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/

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  

James Martin, S.J., heresiarch Jesuit manipulates publicly, the reception and nature of the Holy Eucharist!

"I believe, of course, that it's the Body and Blood of Christ, but you know, as Pope Francis said, communion is not a reward for the perfect.  It is medicine for the sick.  It is medicine for those who need it.   So, you know, you look at the Last Supper, I mean, were the disciples to whom Jesus gave communion all perfect?  Absolutely not.  I mean, he gave communion to Judas, for pete's sake.  So, I think we need to get away from this idea that you need to be perfect in order to approach the communion rail."

“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 (source)

I'm happy to know that in James Martin's parish there is a "communion rail," perhaps he would send us a picture. 

It is good to see that more than a few bloggers and haters on Twitter have noticed this man's agenda and heterodoxy.

Father Dwight Longenecker writes:

Fr. Martin has set up a straw man, and this is a typical tactic of the progressive propagandist. They portray those who oppose them as wild eyed, frenzied lunatics while they, of course, are the mild mannered, smiling and reasonable voice of common sense. Really? I expect there are some Catholics who do “hate” LGBT people”, but I haven’t met any. It suits Fr Martin, however, to pump up the hate speech because it’s easy to hate the haters. Consequently by pumping up the hate speech he raises the level of hatred. Those who pump up the accusations of hate pump up hate. They should be reminded that not everyone who disagrees with the LGBT agenda is a bigoted, self righteous, legalistic hater. Bullying others by calling them self righteous, legalistic haters weakens one’s position.Fr Martin is smart.  He should be better than that.

Keep it coming James; you're just too much fun. Almost as much as my Basilian friend.

Now, for a little irony courtesy of our Jesuit friend with an acknowledgment for finding it to One Mad Mom.

Well, if calling people "haters" is not an "ad hominem attack" then, I don't know what is. 

Who gave this boy his First Holy Communion?

H/T to The Hirsch Files

#JamesMartinSJBlockParty
https://www.facebook.com/FrJamesMartin/?fref=ts
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ

James Martin, S.J. - distorts and manipulates Synod document on Facebook and CNN

Jesuit priest James Martin of America Magazine has become infamous on Twitter. Calling out people as "haters" and learning from Tom Rosica how to block critics to the point where the #RosicaBlockParty has been joined by the #JamesMartinSJBlockParty. Silly boys, did you not know that a second browser or account solves that problem and a copy and paste of the tweet does the trick?

James Martin is a "homosexualists" and an "adulterist." He has pushed these agendas before and during the Synod and he continues to do so and in ways dangerous to souls, in spite of what he says about, "haters."

You, my dear Catholic, have a duty - to call out malefactors such as this Jesuitical heresiarch. He, who would be beaten out the Society by Saints such as Ignatius, Francis Xavier, Jean de Brebeuf and Paul Miki for his heterodoxy and his lies, can not be allowed to confuse and distort. When men such as these take this Synod and its mediocre and ambiguous texts and twist them for their own advantage and those whose bidding they undertake, they must be called out and challenged.

Note very carefully. The Synod has not changed one thing. 

A synod is an advisory body. The Pope can do something or everything with the advice he has been given. He can do all or he can do nothing. No Law has changed. No Doctrine has changed. What has changed is how the document will be used to manipulate an agenda, as this Jesuit is doing and which we must confront everywhere. Unlike our parents and grandparents after Vatican II who had little knowledge and no tools, we are different.

What has also changed is that we have a Pope who seems to relish in calling people names giving a clue of how he thinks and how he might act in terms of the Synod report, but that is for another post.

Martin writes about "change" and asks why some Catholics are so 'afraid of it." The matter of change was dealt with quite well by the prolific hymn-writer (Faith of Our Fathers is one), Rev. F.W. Faber, Cong. Orat. This convert from Anglicanism and Blessed John Newman contemporary, said:

"All change is bad from its very nature. It is full of evil: it unsettles and disturbs, it is full of the world, it is the very spirit of the world and nothing worse can be said of it. Whenever we are tempted to change any thing, we must not only be quite sure that the old system contained evils, but also that those evils were more numerous and more important, than the ones we must inevitably bring to change. ... but change in religion is of all things most perilous." 

Let's take a look at Martin's words and rebuke him, shall we? 

Why are some Catholic so afraid of change?

The Rev. James Martin is a Jesuit priest, editor at large of America and author of the new novel "The Abbey." The views expressed in this column belong to Martin.

 
Father James Martin(CNN)
The Synod on the Family, the gathering of bishops from around the world that just concluded, changed no Catholic doctrine. None. Yet, Martin on Facebook was telling the divorced and remarried that they could now, after searching their "conscience" in the internal forum, receive Holy Communion. Martin knows that that is a discipline but it based on Scripture, but the reader, catholic or otherwise, does not. Martin is twisting the language so that the problem is with those who oppose it. But you wouldn't know that from the fierce reactions the synod evoked. Even the possibility that the church might deal more openly with, for example, divorced and remarried Catholics or the LGBT community, sent some Catholics into a near frenzy. The Church has always been open with people. Those in adultery and those suffering from same-sex attraction have the same opportunity as you and I. Go for spiritual direction, confess your sins, amend your life and you're good to go. Martin also uses the homosexualist language, without stating that anyone who thinks that they are "trans-gendered" is suffering from mental illness. He would rather leave them in their pathological state than even give them the medical and psychiatric help they need to say nothing of the spiritual. It seemed out of proportion to the synod's discussions as well as the final document, a rather workaday overview of issues related to the family. The final report did not, for example, say that divorced and remarried could return to Communion. But you did. Instead it talked about possible avenues of reconciliation that already existed. Nor did it approve same-sex marriage. Instead it spoke of respecting LGBT Catholics. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church has always stated - again, a manipulation of the truth. Overall, the document stressed two concepts: "accompaniment" and "discernment." The church must accompany families in the complexity of their lives and use discernment, a form of prayerful decision-making, to help people arrive at good decisions based on church teaching. The final document is not even the final word. Pope Francis will most likely issue his own document within a few months, summing up the synod's findings and perhaps moving the discussion farther. Or he may do nothing at all. Catholic bishops conclude 'spicy' meeting with compromise Nice word choice, Padre,  But even the hint of change prompted outrage -- which was directed not only at Pope Francis, but also the bishops at the synod, Catholic commentators, and from time to time, me. At times, the level of sheer spite was astounding. Martin is clearly shocked that he can't get away with Clericalism! Why? First, let's give the benefit of the doubt to people upset by Pope Francis and some of the synod's discussions. Those disturbed by the possibility of change are usually devout Catholics who believe that the law is an important part of Catholic tradition. And it is. Make no mistake: Jesus himself said he came to "fulfill the law." Many of the church's rules flow directly from the Gospels. Just consider divorce, the synod topic that captured much of the attention in the West. It is unequivocally stated by Jesus to be wrong. Laws also are part of tradition, which Catholics believe is guided by the Holy Spirit. Even if certain rules do not come from the lips of Jesus, but rather from popes or other councils like Vatican II, they are considered to be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Thus, another reason to oppose change: Why would we change something that either comes from Jesus or is safeguarded by the Holy Spirit? Martin knows well what scripture says, he is playing a game here and blaming it on God the Holy Spirit Himself:

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you. let that one be accursed!" 

