Pope Francis Owns The Gay Problem In The Church

Of course he didn't start it, for flaming gays were in high places of Church power long before Cardinal Bergoglio ascended the papal throne.  However, he has not so much failed to make any headway with the problem as much as he has acted to further ensconce them within positions of Church influence.  Two weeks ago his latest pro-sodomy dissidence was spoken to Juan Carlos Cruz when the pope told Cruz "God made you that way.."

This blog and others have listed the myriad ways that the pope has given green lights to gays and their enablers.  Two of the most egregious are:

• Appointing dissident Father James Martin S.J. to the Vatican Communication Office
• Allowing Cardinal Timothy Dolan to continue to harbor gays in the Archdiocese of New York

Two weeks ago, Michael Voris, in his Vortex, excoriated all this gay-pandering.  Please listen very closely to it.  In it, he acknowledges the pope's horrible error and admits no doubt that the blasphemy escaped the pope's lips.  Voris went so far as to offer a rebuke to both the Cardinal and the Pope.  He was right to do so.

In yesterday's Vortex, though, he backpeddled a bit when he attempted to cast doubt as to whether or not the pope uttered the blasphemy.  

• He states that "no member of the hierarchy has said anything about it", with "it" being the pope's words as related by Cruz.  Well, doesn't the "hierarchy" include the pope?  And why haven't they cleared any misunderstanding?  Such would be their duty, to mitigate any confusion to the faithful.
• He points out that Father James Martin has become "the waterboy for the advancing of the gay agenda".  True enough; I already mentioned his Vatican appointment above, and there's more that will be detailed in the following paragraphs.

I linked to the article as opposed to merely posting the video for I think the comments below are most instructive for the way they articulate the pope's responsibility for this debacle.  I myself would have commented; however, for similar comments that I made in previous articles, I've been banned from commenting on the CM website.  Voris tried to chide them saying that they're "going back to Catholic cool to slam the pope".  I commend the others for their polite, firm, and educated responses to that childishness.  Should those comments be pulled, I've saved screenshots.

As promised, I'll give the latest news regarding Father Martin, courtesy of Rorate Caeli.  The World Meeting of Families will be held in Dublin, Ireland on August 21-24, 2018.  Guess who's been invited to speak?  Yes, and he claims that the invitation was extended by both the Archdiocese of Dublin and the Vatican.  I've no reason to doubt his account.  News of this came after the release of yesterday's vortex.  This is just the latest of the pope's smooch-ups to gays; there will be more soon enough, I'm sure.

I've rehearsed these old problems because tomorrow Church Militant will host a webinar called "Catholic and Gay".  It will ostensibly instruct the faithful Catholic in how to combat the gay infestation in the Church.  I've no doubt that many good points and suggestions will be made in that regard.  However, if Church Militant continues to side-step the proverbial "elephant in the living room" regarding the pope's own fostering of gays within the Church, the information they present will be woefully incomplete.  The same goes for those who still refuse to acknowledge the objective harm caused by this pope; their efforts to improve the church will be stymied.  It's time for them - including Church Militant - to admit the truth so it can be addressed.

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?

Gay-Enabling Prelates Must Be Resisted

Much of the media (not just Catholic outlets) have been ablaze with the news of what Pope Francis said to Juan Carlos Cruz, one of the child victims of gay-priest pedophiles in Chile.  The young man is now himself gay, but the pope said to him "God made you gay and loves you like this".  There are doubts regarding the veracity of this statement.  However, given the silence of the Vatican Press Office and other (mis)deeds committed by the pope in relation to gays (see this piece by Doug Mainwaring of LifeSiteNews), I've no reason to doubt the accuracy of Cruz's account of the conversation.

Cardinal Dolan has chimed in on the matter, going so far as to claim of the pope's affirmation of mortal sin that "Jesus could have said that".  So he compounds the pope's blasphemy with his own.  In today's Vortex, Michael Voris comments this latest nonsense from Dolan.  He speculates that Dolan may have fallen out of grace a bit with the progressives in the Vatican and that one of Dolan's aims with his statement was to brown-nose his way back into their favor.  Voris goes into a list of Dolan's dalliances with gays, but even that list isn't complete.  Below the Vortex I'll supply some more.  These make me believe that when it comes to smooching up to gays, that the Vatican bigwigs have nothing over Dolan.



In addition to what Voris said, Dolan has allowed parishes to host "pre-pride masses", approved the "coming-out" of a gay athlete on television, set not a peep in Kim Davis' defense, etc.  Now comes word (ht Joseph Sciambra) that St. Francis de Sales Church in NYC not only has a LGBT "ministry" (in other words, a pervert dating service), but that this "ministry" is led by a flamboyantly promiscuous drag queen; see the parish website.  Wanna bet that this guy will retain his position?

