Friday, December 10, 2021


 (Pope Francis) while acknowledging that (the Archbishop of Parish [Archbishop]) Aupetit may have partially violated the sixth commandment (regarding sexual morality), Francis also insisted that “the sins of the flesh aren’t the most serious sins” and underlined that we’re all sinners, including St. Peter, the first pope.

Where do we start? Well, as I have often mention, I could not fathom how so many bishops cut so much slack to priests who not only were unfaithful to the 6th Commandment (but also a promise made before God and the Church) but even worse, in perverted, abusive ways toward minors whom they corrupted, and yet showed more compassion to the priests than their victims or possible future victims.  There is a callousness about the seriousness of mortal sins, even those in the wrong opinion of bishops, to include this pope, includes sins of the flesh. 

And there you have it. This mentality is of "coloring book, social warrior Catholics" of the 1960's and 70's who see sins of the flesh as nothing compared to the mistreatment of the poor and marginalized, those on the peripheries of society and the Church. Never mind, that sexual exploitation and the corruption of minors is very much a sin against social and personal morality!

Pope Francis' off the cuff remarks have consistently been muddled and confusing, making many to wonder if there aren't some cognitive or intellectual disorders going on. Could it be dementia? 

Even his written documents create the same concerns, especially is most recent document undoing the liturgical papacy of his predecessor, Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI. Did Pope Francis even think about the ramifications for papal magisteriums for one pope to undo what another pope instituted. 

And even more stunning is that bishops are implementing Pope Francis' motu proprio with gusto whereas with Pope Benedict's there was little or no concern for promoting it or supervising it! 

In the matter of Abp Aupetit, Pope Francis sacrifices truth to political expediency


TJM said...

The Pope is a lefty, ergo, truth is dispensible.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

For you to make the jump from Francis' words, "“the sins of the flesh aren’t the most serious sins," to, " warrior Catholics of the 1960's and 70's who see sins of the flesh as nothing compared to the mistreatment of the poor and marginalized,..." is pretty amazing.

Rather than make this unsupportable leap, which muddles and confuses the issue, from "not the most serious" to "as nothing compared", why not address what the Holy Father said rather than make assertions that do not reflect what he said?

rcg said...

The flight manual for the Piper Cub explains that the small, slow, and easy to fly aircraft will just barely kill you but that you will be just as dead. In the case of the Archbishop of Paris he has several other sins to explain, that may add to his punishment, but they will be redundant to the outcome of the first.

There is a tendency among many cultures to equivocate adultery. This is becoming a sign of sophistication in the USA. The current PM of the UK. is another example.

Thomas Garrett said...

Father McDonald, I find your assertions quite accurate and a reflection of the weak state of our Church and its leadership. The criticism leveled at you comes as little surprise.

We see the a similar aesthetic in other comparisons of what offends people.

For instance, when I was a child, the "F" word was seldom used in polite company and I NEVER heard my parents use it. Further, it was THE unforgivable cuss word that most people would NOT tolerate.

Now that disgusting word has been mainstreamed. Potty-mouthed youth and "respectable" people across our nation and all over our airwaves spew that foul word out with impunity and vainglorious pride.

No...what makes the masses gasp now is the use of the "N" word.

I am not advocating that the "N" word is harmless or unoffensive. But it is simply a racial put-down word, common to every vernacular. It is especially forbidden for WHITE people to utter this word--even reading a text like Huckleberry Finn aloud--but we have to listen to black people, who should be DOUBLY OFFENDED by this word spitting it out at each other and, again, pridefully boasting that it's OK for them to spew it while whitey will burn if he so much as thinks it.

Perhaps this reflects our self-righteous hypocrisy about social justice. Yes! Sexual sins are nothing--no worries--let your children lose their innocence and look the other way. But our sanctimonious disgust at anything remotely racist--better yet, our ability to find racism in everything and find new ways to take offense and blame trumps any silly offense you might take at morally impure language.

qwikness said...

Nothing to see here. If only he had added "necessarily" as in “the sins of the flesh aren’t NECESSARILY the most serious sins.” They could be, if taken to an extreme measure or something else could be worse, it all depends. Right?

TJM said...

Fr K,

Here’s another leap, albeit a rational one: priests and bishops who vote for the Party of Intrinsic Evil are complicit in the sin of abortion. Have a nice day!

Mark said...

So ready to condemn Pope Francis again, aren’t we? Did Pope Francis even talk about sexual abuse of minors? No. I didn’t think so. Moreover, is sexual abuse of minors just a sin of the flesh? Or is it also to do with the abuse of power and the betrayal of trust? In any event, did the Archbishop commit adultery per se?

The red herring of racism is irrelevant. Do we think that pride and hatred are on the same par as what the Archbishop did?

I agree with Father Kavanaugh—it is better to respond to what the Pope actually said, and to the facts of the case. But then, like Father K. I am just another lefty, right? And clearly suffering from an intellectual disorder or dementia for making such distinctions!

TJM said...


Yes, you are another clueless lefty who believes whatever the New York Times prints

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Mark, you are evidently encumbered by the thought process. Be like some here and turn away from rational consideration of the facts and give in to the demonic rule of thoughtless emotionalism.

Then, you will be worthy to be called a Catholic. Until then...

Mark said...

Apropos of the topic under discussion I was reminded of the following comment I posted some time ago (I did not record the date or the subject of the thread, but it was likely at least two years ago):

Last night I was reading about Dante. As I understand it, in Dante’s charting of the moral universe, sexual sins were the least serious and therefore those committing them were only in the Second Circle of Hell (with the prospect of mitigated punishment over time) (resonances here, I think, with Father McDonald’s intimations on earlier threads regarding the possible “gradation” of mortal sins). Dante’s treatment of homosexuals seems ambiguous (with indications both that homosexual sexual sins were on a par with heterosexual sins as well as that they were worse as being instances of violence (against nature)). What fascinates, and troubles me, in all this, however, is that in Dante’s universe sins of deception seem to be viewed as worse than either. Today the converse seems to be true.

What happened? Why is it that we are so prepared to normalize, and give a pass to, lying and deception? Why aren’t we Catholics on a “crusade” against lying and deception as much as we are against “pelvic matters” (to quote a phrase)? Have we become morally corrupted in this respect? I haven’t researched the CCC on lying and deception. I am talking about the general “cultural” attitude of Catholics as evidenced, for example, by the apparent willingness of some commentators on this Blog to excuse lying and deception on the part of their preferred political leaders. For myself, I wouldn’t excuse any of them, not a one, and that goes for the media too. My sensibilities are much closer to my understanding of Dante in this respect.

I certainly stand to be corrected in my understanding of Dante but be that as it may, the question remains.

Mark said...

I have now again tracked down the Catechism provisions that proscribe lying:

2482 "A lie consists in speaking a falsehood with the intention of deceiving." The Lord denounces lying as the work of the devil: "You are of your father the devil, . . . there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

2483 Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth. By injuring man's relation to truth and to his neighbor, a lie offends against the fundamental relation of man and of his word to the Lord.

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

2485 By its very nature, lying is to be condemned. It is a profanation of speech, whereas the purpose of speech is to communicate known truth to others. the deliberate intention of leading a neighbor into error by saying things contrary to the truth constitutes a failure in justice and charity. the culpability is greater when the intention of deceiving entails the risk of deadly consequences for those who are led astray.

2486 Since it violates the virtue of truthfulness, a lie does real violence to another. It affects his ability to know, which is a condition of every judgment and decision. It contains the seed of discord and all consequent evils. Lying is destructive of society; it undermines trust among men and tears apart the fabric of social relationships.

I assume this is from the second edition and not the first edition but, again, stand to be corrected.

Mark said...

And Dante seems to have considered that those guilty of various kinds of fraud/dishonesty (including hypocrisy) merited the second to lowest circle of Hell, below even violence and just above treachery:

Jerome Merwick said...


Since you accuse others of the "red herring" (your words), how about also dispensing with the sarcastic self-accusations?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Robert Mikens of all people, criticisms the pope on this one: December 10, 2021Not his finest moment An ill-timed announcement and the pope's baffling explanation of why he decided to remove the leader of one of Catholic Church's most important dioceses

Read more at:

Unfortunately you can’t read the entire story without paying for it, but you get the idea.

TJM said...

Fr K and Mark believeall the tenets of leftism. Ergo they are “encumbered by thought.” Ya, right. You are typical of leftwing thought but not thought. You actually believe abortion is healthcare

John Nolan said...

Fr Kavanaugh makes a valid point above, which I can acknowledge despite his insolence and presumption regarding me, although some of his presumption would seem to be directed at Mark in this case.

Mark (anon 2) always has something interesting to contribute, and cannot simply be ignored as a 'lefty'. I have encountered many in my time, and Mark does not fit the paradigm. He is probably the most balanced commentator here (after myself, of course).

TJM, I suspect, has his heart in the right place, but he should realize that in a democracy political parties are not monolithic. I would not support the British Labour Party, but would not demonize it or the millions who vote for it. Less of 'the Party of Intrinsic Evil', please.

General observation.

There is plenty of evidence that Pope Francis has an ambivalent relationship with the truth, but even habitual liars tell the truth most of the time. No need to draw far-fetched conclusions from everything he says (much of which will be forgotten in a few years' time).

Jerome Merwick said...

As I read what I have posted, what others have posted, I am beginning to cringe. I am beginning to question what the point even IS of this blog and others like it. We all seem to be shouting in an echo chamber and, instead of trying to find where we agree, we put on our armor of sanctimony and pat those who agree with us on the back for their superior enlightenment.

I'm checking out of this "conversation".

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Of course too, the Holy Father rails against gossip but often dallies in it when he speaks off-the-cuff, which is wayyyyyyy too frequently. When His Holiness had to say about the Archbishop of Parish, not of unhappy memory, added more info than had be divulged, like massages, and God only know what else. What would the pope do this???? Gossip is thy name. In Italian it is known as "troppe chiacchiere" a more literal translation would be "too much chatter!"

Mark said...

Or as John Allen has it in Crux:

“In other words, the massage has become the message. And, if nothing else, that’s a sentence you don’t get to write every day on the Vatican beat.” -:)

George said...

I do wish the Holy Father would be more circumspect and deliberate before making extemporaneous remarks and observations which can engender confusion among some. No bifurcation of the seriousness of sin beyond "mortal" and "venial" is necessary and certainly no person's sin should be publicly labeled as such,whether the apparent nature of the sin is serious or not.One's confessor can take into consideration extenuating and mitigating circumstances which render one not the other.
This does not give someone in a public position of responsibility a pass though. In the event where there is a Catholic who as a public figure is engaged in policy decisions which are manifestly grave and serious as to their nature and effect, action can be taken against such a person by ecclesiastic authority, pending private counseling with the individual.
Mercy should be availed of, but with prudence, since there is the risk of enablement.
At an rate, in keeping with fraternal charity I do not attempt to discern the heart or intention of Pope Francis; only to continue to pray for him.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

I do not comment on British political parties because I do not follow them. I suspect you do not follow American ones and thus may not be aware of these inconvenient facts:

1) You cannot run for high office in the Democratic Party unless you support abortion on demand. As a matter of fact the party targets the few remaining pro life members in primaries as they did to Congressman Dan Lipinski of a district in Chicago. They worked hard to replace him with an abortion drooling lefty, and finally suceeded after a few tries.

2) Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, stated a baby can be aborted even when in the birth canal during a delivery.

3) Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (fake Catholic) lobbied hard to obtain funds during the pandemic to keep the abortionatoriums operating. They view abortion as an essential "heathcare" service.

4) They are pro transgenderism and view "gay marriage" as a sacrament.

That is why I call the Democratic Party the Party of Instrinsic Evil. When you vote Democratic you are supporting these evils whether you claim you are not.

ps: Mark is a lefty. He supports every lefty litmus test: abortion, illegal aliens, gay marriage, transgenderism, climate change, etc.