Announcing The "Did He Really Say That?" Department

Regrettably Pope Francis' "off-the-cuff" remarks convey ideas that are not too terribly helpful.  I cannot divine what he really intended, and perhaps that is irrelevant anyway.

In an address to Italian priests yesterday to start off Lent, he elaborated on what he believes the priesthood should be in order to meet the needs of people.  One remark he made caused me to raise my eyebrows: "Ascetic priests do not help the Church."

Really?  That's quite a blanket statement.  Right away, St. John Vianney, also known as the Cure of Ars, comes to mind.  The fastings and sleep deprivations he undertook would cause many of today's soft and flabby generation to faint and cower.  Yet people came from all over France so that he could hear their confessions.  When he first arrived in Ars, the place was quite the moral cesspool.  Within a few years, many conversions there turned that place around dramatically.  Many of the people who came to Ars experienced dramatic conversions (he could read hearts).

Even other priests came to him.  Often they would tell him that they were troubled about the lack of fruit in their own priestly ministries.  He challenged them to increase their own penances and fastings if they wanted to see greater fruitfulness in their priesthoods.  It bears mentioning that the Cure of Ars is regarded as the patron saint of parish priests.

He did make one statement that "mercy involves not being too rigid nor too lax".  But right afterwards he lit right back into those deemed "rigid"; nowhere did I see any admonishment towards those priests who do go easy on themselves.  Curious.  What's not said is just as important as what is said, considering context.

My Lenten suggestion of a few days ago stands.  And I pray that we all have a blessed Lent.

UPDATE - A Facebook friend alerted me to this article from Father Zuhlsdorf, shedding some additional light on the Holy Father's remarks.  Please read it.

Montgomery County CPC Gag Law Killed In Its Entirety

I remember the deliberations over this in 2009 (I blogged on it then).  It was unconstitutional and it was clear that the majority of the Montgomery County Council were simply doing the bidding of their sugar-daddies and money bags.  This move was literally out of a NARAL playbook (and I have a copy of it, too!).

Comes now the news (from LifeNews) that a federal court today put the final kibosh on it.  The ruling notes that the bill was an affront against the First Amendment.

Congratulations and thanks to the Centro Tepeyak Pregnancy Center, along with Alliance Defending Freedom.  They were the lead plaintiff in this case and they - and all of us - prevailed.  Of course this can only have good ramifications for other localities that are fighting this NARAL-spawned poison.

Pope Francis Jokes About Seventh Commandment Violation

According to his own account earlier today (see here and here), he removed the crucifix from a Rosary that was in the casket of his fellow priest.  For the sake of non-Catholics reading this blog, let me explain a little of Catholic burial customs.  We have viewings (or wakes) as do most Christian denominations.  When the deceased is placed in his/her coffin, their hands are folded over their midriffs as though they are in slumber.  A Rosary is placed in their hands, intertwined with their fingers.  Often the Rosary is a favorite of the deceased's, or holds meaning to the deceased's relatives.

It is that cross that Pope Francis surreptitiously removed.  In his own words, "And immediately there came to mind the thief we all have inside ourselves and while I arranged the flowers I took the cross and with just a bit of force I removed it.  And in that moment I looked at him and I said 'Give me half your mercy.'"

Coming from the Vicar of Christ, this is incredible.  "Thou shalt not steal" remains the Seventh Commandment, binding on us all.  There is also the matter of the Spiritual Work of Mercy known as "burying the dead".  Whatever else that Work of Mercy means, it doesn't mean helping oneself to personal effects of the deceased and absconding with them for one's personal use/enjoyment.

Particularly scandalous is the nonchalance with which he spoke of his - yes, I'll say the word - crime.  He showed the cross to those in attendance this morning.  Instead of contrition for indulging "the thief we all have inside ourselves" he seemed to affirm his own "inner thief" with a wink-chuckle-wink air.  He is the Holy Father.  Should we all emulate that example?  If so, why stop at "the thief we all have inside ourselves"?  Why not indulge "the murderer we all have inside ourselves"?

The victim of Father Jorge Bergoglio's sticky fingers was himself a well-known confessor.  Perhaps that Sacrament is needed, along with the return of the cross to the deceased's relatives.

Another Papal Interview Ushering A New Debacle?

The Catholic News Agency published the English-translated transcript of the interview that Pope Francis had with Corriere Della Sera earlier today.  The questions seem to be only loosely related to each other.  What has raised the eyebrows of many in the blogosphere and elsewhere is this exchange:

"(CDS) Many nations have regulated civil unions. Is it a path that the Church can understand? But up to what point?"

"(PF) Marriage is between a man and a woman. Secular states want to justify civil unions to regulate different situations of cohabitation, pushed by the demand to regulate economic aspects between persons, such as ensuring health care. It is about pacts of cohabitating of various natures, of which I wouldn’t know how to list the different ways. One needs to see the different cases and evaluate them in their variety." (end snippet)

The real head-scratcher for me is the last sentence.  "Evaluate them"??  Anybody with two brain neurons that fire in syncopation understands what is meant by the term "civil union".  Whether heterosexual or homosexual, the crux of these unions is sexual relations outside of marriage.  We are talking of acts that are, objectively speaking, mortal sins.  Any "evaluation" of these is a fait-accompli in light of the Sixth Commandment.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is not rocket science.  Under no circumstances can the Church support, or even just tolerate, these situations for they will endanger the souls of those embroiled in these situations and cause great scandal for countless others who will be swayed by the bad example.   Here are true words of wisdom from Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI detailing why homosexual unions can never be tolerated, much less recognized by the Church.

LifesiteNews has an analysis of this interview.  It calls this response of the Pope's "carefully guarded".  Perhaps this is a question that required only a plain, simple answer.  Of course the question was worded disingenuously.  His Holiness could have taken the question "is it a path the Church can understand?" and restated it to say "when will the nations understand the path that Jesus Christ, through His Church, has indicated to be the only path?"  Instead, we get convoluted gobblygook where a simple, truthful response would have brought crystalline clarity.

Dare I suggest that His Holiness give up these interviews for Lent?

Leroy Carhart Causes Another Woman To Be Hospitalized At His Germantown Death Center

Yesterday pro-life activists in Germantown MD saw an ambulance pull in front of Germantown Reproductive Health Center.  Apparently the woman sustained "life-threatening complications".  Operation Rescue broke the story so I refer you to their page for further details.

Let me point out that this is the fourth woman that was endangered and hospitalized as a result of "reproductive health" at this Germantown facility in the past thirteen months.  In the first incident, Jennifer Morbelli died.  After the third incident, I passed out a flyer to other occupants of the Germantown Executive Center complex.  That was last November.  In that flyer I quipped that at the rate Carhart was going, the complex should have a reserved parking space for an ambulance in front of the abortuary.  Looking back I realize that was not just a smart-ass comment; it was a prophesy.

I'll also point out that for all the women that Carhart is sending to the hospital, he himself has no privileges in any Maryland hospital.  His whole career in Maryland has been spectacularly chequered, starting with falsified license applications, unlicensed personnel working for him, citations for deficiencies, etc.  These things might suffice to halt the practice of doctors in other fields, but in Maryland, where the politicians are in the hip pockets of NARAL, blind eyes behold not the glaring anomalies in Germantown.

We, particularly those of us in Maryland, must stand up and demand action.  Shine the light on this mess.  Please share this post.  Go onto Facebook, Twitter and other social media and alert your acquaintances to this travesty.  The mainstream media won't so it's up to us.  Above all, pray that this man be put out of his murder-business and come to repentance.  He's not a young man and is running out of time before he must meet his Maker.

Dr. Taylor Marshall On The Fisher More College Situation

Dr. Taylor Marshall, former Chancellor at Fisher More College, has broken silence on the matter and revealed many details that show Fisher More College to be a plight-ridden school due to incompetence and dissidence on the part of its president, Dr. Michael King.  Dr. Marshall has posted his statement on his Facebook page and I now link to it https://www.facebook.com/DrTaylorMarshall/posts/400180263452671

He alludes to "a public repudiation of Vatican II and the Ordinary Form of Mass in April 2013".  I believe he is referring to this address given by Dr. John Dudley; here is the pdf.  I've only gotten through page 12 and can attest to the disdain for the Ordinary Form contained therein.  How a valid Mass "does not provide the same level of graces" as another valid Mass when the same Sacrament is present is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.  If this is the kind of teaching championed by Dr. King, the financial bunglings were the least of his problems.

Getting back to Dr. Marshall's article, he states that Dr. King did not allow the Ordinary Form of Mass on campus and enlisted suspended priests to say the TLM.  He also states that King hired "trad resistance" faculty; if the new hires were of the same ilk as Dr. Dudley, Dr. Marshall is correct.

So there was gross financial mismanagement, dissidence from Vatican II and disrespect for the Ordinary Form of Mass.  Based on the words of both Dr. Marshall and Dr. Dudley, I must assume that to be the case.  I now link to some questions that Pat Archibald publicly asks of the bishop, as some of those questions came to mind as I was reading what Dr. Marshall said.  The main question is how the banning of the Traditional Latin Mass from the campus is supposed to address the financial and doctrinal misbehaviors of Dr. King.  It would seem that any remedy, if it is to be effective, must address the specific issues at hand.  The banning of the Traditional Latin Mass does not answer Dr. King's disdain of the Ordinary Form.  I do gather that Dr. King still retains his position as president of Fisher More College.   I have not heard whether or not Dr. Dudley is still on the faculty; at this time the FMC website is moving at a snail's pace so I cannot tell if that's the case.  If these men are at least part of the problem with FMC, why do they remain while the Traditional Latin Mass is being given the heave-ho?

Again, I ask, if there are problems, why aren't the specific problems being addressed?  The bishop's letter only spoke of the ban on the Traditional Latin Mass.  Nowhere in it is mentioned any of the problems listed in Dr. Marshall's article.  I for one fail to see how banning the Traditional Latin Mass will cure any financial difficulties there.  It will only impinge upon the few students who still remain at FMC.

More On The Situation At Fisher More College

Since I wrote the post this morning, some new information has surfaced.  Such information causes me to reconsider a statement that I made in the earlier post: "There is also no doubt that there is malevolence towards the Traditional Latin Mass, either by the bishop himself or someone within his chancery."  In fact, there may well be doubt as to their reasons.  Right now, as things are coming to light, we don't know one way or the other.

A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics put up a post about the situation.  As their name suggests, they are geographically much closer to the situation than am I.  There is talk of a heavy-handed approach to administration taken by Fisher More President Michael King and use of suspended priests in offering the Traditional Latin Mass on campus.  Dr. Taylor Marshall worked there for a while but had to leave due to the situation; he has promised to shed some light on the matter shortly.  Father John Zuhlsdorf also put up a piece regarding his impressions.

Fisher More College is in dire straits; there are only about 30 students left (not sure if that's total or just "on campus").  One of the main attractions for Catholic students was the ability to attend the Traditional Latin Mass on campus.  That was removed when Bishop Olson banned that Mass from campus.  Barring a miracle, this will be the death knell for that school.

I will post updates as they come my way.

Fort Worth Bishop Unlawfully Bans Traditional Latin Mass At Fisher More College

Reverend Michael Olson, who was installed as Bishop of the Diocese of Fort Worth has, as one of his first actions, banned the Traditional Latin Mass from being offered at Fisher More College (ht Rorate Caeli).

There is no doubt that such a move flies in the face of the Apostolic letter issued July 7, 2007 by Pope Benedict XVI.  There is also no doubt that there is malevolence towards the Traditional Latin Mass, either by the bishop himself or someone within his chancery.  To the right are copies of: Bishop Olson's letter to the President of Fisher More College (Dr. Michael King), unlawfully banning the TLM from the campus and a copy of a letter from the Canon Law Centre explaining why the bishop's actions fly in the face of church law.

Consider this, as you read the bishop's letter.  It was dated late February, less than one month after he was installed as bishop.  How, in less than one month's time, could he possibly divine that such a move was "necessary for the soul" of Dr. King?  That's sanctimonious nonsense.

I suspect the draconian treatment being meted out to the Franciscans of the Immaculate (see here and here) has only emboldened those who, for whatever reason, hold the Extraordinary Form in disdain.  Bishop Olson's actions should remove all doubt of that.

Here is the contact information (scroll to the bottom) for Bishop Olson.  Please write and/or email and or phone his office.  He needs to hear from many of us.  Please be respectful of his office, but also be firm regarding the dictates of Pope Benedict XVI's letter.

Those of you within the Diocese of Fort Worth, if your concerns aren't being met with the respect they deserve, consider a boycott of diocesan appeals until such time they are met.

Why Does CMTV Urge Us To Blindfold And Gag Ourselves?

First, as you read the following, I ask that you keep the post from Friday in mind.

Last week ChurchMilitantTV (fronted by Michael Voris) replied to some alleged criticisms from other well-respected Catholics.  The latter allegedly criticized Voris for not taking public issue with Pope Francis for missteps and blunders during this first year of his papacy.  The other leaders are Chris Ferrara and John Vennari.  I say their criticisms of Voris are alleged because the Church Militant article linked to no source for them.

Louie Verrecchio, on behalf of Vennari and Ferrara, issued a rebuttal to Voris in the form of a spoof of the Vortex episodes.  I respect Michael Voris highly, and as regular readers know I post almost all the Vortexes in this blog.  However I must concur with Verrecchio on this occasion.  I post the two documents now, urging study of both of them:

• Church Militant statement: http://www.churchmilitant.tv/faq/papalcriticism.php
• Verrecchio reply: http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/751b83874a7bdfab126e65e854b51207-193.html

To be honest, I think the CMTV statement is so full of logical flaws as to be rather nonsensical.  I'll point out some of them, and I won't necessarily go in order of the document flow.

I read the articles that it cites.  While they do take exception with objectively questionable things that were done and said by the Holy Father, nowhere do I perceive personal attacks on the Holy Father or his papacy per se.  I wish to point out that "voiced disagreements with the merits of Pope Francis' actions" and "attacks on the pope" are NOT equivalent.  I take a dim view of the obfuscation of that difference.

The author of that CMTV piece (and it may not be Voris!) goes on to say that "it is our judgment that most Catholics should not read these articles".  I beg his pardon, but who does he think he is?  He's entitled to his opinion of these pieces - so let others form their own.  Here are two of the pieces:

•  http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/90-quo-vadis-franciscus
•  http://www.cfnews.org/page88/files/065837621bedf51d45b91a5e75699ef5-174.html

These, and a piece written by my friend at the Tenth Crusade (also touching on this exchange) begin to list our concerns with Pope Francis.  It bears mentioning again that no one is taking issue with any solemn pronouncements by His Holiness.  Regarding lower-level matters, though, we must raise alarms when we see them, for some will regard his actions as having the weight of solemn declarations.  I'd also like to call to mind my blog piece from Friday (to which I linked at the top of this piece).  In it is cited the example of St. Paul confronting St. Peter's erroneous behavior; Peter was the first Pope.

Moving on, we read this head-scratcher.  "Assume, for the sake of argument, that everything one learns from ecclesiastical porn sites and articles is true. Every claim, every allegation, is true. Bad news all around for the Church. Question: how are you a better Catholic for knowing all this, and what is the proper Catholic response?"  First, I take exception to CMTV describing Ferarra's and Venneri's works as "ecclesiastical porn".  Now let's reply to the questions.  First, we are better Catholics for knowing the complete "lay of the land".  We know precisely for what we should pray and we contemplate what action would be advantageous to correct poor situations.  Second, the proper Catholic response is never willful ignorance; that itself may constitute sin against prudence.

I'm going to take a "leap in evaluation" and try to glean the thrust of the following paragraphs of the CMTV tome in one sentence: "We know the Church is in crisis; the proper Catholic response is to focus solely on our personal holiness - nothing else."  If that is the case, CMTV is incorrect on this matter.

Here's another series of incredible sentences from the CMTV piece: "While we greatly admire and are the beneficiaries of the work of those on whose shoulders we stand in the work to help restore the Catholic Church to its authentic glory, we can neither support nor encourage their ongoing, unnecessary and harmful attacks on the Church and the Holy Father. Most Catholics are not even aware of the many disconcerting words and deeds of Pope Francis and his predecessors. Most Catholics have no idea that there were ecumenical events at Assisi or that Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran. Most Catholics, including most bishops and priests, don’t even know that there is a crisis in the Church today. They do know, however, that the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church and, presumably, the guardian and protector of Catholic orthodoxy. Who benefits from attacks on the Rock on whom Our Lord established His Church (Matt 16:18)?"

Unpacking this might require its own post, but I'll give it a try in this one post.  We'll do this "bullet-style".

• At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll state once again that "voiced disagreements with the merits of Pope Francis' actions" and "attacks on the pope/church" are NOT equivalent.  CMTV, please stop the disingenuous blurring of that difference.
• This paragraph couples the wide-spread ignorance of the crisis in the Church with knowing that the pope is head of the church.  It seems to be accepting, if not condoning, this ignorance.  However, that is a far cry from the message conveyed in a previous Vortex episode in which Voris completely denounced the mental oblivion of the Catholic in the pew regarding the real crisis.
• Can another question be asked?  How about "who benefits from Catholics being kept in the dark regarding ills within the Vatican?"

This post could go on and on, but I'll close it now where the CMTV closes their's - with commentary on Genesis 9:18-27.  CMTV rightly praises the actions of Sem and Japheth.  Does it dawn on the CMTV author (I don't think it's Voris himself), that the two honorable sons would not have known their father needed their ministration had it not been for the tattling (call it "ecclesiastical porn") of their errant brother?  Cham's motives aside, he did alert his brothers to a dire situation, which they then addressed and corrected. Else, Noe might have died of exposure (drunkedness increases the risk of hypothermia).  Similarly, we need to sound the alarm over anomalies that we see in Church life, regardless of their source, so that appropriate actions can be taken.

Actually, there's another more fitting close.  I started this post by citing a Dominican Doctor of the Church - St Thomas Aquinas.  I'll close it with a quote from another Dominican Doctor of the Church - St Catherine of Siena: "We've had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence!"

Our Church is rotten.  We must have the courage and holiness to confront the rot where it occurs.  This blog will remain part of that choir of "a hundred thousand tongues".  We need more, not less, such tongues.

Pray For Vocations!

Cute alert!