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...

Wednesday, 29 November 2017

Pope's hands are stuck together

Remember this video where the Bishop of Rome insulted the altar boy for holding his hands together?



I guess things are different in Burma.


Image may contain: 3 people, people standing and text

Sunday, 26 November 2017

Ontario Court rules against parental rights - help with legal defense fund needed!

Whatever Vox Cantoris readers can do to assist with funds would be greatly appreciated.




Ontario Court of Appeal rules against parental rights.

http://everydayforlifecanada.blogspot.ca/2017/11/ontario-court-of-appeal-rules-against.html

Ontario Court of Appeal rules against parental rights. First a little background. Dr. Steve Tourloukis has been in a legal battle for over five years trying to defend parental rights in Ontario and Canada. Back in 2010, as the McGinty Liberal government tried to pass the radical sex-education curriculum, Tourloukis simply asked his children's school board to be notified of classes that contradicted his Greek-Orthodox faith. He could then choose to keep them at home when instruction was inappropriate. The lessons of concern included topics such as same-sex marriage, homosexuality, abortion and transgenderism. The Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board, HWDSB, refused his request for accommodation. So in 2012, given no other choice he took the school board to court.

The case was first heard last year in Hamilton, Ontario where Justice Robert Reid of the Ontario Superior Court made a terrible ruling against Tourloukis. The judge basically concluded that parents don't have the final authority over what their children learn. The idea that state has the "right" to overrule parental rights because of competing Charter rights is unjust and completely wrong. An appeal was launched.

Today the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled against Steve Tourloukis. This is another unjust decision that serves to further undermine parental rights. Tourloukis claims that his parental rights and religious freedom were violated under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The judges disagreed. This is a bad decision for Canadian parents, regardless of whether they're believers or agnostics.

Three judges Peter Lauwers, Robert Sharpe and Bradley Miller in rejecting Tourloukis's appeal argue that he failed to prove that there was "any interference with or violation of his religious freedom." Judge Lauwers did admit that: "Dismissing this appeal does not, however, give s.169.1 the program a clean constitutional bill of health. Were the evidence that the s.169.1 program undermined a parent's ability to transmit religious faith, together with a refusal to provide accommodation, the result might be well different." But "Equity Education" is precisely about changing (indoctrinating) students thinking about human sexuality, the person and marriage. Surely the judges have enough proof in the government and school board documents that the policy undermines a parent's ability to pass on the faith or other views.

A reasonable person (not Canadian judges in these days of political correctness) would say that forcing "diversity education" on all public students is a direct infringement on a parent's ability to teach the Christian faith and family values. The judges, with the red herring lack of evidence position, sided with the government, the school board and the teachers' union. "Equity Education" trumps every other view, especially the Christian one.

Lauwers refers to section s.169.1 of Ontario's Education Act which under duties and powers allows schools boards to "(a) promote student achievement and well-being; (a.1) promote a positive school climate that is inclusive and accepting of all pupils, including pupils of any race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability; (a.2) promote the prevention of bullying." The court acknowledges the importance of "inclusivity" in creating a positive school climate devoid of bullying. However, the idea that faith is also a central aspect to student's success, health and emotional well being can be excluded.

Court of Appeal for Ontario
Lauwers, while asserting that the Education Act protects religious freedom and parental rights, then goes on to quote ministerial guidelines from the Ministry of Education regarding the importance of Equity Education:
The directive and policies are all designed to combat racism, religious intolerance and homophobia, and to ensure that all students feel welcomed and accepted in public schools.
Students are to be provided with learning materials that are bias-fee and that reflect the diversity of the school population, including diversity of sexual orientation and gender identity. A central feature of the Policy is that diversity, anti-discrimination and anti-homophobia are not taught in stand alone lessons but rather are fully integrated into the curriculum so that acceptance of difference becomes routine. For example, teaching materials for a lesson on mathematics might feature children with two mothers and two fathers. In this way, all courses are infused with equity principles and teachers are directed to ensure that all students-including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual and two-spirited, intersex, queer and questioning people - will, in the words of EIES (Equity and Inclusive Strategy), be 'engaged, included, and respected and ... see themselves reflected in their learning environment.
So Tourloukis, as do all parents in the province, has parental rights according to the court decision. However, given current government policies and without clear proof of harm, school boards are permitted to violate both parental rights and religious freedom because they have a mandate to not just promote "Equity Education," but to inculcate it as a "neutral" civic virtue. In short, transgendersim, secret school sex clubs and about a dozen sexual orientations are just fine for the court, but not the Christian faith and the right of parents and the freedom to say no to legislated "diversity education." Teaching about two mothers and two fathers in a mathematics class should not take precedence over parental rights.

The three justices know about the radical sexual indoctrination that children are being exposed today in schools. As specified in ministerial guidelines produced in court, students are being brainwashed across the curriculum, that is in every subject. This is clearly a contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Education Act. Nevertheless, this is now legal because it's all part of "Equity Education."

This ruling was definitely a loss for the Hamilton father, and we won’t try to sugar coat that. The court refused to grant him any relief in the absence of “proof” that his children had been exposed to lessons which contradicted his religious beliefs, and that’s really bad for his family. Nonetheless, the ruling affirmed that parents do have primary authority over their children’s education and that the state’s authority is subordinate. Importantly, the ruling also laid out a path for a future legal challenge against the section 169 of the Education Act which is a sort of linchpin being used by the educrats to justify imposing their radical sexual agenda on other peoples’ children. Our thoughts and good wishes go out to Steve Tourloukis and his family. This must be another very difficult day. Our prayers and support are with them. And parents take note.

Readers, if you wish to help pay the legal cost and learn more about Steve Tourloukis' case, please go to the Parental Rights in Education Defense Fund.

Friday, 24 November 2017

Is it Real or is it a Memory?

In his latest "catechesis" on the liturgy at the Wednesday audience of papal adulation and positivism, the Bishop of Rome has stated that 
"The Mass is the memorial of the Paschal Mystery of Christ. In order to comprehend the value of Mass we must first understand the biblical meaning of the “memorial.” It is not only the memory of past events, but it makes them in a certain way present and actual. That is exactly how Israel understands its release from Egypt: every time Passover is celebrated, the events of the Exodus are brought to the memory of the believers in order to conform their lives to them.
This must explain why this priest and Bishop of Rome doesn't genuflect at Mass before the Blessed Sacrament and Real Presence of the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ after the elevations of what were once bread and wine - he doesn't believe it is necessary because he doesn't believe it is God! He belives that it is a "memorial." 

If the "Paschal Mystery of Christ," is understood as his suffering, death, resurrection and ascension into heaven, then this is not what is taking place at the Mass. The Mass is the re-presentation, not the representation, nor the memorial, but the re-presentation of the blood atonement of the Lamb of God at Calvary on the Cross brought forward in time to us for us to partake. 

I recommend a visit to Louie Verrecchio's AKACatholic for a full and rich re-presentation of the actual truth, not the pathetic codswallop that we are getting from the Bishop of Rome who failed his 1st grade catechism class all those many years ago in Argentina. 

Wednesday, 22 November 2017

It's a loaf of bread I tell you, really it is.

Okay, I get it, it's a loaf of bread symbolizing feeding the poor, but, really?

Are people just this stupid? 

It's supposed to be St. Martin de Porres. What a disgusting insult. More saintly pictures can be found here.

Or is it a subliminal clue about the intent of the artists and the people who commissioned it?

http://nationalpost.com/news/catholic-school-covers-up-potentially-suggestive-statue-of-priest


Image result for blackfriar priory school statue

Image result for blackfriar priory school statue


Tuesday, 14 November 2017

New Zealand's "Dew" is not that of the Holy Spirit but of Bergoglio's "god of surprises"

How can the "Reform of the Reform" be anything but dead with the likes of John Dew in the leadership of the Church. 

Bergoglio appointed "Cardinal" John Dew, an alleged priest of Jesus Christ, has declared that due to his inspiration by Pope Francis a "creative initiative" will take place in the Nervous Disordered liturgy - the laity will read the Gospel.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-zealand-cardinal-makes-pope-francis-inspired-change-to-mass 


Image result for cardinal dew

Gosh, just imagine the captions that one could come up with for the look on George's face over this prize.

Give it a go.

Friday, 10 November 2017

Thursday, 9 November 2017

And to think, Amoris Letitia was all about Haiti and North Korea

In an interview with the Italian publication La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana and translated by LifeSiteNews, Cardinal Müller affirms the legitimacy of the Dubia of the four Cardinals, two of whom are now deceased. He also goes on to state that there are "no exceptions," to the ban on Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried. 

The issue that is jumped over here and in the two Synods is that of the Church's exercise within Marriage Tribunals of Decrees of Nullity. As one who was granted a Decree of Nullity which had numerous grounds aside from canonical irregularities, it always struck this writer as the misunderstood right of the Church and faithful in this whole discussion. Let us put aside the polemical debate of "abuse" of the process. If the parties are honest and tell the truth and the Church decrees nullity, then there is no sin, nor deception on the part of the faithful. If the Tribunal abused the process then it is the sin of those judges and the bishop. The fact is, if a Decree of Nullity is granted, it renders the fact that the first "marriage" was not valid, there was no marriage.

The process of "discernment" and "accompaniment" are the inherent issues of Eucharistic attack in Amoris Laetitia. Let the few, very few Catholics who care about practicing their faith seek decrees of nullity. Let the Church's age-old practice apply, streamlined if necessary. It is not a degrading process, nor is it overtly expensive, at least not from the experience of most.

But Müller's argument falls apart when he returns to the internal forum matter.  He confirms that Amoris Laetitia throws a battering ram through the traditional process of Decrees of Nullity for accompaniment, - accompaniment is the new annulment process. Why bother then for what is true and right, just make your own decision with a priest who is prepared to go along with it.

Of course, what we did not know, is that it is all for North Korea and Haiti.

And we thought selling ones soul for Wales was serious.


Image result for cardinal muller

Cardinal Müller clarifies: There are ‘no exceptions’ to ban on Communion for ‘remarried’



Cascioli: And so we touch on the question of the indissolubility of marriage. In recent days, it’s been said that you are convinced there can be some exceptions. 
Cardinal Muller: No exceptions. This idea is false. I gave a clear theological explanation, which left no room for misunderstanding. I would like to bring peace to the situation and not fuel polemics between opposing groups. 
And so we need to be clear that when it comes to a legitimate sacramental marriage there can be no exceptions. The sacraments are efficacious ex opere operato. Just as there are no exceptions in the validity of baptism, or of the transubstantiation of the bread into the Body of Christ.” 
But in Buttiglione’s essay, he refers to several very particular situations in which there would be a venial sin, so that it should be possible to be absolved and to receive the sacraments while maintaining the state of the second union. 
In my introduction it is very clearly written that reconciliation is needed, and this is only possible if there is first contrition and a firm purpose not to commit the sin anymore. Certain people who address these issues do not understand that approaching the Sacrament of Reconciliation does not mean automatic absolution. There are essential elements without which reconciliation cannot be achieved. If there isn’t contrition there cannot be absolution and if there is no absolution, if one remains in the state of mortal sin, one cannot receive Communion. 
As for Buttiglione, he refers to situations where knowledge of the Catholic faith is a problem. These are cases of unconscious Christians, who are baptized but unbelieving, who may have gotten married in Church to please their grandmother, but without a real awareness. Here it becomes a problem when, after many years, they return to the faith and then question the marriage. There are many such cases. Benedict XVI also looked at the issue. So what’s to be done? In this sense we can say with the Pope that discernment is needed, but this does not mean that one can be granted access to the sacraments without the conditions mentioned above. The issue here is not about the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, but about the validity of many marriages that aren’t really valid. 
But in your essay you also refer to cases of people who convert or return to the faith after already having entered a second union, and regarding the sacraments you talk about a decision in the internal forum. What do you mean? 
While in Europe things are clear enough at least theoretically, in many countries there are many difficult situations to judge. In Latin America, for example, there are many marriages that are not celebrated according to the canonical form. There are couples who live together but one doesn’t know if there is an actual marriage consent. I was in Haiti recently and the situation there is disastrous; everyone is called a spouse. They live together but they aren’t formally married either in church or civilly. When some mature, they start going to church and then you have to determine who the true husband or wife is. And here it’s important for the person to be honest and say sincerely with whom they have expressed true consent, because it is the consent that makes a marriage, not only the canonical form. In any case, in order to be admitted to the sacraments, the parish priest or bishop must clarify the situation in cooperation with the freedom of the faithful. But there are also situations that are overturned. 
Can you say more? 
There are particular circumstances, for example under regimes that persecute the Church, where it isn’t possible to be married canonically. Let’s take the example of North Korea: the few Catholics who are present there still have the right to marry, and here a marriage is possible only through consent. But if in time something happens and the two separate, and they want to remarry, then everything depends on the internal forum, on their honesty in acknowledging if there was consent or not, and they have to express that to the priest or to the new husband or wife. 
This is where conscience comes into play. 
Yes, but conscience understood properly, not like certain journalists explain it who water down the truth. We are talking about a right conscience, one that cannot say “I don’t have to respect God’s law.” Conscience does not free us from God’s law but gives us the guidance to fulfill it. 
However, in your introduction to Buttiglione’s book, you shy away from casuistry and seem especially concerned with offering several clear criteria for understanding Amoris Laetitia so as to avoid what you explicitly call “heretical interpretations.” 
Exactly. Unfortunately, there are individual bishops and whole episcopal conferences that are proposing interpretations that contradict the previous Magisterium, admitting to the sacraments persons who persist in objective situations of grave sin. But this is not the criterion for applying Amoris Laetitia. Pope Francis himself spoke of a Thomist apostolic exhortation. And so it is right to read it in light of St. Thomas, and on admission to the Eucharist, St. Thomas is clear dogmatically and also has a pastoral sensitivity for individuals.

Monday, 6 November 2017

Poor widdle Jeffrey Sachs - did your widdle feelings get hurt when confronted with the truth?

Featured Image

The only thing more disgusting than this Antichrist at a Vatican conference are the Catholic prelates and Pope who permitted this monster to be there.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/world-renowned-economist-jeffrey-sachs-yells-at-vatican-reporter-youre-disg


BLOGS 

World-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs yells at Vatican reporter: ‘You’re disgusting’

ROME, November 6, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – “You’re disgusting, you’re disgusting, disgusting,” yelled world-renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs in the hallowed halls of the Casina Pio IV in the heart of the Vatican Gardens. Sachs, the Columbia University professor whose monthly newspaper columns appear in more than 100 countries, was in a full rage, threateningly pointing his finger in the face of this reporter during his outburst. I sat there rather stunned but also, I must admit, somewhat intimidated since this man marches in echelons of power far above the top one percent he is so fond of disparaging.
A collaborator with George Soros, Sachs is known around the world as a guru on climate change, sustainable development -- and to pro-lifers -- population control and abortion. It is this pro-life concern that was the source of his rage. He was railing against me because of an article I wrote the previous day in which the headline referred to him as a “pro-abortion globalist.”

The Decentralised Church of Bergoglio - predicted by Malachi Martin in The Jesuits!

In 1986, Malachi Martin published, The Jesuits. I bought the book around that time, read it and put it away on a shelf. I just took it out to read it again. I mean, there it was, in the introduction called, "War" and on the third page:


The decentralised Church which Bergoglio and his minions are actively undertaking. We've seen it in the Synods, in comments by those of Kasper's ilk and in the recent liturgical motu proprio on translations.

That was only on the third page and not even the first formal Chapter! 

Then, he calls out Karl Rahner:



There you have it.

Sunday, 5 November 2017

Were you on time for Mass today?

 

Hat tip to The Old Curmudgeon https://musingsofanoldcurmudgeon.blogspot.ca/

Cardinal Sarah: "No Inter-Communion between Catholics and non-Catholics."

The potential for open schism grows. Cardinal Sarah states clearly that Holy Communion is not to be given to Protestants!



CARDINAL SARAH: "NO INTER-COMMUNION BETWEEN CATHOLICS AND NON-CATHOLICS. YOU MUST BE CATHOLIC”

by Matteo Orlando


Il card. Sarah: «Niente inter-comunione tra cattolici e non cattolici. È necessario essere cattolici»"Inter-communion is not allowed between Catholics and non-Catholics. It is necessary to confess the Catholic faith. A non-Catholic cannot receive communion. This is very, very clear. It is not a matter of freedom of conscience. " This is how Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Divine Worship Congregation, responds to those who have seen an intercommunion between Catholics and Lutherans in a response given by Pope Francis to a Lutheran during his recent visit to the Lutheran community of Rome. "We give communion to Catholics," giving communion to everyone is "a nonsense," says the African Cardinal.

"There is no intercommunion between Anglicans and Catholics, between Catholics and Protestants. If they go together, the Catholic can go to communion, but Lutherans or Anglicans do not. " Without a union in faith and doctrine, opening the doors to intercommunion "would promote profanation." "We cannot do it. It is not that we must speak to the Lord to know if we can make Communion. We need to know whether we are in agreement with the rules of the Church. Our consciousness must be illuminated by the rules of the Church that says that, in order to communicate, we need to be in a state of grace, without sin, and have faith in the Eucharist. It is not a desire or a personal dialogue with Jesus that determines whether we can receive communion in the Catholic Church. A person cannot decide whether he is able to receive Communion. Must be Catholic, in a state of grace, properly married [if conjugated] ". The inter-communion does not allow unity because "the Lord helps us to be one if we receive it properly, otherwise we will eat our condemnation, as St. Paul says (1 Corinthians 11: 27-29). We cannot become one thing only if we participate in communion with sin, with contempt for the Body of Christ. "

Saturday, 4 November 2017

Meet Canada's new Governor General - Space Cadet Julie Payette

Meet Canada's new Governor-General, the representative in Canada of Elizabeth II, Queen.

Julie Payette, the Governor General of Canada, essentially mocked people for believing in horoscopes, alternative medicine, divine intervention and for not believing in climate change, incredulous that some Canadians would hold those views 'still today in learned society,' Robyn Urback writes.

The only thing more embarrassing than Payette is the burnt out lightboob that recommended that Her Majesty actually appoint her.


Image may contain: 2 people, people standing and text


Truly, our poor nation of Canada is under a chastisement. Truly, I think 40 days and nights of rain would be easier to endure.

Nobody says it like Rex Murphy.


Good grief, even the CBC gets it.

Friday, 3 November 2017

Bergoglio`s Vatican removes Holy Mary and St. John from the Crucifixion!

Image result for crucifixion jesus mary john

An ancient tradition in artwork whether in the east or west is the Crucifixion of Our Lord with Our Sorrowful Mother and St. John at the foot of the cross. All others, including St. Mary Magdalene are not depicted. The intent of this portrayal can only be to show the intricate connection between Our Lady and John and the words of Our Lord from the Cross, "Woman, behold thy son, John, behold thy mother."

Architecturally, this also was depicted in the ancient rood screen, so long lost in our churches.

Image result for rood screen

The current degenerates and minions of Bergoglio in the Vatican have other ideas.


From Zenit:

The postage stamp issued by the Philatelic Office for the occasion depicts in the foreground Jesus crucified and in the background a golden and timeless view of the city of Wittenberg. With a penitential disposition, kneeling respectively on the left and right of the cross, Martin Luther holds the Bible, source and destination of his doctrine, while Philipp Melanchthon, theologian and friend of Martin Luther, one of the main protagonists of the reform, holds in hand the Augsburg Confession (Confessio Augustana), the first official public presentation of the principles of Protestantism written by him.

Dissent from a Pope who dissents from Christ is the upholding of the Faith!

You knew it was coming, right? The attack on theologian Fr. Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M.Cap., from the minions of Bergoglio.

The latest is that Pope Benedict XVI would not approve since at one time he wrote that "dissent from the ordinary Magisterium should be disclosed privately to Church authorities." Yet, what Father Weinandy has done is not to dissent against the "ordinary Magisterium," but to a Pope who has created confusion, promoted insult and promulgated what is clearly heresy in Amoris Laetitia and in countless other statements from his homily of the day.

Image

Canon 212 clearly gives the faithful, as their competence provides, the right and duty to raise concerns to Church authority. Friar Weinandy is more qualified than most. There is no conflict between Canon Law and then Cardinal Ratzinger's statement.

Recommended reading on this can be found at Dominus Mihi Adjutor, the blog of Fr. Hugh Somerville-Knapman, OSB and Australian Benedictine monk and priest in England.


Thursday, 2 November 2017

Capuchin Friar Thomas Weinandy states many clerics "fear" recriminations from the Church and immediately is proved correct by the USCCB!

In an unmerciful act, void of dialogue and encounter and administered in a most rigid manner by self-absorbed, Promethean, neo-Pelagians, Father Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M.Cap., was promptly sacked from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Having written (as in the post below) that...
"Many bishops are silent because they desire to be loyal to you, and so they do not express – at least publicly; privately is another matter – the concerns that your pontificate raises.  Many fear that if they speak their mind, they will be marginalized or worse."
...Cardinal DiNardo promptly sacked him displaying a act of merciless rigorism.

Wait, "or worse?" You mean, like "someone rid me of that meddlesome priest?" Hmmm, And then there were two, Dubia Cardinals....

Given that Friar Weinandy stated that...
"...faithful Catholics can only be disconcerted by your choice of some bishops, men who seem not merely open to those who hold views counter to Christian belief but who support and even defend them."
...one can well imagine that Cupich, McElroy, Farrell and Tobin must have been on DiNardo like flies on dung after that one. I guess the truth hurts, eh boys?

On this matter, this was Tweeted out by Hilary White at 5:23 EDT today.


But nobody can say it like Father Hunwicke
This cheap and vulgar ritual humiliation exemplifies the extent to which PF is presiding over a bully-boy Church in which midget bishops and minicardinals compete to defeat each other in the sycophancy stakes. Just as Tom Weinandy has, in effect, just said.
I would ask Friar Weinandy to "keep up the good writing!"

Below is the text of DiNardo's cowardly ironic act.

It is such a joy to see these men squirm like worms on a hook. Their end is coming fast.

 Image result for cardinal dinardo usccb
“The departure today of Fr. Thomas Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap., as a consultant to the Committee on Doctrine and the publication of his letter to Pope Francis gives us an opportunity to reflect on the nature of dialogue within the Church.  Throughout the history of the Church, ministers, theologians and the laity all have debated and have held personal opinions on a variety of theological and pastoral issues. In more recent times, these debates have made their way into the popular press. That is to be expected and is often good.  However, these reports are often expressed in terms of opposition, as political – conservative vs. liberal, left vs. right, pre-Vatican II vs Vatican II.  These distinctions are not always very helpful.
Christian charity needs to be exercised by all involved. In saying this, we all must acknowledge that legitimate differences exist, and that it is the work of the Church, the entire body of Christ, to work towards an ever-growing understanding of God’s truth
As Bishops, we recognize the need for honest and humble discussions around theological and pastoral issues. We must always keep in mind St. Ignatius of Loyola’s “presupposition” to his Spiritual Exercises: “…that it should be presumed that every good Christian ought to be more eager to put a good interpretation on a neighbor’s statement than to condemn it.” This presupposition should be afforded all the more to the teaching of Our Holy Father.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is a collegial body of bishops working towards that goal. As Pastors and Teachers of the Faith, therefore, let me assert that we always stand in strong unity with and loyalty to the Holy Father, Pope Francis, who “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful” (LG, no. 23).”


Wednesday, 1 November 2017

Capuchin Friar accuses Pope Francis of "calumny" and "demeaning" the importance of doctrine and creating confusion!

Capuchin Friar, Fr. Thomas Weinandy released a letter publicly, a letter which he wrote to Pope Francis in July. Weinandy is not unknown for controversy of the good kind, at least according to the National Uncatholic Reporter as they rejoiced in his stepping down from a USCCB post a few years ago.

As interesting and notable as the letter he issued to the Bishop of Rome is the lead up to it.


 

"There was no longer any doubt that Jesus wanted me to write…"
by Thomas G. Weinandy
Last May I was in Rome for an International Theological Commission meeting.  I was staying at Domus Sanctae Marthae, and since I arrived early, I spent most of the Sunday afternoon prior to the meeting on Monday in Saint Peter’s praying in the Eucharistic Chapel.
I was praying about the present state of the Church and the anxieties I had about the present Pontificate.  I was beseeching Jesus and Mary, St. Peter and all of the saintly popes who are buried there to do something to rectify the confusion and turmoil within the Church today, a chaos and an uncertainty that I felt Pope Francis had himself caused.  I was also pondering whether or not I should write and publish something expressing my concerns and anxiety.
On the following Wednesday afternoon, at the conclusion of my meeting, I went again to St. Peter’s and prayed in the same manner.  That night I could not get to sleep, which is very unusual for me.  It was due to all that was on my mind pertaining to the Church and Pope Francis.
At 1:15 AM I got up and went outside for short time.  When I went back to my room, I said to the Lord: “If you want me to write something, you have to give me a clear sign.  This is what the sign must be.  Tomorrow morning I am going to Saint Mary Major’s to pray and then I am going to Saint John Lateran.  After that I am coming back to Saint Peter’s to have lunch with a seminary friend of mine.  During that interval, I must meet someone that I know but have not seen in a very long time and would never expect to see in Rome at this time.  That person cannot be from the United States, Canada or Great Britain.  Moreover, that person has to say to me in the course of our conversation, ‘Keep up the good writing’.”
The next morning I did all of the above and by the time I met my seminarian friend for lunch what I had asked the Lord the following night was no longer in the forefront of my mind.
However, towards the end of the meal an archbishop appeared between two parked cars right in front of our table (we were sitting outside).  I had not seen him for over twenty years, long before he became an archbishop.  We recognized one another immediately.  What made his appearance even more unusual was that, because of his recent personal circumstances, I would never have expected to see him in Rome or anywhere else, other than in his own archdiocese.  (He was from none of the above mentioned countries.)  We spoke about his coming to Rome and caught up on what we were doing.  I then introduced him to my seminarian friend.  He said to my friend that we had met a long time ago and that he had, at that time, just finished reading my book on the immutability of God and the Incarnation.  He told my friend that it was an excellent book, that it helped him sort out the issue, and that my friend should read the book.  Then he turned to me and said: “Keep up the good writing.”
I could hardly believe that this just happened in a matter of a few minutes.  But there was no longer any doubt in my mind that Jesus wanted me to write something.  I also think it significant that it was an Archbishop that Jesus used.  I considered it an apostolic mandate.
So giving it considerable thought and after writing many drafts, I decided to write Pope Francis directly about my concerns.  However, I always intended to make it public since I felt many of my concerns were the same concerns that others had, especially among the laity, and so I publicly wanted to give voice to their concerns as well.

Now, the letter...

Your Holiness,
I write this letter with love for the Church and sincere respect for your office.  You are the Vicar of Christ on earth, the shepherd of his flock, the successor to St. Peter and so the rock upon which Christ will build his Church.  All Catholics, clergy and laity alike, are to look to you with filial loyalty and obedience grounded in truth.  The Church turns to you in a spirit of faith, with the hope that you will guide her in love.
Yet, Your Holiness, a chronic confusion seems to mark your pontificate.  The light of faith, hope, and love is not absent, but too often it is obscured by the ambiguity of your words and actions.  This fosters within the faithful a growing unease.  It compromises their capacity for love, joy and peace.  Allow me to offer a few brief examples.
First there is the disputed Chapter 8 of "Amoris Laetitia."  I need not share my own concerns about its content.  Others, not only theologians, but also cardinals and bishops, have already done that.  The main source of concern is the manner of your teaching.  In "Amoris Laetitia," your guidance at times seems intentionally ambiguous, thus inviting both a traditional interpretation of Catholic teaching on marriage and divorce as well as one that might imply a change in that teaching.  As you wisely note, pastors should accompany and encourage persons in irregular marriages; but ambiguity persists about what that "accompaniment" actually means.  To teach with such a seemingly intentional lack of clarity inevitably risks sinning against the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of truth.  The Holy Spirit is given to the Church, and particularly to yourself, to dispel error, not to foster it.  Moreover, only where there is truth can there be authentic love, for truth is the light that sets women and men free from the blindness of sin, a darkness that kills the life of the soul.  Yet you seem to censor and even mock those who interpret Chapter 8 of "Amoris Laetitia" in accord with Church tradition as Pharisaic stone-throwers who embody a merciless rigorism.   This kind of calumny is alien to the nature of the Petrine ministry.  Some of your advisors regrettably seem to engage in similar actions.  Such behavior gives the impression that your views cannot survive theological scrutiny, and so must be sustained by "ad hominem" arguments.
Second, too often your manner seems to demean the importance of Church doctrine.  Again and again you portray doctrine as dead and bookish, and far from the pastoral concerns of everyday life.  Your critics have been accused, in your own words, of making doctrine an ideology.  But it is precisely Christian doctrine – including the fine distinctions made with regard to central beliefs like the Trinitarian nature of God; the nature and purpose of the Church; the Incarnation; the Redemption; and the sacraments – that frees people from worldly ideologies and assures that they are actually preaching and teaching the authentic, life-giving Gospel.  Those who devalue the doctrines of the Church separate themselves from Jesus, the author of truth.  What they then possess, and can only possess, is an ideology – one that conforms to the world of sin and death.
Third, faithful Catholics can only be disconcerted by your choice of some bishops, men who seem not merely open to those who hold views counter to Christian belief but who support and even defend them.  What scandalizes believers, and even some fellow bishops, is not only your having appointed such men to be shepherds of the Church, but that you also seem silent in the face of their teaching and pastoral practice.  This weakens the zeal of the many women and men who have championed authentic Catholic teaching over long periods of time, often at the risk of their own reputations and well-being.  As a result, many of the faithful, who embody the "sensus fidelium," are losing confidence in their supreme shepherd.
Fourth, the Church is one body, the Mystical Body of Christ, and you are commissioned by the Lord himself to promote and strengthen her unity.  But your actions and words too often seem intent on doing the opposite.  Encouraging a form of "synodality" that allows and promotes various doctrinal and moral options within the Church can only lead to more theological and pastoral confusion.  Such synodality is unwise and, in practice, works against collegial unity among bishops.
Holy Father, this brings me to my final concern.  You have often spoken about the need for transparency within the Church.  You have frequently encouraged, particularly during the two past synods, all persons, especially bishops, to speak their mind and not be fearful of what the pope may think.  But have you noticed that the majority of bishops throughout the world are remarkably silent?  Why is this?  Bishops are quick learners, and what many have learned from your pontificate is not that you are open to criticism, but that you resent it.  Many bishops are silent because they desire to be loyal to you, and so they do not express – at least publicly; privately is another matter – the concerns that your pontificate raises.  Many fear that if they speak their mind, they will be marginalized or worse.
I have often asked myself: "Why has Jesus let all of this happen?"   The only answer that comes to mind is that Jesus wants to manifest just how weak is the faith of many within the Church, even among too many of her bishops.  Ironically, your pontificate has given those who hold harmful theological and pastoral views the license and confidence to come into the light and expose their previously hidden darkness.  In recognizing this darkness, the Church will humbly need to renew herself, and so continue to grow in holiness.
Holy Father, I pray for you constantly and will continue to do so.  May the Holy Spirit lead you to the light of truth and the life of love so that you can dispel the darkness that now hides the beauty of Jesus’ Church.
Sincerely in Christ,
Thomas G. Weinandy, O.F.M., Cap.
July 31, 2017
Feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola