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?