Compulsory Sex Education in Scottish Schools… Or Compulsory Child Abuse?

animatedchildrenplayingA petition has called for statutory sex and relationship education in Scotland’s schools.

Schools should be compelled by law to teach sex and relationship education, according to a youth organisation which provides sex education.

A Scottish Parliament committee is to consider a petition from Sexpression:UK.

The group said Scotland had a high rate of teenage pregnancy, sexually-transmitted infections and homophobia.

The Scottish Parliament Information Centre said local authorities were mainly responsible for sex education.

The petition calls on MSPs “to urge the Scottish government to introduce comprehensive sex and relationship education (SRE) into the Scottish education curriculum and make it statutory for all schools to teach”.

Jack Fletcher, advocacy representative at Sexpression:UK and an Aberdeen University medical student, is to appear before Holyrood’s Public Petitions Committee.

‘Needs improvement’

“At present, there is no statutory SRE in the Scottish education system,” Mr Fletcher said.

“I feel very strongly that this is an area that needs vast improvement and that legislation should be passed for comprehensive high-quality SRE to be taught as statutory in schools at primary and secondary level, with age-appropriate measures taken towards content.

“This is a priority because although teenage pregnancy has fallen greatly in recent years, the rates in Scotland are still one of the highest in Europe.

Sexually-transmitted infections are still rife due to lack of contraception use.”

 “Homophobia is rife in schools and this is an issue that needs effective confrontation, of which education is key.”

He added: “Consent is a huge area of ambiguity and this only adds to sexual violence, rape and verbal harassment.

animatedteacher2“This is not treated with the concern it deserves”

The organisation claimed that nearly a quarter of schools had no SRE-trained staff, while three-quarters of denominational schools would not discuss contraception.

In advice to MSPs, the Scottish Parliament Information Centre said only religious education and Gaelic instruction in certain regions of Scotland were enshrined in law.

“Rather than being set out in statute, the school curriculum is established through guidance issued by Education Scotland,” it said.

“The Scottish government note that responsibility for sex and relationship education lies primarily with local authorities.”  (emphases added)  Source

You can watch Jack Fletcher give evidence to the Public Petitions committee live or on demand at BBC Scotland’s Democracy Live website.

Comment

As if brainwashing children via the media  into thinking that they can’t even buy a tube of toothpaste without thinking whether or not it will attract the opposite sex, and as if the media preoccupation with sexual matters hasn’t already sexualised children big time, the sexperts now want even more power over young minds and souls.  Any teacher of religious and moral education will tell you that the subject is never far away from the surface in Scottish classrooms as elsewhere. So, should we see this latest move to force-feed the young with sexual matters as a particularly sinister development?   DOES compulsory sex education equate to institutionalised child abuse?  I’m only asking the questions – you provide the answers, please and thank you!

Sacked Bishop: So Much For Pope Francis’ Talk About “Mercy”…

pope-francis1Ciudad del Este, Paraguay, Sep 26, 2014 / 03:44 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Bishop Rogelio Livieres Plano has accepted in obedience Pope Francis’ decision to remove him from governance of the Ciudad del Este diocese, though he says the action resulted from a flawed apostolic visitation and that his country is in vital need of Christian renewal.

“As an obedient son of the Church, I nevertheless accept this decision, despite considering it to be unfounded and arbitrary,” Bishop Livieres said in a Sept. 25 letter to Cardinal Marc Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops. “Despite so much discourse about dialogue, mercy, openness, decentralization, and respect for local Churches, I haven’t have the opportunity to talk to Pope Francis, not even to clarify a doubt or a concern.”  (emphasis added).

On Sept. 25 the Holy See announced that Pope Francis has decided to remove the bishop from the Diocese of Ciudad del Este “for serious pastoral reasons and for the greater good of the unity of the Church in Ciudad del Este and the episcopal communion in Paraguay.” Bishop Ricardo Valenzuela Rios of Villarrica del Espiritu Santo has been appointed as apostolic administrator of the diocese while it is vacant. Bishop Livieres’ removal followed a five-day apostolic visitation of the diocese which took place in July. At the end of that month, it was announced that ordinations in the diocese were to be suspended.

Bishop Livieres, who had led the diocese since 2004, said he has still not seen the documents regarding the apostolic visitation and has not been able to “adequately respond to it.” He said the document removing him from his office “gives as justification for such a grave decision the tension in the ecclesial community between the bishops of Paraguay, and my person and diocese.”

Bishop Livieres opened a major seminary soon after his arrival in the diocese. He shortened its formation period to four years on the grounds that new priests were urgently needed. More than 60 graduates of the seminary have become priests in the last ten years. The diocese also opened a minor seminary and an institute for priestly formation. Before Bishop Livieres’ removal, a statement on the diocese’s website charged that the Paraguayan bishops “resisted” these seminaries because they would “break the monolithic scheme of priestly formation” in practice at Paraguay’s national seminary. Bishop Livieres defended the seminaries of his diocese, noting that the Congregation for Catholic Education found “defective formation” in Paraguay’s national seminary. “Our diocesan seminary has provided excellent fruits recognized by recent laudatory letters from the Holy See in at least three occasion during the previous pontificate, by the bishops who have visited us, and most recently, by the apostolic visitators. Every single suggestion made by the Holy See regarding how to improve the formation has been faithfully fulfilled.”  Read more

Comment

This latest attack on Catholic Tradition by Pope Francis seems to follow a determined pattern. I’m continually hearing people say that a formal schism is looming. Maybe – if the orthodox and/or “traditional leaning” priests and prelates make a stand. But will they? Or will they be afraid to follow the example of the cardinals who have opposed Cardinal Kasper’s plans for the forthcoming Synod on the Family in case they, too, “irritate” Pope Francis with their adherence to the authentic traditional Catholic Faith? 

Vatican: Climate Change Is Man-Made (Ed: say that with a straight face…)

Cardinal Parolin“We all bear responsibility to protect and value creation for the good of future generations.”

The Vatican’s Secretary of State told the UN Climate Summit this week that climate change is man-made and man’s responsibility.

In his address on Tuesday, Cardinal Pietro Parolin said the international community has a moral responsibility to address climate change.

Referring to Pope Francis and Pope Benedict, Cardinal Parolin said, “the Holy See has often stressed that there is a moral imperative to act, for we all bear the responsibility to protect and to value creation for the good of this and future generations.”

“The scientific consensus is rather consistent and it is that, since the second half of the last century, warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” he stated.

“It is a very serious problem which, as I said, has grave consequences for the most vulnerable sectors of society and, clearly, for future generations,” the Vatican’s second in command warned.

“Numerous scientific studies, moreover, have emphasised that human inaction in the face of such a problem carries great risks and socioeconomic costs,” the Cardinal observed.

“This is due to the fact that its principal cause seems to be the increase of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere due to human activity.”

“Faced with these risks and costs, prudence must prevail, which requires thoughtful deliberations based on an accurate analysis of the impact our actions will have on the future.”

He said one of the principle elements to have emerged from the more than thirty years of study on the phenomenon of global warming is the increasing awareness that the entire international community is part of one interdependent human family.

“The decisions and behaviours of one of the members of this family have profound consequences for the others; there are no political frontiers, barriers or walls behind which we can hide to protect one member from another against the effects of global warming.”

POPEFranciswavingReferring to Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, he said there was no room for the globalisation of indifference, the economy of exclusion or the throwaway culture.

“In the actions undertaken to counter global warming we have too often seen the predominance of special interests or so-called ‘free-riders’ over the common good; we have too often noted a certain suspicion or lack of trust on the part of States, as well as on the part of other participants,” Cardinal Parolin recognised.

He said if the international community really wishes to be effective, it must implement a “collective response based on a culture of solidarity, encounter and dialogue, which should be at the basis of normal interactions within every family and which requires the full, responsible and dedicated collaboration of all, according to their possibilities and circumstances.”

Cardinal Parolin warned that market forces alone, especially when deprived of a suitable ethical direction cannot resolve the interdependent crisis concerning global warming, poverty and exclusion.

“The greatest challenge lies in the sphere of human values and human dignity; questions which regard the human dignity of individuals and of peoples are not able to be reduced to mere technical problems.”   Source

Comment

Can it possibly be that neither Pope Francis nor Cardinal Parolin realise that the driving force behind the climate change scam is population control? Are they really that ignorant? Or are they merely (with all the respect due to their respective high offices, of course) merely useful idiots

Why IS There Such Hatred Of The Traditional Latin Mass?

TradMasswithsaintscolourThe following very interesting (to say the least) article, taken from the ‘Countercultural Father’ blog,  is self-explanatory, and recounts how one priest, south of the border in England, who introduced the Traditional Latin Mass under the terms of Summorum Pontificum, has been replaced by another priest who is apparently hostile (with bells on) towards the old rite.  [Please note that the term  “Extraordinary Form” (instead of Traditional Latin Mass or rite)  is used in the original, so we allow it to remain below,  but this is not a term we ever use at Catholic Truth.]  Read on, and be amazed, be shocked – especially at the liturgical abuse deliberately introduced by the new priest –  and then answer the question which forms the title of this thread: why is there such hatred of the Traditional Latin Mass, especially among bishops and priests? How can they possibly hate the ancient Mass, the Mass that the Church’s great martyrs gave their life’s blood to defend  – why? We quoted one American bishop  in our newsletter some time ago, saying that to be indifferent to the old rite Mass is one thing, but to hate it comes straight from Hell.  Do you agree?

Trouble at Blackfen

So what is going on at Blackfen?  Fr Tim Finigan, the hermeneutic parish priest, was moved recently to Margate. As I understand it, he left behind him a parish at which the Extraordinary Form of the Mass (traditional Latin Mass) was celebrated once every Sunday, alongside the three Ordinary Form Sunday Masses (one being the vigil Mass on Saturday evening). The EF was also celebrated on Saturday mornings and as an extra Mass on major feastdays and former holydays.

The EF was attended both by parishioners, and by a significant number of people who travelled some distance for it.

Some time ago, The Tablet tried to stir up some controversy about it (see here and here) as the editorial line is against anything that might smack of traditional, orthodox Catholicism. Despite their best efforts, there was no real story there; it is true that not all parishioners were happy: Bernard Wynne, a spokesman for ‘Catholic Voices for Reform’ (and you can guess what kind of reform they want…) was not, and there were a few others of like mind. One, Susan Reynolds, was on the radio saying that her ‘heart was broken‘ by the introduction of the EF Mass (one EF Mass, remember, when the rest of the Sunday Masses were OF). An odd reaction, one might reasonably think; but it seems she and Mr Wynne were in a very small minority in the parish.  Fr Finigan’s characteristically level-headed assessment was ‘there are a few who are very much in favour, a few who are strongly against, and “the substantial majority who simply wonder what Father is doing now”.’

When Fr Finigan’s move was announced, regulars were pleased to learn that the incoming priest, Fr Fisher, was also used to saying Mass in the EF, and would continue to do so. That seemed a pastorally sensitive decision, as well as a sensible one, given that the EF Mass was well attended. I am told that ‘people were looking forward to Fr Fisher coming, that talk had been very, very positive and that his appointment had been considered a good one among virtually everyone in the parish, particularly those attending the TLM who were delighted that they would have somebody who would understand their attachment to the Mass of Ages.’ 

His Twitter picture @FrStevenFisher shows him in clerical dress, with a surplice, black cope and biretta, which should be enough to reassure any traditional Catholic.  The odd thing is that it is an old photo, from some years back; and indeed his appearance has changed significantly.  A more recent facebook profile photo, tweeted by Joseph Shaw, shows him as much leaner, and in civvies, which is apparently more typical now. 

On his arrival, things started to change very quickly, and with little or no explanation.  That alone was in marked contrast to his predecessor, who introduced change gradually, and explained each step along the way with great pastoral care.

One of the earliest changes was his deciding within very short order that he was cancelling all the EF Masses (about 18) that had been planned for feast days etc, including the Patronal Feast and Christmas Eve. He announced this on the evening of his second day in the Parish. Of course, he has every right to do so: he may have looked at the diary and thought that he would be over-committed. But understandably, that was not the most welcome thing he could have announced to endear himself to those in the parish attached to the EF.

His Thursday Benediction, which Fr Finigan had sung in Latin, was celebrated in English: he announced that Thursday Benediction would now be ‘Novus Ordo,’ introducing a division which had not been there before. Given that people had come with the expectation of Latin Benediction as usual, that again caused some to wonder about his approach and intentions.

He also removed the gradines and two of the six candles from the altar and made it clear that he did not want them replaced, by leaving a note to that effect on the altar. As above, he has every right to do so, but again, it was not perhaps the way to demonstrate his understanding of certain sensibilities.

