Princes of the Church Cannot be Bothered to Defend the Faith, but Plan a McDonald’s at the Vatican…… October 20, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, asshatery, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, Revolution, scandals, silliness, Society, the struggle for the Church.
……and there is all kinds of protest.
A culture or institution is in great sense defined by what mobilizes important personages within it to action. While there could be additional private protests, as far as is known, a scant 10% of cardinals have decried the rapidly accelerating auto-demolition of the Church under Francis, and even that protest was meant to be private but was probably leaked by the Vatican to try to embarrass the critics into silence.
But OMG plan to open a McDonald’s on long vacant Church property near St. Peter’s, and suddenly there are very public howls of protest. I mean, after all, we have to have our priorities. Note that having very strong objections to large, principally American corporations, is a hallmark of the Left. Once again, we see which religion really predominates among far too many men given the grave charge to support and defend the Faith of Jesus Christ and serve as the most influential shepherds of souls:
The decision to open a McDonald’s restaurant inside a Vatican property just around the corner from St. Peter’s Square has been met with harsh criticism from cardinals who live in the building.
But the man in charge of rolling out the project says the plan is moving forward despite disagreement.
Dubbed by some as “McVatican,” the new restaurant will be located in a Vatican property on the intersection of Rome’s Via del Mascherino and Via Borgo Pio, literally around the corner from the Vatican and St. Peter’s Basilica……..
……..In an interview with Italian newspaper La Reppublica [A very, very leftist rag, which, one, is probably the most disposed to be sympathetic to this anti-McDonald’s fervor, and, b, may say quite a bit about the complaining cardinal, that he would be willing to be quoted by one of the most anti-Church publications in Italy], Italian Cardinal Elio Sgreccia, president emeritus of the Pontifical Academy for Life, called the deal “a controversial, perverse decision to say the least.” [No wonder the Church’s pro-life efforts, especially in Europe, so often come to naught?]
The presence of the fast-food chain so close to the Vatican, he said, “is not at all respectful of the architectural and urban traditions of one of the most characteristic squares overlooking the colonnade of St. Peter visited every day by thousands of pilgrims and tourists.”
Cardinal Sgreccia called the deal “a business decision that, moreover, ignores the culinary traditions of the Roman restaurant.”……[Translation: I don’t want to see McDonald’s-eating hoi polloi around my building?]
……..In addition to Cardinal Sgreccia, who rumored to have written a letter of protest to the Pope, other cardinals living in the building have also voiced their discontent. Concern has arisen over what will become of the homeless who have been living outside the building, some of them for years, but who will be forced to leave once the restaurant is constructed. [Why have they been living there for years?!? Why didn’t the good cardinals, many with great resources at their disposal, get them help so they no longer squatted in the Vatican?!? Is a McDonald’s more tacky than having homeless people – and you know how they often are – laying around in front of a building all the time? Before they cleaned up the Drag (Guadalupe St) in Austin, homeless people camped out in front of a lot of the stores. The University CO-OP, which is where you used to have to buy books back when we did such antiquated things, always had guys camped out in front, covered in urine and even feces……it was horrible. Are they much better in Rome? What a sight for pilgrims to the Holy City!]
Cardinal Sgreccia told La Reppublica that in addition to being a “disgrace,” the McDonald’s would have been better used as a space used for “activities in defense of the needy in the area, hospitable areas of welcome and help for those who suffer, as the Holy Father teaches.” [All it takes is will. Why didn’t you start that up?]
However, despite the aggravation of cardinals living inside the building, Cardinal Domenico Calcagno, president of APSA, has been unsympathetic, and said he doesn’t see what the problem is.
Also speaking to La Reppublica Oct. 15, Cardinal Calcagno responded to criticism surrounding the McDonalds by saying that everything was done “in respect of the law and that there will be nothing done which will go against the current rules, tradition and interests of the Holy See.”
“Above all there is respect for the law. Then the rest comes,” he said, explaining that APSA is “not prepared to make any step backward because everything is in order.”
Look, I find the idea of the golden arches in Vatican City, very near St. Peter’s, tacky as all get out. It seems like another sign of the continuing trivialization of the Church. One would think there could be some kind of classier joint found, one more amenable to the area’s culture and the Church’s moral and doctrinal role. Like a Starbuck’s.
Seriously, this does raise another matter: doesn’t McDonald’s funnel money to immoral activities, like Komen and thus Planned Butcherhood? I know they’ve been on the pseudo-sodo-marriage bandwagon for a long time. That’s a far more serious reason not to allow McDonald’s to earn profits from pilgrims (and employees) on what is all sacred ground. Did such important considerations even remotely enter into this decision? From the way it sounds, not at all.
Now if this had been a Whataburger, I could have really gotten behind it.
h/t reader TE
Francis Exalts Ecumenism Above Catholicism October 18, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, disaster, Ecumenism, episcopate, foolishness, Francis, General Catholic, horror, rank stupidity, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the struggle for the Church, unbelievable BS.
At this point, there almost seems little point in bringing these things up. But I think in this latest assault against the perennial belief and practice of the Faith, Francis has said more than he intended to. What did he say? Via Vox:
Vatican City, October 13 – Pope Francis told a group of mostly Lutheran pilgrims on Thursday that proselytism was a potential threat to Christian unity. [“Lutheran pilgrims” to the Vatican is an oxymoron. They are at best agents provocateur and at worst activists for an alien and implacably hostile religion]
“The last thing you must do is ‘to say, to convince’. It’s not right to convince someone of your faith,” he said.
