When Catholic Officials Order Vaccines, They Command That Sin Be Committed

First, let's look at whether or not Catholic officials are canonically able to order that those under their authority take the Covid vaccines.  Rather than re-invent the wheel, I will link now to an excellent treatment on the subject by Edward Peters on his blog (update - see correction in the comments below).  It's clear from this that when these officials, from bishops down to school principals, try to order those under their authority to take the vaccine, that they overstep the legitimate bounds of their authority.  Church teaching over the years holds that the taking of vaccines must be voluntary.

But is that overstepping the only harm that they commit?  I think not.

The vaccines themselves are causing injury.  See here, here, here,  Most of us know that hospital and other medical workers are being ordered by their various employers to "take the jab".  Consider: if the vaccines were these miraculous substances that Fauci et al are claiming them to be, why are those mandates necessary?  Wouldn't those health-care workers be flocking to the vaccine centers by the droves?  They aren't - quite to the contrary.  See here, here,   The pfizer vaccine is not yet FDA-approved, but only authorized for "emergency use", whatever the hell that means.

The paragraph above illustrates why one would be committing sins of imprudence and against the 5th Commandment by taking the vaccines.  Superseding the gravity of those sins are those sins involving the cooperation with baby-murder.  Here is an anthology of posts dealing with the Church hierarchy's complicity with the vaccine moguls, some of them dealing with the nine ways in which a Catholic can cooperate with the mortal sin of another, thus also incurring the guilt of that mortal sin.  When I wrote this one, the hierarchy had not yet begun to order its employees, students, seminarians, religious, etc to take this vaccine into their bodies.  One can now add "by command" to the list of ways by which bishops et al incur the guilt of cooperating with the mortal sin of baby-murder.

Obviously we must not only resist their urgings to take the vaccine ourselves, but to call out their evil.

Meanwhile, a little story to warm your heart.  Pro-baby-murder, pro-vaccine-mandate, anti-God Justin Trudeau was chased out of a British Columbia town by citizens who have had enough of his draconian policies.  Good for them!  

(HT - Canon 212)

Sin-Nod Emboldens Dissenters In Archdiocese Of Washington

When I use the word "dissenter" I mean those who willfully deviate from the Traditions of the Catholic Church as handed down through the centuries.  Two striking examples were made disgustingly evident today.

The first came from Cardinal Wuerl, in the publication of two interviews he gave after the sin-nod ended.  One was given to America magazine (and expounded upon by Vox Cantoris), the other was published by Religion News Service.  I am not going into a comprehensive analysis of these interviews, else we'd be here for hours.  It's clear that he is feeling emboldened by this pontificate to flaunt his liberalism with aplomb and impunity.  Vox Cantoris does an excellent job with the America interview.  I will touch on a few points.

In the America article, he says (among other things), "no longer is the framework of the Church’s pastoral response the code of canon law."  Dr. Edward Peters, a canon lawyer, refuted the Cardinal's erroneous premise that canon law was ever the framework of the Church's pastoral stances.  He also points out how canon law is founded upon revelation, including the Gospels.  We can see that the cardinal is trying to paint a picture in which the Church simply had things wrong during all those previous centuries, but now, under this pontificate, a new day has dawned!  Halleluiah!  I'm sure the Cardinal is rejoicing at that silly thought, for canon law ceased to be any sort of reference for him some time ago.  Recall how he maltreated Father Guarnizo three years ago when the latter upheld Canon 915 in an archdiocesan parish (happens to be mine).

In the Religion News Service interview, we see the quote, “The frame of reference is now going to be: ‘What does the gospel really say here?’ That’s our first task.”  Really?   The gospels quote Jesus as saying "if you love me you will keep my commandments".  Jesus then commissioned the Church to teach His commandments to all.  The head-scratcher about Wuerl's comment is the word "now".  God's commands have always been the frame of reference for the Church.  Why the usage of this word "now"?  What meaning is that intended to convey?

Later on he says, "I’ve had priests say to me that the pope is really just affirming what most of us know in our hearts we are supposed to be doing anyway."  I'm sure that there are lots of archdiocesan priests who are also dissidents, who have off-kilter ideas of what they "are supposed to be doing".

That brings us to our second striking example.  I can easily imagine Father Peter Daly having such a chat with Cardinal Wuerl.  I've blogged on his progressivism in the past (see here and here).  He too gave an interview, this one to the Not-At-All Catholic Reporter.  He didn't touch on the sin-nod, but it is all too obvious that after the sin-nod, he is feeling his oats as he trumpets loudly his dissidence regarding homosexuality.  He praises the Obergefell ruling, as "making things better for our society".  He lauded the Maryland legislation legalizing same-sex #mowwidge, while most sensible Catholics strove to defeat it.

Get a load of this whopper of a quote.  "Same-sex marriage is a very conservative movement. Homosexual people who seek stable and committed relationships are implicitly declaring their opposition to promiscuous, violent, or exploitive sex. Like heterosexual couples they seek faithful relationships based on real love."  I scarcely know where to begin with this.  I think I have to start with the last sentence and work backwards, starting with the concept of "real love".  First and foremost, love must be founded on God's commands, and one of those commands forbids homosexual conduct.  Anything involving said activity is NOT love, pretenses notwithstanding.  For that reason, there is no way such a relationship can be considered stable, since there is no real foundation in God's order.  As far as it being "very conservative", I think many gays would take that remark as an insult.  Now consider he's a priest.  What kind of teaching about marriage did he receive in the seminary?

Now he admits his dissent and he arrogantly announces his intent to drag his parish into a spiritual and moral cesspool that may very well terminate in hell for some of his flock AND himself.  "As long as I am pastor here we will welcome and register everyone who shares our Catholic faith, including same-sex couples. After all, we register divorced and remarried people. We will educate their children in our religious education programs, and we welcome them as sponsors at baptism and confirmation. We open our ministries to them. We will allow them to teach religious education so long as they are respectful of the church teaching. (That we require of everyone.) We will encourage them to participate fully in the life of the church, including the Eucharist. We will treat everyone with respect and dignity. We will allow them the right of their own conscience."  If the parish is going to educate the children of these same-sex couples, just what do they intend to teach them about marriage and God's commands?  Will they teach the truth or some hell-oriented lie?  As far as being sponsors at baptism and confirmation, that is not an honorary role but one in which said sponsor must live out God's commands, including those pertaining to sexuality.  I could go on and on about all the errors in this paragraph, errors that are simply inexcusable for someone who calls himself "priest".

Lastly he announces his intent to allow the sin of sacrilege to be committed against Our Lord Himself in the Blessed Sacrament.  For all the lip-service he bestows on "respect and dignity", why doesn't Daly direct a little of that to Jesus, whose priest he's supposed to be?

He is long-time pastor of St John Vianney parish in Prince Frederick MD.  His article makes evident that while he retains his post, those parishioners will find their immortal souls in grave danger of damnation - unless they learn and embrace the Faith despite his machinations.  Yet Cardinal Wuerl allows Daly to carry on because they are of the same mind.  Did I say "allow"?  Not only that, the Cardinal probably applauds this heretic priest.   Consider this; under Cardinal Wuerl this heretic is allowed to retain his pastorate while Father Guarnizo is expelled precisely because he was a faithful and orthodox priest.

Ladies and gentlemen, the sin-nod ended less than two weeks ago and already the spiritual poison is spewing forth.  Of course I do live in a diocese in which one of the sin-nod's chief rainmakers holds sway so we can expect some severely noxious bilge to make its presence known here.  It will have impact everywhere.  Please pray and frequent the sacraments.

From The Maturation Department: New Annulment Procedures - Weakening Of Marriage

Yesterday we received the texts of the pope's revision of the annulment procedures.  I am not a canon lawyer so my reflections will draw heavily on those who are canon lawyers.  Now consider that many progressives and others not friendly to the Church's perennial teachings on family life are waxing bubbly and giddy over this news, ever gushing about the "mercy" that is now newly-infused into this situation.  Mercy??  New???  Since when has mercy - real mercy, that is, been "new to the Church?  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that they are effusing over the perceived laxity that has been introduced into the annulment process.  I have to agree with them that laxity has been introduced.  Unlike them I do not find much cause for celebration, for what they call "mercy" is nothing more than sloppy sentimentality and disregard for wisdom acquired over the centuries.

Last October, Cardinals Burke, Muller and others published a book, "Remaining in the Truth of Christ", intending that it be "food for thought" during last October's sin-nod.  Recall that this is the book that Cardinal Baldiserri had stolen from the mailboxes of the attending synod fathers.  Cardinal Burke's essay outlined the development of the Church's annulment process over the centuries and cautioned against a radical overhaul.  I point out that Cardinal Burke is a canon lawyer.  He spoke on September 8th at the Franciscan University at Steubenville and voiced concerns over the provisions that are found in Pope Francis' Moto Proprio.  Follow this link to Fr Z's post with video embedded; Father gives pointers regarding the location of Cardinal Burke's talk on the video.

Consider two of the provision in conjunction with one another.  One provision allows the local bishop to pass judgment regarding certain annulment cases.  It's worth noting that most bishops are not canon lawyers, and marriage has juridical considerations that need to be carefully and knowledgeably weighed.  Now consider that in many cases, these decisions do not have to be evaluated by a second tribunal court.  A crucial provision for "checks and balances" has been eliminated in the name of "expediency and mercy" - a provision that in actuality is necessitated all the more since the first decisions will fall into the purview of those not trained to evaluate nullity petitions.  They might wind up declaring null a marriage that is, in actually, canonically and sacramentally binding.  Even more disconcerting is the expedition of those cases where both parties are in agreement as to the alleged invalidity of marriage.  Do we see the danger of collusion here in the denial of a valid marriage?  Dr. Peter's two posts are here and here.  As I said earlier, I'm not a canon lawyer, but some dangers are apparent just by dint of common sense.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am also troubled by the timing of these Moto Proprios.  This happened just a few weeks prior to the onslaught beginning of the Ordinary Synod on the Family.  I believe this is done to condition us for some real disasters that are on progressives' agendas.

Governor Cuomo Not Meeting With Catholic Leaders

New York's bishops and other leaders are preparing for a state Catholic conference.  According to this CBS article, it is apparently a tradition for the governor to participate in these conferences.  However, he informed Archbishop Dolan that he could not make it this year.

Some view it as a snub, owing to Edward Peter's remarks that Cuomo should be denied Communion, on account of his very public shack-up and dissident views.  My opinion?  Big deal!  If anything, the governor is sparing the New York bishops the duty of telling him that he has absolutely no business attending that Catholic conference.  There is nothing worthwhile he could bring to the conference table, seeing that he is playing the dissident both in his public policies and not-so-private life.

Let's be even more realistic.  I doubt the bishops would have the requisite calcium in their spines to turn him away from the conference if he did attend.  Cuomo is (perhaps unwittingly) preventing their further disgrace and humiliation.