FrancisChurch defender vulnerable and at-risk from conservative attack

Vulnerable FrancisChurch defender at risk from ‘conservative’ attack

The Washington Post is seeing things.

On a sunny morning earlier this year, a camera crew entered a well-appointed apartment just outside the 9th-century gates of Vatican City. Pristinely dressed in the black robes and scarlet sash of the princes of the Roman Catholic Church, Wisconsin-born Cardinal Raymond Burke sat in his elaborately upholstered armchair and appeared to issue a warning to Pope Francis.

A staunch conservative and Vatican bureaucrat, Burke had been demoted by the pope a few months earlier, but it did not take the fight out of him. Francis had been backing a more inclusive era, giving space to progressive voices on divorced Catholics as well as gays and lesbians. In front of the camera, Burke said he would “resist” liberal changes — and seemed to caution Francis about the limits of his authority. “One must be very attentive regarding the power of the pope,” Burke told the French news crew.

To call Cardinal Burke, or any other faithful Catholic ‘conservative’ is simply a slur.  We aren’t in love with old things. We just don’t run with the popular pack, afraid, or over the cliff with the herd of swine.  We stand on the eternal Rock of Truth.

Papal power, Burke warned, “is not absolute.” He added, “The pope does not have the power to change teaching [or] doctrine.”

Burke’s words belied a growing sense of alarm among strict conservatives, exposing what is fast emerging as a culture war over Francis’s papacy and the powerful hierarchy that governs the Roman Catholic Church.

This is last year’s revolt.  The post is replaying the 2014 Synod, trying to gin up a sense of repeated resistance before this year’s attack.  But where has Cardinal Burke been the past several months?  What has happened to that faithful front?  They’ll be watching for Edward Pentin this time, and Michael Voris has placed himself under restriction.

They’ve also knotted up all the rules so that working groups have absolutely no means of open communication either with the outside or with each other.  Did you think they were going to repent their thuggish tactics and become Christian gentlemen this year?  Synod 2015 is designed so that no Synod father will obstruct the ‘holy spirit’ and his frightening surprises.

This month, Francis makes his first trip to the United States at a time when his progressive allies are hailing him as a revolutionary, a man who only last week broadened the power of priests to forgive women who commit what Catholic teachings call the “mortal sin” of abortion during his newly declared “year of mercy” starting in December. On Sunday, he called for “every” Catholic parish in Europe to offer shelter to one refugee family from the thousands of asylum seekers risking all to escape war-torn Syria and other pockets of conflict and poverty.

Yet as he upends church convention, Francis also is grappling with a conservative backlash to the liberal momentum building inside the church. In more than a dozen interviews, including with seven senior church officials, insiders say the change has left the hierarchy more polarized over the direction of the church than at any point since the great papal reformers of the 1960s.

Read ‘destroyers.’

The conservative rebellion is taking on many guises — in public comments, yes, but also in the rising popularity of conservative Catholic Web sites promoting Francis dissenters; books and promotional materials backed by conservative clerics seeking to counter the liberal trend; and leaks to the news media, aimed at Vatican reformers.

Is a ‘FrancisDissenter’ an actual dissenter?

What websites do they reference here?  The mainline faithful Catholic press retains a very thin slice of its old glory.  They are for the most part FrancisApologists and cheerleaders.  They have even become pitiful sycophantic environmentalists.  It would be better just to link to a cover page that reads: “Nothing to see here, just some fearful chiselers trying to hold onto their jobs in the era of ObamaChurch.”

No.  The rising popularity is in what used to be called ‘traditionalist’ Catholic media.  In FrancisChurch the faithful flock has been hewn right down the middle.  One side has gone ‘Voris,’ and left intellectual honesty behind to chase money and visibility.  The rest have been tarred as freaks who love long red dresses.

But those freaks are just Catholics.  LifeSiteNews, 1Peter5, The Remnant, our site PewSitter, and a host of learned and passionate writers from the Catholic and secular worlds remain to fight.  The non-specific Post may be referring to these.

In his recent comments, Burke was also merely stating fact. Despite the vast powers of the pope, church doctrine serves as a kind of constitution. And for liberal reformers, the bruising theological pushback by conservatives is complicating efforts to translate the pope’s transformative style into tangible changes.

Good!

“At least we aren’t poisoning each other’s chalices anymore,” said the Rev. Timothy Radcliffe, a liberal British priest and Francis ally appointed to an influential Vatican post in May. Radcliffe said he welcomed open debate, even critical dissent within the church. But he professed himself as being “afraid” of “some of what we’re seeing”

A poisoned chalice is one taken unworthily, ‘Father.’  If you’re so afraid of these dangerous Catholics perhaps you should register a micro-aggression complaint and enforce some kind of ‘safe space.’  After all, there’s nothing organic about the church to which you belong.  It’s already dead and dying, but the true Faith only grows.  It must be forcibly smothered and suppressed by men like you and their secular masters so that the ‘awful horror’ can go on ‘standing in the place where it should not be.’

 

 

 

 

Feeling the FrancisMercy

Feeling the New Mercy

At the UK Guardian Anthea Butler provides a great example of the whole point behind the new abortion FrancisMercy.

Pope Francis’s pastoral letter for the Year of Mercy, indicating that priests may absolve those who procure abortions, does nothing to change Catholic church policy with regards to how abortion is viewed. Current canonical law states that abortion is a grave sin, resulting in “automatic” excommunication.

It also doesn’t change very much when it comes to the mechanics of sin and forgiveness in the Catholic Church. Current teachings state that bishops could give priests the right to forgive a woman for having an an abortion if she was truly penitent; for this year, priests do not specifically have to ask a bishop for the right to absolve anyone seeking forgiveness for assisting an abortion or having one. (And Pope John Paul II gave priests the same term-limited right in the year 2000.)

What the Pope did was make a deft statement on the eve of his first visit to Cuba and the United States – a very Jesuitical move from the Jesuit pontiff. It presents to the public and press a more forgiving, more open church, which needs all the good PR feelings it can muster.

So far, so good.

In a letter outlining the preparations for the Year of Mercy beginning on 8 December 2015, the pope stated he is “conceding to all priests for the Jubilee year the discretion to absolve the sin of abortion to those who have procured it”.

While the edict is not a change in canon law, it does give a pathway to forgiveness for what the church terms “a grave sin”. Once a person is absolved, then they are back in “good standing’ with the Catholic church, and are able to partake of the sacrament of the Eucharist and be accepted into heaven.

Not so sure about this ‘new pathway’ she’s talking about, but it’s great to hear a big secular paper actually explain Confession, Holy Communion, and forgiveness in our Faith.

But wait:

The move to offer absolution to women who had abortions is likely to rankle conservatives who have found themselves embattled with this pope, who hews closely to Catholic church teachings but still makes comments like “who am I to judge” with regards to homosexuality and calls upon Church leaders to get active on climate change.

The letter particularly puts the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops once again in the interesting position of having to support the pope, even though many of them are staunch anti-abortion advocates who may not have wished to extend – or even forbidden the extension of – forgiveness to those women who have sought it regarding abortions. Many of those bishops have been eager to fight the culture wars surrounding abortion rights in the United States; this announcement reduces their bluster substantively.

They were doing so well, weren’t they?  They were talking about the Church and not making things up.  Pro-life faithful bishops don’t want forgiveness for abortions!  Now we have to silence the culture war?

Just when we thought maybe the secular left would start to understand Christ’s mercy, we find out they only get FrancisMercy.  FrancisMercy is only for liberals.

 

 

 

 

 

Paragon of FrancisChurch Theology

Paragon of FrancisChurch Theology

The HuffPo has an brief interesting study about now beatified Archbishop Oscar Romero and his importance to FrancisChurch.  It’s notable because it’s fairly honest and it has some actual information about these much cloaked and propagandized subjects.

A golden thread links Pope Francis to Oscar Romero, the murdered archbishop whose beatification the Pope ordered to take place last weekend, to the rapturous acclaim of the people of El Salvador and the wider world.

The thread is that of liberation theology, the movement that swept through Latin America, and then other parts of the world, 40 years ago. It maintains that the Gospel contains a preference for poor people — and insists that the Church has a duty to work for political and economic as well as spiritual change.

That’s exactly true.  Liberation Theology maintains the blatant lie that the Gospel contains a preference for poor people.  It doesn’t.  The Gospel proclaims and exemplifies the discipline of poverty and the virtue of charity.  A preference for poor people would be a cruel bigotry on God’s part.

The second lie of Liberation Theology is this worldly agenda for ‘political change’ which is beneath the Gospel and more akin to the Theology of Judas.

Conservatives in the Catholic Church do not like this. They have taken to asserting that Romero was not a liberation theologian. There is an irony in that, for they had spent the previous three decades blocking Romero’s path to sainthood by arguing the opposite. Then they said that to canonize the murdered cleric would effectively endorse liberation theology too.

It is ironic but it’s not conservative.  Any writers who’ve read Romero’s actual words know he had some affinity with the Liberation Theologists, but professional catholics often pretend otherwise.  The popes in our generation were wise and correct to suppress the Romero cause.  Pope Francis has not been so.

Conservatives saw this radical pro-poor movement, at the height of the Cold War, as a Marxist Trojan horse that would allow communism into South America through the back door. Its followers saw it as the words of Jesus in action.

Which was right?  It’s not just a matter of who holds the papacy.

In the years that followed, the mainstream Catholic Church took on board many of the insights of liberation theology. But conservatives in the Vatican and in the Latin American hierarchy worked behind the scenes to counter its influence — and block any attempts to move Romero along the path to becoming a saint.

There is an effective answer to these machinations and manoeuvrings. It is the one given by the man who is indisputably one of the founding fathers of liberation theology, Leonardo Boff, a former Franciscan friar who left the priesthood after the Vatican ordered him to a period of “obsequious silence” under the conservative papacies of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

When asked if Pope Francis was a liberation theologian, Boff gave an answer that would apply as aptly to Romero. “The important thing is not whether he is for liberation theology but [whether he is] for the liberation of the oppressed, the poor and the victims of injustice. And that he is without question. Pope Francis has lived liberation theology.”

Oscar Romero lived it too. He was not a theoretical theologian. He stood unflinchingly by the poor — and died for it.

Standing for the poor is not Catholicism.  It’s love.  Dying for the poor, if such a thing were to happen, is not martyrdom.  It’s getting murdered.  Dying for the robbed or the oppressed is even better, but it’s not necessarily dying for the poor.  But most importantly, living and dying for Liberation Theology does nothing but hurt the poor and endanger their souls as well with a ruthless and materialist heresy.

If that, as Leo Boff asserts, is what both Romero and Pope Francis lived out in their words and deeds, then he’s right.  It doesn’t really matter.