Read on CatholicCulture.org the last stunning declaration of Cardinal “theology on his knees”, “serene and profound” Kasper. The man happily lumps together, “in various ways”, St Thomas Aquinas and Martin Luther; because hey, in Kirchesteuer-Land Luther must be “included” in the “great tradition” of Christian Charity.
Said from a Cardinal, it is every bit as bad as if a German politician would include Hitler in the great tradition of German welfare.
Why does this disgraceful Cardinal utters such philo-heretical nonsense? Has he gone gaga? No, of course he hasn't.
You see, Kasper and his are the providers of immoral services to the German johns who pay the Kirchesteuer but do not even attend Mass. I read an article on the Catholic Herald giving some sobering numbers, and they were around so: for every three who pay, two do not even attend Sunday Mass anymore; and the number of those attending halved in the last 25 years or so.
These people are, in general, of the “I decide who God is” kind. They are divorced and remarried, or contracepting, or fornicating without a shade of remorse, and are otherwise so sold into the fable of their own “goodness” and “inclusiveness” that even a distancing of the Church from Luther is seen from many of them as uncharitable, oppressive, and otherwise obsolete. Many of them are believers of the “I believe in some sort of entity” way, some are certainly atheists. I have known many of them. Christianity in them is nothing but the thinnest varnish.
These are johns who do not even sleep with the prostitute they are paying, but they will insist for the prostitute to remain such for them to continue paying. Any sign of the prostitute's redemption would be cause of termination of the payment for many, many johns.
Now put yourself in the shoes of the Head Pimps: Kasper, Marx, Woelki, and the like. They must keep the customer satisfied. They must reassure the paying johns they won't be annoyed with Catholic talking or teaching. They must create an environment in which everyone is fine with everyone else, and Luther has an awful lot of good to teach. They must lull their clients in the illusion that as long as they continue paying it doesn't matter if they think Luther was a capital chap after all. Actually, they are encouraged to think this is very inclusive, ecumenical, charitable and, in general, very fine. This is the first game Kasper is playing.
The other game is the wink-wink game, a German speciality. These prelates all say to their paying clients: “see? There are things I cannot officially say, or cannot officially implement; but I will do whatever I can to accommodate you. If I win, I win. If I lose, please look at my battle for you and keep paying”. This is the “communion for adulterers”, “married priests”, “female priests”, and now also “same sex marriage”, meme that has gone on for many years all over the German speaking world.
The result of all this can be reassumed with two words linked by a hyphen: kar-ching.
Cardinal Kasper is not a surprise.
He is in the tradition of the oldest profession in the world.
This is probably not the first time it happens, but it is indicative of the intention of some Cardinals not to allow Kasper and Francis to have their way.
The Eponymous Flower published yesterday a blog post about an interview to Cardinal Scola, in which the latter stated, very diplomatically, that he did not think Pope Francis would plunge the Church in a huge chaos, whilst unmistakable stating why it would be so.
Yesterday evening the same Eponymous Flower published a new a blog post about an interview to Cardinal Müller, who clearly states that… the separation of doctrine and praxis would be heresy.
Francis’ and Kasper’s ears must be whistling, because there can be no doubt about the target of Cardinal Müller’s statement.
Cardinal Müller is here very publicly drawing a line in the sand, and forbidding Cardinal Kasper and the Pope from crossing it. Yes, the Pope, as the Cardinal most certainly knows that the likes of Kasper and Marx are but pawns in the chess game Francis is playing.
It is good that, more than ten weeks after the disgraceful Synod, the “H”-word resounds from high quarters. It is a useful reminder to The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH) about what will very probably happen if he were to go Castro on Church doctrine.
Kudos to Cardinal Müller, then. By all his theological shortcomings, this man shows that he does not fear conflict or demotion for the sake of the Church.
If our opponents are all of the caliber of Cardinal Kasper there is probably not much to fear from next year’s synod. Unfortunately, this is not a realistic expectation.
Cardinal Kasper must dream at night of becoming a Centipede, in order to have enough feet to stick in his mouth at any given time. His enthusiasm for making of himself an object of mockery, derision or simple pity is simply inexhaustible. He has by now most certainly advanced to Head Clown in Circus Bergoglio.
Let us resume what the man could achieve before today, in less than a week: offend his African colleagues and African Catholics in general, deny his word, slander the journalist he had spoken to, be openly exposed as a shameless liar, and retort saying that he thought he was slandering off record.
Today, a new episode in the saga of Kaspergate: a non-apology mixed with other accusations of being – he, the Chief Slanderer And Liar – the victim.
To this the Cardinal added, now clearly out of control, the following two huge feet to the collection already in his mouth:
1. An open attack to a Cardinal he refused to mention (Mueller, I would say; possibly Burke or Pell, though).
2. An announcement that journalists friendly to him will “take care” of the man.
Now, let us analyse all the indications we get from this:
1. He is a very, very petty man.
A man of some stature would have avoided a reaction fit for a high school queen on discovering she isn’t popular at all. Rather, he would have either remained silent for a while, or he would have spoken in soft, conciliatory, soothing tones about the lessons he has learnt. But this, this is throwing the toys out of the pram like he is Elton John’s prematurely bitchy “adopted” boy.
2. He is a serial liar.
He denies he has spoken the words. After being irredeemably exposed by the recording, he complains about the recording. He also states he has not spoken during the synod, probably forgetting that the records of the intervention do are public, and is exposed again.
In short? This man needs help.
3. He is a slanderer.
The accusation to a journalist of not having said what he knows he has said is an atrociously cynical attack to this man’s reputation and, ultimately, livelihood. It is first-class slander. By the by, I do not find anywhere news of his personal apology to Mr Pentin. I wonder what TMAHICH, always so sensitive even to gossip, thinks? If gossip is murder, this is the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
I also allow myself to add that one or three anger management courses could be very much in order here.
4. He is unbelievably stupid
Which moron would go in front of the journalists telling them “you will now see what I am able to do to this chap”? This defeats the purpose at the very start!
Every critical intervention of every journalist against anyone of several Cardinals who have opposed him will now be attributed directly to this Kasperle’s machinations and thirst for revenge! Can anyone who calls himself a Cardinal be so mind-boggingly stupid?
The Cardinal’s answer is loud and clear:
“Ja, Ich kann!”
From the Catholic blog New Sherwood.
“[T]here is the legal problem of matrimonial nullity, this has to be reviewed, because ecclesiastical tribunals are not sufficient for this”. – Pope Francis, 28 July 2013
“Can we eliminate the necessity of having detailed personal interviews, hefty fees, testimony from witnesses, psychological exams, and automatic appeals to other tribunals? In lieu of this formal court-like process, which some participants have found intimidating, can we rely more on the conscientious personal judgment of spouses about the history of their marriage (after all, they are the ministers and recipients of the sacrament!) and their worthiness to receive Holy Communion?” – Bishop Thomas Tobin, 21 September 2014
“CANON XII. If any one saith, that matrimonial causes do not belong to ecclesiastical judges; let him be anathema.” – Council of Trent, Session XXIV, 11 November 1543
One understands where the Fathers of the Council of Trent were coming from here. If the decision is taken outside of ecclesiastical tribunal, you end up with… Kasper or Tobin. The words of the second are utterly shocking, and I think it is time for him to pick a new religion among the many available and go to hell with it at his leisure. Unless he repents, of course. Which these people seldom do.
But certainly, the fact that at the Council of Trent the existence and relevance of ecclesiastical judges was protected by such a formidable moat (with piranhas inside) give us the full measure of their importance in the economy of the sacraments. Then without them not only Communion would be desecrated, but Marriage virtually destroyed.
Also interesting is to know that in former, more Christian times the likes of Kasper and Tobin would have been invited to retract, or face other judges; the latter able to order that they be accommodated on top of a bunch of… faggots, to be suitably burned.
Such are the times we live in.
The army of Faggotry has had a setback this week, but there is no hoping that this is the end of the satanical pro-faggotry, sacrilegious madness fueled by TMAHICH and his minions.
Give it a couple of weeks at the most, and interviews from dissenting (from the Magisterium) bishops will start to appear, in order to gather for them Brownie Points with Francis.
The publication of the shameless Relatio will now lead to what was planned all along: the opening of a “debate”, a “discussion” between orthodoxy on one side, and sacrilege and sodomy on the other.
Whilst it is obvious the Pope did not want to start the “discussion” with a bleeding nose and a black eye, it is perfectly clear this kind of “debate” is what was planned all along, and this is what we are now going to get. And no doubt, The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History will be the one who fuels it from the very first line with more outlandish, or outright heretical, or utterly blasphemous statements.
It is clear enough by now that most Bishops do not want such a discussion at all, because Truth is not questioned and is no object for debate. But the homo troops will be reorganised in a matter of weeks, perhaps days. When the big media noise has subsided, it will be the time to start advancing again: timidly at first, more and more strongly as the months pass.
We need strong leaders now. We need Bishops and Cardinals who are actually afraid of going to hell, and put their duty to Christ before the rich privileges of their positions. When Christians in Africa and Asia risk their lives everyday just for going to Mass, it is perfectly reasonable to ask consecrated Bishops, people who should be ready to die for Christ at a moment’s notice, to run the risk of losing a diocese, and being sent to some remote and unpleasant location, at the very worst.
Some names have emerged in the last days. Cardinals Burke, Mueller, Pell, and Napier seem to me the four most courageous ones, the elite of the Christian troops in this very difficult moment. And I say this with admiration for Cardinal Mueller: a man of very questionable theological integrity concerning the Perpetual Virginity of our Blessed Lady and the Resurrection; but who has, when severely tested, reacted in an exemplary manner.
In the same vein, I am less than impressed by the silence of two names that could, I think, be expected to be among the voices claiming in the wilderness. Cardinal Piacenza is the first, and Cardinal Bagnasco is the second. The latter has, it is very true, shamefully caved in to Francis’ Gospel of inclusiveness in a past, very scandalous occasion, but it would still have been a legitimate expectation to see him, a man to whim many look as at a protector of orthodoxy, to speak clearly enough to make world news. The former is a riddle to me. A man who has never, to my knowledge, compromised his faith, has now allowed others to expose themselves to the ires of the Gay Army whilst – as far as I can see – not voicing any criticism strong enough to put him in the first line of the Resistance. Perhaps he is working with them behind the scenes. Perhaps he will intervene when his friends decide that the time is right. Perhaps the English-speaking press has ignored his strong criticism. I am grateful for links to his public utterances in these days, in whatever language. It would be a great joy to be able to count Cardinal Piacenza among the Very Brave.
Let us pray for Mueller, Pell, Napier, and particularly Burke, the first one of this brave troop to open his mouth and, from what I could read up to now, the most outspoken. But Francis needs to be questioned and criticised publicly far more strongly than this has been the case up to now.
The word “heresy” is still nowhere to be heard. We need for brave Cardinals to get into the next gear now, openly denouncing the heresy and putting the Pope in front of the choice of either openly supporting or openly recanting it.
Half words will not serve anyone now. If Francis is allowed to sit on the fence he will have reached his main objective: to sit there as the “referee” of a “friendly match” between two “pastoral views”. This is what he wanted all along.
There are no two pastoral views. There is orthodoxy on one side, and heresy on the other.
We need strong Cardinals calling Kasper’s doctrine heretical, and doing the same with the Pope if he does not condemn it. We need this vulcan to erupt in the open now, if we want to avoid the subterranean subversion of Catholicism to go on as the Pope threatens, persuades, cajoles and corrupts in the next twelve months and beyond.
The moment is now.
Who will take the lead?
Excellent post from the “better Archbold” on NCR. (Quick! Read the article before the NCR censors it again!).
Below is, taken from the article, an excerpt from Leo XIII’s Satis cognitum:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing withgreater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. “There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition” (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.
declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church
Via the usual Rorate (but strangely, their video does not work on my browser; you might have better luck) this beautiful excerpt of a video interview from the South African Archbishop Napier; who, I am afraid, will not see the red hat in this pontificate:
The good Archbishop is good in what he says. He could, though, in my eyes, have said more. Possibly he did, but it did not get in the video.
What he said:
1. How can parents chose the “easy way out” and say to their children they must make a lifelong commitment?
2. In life, you must carry your crosses with Christ.
3. If Europeans can be de facto polygamist and receive communion, how can you deny the same to the non-Catholic polygamist in Africa, who marries a “c”atholic wife (among others) and desires to “receive communion”? Such situations are (cough) not uncommon in Africa. Should the Church not take account of the “new reality” and “challenges of the modern times”?
I would add to this that the usual suspects would say: hey, think of the children! How can you ask the man to leave any of his three wives?That would be cruel! And if call him a polygamist, now “I think they would feel insulted and offended.”
What he did not say (or the video did not show):
1. This particular cross is one of the own choosing of those who are now complaining. No doctor orders anyone to remarry. Divorce and remarriage does not just “happen”, like cancer or Alzheimer’s. It’s a conscious decision. Often (not always), this decision was made in conscious defiance of well-known Church laws, by people who call themselves Catholics. This is as much carrying a cross, as the drug addict “carries” his. Beds, and lying in them, come rather to mind.
2. It would be high time that Bishops and cardinal began to distinguish very loud in public what is meant for marriage. There is marriage and marriage. Unless the sacramental marriage is very clearly separated from a civil ceremony of some faggoty government, people will continue to be confused. They will think, particularly if they are poorly instructed or non-Catholics, that the Church arbitrarily decided “you have only one go”, for some vague desire of, basically, orderly society. It is, of course, also that, but this so much more than that. The sacramental marriage is the *real* and the *only* marriage. The other one is purely state-sanctioned concubinage. It’s a purely heathen construct.
Start calling the first marriage “the sacrament of marriage” and the second marriage “the state-sanctioned concubinage” and see people slowly getting it, or at least not able anymore to muddle the waters. Not even the Proddies, the atheists, or the Tablet readers.
3. This might be too much for a bishop, but it’s not too much for your humble correspondent: I have no problem whatsoever in believing that both Kasper and Francis would not have any problem in giving communion to the African polygamist described above.
Kasper would tell us how “forever” the “commitment” of the polygamist to his many wives is.
Francis would (you know what is coming, don’t you…) say that hey, “if a person is polygamist and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge”?
The Synod has started, and everything is going according to plan.
After painting the devil on the wall, Kasper & The Brothel Girls are now assuring us that doctrine can’t be changed. As if it could, anyway.
This will allow Kasper and his happy girls to present themselves, after the terrain has been carefully prepared, as respectful of orthodoxy and, therefore, with the right credentials to speak a word or two on behalf of the “suffering humanity”; that is, all those people for whom mortal sin and open scandal, you see, “just happened”, but would now be terribly offended if they were told so.
No. Doctrine will not be “changed”. Two and Two will also continue to be, very officially and with Papal approval, Four. But the “pastoral practice” – that is: the way the Church works in everyday life – will be officially decoupled from doctrine.
The aim is to defend Church doctrine as “the ideal”, and to allow open sin and public scandal as, well, the praxis.
Ideally, you should not kill.
How will this be achieved?
The first part has already been accomplished: the creation of a widespread expectation, in certain Countries, that the prostitutes will do what the Kirchensteuer paying clients want: shut up, and please them already.
The second part is being completed in these very days, with the assurance that the Pollyannas can sleep peaceful nights. The oh church oh doctrine is not going to, oh, change. Isn’t this, oh, sooo, oh, beautiful? Isn’t the, oh, Holy Ghost doing, ooohh, overtime?
The third and last part will be the use, in the concluding document – this year, or next year at the latest – of some winged words able to be used by the Brothel Girls as a testimony that the Church “listens”; or “is merciful”; or crap like that. I can smell the stench already.
Cue the army of concubines and their friends, greeting the synod as a historical event and praising Bishop Francis The Oh So Merciful to the sky. Cue the army of slaving, opportunistic, weathervane bloggers of the “Patheos” ilk explaining to us why a new and wonderful phase in the history of the Church is about to begin. Cue mass media bloggers telling us “ten things to know and share” about why everything has happened, but there’s nothing that has really happened. Cue the army of Pollyannas invading the world’s Comboxes with their sugary songs of thanksgiving for the purity of the doctrine, now left intact, far above in the skies, there to look at a world below that does not care for it.
The “change in pastoral approach” by “keeping the doctrine unchanged” will be universally praised. The rape will begin. Soon, what was fine up to now will be considered unbearably backwards, as the Brothel Girls explain to the world how the Church “has changed” in her “pastoral approach”. Woe, then, to those priest who dare to complain. The concubines will run en masse to the bishop, complaining; and the bishop will explain to the priest that he really, really has to get the new climate of mercy.
A few will refuse. Most will comply. Francis & Co. know this perfectly well. No human force can stop them, because there is no human mechanism to stop a Pope gone astray.
Do not think that, in order to go on with the programme, very official pronouncements will be necessary. One single sentence, well placed and fed to the world press as the implicit, but very real key of interpretation, will be enough. We live in a world of diffused stupidity and effeminate emotionalism. The feeling, the climate, the general mood is what really counts; and it is what TMAHICH has been pumping up (and pimping up) since that fateful evening in March 2013.
The Great Rape Of The Church will then begin. Not in theory. No! God forbid! Um Gottes Willen!
Merely in practice!
Next stop: Sodomites…
One says a blogger must be “charitable”.
But it is frankly difficult to stay calm when one has to read things like the latest statement of Cardinal Kasper.
The man has clealry decided that Jesus is the enemy, and everything He has said or His Church has promoted for two thousand years must now be expunged not only from people’s minds, but even from the vocabulary every time this is not convenient for the paying clients of that sad old prostitute to which the Church in Germany has reduced Herself.
Click on the link and follow the perverted logic of this caricature of a bad Cardinal.
Kasper first makes a small, unavoidable concession, but saying that adulterers are (cough…) not on the same level as sacramentally married couples. That an adulterer is not properly “married” to his new spouse, the new marriage being merely a construction of civil laws, he conveniently does not say. Adulterers are, therefore, not adulterers; they are, instead, merely “not married on the same level”. Who was the chap who said that a man who leaves his wife and married another “is not married on the same level”? Can’t remember now; but take it from me: it wasn’t Jesus…
Once he has let the adulterers past the customs and made them socially acceptable, the Cardinal can move on to explain to us intolerant bigots the many virtues of scandalous, adulterous relationships. He proceeds, then, to explain to us that where there is a scandalous, adulterous relationship
“There is love, there is commitment, there is exclusivity, it is forever”.
Let us leave apart for a moment the astonishing stupidity of saying “it is forever” when, actually, there is a sacramental marriage that is, itself, until death, and the same civil laws allow for an undetermined number of further marriages who are, all of them, supposed to be “forever”.
Look, instead, at the emotional fluffing of this man as he puts his tongue firmly on the boots of his paying clients: “luv”, that is a mere human construct and in conflict with the duty owed to the real spouse. “Commitment”, that is in fact the breaking of a commitment already taken in front of Christ; “exclusivity”, which in itself means perfectly nothing, as a man could be very faithful to the dog he screws. And then, the “forever”, which is truly beyond stupid as already stated.
Then, the Cardinal goes on, and he lets the real bomb explode.
If there is so much that is good in these good people, then they muct not be called “adulterers”. His words are from the manual of the PC sissy.
“to tell them that’s adultery, permanent adultery, I think they would feel insulted and offended.”
Firstly, the Cardinal’s is a fight against reality. It is permanent adultery; a very stable and public one. Secondly, note again the emotional appeal to how people “feel”. He “thinks” they would “feel” offended.
I bet they will! Truth hurts! Since when is this, though, a reason not to tell the truth?
Have pity for the poor Jesus, the socially awkward chap who went around saying all those insensitive things. Is anyone among you who things when Jesus pronounced his famous words (which, as always in the Gospel stories, must have been pronounced on several occasions) there were no people listening, to whom he was saying, in their faces, “you are adulterers”? Do you think they were pleased? Do you not know that was a world in which a woman’s adultery was supposed to be punished with the stoning, and that of a man with social contempt?
No. Jesus spoke bluntly and openly, and the fact that there were people around who would feel “offended” was just nowhere. Why? Because Jesus loved them.
Cardinal Kasper does not love the adulterers. What he loves is their approval for himself, and their money for the Church in Germany.
In the pursuit of his goals, the man is now mounting an open, frontal attack on Jesus. This entire synod is, in its motives and inspiration, a frontal attack on Jesus, and if its puppet masters (starting with TMAHICH) renounce to make this frontal attack very public it will be only because they deem the times not ripe, but certainly not for lack of will.
Cardinal Kasper is 81. At this age, and with that title, he should know better than to be an old, dirty, wrinkly, saggy prostitute of his German Kirchensteuer-paying customers.
Say a Hail Mary for him, that he may repent before the day of the redde rationem arrives. Make it three, because this one is a real prostitute.
There you have it.
Charity in truth.
Cardinal Kasper is above Eighty. Hans Kueng is way past that age. The Bishop of Rome, TMAHICH, is rapidly approaching it.
Each in his own way, these three are among the most efficient weapons of the Devil in his battle for your soul. The Cardinal pays lip service to a truth he says you do not have to follow if your conscience dictates otherwise, the Bishop (of Rome; but he is so 'umble, you know…) supports him any way he can short of jumping around like a groupie, the theologian is so far away from even the notion of Christianity he now supports his own home-made religion.
Old men; not very far away from the tomb; spitting on Christ Crucified every day.
Why do they do that? Can they truly be so deluded as to think that the Holy Ghost has allowed the Church to be wrong for 2,000 years? Or are they, perhaps, willing allies of Satan?
No. The simple explanation, if you ask me, is that they have lost the faith. They do not fear any punishment, and want to make the most of the time they still have left.
Pope Francis has John Lennon's “Imagine” sung at one of his “let's slap Catholic decency in the face”-ceremonies, and you know he takes the world “imagine there's no heaven”, “no hell below us” and “above us only sky” very literally. This is why he relentless pursues his own popularity at the cost of Catholicism, spitting on everything Catholics hold as sacred as he builds his monument among the dissenting, the atheists and the heathen.
Cardinal Kasper did not manage to make it to Pope, but he certainly enjoys his long-standing reputation for dissent. It makes him appear as the good guy among millions of Kirchensteuer-paying German soi-disant “c”atholics, for whom he provides the ideal cover and alibi. A very comfortable position to be in if you live in Germany. Besides, Kar-Ching in German sounds exactly the same.
Hans Kueng, the once mediocre Christian, is the one most advanced in his Satanical ways. Even in dying he is so full of himself, that he seems resolute to do so in very public defiance of Christ's laws. Of the three, this is the only one I can imagine celebrating a Black Mass, in order to be “inclusive”, but still not believing in any of it. Actually, even believing in it. Kueng smells of reprobation from as far away as Reykjavik.
Three old men, not at all wise, sliding every day toward the hell that certainly awaits them if they die unrepentant; doing so very publicly, and not caring a bit about the consequences, because they do not think there will be any consequence – or perhaps, in the case of Kueng, are rather fascinated by them -.
These men have, unless they have willfully chosen Satan, lost the faith.
We will keep ours, and die in the faith of our fathers.
Whatever old men, not at all wise, may tell us from whatever pulpit God has allowed them to abuse.
Cardinal Kasper is now everywhere, and I fear we will soon find him in our morning cereals.
The latest piece of dissent this unhinged man has now given to the world appeared on News.va, the news outlet of the Vatican.
Many are the dumb, or worse, statements in the interview; but I want to focus on the last issue, the Cardinal's evaluation of Humanae Vitae.
The Cardinal is, as always, rather blunt. One must put the Pope in the contest of his times, which was obviously different from the context of our times (truth is, in his mind, evidently overrated). The attitude one should have is that Pope Paul describes an “ideal”; but hey, ideals are not what they used to be, and nowadays we do things differently. We register the “ideal”, follow our conscience, and contracept (or murder the baby; or divorce and remarry; or support sodomites; or do whatever our conscience says). Not only is this convenient, but we feel so modern…
The Cardinal is promoting a new religion. For the followers of this religion Christianity is the “ideal”, but the moral compass is given by the conscience of the individual. A Kasperian is, therefore, one whose religion is as near to Christianity as his conscience, shaped by his circumstances, allows. Moral imperatives have disappeared, absolute truth must yield to conscience, and three second of reflection are enough to understand that to go against one's conscience can't be bad, and is in fact moral, provided we have this “ideal” – which we have just chosen not to follow – somewhere in the back of our mind.
The Cardinal even has the gall to say that the Pope stated the truth, but one must respect people's conscience. Truth is true, but my conscience trumps it; and going against truth is suddenly “pastoral”.
What a double-tongued old heretical b@st@rd this one is.
Kasperianity is a new religion. It is inspired from the Devil. It is, also, rather energetically supported by The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHICH), a man with the guts of calling Kasper's theology “serene” and “profound”.
Take care with whom you choose to side, Christ or Kasper.
You might otherwise, one day, look rather foolish. Infinitely so.
The Extraordinary Synod is rapidly approaching, and there is now no day without an interview of some Bishop or Cardinal, taking the one or the other side.
In the middle of all this turmoil, one thing is clear: whether Francis will dare to break taboos or not, he is causing the breaking of taboos to be discussed; freely, openly, as a matter of course.
Already it is discussed whether the canonical process of annulment should be (official word) “streamlined”. Already, “streamlined” might mean that the bishop, or a structure set up by him, should decide about annulments in a “non-juridical” way. Already, some say that not even this is necessary, but a prayerful “sit in” with the priest should at least achieve what many concubines, in the end, want: village respectability.
The pattern is well-known and has been long experimented: some total revolutionary (Kasper) proposes the totally revolutionary solution of tolerating but not accepting communion for concubines and assorted adulterers, meaning: having the sacrilegious praxis become everyday fare. After this, a “moderate” (Scola) will come out, proposing among other things (Mundabor’s commentary: what a slimy b@st@rd!) a thinkable solution for annulments that is every bit as savagely diabolical, but has the merit of sounding more moderate; because you see, the idea is not to violate the rules; merely to make a mockery of them in the first place.
Suddenly, nothing is sacred anymore. The way how to slaughter a sacrament is a subject of discussion, debate, essays, interviews, books. Suddenly, Truth is perceived as fighting for its existence.
In the meantime, Francis enjoys the lío. Catholic against Catholic, Cardinal against Cardinal. The open confrontation is, certainly, obligatory for the right side; but still, the very fact that such a confrontation exists will confuse countless Catholics, and persuade countless non-Catholics that there is no point in converting. If even Cardinals quarrel with each other about the Truth, what is Truth? And is this most un-Christian of all Pilate-like slogans not, itself, ceaselessly promoted by TMAHICH, with his insisted criticism of “excessive doctrinal security”? Can a slogan ever be more meant to promote lió than this, apart from the “who am I to judge” nuclear device?
Is this enough lío for you?
Are you still trying to read Francis through, of all people, Benedict?
I bet it is enough for TMAHICH. He is, for all the world to see, the Pope who “breaks taboos” and “paves the way for a new era”. Not for him, very probably, to be the one who lets the bombs explode. He will, very probably, be happy with being the one who made the explosions thinkable in the first place, put the bombs in place, and armed them. He does not need to be the one who orders the explosions in order to be loved by countless infidels for the rest of his life. He will be on the safe side avoiding the biggest detonations. Nothing better than reaping the fruits of a revolution without the dangers of real armed combat. The perks, I suppose, of being a shameless and faithless Pope.
Reading Francis through… what?
Believe me, TMAHICH can be best read through Saul Alinsky, or Karl Marx, or Hans Küng, and I doubt he is one bit better than any of them.
He is sowing strife and controversies, breaking taboos, attacking sacraments, insulting the Blessed Virgin, disfiguring Christ, perverting the most basic rules of Christianity, without even the risk of a major revolt.
He will, I think, very publicly stop those who want to detonate the bombs. The excited Pollyannas will hail him as the saviour of Catholicism, whilst the mainstream idiots – bar very few, extreme idiots – will buy the “prudent moderniser Pope” without a second thought.
How do you like lío?
It is there now; dished in front of you every day; pickaxing at Catholicism every day God sends on this earth.
Please. Please. Please.
Free us from this scourge.
From some sides (and not only from the usual suspects, like Kasper) comes the idea to “delegate” the issue of annulment to the bishop. This is a frontal attack on marriage, and one is surprised that even a cardinal like Scola, whom one would have said more sound than to express such ideas, would even be an accomplice in launching these ballons d’essai.
I am not a canonist, but I am a sincere and devout Catholic. Qualities which, it is clearer every day, most of our Cardinals simply lack, and in the most grievous way. Let us see, then, what a devout Catholic (one who fears the Lord because he believes in his existence, loves Christ and His Church, and is aware of the importance of the Sacraments) must think of these ideas.
1. One does not need to be a genius to know that many dioceses in the West are the Catholic equivalent of Dresden after the carpet bombings. Whatever is entrusted to the bishop is going to become a pig’s breakfast, period. If one does not understand this simple concept, I question his intelligence.
2. But the proposal is much worse: it is a “streamlined”, in the sense of “non juridical”, in the sense of “no tribunal and process”- exercise. It is annulment for the “asking” and the “feeling”, with the fig leave of the bishop’s “quality guarantee”. This is simply atrocious. This would have devastating consequence not only on the Sacrament itself, which must be our first worry; but on the perception of both the institution and sacrament of marriage, and the rule concerning marriage annulment.
Titius lives in Diocese A. Diocese A is run by a fairly strict bishop, and annulments are fairly rare. His wife ran away with Sam, the Harley-Davidson driver with a penchant for alcohol and fights, but whom his wife found so excitingly wild. Titius bears his cross with patience, and Christian resignation. I do not know if he lives like a monk (I never ask such details; I am not his confessor, after all…), but a public scandal like an open mistress, or a concubine – and yes: Titius knows even a civilly remarried woman is still a concubine – is not in the cards.
His colleague, Gaius (yes, yes! That one! The one who left his wife, bought a sports car and sleeps with Vanessa, the buxom PA of the HR Department!) has now moved together with Vanessa in a sleek apartment in the city centre. He has a very liberal bishop. Annulments are, in his diocese, pretty much given for the asking. Gaius doesn’t really care for an annulment in the first place (hey, “Gad is luv!”), but Vanessa is a cafeteria Catholic of the “who am I to judge” sort and with a stricter mother. As such, she does not want to “feel judged”. A Catholic marriage will it, therefore, have to be. So romantic. Forevah and evah! Her girlfriends will envy her so much!
Give it ten years, and the sacrament of marriage will be made a mockery fit for kindergarten jokes. .
And we know that The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History (TMAHIC) would not be stingy with appointment a’ la Cupich, and his new little wolves would eat the Sacrament for breakfast. How can people who go around saying “who am I to judge” be given the task to judge of the validity of a marriage, be it the bishop concerning the marriage of the sheep, of the sheep concerning their own marriage? Who are they to judge? And therefore, who are they to decide?
The cancer would spread. One praxis here, another ten miles away; but most of them, very bad. Worlds apart, divided by diocese boundaries, but with very frequent abuses. Sacraments that are taken or not taken seriously – and generally aren’t – according to where a parish happens to be situated. Countless like Gaius and Vanessa queuing every Sunday to receive communion, in line together with countless like Titius above.
If this does not destroy at the very root the public perception of marriage as a sacred vow and lifelong commitment made in front of Christ, I do not know what could.
Yes, the Remnant would continue to be faithful. But a vast number of Catholics would still, whatever lie they have told to themselves, eat and drink their own damnation, with the bishop’s smiling approval. Thinking, perhaps, that if Christ allows the wolves to take over the Sacrament they should not be punished for eating of the wolves’ prey. Fools.
It is madness to think that Jesus said: “what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder, unless the bishop is ‘merciful’ “.
Marriage is marriage. Things are things. Truths are truths. Jesus won’t be fooled by Kasper or Scola, and Kasper and Scola are first-class fools if they think they can exempt the faithful from the observance of Jesus’ rules. This is the reason why the canonical process is often long and tedious, or costly; and the reason why easy annulments are, already today, seen as a great danger for both the sacrament and the social institution. But today, the complexity of the process is in place to defend the sacredness of the sacrament. Tomorrow, the banality of the non-juridical process could utter destroy the perception of its sacredness.
I am, also, angry whenever I hear that people complain that the actual canonical process is long.
*You are married, for Pete’s sake*. It’s not that you have the right to already “feel” that you are free from your marital bond, and think you have the right to be impatient for the slowness with which the tribunal fedexes the papers to you.
*Until the annulment comes You are married, period*. You are not “perhaps” married; you are not married “but I do not think I am really married, you know”; you are not married “only when the tribunal refuses the annulment”; you are not “really married to my new wife”.
What you “feel” counts zero. Your “new life” counts zero. Your “new family” isn’t one.
On the contrary: you are married to that other woman (oh yes! The one who isn’t as attractive as Vanessa! and if must be, even the one who ran away with the Harley-Davidson driver!). Your new life is a sacrilege and an open defiance to God. Your children are *born out of wedlock*. Your assumed wife is a concubine. Your family is formed by you and the wife you married.
This is harsh, you say. Life itself is very harsh. It’s a vale of tears. A training camp for heaven. No one ever promised a paradise on earth. Angry? Complain with Adam and Eve! And yourself!
Life is harsh, by the way, for everyone: married and single, rich and poor, ugly and beautiful, intelligent and stupid. Each one has his own cross to bear, and many bear crosses that are not of their choosing. The woman who left you, at least is the one you decided to marry. The husband who drinks, at least he is the one you chose to spend your life with. Cross as it undoubtedly is, it is a cross of one’s own choosing. The marital bed is always a bed of one’s own making, and this is another simple fact of life that simply does not enter the mind of the Kasper of this world, and is never mentioned in the newspapers. But our mothers and grandmothers knew it very well, our fathers and grandfathers had no doubts about it.
I think this proposal is purest madness. The equivalent of making a lottery for annulments, or a self-check counter. It will cause countless desecrations, and it will completely demolish the very idea of lifelong commitment among all but the most solidly instructed, or unusually pious.
I am not a canonist, but I can’t imagine Jesus’ rules are at any Cardinal’s disposal. if you ask me, no Cardinal can dispose of them, and therefore no Gaius or Vanessa can think they can with impunity avail themselves of the special “Kasper” or “Scola rule”. If it were so, then nothing in Catholicism would have any right to existence. Confessions could be made via smartphone app via pastoral decision of the bishop. Communion could be extended to cats and dogs, if their owner say “amen” for them with the right disposition. Communion could, in fact, be extended to people just coming from a drunken orgy; because hey, if one seeks the lord and has good will, who are we to judge? The perversion of Catholicism via pastoral decision of an extraordinary synod would have no limits.
What is happening is authentically diabolical. And even if it were not to become reality this year or next year, taboos are being broken every day, and an atmosphere of lio spread all over the West.
Let’s hope that the Lord rids us of TMAHICH soon, one way of the other. Let’s pray for it.
This Pope is a Catholic nightmare.
What is happening in the last days reminds one of Stalinism.
Cardinal Kasper accuses the five Cardinals behind the book about to be published to stage an “attack on the Pope”; which, in a Stalinist regime, is clearly unthinkable even the Pope is worthy of frontal attack every day of the week, festivities not excluded.
The five Cardinals, it is said in their defence, do not attack the Pope. They praise him. In a Stalinist environment, everything is said with reference to Stalin. In this case, Francis is praised specifically with reference of a couple of occasions when he did not feel like blathering, and therefore read the script, and therefore managed to say something Catholic. But it seems no word can be uttered nowadays without reference to what the man has said.
It's Stalin here, and Stalin there. Who has, then, the heart of Stalin?
It's Cardinal Kasper, of course. He says explicitly that he has spoken “twice” with The Most Astonishing Hypocrite In Church History and has “arranged everything with him”!
Can the five Cardinals say the same?
Can any of them say that their defence of the Most Holy Sacrament from mass desecration has been praised by TMAHICH as “profound and serene theology”?
No. They can't.
Cardinal Mueller has, it is reported somewhere (I forget the source; might well have been Rorate) even been rapped because of the book. No doubt the others have been too, but the fact wasn't “leaked”. This Francis is a phone maniac, and a first-class bully. I doubt he can resist the temptation to play Peron with a handful of Cardinals.
The game here is very clear. Francis sides with Kasper, but he tries to be seen as “neutral” as much as he can. He is, however, betrayed by the leaks continuously exposing him, and by his delirious wannabe off-the-cuff bull's excrement theology showing to everyone he is every bit as bad as Kasper, and very probably worse.
TMAHICH sides with Kasper against Catholicism. If the Cardinals defend Catholicism, well then obviously they are attacking him in so far as he attacks Catholicism. It stands to reason. There is no way around this, and it must be said out loud.
All the rest is Stalinism.
Cardinal Müller would have let it known that the timing of the publication of “Remaining in the Truth of a Christ” is unfortunate.
He does not retract or modify one word of his statement. He merely points out it was published already (in the German and Italian Press) months before Cardinal Kasper’s “profound and serene theology” exercise.
He is, therefore, not attacking anyone. Much less his own esteemed colleague.
God forbid. Perish the thought.
Yours truly would like to make an observation or two on this.
1. One suspects for the Cardinal (Müller, I mean) the Truth must be said in season, but not out of season. It would be “unfortunate” to do so.
2. The date of publication, 1 October 2014, has been known a while, and it must have been obvious to everyone it was not chosen at random. It wasn’t, because it was necessary for this not to be so.
3. Cardinal Müller, who is a theologian, knows that “serene and profound” heresy has gone on for decades in Germany and elsewhere. When he wrote his intervention and had it published, he most certainly knew it would go square against the Kaspertruppen.
4. More in general, we can’t attack heresy without attacking the heretics. It is clear that one who defends the ban on communion for concubines as being a fundamental part of the Catholic doctrine and the obvious result of what Holy Communion is, at the same time accuses those supporting the contrary position of striking at Catholicism’s very core. There can be no beating around the bush here: this is an accusation of material heresy.
Not very amusingly, we live in times in which the heretics are considered “serene and profound” in their heretical theology and those who, at least in this, defend orthodoxy must defend themselves with these ridiculous excuses about the timing, and the like.
My little advice to Cardinal Müller would be to stand his ground firmly.
If TMAHICH values orthodoxy (yours truly breaks in uncontrollable laughter… recovers himself… slowly…. he is now ready to go on…) , Müller has nothing to fear.
If TMAHICH thinks him too conservative, no amount of subtle distinguos as to why he is not really attacking Kasper will save his chair.
A chair at which, I am sure, his opponents are sawing as I write this.
The Remnant website has the usual intelligent and very pertinent reflections about several issues also touched on this blog; but this time, the issues are seen in the light of the upcoming Synod, for which the preliminary liberal cannonade is now well and truly ongoing before the Great Offensive starts in October.
The Remnant has, at the end of the article, a petition to stop the synod in the first place.
I do not need to tell you that such initiatives are not relevant according to their probability of success, but according to the signal they send. “Without me”, is the signal that should be sent.
I invite you to follow the link, read the excellent article and sign the petition.
It always strikes me as odd that those most fixated on the opportunity, or necessity, for adulterers to receive Communion are those least likely to believe in Transubstantiation.
But then I reflect that to them the value of communion is not in what it is, but in the way they are seen by the community; that is, in a matter of pure egotistic self-righteousness.
Those who blaspheme the sacrament when it is about Christ, proceed to deify it when it is about them.
All normal, then.
The head of the Austrian group “Wir Sind Kirche” (“We Are Church”) was excommunicated, together with her husband, for playing Mass (and, actually, “priestess”) at home. What I think happened is that these people invited a small number of satanic nutcases at home and, after tea and Sachertorte, “concelebrated” a pretend Mass.
I hope the Sachertorte was good, because the thing with the pretend Mass had a kind of a bitter outcome.
This group is, in a way, the Austrian Heresy on steroids or, if you prefer, the openly militant Austrian Heresy. A bit what the SA were to the Nazi ideology. They evidently do not limit themselves to dream of, say, priestesses; they actually play priestess themselves.
Ah, these children! They grow up so fast!
In this case, the children are clearly Satan’s willing tools. They refusal of basic Catholicism puts them squarely in the Presbyterian camp, but at least the Presbyterians have the decency to not imagine themselves Catholics.
By the by, the woman is 67 years old, showing age does not necessarily go together with wisdom, and is apparently using a title of “theologian” without the legal qualifications to do so. Where I come from this is a criminal offence of no small import. I wonder how the Austrian see that. What the matter tells me is that some people would do absolutely everything to attract attention on themselves.
I don’t pity the husband. I pity the neighbours.
Now, it is obviously good that, once in a while, we are informed the rules are enforced. But this here is truly extreme, and to infer from this any kind of “orthodoxy” of Francis would be utterly unrealistic, particularly considering the inquest against the two started in 2011. More probably, Cardinal Müller persuaded Francis that something more robust than a “slap on the wrist” had to take place. We have, anyway, always known this is one madness Francis does not support.
“Wir Sind Kirche” isn’t small fare, as in the German-speaking countries dissent is almost as fashionable now as brown was in the Thirties. They are present in more than twenty Countries, but to my knowledge they are vocal particularly in Germany and Austria. One wonders how the Austrian members will react to the news that their Dear Leader is found guilty of delicta graviora.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out, because this is one of those events that might open the eyes of the tepid, the ill-informed and the slow. To keep the woman at the head of the Austrian nutcase group would be telling. To oust her would force, perhaps, some soul searching.
When the SSPX bishops are excommunicated, one is forced to inform oneself as to what has happened and, if he is of sound thinking, realise they are excommunicated for refusing to compromise Catholicism. When these two are excommunicated, many will be hopefully led to realise that within this movement Catholicism is not even present in homeopathic doses.
In any way, what is sure is that we can’t infer from the punishment of this really extreme behaviour any return to orthodoxy from Francis.
It would be like praising Stalin because he did not eat children.
Father Z has a post about Cardinal Kasper publishing a book about mercy, which says, but also does not say, what he wants to say, but is not necessarily saying.
I have my own hypothesis about why the Cardinal speaks differently from the two corners of his mouth.
He is a Modernist.
“When the Lord shows us the way, who are we to say, 'No, Lord, it is not prudent! No, lets do it this way'…
“The Holy Spirit is the living presence of God in the Church. He keeps the Church going, keeps the Church moving forward. More and more, beyond the limits, onwards. The Holy Spirit with His gifts guides the Church. You cannot understand the Church of Jesus without this Paraclete, whom the Lord sends us for this very reason. And He makes unthinkable choices, but unimaginable!
Francis, the Bishop of Rome, May 2014.
Every time we think that, surely, Francis cannot sink lower than he just did with his latest statements; and every time we are forced to change our mind; albeit, optimists as we are, still thinking that now, surely, it cannot get worse? Alas, with the Destroyer nothing seems impossible, but his conversion to Catholicism.
Francis' most recent statements are so brazenly heretical, that no follower of Francis can have any excuse anymore, or be in any kind of doubt, that to agree with Francis is to deny Christ.
It has always been an obvious corollary of Christianity that Truth cannot change. Truth cannot change because God cannot change. God cannot change because every concept of change is in the most blatant contradiction with God's perfection.
If Truth changes, the Gospels have gone off and must be discarded like those strange things we single men find, every now and then, at the bottom of the fridge. If Truth changes, not one single words of the Bible, be it Old or New Testament, can be relied to have the meaning and import Catholicism traditionally attributed to it. If Truth changes, dogmatic statements like the Creeds have no authority anymore, because change is evidently not compatible with dogmas. If Truth changes, Jesus is a fraud and a charlatan, because his emphatic statement that He is the Truth flies in the way of this Truth being, given time, obviously untrue. If Truth changes, Christianity does not make any sense, and we can happily go back to adoring trees, natural phenomena, or fantasy creations who spend their existence plotting and fornicating in some distant but rather pleasant place.
All this escapes Francis, the Presbyterian Pope.
His statements become more and more brazen; his defiance of the basic Truths of Christianity is now made in the open. If Satan were Pope, he would speak exactly as Francis does: sowing confusion, sabotaging Christianity and denying Truth every time he can, with a frequency that now knows no interruption, with an insolence that now knows no boundaries.
Read again his words above. He is saying, for everyone who has ears to hear, that there are no limits to the novelties he wants to introduce. He is preparing unthinkable changes. More and more, beyond the limits.
These are interesting times for Michael Voris, for sure.
The new Papal mantra is as clear as the sun: the “Spirit” is speaking, (to him, of course: the Humble Anointed) and both he and, obviously, we must not “close the door” to it. If you accept this, you have ipso facto thrown Christianity away from the window, exactly as Francis does. I suspect this strange “spirit” speaks to Francis through wine or grappa, because sober people who use their brains know all I have explained above, and would never have the blasphemous insolence of thinking Truth is at their disposal with no better excuse than this mysteriously blowing wind of the “spirit”, and or that Truth would have any need to “move forward”', “beyond the limit”, “onward”. He expresses himself with the trite rhetoric of a motivational speaker at the salesmen convention of some smartphone producer.
If Francis does not “hear the spirit” whilst drunk, which is not to be excluded, then he must most certainly be listening to Satan himself, who is whispering in his hear how very popular he will become if he decides that hey: the Spirit has spoken: who are we to judge? And lo and behold: the way is open for any heresy and any blasphemy.
Or perhaps Francis has, in an extreme effort of Clericalism, appointed himself the new Sibylla Cumana of Christianity. God speaks to him, and tells him “we must change everything, Buddy. Glad I am able to speak to you, because your predecessors were either completely, or almost completely deaf. Myself, what a cool guy you are!”
The insolence, the shamelessness, the sheer blasphemy of this man is breathtaking. Open your eyes, read his statements again, and realise how serious the situation is. Now it's simply Francis against God.
It is very clear that this Pope – be it because he is stupid, or evil, or both – is a direct threat to the salvation of Catholics, and a further threat to the salvation of other Christians. He is the Public Enemy Number One of Catholicism, a menace compared to which even Obama appears an amateur.
It is as if the Brigate Rosse had, in the Seventies, reached all the top positions of the Italian institutions; but few would have objected to it because hey: you don't criticise the President, the Prime Minister or the Presidents of Camera and Senato.
The Pope himself is working every day towards the destruction of Catholicism. The Enemy is among us and has, if you allow the comparison, reduced King Theoden to his willing idiot – or to his evil idiot – as his minions, like Grima Kasper and Wormtongue Maradiaga, whisper to his ear words of betrayal and surrender.
I have not lived those ages, but it seems to me that the threat represented by this man is slowly rising to the level of Pope Liberius, or Pope John XXII. True, Francis is not thinking – at least for now – of making any heretical wannabe “dogmatic statement”; but It is obvious the unthinkable is not really unthinkable for him, and I wonder what would be worse. In the case of an heretical “dogmatic” statement we would know the Pope is actually not such, and we could happily ignore both the statement and the man; whereas in the case of a subversive Pope you are stuck with the reality that the Pope is evil, but he is still Pope; a reality not many, in these times of poor instruction, can cope with.
Francis is, as the October Synod slowly approaches, throwing away the mask. He will get into it telling to everyone that “the Spirit is speaking” in some mysterious way known to him alone, but we must not keep “the Spirit” (read: Francis' heresies) out. Bar a divine intervention, it is clear to me he will have his way. The choir of the helpers will be deafening. The sheep will willingly baa. Most bloggers will applaud. The secular press will be delighted. The world will embrace him. The Church will receive a wound worse still than during the French Revolution, and perhaps almost as bad as the Arian heresy.
Once again, realise the genesis of Francis' heresies: this man is entirely secular in his thinking, in his talking, in his outlook. He is a Socialist with a white habit. He will trample everything that goes against his agenda of Socialism for the world, and popularity for himself.
To Francis, Christianity is an excuse. He isn't more Christian than Obama. Let us say it again: I doubt he believes in God. He certainly has no fear of Him.
You have no excuses: it's Francis or Christ.
Pick your side well.
Good day. May I introduce myself? I am a Kasperite.
I am, you must know, in rather high spirits since Cardinal Kasper's latest interview. It is evident – as the Cardinal is such a good chap – that Francis really thinks 50% of the marriages are invalid. Which clearly, clearly includes my “marriage” with my former wife. It's obvious. I feel it. Sensus catholicus, you know…
Look, I was only 28 then, she merely 27. At 28, what do you know? Yeah, I get you: I would be outraged at the idea I can't vote or drive at 18 because I am immature, and should be made to wait at least until I am 30 for both.
