Violent tempered, aggressive, unliked, and completely different than the Humble One.

Violent-tempered, aggressive, unliked, and completely different than the Humble One

John Allen has a piece of blatant pro-divorce propaganda today and he trashes the heroic and pious example of the victorious Egyptian Copts in the process.

As Pope Francis gears up for a showdown over divorce and remarriage at October’s Synod of Bishops, marking the latest chapter in a polarizing debate that’s left some Catholics delighted and others disenchanted, he can take consolation that he’s not the pope in the hottest water over the issue.

If you’re delighted then you’re not Catholic.  Only liberals get disenchanted.  That’s  because they’re so easily enchanted.  Faithful Catholics are just furious at the hijacking of our Church.

The world’s other major Christian leader who holds the same title, Pope Tawadros II of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church, is also facing stiff blowback related to a divorce debate. Unlike Francis, however, some members of his own flock don’t just want him to change course, but they actually want him fired.

“He’s one of the worst spiritual leaders we’ve had in recent times,” said Wael Eskander, a well-known commentator on Coptic affairs, applauding recent calls from Coptic activists for Tawadros to be removed and sent packing to the monastery where he lived prior to being named a bishop.

“He’s playing a game he will lose in the end,” Eskander said.

Pope Tawadros is highly popular.  The Egyptian Copts endured a living nightmare after Obama’s pro-Islamist pressure helped topple their long-time president, leaving them ethnic cleansing and scores of churches burned.  Who are these ‘some members,’ and who cares what this ‘well-known’ Eskander thinks?’

Copts form the vast majority of Egypt’s eight to ten million Christians, and while most observers regard the idea of removing their pope as a long-shot, they say the uprising reflects real discontent over the extent to which Church authorities try to assert control over the private lives of their followers.

“People don’t like him very much, because he has a violent temper and he’s seen as aggressive,” said Mina Thabet, a Coptic researcher on human rights. “There’s a real problem between the pope and the people.”

I don’t believe that statement for a minute.  The only people who don’t like Egypt’s Tawadros are displaced Muslim Brotherhood.  But this isn’t really about Copts.  It’s about Francis and his brazen and heretical divorce coup.  Not that Francis believes in divorce, no.  He just thinks separation is mandatory in a host of vague and commonplace circumstances, streamlined annulments are in order, and Eucharistic sacrilege is ‘mercy.’

When it comes to the substance of the divorce question, Francis and Tawadros are drawing fire from opposite sides.

The Catholic leader is generally seen as a moderate, with conservatives alarmed that he might relax his Church’s rules banning communion to anyone who divorces and remarries outside the Catholic Church. Tawadros is seen as a hard-liner, staunchly opposed to allowing Copts to dissolve their marriages under virtually any circumstances.

Francis is not seen as a moderate.  He’s seen as seven steps to the left of Catholic.  If someone like John Allen calls you a hard-liner, it just means you’re nice.

In 2011, a movement was founded called “Coptic 38” to campaign to go back to the earlier, more permissive rules. When he took office three years ago, Tawadros rejected that suggestion out of hand.

Despite the criticism, Tawadros appears to have the backing of other Coptic leaders.

On June 25, a traditional Church body called a “millet council” in Alexandria rejected calls for the pope’s removal, calling the selection of the Coptic leader a “divine choice” that cannot be undone.

Certainly the generally conservative ethos of the Church’s leadership suggests Tawadros won’t find much resistance for keeping reformers at bay.

So much for that unpopular Coptic Pope on the brink of removal.

There’s little indication any such putsch against Tawadros is in the cards, yet there are signs his stance is driving a few Copts away. Estimates provided by Peter Ramses El-Naggar, a lawyer who’s part of the “38” movement, are that since 2008 some 1,200 Copts have converted to Islam, which permits divorce, and that 4,000 more have tried to pursue a civil divorce or joined another Christian denomination.

