A corporal work of mercy.

A corporal work of mercy.
Click on photo for this corporal work of mercy!

Wednesday 30 September 2015

With Elizabeth Scalia - Error, sentimentality and emotionalism come before the facts

Let’s just say I usually never read Elizabeth Scalia or any of the Catholic writers at Aleteia or worse, Pathetic, I mean Patheos.

However, this I did read because of a link I came across. It has to do with Scalia’s views on Mo Rocca’s reading of Holy Scripture at Mass on Saturday in the presence of Pope Francis. Rocca, a Catholic, is a quasi-celebrity and out and proud sodomite activist who dissents from Catholic teaching on morality.

Remember that by clicking and reading her whole story you give her another penny. However, if you must, you can read what Scalia writes at this link or you can use Do Not Link to the right. http://www.donotlink.com/framed?786226.

By reprinting this piece in full you are in violation of copyright law, as you never contacted Aleteia or Elizabeth Scalia requesting reprint permission. Please limit your piece to a 300 word excerpt with a link back to the piece -- standard fair use procedure and common internet etiquette -- or remove it from your site entirely. 

Zelda Caldwell, Managing Editor, Aleteia English edition
Encountering Mo Rocca at the Ambo
When openly gay tv-newsman Mo Rocca ... "an unrepentant sodomite” ... papal event, much less a Mass?” That’s right Elizabeth, “an unrepentant sodomite” and a perfectly correct term. Sodomy and “sodomite” are the words used in Scripture and history. The word homosexual is just over a century old and “gay” means happy and joyful. He dissents from Church teaching and he does so publicly which is enough reason to disqualify him from an “official” and certainly a “liturgical” role in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Attending is another matter and receiving Holy Communion is the same for him as the rest of us, after Confession and Penance with a firm purpose of amendment of life! Well, ... “whoever was still holding the rolodex from .. He had emcee’d Benedict’s youth rally ... had not yet “come out” as gay. He had not “come out” and whilst is sexual sins may have been known by some, and thus the same factors would apply, he had not made them public so the public “scandal” did not exist. ...Rocca’s appearance at the ambo – whether by design or happenstance or the arcane workings of the Holy Spirit So, the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity picked Mo? Are you serious? A “culture of encounter” demands that we see the whole person before us, not simply an ideology, or a category of social standing, or even as a unit of sin, but as a whole person, Yes, but they don’t take an official liturgical role at Mass! the conversion, the turning of heart and soul, came from meeting Christ.  ... But they were not permitted to enter into the Holy of Holies and sprinkle blood were they, even if they were of the Tribe of Levi! None of that is effective evangelization; none of it begets the encounter. Reading at the Mass is not about evangelisation. That comes with “Ite missa est” Do you even know what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is? ... he refrained from receiving Holy Communion, You don’t know that, nor do I and that is between him and God. ... Nothing prevents a Catholic – any Catholic – from engaging in parish life, or from licitly participating in the Mass; It was "llicit.No, we are also not permitted to engage in official liturgical functions whilst being a public dissenter, there is a difference between this and one’s private sins! Obedience ... What about the obedience to Catholic morality? ... Pharisee. Because everyone that upholds Church teaching is a Pharisee.
Really Elizabeth, you get paid for this bovine excrement?

I believe that I am under 300 words.

Have a great day.

“Unacceptable.” The Base Document of the Synod “Compromises the Truth”


On the verge of the synod, three theologians with the support of cardinals and bishops critique and reject the “Instrumentum Laboris.” Here is the complete text of their charges of accusation

by Sandro Magister

ROME, September 29, 2015 - The text that is made public here joins the numerous statements of various viewpoints on issues of family, marriage, divorce, homosexuality, that have followed each other with growing intensity with the approach of the opening of the synod.

It is presented as a collective work. Not only because the text has three authors, but even more because it was born and raised, over the span of almost a year, at the initiative and with the contribution of numerous other Catholics, priests and laymen, from various nations of Europe, with the attention and support of bishops and cardinals, some of whom will be fathers at the upcoming synod.

The text takes aim at the most controversial paragraphs of the final “Relatio” of the 2014 synod, which were later incorporated into the “Lineamenta” and the “Instrumentum Laboris,” concerning communion for the divorced and remarried, “spiritual communion,” and homosexuals.

In the judgment of the text’s promoters, these paragraphs contradict here and there the doctrine taught to all the faithful by the magisterium of the Church and by the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself, to the point of “compromising the Truth” and therefore making the entire “Instrumentum Laboris” “unacceptable,” as well as any “other document that may reiterate its contents and be put to the vote at the end of the next synodal assembly.”

The three priests and theologians who byline the text are:

- Claude Barthe, 68, of Paris, cofounder of the magazine “Catholica,” an expert in canon law and liturgy, promoter of pilgrimages in support of “Summorum Pontificum,” author of works such as “The Mass, a forest of symbols,” “Novelists and Catholicism,” “Thinking differently about ecumenism.”

- Antonio Livi, 77, of Rome, dean emeritus of the faculty of philosophy of the Pontifical Lateran University, ordinary member of the Pontifical Academy of Saint Thomas, and president of the apostolic union “Fides et Ratio” for the defense of Catholic truth. His most recent work, from 2012, is entitled: “True and false theology.”

- Alfredo Morselli, 57, of Bologna, pastor, confessor, and preacher of spiritual exercises according to the method of Saint Ignatius. A graduate of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, he is the author of works such as “The negation of the historicity of the Gospels. History, causes, remedies” (2006), and “Then all Israel will be saved” (2010). His archbishop is Cardinal Carlo Caffarra.

The text can be read in its entirety, in the original Italian, on this other page of www,chiesa:

> Osservazioni sull'"Instrumentum Laboris"

Reproduced below are the introduction and two of the four chapters into which the text is divided: the first, on communion for the divorced and remarried and the third, on homosexuality.



by Claude Barthe, Antonio Livi, Alfredo Morselli

This document presents in a detailed manner, in the light of the Catechism of the Catholic Church anf of the “depositum fidei” in general, some difficulties concerning the “Relatio Synodi” of the last extraordinary synod, incorporated and expanded in the “Instrumentum Laboris” for the 14th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops.

It is even apt to observe how the “Instrumentum” goes further than the “Relatio” itself, expanding its scope, going beyond the intentions of the synod fathers themselves. In effect, this document has taken care to pick up and rework even those propositions which, not having been approved by a qualified majority of the last assembly of the extraordinary synod, should not and could not have been included in the final document of that synod and which therefore should have been viewed as rejected.

Therefore, even where the “Instrumentum” appears to be in keeping with Revelation and the Tradition of the Church, the overall result is a compromising of the Truth such as to make the document unacceptable on the whole, unless its contents were to be presented again and put to a vote at the end of the next synodal assembly.

Pastoral care is not the art of compromise and concession: it is the art of caring for souls in the truth. So the warning of the prophet Isaiah applies to all the synod fathers: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter” (Isaiah 5:20).

Last but not least it must be noted how the “Instrumentum” has to a great extent been stripped of theological significance and superseded, from the canonical point of view, by the two motu proprio of last August 15, released the following September 8.


1 - Observations on § 122 (52)

A. - An hypothesis incompatible with dogma
B. - An improper use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, erroneously drawing arguments from it to support a form of situational ethics
C. - An argument not to the point

2 - Observations on §§ 124-125 (53)

The non-univocal character of the term “spiritual communion” for those who are in God’s grace and those who are not.

3 - Observations on §§ 130-132 (55-56)

“Instrumentum Laboris” and pastoral attention for persons with homosexual tendencies: omissions and silences

4 - Spiritual communion and the divorced and remarried

A more in-depth study on spiritual communion




The next assembly of the Synod of Bishops is intended to deal with many problems concerning the family. Nevertheless, thanks in part to the media uproar and to the pope’s great attentiveness toward the divorced and remarried, the next assembly is considered as the de facto synod of communion for the divorced and remarried. One of the issues that will be addressed seems to be, in fact and for most, the issue of the discussion.

It is well known that in order to resolve a problem it is essential to frame it properly. Unfortunately we have grounds for maintaining that the document that should furnish the correct framing of the whole question - meaning the “Instrumentum Laboris” - is instead misleading and dangerous for our faith.

We present a few observations on the most problematic paragraph, concerning the question of admission to Holy Communion for those who live “more uxorio” in spite of not being canonically married; this is § 122, which reproduces § 52 of the definitive version of the “Relatio finalis” of the 2014 assembly.

The text in question, § 122 (52):

“122. (52) The synod fathers also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist. Various synod fathers insisted on maintaining the present discipline, because of the constitutive relationship between participation in the Eucharist and communion with the Church as well as her teaching on the indissoluble character of marriage. Others proposed a more individualized approach, permitting access in certain situations and with certain well-defined conditions, primarily in irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering. Access to the sacraments might take place if preceded by a penitential practice, determined by the diocesan bishop. The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that ‘imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors’ (CCC, 1735).”

There are reasons to maintain that § 122 contains:

A. - An hypothesis incompatible with dogma
B. - An improper use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, erroneously drawing arguments from it to support a form of situational ethics
C. - An argument not to the point

A. - An hypothesis incompatible with dogma, such as to present itself as deliberate doubt in a matter of faith

“The synod fathers also considered the possibility of giving the divorced and remarried access to the Sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist.”

This reflection is illicit and falls under the category of deliberate doubt in a matter of faith, on the basis of what Vatican Council I solemnly declares: “Catholics may never have just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church.” In full conformity with the whole Tradition of the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church also places doubt among the sins against faith:

CCC 2088: “There are various ways of sinning against faith: Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. […] If deliberately cultivated, doubt can lead to spiritual blindness”.

That the statement “the civilly divorced and remarried cohabiting ‘more uxorio’ cannot receive Eucharistic communion” belongs to that which is presented for belief as revealed by the Church - and therefore can no longer be brought into question - is proven by:

John Paul II, Apost. Exort. "Familiaris Consortio", November 22, 1981, § 84:

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.”

Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by the Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful, September 14, 1994:

“5. The doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter are amply presented in the post-conciliar period in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio. The Exhortation, among other things, reminds pastors that out of love for the truth they are obliged to discern carefully the different situations and exhorts them to encourage the participation of the divorced and remarried in the various events in the life of the Church. At the same time it confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, ‘founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion’ (Apost. Exort. Familiaris Consortio, no. 84: AAS 74 (1982) 185). The structure of the Exhortation and the tenor of its words give clearly to understand that this practice, which is presented as binding, cannot be modified because of different situations.

6. Members of the faithful who live together as husband and wife with persons other than their legitimate spouses may not receive Holy Communion. Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors, given the gravity of the matter and the spiritual good of these persons (cf. 1 Cor 11:27-29) as well as the common good of the Church, have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the Church's teaching (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 978 § 2). Pastors in their teaching must also remind the faithful entrusted to their care of this doctrine.”

Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration Concerning the Admission to Holy Communion of Faithful Who Are Divorced and Remarried, June 24, 2000:

“The Code of Canon Law establishes that ‘Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to Holy Communion’ (can. 915). In recent years some authors have sustained, using a variety of arguments, that this canon would not be applicable to faithful who are divorced and remarried. […]

“Given this alleged contrast between the discipline of the 1983 Code and the constant teachings of the Church in this area, this Pontifical Council, in agreement with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments declares the following:

“1. The prohibition found in the cited canon, by its nature, is derived from divine law and transcends the domain of positive ecclesiastical laws: the latter cannot introduce legislative changes which would oppose the doctrine of the Church. The scriptural text on which the ecclesial tradition has always relied is that of St. Paul: ‘This means that whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily sins against the body and blood of the Lord. A man should examine himself first only then should he eat of the bread and drink of the cup. He who eats and drinks without recognizing the body eats and drinks a judgment on himself.’ (1 Cor 11: 27-29. cf. Council of Trent, Decree on the Sacrament of the Eucharist: DH 1646-1647, 1661).”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also “confirms and indicates the reasons for the constant and universal practice, ‘founded on Sacred Scripture, of not admitting the divorced and remarried to Holy Communion’” and “the constant teachings of the Church in this area”:

CCC 1650: “Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’ (Mk 10:11-12). The Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence”.

Conclusions of § A.

§ 122 of the “Instrumentum Laboris” admits the possibility of that which, for a Catholic, is completely impossible. Access to sacramental communion for the divorced and remarried is presented as a legitimate possibility, when instead this possibility has already been defined as illicit by the previous magisterium (FC, CdF 1994, CCC, Pont. C. Legislative Texts); it is presented as a possibility that is not only completely theoretical (reasoning “by the impossible”), but real, when instead the only real possibility for a Catholic consistent with the revealed Truth is to affirm the impossibility that the divorced and remarried can licitly receive sacramental communion. The question is presented as theologically open, when in doctrinal and pastoral terms it has been closed (ibid.); it is presented as if beginning from a vacuum in the preceding magisterium, when instead the preceding magisterium has spoken with such authoritativeness as not to admit any more discussion on the matter (ibid.).

If anyone were to insist on discussing again that which is presented for belief as revealed by the Church, formulating hypotheses that turn out to be incompatible with dogma, he would lead the faithful to deliberate doubt in a matter of faith.

B. - An improper use of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, erroneously drawing arguments from it to support a form of situational ethics

“The subject needs to be thoroughly examined, bearing in mind the distinction between an objective sinful situation and extenuating circumstances, given that ‘imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors’ (CCC, 1735).”

These last lines of § 122 of the Instrumentum Laboris refer to § 1735 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to support “the distinction between the objective situation of sin and attenuating circumstances,” in view of a possible admission to the sacraments of the “divorced and remarried.” What does § 1735 of the Catechism really say? Let’s read it again:

“Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.”

And now let’s try to explain this text: take the hypothetical case of a poor young woman in India or China who is sterilized under pressure, or a young woman in Italy today who is led to get an abortion by her relatives and boyfriend… In this case imputability is diminished or eliminated, however not directly (simpliciter) by the sad circumstances, but by the imperfection of the act: a morally judicable act - a human act, in more precise terms - must be free and intentional.

Today, even in Italy, with the bad education that is received starting in kindergarten, a young woman may very well not realize that abortion is murder: moreover she might be psychologically fragile and not have the natural grit to go against everyone and everything. It is clear that the moral responsibility of this young woman is attenuated.

It is a different matter with a divorced, civilly remarried person who has come back to the faith after the fact: let’s say that his wife has left him, he has remarried with the mistaken idea of making another family, and he can no longer go back to his first, true, only wife (perhaps she has taken up with another man and had children with him); this brother, in spite of praying and actively participating in the life of the parish, being admired by the pastor and by all the faithful, being aware of his state of sin and not stubborn in wanting to justify it, is living more uxorio with the wife he married civilly, not being able to live with her as brother and sister. In this case, the decision to approach the new wife is a perfectly free and intentional act, and what § 1735 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church says absolutely cannot be applied.

The Catechism itself in fact teaches, at § 1754:

"Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil".

And John Paul II, in the encyclical "Veritatis Splendor,” at § 115, affirmed:

“This is the first time, in fact, that the Magisterium of the Church has set forth in detail the fundamental elements of this teaching, and presented the principles for the pastoral discernment necessary in practical and cultural situations which are complex and even crucial.

“In the light of Revelation and of the Church's constant teaching, especially that of the Second Vatican Council, I have briefly recalled the essential characteristics of freedom, as well as the fundamental values connected with the dignity of the person and the truth of his acts, so as to be able to discern in obedience to the moral law a grace and a sign of our adoption in the one Son (cf. Eph 1:4-6). Specifically, this Encyclical has evaluated certain trends in moral theology today. I now pass this evaluation on to you, in obedience to the word of the Lord who entrusted to Peter the task of strengthening his brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), in order to clarify and aid our common discernment.

“Each of us knows how important is the teaching which represents the central theme of this Encyclical and which is today being restated with the authority of the Successor of Peter. Each of us can see the seriousness of what is involved, not only for individuals but also for the whole of society, with the reaffirmation of the universality and immutability of the moral commandments, particularly those which prohibit always and without exception intrinsically evil acts.”

Conclusions of § B.

The words of Saint John Paul II are unmistakable: with the authority of the successor of Peter he reaffirms the universality and immutability of the moral commandments, and in particular of those that always and without exception prohibit intrinsically evil acts. He also refutes the artificial and false separation of those who presume to leave the immutable doctrine unaltered but then reconcile the unreconcilable, meaning that they act pastorally in a way not in keeping with the same doctrine.

In fact the same holy pontiff did not write the encyclical as a speculative exercise apart from the world, but wanted to present the reasons for the pastoral discernment necessary in complex and sometimes critical practical and cultural situations.

Certainly a divorced and remarried person like the one described in the preceding example (absolutely not a rare case) must be loved, followed, accompanied toward complete conversion, and only then will be able to receive the Most Holy Eucharist. This conversion must be proclaimed as really possible with the help of grace, with the patience and mercy of God, without contravening an unquestionable truth of our faith, according to which one cannot receive Holy Communion in a state of mortal sin.

C. - An argument not to the point

“… irreversible situations and those involving moral obligations towards children who would have to endure unjust suffering.”

Admission to the sacraments has nothing to do with irreversible situations, in which it is no longer possible to reconstitute the first and true marriage.

In these situations, the main moral obligation that the divorced and remarried have toward their children is that of living in the grace of God, in order to be better able to raise them; admitting or not admitting them to the sacraments has nothing to do with their obligations toward their offspring. Unless one wants to deny that the Church “with firm confidence believes that those who have rejected the Lord's command and are still living in this state will be able to obtain from God the grace of conversion and salvation, provided that they have persevered in prayer, penance and charity” (Familiaris Consortio, 84).



Pastoral attention for persons with homosexual tendencies is certainly nothing new in the Church’s magisterium. The “Instrumentum Laboris,” with respect to the “Relatio finalis” of 2014, compensates for the most serious omission of this latter document, giving more attention to the families of homosexual persons (families that are almost completely forgotten in the “Relatio”). As just as it may be, urging the avoidance of unjust discrimination against persons with homosexual tendencies while only barely referring to their families is almost off-topic in a synod on the family.

In the composition of the “Instrumentum Laboris,” a paragraph has indeed been added (§ 131) that advises attention for these family units, and yet there is still no trace of important and fundamental indications reiterated by the ordinary magisterium on the matter.

We maintain that at a synod on the family, addressing the issue of homosexuality by saying only that homosexuals must not be treated badly and their families not be left alone, is a sin of omission.

Here is the text in question:

“Pastoral Attention towards Persons with Homosexual Tendencies

“130. (55) Some families have members who have a homosexual tendency. In this regard, the synod fathers asked themselves what pastoral attention might be appropriate for them in accordance with Church teaching: ‘There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.’ Nevertheless, men and women with a homosexual tendency ought to be received with respect and sensitivity. ‘Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’ (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4).

“131. The following point needs to be reiterated: every person, regardless of his/her sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his/her human dignity and received with sensitivity and great care in both the Church and society. It would be desirable that dioceses devote special attention in their pastoral programmes to the accompaniment of families where a member has a homosexual tendency and of homosexual persons themselves.

“132. (56) Exerting pressure in this regard on the Pastors of the Church is totally unacceptable: it is equally unacceptable for international organizations to link their financial assistance to poorer countries with the introduction of laws that establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex.”

It seems to us that the following observations can be made on this text.

Omissions and silences

Seeing that we are piously urged to put ourselves in the “condition of a field hospital that is so beneficial for the proclamation of God’s mercy,” it is opportune to recall that, in every self-respecting hospital, the doctors do their duty when: 1) they diagnose the illness, 2) administer treatment, 3) follow the patient all the way to recovery; moreover the Church is like “a physician who realizes the danger of disease, protects himself and others from it, but at the same time he strives to cure those who have contracted it.”

To reduce the work of the Church to welcoming persons with homosexual tendencies with “respect and delicacy” (or to silence the rest entirely) can at most be likened - still following the metaphor of the field hospital - to palliative care.

Moreover, recalling only the duty of avoiding any display of unjust discrimination, without saying anything else, can seem like conformity to the propaganda against so-called “homophobia,” which we know very well to be a wedge for introducing disastrous norms into legislation and the acceptance of “gender” theory into consciences.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was wise in observing, in 1986, that “one tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.”

When one speaks of unjust discrimination against homosexual persons, it is therefore opportune also to explain clearly what is truly unjust discrimination and what is instead the dutiful denunciation of evil.

The same congregation also reiterated that “departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral.”

1 - We maintain that the illness must be diagnosed clearly, as for example the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did in 2003; let’s see how the question of unjust discrimination is treated in a fairly clear context:

“Homosexual acts ‘close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2357).

"Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts ‘as a serious depravity...’ (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, declaration ‘Persona Humana,’ December 29, 1975, no. 8). This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries (cf. for example St. Policarp, Letter to the Philippians, V, 3; St. Justin, First Apologia, 27, 1-4; Athenagoras, Plea for the Christians, 34) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

“Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2358; cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, October 1, 1986, no. 10). They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2359; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, October 1, 1986, no. 12). The homosexual inclination is however ‘objectively disordered’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2358) and homosexual practices are ‘sins gravely contrary to chastity’ (Ibid., no. 2396)”.

Moreover, the possibility of sin on the part of persons with homosexual tendencies must be admitted, not excluding confession as a sometimes necessary supernatural aid:

“What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.”

Love shows itself also by unveiling prospects of false happiness:

“As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.”

2 - In the second place, it is necessary to prescribe treatment:

a) preventing the infections of the spirit of the world…

“… Special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option.”

“[The Church] is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda.”

b) … having recourse also to the human sciences. The treatment prescribed must not be only of a moral character: just as the Church, in order to foster the correct use of marriage, promotes the creation of clinics where natural methods are taught, so also it is opportune that the Church should foster all those forms of psychological support which have been provided in recent years, with encouraging results:

“In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.”

c) … and instilling hope: persons of homosexual orientation must be accompanied on a cultural journey as well, intended to unmask all homosexualist theories (such as “gender” theory) and slogans such as “homosexuals are born that way”; this slogan soothes the consciences of those who want to stay like this, and suppresses the hope of those would would like to get out.

3 - In the third place, the patient must be followed all the way to recovery, which is the life of grace and holiness itself; anything whatsoever not in keeping with faith that is called hardship is - for the believer - a providential occasion of sanctification: “Diligentibus Deum, omnia cooperantur in bonum" (Rm 8, 28). Under this aspect as well, we find no words better than those of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

“What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian's suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.

“It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful ‘love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control’ (5:22) and further (v. 24), ‘You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires.’

“It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practise virtue in place of vice.

“To celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one's own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God's redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.

“Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God's personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord's grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.”

4 - Finally, seeking to protect oneself and others from such infection:

“Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon.”


Recalling the issue of helping families with children of homosexual tendencies offers an occasion to ask ourselves the reason for this mention to the detriment of all the other much more widespread hardships that families experience; moreover the issue is presented in such a way as to blur it from being a family problem into a problem of homosexual persons alone, off-topic with respect to the proper object of the synod.

Moreover, the paragraph in question, albeit while having to stay within the space of a few lines, omits any reference to the true issues connected to the pastoral care of homosexual persons; this silence is all the more culpable given the appalling advance of “gender” ideology today.



The base document of the synod, object of the “Observations”:

> Instrumentum Laboris


English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

Tuesday 29 September 2015

This is where Pope Francis is at his best

Notwithstanding anything else, what moved me during Pope Francis' trip to the United States was his visit to the prison. His words were about Jesus and mercy. He spoke beautifully, as a Pope and Pastor should and he took time to meet with many of the inmates. They responded to him. It was wonderful.

Now there is this just out from Dr. Robert Moynihan.

This is what a Pope does!

The Secret Meeting of the Papal Trip
Washington, D.C., September 29, 2015 — One meeting during Pope Francis' whirlwind trip to America has remained secret. Until now. It was, arguably, the most significant meeting, symbolically, of the entire trip. It should, therefore, be brought to the attention of the public, both in the Church, and in the secular world. That the meeting occurred may, perhaps, spark controversy. This is evidently why it was kept secret. The Vatican evidently feared the "politicization" of a "pastoral trip" which clearly wished to emphasize the encounter with Jesus Christ, with the poor, with the faithful, with the handicapped, with children, and with all Americans of whatever background. But there was also, evidently, a desire to meet with a person who has taken a controversial stand out of conscience. The meeting is a fact, and facts are the material of which reality is composed, and human beings, though they cannot, as T.S. Eliot said, bear very much reality, strive nevertheless to live in reality. And reality cannot be understood without knowledge of the facts. Of what really happened. (Here is a picture of Pope Francis on Sunday evening, September 27, on the airplane during his airplane press conference, after leaving the United States) On Thursday, September 24, in the afternoon after his historic address to Congress, just a few minutes before flying to New York City,  Pope Francis received, spoke with, and embraced Kim Davis — the Kentucky County Clerk who was jailed in early September for refusing to sign the marriage licenses of homosexual couples who wished to have their civil marriages certified by the state of Kentucky. Also present was Kim's husband, Joe Davis. Kim and her husband had come to Washington for another purpose -- Kim was to receive a "Cost of Discipleship" award on Friday, September 25, from The Family Research Council at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. "Thank you for your courage" Pope Francis entered the room. Kim greeted him, and the two embraced. There is no recording of this conversation, or photographs, as far as I know. But "there is not any thing secret that shall not be made manifest, nor hidden, that shall not be known and come to light." (Luke 8:17) Kim Davis gave me this account of the meeting shortly after it took place. "The Pope spoke in English," she told me. "There was no interpreter. 'Thank you for your courage,' Pope Francis said to me. I said, 'Thank you, Holy Father.' I had asked a monsignor earlier what was the proper way to greet the Pope, and whether it would be appropriate for me to embrace him, and I had been told it would be okay to hug him. So I hugged him, and he hugged me back. It was an extraordinary moment. 'Stay strong,' he said to me. Then he gave me a rosary as a gift, and he gave one also to my husband, Joe. I broke into tears. I was deeply moved. "Then he said to me, 'Please pray for me.' And I said to him, 'Please pray for me also, Holy Father.' And he assured me that he would pray for me." Joe told Kim that he would give his rosary to her mother, who is a Catholic. And Kim then said that she would give her rosary to her father, who is also a Catholic. Vatican sources have confirmed to me that this meeting did occur; the occurrence of this meeting is not in doubt. Those who have seen the images of the film of the Pope answering the questions of the journalists on the airplane, on the matter of individual conscience, his determination and passion, are persuaded that he had in mind not a theoretical issue of conscience, but a specific person, someone he had met and embraced — someone whose burden, as a loving pastor, he had taken on his own shoulders. He was thinking of this person when he answered those questions.  Why Did the Pope Meet Kim? What was the purpose of this meeting? Pope Francis met with Kim, embraced her, encouraged her, and, on the papal airplane, when asked the question cited at the outset, he stated, very strongly, that "conscientious objection" is "a human right." It is not surprising that the Holy Father met Kim Davis. The Holy Father is considered by many to be the father of all Christians, and is a man of compassion, a man ready to listen to and to comfort all who have suffered for their faith. It was the Holy Father's explicit request to visit a prison in Philadelphia, and he took the time to speak with each of the 100 prisoners he met on that occasion. This is the attitude that prompted the Holy Father to receive Kim, who had been in jail. And her response, from the very first moment of the meeting, showing great affection toward the Holy Father, showed that she responded to this desire of his to comfort her. The meeting with the Holy Father was a moment of consolation for Kim. It strengthened her conviction, she told me, to obey the law of God, before the  law of man. It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that, when the human law contradicts the natural law, it is not a valid law. This encounter between Pope Francis and Kim Davis takes on new importance since the ACLU (the American Civil Liberties Union) has asked that Kim be held in contempt of court. This means that, should the judge agree with the ACLU, Kim could again in coming days be ordered to be held in prison. In this sense, the Pope on September 24 clearly "wrapped his protective mantle" around Kim Davis, discreetly, in private, in a way completely hidden from the world, but in a way that was deeply moving for her personally, as a person of conscience. (to be continued)

Did the bankers make him do it?

Another breaking story about Pope Benedict's renouncement of the papacy comes our way from Hilary White at Orwell's Picnic originating from Maurizio Blondet. You can read the Italian original or Hilary's translation. 

I sent the Italian original to a friend today to get the flavour of it and here is what he wrote:
Essentially the author, Blondet, first writes what we discussed, that the election of Pope Francis is valid since everyone vowed obedience to him and nobody contested the Election. But then he puts forth that the resignation of Benedict was invalid....he talks how Benedict resigned because SWIFT took the Vatican Bank (IOR) out of the SWIFT network, which is absolutely crucial in carrying out financial transactions across the world (giving money to Nunciatures, Missions, etc.).  Few people know about SWIFT. Essentially SWIFT blackmailed Benedict: if he didn't resign the financial state of the Church would be in ruin....Benedict "could not buy nor sell"  - the only proof of this that Blondet gives is circumstantial: IOR is taken off of SWIFT, then as soon as Benedict resigns, it is re-admitted. Yes, strong circumstantial evidence, but not enough to claim blackmail (He also cites that the resignation speech in Latin was riddled with errors, as if it had been given to him by someone else, Benedict would never make such elementary errors in latin).
Then he says that Pope Francis' mandate to accept as many immigrants as possible is similar to an exhortation signed by many Masonic lodges. He ties it all in with Apocalypse 13, where there is mention that "people could not buy nor sell" (like Benedict) without the mark of the beast, the mark of beast being SWIFT banking codes....
Far-fetched, but it does raise some questions; particularly on top of the pervert protecting Cardinal Danneels and his claims of a "mafia."

Enough with the Papolatry

Father Hunwicke has a short post this morning that is worth reading. It reminds all of those papolaters out there. He refers to comments by the Dean of the Roman Rota demanding humble obedience as the Spirit speaks through Francis.

What "Spirit." The Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Most Holy Trinity? 

Why do people continue to ascribe more power to the Pope and more authority than he has? Are they a bunch of Protestants or are they trying to prove Protestants correct that we worship the Pope, kiss his toes and fall down and bow at every word he says? 

The proof of what I am talking about is right here, in a comment left on this blog which I have decided to incorporate into this post:

Anonymous said...The Father having been rejected in the Garden, the Son in Jerusalem, God's people His Church now in large part rejects the third person, the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy against His Vicar and hardness of heart. This Vox post is another shameful example. Makes me sick. 9:16 p.m., September 29, 2015  
Muslims speak of blasphemy against Mohammad. How is it possible? It is not! One cannot blaspheme against a man. Are we to agree that a drawing of Mohammad is a blasphemy? Is Mohammad God? You can only blaspheme against God. Read this. The. Pope. Is. Not. God. He. Is. A. Fallible. Man! One cannot blaspheme the Pope. My Anonymous friend has proved the very problem and the correctness of this post. 

The First Vatican Council prescribed the Infallibility of the Pope. We can't tell Protestants what to think but for heaven's sake, can Catholics at least come to understand that the Infallibility of the Pope is a control on his power not an absolute grant of it?

"The Pope is not an absolute monarch whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary: the Pope's ministry is a guarantee of obedience to Christ and to his Word. He must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God's Word, in the face of every attempt to adapt it or water it down, and every form of opportunism."
Our dear Benedict XVI said the above during his homily as he took the Chair at the Lateran as Bishop of Rome. He also said in response on Bavarian television that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope:
"I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. ... I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit's role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined. There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!"
Do you really think Almighty God elected Alexander VI?
“Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See - they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations," Bishop Melchior Cano O.P., eminent theologian of the Council of Trent.
Do not confuse the active Will of the Almighty with the permissive.


Monday 28 September 2015

Countdown to the Synod manipulations under the watchful eyes of the Pope himself

Now that the Pope has returned to Rome and we've heard that capital punishment, notwithstanding the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Holy Scripture must be abolished because of Pope Bergoglio's personal opinion (it is nothing more) the environment has rights (United Nations) and that all religions are essentially the same (Ground Zero talk), talk that would fit well in any Masonic Lodge, let us return to the issues of the upcoming Ordinary Synod on the Family beginning next weekend.

The Synod is a front and an affront. The proof is the Pope's recent motu proprio on annulment. He disregarded the discussions of the last Synod and struck a secretive committee to implement his own personal desires. Is he about to do the same again? What is the point of calling a Synod? If Benedict or John Paul II ever, ever tried to govern the Church in this manner, they would have been pilloried. Using just Summorum Pontificum as an example, it was no secret, it was talked about publicly for months. Benedict XVI spoke to groups and individual bishops about it and issued a serene letter as to why it was issued and they destroyed him over it.

Image result for pope francisAs some have now discovered, and Father Z had intimated about months ago, the Gospel for next Sunday in the Ordinary Form of the Mass is the indissolubility of marriage and the words of Our Blessed Lord, "what God has joined together let no man put asunder." How prophetically fitting and proof that God, indeed, has a sense of humour.

On his flight back to Rome, Pope Francis answered questions again on the plane. I truly wish Popes would not hold press conferences on planes or anywhere else. The interview includes a question on the matter of divorce and remarriage and annulments. The Pope states quite clearly that:
"The question about 'Catholic divorce.' That doesn't exist. Either it wasn't a marriage, and this is nullity -- it didn't exist. And if it did, it's indissoluble. This is clear."
In fact, it is not "clear" and that is the whole problem. He goes on to give other examples of why he felt he had to change annulment parameters but with what he has done leading to potentially "millions of annulments" akin to the situation in the United States in the early 1970's, is that not what he has done? There is a disconnect between what he is says on the plane and what he has said on paper in the motu proprio. You don't have to take this unqualified writer's word for it. Canonists have spoken out about this. Father Gerald E. Murray calls it a "flawed innovation." Benedict Nguyen writes that it will create "more confusion than clarity" and Ed Peters who calls for new consultation says these are the most revisions in "three hundred years." Remember, this is not about mercy, it is about law because it is about the sacraments. Pope Francis is not a canonist and he fired the best one in the Church!

Do not, I repeat, do not tire, do not develop synod fatigue. The next month is going to be from Hell, brought to you by the Danneels Mafiosi and Kasper conspiracy. You must read and pray and pray more and you must alert your Catholic friends to what is happening. Do not develop synod fatigue, the very future of the Church is at stake. Remember, Our Lord said, "the gates of Hell will not prevail" but that does not mean She won't be shaken to Her core. They may end up with the buildings but you and I must preserve the Faith!

Sandro Magister, one of the most credible Vatican journalists, along with Edward Pentin, has released this morning his latest column. He encapsulates much of what has been out there for a few weeks now and hones in on the risks we face. 

I post the entire column below, with my observations interspersed throughout.

Synod’s Turn To Speak. But Decisions Will Be Up To Francis

The last exchange of fire before the opening of the work. The uncertainty about the procedure. The appeals to the pope. Why in the end it will be he alone who will draw the conclusions

by Sandro Magister
ROME, September 28, 2015 – Back in Rome after his journey to Cuba and the United States, culminating with the world meeting of families in Philadelphia, Pope Francis is now facing the much more exacting challenge of the synod that will open on October 4, the Sunday of the liturgical year on which - as if by a jest of providence - Catholic churches all around the world will resound with these words of Jesus: “Therefore what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

The synod will last for three weeks, and the procedures that will be adopted have not yet been made known, despite having a big influence on the outcome of the work.

What is certain is that there will not be a final message, no commission having been set up to write one.

Another definite feature, preannounced by Pope Francis, is that “each week there will be a discussion of one chapter” of the three into which the preparatory document is subdivided:

 Instrumentum laboris

So this time there will be no “Relatio post disceptationem” halfway through the work, after a first phase of free discussion on everything, as at the synod of October 2014. The discussion will be broken up right away into narrow linguistic groups, each of which will sum up its perspectives in reports destined to remain confidential. At the end of the three weeks there will be a vote on a final “Relatio,” and the pope will give the concluding talk. (The old “divide and conquer.” No group will know what the other is doing or what other language groups are thinking. Let’s not mix the Poles with the Germans lest Marx and Kasper be confronted and confounded.)

Also unlike in the past it is not expected that after a few months there will be a postsynodal apostolic exhortation to cap everything off. The discussion will remain open to future developments. The only embodiment of the provisory conclusions will be the pope’s talk at the end of the work, which will as a matter of course overtop and obscure all the other voices. (This has been rumoured for a while. We will have to wait and see. Apostolic Exhortations sum up the Synodal process and give Pope’s response. What will we see? More personal decisions such as the recent motu proprio that simply order the will of Francis not knowing what the Synodal Fathers desired? Where is Collegiality?

In spite of the much-heralded emphasis on collegiality, in fact, the next round of the synod will also see at work in Francis a monocratic exercise of papal authority, as in last year’s session, at the end of which the pope kept alive propositions that had not obtained the votes necessary for approval. And they were precisely the ones on the most controversial points, divorce and homosexuality. (Pope Francis has been governing the Church in a monarchical manner not seen since the time of Pius XI and certainly not in the post-Vatican II era. Never, ever did St. John Paul II or Benedict XVI and certainly not poor abused Paul VI ever, ever run roughshod over the bishops and faithful as this Argentine Pope who grew up under Peron, has done. Where is the Collegiality so demanded at Vatican II? Or, is this Vatican II revisited and its final chapter?

One undisputed sign of this monocratic exercise of papal authority was the publication, last September 8, of the two motu proprio with which Francis reformed annulment procedures: (Indeed! A totally unexpected and secret act on the part of Pope Bergoglio to turn hundreds of years of Canon Law and Our Lord’s words on their heads. Annulments are not about mercy, they are about law because of the sacrament!

Forbidden To Call It Divorce. But It Sure Looks Like It

A reform of marital cases had been expected for some time. But Francis set it in motion while keeping out the family-centered synod, which he knew was not inclined to approve what he had in mind. He set up the preparatory commission in August of 2014, before the convocation of the first session of the synod. And he signed the motu proprio last August 15, before the second session, scheduling its implementation for next December 8. (Did you notice that? The Pope signed the Catholic divorce motu proprio on the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary and it is to become law on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. If he did this in some fain attempt to obtain Her blessing, I don’t think he will find it so. I interpret this as a mocking of Our Lady and a vain attempt at letting us know that this is infallible, which it is not for the very reason that a future Pope can undo it. You see, the First Vatican Council codified the infallibility of the Pope. Much to the surprise of the papolaters out there, it did not give him more power, it in fact, limited his monarchical power. It defined very narrowly what papal infallibility is and is not. The Pope can say the environment has rights and capital punishment should be abolished but it has no more weight than if he said the moon was made of creamed cheese. These are his opinions, they are not doctrine and cannot be defined as dogma. They can quite rightly be ignored. On the issue of infallibility, the only two times that it has ever been invoked was when the Dogmas of Our Lady’s Immaculate Conception and her glorious Assumption were defined. Ironic, eh? What a disgrace!

The most substantial innovation of the new procedures is that in order to obtain a declaration of nullity, the mere word of the applicant will have the “force of full proof,” without the need for other evidence, and the presumed “lack of faith” will act as a universal master key not just for thousands but for millions of marriages to be declared null, with an ultra-fast procedure and with the local bishop as the sole judge. (Catholic Divorce friends, pure and simple.)

On this the synod fathers therefore find themselves facing a fait accompli. But it is hard to imagine that they are not discussing it. Church historian Roberto de Mattei has even hypothesized that some synod fathers may ask for the abrogation of this act of governance on the part of Pope Francis, “up to now his most revolutionary.” And he has cited the historical precedent of the retraction made in 1813 by Pius VII - imprisoned by Napoleon Bonaparte - of his act of subjection of the Holy See to the sovereignty of the emperor: a retraction invoked publicly by Cardinal Bartolomeo Pacca, pro-secretary of state, and by other “zealous” cardinals, as well as by the great spiritual master Pio Brunone Lanteri, a future venerable: (The Pope must withdraw the motu proprio on annulments. He must be resisted!)

Meanwhile, an appeal has been issued in the American magazine “First Things” by a hefty number of theologians, philosophers, and scholars from various countries, asking the synod fathers to reject paragraph 137 of the preparatory document, judged as contrary to the magisterium of the Church and a portent of confusion among the faithful:

An Appeal Recalling the Teaching of "Humanae Vitae"

The appeal concerns the teaching of Paul VI’s encyclical “Humanae Vitae” on birth control - an encyclical that Pope Francis himself has called “prophetic” - and numbers among its authors and signatories a good number of professors from the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family: Stephan Kampowski, Livio Melina, Jaroslav Merecki, José Noriega, Juan José Pérez-Soba, Mary Shivanandan, Luigi Zucaro, as well as luminaries like the German philosopher Robert Spaemann and the Swiss ethicist Martin Rhonheimer. (How bad has it gotten when the Catholic faithful need to petition the Pope to be Catholic!)

In the judgment of the signatories of the appeal, paragraph 137 of the preparatory document assigns absolute primacy to the individual conscience in the selection of the means of birth control, even against the teaching of the Church’s magisterium, with the added risk that such primacy could also be extended to other areas, like abortion and euthanasia.

In effect, it is precisely on the primacy of the individual conscience “beyond what the rule might say objectively” that the supporters of communion for the divorced and remarried rely, as one of these, cardinal of Vienna Christoph Schönborn explained in an interview with “La Civiltà Cattolica” of September 26:

“There are situations in which the priest, the guide, who knows the persons, can come to the point of saying: ‘Your situation is such that, in conscience, in your and in my conscience as a pastor, I see your place in the sacramental life of the Church.’” (What happened to him since he was the main force behind the Catechism of the Catholic Church?)

The split between the individual conscience and the magisterium of the Church is analogous to that which separates pastoral practice from doctrine: ”: (Remember that Father Thomas Rosica has been saying this for nearly two years and I was sued by him for calling him out on this) a danger that in the judgment of many looms over the synod and has been the object of very strong words from Cardinal Gerhard Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, in a lecture given on September 1 in Regensburg on the occasion of the release of the German edition of Cardinal Robert Sarah’s book “God or Nothing
> Liturgy, Grace, Marriage, and the New Danger of Schism

According to Müller, “the separation of teaching and practice of the faith” was precisely that which in the 16th century led to the schism in the Western Church. With the deceptive practice of indulgences, the Church of Rome was in fact ignoring doctrine and “the original protest of Luther himself against the negligence of the shepherds of the Church was justified, because one may not play with the salvation of souls, even if the purpose of the deception would be to bring about a good deed.” (There can be no question that Martin Luther’s original aims were just and many of his thesis points were valid. However, once cut off from the Church there was no end to that which would follow – which is why that we, no matter what Rome does, can never abandon our Mother!)

And today – the cardinal continued – the question is the same: “We may not deceive the people, when it comes to the sacramentality of marriage, its indissolubility, its openness toward the child, and the fundamental complementarity of the two sexes. Pastoral care must keep in view the eternal salvation, and it should not try to be superficially pleasing according to the wishes of the people.”

As can be seen, the proponents of “openness” are very active, but the stances of those who oppose it are also numerous and strong.

On September 29 there will be a repeat presentation in Rome, backed up with 700,000 signatures including those of 180 cardinals and bishops, of the “Filial Appeal” to Pope Francis that he pronounce “a word of clarification” against the “widespread confusion arising from the possibility that a breach has been opened within the Church that would accept adultery—by permitting divorced and then civilly remarried Catholics to receive Holy Communion—and would virtually accept even homosexual unions.” (St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle …)

This appeal to the pope is not far from what was said by Cardinal Angelo Scola, archbishop of Milan and a father at the next synod, in an interview with “Corriere della Sera” of Sunday, September 27:

“The urgent priority, for me, is that the synod would suggest to the Holy Father a magisterial statement that would unify by simplifying the doctrine on marriage. A statement aimed at demonstrating the relationship between the experience of faith and the sacramental nature of marriage.”

The complete text of the interview:

On September 30, at the Angelicum University, cardinals Carlo Caffarra and Raymond Leo Burke, two of the five cardinals who on the verge of the synod of 2014 took a stance against their colleague Walter Kasper with the book “Remaining in the Truth of Christ,” will reassert their ideas together with Archbishop Cyril Vasil, secretary of the congregation for the Oriental Churches and also a coauthor of the book.

And two more books with the same perspective are about to come out, written by not just five cardinals but seventeen, from Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas, six of whom will take part in the synod either by reason of office, like the Guinean Robert Sarah, or because they were appointed by the pope himself, like the Italian Caffarra:

First Five, Now Seventeen Anti-Kasper Cardinals

The synod is around the corner and the battle is in full swing. And Pope Francis will have the last word.

Please visit the site for embedded links and other relevant articles.


English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

Sunday 27 September 2015

Selfish "selfie" Presbyters, arrogant abusive priests. Abusive to Our Lord, His Holy Sacrifice and abusive to the Catholic faithful they lead astray

How scandalous, how ridiculous are you men, you arrogant and sycophantic supposed Priests of Jesus Christ. You bring cameras to the Altar of Sacrifice. You bring these and you mock Calvary and the Cross. Do you even believe? 

Well, your brother in the top left certainly does and he is aghast at your petulance.  

Your snivelling, grovelling, puerile disbelieving inanity. Look at you, feminised emasculated presbyters. You are the same ones that deny Gregorian chant to your parishioners or a little Latin now and then or fight against the traditional Rite. You're the same scandalous lot that won't preach on abortion or sodomy, the same despicable cabal that stood by whilst your the pervert pederast and sodomite priests in your rank committed abuses and perversion on boys and some girls. You disgusting clerics are the ones who tore out altars and destroyed the liturgy. You have given yourselves away in your arrogance and your corruption. You follow another god. You follow an antichrist.

Every one of you, objectively speaking, will celebrate Mass today in a state of mortal sin for what you did, the sin of sacrilege.

And this sweaty nosed emasculated presbyter has such an ego he put it out for the whole world to see.

How many priest perverts covered up in Philadelphia Cardinal Bevilacqua?

How many parishes closed Archbishop Chaput?

How many lost souls? Destroyed lives? Money paid to lawyers to defend your filthy selves against the just claims of victims.

Liturgical and sexual perverts, the whole lot of you disgusts me.


Please, let us all say a prayer for Father S.P. who's picture I have removed at his request. I am moved by the humility of his letter to me.

God bless you Father Paolino. Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum, benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructis ventris tui. Jesus! Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis, peccatoribus, nunc et in ora mortis nostrae, Amen.

Our Lady Mother of Priests, pray for all priests of your Son!

Saturday 26 September 2015

Bravo Cardinal Dolan - Bravo for permitting this travesty, this scandal.

So, who thought this was a good idea? 

Mo Rocca has not renounced the "gay lifestyle," on the contrary. Lector at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the presence of the Pope? I'd never heard of Mo Rocca, I must live a sheltered life. Apparently, he's quite the dandy. 

Embedded image permalink
Mo and the boys. I bet his mother's really impressed.

The man in the middle having his nipple massaged by another man read the First Reading at the Mass in the presence of Pope Francis in New York.
Mo Rocca with his clothes on. 

Let us be clear. This man is not part of the Courage Apostolate struggling to overcome the sin of sodomy and a same-sex attracted life. This is an activist and advocate of so-called same-sex marriage. I am a sinner but I cannot commit a public scandal and expect to read at Mass. 

What a disgusting and pathetic occurrence permitted by Cardinal Bravo.

Get angry people.  Get bloody angry now.