Catechism of the Catholic Church (675)

'Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.' ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church (675)

Wednesday, 7 December 2016

Cardinal Napier: Let Conscience Reign Supreme!

Who would have thought dispensing with 2,000 years 

of faith, law and practice could be so very easy?

Is King Henry VIII owed a huge apology? 

Cardinal Napier publicly states that it is "nearly impossible" for Pope Francis to answer 'Yes' or 'No' to the Dubia. The reason stated is that you cannot legislate for the internal forum. Within the internal forum, he contends that God and conscience reign supreme since discernment involves conscience more than law. The dubia questions, to remind ourselves, are as follows:

1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the sacrament of penance and thus to admit to holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person more uxorio without fulfilling the conditions provided for by Familiaris Consortio, 84, and subsequently reaffirmed by Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, 34, and Sacramentum Caritatis, 29. Can the expression “in certain cases” found in Note 351 (305) of the exhortation Amoris Laetitia be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live more uxorio?
2. After the publication of the post-synodal exhortation Amoris Laetitia (304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 79, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?
3. After Amoris Laetitia (301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (Matthew 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, “Declaration,” June 24, 2000)?
4. After the affirmations of Amoris Laetitia (302) on “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,” does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 81, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which “circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice”?
5. After Amoris Laetitia (303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical Veritatis Splendor, 56, based on sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?

However, Cardinal Napier's tweet does not do the Dubia justice at all. Here is why:

Question 2 is asking whether there exist absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and whether these are binding without exception. This has nothing to do, either with the internal forum or with conscience, certainly not subjective conscience unformed by the Church. This is asking a simple question as to whether objective moral norms even exist, whether these norms are binding on all without exception. Basically: Does the moral law exist? Does it apply to all of us?

Similarly, question 3 follows naturally on from this to ask whether - in all cases - committing adultery is always wrong and gravely sinful.  Again, this has nothing to do with the internal forum or the conscience of the would-be communicant. Does the sixth commandment still apply to humanity or is it all relative to each person? This is what is meant by objective situation of grave sin. Does the moral law exist? Does it apply to all of us?

Likewise, question 4 follows naturally on to ask whether  “circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility” can ever transform an evil act into a good or defensible act. Again, can intentions or circumstances make an evil choice into a good or excusable one. This is asking: Does the moral law exist? Does it apply to all of us?

Question 5 is (ironically for Cardinal Napier) asking whether a "creative interpretation" of the role of conscience can ever be used to justify sin or authorize or legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms. Can a creative interpretation of conscience make the violation of the objective moral law justifiable?  Does the moral law exist? Does it apply to all of us?


Only in question 1 of the dubia could it reasonably be argued from perspective of a pastor that it is "nearly impossible" for the Pope to answer due to an appeal to the subjective discernment that may take place in the internal forum and to 'the supremacy of conscience' therein. This is the only question that directly concerns not in the first instance the objective moral law only, but the Church's constant teaching and practice

The question is directed at a specific situation concerning the divorced and remarried and not to the divorced and remarried generally, but to those divorced and remarried in a new union who are not committed to living in continence and who continue sexual activity in a manner which Christ's teaching holds to be adultery, thereby violating the sixth commandment in an objective manner. Here, a nuanced attitude of 'discernment' and a 'creative interpretation' of conscience cannot readily be applied. 

Indeed, it implies a certain discernment that a pastor might make of a couple's situation as to the repentance (or conversely, its absence) which is required in order for Absolution even to be granted. This, indeed, requires an examination of conscience, informed by the Church's teaching, for the penitent(s) and an application of the objective moral law and objective moral norms binding on all people, regardless of their subjective situation, to their actions.

Please feel free to correct me, but it is in the light of this that it is asked whether those who 'continue to live as husband and wife' may be granted access to the Sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion. It is therefore asked whether the notorious footnote permits unrepentant adulterers with no intention of ceasing gravely sinful activity may henceforth receive both Absolution without repentance and Holy Communion while making no break at all with their sinful activity. Is an unrepentant adulterer in Communion with Christ? Is adultery now sacntioned by the Catholic Church? Does the objective moral law exist? Is it binding on all? My friends, these are not difficult questions - not even question 1 - for Pope Francis to answer. Far from nearly impossible, they are simple. The answers are withheld for reasons known to the Pope, but they have nothing to do with the supremacy of conscience and nothing to do with the internal forum, unless the internal forum is simply to become the Church's official means of aiding and abetting, or 'accompanying' unrepentant adulterers on their journey to eternal perdition.

Now the idea that the Pope cannot answer these questions because of the supreme role of conscience and the internal forum is shown up for what it is. Complete rubbish! Either Cardinal Napier needs to go back to the seminary or to catechism class or he hasn't read the dubia and therefore speaks in ignorance of its contents. There is another option, that Cardinal Napier is being dishonest, but I'd rather think that this was not the case. I'd rather he was confused, but this option doesn't instill me with confidence in the Hierarchy either. Human conscience is bound to the moral law. The moral law is unchanging and its violation is objective, regardless of the subjective situation in which it is either upheld or violated.

Sorry Your Eminence, but there is no good reason - not one - why the Pope cannot answer the dubia, unless he wishes to permit great confusion in the Church for a specific reason, known only to him, or wishes confusion to flourish in order that the Church's constant teaching and practice may be altered in an underhand manner that is not faithful to the teachings of Christ, Her Founder.


Monday, 5 December 2016

New Revised Editions of Timeless Classics (By Papal Decree, 2016)

A very different image of St Thomas emerges
Summa Theologica by St Thomas Aquinas 
(RRP £19.99)

To place our purpose within proper limits, we first endeavor to investigate the nature and extent of this sacred doctrine.

Concerning this there are ten points of inquiry:

Primo, de necessitate huius doctrinae.
(1) Whether it is necessary?

Secundo, utrum sit scientia.
(2) Whether it is a science?

Tertio, utrum sit una vel plures.
(3) Whether it is one or many?

Quarto, utrum sit speculativa vel practica.
(4) Whether it is speculative or practical?

Quinto, de comparatione eius ad alias scientias.
(5) How it is compared with other sciences?

Sexto, utrum sit sapientia.
(6) Whether it is the same as wisdom?

Septimo, quid sit subiectum eius.
(7) Whether God is its subject-matter?

Octavo, utrum sit argumentativa.
(8) Whether it is a matter of argument?

Nono, utrum uti debeat metaphoricis vel symbolicis locutionibus.
(9) Whether it rightly employs metaphors and similes?

Decimo, utrum Scriptura sacra huius doctrinae sit secundum plures sensus exponenda.
(10) Whether the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine may be expounded in different senses?

1. Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?

Come to think of it, I can't be arsed with this.  So I'm off to have gin and tonic.

Objection 1: You 'can't be arsed' with this? What kind of scholastic philosopher are you? And you a Doctor of the Church? Isn't there more to life than simple pleasures like relaxation and having a G and T?

Objection 2:  Haven't you got anything to say about sacred doctrine and the moral law, God, the nature of the universe, man's final destiny? Well? Can't you even tell us briefly? Yes or no?

On the contrary.  Listen my friend, I don't give binary answers to abstract questions!

Reply to Objection 1: Who are you to judge? Have you not discerned the matter and the times? Haven't you realised that this is the Francis pontificate and these things are just not considered important anymore? Consider if you will the flux of life and see within it that black and white is simply unhelpful. Shades of grey, my friend. That's what you're lacking. Do you have psychological issues or something?

Reply to Objection 2: Listen my friend, you're questions were very relevant until 2013, but we're in a new era now. If the Pope can't give binary answers to abstract questions I don't consider that I have to either. Catch my drift? Besides, it really depends on what you mean by such terms as 'sacred' and 'doctrine'. These terms are a little archaic. Don't be a doctor of the law! And don't be rigid!

I answer that this is all a bit too much for me at the moment. You know full well yourself that there are some times in life when, quite simply, alcohol is the answer. This is the Francis pontificate. This is one of those times. Everything I had written in the first edition I had considered compared to the love of God as straw. Despite describing Amoris Laetitia as 'Thomistic' he is proving to the Church that he considers my works to be as straw as well. Binary answers to abstract questions are out. Fleeting trivialities and the dictatorship of relativism are in. So let's just leave it there shall we?


A Catechism of Christian Doctrine (Penny Catechism)
(RRP: £3.95)

1. Who made you?
Do we really have to go there? Well, I know that Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, Cardinal Daneels and Cardinal Kasper helped, there was a group of them, but I said to them, "No, no! Don't go vote canvassing for me!I don't want it! But if you insist - . And the rest is history. They got their man."

2. Why did God make you?
I find this question unhelpful. There are more important matters, more urgent issues. One must discern the flow of life. However, don't be afraid of surprises, because I have the humility and the ambition to act audaciously, boldly in carrying out a programme of radical reform within the Church, whose loyal son I remain. It's the Communists who think like Christians, after all.

3. To whose image and likeness did God make you?
Cardinal Schonborn's interpretation is the correct one.

4. Is this likeness to God in your body or your soul?
I don't give binary answers to abstract questions.

5. How is your soul like to God?
This is beautiful. Beautiful! In fraternity!

6. What do you mean when you say your soul is immortal?
What I mean is that dialogue is the key. Always dialogue. Forward. Always forward.

7. Of what must you take most care, your body or your soul?
I don't give binary answers to abstract questions. Shall we leave it there? May I recommend instead my new exhortation Amoris Laetitia? But ask Cardinal Schonborn for the correct interpretation because his is the right one.

With Christ or Against Christ: There is Nothing In Between

The quote in black is from His Holiness.

The quote in white is from Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Today sees also the release of an incredible (as in unbelievable) account of current affairs within the Church seen from the unique perspective of Fr Antonio Spadaro.  I really don't know where to start with the Spadaro interview. A response from One Peter Five can be read here. But in Spadaro, we are reassured that the sock puppetry continues apace. As goes Fr Spadaro's Twitter accounts so goes the Church.

Saturday, 3 December 2016

Fidel and Francis

Like me, I expect readers had a confusing time in the wake of Fidel Castro's death. Why the tributes? Why the praise? Why almost adulation? It served as a timely reminder that there is so much the Left and those who serve its cause - and let's face it, they are legion - are ready to excuse just about any crime as long as the cause itself is still venerated and maintained intact.

The very name 'Fidel' means 'faithful' - and the baptised Fidel Castro was a baptised member of the Faithful. In adulthood, he became faithful to something else, like many of his contemporaries, faithful to Communism or at least a variety of socialism without compromise. With total commitment to his cause - which was no longer the Catholic Faith - he did everything he possibly could to ensure that Cuba would be an outpost of Communism - attempting to make it a beacon to the world, or, dare I say it, a 'lighthouse' of social justice and his often confusing view of what social justice is.

Unsurprisingly and depressingly, it is under-reported by the mainstream media how far short of utopian his reign over Cuba was and I was generally aghast at how little condemnation there was of the Castro regime's dictatorial, oppressive and often murderous stranglehold over the Cuban people by the Left and I have been struggling to come to terms with what role morality - which even the Left champions at times - plays in the ideology espoused in so many variants in that part of the political spectrum.

For all of his flaws, Corbyn hasn't killed anyone as far as we know
So in this country, the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, though not alone, lauded Castro, sidelining his crimes with such dismissive asides as 'for all his flaws...' as if Castro simply had a rude, abrupt manner or forgot to put the toothpaste lid back on.

A man is at liberty to mourn and be sorrowful for the death of anyone - be he good or bad - but one might argue that for the Pope to publicly state his own mourning or sorrow for the death of a dictator who oppressed Catholics and had a load of people shot for no good reason might be a little excessive, or at least profoundly insensitive to Castro's many victims, some of whose families managed to escape this island of understated tyranny on life rafts. Newspapers, mainstream media outlets lauded the man, quietly overlooking so much objective evil and suffering he caused as if these 'excesses' were completely understandable, eminently forgivable and all part and parcel of a complex personality that ultimately wished to establish a nation based upon precepts that are inherently good.

What was so frightening was that morality itself, the Moral Law itself, so often, in different ways upheld by the Left crumbled before this 'giant of a man' of the Left, this colossus who brought a country to its knees to serve his wayward ideology. Just as the wicked melt like wax before the Presence of the Lord, so too does morality itself seem to melt away before some figures in history. For example, to say nothing of torture, political imprisonment, restriction of various freedoms and liberties, the modern Left upholds the dignity - or at least some form of 'equality' - for homosexuals and preaches 'tolerance' to those of different sexual orientations. Castro didn't. He publicly decried them as scumbags, regarded them as filth, but to the Left this was completely excusable. The Left today look to democracy to convince the masses of the benefits of their cause. Generally, they are said to uphold democratic institutions and seek to attain power through the ballot box. 'Democracy itself is a good', they say, but then if democracy brings you Donald Trump, it 'must be reviewed'. There was nothing democratic about Castro's regime.

To my mind, with Fidel and others, it seems to be due to more than a simple cult of personality, but points to a deeper, more mysterious reality about evil and the evil men do. Jesus attracts in the Gospels. People come to Him, but so too does the Devil attract people, in subtle ways, appealing to different instincts in man, Christ for the better, the Devil for worse. The crowd chant "Barabbas!" when asked whom to release. He is chosen to be freed instead of Christ. It would be better for Truth to be crucified than to be liberated and venerated. Perhaps someone can help me, but Barabbas is described in some translations as simply 'a robber' and in others as some form of revolutionary or insurrectionist.

This Barabbas - his name means - 'son of the father' but he is not regarded as 'the Son of the Father'. That is Jesus. We can only speculate as to the spiritual paternity of the man Barabbas, but he is not from God. Jesus is sent from God and is God. So clearly there is nothing new about a 'popularist', a revolutionary with disdain for the moral law winning a measure of popular acclaim while trampling on true justice. Despite mass murder, Che Guevara, just like Fidel Castro, still holds a very affectionate, lofty and iconic influence in today's world but increasingly I read over these words with disbelief: Despite. Mass. Murder.

And one wonders, just how much evil does a man have to do in the service of his cause - even if this cause retains enduring popularity and acclaim from a variety of people across the world - to receive public rebuke, rather than recognition or applause, or for those who share that cause in some way to distance themselves from that man in such a way that they say, 'Despite sharing some of our beliefs, what he did was inexcusable and we don't want to be associated with him at all. You can't just have your enemies murdered and oppress your people for not sharing your view of things. Is it really that hard for the Left to say, 'This guy took things way too far!'

Is it willful collective blindness, or is it something else entirely? Is it blindness or the toleration or acceptance or even attraction to evil? Do they really admire the man Castro for his perception of social justice, or does the heart of men simply roll over like a puppy enjoying cuddles when objective evil itself is glamourised or for a time triumphs? Why was Guantanamo criticised internationally (personally, I understand why!) but Castro's 'excesses' are all part of a complex package of beliefs that are considered laudable? Is it because Cuba was regarded as an 'underdog'? So that makes it okay? I am certain it is more than this. History records that Hitler and Stalin were bad men of their generation, but also records that they were incredibly popular men of their generation.

St Francis Xavier: Got a bit carried away just as the Saints always have done.

The Church, too, is vulnerable to precisely the fanaticism or extremism that Pope Francis decries in religions when another bomb goes off, usually in the name of Islam. But the greatest danger isn't a radical devotion to Christ and His Law. The greatest danger is of surrendering Christ's Teachings in favour of those of another. The greatest danger is of replacing God with the idolatry of an ideology, or the idol of the self. God's Law is perfect. His commandments are just. Real devotion to God and His Church, is meant to produce Saints, exemplars of moral virtue and heroic men and women of charity who, like St Francis of Xavier, take Christ so seriously that they will traverse the ends of the Earth for Him to make converts for Him so that men may know God. Make no mistake, out of love, the Saints 'got carried away'. The Saints had and have long periods of 'excesses', which is why they are deemed by the world to be extreme. They are extreme, but they are extremely holy, extremely virtuous, extremely loving and extremely zealous for souls. The love of the Saints like the love of God is not ordinary. It's extraordinary. It's extreme. But St Francis Xavier would not feel at ease within the Bergoglian paradigm shift and would find much of it 'solemn nonsense'.

What His Holiness does not seem to appreciate is that to many it is shocking that he himself seems to display an attraction or sympathy with misguided Communists and socialist despots for whom human rights are as easily discarded as the objective moral law which they have upended or twisted to suit their own ideology.

In this shadow, it is bewildering to see men like Cardinal Raymond Burke and Cardinal Robert Sarah either removed from office or isolated within office, seemingly because they are seen to steadfastly uphold both the moral law and Church law because it begins to be seen that the moral law is in some way a threat, or an encumbrance or, more terrifyingly, something that, like within Communism and Marxist-Leninist theory, must be made to serve the cause rather than something that must be obeyed in its own right because it is from God. He who serves and honours the moral law serves and honours the Lord.

Ultimately, what Communism and other human ideologies, like Nazism or Peronist Populism, tend to do is render God and His Law useful (or redundant) as long as they serve 'our common purpose' rather than Someone or something under Whom or which we humbly submit our hearts and minds and beliefs. The Pope does not seem to notice that the more he makes Jesus Christ, His Teachings and the Church's Teachings 'peripheral' to his pontificate, on marriage, on human sexuality, on Holy Communion and the Sacraments and other issues too, the more he presents himself as the leader of something to which he himself can be described as founder and chief. But it is not Catholicism as we know it. Catholicism itself is being made to submit to it. That is at the heart of the dubia crisis and that, presumably, is at the heart of why it is going unanswered still.

Under Pope Francis, Catholicism is being made - along with the Cross of Christ, along with the divine law which is its standard bearer - subject to an alien ideology, one that reveals its incompatibility with Jesus Christ precisely because He Himself is made subject to it. When Christ decreases be sure that someone else is increasing. So when Cardinal Burke or another Cardinal says that Christ taught on X, Y, or Z therefore the Church would do well to follow Him, the Pope says that what Christ taught on X, Y or Z is all very well and good, but let's do something else because my take on these matters is informed by something else. 

What His Holiness and his advisers do not seem to appreciate is that figures like Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Caffara, Cardinal Brandmuller and Cardinal Meisner seek clarity so that the Church may be a beacon, a lighthouse, of morality and true justice and true mercy, the City, that City set upon a hill. Every time the Pope or his advisers and associates deride or attack those who confront him with Catholic Truth - doctrine held by Catholics always, everywhere and for all time - and seek His Holiness to confirm his brethren in it, he makes Christ's Teachings less relevant. He makes Christ smaller, Christ Himself is being diminished. Christ, in this scenario must 'decrease' so that he, His Holiness, or at least the private beliefs of His Holiness can 'increase'.

Throughout the last nearly four years, Pope Francis has had very little good to say about the moral law. That is very worrying indeed. It gives the impression that he doesn't much like it. Those who have upheld it and those who have proclaimed fearlessly the reality of an objective moral law to which we, mankind, upon whose hearts it is inscribed, are subject, the Author of which is Almighty God, have faced ridicule and insult as 'rigid' or worse, even psychologically disturbed. His reductive vision of mercy - with added justice for those he deems not to possess it - may be very appealing to many in the Church today at a time when to live the Church's Teachings is perhaps more challenging than it has been for a long time.

Nevertheless, the popularity gained by such ambiguity does not guarantee fidelity to Christ. The Church should be wary of one of Her sons asking Her people to place to one side their old 'rigid' ideas on morality and the laws and standards to which they were hitherto bound. The Church should be very wary of one of Her sons seeking to make the moral law subject to himself, rather than to refer himself to the objective moral law, to divine law and to the Church's law and who says or implies, 'These laws no longer apply'. So too should the Church be very wary of one of Her sons who says that Christ taught this, but I say to you something else, who gives the impression that what God has revealed no longer matters, someone who increases in stature, only to make Christ and His Teachings smaller, who filters Christ's Teachings through a prism of subjective thought that doesn't reflect clearly at all what he is called to teach.

Such a man may offend against the moral law that he has adapted to himself in pushing ahead his personal ideas and feel justified in everything he is doing, while winning popular acclamation, ignoring the appeals of those who resist his new teaching. Instead of criticism, he may find himself on the receiving end of passing rewards granted to tyrants who in every age win popularity, or iconic status for a time as they reshape society, even morality itself around themselves, their excesses excused because the world would rather see evil flourish than Truth be liberated.

Yes, the Church and all Her Faithful children should be wary of such a figure, of just such a man. Why? Because it would one day become apparent that such a man - you can be sure - may not do all that Fidel Castro did, nor believe precisely what Fidel Castro believed, nor live as Fidel Castro lived, nor kill as Fidel Castro killed, but will have more in common with Fidel Castro the Communist than he does with Jesus Christ the Lord. To Him be glory and honour, praise and thanksgiving and empire, forever and ever.  To all of his predecessors, the dubia posed by the four Cardinals, far from being a threat or an act of treachery, or anything sinister, would be a golden, glorious opportunity to proclaim once more the timeless faith and practise of the One True Church.

When Mgr Pinto says there is 'continuity' in papal teaching on this issue, quite obviously there is not. Only to Pope Francis and those around him, it seems, is the dubia considered a 'curveball' or something to dodge or disregard, to ignore or ridicule. All of his predecessors who were loyal sons of Holy Mother Church, would have been, if embarrassed that things had reached the stage where they had to be asked the questions, delighted to give an answer and proclaim the unblemished Law of God! Either the Pope and the Bishops and Cardinals submit themselves to God and His Law or they make God and His Law, make Jesus Christ Himself, subservient to themselves and their own post-Christian set of beliefs. The first option is called Catholicism, the second, whatever else it is, might just as well be Communism.

'Lighthouse of Mercy'

I was always under the impression that lighthouses served a particularly important function in answering distress calls from seafarers, those in choppy waters, storms and in crises. Answering distress calls be they in the form of petitions for help or written appeals, it seems, is not His Holiness's forte. So I'm not sure Mgr Pio Pinto's description of Pope Francis as a 'lighthouse of mercy' is very apt. Unless by 'mercy' we mean, permitting seafarers to perish in confusion amid the roaring waves of this pontificate.

Friday, 2 December 2016

Unpacking the Latest Pinto Propaganda Production

Four Cardinals face the music...

Thanks to One Peter Five for the following excerpts from the latest Pinto propaganda release...

"They have written to the pope and that is correct and legitimate. [Writing letters is not illegal...I guess!]. But, after there did not come [from the pope] an answer after a few weeks, they published the case. [The Pope is a busy man, he might have gotten round to it...someday!] That is a slap in the face. [The four cardinals are traitors!] The pope can choose to take counsel with his cardinals; but that is something different from imposing upon him a counsel. [They're only cardinals! Pope can do what he wants, it's his Church, so there!]
They are not a council with any kind of competences. [They're only cardinals!] On the contrary, they as cardinals are bound in a higher degree to be loyal to the pope. [But they are traitors!] He stands for the gift of unity, the charisma of Peter. [They are schismatics!] That is where the cardinals have to support him, and not hinder him. [They are schismatics and traitors!] By what authority do the authors of the letter act? On the fact that they are cardinals? That is not sufficient. [They're only cardinals!] Please. Of course they can write to the pope and send him their questions,  [Writing letters is not illegal], I suppose! but to oblige him to answer [to expect a reply?! Treacherous madness!] and to publish the case is another matter. [Informing the Faithful that the Pope has not replied?! The faithful have no rights to know! Traitors!]
The absolute majority of the first synod and a two-thirds majority in the second, in which the members of the bishops’ conferences were present, have exactly approved these theses that now the four cardinals contest. [Apart from the most controversial elements of Amoris Laetitia which were rejected by the Synod Fathers, but still, Church history is something we write! Not something history itself records! Because the Pope says so!].

I am not the type who can threaten (people). [I am a nice guy! Trust me on this!] To write something like this is quite a journalistic license and is not serious. [You published what I said and now I look silly! Bastards!] What I have said is, rather: Francis is a lighthouse of mercy and has infinite patience. [The Pope is just like Jesus. Moreover, he is Jesus re-enfleshed on earth!]

For him, it is about agreeing, not about forcing. [He is a nice guy too. Trust me on this!] It was a serious act that these four have published their letter. [Traitors!] But to think that he would remove their cardinalate – no. [The Pope is a nice guy! Trust me on this!] I do not believe that he will do that. [No guarantee he won't mind, because he's unpredictable, some might say volatile. But he's such a nice man!] In itself, as pope, he could do such a thing. [He could do it. So don't make him go red boiling with rage.] The way I know Francis, he will not do it. [But he probably won't because he is a nice guy. Such a nice, sweet man!]
This is crazy. [The cardinals are crazy! What have they done!?] Such a council of cardinals does not exist that could hold the pope accountable. [They're only cardinals!] The task of the cardinals is to help the pope in the exercise of his office – and not to obstruct him or to give him precepts. [They are traitors! Damn their eyes!] And this is a fact: [I need an invented 'fact' to support my argument] Francis is not only in full accordance with the teaching, but also with all of his predecessors in the 20th century, and that was a Golden Age with excellent popes – starting with Pius X. [See! There's no problem here! Dubia schmoobia! In spite of a four year moratorium on any concrete evidence to support my argument, just...just...BELIEVE!!]
I am shocked, especially about the gesture of Meisner. [Traitor!] Meisner was a great bishop of an important diocese [Cologne]  [Traitor!] – how sad that he now with this action puts a shadow upon his history.  [Traitor!] Meisner, a great spiritual leader! [I thought he was a company man! But now? Traitor!] That he would arrive at that, I did not expect. [Traitor!] He was very close to John Paul II and Benedict, and he knows that Benedict XVI and Francis are in full agreement about the analysis and the conclusions when it comes to the question of marriage. [See! There's no problem here! Dubia schmoobia! In spite of a four year moratorium on any concrete evidence to support my argument, just...just...BELIEVE!!And Burke – we have worked together. [And I thought I knew you. But you turned on me. Traitor!] He seemed to me to be an amiable person. [Yes, even I thought you were a nice guy! Well, kind of. But now...Traitor!] Now I would ask him: Your Eminence, why did you do that? [You've broken my heart. You've let the Pope down, you've let me down. Face it, you've let yourself down. You treacherous bastard! Shut it, 'Cardinal Nobody' and don't try and foil our darstardly, wicked masonic plan!]"

Thursday, 1 December 2016

The Next Great Papal PR Move?

The heat is on for His Holiness with Cardinals in hot but by no means trivial pursuit.


I think Spadaro, Rosica, Ivereigh, Burke (Greg not Raymond) and Co. should consider presenting His Holiness with a novel way - a unique plan - to get out of the Dubian missile crisis. We're into 'signs and wonders' territory now. Such things could get His Holiness out of this hole. It is not so much that he needs a 'miracle' - after all he is the Pope and all - but more that a 'miracle' would really help bury any 'doubts' held by the Catholic community...

So here's a possible plan to end all plans to end the Dubian crisis:

Step 1: Issue a press release that the Pope is really ill, dangerously so. Issue a call to prayer for the Pope. The Catholic world prays. Concern grows to a crescendo. Laity, priests, bishops, cardinals, The Tablet, the UN, the World Bank, Leonardo Di Caprio. Everybody's concerned! 
Step 2: Condition is worsening. Pilgrims gather at St Peter's Square. Fr Antonio Spadaro goes on Twitter to issue that terrible news that the Pope is 'pronounced' 'dead' after battling bravely against illness. Live stream footage of weeping and mourning. Tributes, flowers, wailing, gnashing of teeth etc. 'A little more time, he could have reformed the Church and made it great again!'

Spadaro's sock puppets. Now vacating their Twitter accounts.

Step 3: 'Three days later', or alternatively at his 'funeral', Fr Spardaro or one of his less intelligent sock puppets goes back onto Twitter with a picture of the Pope having emerged from the jaws of death unscathed, having been 'pronounced' 'dead' only to be raised to life by God (for who else could have been responsible for this marvel), thus ending any 'doubts' that this man is truly the anointed one of the God of Surprises - and a Catholic Pope to boot - to bring the Church up to date with modern times and send Christ's teachings into the trash can.
His Eminence did reply but his reply amounted to a rather deft deflection of the question. Questions nowadays are very threatening. Popes have a phobia of them and this phobia of answering questions extends also to some Cardinals.

If you can develop this theme that the Pope is 'just like Jesus Christ', I'm telling you this could work like a dream, or a dystopian nightmare, especially in this age of scruples-lite papal press spokespersons, sycophantic advisers and the internationally renowned and mysterious power of the Jesuits.

Not all Jesuits are shady. But some are.

Who would dare challenge a man who has risen from the dead, his authority or legitimacy? Who would question him? The whole world would bow down before such a man - 'He's just like / better than / more wonderful than Jesus!' and even the faith of the elect of God would be put to the greatest of tests. Of course, His Holiness would never go along with such an audacious, ambitious, nay humble proposal, but in desperate times, some of his advisors could have been asked to come up with ideas that are 'outside the box' since just attacking the four Cardinals in public makes them look like a bunch of bullies with zero intelligible arguments.

One jokes but clearly Austen Ivereigh is already comparing those who question the Pope to be like the Pharisees who questioned Jesus Christ our Lord with 'trick questions'.

Are you happy now Cardinals! See you not what you have done??!

What better way to counter the dubia and make everyone forget about those five doubts than to remove all doubt and replace that doubt with the certainty that Pope Francis is so much like Jesus Christ that God does 'miracles' for him to ensure the whole Church 'believes'. Yes, a Church that could say 'Pope is so much like Jesus he kind of is Jesus or even better' would make the post-dubia Church a whole new battleground with a whole new set of rules for the Church, for 'saving the planet', politics, economics and for those who would be deceived. 

But really. One shouldn't give the Pope's entourage any ideas. Maybe they should just stick to saying... 

'We're got more Cardinals on our side than you so there! Losers! Because mercy.'

I nicked this idea from a blogpost from a lady who is said to live in Ireland going by the first name of 'Maria', so its only right to H/T her. Only fair. Credit where it's due.

Trivial Pursuit (Papal Edition, 2016)

In addition to Eccles's fun Christmas gifts, may I add Trivial Pursuit (Papal Edition, 2016).

All 1000 question cards for this limited edition game are exactly the same, to ensure the questions 
are answered. It is said that at least four Cardinals - though it could be more in time - wish to play this fun game for the family of God with His Holiness over the season of Christmastide...perhaps beyond!


The questions must be answered, but calmly, moving forward in a relaxed manner.

Any participant boiling with rage is to be removed from the game for a breather to re-enter the game when he is not boiling with rage.

All the questions must be answered in order to get 'all the pies' and 'get home'.

Age range of respondents to questions: Between 79 to 80 years old.

Number of participants: 7 in private, 5 in public, but could be more.

Warning: Despite the limited number of questions, this game can nevertheless take a very long time to complete. Best to leave yourself a year or two to get the answers after many delaying tactics, but that's all part of the fun, eh? No?

Limited Edition Price: Legitimacy, but is also of eternal value.

Wednesday, 30 November 2016

The Papal Privilege and Erroneous Messages

One can't help noticing...

From various sources it was reported that the responses to the Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia were as follows:

Australian Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane, who attended the 2015 Synod of Bishops on the family, said the document “is full of contemplative vistas but also down-to-earth practical wisdom which could come only from long pastoral experience of spouses and their families. It moves constantly between the ideal and the real.”
Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin called Amoris Laetitia an “encyclopedic document and, like all encyclopedic documents, much of its most valuable content runs the risk of being bypassed by a preoccupation with one or two of its aspects. It is not just a collection of separated chapters,” Archbishop Martin said in a statement. “There is a unifying thread: The Gospel of the family is challenging and demanding, but … with the grace of God and his mercy, is attainable and fulfilling, enriching and worthwhile.”
Bishop Richard J. Malone said the exhortation invites the Church to heal wounds that families experience because of poverty, human trafficking, immigration, domestic violence and pornography. We also have room to grow and improve and we welcome the Pope’s encouragement for the renewed witness to the truth and beauty of marriage of a more tender closeness and families who are experiencing real difficulties.”

These three prelates are among the others who have condemned perceived errors within the Maria Divine Mercy messages. The Church deserves consistency from Her prelates. It is widely reported that the messages contained within Maria Divine Mercy contain errors which could confuse the faithful and lead the Faithful astray.

In Bishop Andreas Laun, auxiliary bishop of Salzburg, we at least have some consistency in as much as he added his name to a statement signed by other bishops and cardinals defending the Magisterium of the Catholic Church on the Sacraments. Quite possibly, there are other prelates who have defended the Magisterium but who, listed here, condemned Maria Divine Mercy's messages prophesying apostasy, schism and an all out war on Catholic Truth and those who uphold it from the Pope and members of the Hierarchy. Since that signature, however, even this Bishop has fallen silent. Perhaps now he will speak in support of the four Cardinals who seek clarification from the Pope? Right now, every bishop matters! These four Cardinals deserve support because they are acting in the service of Christ and His Church.

Unfortunately, members of the Sacred Hierarchy are making Maria Divine Mercy's prophecies look pretty good and attractive as a navigational tool and spiritual support during this apocalyptic crisis in the Church. The intrinsic power of the MDM messages is not that the messages are believable. It is that the messages were unbelievable but that events make them appear credible, one recent example being the messages that 'many will be stripped of their titles'. Do the Pope and those who offer him advice really wish to fulfill these strange messages and give them credibility? I've always maintained that the greatest promoters of the MDM messages are the Pope and the Hierarchy who at many and varied times confirm the basic premises of these messages by their actions and words.

So on MDM the three prelates listed above acted as follows:

Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, issued a statement condemning Maria Divine Mercy stating that her messages have 'no ecclesiastical approval and many of the texts are in contradiction with Catholic Theology'. His condemnation is binding for the whole Church since he is the Ordinary of the 'seer'.

Archbishop Mark Coleridge of Brisbane upon examination has found the messages to be fraudulent and corrosive of the Christian faith.

Bishop Richard. J. Malone, apostolic administrator for the Diocese of Portland has issued a letter forbidding dissemination of MDM messages in the Diocese.

Of course, two wrongs do not make a right, but it seems just a little unjust to permit error to flourish without any reproach in a papal document while condemning error in the messages of a lay person. The whole Church deserves consistency and Truth. The papal privilege is not the privilege to spread error without censure or at least requests for clarification from the competent authority. If the competent authority is equipped enough to condemn error when it is perceived in the messages of members of the laity, then it, too, is competent and equipped enough to condemn or at least raise questions over errors perceived in the messages - especially Exhortations - of a Pope.

Unfortunately, instead of raising questions, these prelates have publicly lauded the papal document that is much more divisive and more damaging to the unity of the Church than those promoted by the MDM crowd. This document is that which is being forced upon the Faithful with full ecclesiastical approval, containing errors and suggestions which meet the descriptions of 'corrosive of the Christian faith' issued by Archbishop Mark Coleridge or the description, 'in contradiction with Catholic Theology', issued by Archbishop Diarmuid Martin. While the competent authority to judge MDM has no qualms with condemning those messages out right in the strongest possible terms, instead of applying the same just criteria to the Exhortation, they have done the opposite and publicly praised it. They must be consistent!

The Exhortation of desolation: Free from error?

If the Truth, divine truth, the Deposit of Faith is not safeguarded, proclaimed and defended by the Pope supported by the Sacred Hierarchy of the Holy Catholic Church, it is a scandal to the Faithful. If the Faithful are not fed Truth by the Sacred Hierarchy and if error is allowed to flourish within the highest ranks of the Hierarchy then can such men really be surprised if Catholics go looking for Truth to be fed by visionaries be they true or false, because at least, in terms of teaching people the most basic truths about sin, salvation and the Sacraments, these people have something substantial to offer? At least these people actually preach a messages which positively believes in the supernatural, not a merely humanistic philosophy like that emanating from Rome. Yes, be they true prophets or false prophets, the greatest recruiters for self-proclaimed prophets are not the prophets and visionaries themselves, but those who fawn over Papal documents containing serious errors and scandalous assertions concerning faith and morals, laud them and then recommend them to the Faithful and who then say nothing in defense of the just when the few just men say that serious errors are contained therein.

In order for the message of the Gospel to be credible, error must be opposed and challenged, whether it comes from the laity, or comes from the Pope himself, perhaps with the due deference with which that Office demands, but nevertheless, opposed. The Pope himself is not served by obsequious prelates who overlook elements within his documents which could cause the little ones to stumble. Are such men working in the service of the Truth Himself if they do not speak up? The most controversial element of the MDM messages is that Pope Francis is the False Prophet of Revelation working within the Church to dismantle it and create a new One World Religion which forgets Jesus Christ and condones sin. If the Pope and Cardinals and Bishops want to lay those messages to rest, they have the power to do just that. They can turn around, repent, stop working towards the destruction of Christian morals and worship and serve God instead of promoting error and condoning or excusing sin in the service of God's chief adversary. Quite frankly, just condemning MDM seems a little pointless, if you're content to just go ahead and fulfill the general content of the messages yourself regardless. I assume that having condemned these apocalyptic messages, these prelates have actually read them?

Such behaviour only serves to break down trust in the Sacred Hierarchy only for that trust to go towards others who have not been appointed as Shepherds of the Faithful, but who are deemed by those faithful trustworthy enough to feed them, lest they starve to death in a spiritual wasteland! It costs the ecclesiastical careers of prelates nothing to condemn error when it is perceived in the work of a member of the laity. That is easy pickings indeed. In terms of prestige, title, ecclesiastical career, rank, status, privilege, it may cost the four Cardinals everything, if not their lives to bring to the Faithful's attention errors contained within Amoris Laetitia on which they only seek clarity. Canon law allows them to do what they have done. Justice demands that what they have done is not belittled or condemned, since they act in good faith. Their motives are not sinister nor should they be presumed as such without firm, concrete evidence. They simply ask Pope Francis to clarify that which appears at odds with the perennial faith within his own document. It is no threat to the Supreme Pontiff's authority for them to do that. Simply answering the dubia will put many minds at rest and confirm his brethren in that faith which he has received to be defended and proclaimed.

May Bishops and Cardinals be bold and come forward in defense of the One True Faith and those remaining Cardinals and Bishops who are brave enough to defend it when it seems to be at risk of violation by the Successor of St Peter.

Tuesday, 29 November 2016

From Propaganda to Psychological Warfare: The Spiralling Descent of the Francis Pontificate

What is really fascinating about today's threat from Mgr Pio Pinto is what it says about him and those for whom he so obviously speaks.

As it so happens, Mgr Pinto is named in a website claiming to reveal members of the Hierarchy who are Freemasons - I have no idea whether the site is credible or the list true.

However, it is quite an allegation that someone has made in the public domain so would he care to answer a 'Yes' or 'No' to the question: 'Are you a Freemason?' Or has he already answered the question 'in a round about kind of way' throughout his ecclesiastical career? For clear answers of a 'yes/no' variety seem to be such a rarity from Rome nowadays.

But I digress: Much is revealed about Mgr Pio Pinto's psychology (or the psychology of whomever put him up to it) when he issues such threats against Cardinal Burke and the four Cardinals in general, claiming that they could be stripped of their cardinalate should they continue their questioning of the Pope or 'move forward' with their promise to take further action.

An alleged list of members of the Sacred Hierarchy of the Church who are Freemasons.

Mgr Pinto - or whoever put him up to it - quite shamelessly assumes that these Cardinals are motivated by the rank and authority, title, privilege and status to which they have risen in the Church. Why would he or whoever put him up to it do that or think in that way?

'Drop it! Be silent! Otherwise the Pope will publicly humiliate you and see your rank and status taken from you!'


Well, quite naturally - though such naked ambition is always unbecoming of a prelate, for I believe His Holiness called them 'ladder climbers' or 'careerist bishops' or some similar insult, it does happen that people angle themselves for promotion within the Church and prize that above the important things - like remaining faithful to the Truth of Christ and service of Him in His Holy Church for the salvation of souls.

But clearly the one who says...

'Drop it! Be silent! Otherwise the Pope will publicly humiliate you and see your rank and status taken from you!'

...believes that Cardinals Burke, Meisner, Caffara and Brandmuller fall into this category of prelate, thinking that, because that is (quite clearly) the way in which he - or they - or whoever put him up to it thinks, that such is how the faithful four think.

I don't obviously know the hearts and souls of Cardinals Burke, Meisner, Caffara and Brandmuller, but I just imagine that somebody has made a massive miscalculation and into the bargain has revealed the real intentions of the heart of either himself or whoever has put him up to it.

Benedict XVI saw authority in the Church as a gift to be used in the service of Christ, in the service of Truth, in the service of God's people, in the service of the Church. Benedict XVI did not see the papacy - even the papacy - with its extraordinary privileges in terms of power, but pointed to the Crucified Christ who emptied Himself out of love for us.

Only those who believe that their position and vocation in the Church is about power and influence for its own sake would assert the withdrawal of rank and privilege as a real threat to those who question the Pope on faith and morals, when teaching on faith and morals is his very duty as Supreme Teacher of the Faithful. Further, if this were being considered by the Supreme Pontiff who is, according to Cardinal Hummes, ever serene and 'moving forward' then not only is this a threat that could - for even Popes are prone to human error and poor judgement - backfire catastrophically, but one that he may be forced to act on because the threat has not been taken terribly seriously. If the threat is seen in terms of 'God or Nothing' then it is a threat that will be treated as something to be taken in the stride of those who are faithful to Christ, something which history documents has been costly to ecclesiastical careers, yes even within the Church. St Athanasius, after all, was exiled for standing firm!

Quite simply if these four Cardinals or 'persons' really believe that remaining faithful to the Truth of Christ come what may - then this threat, sorrowful as its consequences would be for these men - would not be deemed terribly important. That's quite a gamble when you are dealing with men who, unlike the Pope's mischievous minions, take Jesus Christ very seriously indeed. I just don't see how the Pope could still retain his waning reputation as merciful or pastoral or humble or fraternal or'in the spirit of dialogue or whatever kind of vacuous, platitudinous phrase is currently circulating in the papal lexicon, should he decide to press that button.

Creating martyrs - real Christian martyrs - may not be such a wise move by His Holiness. He should perhaps consider the implications of such a move before permitting his Dean of the Roman Rota to publicly suggest such an idea, or, having permitted it to occur, restrain him, perhaps even publicly. The Pope has more to lose in the public eye than do those who he could sanction and publicly strip of their rank and status. But I suppose that the more silent is the Pope on the dubia, the more questions arise over his pontificate. the less he is able to maintain unity in the Church under Peter, the more anxious will become those who wish to, by hook or crook, disavow the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

Yes, the way is being paved for apostasy in Rome. No, many people, including some bishops and Cardinals, will not remain silent in the face of evil. There are real consequences to threats. There are real consequences to actions. Those consequences will not - I suspect - leave Pope Francis looking good any longer. Having asked unanswered questions, these men have simply brought the issue to the assembly because they believe - rightly - that it is the Church's business to know. Thank God for these wise and brave men who - I believe - are not ashamed of Christ, nor afraid to 'suffer humiliation for the sake of the Name'!

Hummes Propaganda Unpacked

'The pope could be wounded [were he not a living Saint] by the motives [referring hearers not to the questions but to the motives themselves, which he hereby casts as suspect'] which led these four persons to go so far [they are extreme/extremists] as to want to [they are not doing this out of duty but out of disobedient self-will] correct him [how dare they!!!?]. But, he is very calm, relaxed, and moves forward [our leader is strong and fearless in the face of this outrage]. He knows which is the right path [he is so wise he is beyond questioning by a competent authority] that one has to [he and we are obliged to] follow. And the College of Cardinals is with him, without any larger problems [he has overwhelming, total support among the Cardinals]. The whole College of Cardinals is with him [he has overwhelming, total support among the Cardinals. It is necessary to repeat this because that's the message he wants to get through, even though he can provide no evidence for this].'

Monday, 28 November 2016

The War on 'Rigid Morality' is a War on Morality

There is now a wealth of online news material of stories covering the Pope's comments on 'rigid morality', 'rigid Catholics', 'rigid seminarians', 'rigid priests', the latest (but doubtless not the last) being his 'Q and A'' with La Civiltà Cattolica.

As an aside, every interview His Holiness does now only creates more mystery concerning the unanswered dubia. It is strange how His Holiness can happily conduct a 'Q and A' with a Jesuit journal but not with his four Cardinals.

The funny thing is that when we deal with 'rigid' 'morality', if you just take out the adjective preceding the noun the headlines and quotes are more accurate to the truth of what the Pope is really saying.

So for example, we have...

'Pope despairs of current politics and rigid seminary morality'

becomes simply...

'Pope despairs of current politics and seminary morality'.

Pope on families: 'A rigid morality will not do'.

becomes simply...

Pope on families: 'Morality will not do'.

Am I being unfair? The definition of morality is:

(n) principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

Does removing the adjective do an injustice to His Holiness? I think not. The principles themselves are either right or wrong. The principle, 'Direct abortion is always wrong in all circumstances' is according to the Church, right. If I contradict it for any reason, I've gone against the principle to which I say I hold to be true.

Nice Mr Castro: Not believed to have held onto a 'rigid' morality

See, the argument posed by His Holiness is no longer even as nuanced as 'the application of morality is too rigid'. You know, 'confessors, go easy on your penitents'. That's not it at all. The problem is deeper than that. It is morality itself being challenged and being ushered into the firing line. Believing what Catholics have always believed about God, death, judgment, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, the moral law, prayer, the Sacraments, the Catechism - everything that is Catholic - is now being challenged. Yet we either believe what Catholics have always believed or we don't. We can't believe it 99.9% and be called authentic. We either take Christ at His word and believe He is God, He is trustworthy and worthy of our love and fidelity or we do not. We are either for Christ or against Him. We cannot be both at the same time.

The subtle and repeated appeal to lose 'rigidity' in the life of the Church is not an appeal merely to a 'merciful' approach to pastoral issues. Or even a merciful overlooking of the faults in ourselves and others. I've never experienced a confessor who was anything but merciful. This idea, surely, is a bi-product or a far deeper objection to Catholic Truth. It would seem rather to be an appeal to relativism and subjectivism towards the whole life of the Church, including, but not only including, Her morality - one that echoes the world's own rejection of Catholicism because it allows itself to be guided by moral absolutes. In terms of papal teaching, well, I don't know my history of the Popes that well, but the rejection of moral absolutes has got to be something of a first.

Principles, we know, are by their nature fixed and inflexible, unless you are a man of no or few principles. It is a given that morality - if it is to be sincerely held - be rigid. If a set of morals are going to be credible and possess integrity that cannot yield to objection or defiance. So, 'rigid' becomes an unnecessary (but highly effective) word employed to cast a negative light on those who hold onto morality itself.

Quite simply, a morality that is elastic and has no rigid quality is no morality at all. It is either something of substance or its empty. It means literally nothing. So remember, the next time you hear the Pope talk about 'rigid morality' or 'rigidity' in general don't take it personally. His war is not on 'rigidity' or even those who hold onto their morality rigidly. His war is on morality itself. And the author of Christian morality, and indeed natural law, is Almighty God. Good luck with that war, Your Holiness.

Joseph Goebbels: Master of Nazi propaganda and not believed to have held onto a 'rigid' morality

However, in terms of propaganda - and His Holiness and his entourage seem masters of it - what it looks like he is trying to do is to make Catholics feel terribly bad for holding onto very reasonable, sound Catholic teachings and values (Catholic morality) and make Catholics look bad for holding onto very reasonable Catholic teachings and values (Catholic morality). Having cast the first rigid stone, His Holiness in turn gets to look good in comparison to those who would apply morality or uphold it in a rigid manner. And it is propaganda, quite clearly, because only propaganda is something so intellectually unconvincing that it has to be repeated since 2013 to filter through to the minds of its hearers. As Joseph Goebbels said:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

The cold, harsh 'rigid' reality - for unlike Popes, reality isn't subject to alteration - is that Pope Francis is by a very subtle linguistic technique really telling the Church - that is the Body of the Faithful, no matter what their rank - to consider giving up Catholicism and embrace something else. Whether it is amoralism or nihilism or atheism or some other -ism right now that doesn't really matter. It is what we are being asked to renounce that matters. Emptied of its capacity to be 'rigid' morality as even a concept loses its original power. It either is or it is not. Morality is either binding on us or it is not. We either believe what we Catholics believe and strive to live what we believe or we don't believe what we Catholics believe and we don't strive to live what we believe. We are either Christians in truth or we 'reject the inner power of it'.

No wonder His Holiness looks so much more comfortable in the presence of left wing dictators, infamous abortionists, unbelieving celebrities and prominent atheists than a growing number of Cardinals striving to remain faithful to the teaching of Christ. Groucho Marx's quip, 'Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others,' was meant to be a joke! Under this papacy, its a motto.

Do we really have to remind His Holiness that it was just the opposite of a 'rigid' morality or even 'rigid' application of morality that led to the clerical sexual abuse crisis? Do we really think that uppermost in the minds of those clergy who have abused children was the vital importance of the moral law and its strict adherence in each and every situation in their lives as priests or religious brothers? But never mind, all that, eh? Each to their own, eh? As long as they're not rigid. When it comes to morality any position is valid, it would seem, as long as the Pope's utterly confusing perspective on it is not questioned, or, if it is, that it goes unanswered.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” ~ Joseph Goebbels

As news has it, One Peter Five has just posted on the statement by Cardinal Hummes which, in the face on an still unanswered dubia from the four Cardinals is meant clearly to instill a further element of fear into those who seek clarification on and further explanation of Amoris Laetitia from the Pope.

'The pope could be wounded by the motives which led these four persons to go so far as to want to correct him. But, he is very calm, relaxed, and moves forward. He knows which is the right path that one has to follow. And the College of Cardinals is with him, without any larger problems. The whole College of Cardinals is with him.'

Unpack that for propaganda value if you wish. It won't take you long. 'Calm, relaxed and moves forward'? Not boiling with rage then?


Related Posts with Thumbnails