We are informed that the content of the interventions of the participants of the Synod will not be revealed. Not as record of their speech, and not even as excerpt.
This tells me that what is wanted is a “no taboos” discussion, in which every participant can say whatever he pleases without fear of losing face with the world's Catholics, particularly if he discovers he has leant too far out of the window sill and he is left isolated, and looking stupid.
In this way, Francis and his minions will be able to gauge the level of heresy on a worldwide scale, that is: they will be able to test what can be swallowed without open calls of heresy, and what not.
This “phase 1” of the Synod might already come up with something truly troubling; but in the end, it can also be seen as stage 1 of a great mess, and in this scenario it makes sense to break taboos now, go back to one's diocese, and prepare the ground for another year – at the end of which what is taboo now will not be taboo anymore – before the great historical events in which the Holy Ghost will, according to them, more or less speak very personally to every damn heretical bastard wearing a red, or purple, habit.
Taboos are broken by degrees. First the breaking is discussed among bishops and cardinals; then a dozen of them or so give interviews airing “possible ways”. Other bishops and cardinals react angrily. Suddenly you have a “debate”. Pope Francis summons the next synod to discuss the breaking of taboos.
Yep. It's what is happening already with communion for public adulterers.
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.
The beautiful words of appeal to ceaseless resistance you read in the title were once uttered by a famous Italian prosecutor – in his farewell speech at the moment of retiring – in the face of spread corruption and intimidation from the powers that be; and, particularly, from the power of… one man.
I am reminded of them rather often, particularly when I see the Catholic troops – of which there is, on the Internet, an awful lot – submerge the false prophets and sowers of error under a tsunami of well-earned reproaches.
First, the “Patheos” blogger selling strange motivational courses was forced to close his combox following the tidal wave of well-earned criticism to his feel-good, inclusive, bit oh so fashionable rubbish. Shortly thereafter, the Gluttoness suffered the same fate. Thirdly, the inordinate rant of The Most Petulant Child In The Kindergarten, a priest with a squeaky voice called Father Nicholson, is the last one forced to shut the door to Catholics. As far as I know, all three of them earn money from their blogs, and are therefore financially interested in controversy. That they are forced to curb a source of earning in order not to lose credibility as Catholic writers altogether really tells you something about their standing among sound Catholics.
But resistance is alive and well, and still kicking strongly. The Catholic laymen on the Internet are giving an example of militant orthodoxy that utterly shames those who should, in fact, be their shepherds. As most pulpits stay silent, an awful lot of keyboards are getting very, very vocal.
One is reminded of the time of Athanasius:,when, as Michael Davies – and before him John Henry Newman – remind us, it was the laity who fought against heresy with a determination that was nowhere to be seen among the clergy at large.
Keep up the good work, brave Catholic men and women. Keep going to the Internet and valiantly defend the Truth. It costs time, effort and adrenalines; but all your efforts and sacrifices – and loss of friends, and mockery, and hostility of various kind – will be as many deposits on your heavenly deposit account, and bear a very rich interest one day; the day when, if you are in any way like me, you will be in the greatest need of it.
As our ranks become thinner – they will one day, I am sure, as the tireless rhetoric of easy “mercy” carries away all but the most solidly instructed and most solidly motivated – we must become even more vocal. As we are more and more insulted, we must grow in stamina and readiness to give battle. Be under no illusion that dark times may end by themselves, or that TMAHICH will magically go out of fashion. TMAHICH belongs to the world, and the world will never stop to love his own. In Francis’ case the world is loved back, with a passion.
But you, my dear soldiers of Christ, never forget the words calling us to action. No matter what TMAHICH throws at us, what we must do is, and remains, the same:
Resist! Resist! Resist!
With hypocrisy worthy of TMAHICH – or else, ignorance probably equal – the German Bishops are now in their majority worrying how to face “pastoral challenges” that were “unheard of” until, they say, some years ago.
These people truly have no shame, no brains, or no education. I’d say the first, though.
What they pretend to believe is that perverts living together, perhaps with children, are a modern invention. Have they ever read St. Paul? Is Sodom something “unheard of” for them? Was it difficult to divorce one’s wife, and take another, in Roman times?
No. It isn’t, and it wasn’t. The only thing that is unheard of is the lack of shame of bishops whose only concern is to accommodate and include every pervert, rather than telling him a straight (!) thing or two about, say, Sodom. Salvation isn’t relevant, inclusion is; and when Christianity stays in the way, then you find ways around it, and call all this… being “pastoral”.
And their lie is twice mendacious: it is exactly the willingness of their predecessors to talk straight that caused open-air sexual perversion to be expunged from the traditional Christian society! This happened, in fact, to such an extent, that nowadays the very people who betray the work of those worthy shepherds of the past think they can claim these perverted situations are…”unheard of”! The arrogance of it!
These people are only one thing: Kirchensteuer prostitutes, and enemies of Christ. Though I do not doubt they bask in the popularity they enjoy among German cafeteria Catholics, and have no problem with the wealth it still allows them to enjoy.
Death will, one day, catch them all. On that day, many of them will discover that perverts and their enablers are by no means “unheard of”.
Because it will be full of those around them.
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.
Another example of the battle lines now forming in preparation of the Extraordinary Synod arrives from Rorate Caeli.
On the one hand, an abysmal failure of a bishop; one of those who have reduced the once very Catholic Belgium into a wasteland with perverted wannabe marriages and euthanasia. The man – who, if we are honest, looks like a crossing between a fag and a eunuch; like so many of his rosy, puffy, harmless colleagues – reflects on the crisis all around him, and the thought that he might be the problem does not enter his mind. No, more of him and of those like him is the solution. A church more accommodating, more complicitous, more superfluous than he himself already is. If the Bishop is a fag, he is a very stupid one.
Thankfully, not every bishop thinks in the same manner; at least, not all the times.
From Germany, of all places, comes a rather convincing reply; unusually blunt for a bishop; more than unusually blunt for a German bishop; and rather rare considering that this is an open, direct challenge to what a colleague of his has stated only days ago.
They aren’t all atheists, then, these Western bishops. They aren’t all obsessed with being popular, and in the graces of TMAHICH. Some of them do have some fear of the Lord left. Some of them do understand that to be silent is to be an accomplice. Some of them still think a Bishop than a stupid marketing man, peddling an even more stupid product, with an extremely high content of saccharin, in which the public is not interested.
How many of them are there around in Western Europe? Clearly the minority. Perhaps a tiny one.
The skull of the others will pave the ways of hell. A hell in which they clearly do not believe.
Look at Bishop’s puffy, self-satisfied, smug fag-face and make your own estimate about the odds in his sad case. Which means, of course, that it is a work for mercy to pray for his conversion and repentance; fag-face and all.
The battle lines are forming. Many whom we thought more or less our friends will betray us (bishop Tobin is the last; no doubt, many will follow). Our lines will be very, very thin compared to those of our enemies. And our enemies will try to impress you with their white, red or purple robes, and will tell you with smiling faces and soothing voices that you see, we have now decided to “be merciful”; which, of course, we never were before.
On the other side are the few who think that what the Church always thought right is right, because it's what… the Church has always believed. Their number is small, and it is going to become smaller in the foreseeable future. They are, truth be told, very polemic and very assertive. They must be, because they are the few besieged in Fort Alamo, whilst their besiegers can smile and relax, looking at their endless cohorts, and play the nice guy whilst they line the cannons against the fort.
“Look at how bitter those people are!”, the besiegers will tell to their plauding soldiers. “So bigoted, so unpleasant, so uncharitable, so… un-merciful!” So, or in similar word, they will cry, and the many public adulterers among their troops will be those who cheer the loudest.
“Compare with us, with our serene and profound theology, approved by the Holy Father himself! Aren't we the nicest bunch! Please applaud us, and remember us in your Will!”
Yes: we are few, and besieged. We hold a little fort of sanity, surrounded by the huge army of “give me an excuse” – “c”atholics, who possibly believe that as long as the numbers are with them, heaven will be too.
There's nowhere in Church teaching that salvation is earned by siding with the bigger side. The road to perdition has always been very wide, and with TMAHICH it is being enlarged and made to a superhighway as we speak. A generation that betrays Christ is a generation that Christ will discard, and not many might be those able to claim sufficient ignorance to at least make it to purgatory. May God have mercy on as many as He thinks fit among the deceived. May He punish the deceivers with all the might of His Justice.
What I see around me is an army of purpled puttanelle offering easy excuses, and cafeteria “c”atholics pretending to accept them; well knowing, all of the former as well as very many of the latter, that this is not what the Church has always taught; that it cannot be that Christ allowed the Church to deceive the faithful these two thousand years; that what they are being offered is the potion of some ecclesiastical Dulcamara, promising them the remission of sin and the obliteration of guilt against continued support.
The battle lines are forming. Fort Alamo on one side, and TMAHICH's immense and growing army on the other. But this Fort Alamo has Christ Himself defending it. It will be battered, gunned, left to hunger and thirst. But it will never be defeated.
Cheer up, then, and do not become despondent at the sight of the immense army around you. We have Christ's promise:
I hear from various sides the reassuring calls of cardinals, bishops, priests and simple bloggers telling us that doctrine cannot change, and therefore we have nothing to fear from the October Synod.
I would not be so sure of that. I think we have much to fear.
True, doctrine can't change, because Truth cannot. Even if Francis himself would declare from the balcony in St Peter that fornication is not a sin, or that two and two is five, truth would not change in the least.
But this is not the way TMAHICH operates. He is not interested in open conflict with the strong. He does not touch the SSPX, much less 2,000 years of official Church pronouncements. What he does is to sabotage Catholicism in the praxis, in the everyday living of the Church; safe in the knowledge that 95% of Western Catholics don't know much of doctrine, but read the newspapers or receive the echo of the headlines.
Francis will not openly defy doctrine. There is more than one way to skin a cat. He will sabotage, mock, undermine, belittle, and vilify it. He will do so by creating a climate, an environment of change openly practiced but not officially proclaimed.
Take the Argentinian concubine to whom the Unholy Father would have said she can go to communion.
Has Francis officially proclaimed concubinage is no obstacle to receiving? Of course not. Has he reaffirmed Catholic teaching? No, he did not do it either. Has he at least denied he said such words to the woman? No, he hasn't. Has he affirmed he did? No, not at all.
Result? The whole world knows, senses, feels Francis is the chap to say such things. They clearly perceive he would like to say such things; and whether his tongue has slipped in a phone call or not, they know he would speak in this way for all the world to see, if he only could.
This is what everyone, bar the retarded and the inveterate Pollyannas, understands. The climate has been created. The lío is going on full steam. Dissenters, concubines, perverts know that Francis is on their side against Church teaching.
The Synod can begin.
At this synod, not much will be necessary to subvert the praxis, and it will most certainly not be necessary to attack the rules to do so. De jure, the rules will be very solemnly affirmed, for the joy of the Pollyannas happily licking their lollipop and writing on various blogs how gracious it was of Francis to give it to them. De facto, just a few carefully chosen words in official documents, saying but also not saying that the priest can, in case, when the circumstances allow, having regard for the particular situation, after weighing all the pros and cons, deal with the situation with mercy, will be enough. Actually, I now suspect that just the mentioning of this by Francis most devilishly and subversively used word, mercy, once will be enough to cause a real revolutionary outburst in the church in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, and elsewhere.
One phrase, carefully worded, and passed to the news outlets as the unofficial “key to the synod”, and “reflecting the mind of this merciful Pope”. This is all that is needed.
The world will exult, the concubines will feel vindicated, the Church will be vilified, perverts of all sorts will say now it's their turn, sacrilege will spread everywhere in the West not as isolated abuse, but as the new “alternative praxis of mercy”.
The Pollyanna will, very happily, lick at their lollipop.
“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! To use a word of St. John XXIII: it is the Holy Spirit that updates the Church. Really, he really updates it and keeps it going.”
“And we Christians must ask the Lord for the grace of docility to the Holy Spirit. Docility in this Spirit, who speaks to us in our heart, who speaks to us in all of life’s circumstances, who speaks to us in the Church’s life, in Christian communities, who is always speaking to us.”
Pope Francis, “off-the-cuff” homily, 12 May 2014.
A wannabe “c”atholic publication has republished this. The armies are clearly positioning themselves before next month’s battle.
Pope Francis obviously leads the heretical, blasphemous, sacrilegious side. He can’t open his mouth without giving clues as to how he thinks, and how he thinks it’s straight from the Heresy Manual.
The idea that the Church “moves forward” is clearly to be understood in a theological sense and reeks of Modernism from very, very far. The following words clearly expand on the concept: “more and more” gives an idea of continuous revolution; “beyond the limits” clearly states the revolution ignores any limit; the final “onwords” reinforces the concept. Pure Modernism, and in an aggressive form to boot.
This Pope is a damn theological Castroite.
Then he gets even more explicit: the Holy Spirit “guides” the Church towards the just mentioned regions “beyond the limits”. If you don’t get this, you cannot understand the Church. He will make unthinkable choices, unimaginable to those who have not listened to his push to go “beyond the limit”.
We must ask the lord for the kind of “docility” that allows us to throw away the Truth (of yesterday) for the “unthinkable” (of today). But how do we know what the Holy Spirit wants from us? By listening to “our hearts” (boy, this is gay!) and by listening to what the contracepting, fornicating, concubinating, and an awful lot of other “-ing” “Christian communities” have to say.
Spoken like a true liberal Protestant.
May the Lord, in His Goodness, strike this dangerous clown down; or cause him to resign; or in any way keep this scourge away from us, and from that Holy Mother Church he so evidently hates and despises.
Not for the first time, today I got the impression the off-the-cuff statements of the Unholy Father are fuelled by the fruit of the grape, because the “spontaneity” of his statements is so pregnant of consequences that one can only suppose a sober man would think twice before pronouncing them. Particularly if this man is in charge of the Church.
This time, Francis compares – in an unspoken, but clear enough way – himself and those who don’t know jack about doctrine but are “moved by the Spirit” to those properly educated clergymen who, being fit in matters of Truth, keep harassing him with their obnoxious remarks and their attempt to block his Glorious March Of Mercy.
How peeved the Unholy Father is can clearly be seen at the way with which he seems to correct previous “unjudgmental” remarks of him, as he points out that if one is moved by the Spirit, then no one can judge him, but he can judge everything.
