Father Z And Catholic Lane Are Wrong Big-Time

Today, via Pewsitter, I read two particularly vapid and banal pieces that had as their end the minimizing of the damage being done by Pope Francis' ill-advised utterances.  See here and here.  A rebuttal is needed, and Mundabor stepped up admirably to the plate.  I suspect Mundabor was commenting on Father Z's piece but it could apply to the Catholic Lane one as well.

Both of the authors of the articles seemed hell-bent on trying to stifle some very appropriate concern and even indignation.  Their "don't worry, be happy" approach is, in my opinion, does not conform to what Scripture and Tradition teaches as the appropriate response to evil.

These authors who attempt to paint "smiley-faces" on outright heresies emanating from the Vatican must be contradicted as vehemently as the heresies themselves for they give the Vatican heretics aid and comfort by their (hopefully misguided) attempts to silence our warnings and rebuttals.

Catholic Bloggers, We May NOT Surrender To Francis-Funk!

Two months ago, I put up a post to exhort my fellow bloggers not to throw up their hands in the face of the pandemonium emanating from the Vatican.  Please review it.

I am not the only one to notice the malaise that has recently manifested itself in the Catholic blogging community.  The ones I'll cite below are observations of Catholic British bloggers.  They write on the heels of the de facto quashing of their (and my) fellow blogger who authored "Protect the Pope".  The blogger is a deacon who was stifled by his bishop for standing for Catholic tradition.  As an ordained deacon, he is bound by obedience to his bishop.  Most of us, being lay, are not so constrained - or shackled and gagged as the case may be.

Father Ray Blake of England, four months after the stifling of Protect the Pope, put up a piece asking "Where Have All The Bloggers Gone?"  His concluding sentence troubles me. I quote, "Most Catholics but especially clergy want to be loyal to the Pope in order to maintain the unity of the Church.  Today that loyalty is perhaps best expressed through silence".  William Oddie of CatholicHerald.UK, elaborating on Father Blake's piece, seems to agree with him.  He admits that much of the silence has been caused by the uncertainty from the Vatican and the subsequent discouragement felt by Catholic bloggers.  I encourage you to read both pieces and their accompanying comments.

With the notion that "loyalty is expressed through silence", I take strenuous exception.  Think about it.  What message is communicated when we are encouraged to be silent about the Pope in order to be loyal to him?  That itself is rather uncomplimentary of the pope; silence often communicates its own message rather unmistakably.  Would Father Blake et al ever dream that silence about Pope Benedict XVI and his writings would have been a proper expression of loyalty to him?  If not, what's the difference?

Let me take a minute to explain why I will continue to point out gaffes emanating from papal interviews and the Vatican.  Not every utterance of the Holy Father constitutes Church teaching - certainly not the interviews, off-the-cuff remarks, etc.  There are those Catholics, particularly converts, who might have the idea that everything the Pope says/does is representative of Church teaching.  Now think back to Holy Thursday, when Pope Francis broke Canon law to wash women's feet.  One person was understandably confused.  She reasoned that if Church law could be broken with impunity on Holy Thursday, why should anyone hold Church teaching about contraception in any higher regard?  I came out point blank and stated that the pope is a human being and what he did was a violation of Church law; I don't know his reasons and I don't really care.  He erred.  What else could I tell her?  Anything else - including silence - would have been a blatant lie to her face.  She deserved better than that; she deserved the truth.  I did not make the pope look bad in so doing; he did that by himself.  Later I will post on the ridiculous notion of the Pope going to preach at an evangelical church - with no intention of preaching the fullness of truth to them.  Don't they deserve better than that?  My fellow bloggers, if you come across a fellow Catholic with similar questions looking for answers, will you wallow in your on dejection and just shrug your shoulders and walk away in silence from that hurting person?

Another blogger named Mundabor proposes that "Now, More Than Ever, It Is The Right Time To Blog".  He's right.  This is no time to surrender to despondency, discouragement and even cynicism.  Too many bloggers have been doing precisely that, I regret to say.  Just during the past few weeks I pulled from my blog roll (right side bar) two Catholic blogs that had been essentially abandoned by their owners (one for over a year); will I have to purge more?

Fellow Catholic Bloggers!  This is no time to go wimpy-wobbly against our blogging apostolates!   I think I remember one of the comments on the other two blogs, written by a Catholic blogger.  He/she wrote that they didn't blog because their heart wasn't in it after the election of Francis.  To that I reply, "So what?  Blog and speak anyway!  You don't feel like it?  What difference does that make?  Shake off your doldrums and start hitting your keyboards again - now!"

Sedevacantism - Seducing From The One True Church

My blogging colleague The Eponymous Flower put forth a piece earlier touching upon the serious problems caused by Pope Francis' imprudent actions and remarks.  She makes two excellent points that we must all bear in mind as we try to deal with the seemingly nonstop barrage of nonsense emanating from the Vatican these days.

1. Faced with the incongruous proceeds from the Pope lately, many Catholics have become deluded by sedevacantism.  I said the following in a previous post but will repeat it again.  If such Catholics see flaws in the Holy Catholic Church and are distressed because they know it to be the One True Church, by what convolution of logic do they abandon that same One True Church?  Under no circumstance whatsoever can this sin of apostasy be justified.  These Catholics place their immortal souls in grave danger.  Still, another question must be answered.  For all the snarky comments I've received alleging that I don't appreciate that the Pope is a Pope of the world and not just the United States, I must wonder if the Pope realizes that he is the Pope of these traditionally-oriented Catholics who feel deep hurt at being dismissed as "rosary counters" and the such.  Do those commenters care about that question?  I will not hold my breath waiting for a reply.
2. Further down the article we see that the Pope is definitely infallible when four criteria of the Extraordinary Magisterium are met.  Otherwise, his teachings are solemnly binding only insofar as they conform to Tradition already set forth by the Magisterium.  The four criteria are below:
1. He solemnly teaches as Pope.
2. He teaches on faith or morals.
3. He teaches definitively.
4. He teaches so as to bind all Catholics.

I'll now touch upon a piece put out by Mundabor a few days ago called "The Bloggers, The Orks and The Uruk-Hai".  Not being much of a movie-watcher, I don't understand the references to "orks" and "uruk-hai" (whatever the heck they are).  I absolutely agree that we must shine the light and cry out when things contrary to the Faith issue forth from the Vatican (or even the Pope's pen or mouth).  We may no longer demure from that task.  However, I do think Mundabor crosses an unacceptable line when he speaks of "mocking him, ridiculing him, making him a laughing stock".  Ladies and gentlemen, it's one thing to shine the light on erroneous doings and sayings from the Pope; it's quite another thing to belittle him as a person.  He is the Holy Father; he is the Vicar of Christ.  His person must remain inviolate.  As we speak the truth about troublesome words and actions, we must take great care not to attack his person.  

But we must speak out.

Are We Purveyers Of "Ecclesiastical Porn"???

Some of us hoped that the next Vortex would clarify doubts regarding whom Church Militant TV intended when they issued their opinion why any criticism of the Pope is wrong.  Well, it appears that Michael Voris has.  First, I do think he has done a tremendous service in exposing so much corruption in the Church hierarchy.  Second, I don't doubt him when he says that Church Militant is being attacked by some for not openly making concerns known to the Holy Father regarding questionable actions.  Third, I am indeed saddened  that any vitriolic messages would be sent to them for their policy.  Fourth, I can also believe him when he says that some who take issue with the Pope's words go on to mock his person; I too consider that to be wrong.

As readers of this blog know, I have in no way denigrated the Holy Father personally nor disrespected the office of the Papacy when I've made criticisms regarding objectively questionable words/acts.  I also have not lobbed one criticism to Church Militant TV for their chosen policy and I certainly haven't sent any vitriol their way (in fact, I have not sent one email to them).  My grievance with Church Militant TV is that they have seen fit to chide those of us who do believe it incumbent upon us to raise some red flags.  They have made no distinction between those who do tear at the Papacy and those of us who question the Pope precisely because we do love Holy Mother Church.  Many of us have raised the point of such distinctions numerous times; it is all over the blogosphere.  Again in today's Vortex no such distinction is being recognized, although Church Militant TV cannot claim ignorance regarding our concerns.  Is it not reasonable to assume that the distinction is being omitted precisely because Church Militant TV is lumping us all together?  I hope to be proven wrong on this matter.

After the jump break, I will post the video, with my minute-by-minute rebuttal afterwards.

More Input Regarding Objection To Papal Missteps

A Catholic blogger (in England, I believe) named Mundabor had something to say regarding the Vortex's fit at those of us who object to some of the Pope's words and actions.  Please read.

Terry Carroll of Church Militant TV replied.  Mundabor posted the comment and his own rebuttal.  Please read.  I think Mundabor did an excellent job in bringing the conversation back to the central issue.  That is, if CMTV chooses not to address Pope Francis' blunders, that is completely up to them.  What troubles us is when they liken us (who do speak up) to those who hate the Church.  That is unacceptable.

To illustrate that our stance is appropriate, I link to a LifeSiteNews article posted back in October when problems were becoming too evident.

I still hold Church Militant TV in respect for the yeoman's work that they have done in exposing so much chicanery by progressive elements in Church hierarchy.  I hope and pray that a clarification will soon be issued by them.