Amoris Laetitia - Oozing With Heretical Gobblygoop

Here is a link to Amoris Laetitia as it appears on the Vatican website in English.  Please note that this English translation is on the Vatican's site.  There can be no claims to "poor translation"; the pope owns the mess.  So now let our Friday penance begin.

Paragraph 3 is a thinly disguised attempt to justify situation ethics.  Notice the line "each country or region can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs".  Wrong.  It is the eternal Teaching of Our Lord, manifested through Sacred Tradition, that is to take precedence over "local tradition".  Solutions must be based on Our Lord's words and Teaching - that and that alone, with no tweeking for the sake of "tradition".  When he evangelized Ireland, should St. Patrick have been sensitive to the "tradition" of druidic human sacrifice?  No less should our bishops today give any lenience to the mortal sin of adultery, which is what the divorced and "civilly married Catholics commit to the eternal detriment of their souls.

So that's only page 4.  We've got 260 more pages of this pig-slop through which we must slog.  But we will soldier on!  In paragraph 4 he said that the synod process was both "impressive and illuminating".  I might agree with him there, but I saw it to be "illuminating" for the heretical proclivities and strong-arming of faithful Catholics that it revealed.

In paragraph 7 he said that "everyone should feel challenged by chapter 8".  I think I will pop over there, but notice how he words his statement.  What does he mean by "challenged"?  Is this more of the "god of surprises" flim-flam?  Let's move to chapter 8.

At the end of paragraph 294 and going into 295, we hear talk of this "law of gradualness".  To wit:

"That is how Jesus treated the Samaritan woman (cf. Jn 4:1-26): he addressed her desire for true love, in order to free her from the darkness in her life and to bring her to the full joy of the Gospel.  Along these lines, Saint John Paul II proposed the so-called law of gradualness in the knowledge that the human being “knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by different stages of growth”.

I read the passage of the woman at the well a number of times.  That conversation between Jesus and the woman occurred in a matter of minutes.  I don't consider that to be especially "gradual".  He got right down to the nitty-gritty and did not permit her to remain in her sin without direct confrontation of that sin.  What the pope is proposing in terms of addressing the needs of a cohabiting couple is - not to address their real need of immediate repentance, for as long as they remain in sinful situations they place themselves and each other in danger of hell.  If any of us realized that our loved ones were in a burning building, would we consider the "law of gradualness" or would we rush in to rescue them?

In paragraph 297 there occurs a curious and perhaps heretical statement: "No one can be condemned forever for that is not the logic of the Gospel".  Excuse me, but what does the pope think hell is?  Is he denying the existence of hell?  Among other things, it is the abode of those who are condemned forever by their own doing.  Then he talks about an "unmerited, unconditional and gratuitous mercy".  There is no such thing.  While God's mercy is unmerited, by no means is it "unconditional and gratuitous".  The necessary condition for receipt of God's mercy is repentance.  Repentance entails the forsaking of sinful conduct and near occasions of sin.

Paragraph 298 is not much more than an attempt to justify those divorced who are living in adultery.  With all the litany of sad circumstances, the fact still remains that as long as the couple are living as husband and wife when they aren't they place themselves and one another in mortal sin.  I wonder how they can claim to love one another and still jeopardize the eternal salvation of each other?  Or doesn't eternal reality factor into their considerations?

Paragraphs 299 and 300 are also full of blather seeking to justify adultery.  Paragraph 301 sees the pope being a bit more blatant about it.  Read this: "Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any irregular situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace."  Oh yes it can and it must.  What was once true is always true.  Those living in adultery are living in mortal sin.  Sexual sins are always grave matter and obviously consent is present.  Even with the lackluster catechesis in the church today there is often an intrinsic realization that adultery is sinful.

He tries to cite St. Thomas Aquinas as a source for this strange teaching by saying "Saint Thomas Aquinas himself recognized that someone may possess grace and charity, yet not be able to exercise any one of the virtues well"  There's a vast difference between "not exercising any one of the virtues well" versus living in a state of mortal sin.

Paragraph 305 is an outright vilification of clergy who act in fidelity to the Tradition of the Church and who rightly hold that individual conscience must yield to that same Tradition.  He states that such pastors are "throwing stones at people's lives" and that they are of "closed heart of one hiding behind Church teaching".  How can it be wrong for one to "hide" behind God's word?  Would that all engaged in such "hiding", rather than in hiding behind progressive and humanistic justifications for slapping God in the face by regarding His commands with less than obedience.  As you read this paragraph, please take note of footnote 351 for therein you'll find both insult against the sacrament of Confession and a thinly-disguised justification for adulterers receiving Holy Communion.

Voice of the Family has an excellent treatment on this eighth chapter.  Rorate Caeli and AKA Catholic should also be studied.  I hope to put some more time into the reading of this thing but the consumption of 260+ pages of flim-flam is an onerous task.

Post-Synodal Exhortation And Its Dismal Prospects

From Edward Pentin of the National Catholic Register, we read that the pope's post-synodal apostolic exhortation is due to be released sometime in March.  We are referring to the rather contentious synods on the family that occurred this past October and the year before that.

This exhortation has two big strikes against it, right from the get-go.  The first is its principal drafter, Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez, an Argentine friend of the pope's going way back.  He's quite a writer, apparently having heavy influence on Laudato Si and even Evangelii Gaudium.  He's also the author of a rather, uh, "interesting" tome called "Heal Me With Your Mouth; The Art Of Kissing".  So the fellow who wrote crap about "art of kissing" is supposedly putting together an apostolic exhortation about family life?  This promises to be a real hoot; at least it would be if it didn't have so much potential to lead countless souls astray.

According to one of Pentin's sources, who happens to be a moral theologian, there is much danger of the latter being the result of this "exhortation".  He believes that the text "calls into question the natural moral law".

We can only hope and pray that this exhortation isn't the disaster that it could very well be.

The Poison Pill That Is The Final Report From The Ordinary Synod On The Family

Voice of the Family published a piece yesterday that shows closer examination of the language used in the final report of the synod that ended last month.  I urge all to study it.  The language utilized in paragraphs 84-86 is really quite insidious.  As the title suggests, the sin-nod fathers place sociology - at least the progressive form of it - on a par with, or even above, the teachings of Jesus Christ.  It also places the gobblygoop uttered by the pope about the need for a "deeply merciful" church in a more comprehensive perspective.  VOTF correctly states that repentance is needed before any "integration".  The Church has always been "deeply merciful".  But real mercy can only happen within the context of the Sacrament of Confession, and that requires real repentance along with cessation of sinful activity by which the sinner excluded him/herself from the Church in the first place.

Also published yesterday was a piece by my blogging colleague at Vox Cantoris.  He writes about how a priest is waking up to the fact that the pope wants to change the Church by causing her to be alienated from her own moorings.  Ladies and gentlemen, because he is the pope, we know that he cannot solemnly promulgate error.  That's a promise from Jesus Christ Himself - but that's all He promised!  There are many other ways that much harm can be accomplished.

Cardinal Gerhard Muller, one of Germany's faithful prelates, states that the Church is going through "painful persecution".  While true, what he said might win the "understatement of the year" award.  He uttered one piece of truth that directly confronts the apparent mindset of those who composed those three paragraphs of the synod's final report: "The work of the Church is not to reflect the opinions of her members.  The Church's job is to reflect the point of view of her Head and Founder: Jesus Christ."  Clearly those "opinions of her members would include any foolish notion of "integration" of those in mortal sin before they properly avail themselves of the Sacrament of Confession.

Yes, Virginia, De Facto Schism Is Underway In The Church

Last Saturday when I commented on the ecumenicide in which the USCCB was embroiling itself, I somehow missed one of the most egregious aspects of it, although it was unabashedly stated in the USCCB press release.  Here it is: "It also suggests that the expansion of opportunities for Lutherans and Catholics to receive Holy Communion together would be a sign of the agreements already reached."  Ladies and gentlemen, it would be sacrilege to allow Holy Communion to be given to those who are not in union with Rome.  Holy Communion is not a mere "sign of agreements" but is the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ Himself.

But my purpose here is not to go into a treatise on Holy Communion but to illustrate the lack of belief in the Real Presence on the part of many of our bishops.  How could the USCCB even suggest such sacrilege if they had even just a smidgen of belief in the Real Presence as taught by the Church?  And that's not the only teachings that are being disobeyed by many bishops.  Toronto Catholic Witness reports that Archbishop Henryk Hoser of the Archdiocese of Warszawa-Praga has stated quite frankly that "some bishops do not even accept the official teachings of the Church".  In the context of that interview, he is speaking of the Church's teachings on sexuality and family, particularly Humanae Vitae.

 Until this past sin-nod, there were well-intentioned Catholics who could just not admit that there are serious problems with this papacy.  The truth is becoming harder and harder to deny, as evidenced by some very recent articles.  Please read:

• "The Soiled Shoes Of The Fisherman" by George Neumayr
• "Pope vs Church: The Anatomy Of A Catholic Civil War" by Damian Thompson
• "What Some Synod Fathers Could Learn From St. Charles Borromeo" by Donald Prudlo

I'd also suggest reading One Peter Five's piece.  He is spot-on.  What some people are just now seeing has been ongoing for decades now.  I'll echo my colleague's last line: "Welcome to the war.  It's about time you showed up."

And The Gobblygoop Continues...

Raymond Arroyo interviewed Cardinal Wuerl a few days ago.  Arroyo asked very straight-forward questions but did not receive replies in kind.  He put forth a herculean effort, but to no avail.  In the face of the verbal tap-dance from the Cardinal, Arroyo exercised much patience.  Please watch and you'll understand why the sin-nod will continue to undermine the faith of millions.

More Nonsense From The United States Hierarchy In Wake Of Sin-Nod

A few weeks ago we heard that the sin-nod fathers were batting around the idea of decentralizing the Church to place more authority in the hands of national conferences of Catholic bishops.  The world immediately realizes the ramifications for the German Catholics and I pointed out some similarly disastrous possibilities should the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops be imbued with undeserved authority.

