Fr. Longenecker Finds That ‘Conservative’ Resistance to FrancisChurch

by
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.

 

 

 

 

 

New FrancisMercy Nullifies Every Marriage In An Incoherent Legal Mess

by
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!

 

Fast and Cheap? – Register Goes ‘Ballistic’ Over FrancisMercy Misreporting

by

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.’