"Um, I'll have to get back to you on that."

“Um, I’ll have to get back to you on that.”

It seems to me that, up until recently, we could count on the Vatican press people to demonstrate the kind of integrity and honesty you might expect from the center of the Christian world.  In some ways they were an example to others.  Today they spin like the White House.

Why must they treat the Pope’s meeting with Kim Davis the same way they treat his emotional meetings with transsexuals and his supposed phone calls where he tells people in second marriages to go to Holy Communion?

Do they see any difference between these individuals, or are they just engaging in political dialogue with polar ‘extremes?’  Do they have any sense whatsoever of Christian teaching and witness, or are they just ashamed?

At Catholic World Report:

Robert Moynihan, editor of Inside the Vatican (and founding editor of Catholic World Report), has just posted a detailed description of a meeting alleged to have taken place between Pope Francis and Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk who was jailed earlier this month for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

UPDATE: Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi, SJ told Reuters that he would neither confirm nor deny that the meeting took place, and that there will be no further statements. 

The Catholic Right is going to jump up and down about this.  “Oh my gosh!  Francis did something Catholic” (in secret).  “Hearsay has it that he thanked a woman who refused to help the state confirm gay couples as spouses and heads of families!  Davis says it happened but Francis and the Vatican are silent” (silenced?)

It’s interesting the two actually got together.  Pope Francis and Davis don’t really have that much in common, do they?

 

francis biden crying

The Truth of Christ summed up in one hanky

The sight of John Boehner sobbing and Jo Biden ‘manfully’ holding back tears behind Francis Thursday might possibly have been the low point in American history, perhaps the entire West.  Never has civilization been so scrubbed of manly virtue and never has it been so false.  Three fools and three liars; three men of ‘audaciousness,’ none of them Christian.  One represents evil, the other capitulation, while Francis the Judas delivers a captive Christ. He did not even mention Him.

In two plus short years Francis and his worshipers and apologists have succeeded in making the Protestant Right, the remnant voice of Faith and reason in America, despise Catholics.  Ann Coulter is right.  It’s Pope Francis ‘catholicism’ that is flooding Texas.  It’s also conquering Europe and destroying the world.  After thousands of years of Crusades and battles, what Pope would stand on an Italian rock waving Muslims into Europe and scolding her defenders?  Only a man who hates the Faith, the sacrifices of its saints and its soldiers would do such a thing.

After five centuries we’d succeeded in demonstrating to Protestants that Catholics don’t worship their Pope, and now in two years we’ve proved them right all along.  If you remove Pope-worshipers from the cult of Francis, delete their faces from the trumped-up and tiny crowds around the country last week and from the airwaves, there would be no one left.  Perhaps three Christians would remain who were so unfortunate to have to watch the horror pass by.  I don’t believe for a minute there are faithful Catholics enthusiastic about Francis, because people like that are able to discern a fraud.  They know Faith in Christ when they hear it, when they see it.  Catholic witness and prophecy are not something Biden and Boehner cry over.  At least Nancy Pelosi probably maintained a shred of dignity.  Can you imagine?

Maureen Mullarky didn’t need to watch the FrancisSpeech to know what it was.

In large measure, Thursday’s propaganda event will prove a concluding flourish to what this pope is on course to achieve: the descent of the Catholic Church into one more geopolitical “ism,” a pious-seeming companion to every other materialist -ism that tempts modern man away from freedom and toward submission to totalitarian order. Since ascending to the papacy, Francis’ actions have served a mongrel papo-caesarism that drains Christianity of its soul. Christian idiom degrades into the carrier of a secular agenda.

“A pious-seeming companion:”  that’s our Pope.  You can even get a cardboard “Flat Francis” friend to seem to be your companion too, but I think they’re about $79.00.  Talk about a throwaway culture of waste and excessive consumerism!

Ideolatry, the idolatry of fixed ideas, is as rampant in the Vatican as in any other directorate, and just as dangerous. Even more so. Because the pope commands deference from the world’s peoples, the present object of his worship—from climate-change dogma to the antagonisms peculiar to an anti-democratic Leftist elite—disfigures the faith of billions. It becomes a golden calf festooned with gospel quotes.

Deference to a pope comes readily to Catholics. We are groomed for it. Within legitimate bounds, there is grace in that. But the boundaries are not totalizing. Outside of them, obeisance falls prey to forces that do not serve the church. Neither do they lend succor to a civilization painfully wrought from endemic tyrannies and universal poverty. Far, far from it.

There comes a moment when deference glides into collusion. At that point, we all become Good Germans. Fascist-friendly. Trust in respected authority curdles into a thing entirely different—a willed blindness to something dark in the particular voice commanding assent. Decent and dependable, we incline toward the beckoning circle of connivance.

Our own lifetime has not prepared Catholics for such a moment. But it is here now. We can adjust our sensibilities, our priorities, and our hopes to counter this juncture. Or we can surrender our children and grandchildren to a downward slide into a retrograde world order built on contempt for the bases of those very structures that have lifted a still-increasing portion of the earth’s population out of the misery that is history’s norm.

FrancisChurch, it’s henchmen, and it’s dupes are not only shepherding the world into totalitarian death and squalor.  They’re shutting down the Church, the instrument of Grace which saves souls.  When the Church, already rendered dysfunctional and now being fitted for slaughter, is gone from the Earth, there won’t just be a return to paganism, to savage animism, or totalitarian slavery.  There will be Hell on Earth, or if we’re lucky, Islam.  It will be something much worse than just Cuba.  Hell itself is also a ‘post-Christian society.’

Something in me gave way at the sight of an exultant image of Che Guevara overseeing the altar in Plaza de la Revolución, the approved site of the recent papal Mass in Havana. A sadistic, murderous thug looked down on attendees in an obscene burlesque of Christ Pantocrator. Under the gaze of a butcher and amid symbols of the regime, Jorge Bergolio joined his fellow Argentine in service to the calamitous Cuban revolution. The entire spectacle played like a farcical inversion of John Paul II’s presence in Warsaw’s Victory Square, in 1979, and in stark contrast to the message he brought to Cuba in 1998.

What collapsed was any lingering sense of obligatory constraint. Gone is the time for courtesy extended to an occupant of the papacy despite his hubris and ruinous impulses. Out the window is dutiful tolerance for this man’s accusatory or incendiary language. Politesse has run its course. Historian Roberto de Mattei, writing on the wound to marriage delivered by Francis’ recent motu proprio (a personal mandate) ends his analysis with this: “Silence is no longer possible.”

The rest is here.

The seedbed of Catholic Truth and defense of the Church in our country used to be found in the faithful American Catholic Media, re-established by people like Mother Angelica during the reign of John Paul II.  Today, from those desperate pages we hear the cry of “anti-Catholicism” at Protestants and faithful Catholics who still love Christ’s truth and justice,  but faith ‘in Francis’ is, unfortunately, not Catholic.  Faith in Christ is.  To call out FrancisFaith for what it is, is not to reject the Church; it’s the way to embrace it and stick close to it.

Manly Christian duty demands that we uphold the Church.  The formula is simple: encourage those who hold the Faith and live it, but correct those who do only one of those or who do neither.  That formula doesn’t change for anyone.  Obedience to the Pope only goes so far as he holds the Faith and lives it.  When he fails, our duty tells us direct action must follow.

Our own neglect of this duty to correct those who live outside the Church has crushed her in our time.  On this Earth enemies are the rule.  Christian resistance is the exception and the way to Heaven.

With whom does Francis, the author of fast, cheap, and false annulments, have more in common: King Henry XIII or his resistor Pope Clement VII?  Must we obey now that Henry is Pope or instead challenge him in the name of Christ?

Our Lord is not a man of tearful compliance in the face of evil.  Soldiers are great because they fight, risk, and die, not because they kill.  Our Lady is the Queen of Lepanto, not of Catholic Charities.   In the face of an unprecedented and unchallenged reign of a heretic king, Thomas More was ‘disobedient’ in the minds of many, but the saint maintained he acted out of love for King and country when he said,  I die the king’s good servant, but God’s first.” 

St. Thomas did not say, “but the Pope’s first.”  His obedience to God was also loyal to the Pope because Clement was faithful.   In true Christian unity, not the type Francis rails about, all are united in Faith.  But the reign of Francis is like the reign of Henry.  It’s against the Church and cannot be a source of unity.  Popes are supposed to uphold the Faith, not destroy it in the name of ‘mercy’ and ‘the poor.’  We must go on being loyal sons of the Church even when the Pope is wrong, not lay down and lie in the name of obedience.

Tears are for the field of battle I’m sure, and for men like  Boehner, hopefully at the judgment seat of Our Lord, but they’re an ugly and pitiful sight standing behind ‘the Francis’ in Congress. The Church needs men of duty, not men like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Francis has landed. Time for you Faithful to squirm.

The Francis is landing. Time for you Faithful to squirm.

Francis is in the air over America and the call has gone out from liberals and faux-catholics around the world to ‘be troubled.’

Faithful Catholics are never really troubled.  They feel pain and worry but they don’t become disturbed by reality or truth the way Herod was by John the Baptist.  But liberals do, and they really want you to as well.  They want to disturb you, insult you, make you confused.  They want you to feel pain like they do, and if they can’t do that, at the least they want you to be a slave to their selfish schemes.

CNN’s Carol Costello weaves:

Pope Francis is no longer the undisputed homecoming king.

As he visits the United States for the first time, the Pope’s approval ratings here, according to Gallup, have taken a tumble, from 76% in 2014 to 59% today.

Pity Pope Francis!

He washes the feet of the poor, talks of forgiveness and stresses care of the planet. He even tries to lead by example, rejecting the Vatican’s more opulent digs and fancy vestments. Yet Francis elicits a confusing mix of emotions. Love. Admiration. Scorn. And fear.

Yes, fear.

Pope Francis is an angel and if you don’t think so, you’re just a hateful coward.  Oh, and you’re also nuts.

What other explanation can there be when an article actually exists with the headline: “Why so Many People Think Pope Francis is the Antichrist“? In case you’re curious, that headline appeared on Charisma News.

Reporter Jennifer LeClaire googled “pope antichrist,” and came up with a motherlode of hits. None was more ridiculous than the online “Jim Bakker Show.” A guest author named Tom Horn told the show’s audience that 50 years ago, a Jesuit priest “predicted the resignation of Pope Benedict to the day,” which means Pope Francis could be “demonically inspired,” because, Horn said ominously, “demons know things about times.”

My head is about to explode, too. But now that I’ve dispensed with that bit of nonsense, I’ll get down to brass tacks.

Pope Francis’ approval ratings have taken a tumble because he makes Americans squirm.

This ugly metaphor is supposed to make us think Francis is ‘pricking our consciences’ the way Hillary Clinton commands, but the image is more akin to being killed and eaten, like a worm on a hook.  There are two regular responses to direct Christian correction: anger or compunction, but squirming is just for victims.

“He’s nudging me, as he is lots of us, to think about some uncomfortable things and how we might be better human beings in our world today,” Sister Donna Markham, the president of Catholic Charities, told me. “And that’s hard.”

Sheep dogs nudge and they nip at heels.  They herd.  Catholic Charities is an agent of the mega-state.  They are government contractors, not Christians.  This nudge ‘Sister’ Markham wants us to feel is the shove of government, not the words of Jesus.

Do you know what else is hard, but makes you a better human being and the world a better place?  Work.  But work isn’t what Markham or Francis are talking about.  They’re not talking about serving others.  They’re talking about servitude and slavery to the state machine.  There’s not a thing Christian about it.  That’s why Francis is coming to Congress, because he advocates government.

The Pope recently called the unfettered pursuit of money “the dung of the devil.” He said that profit tends, especially in capitalist countries like ours, to drive all decision-making, often at the expense of the poor.

“It is not enough,” the Pope said, “to let a few drops fall whenever the poor shake a cup which never runs over by itself.”

Those remarks left many conservatives cold, especially those who say Pope Francis is a Marxist who wants to “spread the wealth.”

The world is not a cup of water in the hands of some fat rich person, from which the rest of us only receive what spills, at least it’s not if you observe the Ten Commandments.  But if you’re a Castro-ite dictator then your world is a lot like that, yes. In that case even more injustice isn’t any kind of solution.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, told me the Pope’s words are dangerous. “It’s a mixture of naivete and papal authority,” he said. “The Gospel mandates we care for the poor. But there is a legitimate disagreement on how the poor are helped. He has split Roman Catholicism on that issue.”

And because Francis may criticize American capitalism before a joint session of Congress, his appearance makes Mohler positively seethe. “As an evangelical and American citizen, I’m deeply troubled by the fact that Congress is going to host the Pope. I know they’ll say Pope is the head of state, but the Vatican is largely a diplomatic fiction and its size … it can fit into a parking lot. He is there because he is the head of the Roman Catholic Church.”

It’s true, there’s something profoundly odd about the head of the Catholic Church addressing Congress.  Perhaps it’s because Francis is profoundly political and oddly un-Catholic.

And Albert Mohler isn’t ‘seething’ like a river-full of piranha.  He’s in his right mind.  Boundless rage is a characteristic of evil.  What Mohler has is some righteous anger.

If it makes conservatives feel any better, Francis makes progressives squirm, too — in a pool full of confusion.

On the one hand, Francis sounds like their hero, a holy version of President Obama or Bernie Sanders. He trashes greedy Wall Street types! He thinks climate change is in part caused by man! He’s urged us to embrace undocumented immigrants! Awesome.

On the other hand, while the Pope has talked in a more merciful way about moral issues, the church still opposes same-sex marriage, women priests, married priests, divorce, birth control and abortion.

If only he were all bad.

“I think that Francis doesn’t intend to change any doctrine,” the Rev. Thomas Bohlin, vicar of Opus Dei, told me. “He’s been faithful to the church through thick and thin for many years. He does want to change the emphasis and the way people look at religion, not reducing it to left and right categories.”

Maybe that’s really why Francis makes us squirm — he’s a man who cannot be categorized, who is, at times, difficult to read. In short, he’s not always a people-pleaser. He wants us not just to feel, but also to think — and not just about our personal stake or “take,” but about our personal roles and responsibilities.

I’m squirming because I’m being nudged to use my brain and think of others too.  This banality sums up FrancisGospel, but it’s a blinding revelation from Heaven to this CNN anchor.

As New York Mayor Bill de Blasio told me, “I don’t think he (Pope Francis) thinks about his work in terms of favorability. I think he thinks about telling the truth. It’s quite clear if you read his encyclical, he’s saying the status quo is unsustainable and we have to get on a new path. And he’s obviously just not speaking to the Catholics of the world. He’s speaking to people well beyond the church. And it’s interesting, a lot of people are moved by him, of all different backgrounds.”

And so another Communist finds FrancisFaith.  It’s just the truth and I believe!  “It’s interesting how he moves people.”  It’s almost supernatural.  “Please may I bow low, O Francis,” says the ruthless and irreligious Mayor of New York.

Where is Christ in all this trumped-up worship from enemies of His Church?  Nowhere.  They are just playing us, speaking to us like the debased pre-school children they’ve groomed us to be.

