Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive…
The PR stunt of the “Francismarriage” on the aeroplane in Chile is revealing more and more elements which, alone, say a lot about this pontificate. What I remember on the spot is:
1. The two were concubines. No trace of repentance, living separated in preparation of the marriage, etc. Mortal sin as it lives and breathes. Isn't it fun?
2. The two had actually planned to marry, but an earthquake which took place in… 2010 prevented them for doing so. For more than seven years, you understand. Boy, these South American Earthquakes have quite the after effects. Cela va sans dire, the two did find the time – earthquake or no earthquake – to go live in sin and give public scandal. Cue a non-judgmental Francis not caring a straw for the Sacraments and for basic decency, as always.
3. The stunt was presented as a “spontaneous” act, but was in fact carefully planned. What a fake, hypocrite, dumb, reckless liar of a Pope we have! So fake that he lies to you in order to promote his image, so stupid that he doesn't realise his lies will be unmasked in a matter of days.
Really, how wrong can a person get something in one go? This is Guinness-worthy. The man has actually exposed himself as a cheap, stupid liar for the sake of two days' headlines! A seven – year – old with some smarts would be a better liar and, very possibly, a better Pope.
This Papacy has become like those cringeworthy spectacles in the circus of the last ocentury, those meant to make people be horrified and fascinated by the same horror they felt: the Cannon Woman, the Bearded Woman, the… Clown Pope!
I don't know for how long Francis' Horror Show will go on. But I tremble at the thought of the pit very probably prepared for this man in hell.
At times I struggle to see whether the Evil Clown is using figures of speech of his native Country, is talking the first nonsense that comes to his mind, or is just drunk.
The latest comparison between the people of Spring and the people of Autums is such an occasion. The stupid comparisons the – possibly drunken – man makes to insult us all mean the same thing: adulterers, infidels, perverts, and misfits of all sorts are the good guys. We, who try to live a Christian life and condemn those who give scandal (and even want to be right in doing that), are the bad guys, the (this is another one) chillies in vinegar or such like nonsensical comparison.
I love aceto balsamico, by the way, and make frequent use of it. For everything there is a season, even vinegar, and the season might actually be Autumn.
Someone should take the grappa bottle out of the man's hands.
Pope or no Pope, this one is now way past the point everyone else would deserve to be bitch slapped, big time.
Catholicism is logical. It is a coherent set of rules which fit into each other. They fit so, that if you try to manipulate one of the rules you soon discover this has a domino effect and other rules are affected, creating greater and greater damage.
The Church has always maintained that one who lives in public sin cannot be admitted to the sacrament of confession. The reason is obvious: the Sacrament is not an automatic dispenser of absolution; on the contrary, repentance and firm purpose of amendment are required.
The Church rules are logical. They are merciful, but not dumb. They aren't made for Jesuits, but for Catholics. It being utterly ridiculous that a public sinner may obtain an absolution presupposing a firm purpose of amendment that goes on for exactly the five seconds necessary to get out of the confessional, and then simply goes home to keep living in public sin the Church has always states that, as they say in Italy, here nobody is stupid: first you put an end to the public scandal, then and only then you approach the confessional to obtain absolution for your still not absolved sins of adultery and public scandal.
Nor can any sensible Catholic think even for one second that a person dead to grace (this is what being in mortal sin is) would need, or have any right to ask, that he be absolved from other mortal sins even as he chooses to remains in mortal sin anyway.
It's not a point system. It's not that a major sinner may think he can “improve his mortal sin score” by getting rid of some as he keeps accepting others. To be in mortal sin is to be dead to grace. Dead is dead, and there is no state of being “less dead” because some of the sins are – in hypothesis – absolved. Therefore, there is not only no need at all to have the public adulterer “confess other sins”, but this would be even counterproductive as there is no way this sinner would not go out of the confessional thinking either “absolved is absolved; therefore, I am now in the state of grace” or “I have my mortal sin counts down to one; hey, it could be much worse”. Then the question would pose itself how can a person dead to grace, and who chooses to remain dead to grace, obtain the grace of sincere repentance. Similarly the other question would pose itself on how the priest could, in hypothesis, absolve such a sinner. “Ego the absolvo”, but no communion? What absolution it is, one that leaves the penitent in mortal sin? How can a priest absolve anyone of any sin, who chooses to remain dead to grace?
A person in mortal sin is separated from Christ. The Chuch has always – charitably, and therefore firmly – maintained that such a person has no business trying to go around the point, and must be reminded at all times that when one is in mortal sin there is no fluffing around, and there only one thing to do: put an end to the state of mortal sin. Every other solution would not help the sinner to abandon his sinfulness in the least; on the contrary, it would reinforce him in his deluded idea that he is “almost all right”.
