Monday, October 13, 2014


I mostly agree with all that Sandro Magister writes this morning on his blog. A breach or an ideology of discontinuity not seen since the 1960's is occurring in discussions in Rome and fomented by Pope Francis.

Where the perfect storm is for the time being, and unprecedented in the entire history of the Catholic Church, is that a so-called "emeritus" Pope lives in the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI. What does he think of the erasing of his entire papacy in just a year and a half and beginning the very night of the election of Pope Francis in his appearance on the loggia of St. Peter's Basilica?

Can there be a time, as long as he is alive, that the so-called emeritus Pope could step up to the plate and say enough! I was pressured to resign and it was invalid? Or is he in agreement with the quick change that has occurred since the new papacy? Will we ever know?

The Real Dilemma: Indissolubility or Divorce

This synod is not asked to decided on this. But the hypothesis of second marriages now has full citizenship at the summit of the Church. The commentary of Cardinal Camillo Ruini

by Sandro Magister

ROME, October 13, 2014 – After the first week of the synod, one thing is clear: the real focus of the discussion is whether or not to admit divorce in Catholic marriage.

At the synod the word divorce is taboo. Nobody says he wants to go there. Everybody is proclaiming at the top of his voice that the doctrine of indissolubility must remain intact.

But when it comes to giving Eucharistic communion to the divorced and remarried it is as if, in their case, the sacred original bond of marriage no longer existed. As the Orthodox Churches already do, the Catholic Church as well would in fact admit second marriages.

This is in fact the trail blazed by the proponents of innovation: not an unrealistic campaign for Catholic divorce, which only a few theologians like Andrea Grillo or Hermann Häring are calling for explicitly, but the proposal for merciful assistance for those who see communion denied them because they have remarried civilly after the civil dissolution of their sacramental marriage.

The proposal is enticing. It is presented as medicine in cases of suffering because of a sacramental “right” denied. It doesn’t matter that those cases are very few in number. They are enough to act as a lever for a change whose effects promise to be enormously greater.

The sociology of religion would have much to say in this regard. Until the middle of the 20th century, in Catholic parishes, the ban on communion for those who were in a position of irregular marriage did not raise any problems, because it remained practically invisible. Even where Mass attendance was high, in fact, very few received communion every Sunday. Frequent communion was only for those who also went to confession frequently. There was evidence of this in the twofold precept that the Church issued for the faithful as a whole: to confess “once a year” and to receive communion “at least during the Easter season.”

Abstention from communion was therefore not a visible stigma of punishment or marginalization. The main motivation that kept most of the faithful from frequent communion was their great respect for the Eucharist, which could be approached only after adequate preparation, and always with fear and trembling.

All of this changed during the years of Vatican Council II and the post-council. In brief, confessions plummeted while communion became a mass phenomenon. Now everyone or almost everyone receives it, always. Because in the meantime the general understanding of the sacrament of the Eucharist has changed. The real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the consecrated bread and wine has declined to a symbolic presence. Communion has become like the sign of peace, a gesture of friendship, of sharing, of fraternity, “the same old story: everyone else is going, so I’ll go too,” as Pope Benedict XVI said, who tried to restore the authentic sense of the Eucharist by among other things having the faithful kneel and giving the host on the tongue.

In such a context, it was inevitable that the ban on communion would be perceived among the divorced and remarried as the public denial of a “right” of everyone to the sacrament. The protests were and are on the part of a few, because most of the divorced and remarried are far from religious practice, while among the practicing there is no lack of those who understand and respect the discipline of the Church. But within this very narrow spectrum of cases there has emerged, starting in the 1990’s and mainly in a few German-speaking dioceses, a campaign for changing the discipline of the Catholic Church in the area of marriage, which has reached its peak with the pontificate of Pope Francis, with his clear agreement.

The synod’s concentration on the question of the divorced and remarried also risks losing sight of much more macroscopic situations of crisis in Catholic marriage.

Shortly before the synod, for example, there appeared in Italian bookstores a report on the pastoral activity set up by then-cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio on the outskirts of Buenos Aires:

P. De Robertis, "Le pecore di Bergoglio. Le periferie di Buenos Aires svelano chi è Francesco", Editrice Missionaria Italiana, Bologna, 2014.

From this one learns that most couples, on the order of 80-85 percent, are not married but simply cohabit, while among spouses “the majority of marriages are invalid, because the people marry when they are immature”, but then don’t even try to get a declaration of nullity from the diocesan tribunals.

It is the “curas villeros,” the priests Bergoglio sent to the outskirts, who provide this information and proudly state that they give everyone communion no matter what, “without raising barricades.”

The outskirts of Buenos Aires are not an isolated case in Latin America. And they give evidence not of a success but if anything of an absence or failure of pastoral care for marriage. On other continents Christian marriage is in the grips of challenges no less grave, from polygamy to forced marriages, from “gender” theory to homosexual “marriages.”

In the face of such a challenge this synod and the next will decide if the appropriate response will be that of opening a loophole for divorce or of restoring to indissoluble Catholic marriage all of its alternative and revolutionary power and beauty.

The following is the contribution to the discussion not of a synod father, but of a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church who has felt it his duty not to remain silent.


The Gospel of the Family in the Secularized West

by Camillo Ruini

That fundamental cell of society which is the family is going through a period of extraordinarily rapid evolution.

Premarital relationships are now lived out in the open and divorce is almost normal, often as a result of the breaking of conjugal fidelity. This is pulling us away from the traditional physiognomy of the family, in countries and cultures marked by Christianity.

In recent decades moreover, at least in the EWest, we have entered into unexplored territory. Inroads have been made, in fact, by the ideas of “gender” and of “homosexual marriage.”

At the root of all of this is the primacy, and almost the absolutization, of individual freedom and of personal sentiment. So the family bond must be capable of being molded at will, and in any case not binding, to the point of disappearing or becoming practically irrelevant.

According to the same logic, this bond must be accessible to every kind of couple, on the basis of the assertion of a complete equality that admits no differences, above all those that can be attributed to an external will, whether this be human (civil laws) or divine (the natural law).

The desire to have a family and if possible a stable family, however, remains strong and widespread: a desire that is translated into the reality of many “normal” families and also numerous authentically Christian families. These last are certainly a minority, but substantial and rather motivated.

The sense that the family properly understood is disappearing is therefore to a large extent the result of the distance between the real world and the virtual world constructed by the media, although it must not be forgotten that this virtual world has a powerful influence on real behavior.

In a serene and balanced view, therefore, there seems to be little foundation for unilateral pessimism and resignation with regard to the family and its future. What the pastoral care of the family needs instead is the attitude of Vatican Council II toward the new times, an attitude that we can summarize as a spirit of welcome that redirects everything toward Christ the savior.

In concrete terms, with “Gaudium et Spes” nos. 47-52 we have a new approach to marriage and the family, more personalistic but with no rupture from the traditional conception. Then the catecheses on human love by Saint John Paul II and the apostolic exhortation “Familiaris Consortio” constituted a great exploration that opened new perspectives and confronted many current problems. Although these catecheses could not explicitly deal with more recent and more radical developments, like “gender” theory and same-sex marriage, they already laid the foundations, to a large extent, for addressing them.

Without a doubt, pastoral practice has not always lived up to these teachings - and moreover could never do so completely - but it has followed their guidelines with important results: our young Christian families, in fact, are also the fruit of these.


Now, with Pope Francis, we have two synods on the pastoral challenges of the family in the context of the new evangelization, after the consistory of last February that already began to examine this topic: a further step in this journey of welcoming and reorientation that the whole Church is called to undertake with trust.

The perspective of the two synods must be clearly universal, and no geographical or cultural area can demand that the synod concentrate only on its own problems.

Having established that, the most significant questions for the West seem to be the more radical ones that have emerged in recent decades. These urge us to rethink and to present anew, in the light of the Gospel of the family, the meaning and value of marriage as a covenant of life between man and woman, oriented to the good of both and to the procreation and education of children, and endowed with a decisive social and public significance as well.

Here the Christian faith must demonstrate true cultural creativity, which the synods are not able to produce automatically but can stimulate, in believers and in those who realize that what is at stake is a fundamental human dimension.


But there are other questions that continue to confront us and seem to become ever more urgent, already repeatedly addressed by the magisterium. Among these is that of the divorced and remarried.

“Familiaris Consortio,” no. 84, has already indicated the attitude to adopt: not to abandon those who find themselves in this situation, but on the contrary to take special care of them, striving to make the Church’s means of salvation available to them. This means helping them not to consider themselves separate from the Church by any means, and instead to participate in its life. It also means carefully discerning the situations, especially those of unjustly abandoned spouses as opposed to those who have culpably destroyed their own marriage.

“Familiaris Consortio” however also reiterates the practice of the Church, “which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried.” The fundamental reason is that “their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist.”

What is in question is therefore not their personal blame, but the state in which they objectively find themselves. This is why a man and woman who for serious reasons, like for example the raising of children, cannot satisfy the obligation of separation, in order to receive sacramental absolution and the Eucharist must take on “the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”

This is undoubtedly a very difficult commitment, which is taken on by very few couples, while the divorced and remarried are unfortunately ever more numerous.

A search for other solutions has therefore been underway for some time. One of these, while holding firm the indissolubility of ratified and consummated marriage, maintains that the divorced and remarried could be allowed to receive sacramental absolution and the Eucharist under precise conditions but without having to abstain from the acts proper to spouses. This would amount to a second table of salvation, offered on the basis of the criterion of “epicheia” in order to unite truth and mercy.

This way does not seem viable, however, mainly because it implies an exercise of extramarital sexuality, given the continuation of the first marriage, ratified and consummated. In other words, the original conjugal bond would continue to exist, but in the behavior of the faithful and in liturgical life one could proceed as if it did not exist. We are therefore facing a question of consistency between practice and doctrine, and not only a disciplinary problem.

As for canonical “epicheia” and “aequitas,” these are very important criteria in the area of human and purely ecclesial norms, but they cannot be applied to the norms of divine law, over which the Church has no discretional power.

In support of the aforementioned hypothesis one can certainly bring in solutions similar to those proposed by some Fathers of the Church that have also entered into practice to some extent, although these never obtained the consensus of the Fathers and were never in any way the common doctrine or discipline of the Church (cf. the letter of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the reception of Eucharistic communion on the part of the divorced and remarried faithful, November 14, 1994, no.4). In our time, when the problem of civil marriage and divorce has been raised in contemporary terms, there exists instead, starting with the encyclical “Casti Connubi” of Pius XI, a clear and constant position of the whole magisterium, which goes in the opposite direction and does not appear modifiable.


It could be objected that Vatican Council II, without violating the dogmatic tradition, proceeded with new developments on questions, like that of religious freedom, on which there existed encyclicals and decisions of the Holy Office that seemed to preclude them.

But the comparison is not convincing, because a genuine conceptual elaboration was produced on the right to religious freedom, attributing this right to the person as such and to his intrinsic dignity, and not to the truth as conceived of abstractly, as had been done before.

The solution proposed for the divorced and remarried, however, is not based on such an elaboration. The problems of family and marriage also impact the daily life of persons in an incomparably greater and more concrete manner compared to that of the foundation of religious freedom, whose exercise in countries of Christian tradition was already guaranteed to a large extent before Vatican II.

We must therefore be very prudent in modifying, with regard to marriage and the family, positions that the magisterium has proposed for a long time and in such an authoritative manner: if not, the consequences for the Church’s credibility would be rather heavy.

This does not mean that every possibility of development is precluded. One way that appears viable is that of revising the processes of nullifying marriages: these are in fact norms of ecclesial law, not divine.

There must therefore be an examination of the possibility of replacing the judicial process with an administrative and pastoral procedure, essentially aimed at clarifying the situation of the couple before God and the Church. It is very important, however, that any change of procedure must not become a pretext for granting in a surreptitious manner what in reality would be divorces: hypocrisy of this nature would bring great harm to the whole Church.


One question that goes beyond the procedural aspects is that of the relationship between the faith of those who marry and the sacrament of marriage.

“Familiaris Consortio,” no. 68, rightly places the accent on the reasons that induce one to maintain that those asking for canonical marriage have faith, albeit in a weakened condition that must be rediscovered, strengthened, and matured. It also emphasizes that social reasons can licitly enter into the request for this form of marriage. It is therefore sufficient that the engaged couple “at least implicitly consent to what the Church intends to do when she celebrates marriage.”

The attempt to establish further criteria of admission to the celebration, which would take into account the level of faith on the part of those to be married, would instead involve grave risks, starting with that of pronouncing unfounded and discriminatory judgments.

In fact, however, there are unfortunately many baptized today who have never believed or no longer believe in God. This therefore raises the question of whether they can validly contract a sacramental marriage.

On this point, Cardinal Ratzinger’s introduction to the booklet “On pastoral care for the divorced and remarried,” published in 1998 by the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, retains its fundamental value.

Ratzinger (Introduction, III, 4, pp. 27-28) maintains that it must be clarified “whether every marriage between two baptized persons is ipso facto a sacramental marriage.” The Code of Canon Law affirms this (can. 1055 § 2) but, as Ratzinger observes, the Code itself says that this applies to a valid marriage contract, and in this case it is precisely the validity that is in question. Ratzinger adds: “Faith belongs to the essence of the sacrament; what remains to be clarified is the juridical question of what evidence of the ‘absence of faith’ would have as a consequence that the sacrament does not come into being.”

It therefore seems to have been established that if there truly is no faith, neither is there the sacrament of marriage.

With regard to implicit faith the scholastic tradition, with reference to Hebrews 11:6 (“anyone who approaches God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him”), requires at least faith in God as rewarder and savior.

It seems to me, however, that this tradition must be updated in the light of the teaching of Vatican II, on the basis of which the salvation that requires faith can also be obtained by “all men of good will in whose hearts grace is invisibly at work,” including those who maintain that they are atheists or in any case have not come to an explicit knowledge of God (cf. “Gaudium et Spes,” 22; “Lumen Gentium,” 16).

In any event, this teaching of the Council by no means implies an automatism of salvation and a trivialization of the need for faith: it instead places the accent not on an abstract intellectual recognition of God but rather on an adherence, however implicit, of him as the fundamental choice of our life.

In the light of this criterion, it could perhaps be maintained that under the current circumstances there are more baptized persons who do not have faith and therefore cannot validly contract sacramental marriage.

It therefore seems truly opportune and urgent to strive to clarify the juridical question of that “evidence of lack of faith” which would make sacramental marriages invalid and prevent nonbelieving baptized persons from contracting such marriages in the future.

We must not conceal the fact, on the other hand, that this opens the way for much more profound and difficult changes, not only for the Church’s pastoral care but also for the situation of nonbelieving baptized persons.

It is clear, in fact, that like every person they have the right to marriage, which they would contract in civil form. The greatest difficulty does not lie in the danger of compromising the relationship between the canonical order and the civil order: their synergy has already become very weak and problematic, through the progressive distancing of civil marriage from what are the essential requisites of natural marriage itself.

The effort of Christians and of those who are aware of the human and social importance of the family founded on marriage should instead be aimed at helping the men and women of today to rediscover the significance of those requisites. They are founded on the order of creation and precisely for this reason apply to every age and can be made concrete in forms adapted to the most diverse times.

I would like to end by recalling the common intention that animates those who are taking part in the synodal debate: to hold together, in pastoral care for the family, the truth of God and of man with the merciful love of God for us, which is the heart of the Gospel.


Anonymous said...

Really. You are asking a question that has been obvious for months. Are we now supposed to pretend that we couldn't see this coming due to the statements and actions of this pope?

You kept saying that all the synod will do is streamline the process for a declaration of nullity. Well you don't need a synod for that. And you dismissed those of us who kept saying that Francis was going to promote heresy that will split the Church.

I'm sticking with Jesus not Francis. "a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery" Francis can't change, alter or give the impression that the words of Christ are not true. If he does he is a heretic and no longer pope. For the sake of his soul and the Faith of millions I pray he doesn't go down that path.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I think it has been obvious since Pope Francis stepped on to the balcony - things have gone from bad to worse - and I have had first hand accounts of what he was like as a cardinal in Argentina - those Catholics are not surprised at how things can and will become.


