Merry Christmas to all!

One Mad Dad was kind enough to bless me, not only with a lifetime of love, but also a new laptop so I can stop limping along.  How lucky can a girl be?  Three cheers for him.  Back to the blog next week!

Merry Christmas from our family to yours.  Hoping that all of you have a very blessed Christmas!  Remember, this is the beginning of Christmas, not the end!

 

Another Seamless Grinch

As you’ve probably figured out, I’ve been too busy preparing for Christmas to be mad.  I did see this ridiculous statement from Argentinean Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo a few days back.  Fr. Fessio took care of it with a good, clear explanation.  No need for me to waste time on it.  Just wanted to make sure you saw it!   https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-bishop-popes-view-on-global-warming-is-as-authoritative-as-the-cond

Happy Advent and Merry Christmas from our family to  yours!  See you next week!

Cupich: He’s back!

I guess Archbishop Blase Cupich wasn’t getting enough attention and wanted to make a big splash. What’s the matter, Archbishop, were the Vatican light show and Cardinal Turkson stealing your thunder? So what has he said now? In case you haven’t heard the collective groan of the faithful, try this on for size: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archbishop-cupich-again-insists-people-in-homosexual-unions-can-receive-com

When asked if the same “internal forum” could be used to secure Communion for sexually active homosexuals, he said that it could. “When people who are in good conscience working with a spiritual director come to a decision, then they need to follow that conscience. That’s the teaching of the Church. So in the case of people receiving Communion in situations that are irregular that also applies. The question then was: Does that apply to gay people? My answer was: they’re human beings too. They have a conscience. Thy have to follow their conscience.

He continued: “They have to be able to have a formed conscience, understand the teaching of the Church, and work with a spiritual director and come to those decisions. And we have to respect that.”
“It’s not up to any minister who is distributing the Eucharist to make a decision about a person’s worthiness or lack of worthiness. That’s on the conscience of those individuals,” he added.”

There are sooooooooooooooooo many things wrong with this one. First and foremost, the “internal forum” was brought up in regards to the annulment process. It was not brought up in regards to active homosexual relationships, nor even to the simple divorced and remarried case. To even imply that these are in any way comparable to each other is totally and utterly ridiculous. Cupich is pretty much trying to nullify sin in general.

So what is all this “internal forum” talk in regards to annulments? I didn’t know what the heck it was, but there was a very narrow possible scenario given to me as an example. I’m sure there are others examples, but at least it explains to me why anyone is even still using it in a sentence. I was thinking about giving the scenario, but it was conjecture at best, even though I suspect good conjecture from a knowledgeable Catholic.

Before I go on, I would like to point out that Cardinal Burke has said the Synod did not and cannot approve the internal forum for divorced/remarried to receive Communion. Marriage is indissoluble.  And, here’s the biggie, the Pope hasn’t put forth any document yet.  Cupich is speaking WAY out of turn and trying, once again, the old “put the cart before the horse” method of trying to sway the Holy Father.

The “internal forum” regarding annulment scenario presented to me was a “failure to administer justice” scenario. Sorry to be vague but I wouldn’t want to lead anyone into error by stating the scenario knowing that there is a possibility it might be incorrect, even if I think it sound.

If my friend’s scenario is correct, suffice it to say, it would be super rare (as any use of the “internal forum” would be) and it would be limited to something that COULD be a rectifiable situation IF the annulment were eventually granted. It does nothing to alter the indissolubility of marriage, though. In contrast, there is NOTHING that could ever rectify an active homosexual relationship. There is nothing that can make homosexual acts not intrinsically depraved, and, as the Catechism states (Archbishop Cupich might want to crack it open every once in a while), “Under no circumstances can they be approved.” http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2357.htm

Do you see the difference in the two scenarios? There’s a gap the size of the Grand Canyon in between them. In one scenario, a couple would be trying their best in accordance with the teachings of the Church to live in accordance to the Church teachings. The scenario with a couple continuing in an active homosexual relationship is them failing the teaching of the Church (and, really, them failing themselves).
Cupich is floating something not even close. He’s saying, if a couple doesn’t think the teachings of the Church are correct, they can just use their very poorly formed conscience to decide if they are committing a sinful act. I guess he’s also saying they need to shop around for a spiritual director like him who goes with the “I’m OK. You’re OK.” mantra. It’s just a tad bit different.