“Proselytism is the strongest venom against the path of ecumenism”.
The pope was speaking to around 1,000 pilgrims in the Vatican – most of them German Lutherans – who are in Rome as part of ecumenical preparations for the 500th anniversary of the beginning of the Lutheran reformation.
“The Apostle Paul tells us that, by virtue of our baptism, we all form the one Body of Christ,” the pope said. [He also said that if we failed to believe all the Doctrine of the Faith we were anathema. This is a gross oversimplification and really erroneous presentation, but it’s been at the heart of the leftist-inspired religious indifferentist movement, which has cleverly chosen the name “ecumenism” as a cover for its patent undermining of the Faith]
“The different members, in fact, are one body. This is why we belong to each other and when one suffers, all suffer, when one rejoices, all rejoice. Let us continue with confidence on our ecumenical journey, because we know that, beyond the many open questions that still separate us, we are already united.
What unites us is much more than what divides us”.
Luther certainly didn’t think that. Look, Leo X didn’t wake up one day and decide to cast Martin Luther out of the Church. Luther cast himself out, because HE had the unmitigated pride, the seething arrogance, to decide that HE, Martin Luther, knew better than Our Lord and His Church and set out to found a new sect that HE would lead. Once he had formed his false breakaway religion, he instantly decided that “private interpretation,” upon which he justified his own apostasy, wasn’t permissible for anyone else, and that everyone had to agree with HIS interpretation. What he really wanted was to declare himself pope and mold Christianity to his own personal whim. Luther is the man most responsible for the complete fracturing of Christendom, the unity of which had been gravely wounded by the earlier eastern schisms but which was made complete by the protestant revolt against Church authority.
This is straight out of AA-1025. And Francis is the man standing in the role of anti-apostle 1025. He is trying to generate Catholic guilt over this lack of unity – a disunity no Catholic ever caused! – to remake the Church along leftist indifferentist lines.
What Francis says above, however, is even more insidious. Not for the first time, he has elevated “ecumenism” to a virtue, and turned opposition to ecumenism into a pseudo-sin. His words, if fully implemented, would finish the destruction of the Church’s already anemic (to the point of being practically dead) evangelizing efforts. Of course, this is no surprise, as this is the man who thought the Anglican Ordinariate a “disaster” for ecumenical relations, and who has repeatedly stated he’d much rather a Lutheran or Anglican remain a “good” Lutheran or Anglican, rather than become Catholic. And Kevin Farrell cheered.
I was reading a biography of St. Vincent de Paul lately, and while the conduct of the Saint’s life was, overall, full of edification and inspiration for any Catholic, I had to disagree with him vehemently on one point. Vincent was no theologian, and appeared to have misunderstood Francis de Sales’ dictum that it is far better to try to convert people by showing them love than through apologetics or polemics. de Sales, however, certainly wrote many polemics against protestantism, and it was these, in concert with his incredible practice of charity, that won back tens of thousands of protestant heretics. Unfortunately, Vincent seems to have oversimplified de Sales approach somewhat, forgetting the polemics and focusing solely on the constant practice of charity. He declared that no one is ever converted by argumentation, but only through being inspired by demonstrations of Catholic love. That is, conversion must be an affair of the heart, not the head.
When I read that, I was taken aback, because I most certainly was converted by argumentation, and entirely so. My heart was dead set against converting, but I was won over, bit by bit, by the overwhelming arguments in favor of Catholicism that emerge from any serious study of Scripture, theology, and, most of all, Church history (which ineluctably demonstrates the continuity of belief from the earliest Church to today).
The bishop of Rome, however, is not arguing against evangelization (which he constantly smears as “proselytizing” and solemn nonsense) because he favors the Salesian or Vincentian approach. He is doing it because it aligns with his ideological predilections. I am essentially convinced at this point that Francis actually despises the Church and the beliefs she held in his youth. A gargantuan mass of evidence indicates he believes protestants are much more right in their “doctrine” and theology than is the Bride of Christ. And he seems to firmly believe that when it comes to ecumenism, it is the Church that needs to do all the changing, not the myriad, contradictory sects.
I think the next year – with another Synod in the making, to attack the priesthood! – will be one of untold scandal and horror.
Lord, I know we as a people have sinned so very, very much and are unworthy of Your mercy, but I implore You to set Your infinite Justice aside and let Your infinite Mercy reign, and restore sanity and reason to Your Body, the Church. But may Thy will be done in all things, as we implore you for the strength to weather these terrifying times.
Bishop Farrell’s Doctrine Evolution in a Nutshell October 11, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, It's all about the $$$, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church.
I’m about to be stuck in the lab for the rest of the day, so enjoy this brief synopsis of Kevin J. Farrell’s “evolution” in thinking over the course of his 8 1/2 years in Dallas.
First, that pretty fair voting guide he and Bishop Kevin Vann produced prior to the 2008 election, shredding the “seamless garment” and providing pretty clear guidance to Catholic voters (noting, however, even this could/should have been vastly better).
Next, a tweet from two months ago:
That’s courtesy Rorate. No wonder I hate Twitter with such a passion.
Dang. I’ve read all the Gospels like 7 or 8 times cover to cover. I must really suck at reading comprehension.
Is that what you call closing the deal for a Secretariat and red hat?
