in theological study, a pastoral perspective and attention to the wounds of humanity should never be lacking".  Here we see the false dichotomy between truth and mercy being ever so slyly interjected here.  Without the sharpest focus on God's truth, there is no real mercy.  What we will see is an allowance of the "anything goes" attitude that Paglia already displayed at the Philadelphia meeting.  No one can seriously doubt that the pope is systematically establishing godless progressivism inside the Vatican.

Now for the second Kasperite dissident bishop..

Bishop Kevin Farrell of the Archdiocese of Dallas will be taking the reins of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life.  He too has proven himself an enemy of Church moral teaching.  Recently he appointed as pastor of one of his churches a priest who was associated with "St. Sebastian's Angels", a network of flaming-gay priests.  Vox Cantoris exposed that, plus Farrell's hissy-fit against Catholic bloggers (he'd do Rosica proud!).  A Blog For Dallas Area Catholics revealed that Farrell is giving support to a dissident "gay ministry" in area parishes.  The fact that this group calls itself "Always Our Children" is its own red flag.  This bunch has links to both New Ways Ministry and Dignity groups.  Again, one wonders what could possibly go right with such an assignment.  But having things "go right" is obviously not the intent.

Cardinal Burke has called for a 54-day Rosary novena for the intention of bringing our nation back to sanity.  It couldn't hurt to include Holy Mother Church in that prayer intention as well.  We clearly need it.

Amoris Laetitia Paves Way For Immoral Sex Ed At World Youth Day

I've written a bit about the document that I'll call Amoralis Lamentia in the past and I'll link to those posts now for some context.  A few weeks ago there was some buzz on the blogosphere about a protest addressed to the pope regarding the errors in AL.  Because the authors/signers were anonymous at the time and the content unknown, I did not think it prudent to jump on the bandwagon.  I simply had no idea what it entailed.

Now more is known, and One Peter Five has it, along with a link to the full document.  The document calls AL "a grave danger to Catholic faith and morals".  No truer words were spoken.  Both the document and cover letter are pdf files; they can be saved to your own machines.  I suggest you do so.  I suggest you read it very carefully, alongside the English translation of Amoralis Lamentia.  Pay close attention to the censures.  Understand that Pope Francis claims that AL is "sound doctrine".  Cardinal Schonborn takes the lunacy even further by stating that previous Catholic teaching must be read in light of Amoris Laetitia.  My!  Doesn't he have it backwards! It is AL that must conform to the Sacred Tradition of the Church, not vice versa.  I suspect the protest was written before Schonborn plopped this stinker, else it might have been listed in the censures.

In my first anthology of posts there is stated a theory that the synods were rigged to pave the way for this thing, and even the ouster of Pope Benedict XVI was done with this in mind.  The protest states that Amoralis Lamentia will pose a danger to Catholic morals.  This week, during World Youth Day, the young people attending that thing will have foisted upon them a most immoral sex education program, promulgated by Pontifical Council for the Family.  The president of that council is Msgr Paglia.  At the World Family Meeting in Philadelphia last year, he stated that gays would have the same status as others - to implement the Instrumentum Laboris on the Synod, a precursor to Amoralis Lamentia.

LifeSiteNews has more detail on this program.  While the program is held out as Church teaching, it does not touch on what constitutes sins against chastity.  The importance of parents is entirely neglected.  The language and videos used therein can be considered pornographic.  And of course it is being promulgated to implement Amoralis Lamentia.  As LSN points out, the very existence of this program runs counter to many papal teachings of the past.  But then again, we see how Schonborn sought to undermine Church tradtition by making it subordinate to Amoralis Lamentia.

I'd urge parents of young people who are attending this World Youth Day to be vigilant.  Ask questions.  Don't be passive in the face of this intrusion into your sphere of authority.  Be informed and be parents.  I'd make the same recommendation of those who are chaperoning groups attending this thing.  Be prepared to offer authentic Church teaching on this and other matters.

What Price Are We Willing To Pay To Defend The Faith?

Two days ago an article was published by Sandro Magister indicating that the pope was exploring the possibility of opening Holy Communion to Protestants.  Of course that possibility does not exist unless one is talking of turning a blind eye to sacrilegious Holy Communion.  However since that was explicitly done in Amoris Laetitia (or more accurately, Amoralis Lamentia) in regards to unrepentant adulterers being admitted to Holy Communion, there's no reason to doubt that he just might be mulling that additional sacrilege in his mind.

So what would be next?  Would we see Jewish rabbis with yarmulkes and Buddhist monks in robes in line to receive Holy Communion?  How about Muslim imams?  They did, after all, utter prayers to their false idols in the Vatican gardens.  Perhaps we'll see wiccans and "church of satan" devotees receiving (hopefully not to blaspheme the Host later).  Why not?  It seems like anything goes these days.  Granted many of these would not receive as their own creeds would forbid it, but why would we even welcome the possibility?

Couple this now with an article that was published on the site that I call Crud.  As far as this particular article goes, I've no reason to question its factual accuracy, given other things that have spewed forth from the Vatican lately.  We "ultra-conservatives" and "pelagians" find many causes for concern, as any reader of this (and many other) blogs have noticed during the past few years.  He knows of our concerns for the Faith and the multitude of souls that will languish in hell if they don't receive the fullness of teaching and truth that Jesus literally died to have extended to them.  Yet he is dismissive of them.  That brings me to the points in the next paragraph.

Three months ago I put forth a suggestion that we lay Catholics might need to resist these insults to Our Lord.  I think we need to revisit this matter.  About fourteen years ago some Catholic men organized "ushers of the Eucharist" to physically prevent sacrilegious Holy Communion by gay activists.  I haven't heard from this group since, but I believe this concept bears some exploration and even implementation.  Too many progressives are quite comfortable in putting forth blasphemies and heresies, believing that we are too uncomfortable to confront them.  Only we can end that by stepping out of our comfort zones.  Will there be a price to pay for doing so?  Yes, but that won't be as costly as the price we'll pay if we let the progressives go unchallenged and without resistance.

Now.. Will we have the courage to do so, especially as we know it will be a long and arduous struggle?