The public sinner must be excluded from communion. He must actually also be excluded from social life, and treated like a pariah in his own environment. He is a public sinner: not only bent for hell himself, but uncaring of the fact his scandal helps Satan to get other souls, too.
There is no way of making a tip-tap dance around this. Public sinner, in mortal sin, dead to grace, and bent for hell. The enforcement of such basic concepts, both on a sacramental and social level, provides the best chance for the sinner to see the error of his way and repent. Every false “acceptance” (and much more so: tampering with the sacraments in any way, shape or form) makes the work of the devil.
Mortal sin and public scandal? No confession unit the scandal has ceased. This is how the Church has always dealt with the matter when Truth came before niceness.
As the days of the Synod approach, we know that two main points are on the heretics' agenda: adultery and sexual perversion.
Some very interesting contributions have been written to the effect that the adultery issue was meant to be the Trojan Horse for the “laundering” of homosexuality. I personally have the following views on the matter:
1. As numbers go, adultery is a far more pressing issue for Father Heretic than sodomy. Among the nominal Catholics in his parish there will easily be 50 public adulterers for every public dyke or sodomite, and whilst fags have relatives who may well “symphatise” this is no less true for the adulterers. Basically, if the German Pater Haeretisch wants to garner consensus and Kirchensteuer-money around him adultery beats sodomy hands down. Adultery's laundering is also, undoubtedly, his main economic interest.
2. However, Pater Haeretisch may well be a pervert himself, and in this case the matter of sodomy will touch him in a rather more striking way, the usual conflict of the sodomite – the knowledge that he is wrong, dirty, and a pervert – being amplified by his supposedly being a man of God. One can imagine for many of these Pater Schwulette the issue is more pressing than even the Ka-ching of the parish tills.
3. The one aim does not negate the other. Adultery is, grave as it is, a sin that still goes with nature. Sexual perversion is, as going against nature, a completely new ball game. There is no imagining that the laundering of sins against nature would not achieve, a fortiori, the result of laundering sins according to nature. Even an atheist immediately recognises – though he may not admit it to you – the substantial difference between the two situations, because sins that go against natural law are etched in the conscience of every man however big his effort to conceal it.
Therefore, at the Synod we will have a highly explosive mixture of issues which touch the wallet of the heretics and issues which torments them. They have Francis on their side, but Christ is against them.
How thus battle will end in the end, you already know. But we want it to have an end, actually, sooner that “in the end”.
We must continue to denounce adultery as well as sodomy; the faggot priest as well as the avid or simoniacal one; the sins that go with nature as well as those that go against it.
Francis and his army of clowns will not prevail. Not in the end but, preferably, not in October either.
Must one wait around for a spouse to die in order to receive Communion? Too many traditionalists seem unable to comprehend what a pastor must take into account to serve the needs of his people. They have a copy of the rule book, but what they may not have is a sensitivity to the people they serve.
This piece of comedy comes from the Fishwrap. My comments:
1. It’s not a waiting line at the restaurant. It’s called adultery.
2. It’s not about the perceived “needs” of the people, but their real ones: like, say, the salvation of their souls. Not that at the Fishwrap there’s any doubt about that…
3. It’s not about following the cricket rule book. It’s about God’s rules. Yes, one tends to take them seriously.
4. A priest serves Christ first. He serves Him by leading souls to him. One cannot serve God and his flock as equal instances, much less see himself as one who serves the selfish interests of the flock.
Christ first, and all the rest falls into place.
Man first, and you have the Fishwrap.
Speaking of ‘remarried’ couples who live together as “brother and sister,” Kasper told the magazine, “I have high respect for such people. But whether I can impose it is another question. But I would say that people must do what is possible in their situation.”
“We cannot as human beings always do the ideal, the best. We must do the best possible in a given situation,” he said.
“It’s a heroic act, and heroism is not for the average Christian,” he added.
Thus spake Kasperthustra, the man who is inventing a new religion perfectly tailored for the need of his German punters.
Let us reflect on what the man is saying: chastity can only be observed in case of heroic virtues; that is, by earthly saints on their way to heaven.
Therefore, the Cardinal is saying that not only every priest, but he himself has been in his younger years either a saint or a Fornicator.
His words, not mine.
What follows is the complete text of a letter written by Father Brian W. Harrison, O.S. from St. Louis, Missouri.
The letter appeared on Catholic Family News’ blog. Emphases in bold. Comments in red.
Dear Dr. Moynihan,
In your latest Letter from Rome, commenting on the new appointments to the College of Cardinals, you report rather nonchalantly that “[Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig] Müller is also known for having said that the Church’s position on admitting to divorced and remarried Catholics to the sacrament of Communion is not something that can or will be changed. But other German Church leaders, including Cardinal Walter Kasper, have recently gone on record saying the teaching may and will be changed.”
Your brief, matter-of-fact report on this controversy reminds me of the tip of an iceberg. It alludes to, but does not reveal the immensity of, a massive, looming threat that bids fair to pierce, penetrate and rend in twain Peter’s barque – already tossing perilously amid stormy and icy seas. The shocking magnitude of the doctrinal and pastoral crisis lurking beneath this politely-worded dispute between scholarly German prelates can scarcely be overstated. For what is at stake here is fidelity to a teaching of Jesus Christ that directly and profoundly affects the lives of hundreds of millions of Catholics: the indissolubility of marriage.
The German bishops have devised a pastoral plan to admit divorced and remarried Catholics to Communion, whether or not a Church tribunal has granted a decree of nullity of their first marriage. Cardinal-elect Müller, as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has not only published a strong article in L’Osservatore Romano reaffirming the perennial Catholic doctrine confirmed by John Paul II in Familiaris Consortio; he has also written officially to the German Bishops’ Conference telling them to rectify their heterodox pastoral plan. But the bishops, led by their conference president and by Cardinal Kasper, are openly defying the head of the CDF, and predicting that the existing doctrine and discipline will soon be changed!
[We see a standard German pattern here: first the abuse, then the retroactive approval of what is now a fait accompli. The German bishop will get into the Synod in a state of de facto revolt, practised by hundreds of priests already, wished by many more, and demanding that the new situation be recognised. Ways to safe the Vatican’s doctrinal face will be found in spades. They’re not interested in that].
Think of the appalling ramifications of this. If German Catholics don’t need decrees of nullity, neither will any Catholics anywhere. Won’t the world’s Catholic marriage tribunals then become basically irrelevant? (Will they eventually just close down?) And won’t this reversal of bimillennial Catholic doctrine mean that the Protestants and Orthodox, who have allowed divorce and remarriage for century after century, have been more docile to the Holy Spirit on this issue than the true Church of Christ? Indeed, how credible, now, will be her claim to be the true Church? On what other controverted issues, perhaps, has the Catholic Church been wrong, and the separated brethren right?
[The way I have seen it, many German bishops are interested in downplaying any difference between Catholicism and Protestantism. They would, in fact, read the statement above with pleasure, and draw the conclusion that both the Catholic and the Protestant side have made their mistakes, no side was ever fully wrong or fully right, etc. ]
And what of Jesus’ teaching that those who remarry after divorce commit adultery? Admitting them to Communion without a commitment to continence will lead logically to one of three faith-breaking conclusions: (a) our Lord was mistaken in calling this relationship adulterous – in which case he can scarcely have been the Son of God; (b) adultery is not intrinsically and gravely sinful – in which case the Church’s universal and ordinary magisterium has always been wrong; or (c) Communion can be given to some who are living in objectively grave sin – in which case not only has the magisterium also erred monumentally by always teaching the opposite, but the way will also be opened to Communion for fornicators, practicing homosexuals, pederasts, and who knows who else? (And, please, spare us the sophistry that Jesus’ teaching was correct “in his own historical and cultural context”, but that since about Martin Luther’s time that has all changed.)
[Our brave Mini-me Luthers will adjust this in a way that appeases their easily persuaded sheep: a) we are merely being pastoral, so yes, in a way you are, oh well, quasi, so to speak, if we are truly literal, sinning; but come on, life has changed so much; everyone knows there was no Internet in Jesus’ times…. b) Adultery is sinful, I am just being pastoral. Now, take your communion… c) the Holy Spirit is guiding us to the new Time of Mercy; Francis has said so much, nicht wahr?].
Let us make no mistake: Satan is right now shaking the Church to her very foundations over this divorce issue. If anything, the confusion is becoming even graver than that over contraception between 1965 and 1968, when Paul VI’s seeming vacillation allowed Catholics round the world to anticipate a reversal of perennial Church teaching. If the present Successor of Peter now keeps silent about divorce and remarriage, thereby tacitly telling the Church and the world that the teaching of Jesus Christ will be up for open debate at a forthcoming Synod of Bishops, one fears a terrible price will soon have to be paid.
[Yes, Satan is shaking the Church. This is not the smoke of Satan anymore. This is an entire barbecue party.
I always wondered how Paul VI is nowadays considered a courageous Pope for daring to state the obvious, once in 15 years of Pontificate. And then remaining so shocked at the effect caused by obvious statement, that he never wrote other encyclicals for the remaining eleven years of his pontificate. I am glad someone, and a priest at that, gives a better picture of the matter].
Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S.
St. Louis, Missouri
Three Hail Mary for this brave priest are in order, surely?