Redefining Marriage Means Rewriting Dictionaries…

Merriam-Webster is going to have to update the next edition of its dictionary, at least if marriage redefiners have their way. Do you know what the words “monogamish,” “throuple,” and “wedlease” mean? If not, you soon will. After all, the power to redefine words is the power to redefine reality.

Let’s start with “monogamish,” a play on “monogamous.” A 2011 New York Times profile of gay activist Dan Savage, headlined “Married, with Infidelities,” introduced Americans to “monogamish” relationships — in which partners would allow sexual infidelity provided there were honest admissions of it.

The “monogamish” perspective is one of the purported ways in which redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would make marriage better. The article explained: “Savage says a more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs.” After all, the story added, sexual exclusivity “gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners.”

 If a marriage can be sexually open, why should it be limited to two people in the first place? Meet the word “throuple,” which is similar to “couple” but with three people. The word popped up in a 2012 article in New York Magazine that described a specific “throuple” this way:

 Their throuplehood is more or less a permanent domestic arrangement. The three men work together, raise dogs together, sleep together, miss one another, collect art together, travel together, bring each other glasses of water, and, in general, exemplify a modern, adult relationship.

 More or less permanent. Indeed, some activists come down in favor of “less.” Consider “wedlease,” a term introduced in early August in an op-ed in the Washington Post. Why should marriage be permanent when so little else in life is? Why not have temporary marriage licenses, as with other contracts? “Why don’t we borrow from real estate and create a marital lease?” the author writes. “Instead of wedlock, a ‘wedlease.’” He continues:

Here’s how a marital lease could work: Two people commit themselves to marriage for a period of years — one year, five years, ten years, whatever term suits them. The marital lease could be renewed at the end of the term however many times a couple likes. . . . The messiness of divorce is avoided and the end can be as simple as vacating a rental unit.

Examples can be multiplied. In July, Washingtonian magazine ran a story about “polyamory” headlined “Married, But Not Exclusive.” The article tells us that “the word means ‘many loves’” and that, “as in most major cities, Washington’s polyamorous community is tight-knit.”

The liberal online journal Salon in early August posted a woman’s account of her shared life with a husband, boyfriend, and daughter, under the headline “My Two Husbands.” The subhead: “Everyone wants to know how my polyamorous family works. You’d be surprised how normal we really are.” The author writes: “As far back as I can remember, I felt that loving one person romantically did not preclude the possibility of loving another at the same time. It seemed natural and intuitive to me.”  END.

Well?  Is this crazy or …. is it a logical consequence of re-defining marriage?

Happy Feast of Our Lady’s Assumption!

This thread is to mark the Holy Day of the Assumption, today, 15th August. Feel free to post comments, favourite prayers, hymns – anything which gives honour to and pays tribute to Our Lady on this great Feast.

Since our Holy Father the Pope is reputed to have a particular devotion to Our Lady (and it would be difficult to comprehend any pontiff who did NOT love Our Lady) may I suggest that we remember Pope Francis in prayer in a special way today.

However, hang on. Enough of all this serious stuff! This is a Feast Day, so some fun is also in order. Thus, alongside the hymns, prayers and stories about Our Lady’s influence in our lives, feel free to post some (innocent, of course) jokes and stories.

A very happy Feast Day to one and all!

Pope Francis to consecrate world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary…

Pope Francis to consecrate world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary...

Image of Our Lady of Fatima will be taken to Marian Day at the request of the Pope in October, at the Vatican, Pope Francisco consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

What is going on? Where did this craze come from to consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, when Our Lord has made clear that he wishes RUSSIA to be consecrated – by name. What is going on?

Click on photo to read announcement from Fatima shrine.

Student & Blogger (Miles Immaculatae) on how the Church crisis shows at the Catholic Chaplaincy in the University of Glasgow…

Student & Blogger (Miles Immaculatae) on how the Church crisis shows at the Catholic Chaplaincy in the University of Glasgow...

Below is an account of a recent visit to the Catholic chaplaincy at Glasgow University, Turnbull Hall.

A fully fledged parish and one of the more apparently vibrant centres of Catholicism in the diocese, (Turnbull Hall) is often alleged to be a haven of doctrinal orthodoxy. On the foyer’s large notice board there were a number of posters and adverts, typical parish stuff. I decided to put up an innocuous flyer recalling the Blessed Virgin’s request at Fatima to pray the daily Rosary, and a small but potentially more incendiary flyer which concisely outlined John Paul II’s judgement on receiving Communion in the hand and the use of lay ‘extraordinary ministers’. Specifically, that “It is not permitted that the faithful should themselves pick up the consecrated bread and the sacred chalice, still less that they should hand them from one to another” (Inaestimabile Donum). My motive was that the more informed these impressionable students become, the more likely they are to ask questions about their pastors’ permissiveness towards liturgical abuses.

A short time later I returned and upon inspecting the notice board I saw the Fatima flyer. To my astonishment the flyer quoting John Paul II quote had been removed and the vacant space was accompanied with a new notice stating that only articles authorised by the secretary or parish priest were allowed from now on. Fair enough. And no surprised, because like many of its sister parishes, Turnbull enlists lay persons to minister the Chalice (although unlike neighbour churches not the Sacred Host).

Did I have reason to be astonished? After all,  these practices are the near exclusive norm in Scotland, so wasn’t I setting myself up for having it removed? Well perhaps, but consider how a sizeable troop of self proclaimed ‘conservatives’ have been infected with the Weigel-esque hyper-reverence for all things John Paul II, not least at Turnbull Hall, where the sickly cult for the late pontiff has taken a feverish hold. Indeed, it acts as the de facto diocesan shrine: the chapel houses a thoroughly adorned plinth on which rests a statue of the Polish Pope, posing heroically upon a lovingly appliquéd doily showing his coat of arms. In front, are stands for flowers and a candle rack on which burn not less than a few votive offerings, almost perpetually. This affection for the new Beatus is not contrived, it looks strikingly genuine, which makes this all a more unsettling sight.

So there seems to be a contradiction. Traditional minded Catholics are used to having the writings of John Paul thrown at them by Neo-Catholics wanting to undermine our position, and to support theirs, whether it be Wojtyla’s novel ecclesiology or his hearty openness towards the false religions of the world. However, they discreetly put aside the pronouncements of this very same Pontiff when they are in accord to what others have been saying for decades, namely that Communion in the hand and the use of lay ministers is a grievous practice, what would have been considered sacrilege only two generations ago.

To claim all the young parishioners of Turnbull are happy clappy, Medjugorje obsessed World Youth Day types is inaccurate. In the past, a small number of curious young patrons have asked for the Traditional Rite of Mass, perhaps fed up with the guitar liturgies which are commonplace there. They have been left disappointed. And since the offer to communicate irregularly continues, they will inevitably conform with the general trend, and their supernatural faith is left vulnerable to decay. What is this but an example of resisting the known Truth?

Is Secularism To Blame For Church Crisis?

Is Secularism To Blame For Church Crisis?

The following conversation took place recently, between our blogger Petrus and a Glasgow priest. The identity of the priest really doesn’t matter. Since Petrus was not speaking to him on behalf of Catholic Truth we decided not to publish his name. In any case it could be any priest in Glasgow and, indeed, beyond. Given the confused mind of the Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith evident in this interview, it’s no wonder that the clergy are mixed up.

PETRUS IN CONVERSATION WITH A GLASGOW PRIEST…

PETRUS: I go to Mass at a chapel of the Society of Saint Pius X. Am I a Catholic in good standing?

FATHER: Well, it’s really an issue of Church law.

PETRUS: It’s not an issue of Church law. The Vatican have said that the laity fulfil their obligation by going to a Mass at the SSPX chapels. Canon Law says that any Catholic Rite fulfils our obligation. So, am I a Catholic in good standing?

(Father nods his head in agreement)

FATHER: Yes, I suppose you are.

PETRUS: Do you accept that there is a crisis in the Church?

FATHER: Yes, I do, but it wasn’t caused by the Second Vatican Council.

PETRUS: But didn’t Pope Paul VI say just after the Council that from some fissure the smoke of Satan had entered into the Church?

FATHER: The Council didn’t cause the crisis.

PETRUS: Well, Cardinal Ratzinger said it was only a pastoral Council but had come to be regarded as some sort of super dogma.

FATHER: Well, if he said that….it wasn’t just a pastoral Council.

PETRUS: It defined nothing.

FATHER: But the Deposit of Faith cannot change.

PETRUS: True. So why did certain Church teachings become obscure at the Council and why were things that were condemned previously suddenly allowed?

FATHER: I don’t accept that.

PETRUS: What about ecumenism?

FATHER: The teaching on Ecumenism didn’t change, it was updated for our times. Pope Francis said at the beginning of his pontificate that we had to be meek. Sitting in a room discussing things is much more productive.

PETRUS: But weren’t Catholics forbidden from worshipping with non-Catholics before the Council?

FATHER: Yes, but it’s faith in Christ and faithful to his prayer that the Church may be one.

PETRUS: Isn’t the only way that can happen is for those outside the Church to convert? Isn’t the Catholic Church the one, true Church?

FATHER: Of course.

PETRUS: So isn’t the most charitable thing to do is to explain that outside the Church there is no salvation?

FATHER: Well, perhaps we should be preparing for the Second coming.

PETRUS: But surely the only way to prepare is to be united to Christ’s bride, the Catholic Church?

FATHER: Of course.

PETRUS: The ecumenical movement leads to indifferentism. In fact it is completely orientated towards Protestantism.

FATHER: There could be some truth in that.

PETRUS: So what is the point? Surely we should be making the teaching of the Church explicit? For example, would you discuss the Real Presence or the Rosary in the company of Protestants?

FATHER: I do do that.

PETRUS: The ecumenical movement causes Catholics to lose their faith. The Church is in crisis, Father. The Second Vatican Council is a bog problem. What’s your solution?

FATHER: I don’t agree it’s a problem. I said earlier that it didn’t cause the crisis.

PETRUS: What did?

FATHER: Secularism. That’s why ecumenism can help. We can join together with other Christians to combat secularism and moral problems.

PETRUS: But haven’t the Protestant groups moved further away on moral issues? The Anglicans are ordaining homosexual bishops and the Church of Scotland are blessing civil partnerships.

FATHER: The leadership of these churches might have moved further away, that’s true.

PETRUS: So, ecumenism is utterly pointless?

FATHER: Well, other people will not sit in the same room as Catholics.

PETRUS: Let’s get back to the crisis. What’s the solution?

(Father points to a crucifix)

FATHER: He’s the solution. We should focus on the cross.

PETRUS: Well, (compare) the Traditional Mass (with) the New Mass. Doesn’t the Traditional Mass make the Sacrifice of Calvary more explicit?

FATHER: Absolutely not. I reject that.

PETRUS: Doesn’t the way of receiving Holy Communion in the Traditional Mass make the Church’s teaching on the Real Presence clearer than receiving Communion in the hand?

FATHER: Not at all. Anyway, many more sins are committed with the tongue.

PETRUS: But Father think of the particles being dropped.

FATHER: When I divide the Host particles go up into the air.

PETRUS: But the Church puts procedures in place to minimise this. Communion in the hand multiples it.

FATHER: I don’t agree.

PETRUS: Another sign that priests and people are utterly confused is that anyone and everyone can and does receive Communion, even public sinners.

FATHER: Now you are sounding Jansenist. We can’t say who is worthy and who is not.

PETRUS: Well, if you know someone is a public sinner – in a homosexual relationship or living with a partner outside marriage, would you still give them Holy Communion?

FATHER: What do you want me to do? Embarrass them publicly?

PETRUS: But you are charged with protecting the Sacrament from abuse. You permit that person to commit another mortal sin by making an unworthy Communion.

FATHER: I’m trying to encourage them and help them.

PETRUS: Well you can do that in private by explaining why they can’t receive Communion and how they can mend their ways.

Silence.

PETRUS: Father, what are the fruits of the Second Vatican Council?

FATHER: A greater awareness of the church’s catholicity. Before the Council not many people knew the eastern Catholic Churches existed.

PETRUS: Is that all?

FATHER: No. A greater understanding of the universal call to holiness.

PETRUS: Was this lacking before the Council? Didn’t the Legion of Mary do this very well?

FATHER. Yes, of course they did.

PETRUS: Father, the Church was in a position of strength before the Council. Look at it now. Priests and religious have abandoned their vocations.

FATHER: Yes.

PETRUS: Seminaries are closing, Mass attendance is plummeting.

FATHER: Yes.

PETRUS: There’s terrible confusion. People are ignorant of the Church’s teaching. They aren’t being catechised.

FATHER: That’s not true of everywhere.

PETRUS: So, there has been a decline since the Council. I can only see bad fruits.

FATHER: I disagree. END

Francis: New Pope, New Church?

Pope Francis is back at the Vatican after a whirlwind World Youth Day celebration in Brazil. Not a single doctrine of the Catholic church was altered during this event. Frankly, there seems little likelihood there will be change to any Catholic doctrine in the foreseeable future. Pope Francis even made clear that there will be no female priests during his papacy.

What is the excitement all about? Are the words of the oft-sung hymn “Sing a New Church” about to become prophetic? We are told that the pope has changed the tone of the discourse. He has. But how significant is that change? Let’s look first at the ways in which Pope Francis has indeed changed the tone.

We know many of the indicators reflect more personality than substantive change. These signs include carrying his own bags (or, in the case of the trip to Brazil, his briefcase), kissing babies and choosing not to live in the Vatican apartments. There is indeed some significance to these gestures in that it is clear the pope expects others in the hierarchy to adopt much of his way of responding to others. We are even seeing signs of simpler dress and communication among the hierarchy…

Besides, Pope Francis is just getting started. He’s not done yet.    Read more