Another Tale Of Two Bishops: Burke Versus Cruz

On July 22 in Louisville KY, Cardinal Burke spoke at a forum called "The Church Teaches".  That day he said two key things.  First he stated a point that was similar to one uttered by Bishop Schneider.  He warned against "idolatry of the papacy", an error that leads people to ascribe papal infallibility to every utterance that comes from a sitting pontiff.  In reality, the pope only speaks infallibly under very special circumstances.  Of course other teachings of the pope bear weight when they conform with Church Tradition.  One corollary error that attends this papal idolatry is a belief that the pope, never erring, can never be contradicted nor questioned even by faithful Catholics.

Burke also said during that same conference that "confusion and error" coming from shepherds at the highest level in the Church (i.e. the pope) "realistically seems to be apocalyptic".  Our Lady of Akita stated something very similar when she said that shepherds would be opposing one another.  She uttered the same concerns under her title Our Lady of Good Success.

As an example of confusion flowing forth from a bishop, I link now to an article in Crud, regarding Bishop Antonio Carlos Cruz Santos, a bishop of Brazil.  I won't go through the entire tome.  but during a recent homily, he said that "homosexuality is a gift from God".  We know that the homosexual orientation is inherently disordered.  If one acts upon that inclination, he/she mortally sins and also leads his/her accomplice in mortal sin.  In that homily Cruz both blasphemed God by saying that God gifted to mankind the occasion of mortal sin.  He also scandalized the congregation by his approval of mortal sin, possibly deceiving them into thinking that they could mortally sin without eternal consequences.

Please be praying your daily Rosaries.

Laudato Si Is Here And It Is A Stinker

The much dreaded awaited encyclical is here.  The English version is on the Vatican website and I am in the process of wading through the mess.  Many of my colleagues were awaiting this with apprehension.  So far the encyclical is living down to all expectations.  Oh yes, there are the admonitions against abortion as one would hope in a Catholic document.  But as Voice of the Family notes in their statement, there is no such admonition against contraception.  In fact, I pulled the thing into Word and did a search for "contraception" - not one mention!

Michael Voris released a preliminary statement today and noted correctly that the science behind this thing - and it's splattered all throughout the thing as though it were Holy Writ - is by no means settled science.  Because the encyclical does not touch on either faith or morals, it does not bind the consciences of Catholics; Voris reminded us all of that.  In fact, Voris rightly points out the deadly results that would occur if the political and scientific policies suggested by the encyclical were to be implemented.

I do have one disagreement with Voris.  At 3:54 in the video, he seems to insinuate that Pope Francis, "whose good and kind nature could possibly, easily be taken advantage of by less scrupulous men", is somehow exhonorated from any responsibility for this encyclical.  No. This can't be blamed on "evil boogeymen who are leading him astray". The pope owns what he says and does. How long was he bishop and cardinal? He's been around the block too many times for us to believe that he's just a lovable, naive little bumpkin. Think on this: if he truly is so simplistic and gullible as to allow himself to be manipulated in such a manner, what business does he have leading the Church?  At best, the view of the pope being a naive "nice guy" is actually quite condescending.  The responsibility for this disastrous encyclical lies squarely on the shoulders of the pope.  There's no way one can put lipstick on that pig.

More On Unhelpful PollyAnnas Among Faithful Catholics

As I suggested in my previous "pollyanna" post a few days ago, there are some Catholics who cannot accept that sometimes the Pope's words and/or deeds can and indeed should be criticized.  Let me clarify something.  He is the Vicar of Christ and must always receive all due respect.  We never criticize him as a person - never!  When he teaches in the name of the Church, those teachings are due all respect and yes, obedience.  There are those times when he will pronounce dogma in a solemn fashion, that is, ex cathedra.  On those occasions he does indeed speak infallibly.  We also have the Magisterium's promise that he will never teach error.

That said, the "off-the-cuff" interviews he has been giving lately cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called "teaching moments", let alone solemn declarations in which he speaks infallibly.  It is quite legitimate for faithful Catholics to question spontaneous remarks and certainly acceptable to discuss the means of delivery of said messages.

Many of us have been questioning the wisdom of the pope's conduct of these interviews for they have often led individuals to believe that he is altering the Church's age-old teachings on faith and morals - particularly the latter in regards to the life issues.  In the latest interview with La Repubblica there was even talk of the necessity of each individual to follow their concept of right and wrong - minimizing the need for a properly formed conscience.  I needn't rehash that here; see my previous post.

I've been involved in some on-line discussions regarding these interviews.  One of the more recent ones was with some good-hearted Catholics who enthuse over these debatable remarks by the Holy Father - and who in fact go so far as to insinuate that those of us who are wary are somehow "pharisees" or "holier than the pope" or other such pejorative sentiments.  They admit that what he's saying is different, but "God must be showing us a new way".  Apparently I'm not the only one who is baffled by this mindset; see this from American Catholic.  To quote him, I have indeed seen this: "Frankly, the most evident fruit of the papacy thus far seems to be the willingness of orthodox Catholics to break out the cutlery and start stabbing whenever someone expresses unease over the Pope’s actions and words."  I was actually threatened with expulsion from a facebook group when I didn't "get with their program" and join in their giggle-fest when the Pope posed for a "selfie" (that's a group cell-phone photo) with some teenagers.

My previous post also showed a video of a rather pathetic attempt by Father Fessio to put a "positive spin" on the pope's remarks.  Such attempts, unfortunately, abound.   See what the Creative Minority Report reveals.  So we "shouldn't attach value to individual words, but an overall sense"?  Really?  Father Lombardi, how, oh how, is this "overall sense" defined and communicated, if not by judiciously chosen words?  This is a philosophical - and theological - disaster in the making.  One would hope that a Vatican spokeman would know better, but Father's gaffe seems symptomatic of another problem.

This problem is broached by Hilary White of LifeSiteNews.  She senses a breakdown of coordination and communication in the Vatican itself - one starting from the onset of this papacy.  I urge you all to read it, and the comments besides.  Now we are hearing that there were inaccuracies in the La Repubblica interview; witness this from the Not-At-All Catholic Reporter.  However, one must ask why they waited so long to issue some disclaimer.  Are they only doing so pursuant to a lame attempt at "damage control"?   There is also the revelation that the Vatican was offered the opportunity to vet the La Repubblica article prior to its release.  It seems that a proper review might have apprehended some of the errors arising from Scalfari's poor memory.  Not only was there no review, but the Vatican even posted the article on their own site and here it is, straight from the Vatican.

Some might say that the Pope didn't speak infallibly so "what's the big deal"?  The "big deal" is two-fold in my opinion:

1. Many people who dissent from the Church's moral teaching and who are in fact living in mortal sin are taking false comfort from imprecisely-stated ideas
2. The Pope is undermining his own credibility so that if an occasion does arise when he must, some might conclude that the occasion is just another "off-the-cuff" affair.

To be clear, I am grateful that the Holy Father has spoken clearly on matters of faith and morals when he has.  I pray for him that his interviews (and/or the Vatican communications staff) don't trip up the essential message of the Church.