Snakes on a Plane

You just knew somebody would eventually use that title…

I saw this and thought, “What in the heck is wrong with you people?! Please get some PR meetings in place, because you need them.” This was all a set up by someone and, guess what? Once again, it backfires and makes the Holy Father look like a mean jerk. Right up there with the “Great Accuser” mantra. I can only remember the last two popes and have read about others, but it seems that, unless they were complete tyrants, they all wanted to be “Papa” to all of us. They avoided the look of cronyism. And what’s been the word of the papacy? Oh, yeah, clericalism.

 Pope Francis Says It’s an ‘Honor’ to be Criticized by Americans

His throwaway remark, made in connection with a new book that claims influential American Catholics want him to step down, generated surprise aboard the papal flight today to Mozambique.

Edward Pentin

The use of “throwaway” is actually really good, because he just threw the remark away without a thought of any love for a good chunk of the Church. Let’s be clear, I don’t consider myself an “influential American Catholic,” which pretty much seems to be defined as “Rich Catholic.” That said, many, many Catholics, influential or otherwise, have serious concerns about the (ahem!) style of Pope Francis. I realize he lives in the papal bubble, but somebody might want to let him in on the fact that this is true.

A throwaway remark by Pope Francis aboard the papal plane this morning raised a few eyebrows among those traveling with him — and sent his press handlers scrambling.

First of all, I have a hunch that’s not true, but that’s just me. I think his handlers knew this guy was on board, they knew what he wrote, and they knew this was going to be handed to him. It would be soooo nice if they spent more time fixing problems with, oh, I don’t know, clergy abuse and the cover up of it rather than whining about how mean people are to the Holy Father. Geez. Again, I don’t remember the last two popes constantly talking about people who didn’t like them for this, that, or the other thing.  Might be because they actually understood that’s what it’s all about. Christ came to divide. I generally have a rule that the first person to claim to be a victim is probably the one in the wrong. It’s deflection, plain and simple.

After takeoff on his way to the Mozambique capital of Maputo, the Pope customarily greeted journalists on the papal plane. Among those he met was Nicolas Seneze, Rome correspondent for the French Catholic daily newspaper La Croix, which just published Seneze’s book, How America Wants to Change the Pope.

The book threads together different aspects of this pontificate — in particular the McCarrick abuse scandal and the Archbishop Carlo Viganò testimony — to conclude that influential figures in the U.S. Church are out to, if not replace Pope Francis, then to actively challenge him.

First of all, way to go, American Catholics! That the liberals even acknowledge you were the bane of their existence is great! It seems they can no longer go with the “Nothing to see here!” tactic. Proud to be among you! Quite frankly, I think our cultural spirit might help save the Church. We have a can-do spirit which enables us to conquer the landscape.

The book quotes professor Massimo Faggioli of Villanova as saying wealthy conservative Catholics have stepped into the vacuum of authority left by the sex abuse scandal to become the de facto leaders of the Catholic Church in the U.S.

Yawn. They continue trying the new tactic of declaring anyone who disagrees with them in “de facto schism.” Sorry, you look like a fool once again. Let me point out that of those you’ve already accused outright of being “devout schismatics” trump you in the area of Canon Law, as in two of the three are actually canon lawyers. So back off, Massimo.

On the plane, Seneze presented his book to the Pope, who recognized the cover, as he had read a review of it.

The Italian daily newspaper Il Messaggero on Aug. 20 published a story headlined, “A plot from the USA to make the Pope resign.” A cover of Seneze’s book accompanied the article.

“He reads Il Messaggero every day so when he saw the cover of the copy I was holding, he instantly recognized it,” Seneze told the Register aboard the papal plane today, adding that the book was published in French today.

What plot? How many times has the Holy Father hinted that he may resign? Is that the fault of the “de facto leaders”? Next time a pope dies or resigns, we don’t want another nightmare like McCarrick having any say in who’s elected, not to mention the possibility a nightmare like McCarrick might be elected. If our cardinals are hiding something, we want it uncovered before going into a conclave. Who could argue with that?! (*Cough* Staff of American Magazine *Cough*) Do we really want molesters like McCarrick or Francisco Javier Errazuriz or those who covered up for them to vote for or be the next pope? Uh, hello, remember the abuse victims?  Geez.

“When I explained the picture to the Pope, he said: ‘Per me è un onore che mi attaccano gli americani (For me it’s an honor that Americans attack me).’”

I believe my kids call this “humble bragging.” Blech. And trying to portray the concerns of the faithful as “an American thing” is ridiculous. It’s worldwide, Holy Father. World. Wide. You think we’re bad, look at South America, and, oh, and how about Africa? You’ve got some continental-sized issues with the faithful.

“Seneze and his Vatican press colleagues were taken aback by the in-flight remark, and reporters immediately sought verification.

Vatican press spokesman Matteo Bruni later confirmed the remark but was quick to offer an explanation: “In an informal context, the Pope wanted to say that he always considers criticisms an honor, particularly when they come from authoritative thinkers and, in this case, an important nation.”

If they immediately sought clarification, the guy who made the remark was on the plane, for heaven’s sake! Again, you guys need some meetings. It was rather clear that Bruni was doing some serious damage control.

Seneze told the Register afterward that the Il Messaggero article was a little exaggerated. He said he doesn’t believe there is a plot as such being hatched in the U.S. to unseat the Pope.

Wait! What?! Didn’t you actually write this? Did you suddenly realize this was going to be the PR nightmare that it is? I don’t have the subscription, so I’m just reading the beginning of this piece, but let’s just take a gander at the picture caption you included!

An ultra-conservative fringe of the American Catholic right has fomented a coup against Pope Francis

Uh…Which is it? There’s some nefarious plot or there’s not?

Rather, he believes there’s a sense among some wealthy Americans, including some who are connected to the EWTN Global Catholic Network and other media organizations, that Francis is not acting as Pope and so should stand down, like a CEO who is underperforming.

Seneze said, “I believe these people see themselves as invested in the Church and they feel they are not getting a return on their investment.”

Oh, my gosh. Class warfare is strong with this one. Did you all know you were connected to EWTN? There may be concern for money on some side of this, but it’s not the side of concerned faithful.

Another article by Crux contains additional information to this whole debacle.

A long-time Vatican reporter from the French Catholic daily, Seneze told the pope that he wanted to explain the roots of American opposition to the Argentine, which has the support of several right-wing news outlets. In his book, Seneze names EWTN, founded by the late Mother Angelica, and Canada-based LifeSiteNews.

It’s a conspiracy, I tell you! Guess I’m just left out of those meetings.

The criticism against Francis is based on several points: His cautious opening to allowing the divorced and remarried to receive the Sacraments, his emphasis on the environment, his strong condemnation of the death penalty, and his criticism of the capitalist economic order championed by conservatives in the United States.

I’d say most of this is correct with the exception of the death penalty. It has nothing to do with strongly condemning it and everything to do with this: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-and-the-death-penalty-a-change-in-doctrine-or-circumstances-39898

In his book, Seneze explains the origin of the hostility against Francis in terms of two documents by the pope: Evangelii Gaudium, his first apostolic exhortation and considered the Magna Carta of his pontificate, and Laudato Si, an encyclical letter on the environment originally intended to ensure adoption of the 2015 Paris Agreement pertaining to climate change.

The French journalist argues the ultimate goal of the opposition to Francis from some American quarters is to trigger a conclave to elect a new pope, and to guarantee the election of someone more aligned with their interests and vision of the Church and the world.

Yeah, not so much. I’d love to know how he’s come to this fantastical dream. There’s no doubt those faithful to Church teaching want the next Pope to be a strong leader in this area. We do not want ambiguity, but we’d also like to ferret out Cardinals like former Cardinal McCarrick and the seemingly never-ending line of them who should be taking a perp walk. Again, you would think EVERYONE would want that.

One of several initiatives to secure this, according to Seneze, is a project called the Red Hat Report, which the “The Better Church Governance Group” hopes to release by April 2020.

The Red Hat Report claims to be drawing on nearly 100 researchers, academics, investigators, and journalists to investigate every single cardinal elector, with the aim “to hold the hierarchy of the Catholic Church accountable for abuse and corruption, and to develop and support honesty, clarity, and fidelity in Church governance.”

That’s awful! They aim “to hold the hierarchy of the Catholic Church accountable for abuse and corruption, and to develop and support honesty, clarity, and fidelity in Church governance.” Those evil people. Oh, my gosh! Isn’t this exactly what you told us needed to happen? How many times did we hear that we needed to end “clericalism?” Always told them to be careful what they wished for, because their definition of it is “It’s wrong to call priests ‘father’”. Our definition actually is a little more based in reality.

Seneze also points to American millionaire Tim Busch as a key figure in this “war” against Francis. Busch sits on the board of EWTN and is a member of the Papal Foundation, a U.S.-based organization that gives donations to charities supported by the pope.

Several members of the Papal Foundation severely criticized a request by the pope for a $20 million bridge loan for a debt-ridden and scandal-plagued Church-owned hospital in Rome.

And who wants to give $20 million to a scandal-plagued hospital??? Not me, and if it were my money, I’m sure I would have said “No!” and donated my money to some other charitable fund. Little Sisters of the Poor, perhaps? Can’t remember the last time they had a scandal.

Seneze spoke to reporters after the pope’s remarks.

“I wanted to explain the difficulties between the pope and Americans, and how they are attacking him,” he said.

If the Vatican needed that explanation, it’s probably worse than we thought. Sorry, they’re not that obtuse.

Seneze’s book comes just a year after Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the former papal representative to the United States, released a letter accusing the pope of covering up for now-former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who has been accused of abusing minors and seminarians.

The letter, which was released through conservative news organizations, requested that Francis resign from office.

And…after it was released there, it was also released to any “Catholic” news agency that wrote about it as fast as they could because, well, it was news. Seems like some are just jealous because they didn’t get the scoop. Archbishop Vigano isn’t the reason there is strife between the hierarchy and the laity. That was their own doing. As usual, liberals are the root of the problem, so they prefer to shoot the messenger.

In conclusion, I’m hoping this in-plane interview will lead to a whole lot being donated to the “Red Hat Report.” I loved the idea from the start. In fact, shortly before this was announced, I put out a request for those who could afford to do so to investigate the heck out of the hierarchy. It was like my birthday when I saw somebody was going to do that! Those who have nothing to hide won’t protest. Those who do might be another story. Please check out their goals for yourself at https://betterchurchgovernance.org/ Don’t let anyone frame their goals for you. Their mission is far more mainstream that some would like you to think.

Oh, one more thing, since Massimo Faggioli is part of this little group chanting schism, why don’t you continue to give Villanova a call. Apparently that plea worked so well last time he banned me from his Twitter page so all must have done good. Maybe somebody will tell him to stop flapping his gums where he has no jurisdiction.

Rev. Peter M. Donohue, OSA
Office of the President
Villanova University
800 Lancaster Avenue
Villanova, PA 19085-1699

Phone: 610-519-8881

Fax: 610-519-4514

Email: president@villanova.edu

Alumni, you can also go here:

Alumni Relations

Phone: 610-519-4580

Fax: 610-519-7583

Email: alumni@villanova.edu

 

 

 

 

 

And Another Thing, Massimo…

I’d really, really like you to explain why you singled out three bishops whom you declared “devout schismatics” when there are 40ish American bishops (depending when the list was published and who has since passed away) who declared support, admiration, or simple credibility of Archbishop Vigano’s letters. Where’s the accusation of “devout schism” for all of them? I’m reasonably sure most are also fans of the Rosary, oppose candidates being pro-abortion, and fight for traditional marriage. I realize that these are things you would consider a part of a “particular conservative political culture,” but most of us simply call that “Catholic.” I know you still have a problem understanding that distinction, so how come they didn’t make the schismatic list you’re creating in your head? I mean, I would at least think Bishop Paprocki and Bishop Thomas Tobin would have made your list! By the way, these lists below of supporting bishops are from last year, too. Wonder where the number is now that so much more of his testimony has been proven to be true by others? Hmmm, Massimo?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/9av4d1/the_growing_list_of_catholic_prelates_and_other/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/list-of-bishops-cardinals-who-support-investigating-viganos-claims-live-upd

It would seem you must have some personal vendetta against these particular bishops to overlook the vast number of others who believe the same way. I realize that you’re banking on the faithful not to bother fact checking anything you say, but you might have learned by now that’s not going to happen.

I think Villanova might want to reconsider Massimo’s employment for, at best, rash judgment. It is kind of a big deal, Villanova, when one of your employees declares some pretty awesome bishops to be in schism. How many of your other employees fail to have a rudimentary knowledge of the definition of schism and also leap to rash judgment? Not really a selling point for your university.

Might be nice to drop Villanova a big ol’ note. 

Rev. Peter M. Donohue, OSA
Office of the President
Villanova University
800 Lancaster Avenue
Villanova, PA 19085-1699

Phone: 610-519-8881
Fax: 610-519-4514

Email: president@villanova.edu

Alumni, you can also go here:

Alumni Relations
Garey Hall

Phone: 610-519-4580
Fax: 610-519-7583

Email: alumni@villanova.edu

 

Massimo’s “Look at Me!” Moment (AKA, Life)

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/villanova-historian-says-chaput-cordileone-and-strickland-are-devout-schismatics-18811

Philadelphia, Pa., Jul 18, 2019 / 06:35 pm (CNA).- A Church historian at Philadelphia’s Villanova University has said three U.S. bishops are “devout schismatics” who try to diminish the authority of Pope Francis.

“They are devout in the sense that they publicly display their preference for a traditionalist Church and its devotions, such as the rosary. They are schismatics because they openly promote the undermining of the bishop of Rome among the Catholic faithful,” Massimo Faggioli wrote in a July 16 essay for La Croix magazine.”

What the what???? Does the Rosary scare you that much, Massimo? Seriously, this is the most outlandish accusation I’ve EVER seen. We’re going to lump saying the Rosary with removing submission to the bishop of Rome????  Really?!?!?! This really deserves about a hundred more punctuation marks but…?!?!?!?!?!?!  Massimo kind of needs to take a sabbatical and reflect on, well, anything other than himself.

Massimo has got no game, so he’s just going to throw out the schismatic bomb with ZERO back up. When has Cordileone, Strickland, or Chaput EVER removed submission from the Holy Father? The “Let’s throw it out there and see if it sticks” method won’t work here, because I, and anyone with half a brain or access to Google, am going to call you on this.

Faggioli made specific mention of three U.S. bishops: Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, and Bishop Joseph Strickland of Tyler, Texas.

The historian said the “schismatic instincts” of those bishops were manifested when in August 2018, when they “sided with Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the former papal nuncio to Washington who called on Francis to resign.”

Hey, Massimo, which bishops/archbishops called on Francis to resign? Oh, yeah, none.  Give me a break. You know very well that some of them appealed to Pope Francis to respond to the “Vigano” letters, while others just said that Vigano was simply a man of virtue and that the whole thing was troubling and should be dealt with. It’s quite interesting you seemed to focus on those who most defy your mission in life, since there are many others who sided with them, but whatever.

Viganò released on Aug. 25, 2018 a “testimony,” which, among other things, accused Pope Francis of ignoring warnings about former cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s sexual deviancy, and then raising McCarrick’s status within the Vatican.

After the testimony was released, Strickland issued a statement calling Vigano’s allegations “credible,” and Cordileone said he could confirm that some of Vigano’s statements were true.

Do you have doubt of that, Massimo?! I think we can safely say that many of Archbishop Vigano’s statements have been proven to be quite true over the last year. Are you saying otherwise? If so, which ones? Put your money where your keyboard is. Regardless, neither of these statements would constitute “schism” as you would suggest. I realize you’re just an historian and not a canon lawyer but maybe you should actually a look at the definition of “schism” before you start flapping you gums. 

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.  

The article goes on…

Contrary to Faggioli’s claim, however, Chaput did not endorse Vigano’s allegations. While a spokesman told reporters in August that Chaput “enjoyed working with Archbishop Vigano during his tenure as Apostolic Nuncio,” he declined to comment on the former nuncio’s allegations.

Oops!

The spokesman said that the Chaput could not comment “on Archbishop Vigano’s recent testimonial as it is beyond his personal experience.”

In 2013, Chaput told radio personality Hugh Hewitt that the election of Pope Francis had made him “extraordinarily happy, because quite honestly, he is the man I was hoping would be Pope eight years ago.”

Double oops!

Two years later, Chaput hosted Pope Francis in Philadelphia for the 2015 World Meeting of Families. Reflecting in 2018 on that meeting, Chaput wrote that the pope’s “time with us was filled with powerful public moments and deeply grace filled intimate gatherings hallmarked by an overarching spirit of mercy, compassion, and charity.”

“[Pope Francis] has repeatedly challenged us to bear witness to Christ through concrete action—by serving the poor, by helping immigrants, by preserving families, and by protecting the sanctity of life. It’s the kind of challenge we can and should answer with a hearty yes each day,” Chaput added.

You’re a three time loser, Massimo. 

In his essay criticizing “devout schismatics,” Faggioli wrote that “dissent against this pope has become radicalized with schismatic instincts because this kind of political devotion is more about a partisan ideology than about the Church. Catholicism was exposed to ideological manipulation by those who do not really care for the Gospel, but who are more interested in a particular conservative political culture.”

“Particular conservative political culture?” Normally if you follow the teachings of the Church and Canon Law, you’re considered a faithful Catholic. In Massimo’s mind you’re somehow “interested in a particular conservative political culture.” I totally agree that Catholicism was exposed to ideological manipulation but it had little to do with a “particular conservative political culture” and everything to do with a bunch of narcissistic, liberal minded ideologues that thought of themselves far more than they ever thought of the teachings of the Church!

“Chaput, among those identified as a “devout schismatic,” has frequently emphasized his unwillingness to align with a political party.”

So, Massimo is totally wrong again. Shocker.

Just a few more little pesky facts Massimo didn’t bother to look into before he started spouting off. Both Archbishop Cordileone and Bishop Strickland are canon lawyers.  They might know a thing or two about schism even if Massimo doesn’t quite get it. Next, Archbishop Chaput campaigned for Robert Kennedy and supported the election of Jimmy Carter. Of course, today’s democrat isn’t grandma and granpa’s democrat but still. Archbishop Chaput has made it quite clear that the teachings of the Church trump all political parties.  http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20121205203427/http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1204504.htm

Last time I checked, Massimo does not have canonical jurisdiction to declare schism and his lack of knowledge on the matter gives him even less jurisdiction. If “devout” is a reason to declare “schism”, then a whole lot of people are going to be found in such a place. This is just stupid.

In 2016 he criticized Catholics, especially politicians, who accept “the transfer of our real loyalties and convictions from the old Church of our baptism to the new ‘Church’ of our ambitions and appetites,’ in order to achieve political or personal goals. The group of those who do so “cuts across…both major political parties,” Chaput said.:

“Quite a few of us American Catholics have worked our way into a leadership class that the rest of the country both envies and resents. And the price of our entry has been the transfer of our real loyalties and convictions from the old Church of our baptism to the new “Church” of our ambitions and appetites. People like Nancy Pelosi, Anthony Kennedy, Joe Biden and Tim Kaine are not anomalies. They’re part of a very large crowd that cuts across all professions and both major political parties.”

And? There’s a problem with that statement, Massimo? If Massimo considers Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden to be faithful Catholics, I have oceanfront property in Iowa to sell him. By the way, here’s the quote in context. https://www.crisismagazine.com/2019/a-new-kind-of-sacrament

The Church’s canon law defines schism, the charge Faggioli makes against the three bishops, as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

See? And while Massimo is totally happy to declare three bishops schismatics, he’s perfectly fine not showing proof when he declares them such.

Faggioli could not be reached for comment.

Totally not surprising. He’s stepped in it deeper than normal and can’t actually back up the accusations. Don’t you kind of feel like he lost a bet with someone? I guess when someone jumps the shark this big you kind of hope there’s some sort of rational explanation for it. Maybe his ratings are down?

Fr. Martin – Pouring Gas on the Bridge and Lighting it on Fire!

Oh my ever-loving goodness!  More honesty than usual!  Hat tip to Joseph Sciambra for posting this one:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfbYRJN-jWE

Fr. James Martin has become emboldened by his new-found (and maybe just in the plan of the Holy Spirit’s plan) appointment hat we’re not backing down despite his best efforts to tell us we really suffer from same-sex attraction and that we’re insecure in our sexuality.  Um, 20-something years and a bunch of kids later, Fr. Martin, I can assure you that isn’t true. Oh wait, honey, sorry to tell you….  The idea that people who disagree with you must be paranoid that they are SSA is ridiculous.  Nice try though. Classic move.  Reality is, we just think you kind of stink. (I’m hoping I get time off of purgatory for not using the crass version of what I really think!)

First, he can’t really decide whether or not he’s a theologian. Every other day he’s saying he is or he’s saying he know something about it.  Sorry, Father Martin, who it is and who it is not accepted by is irrelevant.  Might read a little on the Reformation.

At the 3:53 minute he’s actually admitting something he’s not before. He’s admitting that he thinks “gay marriage” will become a reality.  Praise the Lord!  Can we now silence him?  Pope Francis!  Did you catch that one?  This is your mouthpiece and heresy is kind of a no-no.

And somewhere around 5:31 he says we shouldn’t take the bible literally.  I could agree with that in some areas where the Church gives its interpretation but, hello!  How any time have we heard this guy and his buds spew “Judge not lest ye be judged????”  Only about a million.

And, of course around 5:41 he states the majority of us are homophobic.  There’s a shocker.  Let me clue people in as I have so many times before.  I do not fear people suffering from same-sex attraction.  I fear the “gay lifestyle”, “gay activities” and what it’s doing to society, to the Church and too many friends!  Listen, unless we all get on board with struggling with our personal temptations, we are all doomed as a society.  Deal.  I’m not going to candy coat it.  Of course, God wins in the end but it can be hell on earth until that happens.

Around 6 minutes in, he basically says he can say “Love the sinner, hate the sin!” but if we say it, there’s no love.  Let me clue you in, Fr. Martin. We are angry and justly so because you’ve led people to believe the Church is going to change i’s stance on marriage because some don’t receive it.  Is there love? You betcha!  If we didn’t love the person suffering from SSA we wouldn’t care less about them or you.  This is why we counter your crud at most turns.  It has little do with us and everything to do with those we care about.

Around 6:16 he says most of those opposed to his book think we know no “gays” or we only know “former gays.”  Really, Fr. Martin? Get a stinking grip.  While a minority, you don’t have to join the “Fr. Martin Fan Club” to know someone suffering with same-sex attraction.  Yeah, we’re not “snide” as people are referred to.  Although, quite frankly, I’m probably a huge eye-roller when it comes to people mentioning because it makes me so angry that you cause so much division and that you lead so many souls astray.  I can only reassure my friends, relatives, co-workers, etc. that I have no ill will towards you and that I wish you join me in the struggle against Satan that I’m waging where my temptations lie.  Fr. Martin?  He wants your accolades and couldn’t give a darn what whether or not you’re in a SSA relationship and get hit by a bus tomorrow.

At 7:10 Fr. Martin, once again, promotes the fear idea.  This, as usual, is his way of saying we are great big meanies and we’re only it if for ourselves.  How about you build a bridge my way Fr. Martin.  Maybe you should spend a whole lot more time with people who worry about their immortal soul and those of others before you bother to write a book.  How about that idea?  I’d surmise that we’ve spent a whole lot more time with those suffering from SSA than you have spent with those whose primary focus is the everlasting life with God!

And new?  Please! There were people struggling with SSA when I was in high school (and quite frankly, probably earlier).  While I’m not as old of you, it has been a part of my life for many, many a year.  Get over yourself.

Around 7:35 he talks of those who bring in the hopes and desire of their “LGBT” family members.  Let’s just stop for a second and thin about why that’s happening.  Oh yeah, it’s you, Fr. Martin.  While you should be encouraging people to struggle, you’re encouraging them to dream that their wishes will someday become true.  How totally and utterly sad.  How about you teach them to take up their cross like the rest of us, no matter what it is, and join us in seeking everlasting life?  I guess you’d have to buy into Truth before that happens.

8:35,  Fr. Martin tells us that if we knew “gay couples” we wouldn’t be able to deny that people reached out to people in the margins to which we give a hearty “Duh!” to Fr. Martin.  That said, Christ did what he refuses to do.  Christ told them to “Go and sin not more!”  You don’t even mention sin, Fr. Martin, unless it’s the false sin of judging actions.  And, let me be blunt, we don’t see Jesus in sodomy and masturbation. Another “Duh!”

At 9:35, commentator tells us we’re against “all things homosexual.”  Again, please.  We are not against homosexuals.  In fact, apparently, they’re the reason I blog as of late. We are against the ACTIVITIES of any person engaging in activities that are harmful to their souls.  So, think about this people suffering from SSA.  Either Fr. Martin doesn’t believe in the teaching of the Church or he does and he’s willing to throw you under the bus in hopes that they are changed by consensus (which cannot happen).

At 10:03 interviewer tells us that theological teaching “does have to come into contact with the state of things on the ground.  And, in the U.S., the shape of things on the ground, is such that a lot of Catholics do support gay marriage.”  Fr. Martin then goes out to say that in sub-Saharan Africa you’d be run out of town.  Then he goes onto allude that theologians (which he always says he is not) would agree with him and that “Church leaders” would not despite that the people of God are being led by the Holy Spirit. The Church leaders resist that and then he goes back to the “reception of teaching” which he never actually gives Church teaching on.  (Did we really expect him to?) Hmmmm…Why would that be?  Oh, maybe it’s because the Deposit of Faith doesn’t lie with us!

Near 11:35 he brings up Humanae Vitae.  How nice of him to admit it’s still in effect.  Gee thanks.  I’m not sure what “Made their peace” with it means as far as the majority of the laity.  You can’t really have peace when you are thwarting God’s laws but, whatever.  He then goes on to talk of the divide between the “theological world and the Episcopacy.”  Uh, translation:  The divide between Fr. Martin and cronies and the Church.

At 12:31 Fr. Martin asks why it is so terrible to go to a “gay wedding” but it is not terrible to go to a Jewish wedding.  Well, Fr. Martin, if you’d have a clue, you’d know that A) a “gay wedding” is never considered valid in the eyes of the Church and that a b) Jewish wedding would be considered valid in the eyes of the Church as long as one of the parties was not Catholic and that the Jewish religion considered it valid.  If someone was an apostate (converted to Judaism) they are not longer bound by the Catholic law.  I would think that a priest in the Catholic Church would kind of know that, and I’m rather sure he does.  These are two TOTALLY different scenarios.  Of course, Fr. Martin then goes on to tug at the heartstrings and talk about “people that you love.” Fr. Martin, if I loved a person I wouldn’t want their temporal happiness in lieu of their everlasting happiness.  Wanting the latter is TRUE LOVE!

And, as he’s done before, he tugs at the heartstrings at 13:25 in regards to people losing their jobs after posting pictures of their weddings  Hello!!!!! How about people losing their immortal souls????  A little more important than people losing their livelihoods, wouldn’t you say?

Then he asks at 13:35 how it’s worse to go to a civil wedding than a Jewish wedding?  Uh, one condones sodomy/masturbation and the other does not?  How’s that for starters?  Then he puts for the premise that “it’s worse to be a Christian and gay than to reject Jesus.”  Uh, you aren’t really practicing the Christian faith if you are an active homosexual.  At least being an apostate is a little more honest.  Neither or good but when you are an apostate, you are not bound to the Canon Law.

At 14:45 Fr. Martin thinks it’s a beautiful story that the interviewer’s parents are walking him down the isle at her non-Catholic, “gay wedding.”  How ridiculously sad is this?  They keep talking about them “coming around.”  Coming around to what? Had a conversion to what?  A union full of sodomy and masturbation?  How beautiful.  And then the biggie.  Fr. Martin states “This is what Jesus does.” Isn’t it interesting how the Fr. Martins of this world never use “Go and sin no more” woman but the women at the well.  Reality is that the scenario is rather the same but they just can’t see it that way. Christ holds us accountable for our sins.  The Fr. Martins of this world would like you to miss that.

15:29 Fr. Martin talks about how beautiful it is that this guy’s parents can celebrate his love with his same-sex partner.  Really?  Maybe I should clue Fr. Martin in.  You do understand that it means she will be engaging in masturbation and/or sodomy, right?  I mean, I’m pretty sure he does but I just have to ask so he can obfuscate a bit more. It’s fun watching him twist pretzels.

15:45 Martin then has the utter audacity at ask “how could God not rejoice in that kind of reconciliation and bridge building?”  You know, the kind where you jump off a spiritual cliff and reject the teachings of Christ’s Church?  Yeah, that reconciliation.  Honestly, I kind of want to vomit about the lack of Truth going on in this conversation.  I swear, when they were handing out millstones, Fr. Martin shoved people out of the way to claim his.  Here’s hoping he truly figures out those aren’t diamonds.

At 16:20 Fr. Martin suggests that those who can’t come to this guy’s wedding have more of a clue than you, Fr. Martin.  Then, of course, he goes onto compare it to those that refuse to come to a wedding based on race.  Just when you think he can’t get any more stupid. Sigh.