Synod: There’s a Working Tool in the Vatican And It Hates the Faith

by
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.

 

 

Why Must Common Sense Come From Outside FrancisChurch?

by
What's up with Pope Francis?

What’s up with Pope Francis?

At the Boston Globe there is some rare good sense injected into the frightening Laudato si’ flood of wastewater.

Watch your back, Pope Francis, you have no idea what conniving charlatans thou art lying down with when you go full green.

Your new flock will not settle for being junior partners. Unlike the African missions or the Home for Little Wanderers, they won’t be satisfied with the take from a mere second collection. An inconvenient truth is that greedy greens grab all the gelt.

Remember the Shrine of Solyndra.

These sticky-fingered moonbats even have their own pontiff, Pope Albert I, patron saint of masseuses.

The climate-change grifters are preaching an updated version of that old time religion. It’s still fire and brimstone — a London newspaper headline Friday declared, “Mankind will be extinct in 100 years because of climate change, warns expert.”

There is one major difference between these climate-change “experts” and most of the traditional clergy. The secular prophets of doom really do believe that global warming is destroying the planet, just as 40 years ago they thundered with equal fervor about the global cooling that was leading to a new Ice Age.

It’s still about salvation, saving one’s soul. Repent. Get thee to a recycling center. Separate thy trash. As in any new religion, the greens require devils to keep the credulous faithful in line. Instead of Satan and Lucifer, the fallen angels are now known as the Koch Brothers, and George W. Bush.

Like Thomas Dolby, this new pope appears blinded by science, or should I say “settled science.”

I don’t think the Pope is blinded by science.  I think he’s blinded by vice; the vices of anger, jealousy and pride.  He’s in a maniacal rush to accomplish everything he and his notorious compadres have been grumbling about for the past thirty years.  That’s why he’s in league with Catholic enemies.  As far as the Church goes, our Pope Francis plays to lose.

To stay au courant, Pope Francis this week issued an encyclical, airily denouncing the “harmful habits of consumption.” This goes over big with billionaires who travel in their own private jets.

The pope is particularly appalled by “the increasing use and power of air conditioning,” which you would think theologians would consider a blessing in this age of heat waves. Oddly, though, no mention of the pressing need for more bicycle lanes in Brookline.

The last time the Vatican moved this quickly on a scientific issue was back in 1633, when Galileo was placed under house arrest for life for the “heresy” of suggesting that the Earth revolved around the sun, rather than vice versa.

Now, almost 400 years after that scientific breakthrough, the Vatican serves up this papal hot air.

“Humanity is called to take note of the need for changes in lifestyle and in methods of production and consumption …”

After Joe Stalin once read a similarly windy sermon by an earlier pope, he famously asked, “How many divisions does the pope have?”

The question now is, “How many solar panels does the Pope have?” Wind turbines? Priuses?

On the bright side, the Pope says there’s no problem that a new global “authority” couldn’t solve, once we create “one world with a common plan.”

Sounds very feasible. Is Bernard Cardinal Law in the house? The pope is going to need someone to run his New World Order, and the devout Bernie is warming up in the bullpen — tanned, rested and ready to go.

I’m sure Pope Francis is basking in his early rave reviews. Of course his new politically correct friends are ignoring the rest of the encyclical, which is full of what Joe Kennedy II used to call “Catholic mumbo jumbo.”

The media are particularly ecstatic with the thought that his global warming polemics will “make for awkward reading among some Catholic Republicans,” as the Guardian put it.

Apparently the pope’s denunciations of abortion and sex-change operations won’t “make for awkward reading” among Catholic Democrats.

And that is the whole point.  The new bridled faux-catholic press is climbing and slogging through the Pope’s endless manifesto looking for catholic ideas.  Most of these soldiers are in progress.  They say, “I’m halfway, but I have this and this to say.”  But the media machine will simply ignore what they find.

The FrancisChurch agenda grafts leftist statism onto to a shadow Catholicism in order to ride the Church like a horse into the promised land of tyranny.  It’s Liberation Theology for the new millennium: UN climate governance.  The planet is a holy ecosystem and everything is Earth, is weather, is people, is poverty, is faith.  All religions are one in God’s tender mercy, just ask oh Francis, the One.  LoveLikeFrancis.com!

This is the crowning achievement of a consolidated world media: a manufactured cult, and not the Catholic Faith.

After all, Chris Dodd et al. never seem to let the odd divorce or their support for partial-birth abortion stop them from piously taking communion at, say, Ted Kennedy’s funeral.

One thing Pope Francis and the tree huggers can agree on — the need of all the faithful to ride the bus — a bus without AC, needless to say.

“Many specialists,” the encyclical notes, “agree on the need to give priority to public transportation.”

See you at Park Street, Your Holiness!

Somehow Mr. Carr is not the same easy sell you might find say, at the National Catholic Register.

I was disappointed today to see the great and brave Fr. Hunwicke echo the infuriating sentiment of Robert George, by calling for a docile ‘willingness to be taught’ by Francis regardless of what the hell he’s clearly peddling.

I would like to make a preliminary comment. I think it becomes us all to read this Letter intending to be taught by it and by the one who sits in the Chair of Peter and wears the Fisherman’s Ring. It is not infallible, but then, neither am I. We rightly condemn those who rubbished Humanae vitae when it was published; and those who do not accept the binding authority of Ordinatio sacerdotalis. We stand under our own condemnation if we treat this Encyclical with that same disrespect with which the Wolves malevolently treat the Church’s Magisterium. (This is still true, even though it is obvious that this Encyclical does not intend to impose dogma or definitively to settle a particular and precise moral question, as each of those two documents did.)

If we find in this or in any other Encyclical some particular teaching which we genuinely have trouble understanding or appropriating, then, in my view, the most fitting response is simply not to talk about that particular aspect of its teaching until we do find that we can speak positively about it.

I know that Father’s words come with a great deal of Catholic history including numerous papal encyclicals behind them, but really, enough is enough.  Does he see no difference between those who ‘rubbished Humanae Vitae’ and critics of this liberal high tax, big government, pro-poverty, pro-slavery, anti-Church capitulation to evil?

How much Hellish misery, Church dysfunction, and heresy must we endure before we can address the problem?  Docility before error is no virtue.  The problems in the world come from a failure of the Church.  That starts and ends with Peter.  His failure is ours too since we overlook it and we carry it forward.  It’s rooted in faithlessness, I’m sorry, I mean excess pastoralism.

We simply must separate the truth from the lies all the way to the top.  It’s no animus toward the man or the office, just the lies.  It’s love.  The Church’s true problems must be confronted, and gentleness won’t due.

How many more generations must be laid waste?

 

 

 

Bill Donohue on Laudato Si: Striking How the Media All Fall in Line

by
Pope Francis Fan

Pope Francis Fan?

I hear time and again from non-Catholic friends and family how popular Pope Francis is.  Who cares?

Faithful Catholics spend their whole lives making unpopular choices and catching grief.  Now we’re supposed to celebrate all the singing and creepy dancing over Francis?

At the release of the worldly Global Warming Encyclical, Catholic League’s Bill Donohue writes:

The media are awash with stories on the tension between Catholic GOP presidential candidates and their fidelity to Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment. It is a story worth exploring. But an even juicier story is the decades-long rejection of papal authority by Catholic Democrats in Washington on issues such as abortion.

In recent years, Vice President Joe Biden, House Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Congressman Patrick Kennedy, and former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, have all gotten into public clashes with their bishop; in some cases as many as 26 bishops have publicly rebuked them. Some of these Democrats were summoned to meet with their bishop—more than once—while others were told to refrain from receiving Communion. Their public support for abortion rights was, in every instance, the issue that provoked the reaction. Yet their dissent, and subsequent reprimands, were never cast by the media as cause for concern.

Catholics are expected to give their assent to papal teachings, but it is not true that all pronouncements are morally equal. In 2004, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) was explicit about this: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.”

It goes without saying that climate change is not on the same moral plane with the intentional killing of innocent human beings. It is striking nonetheless to see long-time dissident Catholic journalists—those who rail against Church teachings on sexuality—lining up single file to express their absolute allegiance to what the pope is expected to say tomorrow.

Striking indeed and telling.  Something’s not right, yes?