JusadBellum said...

If one's theology amounts to hand waving and denial of Christ's simple words, then it's not worth spit.

Jesus said "unless a man be born of water and the spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven". He had plenty of time to say that people can 'implicitly' worship God while actually being atheists, pagans, etc...and he didn't.

Thus, it would seem, that the Church proclaiming a lower threshold to God's friendship than what God revealed in the Logos is illegitimate.

After all, what pray tell could be the limiting criteria if Our Lord's words can now be dispensed with?

In what way or sense could be call people "faithful" if they are not in fact faithful to the deposit of faith but are following brand new ideas about what constitutes a disciple and what is not a disciple?

How does one make sense of all the parables of the foolish virgins or the inappropriately dressed man found in the wedding feast? Of the narrow path vs. wide road? Of the words 'many are called few are chosen'?

If virtually everyone is saved by 'implicit' desire even though their EXPLICIT choices include objective immorality (having to do with sex) then how could we genuinely object to any other category of misbehavior?

How to be in high dungeon over evil capitalists or polluters of the environment, of those who defraud the poor of wages, etc. - after all, who's to judge that they're not 'implicitly' seeking God?

See how two can (and will) play the game?

Anonymous said...

I am from Sri Lanka. How would this be explained to the people in countries like Sri Lanka where majority of people are faithful to their spouses even in difficult marriages. I wouldn't even want my children to hear this Pope.

Anonymous said...

Come on, Francis, baby.... declare porn and masturbation is not sinful... pre-maritial sex and birth control not sinful... we're counting on you, Holy Father... give the Church back to the people!!

John said...

It is hard to keep a civil tongue in the face of what is going on in Rome in the name of Synodal deliberations. Of course, the history of the Church is full of contentious synods. (No need to digress to discuss them here.)

So, I am waiting for what will come down in the next year or so. Not hopping for much but willing to wait. No matter the future it is already evident that many bishops are confused, and some vigorously advocate heretical positions. (Not all Bishops have been well catechized?)

Even if nothing unacceptable happens in the future, should or will the Holy Father dismiss heretical clergy since they are so public about their positions? Of course, heretical Bishops should have the chance to recant. I am not optimistic.

Benedict XVI complained of a scheming homosexual lobby in the Vatican which Pope Francis was going to roll up PDQ. So far, I am unaware that any of the schemers have been dislodged from their dens. Perhaps, upon further investigation it was discovered that scheming had produced some good affects. Naturally, in that case they will just stay for now?

Orson Bean said...

There is a web log called "Harvesting the Fruit of Vatican II" published by a fellow named Louis Verrechio. He had a very interesting post the other day that included this statement:

"Many Catholics are praying that the Synod will, over and against the designs of the Bergoglian sect, ultimately reaffirm the doctrine of the faith with regard to such matters as the indissolubility of marriage, the inability of those who persist in manifest grave sin to approach the sacraments, and the recognition of the gravely disordered nature of homosexual acts.

"I, however, am praying for the exact opposite.

"To be more specific, my prayer is that the wolves who so craftily seek to destroy the Church from within by guile will, inspired in the knowledge that the pope himself is their ally, therefore shed all pretense; bringing undeniable clarity to the reality in which we presently live:

"One may either accept the modernist ravings of the current Bishop of Rome, and in so doing objectively abandon the Faith that comes to us from the Apostles, or one may reject and denounce them; thus remaining true to what is authentically Catholic."

I'm afraid that I must agree with him.

We are facing a very serious reckoning in the Church and it is going to leave us without much wiggle room if these "leaders" continue down the path they are apparently taking.

Victor W. said...

With regards to irregular marriages, we have a synod that believes that if you can't beat them, then join them. So it seems Henry VIII of England was right after all, being way ahead of his time, when all the martyrs for the Church were fools for supporting the pope. The synod also wants the Church to abandon all those who have sacrificed the better part of their lives in following the command of Christ and His Church on marriage that true Love is not based on sentimentality, but on the Truth. Hopefully the pope, like Paul VI eventually did, will listen only to the Holy Spirit on this.

Vox Cantoris said...

I will admit it; when he stepped out on the balcony I wanted to literally, vomit.

I have not changed my feelings.

Anonymous said...

I wonder whether the present debate is rooted less in a disagreement about the nature of marriage, than in a disagreement among our appointed shepherds and guardians of the faith, on the nature of the Mass and the Eucharist. If one thinks the presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species is merely symbolic, and that the Mass is mainly a shared community celebration, then it may well follow that all should be admitted to holy communion, wherever they are in their “journey”.

Only to one who believes in the Real Presence–that the Eucharist species are actually the Body and Blood of Christ–is it crucial that Holy Communion be restricted to those in a state of grace.

Does not this disagreement therefore reflect the more fundamental fact of a deep division at all levels in the Church, but especially among bishops and cardinals, in belief in the Real Presence and Mass as a Holy Sacrifice? So, is the debate about marriage really a place holder for a debate about the liturgy of the Church? If so, its significance may extend far beyond mere pastoral provisions for those in irregular relationships.

Anonymous said...

I know this sounds disrespectful, but that is not the intent.

Vox Cantoris: I had a similar reaction when I saw his election. I was immediately suspicious of someone who would choose the name "Francis", not because of anything against the good saint of Assisi, but because of the sentimentalized, uber-pacifistic caricature that this saint has come to embody in popular Catholic culture. When I saw the man himself, he look confused and out of place. I had also never heard of him before. However, the knowledge he was from Latin America immediately sent off my liberal radar. How many truly conservative or orthodox bishops can we name from Latin America?

I greatly respect the office of the Holy Father and I will respect this man as pope, because he was, from all appearances validly elected. HOWEVER, I still maintain that he is the dupe of some very disordered Cardinals who would not be ruled by Benedict and did all they could to make that good pope resign. The Church is being punished in a way we never foresaw.

It is up to us, the laity to demand that our bishops and cardinals and, if necessary, our pope, give us the undistilled truth. Since the majority of the laity just want a comfortable pew for one hour a week, that's not likely to happen unless we are face with a great crisis. The Synod seems to be presenting us with just such a crisis. And like all crises, the innocent will suffer. Will the Church be purified? I don't know. How many times must people keep making the same mistakes before they learn?

Anonymous said...

I'm still waiting for one (or more) of you to stop crying and whining and wringing your hands and gnashing your teeth and to put your gonads where your mouth is ang just take a hike. Many have already abandoned the Church in their minds...It may be time to put up or shut up.


Gene said...

So now, essentially, when one is looking to choose a church, he can just lump all the protestant and Catholic churches together and flip a coin. It has really become, for most, a matter of aesthetics. I welcome a schism. We need it.

Anonymous said...


Methinks I hear an aging priest who hates the sound of informed Catholics who can see through deception?

Perhaps not.

I cannot speak for the others posting here, but it matters little to me whether "Pre Vatican II" or the "old Church" ever comes back or not, so much as when the Church of Deception and duplicity goes away.

Most of us posting here are well-aware that Vatican II was a "pastoral" council that defined no new dogmas. It pronounced no anathemas. It ignored the Church's greatest threat at the time (and maybe even now) which was Communism (the now exposed Metz agreement). For many of us--and you are welcome to disagree--we look back on a council that is essentially irrelevant, inasmuch as it had no effect on what the Church taught, yet for many of your kind, you insist it produced a revolution.

Whoever you are, you poor hater of all things pre-Vatican II, you must surely see the writing on the wall: The silly season is ending. The septuagenarians and octogenarians who are dancing to "Here I Am Lord" are going on to their eternal reward and, sooner than you think, the Church will be in the hands of a younger clergy who are overwhelmingly more traditional and conservative and have had enough of the relativism that was imposed upon them.

The Kumbaya Catholics who have conformed themselves to the world are contracepting themselves into oblivion. The traditional young families that are producing vocations (and lots and lots of children) are the ONLY growing source of vocations in the Church. The OTHER great source of vocations are in Africa, whose clergy and families are much more orthodox than anything here in Subjectivismland.

You can get as mad as you like and denounce it all you like. Y'know, I was wrong! The more deeply I examine what is happening, it is become increasingly clear. A Pre-Vatican II Church IS coming back. AND YOU CAN'T STAND IT!

Sorry amigo--the 60's are over. Way over. And it doesn't matter what the aging hippies in their bishops Robes do in Rome--their style of Church has no staying power. The original thing can't be stopped. It's nipping at your heels.

Admit it. You're defeated. It's not a matter of if. It's only a matter of when.

Anonymous said...

"take a hike"? If a schism comes it will be due not to evil conservatives 'taking a hike' but thanks to self-proclaimed 'progressives' (progressing to what, exactly?) who break from 2,000 years of tradition, from the deposit of faith handed to us from the Apostles in order to chase after some new gospel they call 'mercy' which actually is the opposite of mercy because it preaches that people have less and less to be guilty for!

You can only receive mercy if you acknowledge your sin. But if you are told that your sin is not bad, but is actually a good thing...then you are not seeking God's mercy at all.

When/if the schism comes, it won't usher in some peaceful co-existence, some Kumbaya feel good 'end of history'. It'll usher in war and lots of it. No one in their right mind should relish what's coming.

It may be unavoidable, it may ultimately result in a purified Church, but millions of innocents will suffer.

Nathanael said...

I agree with the spirit of what you write – however, I disagree with your overly optimistic appraisal of the situation at hand.

Things are not getting better; overall, things are moving backwards (or forwards, depending on your view). A lot of this depends on what will happen at the Continuing Council…er Synod…in the coming year. No future Pope will every fully reverse the actions taken by our current Holy Father. Just as the House of W & R did not really curb the excess of the Second Vatican Council (only slowed the decline). Can a new “conservative” batch of priests really undo/minimize the damage of the past 60 years? Nope. It ain’t gonna happen.

Some people have learned their lesson. Just cloak modernism with the veils of love, mercy, and Marian piety – BOOM! The compassionate Church is on the way to make sure sinners do not have to amend their lives. IT’S A BIRD, A PLANE…it's ------

The temporal Church is on the metaphorical copying machine and within 100 years the barriers between her and the mainstream Protestant faiths will be minimal – unless Our Lord himself directly intervenes.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what's gonna get us first...the schismatics or the Commies or the aging priests or the Kumbayas or the booger man.

Nathanael said...

My vote is for the booger man.

It is just another name for the ruler of this word.
You hit the nail again!

Julian Barkin said...

Orson Bean, Do not trust Mr. Verecchio. If you read the whole of his postings, it sounds as if he's jumped shift and left Rome. They have quite the sedevacantist or SSPX tone to them.

Also Anonymous at 1201pm, that's a much better and more charitable assessment of Pope Francis, more based on general trends of the region, rather than pure Pope Hate, unlike the sentiments expressed elsewhere in the Catholic blogosphere. You don't have to agree with everything Bergoglio does, but you cannot hate the man and go all crazy on the Vatican either and cause spiritual despair to other readers online either. Thanks for giving us a better example of criticism here.

Anonymous said...

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned all of us this was coming years ago. I knew as well when Bergoglio stepped out on the loggia the Church was doomed, and so it goes. 2,000 years down the drain.

Anonymous said...

Pope Benedict the XVI needs to step up and say stop the synod and enough is enough Bergoglio!!!!

Carol H. said...

Am I the only one who feels like maybe the Lord is in the process of separating the sheep from the goats?

Anonymous said...

Which are you Carol?

JBS said...


The Lord decides, not us. Read your Bible.

JBS said...

The problem now is that no matter how the synod turns out, there will have to be a loosing side and a winning side. Things have been coordinated in such a way that consensus is not possible. The needs of the family in the New Evangelization have been put aside as Modernists undermine the Church.

Anonymous said...

Gee, no mention of carrying the cross. I am so shocked that the cross, sin, penance, comfession, amendment of life, conversion were not even memtioned. I am just so,shocked. Just sunshine and flowers nd lollypops.

Francis can can issue any decree he wants but if he goes gainst the words of Christ I am not listening. So he ane all his modernist buddies can try and make sacrilege appear old fashioned but he can pick up that millstone and jump into the ocean. I am not listening to him if he teaches heresy.

What is going is is scandalous beyond belief. If Francis held all of these heretical ideas in his heart when he was elected......guess who was never pope in the first place. One has to be a Catholic to be pope not a heretic.

Anonymous said...

I want a mass where there are strippers pole dancing for the procession, where the homily praises pornography and masturbation. I want sex, of all forms, to be elevated to a sacrament, never again a sin or a disorder. Francis will do this. The Church is for the people.

Gene said...

"The Church must respect the decision of couples using birth control." This from the synod. So, do we respect the decision of those who choose abortion, as well? Why not?

Anonymous at 10:17…just remember, thirty-four and a half is dinner for one.

Anonymous 2 said...

I suggest that the referendum on Scotland may be instructive.

Also, why allow ourselves to be blown hither and thither by media sensationalism and ill-informed, biased, and self-serving punditry? Maybe the expression “ignorance is bliss” has at least some sense to it at least in some circumstances. Have any decisions been taken? No. I didn’t think so.

Anonymous said...

Come on Gene...surely you know the difference...the moral difference between abortion and birth control. My wife and I had 8 children....then "used birth control".

How many kids do you have?

Tell me about the rhythm method...

Joe Potillor said...

Three words: God help us, that's about all the positive that I can say. The preliminary document came out...and I'm placing some thoughts at my own blog....which are much too long for a comment here.

George said...

Some methods of artificial birth control are abortifacients. The Church does approve of Natural Family Planning. The use of abortion and artificial birth control are two reasons why the Church and the world are where they are right now.

Vox Cantoris said...

Mr. Barkin,

You have no business telling anyone not to read Mr. Verecchio. You come on here and accuse him of being a sedevacantist.

Does your calumny know any bounds?

Shame on you.

Gene said...

Anonymous at 8:47. We have two kids and used the fool proof drug,l"Noassatall." Tell you about the rhythm method…that is a method used by many couples. They are called "parents."

JBS said...

All of these Catholics publicly embracing the Sin of Onan may well share his place in Hell. Have they no fear of Hell, or respect for God?

JusadBellum said...

NFP has made advances since the 1960s. Right now the various methods use a combination of calendar, basal temperature and mucus. For women with irregular cycles and disrupted sleep which throws off basal temperature readings, the mucus doesn't lie. They even have new devices that can 'read' the hormones in the mucus.

Thus you can know with great certainty what phase you are in. I requires the man to exercise self-control for about 1-2 weeks per month. I know...the horror. Being continent for up to 14 days. It's almost like we're more than animals or something.

Julian Barkin said...

Mr. Domet, if I see a sin being committed, such as a robbery, and I can stop it in a way such as calling the cops or stopping the perpetrator, should I let it slide? No that is a sin of omission. The same goes in the spiritual realm. As for Mr. Verecchio, his posts tell the tale. I just am making people aware of something that they might not see, in their innocent quest to pursue the faith better?

Furthermore Mr. Domet, should we collectively want Traditonalism to not be damaged further or proceed in a manner that is at least a "working agreement" to quote Pope Francis, we need to ensure that the proper leadership and behavior is promoted in the Church, and not give more ammunition or cause to silencing us. It is then best not to support such "leadership" that would damage things further.

Anonymous said...

Juad, I think you;re confusing making love with chemotherapy.

JusadBellum said...

Anon, ;-)

"Making love" is precisely what happens when a husband and wife have intercourse during a fertile period.

Being open to new life, to the Holy Spirit, the "Lord and giver of life" who creates the soul in the woman's womb 'ex nihilo' is to 'make love'.

Two self-oriented lustful people mutually using the occasion of the other's body for personal pleasure is not 'making love'.

And thus the sexual revolution has not produced more love but less. Not more mature adults but fewer. Not more wisdom but a great darkening of the intellect.

Carol H. said...

JusadBellum- well said!