Can You Say Cardinal James Martin, SJ?

Yeah, neither can I.

I’ve been happily doing the mom thing, preparing for Thanksgiving, and rather ignoring the blogging stuff when I saw this appear on my Twitter page.  https://www.change.org/p/archbishop-christophe-pierre-stop-appointment-of-fr-james-martin-sj-as-archbishop-of-philadelphia

First, a disclaimer, I have zero confirmation on whether this is or is not credible, but I AM NOT WAITING TO FIND OUT! I feel like it’s not, because the most credible rumors up until now were that Bishop McElroy or Cardinal Cupich (which also seems like more of a lateral move so not likely either) were being groomed for this spot. If this latest rumor is indeed being floated, it seems more like a “Trump move.”  You know, float something so over the top that it gives them negotiating room, and then we all feel a sense of relief when it’s not Martin. “Whew!  Thank goodness it’s only Bishop McElroy and not Fr. Martin!” In reality, another petition should be started to request an Archbishop Chaput-like replacement. After all, we never thought anyone would replace Cardinal George with the then Bishop Cupich and, those of us familiar with him, never thought anyone would be crazy enough to put Bishop McElroy anywhere. So, again, we should take all threats seriously.

Next, why do I say “Cardinal James Martin, SJ?” I say that because, up until Archbishop Chaput, the last people put in that spot have eventually been elevated to cardinal.  Sadly, Archbishop Chaput wasn’t elevated before the current regime, so he is the exception, but, likely, whoever lands there will get that hat. Let that sink in a bit. Did you all sign the petition before reading end of this question?

Let’s look at the wording of the petition:

There is a credible report that Fr. James Martin, S.J., is being considered for appointment as Archbishop of Philadelphia.  He would replace retiring Archbishop Charles Chaput, who recently found it necessary to warn that Fr. Martin should not be relied upon to accurately present Catholic doctrine on sexuality. Archbishop Chaput issued a statement detailing five points on which Fr. Martin clashes with Church teaching. For example, he says that Fr. Martin “inspires hope that the Church’s teachings on human sexuality can be changed.”  http://catholicphilly.com/2019/09/archbishop-chaput-column/father-james-martin-and-catholic-belief/.

After Archbishop Chaput’s warning, other bishops also weighed in: “https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/after-chaput-warning-bishops-weigh-in-on-fr-james-martin-28020. Fr. Martin responded that he never contradicts Church teaching.  That might be literally true, but Archbishop Chaput points out that that is not enough: “[T]he point is not to ‘not challenge’ what the Church believes about human sexuality, but to preach and teach it with confidence, joy, and zeal. Biblical truth liberates; it is never a cause for embarrassment.” https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/after-chaput-warning-bishops-weigh-in-on-fr-james-martin-28020.

It’s not even close to literally true. He’s contradicted Church teaching in writing, in word, often in deed with his promotion of organizations in open opposition to Church teaching, such as New Ways Ministry and Out @ St. Paul. (Two of his favs.) Here’s just a small sampling of Catholic publications who have called out Fr. James Martin, SJ, for heresy, dissent and error, as well as for his smarmy smoke and mirrors routine, using his own words.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/main/generic/fr.-james-martin-sj

https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com  (Just use search box.)

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/10/fr-martin-does-not-actually-say

https://christianrenaissancemovement.com/2017/09/09/the-very-bad-christology-of-fr-james-martin-s-j/

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/priests-scold-celebrity-jesuit-fr.-james-martin-for-ignorance-arrogance

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2017/10/02/fr-james-martin-and-accusations-of-heresy/

https://dwightlongenecker.com/correcting-fr-james-martin/

https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/perfidious-james-martin-sj

https://churchpop.com/2017/08/21/no-jesus-did-not-learn-to-overcome-prejudice-from-the-canaanite-woman/

As I said, this is just a few of the Catholic publications who have called out his heresy, dissent, and error. On the other hand, I can come up with three American “Catholic” publications that have NOT called him out for anything: America Magazine, National catholic Reporter, and…and… Nevermind. Guess I can only come up with two. Fr. James Martin, SJ is THE most called out priest in this country. If you’re going to object to the sources against him, make sure you are able to debate the citations given, otherwise it’s just an ad hominem attack and you look stupid.

We need bishops who are clear and strong teachers of the whole of the Catholic Faith. There is a trend to appoint to major sees in the U.S. men who are supporters of the homosexual agenda, such as Cardinal Cupich in Chicago and Cardinal Tobin in Newark.  Can anyone doubt that an Archbishop Martin in Philadelphia would follow their lead and very soon be given the red hat that was denied to Archbishop Chaput?

Truth is loving. Cardinals Cupich, Tobin, Bishop McElroy, etc. are ambiguous at best and deceitful at worst. They’re denying the faithful the beauty of the Church’s teaching on sexuality.

Sign this petition and tell the papal nuncio, Archbishop Pierre, who is reported to be collecting references on Fr. Martin, that his appointment would be intolerable. Tell him we want worthy shepherds who will be leaders in teaching and practicing the fullness of Catholicism, not more men who will obfuscate and obscure and avoid the inconvenient truths.

Please do. Wild rumor or not, we shouldn’t wait until the ink is dry to respond to this insane idea. And, petition writers, you might also want to get one going expressing your dismay that Cardinal Cupich or Bishop McElroy would be in the running.

Finally, not only should you sign the petition, you should contact the nuncio directly and let him know that if he’s going to suggest any of these gentlemen, he’s going to have a HUGE headache dealing with the aftermath of that appointment. This appointment likely could be THE final straw.

Archbishop Christophe Pierre
Apostolic Nunciature in the United States of America
3339 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  20008-3610

Phone: 202-333-7121

Fax: 202-337-4036

nuntiususa@nuntiususa.org

Priests Fume About Slow Service (and Catholicism)

Update: I was mulling over this episode and was still a little curious as to why NcR would ever report this lame piece and it suddenly dawned on me. Guess what’s coming in ten days? The 2019 USCCB General Assembly.  Now guess who is up for president? Archbishop Cordileone. The liberals have literally been trying to get him removed from SF since he got there. They know if he’s elected that will be the death knell for their campaign. Bishops. if you ever want to send a message to liberal dissenters trying take down faithful bishops, this might be your chance. Also, you’d be securing an amazing seminary in the West for decades to come. At least this explains the extra dose of insanity.

Holy smokes! I got some not so happy messages from some of the San Francisco Archdiocese people over this ridiculous article. They are none to happy about the attack on Archbishop Cordileone and neither are the people in his old flock across the Bay.

After reading it, I almost can’t see why because it was rather laughable. But, yeah, it was obnoxious so let me explain to the people across the country and the world what’s really going on here. I HOPE some priests in that diocese will stand up for the archbishop. And, on the heals of my last article, (link) feel free to make it anonymous.  As you can all see from the article below, there are supposedly a few “unnamed” priests weighing in.

https://www.ncronline.org/news/parish/san-francisco-priests-voice-frustrations-cordileone-convocation

San Francisco priests voice frustrations with Cordileone at convocation

Oct 31, 2019

by Dan Morris-Young ParishPeople

Simmering acrimony over the decision-making, communications and mindset of the much-watched seven-year episcopacy of San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone breached the surface of an early October convocation of clergy, surprising many and leaving questions about the future between the prelate and much of his presbyterate.

Simmering acrimony? More like underhanded move by a bunch of priests who were just allowed to do whatever the heck they wanted for decades are actually being called to be shepherds of souls and they HATE it. There’s no simmering. They whine and cry to National Catholic Reporter any darn chance they get. NcR is on speed-dial. This isn’t the first time they’ve called them regarding what should be a meeting of their fellow priests. They’ve even done this over “Councils of Priests” meetings (think deanery meetings).  It’s their way of trying to intimidate the faithful crowd from saying or doing anything. Thankfully more of them have had it. The idea that there’s some “question about Archbishop Cordileone’s future” is a sell job by the old dissenting cronies who want to do the best they can to try and take him down on the way out the door to retirement.

At one point during the Sept. 30-Oct. 3 gathering at Asilomar Conference Grounds in Pacific Grove, California, Cordileone is said to have said, “I do not understand you, and you do not understand me,” while he also told the 145 priests attending, “I love you.”

And, I’d like to point out that this is where the anonymous kind of sort of quotes start. I can affirm, by all accounts, that Archbishop Cordileone loves his entire flock while some of his priests love, well, themselves. Honestly, they’re like teens who’ve never had supervision and who suddenly were taken in by a parent who cared enough about them to place restrictions on them. All you parents will understand that it is never easy to turn the unruly child around but these are grown men, for goodness sake. They know their parishes are empty. They know their coffers are low. In fact, the churches that are doing well are the faithful ones and, while they can fill their annual bishops appeal in no time, the liberal churches struggle meeting it at all because their parishioners are as apathetic as they are.

A summary of the assembly prepared by its organizing committee for the Oct. 10 regular meeting of the archdiocesan Presbyteral Council synthesized the key deliberations:

“On Tuesday evening [Oct. 1], the group seemed to come to a near consensus that the priests of the Archdiocese desire greater communication and collaboration with the Archbishop in making key decisions.”

I’m just curious as to where NcR got this summary.  Anyone?

Missing, however, was the depth of emotion and frustration expressed during general session exchanges at which the archbishop and moderator of the curia, Jesuit Fr. John Piderit, were not present, several participants told NCR.

“Several participants?” How many? Who is disseminating this information? Yeah, you see where I’m going. If EVERYONE is in agreement with these desires and there’s such consensus, why all the emotion when Archbishop Cordileone and Fr. John Piderit (I’d like to SJ which was curiously left off) weren’t even in the room?

“Laid bare, they said, were tensions over muddy communications, lack of authentic consultation, low clergy morale, unilateral initiatives by Cordileone, and the archbishop’s embrace of “the model of a pre-Vatican II church,” in the words of one pastor.”

Hats off to you Dan Morris-Young for the heart wrenching dramatic description of events. I hate to tell the whiners but unilateral initiatives are totally fine. And, really, which “unilateral initiative” are they protesting? None are given are they?  And what in THE heck is a “the model of a pre-Vatican II church” to the one unnamed pastor??? Uh, Perpetual Adoration? Rosary Rallies? Eucharistic Processions? Or is it one where the bishop actually does his job? Do you know how many parishes have an Extra-Ordinary Form Mass out of eighty-nine? From the information I can find a whopping seven. Archbishop Cordileone certainly hasn’t imposed this on any parish. It has been allowed at the pastors request so stop acting like it’s being foisted on you as you wail and gnash your teeth. You know the reality, you’re jealous some people are leaving you to go to them. Jealous much?

Words such as “bombshell,” “volatile,” “anger” and “pain” were used in recounting general session comments.

Oh the humanity!!!!! This crew is spinning hard for the media, as always.

 Some attendees, however, told NCR that Cordileone enjoys steady clerical “appreciation and agreement” with his ecclesiology among many priests, notably younger men.

Fr. Roger Gustafson, chair of the organizing committee, said he was “very encouraged by the results” of the conference.

“While it was painful at points to facilitate an honest discussion about some of the issues in the relationship between the priests and archdiocesan leadership,” he wrote in an email, “I am convinced that the process ultimately will result in positive improvements with respect to morale, communication, mutual understanding, and most importantly greater effectiveness in priestly ministry.”

You couldn’t pay me to do this job. I’m a mom, I couldn’t put up with the drama. Despite the NcR report, there are many great priests who care for souls and want to join together with their bishop to do so. And then you’ve got the “cool kids” table trying to intimidate and bully everyone into submission. It’s really sad when the one of the guys who’s actually willing to give his name says honest discussion was hard.  Nobody wants to deal with this crud.  They just want to live their vocations and yet their constantly subjected to drama. I’d like to draw you attention to a past blog post  because this shows the kind of people with whom the Archdiocese of San Francisco has to deal. Again, a private meeting was leaked to the press. It really shows the usual level of duplicity. Still can’t figure out why they can’t see why it makes them looks so awful. Note that Fr. Strange and Bishop McElroy (auxiliary bishop at the time) weren’t incensed about anything being put on them. They were complaining about them not be consulted on what was happening in someone else’s parish. Still un-flipping-believable every time. If Fr. Strange isn’t involved in this new attack, I’d be shocked.

“Noting that the gathering followed a format pioneered by Patrick Lencioni, founder of the Amazing Parish program, Gustafson said he hoped an impression would not emerge that the convocation was “only two polarized groups of priests when it seems to me that the majority fall somewhere in the middle and are open to moving forward.”

Believe me, Lencioni probably hasn’t met the likes of the insanity in San Francisco. If they can make it there, they’ll make it anywhere! I’ve heard good things about this program but I’m pretty sure if you’ve got a group who’s hell bent on sabotaging the outcome, it’s going to take a lot of the good priests to drown them out.

“To my mind,” Gustafson, pastor of San Francisco’s St. Brendan Parish, told NCR, “the convocation accomplished the first step of intentionally bringing conflict out into the open so that it can be dealt with. We are now moving to the second step of putting structures into place to address the underlying basis of the conflict.”

The problem is, the dissenters don’t want to bring conflict out in the open. They want to bring their drama to the press.

A priest who has expressed concerns about priest morale in the past said that the objective should “not be to shame the archbishop, but to improve the archdiocese. I would like this to have a chance to unfold under the best of conditions.”

Sounds like he’s a priest with the best of intentions.

The assembly was the third such gathering since Cordileone was installed on Oct. 4, 2012, and apparently the best-attended and most free-wheeling.

So, in short, some progress is being made now that, after 7 years, some are getting over the “Cordileone bad!” mantra of those who loved their, how should we say, freedom. Their influence is fading away.

Central to deliberations were deanery-defined table-group discussions.

According to participants, conversations among groups of six to eight at about two dozen tables reached consensus Oct. 1 when each group was directed to share one item for immediate attention by archdiocesan administrators.

“It was like boom, boom, boom” as the results were announced, said one participant. “Nearly every table named poor communications from the archbishop and chancery — and exclusion of priests from key decisions in the archdiocese.”

And, so, why is any of this a problem? This is what Archbishop Cordileone wanted to get. If he didn’t why the effort to get attendance up, hire a third body program, etc.? Somehow this is labeled as a bad thing. I don’t have verification that this characterization of the round tables was quite sincere and it is another anonymous “participant” so we’ll likely not know.

“Honestly, I was stunned by the frankness,” the priest added, “and this included tables where there were young guys who see the archbishop as doing nothing wrong. I did not expect this kind of consensus.”

Again, this is anonymous priest take on this. I also find it interesting that “nearly all the tables” came up with not the number one problem but the same two. I’m still wondering what the need to be in charge of the key decisions in the diocese is all about. How is this the job of the parish priest. Again, I remind you of my previous blog post. Some of these egos thing they should be consulted on EVERYTHING. Why? This isn’t some pre-Vatican II notion that the bishop is the head of the diocese. Last time I checked that was his job.

Can. 381 §1 In the diocese entrusted to his care, the diocesan Bishop has all the ordinary, proper and immediate power required for the exercise of his pastoral office, except in those matters which the law or a decree of the Supreme Pontiff reserves to the supreme or to some other ecclesiastical authority.

He doesn’t have to run anything by anyone and sometimes, yes, he will make unilateral decisions just like EVERY bishop.  Please, name one that hasn’t. And really, one has to ask, if the priests of the diocese make decisions without him?  I can assure you they do and they make ones he wouldn’t not approve but, hey, he’s the super mean guy.

The organizing committee’s summary said that consultants from the Evangelium Consulting Group “suggested a pilot program in which one deanery be selected to meet regularly with the Archbishop to provide advice and counsel and this mechanism seemed to receive widespread approval.”

So the plan is to try to meet regularly with the priests who want to be heard. Let me guess, somebody, after whining about not have a say, is going to complain because they will get the chance for communication and consultation?

One priest said he hoped the pilot project and overall meeting would encourage “greater fraternity, cohesion, trust, healthy conflict, communication and collegiality, not only between the archbishop and his priests … but also among the priests themselves.”

Others were skeptical. “Inviting the archbishop to dinner is not going to solve the communications problem,” said one. “Long term, there is probably not going to be much change unless the archbishop changes lanes, and that would be going against everything he has been doing so far.

More bluntly, another veteran pastor pronounced the convocation “an elaborate exercise in futility.”

So yes. Yes they are going to complain. Do you see how it goes here? I’m mean, do they realize how childish they look???  Even National catholic Reporter can’t save them!  “We’re mad because you don’t communicate and consult with us. Oh you will?! It’s futile unless you do what we want!” I’m starting to think they’re all taking advantage of the legalization of marijuana at this point. It’s insane.

Cordileone apparently did not directly respond to the priests’ concerns Oct. 2 until after he had spoken at length about topics close to him, including St. Patrick’s Seminary and University, stewardship, and liturgical celebration as encouraged at the Benedict XVI Institute for Sacred Music and Divine Worship, which he established on the seminary’s Menlo Park campus.

Some priests found the delay disconcerting.

“Oh my gosh! He didn’t respond for, like, forty-five minutes to our demands!” Seriously? How can you have input in plans if you don’t know what they are??? So, they just want to rant to him and he can’t try and talk like adults to him.  Honestly, Archbishop Cordileone must have the patience of Job. A one way street doesn’t work in my house. How about yours?

When the archbishop did address the communications and decision-making questions, priests told NCR that, in the words of one, “he made it pretty clear we were wrong and we did not understand the way he makes decisions.”

“Some guys were disheartened, and a handful just left quietly, dismissing themselves from the meeting,” the priest continued.

He and others described as “a kind of breakthrough moment” when Cordileone “basically said, ‘I do not understand you and you do not understand me,’ ” but also added, “I love you.”

Wow! “I love you!” is so mean they had to mention it twice! So, these knuckleheads stomped off and hoped really hard they could start a mass exodus. That’s so messed up. It didn’t happen despite the supposed “consensus.” And Cordileone hearsay “basically said” translates into “probably didn’t even remotely say but we’re going to suggest it did.” Sigh.

Gustafson and others lauded Cordileone for being “vulnerable” and leading the sharing of personal reflections and history during the sessions aimed at community-building among priests.

But Father! Archbishop Cordileone didn’t answer the questions before he made a presentation!!! He’s awful! (That was sarcasm.)

“I admire the archbishop for his courage,” commented Gustafson. “I can only assume that many, if not most, dioceses have similar areas of tension and concern, and I imagine there are many prelates who would never allow such an open and sincere discussion. … Overall, it was a very positive experience.”

Thank you Fr. Gustafason.

Not for others, including Fr. David Ghiorso, pastor of St. Charles Parish in San Carlos, California*, who has publicly questioned Cordileone’s actions in the past.

Also one of the conspirators listed in past blog. Notice? The same names pop up over and over again. If there’s an abundance of these goofs, where are they? Aren’t they lining up to take pot shots? Their breed is dying off or, at the very least, just getting tired. I think they got it right when they said “handful.”

“The core issue that surfaced for me is lack of trust in the administration of the archdiocese,” he emailed NCR. “I am not sure if others feel the same. With lack of trust comes lack of respect and this is very difficult to deal with as a priest. We do promise respect and obedience to our bishop and when that is not present it is a problem.”

Uh, yeah, it’s a problem and you’re only willing to give obedience and respect if the archbishop does what they want. If you were going to put contingencies on your promise, maybe you shouldn’t have made it in the first place. I’d love to know what advice they give to the couples preparing for marriage? “Whatever you vow is only contingent on your spouse making you happy?”

“At one point as the archbishop spoke of the Benedict XVI Institute, I got the image of the Titanic going down, but the choir chanting on the bow of the ship,” Ghiorso said. Cordileone’s affinity for Latin liturgy and Gregorian chant is well-known.”

“Ghiorso called himself “a passive observer in the general sessions by choice” and noted he had “promised my team back at the parish that I would keep my mouth shut for my own mental, spiritual and emotional health.”

“Do I believe anything will come from this gathering?” he asked. “The answer is, ‘No.’ Promises of sending out the results of the general session will never happen because they were so volatile.”

So Fr. Ghiorso wants to flap his gums behind the archbishop’s back to the press but saying something in a place that might possibly be constructive he basically chickened out. Your “team” probably should have just told you to keep your mouth shut indefinitely.

Observed another: “The level of the display of hardcore criticism against the archbishop throughout the convocation was revealing but not surprising. Most priests now know they are not alone in their estrangement from the archbishop. The archbishop has consistently attempted to move the archdiocese back into the 19th century. The seminary is a prime example.”

What is this? Anonymous priest number what? I’ve lost count? Five? I guess that might constitute a handful. Hey, I’ll hand it to Fr. Ghiorso with his “Yeah, I said it to the press!” attitude. To bad he couldn’t man up in person. You tend to keep quiet when you know your posse is dwindling and the tides are turning.

Last time I checked, they did that whole Gregorian Chant thing at St. Peter’s and, hey, a whole lot of churches and cathedrals around the country including yours even before Archbishop Cordileone. I’d love to know what else he thinks brings it back to the “19th century” (What does that even mean?) Actual Catholicism?

<Snipping old news they keep regurgitating as if it matters.>

As of Oct. 31, requests for comment from Cordileone were unsuccessful.

Oh come on, do you really expect him to call out priests in the press? That’s your thing. He’s taking the high road unlike the snakes in his diocese. How does one expect to make any conciliatory moves by duking it out in the press? I guess we’ll have to ask the anonymous priests and Fr. Ghiorso.

A retired priest told NCR, “The priests I talked to had the impression that Sal lives in his own world, cut off from what is real, and they feel helpless to find some relief from present church structure. At least the archbishop knows that he is not supported by his priests.

That retired priest, however, would belong to what Fr. Joseph Illo calls “a powerful, well-established older group of priests who have worked decades in the archdiocese and done much good work over the years, but who are having trouble accepting changes in our local church, and especially with a new archbishop.”

Ooooh! I don’t know. Who’s living in the fantasy land? I think that might be you anonymous “retired priest.” But thanks for summing up the lack respect that was supposedly promised to their archbishop. “Sal.”

A Cordileone loyalist, Illo asserted that “most priests are with the archbishop and share his ecclesiology in general” and that “if you took an anonymous poll … I’m quite sure that well over half the clergy would express appreciation and agreement with the archbishop’s theology. This is particularly true of priests under 40.”

And now we’re going to start heading into really old news land in keeping with the “let’s throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” maneuver.

No immediate headcount for 40-and-younger ordained was available, but an archdiocesan official told NCR, “Not very many.”

About 385 priests serve within the archdiocese, according to archdiocesan communications director Mike Brown.

Almost half are incardinated archdiocesan priests who have a median age of 67. Just under 40% of the balance are religious order members, and another 55 are from other dioceses.

And this is what terrifies the “Old Guard.” The young priests LOVE the archbishop and half of the priests in the diocese are under sixty-seven. And, yes, I am now older than way too many priests with more on the way BECAUSE the archbishop is the bomb. Nobody’s harassing seminarians anymore and vocations are being fostered. I’ve been AMAZED at the quality of the younger guys. The only ones entrenched in their hate are in the over sixty club.  And, let’s go over this again, the median age is sixty-seven??????? Half of them are older than that? Yeah, Archbishop Cordileone is NOT the problem here. It started a looooonnnngggg time ago.

<Snipping Fr. Illo comments just simply because NcR is kind of obsessed with him and it’s getting old. In short, great guy but, again, NcR’s desire to bring him into all of their pieces is getting ridiculous. Search my site if you want to know about him.>

Fr. Jose Shaji, pastor of St. Anselm Parish in Ross, north of San Francisco, predicted “nothing” will ultimately result from the Asilomar gathering despite the frank feedback it generated.

After an Oct. 6 evening mass, Shaji asked parishioners to pray for priests of the archdiocese, saying that clerical morale was the lowest he had experienced in his 17 years in the see.

“When I arrived here,” the native of India told NCR, “it was like coming home. But now it feels more like a place of employment.”

Then-Archbishop William Levada headed the archdiocese when Shaji arrived, succeeded in 2005 by Archbishop George Niederauer, who retired in 2012 and died in 2017. Later named a cardinal and head of the Vatican’s powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Levada died Sept. 26 of this year.

A longstanding pastor who attended the convocation said many “see this as kind of a last chance, and the guys are not going to drink from this well again,” an allusion to past encouragement to speak openly only to be ignored or marginalized.

So, again, a plan to figure out how to meet with the priests at their deanery meetings to communicate and gain input, something they SAID they wanted is now ignoring and marginalizing? Like I said, even National catholic Review couldn’t spin the truth enough to make these guys look anything but insane.

<And snipping the excessive repeating of old news.>

Faithful in the San Francisco Archdiocese, you better make some loud noises over this one. I realize most of you don’t go to their parishes because, like me, you have little tolerance for dissent but I really feel like some open letters, at the very least, are warranted. And please, write many many letters of support.

 

Schism for Dummies

The charges of schism being thrown around are getting a bit ridiculous.  Let’s chat, shall we?

First, what ISN’T schism.

Schism isn’t a dislike for the Holy Father’s leadership style. Schism is not questioning things put forth in a “working document.” Schism is not asking people to pray and fast that the crud put forth in a working document never sees the light of day in any final document proposed by the Church. Schism isn’t asking the Holy Father to make clear the teaching put forth in a document (i.e., the dubia). Schism isn’t wishing the Holy Father would never speak again to reporters on a plane. Schism is not EWTN reporting on Catholic news.  Schism is not Archbishop Vigano putting out his testimony. Schism isn’t even asking the Holy Father to resign. Schism isn’t a critique of how the Vatican or Holy Father is handling the abuse scandal.  Schism isn’t supporting Archbishop Vigano’s request for an investigation into the whole McCarrick debacle.

I’ve seen some ridiculous half-wit “theologians” suggesting that pretty much anyone who disagrees with THEM is schismatic. They seem to think that if they bandy the word around enough, the “uneducated masses” will be whipped into submission by the mere thought of it. They even put forth the question to the Holy Father on a plane (who, by the way, said there was no schism at this time) and got him to say the word which, somehow, is supposed to give their charges validation. “A-ha!  The pope said the word so you are in schism!” WRONG!

Let me give you a little list of all the people who have been charged with schism by the liberal Catholic elite.  Let’s see, Archbishop Vigano, for sure; Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco, Bishop Strickland of Tyler, and Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia, because they were three of MANY bishops who said the charges made by Archbishop Vigano should be investigated; Cardinals Burke and Brandmueller, because they dared to ask the Holy Father for clarification in their dubia; Archbishop Schneider, because he and Cardinal Burke asked people to pray and fast  before the synod, because of the pretty awful stuff is being discussed. (Prayer and fasting – the horrors! How dare they?!) I guess all of EWTN can be counted, too, because Raymond Arroyo dared to defend himself when a book about how EWTN was trying to overthrow the Holy Father was glorified on a flight. Oh, and EWTN, again, for broadcasting a Mass where the priest giving the homily said that the faithful was being asked to pray and fast before the upcoming “Amazon Synod.” I’d love to know what they are scared of. You want to fast and pray for me?  Please do. And, of course, there’re all those mean Catholic bloggers, radio hosts, commentators, etc., who are scratching their heads about some things the pope says. Yep, all are in schism, it seems, except those who want to change any Church teaching that doesn’t jive with their ideologies.

So, who are all the people declaring or suggesting schism? Thomas Reese, SJ, Massimo Faggioli, Dawn Eden Goldstein, Michael Sean Winters, and all of their ilk.  And don’t forget, the “Well, I didn’t say they were in schism.  I’m just retweeting something I thought was interesting!” crowd. (Yes, Fr. Martin, I mean you.)

The actual definition of schism found in Canon 751 goes like this

Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Ironically, none of the accusers are canon lawyers, but they accuse a good canon lawyers to be in schism.  Let’s see, who knows Canon Law better?

The other thing I find totally ridiculous, especially after this week, is that not one of these accusers has pointed toward Germany.  In fact, I failed to locate one story at National catholic Reporter on this as of this writing. If it exists, their search engines don’t work.  https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/marx-says-german-synod-will-proceed-despite-vatican-objections-82211  Why is this? This is a hell of a lot closer to schism (if not actually in schism) than anything else to which the NcR, America Magazine, or Commonweal types point. I mean, the German bishops were told by the Magisterium that their “binding synodal path” was “not ecclesiologically valid.” Their response? We’re doing it anyway. Who’s removing “submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” again? Apparently, Cardinal Marx.!

Does anyone see the difference in asking the Holy Father to exercise his authority (a la the Dubia 4, Archbishop Vigano, etc.) and rejecting an instruction from the Magisterium as the Germans are doing? The faithful Catholics are appealing to the very authority they should, while the Germans are usurping authority they don’t have. American schism, my foot! The liberals pushing for a declaration of schism are the biggest hypocrites around. Not one of the faithful listed above and accused by the liberals has ever rejected the authority of Pope Francis. In fact, they’ve made request upon request to the Pope to clarify.  To top it off, not even Pope Francis has declared them such. So, not only are the liberal accusers actually willing to reject authority when it suits them, they are also willing to usurp authority where they have none. They need to give it a rest, but sadly, they won’t.

 

Michael Sean’s Cabal Canard

 Don’t like that pope? Read what he wrote.

Not to quibble too much but this diatribe doesn’t even suggest anything the Holy Father wrote.

Sep 9, 2019

by Michael Sean Winters Opinion

The whole world now knows that Pope Francis is more or less fed up with some of his critics. His comment about it being an “honor” to be attacked by conservative Catholics in the U.S. made that clear for all to see. Francis had just been presented with a copy of a new book by French author Nicolas Seneze, which catalogues conservative Catholic efforts, largely American, to influence this pope or to limit his influence and undermine his efforts. The fallout from the pope’s comment is kind of fun to watch. Last week, EWTN host Raymond Arroyo began his hour-long show with an eight minute “commentary” that pronounced the pope’s comment “troubling.” I actually found the pope’s candor refreshing.

Talk about refreshing! The Pope’s guys tried to turn the comment into praise for Americans even though most of us were a tad bit skeptical about that one. Who knew Michael Sean Winters and I would agree?! Of course, I can’t agree that the comment or the fall-out are fun to watch. Only a jerk would revel in such division, but I’d expect no less.

Arroyo referred to a “string of lazy articles.” He went on: “This is tired, and, frankly, a fact-free narrative.” He complained that it had been peddled mostly by “Europeans and progressive Americans” and claimed these critics “make the mistake of casting orthodox Catholics in America as right-wingers, players in a political plot to undo the agenda of Francis.” He countered this portrayal, saying, “The truth is much more simple. American Catholics actually believe what the church has always taught, and they’re loud enough and have big enough platforms to broadcast that belief.” Arroyo insisted that “all traditional Catholics have done is ask questions.”

Uh, yeah. Don’t you think that’s allowable, Michael Sean Winters?  As I’ve said before, people across the world have concerns. And Arroyo is right. We are a very blessed country and we have the freedom and ability to fight for everyone against liberal dissenters like Michael Sean Winters, NcR, America Magazine, etc. like no other country in the world. We’re good on the battlefield like that. And did I miss something? Are America Magazine, National catholic Reporter or Salt & Light Whatever penniless organizations? Please. And, by the way, as of now, I don’t get a paycheck. (Offers totally accepted.) I think we need to have “Je suis ETWN!” shirts made up because they’re just saying what a good chunk of the laity around the world thinks. Since Michael Sean Winters would never actually want you to see the interview he writes about (he could have totally linked to it), I will leave it here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bPyFm1Aw20

Arroyo unwittingly confirmed the thesis he was trying to debunk when he concluded: “The truth is this is all a craven attempt to demonize and purge voices form the church who dare to question the radical changes that are under way and the brutal tactics used to enact them.” Radical changes? Brutal tactics?

Uh, is there any doubt about radical changes?  Apparently he didn’t get the memo from Cardinal “Synodality” Marx? Or America Magazine ? And brutal tactics? Maybe he missed what just happened at the John Paul II Institute? For goodness’ sake, Michael Sean Winters, even The Atlantic sees it. So, please, don’t act like those who are troubled are paranoid freaks. It’s real. “Nothing to see here but the usual papal stuff” isn’t going to fly.

To prove his claim to editorial balance, Arroyo played a tape of him of the night a year ago when he reported about Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in which he said, “I am a little squeamish about a pope resigning again.” Huh? Had a former nuncio publicly demand that Pope Benedict XVI resign? Why add the word “again”? He did, to his credit, acknowledge there had been criticism of Viganò, but one year later, on a show just two weeks ago, Arroyo and his papal posse, Robert Royal and Fr. Gerald Murray, spent more than half the show defending Viganò and arguing that most of his claims had been proven true, when in fact, most of them had been proven false.

Wow!  Which ones were those proven false?!?! The “just say it and it will be true” tactic doesn’t work here, Michael Sean. If you’re going to make an accusation, back it up.

Arroyo said: “Let’s not create silly conspiracy theories.”

Me thinks the pope touched a nerve. Arroyo’s rant sounded like nothing so much as the wild excuses a child makes when caught pilfering the cookie jar. To be clear, if I were in his shoes, I would be upset also. I would be upset if I thought my pals owned the church and someone had come along and taken it away from us.

Uh, my pals don’t own the Church. Raymond Arroyo’s pals don’t own the Church. And, just to be clear, nobody does. Maybe that’s the problem. You and your buddies, Mr. Winters, seem to think the Church is some kind of personal football while we believe God gave it to us as our guide to heaven. We also know darn well that it’s been foretold time and again that She will constantly be under attack from within as well as the outside. Congratulations on being a small part of proving that prophecy.

There is, indeed, a cabal among right-wing Catholics to undermine or minimize this pope and his teachings, and you could discover it merely by watching EWTN or reading its auxiliary media outlets. No one would have Cardinal Raymond Burke or German Cardinal Gerhard Müller on their show as an authoritative guest unless such undermining was the goal. No one would have Phil Lawler, who was the first guest on Arroyo’s show last week, on their show as an expert unless undermining the pope was the objective. The two men enjoyed themselves complaining about all the damage they think Francis is doing to the church.

Wow! Cabal and right-wing all in one sentence! Doesn’t this sort of make the open-arm narrative you’re about to put forward fall a little flat? (Hint: The answer is yes.)

Heaven forbid we have a Cardinal of the Church speak on a Catholic station! And heaven forbid Phil Lawler be disgusted by the abuse crisis and its handling.  Yeah, those guys are horrible. Geez!

Was EWTN undermining the Holy Father when they reported this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vovTX6bAI0 Or this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxGj7Ztt1lU Or this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqn3YYurIpE  Or even that evil Raymond Arroyo and the Papal Posse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J88_Fnz-UXU? Or all of Pope Francis’ big Masses? Sometimes they support and sometimes they scratch their heads and say “What is this?!” just like the regular folks in the world. And when someone’s job is criticized by a French writer and the pope seemingly agrees, why in heaven’s name would you not expect them to respond? I guess it’s because NcR, American Magazine, and Salt and Light never respond? (Yes, I am rolling my eyes.)  Heck, if you’re in the social media world, they simply ban you as they’ve done to so many. They don’t want to discuss it, and I should know since I’ve been banned by most of them for my critiques of their work. Talk about a cabal! At least Arroyo and the rest of the “evil Americans” are willing to continue the conversation and they try to see the good where they can find it, but that doesn’t mean they can’t comment and ask questions.

I’m really sorry that you don’t understand why people are greatly concerned and have concerns about some of the things Pope Francis says. I mean, that’s never ever happened in the history of the Church! (That was tongue in cheek, Sean Michael.)  I realize that everyone has totally forgotten about, say, St. Catherine of Siena, but this is hardly the first time there have been criticisms and questions of a pope. Was she somehow an elitist as you so like to frame people you’d rather dismiss? Was she part of a cabal?

I wish to send Arroyo and other conservative Catholics an invitation, one that I received a long time ago and from which I derived enormous benefit. During the more conservative pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, friends encouraged me to read their writings with an open mind, not to dismiss them because they were so conservative. Of course, in the area of Catholic social teaching, there has been enormous continuity, not only across the last three pontificates but stretching all the way back to Pope Leo XIII. But, when I read some of the writings of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, from his early work Introduction to Christianity to the trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth that he wrote while pope, I not only learned a great deal, I had my faith strengthened by the insights he discerned. Here is the column I wrote the day after his resignation. I was not yet a writer when Pope John Paul II issued Novo Millennio Ineunte, but I remember thinking it was a magnificent document that made me stretch in ways I would not have done if I had simply stuck to my more liberal Catholic texts.

Dude!  You just suggested what my last clip from EWTN said.  Why don’t you give it a watch again? I’ll leave the link nice and visible! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J88_Fnz-UXU  Maybe don’t call people part of a cabal and you might get some conversation. The thing is, you might actually have to approach them with an open mind.  It doesn’t go one way and this is the problem I have with you and yours. Unless we buy everything you say we’re, somehow, part of this evil, right-wing, conspiracy to overthrow the Holy Father. Sorry buddy.  We want him to succeed but we have question when we hear things that sound like somebody just dragged a needle over our favorite album.

And one last thing, to suggest none of the faithful who are troubled have read Pope Francis is ludicrous. In fact, it’s because we’ve read and hang on his every word that we are concerned. What the Holy Father says is very important. That’s kind of the point.

So, instead of painting Francis in such a harsh and negative light, rather than poking fun at synods, or highlighting and even championing a score-settling text like Viganò’s “testimony,” I invite conservative Catholics to come to Francis and his teachings with an open heart and an open mind. I hope they might find, as I did with his conservative predecessors, an opportunity to stretch their faith, which always leads to an expansion and a deepening of that faith as well. It is a big church, and there is room for everybody. The alternative is the emergence of a sectarian, para-schismatic church in the United States. And, if a full-blown schism were to occur, its source would largely be found on EWTN.

And there it is.  The liberal, Catholic talking narrative. The hypocrisy is rather staggering. You knew it was coming. Honestly, was there a conference call?  Clearly there was. Maybe, the next time you want to float the idea that you are being uber charitable, calling others to open-mindedness, etc. you remove a HUGE log from you eye and not call them part of the schismatic cabal. Just saying. Until then, all the faithful should realize that the Winters, Reeses and Faggiolis of the world are just hoping you’re not paying attention and will fall for their pandering innuendos.

[Michael Sean Winters covers the nexus of religion and politics for NCR.] Kind of not so much. Pretty much covers his own unsubstantiated, narcissistic viewpoints.

So my friends, I’ll see you all at the weekly schismatic cabal meeting. I’ll bring snacks! Oh shoot! I meant doughnuts…for after Mass. Same diff.

Trust Not Trustees

https://www.ncronline.org/news/parish/minnesota-parish-rallies-around-gay-musicians-ousted-new-priest

Before I get started, can you please drop this priest a line of support?  I’m reasonably sure that he’s not getting all the encouragement he should right now.  In fact, drop his bishop a line too.

The music during the second weekend of Advent at the Churches of St. Joseph and St. Francis Xavier north of Minnesota’s Twin Cities had a different ring to it than it did the week before.

Rather than leading the small parish communities in song from their usual posts in the choral section of the church, two of its longtime musicians, Bob Bernard and Travis Loeffler, instead sang loudly from the front pew as part of the flock. Earlier in the week, parochial administrator Fr. John Drees fired them, along with fellow accompanist Dominic Mitchell, after the priest learned of their same-sex marriages.

“Same-sex marriages” are not compatible with the teachings of the Church, in case Brian Roewe didn’t know, what with being involved with the National catholic Reporter and all.  Might have been a good place to start off the article. 

Their termination led to their relocation in the pews, from where they worshipped at each of the parish’s four Masses surrounded by supportive family, friends and fellow parishioners.

“We wanted to make sure that we were present,” said Bernard, 59, an accompanist at the small parish for 15 years. “We didn’t want people to think that we were afraid, and we didn’t want people in any way to be upset or despairing that they weren’t going to see us again.”

It’s really sad when going to Mass becomes a protest.  Got it, boys.  You believe sodomy is the bomb and you’re sitting in the front row to make sure everyone notices you.  Let’s just forget the pesky thing going on before us on the altar.  Seriously.  They’ve got some diva issues.  I’ve had plenty of reasons in my time to protest the actions of priest in my area but I would NEVER choose Mass to make my point because, well, IT”S MASS!  Geez.  It’s not like it’s an easy thing to overlook unless you’re these guys.

After each of the four Masses celebrated at St. Joseph Church, in Taylors Falls, Minnesota, and St. Francis Xavier Church, in Shafer, Minnesota — part of the St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocese —​ many parishioners approached the men expressing concern and compassion, but also confusion and in some cases, shedding tears. The only announcement of their removal from the clustered parish’s music program was a vague notice in the day’s bulletin being handed out around them, in which the priest, who arrived in July, stated simply the three would “no longer be playing music at our Masses.”

Well, there was a little more to it.  The priest was also looking for some new people to take over.  I will say, in this instance, it might not have been prudent to advertise in the bulletin but, with Christmas coming, one might have to explain the absence of musicians.

Loeffler, a 30-year-old volunteer cantor at the parish for six years, said, “We wanted to be sure that if people had questions, that they knew it’s not because we wanted to leave.”

  Yes, yes.  You’re martyrs and you want to make sure everyone knows it.

The three musicians were dismissed from the parish’s music ministry Dec. 5. Bernard was informed of his termination after morning Mass that day.

“I was scheduled to have a meeting with Fr. Drees about plans for Advent and Christmas music. And then when I sat down, he said that’s not what I really wanted to talk to you about,” Bernard told NCR.

According to Bernard, the priest said the longtime accompanist could not continue in that role because his marriage to his husband, Dave, presented a situation that “was confusing to the parishioners.”

Well, yeah.  Three unrepentant “married” dudes having an integral part in the Mass is kind of confusing. 

Drees, 31, told NCR in an email he would not comment publicly on parish personnel and employment issues out of respect for all involved and affected, nor comment on private conversations between him and parishioners.

Wait! A priest who doesn’t comment publicly on his employees, much less reveal the sinful acts of other people?  Absolutely astonishing.

Bernard, who married in September, said he had informed the priest of his marriage recently, after receiving a payroll form that included a question about his marital status. Bernard’s final paycheck included a note stating, “Dear Bob, a follow-up on our previous discussion. You resigned as an employee on Dec, 5, 2017. I thank you for sharing your musical gifts with us and for your dedication and service to the parish. Your music was an inspiration, I wish you the very best in your journey.”

Well, that certainly doesn’t make Fr. Drees look like the evil toad NcR is going for.

Later on Dec. 5, Drees told Loeffler and Mitchell — who married one another in January — of their terminations by phone, but did not offer an explanation as to why, both told NCR. When either asked the priest what was the reason, he replied, “I’m not prepared to say.”

What also remained unclear was how Drees knew of their marriage. Unlike Bernard, the two never disclosed their marriage to the parish. And while they regularly played together, with Mitchell on the piano and Loeffler providing vocals, they were intentional in avoiding any outward signs of their relationship.

Interestingly enough, Bernard doesn’t say that he notified the parish of his “same-sex marriage,” just that he was married.  When people are intentionally hiding relationships, doesn’t that tell you something, Bob?  You had to know this was probably going to be the outcome of all this.

“I was very careful about it. We barely even shook hands,” Mitchell said.” 

Again, why? 

Leading up to the personnel decision

The unanswered questions added to the pain of their dismissal; they saw their participation at Mass not as a gig but an expression of the gifts God had given them.”

Really?  Are there really unanswered questions?  It was found out that you were all in “same-sex marriages.”  It’s a Catholic Church.  When one enters into a “same-sex marriage,” one can no longer simply say, “It’s not a sin to be gay!” because you’ve gone one step further and let everyone know that you did something against Church teaching, and why would anyone think that someone who entered into a “same-sex” marriage is not engaging in sodomy, masturbation, etc.?

“”It took me a while to realize that God made me the way I am on purpose. To be out of the closet, to be homosexual, to also have these gifts of music to share,” said Mitchell, 35, who has sung in churches since he was a kid.

Wait a sec.  “God made me this way” doesn’t even show a modicum of knowledge in the Faith.  Who was the pastor there before Fr. Drees?  My gosh, priestly people, you need to start including Truth in your homilies.

And, as Mitchell’s comments show, he’s using those liberal labels to defend his indefensible position.  Instead of “struggling Catholic,” it’s “out of the closet Catholic.”  Let me restate, as I have so many times before, I don’t care if one is “gay” or straight.  I care if they are struggling like the rest of us to follow the teachings of the God and His Church.  I care about our immortal souls, not our earthly proclivities.  This whole “Yay, I’m a sinner!” idea is an epic fail.  It should be “Please have mercy on me Lord, a sinner.”  Not the ridiculous “God made me a sinner!  Woot!”  Do some of us have bigger crosses to carry than others?  Yup.  However, most of the time they are self-made by a lack of self-mastery.

“He added he could see why the archdiocese might not want to compensate them, but had a hard time understanding why they still couldn’t voluntarily share their musical talents. “That’s really where I think it seems particularly unnecessary and kind of hateful,” Mitchell said.”

Um, what’s unnecessary and kind of hateful is expecting any of your fellow Catholics to accept you particular sin.  This isn’t about you being homosexual, it’s about you trying to enshrine homosexual “marriage” in the hearts and minds of the faithful around you.  If it’s not and you’re simply struggling with sin, why not say it?

The musicians’ status was a point of tense discussion in the weeks before Thanksgiving among Drees and the parish’s four trustees.

The priest held separate meetings in mid-November with each church’s pair of trustees. At each meeting, Drees asked the trustees — advisors to both the priest and the churches’ pastoral and financial councils — if they knew the musicians were gay and married. Three of the four responded that they knew, to which Drees expressed surprise that no one had alerted him.

Yeah, I’d probably fire the trustees, too.  They knew there were public, obstinate sinners (when 3 out of 4 know, it’s public) being entrusted with jobs in the liturgy.

“He seemed disappointed with the parishioners that nobody thought this was a bad thing and brought it up to him,” said Chris Hudspeth, a trustee at St. Joseph where she has been a parishioner for four decades.

She and others described the St. Croix Valley, which encompasses the two churches, as a small, inclusive and close-knit community (Taylors Falls has a population of approximately 1,000 people), and one that wouldn’t view a person’s sexual orientation as a big deal.

Well, duh!  Disappointed?!? I’d be epically distraught if I were a priest whose parishioners thought having the choir guys entering into “same-sex marriages” was peachy or that peoples’ disordered orientations were no big deal.

Hudspeth said she was “taken aback” when Drees then told her and Larry Julik-Heine he would have to dismiss the three musicians because their marriages represented a public demonstration of beliefs contrary to church teaching. She said the priest indicated that Bernard’s contract included a code of conduct agreement, but she did not review the document.

How sad is it that these two people so involved with their church don’t get this?

Both trustees said they opposed the musicians’ dismissal, with Hudspeth pointing to gay-and-married members of her own family and saying, “I would not turn my back on them.”

Uh, yes, trustees.  You have turned your back on them by green-lighting their sin and allowing them to be perfectly comfortable with it. Heaven and Hell are real places, people. Christ didn’t tell the lost sheep to have fun.  He went after them.  These two knuckle-heads are going to give the thumbs up to their loved ones because they don’t want the discomfort of calling a spade a spade.  Apparently, they believe embracing sin is an acceptable method to get to Heaven, since, heck, Christ dined with sinners and all.  Trustees, Christ told people to “go and sin” no more.  He didn’t say “Hey!  Your sin, it’s just fine.”

“I thought it was wrong, discriminatory, and I just could not agree,” Julik-Heine told NCR.”

Discriminatory?  Try loving.  It’s sad that these poor priests are labeled malicious for not wanting people to stew in their sins and lead others to believe the sinner’s way of life is a good thing.

According to the trustees, Drees responded to a question about how he found out about the musicians’ marriages by saying someone had informed him, which led him to conduct his own online inquiry. The priest also indicated he noticed Loeffler and Mitchell arrived at Mass together in the same car and departed at the same time. At the St. Francis trustee meeting, Carol Schwinghammer said she noticed a photo of Bernard and his husband in the stack of papers in front of Drees.

In short, people knew, and the trustees confirmed that. 

When asked if he conducted online research into the marital status of any of the three men, Drees told NCR in an email, “Social media and other online outlets are public. We teach our schoolchildren and our employees to be careful what they post online, and, as employees, we all must adhere to Catholic teaching in our postings.”

Yep!  I tell my children the same thing. You want to post your sins on-line, be prepared for consequences somewhere along the way.  And, regardless, there are always consequences to sin which should be the bigger picture here.  I repeat, Heaven and Hell.

Schwinghammer, who also opposed the musicians’ firing, requested a second meeting for all four trustees and Drees to continue the discussion and perhaps find an alternative solution. “But to me, it became apparent that that wasn’t going to happen,” she said.

By “alternative solution”, do you mean a solution consistent with that pesky little thing called Church teaching?  Didn’t think so. These men were all thrilled to jump into an objectively sinful situation.  There is no solution that can fix that other than confession and resolving to sin no more.  When you’re proud of your same-sex “marriage” you’ve now enshrined yourself in the public obstinate sinner category.

The trustees told NCR that Drees said no one had approached him with concerns about the musicians. At one point, Schwinghammer referenced Pope Francis’ calls for a more inclusive church, to which she said Drees replied that a lot of people find the pope’s message confusing, and went on to reference three passages from St. Paul that he said condemn same-sex marriage.

Father Drees, if it doesn’t work out in Minnesota, we’ve got a few dioceses around here that could use your help.  Schwinghammer doesn’t understand the difference between a Church made up of sinners (all of us) and one that tells people to embrace their sins.

And one other little thing…Of course nobody approached you people.  They knew you were already in on the whole thing and it was all copacetic with you!  Duh!

“The firing of the musicians led Julik-Heine to resign as trustee, a position he had held almost the entirety of his two decades at St. Joseph. After making that decision, Julik-Heine told NCR that Drees informed him he could also no longer serve as a lector or eucharistic minister in the parish, and that he would likely refuse him the sacraments; days later, the priest said he would still offer him the Eucharist, but the bar on liturgical roles stood.

It wasn’t “after making that decision.” It was after you spewed a warped vision of Church teaching. 

“”I felt like I was basically kicked out of the church,” Julik-Heine said. “… That put a big hole in my heart, to be honest. Because I’ve done so much at St. Joe’s over the years and it’s a big part of my life.”

Here comes more of the martyr complex.  I’d be more worried about Heaven and Hell than your roles in the Church.  The Church is not a social club. 

Outpouring of support

The three trustees were among those who joined in sitting near the musicians at Masses during the second weekend of Advent. Of the roughly 50 to 100 people in attendance at each, it was estimated close to half were present in support for their former musicians. By all accounts, the circumstances at the Saturday night Mass at St. Joseph that landed Loeffler and Bernard in a pew rather than the regular choral spot — two female cantors filled in — resulted in a beautiful harmony filling the church.

There’s a shocker.  It’s all really about them, isn’t it?  Go to Mass, people, and take the protest elsewhere. 

In a side note, I have to think that the attendance in that parish is about to go up, since I’m sure that many people who embrace Catholic teaching went elsewhere a long time ago.  Some of us are looking for faithful priests to minister to us.  Now you know where he is, Minnesota Catholics!  The “trustees” might have given a thought to why there was such awful attendance there but it seems it was all lost on them!

Even more moving to the two men was the overwhelming support they felt from their parish community, including people they didn’t know well or from whom they had expected a different reaction to their dismissal.

“There were a lot of tears, a lot of hugging,” Loeffler said.

“Everybody loved them,” Hudspeth said. “… They brought a music ministry to this church, to these parishes, that we have not had in years.

Uh, sounded like they had all been there a while. 

Asked about the show of support, Drees said, “As a priest, I am always happy to see people attending and participating in the Mass.” He said he has heard from “few parishioners” since the musicians’ firing, and “they have expressed their concerns but also their support and understanding.”

