Friday, June 17, 2016

I Feel Inexorably Drawn to Bash Father Z Again

Everything is awesome!

At the end of an otherwise useful analysis of the Pope's recent remarks on how most people aren't really married and many people who aren't married really are, Father Z whoppered again:
BTW… as I just remarked to someone, the Pope didn’t change the Code of Canon Law or anything else for that matter via off-the-cuff remarks to a layman during Q&A at a conference. What he said may be confusing, and we can use his words as a stimulus to do a better job of marriage prep, but his words change nothing: the Church’s pernnenial teaching and law are today what they were the day before yesterday. 
Don’t have a spittle-flecked nutty. Just shake your head with a smile as you flip to another page and say, “Bless him, he sure likes to gab with people, doesn’t he!”
Well, as Camille Paglia might say, what if I want to have a spittle-flecked nuttie?

First of all, the Pope did change Canon Law ten months ago regarding the annulment process. What he's doing now is explaining why he did it. He did it to make it easier to get an annulment because (we now find out) he believes most marriages are invalid, and thus most married Catholics would be perfectly within their rights to get an annulment.

At the time, some said the change in the annulment rules was tantamount to legitimizing Catholic divorce. The Pope is now confirming that they were correct.

If this isn't Catholic divorce, nothing is.

No doubt, Father Z would say nothing is.

But secondly, this "he can't change doctrine" thing has got to stop. It's idiotic. It's moronic. It's very stupid.

If the Pope suddenly declared on a plane, "I'm now going to change doctrine," that wouldn't change doctrine.

If the Pope (pardon the image I'm now going to share) suddenly took an AK-47 out of his cassock and opened fire on assembled journalists, that wouldn't change doctrine either.

If the Pope projected demonic images onto St. Peter's, that wouldn't change doctrine.

Actually, he already did that.

And doctrine didn't change.


But of course, since doctrine can't change, it's meaningless to claim that he didn't change it.

It's like saying "relax, the Pope didn't kill God" (after he killed those journalists).

So I propose that everyone just stop saying it. Just stop it now.

Or if you must do it. If you must, so to speak, periodically break into "Everything is Awesome" (because awesomeness can't change), then you have to pay a tax. Call it the Mahound tax. You can send $10 per utterance of "doctrine hasn't changed" to my PayPal account.

It will be used for mocking Muhammed, and booze.


  1. You are spot on. I left a comment over there, which didn't make it through moderation: "Father, I am sorry, but your lighthearted treatment of this situation is really inappropriate. The implications of his statements yesterday are manifold grave, and will lead countless souls led astray. You also have care of souls, and via this blog, more souls than 99% of other priests who have ever lived. Please call out the heresy."

    1. You're a brave man to try to get through Z's "The moderation queue is ON."

    2. Mark, both of your comments are posted. Check again, you'll see.

    3. Yes, both of your comments are posted on Father Z,s blog. Right before Packrraats comment. Probably among the best comments there.

  2. Then I added this link in a second comment:

    1. That pretty much sums it up. Ultimately he believes that marital validity depends upon feelings. Two people who didn't get married but haven't kicked each other out yet can have a valid marriage in his book and two who promised before God and everyone to be together until death didn't understand that they meant until death.

  3. It is realistic to observe that the Pope is teaching. After all, he is the Pope. When the Bear says something (always infinitely more sensible, by the way) it doesn't matter. When the Pope says it, it does, whatever name the teaching goes by.

    The Pope is teaching absolute nonsense, with the authority of his office as Pope. He either does not know the truth, which is possible, given his background, or he prefers lying to be a change agent.

    In either case, a traditional, submissive acceptance of Church teaching did not survive the collision with Pope Francis' manifest error in the Bear's case. In the treason of the clerks, Pope Francis is the chief traitor of our day.

    The Bear has adapted, at last. Manifest reality first, what "ought" to be... somewhere else. The Bear simply does not pay attention to Pope Francis or any untrue innovations since the disaster of the early part of the 20th century.

  4. Well said Mark & Oakes. I couldn't have said it better, literally! I think Fr Z's trite closures are technically called 'sops to convention' so he can keep the lovely wine and fast car pipeline gurgling. If I sound abit world-weary, I cut my eye-teeth on Fr Corapi, whose videos were so orthodox and courageous and yet we know how that ended. Never send money to celebrity priests-you'll corrupt them.

  5. The "spittle flecked nutty" thing has to stop. It is just about the most irritating, condescending thing on the internet today.

  6. does not know the truth

    Which gives rise to the question: was Pilate the first Jesuit?

  7. Perhaps the NYT's "Travel and Epicure" editor post will become vacant and Fr. Z can take the job he really wants.

  8. The important thing to consider is not the progressive propaganda promulgated by the putative pope but whether or not contributor A will buy him some airline tickets so he can fly to Paris or whether or not contributor B can buy him some Amarone.

    Besides, he was prolly too busy soaking up the latest usury justifications promulgated by the Acton heretics

  9. As long as we all remember that Fr. Z is not a traditional Catholic, then we can put what he writes into perspective. He pretends to be a traditional Catholic, but it is obvious that he is not. IMO, he is being payed by someone (I know not whom) to keep the trads in line, and to influence them away from tradition.

    1. Dear XXXXXXX: How many conspiracies have you started so far? If not a conspiracy, can you suggest some facts to support you contention?

  10. Fr. Zed's comments remind me of the rhetorical gymnastics surrounding Pope John Paul II's arbitrary theological revisionism concerning capital punishment for murder, which has resulted in the Church advocating an abolitionist stance it never embraced before JPII's papacy. That stance, I believe, has made Church leaders less sensitive to the legitimate pain of murder victims by devaluing murder's grotesque immorality.

  11. To my surprise some of the fanboys and girls actually dared to disagree ever so daintily with Fr. Z. Most of what Kiwi tried to say was deleted and Elizabeth D spoke her mind. She's been trying to shame Fr. Z. for weeks now. Every time he does a food or travel post she'll chime in with something passive aggressive. He'll write about the octopus he had in Spain and she comments on the mushy banana one of the homeless guys she feeds at church gave her and her bus ride home for evening prayer. I've been wondering how much longer before he bans her but I'll enjoy it until then.