Latest Posts

Reports of openness to SSPX greatly exaggerated

24. October, 2014Blog Post44 comments

pozzoMarco Tossati is reporting in Vatican Insider that the Secretary of Ecclesia Dei, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, in a recent interview with the French weekly Famille Chrétienne, is suggesting that Rome is willing to apply a heretofore unknown degree of flexibility in its relationship with the SSPX.

The archbishop said:

Any reservations or positions the Society of St. Pius X may have regarding aspects which are not related to faith but to pastoral questions or the prudential teaching of the Magisterium do not necessarily need to [be] withdrawn or relinquished.

According to Archbishop Pozzo (as reported by Tossati), the Society’s reservations are linked to “aspects of pastoral care or the prudential teaching of the Magisterium.”

Some are suggesting that this signals something of a breakthrough and a newfound openness on the part of Rome. I disagree.

For one thing, it is either a gross misunderstanding of, or an egregious misrepresentation of, the Society’s position to relegate their criticisms of Vatican II and the Novus Ordo to matters of mere “pastoral care or prudential teaching,” as if doing so would in some way make them of secondary importance.

For him to imagine that the SSPX would concede as much strikes me as naïve at best.

One may see in Archbishop Pozzo’s statement a temptation to embrace the error of the false ecumenists that Pope Pius XI so succinctly condemned in Mortalium Animos:

In connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction.

For example, it appears that Archbishop Pozzo is suggesting that it’s just fine for the SSPX to reject (as it should) the contents of Nostra Aetate even as “Rome” professes the thoroughly preposterous notion, “Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles making both one in Himself” (NA 3) as such is presumably less-than-fundamental.

Furthermore, Archbishop Pozzo’s comments also seem to reflect the same dreadful disease that landed the Extraordinary Synod in such critical condition; namely, the insipid notion that “pastoral care / prudential teaching” and doctrine can be treated as distant cousins when indeed (in particular relative to the Society’s concerns) they are more akin to conjoined twins.

The archbishop went on to say:

There is room for further reflection on the reservations the fraternity has expressed regarding certain aspects and the wording of the Second Vatican Council documents as well as some reforms that followed but which do not refer to subjects which are dogmatically or doctrinally indisputable.

Again, we see repeated here the same foolish idea that the problematic parts of Vatican II (and the Novus Ordo) somehow refer to something other than doctrine. That’s incorrect to the point where one has to wonder if Archbishop Pozzo isn’t pazzo, or perhaps making statements that he doesn’t truly believe as if to propose a “creative” way forward.

We shall see how things proceed from here, but any supposed way forward that requires the SSPX to deny the expressly doctrinal character of their concerns is no way forward at all; it’s simply a guarantee that the crisis will endure.

Beyond this, I find Archbishop’s Pozzo’s reference to “the wording of the Second Vatican Council” almost amusing.

What is any council if not its “wording”?

I can’t really say precisely what he means to imply. That said, I am reminded of the “hermeneutic of continuity” illusion which has always been predicated upon the misconception that “the Council” can somehow be understood apart from what it actually said.

Archbishop Pozzo continued:

There is no doubt that the teachings of the Second Vatican Council vary a great deal in terms of how authoritative and binding they are depending on the text … Lumen Gentium and Dei Verbum are doctrinal declarations even though no dogmatic definition was given to them; [the declarations on religious freedom, non-Christian religions and the decree on ecumenism] are authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.

Setting aside the fact that the Council declared exactly zero of its propositions binding (the requirement expressed in the Nota Praevia found in Lumen Gentium), one wonders exactly what it means to suggest that a given text is just somewhat binding and kinda authoritative.

This is a concept that can only be acceptable to those who have bought into the unfounded novelty of “a little communion” among the heretics such as it was proposed in Lumen Gentium; the aforementioned “doctrinal declaration.”

For the record, I’m not one of those people, and I think it is safe to say that the SSPX isn’t either.

In summary, Archbishop Pozzo’s comments don’t represent a new degree of openness to the SSPX at all; at best they amount to little more than a subtle suggestion for papering over the very real doctrinal deficiencies in the conciliar text (to say nothing of the Novus Ordo) and the havoc wrought on the Body of Christ as a result.

End of the world…

23. October, 2014Blog Post53 comments

Faithful Catholics sometimes feel like everything is falling apart. Well, to some extent it is, and I know why.

Secret Synod: Original screenplay by Paul VI

21. October, 2014Blog Post128 comments

Now PlayingAt the close of the Extraordinary Synod, Pope Francis delivered a closing address that deserves some close attention. Speaking before the august assembly, he said:

I can happily say that – with a spirit of collegiality and of synodality – we have truly lived the experience of “Synod,” a path of solidarity, a “journey together.”

We must give the Holy Father credit when credit is due, and His Holiness spoke very well when he suggested that we have just experienced (nay, endured) synodality at its finest.

At this, it is helpful to consider the purpose for which the “Synod of Bishops” was created.

Pope Paul VI, less than a year after placing an “explanatory note” in Lumen Gentium that was ostensibly ordered toward toning down the constitution’s inflated treatment of the college of bishops’ resident powers, threw what might be considered a bone to the “collegiality lobby” by issuing the Apostolic Letter, Apostolica Sollicitudo.

According to this Letter, which established the Synod of Bishops:

The Synod of Bishops has, of its very nature, the function of providing information and offering advice. It can also enjoy the power of making decisions when such power is conferred upon it by the Roman Pontiff; in this case, it belongs to him to ratify the decisions of the Synod.
1. The general purpose of the Synod are:
a) to promote a closer union and greater cooperation between the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops of the whole world;
b) to see to it that accurate and direct information is supplied on matters and situations that bear upon the internal life of the Church and upon the kind of action that should be carrying on in today’s world;
c) to facilitate agreement, at least on essential matters of doctrine and on the course of action to be taken in the life of the Church.    

A sober reading of the synod’s job description reveals that it has ever been a ticking time bomb, but perhaps not so much in the way that most tradition-minded Catholics might immediately recognize; namely, as an instrument by which the bishops might one day exercise a decision making power that threatens to undermine the Church’s monarchical structure as instituted by Christ.

In fact, it really does the opposite.

As I read it, Apostolica Sollicitudo quietly, and with a subtlety worthy of the Master Deceiver himself, set the stage where upon the “God of surprises” would one day make an appearance in a production called “the Synod.” The actual play, however, wouldn’t be ready to open in earnest until such time as the intended audience, the faithful, were sufficiently stripped of their sensus Catholicus; a process presently completed in large measure thanks to the Mass of Paul VI.

Even then the spectacle would require the services of a very special Bishop of Rome; one “humble” enough to take on the role of the Almighty.

Pay close attention to the operative part of Apostolica Sollicitudo which states, “…to facilitate agreement, at least on essential matters of doctrine and on the course of action to be taken in the life of the Church.”

Really? Can someone, anyone, please tell me exactly which “essential matters of doctrine” are as yet so incompletely defined as to constitute a legitimate source of disagreement among authentic Catholics?

Clearly, folks, there aren’t any.

Even Pope John XXIII, in his opening address to the Second Vatican Council, made it clear that “the fundamental doctrine of the Church, which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians … is presumed to be well known and familiar to all.”

As such, according to John XXIII, no need existed for the Council Fathers to engage in “a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church.”

And yet, if one reads Apostolica Sollicitudo carefully, one sees that in establishing the Synod, Paul VI created what has always had the potential of being nothing less than Vatican II on steroids.

One must also take notice that in spite of the Synod being held up as a hub of collegiality, its “power of making decisions” only exists “when such power is conferred upon it by the Roman Pontiff,” and even then “it belongs to him to ratify the [Synod’s] decisions.”

In other words, the Synod is really nothing more than a pulpit from which the Holy Father is able to pronounce “essential matters of doctrine” as if the “God of surprises” has yet to aid His Church in settling such matters, and all of this under the guise of collegiality.

On 13 March 2013, a star was born…

This dog and pony show is precisely what we witnessed last week as Pope Francis forced the Synod’s stamp upon the abominable Midterm Report of October 13.

Incidentally, those who believe that the final Relatio somehow represents a corrective that has effectively rendered the Midterm Report little more than a bitter memory are sadly mistaken. We’ll review that document later, but for now, let’s continue to focus on the pope’s closing address to the Synod.

While the weak-kneed among us are hailing the closing address as an occasion wherein Pope Francis somehow defended the sacred deposit of Christian doctrine (which, by the way, is his solemn obligation), the truth is he did nothing of the sort.

What the pope really did was equivocate on the matter while pointing a finger of disgust at those who clearly recognize that there are no “essential matters of doctrine” up for questioning (aka Catholics).

Pope Francis said:

One, a temptation to hostile inflexibility, that is, wanting to close oneself within the written word, (the letter) and not allowing oneself to be surprised by God, by the God of surprises, (the spirit); within the law, within the certitude of what we know and not of what we still need to learn and to achieve. From the time of Christ, it is the temptation of the zealous, of the scrupulous, of the solicitous and of the so-called – today – “traditionalists” and also of the intellectuals.

Get that? Those who have “certitude” in the “written word” (read: the “essential matters of doctrine” that have been taught with unfailing consistency throughout the centuries) not only lack “flexibility;” such persons are indeed “hostile!”

Those people have a name, of course, and it is a very dirty one in this pope’s mind, “traditionalist.”

And toward what exactly are those rascally traditionalists (aka Catholics) hostile?

Well, toward “God” himself; the same who has many wonderful surprises to reveal if only we will allow it!

This is what passes for a pope “defending the faith” to some. Amazing. For such individuals the bar hasn’t simply been lowered, it has been buried.

Among other “temptations” listed by Pope Francis, was this gem:

The temptation to neglect the “depositum fidei,” not thinking of themselves as guardians but as owners or masters; or, on the other hand, the temptation to neglect reality, making use of meticulous language and a language of smoothing to say so many things and to say nothing! They call them “byzantinisms,” I think, these things…

What we have here is a pope publicly denigrating the Martyrs and the great ecumenical councils that respectively died and labored to convey the depositum fidei in “meticulous language;” the only language worthy of being passed down to future generations so that they too may come to know and to love God in truth, ordering their lives well upon His Holy Law.

And this as if beatifying Paul VI wasn’t thumb-in-the-eye of the Communion of Saints enough.

In any case, the pope went about describing a total of five “temptations,” any number of which were communicated in what he must imagine is the clever use of metaphors, but which ultimately end up meaning pretty much whatever the reader wants it to mean (as opposed to that damnable habit of speaking in the “meticulous language” of those whose “yes” means, yes, and whose “no” means, no).

The Bishop of Rome summed up his litany thus:

Dear brothers and sisters, the temptations must not frighten or disconcert us, or even discourage us, because no disciple is greater than his master; so if Jesus Himself was tempted – and even called Beelzebul (cf. Mt 12:24) – His disciples should not expect better treatment.

Let’s be clear, Jesus was never tempted from within as are those delinquents with crosier and mitre who speak of the doctrine of the faith as if it were but a lump of clay that is constantly shaped by the “God of surprises,” when in truth they seek only to mold the Church in their own image and likeness.

Pope Francis cavalierly, if not predictably, went on to credit the chicanery of the Synodal proceedings to the neo-modernists’ pet unstoppable force; “the spirits,” a close cousin of the “God of surprises.”

Personally I would be very worried and saddened if it were not for these temptations and these animated discussions; this movement of the spirits, as St Ignatius called it (Spiritual Exercises, 6), if all were in a state of agreement, or silent in a false and quietist peace.

Indeed, what a terrible tragedy it would be for the bishops to gather with the Successor of Peter as if all were in agreement as to the “essential matters of doctrine,” in which case there would no blessed reason for the Synod to convene in the first place.

I could continue pointing to the arsenic laced throughout the Holy Father’s address but will spare both myself and you, dear reader, the agony.

Let it suffice to say that Pope Francis ended the Synod, not by doing that which the Vicar of Christ is solemnly obligated to do, defend the Holy Catholic Faith and her children; rather, he simply made it rather clear (for those with ears to hear, anyway) that he has no intention whatsoever of doing so at any point in the foreseeable future (divine intervention notwithstanding).

In some large measure, we can thank Paul VI for this mess, and therefore can only marvel at both the fittingness, and the sheer arrogance, of the decision to beatify this destroyer of the Church of dreadful memory at the Synod’s conclusion.

Well played, Satan, well played.

CMTV: Consistency in hypocrisy

20. October, 2014Blog Post234 comments

CMTV HypocrisyIn a blog post published on Saturday, I voiced my disagreement with those who said that Michael Voris, in light of his “Breaking News” video reporting on Cardinal Burke’s comments about “the pope harming the Church,” is in some way “seeing the light.”

Well, I hate to say I… nah, to hell with the formalities, I told ya so.

