The “Pastoral” Demolition Is Already Under Way

In the last weeks the interventions of prelates have multiplied, demanding that the Church be “pastoral” in the sense of bending the rules.

In another post I have asked whether Francis is evil or stupid. It appears to me the same question applies to many other prelates.

Ed Peters has a ruthless examination of the extremely worrying (and provocative, and heretical) words of Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri. The latter is the new Secretary General of the Synod of Bishop, and thus one of the key people of Francis in the huge mess that is brewing.

Following the barrage of “pastoral sensitivity” started from “who am I to judge”-Francis – who suggested on the famous aeroplane some kind of “solution” would have to be found for public adulterers; for the record, he did not mean that they stop being public adulterers… – and after the vocal vomiting of German prelates and Maradiaga's ominous slogans about “less Rome”, Archbishop Baldisseri is the latest one to shell Catholicism with arguments of such stupid naïveté that one has no doubt he has the ear of Bishop Francis.

Please visit the link, and realise that what is going on here – not merely being vaguely imagined, but being executed as we speak, by creating a climate of impending, inevitable “change” – is the demolition of sound Catholic doctrine under the pretext of pastoral sensitivity, to be applied in every desired “particular” situation.

“Pastoral sensitivity” can't make what is wrong right, otherwise it's simply heresy. The idea that rules only apply in a theoretical sphere of lofty sermons, whilst the individual circumstances allow to de facto ignore them – very recognisable in ++ Baldisseri's words – is, asEd Peters points out, pure Antinomianism; that is, the belief that in the end God's rules don't count.

Baldisseri is also a typical Modernist in that he confuses the gullible Catholics (an awful lot of those) into believing that as the doctrine of the Church isn't being officially changed everything must be fine, and we are merely being “pastoral” and evaluating the “individual circumstances”. Deception, confusion, and claim of orthodoxy in the thinking whilst aggressively pushing heresy in the concrete action is the very mark of the Modernist. Francis, Marx, Voelki, Maradiaga, Baldisseri, & Co. all bear this mark and make of it ready use.

That in this way the rules become an optional, and the entire edifice of God's Church merely a collection of suggestions to be followed in ideal conditions, the gullible – again: the vast majority of them – will not see. They will sing their stupid sugary songs and thank God he has – as they believe, being rather stupid – given us Francis, the man so humbly massacring 2,000 years of Catholicism.

I fear the worst. Not the worst in the sense that the Pope will (try to) proclaim an heretical dogma, or the like; but rather in the sense that he will give licence to single Bishops' Conferences to do as they please under the guise of being “pastoral”. The constant public messages from people near the Pope (Marx, Maradiaga, now Baldisseri) and the announced extraordinary Synod make it very probable the Synod will allow the local churches to have that kind of autonomy that, even if it is not officially doctrinal, is certainly free to instaurate a praxis going against the doctrine.

“You all know the rules – Francis will say – but please feel free to be pastoral in the ways more fitting to the particular circumstances in which you operate”. No more than this is necessary to devastate the Church not only concerning communion for public adulterers – the first step, that will be immediately taken by the German, Swiss and Austrian bishops to save the proceeds from the Kirchensteuer – but one day in many other matters, following the ruthless logic of heresy. If communion is allowed to adulterers, why should the “blessing” of their “union” denied to perverts? If the blessing, why not the sacrament? Is communion not given, they will say, to the divorced and remarried?

The greatest wave of Modernism since its inception will, if you ask me, assault the church not in the form of doctrinal innovation, but of “pastoral care”. Demolition on the sly, and whilst being very humble.

May God have mercy on this bunch of despicable saboteurs and fifth columns.

Pray for the Pope, that he may come to his senses.

And pray God that He may soon free the Church from him if he doesn't.



Posted on December 6, 2013, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 10 Comments.

  1. Selective enforcement of law. Sort of like someone else currently sullying the world “stage”.

  2. Here’s another example of Francis’ ‘pastoral sensitivity’:

    • I am not surprise.
      Francis wants to be the next Mandela after all.
      I am so old I remember the time Mandela was a bloody communist with a murderous wife.
      Not many remember.


  3. If the Pope, whether explicitly himself or implicitly via a Bishops Council, would join with this borderline schismatic German diocese, it would gut the Sacrament of Matrimony and be the beginning of the end for the safety and security of the Family and monogamous marriages. No marriage would be safe, none would be permanent and fidelity would be thrown under the bus. Destroying 2/3rds of the marriage bonum would effectively null the Sacrament and marriage before the “I Do’s” are even spoken. Why bother with a Sacrament, when you can get a divorce if it doesn’t work out and still be able to receive Communion, all the while living in your sin.

    The problems that divorced Catholics have are of their own making and it is they who need to change and correct the problem within established laws and doctrine of the Church, under the proper pastoral care that protects and preserves Church Doctrine. The Catholic majority should not be forced to endure a change that would only benefit a Catholic minority who chose their own predicament to begin with.

    I wish the current Pope would just stop following and start leading. No more glad-hands or fluff. Just pure unadulterated, in your face, this is how it is Love-it or Leave it Catholicism.

    • I doubt the man knows Catholicism.
      I doubt he knows Catholicism more than he does economics.
      In my eyes, there is in his action a lot of ignorance, and the arrogance of not wanting to see his ignorance.


  4. Whether Francis is stupid or evil, the results are the same. I happen to believe he is intellectually low-grade but, as with many such people, he is remarkably streetwise with an instinctive understanding of how to play the game. Ruthlessly. A career bishop he supposedly despises, it takes one to know one.
    He certainly fooled the conclave, some of whom have discovered that their necks are on the block. Adept at using secondary mouthpieces to take the flak, it’s by his actions we know him; the rout of the FFI, the dismissal one by one of the heads of the Dicasteries carefully placed by Benedict.
    I am sorry to say he is giving every impression of being a bully and a coward and here we have the old story of evil triumphing while good men do nothing. Those good men, at some point, are going to have to stand and be counted, or we are going to witness in very short order the sweeping tide of the Reformation complete.

  5. I think Ed Peters is making too much of this—really, he is like Mueller, just objecting to unfortunate word choices. Francis is not going to permit Communion for sacrementally married Catholics fornicating with their “spouse” concubines. Rather, he is going to permit Communion for civilly divorced and remarried Catholics by granting essentially everyone an annulment and regularization who asks for it. That is, he is going to implement the American system worldwide. See if Ed Peters objects to that.

    Peters cites approvingly Mueller’s article which says:

    the Church does have the authority to clarify the conditions that must be fulfilled for an indissoluble marriage, as taught by Jesus, to come about. On this basis, the Church has established impediments to marriage, she has recognized grounds for annulment, and she has developed a detailed process for examining these.

    You may be familiar with the apparently no-longer-active Neo-Con-Catholic blogger Michael Liccone. He has a PhD from Yale in Philosophy and has worked in parish ministry for a good part of his life. He is three times married and divorced, each time getting an annulment. It seems kind of implausible that he met the (rightly understood) criteria for an annulment three times. He has also complained in the past that it is too hard to get an annulment in the American Church. This “annulments for everyone” thing is what’s coming world-wide. Maybe the American Bishops will use it as an excuse to make it even easier to get an annulment. Maybe they can cut out tribunals entirely and just grant them online after clicking a few check boxes.

    • It could be, but as the decision would in the end be in the hands of the judges of the Sacra rota, I doubt they would put their salvation in jeopardy just because Francis suggests they should. In theory, a “lenient” praxis could set foot also in Europe, but it’s just not happening.
      I do not know the blogger you mention.

%d bloggers like this: