‘N Syncretism

Every time I hear some new little statement from the “Pan-Amazonian Synod,” AKA Project Chaos, the hypocrisy is deafening.

First, a little history on the Jesuits in South America. In the 1700s, they actually built “reductions”, or missions, to protect the indigenous people from slavery, educated them, cared for them, taught them trades, etc. Maintaining the “indigenous culture” was not their focus. Teaching the indigenous to be self-sufficient, educated and, oh, Christian was their goal. Leaving them poor, enslaved and heathen was not. Due to political problems back in Spain and Portugal, though, they were overrun and driven out. Until then, they were THE missionary force in South America. All others paled in comparison.

These days, the Protestants are pretty much following the same model and kicking our collective Catholic behinds in missionary efforts. Catholicism there is in free fall and Protestantism on the rise. Meanwhile, the Jesuits there are so concerned about the indigenous culture that the Protestants are outscoring them on all points. My guess is some of them are even more Catholic than the Jesuits. Sigh.

So, when I hear quotes like this I want to say “Hold up!”

“If everything continues as it was, if we spend our days content that “this is the way things have always been done”, then the gift vanishes, smothered by the ashes of fear and concern for defending the status quo.” 

Of course, this is going to be used as the reason why we need women priests, married priests and a variety of things. “We can’t possibly continue with the way it’s being done, because that won’t bring people to a burning love for God!” But, again, wait! When it comes to indigenous culture, haven’t we’ve been told that we must respect the way it’s always been done in the Amazonian culture first and foremost? Anyone see the hypocrisy there?!?!?! Church tradition bad. Amazonian tradition good. Uh, hello! Does anyone believe in converting pagans anymore??? (Well, besides the Protestants?!) Nope, we’re going straight for the syncretism condemned in Ecclesium Suam.

Dangers

88. But the danger remains. Indeed, the worker in the apostolate is under constant fire. The desire to come together as brothers must not lead to a watering down or whittling away of truth. Our dialogue must not weaken our attachment to our faith. Our apostolate must not make vague compromises concerning the principles which regulate and govern the profession of the Christian faith both in theory and in practice.

An immoderate desire to make peace and sink differences at all costs (irenism and syncretism) is ultimately nothing more than skepticism about the power and content of the Word of God which we desire to preach. The effective apostle is the man who is completely faithful to Christ’s teaching. He alone can remain unaffected by the errors of the world around him, the man who lives his Christian life to the full.

Somehow looking like a member of the One True Church and bringing that faith to the indigenous people has now become proselytizing. It’s insane. Meanwhile, the non-Catholic groups that stole the supposedly old, broken down, Catholic model of looking like what you are, caring for people, educating them and bringing the faith to them while not engaging in syncretism are booming with conversions. Huh. Go figure. I’m sure if they had vocations, they’d be booming too.

Just as I was about to send this to One Mad Dad for editing, I ran across this piece from Fr. Longenecker. I thought it good. In it, he brings up Fr. Martin, SJ, who adheres to the epic failure that is the new Jesuit missionary tactic. I often think about the story Fr. Martin tells of his long time, same-sex “married” friend. All the “building of bridges” hasn’t brought this man out of the same-sex lifestyle. The outcome of the syncretism of his outreach has had the same outcome of the Jesuits’ modern-day missionaries. Sadly, all of these missionaries have ended up looking a lot more like the people they’re supposed to be bringing to the Faith than the other way around. Honestly, those of us trying to keep our kids Catholic know this is what happens. The more you try to look like the rest of society, the more you end up just like it, and it’s a huge tip-off to parents that it’s time to have some concern. There’s a difference between living in the world and being of the world. The Jesuits have lost that logic right along with the Faith. And this synod?  It’s definitely lost that sight, too.

 

 

 

Advertisements

But Does Anyone Accept Cardinal Kasper?

 So, sooooo many things wrong with this.

Cdl Kasper: Laity will ‘not accept’ future pope who doesn’t continue Francis’ legacy

Martin M. Barillas and Pete Baklinski

MADRID, October 1, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – German Cardinal Walter Kasper said that Pope Francis is securing his successor who will carry on his legacy by appointing the majority of cardinals who will vote in the next conclave. He added that if it was possible that a pope was elected who would attempt to erase Francis’ mark upon the Catholic Church, then the people “would not accept him.”

First of all, last time I checked, the job of the Holy Father is not to worry about his legacy. This isn’t a political party, for heaven’s sake.

Next, at last check, only about 10% of Germans are practicing Catholics. Clearly Cardinal Kasper and his ilk don’t know what in THE heck the laity thinks. They’re leaving in droves and the Church in Germany is on the brink of extinction, but yeah, let’s listen to a guy who instituted so much @#$%^ there that people are leaving en masse. “Maybe if we just institute a few more heretical and liberal things, they’ll all come back!” Sure, Cardinal Kasper, sure. Next he’ll be offering pony rides for parishioners. IT HASN’T WORKED! When are they going realize it’s never going to work? It’s like they’re the Joe Bidens of the Catholic Church. “If I just do it one more time!”

“I think that in the next conclave, you cannot choose a pope who is ‘a contrarian.’ The people would not accept him,” said Cardinal Kasper in a Sept. 26 interview (read excerpt of interview below) with Religion Digital’s José Manuel Vidal which took place while the Cardinal was visiting Madrid for a conference on world peace organized by the pacifist Sant’ Egidio movement.

I don’t know. Maybe he’s just missing what’s going on in America. He is pretty far away, after all. He also seemed to have failed to notice that Catholics have always been contrarians of the world.

When asked if Pope Francis has guaranteed his successor by having handpicked the majority of cardinals voting in the next conclave, Kasper replied: “Yes. It gives the impression that with the nominations to the cardinalate that what the Pope wants is to ensure his succession.”

And the rest of us are just going to keep praying that God opens their eyes or closes them. The subtle “Give up. You’ve lost!” message doesn’t work too well for Catholics, as history is shown. We pray and march on.

Cardinal Kasper’s proposal during the 2014 Synod on the Family of admitting civilly ‘remarried’ Catholics who are living in adultery to receive Communion found its way into the synod’s final document. Pope Francis’ 2016 Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia has been interpreted by many bishops from around the world as adopting this proposal in footnote 351. The footnote states in the context of a discussion about the Church’s pastoral response to Catholics living in “irregular” unions that in “certain cases” such Catholics can receive the Church’s “help,” which “can include the help of the sacraments.” The footnote then makes a reference to the Eucharist and confession. Kasper has since asserted that the proper understanding of Francis’ Amoris Laetitia is to allow divorced and “remarried” Catholics to receive Holy Communion.

Well, we’re still waiting for an answer to that good old dubia.

Elsewhere in the interview, Cardinal Kasper acknowledged that neither the Pope nor he fear a schism over questions about the Pope’s theology. Affirming that the pontiff wants to guarantee a successor, Kasper said, “Those who are causing fears [about the schism] are small groups that are openly against the Pope. But you have to know and keep in mind that they are few, very few, although they make a lot of noise through the media. Do not attach any importance to them.”

Wait! What?! So is he saying Austen Ivereigh, Massimo Faggioli, Thomas Rosica and club are openly against the Pope??? Oh, I guess he’s talking about the bulk of the Germans blowing off the Magisterium. Typical. Doesn’t he even realize there’s more going on in the world than them. Of course not.

Translated excerpts from Religion Digital’s interview with Cardinal Kasper:

Religion Digital: You were just with Pope Francis. Is he as strong as ever?

Cardinal Walter Kasper: “Yes, the Pope continues to be quite strong. He has an interior motion that pushes him to continue moving ahead, and he is not afraid of the criticisms that circulate around him, even within the Catholic world. He continues down his path and is quite well, even physically, for a man of 82 years. And the proof is that he works tirelessly.”

Uh, not so sure about that. First of all, you and your fellow German bishops just told the Vatican to buzz off, and the endless name calling, the likes of which I’ve never seen in a Pope, tells a different story. Taking criticism is not exactly his strong suit.

He is not even afraid of a schism, as he just said.

Kasper:”The Pope is not afraid of schism.”

Which is rather sad considering the unity of the Church IS in his job description.

And you?

Kasper: “Nor do I believe that there will be schism. Those who are causing fears are small groups that are openly against the Pope. But you have to know and keep in mind that they are few, very few, although they make a lot of noise through the media. Do not attach any importance to them.”

My guess is America Magazine has probably sent Cardinal Kasper a communique or two by now to pipe down on the schism thing, since that crew has been all about declaring people in schism lately. 

What do you expect from the Amazonia synod?

Kasper: “This Amazonia synod will be very important and meaningful for the churches incarnated in the cultures of that area of the world.”

OK, seriously? Does anyone think Cardinal Kasper cares a thing about the Amazon? It’s just about who he can use to shove this crud or that down everyone’s throat. The thing I find interesting about this synod is that they’re trying to make a play for women deacons. The only thing I can think of is that they think this is the actual land of “Wonder Woman.” Wrong Amazon, Cardinal. It’s a very patriarchal society and leave it to the liberal Europeans to say “You don’t realllllyyyy want that.”

Will the synod approve of giving married men access to the priesthood?

Kasper: “The problem of the lack of vocations in Amazonia is very serious and that issue of the ordination of married men, and others, will depend on the decision and the unanimity of the bishops of the region. The Pope, with his synodal spirit, will put those decisions into motion if there is sufficient consensus among the bishops.”

Again, is Cardinal Kasper the one to ask about recruitment in any area of the Church?  Maybe they could ask some priests who are a tad bit younger? Consensus? It’s interesting to see that he doesn’t actually understand there is a Church outside of Germany. I’m pretty sure Cardinal Kasper’s definition of consensus is a little off. I’m pretty sure his goes something like “We want women priests and married priests so that is ‘sufficient consensus!'”

