The Wolves are Cozy on the Couch

This has been an awful week for the Catholic Church, hands down.  Can’t say I didn’t see it coming, but the trifecta of bad cardinal appointments stings like hell (and I mean that literally).  I was hoping the devastation would be offset by a Cardinal Chaput appointment, but my hopes were dashed.  The liberals won this battle, pure and simple.  So what are we to do?  What is happening with the Pope?  Why is this happening?  Etc., etc., etc.  These are just some of the questions my poor readers are asking. Sorry this post is going to stray far from the sarcastic norm.

Those of you who read the blog regularly have probably noticed that I don’t criticize the Holy Father.  I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I have questions and thoughts in my head that I don’t convey.  Why don’t I relay them?  Because what good would it do? It would simply  give comfort to the enemy.  He certainly is the Pope.  Anyone who believes a less than stellar pope is not THE Pope doesn’t know history all that well.  We’ve had some pretty awful ones, and we’ve also had great ones who have made less-than-desirable moves.  I mean, who was it again that elevated Cardinal Mahoney?  If that wasn’t an epic mistake, I’m not sure what was. Yet that pope was the guy whose right hand man was Pope Benedict.  Heck, he’s canonized! Everyone has a bad day.  I hope that’s what’s going on here with Pope Francis. 

So, what is the girl who sits on her hands and avoids all attempts to criticize the Pope going to say?  Well, first of all, I feel your pain and I’ll try to be a voice for you.  Yes, these were bad appointments that are going to give aid and comfort to the enemies of the Faith – namely Fr. James Martin, SJ, and his cohorts in crime.  There’s no way to spin it.  However, it’s one battle.  It ain’t the war, and we already know the outcome of that.  It’s just a matter of how bad things will be until we get to that outcome.

So what about Pope Francis?  I’m hardly Rocco Palmo, but my GUESS is that this is what you get when you have a cardinal from Argentina elevated to the papacy.  He was so far removed from the politics of Rome that he doesn’t know who the enemy really is. He has, frankly, Argentinian notions about the rest of the world, and I think he’s actually seen that some of these notions weren’t quite what he thought.  He was insulated there and he’s insulated now. He has no clue and simply trusts those that appear to be friendly really are.  Heck, I’ve seen that happen to great bishops right here in America.  It’s amazing how well the dissidents can gain confidence when they adjust those halos.  However, the faithful bishops and cardinals had better figure out a way to clue him in that he is being handled, or the Church that my kids have to live in is going to tank for the foreseeable future. 

One thing I notice here in the States is that we have this really weird view of collegiality.  Rarely do faithful bishops or cardinals take on a bishop who is undermining doctrine and morality. They’ll all get together on topics where they feel they can win in society, but not on the issues that affect all of us.  Or, at least, this is the view from the pew.  I mean, if the good guys really care about the laity, why don’t they something???  If my husband saw his brother abusing his family, he certainly wouldn’t sit there and say, “Not my problem!”  His brother’s family would also be his family, even if he isn’t the head of their household.  My husband would also lend a brother a hand if they were in crisis and needed back up when they were in the right.  Unfortunately, I don’t really remember the bishops around the United States rallying around Archbishop Cordileone when he rightly wanted to hold his teachers to Catholic standards.  A rally cry instead should have gone up from all the faithful bishops that he was quite right to try to protect the students of the Catholic schools.

Heck, from my point of view, it seems as if the bishops living 20 minutes from each other don’t even consult together.  SOMEBODY, please call for a national summit of faithful bishops, because the laity is dying here!  I mean DYING!  Where the laity is concerned, giving Cupich a red hat doesn’t just affect the people of his diocese.  It affects us all!  The liberal priests, bishops, and cardinals are what they are.  We need the more-than-a -few good men to help us out here.  Why is it the liberals can band together but you guys cannot? It’s almost like watching the Republican party flail around these days.  Meanwhile, over in National catholic Reporter land, they have no qualms about forming an army to put down one faithful priest, bishop, or cardinal at a time.  Then there’s the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good.  Anyone catch Wikileaks this week?  Yes, our conspiracy theories have been validated.

In all seriousness, I would like to see the guys who love their flocks, the Church, the lost, AND my children all get on a plane and knock on Pope Francis’ door and give him the real score.  There is strength in numbers, and this isn’t just a saying.  You can’t let Cardinal Burke do all the talking and be relegated to Malta for the unforeseeable future. When one of you does something necessary to preserve the Faith in one area, you should all be publicizing it in your own dioceses.  Back each other up! More importantly, unite for the sake of MY children. 

Sometimes I feel like we faithful are an afterthought to many of you. That might be unfair but I guarantee that’s how many of us feel. You need to stop worrying about your job, and I’m not saying that in the “That’s all you care about way!”  I know that you want to stay with your flock to affect the most positive of outcomes, but it’s not working. You are essentially being extorted because you’re trying to do it all by yourself.  Cupich and club are undermining you at every turn, and you guys are still plodding on and keeping your noses to the grindstones.  I get the intention, but I think you all need to start being as “sly as the serpent and as gentle as doves” in a little more proactive way.

Your eminences and excellencies, just stop for a moment and pretend you are a father with children (because you are). If another parent or your child’s teacher is telling your child that homosexuality is just another lifestyle choice or that sex outside of marriage was fine, or that it would be just fine for your child to get an abortion because “their circumstance” warranted it, what would you do???????  Would you simply say, “Well, what can I do?” or would you give them a stern talking to about influencing your child to commit spiritual suicide?  I know you don’t have biological children, but darn it, we are supposed to be your spiritual children, yet you are letting the wolves come in and gnaw on us.  You’re reaching out to the lambs already taken from the flock, and I wouldn’t want you to stop, but what about the rest of us? Think long and hard because that’s what’s happening to your flock.  Nobody wants to feel bad about their sin, so they will cling to anyone telling them that they are just peachy.  As a parent, I’m not going to let that happen.  We’re going to fight as a family to keep that from happening.

I get that the bishops are “leaving the ninety-nine to go after the one”, but in our present scenario, when you go after the one, a bunch more are lost.  We’re hemorrhaging the salvation of our young.  There’s no longer just one straying because the shepherds aren’t closing the gate when they go after the one and the wolves are getting in.  It’s a reality that those of us “real world” parents are experiencing.  We’re killing ourselves to make sure all the good you do isn’t undone, but we feel like we can’t get our spiritual fathers to support us because they’re busy with the other children.  You need to find balance like all parents.

Again, I’m not saying that you shouldn’t go after those who are straying.  When kids stray in a family, mom and dad have to go after them relentlessly, but at the same time, they need to make sure that no more stray by presenting a mixed message.  The worst thing a parent can do is cave to emotional blackmail.  If I love my child, they are going to know it, but they are also going to know the truth and they will know that I have nothing but their immortal soul in mind.  You can be both firm and loving.  I’m not sure if this is a point lost on those with no biological children, but it needs to be understood.  Saying “No!” can often be the most loving thing you can say, and no, the wandering will not always like it.  So?  We just keep reaching out to them.

I once had a priest curtly ask me, “With all due respect, who are you?!” when I was expressing my concerns about the Pope’s in-flight interviews and the dissenting clergy exploiting them.  My answer?  “Who am I?  I’m a girl who’s concerned about the Pope’s in-flight interviews and the dissenting clergy expounding on them!”  Is that wrong??? Are we simply to keep smiling?  Can I not be concerned? Are we supposed to be in denial about how such things are being used?  I don’t claim to be anything special, but I’m betting I’m echoing the concerns of a good chunk of the laity.  I’m not going into schism and disobedience. I’m just terrified, and I want our fathers to know how terrified we are for our families. I’m not urging the bishops to go rogue.  I’m urging them to be strategic.  We really are in a war.

So, what is the laity to do?  Pray, fast, beg our bishops to fight for their children, and prepare for the next battle.  In other words, carry on.

Advertisements

58 thoughts on “The Wolves are Cozy on the Couch

  1. Not sure about “Nobody wants to feel bad about their sin” comment. I think that if you are repentant you should feel remorse. Not to the degree that it distorts your daily life or conversely, to the point where you don’t care about it and don’t go to confession. It’s the fine line between presumption and despair.(and the origin of “Catholic guilt” like “Jewish guilt”). It’s also the result of an ill-formed conscience which is one of the reasons for our problems today–this notion of feel good don’t hurt anyone’s feelings undermines moral standards, long-held notions of right or wrong, makes sin okay, and feeds the loss of Faith. If the focal point of our Faith is not Jesus on the cross, but to deny HIm and our own cross, what point is there to it?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Right. The problem is that some don’t want to deal with guilt. They don’t want to be made to feel it. They want comfort and they want people to agree with them and tell them they are just fine. They’ll grab onto the first person that throws a guilt free line to them.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. You ARE echoing the concerns, but (unfortunately) probably not of a good chunk of the laity. I would forward this to my bishop, except that he has been reassigned to Arlington and we don’t know who is coming. I have written letters thanking these good shepherds (Cordileone, Paprocki, Olmstead) and with my prayers, that is what I do.
    I am so grateful to you and others who publicly put their head on the block for us. Everytime I read, I feel like I am linking arms with you walking up the road…hopefully to heaven. God bless you and never lay down the Cross!

    Liked by 5 people

    1. Nancy, I am also in the Raleigh Diocese. I think that writing to Bishop Burbidge isn’t a bad idea. He’s going to have his hands full in Arlington and they need a Bishop willing to tell them The Truth. Perhaps not being all about building the cathedral will be a good thing….

      Liked by 1 person

    2. If you mean our former Bishop in Raleigh, I think there is no problem contacting him on issues that affect the universal church. I worked with him and his office on serious issues in my parish and they responded quickly. At worst, you letter will be forwarded. They do not like emails; they like signed hard copy for the record.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Great post as always but with all due respect, I don’t think that the Pope is making these terrible Cardinal choices because he is from Argentina and does not know better. He knows Rome/Europe/America quite well and knows what is at stake. We just have a Juda Pope is all there is to it. Pope Francis has consistently and systematically alienated the good Cardinals to elevate the bad ones because he wants his successor to be an even more liberal Pope than he is and to finish what he has started with Amoris Laeticiae. His latest victim: Cardinal Sarah. I pray for the Pope whenever I got too mad at him for what he does and what he says. I see a man in whom the battle between good and evil rages. Sometimes the Holy Spirit speaks through him but I believe IMHO that he suffers from the sin of arrogance and thinks he knows best. So when a wise voice like Cardinal Burke and Sarah try to steer him in the right direction, he just slaps them for it. We know have a Cardinal from Belgium if I have it correctly who says thinks like he “respect gay sexuality”!!! at the same time Cardinal Schornborn’s diocese published a magazine where two gay men playing at mommy and daddy with an adopted son (a little black kid from Africa so that they’re politically correct and all inclusive) featured as a “family”…and of course, I don’t have to refer to the Cupich of this world which you know way more about than I do.
    It is easy to feel despair. But the moral of the story is that I have actually become a better Catholic since Pope Francis succeeded Pope Benedict. My sister has also become more faithfully Catholic. So I know God is in charge and more people like me may begin to care more about the Faith once we see it being disfigured in plain sight as it is.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I have to agree. It all starts with the Pope. The Pope is attempting to develop all of the Modernist implications involved in Vat II and make them irreversible. The counterfeit tradition created by the emptying of doctrine of its content through a “pastoral” attack on doctrine is the same Marxist strategy used by liberation theology–and now in the service of cultural Marxism. This is a reversal of the failed reform of the reform which was in any case illusory, and an application of the hermeneutic of rupture. This is a repudiation of authentic Catholicism. Even though we know the ultimate outcome, Jesus has already won, it is still hard to bear. Pray for your Church, your Pope, and God help us all!

      Like

  4. Thank you OMM. I have tried to tell myself that all was well over there in the Vatican but it has not seemed so for a long time. I am thankful that I have such a wonderful bishop here in the SF Archdiocese but I also know it’s getting even more difficult for him with Fr. James Martin clones feeling their oats. I pray for him. I wish I could do more.

    I would get on that plane and fly to Rome and knock on the door at Santa Marta if some others would go with me and do the talking!

    Like

  5. I contacted AB Napier who actually reads and responds directly to my inquiries. I pointed out the bizarre antics of Cupich of Chicago who promotes communion for homosexual so called couples and thinks poverty is a more important issue than Planned Parenthood chopping up baby fetuses for profit. I pointed out than scandal plagued(Homosexual clergy abuse under )Van Kessel in Belgium and Cupich plan to close ONE THIRD of the churches in Belgium and Chicago.. I pointed out to AB Napier that Cupich and Van Kessel cannot run their own diocese let alone be a Red Hat Cardinal. He AB Napier and Pope Francis may be unaware of Cupich and Van Kessel antics in their own fading RC church in their homelands . Sadly I get No Response at all from Pope Francis at all..

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Father John Hunwicke, writing at his blog Mutual Enrichment, had this to say in honor of our new Cardinal Cupich, and that man’s deep and weighty grasp of Catholic doctrine


      Cardinal Cupich …
      … is undoubtedly right to suggest that, when people have in conscience come to a particular conclusion, we should follow and support them. He has my support, 150%. I am filled with enthusiasm for where his principles, in my judgement, will lead.

      Clearly, when a paedophile priest concludes that, in carefully judged and exceptional circumstances, his caring and loving attentions to a child are for the good, and for the maturity, of that child (a conclusion identical with the wisdom of ancient Athenian aristocratic society), it is not for sick, narrow-minded and crabbed “Traditionalists” to interfere. Few things even in the Ratzinger pontificate were more disgraceful than his use in this context of the word “Filth”. Talk about stirring up prejudice!!

      And when it becomes clear to a conscientious politician that a carefully controlled and, of course, limited experiment in genocide is the best way of eliminating divisive and unproductive inter-ethnic frictions, the “Traditionalists” should not be allowed to intrude their own private opinions into the public forum. “Keep your hands off my gas chambers/machetes” should be our slogan. Clergy should keep well out of politics. ‘Freedom of Worship’, yes; but no freedom for those who wish to impose their own prejudice-ridden religious hang-ups upon an open and pluralist society. They must be ‘No-platformed’ in order to preserve a ‘Safe Space’ for women and men of Conscience.

      True, S John Paul II in his Veritatis splendor claimed that there were certain sorts of things which were always objectively and totally wrong, but we all know where to advise the “Traditionalists” to shove that peculiarly antiquated document … as well as Familiaris consortio and all the Ratzinger stuff.

      Cupich may not, himself, have yet discerned the full exciting promise and beautiful ultimate flowering of his teachings, but he is entitled to be thought of as the true godfather of the Even Newer Morality of the Even More Caring Church! A real place in History!

      Like

  6. I think regular folks would be quite shocked if they knew what life in the Vatican was like. We have to be really creative to get past whoever doesn’t care for us. That said, at this point, we need our guys to becomes sly as serpents. I mean, hello, that was the command when they were sent out amongst the wolves!

    Like

  7. Let’s face it. We were spoiled rotten by 35 years of JP2 and B16 holding the line on Catholic doctrine. Did we appreciate it enough? Did we thank God every day for the gifts that those popes were? Now, we see what it’s like when the Barque of Peter is a rudderless ship. The irony of the Wikileaks thing is that Podesta’s crew actually got the doctrine-decimating ‘Catholic Spring’ that they were dreaming about… and it arrived the very next Spring after the emails… on 3-13-13. The best that we can do now is hunker down and pray and do our best to preserve the faith within ourselves and our families and our parishes. Beyond that, we’re in very dark days, and I’m afraid it’s going to get quite a bit darker.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I get to claustrophobic in the bunker. 😉 Seriously, we must try to change the world or our nice cozy bunkers are going to be overrun. Pastors, bishops, cardinals and popes die. The bunker decor can start looking hellish real fast.

      Like

      1. I understand your point, OMM. It’s very Tolkienesque. Sauron wants the ring. We can’t stay in our cozy little Shire and ignore this looming evil because, if Sauron succeeds, pretty soon there ain’t gonna be a Shire. Fair enough. The counter-argument, I guess, is that maybe it’s too late. Perhaps the battle at this particular moment in time is unwinnable. Sauron has the ring, and it’s just a mop-up operation for him at this point. The dam has already burst. We’ve seen it with the de facto abolition of the doctrine that one needs to be in a state of grace (i.e., by not having sex with someone who ain’t your sacramental spouse) to receive the Eucharist. It happened, and all the letter writing, synod speechifying, petition signing, blog posting and tweeting that tens of thousands of faithful lay people and clergy did over the past two years was not able to stop it. I suspect that prayer is our only hope at this point… the rosary specifically.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. No.
      JP2 and BXVI were not good popes.

      Both were ecumenical maniacs hellbent on twisting and wringing the Church into something She is not: tolerant of false religions.

      Both prayed with heretics (BIG TIME! Assisi!) Both participated in false worship. Both claim that Muslims worship the same God as Catholics. Both focused on common beliefs and celebrated them, rather than the sole mission of the Church: conversion.

      No good pope allows a statue of Buddha to be placed upon the tabernacle. Nope. No way.

      There are many many examples of the heresies of these two men. One need only to do a little research to find them.

      Like

      1. That’s not quite fair. St. John Paul II would have been a good pope if he had listened to his commission of Cardinals which determined the traditional Mass had never been abrogated, that the Mass of fourteen plus centuries and of just about every saint the Church has ever had, COULD NOT be abrogated and immediately freed its worship as Benedict would do with Summorum Pontificum. You would be a bold man to say that Karol Wojtyla did not pass on what he received, even if we both would have preferred he was a more traditional Pope. Yet Pope he was unless you believe the errors of the sedes.

        That’s not the same in puffing up Abp. Lefebvre’s vanity or winking at his own intransigence. Still, we all Abp. Lefebvre a great debt to the preservation of the traditional Mass, which would not have otherwise been possible. Even saints make mistakes, as is the case of St. John Paul II, as well as Abp. Lefebvre.

        Like

  8. I am very sorry to say that I cannot buy that this pope does not know what he is doing or the direction he wants or the people he wants to promote it. He is not stupid. He is not so isolated that he is not aware of what his appointees are very public about. It a little lay person knows, how can it be that he does not. I do think that he knows what he is about and the changes to age old teachings of the Church that he wants to change. We are between a rock and a hard place to remain faithful to the Church in spite of bad shepherds and to always keep our eyes on The Good Shepherd. St. Paul warned us about those who preach another gospel and we sure have that these days.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Well, I’m not afraid to say it:
    POPE FRANCIS IS A WOLF IN SHEPHERD’S CLOTHING.

    I do not mince words and I do not worry who gets their feelings hurt by the truth. The man knows EXACTLY what he is doing. Just like BXVI did. Just like JP2 did. Just like P6 did. Just like John23 did. All of them are guilty of disobedience to Holy Mother Church and to what they were sworn to uphold. (Yes, you actually have to KNOW doctrine to know when it has been betrayed. And not that fluff crap the New Order preaches.)

    Francis picked DIABOLICAL men as cardinals. Why? To continue on the path he’s on. He’s no dummy. He knows the filth on these men’s souls. The same filth on his. He will be judged.

    Francis isn’t dumb enough to boldly propose to change doctrine ( HE CANNOT! ). He’s smart enough and cunning enough to ALLOW error.
    Don’t believe me?
    Look at all the heretics now lining up worldwide, grabbing them up some Blessed Sacrament, mortal gay/ adulterous sins and all. It’s MERCY now, dontcha know?! All hail Amoris Laetitia! MERCY! MERCY! MERCY! (But where’s the contrition, the will to amend one’s life?)

    In Italy there were 2 lesbian nuns “married” last week. Francis is “saddened”. Ever heard of ANATHEMATIZING, Francis? Their reasoning? Francis’ “Who am I to judge?” inspired them!

    He is the forerunner of the antichrist. You don’t have to say it. I will. You don’t even have to agree; it doesn’t change the fact.

    Christ warned us repeatedly in Scripture of this! Matthew 24. 1John 4, to name a few. Who are these wolves and false prophets He spoke of, if not these? Christ doesn’t lie.

    Our Cathoilc DUTY is to speak out and defend the Faith. Loudly and publicly. DO IT! We will be judged!

    Sensus Catholicus! Where has it gone?
    Pope St. Pius X, ora pro nobis!

    “Liberal Catholics are wolves in sheep’s clothing…[we] must unveil to the people their perfidious plot, their iniquitous design. You will be called…clerical, retrograde, intolerant, but pay no heed to the derision and mockery of the wicked. Have courage; you must never yield, nor is there any need to yield. You must go into the attack whole-heartedly, not in secret but in public, not behind barred doors, but in the open, in the view of all.”

    -Pope St Pius X

    Liked by 2 people

      1. 6. For the holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter
        not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
        but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.

        Not to mention:

        9. Therefore,
        faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
        to the glory of God our saviour,
        for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
        for the salvation of the christian people,
        with the approval of the sacred council,
        we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
        when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
        that is, when,
        in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
        in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
        he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
        he possesses,
        by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
        that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
        Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
        So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

        So…Francis is to make no new doctrine, he should guard the Faith, and by hell! Why can’t the papolators learn this definition of infallibility?! The man CAN err, and he does so near-daily.

        May God have mercy!

        Like

        1. Nobody is saying anything else. We can’t leave out the citations that don’t jive with our views of the situation:

          8. Since the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] . The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon[54]. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff.

          Like

          1. And respectfully, the brilliant architects of dogmatic Vatican 1 documents would not appreciate the false representation of thier work to defend error. If that is what you appear to be doing, mad mom.

            Your citation is understood that the pope is doing HIS own duty of remaining Catholic, and that all should follow.

            Absolutely!

            But that does not mean we give the same obedience to an erring pope, as we have in Francis.

            He is doing untold damage. To deny this is to not even know Catholicism enough to see that he is not TEACHING, GOVERNING, nor SANCTIFYING. Those are the 3 duties. He hides the Fauth, he denies dogma, makes ridiculous statements.

            May God have mercy on us all.

            Like

    1. You sir, are simply a Protestant. You object to all those Popes, you know Catholicism better than all of them? And one being a saint, and another one a likely saint? No, you are just like the Protestants, who as soon as anything goes wrong, believe they know best and leave the church. Off to confession for you now, sir. Do it soon

      Like

      1. It is a pathetic state of affairs when a Catholic slaps another Catholic with the “Protestant” label. Shall I curl into a fetal ball and then see the wisdom of your logic?
        NO! I am CATHOLIC and I know my RIGHT and my DUTY is to remain WITH the Catholic Faith, to LEARN the Catholic Faith so that I may recognize when it has suffered BETRAYAL, to DEFEND the Faith against all enemies both from within and without. ENEMIES.
        That means even a POPE if he so chooses to betray the Bride of Christ, who stands no change of losing Her Memory. He is not Supreme Ruler. He is not God. He has NO AUTHORITY to shape the Church into something She is not. He is not infallible in all circumstances, but very limited. He, too, answers to God.

        Do you think St. Athsnasius the Great was a Protestant? My hell, he bucked up to an erring pope and thanks be to God he did! Otherwise, that infection would have spread and you’d be a heretic today, with a warped Trinity.

        FALSE obedience is not obedience to the Church; it is obedience to ERROR. Modernists’ great tactic is to make its victims walk under the banner of this false obedience.

        Modernists and cowards see no wrong in error. Modernists love and defend the actions of this pope. Modernism is a HERESY.

        We are into a Chastisement, folks. Wake up and find your spines and you sensus Catholicus!

        Like

  10. Your connection to being Argentinian is probably spot on. The Church in Latin America has its problems but the issue of overemphasizing certain portions of the deposit of faith in a certain way because one wants to undermine other portions is a distinctly North American / (western) European thing. Remember Jean Jadot in the early years of St JP2 pontificate? Hesitate to name names without proof but might a Baldisserri or a Forte etc be playing the same role?

    Part of my conviction that the pope is being played is to consider, for example, the Pope’s recent discourse on gender identity. Could you imagine a Kasper or a Cupich delivering that speech? In fact, it would seem far more likely that if a Chicago (say) priest delivered it, he would be *reprimanded*. But shortly thereafter, the Pope brought the topic up again and muddled some theological points. Someone close to him got to him and recommended he soften it.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Oh wow. You now have a new reader to your blog. So well put. I’ve been beating myself up for feelings of (to put it mildly) frustration that our bishop here in Dallas was given a red hat. I want to believe so badly that he is just a good shepherd with bad people in his ear but at every turn I keep getting bits of information that confirm the sick feelings in my gut. My wife and I as well a few others in our parish had our eyes opened some time ago about the infiltration of Alynskian community organizer groups in the Dallas diocese (and surprisingly MANY other churches and dioceses around the country – be sure to check yours). The DAI (Dallas area interfaith – subsidiary of industrial areas foundation) is fully supported by our former bishop and his auxiliary bishop. So many churches have parishioners that have no clue that their tithe dollars are funding these groups to the tune of 1.5 to 3% of operating budget as a membership fee. While I’m optimistic we may get a good guy to fill the bishop’s seat in the Dallas diocese, I am also worried about the former bishop in the ranks of the red hats. I just keep telling myself “God’s got this”…. All part of the storm I guess.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Well, you did a great job educating the troops–especially sweet Sarge. He brought up Cdl. Dolan and I said, let’s not go there……..:)

        Keep up the great work for the glory of God and His Holy Church…….somehow we’ll make it out of here in one piece.

        God bless and keep you and your precious family.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. Cardinal Danneels admits being part of clerical ‘Mafia’ that plotted Francis’ election

    September 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The authorized biography of Cardinal Godfried Danneels, out next week, is even more of a bombshell than expected. Not only do the two authors, Jürgen Mettepenningen and Karim Schelkens, reveal that the Cardinal was a regular member of a secret pressure group of Churchmen that met in the Swiss town of Sankt-Gallen, but the Cardinal himself has publicly and good-humoredly admitted the fact.

    Danneels even said that what was officially but discreetly labeled “the Sankt-Gallen group” was referred to by its members as “the Mafia”. Its self-imposed aim was to counter the growing influence of Cardinal Ratzinger under the pontificate of Saint John Paul II, serving as a sort of outlet where handpicked cardinals and bishops could express their impatience at the traditional mindset of the Pope and his closest counsellor.

    The Belgian press doesn’t hesitate to say that one of the group’s primary goals was the promotion of Cardinal Bergoglio (now Pope Francis) in view of John Paul II’s nearing death – something the book itself, which is not yet available in bookstores, perhaps clarifies. The Sankt-Gallen group certainly aimed to promote the ideas and preferences for which they had found a champion in Pope Francis.

    Said Schelkens in an interview this week: “The election of Bergoglio was prepared in Sankt-Gallen, without doubt. And the main lines of the program the Pope is carrying out are those that Danneels and Co were starting to discuss more than ten years ago.”

    “They wanted Church reform, they wanted to bring the Church closer to the hearts of people; they moved forward by stages,” commented Mettepenningen. “At the beginning of the year 2000, when John Paul II’s end was becoming more foreseeable, they thought more strategically about what was going to happen to the Church after John Paul II. When Cardinal Silvestrini joined the group it took on a more tactical and strategic character.”

    The new climate in the Church after Pope Benedict’s resignation made these things easier to discuss, according to Mettepenningen.

