And The Gobblygoop Continues...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

More Sin-Nod Pollution Bubbling To The Surface

Too many otherwise intelligent Catholics are absolutely gloating over the outcome of the synod claiming "we won", often with snark and guffaws at those of us who take a more sober look at the proceedings.  One of those concerned Catholics is none other than Cardinal Burke.  In an interview with Edward Pentin, he opined that the final report was "misleading" and lacks clarity on indissolubility of marriage.  He is focusing on paragraphs 84-86.  I urge you to read the interview.

From Voice of the Family we hear concerns about paragraph 58.  Apparently the majority of the prelates there voted for its inclusion: a paragraph that rejects Church teaching that states that parents are the sole authority over children's education regarding sexual matters.  The article points out that this paragraph has on it the paw prints of the United Nations.  In league with Planned Parenthood and other progressive cabals, the UN seeks to usurp the role of parents in moral formation of children.  Paragraph 58 of the sin-nod-slop plays right into their hands.

We also have an editorial from LifeSiteNews pointing out that what is not present is a clear affirmation of Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality and the mortally sinful nature of homosexual acts.  The lack of reiteration of Catholic teaching does in fact send a message that the teaching is not binding on man as a dictate from God.

As we can all see, the fallout from the sin-nod is just starting to appear.  There will be more work done in examining the final report.  More importantly and more ominously, we will see within the next few months some insidious implementations of "the spirit of the synod" (I bet that phrase will enter progressive lexicons presently) in our dioceses and parishes.  This will vary according to the proclivities of local prelates.  In short, I expect the Archdiocese of Washington to continue its embrace of "social justice" crap while punishing priests who dare to uphold marriage and Holy Communion.

Stay tuned.  There will be more.

Center For Medical Progress Releases Eleventh Video

The 11th video from Center for Medical Progress is out.  As I listened to those women talk, I had to wonder if there were any tiny remnants of humanity within their psyches.  Listen to them discuss "removing lower extremities to grasp the spine", "getting intact calvariums (heads) is something to strive for", "livers and hearts are cute".  If any pro-choice person is reading and watching, take warning, for if you continue to support the murder of babies you will experience the death of your own conscience and humanity and eternal damnation should you die in this state.

One positive sign I saw was their obvious discomfort at the Texas political climate.  In that whole state, only eight abortion mills operate.  We have that many in Montgomery County MD.  The air down there must be so much cleaner and fresher than here.  We of course rejoice in the recent raids of Planned Parenthood mills in Texas by state officials.  Owing to the sin-nod I was unable to focus on that but I salute the state of Texas and Governor Greg Abbott.

Fellow Faithful Catholics, The Sin-Nod Was A Disaster

That so many faithful Catholics are grasping at straws right now can be readily understood.  For decades now we've seen the Teachings of Jesus Christ not only attacked by secular society but undermined from within by progressive clerics of the Judas mold.  While we've been fearing a massive plop of heresy to spew forth from the sin-nod, it hasn't happened to the degree to which we expected.  But therein may lie the danger, for where overt evil might be rejected precisely because it is recognizable, evil camouflaged in subtle and ambiguous language can more easily insinuate itself into the minds of those who are all too ready to embrace simplistic appearances of good.

Think of it.  Faithful Catholics are waxing jubilant and ready to break out the bubbly because a Catholic document wasn't chock full of overt heresy!  Moreover, they are calling upon others to don rose-colored glasses and join them in pollyanna-type fantasies.  Take a look at my blog roll to the right; you'll see some of them.  Now these sites are on my blog role precisely because I hold them in respect - but on this occasion they're swilling down some dangerous koolaid.

All that demonstrates is how far we've fallen as a Church, when we rejoice because a Church document "isn't that bad".  Ladies and gentlemen, consider that the matters that were discussed during the sin-nod should never have been on the table precisely because they were stated clearly by God and acknowledged by the Church two thousand years ago.  To add insult to injury, some of the votes were fairly close.  In a saner time, any deviation from God's revealed word would have been unanimously and unceremoniously rejected.

As I stated yesterday, Rorate has commenced some analysis of the relatio.  It bodes ill for the Church.  Moreover, I link now to a LifeSiteNews piece penned by Andrew Guernsey.  In it he points out the attempts to tinker with language that has been used by the Church to describe intrinsic evils.  Anyone with a smidgen of common sense knows that the manipulation of language is an attempt to manipulate the thought processes of the audience.  One of the "offending phrases" that the sin-nod culprits want to eliminate is the phrase "intrinsic evil".  As Guernsey points out, this puts into context the Pope's concluding address yesterday in which he openly disdained "language which is archaic or simply incomprehensible".

I'll post below a video in which Michael Matt gives more insight as to what happened these past few weeks.  I will ask that my fellow bloggers throw off their rose-colored glasses and realize that the battle is still underway.  The sin-nod laid the groundwork for progressives to soldier forward with their plans at deconstruction of the Church.  Look out for phrases such as "spirit of the synod".  Keep praying, stay vigilant, vocal, and active.

Pope's Closing Address For SinNod - Vindictive And Sloppy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Church Must Be A-Changing!

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

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

THE CHURCH MUST BE A-CHANGING

Come gather you bishops, cardinals and priests

Come gather all of liberal stripe

Time to promulgate progressive tripe

At all faithful Catholics we’re going to snipe

Under the cover of false mercy hype

For the Church must be a-changing.

Come quickly Baldiserri, Rosica, Marx

Durocher, Lombardi, Kasper and Wuerl

Let our heretical colors unfurl

On Holy Communion we’ll heap sacrilege

From saints and Church fathers we’ll burn that bridge

For the Church must be a-changing.

Gadecki and Sarah, keep your mouths closed

By Sarah and Pell we won’t be opposed

Because they rebuke us we hold them as dopes

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

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

For the Church must be a-changing.

Failed Papacy And Questionable Vortex

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.