Less than two weeks later we see evidence of damage that the USCCB will inflict.  Yesterday the USCCB put out a press release stating that Catholic and Lutheran leaders released a document entitled "Declaration on the Way: Church, Ministry and Eucharist".  I linked to the article and that in turn links to the statement.  It is a long tome.  These Catholics are operating under the delusion that doctrinal differences can be talked away.  What seems to be implicit in the notion of dialog is compromise.  That, of course is impossible.  The Roman Catholic Church has the fullness of truth because it comes from Jesus Christ.  We cannot compromise one iota of that for we cannot tamper with what Jesus has given us.  Yet such compromise is implicit throughout this document.

Yesterday I received news of another incident to occur this coming Monday.  With the sin-nod in the past, the progressives are focusing again on Laudato Si.  The Not-At-All Catholic Reporter announced that Cardinal Maradiaga will be featured at a panel discussion at Georgetown University.  Also featured in this panel will be John Podesta, former Obama official who is now chairing Hillary Clinton's campaign.  This dissent-fest will be moderated by John Carr.  Maradiaga's and Carr's names are hyperlinked for a reason; I've written about them in the past and if you follow the links you'll see why these men are dissenters if not outright heretics.  And yes, Maradiaga is one of the pope's top advisors; the pope has full responsibility for what he allows Maradiaga to utter.

Today I went to Mass at a parish that will remain unnamed.  In the bulletin I saw the above event being announced.  Knowing the priest to be faithful, I've no doubt that the announcement is in his bulletin only because its inclusion was dictated from "on high"; that is, orders came from the DC chancery and probably from the USCCB.  So yes, we are just beginning to see the progressives feeling their oats as a result of the sin-nod.  Those Catholics who are giddy simply because the "sin-nod wasn't all that bad" really need to remove your rose-colored glasses and start praying..

Pope's Closing Address For SinNod - Vindictive And Sloppy

Here is the text of the thing from the Vatican website.  Please read the entire thing.  I'll address salient points.

"It was about bearing witness to everyone that, for the Church, the Gospel continues to be a vital source of eternal newness, against all those who would indoctrinate it in dead stones to be hurled at others."  A few things pop into mind:

• The phrase "eternal newness" is an oxymoron, for eternity by definition is neither old nor new.  It is beyond the bounds of time.  The truths of God revealed thousands of years ago continue to be the truths of God for they were uttered by the eternal God.
• "Indoctrinate" what?  Is this just sloppy translation?  How does one "indoctrinate the Gospel into stone"?  This is nonsensical
• Just who are these evil boogeymen that are hurling "dead stones" at people? And why, oh why, does the pope refer to the Gospel as "dead stones"?  Again, if there's a better translation, please advise the Vatican for I'm looking at their own website.

"It was about trying to open up broader horizons, rising above conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints, so as to defend and spread the freedom of the children of God, and to transmit the beauty of Christian Newness, at times encrusted in a language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible."

• There's that "newness" word again.  "Newness" is irrelevant when talking of God's timeless truths.
• "Conspiracy theories and blinkered viewpoints!"  Now here's where the "lovable" mask drops off and we see the real vindictiveness.  Of course some of that venom is aimed at Catholic bloggers such as Yours Truly.  But I believe faithful prelates who vocally called out the obvious rigging of the sin-nod are in the cross-hairs: prelates such as Cardinal Sarah, Archbishop Gadecki, Bishop Schneider, the thirteen cardinals who signed the letter, those who wrote "Remaining In The Truth Of Christ" and "Preferential Option For The Family", and others.  Voice of the Family just released a piece asking the pope to address the crisis of trust; do you think this "conspiracy theory" slur will help?
• What is meant by "language which is archaic"?  If Latin, may I remind us all of why Latin is used?  It is used precisely because it is a dead language; that is, the meanings of its grammar and vocabulary will not "evolve" with time.  Latin has worked well for the Church for 2000 years; there's no reason to pretend that it isn't sufficient now.  I realize that may not fit in with this "newness" fad, but so what?
• Let's look at the "incomprehensible" part.  Another reason why certain language may seem "incomprehensible" to certain individuals is precisely because they don't want to understand it; they don't like the demands it places on them and their behaviors.  Any parent who's raised children will understand the concept.  The answer is NOT to change the language but to continue to proclaim the teaching and insist on obedience for the eternal salvation of these recalcitrant individuals.

"We have also seen that what seems normal for a bishop on one continent, is considered strange and almost scandalous for a bishop from another; what is considered a violation of a right in one society is an evident and inviolable rule in another; what for some is freedom of conscience is for others simply confusion."

• Examples?
• God's truths are not only eternal, they are omnipresent.  That is, they apply everywhere and equally.  Marriage, being between one biologically born man and one biologically born woman, is one such truth.

"The Synod experience also made us better realize that the true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit; not ideas but people; not formulae but the gratuitousness of God’s love and forgiveness."

• "true defenders of doctrine are not those who uphold its letter, but its spirit".  No.  Enough of these false dichotomies.  When it comes to God's word, "letter" and "spirit" CANNOT be held in opposition to one another for they both emanate from the same God.  One does not uphold any "spirit" of God's word without upholding every single solitary letter of it.  Got that???

There are more problems with this but I think you get the gist.  The Relatio is out already, but so far only in Italian (again, why not Latin?).  Rorate has some of that translated and even that small snippet is fraught with serious problems, not the least is the "wiggle room" being implied regarding the matter of adulterers receiving Holy Communion while still in sin.  At best, it sounds like a time bomb that will explode at the most inopportune time.  Please pray; frequent the Sacraments, pray the Rosary, wear the scapulars.  We are in for some difficult times as Catholics.