For his parishioners, these were the first straws in the wind. 

Traditional Latin MassOn his first Sunday, he preached a homily about different ‘circles of communion,’ in which he was at pains to distinguish between parishioners and visitors. Visitors, of course, must be welcomed with charity, but the parish was primarily for parishioners.  Again, that caused people to wonder about his agenda.

But the point at which my friends agree that things really seemed to go off the rails was at the People’s Communion at the EF Mass. At the ‘Domine, non sum dignus,’ he paused, holding the Sacred Host in his hand, and announced that there had been considerable confusion and discussion about the correct way to receive Communion at this (the EF) Mass. He then stated that, according to the 1983 Codex Juris Canonici it was permissible to receive kneeling or standing, on the tongue, or, in England & Wales, in the hand. At least some of those present thought that he was deliberately insinuating that the previous instruction (announced by Fr. Finigan at all EF Masses) was incorrect.

There are a couple of related issues here: one is the error.  The Instruction Universae Ecclesiae (2011), makes it clear (§24 ff) that the EF should be celebrated according to the rubrics proper to it (and see FIUV position paper here). One would have thought that, given considerable confusion and discussion, he might have done his research.

A second is the symbolic aspect: one of the reasons many are attached to the EF is the degree of reverence communicated by every aspect, including gesture. The manner of reception of communion is the most evident example of this, so an announcement of this nature, particularly at that moment of the Mass, naturally had a very strong impact.

This, I am told, is the point at which several of my friends were seriously upset. They wished to talk with him after Mass, but he apparently appeared in the Parish Centre (not in clericals, but in a shirt and jeans) took a biscuit, joked that he ‘followed the Canadian model’ (of clerical attire) and left without saying anything else to anyone else. 

 Somehow Damian Thompson heard about some of this, and tweeted from his @holysmoke account, asking why priests felt the need to change the EF Mass, which did not go down well.

On the following Saturday, he announced from the pulpit that he was shocked that he had been denounced to ‘the editor of the Spectator‘ (he meant Damian Thompson, who is an associate editor there); and that whoever had done so had committed a mortal sin by gossiping about parish affairs outside the parish. Clearly that was a rash thing to say, and did nothing to calm the anxieties already raised.

The Sunday EF Mass, the following day, had about half the usual number in the congregation: many had been flabbergasted at the previous week’s Mass. After delivering the same admonition as given on the Saturday, he then announced that the Latin Mass was a wound in the Parish: that he had had spies (sic) at every Mass, and it was only the Latin Mass congregation that was divisive and toxic. Therefore he was going to end the Latin Mass, as of the end of September. He did not deliver a sermon (unless the admonition and winding up of the EF Mass counts as one).

So what has been going on here?

I am conscious that my friends are seeing this from one perspective: that of Catholics attached to the EF, who were supporters of the restoration of tradition which Fr Finigan had gently introduced over many years.

They are clear in their own minds that Fr Fisher arrived with an agenda to change things. Indeed, he said he had had hours of discussion with the bishop prior to coming to the parish, with the strong implication that both Bishop Lynch and Archbishop Smith were backing him up on his approach, and indeed had agreed it with him.

They think that he deliberately did things to upset the EF congregation, in order either to get numbers down, so that he could say there was no longer any demand, or to provoke some to intemperate responses, so that he could point to their toxicity and divisiveness.

If that were the case, he succeeded to some extent on both counts: numbers were down dramatically; and if talking to people like Damian Thompson, or even to friends like me counts as toxic and divisive, then that too has been achieved. I understand one parishioner was so distressed when he was denouncing people for the ‘mortal sin’ of speaking to a journalist, that she remonstrated with him, reminding him that he was, in Mass, acting in persona Christi. As I heard it told, this was a gentle remonstration, which provoked a very angry response: “I will not be shouted at in my Church!” though the only shouting was, I am told, by the priest. But I can see, from his point of view, that such an interruption during Mass could seem very unfriendly.

However, another source who has contacted me sees it all very differently. Although more remote from the parish, he has known Fr Fisher previously, and believes he arrived at the parish willing to sustain the EF, but was met with such unfriendliness and hostility (and that was the reputation the parish already had) that he felt that he had to confront it.

The problem I have with that explanation is first that it comes from someone who was not anywhere near Blackfen at the time; secondly that it runsOur Lord giving Holy Communion so strongly against my other friends’ accounts who were there, and whom I trust to tell the truth (as they see it); when I put this to one of them, I was told it was definitely not the case, and that ‘we were all terrified we’d lose the EF Mass, and would have done almost anything to see it continue. We had been reassuring each other that at least Fr. Fisher said the old Mass so Fr. Finigan’s work would not be lost.  He stopped to talk to parishioners after all OF Masses, but didn’t stay outside after the EF ones;’ and thirdly that it coincides exactly with what my Blackfen friends believe to be the ‘black propaganda’ that is being used to discredit them and justify the elimination of the EF Mass there.

Or is it simply a case of Greek tragedy: the priest arrived believing the parish to be divided by rabid traddies; the more traditional members of the congregation were suspicious of anyone replacing their much-missed Fr Finigan: both ended up creating the very reality they feared…?

I don’t know, of course; but the astute reader will have picked up my strong suspicions.

And if my Blackfen friends’ reading of the situation is accurate, that raises a further question: where did this plan to bring the EF Mass to an end originate?  With the new Parish Priest, or higher up the ecclesiastical tree?

And in my more paranoid moments, it raises a further, and more troubling, question still: what is it about the EF Mass that arouses such fear and defensiveness, that it must be consigned to oblivion?

I should add that I have thought and prayed about whether to post all this. I have been strongly advised in both directions.  The majority of my Blackfen friends wanted me to do so: they believe an injustice is being committed, and that myths about them are being created to justify that.

However, one of them was fearful that anything I might blog might lead people to think that I was in some way speaking for Fr Finigan, and get him in trouble. That is clearly the last thing I want to do, and I can make it quite clear that I have never met Fr Finigan, nor talked to him about any of this. The only communications I have had with him were some years back, in the comments section of his blog, and in a private correspondence resulting from that, which did not touch on any of these issues. He has had nothing to do with this post in any way – one of my concerns is that he will wish I had held my peace.

Another concern is that I may wrong, and almost certainly hurt, Fr Fisher. That too weighs heavily on me. But the hurt suffered by my friends is also weighty, and having heard it at first hand from a number of them, to keep silent would add to their pain.  

So I have to reach a judgement: I do believe that it is better to shine a light on troubling things than to collude by maintaining silence.  If I am wrong, as I may well be, I hope that this post prompts correction and clarifications, which all concerned will welcome.  If I am right, then I think Catholics need to know what is being done to those whose primary offence is attachment to the Immemorial Mass. 

 Needless to say, prayers for all involved in this situation are of the utmost importance.  Source 

“By their fruits…” SSPX Growing

Catholic Tradition just won’t stop growing! Vocations continue to steadily abound within the SSPX, as do families at its chapels—where the youth are usually predominant.

It’s undeniable that the Society of St. Pius X (and thus the movement of Catholic Tradition) continues by the grace of God to steadily grow throughout the world—and the statistics prove it!

statisticsHere at SSPX.ORG, we have created a new page that provides some general statistics about the SSPX, just updated with the most recent information available. In addition to links for 2 colorful maps showing the Society’s international and national work, we also have some basic info about some traditional communities and independent chapels that are closely affiliated with us.

We would also like to direct our readers to the colorful charts being offered at FSSPX.ORG (website of the General House in Menzingen, Switzerland) which graphically demonstrate the increasing presence of the SSPX throughout the world. Note some of the captions are in French.

It is also noteworthy that the first graph gives a total of 589 priests, while our general statistics gives a figure of 590—in anticipation of the priestly ordination that will take place in Post Falls, Idaho tomorrow (Saturday, September 20). Please keep this young alter Christus in your prayers!

Another item that might interest our readers is the addition of the English translation of all 3 founding documents of the Society of St. Pius X. Images of the actual original documents in French and Latin have been included as well as some pertinent links about their historical context and importance.  Source

 Comment

If “By their fruits shall ye know them” means anything, it means that the SSPX is being greatly blessed by God.  This has implications for Catholics everywhere who are concerned to protect and deepen their faith in the midst of this, the worst ever crisis to afflict the Church. Spot the implications – ready, steady, GO! 

Cardinal Burke – Latest & Greatest Victim of the Dreaded “Francis Effect”?

Cardinal Burke

As the impeccable prefect of the supreme tribunal of the apostolic signatura, [Cardinal Burke] is on the verge of being demoted to the purely honorary role of “patron” of an order of knighthood. At the behest of Pope Francis by Sandro Magister  

VATICAN CITY, September 17, 2014 – The “revolution” of Pope Francis in ecclesiastical governance is not losing its driving thrust. And so, as happens in every self-respecting revolution, the heads continue to roll for churchmen seen as deserving this metaphorical guillotine. In his first months as bishop of Rome, pope Bergoglio immediately provided for the transfer to lower-ranking positions of three prominent curial figures: Cardinal Mauro Piacenza, Archbishop Guido Pozzo, and Bishop Giuseppe Sciacca, considered for their theological and liturgical sensibilities among the most “Ratzingerian” of the Roman curia. Another whose fate appears to be sealed is the Spanish archbishop of Opus Dei Celso Morga Iruzubieta, secretary of the congregation for the clergy, destined to leave Rome for an Iberian diocese not of the first rank. But now an even more eminent decapitation seems to be on the way. The next victim would in fact be the United States cardinal Raymond Leo Burke, who from being prefect of the supreme tribunal of the apostolic signatura would not be promoted – as some are fantasizing in the blogosphere – to the difficult but prestigious see of Chicago, but rather demoted to the pompous – but ecclesiastically very modest – title of “cardinal patron” of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, replacing the current head, Paolo Sardi, who recently turned 80.

If confirmed, Burke’s exile would be even more drastic than the one inflicted on Cardinal Piacenza, who, transferred from the important congregation for the clergy to the marginal apostolic penitentiary, nevertheless remained in the leadership of a curial dicastery. With the shakeup on the way, Burke would instead be completely removed from the curia and employed in a purely honorary position without any influence on the governance of the universal Church. This would be a move that seems to have no precedent. In the past, in fact, the title of “cardinalis patronus” of the knights of Malta, in existence since 1961, like the previous one of Grand Prior of Rome, has always been assigned to the highest ranking cardinals as an extra position in addition to the main one. This is what was done with cardinals Mariano Rampolla del Tindaro (appointed Grand Prior in 1896 while remaining secretary of state), Gaetano Bisleti (at the same time prefect of the congregation for Catholic education), Gennaro Granito Pignatelli (cardinal dean and bishop of Albano), Nicola Canali (governor of Vatican City), Paolo Giobbe (leader of the apostolic dataria), Paul-Pierre Philippe (until the age of 75 also prefect of the congregation for the Oriental Churches), Sebastiano Baggio (removed from the congregation for bishops but kept on as governor of Vatican City and camerlengo), Pio Laghi (until the age of 77 also prefect of the congregation for Catholic education).

Two separate cases are those of Cardinal Giacomo Violardo, who succeeded the 89-year-old Giobbe as patron at the age of 71, two months after receiving the scarlet at the end of long service in the curia, and of the outgoing Sardi, appointed pro-patron in 2009 at the age of 75 and made cardinal in 2010 after having been for many years the head of the office that writes pontifical documents. Above all, Sardi’s retirement would not be a compulsory act, since the age limit of 80 does not apply to positions outside of the curia. And in fact, with the exception of Paulo Giobbe, all of the aforementioned cardinal patrons went on to a better life “durante munere.”

Burke is 66 years old, and therefore still in his ecclesiastical prime. Ordained a priest by Paul VI in 1975, he worked at the apostolic signatura as an ordinary priest with John Paul II, who made him bishop of his native diocese of La Crosse, Wisconsin in 1993. It was again pope Karol Wojtyla who in 2003 promoted him as archbishop of the prestigious see, once cardinalate, of St. Louis, Missouri. Benedict XVI called him back to Rome in 2008, and made him a cardinal in 2010. With a very devout personality, he is also recognized as having the rare virtue of never having struck any deals to obtain ecclesiastical promotions or benefices. In the liturgical and theological camp, he is very close to the sensibilities of Joseph Ratzinger.

He has celebrated a number of times according to the ancient rite, even donning the “cappa magna,” as do cardinals George Pell and Antonio Cañizares Llovera, without being punished for this by Pope Francis. A great expert in canon law, and appointed to the apostolic signatura for this reason, he is not afraid to follow it to the most uncomfortable consequences. Like when, to the tune of articles of the Code – number 915 to be precise – he upheld the impossibility of giving communion to those politicians who stubbornly and publicly uphold the right to abortion, bringing the rebukes of two colleagues in the United States valued by Pope Francis, Sean Patrick O’Malley of Boston and Donald Wuerl of Washington.  (emphasis added)

Free in his judgments, he has been among the very few to make critical remarks on “Evangelii Gaudium,” pointing out that in his view it is orientational but not truly magisterial. And in view of the upcoming synod of bishops, he has repeatedly taken a stand against the ideas of Cardinal Walter Kasper – well known to be in the good graces of Pope Francis – in favor of communion for the divorced and remarried. The dicastery headed by Burke, eminently technical, recently accepted an appeal from the Franciscan Sisters of the Immaculate against a provision issued for them by the congregation for religious. A courageous move on the part of Burke, situated within the context of the punitive action undertaken by the Vatican congregation against one of the most substantial realities of Catholic traditionalism, an action that Pope Francis endorsed by approving in specific form the congregation’s decision to prevent the Friars of the Immaculate from celebrating the Mass according to the “Tridentine” rite.  (emphasis added)

It is only with this kind of pontifical approval, in fact, that a decree of the curia can overturn standing law, in this case the motu proprio of Benedict XVI “Summorum Pontificum.” It is difficult to identify among these episodes the ones that may have have had the greatest influence on the fate of Cardinal Burke. But it is easy to predict that his definitive downgrading will provoke both a tumultuous reaction within the traditionalist world, where Burke is seen as a hero, and a corresponding wave of jubilation in the opposite camp, where he is instead considered a bogeyman.

On the latter side it can be recalled that the “liberal” Catholic commentator Michael Sean Winters, in the “National Catholic Reporter” of November 26, 2013, had called for the head of Cardinal Burke as a member of the congregation for bishops, because of the nefarious influence, according to him, that he was exercising over episcopal appointments in the United States. On December 16, in effect, Pope Francis humiliated Burke by crossing him off from among the members of the congregation. To the hosannas of “liberal” Catholicism, not only in the United States. The pope certainly did not do so out of obedience to the wishes of the “National Catholic Reporter.” But now he seems right at the point of giving the go-ahead for the second and more grave demotion of one of the most untarnished personalities the Vatican curia knows.   Source

Comment

Those who remember the way Cardinal Burke caved in to the “liberal” bullies in Westminster by withdrawing at the last minute from his speaking engagement at the London Conference hosted by the orthodox group Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice, will be pleased to recall the details above of his later fearless confronting of the “liberal” elite. He is now paying the price, of course, if the reports of his “demotion” are, in fact, true.   We welcome your thoughts on this latest bombshell from Rome.

 

A Great Darkness Surrounds Rome…

vatican-cityBelow, an article by American writer Christopher Ferrara…

Antonio Socci is one of the most prominent Catholic voices in Italy, a journalist, author, commentator, and public intellectual of the first rank. I had the privilege of translating from the Italian his ground-breaking work Fourth Secret of Fatima in which he recounts how had he set out to disprove the existence of a suppressed text of the Third Secret only to become firmly convinced that such a text not only exists but is “well hidden” in the Vatican.

Socci is not a traditionalist. He is a Catholic of the “mainstream” who is nonetheless a supporter of the restoration of the Latin Mass. Indeed, Socci was full of praise for Pope Francis at the beginning of his pontificate. And so was I. (If you don’t believe me, take a look at what I wrote here and here in the immediate aftermath of the conclave.)

 I have been forced to change my mind and admit that the earliest critics of the former Cardinal Bergoglio, who knew far more about the man and his ideas than I did, were right from the beginning. Socci, too, has gone from supporting this pontificate to lamenting its alarming trajectory toward what would appear to be the completion of the post-Vatican II autodemolition of the Church (to the extent this is humanly possible and permitted by God).

In a few short months Socci has, in fact, become one of the harshest critics of the Bergoglian agenda, and rightly so. It appears that the last straw for him was the Pope’s outrageous rehabilitation of the Marxist priest Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, suspended by John Paul but restored to the exercise of the priesthood by Francis, even though d’Escoto had only days before thumbed his nose at Rome and hailed Fidel Castro as a gift of the Holy Ghost to the Cuban people (belying the Vatican’s flimsy cover story that he had repented of his errors).

As Socci writes with undisguised contempt: “In the Bergoglian epoch, the Vatican has practically rehabilitated Liberation Theology, born in the Sixties, which has caused many disasters, above all in Latin America, by having fomented the subjugation of the Church by Marxist thought.” As Socci notes with disgust, d’Escoto declared that Castro was the means by which “the Holy Spirit transmitted to us the message, this message of Christ, on the necessity of struggling to establish… the reign of God on earth…” Socci continues: “After this theological exaltation of the tyrant of Cuba, who for decades oppressed an entire people with a communist dictatorship, d’Escoto was gladdened by the revocation of his suspension by Pope Francis.”

The contrast with the brutal treatment Francis has meted out to the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate sickens Socci, as it should any Catholic with a sense of justice:

The velvet glove used by Francis with the famous and powerful “comrade” d’Escoto contrasts with the iron fist he used to strike a good and humble religious of holy life, Father Stefano Manelli, spiritual son of Padre Pio and founder of the Franciscans of the Immaculate. Father Manelli had even written to the Pope, but his letter was not even taken into consideration.

His religious family, orthodox, disciplined, and full of vocations, was annihilated by the will of Bergoglio, inasmuch as it applied the motu proprio of Benedict XVI on the liturgy. And he was too orthodox.

Father Manelli has never disobeyed the Church, has never deviated from right doctrine, has never thrown himself into politics like d’Escoto, and has never exalted communist tyrants. So, he was harshly punished.

Socci’s conclusion is chilling, coming as it does from one who strongly supported Francis but has seen the immense damage this pontificate has already caused, and is likely to cause, to the Church’s mission at a time of unprecedented moral and spiritual decline:

Today, in the Bergoglian epoch, there is a return precisely to Rahner, and to that philosophy which has already caused such damage among the Jesuits and in the Church. And in this empty abyss Catholics are tossed and turned “by every wind of doctrine.” Subjugated by any ideology and corrupted by any heresy. A great darkness surrounds Rome.

Socci shows us that more and more Catholics of good will are coming to the realization that the crisis in the Church has reached a new, and perhaps its final, stage. To remain willfully blind to what is happening is not to “trust the Church” but rather to ignore an alarm that is calling every Catholic to do what our confirmation oath requires: defend the faith of our fathers against an all-encompassing “para-conciliar ideology” that is threatening the Church like no mere heresy ever has. Source

Comment:

Socci is a “mainstream” Catholic – not a “traditionalist”.  Do you agree with his assessment of the state of the Church today and if so, why? Would you identify the same scandals that brought Socci to recognise that “great darkness [that] surrounds Rome” or are there others, even more important, in your view?  Over to thee…

Catholics MUST Boycott SVP…

 – Catholic leaves estate to fund Catholic Charity
– Charity uses money to fund Homosexual Meeting Spot
– Bishop complains, to no avail

Miss Maureen O’Connell, the late owner of “O’Connell’s Pub” in Galway, Ireland, died in 1998. That is, she did not die 1000 years ago. No, she died in 1998. That means that if she had wanted to bequeath her estate to a homosexual-activist cause, she could have done so freely.

St VincentdePaul Instead, she decided to put in her will that proceeds coming from her estate (her pub, eventually sold in 2006) would be allocated to the Irish section of the Society of Saint Vincent de Paul (SVP), the great foundation of Blessed Frédéric Ozanam for assistance to the poorest in society. In Ireland, the SVP is not, in strict legal terms, under the control of the hierarchy. But its self-identification is clear: “The Society of St. Vincent de Paul is an international voluntary Catholic Christian organisation.” And they have no qualms about being a “Catholic” organization when they lobby the Irish government for more funds (see, for instance, here). Or when they ask Irish Catholics for donations for their “charitable” activities.

 So what does the SVP do with the proceeds coming from Miss O’Connell’s estate, now the hefty “Maureen O’Connell Fund”? Well, for instance, it chose to make a 45,000-euro (58,000-dollar) grant to “Amach! LGBT Galway” so it can build its “resource center”, which the group defines in its website as an “alcohol-free venue for social networking” for the homosexuals of Galway (that is, in plain words, a dry homosexual bar).

The Bishop of Galway, the Rev. Dr. Martin Drennan, was rightfully horrified with the use of charitable money given to a foundation that still collects most of its money from Irish Catholics in Irish churches to fund the establishment of a homosexual meeting spot in his diocese.

“On moral grounds we can’t support [the grant],” he told Galway Bay FM’s “The Keith Finnegan Show.” “Homosexual activity is in our eyes morally wrong behavior and we cannot put funds at the service of what we don’t believe is morally correct.”

He told the radio show that he hoped the matter could be resolved in a way that would restore the image of the society: “We want to keep in mind the good work that the St. Vincent de Paul does throughout the country,” he said

What did the SVP say in response to the Bishop? Did they, caught in the act, regret their folly and did they apologize to the Bishop for their outrageous decision?

Quite the contrary – here’s what they said:

The decision was endorsed by the SVP National Management Council as providing support for an excluded and marginalised group in need of support. This is consistent with the SVP mission statement to support people in poverty, both material and emotional, and social justice initiatives. It is also a key element of the SVP Christian ethos to be non-judgmental when its assistance is sought.

The grant does not come in any way from funds collected from the public in the diocese of Galway, at church gates or anywhere else.

Ah, yes, “non-judgmental”… If that were truly the case, they would just throw cash from their office windows onto the street – otherwise, they are always exercising some kind of “judgment”, even if it is a wicked judgment. And of course the excuse that the money comes from the trust and not from collections made in Irish churches can only fool the dimwits the SVP thinks Irish Catholics must be: money given to the homosexual meeting spot is money not given to those Irish in true financial need, so of course, indirectly, it is money collected from Irish Catholics under the name of “charity,” by an organization that calls itself “Catholic” when it wants to, making use of the name when it is in its interest to do so, funding given to promote an activity absolutely antithetical to everything that the Catholic Church has always defended and stood for.

Will this lead Irish bishops to cut all links with this society that has become a promoter of Anti-Catholic values? Quite unlikely… Will the Bishop of Galway at least respond to this unbelievable effrontery to his authority and Catholic moral doctrine represented by the SVP statement? Source

Comment

I will never give another penny to the SVP.  Will you?

We Need Multiple New Masses – Jesuit…

NewMassSix MinistersThe article below suggesting the setting up of Research & Development Centres to work at producing better Masses, which would then undergo  testing for “market” approval,  is really nothing more than the logical conclusion of creating a new Mass in the first place. 

Why NOT keep working at it until we get the “product” that the people like? Click on photo of the original Research & Development Team, led by Pope Paul VI (above) to reach original article. All emphases below, added.  Note: contact details for the author are given at the end of the article, if anyone feels moved to share their thoughts with him privately.  First, though, share them with us. 

Thomas Reese SJ writes…

With a vacancy at the head of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, Pope Francis has an opportunity to restart liturgical renewal, which was stalled by the papacies of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI.

 The purpose of liturgical reform is not only to translate old Latin texts into good English, but to revise liturgical practices to allow people to celebrate their Christian faith in ways that better fit contemporary culture.

The former prefect, Cardinal Antonio Canizares Llovera, has been appointed archbishop of Valencia in eastern Spain. His conservative liturgical views were more in sync with those of Pope Benedict than of Pope Francis. Canizares, who was appointed prefect in 2008, supported expansion of the Tridentine Mass (aka the Extraordinary Form), and in his most recent letter said that the kiss of peace should be done with greater sobriety.

The good news is that Francis is no fan of the Tridentine Mass. Yes, he did say Mass in Latin in Korea, but that was because he did not know Korean, and they did not know Italian or Spanish. As archbishop of Buenos Aries, Argentina, he forbade the Tridentine Mass in his archdiocese until Pope Benedict mandated that it be available throughout the universal church whether bishops wanted it or not. Francis has never celebrated it (he was ordained in 1969) and never will. He hopes it will fade away.

Nor is he happy with the push for literal translations, including translating pro multis as “for many” rather than “for all.” As a result, the Vatican push for new Italian, German, and other translations has been put on hold.

Francis also prefers a simple liturgical style and has no qualms about breaking liturgical rules for pastoral reasons. For example, as pope and as archbishop of Buenos Aries, he washed the feet of women on Holy Thursday even though the rules say that males (in Latin, viri) are to have their feet washed.

More recently, in Korea while saying Mass, he wore a butterfly pinned to his chasuble in honor of the Korean “comfort women” who were sex slaves to Japanese soldiers during World War II. That is a liturgical no-no.

The bad news is that there is no indication that liturgical renewal is a major priority for Pope Francis. In Argentina, progressive intellectuals criticized him for his support of popular devotions. The poor he so loved in the slums of Buenos Aires were more likely to turn out for a procession or devotion than for the Eucharist. They did not connect with either the old or the renewed Eucharist. Hopefully, this disconnect will lead him to look for a prefect who is more interested in what works pastorally, especially with the poor, than in what either conservative or liberal ideologues want.

The greatest challenge facing the new prefect is to develop a new way of managing liturgical change in the church. Although the changes following the Second Vatican Council were eventually embraced by the priests and people, there was some confusion when the changes were not well explained. Also, the church should have initially been more generous in allowing the old Latin Mass to continue during the transition, especially for the elderly. Conservatives also complained of priests experimenting on their own.

The Vatican response was to stop all change, crack down on experimentation, and force reluctant bishops to provide the Tridentine Mass to anyone who wanted it long after the vernacular language had firmly taken hold. It also pushed through literal translations of liturgical texts that were difficult to understand. This overreaction caused heartburn among liturgical scholars and, more importantly, pastoral problems in parishes.

A more intelligent and pastoral approach to liturgical change would include three things: centers for liturgical research and development, market testing, and enculturation.

Every successful business does research and development on new products. While there are liturgical scholars who do research, they are forbidden to take the next step in developing and trying out new liturgical practices. New liturgical practices require testing to find out what works, but not every priest has the training and skill to do this.

What is needed are centers for liturgical R&D where scholars and artists can collaborate with a willing community in developing new liturgical practices. Seminaries and universities with liturgical scholars are obvious places for this, but some parishes might be willing to be beta sites for new practices, especially if they were allowed to give feedback.

Bishops should be allowed to set up centers for liturgical R&D, operated by creative experts with appropriate supervision and review. Once new liturgical practices are developed and accepted by church officials, they should be market tested in a variety of pastoral settings before being offered to the rest of the church. Only the most arrogant business rolls out a new product everywhere in the world at the same time without market testing it.

Finally, the most difficult challenge is developing liturgy that fits the local culture. This is very difficult in multicultural countries like the United States and India. In the U.S., liturgy has to be sensitive to cultural differences based on race, language, ethnicity, age, education, and social background. What is appropriate at a high school may not be appropriate at a retirement home. In India, liturgical sensitivity to Hindu culture may be offensive to minorities who feel oppressed by the Hindu majority.

Such countries may require multiple liturgical forms to serve multiple cultures. Enculturation is easier to talk about than to do, which is why we need centers for liturgical research and development.

Besides developing a better system for managing liturgical change, I hope the new prefect reviews the latest English translation of the liturgy. Is it working? I don’t think so.

Many priests complain about the difficulty of proclaiming the prayers because the wording is convoluted and sometimes unintelligible. This makes it often impossible for the people in the pews to understand the prayers when they are prayed out loud. The prefect should encourage bishops to be generous in allowing priests to use the old translation if they find the new translation problematic pastorally.

 The prefect should also take another look at the 1998 translation of the Sacramentary done by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy and approved by most English-speaking bishops’ conferences but rejected by the Vatican. This translation is substantially better than both the new and old translations and has wonderful opening prayers that match the readings for each Sunday of the three-year cycle.

And despite Canizares’ circular letter, the new prefect should reopen consideration of moving the kiss of peace. Pope Benedict and former Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments prefect Cardinal Francis Arinze reportedly favored moving the kiss to the end of the Liturgy of the Word, but backed down when a majority of the episcopal conferences said to leave it alone.

Trying out different settings for the kiss is an ideal project for the centers for liturgical research and development, as are the other suggestions I give below.

One of the reasons for moving the kiss of peace is that it would open up space for a more expansive rite at the breaking of the bread prior to Communion. This would require bread that actually looks like bread.

Another project I hope is on the new prefect’s agenda is the drafting of new “Prefaces” and new Eucharistic Prayers besides the 13 already approved for use.

Different Prefaces could be prepared for each Sunday of the three-year cycle, which would pick up on the Scripture readings for that Sunday. More effort is needed to keep themes from the Liturgy of the Word alive in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. This is done on many feast days, and it could be done on ordinary Sundays.

More eucharistic prayers could be written, especially some that follow the “proclamation and response” pattern of the eucharistic prayers for children. I also dream of eucharistic prayers that are based on the language and theology of each Gospel and some of the Pauline letters.

Too many people (and priests) think that the eucharistic prayer is the priest’s prayer. Priests say it quickly in a monotone, and people tune out. We need more eucharistic prayers that actually engage both the priests and the people.

Any work on the Sacramentary should also have as a priority the development of common texts with other churches, a priority that has recently been ignored.

The new prefect also has to look at how is his congregation is run. He needs to replace many of the consultors and staff whose only qualification as liturgist is their support for the Tridentine Mass. It would also make sense to have the chairs of bishops’ conferences’ liturgy committees as members of the congregation rather than cardinals who have no expertise in liturgy.

The congregation should function as a midwife to liturgical renewal and stop playing liturgical cop. This means more consultation and entrusting more liturgical changes directly to episcopal conferences, which was the original intent of Vatican II, rather than micromanaging things from Rome.

 Despite my hope that the new prefect would take up such an agenda, we need to recognize that even if we had perfect liturgical texts and ceremonies in the Sacramentary, liturgy lives or dies at the local parish. What the people want is good music, good preaching, and a sense of belonging, which cannot be prepackaged in Rome. Parishes that are welcoming and have good music and good preaching see their pews filled. We cannot blame Rome for everything that is wrong in the liturgy.

That is my agenda for the new prefect. What is yours? Share them with us in the comments section below.

[Jesuit Fr. Thomas Reese is a senior analyst for NCR and author of Inside the Vatican: The Politics and Organization of the Catholic Church. His email address is treesesj@ncronline.org. Follow him on Twitter: @ThomasReeseSJ.]    Source 

Christian Order: The Kasper Apostasy…


ChristianOrder
With the October Synod on the Family now looming on the horizon, a recent Christian Order editorial really says it all. Be warned though, the Editor, Rod Pead, does not mince his words. This is n
ot recommended reading for the faint-hearted and certainly not for those who dabble in papolatry.  It’s lengthy but you won’t want to miss a word.  Click on “source” at the end of the extract (or on either of the images on this page) to read the entire editorial – then share your thoughts…


“The new approach that Catholic scholars are taking to Jesus and the scriptures … reflects the presuppositions and procedures [of] Catholic scholars like … Walter Kasper…. Many of the conclusions of [this] ‘liberal consensus’ conflict sharply with traditional Catholic doctrine. … [Its] major achievement … seems to be bringing the church to what can be called the end of Catholicism…. [The point] is not to salvage Catholicism or Christianity but to let go of them… to help people leave the church with a good conscience. “

 – Thomas Sheehan, The New York Review of Books,1984

  • [A] divine intervention in the sense of a directly visible action of God is theological nonsense. (Jesus the Christ, 1974)
  • God’s relation to Moses in the Burning Bush is not “I Am,” but “I am with you. I am for you.” (7/5/14)
  • The Church is not against birth control at all. … it’s [the couple’s] personal conscience and their personal responsibility. (5/5/14)
  • So if [the divorced-and-remarried] can receive spiritual communion, why not also sacramental Communion? (5/5/14)

Cardinal Kasper

“In the past few days I have been reading a book by… Cardinal Kasper, a clever theologian, a good theologian…
And that book did me a lot of good.”

  – Pope Francis, 17/3/13

Spanning forty years, this thread of quotations pretty much underlines and sums up the current state of play as detailed and analysed in recent editions. We could, therefore, pronounce a simple, emphatic “Oremus!” — and leave it at that.

However, Cardinal Kasper’s influential re-emergence under Francis requires elaboration. Especially when the looming Extraordinary General Cardinal Kasper Assembly of the Synod of Bishops (5-19 October) — called to discuss “pastoral challenges to the family in the context of evangelisation” — is being primed for Kasper’s hobbyhorse: Communion for the divorced-and-re-remarried.

The Modernist proposition

Last February, at the Pope’s behest, the notorious German enumerated to an Extraordinary Consistory of around 150 cardinals, his long-held proposal to sanction that sinful pastoral practice.

Typically, the undermining of the indissolubility of the marriage bond, and related Catholic dogmas pertaining to the Sacrament of Penance and the Holy Eucharist, was presented as a trifle: a “merciful” granting of hard-case “exceptions.”

Sounding more like the king of snake oil salesmen than a prince of the Church, Kasper posited no significant doctrinal change or damaging ramifications at all, selling the supposed “exclusion” of a divorced-and-remarried person from receiving Communion as an “exploitation of the person,” while suggesting an oh-so-reasonable compromise: that “the smallest sector of divorced-and-remarried Catholics who are truly interested in receiving the sacraments” might be admitted to “the sacrament of penance, and then of Communion,” if the person concerned:

  1. Repents of the failure of his marriage and
  2. Has cleared up the obligations of his first marriage, if a return to it is definitely ruled out;
  3. If he cannot abandon the commitments that he has made with his new civil marriage without committing other sins [— these, he recently explained, involve “The breakup of the second family. If there are children you cannot do it. If you’re engaged to a new partner, you’ve given your word, and so it’s not possible.”]
  4. If he tries nevertheless to live his second marriage as well as he can, in faith, and educating his children in the faith;
  5. If he desires the sacraments as the source of strength in his situation.

For the diabolically-disoriented Cardinal, in other words, marriage is doctrinally indissoluble but can be dissolved pastorally. The same sulphurous approach he has adopted to ecumenism and religious liberty with the blessing of his favourite pastoral Council, which, he says, “opened the doors without violating the compulsory dogmatic tradition.”

The papal patronage

Once again the open dialogue the Holy Father likes to tout was nowhere in evidence. Instead, to underscore his own stance, not even a token orthodox speaker was chosen to counter Kasper’s two-hour marathon. According to German Cardinal Reinhard Marx, after the address “strong objections” were posed by numerous cardinals, effectively pricking this trial balloon sent up by our über-collegial pontiff to test the collegial temper. Undeterred, Francis then praised Kasper effusively, opening the second day of the consistory (21 February) with this spurious thumbs up:

Yesterday, before going to sleep, … I re-read Cardinal Kasper’s study, and I would like to thank him, because I found in it a profound theology and the serene thought of a theologian. I also found what St. Ignatius told us about, the sensus Ecclesiae, the love of our Mother the Church…. This is called doing theology on one’s knees.

On the contrary, Holy Father, this is to confuse doing theology on one’s knees before God with doing apostasy kneeling before the world! Meanwhile, on the pope’s behalf, the dean of the assembled cardinals, ex-Secretary of State Angelo Sodano, was stressing consistory confidentiality and swearing all to secrecy … with the exception of one Walter Kasper. While his brethren duly kept their counsel, Kasper immediately announced publication of his address in Germany and Italy. He was also granted final right of reply to his opponents in the consistory.

The Catholic response

Providentially, the editor of Il Foglio, the Milan-based neo-conservative daily, upset the liberal apple cart. On 1 March he published the speech worldwide, together with an objective critique by historian Roberto de Mattei. Citing the Church Fathers, de Mattei shredded Kasper’s specious appeal to early Church practice to justify his perverse cause.

Since his thinly-disguised Modernist assault on the Faith cannot withstand Catholic critique, Kasper exploded, venting his spleen on Vatican radio, then sounding off in the Pope’s L’Osservatore Romano, all of which leant further authority to his position. But at least de Mattei’s clear analysis was now available to shed comforting light on the modus operandi of the Kasper-led revolution, which he summarised as follows:

The doctrine does not change; the only novelty concerns pastoral practice. The slogan, which has been repeated for a year now, reassures on the one hand those conservatives who gauge everything in terms of doctrinal declarations, and on the other hand it encourages the progressives who attach little importance to doctrine and entrust everything to the primacy of practice.

By paying lip service to orthodoxy (right belief) and positing sinful practice as orthopraxis (right action), Kasper seeks to disguise his profound incoherence and hyprocrisy. Shortly after the election of his papal patron, for instance, he wrote in L’Osservatore Romano (12/4/13) that the Church “needs to defend the faith against pluralism and postmodern relativism, as well as the fundamentalist tendencies that run from reason.” Yet what could be more irrational than his undoing two thousand years of Sacramental Theology of Matrimony and Penance in order to accommodate the relativistic/pluralistic postmodern world he supposedly deplores; to construct a slippery slope to ever more concubinage, Eucharistic sacrilege, and sola scriptura protestantisation?  Source