Let the Scapegoating of the Faithful Begin!

Oh my gosh! Is this the messaging that’s going to come out of the “Meeting on the Protection of Minors?” Are they actually going to go with blame the victims?! This is insane. https://twitter.com/MassimoFaggioli/status/1097857305712967681

faggioli tweet
Massimo, what kind of drugs are you on??? “Unpopular opinion?!?” That’s the understatement of the year. You just said the Catholic laity should apologize for priests who can’t handle their vows and promises of celibacy and chastity. Un-flippin-believable. I would have thought you could just look around and think that the “She asked for it!” argument is kind of sorta disgusting, but I guess I should know better by now. You’ve got issues. For the guy who is supposed to be an expert in the “role of the laity,” you seem to think that the role of the laity is that we are supposed to be the scapegoat of the immoral clergy. Nice try.

You might want to run your tweets past your compadres first, because we’ve gone from “The laity should never be asked to do penance for the sins of others!” to “The laity is responsible for the sins of others!”

Your buddy, Fr. Martin, SJ, told us the former not long ago:

However, in this case, to imply that the laity, in any way, should perform any kinds of penances, including fasting, is simply wrong. The laity should not have to do one minute of penance for the crimes, sins and failings of the hierarchy and the clergy.  https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/17/fr-martin-dont-be-that-guy/

Let me help you both out. You’ve both got it totally wrong. This is in no way the fault of the faithful, and yes, we should be doing all of the fasting and penance we can to make up for those who aren’t doing it themselves. If you’re going to scapegoat the faithful on behalf of the depraved, you, Massimo, are part of the true problem.

Advertisements

On the Eve of Denial-palooza…

I’m going to kick off this little blog post with an apology to my friends around the world. On the eve of the “Meeting on the Protection of Minors” AKA “Denial-palooza,” I’d like to ask that you don’t hold us responsible for Cardinal Cupich. If you want to find blame, go with the Jesuits. They’re the ones that lobbied hard for him. The fact is, most of us don’t like him. In fact, we like very few of our American cardinals. We’ve been shafted as almost the entire slate of American cardinals has changed in the last 10 years. We’ve at least got Cardinal Burke somewhere in the world doing what he can, and I’ll be nice and say MAYBE the completely defeated Cardinal DiNardo. That’s about it, so I’m sorry you’re saddled with the guy who said climate change and migration were so much more important than protecting people from immoral abusing priests.

If you are one of the people around the world (or at the Vatican) who think we love and adore Cardinal Cupich, the dissenting Catholic media has succeeded in their propaganda. Let’s look at the reality of the lack of adoration for Cardinal Cupich. He sent out this tweet this morning. https://twitter.com/CardinalBCupich/status/1097935698290724864

cupichtweet
At this writing, we’re out about five hours now from this tweet dropping. There are forty-some-odd replies (they’re rolling in by the second), and all but one (somebody tagging their friend) were critical of him so far. (Please don’t email me with the great “A-ha!” after you post a glowing tribute to him.) I’m sure his Jesuit buddies will eventually ride in to rescue him, but just look at the first five hours. There were definitely no “Thank you for all your great work!” posts. “Resign!”, “Fraud!”, and “Repent!” were the consistent message.

Let me be clear, we American faithful don’t like Cardinal Cupich. We don’t trust him. We don’t want him to represent us. We don’t think he cares about the abused. Bottom line, he was the absolute wrong choice to lead any conference on immorality and abuse of priests. Why?For so many reasons but remember, just a few short months ago, Cardinal Cupich actually said that the Holy Father had more to worry about than the abuse crisis. Then he ordered his priests to read a letter saying that the news report was edited to make him look bad (apparently, he doesn’t realize raw footage is a thing) and then gathered all his priests and gagged them. We’re all guessing great penalties came attached to breaking that silence. He’s just a narcissistic, hideous man who will stop at nothing to protect his image. I’m not really sure why he still thinks he has one, outside of the usual morally liberal strongholds, but he does.

So, we American Catholics are suffering right along with you. Hopefully, somebody can find a clever way to break the Vatican cone of silence and then, maybe, we’ll get somebody decent running the next “Meeting on Whatever.”

#ResignNow

The Misdirection, Misquotations & Manipulations of Father James Martin, SJ

Fr. James Martin, S.J.: To be a saint, just be who you are

James Martin, S.J.

February 08, 2019

Geez! All this time I thought to be happy with God in Heaven, I had to know Him, love Him, and serve Him! So glad to find out I just had to be me. Easy peasy!

Honestly, it’s in the little things where Fr. James Martin, LGBTQSJ, always seems to lead people astray. It’s a really subtle betrayal: a quote out of context, a misquote, a slight mischaracterization, moral ambiguity, incomplete teachings, etc. “The devil is in the details” explains it perfectly when it comes to Fr. Martin.

First, let’s look at the title and theme of this little piece: “To be a saint, just be who you are”. Wrong. I’m sure that Charles Manson was THE BEST Charles Manson anyone could be. I bet Kermit Gosnell was THE BEST Kermit Gosnell he could be. The problem is that these two men were/are evil. They never understood self-denial, putting God first, or love. They understood hate, death, and murder. Would you ever tell these two, “To be a saint, just be who you are.”?! Please.

Last week, we talked about the saints as both our patrons and our companions. They both pray for us from their posts in heaven and serve as our models. But sometimes people feel that the saints are so far away from them, that their ways of life are unattainable, and so they couldn’t possibly be their models. People say, “Oh, I could never be Mother Teresa and work in a hospice in Calcutta and take care of the sick and dying!” But of course you’re not meant to do exactly what Mother Teresa did, or even be who Mother Teresa was. Now, you might be called to work with the poor, and maybe in a slum, and maybe even in India, but you’re not called to do it exactly like her. You’re not supposed to be Mother Teresa.

You won’t hear me say this often about Martin, but I agree completely. We tend to say, “I can’t be like that so I won’t try to do anything.” All saints were different. They weren’t all called to do things the same way but the end game and means to get there were the same. They took up their crosses, they denied themselves (aka avoided sin), and truly loved.

But here’s where the wheels come completely off. This is what Fr. Martin does best: he spreads a bit of truth and then completely twists it.

Too often we short circuit God’s plans for our own holiness by comparing ourselves to some other saint or saying that we can’t possibly be a saint in our own daily lives. People say, “I’m just a student.” “I’m just a teacher.” “I’m just a grandparent.” But you’re not “just” anything, because God has created you as a beautiful and unique person. So you’re called to be a saint in your own way. As the Trappist monk Thomas Merton said, “For me to be a saint means to be myself.” So maybe it’s time to stop trying to be like someone else. Stop looking at someone else’s roadmap to holiness. Because all the directions you have are inside your heart. As St. Francis de Sales said, “Be who you are and be that perfectly well.

First of all, I looked around for the quote from St. Francis de Sales. I found it in a few places, but Martin’s quote seems rather misworded and out of context from the original. If someone can find these words in context from St. Francis de Sales, please feel free to share, but this is what I found when trying to find this quote anywhere. From this quote below, you can see Fr. Martin’s usual tactics in play.

Don’t sow your desires in someone else’s garden; just cultivate your own as best you can; don’t long to be other than what you are, but desire to be thoroughly what you are. Direct your thoughts to being very good at that and to bearing the crosses, little or great, that you will find there. Believe me, this is the most important and least understood point to the spiritual life. We all love according to what is our taste; few people like what is according to their duty or to God’s liking. What is the use of building castles in Spain when we have to live in France? ~St. Francis de Sales

Hmmm… Fr. Martin seems to have omitted a key part of the super cool quote he found in wikiquotes. Let’s look at it one more time:

Believe me, this is the most important and least understood point to the spiritual life. We all love according to what is our taste; few people like what is according to their duty or to God’s liking.

Even the quote given by Fr. Martin from Thomas Merton is severely lacking the context which was all too important. For my readers, it comes from his description of our true self compared to the false self, in “New Seeds of Contemplation.”

For me to be a saint means to be myself.

Here’s the whole shebangg. (Source picked for accurate context and nothing else. Don’t know anything about them.)

And here’s the quote surrounding Fr. Martin’s cherry-picked quote, and as you can see, his soundbites are hugely deceptive, as usual:

We are not very good at recognizing illusions, least of all the ones we cherish most about ourselves—the ones we are born and raised with and which feed the roots of sin. For most of the people in the world, there is no greater subjective reality than this false self of theirs, which cannot exist. A life devoted to maintaining and expanding this false self, this shadow, is what is called a life of sin.

All sin starts from the assumption that my false self, the self that exists only in my own egocentric desires, is the fundamental reality of life around which everything else in the universe is ordered. Thus I use up my life in the desire for pleasures and the thirst for experiences, for power, honor, knowledge, feeling loved, in order to clothe this false self and construct its nothingness into something objectively real. And I wind experiences around myself and cover myself with pleasures and glory like bandages in order to make myself perceptible to myself and to the world, as if I were an invisible body that could only become visible when something visible covered its surface.

To be a saint means to be my true self. Therefore the problem of sanctity and salvation is in fact the problem of finding out who I truly am and of discovering my true self, my essence or core.

For a priest who seems to claim Merton a hero, Fr. Martin, LGBTQSJ, sure promotes a misread of him. “God made you this way!” is his favorite message to those suffering from same-sex attraction. Seriously, leaving out the distinction of true self and false self is crucial, yet Fr. Martin CONSTANTLY contradicts this teaching of Merton by teaching everyone that we are our sins and proclivities, i.e., LGTBQSJ Catholic. He encourages people to embrace their “false self.” To be a saint, according to Merton, you need to be your “real self.”

To become a saint is to learn to love and sacrifice DESPITE ourselves. Fr. Martin, you were on track when you said not to compare your life to, say, Mother Teresa and throw in the towel because you are not there. However, you were so wrong when you said that being yourself is good enough. That’s kind of arrogant. You could have really said something valuable if you honestly quoted St. Francis de Sales. Here’s a gem:

It is not those who commit the least faults who are the most holy, but those who have the greatest courage, the greatest generosity, the greatest love, who make the boldest efforts to overcome themselves, and are not immediately apprehensive about tripping.

Now that’s the real untwisted St. Francis de Sales. So, just as a recap. Fr. Martin is saying that we ARE the sum total of our sins and proclivities which, as usual, is wrong. We are made in the image and likeness of God. God is not sin and proclivities. If you really were a fan of Thomas Merton or St. Francis de Sales, you wouldn’t quote them out of context. It’s simply a dishonest twisting of their teaching.

Red Hat Fight!

 This duel between Cardinals Kasper and Müller is super interesting to me. First of all, Cardinal Müller mentions the pope, oh, zero times in his “Manifesto of Faith.” If I were Cardinal Kasper, I’d be thinking that it was aimed at himself. Of course, Cardinal Kasper probably believes he and the title “the pope” are synonymous, but that’s just my guess.

Cardinal Kasper says Mueller’s manifesto spreads ‘confusion and division’

Munich, Germany, Feb 10, 2019 / 01:32 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Cardinal Walter Kasper has released a criticism of Cardinal Gerhard Müller’s “Manifesto of Faith,” accusing it of containing half-truths and blanket statements that could lead to division and confusion in the Church.

Well, if anyone knows about how to lead division and confusion in the Church it would be Cardinal Kasper! Would you care to point out these blanket statements and half-truths which lead to confusion and division, Cardinal Kasper? Seriously, talk about a blanket statement with no teeth. I think the laity is getting really weary of “It is so because I say so!” For those who haven’t seen that tactic before, it should be painfully obvious since one group of German bishops have no arguments but that. They got no game.

In a statement on katholisch.de, Kasper said that while the manifesto “contains many statements of faith that every upright Catholic can wholeheartedly affirm,” some of the truths in it “are pointed out so pointedly that it fades out the other half.”

This is unbelievable. He’s not saying that Cardinal Müller is twisting a truth. He’s saying that he’s making many statements of truth, but some are “louder” than others? As if somehow one truth is cancelling out another truth? As if not stating all of the truths of the Faith is somehow making Cardinal Müller a liar? Cardinal Müller is simply focusing on the truths that are in question. It was never supposed to be a compendium of Catholic truths. Can you say “Huge misdirection?” This is one of the lamest things every written. I’m totally hoping it’s poor CNA writing rather than Cardinal Kasper’s attempt at catechesis.

On Feb. 8, Cardinal Gerhard Müller, former prefect of the Vatican’s doctrinal office, published a “Manifesto of Faith,” which he described as a response to Catholics who have requested that he issue a “public testimony about the truth of revelation” in response to “growing confusion about the doctrine of the Faith.”

Can we not say there’s a growing confusion of Faith?! I would think that’s a gimme. Heck, here in the United States we’ve got several prime examples of confused Catholics. We’ve got Andrew Cuomo, Nancy Pelosi, Fr. James Martin, LGBTSJ, America Magazine, etc., etc., etc. I can cite hundreds of confused Catholics in this country alone. That said, the confusion per capita is off the charts in Germany. Somebody had to make some clarifications to the confused. I’m not sure when that turned into a schismatic move.

The manifesto addresses five areas of Catholic doctrine: Christology, ecclesiology, sacraments, morality, and eschatology, the branch of theology that addresses death, judgment, heaven, and hell. Each section draws heavily from references to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Each section heavily quotes the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Unlike Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Müller isn’t writing his own interpretation of Faith. He’s quoting the Catechism, for heaven’s sake.

In his document, Müller quotes the catechism, noting that “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.” He adds that “from the internal logic of the sacrament,” that norm applies to “divorced and civilly remarried persons, whose sacramental marriage exists before God, as well as those Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Faith and the Church.” He also reiterated that the Church cannot ordain women to the priesthood and affirmed Church teaching on the existence of heaven and hell.

Uh, so Cardinal Müller states Catholic teaching. There’s a shocker. Yes, that’s sarcastic. What’s really shocking is that Cardinal Kasper doesn’t even make the attempt to quote it.

Kasper, who has been an outspoken advocate of the admission of the divorced-and-remarried to Holy Communion, accused Müller of making “unacceptable blanket statements,” such as the assertion that “the conscience of the faithful is not sufficiently formed.”

 Tsk, tsk, tsk, Cardinal Kasper. Red card for quoting out of context. Here’s the actual statement from the manifesto:

The task of the Magisterium of the Church is to “preserve God’s people from deviations and defections” in order to “guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error” (890). This is especially true with regard to all seven sacraments. The Holy Eucharist is “source and summit of the Christian life” (CCC 1324). The Eucharistic Sacrifice, in which Christ includes us in His Sacrifice of the Cross, is aimed at the most intimate union with Him (CCC 1382). Therefore, the Holy Scripture admonishes with regard to the reception of the Holy Communion: “Whoever eats unworthily of the bread and drinks from the Lord’s cup makes himself guilty of profaning the body and of the blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27). “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion” (CCC 1385). From the internal logic of the sacrament, it is understood that divorced and civilly remarried persons, whose sacramental marriage exists before God, as well as those Christians who are not in full communion with the Catholic Faith and the Church, just as all those who are not disposed to receive the Holy Eucharist fruitfully (CCC 1457), because it does not bring them to salvation. To point this out corresponds to the spiritual works of mercy.

The confession of sins in Holy Confession at least once a year is one of the Church’s commandments (CCC 2042). When the believers no longer confess their sins and no longer experience the absolution of their sins, salvation becomes impossible; after all, Jesus Christ became Man to redeem us from our sins. The power of forgiveness that the Risen Lord has given to the Apostles and their successors in the ministry of bishops and priests applies also for mortal and venial sins which we commit after Baptism. The current popular practice of confession makes it clear that the conscience of the faithful is not sufficiently formed. God’s mercy is given to us, that we might fulfil His Commandments to become one with His Holy Will, and not so as to avoid the call to repentance (CCC 1458).

The only thing I’m confused about here is the phrase “current popular practice of confession” because what we have is a current popular non-practice of confession. I’m reasonably sure this is a world-wide problem. Nobody thinks they are sinning at all, much less committing a serious sin, because they have listened to the Cardinal Kaspers of the world who have confused “primacy of conscience” so much that all one has to do to remain sin free is to not think something is really a sin. Uh, hello! Thus, the point of the manifesto.

“It is undoubtedly true that the confession of the Triune God constitutes a fundamental difference in belief in God and the image of man from other religions. But are there not similarities, especially with the Jews and the Muslims, in the belief in the one God? And are not these similarities today fundamental to peace in the world and in society? Half the truth is not the Catholic truth!” Kasper charged.

Again, this is sophomoric. Did Cardinal Müller say there weren’t some similarities here and there? Geez. No. But let’s look at your own comment, Cardinal Kasper: “Half the truth is not the Catholic truth!” You are the one who might want to remember that, Cardinal Kasper. Again, the reason for the manifesto. You are the king of half-truths, which is why you have a HUGE problem when someone spells out truth at all. Do you actually believe that the Catholic Church is the One True Church, Cardinal Kasper? That’s where we should be trying to lead people. Can you use a smidge of truth that might be found in some other religion to lead them to the Catholic Church? Sure. Archbishop Fulton Sheen pointed that out in “Mary and the Moslems”. But to say that God does not desire every person to be Catholic would be, well, a lie.

He also said that he was “totally horrified” to read Müller’s statement that failing to teach the truths of the Catholic faith “it is the fraud of Antichrist.”

Really? Horrified? Wow! Didn’t know you could actually be horrified by anything, Cardinal Kasper, because you seem to miss things that should most horrify you on a regular basis. You know? Sacrilegious reception of the Holy Eucharist, mortal sin, hell, etc.

Kasper suggested that Müller was following the path of Martin Luther: “One who rightly advocates reforms in the Church, but wants to pursue these behind the Pope’s back and enforce them in opposition to him? I would find that hard to believe. For that could only lead to confusion and division. That could unhinge the Catholic Church.”

Well, that was a scurrilous (and completely dramatic) accusation if I ever saw one. And to that I say, PROVE IT! And while you’re at it, prove that any part of Cardinal Müller’s manifesto contradicts ANY Church teaching in any way. You’ve completely failed thus far. And for an extra challenge to you, Cardinal Kasper, why don’t you quote church teaching to prove it. Never mind. I already know why that won’t happen.

I find it completely idiotic to think that a guy who said this just a few months back  could be seen as gunning at Pope Francis vs. half his fellow German bishops and cardinals who he’s never quite agreed with on doctrinal issues. Let’s face it, Cardinal Kasper just has his feelings hurt and will always finger someone else for dissent again the Holy Father if it draws attention from him being a horrific shepherd.