The Three Unhelpful Monkeys

There's a blog piece by Tom Peters being bandied about, apparently with the aim of stifling honest examination of some papal gaffes such as the most recent ones regarding Catholics being "like rabbits" and publicly scolding the poor expectant mother.  It is called "Feeling Devastated By What Pope Francis Says?  Try These 3 Helpful Keys".  This is not his first post written with the aim of keeping rose-colored glasses over people's eyes as they acknowledge the ever-burgeoning mess that is growing in front of them.  A little over a year ago, I commented on earlier "rose-colored-glasses" pieces that he wrote.  Rather than reinvent that wheel, I link to it here.

Let's look at this latest, shall we?  We'll start with what Peters calls "the three keys".

1. The pope will not change Church teaching.  We do have the Lord's promise that no pope will ever solemnly promulgate error.  But much damage can occur in other ways (a point often overlooked).  There can be the careless words about punching people and chiding expectant mothers who are experiencing difficult pregnancies.  There's the mistreatment of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate and the awful sin-nod of last October.  I could go on and on; you get the point.  A pope does not have to be a formal heretic to inflict much damage.  By virtue of his office, his carelessness and flippancy can cause much scandal to the point of the damnation of some souls.
2. (Speaking of oratorical styles of other popes) "If you expect Pope Francis to speak as the previous two popes, you will be devastated".  For most of us, that's not the case.  The role of the Vicar of Christ demands, though , speech that is crystal-clear, unambiguous, and without any trace of nuance.  We benefited from that not only from John Paul II and Benedict XVI, but from the great majority of pontiffs throughout Church history.  They all had their "styles", but most of them subordinated their personal speaking preferences for practices that led to clear communication with their flock. 
3. "When Francis speaks to the mainstream media, he is choosing to speak to non-Catholics".  I'm sure Peters sincerely believes that, but on what basis?  Why should anyone else believe that? No matter.  Regardless of what the pope may "choose", the whole world is always his audience.  We wouldn't be having these discussions if that weren't the case.  No one who speaks to reporters and into microphones can pretend that only a select group of people will be his audience.  In his case, the whole world is his audience; nothing will change that reality.  At best, it would be recklessly imprudent to focus only on one sector of the populace - if indeed that is his intent.  I for one discern no reasonable strategy behind behaviors that have been shown, time and again, to wreak havoc among a large segment of his world-sized audience.

He closed his piece with what he called a "powerful work of the Holy Spirit..the largest Mass in history".  Yes, he is referring to this debacle, where no doubt the Body of Our Lord was literally trampled underfoot as Sacred Hosts were being passed around like so many chips and crackers. 

Now I realize that some might be "devastated" by this post.  Well, deal with the hard truth as you grab your Rosaries and pray for Holy Mother Church.

Those Attempting To Whitewash Papal Gaffes Fall Flat On Their Faces

There's no other way I could have stated that headline.  The very attempts to whitewash papal gaffes and to silence concerned Catholics are inherently lacking in logic and common sense; those attempting to do so only succeed in throwing eggs on their own faces.  One of them is Michael Voris.  Generally I support his work whole-heartedly (I've the Vortexes on this blog to prove it), but this is the third time he's attempted to stifle well-founded criticisms of this blog and others.  The other is Father Dwight Longenecker of the patheos blog "Standing on My Head".  Normally I do not link to patheos blogs, but I will make an exception in this case; I think his logical flaws will be too glaring to miss.

First, let's look at yesterday's Vortex.  The gist of what Voris seems to be saying is that the pope's miscues are of no consequence and thus should not be criticized.  He says that the real culprits are the bishops, for they have frequently disobeyed the previous pontiffs' pronouncements.  He uses as examples the stonewalling on the part of so many bishops regarding the Latin Mass, and their refusal to obey Canon 915.  I fail to detect, however, any mention of an orthodox pronouncement of Pope Francis', that the bishops refuse to obey.

Voris also fails to mention how the pope's own questionable examples have lent de facto permission for the bishops to dissent.  A big "case in point" is the washing of women's feet during the Holy Thursday services.  That also is a violation of Canon Law.  While it is true that this edict has been flagrantly disobeyed in dioceses, including the Archdiocese of Washington by Cardinal Wuerl himself, the previous pontiffs have always adhered to the law in their own celebrations of Holy Thursday.  Not so Pope Francis!  During the two Lents that he has now sat in Peter's chair, he washed the feet of women during the Holy Thursday services - with great aplomb, I might add.  Just how would Voris suggest we raise objections to these bishops, when they are merely following the scandalous example of the Holy Father?  These situations continue to increase.

I also need to - once again - rebut a canard that he has been bandying about in these attempts to dissuade us from voicing our concerns.  He seems to think - or claims to believe - that if we bring these matters to attention, then we will drive otherwise good Catholics into sedevacantists sects or other nonsense.  Such a statement seems to indicate a condescending attitude towards those Catholics - most likely converts.  I assure all concerned that these Catholics are not oblivious bumpkins.  They can see what is happening.  What we hope to do is to assure them that they aren't incorrect in their perception of trouble, and that they don't have to leave the Church as they correctly infer that things are amiss with some of the pope's informal words.  We remind them that these erroneous statements do not constitute Church teaching and thus the Church is still true and need not be abandoned.  Voris is correct in stating that our comments have no impact on Rome (more's the pity), but we write more for the Church at large.


Now let's look at Father Longnecker's post.  He is calling conservative Catholics the "new cafeteria Catholics" because we question the sayings and doings of Pope Francis with the liberals who disobeyed (still do) solemnly proclaimed dogma and the Church's teachings on faith and morals.  Read the comments to the post.  Many of the readers correctly understand the comparison to be an "apples to oranges" comparison.  Of course Longenecker is unable to cite one example of where conservative Catholics have disregarded any defined teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.  At most, all he can cite is differences in prudential judgment and our objections to off-the-cuff remarks that do cast doubt on the Holy Father's opinions of Church dogma; take his recent apology to evangelicals for "suppressing the growth of their communities", for example.

Ignored facts, false comparisons, etc are what Voris and Longnecker resort to, as they try to contort all logic and good sense in defending the indefensible in what the Holy Father is doing/saying.  I don't know what - or who - impels them to tilt their spears at windmills, but they should cease as they are accomplishing worse than nothing.