Bernard described many “raw feelings” at the Masses, and several people approached Drees afterward to discuss the priest’s decision. One of them was Jamie Manzi-Moore, the former music director at St. Victoria Catholic Church, in Victoria, Minnesota, who was fired in 2014 after 17 years in the position after his own same-sex marriage was reported to then-Archbishop John Nienstedt.

Now they’re bringing people in to protest?!?  I would expect no less.

According to Schwinghammer, during the first meeting Drees said that while at a prior parish he had addressed at a similar situation at a nearby church. When Bernard confronted Drees about whether he had informed Nienstedt of Moore’s marriage, he told NCR that the priest “was shocked to hear me ask that question, and he said, ‘Yes.’ “

Drees, in response to a question from NCR, denied that he had informed Nienstedt about Manzi-Moore’s marriage. He did not respond to a follow-up question whether he had any involvement in the archbishop or archdiocese learning about Manzi-Moore’s marital status.

Well, sounds like a he said/he said thing, so it’s really not possible to comment on whether or not the exchange happened, although NcR is all too happy to report on it.  That said, if Fr. Drees informed his bishop of something he found problematic, the problem is?  Oh, yeah, there isn’t one.

Manzi-Moore, after a brief exchange with Drees following Mass on Dec. 9, emailed the priest and Archbishop Bernard Hebda stating in part he believed his and the other musicians’ firings were “completely wrong, unjust, and it is not Christian in any way shape or form.”

“It isn’t simply ‘remove them from their ministries and all will be well.’ There is so much pain, so much sorrow, and so much unnecessary harm inflicted upon not only those who are ‘let go’ but also upon their families, loved ones, and their parish families,” he wrote.

What about the harm to the faithful when a pastor allows people to be perfectly complacent with their sins?  Give me a break.  Eternal salvation is a big deal.

Drees responded to Manzi-Moore on Thursday in an email, a copy of which NCR obtained, where he again said he did not contact Nienstedt about him. The priest, who at the time of the former music director’s dismissal was associate pastor of nearby St. Hubert Catholic Community, explained he received a phone call from an anonymous St. Victoria parishioner “who had some concerns about the music ministry at the parish.”

“I asked my pastor him [sic] for direction on what to do with the information, and he suggested relaying it to our dean,” Drees wrote, referring to the head of the regional deanery. “I did, and that was the last and only thing I did. I cannot speak to what the Archbishop knew or didn’t know, or how he knew.”

Let’s be honest, there was probably more than one person who was concerned.  Apparently, it was public knowledge, and I’m sure more than one person expressed their concern to more than just Fr. Drees.

Moving forward

There’s worry within the St. Francis Xavier and St. Joseph Churches, the trustees said, that the situation with their ousted musicians will become a wedge that divides the parish. Some parishioners have begun talking about withholding financial support of the parish, or withdrawing from it entirely. Others fear that showing support for the musicians could lead to their own removal from roles in the liturgy and parish, as well.

That’s really up to the parishioners, isn’t it, trustees?  I would expect that showing support for peoples’ objective sins might be more of a problem than some withholding financial support.

”I really am concerned that it is going to negatively impact the community. And I see it personally, I see it as discriminatory,” Schwinghammer said. The situation with the musicians reminded her of her own experience as a child, with her parents divorced, of feeling not welcomed in the church.”

Doesn’t it occur to anyone that people publicly embracing sodomy might be the ones negatively impacting the community?!?  And, really, the homosexual choir dudes are the center of parish devotion?  It’s about the Eucharist, folks!  It’s not about you, the choir, etc., etc., etc.  I don’t know a parish in the world that doesn’t have very human people, but in my parish, the focus is not us, it’s God.  It’s not about embracing sin, it’s about supporting people in their rejection of sin (which is hard).  It’s about helping us gain everlasting life with God, not about making our lives on this earth comfy.  It’s about supporting people in their daily struggles, not about helping them to avoid them in a misplaced sense of love.

Julik-Heine and Schwinghammer have written to the St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocese expressing their concerns. Schwinghammer said she spoke Dec. 9 with Fr. Michael Tix, vicar for clergy and parish services, who advised her to keep talking.

Maybe “keep listening” would be a better idea.  I have NO DOUBT Fr. Drees has the salvation of his parishioners in the forefront of his mind.  Too bad these whiners don’t.

The archdiocese did not respond to specific questions from NCR, saying it does not comment on individual parish personnel decisions.

In a statement, Tix said, “Decisions regarding personnel in a parish setting rest with the pastor or parochial administrator of the parish and the Archdiocese recommends that he work in tandem with parish leadership and consult legal counsel. It’s the pastor or administrator and his lay leaders who are best able to assess what is necessary for building a team that can give a credible witness to the Gospel in that community. We urge our pastors to be both fair and consistent in the applications of rules and standards.”

For the three musicians, the outpouring at the Masses two weeks ago showed them the parish body still welcomed them, even if they were restricted from formal ministerial roles.

I’m just going to focus on the last paragraph here.  Just what are you supporting, fellow parishioners?  Did you ever once stop and think about that?  You are supporting sin.  Get it through your thick skulls.  You’re cheering them on while they skip down the road to perdition.  Welcome them to Mass?  Fine. Welcome them to Hell?  Not so much.

“If anything, I am reassured from this community that there were a number of people that said ‘I would love for you to sit and sing by me,’ ” Loeffler said.

To Bernard, the outreach meant one thing: “I’m going to stay there.”

Me, me, me, I, I, I. 

While Mitchell said he plans to attend Mass elsewhere for the foreseeable future, Bernard and Loeffler were back at St. Joseph on Sunday morning. “We sang our hearts out from the pews,” according to Bernard, and afterward, met friends they didn’t know they had. Drees even greeted Bernard after Mass.

I’m totally shocked that the last sentence got printed!  It further flipped the whole narrative of Fr. Drees being the guy who wants to drum all homosexuals out of his parish, didn’t it?  Seriously, we need to pray for our priests.  The stress of having to deal with Mass being used as a weekly protest must be overwhelming.

“People were delighted to see that we had not been driven away,” he said, adding they hope to remain a part of the parish community, however that might look.

I would hope they’d keep going to Mass, and I hope they will reject sin.  This is not about trying to drive people away, my friends at St. Joseph and St. Francis Xavier.  It’s about helping them gain everlasting life.

For Bernard, who attends daily Mass when able, the Eucharist kept him from ever considering abandoning the Catholic faith altogether. By staying in the parish, he hopes he can show strength to other gay people who might feel unwelcome.

Whoa, buddy!  You abandoned the faith a long time ago when you decided to rebel against Church teaching. You showed up weekly but you tried to make the faith conform around you.  This is not about “gay” people.  It’s about the public manifestation of sin and Eucharist.  These are two very different things, and I’m not letting Bernard get away with saying because he sat in a pew and openly and willfully rejected the teachings of the Church that he embraces the faith.  It’s simply not fair to those suffering with same-sex attraction who are trying (and succeeding!) to live a chaste life.  They are the real heroes and examples to us. 

“I feel like my gifts and talents are a calling, and I would like to be the change that we seek, as far as the Catholic Church goes. And I feel like if I leave it, I’m not fulfilling my calling,” Mitchell said.

Mr. Mitchell, your calling is to help the Body of Christ achieve everlasting life, just like the rest of us. We’re all in this together. Your calling is not to be an example of how to embrace sin.  You can choose the example you are going to be.  Are you going to help people reject sin, or are you going to play the martyr card some more?

Loeffler said leaving would feel “like the easy way out.” He hopes the support they’ve received can show other homosexual men and women who feel driven from their communities that there are Catholics who “knowingly and openly support gay men and women. That they’re not afraid of them, they welcome them.”

Mr. Loeffler, there is no easy way out.  There is a cross.  Are you going to embrace or reject it?  That’s what this comes down to for all of us.

“We don’t want this to be another story for people to dislike the Catholic Church. We are still parishioners of the Catholic faith after this. This didn’t drive us away,” Loeffler said.

It is good you didn’t leave.  I would hope you wouldn’t.  However, I hope Fr. Drees will get what real love is across to you.  Christ showed us this on the cross.  You won’t ever be happy in your protest. You will only be happy when your focus is on Christ and the teachings of His Church.

The Fanboy Meltdown

Uh oh…
https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/us-bishops-electing-naumann-lead-pro-life-committee-break-tradition

So sorry, Michael Sean Winters.  I think many of your hopes and dreams just flew out the window today. While you claim there was a “break from tradition”, I’m pretty sure that it’s tradition to pick the guy who will most likely not sell out the pro-life world by trying to attach “seamless garment” issues around the necks of the babies and their mothers. And so tradition was actually followed.

The U.S. bishops broke tradition this morning selecting Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas, to serve as chairman of the Pro-Life Activities Committee. He defeated Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago on a vote of 96 to 82. Not to put too fine a point on it, but this amounted to the bishops giving the middle finger to Pope Francis.

Imploding much over there at National catholic Reporter, Michael?  Wow!  Really?!?!  Picking a longstanding, hard-working advocate for life is “giving the middle finger” to the Pope?  How do you figure?  You might be possibly confusing yourself with the pope.  Talk about ideologue. I know you were working hard to get him those votes, but geez, engaging in calumny is kind of a no-no.  I would think even you would get that.

The Pro-Life Activities Committee has always been led by a cardinal, a way the bishops have signaled the priority they assign to that committee. The current chair is Cardinal Timothy Dolan who, like Naumann, is a protégé of Cardinal Justin Rigali. Some of us who have been watching the bishops for a long time from the bleachers on the left have a saying about Rigali’s career: “He has ruined everything he ever touched.” In giving his committee report on Monday, Dolan singled out Naumann for praise. It was a none too subtle placing of his finger on the scales.

Wait! Now Dolan’s sticking it to Pope Francis, too? You’re losing it, Michael. For a man who just wrote a piece deriding Catholic publications you perceive to be dividing the Church, aren’t you being just a tad bit hypocritical on the USCCB? I guess it’s OK because your guy lost? Please. I feel like I’m watching the screaming snowflakes after the last presidential election throwing their tantrums and demanding safe-spaces. Please, feel free to retreat to mom’s basement and color.

The contrast between the two candidates for chair of the Pro-Life Activities Committee was the starkest of the choices the bishops faced. Naumann and Cupich are both representative of the two divergent understandings of how the church should interact with the ambient culture. Naumann is a culture warrior. Cupich champions engagement and dialogue.

Uh, Archbishop Naumann is a pro-life warrior. Cardinal Cupich tried to bar the priests and seminarians in his former diocese from participating in the 40 Days for Life campaign until that was made public, and then he sort of allowed it.  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2011/09/i-dont-get-bp-cupich.html http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2011/09/16/bishop-cupich-priests-may-participate-in-40-days-for-life/

Archbishop Naumann told pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius not to present herself for Communion, while Cardinal Cupich has said he’d wouldn’t deny anyone. https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=236

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2014/on-giving-communion-pro-abortion-politicians

And then there’s the rest of his pro-life resume:

Archbishop Naumann has served on the USCCB Committee on Pro-Life Activities since 2015. From 1984 to 1995, Archbishop Naumann served as the Archdiocesan Pro-Life Coordinator in St. Louis. In 1986, during his tenure as Pro-Life Coordinator, the Archdiocese of St. Louis established a Project Rachel ministry. Also, under his leadership, the Archdiocese of St. Louis established the Lifeline Coalition, a network that included Catholic Hospitals, Catholic Charities, Birthright Centers, and residential homes for unwed mothers to coordinate and improve services for families experiencing an untimely pregnancy.  Archbishop Naumann was also one of the founding Board members for the Vitae Foundation that uses mass media and social media to communicate Pro-Life messages.

Cupich? Anyone got the resume for Cardinal Cupich?

I’m thinking that the other bishops might just have thought Archbishop Naumann has much better pro-life credentials than Cardinal Cupich, plain and simple. No dis to the Holy Father. They’re not putting politics before the vulnerable.

In 2008, Naumann told Gov. Kathleen Sebelius that she should not present herself for Communion because of her pro-choice position. This interpretation of Canon 915 was first advanced by Cardinal Raymond Burke but it was never the position adopted by most bishops who thought it a mistake to politicize the Communion rail. Naumann also ordered his parishes to cease hosting Girl Scout troops over concerns they were somehow involved with Planned Parenthood. He is not exactly a poster child for the culture of encounter.

Uh, they weren’t “somehow involved”, they were directly involved. Duh! You’re kind of making the point for me. Archbishop Naumann is much more consistent and serious about the life issue. You have little to no qualification if you don’t even know of the GSA and PP connection.

Cupich, on the other hand, has openly embraced the consistent ethic of life approach first introduced by his predecessor Cardinal Joseph Bernardin. Many of the zelanti in the pro-life movement deeply resented Bernardin’s effort, wanting a singular focus on abortion. I recall an auxiliary bishop telling me that after he gave a talk that advocated the consistent ethic of life, his ordinary called him and told him, “We don’t use that language here.”

Yes, we deeply resented Cardinal Bernardin, but it was for sooooooo many reasons. We don’t simply want a singular focus on abortion. That said, the “seamless garment” is inconsistent with Church teaching, and I’m reasonably sure you know that. Hey, Mr. Winters, if you’ve never seen it, please read “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.”   It might be of some help to you in regards to the seamless garment problem as well as worthiness to receive Holy Communion, neither of which you seem to get. You might also want to familiarize yourself with the word “intrinsic.” It escapes so many over there at NcR. (Actually, I’m sure it’s a purposeful oversight.) It’s short. Let’s take a look, shall we?

  1. Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? Am I guilty of grave sin? Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83).

  2. The Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin. The Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, with reference to judicial decisions or civil laws that authorize or promote abortion or euthanasia, states that there is a “grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. […] In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it'” (no. 73). Christians have a “grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil. […] This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it” (no. 74).

  3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

  4. Apart from an individual’s judgment about his worthiness to present himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, the minister of Holy Communion may find himself in the situation where he must refuse to distribute Holy Communion to someone, such as in cases of a declared excommunication, a declared interdict, or an obstinate persistence in manifest grave sin (cf. can. 915).

  5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.

  6. When “these precautionary measures have not had their effect or in which they were not possible,” and the person in question, with obstinate persistence, still presents himself to receive the Holy Eucharist, “the minister of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute it” (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts Declaration “Holy Communion and Divorced, Civilly Remarried Catholics” [2002], nos. 3-4). This decision, properly speaking, is not a sanction or a penalty. Nor is the minister of Holy Communion passing judgment on the person’s subjective guilt, but rather is reacting to the person’s public unworthiness to receive Holy Communion due to an objective situation of sin.

Underneath the issue of how to approach pro-life issues was a deeper issue: How do the bishops feel about Pope Francis? Cupich was plucked out of the relatively small diocese of Spokane by Francis and sent to Chicago, his first major appointment in the U.S. hierarchy. Francis also named Cupich to the Congregation for Bishops which vets candidates for the episcopacy and, consequently, is charged with shaping the next generation of leaders in the church. 

How is your whiplash doing? Division and attacks were all so evil just the other day.  What happened? First of all, may Cardinal Cupich’s tenure be short! Second of all, not embracing Cardinal Cupich’s “Catholic lite” isn’t a slap in the face to Pope Francis any more than being annoyed by Cardinal Mahony was a slap to Saint Pope John Paul II. Popes can make mistakes in their choices. And, if you persist with this silly line of thinking, I might think that you are stomping on the memory of Pope Benedict for not being thrilled with Archbishop Naumann. Yes, you are trying to make two things go together that do not.

I do not discern any similar stark choice among the other candidates. In the contest for conference secretary, which brings membership in the executive committee, Archbishop Paul Coakley of Oklahoma City lost to Detroit Archbishop Allen Vigneron by a vote of 88 to 96. Vigneron’s selection takes effect immediately.

Bahahaha! Well, you might want to take a look at the contrasts between some of the candidates in some of those other races. Yeah, there is some starkness in a few of them. Regardless, it has nothing to do with Pope Francis and all equal a sad day for the NcR staff.

The Committee on Doctrine will be led by Bishop Kevin Rhoades of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Indiana, who garnered 110 votes to the 95 votes cast for Bishop Daniel Thomas of Toledo, Ohio. The race for chair of the Communications Committee pitted Bishop John Barres of Rockville Centre, New York, against Bishop Michael Burbidge of Arlington, Virginia: Burbidge won with 116 votes to Barres’ 70 votes. The National Collections Committee contest was won by Bishop Joseph Cistone of Saginaw, Michigan, over Archbishop Michael Jackels of Dubuque, Iowa. The vote was 124 to 65. The Committee on Cultural Diversity saw Bishop Nelson Perez of Cleveland facing off against Bishop Shelton Fabre of Houma-Thibodaux, Louisiana, and Perez won on a vote of 107 to 77. All of these elected will serve as chair-elect for one year and take over the chairmanship next year.

At their June meeting the bishops voted to make their Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty a standing committee. They elected Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, the immediate past president of the conference, to serve as the first chair of the permanent committee. He defeated Archbishop Jerome Listecki of Milwaukee by a vote of 113 to 86. Kurtz will assume leadership of the committee immediately.

I guess none of these meant as much to Mr. Winters, which was apparent by the drooling mess he was over Cardinal Cupich the other day (link to fanboy). When I saw the results, it was quite apparent a hissy-fit was about to ensue, and so it did.

Michael Sean Winters: Fanboy

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/you-have-see-riveting-video-cardinal-cupich

You have to see this riveting video of Cardinal Cupich

He talks of scandal, adult spirituality and libertarianism

Nov 13, 2017

by Michael Sean Winters Opinion

Last week, Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago participated in a conversation with journalist E.J. Dionne at the University of Chicago’s Institute for Politics. The entire exchange was riveting, and I will deal with some of the things Cupich said presently. You can see the video here.

Well, if you consider “riveting” to mean “you can’t help but look when there’s a traffic accident”, I might agree.  However, this is just more of the same old thing from Cardinal (I still can’t believe I have to use that title) Cupich.

But, if you go to minute 24, you see the most important thing that Cupich said. Dionne began by asking about the controversy surrounding Fr. Tom Weinandy’s letter to Pope Francis, in which the former director of the bishops’ doctrinal committee suggested that the faithful were scandalized by Pope Francis. Cupich replied: “I don’t think that people are scandalized by the pope. I think they are being told to be scandalized. I think there is a difference.” To use a Catholic word: Bingo!

Yeah, that’s it.  You people who are scandalized – you’re all simply brainwashed.  You engage in group think and you don’t have a thought of your own in your head.  You’re being told by whoever that you must be scandalized.

Seriously? Does this really work with his readers? I’m reasonably sure that most of the people who are frustrated at this point are still “defend the Pope first” type of people.  In fact, the majority of the ones I see are ones who still put out the papal tweet of the day.  There might be a gleeful batch of “everyone’s wrong all the time” people out there, but most are just like me.  We want to be the “Rah-rah Pope!” types but are having trouble mustering the enthusiasm to do so and wish he would reverse on his stance on taking interview questions ahead of time.  The majority of us aren’t calling him the anti-Christ but instead find ourselves taking up the position of St. Vincent of Lerins, as Dan Hitchens points out here. (An uplifting read for those who are depressed over the state of the Church today.)  We’re the types who pay enough attention and do enough research to actually get upset when we see people twisting Church teaching (Ahem! Michael…), but yeah, we’re the ones who blindly obey when we are told to be scandalized.  Do I sound like someone who says “Yes, master!” in a zombie-like fashion? Gag.

I have complained about the thin agenda for this week’s U.S. bishops’ conference meeting. Here is something they need to discuss: How is it that people, who are in some sense on the bishops’ payroll or working at organizations with clear links to the church, are leading such a noisy opposition to Pope Francis and seem perfectly willing to break down the unity of the church in voicing that opposition?

I might point out that you are on the National catholic Reporter’s dole.  What, again, have you been doing for years over there?  Just because “United in dissent!” is your motto doesn’t mean that you are uniting the Church in any fashion.  Seriously (or, rather, more seriously) your publication declares itself right on the home page as “The independent news source.”  Unity hasn’t exactly been NcR’s goal, unless unity means uniting people in your dissenting way of thought.

So, just for fun I went to NcR and searched for Pope Benedict.  What was interesting to note is that John Allen, Jr., wrote about 95% of the articles on Pope Benedict. In short, it seemed the goal of NcR writers at the time to hide in their blanket forts and pretend Benedict XVI wasn’t even elected. Let’s see what some of the other “uniters” had to say:

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/peace-pulpit/sept-17-2006-twenty-fourth-sunday-ordinary-time : But there’s another short passage that Jesus proclaimed, that it seems to me if Pope Benedict had been thinking about this, he would have been much more careful in what he said.

 

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/where-i-stand/franz-where-are-you-when-we-need-you : The world has been debating for over a week now whether Pope Benedict XVI simply forgot that he was a universal pastor and international politician as well as past professor or simply didn’t care to attend to all three roles at one time. Whatever the case, in one university speech all three facets of this current papacy came into play.

In this speech, universal pastoral sensitivity, as well as the political responsibilities that come with the papacy, seem to many to have been abandoned. In their place, his long-time identity as professor — meaning someone who has the luxury, indeed, the responsibility to pursue abstract ideas free of the social consequences of their implications — had free rein.

 

 

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/peace-pulpit/fourteenth-sunday-ordinary-time-1
And I think of another quite extraordinary example too. One that I think is really noteworthy. It’s something that Pope Benedict is about to do. In October of this year, he is going to beatify an Austrian peasant, Franz Jägerstätter. Probably most of us never heard of him. But Franz grew up not very far from where Joseph Ratzinger grew up. Joseph Ratzinger went into the Nazi army, became a soldier. Franz Jägerstätter refused to serve in the army, refused to kill. And of course he paid a price for it. He was beheaded on Aug. 9, 1943. But now he’s going to be proclaimed before the world as one who faithfully followed Jesus.

And it’s such a contrast and I think there’s great courage on the part of Pope Benedict. Because it’s so easy to see the difference. Joseph Ratzinger now our Holy Father followed Hitler’s orders went into the army, prepared to kill. Franz Jägerstätter refused and now is proclaimed a saint, one for us to imitate and to follow. (I’m throwing this one in because it’s supposed to show some sort of great divide between these two men in their actions against Hitler when there was more similarities than differences.  Maybe Bp. Gumbleton doesn’t know how to Google but it’s weird because he fancies himself the expert on Blessed Franz Jägerstätter.

 

https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/peace-pulpit/third-sunday-lent : “Even recently, Pope Benedict rewrote the prayer for Good Friday in which, in those long petitions that we use, we pray for the Jewish people, God’s chosen people. It was revised after the Vatican Council because the prayer before that was very insulting to Jewish believers. But now the Pope has revised it again and now it’s offensive.

 

https://www.ncronline.org/news/us-bishops-great-inertia :  Whole thing. Too much to copy.

In short, Michael, you live in a big ol’ glass house.  Stop playing with rocks.

The bishops know that EWTN and the National Catholic Register both regularly highlight any and all news stories about resistance to the pope. It seems that, some weeks, if Cardinal Raymond Burke sneezes, Edward Pentin has to write a story about it — and always the same story: It was a truly orthodox sneeze, conformed to the unchangeable and irreformable intrinsic nature of a sneeze, a sneeze worthy of St. John Paul II. Yet there is Bishop Robert Barron doing ads for the Register and saying it presents “the Catholic perspective” — not “a Catholic perspective” but the Catholic perspective. Does the good bishop read it?

Well that deserves a few “Pinocchios.”  Please, people, check out National Catholic Register yourself. Don’t let yourselves be brainwashed into believing the misrepresentation posted by Winters. (See what I did there? To use a Catholic word: Bingo!) Go ahead, I dare you!  I double-dare you!  It’s the last thing Winters wants.

First of all, Michael, are you really going to complain that the Register wants to report THE Catholic perspective as opposed to your “independent” Catholic perspective?  I wouldn’t think you would want to draw attention to this little disparity.

Next, I just scanned the front page of articles by Register staffers (see center column), and guess what?  One article on the Pope praying for earthquake victims, and ZERO articles on Cardinal Burke.  Yes, I understand that’s today and tomorrow could change, but I’m reasonably sure Cardinal Burke sneezed and I’m a tad bit disappointed no Pentin!  You got my hopes up,Michael!

By the way, I believe it’s your publication that has 3 different articles today on your perceived resistance.  Oops.

In years past, the bishops would look into “problems” if LifeSiteNews or the American Life League accused someone, somewhere, of not upholding their interpretation of a Catholic’s civic obligations. Remember the review of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development? Why was that necessary? Remember the kerfuffle over Catholic Relief Services? And the perpetual campaign against Catholic Charities? Will the bishops now concede that groups like LifeSiteNews and the American Life League and the Lepanto Institute can — and should — be ignored? That perhaps it might even behoove the bishops to make clear that these organizations do not speak for the Catholic Church.

OK, for those of you who don’t know, Catholic Relief Services passes out birth control.  Gee!  No reason to comment there.  Google, people.!  I’m perfectly fine with you checking the veracity of LifeSiteNews, American Life League, Catholic Whoever, but if there’s a problem with the story, how about you report what the problem is, Michael, rather than merely suggesting they are “not upholding their interpretation of a Catholic’s civic obligations.”  I think we’re actually obliged, as Catholics, not to cooperate with evil. Don’t you? Oh, wait, your group actually DOES want to cooperate with evil: https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/grace-margins/laudato-si-should-have-lifted-ban-contraception (Please note, NcR has no trouble being critical if it doesn’t jive with their thoughts.)

Catholic Campaign for Human Development and Catholic Charities?  They have similar skeletons.  Mr. Winters also forgot to mention the Bellarmine Foundation, which has done extensive work undermining the Church.  Here’s a link to help him with his list of organizations he feels should be investigated just on his say-so.  https://bellarmineforum.org/2015/09/12/why-not-give-to-the-catholic-campaign-for-human-development/

Again, Mr. Winters, how about you support your accusations with some facts on CCHD, Catholic Charities and Catholic Relief Services to rebut these “evil organizations” reporting on them.  What?  You can’t?  Please note this, people.  Mr. Winters’ accusations are the epitome of the saying, “Big hat, no cattle.”  You’re adults, verify yourselves.

Another thing Cupich said in the discussion is worth repeating. When discussing why some people are upset about Francis, Cupich said: “He’s calling people to have an adult spirituality, rather than being infantilized in their spirituality.” He noted that people who like telling other people what to do have trouble with the sense of responsibility to which Francis is calling us all.

Oh, yeah.  That would upset people like Cardinal Burke to no end.  No, seriously, he doesn’t believe in adult spirituality?!?  (insert rolling eyes)  Please.  And what is with “people who like telling other people what to do?”  In my world, we call that parenting, and it’s all about responsibility.  What Cardinal Cupich is really trying to say here is, “Those big old meanies who try to teach you what is right and what is wrong, don’t listen to them! I’m the only one you should listen to because, well, me!”

The codification of ecclesial practice and norms was a leitmotif of the pontificate of St. Pope John Paul II: He authorized the catechism, he updated the universal code of canon law, he issued a compendium of the church’s social doctrine. There is always a need for such codification: No society exists without laws and rules. But, that codification is there to serve the church’s essential mission of proclaiming Jesus Christ, our risen savior; it is not there for its own sake. As St. Paul wrote to Timothy, “the Word of God is not imprisoned.”

Babbling.  Translation: Just don’t worry about all those rules.  They’re so judgey.

As Pope Francis likes to say, “The Word still wants to take on flesh.” Rules and codes can imprison the Spirit if they replace the kerygma as the central focus of ecclesial life. The Lord said to Nicodemus, “The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.” That is not a vision of certainty or even clarity, and some people crave certainty and clarity.

As far as what “Pope Francis likes to say”,  I’ll have to take your word for the quote because I can’t find it anywhere but this article.  A link would have been nice. Anyone?  Regardless, it almost seems like we’re just going to throw a whole bunch of random thought, add a bible story and see if the confusion sticks.

One of the most constant refrains among the complaints against Pope Francis is that he sows confusion. Only if you have placed law or ideology at the heart of ecclesial life is his approach to governing the church confusing. He is calling to maturity. He calls for discernment, not libertinism, and discernment is always done with and within the church.

Huh?  Did he really use the word libertinism there?  Yes, I think it was it was a typo based on the title of the article but kind of funny.  Seems like that’s what the likes of Cupich, McElroy, and Martin are pushing for.  For the record, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone from “my side of the fence” put down discernment, and I’d put money on the fact that Michael Sean Winters probably couldn’t find anything to back this up.  Of course, what does Mr. Winters and club want us to discern?  Whether we can thwart the teachings of the Church and still be worthy of Heaven?  Good luck with that.

As Jesuit Fr. Jim Martin pointed out in responding to the Weinandy’s strange account of how he came to the conclusion that Jesus wanted him to write to the pope: “If one’s idea of discernment is seeking signs like this, then why would one trust, say, a divorced and remarried Catholic to consult his or her conscience about whether it is permissible to receive Communion? It is no wonder that discernment seems so arbitrary to some people. And so frightening.”

Let’s see.  Father Weinandy asking for a sign from God whether or not he should write a letter is the same as discerning whether or not someone living in sin should double-down on a mortal sin?  Yeah, that’s totally comparable.  For the life of me I cannot see why people act like Fr. Weinandy is mentally ill for asking for a sign.  How many saints have done the same?  Are they always given?  No, but some have been quite clearly given the signs they’ve asked for, which is a special gift.  I do think it funny, though, that the NcR crowd frowns on Fr. Weinandy’s “discernment” when we are told that Pope Francis wants us to discern.  Make up your mind.  Oh, I get it!  We’re just supposed to discern in a manner that brings us to the same conclusion as Cardinal Cupich, Bishop McElroy, Fr. Martin, and, I guess, Michael Sean Winters.  Got it.  That kind of discernment is just peachy.  No scoffing if you come to their conclusion.

By the way, I’ve got to laugh at the severe over use of discernment.  There’s not one in the bunch that can say “judgement”, which is what discernment actually means.  The “j” word, however, has been dumped on by this crowd so many times they’ve got to dance around it.

Cardinal Cupich’s conversation with Dionne contained other gems, such as his criticism of libertarianism. Dionne joked that the press had their headline: Cupich criticizes libertarianism at University of Chicago! His comments about abortion were very strong, which is always a bit of a risk in a secular venue. I encourage everyone to watch this video. Cupich is, par excellence, a bishop for the era of Francis: engaged, sympathetic, compelling. If only the rest of the body of bishops would follow his lead.

Drooling much?   I mean, the keyboard is probably pretty soggy at this point. Somebody’s getting a “Cardinal Cupich Fanboy” shirt for Christmas.   Well, as usual, Mr. Winters doesn’t fail to disappoint when it comes to linking to quotes, Church teaching, and facts, but hey, he hit the jackpot in conjecture, say something until it’s true and slander. Same old, same old.

#CatholicCyberMilitia

 

 

The Martin Chronicles

Should I make this the new name for the blog?  I really never intended on him being a main focus but now that he’s made it to the Vatican, I’m feeling like it’s all Martin all the time.  It’s like he thought the job description was to communicate himself.  I long for the “Who in the heck is Fr. James Martin, SJ?” days to return.

Here is my dose of irony for the day!

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/homosexual-clergy-should-come-out-to-show-how-gay-people-can-live-chastely

Homosexual clergy should ‘come out’ to show how ‘gay people can live chastely’: Vatican consultant

July 7, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) — The Vatican’s hand-picked pro-homosexual communications consultant Fr. James Martin said parish priests who secretly identify as homosexual should publicly “come out” to show their congregations “what a gay person is like and, incidentally, how gay people can live chastely.”

So, the first thought that popped into my head was “You first, Fr. Martin!  You first!”  Relatively sure I’m not alone in that guess.

Next, I’m wondering why a priest has to “come out” in order to tell people how they can live chastely.  I don’t remember anyone saying “I’m straight!  You too can be chaste!”  In fact, I’m missing the many teachings of Fr. Martin on chastity.  Did he write a book on that one?  All I could find in a cursory search was a whole chapter in a book he wrote, “Building a Bridge”.  Here are quotes and main takeaways, courtesy of Catholic Match (kind of disappointed in them on this one, though): https://www.catholicmatch.com/institute/2011/09/father-james-martin-6-ways-to-love-chastely/

In an interview with the National Catholic Register, Fr. Martin gave his reasoning about why he doesn’t mention chastity in his book:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/father-james-martin-explains-his-vision-regarding-lgbt-catholics

Register: In your book, you stress what the Catechism says about treating “LGBT” Catholics with “respect, compassion and sensitivity,” but not the teaching about living chastely. How long does one employ “respect, compassion and sensitivity” before calling “LGBT” Catholics to chastity?

Martin: The reason I didn’t talk about chastity in my book is because Church teaching is clear on that matter, and it’s well-known in the “LGBT” community. I don’t think there’s any “LGBT” Catholic alive who doesn’t understand that teaching. By the same token, there seem to be few “LGBT” Catholics who have accepted that teaching. Theologically speaking, you could say the teaching has not been “received” by the “LGBT” community, to whom it was directed. So rather than focusing on a topic where the two groups — the institutional church and the “LGBT” community — are miles and miles apart, I preferred to try to build a bridge over areas that could be places of common ground. And as for “respect, compassion and sensitivity,” one can always employ those virtues even when one is in disagreement with the other person. If you’re a bishop who is speaking to an “LGBT” person who disagrees with Church teaching, you can still treat him or her with respect, and the “LGBT” person can do the same with the bishop. As for calling them specifically to chastity, it’s important to remember we are all called to chastity, so that is part of everyone’s call as a Christian and as a Catholic. So that virtue is not something that applies only to the “LGBT” person.

So why then do priests have to “come out” to teach anyone how to live chastely? After all, “Church teaching is clear on that matter”, and there isn’t “any “LGBT” Catholic alive who doesn’t understand that teaching”. Heck, it is so well understood that it’s not included in your oh-so-important book.  Puh-lease!  Make up your mind, Fr. Martin.

That said, I’m not entirely sure that he fully understands the Catholic teaching on chastity that apparently everyone else has got down.  If he did, I’d think he’d use words like “self-mastery”, “sin”, etc. Maybe this will help. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03637d.htm

Before we go onto the rest of Martin’s musings, let me tell you a little story.

A long time ago, in a diocese far, far away…Actually, not so far away, but way back when we had a liberally, permissive bishop, he allowed his cronies to have a support day for “gay priests.”  The obvious guys were there, but a couple priests who showed were puzzling.  One of these priests was (and still is) a very faithful, humble priest.  He got up and asked a very poignant question.  He said, “Why do you want to label yourself a ‘gay priest’ instead of a faithful priest?”  BAM!  I think it was his loving way of saying, “What are you dooooiiinnngggg???”  Personally, I don’t need or want to know who my priest is attracted to, unless it is Jesus, Our Lady, and the Saints.  I want him to guide me in leading a life that will lead me to an everlasting life with God.  I mean, is Fr. Martin saying that only priests that “come out” can help same-sex attracted folks live a chaste life?  Sorry, I know same-sex attracted people who were helped to live chaste lives by priests who they will never know to whom they are attracted.  It’s not about the priest.  It’s about the penitent and the wonderful sacraments and teachings the Church has to offer to help them be chaste.  It’s about priests knowing how to encourage people to live virtuous lives no matter what their sin.  For this particular issue, priests can foster Courage and Encourage groups, and quite frankly, they can just foster a family atmosphere where there are people helping people with their daily struggles against sin.

Sadly, I think Fr. Martin just wants to foster an environment that allows him to do whatever the heck he wants to do without guilt, and he’d like to drag a whole bunch of people down with him.  His goal is to foster the “We’re all just sinners, so let’s not worry about that anymore.  You’re nice, I’m nice, and we’re happy in our sins!” environment.  And guess what kind of things happen when people act that way…

Martin’s July 6 interview with CNN ironically comes about a week after news broke of the arrest of a Vatican gay-priest, Monsignor Luigi Capozzi, who frequently hosted cocaine-fueled homosexual orgies in a building right next to St. Peter’s Basilica.

BTW, the same clergy who are all too willing to report (or rather, shout out gleefully) when someone like Cardinal Pell is prosecuted are somehow super quiet about this little event.  I mean, it’s like they’re just ignoring the story all together.  Go to America Magazine, Salt and Light Media, or the National catholic Fishwrap.  I just did.  Search Coccopalmerio or Capozzi.  Cricket!  Cricket!  I mean, the silence deafening!

In the interview, the Jesuit priest and editor-at-large of America magazine spoke about his new pro-homosexual book Building a Bridge. He said the Church is beginning to shift its “approach” to homosexuals, thanks to Pope Francis.

There are two reasons for this shift. One is Pope Francis. His saying ‘Who am I to judge?’ about gay people; his public meeting with Yayo Grassi, his former student who is gay, during his papal visit to the United States; his comments in Amoris Laetitia [which have been used to allow practicing homosexuals to receive Communion]. And the bishops who Pope Francis is appointing in the United States are much more LGBT friendly,” he said.

What in the @#$%&!?  Seriously???  He’s still trying to float this crud to the uninformed and pass it off as truth??  Please, people!  Look it up yourself.  There is no different approach in the Holy Father’s comments.  It’s kind of what MY peeps have been saying all along.  If you are repentant, the Lord forgives!  Geez!  Here are the EXACT words from that part of the interview.  I’m not trying to hide it like Fr. Martin is.  I’ll even include the link.  Does Fr. Martin do this when talking about “gay people” and “Who am I to judge?”

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2013/july/documents/papa-francesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa.html

Ilze Scamparini:

I would like permission to ask a delicate question: another image that has been going around the world is that of Monsignor Ricca and the news about his private life. I would like to know, Your Holiness, what you intend to do about this? How are you confronting this issue and how does Your Holiness intend to confront the whole question of the gay lobby?

Pope Francis:

About Monsignor Ricca: I did what canon law calls for, that is a preliminary investigation. And from this investigation, there was nothing of what had been alleged. We did not find anything of that. This is the response. But I wish to add something else: I see that many times in the Church, over and above this case, but including this case, people search for “sins from youth”, for example, and then publish them. They are not crimes, right? Crimes are something different: the abuse of minors is a crime. No, sins. But if a person, whether it be a lay person, a priest or a religious sister, commits a sin and then converts, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. When we confess our sins and we truly say, “I have sinned in this”, the Lord forgets, and so we have no right not to forget, because otherwise we would run the risk of the Lord not forgetting our sins. That is a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. Many times I think of Saint Peter. He committed one of the worst sins, that is he denied Christ, and even with this sin they made him Pope. We have to think a great deal about that. But, returning to your question more concretely. In this case, I conducted the preliminary investigation and we didn’t find anything. This is the first question. Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying … wait a moment, how does it say it … it says: “no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society”. The problem is not having this tendency, no, we must be brothers and sisters to one another, and there is this one and there is that one. The problem is in making a lobby of this tendency: a lobby of misers, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of masons, so many lobbies. For me, this is the greater problem. Thank you so much for asking this question. Many thanks.

Back to the LifeSiteNews article…

“The second thing is the increased number of LGBT Catholics who are coming out and making LGBT issues much more important for the church as a whole,” he added.

The interviewer asked Fr. Martin about his claim in his new book that there are “thousands” of homosexual clergy who have not “come out,” wanting to know why they keep their sexuality secret.

“Several reasons,” replied Martin. “One, their bishops or religious superiors ask them not to come out. Two, they fear reprisals from parishioners. Three, they fear it would be divisive. Four, they are private people. Five, they are not fully aware of their sexuality. And lastly, people have mistakenly conflated homosexuality and pedophilia, and so priests don’t want to come out because they fear they’ll be labeled a pedophile.”

Again, seriously?  Usually child molesters are called child molesters.  Can we focus a little on #4 for a second?  Yeah, many priests don’t talk about their sexual inclinations, sins, attractions, etc., because it’s simply, well, tacky and their vocation shouldn’t revolve around their sexual preference.  Gag!

Fr. Martin then agreed that it would make a “difference” in the Church if more homosexual clergy “came out.”

“It would help to show Catholics in the pews what a gay person is like and, incidentally, how gay people can live chastely. The great irony is that these men and women are living out exactly what the church asks of LGBT people — chastity and celibacy — and they are not allowed to talk about it. They are doing great work under a strange cloud that should not exist,” he said.

So these “gay people” are already living chaste and celibate lives, yet we need priests to “come out” to teach them how to be chaste and celibate?  Huh?  Which part of the Church has a problem with “gay people” who are faithful practicing Catholics who embrace the teachings of the Church, receive the sacraments, feed the homeless, etc., etc., etc.?  And, not allowed to talk about what?  Their lack of sex lives?  Look, we ALL struggle with sin.  If you feel the need to tell me you struggle with SSA, go ahead!  I’m here for you and maybe I can tell you how I work through my troubles with sin.  If you want to tell me that you engage in the active homosexual lifestyle and you’re still going to stroll up to Communion, we’re probably going to have a discussion about it.

But an additional reason why homosexual priests choose not to “come out” is given by famed Canadian Catholic laicized-priest Gregory Baum.

A peritus or expert at the Second Vatican Council, Baum wrote in his memoirs that he “did not profess my own homosexuality in public because such an act of honesty would have reduced my influence as a critical theologian.” While Baum kept his life of homosexual debauchery private, he managed to exert his influence over Canada’s bishops so that they dissented from the Church’s 1968 teaching in Humanae Vitae against contraception.

The interviewer did not ask Fr. Martin if he was himself homosexual.

Martin’s claim that priests don’t want to “come out” because of fear they will be labeled an abuser is not unfounded.

Research indicates that the abuse scandal within the Catholic Church primarily consisted of the homosexual abuse of males. A 2011 study commissioned by the U.S. Bishops and conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice found that nearly 80 percent of victims who were abused by priests were post-pubescent and adolescent males. Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a top psychiatrist and expert in handling sexually abusive priests, said at the time that the study revealed that homosexuality was the primary driving force behind the bulk of abuse cases.

The Catholic Church only allows men into the priesthood who have “self-control and a well-integrated sexuality.” Last year, the Vatican’s Congregation for Clergy reaffirmed Catholic teaching that “those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture'” are not to be admitted to seminaries or be ordained Catholic priests.

So let me get this straight (no pun intended). The Church, run by a guy who says “Who am I to judge?”, is judging the suitability of a man to be a Catholic priest?  YOU BETCHA! That is judging the reality of a situation, not their immortal soul!

There are other examples beyond Capozzi and Baum that suggest that homosexual clergy are more like Judas than John when it comes to serving Christ and the Church he founded.

Honestly, I can’t say whether that’s true or not, because there might be SSA priests we don’t know about who are simply living out their vocations as faithfully as they can.  That said, the John Jay report does show a clear pattern of homosexual abuse, not pedophilia.  81% were male and something like 65-75% were postpubescent males.

For example, in 2015 a Polish priest and monsignor who worked at the Vatican for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith demanded that the Church change her sexual teachings after going public with his homosexuality and sexual relationship with another man.

Using similar language and talking points employed by Fr. Martin, Monsignor Krzystof Charamsa said, among other things, that the Church should end its “language of homophobia … and rejection of LGBT people,” that it should “speak out against … any discrimination against people based on sexual orientation,” and that it should “revise the Catechism,” specifically the language used to speak of homosexual acts as “objectively disordered.”

So, is Msgr. Charasma living that chaste life? Not quite.  Sigh.  Pray for him.

While news of the cocaine-fueled homosexual orgies right next to St. Peter’s is shocking, it is not altogether unexpected.

In 2012, Polish priest Fr. Dariusz Oko released a paper in which he highlighted his discovery of what he called a “huge homosexual underground in the Church.”

“I began my work as a struggle against a deadly, external threat to Christianity, but then gradually discovered,” he said, that “the enemy is not only outside the Church, but within it, as well.”

Oko said homosexual cliques of clergy, even at the highest levels, are formed by fear of exposure, lust for power, and money.

Clique is the perfect terminology.  They are cliques of predators.

“They know well, however, that they may be exposed and embarrassed, so they shield one another by offering mutual support. They build informal relationships reminding [one] of a ‘clique’ or even ‘mafia,’ [and] aim at holding particularly those positions which offer power and money,” he wrote.

“When they achieve a decision-making position, they try to promote and advance mostly those whose nature is similar to theirs, or at least who are known to be too weak to oppose them. This way, leading positions in the Church may be held by people suffering from deep internal wounds,” he added.

Exactly! They are promoting and advancing the lie that the Church will change her teachings.

Oko said that once homosexual clergy achieve a “dominating position” in the Church’s hierarchy, the become a “backroom elite” with “tremendous power in deciding about important nominations and the whole life of the Church.”

I think he’s completely and utterly correct, and we’re seeing it now.

Among the rumors put forward at the time of Pope Benedict’s decision to resign in 2013 was the revelation of the existence of an entrenched “gay network” that orchestrated “sexual encounters” and shady financial machinations within the Vatican. The Pope reportedly decided to resign the day he received a 300-page dossier compiled by three cardinals detailing the workings and sexual activities of a network of homosexual curial officials.

Well, I don’t deal with conspiracy theories.  From what I understand from people who have personal relationships with him, this is not the case, although I’d hardly blame him if it were.  I think, however, he took the papacy a little more seriously than that.  For whatever reason, we are in the situation we are in.  Sadly, the Martin/Cupich/McElroy/Kasper (and on and on and on) contingent has won some battles.  Time for us to get a little more creative, if you ask me.

Open Rebellion Coming to a Church Near You!

Congratulations, United States Catholics!  You’ve now got a parish openly rebelling against the teachings of the Catholic Church. Didn’t know that?  Sorry to break it to you.  Most “LGBT” parishes dance ever so carefully around the issue of active homosexual acts.  They dangle their feet over the line but never actually speak of the fact that they are encouraging people to accept homosexual activity.  Unfortunately, this parish is now openly doing it.  I, for one, am happy to just see them say what they mean for once and ditch the wink and the nod.  In this parish, it’s A-O-K to be a drag queen, or a physically active homosexual (sodomy and masturbation – I’d like to be super clear on that for some goof who is going to try and argue that simply being homosexual is not a sin), or a champion of “gay marriage”, in  a “gay marriage”, and for homosexual “married” partners to adopt children.  I’d guess it’s probably just peachy to use IVF, sperm donors, egg donors, and surrogacy to have children, too.  You know, because their desire comes before EVERYTHING else, especially Church teaching.  Joseph Sciambra has put together a nice, not-so-little dossier here:  http://josephsciambra.com/gay-man-announces-his-same-sex-wedding-in-radical-lgbt-affirmative-parish-bulletin/

And then there’s this:

St. Matthew Catholic Church: LEAD Ministry from Eric Kruszewski on Vimeo.

This is one of the most deplorable things I’ve ever seen, and it’s been a year since it came out. Pretty much shows how the pastor is accepting of moral behavior. I found it here: http://www.out.com/news-opinion/2016/1/11/watch-inside-lgbt-friendly-catholic-church Really, if OUT.com is extolling the virtues of a Catholic parish, it’s time to do something.  I’m sure Archbishop Lori agonizes over this parish, but the time for contemplation is over.  Fr. Muth is actively leading souls away from Truth.  Don’t we care about the parishioners?  Yes, it would be a news story to shut down the heresy. Yes, some are going to leave the Catholic Church behind if you teach Truth.  We know this, for Christ himself saw followers walk away, but ignoring this is aiding and abetting leading souls right into the hands of Satan.  Please take the time to watch the video.  People have very openly said they are in homosexual relationships.  This isn’t simply about “a parish being welcoming.” This is about a parish making people “feel at home” with their active homosexual lifestyles.

So what’s the Church to do???  We cannot “welcome” sinful acts that lead people into spiritual and physical danger.  We can’t tell the person suffering from same-sex attraction that we accept their lifestyle any more than we can accept a drug addict’s lifestyle.  Earning the “tolerant and nice” badge is anything but loving.  In fact, it’s pretty much selfish on the behalf of those that do it.  The only loving and kind thing we can ever do is to tell people the Truth, help them carry their crosses, and ease their sufferings as much as we possibly can in light of the Truth.

Fr. Muth says he just want to “provide a place where people can simply find their moment to seek God in their life.”  That’s just a bold face lie.  God is Truth and Fr. Muth is doing anything but putting Truth before the people in his congregation.  He’s doing nothing but validating their lifestyle choices.  I’m sickened at his attitude that HE, not the Church, provides a safe haven to people suffering from SSA.  Sorry, Father.  I must have missed the part where your accepting ways led the people in this video to a chaste lifestyle.

This is the type of thing that the parishioners get out of St. Matthew’s and Fr. Muth: “I love God, and I love myself, and it’s unfair to think I have to choose between the two,” said Victoria Moore, a lesbian…” https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/offically-sanctioned-baltimore-parish-group-welcomes-lgbt-catholics  FACEPALM!  I’m sure NcR was glee writing this one.  Somehow these (and so many other things) were completely missed at St. Matthew’s.

Then Jesus said to his disciples: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Matt. 16:24

And calling the multitude together with his disciples, he said to them: If any man will follow me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Mark 8:34

And he said to all: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. Luke 9:23

And they that are Christ’s, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences. Gal 5:24

For you are dead; and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ shall appear, who is your life, then you also shall appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is the service of idols.  For which things the wrath of God cometh upon the children of unbelief, In which you also walked some time, when you lived in them.  Col 3:3-7

And you, too, must think of yourselves as dead to sin, and alive with a life that looks towards God, through Christ Jesus our Lord.

You must not, then, allow sin to tyrannize over your perishable bodies, to make you subject to its appetites. You must not make your bodily powers over to sin, to be the instruments of harm; make yourselves over to God, as men who have been dead and come to life again; make your bodily powers over to God, to be the instruments of right-doing. Sin will not be able to play the master over you any longer; you serve grace now, not the law. Romans 6:11-14

Well, brethren, you too have undergone death, as far as the law is concerned, in the person of Christ crucified, so that you now belong to another, to him who rose from the dead. We yield increase to God, whereas, when we were merely our natural selves, the sinful passions to which the law bound us worked on our natural powers, so as to yield increase only to death.  Now we are quit of the claim which death had on us, so that we can do service in a new manner, according to the spirit, not according to the letter as of old. Romans 7:4-6

And now, brethren, I appeal to you by God’s mercies to offer up your bodies as a living sacrifice, consecrated to God and worthy of his acceptance; this is the worship due from you as rational creatures.[1] 2 And you must not fall in with the manners of this world; there must be an inward change, a remaking of your minds, so that you can satisfy yourselves what is God’s will, the good thing, the desirable thing, the perfect thing. Romans 12: 1-2

So,yes Victoria, you are supposed to choose between your desires and God when they are at odds and I’m so sorry that Fr. Muth hasn’t shown you true accompaniment.  You wanted bread and he gave you a big, old stone.

Like I said here, https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2017/05/13/fr-martins-bridge-too-far/, this issue is the Catholic Church’s Iraq or Syria, and our hierarchy is acting more like Obama than Christ and His saints.  (If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t put it on.)  The several lines in the sand has repeatedly been crossed by dissenters, and now an entire parish, yet it doesn’t even matter if Archbishop Lori is doing something behind the scenes to rectify the problems. To be fair, he has made them cancel things in the past.  That said, this parish is the proverbial “Mother of All Bombs” in the obedience area and unless something is done to publicly correct the pastor and the flock, you can bet more parishes will follow.

I’m a mom.  I can tell you when children don’t get a firm smack down on serious issues, many more will arise and it can spread through the family.  Our hierarchy might think that quietly dealing with things is the way to go but this isn’t somebody stealing a cookie.  This is akin to the family finding your kid with a needle sticking out of their arm.  It’s not just harmful to them but to the entire family unit with such a display.  And you know what?  You might just lose that child, but if you make sure that you ALWAYS let them know your actions are done out of concern for their physical and immortal well-being, they will remember that.  As parents, we cannot make our children not sin. It’s impossible.  I’ve tried.   We can only teach them.  If we do and they sin, they will be held responsible.  If we don’t teach them and they sin, woe to us!

P

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!