In a country of over 70 million Muslims, Tawadros is such a bad Pope that Copts jump ship at the rate of over 150 per year! (I’m sure none of them are simply caving under pressure.)

Aside from the coincidence that another pope is wrestling with the same problem, Francis may want to take note of the Egyptian debate for another reason. If he relaxes the Catholic position on divorce and remarriage, it could create ecumenical tensions with churches such as the Coptic Orthodox currently struggling to hold the line.

Isn’t that the opposite of a Catholic stand?  How in the world can a Pope ‘relax a Catholic position on divorce and remarriage?’ A Pope like Francis might lie about it, but he can’t actually do it.   We aren’t the Protestants here.

No matter what happens to Tawadros, the turmoil illustrates a hard truth which, by now, must be clear to his fellow pope in Rome too: When it comes to divorce and remarriage, somebody’s going to be unhappy no matter what you do.

If faithless sinners aren’t unhappy with the Pope then he’s not doing his job.  If, on the other hand, he’s pleasing faithless sinners left and right then, unlike Pope Tawadros II, he actually should be removed.

If a good pope can be threatened off the throne, a bad one can be taken down.  The Church can’t just let the world impose its own popes.  It’s becoming painfully clear that it just doesn’t work.

Church teaching isn’t going to change, and it isn’t going to hibernate until the world somehow becomes more virtuous. It’s going to sit there, Francis or no Francis, demanding action and assent regardless.




    If there are no political prisoners in FrancisCuba, then how can there be Ladies in White?

If there are no political prisoners in FrancisCuba, then how can there be Ladies in White?

At Breitbart Francis Martel reports:

A Catholic church in the central Cuban city of Cienfuegos has banned female relatives of political prisoners from attending mass unless they no longer wear white, a color associated with political imprisonment in the nation. The slight to families of the abused follows the bewildering remark from Archbishop of Havana Jaime Ortega that Cuba no longer has prisoners of conscience.

Eight members of the Ladies in White activist group have attended Sunday Catholic Mass wearing white for years, sitting in the pews in silence unless participating in the Mass. No reports have surfaced of the women themselves–mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters of prisoners of conscience–disturbing the Mass. Nonetheless, a priest in Cienfuegos expelled them from his service, ordering them never to wear white again in his church if they wish to attend services.

The priest, identified as “Father Tarciso,” told Diario de Cuba that the women were “disrespectful,” stating, “I had told them that the way things are could not continue to be. … I cannot allow our community to be further fractured,” he argued. He accused them of taking photographs inside the church, which the ladies deny. Miladis Espino Díaz, a representative of the Ladies in White, noted that they were expelled from the church and, upon walking out, could hear the priest apologize to those in attendance for not having done it sooner.

“We do not only go to church because we are Ladies in White,” Espino Díaz told the newspaper, “but because we believe in God. We sing, we pray, we participate, we do nothing wrong.”

Following their removal from the church, the women testified to being the victim of a number of offensive acts, including a man “exposing himself and urinating in front of them,” “obscene gestures using fingers,” and “being called prostitutes.”

Offenses to the Ladies in White are common as they attempt to attend Mass; in a particularly gruesome instance last year, one woman was tarred for wearing white to the service.

Two male supporters of the group, Emilio García Moreira and Alexander Veliz García, began a hunger strike Thursday to support the return of the women to Mass.

Catholic religion is heavily regulated in communist Cuba, where it is technically a counterrevolutionary activity but has managed to persist, particularly given overtures by Pope Francis towards the Castro dictatorship. “If he keeps talking like this, I’ll return to the Church,” Raúl Castro said of the Pope this year following his support of major U.S. concessions to the Castro regime. Pope Francis was a direct mediator between President Obama and Raúl Castro before the American head of state chose to strip Cuba of its State Sponsor of Terrorism status–despite no evidence in a change of support to either the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia or Hezbollah–in exchange for nothing from Cuba.

Are the new enviro-apocalyptic totalitarian societies we’re being forced into just high-school popularity contests on steroids?  You’re either in desperately in or your nowhere?  What does a local homily sound like in Cardinal Ortega’s Cuba?  If he can’t get away with the ridiculous claim that there are no political prisoners, maybe he can make their wives and mothers disappear!

Is this what faithful Catholics have to look forward to in the new FrancisChurch –  government-loving flunkies posing as priests, calling true Christian witnesses ‘divisive,’ and kicking them out of Mass?  That would never happen in the free world, no!  The FrancisVatican officials are always respectful and welcoming of honest ideas.  Sometimes they’re even funny?  They never side with the enemy.

The Mass-going Ladies in White are nothing like prostitutes.  How twisted must a Catholic get before he can insult and attack these brave women?

I’m not looking forward to the new Global Warming Church.  I had to pray for all the rivers and various species at Mass today.  Now that there are no Catholics there to ‘fracture the community,’ gay marriage is going to catch on like wildfire in the Cuban pews.


(RNS1-oct16) Visitors view the Sistine Chapel in Rome. For use with RNS-SISTINE-RENT, transmitted on October 16, 2014, Photo courtesy of Vatican Museums

Climate-Controlled and Environmentally Purified for Free

Defending the innocent without arms, preserving the Sistine Chapel without ‘evil capitalists,’  Michelle Malkin reveals what’s central to the new FrancisChurch Liberation Theology 2.0 namely, hypocrisy.

Unlike Pope Francis, I believe that air-conditioning and the capitalists responsible for the technology are blessings to the world.

Perhaps the head of the Catholic Church, who condemned “the increasing use and power of air-conditioning” last week in a market-bashing encyclical, is unaware of the pioneering private company that has donated its time, energy and innovative heating, ventilating and air-conditioning equipment to the Vatican’s most famous edifice for more than a decade.

That’s right. While the pontiff sanctimoniously attacks “those who are obsessed with maximizing profits,” Carrier Corporation — a $13 billion for-profit company with 43,000 employees worldwide (now a unit of U.S.-based United Technologies Corp.) — ensures that the air in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel stays clean and cool.

Last fall, Carrier unveiled a groundbreaking HVAC system for the Vatican to help preserve Michelangelo’s masterpieces against pollution caused by the estimated six million visitors who descend on the Sistine Chapel every year to see its famous frescoes.

Read more here.

Aren’t capitalists just people working together and agreeing to help each other in the most beneficial way they determine, independently and on their own?  Why is freedom now an evil thing?  Why are we continually being bound up in some broad of nature that compels us to obey these Mao-ist rulers?

Hasn’t the Church already ironed out our relationship to nature?  Why is everything some new, never before seen crisis?



Sorry, but under the circumstances it'd be a sin not to drop you.

Sorry, but under the circumstances it’d be a sin to keep you.

AFP reports on Pope Francis’ latest guidance on marriage and separation.  Apparently you’re morally obligated to break up your marriage and family if you’re the weaker sex and you’re being humiliated.

Pope Francis said Wednesday that it may be “morally necessary” for some families to split up, marking a change of tone in the Catholic Church’s attitude to troubled marriages.

“There are cases in which separation is inevitable,” he said during his weekly general audience, with a message hoping to encourage greater compassion in the Church ahead of a highly anticipated global meeting on family life in October.

Pope Francis is always changing the Catholic ‘tone,’ and in the process completely tearing down the last vestiges of Christian society.  One must be careful not to hand the world a bunch of rhetorical excuses, but then again, ‘who am I to judge?’

“Sometimes, it can even be morally necessary, when it’s about shielding the weaker spouse or young children from the more serious wounds caused by intimidation and violence, humiliation and exploitation,” he said.

Why does Francis say ‘the weaker spouse?’  Do you think that may mean the man, or is he talking perhaps about various gay marriages?  What happens if my wife humiliates me?  I guess I’m out of luck and I’ll have to stick with her.  That’s an ‘intimidating’ prospect.  Oops.

I have been exploiting, intimidating and humiliating my wife for twenty-eight years.  I know because I’ve heard all about it.  Thank God she’s stronger than me and we didn’t have FrancisChurch until just now.

Francis said there were many families in “irregular situations” and the question should be how to best help them, and “how to accompany them so that the child does not become daddy or mummy’s hostage”.

“how to accompany them so that the child does not become daddy or mummy’s hostage?”  That bears repeating somehow.

The issue is likely to be addressed during the upcoming synod — a gathering of bishops — on the family, which Francis hopes will help reconcile Catholic thinking with the realities of believers’ lives in the early 21st century.

Could they have a more notorious goal?  What in the world are we going to do about our Church in this time of Mercy?






Irresponsible sins against nature?

Irresponsible sins against nature?

It’s amazing how much sheer anti-Catholic material is being set up for that awful upcoming Synod.  Responsible procreation?  Hasn’t the entire Catholic world including His Holiness Francis just told us the new Catholic earth-ism has nothing whatsoever to do with population control?

In Chicago, as Frank Sinatra pointed out, men dance with their wives.

Sometimes that leads to other things.

In the great movie Rob Roy, one of the Catholic Highlanders tells this joke at a celebration:

Q: Why are Calvinists against making love standing up?

A: It might lead to dancing.

Last night I danced with my wife.

Is it always “procreation” or is it only procreation if you find out later that it was?

In any case, I didn’t think about it. Even once. I don’t think she did either.

I went to work without feeling guilty. As I remember, I bought a cup of coffee and a donut.

That’s your first mistake right there, Mr. Mahound.  In FrancisChurch you’re supposed to feel guilty about that kind of thing.  Also, dancing is sexist and coffee and donuts pollute your inner ecosystem so that’s two other sins right there, maybe three.  Remember, in terms of the Earth (which is of course oriented toward God), we’re all one and responsible for each other.  So can that donut NewCatholic!

Of course, I’m thinking about this against the background of the recently released Instrumentum Laboris of the Synod (on the Family). One of the Agenda Items is “responsible procreation.”

I’ve read that in the early Medieval Church, sometimes it was thought necessary to confess if you had romantic feelings for, and acted on them with, your spouse. Unless of course you had no romantic feelings and were just doing your duty to populate the earth or whatever.

Now (it seems) you have to confess if you only had romantic feelings and were not dutifully thinking of the effects of acting on those feelings on, say, future carbon emissions.

We’ve come full circle, sort of.

Okay, so I’ve always wanted to say this:

Hands off my body.

Hands off my wife’s body.

And hands off, well, you know.

We’ll procreate however we damn well want.

Another item on the Synod agenda is “birth reduction.”

I know. I did a double-take on that one too. No doubt there will be more to say about it later. But for now, this will merely have to do:

Hands off my (future) ten-seat van with the Pro-Life stickers…

…you nasty heretical freaks.

Careful.  Your individualism is showing.  There’s no Hell, but if there was it would be for you selfish types who sin against creation, careless of your neighbor.

At least there can be earthly demerits and penalties established by committee with the help of business leaders.


Read the rest here.




How do I get up out of this?

How do I get up out of this?

Who is Maureen Mullarkey and why is she so wonderful?  Her piece today on the Pope’s Global Warming Manifesto says everything that no one is permitted to even conceive.  Why not?  It’s only true.

Subversion of Christianity by the spirit of the age has been a hazard down the centuries. The significance of “Laudato Si” lies beyond its stated concern for the climate. Discount obfuscating religious language. The encyclical lays ground to legitimize global government and makes the church an instrument of propaganda—a herald for the upcoming United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference in Paris.

and then this…

Propelled by the cult of feeling and Golden Age nostalgia—enshrined in the myth of indigenous peoples as peaceable ecologists—that elusive something picked up a tincture of Teilhardian gnosticism as it grew. It bursts on us now as “Laudato Si,” a malignant jumble of dubious science, policy prescriptions, doomsday rhetoric, and what students of Wordsworthian poetics call, in Keats’ derisive phrase, “the egotistical sublime.”

