1 comment so far
Francis’ recent statement regarding Christian persecution and the “devil-inspired ecumenism of blood,” was not his first foray into the topic. I’d like to introduce you to a significant effort reader D alerted me to, called the “Denzinger-Bergoglio,” a site by some faithful priests, with approval of their bishop(s), who take some of Pope Francis’ statements and then compare them to statements of the traditional Magisterium. The site started in Spanish for a Spanish milieu, but some like-minded priests are translating it into English. The priests of course remain anonymous.
The site takes it’s name from the Denzinger compendium of Catholic belief. What they are doing is comparing many of Pope Francis’ more troubling statements to the established doctrine of the Faith. As a sort of introduction to the site, I excerpt portions of their post on Pope Francis’ previous foray into examining this “ecumenism of blood,” in an interview given with Andrea Tornielli last year AND on other occasions. Since they excerpt Pope Francis’ statements at length, I will take only the highlights from those, and then some of the “responses” from the Church’s perennial belief:
PF: Are you Christian? Boom!……They don’t ask them if they are Pentecostal, Lutheran, Calvinist, Anglican, Catholic, Orthodox… Are they Christians? They kill them because they believe in Christ. This is the ecumenism of blood.
Yes, for me ecumenism is a priority. Today there is an ecumenism of blood. In some countries they kill Christians for wearing a cross or having a Bible and before they kill them they do not ask them whether they are Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic or Orthodox. Their blood is mixed. To those who kill we are Christians. We are united in blood……
“For persecutors, we are not divided; we are not Lutherans, Orthodox, Evangelicals, Catholics…No! We are one in their eyes! For persecutors we are Christians! They are not interested in anything else. This is the ecumenism of blood that we experience today….Spiritual ecumenism and the ecumenism of blood.
“We offer this Mass for our 21 Coptic brothers, slaughtered for the sole reason that they were Christians”. “Let us pray for them, that the Lord welcome them as martyrs, for their families, for my brother Tawadros, who is suffering greatly.”
Now, some of the quotes from the Magisterium:
Council of Florence (Ecumenical XVII)
-Salvation does not Exist Outside of the Church Even for Those who Have Shed their Blood for Christ
Synod of Laodicea (363-364 AD)
-The ‘Martyrs’ of the Heretic are Aliens from God
Saint Fulgentius of Ruspe
-Non-Members of the Catholic Church Cannot be Saved, Even if they Shed Their Blood for the Name of Christ
Saint Cyprian of Carthage
-The Blood Shed by a Schismatic does not Wash Away the Stain of Sin
-The Torments Suffered by a Schismatic do not Serve as a Crown, but rather a Chastisement for his Perfidy
-The Baptism of Blood is Useless to a Heretic
-Those who, as Schismatics, do not Lead a Christian Life, do not Die as Martyrs
-Those who Rebel against the Body of Christ cannot presume to be persecuted for His Sake
-If a Schismatic Dies Guilty of Sacrilege how may He be Baptized by his Blood?
-The Same Furnace which Purifies the Martyrs, Reduces Heretics to Ashes
-Even if a Heretic Dies for one Article of the True Faith, He may not be Considered a Martyr
For each of the above, D-B then expands on the topic with quotes from the original source. To show you how that works, the bit from the Council of Florence (which, by the way, featured the temporary reunion of the schismatic Orthodox and the presence of Eastern Orthodox bishops) above expands to:
Council of Florence (Ecumenical XVII):
It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fasting, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Denzinger-Hünermann 1351. Council of Florence, Decree in Behalf of the Jacobites, February 4, 1442)
OK, how about that Synod of Laodicea?
Synod of Laodicea (363-364 AD):
Canon 9: The members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor attend the so-called martyrs of any of the heretics, for prayer or service. […]
Canon 34: No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, for they are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go after them, be anathema. (Synod of Laodicea, The Canons, Canon 9/34)
Finally, they add a critically important supplement to the above with resources on so-called invincible ignorance, which has quite often been abused to morph into a kind of catch-all means of salvation for heretics and schismatics. Great stuff:
Saint Thomas Aquinas:
Neither living nor lifeless faith remains in a heretic who disbelieves one article of faith. […] if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will. […] A heretic does not hold the other articles of faith, about which he does not err, in the same way as one of the faithful does, namely by adhering simply to the Divine Truth, because in order to do so, a man needs the help of the habit of faith; but he holds the things that are of faith, by his own will and judgment. (Saint Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica II-II q. 5, a. 3)
You get the point. You can go to the D-B site to read all the rest of the citations they have.
They do not draw conclusions. They let Catholics, guided by faith and reason, reach their own. I’ll do the same. Note, they have commentary on many of Pope Francis’ voluminous statements. There is quite a bit of analysis there, the site is really a valuable resource.
I will add this, however. While the volume and extent of surprising statements from the papacy has certainly appeared to increase with Pope Francis, in truth, all of the post-conciliar pontiffs, even John Paul I, have made quite similar statements at times. You can even find them occasionally in John XXIII and, more rarely, Pius XII. Some try to use that as evidence of “A ha! See, Pope Francis isn’t doing anything different from them, he must be OK!” I see that continuity, to the degree it exists, less as an explanation and justification of Pope Francis’ words and actions, but more as an indication that the Church has suffered from a severe lack of catechesis and leadership, even at the very top, for decades.
There has been a great deal of debate and discussion in (what is easiest to distinguish as faithful) Catholic circles regarding whether it is possible for Catholics to criticize a Pope at all. Some take the stand that such criticism is always extremely dangerous and imprudent and really should never be done. I have always found this argument silly, since it would at a minimum destroy historical analysis of the Church as a profession, and is a direct criticism of the writings of too many Saints and great Catholics to list, going back many centuries, who have certainly made critical analyses of papacies of the past. In practice, the rule really seems to be “it is impermissible to criticize the reigning, or recently reigning, pontiffs, especially those since the sainted, indefectible Council,” while it is OK to take to task the actions and judgments of pontiffs distant past.
Whatever. I’ve always tried to steer a middle course, avoiding gratuitous judgments of any Pope, past or present, while steadfastly pointing out imprudent actions or even errors promoted that could affect the faith of many souls. You cannot block papal PR coverage. Word is going to get out, and people, especially better formed souls, are not blind. They will make their own judgments. It has always seemed to me that it is far better to point out problematic statements or actions with charity and basic fairness, rather than attempt to cover up that which cannot be covered. Certainly, it is better not to point out Noah’s, or Francis’, nakedness, but when that nakedness is apparent for all to see (and receiving worldwide coverage), it is not only necessary, but vitally necessary to explain why the nakedness is wrong (or problematic with respect to the Doctrine of the Faith), rather than to pretend it doesn’t exist.
It may be a gross comparison, but I’d say such is the tack advocated by Steve Skojec in a long post at One Peter Five on the permissibility of criticism of the papacy. I will skip the quite extensive groundwork he lays (but will note, he is quite right that criticizing the papacy does not mean Christ’s promise that His Church will never fail is invalid, but is in fact a defense of that Truth), and get to some of the justifications he uses for his position (original, I add comments):
Put more simply: we didn’t make this mess, but pretending it doesn’t exist isn’t going to make it go away. Want people to stay faithful? Help them to see how what’s happening doesn’t mean Catholicism is false, but rather, is suffering exactly as we were always told it would. Show them what is true, and what the limitsand boundaries of assent require. Give them a path forward, not out. [An excellent point. I personally know 2 individuals who deferred, if not gave up on, their plans to convert, because they are now utterly confused on what the Church believes. That’s only my own narrow experience. The plain fact is, people are being exposed to the Pope’s more confusing/troubling statements, and without correction, their assumption is that what the media is telling them is true and accurate, that irreformable Catholic belief is changing, or may change]
To that end, we need to look to our Church’s history. Would we say that the bishops of the Third Council of Constantinople, which posthumously anathematized Pope Honorius I for heresy, were “spiritual pornographers” or scandalizers of the faithful? Would we make such claims about the Theology faculty at the University of Paris who opposed the heresies in the personal sermons of Pope John XXII — or King Philip VI, who forbade them from being taught? [Or really holy men like Bossuett, who made some value judgments about some preceding and even near-contemporary papal actions in public]
Taken further, would we make such claims about St. Paul, who publicly reprimanded the very first pope, the one chosen by Christ Himself?
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. – Galatians 2:11
A pope is still a man — and thus, a sinner — and can make mistakes. Paul withstood Peter for the simple reason that he was “to be blamed” – in other words, culpably in error. [Long excerpt from St. Thomas Aquinas follows that I do not copy, you should read it]
……St. Thomas makes the important distinction between an exercise of authority — a papal action — and authority of ruling — the power and authority inherent in the papal office. He asserts that if public actions of a prelate — even the pope — cause “danger” that is “imminent,” then the “truth must be preached openly” and “the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others.” Further, if it is true that these prelates must not “disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them,” then any argument that the faithful and clergy must not publicly address a pope’s public errors, misleading statements, or actions for fear of scandalizing the faithful is without merit. [I’d say this is a fair representation of St. Thomas’ argument]
On the contrary, there is a positive duty to keep such errors from spreading if one possesses the ability to identify and charitably elucidate them. This is of paramount importance in order to instruct or correct those who might be led into sin by believing these errors. This is not merely a hypothetical, but something that has become a real problem with (to use examples that quickly come to mind) misconceptions following the Synod that the pope has changed the rules for the divorced and remarried on receiving Holy Communion, or in the case of those who have taken Pope Francis’s “Who am I to judge?” as a tacit endorsement of same-sex relationships. The Spiritual Works of Mercy include “instructing the ignorant,” “counseling the doubtful,” and “admonishing the sinner.” At various levels, any (or all) of these three works of mercy might apply in a redress of these errors.
We would also do well to remember that the non-theological actions of popes can also be scandalous. Popes like Stephen VI, Benedict IX, Sergius III, John XII, Alexander VI, Innocent IV, and Urban VI come prominently to mind. These popes — all of them valid — were reported variously to have taken part in scheming, simony, murder, adultery, rape, torture, sodomy, bestiality, desecration of the corpse of a predecessor, and other horrific crimes. [It was these kinds of non-theological actions that Bossuett and others have pointed out were scandalous. That was no sin. Many others, also many holy men, have pointed out that Clement XIII’s politically-motivated suppression of the Jesuits was unfair and may have played a role not only in the French Revolution but the ascendance of liberal thought in the latter 18th and 19th centuries. That does not make them bad Catholics for doing so]
While Pope Francis has certainly not been accused of acts such as these, many of his papal appointments have empowered men who have no business in leadership positions in the Church, and whom, as in the case of Fr. Radcliffe, represent an actual danger to the faith. Men who speak to the media, making statements on the pope’s behalf, leading us to believe that he agrees with their heterodox agendas.
And when reports of the pope’s more controversial (alleged) opinions or activities disseminate through the global press — reports which many faithful Catholics find troubling — they are very rarely addressed or corrected, despite a Vatican press office and a PR executive in his employ, both of which are meant to monitor the news and ensure that the Vatican is being represented accurately in the media. The mechanisms are in place to analyze the message the world is receiving, but a choice is made not to clarify. The impression given is that silence gives consent…….. [I’d add just a bit more. A Pope who behaves scandalously in his private life, or even somewhat publicly, by insisting on gaudy riches, a lavish lifestyle, sexual incontinence, etc – is one kind of scandal. Yes, especially since Popes have not been known to do so for many centuries, it would cause a great deal of confusion. But I’m not sure that is as severe a scandal, or causes such confusion, as troubling statements related to Doctrine, the right practice of the Faith, ecumenism, etc. Those affect the Faith on a more fundamental level, and, I think, are even more necessary to comment on]
…….If the Vatican does not choose to speak to these issues by reaffirming Church teaching, may we, the faithful, not do so in an attempt to mitigate the damage? We do not have the luxury of living in the historically disconnected world, where statements of the pope took months to reach any given diocese by letter, if at all. Our always-on, Internet connected planet presents a new reality not encountered by the ancient Church: every thought and action of a figure as high profile as a pope is instantly broadcast to billions, both Catholic and non-Catholic alike. They are forming opinions of what we believe based on what they hear and see, whether or not it is accurately represented. Is there to be no corrective action taken by anyone if the Holy See takes none itself?
As cited by Pope Leo XIII, Pope Felix III admonished:
“An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed…. He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”
It seems indisputable, then, that we must resist error — even from a pope, who may fall into such outside the parameters of the infallibility of his office and most particularly in his personal judgments.
In the 16th century, we see this understanding succinctly expressed by Melchior Cano, a Bishop and Theologian of the Council of Trent. It is taken from his De Locis Theologicis — a text the Catholic Encyclopedia indicates “certainly ranks with the most lauded productions of the Renaissance” and “in the estimation of some critics … made its author worthy of a place next to St. Thomas Aquinas.”
“Now it can be said briefly that those who defend blindly and indiscriminately any judgment whatsoever of the Supreme Pontiff concerning every matter weaken the authority of the Apostolic See; they do not support it; they subvert it; they do not fortify it… . Peter has no need of our lies; he has no need of our adulation.”
It seems equally clear that none of us may use such criticism as an excuse to abandon the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. [Agreed!] We may not decide for ourselves that any given occupant of the See of Peter is not the pope, for it lies outside our competence to make such judgments. We must submit to every legitimate exercise of his authority, showing obedience in all areas where obedience is due. [Which is really quite limited. And this Pope has chosen thus far to avoid invoking his charism of infallibility in official doctrinal pronouncements for the universal Church.]
OK, I’ve stolen more than enough, but I don’t think I took even 1/3 of the post’s material! As I said, it’s pretty long (~3500 words?), but quite valuable.
I generally try to go even a bit further on the side of prudent caution than the above, generally restricting my commentary to admittedly pointed, even leading questions, regarding this papal statement or that papal act. I’ve written a lot on this Pope, and certainly don’t recall every single thing I’ve ever written, but I generally try very hard from making definitive judgments regarding his deeds, limiting myself to those questions or addressing, at most, the prudence of whatever is under consideration. That’s just my point of view, it doesn’t have to be yours, and I generally don’t have a problem with those who vary on either side – towards a more cautious, non-critical approach, or a more openly critical one. I do start to have a bit of a problem when those who adhere to one of those positions tries to dictate to others what is permissible for them to do in this regard. I have always believed as Skojec (and many others) do, and as I think they have demonstrated through strongly reasoned argument, it is licit to point out problematic acts or statements if it is done in in a charitable manner that does not involve final value judgments (this Pope is a heretic, protestant, demon, etc).
YMMV. May the fireworks begin.
Pope Francis: It may be a heresy, but I agree with the devil that all Christians are one? – UPDATED May 27, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, catachesis, disaster, Ecumenism, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, Papa, pr stunts, scandals, secularism, shocking, Society, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Pat Archbold has an explosive post related to Pope Francis that is quite possibly the most troubling statement made by this Pontiff yet. After acknowledging that what he says may not only be controversial, but heretical, he then pronounces that he agrees with the devil that all Christians, be they evangelical, Orthodox, Lutheran, Catholics, or “Apostolic,” are “one.” He even pauses, announces out loud his doubts about what he is tempted to say, but then goes ahead and says it anyway. This starts at 4:10 in the video below:
Now, there are some people at CMR that are attacking Mr. Archbold severely, pretending that Pope Francis did not say what he plainly said. He is speaking in Spanish, which I read much better than I speak, but I’ve listened to the Pope and read the translation about 10 times now and it’s very close to how I would translate it. They leave out a bit that I think is important which I’ll include in the transcript below, which is mostly from the subtitles of the video but I make a few changes:
“I feel like saying something that may sound controversial……….or even heretical, I don’t know. But there is someone who “knows” (sabe – the verb used conveys knowing an intellectual fact) that, despite our differences, we are one. It is he who is persecuting us*. It is he who is persecuting Christians today, he who is anointing us with the blood of martyrdom** He knows that Christians are disciples of Christ: that they are one, that they are brothers! He doesn’t care (or he is not interested) that they are Evangelicals , Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics, or Apostolic……he does not care! They are Christians! And that blood unites. Today, dear brothers and sisters, we are living an “ecumenism of blood.”
* – So the devil is using muslims as the vehicle of his persecution? Is this statement intended to absolve muslims for their guilt in murdering Christians around the world in their thousands every month? “The devil made them do it?”
**- So the devil now anoints us? What is he anointing us with? The blood – grace – of martyrdom. So the devil is playing a key role in the dispensing of grace?
Now, there has been tremendous confusion in the Church on just this subject of the ostensible unity of Christians in the post-conciliar period. This confusion is a prime reason why so many Catholics of conscience have serious concerns over Dignitatis Humanae and other VII products, documents that played key roles in introducing novel concepts regarding just who constitutes the Church and what means unity. The souls arguing against Archbold on this narrow point (he also brings up the scandal of appointing Fr. Timothy Radcliffe to a position of influence at the Vatican, and the Pope’s silence on the Irish sodo-“marriage” vote – those concerns get crickets, everyone is focused on this devil-unity statement) seem very confused on this matter – some persistently argue that because protestant baptisms can be valid, that means unity with the Church. But “unity” properly understood extends far beyond that, and once a protestant, possessing the proper mental faculties, accepts protestant errors condemned by the Church, the Grace of baptism is lost as he has now chosen to place himself outside the Church. This used to be clear. Virtually all Catholics used to firmly believe that those outside the Church had only the dimmest chances of salvation – if they believed they had any at all. But not anymore – which is why a lot of very bright souls wonder how it is possible to reconcile major aspects of the pre-and post-conciliar Magisterium.
Back to the Pope’s statement – my good Lord, have mercy on us. Has there ever been a Pope who would preface a highly controversial (and dubious) theological proposition with, essentially, “This may make me a heretic, but…….?” Simply on the prudential level, for any Catholic to make a public pronouncement like that is simply incredible, but for a prelate, let alone THE POPE?!?!?! There simply are no words.
Even if what he were saying were 100% orthodox, to be so imprudent as to promote uncertainty in the Pope’s theological standing, to assail the dignity of the office with a statement that, according to the Pope, might be heretical, to scandalize millions by declaring “I’m just not certain if this is heresy or not, which could land you and me in hell for all eternity, but here goes!”……just wow.
We are in totally uncharted waters. Yes, yes, John XXII, but that was one narrow matter on which he was clear he spoke as a private theologian. We get no such reassurances here. And it is almost certainly much more than one narrow topic.
We are deep into the Passion of the Church, indeed. Our Lady warned us and warned us……
UPDATE: More analysis from Eliot Bougis. Much of his commentary is directed at Jimmy Akin’s endless, credibility-snapping apologias for papal statements over the past 2 years, including this one. A quote from that commentary, including a statement by Pope Francis I did not address above:
Third, the biggest problem arises from his claim that the wound of division exists “in the body of the Church”. This is utterly false, and in the “heretical” kind of way, to be sure. The Church is ONE and SPOTLESS; all such “division” is extrinsic to Her. Ironically enough, the divisions Pope Francis is addressing are themselves the result of schismatic Protestant history and an ongoing refusal to seek communion with Rome. So, by calling such divisions the work of the Devil, he’s right–all schism is diabolical, including that fostered by the organizers of the John 17 Movement! [Which meeting in Arizona the Pope’s video was addressing]
Fourth, by saying that “from 9 in the morning to 5 in the afternoon, [he] will be with [the John 17 participants] spiritually,” and that he desires to “join [them] as just another participant” in the event, he vaults over the otherwise safe area of merely praying with non-Catholics and dives into formal co-celebration with them. The event in Arizona included Bible teaching and worship, not mere prayers, so, by uniting his person and intentions with the participants, Pope Francis has formally and publicly united himself as a member of Protestant worship,* which is a no-no, even in the post-Conciliar age (cf.Unitatis Redintegratio, no. 8). But, hey, who am I to judge?
Not that any of the above matters, of course. It doesn’t matter what this pope says, whose pious ears he offends, what traditional doctrine and laws he undermines and obscures. He’s the pope, after all. It’s all his show. As “faithful Catholics” we’re just expected to smile and nod.
More shortly, God willing.
Many have probably already seen the video of a talk given by Fr. Linus Clovis on the ‘Francis Effect’ in the Church. It is a most remarkable and explosive speech. The content is most unusual in its unflinching clarity and his appraisal of the perception so many of the most faithful Catholics have regarding this pontificate. He actually makes a joke of the old line “is the Pope Catholic?,” turning it into a real question. He also notes the corrosive effect on Doctrine the past 2-plus years have seen.
He also argues quite convincingly that Catholics can never pit bits of Scripture against each other, Dogma against Dogma, or put new “pastoral” approaches against the traditional practice of the Faith.
Since this has probably already been seen by many, I won’t provide any more synopsis, but I will say it is quite worth watching in its entirety and that we truly live in remarkable times, when apparently good, devout priests feel compelled to stand up and say that there are things being put forth, even at the highest levels of the Church, which are contrary to the Faith as it has been handed on to us. The priest’s main conclusion is that the ‘Francis Effect’ is having the effect of silencing faithful Catholics and giving succor to the Church’s most avowed opponents:
“The Pope has to facilitate our obeying him, by himself being obedient to the Word of God,” and, I might add, all of Sacred Tradition.
BTW, I was also sent a link to a website begun for Spanish-speaking Catholics by regular diocesan priests, comparing many of Pope Francis’ statements against the perennial Magisterium of the Church. An English companion site has also been created. You can read analyses of many of the more, ah…….unexpected……..statements from Pope Francis. No conclusions are reached. The priests – who are anonymous since they do not want to attract unwanted attention to themselves or their bishops, who are knowledgeable of this effort – simply present the Pope’s words and then various statements from the Magisterium related to them. Expect to see more on this effort in the coming days.
Reader D also sent me a link to an interview given by Fr. Linus Clovis, I believe sometime last year, below. The subject of this interview was Fr. Clovis’ denial of Communion to a pro-abort politician after his country, St. Lucia, legalized baby killing back in 2004:
Fr. Clovis notes how his own diocese did not really back him on his refusal to see Christ blasphemed, stating that he should have given the politician Communion with a warning that he would not do so next time (which is frankly a far better position than most US Dioceses, which would have simply thrown the priest under the bus in the service of continuing political “favor” – but favor at the barrel of a gun is no favor at all). But it’s none too comforting to find out his own archbishop told him he had “no right” to refuse Communion, and who also claimed ignorance of the personage of Cardinal Ratzinger – the future Pope Benedict XVI! Wow.
If you want to sere more of Fr. Clovis, there are a number of videos on Youtube featuring him (here’s one). I have not watched any of them, so YMMV. This channel seems to have many of them, along with many other priests.
Finally, and as a bit of fun, I post the following for Rex. The Carlists had an awesome march, the Oriamendi. I don’t know if it would be a winning move to start calling our men’s prayer vigil outside strip clubs a Requete, though the idea is tempting. I especially like their very wide Navarre berets.
My probably bad translation:
For God Country and King!
Our fathers fought!
For God country and king!
We fight as well!
We fight all together
All together in union
Defending the flag of Sacred Tradition!
We fight all together
All together in union
Defending the flag of Sacred Tradition!
Regardless of the cost we will pay it
until the red berets enter Madrid!
For God Country and King!
Our fathers fought!
For God country and king!
We fight as well!
More awesomeness on the Requete:
Dios Patria Fueros Rey! Viva Christo Rey!
Wait till you see how a Vatican prelate responds to criticism of having pro-aborts speak at “climate change” conference – UPDATED May 21, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Abortion, contraception, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, It's all about the $$$, Papa, persecution, scandals, secularism, self-serving, shocking, SOD, the return, the struggle for the Church.
Dear Lord, Life Site News posted yesterday an exchange between Archbishop Sanchez Sorondo, Chancellor of the Pontifical Academies of Science, and the large pro-family group C-FAM. C-FAM queried him, in very polite terms, about the scandal of having major pro-abort activists being given a platform to spread their diabolical errors at the recent Vatican conference on so-called climate change. His responses were incredibly hostile and dismissive. I mean, he doesn’t even try to hide his enormous bias or the fact that he’s very much on the progressive side of things, he simply chided and rebuked C-FAM for every mild criticism they raised. Get a load of this (questions from C-Fam in bold, I add comments):
Q. Were you aware before your collaboration with Sachs at the Vatican of his public position on abortion in the book “Commonwealth”, where he says abortion is a “low-cost” and “low-risk” intervention to reduce fertility in the event that contraceptives fail?
Sánchez Sorondo (S.S.) I’ve just come back from Argentina, where I attended a conference to combat new forms of slavery, like human trafficking, forced labor, prostitution, and organ trafficking, which I consider, together with Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, to be a crime against humanity. Unfortunately, there is not only the drama of abortion, but there are also all these other dramas, in which you should also be interested, because they are closely related. The climate crisis leads to poverty and poverty leads to new forms of slavery and forced migration, and drugs, and all this can also lead to abortion. [Note, he didn’t even remotely answer the question, he simply changed the subject. Certainly human trafficking is a huge concern and is most rampant in muslim nations (why don’t the Archbishop use his voice to chide muslims on that?!?) but it has no relation to “climate change.” But it gets worse…..]
Q. Several Catholic intellectuals and media sources criticized your decision to collaborate with Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs on climate change, because of their positions on abortion and population control. Do you have any reply to these concerns?
S.S. The Tea Party and all those whose income derives from oil have criticized us, but not my superiors, who instead authorized me, and several of them participated. [Oh come on! My income doesn’t derive from oil, you petulant snot, and I’ve just been one of thousands, if not millions, scandalized by this biased watermelon festival. Give me a break!]
Q. Undoubtedly, you discussed Ban Ki-moon’s and Jeffrey Sachs’ position on abortion and population control in the lead up to the conference. How were any questions resolved?
S.S. Yes. We had these discussions, and as you can see, the draft SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) don’t even mention abortion or population control. They speak of access to family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights. The interpretation and application of these depends on governments. Some may even interpret it as Paul VI, in terms of responsible paternity and maternity. Instead of attacking us, why not enter into dialogue with these “demons” to maybe make the formulation better, like we did on the issues of social inclusion and new forms of slavery? [Now just wait a minute. This is diabolical. In every Western country including all of Latin America, “family planning and sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights” are synonymous with contraception and abortion. This is diabolical in the use of code language to communicate to what I have to assume was the intended audience – the radical sexular pagan enviro-left – that the Vatican, or at least this conference, is on board with their agenda, while leaving some wiggle room to say “oh, we didn’t endorse abortion,” even while they had huge pro-aborts speaking for this conference all over the place. Don’t you like how they’re trying to drag Humanae Vitae back into this, as well? “Responsible parenthood” means, according to Pope Francis, “3 kids is about right,” and contraception is back on the table. I also like how he tries to chide C-Fam for being critical, asking why they didn’t join in the process? The reason they didn’t is because they couldn’t, they weren’t invited, and even more, any noted pro-life pro-family “conservative” groups were blocked from entering the conference!]
Q. Critics of this collaboration lament how Catholics and non-Catholics alike may be confused about participating, even remotely, in the grave moral errors that Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs promote. At the same time, Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs have derived great benefit from their participation, confirmed in the enthusiastic media coverage of the conference, which may in turn also raise a lot of interest for Pope Francis’ new encyclical on the environment.
S.S. We are happy that Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs have accepted the theory on climate that the Academy has maintained for thirty years, namely, that human activity based on fossil fuels determines climate. [Based on what?!? Global temperatures have not increased in 20 years even as carbon emissions have greatly increased! This is a conclusion looking for evidence, and a perversion of science.] The members of the Academy have defined this “anthropic climate” or “anthropocene,” chief among them being Nobel Prize winners Paul Crutzen and Mario Molina. You should also be happy, because the consequences of climate change fall especially on the poor, and this also puts them in situations where they then accept abortion. [He is here directly reiterating Sachs’ claim at the conference, and simply espousing left wing talking points with essentially no basis. If you make fossil fuels vastly more expensive, that’s going to put great pressure on the poorest to abort, not “climate change.”] Moreover, we are happy that Ban Ki-moon and Jeffrey Sachs have accepted to modify the proposals on social inclusion by adding new forms of slavery such as human trafficking, forced labor, prostitution, and organ trafficking, which were not even present in the last drafts. You should be happy about this too, because if there is anything that threatens the family, of which you call your self a supporter, it is prostitution, which Pope Benedict called an absolute evil precisely because it destroys the cell of social order. [His words drip with venomous derision. This man is a snake]
Q. The Declaration on climate change that was released after the conference unequivocally assigns responsibility for climate change to human activity. Is this a position that is shared by pope Francis?
S.S. This I do not know. But I suppose yes, because he would not write an encyclical just to say that man is responsible for the Earth but that everything is fine! Perhaps, you believe, like those who live off oil, that everything is fine? [This is how a Vatican prelate speaks? With the baiting emotion-laden language of the left? “You’re not one of those evil oil profiteers, are you?” I’ve never read or heard anything about this guy before, but he comes across as a thug in cassock.] The Academy says otherwise, as do all the rest of scientific academies in the world. Only a few scientists paid by lobby groups opine differently. [This is a wicked and unsubstantiated calumny. This is utterly beneath the dignity of an archbishop. Note his entire argument is this: climate change is happening, because we say it is, and how dare you say anything different! Now just shut up!]
There is a bit more at Life Site News. I’m sorry for abusing fair use, but this is so incredibly revealing I felt it had to be shared.
This guy was promoted to his position 17 years ago by Pope JPII. He has written very extensively. It seems he started out perhaps a bit progressive with occasional orthodox positions thrown in. But he seems to have tacked hard left since……surprise!………March 2013. Gee……I wonder what happened then that could have precipitated a sudden shift?
Geez……..if this is any confirmation of the kinds of attitudes percolating at the Vatican over the past 2 years, things are going to get out of hand very quickly. Then again, many would argue they already have.
Here’s a question……how much money has the Vatican/Church been promised for their climate change advocacy? I don’t think that’s an unfair question, things like this don’t just “happen,” there is almost always money involved.
UPDATE: Sheesh, how blind do you have to be to leave a comment like this (I paraphrase):
I think I see the hand of the Holy Ghost here. These bad bishops have always been in the Church, but Pope Francis is really encouraging them to come into the open. I’m sure he’s just giving them enough rope to hang themselves, and that Pope Francis will squash them soon.
My mouth hangs agape. And yet such willful blindness is everywhere. This is not just withholding judgment. This is self-delusion.
A commenter in my previous post already noted this, but I thought this a sufficiently huge topic to break it out into another post. That article I linked to that examined more details of the Pew religious attitudes survey goes on to paint a really bleak picture of the future of the Church. Based on present trends, and assuming they arrive at some equilibrium point in the future (and discounting certain factors like immigration), the author estimates the Catholic Church will wind up with only 6% of the total population of the US at some indeterminate future point (I did not see the article declare when this would happen, but I would guess, based on present trends, within 50-80 years – i.e., within the lifetime of my children). This data shows the Church has already essentially reached a point of near-total collapse, and is only coasting on the 59% of her prior membership who hasn’t left the Church for a sect or complete religious apathy. Once this generation dies out, the Church will be smaller, percentage-wise, than it has been since the early 1800s in this country (you have to go to the link for the tabular data, since its embedded in their html code for the article):
If conversions went on as they do today and all other factors were held steady, America would wind up with the religious demographics of the stable distribution.
Unaffiliateds would wind up modestly gaining ground (from 23 percent at present to 29 percent).1 And Christian denominations would drop a little (from 69 percent at present to 62 percent at equilibrium).2
But there would be substantial redistribution among Christian groups, with evangelical Protestants gaining (26 percent at present to 32 percent) and Catholics losing more than half their current share of the population (21 percent to 8 percent).
Why do evangelicals wind up ahead of other Christian sects in this model? They’re better at holding on to the people born into their tradition (65 percent retention compared to 59 percent for Catholics and 45 percent for Mainline Protestants), and they’re a stronger attractor for people leaving other faiths. According to Pew’s data on conversion rates, 10 percent of people raised Catholic wind up as evangelicals. Just 2 percent of people born as evangelicals wind up Catholic. The flow between mainline and evangelical Protestants is also tilted in evangelicals’ favor. Twelve percent of those raised evangelical wind up in mainline congregations, but 19 percent of mainline Protestants wind up becoming evangelical.
This data only confirms what most of us already know: a very large number of people leaving the Catholic Church in this country (as well as many others) do so because they are spiritually starved, tired of being fed baby food and pablum in the form of happy-clappy liturgies and never-offending, never-challenging “catechesis.” And in my personal experience, it is these people who have already made up their minds that the Church has nothing to offer them that are the most resistant to any propagandizing in the name of the Faith. They have tried Catholicism, found it grossly wanting, and will not be back. Former Catholics, in point of fact, make up over HALF the growth seen in the evangelical sects – and, again, data from other countries shows that the situation is even worse there.
This data also shows it not just cultural changes that have been responsible for the destruction of the Faith in the lives of millions of souls. Some groups are growing quite rapidly, as are traditional Catholic communities. It is the banal, heck, spiritually dead product of Novus Ordo land – with its worldly focus, left-wing political bent, and its grave fear that it never, ever, offend anyone (except true believers) – that is driving souls from the Church en masse.
Just a few caveats: like all projections, this one is based on a limited data set, ignores important factors like immigration (little wonder bishops stress it so much, they probably have access to a lot better data than this), and is predicated on things staying just as they have. In fact, with regard to whatever positive growth areas it sees, I tend to imagine those are going to be under heavy stress as the prevailing culture becomes increasingly pagan and anti-Christian. Once being visibly, publicly Christian (of any type) starts to carry a heavy cultural cost, the numbers could become much worse than they show above.
Nevertheless, the data above shows the Church in a uniquely bad position. The Church is being accursed by low rates of retention of those born into her, the highest rates of flight out, very low rate of conversion, and, finally and most momentously, a very low birth rate for those within. That is why, cumulatively, the Catholic Church, based on the data above, may suffer an even greater collapse than the mainline protestant sects. Given how much those have imploded, that is beyond depressing, but, then again, when you model your corporate institution on a bad copy of an already failing one (mainline protestantism), should one be surprised that it fares even worse than the original? Especially when moderately well-formed Catholics can simply look to the recent past and say: “These things are not the same?”
So, the new evangelization has either massively failed, or succeeded beyond a modernist’s greatest hopes and dreams, depending on how you look at it.
I’ll be blunt – the Church is being bled white by doctrinal indifference (and chaos), left-leaning politics, and managerial incompetence. The Church in this country as it exists today is likely to be a shadow of its former self in a few decades. Heck, it already is, but the process is only going to accelerate. And the thing is, many leaders in the Church, up to and including the past several Popes, are apparently fine with this. They are so taken in by the (I’ll say it) demonic lie of ecumenism that they probably see the collapse of the Catholic Faith as an OK thing, so long as it doesn’t happen too much in their diocese, and their finances remain OK. Which of the last several pontiffs has repeatedly presented a cogent explanation to the souls in their charge (that is, the entire world) why they must either remain, or become, Catholic? I seriously question whether our present Pope Francis would agree with the statement: “I undeniably did the right thing, and immeasurably increased my chances for salvation, in becoming Catholic).”
These men have been so taken in by their blind adherence to the ecumenical indifferentist modernist socialist materialist philosophy that they are allowing – no, encouraging, forcing – the Church to rapidly die on their watch. This is a tragedy of biblical proportions and almost forces me to conclude that we have to be well into the end times in order to comprehend their behavior and the death of faith in the hierarchy. As a local priest says, we are now deep into the passion of the Church, a passion prophesied by St. Paul, St. John, and others. Pope Saint Pius X, the last great Pontiff the Church has had (over 100 years ago), concerned over the perversion of so many priests and bishops he saw in HIS time (God was merciful to let him live and die when he did), wondered:
“whether such a perversion of minds is not the sign announcing, and the beginning of, the last times, and that the Son of Perdition spoken of by the Apostle (II Thess II:3) might already be living on this earth.”
And of course we know that Pope Leo XIII – who some consider to have been quite liberal compared to his predecessors – had a vision of satan being unleashed on the Church for 100 years in 1884. That doesn’t mean satan was unleashed then, it just means the vision happened then.
So sad……if this is not the end times, future historians will have to look on the Church from 1958 – ??? as the greatest mass suicide of an incredibly large, influential, and resilient cultural institution ever.
Yeah, I knew this post would get long with my ranting – there is so darned much to rant about – that’s why I did two posts on this subject. Do go to the link, there is more analysis and data there.
How can the American bishops over last 50 years be rated anything other than complete, epic fail? May 20, 2015Posted by Tantumblogo in abdication of duty, Basics, disaster, episcopate, error, foolishness, General Catholic, horror, paganism, Papa, priests, scandals, secularism, self-serving, Society, the return, the struggle for the Church.
I found a post that digs a little deeper into the Pew religious attitudes survey I covered last week. The news, if anything, is even more bleak for Catholics. I reported last week that the percentage of self-identified Christians had fallen by about 15% – that 15% of the overall population, whereas a few years ago 85% of Americans self-identified as Christians, only 70% do today.
But now for the really bad news – it seems that of that 15% drop, nearly 3/4 of it has to do with Catholics falling away from the Church. Whereas nearly 1/3 of people surveyed responded they had been raised Catholic, only 21% now self-identify as Catholic (and what tiny fragment of those actually accept all the dogmatic beliefs of the Church? That in itself is a puny fraction).
