Before I proceed I want to be clear about a few things. I do not think, as some radical traditionalists claim, that Pope Francis is a heretic. Nor do I think he is a false pope. I think Archbishop Vigano and his minions are full of it and I want nothing to do with him or his many promoters in the clickbait domain of self-aggrandizing, internet crackpots. I am a traditionalist in the ressourcement school of thought, which means I support Vatican II and the teachings of all of the post-conciliar popes, especially the teachings of Saint Pope John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI.
I am not a huge fan of the Novus Ordo and I think the reform of the liturgy was botched and in grave need of a wholesale overview and reform. Nevertheless, I support Mass in the vernacular and do not view the Novus Ordo with the depth of animosity and hostility one sees among some of the more visible promoters of the TLM. I like the TLM, but do not think it should ever again be the ordinary form of the Church’s liturgy. In short, I am no Pope Francis fan boy, but I also do not buy into the restorationist nonsense of his rad trad critics. Pope Francis has his fervent adherents and his fevered opponents. I am neither.
All that said, there is no doubt that at the very least the Francis papacy has been an enigma. On the one hand he has not granted to the liberal wing of the Church any of their deepest desires: Women priests, married priests, women deacons, a change in the teaching on contraception and homosexuality, intercommunion with Protestants, and a wholesale endorsement of divorce and remarriage, despite the famous footnote in Amoris. Furthermore, he has voiced deep concerns about the German synodal way and had the CDF issue a document warning the Germans that they cannot just plow ahead on their own path as if the broader Church does not exist.
He also speaks of Satan quite a bit, and the Virgin Mary, and often displays a thoroughly traditional form of piety. On the other hand, he seems genuinely to loathe traditional Catholics as evidenced by the ideologically driven and pastorally tone deaf Traditionis Custodes. He speaks of a Church of grassroots dialogue and of pastoral accompaniment and yet seems to want the traditional wing of the Church to just shut up and obey, or worse, to wither and die. His off-the-cuff remarks to journalists are often cringe-worthy to traditionalists and his penchant for passive-aggressive insults towards traditional prelates like Cardinal Burke (the “poor man” who was a vax denier got Covid, wink, wink, smile) bespeak a fundamental hostility toward the conservative wing of the Church, not to mention a certain level of just sheer pettiness. And then, of course, there are the constant insults and caricatures directed at seminarians and young priests who are more traditional who he frequently mentions as in the grips of some kind of emotional and psychological immaturity.
Therefore, I have for the most part stopped paying attention to what he says and instead pay attention to what he does. His words are all over the map and inconsistent to the point of incoherence. What he says on one day is contradicted on the next and so pinning your analysis of his papacy on his words is like standing on a sand dune in a hurricane. But his actions have a sharper clarity since they seem to trend in a single direction: the re-empowerment of a form of post Vatican II progressivism. In a previous blog I described Pope Francis as follows:
“Pope Francis seems to sympathize with the progressive wing of the Church but does not have, in my view, a deep enough understanding of what their project really entails. He seems to have the mistaken view that Catholic liberals in 2020 are the same as liberals in 1958, and seems genuinely disappointed when they behave more like secular critical theory provocateurs rather than Yves Congar. His whole thought-world seems to be that of a man who thinks the Church is still this insulated, neo-scholastic “fortress” whose walls need to be battered down, even as he stands astride their rubble.
He is fighting yesterday’s battles which underscores my point that we are most definitely not in a “third phase” of conciliar reception, but have instead been teleported by this papacy back to 1965 forcing those of us in the ressourcement camp to re-litigate a case that was decided, with magisterial authority, by the previous two popes. Perhaps this has been his end game all along. Perhaps he is not as naïve as I think. Perhaps he wants to re-open that case precisely because he wants it adjudicated differently but does not want to be the presiding judge, allowing “drift” to accomplish what papal fiat cannot. He is, after all, a Jesuit.”
That was written last year and events since then have only deepened my conviction that Pope Francis is an unreconstructed post-Vatican II liberal. If you look at his episcopal and curial appointments, as well as those in the curia whom he has sacked, what emerges is a clear pattern of favoring the progressive wing of the Church. What I said above about Pope Francis wanting to change the Church via a kind of “drift” is, in my opinion, the best interpretation of his actions. What he wants to do is to change the Church most radically but to do so in a manner that avoids schism. His beef, therefore, with the German synodal way is, in my view, more about his desire to avoid such a schism (because he knows to enact abruptly what the Germans want would create such a schism most certainly) rather than about a deep disagreement with the Germans on the topics at hand, although I do think he disagrees with some of their proposals. This is precisely why he does not simply put the kibosh on the whole affair and nip the insanity in the bud.
As Traditionis Custodes demonstrated, Pope Francis is not above disciplining movements within the Church with which he clearly disapproves. But there stand the Germans, unencumbered by any such papal sanctions, and ready to ordain “monogamous” (sic) married lesbians and to hand out the Eucharist to Protestants like schnitzel at a Munich Oktoberfest. To be fair, Pope Francis did strengthen the sanctions in canon law for anyone who dares to ordain a woman (excommunication) which strikes me as a shot across the bow of the German synodal tug boat. Nevertheless, one gets the definite sense that for Pope Francis there are no enemies to the Left of him, only well-meaning folks who may be just a bit too exuberant. But on the Catholic Right he sees nothing but dangerous and immature “fundamentalists” who oppose him and who need to be put in the ecclesial cry room along with all of the other colicky conservatives.
So is the Pope being deceptive when he makes statements that sound very orthodox and conservative? Is he lying then when he says he endorses Humanae Vitae’s condemnation of contraception, and that he thinks the modern sexual revolution is a form of ideological colonization that has its origins in Satan? Is he crossing his fingers and smiling to himself when he says he adheres to the Church’s traditional teaching on the indissolubility of marriage? Is he just being clever in a devious way when he says that we cannot give the Eucharist to Protestants even if they are married to Catholics?
In a word: no. He is being honest when he says that he holds to those things as proper moral and spiritual ideals. And therein is precisely the problem. The Pope’s concerns are not focused on theological precision, but on pastoral application. And in the service of the latter he sacrifices the former, reducing the teachings of the Church, especially on moral matters, to mere “ideals” that do indeed act as proper teleological goals but not as binding moral commandments requiring confession, conversion and true repentance when we fail them. This is why Pope Francis routinely, and wrongly, pits doctrine against mercy, truth against compassion, and treats the commandments as “rules” that are pharisaical when applied with anything approaching a robust rigor. The “field hospital” metaphor for the Church is a good one, and I endorse it most heartily, but field hospitals are extensions of real hospitals and their goal is to heal and to restore to health. And a hospital that treats health as a mere “ideal” that is impossible to achieve for most “ordinary people,” and leaves them as they are, is no real hospital at all but a hospice.
What Pope Francis is guilty of, as we see clearly in Amoris Laetitia, is a deep ambiguity with regard to what is called the law of moral gradualism. There are two kinds of gradualism, one legitimate, and one clearly condemned by Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor. The first kind, endorsed by John Paul, is the simple recognition that we all approach our conformity to Christ from different starting points and with different levels of success. A good pastor of souls thus accompanies the seeker on this path, softly, softly, so as not to crush the bruised reed, and is fully aware of the weaknesses presented. A good pastor knows when to apply pressure to the wound but also knows when a strong intervention might, in the short run, do more damage than that caused by the moral illness in question. It is more art than science and requires compassion, mercy, patience, and endless forgiveness. But in the end, the pastor also knows that God’s moral law has been revealed to us for our benefit, not our woe, and that it is ultimately liberative and healing. The good pastor thus knows that no compromise with sin can or should be made since to do so is a false mercy and the pseudo compassion of a condescending attitude that views the sinner as incapable of transformation. May God bless such pastors.
The second kind of gradualism, often referred to as the gradualism of law, is explicitly condemned by Pope John Paul II, also in Veritatis. This form of gradualism is in reality a kind of situation ethics where a person’s individual circumstances are so mitigating that it renders the person morally inculpable for their actions. Indeed, not only are they inculpable, but since this is “the best that they can do” in the given circumstances, it is also what God wills for them at that moment. In other words, the actions in question may not only be non-culpable, but are actually now transformed by the circumstances into positively good moral actions. The moral law itself is thus intrinsically and constitutively “graduated” into degrees of perfection rather than as prohibitions against certain actions as objectively intrinsically evil. This is the path advocated by so many post Vatican II moral theologians and which was strongly rejected by Pope John Paul II, and was countered as well by certain heroic moral theologians such as Germain Grisez and Janet Smith. Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia says that he too rejects this kind of gradualism, but it is hard to see how he can avoid the charge that this is indeed what he is arguing for given certain comments he makes in the text.
In an excellent essay in Catholic World Report, theologian Eduardo Echeverria makes this same point about Amoris and does so forcefully and with precision. What he says is worthy of a full and lengthy citation since he says here exactly what I am trying to convey:
“And yet in AL 303 and 305, he suggests that a person not only may be doing the best that he can, but also that such acts therefore are not sinful and hence are right for that person, because the person, in his mitigating circumstances, fulfills the ideal as applied by that individual in those limiting circumstances. This way of thinking was unavoidable because throughout AL Francis apparently emphasizes the “ideal” nature of the normative order of marriage and family life.
But how can God be asking one to do X when X is contrary to his will? The pope must think that X is not contrary to the will of God in that specific circumstance, but only contrary to God’s ideal will which the person is inculpable for not attaining.
So, with all due respect to Francis, I think that he does imply support for the “gradualness of the law” and hence by implication opens the door to a “situation ethics….”
All of the foregoing is just one, long, preamble to the main topic of this blog post. Namely, the destruction of the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family in Rome. And make no mistake about it, the Institute has been destroyed due to a series of moves by Pope Francis to eliminate the former leadership of the Institute as well as several noteworthy faculty of high caliber who were summarily sacked without proper due academic process. And they have all been replaced by people who subscribe to some version of the gradualism of law noted above.
In a motu proprio Pope Francis changed the name of the Institute to the, “Pontifical John Paul II Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences,” signaling a desire to change the focus to include greater attention to the contributions of the social sciences. But this is puzzling in the extreme since there was no lack of such social analysis in the previous curriculum. One can only surmise, therefore, that it was decided at the highest levels that it was the “wrong kind” of social analysis since it was being used to buttress the concept of inviolable moral truths rooted in the Divine “givenness” of the teleology of our created nature.
Apparently, this had to be eliminated and replaced with social analysis that emphasizes the fluidity and fungibility of our nature in order to further the notion that no moral norms are permanently etched in stone. As such, it represents a nod in the direction of modern secularity that is deeply problematic. The new faculty and President are on record saying that the natural law must always be “rethought” anew in the light of changing circumstances, and have used this “rethinking” to openly call into question the Church’s traditional teaching on contraception and homosexual unions. I do not wish to go into all of the details since many before me have done so admirably. Suffice it to say that I am not exaggerating and I am not attacking a straw man. What I have described is what has happened. For an excellent overview see the recent article by the journalist Edward Pentin.
Several former faculty members have gone on record to say that the Institute has indeed been radically altered to the point where it no longer reflects the vision of its namesake and have asked that his name be removed from the title of the Institute, but to no avail. Apparently, it is important to the new leadership that its changed orientation be masked over by the patina of the former pontiff in order to give off the illusion of continuity. The new Institute should actually be renamed the “Amoris Laetitia Institute” since that is the real vision it now seeks to promote rather than the vision of Veritatis Splendor. But deceptive marketing takes precedence as enrollments continue to plummet. It will probably be only a matter of time before the entire enterprise sinks under the waves of the tempest created by the changes, but that may have been the goal all along.
I have chosen to write on this topic because I am troubled by the fact that most of the attention with regard to Amoris has focused on the now infamous footnote 351, all the while ignoring the true timebomb located in its pages. And that timebomb has now exploded in the demolition of the John Paul II Institute. This is why I made light of all of the hoopla surrounding the so-called “heresies” of Pope Francis since I think such accusations are not only false, but distract from the deeper malaise that afflicts this papacy. The world in which we live today – – a world gone insane through its now open rejection of the formal structure of creation – – does not need yet one more Christian Church that preaches the Gospel of the therapeutic, bourgeois, self. The destruction of the Institute might seem trivial in the eyes of many. It might seem to be just one more of the thousands of “reforms” inflicted upon the modern Church by quislings in the hierarchy. But it is not trivial in the slightest. It is a very big deal owing to what it portends. And what it portends is a Church that has thrown its hat into the ring of insanity and joined in on the cathartic party of libidinous “liberation.” Earnest and honest seekers of truth in this modern insanity have every right to expect the Church to hold firm and to lard the Church’s pantry with the bread of truth. Instead, the Church now gives out stones and asks us to bed down with the vipers.
Saint Pope John Paul II understood the crisis we face. He understood that this is a titanic struggle between the forces of the Gospel and the anti-Gospel, with the nature of the family in the crosshairs. And he further understood that the Catholic Church is the last great hope for the world to avert catastrophe in a technocratic and dystopian future governed by a collective of concupiscence. Therefore, he started the Institute, and the brave Cardinal Caffarra collaborated in its founding. It was, of course, never popular with the espresso and croissant crowd of prissy ecclesiastics, but it stayed the course and produced enormously beneficial fruits. Its founding showed that Pope John Paul II “gets it.” Its destruction shows that those now in charge do not.
The destruction of the Institute in the furtherance of a false and anti-Gospel view of gradualism is a questing after the comfort pillow or Teddy Bear of a false mercy. It is honey laced arsenic and is the toxic Kool Aid of a deep and deceptive despair. And it is deceptive because it comes dressed in the garb of hope, promising happy times galore, even as it hollows out our souls. It reminds me of Dostoevsky’s “Grand Inquisitor” who berated Christ for giving us freedom and for expecting too much from us. What the Inquisitor offers instead is the illusion of a shiny thing: the security of material comfort and a conscience left alone. Not for us is the epic adventure of holiness, with all of its travails and failures. What we need, says the Inquisitor, is Cardinal Kasper’s gated and guarded sandbox of safe, bourgeois, mediocrity. What we need is to be told that our so-called “sins” are merely the idiosyncratic quirks of our personalities which are the true markers of our brave new “identity” as children of the “safe spaces” carved out for us by our zookeepers. No thank you. I seek Christ and Him crucified, despite all of my manifest and grotesque moral failings, and I now plead with the Church to raise the battle banner of chivalrous holiness once again, and to blow the trumpet of salvation.
I do not think Pope Francis is a heretic. But I do think that he is deeply and disastrously wrong about some important things. And with regard to the Institute, he is most definitely deeply wrong. We can argue until the cows come home about this or that ambiguous statement from Pope Francis. But his actions with regard to the Institute are very unambiguous. And in my mind, that destruction is the hermeneutical key to understanding this pontificate. I pray that I am not only wrong, but profoundly so. But I don’t think that I am. Of course, I rarely think that I am wrong. So there’s that.
Dorothy Day, pray for us
Saint Pope John Paul II, pray for us
The above comes from an Oct. 21 segment of Gaudium et Spes 22, a blog by Larry Chapp.
tldr
Well I did, and this author meanders and almost apologizes that he doesn’t like what Pope Francis is doing. Me neither, and without apology or throwing shade onto Pope Francis, who will go down in history as one of the worst to occupy the Chair of St. Peter.
The gates of hell will not prevail, so be faithful and keep heart as we accompany the Church in this her passion.
“Pope Francis, who will go down in history as one of the worst to occupy the Chair of St. Peter.”
DV…I’m troubled by the Popes ideology, but either you’re just being dramatic to make a point or you really have not read the history of how bad a pope can be. What possible criteria could you be using to make that statement?
A deeply thoughtful article. Larry Chapp is on record as denying that Pope Francis is a heretic but at the same time saying his actions with regard to the institute show a “Church that has thrown its hat into the ring of insanity and joined in on the cathartic party of libidinous “liberation.” ” If “.., that destruction is the hermeneutical key to understanding this pontificate…” how far on the heresy scale does this destruction go? I think it is a fair and honest question, and I do not know the answer. In other words, how far do the Pope’s actions with respect to the institute, which “…represents a nod in the direction of modern secularity that is deeply problematic…” go on the heresy scale? I also want to ask why Chapp has chosen the Institute to be the hermeneutical key to this pontificate? Are his actions herein the clearest and most obvious indication that we have a troubled papacy? I would argue not. His actions with regard to Communist China are IMO a far greater indicator of the present malaise in the Vatican. With Chapp, I hope I am wrong in all this. I know Jon will tell me so. So there it is.
This is not just for Dan.
Pope Francis represents Jesus.
Who are you? Are you doubting Thomas?
Are you the Pharisees who are always looking for a reason to accuse Him?
Are you Mary Magdalene or Mary His Mother, faithfully following Him and accompanying Him with your love and prayers?
Are you the scribes, who think they know more than He does and test Him?
Are you Peter remonstrating Him for saying something you don’t want to hear?
Are you just a follower who listens to him?
Are you someone who stands beneath His Cross mourning?
Are you someone who repeats made up stories like the guards?
Are you the good thief asking Him to remember you or are you the bad thief trying to use him for your own ends?
You can be more than one depending on the circumstances.
What you do to the Pope you do to Jesus.
“What you do to the Pope you do to Jesus.” Proverbs 27:6 ” Wounds from a sincere friend are better than many kisses from an enemy.” Maybe Francis’ true friends are nor always apparent. Maybe there is something deeper than facile agreement in one’s allegiance to the Pope.
Of course there is more than facile agreement in one’s duty of obedience to the Pope.
I have no idea why you would use the word “allegiance”. That seems odd to me.
You quote from Proverbs is Truth. Sincere friends don’t post bunk about you on the Internet.
Most of the time when people write about the Pope, they just show their own ignorance. It provides the opportunity for them to be corrected.
If you are sincerely concerned about a writing of the Pope, you should speak to your pastor about it to see if he can help you understand. If you want to, you can contact the person directly.
Don’t put it on the Internet where you could cause someone else to commit sin. Avoid those who do.
The devil tempts everyone.
me– the Saints are our truest representations of Christ. A Pope just occupies the Chair of St. Peter. Some popes have been great and holy Saints– and some have even been great sinners! A few were corrupt with power, money and women– even fathering illegitimate children! Some have served diabolical, secular worldly political powers, pursuits and interests. Not all popes, since the days of St. Peter, have been good, devout, practicing Catholics. Some were “wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing,” as Christ predicted. In reading historical accounts of papal elections throughout history– we see the worldly interests of kings and princess carried iinto the closed conclaves, influencing papal elections, for their own interests. Our current pope does not seem to be a very gifted, devout Catholic leader. And although he may defend Catholic teaching at times– he has a great deal of interest to influence and corrupt the Church with ungodly (even heretical!) secular ideas and beliefs.
I think our current pope is very gifted, very devout and has the odor of sanctity.
Why did Nancy Pelosi get so overwhelmed when she met him?
He is not trying to corrupt the Church.
Don’t believe what you read about him on bad websites.
It is generally agreed that there were 10 bad Popes in Catholic history.
Pope Francis is a good Pope.
Only the last 3 Popes have had to deal with the Internet and since Pope Francis does not use the Internet, he is not playing the try to look good on social media game.
The Pope is the vicar of Christ. The Internet distorts what he says and the media just does not get it.
I do not share your positive opinion of the current pope, and believe Pelosi got emotional because she is unwilling to repent, and she knows she should.
The pope himself chooses to be interviewed by Scalfari, a 97 year old atheist who doesn’t record or take notes, and the Vatican never corrects his reporting, scandalous as it is. The rest of the media fawn all Francis so don’t know what you’re on about but pray for him because he is in desperate need of it.
me– very naive! The current pope cannot possibly compare, intellectually or in true, honest Catholic faith and devotion, nor in sanctity, to any of his recent predecessors, of the last 100 years! You and the current pope and Nancy Pelosi are are all on the wrong track, as Catholics…
Some Popes are good, there have been 8 bad popes.
me– look for Christ amongst the Saints. Just think of all the potential popes, amongst all in the College of Cardinals. Think of the worst case, maybe– an unChrist-like, dangerous “wolf-amongst-the- sheep,” such as a younger, middle-aged “Theodore McCarrick,” possibly elected as a pope. Could be worse…
Pope Francis is a disrupter. Conservatives love former President Trump for his “disrupter approach” to governing. Liberals like Pope Francis for his statements about issues important to them. The difference is the Pope can take very little action in making changes in the Church.
Another bold comment: “The destruction of the Institute in the furtherance of a false and anti-Gospel view of gradualism is a questing after the comfort pillow or Teddy Bear of a false mercy. It is honey laced arsenic and is the toxic Kool Aid of a deep and deceptive despair. And it is deceptive because it comes dressed in the garb of hope, promising happy times galore, even as it hollows out our souls.”
Anti-gospel? toxic Kool-Aid? Deceptive? Hollows our souls? Chapp is describing what Satan proffers in place of true grace and mercy. If Chapp is correctly describing the Institute’s direction, and if this is the hermeneutical key to understanding this pontificate, and that is a big if, then every Catholic has an obligation to oppose Francis in this particular regard. Not in all matters, but in this devolving Catholic morality into situational ethics, unless of course the desired outcome of the reader is along the lines of the Anglican church which reached this point long ago. The statements Francis has made, and acknowledged earlier in Chapp’s article, show Francis desires no such outcome. But how is he to avoid it?
He should not use the jargon of schismatics. Mass is Mass not NO. This is a sign of the leakage of schismatic thought into the Catholic faithful.
I do not think the Pope loathes traditional Catholics or any other Catholic. I think he wants them to obey the Lord.
There is a narcissistic error where since the Pope wants to listen and accompany and meet people where they are (like Jesus) that the Pope is supposed to accompany the faithful who, for whatever reason, are not really doing what Jesus said to do. If you are not in mortal sin, he has better things to do for God than listen to you. You should be out there listening and accompanying people who are in mortal sin or who do not know Christ or do not know the Church. If you encounter a problem, you will probably find a solution in the Pope’s writings or angelus addresses or homilies. “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.” Matthew 9: 12-13
“And yet in AL 303 and 305, he suggests that a person not only may be doing the best that he can, but also that such acts therefore are not sinful and hence are right for that person, because the person, in his mitigating circumstances, fulfills the ideal as applied by that individual in those limiting circumstances.
He did not say that in 303 and 305.
For everyone: :”303. Recognizing the influence of such concrete factors, we can add that individual conscience needs to be better incorporated into the Church’s praxis in certain situations which do not objectively embody our understanding of marriage. Naturally, every effort should be made to encourage the development of an enlightened conscience, formed and guided by the responsible and serious discernment of one’s pastor, and to encourage an ever greater trust in God’s grace. Yet conscience can do more than recognize that a given situation does not correspond objectively to the overall demands of the Gospel. It can also recognize with sincerity and honesty what for now is the most generous response which can be given to God, and come to see with a certain moral security that it is what God himself is asking amid the concrete complexity of one’s limits, while yet not fully the objective ideal. In any event, let us recall that this discernment is dynamic; it must remain ever open to new stages of growth and to new decisions which can enable the ideal to be more fully realized.
I think Chapp is referring to “and come to see … realized.”
Thank you for posting the quote. Now we can easily see where the author interprets rather than accurately states what the Pope said.
Where does it say it is not sinful as the author claims? it does not.
Does he say it is right for that person? No.
Does he say that the person fulfills the ideal? No
Remember the old game of “telephone.” By the time everybody repeats what they hear to another person, it is no longer what was said.
If you do not understand what the Pope is saying here, think about some of the celebrities who have not fulfilled the ideal. Examples:
I have been married 3 times and I have four kids all from the third husband. Do you tell me to go back to my first husband who physically and emotionally abused me?
I have seven children from 4 different women. My ex-wife has my oldest two children. I was her second husband. She was the second wife of her first husband who had been married before her and has married since and he and his current wife have 2 children. Do you tell me to go back to my first wife? but she is supposed to go back to her first husband so now what?
I am a woman who is divorced twice. I did not want to divorce my first husband. He and I both slept with whoever we wanted and it was fine with both of us. I divorced him because the tax situation got complicated and my accountant said it was the smart thing to do. We hadn’t lived together in years. He remarried but never had any kids. My second husband divorced me because of my substance abuse. My one child is from a man that I never married. I now live alone close to my daughter.
Yes it is all sinful. There is no way to achieve the ideal. So pray over what God would have me do. Our punishment for sin is that we have to live in sin.
No, you don’t “have to live in sin”, but you live with the consequences of your sin. Make a full and good confession, God forgives, pray for the grace to forgive yourself.
The website took my post before I was finished. I was going back to change that to live with our sin. So I give it to the Lord. I was thinking about it a lot after I posted.
A couple uses birth control throughout their marriage. Then the wife gets religion and does not want to do it anymore. The husband then insists that he will use the birth control and she has to submit to her husband.
You realize that your marriage is adultery but all your kids love your husband and he is a good husband and father. You have it great but there is that nagging guilt about what you should have done differently.
Even in a first marriage, where you had sex before marriage, you always wonder what would it be like if we had waited?
What if you had not been a victim of other’s sins, which they blamed you for?
Life has a lot of choices and nobody gets them all correct but you are right about confession and God’s forgiveness but forgiving yourself is harder.
To the poster identifying as “me”, be concise, stop rambling. This is not a confessional, you cannot find forgiveness here, speak to a priest in confession for that.
For what?
All those sins you confessed in your 12:39 pm post. Word of advice, this is not the place for your confession. It’s not all about you here.
Wow, have I had a busy life! LOL!!!
None of it’s about me.
It is all about the Pope.
Are you the revamped Christifidelis?
No, I am not.
No, he is not.
Ok so I saw the question “Are you the revamped Christifidelis?” and I did not answer it because I didn’t know who RU was saying it to. Now I see someone posted as me saying No, I am not so I would suspect that was Christifidelis.
If people are going to pretend to be other posters cant we just get the default back?
Well, I don’t understand why people have to attack each other so personally in these comments sections, which are supposedly moderated to reduce that nonsense. If a person wants to engage on a topic – to agree or disagree – shouldn’t they engage the topic and not be so personal about it? I was never a fan of much of what Christifidelis wrote. Some if was great, but much of it was too much, but, so what? What’s the big deal that makes some people turn on her personally? Someone here has badgered her of of using her pseudonym, now you are badgering people about whether they are really the pseudonym by another pseudonym. Doesn’t seem to me the personal attacks that go on here is helpful for anything, and certainly not for the cause of evangelization of the unbaptized and unchurched.
Invoking pro-Communist Dorothy Day?
That says it all.
Calling Dorothy Day pro-communist is reductive.
