Francis to Spanish Religious: "No marketing, advertising or campaigning...unless you're me."

Tweet

When all this is over, the names of a few good journalists - Edward Pentin, among them - will be remembered.

The Pope as Arch-Troll

Tweet

What does he get out of it?

Some have argued that Pope Francis is not an ideologue. That is, while he wants to be or be seen as a liberal "revolutionary," this isn't because he has any particular belief in liberal theology per se. Rather, it's about power. His power, of course. To "change" the Church is not only a means for Bergoglio to solidify a certain power base, but is a manifestation or sign of the exercise of power itself, and, thus, is worthwhile on its own terms.

Just as, say, a sculptor gets satisfaction out of transforming natural material into a shape that conforms to some inner intention or design of his own, the tyrant gets satisfaction out of transforming people, or transforming those things that are important to people in a way that lets them know they are under his control. How he transforms people or things, or to what apparent end, is secondary to the act itself.

In a sense this is similar to the motivation of the classic social-media "troll." People often speak of "liberal" trolls or "conservative" trolls who wish to fight ideological battles online by, say, spreading "fake news" or rudely insulting their enemies or whatever. Yet this is a misapplication of the original meaning of the term.

"Troll" (as used in social media) originally meant someone that wanted to provoke emotional reactions, not to advance any particular agenda, but for the sheer enjoyment of the provocation itself. Thus a troll might pretend to be liberal to stir up conservatives, or pretend to be conservative to stir up liberals. The object was simply to get people to react, preferably in a way that showed distress or confusion. Or to put it more plainly, the goal was to screw with people.

I used to think Jorge Mario Bergoglio was motivated largely by vanity. He wanted to be a different pope, a better pope, a pope loved by the world, and so on. By transforming the Church to conform more with the liberal zeitgeist he would be praised by the media (made up of liberal journalists) and go down in history (written by liberal historians). Power was a means to achieve worldly praise.

But I gradually came to have a different view, a view solidified by the events of recent days: During Holy Week, Catholics were "stunned" and "rocked" to hear that their apparent leader had denied (or so it seemed) one of the central tenets of their faith, a denial particularly stark on the eve of Good Friday.

Catholics regularly affirm that after Jesus died on the cross, He descended into hell to save the righteous who had perished without knowing Him, just as the righteous that came after would be saved through His Church. But if there were really no hell, what did that mean? What did Jesus die to save us from?

It was another gut-punch to all faithful Catholics, arguably one of the worst, but still simply another in a long-line against Catholic mothers (who breed like rabbits), Catholic priests (who are joyless Pharisees), Catholics in difficult marriages who have tried to conform to what they thought were the teachings of the church (what goody-goodies), and just Catholics in general who have made what many might see as sacrifices . . . for what?

The denial/non-denial from the Vatican of the Pope's hell comments was blackly comic. It scrupulously avoided explicitly contradicting the essence of what the headlines claimed, nor did in affirm that the Pope himself believed what all Catholics have always been told they had to believe.

Francis himself could have simply issued a short statement affirming that he subscribed to the orthodox view. He didn't. Why?

I actually don't think it has anything to do with what he believes or doesn't believe, if he in fact believes in anything. It's laughable to even consider the proposition that Bergoglio is a devout annihilationist (someone who subscribes to the theological claim that the souls of those who are not saved do not go to hell but simply cease to exist). I would be surprised if he has ever seriously considered the question for more than a few seconds in his adult life.

Why did he do it?

Because, to use the blunt language I used above, he enjoys screwing with us. He actually gets sadistic glee from knowing that he has, as it were, spit in our soup yet again. And he knows that we know he can do it anytime.

The Pope, trolling his own flock.

Should this make us angry? Of course. But I wonder how many Catholics are still angry at him. I have to confess that I'm not, or not really, in the same way that I assume I wouldn't necessarily be angry per se at, say, a political tyrant, at least after a certain point. Bergoglio is who he is. I can't change that. Presumably no one can.

But what of all the good bishops who continue to go along with it - this sadist, this troll, this monster, continuing to squat on the Throne of St. Peter?

Don't they have compassion for their flocks? How can they let this go on?

Pope Announces He's Catholic

Tweet

He couldn't stop it

Happy Easter!

And please pray for the fools.

Villanelle for Easter Eve

Tweet

The athlete and missionary, Eric Liddell

For years, I sought to walk a godly pace,
Not sensing all things rushing into God.
But now I run, I run as in a race. 

There was a stream, but one I could not trace
While I was wading dust as thick as blood
And shouting that I walked a godly pace. 

There was a sun, but one I did not face,
Nor see the hills pursue it in a crowd.
I did not hear it panting in its race. 

But everyone who turns to seek His grace
Becomes a restless horse the faint breeze prods
And instigates beyond a godly pace. 

I could not be left lonely by the chase
Toward Him. The ground was moving in a flood,
And all things sang and hurtled in the race. 

And through that storm I saw how wide a space
I had to cross. I heard each slow step's thud.
For years, I sought to walk a godly pace,
But now I run, I run as in a race.

Villanelle of the Hidden Life by Sarah Ruden

Francis Again Asserts There is No Hell

Tweet

Francis the Annihilator

UPDATE (10:30 CST): The Vatican just issued a denial/non-denial here.

In his fifth interview with the veteran Italian journalist Eugenio Scalfari, Pope Francis allegedly reaffirmed that he is a theological annihilationist: There is no hell. Rather, the souls of those who are not saved will simply cease to exist:

Scalfari: Your Holiness, in our previous meeting, you told me that our species will disappear in a certain moment and that God, still from his creative force, will create new species. You have never spoken to me about the souls who died in sin and will go to hell to suffer it for eternity. You have however spoken to me of good souls, admitted to the contemplation of God. But what about bad souls? Where are they punished? 

Francis: They are not punished, those that repent obtain the forgiveness of God and enter the rank of souls who contemplate him, but those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls.

(Translation, Rorate Caeli, from la Repubblica)

A few hours ago, The Times of London ran with this headline:

Pope Francis ‘abolishes hell’, saying souls of unrepentant sinners will simply disappear

But as Scalfari himself implies, this is not the first time Francis has appeared to put forward this view while "in office." By my count, it is at least the third time. We referenced the first here. OnePeterFive and LifeSiteNews commented more recently on the issue during the last eruption.

Three years ago, many claimed that Francis' alleged annihilationism must have been an invention of Scalfari. But this position has become less and less credible as Francis and the Vatican have declined to deny that this is in fact what Francis believes.

Since the view is a controversial "headline grabber" because it is, among other things, opposed to traditional Catholic doctrine as stated and re-stated for the last 2,000 years including in the current Catechism, it is unclear why no such denial has been made.

Unless, of course, it is what Francis actually believes.

Forgive us if we again state the obvious:

The view that hell does not exist is a heresy as defined by the Church. If Francis holds this view, he is a heretic. That he has appeared to continue to state and re-state the view for at least three years arguably makes him a formal heretic. I say, "arguably" here because he has not as yet been subject to a formal correction on it by a high-level body of, say, Cardinals or bishops within the Church. However, Francis is surely aware that his view is heretical and has obstinately continued to put it forward. Or so it would seem.

And, yes, arguably that means we should add those square quotes to his title.

The title of the interview, published yesterday, is:

“È un onore essere chiamato rivoluzionario”

(It is an honor for me to be called revolutionary.)

Why hasn't the Pope been publicly "called on this" by an official body of cardinals or bishops?

Or by just one cardinal or bishop?

Well, assuming the motivation is not fear - of being, say, summarily kidnapped by the Chinese secret police or the equivalent, or, much worse, losing some spiffy perk or, so much worse, being ostracized by one's peers - then the answer is obvious:

The cardinals and bishops don't care. That Francis is a "heretic" is unimportant. Indeed, we don't speak in those terms anymore.

It's so old pope.

What matters is that Francis cares about people and trees.

Unless they're from China.

But that's unfair. There are still many good priests and bishops, and all have legitimate fear that in the current climate, speaking against, well, the current climate, will put their position and, thus, their flock at risk.

Even good priests who go out of their way to get along are being "removed" - if not by Francis, then by one of his men - if dissident thoughts are detected.

But if the Catholic faith is true, then there is a hell. And some people, including many baptized in the Catholic faith are going there. If the Catholic faith is true, then there's a good chance that Francis, his fellow "revolutionaries," and the myriad small and petty men toadying for favor under them are going there.  

The bad joke (bad for us and for them) is that hell doesn't frighten them. They don't believe in that bullshit, anyway.

Letter from Cardinal Cupich and Statement by Fr. Phillips' Attorney

Tweet

Yesterday, the website of St. John Cantius Parish put up the letter from Cardinal Cupich that was read out at all Saturday and Sunday Masses:

Also, yesterday, Catholic News Agency quoted a statement by Steve Komie, the current attorney for Fr. Frank Phillips:

Phillips’ attorney, Steve Komie of Komie and Associates, told CNA that he has been informed that the Resurrectionist provincial has directed a review board to review the priest’s situation. 

“Father Philips has asked me to say that he’s looking forward to the convocation of the board under the decree of the provincial and he’s looking forward to appearing in front of the board, and he’s looking forward to have the board work its way through the claims being currently made,” Komie said. 

“He looks forward to the report and in the meantime he’s praying for the peace and reconciliation of all involved.” 

“That’s the extent of his statement, because at this time under the rules he is not allowed to comment further,” said the attorney.

CNA also quoted an Archdiocese spokeswoman:

Susan Thomas, communications director for the Archdiocese of Chicago, told CNA that the priest is not accused of a canonical crime, known as a “delict,” and to the archdiocese’s knowledge he is not being investigated for a civil crime... 

Thomas told CNA that removal is “a typical response for misconduct of this nature.” 

“Other cases have been handled in the same way,” she said.

What are we to make of these?

The Archdiocese still hasn't provided much detail on the nature or circumstances of the charges. And as can be seen from the above, it is signaling that it may not say anything more, referring all questions to the Congregation of the Resurrection. 

As I reported yesterday, a bit more detail - that there were three complainants, for instance - was explicitly given or hinted at in the informal "Q & A" discussions held in the St. John Cantius vestibule after each Mass. Since then, a parishioner told me a bit more about one of those sessions. According to the parishioner, the representative from the Archdiocese said that the accusations involved "unwanted touching," and he actually spent some time pantomiming what he meant with his hands.

Now, obviously, "unwanted touching," assuming the reality of the underlying physical event, could mean anything from quasi-molestation to a homosexual pass to a completely non-sexual comradely or fatherly pat. Presumably the complainants allege one of the first two interpretations. But the parishioner told me that the way it was demonstrated ended up seeming almost comic and (whatever the actual truth of the matter) even more potentially innocuous than the verbal description.

What is the significance of this other than the possible awkwardness of the Archdiocese representative? Well, among other things, unwanted touching can constitute legally actionable sexual harassment under Illinois law. Yet Susan Thomas, the Archdiocese Communications Director, claimed that Fr. Phillips is not being investigated for a civil crime. 

Of course, as a priest, Fr. Phillips is also subject to a number of Canon law prohibitions involving sexual behavior - from attempting marriage (Can. 1394) to living in concubinage to persisting in scandal in another external sin against the sixth commandment (Can. 1395). Arguably, engaging in a serious or long-term pattern of "unwanted touching" could be interpreted as a violation of Can. 1395. Yet Ms. Thomas stated that Fr. Phillips is not being accused of a canonical crime.      

According to Ms. Thomas, removing Fr. Phillips was “a typical response for misconduct of this nature . . . Other cases have been handled in the same way.” The CNA article, above, went on to mention two recent examples (perhaps the only two) where cardinal Cupich had removed Chicago clergy for sexual infractions. In two separate 2015 cases, Rev. Marco Mercado and Rev. Brendan Curran were accused of, and quickly admitted to, having consensual sexual affairs - Mercado with a man, and Curran with an unmarried woman. 

But it should be clear that these cases are quite different from that of Fr. Phillips. In the first place, they involved clear violations of Canon law. But in the second, each of them was removed from his position only after the truth of each accusation had already been established, through an admission of guilt, if nothing else.

It is notable that Ms. Thomas did not include an "accusations of" or an "alleged" before the "misconduct of this nature," even as the Archdiocese began officially referring all questions to the Resurrectionists, who had not yet began an investigation. Also notable is the way the Cardinal's letter described what lay ahead:

I have referred the matter to Reverend Gene Szarek, C.R., the Provincial Superior [of the Congregation], who will deal with these allegations and decide on any further action. 

But this construction is odd. If one possible result of an investigation is an exoneration of the accused, presumably triggering the removal or reversal of any provisional actions or restrictions, "further action" does not seem quite appropriate.

A cynical or skeptical interpretation might be that the Archdiocese wants the best of both worlds. There has clearly already been some kind of fairly rigorous internal investigation, or so they want you to believe - that's part of why (it is implied) tough and swift action against Fr. Phillips was justified. But generally, after such an investigation, more pertinent details are released - out of fairness to all parties and to establish the credibility of the process. Yet the Archdiocese now seems to be punting all questions to the Resurrectionists, whose investigation will almost certainly last many months.

Before I conclude, I must mention the statement from Steve Komie, the attorney for Fr. Phillips. I think it also leaves one with questions, the most obvious one being why the statement did not include any kind of denial. Mr. Komie does say that "under the rules [Fr. Phillips] is not allowed to comment further." I'm not sure what "rules" he is referring to. But I'm not aware of anything in standard Church law or practice that would prohibit an innocent man from publicly stating his innocence, at least in the appropriate context. I could be wrong, and obviously there are other reasonable explanations for such an omission.

On the other hand, "looking forward" to the investigation is perhaps not something a guilty man would say, especially if (for a guilty man) the process promised months of embarrassment and humiliation. One assumes that one option for Fr. Phillips (if the charges were true and there was good evidence for them) would have been to have made a swift public admission of guilt - just as Mercado and Curren did - so as to minimize the harm caused to St. John Cantius, the Canons and himself. That he hasn't done so, arguably supports his innocence.   

Cardinal Cupich Removes Pastor of St. John Cantius After Allegations of "Improper Conduct"

Tweet

Fr. Frank Phillips

As some of you know, I am a parishioner at St. John Cantius. I was confirmed there nine years ago. Julie and I were subsequently married there, and she, in turn, entered the Church soon after. Our four children were baptized there. I'm going to use most of this post to try to relate only the facts as I know and can remember them, partly from the various conversations and discussions I've had with parishioners and others over the last 24 hours. A few of my own personal opinions will be made clear at the end of the post.

Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, reproaches us for our transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, because his life is not like that of others, and different are his ways.... Wis. 2:1, 12-22.

- From the last public reading by Father Frank Phillips, at Mass on Friday morning.

This weekend, in a letter read out during 5:00 Mass on Saturday and repeated during the 7:30, 9:00, 11:00 and 12:30 Masses on Sunday, the Archdiocese of Chicago announced that Fr. Frank Phillips had been removed as Pastor of St. John Cantius and as Superior of the Order that he founded, the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius.

The letter stated that Fr. Phillips had been credibly accused of improper relationships with an adult male or males.

Fr. Phillips is currently staying at an undisclosed location, pending an investigation of the complaints by the Congregation of the Resurrection, of which Fr. Phillips is a member.

Representatives of the Archdiocese subsequently added more to the story in unofficial talks after Mass: The allegations involve three adult males, they refer to relatively recent actions (in the last five years), and the complaints do not involve any criminal or civil charges. They first came to light in November. Someone suggested (perhaps one of the representatives) that the investigation was expected to take six months.

The Archbishop appointed Rev. Scott Thelander, a member of the Canons Regular who had recently been Pastor at St. Frances Cabrini Church in Springfield, to become "Interim Administrator" of the Parish and, I assume, the Order. Fr. Trenton Rauck of St. John Cantius will replace him in Springfield.

On Saturday, St. John Cantius posted this letter on its website, and subsequently read it out after the letter from the Archdiocese at each of the four Masses on Sunday.

The letter has since been taken down, it is unclear why or on whose direction, and replaced by this short note:

At Mass yesterday and today, there was great shock and grief. One of the younger priests was seen to be crying.

Everyone is solidly supportive of Fr. Phillips. There is a huge amount of love and affection for him here, both on a personal level and for everything he has done to build up the parish from near-death to being one of the country's leading centers for Catholic Tradition and the Traditional Latin Mass, as well as becoming a Chicago cultural landmark in its own right. As far as I know, there has never been even an atom of rumor here of inappropriate conduct or homosexuality.

(I just reread the above paragraph, and it doesn't put it quite right. If you are not a parishioner at Cantius, it would be perhaps difficult to understand the level of love and respect we all have for Fr. Phillips. For a man always so busy with so many tasks, it's remarkable how many people feel so close to him.)   

There was also much anger, directed, as might be expected, at Cardinal Cupich, who has long been perceived as hostile to this Traditionalist parish. At the Saturday evening Mass, a man loudly departed his pew and stormed into the vestibule, leaving the heavy doors swinging behind him. At the Sunday 7:30 Mass, a woman interrupted the reading of the first letter, shouting that the whole thing was a setup.

On the other hand, in their personal conduct after Mass towards the representatives from the Archdiocese, most parishioners were polite, at least in the interactions that I witnessed. And on the St. John Cantius Facebook page (administered by a layperson) and in other social media, the call has gone out for restraint. So, among other things, threads or comments that might be construed, even remotely, as being critical of or hostile to Cardinal Cupich or the Archdiocese have been taken down or deleted. And so on.

After the 11:00 and 12:30 Masses, I asked the representatives why Fr. Phillips had been "removed" as opposed to "suspended," especially considering that only complaints had been officially acknowledged and the investigation by the Resurrectionists had not yet begun. As I remember it, I received two different answers from the first spokesman and a third answer from the second spokesman:

1. The complaints and/or charges were very grave.
2. Cardinal Cupich made the decision (that's all the representative knew).
3. This is standard procedure.

While a recent or active "inappropriate relationship" with a parishioner or parishioners would certainly be a serious matter and potential grounds for removal, classifying, pre-investigation, a complaint or even set of complaints not involving minors and not involving a breach of criminal or civil law as very grave, strikes one as a bit odd. And removal at this stage is not standard procedure, either as presented in the Archdiocese Handbook on Personnel or considered against the background of other recent cases in Chicago.

As far as I know, and according to the Handbook as I read it, even a priest accused of criminal molestation of a child is generally placed on administrative leave, at least pending the results of an investigation.

I have to say that, to me, the overall tone of the official statements as well as the unofficial talk, is that whatever the results of the investigation, Fr. Phillips will not be coming back.  

While the precise nature of the charges is still unclear, it's fair to say that most parishioners have a difficult time believing that Fr. Phillips could be anything but innocent. Even on the logical possibility that there might be at least partial truth to the charges (and I suspect the hardheaded among us have considered the possibility), and whatever might or might not be said in public, many are viewing this as Cupich's long-anticipated attempt to assert control over the Canons Regular and St. John Cantius itself with the eventual goal of shutting us down.

The Canons still have no official independent status and all members could be reassigned by the Archdiocese at any time, or the Canons Regular broken up or dissolved.

Whatever Cupich's actual desires or intentions, I always believed we would be protected by the fact that an obvious move against Cantius would be perceived badly by the Chicago community - again, partly keeping in mind our status as a cultural institution. Forgive me, but I never thought it would happen this way. Now it seems like it was the most (or the only) logical way for it to happen.

******

A round the clock Rosary Chain for Fr. Phillips is being organized at:

https://signup.com/client/invitation2/secure/2264290/false#/invitation

In addition, I believe a public prayer is being organized outside of Holy Name Cathedral. I'll post an update when I have the details.