O Glorious new evangelization, will your wonders every cease?!?
Look at those dismal, pathetic numbers! Which religious body has experienced the single largest hemorrhage of members? The Catholic Church. Which one has experienced the second smallest rate of conversion of new members into it? The Catholic Church, and the only one with a smaller influx are the historically black congregations, which are infinitesimal in comparison to the size of the Church, and yet, and YET – the difference is paltry. Relative to its overall size, the Catholic Church makes fewer converts than every other group identified above, and by a factor of at least 2-3, if not more.
And mind you, this is even with three decades of basically unconstrained (and morally dubious) illegal immigration from predominately Catholic countries! Without that influx the numbers would be even more pathetic, to the extent that it is quite possible that former Catholics would outnumber Catholics without it. No wonder the bishops are so irrefutably wedded to mass immigration no matter how many families are broken up, lives are ruined, how much economic damage it inflicts both here and in the countries suffering mass emigration, or how many Americans lose their jobs to low-paid illegal immigrants – it’s the prime, and quite possibly sole factor keeping their dioceses, by and large, somewhat afloat.
But here is the really important question – is this collapse simply the accidental result of the implementation of disastrously destructive post-conciliar novelties, or is it by design? Were those policies implemented in the sure and certain knowledge they would leave the Church prostrate?
We’ll likely never know the answer in this life, and I imagine it features a good deal of both, but either way, the entire “new evangelization” of soft liberalism, moral decadence, and catechetical chaos has resulted in the total implosion of the Faith in this country and many others around the world. If anything, this country remains a relative bastion of a stalwart faith in this hemisphere and in comparison to all of Europe, as surveys show an even greater collapse in the practice of the Faith in Latin America and virtually every European country. I am by no means a professional historian, but I’ve read far more than my share of Church history, and never in the history of the Church has their been such an across the board implosion of virtually every measure of the vitality of the Church as their has been in the past 50 years. Modernist ideologues, congratulations, I imagine you have succeeded beyond even your wildest dreams.
So….what next? The human leadership of the Church seems to have vehemently rejected even the mild restoration efforts of Pope Benedict in favor of the continued advance of the radical humanism and reflexive leftism of the immediate post-conciliar period. Hey, the political leaders demand it, the culture seems to be rushing headlong into the kind of barbaric paganism not seen in the West in a thousand years or more, and since the final collapse probably won’t happen on a particular bishop’s watch, why not just go along for the ride? Even more, a large majority of Church leaders remain so blinded by ideology that even if they cared about the fate of souls and the material state of the Church, they would be highly disinclined to do anything, anyways. For them, this is the realization of the vision of the left-wing anointed, and nothing will prevent them from seeing their ideological triumph set in stone, souls be damned (and they will).
Lord have mercy on us. We have surely failed in our prayers and penance to deserve prelates such as these. Have mercy on us and send us those we so desperately need, true shepherds of souls who know their sole duty is to save every soul they are given charge over, and who will make no compromises in that effort.
St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Alphonsus Marie de Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Isidore of Seville, St. John Chrysostom, St. Peter Chrysologous, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. John Fisher, St. Andrew Corsini, St. Anselm, St. Peter Damian, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Peter and all the Apostles……..pray for us and our bishops! May your prayers for them work miracles of conversion that will result in all of our bishops emulating your superior piety and virtue in every respect!
I posted yesterday some content on just a few of the problematic statements of Fr. Timothy Radcliffe, OP, just this past weekend (this Pope seems to have learned quite a bit from Obama – or Juan Peron – on how to manipulate the news cycle to one’s advantage) appointed to role of Consultor to the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice, a long-time hot bed of dissent, abuse, and even open heresy. Radcliffe’s role of Consultor will get him a voting position at the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the family. Burke out, Radcliffe in. Means nothing, move along, nothing to see here, move along.
Via Vox Cantoris, some additional writings from Fr. Radcliffe, including his belief that sodomy is equivalent in “fertility” to natural relations between husband and wife (emphasis in original, I add comments):
Fr Radcliffe OP expands the meaning of fertility to include gay sex
But not every marriage is fertile in this way. We must avoid having a mechanistic or simplistic understanding of fertility. Jesus speaks a fertile word: This is my body, given for you. He is God’s fertile word. And surely it is in the kind and healing words that we offer each other that we all share in fertility of that most intimate moment. When Jesus met Peter on the shore after Easter, he offers him a word that renews their relationship. Three times he asks him; ‘Do you love me more than these others?’ He allows him to undo his threefold denial. Sexual fertility cannot be separated from the exchange of words that heal, that recreate and set free. [Just to be clear, Fr. Radcliffe is comparing Christ’s forgiveness of St. Peter with the words exchanged in the foul embrace of sodomites. I don’t think I have to comment on just how perverse that is]
How does all of this bear on the question of gay sexuality? We cannot begin with the question of whether it is permitted or forbidden! We must ask what it means, and how far it is Eucharistic. [Not even slightly, and no amount of modernist double-talk will make it so] Certainly it can be generous, vulnerable, tender, mutual and non-violent. [I point you again to this link, which discusses the sky-high rates of violence between same-sex partners. Sodomy, by its very nature, is an act of violence. It abuses the human body in ways that are unnatural and destructive. If you want to be grossed out, read about the incredibly disgusting after-products of sodomy – lube, blood, fecal matter, semen. Oh, yes, it’s so “vulnerable and tender.” That language, BTW, strikes me as being redolent of pederasty] So in many ways, I would think that it can be expressive of Christ’s self-gift. [The abomination of desolation, indeed. And this man was head of the Dominican order for 9 years.]
We can also see how it can be expressive of mutual fidelity, a covenantal relationship in which two people bind themselves to each other for ever. But the proposed legislation for ‘gay marriage’ imply that it is not understood to be inherently unitive, a becoming one flesh. […] [I’ll just repeat, even among so-called “married” individuals fallen into these perverted lusts, the idea of monogamy – especially for men – is almost completely foreign. Trysts with others are very common. This fact is kept as undercover as possible, because it (along with a thousand other things) obliterates the call for recognition of their “unions” as marriage.]
And what about fertility? I have suggested that one should not stick to a crude, mechanistic understanding of fertility. Biological fertility is inseparable from the fertility of our mutual tenderness and compassion. And so that might seem to remove one objection to gay marriage. I am not entirely convinced, since it seems to me that our tradition is incarnational, the word becoming bodily flesh. And some heterosexual relationships may be accidentally infertile in this sense, but homosexual ones are intrinsically so.
Sexual ethics is about what our acts say. And I have the impression that we are not very sure of what gay sexual acts signify. Maybe we need to ask gay Christians who have been living in committed relationships for years. I suspect that sex will turn out to be rather unimportant.’ [Which is why an overwhelming majority of those fallen into sodomy have over 100 lifetime partners, and only 4.5% report fidelity to their current partner?]
Fr Radcliffe on Holy Communion for Catholics who are divorced and re-married:
I would conclude with two profound hopes. That a way will be found to welcome divorced and remarried people back to communion. And, most important, that women will be given real authority and voice in the church. The pope expresses his desire that this may happen, but what concrete form can it take? He believes that the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood is not possible, [Note the phrasing: “he believes……”…….but wait till we get a really radical Pope!] but decision-making in the church has become ever more closely linked to ordination in recent years. Can that bond be loosened? Let us hope that women may be ordained to the diaconate and so have a place in preaching at the Eucharist. What other ways can authority be shared?’ [Note also that the idea that women must be “given real authority in the Church” is just an assumed good, something “desirable.” On what basis? The entire college of disciples was male, this is something Christ Himself instituted, but, heck, if we can admit adulterers and attempted bigamists to Communion in spite of Christ’s command, why not just scrap all His other inconvenient (to leftists) commands?]
So, as time goes by, the reality of this pontificate and its nature becomes more and more clear.
Regarding this Radcliffe character, it’s been said that modernism was an attempt by liberal “Christians” to incorporate evolutionary theory (Darwinism) into their faith – but with the evolution always predominate. The real (main) religion of the modernists was scientific socialism and Darwinism. The neo-modernists of today are simply leftists who hold positions in the Church requiring a patina of Catholicism of them due to the nature of their position. Their primary religion is leftism.
I think if you will look at matters through that lens you will find that virtually all these “inexplicable” acts suddenly make a great deal of sense.
Dismas and others have been quite right: different religion.
A well-known British Dominican apologist for perverse lifestyles has been promoted to a highly influential Vatican post as Consultor to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Fr. Timothy Radcliffe has formerly offered Mass for the out n’ proud group in the Soho district of London on numerous occasions. But he has gone far beyond that in his advocacy for this atrocious lifestyle. While this news may be old to many, it is of such great significance it bears repeating:
The Vatican Bollettino for today reports that Fr. Timothy Radcliffe OP, has been appointed by Pope Francis [this was a deliberate papal act] as Consultor to the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. The former Master General of the Dominican Order is a prominent supporter of the Kasperite proposal in favor of communion for the “divorced and remarried”. He has also spoken out in favor of the ordination of women, if not to the priesthood, then at least to the diaconate (see this.) However he is more famous for his frequent public interventions pushing for greater acceptance of homosexuality, having been a frequent celebrant of the infamous “gay Masses” in Soho, London…….
…….It is true that Radcliffe has “opposed” “gay marriage”, but his farcical “opposition” rests on grounds entirely contrary to those of the Church: Radcliffe opposes it because, in his words: “‘gay marriage’ ultimately, we believe, demeans gay people by forcing them to conform to the straight world.“[Right, they should be out there abusing themselves and others with abandon! Get back to the “glory days” of 10, 20, even more partners in a night like the San Fran bath houses of old] His support for civil “same sex unions” and his lavish praise of homosexual “love” are a matter of public record, and led to repeated attempts last year by good and devout Catholics to prevent him from talking at the Divine Mercy Conference in Ireland (see this and this) and in San Diego, California (see this report on the Wanderer), as well as in the Flame 2 Youth Conference this year in London (read this). All these attempts failed — and Radcliffe’s acceptability has just received a major upgrade with this latest appointment. A tremendous slap to the face of so many good Catholics who had opposed him out of fidelity to the faith…
A few choice quotes from Radcliffe, demonstrating his heterodoxy, via Church Militant news:
And in 2012, in the liberal U.K. paper The Tablet, he praised same-sex civil unions:
This is not to denigrate committed love of people of the same sex. This too should be cherished and supported, which is why church leaders are slowly coming to support same-sex civil unions. The God of love can be present in every true love.
In 2006, Radcliffe delivered a keynote speech in Los Angeles titled “The Church as Sign of Hope and Freedom,” and challenged Catholics to “stand with” homosexuals.
We must accompany them as they discern what this means, letting our images be stretched open. This means watching “Brokeback Mountain,” reading gay novels, living with our gay friends and listening with them as they listen to the Lord. … We are not a sign of God’s freedom until we can dare to belong to each other across every theological boundary. [It’s not only a question of theology, it’s a question of morality. Certainly we should reach out to them…… in order to convert them from their lives of sin! This man and his ilk, so wanting to be loved by the world, leave people mired in sins that will merit damnation. I have to wonder whether Fr. Radcliffe does not have a personal interest in this matter? Like so many other priests, he apparently refuses the concept of judgment or damnation……save for those who adhere to the Faith of the Father! This appointment is so emblematic of this papacy]
I have no doubt that God does call homosexuals to the priesthood, and they are among the most dedicated and impressive priests I have met. … And we may presume that God will continue to call both homosexuals and heterosexuals to the priesthood because the Church needs the gifts of both.
I would conclude with two profound hopes. That a way will be found to welcome divorced and remarried people back to communion. And, most important, that women will be given real authority and voice in the church. [The Pope] believes that the ordination of women to the ministerial priesthood is not possible, but decision-making in the church has become ever more closely linked to ordination in recent years. Can that bond be loosened? Let us hope that women may be ordained to the diaconate and so have a place in preaching at the Eucharist. [Because that has helped the Anglicans so much, right? I mean, there was a mass exodus going on but when the Anglicans started pretend-ordaining women, that just stopped it cold! Remember when that happened?! Remember how Anglicanism in England was hemorrhaging membership, then they started “ordaining” women, and the sect burst into full flower? Yeah…….neither do I]
So, another ancient leftist ideologue rehabilitated and given a high Vatican position. And liberation theology was “never condemned.” The entire career and papacy of Joseph Ratzinger is going down the memory hole. It just never happened! Reset back to 1978.
Because everyone remembers how awesome the 70s were!