The Jesuit Identity Crisis

Gotta admit, it’s been entertaining watching some Jesuits spontaneously combust over this. Thankfully, there are still some Jesuits applauding the archbishop. I still hold out hope that the Society of Jesus ship will be righted someday.

Indianapolis archbishop revokes Jesuit prep school’s Catholic identity

Can we just say most of the Jesuits willfully turned in their Catholic identity a while ago?  I realize they still want the advertising perk of claiming to be Catholic, but really, those who don’t twist “primacy of conscience” are few and far between They can’t stand it when people point out the obvious, and the Archdiocese of Indianapolis did that in a big way.

Indianapolis, Ind., Jun 20, 2019 / 01:49 pm (CNA).- The Archdiocese of Indianapolis announced Thursday that a local Jesuit high school will no longer be recognized as a Catholic school, due to a disagreement about the employment of a teacher who attempted to contract a same-sex marriage.

Let’s be a little clearer. This teacher didn’t just enter into a same-sex marriage. He made it public on social media. The reality is that he flaunted and made his sin of sodomy public (probably with Jesuit encouragement) and expected Archbishop Thompson to sit on his hands like a good little boy. Thankfully, Archbishop Thompson showed some true fatherhood and held Brebeuf accountable for 1) never bothering to tell the teacher his immortal soul was in danger and 2) scandalizing the students by acting like there wasn’t a HUGE moral problem with his same-sex marriage.

‘All those who minister in Catholic educational institutions carry out an important ministry in communicating the fullness of Catholic teaching to students both by word and action inside and outside the classroom, the archdiocese said in a statement Thursday.

And before the whining ensues (too late, Fr. Martin’s been ranting on social media already), let’s be clear this wasn’t the Church “going into this teacher’s bedroom.” This was the teacher telling all on social media that he is sinning and dang proud of it. As you will see later, the “we’re all sinners” mantra will be tossed out. That’s totally true but some of us aren’t stupid enough to say that we’re not sinning or to purposely make it public. This is the difference.8` We embrace the teachings even when we fall short of them because we know they are truth. We pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off, get in line for confession and continue struggling against our foolish selves.

‘In the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, every archdiocesan Catholic school and private Catholic school has been instructed to clearly state in its contracts and ministerial job descriptions that all ministers must convey and be supportive of all teachings of the Catholic Church.

Teachers, the archdiocese said, are classified as ‘ministers’ because ‘it is their duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice. To effectively bear witness to Christ, whether they teach religion or not, all ministers in their professional and private lives must convey and be supportive of Catholic Church teaching.’

Regrettably, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School has freely chosen not to enter into such agreements that protect the important ministry of communicating the fullness of Catholic teaching to students. Therefore, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School will no longer be recognized as a Catholic institution by the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.’

BAM! This is what EVERY bishop in the U.S. should be doing to protect the faithful from scandal. Are the Jesuits going to listen?Clearly not, but dioceses should still make it darn clear that this is completely inconsistent with Catholic teaching and therefore they are not considered Catholic.

School leaders said that despite the archdiocesan decision, ‘our identity as a Catholic Jesuit institution remains unchanged,’ in a June 20 statement to the school community.

Notice how they have to throw in Jesuit in there? They can’t simply say Catholic, because it’s in no way the same. I do have some news for them. Their Catholic identity is gone and was probably gone a long time ago. 

The conflict between the school and the archdiocese began with an archdiocesan request that the contract of a teacher who is in a same-sex marriage not be renewed.

The school became aware of the teacher’s same-sex marriage in the summer of 2017, according to a June 20 statement from Fr. Brian Paulson, SJ, head of the Jesuits’ Midwest Province.

Paulson said the archdiocese requested ‘two years ago that Brebeuf Jesuit not renew this teacher’s contract because this teacher’s marital status does not conform to church doctrine.’

Before we go on, can we look at several of the canons surrounding Catholic education?  I’m sure Brebeuf would like you to believe that it doesn’t matter, but it does.

Can. 798 Parents are to send their children to those schools which will provide for their catholic education. If they cannot do this, they are bound to ensure the proper catholic education of their children outside the school.

So, while the Jesuits are mostly a bunch of narcissists, not everything is about them. WE, as parents, have a duty to ensure our children’s proper Catholic education, and the archbishop has a duty to make it clear that it won’t be found at Brebeuf.

Can. 801 Religious institutes which have education as their mission are to keep faithfully to this mission and earnestly strive to devote themselves to catholic education, providing this also through their own schools which, with the consent of the diocesan Bishop, they have established.

They no longer have the bishop’s consent, because they clearly devote themselves to a Jesuit education, not a Catholic one.

Can. 803 §1 A catholic school is understood to be one which is under the control of the competent ecclesiastical authority or of a public ecclesiastical juridical person, or one which in a written document is acknowledged as catholic by the ecclesiastical authority.

• 2 Formation and education in a catholic school must be based on the principles of catholic doctrine, and the teachers must be outstanding in true doctrine and uprightness of life.

 Ouch!  That has got to hurt.

§3 No school, even if it is in fact catholic, may bear the title ‘catholic school’ except by the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority.

Of course, forgetting all other canons, this will be what the Jesuits try their hardest to hang their hat on. “We’re Jesuits and are therefore under our guy, not the local bishop.”  Clearly Archbishop Thompson sees it differently. They better hope they’re right (and the odds of them being right are slim and none) because there’s a wee bit of a problem with “rejecting the legitimate governing authority of the local bishop exercised in accord with the universal law” as Ed Condin hilariously points out here.

Can. 804 §1 The formation and education in the catholic religion provided in any school, and through various means of social communication is subject to the authority of the Church. It is for the Episcopal Conference to issue general norms concerning this field of activity and for the diocesan Bishop to regulate and watch over it.

• 2 The local Ordinary is to be careful that those who are appointed as teachers of religion in schools, even non-catholic ones, are outstanding in true doctrine, in the witness of their christian life, and in their teaching ability.

Can. 805 In his own diocese, the local Ordinary has the right to appoint or to approve teachers of religion and, if religious or moral considerations require it, the right to remove them or to demand that they be removed.

Oh, did I mention that Archbishop Charles C. Thompson is a canon lawyer? Fr. Brian Paulson, SJ, is not. So, yeah.

The school leaders wrote that “After long and prayerful consideration, we determined that following the Archdiocese’s directive would not only violate our informed conscience on this particular matter, but also set a concerning precedent for future interference in the school’s operations and other governance matters that Brebeuf Jesuit leadership has historically had the sole right and privilege to address and decide.

More like “deformed conscience”, but whatever.

Paulson stated that Brebeuf Jesuit ‘respects the primacy of an informed conscience of members of its community when making moral decisions.’

Wrong. Cardinal Arinze has trashed this false notion, as I have written before.  rimacy of Conscience doesn’t trump objective evil. Please see Cardinal Arinze’s complete schooling here: https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/21/primacy-of-conscience-the-arinze-smackdown-of-the-false-notions/  I realize the Jesuits absolutely need to twist the teaching of “Primacy of Conscience,” but they do it at their own peril and at the peril of those who follow.

‘We recognize that at times some people who are associated with our mission make personal moral decisions at variance with Church doctrine; we do our best to help them grow in holiness, all of us being loved sinners who desire to follow Jesus.’

Wait, what?! Really?! When was the last time you did this? The teacher entered into a same-sex marriage. How did you help him grow in holiness? Did you mention that was a sin or did you simply say “Welllllllllll, that’s “at variance with Church doctrine.’ Carry on!” Please. Does ANYONE buy this? And what’s with “loved sinner?” A little ambiguous. We’re not loved because we are sinners. We’re loved despite the fact. And does everyone really desire to follow Jesus? Or do many desire to follow their temptations?

He added that this problem ‘cuts to the very heart of what it means to be a Jesuit institution with responsibilities to both the local and universal church, as well as for the pastoral care we extend to all members of our Catholic community.’

Can you possibly tell me what it means to be a Jesuit institution these days? AMDG is pretty much gone, replaced by AMSJG.

‘I recognize this request by Archbishop Charles Thompson to be his prudential judgment of the application of canon law recognizing his responsibility for oversight of faith and morals as well as Catholic education in his archdiocese,’ the priest wrote. ‘I disagree with the necessity and prudence of this decision.’

So, the non-canon lawyer thinks he knows more about canon law than the canon lawyer.  Why does that not surprise anyone? You recognized the request and told him to shove it! Remember Ed Condon’s comments, Father. Are you really just disagreeing because he gave a command and you ignored. And, hey, you just might want to go with the archbishop who is a canon lawyer instead of your own silly notions.

The Jesuits maintain that their school’s internal administrative matters should be made by their own leaders, rather than the local Church.

Of course they do.

While the Code of Canon Law establishes that religious orders, like the Jesuits, ‘retain their autonomy in the internal management of their schools,’ it also says that the diocesan bishop has ‘the right to issue directives concerning the general regulation of Catholic schools’ including those administered by religious orders.

Well, somebody finally quotes the Code of Canon Law but it isn’t the Jesuits.

Can. 806 §1 The diocesan Bishop has the right to watch over and inspect the catholic schools situated in his territory, even those established or directed by members of religious institutes. He has also the right to issue directives concerning the general regulation of catholic schools these directives apply also to schools conducted by members of a religious institute, although they retain their autonomy in the internal management of their schools.

Canon law also says that the diocesan bishop “is to be careful that those who are appointed as teachers of religion in schools, even non-Catholic ones, are outstanding in true doctrine, in the witness of their Christian life, and in their teaching ability.

The Church’s law adds that the diocesan bishop “has the right to appoint or to approve teachers of religion and, if religious or moral considerations require it, the right to remove them or to demand that they be removed.”

The Archdiocese of Indianapolis policy, which says that all school teachers and administrators have a responsibility to teach the Catholic faith, is a common interpretation of those norms in U.S. Catholic dioceses.

Imagine that! A policy based on canon law. Silly Archdiocese! Who does that?! Not the Jesuits.

The archdiocesan June 20 statement notes that the archdiocese ‘recognizes all teachers, guidance counselors and administrators as ministers.’ The 2012 Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC Supreme Court decision established that religious institutions are free to require those it recognizes as ministers to uphold religious teachings as a condition of employment.

The school’s leaders claim that ‘the Archdiocese of Indianapolis’ direct insertion into an employment matter of a school governed by a religious order is unprecedented.’

PROVE IT! I know it’s super helpful to your cause to throw these fantasies out there, but can you actually back it up?  And can you cite a canon to prove your point?  As usual, nope.

Fr. Paulson framed the problem as one of “the governance autonomy regarding employment decisions of institutions sponsored by the USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus.

‘Our disagreement is over what we believe is the proper governance autonomy regarding employment decisions which should be afforded a school sponsored by a religious order. In this particular case, we disagree regarding the prudential decision about how the marital status of a valued employee should affect this teacher’s ongoing employment at Brebeuf Jesuit.’

Your disagreement is with the Code of Canon Law and Catholic doctrine, which is par for the course for Jesuits these days. I love the way you try to make this about “marital status” instead of objective evil.  That’s so you.

The school’s leaders added that failing to renew the teacher’s contract would cause ‘harm’ to ‘our highly capable and qualified teachers and staff.’

Are you trying to tell me that there are no outstanding teachers out there who actually follow the teachings of the Church? I realize that’s not high on your priority list, but it is in the mission for Catholic education.

‘Our intent has been to do the right thing by the people we employ while preserving our authority as an independent, Catholic Jesuit school.’

Your intent has been to thumb your nose at the teachings of the Church, plain and simple. Your whining about authority means pretty much zip.

The leaders noted that they ‘are prayerfully discerning how best to proceed with the process of appealing the Archdiocese’s directive.’

Fr. Paulson said the province will appeal the decision, first through the archbishop ‘and, if necessary, [pursuing] hierarchical recourse to the Vatican.’

Appeal away, while I continue to pray for high turnover at the Vatican. And while all that’s going on, I hope parents will listen to what the Archbishop is saying and protect their children from a disastrous school like yours. So, I hope your enrollment will plummet until you get your Catholic identity back.

Canon law establishes that ‘no school, even if it is in fact Catholic, may bear the title ‘Catholic school’ except by the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority,’ in this case, the Archbishop of Indianapolis.

Brebeuf was founded in 1962 by the Society of Jesus. Its 2019 enrollment is 795 students, and tuition at the school is $18,300.

The Archdiocese of Indianapolis has previously addressed similar issues.

In August 2018, Shelley Fitzgerald, a guidance counselor at Roncalli High School in Indianapolis, was placed on paid administrative leave. An employee of an archdiocesan school, Fitzgerald had attempted to contract a same-sex marriage in 2014.

At that time, Archbishop Thompson wrote that ‘the archdiocese’s Catholic schools are ministries of the Church. School administrators, teachers and guidance counselors are ministers of the faith who are called to share in the mission of the Church. No one has a right to a ministerial position, but once they are called to serve in a ministerial role they must lead by word and example. As ministers, they must convey and be supportive of the teachings of the Catholic Church. These expectations are clearly spelled out in school ministerial job descriptions and contracts, so everyone understands their obligations.’

He added that ‘When a person is not fulfilling their obligations as a minister of the faith within a school, Church and school leadership address the situation by working with the person to find a path of accompaniment that will lead to a resolution in accordance with Church teaching.’

The archbishop concluded: ‘Let us pray that everyone will respect and defend the dignity of all persons as well as the truth about marriage according to God’s plan and laws.’

Yes, let’s all pray for this. I’m skeptical that the Jesuits involved are actually going to do that but I will hope.

Thank you, Archbishop Thompson, for your courageous leadership. I hope and pray that all bishops in our Church will stop allowing morality to be trounced in our schools and that they, too, will take their duty under canon law seriously.

The Catholic Church Thinks We Deserve Better!

When I started writing in the blogosphere, it was simply a way for me to say what many others were thinking – a way to vent and give my family a little break from my ranting.  I never really thought anyone would read it, but I’m very thankful it’s turned out the way it did.  I’ve “met” some amazing people around the world and I’d like to talk about one guy in particular.  He’s a FAR better writer than I will ever be, and his incredible patience and charity in the face of adversity amazes me.  He’s one of the main reasons I give Fr. James Martin, SJ, any attention.  Honestly, Fr. Martin doesn’t affect my family much, if at all, but his actions do affect my friends and many I meet.  He has injured so many people, body and soul, that the mom in me just can’t stand for it.  He and his cronies are predators of souls and I will continue to repeat that as long as it is so.  I hope my little voice over here annoys him like a thousand flea bites.

So, on to my amazing friend, “Thomas from Michigan.”  I have asked his permission to reblog a comment he made.  Why?  Because he nails it.  He’s got “street cred” and should carry far more weight than I can in the arena of same-sex attraction (SSA).  Go ahead, liberals, try and tell him he doesn’t have a clue.  By the way clergy, if you’d like some advice from him on ministering to people suffering from SSA, I’ll gladly put you in touch.  (FYI, I made that last comment without consultation.  Thomas is probably cringing as I throw him under the bus!  Sorry, Thomas, I’ve just got this idea that people like you are going to save the Church.)

Let me set the stage for you…

I have a long time dissenting reader.  I have to say, though, I really do love her.  I suspect that annoys the heck out of her, but I realize she’s a product of her lack of Catholic education.  I’m a little tweaked that she was robbed.  Anyways, here’s one of her comments on my last post, Open Rebellion Coming to a Church Near You:

OMM, I genuinely want to know why you and the others here are afraid of gays and their lifestyle being accepted by some in the church. How does it affect you? Do you think your children will catch it? Do you speak out as loudly against murderers, adulterers (Trump), thieves, etc. Maybe you do, I just don’t see it in your blog.

(She completely points out she’s missed quite a few of my posts but, whatever.)

Here’s the super-important part of “Thomas from Michigan’s” reply (emphasis mine – please go to link for full exchange, although there wasn’t a reply to Thomas from our liberal friend, because there was NOTHING she could say about it.):

The Holy Mother Church loves all of her children–even me. For nearly a decade, I was out and proud. (Nearly a decade has passed since that chapter of my life closed.) I was quite hostile to any religion that didn’t approve of my behavior. I was the president of a social group for gay men over the age of forty. I can’t even remember all of the sexual partners I had–and I was considered a bit of a prude. I especially enjoyed hooking up with men who were in what they themselves described as “committed relationships.” I regularly made fun of those who attended Dignity’s Mass. I also got three different STDs (sexually-transmitted diseases), kind of like getting three prizes in one box of Cracker Jacks.