As some of you have already noticed, the above referenced CMTV video has since been deleted. The question is, why has it been removed?  There aren’t all that many possible answers…

Could it be that Michael has decided that Cardinal Burke’s comments aren’t really newsworthy, or perhaps even true, and much less newsworthy enough to have merited leaving the dinner table in order to file a report from St. Peter’s Square at midnight Rome time?

No, that doesn’t make any sense. Any time a highly placed Cardinal speaks thus of the pope, and even publicly calls on him to reaffirm doctrine, it’s newsworthy. Furthermore, everyone with a pulse knows that Cardinal Burke’s comments are true.

Did Cardinal Burke ask for it to be removed?

Not a chance; His Eminence’s comments have been widely reported and are irretrievably part of the public record. Beyond that, let’s be honest, CMTV isn’t that influential.

In all likelihood, the video was removed because the operation’s “quasi-internal menace” (mentioned in my post on Saturday) decided that doing so is more palatable than manning up and admitting to his mistakes.

How so?

Apparently he came to realize that the chickens that he hatched earlier this year when he penned the infamous “CMTV Manifesto” (the same that he subsequently managed to compel Michael Voris to adopt) bashing so-called “traditionalists” like Christopher Ferrara, Michael Matt and John Vennari by name (for the high crime of directly addressing the pope’s assaults against our Holy Catholic faith) had come home to roost thanks to that video, and those chickens were backing him into a corner.

You see, in order to be consistent, the menace who tells Michael what he can report (not to mention who his friends are) would have to insist that Cardinal Burke himself be branded a “spiritual pornographer,” and therefore CMTV would have no choice but to advise ordinary Catholics to avoid reading Cardinal Burke in order to protect their faith.

Well, that wouldn’t do, of course. Cardinal Burke doesn’t deserve such calumnous treatment as this.

What to do then?

Delete the video, embrace the hypocrisy, and hope for the best!

And just to make sure everyone knows how high the road upon which CMTV travels (read, in order to confirm the sheer magnanimity of the menace in his own mind) make sure Michael issues a new statement strictly condemning any commentary “denigrating the Vicar of Christ;” you know, like the entirely factual comments made by Cardinal Burke.

Oh well, the CMTV brain trust has every right to morph their entire operation into a circus act that no one can take seriously if they so choose, but I for one think it’s a damned shame to witness what was once a hard hitting defender of the Catholic faith; one that put truth before everything else, being castrated by thousands of paper cuts (green paper, that is).

It could be that true defender of the Faith once again, but in order for this to happen the resident menace would have to dig deep in order to find the wherewithal to apologize to Michael (and others) for having been such a tremendous horse’s ass by, among other things, presuming to tie strings to his support of CMTV. He would then perhaps find it in his heart to willingly take on the only role he is truly qualified to play in the operation; not that of content writer or “executive producer,” but of check writer alone. PERIOD.

Michael, having been duly relieved of said strings, might just decide to step up at long last to issue the apology that he still owes a number of good people; the same that I called on him to extend in a video that I made last March; a video that, for the record, will not be deleted.

Introducing the “God of surprises”

20. October, 2014Blog Post20 comments

Last Monday, just before the the now infamous Relatio Post Disceptationem was detonated, Pope Francis gave a homily (just by coincidence, don’t you know) about our God being a “God of surprises.”

Matters of timing aside, this isn’t exactly a new theme for Pope Francis.

In his homily of January 20, 2014, one month to the day before Cardinal Kasper was to deliver his reflections at the Extraordinary Consistory in Rome in preparation for the Extraordinary Synod just concluded, the pope had this to say as reported in L’Osservatore Romano:

Pope Francis noted that the two readings “speak to us about about the disposition we should have in the presence of the word of God”; i.e.,“docility”. “Docile to the word of God. The word of God is living. And therefore it comes and says what it wants to say: not what I expect it to say or what I hope it will say or what I want it to say”. The word of God “is free” and it comes as “a surprise, since our God is the God of surprises: he comes and always does new things. He is newness. The Gospel is newness. Revelation is newness.”

In Evangelii Gaudium, the 50,000+ word tome that Cardinal Burke presumably still hasn’t “quite figured out exactly how to describe,” Pope Francis hammered home just how surprising God can be:

He is for ever young and a constant source of newness. The Church never fails to be amazed at “the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God” … . The real newness is the newness which God himself mysteriously brings about and inspires, provokes, guides and accompanies in a thousand ways … At the same time, today’s vast and rapid cultural changes demand that we constantly seek ways of expressing unchanging truths in a language which brings out their abiding newness.

Indeed, so surprising is this God of… ahem… “ours,” that the word “new” appears in Evangelii Gaudium some 200 times! I highly recommend, for those of you who can stomach it, to reread the document with the Synod’s scandalous Midterm Report in mind.

Clearly, the nonsense found in the Relatio is in perfect keeping with the modernist mindset of the current  pope.

Come to think of it, isn’t amazing just how often this “God of surprises” tends to share Pope Francis’ ideas and opinions?

God of surprises



Michael Voris sees the light? Not so fast…

18. October, 2014Blog Post94 comments

Voris lightI have to disagree with those who, after watching the video below, (like our friend Mundabor whose work I admire) have said that Michael Voris is beginning to see the light.

Michael Voris is a lot of things, stupid isn’t one of them.

In spite of whatever his thoughts may be about me, I have no doubts about the man’s Catholic wherewithal; he has never been a fan of Pope Francis. The reality of the dreadful situation in the Church under this pope has been plain to him practically from day one, and that is what makes his unwillingness to directly address the havoc this pope is deliberately creating so entirely frustrating, especially in light of his gratuitous (albeit forced by a quasi-internal menace) attacks upon those who are willing to take the bullets that come from doing so.

(For the record, when Michael extends the apology that is due, I am certain said persons will quickly accept it!)

All of this said, the video below contains nothing more than a report detailing what Cardinal Burke said. That’s it. Michael Voris didn’t endorse His Eminence’s sentiments and make them his own (even though I have no doubt that they are in concert with his own).

In short, Michael Voris has done, and is doing, some great work. There is much for which he deserves credit. The video below, while well done enough, isn’t one of them. ABC News could issue the same exact report.

As for the Cardinal’s words, don’t get me wrong, I’m delighted to hear them, but I see little reason to focus on the last two weeks alone when in truth this pope has been doing great damage to the Church almost from the very moment he hit the balcony at St. Peter’s. He’s a veritable one man wrecking ball squarely aimed at the fundamental doctrines of the Holy Catholic faith, and the longer those with a public voice, be that person a Prince of the Church or a regular guy with a notable apostolate, the more souls will be deceived and the worse off all of us will be.

“Why do you persecute me?”

18. October, 2014Blog Post28 comments

Pope Francis Attends Mass For The Possession Of Saint Paul BasilicaA couple of thoughts and predictions, mostly relative to the Extraordinary Synod…


There has been a lot of talk about “gradualism” over the last two weeks, and in the lead up to next year’s Synod we’re going to see how it really works:

Several weeks ago I wrote, “One might see in all of this the Hegelian Dialectic in action: Kasper has provided the thesis, the outrage that followed serves as the antithesis; now all that remains is for the Synod to deliver the synthesis.”

Strike that. I obviously underestimated the Bergoglian faction’s cunning.

In spite of what the final Relatio says, the Relatio Post Disceptationem (the Extraordinary Synod’s Midterm Report) has effectively become the new thesis, and as next year’s Ordinary Synod approaches the points of view of many bishops will gradually move in its direction; toward something that looks quite a bit like the former thesis turned synthesis.

Bergoglian Retribution

Pope Francis will close the Extraordinary Synod by extending words of deep gratitude to the bishops for their hard work and openness to frank dialogue. He may perhaps even make a little joke and flash a “humble” grin, but make no mistake; this is no laughing matter, neither for the pope nor for those men who stood up in opposition to his agenda of “mercy.”

Watch for the Bergoglian Retribution to unfold over the next year as his foes (read: defenders of the Catholic faith no matter how lukewarm) are duly compensated for their offense.

How he does this may not be public nor immediately obvious, and while his retributive injustice may not include every last name on his hit list, rest assured he will make examples of enough of them that the others will get the message.

The Final Relatio

The destructive power of the Relatio Post Disceptationem will immediately be felt as the final Relatio is published and evaluated.

For my part, I intend to read it as I try to read all things; namely, through the lens of our Catholic faith.

Others, however, will undoubtedly, even if unconsciously, read it through the lens of the Midterm Report, and will thus fail to give due note to those portions of the document that signal the bishops’ collective willingness to accept the false notion that one can separate doctrine from discipline and still remain faithful to Our Lord and the mission of the Church.

This is exactly what I expect of the final Relatio; a pathetic mishmash of qualified statements, contradictions, along with a healthy dose of pseudosacral homopoetic prose that only the Relatio Post Disceptationem could make look acceptable.

Son of the Church

Over the next couple of weeks I fully expect at least one papal defender in the neo-Catholic media to remind us, “Pope Francis said he’s a son of the Church.”


Over the first six months of Francis’ papacy, we were bombarded with a near endless stream of stories courtesy of the media, both secular and Catholic, highlighting the unprecedented humility of the current pope.

It was clear to me then, and is even more obvious now, that the Vatican PR machine was engaged in a program of propaganda (otherwise known as “humbleganda”) that makes Pravda under Nikita Khrushchev look like a bunch of rank amateurs.

In spite of all of the manufactured tales and pre-arranged photo-ops that purported to give the world an “inside look” at the Argentinian man-about-the-barrios-dutifully-come-to-Rome, I think it’s safe to say that we are currently living under what is perhaps the least humble and most self-centered, narcissistic, micro-managing pontificate the Church has witnessed in several centuries.

Why do you persecute me?   

There can be no question whatsoever at this point, at least in the minds of men of good will, that the primary instigator and Generalissimo of the internal assault against our Holy Catholic Faith, not just as it concerns the proceedings of the last two weeks in Rome, but in general, is none other than the pope.

Let’s not mince words as to what this assault entails; it is nothing less reprehensible than the scourging of the Body of Christ.

As such, the words that Our Blessed Lord spoke to Saul seem to apply quite aptly to the current Bishop of Rome, “Jorge, Jorge, why do you persecute me?”

One wonders just how much more damage (and he has already done plenty) Pope Francis will do before the terrible chastisement that is his pontificate mercifully comes to an end.

1959 Revisited

16. October, 2014Blog Post95 comments

Francis XXIIIThis just in: Pope Francis had no idea that the Relatio was going to the media; in fact, the poor Pontiff was entirely unaware of its contents. And if you believe that, please, send me a postcard from Lalaland; I hear it’s beautiful this time of year.

Seriously folks, we’ve seen this movie before; back in 1959, January 25th to be exact.

Pope John XXIII, while celebrating Holy Mass at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, with seventeen cardinals present, announced his plan to convene the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. Unbeknownst to the stunned clerics at the time, media outlets around the world had already broken news of the Council’s calling. In fact, Roman cab drivers knew about the Council even before they did.

As a result, any intentions the cardinals may have had about consulting with the Holy Father (that is, after all, their role) about the relative wisdom of such a convocation absent the presence of a doctrinal crisis were effectively put to rest; by the time they left the church building, it was already too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

A similar thing took place on Monday with the publication of the Synod’s Relatio.

Fr. Lombardi can obfuscate and deny all he wants, but I don’t believe for a moment that the same pope who fawned over Cardinal Kasper’s presentation given at the Consistory of February 2014, almost as if he had written the text himself (and for all intents and purposes he may as well have) somehow lost his handle on the proceedings.

From the very first days of his pontificate, Pope Francis has been channeling his inner John XXIII; almost to the point of appearing to live out a secret little dream of being an updated version of the “Good Pope John.”

From his down to earth “every man” persona all the way to his new found plumpness, Francis gives every impression of imagining that he is the next great reformer of the Catholic Church after the model of he who opened the windows of St. Peter’s thereby allowing the modernist winds to blow about the sanctuary at will.

If I were a betting man, I’d wager that Pope Francis not only knew very well the contents of the Relatio prior to its release to the worldwide media, he insisted that it be so released prior to sharing it with the Synod participants themselves.

Otherwise, the humble Bishop of Rome, the same who has no problem dictating such papal details as his living quarters, modes of transportation, and even the kind of passport he carries, would have denounced these goings on. He has not for the simple reason that they have gone, thus far, according to his very own plan.

In any case, whether or not I am correct, an appreciable amount of damage has most certainly been done.

The Relatio has not only ratcheted up global expectations, it has effectively guaranteed that those expectations will be met in local churches the world over.

You see, by greeting the travesty of Monday, October 13th with silence, Pope Francis has given every self-respecting modernist a veritable wink-and-nod, and you can bet your favorite Neo-Pelagian rosary that none of them missed it. This is far more than they ever needed in order to feel entirely justified in carrying out their own gay-friendly, adultery-embracing, mission of mercy.

That said, no matter how many Cardinal Burke’s come forward in the days ahead, short of divine intervention there is no scenario by which Pope Francis is just going to quietly allow authentic Catholic doctrine and discipline to derail his mission to build upon the “profound and serene” theology that was dispensed from the mouth of his proxy Cardinal Kasper back in February.

The only questions that remain concern how he will go about enforcing his will on the Church, and whether or not Our Lord will allow it.

Synodal Ebola: Dr. Weigel to the rescue!

15. October, 2014Blog Post54 comments

WeigelBelow 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.


Latin? No. Pseudosacral homopoetic prose? Hells yeah!

14. October, 2014Blog Post50 comments

Synod - who are they to judgeIn addition to the outright abominations put forth in the Synod’s already infamous Midterm Report, there are numerous flowery, and ultimately meaningless, musings such as the following:

The Gospel of the family, while it shines in the witness of many families who live coherently their fidelity to the sacrament, with their mature fruits of authentic daily sanctity must also nurture those seeds that are yet to mature, and must care for those trees that have dried up and wish not to be neglected.

The only way I can think to classify this particular style of writing, knowing that it emanated from an all-male committee of clerics, is to say that it is nothing more than pseudosacral homopoetic prose; an especially annoying symptom of the undeniable feminization of the Church Militant that began at Vatican II.

The bishops who authored this sewage are precisely the product of that roguish council wherein it was deemed expedient for churchmen to focus, not on combating the errors that threaten the citizens of this fallen world redeemed and ruled by Christ the King who reigns victorious over all things, but on entering into consultative dialogue with every miscreant that inhabits the fairytale land they invented wherein “all things should be related to man as its center and crown.” (cf Gaudium et Spes)

Is it any wonder this same body of eunuchs has produced in the place of sacred Magisterium what is perhaps more properly understood as putrid Pornisterium such as:

Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community …  Are our communities capable of … accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony? … Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.

Exactly what kinds of “gifts” and “qualities” are properly recognized as belonging specifically to homosexuals as opposed to any other person?

Synodal Directions: Open can; release worms, witness destruction.

How is this ludicrous statement any different than saying, “Adults who are sexually attracted to small children have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community … Are our communities capable of accepting and valuing their sexual desires?”

And why in God’s name “must” it be noted that homosexuals lend “precious support” to their gay den mates? Says who?

Ramblings such as these are so utterly devoid of even the appearance of truth that they merit comment mainly just for the sheer sport of it. Play ball!

Look, the wheels didn’t come off the cart on Monday; they’ve been off for five decades. The Synod is simply doing exactly what I had hoped it would do; namely, it is howling like a wolf, and in so doing hopefully helping the ignorant and the stubborn alike come to terms with the reality of the crisis at hand.

This longed-for awakening of the masses isn’t going to happen overnight, but fast approaching is the day of reckoning wherein each and every one who calls himself Catholic is going to have to stand up in the face of the Bergoglian revolt and be counted as either with Our Lord, or with Generalissimo Humilde and his cadre of militant modernists.

Cardinal Burke is standing up, and I fully expect him to do so all the more in the weeks and months ahead.

In an interview with Catholic World Report, His Emnence said:

The debate on these questions has been going forward now for almost nine months, especially in the secular media but also through the speeches and interviews of Cardinal Walter Kasper and others who support his position. The faithful and their good shepherds are looking to the Vicar of Christ for the confirmation of the Catholic faith and practice regarding marriage which is the first cell of the life of the Church …In my judgment, such a statement is long overdue.

Pope Francis has already weighed in loudly and clearly on Cardinal Kasper’s “profound and serene theology,” and that, of course, is one of the primary reasons why the Fraternity of Finocchi are so boldly proclaiming their wicked ideas.
As an aside, the clerical enemies of the Church that are driving the current debate have been around for a very long time. They were most certainly crawling on their bellies in the shadows of Rome at the time of Pope St. Pius X, even if not in such number and rank as they exist today.
Who can imagine for even a moment this truly Holy Father sitting silent as the bishops publicly set about calling into question the immutable doctrines of the faith as they are today?
The indisputable fact of the matter is that Pope Francis is not only silently allowing this travesty to unfold, he is actively encouraging it.
One wonders if the so-called “conservative” voices in Catholic media, the same who have a long track record of publicly revering Cardinal Burke even as they refuse to acknowledge the tremendous damage being done to the Church at the hands of Pope Francis, will now be willing to emulate His Eminence in issuing their own public call for a “long overdue” papal statement reaffirming Catholic faith and practice.
Surely that isn’t too much to ask, is it?