Below please find a recent National Review column by George Weigel, The Great Catholic Cave-In that Wasn’t.
It is precisely what one might expect of this icon of neo-conservatism; a disjointed quasi-defense of the indefensible and a veritable “All’s well!” in the face of the Church’s auto-demolition.
Weigel’s words are in bold.
For the better part of a half century, the New York Times, and similarly situated purveyors of news and opinion, have eagerly awaited the Great Catholic Cave-In: that blessed moment when, at long last, the Catholic Church, like many other Christian communities, would concede that the sexual revolution had gotten it right all along and would adjust its teaching and practice to suit. A Times “breaking story” on October 13, under the headline “Vatican Signals More Tolerance Toward Gays and Remarriage,” might have struck the unwary or uninformed (or those equally committed to the Times agenda in these matters) as a signal that Der Tag, the Day, had finally arrived.
Typical neo-con strategy; construct a straw man that is easily knocked down rather than engage the issue at hand. No one (no one whose opinion actually matters at any rate) is claiming that “the Catholic Church” has conceded that the “sexual revolution was right all along.”
Thus Elisabetta Povoledo wrote that “an important meeting at the Vatican used remarkably conciliatory language on Monday toward gay and divorced Catholics, signaling a possible easing of the church’s rigid attitudes on homosexuality and the sanctity of marriage.” It would be hard to cram more misinformation into one sentence.
For the most part, the offending quote attributed to Elisabetta Povoleda is correct. The Relatio, while unable to change immutable doctrine, does indeed approach the topic of homosexuality in a less “rigid” (read, less Catholic) and conciliatory way. On this point there can be no argument.
As far as the sanctity of marriage is concerned, again, inasmuch as the Relatio conveys a certain “attitude, Signora Povoledo does not appear to be out of touch with reality on this point.
1) The notion that the Catholic Church approaches suffering people who struggle with chastity, failing marriages, or both with “rigid attitudes” is slander.
“Rigid,” of course, is not a Catholic concept, but it is disingenuous to pretend not to know that this is the secular manner of referring to the Church’s unshakeable (if only her churchmen would follow suit) commitment to her own teachings and the immutable doctrines said teachings, and related disciplines, convey.
Yes, there are priests and bishops who sometimes display a lack of pastoral charity in these difficult circumstances.
Weigel has apparently adopted the liberal presumption that “rigid” adherence to doctrine is less-than-pastoral and even uncharitable. These are the kinds of concessions one is apparently forced to make when taking on the role of defender-of-the-indefensible chicanery that has flourished under Pope Francis; most often at his very own urging.
But they are a distinct minority. As any serious Catholic with experience of the Church’s confessional practice knows, confessors are far more compassionate and understanding than this kind of Dan Brown caricature suggests.
What have “confessors” to do with this discussion??? We’re not talking about contrite souls entering the confessional here.
If he means to speak of “confessors” as those who confess the Catholic faith, again, he is simply parroting the liberal notion that forthright teaching somehow lacks compassion. Either way, this is a swing and a miss.
2) Moreover, what the Catholic Church believes about the ethics of human love and about marriage is not a matter of “attitudes.”
Precisely, Counselor, which is why a Synodal document laced with an attitude that is decidedly soft (to be charitable) toward homosexuality and adultery is so dangerous; it runs counter to what the Catholic Church actually believes.
It’s a matter of truths. Many of those truths can be demonstrated by reason, if people are willing to work through a reasonable argument. Some of those truths, especially those pertaining to the permanence of marriage, come from the Church’s Lord himself. To suggest that any of these truths are matters of “attitude” is another form of slander.
No kidding, George, and that’s the real point; the Relatio itself is guilty of slandering so many truths. As such, one wonders why Weigel isn’t attacking the Synod directly for its role in this fiasco, never mind the pope.
The answer, one assumes, is that taking shots at the secular media is low hanging fruit; nourishment for the neo-con soul; whereas engaging the errors that have been flowing out of Rome on a near daily basis during the current pontificate may well be detrimental to one’s professional health.
3) And then there’s the slam implicit in that phrase, “rigid attitudes . . . on the sanctity of marriage.” Does the Times now espouse flaccid attitudes toward the sanctity of marriage? Would a culture further corrupted by marital breakdown and divorce be more to the Times’s liking?
Earth to George (or should I say, Jorge)… The issue at hand has not to do with what the Times might espouse, but what the Synod itself has conveyed; i.e., the issue concerns the flaccid attitudes found in the Relatio itself.
4) Beyond these typical bits of Times-speak, Ms. Povoledo utterly misrepresented the document on which she was putatively reporting. It was not issued by “a meeting” or by “the Vatican.” It was not an authoritative document in any sense; it was an interim report on themes that had been raised in the previous ten days of debate and discussion at the synod. It had absolutely no legislative weight — synod documents are consultative, not legislative — and I am told by those who were there that various formulations in the report were seriously criticized in the synod debates. Moreover, the interim report will be chewed over in the ten synod language-based discussion groups — where, one suspects, further criticisms will be aired — before any final report is issued. To turn this kind of interim report into the virtual equivalent of a papal encyclical is ludicrous on its face.
So, let me make sure I understand this point correctly… The Relatio carries no legislative weight, therefore, it represents no potential for harm?
Consider for a moment just how hypocritical this argument is.
No one, absolutely no one, imagines that articles published in the Times carries any ecclesial weight. This being the case, why is Weigel spending even a moment confronting what he considers to be its offenses against Catholic truth?
The reason is obvious; he believes, and correctly so, that even weightless propositions put forth in mainstream media publications can pose a very real threat to the mission of the Church; namely, the salvation of souls.
If this is true, and it most certainly is, how much more of a danger is posed when a document set forth by a Synod of Bishops undermines the faith?
The 2014 synod is an agenda-setting exercise that was intended by Pope Francis to help prepare the work of the 2015 Synod on the Family. The pope knows full well that marriage and the family are in crisis throughout the world. In his own remarks before the synod, he said that he hoped the synod would lift up the beauty of Christian marriage and Christian family life in a world too dominated by what he’s often called a “throwaway culture,” the throwaways all too frequently including spouses and children. That some bishops, theologians, and bishop-theologians from dying local churches in Europe have tried to use the synod to instruct the entire Catholic Church on appropriate pastoral solutions to difficult and tangled human situations will strike some as cheeky, and others as just bizarre. But whatever those synod fathers and advisers thought they were doing, what they effectively have done is to contribute to the false sense that this, at last, is the moment of the Great Catholic Cave-In.
So, Weigel admits it; certain of the bishops have succeeded in painting a false picture of what the Church believes! Again, why then is he spouting so much verbiage nitpicking a Times article when the bishops themselves, as he plainly admits, are to blame?
The synod fathers are wrestling with difficult questions. How does the Catholic Church best approach, in a pastoral and charitable way, those who are living in what the Church has no option but to consider, objectively speaking, irregular situations? How does a Church of sinners — which is what all of us Catholics are — call people in those situations to the conversion to which all Christians are constantly called? How can it bring people to see the truth of their situation, and how can it best help them deal with that? These are not simple matters; matters of the heart rarely are. A decent respect for the difficulties and the delicate human situations with which the synod fathers and the pope are grappling demands something better from the putative newspaper of record than a throwaway line about “rigid attitudes.”
And yet, one would think that such issues have never been dealt with by Holy Mother Church in the past. The truth is, the Church has been addressing these “difficult questions” for some 2,000 years.
Sure, there are matters, like homosexual couples raising children, that are somewhat unique to our day, but if we’re lloking for someone to blame for the fact that the press is on high alert to see just how things are going to change, one need look no further than one bishop in particular.
Any guesses as to who that might be, George?
How desperate the neo-cons are to forget that Pope Francis went on record both praising Kasper’s ideas and insisting that the Church cannot simply affirm what has always been taught, when in truth such affirmation is precisely his duty.
And if the Times and others really want to dig into a serious debate that’s underway beneath the surface at the 2014 synod, they might consider this: The experience of the 20th and early 21st centuries suggests that there is an iron law built into the Christian encounter with modernity, according to which Christian communities that maintain a clear sense of their doctrinal and moral boundaries survive and even flourish, while Christian communities whose doctrinal and moral boundaries become porous wither and eventually die.
And now we get to the richest part of all:
Why have the Catholic leaders who have gotten the most press at this synod, including Cardinal Walter Kasper of Germany, failed to grasp that? Why do they want to emulate the pattern charted by the dying communities of liberal Protestantism?
These questions should be addressed directly to Pope Francis; he is the driving force behind the entire affair. Kasper is little more than a useful mouthpiece.
And how do those who have learned that lesson craft pastorally effective strategies that address real situations of suffering without compromising the truth?
Men such as these do exist in people like Cardinal Burke; the same who is about to pack his bags for a largely irrelevant post thanks to his willingness to do what the George Weigels of the world wouldn’t dare.
That’s the real issue at this synod, and it will be the real issue at its successor next year.
No, the real issue is, and will remain, just how far Pope Francis is willing to go in order to marginalize those who dare to think and behave and teach as true Catholic pastors of souls, that he may make straight the paths that will lead to the church-of-man that he so clearly desires to construct.
What else would you expect of someone who gained notoriety and wealth feeding off the cult of JP2?
All this junk is pure Alinsky. Keep talking about the misunderstandings of the secular press instead of taking the deep issues head on.
Where did Povoledo get her ideas from if not the document published by ‘the Vatican?’ She’s picked up on exactly what the document says. For Weigel to nit pick that she doesn’t get details right like who exactly promulgated the document, or that it’s not the final take, is typical Alinsky – get us responding to crap like that but ignore the white elephant in the room.
This is just like the constant arguments about Vatican II: is what was said pastoral or doctrinal? Were there time-bombs or not? The question to be asked is: where did the writers of these awful documents get their ideas from? How come John Paul II and Benedict XVI parroted these ideas from ordination to their natural end, or ‘retirement.’
The answer lies in Pius X constant fight against the Mother of All Heresies: Modernism and past that, the French Revolution. It’s all there. Any other questions, comments, arguments are pure Alinsky. Saul Alinsky – Marxist, atheist, revolutionary, liar.
Louie, great choice of title and timing, as today’s headlines read:
“DALLAS MAYOR Mike Rawlings, warns the public on the challenges surrounding Ebola, while assuring that things will get better, as a second health care worker tests positive for the virus Wednesday, raising questions over whether health officials are prepared to handle more cases. ”
We know God’s continues to calls souls to truth, including in the midst of chastisements. The parallels between the spread of falsehood and sin (tolerating the Jezebel in our midst) are worth noting:
-Just as with ISIS, the public can no longer ignore this “slowly-but-steadily-spreading dreaded killer. Having no known cure, and with experimental drugs failing to save the latest victim; containment will only be possible if we can completely separate those possessing this evil, from the yet uncontaminated. -Obviously more drastic preventative and responsive measures are called for, as even the professionals who thought they exercised due care-following the “most modern” disease control recommendations” have failed to halt the spread, even to those whose training and expertise are far greater than the man-on-the street.
Hopefully Francis is correct in one thing – he has one to two years the most.
Why are we wasting our time with a muppet like Weigel?
De Mattei weighs in.
De Mattei on the Synod Relatio: “The Need to Resist Heretical Tendencies”
Link at RC here:http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/de-mattei-on-synod-relatio-need-to.html#more
De Mattei writes:
” The bishops and cardinals, even more than the ordinary faithful, find themselves faced with a terrible drama of conscience, very much graver than the one the English martyrs had to face in the XVI century. Then, in fact it was about disobeying the highest civil authority, King Henry VIII, who, because of his divorce, opened a schism with the Roman Church. Today however, the resistance goes against the highest religious authority should they deviate from the perennial teaching of the Church. And the ones who are called to resist are not disobedient Catholics or dissenters, but actually those that most profoundly venerate the Papal institution. At the time of Henry VIII, the ones who resisted were consigned to the secular arm, which destined them for decapitation or dismemberment. The modern secular arm applies moral lynching, through psychological pressure from the mass-media on public opinion. The outcome is often the psychological and physical collapse of the victims, a crisis of identity, the loss of a vocation and the faith – unless one is able to exercise the heroic virtue of fortitude with the help of grace.
To resist means, in the final analysis, to reaffirm the integral coherence of one’s own life with the immutable Truth of Jesus Christ, by toppling the theses of those who would like to dissolve the eternal Truth into the precariousness of life experiences.”
Francis needs to be resisted because he is a heretic…. if I understand the above correctly. 😉
What do you mean Francesco?
Kasper the Racist.
Q: But are African participants listened to in this regard?
Kasper: No, the majority of them [who hold these views won’t speak about them].
Q: They’re not listened to?
Kasper: In Africa of course [their views are listened to], where it’s a taboo.
Looks like virtue “subsisting” in Racism…. if you ask me.;)
I don’t think it’s racism, I think it’s just a reflection of Illuministic-Masonic ideals of “progress” vs “barbarism”, where Africa and Asia are still deeply “entrapped” in their “primitive” taboos (which are actually coinciding with the Catholic Faith..) versus a more illumined and progressive Germany/Europe/West.
Yes, but that in itself is racist. 😉
PS You need to apply their dialectic. 😉
We thought it was pure sci-fi that alternate realities coexist at any given moment in time; but there seem to be at least two of them working here:
1. “On Monday morning, immediately after the presentation of the Relatio post disceptationem, there was another period of free discussion between the Synod Fathers at the Extraordinary Synod on the Family. At the XI Congregation the document received unanimous praise during the “consequent discussion,” FOR HAVING ACCURATELY RECORDED THE ACTIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE PAST DAYS IN THE AULA.” However, some members of the Assembly wanted to make some clarifications that may help them.. it would be useful to speak more widely about those families who remain faithful to the teachings of the Gospel, thanking them and encouraging them for the witness they offer. From the Synod it emerged more clearly that indissoluble, happy and forever faithful marriage, is beautiful, possible and present in society, therefore avoiding a near-exclusive focus on imperfect family situations.”
2. Voice of the Family, (a coalition of 15 international pro-family groups): J.Smeaton (Brit): “those who are controlling the Synod have betrayed Catholic parents. The Synod’s mid-way report is one of the worst official documents drafted in Church history.” Irish P. Buckley: the report “represents an attack on marriage and the family” by “in effect giving a tacit approval of adulterous relationships.” “the report undermines the Church’s definitive teaching against contraception, and fails to recognize that homosexual inclination is objectively disordered”. P.Craine, N.America: the report “is not a faithful representation of the Synod discussions. Many Synod fathers have valiantly defended Church teaching inside and outside the Synod hall, yet their position is hardly reflected in the document at all.” .. the document undermines true pastoral care and can only do grave damage, in this world and the next, to those it purports to help.” “It would be a false mercy to give Holy Communion to people who do not repent of mortal sexual sins,” said coordinator M. Madise: “Will Catholic parents be forced to falsely tell their children that mortal sins like the use of contraception, cohabiting with partners, or living homosexual lifestyles have positive attributes?” “Real mercy consists of offering people a clean conscience via the Sacrament of Confession and thus union with God”.
— “Voice of the Family urges Catholics not to be complacent or give in to a false sense of obedience, in the face of attacks on the fundamental principles of the natural law at the Synod.”
We take it to be a reference to what Francis said to the press on the plane trip back from Korea:
“Interiorly, I try to think of my sins, my mistakes, so as not to think that I am somebody. Because I know this will last a short time, two or three years, and then to the house of the Father”
Thank you Indignus,
hope you both are doing well in this dark times.
I don’t understand how Francis could possibly know that, unless he is aware of some illness or again it could be some demons’ trick on his mind, persuading him to be as quick as possible in doing as much good (evil) as he can.
I came to discover, years ago, when trying to defend the sacrament of marriage,just how far the destroyers of the Church will go in redefining marriage. Just compare the Reading in the Bible from Tobias 6:16-17, 22; 8-9 from the Douay-Rheims with the same reading in Tobias taken from the New American Bible.
Douay-Rheims says in Tobias 6:16-17, 22; 8-9 “Thenthe angel Raphael said to him(Tobias): Hear me, and I will shew thee who they are, over whom the devil can prevail. For they who in such a manner receive matrimony, as to shut out God from themselves, and from their mind, and to themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding, over them the devil hath power. …And when the third night is pat, thou shalt take the virgin with fear of the Lord, moved rather FOR THE LOVE OF CHILDREN than for lust, that in the seed of Abraham thou mayest obtain ablessing in children… (Tobias said) And now, Lord, thou knowest, that not for fleshy do I take my sister to wife, but ONLY for the love of posterity in which THY NAME may be blessed for ever and ever.”
New American Bible Tobias 8;7. “Now, Lord, you know that I (Tobias) take this wife of mine not because of lust , but for a noble purpose.”
The meaning of marriage has been changed with the supressing of the primary purpose of marriage of procreation and education of children for God’s glory for any other noble purpose you wish to give it. PiusXI’s encyclical Casti Connubii was the last time we to see the hierarchy of purposes of marriage fully upheld.
After Casti Connubii the modern song and dance on the meaning of marriage was ushered in with one cannot contracept but then again yes you can for pastoral reasons because we now have an alternative definition on marriage to back you up.This is the same song and dance that is going on at the Synodm today when we hear at the Synod that the divorced and remarried cannot receive Holy communion but yes they can and sodomy is a sin but then again
it just might not always be fully a sin. And so on and so on goes the forked
At least these knuckleheads are becoming more transparent. I can easily see this as a testing ground to mark those incapable of towing the ever evolving Satanic Global Soviet line that was and is Vat II. If Francis is not the Destroyer, he’s doing a great job playing the part. Resist the synthesis.
Desperately attempting to stay relevant. I remember the rush 2005 book on the election of Benedict XVI: “God’s Choice”. I guess God changed His mind and now wants this character in the See of Peter?
Thanks for the good wishes. Same to you. Yes, these are tough times, but at least things are coming out into the open, proving our concerns and judgments valid.
There are conjectures about his health everywhere you look. (Mudabor switched -just today- from past suggestions of cocaine or alcohol addiction to a possible recent diagnosis of cancer). Our own “guess” is simpler –you have an almost 80year old man with one lung, who is not supposed to get over-tired because it overwhelms his immune system and makes him too ill to function, risking pneumonia. (remember all the cancelled appearances after the Youth-day trip?) He was likely feeling the strain of the trip to Korea, and just said what he was thinking at that moment. No more, no less.
Yes, very thorough and well-stated -with many core concepts identified.
Lord, five us the fortitude to resist the pressures to acquiesce to the growing consensus of evil, at the top levels of the Church, in our parishes, in our families. Reparation!
And Cardinal Burke is calling for a statement reaffirming Church dogma on these issues? Poor Cardinal Burke. He’s in for a big disappointment. When is he going to realize that Pope Francis has been driving this train from the beginning?
Three choices: 1) the Pope will make a nice comforting statement telling us this is nothing more than an exploration, and that nothing will change; 2) the Pope will say, hell yeah, things are going to change – what have I been telling ya? or 3) The Pope will say nothing.
Can we expect a pulling back from this brink? Will the document be re-written? I don’t see how it can be tweaked to reflect two diametrically opposed positions. Has Kasper gone too far now, with his foolish remarks about Africans? Will all this fizzle out once everyone goes home?
A quick read of the nastier documents from Vatican II shows clearly this has been set up from the same people using the same language.
Oh by the way, I heartily recommend everyone buy a paper copy of The Five Cardinals’ book even though the horse has left the barn. Yes, Kindle is fine, but we need to develop libraries for the future. There may come a time when family and friends will be desperate to know the truth. I’m getting together as many orthodox books, especially older spiritual book, as I can afford – for my children and grandchildren.
“The world will be cleaned when the African nation is cleaned.” — Words of Our Lady to an obscure visionary.
My lone voice Tweet to the BORF after work tonight: Please publically retract the Relatio from the Synod on the family which is doing so much to destroy the belief of the faithful. (Words to that effect…)
I don’t understand why people in general can make daily comments on blogs, sometimes more than one, but won’t commit to write a brief letter, or a ‘Tweet’, routinely to the BORF. He would certainly notice 1000 messages. How many responded to Catholic Family News’ request to ‘phone, write, fax or email the Apostolic Nuntio? These things are painless! And yet people complain repeatedly of ‘no-one’ doing anything. Even we unknown Catholics are obliged to do the little that we can! If everyone disciplined themselves to do one of these things daily, there would be an immediate elimination of the ‘what can we do’ and ‘no one does anything’ messages. My intent is to be encouraging and not criticizing. I know my trivial attempts at least allow me to sleep better at night in the face of this trial.
If you look at the interview, you’ll see that it was, indeed, racist. He said ‘the Africans don’t need to tell us what to do’. Obviously, to Kasper, ‘the Africans’ are a lesser type of Catholic.
This comment was written to a general sense of powerlessness after reading partly through the comments. I was certainly not critiquing you, Barbara! I wanted to clear that up. My little tablet has a mind of its own and sometimes I just give up after trying to add my ‘2cents’! Perhaps I should just read… 😉
@Barbara: I interpret Cardinal Burke’s request of the Pope as “a shot across the bow” so to speak and therefore a serious matter. If you recall from “A Man for All Seasons” silence betokens assent. Cardinal Burke could interpret the Pope’s refusal to affirm Church dogmas regarding marriage as a defection; the pope by his silence would be evidencing assent to the heresies that are being advanced at the Synod.
If a schism follows the modernists will find out exactly how shaky the foundation of their false church is. On exactly what basis will the schismatic modernists excommunicate those who hold to authentic Church teachings? That traditional Catholics don’t assent to their homo heresy? Any document the modernists would draft and demand assent to by traditional Catholics would likely be laughably heretical on its face.
I have read the interview.
I don’t find that racist. I reckon he stigmatised the Africans merely because of their conservative stance the very interview mentions, not their skin colour or nationality.
Look, Kasper being a racist would be the least of his problems… yet I can’t help but think he would lovingly embrace the “Africans” if they were vehement supporters of his disgusting positions.
ONE lone nutter responsible for “homo-heresy” language in Relatio.
“AP confirms: “Outed” Forte exclusive responsible for “Gayspel”, only ONE Father had even mentioned issue in Synod Hall”
Link here: http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/ap-confirms-outed-forte-exclusive.html
Truth, in the church of Francis.
But that is not all….
Fr. Z has this to say about our homo-heretic:
“It was telling that, during yesterday’s presser, for the presentation of the Relatio, the chair of the Synod, Card. Erdö, tossed a question about the now infamous homosexuality paragraphs over to Archbp. Bruno Forte (whom some suggest might wind up as Prefect of a Franciscan CDF… if it isn’t Archbp. Fernandez), saying: “the one who wrote the passage ought to know what it means”.”
Did you get that: the homo-heretic is being promoted as the next Prefect of the CDF. 😮
Can’t see any honesty, truthfulness or transparency subsiding in the EVIL that is the VII church of Francis.;)
Fr. Z link to the above post:
You speak the truth. We hear nothing but diabolical confusion from the Pope and all of the other modernists that he has put into positions of power or whom he supports. It’s very ugly. St Michael and St John the Baptist pray for us.
Pop quiz time 😉
Which of the following is a REAL report (as opposed to a parody)?
The church of Francis… where reality subsists in parody. 😉
It looks to us like the prejudice on Kasper’s part is based solely on the solid opposition to his modernist views from all the Bishops of one location. He feels threatened by that, and looks for a cause other than their Faith, to avoid having to admit his own heresy/apostasy. It’s more likely resentment than racism.
We have ” LIO” baby.
Bishop revolt against Francis at SATANIC SECRET SYNOD OF SIN!! 🙂
Fr. Z has the scoop:
“Apparently the bishops at the Synod are tired of being manipulated.
They created a little lío of their own.
In full view of the Pope, they rose up pretty much as a body and rebelled against the way Card. Baldisseri, who seems to be the chief architect of what may have been a pre-determined agenda, has been handling them.”
Link here: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/10/synod-bishops-revolt-against-leadership-and-get-their-way/
“The Secretary of the Synod, Card. Balidisseri, was watching the Pope, as if in search of advice and lights, and the Pope remained silent and very serious.”
“HAGAN LIO” Indeed. 🙂
If at first you don’t succeed, blackmail…..
RC has the story here:http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/synod-fathers-under-intense-pressure.html#more
“Synod Fathers under intense pressure from the Kasper Front to modify their views – or else”
Tosatti via RC writes:
“Synod Fathers are being strongly pressured by the allies of the racist German cardinal, who are in the minority, to modify as little as possible the partial relatio: as Tosatti explains below, that was one of the main reason why the racist manipulators did not want the addresses of the first week made public, they can now pressure the more fearful bishops to take 180-degree turns on what they said, and they can do it without losing face.”
Oh well, so much for democracy. A benevolent dictatorship is what the progressive forces of evil are after now… I guess. 😉
…and this. Francis retreats.
“Of course we want to know what they
think in Africa! Cardinal Napier added to
the infamous drafting committee”
Link here via Pew Sitter:http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/10/16/family-synod-cardinal-napier-added-to-drafting-committee/
Pope Francis has added Cardinal Wilfrid Napier to the drafting committee which will produce the final report on the Extraordinary Synod on Pastoral Challenges to the Family.
The appointment is significant because the South African cardinal was critical of the mid-term report produced by the drafting committee earlier this week.
The Pope has also added Archbishop Denis Hart of Melbourne to the committee.
The Vatican today released an updated version of the English translation of the mid-term report. The translation has been re-worded so that it now refers to “providing for homosexuals” rather than “welcoming homosexuals.”
In a press conference Cardinal Schönborn told reporters that the final report will include “many expressions of caution” compared with the mid-term report.
He also added that the Church wants to accompany co-habiting couples on the path to marriage and that “accompanying” people did not mean relativism.
The synod’s final report will be discussed in the synod hall on Saturday afternoon and voted on.
A spokesman for the Vatican said it was unlikely the final report will be published on Saturday.
In your face, Francis. 😉
Not to worry, Mary. In fact thank you very much. I’m going to find the Nuncio’s e-mail, and snail-mail addresses now (I’m in Canada), and write to DEMAND that my voice be heard and recorded. These people are just politicians after all, and like secular politicians, WE pay their salaries.
At least that’s doing something!!
All the focus is on the sexual perverted person and his/her relationship with ‘community.’ And to a lessor extent on the ‘those in objective mortal sin receiving Holy Communion’ but there are lots of weasel words in the REST of this notorious document – this is being obscured.
So a word here and there will be changed – but it’s all just baffle-gab and 60s jargon!!! How can they seriously publish this stuff? Who’s going to interpret the sophomoric garbage to the joe/jane in the pew? The Bishops? Many of whom are traitors to the Faith! That’s going to go well. We in our diocese will hear nothing from our Bishop until way after the Pope issues his final word in early 2016 – and believe me in this diocese it will be way too late. Thank God for our Fraternity parish – for as long as we are allowed to have it.
Regarding the African comments by poor Cardinal Kasper. What I’ve not heard said is the reason most African’s are horrified at what the West gets up to is because they have an intuitive sense it’s all against nature. Remember the natural law is innate in us all. We in the West have become so sophisticated we’ve lost all our sense of disgust at disgusting practices.
Kasper has said no one understands the natural law, or even knows what it is, and instead of actually teaching it, he says we need a new language. Our Lady of Fatima intercede for us.
USS Burke hits the hull of the AMB Bergoglio.
Clear, concise and damning!
Q: It is becoming difficult not to think of this as a time of chastisement.
A: I think about this first of all concerning myself. If I am suffering at this time because of the situation in the Church, I think that the Lord is telling me that I have need of purification. And I also think that, if the suffering is so widespread, this means that the whole Church is in need of purification. But this is not because of a God who is waiting only to punish us. This is because of our own sins. If in some way we have betrayed doctrine, moral teaching or the liturgy, it follows inevitably that we will undergo a suffering that purifies us to put us back again on the narrow way.
Only the Truth can set you free 😉
Very well said. Especially the part “We in the west have become so sophisticated we’ve lost all our sense of disgust at disgusting practices”
Changing the purpose of marriage is what brought on the desensitization to purity and the flow of disgusting practices we see today.
For anyone in Canada here’s the Nuncio’s contact info:
Most Rev. Luigi Bonazzi
724 Manor Ave.
Ottawa, ON K1M 0E3
Looks like I am not the only one waiting for a cameo appearance by the pope emeritus. 😉
“It would have made for a ‘beautiful gesture'”…
Link here: http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com/2014/10/it-would-have-made-for-beautiful-gesture.html
“He was probably not expecting an invite to the Synod. It would have made for a beautiful gesture from Pope Francis, because we know that Francis appreciates Benedict’s ‘wisdom’.”
But on the other hand, they do say that too many popes spoil the broth. 😉
…and it just gets better.
Kasper now claims that he did not do the interview where he made racist remarks about the African hierarchy and population.
Interviewer, releases tape. And it sound a lot worse than the stenogram.
RC has the story:http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/yes-kasper-did-give-interview-with.html#more
New Catholic comments:
“The only ones to leave this sorry event stained are the Zenit editors, who had the obligation to stand on the side of information, since the Catholics of an entire continent are surely more relevant than the whim of one cardinal, the ignominious Kasper, before whom they folded. Kasper’s treatment of Zenit and Pentin was just as “merciful” as his words for Africa and Africans, and his regard for Catholic dogma.
I guess one has to break some journalistic/editorial eggs to make the perfect omlet””. 🙂
Not to mention the racism accusations as a political/dialectic tool are evil marxist tools of control and destruction.
See URSS’s propaganda directives to Western Communist parties from the 50s and 60s.
It is pretty sad to see how even supposed “true” Catholics are now so brainwashed and permeated by XXI century Sodom’s zeitgeist as to unconsciously adopt such a vile forma mentis.
God bless you S.Armaticus,- and please accept our special “thanks” for the link in #23 above to these words of Cardinal Burke (God bless him, too).
-We’ve been waiting a LIFETIME to hear so much Truth about the “real” Jesus from the mind and heart of a living Catholic leader. These are treasures for every true Catholic to cherish and share in these times of great distress- clear, authoritative quotes to answer so many questions, objections and doubts:
– “THE PRIEST UNITED TO THE SACRED HEART will not succumb to the temptation to say to his flock words that are other than those of Christ which have been handed down in an indefectible way by the Church. He will not fall into the temptation to substitute for the words of a doctrine that heals, a language that is confused and easily leads to error.”
-“THE SYNOD is not a democratic assembly where the bishops are assembled to change Catholic doctrine by a vote of the majority.”
-“..It would have been better to take these matters off the table..instead of losing itself in discussions that are not useful about matters that cannot be discussed in an attempt to change truths that cannot be changed.”
– “We should be talking rather about how to help the faithful live the truth of marriage.. the formation of children and young people who come to marriage without knowing the fundamental elements of our faith and then are brought down by the first difficulty they encounter in the marriage.”
-“THIS PICTURE OF JESUS is an invention that has no confirmation in the Gospels. Jesus was the greatest opponent to the times in which he lived, and he remains so for our own time. ..He spoke to the woman caught in adultery: “..Nor do I condemn you; go and sin no longer”. (John 8:11)
-“Many.. oppose this by saying that the Eucharist is not the sacrament of the perfect, but this is a false argument..”
-“Even those who are struggling to be perfect do sin, and if they are in a state of mortal sin, they are not able to receive Communion.”
-“If someone sincerely reaffirms the indissolubility of marriage, he can take steps to rectify the irregular state in which he finds himself or abstain from Communion.
“-THERE IS NO HALF-WAY.” ” To be able to receive they must confess their sin with a sense of remorse and with the intention of not committing the sin again. This is binding on everyone, including the divorced and remarried.”
-“MAN has not changed. .the world has become secularized ..this is a reason to all the more speak the truth in a clear and forceful way. It is our duty.. to do this.
-“.. whoever understands men knows that if a concession is granted in one case, concessions are make in the rest as well.””They forget the Lord assures us of the help of His grace to those who are called to live in marriage.”
– ” This worries me very much..” KASPER’S THESIS is not new.. from this February on..IT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO GROW IN A NOT INNOCENT WAY. But THIS MUST STOP because it is provoking the possibility of great damage to the faith.” Bishops and priests say to me that now that so many divorced and remarried men and women are asking to be admitted to Holy Communion because this is what Pope Francis wants.”
-“So many people..ask me if they have thrown their lives away in making sacrifices that in the end are of no use. This is not acceptable. IT IS AN ACT OF BETRAYAL.
-” THE LITURGY.. ended up being a reflection of the idea of man instead of the right of God to be adored as He himself asks.. attention is focused almost exclusively on the needs and wants of men, instead of on what the Creator has written in the hearts of his creatures.” “If someone does not pray well, then he does not believe well and therefore he does not behave well.”
-” I am aware that TO LIVE IN THESE TIMES IS A SOURCE OF GREAT SUFFERING.” “..the whole Church is in need of purification..If in some way we have betrayed doctrine, moral teaching or the liturgy, it follows inevitably that we will undergo a suffering that purifies us to put us back again on the narrow way.
-[BURKE’s ADVICE TO FAITHFUL]
“Work even harder to live a life that is truly Catholic”
“..The Lord will never abandon His Church”
I find Cardinal Burks words that say,”If in some way we have betrayed doctrine, moral teaching or the liturgy, it follows inevitably that we will indergo a suffering that purifies us to put us back again on the narrow path” very encouraging. He uses the past tense “if…we have betrayed.” Could he possibly be talking about the new sophisticated deaper “communion of love” meaning of marriage that has been promoted at the expense of subordinating it’s primary purpose by our modern theologians in the Catholic Church ? Could he also be suggesting the betrayal of the loose canon 1095 section 3 that ushered in the annulment factory when it says, ” The following are incapable of contracting marriage; those who, because of causes of a psychological nature are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage.” Could he be speaking of the Novus Ordo betrayal of the liturgy of the Traditional Latin Mass of all time? Could he be speaking of the new married clergy, (deacons and priests), that are never instructed on the obligation of perfect and perpetual continence that is rooted in theological foundations and Church doctrine since apostolic times?
Barbara, absolutely! There is, just literally, lip service—one or two words changed. It makes me think of ‘rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic’, but it is in no way funny. I am delighted that Kasper is suffering a bit of humiliation because of his comments, but a man such as himself won’t let that get to him. I’m sincerely afraid the man has no shame.
Great! Each single name and comment adds up! Now I’m home from work I need to send out my Tweet to the BORF, and perhaps another email to the nuncio.
Let me sum up the betrayals. Giving one’s blessings to NFP, The annulment factory, married incontinent deacons and priests and the Novus Ordo Mess.
No, we don’t think he’s talking about most of the issues you mention here regarding NFP and married love, since he has publicly upheld and defended those things in the past. He did enumerate some of the major errors in the interview, though, and we assume those are included in what he regards as deserving of punishment. Time will eventually tell whether you or he are right.
Virtue subsisting in racism – that is darn good.
It is completely in harmony with the conciliar theology.
Anastasia, you wrote above,
“Could he possibly be talking about the new sophisticated deaper “communion of love” meaning of marriage that has been promoted at the expense of subordinating it’s primary purpose by our modern theologians in the Catholic Church?”
But Cardinal Burke is not one to change his mind and not mention it, especially on so important an issue as the teachings he has upheld and clarified which came from Pius XII and Paul VI’s Humane Vitae, about which he has said:
–“We have to get away from a tendency that developed in recent years of pitting the unitive nature of marriage against the procreative nature of marriage instead of seeing that the two are essentially related to one another.”
–“To stress the inseparable goods of marriage, the unity between husband and wife but at the same time the procreativity of their union.
– That the union of husband and wife the conjugal union is by its very nature procreative. And this is with the great insight of Pope Paul VI, it’s been the foundation of the Church’s teaching on contracepton since the beginning, and that therefore you cannot–the minute you permit an understanding of the conjugal union which sets aside the procreative–the essentially procreative nature of the act and says, “well these acts are good, even though we’re using chemicals or we’re using some kind of a device to prevent procreation because of our unitive”, but it cannot be truly a conjugal union if it’s not at the same time open to the gift of new life….
Dear Indignus famulus,
Just because you say he has upheld NFP in the past doesn’t mean he could not be questioning himself on this teaching that contradicts the teaching of Church and from natural law on the primary purpose of marriage.
When he says, ” We have to get away from the tendency that developed in recent years that pitted procreation and unity against one another” I believe that he is at least starting to see the bad fruits that transpire because of the contradictory teachings from NFP that clearly separate and subordinate the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory from it’s secondary end when trying to avoid having children. Even if he hasn’t come so far as to be willing to see the contradiction between Humanae Vitae and Casti Connubii I at least give him credit for acknowledging the bad fruit that has transpired from NFP.
I am actually feeling some consolation from following Cardinal Burke in all his recent interviews. I am seeing a man who appears to be questioning publicly
on where we(he) went wrong in upholding the doctrines of our Lord Jesus
I will be rooting and praying for Cardinal Burke more than ever now. He needs our prayers and he needs to be strengthened to speak the truth clearly and
In what you have quoted from him he was still using the new VaticanII language of “goods” instead of “primary purpose”. It is a political and clever way of being able to put unity before procreation without talking about the true hierarchy of marriage. They do this because the new modern church wishes
to appease those who cling to this new “communion of love” definition of marriage. They use this exact language of “goods” instead of primary purpose throughout the New Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Even though he is saying that these goods are inseparable, which is great, he always places unity before procreation giving us the impression that they are at the same level. As I have referenced before that the Acta Apostolicae Sedis on April 20th, 1944 answered clearly the following question, “May one subscribe to the opinion of certain modern authors who deny that the principle end of marriage is the begetting and education of children, or who teach that the secondary ends are not essentially subordinated to the primary ends, but are equally primary and independent?” The reply was “No.”
The modernist movement had to come with a new word they could use to avoid talking about the true purpose of marriage in order to promote this new sophisticated definition of communion of love and the new catch word was “goods”
Even though Cardinal Burke is publicly announcing that these two goods are inseparable this is not good enough because it gives the impression that they are at the same level and they are not as Casti Connubii explains.
Our lord is the author of marriage. He instituted marriage for the primary purpose of procreation and education of children for God’s glory and it’s secondary purpose is secondary because it serves the primary purpose or mission of procreation and education of children for God glory. This mission is grand and sacred that is why marriage is a sacrament. Even if a couple is infertile it doesn’t change marriages purpose. They can as a married couple choose to adopt or help others who need help raising their children.
Marriage is indissoluble precisely because of this grand sacrificial mission of procreation and education of children for God’s glory which is a reflection of Christ and his one Bride the Church and the salvation of souls. A couple can not say “We can now part because the children are grown and you are old and the mission is now over”. “No because they are made as one at marriage for the grand mission of educating their children for their salvation in their domestic Church which is the reflection of Christ and His one Bride His most holy Mother Church for the mission of bringing souls to heaven and who will never abandon His Bride the Church.
Of course we can see that man can abandon God which is what we are witnessing today but He will never abandon us if we remain faithful to his Words.
Anastasia, thanks for your words of truth. I too am happy that Cardinal Burke is speaking out. But he doesn’t go far enough – or I should say he still speaks in that horrible VII language that obscures deeper, perennial truths. Is it only we nit-pickers who see the obfuscation? Muddy, muddy, muddy.
Why, oh why can’t we speak clearly, using words most can understand? I have just read Casti Connubii again. Yes, the sentence structure is old fashioned. We are so used to the Hemmingway method – short sentences, lots of white space on the page – nothing of import said.
But in Casti Connubii the words are so clear. There is no twisting of meaning using lots of jargon. This frustrates me to the point of madness!!!
Barbara, you well express the suffering of the remnant!