Translate

Thursday, September 20, 2018

ARE HIS HOLINESS' DAILY HOMILIES SIGNS OF PASSIVE AGRESSIVENESS OR ACTIVE AGRESSIVENESS OR SIMPLY DESPERATION?


“Hypocrites are the devil’s instrument for destroying the Church”

In Santa Marta Francis admonishes those who “scandalize” before the sins of others for they “believe they have been saved thanks to their own external merits”. “Jesus forgives and uses mercy, let’s not forget that when we badmouth others”

“But look, what a scandal! You can’t live like that! We have lost our values... Now everyone has the right to enter the church, even divorced people, everyone? But where are we?”. In the past or in the present many have been the “just” and “pure” people who have pronounced such phrases inside and outside the Church. Francis gives a name to these criticisms and public denunciations: “the scandal of the hypocrites”, he says in today’s mass in Santa Marta. It is “the hypocrisy of those who believe themselves saved for their own external merits”.

Jesus himself shows a very harsh attitude towards these people who “on the outside show “everything beautiful” but are “rotten” inside. They have rottenness inside”. Christ defines them, “Whitewashed tombs”. And Francis adds more: “As the Church walks through history, she is persecuted by hypocrites: hypocrites from inside and from outside. The devil has nothing to do with repentant sinners, because they look at God and say: “Lord, I am a sinner, help me”. And the devil is powerless, but he is strong with the hypocrites. He is strong, and uses them to destroy, destroy people, destroy society, destroy the Church. The devil’s workhorse is hypocrisy, because he is a liar: he shows himself as a powerful, beautiful prince, and yet he is a murderer”.

The testimony offered by Jesus is totally opposite Francis, affirms in his homily reported by Vatican News: a great, total love, which looks also at the “small gesture of good will, fostering it and carrying it forward”. As happens for example for the woman of today’s Gospel, who does not hide her condition of “sinner” but shows a great love for Christ. “Her many sins are forgiven, because she loved so much”, are the words of Jesus on which the Pope invites us to reflect. “She was forgiven so much because she loved so much”.

“But how to love? They do not know how to love”, someone object. “They seek love,” the Pope replied. “Jesus, speaking of these women - Jesus once said - that they will be before us, in the Kingdom of Heaven”. “But what a scandal... these people”, the Pharisees exclaim, who “have an attitude that only hypocrites often have: they scandalize” before other’s sins, Francis notes.

He concludes by exhorting us “not to forget that Jesus forgives, receives and uses mercy, a word that is often forgotten when we talk about others”. Like Jesus, we must “be merciful and not condemn others. [Put] Jesus at the center. Only in this way, insists the Pope, can we meet “true love”, unlike hypocrites “unable to meet love because their hearts are closed”. 


28 comments:

Anonymous said...

See: “The Ultimate Culprit is the Fake ‘Reforms’ of the Second Vatican Council” by Fr. Philip Bruno Penguine

https://gloria.tv/article/nYL1XjaAnJ6z3f79RxZkEbJtK

Dan said...

"The testimony offered by Jesus is totally opposite Francis...." and I wonder daily how the Francis got his position, and why he has not been driven out.

TJM said...

LOL - Look in the mirror, PF

Anonymous said...

Fr. Penguine writes in his Vatican Two lament, among other things, "Parish councils - a Protestant tradition - were instituted."

Long, long before the post-Vatican II era pastors relied on laity with specific talents and abilities for advice. Those pastors who did not, who thought of themselves as the most knowledgeable about accounting, the most expert in construction, the most advanced in fund raising, the most articulate in communicating, etc., found themselves struggling.

That we have chosen to organize advisers to pastors into Parish or Pastoral Councils is 1) hardly the result of Vatican Two and 2) not a Protestant idea.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

St. John wrote, "And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 0By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother."

Hmmm. So which is it? Those who are righteous and condemn sin and are scandalized by lewdness, permissiveness and licentiousness among the clergy are hypocrites? Or are they are true followers of Christ who detest sin and cry out against it when it appears to be a lifestyle of their shepherds?

Gee, I sure wish the Church had some clear teaching on this topic... (sorry, I couldn't resist the snark... :-)

God bless,
Bee

Anonymous 2 said...

Will someone with knowledge and authority please explain the passage quoted by Bee? Read literally and standing alone it is positively disheartening and discouraging, and as a sinner one feels like giving up, which does not seem very Catholic.

Anonymous said...

Parish Councils are neither here nor there to most of us pew-sitters in the average parish, as they tend to be popularity contests in make-up, regardless of whether they are elected or appointed. Our parish has seen both methods used, and even saw a council disbanded. They tend to function as a rubber stamp for the Pastor—our experience is that serious consequences can occur to individual members in times of disagreement. My husband can attest from personal time committed serving.
This is just our experience over the past 50 years of adult Catholicity; perhaps some of you laity here (I stress LAITY!) have a different experience. If so, I admit to the sin of envy!

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

My experience is that Parish Councils have been very valuable to me as a pastor. The great majority of members, elected or appointed, want to share their expertise, their wisdom, and their perceptions with pastors who are willing to hear them.

I have twice entered a Council discussion on fund-raising with my own thoughts on how the parish should proceed. Twice I have been convinced that my plan was not the best. Taking the Council's sage advice, both projects were carried out successfully.

60's Survivor said...

Mercy, mercy, mercy!

Yes, Jesus indeed is the Lord of Mercy. His mercy is unlimited...

TO ALL WHO REPENT.

Using only 50% of the equation doesn't add up to anything.

TJM said...

Parish liturgy committees should be abolished. They are pernicious and clueless.

TJM said...

Please pray for this very brave priest in the Archdiocese of Chicago. This takes courage, unlike actions taken by left-wing loons whose anti-Catholic positions are favored by the heirarchy:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/chicago-priest-defies-cardinal-cupich-burns-rainbow-flag-as-an-act-of-exorc

If Cupich takes punitive action against him, I will know that Cupich represents Satan and not Christ

Anonymous said...


Anonymous2:

The key word in the passage from 1 John in Bee's comment is "practices". He who practices sin is unrepentant in a sinful lifestyle. We see this characterization even more in the writings of St.Paul who constantly warned in his letters about the evil practices of the pagans. Paul well knew that the followers of Christ were sinners,
but unlike the pagans of the time, that was not their lifestyle.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

TJM said: If Cupich takes punitive action against him, I will know that Cupich represents Satan and not Christ"

The Cardinal already has... (from https://pjmedia.com/faith/sexual-abuse-survivor-priest-who-burned-rainbow-flag-punished-by-chicago-archdiocese/)

An excerpt from the article:

"While the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is notoriously slow to punish priests engaged in improper sexual behavior, the Chicago Archdiocese acted with urgency to cancel Fr. Kalchik's event. After announcing his intention to burn the flag, Fr. Kalchik received a phone call from the Vicar for Priests Office, which is the disciplinary arm of the archdiocese. "It was a joint phone call with Fr. Dennis Lyle and Fr. Jeremy Thomas, who told me the cardinal had a message for me," Kalchick told PJM. "They said, 'the cardinal wants you to know three things. First, you are not to burn the flag and if you do you should know there are canonical penalties for disobeying the cardinal. Second, you have put in a transfer request to move closer to your parents and that will not happen if you do this. Thirdly, the cardinal thinks you should get a psychological evaluation.'"

Resurrection Church used to be St. Francis Xavier Parish. It's a tiny backwater parish embedded in a north side Chicago neighborhood. It was the church were I was baptized, and received the sacraments. My parents lived in the neighborhood until their deaths, and were buried from there. I know Fr. Paul. What I can't understand is why he would make such a public display of this, in defiance of the Archdiocese.

My guess is that the punishment he will receive will be to have to stay at Resurrection until he dies. (And he's not an old man...)

God bless.
Bee

TJM said...

Someone should give PF and his advisors (And Gov. Moonbeam Brown) this "bad" news. It blows off the lid of the phony Global Warming Religion:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#8c3ed6035355

C. Darwin said...

Evidence for Global Warming/Climate Change:

"Climate change: How do we know?"

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

And "The Most Powerful Evidence Climate Scientists Have of Global Warming"

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03102017/infographic-ocean-heat-powerful-climate-change-evidence-global-warming

And "How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?"

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

And, since it seems to be needed by some, Evidence for a round earth:

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-earth-58.html

TJM said...

C. Darwin Kavanaugh,

Thanks for the laughs. Once again you display either willful ignorance or tremendous naivete. Just like Obama politicized the FBI and DOJ, NASA was corrupted as well by left-wing loons with an agenda. Climate Change is a belief system, and its High Priest, Al Gore, will excommunicate you if you do not accept its precepts. It's all about seizing power and seizing money.

Ironic, that the US is a leader, where the left-wing looney countries are falling behind the curve.

TJM said...

Bee,

I will pray for Father Paul, who is truly courageous. Too bad Cupich is corrupt and evil. Last year when I received my annual appeal from the Archdiocese I sent it back with $0 and a handwritten note that I would contribute when the Archdiocese has a Catholic archbishop

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

What on earth are you trying to say (pun intended) – that “Climate Change” is bogus or that the U.S. is a leader in trying to address it? The latter assertion seems to impliedly contradict the former.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

Climate has ALWAYS changed. The evil, corrupt left-wing is simply trying to control people and their money. When its advocates stop flying around in private jets and living in McMansions, I might take them a bit more seriously. The US private enterprise system has reduced carbon levels to levels below our European "betters" (betters at least to lefties), although I am not certain it is necessary. Ask yourself this. THe political left always claims to be "scientific." Why then, when the viability of the unborn, due to medical advances, keeps pushing back to say around 6 months, they continue to advocate allowing the mother to kill them until they reach 9 months? In my opinion, to the left, science is a cudgel to advance a cruel and evil agenda.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

I concede that science can be, and sometimes is, politicized, by both the left and the right. But whether or not the science is being politicized as a cudgel or anything else, can’t we, indeed shouldn’t we, still take seriously the science on climate change, fetal development, or anything else while dismissing and resisting the politicization?

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous at 9:13 p.m.:

Thank you for responding to my perplexity about the passage quoted by Bee. I can certainly understand that meaning of the phrase “practices sin.” But what does one do with the broader language such as “no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him” or asserting that “[someone] who is born of God . . . cannot sin”? Is this more general language also to be understood in the sense of “practices sin?” If so, is the issue one of translation?

Bean said...

Ah yes, Climate Change is all about abortion. Next the TJM will weave "fudgepackerism" into his (ir)rationale.

Sad.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

Responding to the science of viability of babies (I despise the term "fetus" an Orwellian conceit used to deflect the reality of what is going on with abortion) is a religious and moral imperative. Climate change is not. Reasonable minds (or unreasonable) can differ on Climate Change, on the sanctity of human life, not at all.

Anonymous said...

Fetus is hardly an Orwellian conceit. It has been around for 600 years, at least.

late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg" (tending to mean vaguely the embryo in the later stage of development), from Latin fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring," from suffixed form of PIE root *dhe(i)- "to suck."

It is a medical term, the use of which is 100% correct. "The process of prenatal development occurs in three main stages. The first two weeks after conception are known as the germinal stage, the third through the eighth week are known as the embryonic period, and the time from the ninth week until birth is known as the fetal period."



Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

What is your position on the normative/religious/moral conclusions to be drawn in light of scientific “facts” regarding hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. and the resulting risks to life, limb, and property? May “reasonable” minds disagree about whether scientists should warn people of these facts and risks, or about whether people should heed such warnings?

Should the Weather Channel have remained silent about Hurricane Florence? Should the Governors of the Carolinas have ignored the meteorologists and not issued mandatory evacuation orders? Are the giant corporations that own the factory hog farms morally blameless for the overflowing of their giant cesspools full of animal waste, not to mention the unspeakable cruelty they inflict on the poor creatures inside their satanic mills?

Can’t you see the similarity between the wanton disregard for the wondrous gift of new life in the womb and the wanton disregard for God’s other wondrous gifts throughout His creation and the arrogant, self-centered individualism that helps explain both types of disregard?

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

Surely you have read by now that much of the "research" conducted to prove that man has excarbatedc global warming or climate change is balderdash. The hubris of the political left on climate is very King Canutish. Their first "solution" is to raise taxes and assert government control. How will those 2 things change the climate? There is empirical evidence that the climate was warmer in Europe during the Middle Ages than it is now, long before the industrial revolution. There is also empirical evidence that the Climate Change Cultists approach to the environment are causing starvation amongst the world's poorest. But my personal favorite is that some of these cultists advocate abortion to save the planet!!!

You are engaging in moral equivalence between matters which for Catholics there are two clear responses. Abortion is an intrinsic evil and NEVER justified whereas matters like Climate Change (or whatever new term the left is now using) is a prudential matter and no Catholic is required to accept the current "liberal" orthodoxy on the subject. BUt as to Abortion, you will be hounded and vilified as a "hater" (rather ironic) if you do not accept liberal orthodoxy's position that it is a wonderful thing. I believe one of the left's "comedians" a woman named Wolfe said so, so it must be. This whole disgusting fight over Justice Kavanaugh should give you serious pause over your continued support for the Party of Death, formerly the Democratic Party.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Thank you for your response. I have three points in reply:

(1) It is not helpful to cherry pick one’s scientific “facts” whatever the issue (fetal development, climate change, etc.) and whether done by the political left or the political right. Science is, and should be, apolitical. For the “facts” we should go where the science—all of the science properly understood in entire context—leads us. I am not a scientist. Nor I suspect are you. We should not allow ourselves to be manipulated by the hyper-partisan media or politicians of whatever stripe that seek to politicize science for their own ends.

(2) Similarly, we should not allow ourselves to be manipulated by the hyper-partisan media or politicians that seek to politicize allegations of rape. Instead we should act as lawyers and give a proper and full hearing to each side after an adequate investigation.

(3) I do not “support” the Democratic Party and I do not “support” the Republican Party. Please desist from saying I do. Have I voted Democratic in the past? Yes. Have I voted Republican in the past? Yes. Do I like either Party? No


Anonymous 2 said...

Correction to point (2)—allegations of sexual assault or attempted rape, not allegations of rape.