I should not be allowed to buy a house or a car either, you say; buy an insurance plan; sign for the Military; in short, take any sort of long-term commitment that influences the rest of my life; but that's different, you see. I mean, I spend inordinate amounts of time reflecting about for which party to vote, and which house to buy; or which insurance, or car; or which profession to choose; but our marriage, that was made on the spur of the moment, you see. We wanted the romantic church ceremony, you know. I mean, how immature is that?!
My actual wife wants one too, by the way. I'll have to deliver on this, or it will be Ice Age in HD in the bedroom.
So, what was I saying? Oh yes: our marriage (my first one) was most certainly invalid.
Yep. There can be no doubt about that. Or do you doubt the Pope? It's clear the Holy Ghost inspires him.
Therefore, what needs there is now to bother the sacra rota, and face costs to boot? Hey, if the judges of the sacra rota aren't as enlightened as our Humble Pope, they might even falsely declare that an obviously invalid marriage – which is clearly the thinking of the Pope – is not invalid! What a tragic mistake this would be! In the age of mercy, do we really need that? Come on!
No, I said to my second (erm, I mean…) wife: let's do it differently. Let's pretend – just because the Church has not become as enlightened as Francis – that I am still in a “valid” marriage, and let us go through whatever motions the Bishops decide after October. Yeah, there will be something about repentance, I think; sinfulness, or such like. Old Church things, you know. Then we will be fine, and will be able to receive communion in front of all the neighbourhood.
But no, wait, my first marriage is invalid (I know it!) so there is no need to wait for October!
I mean, it's clear the Cardinal knows the Church is just putting old-style obstacles between the faithful and Christ. He is trying to help as he can! As is the Pope! Yep, it's pretty obvious.
Think of the phone call. The Pope has spoken. The woman can take communion somewhere else. I mean, we can't all phone the Pope, right? The woman's case applies to me too, so the Pope's answer is also meant for me. OK, we have a decision then: next Sunday we will both be in the communion line, receiving in the hands. Not in our neighbourhood, though. Ratzinger-like, rather. For now at least. One step at a time.
Perhaps after October they will allow us something in the church, too? A “ceremony”, or a “blessing”? I mean, I have “repented”, right? 😉 . Why not? Didn't Francis say something about not judging, field hospital, not having certainties, all that stuff?
My wife (I mean, the second one; that is, actually, the first? Right? Gosh, it's complicated…) told me she demands a ceremony in a church at some point, or we will both convert to Anglicanism. I know, I shouldn't do it. But you know how women are, right? In the end, can it be that Jesus thinks where I marry is more important than my marriage? What's the difference, anyway? If I had been born of Anglican parents I would be an Anglican now. I know it for a fact. So in the end it's just a matter of politics. Hey, I could receive communion at the local CoE church every Sunday. Consecration and all. Even the chalice with the wine. It's like Catholicism without the wrong bits! I like the idea a lot, but my mother says she thinks it's stil a sin, and that I might put (she thinks; not sure) my soul in danger.
Ha! Old women!! She still believes actual, regular people go to hell! Well at least she thinks she heard so. It was a long time ago, though. She stopped attending in the Seventies, short before getting pregnant with me. She and Pa married in church, but it had to be very fast. Isn't it funny? She never told me her marriage was invalid, nor did Pa. Come on, Ma! You.were.pregnant!
So that's what I'll do. From next Sunday, we drive two neighbourhoods away and take communion. Then we wait for October. Then we go through the motions of having sinned, etc. Repentance galore 😉 as to the wedding, when my wife gets so angry I get no sex, it will be either an alternative ceremony or the Anglicans. Yes, Siree!
Anglicans are like Cardinal Kasper, you must know. They don't make all that fuss.
What did you say? Eating my own… WHAT? Steady, boy, this is not charitable at all. Not charitable at all! I think you should apologise!
Of course I would receive communion perfectly all right! No sacrilege at all! Please stop with that drivel about hell! God slaps us in the twist at most! The Pope said so himself!
Look: I have no doubt that my marriage is invalid, and I have no doubt my communion is valid. If I were to convert to Anglicanism, I know that would right too. I feel it, OK?
Well if you ask, YES! It means the Truth has changed! Didn't you read the Pope? Can't you see we are in a new time of mercy, at the dawn of a New Tradition? And by the way….(How does the Pope say it? Oh, yeah…)
Who are you to judge?
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.
I have already written about the battle lines slowly but surely forming before the impending disgrace of October's Extraordinary Synod.
Today I read two news directly related to the event; one ominous, one half-way encouraging.
The bad news (which you can read everywhere) is that it appears a made decision that Paul VI ( the man whose miracle consists in avoiding a “danger” that never became real; yours truly is, like countless others, one for whom doctors had foreseen a grave danger of serious malformations; and I have already expressed my now founded hopes for my own beatification) will be beatified on the final day the October Synod. One wonders if this is not a way to underline, with another alleged show of God's favour for the madness of V II, the start for real of “phase II” of the Springtime. All on the same day; a true Modernist double whammy. Deus le volt, the wrong way.
The good news is that, as we read (in English) from the Eponymous Flower, two prominent Cardinals have officially joined the ranks of the Anti-Kasperites. You may want to follow the link and read the details there. Please note Cardinal Bassetti has a lot to lose, as he appears slated for the very powerful position of head of the Italian Bishops' Conference. He does not seem to put his ambitions before his duty. Let's hope it lasts.
That there will be battle, is clear. The problem is how hard the right side will be ready to fight, considering that Francis has already given his “officially unofficial” support to Cardinal Kasper, is less clear; Francis supports Kasper in a relatively (for the great public) subtle way, true; but still in a way sufficient to let all the insiders who have ears hear and know where he stands.
Let us not kid ourselves on this: the odds of faithful Catholics on this one appear fearful. With every passing week it appears more evident a climate of expectation is being built, to disappoint which would be considered, from the numerous Grima Wormtongues, not pastoral, uncharitable, or fuelling the risk of “schism”. At this point, Francis The Merciful could intervene and save the Catholic world from impending catastrophe as he collects more headlines as the man daring to go where no Pope before him, no matter how stupid or evil, dared to go.
I say all this not because I enjoy being the bearer of bad news – as a rule, I am the eternal optimist -, but because I very much fear the effect that the, very probably, obscene events in October might have on the faith of Catholics of less than robust faith and solid instruction.
What wil happen in October will only be a litmus test to gauge the corruption of the present Church and her betrayal of Christ's Truth. But no extent of corruption and betrayal can change either the nature of the Church, or of the Truth she is called to defend.
To use a strong image, the Bride of Christ, Mother Church, as she operates on this earth – meaning: in the men who run Her down here, in her earthly appearance – may have transformed herself in something resembling a slut, and she may be possibly on the brink of becoming an outright whore, or rather a camera-loving porn actress. But degraded as she is in her earthly manifestation, Bride and Mother she still is. The son who discovers that her mother has become an aged porn actress has all the rights to criticise her sharply in public for her shame; but he will continue to love her, to pray for her, to hope that it may be given to him to see the day she is reformed. Many were, in the past, the “slutty phases” of the earthly Church: the Arian mess, the great corruption around the Millennium, the licence and abuse of the Renaissance, or the irreligiousness of the XVIII century. Never has Jesus abandoned Her. Let us do the same.
Before the battle, the odds are fearful.
But God will see the fight, and He will remember on which side everyone of us was.
From Father Ray Blake’s blog.
I don’t know if this is the type of situation Pope Francis was trying to deal with in his recent telephone call, but this kind of situation is not unusual – this is a made up.
Mary has been living Sam for 14 years, he is divorced, they have three children. Mary has been assiduous in the formation of her children in the faith, she tells her priest that she desperately wants to receive Holy Communion. the priest reminds her what Jesus says about someone married to a divorcee is committing adultery.
Mary says she accepts Jesus’ teaching and that Sam, despite only being a nominal Christian, because of his love for her respects her and has agreed to try and live as brother and sister.
Mary despite her love for Sam is well aware of the sinfulness of her situation and has even considered leaving Sam but that would deprive their children of a father, but she too loves him. They do live as brother and sister most of the time but every so often Sam and Mary fall, often it is Sam’s fault but not always.
May Mary go the Holy Communion, possibly in a Church where she is completely unknown, even occasionally?
Answer (no, it will not be short, or pleasant).
The two are clearly concubines. There can be no doubt about this. This is rock-hard reality no kind of emotionalism or rationalisation can change. Concubines live in scandal, and Christianity has always taught – before the “age of mercy” – that those who live in scandal are in principle in mortal sin, and are in principle denied communion. Today we do not know what scandal is anymore, therefore this part is simply overlooked.
Yes, the prostitute was allowed to get communion after confession perhaps once a year, but you get the drift here: she was allowed, once a year and after confession, to try to make the decision to stop being a prostitute. Her lifestyle was not endorsed. Everyone knew that. No Cardinal was saying “we must find ways to open communion to prostitutes, because there are so many of those around”. The Prostitutes were, as far as I know, allowed to get to communion as the last ones, separated from the others; so that no one had to be afraid his neighbour on the altar rail was a prostitute faking Catholic respectability.
The fictitious couple live, then, in scandal, in a relationship the Church can only see as adulterous. If we have our salvation dear, the discussion does not need to go beyond this point. Fictional Mary must, in short, decide between hell and her concubine, and she must also tell the children some hard truths of life. Being “pastoral” is neither here nor there. Souls are at stake. The only pastor here is the one that says the truth whole.
Concubinage is concubinage. Mortal sin is mortal sin. That’s it. Facts are facts. Fictional Mary is not a politician, and Jesus is not a voter. She won’t fool Him, nor will anyone of us, full stop.
But fictional Mary says she is “assiduous”, & Co. I wonder how a public concubine can be so “assiduous” in the formation of the children. Being a concubine doesn’t really square with that, methinks. If this fictional character, therefore, teaches her children properly, they will discover a huge gap between what mother teaches and how she lives. I bet my fictional pint, though, that her “faith” is rather of the “don’t kick the cat and help the polar bear cub” type. A common event nowadays. Christianity by hearsay.
But you see, she “desperately wants to receive communion”. Of course she wants. Everyone “desperately” wants to have their cake and eat it. Mary is fictional, but take it from me: she wants societal approval. Validation. Catholic respectability. That’s what she wants. It’s the human nature.
The problem is, it doesn’t work that way. Fictional Mary knows it very well, too. Hell is also, I am informed, a tad worse than one’s “desperate” needs. Perhaps the needs should be adjusted, and a serious reflection will then, perhaps, begin.
Life is made of priorities. The way we live tell the tale of where the priorities are. As the dry Italian says, le chiacchiere stanno a zero.
Facts are hard (the concubinage), feelings are pliable (the “desperate” desire). It’s a dangerous game to play, because reality always catches up with fantasies.
The fictional priest tells our fictional woman an obvious piece of obvious truth, and here things get very funny.
Fictional Mary fictionally “accepts” Jesus’ teaching, but…. but…
But she still wants to have her cake and eat it, you see. All of it. Sin, scandal, concubinage, respectability, and communion. The whole lot. Because hey, she “accepts”; though she doesn’t act…
Let us continue the reading of this fictional, but apparently not uncommon situation. Her fictional husband, who really doesn’t care a straw, has – after endless nagging, no doubt – consented that the two officially live “like brother and sister”; something his wife must be able to tell her Catholic friends.
Hubby must have a sister he screws regularly, though, because this is how he at least clearly understands this “brother and sister” thingy. He therefore agrees with his sister – sorry: wife – that they will pretend to be such “most of the time”, therefore renouncing to spend most of the time having sex like rabbits; which is, as we all know, what all couples of 14 years’ marriage do. But hey, he does “fall” every now and then (now seriously: how often is the average of a 14 years old marriage? Please don’t answer…) and when he wants to watch Sky Sports, well, then it might be “sister” who “falls”. But hey, “sister” will say in the church they live “like brother and sister”, which to her makes all pretty fine or at least fine enough for communion; apart, of course, from the fact that they don’t.
Doesn’t matter. Facts don’t count. Feeling is everything. Woman has decided she lives with her “brother”. That’s it, then.
Now, there is one problem. She has fictionally considered leaving her husband; but there are the fictional children, you see…
A remarkable woman, this one. Millions of her countrywomen would not hesitate to leave their husband because he screws a colleague, or the secretary; and they in fact do, every day; and the children are told, more or less brutally, how bad papa is, and who cares how much their lives are wrecked. But it doesn’t matter: mama will have her revenge, and society – even, I am afraid, many Catholic churchgoers of the more progressive sort – will be full of understanding and solidarity, because to live with a cheating husband really, really can’t be demanded of any modern woman, can it now?
But to live separated and tell the children their father – who is still the loving and caring father he always was – will sleep in a cheap studio under a different roof just a couple of hundred metres away so that no scandal is given and chastity is preserved, goes already too far.
Can’t be done. Very sorry. No can do.
The costs. The children. The locusts. And yes, the woman even openly says: we do have sex, and when it’s not him (most often it’s him, naturally…) it’s me; but come on, sisters and brothers do that too, occasionally? Don’t they? Really? Are you sure? (Cough…) oh well…. who are we to judge?
So, what do we have in this fictional couple?
Do they give scandal? Yep, clear as 2+2. They live under the same roof, you see, like husband and wife up to the marital bed. It doesn’t get clearer than that. And then the sin is, obviously, very public. That some people may not get that scandal of this sort causes one to live in mortal sin without any need to examine the sexual habit of the couple in question and their “fall frequency” is, to me, the shock of the day. Scandal is the new normality. Move on, Christ. You are too uncharitable.
But do they have sex? Check.
Yes, they even have sex. Admitted by her. Initiated by both. But they call it being “brother and sister”. What are these, Jesuits?
But are they really, ohh, sincere? Oh, certainly! As sincere as can be one who does not care a straw about Christianity, and one who can tell you she lives with her brother, but screws him, with a straight face. The new Catholic world is made in the image and resemblance of Jorge Bergoglio.
Dear fictional Mary, it pains me to tell you so, but in charity, and since I was asked, I am bound to tell you that you live in scandal, in an adulterous situation, and in mortal sin. Your scandal is a fact, is rock-hard reality, and a fact that cannot be emoted away. In the meantime, “brother” is just a bedroom door away, and you don’t hear him snoring. And, well, incest takes place regularly, we are told.
I must tell you this, dear fictional Mary, because God will not be fooled, and any amount of mental gymnastics, womanly emoting or fictional family relationship existing only outside of sex time will only serve to send you to hell more rapidly, unless you repent.
Please, Mary, consider this: what other answer would any priest have given to you in: 1914, 1814, 1714, 1614, 1514, 1414, 1314…What? You got the point? Very well, I don’t need to continue, then.
Now, my dear fictional lady, you may say that a very real Cardinal, and a lot of other people, and probably even a Pope is of the opinion that look, we should not take these things too literally. If you repent between rides, you’ll be fine. Yippee-ya-yey! The scandal just doesn’t count. When your horny brother jumps on you, do you really, really, really want to do it? Because you see, you can be living in sin with your concubine, but if you really, really do not give complete consent, then it is not a mortal sin, don’t ya know?
I mean, you do live in scandal, but not really, because you are so aware of your sinfulness. You are not required to change anything in your life, because in the “age of mercy” we change the rules instead. No, wait, we do not change them: we merely make a mockery of them! So much more practical!
Let us have, then, the concubines who live in sin but are brother and sisters but have actually sex; the homosexual who live together in a “chaste” relationship but actually fall; the men with a harem who live with three women like “brother and sisters” but hey, that’s a lot of sisters; the man who loves his dog in such a chaste way, “most of the time”. Let us allow everyone to approach the Sacred Banquet. We are so inclusive.
Fret not, fictional Mary. We will soon allow you and your husband to have communion, but please take the car and drive a couple of neighbourhoods away, if it isn’t too much to ask. Keep pretending you screw your brother, if it works for you. Don’t allow anyone to “judge” you, and please, please call “uncharitable” everyone who is sorry to see you marching towards hell. Hey, you help the Polar Bear Cub. That’s what I call the product of an “assiduous Christian education”!
Make of all a parody. Devoid every rule of significance. You “desperately” want communion, and who can be against that? Jesus? Don’t make me laugh. You are living in scandal, but this does not exclude from communion anymore, at least not for long, at least not if you are “aware” whilst continuing to do just as you did before.
You see, there are many of us. Cardinal Kasper says what many of us think. We, the Kasperites, are now the overwhelming majority. Woe to the one who dares to put Truth before Mercy. Screw Truth, long live Mercy! Everyone who dares to oppose the new mantra of emotionalism at all costs, “mercy” no matter how big the lie, and having every other priority but avoiding hell will be insulted – like that chap with the Pius XII photo – as unmerciful, uncharitable, not in touch with the time, and a relic of the Inquisition.
So be it, then. I will take all the insults. But I refuse, I refuse to bow to this unspeakable hypocrisy according to which we are all for Catholic teaching and against Kasper’s (and Francis’) novelties and sacrilege in theory, but when we are presented with the most ludicrous of concrete cases in practice we all cave in and suggest that a priest does exactly what Cardinal Kasper is moving toward: the complete hollowing of Christ’s rules against a fictional repentance requiring no real change in anyone’s life.
This is how entirely rotten Western Catholicism has become after 50 years of destruction. So rotten in fact, that the suggestion of ways to avoid following Christ’s rules is seen as pious, charitable, and merciful.
And again: like every process of rotting and decaying, this one has also been happening in stages. A German Cardinal, then Pope, issues instructions according to which in very particular circumstances, probably when there is really no sex, the couple might be allowed to approach communion elsewhere. A disgraceful attitude, because what begins as a discipline for extreme cases – the German Cardinal probably had the 92 years old man in mind, married to the 87 years old woman, who converted late to Catholicism, or such like – then becomes applicable to less and less extreme cases, until it becomes the norm, demanded from all, and with the requisites demolished as “uncharitable” one by one. The German Cardinal, then Pope, must blame himself, though. At his age, he should have known what happens when Truth is tampered with. Particularly in Germany, Tamper Central.
And so it can happen that when you say that in certain circumstances the parents could live like brother and sister, couples who have sex demand to be seen that way. They say very openly that they have sex, but who gives a … straw for facts nowadays?
Kasper is among us. Nay: Satan is among us. For many Christians, Christianity seems to have become Baal plus some “joy” rhetoric. It has become so bad, that a question that only sixty or seventy years ago would have caused, according to one’s sense of humour, bursts of laughter or an extremely scandalised reaction is now taken very seriously, with several attempts at explanation under which conditions openly living in sin with one’s concubine would justify receiving. Truly, it beggars belief.
100% Kasper tosh for the masses. The masses, grateful, swallow the tosh whole.
I herewith pledge and promise that, to the best of my ability and as long as I blog, I will continue to write about Catholicism as, to the best of my knowledge, it was felt and practised before the Great Disgrace of V II and his latest and most poisonous fruit, Jorge Bergoglio.
And I ask the Lord to be merciful to me and to do me the great grace of striking me dead, one day before I start spreading new doctrines and novelties that would have horrified my grandmothers, and will gravely endanger my soul.
It is infinitely better to get under a bus and to die on the spot but (hopefully) in the state of grace, than to become a Kasperite and die with Kasper’s chances of salvation.
Cardinal Maradiaga has just finished complaining that there is a “resistance” mounting among the high ranks of the Church, with the one or other murmuring that they have made a mistake on that fateful day.
Some people will be encouraged by these words, but in my eyes they can be easily overstated, and the importance of the critical stance towards the Bishop of Rome' s antics exaggerated.
We already know that among Cardinals there has been sharp criticism to Cardinal Kasper's impious, sacrilegious proposals to open ways to allow public adulterers and concubines to receive Communion, as if this were useful to anything else than sending them (the concubines) to hell more safely. But this was only the opinion of a bunch of Cardinals. The Synod in October will see a massive participation of bishops, and you can be sure there will be no shortage of Western European ones – I mean not only from the German-speaking area – ready and willing to sow their satanical confusion.
Of course, the bishops of other continents will fiercely oppose the proposal; but you see, the beauty of the “pastoral” approach is that one can always say he is adapting to particular cases, and regional specifics.
“You can keep your ban on communion for adulterers, my dear African Bishops” – the German ones will say – “but by us a more nuanced, truly pastoral approach is needed”. This way – and with the massive support of the Bishop of Rome, who thinks so much of Kasper – it will be fairly easy to overcome resistance. “Hey, the doctrine isn't changing”, will they say to their colleagues, “there's no need to be overly excited. We are merely doing our job as caring shepherds”.
Why, then, Maradiaga's utterances? Because every revolution needs accusations of counter-revolutionary activity to be pushed forward. Maradiaga is certainly as bad as his interviews, but I can well imagine the last initiative is the fruit of the Pope's encouragement to stir things a bit and warn the reluctant souls about the Great Changes about To Pass. Resistance will be met, as Cardinal Maradiaga has made very clear, with charges of counter-revolutionary activity.
No, I do not think Maradiaga has released this interview because he feels weak; rather, I think he feels strong enough to start with his revolutionary, preparatory cannon fire.
Let us renew our prayer effort.
October will be atrocious.
I had been alerted to the Italian version, but the excellent Rorate Caeli already has the English translation, so I will refer to it directly.
If you follow the link, you will notice that among the Cardinals there is a clear refusal of the Modernist measures, and of the obvious contempt of Christ, showed by Cardinal Kasper.
Among the Cardinals who have expressed themselves clearly – or brutally – against the measures proposed by Kasper, Giorgio Tosatti mentions not only those already gone public with their disagreement (to my knowledge Mueller, Caffarra and Burke), but also Brandmueller, Bagnasco, Sarah, Re, Piacenza, Tauran and Ruini. If we are to believe to cardinal Ruini, it’s 85% against, an dmany of the others “embarrassed”.
Note that some of the interventions are so explicit one struggles to believe they come from a Cardinal (hey: these the ones who gave us Big Problem in the first place), and some of them come from cardinals, like Re, who cannot be praised with having a sound conservative spirit. Also note cardinal re explicitly mentions the fact that expressing oneself against the measure may hinder one’s chance of becoming Cardinal, thus clearly stating what everyone knows: Kasper is nothing else than Francis’ longa manus.
My reading of the events is that it would appear that those mentioned believe in God, whilst Kasper and Francis either don’t, or do not believe in anything resembling the God of the Catholics. Because if they would, they would be terrified of playing fast and loose with the Truth and the Sacraments.
The resistance to the Francis-Kasper assault to the Sacraments is, certainly, good news. But I reflect that the opposition reported by Tosatti came from Cardinals, and the synod in October will see – as it was also on the latest occasion, though we are not told about them – the participation of Bishops,among whom there will be no lack of cheerleaders (who have lost their Catholic faith, all of them, no exception) ready to praise the direction whereto the “spirit” is leading the Church; as clearly proved by the many magazine covers, and the millions of twitter followers.
We can’t do much more than pray I am afraid, but at least we can try to be vocal about what is happening in our sphere of influence, so that those around us may be educated to sound Catholicism; which will be good even if this huge mess does not become reality.
The Faith is going to be severely tested in the months and years to come. Most of my readers belong, I want to hope, to those whose faith and loyalty to the Church of Christ is unshakable, but many around them will be made of a weaker stuff. It is for us to instruct, support, console and encourage them.
Because the local priest will very probably sing the praise of Francis whilst getting all excited about some young nun jumping on the stage like she is on cocaine.
As a Canonist, Cardinal Burke does not think that Cardinal Kasper’s idea of “playing with the very words of Christ Himself in the Gospel” and trying to square the circle to make everyone happy can work.
It is unfortunate that Kaspar’s words and speech are finding such resonance because obviously endorsed by the Bishop of Rome himself. The Cardinal does not say this, but it is obvious that three words from Francis would have stopped this madness in its tracks; not only this has not happened, but Francis is clearly the sponsor and promoter of Kasper’s initiative. You write it “Kasper”, but you pronounce it “Francis”.
It is also interesting that the Cardinal insists in letting us know that Kasper’s madness was not well received by many other Cardinals. Which in plain English means that Francis is openly endorsing a minority of subversive destroyers of the Faith, and many are the Cardinals – though we are not told how many – who choose to side with Christ instead. Let us pray that when the time of test comes, they will be able to stand their ground and become very vocal.
Francis is a vain man. I doubt he would court any controversy destined to make him seriously unpopular. I keep noticing how he avoids frontal attacks to the SSPX – Francis insults a lot; but the people he insults never have an identifiable face; they are more like shadows – well knowing the SSPX would make him look like a child of five playing with the Gospel in less time than you need to say “wheelchair”.
Coming back to Cardinal Burke, his words seem, to me, to contain a sort of hidden message along the lines of ” if anyone thought he can create a fait accompli through the leaking of the Cardinal’s speech, he should know that it will not work”.
I wish I could be as optimistic as that. I fear the worst. Not in the sense that the Bishop of Rome will officially declare Christ “intolerant” or “uncharitable”, but rather in the sense that he will say, with the intelligence and acumen we already know and love and the doctrinal profoundness that made him famous, “the principle remains intact, but do as you please with it whenever you feel you should be merciful; because hey, we live in the time of mercy now”.
I hope that as you read this a group of Cardinals is organising around Burke or Caffarra, determined not to shun any kind of scandal and controversy in order to avoid the Germans to rape Catholicism to save the proceeds from the Kirchensteuer. We have had enough of subversive puppets.
Whether it is a well founded hope, I prefer not to consider.
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?
In case you can keep your eyes dry – which won't be easy; but not strictly necessary, either – the Eponymous Flower has a translation of Mario Palmaro's last essay.
A few days before dying, this excellent man of God was still fighting for the Truth and the Church he loves. Grace in action to the end, I would call it without sounding like the sin of presumption.
The lucidity of this dying young man is a very Christian contrast to the confusion of healthy old men, like Bishop Francis and Cardinal Kasper, whose outer life hides a spiritual disease, and very possibly spiritual death.
You read Palmaro's essay and you see in all its brutality the contrast between a Church based on supernatural Truths, and the concept of Church as a vehicle for the satisfaction of human paying clients all too evident in Kaspar's thinking, and in Francis' very obvious endorsement of it.
Palmaro went to his Maker with his eyes firmly fixed on Jesus. Kaspar and Francis walk – for what we can see from their behaviour, and bar an always welcome repentance – towards hell with their gaze firmly set on this world, their popularity, and the social and sexual desires of their clients.
Pray for Mario Palmaro if you can, and for his loved ones. Do not indulge in easy V II automatic canonisation thinking. If he is in heaven – which I wish him with all my heart – your prayers will not go to waste anyway. If he isn't, you will help a great soul shorten his Purgatory.
I wish I could die with his chances of heaven, anyway. I doubt it will happen.
Concerning Cardinal Kasper’s fifth column work, more or less asking that we “tolerate” what we cannot “accept”, the rather baffled Father Z asks: “what else do we tolerate though not accept?”
I have an answer there.
In Italy, brothels were called case di tolleranza. I was always told, and have always taken for granted, that this is because the Church could not allow or in any way consent to the existence of brothels, but considered not fitting to crack down on them. This is the reason why in the Roma papalina prostitution was rife; be it because of the presence of an army of priest, not all of them very chaste, be it because of the position of Rome as an extremely important destination for pilgrimages, then largely the preserve of men, with the consequences anyone who is not a finishing school girl can easily imagine.
Therefore, in order to avoid the huge pressure to which girls would have been subjected in case of crackdown on brothels, the Papal States chose to tolerate brothels. Not “authorise”, mind; simply renouncing to a massive crackdown on a factual situation out there; a situation to which the Church lent no assistance or support whatever, forbidding the visit of brothels and constantly reminding of the consequences of sin on one’s soul.
This is the only example of “toleration” I know. I notice here that when brothels were outlawed in Italy in 1957, this was out of the initiative of a feminist Socialist female senator, enthusiastically followed by her own party and the Communists. Neither during Fascism nor during the dominance of the Democrazia Cristiana in the De Gasperi era did the governments of the day move to crack down on brothels: tolleranza was considered the best choice, and actually since Fascism also a strict regulation (for medical reasons, mainly) followed.
Now, what Cardinal Kasper suggests is that the Church does the same with the public adulterers. This is tantamount as to suggest that the Church should bring prostitutes in the houses of men, in order to offer a “pastoral solution” to men’s testosterone problems, and reacting to the million of men vociferously asking for p***y as a matter of elementary justice.
The Church tolerates, instead, that there are concubines today, just as she tolerated that there were prostitutes yesterday. The Church tolerates concubines in that she does not move towards the crackdown of the deplorable phenomenon, and does not demand for legislation making of it a criminal offence. But this is completely different from actively proceeding to sacrilege, and asking the priest to commit himself a sacrilege. If you can do that, you can as well make of the priest a pimp, and ask him to run a “pastoral” brothel for his flock.
Cardinal Kaspar, whose mind frame is rather the one of the prostitute than of the priest, doesn’t get the difference. To him, a client is a client, and as long as the client pays the Kirchensteuer, he will do whatever it takes to please him.
He will then call it “pastoral concern”; a “concern”, mind, very strong in those countries where the Kirchensteuer provides an enormous income, as can be seen from the illustration on this blog post.
Pastoral concern? I call it prostitution. Whenever a German prelate talks of being “pastoral”, follow the money.