When the pope himself chooses to make light of the sacrament of matrimony by officiating at a 'marriage' that seems to have had everything to do with getting
maximum publicity mileage rather than setting things sacramentally right for a couple who have been living together unmarried for eight years, he is really
telling all the priests of the world that they have the free option to improvise on the sacraments when they want to do so, and not because there
is an emergency that may perhaps require them to improvise as best they can.
Certainly there was no emergency for the Chilean steward and flight attendant, who apparently planned on getting a 'church marriage' in the way they succeeded
to do. Why could not the pope have sat down with them for a few minutes, instead, to tell them, for example: "Tell me who your bishop or parish priest is,
and I shall instruct them to arrange so that you can get married properly in church as soon as the requirements are met"? He didn't because he thinks
of himself as a unique pope in the history of the Church who would set yet another historic example by marrying the couple then and there! Obviously this pope
does not believe in the adage that if you must do anything, do it right and do it well, because you are not serious and sincere if you just do it any which way,
sloppily and wrongly. The pope's cavalier attitude toward the sacraments is an example of the minimalism that Roberto de Mattei describes in his new essay:
Minimalism: the present-day
sickness of Catholicism
by Roberto De Mattei
Translated for Rorate caeli by 'Francesca Romana' from
January 17, 2018
In Italy recently, two videos have been circulating online which give pause for thought. The first replicates the words of Don Fredo Olivero, Rector of the Church of San Rocco in Turin, uttered during Midnight Mass. “Do you know why I’m not going to say the Creed? Because I don’t believe it!”
Amidst the laughter of the faithful, the priest continues: “As if anyone understands it – but as for myself after many years I’ve realized that it was something I didn’t understand and couldn’t accept. Let’s sing something else that presents the essential things of the faith.” The priest then substituted the Creed with the song “Dolce Sentire” from the film “Brother Sun, Sister Moon”.
The Creed sums up the articles of the Catholic Faith. To deny merely one of these articles constitutes heresy. To deny the Creed, in block, constitutes an act of public apostasy. Further, to deny it during Holy Mass, constitutes an intolerable scandal. The removal, suspension a divinis and excommunication of the priest should have been immediate. Yet none of this occurred.
While the media was spreading this incredible news, the lone voice of ecclesiastical reaction came from the other end of Italy, in Sicily, where Don Salvatore Priola, parish-priest and rector of the Marian Sanctuary of Altavilla Milicia, expressed his indignation in a homily against the priest from Piedmont, urging his faithful, and every baptized person, to react publically in the face of such a scandal.
A video reports his impassioned words:
“Brothers and sisters – he said – when you hear a priest saying things that are against the Catholic Faith, you must have the courage to stand up and tell the priest - even during the Mass: this is not allowed! It’s time to stand up when you hear things that are against our Creed. Even if a bishop says them even if a priest says them. Stand up and say: Father, Your Grace, this is not allowed. Because we have the Gospel: Because we are all under the Gospel, from the Pope down. We are all under the Gospel".
The two opposing homilies call for some reflections.
If a priest goes as far as repudiating the Catholic Creed, without incurring sanctions by the ecclesiastical authorities, we find ourselves indeed faced with a situation of crisis in the Church of unparalleled gravity. Even more since the case of Don Frido Olivero is not isolated. Thousands of priests in the world think the same way and act accordingly.
What appears to be something out of the ordinary though, and which consequently merits the total appreciation of true Catholics, is the Sicilian priest’s invitation to stand up in Church and admonish a priest publically, even a bishop, who is giving scandal. This public correction is not only legitimate, but at times a duty.
This is a point that ought to be emphasized.
The true cause of the present crisis is not so much in the arrogance of those who have lost the faith, but in the weakness of those, who, conserving it, choose to be silent, rather than defend it publically. This minimalism constitutes our present-day spiritual and moral sickness.
For many Catholics, we should not oppose errors, as it is enough “to behave well”, or resistance should be limited to the defense of the negative, moral absolutes, that is to those norms that prohibit always and in every case, specific behaviors against the Divine and moral law. This is sacrosanct, but we must remember that
there are not only negative precepts which tell us what we can never do, there are also positive precepts which tell us what we must do; what works and attitudes that are pleasing to God and through which we are able to love our neighbor.