So much for Cardinal Dolan leading New York Catholics to hell with his dissidence.  Let's hear from some prelates who aren't afraid to speak truth to the agenda of perversion.  Two weeks ago, at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC, Cardinal Sarah stated plainly that the gay agenda is a demonic attack on the family.  Meanwhile, Bishop Athanasius Scheider gave an interview to One Peter Five.  He commented on many topics and I'd suggest you read the whole thing.  He touched upon the question of priests "blessing" gay shack-ups.  He stated that any priest who dared to do so would be committing a sin that's even greater than the one being committed by the gays being "blessed" - or more accurately cursed.  Think about that.  The priests so doing are not only lulling the perverts towards deadened consciences and eventual damnation (if they don't repent before death), but they are committing sacrilege against one of the Seven Sacraments.  They are misrepresenting the Church and Jesus Christ Himself.  These sins, by the way, are precisely what Father Guarnizo avoided six years ago.  Conversely, the sins of misrepresenting the Church are precisely what Bishop Knestout committed when he extended to Barbara Johnson that wretched apology.

Now consider this.  In Oregon, a Catholic parish is being sued for refusing to host an LGBT event in one of its facilities.  This episode occurred over three years ago but they are just now filing suit.  This is not unlike the situation in Indiana when a KofC council allowed two lesbians to hold their "wedding reception" for absolutely no charge.  Then-archbishop Joseph Tobin was in charge and did absolutely nothing to stop it.  In light of his recent advancement to Cardinal under Pope Francis, one might wonder if he actually ordered that capitulation to the lesbians. 

Now some questions are before us and we need to answer them before we find these situation in our own parishes: especially if these parishes cower before perverts, threatening the sanctity of our Churches.  Are we prepared to offer resistance?  No, I don't mean merely praying the Rosary in some location away from the travesty.  I mean are we prepared to offer what could be called "civil disobedience" in order to stand with our outraged Lord?


https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/public-school-kids-cant-read...and-its-not-by-accident

Close Papal Confidante Flaunts His Perversion In His Cathedral - Part Of The Deconstruction Of Tradition

Last August Pope Francis appointed Archbishop Paglia as head of the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute On Marriage And Family.  He's also head of the Pontifical Academy For Life (and perhaps its only member).  It was under his direction that a particularly lurid sex education program was foisted on young people attending the World Youth Day this past summer.  At the World Meeting For Families in Philadephia last year, he mandated that practicing gays would have the same status as faithful Catholics in attendance.  I point out that the latter two incidents occurred before Paglia's appointment to the Institute On Marriage And Family.

One other very troubling event occurred before that as well.  News has arisen that in 2007, Paglia commissioned a piece of pornographic art to be painted in his cathedral church.  It is explicitly homoerotic.  It shows Jesus pulling into heaven via fishnets dozens of people.  In the nets, the people are engaged in various erotic acts.  One of those people bears the face of Paglia himself while semi-nude and embracing another scantily-clad man.  This LifeSiteNews report has more details and pictures.  All this was done on instruction from Paglia himself.  The depiction of Paglia in such a pose leads one to deduce that Paglia himself might be a practicing homosexual.  Obviously the painting within a Catholic church is grossly blasphemous.  As it was done in 2007, no one can doubt that the Pope knew of this.  Because the pope appointed Paglia to his high positions, we can only conclude that the appointments were done not so much in spite of Paglia's flagrant perversion but because of it.  There is an attempt afoot in the Vatican - led by the pope, let's admit that - to deconstruct the Sacred Tradition of Holy Mother Church in favor of some "new world order".

This and so much more points to the horrid place to which Pope Francis is steering the Church.  For the benefit of my friends who insist on remaining in denial regarding this harmful papacy, I now link to a piece written by Jeffrey Mirus of Catholic Culture.  He explains well the role that the Holy Spirit assumes in the process of selecting a pope.  He also points out why it is erroneous to presume that the Holy Spirit directly chooses each pontiff.  As you read the list of poor pontiffs of the past, bear in mind that there is no reason to presume that the same couldn't be happening right now.

I post now a video released by Michael Matt of the Remnant.  Listen closely.  He first elaborates on the scandal of Paul Ehrlich being allowed to speak at a Vatican conference.  At the 4:48 mark he says "If you're not seeing what's really going on here, I'm sorry, but it's just a case of you not wanting to see.."  At the 10:00 mark Matt said he and others sent an open letter to President Trump to investigate possible Democrat influence in the ouster of Pope Benedict XVI and election of Pope Francis.  LifeSiteNews today released an interview with Archbishop Luigi Negri who is close with the Pope Emeritus.  He too states that Benedict resigned "under tremendous pressure".  A few weeks ago I hypothesized that Pope Francis is the de facto designated mouthpiece for worldwide progressivism.  Here's the Message from Modesto that Matt mentioned.   All this is part and parcel of the mangling of the Church into some progressive new world order idol.  Did I say "mangling"?  A thousand pardons, please!  I meant to say "maturing" - you know, like the "maturing" we were supposed to do after the Extraordinary Synod!

Now listen at the 21:00 mark when Matt speaks of obedience to the pope and moral limitations on so doing.  He correctly states that "obedience is subordinate to the Faith".  Starting at 21:57, he says, "when a superior, even a pope, commands that we do something wrong including the instruction to believe something false and contrary to our religion and beliefs, what we were taught as Catholics, the Catholic response is to resist him".  Now going back to that Modesto debacle, McElroy and others pledged to "disrupt" Trump's immigration policies.  We now have major disruption in our Church.  It's time we start considering how we faithful Catholics will - as it were - disrupt the disruption.

We are approaching the 100th anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima.  She promised the children that "in the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph".  Of course that is true but that does not excuse us from taking on the task of Church Militant for if we don't, more souls will go to hell.

From The Flighty Interview Department: Pope Says Christians Should Apologize To Gays For Not Coddling Them

Two days ago, Cardinal Reinhard Marx, one of the pope's nine closest advisers, claimed that the Church must apologize to gays because "we've done a lot to marginalize them".  He said that up "until recently, the Church has been very negative about gay people".  Did Marx intend to refute St. Peter Damian, himself a bishop as well as Doctor of the Church, when the latter combated the mortal sin of homosexual conduct in the ranks of the clergy?  Marx has been rather brazen about his attempts to "normalize" that mortal sin.

Yesterday as he was returning to Rome via plane, the pope gave another disastrous interview - by far not his first, but quite likely his worst to date.  When asked about Marx's remarks a day or so earlier, he echoed Marx as he stated that the Church as to say it's "sorry to the gay person" for "discrimination".  Not so. Anyone who engages in mortal sin, particularly unrepented and repeated mortal sin, marginalizes himself and discriminates against himself - in the worst way.  He/she deliberately cuts him/herself off from sanctifying grace and places him/herself in the position of being damned to hell forever.  Only by repentance and the Sacrament of Confession can that person find him/herself back in the friendship of God and in the communion of believers.  Or does the pope suggest that St. Paul should have apologized to that wayward Christian about whom we read in 1 Corinthians 5:1-13?

If there's anything for which the Church should be "apologizing" to gays, perhaps that shortcoming would be the refusal of so many clergy to preach to them that unless they repent they will most likely go to hell.  Perhaps it would be for the coddling of their mortal sin, causing false comfort and complacency as they careen towards eternal perdition.  Four years ago, when Father Marcel Guarnizo was thrown under the bus by the Archdiocese of Washington for denying Holy Communion to a lesbian, Bishop Knestout apologized to her.  For that, I truly believe that Knestout really owes her another, different apology.  He should apologize to her for coddling her mortal sin and for not displaying true pastoral solicitude in his refusal to call her to repentance.  Sadly that won't happen at this time for it seems that the pope has just confirmed Knestout in his cowardly statement to the lesbian.

If this is what the pope calls being "pastoral", we now have a problem of wolves dressed in shepherds' clothing.

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. 

Archbishop Cordileone Under Attack - Will Pope Francis Support Him After Letting The LCWR Run Amok?

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, prelate of San Francisco, has made heroic efforts to cleanse the progressive rot inside Catholic schools and other structures in his archdiocese that have been allowed to fester for way too long.  The link above documents that, and the opposition that he has had to withstand.  It should be mentioned that some of that opposition has come from local governments, who ignore the real intent of the First Amendment's prohibition against governmental interference with the free exercise of religious beliefs.

Some ignorant and/or disobedient Catholics have taken out an ad to publish an open letter to Pope Francis.  They are petitioning the Pope to remove Cordileone and replace him with a progressive to their own likening.  Their main beef seems to be the archbishop's insistence that teachers in the Catholic schools there conduct themselves in manners that conform with Catholic moral teaching.  Imagine that!  Asking Catholic teachers to behave like - Catholics!  Who-da thunk it?  All they do is display their own desperate need for real Catholic education.

