Call No Woman Father! (It’s Just Kind of Stupid!)

Another day, another insane woman who’s jealous of the all-male priesthood.  Move on ladies. 

http://www.lifezette.com/faithzette/ordained-female-priests-now-saying-fake-mass/

‘Ordained’ Female Priests Are Now Saying ‘Fake Mass’

by Leah Jessen | Updated 02 May 2017 at 9:04 AM

A spin-off “group” of the Roman Catholic Church has ordained a woman priest — a decision not in union, of course, with the church.

First of all, the title should have read “Fake Female Priests are Creating the Usual Mockery.”  Next, they are not a spin off group of the Roman Catholic Church.  There are no “spin off groups.”  There are heretics, schismatics, dissidents, etc., but they are not the Church and THE Church doesn’t splinter.  It is “One” or so we say in the Creed.

The Association of Roman Catholic Priests ordained Abigail Eltzroth, 64, this past weekend in Asheville, North Carolina. The ordination is not endorsed by, nor does it follow the correct process of, the Roman Catholic Church, which does not ordain female priests.

Not a shocker that this babe grew up in the 60s and 70s.  I wish the children of the felt age would just quietly (and faithfully but I’ll take quietly if that’s all I can get) ride off into the sunset.  Now Ms. Jessen, if the ordination is “not endorsed by, nor does it follow the correct process of, the Roman Catholic Church, which does not ordain female priests,” why aren’t we asking how they think they can call themselves “The Association of Roman Catholic Priests?”  Hmmmm???  False advertising wouldn’t you say?  In fact, the only true “association of Roman Catholic Priests” is in, and ordained by, THE Roman Catholic Church.  Maybe you’ve heard of her? And, BTW, Lifezette got the name of Abigail’s organization wrong.  The actual name is the “Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests” (https://arcwp.org/en/) and their mission statement is:

The Association of Roman Catholic women priests, therefore, responds to this call from the Holy Spirit, in our time, by preparing, ordaining and supporting qualified women and men, from all states of life, who are committed to a model of Church grounded in Jesus’ vision of an open table, where all are welcome.

By our living and ministering within a community of equals, we are respectful of differences among people.

In the tradition of our mystics and prophets, we challenge the dominance of patriarchal systems by promoting practices of equality that lead us to recognize and stand for justice on behalf of all people, locally and globally, and on behalf of the urgent needs of Eco-justice for our planet.

Now, if you look at this, haven’t they chosen the wrong name?  If you’re ordaining “qualified” MEN, isn’t the  “Association of Roman Catholic Women Priests” a little off?  I mean, not that they weren’t off before but…  I have to laugh at the thought that some man must have made such a stink that they are now getting a dose of their own whiney medicine.  Seems like maybe the “Association of Felt Loving Androgynous Comrades” would be more appropriate but I guess AFLAC is taken and we wouldn’t want to tarnish the poor duck.

At any rate, these “folks” (to be gender inclusive) aren’t “qualified.”  The Sacraments always have to have valid form, matter and intent.  At least the babes aren’t valid matter, and if the guys had the right intent, I would think they’d go through the normal channels.

And this – doesn’t it kind of crack you up?

In the tradition of our mystics and prophets, we challenge the dominance of patriarchal systems.

Come on, ladies.  Let’s name some names.  Which mystics and prophets challenged those mean ol’ patriarchal systems?  Do your mystics and prophets come from Themyscira, perhaps? (Start googling, people.)  I’ll give you a hint.  Diana, Lasso of Truth…  Just like her, you’re a fictional character and so are your “mystics and prophets.”

“We use equal rites to promote equal rights.”

Let’s hear it for the soundbite!  Seriously, your silly made up “rite” doesn’t even compare to the amazing Rite of Ordination for Priests.  Not equal in any respect. One is very fake and one is very real.

“I’m sure that I will be [excommunicated] if I haven’t been already,” Eltzroth told The Charlotte Observer. “But there are plenty of saints who have been excommunicated. So that’s not going to stop us.”

Kind of blasé about the whole excommunication thing, no?  Declaring yourself or comparing yourself to a saint is kind of a HUGE tell that you’re probably not.  And “plenty” of saints who have been excommunicated?  Anyone else want to call her on that? I’m pretty sure she’s googling now just to make sure she can scrape together a few names.  I’m just going to clue you in, Abigail, the situation was rare.  “Plenty” doesn’t even come close to truth. Half of them weren’t actually excommunicated (say, for instance, Joan of Arc whose excommunication was ruled invalid buy Roman Pontiff – the guy who gets to rule on such things) and the other half’s excommunications were lifted.  And, I guarantee none of them took their situations as lightly as you.  It wasn’t trivial to them.

Eltzroth “now plans to to start a Catholic worship community in the Asheville area,” according to The Observer.

Let’s go over this one more time.  It’s not a “Catholic” anything unless it’s actually Catholic.  It’s just a little monument to her hubris.

She joins the ranks of 250 other women priests who are part of a “renewal movement within the Roman Catholic Church.” Eltzroth converted from Presbyterianism to Catholicism in her 50s.

Well, she would be, if there were such a thing as “women priests.”  She might have some sort of movement going on, but it’s anything but Roman Catholic.  I’d kind of have to quibble about the whole conversion thing.  Seems like she’s still pretty entrenched in the Presbyterian group that ordains women.  It’s splintered that denomination to pieces.  

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, Eltzroth is not an actual priest. “I hope that Catholics in the diocese will understand that it would be sinful to receive a fake sacrament from a woman priest, and that includes attending a fake Mass,” said David Hains, a spokesman for the Catholic Diocese of Charlotte.

Exactly. Thank you Diocese of Charlotte!

The women’s priest group views the situation quite differently.

Uh, because reality has left the building where they are concerned? 

We prepare and ordain qualified women and men to serve the people of God as priests,” the organization’s website maintains. “We use equal rites to promote equal rights and justice for women in the church.”