“Way to go, Pope Francis,”  says Ms. Costello just before a snack, nap time, and a quick smoke out back.

A good cigarette can really settle a nervous stomach.

 

By Elizabeth Yore

francis before congress

Former Senator George Mitchell famously said that,“God does not take sides in politics.” Mitchell’s observation might be about to change in the upcoming 2016 election.

The highest ranking Catholic in government, Vice President Joe Biden is rumored to be considering a presidential run. The timing of his announcement is reportedly in late September. With the critical 25% swing Catholic vote at play in this election, Biden may find a powerful, and surprising ally in his presidential bid. As they say, politics make strange bedfellows, and this upcoming fall, Biden will have a powerful compadre in his presidential election bid: a non-American, dressed in white, speaking Spanish, none other than, Pope Francis.

This week Biden told AP that “Pope Francis has breathed new life into what I believe is the central mission of our faith: Catholic social doctrine,” Biden added that Francis “has become a moral rudder for the world on some of the most important issues of our time, from inequality to climate change.” Translation for the upcoming political campaign: Pope Francis has breathed new life into what I believe is the central mission of my life, the Presidency of the United States. Pope Francis has became a moral rudder for the most important issues of the Democratic Party from inequality to climate change.

In late September, Pope Francis will visit the United States with appearances at the White House, a Joint Session of Congress, the United Nations and the Philadelphia World Meeting of Families.

In the two short years of his overtly political papacy, Francis assumed the role of an ad hoc Secretary of State. The Vatican and Obama administration closely collaborated on a key foreign and domestic issues. The political Pope covertly initiated and negotiated detente with Communist Cuba through back door Vatican diplomatic channels. These papal secret maneuvers allowed the Obama administration to open an embassy in Cuba, despite opposition from the Miami Cuban refugee community, who view the Pope as a willing pawn in the Obama dealmaking with violent dictators. The Pope will visit Cuba before his U.S. visit for a victory lap with the Castro brother dictators.

Following the Cuba concession, Pope Francis and Obama continued their foreign policy foray with the Iran nuclear deal. Pope Francis gave his papal blessing to the Iran nuclear deal before the details were even dry on the page or publicly revealed by announcing that “in hope we entrust to the merciful Lord the framework recently agreed to in Lausanne, that it may be a definitive step toward a more secure and fraternal world.” Surely, the U.S. Congress will hear this papal blessing invoking God to support the Iran deal, with the congressional Iran vote looming in the near future.

On the domestic front, the unholy alliance between the Vatican and the Obama Administration runs deep. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy met with Vatican officials to coordinate the new and onerous EPA environmental regulations with the Pope’s environmental encyclical. McCarthy asserted that the Obama Administration and the Vatican are “deeply aligned on climate change.” Laudato Si reiterated Al Gore’s apocalyptic phony warnings of global warming and climate change-all elevated to moral tenets, which not surprisingly, are deeply ensconced in the democratic party platform.

Undoubtedly, in his UN keynote address, Pope Francis will urge the passage of the UN Sustainable Development Goals which, among other initiatives, promotes global access to abortion, a key diplomatic directive of the Obama Administration, one which aligns with Joe Biden who enjoys a 100% rating from pro abortion group NARAL in 4 of the last 5 years.

The political advantage for the democratic party that co-opts the papal agenda, as its own, and wraps itself in the popularity of the Pope, coupled with a Catholic presidential nominee, bodes political disaster for the Republicans in 2016. According to Pew Research, one-quarter of 2012 voters were Catholics. They continue to swing between the democratic and republican parties, depending on the nominee. Not since John Kennedy, have voters had the option to vote for a Catholic presidential candidate.

The Catholic vote will determine the next President of the United States. Pope Francis, as the leader of the Catholic Church, is popular with the secular mainstream media which supports and feverishly protects the Democratic Party. September will bring wall-to-wall coverage of the Pope Fest, as he embraces the Obama/Biden administration, and its EPA, and the United Nations. Then followed by the Biden presidential announcement. Timing is everything in politics.

Be prepared for Joe Biden to shadow the Pope throughout his visit. As President of the Senate, Vice President Joe Biden will be seated directly behind Pope Francis at the podium, when the Pope addresses to the Joint Session of Congress on September 24th. Picture Joe Biden repeatedly jumping to his feet and leading the cheers when Pope Francis urges open borders for immigrants, decarbonization, the evils of fossil fuels, and the approval of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Watch as the cameras focus on VP Biden’s pearly white grin when the Pope demands that the U.S. Government spend more taxpayer money on the poor and renewable energy, like windmills and those important Solyndra solar panels for the sake of global warming! The media will ensure that the huge viewing public will understand that Joe Biden shares the values of Pope Francis. What a subliminal endorsement!

Rest assured, that Biden will be featured prominently at the White House papal meet and greet, when President Obama caucuses with the Pope on September 23rd. After all, President Obama has recently anointed Biden, as his successor with the glowing endorsement that Joe Biden was “the smartest political decision he ever made and he will mount a successful campaign.”

Look for Joe Biden to attend the Papal keynote address at the September 25th UN General Assembly, and nod approval as the Pope exhorts the passage of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and the ratification of the December Paris Climate Treaty. Both initiatives are supported by the Obama Administration and Democrats, and will tax and fine Americans into poverty and finally achieve ‘hope and change’ in the form of redistribution of American wealth and prosperity.

Imagine the 2016 political TV ads! Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden huddled with and embracing the most powerful moral leader of the world, Pope Francis. Now those are some political coat tails.

Too bad the Pope can’t vote for Joe Biden, they share so many common values. But perhaps, he can. If Pope Francis crosses over from the Mexican border into the U.S., he just might be able to vote for a Joe Biden/Elizabeth Warren ticket.

 

********

Elizabeth Yore is an Attorney and International Child Rights Advocate. She served as a member of the Heartland Institute delegation to protest the Vatican exclusion of all scientific opinions and its reliance on population control experts. She served as Oprah Winfrey’s Special Counsel at Harpo, Inc. until 2012.   She was the General Counsel of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services.

It's not evil, Francis. It just takes a leap of faith and a humble heart to open the door and go in.

It just takes a leap of faith and a humble heart to open the door and go in.

I read that years ago Pope John XXIII insulted the Church, calling it a only a museum if it would not yield to that ‘aggiornamento.’  That was a very dark thing to say.  It betrayed a contempt for the Faith and her past, a past which includes Christ, His Mother, His Apostles, His saints – all glorious human beings living yet today.

I wish Francis would make up some new schemes, and stop rebuilding the tired, ugly concentration camp that was the 1970’s Church.

A church that lives according to the Gospel must always have its doors open and be a welcoming community, not “an exclusive, closed sect,” Pope Francis said.

“Churches, parishes, institutions with closed doors must not call themselves a church; they must call themselves museums,” he said to applause during his general audience in St. Peter’s Square Sept. 9.

As part of a series of talks about the family, the pope focused on the close bond that should exist between the family and the Christian community.

The son of God chose to be born and immersed in the everyday life and routine of a simple family in a poor village, the pope said.

In fact, the family is where the “irreplaceable, indelible” start of one’s life story begins, which is “why the family is so important”.

When Jesus began his public ministry, he formed around him a community with a shared vocation, “that is, a con-vocation of people. This is the meaning of the word, ‘church,'” the pope said.

The group Jesus gathers around him has the features of “a hospitable family, not an exclusive, closed sect”, he said.

This truly is babble.  The only thread running through it is its socialism.  To preach against walls is to destroy.  Jesus was all about ‘the romanticized, mythical people’ see, specifically ‘the poor,’ and not all those other ‘structures.’  Structures close in, make walls.  Bad, bad.

That’s radicalism.  That’s Liberation Theology.  It’s simply an effort to disarm, to corral you into the structures they have waiting for you once they’ve wrecked those that belonged to you.  Out of the Holy House of your Faith and Church then into their barns,  it’s a stark picture of this pontificate.  Most people can’t seem to face it.

What about the Temple, or the Tent of the Presence?  These structures had ‘closed doors.’  What about the faithful Catholic worthily receiving Communion?

An institution without doors or walls is not an institution at all.  It’s rubble.  God has no real house at all in FrancisChurch.

An ‘exclusive, closed sect.’  Why must he smear the Church?  Heaven is exclusive.  Not everyone gets in, your Holiness.  Boundaries define things.  They make things holy, or ‘set apart.’  They discriminate between good and evil – or is that mean or something?

 

 

 

If that marriage is invalid, let's make this one valid. Call it a merciful 'renullment' or something.

If that marriage is invalid, let’s make this one valid. Call it a merciful ‘renullment’ or something.

The Eye-Witness blog has some rare truth about FrancisAnnulments, but it’s only common sense, really.

This is a dangerous business.

I am not alone in being concerned that the Pope’s new instant annulment process is just a part of the stage-management that has been going on by the movers and shakers of the upcoming Synod. It seems clear enough – especially by the timing – that this is a maneuver to both win some hearts and minds – uncritical hearts and minds, that is – while at the same time greasing the skids for the more radical moves that are intended for October.

Even Cardinal Burke, who is more than a little familiar with the annulment process and was active in that arena in its liberalized state, is uneasy about this, calling the easing of the annulment process “sentimentalism and false compassion.”  What His Eminence did not say is that it was already far too easy to get one, and even on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Sentimentalism.  That’s what’s Islamicizing Europe right now.  We are truly a debased, de-natured people.

Let us face some cold, hard facts.  The annulment process in recent decades has been an absolute farce.  In America especially.  It is so farcical that critics of the Church have rightly called it “Catholic divorce”.  A good example: a man and a woman (known to this writer) married seventeen years and the parents of seven children were granted an annulment.  No wife-beating was involved.  The husband was far from perfect but the wife had had enough of him.  So their marriage was declared to have “never existed in the first place”.

Whether the husband was a bounder or not, they were still sacramentally married.

Many of us in the active Catholic community have such stories.

That is one story among thousands.  The number of annulments granted in recent decades is by any standard ridiculous; in the past 2,000 years there were probably 82 annulments given by the Church.  Now they give out 82 per day.  It is as if the Marx Brothers were put in charge of marriage tribunals.

But the Eye-Witness sees something even more sinister at work than the destruction of society through this institutional malpractice.

The cheers from Catholics anxious to dump their spouses is deafening.  The cheers from supine clergymen supporting this new Francis edict are also deafening.  Fence-sitting Catholics, always willing to give the benefit of the doubt, are cautiously optimistic by this.  But all of these souls are falling into a booby-trap which will explode next month.  By their cheers of support they are providing a faux consesus for a Pope who it seems wants to show a false mercy towards divorced and remarried people and, far worse, homosexual cohabitation. If the Modernists can gain Catholic support for this new “merciful” annulment process the laid trap will be snapped in a few weeks.

The earmarks of Hollywood-style PR do seem to be all over this.  It reeks of contrivance.  Once again our emotions are being manipulated by clever men.  As far as the “merciful” aspect of this latest Francis move we remain sceptical.  Our common sense tells us that even more chaos is ahead, courtesy of the strange man who now occupies the Petrine Office.

‘Strange man.’ I see it.

If the entire faithful Catholic apparatus can look the other way at this latest atrocity, they’ll be demoralized enough to sign on to anything.

 

My annulment's ready already?!

My annulment’s finished already?!

In a followup to his excellent analysis of the new merciful FrancisAnnulment edicts released this week, canonist Dr. Peters has a telling revisit to the story of the Pope’s niece, Maria.

Pope Francis’ niece, María Inés Narvaja, thinks she understands her uncle’s interest in fast-track annulments. Yes, the lawyer in me cautions that Maria’s attributions of statements to her uncle, then-Abp. Bergoglio, are hearsay, but, we’re not in a courtroom, we’re in the blogosphere. Besides what Maria says about the future Francis is illuminating.

Maria recalls that she (or her intended?) applied for an annulment but was told by Argentine Church officials that her case would take four years. She reacted with a young-woman-in-love’s “pffft!” and announced that she would marry civilly. Per María, her uncle endorsed the idea. Maybe, maybe not, that’s not the question here. The question is whether Maria’s (or her intended’s) annulment case would really have taken four years (despite 1983 CIC 1453, setting 18 months as the norm). Personally, I believe her.

I once worked on a marriage case that (fascinating canon-law-of-jurisdiction details omitted) could have been heard in either America or Argentina. Both tribunals turned to Rome for guidance, with the Argentine tribunal asking that the case be heard in the USA! They said their cases take an average of, yes, four years to process. That delay was not necessarily the Argentine Church’s fault; they probably did not have the resources to hear marriage cases more quickly. But it lends support to Maria’s claim about long delays in Argentine tribunals and that in turn would help explain Francis’ impatience to fix an obvious pastoral problem.

Of course, what might well be a serious problem in one Church need not be a problem in another, and a cure for a problem—setting aside whether the cure itself is really a good one—imposed where a cure is not needed can actually cause even more problems. Still, it’s an interesting insight into Francis’ attitudes.

‘Attitude’ is the appropriate word here.  Uncle Bergoglio’s attitude is bigger than the Church and its guidance, bigger than her teaching.  It’s the attitude of a Protestant ‘reformer.’

I think it’s probably true that Maria’s uncle, our Francis, told her to just skip the annulment and get remarried.  Based upon all kinds of similar unconfirmed stories Pope Francis seems to have spent his entire career waiving Church teaching and rules.  He hates rules almost as much as he hates those Pharisees.  Rules are the opposite of mercy, see.  You have to have the right balance they say, as if these were in opposition.  So trim some of those rules!  Be nice! (Be liberal.)

But of course, hating rules doesn’t make you merciful.  It just makes you criminal and if those rules violate God’s laws, it makes you sinful.

It’s not mercy to enable heinous acts like marriage betrayal.  On the contrary it’s ruthless to those involved.  It’s an injustice to all the other family members and wound to society.  People underestimate the damage done because it rides beneath the surface, like abortion.  Even murder relieves pain and yields benefits…for the living.  For some people, murder is mercy.

How does a man like Francis maintain such a twisted view on life?  It’s a mystery.

This story demonstrates something else which is very timely.  It reveals that Francis believes annulments are really just the same as divorces.  He couldn’t care less about the procedure because he couldn’t care less about the grounds.  It certainly is cruel and bureaucratic to make people wait a long time for some useless procedure.  The only problem is, it’s not useless.  It has to do with whether people were actually married.  It concerns their souls, their abandoned spouses, and everyone else.

These new declarations are just ‘no fault’ annulments.  Any excuse will do, especially if they both want it and neither side actually cares.

 

 

conservative but not resistant

Conservative but not Resistant

Patheos writer Fr. Dwight Longenecker is the latest to respond to the Wapo accusations of ‘conservative’ resistance, but he sure isn’t very nice about it or very conservative either.

The Post lists nothing specific from which they draw their conclusions.  They mention Cardinal Burke, who seems to have been sidelined fairly well these days, but little else.  Longenecker sees this as proof that there actually is no ‘conservative’ resistance to the Francis agenda among Catholics.

This article from the Washington Post gives a typical progressive slant on Catholic news.

The headline suggests that “Conservative Dissent is Brewing Inside the Vatican.” Ho  hum.

You can guess the tired narrative: Pope Francis is the great reformer who wants to clean up the corrupt Vatican Bank, open communion to divorced and re-married people, lift the ban on artificial contraception, give the nod to abortion, make way for women priests and green light same sex marriage.

Except of course that he’s spoken out clearly against all those things.

Talk is cheap, but the UN’s Paris global warming agreement is expensive.  “Does Francis care about the pro-death agenda of his policy partners,” a conservative might ask?

Nevertheless, he’s a subtle worker don’t you know, and he’s moving things along slowly but surely. Here a clever liberal appointment and there a back room deal. Here a little wink and nudge to journalists and there a promotion of one of his liberal buddies and a demotion of one the bad guys. In other words, the Vatican is working just like Washington DC and any powerful organization–it’s a network of crafty cardinals, manipulative monsignors and corrupt curial officials.

This kind of not-funny sarcasm is a liberal trademark.  You’re supposed to feel stupid.   At least in Washington they don’t pretend to be Catholic.

Of course there will always be politicking in any organization and the Vatican is no exception. Furthermore, there will always be disagreement and dissent within an organization.

Of course, but there’s no dissent in the Church Militant. The heresy is all on the outside – or is Father still talking about Washington?

Is there “dissent” amongst some conservative American Catholics? There is certainly some genuine ugliness rumbling in a few extreme traditionalist blogs, but must we take seriously flat earth bloggers who rant about the pope being a communist antiChrist, modernist, Jew loving, infiltrator who is ushering in the New World Order of Illuminati/Freemasons? Probbly not.

I think we’ve just crossed some of that resistance the Post laments.  You can tell by where Father chooses to bring down his hammer.  If we Catholics weren’t faithful, sincere, and effective, FrancisPriests like Fr. Longenecker wouldn’t smear us.

And if you can’t tell the difference between a destructive pro-communist Pope and a conservative, you belong at Patheos, not among the faithful ‘resistance.’  There’s more to it than a goatee and a gun.

 

 

 

 

 

Don't cry. Mercy is on it's way in just 45 days.

Don’t cry. Mercy is on it’s way in just 45 days.

Canonist Dr. Peters has a devastating look at the new ‘Fast and Cheap’ FrancisAnnulments just announced.

A few bits:

If the older canonical tradition wrongly assumed that a respondent necessarily opposed an annulment, this new norm wrongly, I think, makes relevant a respondent’s “consent” to an annulment petition. While a respondent’s participation in the tribunal process is always sought and is usually helpful in adjudicating marriage cases, his or her consent to a nullity petition is never necessary for the Church to exercise jurisdiction over a case and, more to the point, it is not indicative of the merits of the petition. Making mutual agreement to a petition an element of hearing that petition quickly risks confusing two things that the Church has long sought to distinguish, namely, the parties’ laudable cooperation with the tribunal’s search for truth and their collusion with each other toward a specific outcome. Treating nullity petitions in which the parties agree radically differently from those wherein they disagree, sends a dubious message.

Both parties agreeing to it has nothing whatsoever to do with nullity.

The new speedy annulment process, however, allows (I would say, pressures) bishops who are not necessarily canon lawyers (Canon 378), to rely heavily on a report drafted by someone who need not be a canon lawyer (Mitis, Art. 3), after conferring with an assessor who need not be a canon lawyer (Canon 1424), to rule upon a marriage that, besides enjoying natural (‘intrinsic’) indissolubility, might be sacramentally (‘extrinsically’) indissoluble as well. And note, these new speedy annulment cases are not cases that can already, under some circumstances, be processed quickly by documents because they deal with lack of canonical form or lack of canonical capacity. Canon 1686 mox 1688. No, these fast-track annulment cases plainly turn on questions of consent to marriage—consent, long and by far the most complex topic in marriage canon law. True, a judicial vicar must provide certification that the petition proposed for speedy processing meets certain evidentiary criteria, and the defender of the bond is allowed to respond to the petition, but the judicial vicar is not making a judgment as to nullity when he verifies the presence of certain evidence, and the defender has drastically less time to work on a case slated for expedited processing than he or she has for a formal case. In sum, this general lack of awareness of the inescapably complex legal nature of marriage consent shown in these new rules is disturbing.

New FrancisAnnulments demonstrate an ignorance and disregard for canon law and its practice.

Next, on the excuses for ‘fast-track…’

Looking at the examples offered—and setting aside the incoherence of some phrasings such as “abortion procured to prevent procreation”—they confuse several complex aspects of consent law, they seem to treat some fact patterns as if they were quasi-impediments to marriage, and they introduce into consideration some matters that have little (perhaps no) jurisprudence behind them with which to assist bishops assessing their significance in a marriage case. Worse, in my opinion, the enunciation of these factors is going to create crises of conscience among faithful who live with one or more of these conditions in their past.

All the conditions for FrancisAnnulment make most marriages invalid!  The married world must now either doubt Francis or their own lives.  This is really ‘pastoral.’  Not only is it faithless in practice, but it completely lacks common sense.    This must be that ‘New Evangelization’ everyone used to talk about.

The most confusing point about this list is that some of these factors, though presented as reasons for hearing a petition quickly, are actually grounds for nullity (e.g., simulation, force or fear); other factors, however, are most emphatically not grounds for annulment (e.g., brevity of married life); and others might, or might not, be suggestive of grounds for nullity (e.g., an extra-marital affair near the time of the wedding might show a grave lack of discretion of judgement or an inability to assume matrimonial rights and duties). Because traditional grounds of nullity have been mixed in among things that could be evidence for other grounds of nullity, and further mixed with things that are not grounds for nullity and often are not even evidence of grounds for nullity, confusion will—and already has, judging from questions I have already received from the faithful—erupt as to whether these factors are not just reasons to hear a case speedily, but are themselves proof of matrimonial nullity. Try to explain to non-canonists why one thing the pope listed (say, simulation) is grounds for an annulment but another thing he listed (say, pregnancy) is not grounds for an annulment.

There are grounds for annulment here which aren’t actually grounds for annulment.  But since they were already abusing the ‘grounds’ they had, I have to agree with FrancisChurch that at this point it makes no difference.  The end result is the ‘mercy,’  see?

Worse, many, many married couples have experienced one or more of these events in their lives. Unfortunately—again I say this has already started!—people with any of these factors in their lives are going to wonder, logically and sincerely, whether their marriage might be null. They will worry, for example, whether the fact that she was pregnant at the time of the wedding means their marriage is null. If not, why does it mean that an annulment case could be heard more quickly? Or, if he was not very active in the Faith when they married, did he just pretend for (technically, simulate) his wedding promises? Many of these questions are obviously highly dependent on fact analysis (e.g., what is “improper concealment” of infertility, what counts as “incarceration”?), and so one must ask, how are such cases reliably to be investigated, considered, and decided by a bishop (a man with about a hundred other things to do at any given time) in a matter of a few weeks?

Truly, a society seeded with false ‘catholic’ annulments is infected.   Ram them through and welcome more of them.  Hagen Lio!

 

These heathens and the things they say about FrancisMercy!

Why is the Register’s Marge Fenelon so angry?

I saw the headlines and went ballistic.

“Pope Francis Seeks Easier Way for Catholics to End Marriages”

“Pope Francis Simplifies Marriage Annulments with New Fast-track Process”

There were others as bad and these. They are all grossly misleading.

There is nothing easy about ending a marriage and there is no fast-track to annulment. Not even with the Apostolic Letters motu proprio, or “on his own impulse” just issued by Pope Francis.

Why do secularists and non-Catholics have to be the ones to tell the truth about our Church?  An annulment today is a ‘way to end a marriage’ yet still be considered ‘in union’ with the Church.  That’s it.  They just ‘say’ it’s a declaration of nullity.  I suppose that they are right about that every 1/10,000th of the time, though.

You must ask yourself.  Were the bishops wrong in rarely finding nullity for thousands of years up until your grandparents’ day, or are they wrong now?  They can’t be both.

How can  you go to the peripheries, be ecumenical, and walk together with your fellow ‘Christian’ wherever you’re supposed to be going if you keep accusing your ‘brother in Christ’ of lying when he simply reports the truth.  Francis is trying to simplify annulment proceedings by removing steps and participants, and ‘fast-tracking’ several types of situations.  That’s why he thinks it’s merciful, because they’re faster and cheaper.  ‘Catholics’ can be free to abandon their spouses or cheat on them more quickly and the Church will ‘mercifully’ condone it within 45 days.  The mercy part is where you get out of the marriage faster.

Am I saying something heretical here?  Is honesty now a sin?  Is blindness Catholic?

In general, both letters lessen the time and cost required for annulments. They also allow the local bishop to judge annulment cases himself or to delegate the responsibility to a priest-judge with two assistants in places where the normally required three-judge tribunal isn’t available. That’s not so much the case in the United States, but it’s not uncommon in other countries.

‘Less time and cost,’ fast and cheap, ‘fasttrack.’

Neither document in any way questions the indissolubility of marriage, nor do they offer a free ticket for those wanting to take the A Train out of it.

I suppose we should be grateful that Pope Francis didn’t include in his letter that marriages are now dissoluble.  It would be so much worse if he decided just to call every broken marriage a non-marriage automatically, then on top of that add a note saying divorce is OK.  It makes me feel so relieved to hear that, because of some inane technicality, I never was married all those years, but at least I’m not divorced like a Protestant!

“What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” (But if you want to pretend that God never joined them together in the first place, that’s entirely up to you.)

It’s like robbing a bank then saying it wasn’t really a bank anyway and there was no money in it.  If Pope Francis called that mercy, you’d probably scold the entire world about how he never said once that banks weren’t banks.  You’d go “ballistic.”

Marge, if you get married in the Church, take the marriage prep, gather the family around, have four kids and live together twenty years, then complain you didn’t know what you were doing and your husband was mean and neglectful, you can call it whatever you like, but you’ve got that train ticket out, no problem. Lying about it sets a bad example.  It makes people think the Catholic Church is full of adulterous cheats, hypocrites, and brown-nosing reporters – more of a mud puddle you’d want to step over than a vast ‘ocean of mercy.’