Now think this through!  Can you imagine these same parents lambasting an Islamic school for insisting that its teachers live by Muslim doctrines?  No!  It defies common sense!  But common sense means nothing to those whose consciences cannot bear the truth of God because their own lives are lived in disobedience to God.  I believe this is a key reason why these dissidents are gnashing their teeth at Archbishop Cordileone.  This move to marginalize the archbishop and other faithful Catholics in their own schools and churches is part of a move to relegate us to the status of "niggers of the new age".

According to some reports, many of the signers of this letter are wealthy and influential.  Well, whoop-dee-doo!  In this attack against the Archbishop, these individuals place their own immortal souls in jeopardy, and their so-called "wealth and influence" won't do diddly-squat if they die unrepentant.

Some have opined that this letter is a gesture that won't have any impact on the Pope.  In a saner time I could have joined in that optimism.  However, two events give me "cause for pause".

1. There is the abysmal treatment meted out to Father Marcel Guarnizo three years ago at my own parish when Father withheld Holy Communion to a flagrant lesbian.  Cardinal Wuerl had him thrown under the bus when the gay community started yipping and yapping.  Whether or not the chancery silently agreed with the gays or they simply cowed before them I cannot tell.  The entire chancery failed miserably in behaving like true followers of Jesus Christ.  If the DC chancery wimped out then, might the nuncio wimp out now?
2. There is today's news that the Vatican is ending its review and reform of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious.  The attempt to reform the LCWR was undertaken by Pope Benedict XVI, and long overdue for the LCWR has long been a cesspool of dissent and spiritual poison.  Now we hear that Pope Francis thinks all is well and good and that LCWR business can resume as before!  If that be the case with the LCWR, might there be similar attitudes displayed against the Archdiocese of San Francisco?   Note: Vox Cantoris points out that this travesty was committed on Pope Benedict's birthday.  Did the pope just slap his predecessor in the face?

Please consider signing a petition to support the Archbishop.  This petition is an initiative of LifeSiteNews.   Of course please pray and speak out.  Thank you.

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.

Two Interviews Tell Quite The Tale

Two days ago we heard news about the pope' interview with Kim Davis while he was in town last week.  It turns out he had another interview of a very different kind.  A former student of the pope's, Yayo Grassi, met with him.  This student, a male, brought along with him his accomplice in the mortal sin of sodomy, as well as his mother.  LifeSiteNews has more details along with video.  The video shows the pope embracing his former student and warmly shaking the other sodomite's hand.  The mother of the student appears overcome with emotion.  I wonder what it can be, given her son is living in mortal sin?  All are speaking in Italian I believe.  Does anyone have a decent  idea of the conversation?

The pope is the chief shepherd of souls.  Nowhere do I see any exhortation of the pope to the two men that they must separate lest they risk damnation and an eternity in hell.  This interview was scandalous, and those most scandalized were the two gays, as well as all others who either participate in, or support that evil.  It is they who stand to literally lose their souls owing to the lack of spiritual mercy being shown them.  Let us remember that the first Spiritual Work of Mercy is to "rebuke the sinner".

Now we hear news that the Vatican has shifted into "damage control mode" over the interview,   Father Rosica has acknowledged that the interview had "negative impact" while Father Lombardi said the meeting should not be considered a show of support.  But wait a minute!  These two Vatican officials weren't speaking of the Grassi interview, but rather the one with Kim Davis.  In fact, Father Lombardi went so far as to say, "The only real audience granted by the Pope at the Nunciature was with one of his former students and his family (Grassi)".  See this LifeSiteNews piece for details.

Let's unpack this, shall we?  After news broke of the Davis meeting, all the progressives waxed huffy about it, expressing   Well, my goodness!  The Vatican progressives can't have any of that going on now, can they?  That goes double due to the sin-nod that will commence next week.  So they immediately had to start groveling before their puppet-masters and sugar-daddies and claim that the Davis interview is fake while the Grassi one was the real deal.  Got that?  Good!

This gives us more of a picture of what kind of circus this sin-nod will be.  Pray!

Msgr Pope Apologies - Under Archdiocesan Compulsion?

Now we knew this was coming, didn't we?  See below what currently appears in the url http://blog.adw.org/2014/09/what-happened-to-the-st-patricks-parade-post/

My word!  How stupid does the Archdiocese of Washington think we are?  I've no doubt that this "apology" was coerced and the language for this may well have been dictated by the chancery.  Remember - this is the very same chancery that gave Father Marcel Guarnizo the heave-ho when the latter denied Holy Communion to a flagrantly practicing lesbian (as was his duty per Canon 915).