The Church Must Be A-Changing!

Today while the sin-nod is in its last days (Deo Gratias!) the pope delivered a homily at Mass.  I've got to believe that it's part of the ongoing #maturation.  In short, he opined that Catholics must read the "signs of the times" and change with them.  Of course he threw out a parenthetic remark about staying within the bounds of truth, but that means we're getting praxis-vs-dogma gobblygoop.  I pray that this is not a harbinger of the final product of the sin-nod, but wouldn't be surprised if it is.

As I read it, I thought to myself, "he'd be channeling his inner Bob Dylan, except that Dylan's still alive"!   With that thought came inspiration for the jingle that I just now threw together.  If I say so myself, it sums up both the sin-nod and today's homily.  Those of you who remember the 1960s might find yourselves singing it to Dylan's tune.  In (dis)honor of the sin-nod, I present (drums and trumpets please, and yes a patent is pending)

THE CHURCH MUST BE A-CHANGING

Come gather you bishops, cardinals and priests

Come gather all of liberal stripe

Time to promulgate progressive tripe

At all faithful Catholics we’re going to snipe

Under the cover of false mercy hype

For the Church must be a-changing.

Come quickly Baldiserri, Rosica, Marx

Durocher, Lombardi, Kasper and Wuerl

Let our heretical colors unfurl

On Holy Communion we’ll heap sacrilege

From saints and Church fathers we’ll burn that bridge

For the Church must be a-changing.

Gadecki and Sarah, keep your mouths closed

By Sarah and Pell we won’t be opposed

Because they rebuke us we hold them as dopes

Part of the crowd who just don’t like the pope

Our sins we won’t confess ‘cause we must make a mess

For the Church must be a-changing.

Failed Papacy And Questionable Vortex

In today's Vortex Michael Voris discusses the latest talk of the papacy of Francis being "failed".  Apparently some leftists are lodging that complaint as they were hoping for radical changes of doctrine and practice, particularly in matters of sexual ethics.  That hasn't happened - at least not at a pace according to their liking.  I'm not so sure that their frustration is due to the pope as much as it might be to faithful Catholics "shining the light on cockroaches".

There's no doubt that Pope Francis did encourage such progressive thinking due to his extemporaneous interviews and disregard of papal traditions.  No one can gainsay that, not even Michael Voris.  However, today Voris goes through great mental and logical contortions to absolve the pope of any responsibility for this mess.  This is not the first time that Voris has made such vain attempts; I rebutted them at the time and now I'll have to do so again.

• At 3:50, Voris states that the pope's "own media people have been a disaster, failing him on every score".  Well then, why does the pope retain them?  It's been well over a year now and still the pope hasn't cleaned out that communication office of his.  Some opine that the pope desires that aura of confusion; that opinion has basis.
• At 4:40, speaking about the pope's "gang of nine" closest advisers, he says "a general is only as good as his first officers".  True enough.  The responsible general knows this and will ensure that he is surrounded by competent men.  Instead, the pope picked men like Maradiaga and Kasper.  Can he possibly claim ignorance of their proclivities?  No - not given the length of time he spent as bishop and cardinal himself.
• Following that, at 4:52, Voris goes into the pope's "governing style" saying that the pope surrounds himself with people whom he personally likes and avoids those whom he doesn't.  That is NOT just a mere preference of style, but the epitome of irresponsibility.  When one is about the serious task of governance - in this case the shepherding of millions of souls for their eternal salvation, they must select their assistants based on their assistants' abilities and vision in carrying out the mission - not based on trivialities such as personal likes and affinities.   We might expect children to do the latter, not vicars of Christ.
• At 5:25, Voris says of the pope, "many of those around him who are decidedly progressive and heterodox on various points may be actually using him        Being "used" or putting up the appearance of being used?  Are we really supposed to believe that the pope is such a dear, sweet, naive little bumpkin as to allow himself to be used?  C'mon!  How long has he been bishop and cardinal before going to the Vatican?  He's been "around the block" too many times for us to buy this "being used" poppycock!  He's a big boy now!  He owns the mess he's creating!  In the words on that plaque in President Truman's office, "the buck stops here"!  As much as Voris disdains criticism of the pope, does he realize how patronizing and condescending he sounds towards the pope?
• The following is the crux of Voris' presentation so I'll break out of the bullets now

At 6:00 he says of those evil boogeymen controlling the pope (they exist, but they don't control the pope - he has full culpability here) that they are trying to paint those of us who ask questions as "enemies of the pope".  That probably is the case; an example is the stunt that Cardinal Wuerl tried to pull a few days ago.  Then Voris's train of thought jumps the track when he says "to slam the pope" would play into their hands.

• I've said this several times before when Voris tried to scold those of us who criticize the pope's words and actions.  To raise these valid points is NOT equivalent to "slamming the pope".
• I suspect Wuerl et al are trying to silence us and to inhibit our questioning by implying that we "just don't like this pope".  Is it Voris who is playing into their hands by rehashing his call from several months ago for us to shut up?

One of his closing statements was that due to the machinations of the progressives, the pope has "little maneuvering room".  What difference does that make?  Why cannot the pope just do his job and promulgate the Teachings of Jesus Christ and give the results of that fidelity into the hands of God?  Why is that so complicated?  No doubt it would take courage but that is his responsibility.

The title of the Vortex video is "Failed Papacy".  I don't know about that.  I do know that up till now, this papacy has been one friggin disaster: from clown-nose selfies to "who am I to judge" to muslims praying to "allah" in the Vatican to telling adulterers they can receive Holy Communion - I could go on and on with this.  But after next week he will still be pope.  What will he do with the rest of his papacy?  This is cause for prayer for us, that he will make something of his papacy and do something for Christ's hurting and bruised Church.  Now the video..

They "Just Don't Like The Pope"

More prelates are taking stands against the venom pouring from the sin-nod.

• Bishop Krzysztof Bialasik, Polish missionary to Bolivia, denounced abortion and "gender ideology" and lamented that the sin-nod did not address these matters.
• Archbishop Zbigniew Stankiewicz, on behalf of the Latvian Bishops' Conference, denounced the idea of Holy Communion for unrepentant adulterers and sodomites.
• Again we hear from Cardinal Pell as he rejects "continental Catholicism".
• Archbishop Gadecki has again denounced the none-too-subtle attempt by "sin-nod fathers" to dilute Catholic doctrine.
• Cardinal Jorge Urosa defended teaching on the Holy Eucharist, reminding all that the prodigal son was embraced by his father only after he returned home.
• Cardinal Burke stated that if being "fundamentalist" meant upholding Church teaching, then he was happy to be so, for that teaching will save souls.  Imagine that!  A Prince of the Church concerned with the mission that Christ gave to His Church, to save souls!  These days, that's a rarity.



SinNod's Moral
Theologian

• Cardinal Arinze reminded us all that those in objectively sinful situations cannot receive Holy Communion in good conscience.

God bless these prelates (and others) who are standing up to the obvious attempt to exploit the synod for heretical purposes.  Dare I suspect that Cardinal Wuerl would count them in the number of those who "just don't like this pope"?  By the way; who taught the "conscience reigns supreme" crowd their moral theology?  Jiminy Cricket?

Cardinal Wuerl Is Complaining About Us

That actually is a good thing.  He isn't playing the aloof stoic any longer.  If he's trying to poo-poo us, we must be having some beneficial effect.  He gave an interview to America magazine (that should say a lot right there) from which Joan Desmond of National Catholic Register draws.  I won't pick the whole thing apart, but will focus a bit one one very telling tidbit, a "Freudian slip", if you will.  Read the following.

"Pope Francis is calling for a church that, to my mind, is much more in contact with the Gospel, with the living out of the Gospel. Not just the articulation of the Gospel, the voicing of the Gospel, the proclaiming of the Gospel, but the personal living of it, and that seems to be what is the most attractive part of this pope, why so many people find him inviting, who so many people follow him, why so many people are coming back to the practice of the faith."

This "much more in contact with the Gospel" bit is, uh..intriguing!  "Much more" in comparison with what, pray tell?  "Much more" than:

• The Fathers and Doctors of the Church who helped crystalize and expound the teachings of Our Lord?
• Those missionaries who spread the Faith to pagans, often at the cost of martyrdom?
• Those parents of today who sacrifice to teach their children at home lest they lose their Faith in public and yes, diocesan schools?
• Those Christians who suffer for upholding the teachings of Jesus Christ in the face of opposition? Kim Davis, Linda Gibbons and (pay attention, Your Eminence!) Father Marcel Guarnizo are among that number.

My heavens!  How bereft we Catholics have been during these last 20 centuries of "contact with the Gospel"!  Now we have a pope whom many "find inviting"!  Yes indeedee!  Just ask Elton John!  As far as having lots of followers, that is no measure of anything.  Read John 6.  Many people followed Jesus - until He taught of the nature of the Eucharist.  Then they up and left.  Jesus kept proclaiming the truth of Who He is.  These truths of the Church are eternal and immutable, regardless of the number of "followers".   I will make no statement whatsoever regarding the pope's personal "living of the gospel", be it "yay" or "nay".  I wonder how the Cardinal dares to do so.

He also said that those who question the synodal process "just don't like this pope".  I suppose that would include his brother Cardinals Pell, Burke and now Arinze?  See here and here.

I do consider this braying by Cardinal Wuerl to be a good sign.  We bloggers must be doing something right to arouse their ire and to cause them to squint their eyes at the light of truth.  Let's keep it up.

Sin-Nod Proposal To Insinuate Moral Relativism In The Church

There are indications that Pope Francis may be entertaining ideas to slough off some papal authority to local bishops' conferences.  Under the proposal, these conferences would be empowered to deal with moral matters such as homsexuality and divorce as well as some doctrinal matters.  Voice of the Family has a fairly extensive analysis of the problem.

Both Cardinals Muller and Burke rightly condemn this idea as a violation of the very notion of a universal Church and an admittance of moral relativism.  Ladies and gentlemen, the Catholic Church is custodian of the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  These teachings are as immutable and eternal as the God who promulgated them.  They don't change from place to place, era to era.  What this crackpot idea would do is to create situations where the Church in one place would falsely teach that homosexuality is morally acceptable while another would hold onto Christ's teachings.  It would in fact formalize schisms (yes, that's plural) within the Church.

Readers of this blog are well aware of the many problems caused by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  I needn't rehash them here; just put the name in the search box at the top left.  Now can you just imagine the unmitigated disasters that would be spewing forth from that cabal if they were granted doctrinal authority?  The Church in the United States would be crippled beyond recognition.

Let us pray that the Church survives the remaining days of this sin-nod.

Satan In The Sin-Nod

Cupich's Dissidence At SinNod - Another Reason To Sign The Canon 212 Petition

I and other faithful Catholic bloggers have written copiously about the many travesties perpetrated by Archbishop Cupich of Chicago.  Recall that he is now at the sin-nod, at the express direction of Pope Francis.  Some may have wondered how the Pope could have named Cupich to the sin-nod in light of his flawed moral compass.  I don't; in fact I believe the pope knew full well Cupich's proclivities and that was the reason he brought Cupich to the sin-nod.

We are now hearing that Cupich is using his new-found bully pulpit to finagle the admittance to Holy Communion those embroiled in flagrant mortal sins: adulterers and sodomites, to be precise.  These would be people currently and unabashedly continuing in their sinful situations, not those who have repented and made good Confessions.

LifeSiteNews and Voice of the Family recorded an interview given by Cupich in which he outlines his diabolical proposal.  Let's look at a few salient points.

• Those adulterers and sodomites who feel marginalized do so because they have marginalized themselves by their embrace of mortal sin.  Let us thank God for these "feelings" as they might be the impetus that these people need to repent.  Let us pray that they do repent soon before they're marginalized for all eternity.
• "Conscience is inviolable"?  No - not if it moves in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ.  Everyone of us - adulterers and sodomites included - have the solemn duty to form and inform our conscience in conformity with the Church.

Church Militant TV has added commentary.  I'll be candid.  Unless he's a complete dunderhead, the pope knew precisely what Cupich's pet causes were before he appointed Cupich to the see of Chicago and invited him to participate in the sin-nod.  He didn't seek out Cupich despite his leanings; he sought Cupic because of his leanings.

They are trying to use the sin-nod to "mainstream" the gay lifestyle into acceptable Church practices, and allowing sodomites to come to Holy Communion would be a major step for them.  Unfortunately it would also be a major step towards hell, for receiving Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin is its own mortal sin.  Austin Ruse wrote a piece on the way that high Vatican official maltreated Kim Davis.  They seem to harbor malevolence towards anyone who stands in the way of these goals or who exposes their malfeasances by virtue of their own proper conduct - thus their utter contempt for Kim Davis, a courageous lady who puts these Vatican officials to shame.

This sin-nod is, at best, an abysmal joke.  Please consider signing this petition.

Time To End The SinNod Charade

At the sin-nod, some faithful prelates have been speaking forthrightly about the satanic manipulation of the sin-nod that seems to be the aim of Vatican authorities, including the pope.  Archbishop Tomash Peta of Astana likened the language of the Instrumentum Laboris to "the smoke of Satan".  He spoke particularly of attempts to liberalize Holy Communion for those in adultery and to normalize sodomite acts.  Cardinal Robert Sarah of Guinea also expressed concern at the obvious manipulation of the sin-nod.

LifeSiteNews interviewed Cardinal Burke recently.  Recall that he attended last year's sin-nod.  On account of the marginalization that he suffered at the hands of the pope, he is not part of this on-going sin-nod.  In that interview, Burke addressed the sin-nod proposal that local bishops decide for their own diocese whether or not they will allow sodomites and/or adulterers to receive Holy Communion.  He if that were to happen the Church would compromise her character of being universal.

While I applaud these prelates (and others speaking out), I fear their words fall on deaf, indifferent and even hostile ears within the Vatican.  They can speak all they want, but the sin-nod honchos are going to have their way, I suspect.  Many of us believe that if the good bishops cannot improve things at the sin-nod, it may well behoove them to walk out of the sin-nod rather than dignify the charade with their presence.  A walk-out would send the message that they will not allow "pastoral" slop to be issued in their name.  A group called Canon 212 Society has put together a petition asking the faithful prelates to consider a walkout should the sin-nod honchos prove to be absolutely incorrigible.   I have signed it and urge you to sign it as well, at this link.  After you sign, please share it far and wide.

SinNod - Red Flags Raised But Ignored By Puppet-Masters

News broke today of a letter crafted and signed by thirteen Cardinals expressing concern at the heavy-handed tactics being displayed by the SinNod honchos (Baldiserri and Rosica, for example).  Sandro Magister received it and released it.  Rorate Caeli has the full text; please read it.  Notice this line: "A number of fathers feel the new process seems designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions".  Two days ago I pointed out that there is an obvious push to achieve a specific agenda.  While some readers might dismiss my statement is "conspiracy theory" nonsense, what might they think now, with prelates voicing the same concerns?

Voice of the Family reports that some of the signers of the letter denied signing the letter and/or the accuracy of the letter as published.  But others are stating that the concerns voiced in the letter are valid.  At any rate, Cardinal Pell hand-delivered it to the Pope and it was promptly ignored.  However, the statement stands in the open and serves as witness that there is strife at the SinNod.  Given the position of Kasper and his ilk, we should hope that there is indeed strife and that their agenda won't be adopted without valiant opposition.

Speaking of opposition, it does seem that Baldiserri et al are looking to quash it as they would an insect.  LifeSiteNews informs us that the press credentials of Father Nicholas Gregoris were revoked (after him having served 15 years as a correspondent) because after he dared to challenge a bishop who said that the question of Holy Communion for adulterers was still open.

In general, there's lots happening at the SinNod, much of it nefarious.  One Peter Five has a handy synopsis that you might find helpful.  He calls it "highlights"; it could just as well be called "lowlights".  Also, we know who the moderators and reporters are for the circuli minori (small groups) of the SinNod.  In one of them this morning, the question was raised about masonic influence in the SinNod.  I think that question to be quite astute.

The Rigging Of A Synod

At the sin-nod last year, we were treated to a circus of subterfuge and insinuation of heresy under the guise of "being pastoral".  Recall how Cardinal Pell pounded his fist on a table and demanded of the sin-nod father that they "stop manipulating this synod".  Even at that, the "fathers" still slipped in gay-friendly statements that were explicitly voted out by those in attendance.

Since then, we've seen:

• Episode after episode of the gay agenda being coddled at Catholic events - including this most recent papal visit to the United States
• Petitions begging the Pope to uphold Catholic teaching regarding marriage and family - as though a Vicar of Christ should require such petitions to fulfill his God-given mission
• The German Catholic Conference uttering statements that sound like they're ready to go schismatic should the gay agenda not be openly embraced by the Church
• Various meetings and "secret synods" quietly conducted in order to plot the mechanics of insinuating the gay agenda into Catholic practice, if not teaching

In light of these facts and the revelations found in Edward Pentin's book on the rigging of the extraordinary synod, why should we doubt the revelations that Rorate Caeli made public today?  Apparently there will be a secret "parallel synod", comprised mainly of Jesuits.  The article is coy about the "Argentine" but since I'm not one to play games, let's say out loud that this "Argentine" is none other than Pope Francis.  It is that cabal that will be producing documents to further the gay agenda and so-called "annulment reform".  This so-called "Ordinary Synod" will only be a front - puppets, if you will - for this other group.

Edward Pentin revealed that tomorrow "procedural changes" to the conduct of the synod will be announced.  These changes will most likely facilitate the doings of this "secret synod" and stymie any efforts that Cardinal Pell, the African contingent and other faithful prelates might make to prevent heresy from oozing forth from this upcoming "sin-nod".

Right now it looks like all we can do is pray and continue to shine the light on the skulduggery that appears to be underfoot at the Vatican now. 

Papal Visit - Ominous Harbinger Of Things To Come

Several hours ago, the pope returned to the Vatican from the United States.  We all got a glimpse into what we may expect from this pontificate - and it ain't pretty!  We heard some snippets of exhortation to respect innocent life, but they were minuscule in comparison with the shillings for the allowance of illegal immigration, climate change, death penalty, arms trade, etc: all the talking points that had progressives (Obama included) waxing giddy with joy.  Jim Sedlak of American Life League penned his opinion of some of the pope's addresses, with which I concur.

Ladies and gentlemen, at best the papal visit was an abysmal disappointment.  More troubling is that progressives of many stripes were allowed to use the visit as bully pulpits to promote their anti-God agendas: from the gay-rights theatrics in New York and Philadelphia to the staged anchor-baby stunt during the DC parade.  Michael Hichborn of Lepanto Institute put up some commentary on the debacles of last week, noting that these things did not occur in vacuums.  Indeed, they could only have occurred with the connivance of the prelates of the respective venues in which they occurred.

In the first paragraph, I touched upon the various issues upon which the pope dwelt.  Nowhere did he deal with abortion and same-sex #mowwidge with the same treatment as he did the others.  In fact, I don't think he even mentioned them by name.  Speaking of name, one name that was curiously absent from his lips was that of Jesus Christ (with the obvious exception of his Mass celebrations).

When I pointed this out to some other faithful Catholics, they contorted themselves into pretzels trying to justify this glaring negligence.  They said things like:

• "he's being gentle"
• "he didn't come here to argue"
• "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar"
• "he refrained out of deference to the Jews and Muslims"
• "it's not the time nor the place"

Mind you, all these came from faithful Catholics!

Ladies and gentlemen, since when is it considered argumentative to acknowledge - by name - Jesus Christ, the God Whom we serve and adore?  As far as not being the time nor place, we are exhorted to preach the gospel "in season and out of season".  All the excuses above have a common theme - being "nice".  As we all know, "nice" is not a virtue.  Have you noticed that the enemies of the faith are most astute and diligent in seizing every opportunity to promulgate their falsehoods?  By and large, the mainstream culture applauds them, and we stand still for it in pseudo-respectful silence.  When we dare lift our voices, that same culture shouts us down and too often we comply with their demands for our silence, for we "want to catch flies with honey and not vinegar".  In other words, they define the terms and language of social conversation and debate and we acquiesce to it.  Ladies and gentlemen, that is not legitimate kindness or deference.  It is cowardice, rooted in an inordinate desire to be liked.

Speaking of being liked, Jesus had some things to say about that.  From Luke 6:26 we read "Woe to you when men shall bless you: for according to these things did their fathers to the false prophets."  Pope Francis was treated like a rock star in the mainstream culture whereas Jesus Christ was crucified.  Think about it.  More importantly, pray.  If this past week is any harbinger of things to come, the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family could be disastrous.

During Pope's Visit, The Gay Agenda Is Shilled Ad Nauseum

At the papal Mass in Madison Square Garden yesterday, the individual chosen to be lector was Mo Rocca, a notorious gay media personality.  Vox Cantoris has pictures of this individual: both in his "native" element and at the Mass where he did manage to come properly dressed.  As he is a media personality Rocca's mortal sin could not have been unknown to the Mass organizers.  And who was the individual with final responsibility for the Mass?  The local bishop - Cardinal Timothy Dolan.

I've chronicled much about Dolan's many insults to the teachings of Jesus Christ, including those regarding sexuality.  Let me list a few, with links for review.

• He claimed to hope for "delicacy" while ignoring the attacks on faithful Christians.
• He was Grand Marshall in the most recent St Patrick's parade, even though they allowed a gay-rights group to march with them.  When Michael Voris questioned him about it at the parade, Dolan had Voris ejected from his presence.
• He allowed St Francis of Assisi parish to host a "pre-pride mass" before the gay orgy in the streets last summer.
• He earned the nickname "Cardinal Bravo" for that was his reaction when a college football start came out as gay.
• He refuses to confront NY Governor Andrew Cuomo, supposedly a Catholic, over his many public sins: support of abortion, support of the gay lifestyle and his public fornication with the First Concubine of New York.
• Several years ago, when Dolan was the main celebrant at St. Francis Xavier and the "gay ministry" was presented to him, he openly evinced approval of their gay-shilling activities.
• Of course he joined in the deafening silence of the nation's bishops regarding Kim Davis' plight last month.

Given this rather long list above, I believe it safe to assume that Dolan knew full well of Rocca's mortally sinful lifestyle well in advance of yesterday's Mass and approved his appearance anyway.

With the above in mind, consider some of the individuals who were placed in positions of authority at the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia, where the pope also put in an appearance.  Thanks to the work of the Lepanto Institute, we had learned that the president of World Meeting of Families has been a regular donor to pro-abortion political candidates.  Now we have learned, again thanks to Lepanto, that Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter was named Honorary Co-Chair of the World Meeting of Families.  In his political career, he has promoted abortion and "LGBT rights".  Lepanto attempted several time to contact the Archdiocese of Philadelphia but they never responded.  It is reasonable to believe that all this was done with the approval of Archbishop Chaput.   Nutter announced that he intended to use this new bully-pulpit to promote the gay agenda and even to bring it to the pope if given the opportunity.  On Saturday, when he spoke before the pope at Independence Hall, Nutter did precisely that.

I'd venture a guess that Pope Francis had no knowledge of either of these atrocities.  The responsibility for these lays with both Cardinal Dolan and Archbishop Chaput.  Given that the pope is headed for the Ordinary Synod on the Family next week, I might opine that these two episodes are more of the #maturation effort.  After all there's only one more week for that.

Progressive Manipulation At The Sin-Nod And An Update From The Maturation Department

Remember the incident during last October's sin-nod, when Cardinal Pell rebuked sin-nod leaders?  Pounding the table with his hand, he demanded "you must stop manipulating this synod!"  He said this after it was announced that the proceeds from the small group discussions would not be shared with the synod at large.  After Pell and some others called out the skulduggery for what it was, the leaders and "editorial committee" relented and publicized those reports.  In a subsequent interview with LifeSiteNews, Cardinal Pell made mention of a "radical cadre" working for a very progressive outcome to the sin-nod.

It seems that Cardinal Pell's theory regarding the existence of this cabal has very solid basis.  A few months prior to the sin-nod, Cardinal Baldiserri, aka "Book-Thief Baldi", told Father Rosica that the Church needs to "update" and "be incarnate into time".  He also stated that if the sin-nod reiterated the Church's teachings, the sin-nod would be "meaningless".  I've no doubt he was thinking mainly of the Church's teachings on marriage, family, sexuality.  He might as well have thrown into the mix the Church's teachings on the Seventh Commandment.

Edward Pentin is a journalist associated with the National Catholic Register.  He covered the sin-nod and exposed much of the shenanigans there.  He did such a good job that Cardinal Kasper attempted to ruin his career; Kasper wound up with major egg on his face for that.  Two weeks ago he interviewed with Raymond Arroyo of EWTN and publicized his book, "The Rigging Of A Vatican Synod".  In that book he lays out a good deal of evidence that points to manipulation of the last sin-nod and possible attempts to do the same at the one occurring next month.  Now because this book is an e-book, it would seem safe from the clutches of "Book-Thief Baldi" - we hope!

UPDATE - We now provide an update from the Maturation Department.  The German bishops published today an apologia for same-sex #mowwidge.  Here is the news from LifeSiteNews.  With just a few weeks until the next sin-nod, these progressives are putting their "maturation" efforts into overdrive!

Here is the interview.