Francis On A Mission To De-Masculinize The Church

This past week, Bishop Strickland released an open letter to faithful Catholics regarding his removal from Tyler by Francis.  We thank Complicit Clergy for publishing it and now link to it.  Please read.  Strickland cites several causes for his removal, such as his refusal to strangle the Traditional Latin Mass and his opposition to the monkeyshines that emanated from the Synod on Synodality, or more accurately, Sin-Nod for Sodomy.

This past Sunday, several people from Slovakia attempted to go into St Peter's Square with a banner supporting Bishop Strickland.  LifeSiteNews has video of them being maltreated by Vatican police.  Why, one might think these cops took some pointers from their counterparts in the Capitol Police department after their thug-like behavior on Jan 6, 2021.  Watch this. 

A local DC priest, Msgr Charles Pope, put up a tweet to defend those prelates who got axed by Francis.

Msgr Pope, thank you for loving enough to speak out on this. As you say let us pray for Pope Francis and for the entire Church. Que Viva Cristo Rey. pic.twitter.com/J1m5f3q2CA

— Bishop J. Strickland (@BishStrickland) November 29, 2023

Another bishop who just might find himself the target of a "apostolic visitation" and subsequent removal is Bishop Rob Mutsaerts from the Netherlands.  From the LifeSiteNews article, it sounds like he and Strickland are of the same mindset in many ways.  Mutsaerts questioned the lack of canonical protocols that are put in place to govern the removal against bishops.

From the current issue of the Catholic Review, which is actually just a rehash of a Catholic News Service piece, we read of some of Francis' remarks to the International Theological Commission.  He said, and I quote, "one of the great sins we have had is masculinizing the Church".  Does that mean Our Lord committed a great sin when He chose men as His apostles?  Anyway, Francis told the commission that they need to take up the issue of "de-masculinizing the church".  He closed that screed by saying he "talked too much".  To that last sentence I add a hearty "AMEN!"

I believe Francis is doing a bang-up job all by himself of purging the Church of authentic, healthy masculinity.  A key part of that mission seems to be the canceling of prelates who are godly and manly enough to stand up to his nefarious plans and to be actual bishops.

Strong Protest And More

In LifeSiteNews we read commentary about a blog post written by Msgr Charles Pope.  Msgr Pope encourages all to protest and write very specific letters to the papal nuncio.  While I agree that this step would be helpful, that is not all we can and should do.

One step that many of us have been touting is the withholding of donations to the local bishops.  Money, or lack thereof, does seem to be one language that these errant prelates understand.  Boycott the various collections, but be sure to let the bishops know exactly why your donations have ceased.

Be sure that among your fellow parishioners that you broach the various issue facing the Church.  Don't let them fade from their minds.

Here's another action item that Michael Voris implemented when he found himself on the same flight as Bishop Malone.  See the Vortex below to see him in action.  Then look below that for more discussion.



We can all do this - and we must, particularly if you are so unfortunate as to have one of these gay-enablers in your chancery.  Don't be afraid to picket them, especially when they rub elbows with pro-aborts and other dissidents.  Eight years ago we did precisely that, when both then-Cardinal McCarrick and Sr Carol Keehan were honored at the commencement for Gonzaga High.  This was just a few months after Keehan wielded her influence to foist upon us all the Obamacare Hell Bill.  Given what we know now, thanks to Archbishop Vigano's various testimonies, it is quite possible that at that time, McCarrick was flouting Pope Benedict's directives not to say Mass in public.  At that time we had no way of knowing that.  Still, his appearance with Keehan was its own travesty.  We picketed that.  See this blog post and the video embedded therein.  Towards the end of that video you'll see McCarrick receiving a well-deserved earful.  We must all be at the ready to deliver the same.

Amoralis Lamentia Oozing Through The Archdiocese Of Washington

Long-time readers of this blog will recall the key roles that Pope Francis gave to Cardinal Wuerl during the two synods that were the cover for culminated in Amoralis Lamentia (see here and here).  Therefore it is no surprise that the Cardinal is singing the dubious praises of AL, giving great cause for concern for the over-emphasis on the role of subjective "conscience".

In the online version of the Catholic Standard, an article was released today dealing with a letter that the Cardinal sent to archdiocesan priests regarding Amoralis Lamentia.  As you read it, note the incorrect exaltation of subjective conscience.  Basically what he says is that all priests can do is remind their parishioners of what the Church teaches, but at the end of the day each person will do what he/or she wants based on their "conscience".  Completely lacking is any mention of the fact that if these "consciences" run counter to the Teachings of Jesus Christ, then any acquiescence to these "consciences" (in a saner time, they were called "temptations to sin") would be sinful - perhaps mortally sinful.

Note this quote from the Standard: "Our task as pastors of souls is to provide the guidance that we hope will lead the person to more fully grasp the teaching and make a right judgment,” the cardinal wrote. Noting the catechism’s teaching on forming and following one’s conscience, he added that priests “are called to walk with the faithful so that they might grasp, understand and make their own the teaching of the Church… But the person, not the priest, makes the final personal conscientious judgment.”

Do you notice how there's no mention of any remedy when these "final personal judgments" lead to mortal sin?  Please note that if a person continues in an action that he/she knows goes counter to the Teachings of Jesus in matters of marriage and sexuality, they already know it's a grave matter and they most likely have deliberated on it.  I believe those are the elements of mortal sin.  Remedy most certainly is needed in those cases for these people imperil their own souls and those of others (including their accomplices in adultery).

The article ends with a thinly-disguised dig at the four cardinals who issued their dubia.  It's not too surprising that Wuerl might do that since he most likely had some hand in the proceedings of the sin-nods, if not the crafting of Amoralis Lamentia itself.  However, not all share his opinion.  Last month Msgr Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington wrote a piece that appears in the National Catholic Register.  In that piece the Msgr stated his support of the dubia and restated clear teaching that de facto adulterers cannot be admitted to Holy Communion, "consciences" notwithstanding.

Faithful Catholics, Msgr Pope is quite correct.  Precisely because he's correct and is a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, we need to lift him up in prayer and to make plain to the DC chancery that our eyes are open, lest he be subject to retribution, much like Father Guarnizo was five years ago when he withheld Holy Communion from a practicing lesbian.  I've also written before about the harassment being inflicted on the Knights of Malta.  Today things there took an ugly turn as we learned that the pope demanded the resignation of the Knight's Grand Master, Fra Matthew Festing.  All Festing did was what was required of him in dismissing the condom-dealing official.  Might Msgr Pope suffer similar vindictiveness?  We must watch and pray.

Witchcraft, Islam And Humanism - De Facto Creeds Of The New Age

This post regarding these three popular manifestations of idolatry appeared a few days ago and it provides much food for thought.  I'd go a bit further than the author does.  He merely says that these idols are merely filling in a vacuum being left by a dying and shriveling church.  I, however, believe that the church isn't merely making way for these, but actively ushering them to places of prominence.  Witness the "poop video" in the post previous to this one.

Another very recent manifestation seems to come from a most surprising source - the canonization of Mother Teresa.  There is no doubt that she and her sisters spent their lives in heroic service to many destitute people and not too many of us can forget the truth she spoke to power at the 1994 prayer breakfast.  But there were troubling signs of indifferentism throughout her writings, at least in the early days.  There is this quote from A Simple Path: "I’ve always said that we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic."  We know that the only way a Hindu, Muslim or anyone else can become "better" is to embrace the One True Faith, not to become further entrenched in their false religions.  The Bellarmine Forum carries an article about the relationship between Mother Teresa and Father John Hardon.  While it rightly praises Mother's many virtues, we see starting in the second paragraph testament to her unwillingness to teach the creeds of the Faith, saying "her sisters were there to help the poor".  So the imparting of the Faith would not have assisted the poor?  But Father was there, at the behest of Pope John Paul II, to equip the sisters to engage in that aspect of charity and I believe that they did.  But did Mother ever walk back that statement as quoted from A Simple Path?

It does seem that at least in the first stage of the ministry of the Missionaries of Mercy, Mother Teresa was content to focus on the Corporal Works of Mercy to the exclusion of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.  I'll now link to an article by Msgr Charles Pope, written over a year ago, entitled "What Ever Happened To The Spiritual Works Of Mercy?"  It is worth careful study, as are the comments below.  I truly am glad that Pope John Paul II, through Father Hardon, corrected that short-coming in the Missionaries of Mercy.

Let's move onto Islam.  I'll now post an account of an interview granted by Cardinal Burke.  In that interview, His Eminence states that the belief that Christians and muslims worship the same god stems from relativism.  It might be indifferentism, too, such as the one seen Mother Teresa's quote in A Simple Path.  It is quite blasphemous to state that those who behead babies, stone rape victims, engage in terrorist bombings by using their own children, etc, etc, in the name of their god, somehow worship the One, True God.  Yet that is what progressive church leaders thrust down our throats, as our post-Christian culture makes ever-increasing concessions to muslims while treating Christians - particularly faithful Catholics - as de facto "niggers of the new age".

Again we see the Church hierarchy welcoming in this heresy, not only in the misguided indifferentism rightly condemned by Cardinal Burke, but also in troubling actions by Pope Francis.  Recall his allowance of muslim prayers to the false "allah" idol within the Vatican gardens and his washing of the feet of muslims during Holy Thursday services.

These embraces of both humanism and indifferentism by progressives in the Church not only facilitate cultural suicide, but also facilitate the damnation of immortal souls by holding up to them lies as though they were truths.

Msgr Pope Excoriates "Social Justice" Charity

Several days ago Msgr Charles Pope posted on his blog page (hosted by the Archdiocese of Washington) an article entitled "Eradicating Poverty Is Not A Gospel Value: A Reflection On A Teaching By Cardinal Sarah".  While I link to it now, I will copy and paste it below for it wouldn't surprise me if archdiocesan progressive wonks had this post removed.  It would not be the first time that they did this to Msgr Pope.  I'll post some commentary first.

The Catholic charitable organization to which Cardinal Sarah referred could well be the Catholic Relief Services.  With their endless kvetching about "poverty" and "global warming", they have engaged in serious conflicts with Catholic moral teaching including the distribution of abortifacients, harboring of gay activists in their midst, partnering with pro-abortion organizations, etc.  A whole litany of malfeasances can be found here.  These misdeeds can only be expected of Catholic organizations when they forget that the prime mission of the Catholic Church is to help souls attain heaven.

It's noteworthy that Msgr cites the abysmal failure of Johnson's "war on poverty".  Through the expansion of welfare and its devastating impact on poor families, it could well be called "war on families".  While the "war on poverty" flopped, the "war on families" has been all too successful.

Far too many Catholics - especially those in high positions of the USCCB - have made a false idol out of "social justice".  It's no coincidence that many of these dissent from Catholic teaching regarding faith and morals - especially morals regarding marriage, sexuality, life and family.  Perhaps they think that by undue focus on "social justice" they might compensate for deviance from Catholic moral teaching.  If that's the case they play "Russion roulette" with their eternal destinies.  Pray that they repent.

And now, Msgr's article..

The eradication of poverty is an oft-stated goal of the modern, liberal West. President Lyndon Baines Johnson’s pronouncement of a “war on poverty” so imprinted this notion in the Western mind that it has become almost axiomatic. It is now a fundamental pillar in the thinking of almost every person (and organization) in the Western world, from the religious pew-sitter concerned for the poor to the most secular humanist bent on a utopian vision. Poverty is a great enemy that must be stamped out!

The only problem is that this is contrary to the Gospel! It is no surprise, therefore, that even after decades of Western “do-goodism,” barely a dent has been made in the percentage of people living in poverty. In fact, some statistics show that the percentage in poverty has increased. But why should we expect great fruitfulness in something that opposes God?

I can see the look of shock on your face right now; you may even be embarrassed that I have written this. I’d like to share a quote with you from Robert Cardinal Sarah, which makes an important distinction that we need to recover. While what he says may also shock you, I encourage you to read it carefully and thoughtfully; the distinction he makes is critical. Not only does the Gospel depend on it, but cultures and individual lives do as well. For indeed, in the name of eradicating poverty some of the worst of Western arrogance has been displayed. It is an arrogance that does not even recognize that it can become willing to the destroy the poor themselves as well as what and whom they love all in the name of this “noble” goal.

Cardinal Robert Sarah is no neophyte in this discussion. He grew up in an impoverished region of Africa and later headed the Roman dicastery, Cor unum, a charitable arm of the Holy See. The extensive passage below is an abbreviated version of the Cardinal’s response to the following questions posed by his interviewer, Nicholas Diat:

How would you describe the nature of Cor unum, the dicastery to which you devoted several years of your life, in its fight against all sorts of poverty? Furthermore, why do you speak so often about the close relation between God and the poor?

In his reply, the Cardinal is reacting somewhat to Mr. Diat’s description of Cor unum’s work as “fight[ing] against all sorts of poverty.” The Cardinal’s response is nothing short of stunning. Please read it carefully and consider obtaining the book so as to able to read the unabridged remarks as well.

The Gospel is not a slogan. The same goes for our activity to relieve people’s suffering … [it is a matter] of working humbly and having a deep respect for the poor. For example, I remember being disgusted when I heard the advertising slogan of a Catholic charitable organization, which was almost insulting to the poor: “Let us fight for zero poverty” … Not one saint … ever dared to speak that way about poverty and poor people.

Jesus himself had no pretention of this sort. This slogan respects neither the Gospel nor Christ. Ever since the Old Testament, God has been with the poor; and Sacred Scripture unceasingly acclaims “the poor of Yahweh.” …

Poverty is a biblical value confirmed by Christ, who emphatically exclaims, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of heaven” (Mt 5:3). … The poor person is someone who knows that, by himself, he cannot live. He needs God and other people in order to be, flourish and grow. On the contrary, rich people expect nothing of anyone. They can provide for their needs without calling either on their neighbors or on God. In this sense wealth can lead to great sadness and true human loneliness or to terrible spiritual poverty. If in order to eat and care for himself, a man must turn to someone else, this necessarily results in a great enlargement of his heart. This is why the poor are closest to God and live in great solidarity with one another; they draw from this divine source the ability to be attentive to others.

The Church must not fight against poverty but, rather, wage a battle against destitution, especially material and spiritual destitution. … [so that all] might have the minimum they require in order to live. …

But we do not have the right to confuse destitution and poverty, because in so doing we would seriously be going against the Gospel. Recall what Christ told us: “The poor you will have always with you …” (Jn 12:8). Those who want to eradicate poverty make the Son of God a liar. …

[In his yearly Lenten message in 2014, Pope Francis] espoused what St. Francis [of Assisi] called “Lady Poverty.” … St. Francis of Assisi wanted to be poor because Christ chose poverty. If he calls poverty a royal virtue, it is because it shone brilliantly in the life of Jesus … and in the life of his mother, Mary of Nazareth. …

Similarly, I often think about the vow of poverty taken by religious … [they] do so in order to be as close as possible to Christ. The Son [of God] wanted us to be poor in order to show us the best path by which we can return to God. …

The Son of God loves the poor; others intend to eradicate them. What a lying, unrealistic, almost tyrannical utopia! I always marvel when Gaudium et Spes declares, “The spirit of poverty and charity is the glory and witness of the Church of Christ” (GS 88).

We must be precise in our choice of words. The language of the UN and its agencies, who want to suppress poverty, which they confuse with destitution, is not that of the Church of Christ. The Son of God did not come to speak to the poor in ideological slogans! The Church must banish these slogans from her language. For they have stupefied and destroyed peoples who were trying to remain free in conscience(Cardinal Sarah, God or Nothing: A Conversation in Faith with Nicholas Diat, pp. 140-142).

Perhaps stunned himself, Mr. Diat follows up with the following question: “Are you not afraid of being misunderstood in employing this sort of distinction?”

The Cardinal replies,

It is a lack of charity to shut one’s eyes. It is a lack of charity to remain silent in the face of confusing words and slogans! … If you read the Latin text of Gaudium et Spes carefully you will immediately notice this distinction (Ibid, p. 143).

This is a powerful insight and it reveals the deep flaw in Western “anti-poverty” programs. Christ asks us to love the poor and imitate the best of what they are, not eliminate them and disregard the simplicity and trust that they can often exemplify. But we in the West, imbued with our materialistic notions and mesmerized by the comfort and control that wealth can temporarily buy, denigrate what the Gospels praises and seek to eradicate it.

So unreflective are we in this matter that some will even justify the most awful things in the name of eradicating poverty. Many programs (U.S.-sponsored and U.N.-sponsored) with this goal advocate for contraception, abortion, and/or euthanasia. Some have even sought to compel these sorts of things as a precondition for receiving aid. Some seek to impose certain aspects of Western thinking, something that has been labeled an attempt at “ideological colonization.” Many of us in the “First World” often speak of the “Third World” in a way that at best is patronizing and at worst exhibits a thinly veiled contempt.

While it is true that certain economic and political systems best support Western lifestyles, there is more to life than material abundance. With our own culture, families, and common sense collapsing around us, it seems odd that we so easily consider our way of life superior; that we see our relationship to the poor and to poorer countries as one in which we have all the answers and they should just listen to us.

The word “arrogance” comes to mind. We too easily assume, without even asking, that we know what is best; we presume that poor people in every part of the world want what we have (materially) and that they don’t perceive the awful price we have paid in order to get it.

We must recover a respect for the world’s poor, who have much to teach us. Even if they are not materially without troubles, they often possess many things we have lost: simplicity, family and tribal (communal) life, reciprocity, proper interdependence (as opposed to radical individualism), trust, a slower life, and a less-stressful life.

Further, we must not forget that the Lord counseled poverty (Lk 18:22), declared the poor blessed (Lk 6:20), lived simply Himself having “nowhere to lay his head” (Mt 8:20), lived among the working poor, and warned of the pernicious quality of wealth (Lk 16:13). God hears the cry of the poor and Mother Mary taught us of a great reversal that is coming, when the mighty and powerful will be cast down and poor and lowly raised up (Lk 1:52). Jesus taught us that many who are now last will be first in the kingdom of Heaven (Mat 19:30). In this life, the poor will sometimes need us. In the next life, on Judgment Day, we are going to need them to welcome us into eternal dwellings (Luke 16:9).

I really cannot say it better than did the good Cardinal, so I will not attempt to do so.We must surely work to alleviate the destitution that often comes in times of famine, war, or natural disaster. But destitution and poverty are not the same thing. Overlooking this distinction can be deadly for the poor we claim to serve and for their cultures, and can result in the worst forms of ideological colonization and secular utopianism.

This Apology Could Do With Its Own Apology

Regrettably Michael Voris issued an apology for reporting on Cardinal Burke's comments last week.  If you go here, you'll see the video is no longer working; he took it down.  My friend at Les Femmes saw this apology before I did.  I say AMEN! to all her comments and I too pledge NOT to succumb to a false clericalism that refuses to acknowledge the obvious problems issuing forth from this papacy.  Contrary to what Voris says, we do not have to "comb through" everything the Pope says to find statements that, at best, obfuscate the faith.  In fact, it takes much more effort and mental gymnastics to pretend that we are not being continuously bombarded with oddities.  If nothing else, I want to assure others that they need now bow before the "god of surprises".

I have to wonder about something.  He seems to believe that his reporting of Cardinal Burke's all-too-accurate assessments somehow "harmed the Church".  But he merely reported what the Cardinal said.  Are we to surmise from this "apology" that he believes that Cardinal Burke harmed the Church by stating that the Pope was doing harm by not standing for the Faith?  If not, where's the alleged harm?

I also couldn't help but notice a parallel between this and another situation that happened about six weeks ago.  Consider: this past Friday Voris published his report on Cardinal Burke's remarks.  A few days later it was pulled down.  Yet another few days later he issues an apology.  Does it sound familiar yet?  Here's a hint: Msgr Charles Pope!

By the time I became aware of Msgr Pope's reaction to Cardinal Dolan's stance regarding the St Patrick's gay parade, his blog post - rightly critical of Cdl Dolan - had been pulled.  Fortunately LifeSiteNews and others saved it so I was able to save it.  So, like Voris, Msgr Pope posts an article and then it's pulled down!  Then - like Voris - Msgr Pope apologized for his previous post.  Even the timing of events is almost identical.

Now if one reads Pope's apology very closely, one can detect that he apologized under duress, probably from the Archdiocese of Washington.  Their server does host his blog and he is a priest of that diocese (just happens to be mine as well).  Now a question for which we may never receive an answer: was Voris's apology influenced by some outside entity?  Perhaps I'm just speculating, but one must admit the other similarities are quite striking.

Msgr Pope On Denying Holy Communion To Those In De Facto Adulterous Situations

Yesterday Msgr Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington posted a piece called "Musings And Concerns On The Synod".  Below he gives very sound reasonings why the distribution of Holy Communion to those in irregular situations would be gravely harmful and thus morally impossible.  I urge you to read this and study it.

Obviously Cardinal Wuerl might take exception to this post. Using Father Guarnizo as his example, he already has demonstrated disdain for those priests who do uphold Canon 915; you see, it's just "not his style" AND he "follows a pastoral approach, not a canonical approach".  That last quote is quite telling, as it sheds much light on what the progressive bishops mean by their "pastoral, not doctrinal" gobblygoop that is spewing from their mouths at the SinNod.

Given the subject matter involved and the fact that Msgr Pope differs from the local bishop regarding Canon 915, I think it's possible that this Oct 9th post could suffer the same fate as did Msgr's post regarding Cardinal Dolan and the now-putrefied St Patrick's Day parade.  Therefore I have saved it below, should the link return an error message.

The text of Msgr Pope's post follows:

We are seeing in Rome a rather unusual unfolding of the Synod, wherein cardinals and bishops with very different points of view are airing those differences quite publicly. Even prior to the Synod there was the publication of various competing books.

To be fair to the bishops and cardinals, it would seem that Pope Francis himself has largely encouraged this. It is more typical at synods for the sparring and debates to take place more privately, and press conferences usually just issue summaries of things discussed. Time will tell of the wisdom (or lack thereof) of such public airings, but if the permission for frank discussion may extend to a lowly parish priest, I will say that it concerns me greatly. It is never pretty to see how the sausage is made and some who are less familiar with the internal debates may well be discouraged, while others will be inappropriately heartened. Again, though, to be fair, vigorous debates in Church Synods and Councils extend all the way back to the first one described in Acts 15.

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, what I think about the matter of Holy Communion to those in invalid matrimonial states and other irregular situations is no secret. I simply cannot see how it is possible for us to extend Holy Communion to Catholics living in invalid marriages unless they are willing to live as brother and sister. Rather than restate all the reasons, I’ll just refer you to  earlier posts I wrote: HEREand HERE.

And while the pastoral solution of living as brother and sister may not seem a “pastoral” or reasonable solution to many, it does remain a solution if Holy Communion is sought. Of course it is not a perfect solution. There is still the possibility of scandal, since not everyone will know or understand that an individual who is coming forward is not sexually intimate with his or her current “spouse” from a second union. But if celibacy is generally known as a possibility, others could presume good will and a large degree of scandal could be avoided.

I was speaking of this matter recently on the phone with someone (not a parishioner) and she scoffed at the notion of asking celibacy of people in these situations. She shifted the terms and asked me somewhat rhetorically,

How can you go on denying something as important as Holy Communion to people just because they are in what you consider a bad marriage?

I told her that I would answer her question if she would answer mine:

How is it that many have come to regard having sexual intimacy as more important or necessary than receiving Holy Communion?

I went on to add:

While Holy Communion is important (and I surely think that it is), I wonder why the people you describe as seeing it as so important wouldn’t choose to live celibately in order to be able to receive our Lord. You suggest I’m being cruel by denying it, but it isn’t really I who is making the choice here. The choice is really theirs. I am not the master of the Eucharist; I am His servant. Given Jesus’ description of second marriages as adulterous (Matt 19), and Paul’s clear warning against receiving Communion in an ongoing state of serious sin (1 Cor 11), it doesn’t seem that I have any choice. The choice is and remains theirs: either to so value Holy Communion and intimacy with the Lord that they are willing to forego sexual intimacy, or to seek solutions in the annulment process, or to continue refraining from Holy Communion.

Though I was being accused of somehow denying Holy Communion, I am not really doing any such thing. I celebrate Holy Communion every day for God’s faithful who are not impeded to receive. If they are somehow impeded, I will do what I can to help them overcome this impediment. If at the end of the process there can be no way to address the impediments, then the choice returns to them: live celibately and receive Communion, or choose not to and refrain from Communion. I am not denying anyone Communion; some choose to exclude themselves.

I realize that some people are in difficult and complex situations, but I cannot simply overrule the Lord or what He said to St. Paul. At the end of the day there is a choice for those who desperately seek Communion but are in second unions. That choice is celibacy. I realize that this is difficult and some conclude that this would be unjust to the second “spouse.” But it is ultimately their choice, not mine. I am respectful of the fact that some do not think they can reasonably choose to live celibately in their second union. However, it is not fair to say that just because other avenues have been exhausted, those in these situations have absolutely no choice. They do. It is difficult, but it is their choice to make.

It is sad that the Synod on the family has seemingly become a synod on divorce. I do hope and pray that some discussion is being had about the grace of living according to the Lord’s plan for matrimony and family. Surely the agenda will expand!

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.

Other Progressive Bishops (Namely, Archdiocese of Washington) Covering For Dolan?

Msgr Charles Pope of the Archdiocese of Washington, in the wake of Cardinal Dolan's disgusting kiss-up to gay activists, posted the article below on his blog.  I think he's spot-on correct.

However, Msgr Pope's blog is hosted on a server owned by the Archdiocese of Washington.  Lo and behold, the original link no longer works; try it!  http://blog.adw.org/2014/09/time-to-end-the-st-patricks-parade-and-the-al-smith-dinners/

Whoopsie!  Whaddya think of that?  Wanna bet that the "good ole boy" network of progressive bishops has mobilized to protect one of their own?  Cardinals Wuerl and McCarrick are of like mind as is Cardinal Dolan.  Such are the hazards of relying on other entities for your message medium.  So Msgr Pope's post was pulled.  I pray that's the only repercussion that he suffers.

Now the article..

It’s time to end New York’s St. Pat’s Parade and the Al Smith Dinner

 Al Smith Dinner , Homosexuality , New York City , St. Patricks Day Parade

The time for happy-clappy, lighthearted engagement of our culture may be nearing an end. Sometimes it takes a while to understand that what used to work no longer works. Let me get more specific.

Decades ago the “Al Smith Dinner” was a time for Republicans and Democrats to bury the hatchet (even if only temporarily) and come together to raise money for the poor and to emphasize what unites us rather than what divides us. But in the old days the death of 50 million infants was not what divided us. We were divided about lesser things such as how much of the budget should go to defense and how much to social spending. Reasonable men might differ over that.

But now we are being asked to raise toasts and to enjoy a night of frivolity with those who think it is acceptable to abort children by the millions each year, with those who think anal sex is to be celebrated as an expression of love and that LGBTQIA… (I=intersexual, A= Asexual)  is actually a form of sanity to which we should tip our hat, and with those who stand four-square against us over religious liberty.

Now the St. Patrick’s Parade is becoming of parade of disorder, chaos, and fake unity. Let’s be honest: St. Patrick’s Day nationally has become a disgraceful display of drunkenness and foolishness in the middle of Lent that more often embarrasses the memory of Patrick than honors it.

In New York City in particular, the “parade” is devolving into a farcical and hateful ridicule of the faith that St. Patrick preached.

It’s time to cancel the St. Patrick’s Day Parade and the Al Smith Dinner and all the other “Catholic” traditions that have been hijacked by the world. Better for Catholics to enter their churches and get down on their knees on St. Patrick’s Day to pray in reparation for the foolishness, and to pray for this confused world to return to its senses. Let’s do adoration and pray the rosary and the Divine Mercy Chaplet unceasingly for this poor old world.

But don’t go to the parade; stay away from the Al Smith Dinner and all that “old school” stuff that hangs on in a darkened world. And as for St Patrick’s Day, it’s time to stop wearin’ the green and instead take up the purple of Lent and mean it. Enough of the celebration of stupidity, frivolity, and drunkenness that St Paddy’s day has become. We need penance now, not foolishness. We don’t need parades and dinner with people who scoff at our teachings, insist we compromise, use us for publicity, and make money off of us. We’re being played for (and are?) fools.

End the St Patrick’s parade. End the Al Smith Dinner and all other such compromised events. Enough now, back to Church! Wear the purple of Lent and if there is going to be a procession, let it be Eucharistic and penitential for the sins of this age.

For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world!

How say you?

From Niggers Of The New Age Department: Five Stages Of Religious Persecution

A planned persecution is upon us as faithful Christians.  The Obamacare mandate is only one blatant example, and a recent one at that.  In fact, we've been in the crosshairs of progressives for some time now.  With their puppet running the White House, they probably feel they can be a bit bolder.

One person who saw the looming clouds gathering and who tried to warn us is Saint John Paul II.  Father C. John McCloskey quotes the sainted Holy Father and offers commentary.  Another is Msgr Charles Pope on his blog that is hosted by the Archdiocese of Washington.  The post is rather old but clearly folks could see the writing on the wall.  He lists five stages of religious persecution; anyone who has been watching current events over the years knows that we're now "in the end game", as it were.

I don't know if western civilization will survive this onslaught.  I know it can't if people insist on drowning themselves in entertainment, creature comforts and even hedonistic lives of sin.  We need to repent and wake up now, so that we can pray and act appropriately.

Being Nice Is Destroying The Church And Damning Souls To Hell

Below I'll present two video clips.  Watch/listen to them and the common themes of their messages will become obvious.  In the first one (yesterday's Vortex), Michael Voris details how good priests are being persecuted by their higher ups (meaning bishops) for preaching the truth and offending dissenting "katholycs" who happen to toss lots of cash in the collection basket.  Voris is in Rome at the moment.  One wonders if he heard of the plight of Father Marcel Guarnizo, for said persecution is precisely what happened to him at my own parish a year ago this past Lent.  Father Guarnizo was heaved under the bus because he refused Holy Communion to openly practicing lesbians.  Kowtowing to the noisy gay community of the DC area, the chancery heaved Father under the bus.  Father is also in Rome at this time.

My fellow lay Catholics, listen closely to what Voris says, starting at 5:36.  We are at liberty to speak, even if it ruffles feathers in our respective chanceries.  We are not vowed to silence and anyone who insinuates otherwise is either misinformed of the rights of the laity or is downright dishonest in any attempt to shut us up.  CLEAR??

The second video is a clip from a homily given by Msgr Charles Pope almost two years ago.  He illustrates the contrast between being "nice" versus being authentically holy.  The word "nice" is a word one will never find in the Bible.  Some folks confuse the words "nice" and "kind".  They are not synonyms.  In fact, they can be antonyms.

From Mother Angelica: "If you're not a thorn in someone's side, you're not doing Christianity right."

Five Stages Of Religious Persecution

Yesterday Msgr Pope posted his reflections on a talk presented by Women of Grace a few days ago, detailing the various stages of religious persecution.  I urge its close study, although the "light" video at the end is a waste of time (at best).  My friend at Les Femmes discussed some analogies between these stages and some theories put forth in both Rules for Radicals and After the Ball.

Read the comments after Msgr's post.  You will notice some "Pollyannas" peppered throughout; they are set aright by other commenters.

One comment wasn't published, although it was submitted this afternoon.  Here it is.

Although he submitted it, he knew it wouldn't be published.  However, the violation of Canon 915 is the practice of Cardinal Wuerl.  Moreover, as we saw in the case of Father Guarnizo last Lent, he and his chancery have in fact joined the secular forces in persecution of good priests such as Father Guarnizo.  He and Bishop Knestout did not stop at allowing the venom to be heaped upon Father, they were active and willing accomplices to this persecution.  Barbara Johnson wanted Father's vocation quashed.  Because Father is not incardinated in this diocese, the chancery couldn't accomplish it but they did bar his priestly ministry within the Archdiocese.

In the face of the persecution that is in progress, our bishops must act as shepherds and not as wolves.  In the meantime, we laity must stand against the wolves regardless of their guises.

A Follow-Up To My Comments On Msgr Pope's Blog

Last weekend I commented about Msgr Pope's blog piece that seemed to indicate that good Catholics should maintain a polite silence about abusive behavior of clerics out of a misguided sense of obedience and/or unity.  Yesterday's Vortex actually touched on this a bit albeit without specific reference to Msgr Pope's piece (and most likely he had no intention of referring to the Pope piece)

The Vortex in question is the fourth in a series regarding Catholic manhood.  The relevant snippet occurs at the 4:55 mark, so you might want to stop the video there and study closely the words of St John Chrysothom that appear on the screen - the ones that start with "the person who does not become irate when he has cause to be sins.."

Too many good Catholics seem to think that anger itself is a sin.  Actually it's a God-given emotion, just like all the others.  Now it must be controlled - just like all the others, but it should never be dismissed or held in disdain, for that itself is a sinful abuse.   Click here if you cannot see embedded video.

Msgr Pope's Piece On Catholics Who Raise Their Voices

Msgr Charles Pope of Washington DC recently wrote on his blog (hosted by the Archdiocese of Washington) a piece called "Is Being A Bishop Like Herding Cats?  It Shouldn't Be".  I urge all to read it, along with the comments.  In that piece, he laments what he calls a "dismissive attitude" towards the bishops, something that he calls "a common attitude among many theological and ecclesial conservatives as well."  Unfortunately, Msgr speaks too much in generalities; without specific examples, it's difficult to discern the impetus behind his comments. 

Note: this piece is a long read, so..

Thank You, Monsignor Charles Pope!!

Monsignor Charles Pope, a priest of the Archdiocese of Washington, openly decried the silence of the Church regarding the sin of homosexual activity; his article appeared on the diocesan blog.  He also stated the Biblical principles underlying the Church's teaching, making clear that such activity is a sin in the eyes of God and can never be condoned.

I for one thank Msgr Pope for speaking out on such matters, as a priest is called to do.  If we have any reason to believe that repurcussions are visited upon him for doing so (like being shipped to "diocesan Siberias", as has happened to others), be advised that we will blow the lid off that in a hurry.