A New Mercy: Mercy As “Way of Life”…

What Religion Is This?

by Christopher A. Ferrara
November 8, 2016

 

Mercy, said Francis, is not God's forgiveness of sin through Baptism or the absolution of a repentant sinner in the confessional, in the manner Christ ordained when He commissioned His Church (cf. John 20:23). Rather, he opined, "the mystery of mercy is not to be celebrated in words alone, but above all by deeds, by a truly merciful way of life marked by disinterested love, fraternal service and sincere sharing."

“The mystery of mercy is not to be celebrated in words alone, but above all by deeds, by a truly merciful way of life marked by disinterested love, fraternal service and sincere sharing.”

In a brief address to an “inter-religious audience” at the Vatican on November 3, Francis spoke on “the theme of mercy,” but without a single reference to the King of Mercy, Jesus Christ, the sole merciful savior of mankind, nor any reference to the sacraments of the Church that Christ established precisely to show His mercy toward men of good will. 

Alluding vaguely to “the Christian message” while saying absolutely nothing about the grace of repentance that must precede the grace of justification and the regeneration of the soul of fallen man, Francis sketched instead a concept of mercy seemingly designed to accommodate any and all religions, so-called.

Mercy, said Francis, is not God’s forgiveness of sin through Baptism or the absolution of a repentant sinner in the confessional, in the manner Christ ordained when He commissioned His Church (cf. John 20:23). Rather, he opined, “the mystery of mercy is not to be celebrated in words alone, but above all by deeds, by a truly merciful way of life marked by disinterested love, fraternal service and sincere sharing.”

What does this have to do with Divine Mercy for the sinner who repents and turns to God, which was supposedly the theme of the Year of Mercy now concluding? The address seems instead to conflate Divine Mercy with human acts of kindness devoid of any motive of supernatural grace.

Indeed, Francis goes on to say that “The Church increasingly desires to adopt this way of life, also as part of her ‘duty to foster unity and charity’ among all men and women…” The Church is depicted as an organization that has only recently begun to discover fully what mercy means! It means, according to Francis, a “way of life” — again, without reference to Divine Mercy toward repentant sinners.

Mercy as a “way of life” — rather than a divine action toward the sinner — is something that anyone, no matter what he believes, can possess. Thus, says Francis, “[t]he religions are likewise called to this way of life, in order to be, particularly in our own day, messengers of peace and builders of communion, and to proclaim, in opposition to all those who sow conflict, division and intolerance, that ours is a time of fraternity.”

Note well: “the religions” are referenced indifferently, as if they were all on equal footing with respect to the quality of mercy, which is reduced, in essence, to social work and brotherhood.

Continuing this indifferentist, pan-religious refrain, Francis declares that “mercy” as he conceives it — quoting himself — is that quality which is “more open to dialogue, the better to know and understand one another; eliminates every form of closed-mindedness and disrespect; and drives out every form of violence and discrimination (Misericordiae Vultus, 23). This is pleasing to God and constitutes an urgent task, responding not only to today’s needs but above all to the summons to love which is the soul of all authentic religion.”

Not a word here about the supernatural grace of charity obtained and maintained through the sacraments instituted by Christ, nor the divine action involved in God’s mercy thus obtained. Rather, again, we see only an appeal to do-goodism depicted as the “soul of all authentic religion.”

As Francis further declares (once again quoting himself), “mercy” also means the practice of environmental conservation:

Mercy extends also to the world around us, to our common home, which we are called to protect and preserve from unbridled and rapacious consumption. Our commitment is needed for an education to sobriety and to respect, to a more simple and orderly way of life, in which the resources of creation are used with wisdom and moderation, with concern for humanity as a whole and coming generations, not simply the interests of our particular group and the benefits of the present moment. Today in particular, ‘the gravity of the ecological crisis demands that we all look to the common good, embarking on a path of dialogue which requires patience, self-discipline and generosity'” (Laudato Si’, 201).

So, “authentic religion” now expands to include not merely the one and only religion that God established, but also any and all religions whose adherents do good, including caring for the environment. “Mercy” thus defined would therefore be an element, according to Francis, of virtually all religions that advocate doing good:

“The theme of mercy is familiar to many religious and cultural traditions, where compassion and nonviolence are essential elements pointing to the way of life; in the words of an ancient proverb: ‘death is hard and stiff; life is soft and supple’ (Tao-Te-Ching, 76). To bow down with compassionate love before the weak and needy is part of the authentic spirit of religion, which rejects the temptation to resort to force, refuses to barter human lives and sees others as brothers and sisters, and never mere statistics. To draw near to all those living in situations that call for our concern, such as sickness, disability, poverty, injustice and the aftermath of conflicts and migrations: this is a summons rising from the heart of every genuine religious tradition. It is the echo of the divine voice heard in the conscience of every person, calling him or her to reject selfishness and to be open….”

When Francis finally gets around to mentioning Divine Mercy, he appears to make God’s forgiveness of sin available to anyone who practices mercy on a human level whether or not it involves an act of supernatural charity motivated by divine grace:

“How important this is, when we consider today’s widespread fear that it is impossible to be forgiven, rehabilitated and redeemed from our weaknesses. For us Catholics, among the most meaningful rites of the Holy Year is that of walking with humility and trust through the door – the Holy Door – to find ourselves fully reconciled by the mercy of God, who forgives our trespasses. But this demands that we too forgive those who trespass against us (cf. Mt 6:12), the brothers and sisters who have offended us. We receive God’s forgiveness in order to share it with others. Forgiveness is surely the greatest gift we can give to others, because it is the most costly. Yet at the same time, it is what makes us most like God.”

But, as the Church has always taught, in fallen man the imago Dei — the likeness to God — can be restored only by the grace of justification following the grace of repentance for sin. And the ordinary means of justification are Baptism and, after Baptism, absolution of mortal sin by way of Confession, about which Francis has nothing whatever to say to an audience desperately in need of the helps only the Church that Christ established can provide.

Thus does the Catholic faith — the one, true, divinely revealed religion — fade into insignificance in the grand scheme of “authentic religion” reduced to doing good and forgiving others without any obligation to assent to revealed truth, avail oneself of the divinely instituted sacraments, or indeed profess any particular religious belief at all. Catholics may be reconciled in their Catholic way (certainly not by merely walking through a Holy Door with humility and trust), but anyone who simply forgives, on a human level, attains the divine likeness.

Driving home the point, lest anyone miss it, Francis concludes by declaring: “May the religions be wombs of life, bearing the merciful love of God to a wounded and needy humanity; may they be doors of hope helping to penetrate the walls erected by pride and fear.” All religions “bear the merciful love of God,” no matter what errors or superstitions they involve. All that matters, according to Francis, is that their adherents show forgiveness and brotherhood toward others and care for the environment.

Referring to the recent debacle of the Pope’s visit to Sweden to “commemorate” the Protestant Rebellion launched by Luther, the respected traditional Catholic scholar Roberto de Mattei observed: “What surfaced during the ecumenical meeting between Pope Francis and the World Lutheran Federation on October 31st in Lund, seems to be a new religion.”

A new religion indeed. And certainly not the religion established by God Incarnate in the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. But then, as Pius XI warned about those who would embrace the then-nascent “ecumenical movement” with its pan-Christian gatherings:

“Certainly such attempts can nowise be approved by Catholics, founded as they are on that false opinion which considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy, since they all in different ways manifest and signify that sense which is inborn in us all, and by which we are led to God and to the obedient acknowledgment of His rule. Not only are those who hold this opinion in error and deceived, but also in distorting the idea of true religion they reject it, and little by little, turn aside to naturalism and atheism, as it is called; from which it clearly follows that one who supports those who hold these theories and attempt to realize them, is altogether abandoning the divinely revealed religion.

As the human element of the Church has come to accept and participate not only in pan-Christian but also pan-religious spectacles, such as this address by Francis, we can consider Pius XI’s warning a prophecy fulfilled, along with the prophecy undoubtedly contained in the integral Third Secret of Fatima.   Source – fatima.org

Comment:

Well, we’ve had a new Mass, new catechism, new rosary, new canon law, new morality,  blah blah, so why not a new “mercy”? 

100 responses

  1. To be honest, I personally now don’t even read what the man says . He speaks in riddles and in contradiction. True mercy ( as in the Parable of the Good Samaritan) can only come from God as we know through Confession. All of us are sinners some have strayed as myself right into the Pig Pen and to hit rock bottom through a life led wrong and to come back to God through Confession and The Eucharist is truly wonderful indeed. Also we don’t want a new Religion we’re Catholics not Lutherans or one of the other thousands of apostate beliefs. As for myself I find myself honoured that a Traditional Latin Mass has started in my own Parish St Mary’s Cleland. On tonight at 7.00 – My thanks to our Parish Priest and also to his Brother who comes out in the train from Glasgow every Thursday night to serve same Mass his Faith is an example to us all who attend.

    • Faith of our Fathers,

      I think St Mary’s, Cleland is the Diocese of Motherwell, isn’t it? That’s interesting that they have a traditional Mass there. I thought they were all in Glasgow!

      • Every Thursday M M am not good at putting links with I Pad . If you check Saint Mary,s Cleland on Facebook it will give you a better insight. Come along and bring your Friends. Am just back from Mass we could do with some more people. Thanks for the interest . Phone N. 01698 860254. email:aidanswishaw@gmail.com Parish Priest Father Liam O’ Connor. God Bless .

      • Margaret Mary,

        Yes, Cleland is Diocese of Motherwell.

        Other than Glasgow,Edinburgh and Aberdeen,there is now a smattering of traditional masses elsewhere.

        I can think of examples in Dundee, Stirling and even Kilwinning.

        • Thanks, Faith of our Fathers and Gabriel Syme,

          I don’t live in Motherwell diocese but I was just interested because I’d not realised there were so many traditional Masses going on around Scotland.

    • Faith of our Fathers

      I hope your parish priest can summon up the courage to have that Traditional Mass on a Sunday, it’s true place of honour. I know most parishes now have a Saturday evening Mass in place of Sunday, effectively replacing the Catholic Sabbath with the Jewish one, so I would really like to see priests have the bravery to turn away from this abuse, which, according to the Traditional teaching of the Church does not fulfil the Sunday obligation except in cases of necessity.

      Still, at this time we have to be thankful for small merices. At least the Mass is halfway back to its rightful place in Cleland, thanks to your PP.

  2. “Not a word here about the supernatural grace of charity obtained and maintained through the sacraments instituted by Christ, nor the divine action involved in God’s mercy thus obtained. Rather, again, we see only an appeal to do-goodism depicted as the “soul of all authentic religion.”

    That is absolutely correct. Christopher Ferrara, as always, hits the nail on the head.

    I’m really puzzled at the reasoning process of this pope. If he thinks so little of the sacraments and the supernatural, why did he accept the office of pope?

    • Margaret Mary,

      I’ll tell you why he accepted the office of pope: like all modernists, he thinks he knows better than God what the Church is. Which is another way of saying (as that old clip from “Yes, Prime Minister” that was posted here last year points out) that he doesn’t really believe in God at all! Only in his version, i.e. the “god of surprises.”

      Which, has Mr. Ferrara has pointed out in the past, is nothing more than himself.

      • AMEN, Madame Editor.

        My million pound question (have to get my currency right 😉) is this: Will PF meet with Trump now that he is going to be the new US president next year?

        • Margaret,

          I suspect Pope Francis’ puppeteers at the UN won’t want him to have anything to do with Trump…and so PF will blindly obey.

        • Margaret,

          Will the Pope meet with Trump?
          AND will the SNP allow him into Scotland? It was hilarious last night watching the SNP politician on Question Time wriggling out of her comment that he should be banned from the UK. She then said that, of course, now that he is going to be President, we can’t ban the “office of President” from entering… then the chairman read out her actual words in Parliament which included “even if President” (words to that effect) and instead of admitting that she had been wrong to say that, she just kept on about meaning “the OFFICE of President” – duh! In his place, I would close down all business contacts with Scotland. In a heartbeat.

          Pope Francis, ever the diplomat (except where it concerns those labelled “traditionalists”) will no doubt go along to get along. Time will tell.

  3. Obama has moved to permanently ensure that the evil Planned Parenthood group (the people who were caught selling baby body parts) cannot be defunded.

    I think anything to do with the American election IS appropriately posted on this thread because the Pope’s “new mercy” is carefully never applied to the unborn child and his apparent preference for Clinton in the recent election, was appalling. The more we educated ourselves and our readers as to the practical implications of his support for candidates with policies that are manifestly anti-child and anti-family, the better.

    • Forgive me for ‘banging on’ again about the 2013 St. Andrews Uni/Clinton/PF fiasco, but I just wonder if he sent his condolences on the occasion of her non-election.

    • Editor,

      Obama can no more make PP funding permanent that PF can make his revolution in the Church permanent. At any rate, this is just a “proposed rule,” which can be overturned by Executive Order or by revised Title X legislation.

      More evidence of the hubris of the left….the only thing that will destroy their echo chamber of false justice, false compassion, false tolerance, false diversity and false inclusion is…

      THE CONSECRATION OF RUSSIA TO THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY!

      (Did I say that loud enough?)

      • RCA Victor,

        That’s very good to know. I did wonder at the idea that a President could guarantee “permanent” funding for anything, so that’s a relief.

        (That could NEVER be said loud enough! But a great try, just the same!)

        PS – driving a couple of nephews into town earlier, the younger of the two (11 years) – as a prelude to telling me what he is learning in his home-school programme – asked me if I knew…. the population of Glasgow….

        I replied: “I have an American friend I’d like you to meet…” 😀

  4. Grote aandacht voor psychologische barmhartigheid…

    Er vindt (ook in de rk Kerk) een verschuiving plaats. Het geluk van de mens staat steeds meer in de belangstelling, de verlossing door Christus echter steeds minder. Met veel aandacht voor psychologische barmhartigheid, en steeds minder gerichtheid op theologische barmhartigheid. Alles mag en alles kan, want God is zo goed… dat Hij toch alles vergeeft wegens zijn barmhartigheid, zo denkt men. Het sacrament van de vergeving van zonden door een biechtafspraak te maken met een priester, hoort steeds minder tot de praktijk van de gelovige.

    Pastoor Geudens

    • Pastor Geudens,

      I had to use Google translate to work out what your post means, so I hope this is correct:

      Great attention to psychological mercy …

      There is a shift (including [in] the Catholic Church) [taking] place. The happiness of man is increasingly in the spotlight, the redemption of Christ, however, fewer and fewer. With great attention to psychological mercy, and less focus on theological mercy. Anything goes and everything is possible, because God is so good … He still forgives everything because of his mercy, as one thinks. The sacrament of forgiveness of sins by making a confession appointment with a priest, always belongs less to the practice of the believer.

      Makes sense to me – thank you, Google Translate!

      • Pastoor Guedens

        If I understand the translation of your post correctly, Pope Francis is preaching the Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith alone, but with the exception that faith in his case is not a divine gift but rather a psychological need inherent to all human beings and manifested in various “religious traditions”. In essence, he preaches that most deadly Modernist error that St. Pius X warned about, which is a pretend religious sense in human beings which effectively negates supernatural truth and grace from on high and divinises man instead.

        That’s why the Pope can speak of mercy while trampling truth underfoot. What it amounts to, sad to say, is Luciferian mercy, the lie that man, not God, is the source of true happiness. It’s a worldly doctrine he preaches, not a divine one. No one should listen to him.

  5. How Trump ‘evolved’ on life and the Supreme Court (Source: Life Site News)

    Trump backtracked his original 1999 comments supporting partial-birth abortion in 2000, when he wrote, “When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial-birth abortion if I were president, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no. After the show, I consulted two doctors I respect and, upon learning more about this procedure, I have concluded that I would indeed support a ban.”

    He told EWTN’s Raymond Arroyo last month that knowing a couple who wanted to abort their child but ultimately didn’t was one of the factors in his switch from pro-abortion to pro-life.

    “One wanted to abort and the other said we can’t do that, we’re not going to do that,” he said. “Anyway, they had the baby — it was a long time ago — and the baby is such a magnificent person, who I know. A magnificent person.”

    In January, before he secured the GOP nomination, Trump wrote, “Public funding of abortion providers is an insult to people of conscience.”

    As his general election campaign gathered steam, Trump became more vocal about his pro-life views and attacked Clinton for her abortion extremism.

    “Well, I think it’s terrible,” Trump said of Clinton’s late-term abortion support during the final presidential debate . “If you go with what Hillary is saying, in the ninth month, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb of the mother just prior to the birth of the baby. Now, you can say that that’s okay, and Hillary can say that that’s okay, but it’s not okay with me because based on what she’s saying and based on where she’s going and where she’s been, you can take the baby and rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day, and that’s not acceptable.”

    During the final debate, Trump also weighed in on what his potential Supreme Court justice nominees would do.

    “If we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that’s really what’s going to be–that will happen,” Trump said of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. “That’ll happen automatically in my opinion because I’m putting pro-life justices on the court. I will say this, it will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination.”

    Trump said early in his campaign that his pro-abortion sister would make a “phenomenal” judge. However, he subsequently released a list of people he would consider nominating to the Supreme Court. Overall, those on the list have strong records on life and family . He also repeatedly promised that they would be the same types of judges as Scalia.

    “I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint — and I’ve named 20 of them — the justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life, they will have a conservative bent, they will be protecting the Second Amendment, they are great scholars in all cases and they’re people of tremendous respect,” Trump said during his final debate with Clinton. “They will interpret the Constitution the way the Founders wanted it interpreted.”

    “I will appoint Justices to the Supreme Court who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench, like Justice Clarence Thomas and the late and beloved great Catholic thinker and jurist, Justice Antonin Scalia,” Trump wrote in a letter to Catholics .

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-trump-wins.-now-its-time-for-life-and-family-advocates-to-get-to-w?utm_source=LifePetitions+petition+signers&utm_campaign=b186dd96b9-Breaking_to_LifePetitions_lifepetitions11_9_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c5c75ce940-b186dd96b9-397768997

    9th November 2016
    TRUMP EST ÉLU, VICTOIRE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    c’est l’Amérique que j’aime

  6. And again, Lionel, thank you for emailing me this article about the possible “silencing” of Cardinal Sarah

    Not a lot of “mercy” around for those with traditional leanings, is there? There’s even a (merciless!) ban now on using the term “reform of the reform”!

    Maybe the slow coaches who are still attending the novus ordo will wake up and vote with their feet in the direction of the nearest traditional Mass this coming Sunday.

    One lives in hope…

    • Editor,

      Perhaps Cardinal Sarah’s “silencing” is in fact both voluntary and prudent because of the danger of being an accessory to another’s sin.

      Doesn’t Holy Scripture say somewhere that “The time has come for judgement to begin at the House of God?” In fact there could be several reasons taken from the following list:

      Accessory to Another’s Sin

      I. By counsel
      II. By command
      III. By consent
      IV. By provocation
      V. By praise or flattery
      VI. By concealment
      VII. By partaking
      VIII. By silence
      IX. By defence of the ill done

      And here’s something else worth considering – Perhaps other bishops are speaking out, but the devil is silencing THEM, by controlling the media through his masonic tentacles. Publicity of course, is never lacking for his own agents.

    • RCA Victor,

      Shocking – but isn’t all of this (except the ban on using the term “reform of the reform”) old news? Didn’t we know – some time ago – about his (ridiculous) ideas about “rigidity” and the attraction of the young to the old Mass?

      The fact that he apparently doesn’t even want to improve the new Mass, says it all. Maybe his close friend Cardinal Schonborn has convinced him that it would be “rigid” to ban balloon Masses! Anything’s possible, these days!

    • Wendy,

      That link leads to a page thanking me for signing although I’ve not yet signed. I tried to find the page to sign but without success.

    • Wendy,

      I’ve just emailed Customer Services as follows:

      “I write to complain about the forthcoming event in your London, Gower Street, London bookshop: this promotion of abortion on 28th November, is advertised as “A THOUGHT PROVOKING evening with Ann Furedi, BPAS CEO and founder and author of THE MORAL CASE FOR ABORTION, Ann Furedi, as well as performances from Viva La Vulva based on the real stories from real women.”

      I have long been a customer of Waterstones, but if this event goes ahead, I will never enter a Waterstones’ bookshop again. I am appalled that this female is being permitted to push the evil of child murder, within the walls of a Bookshop chain which I have hitherto supported, and that for many years now.

      I know I am not alone is being stunned at this news but not everyone who is shocked will write to tell you so. I have chosen to write to you, not using my personal email account (well, if the ultra pro-abort Hillary Clinton can get away with it, why not me? Known, by the way, in pro-life circles as Killary Clinton…) in order to underline the fact that I speak, not only for myself, but for our worldwide readership.

      If the organisers of this event have never taken a look at what happens in abortion or at the “products” of an abortion, lying in a stainless steel container, then I suggest they pay a visit to the website of Abort67 in good time to cancel this shocking support for abortion. Just because something is legal, remember, does not mean that it is right.

      Wishing you well – but asking you to pass my concerns to the Gower Street branch. I did try to find an email contact for them but without success. END

      PS – I have just received an “instant” email acknowledgement from Waterstones, explaining that they are receiving a high volume of emails right now…
      Let’s hope the majority are protesting this shocking event.

      • Editor,

        I just looked up “Viva La Vulva,” and it is best left undescribed except as a grotesque combination of feminism, paganism and Wicca. I’m surprised that Jesuit parish near you isn’t hosting this event, instead of the bookstore! It would right up their alley.

        Moreover, note the complete contradiction between the opening sentence of their “About Us,” and their advocacy of abortion:

        “Revered for millennia for its sacred powers of creation and birth, the vulva is the gateway to All That Is.”

        Au contraire, I’d say this organization is the gateway to hell.

  7. Somebody up above (?FOOF) said he doesn’t even read anymore what the Pope says. Me neither. It’s just blether and not Catholic blether either. The man is not Catholic! I wonder what will happen when the year of “mercy” ends on December 20th? I shudder to think.

  8. “Well, we’ve had a new Mass, new catechism, new rosary, new canon law, new morality, blah blah, so why not a new “mercy”?”
    You are right, this is it.

  9. Here’s the latest scandal – truly unbelievable. Mercy? Not for the unborn child…

    The Pontifical Academy for Life Is No More

    by Christopher A. Ferrara
    November 11, 2016

    Following Francis’ purge of the Vatican’s entire apparatus dealing with marriage, family and the defense of life, and the appointment of a raft of reliably progressive Bergoglians, the Pontifical Academy for Life has effectively been put out of commission.

    As LifeSiteNews reports, the new statutes for the Academy delete “the requirement for members to sign a ‘Declaration of the Servants of Life,’ an avowal geared to members who are physicians and medical researchers, which makes explicit the members’ willingness to follow Church teaching on the sacredness of human life and an obligation to not perform ‘destructive research on the embryo or fetus, elective abortion, or euthanasia.’”

    A look at the unambiguous pro-life provisions of that Declaration, which Francis has now junked, reveals the import of the purge of the Academy:

    1. In the presence of God and men, we, the Servants of Life, declare that every member of the human species is a person.

    2. The care due to each does not depend on the age of persons or the kind of illness they may suffer from. The same human being continues his or her life process from conception until death.

    3. The fertilized egg, the embryo, and the fetus may not be given away or sold. They may not be denied the right to progressive development in their mother’s womb and may not be subjected to any kind of exploitation.

    4. No authority, not even the father or the mother, may take the life of the unborn. A Servant of Life may not perform actions such as destructive research on the embryo or fetus, elective abortion, or euthanasia.

    5. We declare, furthermore, that the sources of life must be protected. The human genome, which is the patrimony of all humanity, may not be the object of ideological speculation, commerce, or patenting.

    6. Wishing to perpetuate the Hippocratic tradition and conform our practice to the teaching of the Catholic Church, we reject all deliberate damage to the genome, all exploitation of gametes, and all induced deterioration of human reproductive functions.

    7. The relief of suffering, the cure of illness, the safeguarding of health, and the correction of hereditary defects are the purpose of our work, with constant respect for the dignity and sacredness of the person.

    As Life Site notes, even before the purge the Academy had already provoked controversy on account of such things as its hosting of a conference in 2012 that appeared to condone in vitro fertilization as a reproductive “technique,” even though it involves the deliberate destruction of human embryos. Now, however, the Academy seems to have been positioned for a programmatic departure from Church teaching in keeping with the abandonment of the Declaration.

    If that claim seems excessive, consider an appalling revelation about the Academy’s new statutes by its newly appointed President, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, a proponent of Holy Communion for public adulterers in “second marriages.” Paglia, Life Site reports, “explained that the new statutes will help coordinate the work of the Academy in connection to other curial bodies, but extend beyond that. He added that the PAV will henceforth also collaborate with ‘ … other academic institutions, including those that reflect belief systems and cultures different from ours, that are active like us in this very sensitive and developing field of study.’”

    Belief systems and cultures different from ours? In other words, instead of simply defending the Church’s infallible teaching on the inviolable sacredness of human life, it appears the Academy will now engage in the “moral ecumenism” introduced by Amoris Laetitia, which reduces moral absolutes to “general rules,” purports to see “positive elements” in objectively sinful behaviors, and situates what the Church has always condemned as intrinsically evil acts on a continuum of more or less good behavior, albeit falling short of “the ideal.”

    Just as other religions are now said to possess “elements of sanctification,” other “belief systems and cultures” whose ethics contradict Catholic teaching will be viewed as possessing “elements of morality.” The radical difference between right and wrong will be blurred just as there has been a blurring of the radical difference between the one true religion founded by God Incarnate and assorted religious sects founded by men.

    Finally, consider this gobbledygook, which replaces the Academy’s former statement of purpose:

    The Academy has a task of a prevalently scientific nature, directed towards the promotion and defense of human life (cf. Vitae Mysterium, 4). In particular, it studies the various aspects that relate to the care of the dignity of the human person at the different ages of existence, mutual respect between genders and generations, the defense of the dignity of each single human being, the promotion of a quality of human life that integrates material and spiritual value, with a view to an authentic ‘human ecology’, which may help to recover the original balance of Creation between the human person and the entire universe (cf. Chirograph, 15 August 2016).”

    Notice that the concept of “defense of life” has been converted from the protection of the sanctity of life against attacks in the form of abortion, contraception and euthanasia — which is why the Academy was formed in the first place — to a free-floating, politically correct sociological project embracing everything from “gender equality” to “human ecology.”

    In sum, the Pontifical Academy for Life is no longer the Pontifical Academy for Life. Only the name remains unchanged. Here, as elsewhere, the advance of the Bergoglian juggernaut continues at a breakneck pace, leveling everything in its path. Only God knows how much more damage the Church will suffer as the prophecy of the Third Secret unfolds before our eyes.

    May the inevitable divine intervention come soon! Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
    Visit source – fatima.org

    • I read that earlier about the Pontifical Academy for Life is no more. It’s too incredible for words, it really is.

      Christopher Ferrara has the faith to see that this is all part of the diabolical disorientation foretold at Fatima, and not go down the sede route.

      I think the prophesied divine chastisement will come soon, and it will be unmistakable.

    • The Francis Vatican has ideologically surrendered the Church lock, stock and barrel to the satanic agenda of the United Nations. All that’s left now is a little “merciful” cleanup of personnel here and there, a few more “linguistic events” to allegedly align Catholic doctrine with heresy and satanism, and a few more demagogic denunciations of faithful Catholics. I wonder how much time God will give these brazen enemies of the Church.

  10. I’ve come across two important clues to the thinking of Francis: one in the book The Devotion to the Sacred Heart by Fr. John Croiset, SJ, the other in In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, which is turning out to be an extraordinary work – an extraordinarily damning work, at that. And, the first book I’ve ever read where the footnotes are longer than the text!

    Here are some excerpts from the first book, will post more tomorrow:

    “People of the world insensibly get accustomed to judge virtue by the imperfections of those people who pass for pious. They come to the opinion that a person cannot be pious without being melancholy, odd, obstinate [rigid!!], disobliging, filled with self-love and very repellent. Thus the high esteem that genuine piety should enjoy is lost through being mistaken for what is seen in the lives of the imperfect….These imperfections give occasion for dislike for virtue to many people who, repelled by conduct so out of harmony with the true idea of this devotion (to the Sacred Heart), have then imagined either that the virtue of true lovers of Jesus Christ is not genuine, or that it is impossible to have true virtue.” (Chapter VII)

    Could there be any better exposition of the attitude of Francis towards faithful Catholics and towards dogma? Apparently, he has been so struck by the false piety of some of us that he mistakenly condemns piety and fidelity altogether, substituting for it a completely secularized version of supernatural virtues rather than to teach true devotion. Thus, for him, charity and mercy are defined as: to excuse sin, to rationalize it away by giving undue weight to its causes, and then to welcome those who are guilty of it into our midst as though they’ve done nothing wrong except to fall short of an “ideal.”

    And now, for my Alfred Hitchcock imitation, I shall return tomorrow with more….

    • RCA Victor,

      You two most recent posts are insightful and the quote from Fr. John Croiset, SJ gives plenty of food for meditation, in the context of the current pontificate.

  11. Sincere thanks to everyone contacting Waterstones …marvellous ..absolutely brilliant e -mail Patricia and thank you alerting me to Waterstones facebook page ………very grateful indeed

  12. ALERT ….please forgive me if I am wrong but a search of Gower St facebook ..shows nothing pro Life …https://www.facebook.com/booksellers.gowerstreet

    Have the messages been deleted ?…then perhaps e ..mails on that as well please re comments being sabotaged ….
    I searched thoroughly but do check please
    Last shown comments are very early November

  13. Waterstones HQ
    203….206…Piccadilly ..London ..WIJ….LE

    0207….851….2400 phone

    It may be better to complain to the Head Office ?

    • Wendy et al,

      I’ve now had a reply from Waterstones, and I have replied to their reply…See below:

      REPLY FROM WATERSTONES

      Dear Patricia,

      Thank you for taking the time to contact us. Your feedback has been received and will be passed on to the event organisers.

      I’m sorry to hear that this event will deter you from visiting our branches.

      We stock a wide range of titles within our shops that cover a range of subjects. As a general rule we don’t censor any of the available books unless there is a legal injunction.

      Our shop in Gower Street is an academic branch, in close vicinity to University College London, SOAS and other institutions. As such their events programme is tailored towards creating spaces for discussion for students, lecturers and the general public. As a company we would not advocate a particular viewpoint of any one topic but we provide a neutral area where these debates can occur, often reflecting ongoing social and political issues. Generally, talks from authors are often followed by a Q & A session so that topics can be discussed in detail and to promote understanding of different opinions.

      Similarly, if there was a new title reflecting an alternative viewpoint, we would equally consider hosting an event covering these issues, much like we have done with this event on the 28th November.

      Kind regards,

      Leanne Burke
      Waterstones Customer Support
      ref:_00Dw0Cmno._500w01Owhj7:ref

      MY REPLY TO WATERSTONES…

      Dear Leanne,

      Well, when you host an event that allows questioning of the Holocaust in World War II, where a large number of Jews – we can debate the alleged 6 million figure – (and Catholics, including Father Kolbe who voluntarily gave his life to save a married man) were killed in gas chambers, let me know. As I’m sure YOU know, were you to even think about such an event, the entire “liberal” establishment would be down on you like a ton of bricks, and the loss of one or a few customers would be the least of your worries.

      Good try, but doesn’t wash.

      Patricia

          • As requested by the Editor, my e-mail to the ‘Christian Institute’…

            Dear Sirs,

            As someone who is on your contact list, I thought I should make you aware of the proposed event, scheduled for 28th November. See https://www.waterstones.com/events/out-of-silence-an-evening-discussing-abortion/london-gower-street for more info.

            You will be aware that Ann Furedi is chief ‘mouthpiece’ of the BPAS, one of the UK’s biggest abortion providers. Please would you consider encouraging your members to register their protest about this, perhaps by mentioning it on your Facebook page.

            I have already e-mailed Waterstones gowerst@waterstones.com (see beneath) and await response. Many thanks.

            For the Attention of the Customer Services Manager

            Dear Sir/Madam,

            I am writing to express my profound concern that the above named person is scheduled to be a guest at your premises on 28th November, to give a talk about her abortion book, titled ‘Out of Silence’.

            Many of my relatives and friends are good and regular Waterstones customers, but I shall be urging them to take their custom elsewhere if this event does actually take place.

            It beats me how the likes of Ann Furedi can sleep at night, in the knowledge that her salary and comfortable lifestyle are funded by the blood of innocent unborn children. For your information, during WWII many pregnant women in concentration camps had their babies forcibly aborted. The ‘method’ commonly employed was a Nazi officer’s jackboot stamped upon the mother’s abdomen, with the inevitable grisly consequences. The fiends who did this were rightly convicted of ‘crimes against humanity’ at the Nuremberg Trials, the Courts having ruled that the unborn babies were just as human as their grieving mothers.

            However, some 20 years later the Abortion Act was passed here in the UK – and the deliberate killing of unborn human life suddenly became a ‘choice’, a ‘service’ and a ‘women’s right’. This has to be one of the worst examples of double standards in human history, when abortion is deemed unacceptable if it suits one agenda, then gets the nod of approval when it suits another. Abortion is either a human wrong or a human right, but it can’t be both. It may be ‘legal’, but that certainly doesn’t make it ethical.

            Sincerely,
            Patrick McKay.

            • Pat,

              Perfect! You email to Waterstones MUST have an impact. Well said.

              And that’s a great idea to alert the Christian Institute. Let’s hope they take up the cause, while there is still some time. I doubt if Waterstones will be keen on the adverse publicity which their involvement would bring.

            • Pat McKay

              Well done on your letter to Waterstones and for tipping off the Christian Institute to this disgraceful event. Your letter in particular was very forceful. I hope it causes the staff at Waterstones to reflect and then retract their invitation to this abortion promoter.

  14. A New Mercy: Mercy As “Way of Life”…
    What Religion Is This?
    How about communism!

    Want to know if the consecration of Russia was carried out TOO late, or even if it was carried out at all?
    Then check this out:

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/op-ed-with-democrats-loss-in-us-francis.html

    AND THEN CHECK THIS OUT:
    EXTRACT:

    Pope Francis has now officially endorsed Communism.

    “It has been said many times and my response has always been that, if anything, it is the communists who think like Christians”.

    https://mundabor.wordpress.com/

    • Gerontius

      That was a very hypocritical statement for the Pope to make. Sounds like he too has been fooled by the superficial philanthropic face of Communism that makes them sound like Christians while they act like demons towards Christians. If Pope Francis made that statement then I’m afraid his soul really is in the greatest danger of being lost.

      The conservatively estimated murder toll of Christians under Stalin is around 50 million. The method of their murders are too gruesome to recount. In every place where Communism flares up Christianity is the first target for attack, like during the Spanish civil war when the Communists murdered a priest and hung his naked body upside down in a butcher shop window with a sign that read “fresh meat”. Or, when some nuns were raped before being tied by the feet to horses, their hair set on fire and the horses sent off on a gallop. Or the priest who had his teeth smashed in with a brick and then had his rosaries forced down his throat until he choked to death.

      Oh yes, Holy Father, I see well that the Communists think like Christians. You are a disgrace to the sacred office you hold!

  15. Here is a second clue to the warped (i.e. Modernist) thinking of Francis, from The Murky Waters of Vatican II, ch. IV.

    Quoting from a book by Italian senator Antonio Fogazzaro, Il Santo, (placed on the Index by St. Pius X), whose main character, addressing himself to the Pope, claimed there were four evil spirits who had entered the Church, we find this:

    “The fourth evil spirit…is the spirit of immobility. All clergymen, Your Holiness, above all those who are today adversaries of progressivist Catholicism, would have crucified Christ, in good faith, in the name of Moses. They are idolaters of the past, they would want to deep everything in the Church immutable, from the forms of pontifical language all the way to the flabelli.”

    As Editor might say, “Bingo!”

    • RCA Victor

      I agree that everything this Pope says and does tends to suggest that he at least favours the Marxist agenda, although he repeatedly denies this. My opinion in the matter is that he’s a Jesuit and the Jesuits are today saturated in the Marxist ideology. They were and are the primary crusaders for Modernism, which is just Marxist revolution against the established order by any other name.

      So whether Pope Francis accepts the fact or not, he does certainly appear to be more Marxist than Catholic. Whatever denial he makes it is clear to all that Pope Francis is a dangerous revolutionary who is doing enormous damage to our Holy Church and Faith. I am of the firm conviction that he no longer believes in the supernatural end of man, his entire Pontificate being dedicated to man’s earthly life and happiness. He is a punishment on the Church in our time.

      • Athanasius,

        I’m glad you mentioned the punishment aspect, as very few Catholics seem to remember that part. We have either the papolotrists who fawn over ever word that drops from his mouth, or the sedevacantists who claim he couldn’t be the Pope, or those who think he is the anti-Pope or even the anti-Christ!

        But clearly, he is playing the role of Judas in the Passion of the Church, and just as clearly, we deserve this punishment.

    • RCA Victor,

      I’m not saying “Bingo!” right now,having just paid a quick visit to The Remnant site to see what they are saying about Trump but, instead, their top article is on another subject and penned by… wait for this… Hilary White. I’m just amazed that The Remnant give her space. I really am. Especially after her misleading presentation of Cardinal Zen’s remarks recently. As I say, I paid a quick visit; a heck of a lot quicker than I’d planned, but I’m not wasting time reading her stuff now. Disappointed in The Remnant…

      I know I’ve gone off topic but, hey, if a gal can’t break her own rules once in a while, what’s the good of , er… rules? 😀

      • Editor,

        I just left the following comment under that article:

        “This is a very sad and informative first-hand account of Norcia and Italy, but the point of it is not helped by the false claim that the hierarchy of the Church is “going to perdition.” We have neither the right nor the ability to state where anyone is going after this life, no matter how corrupt they appear to be. Moreover, the idea that we must “carry on by ourselves, if need be” sounds disturbingly similar to the sedevacantist “home-aloner” error. The Church may indeed be undergoing her Passion, but that does not mean that the visible Church will disappear. That cannot happen, no matter how many buildings crumble or how many shepherds turn into wolves.”

        Can’t wait for her snotty reply!

      • Editor,

        Don’t go breaking too many rules, now, or Francis will no longer be able to denounce you as “rigid”!

  16. Athanasius, you write:

    ” He is a punishment on the Church in our time.”

    Spot on. I think this pope is part of the chastisement which was promised.

    • Crofterlady and Athanasius,

      ” He is a punishment on the Church in our time.”

      Exactly! I wonder if SAINT FRANCIS was referring this pope, and I also wonder if Our Lord was giving us here a very pertinent clue, to wit “Francis”

      Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.
      (Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi [London: R. Washbourne, 1882], pp. 248-250; underlining and paragraph breaks added.)

      Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.

      The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.

      Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.

      There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.

      Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.

      Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head [Jesus Christ], these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish [physically] rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.

      Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.

      (Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi [London: R. Washbourne, 1882], pp. 248-250; underlining and paragraph breaks added.)

  17. Rorate reports that 4 Cardinals (Burke, Caffara, Brandmuller and Meisner) have officially asked Francis to clarify Amoris Laetitia in order to prevent division in the Church.

    This was in September. They have now released news of their request, as it seems Francis chose “not to respond” to them

    A Pope has never been publicly questioned for clarification on a most sensitive matter (his own reaching office) of a more sensitive content (his own major document) by his own Cardinals at any moment since the Counter-Reformation. It is astounding: certainly unheard-of in modern times.

    http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/11/explosive-4-cardinals-officially-ask.html

    Francis is a disgrace; his style of governance is bad enough – trying to allow everything via a nod and wink – but the open contempt he treats his Cardinals and the laity with is equally appalling. He must think we are stupid, that he can “run rings around us” with this kind of puerile behaviour – “I don’t remember the footnote” and now this “silent treatment” towards Cardinals who try to respectfully guide him.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      Thank you for that information. It seems that, although the concerned Cardinals (like Cardinal Burke) appear to have gone to ground, they are still working behind the scenes. Deo gratias.

      • I agree Editor, it is good to learn of this behind the scenes work. Having read a bit more, apparently their letter to Francis was prompted by the infamous Argentine Bishops letter, which Francis rushed to endorse, stating “there are no other interpretations”.

        I hope the Cardinals continue to try to work to frustrate Francis and are most especially working to crate a solid voting block against liberal machinations for the next conclave – so we can get a worthwhile shepherd and not some Bergoglio Mk 2.

        Sandro Magister (himself banned from the Vatican under Francis regime) seem to think that the letter will cause fireworks at the consistory to be held this month.

        In a few days, on November 19 and 20, the whole college of cardinals will meet in Rome, for the consistory convoked by Pope Francis. And inevitably the appeal of the four cardinals will become the subject of animated discussion among them.

        He also provides justification for the “going public” of the Cardinals:

        And one thinks right away of Matthew 18:16-17: “If your brother will not listen to you, take with you two or three witnesses. If then he will not listen even to them, tell it to the assembly.”

        The “witness” in this case was Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith. Because he too, in addition to the pope, had been a recipient of the letter and the questions.

        http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351414?eng=y

    • The original report has now been updated (link is the same as before):

      Our Roman Correspondent Fr. Pio Pace sends us the following: “Following Amoris Laetitia, the reaction of the Cardinals who had spoken against the new made-up moral doctrine at the time of the Synods had been expected.

      Here it is: four among them have chosen to make public the dubia that they had presented, formally, to the Pope a couple of months ago. It’s a true earthquake — of a moral nature.

      Four members of the Pope’s own Senate (I’ve been told indeed that those who presented, but did not wish to go public, were more numerous) present him questions on Faith and Morals, according to the procedure of the dubia, which must be answered: either positive (yes) or negative (no) — with modulations, if necessary, but must be answered.

      And the Pope made known to the Cardinals that HE WOULD NOT ANSWER THEM. In all truth, it’s this silence that makes the earth tremble.”

      So it seems that the number of Cardinals involved is in fact more than 4, but why do they hide themselves away? if they seek to avoid embarrassing Francis, then they are treating him with much more respect than he is deserving of.

      Francis isn’t fit to hold the petrine office – here he is being asked to provide guidance for the Church, to counter the confusion he himself has sown, and he is flatly refusing to do so.

      • Well, behind the scenes work is better than nothing, but surely it would be better if these cardinals did not let up and spoke out all the time to counter-influence what Francis is doing?

        It’s showing contempt for his critics, that Francis won’t answer the concerned cardinals. So much for his talk of respect etc. Also for “making a mess”. If it’s not the kind of mess he approves of, LOL!

        I agree that he is not fit to hold the Petrine office.

      • Gabriel,

        It look’s like the opposition are starting to get serious about taking action against Francis

        Here’s the latest from Fr John Hunwicke

        Fear.

        Readers will have read the news, at Fr Z and Rorate and Sandro Magister, about the Letter of the Four Cardinals to the Holy Father, seeking clarity on certain aspects of Amoris laetitia.

        It must be a matter of sadness to all Catholics, whatever their ‘political’ complexion, that the Roman Pontiff apparently decided not to reply to their Letter.

        It must be a matter of grief that other Cardinals and locorum Ordinarii have felt unable to join this initiative because they still have diocesan or curial responsibilities. I have heard from several sources about the atmosphere of fear that exists in Rome and elsewhere. It reminds me of the cruel attempts at intimidation which followed the publication of the Letter of the 45, of which I felt honoured to have been invited to be a signatory.

        Apparently, it is now to be the particular ministry and calling of the elderly or the retired or the sacked, because they have nothing to fear being sacked from, to speak with Parrhesia.

        Reliance upon fear is not Christ’s way to govern His Church.

        If this pontificate was not already in crisis, it most certainly is now.
        Posted by Fr John Hunwicke at 10:58 14 November 2016

        http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/fear.html

        • Mary, Destroyer of All Heresies

          Fr. Paul Scalia
          Sunday, August 14, 2016

          In Pascendi dominici gregis, Pope Pius X invokes the Blessed Virgin Mary by the title Destroyer of all heresies. He took this curious appellation for the gentle, sweet maiden of Nazareth from the Mass of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The title had particular meaning in Pascendi, which was written in 1911 against modernism, the “synthesis of all heresies.” Faced with that crisis, it was proper to appeal to the Destroyer of all heresies. The title still applies, however. Indeed, it describes something that has always been true of our Lady – and is perhaps even more urgent now.

          https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2016/08/14/mary-destroyer-of-all-heresies/

          Monday, 14 November 2016
          BREAKING and EXPLOSIVE: Bergoglio ignores plea of Cardinals – they have now literally put him on public trial!

          EXTRACT:

          A “dubia,” requires a one word answer; yes, or no. There is no theological argument, no debate. The argument is put forward with the question. It is a long-standing practice.

          The dubia was submitted two months ago, the reason the Cardinals have now released it, is because Bergoglio has ignored it.

          Well, no more. This is big. This is very, very big and without precedent.

          http://voxcantor.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/breaking-bergoglio-ignores-plea-of.html

        • Geronitus,

          If this pontificate was not already in crisis, it most certainly is now.

          Thank you for the link to Fr Hunwicks article, his concluding sentence (above) gives encouragement.

          It seems to me that, now this document (and lack of response) is public, Bergoglio is in difficulty.

          Don’t get me wrong, he is very single minded and arrogant and I am sure he thinks it is wholly credible for him to publicly ignore his Cardinals (so much for collegiality! ha!).

          However, the fact that he has ignored the questions (or may possibly give a heretical answer) means that this mess should be easy for any half decent future Pope to correct. And now not even the most intransigent pollyanna can continue to overlook the conduct of this Pontificate.

            • Thanks for posting that Geronitus!

              I am pleased the Cardinal has made these pronoucements openly.

              I would like to think he speaks while being aware of a good amount of (as yet not made public) support, although he does make it clear that it is the truth, and not mere numbers, which is important here.

              As a minimum, the declared Cardinals must surely be able to count on the support of the Poles, Africans and (most) North Americans.

              The great malaise in the Church seems to be in Western Europe – where many prelates are protestant in all but name – and Latin American, where many prelates are Marxists in all but name.

  18. Gabriel Syme, thanks for that enthralling link. We are obviously in a very, very grave situation; worse than ever in history, I think. Where will it all end, I wonder? One feels powerless as this unfolds.

    • Gabriel Syme,

      I read through the Catholic Action interview, which is excellent. Thank you for posting the link. I’ve extracted the following because it confirms, from Scripture, the Catholic Truth position on publicity of scandals, which we always quote to our critics, and also because it underlines the nature of this pope’s teaching method – non-Magisterial – which is at the heart of this thread:

      EXTRACTS FROM CATHOLIC ACTION INTERVIEW…

      CA: So you are saying that you are publishing a letter that you sent to the Pope privately. This is extraordinary. Isn’t this action objectionable from a Christian point of view? Our Lord said in the Gospel of Matthew (18:15) that if we have a problem with a brother, we are supposed to talk with him privately, one-on-one, not publicly.

      In the same portion of Sacred Scripture to which you refer, Our Lord also said that, after addressing a difficulty to a brother, individually and together with others, without it being resolved, then, for the good of the Church the matter is to be presented to the whole Church. This is precisely what we are doing.

      There have been many other statements of concern regarding Amoris Laetitia, all of which have not received an official response from the Pope or his representatives. Therefore, in order to look for clarity on these matters, three other Cardinals and I used the formality of presenting fundamental questions directly to the Holy Father and to the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. No response has been given to these questions either. Therefore, in making public our questions or dubia, we are being faithful to Christ’s mandate to first talk with a person privately, then in a small group, and finally, taking the matter to the Church as a whole.

      CA: Some Catholics may be concerned that your current publication is an act of disloyalty.

      I, together with the other three Cardinals, are striving to be loyal to the Holy Father by being loyal to Christ above all. By making public our plea for clarity of doctrine and pastoral practice, we are hoping to make this a discussion for all Catholics, especially our fellow bishops. Every baptized person should be concerned about doctrine and moral practices regarding the Holy Eucharist and Holy Matrimony, and about how we are to identify good and evil actions. These matters affect all of us.

      Rather than being a matter of disloyalty to the Pope, our action is deeply loyal to everything that the Pope represents and is obliged to defend in his official capacity. Pope Francis has called for candid speech in the Church a number of times, and has asked members of the hierarchy for openness and accountability. We are being candid, with the fullest respect for the office of the Holy Father, and exercising, according to the light of our consciences, the openness and accountability which the Church has the right to expect of us.

      This is my duty as a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. I was not created a Cardinal in order to receive an honorary position. Rather, Pope Benedict XVI made me a Cardinal to assist him and his successors in governing the Church and teaching the Faith. All Cardinals have the duty of working closely with the Pope for the good of souls, and this is precisely what I am doing by raising questions of grave importance regarding faith and morals. I would not be fulfilling my duty as a cardinal, and therefore as counselor to the Pope, if I remained silent on an issue of such serious matter.

      CA: If I may, I would like to continue this line of thought. It is unclear how your publication is being docile to the Pope’s desire for greater pastoral sensitivity and creativeness in the Church. Hasn’t the Pope indicated his position in a letter to the Argentine Bishops? Other Cardinals have said that the proper way to read Amoris Laetitia is that it allows divorced-and-remarried couples to receive communion in certain circumstances. In that light, one could argue that your document is creating more confusion.

      First, a point of clarification. The issue is not about divorced and remarried couples receiving Holy Communion. It is about sexually active but not validly married couples receiving Holy Communion. When a couple obtains a civil divorce and a canonical declaration that they were never validly married, then they are free to marry in the Church and receive Holy Communion, when they are properly disposed to receive. The Kasper proposal is to allow a person to receive Holy Communion when he or she has validly pronounced marriage vows but is no longer living with his or her spouse and now lives with another person with whom he or she is sexually active. In reality, this proposal opens the door for anyone committing any sin to receive Holy Communion without repenting of the sin.

      I would also like to point out that only the first of our questions to the Holy Father focuses on Holy Matrimony and the Holy Eucharist. Questions two, three, and four are about fundamental issues regarding the moral life: whether intrinsically evil acts exist, whether a person who habitually commits grave evil is in a state of “grave sin”, and whether a grave sin can ever become a good choice because of circumstances or intentions.

      It is true that the Holy Father wrote a letter to the Argentinian Bishops, and that some Cardinals have proposed the interpretations of Amoris Laetitia that you have mentioned. However, the Holy Father himself has not clarified some of the “knotty” issues. It would contradict the Faith if any Catholic, including the Pope, said that a person can receive Holy Communion without repenting of grave sin, or that living in a marital way with someone who is not his or her spouse is not a state of grave sin, or that there is no such thing as an act that is always and everywhere evil and can send a person to perdition. Thus, I join my brother Cardinals in making a plea for an unmistakable clarification from Pope Francis himself. His voice, the voice of the Successor of Saint Peter, can dispel any questions about the issue. END OF EXTRACTS

  19. Here is 1P5s take on the dubia document, the opening quotation is a wry reference to Francis’ lack of response to the Cardinals:

    The maxim is “Qui tacet consentire”: the maxim of the law is “Silence gives consent”. If therefore you wish to construe what my silence betokened, you must construe that I consented, not that I denied.

    -St. Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons

    http://www.onepeterfive.com/silence-gives-consent-four-cardinals-challenge-francis/

    • Thanks, Wendy.

      How very noble of ‘Queen Nicola’ to consider inviting NI women to avail themselves of abortion ‘services’ in Scotland. Wow!

      But while so many Western ‘wimmin’ are contracepting and exercising their ‘right to choose’, it is the duty of every Muslim woman ‘to bear seven sons for Allah’. Try taking a lunch-time stroll along Luton’s George Street, you can amuse yourself playing…’spot the hijab-wearer who isn’t pregnant’… I’m not a big fan of Islam, but should say I have have no word of reproach for its pro-life ethos.

      Anyway, no need for a crystal ball to see that Britain will find herself under sharia law in the not-too-distant future. (As the U.S. President-elect pointed out, some parts of the UK are already no-go areas, where the police fear to tread). I wonder how ‘liberated’ all those rabid ‘pro-choice, feminista sistas’ think they will be THEN. The only ‘choice they will have is maybe which implement gets used for their FGM!

      This article by Jonathan Tuttle, titled ‘Thank Allah for Little Girls?’ makes for some unpleasant reading, so do brace yourselves:-

      http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/islam/gislam.htm

%d bloggers like this: