BENEDICT XVI: NEWS, PAPAL TEXTS, PHOTOS AND COMMENTARY

ALWAYS AND EVER OUR MOST BELOVED BENEDICTUS XVI






With all the attention focused on AL dissenters from the Catholic hierarchy, little has been said about the reaction of the FSSPX, other than a handful of commentaries shortly after the document was published, including a brief excerpt from a homily delivered by Mons. Bernard Fellay, FSSPX Superior-General. Thanks to a blogsite by an FSSPX follower, here is a transcript of what Mons. Fellay said about the doctrinal and moral crisis in the Church today in relation to the Vatican's handling of the FSSPX, in a lecture he gave at St. Anthony's Church in Wanganui, New Zealand, on August 24, 2016:

Mons. Fellay: 'The excesses
of this pope are now out in the open -
A catastrophe for the Church but it's good
that finally there is reaction'

---

...It means that there are now in the Church, so serious problems, so threatening problems for the existence of the Church, that the Congregation for the Faith is forced to revise their position with us. [The CDF has apparently relented on its previous position that FSSPX acceptance of certain Vatican II teachings was necessary before the society's status can be regularized in the Church and therefore come back into full communion with Rome.]

Consider that, even if we say these problems are major for them, they look minor in comparison with the denying of the obligation of morals. You say that you can give communion to divorced, so called remarried people - that’s a very, very serious thing that is opposed directly to Our Lord’s words. Our Lord’s words in the Holy Scripture. It’s a heresy. It is really hitting Catholic doctrine to the ground.

The CDF has to deal with these problems [In fact, the CDF is not dealing with 'these problems' - which must refer to the many doctrinal quandaries that Pope Francis's statements and documents are raising for the CDF - because the CDF cannot take any doctrinal position (whether reaffirming established Church teaching, or modifying it in any way) without the authority and approval of the pope] and they give the impression [that they must therefore] put aside our problem.

When in fact, already three years ago, Cardinal Muller told us in a meeting "You are occupying [the time of] the CDF, you are obliging us to dedicate to you such precious time while there are enormous problems in the Church". So he was very unhappy to be dealing with us while there were enormous problems in the Church.

At the time, I was not very happy about these things, but with time, with reflecting, yes, they are facing enormous problems and suddenly what appeared to be the problem - that is us - maybe looks like a solution. And here you have to understand something, which is very, very interesting.

The excesses of the present pope have caused a startled reaction. It’s open now. It’s no longer hidden... now you have cardinals, you have bishops who have openly contradicted this new tendency of hitting morals and even doctrine.

We have counted that there are between 26 and 30 cardinals who have openly attacked these modernist positions. And numerous bishops. To the point that we have lost the monopoly on protesting such positions - till just a few years ago we were the only ones to state publicly these positions (to be) wrong. Now as they say, we have lost the monopoly of these attacks.

You have various [protests] - they’re not uniform, so you have some which are more forceful, stronger, you have some that are a little weaker, some are broader - but you have these… and it is very interesting because it is new, you didn’t have that before.

It’s a catastrophe for the Church - but it’s good, it’s good that finally there is a reaction. It’s high time. And this reaction is growing. And now you have to reflect.

How can someone oppose the pope? We know, we have given the explanation. It’s (been) years we have been explaining why we have the right to do so. But these bishops and cardinals are now facing the question: how and in which name do they have the right to oppose the pope - the Holy Father, who is supposed to be under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. These are all the arguments made against us, to say 'You must obey'.

So under which name now do they say: disobey. Well, there is only one answer. Because the Church in the past has already spoken about these things. And given the answer. And that’s what we call Tradition.

...We’ve been told that at the last meeting of the CDF, with all the cardinals and bishops who are members, a plenaria or full meeting, there was only one cardinal who said, ‘No, no, no. The Society must absolutely accept the whole council’, (while) the others pointed out,And other voices who said ‘These people [the FSSPX} are doing only one thing, (that is) to repeat what the Church has always taught’. So you see, something is on the move…

---

I've just come across this site which apparently keeps track of all the questionable, improper and/or outrageous things Our (far from) Beloved Pope has been saying and doing, but in a more lay-oriented chronicle approach than the more theological-doctrinal approach of Denzinger-Bergoglio. Something I have been wanting to do, except that it would take me ages to research everything with the right date, quotation and report over the past three years and eight months...

However, a look at their yearly summaries is not very encouraging because they seem spotty and incomplete, prima facie, leaving out, for instance, the more startling assertions he made in his first interviews with Spadaro and Scalfari, his priestly and secular alter egos, respectively... But a look at their actual entries is more promising, as the first entries from 2013, farther below, would show:

---

"Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh."
– Catechism of the Catholic Church

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them."
- Matthew 7,15

---

---

Summary and Highlights

2013
– Pope Benedict XVI announced "resignation" and lighting struck Saint Peter's Dome hours later;
- In his first speech Francis announced himself as the Bishop of Rome from the 'end of the world';
- Masonic lodges congratulated Jorge Bergoglio on becoming Pope Francis and wrote 'nothing will be as it was before';
- Pope Francis claimed that the miracle of Jesus multiplying the bread and fish was really a miracle of 'sharing', not multiplying;
- Said 'Who am I to judge?' about gay priests;
- Restricted use of Latin Mass by Franciscan Friars [dismissed the leadership and placed them under Vatican administration]
- Said to youth 'Make a mess' and 'stir up trouble in your diocese'; - The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League tweeted 'Thank you Pope Francis from prochoice women everywhere';
- Said we are 'living the myth of Shiva';
- Cover of the leading LGBT magazine, The Advocate;
- Said atheists who do good are redeemed;
- Started taking selfies with fans…

2014
– Held the first Muslim/Jewish prayers and Koran readings at the Vatican;
- Sent an iPhone message to evangelicals through prosperity-gospel TV preacher Kenneth Copeland;
- Peace doves attacked;
- Said faithful may 'scold the Lord' and also that he would baptize aliens;
- Cover of Rolling Stone;
Accidentally said 'the F word' [???];
- Cardinal Dolan claimed Francis said 'Catholic Church should not dismiss gay marriage';
- Mentioned re-thinking celibacy for priests;
- Said he's 'not interested in converting evangelicals to Catholicism';
- Initial synod document suggests shift in Church's position on homosexuality, but was revised;
- Compared Islamic terrorists to Christian fundamentalists…

2015
– Claimed lost souls do not go to Hell;
- Joked about the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ;
- Claimed that Jesus begged his parents for forgiveness and the Virgin Mary 'reproached' Christ;
- Became PETA's Man of the Year;
- Met with a transgender dubbed 'The Devil's Daughter';
- Left Lutherans wondering if they can now take Communion in the Catholic Church;
- Routinely scolded and mocked 'rigid' Catholics;
- Projected images of animals onto Saint Peter's for climate change support on the Feast day of the Immaculate Conception…

2016
- Released a video promoting his prayer intentions featuring Muslim prayer beads, a Buddha statue, and Menorah, but no cross;
- Changed Roman Missal to include women in Holy Thursday foot-washing;
- Lutherans received Holy Communion at Saint Peter's Basilica; - Announced he will participate in a joint ceremony with the World Lutheran Federation to commemorate the 500th anniversary of the Reformation;
- Suggested that John the Baptist doubted that Jesus Christ was the Messiah;
- Taught priests that those confessing need not verbalize their sins but can confess through 'the language of the gesture';
- Proclaimed that a US Presidential candidate is 'not a Christian'; - Approved of contraception in special circumstances;
- Praised an abortion rights advocate;
- Issued an Exhortation that changes the practice of denying Holy Communion to those who are in 'irregular unions' (divorced and remarried, etc.);
- Discussed possibility of women deacons;
- Compared idea of Islamic conquest to Jesus' Words in the Gospel of Saint Matthew;
- Said that Mother Earth is the one who 'gave us life and safeguards us';
- Taught that Jesus 'knew temptation in Himself'; Elevated memorial of St. Mary Magdalene to rank of Apostle;
- Said that the 'the great majority of Sacramental marriages are null' then issued a clarification changing 'the great majority' to 'a portion';
- Said some priests 'are animals';
- Said the 'intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken;
- Said the Church should 'ask forgiveness to the gay person who is offended';
- Said if he speaks of Islamic violence he 'must speak of Catholic violence';
- Met with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg; Added an eighth Work of Mercy, 'Caring for Our Common Home';
- Prayer intention to build a society 'that places the human person at the center';
- Said 'It's not right to convince someone of your faith';
- Welcomed a statue of Martin Luther in the Vatican;
- Completely overhauled Congregation responsible for liturgy;
- Signed joint pledge with Lutherans to remove obstacles to full unity;
- Created 6 new 'Beatitudes' for 'modern' Christians;
- Said Martin Luther was a prophet whom he admired;
- Said inequality is 'the greatest evil that exists';
- Said 'communists are the best Christians';
- Cardinals publicly and formally ask for clarity on Amoris Laetitia after being ignored by Francis; Attributed 'weakness' and a 'bad memory' to God…

---

---

MARCH 13, 2013
Jorge Mario Bergoglio becomes 'Pope Francis'. He is the first Pope from the Jesuit Order, the first Pope from the Americas, and the first Pope who became a priest after Vatican II.

First words of Pope Francis on the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica 'Brothers and sisters, good evening. You all know that the duty of the Conclave was to give a bishop to Rome. It seems that my brother Cardinals have gone almost to the end of the world to get him…but here we are. '

Newly elected Pope Francis jokes with Cardinals who elected him saying 'May God forgive you for what you've done.' (NEW YORK POST)

MARCH 14, 2013
Grand Master Gustavo Raffi of the Grand Orient Masonic Lodge of Italy praises election of Pope Francis writing 'with Pope Francis, nothing will be as it was before.' (GRANDEORIENTE.IT)

MARCH 14, 2013
Pope Says Journalists Risk 'Becoming Ill From Coprophilia' – In an interview with La Stampa's Vatican Insider reporter in February 2012, the new Pope Francis, then just Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio said 'Journalists sometimes risk becoming ill from coprophilia and thus fomenting coprophagia: which is a sin that taints all men and women, that is, the tendency to focus on the negative rather than the positive aspects.' If you are unfamilier with the words "coprophilia" and "coprophagia", here are definitions from Merriam Webster: COPROPHILIA : marked interest in excrement; especially : the use of feces or filth for sexual excitement — cop·ro·phil·i·ac – noun COPROPHAGOUS : feeding on dung — co·proph·a·gy – noun (BUSINESS INSIDER)

MARCH 15, 2013
Pope Francis Ditches Red Shoes (TELEGRAPH)

MARCH 16, 2013
Pope Francis reportedly says 'Carnival time is over!' when offered the traditional papal red cape [mozzetta] after his election. (BBC)[This report was quickly denied.]

MAY 14, 2013
Pope Francis Elected After Supernatural 'Signs' in the Conclave, Says Cardinal – Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, who was himself widely tipped as a possible successor to Pope Benedict, said he had personally had two “strong signs” that Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio was “the chosen one” in the run up to vote. He said only divine intervention could explain the speed with which the Argentine Cardinal – who did not feature on any of the main lists of likely candidates compiled by Vatican experts – was elected.

Speaking to an Anglican conference in London, he also said the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Rev Justin Welby, had a “strange similarity” to the new Pope. He said that the two elections were a “little miracle” and a “sign from the Lord” that the two churches should work towards closer unity. (THE TELEGRAPH)

MAY 22, 2013
Pope Francis Says Atheists Who Do Good Are Redeemed. 'We all have the duty to do good. For Atheists: Just do good and we'll find a meeting point' (REUTERS)

MAY 23, 2013
Pope Francis officially de-emphasizes papal titles, choosing instead to list himself first by the basic title "Bishop of Rome" in the Vatican's annual directory (NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER)

JUNE 2, 2013
Pope Francis speaking about Jesus multiplying the bread and fish says 'Here's the miracle, that it is more a sharing than a multiplying' (CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY)
....

---

I haven't checked the rest of it, but already I see that the WILD VOICE compilers have not been using the papal texts from the Vatican daily bulletins and Vatican radio (for the morning homilettes, where he has made an continues to make some of his most outrageous statements), so I guess that leaves work for a more diligent researcher who has the time to spare...

But a good supplement would be Mundabor's 'Francis Papers' which should be fairly comprehensive since Mundabor does not let any 'commentable' statement or event pass unnoticed and he always links to his sources...

But if Mundabor is too 'biased' for your taste [he commonly calls PF 'The Evil Clown'], try the reports and commentary of Sandro Magister, Edward Pentin, Fr. Z, Fr. Hunwicke, and Fr. Scalese (although he only resumed blogging three years into this Pontificate).

BTW, if you are wondering who is the priest who is caressing the pope's cheek in the Mundabor photo, that's Mons. Ricca, former Vatican second-tier diplomat who lived openly with his Swiss lover in at least two postings abroad and who was caught by the Asuncion police trapped in an elevator with a Paraguayan male prostitute. He has apparently turned the page on all that, now manages Casa Santa Marta and was named by the pope to be the 'spiritual director' of IOR, a euphemism and cover for being the pope's 'eyes and ears' at the Vatican bank...

I thought this commentary was apropos for this post:


Defending good priests
from the papacy of insults

December 9, 2016

The papal hits just keep on coming. If you are a “rigid” Catholic these days (in other words orthodox and traditional) there’s a bullseye on your cassock and the Holy Father has taken aim. In this morning’s homily at Casa Santa Marta, Pope Francis resorted once again to insulting “rigid” Catholics, this time priests.

The Holy Father began by first discussing the need for priests to be mediators rather than intermediaries. Yes, I am aware that those words (largely) have the same connotation, but regardless, Pope Francis classified intermediaries as being those awful “rigid” priests we keep hearing about. One wonders if by rigid he is referring to those unmerciful meanies who get so hung up on things like doctrine, truth, sin, salvation, etc.

Nevertheless, it was then that the pope recounted this odd anecdote:

---

About rigidity and worldliness, it was some time ago that an elderly monsignor of the curia came to me, who works, a normal man, a good man, in love with Jesus – and he told me that he had gone to buy a couple of shirts at Euroclero [the clerical clothing store] and saw a young fellow – he thinks he had not more than 25 years, or a young priest or about to become a priest – before the mirror, with a cape, large, wide, velvet, with a silver chain. He then took the Saturno [wide-brimmed clerical headgear], he put it on and looked himself over. A rigid and worldly one. [And that's an instant judgement from 'Who-am-I-to-judge' Bergoglio who knows nothing about the pries except what he was just told.]

---

This has, unfortunately, become classic Francis. Note we have the elderly monsignor, who is both “normal” and “good.” In other words, the Vatican II generation priest is the good guy in our story. He just wants to buy a couple regular shirts.

He then encounters the usual villain in these papal admonitions: the young traditionalist. This one is extra young (not more than 25) and extra traditional (trying on a Saturno!), so we know that he is extra villainous.

For his actions, trying on the cape and Saturno, the young man is called “rigid and worldly”, which seems a bit extreme. After all, who are we to judge him?

Pope Francis went on:

---

And that priest – he is wise, that monsignor, very wise – was able to overcome the pain, with a line of healthy humor and added: ‘And it is said that the Church does not allow women priests!’. Thus, the work that the priest does when he becomes a functionary ends in the ridiculous, always.

---

Ridicule. Always an effective tool for educating your (spiritual) children. As a father of five I can honestly say that insults and ridicule are horrible ways to correct our kids behavior. Of course, there really is nothing to correct here. The villain of the piece is simply a young priest who prefers traditional garb. Period.

This disdain for a certain group of faithful, both clergy and laity, who lean traditional in their preferences is par for the papal course these days. Whatever.

That a younger generation has rejected the scorched earth policy of the post-conciliar generation is beyond comprehension to them. We want ALL the truth and beauty of our faith. That a 25 year old priest might actually want to dress like priests have dressed for centuries confounds them.

As to the “joke” by the normal and good elderly monsignor referencing the young priest behaving as a woman, this is standard fare for the self-loathing Catholic. It’s straight out of the National Catholic Reporter com box. It’s what heterodox Catholics resort to when presented with cassocks, capes, capa magnas, Latin, and lace. Those on the side of error always attack what’s true, good, and beautiful.

We must defend our good priests from this continued effort to demean and demoralize them in their vocation. The continuing insults hurled at so many good and holy men can take a toll. It’s the Saul Alinsky tactics of the Left: isolate and ridicule your opponent.

Many of our very best, orthodox, traditional priests will never ask for our help. They will perceive this papacy as an opportunity to grow in holiness through these insults. They’re not wrong of course.

We the faithful, however, must still defend. We must fortify them through our words of encouragement. We must reassure them in their vocation. And most of all we must support them with our prayers, most particularly to Our Lady.

And let us all consider buying our favorite priest a Saturno to go along with his glorious cassock while we’re at it.

P.S. Fr Z has unleashed a near-rant on this subject...

Pope Francis pummels traditional
priests, seminarians, laity … again.
What can we learn from that?
by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

12 December 2016

Over the last few years, Our Holy Father Pope Francis has said some pretty awful things about priests. He doesn’t limit himself to priests. Remember how he pummeled the Cardinals and Bishops of the Roman Curia as a Christmas gift a couple years ago? Everyone is a target: women religious, theologians, canonists, you name ’em.

The other day, during his daily Mass fervorino he recounted an anecdote – actually, a bit of gossip – in a rather – well, there isn’t any other way to take it – insulting manner about a seminarian getting some clerical gear. He heaped ridicule on this seminarian and on pretty much anyone who respects and uses outward traditional garb or, I suppose, anything else that is traditional.

I am reminded of his mocking of an altar boy who was standing with his hands folded together carefully… as altar boys ought. I am reminded of his scoffing at a spiritual bouquet which people presented to him.

I honestly don’t know what His Holiness is trying to accomplish with these harsh gestures and words. It could be that – while they deal with things that are not his cup of tea – he says them before their possible impact is considered.

BUT … Don’t we all do that? I know that I do, sometimes. And I regret it afterward. I suspect that Pope Francis does too. Let’s see his words posted at the site of Vatican Radio:

---

About rigidity and worldliness, it was some time ago that an elderly monsignor of the curia came to me, who works, a normal man, a good man, in love with Jesus – and he told me that he had gone to buy a couple of shirts at Euroclero [the clerical clothing store] and saw a young fellow – he thinks he had not more than 25 years, or a young priest or about to become a priest – before the mirror, with a cape, large, wide, velvet, with a silver chain. He then took the Saturno [wide-brimmed clerical headgear], he put it on and looked himself over. A rigid and worldly one. And that priest – he is wise, that monsignor, very wise – was able to overcome the pain, with a line of healthy humor and added: ‘And it is said that the Church does not allow women priests!’. [That the 'Holy Father' would consider such a remark 'a line of healthy humor' is in itself highly questionable and opbjectionable!] Thus, does the work that the priest does when he becomes a functionary ends in the ridiculous, always.”

---

It’s sort of an inversion of the parable of the publican and the pharisee, no? “Thank God I’m not like him!”, only the fancy and the lowly are reversed. [But Bergoglio's so-called humility has been an inversion of this parable from the very beginning!]

I must ask: How many times has Pope Francis inveighed against the perils of gossip in the Church? Gossip in “the terrorism of words” according to Vatican Radio. “Gossip is rotten,” he told a crowd gathered in St. Peter’s Square back in 2014. “At the beginning, it seems to be something enjoyable and fun, like a piece of candy. But at the end, it fills the heart with bitterness and also poisons us.” You can find other examples.

Also, a subtle point: this is probably not going to be appreciated by women who think that they can be, or want to be, priests. THIS is what the Pope thinks of you: You just want to play dress up – ha-ha! – aren’t you ridiculous?

A couple comments and explanations about this are in order. First, the cape described is called a cappa. It is not the cappa magna of the bishop. It is a black, ankle or slightly higher length, cloak. It sometimes has a velvet collar (mine does not), that fastens at the throat with clasps and a chain. Sometimes they have fabric “frogs” as a closure.

The use of these accouterments means, in itself, precisely nothing. It is superficial to judge the heart and mind of a person by these fleeting glimpses.

After all, who even knows if that seminarian or priest actually bought what he tried on? And who knows why he might have bought it? Any priest who lives in a cold climate – as I do – and who has to go to the cemetery for burials or who goes from the rectory to the church when it’s -10° and blowing knows how useful this cloak is.

Moreover, the flat hat, or as the Roman’s call them, “saturno” (after the planet – also called “frying pans”), is quite practical. It keeps the rain and snow from going down your neck and it will shade over a book as well.

However puzzling and, frankly, derogatory, the public recitation of that anecdote was to a large number of people, my main concern reaches beyond the itsy bitsy, teensy weensy feelings of traditional Roman Catholics, who by now are thoroughly inured by decades of abuse and neglect from the priests and bishops who should be giving them pastoral care.

Let’s consider for a moment… this:
QUAERITUR: Would we Latins be out of line in mocking our Eastern Catholic or Orthodox brothers? [Would this pope even think of saying any such criticisms to any of them, least of all to, say, Patriarch Bartholomew? He would not, of course, because Eastern Catholic and Orthodox prelates are simply carrying on their millennial tradition. But so are Roman Catholic priests who do not buy into the post-Vat2 shameful idea of 'hide your priestly identity from the world if you can'.]

Lots of Eastern priests wear silver and gold chains with cross and icons. Are they doing something bad? Look at these guys, with their black robes and their silver chains. Some of them can and do wear three at a time!
[
Heck… Eastern Catholics and Orthodox prelates don’t just wear hats, they wear crowns!

Look at all that fancy finery! Are they just functionaries? Are they ridiculous? Perhaps it should be sold and the money given to the poor.

As for the saturno…

Why did THE POPE wear it? Why, to be ridiculous, of course. (The real answer is that the sun was really hot.) St. John Paul used a saturno when it was hot. [And St John XXIII who certainly wore it more often than his two successors.]

Let’s get serious for the last part of this post.

I’ve known clerics who are really into the outward trappings of traditional Catholicism. Really into them. Some – few – of them are, well, a bit vain. Others, however, are perfectly normal, sane, hard working men who pour themselves out like rivers to their flocks. They find the garb good and useful and they put it to good use.

In time people see what priests are all about even if they wear – gasp – a cappa when they go out into the cold. And… lots… dare I say… most? the vast majority?… want their priests to look like priests. No? Am I wrong about that?

So. What’s the take-away from this for me, for the priests and the seminarians who are reading this. What can I learn from this beating that the Vicar of Christ doled out to every cleric who owns a cloak and a hat, who does not despise traditional things enough?

First, be careful how you talk about people based solely on appearances or glances of something that you can’t possibly grasp from a distance. Check your tongues! How often would we – would I – have avoided sinning had we – had I – simply kept our mouths shut.

Next, remember that the Church has two lungs, West and East. The Holy Father would never in a million years mock Easterners for their traditional style of dress and for their high liturgical style. But he regularly mocks Westerners. What of it? We Latins also have our traditional style of dress and our own high liturgical style that matches the East step for step. We have nothing to apologize for in wanting it and using it with good intentions.

Also, too much of a good thing is too much. If you are a young priest or a seminarian, and you are really into these things, examine your motives and consciences. I’m not saying give them up. On the contrary! I’m saying that if you are too attached to them, to the exclusion of prudence, etc., make some changes...

Let’s encourage these men! [He continues with a call for his project to get birettas for seminarians.]

Lastly, we priests – most of us anyway – are not precious tender snowflakes who need affirmation and hugs and puppies and coloring books. I won’t say that we need a drubbing all the time, but we can take it when it's handed out. [But fairly, not unfairly and wrongly, as in this papal drubbing!]

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 13/12/2016 16:43]

Bergoglio as politician and his myth
about 'the people'[aka 'the poor']
The pope of 'mercy' is also the leader of anti-capitalist/anti-globalization 'popular movements'.
Castro has died, Trump wins, and South American populist regimes are crumbling, but he isn’t giving up.
He is certain that the future of humanity is with the 'excluded people'.
by Sandro Magister


ROME, December 11, 2016 - It is evident by now that the pontificate of Francis has two linchpins, religious and political.

The religious one is 'the shower of mercy that purifies everyone and everything'. [Yeah, right! God's mercy as a bottomless entitlement in the welfare-state 'economy of salvation' according to Bergoglio, in which a sinner simply has to take and take without having to do anything to deserve that mercy.]

The political one is the battle on a worldwide scale against [what he calls] “the economy that kills”, which the pope wants to fight together with those “popular movements”, as he calls them, in which he sees the shining future of humanity.

One has to go back to Paul VI to find another pope wedded to an organic political framework, in his case that of the European Catholic parties of the twentieth century, in Italy the DC of Alcide De Gasperi and in Germany the CDU of Konrad Adenauer.

To this European political tradition, which moreover has faded away, Jorge Mario Bergoglio is an outsider. As an Argentine, his seedling ground is another one altogether. And it has a name that has a negative connotation in Europe, but not in the pope’s native land: populism.

“The word ‘people’ is not a logical category, it is a mystical category,” Francis said last February, on his way back from Mexico. Afterward, interviewed by his Jesuit confrere Antonio Spadaro, he adjusted his aim. Rather than “mystical,” he said, “in the sense that everything the people does is good,” it is better to say “mythical.” “It takes a myth to understand the people.” [Does that last sentence make any sense to you? Why peddle any myths to begin with? Bergoglio has been peddling this myth that 'the poor', 'the excluded', 'the marginalized' are necessarily virtuous and incapable of doing anything wrong (because the rest of the world is doing them wrong), and now he adds this myth of 'everything the people does is good'. Not that anyone in his right mind buys these myths at all. Moreover, you do not understand anything by falsifying or mythifying it, because you are basically misrepresenting!]

Bergoglio recounts this myth every time he calls around him the “popular movements.” He has done it three times so far: the first time in Rome in 2014, the second in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, in 2015, the third last November 5, again in Rome. Every time he rouses the audience with a lengthy speech, of around thirty pages each, which when put together now form the political manifesto of this pope.

The movements that Francis calls to himself are not ones that he created, they pre-exist him. There is nothing overtly Catholic about them. They are in part the heirs of earlier anti-capitalist and anti-globalization gatherings in Seattle and Porto Alegre. Plus the multitude of rejects from which the pope sees bursting forth “that torrent of moral energy which springs from including the excluded in the building of a common destiny.”

It is to these “discards of society" [Even Marx and Lenin did not call their 'proletariat' 'discards of society' - Isn't Bergoglio demeaning them by characterizing them as 'discards' or 'rejects'?] that Francis entrusts a future that would provide land, of housing, and work for all [In your dreams, Bergoglio! because what you envision is a utopia, literally a 'nowhere', because it is not and never has been realistic] - thanks to "their rise to power in a process that transcends the logical proceedings of formal democracy.” [And what process might that be but armed revolution? Where has such a 'transcendent' rise to power ever materialized? The history of revolutions since the American and French Revolutions, down to the Russian, Chinese and Cuban revolutions was the achievement of educated bourgeois leaders acting in the name of 'the people' - those who (with the exception of the American Revolution), once the revolutionary leaders were in power, ended up being their helpless pawns. And significantly, as the anti-communist socialist movements of the 20th century charged, "the cannon fodder when their bourgeois governments went to war". Bergoglio and the 'popular movements' he champions and inflames are hallucinating.]

To the “popular movements,” on November 5, the pope said that the time has come to make a leap in politics, in order “to revitalize and recast the democracies, which are experiencing a genuine crisis.”

And if this global revolution needs a leader, there are those who have already pointed to him in none other than the pope. As did, at the Teatro Cervantes in Buenos Aires a year ago, the Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo, an influential voice of the worldwide far left, when he upheld the cause of a new 'Communist and Papal International', with Francis as its undisputed leader, in order to fight and win the “class war” of the 21st century. [To those who may not have followed the meanderings of Marxism-Communism since the 19th century, this note from Wikipedia: "The Communist International, abbreviated as Comintern ,and also known as the Third International (1919–1943), was an international communist organization that advocated world communism, which intended to fight "by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie and for the creation of an international Soviet republic as a transition stage to the complete abolition of the State".]

At Vattimo’s side sat a pleased Bishop Marcelo Sanchez Sorondo, an Argentine and a close collaborator of Bergoglio at the Vatican. [Count him among the most diligent and intellectually-challenged of the bootlicking courtisans in the Bergoglio court.]

The powers against which 'the excluded people' are rebelling, [Did I miss something in contemporary history? Has there been a genuine peasants' war or workers' uprising anywhere that has moved the needle in any way? And BTW, one wouldn't consider peasants and workers 'excluded' in any way since they represent two significant sectors of modern society - agriculture and labor. They may be disadvantaged or unfairly treated at times, or in large part if you think so, but certainly not excluded, because their activity is essential to society.] according to the pope, are “the economic systems that in order to survive must wage war and thus restore economic balance.” This is his key for explaining the “piecemeal world war” and even Islamic terrorism.

Meanwhile, however, the populist South American leftists for whom Bergoglio shows such a liking are going through one downfall after another: in Argentina, in Brazil, in Peru, in Venezuela.

As partial consolation for the pope, from this last country has come the new superior general of the Society of Jesus, Fr. Arturo Sosa Abascal, who has spent a lifetime writing and teaching about nothing but politics and the social sciences, having been a Marxist in his youth and then a supporter of the rise to power of Hugo Chávez, the one who brought the Venezuelan pueblo to disaster.

But Pope Francis's politics have now also been ruffled by the death of Fidel Castro and the election of Donald Trump, the latter surprisingly voted for precisely by the “discards” of capitalist big industry. [Not exactly discards in the sense Bergoglio uses the word but, as Trump calls them, 'the forgotten ones', who have no politically correct culture wars to fight and are therefore not heard at all in the political cacophony of the media, but have only wanted to have the social and economic conditions they expect to have so they can pursue the 'American dream'. This time, they made their voices heard in the vote against Hilary Clinton and the Democratic travesty of government in the past eight years.]

In fairness, I probably ought to suffer by going through those 90 pages of Bergoglian rabble-rousing, but I'll mortify myself some other way, and trust that Magister has given us the gist of those speeches, since it seems to be more of the 'rolling my eyes' socio-economic and political claptrap that the latter has been pontificatign about every chance he gets.

One of the problems this pope has is that he has a limited vocabulary that he uses again and again somewhat mindlessly but nevertheless deliberately because they make up those key concepts of his that he always tends to generalize. 'Rigid' is one of these words, and so are 'discards' and 'rejects' and a 'throwaway culture'.

When someone uses certain favorite words repetitively, he ends up saying them indiscriminately. And we have a variation of the 'boy who cried wolf' metaphor - say something false too often and your audience will stop taking you seriously or listening to you at all. Fortunately, Bergoglio's crying Wolf! is not the kind of lie that media make and succeed in imposing on the public as a 'fact' by sheer repetition.

Of course. his most serious problem is that, lacking a systematic mind, he often ends up incoherent.

Grading Bergoglio on the
subject of globalization:
He gets the failing mark of 'Pinocchio andante' (walking Pinocchio)
Translated from

December 12, 2016

In Pope Francis's speeches, there often recur theories with vague origins and foundations but which have become consolidated for him as unshakable certainties that explain everything.

For instance, that which he recalled once more in a recent interview with the Belgian weekly magazine Tertio:

---

There is an economic theory that I have not been able to verify but I have read it in various books: that in the history of mankind, whenever a state sees that its finances are unwell, it makes war in order to bring those finances back on track. Which means to say that war is one of the easiest ways to produce wealth.

---

Or even the other theory which in his judgment explains the growth of poverty and of inequality hand in hand with the advance of progress. He reiterated this most recently in his homily in November 13, 2015, at a Mass for 'socially excluded persons' in the context of his Year of Mercy:

---

This is born the tragic contradiction of our times: the more progress and possibilities increase, which is good, the more there are who have no access to such good. [And what statistics does he have to support such an assertion???]

---

[I believe the Mass was for the 'homeless', more than 4000 of whom were privileged to be flown to Rome from all over Western Europe by unnamed sponsors. By which fact alone, they were not 'excluded'. But one might also refer to the phenomenon of a significant number of homeless people in the Western world who choose to be homeless and will not seek even temporary shelter in public or private 'shelters for the homeless' unless perhaps unbearable winter cold forces them to do so - i.e., there are people who choose to exclude themselves from society, even if they have no choice but to live on the alms of society as well as the food, clothing and furniture that other people throw away.

And it is false to claim that society excludes 'the poor'. Society at large, independent of government, has always been composed of at least three socio-economic strata - the rich, the middle class and the poor - and one is born poor, middle class or rich, which is something beyond anyone's control.

What modern society has facilitated, however, is social mobility, generally upward, and there are more than enough rags-to-riches wonders through the centuries to show that it is possible; but more important, the continuous rise in the numbers who make up the middle class around the world (a fact demonstrated by the UN's own data, but which surprisingly, Bergoglio fails to ever mention) is a tribute to the fact that given the right conditions and opportunities, people who are born poor and otherwise disadvantaged, can lift themselves to, at least the middle class, and with the potential to rise even higher.]

Curiously, a few days ago, on December 8, in the first episode of a new series on RAI-2, this Bergoglian mantra was courteously but inexorably demolished.

The program Night Tabloid, a late evening newsmagazine hsted by Annalisa Bruchi, who was brilliant in explaining simply and precisely even the most complicated economic questions.

At one point, Bruchi yields the floor to Davide De Luca, a young researcher, who runs the program feature called 'Pagella politica' (political report card) which verifies with real data - i.e., carries out fact checking - what is true or false about theories and stories 'in vogue'.

Well, the first report card on the program was the quotation cited above which was replayed as he said it. And the vote was: 'Pinocchio andante' [A walking Pinocchio], i.e., a lie. [In the USA, I believe the Washington Post regularly subjects public statements to a fact check, and rates them as 1, 2, 3 or 4 Pinocchios - Pinocchio, of course, being an Italian literary creation, a wooden puppet who dreamed he was a real boy, and whose most outstanding feature was a short nose that becomes longer when he is under stress, especially while lying. So, a walking Pinocchio would be a living Pinocchio.]

Here is how the 'test' went, and the final 'failing grade'.

---

Bruchi: Has globalization impoverished us, or has it made us wealthier? And who?
De Luca: It is difficult to answer but let us try. Certainly, there is a part of the population in the developed countries that we may call the 'losers' in globalization.

For example, in Europe, 9.5% of the population is an risk of poverty even if they have jobs. It is a category whose number is on the rise. In 2006, they made up 8.1% of the population. It is even worse in Italy where the percentage is 11.5%, compared to 9% in 2006.

Some say that this has been caused by globalization, which has opened the developed countries to competition with developing countries, and therefore those who have lower work qualifications in Europe must compete with those in developing countries.

But the pope has intervened precisely on this subject and tells us that it is not just a problem in Italy, but in the entire world - that progress and globalization constitute a problem for everyone.

He said, "The more progress and possibilities increase, which is good, the more there are who have no access to such good." He is formulating an equation: That the more progress increases, the more persons there are who are excluded from that progress.

But as we just showed, it is true in part for European nations. But if we look a the rest of the world and see what is happening on a planetary level, then the formulation does not seem correct at all.

Take, for example, the number of undernourished persons. In 1990-1992, they made up 18.6% of the entire global population. But in 2014-2016, that is 25 years later, the percentage was down t 10.9.

Or let's look at extreme poverty, defined as those who live on less than $2 a day. In 1990, they made up 35% of the global population - one in 3 persons alive. Twenty-five years later, in 2013, this was down to 10.7%, one in 10. Why, because two-thirds of them died? No, because in that time, the world population had risen by 1.5 billion individuals, so now we are 7 billion - but according to the percentages, much less poor, much less undernourished.

So if we transform this criticism of globalization as the pope does into an absolute denunciation and say that we have all been set back because of it - well, in short, at the cost of being rather blasphemous, we are constrained to give the pope a grade of Pinocchio andante.

---

I thought a bit about whether to post this, because of Ms. Barnhardt's extreme aversion to the current pope (with a corollary accusatory
attitude towards Benedict XVI whom she blames for the fact of a Pope Francis, though she considers he is still pope because his
'resignation' was erroneous and defective) but I decided to do so to show a legitimate if extreme reaction to this pope's erudite potty talk...
Warning! Other than Ms. Barnhardt's epithets for this pope, be prepared for her blunt plain talk on the 'practical' aspects of a poop fetish.

Obligatory post on
the pope's poopy fetish
by Ann Barnhardt

December 11, 2016

So, are we ready now to man up and face the fact that Bergoglio is NOT the Vicar of Christ? The guy is railing publicly about sexual arousal from eating feces [he has not, of course, articulated exactly what coprophilia and coprophagia mean the two times he has used them in public to characterize the media] in order to discredit people who report on what exactly it is that he and his Freemasonic-Communist-sodomite henchmen are doing.

“Fake News” is the new meme and buzzword that the global forces of Antichrist, with Bergoglio being the center around which everything seems to be revolving, will use to discredit ALL reportage on their activities. Speaking of which, the highly respected Vatican reporter Edward Pentin, a credit to his race, has an interview out in Regina magazine that is very informative about the climate inside the Vatican under the Bergoglian Antipapacy. [Just as Mundabor habitually refers to PF as 'The Evil Clown', so Barnhardt calls him an 'Anti-Pope'.]

And let me repeat something that I heard earlier this year from a very credible source in Rome which complements Pentin’s piece: within the Vatican and the Curia, there is fairly open talk of Bergoglio being an AntiPope – it is just that the vice of effeminacy [not effeminacy, but sheer cowardice] is so intense that no one is willing to do anything about it, and the settled strategy is to wait for Bergoglio to die [only God knows when, but it could be a long wait - how about waiting for him to resign, or is that unrealistic, given how he evidently enjoys having 'absolute power', which as Lord Acton warned, corrupts absolutely?

However, a word about the term 'anti-pope' - which really means "a person who, in opposition to the one who is generally seen as the legitimately elected Pope, makes a significantly accepted competing claim to be the Pope, the Bishop of Rome and leader of the Catholic Church". But Bergoglio is the legitimately elected pope, and no one else is claiming to be the pope.]]

But make no mistake, Ann Barnhardt and Louie Verrechio are not the only people who believe that Bergoglio is not the Pope – not that numbers matter. Unlike so many other people, I would rather be right, that is to say, be in conformity to the Truth and The Real, and alone in a corner, than wrong in a group.

I’m really not sure what more it is going to take for people to acknowledge the glaringly obvious reality that is right in front of them: Pope Benedict XVI Ratzinger’s SUBSTANTIALLY ERRONEOUS “mostly-but-not-completely” resignation has resulted in the ascendancy and Antipapacy of a man who serious people are now openly speculating might be demonically possessed.

Possession is one thing, but I can tell you that he is clearly demonically OPPRESSED. I can tell you that Bergoglio is clearly a Diabolical Narcissist and probable psychopath. [One can speculate all that, but absent a competent psychiatric profile, we don't know that, do we?]

Heck, his own Jesuit superior, the recently deceased Farther Peter Hans Kolvenbach, classed Bergoglio as a sociopath when JPII was preparing to elevate him to bishop. I think Bergoglio is demoniacal, and probably the False Prophet Forerunner of the Antichrist. It really isn’t complicated.

Antipope Bergoglio’s agenda is crystal, crystal clear: Destroy the Catholic Church and replace it with a humanistic One World Religion [what I call the church of Bergoglio, and eat your heart out, Hans Kueng, you never got as far as this pope has reached in this respect], subject to a One World Government. It is called FREEMASONRY. [Perhaps in its overall ends, but it is not Freemasonry because Bergoglio continues to pay lip service to God, though which 'God' exactly he means, one cannot now say.]

Just the other day, he stated explicitly, once again, that Confessional States (states that acknowledge the Sovereign Kingship of Jesus Christ) [No, they are states which have an official religion and promote it openly, as today, only the Muslim states do] are inferior to secular states:

---

There is a healthy secularism, for instance, the secularism of the State. In general, a secular State is a good thing; it is better than a confessional State, because confessional States finish badly. [Really? Let him say that to the Muslims today. But he wouldn't dare!]

---

SSPX, are you listening? Bergoglio utterly, openly rejects the Social Kingship of Christ, and despises and accuses of mental instability and hidden deep-seated immorality anyone who loves the Mass of the Ages. Why IN THE WORLD would you believe that his intentions toward you are anything other than malevolent? [Because the FSSPX wish to obtain canonical status within the Church and are maybe willing to overlook the Bergoglian aversion to Tradition in any way, shape or form, because he certainly cannot now revoke Summorum Pontificum which he reads only as a special accommodation for the FSSPX and other Caholic traditionalists - whom he evidently thinks constitute an insignificant minority in his flock. Far more insignificant even than remarried Catholic divorcees who are 'suffering' because they cannot receive communion!]

Anyway, now some notes on coprophagia. If you don’t want to read about that subject, I understand. Stop here.

First, Bergoglio’s habit of referring to coprophilia is not new, and was reported on Within 24 hours of his faux-election.

Next, the sexual fetish revolving around excrement is not as uncommon as one would think. If one stops and thinks about anal sodomy, oral sodomy, and about the very common fetish among faggots for oral-anal sex (referred to as “rimming” or “eating ass”), one realizes very quickly that the consumption of excrement is common amongst faggots.

In my Diabolical Narcissism video, I explain that all aberrosexualities, by definition, revolve around the demonic emotional palate of anger, hatred, jealousy and fear. Can you imagine the depths of the hatred faggots and other sex perverts must feel for their sodomitical partners, and for themselves, to ask others to do something so utterly vile as get fecal matter in their mouth? Can you imagine the depths of depravity of a human being that would consent to do such a thing themselves?

I first came across coprophilia when I read “The Pink Swastika”, a book about the homosexuality of Hitler and nearly all of the upper-level Nazis. Hitler was a sodomite, but like most sodomites did have sexual encounters with women. In Hitler’s case, there were four women that he had sexual encounters with (and Eva Braun was not one of them), and each of the four went on to attempt suicide. Two were successful in murdering themselves, two failed. What would cause women to attempt suicide after sex? Having Adolf Hitler defecate into their mouths.

What this fetish is about is power, and contempt for other human beings. It is about degrading the other person, and thus giving the ultimate reinforcement to the Diabolical Narcissist’s pathological need to believe himself separate, above and infinitely superior to other human beings. Isn’t the phrase, “Eat my shit” used to express complete disdain and the highest levels of contempt? Faggots and other varieties of sex perverts experience sexual pleasure and gratification from this hatred and contempt.

And once again, I’ll bring up that oh-so-awkward question: Do we now see why sodomy is a CAPITAL OFFENSE in the Divine Law, specifically recorded as such in the Mosaic Law? It is because the very capacity to commit sodomitical acts points directly to a demonic level of hatred and desire to murder the souls of other human beings. The more perverse the act, the more dangerous the DN [Demoniacal Narcissist] who commits it – with Hitler being a prime example.

Another example is Mao, for whom the murder of his sex partners within the context of the sexual act became standard. And, of course, Islam, which creates entire populations of sodomites, pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and bestialists. I made a little video about that. Maybe you’ve seen it.

Now back to Antipope Bergoglio. I have said since the beginning that I didn’t get the sense that Bergoglio was himself a faggot. I must admit that I am now rethinking that. He is clearly a DN psychopath, and has assembled around him a cadre of faggots, with many of them being pedophiles/ephebophiles. And now we have his rantings on a fetish that is if not common, then at least very well-known amongst faggots.

Further, we cannot overlook what has become his incessant, near-daily dogwhistling to faggots with the terms “tenderness” and “caressing”. Make no mistake – that is what that is. It isn’t a joke anymore. He is actively recruiting faggots to his cause, and signaling that they will be specially protected...

And, of course, we have the satanic document “Amoris Laetitia”, which as we have covered here before, was specifically given this name, in Latin (a language which Bergoglio and his cadre despise), precisely because “Amoris” in Classical Latin refers to homosexual sodomy. [I had to look up the various meanings of .amor' in Latin, and the Oxford Latin dictionary lists these as 1. affair, 2. affection, 3. Cupid, 4. love, 5.sexual/illicit/homosexual passion, and 6. the beloved. 'Amoris' is the genitive singular form. I am, of course, very surprised that 'love' is only the fourth meaning of the word. I wonder if the Latinist who suggested the title to JMB was aware of these multiple meanings, and if only because one of them is so uncompromisingly negative and anti-Christian, they should have avoided using the word 'amor'. But they couldn't possibly use 'caritas' which is very specifically 'Christian love'. Below I append Fr.H's very funny reaction when he learned what the title of the exhortation was ]

They named this document, which was specifically designed to schism The Church and drive souls into hell, “The Exuberance of Sodomy”. [The most extreme translation one could make, since laetitia translates to 'happiness, joy, delight, elation', and well, 'amor' could mean sodomy as we saw above. Which makes Fr. H's little reaction below even more hilarious:]

LIBIDINIS GAUDIUM

April 4, 2016

Oh dear. Wrong again. I had a wager with myself that Libidinis gaudium would be the title of our Holy Father's imminent bombshell. Instead ... Amoris laetitia ... he does so let one down ...

According to Lewis & Short, a highly useful dictionary for lucky pupils learning the delights of Latin Prose and Verse Composition and for their instructors, gaudium and laetitia do differ in meaning. The former suggests the internal Joy one feels; the latter, a Joy which expresses itself externally. So the Sovereign Pontiff's first magis quam magnum opus (greater than magnum opus), entitled Evangelii gaudium, implied that the Gospel makes one feel all jolly inside, while next Friday's opus etiam maius (even greater opus)suggests that sexual love is manifested externally.

So ... according to these texts, we keep the Joy of the Gospel bottled up inside us, while rushing over to the extrovert side of our personalities for the Joy of Sex (wasn't there some much celebrated booklet with that title back in the seventies?). What an interesting distinction. The nuances of Christian anthropology gradually open out before us, like daisies in the dewfall...

Is this the Holy Spirit speaking?

Fr H thankfully provides invaluable historical references when he criticizes any aspect of this pontificate...


Madmen and sycophants in the Vatican:
nothing new under the sun

December 12, 2016

Everybody knows that Blessed John Henry Newman wrote critically about the "aggressive insolent faction" which attempted, unsuccessfully, to foist doctrinal absurdities upon the Church at the First Vatican Council. Let's zoom the camera in on that fascinating period.

In the feverish Roman atmosphere of 1870, as the hypersuperueberpapalists at the Council ran around propagating extreme and barmy notions of the papal office, this little bit of nonsense did the rounds: "The three incarnations of the Son of God are: in the womb of our Lady; in the Eucharist; and in the Pope".

We appear now in 2016 to have moved on from that, because instead we have Pintos and Farrells and other hypers telling us that whatever Bergoglio utters is the utterance of the Holy Spirit.

What has stayed the same is that the hypers in each age appear to have the same disordered passion to see the Roman Pontiff as some sort of incarnation of one of the Persons of the Blessed and Undivided Trinity. Seems to me close to blasphemy and idolatry. Did I say 'close'?

Feverish indeed it was, that time of Vatican I, just like our own age. In their enthusiasm to push their program through megafast, the hypers had a brilliant thought: "Definition by Acclamation" (hypers not unusually have an eye for the Short-Cut). Four brave Fathers opposed this, and announced that if it happened, they would walk out of the Council and tell the world why. They were the admirably principled Archbishop Kenrick and his two fellow Americans, Archbishop Purcell and Bishop Fitzgerald of Little Rock; and an Irishman, David Moriarty. I think Four is a good number.

More recent visitors to this blog may be unfamiliar with that last name. Dr Moriarty was Bishop of Kerry (the ancient see once known as Ardfert and Aghadoe); and he was a very close friend and correspondent of Blessed John Henry Newman, our Patron in the Ordinariate (Kenrick, also, was influenced by Newman's thought). If we ever have a posthumous category of goodies labelled "Historical Honorary Chums of the Ordinariate", I shall nominate David Moriarty, Scourge of the hypers.

Long live the 'Kingdom of the West'! Long live the Ordinariate! Down with aggressive insolent factions!

13 December 2016
"Madmen and sycophants in the Vatican":
A FOOTNOTE

I wrote yesterday in criticism of the hypersuperueberpapalist nutters who, in their respective generations, have seemed to wish to assimilate the Roman Pontiff to one of the Persons of the Glorious and Undivided Trinity.

Today, I wish very briefly to point out that this tendency, as well as being arguably blasphemous and idolatrous or at least heretical, is contrary to the Tradition of the Universal Church, and to that of the great and glorious Roman Church herself.

At Chalcedon, the Fathers greeted the Tome of St Leo, not with cries of "Christ himself has spoken" or "This is the utterance of the Holy Spirit", but (after carefully examining its text) "Peter has spoken through Leo". This is profoundly in accordance with an Irenaean ecclesiology, whereby orthodoxy is witnessed by the identity of the teaching handed down from generation to generation in the particular churches, more especially in those of Apostolic foundation, and most normatively in the Roman Church.

And this, of course, is why St Peter ... and very commonly St Paul ... are central to any account we give of the Ministry of the Roman Church within the Oikoumene. They are fontal to that Church's Tradition.

But Olivier Clement of the Institute of St Sergius in Paris has pointed out that Martyrdom adds a further element: "As martyrs - seized, that is to say, by the Resurrection - they are for ever present in Rome". Rome is the place "where the apostles (Peter and Paul) preside daily and where their blood renders constant testimony to the glory of God".

And so the tropaia ton Apostolon, the presence of the enshrined bodies of Ss Peter and Paul, guarantees for Theodoret of Cyrrhus that "Rome is the metropolis of Religion".

When, in more recent times, Roman Pontiffs have defined dogma ex cathedra, they have prayed for the guidance of the Holy Spirit before doing so; but they have not boldly claimed to be mouthpieces of the Holy Spirit or to speak upon His inspiration.

Even today, when a Pope canonises, he does so auctoritate Domini nostri Iesu Christi, beatorum Apostolorum Petri et Pauli ac Nostra (by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own). When at Easter the Indulgence is proclaimed, it is the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul that is mentioned.

Does this matter? After all, a Pope could proclaim nonsense and try to cloak it with talk about being Peter's Successor. Wouldn't that be as bad as all Bergoglio's talk about the Holy Spirit?

I think it does matter, and does make a great deal of difference. Faithfulness to the Didache Petrou, to the freedom guaranteed by the Petrine Ministry, keeps Peter's Successor, and us, safe in the historical and objective realities of Scripture and Tradition, and (let's dare to be down to earth about this) the unavoidable Textuality of each.

On the other hand, claims to the inspiration of "the Holy Spirit", unverifiable by objective constraints and controls, can lure us into the servitude of a religion manufactured by man, a cult of Let's Make It Up For Ourselves. This cult is ultimately fashioned upon the model of the old religion of the Gnostics, who created their own fake alternatives to the Tradition received from the Apostles because they felt they knew with such certainty that the Church's Tradition was wrong.

To employ the terminology currently being encouraged by the Enemy himself, it is better to be 'Rigid' in the Faith once for all delivered, than to be led up the infinitely flexible garden path.

Believe me, we do not need some new and horrible dogma that the voice of Bergoglio is the voice of the Holy Spirit. For two millennia, Roman Pontiffs, in harmony with Churches of the East and of the West, have been content with the notion that Ss Peter and Paul are sub Christo the basis of their authority. And the First Vatican Council put this beyond denial when it infallibly defined that the Holy Spirit does not inspire the Pope to teach new doctrine; the claim made by the church's authentic Magisterium is that He helps the Successors of S Peter to guard the Apostolic Tradition, the Depositum Fidei.

What Roman Pontiffs, in communion with the whole Body of Christ, have through so many centuries taught, I know or I can ascertain. Who, or what, Bergoglio's "God of surprises", the "Spirit" his sycophants so enthusiastically endorse, is, I fearfully confess that I do not know.

Lest the title give the impression that the 'theology' meant here is formal theology, no - it refers to basic beliefs such as whether the faithful
(mainline Protestant in this case) believe in the Resurrection, in Jesus as the only way to eternal salvation, whether God performs
miracles in answer to prayers, and whether Christians should encourage non-Christians to be Christians.

My immediate thought was that if these questions were asked about Bergoglio, I could say with certainty NO to the second and last questions, and
'Who knows?" to the first and third questions. Which underscores how appalling the supposed Vicar of Christ appears on basic questions of the faith.
(I am not sure but somewhere it has been suggested that he is on the side of modernist Catholic theologians, especially Jesuits, who claim that
the Resurrection is merely symbolic and not actual historical fact.)

Growing churches vs. declining churches:
Canadian study says 'theology matters'
by Terry Mattingly

December 10, 2016

Regular readers of this blog may remember the set of questions that, since the dawn of GetReligion in 2005... three questions that, in the 1980s, I discovered always yielded interesting and often newsworthy content when I used them as journalistic tools to probe the fault lines inside Protestant denominations.

Now, two of the three questions have shown up in a study by researchers in Canada of patterns of growtH and decline, in oldline Protestant congregations in church-friendly southern Ontario...

Here's the basic questiontrio set, as articulated in one of my earlier "On Religion" columns:
* Are biblical accounts of the resurrection of Jesus accurate? Did this happen?
* Is salvation found through Jesus, alone? Was Jesus being literal when he said, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
* Is sex outside of marriage a sin?

Now, that 2014 column focused, in part, on conversations with the late George Gallup, Jr., addressing issues of private and public faith in American life. When I shared my questions with him, Gallup said the key was that I was asking doctrinal questions, not political questions. The goal, he said, was to find out how these beliefs revealed themselves in the daily lives of real people. That was the link he kept trying to explore in his work. (The trio questions also were embedded in a LifeWay Research survey in 2014.)

That brings us to the current news in Canada, which centers on an academic paper by sociologist David Haskell and church historian Kevin Flatt, published in the peer-reviewed Review of Religious Research. The full title sets the stage:
Theology Matters:
Comparing the Traits of Growing and Declining
Mainline Protestant Church Attendees and Clergy

Now, you push this material through the editorial grid of The Guardian, on the other side of the Atlantic, and you get this headline:

---

Literal interpretation of Bible 'helps increase church attendance'
Study finds conservative theology mixed with innovative worship
approach helps Protestant churches grow congregations

---

That's really interesting since the study doesn't use a "literal interpretation" model of biblical authority, but focuses, instead, on a series of questions about traditional, ancient Christian doctrines and then questions on the practice of faith in modern life.

You can see that same "The fundamentalists are coming!" editorial bias at work in this section of the Guardian story:

---

The findings contradict earlier studies undertaken in the US and the UK, which attempted to discover the underlying causes of a steep decline in church attendance in recent decades but concluded that [B]theology was not a significant factor.

The results of the new study are likely to fuel anxious debate among church members about the reasons for decline and what measures or approaches might stimulate growth. Those promoting evangelical styles of worship and strict adherence to what they see as biblical truths will be bolstered by the findings.[/qup
Oh, the names and publication dates on those earlier studies? That would have helped.

---

But the key words there are "what they see as biblical truths."

So what doctrines and practices are we talking about that are "evangelical" sort-of truths? Here's some summary material from my column and, thus, the podcast:

Focusing on 2003-2013, the researchers defined "decline" as an average loss of 2 percent of church attendees a year. "Growing" churches were gaining people in the pews at a rate of 2 percent or more. ...

Crucial findings in this study showed that, in growing churches, pastors tend to be more conservative than the people in their pews. In declining congregations, pastors are usually more theologically liberal than their people.

How does that show up in questions that, in two cases, are linked to our three questions? Well, check this out:
* Clergy in growing churches affirmed, by an overwhelming 93 percent, that Jesus rose from the dead, leaving an empty tomb, while 56 percent of clergy in declining churches agreed. Among laypeople, this divide was 83 percent vs. 67 percent.
* In growing churches, 46 percent of clergy strongly affirmed, and nearly 31 percent moderately affirmed, this statement: "Only those who believe in and follow Jesus Christ will receive eternal life." Zero pastors in declining churches affirmed that statement and 6 percent moderately agreed.
* In growing congregations, 100 percent of the clergy said it's crucial to "encourage non-Christians to become Christians," while only 50 percent of pastors in declining churches agreed.
* In declining churches, 44 percent of pastors agreed that "God performs miracles in answer to prayers," compared with 100 percent of clergy in growing congregations.

Is this relevant material, in an age when the demographic death dives seen in oldline Protestant denominations is one of the most significant, and often uncovered, news stories in our age?

In photo, Mons. Echevarría, right, with his interim successor, Mons. Ocariz in 2006.

Opus Dei leader dies at 84

Tuesday, 13 Dec 2016

Bishop Javier Echevarría Rodríguez, the Prelate of Opus Dei, has died at the age of 84 after a lung infection. He had been suffering from pneumonia.

In a statement, Opus Dei said that Bishop Echevarría’s “clinical situation was complicated in the final hours provoking respiratory insufficiency, which resulted in his death.” He received the sacrament of anointing from Mgr Fernando Ocáriz Braña, vicar general of Opus Dei.

The bishop was the third prelate of Opus Dei, following St Josemaría Escrivá, the founder of the organisation, and Blessed Álvaro del Portillo. Like Blessed Álvaro, he was personally chosen by St Josemaría as a successor. Bishop Echevarría and Blessed Álvaro were seen as those closest to the founder, and the bishop’s death marks the end of an era for the organisation.

Opus Dei has around 90,000 members, of which the overwhelming majority are laymen and women. Its aim is to help people know God and do God's work (opus Dei) proactively in their ordinary lives.

Bishop Echevarría, who worked for Opus Dei all his life, became Prelate in 1994. Born in Madrid in 1932, he was 16 when he met St Josemaría, and became the saint’s personal secretary from 1953 to 1975.

As Prelate, he also served as chancellor of several Opus Dei universities, and wrote books including a portrait of St Josemaría.

Jack Valero, the press officer of Opus Dei in Britain, said: “Those who knew Bishop Javier remember him as a man of deep faith, both strong and very affectionate, with a teasing sense of humour and a great sense of fun. His time as prelate of Opus Dei was characterised by fidelity to the spirit of St Josemaría, apostolic expansion, and close union with all the Popes who reigned during his time of office.”

In 2005, the 50th anniversary of his priestly ordination, Pope Benedict XVI praised Bishop Echevarría for his contribution to the new evangelisation, and for fostering “the eagerness for personal sanctity and the apostolic zeal of your priests and lay people”. He said the bishop had “spread the Christian message” in the cultural and scientific worlds, and was especially dedicated to “the defence of life, the family and marriage, and the formation and pastoral care of young people.”

Bishop Echevarría’s successor will be chosen by an “elective congress” in the next three months. Mgr Ocariz will act as interim leader.

Sign up now if you haven't yet.
https://lifepetitions.com/petition/pope-francis-i-support-the-4-cardinals-letter-pleading-for-clarity-on-amoris-laetitia

I didn't notice this item when it was first published, which was in preparation for the Pope Jorge Martin Bergluther's visit to Sweden to kick off a 'concelebration' by the church of Bergoglio with the Protestant world of the fifth centenary year of Martin Luther's schism. But as I do want to post any and all informative articles about Luther - and how greatly he diverged from the Catholic Church - Fr Stravinskas provides us here with a concise psychological study of the Great Heretic. In the process, if striking similarities might emerge with the current Successor of Peter, then tant pis, because there are striking differences, too...


Martin Luther's revolt:
A psychological examination
Several key moves in Luther’s life, including entering a monastery and
founding his own church, were made as a rebellious answer to authority
by Fr. Peter M.J. Stravinskas

October 26, 2016

This coming year will mark the five-hundredth anniversary of Martin Luther’s posting of his 95 Theses onto the door of the collegiate church of Wittenberg, traditionally regarded as the beginning of the Protestant Reformation.

It has been a cause of some concern and consternation for many Catholics to have learned that there will be Catholic (even papal) participation in various events connected to this anniversary. What could be celebrated? The break-up of Catholic unity? The demise of Christendom? The impetus for rationalism and secularism?

To commemorate, perhaps, but surely not to celebrate. Even many serious Protestant clergy and theologians have insisted that one must not celebrate something that brought on such dire (and probably undesired, unforeseen) consequences.

To commemorate would necessarily mean studying the causes and the unfolding of events – learning from the errors and repenting of the sins of any and all that rent the seamless garment of Christ.

This is no more and no less than what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council urged and what St. John Paul II often referred to as “the healing of memories.” Which means genuine honesty. That honesty was carried on in spades at the Council of Trent and in the Counter-Reformation, both of which admitted that true problems had crept into the Church and needed correction.

Since Luther is such a pivotal character in the drama of the sixteenth century, it behooves all to put him under the microscope for closer observation. To be sure, Luther was a brilliant theologian. He was also deeply imbued with the understanding of the absolute holiness of God, the centrality of Christ in the work of our salvation, and the concomitant need for the Church to be the spotless Bride of the Redeemer which St. Paul calls her.

All that said, Luther was also a vicious anti-Semite; one given to exaggeration and extremes, taking no prisoners; a crude man whose language would be constantly “bleeped” even on modern television. The ex-nun whom he took as a wife he treated with arrogance and disdain. His apparent inability to be faithful to his vow of chastity drove him to near-despair.

To say that he was a conflicted individual is to succumb to understatement (as late as 1521, he was still willing to admit the necessity of the Petrine office in the Church). Even the most ardent supporter of the Reformation would never accuse Luther of being a model of Christian holiness.

So much of the negative side of the ledger must be attributed to “personality” difficulties of the leader of the revolt against ecclesiastical authority. As a seminarian over four decades ago, in March 1971, I wrote a paper on Luther’s psychological incapacity to accept the papacy. It discusses Luther’s relationship with the papacy and attempts to understand his negative reaction to papal authority in the light of his psychological deficiencies, stemming from early childhood and youth. After considerations of youthful fear, depression and despair we shall see how these events led up to the break with Rome and indeed, that the break was inevitable.

It is no deep secret or information privy to the most proficient psychologist that the first world experienced by the newborn infant is the family, the most important world in which he will ever live since this microcosm of society symbolizes all of society to him.

The family life into which young Martin was born was none too happy. Old Hans Luther was a hard-working miner and expected the same attitudes and values in his children. The normal parental disappointment when established goals for children are not attained went beyond normal proportions since Martin could remember serious disagreements leading to weeks of non-communication. Severe beatings were daily fare for Martin at the hands of both father and mother.

Young Martin had an acute memory and later in life commented, “My father once whipped me so severely that I fled from him and it was hard for him to win me back…. My mother once beat me until the blood flowed for having stolen a miserable nut. It was this strict discipline which finally forced me into the monastery.” (1)

From this single statement we can gain several insights. A great deal of harshness and pettiness is revealed in this “microcosm” previously mentioned. The incipient stages of resentment, fear and anxiety in the face of authority are evident here as well.

Since we attribute the role of fatherhood to the First Person of the Trinity, Luther found himself incapable of approaching the Father. In addition to this problem, “God the Father and Jesus were represented to him as stern, nay, cruel judges, to appease whose wrath the intercession of the saints must be secured.” We now see the transfer of the poor “father image” to God Himself, which would have serious theological repercussions throughout Luther’s life.

In school he was struck by the brutality of the teachers with their frequent floggings. He stubbornly refused to converse in Latin and incurred the wrath of his professors. He compared his Latin examination to a “trial for murder.” (2) [His gift for disproportionate and inappropriate hyperbole reminds us of JMB who has accused priests of making the confessional 'a torture chamber'.]

Therefore, the final authority faced by any child also affected him adversely. Erikson makes a rather salient point in asserting that “the disciplinary climate of home and school and the religious climate of the community and Church were more oppressive [to him] than inspiring." (3)

Luther’s later youth was greatly plagued by that tristitia [not just sadness, but depression, dejection, gloom, melancholy and sourness turn up as English translations of this Latin term] which followed him for life. [I would say the same tristitia seemed to characterize Bergoglio before he became pope, since his then-vicar subsequently appointed his successor as Archbishop of Buenos Aires told reporters after the Conclave that his erstwhile boss was usually 'funeral-faced'. And I don't think it was his family to blame for that. Since March 13, 2013, of course, he has blossomed into the very model of papal bonhomie and great good humor during most of his appearances in public.]

Despite an apparent inability for father and son to get along, Martin never ceased to try to please his father – so much so that he intended to study law for his father’s sake. Nevertheless, the “Saul episode” in his life on the way to Erfurt made him vow himself to monasticism if he survived. He kept his promise and entered the Augustinian monks, a very educated, dedicated community at that time.

When Martin announced his decision, “Old Hans Luther was bitterly opposed to his son’s step, which he believed destroyed all chance of a successful career.” (4) Once again, the father-son tensions were aroused.

In the monastery, Luther began by performing the most menial of tasks but soon his talents were discovered by Staupitz, the Prior, who offered him several opportunities to exercise his intellectual abilities. His earliest influences were the Bible, Augustine and Occam. The influence of Occam is especially important for he was one of the sharpest critics of the medieval Church, and his frankness doubtlessly eased the burden on Luther when he followed in his footsteps.

Although he sought spiritual comfort in the monastery, he confesses: “. . . I was often terrified at the name of Jesus. The sight of a crucifix was like lightning to me and when his name was spoken I would rather have heard that of the devil…. I had lost my faith and could not suppose that God was other than angry.” (5) [In this, his current spiritual successor of sorts is very different. Bergoglio would never speak of an angry God, even if the Old Testament is replete with monumental examples of God's wrath.]

His constant attempts at absolute perfection and daily confessions (even more frequently on occasions) all give evidence of a very unbalanced spirituality which led him to doubt and even despair of his faith and ultimate salvation. His First Mass also was tainted with torment and dread as he haltingly uttered the words of Consecration. [But did he fail to genuflect???]

His father, though consenting to come, did his damage with his comment after Mass by reminding Martin of the saying used to arouse the sensibilities of the clergy, “Panis es et panis manebis!” (“Bread thou art, and bread thou shalt remain!). Martin related later in life that at that moment he felt like murdering his father.

Despite his apparent problems of faith, he rose to great prominence in his Order and in the academic world. His preaching became the object of adulation for the simple and educated alike and “in both sermons and lectures many a trenchant word against spiritual wickedness in high places remind one that the monk was already a reformer.” (6) [His heir JMBergluther directs his trenchant words at Catholics, in high places or otherwise, who do not think and act as he does.]

Sent on a journey to Rome, the young monk went through all the motions of a faithful pilgrim to the “Eternal City,” yet doubting their efficacy all the while. Shock at the highly immoral life of the Italian priests, their hurried Masses, legalism and double standards makes him comment as he reminisces on the trip, “No one can imagine what sins and infamous actions are committed in Rome; they must be seen and heard to be believed. Thus, they are in the habit of saying, ‘If there be a hell, Rome is built over it; ‘ it is an abyss whence issues every kind of sin.”(7) [Reminds me of Berluther's facile generalizations of situations he cannot control, as the comportment of individual members of the Roman Curia.]

On his return to Germany, the scandal of Rome fresh in his mind, he opposed the infamous peddler of indulgences, Tetzel. He openly challenged the theory of indulgences and especially the way in which they were being preached. Interestingly enough, Todd notes that he appealed to authority to back his protestations, asserting that he criticized “in obedience to my duty and the burden resting on me . . . moreover, by virtue of papal authority I hold a public teaching office. Accordingly, it is one of my official duties to strike out against all the wrong of which I become aware, even if the wrong is done by persons in high position.” (8) [Words that Bergolio courtisans would do well to consider. Luther speaking for himself could well have been speaking of the Four Cardinals and all AL dissenters.] Here we see Luther vacillating between attacking authority and relying on authority for his power to do so, which is again a throw-back to his “cat and mouse” games with his father.

As the issue progressed and the debates continued, Luther further developed his concepts along the lines of “personal faith, personal humiliation, salvation and justification.” (9) The emphasis was, of course, on “personal” — a word which became an obsession with the man who had to do everything for himself. In this context it is easy to see his stress on “sola Scriptura” for he espoused a personal interpretation of Scripture. Another strong emphasis was placed on the acceptance of Jesus as personal Savior. A gross insecurity becomes evident.

At the outset of his rebellion, Luther had genuine misgivings about his right to challenge established norms and doctrine. In his struggle, “Martin Luther repeatedly affirmed the frequency of the temptation… . Satan often said to me: What if your dogma is false whereby you thus overthrow the Pope, the Mass and the monks? And thus, he often took me by surprise that the sweat poured out of me…. He once troubled me with Paul to Timothy and simply strangled me so that my heart felt like melting in the body….” (10)

It is well to note how he so sought to reassure himself of the righteousness of his cause that he says Satan tempted him to maintain traditional doctrine. [Hmm, the self-justifying casuistry of those who think they know best about everything and better than anyone else!]

Todd asserts that “there was a big element of physical tension — also of spiritual horror as he moved further away from the established traditions” (11) and, in fact, so grave were his doubts during this period that he confesses he was almost driven to suicide on occasion. [WOW! That is a distinct contrast to his heir Bergluther who has no qualms whatsoever about repudiating Tradition!]

As already mentioned, Luther disdained any source of authority, save Scripture, but O’Hare suggests one exception: “He would have none of them (the Fathers) or their teachings, except when some fellow-rebel against Divine authority was in collision with him or when he had to appeal to some authority beyond himself, to refute an adversary.” (12)

At no stage were his concepts clearly crystallized, and it would seem that O’Hare’s observations are well-founded: “Ever vacillating, ambiguous, contradictory, he was utterly incapable of formulating a clear, well-defined, unhesitating system of belief to replace that of the old divinely established Church.”(13)
[Judging from what we have experienced with Bergluther so far, everything in that statement applies to him except 'unhesitating' - Berluther has never been so forward as in presenting and promoting his belief system.

From previous discussion of Luther’s personality and psychological state, these inconsistencies should not be surprising for he was a man struggling between revolting against authority and setting himself up as an authority, a Gottgeistig (a spiritual or intellectual god). [In Bergluther, the Gottgeistig has long had the upper hand, as I think his struggle against authority ended as soon as John Paul II had ignored Fr. Kolvenbach's reservations about his Argentine maverick and made him a cardinal.]

This period in Luther’s life and the one immediately subsequent to it were characterized by manic productivity and severe breakdown and hence we see why “Reiter considers the years … when Luther was 22-30 as one long Krankheitsphase (stage of sickness), one drawn-out state of nervous disease, which extended to the thirty-sixth year.” (14) [Some today would consider Bergluther as in a Krankheitsphase that is having catastrophic consequences for the Church.]

As the lines of demarcation became more formally fixed and solidified and entrenched, Luther became more open in his hostility to the Pope and the authority and power which he wielded. “With almost every step that Rome or other ecclesiastical authority took, in an attempt to silence, condemn or compromise with Luther, Luther took another step in the development of his theological critique, proposing even more drastic modifications of the ecclesiastical institutions.” (15) [Herein, of course, lies Bergluther's great advantage that no other apostate (declared or undeclared) in the Church has ever had - he happens to be the pope and can, as he sees it, do exactly as he pleases when he pleases.]

The truth of this statement becomes obvious when for hundreds of years the theory was “ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia” (where Peter is, there is the Church) and then Luther says, “Where the Word of God is preached and believed, there is the Church.”

Smith gives Luther’s position on Rome as follows: “The assertion that the Roman Church is superior to all other Churches is proved only by weak papal decrees of the last 400 years[???] against which militate the accredited history of 1100 years, the Bible and the decrees of the Nicean Council, the holiest of all councils.” (16)

Certain questions can be raised here: Why are the papal decrees referred to as “weak”? How is the primacy of Rome definitively contradicted by Scripture? Why is Nicea to be regarded as “the holiest of all councils”? The answer would seem to lie in the fact that Luther thought in that way, and for him it had to be true for, while professing to be open to theological debate, he “anathematized everyone whose belief differed from his own.” (17) [How Bergoglian!]

Finally, after refusing to appear in Rome to plead his case, he agreed to receive and discuss his position with Cajetan, the papal legate who proved to be an unfortunate choice for several reasons. 1. Cajetan was an Italian, and Luther was extremely nationalistic and vehemently anti-Italian.
2. Cajetan was a cardinal, and this position smacked of the establishment which Luther wished to dissolve.
3. He was the Cardinal Protector of the Dominicans, and one need only recall that the entire incident began with the Dominican Tetzel.
4. Cajetan was a confirmed Thomist which gave them little common ground — even philosophically speaking, prescinding from theological positions.
5. Most of all, he was the representative of the Pope, the “Holy Father,” again reminding Luther of his earthly father whom he hated and his heavenly Father whom he feared exceedingly.

Perhaps the most ill-chosen words Cajetan ever uttered were those which promised Luther a “fatherly hearing.”

---

“The psychological implications of the meeting are important. Insofar as Luther did have a ‘thing’ about his father, and then about God and found himself often both revolting against and trying to appease authority, then his clash with the Roman Curia was likely to provide a concrete occasion for him to fight back, with a feeling of justification at authority. The meeting with Cajetan would be symbolical…. It does not seem very fanciful to see that Luther found here a father figure in reverse, a figure whom he found good reason to oppose.”

---

(18) [As far as I know, Bergluther had no 'father' issues, and if he had any at all, perhaps St. Ignatius Loyola in the Jesuit order served as father-figure if he needed one at all. Forgive the cheap armchair psychology in the absence of any known fact.]

In the discussion which lasted hours, Luther’s main points against the papacy may be summarized thus:
• the Church does not need a Pope;
• a visible head is inconsistent with the nature of the Church;
• a definite place (Rome) is inconsistent with the character of a spiritual kingdom;
•the power of the keys has been given to all Christians;
• the Pope has no jurisdiction over matters of sin, grace and indulgences.

In all these arguments a fear of the necessity of a mediator (e.g., the Church, the Pope) is apparent, and the need for him to work out his own salvation independent of the Church is obvious.

Salvation, for him, was a matter of the individual and Jesus, with no need for the community of the Church — only personal faith. Here, more acutely than elsewhere, can be sensed Luther’s great urgency to attack the papacy at its very roots.

Questioning the genuine interest of the Pope, fearing his wrath and despising his power were brought on by the transfer of image: from father (earthly authority) to God (divine authority and justice) to the Pope (the combination of both).

Eventually, the threat of excommunication came in the bull, “Exsurge, Domine,” which Luther promptly burned along with the books of Canon Law. “Chagrined and wounded in his vanity, he grew litigious, vengeful and abusive,” (19) as witnessed by his statement: “…know that I, with all who worship Christ, consider the See of Rome to be occupied by Satan and to be the throne of Anti-Christ, and that I will no longer obey nor remain united to him, the chief and deadly enemy of Christ.” (20)

His most searing attacks on the papacy came in his work, “Wider das Papstum in Rom von Teufel gestiftet” (Against the devil-sponsred Papacy in Rome) in which “Le Pape y est dénommé non 'très saint' suivant l'usage, mais 'très infernal.’ La papauté s'est toujours montrée assoiffée de sang. Le livre est directement adressé à 'l'âne pontifical.'” (The Pope is there spoken of not as ‘very holy’ according to common usage, but as ‘very infernal.’ The papacy is always shown dripping in blood. The book is directly addressed to “the pontifical ass.”) (21)

In this book were also found the crudest sketches and maxims on the papacy and one must agree with O’Hare that “for one who claimed that his mouth was the mouth of Jesus Christ,' we are astonished at the vocabulary of insult and rancorous hate.” (22) [As we can well say of Bergluther who claims that everything he says and does as pope has been dictated by the Holy Spirit.]

The die had been cast. The Diet, final excommunication, the formal establishment of Lutheranism and his marriage all follow from the events discussed and are a matter of historical fact, not psychological speculation.

As indicated at the start, the goal of this essay was to demonstrate how Luther, as a result of various psychological influences, revolted from papal authority. The bulk of the blame has been placed on the shoulders of his father, for “a most pathological relationship” (23) is evident here.

Several of the key moves in Luther’s life were made as a rebellious answer to the authority he encountered at the time, the most notable being his decisions to enter the monastery over paternal objection and to found his own church over the protestations and threats of recognized ecclesiastical authority and Tradition.

At the end of his life, we see Luther as an unhappy, broken man and Erickson’s theory deserves some consideration: “It is not surprising that the period of deepest despair emerged when he becomes so much of what his father wanted him to be.” (24)

From a most radical, rebellious youth, in old age a sign of passive resignation leaves the foreground and sinks into the background espousing a philosophy of patient acceptance which, if practiced earlier in life, would have completely altered the course of history for Western Christendom: “Il faut que j´aie de la patience avec le pape, avec mes disciples, avec mes domestiques, avec mes femmes, toute ma vie n´est que patience” (“I must be patient with the Pope, with my followers, with my household, with my women; my whole life is nothing but patience.”). (25)

And so, the severity encountered by the young Martin in the person of his father had such far-reaching effects that it made him sickly and anxious as a boy, sad as a youth, scrupulous to a fault in the monastery, resentful of authority in his prime and beset with doubts, depression and despair in the dusk of life.

Perhaps most indicative of the man’s agonizing search for absolute truth and yet lack of certainty is what is often given as his closing statement at the Diet of Worms: “Hier ich stehe. Ich kann nicht anders.” (“Here I stand. I can do nothing else”) But he quickly adds, “Gott hilf mir.” (“God help me.”). ['Hier ich stehe - ich kann nicht anders', as Bergluther might well say but won't, of the DUBIA in AL!]

ENDNOTES:
1 Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther (New York: Houghton and Mifflin Co., 1911), 3.
2 Ibid.
3 Erik H. Erikson, Young Man Luther: A Study in Psychoanalysis and History (New York: W. W. Norton and Co, 1962), 78.
4 Smith, 9.
5 Ronald H. Bainton, The Age of Reformation (New York: Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1956), 94.
6 Smith, 28.
7 “Against the Roman Papacy – An Institution of the Devil,” the last written work of Luther.
8 John M. Todd, Martin Luther (Westminster, Md.: Newman Press, 1964), 96.
9 Todd, 161.
10 Frederick J. Zwierlein, Reformation Studies (Rochester: Art Print Shop, 1938), 43-44.
11 Todd, 161.
12 Patrick O’Hare, The Facts about Luther (New York: Frederick Pustet, 1916), 141.
13 O’Hare, 146.
14 Erickson, 27.
15 Todd, 161.
16 Smith, 59.
17 Hugh P. Smyth, The Reformation (Chicago: Extension Press, 1919), 39.
18 Todd, 153.
19 O’Hare, 144.
20 Todd, 168.
21 Franz Funck-Brentano, Luther (Paris: Éditions Bernard Grosset, 1934), 338.
22 O’Hare, 157.
23 Erickson, 29.
24 Erickson, 243.
25 Funck-Brentano, 505.

So here, Steve Skojec points out what I said when the Four Cardinals' Five Dubia were first made public: that all the pope has to do is answer NO, YES, YES, YES, YES - in which case he would reassure faithful Catholics that he is still Catholic; or YES, NO, NO, NO, NO - which would confirm the patent if circumlocutory and casuistic offenses to traditional doctrine and the deposit of faith that are contained in AL, but to which he cannot possibly own up because he would thereby be tying the millstone of material heresy around his own neck...

Five words that
would calm the storm
by Steve Skojec

December 13, 2016

In one of the pivotal scenes of the Gospel — one of several moments in which the apostles begin to recognize Christ’s true power — we find Jesus asleep in the stern of a tempest-tossed boat.

---

And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that the ship was filled. And he was in the hinder part of the ship, sleeping upon a pillow; and they awake him, and say to him: Master, doth it not concern thee that we perish? And rising up, he rebuked the wind, and said to the sea: Peace, be still. And the wind ceased: and there was made a great calm. And he said to them: Why are you fearful? have you not faith yet? And they feared exceedingly: and they said one to another: Who is this (thinkest thou) that both wind and sea obey him? (Mark 4:37-40)

---

This is one of my favorite scriptural passages. Like so much of what happens in the New Testament, the speech is restrained, the drama of the scene muted. But explore the subtext: at least four of the apostles — Simon Peter, Andrew, James, and John — were experienced fishermen, who had spent their lives on the water. The storm must have been absolutely ferocious for them to have been so terrified. They turn to Our Lord and find Him sleeping, and they get a bit upset. As they rouse Him with their concerns of imminent doom, He turns and with just three words — “Peace, be still” — he brings the storm to heel.

The Roman Pontiff, whom St. Catherine of Siena famously referred to as “Our Sweet Christ on Earth”, also has the power to calm the raging storm now buffeting the Barque of Peter. It is not the battering of wind and waves that endangers the vessel, but confusion, error, and doubt — and worse, a rapidly metastasizing schism, spreading like a deadly poison throughout the Mystical Body of Christ. [That's rather melodramatic and unrealistic. At the moment, what we have is a division, not a schism. For a schism to take place, some part must break off from the Church and form their own 'church' or whatever - certainly, it won't be the orthodox Catholics, and just as certainly, it won't be Bergoglio and his followers because Bergoglio is still pope and no other prelate can even come near to the powers he can wield.

So what we have is an acrimonious stalemate which will probably last until Bergoglio is gone from the scene (unless he is succeeded by someone like him)... One must envy the ordinary Catholics who lived during the years of the Arian crisis because without 24/7 media, they had no way of knowing the problems, complications and machinations taking place in the Church at the time, and except for those who lived in cities where the crisis had come to a head, most Catholics were, in effect, blissfully unaware that there was a crisis at all! So, unlike us, they did not have to twist in the wind wondering how all this is going to end. Because it is unprecedented when the Apostate-in-Chief happens to be the legitimate pope!]

When it comes to the self-made crisis in the Church — the mounting battle over marriage, divorce, remarriage, sacraments for those in objective grave sin, and the question of the existence of objective sin itself — our Holy Father, like the very Christ he is duty-bound to serve, has at his disposal five simple words that would pacify the tempest: “No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.”

These are, of course, the only answers that a Catholic could ever give to the dubia. There are no other options. No exceptions. No pastoral discernment. No need for verbosity or for yet more nuance.

Distilled down to a crudely simple form, the dubia are essentially as follows:
- Can the divorced and remarried who are still engaged in a sexual relationship receive absolution and communion without a change of life?
- Do absolute moral norms still exist?
- Does objective grave sin still exist?
- Is the teaching still valid that however much circumstances may lessen an individual’s guilt, those circumstances cannot change an intrinsically evil act into a subjectively good act?
- Does the Church’s teaching that an appeal to conscience cannot overcome absolute moral norms still hold true?

These five questions are so simple, their answers so obvious, they require no more than 30 seconds of Francis’s time. (If it would make things easier, the five words could be spoken from the pressurized cabin of an airplane, an environment that seems to stimulate papal loquacity.) [Not that it needs any loquacity to say five words]

Sadly, the only clarity Catholics now have from their shepherd-in-chief is the understanding that this will not happen. It has been nearly three months since Francis was presented with the dubia. And what he has made obvious — through his own actions, inactions, and insinuations — is that even if he spoke, he would not answer in this simple, straightforward way. The stakes are just too high. For him to respond to the dubia in the orthodox fashion outlined above would be to undo the work of not just his precious synods, but his magnum opus, Amoris Laetitia.

If, on the other hand, he were to answer the dubia with the answers above inverted — as his exhortation seems to indicate is his thinking on these topics — he would, in essence, be making a public admission that he is a heretic — if we take as the definition of heretic that of St. Thomas: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”.

So he does not answer. He cannot. And yet, not to answer is to answer.

His silence, however, is anything but stoic. There are those who have been speaking on his behalf, acting like little better than henchmen, saying the things he is apparently afraid to say. Men close to him. Men such as a few of his newly-picked cardinals (or old friends in the curia or in other influential positions in Rome); certain useful prelates in the East; and certain advisers and allies in the media, such as Fr. Antonio Spadaro and papal biographer Austin Ivereigh.

It is this last figure who seems to have taken point in the all-out assault against papal questioners. In an invective-laden and self-indulgent diatribe at Crux, Ivereigh — who has constructed his own fortification against any personal criticism by successfully suing the Daily Mail for libel — tears viciously into the Four Cardinals and their supporters, impugning their motives and calling them “dissenters” from Church teaching akin to those who rose up during the papacy of John Paul II:

---

What to them seems entirely self-evident – arguments, logically developed from absolute first principles, backed by a few emeritus bishops, building to a case that cries out to be answered – almost always meets with silence from Rome. At this point there is a reaction of anger and stupefaction which over time coagulates into suppurating resentment.

Some will break off, claiming the one true Church lies elsewhere or nowhere, but most resentfully stay, “clinging onto my faith by my fingertips” as they like to say, or “still a Catholic – despite the pope’s best efforts to drive me out.”

Clinging to the pain of their betrayal, they take refuge in their progressive or traditionalist liturgies and incandescent websites, firing off letters and petitions from lobbies and associations, vainly demanding, as “faithful Catholics” that the pope do this, that, or the other...

Francis can no more respond to the cardinals’ dubia than Benedict XVI could answer a petition to ordain women as deacons: because the Catholic Church has its own mechanisms of development, based on consultation and spiritual discernment.

Put another way, whether it is a conclave or a synod, the Catholic Church likes to lobby-proof its deliberations, precisely to allow the Holy Spirit space to breathe.

Francis cannot answer the cardinals directly – although he has done indirectly countless times – without undermining that action of the Holy Spirit present in the most thorough process of ecclesial discernment since Vatican II. As he last week told the Belgian Christian weekly Tertio, everything in Amoris Laetitia – including the controversial Chapter 8 – received a two-thirds majority in a synod that was notoriously frank, open and drawn out.[So Ivereigh blithely echoes Bergoglio's big lie!]

Roma locuta, causa finita, as Catholics used to say. And the case is even more closed this time, because it is the universal Church which has spoken, not just the pope. [NO, not at all. This pope blatantly contradicted the 'universal Church' represented at the Synod by the two-thirds of the synodal fathers who disagreed with Bergoglio's clear intention from the beginning to overturn John Paul II's final word on RCDs in Familiaris consortium. But unfortunately, this majority was somehow cowed into agreeing to leave out the three sentences in FC 84 in an omission that Bergoglio shamelessly used as his green light for the outrageous provisions of AL Chapter 8.]

To respond to the cardinals would be tantamount to rewinding the clock, to refuting the very process of the synod, in order to rehearse arguments that the synod settled, if not resolved.. [Lie upon lie upon lie - Ivereigh has assimilated the Bergoglio Vatican's modus operandi all too well! I really thought I could get away with not having to read one line at all of Ivereigh's rant, but someone was bound to quote him. So, my penance!

---

Accusations of schism, bitterness, impulsivity, and resistance to the “Holy Spirit” are thereby mixed with the cultivated deception of a “two-thirds majority” that even Msgr. Pinto inadvertently admitted, in a recent interview with Edward Pentin, only came to exist after the rules were changed and the deck was stacked:

---

Given the clear manipulation at both synods, claiming they were the work of the Holy Spirit has disturbed some of the faithful. I therefore reminded him that the most controversial topics failed to obtain a two-thirds majority in the first synod, and so should customarily have been rejected (the Pope authoritatively instead insisted they be carried over to the second synod). To this, he replied: “Yes, but you bind the Holy Spirit to the two-thirds? That’s a bit special, no?”.

A two-thirds majority is required during a synod to offer reassurance that whatever passes is of the Holy Spirit. Synods also have no authority to change doctrine and discipline, as stated in canon 342 of the Code of Canon Law, but rather to assist the Pope in safeguarding and promotion of sound doctrine concerning faith and morals.

To further argue his point, Msgr. Pinto referred to the “wide consultation” around the synod in the form of questionnaires, and pointed out that for the second synod last year, bishops’ conferences elected synod fathers to participate. He stressed that, for the second synod, every proposition passed by two-thirds. Therefore, for him, the two-thirds majority became an important sign of the Holy Spirit at work, but only when they all achieved the required majority to pass and did not need to be forced through from above.

Pentin, of course, reveals the way the papal cabal rigged the game:
Added to that inconsistency, he omitted to mention that not all the synod fathers were elected at the second synod: 45 were handpicked by the Pope (exceeding the usual 15% limit of total delegates) because most of them supported controversial disciplinary changes in this and other areas. They included Cardinal Godfried Danneels, the archbishop emeritus of Brussels, Belgium, found to have covered up a sexual abuse case...

At the conclusion of the synod, the remarried-divorcee discernment and accompaniment proposition ended up passing a two-thirds majority by just one vote, probably an impossible feat without the 45 unelected delegates and, it is argued, without the omissions in the text.

It is of critical importance to remember that not a single defender of Amoris Laetitia has attempted answer the dubia. They can’t, for the same reasons Francis can’t: it would ruin their momentum, embolden their opponents, and reveal their true agenda.

So their arsenal instead consists of threats, character assassination, misdirection, gloating, and scorn. Lacking any honest rebuttal, they are capable only of casting stones. Not one of these papal stand-ins has made an effort to appear concerned with truth; their only observable motive is getting what they want.

And what they want will result in not just the complete destruction of sacramental discipline and institutionalized sacrilege, but also a critical wounding of all of the Church’s claims — about Christ, about the Eucharist, about the infallibility of the Magisterium on faith and morals.

Opening the door to those cases — however limited — in which the Church would allow those living in manifest grave sin to receive absolution and Holy Eucharist is tantamount to the removal of the cornerstone; a seemingly insignificant piece that brings the entire edifice tumbling down.

This has been the theme of the entire Francis pontificate: it is a non-stop attack on truth, on authority, on the Sacraments, on orthodoxy, on the very ability of the baptized Christian to know right from wrong with certainty and to form his conscience and act accordingly.

It appears, in some strange way, to be an attempt to put back the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to take away from us the belief that we can ever know such things as “good” and “evil” or ever live up to the Divine Law — while planting the doubt that such a law exists at all. It is a bizarre, solipsistic deception, seeming very much like something straight from the mouth of the serpent in the third chapter of Genesis.

Where the popes once named Doctors of the Church, Francis spits invective at “Doctors of the Law.”

Where the Church provided absolute moral clarity in a complex and fallen world, Francis rails against those seeking an understanding of “black and white”.

Where the Catholics of old stood athwart an empire, barbarians, and tyrants, suffering martyrdom before giving a single pinch of incense to a false god, Francis mocks any who are so committed to their faith that they appear “rigid”, deriding them as “fundamentalists” and slandering their desire to live out The Great Commission as proselytism, which, to his mind, is “the greatest sin”.

Already, the moral turpitude enshrined in Amoris Laetitia has crept out fetid tendrils to pollute other teachings of the Church. Just this week, the bishops of Atlantic Canada released a document “allowing priests latitude to decide whether to give euthanasia seekers the sacraments before they are killed.”

---

[Mons.] Champagne also referred to the Holy Father’s Amoris Laetitia in explaining the Atlantic bishops’ vision of pastoral care for those contemplating or arranging for assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Amoris Laetitia affirms Catholic teaching while recognizing “there are people who are not yet there,” Champagne said.

Thus when it comes to people who are suffering and contemplating, or are arranging for assisted suicide or euthanasia, “we will welcome them, try to understand and journey with them.”...

The Atlantic bishops’ document … also quotes Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, or Joy of the Gospel.

---

The Holy Father “reminds us that the one who accompanies others must realize that each person’s situation before God and his/her life of grace are mysteries which no one can fully know from without.

“Consequently, we must not make judgments about people’s responsibility and culpability.”

“To one and all we wish to say that the pastoral care of souls cannot be reduced to norms for the reception of the sacraments or the celebration of funeral rites.”

---

---

[TRULY BIZARRE! But then the supposed Vicar of Christ himself took the first step down the slippery slope of doctrinal chaos and everyone is happily sliding down as fast as they can - or dare to.]

Relativism. All is now relativism within the Church. The intentional obliteration of absolute moral values and the notion of objective grave sin is a gateway to the justification of every kind of evil. The true “Francis effect” is nothing less than the near-total erosion of the Catholic Faith in pastoral practice. And yet this revolution — for it most certainly is a revolt — is shrouded in cowardice.

Its leaders are so accustomed to slinking around in darkness that they cannot bring themselves — even though they control the entire visible hierarchy of the Church — to make bold and unequivocal their heretical aims.

You want to unmake the Church? Say so. Stop conniving like snakes. Be men of action. Stake your claim. Make clear your purpose. See if you really can “be as gods,” triumphant and without the burden of consequence.

Cardinals and Bishops, Priests and Religious, laity of every kind who love Our Lord Jesus and His mystical bride, it is time to rise up together as a unified body and stand our ground. There is no more “wait and see”. There is no more benefit of the doubt, because there is no more doubt. No more trepidation about whether this, at last, is the hill to die on. There are no more hills.

Cardinal Burke, you — and by extension, those courageous prelates who joined you in issuing and supporting the dubia — promised us an act of formal correction in the event that Francis did not respond to the dubia as he should. We are awaiting the discharge of your sacred duty; we are anticipating the revelation to the Church of that which only the successors of the apostles can declare: whether the apparent material heresy of Jorge Mario Bergoglio — thus far accepted by the Universal Church as Pope Francis — is now manifest and obdurate, and whether the faithful have, therefore, a duty not to follow him.

Holy Father, time is running short, but you still have a chance to repent of what you have done. You could yet calm the storm with those five words: “No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.” Our Blessed Lord made clear that no other answer will suffice. (Mt. 5:37)

Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before a full-blown schism is upon us — and it will not be one of our making. [But please, someone, anyone who so easily speaks of schism, explain to us how exactly that could possibly happen? I do not see Cardinal Burke declaring an 'independent' Church of Christ to harbor all anti-Bergoglio Catholics - independent, that is, from the church of Bergoglio that has taken over the Roman Catholic Church simply because its founder and leader was legitimately elected Supreme Leader of that Church.

Should we not simply started acting like the Catholics of pre-media saturation times, when their lives were really quite untouched by whatever the pope in Rome did, because not one of the popes before Bergoglio had ever attempted to trash the deposit of faith in any way, and certainly not in the barbaric way he is doing? Surely, we can find priests and churches that have not been corrupted by Bergoglian relativism and demonic amorality, and carry on with our lives as Catholics, whatever Bergoglio does. (How I wish every Catholic who feels helpless against the Bergoglio onslaught had the certainty I have that, at least, in my parish church of Holy Innocents, the priests are priests, ministers of Christ, as they ought to be.)]

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 14/12/2016 15:00]

December 13, 2016 headlines

PewSitter


Canon212.com

The last headline above links to Steve Skojec's article that I posted in the preceding box.

When, the day before he was elected Pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger famously warned Catholics and the world at large against
the ongoing dictatorship of relativism in the secular world, he could not have imagined that his successor as pope would turn out
to be THE 'dictator of relativism'... Herewith, a lesson on moral absolutes that I do not think Jorge Martin Bergluther,
Pope of Relativism, will ever read or want to read.

Why moral absolutes matter
Far from being rigid, moralistic or legalistic, insisting on the reality
of moral absolutes promotes human flourishing and true human freedom.
by Samuel Gregg

December 13, 2016

At the core of the now-famous DUBIA submitted to Pope Francis by four cardinals is the question of moral absolutes.

By “moral absolutes,” Catholicism doesn’t mean vague generalizations such as “don’t offend others” or even more specific claims like “don’t steal unnecessarily.” Instead the Church has something very particular in mind: that there are intrinsically evil acts which admit of no exception whatsoever.

Back in 1984, Saint John Paul II affirmed, “The whole tradition of the Church has lived and lives on the conviction” that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object.”

An example of such an exceptionless norm is the direct killing of an innocent person. Even if an act of directly killing an innocent person might save an entire city from destruction, such an act remains intrinsically wrong. It can therefore never be freely chosen — period.

As the late pope’s words indicate, this understanding of moral absolutes has always been Catholicism’s position. It has also earned the Church considerable criticism over the centuries, including from some Catholic theologians in more recent decades.

Some consider this teaching to be impractical or idealistic. Others believe it is acceptable to, for example, directly kill innocent lives in some circumstances in order to attain apparently higher goals. But Catholicism’s insistence that certain acts may never be done has also been affirmed by other Christians, Jews, and even pagans. Socrates famously claimed, “It is better to suffer wrong than to do it.” Perhaps he understood something which some Catholics don’t.

So, putting aside the specific context surrounding the four cardinals’ DUBIA, why are moral absolutes so important? Why is Catholicism so insistent on this point?

Abandoning moral absolutes facilitates evil and irrationality
Christianity has never denied what might be called certain relativities in morality. One such relativity is that many moral principles apply variously. Take, for example, the commandment to honor our parents. The requirements of living out this positive commandment rightly vary with persons and circumstances. Some of the ways in which an eleven year-old child honors his living parents can’t help but be different to how an adult honors his aging or deceased parents. Note, however, that acknowledging this variability involves no denial or undermining of the objectivity, universality and absoluteness stressed by Catholic ethics.

By contrast, if we try to relativize those negative norms which forbid absolutely, the door opens quickly to barbarism.
- Suddenly it becomes conceivable that the choice to carpet-bomb cities full of noncombatants might be OK if it’s deemed likely to undermine the enemy’s will to fight.
- Maybe it’s occasionally fine to terminate a life of a person who you view as enduring unbearable suffering.
- Perhaps a government, in order to forestall an invasion by Nazi Germany and prevent a subsequently brutal occupation, might choose to hand over its Jewish minority to the SS and certain extermination.

Put another way, in the absence of negative moral absolutes, you are at least in principle open to doing evil in order to realize good. That means you are willing to freely choose to do evil.

The deeply irrational nature of all this is illustrated by the truth that the only alternative to a morality that stresses exceptionless norms is some form of consequentialism. According to this way of thinking, as no less than John Rawls once wrote, “the good is defined independently of the right, and then the right is defined as that which maximizes the good.”

The difficulty is that this involves trying to determine good and evil by seeking to measure something which can’t be quantitatively measured: i.e., moral good and moral evil. Consequentialism can thus only lead to moral irrationality.

Without moral absolutes, conscience loses its foundations
A second problem with rejecting the negative moral absolutes is that it undercuts the integrity and coherence of something which Catholicism has especially emphasized: the idea of conscience.

Catholicism holds that there are two levels of conscience. The first is called synderesis. This encapsulates the notion that knowledge of unchanging truths about good and evil is written into our nature as rational beings. As Saint Paul says, all humans have a basic prior knowledge of the essential elements of moral truth (Rm 2:14-15). To obey conscience-as-synderesis is to adhere to moral truths knowable through natural reason, including the truth that certain acts are intrinsically evil.

The second level of conscience is what Aquinas called conscientia. This is Aquinas’s way of describing the act of applying the basic knowledge of synderesis to concrete situations.

Conscientia thus involves individuals making practical judgments about what to do in light of synderesis. That’s why an erring conscientia doesn’t necessarily absolve me of guilt. The guilt may involve my suffocation over time of the voice of synderesis: of consistently deciding, for instance, that there may be circumstances when it’s acceptable to commit perjury.

Applying conscientia isn’t a simple exercise. Prudence is involved as we deduce on the basis of positive and negative principles how to act in different conditions. But the truly prudent person will always exclude from the range of possible choices any act which involves directly violating the negative moral absolutes.

For, not to exclude such choices would be to (1) act unreasonably and (2) deny the moral truth found in our synderesis. It would also risk turning the discernment, to which Pope Francis often refers, into a process of rationalizing evil acts.

In short, there is no prudent act which involves violating any of the negative moral absolutes. N oone can prudently discern that it’s permissible in some circumstances to engage in idolatry.

Moral absolutes protect and promote the good
But does God insist that we may never do certain things because he wants order for the sake of order? The answer is “No.” God also asks us never to do certain acts because He loves us and wants us to flourish.

In a time of emphasizing God’s mercy, we risk forgetting that God is also a Lawgiver. [But the premise of the church of Bergoglio is that it is wrong to say "DON'T' because that is negative, and in Bergoglio's mind, counterproductive to his church of Nice and Easy. Perhaps it is why he hardly ever mentions the Ten Commandments, which is a series of "Thou shalt not..."s - as though God himself had been wrong to issue such commandments, to lay down any absolute law at all, which cannot be interpreted other than rigorously and strictly. And Bergoglio promptly proceeded to relativize the commandments, most infamously the Sixth Commandment, and just as bad, the First Commandment which tells us 'not to have strange gods' whereas he proactively promotes religious indifferentism.]

This was most clearly manifested in the Decalogue given to the people of Israel by Yahweh. The same Decalogue was explicitly and rather bluntly reaffirmed by Christ in his encounter with the rich young man (Mt. 19:16-19), especially the second tablet’s prohibitions (Mt 19:19), the observance of which Christ identified as a condition for eternal life.

Paul states that the law which is fulfilled by Christian love is summarized in the Commandments, most particularly the negative commandments contained in the second tablet (Rm. 13:8-10). These negative commandments are, as Aquinas writes in his Commentary on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, always binding and in every situation (semper et ad semper).

But what’s noticeable about these negative commandments is how each of them protect certain fundamental goods in which we can choose to participate and thereby flourish precisely as human beings. The prohibition against directly killing the innocent, for instance, underscores the requirement to protect the good of human life. Likewise, the prohibition against bearing false witness highlights the good of truth-knowing and truth-telling.

To observe the negative commandments in each and every action is thus indispensable if we want to participate in such goods. The moral absolutes consequently function as signposts on what Christ describes as “a hard road that leads to life” (Mt. 7:14). [In the gospel of Bergoglianism and the church of Bergoglio, there are to be no 'hard roads' at all, no need for repentance, no need for 'Go and sin no more', because Bergoglio's God is all mercy and no justice. Everything must be smoothed out and made easy for the individual, who could even be in a 'state of grace' even while living a life of chronic mortal sin. ]

is sense, adhering to these absolutes is the first step towards true freedom, at least as that word is understood by Christians. Freedom, for the Christian, isn’t just or even foremost a question of negative liberty. Rather, it’s the living-out of the Christian life: the flourishing which we realize through living the virtues and achieving mastery over ourselves as children of God.

To reject or obscure the negative moral absolutes in the name of being pastoral, prudent, discerning, accompanying others etc., is thus to downplay or even deny the truth that everyone — rich, poor, man, woman, Jew, Gentile is called to greatness [holiness, more properly] by God.

As one saint once wrote,

---

“When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the ‘poorest of the poor’ on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal” (John Paul II, VS 96).

---

[In Bergoglianism and the church or Bergoglio, persons living in chronic adultery (and active homosexuals, and who knows who else) are privileged and exempt from any absolute moral norm.]

Moral absolutes help disclose man’s ultimate horizon
There’s little question that adhering to the moral absolutes is demanding. For some, it’s even resulted in martyrdom. The last years of Thomas More’s life not only exemplify this, but also highlight further reasons why the moral absolutes are so significant for Christians.

It’s well-known that More tried to avoid publicly confronting Henry VIII’s policies after resigning the Lord Chancellorship in 1532. Yet, when asked to affirm the Oath to the Act of Succession on 12 April 1534, More declined to do so. He refused to specify the reason for his choice, beyond stating that swearing the Oath would violate his conscience.

Nonetheless it’s clear that central to More’s refusal was his certain knowledge that he was being asked to affirm on oath something to be true which he believed to be false — an act that More, like all other Christians, understood as something which may never be done.

One reason we know this is that More emphasized this theme in writings composed while imprisoned in the Tower of London. In one note, More wrote: “Every act of perjury is (as it seems to me) a mortal sin without any exception whatsoever.”

More’s act of conscientia thus involved being faithful to part of the synderesis written into reason itself and confirmed by Revelation: the moral absolute that it’s never permissible to lie on oath.

More’s refusal to violate this exceptionless norm and thus sin mortally only makes sense if he believed that such a choice would in fact separate him from God and endanger his salvation. To that extent, More’s refusal to lie on oath reflected his confidence that God’s offer of eternal life which he makes to all people includes respecting the moral absolutes proposed to us as part of God’s providential plan.

More’s adherence to the moral absolutes in the face of pressures which most of us would find unbearable consequently testified to the trust which God asks us to have in him and his promise of oneness with him if we freely choose, as More wrote in his Tower cell, “to walk the narrow way that leadeth to life.” [No 'strait and narrow way' to walk in the church of Bergoglio - just a wide-open 'rose-strewn' road to eternal perdition.]

Of course, every single one of us has departed from that way many times. All of us have violated one or more of the moral absolutes throughout our lives. The good news is that through a simple act of acknowledging our sins and resolving to go and sin no more [doing penance and amending our life], we can get up and continue walking on the path towards true freedom and true life.

Without the negative moral absolutes, however, we can have no sure knowledge of evil, when we have chosen it, and how it imperils our salvation. Considered in these terms, the moral absolutes are far from being a burden. Instead they are a tangible sign of God’s love for us. To forget that in the name of being merciful would be folly itself.

Pius XII was the pope of my childhood, a time when, in Catholic schools, the pope was held up not just as someone we had to pray for everyday when we prayed for the Church, but also as a saint-on-earth, whose picture, in the Catholic homes of my time and in my country, the Philippines, had a place in the family's 'home altar'. So all these years, I have been assiduously following the tragic saga of his unwarranted persecution for 'his questionable World War II record' by persons whose only basis is well-laid Soviet propaganda that was successfully disseminated as early as 12 years after his death.

For decades Pius XII has been smeared:
A BBC retraction shows the tide is turning
Major historians such as Sir Martin Gilbert have demolished
the myths first perpetrated by the Soviet Union
by William Doino Jr

Wednesday, 14 Dec 2016

“Fake News”, about which we hear so much at the moment, is as old as human communication itself. It’s fuelled by Original Sin, and its birth and growth is hardly a surprise to the Church. For if anyone has felt the sting of fake news – with all its menacing consequences – it has been practising Catholics.

As Rodney Stark amply documents in his work, Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History, few institutions have been the victim of “fake news” more often than the Roman Catholic Church.

Just one of many examples is the scurrilous campaign to defame Pope Pius XII. At the end of the Second World War, Pius was praised for his moral leadership, strong opposition to Nazism, and interventions which saved many persecuted Jews.

Not long after the fall of the Third Reich, however, a new world struggle emerged, between Christianity and Communism. “In this case, legends grew,” wrote historian Owen Chadwick in The Tablet, and “propaganda fostered them – propaganda in the first instance by Stalin’s men in the Cold War, when the Vatican appeared to be part of the American anti-Communist alliance and Stalin wished to shatter the Pope’s reputation … Stalin had a political need to make this Pope contemptible.”

The Soviet propaganda against Pius was expanded by playwright Rolf Hochhuth, author of the 1963 play, The Deputy, which bitterly caricatured Pius as silent and indifferent during the Holocaust. ['Expanded' is hardly the right word, since Hochhuth's play was the single anti-Pius XII Soviet initiative ever known to the general public - and its effect (it is easily the most successful propaganda story in our time before the fake climate-change propaganda of the past two decades was so immediate. pervasive and terrible that almost every Jew on earth quickly forgot the glowing praises of Pius XII upon his death from a number ofJewish luminaries like then Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir and Albert Einstein, for his assistance to the Jews in World War II, and even supposedly intelligent Catholics bought into Hochhuth's crude and cruel travesty.]

Hochhuth energized an anti-papal campaign which reached a crescendo with the publication of John Cornwell’s Hitler’s Pope (1999).

Though the allegations against Pius XII were ably answered by eminent historians like Chadwick and Sir Martin Gilbert — as well as first-hand witnesses who worked with Pius to combat Nazism and the Holocaust – the campaign against him had a damaging effect. As Chadwick lamented: “It is still believed by many people that Pope Pius XII was a friend of the Nazis, or that he said nothing at all against racial mass murder during the War.”

Those people apparently included a BBC reporter who, during Pope Francis’s visit to Auschwitz in July, told viewers: “Silence was the response of the Catholic Church when Nazi Germany demonised Jewish people and then attempted to eradicate Jews from Europe.”

But now something remarkable has happened. After strong protests from concerned Catholics, led by Lord Alton and Fr Leo Chamberlain, the BBC’s Editorial Complaints Unit (ECU) has found that the report “did not give due weight to public statements by successive Popes or the efforts made on the instructions of Pius XII to rescue Jews from Nazi persecution, and perpetuated a view which is at odds with the balance of evidence.”

While this correction might seem like brief and passing news, for those of us who’ve fought to clear the good name of Pius XII, it constitutes a major victory.

After years of protesting outrageously slanted reports and documentaries on Pius XII’s alleged complicity in the Holocaust – and having our heavily-documented rebuttals ignored – here, at last, was progress.

When I read the BBC’s correction, I could not but help think of the impressive scholarship of men like Chadwick and Gilbert, who did so much to exonerate Pius XII, and whom I had the privilege of consulting before their respective deaths. Both of them, I am sure, would have welcomed the BBC’s about-face, especially Gilbert, whose book, The Righteous, is a comprehensive study of Christians, including Pius XII, who rescued Jews during World War II – often at great risk to themselves.

In 2003, the year Gilbert’s book was published, he granted me an extensive interview in which he methodically demolished the charges against Pius XII, emphasizing two things:

Not only was the Catholic Church not “silent,” during the Holocaust, Vatican Radio, authorized and sustained by Pius XII, was among the first major voices to publicly condemn Nazi atrocities against Jews and Catholics in Poland, shortly after World War II began. Hence, said Gilbert, “To assert Pius XII was ‘silent’ about Nazi mass murder is a serious error of historical fact.”

Sir Martin also told me that the Pope’s Christmas message of 1942, which condemned the extermination of people based upon their “race or descent” was extremely important, because it “put the Pope squarely and publicly against the Holocaust.” [A Christmas message that was played up prominently at the time by, among others, the New York Times.] Indeed, the Nazis were so infuriated by it that they denounced Pius XII as a “mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals.”

Asked if he agreed with the Vatican’s 1998 declaration on the Holocaust (“We Remember”) that “hundreds of thousands” of Jews were rescued under Pius XII, Gilbert, who spent decades meticulously researching the Holocaust in archives around the world, told me that that statement was not a self-serving exaggeration, but historically accurate: “Yes, that is certainly correct. Hundreds of thousands of Jews, saved by the entire Catholic Church, under the leadership, and with the support of Pope Pius XII – would, to my mind, be absolutely correct.”

Gilbert has helped to inspire a generation of writers who have defended Pius XII with hard facts and serious research. The anthology The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII, to which I contributed an 80,000-word annotated bibliography, collects some of the most important evidence. That anthology, in turn, has been favourably cited by many historians, notably Michael Burleigh (Sacred Causes) and Mark Riebling (Church of Spies), whose acclaimed books have only strengthened the case for Pius XII.

Today, no reputable historian takes the charges of Hochhuth or Cornwell seriously, for the evidence in Pius XII’s favour is simply too great. That a renowned news organization like the BBC now recognizes that fact marks a real turning point in the “Pius War,” and proves that the battle to rescue his reputation from fake history is finally being won. [May it be so!]

OK, we've heard the views of those who warn of an impending schism in the Church, though none of them has ever formulated their prediction
in terms of what happens in such a schism - i.e., who breaks off from what? - since schism means splitting off formally, not just a mere
abysmal division within the Church. It's fair to see another DUBIA outcome hypothesized. As this is Mundabor, I have edited out some of his
stronger epithets for the present pope, though even so, he still comes on strong...

The only sensible option for Francis
is to cave in on the DUBIA
[But he won't, since he thinks the Holy Spirit is talking through him!]

December 13, 2016

I do not know how much time the Cardinals have informally given Francis to answer the Dubia, but it is reasonable to assume it will not be beyond Easter 2017. Unless the man does us all (and himself) a favour and dies, he will have to start thinking seriously about this at some point.

It is, in my eyes, very improbable that an open condemnation from the Cardinals will lead, in a landslide effect, to his deposition after a vast number of pussycats suddenly starts to roar. Normally, pussycats don’t roar. Francis should be very worried about his salvation, but not really worried about his job.

However, there can be no doubt at all that being the first Pope in almost 700 years officially censored by his own Cardinals would irremediably destroy this papacy, even if not one single Bishop and Cardinal besides those who have already spoken will take position on the side of Christ.

Bishop Fisher’s opposition to Henry VIII was and is nothing to do with numbers, and Church history always sees past the complicity and cowardice of the day. If the Cardinals speak, Francis’s pontificate will be nuked for all eternity.

Now put yourself in the position of this ... pope. What do you do? Is it - I do not say reasonable - sane to willingly go into a fight he knows he has lost on day one in the judgment of history? Atheists may think that there is nothing but nothingness when they die; but they are still, generally speaking, vain enough to worry of what people will think of them when they are dust. The extremely vain Francis is not likely to be an exception.

Nor can you say that the man prefers to remembered as a Revolutionary Pope, and be fondly remembered by Castroites. Whilst nothing is impossible with this man, it would be stupid beyond words: no one remembers Honorius as a brave trailblazer, not even alternative Catholics and revolutionary SJWs. Atheists and Communists will remember Francis rather as a hypocrite than as an innovator. But they will, far more likely, ignore him altogether.

No. The only rational thing to do at this point is to, unpleasant as it is for him, swallow this big, fat, ugly frog. Loss of face will follow, but I doubt Francis is much concerned about his face in general. [Eat crow (or a toad in this case)? Can you really imagine a super-narcissist like JMB doing that? And what would he say to his legion[?] of idolators and mini-me's? And would they take his 'capitulation' quietly and obediently? Think again! What about the core Bergoglian presumption that the Holy Spirit speaks through him and/or that it is the Holy Spirit speaking in any of his documents (an outrage generously seconded by such sycophants as Cardinal Farrell and Mons. Pinto)? NO, short of a genuine miracle that will confer genuine humility on him, Bergoglio will never yield to those who do not agree with him!]

He will continue to insult Catholics to the last day of his life, and keep off-the-cuffing heretical excrement until he is six feet under. He will seek petty revenges and become even crankier than he already is. He will seek ever new ways to provoke and scandalise Catholics. But he will fall short of spreading his rubbish in the form of new official documents again. [You think? He and his ghostwriters apparently think that clothing their half-truths and distortions in erudite-sounding casuistry will make every word of it right and correct. So why, if it is the Holy Spirit speaking through Bergoglio, do his words have to be cloaked in casuistry and circumlocutions, and camouflaged in footnotes, at all??? See how they cannot even be internally consistent - but you can't be if you are spouting satanic nonsense!]

One thing is to be despised in life, another is knowing one will be the laughing stock of countless generations to come.

This, obviously, assumes that Francis isn’t a total a.., and is still able to think and act rationally... Which, in the end, is the big question.

Steve Skojec touched on this yesterday in his post, but the subject deserves further examination. How can a document alleged by Cardinal Farrell and Mons. Pinto to have been written by the Holy Spirit end up leading more of their like, as well as the faithful into mortal sin, in this case at their last moment of life?... And this is only the beginning: God forbid an avalanche of crashing clergy and faithful following the supposed Vicar of Christ down the slippery slope that can only led to Hell!

Another poisonous fruit of Amoris Laetitia:
The Atlantic Canadian Bishops' blessing on assisted suicide
by Oakes Spalding

December 13, 2016

God's "rules" and their corollaries in Church doctrine were created for man's benefit. And that applies especially to those rules that were intended to be followed not merely in general but without exception.

That fact is, of course, often lost in contemporary debates on, say, communion for the divorced and remarried, where doctrinal rules are implicitly thought of as impediments that get in the way, at least if they are followed (in the language of Francis) "rigidly" or without "discernment."

According to the traditional view of the Church, forbidding admission to the Eucharist for the divorced and remarried was never a punishment, but a means to protect the sacrament of marriage as a positive good in this life, both for the married couple directly involved as well as for others. It was also intended to help the married couple involved, as well as others, get to heaven and avoid hell.

In one sense it's easy to temporarily forget that. People in irregular marital situations may indeed be in "messy," "problematic" or "complicated" predicaments - albeit ones of their own making. In one sense, no one would deny that. Whether they are now, say, admitted to communion or not, their situations will probably continue to be messy, at least in the short term. And death, where the final fate of their souls will be decided, is usually many years away.

Not so with the question of assisted suicide.

The Atlantic Canadian Bishops have just released a document allowing last rites for those intending to commit assisted suicide.

In doing so, they have given the same general arguments as those implicitly set out in Amoris Laetitia - that though suicide remains a gravely sinful act, each situation is different, culpability varies, discernment and accompaniment are paramount, people come before rules, and so on.

Indeed, the bishops explicitly cite Amoris Laetitia and the example of Pope Francis.

The effect of this will be immediate: More assisted suicides, more persons going to hell. And they will be be accompanied there by their priests.

Suicide is a mortal sin. One who commits suicide will prima facie go to hell.

It is true that we can never know the internal disposition of someone at the moment of death. It is also true (in a sense at least) that "all things are possible with God." But that doesn't mean that the Church should gamble with people's souls merely to avoid awkward conflict or to appear nice or accepting to the rest of the world, or more to the point, to the suicide's family or the suicide himself. What are a few days or weeks of nice compared to an eternity separated from God? [A question apparently never confronted in the laissez-faire theology of the Church of Bergoglio, for whom the 'absolute' appears to be whatever is here and now, in other words a changeable expedient that could never be absolute. And 'eternal life', what's that?]

Last rites involves confession (or what is now called the sacrament of penance or reconciliation) at least where or when possible. One of its effects is to remit sins including mortal sins. But this cannot be accomplished if the person is unrepentant. And by definition, a potential suicide continuing to desire to "go through with it" would not be so.

The goal of accompaniment here - and yes, there's nothing wrong with that word under its normal meaning - should be to comfort the person in their illness and help them to come home to their Father. Not escort them to hell.

But accompaniment is not the ultimate good, and it can even sometimes be evil. The concentration camp guards who led people to the gas chambers were good accompaniers.

All of this should be obvious to any Catholic. Any Catholic pope would immediately put a stop to the sort of thing the Atlantic Canadian Bishops have proposed.

Of course, Francis won't. No doubt he's now getting a kick out of it.

Last week, as all the world now knows, the Pope publicly uttered two disgusting obscenities. But in a sense they were mere words or at the worst, epiphenomena of his own mental outlook.

Giving last rites to assisted suicides - in effect to join the other assisters - is an obscenity a million times worse.

Bergoglio wants you to go where he's going. Don't worry, you can be with him forever and ever.

The indispensable duties of cardinals
in the Holy Roman Church
by Roberto De Mattei
Translated from

December 14, 2016



In his address on December 5, 2016, to the Lepanto Foundation, Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke said:

---

The weight on the shoulders of a cardinal is enormous. We are the Senate of the pope and his primary counselors [But not in Bergoglio's eyes, no! He does not consider all the cardinals his counselors, only those 9 he has constituted into his Crown Council, and the rest of the cardinals can go counsel someone else - they're nothing to him unless they express full agreement with everything he says and does], and we must, above all, serve the pope in telling him the truth. To pose questions, as we did, is in the tradition of the Church, precisely to avoid divisions and confusion.[Well, this pope evidently chooses to promote divisions and confusion - 'Haga lio!', remember? - ignoring that his primary duties as pope are to maintain the unity of the Church, not to provoke division; and to confirm, not confuse, his brothers in the faith. Certainly not to the international leader of the Left, relentlessly pushing the agenda of the anti-Catholic liberal world. Equally obvious is that he is carrying out his agenda tactically and strategically by consistently misrepresenting the Truth (who is Jesus, God himself) because he thinks his 'truth' is an improvement on Jesus!]

We have shown great respect for the Petrine office, without lacking in respect for the person of the pope. There are many questions, but the five principal questions that we posed must necessarily have a response for the salvation of souls.

We pray everyday to get an answer that will be faithful to tradition, in the uninterrupted apostolic line which goes back to our Lord Jesus Christ.

---

[The questions are really a quixotic challenge to Bergoglio, because the Four Cardinals cannot have realistically expected him to answer NO, YES, YES, YES, YES (or vice-versa) to the DUBIA. If he could answer the right and only way, he would never have called the farcical family synods to begin with! And he cannot answer truthfully, as he really thinks, because he would never hang himself for material heresy with his own words!]

With these words, Cardinal Burke recalled the importance of the mission of cardinals, who hold the highest rank in the Catholic Church, after the supreme rank of the Sovereign Pontiff. They are, in effect [but not in the church of Bergoglio], the principal collaborators and advisers of the pope in the government of the universal Church. [You can tell how little he thinks of them when he decided not to meet the cardinals in full consistory at his last cardinal-making event. Would that not have been the perfect opportunity, just a few weeks since he got the DUBIA, to consult the cardinals gathered in Rome about how to address these unprecedented DUBIA presented to a sitting pope? But he chose not to because to do that might (would) have led more cardinals to join the Four Cardinals in demanding an answer to the DUBIA.]

Their institution is very old, because already under Pope Sylvester (314-335), we find references to 'cardinal deacons'. But it seems we owe to St. Peter Damian the definition of the College of Cardinals as 'the Senate of the Church', adopted by the Benedictine (XV) Code of Canon Law in 1917 (Canon 230).

The Sacred College has a juridical personality which attributes to it the triple character of coadjutor organ, supplementary organ, and elective organ responsible for electing a Pope.

One must not make the mistake of elevating the cardinals' role as advisers to the pope to that of 'co-deciders'. Even when he finds support from the advice and assistance of the cardinals, the pope never loses his plenitudo potestatis [fullness of power].

Cardinals do not participate in his power than in exercising it within the limits that the pope himself defines. Vis-a-vis the pope, cardinals never have any deliberative powers, only consultative.

If it is convenient for the pope to avail of the assistance of the College of Cardinals [And he chose not to do so about the DUBIA, and AL in general, although he spent the 2014 'secret consistory' having them lectured to by Cardinal Kasper as his obvious surrogate on their anti-Catholic 'gospel of the family'] even if he is not obliged to do so, cardinals have the moral obligation to advise the pope, to ask him questions, and eventually, to admonish him, independent of whether the pope welcomes their words or not.

The presentation of the DUBIA by the Four Cardinals to the pope and to the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, asking him to clarify "the serious disorientation and great confusion" arising from his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia, fits perfectly into the duties of cardinals and cannot be the object of any censure.

As canonist Edwards Peters (a formal consultant to the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura) wrote, the Four Cardinals "carried out a textbook application of their right under Canon 212, §3 to raise doctrinal and disciplinary questions which need to be answered at this time".

And if the Holy Father should fail to do so, the cardinals - collectively - would address him with a fraternal correction in the spirit of the admonition given by St. Paul to St. Peter in Antioch (Gal 2,11).

Peters concludes by saying: "How some could come to the conclusion that the Four Cardinals have thereby become susceptible to losing their rank escapes me. No one - least of all the Four Cardinals themselves - is casting doubt on the special and supreme authority that the pope has in the Church (Canon 331), much less do they have the illusion that a pope can be forced to give an answer to their questions.

My impression is that the Four Cardinals, as much as they would gladly welcome an answer from the pope, are probably happy that, despite everything, they have managed to lay these questions on the table towards the day when, finally, it will be possible to get answers.

Meanwhile, they can certainly continue exercising their own episcopal office as 'teacher of the faith' (Canon 375) and propose answers to the DUBIA on their own authority. I think that these are men who are ready to accept derision and to suffer misunderstanding and a malevolent interpretation of their actions and motivations.

The rank of cardinal is not purely honorific, but it does carry grave responsibilities. And cardinals have privileges first of all because they have duties. The honors they receive derive precisely from the duties that weigh on their shoulders.

Among these duties is that of fraternally correcting the pope when he commits errors in governing the Church, as they did in 1813 when Pius VII signed the Treaty of Fontainebleau with Napoleon; or in 1934, when the Dean of Cardinals Gennaro Granito of Belmonte, admonished Pius XI, in the name of the Sacred College, for his 'inconsiderate' use of Holy See funds.

The pope is infallible only under certain conditions, and his acts of government and magisterium can contain errors that every faithful can and may question, a right that is therefore more incumbent on those who have the formal duty to advise the Sovereign Pontiff. [I haven't read any commentary on this question: Are not the DUBIA raised by AL matters of 'faith and morals', the very area in which papal infallibility applies to anything that a pope says ex cathedra?
- Is it that AL is not considered a pronouncement ex cathedra (from the chair, of Peter, in this case)?
- But does the document not fulfill the requirements for an ex cathedra statement, meaning 1) binding and infallible papal teachings 2) which are promulgated by the pope when he officially teaches in his capacity of the universal shepherd of the Church 3) a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals and addresses it to the entire world?
- Does saying that it is not an act of magisterium take it out of the umbrella of papal infallibility? Strangely, not one of Bergoglio's defenders has invoked papal infallibility for AL, not even Cardinal Schoenborn who insists it is a formal act of magisterium. So maybe, even he does not believe it is a formal act of magisterium.
This is all academic, of course, because to most Catholics who still care about what a pope says and does, anything a pope says is instantly considered to be 'the' teaching of the Church, never mind if it contradicts everything that went before it.

December 14, 2016

Canon212.com

C212 gives full play to the outrageous Canadian bishops' blessing of assisted suicide!

PewSitter

More of the poisonous fruit of Bergoglianism and AL...

Here is Dr. Peters's commentary on that episcopal blessing for euthanasia:

Three thoughts on the
eastern Canadian bishops'
letter on euthanasia

December 14, 2016

The Atlantic Episcopal Assembly (i.e, the Roman Catholic bishops of Eastern Canada) has written a short document to and about Catholics who are considering and/or preparing for “medically assisted dying” (i.e., suicide in accord with recent Canadian law).

The AEA document reads quite differently from the superb letter on legalized suicide that the Western Canadian bishops penned a few weeks ago, but, as Rod Dreher has already written a good critique of the Eastern Canadian bishops’ missive, I won’t repeat those points here; instead, I address three, I fear, serious omissions from the AEA letter about the celebration of sacraments with Catholics planning to kill themselves.

The key paragraph reads:

---

The Sacrament of Penance is for the forgiveness of past sins, not the ones that have yet to be committed, and yet the Catechism reminds us that by ways known to God alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance (CCC, no. 2283).

The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is for strengthening and accompanying someone in a vulnerable and suffering state. It presupposes one’s desire to follow Christ even in his passion, suffering and death; it is an expression of trust and dependence on God in difficult circumstances (CCC, no. 1520-3). The reception of Holy Communion as one approaches the end of this life can assist a person in growing in their union with Christ.

---

Now, keeping in mind that suicide is a mortal sin (CCC 2281, 2325) and that Canon 392 §2 directs bishops “to exercise vigilance so that abuses do not creep into ecclesiastical discipline, especially regarding … the celebration of the sacraments …”, let’s examine three points.

1. The Sacrament of Penance is for the forgiveness of past sins, not the ones that have yet to be committed…

Okay, but, for the validity, not to mention the efficacy, of the sacrament of Penance, one must have, at the time of confession, what is known as a firm purpose of amendment, that is, a resolve not to commit mortal sin again in the future. See Halligan, ADMINISTRATION OF THE SACRAMENTS (1962) 220: “The contrition necessary for forgiveness…must also include the resolution, or a fixed and firm determination, not to sin again….This resolution is the best indicator of true contrition…” Or Cappello, DE SACRAMENTIS II (1944) n. 126: “Sorrow must be universal such that it extends to all sins committed and not yet absolved; resolve [not to sin again], on the other hand, must be universal such that it extends to all and every mortal sin even if not yet committed” original emphasis. See also, e.g., Davis, MORAL AND PASTORAL THEOLOGY (1941) III: 366; Prümmer, HANDBOOK OF MORAL THEOLOGY (1957), nn. 660-661.

For someone to go to confession, therefore, while harboring the intention to commit suicide voids the attempt at the sacrament; indeed, it renders such an attempt sacrilegious (CCC 2120).
A “pastoral letter” from bishops about the sacrament of Penance, written to and about Catholics preparing to kill themselves in accord with civil law, should teach this pastorally vital point.

2. The Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick is for strengthening and accompanying someone in a vulnerable and suffering state.

Yes, but, the sacrament of Anointing is, according to the universal opinion of experts, NOT to be celebrated for those facing death as a result of ‘exterior factors’ such as war, dangerous activities, the death penalty, and — I guess we need to say it — suicide. See, e.g., Canons 1004-1006; Halligan 348; Cappello III, n. 232.

Moreover, to take part in any sacrament while in a state of mortal sin and/or with the express intention of committing a mortally sinful act in the future is — here’s that word again — sacrilegious.

A “pastoral letter” from bishops about the sacrament of Anointing, written to and about Catholics preparing to kill themselves in accord with civil law, should teach this pastorally vital point.

3. The reception of Holy Communion as one approaches the end of this life can assist a person in growing in their union with Christ.

Indeed, but, the reception of Holy Communion by one who is consciously preparing to kill himself is objectively gravely sinful, and — once again — a sacrilege. See, e.g., Canon 916; CCC 1355, 1415, 2120; Halligan 110; Prümmer n. 593.

A “pastoral letter” from bishops about the sacrament of holy Communion, written to and about Catholics preparing to kill themselves in accord with civil law, should teach this pastorally vital point.

How frighteningly facile it is for bishops and priests who share the increasingly anti-Catholic mindset of the present pope to adopt his cavalier but inherently inept and invalid rhetorical recourses in order to justify a clearly anti-Catholic 'teaching'! And these are just the first rumblings of the doctrinal/disciplinary avalanche that this pope has set off...

At FIRST THINGS, I think editor R.R. Reno has finally shed the last shreds of his once over-scrupulous 'normalism' about this Pontificate, in the name of journalistic objectivity, with this reaction.

Chaplains of death
by R.R. Reno

December 14, 2016

It’s an appalling document. In a pastoral letter, ten Catholic Bishops of the Canadian Atlantic Episcopal Assembly shirk their responsibilities as teachers of the faith. The issue is doctor-assisted suicide, which is now legal in Canada.

Readers can’t know to what degree the document’s apparent rubber-stamping of the culture of death was intended by its authors, or to what degree it simply follows from sloppy thinking and careless rhetoric. But the bishops’ failure to condemn suicide in plain terms is unmistakable.

What’s more, the bishops adopt the circumlocutions of the Canadian government, which instituted the new suicide regime, along with the antinomian clichés of the current pontificate.

One is left with the strong impression that the bishops do not merely wish to avoid condemning the practice of doctor-assisted suicide. They want the Church to accommodate herself, smoothing over any conflicts between Catholic teaching and the culture of death.

The bishops adopt the euphemism “medical assistance in dying,” pronouncing it “a highly complex and intensely emotional issue which profoundly affects us all.” It’s so complex, indeed, that we’re to practice “the art of accompaniment” that Pope Francis recommends, which means “prudence, understanding, patience and docility to the Spirit,” and not “judgments about people’s responsibility and culpability.” Suicide? Who am I to judge?
The worst aspect of this document, however, comes in the way the bishops tacitly sanction a grotesque misuse of the sacraments. They observe that a priest administers the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick “for strengthening and accompanying someone in a vulnerable and suffering state.”

Earlier in the document, the bishops have been keen to stipulate that a person asking for a doctor to end his life is not to be judged culpable, but instead “accompanied” as someone who is “suffering.” The implication is straightforward, even if not explicitly stated: It is permissible, perhaps even desirable, for a priest to anoint a Catholic who is about to receive a deliberate, self-willed, death-dealing dose of medication.

The document praises the power of Holy Communion “to assist a person in growing in their union with Christ,” and especially Viaticum or final communion, which “has a power of particular significance and importance as the seed of eternal life and the power of resurrection.” Again, the logic of “accompaniment” and the spirit of nonjudgmentalism clear the way for the priest to provide final communion that helps “prepare” a Catholic for suicide. The same, of course, goes for funeral rites. Suicide is not an impediment.

In order to make sure they’re read rightly, the bishops sum up their sacramental theology: “To one and all we wish to say that the pastoral care of souls cannot be reduced to norms for the reception of the sacraments or the celebration of funeral rites.” Which is to say, Catholic moral teaching supplies guidelines, not rules.

This way of thinking is encouraged by Pope Francis’s habitual antinomianism, which treats canon law, sacramental norms, and theological principles as impediments to God’s love. Francis says many things, of course, but bishops are getting the message. The “gospel” is mercy without judgment, grace without truth, and church without form.

Francis’s signature phrases and the emphases of his pontificate prepare the way for the grotesque possibility, realized in this document, that bishops of the Church and servants of Christ will become cheerful, “pastoral” chaplains of the culture of death.

“Persons and their families, who may be considering euthanasia or assisted suicide and who request the ministry of the Church need to be accompanied with dialogue and compassionate, prayerful support.” These bishops are convinced that they can bring people the gospel of life in some mysterious, inner way, even as their words and actions tell the world that the choice of death should occasion “dialogue,” not a clear statement of moral truth.

Shame on the bishops of Canada’s Maritime Provinces. Shame on this pontificate. As I’ve written in the past, sidelining the objectivity of truth encourages the triumph of bourgeois religion, a generic do-good sentimentality characterized by only one stricture — which is that the conduct of the well-off, well-educated, and well-intentioned residents of the rich world of the West is not to be judged in any definitive way. People like us make mistakes, of course. But our issues are “highly complex” and “intensely emotional,” and we mean well. We can be complicit with “structures of injustice,” and even play roles in an “economy that kills.” But we never sin.

It’s ironic that this supposedly revolutionary pope should be such a reassuring champion of the therapeutic culture of the West. Though perhaps it’s not ironic. The rhetoric of revolution has long served wonderfully to transform sin, judgment, and redemption into injustice, consciousness-raising, and social change.

JMB biographer-propagandist claims on CRUX that AL dissenters
are predominantly wealthy lay people fixated on "reason"
[For instance, the Four Cardinals are 'predominantly wealthy...'???
And since when has recourse to reason been wrong??? Only to the unhinged!]
Austen Ivereigh insists that the "train has left the station, the Church is moving on."
But his arguments are derailed by hubris, rhetorical excess, and lack of substance.
by Carl Olson

December 12, 2016

Two short week ago, I wrote an essay titled "The Four Cardinals and the Encyclical in the Room" in which I argued that at the heart of the escalating tension over chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia are some essential questions about moral theology and the nature of truth.

If anything, I'm even more convinced such is the case, mindful of several other related controversies and confusions. A fair amount has happened since November 28th. Here are a few things to note, by way of providing some context:

• On December 1st, Ross Douthat wrote an essay, "The End of Catholic Marriage" (which likely should have had a question mark at the end of the headline). I don't think Catholic marriage is dead or gone, but Douthat's main points should be taken seriously.

He points out, for example, that Cardinal Kasper and others, back in 2013, insisted they were proposing reform "modest, limited, confined to a small group of remarried Catholics, and thus in no way a public sign that the church no longer believes marriages indissoluble in general."

And yet, now that AL has dropped like a ton of bricks and sent up a massive cloud of dust within the Church, the exceptions are being expressed as a broad and nearly limitless norm by some bishops, including a certain American bishop in San Diego. Douthat notes:

---

You will notice a few things about [Bishop] McElroy’s teaching, as opposed to Buttiglione’s analysis. The first is that the language is completely different: Nothing gets called a “grave sin” or an “evil” or even “illegitimate” by the bishop; every tension and contradiction is resolved through gradual but inexorable processes that resemble a conversation rather than a confession. (Indeed, the word “confession” appears nowhere in the entire document; the word “sin” appears only in the quotation from Pope Francis suggesting when the term does not necessarily apply.)

---

And so forth. I touch on some of this in a post also penned on December 1st, but written prior to reading Douthat's column, saying, "The approach of Bishop McElroy, as well as that of Cardinal Cupich and Cardinal Farrell, seems clearly to be based on the faulty notion of the 'primacy of the conscience,' which in reality means the teaching of Christ and the Church about moral truth and moral obligations take a back seat to the decisions made by this or that person about their unique and complicated situation. That is simply upside down; it is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog."

• On December 5th, Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture wrote a short but notable post about "Three things the Pope can't say":

---

Within the Catholic Church, the authority of the Roman Pontiff is considerable. But even papal authority — and especially papal infallibility — has its limits.

The Pope speaks with authority when he sets forth the deposit of the Faith, explaining — in union with the college of bishops — what the Church has always and everywhere believed. Anyone who understands the nature of the Petrine power should recognize that, even when he speaks on questions of faith and morals, there are some things the Pope cannot say.

---

The last of Lawler's three points is "The Pope cannot teach authoritatively by dropping hints."

And yet there are some who apparently think it's all very clear. And that is understandable to the degree they want it to be clear and they are convinced Francis is supportive of Communion for those in "irregular" situations —a conclusion difficult to avoid.

But, as Lawler concludes: "By now it should be clear that in Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis carefully avoided making the sort of authoritative statement that would command the assent of the faithful. We cannot be expected —much less commanded — to accept a new 'teaching' that the Pope has chosen, for his own reasons, not to make."

• On December 4th, Fr. Anonio Spadaro, SJ, "Jesuit papal confidant and editor of the journal La Civiltà Cattolica", granted an exclusive interview with Austen Ivereigh of CRUX. Fr. Spadaro played the victim over some infantile silliness he had indulged in with his Twitter account, claiming that it was "deeply offensive" to think he was insulting the four cardinals when he was simply referring to himself. It is widely understood that Fr. Spadaro is a theological advisor to Pope Francis, so this lack of clarity and inability to communicate effectively is not too surprising. After all, this is the same man who also retweeted and then tweeted, in succession, these two contradictory sentiments around the same time:

So, critics of AL cannot handle lack of clarity and are not open to what has been "clarified". Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Anyhow, Fr. Spadaro explained to CRUX why Francis had not yet responded to the questions put forward by the four cardinals:

---

The pope doesn’t give binary answers to abstract questions. But that doesn’t mean he hasn’t responded. His response is to approve and to encourage positive pastoral practices. A clear and obvious example was his response to the Buenos Aires area bishops, when he encouraged them and confirmed that their reading of Amoris Laetitia was correct. [i.e., what Spadaro means by 'positive pastoral practices' is anything the pope approves of. So not giving communion to everyone as Bergoglio did in Buenos Aires would not be 'positive' at all.]

In other words, the pope responds by encouraging, and indeed loves to respond to the sincere questions put to him by pastors. [So, not only does Spadaro imply that the Four Cardinals' DUBIA were not sincere questions - therefore 'justifying' why the pope has not responded to them - but also that the four cardinals are not 'pastors' at all!]

The ones who really understand Catholic doctrine are the pastors, because doctrine does not exist for the purpose of debate but for the salus animarum [‘the health of souls’] - for salvation rather than intellectual discussion. [Now he invokes salus animarum when that appeared to be the least consideration in AL Chapter 8, which implicitly and explicitly condones certain sins, including the adultery of RCDs, and even says that such people may even be in 'a state of grace' despite their sin and without having to go to confession and get absolution. much less do any penance at all, such as, for instance, living henceforth in continence if they want to receive Communion without committing the further sin of sacramental sacrilege! This is the AL prefiguring of the eastern Canadian bishops' blessing of suicide by euthanasia!]

---

(It's worth noting that one of the four cardinals, Cardinal Raymond Burke, served as a parish priest for several years after his ordination in 1975; it should also be noted that Jorge Bergoglio, as far as I can tell, was never a parish priest.

Regardless, the statement, "The ones who really understand Catholic doctrine are the pastors" is rather sweeping, to put it mildly. I've known many wonderful priests, but I've also known a few who I don't think were capable to catechize young children, never mind adults.)

Fr. Spadaro insists, "Amoris Laetitia is very clear." Then, a bit later, this key answer and question:

---

The cardinals want to know whether Amoris Laetitia ever makes possible absolution and Holy Communion for people who are still validly married but having sexual relations with another. They claim that hasn’t been made clear.

I think that the answer to that has been given, and clearly. [When the concrete circumstances of a divorced and remarried couple make feasible a pathway of faith, they can be asked to take on the challenge of living in continence. Amoris Laetitia does not ignore the difficulty of this option, and leaves open the possibility of admission to the Sacrament of Reconciliation when this option is lacking.

In other, more complex circumstances, and when it has not been possible to obtain a declaration of nullity, this option may not be practicable. But it still may be possible to undertake a path of discernment under the guidance of a pastor, which results in a recognition that, in a particular case, there are limitations which attenuate responsibility and guilt - particularly where a person believes they would fall into a worse error, and harm the children of the new union.

In such cases Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to Reconciliation and to the Eucharist, which in turn dispose a person to continuing to mature and grow, fortified by grace. In other words, yes, there are cases in which those who are "irregular" situations can received Holy Communion, even if they are in what is, objectively, a state of adultery -"particularly where a person believes they would fall into a worse error, and harm the children of the new union'.[colore]

---

There you go. So, how is this to be reconciled with the CDF's 1994 statement on reception of Holy Communion by those who are divorced and "remarried"?

---

The mistaken conviction of a divorced and remarried person that he may receive Holy Communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one's own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissible(16).

Marriage, in fact, because it is both the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his Church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.

It is certainly true that a judgment about one's own dispositions for the reception of Holy Communion must be made by a properly formed moral conscience. But it is equally true that the consent that is the foundation of marriage is not simply a private decision since it creates a specifically ecclesial and social situation for the spouses, both individually and as a couple.

Thus the judgment of conscience of one's own marital situation does not regard only the immediate relationship between man and God, as if one could prescind from the Church's mediation, that also includes canonical laws binding in conscience. Not to recognise this essential aspect would mean in fact to deny that marriage is a reality of the Church, that is to say, a sacrament. (pars 7-8)

---

That document, of course, was issued by then-Cardinal Ratzinger during the papacy of John Paul II. And it was John Paul II who had stated, in his 1981 Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, that:

---

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.

They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.

Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

---

[I shall not tire of pointing out that these 3 sentences - 93 words in all - from FC 84 were egregiously omitted in all the FC citations piously made in the Final Relatio of the 2015 Synod and, more especially, from AL, for all the lip service that Bergoglio and his acolytes hypocritically pay to FC to imply that he is merely carrying on from JPII. On the contrary, the omission makes it very clear Bergoglio does not agree with these statements at all - and he called his two 'family synods' with the specific intention of getting synodal consensus behind his intention to impose 'communion for everyone' on the universal Church, using the RCDs as his wedge to get this most anti-Catholic posture through the doctrinal door!]

But Fr. Spadaro flatly states: "St. John Paul II already opened the door to an understanding of the position of the divorced and remarried through the discernment of the different situations which are not objectively identical, thanks to the internal forum." Such is the new "clarity"... [Which consists, in part, of barefaced lies such as Spadaro makes here, and even Bergoglio himself, when he claimed recently that 'everything' in AL had been approved by more than two-thirds majority in the family synods. But how many have called him out for that whopping lie???]

• On December 8th it was reported that "Twenty-three Catholic scholars and pastors, three of them Oxford University academics, have given their names to a statement in support of the “four cardinals”, after the cardinals’ request to Pope Francis to clarify his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia."

• And on December 9th, two moral theologians, John Finnis and Germain Grisez, published a lengthy open letter to Pope Francis on the First Things website, along with a note of explanation, stating in part:

---

The letter explains how proponents of the eight positions we identify can find support in statements by or omissions from the Apostolic Exhortation, and indicates how these positions are or include errors against the Catholic faith. In each case we explain briefly how the position has emerged among Catholic theologians or pastors and show how certain statements or omissions from Amoris Laetitia are being used, or likely will be used, to support it.

---

• Finally, on December 8th, Matthew Schmitz, the literary editor of First Things, wrote a piece "How I Changed My Mind About Pope Francis", saying:

---

Then Amoris Laetitia came out. In it, Francis sought to muddy the Church’s clear teaching that the divorced and remarried must live as brother and sister. “I have felt the Church’s teaching on marriage land like a blow, yet I take no encouragement from this shift,” I wrote.

It was clear by then that my initial rosy assessments were wrong. Francis meant to lead the Church in a direction that I could not approve or abide. He believes that “the great majority of our sacramental marriages are null.” This renders him unable to resist the lie that says a man may abandon one wife and take up another. Instead, he reassures us that we can blithely go from one partner to the other without also abandoning Christ. This is the throwaway culture baptized and blessed, given a Christian name and a whiff of incense.

---

And now, today, Austen Ivereigh of CRUX, has posted a sprawling polemical broadside titled "As anti-Amoris critics cross into dissent, the Church must move on". To be fair, I'm not anti-polemical; I am, however, opposed to polemics that resort to name-calling, avoid argumentation like the plague, resort to straw men, are relentlessly condescending, and make unfair, even misleading, analogies and comparisons.

I say "crude" not because it's poorly written — it's not, as Ivereigh is a good writer — but because it is so sloppy, uncharitable, and ill-reasoned at every turn, nd seems to glory in such flaws. Ivereigh "argues" that the four cardinals and others who who have questions about AL are "dissenters". Why?

Dissent is, essentially, to question the legitimacy of a pope’s rule. It is to cast into doubt that the development of the Church under this Successor of St. Peter is a fruit of the action of the Holy Spirit. Dissent is nothing new. At the time of the Second Vatican Council, the dissenting party set its face against its pastoral direction, as well as key developments in liturgy, religious freedom and ecumenism.

Under John Paul II, on the other hand, the dissenters were convinced he had betrayed the Council. They argued for women priests, an end to mandatory celibacy and an opening in areas such as contraception. Now, under Francis, the dissenting party opposes the synod and its major fruit, Amoris Laetitia.

Because dissenters almost always end up looking and sounding like each other, the four cardinals and their supporters look every day more like those lobbies under the papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI calling for liberal reforms.

This, in short, is a third-rate magic trick, an attempt to distract by dismissing. But the dissenters on Vatican II dissented because authoritative teaching was not changed — especially regarding sexuality and contraception — while those "dissenting" on AL are expressing their concern that some interpretations of the text change authoritative teaching. And considering the words of Bishop McElroy and Fr. Spadaro, among others, it's a completely legitimate and well-founded concern.

Ivereigh then posits the following, apparently in completely seriousness:

---

Catholics know that going against the pope is a serious matter, and so when they dissent they adopt a regretful, pained tone that stresses conscience and the impossibility of betraying whatever they have absolutized - their idea of unchanging tradition, say, or their version of the Second Vatican Council.

What they have in common is that they are almost always lay, educated and from the wealthy world or the wealthy parts of the developing world. They are mostly intellectuals and lawyers and teachers and writers who put great store in their reason.

---

As one commenter on Facebook wryly remarked, "Why didn't Ivereigh simply say they are 'on the wrong side of history'?"

But, really, this is bizarre: are the laity now to be ignored when it comes to moral matters, especially when they have to do with marriage? And is being educated and putting "great store" in reason such a black mark?

Never mind that many of the critics involved are moral theologians who teach moral theology at noted Catholic institutions, or that several are highly regarded canon lawyers who deal with the complexities of marital situations on a regular basis.

And then this, which can best be described as empty boilerplate:

---

The Second Vatican Council set the Church on a path of pastoral conversion. John Paul II united the Church around an understanding of the Council based on a hermeneutic of continuity. In both cases, there was strong resistance, but most Catholics recognized the development as legitimate, as Peter acting for the good of the Church, as a doctrinally faithful response to the signs of the times. [This is truly out of the Bergoglio Bizarro-world: to equate the legitimacy of the hermeneutic of continuity regarding Vatican II - in which continuity refers to the deposit of faith - to the 'legitimacy' of AL as an 'inspired response to our times', in effect conceding its discontinuity with the deposit of faith in response to present worldly exigencies.

The same is true now. Most Catholics understand the synod, and Amoris Laetitia, as an inspired response to our times, a means both of rebuilding marriage and of helping to bandage those wounded by the failure of marriage.

---

And so forth. Apparently "continuity" meaning "continuity — but without clear or necessary continuity". In calling the synods and AL "inspired", Ivereigh apparently takes his cue from Cardinal Farrell, who told the National Catholic Reporter in mid-October that AL is "inspired":

---

"It is carrying on the doctrine of Familiaris Consortio of John Paul II. I believe that passionately.

"Basically this is the Holy Spirit speaking to us," the cardinal-designate continued.

"Do we believe that the Holy Spirit wasn't there in the first synod?" he asked. "Do we believe he wasn't in the second synod? Do we believe that he didn't inspire our Holy Father Pope Francis in writing this document?"

"We need to be consequential here. I firmly believe this is the teaching of the church. This is a pastoral document telling us how we should proceed. I believe we should take it as it is."

---

The remark about consequential is a curious one, as "consequentialism" is a "teleological ethical theory" directly critiqued and condemned by John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor [Which Bergoglio and his followers clearly dismiss outright (they never quote from it), since they do not believe in the moral absolutes that VS reaffirms]:

---

The unacceptability of "teleological", "consequentialist" and "proportionalist" ethical theories, which deny the existence of negative moral norms regarding specific kinds of behaviour, norms which are valid without exception, is confirmed in a particularly eloquent way by Christian martyrdom, which has always accompanied and continues to accompany the life of the Church even today. (par. 90; see par. 70)

---

Perhaps Saint John Paul II was thinking of Saint Thomas More?

Finally, Ivereigh writes:

---

"Many are good people, clever people, faithful Catholics, who want to defend the Church and promote the Good and the True. Some I consider friends. And as their friend, I have to tell them that in their anxiety and fear they have been tempted down the road of dissent, rejecting a Spirit-filled process of ecclesial discernment. …More importantly, as their friend, I have to warn them: the train has left the station, the Church is moving on."

---

What I know is that the Church never "moves on" from Truth, and cannot formally teach error about matters of faith and morals.

There are many questions that need to be addressed, no matter what any British journalist tosses about on the CRUX site.


The ambiguities of Amoris Laetitia cannot
overrule the unambiguous teaching of the Church

December 14, 2016

I have received, from many of God’s faithful, requests for advice on how to understand the growing storm in the Church on the subject of marriage — and in particular on the subject of Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried.

There are theologians and canonists who are better able to speak to the details and to the possible scenarios if Pope Francis continues to remain silent on this matter, but as a pastor of souls I feel that I must provide an answer.

First, I want to affirm my support for the cardinals (Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, and Joachim Meisner) who sent five questions (called dubia) to Pope Francis requesting clarification on some key parts of his post-synodal exhortation, Amoris Laetitia. They have a right and the duty to ask for clarification, and the Pope has a pastoral duty to respond. As of this writing, he has not done so.

In the meantime, I feel I must give answers to the faithful who seek advice; they are both puzzled and alarmed by what they have heard. Some seek to understand the story itself and what might eventually happen.
- Will there be a schism?
- Will the teaching be changed? Can it be changed?
- Why does one diocese (e.g., Philadelphia) have a policy so different from another (e.g., San Diego)?
- Why all the ugly talk from Roman officials toward other cardinals and bishops?

I cannot answer all of those questions, but I feel compelled to respond to the one most pertinent to the moral lives of the faithful to whom I speak: Does the Church now permit the divorced and civilly remarried to receive Holy Communion under certain circumstances?

Despite what others may have said, I must answer, “No.” Amoris Laetitia contains ambiguities; but ambiguities, even if written by a pope, cannot overrule the clear, certain, and unambiguous teaching of the Church.

What follows is a further explanation of my answer. Please remember that I am a pastor, not a canon lawyer. Do not expect a detailed discussion of technicalities. I speak to ordinary people to assure them that the teaching of the Church remains clear despite any ambiguities some may have introduced or wish to emphasize.

The Church teaching that the divorced and civilly remarried may not receive Holy Communion remains unchanged for the following reasons:

I. The Lord Jesus said, I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, (unless the marriage is unlawful), and marries another woman commits adultery (Matt 19:9). Whoever leaves a valid marriage and takes up with another is objectively in a state of ongoing adultery. These are the words, not just of a Church Council, but of Jesus Christ Himself—words that He repeated often (Mat 5:32; Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18).

II. Adultery is enumerated among the most serious of sins due to the Lord’s teaching and its place among the Ten Commandments. Further, Sacred Tradition has entertained no doubts that even a single act of adultery is a grave matter.

III. The Holy Spirit says, through St. Paul, "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves" (1 Cor 11:27-29). Thus, if a person receives Holy Communion while in a state of serious sin, not only does he not profit from it, he brings judgment upon himself.

IV. Historically, the Church has taken the admonition against the unworthy reception of Holy Communion seriously and soberly. The long-standing practice of the Church has been to warn the faithful against the reception of Holy Communion when it is clear that they are in a state of grave (mortal) sin. Confession is essential, along with the firm purpose of amendment necessary for absolution. This has been the clear, unambiguous teaching and practice of the Church from its very earliest days up through modern times.

The Didache (ca. 100 A.D.) says this regarding the reception of Communion: If anyone is holy, let him come; if anyone is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

In Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II wrote,

---

The Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church's teaching about the indissolubility of marriage (# 84).

---

In Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, Pope John Paul II wrote,

---

"The Church can only invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways, not however through the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist until such time as they have attained the required dispositions (#34)".

---

In Sacramentum Caritatis, Pope Benedict XVI wrote,

---

The Synod of Bishops [on the Eucharist] confirmed the Church’s practice, based on Sacred Scripture (cf Mk 10:2-12), of not admitting the divorced and remarried to the sacraments. …

Yet the divorced and remarried continue to belong to the Church, which accompanies them with special concern and encourages them to live as fully as possible the Christian life through regular participation at Mass, albeit without receiving communion. …

When legitimate doubts exist about the validity of the prior sacramental marriage, the necessary investigation must be carried out to establish if these are well-founded. Consequently, there is a need to ensure, in full respect for canon law, the presence of local ecclesiastical tribunals (# 29).

---

The Catechism says,

---

Today, there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions.

In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery,” the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid if the first marriage was.

If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities.

Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence (# 1650).

---

V. Recent debates among bishops and cardinals have shown that some wish to change or “soften” the practice and teaching of the Church in this area.
- In Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis wrote on this subject in a way that has spread confusion among the faithful and even among trained theologians and bishops (see especially #302-305 and footnote 351).
- Different dioceses and conferences of bishops have adopted widely varying practices, threatening unity on an important matter.
- To date, Pope Francis has declined to answer the questions submitted by the four cardinals, which might help to provide clarity.

VI. As a pastor of souls, I cannot allow ambiguous and novel opinions to overrule the clear, certain, and long-standing teaching and practice of the Church from apostolic times. The care and salvation of souls is too important to leave to ambiguous directives or the application of debated and possibly dubious opinions, even if recorded by a pope in a post-synodal report and affirmed by certain bishops and cardinals.

VII. Conclusion. Because the Pope has declined to clarify (as of this writing), my response is to say that whatever ambiguities exist in Amoris Laetitia must be interpreted in the light of the Church’s constant teaching and practice since apostolic times.

Therefore, there is no change whatsoever in the norms and practices in this area, the opinions of certain theologians, bishops, and cardinals notwithstanding. A Catholic who is in an invalid marriage must refrain from receiving Holy Communion. This remains in force unless and until the situation can be adjudicated by the Tribunal of the Church or some external change such as the death of the former spouse or the cessation of conjugal relations occurs. I can say no less.

I cannot read Pope Francis’s mind. I cannot say why he has not addressed the stated ambiguities so as to end the varied interpretations and practices; but what I can say is that an ambiguous teaching cannot overrule certain teaching. I will continue to insist on what is certain and what has been certainly taught for more than two thousand years.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 15/12/2016 23:11]

...Despite the welcome new Instruction reaffirming a ban on accepting homosexuals into seminaries

I must admit I did not post anything about this development at the time the new Instruction was released, but this commentary
says what needs to be said on the subject.

The Church's current schizophrenia
over homosexual practices
by Riccardo Cascioli
Editor

December 11, 2016

The new Instructions from the Congregation for the Clergy on priestly formation obviously touches many points to be discussed separately. But given the situation of the Church today, we cannot but draw attention to that part concerning candidates for seminary who have homosexual tendencies.

The confirmation in those Instructions of the prohibition from the priesthood of those who have profoundly rooted homosexual tendencies as well as those who support the 'gay' lifestyle and culture does not so much reassure as much as it evokes the schizophrenia about homosexuality that characterizes the Church [more properly speaking, Bergoglio's Vatican] today.

Even setting aside the not irrelevant reality of priests and monsignors who unfortunately support such tendencies, we cannot possibly ignore that in the past several decades, in seminaries and pontifical faculties, a parallel magisterium has been pursued that purports to consider homosexuality as but a normal variant of sexual orientation.

In recent years, such praxis has become even more clear, openly conquering space in official Catholic media, while 'condonement' of homosexual practices was openly discussed in the 'family synods' of 2014 and 2015.

As we have noted several times, in Italy, Avvenire [newspaper of the Italian bishops' conference] and TV-2000 (the bishops' TV network) have for some time driven the 'Catho-gay' locomotive.

And it is obvious that these two media could not have done so withut the express will of their owners, namely, the Italian bishops' conference (CEI) in the person of its Bergoglio-appointed secretary general, Mons. Nunzio Galantino, who has said he is the author of the CEI's media plan.

To take the latest example, just leaf through the most recent monthly supplement to Avvenire called “Noi - famiglia e vita”, where a large part is dedicated to an appreciation of LGBT Christian groups [who advocate freedom of sexual practice]. The writer is Jesuit Fr. Pino Piva, who has become a fixed reference point for Avvenire and TV2000 as someone who dictates the editorial line.

In the best 'clerical' manner, LGBT advocates in the clergy play on the ambiguity of words like accoglienza (welcome, acceptance) and ascolto (listening), and to do this, they paint a Church which, before Bergoglio, never welcomed or listened to LGBTs.

Which is clearly a lie, which cannot be substantiated either in official documents nor in everyday praxis. Which is belied by thousands of priests who in their ministry have had occasion to listen to and accompany persons with deviant sexual tendencies.