Next, the “minister” distributing Communion certainly does have the duty to protect the Eucharist from defilement. If someone walks up with an “I’m an atheist!” t-shirt, they have made a public statement and shouldn’t be given the Communion. Remember a few years back when the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence approached Archbishop Niederauer for Communion in full clown drag dress? It was a “gotcha” moment where he failed, and he admitted that. (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop_niederauer_apologizes_for_giving_communion_to_sisters_of_perpetual_indulgence_at_san_francisco_parish/) Yes, the minister can and should protect Our Lord’s Body and Blood from the sacrilege of the Eucharist. Public obstinate sinners are in a special class. So, you see, the “I’m sinning and I’m going to keep sinning no matter what the Church says” without public repentance club can be denied Communion to avoid scandal. The “minister” denying Communion to the public obstinate sinner, despite what Cupich might decree, might REALLY be where the “internal forum” comes in.

Go Forth and Subtract???

I really can’t take too much more of these. I’m going to channel Trump and ask if the Vatican can put a moratorium on interviews until they can find out what the hell is going on!!! As a mother of a brood, I cannot tell you how utterly offensive and pathetic I find this one. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/vatican-cardinal-claims-pope-called-for-birth-control-suggests-it-as-soluti

PARIS, December 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – In an interview this morning, Cardinal Peter Turkson, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, said that Pope Francis “has called for a certain amount of control of birth,” while specifying that this would not include methods like the birth control pill.

Speaking to the BBC outside of the climate change talks in Paris, the cardinal suggested that limiting births can “offer a solution” to difficulties such as water and food shortages that are said to come from overpopulation and climate change.

The amount of population that is critical for the realisation of this is still something we need to discover, yet the Holy Father has also called for a certain amount of control of birth.

Well, thanks for that clarification on the pill, but, Cardinal Turkson, you’ve just handed one to the enemy. Children are not now, nor have they ever been, the problem. They are not the reason for any water or food shortages. This is completely naïve. What’s next? Are children also responsible for global terrorism?

I’d also like to remind you all of a warning several people gave about so-called “climate change.” We’ve been warned by several good and faithful servants that this was where we were headed with it – the suggestion of overpopulation and need to get rid of people as the solution.

Now, if someone offers an idea and the solution is to get rid of or prevent God’s great gift of life, how righteous can that idea really be? There’s no slippery slope anymore. We just jumped off a cliff with this one.

I remember a little command to “go forth and multiply, fill the world and subdue it.” Um, it ain’t filled and it ain’t subdued. I’ll tell you exactly who understands that and it doesn’t seem to be Cardinal Turkson. http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/10/pew-muslims-will-largest-world-religion-end-century/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social The facts of this article are enough reason to do just the opposite of what you are suggesting. Are you really encouraging us to give the world over to Islam – peaceful or radical? You see, they are playing the long game (the one we used to rule), but you’ve just encouraged us to forfeit and surrender, Cardinal Turkson. Limiting Catholics would be close to spiritual suicide, and in many cases, physical suicide. Like I said, they are playing the long game, and God, of course, knew all about that when he gave that command.

Cardinal Turkson, described by the BBC as the Vatican expert on climate change, said while the critical level of population remains to be determined, the pope has nevertheless called for control of births.
“Having more mouths to feed is a challenge for us to be productive also, which is one of the key issues being treated over here, the cultivation and production of food, and its distribution,” he said.

“So yes it engages us in food security management, so we ensure that everybody is fed and all of that. The amount of population that is critical for the realisation of this is still something we need to discover.”

Holy @#$@%$#! (Yes, I’ve been pushed to comic book swearing!)  I feel like I’m reading the beginning of a dystopian novel! Really, Cardinal Turkson? Think just for a moment about what you are saying. Is bringing life into this world really the problem, or is it the blatant disregard for human life which you are promoting right now? “If it’s burdensome, get rid of it” is pretty much what you are saying.

“This has been talked about,” he added, “and the Holy Father on his trip back from the Philippines also invited people to some form of birth control, because the church has never been against birth control and people spacing out births and all of that. So yes, it can offer a solution.”

Somebody get this guy a hat. He’s been out in the sun too long. Realllllyyyy??? The Church is against birth control in all its forms. What it is NOT against is Natural Family Planning for serious situations. See? Was that so hard, Cardinal? What you managed to do was to lump birth control in with Natural Family Planning, and this does not make sense. One involves periodic continence, and the other involves a defilement of the marital bed and makes the marital act closed to life. Honestly, this ain’t rocket science. Is this another wrecked soundbite or something more?

The cardinal was referencing Pope Francis’ in-flight interview on the return from Manila where the pope urged “responsible parenthood,” and chastised a woman as irresponsible for having seven children by C-section. The pope said Catholics should not breed “like rabbits.”

I’ll admit, this one has always bugged me. I mean, quite frankly, when a husband and wife, in prayerful consultation with Our Lord, engage in the marital embrace during the fertile period, “who am I to judge?” I’ve actually known people who had 7 children by c-section, and I cannot imagine the world without any of them. And, yes, Catholics shouldn’t “breed like rabbits.” Last time I checked, rabbits weren’t graced with rational thought.

While advocating control of births, Turkson specified that he was not endorsing the birth control pill. “You don’t deal with one good with another evil: the Church wants people to be fed, so let’s do what the Church feels is not right? That is a kind of sophistry that the church would not go for,” he said.

The cardinal was likely referring to natural family planning, a method of birth regulation which allows a couple to know when the fertile times of the woman are so that they might either achieve or avoid a pregnancy.

Mr. Westin is much less suspicious than I am. And, while we’re at it, let’s talk sophistry. How about the one where bringing children into the world is the root of all evil? Might there just be some other possible explanations – like ridiculous government regulations and waste, warring factions, or greed – that might truly be the root of the problem for our poor? You gotta wonder how it would go if the Cardinal suggested that Muslims think about limiting their births. I’d pay to see that one.

At this point I will turn our readers to Stephen Mosher and the Population Research Institute (https://www.pop.org/). I’m sure he’s already responded to this someplace, but he has done much research and written about overpopulation and the lack thereof. Wouldn’t it be just awesome if the Vatican consulted with him? If you haven’t perused this site, please get really educated , really fast in this area, because I’m reasonably sure one of your friends just read some lame article over at the National catholic Reporter touting Cardinal Turkson as having approved birth control.

Nursery Rhymes Gone Bad

Oh, my ever loving goodness. (Yeah, that’s about as strong as my language gets.) People are being massacred around the world and an archbishop of the Church comes up with this? The entire Vatican staff needs some serious soundbite coaching! It’s just one bad soundbite after another.

In reference to Canon 1370, which imposes automatic excommunication for “physical violence” against the Roman Pontiff, Archbishop Fisichella said: “I would say that we need to understand well ‘physical violence,’ because sometimes words, too, are rocks and stones, and therefore I believe some of these sins, too, are far more widespread than we might think.” https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canonist-to-vatican-archbishop-no-church-law-doesnt-excommunicate-papal-cri

Clearly, nursery rhymes in English don’t translate well. It goes like this Archbishop: Stick and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

No, words are not physical violence, Archbishop. Worst. Comparison. Ever. And we’ve already been subjected to a barrage of whiny college kids who are crying about safe spaces, so that’ s saying something! Words might be hurtful. Words might be wrong. Words might be annoying, but they do not equate with physical violence against the Pope.

There are definitely some members of the clergy who need to come down from their “safe spaces” and man up! I live in a country that’s become the nation of the offended. I don’t need my Church to follow suit. You are the ones who need to “understand well ‘physical violence.’”

So, for goodness sake, please think about the fact there are actual people who want to do physical violence against the Holy Father!!! There are actual people who were killed by the same ilk in the past week, and we are a state in mourning. Talk about people who should be offended! Have we even heard one mention from the Vatican on San Bernardino? Nope, but we got a fancy light show. You trying telling their families that words are equal to physical violence. It’s no wonder we’re in the blooming mess we’re in. We’re not paying attention to the wolf at the door (or the one who’s already entered the house). The media is going to ignore atrocities around the world and spend time spinning the ones people aren’t ignoring. It would seem that the Church needs to focus like a laser on people being massacred and not on a Disney-esque light show. It kind of downplays the tragedies of our days.  People are being martyred.

Now, I’m guessing it’s a soundbite error, and it will probably be walked back, but it’s getting weary hearing correction after correction after correction. Speak like people are listening, because they are.

One More Thing to Consider…

I posted my last blog less than 24 hours before the attack in San Bernadino.  I was trying to stay away from the topic of “jihad” for the most part.  In hindsight, I might have wanted to propose we consider that one a little more.  Expand the whole section on assimilation and radicalization.  Clearly this is going to be a bigger issue in the upcoming days.  Please note, I have no knowledge of these people being refugees.  How much harder is it going to be for them to stay away from radicalization?  This couple were apparently citizens, with a baby and jobs.  https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/what-if-we-paused-to-ask-a-few-questions/