The stupidity of this train of thoughts is evident: everyone who deems himself “moved by the Spirit” is now, with papal approval, allowed to say whatever he pleases because hey, he is a Speaker Of Truth. Starting from the Pope himself.
But even more stupid Francis becomes when he makes a parallel between Jesus and Paul as opposed to the educated, but in the last analysis boring and sterile theologians of his time; theologians who have nothing of new and daring themselves, and are therefore not loved by the people; they clearly are conventional, and not “moved by the Spirit”.
The comparison is somewhere between stupid and blasphemous. The duty of the theologian and seminarian is exactly to apprehend a complex Truth that the Church declares divinely inspired, not to go around inventing new Truths with the pretext of a new “inspiration”. The work of the theologian cannot be “new” in any way, because his duty is exactly to preserve and transmit the work of the Holy Ghost in those the Church has declared divinely inspired, and therefore to protect that Truth that is now unchangeable, utterly opposed to any “new movement”.
The theologian of the Gregoriana can never be radically new, because Jesus already was. He can never compete in inspiration with St Paul, he must rather explain and protect the inspiration of the latter. He can never claim that he is “moved” by “the Spirit” in any new direction, because this would contradict the Divine Inspiration in the first place!
You know what I think is happening (beside the alcohol)? Francis is under fire from all sides for his attempt to desecrate the Most Holy Sacrament. He hears from all sides voices reminding him of what the Truth is. He must acknowledge their superior wisdom, and has no instrument to counter their argument. Therefore, he takes refuge in the “inspiration” tale: I am moved by the Spirit, and therefore I can change that truth you all know so well; because my new and divinely sourced inspiration make me superior to you in the same way as Paul was superior to the Jews. You may have five degrees in theology; but in me God Himself speaks.
In case you have not got it yet, this kind of talk clearly has to do with the October Synod. The boring theologians on one side, the “spirit of Christ” (which contradicts what the boring theologians say) on the other.
Beware of the wolves.
Bishop Galantino is not new to headlines of the wrong kind, and yours truly has already reported about what kind of circus article we are dealing with in this sad case.
More and more worried with out-Francising Francis – a feat not easy in itself – or perhaps sent by Francis himself to pave the way for a new “sacrilege offensive” as the October synod rapidly approaches, the man is now on record with other scandalous affirmations, which really give all the measure of the extent to which he has prostituted himself to the world.
Galantino’s willingly made points are the following:
1. The church must make everyone feel at home.
Why it should be so, it remains unsaid. Since the beginning, the Church has maintained that if you put yourself out of the home, it is much better for you to be aware of it. Shall we, now, let Muslims, Hindus, Protestants, open adulterers, open perverts and the like also feel “at home”? What is this, a third-rate hotel which rents rooms by the hour in an unsavoury part of town, or the Church of Christ?
2. There is something like “unconventional couples”.
Subversion often goes with the creation of new words to match the subversive ideology. The word Bishop Cretino Galantino is looking for is “concubines”. For now at least: as the word could, one day, be used by the same man to describe couple consisting of two men, two women, a man and a dog, or the like.
Such couples – all of them – have always existed, as human nature does not fundamentally change. It’s not that they have begun after, erm, V II… Rather, the Bishop’s desire to create new ways of saying old things is a very obvious manifestation of his desire to substitute Christian morality for a worldly one. From their fruits you will recognise them.
3. Truth must be called “prejudice”.
Someone please tell this cretin that concubines live in mortal sin, and no amount of political correctness can change an iota in the crude facts of life. The scandal is there, the sin is there. Of course people living in scandal will meet with condemnation. They will, in fact, meet with the condemnation they have deserved; doubly so, because they cause scandal.
Every concubine couple is a bomb put under the chair of Marriage. Full stop. Of course I’m “prejudiced”. I believe in God, and in the Marriage He created.
4. The exclusion of people in mortal sin from the Sacraments is “a burden”, an “unjustified price to pay”, and “de facto discrimination”.
Silly me! I thought it is the sin which was the burden! Silly me, I thought the sin sends one, if not repented of, straight to hell! Silly me, I thought the exclusion from the sacraments – until the grave scandal continues and there is no repentance – is there exactly to make the sinner aware of the very deep shit in which he has put himself! How uninformed I was! It is a “burden”, don’t you know?
This way, we discover that the Church has always imposed an “unjustified price” on public concubines, “de facto” discriminating them. Heaven, is this cretin a Christian in the first place? His is nothing less than a war declaration on basic Christian morality; a new system of (non) values in which “discrimination” and “not making people feel at home” are the new mortal sins, and – if at all – the only ones remaining. It is obvious even to a retard that if one admits the gravity of the sin, he must approve the harshness of the sanction; and that, conversely, lamenting the latter means to negate the former. But we don’t live in logical times. We live in the “age of mercy”.
We must pray that Bishop Galantino repents – better said: starts believing in God and repents -. Let us pray that he comes to his senses and says it out loud. It’s never too late. Dio perdona tante cose per un’opera di misericordia, “God forgives many things for a work of mercy”.
Let us hope and pray, for him and the countless sheep he is trying to lead astray. If he should not, let us reflect that he will die in his rebellion to Christ and go to hell, where he – in this case – belongs not one but one thousand times; together with all the other like him, prostituting themselves to the world, and whoring their way to damnation for the sake of power and popularity.
The heretics of yore, burning at the stake, had it much better than this little slut. They had a massive, massive chance of repentance as all the illusions of fame and recognition, of power and glory, or simply all the delusions of an arrogant mind were confronted with the imminence of their ignominious end.
Not so for the modern heretics. They are in positions of great power, and are greatly applauded. The Pope himself promotes and protects them. A Pope to whom, too, the stake would be a blessing, if a heretical Pope could be blessed in that way.
From their fruits you will recognise them. But from their appointments you will recognise them, too.
Boy, Dante would have a lot of fun with these two.
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.
This morning, Vincent “Quisling” Nichols had a diabetes-inducing homily presumably read in all the churches unhappily under his jurisdiction; the homily explaining to us a lot of things about Pentecost and marriage, whilst avoiding to say anything of that which absolutely had to be said.
I was awake during the entire homily (at least, I think so) and I could not detect one single word directly aimed at so-called same sex marriages. Rather, there was a lot of waffling about how good it is when people marry, and the sun shines, and the cows graze happily in the green fields of England. Apparently, the Cardinal’s way to fight against vice is to talk to Catholics about the beauty of the Sacraments. Imagine Churchill opposing Nazi Germany by simply extolling the virtues of British democracy…
Cardinal Quisling’s strategy is therefore as follows: when so-called “civil partnerships” are approved by law, he says Catholicism is not against it (scandalous sodomy is obviously not a problem to him) but you see, we should pay attention not to call it marriage, because well, that wouldn’t be good; no, the Church wouldn’t really approve…
When it is proposed to institute so-called same-sex marriages, Cardinal Quisling mounts a very faint resistance, which does not include any very open, very hard, clash with the heathen government of the Gay Chameleon, but rather operates only on Catholic pewsitter: “please send a mail to your MP; if you can; unless it’s too much effort….” . This saved face with the Catholics, whilst being the obedient servant of the world was clearly the order of the day, and the plan from the start.
Now that the law is introduced, Cardinal Quisling is extremely fast in accepting the status quo. Next year is General Election Year, and no word of resistance, or repeal, from him. No debate, no opposition, no denunciation. To Cardinal Quisling, that’s the way it is, and it’s fine with him. Absolutely. No doubt. But how beautiful it is, when Catholics marry…
There was, in one word, no trace of that hell on earth that is the only read on why Vincent “Quisling” Nichols has the job of running a (big) diocese.
Instead, we get to hear the most insipid, innocuous waffle ever come out of someone determined not to anger anyone, but particularly determined not to anger the enemies of Christ.
This, about the militant part; the part, I mean, which wasn’t there.
There was also an ominous reference to the October Synod, and whilst I obviously haven’t recorded the words, there was an indirect reference to the problem of how to deal with the “challenge” of people who are coping with the “failure” of their marriage.
Last time I looked, the real problem wasn’t the failure. A failed marriage is a big problem, but does not exclude from communion; public, continuing adultery does.
I do not recall hearing the words “scandal” or “adultery” this morning; which is strange, considering Quisling could effortlessly extract marriage out of Pentecost.
My impression was rather that Cardinal Quisling implied that something should be done for the poor adulterous souls. Hey, nobody’s perfect, right?
The problem of adultery is, thus, being quietly removed a bit at a time; the “suffering” is in the foreground; put it that way, one who is in favour of letting the “suffering” continue is let to feel like he is drowning kitten, or massacring baby seals.
This Quisling is quite a dark soul. A wolf in sheep’s clothes. An agent of the enemy. A first-class Quisling, and a first-rate Wormtongue. In short, he is an utter and complete disgrace.
It is a chilling thought to reflect that either him, or one every bit as bad as him, could very well be the next Pope.
Pray for the Church. That she may be freed from these people. And that the punishment The Lord has sent us may be removed from us soon.
I never understood – it must be my lack of experience of the real thing – why the comparison of the Church as a “field hospital” should be something leading to heresy, or perversion of doctrine through other and more Jesuitical ways.
What is a field hospital there for? To heal the sick and wounded, I would say.
I imagine that in a field hospital no one looks to which army the wounded belongs: friend or enemy, the field hospital accepts everyone. Very fine. Beautiful. Utterly Christian.
But then, the absolute priority of the doctors in the field hospital is, I think, saving the patients’ life. If, to do this, very unpleasant things are necessary – things that would be unthinkable in less serious circumstances, like amputations – then the doctors go on and do what they have to do, because the greater good – the human life – has precedence over the lesser good – the limb -.
The field hospital, in other words, is not there to tell the wounded they are healthy and all fine, but to make them healthy again, with whatever means necessary.
Not differently, if you ask me, for the field hospital that we call the Church.
No one is left out. Prostitutes, concubines, perverts, sinners of all sorts, Catholic and not, Christian and not, are all welcomed in. But they are welcomed in in order that they may be healed. This healing is, and can only be, the only priority, and the goal to which, if necessary, everything else must be sacrificed. If in order to save a human life a limb can be sacrificed, it is evident that in order to save the infinitely more important soul no sacrifice is too big.
When I read people writing “the concubine should not stop living in mortal sin, because otherwise the children would (insert here your excuse: hate the church, change schools, have to do without a garden, see their father a bit less, which does not even have to be, etc), I truly wonder whether these people once in their life stopped and examined hell as a real possibility, or – as it is far more probable – whether they think that hell never concerns them, so the good of the children is the first priority.
It is, for these people, as if Christ were something you should try to accommodate, if no detriment to a host of other priorities results from it. Hey, there is a problem of cost! (how about downsizing). Hey, there is a problem of schools! (how about spending more time helping your children). Hey, the children would, (oohhh, ahhh: can’t you see me crying?) **lose their father!** (no, they wouldn’t). Hey, there is one more of the infinite series of excuses everyone can put in the middle (are they more important than your salvation? Yes or no).
The “field hospital” meme, Francis style, is an excuse. It is as inane and senseless as this pontificate. The Church is there to lead souls to heaven. She is not there to let them feel good. This is not healing, but accompanying these souls all the way to death. It is telling the patient some happy story whilst the gangrene advances, because it would upset him too much to say that if he wants to save his life, the leg must go.
The Kasperites are not concerned about salvation. Their focus is exclusively on the worldly. When the wounded adulterous woman comes in their field hospital, to them “healing” is not helping her to save her soul, but helping her to damn her soul, eating and drinking God’s judgment upon herself.
“We must find ways to help her receive communion”, they think. They do not think “we must find ways to make her worthy of communion”. They aren’t afraid of hell and they have no fear of the Lord, so they can’t see the sacrilege. To them, it is as if there were only legalistic, procedural obstacles that must be cleared, so that “mercy” may advance.
This is the very crux of Kasperite thinking: “let us find a way that suits you”, instead of “let us follow Christ’s way”.
It pains me very, very much to say that as the weeks and months to this disgraceful Synod pass, a climate of expectation is being created, the aim of which is to arrive to October in readiness for the mother of all excuses: “now it’s too late to not do anything”. Schisms will be painted on the wall. Mass defections. The need to “heal” after the pedophile priests scandal (the pedophile priest scandal is always handy; but the canonisation of a Pope who failed egregiously in the matter is wonderful, too). An orgy of “pastoral” thinking. A gradualism after which it is better for now to pave ways for sacrilege, and then try to teach the faithful better; something which has never been done in the first place. Infinite excuses will be found. They will be as numerous as human sins.
When it’s done, all hell will – literally- break loose. The popolo bue, the tepid and unthinking majority, will follow without any trouble. They don’t understand what scandal is, because the priest only talks about the “joy of being a Christian”. And how can Mrs Smith, who partakes of such “joy”, be so, oohhh sooo cruelly left out?
An army of blind will follow their blind pastors. They will be told “this is how we do things now”. They will never stop and think whether “how we do things now” is sacrilegious or not, and whether priests did differently then, and why. They won’t, because they never think in terms of sacrilege, but only of niceness. They never see the danger of hell, only the present discomfort at being counter-cultural, “uncharitable”, or not “inclusive”.
They will say “oh, of course it’s fine. Mrs Smith isn’t doing any harm to anyone!”.
She is doing harm to Jesus first, is the answer, and to the real wife of Mr Smith second. Nowadays, most people do not even realise that a sin is something that offends God, not something that hurts the cat.
Alas, in the religion of niceness Jesus has no place, sin is only when someone we know and like is hurt – never the former wife; who knows her, after all? – and being a nice “community” is next to holiness.
This is not a field hospital.
This is a front line brothel.
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.
We have in the past weeks read several statements from Church prelates about the fundamental impossibility to reconcile Jesus' teaching about the indissolubility of marriage, the obvious nature of public adultery of what some disgraceful bishops call “good remarriage”, and the constant teaching of the Church about it being a sacrilege to receive whilst in mortal sin with the modern view of “mercy”; the latter consisting in helping people who have no fear of The Lord go to hell under shepherds who have forgotten His existence a long time ago.
Some of the statements we read around are more definitive (Cardinal Mueller and Cardinal Caffara come to mind), but in what I read a common message emerges: it can never work.
Now, it must be clear to us that we are in front of a huge test here, not only in the rather less probable case that Francis issues official “road maps” allowing public adulterers to (believe they can) receive, but even in the far more probable case that the rules are merely circumvented and made a mockery of by a generic permission to the priest – say: , “in very particular cases”, “after hearing the partners”, and when he is satisfied that they “understand” the “problematic” nature of their relationship, and all the other subtly worded vague “securities” and “precautions” that one can imagine – to give communion to them, perhaps with or perhaps without the approval of the bishop.
What will then, in this case, our prelates do? Will they cry very loud that what has been done is an exercise of hollowing out Church rules of probably unprecedented dimension? Will they continue to do so after the first excitement has passed? Or will they consider the resulting problems merely “local” issues, about which they are not qualified to talk more than they would be concerning the internal diocesan affair of their colleague bishops and archbishops?
This is not a little question, because if the latter way is chosen a huge gate will be opened for the creation of a de facto double Church – or a de facto openly schismatic behaviour -, in which some dioceses and countries – particularly in Asia and Africa, if experience is any guidance – continue to forbid such desecrations under the orders of bishops who believe in God, and many other dioceses and Countries will allow the formation of a generalised heteropraxis with the acquiescence of bishops who don't. How big the pressure would soon become in the West to “get on with the programme”, you can easily imagine.
From October, it might not be enough to simply run one's diocese in an halfway orthodox way. To do so would be to open the door to Franciscan devastation wherever a bishop has lost the fear of the Lord, and you can be sure the new appointments would fall on those so inclined. If the Obama hits the fan, it will be the duty of every sound Catholic, whether pewsitter or Cardinal, to denounce the scandal according to his rank and to the means at his disposal.
Will, in this case, the Mueller and Caffarra of this world stand up for Christ? Or will they retire behind their respective “competencies”? Who will speak for Christ? Who will cry “sacrilege” to heaven, and openly denounce the Pope for doing so?
I frankly don't know. I fear the worse. I fear we will hear from many corners the usual excuse of all cowards and of all losers: “it's too late now”. But a priest is required to die for Christ. That's why he is priest. A bishop or cardinal the more so.
October will very probably be a huge test for countless Western bishops and priests. I do not know how many will stand the test. I am rather worried, though.
And so you are now, dear reader, a Pope. A Very Bad One. I mean, one of those Gandhi-cum-Dalai Lama people unable to go beyond the most banal platitudes, but so much in love with themselves they will do everything to please the world that lavishes praises on them.
One of the problems you have, my dear reader turned bad Pope, is the army of divorced Catholics who live with their lovers. This bothers you. Not, mind, because they live with their lovers; rather, because they lament your Church’s (and, by extension, yours) lack of approval for their behaviour. You like approval. These people are very loud. They think like the world, and the world likes them, and you want to be liked by the world. Ergo, you must do something for them.
Now: being a bad Pope, you also think that all these old notions of “judging others” should be discarded. If people are in good faith and follow their conscience, who are you to judge? A scribe? A hypocrite? A Holy Card face?
No, you have to do something there. Still, you realise that fundamental changes in the way the Church operates would cause a huge stir, and real doctrinal changes are not allowed to you anyway. After talking to your advisors – the homosexual friend of yours is a smart chap; yes, you know, but who are you to judge? – they suggest that you do the following:
1. Announce an extraordinary synod, taking your time: 13 or 14 months, say. This needs to be prepared carefully, you know.
2. Allow those most interested in material changes to make a lot of noise, demand shockingly sweeping reforms, and even create the expectation that they are now unavoidable. You will support them not openly, but clearly enough. You will talk generally of the necessity of “not judging”, and they will fill your slogan with the desired content. You will praise the one or other Cardinal on their side. But not too much. You are on the sidelines.
3. Wait for the unavoidable reaction and huge resistance, which you know will come. Allow the opposing camps to fight it to the knife; all the while inviting the contending parties to “tolerance”, “dialogue” and, of course, “charity”. At this point, the two sides have equal dignity. It’s not about right and wrong, you will let it transpire; rather, it is about how mercy must be lived in these oh so new times of ours, in which new phenomena, unknown to humanity before, have appeared: like sluttish wives and horny husbands, broken marriages and public concubines. If the Cardinals are against you, you will use the bishops – far more numerous, younger, and hungrier – to let things go your way. It’s not you, you see. It must be the “Spirit”. You will talk about the “Spirit” a lot; because like parsley, the “Spirit” can be used everywhere.
4. At the very end, intervene with a solution that whilst negating to the reformers the absurdly unrealistic changes they have pretended to demand, concedes to them vastly more than what would have been feasible if the unrealistic and absurd demands had not been made in the first place. You have listened to everyone. You have noticed the cry for help, the need for reform. You can feel the “Spirit” work. The reforms of VII must be continued. We live in the time of mercy now.
At this point, you have delivered for your friends more than they could ever dream of, whilst being presented by your useful idiots – a Pope has never any scarcity of those – as a merciful, conservative Pope wisely steering the Church through difficult times. Countless bloggers will praise your delicate and pastoral hand, and the Catholic Press will start to prepare the faithful for your now allegedly unavoidable canonisation.
5. This is the consolidation phase, the maintenance programme, but also the harvest time. The world will rejoice. You have delivered again. The secular press will point out to how much you are demolishing, er, modernising, the way the Church understands Herself. They will send to their readers the clear message that the Church was always wrong anyway, and you get it; that you are now destroying all that can reasonably be destroyed considering the constraints of your position; that whilst still the Pope, you are on their side. They will still feebly criticise you at times – for example, for not openly celebrating sodomy – but this will work for you just fine, as the Pollyannas’ Army will immediately pick up every criticism to shout to the world how orthodox you are. “Is the Pope Catholic?”, they will ask, smiling. Business as usual, folks. Nothing to look at; or, as the Italian guard would say: circolare, circolare!
At this point, your victory will be almost total. Yes, a minority of party-poopers will insist in criticising you. They will do so vocally, insistently, for as long as you live. They will use harsh words. But you are prepared. You will launch the Pollyannas’ Army against them; you will talk all the time about the “judgmental” people, the “hypocrites”, the “Neo-Pelagians”. You will call them all sorts of names and insult them in all possible ways, whilst repeating without pause that we must not be judgmental. They will never be destroyed, but they won’t be much in your way, either, at least if things go according to plan. You will, in fact, try to use them to present yourself as the innocent victim of “judgmentalism”, the man of mercy criticised by two-dimensional, holy-card-like “people of the law”.
Dear reader and bad Pope, as a I write this you are at point 2, and everything is going according to plan. Point 3 will be a huge shock for Catholics, but it will work well for you. Point 4 will be the most difficult for you personally. Point 5 might be challenging but, given time, perfectly doable.
At every moment, you will be free to backpedal if you see the game is getting too dangerous. You will be, at all times, the one who calls the shots, the one who brakes publicly and sends covert messages it is time to put the foot on the gas again. Nothing will be directly attributed to you until the very end; and when the end game comes you will be seen to merely react, wisely and pastorally, to external circumstances, whilst listening to the Spirit.
So do not worry. Allow other people to fight your fight. But you, you just stay calm: kiss children, embrace wheelchairs, stay near to the cameras, and prepare the ground.
There’s no downside for you. You will get out of this as the winner anyway.
The world is such a fool.
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?
More Lio coming.
Rather predictably, I would say; then whilst there is no Kirchensteuer here our bishops, priests and faithful aren’t, on average, so much better than in Germany.
This is what the Tablet has to report:
Two bishops of England and Wales have broken ranks with their confreres with one calling for developments in church teaching on human sexuality and the other criticising the collective decision not to publish the findings of a Vatican survey.
The Bishop of Middlesbrough, Terence Drainey, called for a “radical re-examination of human sexuality” that could lead to a development in church teaching in areas such as contraception, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage and cohabitation and the role of women in the Church.
Bishop Tom Burns of Menevia says that in the interests of transparency the bishops should publish the findings of a Vatican survey which asked questions on cohabitation, contraception and same-sex marriage. In an article for The Tablet, Bishop Burns notes “the height and depth and width of the intense pleas made by God’s people for urgent attention to their pastoral needs”.
It gets funnier: Bishop Burns thinks there is something like “good remarriages”. He means not the remarriage of a widow, but when a marriage still exists. His Gospel must be a personalised version. Let’s peep in:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit a remarriage, but there are good ones: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth a remarriage, but there are good ones.
The man is, certainly, so daft that a 29 page report is enough to let him forget what job he has, and why.
Bishop Drainey is at times more “nuanced”, and prefers to be quoted with “pastoral solutions”, calling public adultery “struggling” and choosing a couple among the most popular fluffy words, “welcome” and “include”. But he is also quoted with the biggest bomb: “radical re-examination of human sexuality”. That this is an oxymoron for every Christian, he does not even realise.
That’s another wasted clerical habit.
This will become a huge mess.
The concerted attack that started from the German-speaking Countries will now extend to vast part of the West. A huge expectation for “change” will be created. The Synod will start with the idea that changes now will have to come, lest hail, locusts and schism befall us.
In the end, pastoral solutions will be introduced, and we will be told to rejoice because no dogma was raped.
Everything according to the script prepared last September, and carefully executed since.
Lord, have mercy!
The German bishops have picked the new head of the Bishop’s conference as successor of the (un)worthy Archbishop of Freiburg, Robert Zollitsch.
Now put yourself in the shoes of these brave men. They must pick someone with the right Modernist cards, because they need someone ferrying them in the Land of Sacrilege, where public adulterers receive communion and therefore continue to pay the Kirchensteuer. But this Modernist prelate must be one in the graces of the Man In Black Shoes, because they will need some lobby work here and you can’t bee too careful when you are asking the Vatican to sanction your mass sacrilege.
Fortunately for them, there is a man who ticks all the boxes: Cardinal Marx has a solid record of enmity of Christ, and is therefore very well suited for the Creat Tcherman Revolution; but crucially, he is also a member of the gang of eight, which means he has the ear of the Pope. Yep, he’s the man.
Therefore, the very aptly named Marx is now elected the head of the German Bishops’ Conference. What does he do first? He lets it be known that he considers it a “viable path” that “divorced people who recognize their failure can, after a penitential period, seek readmission to the sacraments.”
There. The man leaves no doubt as to why he has been chosen for the position.
Lord, have mercy. And in your good time, free us from this papacy.
This post is going to be harsh.
I mean, not pussycat harsh. Mundabor harsh. Keep reading at your peril. Complaints will not be published.
Where I grew up, divorce was a heavy social stain. It was already so in bigger cities; but far more so in littler ones.
The reasoning was, and is, very simple because in the end, life is a simple thing: marriage is a cooperation for life, for which two people decide to stake the only card they have. It is also the most important decision of their lives. Therefore, if the marriage fails they have – irrespective of the individual circumstances – both failed in the most important thing of their lives. It’s as simple as that.
I can’t tell you the times I have heard this music in my family, and I can tell you my family was not dominated by churchgoing Catholics – though cultural Catholics, yes.
The man, or woman, you choose, is the man or woman you have deemed good enough to get the only card you have. If the cooperation fails, there’s no way one of the two can call himself innocent. Yes, the wife is a slut. But a real man does not marry a slut, only a child does. Yes, the husband has a wandering eye. But a woman – like the man just mentioned – should have known beforehand what deal she was getting, instead of drowning in a sea of emotionalism and marry just because of “luv”, and then refuse the delivery of the parcel she ordered.
This is why in case of divorce – or separation, which was always the case before 1970 – the stigma remained attached to both. To one side generally more, if there was an obvious culprit. But to the other too, because it had managed to screw up the only thing he or she was required to get right in life. Because again, in that kind of society how much money you make, what a career you have, what house you live in and what car you drive was always far, far less important than whether you have an intact family. I can’t tell you the times I heard the phrase “se divorzi, sei un fallito”; “if you divorce, you are a failure”. Yes, this was so more clearly among the socially conservative minded. But boy, there was an awful lot of them.
Of course, this worked in that way because this was the way society worked. You can’t export this situation to work in countries, like all the Anglo-saxon ones, where such deadly seriousness in matters of marriage was probably dead after the First World War. But Italy was different, being blessedly free from divorce until 1970. When laws change, you will have to wait an entire generation until the morality of the common man follows the legal situation; but then the entire society is screwed, as a generation of children grow up knowing every marriage has a huge door with “emergency exit” written over it. Take away the door, and see how people’s perception of marriage change. Divorce is pure poison.
The results of this brutal social pressure were, though, beautiful. Low divorce rate even decades after the introduction of divorce, and a pervasive social control that worked rather well particularly in smaller centres, and not badly at all even in the big cities.
Note, though, that few people, twenty or thirty years ago, would have bought the thing with “luv”. Once you have married, they would have said, you have lost any right to look for “luv” elsewhere, until and unless your spouse does you the favour and kicks the bucket. If there were children, this search for “luv” was seen – and rightly so – as the madness of middle-aged adolescents, unable to take their responsibility and understand that when you have children, your own “happiness” must give way to a superior interest. Yes, it must give way to a superior interest. There are things bigger than oneself, and one’s happiness. Things like God, Fatherland, and Family; requiring you not to play with sacrament, to give your life on the battlefield if necessary, and put to put your family before your individual quest for emotional satisfaction. Millions of my generation grew up like this. We saw it work. We now see the new generations growing up with a different set of values: divorce, concubinage, even “same sex unions”, and one’s own selfish interests as the metre of what is good and worthy of legal and social protection. What a load of rubbish.
The old system worked. Was it harsh? You bet it was. Is it harsh to mock the young woman who looks like the White Whale at 28, and give her nicknames like “Forrestal”, “Nimitz” or the more generic “aircraft carrier”? Is it harsh to mock the boy who behaves like a girl at 15? Not many of those in the Italy I grew up in. Social control works a treat, but only if it’s harsh.
This has all gone now. Largely in Italy, and completely in more northern latitudes. If you ask me, divorce destroyed it more than anything else.
Nowadays, individual happiness is a human right. Your husband sleeps around, so you have the right to scar your children forever. Your wife is a nagging champ, so you have the right to be tempted by the younger colleague. A family is destroyed; but who cares, because there is simply no social price to pay: not in front of God, about Whom very few care; and not with the neighbours, about whom many more do.
Nowadays, everyone is so full of understanding. “It didn’t work. How sad”. “I am sure you’ll find a better man/woman soon”. “Today is the first day of the rest of your life”. Crap like that. Emotions galore. Families destroyed.
No. The violent drunkard is still your husband. The whore is still your wife. Even in those cases where you cannot live with them, you can still pray for them. That’s the lot you chose. That’s the card you played. It’s yours now. Yes, it’s harsh. Life is. The German poet Friedrich Schiller said it wonderfully:
“Drum prüfe, wer sich ewig bindet /Ob sich das Herz zum Herzen findet!”
“Let him check, he who binds himself forever, whether the heart matches the heart!”.
The same poet lets this follow by a short, but ominous warning: “Der Wahn ist kurz, die Reu ist lang”. The madness is short, the repentance long. Nowadays the madness is short; then up to the next madness. “Marry in haste, repent at leisure” has become “marry in haste, complain about the Church”.
As always, the destruction of family values has far-reaching consequences. In the last two or three generations in most Anglo-Saxon countries, divorce has been an obvious possibility for everyone. So obvious, that people are born with it. Therefore, all my readers from the US, Canada, Australia, the UK have been born and grew up in a society that accepted divorce. How can such a society breed and instil that concept of sacredness of a marriage that is so vital for the marriage to stand the inevitable tempests? If happiness is the new religion, why would a man not go away with the pretty young thing? Who will tell him “no, you must stay on the side of the mother of your children”? Why? He only wants to be happy! Who are you to judge? Has Francis not told you you should not condemn him? I could make similar reasoning for the other sex, but you get my drift.
If Argentina is anywhere similar to Italy – and I am pretty sure it is – I think this is the situation mentioned by the Bishop of Rome when he complains about those who condemn those who “experience failure” in their “luv”.
Being post-Catholic, Francis is obviously unconcerned with the social consequences of such “failed luv”. We were told at University – where people were also far more Catholic than Francis on his most Catholic day – that “every divorce is a bomb put under the chair of society”. Everyone understood it, and understood why. I doubt Francis does, or cares. It was fairly common thinking then; certainly it was among practising Catholics, and very often among conservative cultural Catholics. When one married, “luv” was just not part of the equation anymore, marriage was. The bed you made, and all that.
This is not Francis’ world, of course. He isn’t one to “judge”. It is not told, but implied “luv” is his sacrament. It is not told, but implied marriage must, if “necessary”, give way in some way the Synod will care to elaborate upon.
Implied, mind. Others, like Cardinal Kasper, will dig the marriage’s grave. Francis merely prepares the ground.
But I grew up in times when average people were far more Catholic than today’s Pope; when the social rules were fairly well-known; and when people were expected to decide like adults, and to live with the consequences. They knew – all of them knew, because those were the times – that there was only one go, and they were expected to use it well, and to know what they were doing. Marriage was, as people jokingly used to say, “the prison you chose”. It gives you the idea people were expected to live with the consequences of their actions, like adults; not run away like adolescents. It worked. It worked very well, and most people were smart enough to understand that the second chance wasn’t really likely to be better than the first; then when one has been able to screw the only important decision of his life, the probability he will make it all right the second time is – sacrament aside – slim.
This, as far as the “luv” thingy is concerned.
One suspects, though, that Bergoglio has another target in his sights: the communion for public adulterers. He does not say so, of course. But again, he creates perceptions; he builds a climate; he creates a “do not judge” narrative that can be exported ad libitum to any other situation. Don’t be a pharisee. We don’t do casuistry. You are a bad, bad Christian.
Comments are allowed, but only if they do not touch personal matters. I understand this touches some of you from rather near. I wasn’t there. I do not know you, whom you married, your circumstances, your social system. I understand you did not grow up in Italy. I am talking of the society I know, which I think is the society Bergoglio knows.
But please understand I have no desire to hear personal stories of recrimination. Where I grew up, no one was.
Am I the only one who thinks the exercise of the Extraordinary Synod was started by Francis precisely with the purpose of opening a way for public adulterers to receive communion, and the preparations are now well under way?
Let us see how the script would develop. First, the people decided to proceed to the Extraordinary Synod. Officially, in order to discuss “ways”. He leaves himself thirteen months’ time, so that the ground can be well prepared.
As always in these cases, he will not appear as the driving force of it all. Officially he is on the sides, an a “pastoral” but “concerned” way.
Meanwhile, his German demolition troops start making the lio Francis wishes so much. They make a democratic exercise of it, asking the turkey what they think of Thanksgiving. The turkeys answer they don’t like Thanksgiving at all, and think it unfair. The world press sides with the turkeys. The German, Swiss and Austrian clergy get very excited. The Pope shuts up.
Then the synod on the family begins. Of course, the issue is on the table. Francis invites Kasper – a man whose opinion on the matter are notorious, and of whom the Pope is an admirer – to give the keynote speech. Again, Francis sends the demolition troops at the front, whilst officially remaining neutral; but heavens, every retard must understand why, of all people, Kasper was the chosen one.
Punctually, Kasper enunciate the demolition programme: let us pretend the doctrine is untouchable, and let’s make as we please because of “pastoral” concerns. Francis says “thank you”.
At this point, clearly the expectation is growing, and it is obvious Francis himself is fostering this climate of “change” under the guise of “pastoral concern”.
Where do we go from there, is in my eyes rather easy to forecast: a climate of insisted and growing demand for “mercy”, as if those who are not the adulterers were the “elite”, and there was a kind of justified expectation for the sacrament of communion for all the public adulterers out there, who are so nice to the squirrels and never pluck a flower in order not to damage Creation.
When the synod starts, the passionate pleas of the German harlots in purple and red will be deafening. “Look at our clients, Holy Father! They are many, and very angry! They pay the Kirchensteuer! That’s a lot of money! Shall we not have mercy, and save the massive revenues with our “pastoral concern”? We have been sucking up to them for decades, you can’t abandon us now!”
No, they will not use these words. But yes, this is what they will mean. Because make no mistake: the issue has been brewing mostly in the countries where the Kirchensteuer is paid, and it has been brewing because the German adulterers, who are legion, think they can buy they own “vay” to the sacraments. The German prelates dutifully oblige.
In my native language we have a word for such a behaviour: puttanaggine.
In all this, Francis will not need to do much. He will remain on the sidelines most of the times, officially listening to the Muellers on the one side and to the Kaspers on the other side. Then he will reject the most outlandish proposals in order to appear moderate and orthodox (“ooohhhs” and “aaahhhs” of the Pollyanna Army: “what a good Pope we have! The Holy Ghost has hand-picked just the right one!”), but he will at the same time adopt formulations that leave the way free for the usual “special circumstances”, or “extraordinary cases”, or however it will be called; and obviously leaving the concrete decision to the “pastoral concern” of the men on the ground.
At that point the dams will be officially broken, and a flood of sacrilege under the guise of “pastoral concern” will ensue. Officially, the doctrine will remain the same, but in fact it will be made a mockery of. The Pollyannas (or the outright fifth columns) the world over will praise Francis’ “courage” and “pastoral concern”.
The Germans will continue to pay the Kirchensteuer, most of them anyway, for the time being. Within months, they will present the next list of demands, and the circus will start again.
Hey, they got their way with the communion; now it is clear “ze sky is ze limit”, nicht wahr?
I would be very surprised if this were not the final outcome, one way or the other. It seems to me everything is already decided, and we are merely being served the preparatory work and obligatory fake “debate”.
Rather than Francis, I smell Frank Underwood here.
“God gives some Popes, God tolerates some Popes and God inflicts some Popes.”
St. Vincent of Lerin
Once again, the intent of the Bishop of Rome concerning what is going to happen in October was clearly to be seen.
Not only has the man allowed “progressive” German prelates to run amok all this time, feigning a neutrality that is merely encouragement to make a mess; but he has now asked Cardinal Kasper to be the keynote speaker for the latest gathering of the College of Cardinals.
Kasper is a high-profile supporter of communion for public adulterers. Can there be any doubt about the message Francis is sending here?
In the same hypocritical style, Kasper has feigned not to offer solutions, merely questions. An easy thing to do, seen that everyone already knows what his answers are, and everyone knows Francis knows it.
It is very obvious Francis is steering the October synod in the direction wished by him, and sending not-very-subtle messages he wants the Kasper fraction to lead the “Spirit” in this matter.
Again, not very subtly he profited from the day to throw another bomb of the for him usual subversive arrogance, this time in the morning, at mass. I quote:
“When we find a Christian [who asks] if it is licit to do this and if the church could do that… [either] they do not have faith, or it is too weak.”
The man has just finished complaining about “casuistry”, and thrown more insults to those who care for doctrine and the respect of the rules. In pure Francispeak, he first insults an abstract category of people (those obsessed with rules and who according to him “have no faith” even if they may believe it – talk about “do not judge”!) and then throws in the bomb: if a Christian asks whether this or that is licit, he either has no faith or he has a too weak one.
If this is not the most stupidly subversive statement ever to get out from the mouth of a Pope I do not know what is. This is an official “everything goes” declaration, presented in sweeping general terms in order for it to be adopted by clerics, and perhaps by media outlets, all over the world following the tactics seen with the “do not judge” nuclear warhead. Very handy for the Extraordinary Synod.
I leave it to others to hide behind their finger and to say that if you look at it with the microscope, this is not really exactly what he wanted to say. This is very obviously what he wants you to understand he has said; because no Pope, however stupid or drunk or drugged, would ever abandon himself to such sweeping generalisations without the intention of having the easy-to-grasp slogan being used and abused everywhere. This is exactly what has happened with the “who am I to judge” nuclear explosion, whose fallout he has been happily enjoying since.
Please Lord, in your good time, free us from this scourge.
When I was born, in my Country by most marriages – Canonical and civil at the same time: the so-called matrimonio concordatario – the annulment of a marriage through the Sacra Rota led to the annulment of the civil effects of the marriage. In short, this meant that upon annulment the spouses were rid of any major direct obligation toward each other. This clearly made sense: once the marriage is understood primarily as a sacrament with civil recognition, if the marriage never took place the civil effects between the non-spouses are non-existent, too. It was more complicated than that – for example concerning the children, who were obviously still legitimate children of a now annulled marriage – but you already get the gist: broadly speaking no alimony, and no splitting of assets. Again, this makes sense: the two have never been married. If they have patrimonial arrangements they want to settle between them, they can do it anytime with normal civil contracts that are nothing to do with the sacrament – say: donations, creation of partnerships, endowments, & Co. – but once the marriage has never taken place, it has… never taken place as regards the mutual relationship of the couple.
Both these, alimony and asset splitting, are now in place – by many marriages at least; it is possible to ring-fence one's assets from the spouse, and alimony is rather more limited than in the US – in Italy and, interestingly, in Germany, where it is to be feared a tsunami of “pastoral annulments” might now be on its way.
One wonders how many Germans, or Italians come to that, would be ready to claim that they never wanted to marry, and that their marriage must be declared canonically void, if the annulment were to extend to the civil law part of the marriage and have heavy consequences on the payment they can expect. They would probably say that they were never married when it is convenient to make communion, but actually they were always married when it is convenient to get the money. Having one cake and eating it, I would call it.
Of course, you will say in most Western countries a marriage is a civil law contract fully separated from the sacrament, and which will remain in force irrespective of the destiny of the sacrament. But you see, interestingly enough this was not the case in Italy, because the marriage was seen to such an extent as a sacrament first and foremost, that it was utterly natural to link its civil effects to the validity of… the sacrament! An understanding of life that has now all but disappeared from our secularised societies. And yes, it wasn't easy to obtain an annulment; and yes, the courts of the Church (the Sacra Rota) decided about the validity of Italian civil law transactions.
What a beautiful thinking. What a truly Catholic Weltanschauung.
Just a thought, of course…
Brilliant homily yesterday, as the priest pointed out briefly but sharply that those clergymen asking for “changes” in the way the Church understands marriage and adultery are asking the Bride to betray the Bridegroom, and are committing adultery in their heart as they condone and even justify the adultery of others.
Short and sweet. Very well thought, and very well said.
There are still smart and faithful priests in this now disgraced Kingdom.
“The Church does not create or invents the sacraments, but receives them from our Lord, who instituted them accordign to His will.”
Interesting video from Gloria TV about so-called women’s ordination, that has relevance beyond the issue itself.
Whilst in normal times it would be superfluous to give relevance to such topics, we do not live in normal times and it is therefore apposite to repeat what should be repeated.
I very much fear in October some half cataclism is going to come to us, and I am rather certain whatever happens in October, in Germany and in other countries the clergy will generalise the sacrilegious practice of giving communion to public adulterers, the only thing to be still decided being the excuse they will use to do so. One is reminded of the Dutch schism, and if you reflect even JP II needed several years to finally move the steamroller you can imagine how the decidedly more revolutionary Francis will tacitly allow the worst abuses to happen, under the mantle of a “mercy” that is fake because not rooted in Christ’s laws, and hypocritical because no trace of it can be found in his dealing with the FFI, culpable of the terrible heresy of Catholicism.
But the Church does not create or invents the Sacraments, but receives them from our Lord, who instituted them according to his will. It is, therefore, not for the Church – not in a pretended dostrinal way, and not even under the excuse of mercy or pastoral care – to tamper with them.
Enjoy the video.
The Eponymous Flower has an interesting excerpt concerning another interview given by Archbishop Mueller.
Mueller states a couple of things that should go without saying, if we were not living in such disturbing times.
I leave it to others to reconcile the common sense of Mueller’s statements with the vague idea of giving more “doctrinal authority” to the Bishops’ Conferences. It is clear to every sound thinking Catholic that the thing cannot be done without causing grave damage to the very idea of the Church. Bishops’ Conference have no, and can never have any, doctrinal authority, and to introduce a principle of “local doctrinal authority” means to question and severely damage the principle of the One Church altogether.
Note that the Archbishop states the Bishops’ Conference already have some kind of “doctrinal authority” when, say, preparing catechism books; but it is clear here that this is not the autonomous exercise of a home-made authority, but merely the local implementation of universal rules. It is not a coincidence that, say, catechisms are never infallible.
Next October will be a time of great trial for the Church, provided of course the Extraordinary Synod still takes place. I can’t imagine that anything good at all could come out of it.
We should, I think, pray that this Synod never takes place.