This is the lifestyle you appear to think the Church should accept: sodomy, fellatio, promiscuity, sexually-transmitted diseases, and significantly shortened lifespans. The Catholic Church thinks we deserve better.

Biggest mic drop EVER!  THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THINKS WE DESERVE BETTER!  It’s so simple, people.  Fr. Martin can spin it all he wants, but this should be the central message from our Church to combat his stupidity.  How about something like:

We don’t want your  death – spiritual and/or physical. The Catholic Church wants better for you!

Of course, the same message applies to all of us.  The Church wants to help us conquer sin because She wants better for us!  Duh!

Thomas continues:

The “Catechism of the Catholic Church” includes homosexual behavior in its discussion of the Sixth Commandment–the one that says adultery is wrong. The fact that many in our culture–and Church–seem to think other forms of adultery are acceptable doesn’t mean they are. All baptized persons are commanded to be chaste. The fact that some priests want to give some people an exemption doesn’t change that.

That segues nicely into this! For those of you who don’t follow my Facebook page, I shared this video from Jason Jones, which perfectly explains to my liberal friend where we faithful Catholics are coming from (can you believe I’ve finally figured out how to embed these?!).  While I’m not sure Fr. Martin is a “New Donatist”, this sums up the feeling the faithful Catholics have about Fr. Martin.:

+

We are all in this together and we’re supposed to help each other struggle on!

Onto Fr. Martin’s lapse of sanity this week.  He’s LIVID with Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield.  If Martin is livid with you, I’m sure you deserve a hearty “Kudos!”, Bishop Paprocki!  I’m reasonably sure it was not your intent, but you know you must have done something right.  Fr. Martin is TERRIFIED that other bishops will follow suit and really drive home the deadliness of sin. He can’t have that!

 

As you can see, Fr. Martin is going to use the whole kitchen sink approach in the hopes you will get lost and the pile-on will make Bishop Paprocki look really mean ol’ guy.  Sorry, Fr. Martin.  Bishop Paprocki follows Canon Law, unlike some people I know.

Let’s look at it, shall we?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4C.HTM
CHAPTER II.
THOSE TO WHOM ECCLESIASTICAL FUNERALS MUST BE GRANTED OR DENIED

Can.  1183 §1. When it concerns funerals, catechumens must be counted among the Christian faithful.

• 2. The local ordinary can permit children whom the parents intended to baptize but who died before baptism to be given ecclesiastical funerals.
• 3. In the prudent judgment of the local ordinary, ecclesiastical funerals can be granted to baptized persons who are enrolled in a non-Catholic Church or ecclesial community unless their intention is evidently to the contrary and provided that their own minister is not available.

Can.  1184 §1. Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:

1/ notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;

2/ those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;

3/ other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.

• 2. If any doubt occurs, the local ordinary is to be consulted, and his judgment must be followed.

So, as we see, Fr. Martin’s nice little list is ridiculous.  Does he have a clue what the distinction of “manifest” means?  You bet he does! He’s just trying to use a bit of smoke and mirrors to make you miss that one.  If you’ll notice, Bishop Paprocki said that signs of repentance negated exclusion.  Nice try, Fr. Martin.  So, yeah, the person who announces to the world “I use birth control even though the Church says it’s a mortal sin! Look at me!” probably shouldn’t be getting the funeral in the Catholic Church.  Why?  Because they are manifest sinners who are causing public scandal.  Duh.  Mary and Joe Anonymous are birth controlling Mass attendees but don’t go around shoving their sin in everyone’s face?  Do you really think they are going to be denied?

Fr. Martin knows all of this.  He’s not uneducated in the matter.  He’s just hoping to confuse all of those who might not be.  Like I’ve said before, he’s a predator.

So, Father Martin, tell me exactly how Bishop Paprocki’s guidelines go against Canon Law.  Oh, that’s right.  They don’t.  And, by the way, BISHOP PAPROCKI IS A CANON LAWYER and you are not, Father.  I just Googled, and Ed Peters, of course, has already destroyed you and your ilk here.  Please, good people, share this one: https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2017/06/23/bp-paprockis-norms-on-same-sex-marriage/

Let’s look at your other insinuation, Fr. Martin.  “Unjust discrimination” my foot. I missed the part in Catholic teaching where every social ill must be addressed by the local bishop on the same day.  The reasons these directions have to be issued these days is because of people, especially priests like you, who are making clear teachings murky.  I think what you fail to understand is that threat of exclusion from the Sacraments is a remedy for the sick soul. Actually, I’m pretty sure you do understand. The problem is, Fr. Martin, you are encouraging the illness.  It is supposed to urge them to repent before it’s too late, but with people like you running around telling them they are being persecuted instead of loved, they’re dying without repentance.

I’m just going to hit on one last thing that hit last night before this “went to press.”  The Gaffigans.  Not really sure what the heck they were thinking with this:

I’m so proud of my gay kids. Happy #pride2017 #pridenyc

How could a family who seems to have a grasp of the Church’s teachings on Natural and Moral Law in the area of being open to children be so wrong on this one is beyond me.  And how about just a little science?  Are Jim and Jeannie really cheering on the dramatically increased diseases found in the “gay lifestyle” they are cheering? Are they fine with encouraging behavior that brings early death to so many?  Let’s just take a look at a few of these beauties:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis
hemorrhoids
anal fissures
anorectal trauma
retained foreign bodies
“Gay Bowel” syndrome
Hepatitis A
Giardia lamblia
Entamoeba histolytica
Epstein-Barr virus
Neisseria meningitides
Shigellosis
Salmonellosis
Pediculosis
scabies
Campylobacter
typhoid
HHV-8
incompetence of the anal sphincter
Kaposi’s sarcoma
Bacterial vaginosis
Mental illness
(and many others)

But love is love, right? Hello!  Typhoid and Giardia are now falling under sexually transmitted diseases.  What the what, Jim and Jeannie????  Care enough to talk reality?

If anyone is going to try and make yourselves feel better  by bringing up the fact that there is a presence of some of these diseases/problems in the heterosexual community, save it.  DO THE RESEARCH!  Having one or any combo of these is the NORM in the “gay lifestyle.” Some are most certainly found in promiscuous heterosexuals, too, which is one reason why the Church is against that, too.

How about we stop calling it “pride” and start calling it “dangerous”?  That’s the reality.  We haven’t even gotten to the spiritual aspect of the “gay lifestyle.”  I was just called a hater last night by our resident liberal friend.  Really?  Look at the above list!  Do you want this for your friends??? I look at people like my friend Thomas and I get very mad at the Fr. Martins of the world who encourage the disease, moral decay, and spiritual death under the guise of “love.”  Peddle your rusty, rotted bridge somewhere else, Fr. Martin.

If you are a person suffering from same-sex attractions, Catholic or not, please look further into the reality of the Church’s love for you.  Fr. Martin – I can’t say this any more clearly – is trying to aid in stealing your soul.  The Bishop Paprockis of the world are the ones who truly love and care for you.  As Jason Jones points out, we should all be struggling together.  Don’t fall for the pandering of Father Martin and company.  They have an agenda and their main aim is NOT your physical or mental well-being or for you to live an eternal life with Our Lord.  THE CHURCH THINKS YOU DESERVE BETTER!

Pray for Fr. Martin.  The Church wants better for him too.  Hopefully he’ll see that and struggle along with the rest of us.

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.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Internal Forum

Alrighty!  Thanksgiving is over and my Christmas shopping is all done. Now I can focus on doing some more penance during Advent.  Readers have been asking me to address Bishop McElroy of San Diego, and there’s no penance like trying to read McElroy’s inane statements.  Since the Diocese of San Diego (or at least those focused on eternity) is now waiting for someone to save them, I figured it would be a good topic for this time of year.

The latest faux pas by Bishop McElroy can be read in its entirety here: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/san-diego-bishop-praises-pro-gay-parish-for-being-welcoming

SAN DIEGO, California, December 6, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – The director of the young adult ministry at a parish San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy recently praised for its “welcoming” attitude toward “LGBT worshippers” is an openly gay man who works for an organization that supports same-sex “marriage” and women’s ordination.

Let me just start by saying, any Catholic interviewing Bishop McElroy should ask him two questions: 1) Do you believe that the Church will one day ordain women? 2) Do you believe that the Church should accept “gay marriage?”  Pin him down and don’t let him wriggle out of it.  You could also throw in, “Do you think “gay sex” is equal to the marital embrace?”  if he tries to divert with the usual “Who am I to judge?” tell him you’re not asking him to judge but to give an opinion.

The San Diego Union Tribune reported that McElroy cited St. John the Evangelist in Hillcrest as an example of a parish where “LGBT worshippers ‘feel particularly welcome.'”

What does “welcome” mean, Bishop McElroy?  What Catholic doesn’t want people to feel welcome?  If, however, welcome means that we don’t encourage all to live a chaste life with the end goal of everlasting life with Christ, how loving is that?

Let’s remember that we are the Church Oscar Wilde turned to at the end of his life.  We are a Church full of sinners.  Welcoming the sinner is kind of what we do.  We don’t,  however, embrace sin.  It’s not loving to do so.  I’m afraid this has been lost on some.  We are the epitome of welcoming and integration of people into the Faith.

“That’s a very good thing,” he said. McElroy was commenting on the Diocese of San Diego’s recent synod on the family, after which he encouraged priests to give Holy Communion to the divorced and “remarried” and embrace “LGBT families.”

Please, Bishop McElroy!  Can we cut the ambiguity now and actually define what in the heck you are talking about?  This touchy-feely word play is done.  I don’t know a priest out there who doesn’t welcome sinners to his parish.  What I do know are priests who welcome SIN to their parishes.  Let’s just cut to it.  Is this what you are suggesting, Bishop McElroy???  Do your flock a favor and answer the dang questions! 

While you’re at it, please, let’s look at the permanency of Catholic marriage.  I could be wrong, but last time I checked, the parish priest was not the arbiter of a valid/invalid marriage.  Honestly, heaven help us if priests with no canonical training, who are not on the marriage tribunal, and likely were poorly formed, start deciding who is or is not married.

Canon Law states http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3U.HTM :

Can. 1060 Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Yet now bishops like McElroy are suggesting we simply have a pow-wow with a priest and decide for ourselves?  Think about it, people.  Why in the heck would we ever need a marriage tribunal???  Think that can’t possibly be what Bishop McElroy is saying?  Well, these three bulletins have articles about the “synod” that all follow the same talking points:

http://www.sdcathedral.org/uploads/mce/edd6bb4181065a5b9fb559ad9fddeef16a975d07/970271%20November%2013%202016.pdf

http://www.stmoside.org/pastorcolumn/Pastor2016-1113.pdf

http://sanrafaelparish.org/home/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/November_13_Bulletin.pdf
Colin Donovan, STL, (that’s a Canon Law guy) spells out their errors nicely here https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/annulment.htm:

Internal Forum. Sometimes it is suggested to individuals or couples that they can resolve marital issues concerning a first marriage in the “internal forum.” This means essentially in the confessional or in the privacy of their conscience. Someone who is divorced and remarried will be told that they do not have to seek a Decree of Nullity to validate the present marriage, rather being convinced in their own conscience that their first marriage was invalid they can return to the sacraments. This is not, however, the case. Marriage is not a private affair but a social institution, one safeguarded by the Church according to the will of Christ. The Holy See has ruled out the internal forum solution as a valid way of resolving marital validity questions. Such issues must be submitted to the Church’s canonical processes (a marriage tribunal).

In short, “internal forum” and “integration” don’t mean what YOU decide, Bishop McElroy.  For those of you wondering what it is and how it applies to the “divorced and remarried” scenario, this was a good synopsis.  https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/Article/TabId/535/ArtMID/13567/ArticleID/19679/Understanding-Francis-and-the-internal-forum.aspx

St. John the Evangelist advertises on its Twitter page: “In worship and in sacrament, our Catholic parish is called to extend God’s kingdom to young and old, gay and straight, single, married or divorced.” Its rainbow Twitter profile photo reads, “All Are Welcome.”

On November 18, the parish Facebook page advertised a “Modern Mass…where all people find a place at the table!” Its advertisement for the Mass featured a cross imposed on the rainbow flag, a universal symbol of homosexual activism.

What the heck is a “Modern Mass?!”  Last time I checked we had an Ordinary Form and an Extraordinary Form of the Mass.  Sorry, my homosexual Catholic brethren looking to push an agenda rather than fight against temptation, the Mass ain’t your personal football.  I don’t say this in hate, but you are the proverbial princess in the family.  For some reason you think the Sacraments must dance around you and pay you homage.  Get a clue and get a little humility!  There is, indeed, an eternity heading your way, so you really might want to attend Mass to worship God rather than to have everyone else worship your lifestyle choices.

St. John the Evangelist bulletins list Aaron Bianco as the young adult ministry leader.

Bianco’s LinkedIn page lists him as a “Pastoral Associate” with Call to Action, a dissenting anti-Catholic group that opposes the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, marriage, and the nature of the priesthood. In 2006, members of Call to Action were excommunicated over their dissenting advocacy.

Call to Action’s website features a “prayer for all loving marriages” that reads, in part:

We thank You for all the different types of marriages in our world:

Pause!  There is only one type of marriage: a valid one.  All others are just deformed representations of God’s plan for married love.

young couples beginning a life together,

as well as couples celebrating decades of love,

re-married couples and those who found each other later in life,

couples whose marriages are recognized by our state and our Church,

and same-sex couples who are denied that recognition

but who continue to bravely model love and commitment in the face of discrimination…”

Help us support marriage and family in all of its diversity

and guide us as we speak out against oppression in our Church.

Lead us toward the day when all loving unions will be seen as sacred

and all couples will have the support and recognition of their faith communities.

The call to the priesthood should be celebrated regardless of gender,” Call to Action’s website says on its “Women and Girls Equality” page. “We work in many different ways to restore the full participation of women in the liturgy, pastoral life and leadership of their communities…We support the ordination of women with local actions, national media advocacy and with our partners in the movement. Many of our members attend liturgies led by womenpriests.

According to Call to Action, Bianco began as a Program Outreach Associate in 2015. In one blog post for the organization, he describes attending a Dignity USA conference on behalf of Call to Action. Dignity USA is a pro-gay group that rejects the Catholic Church’s teaching on human sexuality.”

What a load of hooey!  I’m going to just assume Bianco agrees with Call to Action.  That alone disqualifies him from any position of authority in a Catholic Church.  Ministry leaders are supposed to conform their will to the will of the Church, not the other way around. 

It appears that McElroy is well aware of Bianco’s gay advocacy. In 2015, the Wall Street Journal wrote that after he became bishop, McElroy told Bianco that he could continue running cathedral parish education programs even though he is openly gay:

Shortly after his installation as the sixth bishop of San Diego this spring, Robert McElroy was approached by a church employee in the city’s downtown cathedral.

Aaron Bianco, a 41-year-old openly gay man who had helped run Catholic education programs for seven years, said that before the bishop’s appointment, a parishioner who knew of Mr. Bianco’s sexual orientation had complained to the diocese, a traditionally conservative one that once denied the owner of a gay nightclub a Catholic funeral.

Fearful of losing his job, Mr. Bianco removed his name from the weekly parish newsletter and brought someone in to help him teach.

But the new bishop assured Mr. Bianco that he wouldn’t lose his job because he is gay. Bishop McElroy “let me know that [being gay] should not hinder me from participating fully in the life of the church,” said Mr. Bianco, who has since taken another position outside the church.

So I’m just going to directly ask Bishop McElroy, do you think that people who are actively engaging in the homosexual lifestyle (sodomy and masturbation), or advocating for the active homosexual lifestyle, should present themselves for Communion?  I mean, again, stop with the ambiguity.  Call a spade a spade and say what you mean and stop the ridiculous game.

The Wall Street Journal article also noted that in 2010, McElroy became an auxiliary bishop in San Francisco, where he celebrated Mass at “a largely gay parish in the city’s Castro district.”

The Diocese of San Diego did not immediately respond to LifeSiteNews’s inquiries on whether the “welcoming” nature of St. John’s is in line with Catholic teaching on homosexual feelings and actions (not people) being intrinsically disordered, or whether the diocese finds it appropriate for St. John’s to advertise the rainbow flag on its social media pages.

The simple fact is that Bishop McElroy must continue on the ambiguous track, because he knows answering the question would be showing his cards, and he would lose the game he’s playing.  He knows it and so do we.