Crazy? Angry? You decide and I couldn’t care less!

Papal Allergies

I try, try, try so hard to ignore papal interviews and tweets, but some days I just can’t. It’s hard with “REALLLLLLYYYY?!?!?” blaring in my brain. I’m just going to paste the whole thing and comment after. Emphasis mine. 

Pope Francis loves nouns but is ‘allergic’ to adjectives
By Jessie Yeung, CNN
 (CNN)The Pope wants us to stop using so many adjectives.
In a speech on Monday to the Dicastery for Communications, the Vatican’s communications authority, Pope Francis urged people not to describe Christianity with qualifiers and adjectives. “We have fallen into the culture of adjectives and adverbs, and we have forgotten the strength of nouns,” he said.
Instead of calling churches “small but authentic,” or trying to distinguish things as “authentically Christian,” he said people should call them simply “Christian.” The term “Christian” is strong and authentic enough as it is, without the need for adjectives, he said.
“I am allergic to those words,” he added.
He pointed to the role of the employees as communications managers, saying their aim should be to “communicate with reality, without sweetening with adjectives or adverbs.” Communication is a kind of beauty, he said — and “beauty manifests itself from the noun itself, without strawberries on the cake.”
Let us learn to call people by their name, as the Lord does with us, and to give up using adjectives.
— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) September 24, 2019 (Note from OMM: This is the tweet I got from Pope Francis that led to this rant)
This was the first time the Pope met the Dicastery since first establishing it in 2015, when he had cited the need for a “rethinking” of the Holy See’s information system in a new age of digital media. He touched on this theme again in his Monday speech, encouraging the Dicastery to “encourage the formation of digital environments in which people communicate.”
Over the years, he has personally embraced these digital platforms — he launched an Instagram account in 2016, and gained a million followers in less than 12 hours. He’s also active on Twitter, and even tweeted out a reminder on Wednesday to “call people by their name, as the Lord does with us, and to give up using adjectives.

Like I tweeted back to him, I could totally get on board with this if we ditch all those evil adjectives, adverbs, and qualifiers attached to nouns. How about “LGBT” and “rigid” first?
The guy definitely needs a heavy dose of Benadryl if adjectives and adverbs are allergens.  He must be suffering greatly! I also think he should have a talk with the guy who said these things! Might help with the allergies and make those in-flight interviews a bit shorter. I’m going to limit it just to the adjectives/adverbs attached to “Catholic” and “Christian”. If I didn’t, the list of adjectives, adverbs and qualifiers could go on forever. I’m sure I missed some.  If you want a lengthier list, go here

Ideological Christians!
Rigid Christians!
Liquid Christian!
Superficial Christians!
Long-faced, mournful funeral Christian!
Sad Christian!
Pickled pepper-faced Christian!
Christians allergic to preaching!
Closed, sad, trapped Christian who is not a free Christian!
Pagan Christian!
Defeated Christian!
Creed-reciting, parrot Christian!
Watered-down faith, weak-hoped Christian!
Pastry-Shop Christians!
Delectable, but not real Christians!
Anesthetised Christian!
Christian hypocrites only interested in their formalities!
Sloth-diseased, acedic Christians!
Catholics, but without enthusiasm, even embittered!
People without light – real downers!
Selfish Christians, out for themselves!
Christians who do not leave space for the grace of God!
Christians with all the paperwork, all the certificates, in order!
Christian bats who prefer the shadows to the light!
Starched Christians!
Christians who are too polite!
Christians who speak of theology calmly over tea!
Catholics who work for personal profit!
Catholics who presented themselves as benefactors of the Church and made money on the side!
Weak-hearted Christians!
Christians in appearance!
Made-up Christians, because when the rain comes, the make-up runs off!
So many ‘apparent Christians,’ collapse at the first temptation!
Christians of appearance!
Dead Christians!
Christians who prefer a spectacle to the silence of the Kingdom of God!
Vain, pageant Christians!
Christians without strength, without fertility!
A Christian out for himself, to serve himself!
Christian with a sad life!
Christians enemies of the Cross of Christ!
Pagans with two strokes of Christian paint, so as to appear like Christians, but pagans nonetheless!
Dark Christians who lead a life of sin!
Christians who are neither light nor dark!
Christians of grey areas on one side first and then the other!
Christians who live for appearances! For vanity!
Peacocks Christians! They strut about like peacocks!
Soap bubble Christian!
Obstinate Christians!
Idolater Christians!
Christian rebels!
Christians with half-and-half a life! A life that is patched, mended, meaningless!
Motionless Christians!
Mummified Christians!
Embalmed, mummy Christians!
Vagabond Christians!
Wanderer Christians!
Labyrinth Christians without a compass!
Stubborn Christians!
Christians who stop half way along their journey!
Half-way Christians!
Non-Christian Christians!
Slightly ‘paganized’ Christians!
Parlour Christians!
Virtual Christians who are not virtuous!
Christians with a grimace!
Lazy Christians!
Christians who do not have the will to go forward!
Stationary Christians!
Etc., Etc., Etc.
-Pope Francis

Wait! What?! Pope Francis said all those things?!  Oh, the Holy Father must be doing all of this just to show us the true meaning of Matthew 7:5. That must be it! Or maybe he’s just trying to build up a tolerance to those allergies!
But seriously, folks…I don’t have a problem with half of these, but isn’t it a tad bit hypocritical to claim to detest what you do regularly? Sometimes it’s just too much for us regular folks (or just plain “folks”?) to take without comment.

Liberals & Human Shields (aka – Children)

If I could remember where I read it, I would give the person credit for pointing this out, so thank you to whoever you are!  “The liberals are using children as human shields.” You hit THE nail on the head.
Think about it.  While it was said about Greta Thunberg, it’s a DISTURBING trend I’m seeing everywhere.
Before I go further, a couple disclaimers: I don’t have anything against children being “activists”, per se.  In fact, we encourage it wholeheartedly in my family.  My kids know that, if they stick their heads up for the truth, they’re likely going to be shot at, so they need to know how to defend the argument. Now, some are chastising Greta’s parents for exploiting her by putting her out in public. I don’t have a problem with them in the least for THAT, since I have no evidence that they are trying to exploit her. I do have other issues with them, though, but that’s not one at this point. I will say that there are many child “activists” who are being completely exploited.  No doubt about it. I’d like to give their parents the tongue lashing of their lives.  However, children can be amazing in the public discourse, and many saints in our Church were just children “out among the wolves.” I’ve also witnessed some pretty awesome kids out there myself.
So where does the “human shield” thing come in?  It’s very clear that this is the new move in the liberal playbook.  Adult liberals throw a kid or vulnerable person out there to promote their liberal agenda, people get in an uproar about said “cause”, and then the liberal adults tell everyone how mean they are for saying one word about it “because they’re kids!!!” Examples? David Hogg, Desmond Napoles, the poor Down Syndrome people in “Drag Syndrome,” etc. Greta is just the latest.  Liberals are using them to promote their agendas of gun control, transgenderism, climate change fear mongering, and even really evil pedophilia, but if you say one word against it, you’re awful because they are children, autistic, down syndrome, etc.  It’s sick. They can’t get people to buy their lame arguments, so they use kids to deflect debate. Sadly, I fear, this is only going to get worse.

Fr. Martin & the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

In case you didn’t see it, Archbishop Chaput sent out a warning in his column today on Fr. James Martin, SJ.  Clearly, Archbishop Chaput has done his homework and researched Fr. Martin and read his book.  Here’s the good Archbishop’s missive here. And then Bishop Paprocki sent out a statement backing Archbishop Chaput’s caution. Even Bishop Stika weighed in on Twitter. I don’t always agree with him on non-theological things but I thank him for this. I expect (or at least hope) more bishops will follow. Lastly, I woke up this morning to find Archbishop Chaput responded to the response.
Now that we’re all caught up, Archbishop Chaput’s caution probably ruined Fr. Martin’s day, so he quickly sent out a reply. I’m going to reply to Father Martin’s reply so you can see even more clearly that Archbishop Chaput was dead on. 

Archbishop Charles Chaput graciously sent me his column today before publication, and I welcome this thoughtful response to my lecture at St. Joseph’s University this week. Here is my response:
Dear Archbishop:
The Peace of Christ!
Many thanks for sending your column ahead of time. I’m sorry that you felt the need to publish it.

There is a way to fix it, Fr. Martin, and I hope you will listen very carefully to Archbishop Chaput, who has clearly been very nice to you and is trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

I think my main response is that it’s difficult to respond to critiques that I am “implying” things, when I am assiduous in my writings and talks about not challenging church teaching. I have written clearly about that here, among other places: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/04/06/what-official-church-teaching-homosexuality-responding-commonly-asked-question

Saying you are not challenging Church teaching and then giving a wink and a nod to those that do is kind of the same thing.  Here’s a few instances of you not really doing what you say you do. (Hat tip to LifeSiteNews.) https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/eight-extreme-things-fr.-james-martin-just-said-about-catholics-and

Briefly put, I mean and I’m no theologian, but, you know, for a teaching to be really, um, authoritative it is expected that it will be received by the people of God, by the faithful. So you look at something, like, say, the Assumption…people accept that. They go to the Feast of the Assumption, they believe in the Assumption. It’s received. From what I can tell, in the LGBT community, the teaching that LGBT people must be celibate their entire lives – not just before marriage as it is for most people but their entire lives – has not been received. Now, I say this and people go crazy. And this is simply based on LGBT people that I speak to. Now there are some that believe that – I would say it’s a very small percentage of people, right – but that’s a simple fact. You can say that they don’t agree with it. I would say the teaching therefore has not been received by the community to which it was largely directed. And so the question is, you know, what do we do with that? Now that’s the kind of question to circle back to your original question – that reflection, you know, what do we do with a teaching that has seemingly not been received by the community to which it was directed – is a theological question that bishops and LGBT people need to think about.” – Fr. James Martin, SJ

Church teaching is only authoritative if it is accepted by the faithful?!? Sigh. In other words, he’s saying that if you don’t believe it, then it’s not true. Yeah, no undermining of the faith there.

Why is it so terrible to go to a gay wedding, but it is not terrible to go to a Jewish wedding? You know, let’s say – seriously – if your daughter, let’s say if you decided to convert to Judaism and you married Andy who was Jewish, right, your parents would probably be disappointed, I would assume, you know, or confused, or whatever. But the idea that they couldn’t go or would refuse to go um, it’s very surprising to me. So I think Catholics need to see it in light of that, that it is a different tradition…different belief system than most Catholics are used to…but it’s supporting the person that you love. So it’s very sad to me that people still agonize over this. -Fr. James Martin, SJ

So much to unpack in this one. First, no, you should not go to the wedding of a Catholic marrying a non-Catholic. Now, what Fr. Martin is talking about, it seems, is an apostate to the faith – someone who says they are no longer Catholic and are now part of some other church. It’s a little fuzzier here, so maybe some sort of canonist can weigh in. Next, just in an effort to be clear, the Church does not bind non-Catholics to Canon Law so, of course, the Church recognizes the marriage of two Jews, unless the two Jews are a homosexual couple, because the Church is crystal clear that two men and two women are not proper matter for any marriage.  It is not a marriage because, quite literally, no marriage can truly exist between two people of the same sex. There is only sodomy or masturbation, but the mutual self-giving and marriage of their bodies is absent.  This can never be rectified as in an apostate marrying outside the Church. So, yes, it a terrible thing because you’d be witnessing a union that isn’t a union and can NEVER be under Natural Law or Canon Law.

I always say that LGBT people have more faith than, I think, straight people because of that. I mean imagine you – what you have just described is really interesting, Brandon. You have internalized rejection already. You don’t need to even be told that you’re rejected in the Church, you’ve internalized it and that’s very sad… A lot of the people that Jesus came into contact with did the same thing. Think of like the woman with the hemorrhage, right, who doesn’t even feel worthy to kind of stand up and greet him, she reaches down and touches the hem of the garment; or the Samaritan women, right, who comes to the well at noon in the heat of the day because… we think, she’s been married five times and she’s probably embarrassed. Maybe people didn’t know enough to tell her you’re not welcome to come out at the regular time when other women come; she comes because she is embarrassed and she kinda internalized that and that’s sad. So I hope in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or, you know, soon to be your husband. Why not? What’s the terrible thing? And think of all the people in Church who have all sorts of other things on their conscience…it’s up to the institutional Church I think to make you feel welcome. -Fr. James Martin, SJ

I wonder why Fr. Martin didn’t offer this as proof he fully supports Church teaching and doesn’t seek to challenge it??? It’s never going to be OK for Brandon to kiss his partner in a romantic way, and he will NEVER have a husband. Your “assiduous” statements don’t look so assiduous when you contradict Church teaching repeatedly.

I would tend to agree with you because I would say that there – you could have some uh, hard and fast, and legitimate and reasonable theological objections [to same-sex marriage] in terms of the sacramentality, in terms of uh Biblical…and even though we shouldn’t read the Bible literally – Catholics don’t read the Bible literally – um…but I also think that, for the most part, I do find that there is a very high correlation between people who are against that [same-sex marriage] and people who are in fact homophobic. And so it’s that whole ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ argument, I know it’s not exactly the same, but it reminds me of that in a sense – people say, well I can be against gay marriage and not be homophobic. But then when you hear a lot of people, they sound pretty damn homophobic. And I can say, ‘hate the sin and love the sinner,’ but when you listen to them, there’s no sense of love at all. – Fr. James Martin, SJ

Uh, so is he saying that he’s homophobic or is he saying he’s for re-defining marriage?!?! Geez. Of course, he’ll deny both. But let’s just say that’s true.  If he’s managed to not be “homophobic” but against re-defining marriage, where in the world does he get off saying the rest of the Catholic Church can’t possibly do the same???  

Look at Humanae Vitae. Humanae Vitae is still in effect, and as far as I can tell, the large majority of Western Catholics have made their peace with that. And yet that Church teaching has not changed. And that’s a much older Church teaching. I mean, in the sense that’s – Humanae Vitae’s 1968 and a lot of stuff we’re talking about is, you know, very new. -Fr. James Martin, SJ

You’re going with “It’s outdated and doesn’t apply” argument, Fr. Martin? Yeah, Humanae Vitae is SO Old Testament. All of this crud we’re dealing with now is so new. Really? The world has never dealt with homosexuality? The struggle is actually biblical, Father.

Also, the lecture at St. Joseph’s University this week, which prompted your article, is the same lecture that I presented at the World Meeting of Families in Dublin last year, the text of which was vetted and approved beforehand by the Vatican.

And?  That isn’t really a defense of the points Archbishop Chaput made. The list of tragic speakers at the World Meeting of Families was long and probably why

One of the reasons that I don’t focus on same-sex relations and same-sex marriage, which I know are both impermissible (and immoral) under church teaching, is that LGBT Catholics have heard this repeatedly. Indeed, often that is the only thing that they hear from their church.

The problem is, as shown above, you have indeed suggested, implied, etc., that the Church’s teachings will change. You can almost hear the good old Jesuit “mental reservation”: “…are both impermissible (and immoral) under church teaching as it stands right now.” Sorry. Sometimes you don’t hold your tongue well enough. Your slip is showing. You want to be a savior to same-sex attracted people instead of leading them to the Savior. The Church has said far more and you disparage Her to them.
I’ve only included what could be found in one nice neat place, but if you delved into Fr. Martin’s social media pages, you would find much more evidence of Archbishop Chaput’s points. Fr. Martin consistently highlights groups that completely contradict the Church like Out@StPaul and New Ways Ministry without ever correcting their errors. He’s just hoping you don’t know that.

What I am trying to do instead is encourage Catholics to see LGBT people as more than just sexual beings, to see them in their totality, much as Jesus saw people on the margins, people who were also seen as “other” in his time.

Wow! That’s a stretch, because from where most of us stand, you appear to encourage people to embrace being a slave to their sexual inclinations. Jesus totally went after the people on the margins.  He didn’t, however, leave them there wallowing in their sin. He met them, told them to repent and sin no more, and told them the way was narrow. He didn’t just hang out with them acting as if all was grand with their lives.

I remain grateful for your asking people not to engage in ad hominem attacks, and I appreciate the careful tone of your letter and have always appreciated your kind communications with me.
Thanks again for sending this.
Peace,
Jim

Most attacks are not ad hominem, they are quite substantiated with your own words, “Jim”.

Schism for Dummies

The charges of schism being thrown around are getting a bit ridiculous.  Let’s chat, shall we?
First, what ISN’T schism.
Schism isn’t a dislike for the Holy Father’s leadership style. Schism is not questioning things put forth in a “working document.” Schism is not asking people to pray and fast that the crud put forth in a working document never sees the light of day in any final document proposed by the Church. Schism isn’t asking the Holy Father to make clear the teaching put forth in a document (i.e., the dubia). Schism isn’t wishing the Holy Father would never speak again to reporters on a plane. Schism is not EWTN reporting on Catholic news.  Schism is not Archbishop Vigano putting out his testimony. Schism isn’t even asking the Holy Father to resign. Schism isn’t a critique of how the Vatican or Holy Father is handling the abuse scandal.  Schism isn’t supporting Archbishop Vigano’s request for an investigation into the whole McCarrick debacle.
I’ve seen some ridiculous half-wit “theologians” suggesting that pretty much anyone who disagrees with THEM is schismatic. They seem to think that if they bandy the word around enough, the “uneducated masses” will be whipped into submission by the mere thought of it. They even put forth the question to the Holy Father on a plane (who, by the way, said there was no schism at this time) and got him to say the word which, somehow, is supposed to give their charges validation. “A-ha!  The pope said the word so you are in schism!” WRONG!
Let me give you a little list of all the people who have been charged with schism by the liberal Catholic elite.  Let’s see, Archbishop Vigano, for sure; Archbishop Cordileone of San Francisco, Bishop Strickland of Tyler, and Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia, because they were three of MANY bishops who said the charges made by Archbishop Vigano should be investigated; Cardinals Burke and Brandmueller, because they dared to ask the Holy Father for clarification in their dubia; Archbishop Schneider, because he and Cardinal Burke asked people to pray and fast  before the synod, because of the pretty awful stuff is being discussed. (Prayer and fasting – the horrors! How dare they?!) I guess all of EWTN can be counted, too, because Raymond Arroyo dared to defend himself when a book about how EWTN was trying to overthrow the Holy Father was glorified on a flight. Oh, and EWTN, again, for broadcasting a Mass where the priest giving the homily said that the faithful was being asked to pray and fast before the upcoming “Amazon Synod.” I’d love to know what they are scared of. You want to fast and pray for me?  Please do. And, of course, there’re all those mean Catholic bloggers, radio hosts, commentators, etc., who are scratching their heads about some things the pope says. Yep, all are in schism, it seems, except those who want to change any Church teaching that doesn’t jive with their ideologies.
So, who are all the people declaring or suggesting schism? Thomas Reese, SJ, Massimo Faggioli, Dawn Eden Goldstein, Michael Sean Winters, and all of their ilk.  And don’t forget, the “Well, I didn’t say they were in schism.  I’m just retweeting something I thought was interesting!” crowd. (Yes, Fr. Martin, I mean you.)
The actual definition of schism found in Canon 751 goes like this

Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Ironically, none of the accusers are canon lawyers, but they accuse a good canon lawyers to be in schism.  Let’s see, who knows Canon Law better?
The other thing I find totally ridiculous, especially after this week, is that not one of these accusers has pointed toward Germany.  In fact, I failed to locate one story at National catholic Reporter on this as of this writing. If it exists, their search engines don’t work.  https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/marx-says-german-synod-will-proceed-despite-vatican-objections-82211  Why is this? This is a hell of a lot closer to schism (if not actually in schism) than anything else to which the NcR, America Magazine, or Commonweal types point. I mean, the German bishops were told by the Magisterium that their “binding synodal path” was “not ecclesiologically valid.” Their response? We’re doing it anyway. Who’s removing “submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him” again? Apparently, Cardinal Marx.!
Does anyone see the difference in asking the Holy Father to exercise his authority (a la the Dubia 4, Archbishop Vigano, etc.) and rejecting an instruction from the Magisterium as the Germans are doing? The faithful Catholics are appealing to the very authority they should, while the Germans are usurping authority they don’t have. American schism, my foot! The liberals pushing for a declaration of schism are the biggest hypocrites around. Not one of the faithful listed above and accused by the liberals has ever rejected the authority of Pope Francis. In fact, they’ve made request upon request to the Pope to clarify.  To top it off, not even Pope Francis has declared them such. So, not only are the liberal accusers actually willing to reject authority when it suits them, they are also willing to usurp authority where they have none. They need to give it a rest, but sadly, they won’t.
 

Future Something Other Than the Church

Let me start by saying I actually started writing about Pia de Solenni’s piece, and then I realized it was super confusing and had no idea what her point was at the end. Then, however, I saw this and it was quite laughable. They missed her point far more than I did. I think FutureChurch felt like they had to respond since America Magazine printed Pia’s article.

Women Will Not Be Silent…Catholic Women Do Preach
FutureChurch’s Response to Pia de Solenni”

First of all, Pia never said women didn’t preach. She stated that Canon Law forbade the laity from preaching the homily at Mass and then kinda sorta tried to explain why. I’m not totally sure how FutureChurch missed that, but they apparently did. Or, maybe, they didn’t.

FutureChurch is deeply disturbed by the September 9, 2019, America Magazine essay by Dr. Pia de Solenni, “Should Catholic women preach at Mass? Here’s a better question,” in which she narrowly conceives the Church’s teaching on a priest acting “in persona Christi” in the Sacraments to justify the practice of excluding women from preaching.

They should have just stopped at “FutureChurch is deeply disturbed.” They are.
Well, heaven forbid we actually admit the truth. The priest is acting “in persona Christi” in the celebration of the Mass. Not really sure why they’re portraying it as “narrow conception.” It’s kind of the whole enchilada, and it isn’t some relatively new thought. 

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2016/03/only-priests-and-deacons-may-preach-why-is-that.html
Now the reason for preaching being reserved to priests and deacons becomes clear. At the Mass the priest and the deacon stand in persona Christi. They represent Christ symbolically and liturgically. One as Christ the priest. The other as Christ the Servant. When they read and preach the gospel therefore they are exercising not only a teaching function, but a liturgical function. They are incarnating Christ the Teacher and Christ the Servant to the people.
This is why they are ordained. NOT just to be a social worker in black. Not just to be a theology teacher in a collar. Not just to be a spiritual director or a parish administrator or a fund raiser.
The priest and deacon are ordained and set apart from the laity for this reason: to help incarnate Christ in the world through their own person and through their own vocation. This is why the catechism teaches that one of the ways to objectively know that you have encountered the risen Lord is “in the person of the priest.
Lay people can’t do that in the same way, and that’s why they are not permitted to preach at Mass.

Back to FutureChurch…

But there is a much more hazardous ideal at play here.

We have already established that it is you two who are wrong according to tradition, according to Canon Law, and according to various Church documents, to say the least.  Nope, it’s you who are dangerous. All you do is sow seeds of envy, jealousy, and bitterness, along with some heresy everywhere you go. You are definitely not the future of the Catholic Church.

While acknowledging that women are often better at preaching than priests, she reasons that that “no matter how wonderful or how terrible” the priest who is in persona Christi with a soul “indelibly marked” and who has undergone an “ontological change” is given priority of place “by virtue of his ordination, not his moral character.
Dr. Solenni denies that this is clericalism. Yet, one has to ask if such an anemic metaphysical model — one that makes moral character optional — also allows that priests represent Christ when they commit acts of abuse and rape against children, steal money, or engage in other criminal acts?

I realize that the word “clericalism” is a verbal tic for some, but really, they don’t even seem to know the definition. The definition is actually the misuse or overextention of clergy’s authority. With the proper form, matter, and intent, a priest is not misusing or overextending his power by doing his priestly duty, no matter how imperfect he is everywhere else in his life. That’s the protection we have been guaranteed by Christ. Let’s think it through, Russ and Deborah. If it weren’t true, how would we ever be able to trust ANYONE if you all got your impossible to have dreams? Does being part of the laity somehow mean you have spiritual or moral perfection? You two might be just narcissistic enough to buy that. The rest of us? Not so much.

If we look deeply into what the Gospels and Church teaching reveal, we see a different truth.  It is clear that Jesus and the early Christians were disgusted by their leaders’ arrogance and self-glorification.  When the Pharisees seek to silence the joyful voices of the people (Lk 19:39-40), Jesus rebukes them.
No matter what framework or theology is used to justify making faith-filled, baptized women second class members of the Body of Christ or seeks to sequester them to certain patriarchally-sanctioned corners of the Church, it is wrong.

Oh, my gosh. When I read things like this, I always want to ask, “Who hurt you?!?!?”  Clearly somebody has some serious issues with someone, and sadly, we’re the ones who have to pay for it! Hey, guys, nice try! The teaching doesn’t just apply to women. It applies to all of the laity. No matter how much you rant against this, the roles of the clergy and the laity are not the same. And the framework and theology for that one? Doctrine. You know, TRUTH? Again, stop with the jealousy.

For nearly three years, FutureChurch and our partners have been bringing forward the preaching of Catholic women every week and on some holidays at www.catholicwomenpreach.org.   Women such as Sr. Joan Chittister, Sr. Barbara Reid, Kerry Robinson, Sr. Norma Pimentel, Professor Natalia Imperatori-Lee, Sr. Sandra Schneiders, Sr. Christine Schenk, and over one hundred and seventy other qualified, faith-filled women have preached.

Yes, I’ve already had the misfortune of stumbling onto that site. Qualified? Debatable, unless the qualification is that you have to be a bitter older woman with a strong resentment towards men. If that’s the case, they nailed it. I’ve already written about the ”preaching” of one of their babes here

And thousands of Catholics – lay and ordained, female and male, young and young at heart – flock to the site monthly, hungry for the Word of God as it comes through the lives, experiences, witness, and faith of Catholic women. And each we week receive emails from viewers of Catholic Women Preach telling us that they are hearing the Word, understanding it in new ways, and more fully integrating it into their daily lives.

Please, don’t kid yourself. It’s where bitter women, usually of the older feminist generation, come to feel justified. Let’s just say it’s the greatest site ever. It’s still not in Mass, so you guys go ahead and vent as long as you’re not doing it in the name of the Catholic Church.

That is the Good News!

More like pathetic.

 Women will not be silent or silenced. We will continue the quest for full equality in the Roman Catholic Church and we will not stop until that vision — God’s vision — is fulfilled.
Russ Petrus and Deborah Rose-Milavec
Co-Directors

Oh, Russ and Deborah, you’re so right. We won’t be silenced, but you might want to remember that includes me and my daughters who love and support our all-male priesthood. You also might want to recognize that all organizations of your ilk are dying. Literally. All those sisters you mentioned above? Their convents are empty, and their orders are disappearing. Nobody wants to replace them. Read the writing on the wall.  The women’s organizations, religious orders, etc., that embrace the True Faith? They are flourishing! That’s God’s vision. And you know what? We don’t feel slighted in the least. We’re not jealous of our priests, we embrace our role as part of the laity. What’s more attractive? Old bitter women railing or young, beautiful, faithful women loving the Church? The question has already been answered, but your pompous selves can’t see beyond your own noses. Look at the rest of us for a change before you decide you need to speak on our behalf.  We don’t want or need you to do anything for us. We’re perfectly capable of defending truth.
 
 

Michael Sean's Cabal Canard

 Don’t like that pope? Read what he wrote.

Not to quibble too much but this diatribe doesn’t even suggest anything the Holy Father wrote.

Sep 9, 2019
by Michael Sean Winters Opinion
The whole world now knows that Pope Francis is more or less fed up with some of his critics. His comment about it being an “honor” to be attacked by conservative Catholics in the U.S. made that clear for all to see. Francis had just been presented with a copy of a new book by French author Nicolas Seneze, which catalogues conservative Catholic efforts, largely American, to influence this pope or to limit his influence and undermine his efforts. The fallout from the pope’s comment is kind of fun to watch. Last week, EWTN host Raymond Arroyo began his hour-long show with an eight minute “commentary” that pronounced the pope’s comment “troubling.” I actually found the pope’s candor refreshing.

Talk about refreshing! The Pope’s guys tried to turn the comment into praise for Americans even though most of us were a tad bit skeptical about that one. Who knew Michael Sean Winters and I would agree?! Of course, I can’t agree that the comment or the fall-out are fun to watch. Only a jerk would revel in such division, but I’d expect no less.

Arroyo referred to a “string of lazy articles.” He went on: “This is tired, and, frankly, a fact-free narrative.” He complained that it had been peddled mostly by “Europeans and progressive Americans” and claimed these critics “make the mistake of casting orthodox Catholics in America as right-wingers, players in a political plot to undo the agenda of Francis.” He countered this portrayal, saying, “The truth is much more simple. American Catholics actually believe what the church has always taught, and they’re loud enough and have big enough platforms to broadcast that belief.” Arroyo insisted that “all traditional Catholics have done is ask questions.”

Uh, yeah. Don’t you think that’s allowable, Michael Sean Winters?  As I’ve said before, people across the world have concerns. And Arroyo is right. We are a very blessed country and we have the freedom and ability to fight for everyone against liberal dissenters like Michael Sean Winters, NcR, America Magazine, etc. like no other country in the world. We’re good on the battlefield like that. And did I miss something? Are America Magazine, National catholic Reporter or Salt & Light Whatever penniless organizations? Please. And, by the way, as of now, I don’t get a paycheck. (Offers totally accepted.) I think we need to have “Je suis ETWN!” shirts made up because they’re just saying what a good chunk of the laity around the world thinks. Since Michael Sean Winters would never actually want you to see the interview he writes about (he could have totally linked to it), I will leave it here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bPyFm1Aw20

Arroyo unwittingly confirmed the thesis he was trying to debunk when he concluded: “The truth is this is all a craven attempt to demonize and purge voices form the church who dare to question the radical changes that are under way and the brutal tactics used to enact them.” Radical changes? Brutal tactics?

Uh, is there any doubt about radical changes?  Apparently he didn’t get the memo from Cardinal “Synodality” Marx? Or America Magazine ? And brutal tactics? Maybe he missed what just happened at the John Paul II Institute? For goodness’ sake, Michael Sean Winters, even The Atlantic sees it. So, please, don’t act like those who are troubled are paranoid freaks. It’s real. “Nothing to see here but the usual papal stuff” isn’t going to fly.

To prove his claim to editorial balance, Arroyo played a tape of him of the night a year ago when he reported about Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò in which he said, “I am a little squeamish about a pope resigning again.” Huh? Had a former nuncio publicly demand that Pope Benedict XVI resign? Why add the word “again”? He did, to his credit, acknowledge there had been criticism of Viganò, but one year later, on a show just two weeks ago, Arroyo and his papal posse, Robert Royal and Fr. Gerald Murray, spent more than half the show defending Viganò and arguing that most of his claims had been proven true, when in fact, most of them had been proven false.

Wow!  Which ones were those proven false?!?! The “just say it and it will be true” tactic doesn’t work here, Michael Sean. If you’re going to make an accusation, back it up.

Arroyo said: “Let’s not create silly conspiracy theories.”
Me thinks the pope touched a nerve. Arroyo’s rant sounded like nothing so much as the wild excuses a child makes when caught pilfering the cookie jar. To be clear, if I were in his shoes, I would be upset also. I would be upset if I thought my pals owned the church and someone had come along and taken it away from us.

Uh, my pals don’t own the Church. Raymond Arroyo’s pals don’t own the Church. And, just to be clear, nobody does. Maybe that’s the problem. You and your buddies, Mr. Winters, seem to think the Church is some kind of personal football while we believe God gave it to us as our guide to heaven. We also know darn well that it’s been foretold time and again that She will constantly be under attack from within as well as the outside. Congratulations on being a small part of proving that prophecy.

There is, indeed, a cabal among right-wing Catholics to undermine or minimize this pope and his teachings, and you could discover it merely by watching EWTN or reading its auxiliary media outlets. No one would have Cardinal Raymond Burke or German Cardinal Gerhard Müller on their show as an authoritative guest unless such undermining was the goal. No one would have Phil Lawler, who was the first guest on Arroyo’s show last week, on their show as an expert unless undermining the pope was the objective. The two men enjoyed themselves complaining about all the damage they think Francis is doing to the church.

Wow! Cabal and right-wing all in one sentence! Doesn’t this sort of make the open-arm narrative you’re about to put forward fall a little flat? (Hint: The answer is yes.)
Heaven forbid we have a Cardinal of the Church speak on a Catholic station! And heaven forbid Phil Lawler be disgusted by the abuse crisis and its handling.  Yeah, those guys are horrible. Geez!
Was EWTN undermining the Holy Father when they reported this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vovTX6bAI0 Or this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxGj7Ztt1lU Or this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqn3YYurIpE  Or even that evil Raymond Arroyo and the Papal Posse https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J88_Fnz-UXU? Or all of Pope Francis’ big Masses? Sometimes they support and sometimes they scratch their heads and say “What is this?!” just like the regular folks in the world. And when someone’s job is criticized by a French writer and the pope seemingly agrees, why in heaven’s name would you not expect them to respond? I guess it’s because NcR, American Magazine, and Salt and Light never respond? (Yes, I am rolling my eyes.)  Heck, if you’re in the social media world, they simply ban you as they’ve done to so many. They don’t want to discuss it, and I should know since I’ve been banned by most of them for my critiques of their work. Talk about a cabal! At least Arroyo and the rest of the “evil Americans” are willing to continue the conversation and they try to see the good where they can find it, but that doesn’t mean they can’t comment and ask questions.
I’m really sorry that you don’t understand why people are greatly concerned and have concerns about some of the things Pope Francis says. I mean, that’s never ever happened in the history of the Church! (That was tongue in cheek, Sean Michael.)  I realize that everyone has totally forgotten about, say, St. Catherine of Siena, but this is hardly the first time there have been criticisms and questions of a pope. Was she somehow an elitist as you so like to frame people you’d rather dismiss? Was she part of a cabal?

I wish to send Arroyo and other conservative Catholics an invitation, one that I received a long time ago and from which I derived enormous benefit. During the more conservative pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, friends encouraged me to read their writings with an open mind, not to dismiss them because they were so conservative. Of course, in the area of Catholic social teaching, there has been enormous continuity, not only across the last three pontificates but stretching all the way back to Pope Leo XIII. But, when I read some of the writings of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, from his early work Introduction to Christianity to the trilogy on Jesus of Nazareth that he wrote while pope, I not only learned a great deal, I had my faith strengthened by the insights he discerned. Here is the column I wrote the day after his resignation. I was not yet a writer when Pope John Paul II issued Novo Millennio Ineunte, but I remember thinking it was a magnificent document that made me stretch in ways I would not have done if I had simply stuck to my more liberal Catholic texts.

Dude!  You just suggested what my last clip from EWTN said.  Why don’t you give it a watch again? I’ll leave the link nice and visible! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J88_Fnz-UXU  Maybe don’t call people part of a cabal and you might get some conversation. The thing is, you might actually have to approach them with an open mind.  It doesn’t go one way and this is the problem I have with you and yours. Unless we buy everything you say we’re, somehow, part of this evil, right-wing, conspiracy to overthrow the Holy Father. Sorry buddy.  We want him to succeed but we have question when we hear things that sound like somebody just dragged a needle over our favorite album.
And one last thing, to suggest none of the faithful who are troubled have read Pope Francis is ludicrous. In fact, it’s because we’ve read and hang on his every word that we are concerned. What the Holy Father says is very important. That’s kind of the point.

So, instead of painting Francis in such a harsh and negative light, rather than poking fun at synods, or highlighting and even championing a score-settling text like Viganò’s “testimony,” I invite conservative Catholics to come to Francis and his teachings with an open heart and an open mind. I hope they might find, as I did with his conservative predecessors, an opportunity to stretch their faith, which always leads to an expansion and a deepening of that faith as well. It is a big church, and there is room for everybody. The alternative is the emergence of a sectarian, para-schismatic church in the United States. And, if a full-blown schism were to occur, its source would largely be found on EWTN.

And there it is.  The liberal, Catholic talking narrative. The hypocrisy is rather staggering. You knew it was coming. Honestly, was there a conference call?  Clearly there was. Maybe, the next time you want to float the idea that you are being uber charitable, calling others to open-mindedness, etc. you remove a HUGE log from you eye and not call them part of the schismatic cabal. Just saying. Until then, all the faithful should realize that the Winters, Reeses and Faggiolis of the world are just hoping you’re not paying attention and will fall for their pandering innuendos.
[Michael Sean Winters covers the nexus of religion and politics for NCR.] Kind of not so much. Pretty much covers his own unsubstantiated, narcissistic viewpoints.
So my friends, I’ll see you all at the weekly schismatic cabal meeting. I’ll bring snacks! Oh shoot! I meant doughnuts…for after Mass. Same diff.

Snakes on a Plane

You just knew somebody would eventually use that title…
I saw this and thought, “What in the heck is wrong with you people?! Please get some PR meetings in place, because you need them.” This was all a set up by someone and, guess what? Once again, it backfires and makes the Holy Father look like a mean jerk. Right up there with the “Great Accuser” mantra. I can only remember the last two popes and have read about others, but it seems that, unless they were complete tyrants, they all wanted to be “Papa” to all of us. They avoided the look of cronyism. And what’s been the word of the papacy? Oh, yeah, clericalism.

 Pope Francis Says It’s an ‘Honor’ to be Criticized by Americans
His throwaway remark, made in connection with a new book that claims influential American Catholics want him to step down, generated surprise aboard the papal flight today to Mozambique.
Edward Pentin

The use of “throwaway” is actually really good, because he just threw the remark away without a thought of any love for a good chunk of the Church. Let’s be clear, I don’t consider myself an “influential American Catholic,” which pretty much seems to be defined as “Rich Catholic.” That said, many, many Catholics, influential or otherwise, have serious concerns about the (ahem!) style of Pope Francis. I realize he lives in the papal bubble, but somebody might want to let him in on the fact that this is true.

A throwaway remark by Pope Francis aboard the papal plane this morning raised a few eyebrows among those traveling with him — and sent his press handlers scrambling.

First of all, I have a hunch that’s not true, but that’s just me. I think his handlers knew this guy was on board, they knew what he wrote, and they knew this was going to be handed to him. It would be soooo nice if they spent more time fixing problems with, oh, I don’t know, clergy abuse and the cover up of it rather than whining about how mean people are to the Holy Father. Geez. Again, I don’t remember the last two popes constantly talking about people who didn’t like them for this, that, or the other thing.  Might be because they actually understood that’s what it’s all about. Christ came to divide. I generally have a rule that the first person to claim to be a victim is probably the one in the wrong. It’s deflection, plain and simple.

After takeoff on his way to the Mozambique capital of Maputo, the Pope customarily greeted journalists on the papal plane. Among those he met was Nicolas Seneze, Rome correspondent for the French Catholic daily newspaper La Croix, which just published Seneze’s book, How America Wants to Change the Pope.
The book threads together different aspects of this pontificate — in particular the McCarrick abuse scandal and the Archbishop Carlo Viganò testimony — to conclude that influential figures in the U.S. Church are out to, if not replace Pope Francis, then to actively challenge him.

First of all, way to go, American Catholics! That the liberals even acknowledge you were the bane of their existence is great! It seems they can no longer go with the “Nothing to see here!” tactic. Proud to be among you! Quite frankly, I think our cultural spirit might help save the Church. We have a can-do spirit which enables us to conquer the landscape.

The book quotes professor Massimo Faggioli of Villanova as saying wealthy conservative Catholics have stepped into the vacuum of authority left by the sex abuse scandal to become the de facto leaders of the Catholic Church in the U.S.

Yawn. They continue trying the new tactic of declaring anyone who disagrees with them in “de facto schism.” Sorry, you look like a fool once again. Let me point out that of those you’ve already accused outright of being “devout schismatics” trump you in the area of Canon Law, as in two of the three are actually canon lawyers. So back off, Massimo.

On the plane, Seneze presented his book to the Pope, who recognized the cover, as he had read a review of it.
The Italian daily newspaper Il Messaggero on Aug. 20 published a story headlined, “A plot from the USA to make the Pope resign.” A cover of Seneze’s book accompanied the article.
“He reads Il Messaggero every day so when he saw the cover of the copy I was holding, he instantly recognized it,” Seneze told the Register aboard the papal plane today, adding that the book was published in French today.

What plot? How many times has the Holy Father hinted that he may resign? Is that the fault of the “de facto leaders”? Next time a pope dies or resigns, we don’t want another nightmare like McCarrick having any say in who’s elected, not to mention the possibility a nightmare like McCarrick might be elected. If our cardinals are hiding something, we want it uncovered before going into a conclave. Who could argue with that?! (*Cough* Staff of American Magazine *Cough*) Do we really want molesters like McCarrick or Francisco Javier Errazuriz or those who covered up for them to vote for or be the next pope? Uh, hello, remember the abuse victims?  Geez.

“When I explained the picture to the Pope, he said: ‘Per me è un onore che mi attaccano gli americani (For me it’s an honor that Americans attack me).’”

I believe my kids call this “humble bragging.” Blech. And trying to portray the concerns of the faithful as “an American thing” is ridiculous. It’s worldwide, Holy Father. World. Wide. You think we’re bad, look at South America, and, oh, and how about Africa? You’ve got some continental-sized issues with the faithful.

“Seneze and his Vatican press colleagues were taken aback by the in-flight remark, and reporters immediately sought verification.
Vatican press spokesman Matteo Bruni later confirmed the remark but was quick to offer an explanation: “In an informal context, the Pope wanted to say that he always considers criticisms an honor, particularly when they come from authoritative thinkers and, in this case, an important nation.”

If they immediately sought clarification, the guy who made the remark was on the plane, for heaven’s sake! Again, you guys need some meetings. It was rather clear that Bruni was doing some serious damage control.

Seneze told the Register afterward that the Il Messaggero article was a little exaggerated. He said he doesn’t believe there is a plot as such being hatched in the U.S. to unseat the Pope.

Wait! What?! Didn’t you actually write this? Did you suddenly realize this was going to be the PR nightmare that it is? I don’t have the subscription, so I’m just reading the beginning of this piece, but let’s just take a gander at the picture caption you included!

An ultra-conservative fringe of the American Catholic right has fomented a coup against Pope Francis

Uh…Which is it? There’s some nefarious plot or there’s not?

Rather, he believes there’s a sense among some wealthy Americans, including some who are connected to the EWTN Global Catholic Network and other media organizations, that Francis is not acting as Pope and so should stand down, like a CEO who is underperforming.
Seneze said, “I believe these people see themselves as invested in the Church and they feel they are not getting a return on their investment.”

Oh, my gosh. Class warfare is strong with this one. Did you all know you were connected to EWTN? There may be concern for money on some side of this, but it’s not the side of concerned faithful.
Another article by Crux contains additional information to this whole debacle.

A long-time Vatican reporter from the French Catholic daily, Seneze told the pope that he wanted to explain the roots of American opposition to the Argentine, which has the support of several right-wing news outlets. In his book, Seneze names EWTN, founded by the late Mother Angelica, and Canada-based LifeSiteNews.

It’s a conspiracy, I tell you! Guess I’m just left out of those meetings.

The criticism against Francis is based on several points: His cautious opening to allowing the divorced and remarried to receive the Sacraments, his emphasis on the environment, his strong condemnation of the death penalty, and his criticism of the capitalist economic order championed by conservatives in the United States.

I’d say most of this is correct with the exception of the death penalty. It has nothing to do with strongly condemning it and everything to do with this: https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-francis-and-the-death-penalty-a-change-in-doctrine-or-circumstances-39898

In his book, Seneze explains the origin of the hostility against Francis in terms of two documents by the pope: Evangelii Gaudium, his first apostolic exhortation and considered the Magna Carta of his pontificate, and Laudato Si, an encyclical letter on the environment originally intended to ensure adoption of the 2015 Paris Agreement pertaining to climate change.
The French journalist argues the ultimate goal of the opposition to Francis from some American quarters is to trigger a conclave to elect a new pope, and to guarantee the election of someone more aligned with their interests and vision of the Church and the world.

Yeah, not so much. I’d love to know how he’s come to this fantastical dream. There’s no doubt those faithful to Church teaching want the next Pope to be a strong leader in this area. We do not want ambiguity, but we’d also like to ferret out Cardinals like former Cardinal McCarrick and the seemingly never-ending line of them who should be taking a perp walk. Again, you would think EVERYONE would want that.

One of several initiatives to secure this, according to Seneze, is a project called the Red Hat Report, which the “The Better Church Governance Group” hopes to release by April 2020.
The Red Hat Report claims to be drawing on nearly 100 researchers, academics, investigators, and journalists to investigate every single cardinal elector, with the aim “to hold the hierarchy of the Catholic Church accountable for abuse and corruption, and to develop and support honesty, clarity, and fidelity in Church governance.”

That’s awful! They aim “to hold the hierarchy of the Catholic Church accountable for abuse and corruption, and to develop and support honesty, clarity, and fidelity in Church governance.” Those evil people. Oh, my gosh! Isn’t this exactly what you told us needed to happen? How many times did we hear that we needed to end “clericalism?” Always told them to be careful what they wished for, because their definition of it is “It’s wrong to call priests ‘father’”. Our definition actually is a little more based in reality.

Seneze also points to American millionaire Tim Busch as a key figure in this “war” against Francis. Busch sits on the board of EWTN and is a member of the Papal Foundation, a U.S.-based organization that gives donations to charities supported by the pope.
Several members of the Papal Foundation severely criticized a request by the pope for a $20 million bridge loan for a debt-ridden and scandal-plagued Church-owned hospital in Rome.

And who wants to give $20 million to a scandal-plagued hospital??? Not me, and if it were my money, I’m sure I would have said “No!” and donated my money to some other charitable fund. Little Sisters of the Poor, perhaps? Can’t remember the last time they had a scandal.

Seneze spoke to reporters after the pope’s remarks.
“I wanted to explain the difficulties between the pope and Americans, and how they are attacking him,” he said.

If the Vatican needed that explanation, it’s probably worse than we thought. Sorry, they’re not that obtuse.

Seneze’s book comes just a year after Italian Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano, the former papal representative to the United States, released a letter accusing the pope of covering up for now-former Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who has been accused of abusing minors and seminarians.
The letter, which was released through conservative news organizations, requested that Francis resign from office.

And…after it was released there, it was also released to any “Catholic” news agency that wrote about it as fast as they could because, well, it was news. Seems like some are just jealous because they didn’t get the scoop. Archbishop Vigano isn’t the reason there is strife between the hierarchy and the laity. That was their own doing. As usual, liberals are the root of the problem, so they prefer to shoot the messenger.
In conclusion, I’m hoping this in-plane interview will lead to a whole lot being donated to the “Red Hat Report.” I loved the idea from the start. In fact, shortly before this was announced, I put out a request for those who could afford to do so to investigate the heck out of the hierarchy. It was like my birthday when I saw somebody was going to do that! Those who have nothing to hide won’t protest. Those who do might be another story. Please check out their goals for yourself at https://betterchurchgovernance.org/ Don’t let anyone frame their goals for you. Their mission is far more mainstream that some would like you to think.
Oh, one more thing, since Massimo Faggioli is part of this little group chanting schism, why don’t you continue to give Villanova a call. Apparently that plea worked so well last time he banned me from his Twitter page so all must have done good. Maybe somebody will tell him to stop flapping his gums where he has no jurisdiction.
Rev. Peter M. Donohue, OSA
Office of the President
Villanova University
800 Lancaster Avenue
Villanova, PA 19085-1699
Phone: 610-519-8881
Fax: 610-519-4514
Email: president@villanova.edu
Alumni, you can also go here:
Alumni Relations
Phone: 610-519-4580
Fax: 610-519-7583
Email: alumni@villanova.edu
 
 
 
 
 

%d bloggers like this: