Debate Over. Amoris Laetitia Is Heresy

Below what I now write is a video from the Remnant's Michael Matt, commenting on the Profession Of The Immutable Truths About Sacramental Marriage.  When I first posted about this on January 2, only the three bishops from Kazakhstan, the authors, had signed it.  Now the number of signers is seven, including one cardinal.

Matt points out that this statement is not one asking for "clarification", as was the dubia.  Rather, this statement directly contradicts and rebukes the errors of Amoris Laetitia.  Some ambiguity remains, though.  Pope Francis is not merely erroneous in how he interpreted Amoris Laetitia, but the pope's more egregious error lies in how he wrote Amoris Laetitia.  His interpretation is not erroneous; it's the document itself that is inherently heretical.

The dubia have been answered.  They may not have been answered according to protocol, but let's be real.  If the pope holds God's immutable truths in disdain (and he does!), why on earth would we think that he'd give a rat's ass about the protocols of the dubia?  We have the answers; we have the clarity.  It's just not a clear answer that we might wish, but it is what it is.  The progressives who wrote Amoris Laetitia (that includes the pope!) will not stop with Communion for unrepentant adulterers.  They seek to undermine Humanae Vitae and other cornerstones of Catholic moral teaching.

So what are we faithful Catholics going to do about it?  As Matt says, we must resist.  No one gets to sit quietly on the sidelines.  We are all members of the Church Militant and we must pray and act like it.

Must The Four Cardinals Formally Correct The Pope?

Earlier this week we learned of the attempt of the four cardinals to seek clarification from Pope Francis regarding the heretical statements in Amoris Laetitia.  The questions were formatted in such a way that they must be answered in the positive or negative - no "in-between".  In September they had posed their questions to the pope privately but received no reply.

Yesterday the National Catholic Register published an interview between Edward Pentin and Cardinal Burke regarding these questions.  Towards the end, Pentin asked His Eminence about any "next steps", should these publicized questions not be answered.  The cardinal spoke of "taking a formal action of correction of a serious error".

That more or less leaves the proberbial ball in the pope's court.  Whether or not such a formal action would be deemed necessary is largely up to him.  Unfortunately, he has given us an indication of his inclinations.  Recall that several months ago, Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia issued guidelines that plainly stated that divored/remarried Catholics may not receive Holy Communion unless they live as brother and sister.  He was directly contradicted by Cardinal-designate Kevin Farrell.  Farrell plainly stated that those de-facto adulterors could receive Holy Communion while continuing in their mortal sin.  Now recall that the pope picked Farrell to head the Dicastery for Laity, the Family and Life, as well as naming him a Cardinal.  With that in mind, it is reasonable to deduce that with regards to the heresies embodied in Amoralis Lamentia, that Farrell and the pope are of like mind.

Let us pray that the pope will ponder carefully the correction that the four Cardinals are trying to offer him.  But let us be prepared for what will likely follow in the wake of continued papal obduracy.

Raymond Arroyo And Robert Royal On The Amoralis Lamentia Allowance For Sacrilege

Dr. Mirus Tries To Defend The Indefensible

A few days ago Pope Francis made plain his intention to permit adulterers to seal their eternal damnation by committing sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist.  I wrote about that two days ago.  I don't know why Dr. Jeff Mirus tries to spin Pope Francis' mess in some sort of "positive" way, but he makes some logical gaffes in so doing.  He tries to set forth a hypothetical case of adultery being a venial sin only.  To wit: (begin quote)

"Very briefly, then, I would argue that the following is the most likely scenario in which the presumption that only venial sin is involved may be reasonably justified:

An invalidly married couple has had children together, who are still at home.

Either the man or the woman recognizes the sinfulness of the “marriage”, regrets having entered into it, and desires now to do what is right (which in this case would be for the parents to live as brother and sister while still caring for their children as mother and father in the same household).

The other party refuses to live as brother and sister.

The other party says he (or she) will leave the family if sexual relations are refused.

Hence the man or woman in question continues sexual relations, in effect under duress, to ensure that his or her children are not deprived of one parent.

Now, even if we argue that the morally correct course is to separate from the unrepentant spouse and trust in God, it is easy to see that—at the very least—this would be hard to discern and, even if discerned, there would be tremendous fear of depriving one’s children of a family setting which includes both their mother and their father."

(end quote)  I scarcely know where to begin, but here goes.

• Dr. John Lamont, in his own commentary published on Rorate Caeli, points out that the so-called "repentant" spouse is indeed acting voluntarily.  The difficulties of his/her choice do not compromise their free will.  The so-called "repentant" spouse isn't all that repentant.
• When evaluating the morality of a given act, the FIRST consideration must be to the nature of the act itself.  If the act is inherently immoral, all other considerations are moot.
• Those of us who are old enough remember from our catechism that ALL sins against the 6th commandment are mortal.  Temptations to the same are not mortal as they only become sin when consent is given.  If the so-called "innocent spouse" acquiesces to the meanie, he/she still gives consent.
• As an aside, one might wonder just what the "innocent spouse" would gain in such a scenario.  If the obdurate one threatens to leave the family if he/she is not gratified, what does that say about their own devotion to the children?  What kind of parent would he/she really be?  What kind of "family setting" is it when one spouse is essentially blackmailing the other spouse to commit mortal sin and damn their soul to hell?
• So far the conversation has been about those "rare, difficult" cases.  Well, remember the 1930 Lambeth Conference?  The Anglicans allowed for contraception only "for special cases".  We know how that turned out, don't we?  That's the plan here: allow sacrilege for those "hard" cases, and the camel's nose will be under the tent, never to be removed.

There are a number of folks who can't deal with the increasingly obvious fact that we have a pope who is not taking seriously his God-given charge to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.  In fact, many of his words and actions seem designed to undermine it.  Dr. Mirus seems to be of that mindset.  

By the way - I'd also urge you to read the commentary from Robert Royal.

Now a word about comments.  Most folks know that I entertain most comments, provided they are respectful and honor the Church.  I will not entertain comments from those who won't entertain comments on their own sites, or who charge fees for the "privilege" of commenting.

The Pope IS Trying To Allow Unrepentant Adulterers To Receive Holy Communion

LifeSiteNews (and others) published letters from the pope in which he stated quite plainly that there was no other way to interpret Amoris Laetitia but to admit that it does call for adulterers to be admitted to Holy Communion.  See the two LifeSite posts here and here,   Vox Cantoris links to the Vatican sites.  I have written on AL, and have explained why I redubbed it "Amoralis Lamentia".

Here we see that the pope is attempting to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion without requiring that they repent and live as brother and sister, e.g. without requiring that they cease their adultery.  In doing so, he thumbs his nose at the teachings of Our Lord Himself for the sake of deadly sentimentality.  Deadly?  Yes, for he would affirm the adulterous couple as they continue in their mortal sins AND as they compound those sins with the sin of sacrilege - that of receiving Holy Communion unworthily.

One key charge of the Vicar of Christ is to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.  Right now this present pontiff seems intent on mutilating the Deposit to shreds beyond recognition.  Please take off the rose-colored glasses, pray and speak out.

Confusion Of Amoralis Lamentia Strikes In Surprising Venues

Preface: "Amoralis Lamentia" is the nickname that I have given to Amoris Laetitia.  I believe that more aptly describes the nature of this exhortation.

Consider the following excerpt from a commentary on AL that was just published.  This excerpt has to do with Holy Communion being given to those in adulterous situations:

Because of the format in which it was published, I'm unable to copy/paste it.  If it is too small to read, here is the link and you'll want to look in the right-hand column.

No - your eyes are not deceiving you!  The source of this really is the Marians of the Immaculate Conception!  I've found them to be a devout order, dedicated as they are to spreading the Divine Mercy message, particularly through the Chaplet of Divine Mercy as given to St Faustina.  I might have expected such sloppiness from America or the National Catholic Reporter, but not at all from the Marians.  This is indeed sad.

Under the "For example" heading we see the author of this article clearly engaging in "situation ethics".  Look at the example.  The author doesn't even ascribe ignorance of the Church's teaching to his hypothetical woman.  He talks of the tough issues about which the Pope and bishops have been agonizing recently.  That last word is key, for I clearly suspect that such situations have existed for hundreds of years.  Why "recently" is there so much "agonizing" that hasn't been seen for the rest of Church history?

It's really quite simple.  (Note: I said "simple", not "easy".  The two words are not synonyms.)  If this hypothetical woman were to attempt to receive Holy Communion while still living in an adulterous situation, she would incur the guilt of making a sacrilegious Holy Communion.  Any priest and/or bishop who advises her that such is permissible is in fact lying to her and goading her into actions that can imperil her eternal salvation.  No amount of "agonizing" will change that eternal reality.

Two prominent clerics have publicly and rightly decried this attempt to introduce this spiritual poison that is found in Amoralis Lamentia.  Bishop Athanasius Schneider has directly said that parts of AL are "objectively erroneous".  He said quite a few other things about AL as well.

We also should recall what Cardinal Burke said four months ago.  He flat out said that if the Pope should move in the direction of giving Holy Communion to de facto adulterers, that "I will resist".  Not only he, but we faithful Catholics must resist as well.

In other Marian-related news, yesterday the Pope canonized the founder of that order, Blessed Stanislaus Papczynski.

The New Possibilities That Point Toward Hell

Once again we hear the pope making wild claims while engaged in an in-flight interview.  In the past I viewed these interviews as just another source of scandal.  In retrospect I can see I was incorrect.  The scandals aren't coming because of the plane interview settings, but because of what the pope has on his mind.

At any rate this latest revelation occurred on a flight from Greece.  Maybe "revelation" is not an accurate term.  Perhaps it is simply confirmations of suspicions that faithful Catholics have had after the two synods and the release of Amoris Laetitia.  Due to other commitments, I've been a little slow to report on these matters but fortunately my blogging colleagues at One Peter Five and Les Femmes have put up excellent analyses of that mess.  They both link to Cardinal Schonborn's statement, the one that the pope seems to think is more authoritative than 2000 years of Church teaching.

The pope was asked about "new possibilities for the divorced and remarried".  If by "new possibilities" he speaks of these adulterers (for if the first marriage isn't annulled they are living in adultery) being admitted to Holy Communion while still engaged in ongoing mortal sin, he is confirming their path to hell.  That is not so much a "new possibility" but a highly probable eternal destiny if they continue on that till death.

Two more things:

1. Those who are in denial of the situation, hiding behind the "the pope can't change doctrine" canard now have no morally acceptable choice but to wake up to the peril in which these "non-binding" statements place so many souls.
2. I'm seeing some nonsensical suggestions to Catholics that they need not read Amoris Laetitia for themselves because they're just "ordinary Catholics".  Such suggestions are patently irresponsible.  I believe the late Father John Hardon when he said "only heroic Catholics will attain heaven in this day and age."  We might as well start by grappling with the heresies in Amoris Laetitia.

Holy Communion - The Divorced Who Ask Will Be Admitted

Remember Eugenio Scalfari, the Italian atheistic journalist who interviewed the pope several times but allegedly never bothered to record the proceedings of the interview?  Supposedly he simply wrote from his memory.  He reported some whoppers by the pope and immediately sent the Vatican press office into a tizzy; at least we're supposed to believe the tizzy was authentic.  I actually think it was quite an act: the pope can let a little heresy out with the help of his friend, and when the resultant flack starts to fly, they can claim it was all just some sort of mistake.  It's a neat way to insinuate heresies into people's minds while taking no responsibility for it, isn't it?  Recall these incidents from last year.  You'd think that if Scalfari really was misrepresenting the pope, that the pope would avoid him.  In this latest interview from a few days ago, the pope and his press office may have tipped their hands.

Rorate obtained a translation of La Repubblica.  It contained another "telephone interview" in which the pope said of divorced folks and Holy Communion with regards to the sin-nod outcome, "all the divorced who ask will be admitted".  One question that popped immediately into my mind is, "if it's just divorced folks and not remarried, what's the problem?"  Immediately following that another thought, a reply to my question, came; "if they're just divorced and not remarried, they wouldn't need to ask".

One Peter Five has a great analysis of this strategy of using Scalfari to insinuate heresies into unsuspecting minds.  Well, maybe he isn't using Scalfari per se, but rather working in concert with Salfari.  There's too much of a pattern now for us not to notice.  I truly hope that the "it's not the pope's fault, he's just controlled by the Vatican meanies crowd" will finally acknowledge what is as plain as the noses on their faces.

May God help us all.

Update - Rorate Caeli has published a reply to the sin-nod's back-door attempt to admit de facto adulterers to Holy Communion, written by Bishop Athanasius Schneider.  The length and depth of this reply causes me to believe that he did not have in mind this Scalfari interview (probably knew nothing of it at the time of his writing).  Please read it on Rorate's site.

Sin-Nod Emboldens Dissenters In Archdiocese Of Washington

When I use the word "dissenter" I mean those who willfully deviate from the Traditions of the Catholic Church as handed down through the centuries.  Two striking examples were made disgustingly evident today.

The first came from Cardinal Wuerl, in the publication of two interviews he gave after the sin-nod ended.  One was given to America magazine (and expounded upon by Vox Cantoris), the other was published by Religion News Service.  I am not going into a comprehensive analysis of these interviews, else we'd be here for hours.  It's clear that he is feeling emboldened by this pontificate to flaunt his liberalism with aplomb and impunity.  Vox Cantoris does an excellent job with the America interview.  I will touch on a few points.

In the America article, he says (among other things), "no longer is the framework of the Church’s pastoral response the code of canon law."  Dr. Edward Peters, a canon lawyer, refuted the Cardinal's erroneous premise that canon law was ever the framework of the Church's pastoral stances.  He also points out how canon law is founded upon revelation, including the Gospels.  We can see that the cardinal is trying to paint a picture in which the Church simply had things wrong during all those previous centuries, but now, under this pontificate, a new day has dawned!  Halleluiah!  I'm sure the Cardinal is rejoicing at that silly thought, for canon law ceased to be any sort of reference for him some time ago.  Recall how he maltreated Father Guarnizo three years ago when the latter upheld Canon 915 in an archdiocesan parish (happens to be mine).

In the Religion News Service interview, we see the quote, “The frame of reference is now going to be: ‘What does the gospel really say here?’ That’s our first task.”  Really?   The gospels quote Jesus as saying "if you love me you will keep my commandments".  Jesus then commissioned the Church to teach His commandments to all.  The head-scratcher about Wuerl's comment is the word "now".  God's commands have always been the frame of reference for the Church.  Why the usage of this word "now"?  What meaning is that intended to convey?

Later on he says, "I’ve had priests say to me that the pope is really just affirming what most of us know in our hearts we are supposed to be doing anyway."  I'm sure that there are lots of archdiocesan priests who are also dissidents, who have off-kilter ideas of what they "are supposed to be doing".

That brings us to our second striking example.  I can easily imagine Father Peter Daly having such a chat with Cardinal Wuerl.  I've blogged on his progressivism in the past (see here and here).  He too gave an interview, this one to the Not-At-All Catholic Reporter.  He didn't touch on the sin-nod, but it is all too obvious that after the sin-nod, he is feeling his oats as he trumpets loudly his dissidence regarding homosexuality.  He praises the Obergefell ruling, as "making things better for our society".  He lauded the Maryland legislation legalizing same-sex #mowwidge, while most sensible Catholics strove to defeat it.

Get a load of this whopper of a quote.  "Same-sex marriage is a very conservative movement. Homosexual people who seek stable and committed relationships are implicitly declaring their opposition to promiscuous, violent, or exploitive sex. Like heterosexual couples they seek faithful relationships based on real love."  I scarcely know where to begin with this.  I think I have to start with the last sentence and work backwards, starting with the concept of "real love".  First and foremost, love must be founded on God's commands, and one of those commands forbids homosexual conduct.  Anything involving said activity is NOT love, pretenses notwithstanding.  For that reason, there is no way such a relationship can be considered stable, since there is no real foundation in God's order.  As far as it being "very conservative", I think many gays would take that remark as an insult.  Now consider he's a priest.  What kind of teaching about marriage did he receive in the seminary?

Now he admits his dissent and he arrogantly announces his intent to drag his parish into a spiritual and moral cesspool that may very well terminate in hell for some of his flock AND himself.  "As long as I am pastor here we will welcome and register everyone who shares our Catholic faith, including same-sex couples. After all, we register divorced and remarried people. We will educate their children in our religious education programs, and we welcome them as sponsors at baptism and confirmation. We open our ministries to them. We will allow them to teach religious education so long as they are respectful of the church teaching. (That we require of everyone.) We will encourage them to participate fully in the life of the church, including the Eucharist. We will treat everyone with respect and dignity. We will allow them the right of their own conscience."  If the parish is going to educate the children of these same-sex couples, just what do they intend to teach them about marriage and God's commands?  Will they teach the truth or some hell-oriented lie?  As far as being sponsors at baptism and confirmation, that is not an honorary role but one in which said sponsor must live out God's commands, including those pertaining to sexuality.  I could go on and on about all the errors in this paragraph, errors that are simply inexcusable for someone who calls himself "priest".

Lastly he announces his intent to allow the sin of sacrilege to be committed against Our Lord Himself in the Blessed Sacrament.  For all the lip-service he bestows on "respect and dignity", why doesn't Daly direct a little of that to Jesus, whose priest he's supposed to be?

He is long-time pastor of St John Vianney parish in Prince Frederick MD.  His article makes evident that while he retains his post, those parishioners will find their immortal souls in grave danger of damnation - unless they learn and embrace the Faith despite his machinations.  Yet Cardinal Wuerl allows Daly to carry on because they are of the same mind.  Did I say "allow"?  Not only that, the Cardinal probably applauds this heretic priest.   Consider this; under Cardinal Wuerl this heretic is allowed to retain his pastorate while Father Guarnizo is expelled precisely because he was a faithful and orthodox priest.

Ladies and gentlemen, the sin-nod ended less than two weeks ago and already the spiritual poison is spewing forth.  Of course I do live in a diocese in which one of the sin-nod's chief rainmakers holds sway so we can expect some severely noxious bilge to make its presence known here.  It will have impact everywhere.  Please pray and frequent the sacraments.

Kasperites Refuted By St Thomas Aquinas

Michael Hichborn of Lepanto Institute put up a piece that refuted some serious errors that were embraced by Elizabeth Scalia.  Some might recognize her as the Patheos blogger "Anchoress".  Recently she assumed the position of editor of Aleteia.  In her piece she argues for Holy Communion for adulterers and sodomites.  I recommend you read both.  A note regarding Patheos; that network pays its site owners based upon the number of clicks that their sites receive.  Since Scalia's piece is found on the Aleteia site I don't think she'll be compensated for the viewing of her errors; else I could not have linked to it in good conscience.

Please read Hichborn's piece closely; it is excellent and there is one key reason why that's so.  Hichborn addresses the arguments that Scalia proposes and demonstrates how they've been refuted centuries ago by St. Thomas Aquinas.  As such, the words of the Angelic Doctor are most applicable to the canards being raised now at the sin-nod and by many other such proponents.  Cardinal Wuerl may wish to study them and to revisit his attitudes towards Canon 915 and the injustice that he perpetrated three years ago against Father Marcel Guarnizo.  Those of us who remember the ever-relevant Baltimore Catechism will appreciate this diagram that sums up some salient points.

In yesterday's post I linked to a LifeSiteNews interview with Cardinal Arinze.  His Eminence expounded on the obligation that each one of us has to properly form and inform our consciences in conformity with Catholic teaching.  Voice of the Family today released a piece that delves into that matter and how that relates to the need to receive Holy Communion in a worthy state.

LifeSiteNews interviewed Bishop Athanasius Schneider last week.  He stated quite plainly that those Kasperites who yap and yammer about admitting mortal sinners to Holy Communion are "following the spirit and language of Satan".  The good bishop is not afraid to call out his errant brothers by name.  God bless him and the other faithful prelates.  Pray for them because you can bet the progressives in the Vatican and elsewhere have the long knives aimed at them.

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?

Sin-Nod Slop Oozed Into My Parish Mass This Morning Via Two Zingers

I'll deal with the more insidious zinger first.  As the name of this blog suggests, I am located in the Archdiocese of Washington and the archbishop is Cardinal Donald Wuerl.  As this Church Militant article (and so many of my own posts) states, he is decidedly on the progressive side.  The video makes mention of a priest being disciplined for upholding Canon 915 back in 2012.  Regular readers of this blog will immediately realize that the priest is Father Marcel Guarnizo and it was at my parish where Father Guarnizo attempted to prevent sacrilege.  For some refresher on that situation and the heinous treatment meted out to Father Guarnizo under the direction of Cardinal Wuerl, please click on the archives to the right and read the posts from late Feb 2012 through March 2012.

Presently Cardinal Wuerl is in Rome as one of the synod fathers.  No one doubts that he is lending his hand to the Kasper-Marx-Cupich crowd.  Recall the blasphemies suggested by both Marx and Cupich.  Both prelates are openly calling for the Church to dissent from the teachings of Christ Himself with regards to adultery, sodomy and contraception, and to allow those engaging in these mortally sinful acts to receive Holy Communion.  Hold that thought as I relate what happened a few hours ago at Mass.

One of the prayers during the "Prayers of the Faithful" was for families.  I don't have the text verbatum but still the words were clear: "For families during this time of the synod as they are under attack from addiction, immigration, deportation and poverty".  Leaving aside (for the moment) the open embrace of left-wing positions on lesser issues, do you notice what's missing from that list of malevolent forces that attack our families?  Yes - those sins against family and life that are always intrinsically evil.  I'll list them below:

• Abortion.  That should be included in that list, as abortion is literally an attack on a most helpless babies by members of his/her own family.
• Homosexual conduct.  Those engaged in such sins make a mockery of families.  Two of the same gender who "play house" together are NOT families, wicked and inane civil laws notwithstanding.  We pity and pray for the children embroiled in these situations as they are denied the mother and the father that they need and deserve.
• Contraception.  Usage of these substances distorts the meaning of true marital love and is the most reliable predictor of divorce.

Yet these evils were not included in the list of forces that tear families apart.  Thinking back on the sin-nod, it's not difficult to realize why they were deliberately omitted from that list.  These are the very behaviors that Marx et al want to legitimatize by use of the sin-nod, and he most likely has an ally in Cardinal Wuerl.  Looking at the matter from the progressive viewpoint, how could Wuerl's chancery mandate or even allow them to be included when the progressives at the sin-nod are trying to "mainstream" them into Church life?

I realize that this omission during the prayer may seem like a minor little thing, but it is precisely by these "minor little things" that they hope to change the mindsets of Catholics in the pew.  That's how these little "zingers" work; the less noticed they are, the more effective they are.  This questionable prayer is NOT the only "zinger" that happened in today's 9:30 AM Mass at St John Neumann in Gaithersburg MD.  Let's look at "zinger #2".

Cardinal Marx Outright Shills For Holy Communion For Adulterers And Sodomites

Such was the gist of his "intervention" this past Wednesday. To complete the heretical slop, he also stated that contraception within marriage should be liberalized "to make more room for conscience".  In other words, the clear teachings of Jesus Christ are to be subordinated to the demands of warped consciences.  I saw this news on Church Militant's site and left the following comment.  It is self-explanatory, but knowing CM's reluctance to criticize the doings and sayings of Pope Francis, here's hoping that the comment remains and that they start acknowledging the proverbial "elephant in the living room".   The comment is "If Marx is allowed to remain in his various Church-related roles after this proposal of immorality and heresy, we need to acknowledge that Pope Francis approves of Marx's antics and perhaps even is applauding them.  Let us cease this fear of stating these simple truths, shall we?"

Meanwhile, the bishops from Poland and Africa are having nothing to do with Marx's antics.  Toronto Catholic Witness relates that Archbishop Gadecki refutes the idea of "being pastoral" and he has spoken in the name of all the Polish bishops.  Michael Hichborn of Lepanto Institute asks why such matters of settled doctrine are even being discussed and then answers the question; they are being discussed because Marx et al want to unsettle these doctrines.

We've had de facto schism for some time now.  This sin-nod may well formalize that reality.

From The Piled High And Deep Department - Synod Instrumentum Laboris Is Out

Still reeling from the stench of Laudato Si, we are now confronted with the working document that will guide the Ordinary Synod on the Family next October.  All reports so far confirm that the "Kasper proposal" regarding Holy Communion for those in adultery remains in place.  According to Catholic News Agency, some synod fathers "have asked that each individual case be examined, and that couples in special circumstances be allowed to receive the Eucharist after completing a journey of penance and reconciliation guided by the local bishop."

Shall we unpack this glop?  Firstly if one talks about "penance and reconciliation", there must be a cessation of the sinful situation; that is, the adulterers must separate.  Else there is no real penance and/or reconciliation: just a cheap, sentimental facade that will garner no one any real spiritual benefit.  In fact, those engaged in the fake "penance" while continuing in adultery will merely have their consciences numbed as they continue spiraling to eternal damnation.

From News.va we read, "the general secretary of the Synod of Bishops noted that it makes reference to the family and ecclesial accompaniment, the streamlining of procedures for causes for annulment, the integration of faithful in irregular situations, the eventual introduction of a penitential route, the pastoral problems regarding mixed marriages and disparities of worship, as well as questions related to responsible procreation, reduction of births, adoption and fostering, respect for life from conception to natural end, and education of future generations."  The general secretary of the synod is Cardinal Baldisseri.  But consider these phrases: responsible procreation?  Reduction of births?  What is that about?  Do we hear echoes of Laudato Si here?  Do we see the tentacles of the Sachs-Schnellnhuber squid insinuating themselves into this upcoming sin-nod?

When the English is online I'll post it.  As it stands now, we already have harbingers of a mess to come this October.

More Details On What Is Being Called The Shadow Council

I wrote yesterday of the Shadow Council that happened in the Vatican a few days ago.  Edward Pentin wrote a follow-up piece that listed some of the key invitees to that meeting.  He pointed out that there was not a variety of perspectives represented at the meeing.

One Peter Five linked to a translation of an Italian news source that gave some details of the discussion proceeds.  I link to it here but must warn you that some of the ideas expressed at that meeting appeared to border on pornographic.  If the transcripts of the meeting are indeed made public, we may have to rate them "x" or "r" as we do some movies.

Pope Paul VI is said to have lamented the "smoke of satan entering in the Church."  It seems that a large component of that smoke may be carbon monoxide.  Pray.

Truth Versus Heresy, Cardinal Versus Cardinal

I've written before about Cardinal Maradiaga and the harm he is wreaking on the Church.  Like a pesky weed he continues to undermine the Church from his position of influence as head of the group of top advisers to Pope Francis.  I can only surmise that Pope Francis approves of his dissidence; else he would have removed him just as he banished the good Cardinal Burke from the Vatican, but I digress.

Father Z relates that when Maradiaga was asked about Holy Communion for those in de facto adultery, he said, "Impossible?  No!"  He also blathered about an "ongoing synodal process" to bring about the abomination.  I'll look this up in Rules for Radicals, but I'm sure it's a tactic favored by Alinsky.  To paraphrase it in a poem, "Disobey!  Have your way!  Then one day they'll say ok!"

Cardinal Walter Brandmuller voiced quite an opposite statement, one that is faithful to the Teachings of Jesus Christ.  When he was asked about Holy Communion for those divorced and remarried, he said that would be possible only if they resolved to live as brother and sister.  He said this for sake of those with children who would be damaged by separation.  It is in this interview that Brandmuller took issue with the heresies of Cardinal Marx, stating that his statements "are in contradiction of the dogma of the Church".  It is worth noting that Cardinal Brandmuller takes direct exception to the notion that "pastoral practice" can stand in contradiction to Church dogma, as Cardinal Wuerl opined last October.

Let us pray for more leaders such as Cardinals Brandmuller, Muller, Burke, Pell, etc and that others like Cardinals Marx, Wuerl and Maradiaga repent and start acting like the Princes of the Church that they are.

Cardinal Burke: "I Shall Resist"

That was the reply that Cardinal Burke gave during an interview with a French television show.  The interview was, or will be aired sometime today.

The question was "If perchance the pope will persist in this direction (that is, allowing Holy Communion to be given to those in de facto adultery), what will you do?"

The excerpt from that interview is here.   My fellow blogger, Eye Witness, has more commentary plus a video of that interview.  The interview is conducted in Italian with French subtitles.  I recall enough French to be able to understand just what is being said here.

He immediately followed with, "I can do nothing else."  Ladies and gentlemen, if the pope does proceed in that direction (and if so, it will be via praxis as the pope cannot solemnly proclaim error), we laity must also adopt that stance.  What would that entail on a practical level?  Well, we hope we won't be put in a position where we must answer those questions.  If that happens, however, each and every one of us must be prepared to step out of our comfort zones, forfeit positions within our parish structures and suffer all manners of "white persecution".

In the meantime, let us continue to pray and to work for the purification of Holy Mother Church, along with our own souls.

Questionable Statements From A Cardinal-Designate

As most have heard by now, Pope Francis appointed several new cardinals, mostly from the southern hemisphere.  For the most part, I haven't heard too much about them and am now starting to gather some information.  It is disconcerting.

One cardinal-designate is Archbishop John Dew of Wellington, New Zealand.  Catholic Phlly reports on his wish for a "pastoral approach on the Eucharist".  These days, anytime I come across that word "pastoral", red flags fly in my brain and usually for good reason.  He seems to think that if Catholics who are now excluded on account of their adulterous situations were permitted to receive Holy Communion - without the necessary repentance and sacramental Confession - the Church would be "enriched".  How???  Does he mean "enriched" as in receiving financial contributions from them?  There certainly would be no "enrichment" for those mortally-sinning Catholics who would incur the guilt of sacrilegious Holy Communion.

I gather from the article that Dew was at last October's sin-nod, and he helped the event live up to (or down to, more accurately) the nickname with which I dubbed it.  He stated after hearing from 25% of Catholics responding to questionnaires  "'It’s impossible when we’re told that because we’re using contraceptives we’re intrinsically evil or that we’re living in an irregular situation — the language is so negative that it doesn’t help us.’  My intervention was: Let’s not be concentrating on rules, but looking for language that helps people and encourages people in their journey toward God.”

Let's unpack this piece by piece, shall we?

• First of all, no one is saying that these disobedient Catholics are "intrinsically evil" as persons.  HOWEVER - they are disobedient for they are committing intrinsic evils when they use contraception or live in adultery.  
• "The language is so negative that it doesn't help us".  Help them in what way?  To have nice warm-fuzzy feelings about their sinful conduct?  That kind of "help" only greases the skids as they slide rapidly towards eternal perdition.
• Let me state this now, for the umpteenth time.  We need to recognize this "positive versus negative" paradigm as the satanic lie from hell that it is.  Whether a statement is regarded as "positive or negative" has more to do with the subjective emotional reactions of the recipient of that statement to the same as opposed to objective truth or error of said statement.  The "positive versus negative" paradigm is, at best, useless in evaluating statements or courses of actions.  It often is a tool of the devil to inhibit the promulgation of objective truth.
• "Looking for language"?  Try the language of the Church and the great preachers of Catholicism that has been used for the better part of 2,000 years.  I refer the archbishop to the Gospel of Mark.  In it is recorded the first word that Our Lord uttered as He started His public ministry.  REPENT.  If repentance is not the first step, there is no more "journey towards God."

If anyone has information about the other soon-to-be cardinals, I'd appreciate hearing of it.  Until then, let's be faithful to the Sacraments, the Rosary and the authentic traditions of Holy Mother Church.

From The Maturation Department - Prior Eucharistic Disciplines Were "A Heavy Cross"

In his interview with La Nacion, the one in which he said he was blessed with a "healthy state of unawareness", he claimed that "I'm permanently making statements, giving homilies; that's teaching".  I concur with Pat Archibald at Creative Minority Report that he intends these words to be considered part of his personal magisterium.

With that in mind, I think we need to look seriously at the homily he gave today.  He stated that observances of law and discipline are signs of a "weak heart" (please note I corrected the spelling of "weak").  I'm appalled that as an example he used a prior discipline of a Eucharistic fast, going so far as to call it a "very heavy cross".  He credits Pope Pius XII for amending the discipline.  But..does that mean he thinks that the previous popes, from Pius XI on back, were just a bunch of Pharisaical meanies for instituting the fast in the first place?

After he complains about the inconvenience of the fast, he goes back into a tirade against "rigid" (or is that neo-pelagian?) folks.  He "confesses" that he asks the Lord to (I'm not making this up!) "throw a banana peal in front of them".  I see little repentance, to be frank, for wishing harm to people with whom he disagrees.  I fail to see how slipping on a banana peal is supposed to make people realize they're sinners; perhaps some good old-fashioned "rigid" proselytizing might do the trick.

But let's look at what's being slipped into the discussion and perhaps our thinking.  He's using as an example a discipline regarding the reception of Holy Communion.  Is he trying to instill questioning mindsets about other Eucharistic disciplines and even dogmas?  What happened six weeks ago?  The Sin-Nod!  What was put into the final relatio despite the vote of the attending bishops?  We see in the Italian translation of the preliminary questionnaire some discussion about distribution of Holy Communion to divorced/remarried Catholics who, by definition, are living in the mortal sin of adultery.

What happened today was no unintentional gaffe.  When he says he's "teaching" I believe him.  It's part of the brainwashing "maturation" process to lull us into accepting "pastoral solutions" to icky "rigid" doctrines.  That's why every word of his must be measured carefully.

Looks Like All Hell Will Break Loose At The Next Synod

About 2-3 weeks ago, I put up a post in which Cardinal Burke publicly asked the Holy Father not to allow long-settled matters such as the sinfulness of homosexuality and remarriage of divorced people to be fodder of pointless debates.  Debates about these matters are pointless for Our Lord has made known His mind about these quite unmistakably throughout the years.  Cardinal Burke also suggested that we all petition the Holy Father along these lines.  Sadly wise words have fallen on deaf ears.

Sandro Magister of www.chiesa.espressonline.net advised that the preliminary questionnaire for the October 2015 synod was released; for now it's only in Italian.  The questions within it give clear indication that those matters will indeed be on the table for the October synod.

In an interview given to La Nacion yesterday, the Holy Father expressed some unfortunate sentiments regarding Holy Communion for those living in adultery - sentiments that bode ill for the October synod.  I quote one below for commentary.  "In the case of divorcees who have remarried, we posed the question, what do we do with them? What door can we allow them to open? This was a pastoral concern: will we allow them to go to Communion? Communion alone is no solution.  The solution is integration. They have not been excommunicated, true. But they cannot be godfathers to any child being baptised, mass readings are not for divorcees, they cannot give Communion, they cannot teach Sunday school, there are about seven things that they cannot do, I have the list over there. Come on! If I disclose any of this it will seem that they have been excommunicated in fact. Thus, let us open the doors a bit more.”

"What doors can we allow them to open?"  Answer - the door to the confessional, with a proper desire to quit the sinful relationship as befits authentic repentance.  Divorcees who have remarried without a declaration of nullity of their first marriages are by definition living in a state of adultery.  That is mortal sin, a direct violation of the Sixth Commandment.  For their own good they are prohibited from Holy Communion and from all prominent places of service to the Church.

What I stated in the paragraph preceding this is nothing more than Church teaching for these past hundreds of years.  Once upon a time every child who attended Catholic school was well-versed in these matters.  So why, oh why, are the perennial teachings of Holy Mother Church allowed to be debated, doubted and questioned by the very prelates who are tasked by Our Lord with their protection and promulgation?

As I said, I believe all hell will break loose at the synod.  I don't mean "hell" in terms of strenuous argument but in terms of spiritually deadly heresies being insinuated into the proceedings by those from the highest offices of the Vatican.  If that's the case, we'd better pray that more like Cardinals Burke and Pell will raise their voices and, if necessary, pound their fists on tables in defense of the truth.