The German Church will also celebrate a synod with which the Vatican apparently has some problems.

Kasper:”Yes, there are some who have problems with the Vatican. There has always been tension between Germany and Rome. It is something historic, but I can say that at this time that the great majority of the German Church is totally and profoundly in tune with Rome. There is some nervousness around, but I believe that they can be overcome.”

Bahahaha! Did you like the way he flipped that one around? “The Vatican has problems with Germany.” just morphed into “Germany has problems with the Vatican.” It’s not “nervousness”, Cardinal Kasper. It’s disobedience.

With the cardinals at the next consistory, those chosen by Francis will be a majority. Has the Pope therefore guarantee his succession?

Kasper:”Yes. It gives the impression that with the nominations to the cardinalate that what the Pope wants is to ensure his succession.”

Again, sad.

“In what sense?

Kasper: I think that in the next conclave, you cannot choose a pope who is ‘a contrarian.’ The people would not accept him.”

Who are “the people” Cardinal Kasper knows so well? Again, 90% of his own Catholic countrymen don’t listen to him.

Who do you think will succeed Pope Francis?

Kasper: “That is an open question and not applicable.”

Translation: It will not be anyone from that continent down south who “should not tell us too much what we have to do.” LOL! Yeah, that comment shows how in tune Cardinal Kasper is with people.

Are you convinced that, after Francis, there is no turning back?

Kasper:”No, it isn’t possible. The people will not accept it because they want a normal and human Pope, one that is not imperial like those of the past.”

I love how he uses the term “people” when he really means some liberal cardinals. Do you really think he meant to slam Saint Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict XVI? Yeah, I’m kind sure he did, too. He doesn’t give a rip because he think’s he’s got the whole thing sewn up. God has a funny way of knocking down the lofty, though. You’d think a German would get that, but again, it doesn’t seem to be in their nature to learn from history.

Papal Allergies

I try, try, try so hard to ignore papal interviews and tweets, but some days I just can’t. It’s hard with “REALLLLLLYYYY?!?!?” blaring in my brain. I’m just going to paste the whole thing and comment after. Emphasis mine. 

Pope Francis loves nouns but is ‘allergic’ to adjectives

By Jessie Yeung, CNN

 (CNN)The Pope wants us to stop using so many adjectives.

In a speech on Monday to the Dicastery for Communications, the Vatican’s communications authority, Pope Francis urged people not to describe Christianity with qualifiers and adjectives. “We have fallen into the culture of adjectives and adverbs, and we have forgotten the strength of nouns,” he said.

Instead of calling churches “small but authentic,” or trying to distinguish things as “authentically Christian,” he said people should call them simply “Christian.” The term “Christian” is strong and authentic enough as it is, without the need for adjectives, he said.

“I am allergic to those words,” he added.

He pointed to the role of the employees as communications managers, saying their aim should be to “communicate with reality, without sweetening with adjectives or adverbs.” Communication is a kind of beauty, he said — and “beauty manifests itself from the noun itself, without strawberries on the cake.”

Let us learn to call people by their name, as the Lord does with us, and to give up using adjectives.

— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) September 24, 2019 (Note from OMM: This is the tweet I got from Pope Francis that led to this rant)

This was the first time the Pope met the Dicastery since first establishing it in 2015, when he had cited the need for a “rethinking” of the Holy See’s information system in a new age of digital media. He touched on this theme again in his Monday speech, encouraging the Dicastery to “encourage the formation of digital environments in which people communicate.”

Over the years, he has personally embraced these digital platforms — he launched an Instagram account in 2016, and gained a million followers in less than 12 hours. He’s also active on Twitter, and even tweeted out a reminder on Wednesday to “call people by their name, as the Lord does with us, and to give up using adjectives.

Like I tweeted back to him, I could totally get on board with this if we ditch all those evil adjectives, adverbs, and qualifiers attached to nouns. How about “LGBT” and “rigid” first?

The guy definitely needs a heavy dose of Benadryl if adjectives and adverbs are allergens.  He must be suffering greatly! I also think he should have a talk with the guy who said these things! Might help with the allergies and make those in-flight interviews a bit shorter. I’m going to limit it just to the adjectives/adverbs attached to “Catholic” and “Christian”. If I didn’t, the list of adjectives, adverbs and qualifiers could go on forever. I’m sure I missed some.  If you want a lengthier list, go here

Ideological Christians!
Rigid Christians!
Liquid Christian!
Superficial Christians!
Long-faced, mournful funeral Christian!
Sad Christian!
Pickled pepper-faced Christian!
Christians allergic to preaching!
Closed, sad, trapped Christian who is not a free Christian!
Pagan Christian!
Defeated Christian!
Creed-reciting, parrot Christian!
Watered-down faith, weak-hoped Christian!
Pastry-Shop Christians!
Delectable, but not real Christians!
Anesthetised Christian!
Christian hypocrites only interested in their formalities!
Sloth-diseased, acedic Christians!
Catholics, but without enthusiasm, even embittered!
People without light – real downers!
Selfish Christians, out for themselves!
Christians who do not leave space for the grace of God!
Christians with all the paperwork, all the certificates, in order!
Christian bats who prefer the shadows to the light!
Starched Christians!
Christians who are too polite!
Christians who speak of theology calmly over tea!
Catholics who work for personal profit!
Catholics who presented themselves as benefactors of the Church and made money on the side!
Weak-hearted Christians!
Christians in appearance!
Made-up Christians, because when the rain comes, the make-up runs off!
So many ‘apparent Christians,’ collapse at the first temptation!
Christians of appearance!
Dead Christians!
Christians who prefer a spectacle to the silence of the Kingdom of God!
Vain, pageant Christians!
Christians without strength, without fertility!
A Christian out for himself, to serve himself!
Christian with a sad life!
Christians enemies of the Cross of Christ!
Pagans with two strokes of Christian paint, so as to appear like Christians, but pagans nonetheless!
Dark Christians who lead a life of sin!
Christians who are neither light nor dark!
Christians of grey areas on one side first and then the other!
Christians who live for appearances! For vanity!
Peacocks Christians! They strut about like peacocks!
Soap bubble Christian!
Obstinate Christians!
Idolater Christians!
Christian rebels!
Christians with half-and-half a life! A life that is patched, mended, meaningless!
Motionless Christians!
Mummified Christians!
Embalmed, mummy Christians!
Vagabond Christians!
Wanderer Christians!
Labyrinth Christians without a compass!
Stubborn Christians!
Christians who stop half way along their journey!
Half-way Christians!
Non-Christian Christians!
Slightly ‘paganized’ Christians!
Parlour Christians!
Virtual Christians who are not virtuous!
Christians with a grimace!
Lazy Christians!
Christians who do not have the will to go forward!
Stationary Christians!
Etc., Etc., Etc.

-Pope Francis

Wait! What?! Pope Francis said all those things?!  Oh, the Holy Father must be doing all of this just to show us the true meaning of Matthew 7:5. That must be it! Or maybe he’s just trying to build up a tolerance to those allergies!

But seriously, folks…I don’t have a problem with half of these, but isn’t it a tad bit hypocritical to claim to detest what you do regularly? Sometimes it’s just too much for us regular folks (or just plain “folks”?) to take without comment.

Liberals & Human Shields (aka – Children)

If I could remember where I read it, I would give the person credit for pointing this out, so thank you to whoever you are!  “The liberals are using children as human shields.” You hit THE nail on the head.

Think about it.  While it was said about Greta Thunberg, it’s a DISTURBING trend I’m seeing everywhere.

Before I go further, a couple disclaimers: I don’t have anything against children being “activists”, per se.  In fact, we encourage it wholeheartedly in my family.  My kids know that, if they stick their heads up for the truth, they’re likely going to be shot at, so they need to know how to defend the argument. Now, some are chastising Greta’s parents for exploiting her by putting her out in public. I don’t have a problem with them in the least for THAT, since I have no evidence that they are trying to exploit her. I do have other issues with them, though, but that’s not one at this point. I will say that there are many child “activists” who are being completely exploited.  No doubt about it. I’d like to give their parents the tongue lashing of their lives.  However, children can be amazing in the public discourse, and many saints in our Church were just children “out among the wolves.” I’ve also witnessed some pretty awesome kids out there myself.

So where does the “human shield” thing come in?  It’s very clear that this is the new move in the liberal playbook.  Adult liberals throw a kid or vulnerable person out there to promote their liberal agenda, people get in an uproar about said “cause”, and then the liberal adults tell everyone how mean they are for saying one word about it “because they’re kids!!!” Examples? David Hogg, Desmond Napoles, the poor Down Syndrome people in “Drag Syndrome,” etc. Greta is just the latest.  Liberals are using them to promote their agendas of gun control, transgenderism, climate change fear mongering, and even really evil pedophilia, but if you say one word against it, you’re awful because they are children, autistic, down syndrome, etc.  It’s sick. They can’t get people to buy their lame arguments, so they use kids to deflect debate. Sadly, I fear, this is only going to get worse.

Fr. Martin & the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

In case you didn’t see it, Archbishop Chaput sent out a warning in his column today on Fr. James Martin, SJ.  Clearly, Archbishop Chaput has done his homework and researched Fr. Martin and read his book.  Here’s the good Archbishop’s missive here. And then Bishop Paprocki sent out a statement backing Archbishop Chaput’s caution. Even Bishop Stika weighed in on Twitter. I don’t always agree with him on non-theological things but I thank him for this. I expect (or at least hope) more bishops will follow. Lastly, I woke up this morning to find Archbishop Chaput responded to the response.

Now that we’re all caught up, Archbishop Chaput’s caution probably ruined Fr. Martin’s day, so he quickly sent out a reply. I’m going to reply to Father Martin’s reply so you can see even more clearly that Archbishop Chaput was dead on. 

Archbishop Charles Chaput graciously sent me his column today before publication, and I welcome this thoughtful response to my lecture at St. Joseph’s University this week. Here is my response:

Dear Archbishop:

The Peace of Christ!

Many thanks for sending your column ahead of time. I’m sorry that you felt the need to publish it.

There is a way to fix it, Fr. Martin, and I hope you will listen very carefully to Archbishop Chaput, who has clearly been very nice to you and is trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I think my main response is that it’s difficult to respond to critiques that I am “implying” things, when I am assiduous in my writings and talks about not challenging church teaching. I have written clearly about that here, among other places: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/04/06/what-official-church-teaching-homosexuality-responding-commonly-asked-question

Saying you are not challenging Church teaching and then giving a wink and a nod to those that do is kind of the same thing.  Here’s a few instances of you not really doing what you say you do. (Hat tip to LifeSiteNews.) https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/eight-extreme-things-fr.-james-martin-just-said-about-catholics-and

Briefly put, I mean and I’m no theologian, but, you know, for a teaching to be really, um, authoritative it is expected that it will be received by the people of God, by the faithful. So you look at something, like, say, the Assumption…people accept that. They go to the Feast of the Assumption, they believe in the Assumption. It’s received. From what I can tell, in the LGBT community, the teaching that LGBT people must be celibate their entire lives – not just before marriage as it is for most people but their entire lives – has not been received. Now, I say this and people go crazy. And this is simply based on LGBT people that I speak to. Now there are some that believe that – I would say it’s a very small percentage of people, right – but that’s a simple fact. You can say that they don’t agree with it. I would say the teaching therefore has not been received by the community to which it was largely directed. And so the question is, you know, what do we do with that? Now that’s the kind of question to circle back to your original question – that reflection, you know, what do we do with a teaching that has seemingly not been received by the community to which it was directed – is a theological question that bishops and LGBT people need to think about.” – Fr. James Martin, SJ

Church teaching is only authoritative if it is accepted by the faithful?!? Sigh. In other words, he’s saying that if you don’t believe it, then it’s not true. Yeah, no undermining of the faith there.

Why is it so terrible to go to a gay wedding, but it is not terrible to go to a Jewish wedding? You know, let’s say – seriously – if your daughter, let’s say if you decided to convert to Judaism and you married Andy who was Jewish, right, your parents would probably be disappointed, I would assume, you know, or confused, or whatever. But the idea that they couldn’t go or would refuse to go um, it’s very surprising to me. So I think Catholics need to see it in light of that, that it is a different tradition…different belief system than most Catholics are used to…but it’s supporting the person that you love. So it’s very sad to me that people still agonize over this. -Fr. James Martin, SJ

So much to unpack in this one. First, no, you should not go to the wedding of a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic. Now, what Fr. Martin is talking about, it seems, is an apostate to the faith – someone who says they are no longer Catholic and are now part of some other church. It’s a little fuzzier here, so maybe some sort of canonist can weigh in. Next, just in an effort to be clear, the Church does not bind non-Catholics to Canon Law so, of course, the Church recognizes the marriage of two Jews, unless the two Jews are a homosexual couple, because the Church is crystal clear that two men and two women are not proper matter for any marriage.  It is not a marriage because, quite literally, no marriage can truly exist between two people of the same sex. There is only sodomy or masturbation, but the mutual self-giving and marriage of their bodies is absent.  This can never be rectified as in an apostate marrying outside the Church. So, yes, it a terrible thing because you’d be witnessing a union that isn’t a union and can NEVER be under Natural Law or Canon Law.

I always say that LGBT people have more faith than, I think, straight people because of that. I mean imagine you – what you have just described is really interesting, Brandon. You have internalized rejection already. You don’t need to even be told that you’re rejected in the Church, you’ve internalized it and that’s very sad… A lot of the people that Jesus came into contact with did the same thing. Think of like the woman with the hemorrhage, right, who doesn’t even feel worthy to kind of stand up and greet him, she reaches down and touches the hem of the garment; or the Samaritan women, right, who comes to the well at noon in the heat of the day because… we think, she’s been married five times and she’s probably embarrassed. Maybe people didn’t know enough to tell her you’re not welcome to come out at the regular time when other women come; she comes because she is embarrassed and she kinda internalized that and that’s sad. So I hope in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or, you know, soon to be your husband. Why not? What’s the terrible thing? And think of all the people in Church who have all sorts of other things on their conscience…it’s up to the institutional Church I think to make you feel welcome. -Fr. James Martin, SJ

I wonder why Fr. Martin didn’t offer this as proof he fully supports Church teaching and doesn’t seek to challenge it??? It’s never going to be OK for Brandon to kiss his partner in a romantic way, and he will NEVER have a husband. Your “assiduous” statements don’t look so assiduous when you contradict Church teaching repeatedly.

I would tend to agree with you because I would say that there – you could have some uh, hard and fast, and legitimate and reasonable theological objections [to same-sex marriage] in terms of the sacramentality, in terms of uh Biblical…and even though we shouldn’t read the Bible literally – Catholics don’t read the Bible literally – um…but I also think that, for the most part, I do find that there is a very high correlation between people who are against that [same-sex marriage] and people who are in fact homophobic. And so it’s that whole ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ argument, I know it’s not exactly the same, but it reminds me of that in a sense – people say, well I can be against gay marriage and not be homophobic. But then when you hear a lot of people, they sound pretty damn homophobic. And I can say, ‘hate the sin and love the sinner,’ but when you listen to them, there’s no sense of love at all. – Fr. James Martin, SJ

Uh, so is he saying that he’s homophobic or is he saying he’s for re-defining marriage?!?! Geez. Of course, he’ll deny both. But let’s just say that’s true.  If he’s managed to not be “homophobic” but against re-defining marriage, where in the world does he get off saying the rest of the Catholic Church can’t possibly do the same???  

Look at Humanae Vitae. Humanae Vitae is still in effect, and as far as I can tell, the large majority of Western Catholics have made their peace with that. And yet that Church teaching has not changed. And that’s a much older Church teaching. I mean, in the sense that’s – Humanae Vitae’s 1968 and a lot of stuff we’re talking about is, you know, very new. -Fr. James Martin, SJ

You’re going with “It’s outdated and doesn’t apply” argument, Fr. Martin? Yeah, Humanae Vitae is SO Old Testament. All of this crud we’re dealing with now is so new. Really? The world has never dealt with homosexuality? The struggle is actually biblical, Father.

Also, the lecture at St. Joseph’s University this week, which prompted your article, is the same lecture that I presented at the World Meeting of Families in Dublin last year, the text of which was vetted and approved beforehand by the Vatican.

And?  That isn’t really a defense of the points Archbishop Chaput made. The list of tragic speakers at the World Meeting of Families was long and probably why

One of the reasons that I don’t focus on same-sex relations and same-sex marriage, which I know are both impermissible (and immoral) under church teaching, is that LGBT Catholics have heard this repeatedly. Indeed, often that is the only thing that they hear from their church.

The problem is, as shown above, you have indeed suggested, implied, etc., that the Church’s teachings will change. You can almost hear the good old Jesuit “mental reservation”: “…are both impermissible (and immoral) under church teaching as it stands right now.” Sorry. Sometimes you don’t hold your tongue well enough. Your slip is showing. You want to be a savior to same-sex attracted people instead of leading them to the Savior. The Church has said far more and you disparage Her to them.

I’ve only included what could be found in one nice neat place, but if you delved into Fr. Martin’s social media pages, you would find much more evidence of Archbishop Chaput’s points. Fr. Martin consistently highlights groups that completely contradict the Church like Out@StPaul and New Ways Ministry without ever correcting their errors. He’s just hoping you don’t know that.

What I am trying to do instead is encourage Catholics to see LGBT people as more than just sexual beings, to see them in their totality, much as Jesus saw people on the margins, people who were also seen as “other” in his time.

Wow! That’s a stretch, because from where most of us stand, you appear to encourage people to embrace being a slave to their sexual inclinations. Jesus totally went after the people on the margins.  He didn’t, however, leave them there wallowing in their sin. He met them, told them to repent and sin no more, and told them the way was narrow. He didn’t just hang out with them acting as if all was grand with their lives.

I remain grateful for your asking people not to engage in ad hominem attacks, and I appreciate the careful tone of your letter and have always appreciated your kind communications with me.

Thanks again for sending this.

Peace,

Jim

Most attacks are not ad hominem, they are quite substantiated with your own words, “Jim”.

Schism for Dummies

The charges of schism being thrown around are getting a bit ridiculous.  Let’s chat, shall we?

First, what ISN’T schism.

Schism isn’t a dislike for the Holy Father’s leadership style. Schism is not questioning things put forth in a “working document.” Schism is not asking people to pray and fast that the crud put forth in a working document never sees the light of day in any final document proposed by the Church. Schism isn’t asking the Holy Father to make clear the teaching put forth in a document (i.e., the dubia). Schism isn’t wishing the Holy Father would never speak again to reporters on a plane. Schism is not EWTN reporting on Catholic news.  Schism is not Archbishop Vigano putting out his testimony. Schism isn’t even asking the Holy Father to resign. Schism isn’t a critique of how the Vatican or Holy Father is handling the abuse scandal.  Schism isn’t supporting Archbishop Vigano’s request for an investigation into the whole McCarrick debacle.

I’ve seen some ridiculous half-wit “theologians” suggesting that pretty much anyone who disagrees with THEM is schismatic. They seem to think that if they bandy the word around enough, the “uneducated masses” will be whipped into submission by the mere thought of it. They even put forth the question to the Holy Father on a plane (who, by the way, said there was no schism at this time) and got him to say the word which, somehow, is supposed to give their charges validation. “A-ha!  The pope said the word so you are in schism!” WRONG!

Let me give you a little list of all the people who have been charged with schism by the liberal Catholic elite.  Let’s see, Archbishop Vigano, for sure; Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco, Bishop Strickland of Tyler, and Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia, because they were three of MANY bishops who said the charges made by Archbishop Vigano should be investigated; Cardinals Burke and Brandmueller, because they dared to ask the Holy Father for clarification in their dubia; Archbishop Schneider, because he and Cardinal Burke asked people to pray and fast  before the synod, because of the pretty awful stuff is being discussed. (Prayer and fasting – the horrors! How dare they?!) I guess all of EWTN can be counted, too, because Raymond Arroyo dared to defend himself when a book about how EWTN was trying to overthrow the Holy Father was glorified on a flight. Oh, and EWTN, again, for broadcasting a Mass where the priest giving the homily said that the faithful was being asked to pray and fast before the upcoming “Amazon Synod.” I’d love to know what they are scared of. You want to fast and pray for me?  Please do. And, of course, there’re all those mean Catholic bloggers, radio hosts, commentators, etc., who are scratching their heads about some things the pope says. Yep, all are in schism, it seems, except those who want to change any Church teaching that doesn’t jive with their ideologies.

So, who are all the people declaring or suggesting schism? Thomas Reese, SJ, Massimo Faggioli, Dawn Eden Goldstein, Michael Sean Winters, and all of their ilk.  And don’t forget, the “Well, I didn’t say they were in schism.  I’m just retweeting something I thought was interesting!” crowd. (Yes, Fr. Martin, I mean you.)

The actual definition of schism found in Canon 751 goes like this

Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Ironically, none of the accusers are canon lawyers, but they accuse a good canon lawyers to be in schism.  Let’s see, who knows Canon Law better?

The other thing I find totally ridiculous, especially after this week, is that not one of these accusers has pointed toward Germany.  In fact, I failed to locate one story at National catholic Reporter on this as of this writing. If it exists, their search engines don’t work.  https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/marx-says-german-synod-will-proceed-despite-vatican-objections-82211  Why is this? This is a hell of a lot closer to schism (if not actually in schism) than anything else to which the NcR, America Magazine, or Commonweal types point. I mean, the German bishops were told by the Magisterium that their “binding synodal path” was “not ecclesiologically valid.” Their response? We’re doing it anyway. Who’s removing “submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” again? Apparently, Cardinal Marx.!

Does anyone see the difference in asking the Holy Father to exercise his authority (a la the Dubia 4, Archbishop Vigano, etc.) and rejecting an instruction from the Magisterium as the Germans are doing? The faithful Catholics are appealing to the very authority they should, while the Germans are usurping authority they don’t have. American schism, my foot! The liberals pushing for a declaration of schism are the biggest hypocrites around. Not one of the faithful listed above and accused by the liberals has ever rejected the authority of Pope Francis. In fact, they’ve made request upon request to the Pope to clarify.  To top it off, not even Pope Francis has declared them such. So, not only are the liberal accusers actually willing to reject authority when it suits them, they are also willing to usurp authority where they have none. They need to give it a rest, but sadly, they won’t.

 

Future Something Other Than the Church

Let me start by saying I actually started writing about Pia de Solenni’s piece, and then I realized it was super confusing and had no idea what her point was at the end. Then, however, I saw this and it was quite laughable. They missed her point far more than I did. I think FutureChurch felt like they had to respond since America Magazine printed Pia’s article.

Women Will Not Be Silent…Catholic Women Do Preach

FutureChurch’s Response to Pia de Solenni”

First of all, Pia never said women didn’t preach. She stated that Canon Law forbade the laity from preaching the homily at Mass and then kinda sorta tried to explain why. I’m not totally sure how FutureChurch missed that, but they apparently did. Or, maybe, they didn’t.

FutureChurch is deeply disturbed by the September 9, 2019, America Magazine essay by Dr. Pia de Solenni, “Should Catholic women preach at Mass? Here’s a better question,” in which she narrowly conceives the Church’s teaching on a priest acting “in persona Christi” in the Sacraments to justify the practice of excluding women from preaching.

They should have just stopped at “FutureChurch is deeply disturbed.” They are.

Well, heaven forbid we actually admit the truth. The priest is acting “in persona Christi” in the celebration of the Mass. Not really sure why they’re portraying it as “narrow conception.” It’s kind of the whole enchilada, and it isn’t some relatively new thought. 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/03/only-priests-and-deacons-may-preach-why-is-that.html

Now the reason for preaching being reserved to priests and deacons becomes clear. At the Mass the priest and the deacon stand in persona Christi. They represent Christ symbolically and liturgically. One as Christ the priest. The other as Christ the Servant. When they read and preach the gospel therefore they are exercising not only a teaching function, but a liturgical function. They are incarnating Christ the Teacher and Christ the Servant to the people.

This is why they are ordained. NOT just to be a social worker in black. Not just to be a theology teacher in a collar. Not just to be a spiritual director or a parish administrator or a fund raiser.

The priest and deacon are ordained and set apart from the laity for this reason: to help incarnate Christ in the world through their own person and through their own vocation. This is why the catechism teaches that one of the ways to objectively know that you have encountered the risen Lord is “in the person of the priest.

Lay people can’t do that in the same way, and that’s why they are not permitted to preach at Mass.

Back to FutureChurch…

But there is a much more hazardous ideal at play here.

We have already established that it is you two who are wrong according to tradition, according to Canon Law, and according to various Church documents, to say the least.  Nope, it’s you who are dangerous. All you do is sow seeds of envy, jealousy, and bitterness, along with some heresy everywhere you go. You are definitely not the future of the Catholic Church.

While acknowledging that women are often better at preaching than priests, she reasons that that “no matter how wonderful or how terrible” the priest who is in persona Christi with a soul “indelibly marked” and who has undergone an “ontological change” is given priority of place “by virtue of his ordination, not his moral character.

Dr. Solenni denies that this is clericalism. Yet, one has to ask if such an anemic metaphysical model — one that makes moral character optional — also allows that priests represent Christ when they commit acts of abuse and rape against children, steal money, or engage in other criminal acts?

I realize that the word “clericalism” is a verbal tic for some, but really, they don’t even seem to know the definition. The definition is actually the misuse or overextention of clergy’s authority. With the proper form, matter, and intent, a priest is not misusing or overextending his power by doing his priestly duty, no matter how imperfect he is everywhere else in his life. That’s the protection we have been guaranteed by Christ. Let’s think it through, Russ and Deborah. If it weren’t true, how would we ever be able to trust ANYONE if you all got your impossible to have dreams? Does being part of the laity somehow mean you have spiritual or moral perfection? You two might be just narcissistic enough to buy that. The rest of us? Not so much.

If we look deeply into what the Gospels and Church teaching reveal, we see a different truth.  It is clear that Jesus and the early Christians were disgusted by their leaders’ arrogance and self-glorification.  When the Pharisees seek to silence the joyful voices of the people (Lk 19:39-40), Jesus rebukes them.

No matter what framework or theology is used to justify making faith-filled, baptized women second class members of the Body of Christ or seeks to sequester them to certain patriarchally-sanctioned corners of the Church, it is wrong.

Oh, my gosh. When I read things like this, I always want to ask, “Who hurt you?!?!?”  Clearly somebody has some serious issues with someone, and sadly, we’re the ones who have to pay for it! Hey, guys, nice try! The teaching doesn’t just apply to women. It applies to all of the laity. No matter how much you rant against this, the roles of the clergy and the laity are not the same. And the framework and theology for that one? Doctrine. You know, TRUTH? Again, stop with the jealousy.

For nearly three years, FutureChurch and our partners have been bringing forward the preaching of Catholic women every week and on some holidays at http://www.catholicwomenpreach.org.   Women such as Sr. Joan Chittister, Sr. Barbara Reid, Kerry Robinson, Sr. Norma Pimentel, Professor Natalia Imperatori-Lee, Sr. Sandra Schneiders, Sr. Christine Schenk, and over one hundred and seventy other qualified, faith-filled women have preached.

Yes, I’ve already had the misfortune of stumbling onto that site. Qualified? Debatable, unless the qualification is that you have to be a bitter older woman with a strong resentment towards men. If that’s the case, they nailed it. I’ve already written about the ”preaching” of one of their babes here

And thousands of Catholics – lay and ordained, female and male, young and young at heart – flock to the site monthly, hungry for the Word of God as it comes through the lives, experiences, witness, and faith of Catholic women. And each we week receive emails from viewers of Catholic Women Preach telling us that they are hearing the Word, understanding it in new ways, and more fully integrating it into their daily lives.

Please, don’t kid yourself. It’s where bitter women, usually of the older feminist generation, come to feel justified. Let’s just say it’s the greatest site ever. It’s still not in Mass, so you guys go ahead and vent as long as you’re not doing it in the name of the Catholic Church.

That is the Good News!

More like pathetic.

 Women will not be silent or silenced. We will continue the quest for full equality in the Roman Catholic Church and we will not stop until that vision — God’s vision — is fulfilled.

Russ Petrus and Deborah Rose-Milavec
Co-Directors

Oh, Russ and Deborah, you’re so right. We won’t be silenced, but you might want to remember that includes me and my daughters who love and support our all-male priesthood. You also might want to recognize that all organizations of your ilk are dying. Literally. All those sisters you mentioned above? Their convents are empty, and their orders are disappearing. Nobody wants to replace them. Read the writing on the wall.  The women’s organizations, religious orders, etc., that embrace the True Faith? They are flourishing! That’s God’s vision. And you know what? We don’t feel slighted in the least. We’re not jealous of our priests, we embrace our role as part of the laity. What’s more attractive? Old bitter women railing or young, beautiful, faithful women loving the Church? The question has already been answered, but your pompous selves can’t see beyond your own noses. Look at the rest of us for a change before you decide you need to speak on our behalf.  We don’t want or need you to do anything for us. We’re perfectly capable of defending truth.