Talking Tough On Catholics For Choice

I understand that both Bishop DiLorenzo of Richmond and Cardinal Dolan of New York are rebuking "Catholics for Choice" and other prominent CINO's such as Tim Kaine for publicly shilling for abortion.  Well, that's very good, but the effort will be "all bark and no bite" unless some action goes along with it.  For starters, Bishop DiLorenzo would be well-advised to order his priests to deny Holy Communion to Kaine until he publicly repents (Kaine resides in the Diocese of Richmond) while the Cardinal needs to stop brown-nosing up to the Cuomos and needs to expunge his diocese of the gay network that has been too long ensconced in New York.

What are the odds of these measures being taken?

Dr. Mirus Tries To Defend The Indefensible

A few days ago Pope Francis made plain his intention to permit adulterers to seal their eternal damnation by committing sacrilege against the Holy Eucharist.  I wrote about that two days ago.  I don't know why Dr. Jeff Mirus tries to spin Pope Francis' mess in some sort of "positive" way, but he makes some logical gaffes in so doing.  He tries to set forth a hypothetical case of adultery being a venial sin only.  To wit: (begin quote)

"Very briefly, then, I would argue that the following is the most likely scenario in which the presumption that only venial sin is involved may be reasonably justified:

An invalidly married couple has had children together, who are still at home.

Either the man or the woman recognizes the sinfulness of the “marriage”, regrets having entered into it, and desires now to do what is right (which in this case would be for the parents to live as brother and sister while still caring for their children as mother and father in the same household).

The other party refuses to live as brother and sister.

The other party says he (or she) will leave the family if sexual relations are refused.

Hence the man or woman in question continues sexual relations, in effect under duress, to ensure that his or her children are not deprived of one parent.

Now, even if we argue that the morally correct course is to separate from the unrepentant spouse and trust in God, it is easy to see that—at the very least—this would be hard to discern and, even if discerned, there would be tremendous fear of depriving one’s children of a family setting which includes both their mother and their father."

(end quote)  I scarcely know where to begin, but here goes.

• Dr. John Lamont, in his own commentary published on Rorate Caeli, points out that the so-called "repentant" spouse is indeed acting voluntarily.  The difficulties of his/her choice do not compromise their free will.  The so-called "repentant" spouse isn't all that repentant.
• When evaluating the morality of a given act, the FIRST consideration must be to the nature of the act itself.  If the act is inherently immoral, all other considerations are moot.
• Those of us who are old enough remember from our catechism that ALL sins against the 6th commandment are mortal.  Temptations to the same are not mortal as they only become sin when consent is given.  If the so-called "innocent spouse" acquiesces to the meanie, he/she still gives consent.
• As an aside, one might wonder just what the "innocent spouse" would gain in such a scenario.  If the obdurate one threatens to leave the family if he/she is not gratified, what does that say about their own devotion to the children?  What kind of parent would he/she really be?  What kind of "family setting" is it when one spouse is essentially blackmailing the other spouse to commit mortal sin and damn their soul to hell?
• So far the conversation has been about those "rare, difficult" cases.  Well, remember the 1930 Lambeth Conference?  The Anglicans allowed for contraception only "for special cases".  We know how that turned out, don't we?  That's the plan here: allow sacrilege for those "hard" cases, and the camel's nose will be under the tent, never to be removed.

There are a number of folks who can't deal with the increasingly obvious fact that we have a pope who is not taking seriously his God-given charge to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.  In fact, many of his words and actions seem designed to undermine it.  Dr. Mirus seems to be of that mindset.  

By the way - I'd also urge you to read the commentary from Robert Royal.

Now a word about comments.  Most folks know that I entertain most comments, provided they are respectful and honor the Church.  I will not entertain comments from those who won't entertain comments on their own sites, or who charge fees for the "privilege" of commenting.

The Pope IS Trying To Allow Unrepentant Adulterers To Receive Holy Communion

LifeSiteNews (and others) published letters from the pope in which he stated quite plainly that there was no other way to interpret Amoris Laetitia but to admit that it does call for adulterers to be admitted to Holy Communion.  See the two LifeSite posts here and here,   Vox Cantoris links to the Vatican sites.  I have written on AL, and have explained why I redubbed it "Amoralis Lamentia".

Here we see that the pope is attempting to allow divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion without requiring that they repent and live as brother and sister, e.g. without requiring that they cease their adultery.  In doing so, he thumbs his nose at the teachings of Our Lord Himself for the sake of deadly sentimentality.  Deadly?  Yes, for he would affirm the adulterous couple as they continue in their mortal sins AND as they compound those sins with the sin of sacrilege - that of receiving Holy Communion unworthily.

One key charge of the Vicar of Christ is to safeguard the Deposit of Faith.  Right now this present pontiff seems intent on mutilating the Deposit to shreds beyond recognition.  Please take off the rose-colored glasses, pray and speak out.

Hillary Faints At 9-11 Commemoration

While the mainstream media (for the most part) is poo-pooing what happened earlier today, internet news outlets are abuzz at what took place earlier today.  See Gateway Pundit.  Even some of the mainstream media who retain some vestige of journalistic integrity are admitting that Clinton's health is an issue.  Below is a youtube that I'd suggest you watch.  This was captured by a non-media person, as mainstream media was prevented from approaching.  I'd also suggest that you pass word along and to download this video to your own machines in case something should (ahem!) "happen" to it.  Her health is just one of many reasons why she is not fit to be President of the United States.

#Nevertrumpers - Channelling The Petulancy Of Jonah

Most people are aware that Jonah is the prophet who spent a few days inside a whale's belly, but that is just one part of the story.  To understand this post, you will want to grab a Bible and read the book of Jonah.  It's not a long read, and quite interesting.

During a facebook discussion, I asked a rather adamant #nevertrumper if his conscience would allow him to do anything that would ease the way for Hillary to ascend to the White House, since he professed to be Christian and pro-life.  He replied "yes, because our nation needs to be punished."  Let that sink in, for I think his attitude is quite pervasive among the #nevertrumpers.

Now let's go back to Jonah.  After some initial rebellion, Jonah does go to Ninevah and proclaims "yet forty days more and Ninevah shall be destroyed".  After that, he goes to the hill and sits there, waiting for Ninevah to be destroyed.  From the Bible, it appears that Ninevah's conversion and repentance was rather immediate, so it's hard to imagine that Jonah was unaware of it.  When Day 40 had come and gone and Ninevah still stood, Jonah was quite displeased.  Was his disappointment rooted in the fact that what he said to the Ninevites did not occur?  Did Jonah entertain a "holier than thou" attitude against the Ninevites (forgetting his own prior rebellion)?

When I saw that facebook reply, my first thought is that "this guy is channelling Jonah in all his small-minded vindictiveness".  But I see hints of that in many of the prattlings of the #nevertrumpers, from their cavalier disregard of the consequences of denying Trump their votes to the outright vindictiveness and self-righteousness displayed by my facebook opponent.  They really don't have the good of the nation at heart; they'd rather be proven "right" than have the tide of evil at least slowed down in the country.  Perhaps that's why they spend so much time railing against Trump while scarcely uttering a peep regarding Clinton.

I don't think my facebook opponent is Catholic so it would have been pointless to invoke principles of Catholic moral theology.  Those principles would have made plain the inherent sinfulness of his attitude, and I'm thinking primarily of the principle of double effect.  One of those principles is that evil cannot directly be willed; I'm speaking of allowing the havoc of a Hillary presidency to "punish the nation", and that punishment is most likely not even a good in and of itself.  Hillary is on record of declaring that "relgious beliefs have to be changed" to accomodate baby-murder and other sins.  Sounds outlandish?  Consider what is happening in Massachusetts.  Under a Clinton presidency, we can be very certain this  will spread nation-wide, as she bestows upon Christians the status of "niggers of the new age".  (To those squeemish about that term, why not? We're already in a "basket of deplorables"!)

I've made my position before in this post (and others, see links) that to deny a vote to Trump is immoral.  I posted the episode above to get a glimmer as to what makes these #nevertrump people tick.  It certainly isn't reason and logic.  For many of them, certainly for the person quoted above, it most likely isn't good will.

Prayers Of Thanksgiving For These Bishops

Over the past few days reports have come in regarding three US bishops who have been taking stands to restore Tradition in the Church.

First, let's touch upon Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison (WI).  In accordance with Cardinal Sarah's directive, he announced his decision to offer all his Masses ad orientem - that is, facing the altar and not the congregation.  Moreover, he made that announcement with respect to Masses in the Ordinary Form.  According to 1P5, when the bishop made that announcement, it was plain to him that the congregation was happy to hear that.

Another bishop who has offered Masses ad orientem is Bishop James Conley of the Diocese of Lincoln (NE).  His diocese, as a result of his fidelity to tradition (and similar fidelity of his predecessor, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz) has resulted in a large number of men aspiring to the priesthood in his diocese.  In an interview to Catholic World Report, he attributes the large number of vocations to fidelity to tradition and to the prayers of cloistered nuns.  As I read the article, I was struck with the revelation that Bishop Conley participated in Operation Rescue during its early days.  Read the article for some cogent words of his regarding the current political and cultural situation of the United States.