    “It is only now that the existence of a society of same-minded Church leaders can be made known to the public,” he told the Dutch media KerkNet. “In the international press they were talking about the so-called ‘team Bergoglio’ that promoted his choice as Pope, but the name was badly chosen.

    In 2013, it was about the content first, the person came afterwards. Danneels took part in both conclaves. He openly showed his disappointment after the first one. He described the second one, in which Pope Francis was elected, as his “personal resurrection.”

    The biography was presented earlier this week at the National Sacred Heart Basilica in Koekelberg, in the presence of Cardinal Danneels who endorsed the two authors’ work.

    A short video of the event was published on the Internet: it concentrates on the Sankt-Gallen group whose existence had never been revealed to the public.

    Says Cardinal Danneels: “The Sankt-Gallen group is a sort of posh name. But in reality we said of ourselves, and of that group : ‘The Mafia’.”

    A voice-over continues: “Cardinal Danneels speaks for the first time of the secret group of Church leaders to which he belonged. The group met every year since 1996, and together they organized the secret ‘resistance’ against Cardinal Ratzinger, who at that time was the right-hand man of John Paul II.”

    Then Cardinal Danneels speaks again: “There were some bishops, a few cardinals – too many to name. Things were discussed very freely, no reports were made, so that everyone could blow off steam.”

    The journalist explains: “When Pope John Paul II died in 2005, the group already pushed the present Pope to the fore. But it was to be Ratzinger all the same. Danneels could hardly hide his disappointment.”

    The video cuts back to images of the cardinal just after Benedict XVI’s election: “The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” he said, unpleasantly, at the time.

    The voiceover goes on: “It was not to be long until the Sankt-Gallen group got a new chance, because unexpectedly, Pope Benedict resigned.”

    Mettepenningen himself provides the next comment: “In 2013, in a way this group actually achieved its ends, notably through the choice of Pope Francis. You can say that through his participation in that group, Cardinal Danneels has been one of those who were the pioneers of the choice of Pope Franciscus.”

    The journalist concludes: “That is why you could see him beaming on the balcony next to the Pope in Rome. Since then he has returned regularly to Rome to speak with the Pope.”

    The Sankt-Gallen group – or the “Mafia”, to use the cardinal’s own description – was founded by Mgr Ivo Fürer, one year after his nomination as bishop of the small cathedral town. Cardinal Danneels joined a few years later.

    Among the other members quoted by his biographers, Cardinals Carlo Maria Martini and Achille Silvestrini from Italy, Walter Kasper and Karl Lehmann from Germany, and the Dutch Cardinal Adriaan van Luyn as well as Basil Hume from England were prominent. There must have been more, as the book also speaks of members from Austria and France, as well as unnamed bishops. Why are some named, and others not? Did the named prelates give their consent to be “outed,” and if so did they have an objective?

    Whatever their aim, Danneels for one has had no qualms about voicing his angry opposition to Pope Benedict and seems to glory in the fact that he has played a role in bringing a more “modern” Church vision into being, despite the fact that the Pope Emeritus is still alive.

    Church historians Mettepenningen and Schelkens were given full access to Danneels’ personal archives which still bore the police tape that sealed them in the wake of the cover-up of a child-abuse scandal in which the Cardinal was accused of being involved. This is perhaps one of the clues to the disclosure of the “Mafia’s” existence: Danneels left his Episcopal palace under a cloud when he retired in 2010. Being presented as a “maker of kings,” as the Belgian press now calls him, is a deal more flattering and gives him a prominent role in bringing about the modernization of the Church.

    Mettepenningen justified the group’s existence in an interview to the Flemish press: “During the lengthy pontificate of John Paul II there was an increasing tendency to centralize everything that was imposed from the top, with the margin of ‘free speech’ becoming ever narrower. From 1996 onwards, a group was erected in Sankt-Gallen by the bishop of Sankt-Gallen, a group of top cardinals and bishops from Europe who found their ‘freedom of speech’ with one another there. Since 1999, Cardinal Danneels was himself a member; together with Ivo Fürer, he was the member who belonged longest to the group.”

    “Nobody knew anything about it but there were suspicions in Rome, where they were ‘not amused’ to know about this group that we called Sankt-Gallen in the biography – and which the cardinal, apparently, calls the Mafia, but it’s a term of endearment, showing a certain mischievousness.”

    The Flemish media, Knack, that presented the book in a lengthy article, says the Vatican sent “the sinister Cardinal Camilo Ruini to try and find out who, what and where: he came up with an empty sack. At the same time, the Sankt-Gallen group tried to get a hold over developments in the Vatican. The question that was put more and more emphatically was: ‘What after John Paul II? How can we avoid Ratzinger as Pope?'”

    While the group’s existence was known of by some specialists – such as Austen Ivereigh of the Tablet who spoke of it in passing in The Great Reformer, his biography of Pope Francis – what Mettepenningen and Schelkens have published is an inside account, with the blessing of Danneels who remembers the meetings as “spiritual holidays,” a “form of mutual support and comfort in dark times,” as Knack puts it.

    Danneels’ biographers show him to be a man who lost favor in Rome over his progressive stances. In 1980, at the general bishops’ synod which he was attending for the first time, Ratzinger expressed pessimism over divorce and general moral decay. Godfried Danneels responded that it was time to find a new “balance between the law and mercy.”

    “That was new,” says Knack: when the time came for the synod to elect delegates, Danneels got more votes than Ratzinger. The same Danneels was vocal in his defense of a former fellow student, Gustavo Gutierrez – a liberation theologian who was in trouble with Ratzinger. Later, Rome was to block his nomination as president of the European bishop’s conference.

    Saint John Paul II’s Apostolic Constitution Universi Domini Gregis, 79, clearly condemns the constitution of a “Mafia” like the Sankt-Gallen group: “Confirming the prescriptions of my Predecessors, I likewise forbid anyone, even if he is a Cardinal, during the Pope’s lifetime and without having consulted him, to make plans concerning the election of his successor, or to promise votes, or to make decisions in this regard in private gatherings.”

    Ironically, he published the Apostolic Constitution in February 1996, the very year that the Sankt-Gallen group was formed.

    Like

  13. Interesting article, couple of points:
    Pope Francis hasn’t changed doctrine and probably won’t, but may be providing work arounds.
    Liberal(progressive), Conservative might be better expressed as Unorthodox & Orthodox Catholics. After all, the Unorthodox are rationalizing their interpretation of church teachings to conform to their belief or desire to believe or they negate teachings. Basically, cafeteria Catholics! Orthodox follow and try to live by the teachings of the church.
    I think it came out in Garabandel(not approved or disapproved by the church) and in Medjugore that there would be priest against priest, bishops against bishops, cardinal against cardinal.
    The devil has the world by the throat and his 100 years aren’t up yet. Pope Paul VI said the smoke has entered the church. Keep the faith!

    Like

    1. The Spirit prevents him from changing doctrine formally and has done so through others. Yet this Pontiff has undermined it. Some have fallen into papolatry at times but if this Pontiff has done one good thing it is to cure the elect of it. It is the Chair that is respected, but the man is still just a man. And not all of these men go to Heaven. The disciple will always want discipline. The self-righteous will always want their ears tickled. The Spirit calls to all, but what of the seekers who are easily led astray? What about them?

      Like

    2. In Reality He Francis has already tried to change doctrine. In giving power to bishops like Granada and Argentina on communion for divorcees living in sin , he- Francis is ending the Roman and Catholic aspect of the faith. Now we are little different from Dying Anglican church with Scotland Us and Canada promoting communion and marriage for homosexuals and fornicators while Africans and Conservatives break away from the collapsing Anglican Episcopal dying sect. .,

      Like

    1. Worse than that alleged Pro life publication in Waterbury Ct. Compared Trump to Mussolini and Juan Peron. I cannot make this stuff up..

      Like

  14. I think that this goes beyond getting back a strayed sheep, and still looking out for the 99. I’d say that at this point, the walls of the sheepfold are down, and the shepherds first duty is to rebuild them and reinforce them. Without a strong sheepfold, to where can the shepherd bring the stray sheep? Where should he gather his flock?

    Doctrine and Liturgy are the walls of the sheepfold. Rebuild them and the flock will be safe. Let them lay in disorder and ruins, and no matter how you seek out lost sheep, more will become lost.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. I have contacted numerous AB- Cardinals to ask them WHAT?? in gods name Francis is doing. Cupich and De Kessel have both announced plans to close ONE THIRD of all parishes in Belgium and Chicago.Neither of them can run their own diocese let alone be red hat cardinals. I pointed out to all of them that Amaris Letitia was REJECTED as the Infamous Kasper and Daneels proposals at the synod . It will turn the RC church into a Protestant sect like Anglican Episcopal-Protestant dying sect with bishops in various nations(Scotland, USA and Canada in Angl. church) deciding to give communion to those living in sin. and homosexuals ………. Not to mention McElroy, De Kessel and infamous Cupich promoting communion for Homosexual so called couples. No wonder the faith is withering and dying in the Western world. I hope it is possible for college of Cardinals to REJECT De Paglia, Cupich and De Kessel and Amoris Letita before they cause a schism in the RC like has already occurred in Protestant Anglican Episcopal. No reply from them or Pope Francis whom I have contacted often.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s