This theme of the Pope’s ego is key.  Mullarkey has broached it before, and was entirely renounced by the editor of FirstThings.  A more telling indicator of her witness in the age of FrancisMercy you won’t find.

After briskly putting the sinister global warming movement to rest, she writes:

Enter Jorge Bergolio. Informed objection to the pope’s roster of pending disasters is widely available—but also, at this point, moot. Reducing greenhouse gases has just been deemed a religious obligation. What should concern us now is the ecclesial climate that yielded this extravagant rant.

Despite whatever leverage or compromise made up that notorious Abdication Conclave, isn’t Francis the elected man of the cardinals?  Such is our infected Church, yes?

There is nothing to admire in its assault on market economies, technological progress, and—worse—on rationality itself. Bergolio, whom we know now as Pope Francis, is a limited man. His grasp of economics is straitjacketed by the Peronist culture in which he was raised. “Laudato Si” descends to garish, left-wing boilerplate. The pope is neither a public intellectual, theologian, nor a man of science. Yet he impersonates all three.

The encyclical tells us much about the man who delivers it. Straightaway, it certifies the depth and span of this pope’s megalomania. A breathtaking strut into absolutism, it is addressed not simply to Catholics but, like the “Communist Manifesto,” to the whole world. Tout le monde.

Mullarkey has all the Pope’s numbers.  He’s the Left’s man, the kind of tool Obama would want to head Catholic Charities.  He’s clever and he’s going to accomplish what he was appointed to do, but he’s not actually able to be pope.  That requires a unique set of skills, among them an informed Faith.

His placement in that supreme seat as an agent of mischief is producing a sort of mania.  His job description says to point definitively toward what’s right, but his agenda is to do everything wrong.  That would twist anyone’s thinking.  I wonder if his mind was always this way.

It’s difficult to find clear simple rationales when you’re bent on so much trouble.  Luther was similar.

Bergolio’s resentment of First World prosperity is of a piece with his simplistic understanding of the “financial interests” and “financial resources” he condemns. He nurses a Luddite yen to roll back the Industrial Revolution for a fantasy of pre-industrial harmony between man and a virginal Mother Earth. He demonizes the very means that have raised millions out of poverty, and that remain crucial in continuing to raise standards of living among the poor.

Those aren’t the only good things he demonizes.  He also resents and attacks the pious faithful and those who get in his radical way.

Take no comfort from “Laudato Si’s” restatements of the Catholic Church’s traditional positions on the sanctity of life, the primacy of the family, and rejection of abortion. In this context, orthodoxy and pious expression serve a rancid purpose. They are a Trojan horse, a vehicle for insinuating surrender to pseudo-science and the eco-fascism that requires it.

Promiscuous papal embrace of the climate-change narrative includes a chilling call for the creation of global overseers to manage the Progressive dream: abolition of fossil fuels. The twentieth century gave us stark lessons in the applications of compulsory benevolence. The “global regulatory frameworks” the pope hankers for will, without scruple, crush orthodoxy when it suits.

Or might Bergolio welcome that? His appointment of Hans Schellnhuber to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences raises the question. Schellnhuber is a zealous promoter of the theory of man-made climate change and advocate of population control. He has lobbied for an Earth Constitution, a Global Council, and establishment of a Planetary Court, a transnational legal body with enforcement powers on environmental and population issues. In short, Schellnhuber is the Vatican’s advance man for bureaucratic tyranny on a global scale. It is a telling appointment.

A man of counter-faith at the helm of the Church.  What could be more destructive?





Pro-Solidarity Paragons of Catholic Social Teaching

Pro-Solidarity Paragons of Catholic Social Teaching

Why is it somehow that, preserved for all time in that great Compendium of Catholic Social Teaching, we are supposed to pay homage to the thuggish, lazy, and illicit power-grabbing of unions?  Aren’t they just the political enemies of the Church?

Cardinal Donald Wuerl has told a gathering of religious and labour leaders that solidarity cannot be taken for granted.

“It is sometimes avoided or even denied because it brings with itself obligations,” the Archbishop of Washington DC said, noting that by the same token there are those who harbour “neglect of and occasional hostility toward solidarity in our social and cultural context”.

Cardinal Wuerl is in full swing for the Leftist FrancisState.  Usually he can just stand back and work his magic.  Why the sudden urgency to become a blatant Democrat operative?

Cardinal Wuerl said: “Solidarity is expressed in works of generosity, forgiveness and reconciliation. Catholic teaching explicitly recognises organised labour as instruments of solidarity and justice. But we cannot take solidarity for granted.”

The cardinal made his remarks at a conference on “Erroneous Autonomy: A Conversation on Solidarity & Faith”, co-sponsored by The Catholic University of America’s Institute for Policy Research & Catholic Studies and the AFL-CIO, which hosted the event at its headquarters building in Washington.

“What brings fresh urgency to our new evangelisation mission is just how widespread and profound are forces which neglect basic understandings of right and wrong, the common good, the dignity of the human person and our obligations to one another of genuine solidarity,” Cardinal Wuerl said.

“People in this room can point out how these factors have also contributed to a dramatic decrease in union membership in recent years.”

So somehow the enemies of the Faith have caused a drop in union membership?  I thought it was the fact that the state laws stopped enabling them to force workers to pay their protection?

If we’ve learned anything from this latest Faith-crushing manifesto, it’s that encyclicals can be full of lies and worldly policy.  Despite that enormous compendium, isn’t most of so-called Catholic ‘social teaching’ just people twisting, spinning and capitalizing off a handful of relatively recent and somewhat dubious encyclicals?

Labor, yes. Associations, yes. Owners, yes. Managers, yes.

Enormous, coercive, immoral, and anti-Catholic trade unions?  Take the long Catholic view.  Don’t buy the Cardinal’s unholy politicking.







"To my penthouse suites, driver."

“To to humble papal suites quickly, driver.”

Pope Francis has said something again that doesn’t sound right.  Then again, when you think about it, it just sounds really wrong.

If you give the key to your heart to greed, it will leave the door wide open to vanity, arrogance and all of the other vices, squeezing God out of the way, Pope Francis said at his morning Mass.

This on its face isn’t true.  Greed is one of the seven deadly sins.  Greed is not the worst sin; always giving way to pride or anger, lust or jealousy, etc.  Pope Francis is just making that up.

Wealth isn’t “a statue” that stands inert and has no impact on a person, the pope said June 19 during the Mass in the chapel of the Domus Sanctae Marthae.

“Wealth has the tendency to grow, to move around, to take a place in one’s life and heart,” and once it moves in, fanning the desire to always accumulate more, the heart becomes “corrupted,” he said.

Wealth does not make you want more wealth.  You want more wealth no matter how little you have.  If you are able to gain wealth through hard work, sacrifice, or cunning, then you will be able accumulate it too.  It does not corrupt the heart unless you let it, but it can weigh it down and tempt you to shirk your Christian responsibility, to compromise and sin.  Hence vows of poverty.

Pope Francis is a rich man in every respect.  He has control of billions of dollars and a huge infrastructure at his command.  Every single priest, religious, and employee worldwide is obliged to him.

Pope Francis has power. Isn’t greed simply an inordinate desire for the power to possess or the power to command? If he chooses to live simply and give back it is a good example, but it can’t truly be said that he isn’t rich. So his blanket and indiscriminate attack on wealth is, much like his attack on weapons manufacturers, plain hypocrisy.

The pope focused his homily on the day’s reading from the Gospel of Mark (6:19-23), in which Jesus tells his disciples to “not store up for yourselves treasures on earth,” but rather “store up treasures in heaven,” because “for where your treasure is, there also will your heart be.”

Pope Francis said that deep down, people’s search for more is rooted in a desire for a sense of security, but there is a high risk that person will become a slave of wealth, accumulating it only for oneself and not in order to serve others.

If greed were rooted in a sense of security than it’s also cowardice.  But greed isn’t cowardice.  Cowardice is.

Soon, any sense of security gives way to vice and division, even in the family, he said, according to Vatican Radio.

This is gibberish.  ‘Any sense of security gives way to vice and division?’

“Also the root of war lies in this ambition that destroys, corrupts,” as so many wars are being fought because of “greed for power, for riches,” he said.

So if I’m cozy in my blanket until 6am, I’m inevitably causing war?  My security is my greed and my greed is my possessions, therefore the killing?  Is there some point to the Pope’s endless smoke and rambling about people having things and liking them?

It’s a war that can be raging in one’s own heart, he said, “because greed keeps going, keeps moving forward,” stringing the person along a path of vice one step at a time.

Greed “opens the door, then comes in vanity — to think you’re important, to believe you’re powerful — and, in the end, pride, and from there all the vices, all of them,” he said.

Greed is the king of every sin and its cause lies not in the heart but in the wealth you possess?

This FrancisChurch theology is really just all about money and power, not Jesus.





Serene Dr. Woo in her Dear Leader suit with a very mopey Jesus and Mary in the corner

Serene Dr. Woo in her Dear Leader suit with very mopey Jesus and Mary in the corner

Dr. Carolyn Woo, former Notre Dame Business School Dean and now head of Federal bureaucratic agency, Catholic Relief Services, was supposed to have been integral to the Pope’s enormous Global Warming Manifesto.

She was present and spoke at it’s unfortunate release.

Pope Francis asks us a very simple question in his encyclical: “What kind of world do we want to leave to those who come after us, to children who are now growing up?”

Surely this question resonates with almost everyone. It resonates with me as a mother and as someone who draws on business as a partner to eliminate poverty and as an educator of business practitioners. It is from the perspective of business that I speak today.

Business school academics know all about business, yes?  College historians know history, and most economists know how people live and work too.

Pope Francis poses other questions: “What is the purpose of our life in this world? Why are we here? What is the goal of our work and all our efforts?” Those answer are akin to the mission and vision statements businesses formulate to define themselves, to gain legitimacy from society, commitment from employees, and support from customers.

How is it that the Vicar of Christ himself must pose these questions?   Are not the answers to these questions the essence of the Christian Faith?  According to Dr. Woo, the ‘answers’ are the visions and missions statements that businesses worldwide have yet to create.

So, the most profound truths of our existence will be determined by corporate boards, then screened for compliance with the UN-FrancisChurch officials, I expect.  Is this Catholicism or some descending cage?

As businesses strive to find those answers, they should realize that the message of this encyclical to the business world is a profoundly hopeful one. It sees the potential of business as a force for good whose actions can serve to mitigate and stop the cumulative, compounding, catastrophic effects of climate change driven by human actions.

Did you see that?  Five ‘C’ words.  It’s not science but it’s scary.

One of the principal themes in this encyclical is that all life on this planet is bound together via three fundamental and intertwined relationships: with God, our neighbors and the earth. When one of these relationships is damaged, then the others are, too. So there is a connection between how we treat the planet and how we treat the poor, our neighbors. As Pope Francis puts it, we do not have two separate crises, social and economic, but “one complex crisis which is both social and environmental.”

This contrived trinity of God, earth, and mankind is not some principle.  It’s just a trap, a net to bind men so tightly with the Prince of this World that piety and virtue become extinct.  High can we fly to Heaven while our planetary rulers move to subjugate us to the Earth?

Don’t let them throw a rope around Christ’s Church and pull it down.



I prescribe a penitential path to sacrilege for these specimens.

I prescribe a penitential path to sacrilege precisely in these cases?

John Vennari has the scoop on the latest Synod abomination – the just-released compilation of a worldwide ‘listening’ crusade, the Instrumentum Laboris.  Doesn’t that just mean ‘Working Tool?’

If you have to remind everybody that you’re busy working with tools, you’re not really getting anything done, are you?

And after a second round of global consultation, here it is – at Roman Noon, the instrumentum laboris (baseline text) for October’s climactic Synod on the Family was released… for now, however – much like last year’s first volume – the full sequel is only available in Italian.

Stacking out at 147 paragraphs – some 20,000 words – the text is arranged around three pillars: the challenges families face, the “discernment of the family’s vocation,” and “the mission of the family today,” each of them slated to take up a week of the discussions at the 4-25 October assembly.

Among other highlights, the final portion of the framework deals with the proposed changes of practice cited by their supporters as necessary for the church to better respond to families in challenging situations amid current pastoral practice.

On the assembly’s most hot-button issue of all, the instrumentum speaks of a “common accord” among the world’s bishops toward “eventual access” to the sacraments for divorced and civilly remarried couples, but only following “an itinerary of reconciliation or a penitential path under the authority of the [diocesan] bishop,” and only “in situations of irreversible cohabitation.”

If I remember last October, that ‘accord’ wasn’t all that common; and just like gay sex habits, if ‘cohabiting situations’ were irreversible, they wouldn’t be sins.  Who do these irreversible FrancisVatican fools think we are, and how many could find their way down a ‘penitential path?’

The text cautions that the proposal is only envisioned “in some particular situations, and according to well-precise conditions,” citing the interest of children born in a second union.

Well, I’m satisfied.  They’ve promised to be precise, like the gears of a Porsche flying down the Autobahn to Hell.

On a related front, ample treatment was given to the state of marriage tribunals, with calls for a “decentralization” of the annulment courts and the floating of the “relevance of the personal faith” of spouses in terms of their understanding of the marital bond as a means for declaring the nullity of a marriage.

We could see that one coming.  His Holiness has been inclined to ramble about the impossibility of making an informed and binding marriage vow these days.  Maybe if we have online auto-annulments then the Sensus Fidei will really start to understand marriage is forever! Ever-forward and pedal to the metal.

In particular, the latter point echoes a longstanding line of the Pope’s – having quoted the impression of his predecessor in Buenos Aires, the late Cardinal Antonio Quarracino, that “half” of failed Catholic marriages there “are null” solely on the grounds of unformed faith, a papal commission formed quietly by Francis last summer is studying possible changes to the annulment process independent of the Synod itself. No timeline is set for its work.

Elsewhere, three paragraphs were devoted to pastoral ministry to families “having within them a person of homosexual orientation.” While reaffirming the 2003 CDF declaration that “there exists no foundation whatsoever to integrate or compare, not even remotely, homosexual unions and the design of God for the family,” the text urges that “independent of their sexual tendency,” gays “be respected in their dignity and welcomed with sensibility and delicateness, whether in the church or society.”

Haven’t most self-professed gay people already been subjected to enough ‘tenderness,’ so much so that they imagine an outsized ‘dignity’ in their rejection of marriage and true parenthood?

Perhaps most boldly – reflecting a key emphasis of one of the gathering’s three presidents, Cardinal Chito Tagle of Manila – the text emphasizes that “The Christian message must be announced in a language that sustains hope.

Watch out for these liberals like Cardinal Tagle, the future Pope of Hope and FrancisMercy.  They’re always ‘bold’ and courageous.

Stuff your evil old language, Catholic!  We’ll tell you what to say.