While the negative precepts (thou shalt not kill, steal or commit impure acts) are formulated in concrete terms seeing as they prohibit a specific action always and everywhere, without exceptions, the positive precepts (prayer, sacrifice, love of the Cross) are not specific, as they cannot establish what we must do in every circumstance, yet they are also obligatory, according to the situation.
The modernists are improperly spreading “situation ethics” from the positive precepts to the negative ones, in the name of God’s love,
forgetting that loving means observing the moral law, as Jesus said: “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me” (Jn 14, 21).
The conservatives for their part, often attest positions of minimalistic morality, forgetting that a Catholic must love God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength
(Mk 12, 28-30). For this St.Thomas Aquinas explains that
we are all bound not only to the good, but to the greater good, not at the level of action, but in that of love (Mt 19, 12).
The first moral truth is love. Man must love God above all creatures, and love creatures according to the order established by God. There are negative acts that can never be carried out, under any circumstance. Yet there are positive acts, which, in determinate circumstances are mandatory to carry out. This moral duty does not have its foundation in a negative precept, but in the love of God.
Precepts then have a lower limit: what one cannot do, but they do not have a higher limit, since loving God and neighbor have no boundaries and we are perfect in the measure of our love.
John Paul II explains it in no. 52 of Veritatis Splendor.
“The fact that only the negative commandments oblige always and under all circumstances does not mean that in the moral life prohibitions are more important than the obligation to do good indicated by the positive commandments. The reason is this: the commandment of love of God and neighbour does not have in its dynamic any higher limit, but it does have a lower limit, beneath which the commandment is broken. Furthermore, what must be done in any given situation depends on the circumstances, not all of which can be foreseen.”
We must oppose the theory of the “lesser evil” with that of the “greater good”. At the level of action, the good cannot be determined a priori, since the actions we might carry out are many, uncertain and indeterminate. However, if the greater good presents itself as clear in our conscience, well defined and as such that we can act upon it
hic et nunc (here and now), negligence is culpable: we have the moral obligation to act on it.
The precept of fraternal correction is among the positive moral precepts.
One is not always obliged to do it, and one cannot demand it a duty from others, but each one of us must feel bound to react, faced with public negations of the Catholic Truth. Those who truly love God have to follow the example of Eusebius, the layman, subsequently made a bishop, who, in 423, rose up in public against Nestorius who had denied the Divine Maternity.
Don Salvatore Priola’s exhortation to stand up when we hear things said against the Catholic Faith, is an invitation to manifest our maximalism in loving God and not hide our light under a bushel, but put it in a lamp-stand, [in this way] illuminating the darkness of our times with our example.
Meanwhile, Mundabor is relentless with his intemperate language against Bergoglio, but making allowances for that [he is stooping to Bergoglio's level in his invective], there is some truth in what he says...
Minimal crowd for a papal Mass
January 19, 2018
[The photo, as you can see, is from the revitalized, renovated and consolidated Vatican media outlet. Common sense might have advised not releasing the photo
at all, but it comes from their own video. At first I thought - "oh, the photo must have been taken long before the event was scheduled to begin, when only the
early birds were in", but then the popemobile with the pope in it is clearly in the photo so it does reflect the attendance for this papal Mass. Thank God there was
never any such embarrassing photo taken in Benedict XVI's Pontificate... So, all right now, Spadaro, Ivereigh, Tornielli, Allen and all you assorted professional
makers/keepers of the fast-fading myth of the-most-popular-pope-ever, let's hear your explanations! Perhaps a terrorist threat or fear of anti-Bergoglio bombs
kept away the faithful who really and truly love this pope despite all the negative polling that preceded his visit?]
This is the astonishing picture of the epic failure of Francis in Chile.
Who is interested in
[an old, lewd, bitter ass] someone spouting sugary nonsense or socialist drivel every time he opens that
[stupid] mouth of his?
Who has any respect for someone constantly sabotaging the Sacraments?
When will the Vatican (and the endless choir of sycophants constantly licking his boots) admit that this man
[old, lurid scoundrel]
not only does not attract, but positively repels the faithful?
This man is an embarrassment not only for the Church as a whole, but even to those who support his destructive agenda. Too vulgar,
[too lewd], too grumpy, too short-tempered to keep the lie of the “humble Pope” going.
The more he keeps traveling, the more we will see pictures like this one, which will couple well with the one of a more and more
deserted Saint Peter's Square in the Vatican...
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 19/01/2018 22:15]