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.

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.

Is Pope Francis The Mouthpiece And Face Of World-Wide Progressivism?

From One Peter Five we read that a few days ago, at the World Meeting Of Popular Movements in California, Pope Francis released a letter that:

• publicly praises the Alinskyite organization People Improving Communities through Organizing (PICO for short) 
• advocates open resistance to President Trump's attempts to bring order to immigration in the US
• falsely declared that "muslim terrorism does not exist"

At that same meeting, Bishop Robert McElroy of the Diocese of San Diego snarked, "President Trump was the candidate of disruption.  Well now, we must all become disrupters."  McElroy was appointed by Pope Francis to his current position.  Since then he has stated that adulterers and gays should "utilize the internal forum of conscience" when it comes to receiving Holy Communion; in other words, this errant bishop is lulling these mortal sinners into heaping more mortal sin on their souls, rendering even more distant the prospect of eternal salvation.  I've written on McElroy in the past.

I would urge careful study of the first two links to understand how this California meeting is setting the stage for "community-organizing" rackets funded by George Soros to dominate the affairs and priorities of the Church hierarchy.  Indeed, the 1P5 piece voices the opinion that since Hillary Clinton has been effectively jettisoned from prominence, that the mantle of "front-man for progressivism" has fallen on the all-too-willing shoulders of Pope Francis.  

There is cause for that opinion, it seems.  Recall how wikileaks played a role in the defeat of Hillary Clinton as emails were leaked that detailed all sorts of nefarious deeds of the Democrat cabal.  From Gloria TV we now see another revelation from these emails: that Clinton, Obama and George Soros orchestrated the "resignation" of Pope Benedict XVI, using bribery and blackmail to oust him and usher in Pope Francis.  At the time I suspect that they didn't think that Pope Francis would be the front-person for anti-God progressives as they fully expected Clinton to win the White House.  But since both Clinton and Obama no longer wield official sway, the pope could be seen as someone to fill that void.  I regret that he seems to be performing aptly in that role.

Last month LifeSiteNews published a piece called, "2016: The Year That Pope Francis Finally Showed His Hand".  Several of us saw that earlier than 2016 as warning signs did abound. Even to this day, some Catholics refuse to accept that all may not be well with this papacy despite all evidence to the contrary.

Understanding that in most cases "personnel is policy", let's look at some of the seismic shifts in personnel.  We've noted the ouster of Cardinal Burke from his positions at the Vatican.  Now he's been jettisoned from the Knights of Malta while being slandered in the process.  We see Cardinals Muller, Sarah, Pell being treated as though there were targets drawn on their backs.  Meanwhile we see dissidents like McElroy, Cardinal Joseph Tobin, Cupich being elevated to roles of responsibility.  Today Judie Brown of American Life League lamented the de facto dismantling of the Pontifical Academy for Life - a council in which she was a member for fifteen years.  Most of the prominent members of that council - including Cardinal Caffarra, one of the "dubia cardinals" - took strong exception to Amoris Laetitia and the confusion caused by it.

In the past 2000+ years of Church history, the Church has had to deal with pontiffs who didn't live up to their office and who in fact were quite evil - Alexander VI comes immediately to mind.  While we cannot say for certain that such is the case now, we'd be dishonest to pretend that the same couldn't be the case now.  We need to pray for the Church and its leaders - many of whom have thrown in their lot with anti-God progressives and wreaking havoc on the faith of millions. 

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.

Glaring Evidence Shows The Need For The Dubia

If there are lingering doubts as to the necessity for clarification of the mess known as Amoris Laetitia (or as I call it, Amoralis Lamentia), let these facts show why the dubia must be taken seriously.

Today it was announced that Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego has ordered his priests to give Holy Communion to adulterous Catholics.  In other words, he is ordering his priests to commit mortal sins of sacrilege in offering Holy Communion to unrepentant adulterers AND to contribute to the mortal sin of sacrilege on the part of those who desperately need the medicine of repentance.  Of course no faithful priest can do that.  Such is the way that Amoralis Lamentia is emboldening those who care not one whit for the Sacraments of Matrimony, Eucharist and Penance.  Recall that one of the dubia questions deals with this very topic.  We pray for these priests as they are being put into a horrible position, that they have the courage to withstand the evil even as it emanates from their own bishop.  We pray even more who will acquiesce to this sinful suggestion with glee.

This same bishop also ordered his priests to welcome "LGBT families".  That phrase in quotes is an oxymoron.  Two same-sex adults in a perverted relationship can never constitute a true family.  No real "family" can exist in a situation based on mortal sin.  Again, McElroy is commanding his priests to validate sinful situations - something that no priest can ever do.

We see similar affirmation of mortal sin in the Archdiocese of New York.  Joseph Sciambra has details of a "retreat" being offered to those embroiled in perversion at St. Francis of Assisi parish.  Apparently that parish is quite a cesspool in that regard.  And let's not ever forget what happened in my own parish over four years ago when Father Marcel Guarnizo withheld Holy Communion from a flaming lesbian and was punished by Cardinal Wuerl for being a faithful priest.

So now one can see the confusion that Amoralis Lamentia is causing.  I believe this confusion is being intentionally created.  The progressives in the Vatican do not want to overtly state their intentions to junk the Traditions of Jesus Christ so they wish to do so by subterfuge. This is why so many of them hate the dubia-letter posted by the four cardinals; it is forcing the progressives to be up front about their goals, and they understandably find themselves threatened.

We saw the utter defensiveness of some a few days ago.  Today we saw a reaction from the Vatican that can only be called "lashing out in fear and guilt".  The Dean of the Roman Rota, Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto, actually threatened the four cardinals by saying that they could have their cardinalates stripped from them - for daring to ask for clarification.  Jeff Mirus of Catholic Culture also took note of the fear and guilt that seems to be all over Pinto.  Cardinal George Pell came to the defense of the four cardinals, wondering how anyone could actually disagree with a question.  He's right; by definition, a question is not a statement of fact or opinion so there's nothing in it with which one can disagree.  Will we soon hear that Pinto is drawing aim at Pell's cardinalate?

We must continue to pray.  Pray that the pope indeed does clarify AL to be in conformity with the timeless teachings of the Church.  But if he won't let us pray that the festering boil of heresy will come to a head so that it can be lanced and healed quickly.

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.

Plea To The Pope

Many thanks to LifeSiteNews for releasing this video presentation.  Here we see several respected Catholic and pro-life leaders throughout the world respectfully yet unambiguously asking the Pope to cease causing scandal and confusion and to live up to his sacred charge.  Several of them also beseech the Pope to withdraw Amoris Laetitia.  With no further ado, here is the full-length "Plea To The Pope".

Michael Voris - Doubling Down On Denial Of Serious Papal Problems

Generally I've found Michael Voris and his Church Militant TV apostolate to be very informative and helpful through the years - particularly the Vortex series.  Regrettably though, he's evinced denial of the serious problems that Pope Francis continues to pose for the Faith.  When these episodes have presented themselves, I (and others) have seen it necessary to refute them for they are full of logical flaws.  Indeed, it is only the utilization of flawed logic that would cause one to deny evidence that repeatedly presents itself to the public.  If logical fallacies aren't the root causes of the denials, the latter might be engaged at the request of a donor.  It's one or the other; I don't know which.  At any rate, see here, here, here, here, here

As I did in most of those previous posts, I'm going to analyze the lack of logic posed in this Vortex.  I may not necessarily go in the same order as the script of this Vortex.

• In the first paragraph, Voris acknowledges the problematic and even harmful nature of the pope's repeated erroneous remarks.  As he states, a blind person can see the glaring problems.
• In the second paragraph, his train of thought starts to jump the rails.  He talks of this "industry of blasting the pope for his confusing conflicting statements".  Industry?  First, we are kept busy addressing the confusing statements, but that's because they issue from his mouth non-stop (especially when he's aboard planes).  Second, let's be clear that "addressing the confusing statements" is NOT equivalent to "blasting the pope".  I truly believe that a donor is feeding this script to Voris.  Then he talks of a notion that "everything that's wrong in the Church can be solved by the pope".  That's not a correct picture of the papacy at all.  He does have the sacred charge of safeguarding the deposit of faith.  Unfortunately these "conflicting statements" have had the effect of endangering the deposit of faith.  Is it too much to ask that the pope not pose a danger to the faith?

Confusion Of Amoralis Lamentia Strikes In Surprising Venues

Preface: "Amoralis Lamentia" is the nickname that I have given to Amoris Laetitia.  I believe that more aptly describes the nature of this exhortation.

Consider the following excerpt from a commentary on AL that was just published.  This excerpt has to do with Holy Communion being given to those in adulterous situations:

Because of the format in which it was published, I'm unable to copy/paste it.  If it is too small to read, here is the link and you'll want to look in the right-hand column.

No - your eyes are not deceiving you!  The source of this really is the Marians of the Immaculate Conception!  I've found them to be a devout order, dedicated as they are to spreading the Divine Mercy message, particularly through the Chaplet of Divine Mercy as given to St Faustina.  I might have expected such sloppiness from America or the National Catholic Reporter, but not at all from the Marians.  This is indeed sad.

Under the "For example" heading we see the author of this article clearly engaging in "situation ethics".  Look at the example.  The author doesn't even ascribe ignorance of the Church's teaching to his hypothetical woman.  He talks of the tough issues about which the Pope and bishops have been agonizing recently.  That last word is key, for I clearly suspect that such situations have existed for hundreds of years.  Why "recently" is there so much "agonizing" that hasn't been seen for the rest of Church history?

It's really quite simple.  (Note: I said "simple", not "easy".  The two words are not synonyms.)  If this hypothetical woman were to attempt to receive Holy Communion while still living in an adulterous situation, she would incur the guilt of making a sacrilegious Holy Communion.  Any priest and/or bishop who advises her that such is permissible is in fact lying to her and goading her into actions that can imperil her eternal salvation.  No amount of "agonizing" will change that eternal reality.

Two prominent clerics have publicly and rightly decried this attempt to introduce this spiritual poison that is found in Amoralis Lamentia.  Bishop Athanasius Schneider has directly said that parts of AL are "objectively erroneous".  He said quite a few other things about AL as well.

We also should recall what Cardinal Burke said four months ago.  He flat out said that if the Pope should move in the direction of giving Holy Communion to de facto adulterers, that "I will resist".  Not only he, but we faithful Catholics must resist as well.

In other Marian-related news, yesterday the Pope canonized the founder of that order, Blessed Stanislaus Papczynski.

More Analysis Of Amoris Laetitia

I've been unable to write during the past few days.  Others have written much, giving some food for thought.  Picking up where I left off in my reading, I noticed the following things.

Chapter 2 of AL goes through an entire litany of forces hostile to the family: poverty, drug abuse, violence, absence of fathers, unemployment, etc.  Only once do I see the word "contraception" mentioned (and I mean only once in the entire 264-page tome). That occurs in paragraph 42, but only to decry the forcing of the same on women by governmental authorities.  Nowhere is contraception itself condemned as the heinous moral evil that it has always been.  Yet Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae nailed it right on the head when he said that any engagement in the inherently sinful (mortal sin at that) practice of contraception would lead to the deconstruction of the family and ultimately civilization as well.  The ultimate consequence of course is the eternal damnation of those who engage in it.  In fact, as I read this, I see no mention of eternity.  There is only the focus on the situation of this temporal life, which is minuscule in comparison to eternity.  If choices impacting family life were made with the intention of furthering one's eternal salvation, many of the ills described in Chapter 2 would be greatly reduced if not eliminated altogether.

In Chapter 3 we look at paragraph 59 where it says, "Our teaching on marriage and the family cannot fail to be inspired and transformed by this message of love and tenderness; otherwise, it becomes nothing more than the defense of a dry and lifeless doctrine."  Dry and lifeless doctrine?  Beg pardon, but if by "dry and lifeless doctrine" it refers to the teaching of Jesus Christ through His Church, such a slur is nothing short of blasphemy.  And what's with all this sissified emphasis on "tenderness"?  Whatever else it may be, it is not an integral part of true charity - unless "tenderness" means tossing moneychangers from the temple, excoriating the pharisees as "brood of vipers", etc.

Last week a New York Times article appeared online entitled "The New Catholic Truce".  For something coming out of NYT, I thought the author did a reasonably decent job in detailing the harmful effects of AL  Here is one cogent quote:  What the church considers serious sin becomes mere “irregularity.” What the church considers a commandment becomes a mere “ideal.” What the church once stated authoritatively it now proffers tentatively, in tones laced with self-effacement, self-critique.

You can see that he notices that the pope is shying away from the commands of Jesus Christ.  The author seems to think that such is the language of "truce" and that the pope is trying to satisfy both progressives and faithful Catholics.  He might have a point.  What often happens when one tries to please everybody is that he pleases nobody.  Of course when we're talking of papal writings, one should hope that the pope would only be trying to please One Person, God Himself.

I left a comment on the facebook page where this originated.  Here it is.  There's no "truce". As long as evil dissent is allowed to fester in the Church, there damned well better be division in the Church for we cannot "unite" around a policy of appeasing evil. More often than not, conciliatory language of "truces" is satanic in origin.

Cardinal Burke recently penned a commentary on AL that appears in the National Catholic Register.  While he rightly states that AL is not part of the Magisterium of the Church, I believe he misses the mark when it comes to understating the real damage being done to people by that heresy-infested document.  With all due respect to His Eminence, his is not the first  attempt to  do "damage control" for the pope and to pretend that when his deliberately ambiguous statements cause confusion in the minds of so many souls, that it really isn't "that bad".

I've read writings of other papal apologists who suggest that we should all break out in thanksgiving because the Vicar of Christ did not overtly show himself to be an anti-pope.  Such writing is pathetic and is its own scandal.  Is that the best we should expect from the Church's chief shepherd?  How craven we have become when it is suggested by Catholic authors that we all wax lyrical when the successor of Peter doesn't spew forth too much spiritual poison.  Alas, with AL such flimsy hopes were not to be realized.  Read Steve Skojec's take on the matter, with which I wholly agree.