Cardinal Wuerl: Amoris Lamentia Is A "Consensus Exhortation"

Yes, you read the title correctly.  I will henceforth refer to "Amoris Laetitia" as "Amoris Lamentia".  There is much heresy and spiritual poison therein to cause massive lamentation: or at least it should cause lamentation and great horror on the part of faithful Catholics.

In addition to the ones that I've already highlighted in previous posts, I'll call to your attention some other excellent commentary on AL: one from my blogging colleague at Les Femmes and two other highlighted by another blogging colleague at Tenth Crusade.

Thanks to Gloria.tv, I present to you now an interview of Cardinal Wuerl, as he gushes about Amoris Lamentia.  Bear in mind that this document is one of the rotten fruits of the two sin-nods held these past two Octobers: events at which Wuerl wielded a disproportionate measure of influence (see here and here).

I'll point out some highlights of this interview and put them into some historical context.

1. Cardinal Wuerl is conducting this interview with Susan Timoney, an Assistant Secretary for Pastoral Ministry and Social Concerns for the Archdiocese of Washington.  She's on Cardinal Wuerl's payroll.  It might be reasonable to opine that this dialogue is scripted and probably rehearsed.
2. Right off the bat, at the 0:25 mark, the Cardinal calls AL the "consensus exhortation".  He mentions all the "talking" and "engaging" with clerics and lay, along with the two sin-nods, and says that AL came from "all that".  As pointed out in one of the earlier links, Cardinal Wuerl himself had quite a hand in developing the final reports from the two sin-nods.
3. So Amoris Lamentia "reflects the consensus of bishops from all over the world". So what?  Does it reflect the timeless Teaching of Jesus Christ, reflected in Sacred Tradition and Magisterium?  That's what really counts, not all this "consensus".
4. At 1:30 he stated "we all know what the teaching of the Church is".  I wish that were true but thanks to katholik "education" that is in reality brainwashing in heresy and fluffy-puff homilies, the average Catholic in the pews is often quite ignorant of basic Catholic teachings on faith and morals.  Catholics of the Archdiocese of Washington!  When did you last hear a homily that preached against the mortal sin of contraception?  When did you last hear from the pulpit that homosexual relations are mortal sins?  I can't remember, either!
5. He continues, "but today as we face the challenges of the current moment..what is it that we (bishops) bring that we all agree we want to say?"  Hey!  If you have to ask that question, maybe your seminary classes weren't all that swift!  "What you should be bringing" is the timeless teachings of Jesus regarding marriage.  These would be the same teachings that have been promulgated for over a thousand years.  They do not change because the origin of these teachings, God Himself, is perfect and immutable.

If time permits, I'll elaborate more on this.  But for now, I'll let you see and hear the drivel for yourselves.  However, here's a big "take away" in all of this.  All this garbage about "consensus" is absolute nonsense.  We Catholics are about truth, the kind of truth mentioned by Jesus when He said, "I am the way, the truth and the life".  Truth is NOT found in consensus.  Consensus has absolutely no value in determining objective and eternal truth, for consensus has its origins in human opinion, not the Word of God.

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.

Sin-Nod: A Thinly-Veiled Attempt To Cram The Gay Agenda Down Catholic Throats?

Within these past few days we have seen "synod fathers" acts as apologists for sodomy.  ChurchMilitant.TV reports that an Austrialian archbishop favors "less condemnatory language" with regards to the mortal sins of sodomy and adultery.  One wonders if he would like to edit several of the epistles of St Paul that are found in the Bible for they clearly state that those engaging in such sins will suffer hell fire if they die unrepentant.

LifeSiteNews published an article by Phil Lawler regarding the obvious attempt to rig the sin-nod, an attempt that many of us have noticed..  I urge you to read it.  Note two things:

• Much of this strong-arming is being done by Cardinal Baldiserri, secretary of the synod.  Recall that there is a reason that I dubbed him "Book-Thief Baldi".  Hold that thought as you ponder this revelation: that of homosexual propaganda being distributed at the sin-nod with authorization of higher-ups. (ht - Toronto Catholic Witness)  This is confirmed by Archbishop Gadecki.  So the sin-nod honchos (Baldiserri included) resort to theft to prevent circulation of Remaining In The Truth of Christ, a book authored by several prelates that champions the teaching of Jesus Christ, but they allow distribution of tripe that justifies homosexual conduct.  Those engaging in such distribution find themselves in the unenviable position of cooperating with mortal sin and that is its own mortal sin, by the way.
• In Lawler's last paragraph, we read, "The Pope ultimately controls the process. The Pope will ultimately control the product."  True enough; he does.  But considering what was revealed about the "shadow synod", along with all the other little meetings that have been occurring at the Vatican, might this rigging be part and parcel of an attempt to insinuate the proceeds of the "shadow synod" into Church life?   The procedural changes that Lawler noted would make it difficult for faithful prelates to discern whether or not any final documents were truly representative of their deliberations.

I'm going to venture a guess and I think it's one shared by many.  The so-called "synod reports" are already drafted, and they will "change pastoral practice" to allow for the admittance to Holy Communion those living in de facto adultery AND to "mainstream" sodomite shack-up situations into Church society.  This sin-nod will only serve to lend an aura of legitimacy to the de facto heresy that probably has already been concocted by this "shadow synod", to be foisted on unsuspecting Catholics.  Could that be why Cardinal Reinhard Marx appears to be a bundle of joy and giggles now (as reported by One Peter Five, despite past hints of going into schism?  If that is the case - and I hope and pray that I'm incorrect - the Pope will fully own such a travesty.

In light of my hypothesis, other news makes sense as we consider the strategy of progressives to normalize homosexuality within the Church.  Voice of the Family has informed us that gay-coddling Cardinal Vincent Nichols will be moderating one of the English-speaking small groups at the sin-nod.  Of course he will have much discretion as to what is included in the report for that group.  We also hear from Church Militant that a priest in the diocese of Oakland CA gave a homily at Mass telling his parishioners that "being gay is not sinful".  To make matters even more scandalous, the homily was published in the official diocesan newspaper.  Clearly these events are part of the #maturation process to brainwash us to submit to the gay agenda.

Let us continue to pray and to shine the light of truth on cockroaches.

Stacking The Deck At The Sin-Nod

This past Sunday I touched upon the mischief coming from way too many German bishops.  Well, the slop continues to ooze forth.  Bishop Franz-Josef Bode is not only advocating that Holy Communion be given to adulterers, but even for "special blessings" for those committing the mortal sin of sodomy.  He's quite unabashed about it and I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if he incurs any disciplinary action for this.  And yes, he's attending the sin-nod.

Speaking of questionable bishops, Rorate Caeli has released a list of some who have been appointed to participate in next month's sin-nod.  They include Cardinals Dolan, Kasper, Wuerl and Bishop Cupich - in other words, the usual gang of suspects.  Here is a more complete list from Voice of the Family.

LifeSiteNews reported yesterday that at least 60 moral theologians and philosophers have signed a petition for the removal of a controversial paragraph from the instrumentum laboris for the sin-nod.  They believe the language theren calls into question the Church's teaching regarding the inherent sinfulness of contraception.  Among the signers is Dr. Germain Grisez of Mount St Mary's University in Emmitsburg, MD.  I would trust his judgment.  How is it that any instrumentum laboris would be allowed to emerge from the Vatican with sloppy theology enbedded within it?  Could that language have been deliberately inserted into the working document?  By whom?

On this feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, let's ask her intercession for her Son's church.

From The Maturation Department: Cupich, Harbinger Of Looming Sin-Nod Disaster

I have documented the ways in which Bishop - now Archbishop - Blaise Cupich has disgraced his miter and crosier.  The latest crack that was supposed to be his statement regarding the Planned Parenthood videos was simply the latest.  I needn't rehash it all here; please review this anthology of posts.

Several of my blogging colleagues have expressed their dismay over Cupich's words and deeds:

• From ChurchMilitant.TV
• From Tenth Crusade
• From St. Corbinian's Bear
• From Vox Cantoris

No doubt we are just a sampling of those sounding the alarm regarding Cupich.  In the light of the evidence regarding Cupich's progressive, as opposed to truly Catholic mindsets, what does Pope Francis do?

Pope Francis appointed Cupich as a delegate to next October's Ordinary Synod on the Family.  We all knew that he would be an alternate delegate to replace any regular delegate who might be rendered unable to attend.  But now he's a full delegate.  Is this disgusting appointment part of the "maturation" that the pope said we had to undergo at the close of last October's sin-nod?  If nothing else, this appointment is a harbinger of the mess that will the sin-nod that will happen two months from now.

Vatican Progressives' Two-Pronged Attack On The Faith

From within the Vatican - and it probably originates all the way from the pope - there seems to be a duo-faceted attack on the faith.  On the one hand, we see the pope shilling for population control vis-a-vis "sustainable developement.

Let's be clear.  That is what he is in fact doing.  Through various Vatican meetings (many of them quite recent) he has lobbied for the acceptance of the "Sustainable Development Goals" as promulgated by the United Nations.  I wrote last week about that meeting of mayors that he hosted as did my colleague at Les Femmes.  In that meeting he constantly harped on "sustainable development" while praising the pro-abortion mayors as "consciences of humanity".  I point out now that Laudato Si is chock full of references to "sustainable development".

Michael Hichborn at Lepanto Institute released a piece to ask "Why Is The Vatican Pushing Communist Goals".  Writing in advance of yet another meeting in November that is designed to explore ways to brainwash our children into being "sustainable development" lemmings, he shows the striking parallels between the UN's goals, Agenda 21 and the Communist Manifesto.  I shudder to think how they will work all this into the Ordinary Synod on the Family (that is, sin-nod 2) next October.  But for good measure, the president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Bishop Sanchez (that's right!  Him!) took a preemptive pot-shot at those of us who point out the evils of the United Nations (or, Useless Nicompoops).  For the record, I'm a big critic of the UN and yet I don't make my living from oil, as if that were a bad thing.  I mention it just to show the banality of Sanchez's "damage control".

So much for the "population control" and "sustainability" front.  Now let's look at the direct attack on the family and sexual morality.  We saw a major push to undermine Church tradition in last October's sin-nod.  You might recall that when that closed the pope gave a talk in which he said that we had a "year to mature" in anticipation for "sin-nod 2".  I wrote a bit on the "shadow council" that took place at the Vatican about six weeks ago.  Today ChurchMilitant.tv reported and commented on additional details of that meeting.  They are correct in that what came from the "shadow council" truly is heresy of darkness.  As you read that, it seems like a throwback to gobblygoop from the 1960s all over again.  Since none of these participants have been ousted from any positions, we must conclude that their heresies are tolerated by the Vatican, if not embraced.

I suspect we'll see these two facets of the progressive attack on the Church in the upcoming sin-nod.   Keep those prayers and Rosaries coming!

From The Maturation Department: Does God Disobey Himself?

During the Easter Season, the weekday epistles are taken from the Acts of the Apostles while the Gospel reading is from the Gospel of John.  Two days ago we had the reading in which Peter and John were brought before the Sanhedrin and ordered to stop preaching.  The two apostles replied they'd obey God rather than man.  It is on that reading that the Pope based his homily for that Mass.

His theme was rather odd.  It was a push for "dialogue".  Ladies and gentlemen, if there's one thing God did not command the apostles to do, it was to engage in "dialog".  No.  They were commissioned by God to proclaim the Gospel, to baptize all and to teach them everything He commanded.  No pointless "back and forth" was ever required.  God never dialogued with anyone.  Oh, there were conversations, but not dialogue as with equals.  He taught, preached, commanded - but did not dialogue for He has no equal.

He then went on to say of the pharisees, "they had studied the history of the people, they had studied the prophecies, they had studied the law, they knew all about the theology of the people of Israel, the revelation of God, they knew everything, they were teachers".   No, they did not know everything.  In fact, Jesus Himself rebuked them for their lack of knowledge when He declared to them, "you err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God".  (Matthew 22:29)  I believe that once again we see the attempt to portray those who honor Sacred Tradition in honor as not much more than "stick in the mud" types who can be dismissed as those who don't "dialogue" with every silly fad that blows their way.

He uttered this rather odd statement: "The one who doesn't know to dialogue does not obey God."  The Bible and Sacred Tradition do a rather decent job in spelling out sins that offend God.  I'd wager that if anyone searched the entire Bible (any version!), the writings of Church doctors and other time-honored writings of the Church for any hint of "dialogue" as being a requirement of true Christianity, that not one mention would be found.

We see another curious phrase: "newness of God".  No such thing!  God is NOT "new" as He existed even before time began.  He is eternal.  News Flash!  "New" and "eternal" or NOT synonyms!  Is this a throw-back to the "god of surprises" excrement?  An attempt to induce mistrust in the Traditions and Teachings of Holy Mother Church?  Another "maturation" effort to brainwash us for the next sin-nod?  Louie Verrecchio has some excellent commentary; I refer you now to his post.

To sum up, the world is in desperate need of real shepherds who will preach God's word, teach His Commandments, administer the Sacraments of the Church.  We need no useless back-and-forth jabber-jawing as though those steeped in sin can somehow better the Church.  Should this dalliance with "dialogue" continue, I suspect that may be a cause in real wrath to come.

From The #Rosicagate And Maturation Departments: More Food For Thought

Father Timothy Scott, a Basilian priest in Canada and former spokesman for that order, tweeted an obscene acronym to Cardinal Burke.  After well-deserved outcry from Catholics everywhere, Scott took down the tweet and issued an apology (of sorts) to the cardinal and Catholics in general.

Most people will recall that Father Thomas Rosica is also a Basilian priest with strong Canadian ties (namely his Salt and Light broadcast venture).  Like Michael Voris and so many others, I see a strong correlation between Scott's tweet and Rosica's legal action against Vox Cantoris.

Michael Voris produced a Vortex today that asks many relevant questions regarding these two.  The timing  of these is no accident, as Voris points out.  I'll go a few steps further than Voris and postulate that these actions are part and parcel of the "maturation" that the pope wants us to undergo to soften us for the deluge of heresy that will probably pour forth from next October's sin-nod.  As an aside, I too look askance upon all this legal expense being incurred by Rosica.  Where is this "poor humble church" about which the pope waxes so eloquent?

It is clear from the Vortex that it was created before the news broke that Scott has been removed as spokesman for the Basilians.  Will he also be removed from the Canadian Bishops' Conference?  We might also ask if Rosica will keep his job at the Vatican.  If he does, I believe that will be quite indicative of the mindset of Father Lombardi and perhaps the pope himself.

From The Maturation Department - Pope Francis Approved Interim Report Before Publication

Do you remember the disastrous Extraordinary Synod of the Family that was held last October?  You might recall that in the middle of it, an interim report was issued regarding the proceedings up to that point.  One would never know it was a Catholic document as it was full of heresy.  This post of mine links to the English translation that's on the Vatican website.  Here is some more immediate commentary.  You might just take a look at my posts during October 2014 (and the linked sites) for more details.

There had always been some question as to how much Pope Francis knew about that interim report when it was released to the public.  LifeSiteNews quotes from Aletia who was informed in an interview with Cardinal Lorenzo Baldisseri that the Pope knew the contents of the report and approved its publication.  The Cardinal stated, "The documents were all seen and approved by the Pope, with the approval of his presence.  Even the documents during the [Extraordinary] Synod, such as the Relatio ante disceptatationem [the preliminary report], the Relatio post disceptationem [interim report], and the [final report] were seen by him before they were published." (emphasis mine)

If that is the case, the Pope deliberately let heresy masquerade as a legitimate Church document.  Recall that this interim sin-nod report:

• talked of valuing homosexual orientation
• advocated to allow those living in adultery to receive Holy Communion
• blathered nonsense about the "positive aspects" of living in a homosexual relationship, i.e. mortal sin

Does this not put so many events of the past few months in a new light?  Events such as:

• Summary dismissal of Cardinal Burke, who spoke against the interim report and who had contributed to the book "Remaining In The Truth Of Christ"
• The private audience with the lesbians last week
• His "be like rabbits" crack
• His rebuke of the soon-to-be mother of eight

We do have the promise from Our Lord that His Vicar will never solemnly promulgate error.  However, there are many other ways that real harm can be done.  You might recall that the lesbians were emboldened by his "who am I to judge" crack.  And then there's the cop-out of "pastoral practice": the nonsense that dissident bishops use to disobey Canon 915, to neglect preaching on the evils of contraception.  All these "maturation" efforts (and there will be more to follow!) seem to be calculated to brainwash Catholics into accepting the thinking behind the interim report.  Even the way the report was released and the sin-nod conducted speak of a "ram-rod" effort to distort Church teaching in regards to marriage, sexuality and family.

I now link to a very worthwhile statement by the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy.  They state well Our Lord's teachings on these matters.

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.

Cardinal Dolan Applies The Law Of Graduality - Courtesy Of The SinNod

In today's Vortex, Michael Voris reported on this year's Al Smith Dinner in New York City.  He had some stern rebukes for Dolan for yokking it up with various pro-abort muckety-mucks in attendance who undoubtedly shelled out some big bucks to renovate St. Patrick's Cathedral.

But hey!  I think Voris might have been a tad rough on the poor Cardinal.  After all,  Dolan was only implementing the law of graduality!  See my post below for more explanation of this "katholic' progressive double-talk emanating from the ongoing sin-nod!

Slop From The Synod - The Cutting-Edge Concept Of Graduality!

Before we start, I think I will replace the word "synod" with a more accurate term - "SinNod".  That's precisely what the Pirolas are advocating: giving the nod to mortal sin.  The same can be said of those who want to "soften" language used to accurately describe sin's utter horror.  I cannot take credit for coining this term; I saw this in the comments on one of my colleagues' blog post and I don't remember which.  Anyway, let's proceed with some lunacy disclosed today.

On Monday, Cardinal Peter Erdo of Hungary opined that it's "unrealistic" to expect immediate acceptance of the Church's teaching on birth control.  Furthermore, he stated that Humanae Vitae "must be considered in light of the law of graduality."   Hmmm!  The "law of graduality"!  My goodness!  I never knew there was such a law!  Apparently neither does the spell-checker in my blogging software, for it keeps putting those red squiggly lines under the word "graduality".

But I suppose the good cardinal does have a point!  After all, Humanae Vitae was just promulgated a mere 46 years ago!  My goodness!  We can't rush things, now, can we?  Why, no wonder our bishops and priests have been mum about Humanae Vitae in the pulpits these past few decades!  The "law of graduality" demanded that they suck their thumbs instead of trying to prevent so many of their congregations from committing mortal sin and placing their souls in grave jeopardy.

Moving further down the article, we see that this double-talk is really a (not so) clever maneuver to introduce the pernicious idea of allowing Catholics in adulterous situations to receive Holy Communion.  Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich admitted so much when he spoke of "divorced and civilly remarried Catholics..who have not obtained annulments from their first sacramental marriages".  That phrase in quotes is a tad incorrect.   An annulment doesn't dissolve a valid Catholic marriage.  It is a declaration that the marriage never was valid; that's why the process is rather rigorous.  The truth must be obtained and acknowledged.  If a Catholic is "civilly married" to another and is still in a valid Catholic marriage, he/she is committing adultery and cannot receive Holy Communion in that state of mortal sin.  That has been the teaching of Christ for the past 2000 years.  This "law of graduality", as coined by these bishops, is nothing but denial of Jesus' clear teaching regarding marriage to please certain elements of their congregations.  They are not acting as bishops but panderers and enablers of mortal sin.

Yes, this is a SinNod.