Remedial Catechism Classes Needed For Some SinNod Fathers

Those in desperate need of such instruction include Fathers Lombardi and Rosica.  From Vatican Insider we read talk that, had I uttered this in first grade, would have caused me to flunk religion class and brought scoldings from the Sisters who taught at Notre Dame in Baltimore.  That was way before the place became a feminazi cesspool, but I digress.

Get a load of this pig-vomit: “The teachings of the Church and Catholic theology on issues relating to marriage and the sacraments are not absolutely steadfast".  One might think this was prattle emanating from some left-wing nutso professor at Berkeley, but this spewed forth from the mouth of Father Lombardi, director of the Vatican Press Office.  Does anyone still wish to pretend that the pope bears no responsibility?  He owns this mess.

I believe this SinNod still has quite some time to do serious damage.  It's already off to a roaring start.

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!

Another Papal Interview - A Planned Debacle?

Remember last October when Pope Francis granted that interview with Eugenio Scalfari of La Repubblica?  That's when he let loose with less-than-papacy-worthy comments such as:

• "Proselytism is solemn nonsense". 
• "Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them."

I need not elaborate (I would hope) on why these statements are problematic if not downright heretical.  I did elaborate on some reactions and "damage-control efforts" here and here.

One might have hoped that the Holy Father would have learned not to give interviews at all, let alone to Eugenio Scalfari.  Alas, such was not to be!  In fact, we may have reason to believe that the resulting chaos was intended.

Last week saw another interview - with more lunatic quotes.  In this conversation (not recorded again, by the way), the Pope allegedly estimated that 2% of priests are pedophiles. That's 1 priest out of every 50 priests; I'd call that a bit of exaggeration to say the least.  He also stated that there was "room for maneuver" when it comes to priestly celibacy, going so far as to use the term "problem of celibacy".

Immediately Father Federico Lombardi, Director of the Holy See's Press Office, went into "damage control" mode - much as he did last autumn after the first fiasco interview.  Here's his statement, published in Zenit.  Just as he did last year, Lombardi attributes the indignation about the off-kilter papal remarks to words that "cannot be attributed to the pope".  He ended his statement with this about quotations: "Is this an omission or explicit recognition that this is an attempt to manipulate some naive readers?"

Father Lombardi sounded quite indignant.  I might be inclined to believe him - if this all wasn't a repeat performance of the first interview and its subsequent damage-control.  When this interview with Scalfari happened last week, both the pope and Fr Lombardi knew what to expect.  I'm coming to believe that they wanted this subsequent hub-bub to occur, so that tradition-defying statements could be issued, with responsibility for those statements being attributed to a "straw-man" - in this case, Scalfari.  The only other possibility is that the Holy Father, the Director of the Holy See's Press Office and others are incorrigible dunces who refuse to learn from their mistakes.

There is a saying: "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."  That statement is very relevant, in two respects.

1. Either it refers to the Holy Father and his underlings in the Vatican who are (seemingly) falling for the wiles of the Scalfaris of the world.  OR
2. It refers to the Catholic populace at large, who are being asked/cajoled/browbeat into believing that the Vatican is simply an "innocent victim" rather than cunning manipulators of the trust of the Catholic faithful.

Pope Francis is the Holy Father.  We must pray for him.  In order to do so, we must look at situations with rose-colored glasses removed.  We must have no hesitancy in facing what is plain as day.  Of course (I speak particularly to my fellow bloggers), we must not be silent.

More On Unhelpful PollyAnnas Among Faithful Catholics

As I suggested in my previous "pollyanna" post a few days ago, there are some Catholics who cannot accept that sometimes the Pope's words and/or deeds can and indeed should be criticized.  Let me clarify something.  He is the Vicar of Christ and must always receive all due respect.  We never criticize him as a person - never!  When he teaches in the name of the Church, those teachings are due all respect and yes, obedience.  There are those times when he will pronounce dogma in a solemn fashion, that is, ex cathedra.  On those occasions he does indeed speak infallibly.  We also have the Magisterium's promise that he will never teach error.

That said, the "off-the-cuff" interviews he has been giving lately cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called "teaching moments", let alone solemn declarations in which he speaks infallibly.  It is quite legitimate for faithful Catholics to question spontaneous remarks and certainly acceptable to discuss the means of delivery of said messages.

Many of us have been questioning the wisdom of the pope's conduct of these interviews for they have often led individuals to believe that he is altering the Church's age-old teachings on faith and morals - particularly the latter in regards to the life issues.  In the latest interview with La Repubblica there was even talk of the necessity of each individual to follow their concept of right and wrong - minimizing the need for a properly formed conscience.  I needn't rehash that here; see my previous post.

I've been involved in some on-line discussions regarding these interviews.  One of the more recent ones was with some good-hearted Catholics who enthuse over these debatable remarks by the Holy Father - and who in fact go so far as to insinuate that those of us who are wary are somehow "pharisees" or "holier than the pope" or other such pejorative sentiments.  They admit that what he's saying is different, but "God must be showing us a new way".  Apparently I'm not the only one who is baffled by this mindset; see this from American Catholic.  To quote him, I have indeed seen this: "Frankly, the most evident fruit of the papacy thus far seems to be the willingness of orthodox Catholics to break out the cutlery and start stabbing whenever someone expresses unease over the Pope’s actions and words."  I was actually threatened with expulsion from a facebook group when I didn't "get with their program" and join in their giggle-fest when the Pope posed for a "selfie" (that's a group cell-phone photo) with some teenagers.

My previous post also showed a video of a rather pathetic attempt by Father Fessio to put a "positive spin" on the pope's remarks.  Such attempts, unfortunately, abound.   See what the Creative Minority Report reveals.  So we "shouldn't attach value to individual words, but an overall sense"?  Really?  Father Lombardi, how, oh how, is this "overall sense" defined and communicated, if not by judiciously chosen words?  This is a philosophical - and theological - disaster in the making.  One would hope that a Vatican spokeman would know better, but Father's gaffe seems symptomatic of another problem.

This problem is broached by Hilary White of LifeSiteNews.  She senses a breakdown of coordination and communication in the Vatican itself - one starting from the onset of this papacy.  I urge you all to read it, and the comments besides.  Now we are hearing that there were inaccuracies in the La Repubblica interview; witness this from the Not-At-All Catholic Reporter.  However, one must ask why they waited so long to issue some disclaimer.  Are they only doing so pursuant to a lame attempt at "damage control"?   There is also the revelation that the Vatican was offered the opportunity to vet the La Repubblica article prior to its release.  It seems that a proper review might have apprehended some of the errors arising from Scalfari's poor memory.  Not only was there no review, but the Vatican even posted the article on their own site and here it is, straight from the Vatican.

Some might say that the Pope didn't speak infallibly so "what's the big deal"?  The "big deal" is two-fold in my opinion:

1. Many people who dissent from the Church's moral teaching and who are in fact living in mortal sin are taking false comfort from imprecisely-stated ideas
2. The Pope is undermining his own credibility so that if an occasion does arise when he must, some might conclude that the occasion is just another "off-the-cuff" affair.

To be clear, I am grateful that the Holy Father has spoken clearly on matters of faith and morals when he has.  I pray for him that his interviews (and/or the Vatican communications staff) don't trip up the essential message of the Church.