Cardinal Wuerl Admits Defeats

The WSJ obviously understands zippo of Catholicism. But I trust they can print a quote right.

Cardinal Wuerl himself admits defeat, and say the final Relatio has not even a recommendation that communion may be given to adulterers. The WSJ – who understands zippo of Catholicism – goes on to add Francis could do it, but again I do not my Catholicism from Muslims, either.

The facts on the ground are very clear. Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Mueller, Cardinal Burke have also confirmed the fact. Their criticism concerning the ambiguity of the text is extremely welcome, but nowhere they say that the heretics got their way.

In this time of rampant media manipulation,min which reality is shaped by emotionalism and perceptions, it is duty of every blogger, priest or layman, to state the facts as they are:

1) The text does not make ANY concession, NONE WHATSOEVER, to the heretics.

2) The text does so in that usual fluffy, PC obsessed, “nice” way we have been seen continuously since 1963 at the latest.

The events of the last days remind me of one of the main cultural differences between Italy and Germany. N Italy, when the national football teams wins an important game 1-0, with a penalty on the 90th minute, after a horrible, dirty game full of tricks, everyone rejoices. Why? Because victory was achieved. In Germany, everyone complains about the overplayed players, and the horrible game. Why? Because they have very lofty standards, and victory – no matter how scant – is not enough. And because they aren't the solar chaps that we are, of course.

What shall I say. Some people just can't win well. It is more important to them that they feel miserable, and announce the imminent end of the world.



Posted on October 28, 2015, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. 16 Comments.

  1. As I’ve said many times before, in print and conversation, the Holy Ghost watches over the Church against Her promulgating heresy. Does the loss of the Kasperite heretics in the Synod not point to a direct intervention by Him (despite the fluffly-wuffly PC language in the documents)?

    • I would, personally, warn from such thinking.
      If the Relatio had contained open heresy, would you have said that the Holy Ghost has abandoned the Church?

    • No I would not. But considering the strength of the myriad assaults upon marriage, doctrine, etc. that was the synod, I believe the outcome nothing short of the Holy Ghost’s intervention via Graces to those who most needed them. If it had gone the other way, I would have said that God was perhaps allowing us to wallow in our pride a bit longer and ramp up the prayers.

  2. OMT de Mattei states: Hard words, which express bitterness and dissatisfaction: certainly not those of a victor. This was w/r/t the hate speech Francis gave in the homily at the closing Mass. Rorate Caeli has the interview.

    • Look like he understood that we did!
      From “Lord help us!” To “let’s start making this work” is a huge improvement! 😉

    • Your initial position was correct. We are our worst enemies.

      When reading initially, also picked up on the “no scandal” qualifier. I read the doc and thought it was ok. Didn’t think 84-86 were that bad either. I however am no theologian. So I can see why the clerical class was shocked, since they were the ones whose necks were on the line when the lesbians come to the communion rail and demand the “communion wafer”. They have nothing to help them ‘splain their actions.

      As for “let’s start making this work”… FYI I spent a lot of time on twitter in the last week of synod. There were a lot of us. Some guy from Angola (Portuguese – solid) was tweeting your post regularly. Nick Donnelly (Protect the Pope) was doing some heavy lifting. RadCatholic also was present. Hilary White too. Bunch of them got blackballed by the likes of Rosica and the evil Episcopalian’s with SJ behind their names.

      On the other side, it appeared that the heretics were coordinating their messaging. If only we could do that, I think it would have an impact. Especially on the conservatives out there. Lot of “luke warm” Christians out there also.

      Anyways, I do think twitter is the medium.

  3. I don’t know, Mundabor. They said the same things after V-2 and look at what happened. The real test, IMHO, will be when individual parishes start pushing the limits. Just like with the PC Church after V-2, I suspect we’ll see many bishops and cardinals ignore the abuses and thereby institute a new Church de facto.

    • There are two separate things:
      1) what the documents say.
      2) what heretics do.

      Heretics behave like heretics because they are so, not because of the Relatio. Nothing has changed in that. The call to the “spirit” will be there in future as it has been there these last 50 years.

    • There can no new church, de facto or de iure.
      Widespread heresy, yes.
      All happened already. We need strong popes. Very far from it now.m

  4. Mundabor, you are totally spot on in your analysis. No-one can undo Christ’s church, He said so Himself.

    This is not a game, there are no sides, no winners or losers, only Truth.

    People forget about the Crucifixion.

    God bless you for your faith.

  5. This has served as a sure guide and a great resource on how to conduct my life as a divorced man now for many years.

  6. There is some complaining in the German Bishops post-Synod statement too:

    “On the topic of divorced and remarried people the necessary distinctions of situations were addressed in the text. It was attempted to avoid generalisations. The Synod is clear that every situation in life must be considered individually. In hindsight we would have wished for more courage to deal with the realities more intensively and recognise them as signs of the times in which God wants to tell us something, but we also recognise that we have learned to go along with other cultures and experiences.”

  7. Fr. Blake wondered how on earth Cardinal Wuerl even got to make his First Communion, given the Cardinal’s grasp of Catholicism. I think canon lawyer Ed Peters thinks the same, in his response to another of Cardinal Wuerl’s recent comments:

  8. Apologies. I think the reference that Fr. Blake made was to Archbishop Cupich, not to Cardinal Wuerl.

%d bloggers like this: