Why Fiducia Supplicans Is Spiritually Poisonous

Some otherwise faithful Catholics are obviously having difficulty accepting that the Vatican is so depraved that it has put out such a poisonous document.  They want to believe so badly that this pope is not so corrupt as to undermine the Church that they twist themselves into pretzels believing that there might be some redeeming quality to FS as to restore their faith in this papacy.  But therein lies their error.  They put too much faith in a sitting pope rather than in the Church's teachings and traditions as handed down through the centuries.

I will now relay some of the most frequent denial tactics that I've read on social media. Here is the text of Fiducia Supplicans.  By the way- please have the FS document open as you read this post.

"The priest gives a blessing to all people after Mass".  That is a general blessing to the congregation at large, not targeted to specific people, especially those designated because of sinful relationships.  It has always been ok to bless people and ask for God's guidance.  That begs the question of just why did the pope highlight those in "irregular relationships"?  And why is the word "irregular" used when the more truthful adjective is "sinful"?

"The theology of marriage isn't challenged"  Perhaps not overtly, but it is.  A blessing on a gay couple, even though it may not be "liturgical", does lend legitimacy to the relationship that makes those two people a "couple".   "Only individuals are being blessed, not the relationship".  Read the document.  It's right there in the title to Section 3 of the tome.

Those are two common attempts to deny the harm of FS.  Let's take another look at the thing, shall we?

Since my previous post on this topic, there have been a number of commentaries that have demonstrated the fatal flaws of Fiducia Supplicans.  I see no need for me to "reinvent the wheel as it were, so I will link to them and recommend all to your reading.  An important aside - I link to articles such as these so that you can draw your own conclusions and not just rely on my understandings of what the authors say.  We ALL have a duty, no matter our stations in life, to be informed of these matters.  Ignorance is not a morally acceptable option.

The first of these is an analysis by Cardinal Gerhard Muller.  He notes several troubling aspects of FS.  First, there is the attempt to introduce another type of "blessing".  Why?  Because the blessing already recognized by the Church demand agreement between the blessings and the Church's teachings.  Having this last sentence in mind, please pop over to the other browser window with FS open, and read paragraph 12 in its entirety.  You should be getting a sense of how insidious FS is, since it overtly calls for a new type of "blessing" that is not subjected to "too many moral prerequisites",  because they could "overshadow the unconditional power of God's love".  Absolute satanic nonsense!  The "moral prerequisites" are God's Commands.  His love and His commands stem from Him.  God does not have a split personality.

Muller goes on to say that sinful persons can be blessed, e.g., blessed to ask graces to turn from their sin.   However, paragraph 31 talks of blessing homosexual couples, not individuals.  An attempt to do that would be to cooperate in the mortal sin of homosexual conduct.  One cannot bless a couple without blessing what defines them as a couple - in this case, mortal sin.  That is both sacrilege and blasphemy.  Added to that is the guilt of cooperating with the mortal sin of sodomy.

Again, I urge you to read Cardinal Muller's entire piece.  But now we'll read what others have said.

The next article to consider was written by Father Thomas Weinandy and was published in First Things.  Father cleared up a misconception held by many.  Francis did not pen that tripe.  Rather, it came from Cardinal Victor Fernandez, aka Kissy Face, with Francis' approval.  Weinandy's main focus appears to be on paragraph 31, which is quite the poison pill amidst all that word salad.  Weinandy aptly calls it "jargon, sophistry and deceit".

In his last paragraph, Weinandy suggests the possibility that FS might have been well-intentioned.  Here I must disagree with Father.  The track records of both Francis and Kissy-Face testify against any possibility that this is well-intentioned.  It is a brazen attempt to cajole poorly-educated clergy into doing the indefensible - to normalize mortal sin in the Church's teachings.

Now let's look at what Eric Sammons says in Crisis Magazine.  He speaks a bit on the role of the pope in the Church and contrasts that with Francis' conduct.  In the writings of previous popes, their footnotes are drawn upon Scripture, doctrines, writings of their predecessors.  Not so for Francis.  Sammons states, and I think him correct, that approximately 65% of his references are his own previous teachings and/or writings.  He is his own source of teaching, in other words.

Paragraph 7 states that "the Holy Father's above-mentioned response invites us to broaden and enrich the meaning of blessings."  Sammons correctly points out that it is not the proper role of any pope to "broaden and enrich" anything.  Rather, the pope's responsibility is to teach and guard what has been handed down from the apostles.

Sammon's piece deserves a close and careful read.  I need not rehash what he said, but he does do a great job in unpacking FS, illustrating its divergence from Tradition.

More on FS soon.

Refuting Attempts To Discredit The Mass Of The Ages

Over a month ago, three theologians, Drs. Mary Healy and John Cavadini, with Father Thomas Weinandy, wrote a series of articles that appeared in Church Life Journal.  I haven't read all the articles, but what I read seems to be an attempt at justifying the heavy-handedness of Francis' Traditionis Custodes.  I'm not going into all the detail of the errors here.  Two other theologians, Drs Joseph Shaw and Peter Kwasniewski, have done an excellent job.  I suggest that all links be read, even the links contained in the linked articles.

I am not acquainted with Dr. Cavadini, but am with Dr. Healy and Father Weinandy, although it's been quite a few years since I've seen either of them.  That acquaintance goes back to our days in the Mother of God Community, a group that was part of the so-called "charismatic renewal" that fell under scrutiny owing to cultish behaviors on the part of the leadership in the early 1990s.  I parted ways with that group at that time.  A major reason for my departure was the overemphasis on personal experience over adherence to Catholic doctrine.  The Novus Ordo Mass is geared to personal experience whereas the Traditional Latin Mass is geared towards worship of God exclusively.  

That last word "exclusively" is key.  You'll not find sloppy dress nor conduct in a church dedicated to the Traditional Latin Mass.  Women dress decently and modestly: no exposed body parts, cloths modest and in good repair.  Similarly, men are not dressed as though they were just in a drunken brawl: no jeans, tee-shirts but lots of suits and ties.  Before and after Mass in the nave of the church, there is no chit-chat going on between adults.  One might hear the occasional cooing of babies.  Speaking of which, there are many young families with many children at at Traditional Latin Mass, more so than at a Novus Ordo.

I myself attend both.  On Sundays I will attend a Traditional Latin Mass, although I must drive some distance to do so.  That Mass isn't available other days for me so I will attend the Novus Ordo Masses.  Often at those Masses I am reminded of why I prefer the Traditional Latin Mass.  However, if I truly believed that the Novus Ordo Mass was an inherent danger to my faith, I would not attend (barring Holy Days of Obligation).  I personally don't know anyone who attends the Traditional Latin Mass who believes it would be dangerous and even sinful to attend.  The CHW series intimates, though, that this mindset is so prevalent as to justify Francis' draconian actions towards the Traditional Latin Mass.  I realize that a few attendees of the Traditional Latin Mass do hold those erroneous attitudes towards the Novus Ordo, but to attribute such mindsets towards all the attendees, including me, and to publish such attributions veers into sins of slander and libel.

Some faithful and courageous prelates are not taking this attack on the Latin Mass lying down.  Archbishop Vigano penned an open letter to another Italian bishop, taking him to task for his senseless quashing of the Latin Mass.  There have been others.  As I track them down, I will repost.

Addendum as of November 28  Mr. Kwasniewski offered more commentary exposing the errors underlying the CHW piece.

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.

Father Weinandy Causes John Gehring To Have A Meltdown

That is evidenced by the latest hissy-snit against Father Weinandy as published by Comic-squeal.  It is spewed forth from the frothings of John Gehring, entitled "More Catholic Than The Pope".   The whole thing reads like one massive temper tantrum.   I could spend all night picking this mess apart, but instead I'll focus on two things.

Here is one telling quote: "Pope Francis isn’t undermining doctrine. In fact, he is rescuing doctrine from dusty theology books, insisting that human beings, in all our complexity and messiness, must be at the center of the church’s vision."  See the problem?  Human beings are NOT at the center of the church's vision.  God is.  In a Freudian slip fashion, Gehring betrays his humanistic, as opposed to Catholic, mental paradigm.

Here's another: "It’s particularly galling that Fr. Weinandy would so condescendingly rebuke the pope given his history of accusing progressive Catholic theologians of disloyalty and dissent."  Father Weinandy's actions are not contradictory for in both these circumstances cited by Gehring, Father Weinandy defended the Church's timeless teachings, regardless of the person(s) dissenting from them.

Enough of that.  Let's look at Gehring himself.  I've made mention of him in previous posts.  He is quite the progressive dissident himself, and probably feels the sting of Father's rebukes personally and for good cause.  Here's a page devoted entirely to him and the mischief he's wreaked over the years; note that he most likely was the receiving end of George Soros's cash infusions at one time.  In that post I made mention of Gehring's twitter page.  Here's a current one indicating that he supports the gay lifestyle.  No wonder he resents Father Weinandy, for darkness hates the light.

SNL's Che on @pwcdanica victory - her opponent was "in fact so homophobic that he refused to get within 8 points of her." pic.twitter.com/dSb2RhMFbL

— Tom Perriello (@tomperriello) November 12, 2017

Evil Hates To Be Exposed - Especially When It Controls The Church Hierarchy

Please read the title closely.  I believe that evil now controls the hierarchy of the Church, not the Church herself.  There is a difference.  However, that evil can and is causing much scandal and confusion that is literally causing damnation of souls.  Therefore, we must continue to shine the light on it, no matter where it resides.  Of course evil will hate to be exposed; it always has.  We must not shirk from that task now, out of misguided deference to the Church structures behind which the evil conceals itself.

Remnant TV hosted the Catholic Identity Conference this week.  Below I'm posting a talk from it by Edward Pentin.  He talks of the climate of fear that now exists in the Vatican - one that is very reminiscent of the climate that existed in the Soviet Union and that still exists in other repressive regimes.  Below that I'll have more commentary and an important action to take.



As I mentioned in the earlier post, the USCCB is obviously taking instructions from the Vatican (a novelty for them, for they certainly didn't do so during the previous two pontificates) as evidenced by their dismissal of Father Weinandy.  The faithful laity, by the grace of God, are calling them on the carpet.  See here and here.  LifeSiteNews started a petition drive, not so much as to persuade the USCCB to change their ways but to show public support for Father Weinandy.  Please sign it.  Besides prayer, we can influence the USCCB by withholding donations from any second-collection effort for them or their subsidiaries: most notably the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and Catholic Relief Services.

USCCB Official Expresses Concerns About This Pontificate And Is Fired From The USCCB As A Result

Yesterday a letter was released, written by Father Thomas Weinandy, OFM Cap, to Pope Francis.  It is similar in tone and content to the four cardinals' dubia, even though Father Weinandy has distanced himself from the dubia.  I link to the full text here, as posted on Crud's website.  Please note that it is a pdf; I'd advise that you save it to your own computers, lest it (ahem!) "disappears".

Father Weinandy is a former chief of staff for the USCCB's Committee on Doctrine and a current member of the Vatican's International Theological Commission.  He was a consultant to the former committee until today, when he was compelled to resign that position because of his letter.  So much for "dialogue" and "collegiality"!  Meanwhile, Father James Martin can blather on about "Jesus being challenged by the Canaanite woman" and how "Mary accused God of lying to her", and he's still allowed to prance about at will, spreading his bile everywhere he wants without the USCCB uttering so much as a peep in protest.  UPDATE:  Lepanto Institute reports that this same USCCB that fired Father Weinandy with all haste still retains a Planned Parenthood supporter on its payroll.  Please do not give to any USCCB-related collection.

In Father's third-to-last paragraph, he states that "many fear that if they speak their mind, they will be marginalized or worse".  Ironically, the actions of Cardinal De Nardo (and some of the questionable bishops cited by Father Weinandy) only serve to prove Father's point.  Am I surprised by this dismissal?  Not at all!  Given the gestapo-like conduct of the Vatican and their local henchmen, I would have been surprised (albeit pleasantly) if Father was not given the boot.  I'd be willing to bet that soon he'll no longer have a role to play in the Vatican's International Theological Commission.

I've been acquainted with Father for close to 30 years, going back to our time in the Mother of God Community.  In the mid 1990s, when the cult leaders of MOG were starting to lose their stranglehold on our minds, it was Father Weinandy's letter (and another letter by another priest) that helped many of us articulate some of our thoughts about the situation.  I pray that Father's latest letter will assist other Catholics in similarly seeing the light.