Then of course there was the parish gun ban debacle, which, thank God, didn’t go as he expected (at all), then the 180 on immigration, then permitting Biden to receive Communion in the Diocese, then the liberalization of the ministry conference, then further mucking around with UD, then……
We all wondered, back in the day, who really was the impetus behind that voting guide, Farrell, or Vann? I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.
Dallas’ former Bishop Farrell Gets Red Hat October 11, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, different religion, disaster, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, the struggle for the Church.
I’ll admit, I was a bit shocked by the timing. I’ve mentioned the wise local priest who more or less predicted the course of Bishop Farrell’s tenure here (in very broad, but accurate, strokes), and one additional thing he told me was that Dallas was viewed as such a hardship assignment after 17 disastrous years of administration by Charles Grahmann, and Bishop Farrell had such a golden boy aura about him, that his next sinecure would be a really plumb one, and would probably come with a red hat attached. But he thought that would be several years down the road, not literally a few days after Bishop Farrell’s arrival in Rome.
Well, the ladder has been climbed. I guess spending virtually no time as a parish priest has its rewards.
Snark aside, Bishop Farrell is, if nothing else, a relatively able administrator. I think he could have done a very great deal more to reform and reorient this diocese in a much more successful and faithful direction, but apparently, the powers that be, be very, very pleased. It is difficult to convey what a wreck he inherited here. Grahmann was, as a commenter rightly noted, laying the groundwork for lay-administered Eucharistic services and basically priestless parishes a la Albany and Rochester (and Dallas was nearly in that league back in 2007 or so). Farrell did stop that trend and emphasized the requirement for virtually all parishes (aside from some very small ones administered by priests from elsewhere) to have permanently assigned priests. He also saw a number of relatively to strongly orthodox young men ordained, men who will one day form, it is fervently hoped, the backbone of a much improved clergy in Dallas.
It’s a bit interesting that Farrell gained his red piping along with a group that is widely viewed as exceedingly liberal, including two of the most liberal prelates in the US, Blaise Cupich and Joseph Tobin (not the relatively conservative Thomas Tobin of Providence, RI). Just as interesting is who was passed over, again: Gomez, Chaput, and Vigernon, men who have led far larger dioceses for far longer than either Tobin or Farrell, and who serve in archdioceses almost always associated with a cardinal’s hat, historically. But they are seen as conservatives, and thus out of fashion in this pontificate. You can draw your own conclusions on where deep Church insiders view Farrell’s ideology/ecclesiology, since he was included in such a group. He started out somewhat conservativish here, at least from a lay person’s perspective, but visibly swung liberal under Francis. At least, that’s what I and my two friends think.
Pope Francis will conclude the Year of Mercy by creating 17 new cardinals, including three from the United States: Archbishop Blase J. Cupich of Chicago; Bishop Kevin J. Farrell, prefect of the new Vatican office for laity, family and life; and Archbishop Joseph W. Tobin of Indianapolis.
Announcing the names of the new cardinals Oct. 9, Pope Francis said, “Their coming from 11 nations expresses the universality of the church that proclaims and witnesses the good news of God’s mercy in every corner of the earth.”
The new cardinals — 13 of whom are under the age of 80 and therefore eligible to vote in a conclave to elect a new pope and four over 80 being honored for their “clear Christian witness” — will be inducted into the College of Cardinals Nov. 19, the eve of the close of the Year of Mercy.
The next day, Nov. 20, they will join Pope Francis and other cardinals in celebrating the feast of Christ the King and closing the Year of Mercy, the pope said……..
……..In creating 13 cardinal-electors — those under the age of 80 — Pope Francis will exceed by one the 120 cardinal-elector limit set by Blessed Paul VI. The number of potential electors will return to 120 Nov. 28 when Cardinal Theodore-Adrien Sarr of Dakar, Senegal, celebrates his 80th birthday.
The youngest of the new cardinals — who will be the youngest member of the College of Cardinals — is 49-year-old Archbishop Dieudonne Nzapalainga of Bangui, Central African Republic……..
………Seven of the 11 nations represented by the new cardinals did not have a cardinal at the time of the pope’s announcement: Central African Republic, Bangladesh, Mauritius and Papua New Guinea will now have cardinal-electors. Malayasia [are there a million Catholics in all of Malaysia? There are not], Lesotho and Albania will be represented in the College of Cardinals, although their cardinals will be too old to vote in a conclave.
Here is the list of new cardinals in the order in which Pope Francis announced them:
— Archbishop Zenari, an Italian who is 70 years old.
— Dieudonne Nzapalainga of Bangui, Central African Republic, 49.
— Archbishop Carlos Osoro Sierra of Madrid, 71.
— Archbishop Sergio da Rocha of Brasilia, Brazil, who will be 57 Oct. 21.
— Archbishop Cupich, 67.
— Archbishop Patrick D’Rozario of Dhaka, Bangladesh, 73.
— Archbishop Baltazar Porras Cardozo of Merida, Venezuela, who turns 72 Oct. 10.
— Archbishop Jozef De Kesel of Malines-Brussels, Belgium, 69.
— Archbishop Maurice Piat of Port-Louis, Mauritius, 75.
— Bishop Farrell, 69.
— Archbishop Carlos Aguiar Retes of Tlalnepantla, Mexico, 66.
— Archbishop John Ribat of Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 59.
— Archbishop Tobin, 64.
— Retired Archbishop Anthony Soter Fernandez of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 84.
— Retired Archbishop Renato Corti of Novara, Italy, 80.
— Retired Bishop Sebastian Koto Khoarai of Mohale’s Hoek, Lesotho, 87.
— Father Simoni, 87.
Ever read The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber, and descriptions of how European liberals co-opted possibly naive third-world bishops to back their agenda?
And the boyos continue to have outsize influence on the US episcopate. Both Farrell and Tobin are Irish, and I wonder if Cupich isn’t, too.
We human creatures seem to have some built in flaws we are simply unable to overcome. Or we refuse to do so. One of the most critical of these is our steadfast refusal to learn from the lessons of the past. This applies in all imaginable fields – economic, political, military, technological, spiritual, you name it.
Dom Prosper Gueranger gives us a little bit of a history lesson from Vol. 4 of The Liturgical Year, pp. 168-9, concerning God’s permitting islam to be the punishment visited upon Christians who fall into persistent error and schism. While written 150 years ago, it may as well have been written for today, when, I am quite certain, Dom Gueranger would be mortified into shocked silence by the specter of a Christendom so utterly devoid of faith and already deeply into the process of being overrun by islam in its very heartland:
When, later on, the Christian nations of the east had lost the Faith which they themselves had transmitted to the western world; when they had disfigured the sacred symbol of faith by their blasphemous heresies; the anger of God sent upon them, from Arabia, the deluge of Mahometanism. It swept away the Christian churches, that had existed from the very time of the Apostles. Jerusalem, the favored Jerusalem, on which Jesus had lavished the tenderest love, even she became a victim to the infidel hordes. Antioch and Alexandria, with their patriarchates, were plunged into the vilest slavery; and at length Constantinople, that had so obstinately provoked the divine indignation, was made the very capital of the Turkish empire.
And we, the western nations, if we return not to the Lord our God, shall we be spared? Shall the floodgates of of Heaven’s vengeance, the torrent of fresh Vandals, ever be menacing to burst upon us, yet never come? Where is the country of our own West, that has not corrupted its way, as in the days of Noah? That has not made conventions against the Lord and His Christ? That has not clamored out that old cry of revolt: “Let us break their bonds asunder, let us cast away their yoke from us?” (Ps ii:3).
Well may we fear lest the time is at hand, when, despite our haughty confidence in our means of defense, Christ our Lord, to whom all nations have been given by the Father, shall rule us with a rod of iron, and break us in pieces like a potter’s vessel (Ps ii:9).
Let us propitiate the anger of our offended God, and follow the inspired counsel of the royal prophet; Serve ye the Lord with fear; embrace the discipline of His Law; lest, at any time, the Lord be angry, and ye perist from the just way (Ps ii:12).
Heavy, heavy stuff. But none too remote a prophecy, I fear.
My brethren, we are of course afflicted with an even worse situation than that which faced Dom Gueranger. While he could easily and accurately extrapolate the then nascent trends in Christendom towards liberalism, modernism, atheism, and hedonism, Gueranger did have the Grace to live in a time when Holy Mother Church was, herself, quite strong and robust of Faith and Doctrine.
We do not have a like situation today. We live in a virtually unprecedented time of apostasy and faithlessness from the vast swaths of the masses up through the highest echelons of the church. We can, however, hold some solace in the fact that such periods of faithlessness have been numerous in the history of the Church, and she has always recovered. However, it is quite possible that this our present age is the worst our glorious Mother the Church has had to endure.
And thus the rod of iron, stayed so long by Mary’s arm, presses down with ever more relentless weight and pent up fury upon our Mother’s exhausted, outstretched hands. Only we can sustain her through our prayers, as she has so often implored us to do, from Lourdes to La Salette to Fatima to Akita and beyond. Only we can turn back the Lord’s vengeance through prayer and penance, though I comprehend how many find the burden to be too great, and the shirking of duty by others leaving us with too great a task to face, a task that is not fairly borne by us.
But no one ever said life was fair. This is our lot, and we must try to do our best.
Love ≠ Moral Acceptance of People Doing Whatever They Want October 4, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Admin, Bible, Domestic Church, episcopate, error, family, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity, Society, Spiritual Warfare, Tradition, Virtue.
In all things I have tried to accord the conduct of my life and especially my belief to the Doctrine of the Faith as it is has been exculpated and practiced for centuries, especially the centuries prior to the modernist/leftist infiltration of the Church beginning in the early 20th century. I am more successful, probably, at the latter – the believing – than the practicing.
As I have mentioned numerous times in the past, I have radically altered many previously deeply held beliefs to be more in accord with the Doctrine of the Faith. A few examples of these:
- Contraception is always and everywhere wrong and gravely immoral – I used to not believe this
- Porn use/self-abuse are always and everywhere wrong and gravely immoral – ditto
- Usury, commonly found in capitalist systems, is always and everywhere wrong and gravely immoral – again, I changed
- The form of government established in the USA is fraught with moral problems and compromises that made our present inevitable. So I’ve gone from “USA is the greatest country that ever could be” to………..this thing is a very serious problem and is probably not fixable.
- Abortion is wanton murder of innocent life. There is never any justifiable reason for it – I used to be a bit squishy
- Jesus Christ exists whole and entire in the Real Presence of the Blessed Sacrament of the altar – I always thought it a “symbol”
- Homeschooling is by far the best, and quite possibly the only moral, option for educating children in this day and age – I definitely found this weird
- Sacramental Confession is morally vital for salvation and must be frequently availed of
And the list goes on. I cannot stress how much of a rah-rah USA is the best typical Republican I used to be. That was a core part of my personality, my belief set (even while I had strangely contrary things going on in private). But having learned the Doctrine of the Faith and the myriad ways in which the USA, at its founding, was deliberately contrived to be very contrary to that Doctrine, I now see things very differently.
I was as attached to sins against the 6th and 9th Commandments as anyone could be. Those were, so to speak, my “original sins.” That kind of thing was my first addiction. And I went very, very far down a path of personal immorality and horrific abuses to which I was constantly wedded. I mean, this was a daily, almost constant occurrence. And this later manifested in other, worse things I won’t go into. You could even say that these sins were who I was, so profound a part of my identity they had become.
Obviously, they took many years of enormous pain and effort and sacrifice to overcome. I am by no means perfect in this regard, but I have completely altered my beliefs and almost totally successfully modified my behaviors, and have come to see, with grim realism, the evil that was involved in them, and the harm they did to myself and many others. I am leaving out scads and scads of details, which would shock and dismay most if not all readers. I have a very, very dark past.
But I am hardly unique. Most everyone in this fallen age, having to swim in the moral sewer we occupy, have had similar experiences. Some were more fortunate than others. Some were able to (largely) overcome their sins through much prayer and sacrifice by themselves and often others but basically kept their lives intact. Others have not been so fortunate, and have experienced divorce, collapse of business, etc., as a result of their attachment to sin.
We swim in a sea of lies. The primary one is that the culture, under the influence of leftist thought which has penetrated very deeply into the Church, purports that love = endorsing/approving of everything someone really really wants to do especially if it is of a sexual nature or somehow serves the agencies of the political-cultural Left. This is a total corruption of the proper understanding of love. Love, true love, must always, everywhere, be ordered to the eternal good of souls.
What we see described as “love” even by high-placed Church leaders is really a degraded form of sentimentality that is as pernicious as it is destructive. We absolutely must practice love/charity universally, but the modern world has twisted love from its roots in the salvation of souls to being something very perverse, requiring an endorsement or at least tacit acceptance of things that we know with absolute certainty will lead souls to eternal ruin.
This is not some made up belief I am proclaiming. These are not just my opinions. We have the divine words of Jesus Christ Himself to make this clear to us, as recorded inerrantly – without error – in Sacred Scripture.
Romans i:24-28, 32
24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, *to uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie: and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.
27 And, in like manner the men also, leaving the natural use of the woman, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge; God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient………
32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they, who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they who do them, but they also who consent to them that do them
But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.
And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.
And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.
Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. ForI came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
To sum up all the above, Saint Paul makes clear the continuation of the constant revelation in the Old Law against those sins which have always been judged by the Church to be particularly noxious for souls and offensive to God. Our Lord tells us very plainly that those who refuse the Doctrine of the Faith are to be excluded from the community of believers, and those who do so obstinately must even at some point be, in a manner of speaking, left apart. And of course Our Blessed Lord told us that His beliefs, which are so contrary to our fallen natures and the evil rulers of this world, would cause strife and division even within families.
ALL OF THIS IS BASED COMPLETELY ON LOVE. True love, that is, love ordered for the best eternal end of souls. That love may seem shockingly contrary to this fallen world and its lying “wisdom,” but it remains all the same.
The early Church was rife with confirmations of all these beliefs. The particular sins decried by Saint Paul were regarded with a particular revulsion by the early Church and were viewed as being particularly egregious. As I noted in another recent post, the martyrs wouldn’t even do something so small as burn a pinch of incense to the emperor. Do you think they turned a blind eye to sins that were so obviously and plainly denounced in the Bible?
What is outlined above is a very brief but also very holistic explanation of the nature of true love ordered for the salvation of souls. It is not sentimental. It is, from the eyes of a world that has become a past master at twisting Scripture to its own ends and finding souls eager to listen, “hard,” unfair, even.
There are many more aspects at play. Much of what we hear within and outside the Church is riven with overtones of moral blackmail. If you “judge,” you don’t love. This is so wrong as to be evil. What we see described as “love” even by high-placed Church leaders is really a degraded form of sentimentality that is as pernicious as it is destructive. We absolutely must practice love/charity universally, but the modern world has twisted love from its roots in the salvation of souls to being something very perverse, requiring an endorsement or at least tacit acceptance of things that we know with absolute certainty will lead souls to eternal ruin. “Love the sinner” has become “never question or correct the sin.” Especially with the particular sin we are discussing now, we are presented with a particularly reprehensible form of blackmail: either you endorse my lifestyle choices, or you do not love me. But in fact the highest act of love is to always work towards the eternal good of souls, which may, at times, require very painful choices.
The one great danger I have seen in these types of situations is that simple, tacit acceptance is rarely enough. There is always heavy pressure to transform that acceptance into full-throated endorsement. That is what has happened to the “Always Our Children” groups here in the Diocese. Whatever they might have been in the beginning, today, these are nothing but vehicles for the proclamation of the glories of perverse lifestyles and the squashing of all opposition.
There’s much more, but I’m running quite long as it is. One additional thing I’d like to bring up is that this blog takes a very strong stand on these matters, especially those related to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, for several reasons. For one, this blog has always been ordered primarily towards the confirmation of the faithful, and much less for those outside the Faith or wavering.
Secondly, I take a very strong stand and use sometimes harsh terms because manipulation of the language is probably the prime means by which the political-cultural Left and the perverse agenda has gained its many “victories.” Yes I decry these sins in terms many find harsh, shocking, and maddening, but it is done to provide a sort of counterweight to the many, many voices out there in the culture declaring 2+2=5, perversion of grace-filled faculties = love, and all the rest.
Finally, I believe God commands it. Many have deeply imbibed a very feminized, or probably better, demasculinized, understanding of the Faith, where the Christian must always been meek and surrendering. That’s not the way most Saints conducted themselves, especially prior to the protestant revolt. What some may believe is harsh uncharitability, others find to be badly needed clarity.
Anyway, perhaps this helps some folks understand a little better where I come from and why I do what I do. I have the zeal of the converted in more ways than most folk can probably imagine.
San Diego Bishop Makes a Mockery of Faith, Reason to Justify Voting Hillary September 30, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, different religion, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Revolution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, sickness, unbelievable BS.
What tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive – apparently, the motto of the Bishop of San Diego, widely known liberal Robert McElroy.
McElroy recently published some electoral guidance for his flock. The core of it, the conclusion, it’s raison d’ etre, is that intrinsic evil – as he defines it – is a poor standard by which to make electoral decisions, because ALL candidates support one intrinsic evil or another, and thus Catholics have to make “complex moral calculations.” If it sounds like shades of grey, the return of the discredited seamless garment, and not much more than an elaborate attempt to justify that H! sticker on his car, you’re not wrong at all. I will lay it all out, providing my own analysis of where the wolf in sheep’s clothing errs:
Many widely circulated independent Catholic voter guides propose that the concept of intrinsic evil provides an automatic process for prioritizing the elements of the political common good in the United States.
The church teaches that certain acts are incapable of being ordered to God since in their very structure they contradict the good of the person made in God’s likeness. Such actions are termed “intrinsically evil” and are morally illicit no matter what the intention or circumstances surrounding them. Those who focus primarily on intrinsic evil make two distinct but related claims: 1) that the action of voting for candidates who seek to advance an intrinsic evil in society automatically involves the voter morally in that intrinsic evil in an illicit way; and 2) Catholic teaching demands that political opposition to intrinsically evil acts, like abortion, euthanasia and embryonic experimentation, must be given automatic priority over all other issues for the purposes of voting. [Well what other moral issues, bishop, rise to the level of the murder of over a million innocents a year? You bring us “starting a major war,” below, apparently still reeling from an offhand remark Trump made 6 or 9 months ago, but there hasn’t been a war anywhere in the world in the past 20 years that has killed as many people in its totality as are killed by abortion in this country in a single year. THERE IS NO MORAL EQUIVALENT TO ABORTION ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD AT THIS TIME!!!!! So if you want to use elaborate moral calculus to make your electoral choice, abortion gets a value of infinity, and everything else, some finite value which doesn’t matter, because infinity trumps all. That is what Bishops Farrell and Vann said in 2008, that there is simply no issue that compares with abortion in this country at this time, and it is an issue of such overwhelming moral import that it is impossible for Catholics to support an openly pro-abort candidate for any reason at any time whatsoever. And now we have democrat candidate and party platform calling for repeal of all limits on abortion and federal funding for it, which funding would surely cause a MASSIVE EXPANSION in the number of abortions in this country. There is no other comparable evil being endorsed, or even fleetingly addressed, by any major candidate. You cannot draw a false equivalence between limiting numbers of immigrants, or reducing welfare expenditure, or ]
The recent statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” shows why this argument is simplistic and thus misleading. The bishops’ statement clearly asserts the absoluteness of the prohibitions against concrete intrinsically evil acts, emphasizing that no circumstances or intentions can justify performing or illicitly cooperating with such acts. At the same time, “Faithful Citizenship” recognizes that voting for a candidate whose policies may advance a particular intrinsic evil is not in itself an intrinsically evil act. Voting for candidates is a complex moral action in which the voter must confront an entire array of competing candidates’ positions in a single act of voting. It is crucial that in voting for a candidate who supports the advancement of an intrinsic evil, Catholic voters not have the intention of supporting that specific evil, since such an intention would involve them directly in the evil itself. But voters will often find themselves in situations where one candidate supports an intrinsically evil position, yet the alternative realistic candidates all support even graver evils in the totality of their positions. [“Forming Consciences” is an extremely dubious and problematic document that Bishops Farrell and Vann more or less repudiated in 2008. This kind of false moral equivalence is oriented towards doing little but giving false “moral cover” to those who endorse candidates supporting the most evil acts imaginable. And I think many moral theologians would disagree that there is no culpability in supporting such a candidate, that saying “voting for” but not supporting this or that evil is a very weak moral defense]
This is particularly true in the United States today. The list of intrinsic evils specified by Catholic teaching includes not only abortion, physician-assisted suicide and embryonic experimentation but also actions that exploit workers, create or perpetuate inhuman living conditions or advance racism. It is extremely difficult, and often completely impossible, to find candidates whose policies will not advance several of these evils in American life. [THERE IS NO MORAL EQUIVALENCE BETWEEN “ADVANCING RACISM” AND THE MURDER TO 1-2 MILLION BABIES (IF NOT MORE, IF WE FACTOR IN CHEMICAL CONTRACEPTIVE ABORTION!!!!!! This is really clever and insidious. He’s trying to say “Oh, all these things are evil, and thus equal,” when that is not at all the case. When we look at the Left today, which defines racism not by some real prejudice or hostile acts directed at members of a certain race, but some invisible “privilege,” can the bishop not see that what he is advocating is basically an endlessly false moral equality that can be made to justify everything and nothing?!? This is naught but a most sorry exercise at self-justification and provision of the flimsiest of moral covers. And since this is all really about giving cover to Hillary supporters, does the bishop really think that allowing millions of illegal immigrants to come here is a way to prevent exploitation of workers?!? The entire reason for allowing them here is to drive down wages and to give seedy employers the ability to pay people pennies on the dollar. I would say that controlling and limiting immigration is the best way to prevent exploitation of workers in this country]
Even more important, a fatal shortcoming of the category of intrinsic evil as a foundation for prioritizing the major elements of the political common good lies in the fact that while the criterion of intrinsic evil identifies specific human acts that can never be justified, it is not a measure of the relative gravity of evil in human or political acts. Some intrinsically evil acts are less gravely evil than other intrinsically evil actions. Intrinsically evil action can also be less gravely evil than other actions that do not fall under the category of intrinsic evil. For example, telling any lie is intrinsically evil, while launching a major war is not. But it would be morally obtuse to propose that telling a minor lie to constituents should count more in the calculus of voting than a candidate’s policy to go to war. [Excuse me, but did he just say that? Am I the only one who takes this as a most pathetic attempt to explain away Hillary’s manifest perjuries and constant recourse to public lies? Man he has really gotten twisted off by some PuffHost articles on Trump and supposed warmongering. Clutch that woobie tight, Bishop McElroy. It’ll protect you from the mean, awful monster Trump] It is the gravity of evil or good present in electoral choices that is primarily determinative of their objective moral character and their contribution to or detraction from the common good. Moreover, because voting is a complex moral action involving mitigating circumstances, a vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils often does not involve illicit cooperation in those acts. For these reasons the category of intrinsic evil cannot provide a comprehensive moral roadmap for prioritizing the elements of the common good for voting
With “shepherds” such as these, there is no wonder at all that the Church is in the state she’s in. It is almost a diabolical mixture of truth and falsehood. Notice how he switches subjects there at the end, when he does mix in some truth (that there are different grades of intrinsic evil), from a ludicrous example of a small lie vs. starting a major war, as opposed to addressing the single most pressing issue facing the country (and most of the world) today, which is the mass slaughter of innocents in the womb. Why suddenly make this switch (of which evils he is highlighting, having brung up abortion previously), unless to press a dubious comparison between the two primary candidates? “Hillary may be a pathological liar, but Trump’s going to start wars all around the world!” Please.
Who was Secretary of State that was on watch, and may even have caused, the Mideast to erupt in flames? Which administration helped precipitate (if it was not the direct cause of, as many think) the most grievous ongoing war in the world right now, one that has caused even more deaths than our disastrous adventure in Iraq? Which administration has caused the worse relations with Russia in nearly 30 years?
Sign the Declaration of Fidelity to the Church’s Unchangeable Teaching on Marriage September 28, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in awesomeness, Basics, catachesis, disconcerting, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, Grace, manhood, priests, sadness, sanctity, scandals, the struggle for the Church, true leadership, Virtue.
I’m not sure I like the word “teaching.” Teachings are changeable, a bit amorphous. Doctrines are better, Dogmas are the best. Dogmas cannot change. They are fixed. The Church’s belief regarding marriage most certainly rises to the level of a Dogma.
That quibble aside, we’ve had 1500 odd priests in the US and Britain sign a pledge to uphold Church Dogma on marriage and urge Francis to do the same, we’ve had 42 leading prelates and theologians privately dissect Amoris Laetitia and implore Francis to return to the perennial Dogma, we’ve had cries of the heart from The Remnant and many other organizations and individuals, and now this: an attempt by even more leading Churchmen, theologians, apologists, clergy, and faithful to declare their fealty to this unchangeable Doctrine, and imploring Francis to stop undermining the constant belief and practice of the Faith.
Some 80 leading lights in the Church today signed onto this petition at its launch. 2200 other souls have done so in the past few days. I have done so. Perhaps you will, too. An overview of the effort via Rorate:
80 Catholic personalities reaffirm their loyalty to the Magisterium of the Church on the family and Catholic moralsA Declaration of Fidelity to the Church’s Unchangeable Teaching on Marriage and to Her Uninterrupted Discipline was disclosed today by a group of 78 Catholic personalities, including cardinals, bishops, priests, eminent scholars, leaders of pro-family and pro-life organizations and influential figures of civil society.The statement was disclosed by the association Supplica Filiale [Filial Appeal], the same organization that collected, between the two Synods on the family, nearly 900,000 signatures of Catholic faithful (including 211 prelates) in support of a petition asking Pope Francis a word of clarification to dissipate the confusion disseminated in the Church on key issues of natural and Christian morality since the consistory of February 2014.Noting that the confusion has only grown in the faithful after the two Synods on the family and the subsequent publication of the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia (with its more or less official adjacent interpretations), the signatories of the Declaration of Fidelity feel the urgent moral duty to reaffirm the immemorial teaching of the Catholic magisterium on marriage and family and the pastoral discipline practiced for centuries with regard to these basic institutions of a Christian civilization. This grave duty, according to the signatories, becomes even more urgent in view of the growing attack that secularist forces are unleashing against marriage and the family; an attack that does not seem to find any more the accustomed barrier in Catholic doctrine and practice, at least in the way they are now generally presented to public opinion.Solidly supported by a crystalline and indisputable teaching, confirmed by the Church in recent years, the Declaration is concatenated around 27 statements upholding those truths explicitly or implicitly denied or rendered ambiguous in the present ecclesial language. According to the signatories, what is at stake are unchangeable doctrines and practices concerning, for example, faith in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the respect due to this Sacrament, the impossibility of receiving Communion in a state of mortal sin, the conditions of true repentance that enable to receive sacramental absolution, the observance of the Sixth Commandment of the Law of God, the most serious obligation not to give public scandal and not lead the people of God to sin or to relativize good and evil; the objective limits of consciousness when taking personal decisions, etc.
The Declaration of Fidelity is already available in English and Italian and it will soon be available also in French, German, Spanish and Portuguese. Whoever wants to adhere to it can do so by signing at the address http://www.filialappeal.org/
When you go to the link, click on the “XXXX signatures worldwide” to add your own name. There, you can also read either a summary of the declaration, or the lengthy text itself.
Thus we now know with certainty of at least five public and who knows how many private intervention attempts that have been made to change the direction of this most radical and destructive pontificate and affirm the Sacred Deposit of Faith. That these efforts have all been directed at the pope himself is, to put it mildly, unprecedented in the history of the Church.
The Church is being “fundamentally transformed” just as the US was.
PS – I finally get into Rorate! Wish I had known Adfero was going to be there, I should have liked to have met him:
I’m gonna make it after all, dun dun dun duuun da!!
Actually, Rorate has linked to my stuff a few times, for which I am appreciative. The Rorate post seems to express the view that the parish is small in size but crowded. Perhaps by New York standards. I haven’t been in many traditional parishes substantially larger (though primarly NO parishes that offer the TLM often are). They did note the crowds, which is always the case especially on Sunday.
My Sunday pal Hugh Sheridan wasn’t to my left as he was for almost every Sunday for 5 years or so straight. RIP.
I think we need a bigger altar with a massive reredo with many niches for Saints statues and/or paintings. What do you think?
Dallas Pastor Named New Bishop of Lubbock September 27, 2016Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, Dallas Diocese, episcopate, Francis, General Catholic, huh?, priests, the struggle for the Church.
And the influence of the Diocese of Dallas – once a relative backwater – continues to grow. I think this makes the 7th or 8th diocese with a bishop with strong ties to the Diocese of Dallas. That weren’t the case even a few years ago, when Dallas used to be the kind of diocese that received bishops from elsewhere, rather than being a “breeding ground” for them. Perhaps this is yet another of the effects of Bishop Farrell’s rather short tenure, a significant increase in the Diocese of Dallas’ profile.
At any rate, Msgr. Robert Coerver of Saint Rite parish in Dallas has been named by Francis as the third Bishop of Lubbock, TX, replacing retiring Bishop Palacido Rodriguez:
Pope Francis has named the pastor of St. Rita Catholic Church in Dallas, Reverend Monsignor (pronounced Mon-senior) Robert Coerver (pronounced curve-er), to serve as the new Bishop of Lubbock. The appointment was announced today in Washington, D.C. by the papal nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Christophe Pierre, followed by the announcement in the Diocese of Lubbock.
With the appointment, Reverend Monsignor Coerver will become the third bishop of the Diocese of Lubbock. Monsignor Coerver says he was very surprised by the news but grateful to the Holy Father for his confidence in him. He says that while he looks forward to serving Lubbock, he will miss Dallas. “I was born and raised here in Dallas; my family roots are here and my ancestors were among Dallas’ first Catholics. I have developed so many fantastic relationships over the years and it will be difficult to have them take on a different nature. I have cherished my work among my brother priests and upon hearing of my appointment a slight pang of sadness came upon me. But, as a priest, I have always known that I must follow wherever the Lord leads me, and so when asked if I would accept the appointment I did so immediately because I have promised to serve wherever the Church needs me. I happily look forward to this new role as chief shepherd of the Catholic faithful in Lubbock and pray that God will assist me in leading the Catholic people there. I ask the prayers of the people of the Diocese of Dallas as I prepare to assume my new responsibilities.”………
………Bishop-elect Coerver has served at numerous parishes in the Diocese of Dallas, including St. Elizabeth of Hungary, St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, and as pastor at Our Lady of the Lake in Rockwall, and since 2010 at St. Rita in North Dallas. He will be ordained Bishop of the Diocese of Lubbock at a special Mass of Ordination on November 21, 2016 at 2 p.m. at Christ the King Cathedral in Lubbock.
Is it just me, or does Bishop-elect Coerver seem a little less than thrilled to be headed to the dry, flat plains of West Texas? I much prefer Amarillo, myself.
No, I don’t know anything about Bishop-elect Coerver. I’m all ears if people have some knowledge of his liturgical, doctrinal, and pastoral sensibilities. Saint Rita is one of the larger, more prosperous parishes in the Diocese, for whatever that’s worth.
Well, good luck and God speed to both Bishop-elect Coerver and the people of the Diocese of Lubbock.
Here’s a video showing the official press conference introducing Bishop-elect Coerver to the Diocese of Lubbock:
His episcopal motto: “Suscipe Domine” – the beginning of Saint Ignatius Loyola’s famous prayer on self-surrender to the Grace of Jesus Christ. Perhaps a good sign?