FLASHBACK: Pope Joked About Using Ambiguity to Get His Way on Communion for Divorced/Remarried

Tweet

"And then he said: 'By the time they get wise to the whole mercy schtick, we'll be on a beach earning twenty percent.'"    

For reasons I don't completely understand, this news item appears to have been largely forgotten. But I believe it is even more important and relevant now than when I first published it on May 7, 2016. The Pope and his ghostwriters designed Amoris Laetitia to be ambiguous. And this is of course why the Pope won't answer the dubia asking him to clarify it. Bergoglio believes that the only way to advance his revolution is through deceit. But oddly, as the article below reveals, his men are not bashful about admitting that.     

Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Pope's handpicked Secretary for the synods on the family, recently spoke at a public presentation on Amoris Laetitia. A transcript of his remarks was published by an Italian news website on May 3rd. In turn, an English translation was just posted on OnePeterFive.

Here's the stunner from the original article:

Archbishop Forte has in fact revealed a “behind the scenes” [moment] from the Synod: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

Reporting a joke?

That Pope Francis has intentionally used ambiguous language to advance his agenda should not come as a surprise to those who have steadily followed his pontificate with open eyes. It's perhaps not even a surprise that Francis might talk about his method with his ideological allies. What is stunning is that such a close ally would feel perfectly unabashed about reporting the Pope's little "joke" in a public forum.

These people are now utterly brazen. They brag about manipulating Catholics as Mussolini laughed about firing up the masses during his balcony speeches. But even Mussolini (as far as I know) never publicly boasted about it.

I hope they enjoy their fun while they can. Hell isn't many years off for most of them.

Read the rest here.           

Austen Ivereigh Contradicts Austen Ivereigh

Tweet

Austen Ivereigh has recently been contradicting himself.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, mind you. Indeed, quite the reverse. As we have learned from Ivereigh himself and other defenders of Amoris Laetitia in the last few weeks, it is a sign of spiritual maturity to deny the Law of Noncontradiction, or its corollary, the Law of the Excluded Middle (that a proposition of a certain type must be either true or not true).*

As our Lord said to the Pharisees as He traced the formula -(A or -A) in the sand, "logic was made for man, not man for logic." Or as He would earlier proclaim in the Sermon on the Mount "don't be so binary, dudes."

Jesus didn't do or say these things, of course, but one almost gets the impression that the defenders of Amoris Laetitia think that he did.

Here was Ivereigh last year on the final relatio for the second synod on the family:

And here is Ivereigh seemingly confirming that version today on Twitter, as well as making an additional claim about Amoris Laetitia:

But here is Ivereigh in a post he wrote yesterday for Crux on Amoris Laetitia:

As (Pope Francis) last week told the Belgian Christian weekly Tertio, everything in Amoris Laetitia - including the controversial Chapter 8 - received a two-thirds majority in a synod that was notoriously frank, open and drawn out... 

The synod decided, by a two-thirds majority, that they wanted both to preserve the doctrine of indissolubility in the current discipline of the Eucharist while at the same time creating sufficient pastoral latitude in the application of the Church’s law to allow pastors to respond to situations where there was a subjective lack of culpability... 

And in some, rare cases it (what the Synod and Amoris Laetitia allows) might lead, yes, to being admitted to Communion where the lack of subjective culpability is beyond doubt, where, for example, an annulment is impossible, where the marriage is irrecoverable, where there are children by a new union, where a conversion has taken place in a person that creates a new state, and where the notion of ‘adultery’ simply fails to capture a reality.

Please keep the laughter down at the back regarding the "in some, rare cases." I want to instead look at the logical issue.

How would Ivereigh answer the above seeming contradiction? Let me suggest three possibilities:

1. Don't be so binary, dudes.
2. I said it didn't change the rule. I didn't say there might not be exceptions to the rule.
3. Shut up, dissidents, the Pope train is leaving the station (the themes of "dissidents" and "the train is leaving" appear extensively in the post).

Obviously, the only answer that merits a reply is 2. That reply is simple: the question (if there ever was a question) has always been about whether the rule (involving communion for those who were divorced, remarried and involved in ongoing conjugal relations) had any exceptions. The Church up through John Paul II in Familiaris Consortia, explicitly answered in the negative. Ivereigh claims Amoris Laetitia answers in the positive.

If you want to boil the debate over Amoris Laetitia down to anything it would be that. And indeed, that issue was the subject of the first of the five dubia that the Pope refused to answer.

If Ivereigh and a host of others can answer it or say it, it isn't clear why the Pope can't. Even here, Ivereigh gives a sort of an answer in his post - something about the Holy Spirit not liking it when the actual workings of the pastoral sausage factory are exposed, or some such.

Also, don't be so binary, dude.

Enough.

These collective shenanigans are a mockery of God, the truth and yes, logic. Christ didn't walk the Earth and die on the cross so His words could be twisted into a set of paradoxical Zen koans.

Though calling the weaselly, disingenuous and contradictory "arguments" of the Amoris Laetitia spin crowd koans would be an insult to the Buddhists.



*This sentence originally read, "it is a sign of spiritual maturity to deny the so-called Law of the Excluded Middle (that two contradictory statements cannot both be true)." See the comment by Hillary White, below.

Pope Ally: Francis JOKED About How He Would Get His Way By Not Speaking Plainly

Tweet

"And then he said: 'By the time they get wise to the whole mercy schtick, we'll be on a beach earning twenty percent.'"    

Archbishop Bruno Forte, the Pope's handpicked Secretary for the synods on the family, recently spoke at a public presentation on Amoris Laetitia. A transcript of his remarks was published by an Italian news website on May 3rd. In turn, an English translation was just posted on OnePeterFive.

Here's the stunner from the original article:

Archbishop Forte has in fact revealed a “behind the scenes” [moment] from the Synod: “If we speak explicitly about communion for the divorced and remarried,” said Archbishop Forte, reporting a joke of Pope Francis, “you do not know what a terrible mess we will make. So we won’t speak plainly, do it in a way that the premises are there, then I will draw out the conclusions.”

Reporting a joke? A joke?

That Pope Francis has intentionally used ambiguous language to advance his agenda should not come as a surprise to those who have steadily followed his pontificate with open eyes. It's perhaps not even a surprise that Francis might talk about his method with his ideological allies. What is stunning is that such a close ally would feel perfectly unabashed about reporting the Pope's little "joke" in a public forum.

These people are now utterly brazen. They brag about manipulating Catholics as Mussolini laughed about firing up the masses during his balcony speeches. But even Mussolini (as far as I know) never publicly boasted about it.

I hope they enjoy their fun while they can. Hell isn't many years off for most of them.

Read the rest here.           

Quo vadis?

Tweet

Will you be there with them?

[This is a retitled repost of a piece I wrote almost six months ago at the conclusion of the Synod on the Family. I admit that it was prescient in predicting that the Pope's exhortation would use obfuscation and ambiguity to advance his agenda while avoiding the direct contradiction of doctrine. But of course I was not the only one to foresee this. Pay attention to the excerpt from the Scalfari interview, directly below. I had actually forgotten it, but it deserves another read now: On communion for the divorced and remarried, the Pope allegedly said: "the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted." After Amoris Laetitia, can anyone seriously doubt that this isn't his goal?

But the real focus of the piece was on how faithful Catholics should respond to this Pope. Hence the new (and I think more appropriate title). Quo vadis? Peter flees Rome to avoid probable torture and death, and on the road outside of the city meets the risen Christ. "Where are you going?" Peter asks Him. "I am going to Rome to be crucified again." Peter gets the message and finds the courage to return. Of course, Peter's question to Christ could also be Christ's question to him.

Where are you going?]     

Rorate Caeli has translated a recent Eugenio Scalfari piece where he reports the Pope's intentions towards communion for the divorced and remarried. Rorate correctly notes that we are long past the point where anyone could reasonably doubt the basic veracity of the Pope's favorite journalist writing in the Pope's favorite newspaper.

It is true -- Pope Francis answered -- it is a truth and for that matter the family that is the basis of any society changes continuously, as all things change around us. We must not think that the family does not exist any longer, it will always exist, because ours is a social species, and the family is the support beam of sociability, but it cannot be avoided that the current family, open as you say, contains some positive aspects, and some negative ones. ... The diverse opinion of the bishops is part of this modernity of the Church and of the diverse societies in which she operated, but the goal is the same, and for that which regards the admission of the divorced to the Sacraments, [it] confirms that this principle has been accepted by the Synod. This is bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.

But this is merely confirmation of what we already knew. The Pope's behavior at the Synod should have left no doubts in anyone's mind as to what side he was on. Communion for the divorced and remarried was advanced by a powerful minority, all of whom were close friends or allies of the Pope. Some of them were handpicked by him to attend the Synod at the last minute. A two-thirds majority narrowly approved paragraphs of the final Relatio containing language that will move the heresy forward--the narrow approval a function of his handpicked attendees. And needless to say, far from condemning his heretical allies, the Pope gave a final address where he bitterly attacked those who had attempted to defend Church teachings.

We are still awaiting an official English translation of the Relatio, and sources claim that the Pope himself will pen a concluding exhortation on the matter. My prediction is that the Pope will not directly endorse the heresy--it is in the nature of his strategy and of the heresy itself that it is often not directly endorsed. But it will advance the cause. And communion for the divorced and remarried will become the quasi-official practice within the Church.

I have written many critical pieces on this Pope. I'm not sure whether I have explicitly called him a Modernist--an adherent of the Modernist heresy--although he clearly is one. But like the hyper-evolving alien in that horror movie, the heresy of Modernism itself regularly metastasizes into different forms.

Michael Lofton at OnePeterFive identifies one current form of Modernism as Kasperism--the view that dogma is to be left intact in theory, but may be contradicted in practice. (the name is in honor of Cardinal Walter Kasper, its most well-known proponent). I think that gets it exactly right. And like all forms of Modernism it is disingenuous and slippery, although particularly so in this case.

The Modernists or Kasperites sense impending victory, but they are probably clever enough to not overplay their hand. The idea is to leave enough ambiguity to lull their potential opponents--of whom even now there are many--into continuing silence or inaction. No one wants to stick their neck out first and engage the enemy, for they believe they will merely be accused of creating one. In this way, the heretics believe they will win without a shot being fired.

What to do?

Let me first speak of rank-and-file Catholics. Most faithful Catholics are probably not aware of what is happening or especially and most importantly the Pope's role in it. They are busy simply being Catholics--worshipping God through His Church as faithfully as they can--not reading blogs or debating on Facebook. No doubt they will continue in this until the real fireworks start. I won't address them since they wouldn't be reading this anyway. That's okay, of course.

Catholic journalists, bloggers and interested readers and thinkers are another story, and so I will address them directly: You pride yourselves on being informed, so you cannot now plead ignorance. If at this point you defend Francis and attack his opponents, you are doing the Devil's work and have become collaborators in the destruction of the Church. Whatever it is--an obstinate naiveté, pride, fear, money or an exaggerated fetish for charity, now almost certainly being used as a cover for one of the latter three--get over it. Give it up. You have put yourselves on the path to hell, and your statements and actions will have the effect of helping to bring others along with you. Stop and do the right thing. For your own souls, at the least.

Faithful priests, bishops and cardinals: The Church now needs a public champion. Someone must be the first to rebuke Francis to his face, for without a first there will be no others. It will probably be a thankless task, at least in this life. You will be slandered and vilified, called an "extremist" and a "schismatic". Your name may not go down in human history, at least in any major way, in part because the victory will not be won so quickly. Someone fifty or a hundred years from now may get most of the recognition and applause. But of course, as much as it seems to matter to so many of us, it shouldn't, and you of all Catholics should know that.

For all of us, I think of that van Eyck painting, The Adoration of the Mystic Lamb (The Lamb of God), which was the subject of today's Feast of all Saints homily at St. John Cantius. All of the saints are there in that beautiful country, adoring the Lamb. There are priests, bishops, popes (a handful), women religious, monks, soldiers (male and female), hermits, philosophers, married men and women, and the unmarried faithful including not a few children.

When the earthly battle is won in fifty or a hundred years, at the same time virtually all of us will be there in that other country, or at least each of us could be there. Nothing is stopping us. Nothing is stopping you. Literally nothing.

Except perhaps you.

Sign, as it were, your own petition to be on the Church's side. Other people will see it. That's the catch. You might lose a few friends. You might even lose money or position.

Someone might call you a schismatic on Facebook.

Facebook (not so long from now) might block your account.

You think that's tough? Tell that to the martyrs in that painting.

But they're pulling for you and praying for you, even now.

Don't let them down.      

The LAST Word on Scalfari

Tweet

Loyal son of the New Church

I'm not saying it's the LAST word because I'm so much wiser or whatever, only that I'm tired of the whole thing.

It's now clear that the Eugenio Scalfari interviews in the anticlerical La Repubblica are actually an important part of Bergoglio's controlled demolition of the Church. In the interviews all sorts of heresies are proclaimed, as befits a South American Jesuit who came of age in the late twentieth-century: Indifferentism (proselytism is solemn nonsense), relativism (what really matters is that we all journey towards our own conceptions of the good) annihilationism or universalism (there is no hell), Kasperism (doctrine should bend to practicality) and so on.

Bergoglio knows the message that he believes these things, and thus that they are now quasi-official teachings of the Church, will get out, not because everyone reads Scalfari, but because his words will gradually filter down to the bishops, priests and Catholic masses through secondary articles, headlines and the like. And they will be, as it were, implemented, just as surely as if that kissing priest had written an encyclical for him.

Is Bergoglio worried about opposition? Sure. But telegraphing his thoughts through Scalfari gives him a certain protection. There will always be someone--even the official Vatican spokesman--who will imply (though never actually say) that these are not really Bergoglio's thoughts. Don't trust that atheist journalist spinning his words, etc. etc. This of course is ridiculous, but it gives his potential opponents just enough cover to provide an excuse to mask their own cowardice in doing and saying nothing. And Bergoglio, being an arch-coward himself, knows that most men grapple with that vice.

Doctrine is never officially challenged or denied, but it is undermined just as surely as if Bergoglio had solemnly declared what's what from the throne of St. Peter.

The latest Bergoglio claims, made via Scalfari, favoring communion for the divorced and remarried, are not a "trial balloon". They are, as it were, part of the balloon.

Even Phil Lawler, whom I (amazingly) still respect, is continuing to spout nonsense about the Pope being an incompetent interviewee. Please. Bergoglio knows exactly what he is doing, and has done so since the beginning. How do you think this Jesuit became bishop and then Cardinal?

I can already see the snarky responses: "So, you think it's all an evil conspiracy?!!" (smirk, smirk, smirk, smarmy and leaden Patheos prose, smirk).

Well, I don't know about conspiracy (though It's certainly evil). But it's clearly a strategy.

And, to give credit where credit is due, it's a damn good strategy. Literally.

The only defense for Begoglio now is that he's an utter imbecile. As tempting as that is, I reject it, for the reasons given above. Again, how did he make it this far?

To repeat the claims of the previous post, if you are still going along with this charade, you are aligned with the forces of hell. The clock is ticking for you. It is ticking for us.

Bergoglio must be resisted. And the movement that has buffeted him to the pinnacle of the Church must be fought and defeated. 

Oh yeah, the Muslim hordes are again at the gates of Vienna--abetted by Bergoglio and his allies. There's that too.

Pray for us, Charles Borromeo. 

The Question Isn't, Anymore, Whether the Pope is a Heretic; It's What Do We Do About It

Tweet

Will you be there with them?

Rorate Caeli has translated a recent Eugenio Scalfari piece where he reports the Pope's intentions towards communion for the divorced and remarried. Rorate correctly notes that we are long past the point where anyone could reasonably doubt the basic veracity of the Pope's favorite journalist writing in the Pope's favorite newspaper.

It is true -- Pope Francis answered -- it is a truth and for that matter the family that is the basis of any society changes continuously, as all things change around us. We must not think that the family does not exist any longer, it will always exist, because ours is a social species, and the family is the support beam of sociability, but it cannot be avoided that the current family, open as you say, contains some positive aspects, and some negative ones. ... The diverse opinion of the bishops is part of this modernity of the Church and of the diverse societies in which she operated, but the goal is the same, and for that which regards the admission of the divorced to the Sacraments, [it] confirms that this principle has been accepted by the Synod. This is bottom line result, the de facto appraisals are entrusted to the confessors, but at the end of faster or slower paths, all the divorced who ask will be admitted.

But this is merely confirmation of what we already knew. The Pope's behavior at the Synod should have left no doubts in anyone's mind as to what side he was on. Communion for the divorced and remarried was advanced by a powerful minority, all of whom were close friends or allies of the Pope. Some of them were handpicked by him to attend the Synod at the last minute. A two-thirds majority narrowly approved paragraphs of the final Relatio containing language that will move the heresy forward--the narrow approval a function of his handpicked attendees. And needless to say, far from condemning his heretical allies, the Pope gave a final address where he bitterly attacked those who had attempted to defend Church teachings.

We are still awaiting an official English translation of the Relatio, and sources claim that the Pope himself will pen a concluding exhortation on the matter. My prediction is that the Pope will not directly endorse the heresy--it is in the nature of his strategy and of the heresy itself that it is often not directly endorsed. But it will advance the cause. And communion for the divorced and remarried will become the quasi-official practice within the Church.

I have written many critical pieces on this Pope. I'm not sure whether I have explicitly called him a Modernist--an adherent of the Modernist heresy--although he clearly is one. But like the hyper-evolving alien in that horror movie, the heresy of Modernism itself regularly metastasizes into different forms.

Michael Lofton at OnePeterFive identifies one current form of Modernism as Kasperism--the view that dogma is to be left intact in theory, but may be contradicted in practice. (the name is in honor of Cardinal Walter Kasper, its most well-known proponent). I think that gets it exactly right. And like all forms of Modernism it is disingenuous and slippery, although particularly so in this case.

The Modernists or Kasperites sense impending victory, but they are probably clever enough to not overplay their hand. The idea is to leave enough ambiguity to lull their potential opponents--of whom even now there are many--into continuing silence or inaction. No one wants to stick their neck out first and engage the enemy, for they believe they will merely be accused of creating one. In this way, the heretics believe they will win without a shot being fired.

What to do?

Let me first speak of rank-and-file Catholics. Most faithful Catholics are probably not aware of what is happening or especially and most importantly the Pope's role in it. They are busy simply being Catholics--worshipping God through His Church as faithfully as they can--not reading blogs or debating on Facebook. No doubt they will continue in this until the real fireworks start. I won't address them since they wouldn't be reading this anyway. That's okay, of course.

Catholic journalists, bloggers and interested readers and thinkers are another story, and so I will address them directly: You pride yourselves on being informed, so you cannot now plead ignorance. If at this point you defend Francis and attack his opponents, you are doing the Devil's work and have become collaborators in the destruction of the Church. Whatever it is--an obstinate naiveté, pride, fear, money or an exaggerated fetish for charity, now almost certainly being used as a cover for one of the latter three--get over it. Give it up. You have put yourselves on the path to hell, and your statements and actions will have the effect of helping to bring others along with you. Stop and do the right thing. For your own souls, at the least.

Faithful priests, bishops and cardinals: The Church now needs a public champion. Someone must be the first to rebuke Francis to his face, for without a first there will be no others. It will probably be a thankless task, at least in this life. You will be slandered and vilified, called an "extremist" and a "schismatic". Your name may not go down in human history, at least in any major way, in part because the victory will not be won so quickly. Someone fifty or a hundred years from now may get the recognition and applause. But of course, as much as it seems to matter to so many of us, it shouldn't, and you of all Catholics should know that.

For all of us, I think of that van Eyck painting, The Adoration of the Mystic Lamb (The Lamb of God), which was the subject of today's Feast of all Saints homily at St. John Cantius. All of the saints are there in that beautiful country, adoring the Lamb. There are priests, bishops, popes (a handful), women religious, monks, soldiers (male and female), hermits, philosophers, married men and women, and the unmarried faithful including not a few children.

When the earthly battle is won in fifty or a hundred years, at the same time virtually all of us will be there in that other country, or at least each of us could be there. Nothing is stopping us. Nothing is stopping you. Literally nothing.

Except perhaps you.

Sign, as it were, your own petition to be on the Church's side. Other people will see it. That's the catch. You might lose a few friends. You might even lose money or position.

Someone might call you a schismatic on Facebook.

Facebook (not so long from now) might block your account.

You think that's tough? Tell that to the martyrs in that painting.

But they're pulling for you and praying for you, even now.

Don't let them down.      

Is James Martin a Heretic?

Tweet

"How many souls can I make fit for hell? Put it this way: Hans Kung was a fag."

The Catholic Church has long opposed giving communion to the divorced and remarried. Recently a vocal and powerful minority within the Church, probably including the Pope himself, have challenged this position.

It is a sign of the decadence of the state of contemporary Catholicism that those in this minority are called "liberals" or perhaps even "moderates"--advocates for the importance of "pastoral care" alongside doctrine, and even disciples of the "new" doctrine of mercy, advocated by the current Pope.

In fact, of course, they are heretics.

I'm not using the term because I don't like them (though, obviously I don't), but because it is precisely accurate. In Catholic terminology a heretic is one who denies one or more (though not all) claims of Catholic doctrine. If one is in in favor of giving communion to the divorced and remarried, then one must deny at least one doctrinal claim.

Now, of course, it is fashionable among some modern Catholics to deny that there is even such a thing as doctrine, and thus not really any such a thing as heresy. The Church (so goes the argument) has beliefs and teachings, some of which stay the same and some of which change. It might be inadvisable to change anything too quickly or change too many things at once, but in the end, everything is, so to speak, up for grabs, as long as one acts in the spirit of Christ's teachings as they were presented in the Bible and explained and developed by the Church.

That view is also a heresy. And no, I won't argue for it. But in a sense I don't need to, as those in the contemporary pro-communion-for-the-divorced-and-remarried crowd explicitly reject it. They endorse the view that one should not deny Catholic doctrine, as well as affirming that they themselves are not really doing so.

Rather, they claim they are exhibiting pastoral discernment in how to apply Catholic doctrine. Or mercy.

This of course makes no sense. It's a smokescreen or more precisely a lie. And the liars are well-aware of what they are doing.

What is the Catholic argument for not giving communion to the divorced and remarried?

1. Communion involves physically receiving the real body and blood of Christ.
2. It is a grave sin to receive the real body and blood of Christ if one is currently in a state of mortal sin.
3. Adultery is a mortal sin.
4. Being in a second marriage is equivalent to being in an ongoing state of adultery.
5. Being in a second marriage involves being in an ongoing state of mortal sin (from 3 & 4).
6. If one is in a second marriage, it is a grave sin to take communion (from 2 & 5).

We can see that the argument is based on four premises, each of which is uncontroversially (even for the heretics) a fundamental Catholic claim. I believe it is a valid argument (one whose conclusion follows logically from its premises), and thus, rejecting the conclusion involves rejecting the truth of one or more of the premises.

And you can't get it around it with the totem words "pastoral" or "mercy".

Take your pick:

1. Deny the Real Presence.
2. Deny (among other things) the Catholic interpretation of the words of Paul in the Epistles--"For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
3. Deny that adultery is a mortal sin.
4. Deny the Catholic interpretation of the words of Christ on marriage.

And don't say, "I'm not denying any of those--I'm just claiming there are exceptions." Please don't.

And don't say, "yes, but you have to meet people where they are." Simply don't.

Also, don't misunderstand. This is not an argument for the truth of any of these premises.  Virtually all of my non-Catholic friends deny at least one of them. Indeed, for some Protestants at least, denial of, say, the first, is one of the things that makes them Protestant.

I'm only talking about Catholics who claim to believe all of them but because they are in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried, in fact must deny them.

And of course they know that.

Do you think Archbishop Cupich believes in the Real Presence? Yeah, sure he does. Eucharistic Adoration? In the seminaries that trained Cupich and his like they called it "cookie worship". Indeed, if you try to kneel to Christ's body and blood, as you would if you honestly believed it was really Christ's body and blood, then Cupich will bitterly snap at you. He becomes an old woman. Even if you're a teenage girl.

Archbishop Cupich believes in midnight basketball and gun control.

Cardinal Kasper doesn't give one golden bauble about the words of Paul the Apostle.

James Martin SJ doesn't believe in mortal sin. Come on, seriously. Does anyone here believe that he does? Anyone? Mortal sin is for the haters. Martin's thing is hating the haters. Martin is obsessed by hate. Consumed by it. And don't say he loves gays or any of that claptrap. If the Zeitgeist were homophobic, as it often has been and no doubt will be again, Martin would be hanging gays from lampposts and then smirking about how merciful that was. You know he would.

Block that.

And what of the Pope? Honestly I don't really know what he does or does not believe. Tragically, I'm not sure he does either.

As a Catholic, perhaps I should be angry with those who deny Catholic claims. But I'm not, or at least I'm not per se. I'm angry with Catholics who deny Catholic claims. They are the worst sort of dishonest, well, scum imaginable. Termites, they have been called. Too cowardly to come into the open; too filled with hatred to simply go away. They must spoil it for everyone. They must spoil it for us. They are unceasingly dedicated to eating away at the Church from the inside. And that's much worse than the damage any atheist would do.

Ann Barnhardt: Who is the Hobbit? You Are!

Tweet

For the faithful...

Amidst the chaos and despair of the Synod of Doom, a few good Catholics have written rousing and inspiring pieces.

One is Rise Thou that Sleepest by Radical Catholic/Matthew Karmel. Another is We must walk open-eyed into that trap, with courage, but small hope for ourselves by Ann Barnhardt.

J.R.R. Tolkien famously said that The Lord of the Rings was not an allegory. But, damn it, it does get some real things so right. Read the full post (with Tolkien quotes and video) at What's up with the Synod?

You are the hobbit.

Here's the bulk of the text:

The Petition enjoining the faithful Synod Fathers to walk out of the clearly-fixed Synod was not drafted with the expectation of a glorious victory, culminating with Bergoglio, having submitted his resignation after accepting that the Synod Walkout was a vote of no-confidence, boarding a plane back to Buenos Aires for a life of prayer and penance, shriven and contrite. 

Ah… No. 

We know that our earthly numbers are minuscule relative to the Army of Orcs, the corrupted and twisted men of this age, pagans – both unbaptized and baptized. 

But what we are called to do in these dark days is to march on the Black Gate and refuse to parley – in Newspeak, “dialogue” – with them. 

We come not to treat with Sauron, faithless and accursed, but to set the terms, which are nothing less than this: total and unconditional surrender to Jesus Christ the Sovereign King. 

Knowing that the Freemasonic cult creed is the worship of man, and knowing full – well that the response to our terms will be total war – the throwing open of the Black Gate and the unleashing of the host of hell, both demons and men, upon us, we walk open-eyed into the trap, with courage, but small hope for ourselves. 

We are all ready to make ourselves “fools for Christ”, fighting a battle that we cannot win, because the battle was lost long ago. The battle was lost with the election of Bergoglio. The battle was lost with Roe v. Wade. The battle was lost with the advent of the pill and the near-universal disregarding of Humanae Vitae. The Battle was lost with the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass. The battle was lost with the promulgation of Dignitatis Humanae. The Battle was lost with no-fault divorce. The Battle was lost with the Protestant Revolt. 

But this little army still stands ready to march on the Black Gates. We are ready to make ourselves outcasts even among our own. We are ready to make ourselves unemployable and destitute. We are ready to have every scorn and calumny heaped upon us. And yes, eventually to die. But not this day. This day we fight. 

But why? 

Simply put, so that one little Hobbit might have a chance. By calling out these sodomitical wretches and heretics, by shining the light of Truth on their sleazy backroom dealings and their unctuous, lying propaganda, maybe one little hobbit might have a chance. 

Who is the “one little hobbit” that the entire host of hell is fixated upon, and who we, with our critiques and our satires and our mocking of the Enemy, are trying to buy time for, and who the enemies of Christ desperately want us to believe is already lost? 

Every. Human. Being. 

Who is the hobbit? You are. 

If, by our little actions here, we can plant the seeds of the Truth of Christ, like scattering mustard seeds, so that just one person, when heresy is proclaimed from Rome, which we know it will be; when desecration of the Eucharist is encouraged by Casa Santa Marta, and we know that it will be; when the Law of Non-contradiction is held up as a sign of black-hearted reprobation, and we know that it will be; and when Jesus Christ is expected to apologize to men for His previously Pharisaical and unevolved judgmentalism, and we know that He will be; perhaps just one person will be able to overcome the Cult of Bergoglio and say, “No. I know that is not true. I know the sound of The Good Shepherd’s voice, and that is not it.” 

We also know that we have an entire Army behind us, namely the entire host of the Church Triumphant. This is an Army which the Enemy forces give every indication that they do not believe in. 

Finally, we know that the One Little Hobbit for whom we fight is not alone. With him goes The True Suffering Servant, not some despicable, conniving counterfeit trying to usurp Him. 

And with that knowledge, we know that the War is not only winnable, but has been won for all eternity. 

And so we say, “Certainty of death. Small chance of success. What are we waiting for?”

URGENT: Catholic Faithful Petition Bishops to Walk Out of Synod

Tweet

Christ died for us. Who will speak for Him? 

Concerned Catholics have produced an open letter to those faithful Synod Fathers asking them to walk out on the Synod if it maintains its current direction.

Esteemed Synod Fathers, 

We thank you for your witness to and defense of the truth of Matrimony and Family proclaimed by the Church, in fidelity to our Lord Jesus Christ. As the Ordinary Synod on the Family continues its work, confusion and scandal spread among the faithful. Catholics are concerned that some members of this body of apostolic successors, under the guidance of the Pope, are seeking to endorse homosexual relationships, effectively question the indissolubility of marriage, and permit the distribution of the Holy Eucharist to the unrepentant. 

The current Instrumentum Laboris contains language in certain sections (§ 122 (52); §§ 124-125 (53); §§ 130-132 (55-56)) that is completely unacceptable from an orthodox Catholic point of view regarding divorce and attempted remarriage, homosexuality, and contraception. We have witnessed with profound sorrow the ongoing development of this crisis, beginning with last year’s extraordinary session in October, 2014, making it difficult to have confidence in the outcome of the Synod. 

The irregular changes to the rules governing the current synodal process practically assure that the existing Instrumentum Laboris will be largely adopted. This revised process also appears to reject openness, transparency, and collegiality, and the committee drafting the final document of the Synod seemingly rejects any substantive input from the Synod fathers. We note with regret that the highly visible and widely adopted filial appeals and open letters have not been acknowledged, and have produced no discernable amendment by the Synod organizers. Several high-ranking Cardinals have brought concerns to the Pope, only to have them summarily dismissed as unworthy of consideration – with unfair accusations against those who are legitimately concerned that their voices will not be heard. 

We fear, evidenced by all of the above, that the Ordinary Synod will attempt to recommend changes in teaching and pastoral practice that are contrary to the Gospel of Christ and the constant teaching of the Church on the sacred mystery of Catholic marriage and the nature of human sexuality. This would pose a clear and present danger to souls. 

The Code of Canon Law 212 §3 states that the Catholic faithful “have the right, indeed at times the duty, in keeping with their knowledge, competence and position, to manifest to the sacred Pastors their views on matters which concern the good of the Church. They have the right also to make their views known to others of Christ's faithful…” 

Therefore, we faithfully request that each and every faithful Catholic bishop at the Synod, having made every effort to resist these attacks on Christ’s teaching, if its direction remains unaltered and those faithful voices remain unheard, do his sacred duty and publicly retire from any further participation in the Synod before its conclusion so as to prevent greater scandal and confusion. 

Those bishops who remain as participants, accepting this process and its outcome, must certainly bear responsibility for whatever confusion and sin may result among the Catholic faithful from what would be the disastrous fruits of the Synod.

I urgently ask you to consider signing this petition and to spread it as far and wide as possible. Let the Synod Fathers hear us!!

Please READ AND SHARE!!!

Video Tuesday: Ecclesia Dei Strikes Back: "I find your lack of mercy disturbing."

Tweet

It is with no small amount of pleasure, dear Readers, that We present to you all video footage of a secret conference concerning the innermost dealings of the present Synod, graciously provided for Us by one of Our most beloved and prolific readers. Posted by Ecclesia Dei Strikes Back on Monday, October 5, 2015

The video may take a few seconds to load. Please be patient. The result is well worth it.

It is with no small amount of pleasure, dear Readers, that We present to you all video footage of a secret conference concerning the innermost dealings of the present Synod, graciously provided for Us by one of Our most beloved and prolific readers.

Here is the most recent offering from the extremely funny Traditionalist Catholic Star Wars Parody site Ecclesia Dei Strikes Back.

That's right, I said "Traditionalist Catholic Star Wars Parody site."

I know, I know. Boring. You've seen so many of those before.

You can find it on Facebook until the Emperor shuts it down.

The Original Humanae Vitae Moment

Tweet

For that moment he was our Rob Roy

Some optimists have argued that the concluding part of the Synod on the Family will be an opportunity for Pope Francis to have his "Humanae Vitae moment". That is, in the face of all the muddle and dissent regarding traditional Catholic teaching on the family from cardinals, bishops and other malcontents (assume for the moment that the Pope himself is responsible for none of this), Francis will clearly and definitively reject all of it.

I will bet anyone $100 right now that will not happen.

If you want to rumble with me for the cash, please remember the terms--clearly and definitively.

Who says you can't make money from blogging?

But I want to look now at the original "Humanae Vitae moment". Of course I mean reviewing the text of Humanae Vitae itself.

Let me first point out that Humanae Vitae is not without its critics among traditionalist Catholics. Some say that Pope Paul VI should have officially declared it infallible teaching. Others think it shouldn't have even endorsed "natural family planning". Many believe that the Pope didn't follow it up very aggressively (he allowed dissidents to have a free-pass in criticizing it). Others think that Paul VI made weak sauce in general and Humanae Vitae was too little and too late in an otherwise almost uniformly disastrous pontificate.

I will here make no comment on those criticisms.

Instead, let me quote a few choice excerpts from the concluding section of that 1968 encyclical (the emphases are my own):

18. It is to be anticipated that perhaps not everyone will easily accept this particular teaching. There is too much clamorous outcry against the voice of the Church, and this is intensified by modern means of communication. But it comes as no surprise to the Church that she, no less than her divine Founder, is destined to be a "sign of contradiction." She does not, because of this, evade the duty imposed on her of proclaiming humbly but firmly the entire moral law, both natural and evangelical... 

...It could never be right for (the Church) to declare lawful what is in fact unlawful, since that, by its very nature, is always opposed to the true good of man. 

In preserving intact the whole moral law of marriage, the Church is convinced that she is contributing to the creation of a truly human civilization... 

19. ...The Church, in fact, cannot act differently toward men than did the Redeemer. 

20. The teaching of the Church regarding the proper regulation of birth is a promulgation of the law of God Himself... 

22. ...We would call their attention to the need to create an atmosphere favorable to the growth of chastity so that true liberty may prevail over license... 

Everything therefore in the modern means of social communication which arouses men's baser passions and encourages low moral standards, as well as every obscenity in the written word and every form of indecency on the stage and screen, should be condemned publicly and unanimously by all those who have at heart the advance of civilization and the safeguarding of the outstanding values of the human spirit. It is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture... 

23. (To Governments) And now We wish to speak to rulers of nations...We beg of you, never allow the morals of your peoples to be undermined...do not tolerate any legislation which would introduce into the family those practices which are opposed to the natural law of God... 

27. (To Doctors and Nurses) Likewise we hold in the highest esteem those doctors and members of the nursing profession who, in the exercise of their calling, endeavor to fulfill the demands of their Christian vocation before any merely human interest...let them strive to win agreement and support for these policies among their professional colleagues. 

28. (To Priests)...you who are priests...it is your principal duty...to spell out clearly and completely the Church's teaching on marriage..."I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment." 

30. (To Bishops) ...We implore you, to give a lead to your priests...and to devote yourselves with all zeal and without delay to safeguarding the holiness of marriage, in order to guide married life to its full human and Christian perfection. Consider this mission as one of your most urgent responsibilities...

Whoa!

The original Humanae Vitae moment was a Pope Pius X moment. It was a Pope Gregory the Great moment. It was a Christian Fathers against Arianism moment.

It was (apologies) a Jesus moment.

Was Pope Paul VI a vacillator?

Not that time.

Has Pope Francis, in encyclical, official statement, homily, off-the-cuff address, airplane interview or whatever of a whatever ever said anything remotely similar to anything in the above?

Ever?

Seriously, ever?

Wait. Why is everyone withdrawing their bets?

Come back.

I have a family to feed.