Msgr Pope's language in his now-censored post was strong, but such language was needed to adequately describe the depravity of Cardinal Dolan's kiss-up to the gays regarding what now will be the St Patrick's Day Orgy.  No doubt the unabashed truth stings the consciences of all progressives in all chanceries.  They will circle the wagons to protect their own from the light of the truth.

Msgr Pope is vowed to obedience to the local bishop.  Most likely he had no choice but to allow that poppy-cock apology to be published on his behalf.  We the laity are not so constrained, and we will call out this chicanery for what it is.

To the ADW trolls reading this post - no, we had no communications with Msgr Pope, so if your noses are out of joint because of this post, it will avail you nothing to vent your spleens at Msgr Pope.  My com-boxes are open.

Shining The Light Through Rose-Colored Glasses

Today's Vortex addresses why Catholic bloggers will continue to shine the light on clerical misbehaviors - despite the whining and pouting of those who insist upon wearing rose-colored glasses in the face of clerical mischief.  It is their evil, more than that of laity, that has so much potential to damage the church simply because of the authority they do wield.  Indeed, untold numbers of souls have been led astray by nonsense from clerics.  Witness the gays who now have reason to believe that their mortal sins are affirmed by Cardinal Dolan as a result of the St Patrick's day parade fiasco.  And yes, witness the millions who now believe adulterers will be allowed to commit the sin of sacrilege with Holy Communion thanks to the grotesque relatio released by Pope Francis.  Yes, I will continue to shine the light - despite the stubborn resistance of some to seeing the truth.  One such individual is Jeff Mirus - more on that below the video.



Mirus penned a piece recently, to which I link now.  I'll unpack a few salient points - but not all for I don't have time for that.

Let's look at the second paragraph.  Since you'll have it open in a separate browser window, I'll interject my comments in red throughout this copy.  "Every few weeks (or perhaps every few days), Pope Francis says something that annoys or even appalls those who like their Catholicism neat and tidy.  His "neat and tidy" quip is really quite condescending.  That's a cheap shot, Mr. Mirus - for shame!  At any rate, we prefer the faith being portrayed clearly and unambiguously, for the sake of poor souls who really do need the truth with no gimmicks for the sake of their eternal salvation.  Pope Francis seems to enjoy not only shaking things up (which he has admitted) but speaking colloquially, and therefore with less theological and pastoral precision than might otherwise be the case. My readers know that I don’t think this is nearly as dangerous as many do,  for those who are not oh-so-sophisticated to wade through sloppy presentations, the lack of theological precision can well damn them nor do I think Francis is attempting to push the Church in an unacceptable direction I cannot divine whether or not he's attempting to push the Church in a bad direction; regardless of his motives that is in fact what he's doing."

Let's look at this one.  "I don’t think Francis thinks in the categories of left and right, liberal and conservative, that so many Western Catholics use as a kind of ecclesiastical shorthand to categorize conflicts over doctrine, liturgy and moral principles. Rather, I think Francis takes Catholic faith and morals for granted, And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is a BIG problem on its own, when so many don't know the basics of faith and morals.  Even bishops, as evinced by the nonsense from the Sin-Nod last October display ignorance of their faith.  In their case I hope it's ignorance, lest they be culpable of serious sins but is really fed up with clericalism and formalism (call it systemic rigidity or riskless ministry) which prevents the Church (in her members) from being profoundly evangelical and constantly engaged in sacrificial service to those who are materially, morally and spiritually poor. This does lead to misunderstandings, but those misunderstandings are  half due to our own inadequate categories of reflection  So what does Mirus call it when so many, of diverse perspectives and levels of Catholic knowledge, glean the same messages from the Pope?  When anyone attempts to communicate, he/she accepts the responsibility of communicating their message clearly.  It just isn't acceptable to blame the recipients of the message for repeated failures to communicate clearly."

Here Mirus shows evidence of swallowing the "god of surprises" kool-aid.  "In the challenge of love, God shows up with surprises…. So let yourselves be surprised by God: Don’t be afraid of surprises, afraid that they will shake you up.  Don't you think that depends on the nature of the particular surprise in question?  They make us insecure  Really?  Why should they?  but they change the direction we are going in. True love makes you “burn life”, even at the risk of coming up empty-handed."  Why this fetish regarding "surprises"?  Are we aware that God is immutable?  That His word doesn't change?  When we come across anomalies and are surprised by the same, maybe - just maybe!- that sense of "surprise" is really a warning from our good sense to stay away from the source of alarm.

As I said earlier, I don't have time to unpack this entire mess from Mirus (at least not in this post).  I will look at one last thing.  "We have a standing joke in my household. When I express an opinion about Pope Francis, my wife asks: 'How long are you going to keep your head in the sand?'"  I echo Mrs. Mirus' question, not only to Mr. Mirus but to all who refuse to take off their happy-clappy rose-colored glasses.

Silence When Prelates Misbehave Is Its Own Sin

In 2021, Dr Peter Kwasniewski wrote a small but powerful and much-needed book called True Obedience In The Church.  It is published by Sophia Institute Press.  No doubt the egregious misdeeds of the late Francis was impetus for its writing, since many sincere but unaware Catholics were led to follow him in his heresies, thinking that they were obliged to obey the pope in every way.

In his book, Dr. Kwasniewski laid forth the proper theology behind the concept of obedience, making plain that we are required to obey our prelates only to the extent that they act in concert with the Teachings of the Church as they have always existed.  The pope is charged with preserving Church Tradition, and is no more permitted to tinker with it than are the laity.  Indeed, Kwasniewski says correctly that we are forbidden to follow our leaders into error.  For example, no prelate can order a priest in his diocese to "bless" two gays and their perverted relationship.  They are not to conduct idol worship, such as that occurred with the pachamama idolatry in the Vatican Gardens.  I need not go into more detail, or I would be typing all night.

In his book, he quoted St Thomas Aquinas who said, "unjust laws are acts of violence rather than laws...Wherefore they do not bind in conscience".  He then went on to say that Francis' attempts to stifle the Traditional Latin Mass fall under the category of "unjust laws" and need not, or I should say, may not be obeyed.  Traditiones Custodes is a direct violation of Quo Primum, a papal bull issued by Pope Saint Pius V in 1570 that established the Traditional Latin Mass as the true Mass, one that can never be abrogated.

Following the logic set forth by Aquinas, Kwasniewski also pointed out that those priests and bishops who were canceled on account of fidelity to Tradition are by no means bound to act as though their priestly ministries are stifled.  Because these priests acted in accord with Tradition, any punishment meted to them in retaliation is illicit and has no claim of obedience.  They are still priests in good standing with God and deserve out support.  They may not have use of churches in which to administer Sacraments, but can certainly do so away from diocesan property, say for example, in private homes.

At this time, we have a new pontiff - Leo XIV.  He's only been pope for a few weeks so we don't know what the future will hold.  We hope and pray that he reverses the damage wreaked by Francis.  If he does, though, we will still have many aberrant bishops with which to deal: McElroy, Cupich, Tobin, etc.  We will have to be vigilant and be ready to resist them when they misbehave.

Many of the young priests being freshly ordained today are more traditionally-minded than were the priests ordained just a generation ago.  I'd like to propose a model for them to examine.  He was a priest of the Old Testament, and an account of his priestly zeal is given in Numbers 25:6-13.  I will reproduce it from the Douay-Rheims version.

Douay-Rheims   DR + LV   Latin Vulgate   Summa   Catechism Douay-Rheims Bible < prev Book of Numbers next > < prev Chapter 25 next > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 The people fall into fornication and idolatry; for which twenty-four thousand are slain. The zeal of Phinees.  1 And Israel at that time abode in Settim, and the people committed fornication with the daughters of Moab,  2 Who called them to their sacrifices. And they ate of them, and adored their gods.  3 And Israel was initiated to Beelphegor: upon which the Lord being angry,  4 Said to Moses: Take all the princes of the people, and hang them up on gibbets against the sun: that my fury may be turned away from Israel.  5 And Moses said to the judges of Israel: Let every man kill his neighbours, that have been initiated to Beelphegor. [3] "Initiated to Beelphegor": That is, they took to the worship of Beelphegor, an obscene idol of the Moabites, and were consecrated, as it were, to him.  6 And behold one of the children of Israel went in before his brethren to a harlot of Madian, in the sight of Moses, and of all the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle.  7 And when Phinees the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest saw it, he rose up from the midst; of the multitude, and taking a dagger,  8 Went in after the Israelite into the brothel house, and thrust both of them through together, to wit, the man and the woman in the genital parts. And the scourge ceased from the children of Israel:  9 And there were slain four and twenty thousand men.  10 And the Lord said to Moses:  11 Phinees the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned away my wrath from the children of Israel: because he was moved with my zeal against them, that I myself might not destroy the children of Israel in my zeal.  12 Therefore say to him: Behold I give him the peace of my covenant,  13 And the covenant of the priesthood for ever shall be both to him and his seed, because he hath been zealous for his God, and hath made atonement for the wickedness of the children of Israel.

Phineas was a young man at the time.  I cannot discern whether or not he was old enough to have exercised priestly functions.  At any rate, the Israelites were being punished for engaging in sexual relations with idolatrous people.  He saw a well-placed Israelite strut into a tent with a foreign woman.  In fact, the whole multitude saw it.  Notice that Moses and Eleazar saw it too, and apparently did nothing.  Phineas did.  He did not wait for Moses or Eleazar to instruct him; he just acted.  He did not fear reprisal, for he was acting on God's revealed will.

The Lord Himself told Moses that he was pleased with Phineas, and that the actions of the latter caused God to cease His punishment of the people.  Somehow I think that God was also chiding Moses for not acting himself against the wicked Israelite.

Our priests need to act as priests, knowing that aberrant bishops cannot legitimately order them not to be faithful to the Traditions of the Church.

Lay people, we are not off the hook.  If anything, we are more able to speak truth to power, as we are under no vows of obedience.  We must be ready to speak up and yes, to pay the price for so doing.  That means that friends will avoid and shun us.  It probably means we'll be expelled from parish committees, CCD and RCIA programs, etc.  We'll have to support priests under attack and perhaps allow our homes to be sites for Traditional Latin Masses.  As for the last part, it was widely done after the bishops quashed the Latin Mass in the 1970s.

Now a word to those lay people who are parents of priests and vowed religious.  Many of you have assumed silence for fear that your children will suffer reprisals.  That strategy is futile on your part.  Some of you have been politically active in the past and have also been pro life activists.  That means that your children already have targets on their backs.  Your silence and "staying under the radar" will avail them not one damned thing.  In fact, by remaining silent, you are providing an abysmal example of how not to speak against the evil that is in their midst.  Rest assured, that unless progressive prelates are removed and the climate in the Vatican improves, your children will - not if, but will - suffer cancelation as has other faithful priests and bishops.  Some have even been put in fear for their lives; that is not out of the question.  Just within the Archdiocese of Washington, I am aware of four priests that have been "cancelled", because they have preached God's truth against homosexual conduct.  Given the stench of perversion that has wafted through the halls of the DC chancery in the past 20+ years,  is anyone surprised?  At any rate, parents, your beleaguered will need your example of courage and boldness, not one of silence and "hunkering down". 

However, hearken back to the words of Dr. Kwasniewski as mentioned in the first part of this post.  These cancelations are unjust and thus illicit.  They hold no weight morally, and none under canon law.  They are still priests, able to perform - just not on property under archdiocesan control.  Parents and friend of potentially targeted priests, bear that in mind and be emboldened to speak for the Church and her God.

Poop Video - Nuanced Nod To Gays?

AKA-Catholic asks a very good question of this month's Poop Video: Did Pope Francis toss a bone to the gays?  This is "pride month", after all.  Listen to all the gay-appropriated buzz words: "inclusiveness", "respect for differences"

During his pontificate, we have seen many examples of Francis' flirtations and dalliances with gays - most flagrantly during the Extraordinary Synod on the Family in 2014 when its interim relatio spouted off nonsense about the "special gifts of gays". 

I think Louie is correct.  Perhaps that is why Lori and so many others are silent about the gay pride parades set to occur.  By the way - did they invite Cardinal Dolan to march in the New York one?

Taking The Mantle Of Church Militant

Faithful Catholics are the Church Militant.  That sounds like a rather simplistic, trite statement, doesn't it?  Well, perhaps that term "church militant" may take on more significance for us.  For several years now, we've been watching this papacy unfold into something that threatens the integrity of Holy Mother Church.  So far much of the mischief has been confined to the Vatican, but the spiritual poison is working its way into the souls of the Catholics in the pews.  Many of us have been offering prayers and intercessions for the Church, but we are also called to act.  The phrase in Latin is "ora et labora".  Most of us are down with the "ora" part, but some of us get downright squeamish when it comes to the "labora" part.  We're comfortable praying within the confines of our churches, homes and small gatherings of like-minded Catholics, but balk at the thought of stepping out of our comfort zones into the public arena where we might well face forces hostile to us.  But that is precisely what we must be prepared to do.

Two days ago, Lianne Lawrence of LifeSiteNews reported on Pope Francis' growing alliance with pro-death elements of the United Nations.  The latest sign of this alliance is the Vatican's support of the UN's Sustainable Development Goals.  I'm not going to rehash all the horrors behind this alliance as the LSN piece does an admirable job of that.  It links to an analysis done by Voice of the Family.  Therein we see the role that Amoris Laetitia plays in facilitating the SDGs.  The analysis ends by saying that "Catholics must resist in the manner most appropriate for their position with the Church, this alliance".  Most people reading this blog are lay, as am I.  Our "position" is much more far-reaching than the "pray, pay and obey" motto that informally defined the role of the laity in the Church.

Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture said something similar.  In the early days of this papacy, Lawler had done his level best to put the performance of Pope Francis in the most favorable light possible.  However he seems to realize that despite all the lipstick one might put on a pig, the pig is a pig.  While acknowledging that Pope Francis is indeed the pontiff, he then asks, "In a large family, how should a son behave when he realizes that his father’s pathological behavior threatens the welfare of the whole household? He should certainly continue to show respect for his father, but he cannot indefinitely deny the danger. Eventually, a dysfunctional family needs an intervention."

We the Church Militant are being confronted with the same question.  How will we, the laity, answer it?  I for one do not think that our default stance should be to sit on our hands and suffer the insults in silence.  The insults fall not on us alone, but on our children and those for whom we care and who may well be scandalized by all the progressive skulduggery in the Vatican to the point of losing their souls.

Yesterday I posted on Catholic street activism.  That's part of the answer.  However, what are we going to do when:

• we see flaming gays strutting up the Communion line (as happened at my parish five years ago).  The Rainbow Coalition pulls this stunt quite frequently.
• pro-abortion people (politicians and even abortionists) receiving Holy Communion
• we are confronted with liturgical dancers strutting their stuff, as in the video below
• vile heresies spew forth from the homily pulpit
• we see the nave turn into a social hall before or after Mass
• women get their feet washed during Holy Thursday Mass

The above list is by no means exhaustive.  We must start thinking about these matters and contemplate what we are willing to do.  Several years ago, a group of Catholic gentlemen, distraught by pro-aborts brazenly taking Holy Communion, banded together to take action.  Calling themselves "Ushers of the Eucharist", they would walk up to a candidate for Canon 915 treatment in the communion line and entreat him not to receive.  This caused quite a stir.  For some reason, this effort was short-lived.  As I said, it caused quite a stir, but the Ushers didn't cause scandal.  The scandal laid with those who were complicit in the sin of sacrilege.  Perhaps Catholics in the pew might want to revisit such actions and consider them for their own situations.  As you watch the video below, you might opine that this parish (Sts Simon and Jude in Huntington Beach CA) might benefit from some intervention.  Comments welcome.

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.

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.

The Smoke Of Satan Within The Church

Pope Paul VI is said to have uttered the phrase "the smoke of Satan is within the Church".  I believe he said this in the wake of the Vatican II conference and the wholescale destruction of much of Church tradition done in the so-called "spirit of Vatican II".  These days I believe we are seeing such smoke coming through several key avenues:

• The Vatican embrace of climate-change envirowhackoism as evidenced by last week's conference hosted by the Pontifical Academy for Sciences
• The willingness of prelates to kowtow to the gay-mafia agenda, as evidenced by last October's sin-nod
• Vatican acquiesence towards Islam, as displayed by the pope's allowance of muslim prayers on Vatican property and by other strange behaviors towards islam (as evidenced by Cardinal McCarrick).
• Malevolence towards those upholding authentic tradition, evidenced in the suppression of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and treatment meted out to faithful clergy such as Cardinal Burke and Father Guarnizo
• The involvement of the Vatican in partnerships with organizations that fund abortion, contraception, sterilization to the point of directing these organizations in their malevolent activities.
• The denial of the above-mentioned evils by obstinate pollyannas, who delight in denouncing the messenger rather than addressing the message

As an example of the last bullet-point, I present to you an article by George Weigel.  He seems to take great amusement, if not scorn, at the concerns raised by faithful Catholics regarding ominous signs that point towards Vatican embrace of UN climate-change and population control goals.  What he thought he was accomplishing with his mutation of the Gospel of Luke is beyond me.  He sneeringly points out that no one has read the soon-to-be-released article.  I must wonder if he bothered to read the report that was issued by the Pontifical Academy for Sciences (probably written by Jeffrey Sachs).  This report openly calls for embrace of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and population control.  I suppose the answer to my rhetorical question is "no", for that might force him to remove rose-colored glasses.

Looking at the second point, we are dismayed to learn that in London next Sunday, Cardinal Vincent Nichols will celebrate Mass especially for gays.  Nowhere in this article do we read that these homosexuals are living chastely and not engaging in perversion.  Nowhere do we read that they are receiving real pastoral help to live according to God's laws.  This is kowtowing to political correctness - at the expense of the souls of those gays who need the truth for their salvation.

In yesterday's Vortex, Michael Voris dwells on the loss of England to protestantism.  At 1:25 he asks how England could have fallen so quickly, then answers:  "Cowardice and political machinations of the bishops at the time."  The church was corroded from within by the smoke prevalent at that age.  We must pray that the smoke be removed and shine the light through it.