The group claims to welcome all and to offer an “inclusive” service.

Well why the heck not?  Anything goes in her little church.

’“The Vatican states that we are excommunicated; however, we do not accept this and affirm that we are loyal members of the church,” the organization claims. “We continue to serve our beloved church in a renewed priestly ministry by welcoming all to celebrate the sacraments in inclusive, Christ-centered, Spirit-empowered communities wherever we are called.”

Again, not a shocker when reality is whatever you decide.  Want to be the church where pink elephants are priests?  Bam.  It is so!

Sorry, ladies. You serve yourselves.  It’s always been all about you.  “Look at me!” has been the rally cry.

Some church denominations allow women to serve in leadership roles. The Catholic Church, however, has kept its longstanding tradition of male leadership in the church.

…because Truth cannot change.

“For one, it should be noted that Jesus did not ordain any women,” the Catholic Education Resource Center notes. “He selected all of his apostles, and none were women … There were other roles that Christ had in mind for women. For example, they played a key role in the spread of the Gospel, being the first to spread the news of the risen Christ.”

Yes and yes.  Again, women are the wrong matter.  I’m so tired of the feminist hacks.  Women have always had an important role in our Church.  Sadly, this fact is lost on many.  I wish St. Teresa, St. Catherine, and St. Therese would come down and thump these silly women on the head.  I can only imagine what they’d say to those who reject Church teaching on the matter.  

“If I should say anything that is not in conformity with what is held by the Holy Roman Catholic Church, it will be through ignorance and not through malice. This may be taken as certain, and also that, through God’s goodness, I am, and shall always be, as I always have been, subject to her. ~ St. Teresa of Avila

Do you think the ARCWP crowd has heard that one before?  Yeah, me neither.  

In 2016, Pope Francis created a commission to study the idea of having women in deacon roles within the church.

Blah, blah, blah.

Fordham Cries Fowl!

Oh, my ever loving goodness!  Catholic college students everywhere should be embarrassed!  For those of you who don’t know, Fordham is a “Catholic” university. (Quote marks totally appropriate!)  That said, all is right with the world, because, unlike Duquene, this is a Jesuit university, so this makes total sense given the lack of Catholic logic in Jesuit schools.


http://www.fordhamobserver.com/student-groups-shut-down-chick-fil-a-proposal/

Student Groups Shut Down Chick-Fil-A Proposal

Apr 21, 2017

Chick-Fil-A

(Katarina Marschhausen/The Observer).

By STEPHAN KOZUB

News Co-Editor

For now, members of the Fordham community will not “Eat Mor Chikin.” Following push back from clubs and independent students over LGBTQ issues and menu offerings, the university has opted to decline an Aramark proposal to install a Chick-Fil-A in the Ram Cafe.

The proposal, initially discussed in early March, included renovating the grill area, or Urban Kitchen, to house a Chick-Fil-A. The hot entree station, or Cloverleaf, would have remained in place.

The student groups that were consulted in responding to the proposal were the United Student Government (USG), the Commuter Students Association (CSA), the Residence Hall Association (RHA) and the Rainbow Alliance.

I reiterate again: Fordham is supposedly a Catholic school!  Why is a Catholic school consulting with the “Rainbow Alliance?”  Give me a stinking break!  Here’s a novel idea.  Why don’t you consult with the Catechism?  Never mind, I’m sure you lost (or burned) the one copy that might be somewhere on the campus.

The Rainbow Alliance was consulted in the decision-making process because of a controversy regarding Chick-Fil-A’s stance on LGBTQ issues that has been stirred up to varying degrees since 2012. That year, the family that owns the fast food chain made public statements against marriage equality, a stance backed up by several million dollars in donations they have made over the years to organizations working actively against same-sex marriage. When the chain opened their first location in New York in 2015, they faced protests on the issue.

Hmmm…the city of New York.  What happened to that Chick-fil-a in NYC?  Oh yeah, it’s thriving and more have opened.  Uh, Fordham, that might give you a clue as to your stupidity.  They are chicken sandwiches.  Chicken sandwiches can’t change your “sexual identity.”  If they could, I would totally invest with your best interest in mind.  Sadly, all Chick-fil-a does, dear “Rainbow Alliance,” is feed college kids on a budget.

Representatives from Chik-Fil-A offered to collaboratively run unspecified programming with the Rainbow Alliance in conjunction with the rollout of a venue on campus. Due to continued concerns regarding this issue, however, the Rainbow Alliance unanimously voted against the proposal. Several students independently reached out to USG to voice their concerns, according to then-USG president Leighton Magoon, Fordham College at Lincoln Center (FCLC) ’17.

“If they want to bring in Chick-Fil-A, they can bring in Chick-Fil-A,” Renata Francesco, FCLC ’19 and Rainbow Alliance Co-President, said. “But we’re not going to partner with an institution, a corporation that has so strongly supported other institutions that work to destabilize and demolish movements for queer equity.”

I think they’re just liberal wannabees instead of Catholics.  Hey, Fordham – I live in just about the most liberal state of the union, and guess what?  Many of our state schools (not even Catholic schools) have Chick-fil-a’s on campus, and quite frankly, they’re laughing at you.

And, guess what?  I’m sure most of you don’t know the history of Chick-fil-a, but I looked it up for you.  In 1998, Chick-fil-a had 134 stores and 114 of them were on college campuses.  http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/1998/11/16/story2.html  Did somebody at Fordham suddenly notice that these campuses all become conservative bastions and/or places where homosexuals have been persecuted for years?  Please.  Get just a little grip on reality.  When did serving chicken sandwiches become a form of persecution?

When resistance to the proposal started to gain steam, the USG executive board began to reconsider if USG was okay with having a Chick-Fil-A on campus, said Magoon. Over spring break, they were informed that the university had declined the proposal and that Aramark would no longer pursue the installation of a Chick-Fil-A.

Define “gaining steam?”  Apparently the university missed an op-ed by one of its own: https://fordhamram.com/2017/02/15/chick-fil-a-is-here-to-stay/  I’d bet money that for every one liberal whiner, there are ten hungry students who want their chicken.

Francesco said that she was surprised about this decision, because of “Fordham’s recent handling of major queer issues on campus, most notably the hesitation and denial to create trans-inclusive spaces.” The Observer reported on issues facing trans students on campus in a recent issue.

“Part of me is hopeful that they’ll start taking this attitude of listening to queer students and queer voices, because there are so many on this campus and just in life,” she said. “I really do hope this is a step, as opposed to just a final ‘Oh we’ll do this, we’ll give them that,’ as a way to placate us. But we were very happy with the decision.”

Really?!?!  Surprised about the decision?  http://www.campusreform.org/%5C?ID=6659  It’s Jesuit.  It’s Fordham.  I’d expect no less, even though it’s ridiculous.  I’ve learned to expect this from the likes of them.  Traditional marriage?  Not really in their wheelhouse.

Students also had concerns with Chick-Fil-A’s menu options, according to Dining Services Contract Liaison Deming Yaun.

“Certainly, there were some menu concerns as it related to special diets that Chick-Fil-A did not have a lot to offer for,” Yaun said. “They didn’t have a lot to address special diets.”

Additionally, the proposal process revealed that any instillation of a national chain in the Ram Cafe would also necessitate a total revamp of the hot entree Cloverleaf station.

“What came out was that Cloverleaf cannot stand on it own against a national brand really of any kind,” Yaun said. “So we were off replacing one format, but it’s really got to be a comprehensive change involving the whole line.”

Regarding the concerns that students had, Yaun stated that “if we were to try again, we would make sure that everyone that was in the decision process heard the presentations” that the representatives from Chick-Fil-A gave during the proposal process. As of now, there are no alternative plans being discussed to install a national chain in the Ram Cafe in light of the decision on the proposal.

Lamest. Argument. Ever.  Again, hundreds of college campuses house a Chick-fil-a, but it couldn’t possibly work here because it doesn’t address special diets.

While the leaders of the Rainbow Alliance see the rejection of Chick-Fil-A as a step in the right direction, they say that it is only a “tiny step.”

“This is something that I don’t want to congratulate Fordham for, like ‘Oh my god, I’m so glad that you can see this. You’re such a good person,’” said Rainbow Alliance co-president Roberta Munoz. “I don’t want to pat them on the back. You can’t say ‘Oh you’re such a great ally’ when there’s still so many issues with our queer students. Like great, love it, but keep going.”

You didn’t get a segregated space (one of those things that used to be frowned upon when people were sane), and there are “so many issues”?  Yeah, I’m pretty sure you won’t be happy until you’ve erased all traces of Catholicism if they’re not gone already.

I See Pharisees!

I see dead people

Anyone ever notice that those who are really acting like Pharisees are the one constantly throwing out that epithet?  I cannot be the only one.  Seriously, it’s like the Catholic version of Nazi.  I am here and now declaring that “One Mad Mom’s Law” applies when liberal Catholics with no valid arguments want to score points with people who don’t really know much about Catholicism, they will inevitably start parroting “Pharisees!”  (Godwin has his law, now I have mine.) And, when I say “those really acting like Pharisees,” I mean the “good old liberals’ club.” 

Seriously though, have you ever noticed the name calling among the clergy always comes from one side?  You’ve got James Martin, SJ, with “haters” (I’ll let that go when he gets a clue!), Cardinal Maradiaga (and many more) still going with the old-school “Pharisees”, and I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before someone like Fr. Rosica throws out “Alt-Right Catholics.” 

So here’s the name calling of the week:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/papal-advisor-rips-dubia-cardinals-they-have-not-read-amoris-laetitia

 

Advisor close to Pope Francis accuses dubia cardinals of ‘a new pharisaism’

 April 24, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – The leader of the Pope’s Council of Nine cardinals said the dubia cardinals haven’t read Amoris Laetitia and wondered why they haven’t “said anything about those who manufacture weapons.”

Personally, Cardinal Maradiaga is starting to sound like someone just woke him up suddenly from a nap and something very random just pops out of his mouth that has nothing to do with anything.  Because, really, what in the world does a have to do with b?  Nothing.

Cardinal Óscar Rodríguez Maradiaga made these remarks during a radio interview on March 25. Andrew Guernsey translated them at OnePeterFive.

“I think, in the first place, that they [the four cardinals] have not read Amoris Laetitia, because, unfortunately, this is the case!” said Maradiaga. “I know the four and I say that they are already in retirement…They should do something else.”

Really, Cardinal?  They didn’t read Amoris Laetitia?  Don’t you think that is a wee bit of a stretch? We seem to have wandered into “Let’s just throw it at the wall and see if it sticks!” mode.  Also, our American dude is retired?  You are 74 and he is 68.  I believe someone has far more voting years left than someone else.  Numbers.  They’re such a hard thing.  I half expect him to say “Somebody get those dern kids off me lawn!”

He criticized the cardinals who asked Pope Francis to clarify whether Amoris Laetitia is aligned with Catholic morality as Pharisees, the hypocrites in the Bible.

Remember, One Mad Mom Law.  Here you go. 

“How come they have not said anything about those who manufacture weapons?” asked Maradiaga. “Some are in countries that manufacture and sell weapons for all the genocide that is happening in Syria, for example. Why? I would not want to put it – shall we say – too strongly; only God knows people’s consciences and inner motivations; but, from the outside it seems to me to be a new pharisaism.”

So, the Fab Four are for the chemical attacks in Syria now?!  Did they also push the button that launched them?  Please.  The shark has officially been jumped.

“The car of the Church has no gear to go in reverse,” continued Maradiaga. “It pulls itself forward because the Holy Spirit is not accustomed to go backwards.”

Except when it makes awkward translations…or prints Catechisms…or…  The Church isn’t going “backwards.”  It corrects course. It clarifies.  Are you really saying the Church has never answers dubias?  Could have fooled me.

He said he’s not worried about the direction of the Church because “it is not Francis, it is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church.”

So, no popes throughout history have ever done anything wrong?  They have all been kept free from error in all regards?  Yeah, not quite historically accurate.

In August, documents released by Wikileaks showed George Soros’ Open Society Foundation planned to work through Maradiaga to influence American Catholic bishops during the Pope’s visit to the U.S.

“We will support PICO’s organizing activities to engage the Pope on economic and racial justice issues, including using the influence of Cardinal Rodriguez, the Pope’s senior advisor,” a report from the Open Society Foundation said. PICO is a leftist community organizing group. Using Maradiaga’s influence included “sending a delegation to visit the Vatican in the spring or summer to allow him to hear directly from low-income Catholics in America.”

(If you want more details on PICO, Stephanie Block has done a great job running down all of the problems.  Here’s just a tidbit: http://johntwo24-25.net/IAF%20and%20Abortion%20-%20Three%20Articles%20by%20Stephanie%20Block.pdf

In 2015, Maradiaga participated in the “shadow synod” that attacked Church teaching and contributed to the subversion of the two synods on the family. 

Not entirely sure how shadowy it was.  Cardinal Madariaga apparently doesn’t do stealth.

<Snip because I see no reason to quote vague statements.  That’s pretty much all you’re going to get from most of the liberals in the Church on homosexuality.  They’re not really fond of pointed questions and they definitely aren’t going to give pointed responses!>

The Council of Nine pledged allegiance to Pope Francis after a poster campaign in Rome and a satirical version of the Vatican newspaper were critical of the Pope in one week. German Cardinal Reinhard Marx and Council of Nine member has also said of the dubia, “the document [Amoris] is not as ambiguous as some people claim.”

OK, a couple of things here.  I’m not sure who chose the “Council of Nine” moniker.  Does anyone know who the “Council of Nine” were in Greek Mythology and what they gave us? Anyone? Homeschool mom here!  Aphrodite, Apollo, Athena, Demeter, Hephaestus, Hera, Hermes, Poseidon and Zeus. They gave mankind Pandora and Pandora’s Box.  For those of you rusty on the story, Pandora’s curiosity got the best of her, so she opened the box and released all of the misfortunes of mankind.  That’s also the name for the leaders of Church of Satan (which I just found out).  How’s that for ominous????  I’m so wondering if Cardinal Pell finds himself questioning how the heck he got there because he said all of this: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-pell-on-dubia-how-can-you-disagree-with-a-question

Next, this “poster war” is bizarre.  Nobody seems to know who was behind the original posters critical of the Pope, and then there was the next round in support of Pope Francis.  The second round of “poster war” in support of the Holy Father was not put out by a Catholic group but by the “Global Tolerance Initiative.”  This guy, Shaikh Mohammed, is behind the group:

ShaikhMartin

Might I point out that the UAE doesn’t have the best record on women’s right nor tolerance towards homosexuals? Just a tad bit hypocritical. What’s even more bizarre is that it happened right around the same time this guy was appointed to the Vatican Communications office:

martin

Let’s see what happens when you put the two together…

ShaikhJamesMartin

What does this have to do with anything?  Not much, but I’ve been dying to find a place to put this when I stumbled across this pictures in close proximity.   The resemblance in both hypocrisy and look was uncanny.  I just can’t help myself!  Seriously!  Brothers from another mother!

Show…Me…the Canons!

Fight the false history, people!  Here’s a newsflash!  People who commit mortal sins should not be receiving Communion! This applies to you.  This applies to me.  This also applies to people who find themselves in really sad and/or hard situations. This does not now, nor has it ever meant, that said sinners are necessarily excommunicated.  That’s a whole separate issue.
Lately, I’ve seen many try to confuse the situation by suggesting that people who are not free to receive Communion are excommunicated.  Seems to be the new liberal strategy of the day.  The fact is, most people who may not receive Communion are simply in a state of mortal sin that doesn’t rise to the level of excommunication.

Now, some are creating imaginary canons and applying imaginary scenarios to them.  Ed Peters clarifies that nicely.  Might be nice if the Crux folks investigated a bit, but sadly, I think this is their chosen method of operation as of late.  They seem to be running on a “Let’s just say that John Paul II did something and hope nobody actually verifies it”, adding a “He who frames the question…” flourish, concluded with a “Repeat the lie until everyone believes it” move.

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/

Fr. James Keenan writing in Crux this week makes his own a question raised (last July, it seems) by Rocco Buttiglione in L’Osservatore Romano: “Is there any contradiction between the popes who excommunicated divorced and remarried persons and Saint John Paul II who lifted that excommunication?

That’s fake canon law. John Paul II never lifted any excommunication against divorced and remarried Catholics because, quite simply, there was no excommunication against divorced and remarried Catholics for him to lift. Shall we talk about it?

Let’s all watch Ed school those so desperate to admit all to Communion.

Buttiglione writes in the L’OR piece upon which Keenan draws: “Once upon a time, divorced and remarried persons were excommunicated and excluded from the life of the Church. That kind of excommunication disappears from the new Code of Canon Law and Familiaris Consortio, and divorced and remarried persons are now encouraged to participate in the life of the Church and to give their children a Christian upbringing. This was an extraordinarily courageous decision that broke from an age-old tradition. But Familiaris Consortio tells us that the divorced and remarried cannot receive the sacraments.

Gracious! However far back in Church history Buttiglione needs to search for an excommunication of divorced-and-remarried Catholics, he apparently thinks that the 1917 Code itself excommunicated divorced and remarried Catholics and that, only by making a “courageous decision that broke from an age-old tradition”, could John Paul II ‘disappear’ that “excommunication” from the new (1983) Code of Canon Law.

I’ve kind of learned along the way to ask for citations mainly because it’s fun to watch their heads explode when they don’t actually have one.  So much “fake Catholicism” out there nowadays, I really don’t trust much.

There is just one problem with Buttiglione’s and Keenan’s canonical narrative of a pope kicking down a penal door locked against divorced-and-remarried Catholics—and thus with their broader ‘if-John-Paul-could-then-Francis-can’ claim, namely: the 1917 Code did not excommunicate divorced and remarried Catholics.

Oops.

Oops is right, and it’s a biggie for Crux peeps!

Neither Buttiglione nor Keenan provide a citation for their claim about what canon law allegedly did up to the time of John Paul II (nor, come to think of it, did Abp. Scicluna who was, it now seems, uncritically repeating Buttiglione’s claim and extending it to embrace adulterers!), so one is left to guess at what they had in mind. But a couple of ideas occur to me, some of which I have addressed before.

Ed points out what I said earlier: the liberal spin doctors are in full swing with each repeating the error as truth and it won’t be long before they’re all parroting the same talking points.  It spreads like a wildfire.  The response we need to keep repeating in our best Jerry Maguire voice is “Show me the canons!”  Heck, let’s even slow it down a bit for dramatic effect.  “Show…me…the canons!”

Maybe Keenan and Buttiglione had in mind the Pio-Benedictine excommunication levied against Catholics who attempted marriage in violation of canonical form; problem is, this sanction was applicable to all Roman Catholics (not just to divorced-and-civilly-remarried ones) and, more importantly, it had already been abrogated by Paul VI in 1970, a dozen years before the 1983 Code went into force!

Or maybe Keenan the American (if not Buttiglione, an Italian) recalled when American Catholics who divorced and civilly remarried were indeed excommunicated for that offense; problem is, that rule was peculiar to American (not universal) canon law, it dated back only to 1884 (hardly ‘age-old’), and, most importantly, it too had already been abrogated in 1977—again by Paul VI, not John Paul II—several years before the 1983 Code was promulgated.

Cue Britney Spears, JCL: Oops, they did it again!

Or maybe by “new” Code of Canon Law, Buttiglione and Keenan meant the 1917 Code which, in its day, was certainly new; problem is, I can’t find an excommunication for divorced and civilly remarried Catholics in the main, pre-Code, penal document of the 19th century, Pius IX’s Apostolicae Sedis moderatione (1869). Do Buttiglione and Keenan know of one? Of course, even if one were found lurking somewhere, it had obviously ‘disappeared’ from codified canon law some 65 years before John Paul II arrived on the scene.

So, in short, John Paul II had zippo to do with lifting excommunications on divorced-and-civilly-remarried Catholics.  Is this just poor education on the part of Keenan, Buttiglione, Scicluna, and the growing number embracing this falsehood, or is it simply tactics on their part?  Regardless, thanks to Ed Peters for showing us the error of their ways.

Or maybe Buttiglione and Keenan understand by the term “excommunication” a much older usage that sometimes blurred the distinctions between “excommunication” (as a canonical penalty, c. 1331) and “denial of holy Communion” (as a sacramental disciplinary norm, c. 915); problem is, their claim about what John Paul II supposedly did demands that they use canonical terms as he and the Church understand them today—and as Buttiglione himself recognizes when he notes above that, despite the (alleged) lifting of a (non-existent) excommunication, divorced-and-remarried Catholics are still prohibited the sacraments (a statement wrong in some respects, but right enough in this regard).

So what does this mean? So much confusion exists about “excommunication.”  I often refer people to this and so I shall again: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05678a.htm  Excommunication is FAR different from not being free to receive Communion.  When you are excommunicated, you are barred from ALL of the Sacraments, public worship, and the Christian community in general. When you are in mortal sin, you are to refrain from Communion and encouraged to the hilt to cease sinning and get thyself to confession to rectify the mortal sin, but you are never to cease your Mass-going obligations.  Big difference!

So much contextualizing and back-storying, just to address one more fake canon law claim. But at least such research allows one to argue better not ‘if-John-Paul-could-then-Francis-can’, but rather ‘John-Paul-didn’t-and-Francis-shouldn’t’.

Sadly, it is necessary, Ed, and we thank you for doing so.  The question is, are people going to start doing their own homework or are they simply going to go with what’s most convenient for them to buy?  Honestly, people!  We’re talking about eternal life here!  It’s worth putting in just a little effort to go beyond the comfortable.  I mean, I’d love to believe that I no longer have to deal with hard situations in life and can just get to heaven because I mean well despite my sins, but I’m not so sure I’d be happy with the everlasting outcome of that stupid move.  I’m a mom.  The reality we employ around here is that the easy way, more often than not, is the wrong way, and at some point, the wrong way will bite us in the end.

If You Don’t Like Chicken Sandwiches, Don’t Have One!

My first thought when I read the title for the article below was “Is this another Jesuit school?”  Color me shocked!  It’s not.

http://www.faithwire.com/2017/04/12/college-students-fight-to-keep-chick-fil-a-off-campus-fearing-it-violates-safe-place-for-lgbtq-students/

College Students Fight to Keep Chick-fil-A Off Campus, Fearing It Violates ‘Safe Place’ for LGBTQ Students

Some students at a private, Catholic university in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, are apparently less than enthusiastic about the school’s decision to bring popular food chain Chick-fil-A to campus next fall.

The Duke — the official student newspaper of Duquesne University — recently covered the brewing controversy in a piece titled, “Student Group Leaders Concerned About Duquesne Chick-fil-A,” noting that the fast-food issue was recently taken up at a March 26 student government meeting.

I don’t know, you’d think something a little more urgent might fill up the meeting, but chicken sandwiches are pretty big in the lives of college students (or at least the ones who attend this university, apparently).

 

The outlet explains:

At the March 26 Student Government Association meeting, Senator at Large Niko Martini proposed that the SGA pass a resolution asking the university to reconsider the inclusion of Chick-fil-A as a dining option for students. […]

“Chick-fil-A has a questionable history on civil rights and human rights,” he said in a statement to The Duke. “I think it’s imperative the university chooses to do business with organizations that coincide with the [university’s] mission and expectations they give students regarding diversity and inclusion.”

OK, let’s just pause on the former for a moment and address the latter.  Human rights?  Please, oh, please, tell me where Chick-fil-A has violated human rights!  Has Dan Cathy set up concentration camps for homosexuals in his backyard or thrown them off the roofs of his restaurants, gassed citizens?!?!?  This is yet another bunch of irrelevant college kids who simply want their names in lights.  Chick-fil-A is nowhere near a serious situation.  In fact, it’s about a million miles away from one. Oh, and by the way , I’m reasonably sure the Obama administration would have sued them long ago over some bizarre interpretation of civil rights laws if it could have, but there wasn’t even the opportunity under their wacky interpretations to do so.

The SGA Senate did not pass any resolution but agreed to consider an alternate resolution to vett the Chick-fil-A Express, which senators tabled for the April 9 SGA meeting to allow time to research the concerns.

By all means, let us know what your congressional investigation reveals, you self-inflated adult wannabees!

These comments reportedly came after the school announced on March 20 that a Chick-fil-A Express would be included in dining options next fall — a decision that was apparently made based on student requests; it is unclear if the issue was taken up at the April 9 meeting as was stated in the article.

Wait!  College students want cheap chicken sandwiches?!?!  Imagine that. I have to wonder if these are also the students who don’t have mommy and daddy picking up the tab for “women’s studies” degrees.

“More than 245 college campuses around the country including Catholic University, Penn State University, Drexel University and the University of Pittsburgh have successfully brought Chick-fil-A onto their campuses, and more are doing the same in the next several years,” Scott Richards, executive director of Auxiliary Services, said in the March 20 announcement. “Now, our students will have the opportunity to enjoy the brand on our campus instead of having to travel to Oakland or the suburbs.”

Here’s the thing…If you don’t want to eat at Chick-fil-A, don’t!  If you’re against Traditional marriage, then don’t have…wait…seems to work for liberals when it comes to abortion. I suppose they won’t get this.

Clearly, not everyone was so enthusiastic.

Martini purportedly isn’t the only person with concerns either, as The Duke reported that the president of Lambda, a gay rights campus group, also has concerns about the restaurant’s planned presence, worrying that the “safe environment” and “safe place” the organization has worked to create on campus could be in jeopardy.

Oh my gosh!  Name one “unsafe” activity Chick-fil-A engages in other than possibly increasing heart disease!  Are they stoning homosexuals when they’re closed on Sundays?  Please.  Google “gay” and “chick-fil-a” and you’ll find a lot of homosexuals who aren’t willing to jump the shark (or skip a chicken sandwich) over a business owner’s personal beliefs, but the president of Lambda isn’t one of them.  One has to ask why the students don’t just boycott? If the overwhelming amount of students don’t eat there, they’ll close.  The Christian folk would wholeheartedly support their right to do it, too (speaking of civil rights).  Put your money (or don’t) where your beliefs lie and let the chips fall where they may.  It’s hard to believe (ok, it’s not) that this is the primary focus of students today.  No wonder they don’t function too well in society and have to retreat to their safe spaces.  I mean, someone disagreeing with them has become a human rights violation!

Student government president Olivia Erickson said that the governing body will look into campus concerns over Chick-fil-A by gathering student opinions on the matter, according to the article.

The piece did note that some students — even those who support same-sex relationships — are fine with Chick-fil-A coming to campus and see the restaurant’s presence as a good thing. While the article only attracted 11 comments, the majority favored the fast-food chain.

Exactly!  At least some level-headed kids can be found at this school.  Perhaps they’ve actually studied the history of their school.  It was started by the Holy Ghost Fathers who were literally thrown out of Germany by the secularists.  It’s actually quite interesting and the move by some on the “Student Government Association” seem to show they don’t even have a clue about it.  Hint: Kulturkampf.  Dear students, you’ve learned a lot about political correctness, perhaps too much, so maybe you should delve into history a little before you enter the real world. You’re running around like little Otto von Bismarcks.  

I realize reading these will cut into your liberal activism time but I have to do my best to keep you from looking so silly.   I’m a mom. I just can’t help it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duquesne_University

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kulturkampf

Can I also point out that the Catholic Church, you know, the Church your school claims membership, is a little bit against “gay marriage.”  Don’t you think that it’s a teensy-weensy bit ironic you pay thousands to attend a Catholic school and then protest Chick-fil-A???  Yes, young friends, this is why you entertain us.  Some days you’re just like little rats lost in a maze when you could just stand up on your hind legs and see the big picture.

One man named John wrote, “Poor little snowflakes.” Another added that people who feel threatened by the “mere presence of a restaurant” might be in need of “psychological counseling.” And one member of the gay community also spoke out.

John, you give me hope.

“As a member of the gay community, I don’t feel like a fast food option being added to campus threatens my gay identity. At all. Subway has a history of being advertised by someone who is in jail for child porn. Do you believe small children feel threatened on campus? No. Because you can’t associate an entire company with one person’s actions,” the individual wrote.

He or she continued, “I’m gay. I love Chick-fil-A. Do I appreciate that they have made anti-gay movements in the past? No, obviously. But putting a small store on campus is not going to decimate the apparent “safe space” we have here. It’s chicken. It’s fine. Focus on a bigger issue.”

Amen, “member of the gay community!”

But someone who identified as “Prof Plum” did warn against “empowering a pro-hate company.”  Read the article and all of the comments for yourself here.

Alright, Professor.  You apparently led a very sheltered, placated life.  Let me help you.  Not supporting “gay marriage” does not equal hate.  People are being thrown off buildings, my young friend.  Murder = hate.

Chick-fil-A was the focus of boycotts in 2012 after CEO Dan Cathy said the Christian-owned company backs traditional marriage.

And the boycott was so successful that Dan Cathy changed his mind!  No?  It wasn’t successful and he made a boatload of money that year?!  The company didn’t fold?!!  If nothing else, please at least see the power of conviction, people!

Social Justice is from Womb to Tomb!

I’m sure Thomas Reese, SJ, Cardinal Cupich, Bishop McElroy, Fr. James Martin, SJ, and club are typing up a correction for Ms. Ratcliffe as we speak!  Wait!  What?!  No?  Surely they want to correct the error of her ways, right?  I mean, it rather messes up their seamless garment issue to have somebody actually expressing what most of the seamless garment crowd thinks anyway, right?  They’re supposed to be quiet about this, a concept clearly was lost on Ms. Ratcliffe:

http://bit.ly/2nBY6FJ

 

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 3, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) – A representative from the George Soros-funded dissident group Catholics for Choice (CFC) said she supports Planned Parenthood, America’s largest abortion provider, because “our Catholic social justice tradition compels us to stand with the poor and the most vulnerable in our society.”

So let’s just kill all their children.  No need to offer them real help.  Let’s just eliminate the poor and vulnerable children and call it social justice!  Nobody will notice that it’s largely genocide.

“Planned Parenthood does this every single day,” CFC’s Sara Ratcliffe told a Planned Parenthood rally on Capitol Hill Wednesday. “The Washington-led attacks against Planned Parenthood only serve to hurt the poorest and most rural in our communities.”

Yes, they do. Planned Parenthood eliminates (nice way of saying kills) minorities and the poor class. Every. Single. Day. By the thousands.

Planned Parenthood commits over 300,000 abortions annually, an act the authoritative teaching of the Church labels “intrinsically evil.”

It promotes and provides contraception and sterilization, both condemned by the Church. Planned Parenthood is also a leading source of sex education, encouraging children of “any age” to masturbate and teens to experiment with sadomasochism as well as other dangerous and bizarre sexual practices.

Details.  Details.  Surely there’s not a problem with Ms. Ratcliffe and “Catholics” for Choice dissenting from the teachings of the Church. I mean, if there was, I’m sure that the National catholic Reporter and America Magazine club would get on that and show the clear Church teaching on the subject. 

Come on, people! Catholicism isn’t a nationality.  It’s a belief.  If you don’t believe it, too bad, so sad, but let’s be just a little intellectually honest and admit that you don’t believe much, if anything, of what the Church actually teaches.  I realize that Satan’s big game is to divide from within but your slip is kind of showing, Sara. 

“Catholics in good conscience support access to reproductive health to the people who need it and Planned Parenthood provides it,” said Ratcliffe. “Catholics support the right for women to decide on their own healthcare based on their own conscience without interference. And Planned Parenthood helps us do that.”

Oh my ever loving goodness!  This gets so tedious, perpetually pointing out what would take a few seconds for any Catholic to find on Google.  First, would you like to quote a little Church teaching on that, Sara?  Didn’t think so.  I’m reasonably sure that you’d gladly quote Article 6, Section I, and say “Seeeeeee???” and just hope nobody reads on to Section II.  If you’re falling for it, please read just a tiny bit further (like the next citation)!
 

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

So, no, Ms. Ratcliffe.  A GOOD conscience is a well-formed conscience formed around the Church’s teachings, not your will. It’s really a simple concept actually written out for you.  Stay with me here. Your opinions are not authoritative teachings.  A shocker!  I know!

Also, just so I’ve done my due diligence in clearing up your fallacies, Ms. Ratcliffe, you REALLY might want to read Section IV:

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT (AKA the part aimed squarely at Ms. Ratcliffe)

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If – on the contrary – the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.“60 (So based on this, what is your conscience good and pure, Sara?)

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

As Ratcliffe addressed the Planned Parenthood supporters, Students for Life of America President Kristan Hawkins shouted that one cannot be truly Catholic and pro-abortion. Hawkins’ voice can be heard in the distance in the video below. 

OK, Kristan’s a convert so I’m sure she might not be up on everything, but she’s in the same boat with a lot of other Catholics.  Just because you are a bad Catholic doesn’t mean you are not Catholic.  I’m a real stickler for this.  Ms. Ratcliffe could even renounce the Faith and she’d still be Catholic.  Baptism is an indelible mark.  Ms. Ratcliffe is most certainly a dissenting and poorly practicing Catholic, and if the clergy really loved her, they would’ve let her have it like most good parents would when their children stray toward danger.  Sadly, many ignore because it’s inconvenient, makes a news story they don’t want to be in, or simply doesn’t fit their seamless garment narrative.  Bad on them.  Obviously, this woman’s soul doesn’t mean as much to them as it should.  And then there’s the thousands of souls she leads astray everyday almost (just ignore this, you guys trying to wake her up) unchecked.  In fact, that’s why she’s able to do it.  Not on me!

“Equality, fairness, treating others with compassion, the right to social justice for everyone: these are Catholic values,” continued Ratcliffe. “These are what Catholics for Choice stands for, these are what Planned Parenthood stands for, and as Catholics, we stand with Planned Parenthood not in spite of our Catholic tradition but because of it.”

Equality, fairness, treating others with compassion for everyone except the truly most vulnerable – the completely defenseless human beings at both ends of life. If they’re inconvenient, they must go!  Sorry, sister. Social justice begins in the womb and ends in the tomb.  And please, you wouldn’t know “Catholic tradition” if it bit you in the behind.  You can’t really be this clueless, can you?  I suppose with the help of the American seamless (or is it more like seamy-ful?) hierarchy, you could be.  Sigh.

Ratcliffe used euphemisms like “each woman’s choice” and “access to reproductive health” rather than name abortion directly. Her speech didn’t mention God, any specific Catholic teachings, the Bible, or prayer.

I’m sure she wasn’t quoting the Catechism either.  As usual, she’s just hoping to steal as many souls as possible before people catch on.  The sad thing is that the people in desperate situations, the ones who need REAL help, the ones she tries desperately to convince that Planned Parenthood has their best interest at heart, are the victims of her spin job.  Thanks to all of you great people praying in front of Planned Parenthood as often as you can, offering true help to these potential victims!

 

Don’t be Chicken Little, be the Little Red Hen

I have to admit, I’ve been ignoring Catholic news lately.  It’s just too exhausting with half of the faithful cannibalizing each other and the other half running around like Chicken Little.  The frenzy has been a bit too much, and guess what?  In my little world, it doesn’t mean a darn thing.

I’ve now lived under three different popes that I can remember.  (I’m too young to remember JPI and his predecessors.)  Every single one of them made some sort of cataclysmic mistake that supposedly ruined the Church forever.  Sorry, I just don’t get my knickers in a bunch that easily, and I’m certainly not going to be the one that makes the liberal dissenters smile.  I’m sure the Cupiches and McElroys of the world are smiling like the cat that ate the canary right now, and that’s what really, truly bugs me to death.

Seriously, don’t you think they’re laughing at the confusion over Amoris Laetitia? I’m sure they think it’s hysterical watching the Catholic pundits right now.  You’ve got those bending over backwards to say, “Everything’s fine!  Nothing to see here!” You’ve got others calling them papolators.  You’ve got some, I’d say rightly and respectfully, asking for clarifications, and others calling them schismatics with no evidence whatsoever. Still you have others saying you can’t even be concerned in the slightest.  I’m sure all carry some truth and some error at this point, but the worst part about it is watching the Kaspers and his club reveling in it.  Can we just stop?

I think we can all agree (I’m talking faithful Catholics here) that there is some confusion going on here.  If you don’t, just leave this site now.  No use in discussing it further.  Most of us would like some clarification from the Holy Father.  That said, let’s just look at the scenarios in front of us.  Let’s say Pope Francis decides never to make a formal clarification and just keeps issuing comments which contradict the liberals.  Yes, I suppose it makes their life blissful because they can then feign ignorance until the cows come home.  That said, what if the pope did issue a clarification?  It would then be status quo as usual for the faithful.  With a wink and nod, the liberals will still continue to muddle the truth and lead people astray.  When it comes right down to it, the Burkes and Chaputs of the world are going to teach the truth as they have always done, and the Cupiches and McElroys of the world will continue their mission to make everyone comfy and cozy in their sins.  Either way, the faithful under the wink-and-nod-dissenters are going to suffer as they always have – terribly.  The local bishop really affects our day to day Catholic life which is why who you get and don’t get is terribly important.  Think about it.  Your kids may not know what the flap is about Amoris Laetitia but they might be sort of led astray when the local bishop dons a Barney costume at the end of Mass (and, yes, real story).

It’s also very interesting to note that, if you look at the Chaputs and Burkes of the world, there are plenty of people who are going ballistic on their behalf, but if you look at them, they look like they’re getting plenty of sleep.  They aren’t fomenting on the reign of terror of Pope Francis.  If they aren’t, why are we?  Again, this just gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

Now, is Pope Francis my favorite pope in the history of the Church? No.  Do I wish he did things differently?  Yep.  Do I lie awake at night thinking he will be the end of the Church?  Now that would be ridiculous.  Do I pray for him?  Yep.  People often ask me why I don’t write about this or that thing that Pope Francis did.  My answer:  What would it matter? First, a lot of it is “fake Catholic news” or soundbites. Second, I’m far more concerned with what the bishops in my country and my diocese do.  Like I said, no matter what happens with the dubia, the crazy are going to keep doing crazy.  I mean, seriously, look around!  Bishops were pushing birth control and “gay marriage” with some pretty clear teaching on the subject.  That’s where I’m willing to expend my energy.  If we can’t influence the people around us and communicate the Faith in a way that’s clear despite what happens in the Church and in the world, we’ve dropped the ball.  Same goes for our local bishops.  Do we really think that cannibalizing each other and running around screaming ‘’The Church is falling!” is going to get it done?  Please.  Fix it yourself in your own little world and stop making the liberal dissenters smile.

Need an example?  For years, Lincoln, Nebraska, was one of the few super faithful dioceses in the country.  Bishop Flavin and Bishop Bruskewitz kept their heads down and taught the Faith, while many other dioceses in the U.S. were “experimenting.” They didn’t worry about what was going on in my little, influential, dissenting diocese here in California (or in Flavin’s case, Weakland’s diocese).  They stomped on dissenters in their own little area, no matter their bent.  They made Church teaching abundantly clear and all, but the dissenters, loved and followed them.  It was downright weird talking to people in that diocese.  They knew the Faith.  That diocese has produced at least four other bishops. I’m betting their dioceses are all lucky (and we most definitely lucked out getting one around my parts)!  Both those bishops could have ranted and raved about their popes not doing x, y, and z and letting them ruin the Church, but they didn’t.  They just did their job.  That’s what we need.  We need bishops who are going to do their job no matter who is attacking them.  In Flavin’s case, it was Archbishop Rembert Weakland.  In Bruskewitz’s case, well, really, who wasn’t attacking him?  He got it from all sides.

So, if you really want to know where we should expend our energy, it’s with our bishops. You should be dogging those that lead people astray.  Don’t make it easy on them to get away with it.  And the good bishops?  You should be encouraging them to lead like they don’t care about getting fired, removed, given some fancy title somewhere remote, etc.  It drives me crazy to see a faithful bishop back off because, well, the optics are that they’re scared about their jobs.  I get it, you can’t lead the faithful if removed from the job– or can you?  I seem to remember many a leader leading from a prison cell.  And I’m sure many of those backing off where they should be going ahead are also trying to keep the low-hanging fruit from hitting the ground but I’m not sure why pausing on the truth would achieve this goal. Truth is love and conveying it and practicing it should be the priority.  I’m unaware of the teaching that says back off the truth if becomes a PR nightmare.