But what Fr. Piva and those who dictate the editorial line of the CEI media really want is not the acceptance of these persons [because no one has barred them from the Church!] but the legitimization of their lifestyle. [And a consequent acceptance by 'the Church' that such lifestyle does not constitute sin.

Italians will recall that on TV 2000, Fr Piva has featured stories of homosexual couples [approvingly, one assumes, but did he ever offer any Catholic counsel to them?], just as they will recall that during the debate over the Cirinna legislation (now a law legitimizing non-marriage unions, including same-sex unions without calling them a 'family'), Avvenire defended, with swords drawn, the rightness of such a law as representing 'an increase of solidarity in society'.

But this is even more evident in that in all of the ongoing assessment of 'pastoral' ministry towards LGBTs, the CEI media appear to completely ignore those LGBT Catholics who acknowledge the judgment of the Church on homosexual practices and belong to support groups like Courage and Associazione Lot.

Also, in the Diocese of Albano, an annual meeting of LGBT Christian groups under the aegis of Mons. Marcello Semeraro, Bishop of Albano and secretary of the Pope's advisory Council of Cardinals, is now a fixture.

At the same time, there are increasing calls to change the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states that homosexuality is 'an objectively disordered' condition, and they cite decidedly fantasy-driven interpretations of Biblical passages referring to homosexuality.

So this new document of the Congregation for the Clergy is therefore important to reaffirm the truth in God's plan of creation which cannot be reviewed or revised according to the ideology of the moment.

But precisely because of this, one cannot understand why a free hand is apparently dealt to these Catho-gay tendencies which, as we have seen, is in tumultuous growth and well planted in the very summit of the Church.

And if the Vatican rightly reaffirms that aspiring seminarians with profoundly-rooted homosexual tendencies or who support gay culture (perhaps because they have been following the example of their own bishop) should be rejected, what does it say of those who are already priests and bishops who present the same problem?

And who should intervene to correct the line that the CEI media have taken?

These are questions that the Congregation for the Clergy should answer if it wishes to be taken seriously.




In 2005, seven months after he became Pope, Benedict XVI faced one of the first media storms in his papacy when he approved
the following Instruction from the Congregation for Catholic Education (which used to oversee seminaries until this task
was transferred to the Congregation for the Clergy in this pontificate):



This is how a French correspondent reported the reaction even before the document was released, as I posted it in PAPA RATZINGER FORUM at the time.

Benedict XVI cleans house
By Laurent Morino, Vatican Correspondent
Translated from
RADIO FRANCE
November 27, 2005

Although it won’t be published till November 29, the Vatican document prohibiting homosexuals access to the priesthood has been widely leaked in the Italian and American media. The document is in tune with the intransigent line of Joseph Ratzinger [on matters of doctrine and morals]. Seven months after his election, the Pope is carrying out, discreetly and in his own time, a veritable housecleaning.

In the corridors of the Vatican, they have been talking about it for weeks. Everyone is wondering. One had expected, this fall, a long list of important nominations to the Curia, since many leading members – not the least being the Number-2 man, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Secretary of State – are now way past the retirement age. But Benedict XVI has not made a single important appointment since he nominated his successor at CDF last spring.

The Pope is taking his time. He consults the cardinals and the heads of the different services, one by one. But, everyone’s buttoned up. Nothing is leaking. One cardinal, who is habitually on the defensive with journalists, even asks us if we know anything! Benedict XVI really is a surprise to his own world and works “behind closed doors.”

New appointments apart, the New Deal being set down by the successor of John Paul II is starting to manifest itself little by little. And behind the discreet style of Benedict XVI, one already feels the iron will of Cardinal Ratzinger coming through.

The Instruction from the Congregation for Catholic Education that prohibits homosexuals from entering the priesthood was leaked to the media somehow and has already aroused much discussion. With good reason.

The text affirms that “the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons concerned, cannot admit to the Seminary or to Sacred Orders those who practise homsexuality, who present with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, or support gay culture.”

If the first category does not surprise anyone, the other two categories, especially that referring to tendencies, are more questionable. In the United States and Germany notably, the prematurely released text has already sparked active protests.

Especially since the document also adds a discretionary element: “On the other hand, when it appears that the homosexual tendencies are simply the expression of a transitory problem, as for instance, those who have not yet completed their adolescence, they should have overcome such tendencies at least 3 years before ordination for the diaconate.”

Approved by the Pope last August 31, the document fits right along the line followed by Cardinal Ratzinger in the past 20 years. Parallel to the approval of this text which has been in preparation for 10 years, Ratzinger also commissioned a survey, now taking place, of all the seminaries in the United States with a view to straightening out the morals of future priests.

The instruction he gave his successor at the CDF was to practice “zero tolerance.” This goes for homosexuals, as well as for all questions regarding family morals and the defense of life.

On a completely different order, the Pope has just taken control of the Franciscans in Assisi with the nomination of a new bishop for the diocese. The friars’ initiatives, judged too close to pacifist and anti-globalisation movements, as well as too autonomous, have not been seen kindly at the Vatican. They have been ordered to work with their bishop from now on.

One may also cite the new strategy taken by the Italian bishops, who have actively intervened in issues close to the heart of Catholic doctrine. In the spring, the Church called on voters to abstain from the referendum on assisted procreation. Right now, through the Italian pro-life movement, the Church is seeking a new application of the law against abortion.

In his last book published before he became Pope, Without Roots, Joseph Ratzinger spoke of the importance for the Catholic Church of situating itself in present-day society, not by mourning the past dominance of Christian values, but by being an active minority [in Europe] of true believers.

Quietly, with little touches, Benedict XVI is putting this strategy in place. Under the emblem of a new conservative identity.

While I'm at it - and to make up somehow (never enough) for the fact that I have been unable to make this thread 'Mainly about Benedict XVI...' as it originally was - here are two other sidelights I translated and posted in the PRF around that time (with present-day comments marked in red)... Of course, the media fallacy that Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI was not a good communicator at all ignores the entire personal history of a man who, already as a young professor, was called Goldmund (Golden Mouth) because of his capacity to communicate theology so well and so meaningfully for any listener that at the University of Bonn, ordinary citizens went out of their way to attend his early morning lectures so that the lecture hall was always filled to overflowing... He never lost that capacity to captivate an audience, even as pope.

But who ever said
Papa Ratzinger was not a communicator?
by Filippo Di Giacomo
Translated from

November 2005

Benedict XVI has surprisingly conquered the media. [In Italy, at least, where his first few years as pope, outside of major tremors like Regensburg, were generally reported approvingly. Maybe my recollection is faulty, but I believe Italian media in general did not really 'turn against him' until Vatileaks when their exploitation of what would now be called 'fake news' in expectation of generating the Vatican 'scandal of the century' overshadowed all other considerations.]

Here is how and why: Benedict's power of communication lies above all in his extraordinary ability to make himself understood. And it is precisely around his message that the expectations of the whole Catholic world has focused on since April.

It is easy to think of something, but more difficult to do it. Benedict XVI has known how to make things happen. And he has succeeded ,in the wake of the cyclonic Karol Wojtyla, to give form and content to his own original communication style. And just like his predecessor, he has achieved in a few months the status of an international media presence, but in his own style.

Of course, in the Catholic world, the identity of the Church does not always and only coincide with that of the Pontiff of Rome. But through the play of mirrors that communicative interaction imposes, the Pope’s image conditions that of the Church.

Benedict’s media personality was defined from the days of the Sede Vacante, confirmed in the early days of his Papacy, and affirmed during World Youth Day in Cologne. On his second day there, when the TV cameras started showing his visit to the synagogue, it seemed as though the floodlights had lit up definitively around him. Even from among the so-called wits who had perceived him only as the “German shepherd”, from then on, he started to be known as everyone’s teacher.

How much the grand themes of the Wojtyla Papacy had been thought about by Cardinal Ratzinger becomes clear as Benedict XVI ventures into those areas where the word of the Pope became church law and magisterium.

And after the communicative and charismatic eruption of John Paul II, after an era in which the messages were extraordinarily overshadowed by images and gestures, the word once again reigns at the Vatican.

Perhaps that is the first and also the most easily appreciable sign of discontinuity between the present Pope and his predecessor.

Finally emerging from the shadows in which he dwelt during 24 years of collaboration with Papa Wojtyla, Benedict XVI immediately manifested that brand of efficient minimalism in communicating that we have come to expect and to follow in his discourses and homilies.

It will be difficult from now on to consider the Pope as a sort of “guest star” in events that are presented as though they were in the same category as entertainment shows. If one pays attention to the way in which the CTV cameras show Benedict XVI, one might conclude that the Vatican has finally listened to the arguments of those who had objected, within the Church, to the lamentable practice of lumping in the same category as general television fare even the most ecclesiastic events involving the Pope.

Ratzinger the theologian has always taught that it is possible for man to speak with God because God himself is the word – discourse, listening, response.

That all this – Benedict’s unique communicative style - is evident, even as his Vicar (Cardinal Ruini) has recourse to the mass media, is totally consistent with the intellectual weight of a Pope who also knows how to teach.

And then, there's this anecdote that I had forgotten myself!...ratzi.lella from the main forum [who went on to become the famous Raffaella of Il blog di Raffaella] contributed this item from Dagospia [Italy's most followed gossip columnist]...


Benedict XVI and his cell phone
Translated from

November 25, 2005

“Hello, who’s this?” with the response from the other end of the line, “This is the Pope”, is not surreal nor is it a practical joke, but it is what can happen to a narrow circle of privileged people, including heads of state and high-ranking Church officials whom the Pope may choose to call without going through a secretary or the normal Vatican channels.

John Paul II made frequent use of the telephone for Church matters as well as for international diplomacy, but Joseph Ratzinger has taken it one step further. He has a cell phone which he carries around almost all the time and which he personally answers.

The number is probably known only to a few Cardinals in the Curia, his closest associates, and probably in the Quirinale, the White House and the Kremlin.

But a few weeks ago, the Pope also gave the number to some Franciscan friars, asking them to call him when they came to Rome, to arrange for a meeting at the Vatican. A few days later, they did call the Pope and arranged to meet him shortly thereafter.

The Pope’s own staff and Vatican security were therefore unprepared when the Franciscans presented themselves at the door for the appointment. A few telephone calls straightened it all out.

Benedict's successor, of course, has become famous for his occasional phone calls out of the blue to a number of ordinary folk in different countries on a number of questions. But one gets the impression he places these calls through the Vatican operator rather than on a cell phone.

[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 15/12/2016 22:16]

December 15, 2016 headlines

Canon212.com


PewSitter

Dear Lord, is JMB back at his John-the-Baptist-doubting-Christ again? (Eisegesis, of course, means the interpretation of a text
(as of the Bible) by reading into it one's own ideas). [See my earlier Advent post today on John the Baptist.]

Steve Skojec writes about it and cites the exegesis of Fathers of the Church (references I did not have the first time Bergoglio preached about the Baptist's supposed 'doubt'), to show that either this pope has never read any of these commentaries, or insists that his eisegesis is the right one over and above the aforementioned saints and Doctors of the Church. Entirely in consonance with his mega-narcissism, and especially in that he even dares to edit Jesus or to imply that he can improve on some things Jesus taught, one must suspect it is the latter.

More eisegesis from Pope Francis – this time,
on what he calls John the Baptist's 'doubt'
by Steve Skojec

December 15, 2016

In biblical studies, there are two similar-sounding terms of particular importance: exegesis and eisegesis. Exegesis is defined as “an explanation or critical interpretation of a text,” and is the standard method of examining and understanding the Scriptures. Eisegesis, on the other hand, is “the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one’s own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text.”

In today’s homily, Pope Francis engaged, as is often the case, in the latter. And just as he has accused the Blessed Mother of wanting to call God a “liar” when faced with the suffering of her Son — twice — he is now preaching that St. John the Baptist doubted the identity of Jesus while in prison: [NB: Also the second time he does this]

---

Although John was great, strong, secure in his vocation, “he still had dark moments,” he had his doubts,” said Francis. In fact, John began to doubt in prison, even though he had baptized Jesus, “because he was a Saviour that was not as he had imagined him.” And so he sent two of his disciples to ask Him if He was the Messiah. And Jesus corrects the vision of John with a clear response. In fact, He tells them to report to John that “the blind see,” “the deaf hear,” “the dead rise.” “The great can afford to doubt, because they are great,” the Pope said.

---

Of course, this is not the Church’s understanding of the text. In St. Thomas Aquinas’s Catena Aurea, we see a “discussion” of Matthew 11 amongst the Church fathers. St Hilary of Poitiers affirms:

---

It is indeed certain, that he who as forerunner proclaimed Christ’s coming, as prophet knew Him when He stood before him, and worshipped Him as Confessor when He came to him, could not fall into error from such abundant knowledge. Nor can it be believed that the grace of the Holy Spirit failed him when thrown into prison, seeing He should hereafter minister the light of His power to the Apostles when they were in prison.

---

The great biblical scholar, St. Jerome, adds:

---

Therefore he does not ask as being himself ignorant. But as the Saviour asks where Lazarus is buried, [margin note John 11:23] in order that they who shewed Him the sepulchre might be so far prepared for faith, and believe that the dead was verily raised again—so John, about to be put to death by Herod, sends his disciples to Christ, [p. 406] that by this opportunity of seeing His signs and wonders they might believe on Him, and so might learn through their master’s enquiry.

---

St. John Chrysostom offers:

---

Yet whilst John was with them he held them rightly convinced concerning Christ. But when he was going to die, he was more concerned on their behalf. For he feared that he might leave his disciples a prey to some pernicious doctrine, and that they should remain separate from Christ, to whom it had been his care to bring all his followers from the beginning.

---

And St. Hilary again concludes:

---

John then is providing not for his own, but his disciples’ ignorance; that they might know that it was no other whom he had proclaimed, he sent them to see His works, that the works might establish what John had spoken; and that they should not look for any other Christ, than Him to whom His works had borne testimony.

---

No, Your Holiness. St. John the Baptist did not doubt.

Francis, of course, has his own gloss on the text — predicated upon his eisegesis — and it is entirely unsurprising:

---

The great can afford to doubt, and this is beautiful. They are certain of their vocation but each time the Lord makes them see a new street of the journey, they enter into doubt. ‘But this is not orthodox, this is heretical, this is not the Messiah I expected.’

The devil does this work, and some friend also helps, no? This is the greatness of John, a great one, the last of that band of believers that began with Abraham, that one that preaches conversion, that one that does not use half-words to condemn the proud, that one that at the end of his life is allowed to doubt. And this is a good program of Christian life.”

---

[No! A Christian at the end of his life does not doubt and cannot doubt his faith if he is to attain eternal salvation - he must believe fully so he can ask forgiveness for all his sins. Moreover, with regard to John the Baptist, Fr. Stravinskas, a Church scholar, in a recent homily I posted on this thread, offered the thought (probably borne out by the Church Fathers, or he would not have advanced it) that when John in his mother's womb leapt at the approach of Mary who had Jesus in her womb, he was sanctified by the Lord himself and was therefore born without original sin.]

As is so often the case with Francis, he passive aggressively uses the occasion of commentary on the scriptures, or various anecdotes, to fire thinly veiled assaults at his critics and opponents. Make no mistake: his commentary on Matthew 11 has been weaponized and aimed at the authors and supporters of the DUBIA. Which is, perhaps, why irony meters around the world today exploded when Francis said this of St. John the Baptist:

---

He preached forcefully, he said some ugly things to the Pharisees, to the doctors of the law, to the priests, he didn’t say to them: “But dear friends, behave yourselves!” No. He said to them simply: “You race of vipers!” He didn’t use nuance. Because they approached in order to inspect him and to see him, but never with open hearts: “Race of vipers!” He risked his liFe, [sic] yes, but he was faithful.

Then to Herod, to his face, he said, “Adulterer! It is not licit for you to live this way, adulterer!” To his face! But it is certain that if a pastor today said in the Sunday homily, “Among you there are some who are a race of vipers, and there are many adulterers,” certainly the Bishop would receive disconcerting letters: “But send away this pastor who insults us.”

---

[This discourse once again illustrates how tragically Bergoglio is unaware of himself, has never heard Socrates's sage advice, "Know yourself!", or if he has, his knowledge of himself is false and self-deluding. How can he praise John the Baptist for being blunt in his language when, other than when referring to Catholics he does not like, he himself has been consistently cowardly in everything he preaches about his church of Nice-and-Easy, and in all the 'soft' ways he employed in AL to avoid calling 'remarriage' after a divorce what it is - adultery (unless, of course, the spouse from the sacramental marriage has since died, or the earlier marriage has been declared null by the Church), to say that mortal sin is not always sin, and that, in fact, persons who live in a chronic state of mortal sin, such as adulterers who continue having conjugal relations despite full knowledge of their anomalous situation, may even be in a state of grace for which they deserve to receive communion. Such mega-CHUTZPAH!]

He’s toying with us. He must be. Nobody can be this devoid of self-awareness.

And speaking of eisegesis: for the record, Your Holiness? The miracle of the loaves and the fishes was a real miracle, too. [Bergoglio has said on more than one occasion that it was a 'miracle of sharing, not participation'.]

Supplementary to my post two days ago on the BBC's retraction of its blanket accusation against Pius XII for his supposed 'silence' on the
Holocaust, George Marlin has further researched the Pope's public pronouncements at the time - as reported and praised in the New York Times
for three years running, and statistics to prove what the Church under Pius XII did for persecuted Jews and other targets of Nazi persecution
during World War II...

Pius XII and what he really said
about Nazism - not 'fake news'
by George J. Marlin

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2016

Editor's Note: Among the many anti-Catholic slanders that are common in our culture, none is more pernicious – or foolish – than that the Church and Pius XII were somehow guilty of failure to speak and act against Nazism.

Today’s column shows how in three consecutive Christmas messages – rightly reported by the New York Times – fair people at the time believed the pope was the ONLY moral voice speaking out. And acting. Defending that historical record is important, but so are similar battles today...

In his December 24, 1940 Christmas radio address to “the city and the world,” Pope Pius XII condemned Nazi Germany for its “illegal use of destructive forces against noncombatants, fugitives, the elderly and children; a contempt for human dignity, freedom and life that gives rise to actions that cry out for vengeance before God.…”

A New York Times editorial on Christmas Day acknowledged that the Pope’s “moral order, in a word is in complete contradiction to Hitler’s order.”

One year later, the Holy Father’s Christmas address to the College of Cardinals denounced the Nazis for violation of rights of minorities. There can be no place, he said, for “(1) open or subtle oppression of the cultural and language characteristics of national minorities; (2) contradiction of their economic capacities; (3) limitations or abolition of their natural fecundity.”

And once again the New York Times’s Christmas Day editorial not only applauded the pope’s statement but declared, “The voice of Pius XII is a lonely voice in the silence and darkness enveloping Europe this Christmas. . . .[He] is about the only ruler left on the continent of Europe who dares to raise his voice at all. . . .[H]e left no doubt that the Nazis aims are also irreconcilable with his own conception of a Christian peace.”

In his 1942 Christmas address, he affirmed: “the Church would be untrue to herself, she would have ceased to be a mother, if she were deaf to the cries of suffering children which reach her ears from every class of the human family.”

He also demanded that the opponents of the Nazis make “a solemn vow never to rest until valiant souls of every people and every nation arise in their legions, resolve to bring society back to its immovable center of gravity in the Divine Law, and to devote themselves to the service of the human person and of a divinely and noble human society.”

This vow, he concluded, must be made in the name of the war victims, “the hundreds of thousands who through no fault of their own, and solely because of their nation or race, have been condemned to death or progressive extinction.”

Once again the Times editorial board praised the pope: “No Christmas sermon reaches a large larger congregation than the message Pope Pius XII addresses to a war-torn world at this season. This Christmas, more than ever, he is a lonely voice crying out of the silence of a continent. The pulpit whence he speaks is more than ever like the rock on which the Church was founded, a tiny island lashed and surrounded by a sea at war.”

The editorial also pointed out that the pope is not a political leader but “a preacher ordained to stand above the battle, tied impartially. . .to all people and willing to collaborate in any new order which will bring a just peace.”

And concluded, “Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side war aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at building a new world must fight for free choice of government and religious order.”

What you have just read is not “fake news.” The fact is, the Church was an unrelenting foe of Hitler. It’s the anti-Catholic propaganda, coming first from the Soviets and more recently from intellectuals, that is fake.

If any further evidence were needed, Peter Bartley’s new book Catholics Confronting Hitler is an extraordinary readable and comprehensive, and describes Catholic resistance movements and rescue work in the Vatican and throughout Nazi-occupied Europe – and how it was often undertaken in collaboration with Jews and Protestants.

Catholics paid for their resistance: bishops were exiled or murdered, priests and active laymen were incarcerated or executed in death camps. With the pope’s blessing, the German Catholic hierarchy repeatedly denounced from pulpits the Nazi euthanasia program, as well as its neo-paganism and anti-Semitism. They hid and assisted Jews, and in 1943 the bishops “issued a joint statement deploring the wholesale eviction and murder of Jews.”

In France, underground papers written by Jesuits and approved by the pope, exposed Nazi evils, particularly racialism, and encouraged resistance, even against the puppet Vichy government. Papal nuncios in Slovakia, Hungary, the Balkans and occupied countries of Western Europe, faithful to the pope’s orders, protested publicly whenever Jews were arrested or rounded up for deportation. Their actions often caused delays and suspension of deportation orders and permitted tens of thousands of fleeing Jews to find havens in Church facilities and Catholic homes.

The future Pope St. John XXIII was apostolic delegate to Turkey and Greece during the war, and he saved the lives of countless Jews in Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania. He rescued at least 50,000 Jews by issuing them baptismal certificates.

In addition to underground efforts, the Pontifical Relief Commission, created by Pope Pius XII, distributed food, medical supplies and clothing to hundreds of thousands of displaced people. The Vatican Information Bureau, Bartley points out, “enabled 2 million people to be put in touch with loved ones missing or incarcerated as prisoners of war or in concentration camps.” Also, “friendly countries had to exceed their quotas of Jewish refugees when they arrived on their shores bearing documents signed by Vatican officials.”

These responses to Nazi oppression led Albert Einstein to acknowledge, “only the Catholic Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught on liberty.”

And at a September 2008 international conference, Jewish scholars and rabbis told Pope Benedict XVI that Pope Pius XII had helped save nearly 1,000,000 Jewish lives.

So why does the myth persist of the “silence” of the Church? For the same reason that other anti-Catholic myths have found a place in our culture. In this case, it’s more than just “fake news,” because when the Church’s heroic efforts at rescue are ignored or even transformed into their very opposite, it’s out-and-out lying prompted by the Father of Lies.