Sunday, April 24, 2016

SELF-LOATHING MASKED BY SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS


This is just conjecture on my part, but because MV has been so shrill in going after gays in the Church or elsewhere, I suspect he has ruffled many feathers in the gay community, Catholic or otherwise. It is not the officials of the archdiocese or the Cardinal by any means outing him, but others and he knows the gig is up in terms of his own orientation and how mean spirited he has been towards those who have the same orientation and have yet to repent as he has. And if there has been any backsliding on his part, as sinners are wont to do, then he knows that what he is dishing out will come back to him in the full rage of those seeking revenge against him. Revenge of course is a mortal sin too.

That's the problem, his acerbic, damning tongue and lack of understanding of where people are and how they can be led to conversion. But worse, it is a sign of self-loathing. And a sin against charity, directed towards others or even oneself, as I have said over and over and over again to those who are so self-righteous in the most ugly ways is a mortal sin too and if all mortal sins are equal, then mortal sins against charity deserve the same condemnation that MV dishes out to gays and the gay cabal.

And how odd it is that this is what Pope Francis is trying to teach the Church at this juncture in salvation history. His "who am I to judge" statement is quite a contrast to MV and his ilk and the damage they are causing to the Church's mission to reach the lost and bring them back, not with vinegar but with honey.

27 comments:

Bless Me Father said...

I sympathise with the direction of you complaint, Father, for Michael Voris' US Shock-Jock style did (or does) speak more to showmanship rather than journalistic acumen .. at least for a fuddy-duddy Brit like (who likes the truth, especially unpleasant truth, set out with a smidgeon of balance .. or common sense, or at least self-deprecating humour). However, it was only when a dear, now deceased, relative of mine pointed out the Voris behind the Journalist that I began to see more - much more - than shock-jockery at work; in particular, the fact that he was not 'after gays' or such - as such - but after impenitent and aggressive sin (dressed up as pastoral kindness, etc). I might surprise many, but in Michael's bluff (indeed at times over-compensating) assertive masculinism I see love not condemnation at work; a true love, a genuine manly love, that which reaches out even at his own expense to rescue others (patently in need of being woken up to the need of a change of life aka salvation) .. with the exaggerated joyful love of a convert he has been ready to tread on toes and make enemies, but also to spend hours with an ex-colleague, seeking to draw him away from sacrilegious belief and heaven-bewailing sin .. as with the Apostle Paul, it is often the strident and controversial damning-judgement-side that the public focuses rather than the love that spurs on the need to use sound judgement, in wanderer and rescuer alike. We may not like to wake up to the alarm of a freezing cold shower of water, preferring a being enfolded in a nice warm blanket and encouraging words - but in a building being engulfed by flames, set for our abiding destruction not merely a trial to see if we are awake, it is .. at times .. the cold water that we most need (want it or not). God bless you Father, your solid good sense in witness regularly adds common sense to a daily diet of shrieking HEADLINES; pray for Michael and his team, that they may emerge stronger and wiser too .. penitent sinners as they all are (and acknowledge the fact, if not the details, thank God).

Anonymous said...

WHAT?! Are you kidding me. MV has/is speaking the truth in clear language. Something Francis and his bishops should be doing. He is articulating what the Church has always taught. Maybe if the shepherds, including Francis, hadn't totally abandoned us and the Truth for 50 years his ministry might not be needed.

And Father, by the way, you are always JUDGING and accusing people to be in mortal sin because of this or that......Pope Francis just taught that we can no longer assume that someone is in mortal sin just because they are in an active adulteress or homosexual relationship etc. That of course is heresy but you have championed all the nonsense Francis has said and done so keep on down that wide wide road that so many are following which of course leads to........ MV has chosen to take the narrow, difficult road that leads to eternal life.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I can't assume that anyone is in mortal sin if one of the three criteria is lacking. But we can assume that if all three are present that a lack of charity is a mortal sin. Just because we can't assume something isn't a mortal sin, if it is committed it is a sin in the venial sense. There is a distinction and mortal sin implied complete separation from God, venial does not.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

It is not heresy if what is theoretically a mortal sin isn't for the person committing the sin. If full consent of the will is lacking in whatever way or whatever cause, even though the sinner knows it is serious matter and knows it is wrong, it is a venial sin not a mortal sin if the third criteria for what constitutes a mortal sin for a particular sinner is compromised in any way.

I might add that no laity can say that a pope is a heretic. I think that in and of itself is Protestantism to the T and thus heretical. I think only bishops can bring that charge and in a very scripted and formal way. I don't see that happening.

rcg said...

Aren't we arguing which imprudence is better? To attack people for their disorder or to tolerate it in a sophisticated manner that encourages it? He is no different than someone who has attempted surgery without medical training, cutting too deeply and far. So we attack him because we took no action at all. If his personal experience gives him insight to the problem we should learn from him and work with him to find an appropriate approach. He may reject that dialectic, but we should at least try which would be the ready of our own failure.

Anonymous said...

Ok Father, in October the pope. The POPE is going to take part in a "religious" service with a "married lesbian bishopress" in which he will publicly thank God for the heretic Martin Luther and the Reformation and the good it has brought to the Church. Is that proof that the man is a heretic. You have 6 months to rationalize. Keep following that wide wide road.

Anonymous said...

I'm uncertain, Father, how charitable is your commentary on MV and his motives. Your words seem clear enough, but who am I to judge you or your disposition?

Anonymous said...

Surely a sufficiently informed person can assess the extent of heresy in a particular statement (papal or otherwise). Evidently there are well-informed readers who gauge some of the content of Amoris Laetita as substantially heretical. Though it is unclear what formal action anyone (even bishops) can take even in the case of papal heresy.

Anonymous said...

"I might add that no laity can say that a pope is a heretic. I think that in and of itself is Protestantism to the T and thus heretical. I think only bishops can bring that charge and in a very scripted and formal way. I don't see that happening."

Talk about arrogance. Talk about CLERICALISM.

The difference between the you and me is that because of your ordination you can confect the sacraments. That doesn't mean you are more intelligent than I am. That doesn't mean you are holier than I am. That doesn't mean that you are following the teachings of Christ and His Church and I am not. That doesn't mean I cannot make a reasoned judgement. My mind and my eyesight work. I can/ have read the decrees of the Council of Trent. I can/have read the CCC. The Church has formally decreed that no person in mortal sin can receive the Holy Eucharist without prior sacramental confession and absolution except if confession is not available then that person is to make a perfect act of contrition and confess ASAP. Francis can't change that.

"Amoria Laetitia states

301. Hence it is can no longer simply be said that all those in any “irregular” situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

Again, the “rule” is the norm against adultery articulated in the sixth precept of the Decalogue, which Jesus says is violated by one who divorces his spouse and marries another (cf. Mt. 5:32, 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18). Here chapter 8 teaches that someone who knows full well the “rule” (and is by hypothesis justified in Trent’s/Paul’s sense) can “be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin” (emphasis added). This seems to contradict the defined doctrine in Trent on Justification, canon 18: “If any one says the commandments of God are impossible to keep, even by a person who is justified and constituted in grace: let him be anathema.” Catholic World Report April 22, 2016

George said...


There are today two movements that have taken on an increasing influence in the two predominant religions of the world, Catholicism and Islam

In Islam, there is the overarching concern for the honor and respect due to God's holiness and justice, to the neglect of His mercy; In Catholicism there is the overarching promotion of God's mercy to the neglect of the demands of His justice.

Our God who is Love and Mercy itself is also One whose Justice must also be satisfied. This is why there is not only Divine punishment for unforgiven sin but also the mercy of purgatory. Mercy and Justice are both within our God and they exist within Him without contradiction. God's Mercy cannot be separated from His Justice because they both exist within Him. Each are governed by His Divine Love to work in perfect harmony according to His Holy Nature and for the benefit of our salvation. Are not God's mercy and justice both incorporated in His Ten commandments? Are they likewise not also incorporated in His beatitudes?
There is no contradiction between God's mercy and His justice.There is no conflict and contradiction within God and these Divine attributes work in harmony to the good of all. We see the synthesis of this in St Paul. No one spoke more eloquently of the love of God and neighbor, yet no one was more emphatic in condemnation of sin. We must avoid the extremes of rigorism and laxity and recognize that we are all called to repentance and conversion.

God's mercy and His justice: the first one we must practice. the second one we must respect.


Anonymous said...

Father, a great way to deal with the traditionalist dissenters is to ask them about the status of those couples married by an SSPX priest. Their marriage is INVALID according to Canon Law and that means those couples are technically public adulterers or fornicators. If they are willing to grant an exception to those couples, their entire dissent of AL comes crashing down upon them.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Excellent point, yes for the validity of a marriage in the Church, the priest presiding must, and I mean must, have faculties or at least delegation from the proper canonical authorities. So yes, FSSP marriages and ipso facto irregular.

For example, a priest cannot come into my parish boundaries or into my church building and celebrate a valid marriage unless I specifically give him verbal or written authority. No matter how valid the priest, no matter how licit the form of the wedding, if I don't give a priest who is not assigned here the delegation to perform the wedding, it is INVALID not just ILLICIT.

rcg said...

Why is a SSPX marriage less licit than a baptist marriage? They are married by law, just not in the Church. Has Southerb Orders become an internal forum? J/K. At least until we take a que from the Norwegians.

Bless Me Father said...

'I can't assume that anyone is in mortal sin if one of the three criteria is lacking ... There is a distinction and mortal sin implied complete separation from God, venial does not.'

So true - in the solid, common sense, orthodox, Catholic understanding - we cannot presume to condemn, that slide is mere prejudice, a prejudicial opinion applied as morally reasoned judgement. Without understanding of the wrong done, and an accompanying will to do what is wrong, we cannot assume the presence of that type of sin which leads to death even when we can see that it is a matter of wrongdoing, aka 'sin'. But when one does speak from a position of morally reasoned understanding of wrongdoing in general and specific wrongs done, not least the 'context' in which the wrong is done, one is not making an assumption let offering a presumptive opinion; here the problem comes, chiefly, in the hyper-eager over-reaction of a convert .. eager to rescue souls that don't want to be rescued, oppose any such rescue-based outreached, or are better suited to remain asleep to the risks of the 'wrong' situation. God bless you, Father, and your ministry.

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

It can no longer simply be said that all those SSPX couples in such "irregular" situations are living in a state of sin. We must accompany them, without subjecting them to sacramental torture chambers or reserving sacraments to the perfect.

Tony V said...

Re: marriage...no. The priest does not marry the couple; he is a witness. The couple marry each other.
So it's incorrect to say that a wedding witnessed by an SSPX (and surely you didn't mean FSSP) priest is invalid. The church, after all, recognises non-Catholic marriages as valid.


Getting back to MV...I'm not sure what I think here. Yes, he could be abrasive, but then again the bishops (who for too long have ignored critical issues such as child molestation) need their toes held to the fire. The church needs to challenge the secular culture on things like abortion (killing unborn babies) and homosexuality (a serious mental illness, not a legitimate lifestyle choice), and how can it do so until it addresses the rampant homosexuality within the clergy?

Anonymous said...

Tony V is wrong. Catholics are required to get married in front of priest who has jurisdiction. Without faculties from the local pastor, those who attempt marriage do so INVALIDLY and are therefore technically in "mortal" sin. You can get an automatic annulment in such a situation due to what's called "lack of proper form".

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Correct! SSPX laity have no censure against them and thus are fully Roman Catholic subject to the marriage laws of the Church which apply to Catholics but not our separated brethren. SspSPX priests have the canonical censure. Delegation from the proper pastor is required for validity of the marriage!

Marc said...

Rome has said that marriages witnessed by SSPX priests are valid. This is confirmed by the practice of treating them as valid and letting the SSPX adjudicate questions about the marriages they witness.

Father, you should be more careful to distinguish between the SSPX and the FSSP. There may be people reading who would be confused by what you're writing.

George said...

Fr. Macdonald and Anonymous at 5:40 PM

True. This is where the problem is for the SSPX. Since they consider themselves as part of the Church, they come under Canon law. The SSPX is in an irregular situation. If they were formally in schism, Canon law would not apply and so the necessary faculties would be a mute point,because their status would be similar to the Eastern Orthodox or to Protestant denominations. Pope Francis granted the SSPX faculties to hear confessions during the Year of Mercy which means that the Holy Father, the voice of authority in the Church, considers them to be under Canon law. Since they come under Canon law, the necessary jurisdiction must be given to an SSPX priest to perform a wedding. That has not happened.
As far as a couple who are married by an SSPX priest being in "mortal" sin, that doesn't necessarily have to be the case, since the necessary conditions must be present. A couple may not be aware of the canonical status of the SSPX. Their marriage under Church law would still be invalid however.

Anonymous said...

All marriages, SSPX, Captain of a ship at sea, shamman, soothsayer, are considered valid until shown by evidence to be otherwise.

This does not give the SSPX some particular status among the irregulars.

Tony V said...

Collectively, we've managed to prove that the church has created some rather absurd rules about marriage. The notion that if a Catholic goes off and marries (without 'permission') in a non-Catholic church, he's not really married, is one such instance. I'm not saying Fr McD doesn't have to apply the rules whenever the occasion presents itself, and if he doesn't want to get in trouble with the higher-ups he better not disparage them either, especially here, but as a lay person I'm more at liberty. Maybe this is where the bishops need so sort things out.

One might argue that SSPX marriages are invalid as sacramental marriage (and there's room for debate), but it's rather difficult to argue they weren't valid natural marriages. Do we really think it's OK for someone who was married in front of an SSPX priest (or a Congregationalist minister) to leave his wife (concubine?) and kids after 10 or 15 years and be free to marry someone else in a Catholic church?

To say someone who's married in front of an SSPX priest is in a state of mortal sin (let's assume he's got full knowledge of, etc, etc) is a stretch. Do you really think, to use Mr Voris's example, if he 'got hit by a car or something' he'd go straight to hell? As mortal sins go, this one strikes me as pretty venial.

Anonymous said...

Michael Voris is SHRILLLLLL but language such "self absorbed promethean neopelagian" is kind, non judgemental and doesn't cause hard feelings. Keep those rose colored glasses on Father. You are going to need them. Hypocrite.

Jan said...

I think Michael Voris is quite right to point out the obvious problem with Cardinal Dolan marching in the St Patrick's Day Parade with homosexual groups. Cardinal Dolan is a prelate of the Church. Michael Voris is not.

Haven't those reformed abortionists who have been shrill in their condemnation of abortion and abortionists been highly praised? I haven't heard them being condemned for going against their former sinful lifestyle.

And I imagine the last thing the homosexual community wants is a reformed homosexual standing up against their lifestyle. I haven't always been a great fan of Michael Voris. But all kudos to him for standing up for the truth, even though he would have known that the sins of his past would eventually be made public. Michael Voris wouldn't need to do the job he is doing if bishops and priests were doing their job and not being so quiet when they need to speak out against evil that he is doing.

TJM said...

Jan,

AMEN!

George said...


While one can take issue with Mr Voris' methods and tone of discourse, he and others of his journalistic kindred can serve a useful purpose. A case in point would be Tony Spence, who had worked for Catholic News Service as Director and Editor in Chief. He was forced to resign by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for posting tweets which contradicted Church teaching. Msgr. J. Brian Bransfield, the general secretary of the bishops' conference, said that Mr Spence had “lost the confidence of the conference” . One could surmise that if Mr Spence had kept his views to himself, he would still be at CNS. Once Mr Spence had made public his views however, it then became a situation the USCCB could no longer ignore. When someone in Mr Spence's position posts a tweet, there are those who are out there taking note of them.

Flavius Hesychius said...

What's a 'reformed homosexual'?