I say this in the most charitable way possible, folks, but after having heard two recent and very dubious recommendations from “Dan,” are you really going to take his word this time that Chapp’s is a “deeply thoughtful article”? First, there was his recommendation of Montagna’s talk which turned out to be disastrous for his credibility. I mean, Montagna confused herself and her listeners with these bureaucratic reports and hadn’t even read in its entirety any of them herself. Second was his disastrous misinterpretation of Amoris Laetitia’s article 297, saying falsely (very falsely) that it’s about hell. That thud thudded like no other thud before it. I mean honestly, don’t you think that the Holy Father’s detractors and critics are just ready to jump at any word of his that they can unjustly misconstrue as heretical, or false, or un-Catholic, or whatever current criticism they have of him? The devil hates the Church so much that he can influence a bunch of people (in the media and those with blogs) to take the Holy Father’s words, twist them, and represent the regurgitated words to the world in order for folks like “Dan” to hate him. What’s created is a false image of who Pope Francis truly is. Beware people. Beware.
Chapp’s article stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of “Dan,” which is my real name. He raised the issue and I thought his claims were very much worth considering. Notice carefully that I ended my post with a question as to how Francis can change the Church in a way that does not mimic the Anglicans in their moral stances. That is an honest question, and not an easy one to answer, if Chapp’s article has merit. I also posted section 303, since Chapp relies on this for his analysis. It is not easy to interpret this section, as also section 297, whose implications are not clear to everyone. Montagna’s research stands or falls on its own merits as well; let the reader consider how well she has made her case. Neither “Dan” nor Jon has the final word. Oh, and “Dan” does not hate Pope Francis, but prays for him and all the Church. If I speak ill of some of his actions it is because I believe these actions to be blameworthy. Gutting the Institute is just one of these actions I find reprehensible, but I am not ready to grant the significance Chapp does to this state of affairs. It is, as I have said, capable of question and deep pondering, especially by those better suited for such analysis than I.
Gutting the Church?
The way you interpret things is not correct.
Please take the corrections.
Before you comment or criticize the Pope (The Pope!!!!), try harder to understand him. You get it all wrong.
I think most people are tldr. And I agree that the attacks on the Church and on the Pope are of demonic origin. They began before Pope Francis during the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI. Back then it was attacks on bishops and a few priests.
I warned people then and I notified my bishop. As the Internet influencing became easier and more profitable, it spread even faster. I do not know if the author of this article or “Dan” have any idea what they are a part of.
” I do not know if the author of this article or “Dan” have any idea what they are a part of.” “Dan” is well aware of the need to criticize responsibly those actions of others that have world-wide impact for the Church. If I am wrong, and the actions are not detrimental to the Church, show me where I am wrong, that is, how the actions are not detrimental to the Church, and I shall be gladly corrected. And I mean that sincerely. From “Dan,” otherwise known as Dan.
That is a temptation. You harm the Church. You harm souls.
“That is a temptation. You harm the Church. You harm souls.” 1. what is the referent to “that”? 2. How is the Church harmed by questioning the actions of its leaders, if the actions are questionable? 3. How are souls harmed by honest questioning of actions taken by its leaders ? I should think the lack of same poses a greater damage to souls. True, slander is another matter; this surely harms souls, especially but not exclusively that of the slanderer. But slander is also in the eye of the beholder, that is, accusations of slander may accompany a viewpoint with which one is in basic disagreement. Then the charge of slander may not rest on solid ground. I think Chapp sees the good in Pope Francis and the bad in his critics, and has stated so plainly. This does not preclude his criticizing the Pope’s actions with regard to the Institute, which is what all this is about in the first place. If I can appreciate the good in Francis without abandoning my critical faculties (ever in need of fine tuning) this I shall try to do.
https://www.hprweb.com/2019/04/is-it-virtuous-to-criticize-the-pope/
We can question in humility, recognizing that it is our lack of knowledge, wisdom, understanding, piety and fear of the Lord that is the cause of the question.
Souls are not harmed by honest, humble questions. They are helped. Criticism and arguments should be avoided. Any question that is really meant to undermine the Pope and cast doubt on him or his writings harms the Church and souls by fostering doubt. Willful doubts are a sin.
If an explanation is needed, it is usually given without being asked. Ours is not to question why but to trust God and the Pope.
But you say, “if the actions are questionable”, which already indicated that you doubt.
If you will look at the authors criticism of the Pope’s actions regarding the JPII Institute you will see words which indicate that the author is speculating and accusing the Pope recklessly.
Had he gotten to the point more quickly and questioned rather than accused, it would have been better. His analysis is based on his own fears for the world and for the Church, not on anything His whole point is based on the assumption that Pope Francis actually believes in and is a proponent of something that he previously condemned.
We are living in the greatest social upheaval since the 1960s. There are different approaches. The Church exists to evangelize. All the battering of the Pope does is interfere with that.
The Lord has shown me that something else is really going on with both the author and you. He didn’t show me what. He took me to a page on a book about a wounded heart. is it really the Pope or is the Pope just being used as a substitute for the person who betrayed you in your personal life?
You don’t need to tell us.
There is another who, when he started, it was very easy to see where the wounds came from but so much time has passed that it is all covered up now and his behavior has become definitional of himself so no one now even asks why is this person doing this. It has become what people expect of him. Those who did not approve of his behavior have abandoned him. Those who do approve have ended up in a mutual exploitation and co-dependent relationship. He will have no reason to address his issues, in terms of the world. God will have to do something to wake him up and it scares me.
Catholics who constantly criticize the Pope and his actions and teachings could be falling into sins against charity and even against faith. “Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me” (Luke 10:16). A person who has difficulties with a Holy Father should turn to prayer and ask the Holy Spirit for light and guidance. Faith sheds light on even the darkest corners of skepticism.
https://rcspirituality.org/ask_a_priest/ask-priest-questioning-pope-says/
Enough Christi.
To the person who is posting as Me Me Me, stop being so rude and mean. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. The world does not revolve around you.
Me Me Me– the poster “me” is NOT “Christi.” Stop getting the two confused. “Christi” is not a fan of the current pope nor a fan of liberal modernist beliefs. “Christi” is much older, with conservative, traditional beliefs.
“I am concerned about the confidences of the Virgin to the little Lucia of Fatima. The persistence of the Good Lady in face of the danger that threatens the Church is a divine warning against the suicide that the modification of the Faith, liturgy, theology, and soul of the Church would represent.”
Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (future Pius XII)
He’s only offering a hypothetical since the Church has the Divine Promise of indefectibility,
so what ever changes are evident they’re not Hers, nor were they engendered by any member of Her ranks….purely counterfeit.
Could you source that quote please or at least give some context
“I have for the most part stopped paying attention to what he says” this is wrong. You do not need to know what he says on a day to day basis, or what he says on in-flight interviews or what he says to an atheist reporter who does not take notes.
If you are faithful Catholic,layperson and all the people around you are faithful Catholics, you could be able to go your whole life without knowing what the Pope or the Vatican says.
But if you are faced with a situation where you need answers or support or there is a old situation with new temptations, you can get help from them.
Like if someone asks you a question that you never thought about before or there are people at Church who disagree on something or you priest says something that seems off.
“But I don’t think that I am. Of course, I rarely think that I am wrong. So there’s that” is itself the sin of pride which casts a shadow on a lot of what was written. However, I agree that there is value in Vatican II and we should allow both forms of the mass to continue and flourish- or not! Why not? There are 22 “churches” that make up the Catholic Church and many of them have thier own mass. To deny the TLM is just mean and goes against the so-called “humble loving inclusive” image this Pope has so Jesuitically fostered. The Holy Spirit will decide which form of the mass is to be the “normal” form. If we look at the number of attendance, medium age, and other factors that, in research, predict trends, the TLM is clearly the one the Holy Spirit is asking us to engage.
I read the first three or four paragraphs of all the things the writer claims he/she is and is not. What a blowhard. Thus, I read nothing more. Don’t think I’ll bother to read any of the comments, either. Did I miss anything?
Yah, the left leaning Catholic writer thinks Pope Francis is making lots of mistakes, and he is.
Watch out, because who knows the character and honesty of any in the College of Cardinals, who may be elected Pope? Some in high positions of the Catholic Church, centuries ago, were even non-believers and atheists, put into office by political rulers! What if someone like one of the “bad popes” of history, got elected tomorrow? How many foolish Catholics will “kow-tow” to even a “Theodore McCarrick” (or worse!) — simply because of the title?? It is traditional to bow with respect due to the occupant of St. Peter’s Chair– but not to the actual man– only to the office. Faithful Catholic Cardinals in power– plus, a million eyes of the watchful, inside and outside of the Church, must always keep a close watch– especially for our children, and for the vulnerable– it is a big responsibility! No “wolves amongst the sheep!” Watch carefully!
Well that could sure happen since Cupich is now a Cardinal.
We should all respect those in authority positions, including the Pope, the head of the Catholic Church. But you don’t have to agree with everything the Pope says. Just be a good, devout, practicing Catholic. And be respectful and polite to the Pope, if you should ever meet him. For example, if I were at the Vatican, and the Pope invited me to joim his “Pachamama” ceremony– I would say “thank you,” but would politely decline the offer. Then, depending on the situation, I might add, that I don’t go along with “Pachamama” rituals and beliefs. Others might also add their opinions, politely. Everyone should be polite, friendly, but have their own thoughts and opinions. And if I was with the Pope, socially, and he said to me that he believes “gay civil unions” are ‘just fine”– again, I would politely disagree, with good manners. And the Pope will do the same thing, with you. Respect and politeness– good manners– are due to everyone, in every position in life, big or small.
The Pope did not have a Pachamama ceremony. He showed up at an event, saw the Pachamama, prayed the Our Father and left.
He allowed it. Perhaps at that time he did not know they were idols even though the people and one Franciscan were prostrating themselves before them; nevertheless later it seems he apologized to the idolaters when the idols were thrown into the Tiber. If that is so, it seems to indicate his approval, and by then he should have known they were idols. That is one of the things that I find so confusing about this pope.
Regarding my last post, I find Pope Francis sends way too many mixed messages. For that reason I, too, try to ignore him as much as possible. and we do not have to do everything a priest, bishop or any other prelate tell us to do if it is wrong.
As an example: Should a married women have an affair with a prelate if he told her she has to obey him or lose her soul, or that it is “God’s will”? The answer is: Of course not. Some people need to start using their heads about all this.
Yes, the pope had a ceremony outdoors, in the Vatican Gardens, with the Pachamama idols– and it was filmed. Everyone around the world has seen this scandalous event in the news, along with photos and films of the event.
No cton October 26, 2021 at 1:38 am, it is some of the actions of the Pope that bother me. But yes, every heart of every person I have ever met has wounds, and one could easily use this as a fall back explanation for a person’s motivations. One who grieves over the Pope’s actions on certain matters already delineated would ipso facto have a wounded heart, else the grief would not be real. And one could surmise, usually with a good chance of being right, that there are other events in one’s past which intensify one’s emotional reaction to present realities. But to reduce objections to Pope Francis’ actions to the psychology of the objector is reprehensible regardless of the influence prior wounds might have. It is the actions themselves which must undergo scrutiny, and no amount of arm-chair psychology can obscure this.
Duly noted. I do remember the 80s when it was very distressing at a local parish level. The new missal fixed a lot of that. I do think that peace is a fruit of the Holy Spirit and if we are not at peace it is because we are not accepting the Holy Spirit on some level.
If we really believed that Jesus is the head of the Church, that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, would we be distressed? If we really believed that all things happen by the Will of God, would we be upset? “We know that all things work for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” Romans 8:28
If you look at your go-to triggers in your family, work, community, church…is it always the same thing or things that upset you. Someone doing something you think is harmful (and you may be right)? Some form of injustice? A feeling of being unheard or uncared for? Things that you think are not according to the rules?
Betrayal is hugely distressing for people with its Infidelity and dishonesty. I feel like that might be behind some of the things I have read online. Some people feel like they need to monitor this Pope because he is really up to something not good.
A thoughtful post, cton. It prompts me to ask: should one be distressed at betrayal, if the betrayal is demonstrable? I suppose it depends on what components of “distressed” are, well, stressed. If distress is understood as anxiety, then the real question is whether anxiety can be good. St. Paul expressed anxiety over the churches II Cor 11:28 as he feared for their survival. We must presume it is right for the apostle to feel anxiety over their possible loss even though he affirms elsewhere that God works all things together for good, as you noted. Does Cardinal Zen feel anxiety over the disastrous accord the Vatican made with the evil dictator Xi Jinping? (yes, evil) Is the state of the Church at present upsetting? If it is not in some way upsetting, considering the loss of faith, the behavior of a few bad clerics etc. that is as much to say the Church’s sins are not upsetting. But God grieves over sin Ephesians 4:30. What of all this? “Some people feel like they need to monitor this Pope because he is really up to something not good.” I think one can have anxiety over some of what Pope Francis has done, and rejoice in other things.
Distress can be anxiety, anger, concern. I think Paul in the verse you mentioned wasn’t concerned about their survival as much as them being misled. If you look ahead of that verse you will see the context. His concern is our concern today. On another article there was a link to a letter from a priest in Palm Springs that would not happen where I live. If it did, there would be no end of people letting the bishop know about it.
I think the Lord has reassured us that He will not leave us orphans, that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. But also that he spews the lukewarm out of His Mouth. And that there will be scandal.
The Church has no sins but the people in it do. St. Pope John Paul II went to confession every week.
The situation with China is something where there is concern and we should pray more. There are so many problems in every local parish, diocese and nation and in the universal Church, but we need to surrender them to the Immaculate Heart.
We are in a time of trial. The only real enemy we have is Satan who has been sifting us like wheat. The wheat has chaff and the weeds grow along with the wheat.
The Pope can make mistakes in administration but we are called to support him with prayer and charity. When you attack the Pope, it aids the devil.
cton, the pope has a responsibility to Christ, to uphold the Magisterium, the Deposit of Faith, of the Roman Catholic Church– and all of his priests and prelates, too. Sometimes, popes, prelates, and priests fail in this commitment to God. One way many have failed, is in the diabolical clerical sex abuse cases, and dishonest cover-ups. The Roman Catholic Church belongs solely to Jesus Christ, not to any pope or prelate, even if they become saints.
While we are called to respect the Pope and pray for him, we do not have align ourselves with his thinking on political, environmental or many other areas. We must following the teachings of the Pope in matters of faith and doctrine. I have many disagreements with Francis and some of the “off the cuff” comments of his on secular issues.
Well, the author could leave out his nasty references to Archbishop Vigano, who I know personally and he should be given greater respect, realizing that much of what he say is the truth! Topic for another time… However, the additional nasty reference to the illness of Cardinal Burke is beyond the pale. I also know him personally and know that he is a very holy, gentle and humble man; someone the author could take some lessons from. To revel in his illness in horrid, as I know that his view of the use of aborted babies in the making of these vaccines is very serious to him and he lives his faith with great devotion. He did not, however, lecture or deride those who make the choice to be vaxxed. Shame on you.
In reference to Francis in general, that he does not bend to the extreme left of the Church, I must point out that when it come to the author’s list of things he has left alone, for the most part, they are doctrinal and therefore not things Francis could change, even if he wanted to. So I don’t give him much credit there.
Regarding the JPII institute, I find my self agreeing with the author as far as he goes, but I have fare greater concern about the intentions of Francis where this is concerned. It is far more damaging than any other things he has done, and that is really saying something and Amoris feeds right into that. People are being lead to believe that “guidelines” are sufficient in grave matters of morality, and I draw the line there; not sure where Francis’ line .
If the critics of Pope Francis could stop lying and distorting and exaggerating, they could be taken more seriously. When someone lies about anybody else, it is a sin, possibly a mortal sin.
Be careful for your own souls.
Mother Teresa and Mother Angelica called out very bad errors of popes and prelates, as was their responsibility to do so– and personally talked with errant popes and prelates, encouraging them to amend their ways. For example– Mother Angelica lost her TV studio and her health, due to Cdl. Mahoney’s powerful, evil clerical vengeance, when calling out his errors, responsibly. Poor Mother Angelica, Cdl. Mahoney’s evil clerical power trumped her Eucharistic truth for Jesus– and Pope St. John Paul II did not care, nor set things right. Not even for Jesus, for Eucharistic truth. Mahoney should have been excommunicated years ago, and should have faced strong penalties for all of his evils.
Time passes and people forget what really happened. Or they never knew. Do you even remember what it was about?