The following comes from a Nov. 15 story in the L.A. archidiocese paper, the Tidings.
I’m writing from Baltimore, where this week my brother bishops and I are gathered for the annual meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Our agenda has been busy. But in the background of our meeting has been the figure of Pope Francis. This is our first full meeting since his election. And there is a lot of conversation and excitement about our Holy Father’s ministry and initiatives.
“Pope Francis has made a great impression by drawing and captivating the hearts of men and women throughout the world, inviting them to meet Christ personally in their lives,” said the Pope’s delegate to the United States, Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Carlo Viganò.
In his talk to the bishops, Archbishop Viganò connected Pope Francis’ vision with the theme of evangelization that has concerned all the Popes since the Second Vatican Council.
More and more, I’m seeing how Pope Francis’ pastoral vision continues the themes of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. As his predecessors did, Pope Francis understands that the Church’s must proclaim Christ to a modern society that is facing a profound moral and spiritual crisis.
It’s not only that many of our neighbors don’t share the Church’s beliefs on fundamental issues such as abortion, sexuality and marriage. This is true and troubling. But those issues are signs of deeper troubles. They are signs that our society has turned away from God to embrace what Pope Francis calls the “idols” of a materialist view of the world.
The Pope wants us to see that these grave issues we face in society are rooted in this deeper materialist worldview — which sees everything only according to what science can prove and what technology can do. Human life is diminished to only material concerns. Life has no higher purpose or direction except to seek to feel better or “more comfortable.”
In the face of these idols, the Church’s preaching and witness must go deeper. We need to speak to our neighbors’ deeper needs, finding new ways to speak to their hearts and mind.
Our neighbors are hungry to know that there is more than just this material world. They are hungry to know God’s love and mercy — and his care for the world and for every person.
This is what the Pope is talking about with his now famous description of the Church as a “field hospital after battle.”
Pope Francis has said: “It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol and about the level of his blood sugars! You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else. Heal the wounds, heal the wounds. … And you have to start from the ground up.”
The deepest wound in modern life is the wound caused by the loss of God. From this wound come all the other wounds we experience — including the grave moral issues and spiritual confusion we see everywhere….
To read the original story, click here.
When the bishops of the US start paying attention to the fact that millions of babies are being annihilated each year in the US alone, then I will start paying attention to what they say.
Ah, the loving Society of Saint Pius X doing its part to heal wounds…NOT!!!
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina — Nov. 13, 2013 — Ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholics have openly challenged Pope Francis by disrupting one of his favorite events, an interfaith ceremony in the Metropolitan Cathedral meant to promote religious harmony on the anniversary of the beginning of the Holocaust.
The annual gathering of Catholics, Jews and Protestants marks Kristallnacht, the Nazi-led mob violence in 1938 when about 1,000 Jewish synagogues were burned and thousands of Jews were forced into concentration camps, launching the genocide that killed 6 million Jews. Before he assumed the papacy, Buenos Aires Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio and his good friend Rabbi Abraham Skorka led the ceremony every year.
A small group disrupted Tuesday night’s ceremony by shouting the rosary and the “Our Father” prayer, and spreading pamphlets saying that “followers of false gods must be kept out of the sacred temple.”
Buenos Aires Archbishop Mario Poli, named by Francis to replace him as Argentina’s top church official, appealed for calm as others in the audience rose up to repudiate the protesters, who were soon escorted out by police.
“Let there be peace. Shalom,” Poli then said, urging everyone to take their seats.
“Dear Jewish brothers, please feel at home, because that’s the way Christians want it, despite these signs of intolerance,” Poli said. “Your presence here doesn’t desecrate a temple of God. We will continue in peace this encounter that Pope Francis always promoted, valued and appreciated so much.”
Skorka, who co-wrote a book of dialogues with Bergoglio seeking common ground between Judaism and Catholicism, described the incident in an interview with Radio 10 on Wednesday.
Catholics visit the synagoge I cater at and Jews sometimes visit at my parish. I don’t get it. Why don’t these SSPX people like Jews?
It’s not a matter of not liking Jews, C&H. It is a matter of acknowledging sacred places and holding them as sacred. That is not defiling them by – not by the Jewish people being present as that would be stupid – but rather by relinquishing the altar and pulpit to the prayers of non-Catholics.
An example from military experience – my husband confronted a cleric in Afghanistan about the inconsistency of worship in the supposedly sacred space reserved for all manner of worship. In this case, the minister was advocating Wicca worship to be held in the same space, using the same materials as those used for Catholic Mass in addition to all manner of other rituals. And this minister fully intended to minister Wicca services.
The cleric (a Baptist, mind you) stated that the main issue was helping people by catering to their sensibilities. IOW: Just give the people what they want, what will make the ‘feel’ good and respected. Nothing about Truth. Nothing to acknowledge the reality of that which is seen and unseen. Just giving the people what they want.
That is the issue here. False ecumenism allowed in the most sacred of all places.
Thank you Ann for explaining this to C&H. Our lack of true Catholicism has caused so much confusion….we can only help answer with true charity and with compassion. How can we fault them when there are so much abuses being allowed in many parishes…no wonder people don’t know what is right and what is wrong anymore….
These are but a few instances of what led me and my family to be open to Tradition. It was desperation, Abeca. That and my inability to explain the absurd inconsistencies and outright lies found all over the country in various NO parishes.
Grace builds upon nature. And if, by nature, you are turned completely away from the Church (albeit technically in full communion), what is a body to do? Not have your family baptized at all?
Thanks again for your charity and understanding.
Wiccans have as much right to practice their faith as any other discipline, especially in a military setting, where the space is probably shared by any religious practice, and it’s DEFINITELY not the job of the military to judge or rank the legitimacy of a religion. But that’s not really ecumenism as I understand it (which relates just to other Christian denominations).
If the SSPX is wandering around telling people they follow false gods, that’s just awful, especially Jews who have the same monotheistic God.
The more I hear about them, the more they sound like a quasi-Catholic Taliban, or Wahabbist cult. The problem with ultra-orthodox sects (of any discipline) is that they’re not practicing faith, but wanting the world to conform to a narrow vision, and if they’re in a position of power, the consequence of an absolute sense of divine entitlement is pure destruction in the name of purity.
Every religion thinks it’s the one true religion, and none should be asserting that on others, unless it’s a warm welcome.
Intriguing to know that you place the rights of the people over the rights of God, Siollán Murchadh. He is the One who proclaimed that all the gods of the Gentiles are demons. He is also the one who called out the Pharisees being sons of someone other than God. Before the political police came into power, the Catholic Church also used to pray for and actively pursue the conversion of those who you believe worship the same monotheistic God. Why? Because true Faith demands it.
But you are entitled to your opinion. That is free will.
That said, Catholics who adhere to the teachings of Christ are called to adhere to His teachings. You may find this to be a ‘narrow vision,’ but if you read the Bible, it is. Then again 1+1=2 may instigate rebellion for those who choose to reject it. But that doesn’t mean teachers should stop teaching it. And neither should teachers be branded as judgmental Taliban for correcting errors so that their students will learn.
As to WICCA, if you are an adherent or even a proponent, I would think you would understand even their in depth acceptance of the supernatural. Sacred spaces etc.
The rights of people should absolutely take precedence over any one person or group’s interpretation of the rights/will of God, however vehemently that group believes it is divinely sanctioned. People will always find ways to conquer and kill each other in the name of God, even when they have the same God (Jews/Muslims/Christians in the Middle East), or even sub-sects (Sunnis/Shiites, Catholics/Protestants).
That’s one of the things I don’t get about opposition to secularism. It functions to protect religions from each other.
It’s one thing to pursue conversions, and entirely another to disparage, harass those who don’t believe the same things you do.
Nobody is harassing anybody, Siollán M. As to any perceived ‘right’ of mankind, it comes to us from God. One God.
Secularism, a glorified renewal of the Roman Pantheon, would have man at its center – that is identifying who and what ‘god’ is, what ‘he’ deserves, and where ‘he’ fits in the schema of man’s dominion over all. That is why those with actual FAITH reject it.
That said, if God Almighty deigned to reveal Himself to you, Siollán M, I doubt you’d maintain the position you do. But that hasn’t happened for you. I hope it does. In the meantime, forgive me if I take no pleasure or part in the State trying to dictate regulations about that which it knows not.
As for protecting society, some people would kill over a donut, a dirty look, a perceived slight, or for no reason whatever. Just read the paper. That’s where secularism leads. Killing for absolute NO reason.
Harassing? That was in reference to the SSPX at the Kristallnacht event. Absolutely, in no uncertain terms, harassment. Not that it’s surprising. Here’s a primary source on why SSPX would feel motivated to act that way.
It’s not just a secular ideal, but actual doctrine in Dignitas Humanitae that supports the same argument.
I don’t understand your reasoning. You say you don’t want the state dictating regulations on religious practice, but you do want the state to designate Abrahamic faiths as valid and pagan ones as invalid?
Maybe God has revealed himself to me. Personally, I believe God is all-being and all-present, operates outside the laws of physics, and takes the form of whatever limited capacity for consciousness allows. so any monotheistic understanding, the Hindu Brahman, the earth cycles pagan religions observe, and whatever exists on the most distant planet that will never conceive of what we understand as reality.
No, I am not advocating that the State declare other religions as invalid. I am merely pointing out that forcing priests/clerics to celebrate that which goes against their Faith – against that which has been commanded by God, even if you hold that it is only in their opinion – is in itself wrong. Or would you have a Pagan or Atheist ‘cleric’ forced to preach/celebrate that which is Catholic?
As for harassment, how do you think a Pagan in a Pagan temple would react to a Catholic priest being invited to pray to the One Almighty God in the confines of their sacred temple? How about a WICCAN. Would he/she be welcoming in the light of a Catholic Priest say, doing an exorcism, in their meeting place?
The point: there are spiritual realities involved in sacred spaces, Siollán M. Your reference of: “…It’s not just a secular ideal, but actual doctrine in Dignitas Humanitae that supports the same argument,” is no defense either.
Not when it comes to dishonoring God in favor of honoring man. But thank you for pointing out in specific the current crisis in the Catholic Church. That is the official obscuring of the fullness of Truth ushered in by VII.
Okay. You’ve lost me here. You seemed to be objecting to the inclusion of Wicca into a shared (ad-hoc) religious space in a military installation. It’s not like it’s consecrated ground. It’s a temporary space that is occupied in an immediate moment by whatever practice is using it. That is the context. It’s not like there’s the space or time for constructing a permanent church.
So I take it you’re sympathetic to SSPX’s contempt for Dignitas Humanitae, which is an explicit example (by full admission) of schism, and use this as an example of something antithetical to capital T Truth. So I don’t know what you even mean by Truth. It’s not reason, or empiricism, and it’s apparently contrary to Magisterium. So it’s subjective?
If Truth ≠ truth, and Truth ≠ dogma. What is it?
Siollán M, your misinterpretation of Dignitas Humanitae does not equal schism on the part of SSPX or that of anyone who reads as much through the view of Tradition – as in what the Church has always taught. Your assertion that man’s rights trump God’s:
“…The rights of people should absolutely take precedence over any one person or group’s interpretation of the rights/will of God, however vehemently that group believes it is divinely sanctioned.”
… is the problem. Especially since you erroneously believe that Catholic doctrine really backs you up in putting man’s supposed rights above those of God. It’s kind of like saying the Church has now suddenly given us the liberty to deny Christ. It hasn’t. Even though for some, it is easier in the short term.
If you don’t understand my reference regarding my husband’s military experience, you could simply ask. That said, have you ever served? If so, thank you for your service. If not, you have no clue what it is like to be a faithful Catholic overseas, subject to Pagan worship inside sacred spaces. Or the sad hypocrisy of even a Protestant cleric being forced to ‘celebrate’ a WICCA serivce. No experience whatsoever…. and absolutely not from a Catholic perspective.
Okay. That SSPX page explicitly rejects official Church doctrine. How is that not schism?
Dignitas Humanitae is not complicated (it’s on the Vatican website and isn’t long. It’s plainly worded). It had overwhelming clerical support at the time. It’s not controversial. It is not about man’s rights over God’s, it is about man’s right’s to be free from another man using coercion and force to assert his own will in the name of God.
It was a radical departure from practices of earlier centuries, and I read it to be a tacit admission of all the terrible consequences of the Crusades, Inquisitions, the Church’s role as acculturating agent for Spanish colonialism, and also probably an official principle in relation to other religions (Islam, for instance) that propagate by conquest.
I don’t see how that can possibly be objectionable, if you’re familiar with Afganistan. The diametrical opposite of Dignitas Humaitae is Mullah Omar
Thanks for writing back, Siollan M.
I suggest you do extensive reading regarding the SSPX, or rather their position, to obtain those answers. Better still read about the divergent theological ‘opinions’ of Vatican II and those leading up to it. From both biased and unbiased sources. There is no unanimous agreement. But you will not take lessons from me and you shouldn’t.
You seem open minded in the truest sense of the word and as such, I believe, would value the opportunity to look for yourself. You owe yourself that even if only from an academic perspective.
The Second Vatican Council – An Unwritten Story by Professor Roberto deMattei is a wonderful resource. The style of the book is more like that of a reporter, exposing and explaining facts. That’s all. It is left to the reader to draw conclusions which is something I respect.
“…As to the radical departure from practices of earlier centuries, and I read it to be a tacit admission of all the terrible consequences…” just take a look at the terrible consequences that have occurred since the loose interpretation of Dignitas Humanae.
Much is falling apart – not because Our Lord God has ceased being Truth, but rather because Church leadership in an attempt to mingle with the world, has clouded that Truth. As if doing so will lead people to it. It will not.
Even you, a devout Catholic, by your posts to me, seem to have departed from the belief that Our Lord is The Way, The Truth and The Light. Why? Really. Ask yourself. And when you’ve asked yourself as much, ask yourself it that is integrally Catholic? (That is in faith not as a political ideology) And yet you speak of schism.
Just because 2013 has 1000 more years in its title than 1013 doesn’t necessarily equate that the Catholics then didn’t have real cause and justification for their actions. Or that their actions were morally wrong.
The Crusades, the Inquisition, and Spanish Colonialism were actions that took place in times and circumstances we CANNOT understand, surely not here in the United States.
We are not suffering under radical Islam here at present (we very well could and VERY soon), our Church and country unlike Spain in the day has not been (at least it is not politically expedient to say so) been infiltrated by those diametrically opposed to her founding principles, and unlike the heathen in the Americas at the time of Cortez, our babies and families (although abortion is a lurid exception) are not exposed to mass human sacrifice and brutal bloody conquest.
Do we not owe it to our brothers and sisters to at least attempt the spreading of the Faith? To establish Christian societies? Or is it more Christian to let them abide in spiritual ignorance just because we are human and make mistakes in the attempt?
You ask why I would, if I have experience of Afghanistan, be opposed to this new way. Why indeed? The question begs an answer. I’ll leave that to you to discover in your quest. Suffice to say that after 7 + deployments, my family and I are intimately aware of a great many things regarding the military and so-called ‘rights’. Try reading about the rights of Syrian Catholics, those in Iraq, those in Saudi Arabia. This is what comes of willfully giving ‘respect and dignity’ to a false religion whose stated mission is to kill the Infidel – that is US.
Abp Gomez says “It’s not only that many of our neighbors don’t share the Church’s beliefs on fundamental issues such as abortion, sexuality and marriage. ”
What he fails to acknowledge is that moany church-going Catholics in my parish “don’t share the church’s belifes on fundamental issues such as abortion, sexuality and marriage” because the priests rarely if ever discuss this from the pulpit.
I ask each of CALCATH readers to tell us when was the last time you heard a sermon about the immorality of sodomy?
Is there anyone in the pews who does not already know the teaching of the Church with regard to the immorality of gay sex?
YFC, are you suggesting that we can actually know the answer to your question without first doing a scientific study?! By the way, what exactly is, “merry, lighthearted, bright, and lively”, sex?
YFC, I am beginning to wonder if you are reading the same thing I am reading here. Jesse said that there are those in his parish who don’t SHARE the Church’s belief on certain moral issues. This could indicate that some in the pews DO KNOW Church teaching and still CHOOSE to reject it.
By the way, YFC, I now know with certainty that you do know what the Church teaches with regards to same sex, sexual activity. I therefore plead with you, for the love of God and neighbor, to please stand up, speak up, and DEFEND this teaching?!!!
Is there anyone, YFC, I mean really, sitting in the pews that doesn’t know that Jesus loves them? Come on. Get real. So why do we waste time talking about it?
Jesse Martinez, you hit the nail on the head. How many so called Catholics sitting in the pews “don’t SHARE the Church’s belifes on fundamental issues such as abortion, sexuality and marriage”?! I would have to say that not only are these subject matters too often neglected from the pulpit, but tragically, they are too often neglected or worse yet, out-right-maligned in our so-called Catholic schools, starting in our grammar schools all the way through graduate school.
Can it really be true that Archbishop Gomez is unaware of this?
Those who attend the Traditional Masses probably hear it quite often, but some NO priests who tried to preach on those issues as they well should, were crucified by their NO “bishops”.
“In the final days good will be considered bad, and bad good” !
May God have mercy on an amoral America!
Viva Cristo Rey!
God bless, yours in Their Hearts,
Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.
Kenneth, you are right. In forty years I have never heard a Catholic priest preach on the gay issues, contraception, etc. Do they preach on those subjects at the non-catholic church that you attend?
You might have ‘Catholic’ stamped on your bulletin, Bob One, but what is written in your posts and seemingly that which is preached at your church regarding the serious moral issues ensnaring our children – that is if you weren’t being facetious – sounds like there was a mix-up at the printers.
No wonder your friends think you’re a conservative.
You can’t heal the laity’s many wounds unless some of the teachings of the Church are on the table; like birth control and divorce. If you have an abusive spouse, and the local Tribunal rejects an annulment, you’re out of the Church unless you choose to be single and lonely the rest of your life.
good cause, from where have you drawn your apparent conclusion that the world has better solutions to human weakness and suffering than God’s solutions? I sadly lament that maybe you have never really felt the touch of God’s loving presence in your life. What if I were to take your logic one step further and ask you what you would suggest doing for a seriously handicapped person who is incapable of marriage and is lonely? (Some in today’s secular culture would think euthanasia would be the most compassionate thing to do) I would hope that you would reach out to that person in Christian charity to help alleviate his loneliness. I would hope that you would encourage others to do the same. Not every difficult situation is as hopeless as our secular world often likes to paint it. “All things work together for good, for those who love the Lord”. This is not a cliche. It is God’s promise.
good cause, you are working under a misconception and therefore spreading false information.
The “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” is very clear about divorced/remarried Catholics and encourages them to remain in the Church – and the rest of us to be compassionate.
See CCC: 2382-2386, and especially 1650 and 1651.
Regarding Birth Control – see CCC 2366 – 2373.
CCC: ” 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.
These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom.
In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. “
Mary I think it is fair to say that this teaching has not received wide regard among the faithful. The Church cannot teach that which the faithful do not adhere to. So like it or not, this doctrine is going away and going away quickly. At least our present Pope sees that there is a problem with it, which is why he is asking the parishes a number of questions about how to be pastoral when there are doctrines, such as this one, that so few adhere to. And moreover, I would submit that the decline in church attendance is largely because the hierarchs love to push doctrines that the people in the pews simply do not even listen to. When Pastors drone on and on about things that the People have stopped listening to, then they stop listening to everything ELSE the pastors try to say. This is sad, and we as a Church need to figure out how to deal with it. I believe this is what Francis is trying to accomplish.
So is your notion of consistency in following one’s conscience, that of darkening the conscience on purpose, YFC? Are the kids in charge of the candy store? Are parents just supposed to get a lock for their teenagers door so they won’t embarrass the kids when they’re having sex? I mean, what’s a merciful parent to do?
When Our Lord taught the Apostles the truths regarding marriage and divorce should the Apostles have just responded, “Well, really Lord, get with the program. Our hearts are hard. Get it? Sure you do, merciful One. And hey, we know you’re planning to die for us. So enough talking about what offends you or else we won’t give you the pleasure of saving our souls.”
To summarize, YES, the Church can teach that which people – I will not say faithful – do not want to adhere to. It is the Church’s failure to teach, preach, and be consistent with the fullness of Truth that is the problem.
Indeed, as you suggest, the Holy Spirit herself moves with and speaks through the People of God. The Church recognizes this in the notion of the sensus fidelium, the sense of the faithful. Without acceptance of a doctrine by the faithful, it whithers as it should, into oblivion. Lumen gentium said it beautifully, “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole people’s supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.”
“Indeed, as you suggest, the Holy Spirit *herself* moves with and speaks through the People of God. ”
YFC, Please retract that statement. Ann Malley never said or suggested that the Holy Spirit was a “her.”
“Indeed, as you suggest, the Holy Spirit *herself* moves with and speaks through the People of God. ”
YFC writes, “The Church cannot teach that which the faithful do not adhere to. So like it or not, this doctrine is going away and going away quickly.” = Another example of the poisonous pablum that is deliberately being fed to unsuspecting sheep.
YFC, Like it or not, it WAS Sodom and Gomorrah that “WENT AWAY” when God saw how few there were who wanted to adhere to His Laws.
Thanks, Catherine. I’ve replied upward of 4 times to YFC’s redirect/misstatements, but for whatever reason the posts are not showing. That said, Providence had led me to rely on your defense of Truth. Thank you again.
Catherine, the Holy Spirit, to the best of my reading of Scripture and Tradition, is genderless. However, there certainly are references, especially in the Book of Wisdom, in which a figure which seems to resemble an awful lot like the Holy Spirit, is referred to as feminin. So, since using the genderless pronoun “it” seems cold and distant to English speakers, and given that there is no official teaching on the gender of the Ghost, I prefer to use “she” when referring to Wisdom. If you don’t like it, I suggest you study up, and leave behind any hint of misogyny that might have infected your theology. Not to mention your obsession with homosexuality.
YFC, you misunderstand what is written. Sensus fidelium is only a positive thing. Read it again. It does not mean that if one or more (or even all) members of the faithful do not accept a Catholic doctrine, it goes away. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and always.
Well, anonymous, you are just simply not understanding the doctrine of the sensus fielium, and the history of how this has played out in reality. Yes Jesus yesterday today and tomorrow. But whether slavery and the borrowing of money are permitted or proscribed has, for example, changed between then and now. And so will other doctrines, as they must, to allow for a Holy Spirit who remains with us even to the end.
A Holy Spirit who would have women ingest carcinogens, mutilate their bodies, and deny the very essence of who and what they are by God’s design? Is this what you’re advocating YFC? God does not work against Himself.
To quote Jane Austen, “MaryAnn, that’s carrying your sensibilities too far.”
YFC, as far as I can see, you being an activist for full societal acceptance of male with male sexual activity and female with female sexual activity, realize that if enough people renounced contraception, the ground you and your activist friends have gained would be most certainly lost. I am pretty sure that you will find a negligible amount of people at best who reject contraception while at the same time support the redefinition of marriage.
Poor YFC, another error (your claiming we should call the Holy Spirit “she”). Prohibited by Denzinger Index: “Whatever the Holy Spirit is or has, He has simultaneously from the Father and the Son.” (D no. 704). (just one example, there are many clear definitions on this issue) If YFC, you are going to refer to the HS in terms of a pronoun, it is to be with the pronoun “He”, or, as usual, you are off base and in error. But, when has that stopped YFC in the past…
I’m pretty sure that you will find a negligible number of people who reject contraception. Cardinals advising Paul VI before the issuance of Humanae Vitae advised the allowance of contraception in certain cases. A doctrine that is to have any life cannot begin its life with such a divided magisterium, let alone its reception by the faithful. And by the way, this has nothing whatsoever to do with same sex issues, and though you try to rope me into a discussion of that here, rest assured that the assumptions you leap to have yet to be proven.
The notion of a ‘divided magisterium’ is precisely why VII has resulted in such fetid fruit. That is why a return to that which is holy tradition is in order. If only to do a reset.
Then again, I’m shocked that you, YFC, admitted that there could be any division in the magisterium at all. If I dared such a post, all Anonymous would break loose on me.
Ahh, I see, YFC, so Catholic teaching on contraception and esp. Humanae Vitae (which re-affirms Casti Connubii, 1930) is to be set aside because of popular dissent. Arianism was also very popular at the time of Athanasius, so we should also be Arians, by that norm? So really the Pope and the Church can no longer teach and are stripped of their Magisterium, because of the advice of some “churchmen”, even Cardinals? Really? Since I believe you are a huge Vat2 proponent where do you find basis for that in the documents of Vat2? (Or: maybe we advert to Vat2 when convenient, then shuck it when it gets troublesome.) I think you are going to cite some ambiguous passages in Lumen Gentium, but even they state that “all the people” in union with all the bishops must hold a teaching that the Church has always held. [Lumen Gentium, n. 12: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the BISHOPS DOWN TO THE LAST OF THE LAY FAITHFUL” (emphasis mine) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.” But later on (n. 15) even Lumen Gentium states that adherents must be in unity with the Chair of Peter. Hmmm.
All ordained Catholic clerics are obligated to teach and preach the truth, not some watered down touchy-feelly nonsense that has permeated the air for so many years now. Christ commanded to baptize all nations, so what has happened to the missionary zeal which was once so common in the Catholic Church. Because of the ‘all are saved’ mentality, we are no longer winning converts for Christ, since everyone is saved, and no one can be responsible for the sins they commit. Patrick Buchannan just wrote a very fine article concerning the latest miss-speaks which have come out of the Vatican. In the past, papal documents and words of the pope were precise, but now they can be interpreted any way possible. This is one of the sins of modernism which is influencing the Church. Let us keep on praying that God will restore His Church, so she can once again be a beacon of truth in this darkened world of ours, which seems intent on following Satan and his minions.
Thank you, Fr. Karl. I will keep praying for that!
Father Karl: Right on, every single word you said is exactly true. Thank you for your service to the Holy Church, Father.
Another example of how modernism is being protected. Faithful priests who teach the fullness of Truth are persecuted, silenced and punished. The fullness of the Truth is not being taught because in many dioceses the protection of the objective disorder of homosexuality is more important than placing proper ORDER in the teaching the fullness of Truth.
Catholic World News
Scottish priest who wrote of ‘lavender mafia’ is suspended; parishioners revolt
CWN – November 18, 2013
A Scottish Catholic priest who wrote a book about homosexual influence in the clergy has been suspended from ministry, and in response his parishioners boycotted a Mass celebrated by the apostolic administrator of the diocese.
Nearly the entire congregation at St. John Ogilvie parish in Blanton walked out of the church as Bishop Joseph Toal began to celebrate Mass. The parishioners had signed a petition protesting the suspension of Father Matthew Despard. A spokesman for the angry parishioners said: “Because Father tells the truth he is removed from his priestly duties.”
Bishop Toal had announced that Father Despard was removed because he is the defendant in a canonical trial, in which he is accused of wrongful accusations against another priest.
In his book Priesthood in Crisis, which he self-published on the internet, Father Despard charged that homosexual priests intimidate others in the clergy. The book—which appeared just as Cardinal Keith O’Brien resigned, having been accused of homosexual misconduct.
How in the world is this modernism?
A theory about the origin and nature of Christianity, first developed into a system by George Tyrrell (1861-1909), Lucien Laberthonnière (1860-1932), and Alfred Loisy (1857-1940). According to Modernism, religion is essentially a matter of experience, personal and collective. There is no objective revelation from God to the human race, on which Christianity is finally based, nor any reasonable grounds for credibility in the Christian faith, based on miracles or the testimony of history. Faith, therefore, is uniquely from within. In fact it is part of human nature, “a kind of motion of the heart,” hidden and unconscious. It is, in Modernist terms, a natural instinct belonging to the emotions, a “feeling for the divine” that cannot be expressed in words or doctrinal propositions, an attitude of spirit that all people have naturally but that some are more aware of having. Modernism was condemned by Pope St. Pius X in two formal documents, Lamentabili and Pascendi, both published in 1907. (Etym. Latin modernus, belonging to the present fashion.)
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
Clarification to the Anonymous who posted the actual definition of MODERNISM- if you are indeed yet another anonymous poster who took pity on those on this thread and added the definition – thank you.
Sorry for being so reactionary. I’ve been trying like the dickens to encourage those who are supposedly worried about souls to name themselves, but nobody seems willing to do that much.
Ann, maybe we should all include our comments under the name “Anonymous”. Now wouldn’t that make for enjoyable reading?!!!!!
Great idea, Tracy. Then – the Anonymous who posted the definition above excluded, of course – we could all gripe and snarl and whine and mew about how misunderstood we are and put off by the nastiness of others with – dare I speak the word – names!
Thanks for making me smile:)
WIth all respect to Fr. John Hardon, the definition cited above by Anonymous of “Modernism” is a very narrow and incomplete one: the best definition is to read Pascendi in its entirety. There, S Pius X shows his extraordinary capacity to penetrate the subtlety of the unfolding modernist movement and how cleverly it portrays itself as respectful of tradition, all the while making faith subject to “science,” faith subjectto modern (especially existentialist and phenomenological systems of )philosophy, and especially faith subject to modern social and political “development”.
Taken from Amazon sales webpage:
“Priesthood in Crisis is a story of one priest’s experience in the priesthood and his efforts to live out his vocation honourably despite his awareness of corruption in parts of the Church that he loves. His refusal to tow any line other than God’s line earned him the enmity of many of his fellow priests and members of the hierarchy. Because of this, his priestly life was one of constant stress as he fought to serve his people with faith and the trust. This was often hampered by sinister machinations by those who could not tolerate his integrity. He did not want to write this book but recent revelations about the Church in Scotland meant that he could no longer remain silent. This is his story.”
Pope Pius X wrote in his encyclical on modernism that the modernists were very strict in their morality. I think you have modernism confused with corruption or something. Perhaps you mean a philosophy that negates the moral teaching of the Church?
Modernism is the basis for the corruption of Faith, Anonymous, that is Faith in God and that fullness of divinely revealed Truth. That said, Anonymous, once one removes God out of the equation – as in the basis for morality – anything under the sun could be and would be branded as ‘moral’ based on the popular vote or perception of the masses.
That’s why you have folks now trying to ‘help’ the poor by giving them the means to kill their children. But then you know that.
Catherine this is a sad reality….Just like priests get persecuted in house…so do the lay faithful in their own homes and or extended families……I understand too well the persecution….it sad that extended families are not like minded….you have some that left the faith, some that are envious, some that are complacent, you have the doubtful, etc etc……sometimes I find even myself double questioning my convictions because standing firm for what you stand for in your faith, it is usually bullied….it can wear anybody down….praise God for God’s graces to help us and that is what I am grateful……
I continue to keep our priests and church leadership in our prayers…they really need them especially the faithful ones because they are the ones who need it the most, they get attacked so badly in this ugly modern times.
Abeca, Yes, the reality is that Jesus always knew how his faithful disciples would be treated.
The Gospel of John Chapter 15:  You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.  These things I command you, that you love one another.  If the world hates you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you.  If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.  Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also.
 But all these things they will do to you for my name’ s sake: because they know not him who sent me.  If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.  He that hateth me, hateth my Father also.  If I had not done among them the works that no other man hath done, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated both me and my Father.  But that the word may be fulfilled which is written in their law: They hated me without cause.” Douay -Rheims
A clarification to the story on Father Despard: This article and many others claim that Father Despard was suspended. It seems that he was removed from parish ministry, not suspended. In the Catholic Church, suspension is a grave penalty. This has not happened to Father Despard. Also, it is reported that Amazon no longer sells the book. It seems to be offered in a Kindle version but I do not know what will happen if you tried to purchase it.
A clarification of the testimony of the legion of pagan names.
Mark 5:9 “And he asked him: What is thy name? And he saith to him: My name is Legion, for we are many.” Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
The Holy Word of God is given to you for your salvation. Not to belittle and demonize your neighbor.
The Archbishop’s words ring hollow.
The bishops are staying at the “elegant” Baltimore Waterfront Marriott Hotel where room prices range from $289 to $409 per night.
I doubt that Pope Francis would do this.
Why don’t the bishops stay at Motel 6 and use empty church halls for their meetings?
I forgot! There are no bars and no fancy meals at church halls.
Raymond, I am not sure that your idea of using Motel Six and empty church halls is practical when trying to accommodate well over 400 Bishops. I do, however, think that there should be more than one large hotel near an airport which could offer ample lodging and conference room space for far less the prices you posted. That being said, do we actually know what the Bishops did pay per person at the Hotel they went to? Maybe they got a special discounted rate, due to advanced booking, off season time line or other considerations.
I could set up a bar in a Church hall for them. I do it all the time :-)
Raymond, even better why don’t they stay home and use video conferencing!!! All a waste of our hard earned money. It seems being a priest, or higher, is no longer a vocation but a business.
Abp. Gomez is utterly incomprehensible. His notion that “embracing materialism” is somehow a large sin than, say, abortion, or homosexual sex and marriage, is beyond nonsense. In fact, the bishops of America are framing Francis for things that he did not precisely say, or mean, to advance the liberal world view that they all share, and the unified liberal order that they all crave. Not that Francis is blameless! He has been far to casual in his comments and must learn to be more practices in his responses. However, Francis surely did not mean that rushing toward materialism is the true false god here. Nope. the Church cannot turn its back on overt sin, say the use of contraceptives, or non-married sexual relations in any form, or abortion, by saying, “first, we must solve the moral dilemma of the designated-hitter rule.” Such as view is madness, and Satanic. This is why embracing the tried and true in the Church, its Traditions and beliefs is so critical. But, for many, this will never happen. Still, foolish comments must be met with opposition and challenge.
Good Cause, Nov. 18, ’13: “You can’t heal the laity’s many wounds unless some of the teachings of the Church are on the table; like birth control and divorce.” I see, Good Cause: so now, well founded church teachings are “on the table”, such as Humanae Vitae (1968), which re-capitulated long-standing Catholic teaching (cf. Casti Connubii, 1930) about the sanctity of marriage, the prohibition of abortion, and the forbidding of contraception (because of contraception’s insidious destruction of the spiritual community of marriage),and I suppose you believe that Pope Francis is going to change all these? Please, elucidate.
Fr. Karl, well-spoken point: (Nov 18, 2013, “In the past, papal documents and words of the pope were precise, but now they can be interpreted any way possible. This is one of the sins of modernism which is influencing the Church.” Here is a comparison between this pope and the prior two popes, at least: John Paul II, doctorate in systematic theology, Angelicum, 1948; followup post-doctoral dissertation, Jagiellonian Univ, Warsaw, on the phenomenology of Husserl and relationship of love in S John of the Cross; Benedict XVI, doctorate at Friesing/Munich (1953) and post-doctoral studies on S. Bonaventure’s theology of history. Each of these two popes spent years, if not decades teaching, lecturing, answering difficult questions in student-teacher exchanges, and sharpening their theological communication abilities. And now for Pope Francis:what do we have? A master’s degree (M.Div? M.A.?) in theology school at a not-well-known theologate in Buenos Aires in the 1960’s. Doctoral studies? Well, he started them at Sahnkt-Georgen in Munich sometime in the 1980’s—but he never finished them. (These facts I culled from German periodical sources: there are some uncited US claims that he finished his doctoral degree, but they are contradicted by German periodicals which bluntly state he didnt finish his degree.) Besides, if he had a Ph.D, the Jesuits would have put him into teaching at a theological faculty anyway. (In fact the 1st Pope since S. Pius X not to have a Ph.D—but S Pius X was cited as a brilliant student at his theological school, and only couldnt complete a doctorate because of his lack of means.) Lacking that skilled educational basis is why this pope issues these contradictory, ambiguous, conflicting statements. I think he has succeeded often in the Jesuits and as a leader in Argentina by relying on “visionary” credentials, but unless some serious thinkers pull him back into orbit, stormy weather is ahead.
Do not worry Father. Pope Francis is under the Care and protection of the Holy Ghost.
All will be well.
The Roman Catholic Church has become the Roman Kumbaya Church.
If PFI doesn”t want to “offend” or “alienate” anyone he should stop
teaching and preaching Cathol;ic principles and/or dogma.
Because these will offend somebody,somewhere,sometime,somehow.
All together now Kumbaya,Kumbaya,kumbaya.
Larry from RI You got that right. Somehow if we look back to the root of Christianity…..Jesus came to divide….yes that surely offends many to the point that they crucified Him all because of our sins.
Jesus said to his disciples:
“I have come to set the earth on fire,
and how I wish it were already blazing!
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized,
and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!
Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth?
No, I tell you, but rather division.
From now on a household of five will be divided,
three against two and two against three;
a father will be divided against his son
and a son against his father,
a mother against her daughter
and a daughter against her mother,
a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law
and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”
Abeca, thank you for reminding us why Jesus came. So many in the Church today now erroneously believe a false Gospel which says that Christianity is about spreading the message of “tolerance” and “unity”. This talk about Jesus dividing households and being made subject to a gruesome death in atonement for our sins is just too “uncomfortable” for civilized man to hear.
Tracy I agree. Also hank you for caring for souls…..I appreciate you
You know, all the bishop said was to teach people about Jesus Christ. And look how divided people are with that.
Anony didn’t you understand what Tracy just said? She is right you know. Teaching about Jesus does bring division because of free will…..because some will walk away, perhaps they don’t want to change and some will stay and persevere in His ways…..This life isn’t easy…I am getting weary…..God have mercy on all humanity…..I hate sin!
abeca, Tracy’s comment wasn’t posted. My reply was to your 7:42 post. The bishop preaches the Gospel. The pope preaches the Gospel. And you are correct, it divides. It separates the sheep from the goats. I have not heard at church a false gospel of tolerance and unity. I don’t know where you guys go to church.
Anonymous, are you saying that you have never ever heard “a false gospel of tolerance and unity” preached at your church? Please tell us what church you attend, I may just want to join you!
Of course, I never heard it at any of the Church’s I have attended. The homilies are always about the Gospel and other readings (except for visiting missionaries or the one Sunday that they try to increase donations.) There is a week of prayer for Christian unity in January, but I have never heard it preached about. What do they do at your parish?
I’d be interested to find this ‘jewel’ as well, Tracy. I’m afraid, it may only exist in the extremely well compartmentalized brain of a chosen few, but hey, if only…
Anonymous, the homily has several purposes, one being catechetical. When a Priest relays a “false” interpretation to the “True Gospel” then I would be confident to say that a false gospel is being “preached”. I hope this helps.
Again, if you know of a Catholic Church where a false gospel has never been preached, I would love to know about it and may even go out of my way to join you!
Anonymous, even IF the true interpretation of the Gospel IS preached, I would still contend that this would not necessarily negate the possibility of someone, after hearing the truth, choosing to believe a false gospel of “tolerance” and “unity”.
Tracy, does it have something to do with the people who attend your Church? Are you getting sermons like that because people are not getting along or something?
Anonymous, Do you know of a parish were everyone is on the same page? Do you know a parish where everyone is in perfect unity? Again, please tell me where this parish exist, I would love to join it!
Why wasn’t my Kristallnaccht comment posted?
The movement attempts to reconcile modern science and philosophy at the expense of the integrity of the Catholic faith. It has its roots in the Modernism condemned by Pope St. Pius X. Like its predecessor, it rejects belief in the supernatural and considers the Church only a human society. Among the main features of Neo-Modernism are the denial of original sin, the claim that Christ was only a human person, and that dogmas of faith are only verbal formulations whose meaning substantially changes with the times. In Neo-Modernism, the philosophies of Hegel and Heidegger replace that of St. Thomas Aquinas, and faith is reduced to a purely subjective experience, apart from an objective divine revelation and independent of the magisterium or teaching authority of the Church.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
In response to YFC’s comment 11/21/13 on Humanae Vitae & it’s “rejection”: Ahh, I see, YFC, so Catholic teaching on contraception and esp. Humanae Vitae (which re-affirms Casti Connubii, 1930) is to be set aside because of popular dissent. Arianism was also very popular at the time of Athanasius, so we should also be Arians, by that norm? So really the Pope and the Church can no longer teach and are stripped of their Magisterium, because of the advice of some “churchmen”, even Cardinals? Really? Since I believe you are a huge Vat2 proponent where do you find basis for that in the documents of Vat2? (Or: maybe we advert to Vat2 when convenient, then shuck it when it gets troublesome.) I think you are going to cite some ambiguous passages in Lumen Gentium, but even they state that “all the people” in union with all the bishops must hold a teaching that the Church has always held. [Lumen Gentium, n. 12: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the BISHOPS DOWN TO THE LAST OF THE LAY FAITHFUL” (emphasis mine) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals.” But later on (n. 15) even Lumen Gentium states that adherents must be in unity with the Chair of Peter. Hmmm.