It's hard to change the Catholic Church -- even if you're the Pope So some of the consternation is understandable. Some, however, is harder to understand. For if you're a devout Catholic who believes in the guidance of the Spirit, then you should also trust that the same Spirit is guiding Pope Francis and the synod. Sadly, in some corners that trust seems to have evaporated after the Pope's election, to be replaced with doubt, suspicion and anger. The Holy Spirit brings wisdom, He brings coolness, He brings refreshment. The continual resort to the Holy Spirit is blasphemy, He does not bring confusion. The spirit Martin writes of is not of God, it is from a different place. Again why? First, Catholics today often conflate dogma, doctrine and practice. In the most basic (and simplified) theological terms dogma refers to our core beliefs. For example, beliefs like the Resurrection: That's foundational. Doctrine encompasses the overall teachings of the church. For example, the teaching on birth control. A Jesuit mentioned "birth control?" Hell has frozen over and pigs can fly! Every doctrine is important, but not every doctrine is dogma. Finally, pastoral practice refers to how those doctrines are applied in real life. For example, how does a priest counsel a person who uses birth control? That it is a mortal sin and they must stop using artificial birth control and must conform their thinking to the mind of the Church as expressed in Casti conubbii and Humanae vitae and Familiaris Consortio. In the past few decades, we have seen these three categories collapsed together, at least in the popular Catholic imagination. It is as if every teaching is seen as dogma. And this has had disastrous effects. Because a change in one is seen as an attack on everything. In this view, changing the way that the church treats divorced and remarried Catholics is not simply an attack on pastoral practice, but on doctrine and perhaps even dogma. This is not to diminish important teachings, but rather to put them in their perspective. Traditionally, we believe in a "hierarchy of truths," in which some teachings are simply more important than others. Obviously, the Resurrection is more important than what your pastor says about a local political candidate. The collapse of these three categories, then, means that even the hint of change is a threat. Thus some of the anger. Second, change itself may be difficult for some Catholics because it threaten one's idea of a stable church. Yet the church has always changed. Not in its essentials, but in some important practices, as it responds to what Jesus called the "signs of the times." The Church, it seems in Martin's view, must take on the stench of the world. Nobody is rejecting the divorced and remarried, nobody is rejecting those who suffer with same-sex attraction. It is a lie to say they do. We don't want to treat them any differently but they cannot receive Holy Communion without Confession, penance and amendment of life. Just like me. They can come to Mass, sing in the choir perhaps, be a part of the community and be respected and loved. They cannot serve at the Altar, Ambo or be Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion, period! What Martin and his ilk want is a complete destruction of three sacraments in some idea of false mercy - Matrimony, Penance and the Holy Eucharist. Think of the changes wrought by the Second Vatican Council: The church's relations with the Jewish people changed utterly. The translation of the Mass from the Latin into vernacular languages changed the way we worship. Both were immense changes -- and necessary changes. No Council needed to be called to change relations with our Jewish brethren, any Pope could have done that. His ignorance on liturgy, he is a Jesuit after all, and the Council is great. The language of the Mass was not to be changed completely but that is another debate and more than language changed along with it, the Rite itself was drastically altered, right Voxers? Third, a darker reason for the anger: a crushing sense of legalism of the kind that Jesus warned against. Sadly, I see this evident in our church, and it is ironic to find this in those who hew to the Gospels because this is one of the clearest things that Jesus opposed: "You load people with burdens hard to bear and you yourselves do not lift a finger to ease them!" he said in the Gospel of Luke. Here we go, We are the legalists. We are the Pharisees. The legalist and Pharisees wanted to burden people with the impossible. This is not what we are talking about. Holy Communion is the issue. Not kindness. Martin is twisting, he is engaging in polemics and manipulations. We have a Jewish senior's building in Toronto where the elevator stops at every floor on the Sabbath because pushing the button would break Sabbath laws. THAT is what Jesus was talking about when he said "loading people with burdens" such as two refrigerators in the kitchen as is done today!  As the Pope said in his closing remarks to the synod, the person who truly follows the doctrine is not the one who follows the letter of the law, but its spirit. The Pope is wrong. Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments," the Law. He also said, "I have not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it." Law keeps peace. Law keeps order. Law provides justice. What Martin wants is spiritual anarchy. Fourth, even darker reasons for the anger: a hatred of LGBT Catholics that masks itself as a concern for their souls, a desire to shut out divorced and remarried because they are "sinful" and should be shut out of the church's communion, and a self-righteousness and arrogance that closes one off to the need for mercy. Also, a mere dislike of change because it threatens the black-and-white worldview. I hate no man. I hate no one with same-sex attraction. That is not what this is about. Martin is a deceiver. He is a liar. This is about people in states of mortal sin committing another mortal sin of sacrilege. This is about leaving people in their sin of adultery and sodomy. Martin wants to leave them there, we want to call them out and to Christ. Who gave this man his first Holy Communion? But change began in the church almost as soon as the church began. St. Paul prevailed over St. Peter -- the "rock" upon which Jesus built his church -- over the question of whether the non-circumcised could be accepted into the faith. Without change early on, the church would have never moved beyond the Jewish community. St. Paul understood the need for change, even if it went against some cherished practices. Paul confronted the Pope and the Pope backed down because he was wrong. It will happen again. So did Jesus. He did not hesitate to bend or even set aside the rules if it meant applying more mercy. When he healed an infirm woman, painfully stooped over from arthritis or scoliosis, in the Gospel of Luke, on the Sabbath, he was critiqued for not following the rules. In response, he excoriates those who sought to lock him into unchanging legalisms: "Hypocrites!" They were hypocrites because they preached one thing and did another. Jesus told them "do as they say but not as they do." In other words. OBEY THE LAW but don't act as them. Who ordained this man? Fear of change holds the church back. And it does something worse. It removes love from the equation. In the past few weeks I have seen this fear lead to suspicion, mistrust and hate. And at the heart of this, I believe, is fear. As St. Paul said, perfect love drives out fear. But perfect fear drives out love.

What follows is from James Martin, S.J.'s facebook page from Saturday, October 26, 2015.

Cardinal Raymond Burke - Synod report "Lacks Clarity on Indissolubility of Marriage" - the battle lines are being drawn

Cardinal Burke: Final Report Lacks Clarity on Indissolubility of Marriage

•  

by Edward Pentin 10/26/2015  

Cardinal Raymond Burke, patron of the Knights of Malta and former prefect of the Apostolic Signatura, has shared with the Register his initial reaction to the final report of the Synod on the Family.

He focuses on paragraphs 84-86 on divorce and remarriage, saying this section is of "immediate concern because of its lack of clarity in a fundamental matter of the faith: the indissolubility of the marriage bond which both reason and faith teach all men." He also says the way the quotation from Familaris Consortio is used is "misleading."

Here below is the cardinal's comment, followed by an English translation of paragraphs 84-86.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/cardinal-burke-final-report-lacks-clarity-on-indissolubility-of-marriage/#ixzz3pgYiKLoy

The St. Gallen mafia machinations - the effect on the Conclave and the Synod

The themes of the Synod, the themes of the Sankt Gallen ‘mafia club’

ROME, October 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - During the Synod of Bishops on the Family, which took place from 5-25 October, two well-informed German Vatican experts and journalists – Paul Badde and Julius Müller-Meiningen – have made reports, independently of one another and from their own evidence, concerning the vexed question as to whether there was indeed an influential group called the “Sankt Gallen Group”. That group is alleged to consist of liberal-minded cardinals and bishops who worked for the election of a pope who would himself help push the Church into a liberalizing and authority-devolving direction.                                 

On 10 October, for example, Paul Badde gave an interview to the German section of the Catholic News Agency, CNA. Badde was asked about the then-circulating report about Cardinal Danneels and about his own public confession that there existed indeed a kind of “mafia club” and that he was also part of it. Badde answered candidly – after repeating the serious charges against Cardinal Danneels himself as a protector of pedophiles and a promoter of pro-abortion laws – and he then confirmed, from his own experience, that Danneels indeed was part of such a group, a “prideful participant of a 'sort of mafia' within the college of cardinals.”       

Read all of it at:                                                             https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/the-themes-of-the-synod-the-themes-of-the-sankt-gallen-mafia-club?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com