The final bishop that we'll consider for now is Archbishop John Myers of the Newark archdiocese.  After one of his priests came out as gay and started shilling for the lgbt agenda, the archbishop disciplined him by suspending him.  Father Hall can no longer offer public Mass nor can he present himself as a priest.  The priest seems to have had his nose thrown out of joint, judging from his tweets.  Let us pray that he repents, lest he endanger his immortal soul.

Let us pray for these prelates, that they stand firm against the sniping that they might well be enduring from some of their more progressive brothers.  Let us pray, furthermore that others emulate their examples.

By the way - here's a video contrasting Mass offered in the Tridentine Rite against, well, I'm not sure what those debacles were.  Which one do you think will attract solid vocations?

Witchcraft, Islam And Humanism - De Facto Creeds Of The New Age

This post regarding these three popular manifestations of idolatry appeared a few days ago and it provides much food for thought.  I'd go a bit further than the author does.  He merely says that these idols are merely filling in a vacuum being left by a dying and shriveling church.  I, however, believe that the church isn't merely making way for these, but actively ushering them to places of prominence.  Witness the "poop video" in the post previous to this one.

Another very recent manifestation seems to come from a most surprising source - the canonization of Mother Teresa.  There is no doubt that she and her sisters spent their lives in heroic service to many destitute people and not too many of us can forget the truth she spoke to power at the 1994 prayer breakfast.  But there were troubling signs of indifferentism throughout her writings, at least in the early days.  There is this quote from A Simple Path: "I’ve always said that we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic."  We know that the only way a Hindu, Muslim or anyone else can become "better" is to embrace the One True Faith, not to become further entrenched in their false religions.  The Bellarmine Forum carries an article about the relationship between Mother Teresa and Father John Hardon.  While it rightly praises Mother's many virtues, we see starting in the second paragraph testament to her unwillingness to teach the creeds of the Faith, saying "her sisters were there to help the poor".  So the imparting of the Faith would not have assisted the poor?  But Father was there, at the behest of Pope John Paul II, to equip the sisters to engage in that aspect of charity and I believe that they did.  But did Mother ever walk back that statement as quoted from A Simple Path?

It does seem that at least in the first stage of the ministry of the Missionaries of Mercy, Mother Teresa was content to focus on the Corporal Works of Mercy to the exclusion of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.  I'll now link to an article by Msgr Charles Pope, written over a year ago, entitled "What Ever Happened To The Spiritual Works Of Mercy?"  It is worth careful study, as are the comments below.  I truly am glad that Pope John Paul II, through Father Hardon, corrected that short-coming in the Missionaries of Mercy.

Let's move onto Islam.  I'll now post an account of an interview granted by Cardinal Burke.  In that interview, His Eminence states that the belief that Christians and muslims worship the same god stems from relativism.  It might be indifferentism, too, such as the one seen Mother Teresa's quote in A Simple Path.  It is quite blasphemous to state that those who behead babies, stone rape victims, engage in terrorist bombings by using their own children, etc, etc, in the name of their god, somehow worship the One, True God.  Yet that is what progressive church leaders thrust down our throats, as our post-Christian culture makes ever-increasing concessions to muslims while treating Christians - particularly faithful Catholics - as de facto "niggers of the new age".

Again we see the Church hierarchy welcoming in this heresy, not only in the misguided indifferentism rightly condemned by Cardinal Burke, but also in troubling actions by Pope Francis.  Recall his allowance of muslim prayers to the false "allah" idol within the Vatican gardens and his washing of the feet of muslims during Holy Thursday services.

These embraces of both humanism and indifferentism by progressives in the Church not only facilitate cultural suicide, but also facilitate the damnation of immortal souls by holding up to them lies as though they were truths.

Poop Video - Explicit Humanism Rife Throughout

I like Vox Cantoris' term for these "pope videos".  It's more accurate so I think I'll follow his lead.  Watch this thing.  Considering that this thing comes from the pope, one might expect to hear some key words: words such as "Jesus", "Church", "salvation", "soul", "eternity", "God".  I must have missed them.  Now the pope is known as "vicar of ???"  Can anyone answer that question, based on the contents of that video?  It really should be "Vicar of Christ", but again, one does not hear the word "Christ" even once in the flick.

By the way - have you ever noticed how the actors in all these things engage in grinning, mugging scenes such as the one starting at the 0:47 mark?  But I digress.

At the 1:00 mark we see the main thrust in the words flashing up: "For everyone to contribute to the common good and to build a society that puts the human person at its center."  Can the humanism be any more explicit?   It is God who should be at the center of society, not man.  But in this thing produced by the Vatican, we don't hear the Name of God or Jesus mentioned once.  This is the idolatry known as humanism, plain as day for all to see (provided no one is wearing rose-colored glasses).



I will have more to say about humanism in the next post.

Blessed Sacrament In DC To Lionize Two Dissident Jesuits

The problems with Jesuits aren't new by any stretch of the imagination.  One of those who have sounded the alarm was the late Father John Hardon, himself a Jesuit but one who was a true son of St Ignatius of Loyola.  He crossed swords with Father Karl Rahner when the latter proposed his theory of transfinalization, a heresy that cast doubt upon the nature of the Holy Eucharist as being truly the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.  Pope Paul VI condemned that error in his encyclical Mysterium Fideli, as elaborated by Father Hardon.

Another troublesome Jesuit was Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, a priest during the first half of the century.  Fancying himself to be a scientist, he dabbled in evolutionary theory and essentially helped get the snowball known as modernism rolling down the hill.  Read here for more detail and some quotes.  As you read his "prayer", can't you just hear Obi-Wan Kenobi say "may the force be with you"?  That quote if from a Jesuit website so of course they bemoan his "suffering" by being hushed by the Vatican and his superiors (before they too were infected by modernism).  Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand wrote a detailed critique of De Chardin that is well worth the read.

Both Rahner and De Chardin (now both deceased) played pivotal roles in the early days of the modernist corruption of the Catholic Church.  But why am I bringing up these two men in this post?

I do so because Blessed Sacrament Church on Western Avenue in DC will be conducting "courses" on the writings of these two men starting next month.  See page 4 of the Sept 4th bulletin. (A word to the Blessed Sacrament staff.  Don't bother to try to pull the bulletin from your site; I already archived it.)

The language in the bulletin announcement would lead the unsuspecting parishioner to believe that the teachings of Chardin and Rahner are healthy when in reality they could imperil the salvation of those who accept and implement them.  You might recall that this is the same parish that hosted book-signings by both Chris Matthews and Mark Shriver, both "katholycs" who use their bully-pulpits to promote baby-killing, gay #mowwidge and other mortal sins.  See here and here for reports on our protest of the Chris Matthews appearance and here for our protest of the Shriver debacle.

I ask my readers to:

• Spread warning of this spiritual poison, particularly to those who attend Blessed Sacrament.
• Contact the parish (contact information is in the bulletin) and ask them to cancel both these series.

Pope Claims Environmentalism A Work Of Mercy - At Soros' Bidding?

Remember "Father Goodvibes"?  At the end of that post, I expressed my hopes that such a scenario would remain a parody.  Alas, such is not to be, as Pope Francis has swallowed the envirowhacko kool-aid.  Moreover, it seems that he's trying to force-feed Catholics that same poison on pain of sin!

Earlier today, at the "World Day of Prayer for the Care of Creation", the pope called "global warming" a "sin against God", and must be "atoned" by recycling, separating trash, using public transportation, etc.  For different accounts of the nonsense, see here, here, here.  He has gone so far as to designate "care of creation" as a de facto "Eighth Corporal Work of Mercy".

Far from being a "work of mercy", the embrace of environmentalism is to embrace knowingly the demonic, anti-life dictates of Satan himself.  I and others have written extensively on:

• The lack of true scientific basis for the "global warming" hysteria.  Many scientists debunk the nonsense - and have paid dearly for it.  Please read this link, and the links embedded therein.  I strongly suggest watching the well-researched videos.
• The anti-life motives of key leaders of this "global warming" schtick.  More and more they are becoming quite brazen about their goals.

The linked post in the last bullet highlighted the possible role that George Soros may be playing in this whole mess.  We see in discoverthenetworks.org that Soros funds EarthJustice and Defenders of Wildlife.  Human Events reveals some of his envirowhacko dabblings.  Last week we learned that Soros gave $650 billion (not million but billion) to PICO and Faith In Public Life to sway bishops to doing his bidding.  Father Sirico of the Acton Institute elaborated on that, calling these groups "Soros's Catholic Useful Idiots".  Well, maybe these groups aren't the only "useful idiots" in Soros' back pocket.  That may well apply to the pope himself, as he deliberately uses the weight of his high office to attempt to bind the consciences of Catholics into accepting "global warming" junk science.

"What's that you say?" I hear the rose-glasses wearers shrieking.  Well, the only other alternative is to suspect that the pope is a knowing and willing henchman of Soros', if not a partner.

We must of course pray for the pope, that he takes up his task to defend the Teachings of Jesus Christ, not twist them to suit some well-heeled progressive megalomaniac.