Oh dear, there must be a presidential election coming up, because the pro-abort pretend Catholics have surfaced again, flush with George Soros’ money, to try to justify their heresy and suck others into the diabolical cult of baby-murder. Seriously, we almost never hear from these people save for a few months prior to a presidential election.
At any rate, they’ve spent a bundle of Soros’ cash to buy ads in newspapers across the country. In San Antonio, I will say the archdiocese reacted with unusual, if welcome, vigor to this direct assault on the integrity of the Faith:
The Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio strongly and swiftly condemned a full-page Catholics for Choice advertisement in the San Antonio Express-News that claimed “public funding for abortion is a Catholic social justice value.” [A perfectly diabolical inversion of the Truth. One thing that is rather happy to see is the steady aging of this cohort that pretends one can hold heretical views on all manner of subjects and still claim to be “Catholic. This perverse generation that holds that Doctrine is totally unimportant and one can believe in whatever moral atrocity they choose is simply not replacing itself. The few children they’ve had simply don’t even bother with a religion their parents so firmly claim believes nothing, and many others have been convinced of this dread error besides. The future will be a much smaller, but a much more faithful Church, if we can get past the terror of the present pontificate]
Catholics for Choice’s ad contained “inaccurate information which must be corrected, since it misrepresents the truth and what the Catholic Church believes and teaches,” the Archdiocese of San Antonio posted on its website the same day the ad appeared.
“This misrepresentation is demonstrated by their statement that ‘Public funding for abortion is a Catholic social justice value,’” the statement continued. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”
The Archdiocese stressed that the dissident group, which is funded by leftist billionaire George Soros, “does not speak for the Catholic Church.” When it undertook a similar media campaign in Colorado two years ago, the state’s bishops opposed it.
“For more than 2,000 years, the Church has steadfastly proclaimed that respect for all human life at every stage is foundational to the Catholic faith,” the Archdiocese explained. “Abortion from the earliest tradition of the Church has been considered immoral.” The statement pointed to the magisterial document Donum Vitae (“The Gift of Life”) as one example of this.
“It is our hope that one day Catholics for Choice will take the time to acquaint themselves with basic Catholic teachings, and acknowledge the truth of the Catholic faith, and not choose to misrepresent her teachings with false and inaccurate information and ads that only work to confuse and mislead the public,” the statement concluded…….[No kidding. No matter the attempts to resurrect the discredited “seamless garment,” anyone who not only finds nothing morally offensive in abortion, but feels that everyone should have to pay for it through their taxes, is simply outside the Faith. Period, end of sentence.]
Gustavo García-Siller, M.Sp.S., is the Archbishop of San Antonio.
Houston-based Bishop Steven J. Lopes of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, a group of Anglicans who were brought into full Communion with the Catholic Church while being allowed to retain some of their customs, said, “The biggest falsehood in these advertisements is the statement that ‘as a Catholic’ a person can respect and support a decision to kill an unborn person. The insinuation that Catholic faith can lead a person to sanction something which is always and everywhere a moral evil is fraudulent, deceitful, and simply wrong.” [Agreed. But why not call a spade a spade and let them know they are at least manifest, if not formal (because, c’mon, who really wonders if child murder might be OK with God?) heretics?]
……. For the first time in history, the 2016 Democratic party platform supports repealing the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits public funding of abortions. Democratic Vice Presidential nominee Senator Tim Kaine, who claims to be a “devout Catholic” yet has a 100 percent voting record in the senate and supports same-sex “marriage,” and the Clinton campaign have made conflicting statements about whether Kaine supports repealing the Hyde Amendment.
As good as the above is, until the Church starts to really severely condemn contraception as it still, at least for the most part, in this country, does abortion, we’ll never even begin to be rid of it. Contraception is the fuel that keeps the natural and supernatural conflagration of abortion burning.
The party of death is rapidly transitioning into a party of naked leftist evil. As they are wont to do. And yet the powers that be in the culture, like the NFL and NCAA, which are really infuriating me, are pretending as if things like killing cops and allowing sexual predators into little girls’ bathrooms is not only acceptable, but such a moral imperative that they will go to great lengths to punish anyone who disagrees, like the state of North Carolina. Even two years ago allowing men to use women’s restrooms in public wasn’t even on the radar of national debate and now it’s a moral imperative, a “settled issue” like supposed climate change?!? Who is pulling the NCAA’s (and Atlantic Coast Conference, and NBA, and……..) strings on this?!?
We are witnessing a revolution in end game, and people like Catholics for Choice are just willing dupes to political puppet masters like George Soros.
I know I’m way late on this, being away always at the wrong time, but an explosive development came out late last week, and you can tell how important it is by the backflips the usual papolotrists are doing trying to explain it away. Heck, Jeff Mirus reduced adultery to a venial sin to try to make this an inconsequential development!
So, the bishops of the Buenos Aires developed a document explaining to priests how to implement the infamous chapter 8 of Amoris Laetitia, doing so along plainly literal lines, taking the document at its word and just going from there, giving free reign to priests to give Communion to divorced people who have remarried without obtaining an annulment. They submitted this interpretation to Franky George Bergoglio for his approval and he granted it, with great vigor. In fact, he says the plainly heterodox “interpretation” of the document is the only one possible/permissible. Which, duh, but a lot of folks have egg on their faces now, and they’d rather turn the Catholic Faith into a meaningless mishmash of pretzel logic than be wrong (Mirus, for one, has done this for years, even well before Francis).
In a letter reportedly leaked by a priest in Argentina, Pope Francis writes that there is “no other interpretation” of Amoris Laetitia other than one admitting divorced and remarried Catholics to Holy Communion in some cases. The letter, dated September 5, comes in response to a confidential document by the bishops of the Buenos Aires pastoral region to priests instructing them on the application of the Pope’s controversial apostolic exhortation. LifeSite has acquired copies of both original documents and has provided professional side-by-side translation……..
LifeSiteNews’ translation of the Pope’s letter is here
LifeSiteNews’ translation of the bishops’ directive is here
The bishops’ directive called “Basic Criteria for the Application of Chapter Eight of Amoris Laetitia” says that in “complex circumstances” when the remarried couple could not “obtain a declaration of nullity,” the priests can nevertheless move forward to grant them access to Holy Communion. If the priest recognizes that “in a particular case there are limitations that diminish responsibility and culpability (cf. 301-302), particularly when a person judges that he would fall into a subsequent fault by damaging the children of the new union,” says the directive, “Amoris Laetitia opens the possibility of access to the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist (cf. notes 336 and 351).”
The Pope’s letter affirms this path with effusive praise for the bishops’ work. Writing to the delegate of the Buenos Aires Pastoral Region, Monsignor Sergío Alfredo Fenoy, the Pope says, “I thank you for the work they have done on this: a true example of accompaniment for the priests.”
Pope Francis adds: “The document is very good and completely explains the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia. There are no other interpretations. And I am certain that it will do much good. May the Lord reward this effort of pastoral charity.”……..
………The leaked document is the first time there is explicit confirmation that Pope Francis interprets Amoris Laetitia as allowing communion for divorced and remarried Catholics without the condition that the couple in the irregular situation live as brother and sister without sexual relations, as was always required by the Church.
Is anyone surprised? Did anyone think Francis would repudiate the plain meaning of Amoris Laetitia? How many demonstrations of radicalism and even heterodoxy must we have before some people will accept the idea that we have not just a bad pope, an incautious pope, but one that is openly promoting things directly contrary to the constant belief and practice of the Faith and the very Word of Life Himself?!? I mean for crying out loud when will you get over your manifest error that Church = pope and pope = Church?!?
I just, totally coincidentally, completed some reading on the fall of Pope Liberius to the Arians. That, at least, was done under extreme duress, but fall he did. He did most definitely sign onto at least a semi-Arian formulation. Then we have the subsequent “problems” of Honorius/Formusus and John XXII. The point being, popes have on several occasions promoted dubious doctrinal beliefs, including two of the three most recent occupants of the See of Peter. But Francis is stressing the machine well beyond its limits, we either have to admit that we have a pope who is endorsing error – I pray God innocently – or we have to basically pretend that the entire moral edifice of the Church means nothing.
Am I over-reacting? Can there be an over-reaction to this development, the first solemn confirmation that Amoris Laetitia was no mistake, no inadvertant claim, that the positions contained therein express the true will of the pope made with complete deliberation? This is really unprecedented. All previous such instances were much more vague, more minor, or on far more inconsequential matters than what we see now. As Rorate noted in a subsequent post, we’re now down to a very clear situation – within the Church herself – of standing with Christ, or standing with satan. Is that too much? I don’t think so, at all, but perhaps this can be your place to vent on the subject, if you haven’t, already.
Folks, I think I’ve made clear over the past few years that, for myriad reasons, I have come to very firmly believe that the only optimal/truly efficacious/ideal form of the Mass is the Mass of All Ages, the Mass of St. Pius V, TLM, etc. But having said that, I do believe that distinctions can be made, that some means of offering the Novus Ordo are clearly superior to others, even if the root problems associated with the Novus Ordo will always remain.
Rome was not built in a day, however, and I did not arrive at my present exalted level of Catholic perfection in a day, either. I try to be very supportive of those who are on the same journey I traveled, but perhaps a bit less advanced on the road than I am at present. As such, I see things like regular diocesan priests embracing Ad Orientem worship in the Novus Ordo, while also perhaps learning the TLM, as a very positive and happy development. I pray they are given the Grace, strength, and opportunity to continue advancing to offering the TLM, and pray that offering the NO ad orientem becomes a valuable step in that process. Ad Orientem is, then, to me, more of a point in a process of development, than it is an end point in and of itself, even though much fruit, I think, would result even if it were.
Of course, many times, good priests who would dearly love to offer Mass Ad Orientem, and move on to the TLM, are blocked by episcopal malfeasance. Such has certainly been the case in the Diocese of Dallas, something I very fervently hope our forthcoming bishop will change.
In the below, please pray especially for Father Michael Lyons of the Diocese of Victoria, who has been learning the TLM but who is having some health problems. He is certainly a priest of very good will and disposition and I pray he may remain in active ministry for many years to come and to continue growing in his embrace of the traditional practice of the Faith.
Lots of good priests in there. Always glad to see Bishop Gracida. Ad multos annos for that very good bishop who, I believe, offers the TLM exclusively now. A bit of local color, so to speak. I am glad Fr. Lyons pointed out that priests who want to learn the great liturgical tradition of the Church more or less have to do so on their own, as it is virtually never taught in diocesan seminaries anywhere in the West.
Sometime ago, I read a report on the divorce rate among women simulating marriage in Holland and, I believe, Denmark, where this gross affront to God and nature has been imposed by government for 10 years or more than in the US. This report made clear that the vast majority of these fake marriages ended in divorce, and that right quick. If memory serves, the median duration of them after nearly 10 years of data was 30 months. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find the article again. More than likely, it was memory-holed as being entirely inconvenient to the successful prosecution of the left’s war on all decency and morality.
So, I must make due with anecdotal data for the time being, and here are a couple of anecdotes that confirm what I read. Two different lesbian couples, one of them a veritable poster girls for the movement, divorced after a scant year of marriage, with both relationships collapsing in acrimony and general ugliness.
A mother-of-two who repeatedly posted naked pictures of her ex-wife on social media to “scorn her for finding a new partner” has been given a restraining order……..
…….Southampton Magistrates’ Court heard the couple, who married in January 2015, split up before the offences in March this year.
The “marriage” lasted for less than a year. Two children were involved, either the product of one of the women’s previous relationships or perhaps conceived via the time-honored and always edifying turkey baster method.
For ten of the past eleven years, my family stood on the front lines of the marriage equality movement. Starting with my marriage to Tracie — with our firstborn attending in my belly—at San Francisco City Hall, during the Winter of Love 2004; through the ups and downs of California’s Proposition 8 campaign; to the celebration of our legal marriage, with our two children as witnesses, in 2008; to this final SCOTUS decision — we have marched, campaigned, donated, and spoken with media, domestic and international, radio, film, and print.
And now marriage equality is the law of the land.
And Tracie and I are starting divorce proceedings. . . .
When Tracie and I first decided to separate a year ago, I felt an acute sense of failure
This couple exceeded the over-under by a good amount, but one has to wonder how much of that had to do more with advocacy and serving as avatars for a corrupting and socially destructive movement, and how much was based on real compatibility and happiness.
From my limited knowledge of human psychology, I don’t think there is any combination more unstable than a female-female relationship. Male-male have their own hideous foibles, but the men pass over much of the melodrama through emotional distance and an overarching selfishness that permeates both halves of the relationship. Men are able to compartmentalize, emotionally, far more than women. My wife briefly worked for a consulting company dominated by young women, and it was a disaster. The cat-fighting, undermining, passive aggressive attitudes, and general ugliness were all-pervasive. She shakes her head at the concept of two women trying to live together as fake husband and fake wife.
In this second instance, once again, children are involved, in this case, two boys, conceived through methods that would have made Dr. Frankenstein blush. Is it all skittles and beer with these boys being raised by two severely disordered women? No, it is not:
But sometimes the learning curve is steep, like when my son was being bullied by a girl . . . at school. . . . I knew she said mean things to him. I knew she had shoved him a couple times. But it wasn’t until I saw tears in my son’s eyes that I really got it: she was bullying him, he was asking teachers and playground supervisors for help, and no one was stepping up for him.
The likelihood that these two boys will grow up self-loathing, unable to ever feel properly masculine, and most likely very confused in their sexuality is exceedingly high. In fact, it is almost a given. These boys weren’t conceived out of a well-ordered, natural extension of the love between as a man and a woman, but, as much as anything, as a political stunt, as a three year old’s endless tantrum at being told no, you may not. They will continue to bear the scars of decisions they never had a voice in their entire lives, and it will be a miracle if those scars do not overwhelm the better angels of their nature and take them down very dark, very painful paths.
In all the sexular pagan “triumphs” of the past 50 years, it has been the children who have born the cost disproportionately. But, hey, a small price to pay for a satanic movement to prevail.
A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics 