Featured post

NO MASS FOR YOU! - IT'S JUST NOT WORTH IT.

  "I do not want ever to shut down the Church again."  So said, Toronto Archbishop Thomas Cardinal Collins on November 13, 2020 on...

Saturday, 31 October 2015

Tom Rosica, James Martin and the real "theologians" against you and me

“There being an imminent danger for the Faith, prelates must be questioned, even publicly, by their subjects. Thus, St. Paul, who was a subject of St. Peter, questioned him publicly on account of an imminent danger of scandal in a matter of Faith. And, as the Glossa of St. Augustine puts it (Ad Galatas 2.14), ‘St. Peter himself gave the example to those who govern so that if sometimes they stray from the right way, they will not reject a correction as unworthy even if it comes from their subjects.” (SummaTheologiae, IIa IIae, Q. 33, A. 4)

If you've not heard about what happened to Ross Douthat of the New York Times, at the hands of Catholic so-called "theologians," it is time you did. On October 17, Douthat penned a column in the New York Times, The Plot to Change the Catholic Church wasting no time getting to the point in the very first paragraph of his op-ed column.
The Vatican always seems to have the secrets and intrigues of a Renaissance court — which, in a way, is what it still remains. The ostentatious humility of Pope Francis, his scoldings of high-ranking prelates, have changed this not at all; if anything, the pontiff’s ambitions have encouraged plotters and counterplotters to work with greater vigor.
And right now the chief plotter is the pope himself.

I read it the day it was published and was astonished that the secular media was coming to the same conclusions as many of us. 

The push back against Douthat did not take long. James Martin. S.J. was first of the mark and has since used the word "hater" against those who question his Jesuitical arrogance. Then, a group of so-called "theologians" issued a public Letter to the Editor of the Times, chastising Douthat. Were they trying to get him fired?  Douthat is not the first to attacked by churchmen for stating his opinion, he will not be the last.

Douthat has responded again. Fundamentally, according to the "theologians," his crime is not being one, therefore, he is not part of the club and has no business commenting. These modern day no-nothings and their clericalist aides and abettors hate an educated laity.

Dorothy Cummings McLean picks up this matter in Catholic World Report
As the Affair Douthat unfolds, I keep attaching faces to the names I hadn't heard or seen for many years. One of them belongs to an active homosexual who brought his boyfriend along on the departmental retreat and shared a room with him. Another belongs to an active unmarried heterosexual who brought his girlfriend along on the departmental retreat and shared a room with her. They were both very pleasant and cheerful men. I liked them very much—which does not erase the facts that they did not believe the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning sexual morality and that today they are professional Catholic theologians.

Some Catholics these are, poisoning the minds of our youth not enough in touch with the Truth as Mrs. Cummings McLean was whilst a student there.

In the combox at CWR, a writer quotes the late Richard John Neuhaus writing in First Things in 2003.
It was at a conference in the mid eighties that I listened to Hans Küng hold forth in triumphalist tones on the victory of the progressives. “We” control, he announced, the seminaries, the academic departments of theology, the catechetical and liturgical institutions, the publishing houses, the magazines that matter, and the chanceries. Most of the bishops, he said, are now on “our” side, and those who aren’t have been neutralized. Anyone who wants a future in the hierarchy or the Catholic academy has no choice but to cooperate, he observed. It was a clean sweep; all that was left were a few details; the disgruntled band of risibly reactionary dissidents from the new order didn’t understand what had happened and couldn’t do much about it."
Douthat is right. These heretics, and that is what they are, hid underground as best they could under the last two papacies, They worked quietly, these malefactors did, to undermine and destroy the faith. Under Jorge Bergoglio, they have the confidence to come right out in the open, either because the Bishop of Rome is weak and ignorant to what is going on around him or because he endorses it and promotes. it

So what does this have about Thomas Rosica, CSB?

I have a collection of emailed letters from Rosica. Letters which insult and deride this writer and more. Cummings wrote about some of them previously at Catholic World Report following the farce of a vexatious lawsuit against this writer by Rosica. A poverty vowed Basilian the suit was undertaken, allegedly "pro bono," by Fogler Rubinoff, one of Toronto's largest and most expensive legal operations.

Below is one of the letters. I am making it public because it shows that this attempt to silence and berate lay men and women who have every right and duty to raise their concerns to the Church and Catholics in general is not new. These bishops, priests and theologians are the best examples of clericalism, something they apparently thought was wrong in the Church before the Council which they adore as if it is their god. 

Tom Rosica, James Martin and the others cannot silence the Catholic faithful and the truth. They have played their hands and they have been exposed. They are not the President and Vice-President of the Internet

They cannot cope with the fact that we may not be "bishops or liturgists" but we do know what words mean and there are many we could use and Dorothy Cummings McLean knows it too.

"The brain-blowing combination of asserting that what is not Catholic teaching is somehow Catholic teaching and then shrieking like a frightened schoolgirl when the word "heresy" is uttered is what the American Catholic/Jesuit theological academy is all about." 

From: Thomas Rosica [mailto:rosica@saltandlighttv.org]
Sent: March 24, 2011 8:18 PM
(…) your vision of the Church will not help you to grow. It simply confirms you where you are. …
You launch arrows and broadcast yourself from a website. You have no theological formation ... Your keyboard and your monitor do not make you a bishop or liturgist.   
Fraternally yours in Christ,
Fr. Rosica 










From Raffaella in Italy, Where is that "secret" dossier?

I invite you to read this from Raffaella's blog. The Popes, the Vatican and the Catholic Church. It's interesting to get a flavour of what our Catholic friends in Italy have to say. Special thanks to Johnny from Italy for aiding in translation.

Once upon a time there came to be the famous Vatileaks dossier edited by the cardinals Herranz, De Giorgi and Tomko on instruction of Benedict XVI in 2012.
At the time it seemed to be a "Pandora's box", the precious guardian (according to Vatican experts and "mystery writers") of all the Vatican’s secrets.
Suddenly ... poof! It disappeared! No journalist has ever invoked it again, no newspaper editor has demanded its publication in the name of a transparency which is always invoked but, in fact, never put into practice.
According to commentators, “crows” [translator note: in Italian, the crow can signify a spy of sorts] no longer fluttered in the Vatican as of March 2013. Yes ...  some sea-gulls circled round devouring poor defenseless pigeons, but not even a “crow's" shadow was to be seen.
Even wide-mouthed “frogs” [translator note: similar to crow, frog can mean someone who was told something in confidence, but then betrays that confidence] always alert in the Pontificate of Benedict, had been poisoned and thrown into the swamp.
The fresh breeze of spring (isn’t that true my lord Cardinals?) blew gently in the sacred palaces within the Leonine Walls.
Until bang! Today it turns out that the “crows” and “frogs” are more alive than ever. They had simply hidden themselves for a while. Where? Who knows ... you should ask those who are always in contact with these animals.
We note, however, the paradox: the “crows” of Benedict acted for the "good" - they wanted to clean house, seeking on the outside what they could not get inside. The little animals of Francis, however, are to be censored: they are mean and smelly, these crows opposed themselves to the cleaning job.
If we want to take ourselves for a ride [translator: mock ourselves] and tell fairy tales amongst ourselves, it’s OK, but the whole situation is comical: we are dealing with people who commit crimes just like in 2011 and 2012 (even before actually).
And I do not think much has changed since then: the IOR [tr.: Vatican Bank] is still there (of course! Now ATMs work!), the Curia is still there and has not undergone "slimming", and scandals big and small still abound. The "perception" has certainly changed, but all this is certainly the mass media’s merit.
Since we returned to the situation that existed before March 2013 why not dust off the famous dossier of the three cardinals? Why not ask for its publication?
What sense is there to keep it secret? If you really want to clean up, ALL the names should come out: the internal instigators [translators: legal term, it means the person who orders others to execute of a crime] and the external perpetrators. Whoever they are ...

Tommy Rosica says that you "traditional, faithful, orthodox Catholics throw out words and have no idea what those words mean"


Our good friend Barona did his Friday penance by watching the entire video so you won't have to. If you visit over at Toronto Catholic Witness you can watch the snippet of it with this most wonderful quote by one of the interviewees, Tommy Rosica.
"Those claiming to be...traditional, faithful, orthodox Catholics throw out words and they have no idea what those words mean."
Logically then, of course, it would follow that if one does know what those words mean, then one is not a "traditional, faithful orthodox Catholic."

I fully agree.

Friday, 30 October 2015

The "Twerp" smacked down by the Man - but what I want to know Johan Bonny, is she a blonde a brunette or is she even a she?

He's so upset. He just can't handle himself around real manhood, as opposed to those in some fantasy.

The poor, poor whittle Bishop of Antwerp, Johan Bonny - smacked down at the Sodomy Synod to Destroy the Family by Robert Cardinal Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. You know, one of those silly, narrow, bigoted Africans that "should not tell us too much what to do."

"There was no way of discussing it in a peathful way" cried little Johan Bonny when each time he raised the matter of fisting, felsching and rimming. he was smacked down, by an African.

Poor, poor whittle Johan; the big, bad Afwicans wouldn't wet him talk about his gerbils. 

After all,  according to Johanny, "one knows that homosexuality exists also in the world of animals" so that makes abusing them for your anal thrills just fine, eh Johan?

How often do you masturbate Johan? How much pornography do you watch? Straight or gay porn? As the great Fulton Sheen once asked, "Is she blonde or is she a brunette." Or is she a he? Which, or what is it? Because there has to be a reason for such a darkened intellect and a lack of faith.


What is important for me is that Pope Francis moved tags. This greatly exited me. I can not remain a neutral spectator of these changes, I want to participate. Furthermore, everyone at some point in his life is confronted with relationships, friendships, family and the education of children. We must not deny that there is trauma about these matters in the Church. Far too many people have felt excluded for a long time. The Church can fix the breach of trust by talking openly and sincerely about the issues which are really bothering people...
As bishops, we have too long thought it impossible to discuss some lessons or disciplinary rules: we have acted pragmatically to avoid damaging the Faith. Thus, a gap has widened between the Church’s official teaching and daily practice...
 Before Francis, there was an official status quo about these topics and very few opportunities for discussion. In less than two years, the Pope has managed to get a discussion started about these issues...
 Personally, I find that in the Church there should be more openness for the recognition of the substantive quality of the LGBT couple. Their form of shared life must meet the same requirements as religious marriage. Basic values are for me more important than the institutional form. Christian Ethics champions lasting relationships in which faithfulness, loyalty and care for each other are central; and which are open to new life, or at least recognise the responsibility of the partners to be generous towards children and young people. We must accept that those values may be present in a relationship of diversity and we must try to give form to these relationships...
 We need to seek within the Church for a formal recognition of the “relationality” which is as present in many couples which are homosexual as in those which are heterosexual. Should it be a sacramental recognition of marriage? Maybe the Church should instead think about recognising a diversity of patterns.
 This discussion is the same for civil marriage. In Belgium, the same model is used for gender relations of homosexual and heterosexual couples; but there are other possibilities, which I believe are valid. It may not be necessary to force all relationships into the same model...
 Just as there is in our society a variety of legal frameworks for partners, so the Church should recognise a diversity of relationship forms. This would avoid the pitfall of complex ideological disputes. I favour the recognition of a variety of forms which emerge from a reflection on pastoral experience, rather than theoretical discussions; because they often degenerate into sterile disputes and generate discord...
 Life is a practical thing, is not it? Such issues can only be dealt with credibly if humanity and understanding are exercised; not by theoretical discussions. The same dynamic is active in the Church. The ecclesial community is a big family and my main concern is how to encourage this style of response. I do not want to downplay the significance of the doctrinal issues; but... I also want to keep the family together. I want all the family members to celebrate Christmas together and form a united community.
[J. Bonny in “De Morgan” 27th December 2014]


On animals as faggots
http://voxcantor.blogspot.ca/2015/09/is-bishop-bonny-sodomite-is-he-being.html

On the "ordaining" of married men and even women
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/blog-san-pietro-e-dintorni-en/detail/articolo/celibacy-antwerp-womens-ordination-14375/

On proportionalism and conscience
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/belgian-bishop-urges-synod-to-adopt-moral-relativism-charges-pro-family-gro

Heresy
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/francis-effect-goes-beyond-laypeople-pews

I can't wait until Francis makes this heresiarch Primate of Belgium and Archbishop of Brussels, it will be as much fun as Wuerligig.

Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea - A Doctor of more than medicine

During the Sodomy Synod to destroy the family, you may have heard about an intervention by a laywoman, a doctor from Romania. Here name is Dr. Anca-Maria Cernea, Doctor at the Center for Diagnosis and Treatment-Victor Babes and President of the Association of Catholic Doctors of Bucharest.

How bad has it gotten when it is the laity that understand the Catholic Faith and Truth more than some clerics, some prelates and even the Bishop of Rome himself?

Did they listen?

Tom Rosica, why have you not published this? you seem to care so much for what the laity thinks.


James Martin, you write of "love" and "mercy," why don't you write of this?

Donald Wuerl, why do you give interviews of distortion and manipulation, even outright lies instead of commenting on the clarity as expressed by Dr. Cernea.

Why, indeed.

Your Holiness, Synod Fathers, Brothers and Sisters,  
I represent the Association of Catholic Doctors from Bucharest. I am from the Romanian Greek Catholic Church. My father was a Christian political leader, who was imprisoned by the communists for 17 years. My parents were engaged to marry, but their wedding took place 17 years later. My mother waited all those years for my father, although she didn’t even know if he was still alive. They have been heroically faithful to God and to their engagement. Their example shows that God’s grace can overcame terrible social circumstances and material poverty.
We, as Catholic doctors, defending life and family, can see this is, first of all, a spiritual battle. Material poverty and consumerism are not the primary cause of the family crisis. The primary cause of the sexual and cultural revolution is ideological.
[Prophecy!] Our Lady of Fatima has said that Russia’s errors would spread all over the world. It was first done under a violent form, classical Marxism, by killing tens of millions. Now it’s being done mostly by cultural Marxism. There is continuity from Lenin’s sex revolution, through Gramsci and the Frankfurt school, to the current-day gay-rights and gender ideology. Classical Marxism pretended to redesign society, through violent take-over of property. Now the revolution goes deeper; it pretends to redefine family, sex identity and human nature. This ideology calls itself progressive. But it is nothing else than the ancient serpent’s offer, for man to take control, to replace God, to arrange salvation here, in this world. It’s an error of religious nature, it’s Gnosticism. It’s the task of the shepherds to recognize it, and warn the flock against this danger.
“Seek ye therefore first the Kingdom of God, and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you.” The Church’s mission is to save souls. Evil, in this world, comes from sin. Not from income disparity or “climate change”.
The solution is: Evangelization. Conversion. Not an ever increasing government control. Not a world government. These are nowadays the main agents imposing cultural Marxism to our nations, under the form of population control, reproductive health, gay rights, gender education, and so on. What the world needs nowadays is not limitation of freedom, but real freedom, liberation from sin. Salvation.
Our Church was suppressed by the soviet occupation. But none of our 12 bishops betrayed their communion with the Holy Father. Our Church survived thanks to our bishops’ determination and example in resisting prisons and terror. Our bishops asked the community not to follow the world. Not to cooperate with the communists. Now we need Rome to tell the world: “Repent of your sins and turn to God for the Kingdom of Heaven is near”.
Not only us, the Catholic laity, but also many Christian Orthodox are anxiously praying for this Synod. Because, as they say, if the Catholic Church gives in to the spirit of this world, it is going to be very difficult for all the other (orthodox) Christians to resist it.

Thursday, 29 October 2015

The Wuerligig Cardinal keeps spinning and spinning; which way will it face?

















Cardinal Wuerl continues to utter comments in the spirit of the recently held Synod that confound us. The latest is that:
“The frame of reference now is no longer the Code of Canon Law. The frame of reference is now going to be, ‘What does the Gospel really say here?’”
To which canonist Ed Peter’s responds.
“The 'frame of reference' for the mission of the Catholic Church has never, ever been the Code of Canon Law, and no canon lawyer I know of has ever, ever claimed otherwise. The 'frame of reference' for the Catholic Church has always been, and has only been, Christ the Lord."

During the lead-up to the Synod on the Family, the Pope issued a motu proprio modifying the process for declarations of nullity. Some have commented that this motu proprio will mean for the Church that which was previously admonished and ended by Rome in the United States in the early 1970's.

On  April 11, 1973, the  Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the authority of Blessed Paul VI, issued a letter to the Bishops of the United States of America on "Invalid Marriages."

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
Letter regarding the indissolubility of marriage

This Sacred Congregation, which is responsible for defending the doctrine regarding faith and morals throughout the Catholic world, has been examining with careful attention the dissemination of new opinions which seek to deny or to put in doubt the doctrine regarding the indissolubility of marriage constantly proposed by the Magisterium of the Church.
These opinions are widespread, not only in books and newspapers, but also beginning to circulate even in seminaries, in Catholic schools, and even in the practices in some ecclesiastical tribunals of this or that Diocese.
Furthermore, these opinions, together with other doctrinal or pastoral explanations, have been advanced here and there as a pretext to justify abuses against the current discipline regarding the administration of the Sacraments to those who live in an irregular union.
Therefore, this Sacred Dicastery examined this problem during its Plenary Meeting of 1972, and issued its mandate, approved by the Supreme Pontiff, exhorting the Bishops to attentively insure that all those entrusted with teaching religion in schools or institutes of any grade, as well as those who serve as officials in ecclesiastical tribunals, remain faithful to the doctrine of the Church on the indissolubility of marriage and act in accord with this doctrine in their ecclesiastical tribunals.
Regarding the administration of the Sacraments, local Ordinaries should strive, on one hand, to encourage the observance of the discipline in force in the Church, and on the other hand, to act so that pastors of souls show particular solicitude toward those who live in an irregular union, seeking to resolve these cases through the use of the approved practices of the Church in the internal forum, as well as other just means.
Communicating these things to you with devoted respect, I remain yours,
+ Franjo Cardinal Seper
Prefect
 + Jérôme Hamer, O.P.
Secretary
Rome, April 11, 1973.

The following quote bears reading:
"A Catholic who is knowingly a partner in an invalid marriage is in reality and before God not married to his or her apparent spouse. Hence performance of the marriage act within that union is not a sacred and holy seal of married love, but really a wrongful use of sex. Those who have seriously disobeyed divine or ecclesiastical law by entering into an invalid marriage, and have perhaps committed many sins within that union, have a duty to return to grace as quickly as possible, and certainly to abstain from Holy Communion until they do soSome solution is always possible, even in the most difficult cases. At times one must accept a considerable amount of self-denial and bear the cross generously; but God’s grace is able to make even the most difficult burdens bearable. Even if individuals feel that they do not now have the moral strength to do what the law of God demands of them, they ought not despair. In prayer, faithful attendance at Mass, in doing the works of Christian love, they can with God’s grace gradually acquire the courage to do with peace whatever is necessary. Pastors and diocesan marriage tribunals will try to be of assistance to those in invalid marriages. Those seeking a good conscience in these matters must remember that their consciences are to be formed in the light of Church teachingEvery solution that is reached must be entirely faithful to the command of Christ that consummated and sacramental marriages can in no way be dissolved or treated as though they can be." 
The above quotation comes from page 514-515 from The Teaching of Christ: A Catholic Catechism for Adults published in 1983. (ISBN 0-87973-899-5).

The editors were Donald W Wuerl, Ronald Lawler OFM Cap and Thomas Comerford Lawler.

It would follow then, that Cardinal Wuerl knows very well what The Teaching of Christ is. It is, therefore, incumbent on the Cardinal to provide clarity, not obfuscation, truth and not distortion during his utterances with the media and Catholics in general as it relates to matters discussed at the Synod. 

Perhaps the good Cardinal can start a blog based upon his point at the opening of this post which was challenged by Ed Peters; it could be titled, WDTGRS. I'm sure Father Z wouldn't mind.

A line attributed to St. Thomas More, at least as spoken in the movie A Man for All Seasons, comes to mind.
"We must pray that when your head stops spinning, your face is front again."

Donald Wuerl is not a hypocrite

A few weeks ago, just before the start of the Synod, I was chatting with a priest friend. The subject of the Synod came up and the issue of homosexuality and state sanctioned, so-called marriage, between members of the same-sex and the overwhelming support for it by Catholics. I said that it is because these Catholics who support the abomination of sodomite and lesbian "marriages" are chronic masturbators. They view pornography on a regular basis alone or with their spouses or concubines and keepers. They engage in adultery themselves or have an "open marriage" and engage in "threesomes." They have experimented in the past with orgasms with someone of the same sex. They engage in sodomy in its actual and broadest sense as man and woman and as husband and wife to their own physical and spiritual detriment. They contracept, as a couple or individual. They may have had or aided the murder of their baby in the womb or they may be a closet sodomite or lesbian themselves.

They do this and they call themselves "Catholic." They may go to Mass and if they do, they surely receive the Holy Eucharist. What they do not do is go to Confession. In addition to not accepting the above as sins because they do not see them as sins, the one sin they do accept and would never want to commit is that of hypocrisy. To them, being hypocrite would be the greater sin.

After all, "Who am I to judge," they would ask themselves.

Coincidentally, the afternoon of writing the above, I found this on a Twitter feed.



Donald Wuerl is a lot of things. He is a manipulator and a deceiver to be sure and he may be other things, but what Donald Wuerl is not, is a hypocrite as evident by this comment from Fr. V.F., which appeared overnight in the combox:
Fr. VF said...
Cardinal Wuerl is the foremost spokesman for giving Communion to abortionists in public office.
All his current arguments for giving Communion to adulterers and sodomites are recycled from his many past statements in defense of giving Communion to abortionists in public office.
He pretends that Denial of Communion is a "penalty" that exists ONLY because of canon law--i.e., Canon 915. It is not, of course. It is mandated by the moral law, because: a) a minister of Communion who gives the sacrament to a person obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin is collaborating directly in the sin of sacrilege; b) the faithful are led to believe that the sin of the communicant is not a sin. By pretending that Denial of Communion is a "penalty," Wuerl evades the REAL issue: Giving Communion to person obstinately persisting in manifest grave sin is always grave matter; i.e., a mortal sin.
By pretending that Denial of Communion is a "penalty," he pretends that he is exercising legitimate "discretion" or "prudence" or "pastoral judgment" when he gives Communion to abortionists, adulterers, lesbians, etc. Bishops DO have discretion when it comes to the application of penalties, but Denial of Communion is not a penalty.
Cardinal Wuerl's long-standing PRACTICE--giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians, self-proclaimed lesbians (Cf. the case of Fr. Marcel Guarnizo), and gay couples (at regularly-scheduled "gay Masses in Pittsburgh and Washington), etc., is the reason that he is COMPELLED to insist now that Communion be given to people living publicly in adulterous unions.
Donald Wuerl is being entirely consistent. He could never, ever be a hypocrite. 

Or could he? 

On his blog, Wuerl writes that, "Dissent is perhaps something we will always have, lamentable as it is." Yet, when one reads the whole post, one realises that the real dissenter, is in fact, Donald Wuerl. 

Randy Engel, author of the Rite of Sodomy wrote whilst Wuerl was Bishop of Pittsburgh that, amongst:
"Pittsburgh Catholics, struggling to maintain their Catholic Faith and identity, many believe that what Bishop Wuerl has an obsession (and) a dangerous preoccupation with sex education, homosexual advocacy, multiculturalism, ecumenism, destruction of schools and parishes, feminism, married priests, politics, money, power, and suppression of the Faith."
The question then is not why is Wuerl fomenting confusion over the Synod report?

The question is, what caused Donald Wuerl to long ago accept other matters in so far as he did not see them as a barrier to Holy Communion based on Canon 915?

Or did I answer that in the very first paragraph above?


Post Script

In three weeks (November 12, 2015, Wuerl turns 75 and will offer his resignation as Archbishop of Washington to Pope Francis. He was appointed there and raised to the Cardinaliate by Benedict XVI.l He was consecrated a bishop personally by John Paul II.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bwuerl.html

For more on this. Canonist Edward Peters deals specifically with the matter. 
http://canonlawblog.blogspot.ca/2009/05/response-to-abp-wuerls-claims-that.html

Raymond Cardinal Burke gave this overview in 2007.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/burkcompol.htm

Phil Lawler writes about Wuerl's betrayal of Father Marcel Guarnizo
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=898

Matt C. Abbott writes of Randy Engel's research into Donald Wuerl, Engel is the author of the Rite of Sodomy and the quote above can be found within. 

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/060518

Randy Engel also writes of Wuerl's support of "Dignity" Masses over a period of eight  years, and his time as seminary rector.
http://gloria.tv/?media=267622&language=KiaLEJq2fBR

UPI reports that Wuerl eventually ended "Dignity" after nearly ten years. 
http://www.upi.com/Archives/1996/01/30/Pittsburgh-diocese-bans-masses-for-gays/3092822978000/


Wednesday, 28 October 2015

Cardinal Kasper is not following the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ



Walter Kasper, the German Cardinal who has created the storm of Holy Communion for those in adultery has been interviewed by Il Giornale.
Il Giornale: Your Eminence, in the Synod your line has predominated, that is to say, the possibility to allow  remarried divorcees to communion through an individual assessment. How do you rate the discussion of the Synod Fathers on this subject?Kasper: I am pleased to open the door to the possibility of the divorced and remarried to  communion.  There is a certain opening, but you do not even talk about the consequences. Now everything is in the hands of the pope, who decides. The Synod has made recommendations. There has been an opening, but the matter is still not completely resolved and needs to be further deepened.
The only truth that this dissenter from it states is that it "is in the hands of the pope, who decides."

Kasper's admission that "there is a certain opening," is a manipulation. The document refers to the "Internal Forum." Every priest knows what that is and what it means. It is spiritual direction and/or confession. The priest must counsel the person as to what the Church teaches. The priest must admonish the sinner and explain God's mercy and put them on a path to find it. That path DOES NOT include Holy Communion and can never include It. To do so, would be to commit the mortal sin of sacrilege. The priest, would have on his conscience, a grievous matter for which he would be held accountable by the very God, Himself.

Paragraph 86 states:
86. The path of accompaniment and of discernment orients these faithful to an awareness of their situation before God. The interview with the priest, in the internal forum, contributes to the formation of a correct judgment on what hinders the possibility of a fuller participation in the life of the Church and the steps that can foster it and make it grow. Given that within the same law, there is no gradualness (cf. FC 34), this discernment must not disregard the needs of truth and charity of the Gospel proposed by the Church. For this to happen, the necessary conditions of humility, confidence, love for the Church and its teaching, in the sincere search for God's will and in the desire to achieve a more perfect answer to it, must be guaranteed.
This paragraph does not say what Kasper says it does. 

Wuerling and spinning that would make a Dervish jealous



It is incumbent upon us to find and report and challenge the manipulations and distortions stemming from the Synod and in general when they are made by these prelates. The Church is in a deep crisis and it is men such as Cardinal Wuerl that have put Her in this position.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, gave an exclusive interview about the synod to America Magazine whose Editor is our good friend, James Martin, S.J. This interview was conducted by Gerald O'Connell. 
The synod has concluded its work. Yesterday the synod fathers approved the final document and all 94 paragraphs got the two-thirds majority required.  What are your reflections now?
Well,  looking back over the whole synod and at yesterday particularly,  I think the big take-away from this synod is not so much the discussion about this or that paragraph, this or that point, but Pope’s Francis’ introduction of a whole wider, far more open approach to addressing  pastoral issues in the Church.  We will not be able to go back (to) a closed version of this after these two synods.
The conclusion yesterday said to me, in that aula of bishops from all round the world, there is huge support for what the Pope is trying to do, and this opens the discussions in the Church to a wider, wider, broader group of Church membership and that, I believe, is how he believes that the Holy Spirit will move the Church forward.  How can there be “huge support” when one considers that there were less than 280 bishops at the Synod? When one considers that over 40 were appointed directly by Pope Francis then the potential for a skewed result is even greater. We know that on the most contentious paragraphs the votes were close, in the case of the marriage and divorce issue, it passed by one. We do not know who voted how, but conceivably, on that paragraph, Cardinal Kasper and Cardinal Sarah or Marx and Cardinal Collins may have all voted against it, for reasons that it contained too much or too little. Second, Wuerl continues to make the egregious error that this Synod document actually means “Law.” It does not. It is advisory. The Pope can accept all, part, none, do something of his own choosing or do nothing at all. What is this “closed” version of pastoral care that Wuerl speaks of? I was told recently by a Monsignor how hurt and angry he was that priest have been lectured for “not being merciful.” The Pope has changed nothing. Will he? We will deal with that if and when he does, but so far, he has not. What has changed is the “language” by these deceitful Clericalists who defy the Second Vatican Council’s documents as it suits them, particularly liturgical and those empowering the laity to speak, unless of course you’re a lobbyist for a sodomite association and some homosexualist in the Vatican Press Office scams you a set of “press credentials.” Then, they’ll listen to you.
In his speech last night he said “many of us have felt the working of the Holy Spirit who is the real protagonist and guide of the synod.”  Is that what you felt too?
When I was asked about the document, my first response was this is the work of the Spirit. That final document could not have come about just from the writing team. There were ten people around that table and there were times when I actually could sense that there was more happening in the room than people just passing words around, something was happening and I think it was the gift of the Spirit working to say the mercy of God, the love of God, the pastoral ministry of the Church, has to be seen today as integral to the life of the Church and that’s what the synod accomplished.  That was not the Holy Spirit, it was group-speak and group-think. It was not God the Holy Spirit then any more than it was the Holy Spirit that Mahony felt take control of his pen and write the name “Bergoglio.” 
"I picked up my pen to write, and I began.  However, my hand was being moved by some greater spiritual force.  The name on the ballot just happened.  I had not yet narrowed my thinking down to one name; but it was done for me."  
http://cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.ca/2013/03/power-of-holy-spirit.html
The Holy Spirit gives clarity. He gives peace. He gives coolness and refreshment. There may have been a spirit alright, but it wasn’t of God and it was not God. Don’t say it was God the Holy Spirit. He is not confusion. If it were the Holy Spirit, there would be no ambiguity in the document. There would be no confusion. There would be no ability for James Martin, S.J., or any other dissenter to twist and confuse that which is not there or to exploit openings for their own agenda. If there are weaknesses in this document, then it is a result of man’s machinations. The Holy Spirit is no more behind this document than He is in “directly electing” the Pope at a conclave. He keeps men from electing someone who would totally destroy the Church. The promise of infallibility is given to the Pope on two very specific items, a solemn pronouncement on faith or morals, period. This synod was not and can never be, magisterial, unless the Pope, declare something from it to be, in his words. It is not infallible, only the Pope is and on that, he is gravely restricted. For Wuerl to insinuate that God is behind this is frankly, blasphemy against Him and insult to the intelligence of John and Mary Catholic. The Synod has changed no law!
 This morning in his homily the Pope said “This is the time for mercy”, and I thought it was very significant that he said it. The synod has closed and he has linked it directly to the Year of Mercy.
And it makes very good sense, doesn’t it. In that homily he took all the three (scripture) readings and showed how it’s the mercy of God that’s central.  And one of the priests said at the synod in his intervention, the love of the Father when it encounters the human condition becomes the mercy of Christ. I think that we’re seeing this magnificent revelation of God’s love for us, in creating and redeeming us, is alive in the world today precisely because of the mercy of God in his Church. I think that’s another take-away from this synod. The first is the openness - and there’s no going back on that. Secondly, no longer is the framework of the Church’s pastoral response the code of canon law. It’s now the Church’s understanding of God’s mercy at work in the Church’s pastoral and sacramental ministry. That’s a great shift.   A great shift? Our Blessed Lord said, “If you love me, keep my commandments." He also said, “I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” Wuerl would have us believe that we can throw it all away – throw away Canon Law as if it is somehow opposed to the Gospel. Canon Law is based upon the Gospel. The Church has not suddenly discovered “mercy.” Wuerl is a manipulator at best. He is manipulating these words for his own agenda.  That is the “take-away” from his comments. The Sacraments are mercy. The Church has always and everywhere, been "open."
John Paul II once told a close advisor in relation to a serious situation the Church was facing: when it’s a question of canon law or the Gospel, you follow the Gospel.
That’s the same thing.  You know what’s come out of this synod gradually, and in all the discussions – and I think they were very good discussions, once the smog of the idea that this was being manipulated and that there was a sinister plot, once that smog was blown away, and it was blown away in the small circles (language groups) when everybody realized we’re all talking about what we want to talk about, once we got out of the smog and into the fresh air the Spirit began to move.  And I think what we saw in the three weeks of the synod was a real reappraisal of, not the teaching – we all affirmed from day one the teaching - but how you share that teaching; how do you get people to stop long enough to listen to it.  How do you - as Francis said from the beginning - go out, encounter, and accompany? This synod did just that. It’s the first time that I have heard a synod attempt to do that.  Wuerl is simply not being truthful. The manipulation of the synod process and the communications stemming from it was evident for all to see in 2014 and again this past month. He is simply denying the obvious and putting a spin in this that he cannot defend.
Some see this synod as a turning point, a watershed, in the history of the Church.  How do you see it?
I think it is an opening to a new direction. I think the new direction is in complete continuity with the Second Vatican Council.  It’s just taken 50 years, good years in between where there was, sometimes, a lot of upheaval and then the consolidation of John Paul II.   We wouldn’t be here today if it were not for John Paul II. But now we’re at a point where the openness that the Council asked for, taking the Gospel in all of its integrity, in all of its truth and trying to find how does it actually reach and touch and change the world today. I think that’s where we are but in a whole new mode.  Pope Francis has said you can’t sit behind closed doors and do that.  This is nothing more than the heretical “spirit of Vatican II” manipulation, Wuerl is a master at it. When did the Church fail to proclaim the “Gospel in all its integrity?” Where did the Council Fathers proclaim a “new direction” that this Synod should somehow follow it, provided we read the Council with the “hermeneutic of continuity” and not “rupture.” It is Wuerl who defies the Council by trying to argue that some “new direction” is taking place. That is not what the Council taught. This is the "spirit of Vatican II" lie and heresy all over again and now they are calling it the spirit of the synod.
Yes and his concept of ‘synodality’ is crucial here. One week ago, speaking on the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the synod of bishops, he said, “The way of synodality is the way that God wants for the Church of the third millennium.”
Yes, and that was I think the genius of connecting the two synods to say it’s ongoing.  You can’t come together in two weeks’ time, in three weeks’ time, and arrive at pastoral decisions that truly impact the world.  But if you start talking about it, and invite the larger Church into it as he did from before the first synod, through all the consultations, the episcopal consultations, then you’re on the road.  Pope Francis basically said we need to discuss these matters openly and in the light of the Holy Spirit.  I don’t think we can go back on that in the future.  If it was so "open," then why were the debates not in public? Did Wuerl and Baldisseri and Forte and Lombardi pressure Francis to go along with their secrecy? This is not Catholic, it is Masonic!
 It’s very interesting that in his speech last night at the end of the synod, the Pope said, “what seems normal for a bishop in one continent is considered strange and almost scandalous for a bishop from another.”  That is something that was evident in the synod.
I think that what we learned in the synod in dealing with human sexuality, marriage and family was that around the world all that’s lived and experienced differently, culturally.  The Church hasn’t changed her teaching on any of that, but the challenge to even have that teaching get a hearing varies greatly.  In our small circle (language group), I so much appreciated hearing from people from India, from Africa,  and one from a country that was previously behind what was called the Iron Curtain, and then from all of us from the Western world. I think you’ll note that this Final Document is not seen only in the framework of the Western world.  When you look through those paragraphs it’s no longer a Western world speaking on behalf of the whole Church.  That’s also a huge difference.  “I so much appreciated hearing from people from India, from Africa and from one from a country that was previously behind what was called the Iron Curtain.” What a condescending an arrogant statement. I’m surprised he didn’t add “but they should not tell us too much what to do.” 
As you said earlier, it’s taken the Church almost fifty years to reach this point. As you look to the future what do you see?
Well, remember the Church always, just given the size of it and the importance of the message, moves very, very slowly. One of the reasons it took fifty years to get here was because of all the confusion and upheaval in the late sixties and seventies.  And it took the entire pontificate of John Paul II to begin to right order things.  Once again to provide stability to the Church based on the Council. Now we’re in a position to move forward.  I suspect we’re going to run into a number of currents, and it’s going to be up to the leadership in the Church, now working in a very different way, working with the whole body of the Church, to steer clear of exaggerations.  Ah, there is that wonderful word, “Forward.” Used by Marxists and Maoists for a century now. The “confusion and upheaval” is still present, it has not gone away and under these men who have felt the freedom to be so bold under this pontificate, it continues anew. The Second Vatican Council is not the only Council the Church has had. If one is looking to it for stability, one will end up in the opposite place. The “leadership of the Church” he speaks of. Friends, the Church is all of us united with one bishop in our diocese united with the Pope of Rome. The Church is not some political entity, some government where majority rules. Less than 280 men cannot make decision on matter that will affect the whole Church. This man ascribes more power to himself and synodality than there is. SYNODALITY IS NOT CATHOLIC! 
By this you mean people, priests and bishops, working all together?Yes, the bishops exercising their responsibility, but as pastors of a Church made up of the faithful - the rest of the faithful. That’s what Pope Francis asked these two synods to do, which is what they did. The voices heard at the synod just concluded reflected the consultation round the world. That’s going to be a part of going into the future. But  I think we have to be cautious that moving into the future we don’t take every suggestion and say this now has to be done. We can take every suggestion and say let’s consider it.  The Church does not change doctrine or practice based on a poll. 
Discernment is the key.
Yes, discernment.  We can discern too, can't we, my fellow Catholics. We are also able to use the Gifts of the Holy Spirit and we can discern when those who have been given great gifts, use them to undermine and manipulate Truth.
Obviously the question that now many people ask after they saw that the real battle in the synod last night was around the three paragraphs (Ns.84,85 and 86) in the final document regarding the divorced and remarried. You were in the commission drafting the final document, how did you manage to arrive at a text that could actually garner the approval of two-thirds of the synod?
The norm was, whatever we present has to be balanced.  Remember the Holy Father told us that he wanted that whatever we produced to truly reflect what was heard in the (synod) hall.  Ambiguity is not from the Holy Spirit.
That was when he came in and spoke to the commission.  
He said this document has to be a consensus document; and a consensus document has to reflect what the majority of people in the hall were saying.  And so we made that the touchstone to say whatever we produce the majority of bishops in the hall have to be able to “you know that sounds like what we heard, that sounds like what we said.” And when we came to these neuralgic issues – I have to tell you I kept using that word until one of the other fathers said to me “why don’t we just use the word ‘difficile’  (difficult) not ‘neuralgici’ “, so I started using the word ‘difficile’ – when we came to the difficult points we said it has to be balanced, because you heard great balance in the synod hall, you heard people speaking from a variety of positions.
You also heard apocalyptic declarations.
Yes, but they did not represent the consensus in the hall. Yes, let us dismiss as nonsensical those in the synod hall who clearly took a serious view of the proceedings from the spiritual. Who is Wuerl to conclude that these bishops warning with “apocalyptic declarations” (which means, revealing), were not acting with the promptings of the Holy Spirit. If God was present at the Synod then if He saw that men were going down a road to perdition, would a God of mercy not seek to influence it? Is only Wuerl party to the words of the “spirit?”
You mean they were marginal voices  (Those on the periphery don't count?)
Yes, they didn’t represent the consensus in the room.   So that’s what we tried to do (to write a consensus document) and I think that our brother bishops in the hall recognized that.These paragraphs are very balanced, they don’t come down on any one side saying “you’re all right and you’re all wrong.”  Those paragraphs pretty much describe where the Church is today; what the Church is saying we’re trying to do today, without saying “this is all right, this is all wrong.”  Here friend is the problem. The Church is not a democracy. Voting cannot ever decide “This is all right, this is all wrong.” Scripture and Tradition decide. There can be no changes to what is right and wrong. Sodomy is wrong. Adultery is wrong. They are sins. People who commit them without repentance will go to Hell. The result of this “balance” is a document which has orthodoxy but one with wording that is soft enough and mushy enough for someone with an agenda opposed to Church teaching to use to suit their agenda.  
The three major Italian newspapers today lead with the same banner headline on their front pages: the synod reaches agreement on opening to the divorced and remarried.
The synod’s final document says people who are divorced and remarried are still members of the family, they are still our brothers and sisters and so we want to make sure that they don’t feel excluded from the Church, but it doesn’t say therefore this and this and this must happen.  It’s the “therefore” that we will be talking about going into the future. They are not “excluded.” This is a boldfaced lie. They are not excommunicated which is what “excluded” means. Do they “feel excluded?” Then involve them in parish life, counsel them; ensure they come to Mass. They cannot receive Holy Communion unless they do what is required of all of us. Confession. Penance. Firm intention of amendment of life. Wuerl is silent on this but he knows and we know what it is to which he is referring. The Church has always had a pastoral approach for people in this situation. Live together for the sake of the “family” as “brother and sister.” It has been done. It is done every day. People don’t die if they don’t have an orgasm. We are greater than the sum of our genital parts. Frankly, these prelates have a Freudian preoccupation with the whole matter of sex and sodomy!
I imagine the Pope will write something about this, since you asked him to do so in the final document.
That was the last paragraph.  By the way we introduced that last paragraph because there were people saying “what’s going to come out of this?” So we said, why don’t we ask the Pope to produce something on this?
What do you expect?
This is really perplexing for me. I don’t know if he will do a document, a post-synodal apostolic exhortation, or whether he will use this, different sections of it, to have further reflection on, or to give some series of conferences, homilies, Wednesday audience talks on one or other aspect of it, and help it develop. I really don’t know.
Do you think he could write an encyclical?
He could easily write an encyclical based on all of this.  I just don’t know.
What are you taking back from the synod for the American Church?
What I want to take back, and what I’ve already started to put together, is the recognition, first of all, that it was a successful synod.  We set out to talk about family, and for three weeks the whole world was talking about the Catholic Church. There is no “American Church.” You can tell this came from America Magazine. There is the Catholic Church in America or Canada or Uganda. Yes. The whole world was talking about the Catholic Church. God help us.
I’ve never seen so many journalists come to report on a synod
Yes. So we succeeded in focusing on the family.  We also succeeded, I believe, and this is something all in the Church have to work on, we succeeded in realizing, recognizing that we need to focus a lot more energy on our families and on strengthening for the next generation the concept of family and marriage. Having said that we also said you just can’t say that every pastoral issue is closed. There has to be in the Church more ongoing reflection and discussion.  I think that is also a very good thing. So I will be saying to the Church in the United States -I get back to my archdiocese tomorrow - I hope to be able to say this synod was a success because it brought our attention to marriage and family. It was a success because you can see the work of the Spirit in those final 94 paragraphs. And third, the synod was a call of the Spirit to say we have to be far more embracing, the outreach of the Church even to her own members has to be far more embracing. I would also like to remind everyone to pray for Our Holy Father.
Yes everyone recognizes that without Pope Francis this kind of synod wouldn’t have happened.
His closing talk, I thought, spoke to his sanctity. He gave this beautifully serene, compassionate talk, (!) pointing out facts and being open, even referring  to conspiracy theories, but at no time condemning anybody, just saying let’s move on now and keep moving forward.
Yes, and he said, “The Church’s first duty is not to hand down condemnations or anathemas, but to proclaim God’s mercy, to call to conversion, and to lead all men and women to salvation in the Lord.”

I think that’s why people love him.   He speaks the truth, but he really does it in love.
Note:  This article was first published in America magazine and is not reproduced here with permission, nor do I care.



“What makes people hypocrites? They disguise themselves, they disguise themselves as good people: they make themselves up like little holy cards, looking up at heaven as they pray, making sure they are seen—they believe they are more righteous than others, they despise others.”  Pope  Francis